Sir, – Please allow me to share the reservations expressed by Prof Diarmaid Ferriter (reported April 14th) about the proposed presence of British royals at the Easter Rising commemorations in 2016, or indeed at any of the subsequent commemorative events. I fail to see how such a presence could be at all appropriate or, if you think about it, anything less than bizarre.
At a history conference on the first World War in UCC last January, I pointed out, in the presence of the British ambassador, that it is not the business of historians to promote “inclusiveness” and reconciliation, essentially political objectives. Where commemorations are concerned, the role of historians is to enlighten students and the interested public about the events in question.
Otherwise, the expert advisory group ( of which I was a member for a brief period) might well reflect whether the Government is genuinely interested in their historical advice or simply requires a respectable academic cover for a political agenda. Yours, etc,
JOHN A MURPHY,
Emeritus Professor
of Irish History,
University College, Cork.
Sir, – Diarmaid Ferriter’s comment – by way of rebuttal to the argument that the 1916 Rising was unnecessary – that there was “no evidence that Britain was prepared to settle its Irish question until it was forced to do it” raises interesting issues, not least what the settlement of the Irish question might be.
The Liberal Party had the opportunity to govern Britain from 1911, though to do so it was forced by its dependence on the votes of the Irish Parliamentary Party to provide for home rule. Implementation of the policy was hindered by unionist opposition in the northeastern portion of Ireland. The precise geographical and temporal extent of that exclusion dominated the politics of these months 100 years ago.
Events intervened. War was declared on Germany. As significant as the 1916 Rising was the parliamentary party’s loss of the balance of power on the formation of a national government in London. The political world of the Irish Parliamentary Party collapsed under the weight of Easter Week. Though the Rising – and particularly the executions – moved public opinion towards republicanism it can, I think, be fairly stated that a Liberal government, relying on Irish votes, and by then already radical on a number of fronts would not have been shy in implementing what would probably have been a mutually acceptable form of home rule (excluding all or a portion of Ulster) to maintain power. Yours, etc,
CONOR NELSON,
Conyngham Road
Dublin 8
Sir, – Diarmaid Ferriter is worried that the presence of representatives of the British royal family at 1916 commemorations might give succour to those who believe the insurrection was unnecessary. In indicating his views on whether or not the rising was “necessary” and on the appropriateness or otherwise of potential guests, isn’t Prof Ferriter going beyond his remit as an historian to give us his personal political views?
When he states that there is “no evidence that Britain was prepared to settle its Irish question until it was forced to do it”, he is of course speaking as a historian; unfortunately, his historical opinions are questionable.
Where is the evidence that Asquith’s administration on the eve of the Easter Rising was preparing to abandon home rule? The Government of Ireland Act had been passed in September 1914 against unionist protests. The Act suspending implementation had effect only for the duration of hostilities. The formation of a coalition in 1915 did little to alter matters: the legislative position of September 1914 was unchanged in April 1916 and John Redmond’s Irish Party was still dominant, retaining the confidence of most nationalists before the rising. It was the Rising, the executions and conscription which killed home rule; but Prof Ferriter would do well not to confuse the aftermath of Easter 1916 with the period before that date. Yours, etc,
CDC ARMSTRONG,
Ulidia House,
Belfast BT125JN