Irish Parliament

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries various fraternal brotherhoods and secret societies flourished in Ireland. They were largely loose associations united in their political, economic or quasi-religious aspirations. Many were formed as a result of parochial events, had limited appeal, and soon faded from glory but some emerged to become national institutions, for the most part legal but occasionally ill-legal, depending on how the authorities in Dublin Castle viewed their activities. The largest of these organisations are well known and their activities well documented, especially their political and folk history but less well known are the smaller fraternities particularly those that were non¬-political.

One of these brotherhoods which eschewed religious and political debate was the society known as ‘The Ancient and Most Benevolent Order of the Friendly Brothers of Saint Patrick’. The Friendly Brothers were much smaller and always more exclusive in their membership. They recruited ‘like-minded gentlemen’ from the higher professions, senior clergy and military officers and unlike some other fraternities they made no extravagant claim as to their origins, save that it was formed in a small town in the West of Ireland possible during the reign of James I (1603-1625). Its stated aim was to: promote and encourage, among Men, the practice of all the social virtues and to suppress the barbarous practice of dueling [sic] which was unknown to the politest and bravest nations. Whether the Friendly Brothers had any effect on reducing the number of affairs of honour is doubtful, as according to many accounts in contemporary newspapers, duels became almost a popular pastime in eighteenth-century Ireland.

This Brief History to the Friendly Brother Order, published in 2017 is a prequel to The Friendly Brothers of Saint Patrick and Associational Culture in Eighteenth-century Ireland by Charles Horton (forthcoming).

One of the first modern mass nationalist parties, the Irish
Parliamentary Party [IPP] dominated Irish politics for almost half a
century until its defeat in the 1918 general election. Although long
designated nationalists by 1918, the party and its supporters encompassed a broad alliance entailing strong nationalists and those with affinity for an imperialist-nationalist vision. The IPP based its campaign on a demand for home rule — an accommodation whereby
Ireland would gain its own parliament with jurisdiction over domestic
affairs while remaining part of the United Kingdom. Although the
demands of Irish unionists put the unity of the country in doubt,
home rule legislation was on the British statute book in 1914 when
IPP leader John Redmond called on Irishmen to enlist in the British
army to help safeguard home rule when hostilities ended. The war,
however, provided radical nationalists with an opportunity to plan
and launch a rebellion at Easter 1916. While it has been argued that
mass nationalism combining cultural and political nationalism was a
relatively late development in the Irish case, this article examines how
the IPP’s electoral defeat in 1918 interacted with events at home and
abroad. It analyses the language and propaganda of both the IPP and
its nationalist opponent, Sinn Féin, to examine how both parties
framed their campaigns in the context of the post-war peace conference. The use of continental examples in the campaigns of both is
analysed to assess contemporary perceptions and the ability of Sinn
Féin to turn the Wilsonian message into a propaganda victory. While
stressing the importance of domestic events in the decline of the IPP,
this article sets the Irish election in a European context by examining
how Sinn Féin sought to claim the language of self-determination for
itself and disassociate the IPP from the Wilsonian message.

The first 60 officers who joined the Irish Legion (la Légion Irlandaise) in 1803 and 1804. Overwhelmingly Irish born at this point, the Irish would never again enjoy such dominance, since the first wave would exhaust the available supply of officer material in France and the corps would become more and more dependent upon non-Irish elements.

This chapter offers a study of the process of translation and adaptation of the late medieval history of the Expugnatio Hibernica (c.1189) of Gerald of Wales/Giraldus Cambrensis (c.1146-c.1223). It explores the circulation of a seminal literary work outside of its original temporal and geographical context. The study focuses on various approaches to vernacular translation and the mechanics of this translation with reference to alterations, additions and omissions which shape the narrative for a new late medieval audience.

This article outlines some connections between Counties Roscommon and Cork such with Sir Richard Boyle, Sir William Wilde, Viscount Doneraile, Earl of Kingston, Earl of Mount Cashell, Arthur Hyde and Douglas Hyde and Lord Castletown among others.

2015 saw the 800 th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta. Beyond Britain, especially in the phase of decolonisation and state-building, the Magna Carta, British institutions and laws spread across the globe. As Linda Colley has recently observed, 'Although Britain has no written constitution, British lawyers, civil servants, and diplomats have been conspicuously active in writing constitutions for other countries'. 1 Arguably the most important British figure in this process during the 20 th century was Sir Ivor Jennings. One of Britain's most prolific and prominent constitutional scholars, Jennings was the driving force behind this process. Aside from being the author of well-known texts including The Law and the Constitution, Cabinet Government, Parliament, and The Approach to Self-Government (all still in print) and a distinguished Cambridge Don, Jennings was also highly influential as a constitutional adviser across the world. In particular he had a substantial influence on constitutions in the 'New Commonwealth' from the late 1930s till the 1960s, and his advice was sought throughout the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom when it came to constitutional matters. Jennings has been credited by legal scholars, like Martin Loughlin, with being one of the founders of the 'functionalist' method in public law. 2 This approach sees the analysis of politics and state institutions as central to the study of public law. The arguments below, delivered from a lecture given on 16 March 1960 to an unknown audience, detail a further strand of the functionalist thought by showing how Jennings saw the British common law tradition as one of converting history into law. His paper articulates and ultimately argues the wisdom and pragmatic superiority of the British concept of parliamentary sovereignty where the legislature is infused with