Category Archives: History

Guest post: examining Irish legal cartoons

1 Reply

Confluences of Law and History, Irish Legal History Society Discourses and Other Papers, 2011-2021 contains 16 essays covering the early modern period to the twentieth century. University College Dublin Associate Professor Niamh Howlin and Dublin historian Felix M. Larkin are co-editors and contributors to the volume. Larkin is a scholar of the press in Ireland and an occasional contributor to this site. Below are highlights of his essay, “The asinine law: Irish legal cartoons.” Confluences is set for September release by Four Courts Press, Dublin. MH

***

Satire, whether in literary form or in cartoons, is generally associated with anti-establishment sentiment. It usually ‘punches up’, a weapon of the powerless against dominant groups and people.[1]See F.M. Larkin, ‘Satirical journalism’ in M. Conboy and A. Bingham (eds), The Edinburgh history of the British and Irish press, vol. 3: competition and disruption, 1900–2017 (Edinburgh, 2020), … Continue reading Accordingly, lawyers and the law are obvious targets. The arcane and archaic rituals of the law invite ridicule, and so too does the showy – sometimes bombastic – style of many of its successful practitioners. Moreover, the fact that the law often has what seems – at least to an outsider – perverse outcomes makes it fair game for satire, laughter being a way of bridging the gap between common sense and the peculiar logic of the law. My purpose in the Confluences essay is to examine how the law and lawyers have been depicted in a representative selection of Irish cartoons over more than two centuries.

Fig. 1

The oldest of the cartoons that I consider resulted in the imprisonment of the editor of the newspaper in which it appeared, the Volunteer’s Journal. The editor was Mathew Carey, and he published the offending cartoon (Fig. 1, left) on 5 April 1784. Entitled ‘Thus perish all traitors to their country’, the target of the cartoon was John Foster, chancellor of the exchequer in the Irish parliament at College Green, Dublin, which is seen in the background. He was later the last speaker of the Irish parliament before the Union of 1801. Carey was arraigned before the Irish House of Commons on account of this cartoon and held for a time in Newgate prison in Dublin. On his release, but with a libel case still pending against him, he fled to America and had a highly successful career as a publisher in Philadelphia.

Daniel O’Connell is acknowledged as the greatest Irish lawyer of the early nineteenth century. He was the focus of innumerable cartoons produced in Dublin and London, most of them hostile and savagely anti-Catholic. Many were by John Doyle, the most notable caricaturist of the early nineteenth century. He was a Catholic Irishman, but plied his trade exclusively in London. One of Doyle’s cleverest cartoons about O’Connell, published in London in March 1833, borrowed an image from Swift’s Gulliver’s travels. It shows O’Connell as Gulliver brandishing a scroll bearing the word REPEAL – shorthand for his demand for repeal of the Union – and being restrained and attacked ineffectively by his political opponents, who are dismissed as Lilliputians (Fig. 2, below).

Fig. 2

Cartoons in the Weekly Freeman, United Ireland and satirical magazines such as Pat document the land war of the 1880s, and are still often reproduced today in studies of that period.[2]See L.P. Curtis Jr, Apes and angels: the Irishman in Victorian caricatures (Newton Abbot, 1971), pp 38, 43. This was a truly pioneering study: nobody before Curtis had made use of cartoons as a … Continue reading Gladstone’s second land act – Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881 – was a modest attempt to respond to the agitation. It gave power to civil bill courts to fix rents, with provision for referral to a land commission to appeal the rents. The act was seen as creating endless possibilities for legal wrangling – a ‘cash cow’ for lawyers. Accordingly, Pat in January 1882 looked into the future with a cartoon of Ireland a hundred years later, with the lawyers so rich that they have displaced the old landlords as proprietors of the land and are sitting comfortably on their rents (Fig. 3, below).

Fig. 3

Some areas, such as the law and religion, were out-of-bounds – not fair game for satire – in the early days of the newly-independent Irish state. This reticence about lampooning the law was largely because of the danger of being held in contempt of court. As Mary Kotsonouris has written, contempt of court issues were particularly sensitive at this time. Given the distrust of the legal system under the old regime, it was all the more important that the administration of justice in the new dispensation should be accorded obedience and respect. The courts insisted on that, and this influenced press coverage.[3]M. Kotsonouris, ‘Criticising judges in Ireland’, Irish Judicial Studies Journal, 2:1 (2002), pp 79–97.

Fig. 4

Nevertheless, Dublin Opinion magazine – arguably Ireland’s most celebrated satirical magazine, published between 1922 and 1968 – did publish from time to time some brilliant cartoons on constitutional questions drawn by C.E. Kelly, its principal cartoonist and joint-editor. One such reflected the widespread criticism of the position of women posited in de Valera’s 1937 constitution – the emphasis on a woman’s ‘life within the home’. A cover cartoon depicted de Valera asleep in bed and dreaming of being attacked by the iconic figures of Queen Maeve and Granuaile, carrying a spear and a sword respectively. The caption reads: ‘Say, big boy, about those articles in the new constitution’ (Fig. 4, right).

Without question, the most impactful Irish cartoon in recent times is that by Martin  Turner published on the front page of the Irish Times on 17 February 1992, in response to the government’s efforts to prevent a pregnant 14-year-old girl, Miss ‘X’, travelling to England for an abortion (Fig. 5, below). This cartoon linked the young girl’s predicament with the outrage of internment without trial in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. The depiction of the girl, her hair in a pigtail and carrying a teddy bear, standing on a map of Ireland surrounded by a fence topped with razor wire helped define the subsequent debate in Ireland on the law on abortion. Sometimes cartoons can do more than just make us laugh.

Fig. 5

References

References
↑1 See F.M. Larkin, ‘Satirical journalism’ in M. Conboy and A. Bingham (eds), The Edinburgh history of the British and Irish press, vol. 3: competition and disruption, 1900–2017 (Edinburgh, 2020), pp 556–7.
↑2 See L.P. Curtis Jr, Apes and angels: the Irishman in Victorian caricatures (Newton Abbot, 1971), pp 38, 43. This was a truly pioneering study: nobody before Curtis had made use of cartoons as a source for Irish history.
↑3 M. Kotsonouris, ‘Criticising judges in Ireland’, Irish Judicial Studies Journal, 2:1 (2002), pp 79–97.

Will the Trumpistorians alter Irish American history?

Leave a reply

UPDATE:

Read or listen to this Democracy Now! interview with Annette Gordon-Reed, a Harvard history professor and president of the Organization of American Historians.

ORIGINAL POST:

The Trump administration announced August 12 that it would begin a comprehensive review of current and planned exhibitions at the Smithsonian Institution, which describes itself as “the world’s largest museum, education, and research complex.” The administration said that it will examine museum display text and website and social media content “to assess tone, historical framing and alignment with American ideals.”

This is part of a broader effort by US President Donald Trump to stamp his gilded, white-washed view of American history on the nation’s 250th anniversary in 2026, and beyond. Earlier this year the Smithsonian removed, then revised, references to Trump’s two impeachments. Historians are alarmed.

Of course, Ireland and the Irish loom large in American history. Several signatories of the Declaration of Independence were born in Ireland or had Irish roots. Mass Irish immigration in the mid-nineteenth century provided soldiers for the US Civil War and labor for American commerce. Ireland’s struggles for freedom and equality have influenced American politics and culture throughout the twentieth century; from helping to scuttle the League of Nations in 1919 to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, with many St. Patrick’s Day parades in between.

The Smithsonian holds numerous objects and artifacts related to Irish American history. Some have been displayed in public, others featured in institution publications and platforms.

The all-time most viewed post on this site was inspired in 2017 by a display about immigration at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History. The “Irish radicalism” addressed in the 1889 political cartoon seen below has been widely discussed by other online platforms, which probably has something to do with the digital traffic. I am not sure if the display I viewed eight years ago is still at the museum, and if so, whether it will survive the Trump scrub.

“Irish radicals were seen as too unruly to mix in,” the Smithsonian said in 2017.

Another item from the Smithsonian’s website details an 1882 banner honoring Irish American boxer John L. Sullivan. The April 2018 post notes the history of sports figures who wade into politics, including contemporary athletes who refused “to visit the Obama and Trump White Houses.” How will the Trumpistorians deal with this description:

“The Irish were never held as slaves in America, but into the late 1800s Irish Americans continued to battle long-standing prejudices that led many people to think of them as inferior to other European Americans. British and American writers blamed Irish people themselves rather than imperialism and bigotry for Irish poverty. They cited Irish allegiance to the Catholic Church, unsupported applications of Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the pseudoscience of phrenology—which wrongly claimed a link between people’s intellectual potential and the outline of their heads—to claim that Irish people were less independent and less intelligent than “Anglo-Teutonic” people from Northern Europe. Often, as the illustrations below demonstrate, the alleged differences were described in racial terms, with the Irish either not considered white or considered less human than other whites.”

The post goes on to explore Sullivan’s “empathy for the South in the wake of the Civil War and his desire to see the South and North reconciled in a nation that valued white supremacy.” Will the Trumpistorians remove the references to slavery and phrenology but keep the part about white supremacy?

Here’s a March 2015 post that details “four objects that reveal facets of the Irish American experience.” The opening section about early twentieth century St. Patrick’s Day postcards says that many were based on “unflattering stereotypes of the Irish as drinkers, fighters, or simple country bumpkins.” It says that Irish Americans used “protests, boycotts, and calls for the police to confiscate the ‘indecent literature’” as an example of how “both individuals and groups often use whatever power and resources they have at their disposal to push back.”

Was this “cancel culture?” Will the Trumpistorians allow content that speaks about protesting commercial interests, let alone an unpopular government?

These are just three examples. I imagine content that names Trump, such as the second item in this post (Obama and Trump in the same sentence, oh my!), will receive the most immediate attention. Trump seems to have a conflicted relationship with Ireland. He owns a golf course in Clare and has an affinity for Conor McGregor (both convicted in civil courts of sexual misconduct). But Trump has targeted Ireland’s tax schemes and High Tech and Big Pharma infrastructure in his overhaul of global trade, and he doesn’t care for its support of the Palestinians.

I’ll be watching this story over the coming year. I invite readers to send other examples from the Smithsonian or other institutions that could face Trump’s revisionism on Irish issues. And, of course, you are very welcome to visit the Smithsonian museums here in the city of Washington, D.C., now occupied by Trump’s troops.

Brayden on Irish journalists and state propaganda

Leave a reply

Chicago Daily News correspondent William H. Brayden interviewed or mentioned several Irish journalists in his 1925 reporting about the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. His 16-part series, later consolidated as a small book, also discussed propaganda and the press. I’ve linked to Dictionary of Irish Biography profiles of the journalists and other figures of Irish history mentioned in Brayden’s work. Learn more on Brayden in my series introduction.

Desmond FitzGerald

Brayden described Desmond FitzGerald, the Free State’s minister of external affairs as “the best propagandist ever in Ireland.”[1]William H. Brayden, The Irish Free State: a survey of the newly constructed institutions of the self-governing Irish people, together with a report on Ulster. [Chicago: Chicago Daily News, 1925], … Continue reading In 1919, FitzGerald became director of publicity for Dáil Éireann. In that role, he lobbied international journalists for fair coverage of Ireland and produced the Irish Bulletin to counter anti-Irish narratives published in the London press and British government propaganda.

Desmond FitzGerald

“[The Bulletin’s] offices were raided again and again, and he and his assistants were perpetually ‘on the run,’ ” Brayden recalled. “Yet the little sheet never failed to appear, and when Mr. Fitzgerald was in jail his assistants carried it on.”

The best of those assistants, according to Brayden, were Frank Gallagher and Robert Brennan. They remained ardent republicans after the civil war instead of joining FitzGerald in the Free State government. “I may perhaps be allowed the confession that they are all friends of mine and that I like them all and wish they were not divided,” Brayden revealed in his reporting.

What Brayden declined to disclose to American readers is that he had worked on anti-Sinn Féin propaganda for the British government at Dublin Castle during 1918–1919.

Brayden praised FitzGerald’s influence on the direction of Free State policy. “He has a real sense of the importance to the new state of its world contacts and the ministry could not be in more suitable hands.”[2]Ibid., 25.

Propaganda and publicity

The Publicity Department was essentially a re-labelling of the Propaganda Department established within the Sinn Féin party for the December 1918 general election campaign.[3]See  John Neary, “Early Public Diplomacy in Ireland” in Public Diplomacy in Ireland and Japan. [Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2024], pp. 73-82. In 1925, the three-year-old Irish Free State government continued to mature through the distinctions and differences between revolutionary propaganda and elected state publicity. Brayden continued:

“It was probably the propaganda aspect of the Free State’s ministry of external affairs that led to the attachment to it of a government publicity department. Whether any state should have a publicity department for supplying information to the press is a debatable point. Many states either openly or otherwise find that publicity is an essential. But from the first the Free State publicity department , though conducted by men of the highest skill in journalistic work, was a target for criticism. It proved extremely useful to newspaper men in dealing with the welter of alarming and contradictory statements about Ireland which in the last few years were published in the newspapers of the world. But it was not easy always to distinguish between publications called for in the interests of the state as a state and publications in the interest of the particular political party which at the time is governing the state.

… even amongst Free Staters a distinction was seen. The government had all the press of Ireland behind it. The republicans had nothing but a small weekly sheet. The big battalions of the press did not need the assistance of state publicity. Nor indeed did they welcome it, for the severest critics of the publicity department were always found in the newspapers that were saying the same thing and, if it be not an impertinence to add, were not always saying it so well.”[4]Brayden, A survey, 24.

Brayden also nodded to the earlier work of journalist Arthur Griffith. The Sinn Féin founder used his writing before the armed struggle of 1919-1921 to emphasize the importance of Ireland’s economic independence. “In one after another of his newspapers–a new one started when the old was suppressed–[Griffith] poured forth articles on Ireland’s economic needs and the natural resources with which they could be met,” Brayden wrote in his 1925 series, three years after Griffith’s death. “One of the first acts of the new state was to establish a ministry of industry and commerce. This is now the busiest of all the Free State government departments.”[5]Ibid., 17.

Keane in Kilkenny

Braydon called on Edward Thomas Keane, “a veteran among Irish journalists” and editor of The Kilkenny People. Keane helped establish the pro-Parnellite newspaper in 1892, then later became a supporter of Sinn Féin. The paper was suppressed for over two months in 1917, then again in 1919, when Keane was imprisoned. Braydon reported that Keane was unable to claim any compensation for the second episode under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty.[6]Ibid., 28-29.

Nevertheless, the visitor described Keane as “a strong supporter” of the treaty. “He thinks it gives the country a real freedom.” Keane “confessed himself an optimist” about the local economy under the three-year-old Free State government.

During his visit to Kilkenny, Braydon also met the woman manager of “an excellently equipped stationery and news store” that sold several Irish American papers. She “complained bitterly that about £20 worth of an issue of one of them had been seized and confiscated by the Free State police,” Brayden reported. He surmised the state’s objection must have been confined to the one issue, since “the current numbers were prominently displayed in the store.”

Unfortunately, Brayden said he could not learn the reason for the seizure, and he did not name the paper. I was unable to locate the incident in the Irish Newspaper Archives.

Downey in Waterford

Thirty-five miles to the south, Brayden “found somewhat less optimism in Waterford” than in Kilkenny. Poverty and unemployment were high after a series of crippling strikes. Here, Braydon interviewed Edmund Downey, owner of the Waterford News since 1906.

The paper had been suppressed for four months in 1918 by the British military, and “still harder hit under the Free State” as an opponent of the treaty. “His premises were burned out, and, according to his testimony, the national army did the burning,” Brayden wrote.[7]Ibid., 30.

The fire occurred in August 1923. At the time, the Northern Standard described the Waterford News as “markedly republican.” Damages were estimated at £20,000. The News was later awarded £4,750 after a trail in which Downey testified against the state.[8]“Extensive Damage To Newspaper Premises”, Freeman’s Journal, August 28, 1923; “Big Fire At Waterford”, Northern Standard, August 31, 1923; and “Waterford Burning”, Freeman’s Journal, … Continue reading

During their conversation, Brayden and Downey debated 1925 changes to the Irish poor law system, which had preceded the Great Famine of the mid-nineteenth century. Workhouses and similar institutions were abolished, with relief service transferred to new county-level boards. “According to him the new system is more costly than the old and less efficient,” Brayden reported. The correspondent declared that he personally regarded the changes “as one of the important reforms of the latest Free State legislation.”

Finally, Brayden also made a few references to his earlier reporting for the Chicago Daily News. A story about his visit to Cork noted that he had not been to the city since March 1920, to cover the murder of Lord Mayor Tomás MacCurtain. Brayden also described Patrick J. Hogan, the Free State’s minister of agriculture, as “one of the most effective of the pro-treaty speakers” in his Daily News reporting of the January 1922 Dáil debates on whether to accept the measure.[9]Brayden, A survey, MacCurtain, 31; Hogan, 7.

***

This is the sixth and final installment of my series about Brayden. See earlier posts and all my work on American Reporting of Irish Independence.

References

References
↑1 William H. Brayden, The Irish Free State: a survey of the newly constructed institutions of the self-governing Irish people, together with a report on Ulster. [Chicago: Chicago Daily News, 1925], 24.
↑2 Ibid., 25.
↑3 See  John Neary, “Early Public Diplomacy in Ireland” in Public Diplomacy in Ireland and Japan. [Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2024], pp. 73-82.
↑4 Brayden, A survey, 24.
↑5 Ibid., 17.
↑6 Ibid., 28-29.
↑7 Ibid., 30.
↑8 “Extensive Damage To Newspaper Premises”, Freeman’s Journal, August 28, 1923; “Big Fire At Waterford”, Northern Standard, August 31, 1923; and “Waterford Burning”, Freeman’s Journal, April 7, 1924.
↑9 Brayden, A survey, MacCurtain, 31; Hogan, 7.

Brayden on American tourists in Ireland, 1925

Leave a reply

William Henry Brayden made several references to the Irish tourism industry in his summer 1925 newspaper series, later consolidated into a small book.[1]See my Brayden series introduction. German U-boats no longer threatened ocean travel. The smoke of more than a decade of world war and revolutionary gunfire and bombings had cleared to reveal Ireland’s verdant beauty and hospitality. Americans and other foreigners once again began to arrive.

Wm. Brayden

“It is now the settled policy of the Free State to attract visitors to holidays in Ireland,” Brayden declared in the opening installment of his 16-part series for the Chicago Daily News.[2]”Ireland No Longer Distressful Country”, Chicago Daily News, June 16, 1925; and William H. Brayden, The Irish Free State: a survey of the newly constructed institutions of the self-governing … Continue reading He continued:

“It is thought that the time has at last come when Ireland, besides its natural scenic beauties and facilities for sport, has much that is attractive and hopeful to exhibit. Any visitor will speedily recognize a change in the outlook of the people. Ireland is no longer a distressful country. People are beginning to think of the future over which they have some power of control rather than of the past where effort was so long checked because it seemed hopeless.”

Brayden said visitors would recognize the separation of the 26-county Irish Free State from Great Britain “by the examination of his baggage at the customs. He will note the promptitude and civility of the new officials.”

But Brayden also reported a significant problem with the new system “proved embarrassing to some visitors.” Before boarding eastbound ocean steamers, American travelers were required to buy a $10 visa from the new Irish Free State passport office in New York City. Great Britain offered a visa without charge. Travelers who disembarked in England or Northern Ireland could travel into the Free State without the Irish visa. But those who attempted to land in the Free State without the Irish visa were stopped.

This image is from Wallace Nutting’s 1925 photobook ‘Ireland Beautiful.’ Read my ‘History Ireland’ story, linked below, to learn how this American book helped to boost Irish tourism.

“All this passport business is still in an inchoate and unsatisfactory state,” Brayden reported. “Tourist associations complain of it as a hinderance to the movement for encouraging visitors to Ireland.”[3]“Ireland Now Deals With Other Nations”, Chicago Daily News, July 2, 1920, and Brayden, A survey, 23.

The correspondent observed many Americans in Cork city. “They were to be seen everywhere in the streets and in the stores.” A few were disappointed there were no “American bars” to offer mixed cocktails and “had to be content with the unmixed native product.”[4]“Cork Is Recovering From Its War Wounds”, Chicago Daily News, July 11, 1920; and Brayden, A survey, 33. Remember, prohibition had been US law for five years by 1925. Such measures were being discussed on the island of Ireland–more in the north than the south, Brayden reported–but did not pass. Some liquor laws were later tightened, such as sales on Good Friday and Christmas Day.

My article in the July/August issue of History Ireland magazine, Ireland Beautiful–How A 1925 American Photobook Boosted Irish Tourism, explores more about 1925 American tourism in Ireland. American who visit Ireland this summer are encouraged to share your impressions for a future post. Contact me through the blog.

References

References
↑1 See my Brayden series introduction.
↑2 ”Ireland No Longer Distressful Country”, Chicago Daily News, June 16, 1925; and William H. Brayden, The Irish Free State: a survey of the newly constructed institutions of the self-governing Irish people, together with a report on Ulster. [Chicago: Chicago Daily News, 1925], 4.
↑3 “Ireland Now Deals With Other Nations”, Chicago Daily News, July 2, 1920, and Brayden, A survey, 23.
↑4 “Cork Is Recovering From Its War Wounds”, Chicago Daily News, July 11, 1920; and Brayden, A survey, 33.

Catching up with modern Ireland

While I’m on summer break here’s another of my occasional roundups of external stories about Irish history and contemporary issues. MH

UPDATES:

  • Abortions have soared in Ireland since a prohibition on the procedure was repealed in 2018.
  • An American diplomat’s anti-Irish slur has not generated too much blowback in Ireland. Most Irish leader appear to be ignoring “the Huckster” as they wait for Trump tariffs on the EU to be resolved. The Ancient Order of Hibernians has demanded an apology. … More interestingly, EPIC, The Irish Emigration Museum has created a unique way to challenge outdated Irish stereotypes: a fake movie trailer that’s intentionally riddled with cliches.

ORIGINAL POST:

  • US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has joined a chorus of pro-Israel Americans who are publicly pressuring Ireland against passing a bill that bans the importation of goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories. Huckabee has inflamed the controversy with this slur against the Irish on his X feed:

“Did the Irish fall into a vat of Guinness & propose something so stupid that it would be attributed to act of diplomatic intoxication? It will harm Arabs as much as Israelis. Sober up Ireland! Call (the Israeli foreign affairs ministry) & say you’re sorry!”

The Journal.ie provides all the necessary background. This story will be worth following because:

  • Ireland is already facing significant economic headwinds as US President Donald Trump threatens to impose 30 percent tariffs on the European Union starting Aug. 1. Passage of the Occupied Territories Bill could make Ireland a target for even higher tariffs. And there’s still more danger: Ireland’s overreliance on US foreign direct investment. Politico.eu offers a compelling analysis of how Trump is testing Ireland’s economic miracle.
  • The population of the island of Ireland has topped 7 million for the first time since before the Great Famine of the mid-nineteenth century, according to the Republic of Ireland’s Central Statistics Office and Northern Ireland’s Statistics and Research Agency. Growth in the Republic was more robust and more diverse.
  • Proposals for the commercial redevelopment of the General Post Office (GPO), site of the 1916 Easter Rising, is generating debate about the past, present and future of the O’Connell Street corridor. Irish Times historian Diarmaid Ferriter calls for an approach that not only respects history but also “improves the perception of a space widely regarded as deficient and devoid of sufficient imagination for the main thoroughfare of a capital city.”
  • A new survey from the Iona Institute for Religion and Society finds more erosion of Catholic identification in Ireland. First Things columnist John Duggan contends that progressives are trying to speed the erasure of Catholicism from Irish history.
  • Cross-border, anti-migrant mobilization among ethnonationalist groups in Ireland and Northern Irish Loyalist communities has entered a new, more organized phase. What began as scattered, localized protests in late 2022 have evolved into an increasingly structured and internationally connected movement, according to the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a global nonprofit that monitors extremism and authoritarianism. … An effigy of a boat containing mannequins of migrants was set alight in the village of Moygashel as part of Northern Ireland’s annual 12 July bonfires. 
  • The campaign to succeed Michael D Higgins as president of Ireland is beginning to warm. The election date will be set in late autumn, with the inauguration in early November.  Higgins, 84, is concluding his second seven-year term. Fine Gael’s Mairead McGuinness and independent TD Catherine Connolly of Galway have declared to date.

This is Ireland’s only national election. The president’s duties include the appointment of the taoiseach, members of the Government, judges and other officials; summoning and dissolving the Dáil, and convening the Oireachtas; and signing legislation into law and/or referring Bills to the Supreme Court. As important, the president serves as the people’s representative and spokesperson, a super ambassador to the world.

I’ll have more on this election later this fall.

Edward S. Walsh, left, assumed the office of US Ambassador to Ireland after presenting his credentials to President of Ireland Michael D Higgins in a ceremony at Áras an Uachtaráin in Dublin on July 1.

Our midsummer’s blogiversary break

This post marks my 13th blogiversary. Thanks to email subscribers as well as regular and occasional visitors. I’m taking off most of July. … Below are four freelance pieces about American journalists in Ireland, all published this year. Also linked below is my ongoing exploration of William Brayden’s 1925 series on partitioned Ireland for the Chicago Daily News. Enjoy. MH

Ireland Beautiful–How A 1925 American Photobook Boosted Irish Tourism
History Ireland (Dublin)

The US Press and the American Commission on Irish Independence, 1919
New Hibernia Review

When three American journalists visited ‘Paddy the Cope’ in Dungloe, 1919-1922
The Irish Story (Dublin)

Richard Lee Strout: A Young American Reporter In Revolutionary Ireland
American Journalism

Revisiting William Brayden’s 1925 ‘survey’ of Ireland
From the blog. More posts coming later this year.

A 1920s map of partitioned Ireland from a US newspaper. Note that Queenstown has not be changed to Cobh, Kings county has not be changed to Offaly.

Brayden on the 1925 launch of the Shannon scheme

Irish-born journalist William H. Brayden in the summer of 1925 wrote a series of articles for US newspapers about the newly partitioned Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. This summer I am revisiting aspects of Brayden’s reporting. New post begins below the photo. MH

Construction on the Shannon scheme in 1928. Photo from siemens.com.

Brayden devoted one of his 16 dispatches to the development of the “Shannon scheme,” a massive civil works project to generate hydroelectric power from Ireland’s largest river. He reported:

It is not too much to say that the determination of the Free State government to proceed with such a scheme startled the public. It was a great idea to use in the perorations of speeches as a vague hope for the future. But to handle it as an immediate necessity and spend millions on it proved alarming to the timid. Everybody warned the government against the dangers of haste. Put it off and think it over, was the advice of every Irish newspaper. The civil war was too recent. Railways and bridges had been attacked and blown up. Was there not a risk that after millions had been spent on the project a charge of dynamite might destroy it? However, the government was fully willing to take the risk, and the work will be begun within the next few months.[1]Original dispatch:  “Power For Ireland From River Shannon”, Chicago Daily News, June 30. Booklet: William H. Brayden, The Irish Free State: a survey of the newly constructed institutions of the … Continue reading

Top of Brayden’s story as published in the Evening-World Herald, Omaha, Nebraska, July 18, 1925, three weeks after it ran in the Chicago Daily News. Note the dateline has been changed to make it seem timely.

In October 1924, the German firm Siemens-Schuckert submitted to the Free State government a detailed project plan for building a hydroelectric plant at Ardnacrusha, near Limerick. The company opened an office in Dublin in January 1925. By July, as Brayden’s series appeared in the Chicago Daily News and other papers, the Irish government enacted legislation to support the ambitious project. Contracts were signed in August and work began before the end of the year.[2]See Siemens celebrates 100 years in Ireland.

Behind the scenes, and likely unknown to Brayden, Irish officials were surprised the project had not attracted proposals from American electrical and engineering firms such as General Electric, Westinghouse, or Stone & Webster.[3]Lothar Schoen, “The Irish Free State and the Electricity Industry, 1922-1927” in The Shannon Scheme and the electrification of the Irish Free State, Andy Bielenberg, ed. [Dublin: The … Continue reading Brayden did report the completed project would use open air transformer stations “commonly used in America but only recently introduced into Europe.”

Brayden interviewed Dr. Thomas McLaughlin, a Siemens employee and “the real inventor of the scheme.”[4]Brayden misspelled the surname as MacLaughlin. See “McLaughlin, Thomas Anthony” (1896-1971) in the Dictionary of Irish Biography. The 59-year-old correspondent described the 29-year-old engineer as “a typical Irishman of the new generation” because he was persuasive and able to get things done. Brayden did not quote McLaughlin in the story, as he did with other people he interviewed for other installments of the series.

Brayden nodded to the cultural and environmental impacts of the project:

Fishing for salmon on the Shannon is a popular and profitable practice. It seems to be admitted that to some extent the salmon fishery must suffer, despite all precautions taken. It has been suggested that the salmon may not take kindly to being conveyed in lifts on their way to and from the spawning grounds. But salmon fishing is a sport and electricity is business, and the motto in the new Ireland is that play must give way to work.

But he focused on the scheme’s audaciousness:

It is a daring enterprise, or so Irishmen are told, to spend millions in supplying a demand for electricity which does not yet exist. The hope is that the demand will follow the supply. The government estimates of demand are very conservative. The expectation is that in five years the demand in Ireland may prove half as great as the consumption now is in Denmark, a country of somewhat similar characteristics.

Before the end of 1925, months after his series was completed, Brayden reported from Ireland about disputes over the wage rate for unskilled workers on the project. Éamon de Valera and his followers, still outside government after their defeat in the Irish Civil War, 1922-23, saw the labor issue and the disappointing outcome of the Irish Boundary Commission as “an opportunity to strengthen their position.”[5]“Irish Labor Fights Cabinet”, Chicago Daily News, Nov. 18, 1925; and “Sinn Fein Conclave Sounds Red Note”, Chicago Daily News, Nov. 21, 1925.

The hydroelectric damn’s sluice gates opened in the summer of 1929. Within eight years the power plant supplied 87 percent of Ireland’s electrical demand. The Shannon scheme was “not only a far-sighted and innovative move, but also the government’s most significant gesture in the direction of industrialization,” Irish historian Diarmaid Ferriter declared in his overview of the country’s twentieth century transformation. “It deservedly received huge media coverage, and became an important symbol of the potential for constructive use of Irish natural resources.”[6]Diarmaid Ferriter, The Transformation of Ireland. [New York: Overlook Press, 2005], 316.

Advertisement in the Sept. 25, 1925, issue of the Irish Independent, Dublin, calls for laborers on the Shannon scheme. The wage rate soon became a matter of political dispute.

References

References
↑1 Original dispatch:  “Power For Ireland From River Shannon”, Chicago Daily News, June 30. Booklet: William H. Brayden, The Irish Free State: a survey of the newly constructed institutions of the self-governing Irish people, together with a report on Ulster. [Chicago: Chicago Daily News, 1925], 19-21.
↑2 See Siemens celebrates 100 years in Ireland.
↑3 Lothar Schoen, “The Irish Free State and the Electricity Industry, 1922-1927” in The Shannon Scheme and the electrification of the Irish Free State, Andy Bielenberg, ed. [Dublin: The Lilliput Press, 2002], 37.
↑4 Brayden misspelled the surname as MacLaughlin. See “McLaughlin, Thomas Anthony” (1896-1971) in the Dictionary of Irish Biography.
↑5 “Irish Labor Fights Cabinet”, Chicago Daily News, Nov. 18, 1925; and “Sinn Fein Conclave Sounds Red Note”, Chicago Daily News, Nov. 21, 1925.
↑6 Diarmaid Ferriter, The Transformation of Ireland. [New York: Overlook Press, 2005], 316.

Brayden on the Irish Boundary Commission, Part 2

Irish-born journalist William H. Brayden in the summer of 1925 wrote a series of articles for US newspapers about the newly partitioned Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. This summer I am revisiting various aspects of his reporting. Read the introduction. Brayden’s coverage of the Irish Boundary Commission is divided into two posts. Part 2[1]Citation are not consecutive in the two posts. begins below the map. Read Part 1. MH

This map of the 1921 border between Northern Ireland (Ulster) and the Irish Free State also showed “probable” and “doubtful” changes proposed by the Irish Boundary Commission. It was leaked to the Morning Post, London, which published the map and narrative descriptions on Nov. 7, 1925.

After years of delay, the Irish Boundary Commission in spring 1925 was finally engaged with deciding whether to adjust the 1921 border that separated the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland, then more often called Ulster.[2]One of the four provinces of Ireland, Ulster historically included nine counties. Only six were incorporated as Northern Ireland. Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan belonged to the Irish Free State, … Continue reading The three-member commission held hearings in several border towns. But the commission chairman quickly ruled out allowing these communities to decide by referendum if they wanted to remain under their present government or switch to the other side, as Free State nationalists hoped.

As the commission’s deliberations continued into summer 1925, Brayden opened his US newspaper series by explaining to American readers the differences in home rule government on each side of the border. The Free State could impose and collect taxes; levy tariffs; establish its own currency (that happened in 1928); send ambassadors to foreign states and make international agreements. Street signs and public documents now were written in Irish as well as English. A new police force, Garda Siochana, replaced the Royal Irish Constabulary. The judiciary was made over from the established British legal system and Sinn Fein courts of the revolutionary period.

US newspaper map of divided Ireland in 1925 … and today.

Dublin Castle, once the seat of the British administration in Ireland, was transformed into the home of the new court system. Leinster House, the former ducal palace and headquarters of the Royal Dublin Society, became the new legislative headquarters. The Irish tricolor waved above these and other buildings instead of the British Union Jack. On the streets below, postal pillar boxes were painted green instead of red.

The Free State’s “separation from England, apart from constitutional technicalities, is practically complete,” Brayden wrote. By contrast, Northern Ireland was “not a dominion,” like the Free State and Canada, and had “a subordinate and not a sovereign parliament.”[3]William H. Brayden, The Irish Free State: a survey of the newly constructed institutions of the self-governing Irish people, together with a report on Ulster. [Chicago: Chicago Daily News, 1925], 3.

Postal, telegraph, and telephone services remained regulated by London. The northern legislature was prohibited from taking action on trade and foreign policy matters. “Nevertheless, home rule in north Ireland is very real and can be, and is, effectively used for the development of local prosperity,” Brayden wrote.

Irish republicans at the time, and historians today, would argue the Free State’s separation was not as “practically complete” as characterized by Brayden. Others could make the case that Northern Ireland, which retained representation in London, was not as subordinate as Brayden described. But there was no argument that the island of Ireland had been divided.

Religion, and money

Most Americans would have had at least general knowledge of the history and geography of division between Irish Protestants and Irish Catholics. Brayden mostly avoided the sectarian issue in his series. In one story he sought to minimize “the once familiar catch phrase that ‘home rule must mean Rome rule’ ” by informing readers that several Free State high court justices were Protestants, while the lord chief justice of Northern Ireland was a Catholic. In another story, however, he conceded the Irish educational system was “strictly denominational” on both sides of the border.[4]Ibid., 4, 11.

But something larger than religion or politics loomed over partition and the boundary commission–money. Specifically, how much of Great Britain’s war debt and war pensions the Free State was obligated to pay. Like the boundary commission, this was another aspect of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty that remained unsettled four years later. It was complicated by whether the Free State could offset the amount, or even be entitled to a refund, by considering historic over-taxation by London.

William Brayden, undated.

“The view widely held in [Free State] Ireland is that the Irish counterclaim will wipe out, and even more than wipe out, the British claim,” Brayden reported. He revealed that the late Michael Collins, killed in 1922, “was clearly of opinion that something was due. I heard him urge that the amount, when ascertained, be paid off in a lump sum, rather than by annual payment that would wear the appearance of tribute.”[5]Ibid., 27-28.

But it was impossible to resolve such financial questions until the boundary between the Free State and Northern Ireland was finalized. “Twenty-eight counties would pay, or receive, more than the present twenty-six,” Brayden wrote.

Referring back to his early 1922 reporting (See Part 1), Brayden speculated, “real trouble may arise” if the commission awarded the “storm centers” of Derry or Newry to the Free State. Nevertheless, officials in the south no longer believed “that any possible adjustment of the boundary would ever leave the northern government so hampered that it could not continue its separate existence and would be obliged at last to come into the Free State,” Brayden wrote.[6]Ibid., 42.

“The continued existence of the northern government is now regarded as certain. Wherever the boundary line is drawn it will still divide Ireland into two parts with two separate governments.”

As regrettable as partition was, Brayden continued, many Irish citizens were more concerned about poor trade, high unemployment, and insufficient housing. “Many causes have combined to make the boundary issue less critical than it was a year ago,” he wrote. “Active feeling regarding it will not revive until the commission has reported. Meanwhile, there is little or no protest against the delay which the commission is making.”

What happened

In early November 1925, the Morning Post, a conservative daily in London, published details and a map from the Irish Boundary Commission’s deliberations. The leaked documents showed the commission recommended only small transfers of territory, and in both directions. Though Brayden and others had reported the Free State abandoned the idea of making large land gains from the north, the Post story, once confirmed, embarrassed the southern government.

Details of the Irish Boundary Commission report were leaked to the Morning Post, London, which published this story on Nov. 7, 1925. (Library of Congress bound copies of the newspaper, thus the curve to the image.)

“The result is described as a bombshell to Irish hopes, and all agree that the establishment of the boundary line indicated by  the commission would make more trouble than by maintaining the present line,” Brayden reported in a regular dispatch, now four months after his series concluded. The Free State would receive only “barren parts of [County] Fermanagh” while Northern Ireland stood to gain “rich territory in [County] Donegal.” The Free State’s representative, Eoin MacNeill, quit the commission. “In the border districts passions are high” among nationalists who hoped to join the Free State.[7]”Boundaries Cause Turmoil In Ireland”, Chicago Daily News, Nov. 23, 1925.

A series of emergency meetings between the Free State, Northern Ireland, and the British government were held in London through early December. The three parties quickly agreed the existing border should remain in place. The Free State’s obligation for war debt and pensions would be erased in exchange for dropping the taxation counterclaim. The Free State would have to assume liability for “malicious damage” during the war in Ireland since 1919.

“Maintenance of the existing Ulster boundary is welcomed as avoiding a grave danger to peace,” Brayden reported after the settlement. Northern nationalists “are advised by their newspapers in Belfast to make the best they can of their position in the northern state.” while “die-hard Ulster newspapers call the result a victory for President Cosgrave.”[8]“Irish Boundary Pact Praised, Condemned”, Chicago Daily News, Dec. 5, 1925.

The Morning Post, which detailed the leaked border proposal a month earlier, also criticized the settlement as “a surrender of a British interest with nothing to show for it but the hope of peace. … We think the British public would be appalled if they were to see arrayed in cold figures the price we have paid and are still paying for the somewhat questionable privilege of claiming our hitherto unfriendly neighbor has a Dominion when the substance and almost the pretense of allegiance have ceased to exist.”[9]”The Irish Settlement”, Morning Post, London, Dec. 5, 1925.

Cosgrave conceded that Northern nationalist Catholics would have to depend on the “goodwill” of the Belfast government and their Protestant neighbors. Similarly, Brayden quoted an unnamed unionist member of parliament as saying, “Good will should take the place of hate. North and south, though divided for parliamentary purposes, can be of assistance to each other and in the interest of both more cordial relations should exist.[10]”Boundary Pact”, Chicago Daily News, Dec. 5, 1921.

US Consul Charles Hathaway and other US officials were generally pleased by the outcome. The Americans believed the agreement stabilized the Free State financially and avoided potential irritation to US relations with Great Britain. They also realized that Éamon de Valera and Irish republican hardliners, as well as the always volatile sectarian issue, still threatened the peace in Ireland.[11]Bernadette Whelan, United States Foreign Policy and Ireland: From Empire to Independence, 1913-1929. [Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2006], 530.

The “high explosives” that Hathaway had worried about in 1924 reemerged periodically throughout the twentieth century, especially during the last three decades. “Goodwill” in Northern Ireland turned out to be in short supply.

One final note: the public release of the commission’s work was suppressed by agreement of all three parties in December 1925. The documents remained under wraps until 1969, just as the Troubles began in Northern Ireland.

See all my work on American Reporting of Irish Independence, including previous installments of this series about Brayden.

References

References
↑1 Citation are not consecutive in the two posts.
↑2 One of the four provinces of Ireland, Ulster historically included nine counties. Only six were incorporated as Northern Ireland. Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan belonged to the Irish Free State, today’s Republic of Ireland.
↑3 William H. Brayden, The Irish Free State: a survey of the newly constructed institutions of the self-governing Irish people, together with a report on Ulster. [Chicago: Chicago Daily News, 1925], 3.
↑4 Ibid., 4, 11.
↑5 Ibid., 27-28.
↑6 Ibid., 42.
↑7 ”Boundaries Cause Turmoil In Ireland”, Chicago Daily News, Nov. 23, 1925.
↑8 “Irish Boundary Pact Praised, Condemned”, Chicago Daily News, Dec. 5, 1925.
↑9 ”The Irish Settlement”, Morning Post, London, Dec. 5, 1925.
↑10 ”Boundary Pact”, Chicago Daily News, Dec. 5, 1921.
↑11 Bernadette Whelan, United States Foreign Policy and Ireland: From Empire to Independence, 1913-1929. [Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2006], 530.

Brayden on the Irish Boundary Commission, Part 1

Irish-born journalist William H. Brayden in the summer of 1925 wrote a series of articles for US newspapers about the newly partitioned Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. This summer I am revisiting various aspects of his reporting. Brayden’s coverage of the Irish Boundary Commission is divided into two posts. Part 1 begins below the map. Part 2 is linked at the bottom. MH

Map of partitioned Ireland from a 1920s US newspaper. Note the use of “Londonderry” for the county and town in Northern Ireland. Nationalists use the term “Derry.” In the Free State, vestiges of British rule remain in the names Kings County, not yet changed to County Offaly; and Queenstown, not yet renamed Cobh.

The partition of Ireland was less than five years old when Brayden’s series unfolded in US newspapers. The Irish Boundary Commission was considering whether to adjust the border separating the six-county Northern Ireland and the 26-county Irish Free State. The line emerged from the British government’s effort to mollify predominantly Protestant unionists, who wanted to remain in the United Kingdom, and majority Catholic nationalists who wanted independence.

“Now all sections of Ireland have obtained self-government in one form or another,” Brayden informed American readers.[1]William H. Brayden, The Irish Free State: a survey of the newly constructed institutions of the self-governing Irish people, together with a report on Ulster. [Chicago: Chicago Daily News, 1925], 3. He used the term “home rule,” meaning each side of the border had more domestic autonomy than under the form of government in place since 1800. Northern Ireland had some control over local issues but remained subordinate to the Parliament in London. The Free State had obtained dominion status, like Canada; it was largely independent of London but remained within the British Empire. 

Whenever decision the boundary commission reached about the border line, Brayden continued, “every Irishman, no matter in which of the thirty-two counties he dwells will have an effective voice in shaping his own destiny.” He emphasized, “Ireland has hardly yet realized the magnitude of the change” brought by the implementation of the two home rule governments. Because of US immigration and trade laws, these changes also impacted Americans with family in Ireland, on either side of the border, or who traveled there as tourists or to conduct business.

Brayden could not have foreseen the surprise conclusion of the boundary commission’s work just a few months after his series appeared in the US press and then was republished as a booklet. But the correspondent did put his finger on a key element of the unexpected outcome.

Commission delayed

The Government of Ireland Act of December 1920 separated Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland; with each to have its own home rule parliament. Irish republicans in the south refused to accept the arrangement and continued to fight for independence. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921 ended the war and created the Free State. The treaty contained a provision for the boundary commission to review and potentially change the border at a future date.

Michael Collins

The inclusion of the commission was a ploy to help smooth over other negotiating difficulties between Irish nationalists and the British government. Nationalist leaders such as Michael Collins believed the commission could be used to claw back significant territory from Northern Ireland, leaving it too small to remain viable and then have to join the Free State. Irish unionists, led by Sir James Craig, insisted the border remain fixed, neither losing territory to the Free State nor adding nationalist areas that threatened their domination.

The formation of the boundary commission was delayed by the Irish Civil War, June 1922-May 1923. It made no sense to convene the commission while Irish republicans waged a guerrilla war against supporters of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which had won the support of Irish lawmakers and Irish voters. Yet even after the republican “irregulars” laid down their arms against the Free State forces, the boundary commission remained in limbo.

By early 1924 the US State Department “considered the boundary question to be the most serious issue affecting Ireland as a whole,” the historian Bernadette Whelan has written.[2]Bernadette Whelan, United States Foreign Policy and Ireland: From Empire to Independence, 1913-1929. [Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2006], 460. The commission remained unconstituted more than two years after the 1921 treaty and over six months after the end of the civil war. Faction fighting riddled the Free State cabinet, inflamed by the mutiny of army officers demobilized after the civil war. US officials worried about the outbreak of cross-border violence, which could also jeopardize their relations with Great Britain.[3]Ibid., 528.

Earlier reporting

Brayden referenced the boundary commission in his work prior to writing the 1925 series. In a March 1922 dispatch from the border region between counties Donegal and Londonderry, he reported on Irish republican threats within Northern Ireland. Majorities in the northern towns of Derry and Newry were “hostile to rule from Belfast” on religious and political grounds.[4]Londonderry is the proper name of the town and county. Derry is the formation favored by Irish nationalists. Brayden used Derry in his reports. Business interests in the two towns also expected less interference from Dublin in trade matters.

“If the boundary commission provided in the treaty ever sits, both towns will make a strong case for inclusion in southern Ireland, and as the arbiters are bound to regard the wishes and economic advantage of localities, Dublin feels certain of gaining these two towns and Belfast is nervous of the prospect of losing them,” Brayden reported.[5]”Ulster Is Confronted By Real Difficulties”, Wilkes-Berra (Pa.) Record via Chicago Daily News, March 30, 1922.

A few months later he wrote nationalist areas “are expected to be handed over to the south as the result of the work of the boundary commission,” despite Craig’s “determination to resist” such recommendations. But the erupting civil war in the Free State “played into the hands of the Belfast government” and “afforded an excuse” for British intervention. “They [southern nationalists] should have stood pat on the treaty,” Brayden concluded. (“Ulster Opens War On The Sinn Fein”, May 25, 1922; “Ulster Faces Ugly Situation”, May 27, 1922; and “Dublin Confident Of Agreement At London”, June 12, 1922, all in Wilkes-Berra (Pa.) Record via Chicago Daily News.)

Sir James Craig

Prior to Free State elections in August 1923, Brayden reported on Irish President William T Cosgrave’s renewed calls to form the boundary commission as “an electoral maneuver to placate the electors who hate the division of Ireland.” But Craig still refused to nominate a Northern Ireland representative to the commission. Brayden speculated, incorrectly as it turned out, that Britain and the Free State “would settle the boundaries in Ulster’s voluntary absence.” [6]“Irish To Hold Elections For 153 Seats”, Buffalo Evening News via Chicago Daily News, July 27, 1923.

US government concerns

Charles Hathaway, US consul general in Dublin, described the situation as “in the nature of high explosive” for the Free State. He worried further hesitation on the part of the British government to establish the boundary commission could destabilize the Free State to the point of collapse. Other US officials believed that forcing Craig and the Belfast government to participate in the commission could spark warfare between Northern Ireland and the Free State. At the least, the ongoing stalemate threatened to further undermine the poor economic conditions on both sides of the border.[7]Whelan, Foreign Policy, 528-29.

Hathaway had been “perhaps the only regular attender” of the Free State’s legislature, the Dáil, Brayden reported. The US diplomat “almost from day to day follows the proceedings with intent interest.”[8]Brayden, Survey, 5.

US officials also pondered how their consular offices served the Irish public. The six counties of Northern Ireland excluded three counties that historically belonged to the Irish province of Ulster. Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan now were part of the Free State. A fourth county, Leitrim, also was part of the Free State. All four had been served by the US consular office in Belfast before partition. Now, citizens from these four counties complained about the inconvenience of having to cross the border for passport visas and other business with the US government. US officials fretted that any adjustments to their consular districts would be viewed as favoring one side or the other of the Irish partition.[9]Whelan, Foreign Policy, 460.

Commission begins

Brayden reported on opposition to the boundary commission by Craig and Irish republican leader Éamon de Valera through early October 1924.[10] “De Valera Won’t Give Up Inch Of Territory”, Buffalo Evening News via Chicago Daily News, Oct. 9, 1924. At the end of that month, however, the British government finally appointed unionist newspaper editor and lawyer Joseph R. Fisher as the Northern Ireland representative, since Craig refused to make a selection. The commission at last got to work in November 1924.

By the early spring 1925, Brayden reported that Belfast officials were “willing to consider slight rectifications of the border line,” but maintained strong opposition to relinquishing Derry or Newry, a nod back to his 1922 reporting. [11]“Craig To Be Returned As Prime Minister”, Buffalo Evening News via Chicago Daily News, March 27, 1925. He also described the “vagaries of the Ulster boundary,” such as being unable to take a train from Belfast to Derry without crossing into the Free State in a dozen places. He told the story, perhaps apocryphal, of a farmer whose land was in the north but whose home straddled the border.

“He sleeps with this head in the south and his feet in the north,” Brayden explained. “The south has no jurisdictions over his lands, and the north cannot serve him with a process because his head is over the border. … The result is the famer cannot be brought within the jurisdiction of any court.”[12]“ ’Round the World With News Correspondents”, Birmingham (Ala.) News, May 30, 1925, and other papers.

The farmer story appeared on both the news pages and the humor columns of many US newspapers over several months. Brayden’s series about partitioned Ireland debuted in June 1925 as the boundary commission continued its deliberations.

PART 2: Brayden’s 1925 descriptions of the two Irish states and the surprise conclusion of the boundary commission.

References

References
↑1 William H. Brayden, The Irish Free State: a survey of the newly constructed institutions of the self-governing Irish people, together with a report on Ulster. [Chicago: Chicago Daily News, 1925], 3.
↑2 Bernadette Whelan, United States Foreign Policy and Ireland: From Empire to Independence, 1913-1929. [Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2006], 460.
↑3 Ibid., 528.
↑4 Londonderry is the proper name of the town and county. Derry is the formation favored by Irish nationalists. Brayden used Derry in his reports.
↑5 ”Ulster Is Confronted By Real Difficulties”, Wilkes-Berra (Pa.) Record via Chicago Daily News, March 30, 1922.
↑6 “Irish To Hold Elections For 153 Seats”, Buffalo Evening News via Chicago Daily News, July 27, 1923.
↑7 Whelan, Foreign Policy, 528-29.
↑8 Brayden, Survey, 5.
↑9 Whelan, Foreign Policy, 460.
↑10 “De Valera Won’t Give Up Inch Of Territory”, Buffalo Evening News via Chicago Daily News, Oct. 9, 1924.
↑11 “Craig To Be Returned As Prime Minister”, Buffalo Evening News via Chicago Daily News, March 27, 1925.
↑12 “ ’Round the World With News Correspondents”, Birmingham (Ala.) News, May 30, 1925, and other papers.

Reporting Matt Talbot’s life and death, then and now

Matt Talbot, a role model for many people battling alcoholism and addiction, died June 7, 1925, in a Dublin alleyway. He was on his way to Mass; an austere Catholicism being key to his sobriety. Then an anonymous ascetic, today Talbot is considered for sainthood.

The only known image of Matt Talbot.

The Dublin press missed Talbot’s public passing; no one- or two-sentence brief under a headline such as “Laborer Collapses Near Church.” There was no obituary–“Talbot, Matthew, 1856-1925.” This seems fitting given Talbot’s determined avoidance of newspapers, lest the headlines “violate the interior space of his soul” and distract from his prayer life. [1]James F. Cassidy, Matt Talbot: The Irish Worker’s Glory. [Westminster, Maryland: Newsman Press, 1934],4.

But details of Talbot’s death, and life, began to emerge in the Irish press before the end of 1925. A small pamphlet written by Sir Joseph A. Glynn of the Catholic Truth Society, Dublin, gained popular attention.[2]”Catholic Outlook: Dublin Laborer’s Remarkable Life of Penance”, The Nationalist and Munster Advertiser, Dec. 5, 1925. Talbot’s story of self-denial spread to the United States, then five years into a 13-year period of federally-enforced prohibition. In 1928 Glynn published a more detailed, 116-page account about Talbot.

Catholic faithful and the recovery community have kept Talbot in the press ever since. There’s a Wikipedia page, and plenty of other online content. A docudrama about Talbot’s life is in production. Press accounts of the 1879 Marian apparition at Knock, County Mayo, also were delayed until believers similarly promoted the event through literature and pilgrimages. It is now a tourist stop.

People stand where Matt Talbot died in Granby Lane, Dublin, in June 1925. The large building in center background is St. Saviour’s Church, where he attended Mass. Image from Glynn’s 1928 book about Talbot.

Talbot mirrored–as in reflected but reversed–another Irishman, Father Theobald Mathew (1790-1856). The Tipperary-born Capuchin priest became widely known as the “apostle of temperance.” From 1849-1951 he administered his famous abstinence pledge in the United States. Talbot, as noted above, was an unknown laborer who probably never ventured beyond Dublin’s Grand and Royal canals. He kept his piety and his 41 years of sobriety to himself.

“Perhaps no two men in history led such dissimilar lives, but with such similar and effective application of purpose,” a Catholic journalist observed in a 1956 article that marked the centenary of Talbot’s birth, seven months before Mathews’ death.[3]”1956 Centenary Year of Father Mathew, Matt Talbot”, The Catholic Northwest Progress, April 20, 1956.

The Catholic Church declared Talbot venerable in 1973. The early step toward sainthood seems to have stalled since then, but the Knights of St Columbanus are using the centenary of his death to renew the effort. Talbot is still a step ahead of Father Mathew. Both men are remembered with statues and other markers in Dublin and other parts of Ireland.

As other writers have noted, Talbot’s aversion to newspapers appears to have been inspired by Bishop John Hedley, an English Benedictine and editor of the Dublin Review. Talbot is said to have underlined this passage of Hedley’s book, On Reading:

Even when the newspaper is free from objection, it is easy to lose a good deal of time over it. It may be necessary and convenient to know what is going on in the world. But there can be no need of our observing all the rumors, all the guesses and gossip, all the petty incidents, all the innumerable paragraphs in which the solid news appears half-drowned, like the houses and hedges when the floods are out. This is idle and is absolutely bad for the brain and character.

Hedley’s view certainly applies to much of today’s online content, just as it did to early twentieth century Dublin newspapers. I leave to readers’ judgement whether it applies to Talbot’s story, or to this post.

Headline of 1926 profile of Matt Talbot in the Tablet, a Catholic newspaper in Brooklyn, NY.

References

References
↑1 James F. Cassidy, Matt Talbot: The Irish Worker’s Glory. [Westminster, Maryland: Newsman Press, 1934],4.
↑2 ”Catholic Outlook: Dublin Laborer’s Remarkable Life of Penance”, The Nationalist and Munster Advertiser, Dec. 5, 1925.
↑3 ”1956 Centenary Year of Father Mathew, Matt Talbot”, The Catholic Northwest Progress, April 20, 1956.