Address of Taoiseach Micheál Martin Announcement of the first Childers Professor of Modern Irish History at Cambridge University Trinity College, Cambridge Friday 20th February 2026

Vice-Chancellor, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.

It is a real pleasure to be with you today for the announcement of the first holder of the Childers Professorship in Modern Irish History. In Professor Alvin Jackson the University of Cambridge has chosen a historian of the very highest rank. His body of work is broad and involves essential contributions on many of the issues which have defined Irish and British history over the past two centuries.

Democracy, rebellion, national identity, popular sovereignty and the fate of multi-state unions. These are big themes and he has made a major contribution on each of them as well as on other areas.

He has also taught in universities in different parts of these islands and has shown the benefit of the perspectives which this enables. His commitment to making history accessible to the public and to participating in public debates has been tireless.

I have followed Alvin’s work for many years. In fact 27 years ago, as the then Minister for Education, I launched the first edition of his survey of modern Irish history. This book quickly established itself as an essential text because of its rigour, balance and style.

For me its success marked an important moment in moving Irish historiography on from debates of previous decades. It also passed the most important test of a work of real scholarship – it presented the opinion of the author while also empowering readers to make up their own minds.

When the first edition was published the book’s sub-title was “Politics and War”. Last year, when the third edition came out, the sub-title was “War, Peace and Beyond”. Reflected in this you see how perspectives can evolve during a quarter of a century.

The signing of the Good Friday Agreement was a moment of great anticipation for the future we could build within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland as a whole and between Ireland and Great Britain.

It was the first time in our history where there was an agreed approach to governance and to deciding constitutional issues.

It was a triumph for those who never wavered in their support for democracy and it was, most of all, an act of hope.

As Seamus Mallon, one of the most important nationalist voices for peace, so brilliantly put it, the Agreement was “a new dispensation”.

The absence of war was precious, but we also carried a responsibility to create a new and exciting future.

In truth, when you look back at the years since then it is hard not to see the number of missed opportunities for progress – and the fundamental failure to do the hard work of trying to build the understanding, engagement and reconciliation which we aspire to.

By nearly every measure we are in a better place today than we were during the campaigns of violence which scarred our island for 30 years.

Yet we should be deeply concerned about our failure to address lasting sectarianism and deep economic disadvantage. We have done little to develop a sense of Irishness, our history, our shared interests and our future, which is more than a cover version of old orthodoxies.

No one could look at the ways in which certain groups use our flag, or their aggression towards those who do not toe the ideological line, and fail to worry about the damage which this might cause in years ahead.

Equally, we have had every reason to be concerned about changes to the relationship between these islands. The negative impact of Brexit and other developments have been undeniable over the past decade – making it a priority to restructure and rebuild old relationships.

The funding of a permanent Professorship of Modern Irish History here in Cambridge is part of a wider purpose. It is a practical demonstration of our commitment to addressing long-term concerns.

To be more specific, in funding this Professorship we are in part addressing our wider objectives of:

• Strengthening ties between Ireland and Britain at a time when we could easily drift apart;
• Demonstrating the growing importance of rigorous, independent, historical scholarship when these values are under threat; and finally
• Honouring figures who made important contributions to Irish history and who remind us to see the complexity which has always been the reality of Irish society.

To start with the first objective, the impact of Brexit on Ireland and Irish-British connections was always going to be negative. It was one of the many issues which were brushed aside during the referendum campaign.

Our countries joined the now European Union on the same day. For nearly half a century Europe provided a forum for deep and ongoing discussion and cooperation between us. Irish and British diplomats and ministers saw each other as a first port of call when trying to understand issues.

We were always more positive to the European Union, and frankly generally more constructive, but we had a close and productive relationship with UK which was crucial when we turned to bilateral issues.

In every ministerial role I held before Brexit, the relationship with my counterpart in London was my closest international connection. This was the same for all of my colleagues – and it was effectively wiped-out by Brexit.

In Northern Ireland, the impact of Brexit was especially serious.

For four decades Europe had been a forum where politicians from Northern Ireland could share an agenda. The alignment of standards and laws between all states also reduced differences between North and South. Crucially, the freedoms central to EU membership as well as the framework of European law helped to reduce uncertainty and increase faith in institutions.

Europe is part of the DNA of the Good Friday Agreement. Repeated references in the various texts which enacted the Agreement stressed how Europe gave a context in which to reduce differences.

Separately the European Convention on Human Rights, which both of our countries remain signatories to, provides the context for securing the cross-community legitimacy of courts and other institutions.

Therefore it has been a core priority for me to construct new ways of securing relations between our governments – and also to be clear on the commitments we each made when securing peace and which remain unaffected.

I am pleased to say that there has been real progress and we are seeing close and constructive relations between our governments.

Prime Minister Sunak marked a clear departure from the years immediately after the referendum when he took important steps in solving lingering issues about the Brexit settlement.

Prime Minister Starmer has shown himself to be a true friend of active, strong and constructive relations between our countries. His commitment to avoiding a drift towards reduced engagement and growing differences has been absolutely clear.

Together we have begun formal annual summits and have instructed our governments to increase ongoing engagement. We have looked for ways to protect and expand the sort of social, economic and cultural exchange which our peoples should take for granted.

I warmly welcome the decisions of Prime Minister Starmer to ensure that Britain is a full participant in Horizon Europe and Erasmus. These decisions will help reinforce long-standing and important connections between our universities and researchers.

I am also determined that we end the complacency which developed concerning relations within the island of Ireland.

The Shared Island Initiative which I launched represents the first sustained effort to invest in promoting growth, understanding and reconciliation North and South. Backed by a financial commitment of €2 billion, not only are we literally building roads and bridges between communities, we are also funding work to more fully understand our societies and economies. This is examining what we share, where we differ and the progress we can achieve when working together.

Education is a core part of this, as is major funding for research in universities and institutes.

I believe we need fewer people singing about old certainties and more who are willing to find new perspectives. Overcoming entrenched views of others is an unrealised and essential step towards sustained progress.

In funding universities – from undergraduate teaching to frontiers research – our own universities are of course our priority.

Higher education is a public good without which you cannot sustain a successful society or economy. Without it you cannot hope to meet the many profound challenges which the modern world keeps producing. As such, my government will continue to implement a programme to invest in both access and quality in our own institutions.

Our decision to support the establishment of this professorship in Cambridge is informed by our belief in the power of higher education, and the urgency to ensure that our countries respond to these times by acting to deepen and secure our connections.

It is also a signal of our belief in the central importance of independent historical scholarship in protecting core democratic values.

The most destructive development of recent times has been the growth of populist sentiment and polarised information environments. As recent research conducted in Cambridge has shown, the impact of strengthened group loyalties is reducing the ability to think outside of rigid frames.

Through much of the world we are seeing an assault on forums and scholarship which question fixed views or which demand complexity. Even in secure democracies, we see efforts to stereotype and dismiss the importance of disciplines which are not deemed practical enough.

The discipline of history has been a particular target.

The most extreme example is seen with the neo-imperialist Putin regime in Russia. Having essentially banned all historical work which pointed to dark points in Russia’s history, they now routinely terrorise and jail people who point out historical realities like the brutality of state repression under communism or the destruction of the historic Tatar culture of the Crimean peninsula.

In its place they are promoting a pseudo-history which brings to mind Orwell’s description of “a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique controls not only the future but the past.”

This is no less than a Potemkin-like historical vision where you must accept a façade of unbroken righteousness and loyalty – while any who look behind will be punished.

A less aggressive, but still deeply serious, questioning of the right to challenge narratives or even bring new perspectives to how we see history is now found through much of the world. State-led revisionism is seen in attempts to reopen old issues, reinvigorate the idea of national enemies and to define national identity through allegiance to a particular understanding of the past.

In other contexts, we are seeing attempts to caricature and undermine scholarship which is conducted in good faith by labelling it reactionary, or woke, or any number of other labels. The dismissive use of these labels is intended to stifle debate not empower it.

This goes to the very core of democratic values. For me democracy requires far more than just holding elections – it requires the rule of law, active respect for diverse opinions, protection of the ability to raise questions and a rejection of the idea that to be part of the polity you must conform to a set narrative.

Further, I believe that the strongest democracies, and the most sustainable societies, are those which embrace the importance of diversity and complexity.

Without the humanities this is impossible, and history has a fundamental role to play.

In truth, the nature of the new challenges to democratic values is such that the study of history may be more important than ever.

In 1943, when reflecting on the rapid revision of history to serve immediate needs, Orwell wrote “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history”.

Unlike other comments of his, I actually find this one to be reassuring. This is because 83 years later we can see that a sense of the possibility of objective truth, or at least the importance of verifiable evidence, was capable of reasserting itself. A key part of this was that we had a diverse and independent community of scholars committed to exploring both traditional topics and new perspectives on the past.

In Ireland as in many parts of the world, debates on the writing of history have often been heated – but the very fact that there have been debates has spoken to the importance and health of the profession.

For us it has been an essential balance against a society which has often rushed to see in everything what Richard Bourke has termed “the myths of continuity and composition.”

Anne Dolan of Trinity College Dublin has commented that, as a historian, she is luckier than politicians who can seem, she says, “compelled to see if the past can fix us, and I’m blunt enough to think we only have ourselves to blame for what happens now.”

I’m particularly struck by another comment of hers that historians should embrace the challenge to “make it harder to be so certain and so shrill”.

This is not to say that we forget that a diverse colour palette includes elements of black and white. For example, no credible scholarship could ever oblige the Irish people to think better of Oliver Cromwell. Indeed most of us are also unlikely to ever change our mind concerning the decision of the founder of this College to declare himself King of Ireland.

I believe that the best historical research emerges through both adherence to distinct methods and an active engagement with other disciplines. For me, it is hard to understand the Irish Famine without considering the economic issues so brilliantly studied by Trinity’s former Master and Nobel Laureat Amartya Sen.

Support for a diverse, rigorous and accessible body of historical scholarship should be a much greater priority for democratic governments even at a time of stretched budgets. Our support for this professorship is one demonstration of our commitment to this.

We also have a responsibility to show that it is possible to commemorate historical figures and movements without seeking to impose fixed views on the past.

Erskine Childers and his son Erskine Hamilton Childers are important figures in the establishment and success of an independent Irish state.

They were both members of the Anglican faith who were born and educated in England. This included taking degrees here in Trinity. Neither of them was a cultural nationalist, holding a broader view of what defined a nation. They also both married exceptional women, whose spirits and intellects were undeniable.

Erskine served as a clerk in the House of Commons and as an officer in the Boer War. His major work of fiction, an early spy-thriller called ‘The Riddle of the Sands’, was a bestseller and has never been out of print.

Once converted to the cause of Irish republicanism he became one of its foremost advocates in articles and pamphlets. He and his wife Molly transported most of the guns used in the 1916 Rising to Dublin in their yacht.

Elected to Dáil Éireann and appointed to lead the secretariat for negotiations with Lloyd George’s government, Erskine ultimately opposed the Treaty of 1921. He did so for many reasons, with the most important being that he felt it was not a settlement which could unite the Irish people.

His death was one of the great tragedies of the Civil War.

Arrested at a moment when the government had decided to ignore both new and established laws, he was executed for owning a small revolver which had been given to him by Michael Collins, the most significant figure for supporters of the Treaty.

Erskine Hamilton shared his father’s republicanism but he, like the dominant majority of Irish people, was committed to democratic means. Also a member of Dáil Éireann, he held four ministerial roles including the office of Tánaiste or Deputy Prime Minister.

He was a moderniser and an internationalist – and he enthusiastically campaigned for membership of the EEC. When he was elected to serve as President he began the process for opening up the office and he actively engaged with different strands of Irish society.

As a Protestant head of a state with a large Catholic majority, he had an important voice in the shared rejection of the violence and sectarianism which were then escalating in the North. His death little more than a year after taking up office was a great national shock.

Erskine and Erskine Hamilton Childers are personalities who deserve our respect, and they reward our engagement. They ultimately speak to the remarkable complexity and interconnections which you find within Irish society and in our links with Britain. They are a reminder that you cannot understand Irish history if you try to impose crude assumptions about religion or class.

An example of the dynamic nature of connections and change through our history can be seen when you consider one of the portraits on the staircase outside this room.

It shows Charles Villers Stanford, an important Irish composer whose church music remains a mainstay of colleges and cathedrals around the world a century after his death. He was a long-serving organist of this College – a post he held during the early part of Erskine Childers’ time here.

Unlike Childers, Stanford was born and educated in Dublin. He wrote major works on Irish themes and had an international success with a comic opera entitled ‘Shaymus O’Brien’ which gave a sympathetic portrayal of a participant in the 1798 Rebellion.

In response to the later Home Rule debates and then 1916 and the War of Independence, Stanford backed away from the centrality of a broad Irishness in his identity, even refusing to allow performances of ‘Shaymus O’Brien’.

He had become a loud and inflexible voice for unionism by the time his portrait was painted by William Orpen, also a Dubliner and one of the greatest portraitists of the early twentieth century.

The commemoration of the Childers through the endowment of a professorship in modern Irish history is, I believe, a fitting memorial from a grateful state to their spirit and an invitation for us to look deeper into Irish history.

The Professorship will not create Irish history in Cambridge – there is a long tradition of Cambridge historians writing important works in the field. Rather, it will guarantee and expand this tradition. It will help research students and will provide an opportunity to find new directions for cooperation across different disciplines.

Irish scholars and Irish topics are to be found throughout the University. I value the very close link which many of our researchers have with Cambridge.

Irish studies are highly active here. The Parnell Fellowship brings an important public intellectual to Cambridge each year and I want to acknowledge the work of Eamon Duffy. As well as being one of the most significant recent historians of religion he has been at the centre of promoting Irish studies.

During her time here holding a temporary lectureship funded by the Irish government, Niamh Gallagher made a very important contribution. Her work on the social and political impact of the First World War is a groundbreaking text and I look forward to the output of her latest project on Ireland and the end of empires.

The idea for this endowment was raised with me through the initiative of Richard Bourke and Eugenio Biagini on behalf of the Faculty of History. I would like to thank them for the comprehensive and professional way in which they made it easy for me to support this proposal. Both of them are renowned scholars who have put an immense effort into an initiative which will benefit generations to come.

We are very lucky to have a dynamic and highly innovative team in our embassy in London under the leadership of Ambassador Martin Fraser. They know the University well and made important inputs to this proposal.

Similarly I would like to acknowledge the work of my own staff and the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs who together shepherded it through government and parliament so quickly. The fact that the relevant parliamentary committee of Dáil Éireann supported the endowment without objection reflects the quality and importance of the idea.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge two people who are no longer with us but who should be remembered today.

Brendan Bradshaw was a longstanding history lecturer here and a fellow of Queen’s College. He was a forceful advocate of his positions in historical debate but equally known for his kindness and encouragement to generations of young researchers irrespective of their outlooks. At a conference marking the bicentenary of the 1798 rebellion he mentioned to me his concern about the lack of a permanent place for Irish history here. I know he would be pleased that others have succeeded in creating this place.

My late friend and colleague Martin Mansergh was son of Nicholas Mansergh, the first Cambridge Professor of Commonwealth History and Master of St John’s College. Like the Childers, the Manserghs are a Protestant family with a long tradition of education in England and service to Ireland.

Martin was a diplomat, advisor, senator, Dáil deputy and minister. He is most widely known for his critical role in the earliest and most sensitive stages of the peace process.

When he passed last year he was spending much of his time here in Cambridge preparing his father’s papers for publication. He was a strong supporter of the creation of this professorship and was looking forward to this event.

Martin would have been as pleased as I am to find that not only has the professorship been established, but also that its first holder is a historian of such distinction as Alvin Jackson.

As I have said, this is a time when we need to protect and strengthen bonds between our countries. It is a time when we need to assert the importance of diverse, rigorous and independent historical scholarship. It is a time when we should do more to honour figures who can challenge us to see the richness and complexity of our past.

This professorship is a small but important demonstration of the commitment of the Irish government to addressing these challenges.

Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today and I look forward to tracing the impacts of the Childers Professorship in the years ahead.