Sir, – James Connolly Heron (August 14th) refers to the claim by Count Plunkett in an election pamphlet in 1917 that John Redmond had signified his approval of the execution of the leaders of the Easter Rising in a speech to the House of Commons on May 3rd, 1916 after the prime minister, HH Asquith, announced that Pearse, MacDonagh and Clarke had been executed earlier that day. This claim was, however, a wilful misinterpretation of Redmond’s comments.
John Redmond’s biographer, Denis Gwynn, records that Redmond met Asquith on May 3rd after the executions of Pearse, MacDonagh and Clarke and sought an undertaking from him that no one else would be executed. Asquith replied (according to Redmond) that “he could not give an absolute promise to that effect, but that, except in some very special case, that was his desire and intention”.
On the following day (May 4th), Redmond wrote to Asquith to say that “if any more executions took place [he] would feel bound to denounce them”. This is not the behaviour of a man who approved of the executions.
The clear purpose of Redmond’s comments in the House of Commons was to secure clemency for the rank and file of the rebels, and in this context he needed to make a clear distinction between their actions and those of the leaders.
Representing his words as signifying approval of the execution of the leaders was a nasty election ploy back in 1917, and today it is a disgraceful slur on a good man’s reputation. – Yours, etc,
FELIX M LARKIN,
Vale View Lawn,
Cabinteely,
Dublin 18
Sir, – Are we really going to define Redmond’s reputation on the strength of an election pamphlet produced by a political opponent? Count Plunkett’s pamphlet correctly quotes Redmond’s observations about the execution of Pearse, MacDonagh and Clarke but it does not tell the full story.What election pamphlet ever did?
In the corridors of power at Westminster, Redmond and the other Home Rule MPs lobbied hard to prevent any executions and they were vilified for doing so. But for their efforts many more may have been executed.
I am neither for nor against honouring Redmond. I am simply pointing that Irish history is a subtle and complex subject. Then as now, there are many diverse opinions about what took place in 1916 and no one can claim there was then or is now, only one legitimate point of view. – Yours, etc,
SEAN ENRIGHT,
King Street,
Peterborough,
Cambridgeshire
Sir, – I have some reservations about John Bruton’s favoured location regarding the placing of a statue honouring John Redmond. Mr Bruton suggested it be sited on Leinster Lawn.
My own favoured location would be a more central spot in the former second city of the now defunct British empire, where it could be viewed by all. I suggest that if the British government acquiesce to Mr Bruton’s wishes and dispatch their Westminster-located statue it should be sited where the Spire now stands, preferably impaled on top. – Yours, etc,
TOM COOPER,
Templeville Road,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W