During JJ's time in Trinity as an undergraduate, he participated in College societies. The College Historical Society (the 'Hist') record, which has continuity since the 18th century, having been a platform for Wolfe Tone, Burke and others, contains several references to JJ during his undergraduate days, though he did not take a leading committee role, preferring to concentrate on getting good exam results.

He probably attended some of the meetings in his first year, though he did not become a member until November 1907. The meetings in the 1906-07 session gave him some flavour of current political debating issues. For example on 30/01/07 they supported strongly the Irish language revival movement, and on 06/02/07 they voted unanimously to separate church and state. On 27/02/07 they preferred isolation to absorption in a great empire. On May 8 and 15 (with an adjournment) they narrowly declined to approve of the Irish Parliamentary Party. This meeting had Sir Algernon Cook as guest speaker. On 29/05/07 they strongly supported peasant proprietorship. With this relatively progressive image it is not surprising that JJ decided in Michaelmas 1907, in his second year, to join. It would have been in tune with the family tradition of liberal Presbyterianism.

The 1907 Opening Meeting, at which JJ's and 56 other students' names were proposed and accepted, was presided over by Lord Ashbourne. The Auditor J G Dougherty presented a paper on the House of Lords, the reform of which was on the current political agenda, after the 1906 Liberal landslide victory. Speakers included Justice Ross, Richard Cherry MP, Swifte McNeill KC MP and the Lord Lieutenant.

Student politics goes in cycles. While being enticed to join by the relatively liberal performance of 06/07, JJ must have found himself in 07/08 in a society dominated by a Tory backlash. He found no opportunity that moved him to speak in 07/08. On 13/11/07 they decisively support conscription in defence of the Empire; later in November, with an adjournment, they narrowly agreed that the 'Hungarian method applied to Ireland' was foredoomed to failure. This is an echo of the then current discussions around Arthur Griffith's book 'Resurrection of Hungary'.

On 10/12/07 there was a slight 'left' revival: they declined to deplore the increase in power of Trade Unions. On 29/01/08 however they strongly supported Burke's attitude to the French Revolution. On 05/02/08 they expressed satisfaction about the principle of party government. Then on 12/02/08 they decided rather strongly that the 'emancipation of the coloured races' was a danger to civilisation, and then on 19/02/08 they declined to condemn the idea that 'the King can do no wrong'.

On 11/03/08 the proposal that 'democracy is an ideal form of government' was heavily defeated. On can of course argue this from various angles, given the spectrum of meanings attributable to the word 'democracy'. One could write a thesis on this.

On 13/07/08 they decided rather strongly that the present state of Ireland was falsely represented in the English conservative press, and then on 27/05/08 they deplored interference with the liberty of the Press.

In the elections to the committee for the next session there is no record of JJ as an activist in this context. On 03/06/08 they approved of old age pensions (a then topical Liberal innovative reform), on 10/06/08 they urged that the self-governing colonies should establish their own armies, and finally on 17/06/08 they strongly deplored the technical tendency in modern education.

This in JJ's second year in College the Hist would have presented a somewhat consistent Tory image, with occasional flashes of liberalism, but little indication of nationalist or Home Rule thinking. JJ however did not forsake the Hist; he stuck with it, and contributed to the debate in 08/09, and also in his final year 09/10.

The session 1908/09 opened with the Auditor J H Monroe presenting his paper on Socialism and Democracy. Then on 11/11/08 they opposed votes for women (the suffragette movement was then in full swing) and on 18/11/08 they opposed strongly the reduction of armaments. We are now into the type of jingoism which preceded World War 1. They opposed modernising the older universities. Relief work was considered economically unsound. They would have supported the South in the American Civil War. They did not however regard 'general military training' as desirable (perhaps for fear of an armed working class; the 1905 events in Russia had provided an early warning of events to come).

In February 1909 they strongly disapproved of extending self-government to the Dominions, and deplored the increasing power of the Cabinet. They stood over the principle of unrestricted choice of university subjects. In March the motion that the American War of Independence was justified was carried, but by the Chairman's casting vote! Professor Bastable the economist was in the chair on this occasion.

Then in April they defeated by acclamation (ie no vote was recorded) the idea of allowing natives to govern India. They did not think that the recall of Earl Fitzwilliam in 1795 was justifiable, nor that the present system for punishing criminals was unsatisfactory. They held strongly that England should prepare for invasion. (This was probably an echo of Erskine Childers' book 'The Riddle of the Sands' in which invasion across the North Sea from bases in Friesland was shown to be feasible; it had considerable influence on British defensive thinking.)

On May 19 the motion to 'approve of Imperial Home Rule' was defeated 17 to 6. The foregoing is the measure of the somewhat Tory-dominated atmosphere in which JJ on May 26 made his maiden speech, against the motion 'that further taxation is necessary for State purposes'. The opposition to this motion was led by J H Monroe the Auditor, who had earlier read the inaugural paper on 'socialism and democracy'. Between them they seem to have spoken effectively, as the motion was lost, 9 to 12. There is no record of the arguments, but I can safely make the conjecture that they could have added up to a case against the then rampant arms race.

In the final meetings of the session they called for tariff reform, deplored athleticism and supported the Young Turks.

In JJ's final year, 1909/10, it is worth recording in more detail how the 'Hist' debates went; JJ participated as the leading speaker in a significant one, on the assessment of the Battle of the Boyne, and the group which he led in the debate had a fairly consistent performance in other debates that year. It can I think fairly be described as radical liberal, with a whiff of nationalism. It credibly prefigures his subsequent record in Oxford, and his increasing opposition to the Orange-Tory conspiracy which led to the Larne gun-running, and which he opposed so trenchantly in his 1913 book 'Civil War in Ulster'.

The opening meeting on November 3 1909 was addressed by the Auditor WHA O'Grady on 'Irish Finance'. Lord Ashbourne was in the chair; speakers included AW Samuels, TW Burnell MP and William Field MP. How the coming Home Rule process would reflect itself into the fiscal situation was a hot topic; JJ subsequently devoted a chapter in 'Civil War in Ulster' to aspects of the question.

On November 10 they again debated 'peasant proprietorship' but this time, unlike in 1907, decided against it. TP Gill, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (DATI) was in the chair. Then on November 17 they debated a motion that the result of the Battle of the Boyne was beneficial to Ireland. WA Goligher was in the chair; Goligher was a classical scholar with whom JJ subsequently had a close relationship when he became a Fellow. JJ was the main speaker against the motion. He was supported by Herrick, Powell, Lentaigne and Blackhall. The motion was defeated by acclamation (ie there is no voting record). I mention the names because they crop up in relation to other motions during the year, and this gives clues about JJ's political alignments.

On November 24 the motion was 'that the Society deplores interference by one country in the affairs of another'. This motion was carried, but Herrick and Lentaigne opposed it. Then on December 1 they debated the abolition of the House of Lords; Lentaigne support this, but the motion was lost. On December 8 he also supported the French position in the Franco-Prussian War, the motion being carried by the chair's casting vote; the chair was Ashley Powell. Then on December 15 they had a debate involving guests from Edinburgh, 'that compulsory military service is necessary to defend the Empire'. This was lost 32-37. Justice Ross was in the chair.

Then in 1910 the first debate, on January 26, was on votes for women. Lentaigne and Herrick supported the motion, and it was carried, 9 to 7. As we shall see later, JJ made his maiden speech in Oxford in support of this issue. On February 2 it was moved that England's attitude to the Boer war was justifiable. Lentaigne and Herrick supported the motion, perhaps confirming an imperial attitude, as already suggested in the November 23 debate previously. The motion was lost by acclamation. However there are ambiguities about this record. Originally it was written as 'unjustifiable' and the 'un' is crossed out, without any chairman's initial. Herrick and Lentaigne would in this case be distancing themselves from the prevailing jingoistic environment. I find it hard to believe the motion as posthumously amended being lost by acclamation.

On February 9 they debated 'that the present fiscal system is disastrous for Ireland'. This was supported by Powell, Herrick and Lentaigne, the Hist activists who had supported JJ in his Boyne motion. The motion was carried by acclamation. Then on February 23 it was proposed 'that Ireland is over-represented in the Imperial Parliament'. This motion was carried, 10 to 7, JJ speaking against, and Herrick supporting.

On March 2 it was moved 'that the Irish genius is incompatible with great literature'. Lentaigne supported this contention, but there was strong opposition, and the motion was lost resoundingly. Speakers against included R Hannay, EL Stephens and JM Henry. Ned Stephens was a close friend of JJ; they worked together subsequently on the details of the local economic impact of Partition, in the context of the Boundary Commission. JM Henry subsequently was with JJ among the last of the 'Fellowship by examination' people. He is one of the few people mentioned in the Hist record of this period whom I can claim to have encountered, apart from my father, and indeed, marginally, Ned Stephens. Max Henry lectured, obscurely, in mathematics, and published in the early 30s a somewhat eccentric philosophical work. In this and subsequent Hist debates he tended to take the opposite side to Lentaigne.

On March 9 they approved of Labour Exchanges, despite the opposition of Lentaigne and Herrick, Bastable the economics professor being in the chair. On March 16 they approved of municipal trading, Lentaigne supporting, but Herrick and JM Henry opposing. Alderman Lorcan Sherlock, who was then Mayor, chaired.

On March 23 they debated the constitutional priority of finance in the Imperial Parliament. This motion I take to mean that the key financial decisions for Ireland should be taken in Westminster. Lentaigne opposed, supported by Dudley Edwards, who subsequently became the well-known UCD historian. The motion was lost.

Then after the Easter vacation on May 4 they debated the need to deplore socialistic tendencies; the motion was lost; the opposition included Lentaigne and O'Grady the Auditor. On May 11 they adjourned as a mark of respect to the late King Edward VII, resuming on May 18 to debate whether modern society was rotten to the core. They decided it wasn't, Lentaigne opposing.

On June 1 it was proposed by Herrick and others 'that sentiment plays too great a role in Irish politics' and opposed strongly and successfully by a group which included Herrick, Lentaigne and Powell. On June 8 they declined to deplore the increase in Sunday pastimes, and then finally on June 15 they decided that material prosperity was not necessary for good literature.

Thus ended the social and debating aspect of JJ's final year in TCD. One should hesitate to read too much into student debating attitudes, but it is tempting to use Herrick and Lentaigne as indicators of JJ's probable political position on the various issues.

From their initial united position with JJ on the evaluation of the effects of the Battle of the Boyne, they subsequently tended to appear on opposite sides. JJ was against Herrick on February 23, suggesting that JJ would on the whole have tended to be in the Lentaigne camp.

If this were the case, he would have been critical of the current Irish fiscal position (Feb 9), sceptical about Irish literature (March 2), against labour exchanges (March 9), for municipal trading (March 16), against Westminster control of Irish finance March 23), open-minded towards socialism (May 4), supportive of the soundness of modern society (May 18; Herrick and Lentaigne were united again on this one), and supportive of the reality of current Irish political issues (June 1).

The foregoing would suggest a basically Liberal free-trade utilitarian type of outlook, with a positive attitude to the then emerging politics of Home Rule for all-Ireland within the Empire, enriched by perhaps a touch of romantic nationalism. We will see later how this mixture evolves under the stress of the War, the national movement, the civil war and the Free State.

There subsequently turned up another possible insight into JJ's political formation: political drama in the North. For some insight into this, see some additional notes added after I found a reference to Rutherford Mayne in his papers.

Some navigational notes:

Copyright Dr Roy Johnston 1999