jump to navigation

While we’re talking about the RIC and Home Rule… August 30, 2012

Posted by WorldbyStorm in Irish Politics.

There’s a fair lesson in ambiguity in last weekend’s Irish Times editorial over the ‘unofficial’ memorial service for RIC and DMP members who were killed during the Independence struggle. It would be difficult to determine exactly where the writer of the piece falls on the issue. And in particular the concluding lines are masterful.

The memorial service is being organised by two former Garda Síochána members who believe that, after 90 years, “a few prayers should be said for these men who, for the most part, were honourable and honest police officers”. It is a generous, Christian sentiment. Policemen tend to be alert to the ethical dilemmas that may confront their colleagues at times of strife and civil unrest.

The public and politicians are less understanding and operate to a different compass. Accepting the past, warts and all, is a sign of maturity. Learning from it, however, takes time.

Hmmm… But what is to be learnt in this context? To be honest I think that official recognition of the RIC is taking pluralism just a step too far. It is useful to consider how the (near) successor organisation to the RIC in Northern Ireland, the RUC, was eventually disbanded due in no small part to overwhelming lack of support (to put it mildly) from one community. In a context where there was essentially overwhelming societal antagonism to the RIC it seems somewhat perverse to try to refashion history at this remove. The RIC, like the RUC – whatever about individual officers in both – passed into history for good reasons. That said if some seek to commemorate them unofficially there’s no point in – and no means of – stopping that.

Another sentence that struck my attention was the following:

These men served the British Crown and sought to prevent the emergence of an Independent State. During that struggle, terrible things were done on both sides. But the atrocities committed by some RIC members and particularly by their supporting auxiliaries, the Black and Tans, still resonate.
Just how polarised the situation had become, following six years of guerrilla warfare, was reflected in a decision by the Free State government to disband the RIC and the DMP and to replace them with the Garda Síochána.
That decision flowed from the “reinforcement” of the RIC by the Black and Tans and the terrorising of local communities. Some RIC members objected to what was going on.

I find it a bizarre proposition that the Free State government would have retained the RIC and DMP. Such a decision would have made no sense given that the nature of the Free State government – which for all its flaws did cleave to a path to independence – and the text of the Treaty which in Article 10 said the following:

10. The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of Police Forces and other Public Servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of government effected in pursuance hereof. Provided that this agreement shall not apply to members of the Auxiliary Police Force or to persons recruited in Great Britain for the Royal Irish  Constabulary during the two years next preceding the date hereof.  The British Government will assume responsibility for such compensation or pensions as may be payable to any of these excepted persons.

Implicit in that is an change in the nature of policing and police forces in the Free State.

Nor was it a matter of polarisation that developed during warfare but the result of a long standing antagonism to a militarised and garrisoned force (it’s notable how other police forces in the then United Kingdom were unarmed). Chris Ryder in his fairly sympathetic history of the RUC noted that the RIC in addition to the attributes just noted:

…was regarded as being the eyes and ears of Dublin Castle…[although] individual members of the force were respected figures of substance in their local areas.

It’s also worth noting in passing that the RUC wasn’t a simple continuation of the RIC, but instead a merging of former UVF, the Ulster Special Constabulary (formed in 1920) and northern based units of the RIC.

Interestingly, the DMP was a vastly less despised organisation despite its noxious activities during 1913. When in 1916 members of the DMP were issued with rifles following the Rising they held a march from Kevin St. to Dun Laoghaire with their batons in a coffin. At Independence it continued in a sort of half-life as the Políní Átha Cliath and was not subsumed into the Gardai until 1925 (I once talked to a Garda archivist on this very topic and his assessment was that it was the unarmed nature of the force that allowed for its partial continuation). This division was so stark that the PAC had different uniform and helmets and, of course name, to the RIC. But it’s also worth noting albeit under a different name and command). That it was the intelligence arm of the DMP which incurred the greatest losses during the Independence struggle is telling.

Stephen Collins at the weekend followed up the editorial with one of his increasingly narrowly focussed pieces on the topic. For him there is no question about commemorating the RIC and doing so ‘officially’.

The past is a different country but it is surely about time to give some recognition to those who have been ignored in the dominant popular historical narrative. After being forgotten for so long, those who died in the first World War can now be commemorated openly. If the Irish State cannot find it in its heart to commemorate those who served and died at home as policemen trying to keep the peace, the decade of commemoration will lack completeness.

But as noted above the RIC were explicitly not ordinary ‘policemen’ but a garrisoned and militarised force – and the only one in the then United Kingdom. The idea that they served and died ‘trying to keep the peace’ is a nonsensical phrase in the context of the actual history. Their history was one of repression from their foundation and this continued right up to their disbandment. To ‘honour’ them as being analogous to the Gardai does the latter force a deep – almost existential – disservice. For all their flaws the Gardai are democratically legitimised in a way that the RIC were not.

Of course, no one is suggesting that all RIC men at all times were wrong, but their function, their history and their use was one which cannot simply be waved away under the notional cover of ‘inclusivity’.

And while the most obvious response to Collins is what his thoughts are about a commemoration organised for the Black and Tan that in a way is too glib. For Collins that would be a bridge too far:

As Conor Brady pointed out in this paper yesterday, the RIC men generally conducted themselves with forbearance and dignity in the face of a ruthless terror campaign directed against them by Collins. Their unwillingness to respond in kind prompted the British government to import the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries to wage a counter-terror campaign. While few members of the RIC or DMP joined the Garda on the foundation of the new State, in time many of their sons and grandsons followed the family tradition. At least five Garda commissioners had ancestors who were in the RIC, and the policing methods and ethos of the Garda owes an awful lot to its predecessors.

But if the logic being used here is that the RIC are worthy of commemoration because they served and died ‘trying to keep the peace’, why not the Black and Tans who did likewise? That they did so in a more energetically murderous fashion is surely just a matter of degree rather than principle.

In any case the ethos of the Garda actually owes remarkably little to the RIC, being unarmed, open, subject to a reasonably more direct democratic legitimacy and so forth.

But Collins point is, as always, shaped towards a (blindingly obvious) political end.

In his groundbreaking essay for the magazine Studies written in advance of the 50th anniversary of the 1916 Rising in 1966, but not published until 1972, Fr Francis Shaw SJ addressed some of the key problems created by a narrow nationalistic interpretation of the past. One of the difficulties he identified was that the dominant nationalist interpretation of history in the 1960s required the Irish people of that decade to disown their past and censure as unpatriotic the majority of their grandparents’ generation who were not attracted by new revolutionary ideas in 1916.
The then professor of early and medieval Irish at UCD summed it up by suggesting that the accepted canon of Irish history “asks us to praise in others what we do not esteem or accept in ourselves”.
In other words the majority of law-abiding people who live by democratic standards are required to despise those in earlier generations who adhered to the same values while honouring those who rejected them.
In political terms it means that political leaders from Daniel O’Connell to John Redmond are airbrushed out of popular history while revolutionaries such as Pádraig Pearse and Michael Collins are elevated to iconic status.

The central problem with this thesis is that it ignores one pertinent fact in relation to ‘democratic standards’ and ‘political leaders’ who supposedly adhered to same.

As I’ve noted previously on this site they failed. They failed utterly.

The Home Rule Party (I should really call it the IIP) didn’t break due to a rejection of ‘democratic standards’ on the part of Republicans, it broke due to the inability and unwillingness of the British to implement an Home Rule policy in relation to Ireland (and more specifically the Third Home Rule Bill) – policy that it had promised but long delayed and then did not realise. If those had been granted, as they were meant to be, and implemented in full it is possible that advanced nationalist thinking would have been delayed by years – though given the cauldron of World War One and all that that implied perhaps not. Moreover, WWI is essential to this history, and in particular the way in which those who went and fought for ‘democratic standards’ at home in Ireland felt betrayed by British inaction on Home Rule. And there are broader issues too. Was British democracy in 1913 to 1922 a paragon which was beyond reproach? This was, after all, a state which denied the exercise of the franchise to women, which in its actions beyond its borders was profoundly imperialist and so on. In relation to this island there was the Curragh Mutiny, overlooked by the British Government of the day. The threat of political violence a product of political unionism. And so on.

Had Home Rule as a project not failed then of course Redmond would be more than what is effectively a footnote in Irish history. But that’s not how history played out and to implicitly point back at Republicanism and ‘revolutionaries’ as being those at fault in this process is absurd. There were a myriad of factors at work here and many of them pre-dated the appearance of Republicanism as a serious force.

But Collins ignores how Home Rule itself set the ground for what came after. From a perspective a little less limited than his own the distinction between Redmond and Pearse was much less clear cut than he appears to believe. I’ve noted previously how an Unionist reading, as offered by Peter Robinson this year at the Carson Lecture, offers a view that is not to the liking of the Collins et al of this world. Robinson noted that:

Those who see the response of Carson and his fellow unionists as an over-reaction to Home Rule fail to recognise that the inevitable outcome of Home Rule was complete independence. Unionists in 1912 saw their very way of life as being under threat and, consistent with the modus operandi of the age, were prepared to go to whatever lengths necessary to defend their position.

There’s no point in dancing around that issue. For Unionism Home Rule was hardly less revolutionary than outright Republicanism (sufficiently so to see Unionism shift to an essentially dissident, oppositional and ultimately armed stance), and once set in train that engine – almost certainly – would not stop short of ultimate disengagement from the Union. And this explains why unionism both in its Irish and British variants was so adamantly opposed, to the point of insurrection, against the half-measure of Home Rule. How does Collins think that in a world absent Republicanism that particular series of events would have been played out?

But Collins excises this from the story because it is only by doing so that he can present a tale of purity untainted by reality.

And let’s not ignore his explicit linking of the past with the present:

The reality is that most of our modern political leaders have far more in common with the values of the old Irish Parliamentary Party and its leader than they have with those who directed the activities of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Yet our current generation of politicians still finds it difficult to acknowledge their political predecessors while falling over themselves to pay obeisance to revolutionary leaders whose values they don’t actually share.
This approach to our past means that those who served as policemen before 1922 are either denigrated or ignored, while those who killed them are accepted as heroes.
Yet when similar events happened in modern times most people were firmly behind the police and opposed to modern armed revolutionaries who at times showed as little compunction about killing gardaí as Collins’s squad had about killing RIC men.

It is interesting to reflect on just how open Collins now is in this thinking. For him it clear the Independence struggle has no clear legitimacy. A curious position to adopt some might think.

I think what irritates me most is the sheer laziness of the analyses on display in relation to these matters. The narrative is that Home Rule – presented as democratic and untainted and, most absurdly of all, attainable – was supplanted by undemocratic ‘revolutionaries’, the RIC must be commemorated because the political context within which Home Rule operated must be made appear as normal as possible in order to exaggerate the rupture that was Republicanism with the pre-existing order.

There’s little doubt that Republicanism was a rupture with that pre-existing order, but that pre-existing order was profoundly dysfunctional in and of itself – as, ironically, the existence of an armed and garrisoned police force indicates.


1. Jack Jameson - August 30, 2012

If Stephen Collins was a journalist in mainland Europe, would he be as openly sympathetic to commemorating ‘decent’ police officers in national police forces operating under German governance?


Starkadder - August 30, 2012

“..in national police forces operating under German governance?”

Or Soviet Governance?


Dr. X - August 30, 2012

The more appropriate analogy is to the police forces operating in the colonial world. Even there, it’s hard to see a direct comparison between the RIC and the Force Publique in the Belgian Congo.


EamonnCork - August 30, 2012

In any case, there’s not much need to gild the lily with foreign references. He’s perfectly capable of being wrong in a specifically Irish context.


Dr. X - August 30, 2012

Indeed. The bottom line is that the British state had several centuries in which it could have integrated Ireland as it did England, Wales and Scotland.

If it failed to do so, and it did, that suggests that the trick could not be done.

It’s also significant that in the 26 counties, the succesor to the RIC was not an armed paramilitary force, but an unarmed police force. And yet it was accepted by a society that was still divided (would it be going to far to say traumatised?) by the civil war. There’s a lesson there, I think.


que - August 30, 2012


” British state had several centuries in which it could have integrated Ireland as it did England, Wales and Scotland”

The British state intergrated England?


Dr. X - September 1, 2012

Well, it depends what you mean by “England”, and what you mean by “integrate”. You could argue that the conquest of Wales, and the claiming of lordship over Ireland, were simply an expansion of territorial power by an English (or Norman) rulling class. By the time the sixteenth century comes along, you have a rising dynasty from the Anglo-Welsh border (the Tudors), who set the stage for the move to a supra-national entity, the British state, which transcends the previous, national (for a given meaning of national) political units in these islands. The fact that the death of Elizabeth 1st produces no fuss, but rather a smooth transition in which the Scottish Stuart James 6th is brought down to become James 1st of England is a sign of a convergence of Scotland and England towards a new, transcendant, political unity and identity, that of the British state (or at least a convergence of the ruling elites of those countries: the masses were not, of course, consulted). That’s what I meant by the British state integrating England.

(If any professional historians want to tell me that I’m talking testicles, feel free).


2. Jimmy Cake - August 30, 2012

Maybe, maybe not. But would any serious Irish historian compare Ireland in 1919 to Nazi-occupied Europe?


WorldbyStorm - August 30, 2012

Fair point, and I suspect few would say it was as bad as that. But, it was bad. In a way though the central issue is consent. The RIC lost what tacit/passive legitimacy it had because those who lived on the island withdrew consent.


que - August 30, 2012

Excluding the murder of jews it was closer but then maybe bar the genocide then all occupations are like that.

Jimmy, local histories of the tan war provide rich accounts of how well savage the war prosecuted by the govt. at that time was – human shields, burning town, economic warfare, and random shootings.

Nazi like no – brutal yes.


3. eamonncork - August 30, 2012

The logical conclusion of all this ‘inclusive’ rhetoric is that it didn’t make any difference whether Ireland became independent or remained within the United Kingdom. Both of these were equally valid and desirable outcomes and should be regarded as such in any commemoration.
Very good piece Wbs, particularly on pointing out the fact that the Irish Party failed and that armed republicanism moved into the vacuum created by this failure. It was not Sinn Fein that reduced John Redmond’s work to rubble, it was Edward Carson and the Ulster Volunteers, something tacitly acknowledged by Peter Robinson in the speech you quote.
The odd thing is that FG seem particularly amenable to the kind of stuff Collins is going on with here. Yet they’re the very party who always bang on about their tradition of ‘protecting the institutions of the state.’ Why be so proud if this state and its institutions might as well have not come into being? And how, given this reading of things, can the behaviour of the party’s forebears in the Civil War be defended? We’re always told the repression in that conflict was necessary to protect the integrity of the infant state. But those who criticise the ‘men of violence’ in the war of independence seem to have less interest in criticising the violence of the state itself during its early years.
And why for that matter celebrate the memory of Michael Collins? Perhaps this explains to some degree Kenny’s Lenin mistake. FG have such a problem celebrating what Collins actually did, led a guerilla war against an occupying power, that instead they want to find other reasons and they’re not that fussy about whether those reasons are true or false.


4. eamonncork - August 30, 2012

Another inference which can be drawn from the Collins argument and other similar arguments is that we should actually celebrate the Black and Tans INSTEAD of the old IRA. The former, after all, were helping the decent men of the RIC uphold law and order against the latter who were basically a shower of murderous anti-democratic bowsies.


que - August 30, 2012

Their only crime was loyalty?


EWI - August 31, 2012

We had sought official recognition for an anniversary memorial but this has not been forthcoming so we intend to gather in our capacity as former police officers from the Republic and Northern Ireland simply to mark the ending of these police forces and to commemorate the over-500 other police officers who were murdered by the IRA during and after the War of Independence and in 1916.


The point of our memorial is not to denigrate the role of the IRA and others in 1916 and 1922[…]


One of these statements is not like the other.


EWI - August 31, 2012

And yes, the “500” clearly does include the Black&Tans and the Auxies.

Absolutely shameful display.


Ed - August 31, 2012

“Most were ambushed and killed while going about their lawful duties.”

And whose law would that have been now?


eamonncork - August 31, 2012

The lads involved seem to be positing a kind of historical police class consciousness whereby all police everywhere are linked by their maintenance of law and order against subversive elements. So the modern day Gardai are linked in brotherhood with the Auxies. A viewpoint which might find favour with some republican elements and the odd former Heavy Gang nutter but might come as a surprise to your average Irish copper. Actually it would be interesting to hear what the GRA think of this.
The idea that the Black and Tans were ‘murdered’ by the IRA would only deserve respect if you were coming from the pacificist viewpoint that all wars are murder. In which case there shouldn’t be any commemorations of, for example, the First World War given that we’re actually celebrating murder on an enormous scale and that the Irish dead we’re so keen on memorialising were actually a pack of murderers. Which would make sense from a pacficist point of view but I don’t think would necessarily find favour with the Irish Times.
In fact a distaste for the ‘sentimental necrophilia of Irish republicanism,’ often goes hand in hand with a desire for greater commemoration of the Irish dead from foreign wars. Funny that.
The irony of the whole thing is that by linking the RIC and the Black and Tans in this way the organisers are not exactly making the greatest case for the RIC as innocent victims of political events beyond their control.


5. Ed - August 30, 2012

The reference to Francis Shaw is telling. One of the reasons Shaw didn’t like the veneration of the Fenian tradition was that the republicans had often been anti-clerical, and the Church had always been anti-republican. I suspect for Collins it’s a secular version of the same feeling – he’s a latter-day priest of the ‘stake in the country people’, the ones who were always hostile to radical nationalist movements that drew their support from the lower orders. I’d say if you pushed him on the subject he’d say that Parnell was a dangerous man, between his flirtation with militant land agitation and his links with Davitt and John Devoy. Isaac Butt and John Redmond are surely the only Home Rulers he’d approve of. And that Cardinal Cullen, he was a sound man altogether.


que - August 30, 2012

+ well put Ed


6. Joe - August 30, 2012

Lads, there’s something wrong. Two nations Joe agrees with ye all on this one!


fergal - August 30, 2012

no nations fergal also agrees. Isn’t there always a difference between the violence of the oppressor ( state) and the resistance of the oppressed?.This “good ole RIC” idea reminds me of the craving by certain media people to glory in the mass slaughter of working people that was WW1. It conveniently forgets the role of the British army in its Empire days.Irish people had always joined the British army,was it Connolly that called it “economic conscription”.But what praytell were our brave soldiers doing in India?Playing cricket with the locals?Sipping tea with the Kenyans?Singing songs with the Egyptians?I’d place Collins along with Myers and his ilk as apologists for Empire. And apologists for Empire always leave out the nast bits and tend to love cops and soldiers.


7. shea - August 30, 2012

brilliant read mate fair play.


8. Séamas Ó Sionnaigh (An Sionnach Fionn) - August 30, 2012

A well written and thoroughly thoughtful piece.

Its incredible that in a supposed democracy the kind of viewpoint or opinion represented here is virtually banned from our national news media. When one sees certain tinpot newspaper magnates decrying RTÉ and TG4 and demanding restrictions in advertising for public service broadcasters and access to state funding or the TV licence fee in the name of a “pluralist press” one can only laugh at the sheer audacity of it all.

Political pluralism in Ireland’s national print media seems to be all but dead. Instead we have a cartel of opinions, a group think of economically right wing, socially faux liberal, wannabe Anglo-American, Neo-Unionists.

Its the equivalent of Le Pen and Front National coming to power in France and rewriting the history of the Vichy government and the Milice Française as some sort of democratic and constitutionalist regime under the German Reich. Sure, there were a few bad apples, but better than those nasty Resistance terrorists.

For all its (many, many) faults bring back the Irish Press!


9. yourcousin - August 31, 2012

I also think that the idealizing of the IPP forgets or intentionally disregards the IPP’s lionization of the Fenians.


Brian Hanley - August 31, 2012

A good point. It is an imaginary Home Rule party they are lionizing, not the one that actually existed.


yourcousin - September 3, 2012

though in fairness, they are hardly the only ones who celebrate a fictionalized version of a party or movement.


10. Jim Monaghan - August 31, 2012

My grandfather who was at most a moderate nationalist was used as a human shield by the tans in Longford.After that he took great care to leave the house and hide when the tenders were heard. He died relatively young of a heart condition, of course unconnected to these events.
We are facing an onslaught of revisionism.


11. Garibaldy - August 31, 2012

It seems to me there’s an aspect to this debate that we’re missing. Why did the state refuse to back this commemoration? That seems more surprising to me than had it done so. It seems to me that potentially there’s a pointer here towards the commemorations to follow about specifically Irish events (as opposed to WWI), which I suspect which be much more straightforwardly pro-the independence campaign than some people fear, and than the Sindo/Myers-types will be happy about.


12. kevbarring - August 31, 2012

A good piece.
Shame it does grace the pages of the Times.


13. Phil - August 31, 2012

the RIC men generally conducted themselves with forbearance and dignity in the face of a ruthless terror campaign directed against them by Collins. Their unwillingness to respond in kind prompted the British government to import the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries to wage a counter-terror campaign

This is taking “The IRA Was Never Right” to new heights. Neither the Black and Tans nor the IRA, but the good honest men of the RIC – who were of course fighting for a cause everyone could believe in (viz. making all that nasty political conflict go away so that the plain people of Ireland could shut up and get back to work and never mind who rules the place, sure and who would care about that anyway).

Awful stuff.


WorldbyStorm - September 1, 2012



14. Garibaldy - September 1, 2012

Right on cue, it’s Kevin Myers, promising to do for the dead policemen what he did for the soldiers of WWI


Always good to see an article that complains about myths and twisted facts point out that Sinn Féin only got 48% of the vote in 1918 and ignore the fact that nearly 1/4 constituencies saw no contest but went to SF by default. Possibly the worst thing I’ve ever seen him write (not that I read him that much). Let’s hope he never moves to his natural home in the Sindo when some of its star columnists retire.


Brian Hanley - September 1, 2012

Fairly standard hysterics from him in my view. Not very influential or relevant and not worth getting offended by. He is much worse when he gives rein to hatred about unmarried mothers (from a particular class background of course) resentment at Africans (for ‘giving the world AIDS’) unleashes his full dirty old man fantasies about what goes on at teenage discos and otherwise taps into reactionary prejudices that some of his readership share.
The history stuff is for the clowns.


Garibaldy - September 1, 2012

Those are fair points. Just as well I don’t read him that much if that’s the sort of tripe he comes out with.


Niall Meehan - September 3, 2012

Why a demarkation line in assessing Myers’ views of the past, as compared to those on the present?

Sympathy toward counterinsurgency forces and their allies and Myers’ views of the present are part of a continuum. See p. 4, 6-8, 19-21, http://gcd.academia.edu/NiallMeehan/Papers/322984/.

See also, Terror in Ireland 1916-23, David Fitzpatrick (ed) – review by Niall Meehan, http://gcd.academia.edu/NiallMeehan/Papers/1877653, or, http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1303


Dr.Nightdub - September 3, 2012

Among the RIC that Myers would like to commemorate were DI Nixon and Constables Gordon and Sterritt, all of Belfast. Nixon was probably unique in that both the NI and Free State governments kept files on him – this is from the southern one:

The door was opened to them by Mrs McBride and Nixon said to her he wanted her husband to come to the Barrack for a few minutes. McBride was taken out in his night attire. He was not allowed to dress, and shortly after the car left the house, Mrs McBride heard a number of shots. That morning McBride’s body was found riddled with bullets two miles from his home and Nixon called on Mrs McBride to express his sorrow at the death of her husband and she recognised him as the person in charge of the party who had taken him away the previous night.
The party next proceeded to … the house of Malachy Halpenny – a member of the AOH. Halpenny was dragged from bed by Gordon and Sterritt and taken to the Crossley, struggling the while. He was beaten with butt ends of rifles, and taken out to the Ligoniel Road about half a mile from his home, was riddled with bullets, his body thrown across a barbed wire fence and dragged across it into a field, thus tearing his flesh to ribbons. People living in a Villa close by heard Halpenny moaning for almost twenty minutes. When found on Sunday morning at about 6 a.m. it was found that seventeen shots were fired into his body, the soles of his feet pierced with a bayonet and his testicles also torn out by a bayonet.
The foregoing was supplied by members of the RIC who supplied signed statements.


WorldbyStorm - September 3, 2012

Yep. Important to remember that particular part of history. Nixon is infamous.


15. Not So Much Revising History, As Rewriting It… | An Sionnach Fionn - September 3, 2012

[…] seems that when it comes to Peter Hart and the ongoing campaign to rewrite Irish history to a British agenda everything becomes contaminated by association. Comhroinn (Share):Share on TumblrMore Pin […]


16. Kathleen Florence Lynn – Officer Commanding in City Hall Garrison, 1916 ! « Fiannaiochta - September 13, 2012

[…] While we’re talking about the RIC and Home Rule… (cedarlounge.wordpress.com) 54.645861 -6.745149 Share this:TumblrPrintPinterestStumbleUponDiggRedditEmailMoreFacebookTwitterLinkedInLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in REMEMBER IRELAND'S FALLEN HERO'S and tagged City Hall Garrison, Dublin, Easter Rising, Ireland, Irish Citizen Army, Kathleen Florence Lynn, Kathleen Lynn, Officer Commanding, Ultan. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: