Life
fl. 1934-1938; b. Ballymoney; son of James Brown Armour; editor
of The Northern Whig; wrote a life of his father as Armour of
Ballymoney (1934), dealing with such questions as the Irish Land War,
the 1859 Religious Revival in Ulster, Edward Carson and the Ulster Volunteers
and Sir Roger Casement’s nationalist career; also Facing the Irish
Question (1935) and Ulster, Ireland, Britain: A Forgotten Trust (1938).
[ top ]
Works
Armour of Ballymoney (London: Duckworth 1934), 393pp.; Facing
the Irish Question (London: Duckworth 1935); Ulster, Ireland, Britain:
A Forgotten Trust (London: Duckworth 1938) [infra].
[ top ]
Criticism
J. S. Crone, ‘Sgéala ó Chathair na gCeó’, review
of Armour of Ballymoney, Irish Book Lover, Vol. XXII (Sept-Oct
1934), pp.102-03 [infra]; D. Ó C., review
of Armour of Ballymoney, Irish Book Lover, Vol. XXIII (July-Aug.
1935), pp. 100-01; J. J. H., review of Facing the Irish Question, Irish Book Lover, Vol. XXIII (Sept-Oct 1935), p 120; ‘T.’ review
of Mankind at the Watershed, Irish Book Lover, Vol. XXIV
(Nov.-Dec 1936), p 141.
[ top ]
Commentary
J. S. Crone, ‘Sgéala
ó Chathair na gCeó’, Irish Book Lover, Vol. XXII (Sept-Oct 1934), , writes: “Mr. W. S. Armour, formerly editor of The Northern Whig, … I have read the proofs [of Armour of Ballymoney]
and am well pleased with the treatment.” (pp.102-03.)
[ top ]
Quotations
Ulster, Ireland, Britain: A Forgotten Trust (1938): “The Uses of Fiction” [Chap. VII]: ‘Century after
century I see nothing in the arrangements made for Ireland (prior to modern
remedial legislation) which had anything to do with either the welfare
of the Irish people, the welfare of the setters as a whole or with the
military protection of Great Britain. This “garrison” theory
was devised, as Lecky points out, to secure monopolies in power. Nor as
late as 1920 would any soldier have devised a winding frontier on a continental
scale in a small [82] island for the supposed protection of great Britain.
The purpose of the Act of Union was to maintain the ascendancy of a small
caste at the cost of a whole population presumed hostile. So local political
considerations, and nothing else, determined the are excluded from Ireland
in 1920, with the collaboration of allied agencies in Britain. / Originally,
of course, as is the case with all aggressors, the arrangements made to
secure power were of necessity military, and the original fears never
died down on the part of the organisations, nor yet the sense of wrong-doing,
with which they infected whole innocent populations. What has been remarkable
from the beginning is the determination that the original wrongs must
never be righted. One might have supposed that in seven hundred and fifty
years there would have been a place for repentance, some effort to drop
the load of centuries of guilt. But this was and is the unpardonable sin,
and indeed has amounted to High Treason, if anybody either in Britain
or Ireland has made any effort to right the wrong. For North East Ulster
the Imperial parliament has prevented even the opportunity of repentance.
/ From the eighteenth century onward the chief burden of responsibility
for Ireland’s wrongs was placed on Landlords, but here the Imperial Parliament
by abolishing the Dublin Parliament made itself directly responsible for
fresh breaches of trust. “Every one of the Acts of parliament dealing
with Irish land, between the Union and 1870”, says Lord Morley, “was
in the interest [83] of the landlord and against the tenant.” The
Acts of 1870 and 1881, though supposed to favour the tenant, were each
construed in favour of the landlord. Lord Morley puts the blame on ignorance
at Westminster, and suggests that British Cabinets made Irish Land Laws
out of their own heads. if this was the case they worked with mathematical
accuracy in favour of one side.’ (pp.82-84.) Further: ‘Britain's first
duty is surely to the Irish, as she admits that her first duty in India
is to the Indians, not to the Planters: though neither are excluded from
justice.’ (Ibid., p.205).
[ top ]