The Curragh Mutiny
By Tomas O Raghallaigh
What the historians refer to as the so-called Curragh
Mutiny was neither belittlingly `so-called' nor did it
happen at the Curragh. It was a full blown mutiny of
the British Army's senior generals at the very heart of
military power at the War Office in London.
The truth about Bloody Sunday has still to be
uncovered. The truth about the British Army's role
during the Ulster Workers strike in 1974 is well known
- it simply made itself `not available'. The power of
the British Army to influence or sabotage the present
peace process, by the use of its SAS `dirty tricks'
brigade and its MI5 and MI6 intelligence services,
should not be discounted.
There is no written British constitution. The Queen is
Commander-in-Chief of the British Army. On the eve of
the 21st century, the UK is still ruled by a
semi-feudal system of government in which the unelected
descendants of medieval war lords still exercise
political, judicial and military power, as members of
the House of Lords. The powers of the Queen, who is
advised by her Privy Council - all of whom are sworn to
secrecy - have never been delineated. Orders in council
`made by and with the advice of her Privy Council'
cannot be unconstitutional. Her primary function is the
defence of the realm.
During the passage of the Home Rule Bill through the
Houses of Parliament in the years 1912-1914 it became
abundantly clear that the British Army's top ranking
officers would be more than reluctant to face down
their own `kith and kin' in the province of Ulster.
Discussing this with his Prime Minister, Asquith, in
1913, the King asked: ``Will it be wise, will it be fair
to the sovereign, as head of the army, to subject the
discipline and indeed loyalty of his troops to such a
strain?''
It was in March1914 that the `so-called' mutiny at the
Curragh captured the headlines. Some officers were
given the choice of resigning in the event that they
might disagree with being sent to Ulster. All of those
consulted said that they would prefer to resign.
Whatever else may be said about this incident, it was
undoubtedly the first time that officers of any army
were asked if they would obey lawful orders.
In any event the so-called mutiny resulted in the
commander of the Cavalry Brigade, General Gough, being
immediately summoned to the War Office in London to
`give an account of himself'. In the course of his
`trial' he was joined by the commander-in-chief of the
military base at Aldershot, General Haig.
Haig had come to London specifically to warn the War
Office staff of the strong feelings of support amongst
his own officers for the stand taken by Gough. Their
resignations might be expected, he said, if Gough were
punished. Sensing the fact that he had a fair wind and
a flood tide behind him, Sir Henry Wilson, the Director
of Military Operations at the War Office,
enthusiastically supported General Haig when Haig
stated that the only way to quieten unrest in the army
was to issue a statement that the army would not be
used `to coerce Ulster'. There was talk of wholesale
resignations in the army, including Wilson himself, if
that were not done.
As if they were `joining the club' the
Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Lord
French, together with the Secretary of State for War,
Mr Selly, provided General Gough with a written
guarantee that his troops at the Curragh would not be
used to enforce a Home Rule Act on Ulster. Armed with
this guarantee, Gough returned to the Curragh as a
conquering hero.
We are told that upon learning of these events the
government forced the resignations of Lord French and
Mr Seely. The guarantee itself was never withdrawn.
One wonders if this whole affair was not pre-planned in
order to achieve the desired outcome. In this context
it is significant that in the 648 page work ``The
British Constitution'' by J. Harvey and L Bather, we are
told (P.234) that ``King George V made positive moves
in 1914 to compromise on the question of home rule for
Ireland.''