Dividing Ireland: World War I and Partition
Dividing Ireland: World War I and Partition
Dividing Ireland: World War I and Partition
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
LOYALTY AND THE CROWN 171<br />
sunk, until its wealth is dissipated…until its home <strong>and</strong><br />
Colonial population is decimated or enslaved. We cannot coax<br />
or enforce terms on the…Empire that would shake its<br />
foundations, or imply its consent to commit suicide just to<br />
please Irish idealists <strong>and</strong> aspirations, which might only be<br />
allowed to last for a generation…by peoples altogether<br />
outside the British Empire. 48<br />
The O’Mahony, who had stood as an Irish Party parliamentary<br />
c<strong>and</strong>idate in 1915, wrote that he was tired of hearing that selfgovernment<br />
within the Empire was the only attainable form of<br />
freedom for <strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong>; instead he described it as the best form.<br />
During the past century <strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong> had become, for good or evil, one<br />
of the Empire’s mother countries. In Britain, <strong>and</strong> every Dominion,<br />
there was a contented <strong>and</strong> loyal Irish population, <strong>and</strong> to ‘these<br />
portions of our race <strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong> owes the same duty that Engl<strong>and</strong> owes<br />
to Englishmen throughout the Empire’. <strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong>, he believed, could<br />
not separate from the Empire without lessening the Empire’s<br />
strength <strong>and</strong> doing an injury to every population within the Empire,<br />
including those of their own Irish race. Britain, The O’Mahony<br />
wrote, would have as good a right to prevent <strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong>’s secession<br />
from the Empire as the ‘Northern States had to prevent the<br />
Southern States’ secession from the United States’. 49<br />
The Freeman’s Journal welcomed the efforts of constitutional<br />
historian <strong>and</strong> Irish Party MP, Swift MacNeill, to dispose of the myth<br />
which had gained popular credence that the 1782 constitution,<br />
establishing the legislative independence of the Kingdom of<br />
<strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong>, was an anticipation of a dem<strong>and</strong> for an Irish republic.<br />
MacNeill reminded Nationalists that <strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong>, under that<br />
constitution, was in external affairs absolutely subject to the action<br />
of the English executive, through the English sovereign, taken<br />
under the advice of English ministers, <strong>and</strong> controlled by an English<br />
parliament in which <strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong> had no voice. MacNeill pointed out<br />
that it was the English king who entered into treaties with foreign<br />
nations on the advice of the English Privy Council; it was the<br />
English king who by the same advice declared war or made peace;<br />
<strong>and</strong> by these treaties <strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong> was bound. The army was the army<br />
of Engl<strong>and</strong>; the navy was the navy of Engl<strong>and</strong>; the ambassadors to<br />
all foreign courts were those of the English king; all colonies were<br />
dependencies of the English crown; <strong>and</strong> over their government<br />
<strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong>, or the Irish parliament, had not the slightest control. 50 It<br />
was by way of an Irish statute—33 Henry VIII. Ir. c. 1.—that <strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong><br />
was converted from a ‘Lordship’ into a kingdom; the kings of<br />
Engl<strong>and</strong>, who were previously lords of <strong>Irel<strong>and</strong></strong>, were henceforth