Free 1916 by Gabriel Doherty Page A

and bitter chapter in Irish history, a well-organised plan originating in Berlin, and not in any circumstances justified. No doubt, it said, some of those in Dublin were not badly motivated, ‘but the fool is often as bad as the criminal’. 7
    A week later, condemnations of the blind folly of the rebels, their manipulation by Germany and the criminality of the Rising still pervaded the local press. For the Athlone-based Westmeath Independent , the Rising was a crime against the government of the country and against Ireland, causing ‘the bitterest resentment against the mad fanaticism’ which had occasioned it. ‘Poor dreamers’ had been deluded by German intrigue. 8 News coverage was now far more extensive, with eyewitness reports from local people trapped in Dublin, detailed reports of events across Ireland and, right across the press, news of martial law and the first arrests and executions.
    What also appeared in Irish party papers, though, was a distinctive, party-political narrative. The Rising had endangered home rule – by alienating British opinion it placed the post-war implementation of home rule in jeopardy. The Westmeath Independent had stated, as early as 29 April, that the blackest element of the crisis would be that the ‘ridiculously designated’ rebellion would be seen in England as Irish ingratitude towards English democracy. 9 By 6 May several others took up the theme. To avoid the poisoning of Anglo-Irish relations, to preserve home rule, it was vital that Irishmen rallied to their natural political leaders, the Irish party, and isolated the minority. Moreover, the blow to home rule had been deliberate, struck by rebels who were long-standing enemies of the Irish party. Party papers now pointed the finger at ‘men here and there throughout Ireland’ who did not rebel in Dublin, but who gave countenance and support to the Rising’s organisers. The Sligo Nationalist pledged to ‘meet them and fight them foot by foot on this issue’. The Westmeath Examiner and Roscommon Messenger (both owned by John Hayden) attacked those who had always been opposed to the chosen leaders of the Irish people. ‘We have such all around us, though they are not numerous … They pose as idealists and a quite superior sort of Irishman.’ Before God they were equally responsible for the Rising with those who actually rebelled. 10
    This political theme was entirely in accord with the personal manifesto issued by the party’s leader on 3 May. Although he was in no doubt that ‘Germany plotted it, organised and paid for it’, Redmond also denounced his Irish political enemies, the ‘insane movement’ which risked dashing the cup of liberty from Ireland’s lips. For years, the Irish party had been ‘thwarted and opposed by the same section’. Their rebellion ‘was not half as much treason to the cause of the Allies as treason to the cause of home rule’. 11 Redmond amplified these remarks just over a week later, in his cable addressing American opinion via the New York paper, Ireland. It was not so much hatred of England as hatred of home rule and the Irish party that was at the bottom of the movement, which was run by ‘Sinn Féin cranks’, German agents and remnants of Larkinite discontent. ‘It was even more an attempt to hit us than to hit England … I beg our people in America not to be unduly disturbed by this futile and miserable attempt to destroy Ireland. It has failed – definitely, finally failed.’ 12
    That a significant element of the Irish party, and above all its leader, should immediately go for the political jugular of its nationalist opponents is not surprising. ‘Constitutional’ and ‘advanced’ nationalists had been in bitter opposition to each other since the autumn of 1914 and had attacked each other with all the vigour and invective of nationalist splits since the days of Parnell. The primary cause of this division was the war, and in particular the Irish party’s open