Madam, – Dennis Kennedy (January 24th) notes correctly that the ambush at Soloheadbeg, Co Tipperary, on January 2 1st, 1919, in which two policemen were killed, should have received some mention in your fine anniversary supplement on the first Dáil.
However, his observations about the ambush itself are misleading and, in consequence, his conclusions are flawed.
Firstly, Mr Kennedy writes of the policemen who were killed as if their role was comparable to the civilian police force of today. Such was not the case: even before the introduction of the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA) in August 1914, the RIC, as part of their normal duties, reported on the political activities of Irish citizens. After the introduction of the DORA, these reports were used, in co-operation with the army, to subject Irish citizens to trial by court-martial and to deportation without trial by civil law.
Secondly, the DORA was applied with renewed intensity after Lord French had accepted the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on May 5th, 1918, on the understanding that he did so, in his words, “as a military viceroy at the head of a quasi-military government”. In that capacity French issued a proclamation, on May 16th, 1918, which led to the arrest and deportation of some 200 leading Sinn Féiners without trial. The arrests were only made possible by the information provided by the RIC and communicated to the army by Major Ivon Price, chief intelligence officer at the Irish military command.
Thirdly, even before this military-style regime had been introduced by Lord French, all Irish political parties (the Irish Party, Sinn Féin and Labour) had united in condemning the warlike policy of the British Government. Gathered in the Mansion House, Dublin, on April 18th, 1918, they declared that the Conscription Act “must be regarded as a declaration of war on the Irish nation”.
Fourthly, in an incident which shows that the police sometimes acted even beyond the powers of the DORA, they suppressed the circulation of a political pamphlet in the closing months of 1918, although it had been “passed by the censor”. The pamphlet was entitled The Complete Grammar of Anarchy by Members of the War Cabinet and their Friends and was compiled by John J. Horgan, a member of the Irish Party. It recorded the speeches of leading Unionists during the years of the Home Rule crisis of 1912-1914 and observed that “rebellion was openly preached, men were drilled, arms were landed, the assistance of the Kaiser was invoked, the forces of the Crown were defied, and their commanders were seduced from their allegiance”. In this context the conclusion of Dennis Kennedy that Soloheadbeg marked “the start of 90 years of the use of armed force to achieve political aims, whether you call it armed struggle or terrorism” requires major re-appraisal. Above all, the words and evidence of John J. Horgan serve as a reminder that “the use of armed force to achieve political aims” during the revolutionary years c.1912-1923 had a unionist origin. It might also be respectfully suggested that, in this wider historical context, your anniversary publication on Dáil Éireann might well have benefited from, firstly, a consideration of the military character of British rule in Ireland at that time; and, secondly, consideration, too, of the role of Unionists in the British War Cabinet and their part in denying Dáil Éireann’s representatives a hearing at the Paris Peace Conference. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In justice to the first Dáil and the Irish Volunteers, Dennis Kennedy should know that the Soloheadbeg killings were condemned by Cathal Brugha, Chairman, and Richard Mulcahy, Chief of Staff and Minister for Defence in the first Dáil.
It is often asserted that Soloheadbeg marked the beginning of the War of Independence. This is incorrect. The decision to go to war was made at the end of 1919 and was in response to the suppression of Dáil Éireann in the autumn of 1919 and the increasing harassment of deputies, supporters and others by the British forces. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Dennis Kennedy (January 24th) refers to Soloheadbeg as “the start of 90 years of the use of armed force to achieve political aims. . . which gave us a disastrous civil war and repeated violent assaults on democratic authority in both parts of the island”.
If that was the start, what would he call the activities in Larne in opposition to the democratic authority of the British state a whole five years earlier? – Yours, etc,