Sir, - I agree completely with Brian Cleary (April 23rd) that most of the atrocities committed in Wexford in 1798 were by government forces and I have said so repeatedly (e.g. The Irish Times, January 1st, April 1st). Also, such atrocities undoubtedly prompted rebel counter-atrocities. What I have been querying is the evidence for a new claim of a particular government atrocity against a rebel "hospital" that precisely mirrors and possibly precedes that of the rebels at Scullabogue. Cloney's Narrative, cited by Cleary, is certainly the origin of the "hospital" story, but his passing reference to the burning of "several wounded men in a house in Ross" doesn't substantiate the claim now made.
Cleary's second quotation concerning New Ross is in fact of Cloney misciting Hay, History of Insurrection (pp. 160-161), which makes no mention of "wounded men" and places the burning of the four-storey house at the end rather than the beginning of the battle. The evidence simply doesn't support the claims made for the "hospital" in relation to Scullabogue, and the insistence on commemorating it nonetheless reflects an inability by Comoradh '98 to face up to the reality of Scullabogue, even now. That's my main point.
I don't know in what respects Billy Roe (April 28th) thinks my side of the family "more conservative" than his, but the tradition from both sides about our common ancestor, John Rice, lacks any mention of United Irish sympathies, and I have found no contemporary evidence to support such a view. Indeed, what we know of his background and connections makes it highly unlikely. Likewise, the speculation (and it was only such) that there were personal or economic motives behind his death has its basis in the accounts of many better documented killings during the rebellion.
My concern throughout this correspondence has been to argue that 1798 in Wexford was complex rather than simple, that it should not be romanticised, politicised or commercialised, and that startling new claims, such as the existence of a Wexford "Republic" or "Senate" should be backed by evidence. It is depressing that the official bicentenary commemoration is marked by the same simplistic romantic nationalism as that of 1948, and this despite the radical transformation of our understanding of 18th-century Ireland over the past 50 years. It is even more depressing to me that some historians who have done much to effect that transformation are now involved in promoting the official line.
This is my final contribution to the hospitable letters page of The Irish Times on this subject. Rather than chasing every hare raised by the friends of Comoradh '98, I'd be better employed finishing my book on the events of June 5th, 1798, and their reverberations through my family history and my own life. I'll be happy to be judged on that. - Yours, etc.,
Prof Tom Dunne
Department of History, University College Cork.