The establishing of partition.

jonniebgood1

Before Ireland was formed into a state (as the Irish free state) Northern Ireland was formed as a district within the UK. This was under the 1920 government of Ireland act which had a number of interpretable aspects, such as the boundary commission and the council of Ireland. Note some chapters here.

The boundary commission was bungled- A provisional border containing 6 counties was described as the most the Unionists could hold by James Craigs brother. It was leaked to the press in 1925 and then never published. What were the reasons for this? Review here

Secondly the council of Ireland from the 1920 act- This was to be an all Ireland parliament but was abolished in 1925 with agreement from the Irish government. What were the reasons for this, particularly from a nationalist perspective?

These were part of the partitioning of Ireland, were there other alternatives that could have avoided this (I mean from a nationalist view that would also have saw separation from Britain)?

meganj

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Before Ireland was formed into a state (as the Irish free state) Northern Ireland was formed as a district within the UK. This was under the 1920 government of Ireland act which had a number of interpretable aspects, such as the boundary commission and the council of Ireland. Note some chapters here.

Yeppers, the Gov of Ireland Act 1920 formed to separate Home Rule parliments one in the South and one in the North. Which was comprised in the Act as:

(2) For the purposes of this Act, Northern Ireland shall consist of the parliamentary counties of Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone, and the parliamentary boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry, and Southern Ireland shall consist of so much of Ireland as is not comprised within the said parliamentary counties and boroughs.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The boundary commission was bungled- A provisional border containing 6 counties was described as the most the Unionists could hold by James Craigs brother. It was leaked to the press in 1925 and then never published. What were the reasons for this? Review here

It seems as if the report was never published with consent from both sides, in order to keep relative peace in the country. Here

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Secondly the council of Ireland from the 1920 act- This was to be an all Ireland parliament but was abolished in 1925 with agreement from the Irish government. What were the reasons for this, particularly from a nationalist perspective?

As far as I'm aware the Council was abolished because the Anglo-Irish Treaty came into legal force. I would imagine that it was simply because the Council was outdated as Southern Ireland was no longer subject to the same level of rule as the North.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

These were part of the partitioning of Ireland, were there other alternatives that could have avoided this (I mean from a nationalist view that would also have saw separation from Britain)?

I'm not sure what the point of your query is, not in a mean way, just in an unclear way. I am assuming that your query points to the All Ireland Council as a good thing, in terms of keeping the Island united and together. If that is your point, I think in a way you are right, but it was a compromise.

Act of Union was introduced purely to try and reach an acceptable compromise for Unionists and Nationalists, and as with all great compromises no one is truly happy with it.

When the Anglo-Irish treaty came into affect, it changed the Act of Union and essentially made it irrelevant to the Free State, in terms of the Council. The A-I Treaty states:

12. If before the expiration of the said month, an address is presented to His Majesty by both Houses of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to that effect, the powers of the Parliament and the Government of the Irish Free State shall no longer extend to Northern Ireland, and the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, (including those relating to the Council of Ireland) shall so far as they relate to Northern Ireland, continue to be of full force and effect, and this instrument shall have effect subject to the necessary modifications.

I don't necessarily think that the collapse of the Council was a Unionist or Nationalist issue (although, I say that with the caveat that at this time everything was a N or U issue) I think it was probably more of a legal issue and about the A-I Treaty's legal standing and also the legal standing of the North to not be a part of the Free State.

jonniebgood1

meganj wrote: »

I'm not sure what the point of your query is, not in a mean way, just in an unclear way. I am assuming that your query points to the All Ireland Council as a good thing, in terms of keeping the Island united and together. If that is your point, I think in a way you are right, but it was a compromise.

For clarity I would have expected the Irish government at the time to push for the council of Ireland (1920) provisions for an eventual united Ireland.

Michael Collins met with Craig and they developed the Craig-Collins agreement but neither side adhered to it. This is part of a draft from January 1922:

Mr. Collins and Sir James Craig met in consultation to-day. After discussion the following mutual agreement was reached:-

(1) The Boundary Commission as outlined in the Treaty to be altered. The Governments of the Free State and of Northern Ireland to appoint one representative each to report to Mr. Collins and Sir James Craig, who will mutually agree on behalf of their respective Governments on the future boundaries between the two.

(2) Without prejudice to the future consideration by his Government on the question of tariffs, Mr. Collins undertakes that the Belfast boycott is to be discontinued immediately, and Sir James Craig undertakes to facilitate in every possible way the return of Catholic workmen - without tests - to the shipyards as and when trade revival enables the firms concerned to absorb the present unemployed. In the meantime a system of relief on a large scale is being arranged to carry over the period of distress.

(3) Representatives of both Governments to unite to facilitate a settlement of the railway dispute.

(4) The two Governments to endeavour to devise a more suitable system than the Council of Ireland for dealing with problems affecting all Ireland.

(5) A further meeting will take place at a subsequent date in Ireland between the signatories to this agreement to discuss the question of post-truce prisoners.

Michéal O Coileáin
James Craig
http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=226

This attempt at conciliation clearly failed. By the following month the north was in turmoil. Did either men object to the turmoil? Today is the 90 year anniversary of one of the most prominent cases, the McMahon murders http://irishecho.com/?p=51280 (Nixon would make a worthwhile thread on his own IMO). The pact seems to have been agreed in January and signed on the 30 March despite the trouble in between.

Dr.Nightdub

There were two separate Craig-Collins Pacts in 1922, one in January which you've posted above and a second one at the very end of March.

The first one fell apart within days, mainly under the pressure of differing interpretations of the role of the Boundary Commission - Collins expected the Free State to get all of Tyrone and Fermanagh and much of south Down and south Armagh. Craig said he wouldn't be conceding an inch. The interesting part about the first one is that by removing the British representative specified by the Treaty and making it a purely Belfast-Dublin thing, Collins effectively handed Craig a cast-iron veto. Having a British representative involved would at least have kept alive the possibility of the representative of the NI Government being outvoted by the other two.

The second Pact came in the aftermath of the McMahon murders, the savagery of which shocked public opinion both in Ireland and Britain. March had also been the worst month yet for deaths in the pogrom. In crude terms, the British got Craig and Collins in a room, banged their heads together and what transpired was a document that began with the touchingly optimistic line: "Peace is today declared." The focus of the second Pact was on joint policing, specifically on trying to get Catholics to join the Specials.

Within days, the Pact was followed by the Arnon St / Stanhope St murders, also perpetrated by the police (DI Nixon was again involved) and which, in terms of sheer brutality and savagery, probably eclipsed even the McMahon murders. Collins pushed for an independent inquiry into both sets of killings, Craig insisted the police investigation would be sufficient. Catholics saw little point joining a police force that was perpetrating such acts, so within weeks, the second Pact was also pretty much a dead letter.

jonniebgood1

Dr.Nightdub wrote: »

In crude terms, the British got Craig and Collins in a room, banged their heads together and what transpired was a document that began with the touchingly optimistic line: "Peace is today declared." The focus of the second Pact was on joint policing, specifically on trying to get Catholics to join the Specials.

Within days, the Pact was followed by the Arnon St / Stanhope St murders, also perpetrated by the police (DI Nixon was again involved) and which, in terms of sheer brutality and savagery, probably eclipsed even the McMahon murders. Collins pushed for an independent inquiry into both sets of killings, Craig insisted the police investigation would be sufficient. Catholics saw little point joining a police force that was perpetrating such acts, so within weeks, the second Pact was also pretty much a dead letter.

The role of the specials seems central. In meetings on the determination of the boundary commission Cosgrave emphasised this and his view that they should be demobilised.

MR. COSGRAVE said that he had not seen them. In the present conditions x persons would have a cause of complaint against himself, and y persons against Sir James, and no amount of explanation would satisfy them. He had made up his mind that if good relations with Ulster were to be secured, they had better come by voluntary growth, and that any cast-iron agreement would be thwarted by the supporters of Sir James and by his own. It was important to avoid providing a rallying ground for agitation. If the demobilisation of the Specials took place naturally, that would be avoided. Every Government has its opponents, and if thousands of the supporters of Sir James Craig objected to the new line, and similarly thousands of his own supporters objected, that would not lead to stable and peaceful relations. http://www.difp.ie/docs/Volume2/1925/703.htm

There was some mighty highfalutin praise of the boundary commission in the same meeting by Churchill, this makes me extremely suspicious of the commission:

MR. CHURCHILL said that he had been mixed up with Irish negotiations since 1910. It was this very question of Tyrone and Fermanagh which had throughout been found most insoluble. Even when we were on the verge of Civil War and confronted with a situation which had no parallel for generations, the Buckingham Palace Conference broke down. Then came the Great War in the course of which Empires disappeared, and after the War a controversy about these same parishes emerged again and nothing would induce the two Governments to agree. The Bill of 1920 was nearly wrecked on this issue and it had so nearly wrecked the settlement reached in the Treaty that the question was left uncleared, one side understanding one thing and the other side another. It was inherent in the circumstances of the case and inevitable that it should be left in a certain vagueness. Then came the labours of the Boundary Commission, and now suddenly the two Parties have settled the matter out of Court. The issue is finished, and so is the work of the Commission. The work of the Commission had led to this settlement. Neither he nor the Prime Minister had met Mr. Justice Feetham before that day. The only question that could possibly be in the minds of right thinking people was the peace of Ireland. It was a great sacrifice that this admirable report should not be published. Over the whole area of the Empire it will be felt that something has happened which has brought peace, and it will be recognised that these secret labours of the Commission have profoundly helped that peace. The withholding of publication was therefore a sacrifice that in the circumstances the Commissioners might properly make. Not the slightest slur on their integrity would rest on them.

THE PRIME MINISTER said he was satisfied that a solution would never have been reached without the Commission.

Did the commission not fudge the issue in Fermanagh and Tyrone? So much so that Cosgrave saw the Free state territory gain as being equal to the territory loss. Or perhaps I am being to cynical.

The justification for witholding the results of the boundary commission was to withold peace and was accepted by all. This also seemed to override any judgement of the results of the commission. The head of the commission had appealed for the report to be published but was ignored.

Kosseegan

The report was published in the 1970's.