Peter Collins (ed.)
(Institute of Irish Studies, Belfast, £8.50)
Peter Collins has put together a lively and engaging set of essays dealing with Nationalism and Unionism in Ireland in the period between 1885 and 1921. Brian Walker’s opening essay sets the tone admirably; the 1884 reform act democratised Ulster’s polity at the very moment when Gladstone’s conversion to home rule also sectarianised it. The rules of the game were dramatically altered; co-operation between liberal Presbyterians and Catholics in support of religious equality and land reform under the guidance of the benign ‘metropolitan Gladstone’ disappears and with it, one of the key themes of Ulster politics. Instead, the turbulent ‘Orange democracy’ arrives on the scene and seeks a price for its support which troubles many traditional Tories. Walker highlights the central role of Tory agent E.S. Finegan and the nationalist Tim Healy in striking the type of deal which helped to eliminate the middle ground. One interesting hint though is thrown out but not followed up. Apparently Michael Davitt-supporting branches of the Irish National League in Belfast in the 1880s were suppressed in the name of ‘unity’. Why? Was it simply a matter of land nationalisation; after all Davitt was a rather theoretical supporter of that principle and, in effect, accepted that it was not practical politics. At any rate, ‘Davitt and Belfast’ remains an under-researched topic.
Without exception, the other essays range with vigour and precision over their chosen terrain. Yet strangely enough there is relatively little attempt to evaluate either Nationalism or Unionism. Catherine Shannon’s scholarly essay on Balfour outlines his characteristic view of Irish nationalism and describes it as patronising which, in part, it was. But the very skill of Shannon’s reproduction of Balfour’s view provokes another question—why is it that, on the evidence presented here and more generally in the parliamentary debates, the relatively negative Unionist prediction of the actual Irish future under self-government has been much more accurate than the optimistic nationalist one? This is particularly so in the case of economic growth. Also what was the Unionist case? To a significant degree the essays treat it as a given. Why did these people not want to accept a Dublin government? George Boyce, Alvin Jackson, and Patrick Buckland throw some light on this but are more concerned, at times brilliantly, with transitions within the Unionist movement itself. Gearóid O’Tuathaigh’s compelling essay on ‘Nationalist Ireland 1912-22: aspects of continuity and change’ should be read alongside Eamonn Phoenix’s powerful analysis of northern nationalism. On the question of safeguards for Protestants under home rule, Ó Tuathaigh is probably right to say that they would have made little difference in the heated atmosphere of 1912-14. But the fact remains that key safeguards specifically requested by the Unionists in negotiations were not granted—for example, commitments on the compulsory role of Irish in schools or for employment in government jobs. Eamonn Phoenix teases out the complexity of Joe Devlin, the leader of Belfast parliamentary nationalism, in a most original way. Even so, he does not ask the question provoked by his account. By the summer of 1916, Devlin had decided it was wrong to coerce Unionists into a united Ireland; what if he had taken that view in 1912 or 1913? At this same point, Devlin is effectively the one key leader who stops John Redmond making the compromise Redmond eventually offers in the summer of 1914—by which time Ireland has already been destabilised by the reckless Fred Crawford’s gunrunning at Larne. Finally, there is one obviously neglected dimension in the book. In the period covered, the vast majority of Irish people earned their living on the land—yet there is not one reference to the connections between the land question and the broader national question. Land was less important in Redmond’s time than in Parnell’s but the issue still remained and contributed much to the positive and negative ways of nationalist politics. It also had much to do with the Unionist reaction—as Alvin Jackson makes clear—yet there is hardly any reference to agrarian radicalism in the text. But overall this is a very valuable collection; well produced and edited and including some excellent political cartoons.
Paul Bew