William Maume: United Irishman and Informer in Two Hemispheres
William Maume: United Irishman and Informer in Two Hemispheres MICHAEL DUREY I adical and revolutionary movements in Ireland in the eighteenth and Rnineteenth centuries are reputed to have been riddled with spies and informers. Their persistent influence helped to distract attention from other causes of failure. Weaknesses within movements, such as internecine strife among leaders, poorly-conceiv~d strategies and exaggerated estimates of popular support, could be hidden behind an interpretation of events which placed responsibility for failure on a contingency that was normally beyond rebel control. In some respects, therefore, it was in the interests of Irish leaders, and sympathetic later commentators, to exaggerate the influence of spies and informers. 1 Such conclusions are possible, however, only because commentators, both contemporary and modern, have failed to make a distinction between spies, being persons 'engaged in covert information-gathering activities', and informers, who are persons who happen to possess relevant information that they are persuaded to divulge. 2 Admittedly, this distinction is not always clear-cut, for some who begin as informers subsequently agree to become spies. Moreover, from the point of view of the authorities, all information, however acquired, tends to be grist to their intelligence mill. Nevertheless, keeping this distinction clear can help to elucidate some of the problems facing revolutionary societies as they sought to keep their activities secret. It is unlikely, for example, that the United Irishmen in the 1790s were at greater risk from spies, as opposed to informers, than either the Jacobins or the Royalists in France in the same period. At no time could Dublin Town-Major Henry Sirr, or security chief Edward Cooke in Dublin Castle, call on the same security apparatus as was available to the police in Paris under the See, for example, W.J.
[Show full text]