Discrimination in Northern Ireland, 1920-1939 : Myth or Reality? [1 ed.] 9781443818308, 9781443817448

Citation preview

Discrimination in Northern Ireland, 1920-1939

Discrimination in Northern Ireland, 1920-1939: Myth or Reality?

By

John O’Brien

Discrimination in Northern Ireland, 1920-1939: Myth or Reality?, by John O’Brien This book first published 2010 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2010 by John O’Brien All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-1744-9, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-1744-8

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................... vii Chapter One................................................................................................. 1 Introduction Chapter Two ................................................................................................ 7 Politics, Representation and Electoral Practices Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 19 Education – Schooling in a Segregated System Chapter Four.............................................................................................. 31 Allegations of Unionist Discrimination in Public and Private Employment Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 43 ‘Housing a Divided Community’ Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 55 Conclusion Bibliography.............................................................................................. 61

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to a number of people who have made the completion of this book possible. I wish to express my utmost gratitude to my M.A. dissertation supervisor at the University of Limerick, Dr. Bernadette Whelan, whose guidance, assistance and sound advice have been invaluable. I also wish to thank Dr. Micheál O’hAodha of the University of Limerick, who assisted me greatly in the publication process. Furthermore, I am greatly indebted to staff members at the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland in Belfast, whose levels of professional advice and assistance were exemplary. I also wish to express my sincere thanks to the library staff of the University of Limerick and Mary Immaculate College, as well as the British Library in London. I am indebted to my friends and colleagues for all the emotional support, valuable criticism and general camaraderie they provided. I wish to thank my brothers and sisters for supporting me throughout this time. Finally, and most importantly, I wish to thank my parents, John and Marian O’Brien, for their unwavering support, encouragement and counsel when it was most required. To them I dedicate this book.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

The word ‘discrimination’ is a highly emotive term in any walk of life. When it is examined in the context of Northern Ireland, however, it becomes much more of a delicate and sensitive issue. The reason behind this stems from the fact that, in this particular region of the world, the term discrimination pertains to many social, cultural and political boundaries. In Northern Ireland, discrimination is connected with conflicts of nationality, of class and above all, of religion. Any study of alleged discrimination against a minority group must, of course, begin with a clear and comprehensive definition of the term. A useful and reliable source to refer to here would be the United Nations Memorandum entitled The Main Types and Causes of Discrimination, published in December 1949. This Memorandum defined discrimination as: …unequal and unfavourable treatment, either by denying rights or social advantages to members of a particular social category; or by imposing special burdens on them; or by granting favours exclusively to the members of another category, creating in this way inequality between those who belong to the privileged category and the others.1

The history of Ulster has for centuries been a quarrelsome one filled with conflict and controversy. The political, social, economic and religious development of the region by the early twentieth century, however, resulted in the formation of two extremely influential but opposing political movements - Ulster unionism and Irish nationalism. The 1920 Government of Ireland Act which partitioned the island of Ireland resulted in the foundation of Northern Ireland, a devolved political entity in the north-eastern corner of the island consisting of six counties and the establishment of the Irish Free State, consisting of the remaining 26 counties of Ireland. The six northern counties which became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland were Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone. 1

Cited in Frank Gallagher, The Indivisible Island (London, 1957), p.200.

2

Chapter One

The partition of Ireland was always going to render a clash between the opposing political groups inevitable. Unionists were predominantly Protestant while nationalists were almost exclusively Catholic. The fact that Catholics and nationalists constituted a significant one-third of the population of Northern Ireland provides a clear indication that the region was always going to be a difficult and troublesome area to govern. In terms of discrimination, the allegations that concern us here are those made by the nationalist minority against the Ulster Unionist government, particularly in the period 1920 to 1939, which was a crucial one in the development of the Northern Ireland state. The pattern of government and politics had been so firmly established by the late 1930s that it was likely to remain unaltered for quite some time. Furthermore, the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 provides a timely watershed for this study. The question of whether or not the Unionist government was guilty of discrimination against the nationalist minority has been written about extensively by a wide and disparate range of authors. Some published works are inherently biased towards the unionist tradition, some are inherently biased towards the nationalist tradition and others tend to take a broad and expansive view of both sides of the argument. In nationalist polemic, Frank Gallagher’s The Indivisible Island provides a classic example of this type of bias. This study, published in 1957, remains the most definitive and comprehensive attack on the Ulster Unionist government during the period of devolution in Northern Ireland. At first glance, Gallagher’s nationalist bias is clear for all to see. This, however, does not in any way devalue the importance of such an allencompassing account of discrimination across all sectors of society. Although Gallagher’s one-sided views and interpretations may be debatable at times, the exhaustive research that obviously went into this particular study would indicate that it is quite reliable on statistical data and general matters of fact. On the unionist side, one particular work which stands out as being inherently pro-unionist is Denis P. Barritt and Charles F. Carter’s The Northern Ireland Problem: A Study in Group Relations, published in 1972. Although the independent research carried out by Barritt and Carter shows a level of impartiality in its treatment of both communities, their conclusions appear to be almost entirely pro-unionist. With regard to the majority of nationalist allegations of discrimination, Barritt and Carter have gone to great lengths to sympathise with, and even justify, the actions of the Ulster Unionist government during the period in question. These two examples are the exception rather than the rule in terms of the levels of bias evident in published works on the topic of discrimination.

Introduction

3

It is, therefore, worthwhile to briefly mention the backgrounds of such writers, so as to understand more fully their work. Gallagher was a former member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) who fought during the Irish War of Independence between 1919 and 1921. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that his study would be innately pro-nationalist and highly critical of unionism. Barritt and Carter, while stating that their aim was to be fair and honest, nevertheless acknowledged that ‘we do not recognise the authority of the Bishop of Rome’.2 Coming from the Protestant tradition, it is also unsurprising that they would have sought to defend the actions of their co-religionists in the Ulster Unionist party. Most other works on the topic, while less biased than the aforementioned studies, have still drawn definitive conclusions in favour of one particular side of the argument. Tom Wilson’s Ulster, published in 1989, contains three substantial and informative chapters which deal specifically with the charges of Unionist discrimination against the minority. His overall conclusions tend to sympathise with the Unionist government and indicate that it was not guilty of overt acts of discrimination. In contrast, John Whyte’s article entitled ‘How much discrimination was there under the unionist regime, 1921-68?’ appears to conclude that Catholic and nationalist grievances were indeed genuine and justified. This particular article identifies individual areas of government policy and assesses the level of discrimination that did or did not occur in each, thereby providing a full and comprehensive evaluation of the topic. Other works such as Patrick Buckland’s The Factory of Grievances: Devolved Government in Northern Ireland 1921-39, published in 1979, Derek Birrell and Alan Murie’s Policy and Government in Northern Ireland: Lessons of Devolution, published in 1980 and David Harkness’ Northern Ireland since 1920, published in 1983, have all shed some light on the subject. Buckland’s study in particular is invaluable in that it provides a thorough account of the inner workings of the Stormont regime during the period under review. It was the most valuable secondary source for this volume given that it presents the reader with an all-inclusive account concerning the accusations of alleged discrimination against the minority, yet it remains up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions from the evidence presented. In terms of primary source material, the Stormont parliamentary debates have proved invaluable because they are filled with continuous charges and counter-charges relating to discrimination throughout the 2

Denis P. Barritt & Charles F. Carter, The Northern Ireland Problem: A Study in Group Relations (Oxford, 1962), p.3.

4

Chapter One

entire inter-war period. Furthermore, the public speeches and private sentiments of politicians and also the correspondence between various political figures provide the study with a somewhat real and personal touch. In addition to this, newspapers, government reports and department memorandums have assisted this volume. Although the topic is clearly one which has been researched extensively in various forms, there are still some obvious gaps in the literature, which this volume attempts to fill. As noted above, far too many accounts of this subject of alleged discrimination against nationalists have been inherently biased in favour of one particular community, be it unionist or nationalist. When one approaches an emotive subject matter such as discrimination with a pre-conceived opinion, the subsequent result will almost always be partisan and unbalanced. While Gallagher’s The Indivisible Island and Barritt and Carter’s The Northern Ireland Problem: A Study in Group Relations may be extremely informative and littered with copious amounts of useful statistical data, they are, nevertheless, biased and partisan and are thus largely ineffective for the independent observer who wishes to approach the topic with an open mind. There is undoubtedly a gap in the literature in that the topic needs to be addressed in a completely unbiased manner. The subject of alleged discrimination on the part of the Unionist government against the nationalist minority in Northern Ireland is one which can be examined constructively without resort to partisan and impartial views. The research question that can be formulated from this gap in the literature is whether or not discrimination against the Catholic and Nationalist minority population actually occurred and if so, what level this discrimination was practiced at. The volume will be divided into four separate chapters followed by a concluding chapter which will evaluate the essence of the findings. The individual chapters are arranged thematically rather than chronologically so that each of the chapters will focus on a specific area of government policy where accusations of discrimination and malpractice occurred. Chapter two considers politics, representation and electoral practices, outlines the origins of the Northern Ireland state, the evolution of the electoral system and also deals extensively with the subject of gerrymandering - the infamous policy of redrawing electoral boundaries so as to disenfranchise one’s political opposition. By tracing the origins of the state and the formative period of the Ulster Unionist government, this chapter then leads logically into different areas of government policy where accusations of discrimination against the minority were constant. Chapter three examines the education sector in Northern Ireland and the

Introduction

5

way in which government legislation altered the education system throughout the region during the period under review. Among the questions raised are the following: was the system fair to all pupils? Did sectarian discrimination result in one community becoming increasingly disadvantaged? The fourth chapter considers nationalist allegations of discrimination on the part of the Unionist government in relation to public and private employment. It will evaluate the position of Catholics and nationalists in relation to jobs in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, the judiciary and the police and ascertain whether or not the minority were discriminated against. The situation with regard to private employment will also be assessed here. Finally, chapter five will examine the housing situation in Northern Ireland during the inter-war period and conclude whether or not the nationalist claims of discrimination in this area were warranted. It will also be shown that a number of these policy areas are inter-linked and that discrimination occurring in one area would often have resulted in it occurring in another. The concluding chapter will bring together the findings of the four main chapters and discuss the essence of the conclusions. Overall, this book attempts to provide an impartial and unbiased assessment of the policies pursued by the Ulster Unionist government in Northern Ireland between 1920 and 1939. Were the accusations of discrimination on the part of the government a myth or were they in fact a reality at the time? The issue will be examined extensively in order to determine whether or not such practices actually occurred and if so, how disadvantaged the Catholic and Nationalist minority population became as a result.

CHAPTER TWO POLITICS, REPRESENTATION AND ELECTORAL PRACTICES

Politics has forever been to the forefront of Northern Ireland’s history and the ramifications of the political process in the province can certainly be cited as a major cause of much of the conflict experienced in the region throughout its history. Allegations of discrimination on the part of the Unionist government against the Catholic and nationalist minority in Northern Ireland and accusations of under-representation of the minority in cabinet and on local authorities have been prominent, while allegations of gerrymandering of electoral boundaries at both local and parliamentary level have also been constant. This chapter will investigate these allegations and assess whether they are justified or whether they have been over-exaggerated by the Catholic minority. Firstly, it will briefly examine the political system and electoral practices in the region before the foundation of the state. This will be followed by an analysis of various pieces of legislation passed by the new Northern Ireland government, most notably the two Acts which abolished the proportional representation system of voting. The effects of the subsequent redrawing and redistribution of electoral areas will also be assessed, given that this paved the way for the widespread charges of gerrymandering to occur across the province. Finally, drawing from the primary and secondary source material available, the chapter will assess the validity of these nationalist claims and will attempt to arrive at an unbiased conclusion regarding these allegations of Unionist discrimination against the Catholic minority. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the location and size of rural electoral districts had been based upon the Poor Law unions drawn up in the 1840s.1 By the turn of the century, however, the population changes that had occurred throughout the previous decades rendered a new electoral system essential. The 1898 Local Government (Ireland) Act 1 Patrick Buckland, The Factory of Grievances: Devolved Government in Northern Ireland, 1921-39 (Dublin, 1979), p.237.

8

Chapter Two

provided for this and by 1921, the structure of local government in Northern Ireland was similar to that of Great Britain and the rest of Ireland. The system set up under the 1898 Act had been based on the rather dubious assumption that the system intended for nineteenth century Britain was also suitable for Ireland. Whether this was in fact the case is questionable. The British government undoubtedly felt that it was suitable, however, and from 1921, there was a dual system of local government in Northern Ireland. The two county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry each had a Corporation, with both exerting great influence and power over their own region, particularly Belfast Corporation. Across the rest of the province, there existed a two-tier system – a top tier of six county councils and a lower tier of urban and district councils. Finally, towns which were too small to be classed as urban districts had elected town commissioners.2 Herein lay the system of local government in Northern Ireland during the inter-war period – a system which would invoke much conflict and controversy throughout the period. At parliamentary level, the Ulster Unionist party controlled government, a dominance which it held continuously throughout the period of devolved government between 1921 and 1972. From the outset, the government was faced with numerous challenges, most notably the refusal of many Catholics and nationalists to recognise the legitimacy of the state but also a degree of conflict within its own ranks. One of the first, and perhaps most controversial, Acts passed by the Unionist government was the Local Government bill in July 1922, abolishing proportional representation (P.R.) in local government elections. The P.R. system had been introduced into local and parliamentary elections in Ireland under the 1919 Local Government (Ireland) Act and subsequently by the 1920 Government of Ireland Act in order to protect minorities. Although originally intended as a protection for minorities in the South, following partition it came to be regarded as a safeguard for the Catholic and nationalist minorities in the North. The main advantage of the P.R. system of voting was that it allowed for the representation of a wider variety of interests, whereas in Britain’s ‘first past the post’ system, the party with the most votes took all the seats, resulting in larger parties being over-represented and smaller parties often being wiped out. In 1920, The Proportional Representation Society of Ireland described the system as one

2

Derek Birrell & Alan Murie, Policy and Government in Northern Ireland: Lessons of Devolution (Dublin, 1980), p.155.

Politics, Representation and Electoral Practices

9

… by which every group of citizens can obtain their proportionate share of representation on elected bodies. It means that no group can be excluded if they have had sufficient courage and public spirit to nominate candidates, and to fight.3

It seems clear that the decision by the Ulster Unionist government to abolish P.R. in local government elections in 1922 was taken solely in the interests of unionism while also serving to alienate the nationalist minority. Along with the abolition of P.R., Ulster Unionists began to push for the complete redrawing of electoral areas and the eradication of the supposed inequalities which existed for unionists under the pre-1919 system. The party argued that because unionists paid the majority of the rates, they should automatically receive the majority of the representation, even in areas where they were the minority. This strongly-held belief, coupled with the fact that Nationalist-controlled councils refused to recognise the state, ensured that the unionist demands were adhered to quite easily. Many Nationalist-controlled councils remained aloof from the situation, for example, Tyrone County Council showed its contempt for any such proposals. In one instance, speaking in parliament on 17 October 1922, the Unionist Member of Parliament (M.P.), Mrs. Dehra Chichester (later Mrs. Dehra Parker) noted, … the insults which we had to endure in the past … we have had to sit there and listen to our King being insulted, to our government being derided. We have been told that killing was no murder unless committed by the foreign invader.4

Essentially, there appears to have been no real consideration given to the fate of minorities following the abolition of P.R. It was probably only when Michael Collins, Commander-in-Chief of the Free State Army in the South, tried to persuade the London government in early 1922 to withhold the royal assent from the bill that the Unionist government realised that there was much more to this issue than appeared on the surface. Despite this, however, Prime Minister James Craig was adamant that the old pre1919 system would be more favourable to the Catholic minority.5 This, of course, proved not to be the case. Royal assent was eventually granted and

3

A. Wilson, P.R. Urban Elections in Ulster in 1920 (London, 1972), p.4. Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), vol.2, 17 October 1922, cols. 1047-8. 5 Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (hereafter PRONI), PM/9/4, Craig to Spender, 21 September 1922. 4

10

Chapter Two

the bill became law on 7 September 1922.6 Thereafter, the scene was set for some of the most contentious acts of alleged gerrymandering to occur across Northern Ireland. What occurred after the abolition of P.R. was viewed by unionists as the redrawing or redistribution of electoral boundaries, while amongst nationalists it was perceived as the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries. Unionists believed that the government was simply seeking to correct the imbalances and inequalities that had existed under the recent P.R. system and even earlier. Nationalists, on the other hand, viewed this as a deliberate act of discrimination on the part of the Unionist government to prevent Catholics from gaining a fair and proportionate level of representation in parliament and in local government. It seems abundantly clear, whatever way one may look at it, that the return to the old system and to single-member constituencies enabled voters to be distributed in such a way as to favour unionism. If rank and file Unionist members had been given their way, they would have held every seat on every local authority. The Stormont government, however, had to be seen to act as fairly as possible and to avoid, as Minister for Home Affairs, Sir Richard Dawson Bates put it, ‘any suggestion of indecent gerrymandering’.7 The term ‘gerrymander’ had originated in Essex County, Massachusetts, USA in 1812 when Governor Elbridge Gerry redistributed his electoral area so as to benefit his party.8 Upon finding a map of the proposed alterations, Benjamin Russel of the Boston Gazette likened the shape of the proposed new area to a salamander – ‘better say a gerrymander’ he commented, thus creating a term which would be used extensively in Northern Ireland politics in the future.9 Following the passing of the controversial bill through parliament, Dawson Bates set up a government body to deal with trouble areas, with John Leech, K.C. as Commissioner. Leech was in charge of conducting inquiries into areas in which objections to the alteration in the number and the boundaries of electoral districts might be expected.10 Unsurprisingly, the majority of these areas in question contained a Catholic and nationalist majority and therefore they were resistant to any such alterations which seemed to be designed to deprive them of fair representation. Upon his 6

Joseph Curran, The Birth of the Irish Free State 1921-1923 (Alabama, 1980), p.247. 7 A.C. Hepburn, The Conflict of Nationality in Modern Ireland (London, 1980), p.160. 8 Gallagher, The Indivisible Island, p.226. 9 Ibid. 10 David Harkness, Northern Ireland since 1920 (Dublin, 1983), p.28.

Politics, Representation and Electoral Practices

11

appointment, Leech immediately set about altering the rural councils in terms of both electoral areas and membership. One early case of gerrymandering which has received widespread attention was that of Dungannon, Co. Tyrone. An article appeared in the Irish Independent on 26 October 1922 entitled ‘Dungannon and Gerrymandering’.11 This outlined the proposals of the scheme which the Urban District Council described as ‘very necessary when the relative populations, poor law valuations, and number of local government electors of the wards are taken into consideration’.12 The actual working and implementation of the scheme was described articulately by the same newspaper a number of weeks later. In an article entitled ‘How Gerrymander works – The Dungannon wards’, it described how; According to the last census, Dungannon had a population of 3,830 of whom 2,120 or 55.3 per cent were pro-Free State. The Free Staters now claim a majority of 100 houses and 750 people. By dividing the town into three wards and combining the great bulk of the Free State vote to one ward (the West), the Belfast Parliament assure that the Free State majority could not return more than one-third of the representation, i.e. 7 out of 21. By exacting a declaration of allegiance from the Free State majority, the Belfast Parliament has succeeded in depriving that majority of any representation in the new Council.13

The nationalist newspaper, the Irish News, described how ‘the scheme for the rural districts was a gross gerrymander and a public scandal’,14 while the Freeman’s Journal commented on the ‘successful manipulation of the wards by the unionists’15. The unionist press was less vocal, however, with both the Belfast Newsletter16 and the Mid-Ulster Mail17 reporting the story but not providing any substantial commentary on it. Although the Catholic and nationalist concerns were made clear to Dawson Bates in a letter from Solicitor John Skeffington, the Minister refused to move on the issue. Skeffington’s letter to Dawson Bates contained the following: I say, without reserve, that the appearance of the proposed new boundaries on the face of that map is not only ipso facto evidence of the geographical absurdity of the proposition of the majority but also of their pre-meditated 11

Irish Independent, 26 October 1922. PRONI, HLG/4/106, Inquiries into reconstitution of divisions. 13 Irish Independent, 11 January 1923. 14 Irish News, 8 November 1923. 15 Freeman’s Journal, 23 November 1922. 16 Belfast Newsletter, 23 November 1922. 17 Mid-Ulster Mail, 25 November 1922. 12

12

Chapter Two intention to so gerrymander the Urban District that its Catholic population will never have an effective voice in municipal government.18

The case of Dungannon is just one example of gerrymandering that took place in Northern Ireland throughout the 1920s and 1930s. In Omagh Rural Council, the gerrymandering of the area rendered as much as 85 per cent of the nationalist vote ineffective. The corresponding figure for the Unionists was just 38 per cent.19 Essentially, it meant that 2,316 nationalist votes were required to win five seats on the council, whereas only 1,141 unionist votes were required to win the same number of seats. This was by no means an exceptional case. Across the rest of County Tyrone and indeed across the rest of Northern Ireland, the manipulation of boundaries occurred and this was almost exclusively to the disadvantage of the Catholic and nationalist minority. The exceptions to this were Keady Urban area in County Armagh, Newry Town in County Down and Strabane Urban area in County Tyrone, which had Nationalist majorities of 81, 79 and 75 per cent respectively.20 Any areas which had a Nationalist majority of 65 per cent or less, however, were subjected to this redrawing and redistribution process. While examples of gerrymandering in relation to rural areas have been described above, the practice was just as common in urban districts. In Armagh City Council, Unionists held 12 seats to the Nationalists 8, despite there being a Nationalist majority of 57 per cent in the city. In Enniskillen, County Fermanagh, the Nationalist majority was 56 per cent, yet the Unionists obtained 14 seats to the Nationalists 7. Finally, in Omagh, County Tyrone, there existed a substantial Nationalist majority of 62 per cent, yet the Unionists held 12 seats on the Urban Council against the Nationalists 9.21 The fact that gerrymandering occurred in many electoral areas across Northern Ireland at local and rural level is certainly not in question. It is, however, important to point out that it seems to have occurred at almost every level of local government and across all areas of the province. Examining each type of local authority, Table 2.1 below illustrates how the number of Catholics or nationalists in any given area was never in proportion to their representation in local government.

18

PRONI, HLG/4/115, Dungannon and Gerrymandering. Gallagher, The Indivisible Island, p.232. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 19

Politics, Representation and Electoral Practices

13

Table 2.1: Under-representation of Nationalists at all levels of Local Government Seats per Party

Derry Corporation Armagh County Council Lurgan Borough Council Omagh Urban Council Irvinestown Rural Council

Population per Seat

Unionist

Nationalist

Unionist

Nationalist

12

8

1541

3665

23

5

1638

7098

15

0

551

5449*

12

9

180

397

14

8

424

851

* In Lurgan Borough Council, the gerrymander was such that just 551 Unionists votes secured 15 seats while 5499 Nationalist votes were unable to secure even one seat. Source: All-party Anti-Partition Conference, One Vote Equals Two: A study in the Practice and Purpose of Boundary Manipulation, (Dublin, 1950). 22

Having discussed the allegations of under-representation of Catholics and the gerrymandering of electoral areas at local government level, it is now essential to discuss these accusations with regard to parliamentary level. While the decision to abolish proportional representation at local election level was aided by pressure from rank and file Unionist party members, the decision to abolish it at parliamentary elections was solely the work of Prime Minister Craig, who held an avid interest in the question.23 Although local elections had reverted to the pre-1919 system as early as 1922, at parliamentary level the general elections of 1921 and 1925 were conducted using the P.R. system. It had been the intention of the government to return to the old system in time for the general election 22

All-party Anti-Partition Conference, One Vote Equals Two: A study in the Practice and Purpose of Boundary Manipulation (Dublin, 1950). 23 Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.234.

14

Chapter Two

in 1925. It was subsequently decided, however, to postpone these plans in order to avoid conflict with the Boundary Commission, which was due to start its work at the time.24 The Commission had been established under the terms of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty but was not convened until 1925. Its purpose was to decide on the precise delineation of the border between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. By pressing ahead with the abolition of P.R. at this time, the Unionist government may have prejudiced its case before the Commission, thus it was decided to wait. Eventually, having been put on hold for a few years, the House of Commons (Method of Voting and Redistribution of Seats) bill was passed by parliament in February 1929, just three months before the general election. It was inevitable that this would result in bitter opposition from the Catholic and nationalist minority across the province. While the 1922 abolition of P.R. at local elections and the subsequent redrawing of electoral areas must be viewed as a discriminatory act against Catholics and nationalists, the same cannot be said for the abolition of P.R. at parliamentary elections in 1929. On this occasion, rather than deliberately discriminating against nationalists and placing them in a disadvantaged position, the aim of the government was to create unity and strength within the Unionist party in the face of other claims for the Protestant vote.25 Although the Labour Party and the Independent Unionists would have been considered loyal to the unionist cause, they still constituted a problem for Craig who was seeking to create a stable government. By abolishing P.R., Craig got what he wished for – the removal of the Labour Party and the Independent Unionists as a force to be reckoned with in Stormont politics. From then on, general elections would be a straight, winner-takesall fight between unionism and nationalism. Craig’s wishes to see this happen were highlighted in a speech made in parliament on 25 October 1927, when he identified the real question ‘…at the bottom of the hearts of every person in Ulster … is whether we are going to remain part and parcel of Great Britain and the Empire or whether on the other hand we are going to submerge ourselves in a Dublin parliament’.26 Although the redrawing of constituency boundaries following the 1929 general election did result in a slight reduction of Nationalist representation in Stormont, the disadvantage afforded to the minority was nowhere near the scale of the Nationalists’ disadvantage at local government level. In fact, subsequent general election results showed that the position of Nationalists 24

PRONI, CAB/4/98/21, Cabinet Conclusions, 10 January 1924. Tom Wilson, Ulster: Conflict and Consent (Oxford, 1989), p.70. 26 Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), vol.8, 25 October 1927, cols. 2269-77. 25

Politics, Representation and Electoral Practices

15

in parliament had not been overly affected by the abolition of P.R.27 The main effect of the 1929 Act appears to have been that an increasing number of parliamentary seats were filled without a contest. In the first election under the P.R. system in 1921, every seat in parliament had been fought for. In the 1929 election, however, 22 out of 48 seats were filled without contest, amounting to 46 per cent uncontested. The 1933 election saw this percentage rise to 69 per cent and by the 1938 election, it had returned to 44 per cent.28 Uncontested elections gradually became the norm in many areas throughout Northern Ireland and this not only caused problems for the government but also for democracy as a whole. As Northern Ireland moved into the 1930s, Catholics and nationalists found themselves increasingly disadvantaged across almost all sectors of society as Unionist dominance over parliament and local government began to take hold. It could be argued, therefore, that the Unionist government’s decision to abolish P.R. in 1922 and 1929 was a major act of misgovernment and misjudgement. Nationalist grievances were genuine and difficult to ignore, yet government-inspired gerrymandering increased the alienation of the minority even further. One of the most infamous cases of discrimination against the minority, however, had yet to occur. The fate of the city of Londonderry, the ‘Maiden City’ was always going to be a controversial one, given its symbolic value to both unionists and nationalists. Prior to 1919 there were five wards in the city. In 1919 these were altered to form four and then in 1922 the number of wards was again increased to five, albeit a different five.29 Following the 1929 parliamentary redistribution, the government found itself under extreme pressure from Londonderry unionists who had begun to feel insecure after nationalists in the city started to show a renewed interest in local affairs. In a letter in July 1934, Minister for Home Affairs, Dawson Bates, had told Craig that: Unless something is done now, it is only a matter of time until Derry passes into the hands of the Nationalist and Sinn Féin parties for all time. On the other hand, if proper steps are taken now, I believe Derry can be saved for years to come.30

The scheme proposed by the Londonderry Unionists, principally Councillor Matthew Kerr, in 1936 was rather outlandish, yet they still 27

Wilson, Ulster, p.70. Gallagher, The Indivisible Island, p.262. 29 Ibid, p.243. 30 PRONI, CAB/9B/13/2, Bates to Craig, 24 July 1934. 28

16

Chapter Two

appeared somewhat surprised when the government refused to implement it, at least until an inquiry was held. The Londonderry unionists wanted to reduce the numbers elected to the Corporation from 40 to 24 and to rearrange the wards in such a way as to secure a return of 16 Unionists and 8 Nationalists. Under these proposals, the 16 Unionist members would come from 7,536 unionist voters while the 8 Nationalist members would come from 9,409 Nationalist voters.31 An inquiry was set up and met between the 7 and 9 October 1936. Kerr was notably absent from the session.32 It appears that the case put forward by the Nationalists was well thought-out and close to perfect whereas the Unionist case was littered with errors. The Irish News reported how ‘their intelligent and straight-forward answering was in striking contrast to the shallow fallacies and evasions which came from the mouths of the Unionist witnesses’.33 Eventually, the inspector in charge of the inquiry had little choice but to recommend the rejection of the scheme.34 This high-profile rejection briefly put the Ministry of Home Affairs in a rather embarrassing position. The government, however, soon produced an alternative scheme which gave the Unionists the majority of what they wanted while also allowing the scheme to be capably defended. Under the new scheme, the number of councillors was reduced to 20, while the city was divided into three wards, into one of which the vast majority of Nationalists were placed. The other two wards contained safe Unionist majorities. It was obvious that the number of representatives allotted to each ward bore no resemblance to the number of people in the ward. The location of housing estates was even monitored closely to ensure that nationalists could not gain enough residential votes to mount a challenge to Unionist control in the city.35 The scheme was indeed an elaborate one which worked extremely well for the Londonderry unionists. In essence, each Nationalist seat on Londonderry Corporation cost 2,157 votes, whereas each Unionist seat cost a mere 933 votes. Some unionists were appalled at what they viewed as an obvious act of gerrymandering with the intention of placing the minority at an increased disadvantage. Mr. G. Halliday, an Englishman who was Principal of Skerries College in Londonderry for 23 years, was one who objected strongly to the scheme. In a letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs, he outlined how ‘in no city in England or Scotland would the proposals be considered’. He found the scheme to be undemocratic and grossly unfair to 31

PRONI, HA/51/4, Londonderry Gerrymandering. Ibid. 33 Irish News, 10 October 1936. 34 Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.244. 35 Gallagher, The Indivisible Island, p.243. 32

Politics, Representation and Electoral Practices

17

nationalists – an opinion which a lot of unionists agreed with. Not surprisingly, when Halliday tried to raise the matter at a meeting of the North Ward Unionist Association, he was ruled out of order.36 The conflict over Londonderry Corporation in 1936 could certainly be viewed as symptomatic of the type of siege mentality which affected the Unionist government during the inter war period.37 There appears to have been an attitude that the only way to maintain the Union with Great Britain was to secure the highest levels of domination in both parliament and in local government and thus minimise, as far as possible, the perceived threat of nationalism to the status quo. In conclusion, it seems clear that nationalists and Catholics were openly discriminated against in terms of electoral representation both at local and parliamentary levels between the years 1920 and 1939. Although the data presented in this chapter included just a sample of such discrimination, it is almost certain that such practices were in operation across all areas of the province. Throughout the period in question, the vast majority of local authorities were controlled by Unionists, including the two Corporations and the six County Councils.38 This level of hegemony was achieved mainly by the two Acts abolishing proportional representation in 1922 and 1929 and also the redrawing and redistribution of electoral areas which occurred from 1923 onwards. The extent of Unionist domination can be summed up by the fact that during this period, Northern Ireland had just one Prime Minister, James Craig, who remained in office until his death in November 1940. There appears to have been very little turnover of cabinet ministers also, with all but one of the original 1921 cabinet remaining in the same departments well into the 1930s. Furthermore, the Ulster Unionist party always had the support of a large majority in parliament, gaining comfortable majorities in each of Northern Ireland’s general elections. This level of political dominance was evident elsewhere also. Unionists consistently dominated Northern Ireland’s representation at Westminster. More importantly, however, they were in control of a disproportionate number of local authorities in Northern Ireland. Although they formed approximately 65 per cent of the population, Unionists regularly controlled 85 per cent of the local authorities, often in areas which had definite nationalist majorities.39 Counter-claims in their defence against nationalists and Catholics often centred upon the argument that many of these areas were incorrectly 36

Irish News, 9 October 1936. Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.246. 38 Birrell & Murie, Policy and Government in Northern Ireland, p.163. 39 Buckland, A History of Northern Ireland, p.60. 37

18

Chapter Two

classified as gerrymandered due to an ignorance of fertility differences between Catholics and Protestants.40 They argued that the higher percentage of Catholics not eligible to vote distorted the figures presented by the nationalists. Although such a claim may have some validity, a realteration of the figures to include these facts would be unlikely to substantially change the findings. Finally, in a case of extreme irony, Craig even accused nationalists of engaging in gerrymandering on one occasion. Speaking in relation to a nationalist proposal to form a constituency in County Antrim which would allow them to continue to return a representative there, he dismissed the scheme as ‘…outrageously a case of gerrymandering’.41 The inbuilt unionist majority in Northern Ireland society from its conception in 1920 was not sufficient to ease the insecurity fears of Ulster Protestants. It encouraged a siege mentality and a hankering after a level of hegemony which they hoped would have ultimately secured their British birthright as they saw it and kept them linked to Britain and part of the British Commonwealth/Empire. This, they set out to achieve by electoral malpractice at all levels. Through consequent electoral ‘success’, they came to exercise enormous control over the one-third Catholic minority which they rendered relatively powerless. This, of course, goes some way to answer the important question as to why such levels of discrimination against the minority occurred. Overall, it could be argued that in pursuance of the bedding down of Northern Ireland as a Protestant, British state for a Protestant, British people on mainland Ireland, the Ulster Unionist government was not prepared to rely solely on their majority status within Northern Ireland to exercise power, but, were prepared to, and actually did, manipulate the electoral process at all levels to maximise their political control over the province.

40

Christopher Hewitt, ‘Catholic grievances, Catholic nationalism and violence in Northern Ireland during the Civil Rights Period: a reconsideration’ in The British Journal of Sociology, Vol.32, No.3, (September, 1981), p.365. 41 Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), vol.10, 25 March 1929, col.1318.

CHAPTER THREE EDUCATION – SCHOOLING IN A SEGREGATED SYSTEM

The history of education in Northern Ireland has undoubtedly been a long and troubled one which still evokes controversy to the present day. Allegations of Unionist discrimination against Roman Catholics in the area of education have consistently been made ever since the foundation of the Northern Ireland state in 1920. This chapter will evaluate whether or not such accusations were justified and if the Catholic minority were actually discriminated against. The chapter will refer to the pre-1920 education system in the province and assess the bleak situation which the Unionist government inherited when it first came to power. Finally, it will examine various Education Acts and other important pieces of legislation which were introduced by the Stormont government during the period and ascertain if the Catholic minority population became disadvantaged as a result. Prior to the Act of Union of 1800, England’s consistent efforts to anglicise Ireland resulted in the alienation of Roman Catholics throughout the country. After 1801 and probably more so after Catholic Emancipation in 1829, the importance of education policy became increasingly apparent. It was clear to policy-makers at the time that a system of common schooling offered the best, if not the only, chance of healing old wounds and unifying the country.1 For such a system to succeed however, it would require the support and co-operation of all religious denominations. Initially, a Board of Commissioners of National Education consisting of members of various denominations was formed, with the aim of ensuring that children of different faiths were given combined literary and moral education and also at certain times, separate religious instruction.2 The Board took control of other areas such as the secular curriculum and the 1

R.J. Lawrence, The government of Northern Ireland: Public Finance and Public Services, 1921-1964 (London, 1965), p.105. 2 Ibid.

Chapter Three

20

appointment of inspectors. While the management of schools was initially entrusted to local managers and clergymen, the Board gradually gained complete financial responsibility to the extent that by the end of the nineteenth century, it shouldered almost the entire cost of primary education. Instead of uniting the various religious denominations, these socalled ‘national’ schools merely created further conflict. The Established Church was consistently opposed to the scheme, as were the Presbyterians and Orangemen in Ulster. Roman Catholics too began to insist on controlling primary schools. The result was educational partition, a bitter divide that would cripple the province for generations to come. By the turn of the twentieth century, the vast majority of Catholic children attended Catholic schools with Catholic teachers, while the various Protestant denominations tended to be segregated from each other also. The consequence of this segregation in schooling meant that young people in Ulster rarely had an opportunity to meet those on the other side of the sectarian divide unless it occurred in other ways, perhaps through employment.3 Those who attended non-Catholic schools would have received a largely secular education and would have acquired an interest in British history and Britain’s role in world affairs, quite similar to the education received by English children. Those who attended Catholic schools, on the other hand, would have received much more religious education and would have acquired a greater sympathy for Irish nationalism, particularly in the second half of the nineteenth century. With regard to segregation in schooling, table 3.1 below illustrates the religious denomination of pupils in primary schools in Northern Ireland during the 1920s and 1930s: Table 3.1: Religious denomination of pupils in primary schools in the inter-war period Year 1922 1927 1932 1937

Roman Catholics 68,959 72,143 74,443 72,259

Other Denominations 129,426 127,417 132,293 122,088

Source: Calculated using figures obtained from D.H. Akenson, Education and Emnity: The control of schooling in Northern Ireland, 1920-1950 (New York, 1973), p.213.

3

Wilson, Ulster, p.135.

Education – Schooling in a Segregated System

21

It can be reasonably ascertained that the historical segregation of schooling in Ireland has in many ways contributed to the sectarian divide which deepened throughout the twentieth century. The important question to pose here, however, is whether or not any degree of discrimination occurred within the education system in the new Northern Ireland state. When the Ulster Unionist party took control of the newly-formed state in 1920, it inherited an education system that was both segregated and backward. In 1921, Prime Minister James Craig described it as ‘…a system which needed to be rooted out of the soil to make room for a new fabric’.4 The inherited social capital was poor and there was an urgent need for new buildings and facilities. Furthermore, the number of qualified teachers within the system was grossly inadequate. It is, therefore, essential to take into account the poor initial position that the Unionist government found itself in when assessing its performance and policies in relation to education. It is also within this context of financial stringency and bearing in mind the inheritance of an under-developed system, that accusations of Unionist discrimination must be judged.5 By 1920, education in Northern Ireland consisted of two separate systems at both primary and secondary levels. The state system, also known as the ‘controlled’ system, was attended by Protestants, with voluntary grammar schools also attended predominantly by this group. Roman Catholics on the other hand, attended schools which had varying management structures but which were all voluntary, as opposed to the state-controlled system.6 These voluntary schools received various grants for capital and recurrent expenditure. Voluntary schools with ‘maintained’ status, however, received 100 per cent grants for recurrent expenditure and 85 per cent for building costs. In addition to this, voluntary grammar schools, both Protestant and Catholic, received various grants of more than 50 per cent for current and capital costs. Finally, any remaining costs for all types of voluntary schools had to be met by the church and the community.7 This was the bi-partite system which faced the new Unionist government leaders in 1920. From the outset, it is clear that Catholic leaders squandered any chance their community might have had of influencing the shape of state 4

Lawrence, The government of Northern Ireland, p.107. Wilson, Ulster, p.136. 6 R.C. Murray & R.D. Osborne, ‘Educational Qualifications and Religious Affiliation’ in R.J. Cormack & R.D. Osborne (eds.), Religion, Education and Employment: Aspects of Equal Opportunity in Northern Ireland (Belfast, 1983), p.122. 7 Ibid. 5

22

Chapter Three

education in Northern Ireland. The Roman Catholic clergy were vehement and consistent in their opposition to any proposed change in the national system and had resisted any attempts towards educational reform since the turn of the century. Catholic clerical school managers, at a meeting in October 1921, asserted that, In view of pending changes in Irish education, we wish to reassert the great fundamental principle that the only satisfactory system of education for Catholics is one wherein Catholic children are taught in Catholic schools by Catholic teachers under Catholic auspices.8

Due to the fact that they did not recognise the new Northern Ireland state and were strongly opposed to the partition of Ireland, the Roman Catholic hierarchy refused to nominate a representative to the Lynn Committee, which was established in September 1921 to present their findings on the proposed reforms for the education system in Northern Ireland. As a result, the committee was dominated by Protestants and although it claimed to have borne in mind the interests of Catholics, its proposals and recommendations were undoubtedly framed according to Protestant educational assumptions.9 Certainly, in the section regarding religious instruction in public elementary schools, this proved to be the case. The committee’s recommendation essentially indicated that what was required was compulsory Bible teaching, which in turn would have meant the effective endowment of Protestantism by the state.10 Whether or not this can be interpreted as discrimination against Catholics is open to debate. It can be established, however, that Catholics did themselves no favours by refusing to nominate a representative to the committee. As it happened, the Minister for Education, Lord Londonderry, refused to accept the recommendations of the Lynn Committee on religious instruction in public elementary education. Although he believed that education should be both literary and moral, his Education Act would be strictly non-denominational.11 In any case, Londonderry’s opinions were irrelevant given that the 1920 Government of Ireland Act stated that it was ultra vires to ‘make a law so as either directly or indirectly to establish or endow any religion’.12 Furthermore, article 16 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 8

D.H. Akenson, Education and Emnity: The control of schooling in Northern Ireland, 1920-1950 (New York, 1973), p.52. 9 Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.250. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Government of Ireland Act, 1920, s.5

Education – Schooling in a Segregated System

23

1921 prohibited religious discrimination and the endowment of any religion.13 Thus, when the Education Act was finally published it was religiously neutral. When the cabinet was drafting the final version of the bill in February 1923, Prime Minister Craig asked Londonderry ‘whether any particular denomination could … with justice assert that it had been penalised’. Having taking Londonderry’s reply and other issues into consideration, the cabinet appeared quite satisfied that ‘the proposals of the bill are impartial in their dealings with the denominations’.14 The 1923 Education Act was a brave and bold attempt at wholesale reconstruction across the province and despite reservations and hostility from both sides of the religious divide, the government pressed ahead with it. Under the terms of the Act, the counties and county boroughs were given responsibility for providing public elementary schools which could be newly-created or schools transferred over from the existing school managers, which were usually the churches. Any child, regardless of religious denomination, could attend any of these schools and receive the same teaching on all subjects, with the exception of religious instruction. Provision was made, however, for pupils to receive religious instruction along denominational lines outside of school hours. With this in mind, the use of school buildings was granted to all denominations for the purpose of religious teaching.15 Education correspondence emanating from Antrim County Council at the time describes how religious instruction was to be given by representatives of the churches and/or by members of the school staff. Attendance at these classes was to be the option of the child’s parents.16 Although these were the main facets and characteristics of the bill, there was no obligation to accept them. Schools could opt to continue with existing arrangements but they would be required to meet all capital expenditure and other costs from private sources, aside from teachers’ salaries which were paid by the state. The other possibility was somewhat of a compromise and became known as the ‘four and two’ system.17 Under this scheme, management committees would consist of four persons appointed by the particular church and two by the local education authority. Under this arrangement, schools would qualify for assistance with repairs and general upkeep.

13

Anglo-Irish Treaty, 1921, s.16. PRONI, CAB 4/72/16, Cabinet Conclusions, 28 February 1923. 15 PRONI, ED/32/A/1/17, Education Bill (Northern Ireland) 1923, Parliamentary Secretary File. 16 PRONI, LA/1/3AG/44, Armagh County Council Education Correspondence. 17 Wilson, Ulster, p.136. 14

24

Chapter Three

To the impartial and unbiased observer, the non-denominational schools being proposed may have seemed quite fair and practical. The Education Act, however, was to encounter controversy right from the beginning. The three main areas of unrest were the management of schools, religious instruction and the appointment of teachers. Ironically, both Catholics and Protestants agreed with each other on one point and that was their joint condemnation of the Stormont government. Their common accusation that elementary education would become secular was not completely off the mark. The Act provided that every public elementary school, of whichever type, should be open to pupils of all religious denominations for combined literary and moral instruction and that religious teaching should not be given within the hours of compulsory attendance.18 In addition to this, the local education authorities were forbidden from requiring teachers to belong to any particular faith or to provide religious instruction. In essence, the Ministry of Education was proposing to establish ‘godless schools’, a move which proved to be totally unacceptable to both Protestants and Catholics.19 One of the main concerns held by both sides, however, was the fear that their children might receive their education from an individual of another religious faith. The Roman Catholic hierarchy was immediately dismissive of the 1923 Act and refused to allow any of their schools to be transferred to the local education authorities. They also rejected the ‘four and two’ compromise which may seem surprising given that such a scheme would have appeared to protect them and safeguard their interests. It could, therefore, be suggested that Catholics were uneasy about the possibility of future discriminatory practices on the part of councils under Unionist control. Likewise, it appears that leaders of the Protestant churches were equally apprehensive about the behaviour of councils that might come under Nationalist control.20 Although a significant number of Protestant schools accepted the ‘four and two’ compromise, a cogent and forceful campaign was mounted by the Protestant churches and the Orange Order for radical changes to be made to the 1923 Act. What resulted over the following decade was a series of amendments to the Act and concessions to Protestants which would ensure that accusations of discrimination against Catholics quickly began to carry weight. Between 1923 and 1929, the Protestant authorities in Northern Ireland continuously fought for the inclusion of the Lynn Committee’s recommendations into the state’s educational code. The Protestant 18

Education Act (Northern Ireland), 1923, s.28. Wilson, Ulster, p.137. 20 Ibid. 19

Education – Schooling in a Segregated System

25

churches wanted it clearly stated that religious teaching would be provided in all primary schools under the control of local authorities and that teachers should be permitted to give religious instruction and also for this to be given during school hours.21 While the government initially held its ground, it was rapidly coming under more intense pressure to amend the bill. In a parliamentary debate on 16 May 1923, Captain Mulholland, a Member of Parliament for County Down, argued that any such amendments ‘would without doubt create religious cleavage. It would introduce sectarianism and denominationalism, two things that we are particularly anxious to avoid here in the north of Ireland’.22 The electoral muscle against the government proved too strong, however, and by 1925, restrictions on religious instruction had been removed. Nevertheless, the Protestant churches still sought more changes and further concessions, while at the same time the Catholic authorities continued to regard the state system as inimical to their educational ethos.23 By this stage, Northern Ireland had a new Education Minister, Lord Charlemont, who proved to be just as incapable as his predecessor in resisting the combined forces of the Protestant churches and the Orange Order. By the beginning of 1929, the United Education Committee’s demands had the backing of the Grand Orange Lodge and when the government took a rather protracted approach to their requests, threats of a loss of electoral support were mounted concerning the upcoming general election. By the end of April 1929, following further pressure, the government’s concessions were finally complete. The resulting Education Bill was drafted later that year and introduced in April 1930, essentially removing any outstanding Protestant grievances.24 Under the terms of the Act, former managers of transferred schools received positions on local education committees, a dominant influence on school management committees and a central role in selecting teachers.25 In addition, in both provided and transferred schools, the education authority was obliged to provide non-denominational Bible instruction if the parents of not fewer than ten children applied for it. It soon became the duty of teachers to provide this instruction.26 The question of whether or not such teaching could be deemed ‘sectarian’ is an important one. Prime Minister Craig was adamant that it need not be. He informed the Roman Catholic authorities 21

Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.251. Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), vol.3, 16 May 1923, col.925. 23 Harkness, Northern Ireland since 1920, p.63. 24 Ibid, p.64. 25 Education Act (Northern Ireland), 1930, s. 1, 2, 3. 26 Ibid, s.4. 22

26

Chapter Three

that they could prepare a programme of teaching that would cover ‘the great and simple structure of our common Christianity’.27 What he failed to realise, however, was that from a Catholic viewpoint, Bible teaching could be misguided and perilous without the authoritative interpretation of the Catholic Church and that in the opinion of many Catholics, Bible teaching was essentially Protestant. Therein lay one of the first main charges of discrimination in education that was levelled against the Unionist government. Following the changes that took place in 1930, Craig stated that the schools had been made ‘safe for Protestant children’, an unfortunate statement for him personally and one which would not have done anything to endear him to the Catholic population throughout the province or convince them that they were not being discriminated against by his government. In the aftermath of Craig’s controversial statement, the question was raised as to whether or not the schools were then safe for Roman Catholics. Given that the Northern Ireland constitution prohibited religious discrimination or indeed discrimination of any kind, it was Craig’s duty to ensure that all pupils, regardless of denomination, received equal treatment. In a speech in parliament on 9 April 1930, he declared his government’s impartiality and neutrality on the issue; …I maintain with confidence that if Roman Catholics transferred their schools, those schools would be as secure of being conducted on Roman Catholic lines by the authority as Protestant schools will be of being conducted in harmony with the views of Protestant parents. And if this can be said with truth, how does the system we are setting up give a preference to Protestants?28

This, however, did nothing to ease Catholic concerns. They claimed that the gerrymandering of electoral areas had denied them any chance of gaining a majority on the local education authorities which in turn had completely removed any faith they may have had in public control. Essentially, Catholics were now being asked to agree to Bible teaching in schools, something which was of course, subversive to their faith. Additionally, they were being asked to agree to legislation that could force a Catholic teacher to provide this Bible teaching if ten or more Protestant children were enrolled in the school.29 One can clearly see how such actions could be seen as unacceptable to Catholics. 27

Akenson, Education and Emnity, p.6. Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), vol.12, 9 Apr. 1930, col.727. 29 Lawrence, The government of Northern Ireland, p.112. 28

Education – Schooling in a Segregated System

27

The Education Act of 1930 essentially gave Northern Ireland’s Protestant leaders all that they desired. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that they encountered sustained resistance and opposition from the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The government’s attempt to alleviate Protestant grievances had unwittingly brought about Catholic intervention into Northern Ireland educational politics for the first time.30 Attempts at convincing Protestants to transfer their schools offered Catholics the golden opportunity to demand concessions themselves, in the form of government grants towards voluntary schools on the same basis as had been available under the old national system.31 To avoid accusations of discrimination, the government had to take the Catholic demands very seriously. In the end, it was decided to offer government grants direct to voluntary schools but not, however, at the rates originally demanded by Catholics but rather on the same terms that were available under the ‘four and two’ compromise scheme.32 Consequently, although the Act accommodated all the demands of Protestants, it also made some concessions to Catholics by offering 50 per cent grants towards the building costs of privately managed schools. This was a grant which would apply to all voluntary schools and the cabinet decision of 15 April 1930 stated that no amendment to the bill could be made ‘which involves any concession that does not apply equally to both sections of the community’.33 This clearly illustrates that although a certain amount of discrimination against Catholics may have been taking place, the Unionist government was careful to ensure that in public at least, it maintained a degree of impartiality. There will always be varying opinions as to how much the Education Act of 1930 discriminated against Catholics in Northern Ireland. If the Catholic clergy had been willing to accept the ‘four and two’ compromise, it is likely that they would have been able to work the system to their own advantage. In addition, they also reaped some benefits under the Act in the form of government grants to cover building and other costs. Benefits for the state as a whole are also evident and during the period 1920 to 1939, one can see a solid level of progress within the province. Following the introduction of the 1930 Act and with a working compromise established between all sides, the Ministry of Education was able to devote almost all its time and energy towards increasing the standards of education throughout the province. The three main areas of concern were the quality 30

Akenson, Education and Emnity, p.104 Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, pp 261-262. 32 PRONI, CAB/4/260/18, Cabinet Conclusions, 7 May 1930. 33 PRONI, CAB/4/258/18, Cabinet Conclusions, 15 April 1930. 31

28

Chapter Three

and standard of teaching, the state of school buildings and pupil attendance. Figures show, however, that between 1921 and 1938, the percentage of trained teachers in the province rose from 82 per cent to 93 per cent and during the same period, absenteeism among pupils dropped from 25 per cent to just 14 per cent.34 Finally, a combination of closure, consolidation and building by education committees had resulted in steady progress, providing 188 new primary schools by 1939 and also reconstructing a significant number of the transferred schools.35 While this undoubtedly indicates a steady level of progress, unfortunately this fell far short of what was needed in the province at the time. When all aspects of the education system are taken into account, it is clear that Northern Ireland was still a generation or more behind most of Wales and England.36 Although the government was aware of this, it did not wish to disturb the uneasy balance that had been reached in 1930 in what was an extremely contentious area. Concern at the level of government spending also prevented action from being taken and the outbreak of war in 1939 further postponed any state action regarding education policy. To conclude, in light of the evolution of education policy in Northern Ireland between 1920 and 1939, would it be reasonable to assert that Catholics were discriminated against? In many ways, this is a question that is open to debate and interpretation. To the detached observer, however, it is an intriguing question. Certainly, the Roman Catholic hierarchy anticipated unfair treatment before devolved government had even been established in Northern Ireland and maybe for this reason, they were unwilling to give the new Unionist government a chance to prove their suspicions wrong. The unwillingness to recognise the state and the refusal to send any representative to the Lynn Committee, as mentioned earlier, cannot have done the Catholic minority population any favours. It could be argued that during the early part of the period under examination, the government sought to act fairly and impartially towards both Protestants and Catholics with regard to education policy. The 1923 Education Act was reasonably even-handed, unbiased and strictly nondenominational. This is clearly evident in that both Protestant and Catholic church leaders were united in their condemnation of the government’s new education policy. While the 1923 Act may have been a controversial and novel idea, perhaps even revolutionary at the time, it was certainly not biased in favour of any religious denomination. Although Catholics were 34

Harkness, Northern Ireland since 1920, p.65. Ibid. 36 Lawrence, The Government of Northern Ireland, p.114. 35

Education – Schooling in a Segregated System

29

extremely unhappy with the terms of the 1923 Act, Protestants were equally livid, if not more so. It was in subsequent years that the first charges of Unionist discrimination against Catholics with regard to education began to surface. The combined strength of the Protestant clergy and the Orange Order ultimately forced the government into providing concessions for Protestants and amending legislation, first in 1925 and subsequently with the formation of a new Education Act in 1930. The agitators secured for themselves compulsory Bible teaching in schools, local control of appointments and an enhanced role for the clergy in public elementary education.37 By the 1930s, it was argued by Catholics that the provisions of the Education Act did not impact equally across the religious divide and may have been discriminating in favour of Protestantism. Although the Act strove to be as religiously neutral as possible, its terms and provisions appear to have resulted in the effective endowment of Protestantism by the Northern Ireland state.38 Consequently, the Act was not impartial in its dealings with the two main religious denominations. Under it, two separate school systems operated, one with Protestant pupils, the other with either Catholic or Protestant pupils. In the transferred and provided schools, which were almost exclusively Protestant, all expenditure was met by the government whereas the voluntary schools, both Protestant and Catholic, received most but not all of their funding from public sources, making up the remainder themselves. While the Unionist government may have argued that Catholic schools had the exact same opportunity as Protestant schools of becoming transferred institutions, the fact remained that if Catholics were to avail of this option, they would essentially have been going against their faith. By placing Catholics in a no-win situation such as this, the Unionist government, in this instance may have been guilty of discrimination. Much of this imbalance was tactfully hidden from public view but was ongoing nonetheless. Certainly in the earliest years of the Unionist administration, the utmost care was taken to ensure that education policy could not be viewed as being inherently biased in favour of Protestants and while certain Education ministers, such as Lord Londonderry, may have been genuinely advocating a non-discriminatory education policy, circumstances ultimately dictated that future legislation came down in favour of Protestants. This was largely due to the government acceding to the stern demands of the Protestant clergy and the Orange Order in the 37 38

Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.252. Akenson, Education and Emnity, pp 111-12.

30

Chapter Three

mid-1920s, in essence, prioritising their demands over those of the Catholic minority. The terms entailed in the Education Act of 1930 merely served to confirm Catholic claims that they were being unfairly treated by the Unionist government. Speaking in parliament on 13 November 1934, the Nationalist M.P., Mr. T.J. Campbell, described the treatment of Catholic schools in Northern Ireland as worse than Hitler’s treatment of the Jews in Germany.39 While such a claim may be slightly hyperbolic, it nonetheless portrayed a widelyheld attitude amongst Catholic people at the time. Catholic grievances were described, more realistically perhaps, by Bishop Mageean in May 1932 when he described discrimination against Catholics as being; …against all principles of justice and equity … We form a large portion of the population, and have more children attending primary elementary schools than any other religious denomination. We ask for no privilege, but we claim equality of treatment with our fellow citizens, and we demand our rights.40

Finally, in attempting to make an assessment of education policy in Northern Ireland between 1920 and 1939, while it can be strongly contended that excellent progress was made in improving buildings and facilities, improving teaching standards and in increasing pupil attendance universally, nevertheless, the Roman Catholic minority in the province became increasingly disadvantaged. That the Unionist government and the Ministry of Education are to be held responsible for this is not at all conclusive.

39

Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), vol.16, 13 November 1934, col.2737. 40 The Tablet, 19 November 1932, cited in Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.265.

CHAPTER FOUR ALLEGATIONS OF UNIONIST DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT

The area of employment has consistently been alluded to by Catholics as a site of sectarian discrimination against the minority population in Northern Ireland. Alleged discrimination by or on behalf of the Ulster Unionist government has been blamed for the high rate of Catholic unemployment and the relatively low number of Catholics in senior positions within both the public and private sectors during the inter-war period. The following chapter will evaluate whether discrimination in the employment sector occurred in Northern Ireland during the period under review. The methodology involved will see each sector examined individually, beginning with public employment. This will entail an assessment of recruitment and promotion policies within the Northern Ireland Civil Service, statutory bodies, the judiciary, the police service and local authorities. Similarly, the recruitment policies of companies and firms within the private sector will also be evaluated in order to assess whether or not these accusations of Unionist discrimination against the minority were warranted. In the late eighteenth century, the Catholic proportion of Belfast’s population amounted to less than 10 per cent. During the industrialising period which followed, however, there occurred a marked shift in the religious demography of the region. By the 1830s, the city had expanded rapidly and Catholics constituted a third of the population. Between 1861 and 1911, continuous numbers of migrants flocked to the city, resulting in the Catholic population dwindling to less than a quarter.1 From 1911 until 1939 however, the balance between Catholics and Protestants in the city remained remarkably stable and this can also be said for the province of Ulster as a whole. 1

A.C. Hepburn, ‘Employment and Religion in Belfast, 1901-1951, in R.J. Cormack & R.D. Osborne (eds.), Religion, Education and Employment: Aspects of Equal Opportunity in Northern Ireland (Belfast, 1983), p.42.

Chapter Four

32

Beginning with an examination of the public sector and from the outset, the most obvious weakness of the Northern Ireland Civil Service was that it was largely identified with only one section of the community. Although Catholics comprised approximately one third of the population, they never looked like securing a similar proportion of positions within the civil service. Table 4.1 below refers to the survey by Barritt and Carter who presented a breakdown by religion of the administrative grades and staff officers in the main government departments for the year 1927.2 This particular year was chosen because it accurately depicted the state of the administration when it had settled down after its transfer from Dublin Castle.3 Table 4.1: Analysis of part of Northern Ireland Civil Service by grade and reported religious affiliation, 1927 Protestant

Catholic

% Protestant

5

1

83

12

1

92

40

3

93

Deputy and Assistant Principals Staff Officers

66

3

96

92

6

94

All persons covered

215

14

94

Permanent Secretaries Second and Assistant Secretaries, etc. Principals

Source: Denis P. Barritt & Charles F. Carter, The Northern Ireland Problem: A Study in Group Relations (Oxford, 1962), p.96.

While the above figures may appear startling at first, nevertheless, they must be taken in context. Since the grammar school and university population of Northern Ireland was three-quarters Protestant at the time, it was understandable that at least this proportion of Protestants would 2 3

Barritt & Carter, The Northern Ireland Problem, p.96. Ibid, p.95.

Allegations of Discrimination in Public and Private Employment

33

occupy the more senior positions within the civil service. Nor is the difference between 75 per cent and 94 per cent an indication of discrimination, given that such a large number of Catholics shunned the new state and in many cases, did not apply for posts within the service.4 The situation at the time has been described by Patrick Shea, a distinguished Catholic civil servant who went on to become Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education: Catholics in the Northern Ireland Civil Service in those days were few. Because of the hard times through which many had lived and from which they had emerged as losers the Northern Catholics were not disposed to claim anything from what they regarded as a hostile government; in any case, they believed that worthwhile employment under the Unionist administration was available only to Unionists and friends of Unionists.5

Similarly, Wilfrid Spender, who served as Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Finance between 1925 and 1944, commented that, ‘There were strong indications that the Roman Catholic hierarchy did not encourage any of their co-religionists to enter our Service but rather the reverse’.6 He was adamant, however, in pointing out that no sectarian discrimination had occurred during the appointment of civil servants. In November 1934, he told the Cabinet Secretary that since he had taken over in the Ministry of Finance nine years earlier, ‘no Roman Catholic has entered the Administrative ranks of our Service, although had one succeeded in passing the Examination, he would have been accepted’.7 Some time later he acknowledged that although there had been a decrease in the number of Catholics in senior civil service positions, this was not as a result of discrimination. Spender estimated that in 1934, the proportion of Catholics within the lower ranks of the civil service was approximately 10 per cent.8 Based on the above facts, it is not at all clear that discrimination was the sole reason for the relatively low numbers of Catholics employed in the civil service. In many cases, a lower level of educational attainment among Catholics may have impeded their chances of entry into and promotion opportunities within the service.9 If this indeed was the case, accusations of Unionist discrimination on the grounds of religion would appear to be unfounded. In other words, far from discriminating against 4

Barritt & Carter, The Northern Ireland Problem, p.96. Patrick Shea, Voices and The Sound of Drums (Belfast, 1981), pp 112-13. 6 PRONI, CAB 9A/90/1, Spender to Blackmore, 8th Nov. 1934. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.21. 5

34

Chapter Four

Catholics, it is possible that the Stormont government was merely choosing the individual who was most suitably qualified for the job. Whether or not this was in fact the case, is the key question here, yet it remains an impossible one to answer. A fact that can be established without doubt is that there existed two areas of appointment within Stormont which were not open to Catholics. These were the Ministry of Home Affairs and the private offices of government ministers.10 In these instances, the presence of Catholics was seen as a security risk to the Stormont administration and rather than adopting a policy of surveillance, the government instead chose to ban them altogether. In 1924, only four Catholics were employed in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Samuel Watt, the Permanent Secretary, felt obliged to inform Spender that ‘They are not in any way employed on confidential work’.11 Dawson Bates, Minister of Home Affairs, was arguably the one individual regarded by the majority of Catholics as the most discriminatory of all the Unionist ministers in Stormont. In 1934, after learning that a Roman Catholic telephonist had been appointed to work at Stormont, Dawson Bates refused to use the telephone for any important business; such were the extent of his suspicions.12 Other Unionist ministers, who made no qualms about where their loyalties lay, included the Minister for Agriculture, Sir Edward Archdale and the Minister for Labour, J.M. Andrews. In 1925, Archdale declared, ‘I have 109 officials, and so far as I know there are four Roman Catholics, three of whom were Civil Servants turned over to me, who I had to take when we began’.13 Speaking in a similar vein to his colleague some years later in 1933, Andrews pointed out that ‘…another allegation made against the Government and which was untrue, was that, of 31 porters at Stormont, 28 were Roman Catholics. I have investigated the matter, and I find that there are 30 Protestants and only one Roman Catholic there temporarily’.14 Furthermore, while Unionist politicians were given positions on civil service appointment boards, Nationalist requests for similar positions were completely ignored.15 Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, Orange Order surveillance of Catholic civil servants became increasingly apparent and 10

Wilson, Ulster, p.116. PRONI, CAB 9A/90/1, Watt to Spender, 18 January 1924. 12 PRONI, CAB 9A/90/1, Dawson Bates to Blackmore, 14 August 1934. 13 Henry Harrison, Ulster and the British Empire 1939: Help or Hindrance? (London, 1939), p.87. 14 Ibid. 15 Paul Bew, Peter Gibbon & Henry Patterson, The State in Northern Ireland, 1921-72: Political Forces and Social Classes (Manchester, 1979), p.77. 11

Allegations of Discrimination in Public and Private Employment

35

this gradually began to include suspicion towards civil servants who happened to be married to Catholics. The Order’s influence on Prime Minister Craig had increased to such an extent that they even succeeded in having a Catholic gardener in Stormont dismissed from his post. The individual in question was alleged to be a dangerous republican when in fact he had a distinguished war record and had received a glowing reference from none other than the Prince of Wales.16 The fact that he happened to be a loyal member of the Roman Catholic Church, ultimately cost him his position. Unsurprisingly, Catholics must have felt that they were not wanted in the Protestant-dominated civil service of Northern Ireland. When this Catholic perspective is combined with Craig’s relatively ambiguous attitude towards the whole situation, it comes as no surprise that the number of Catholics in the civil service diminished consistently throughout the late 1920s and into the 1930s. The situation regarding the Westminster Civil Service, however, was entirely different. Jobs in the Post Office, the Inland Revenue and the Customs and Excise Departments generally attracted a high number of Catholic applicants.17 Such was the high level of Catholic interest in these positions that some Catholic schools even provided special teaching related to the appropriate entrance examinations for the posts. Therefore, it appears that there were no complaints of discrimination against Catholics in recruitment policy for the Imperial Civil Service and this must be due, largely, to the fact that Catholics felt they stood a decent chance of being treated as equals in the workplace. They believed, however, that the same could not be said for Catholics who were employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The civil service was certainly not the only area of government service that was alleged to have engaged in active discrimination against Catholics. Similar charges were levelled against government appointments to public boards and statutory bodies as well as the judiciary and the police. Under successive Unionist governments, the membership of public boards was almost exclusively Protestant and while some have argued that this was an ‘old-boy’ network, it may well have been another example of wilful sectarian discrimination against the minority.18 Appointments to the judiciary were to prove much more contentious. While the first Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Denis Henry, was a Catholic, it appears that following his death in 1925, no other Catholic was appointed to the Supreme Court until Mr. Justice Sheil almost a quarter of 16

Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.23. Barritt & Carter, The Northern Ireland Problem, p.97. 18 Wilson, Ulster, p.117. 17

Chapter Four

36

a century later.19 In 1936, after the National Council for Civil Liberties had criticised the lack of Catholics in the Northern Ireland judicial system, the government responded by declaring that it had offered a County Court Judgeship to every Catholic King’s Counsel (K.C.) in the state.20 Any who accepted the offer were regarded as traitors by the rest of the Catholic community. A prominent nationalist politician at the time, speaking to journalist Desmond Fennell, described how ‘a friend had remarked to him that it was a bad day for the Nationalists when a Catholic was appointed a Supreme Court judge – it had sounded good to be able to say that the Supreme Court hadn’t a single Catholic judge!’21 Once again, as in so many other cases, the allegation of Unionist discrimination must be balanced with the refusal of many Catholics to recognise and accept the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland state or its ruling organs. Religious denomination was taken into account in the recruitment of the police force and for once, the government could not be accused of discriminating against the minority. One-third of the police force was to be reserved for Catholics should they wish to join.22 Ironically, criticism this time came from the unionists, who viewed this measure as introducing sectarianism into the police force. It is clear, however, that this policy held no ulterior motives and that it was in fact designed as a gesture of reassurance towards Catholics. The Royal Ulster Constabulary (R.U.C.) response to the unionist allegations came from Lieutenant-Colonel Wickham, the first Inspector-General of the force, who said ‘…It is quite useless to expect to obtain any information from the R.C. (Roman Catholic) areas unless there are R.C. Police and R.C. Detectives. The efficiency of the Force suffers at present from a lack of R.C. Police.’23 It was certainly not easy to be a Catholic in government service in Northern Ireland in the 1920s and 1930s, given that members of the minority who were employed in the civil service or the police force and those on the judiciary and statutory bodies received little or no encouragement from Unionist ministers. They were regularly accused of disloyalty and far too often, these unfounded allegations were taken .

19

John Whyte, ‘How much discrimination was there under the Unionist regime?’ in Tom Gallagher & James O’Connell (eds.), Contemporary Irish Studies (Manchester, 1983), p.9. 20 William A. Carson, Ulster and the Irish Republic (Belfast, 1956), pp 27-28. 21 Desmond Fennell, The Northern Catholic: An Inquiry (Dublin, 1958), p.16. 22 Interim Report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry on Police Organisation in Northern Ireland, 1922, Cmd 1, p.5, cited in Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.22. 23 PRONI, CAB 9A/90/1, Wickham to Watt, 6 March 1924.

Allegations of Discrimination in Public and Private Employment

37

seriously by Prime Minister Craig. It was clear to all where his loyalties lay from a speech made in parliament on 24 April 1934, which would have done nothing to endear him to the Catholic minority in the province. He stated, ‘I have always said that I am an Orangeman first and a politician and a member of this parliament afterwards … All I boast is that we have a Protestant parliament and a Protestant state’.24 Allegations of discrimination against the Catholic minority were also made at local government level. Between 1920 and 1939, the vast majority of these complaints were concentrated in areas west of the Bann.25 These were, essentially, areas where Unionist councils presided over a Catholic majority or areas where there was only a slight Protestant majority. Unfortunately, the majority of primary source material available on the subject of discrimination at local government level deals with the period after the Second World War and not the period under review here. The report of the Cameron Commission, published in 1969, however, remains the definitive study on the topic. One of its main conclusions was the following: ‘We are satisfied that all these Unionist controlled councils have used and use their power to make appointments in a way which benefited Protestants’.26 It is interesting to note that in 1928, only five per cent of the workforce of Belfast Corporation was Catholic, although Catholics amounted to a quarter of the population of the city.27 Figures for other local authorities across the province were largely in tandem with those in Belfast. Frank Gallagher’s 1951 study, The Indivisible Island, forms the basis of Table 4.2 overleaf.

24

Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), Vol.16, 24 April 1934, Col.1091. Whyte, ‘How much discrimination…’, p.14. 26 Disturbances in Northern Ireland (Cameron Report), 1969, para.138. 27 David Johnson, ‘The Northern Ireland Economy 1914-39’ in L. Kennedy & P. Ollerenshaw (eds.), An Economic History of Ulster 1820-1939 (Manchester, 1985), p.215. 25

Chapter Four

38

Table 4.2: Executive, administrative and clerical staffs of all local authorities in each county, 1951.

Antrim Armagh Derry Down Fermanagh Tyrone

Non-Catholic Denominations

Roman Catholic

% Catholic Jobs

% Catholic Population

238 113 190 238 48 138

19 16 16 56 5 18

7 12 8 19 9 12

22 47 43 30 55 55

Source: Calculated using figures obtained from Gallagher, The Indivisible Island, p.2.

Given that the proportion of Catholics resident in each of these counties was greater than the proportion with positions in these local authorities, it is clear that a certain degree of discrimination occurred. Having discussed public employment it is now necessary to address accusations of discrimination in the recruitment and promotion policies within the private sector, an area of research which was largely neglected until the 1970s. This will entail an investigation into the recruitment and promotion policies of private firms in Northern Ireland during the 1920s and 1930s. Generally, firms fell into four distinct categories. Firstly, there were firms which employed workers from only one side of the political and religious divide. Secondly, there were Protestant-owned companies which employed Catholics, but strictly in the lower-paid, menial positions. Thirdly, there were a number of firms who employed both Protestants and Catholics but insisted on segregating them in the workplace. Finally, there were some companies which employed members of both denominations and allowed them to work together within the same department. In the first instance, it should be pointed out that accusations of discrimination with regard to private employment are much more difficult to assess than with public employment. While politicians and other policymakers within government could quite easily discriminate against Catholics by offering a certain position to a Protestant who was lessqualified for the job, any loss of efficiency as a result would fall on the shoulders of the taxpayer and no blame would be attributed to the government official involved.28 In contrast, private firms operate within a competitive market and their chief concern would have been to make a 28

Wilson, Ulster, p.118.

Allegations of Discrimination in Public and Private Employment

39

profit. The question must, therefore, be raised as to whether these Protestant-owned companies were prepared to make the financial sacrifice of a loss in earnings, just so they could pass over Catholics who were more suited for the position. While it is possible that some employers with strong religious and political beliefs may have made this sacrifice, it must nonetheless be investigated in order to see whether such a practice actually occurred. In a case where there were no ascertainable differences between the suitability of a Protestant or Catholic candidate for a particular job, it is understandable that the employer in question would ultimately pick his/her co-religionist, the individual who belonged to the correct tribe essentially. Many employers made no qualms about operating such a recruitment policy. They firmly believed they were not engaged in active discrimination against the other community. Instead they were merely looking after their own, so to speak. Evidence suggests that throughout the 1920s and 1930s, most Protestant firms tended to employ Protestants, while most Catholic firms tended to employ Catholics. Barritt and Carter have noted the oftheard remark from Protestant employers, ‘Of course, we wouldn’t mind having a Catholic in the office (or the factory); but the workers would never stand for it’.29 This attitude illustrates that some Protestant employers appeared somewhat ashamed to discuss the topic of discrimination and showed a desire to shift the blame elsewhere. Catholic grievances and worries appear understandable when one considers some of the comments made by senior politicians in relation to the position of Catholics in employment. Arguably the most infamous of these comments is that from Sir Basil Brooke, then junior government whip, and a future Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. His speech at Newtownbutler, Co. Fermanagh on 12 July 1933 was reported in the Fermanagh Times the following day: There were a great number of Protestants and Orangemen who employed Roman Catholics. He felt he could speak freely on this subject as he had not a Roman Catholic about his own place … He would appeal to Loyalists, therefore, wherever possible to employ good Protestant lads and lassies’.30

Brooke’s speech caused considerable furore amongst the Catholic minority and they had every reason to feel affronted and outraged by his speech. Worse was to follow, however, the following Spring, when speaking at 29 30

Barritt & Carter, The Northern Ireland Problem, p.101. Fermanagh Times, 13 July 1933.

40

Chapter Four

the annual meeting of the Londonderry Unionist Association, Brooke stood by his previous speech and managed to antagonise the Catholic minority even further by saying: I recommend those people who are loyalists not to employ Roman Catholics, ninety-nine per cent of whom are disloyal … I want you to remember one point in regard to the employment of people who are disloyal … You are disfranchising yourselves in that way … You people who are employers have the ball at your feet. If you don’t act properly now, before we know where we are, we shall find ourselves in the minority instead of the majority.31

Hearing these sentiments from a government official must have been quite disconcerting for the Catholic minority across Northern Ireland who were more worried than ever that they would never receive even-handed treatment from the Unionist government. Their fears were further compounded when Prime Minister Craig refused to dissociate himself from Brooke’s speech. Speaking in the Northern Ireland parliament, Craig stated, ‘There is not one of my colleagues who does not entirely agree with him and I would not ask him to withdraw one word he said’.32 Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, Protestant dominance in the business executive and professional life of Northern Ireland stretched far beyond what would be indicated by the proportion of the population belonging to that community. There were a number of reasons for this, some of which have been discussed above. Differences in educational attainment, employer attitudes and a policy of looking after one’s own were just some of the reasons which resulted in Catholics receiving few jobs in Protestantowned firms throughout the province. Although sectarian discrimination was evident in some cases, in many other cases it could be argued that this was thoughtless discrimination. This may have been as a result of sectarian bias creeping into the workplace, whereby a discriminatory recruitment policy had simply become habit and may not have been deliberately intended. Whatever the reasons may have been, it seems clear that the Catholic minority became progressively disadvantaged throughout the period in question. In conclusion, when one examines allegations of Unionist discrimination against Catholics in relation to employment, it is of the utmost importance to look at the two sides of the story. On the surface it may appear that both the Ulster Unionist government and private firms within Northern Ireland 31

Londonderry Sentinel, 20 March 1934, cited in Michael Farrell, Northern Ireland: The Orange State (London, 1976), p.91. 32 Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), Vol.16, 21 March 1934, Col.618.

Allegations of Discrimination in Public and Private Employment

41

were guilty of immense levels of discrimination against Roman Catholics. Although a certain degree of discrimination undoubtedly occurred, it was nowhere near the levels that some commentators have purported it to be. Many traditional accounts of the subject, particularly those with a nationalist bias, tend to forget the fact that a significant number of Catholics refused to recognise the Northern Ireland state and refused to apply for jobs within its civil service. Furthermore, many Catholic K.C.s declined offers of County Court judgeships when offered and very few joined the police force, the R.U.C. In relation to local authorities, however, the situation was markedly different with widespread discrimination against Catholics occurring constantly. Although Nationalist-controlled councils were also guilty of discriminating against Protestants, the fact that Unionist-controlled councils were far more numerous meant that Catholics were consistently at a much greater disadvantage than Protestants across the province. Accusations of discrimination against Catholics within the private sector were much more difficult to prove, although there is evidence which suggests that many Protestant firms were openly discriminatory in their recruitment policies. A fact that is often forgotten, however, is that these were privately-owned firms who were entitled to employ whoever they wished and the fact that this was usually a Protestant merely confirms the fact that they were looking after their own. Finally, it is true that Catholics became increasingly disadvantaged in relation to employment in Northern Ireland throughout the 1920s and 1930s. In many cases this was as a result of blatant and overt sectarian discrimination on behalf of the Unionist government and unionist employers. In many other cases, however, it was reluctance on the part of Catholics to serve under a government which they distrusted and in a state which they did not recognise. Overall, the fact that Roman Catholics constituted a smaller proportion of the population in Northern Ireland ultimately meant that they became increasingly disadvantaged in the area of employment.

CHAPTER FIVE ‘HOUSING A DIVIDED COMMUNITY’1

Housing policy has consistently been a source of conflict and the subject of rigorous debate between unionists and nationalists ever since the foundation of the Northern Ireland state. As was the case with education policy and employment practices, the housing policy of the Ulster Unionist government is generally viewed by observers as having been unfair and perhaps discriminatory towards the Catholic minority in the province. Whether or not this was actually the case will constitute the focus of this chapter. The chapter will assess the housing policy of the respective Ulster Unionist governments between 1920 and 1939 and ascertain whether or not discrimination occurred in the allocation of housing. It will also examine the practices of local authorities, most notably Belfast Corporation, which played an integral role in Northern Ireland’s housing policy throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Finally, the chapter will examine the impact of the various Housing bills introduced by the Stormont parliament during this time and determine how they affected society. It is worth noting at this point, however, that allegations of discrimination with regard to housing scarcely surfaced before the 1950s and are thus, outside the timeframe of this study. Nevertheless, events in the period under review did not occur in isolation. The aim here is to examine the origins of such allegations in the inter-war period in addition to assessing whether or not discrimination existed at this time. In May 1885, the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes found that housing conditions in Belfast and Londonderry were amongst the best in the entire British Isles. The Commission reported that housing conditions in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway were poor whereas ‘In Londonderry a far more satisfying state of things is found…’ and in Belfast ‘the condition seems to be on the whole satisfactory. The borough is the most prosperous in Ireland.’2 These 1

The title for this chapter was obtained from the following source: C.E.B. Brett, Housing a Divided Community (Dublin, 1986). 2 Brett, Housing a Divided Community, p.17.

44

Chapter Five

judgements, of course, may have been misleading given that there were horrendous slums, problems with overcrowding and unsanitary alleyways in the northern cities. Nevertheless, judging by the standards of the time, the Commission found marked differences in the housing situation between Belfast and Londonderry and the rest of the cities in Ireland and Britain.3 After 1883, rural district councils across the country became entitled to government grants in order to build cottages for farm labourers, yet between 1890 and 1919, local authorities throughout Ireland built only 634 of these cottages, including just one lodging house.4 This is merely one example of how local authorities squandered the opportunity to develop a new and successful housing policy. Essentially, the rate of house building and improvement of existing dwellings stagnated due to gross neglect and mismanagement. The fact that a mere fifty years after the Commission’s Report, the housing situation in the province was amongst the worst in the United Kingdom, serves to illustrate the lack of care and planning that went into the government’s housing programme during the first half of the twentieth century. Following the establishment of the Northern Ireland state in 1920, the Ministry of Home Affairs assumed responsibility for housing. As this department was also responsible for justice and public order, it is unsurprising that housing was somewhat neglected in favour of other policy areas. That said, however, the Stormont parliament did succeed in passing a series of Labourers Acts and Housing Acts throughout the 1920s and 1930s. These Labourers Acts, a legacy from the nineteenth century which was continued by the Unionist government, empowered local authorities in rural areas to build labourers’ cottages with government assistance.5 The Housing Acts, of which fourteen were passed between 1923 and 1939, were similar to their British counterparts and provided house-builders with financial incentives.6 While it is not necessary to mention or describe each of the fourteen aforementioned Acts in detail, it is useful to refer to some of the more important pieces of legislation. The first Housing Act, introduced in 1923 for example, came at a time when the new state was struggling to find its financial feet and as a result, it was a relatively cautious piece of legislation.7 At this time, three broad avenues of approach were being taken by politicians and civil servants to deal with 3

Brett, Housing a Divided Community, p.17. Birrell & Murie, Policy and Government in Northern Ireland, p.210. 5 Lawrence, The government of Northern Ireland, p.148. 6 Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.164. 7 Ibid, p.166. 4

‘Housing a Divided Community’

45

Northern Ireland’s housing problem: the construction of new houses, rent restriction and the clearance or betterment of existing slum areas.8 The Housing Acts introduced during this period offered state subsidies to private builders and local authorities and empowered these local authorities to supplement the government grants to the private builders. At parliamentary level, the housing debate cut across religious, social, cultural and indeed, party lines. Given the political climate of the day, it is hardly surprising that M.P.s tended to focus on the needs and concerns of their particular community rather than taking a broad and unbiased approach towards issues. One of the major problems regarding Northern Ireland’s M.P.s and the housing situation during this period, however, was their failure to take advantage of the extensive scope afforded to them to influence policy. Firstly, a substantial number of M.P.s lacked even the most basic information with regard to housing policy and as a result, their contributions to parliamentary debates were often hazy and unclear. For example, a total of ten backbenchers moved only nineteen amendments to only six of the fourteen Housing bills introduced during the period under examination.9 It was quite clear that housing was a divisive issue in Northern Ireland throughout the inter-war years and the failure of government members and opposition M.P.s to take an avid interest in housing policy must be cited as one of the main reasons why the situation deteriorated to such a great extent during the period. In terms of how regional government operated in the province, it is true that the Stormont government’s policies differed greatly from those conducted in Westminster. Housing legislation in the region would demonstrate the influence which certain elements of society held in government matters, as well as demonstrating the extent of power wielded by Belfast Corporation. This, in fact, was a power so extensive that some M.P.s from outside the city felt compelled to ask who actually governed Northern Ireland – the Stormont parliament or Belfast Corporation.10 When one takes a closer look at the actions of the Unionist government during this period, it is clear in many ways that it did not wish to pursue a pro-active housing policy. Although the government followed the Westminster example of providing a subsidy to support private building and placing an increased emphasis on private building up to 1923, it did not follow the shift in emphasis back to local authority provision the following year.11 By 1924, therefore, housing policy in Northern Ireland 8

Lawrence, The government of Northern Ireland, p.151. Buckland, The Factory of Grievances, p.169. 10 Ibid, p.164. 11 Birrell & Murie, Policy and Government in Northern Ireland, p.211. 9

46

Chapter Five

was markedly different to that of the rest of the United Kingdom in that legislation no longer carried the same incentives for local authorities. The shift in emphasis towards private building would have major consequences for the housing situation in the province throughout the following decades. In 1924, the housing shortage in Northern Ireland was estimated at somewhere between 10,000 and 25,000 dwellings, yet by 1943, the report of the Planning Advisory Board estimated that a minimum of 200,000 new houses were required in order to clear the slums and to eliminate overcrowding. It is important to ask why, in such a short period of time, the housing situation deteriorated to such an extent and also which elements of society were most affected by this. Between 1919 and 1939, approximately 50,000 houses were built in Northern Ireland, which equates to just 41 per thousand of population. In contrast, the figures for England and Wales were 100 per thousand of population.12 In both of these regions, local authorities built over a quarter of all houses during the period in question whereas in Northern Ireland the corresponding percentage was only one-twelfth.13 Table 5.1 below provides a breakdown of the 50,000 houses built during the inter-war period and illustrates the extent to which the government favoured private enterprise. Table 5.1: Dwellings Completed in Northern Ireland, 1919-39. Houses Local Authorities 3,839 Private Builders with State financial aid 32,644 Private Builders without State financial aid (approx.) 9,000 Cottages Rural District councils 3,669 Private trust 1,251 TOTAL: 50,403 Source: Ulster Year Book, 1947, p.206.

The question of why local authority involvement was minimal is an integral one in determining how the situation became so severe throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Without doubt, financial constraints were a 12 13

Wilson, Ulster, p.125. C.L. Mowat, Britain between the Wars (London, 1955), p.458.

‘Housing a Divided Community’

47

contributory factor in this. Following devolution, the Stormont parliament took some time to find its feet and establish itself. As a result, the economic situation in the province was ultimately inferior to that of England, Scotland and Wales at the time. In addition to this, many councils were disinterested in the housing issue. This was especially true for rural districts. The 1923 Labourers Act offered such generous financial assistance to local authorities that approximately 3,000 cottages could have been built in the 32 rural councils across the province. Instead, only 21 of the 32 councils actually approved such schemes, resulting in a mere 1,858 cottages being built between 1923 and 1927.14 In subsequent years, the government was unable to provide such generous terms of borrowing and building stagnated as a result. The terms on offer to tenants in Northern Ireland were generally poorer in comparison with those offered in other regions in the United Kingdom. R.B. Adams, Chairman of Portrush Urban District Council, argued in the Belfast Newsletter on 14 November 1929, that ‘the government should stop talking about providing improved housing accommodation for the very poor if the housing grant of £100 is all they are prepared to give’.15 Although the terms may have been menial, the failure to avail of the government’s financial assistance in those early years must be viewed as a missed opportunity on the part of local authorities. Between 1919 and 1939, a total of 3,477 labourers’ cottages were built in Northern Ireland, with almost half of these being constructed in the last two years alone. It is worth noting that most of these were located in just three counties – Antrim, Down and Londonderry. Not one cottage was built in Fermanagh, an area which was predominantly Catholic and nationalist in its population.16 Cahir Healy, the prominent Nationalist MP for Fermanagh and Tyrone, regularly argued in parliament for the building and improvement of working class housing in Enniskillen, where the council was under Unionist control.17 Whether or not this lack of building is an illustration of discrimination against the Catholics of Fermanagh is open to debate, however, many Catholics construed it as such. In the towns, the housing policy of local authorities was derisory at best. Out of the 34,312 houses built during the inter-war period, local councils were responsible for just 2,166 of these, with private builders 14

Lawrence, The government of Northern Ireland, p.148. PRONI, HA/60/1/87, Housing Act 1929, press cuttings. 16 J.M. Mogey, Rural Life in Northern Ireland (London, 1947), p.34. 17 Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), vol.9, 7 November 1928, cols.3022-24. 15

48

Chapter Five

accounting for the substantial remainder.18 The main reason behind this abject failure stemmed from the government’s policy of over-reliance on private enterprise. It hoped to stimulate private enterprise to produce a housing surplus, thereby allowing the law of supply and demand to reduce house prices and rents. Such a policy was in line with the Unionist government’s general economic outlook and the widely held belief that the favourable housing situation prior to 1920 had been achieved solely by private builders.19 Such a level of reliance on private enterprise, however, was intended as only a short term solution in the early 1920s and while it was gradually phased out in Britain, the policy remained in Northern Ireland until the end of the 1930s. The government policy of favouring private enterprise can thus provide an explanation as to why the housing situation deteriorated rapidly during the 1920s and 1930s. By not taking complete responsibility for the situation, the Stormont government had a much lesser influence over housing policy in Northern Ireland than the Westminster government had in Britain. Although the Ulster Unionist government was guilty of a lack of energy, imagination and foresight, the local authorities across the province must also shoulder some of the blame – none more so than Belfast Corporation. During debates on housing legislation, it was often suggested that the concerns and demands of Belfast Corporation dominated proceedings to a large extent. Prime Minister Craig was constantly attempting to keep the relationship between parliament and the council relatively harmonious but this often proved difficult.20. Of the 28,450 houses built in the Belfast county borough during the inter-war period, the vast majority of these were built by private enterprise and interestingly, none were located in planned housing estates. Instead, they were placed at random locations in the city suburbs, where there was inadequate shopping, cultural and recreational facilities for the public.21 This, naturally, caused much consternation amongst impoverished Protestants and Catholics who were on the margins of society. By the early 1920s, Belfast Corporation had begun to gain a reputation for being more concerned with private gain rather than the good of the people of Northern Ireland and soon after, amidst accusations of inefficiency and corruption, allegations of a housing scandal arose within

18

Lawrence, The government of Northern Ireland, p.149. Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), vol.3, 6 November 1923, col.1749. 20 Harkness, Northern Ireland since 1920, p.72. 21 Ibid. 19

‘Housing a Divided Community’

49

the Corporation.22 In June 1925, Craig instructed R.D. Megaw, former Parliamentary Secretary for Home Affairs and the man who was soon to conduct the inquiry into the housing affairs of Belfast Corporation, to ‘bear in mind that the city represents in many respects one half of Northern Ireland and therefore requires careful handling’.23 He was, of course, referring to the Protestants of Northern Ireland. Megaw’s subsequent report in April 1926, irrespective of Craig’s warning, provided a damning indictment of the Corporation’s housing committee. Evidence of inadequate accounting, failure to advertise tenders and numerous other acts of gross negligence were uncovered by Megaw, who also reported that housing sites were chosen with a view to ‘profit to the vendor and not suitability for working-class housing’.24 It is unsurprising, therefore, that a series of resignations and prosecutions followed and soon after, the whole administration of the city came under examination. The housing scandal revealed how ill-equipped the Corporation was to run and administer the affairs of a city and the episode may even have served to reinforce existing prejudices against the involvement of local authorities in housing policy.25 Overall, the episode uncovered evidence of overt discrimination against the impoverished members of society, both Catholic and Protestant. The fact, however, that Catholics were considerably more disadvantaged than Protestants meant that they suffered most as a result of the housing scandal. The Housing Act passed in 1931, unfortunately, achieved very little. J.G. Calvert, an expert on housing policy, explained that ‘while making statutory provision regarding slum clearance, it did not provide any grant from government to local authorities. The money wasn’t available and the Act was a dead letter’.26 The framing of the 1933 Housing Act, once again, highlighted the importance of outside influences on government policy. The Act contained two new provisions which members on both sides of the Unionist/Nationalist political divide had long been campaigning for. Firstly, the idea of rent control for subsidised houses was finally agreed upon and secondly, low-interest loans were made available for house building. Only a year previously, Dawson Bates, Minister for Home Affairs, while rejecting demands for rent control, had told parliament: 22

PRONI, HA/60/1/66, Belfast Corporation allegations of maladministration. PRONI, CAB 9B/45/1, Craig to Megaw, 5 June 1924. 24 PRONI, HA/60/1/34, Belfast Housing Inquiry: comments and observations. 25 I. Budge & C. O’Leary, Belfast: Approach to Crisis: A Study of Belfast Politics, 1603-1970 (London, 1973), p.145. 26 J.G. Calvert, quoted in Derek Birrell and Alan Murie (eds.), ‘Housing Policy in Northern Ireland’, Community Forum, no.2, (1972), cited in Wilson, Ulster, p.125. 23

50

Chapter Five

‘After all, builders are not philanthropists, and people are not prepared to invest their money in houses which are subject to restricting conditions of this kind’.27 The new terms, however, were quite meagre in that local authorities were empowered to grant their own housing subsidies and only for a limited period. This highlights, once again, the extent to which the Stormont government showed little enthusiasm or leadership with regard to housing policy throughout the province. Essentially, it was not until the aborted 1939 Housing Act that the urgent need for rent restriction was fully recognised at government level. The failure by the government and local authorities to channel resources towards the poorest sections of the community undoubtedly contributed to the dismal housing situation across the region. In 1938, the Ministry of Home Affairs was forced to acknowledge that: While the subsidy given under the Housing Acts had been successful in getting houses built for people able to pay an economic rent, the problem of providing accommodation for the poorer classes, mostly residing in houses more or less unfit for habitation, remained.28

A far more generous Housing Act was introduced in 1939, which offered ample subsidies to local authorities.29 These subsidies were comparable with those formerly given in England and Wales under the successful Wheatley Act of 1924. The introduction of this new Housing Act was interrupted by the outbreak of war in 1939, however, and never became effective. By the time the war broke out, it was estimated that 87 per cent of rural dwellings in Northern Ireland were still without piped water, while gas and electricity provision was grossly inadequate.30 The situation in the towns, where there was an urgent need for workers’ houses at low rents, was just as grim. While this chapter has discussed at length the evolution of the housing situation in Northern Ireland between 1920 and 1939, the actual subject of discrimination has not yet been considered fully. The main reason for this was outlined at the beginning of the chapter when it was stated that allegations of discrimination against the Catholic minority rarely surfaced before the 1950s. As a result, there is scant evidence available by which to investigate whether or not such discrimination occurred during the interwar period. One can, however, examine the 1926 census to determine that 27

Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), vol.14, 15 March 1932, col.307. Report on the Administration of Local Government Services, 1937-38, Cmd.200 (1938), p.55. 29 PRONI, HLG/3/5, Housing Act (Northern Ireland), 1939. 30 Harkness, Northern Ireland since 1920, p.71. 28

‘Housing a Divided Community’

51

there was a serious overcrowding problem throughout the province – a problem so severe that 18 per cent of the population lived at a density of over two people per room.31 The two classes worst affected by this overcrowding were the small farmers and the working classes, both urban and rural, of which Roman Catholics would have constituted a significant and indeed disproportionate percentage. Furthermore, it has been suggested that in some cases, local authorities preferred to build no houses at all rather than finding themselves building houses for their political opponents. In many instances, councils believed that by completing building schemes for both sections of the community, they ran the risk of upsetting voting balances that were already precarious.32 Although it was published a number of decades after the period under review here, it is worth noting the following passage from the 1969 Disturbances in Northern Ireland Report, given that the view was undoubtedly just as pertinent in the 1920s and 1930s as it was in 1969: In the matter of local authority housing there has frequently been what is called a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ among members of certain local authorities that houses in Catholic wards would be allocated to Catholics by Catholic Councillors, and conversely in Protestant wards.33

Unfortunately, the first Northern Ireland housing survey was not conducted until 1943 and is thus marginally outside the timeframe of this study. Nevertheless, it is essential to comment briefly on its findings given that it presents us with the first real evidence concerning the housing situation in Northern Ireland in the twentieth century. The Planning Advisory Board estimated that 229,500 of the 323,000 dwellings across the province were in urgent need of repair.34 The report went on to uncover deficiencies with regard to materials, accommodation standards, fittings and services in new dwellings. The extent of the problem was highlighted in a memorandum from the Minister for Health and Local Government in July 1944 which stated, ‘As a result of the housing survey in 1943, it is essential to the prestige of the government that something more must be done as quickly as possible.’35

31

Ulster Year Book, 1932, pp 151-53. Harkness, Northern Ireland since 1920, p.71. 33 Disturbances in Northern Ireland (Cameron Report), Cmd.532, (Belfast, 1969), para.128. 34 Housing in Northern Ireland: Interim Report of the Planning Advisory Board, Cmd.224, (Belfast, 1944). 35 PRONI, CAB/4/669/6, Cabinet Conclusions, 19 July 1944. 32

52

Chapter Five

The official government response was to introduce another Housing Act in 1945 which provided, for the first time, for a large expansion of subsidised local authority housing.36 Unfortunately for the Ulster Unionist government, this extension of the welfare state unwittingly paved the way for discrimination to occur in the allocation of public housing. Thereafter, there existed an ever-present threat of discrimination in housing – a classic example of how a policy with a humane and benign objective could have an unwanted effect. In conclusion, the fact that discrimination against Catholics with regard to housing occurred in Northern Ireland after the Second World War is not in doubt.37 It is, however, the inter-war and not the post-war period that concerns us here. The years 1920 to 1939 were undoubtedly marred by an unimaginative and lethargic housing policy on behalf of the Ulster Unionist government. Devolution had enabled Stormont to develop a distinctive and successful housing policy, yet this opportunity was not taken. Although it introduced fourteen Housing Acts during this time, the government was still guilty of playing a peripheral role in Northern Ireland’s housing policy. Instead, local authorities were expected to take direct responsibility for housing, although without government guidance or adequate financial support, it is unsurprising that their record was also quite poor. In terms of overt discrimination against one particular section of society, it is difficult to conclude whether or not this occurred with regard to housing policy in Northern Ireland in the 1920s and 1930s. Certainly, the poor in society became disadvantaged as a result of the government’s failure to realise the extent of the housing problem. This, however, affected both Protestants and Catholics equally. In a free market such as housing, there would have been little scope for allocating houses in a discriminatory manner although this would not have excluded the growth and establishment of separate communities and the resultant perception that residents of the opposite faith were unwanted. Ordinarily, the private housing market would be indifferent to political affiliation or religious denomination and given the lack of substantial evidence relating to house allocation during this period, it is difficult to assess whether or not one particular section of society was given preferential treatment over the other. Expenditure on housing, however, would naturally reflect inequality in the distribution of income, just like the location of certain housing may have had connections to the redrawing of county boundaries. These raise 36

Wilson, Ulster, p.126. Disturbances in Northern Ireland (Cameron Report), Cmd.532, (Belfast, 1969), para.140. 37

‘Housing a Divided Community’

53

further questions as to how other areas of possible discrimination mentioned earlier, such as employment and the gerrymandering of electoral areas, may have links with discrimination in housing policy. Furthermore, those who were in control of the allocation of local authority housing would have been in positions of power and were thus able to reward their friends, political supporters and co-religionists, if they wished to do so.38 The fact that a means of controlling such behaviour did not appear until near the end of the period of Unionist rule, essentially means that there was ample opportunity for sectarian discrimination to take place. Whether or not this actually occurred during the inter-war period is debatable, given the lack of evidence available. The judgement of Charles Brett, a former Chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, is worth noting here. In his book, Housing A Divided Community, he states; ‘It is my view that the majority of councils did not consciously or deliberately engage in any kind of discrimination; but a minority did so, and thereby discredited the whole’.39 Ultimately, the legacy of housing policy in Northern Ireland between 1920 and 1939 will forever be the failure of the Ulster Unionist government to create a policy which could have benefited all sections of society, regardless of class, culture or religious denomination. One leading commentator on British social policy at this time has concluded that in relation to Northern Ireland, ‘…of all the missed opportunities of the inter-war period, perhaps the failures in housing were the most unpardonable’.40

38

Wilson, Ulster, p.128. Brett, Housing A Divided Community, p.81. 40 B.B. Gilbert, British Social Policy, 1914-1939 (New York, 1970), p.203. 39

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION

The history of Northern Ireland has been a deeply complex and often tempestuous one, yet it never ceases to instill a deep and lasting interest in those who choose to study it. The years 1920 to 1939 marked the formative stages of the Ulster Unionist government’s period of control over the province and have thus provided a suitable timeframe for this volume. During this period under review, the Unionist government was widely accused of engaging in a policy of overt discrimination against the Catholic and nationalist minority throughout Northern Ireland. The research question that has been posed as part of this volume is whether or not such levels of discrimination actually occurred throughout the region at this time. If the minority were, in fact, discriminated against, it is important to ask how and why this happened. Similarly, if the claims of the minority are proven to be over-exaggerated or indeed fabricated, it is essential to uncover the real truth with regard to these accusations. By examining different areas of government policy, it has been possible to assess the validity of these nationalist claims in a number of different policy areas. At the outset, the study illustrated how the political system evolved in Northern Ireland, as well as providing an insight into the policies of the Ulster Unionist Party, some of the individuals involved with the party and their political ideologies. It also alluded to the redrawing and redistribution of electoral areas or gerrymandering, as it was more commonly known. This government policy of placing the Catholic and nationalist population at a clear and obvious disadvantage in terms of electoral representation paved the way for other widespread acts of discrimination to potentially occur in areas such as education, employment and public housing. There has existed an inbuilt Protestant and unionist majority in Northern Ireland ever since the conception of the state in 1920. This, unsurprisingly, led to the development of a siege mentality amongst those who have sought to maintain the union with Britain at all costs. They set out to achieve this by engaging in practices which would serve to benefit Protestants and unionists throughout the province while simultaneously

56

Chapter Six

keeping the Catholic and nationalist minority population at bay in terms of power - both political and social. The 1922 Act which abolished proportional representation in local government elections can justifiably be cited as one of the first instances of overt discrimination on the part of the Ulster Unionist government in Northern Ireland. Under the P.R. system of voting, the nationalist minority were protected from possible unionist over-representation, at least to a certain extent. The new system resulted in the alienation and underrepresentation of nationalists across all areas of society, depriving them of local power and patronage. Most importantly, however, it set the scene for some of the most immoral and ruinous acts of gerrymandering to occur throughout the region. Examples, such as those alluded to in Dungannon and Londonderry, serve to illustrate the consequences of the disempowerment of local nationalist majorities. By turning unionist minorities into majorities in definite nationalist strongholds such as these areas, the Stormont government demonstrated how it could so easily manipulate the electoral process and maintain such high levels of political hegemony and supremacy throughout the province. Having established Northern Ireland as a Protestant and one-party state, Prime Minister Craig and his Ulster Unionist government found themselves in a position whereby they could effectively govern the lives of the one-third Catholic, nationalist, powerless minority. With regard to education, it is not in any way conclusive that Roman Catholics were discriminated against by the Unionist government. While many of the Catholic grievances were genuine and indeed warranted, one cannot help but assume that a lot of their concerns could have been alleviated had they become more involved in the decision making process. This, of course, raises the question as to whether or not they would have been allowed such levels of involvement. The consistent refusal to recognise the state and in particular, the failure to send a representative to the Lynn Committee in 1921 must be cited as errors on the part of the Catholic hierarchy. Having squandered a number of chances to influence policy, Catholic accusations of discrimination appear somewhat diluted. After 1925, however, legislation clearly began to favour Protestants and the two school systems which emerged were far from equitable. Although the Stormont government could hardly be accused of being overly vindictive or oppressive with regard to education, it was certainly far too responsive to the concerns and demands of outside influences such as unionist supporters, the Orange Order and the various Protestant churches. Some of the terms and provisions of subsequent Education Acts proved antagonistic to the Catholic minority and what resulted was effectively the

Conclusion

57

endowment of Protestantism by the state. For this reason, it is clear that although the Catholic accusations of discrimination may have been overexaggerated, they were certainly not without foundation. The situation regarding discrimination in public and private employment is one from which the Unionist government cannot justifiably defend itself. This was one of the areas in which the most blatant and obvious cases of discrimination against Catholics and nationalists occurred. The evidence presented concerning the number of Catholics employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and on other public bodies appears to be shockingly discriminatory at first. Upon close examination, however, it is clear that such figures are quite often distorted, given the fact that many Catholics refused to apply for jobs in the civil service and even turned down such positions. Unfortunately, such hyperbolic claims by some nationalist authors have perhaps lessened the influence of genuine Catholic grievances, which were certainly justified and warranted in the majority of cases. In relation to private employment, discrimination has been much more difficult to prove, given that employers were free to hire whoever they believed to be the most suitable candidate for the job. The fact that the successful applicant was almost exclusively a co-religionist of the employer cannot be deemed sectarian or discriminatory, even though this was often exactly the case. With regard to private employment, the belief among Protestants of holding a superior social position to Catholics may have resulted in ordinary, sensible Protestant employers engaging in accidental discrimination. What is far more likely, however, is that employers were following the advice of their elected leaders in government in adopting a discriminatory attitude against Catholics in relation to recruitment and promotion policy. Quite often, one can go too far in attributing genuine hardship to deliberate animosity or discrimination. It could be argued that Catholic and nationalist allegations of discrimination in relation to public housing would be a possible example of this. Without doubt, the Unionist government was hugely unimaginative and even negligent in its housing policy during the period 1920 to 1939. Devolution had presented the new government with a golden opportunity to develop a booming and successful housing policy, yet this was not taken. The accusation, however, that Catholics were unfairly discriminated against in this area is not entirely true. Instead, it was the poor in society, both Protestant and Catholic, who became disadvantaged as a result of the Stormont government’s abysmal housing policy. This is a prime example of the need to distinguish between overt discrimination and structural inequality. Although there were certain cases of discrimination against Catholics in

58

Chapter Six

the allocation of houses and the location of planned housing estates, by and large, the poorer members of the Protestant community were affected just as badly. The structural inequality that existed in Northern Ireland at this time meant that the poorer members of society, regardless of their religious denomination, suffered most as a result of any degree of discrimination that may have occurred in relation to housing. When one examines a topic such as alleged discrimination against a minority group, it is of the utmost importance to approach the study with an open mind. In a society as complex and convoluted as Northern Ireland’s, this can often prove difficult. There appears to have been a distinct lack of understanding of reasonable opposing viewpoints amongst members of both the unionist and nationalist communities. Both groups have held deeply contrasting views regarding accusations of discrimination against the minority in Northern Ireland during the period under review. This study has found that neither view can be justifiably sustained. While the Unionist government was undoubtedly guilty of gross acts of discrimination against the Catholic and nationalist minority in many instances, the actual level of discrimination was nowhere near that which the nationalist community purported it to be. This, however, does not excuse the fact that the minority did become increasingly disadvantaged in almost all areas of society during this period of Unionist rule. The fact that most of the complaints originated in areas west of the Bann and that discrimination appears to have been more prominent in some policy areas than others would indicate that the nationalist community were deliberately targeted. That said, however, Protestants and unionists were the inbuilt population majority in Northern Ireland at the time. If Nationalists had been in the majority, would they have engaged in similar discriminatory practices? We will never know. The study of alleged discrimination by the Unionist government between 1920 and 1939 is undoubtedly an intriguing one amongst historians given that it has been largely ignored in recent times. The fact that this particular volume has been limited by access to primary sources means that there is much more work to be conducted on this oft-neglected topic. Given these restrictions, overall, this volume has shown that although widespread discrimination against the Catholic and Nationalist minority in the province did in fact occur, it was not as straight-forward or as obvious as some nationalist commentators have presented it as. Yet the fact that the parliamentary debates from the period in question are filled with charge and counter-charge relating to discrimination would indicate just how sensitive a topic it was in the region during the inter-war years. The Ulster Unionist government undoubtedly inherited a disadvantaged

Conclusion

59

and largely divided society in 1921. In some policy areas, the government was certainly engaged in overt discrimination against the minority, however, in other policy areas it could be argued that the government did not cause discrimination but rather allowed it to occur. Overall, it seems clear that the Unionist government did little to relieve the disadvantages in Northern Ireland society at the time but merely helped to confirm and deepen the existing divisions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources I. Manuscript Materials Public Record Office of Northern Ireland Cabinet Conclusions: CAB/4/72/16, Cabinet Conclusions, 28 February 1923. CAB/4/98/21, Cabinet Conclusions, 10 January 1924. CAB/9A/90/1, Cabinet Conclusions, 18 January 1924. CAB/4/258/18, Cabinet Conclusions, 15 April 1930. CAB/4/260/18, Cabinet Conclusions, 7 May 1930. CAB/9A/90/1, Cabinet Conclusions, 14 August 1934. CAB/9A/90/1, Cabinet Conclusions, 8 November 1934. CAB/4/669/6, Cabinet Conclusions, 19 July 1944. Cabinet Papers: CAB/9B/45/1, Craig to Megaw, 5 June 1924. CAB/9B/13/2, Bates to Craig, 24 July 1934. Ministry of Home Affairs: HA/51/4, Londonderry Gerrymandering. HA/60/1/34, Belfast Housing Inquiry: comments and observations. HA/60/1/66, Belfast Corporation allegations of maladministration. HA/60/1/87, Housing Act 1929, press cuttings. Ministry of Health and Local Government: HLG/3/5, Housing Act (Northern Ireland), 1939. HLG/4/106, Inquiries into reconstitution of divisions. HLG/4/115, Dungannon and Gerrymandering. Ministry of Education: ED/32/A/1/17, Education Bill (Northern Ireland) 1923, Parliamentary Secretary File.

62

Discrimination in Northern Ireland, 1920-1939: Myth or Reality?

Local Authority Papers: LA/1/3AG/44, Armagh County Council Education Correspondence. Prime Minister’s Papers: PM/9/4, Craig to Spender, 21 September 1922.

II. Printed Materials Official Publications All-party Anti-Partition Conference, One Vote Equals Two: A study in the Practice and Purpose of Boundary Manipulation, (Dublin, 1950). Disturbances in Northern Ireland (Cameron Report), (Belfast, 1969). Housing in Northern Ireland: Interim Report of the Planning Advisory Board, (Belfast, 1944). Interim Report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry on Police Organisation in Northern Ireland, (Belfast, 1922). Report on the Administration of Local Government Services, 1937-38, (Belfast, 1938). Ulster Year Book, 1932. Ulster Year Book, 1947. The Government of Ireland Act, (Dublin, 1920). The Anglo-Irish Treaty, (Dublin, 1921). Education Act (Northern Ireland), (Belfast, 1923). Education Act (Northern Ireland), (Belfast, 1930). Northern Ireland Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons). Newspapers and Periodicals Belfast Newsletter. Fermanagh Times. Freemans Journal. Irish Independent. Irish News. Mid-Ulster Mail.

Bibliography

63

Secondary Sources Akenson, D.H., Education and Emnity: The control of schooling in Northern Ireland 1920-1950, (New York, 1973). Barritt, Denis P. & Charles F. Carter, The Northern Ireland Problem: A Study in Group Relations (Oxford, 1962). Bew, Paul, Peter Gibbon & Henry Patterson, The State in Northern Ireland, 1921-72: Political Forces and Social Classes (Manchester, 1979). Birrell, Derek & Alan Murie, Policy and Government in Northern Ireland: Lessons of Devolution (Dublin, 1980). Brett, C.E.B., Housing a Divided Community (Dublin, 1986). Buckland, Patrick, A History of Northern Ireland (Dublin, 1981). —. The Factory of Grievances: Devolved Government in Northern Ireland, 1921-39 (Dublin, 1979). Budge, I. & C. O’Leary, Belfast: Approach to Crisis: A Study of Belfast Politics, 1603-1970 (London, 1973). Carson, William A., Ulster and the Irish Republic (Belfast, 1956). Cormack, R.J. & R.D. Osborne (eds.), Religion, Education and Employment: Aspects of Equal Opportunity in Northern Ireland (Belfast, 1983) Farrell, Michael, Northern Ireland: The Orange State (London, 1976). Fennell, Desmond, The Northern Catholic: An Inquiry (Dublin, 1958). Gallagher, Frank, The Indivisible Island: The story of the partition of Ireland (London, 1957). Gilbert, B.B., British Social Policy, 1914-1939 (New York, 1970). Harkness, David, Northern Ireland since 1920 (Dublin, 1983). Harrison, Henry, Ulster and the British Empire 1939: Help or Hindrance? (London, 1939). Hepburn, A.C., ‘Employment and Religion in Belfast, 1901-1951, in R.J. Cormack & R.D. Osborne (eds.), Religion, Education and Employment: Aspects of Equal Opportunity in Northern Ireland (Belfast, 1983). —. The Conflict of Nationality in Modern Ireland (London, 1980). Hewitt, Christopher, ‘Catholic grievances, Catholic nationalism and violence in Northern Ireland during the Civil Rights Period: a reconsideration’ in The British Journal of Sociology, Vol.32, No.3, (September, 1981). Johnson, David, ‘The Northern Ireland Economy 1914-39’ in L. Kennedy & P. Ollerenshaw (eds.), An Economic History of Ulster 1820-1939 (Manchester, 1985).

64

Discrimination in Northern Ireland, 1920-1939: Myth or Reality?

Lawrence, R.J., The government of Northern Ireland: Public Finance and Public Services, 1921-1964 (London, 1965). Mogey, J.M., Rural Life in Northern Ireland (London, 1947). Mowat, C.L., Britain between the Wars (London, 1955). Murray, R.C. & R.D. Osborne, ‘Educational Qualifications and Religious Affiliation’ in R.J. Cormack & R.D. Osborne (eds.), Religion, Education and Employment: Aspects of Equal Opportunity in Northern Ireland (Belfast, 1983). Shea, Patrick, Voices and The Sound of Drums (Belfast, 1981). Whyte, John, ‘How much discrimination was there under the Unionist regime?’ in Tom Gallagher & James O’Connell (eds.) Contemporary Irish Studies, (Manchester, 1983). Wilson, A., P.R. Urban Elections in Ulster in 1920 (London, 1972). Wilson, Tom, Ulster: Conflict and Consent (Oxford, 1989).