Letter from Edward (Ned) Lysaght to Diarmid Coffey, 18 June 1916 Letters 1916-1923 Ned Lysaght

This work was originally published by Maynooth University in Ireland in 2017. In 2026 this data, stored in a relational database was extracted and converted into this TEI/XML document.

 Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities Vienna, AT 2026

This is an open access work licensed under Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Ned Lysaght (later MacLysaght) (1887-1986) was born in England but became an enthusiastic member of the Gaelic League and was politically radicalised by the Easter Rising. Although he never became a member, he was openly sympathetic to Sinn Féin. He later became a senator in the Irish Free State. Diarmid Coffey (1888-1964) joined the Irish Volunteers in 1914 and became secretary of the Irish National Volunteers after the organisation split in 1915 (it was the other group who participated in the Rising). He later served as assistant clerk of the Seanad. In the letter, Lysaght addresses his proposed solution to the 'Ulster difficulty'. A Home Rule Act for Ireland had been postponed by the outbreak of World War I but was bitterly opposed by Ulster Unionists and considered insufficient by advanced nationalists. MacLysaght encloses typed notes on a proposal that he believes will meet the objections of Ulster Unionists and nationalists, while avoiding the partition of the country, which was considered, though not formalised, under the Home Rule Act. The letter comes a month after the execution of the leaders of the Easter Rising.

 National Library of Ireland Coffey & Chenevic Trench Papers, Collection List No 153; Ms. 46,307/10 https://letters1916.ie/item/1671 English Ned Lysaght 1916-06-18 Knocksullish, Scariff, County Clare Diarmid Coffey 5 Harcourt Terrace, Dublin Male 1986 Politics Politics

The data in these XML files was generated based on a data dump from the Magellan database (https://github.com/Maynooth-Center-for-Digital-Humanities/Magellan). Each database record has been converted to a JSON file (https://github.com/letters1916static/letters-data/tree/main/json). The element section of the JSON file contains the TEI-encoded contents of the letters. The TEI XML has been cleaned and made well-formed using a Python script (https://github.com/letters1916static/letters-data/tree/main/src).

 Knocksullish,Scariff, Co. Clare. 18 June 1916 Dear Coffey, Enclosed is an outline of a plan for settling the Ulster difficulty.I feel that it is rather presumptuous for an unknown man to set out tofind a solution, but as far as I can see the idea of Irishmen who arenot party politicians are unco-ordinated and for the moment inarticulate.I have received some very interesting comments on my plan already, and Ifeel that a combination of the best points of each would be more likelyto produce a real settlement than anything else. Perhaps the simplest idea is that of Mr. G.W. Russell (A.E.) who, in along letter dealing with Ireland's relation to Europe as well as her in-ternal relations, suggests that we should return to the King, Lords andCommons of Ireland, the House of Lords having an absolute veto, as theBritish house had before the Parliament Act. This, he feels, would bethe simplest and most efficient safeguard to Protestant and Unionist in-terests and at the same time would tend to make our upper classes moreIrish and to keep them in the country, he thinks that the system ofrepresentation I have suggested for the Lower House could be adopted to-gether with a House of Peers. I have little doubt but that this wouldbe accepted with delight by Nationalist Ireland; I daresay the UlsterUnionists might accept it too. I may add that all my correspondents are unanimous in dislikingthe policy of exclusion and in emphasizing the essential need of colon-ial self-government (advocated by the Round Table group). I hope to publish the various letters I receive in the form of apamphlet, as a contribution of non-party Irishmen towards a solution. The question I am dealing with hardly affects the matter of tempor-ary exclusion (except in so far as any bad arrangement might prejudicethe future) I want to get something as a permanent basis, Yours Ned Lysaght D.Coffey, Esq.,5 Harcourt Tce,Dublin. It is agreed that a golden opportunity for the settlementof the Irish problem has come. Our affairs are in processof being settled by men who were elected as our representatives six years ago. Since 1910 many striking eventshave occurred each of sufficient importance to Ireland tohave justified a general election. In fact, the opinionof independa e nt men, whose views on what is for the good ofIreland are not blinded by their views of what is good forsome particular party, is now unheeded and almost unheard.I write this letter as a non-party man, interested in thefuture of my country, but without special qualification ofany kind to speak. It seems to me that eight salient facts stand out :First : It is admitted that the old regime is impossible.Second : Nationalist Ireland objects to the dismembermentof Ireland by the exclusion of Ulster or any part of it.Third : Ulster Unionists object to being in the power (as theyput it) of an Irish parliament.Fourth : Southern Unionists are on the whole prepared to giveHome Rule a fair trial.Fifth : Even in the four Counties there is a very considerableNationalist minority, to coerce which would be as unfairas to coerce Unionist Ulster.Sixth : War taxation has proved that Ireland is not bankrupt.We contribute something like 26 millions now to theImperial Exchequer; before the was Irish expenditurewas, I think, 11 millions. Seventh : The dual control set up by the Home Rule act is likely tolead to friction, as dual control invariably does. Eight : The fuller and more generous the measure of self government,the more likely is Ireland to take a willing place in theBritish Empire. I believe this myself and South Africawould help to prove it; but possibly it might be regardedby some as a not uncontroversial statement. To evolve a scheme which will take account of these facts and meetthem in the work which has to be done. I claim no merit of originality for the following plan: I venture,however, to put it forward because it seems to me to fulfill therequired conditions. But I do so rather in the hopes of its formingthe basis for better suggestions, than as a cut—and—dried proposal forsettlement. The essential features of it are —:1. A Parliament for all Ireland.2. A Council or Parliament for all Ulster to deal with purely Ulsteraffairs.3. Financial autonomy.4. No Irish members in the British Parliament.5. Both Ireland and Ulster to be represented as Units on such ImperialCouncil of the self governing states of the British Empire as wemay reasonably assume will be formed after the war.6. The Ulster Council or Parliament to have a veto in respect ofany law not passed through the Irish Parliament by a certain major—ity.(2) (say 3/5 of the Lower House and a bare majority of the Upper) as regardsthe application of that law to the Province of Ulster.7. The Ulster Council or Parliament to have the right of appeal tothe Imperial Council in respect of any law, irrespective of themajority by which it was passed, against its application to theProvince of Ulster.8. Election to the Lower House on a basis of population and byproportional representation.9. Selection of Upper House by process of election by various publicbodies and institutions in the Country from among their ownmembers, and ex officio by the tenure of certain ecclesiasticaland public Offices. Items 8 and 9 require a little elaboration even in the comparativelyshort outline of this kind, to show their force and object. The objectof No. 8. is to provide minority representation. In order to doso the larger the constituency the better, but anything larger than asingle county or city would be unwidely. Possibly, even, it mightbe necessary to divide the larger counties into two, but forthe purpose of my present calculations I have not done so. I wouldsuggest one member to roughly every 30,000 persons and I would concedeone member also to all towns over 12,000 inhabitants in order toincrease both urban and Ulster representatives; in effect it wouldadd Lurgan, Newry, Dundalk, Drogheda, Portadown, Wexford andGalway to the constituencies. Not counting University members,which should be returned by both Trinity and the National University,we would then have a House of 143. 52 would be from Ulster, 91 from(3) the rest of Ireland. Of these 40 would be returned by cities andtowns, 22 from Ulster, 18 from other provinces. It will thus beseen at a glance that a combination of Ulster and urban votes wouldamount to 74 or a majority of 5. When it is remembered that Ulster,which means generally industrial, interests could not be prejudiced byany law not carried by a majority of 29 (i.e. a 3/5 majority) in afull House, it will be seen that the facts of the case providebetter safeguards to Ulster than the paper safeguards which havebeen so much despised. It is true that parts of Ulster would goagainst Ulster interests, as we are now considering them, but I have nodoubt that it would be more than counterbalanced by conflicting inter—ests among other parties— for no one imagines that the pledge—bounddiscipline of a single Irish Party can continue in a native Parlia—ment— and by the affect of proportional representation, I believethis in itself would prove a very check on any persecutionwhich, I think quite erroneously, is feared by the minority. Byhaving large constituencies we greatly increase the likelihood ofthe best minority representation being returned. Thus Dublin andBelfast would each return 13 members, Co. Cork and Co. Down 10, Co.Tipperary and Co. Tyrone 5 each, and so on down to the single memberconstituencies such as Co. Leitrim. Co. Carlow, Derry, Limerick,and Waterford and other towns I mentioned. These practical safe—guards apply as well in religious as in industrial matters and asenate of a judicial and steady kind would provide additional security.I do not propose now to go into details on this point, but by way of(4) suggestion I would propose that the members of such institutions asthe R.D.S., the I.A.O.S., the Royal Hibernian Academy, the CollegeSurgeons and Physicians and so on should each choose one member, oralternatively their presidents might be members ex officio; eachcounty Council could return one or two members; chambers of commerce,ecclesiastical interests could provide representatives in the same way.Commerce, transport, and agricultur e al industry, science and the churcheswould thus have direct representation without the possible waywardnessof popular election; and this would I take it, be no negation ofdemocracy in as much as it has never been proposed to give the UpperHouse greater power than that of suggesting amendments and retardinglegislation which it considers unlikely to reflect the will of thecountry. Is it too late for Irishmen to attempt something constructive in solv—ing the problem of their own future? The best Irish measures passedin late years have come from the brains of Irishmen. Is the Home RuleAct with which so few were honestly satisfied, inevitably to be takenas the basis of settlement now? It cannot be so taken, I hold, ifthe settlement is to be a permanent one. (5) BALLYCLARE BOND 25, 26 New Ireland R Ned Lysaght Letter from Edward (Ned) Lysaght to Diarmid Coffey, 18 June 1916 Diarmid Coffey Letter From John Miley to Diarmid Coffey, 18 January 1916Letter from Edward (Ned) Lysaght to Diarmid Coffey, 18 June 1916Letter from Kevin R. O’Shiel to Diarmid Coffey, 23 August 1916Letter from Jane Coffey to her son Diarmid Coffey, 17 October 1916Letter From John Miley in France to Diarmid Coffey on the Ulster Home Defence ForceLetter to Diarmid Coffey from Dermod O’Brien about the Irish QuestionLetter from Diarmid Coffey to Jane Coffey, 8 October 1916Letter from Diarmid Coffey to Jane Coffey, 16 October 1916Letter from Jane Coffey to her son Diarmid Coffey, 16 October 1916 Knocksullish, Scariff, County Clare Letter from Edward (Ned) Lysaght to Diarmid Coffey, 18 June 1916 5 Harcourt Terrace, Dublin Letter from Edward (Ned) Lysaght to Diarmid Coffey, 18 June 1916