I WOULD like to respectfully disagree with Maurice O'Connell's sentiments (Letters, 23 April) to the effect that the "British ruling elite" were not to blame for what happened in 1916.

Andrew Bonar Law, leader of the Conservative party in 1912, explicitly backed the unionist threat of civil war against the home rule bill. The statement by Michael Collins that the British had left Irish nationalists "no way out" but rebellion seems to me, therefore, to be a realistic assessment of the situation. Up to that time even Patrick Pearse was a supporter of home rule.

As O'Connell has highlighted, "John Redmond had an electoral mandate of 80 out of 106 Irish seats" to support home rule in the Westminster parliament. As he also points out, home rule was "signed into law" after passing through parliament unamended twice . . . in 1912 and 1914.

That exercise by a parliament, whose authority they were purporting to be defending, did not prevent the signing by nearly half a million unionists of the Ulster Covenant in September 1912. That proclamation to "use all means necessary" including civil war to oppose home rule for Ireland showed contempt for Redmond's Irish majority and the significant majority by which the home rule bill was passed in Westminster.

The anti-democratic covenant was one of the most significant political events to happen in Ireland or indeed the UK in the 20th century. Without the explicit backing for civil war of Bonar Law, however, it is doubtful if the unionists would have succeeded in scuppering home rule.

It is hard to interpret Bonar Law's famous declaration on Irish home rule in 1912 that unionists "would be justified in resisting by all means in their power, including force"; that he could "imagine no length of resistence to which Ulster will go in which I will not be ready to support them"; and that "there are things more powerful than parliamentary majorities" as anything but a treasonable challenge to the authority of the Westminster parliament by the leader of the opposition of that parliament.

These threats, combined with the illegal arming of unionists in which Bonar Law was complicit, were successful in delaying the implementation of home rule and in the consequent arming of the Irish volunteers. It is, therefore, easy to agree with the nationalist argument that some reaction like 1916 was indeed inevitable.

A Leavy, 1 Shielmartin Drive, Sutton, Dublin 13.

Fr Peter McVerry and the Love Ulster riots From Martin Crotty

PERMIT me to reply to comments by Father Peter McVerry as reported by your crime correspondent (Sunday Tribune, 23 April 2006) in attempting to justify his so-called "hypothesis" as previously expressed by him in the media that the riots at the Love Ulster march was the result of the alienation of young men from disadvantaged areas from the gardai. He made no attempt to hypothesise why those same "young men" attacked and dragged foreign nationalists from shops, assaulted pregnant women and old pensioners and caused general mayhem among members of the public going about their lawful business. Not to mention the unprovoked attack on RTE's chief news reporter, Charlie Bird.

I do not wish to prolong the debate on the absurd theory of Fr McVerry, but I would wish to point out that this is the type of Jesuitical sophistry indulged in by him in the website Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice when writing about the gardai and the Morris tribunal in which he seems to be a self-appointed expert.

Whereas he spends much time and effort in castigating the lack of accountability within the Garda Siochana . . . mostly his own spin on the reports of the Morris tribunal . . . he devotes no time either in his website, Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice, or in his so-called Working Notes to the lack of accountability within the church in relation to the sinister and insidious abuse committed by members of the clergy and the abject failure of the hierarchy to investigate allegations of which they had ample notice.

McVerry says he never mentioned the Ferns report on the aforesaid website; yet he highlights the transgressions of other institutions while stating that "other organizations, such as the Church and political parties have already, with great pain, had to face this reality and introduce changes in structures of management and accountability." I would suggest that the greatest pain the church had to face was that of being found out and exposed. In second place came the pain and trauma suffered over decades by young people entrusted into the care of errant members of the clergy who were well aware of the lack of accountability and cover-up and improbability of their misdeeds ever coming to light. Only very recently, a young man took his own life as the result of prolonged sexual abuse by a member of the clergy and the dismal manner in which the allegations were handled. Where is the accountability he speaks about?

Fr McVerry's humanitarian work with the homeless has quite rightly been recognised. He should, however, ponder the significance of throwing too many brickbats at other organizations while appearing to give little or no attention to abuses, cover-ups and lack of accountability in the ecclesiastical organization of which he is a member.

Martin Crotty, Castleknock, Dublin 15 From D R O'Connor Lysaght

MAURICE O'CONNELL denounces 'flawed' facts; Tom Carew claims 'some vital points regarding 1916 have been ignored (Letters, 23 April). Sadly, both are guilty of that which they attack.

For O'Connell, the passing of the Home Rule Act (an amendment, not actual repeal, of the Act of Union, incident) was an admission of defeat, even by Unionists. For him, it would have been put into effect automatically after the war. He does not mention the fact that before implementation there would have had to be negotiations over the area to be included. As the current parliament had to be dissolved at the end of 1915, it would have been possible for the Unionists to have drawn out these talks in the reasonable expectation that they would win a mandate to repeal the act altogether; the war was fracturing the pro-Home Rule Liberals.

Unionism would have been able to depend first on the Ulster Division, kept in Ulster for nearly a year 'for training', whilst the Redmond Volunteers joined existing units drafted directly to the front and then on its membership of the coalition created to prosecute the war while extending parliament's life. Even after the Rising, the southern Irish Unionists, numerically their weakest component, were strong enough to veto an attempt to grant an immediate measure of home rule to neutralise the rebellion's effect.

The signatories of the Proclamation had been ready enough to support constitutional means to achieve some form of home rule in 1910, if only as a stepping stone. By April 1916, they had plenty of reason to feel that these means had been exhausted. So indeed, from the declining recruitment figures, did the majority of nationalist people. The Rising gave them a focus.

One further point: the (Redmondite) Home Rule Party got only 73 Irish seats in 1910, the same as Sinn Fein in 1918. Ten seats went to other Home Rule groups, eight members voting against the Home Rule Act.

DR O'Connor Lysaght, Clanawley Road, Dublin 5.

Fleming 'never stayed overnight' From Sean Fleming

I FULLY understand that overseas trips by public representatives are viewed as a legitimate target for journalists.

However, the attempt by your newspaper last Sunday to portray me as a "keen traveller" is simply not true. As chairman of the Joint Committee on Finance, I have never once stayed abroad overnight on Oireachtas business.

The few meetings I have attended abroad have all been brief day-returns only. Hardly a "keen traveller".

Sean Fleming TD Chairman, Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service Leinster House, Dublin 2 Holy Moses!

. . . it's only a myth From Alan Murphy

I'VE just read last week's article on Moses by Paul Vallely. It seems on the whole to be wellbalanced and well-researched.

The only thing I would suggest is that scientific explanations of biblical phenomena (even if he says they miss the point) only diminish the original stories if one was naive enough to literally believe them in the first place. Myth that is acknowledged to be myth is not harmed by speculation as to the actual historical facts; it's only literalism that bites the dust.

In my opinion, religious leaders, if they want to retain credibility in the 21st century, should openly acknowledge the mythological nature of their lore. In this way they might gain the respect of the disinterested and disaffected.

Alan Murphy, Glasnevin Avenue, Dublin 11.