Category Archives: Journalism

More on Jill and Leon Uris in Ireland

I’m keeping my promise to follow up an earlier post, When Jill and Leon Uris went to Ireland. The couple first visited both sides of the partitioned island from May 1972 to January 1973, then published Ireland: A Terrible Beauty in November 1975. The book featured nearly 400 photographs by Jill and text by Leon, an established author.

Leon released his Irish novel, Trinity, in 1976. It became a best-seller. The couple returned to Ireland at least five more times over the next few years. Jill photographed places that represented the fictional locations in Trinity. She did a piece for the Ladies’ Home Journal magazine headlined “Connor and Shelly,” which illustrated the novel’s main characters. Jill and Leon traveled the River Shannon on a houseboat, “a lovely second honeymoon,” she recalled in a second book of photos, Ireland Revisited, published in 1982.[1]Jill Uris, Ireland Revisited. [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1982], 1-2.

Of her half dozen trips to Ireland, Jill enthused:

I always arrive with anticipation, wanting to be haunted by her mysteries and teased by her fantasies. I travel through her tortured landscape wondering what it is about this place that entices me so. Is it ancient ruins, wild seascapes, the hundred shades of green? Or is it the verbal jousting and continual singsong of stories in a language that is something beyond English …yet not quite foreign? It is all of these and more; it is a people whose goal is only to be themselves, whose spirit retains a dignity which is rare in today’s world. It is the Irish refusal to be servants to anyone but their own minds.[2]Ibid.

The Irish Independent published this advert on Dec. 8, 1982. The image appeared on the book jacket and on an inside page. Titled “Man of Aran,” the figure was Dara Beag Ó Fátharta, the “Bard of Inishmaan,” who died in 2012 at the age of 92.

Revisited received mostly tepid reviews. John M. McGown of Gannett News Service noted the Uris’s first photo book had become “a staple on the shelves of Irish Americans” and the second was “likely to become a companion piece.”[3]”Two authors write varying views of Irish”, St. Cloud (Minn.) Times, Dec. 2, 1982, and other papers. But Doug Wells of the Des Moines (Iowa) Register compared paging through Revisited to sitting through a neighbor’s vacation slides as he rhapsodized about how much he “just loved Ireland.”  Wells continued:

To be sure Jill Uris is a much better photographer than the man next door. Most of her photographs are well done. … She has concentrated on the rural, older Ireland, the romantic image most Americans have of the country. … But just as your neighbor babbles on and on about how beautiful it all was, so Uris carries on about Ireland. Her dullish prose, combined with snips and scraps from Irish writers and poets, upset what flow and balance the pictures provide.[4]”Too much, too little”, Des Moines (Iowa) Register, Oct. 17, 1982.

In Ireland, Frank Miller of the Sunday Press described Revisited as “a headless horse of a book, a book of photographs based on an unreality, lost and wandering somewhere between the myths and mists of romantic Ireland.” He also complained that Dara Beag Ó Fátharta (image above) appeared “no less than four times through the book.”[5]”Lost between myths and mists of romantic Ireland”, Sunday Press, (Dublin), Dec. 5, 1982.

Historical context

Ireland Revisited appeared a decade after Bloody Sunday in Derry, Northern Ireland. As copies reached American bookshops in autumn 1982, the Troubles’ death toll climbed to 1,794 by year’s end. This turned out to be roughly half the total of number of people killed in the conflict.[6]”Year of the death” in Malcolm Sutton’s Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland, found at cain.ulster.ac.uk. Sutton’s index ranges from 1969 to 2001, three years after … Continue reading

Jill Uris wrote that after each of her trips to Ireland “the headlines from the North became more piercing. The people in the Republic wish the ‘troubles’ would just drift away. After all, they are finally building their own country and who needs the continuing hostility and fanaticism of Ulster?”

In fact, the Republic in the mid-1980s was “crippled by political violence, mass emigration, mass unemployment, political paralysis and a sense of hopelessness,” Michael McDowell, an independent member of Seanad Éireann, wrote at the start of 2025. It would take another decade or so before the Republic began the economic modernization known as the “Celtic Tiger” and citizens confronted abuses by the Catholic Church that resulted in today’s militant secularism. More then 40 years after Ireland Revisited, Ireland faces “very real” new challenges, McDowell concluded, “but very different from the dark past we left behind.”

So, too, “Romantic Ireland’s dead and gone. It’s with O’Leary in the grave.”[7]”September 1913” by William Butler Yeats.

References

References
↑1 Jill Uris, Ireland Revisited. [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1982], 1-2.
↑2 Ibid.
↑3 ”Two authors write varying views of Irish”, St. Cloud (Minn.) Times, Dec. 2, 1982, and other papers.
↑4 ”Too much, too little”, Des Moines (Iowa) Register, Oct. 17, 1982.
↑5 ”Lost between myths and mists of romantic Ireland”, Sunday Press, (Dublin), Dec. 5, 1982.
↑6 ”Year of the death” in Malcolm Sutton’s Index of Deaths from the Conflict in Ireland, found at cain.ulster.ac.uk. Sutton’s index ranges from 1969 to 2001, three years after the Good Friday Agreement.
↑7 ”September 1913” by William Butler Yeats.

Who leaked the 1925 Irish Boundary Commission report?

In early November 1925 the Irish Boundary Commission concluded a months-long review of the partition between the six unionist counties of Northern Ireland and the 26 nationalist counties of the Irish Free State. Before the commission could present its recommendations, however, the Morning Post in London published a detailed report about its work, including a map that purported to show proposed changes to the border.

Joseph R. Fisher

Journalist and lawyer Joseph Robert Fisher (1855–1939), the Northern Ireland representative of the three-member commission, was “head of the suspects” in the leak to the newspaper, historian Geoffrey J. Hand wrote more than four decades later. The County Down-born Fisher had worked for several British papers, including correspondent for The Times in Ireland during the war of independence (1919–1921). It is unknown whether he passed the Boundary Commission’s work product to the Morning Post, or if this was done indirectly through his correspondence with pro-unionist politicians and loose chatter with Tory journalists.[1]See Geoffrey J. Hand, “Introduction” in Report of the Irish Boundary Commission, 1925. [Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press, 1969], xviii. Also, “Fisher, Joseph Robert” … Continue reading

Hand speculated “someone of lesser rank” among the commission staff might have been the source of the leak. Contemporary newspapers suggested the Morning Post obtained the report through the printing firm hired to put the material in final presentation form.[2]”Irish Boundary Crisis Stirred By Newspaper”, Baltimore Sun, Dec. 4, 1925. Regardless of the source, the damage was done. The British and Irish press quickly confirmed the Morning Post’s reporting was substantially correct: the Boundary Commission’s recommendations largely favored unionist.

Notably, the proposed changes did not reassign the border counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh to the Free State, as Irish officials had expected since the Boundary Commission was created as part of the December 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty. Free State representative Eoin MacNeill resigned from the commission after the leak, though it is believed he originally agreed with its proposals.

The American press was slower to cover the leak and the border controversary. US big city dailies and wire services had moved on from the drama of the Irish war against Britain and subsequent civil war. London-based John W. Owens (1884-1968) of the Baltimore Sun produced some of the best coverage.[3]Owens later became editor of the Baltimore Sun. He won the 1937 Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing. He wrote:

The Irish boundary dispute between the Free State and Ulster now bids fair to become sufficiently complicated and dangerous to satisfy the subtlest Irish combatants or the most inveterate prophets of Irish futility. …

The cause of the latest upheaval is this: On November 7 the Morning Post published a forecast of the Ulster-Free State boundary, which the boundary commission is expected to declare some time before the first of the year (1926). This forecast was favorable to Ulster, which hitherto had been fearing the worst and talking correspondingly at regular intervals.

If one examines the map, as pointed out by the Post, there is nothing in the changes to cause a great row. The space between the old line and the forecast of the new line is seldom really appreciable, often barely perceptible. The net balance of the predicted changes is hardly larger than one good-sized election district in Maryland. But the Free State got the worst of it. More than that, the Post account referred to most of the territory gained by the Free State as wild and sparsely settled.[4]”League Of Nations May Have To Settle Irish Boundary Spat”, Baltimore Sun, Nov. 25, 1925.

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.

The Irish-born journalist William H. Brayden (1865–1933), correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, also provided American newspaper readers with extensive coverage of the Boundary Commission, before and after the Morning Post’s scoop. See my earlier exploration of his work:

Emergency meetings between the Free State, Northern Ireland, and the British government were held in London through early December. The three parties agreed to keep the existing border in place, making no changes. The Free State’s obligation for World War One debt and pensions was erased in exchange for dropping its counterclaim of over taxation during the period.

The three parties agreed to suppress the public release of the report, with 20 copies stashed in a British government vault. Other copies were destroyed.[5]Cormac Moore, “The Boundary Commission–The Fallout” in History Ireland, Vol 33, No. 6 (November/December 20250), pp. 39-42. The report was finally released to the public in 1969, with the introduction by Hand, the historian. He wrote:

Who was responsible for the Morning Post ‘leak’?’ Was it deliberately calculated and, if so, what was the object ? Perhaps, as the years go by and tongues are loosened and desks unlocked, these questions will be confidently answered. As things stand, only suspicions can be offered.[6]Hand, “Introduction.”

More than 50 years later, the identity of the leaker remains a mystery.

References

References
↑1 See Geoffrey J. Hand, “Introduction” in Report of the Irish Boundary Commission, 1925. [Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press, 1969], xviii. Also, “Fisher, Joseph Robert” in the Dictionary of Irish Biography.
↑2 ”Irish Boundary Crisis Stirred By Newspaper”, Baltimore Sun, Dec. 4, 1925.
↑3 Owens later became editor of the Baltimore Sun. He won the 1937 Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing.
↑4 ”League Of Nations May Have To Settle Irish Boundary Spat”, Baltimore Sun, Nov. 25, 1925.
↑5 Cormac Moore, “The Boundary Commission–The Fallout” in History Ireland, Vol 33, No. 6 (November/December 20250), pp. 39-42.
↑6 Hand, “Introduction.”

When Jill and Leon Uris went to Ireland

Fifty years ago this month the American book publisher Doubleday released Ireland: A Terrible Beauty, by Jill and Leon Uris. The couple had traveled on both sides of the partitioned island from May 1972 (four months after Bloody Sunday) to January 1973.

Original dusk jacket.

Leon, an established author, conducted research for a new novel, Trinity, which became a best seller when it was released in 1976. Jill, his third wife, 23 years younger, photographed nearly 400 images of thatched cottages, mist-shrouded countryside, and gritty scenes of urban violence; in color, and in black and white.

Their Preface says:

“We were lured there by an intriguing people, their sometimes magnificent, sometimes harsh land, and, mostly, their poignant history. Our aim was to find the keys to that story which would clarify so much of the mystery and puzzlement of recent events and simultaneously photograph everyone and everything wherever the search took us. …

“Ireland is too vast and complex in its story for two people to cover it comprehensively in less than a decade. We made no pretense at attempting to.

“What we do have here is a social, historical, and political commentary on what we consider to be the guts of the matter of a unique people and their lovely but sorrowed island. This is our point of view on the “troubles” that have plagued Ireland for the fatter part of a millennium.”[1]Leon Uris and Jill Uris, Ireland: A Terrible Beauty. The Story  of Ireland Today (With 388 Photographs, Including 108 in Full Color). [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975]. … Continue reading

The couple covered 10,000 miles, mostly by auto, “on some decent and some indecent roads.” Their journey and their book recalled American photographer and antiquarian Wallace Nutting, who estimated he and his wife covered 700 miles in all 32 counties 50 years earlier, during the summer of 1925. Nutting’s book, Ireland Beautiful, was published in time for that year’s Christmas gift-giving. It featured 304 half-tone engravings of Irish landscapes—only six images show people—and his text in support of the title.

From his studio near Boston, Nutting wrote:

“This volume pretends to no place as a guide book, nor is its text intended to cover with precision or fullness any part of Ireland. It is merely a record of impression of beauty or quaintness, observed in a land which for romance and pathos, strange history and legend, for witching grace and mystery, is probably unsurpassed.”[2]Wallace Nutting, Ireland Beautiful. [Norwood, Mass.: The Plimpton Press, 1925]. 302 pp. Quoted from Foreword.

Though he began his career as a Congregationalist minister, Nutting insisted his book had “nothing whatever to do with political and religious matters.” He noted the work of the Boundary Commission, which later in 1925 fixed the partition line in place, and made sweeping, uncontroversial generalizations: “The people of Ulster were as insistent on remaining in the empire as South Ireland was on withdrawing from the empire.”[3]Ibid., 286.

For more on Nutting, see my August 2025 piece for History Ireland, “Ireland Beautiful–How A 1925 American Photobook Boosted Irish Tourism.”

More opinionated

Leon Uris was more opinionated in his analysis of an Ireland then descending deeper into sectarian strife, rather than the island emerging from the war of independence and civil war at Nutting’s visit. During the Uris’s nine-month stay, more than 400 people were killed and thousands of others were injured in shootings and bombings. More than 500 people were charged with terrorist offences. “Their visit coincided with one of the most violent years of the Troubles,” wrote biographer Ira B. Nadel.[4]Ira B. Nadel, Leon Uris: Life of a Best Seller. [Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010], See Chapter 9, “Ireland,” 209-232.

Uris leveraged his identity as an American Jew, not an Irish-American of Catholic or Protestant faith, as well as his status as a celebrity author. He took particular aim at “the most diabolic by-product of three hundred and fifty years of the plantation of Ulster, a cancerous growth known as Paisleyism.” Grimly, he concluded: “The nightmare of Ulster has come about with Christian fighting Christian in one of the most advanced of Western societies. Continuation of this travesty with God can lead to the eclipse of civilization in that part of the world.”[5]Uris, Terrible Beauty, 128, 195.

The Troubles got much worse, of course, but not quite that bad.

By coincidence, Terrible Beauty’s November 1975 release was three months after the death of Éamon de Valera, the most consequential leader of twentieth century Ireland. The book says he “had the full measure of that detached, ruthless arrogance, political guile, persuasiveness, and total self-assurance that stamp greatness on a national leader. He was the rarest breed, the head of a small country that has achieved stature among the political giants of this century.”[6]Ibid., 162.

Photographing Ireland

Dev’s death ends the book’s 8-page chronology, which begins at 10,000 BC when the island emerged from the receding Ice Age. Naturally, the book included a map and, like the island itself, was divided into two sections: The Republic and Ulster.

“Photographing in the Republic was almost always a joy. Ulster was another story,” Jill Uris wrote. She described the difficulties of working as a woman and an outsider in the sectarian maelstrom of the North. Her “Photographing Ireland” in the Appendix also contains notes about the pre-digital camera equipment she used during the assignment.[7]Ibid., 209-212

Aside from the images of sectarian violence in the North, most of Jill’s photographs show a mid-twentieth century Ireland without much hint of the rapid modernization that emerged in the coming decades, and certainly since 2000. In this regard her images of the country are similar to those of American photographer Dorothea Lange, who arrived in County Clare in September 1954 on an assignment for Life magazine. See my September 2024 post, “Remembering Dorothea Lange’s ‘Irish Country People’“.

I’ll return to my exploration of the Uris’s visit and their work in future posts.

References

References
↑1 Leon Uris and Jill Uris, Ireland: A Terrible Beauty. The Story  of Ireland Today (With 388 Photographs, Including 108 in Full Color). [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975]. 288 pp.
↑2 Wallace Nutting, Ireland Beautiful. [Norwood, Mass.: The Plimpton Press, 1925]. 302 pp. Quoted from Foreword.
↑3 Ibid., 286.
↑4 Ira B. Nadel, Leon Uris: Life of a Best Seller. [Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010], See Chapter 9, “Ireland,” 209-232.
↑5 Uris, Terrible Beauty, 128, 195.
↑6 Ibid., 162.
↑7 Ibid., 209-212

On press reports of Ireland’s ‘first’ president, 1938

(My next post will be the eve of the election, Oct. 23, with updates through election day until the winner is announced, probably Oct. 25 or 26. MH)

Irish voters on Oct. 24 will elect the country’s tenth president under the constitution their ancestors adopted in 1937. Irish language scholar Douglas Hyde was nominated as the first president in 1938 by the country’s two main political parties, avoiding a contested election.

“Not a word of English was spoken at the inauguration of the Protestant as the head of the Catholic state,” the Associated Press reported to American newspaper readers. Americans in several markets such as New York/New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C. also were able to listen to a radio broadcast of the Irish language inaugural from Dublin.[1]”Dr. Hyde Inducted As Irish President”, Philadelphia Inquirer, June 28, 1938, and other papers. Radio program listings in multiple papers.

Statue of Douglas Hyde in Co. Roscommon.

Nine of every 10 Irish citizens in 1938 were Catholic, and many aspects of the country’s political and social life were certainly influenced by the Church. But the new constitution that began to transform the 26 counties of southern Ireland from the Irish Free State, created in 1922 as a dominion of the United Kingdom, “did not declare Catholicism the state religion, to the disappointment of my zealous Catholics.” The 1937 constitution also did not declare an Irish republic, though the document defined the state as having 32 counties.[2]Diarmaid Ferriter, The Transformation of Ireland. [New York: Overlook Press, 2005], 369-70.

Some American news analysts framed Hyde’s selection as an olive branch to the six partitioned counties of North Ireland, which was roughly two thirds Protestant at the time.[3]In 1937, 30.5 % Presbyterian; 27% Church of Ireland; 4.7% Methodist. “Breakdown of population in Northern Ireland according to Religion, 1861-1991” at CAIN Archive. Catholics now outnumber … Continue reading But Hyde’s ascendance to the new figure head position of president did not reassure northern hardliners. The Ulster Unionist Party of Sir James Craig solidified its hold on power in the north during an election earlier in 1938. The Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement of that year, which ended a five-year dispute over tariffs and transferred control of several naval ports from Britain to Ireland, further reinforced northern recalcitrance.

Hyde’s religious affiliation was not the only thing that made him an unconventional choice. “Politicians usually want a practical man as the head of the state, but Dr. Hyde is a poet,” observed Milton Bronner of the Newspaper Enterprise Association. “The dominant cry in Europe is for young men as leaders, but the Irish chose Dr. Hyde, who is 78.”[4]”Aged Poet, ‘Enemy of None,’ To Be President of Ireland”, Pittsburgh Press, June 5, 1938, and other papers. For more on Bronner, see my post: “Could Maine potatoes have … Continue reading

Bronner’s analysis and other American press reports about Hyde’s inauguration noted his 1906-07 tour of the United States to raise money and awareness for the Gaelic League. These same stories mention that Eamon de Valera, as taoiseach, or prime minister, continued to hold the real political power in southern Ireland. But I have not found any American coverage that recounted de Valera’s 1919-20 U.S. tour as “president of the Irish republic.”

De Valera in 1937.

No such position or country formally existed at the time. De Valera’s real title was Príomh Aire, the chief minister or president of Dáil Éireann; the separatist parliament established in January 1919 by Sinn Féin candidates who won Irish constituencies in the December 1918 British general election. The title of president of Ireland was bestowed on de Valera by Irish American supporters to more easily convey his leadership position to American audiences.

In 1938, at least one letter to the editor writer in Ireland questioned the new title of Irish president, even if the American press missed the historical irony. The Dublin writer noted not only that de Valera had declared himself president in 1919, but also that Pádraic Pearse made the same claim at the 1916 Easter Rising. “Apparently we are now expected to forget that the Irish republic ever existed, or that the blood of Ireland’s greatest men was shed in its defense, and to regard the history of Ireland as commencing on the date of the enactment of de Valera’s new constitution.”[5]”President of Ireland” in “Our Readers’ Views On Topics Of The Day”, Irish Independent, June 27, 1938.

Afterward:

  • Full republic status came to the 26 counties of southern Ireland in 1949. The 1937 constitution’s claim on a 32-county state was amended in 1998 as part of the Good Friday Agreement.
  • De Valera transitioned from taoiseach to president in 1959. He held the latter position until 1973.
  • The Irish Times has ranked Hyde as second best among the nine presidents of Ireland, with de Valera placed at seventh. See their list.

The two candidates vying for the Irish presidency later this month are Catherine Connolly, who was raised Catholic but describers herself as areligious, and Heather Humphreys, a Presbyterian by religious affiliation who describes her politics as moderate Irish republicanism rather than Protestant unionism. Connolly is a fluent Irish speaker, while Humphrey struggles with the language. As mentioned in the previous post, whoever wins the election will become Ireland’s third woman president.

References

References
↑1 ”Dr. Hyde Inducted As Irish President”, Philadelphia Inquirer, June 28, 1938, and other papers. Radio program listings in multiple papers.
↑2 Diarmaid Ferriter, The Transformation of Ireland. [New York: Overlook Press, 2005], 369-70.
↑3 In 1937, 30.5 % Presbyterian; 27% Church of Ireland; 4.7% Methodist. “Breakdown of population in Northern Ireland according to Religion, 1861-1991” at CAIN Archive. Catholics now outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland by 45.7% to 43.5%.
↑4 ”Aged Poet, ‘Enemy of None,’ To Be President of Ireland”, Pittsburgh Press, June 5, 1938, and other papers. For more on Bronner, see my post: “Could Maine potatoes have relieved Irish hunger in 1925?“
↑5 ”President of Ireland” in “Our Readers’ Views On Topics Of The Day”, Irish Independent, June 27, 1938.

Guest post: examining Irish legal cartoons

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.

Brayden on Irish journalists and state propaganda

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.

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

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.

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.