The retention of '6 counties' by Britain in 1921

jonniebgood1

It was one of the most difficult aspects of the treaty in all the negotiations. On the face of it there was little benefit for the British in retaining the 6 counties so why did they bother. It appears from some of the documents from the treaty negotiations that their knowledge of Ulster was questionable. In a letter from Griffith to De Valera in October 1921, Griffith wrote in relation to the discussions on Ulster "Their knowledge, geographically and statistically of the province is very poor".

So, what was in this for Britain- Economics, Saving face, or were they standing by their fellow monarchists?

Please try to base responses on sourced information where possible, i.e. if you have an opinion show what or where it eminates from

Snickers Man

This can be looked at simply and clinically. In any conflict, you must look at three basic forces: strategic, economic and popular.

They are like the three partially intersecting circles of a Venn Diagram that you may remember from primary school maths. Each is partially intertwined with the others, nevertheless each is distinct in its own right.

Strategic forces concern the importance of the issue to the outside world. How important was retaining a foothold in Ireland to Britain in terms of its international position? Answer: very. Britain did not want a belligerent neighbour at its back door a short sail away from the mainland. Not that she was or is unduly worried about what Ireland may do to her but she is very much afraid of what one of her enemies may do to Ireland, as a staging post on their way to attack Britain.

All the way through history Britain's enemies have attempted to ingratiate themselves with rebels in Ireland keen to make trouble for Britain. The Spanish in the 16th and 17th centuries; the French in the 18th and 19th centuries; and the Germans in the 20th century. Remember that it was Germany that armed both the UVF and the Irish Volunteers. It didn't have a dog in the fight; it just wanted the fight to happen. That was its strategic interest.

On strategic grounds alone, Britain wanted to retain a military foothold in Ireland.

Next: economic reasons. How important was Ireland to Britain economically? Well, not much for the most part. A largely agrarian economy that had collapsed spectacularly in the mid 19th century there was nevertheless one part of the country that had modernised, industrialised and was making a great contribution to the Empire. Northern Ireland had its shipbuiliding and related engineering industries. It had a modern textile industry. These were all intrinsically part of the great trading block that was the British Empire. Raw materials came from Britain and its colonies; those same places were the markets for Ulster's manufacturing output.

The loss of Ulster would have been a severe economic blow to Britain. Especially in the vital area of shipbuilidng which at the time, when Britannia had genuine pretensions to "rule the waves" was one they would not countenance losing.


Third: popular. How much did people care about this? Quite apart from the economic interests of those working in these industries there was the question of idendity and culture. Ulster was largely Protestant. Its people feared "Rome Rule" and those whose economic and strategic interest were threatened by such a move were utterly cynical about stoking such fears. Witness in particular Randolph Churchill's notorious memo about playing the "Orange Card".

Also, throughout Britain itself and indeed in much of the Empire there was a great loyalty to the idea of a benign imperium "on which the Sun never sat". If the autonomous governments of Canada, New Zealand and Australia were to show themselves willing to send their troops to fight the Mother Country's European enemies why couldn't these recalcitrant Paddies follow suit?


The point about all these forces is that they change with time. Ulster's economy is not what it was. Now it benefits from closer co-operation with the rest of Ireland in being a piece of the multinational jigsaw that is today's globalised world.

Senses of identity change. There was a time when Catholics were the great Royalists and Protestants the great democratic levellers. Cromwell was the first great Republican to make his mark on this country. His Presbyterian followers' descendants were to the forefront of the United Irishmen in Ulster 150 years later.

A century after that, hundreds of thousands of them were signing the Ulster Solemn League and Covenant!

Nowadays we all watch Manchester United and Jedward!

The one thing that remains constant is geography and its intrinsic strategic importance. But today's world is different to that of 100 years ago. When wars between major powers are decided by push button drone warfare, or by terrorist proxies, the importance of geography becomes diminished.

Time we all got along.

MarchDub

Snickers Man wrote: »

The loss of Ulster would have been a severe economic blow to Britain. Especially in the vital area of shipbuilidng which at the time, when Britannia had genuine pretensions to "rule the waves" was one they would not countenance losing.

The economic situation was not quite like that - Irish shipbuilding might have more likely transferred out of Ireland to Britain. Documents uncovered within the past 20 years have revealed that Harland and Wolfe had plans to exit Belfast if Home Rule - in the form of a united Ireland - happened. They had already made tentative plans to purchase land in Liverpool.

The fear of the loss of Ireland - and the clinging on to Ulster - is best expressed perhaps by Andrew Bonar Law when he went to Belfast and told a crowd of Unionists in 1912 that the English Conservative Party supported them in opposing the Home Rule law [already passed by Westminster] and that "You hold the pass - the pass to the Empire".

It was the Empire that many of them saw themselves fighting for. If all Ireland went...

The Scientician

Superlative post there Snickers Man!

I'm only now becoming aware of the imperial support that existed for unionists 100 years ago in Britain. For example Rudyard Kipling threw in his lot with the unionists, penning the poem Ulster 1912. Similarly the Ulster Covenant was followed up with the British Covenant in 1914. So even if the Great British public was largely ignorant of goings on in Ireland, it seems that many there supported the continuation of the union.

I suspect a significant benefit for the British government of retaining the 6 counties, exhausted from the Great War's bloodletting, was simply that it gave them respite. Its government didn't have the will to push the fight until the IRA was totally vanquished but it probably also realised that a 32 county free state would be racked by internal strife and insecurity that might spill over into Great Britain. Bear in mind that this was not long after both the revolutions in Russia of 1917 and the German revolution of '18-'19. Not to mention upheaval across various other European states in the aftermath of the war. I think retaining the 6 counties was a way of temporarily quelling things. I haven't alas read enough of the opinions of the actors at the time to tell whether any of my supposition has any merit!

jonniebgood1

Griffith ended the quoted letter with "Their knowledge, geographically and statistically of the province is very poor".

What did he mean by this. Can we take it that the border commission may have been the outcome of this thought. It seems naive to have assumed the British were claiming Ulster based on a lack of knowledge.

Cork boy 55

Snickers Man wrote: »

Remember that it was Germany that armed both the UVF and the Irish Volunteers. It didn't have a dog in the fight; it just wanted the fight to happen. That was its strategic interest.

Those weapons in the Larne gun running came from the private sector in Germany no?

Cork boy 55

Another question , perhaps for another thread might be
Why the British not just crush the IRA aka 1798 style.

Was it international opinion prevented them?
Was it British public opinion?

Cork boy 55

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Griffith ended the quoted letter with "Their knowledge, geographically and statistically of the province is very poor".

What did he mean by this. Can we take it that the border commission may have been the outcome of this thought. It seems naive to have assumed the British were claiming Ulster based on a lack of knowledge.

If the British establishment in 1921 knew more about Ulster demographics
maybe they would not have allowed the land grap that occured
and NI would have been smaller, more % prod, more stable
and less sectarian thus preventing the troubles.

I have heard senior PSF people say the same at various times
about a lot of senior people in UK politics in modern times especially the conseratives.


I.e. They did not have a clue about Ireland(north or south) and Irish History.

Snickers Man

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Those weapons in the Larne gun running came from the private sector in Germany no?

They probably did, but the authorities must have been aware of it and presumably did not allow such large shipments of weapons to be sent aroudn to just anybody. There was bound to have been at least tacit government approval for such a transaction.

Cork boy 55 wrote:

If the British establishment in 1921 knew more about Ulster demographics
maybe they would not have allowed the land grap that occured
and NI would have been smaller, more % prod, more stable
and less sectarian thus preventing the troubles.

However you drew the boundary of N Ireland you were always going to have the problem of Belfast, by far the largest city with a large Catholic minority which would have been way behind the border. Say Derry City, Most of Fermanagh and Tyrone, South Armagh and the area around Newry were ceded to the Free State/Republic. You would have had a large Protestant majority in the remainder of Northern Ireland but still a huge Catholic population in Belfast.

Cork boy 55

Snickers Man wrote: »

They probably did, but the authorities must have been aware of it and presumably did not allow such large shipments of weapons to be sent aroudn to just anybody. There was bound to have been at least tacit government approval for such a transaction.



However you drew the boundary of N Ireland you were always going to have the problem of Belfast, by far the largest city with a large Catholic minority which would have been way behind the border. Say Derry City, Most of Fermanagh and Tyrone, South Armagh and the area around Newry were ceded to the Free State/Republic. You would have had a large Protestant majority in the remainder of Northern Ireland but still a huge Catholic population in Belfast.

Ya but a 15% lets say for arguments sake is a huge difference from a 30%+ at the time

Also the smaller the % the more likely they would be better treated in theory anyway and seen as less of threat and less likely they would stage a revolt.
Partition failed because the border was drawn in wrong place
Same in many other countries, (kashmir, sudan etc etc)
IMO

thecommietommy

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Ya but a 15% lets say for arguments sake is a huge difference from a 30%+ at the time

Also the smaller the % the more likely they would be better treated in theory anyway and seen as less of threat and less likely they would stage a revolt.
Partition failed because the border was drawn in wrong place
Same in many other countries, (kashmir, sudan etc etc)
IMO

There is never any question that a smaller percentage of Catholics would have made any difference to the unionists, if anything it would have made it worse for the Catholics entrapped in the orange state. Pogroms and murder had been going on in North Armagh, North Down, Antrim and East Tyrone and Derry on long before partition in 1922. Ethnic cleansing and persecutuion of Catholics in these areas went on during the 18th and 17th century etc by various terrorist groups such as the Orange Order and Peep O'Day boys and the British army when needs be. If anything at all, the smaller the number of Catholics left entrapped in a secterian state, the worse would have been their fate as the unionists took it as a signal of the tiny minority's vunerability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peep_o%27_Day_Boys

thecommietommy

Snickers Man wrote: »

They probably did, but the authorities must have been aware of it and presumably did not allow such large shipments of weapons to be sent aroudn to just anybody. There was bound to have been at least tacit government approval for such a transaction.



However you drew the boundary of N Ireland you were always going to have the problem of Belfast, by far the largest city with a large Catholic minority which would have been way behind the border. Say Derry City, Most of Fermanagh and Tyrone, South Armagh and the area around Newry were ceded to the Free State/Republic. You would have had a large Protestant majority in the remainder of Northern Ireland but still a huge Catholic population in Belfast.

From what I know, Catholics were outnumbered about 3 or even 4 to 1 in Belfast around 1922. If you look at the wiki map of Belfast in the corner, you'll see that only one area is green for the IPP ( Joe Devlin ), the rest the various unionists. Catholics may well be in a majority in Belfast these days. As unionists say, if we loose Belfast we loose Northern Ireland

thecommietommy

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Another question , perhaps for another thread might be
Why the British not just crush the IRA aka 1798 style.

Was it international opinion prevented them?
Was it British public opinion?

International opinion was a big factor, especially America. Don't forget, WW1 was supposed to be about the "freedom of small nations".

A lot of damage was been done to trade between struggling Britain post WW1 and the US due to Irish Americans in Congress and Senate. Refusal to handle Britsh goods by unions composed of Irish and Irish American dockers and teamsters unions also was doing great economic damage as Britain was trying to recover from WW1. Their was also boycotts of British goods on the continent at the hypocrisy of the British after the war for the "freedom of small nations". Tim Pat Coogan's Micheal Collins covers some of it.

Also British public opinion tired of the bloodshed of WW1 and weary of " the Paddy's " wanted a peaceful solution.

goose2005

thecommietommy wrote: »

From what I know, Catholics were outnumbered about 3 or even 4 to 1 in Belfast around 1922. If you look at the wiki map of Belfast in the corner, you'll see that only one area is green for the IPP ( Joe Devlin ), the rest the various unionists. Catholics may well be in a majority in Belfast these days. As unionists say, if we loose Belfast we loose Northern Ireland

lol@ Trinners voting in two unionists

thecommietommy

goose2005 wrote: »

lol@ Trinners voting in two unionists

LOL ah yes Trinners - still a bastion of southern unionism to this day !!!! Notice how NUI ( UCD ) voted Sinn Fein. Dastardly uppity UCD peasents The unionists also won a seat in the Rathmines constituency. Not many students and culchies in bedsits in Rathmines back in those days !!!!!

jonniebgood1

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Also the smaller the % the more likely they would be better treated in theory anyway and seen as less of threat and less likely they would stage a revolt.
Partition failed because the border was drawn in wrong place
Same in many other countries, (kashmir, sudan etc etc)
IMO

I would agree with this to an extent. If the % Catholic were less of a threat then the need to discriminate is less. Although slightly different, large minorities of Catholics in England & Scotland did not suffer the same way as in NI. It seems from Griffiths letter that he identified a lack of knowledge about the border region and in the end he misplaced his trust in the border commision.

Ash.J.Williams

Did ireland make much of a political effort to get the 6 counties back?

thecommietommy

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I would agree with this to an extent. If the % Catholic were less of a threat then the need to discriminate is less. Although slightly different, large minorities of Catholics in England & Scotland did not suffer the same way as in NI. It seems from Griffiths letter that he identified a lack of knowledge about the border region and in the end he misplaced his trust in the border commision.

Words defy me :rolleyes: Clearly no explaination of the institional discrimination and pogroms in the north east before, during and after partition is way beyond the OP's capablity to understand :rolleyes: He'll continue to persist it's all because the poor unionists were ' threatened ' and insecure, balme the victim regardless. Even a gang of schoolboy bullies wouldn't try the excuse " we attacked him because our gang seen him as a threat " :rolleyes:

jonniebgood1

thecommietommy wrote: »

Words defy me :rolleyes: Clearly no explaination of the institional discrimination and pogroms in the north east before, during and after partition is way beyond the OP's capablity to understand :rolleyes: He'll continue to persist it's all because the poor unionists were ' threatened ' and insecure, balme the victim regardless. Even a gang of schoolboy bullies wouldn't try the excuse " we attacked him because our gang seen him as a threat " :rolleyes:

Unfounded opinion. You have posted 5 times on this thread now without adding anything other than a wikipedia link as a basis for your opinion. I am not fully sure if you are tring to 'troll' on this thread or if this is really your knowledge on the subject. In anycase you should either abide by the forum charter or if you do not wish to do this you should not bother posting. My preference would be that you deal with the subject matter using sourced information as detailed in the stickied thread on forum guidelines.

History is more complex than the type of schoolbook 'all Unionists are bad' type excuse for the problems in Northern Ireland that you are extolling. It is a far more complex issue than that and the purpose of the thread was/ is to investigate these complexities along with the reasonsfor retaining the '6 counties' may have been of benefit to the British, i.e. financial reasons etc.

MarchDub

Firstly, the Government of Ireland Act was passed in 1920 - not 1921. It established two Home Rule Governments, one in Belfast and one in Dublin. The few nationalists Home Rule MPs who were in parliament at the time voted against it. But they were seriously outnumbered.

The partition of Ireland was part of the discussion in British government circles since before WWI so it was not exactly a surprise that it happened. In fact part of the reason for the 1916 Rising was an attempt to prevent partition.

In the 1920 Act the Northern Ireland border was drawn up purposely to give the Unionists a permanent majority in the region - but it was a fragile majority carefully organised - in fact gerrymandered to give the right result. They could not take the whole of 'Ulster' as Carson wanted because they only had a majority in 4 of the 9 counties there. But with a line drawn around 6 counties - including two 'Catholic' Counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone - it gave them a larger area than the four they held a large majority in. This was regarded as a better economic viability. And the Unionists figures were so large in the east that they still could hold a comfortable majority in the six.

MarchDub

Discrimination against Catholics is well documented in the Ulster region long before partition. Jonathan Bardon, amongst others, gives figures for employment - at the beginning of the twentieth century the percentage of skilled jobs held by Catholics in Belfast was around 5%.

The lower paid jobs in the linen mills and the docks were held by Catholics - and Harland and Wolff and Shorts Engineering had employment figures that showed a workforce of around 90% Protestant.

Catholics in the [Ulster] province were overwhelmingly confined to the lower rungs of the social ladder. ...In 1871 when their share of the population was 48.9%, Catholics made up the following percentages of these occupations, magistrates 7.6%, lawyers 14%, commercial clerks 15%, domestic servants 46%, agricultural labourers 56%, indoor farm servants 63%.

In the Clogher Valley for example, Catholics formed about half of the population, but in 1860, of 37 farmers with a rateable value of £60 or above, only one was Catholic.

To hold onto their economic advantage they pledged to resist Home Rule. On 23 Sep 1911 Edward Carson made the following statement to a crowd of around 50,000 from the Unionists and Orange Lodges "We must be prepared ourselves ...the morning that Home Rule passes, to become responsible for the government of the Protestant Province of Ulster".

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Firstly, the Government of Ireland Act was passed in 1920 - not 1921. .

Fair enough- The retention of 6 counties had no mandate in Ireland though until the plenipotentiaries signed the treaty.

MarchDub wrote: »

The partition of Ireland was part of the discussion in British government circles since before WWI so it was not exactly a surprise that it happened. In fact part of the reason for the 1916 Rising was an attempt to prevent partition.

There is a good table showing the evolution of partition on page 13 of this link http://www.ucd.ie/ibis/filestore/wp2006/67/67_kr.pdf
In 1912 the retention of just 4 counties was the discussion with the purpose being to prevent home rule.

The author of this analysis also notes that the achievement of greater independence (as opposed to simly home rule for southern Ireland) was at the cost of permanent as opposed to temporary partition.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Discrimination against Catholics is well documented in the Ulster region long before partition. Jonathan Bardon, amongst others, gives figures for employment - at the beginning of the twentieth century the percentage of skilled jobs held by Catholics in Belfast was around 5%.
.

Why religion was singled out in Ulster rather than in the whole country is interesting. The land wars were not fully sectarian, the differences were between classes. In Ulster the differences seemed already to be defined by religion.

On 22 February 1886, a meeting was arranged in the Ulster Hall, Belfast. The Conservative leader Randolph Churchill was invited to give the main address and famously declared that ‘Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right’. Some elements within Belfast Protestantism took this rhetoric to heart. On 4 June, a summer-long season of rioting ensued in the town between protestants, Catholics, and the constabulary. The rioting resulted in 32 deaths, 422 arrests, and the injury of 377 policemen. http://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/irishhistorylive/IrishHistoryResources/ArticlesandLectures/ThedevelopmentofUnionismbefore1912/

In 'The long gestation' by Patrick Maume, the author says that "In 1893, Unionist conventions in Dublin and Belfast, called to oppose the second home rule bill, denounced partition." (pg 10)

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Why religion was singled out in Ulster rather than in the whole country is interesting. The land wars were not fully sectarian, the differences were between classes. In Ulster the differences seemed already to be defined by religion.

Go back to the Plantation in the 1600s - religion was purposely chosen as a way of defining Ulster land ownership. Protestants were chosen - brought over from lowland Scotland and northern England - to take over land ownership from the original Irish Catholic owners back then. The stated purpose was to create a 'loyal' citizenry. It defined Ulster economics from that time.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In 'The long gestation' by Patrick Maume, the author says that "In 1893, Unionist conventions in Dublin and Belfast, called to oppose the second home rule bill, denounced partition." (pg 10)

No sure what point you are making - the issue of Home Rule being opposed in the Ulster region had a long gestation in the nineteenth century, even before 1893. Parnell was major in being able to get so many behind him but even he had opposition within Ireland.

Partition was mooted all along within the discussion - and initially rejected as a compromise. Both sides wanted to have the whole of Ireland - difference was the Unionists wanted the whole of Ireland to remain within the UK and the nationalists wanted the entire Ireland out and independent. But as the Home Rule Bill became a reality in 1912-14 the Unionists saw it as their only way of staying within the UK. It remained bitterly opposed by the Nationalists who in the end had no choice.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
In 'The long gestation' by Patrick Maume, the author says that "In 1893, Unionist conventions in Dublin and Belfast, called to oppose the second home rule bill, denounced partition." (pg 10)

No sure what point you are making - the issue of Home Rule being opposed in the Ulster region had a long gestation in the nineteenth century, even before 1893. Parnell was major in being able to get so many behind him but even he had opposition within Ireland.

Partition was mooted all along within the discussion - and initially rejected as a compromise. Both sides wanted to have the whole of Ireland - difference was the Unionists wanted the whole of Ireland to remain within the UK and the nationalists wanted the entire Ireland out and independent. But as the Home Rule Bill became a reality in 1912-14 the Unionists saw it as their only way of staying within the UK. It remained bitterly opposed by the Nationalists who in the end had no choice.

The point I was making was that in 1893 it was Unionists who came out against partition in the referred convention. I would like to know the reasons that they were against partition at this time.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Fair enough- The retention of 6 counties had no mandate in Ireland though until the plenipotentiaries signed the treaty.



There is a good table showing the evolution of partition on page 13 of this link http://www.ucd.ie/ibis/filestore/wp2006/67/67_kr.pdf
In 1912 the retention of just 4 counties was the discussion with the purpose being to prevent home rule.

The author of this analysis also notes that the achievement of greater independence (as opposed to simly home rule for southern Ireland) was at the cost of permanent as opposed to temporary partition.

Yes, I mentioned the 4 county situation in my above post. It was feared that only 4 Ulster counties would not be economically viable so they took in two 'Catholic" counties as well.

The talk of 'temporary' partition around the Home Rule bill was to appease the nationalists - but the fear was it was just talk and it would in fact be permanent. And in fact this is how it panned out. Many nationalists did not believe in the 'temporary' talk -one of the purposes of the 1916 Rising was an attempt to stop this from happening.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The point I was making was that in 1893 it was Unionists who came out against partition in the referred convention. I would like to know the reasons that they were against partition at this time.

I said that in my above post - they wanted the whole of Ireland to remain within the UK. In the end, especially after passage of the Home Rule bill in 1912-14 they accepted partition as their only way of staying in.

Also in 1893 Gladstone was back in power and asked the Unionists to drop all talk of partition at their convention because he was preparing a new Home Rule Bill for the whole of Ireland.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Yes, I mentioned the 4 county situation in my above post. It was feared that only 4 Ulster counties would not be economically viable so they took in two 'Catholic" counties as well.

In terms of domestic consumption?

This is getting back to the initial question and I see why they needed 6 counties from a Unionist view. The view of Lloyd George and the British side seemed set in stone on partition and they took the same view as Unionism. I would like to see how the figures add up for the NI economy in relation to being either a net contributor or beneficiary of the UK since 1921. I recall that before WWI Ireland had began to gain financially from Britain after years of paying more than receiving.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In terms of domestic consumption?

This is getting back to the initial question and I see why they needed 6 counties from a Unionist view. The view of Lloyd George and the British side seemed set in stone on partition and they took the same view as Unionism. I would like to see how the figures add up for the NI economy in relation to being either a net contributor or beneficiary of the UK since 1921. I recall that before WWI Ireland had began to gain financially from Britain after years of paying more than receiving.

Good luck with getting those exact figures - as nationalists will tell you, they are not publicly available.

I just looked up some 'estimated' figures and back in the 1990s there were estimates of £6 billion per year going from British coffers to subsidise the NI economy.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

Good luck with getting those exact figures - as nationalists will tell you, they are not publicly available.

I just looked up some 'estimated' figures and back in the 1990s there were estimates of £6 billion per year going from British coffers to subsidise the NI economy.

Strange that the figures are'nt availiable- I would have thought how public money was spent should be public knowledge. I would imagine that in 1921 NI could have sustained itself given the industry at the time. The troubles would have damaged this. By the early 70's Harold Wilson had Paisley wearing sponge at the suggestion that the Northern Unionists were "spongers".

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Strange that the figures are'nt availiable- I would have thought how public money was spent should be public knowledge. I would imagine that in 1921 NI could have sustained itself given the industry at the time. The troubles would have damaged this. By the early 70's Harold Wilson had Paisley wearing sponge at the suggestion that the Northern Unionists were "spongers".

The 'traditional' industries of shipbuilding and linen were already past their peak stage by the 1920s and things just got worse. A government report in 1928 showed a world wide decline in demand for linen coupled with an inefficient method of production - it was very labour intensive.

Harland and Wolff only survived the 1920s because of Government guaranteed loans - via the Northern Ireland Loans Guarantee Bill of 1922.