“To the man in the street
Who I’m sorry to say
Is a keen observer of life
The word ‘intellectual’ suggests straight away
A man who’s untrue to his wife.”
Thus the poet W.H. Auden, whose lines occur to me when I hear or read some academic directly lying, or taking facts out of context, to deceive those they consider their inferiors. When the academics occupy, or have occupied University Chairs, I label their emissions “Per Anum” language that it’s no longer useful!
List for me, I won’t tell you, the intellectuals who claim that because “only 47%” of the votes cast in Ireland in 1918 were cast for Sinn Fein, that Sinn Fein had no mandate to establish a Republic.
Those intellectuals are scoundrels and they are merely repeating a tactic recognised by Edward MacLysaght, who kept a diary and noted on 28 January 1919, one week after the inaugural meeting of Dail Eireann –
“Just one thing occurs to me to mention before I put this diary away: an example how our claim for self-determination of small nations – championed by Britain in the case of the Czechs – is misrepresented by politicians and newspapers there. In quoting statistics for last year’s general election they give the total votes cast for and against Sinn Fein in contested elections, completely ignoring the 25 constituencies where Sinn Fein candidates were returned unopposed, thus presenting an entirely misleading picture.”
For the record, Sinn Fein took 73 of Ireland’s 105 parliamentary seats in 1918, Nationalists 6 and Unionists 26. In Municipal, County Council and other local elections in 1920 Sinn Fein took an even higher percentage of seats, a fact scrupulously ignored by anti-republican intellectuals.
It was not uncommon for seats to be uncontested either in Britain or Ireland and both in 1886 and 1906 in Ireland the Unionists took more votes than Nationalists but secured about the same number of seats as in 1918, generally the same seats, and Nationalists got the seats which Sinn Fein and Nationalists combined got in 1918.
In 1886 Nationalists took 66 uncontested plus 19 contested Parliamentary seats . The Unionists took 3 uncontested seats plus 16 contested. In 1906 the Nationalists took 74 uncontested plus 8 contested seats, the Unionists took 6 uncontested plus 9 contested seats and Liberals took 3 contested seats.
Despite getting the lion’s share of the votes cast in 1886 and 1906 the Unionists then did not complain about their comparatively small share of the seats. Would today’s anti-national intellectuals and rabid anti-republicans have us believe that the Unionists were robbed? They would if they thought they’d get away with it.
I’ve lived in London 51 years through 14 General Elections. In only one of those did the party forming a government as a result get as many as 47% of the votes cast. Uncontested seats were not a factor in any of those 14 General Elections.
So, will readers list for me the academics and other Intellectuals who maintain that Sinn Fein did not secure a popular mandate to implement its Republican Manifesto in 1918?
And will any of you take issue with Auden’s comment THE MAN IN THE STREET?
I probably wiped out a sentence there.
When Professors (or Editors, or Bishops) spout nonsense I think their pieces should
be headlined “Per Anum Ex-Cathedra” or “Ex Cathedra et Per Anum.”
Of course they had a mandate to establish a republic in 1918 (in that part of Ireland where they were a majority). But there was no such mandate in 1916.
“In that part of Ireland they were a majority” – what? So what about the areas were they were a minority? In this context, are you saying, Unionists should have governed the areas where the had a majority? And the IPP should have governed the areas they had a majority?
As Donal stated, Sinn Fein gained 73 of the 105 Irish seats during the 1918 General Election – the majority of the seats – this gave them a mandate on behalf of the “people of Ireland” to establish a Republic – is this not the case? Is this not democracy?
So, in the General Election of today, should the Conservatives only govern those areas where they receive a majority vote?
“In that part of Ireland they were a majority” – what? So what about the areas were they were a minority? ”
Obviously they didnt have a mandate there.
“In this context, are you saying, Unionists should have governed the areas where the had a majority?”
No. The unionist-majority part of Ireland should simply have remained in the UK, governed by the UK government. Nationalist-majority Ireland should have become a republic.
“As Donal stated, Sinn Fein gained 73 of the 105 Irish seats during the 1918 General Election – the majority of the seats – this gave them a mandate on behalf of the “people of Ireland” to establish a Republic – is this not the case? Is this not democracy?”
No. They didn’t represent “the people of Ireland”. There were two peoples, each with competing and irreconcilable assertions of self-determination.
“So, in the General Election of today, should the Conservatives only govern those areas where they receive a majority vote?”
Eh? Of course not.
MT, your thoughts never fails to amuse me – “Ireland”, yip, the whole of the 32 counties was one electoral area – 105 MP’s for the country, not North or South, but the ONE country – as democracy works, whoever receives majority number of MPs, whether people accept it or not, are the dominant voice of that country? Sinn Fein were that dominant voice, the majority of people on the island mandated to speak and act on their behalf.
“The unionist-majority part of Ireland should simply have remained in the UK” – back to this vagueness – define the “Unionist majority part”? So Derry City, for example, as held by SF’s Eoin MacNeill in 1918 – this should be part of a Republic? West Belfast, as held by Joe Devlin – what about Joe? He wanted to be part of a Home Rule government within the UK – can he opt out of your synopsis? South Armagh held by Nationalist, Patrick Donnelly, he must be able to opt out too? “Nationalist majority Ireland should have become a Republic.” What Nationalist majority? Nationalist Ireland, MT, wanted a Home Rule government – not a Republic – did the 6 Nationalist IPP MP’s attend the first Dail? Why? Perhaps, your confusing definition of Republican and Nationalist at this time? So, in essence, that would make three people’s, not two.
“MT, your thoughts never fails to amuse me – “Ireland”, yip, the whole of the 32 counties was one electoral area”
Was it? And why does it matter?
” as democracy works, whoever receives majority number of MPs, whether people accept it or not, are the dominant voice of that country?”
So a majority of UK MPs should have determined Ireland’s future?
“Sinn Fein were that dominant voice, the majority of people on the island mandated to speak and act on their behalf.”
Not in the north east. The unionists were the “dominant voice” there.
“back to this vagueness – define the “Unionist majority part”?”
That part in which unionists were a majority. Broadly the north east. Check out a map showing the election results of the time.
“So Derry City, for example, as held by SF’s Eoin MacNeill in 1918 – this should be part of a Republic?”
I should have thought so.
“West Belfast, as held by Joe Devlin – what about Joe? He wanted to be part of a Home Rule government within the UK – can he opt out of your synopsis?”
Too impractical to have enclaves and exclaves in my view.
“Armagh held by Nationalist, Patrick Donnelly, he must be able to opt out too?”
Not sure why you keep referring to the individual MPS buy yes obviously south Armagh should have been part of the republic.
““Nationalist majority Ireland should have become a Republic.” What Nationalist majority?”
The one in that part of Ireland in which nationalists were a majority.
“Ireland, MT, wanted a Home Rule government – not a Republic”
Eh? Why did so many vote for Simm Fein, then?
” – did the 6 Nationalist IPP MP’s attend the first Dail? Why? Perhaps, your confusing definition of Republican and Nationalist at this time? So, in essence, that would make three people’s, not two.”
Eh? IPP supporters considered themselves a separate pepole from republicans? Blimey I’ve never heard that before. Have you any evidence?
“So a majority of UK MPs should have determined Ireland’s future?” I’m sure you will agree, this was the case, with the third Home Rule Bill, that led to the Liberal’s buckling under pressure from the threats of militant Unionism and a Conservative onslaught – they failed to determine Ireland’s future. Surely, the majority of Irishmen, should have the right to determine their future and this was the case in December 1918. So, by your logic and in line with majorities, the demographics would have been a free for all.
“Not in the north east. The unionists were the “dominant voice” there” – As stated time and time again, the NE was not a seperate part of Ireland. As outlined clearly by Asquith in 1912 “I have never underestimated the force … Or the strong and determined hostility which is felt to Home Rule by the majority in the north-eastern counties of Ulster … But we cannot admit … The right of … A relatively small minority … To veto the verdict of the vast body of their countrymen.” Yip, in the context of Ireland, a small minority …
“I’m sure you will agree, this was the case, with the third Home Rule Bill, that led to the Liberal’s buckling under pressure from the threats of militant Unionism and a Conservative onslaught – they failed to determine Ireland’s future.”
Eh? You seem to have missed the point. Are you saying that a majority of UK MPs should have determined Ireland’s future? In other words a UK majority against home rule or independence should have prevailed over an Irish majority for home rule or independence?
“Surely, the majority of Irishmen, should have the right to determine their future and this was the case in December 1918.”
Of course. As happened.
“So, by your logic and in line with majorities, the demographics would have been a free for all.”
What does this mean? How can demographics be a free for all?
“As stated time and time again, the NE was not a seperate part of Ireland.”
So what?
“As outlined clearly by Asquith in 1912 “I have never underestimated the force … Or the strong and determined hostility which is felt to Home Rule by the majority in the north-eastern counties of Ulster … But we cannot admit … The right of … A relatively small minority … To veto the verdict of the vast body of their countrymen.” Yip, in the context of Ireland, a small minority …”
Let’s use Asquith’s logic in the context of a UK majority against home rule.
“I have never underestimated the force … Or the strong and determined hostility which is felt to a unitary UK state by the majority in Ireland … But we cannot admit … The right of … A relatively small minority … To veto the verdict of the vast body of their countrymen.” Yip, in the context of the UK, a small minority …”
The British Government in 1916 was composed of Carson, F E Smith and other
rebels. There was a General Election due in 1915, but voters were not given
the chance to vote in 1915. Censorship kept the Press muzzled and pacifists were
put in jail. Carson and Co were not for partitioning Ireland but for holding it by force
in the United Kingdom. I wrote this piece about the 1918 Election and the scoundrels
who deny the validity of Ireland’s right to choose a government of its own. Not one MP
Unionist or Nationalist voted for the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.
“The British Government in 1916 was composed of Carson, F E Smith and other rebels”
Carson wasn’t in the Government, but plenty of Liberals were, who were pro-home rule.
“There was a General Election due in 1915, but voters were not given the chance to vote in 1915.”
Parliament was extended because of the war. As soon as the war ended there was an election. Even if there had been an election in 1915, there still would have been no mandate for republicans.
“Censorship kept the Press muzzled and pacifists were put in gaol. Carson and Co were not for partitioning Ireland but for holding it by force in the United Kingdom.”
I’m afraid that didn’t give a mandate to republicans in 1916.
“Carson wasn’t in the government.” Ah, yes he was. Carson joined Asquith’s coalition government on 25 May 1915 as Attorney General, resigning on 19 October 1916, ostensibly in dissatisfaction with Asquith’s conduct of the war. He consequently rejoined the government as First Lord of the Admiralty under the Lloyd George administration.
“But, plenty of Liberals were, who were pro Home Rule.” Who would that be, MT? Pro Home rule, as in All-Ireland Home Rule? By 1916, Liberal PM, George, had been arguing in private, since 1912, of some partitionist proposal to the crisis – also proposed in Llyod George Negotiations after Rising. Asquith had also been doing so since September 1913. So who were the pro Home Rulers?
“Ah, yes he was. Carson joined Asquith’s coalition government on 25 May 1915 as Attorney General, resigning on 19 October 1916, ostensibly in dissatisfaction with Asquith’s conduct of the war.”
I’m afraid you’re wrong. You’re a year out. He resigned in October 1915.
“Who would that be, MT?”
All of them. Home rule waa Liberal policy.
“Pro Home rule, as in All-Ireland Home Rule? By 1916, Liberal PM, George, had been arguing in private, since 1912, of some partitionist proposal to the crisis – also proposed in Llyod George Negotiations after Rising. Asquith had also been doing so since September 1913. So who were the pro Home Rulers?”
As I said. all the Liberals were home rulers.
“I’m afraid you’re wrong. You’re a year out. He resigned in October 1915.” Apologies for the typo error. But, in relation to your assertion, he wasnt in government – your wrong, he was in government, twice! Returned 10th December 1916.
“all the Liberals were home rulers” – Wrong. It may well have been Liberal policy but senior members including Lloyd George and Churchill had been arguing before the Bill was even introduced into the HOC for some alterations to the proposed legislation – this remained their private convictions throughout the crisis. Other such as Agar Robartes, a backbench Liberal MP, moved an amendment to exclude the four Protestant-majority counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down and Derry from the bill’s scope – eventually defeated in House of Commons by 320 votes to 251. So all Liberals were not all Ireland home rulers!
“Apologies for the typo error. But, in relation to your assertion, he wasnt in government – your wrong, he was in government, twice! Returned 10th December 1916.”
I didn’t claim that he was never in government, merely that he wasn’t in government in 1916, by which was meant at the time of the “rising”.
“Wrong. It may well have been Liberal policy but senior members including Lloyd George and Churchill had been arguing before the Bill was even introduced into the HOC for some alterations to the proposed legislation – this remained their private convictions throughout the crisis. Other such as Agar Robartes, a backbench Liberal MP, moved an amendment to exclude the four Protestant-majority counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down and Derry from the bill’s scope – eventually defeated in House of Commons by 320 votes to 251. So all Liberals were not all Ireland home rulers!”
So you acknowledge they were all home rulers, but have attempted to change the poInt in question by introducing the label “all Ireland home rulers”.
Doesn’t matter. Whether or not they were “all Ireland home rulers” they were still home rulers and thus not intent on retaining all of Irelaid in the UK by force as per the claim I was refuting.
“I didn’t claim that he was never in government, merely that he wasn’t in government in 1916, by which was meant at the time of the “rising”.” You made no mention of “at the time of the Rising” previously. Donal, referred to the British Government of 1916 (not during Rising), as of which, Carson was a member, returning 10th December 1916 – so he was in government in 1916.
“So you acknowledge they were all home rulers, but have attempted to change the poInt in question by introducing the label “all Ireland home rulers”. Ofcourse it matters if they were “all-Ireland” Home Rulers, maybe not in line with your narrative – Liberal policy was “All-Ireland” Home Rule as explained, not partition, not county option, not exclusion – this clearly illustrates, the Liberals were divided on Home Rule thus not ALL were consistent with party policy, not all were Home Rulers, in its original form as per the legislation.
“You made no mention of “at the time of the Rising” previously”
Why would I have? The context waa clear.
“Donal, referred to the British Government of 1916 (not during Rising), as of which, Carson was a member, returning 10th December 1916 – so he was in government in 1916.”
But he wasn’t a member at the time of the “rising”, which is what we were discussing.
“Ofcourse it matters if they were “all-Ireland” Home Rulers, maybe not in line with your narrative – Liberal policy was “All-Ireland” Home Rule as explained, not partition, not county option, not exclusion – this clearly illustrates, the Liberals were divided on Home Rule thus not ALL were consistent with party policy, not all were Home Rulers, in its original form as per the legislation.”
And why does that matter? The point in question was the suggestion that the government wanted to force all of Ireland to remain in the Union. Are you supporting this suggestion or agreeing with me that it is nonsense?
“Why would I have? The context waa clear.” The context was NOT clear, hence my response. As already stated, Donal referenced the British Goverment in 1916 – he made no reference to the Rising or a particular period of 1916 – perhaps, you took Donal’s comment out of context.
“Which is what we were discussing” – I must have missed this “discussion” or it never took place … In fact, Donal makes no references AT ALL to the Rising.
“And why does that matter?” Great response, MT.
“The Goverment wanted to force all of Ireland to remain in the Union.” The Goverment weren’t exactly offering independence / complete separation from the Union, unless I missed something … So the democratic will of the people in 1918 was rejected ensuring Ireland remained within the Union. Is this not forcing Ireland to remain in the Union, when the people voted, and clearly stated they didn’t want too?
“The context was NOT clear, hence my response. As already stated, Donal referenced the British Goverment in 1916 – he made no reference to the Rising or a particular period of 1916 – perhaps, you took Donal’s comment out of context.”
Eh? Why are you referring to Donal’s reference? It was me who introduced 1916. He was responding to my reference, in relation to which “1916” was shorthand for the “rising”.
“Donal makes no references AT ALL to the Rising.”
See above.
“”And why does that matter?” Great response, MT.”
It was a genuine question. Why didn’t you answer it?
“The Goverment weren’t exactly offering independence / complete separation from the Union, unless I missed something … So the democratic will of the people in 1918 was rejected ensuring Ireland remained within the Union.”
Eh? Why would the government have been offering independence in 1916? Home Rule had been enacted per the demands of nationalist Ireland. Why are you referring to 1918?
“Is this not forcing Ireland to remain in the Union, when the people voted, and clearly stated they didn’t want too?And why does that matter?” Great response, MT.”
Eh? The people had voted for home rule and Parliament had enacted it.
MT, I will clear up the confusion for you, “1916” is shorthand for the “Rising”? What? Correct me if I’m wrong – 1916 refers to a year, not an event, many things happened in 1916, so in essence, it isn’t short for the Rising. 1916 also refers to a year when Carson was in government, previously you stated he wasn’t in government, then have reverted to stipulating, it was during the Rising – backtracking – as though we all are aware of your “personal shorthand”. The “Rising” refers to an event in 1916. To clarify again, you make no specific reference to the “Rising” and as pointed out, nor does the article.
Who mentioned the a Government offering independence in 1916? I certainly didn’t! Now does this 1916 refer to the Rising or the year?
By referencing 1918, I’m alluding to the fact the government, regardless of the wishes of the electorate were forcing Ireland to remain in the Union. 1920 government of Ireland Act another indication of of forcing Ireland to remain in the Union.
“The people had voted for home rule and parliament enacted.” True, the majority of people on the island had voted for Home Rule but Parliament after passing it and receiving Royal accent “suspended it!”
“MT, I will clear up the confusion for you, “1916” is shorthand for the “Rising”? What? Correct me if I’m wrong – 1916 refers to a year, not an event, many things happened in 1916, so in essence, it isn’t short for the Rising.”
But in this context it was being used as shorthand for the “Rising”. Why else would I have referred to 1916 if not in reference to the “Rising”? In any case it has long ago been made express.
“Who mentioned the a Government offering independence in 1916?”
Nobody. Which is why I was baffled by you mentioning an offer of independence.
“By referencing 1918, I’m alluding to the fact the government, regardless of the wishes of the electorate were forcing Ireland to remain in the Union. 1920 government of Ireland Act another indication of of forcing Ireland to remain in the Union.”
But we weren’t discussing 1918. We were discussing Donal’s claims about the government in 1916 wishing to force Ireland to stay in the Union by force.
“Which is why I was baffled by you mentioning an offer of independence.” I didn’t mention there was “an offer of independence” Note, sarcasm – “the Goverment weren’t exactly offering independence.”
“But we weren’t discussing 1918” – I was and I’ve clearly explained why.
Well, 1918 wasn’t relevant to the discussion so I’m not sure why.
“Well, 1918 wasn’t relevant to the discussion so I’m not sure why.” I introduced it into the discussion, as I seen relevant, that’s why.
How is 1918 relevant to a discussion about the government position in 1916?
Please revert to comment above to prevent me having to repeat.
Why do you want me to revert to a factually incorrect comment?
Had Britain a mandate to declare war in 1914 or 1939?
Yes.
When ‘intellectuals’ start quoting statistics, just remember:
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
And intellectuals are proficient in all three!
The British Government which in 1915 had Carson as a member had no democratic credentials. In 1916 when F E Smith was a member it had no right to pretend to be upholding
the rule of law.
One of the two Tyrone constituencies returned a Nationalist, the other a Sinn Feiner in 1918.
One of the 2 Fermanagh Constituencies returned a Sinn Feiner, the other a Unionist.
Antrim, alone of Ireland’s 32 and Ulster’s 9 Counties returned a clean slate of Unionists.
If we include Belfast in Antrim, one Nationalist,Joe Devlin, won a seat.
The Six-County Statelet had no, and has no, historic democratic basis.
“The British Government which in 1915 had Carson as a member had no democratic credentials. In 1916 when F E Smith was a member it had no right to pretend to be upholding
the rule of law.”
Eh? A government accountable to an elected parliament had no democratic credentials? What a bizarre and extraordinary statement.
“One of the two Tyrone constituencies returned a Nationalist, the other a Sinn Feiner in 1918. One of the 2 Fermanagh Constituencies returned a Sinn Feiner, the other a Unionist. Antrim, alone of Ireland’s 32 and Ulster’s 9 Counties returned a clean slate of Unionists.If we include Belfast in Antrim, one Nationalist,Joe Devlin, won a seat. The Six-County Statelet had no, and has no, historic democratic basis.”
I struggle to see what point you are making. Are you suggesting that an area must return 100% of its MPs in favour of self-determination in order for that self-determination to be exercisable or to have an “historic democratic basis” (whatever that is). If so, then by your own argument those conditions did not exist for Ireland as a whole.