The Evolution of British Policy and the Emergence of a Sinn Fein Publicity Department in the years after the Easter Rising, 1916-1918.    Mss notes, Part 24 

Irish Bulletin On Creeds And Crown Juries 

While focussing on the election results and crime statistics, the Irish Bulletin continued to give prominence to accounts of Catholic and Protestant co-operation. An opportunity was provided by the visit of a Protestant delegation to America and the re- sponse to it by the Church of Ireland journal, the Gaelic Churchman. On 3rd February the Irish Bulletin carried an extract from it which was critical of the Ulster Protestant delegation to America and its claim that a republican government would threaten their religious liberties: 

“We have often challenged, and we challenge again, anyone to produce an instance of a member of our Church interfered with in modern times solely on account of his religion in the predominantly Roman Catholic parts of Ireland where no ques- tions of politics and proselytising were involved. We honestly believe that these Ulster qualms are the outcome of a guilty conscience, and the champions of “civil and religious liberty” mean by that blessed phrase that they are on top and intend to remains so” (IB, 3 Feb.’20) ?? check Rev. Irwin in States). 

Voices such as this, emanating from a religious source—in favour, not only of religious toleration, but also of Dail Eireann—were especially welcomed. For example, on 27th January, the Bulletin gave prominence to a letter that Archbishop Harty of Cashel had sent to de Valera in America with a £50 contribution to the Dail Loan. The Archbishop wrote— 

“Here at home the British Government has continued to trample on the principles of democracy. Ireland is in a state of political and industrial bondage” (IB, 27 Jan.’20). 

The Archbishop recorded a list of actions to illustrate his claim, citing a muzzled Press, arrested Dail Deputies, banned Irish Societies, homes raided, and the presence of “an army of occupation”. He concluded: 

“These are some activities of the British Government, which has loudly proclaimed its respect for the liberties of small nations” (Ibid). 

A similar appeal by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy on 27th January was also given prominence under the heading, Irish Bishops Condemn Military Rule, Demand For National Self-Determination (IB, 28 Jan.’20): 

“We would represent to the advocates of military rule in Ireland that Government by force, which was never right, is to-day wholly obsolete and cannot hope to prevail for long against the democratic spirit now animating the world… “we have, therefore, to declare that the one true way to terminate our historic troubles and establish friendly relations between England and Ireland to the advantage of both countries is to allow an undivided Ireland to choose her own form of Government” (Ibid.) 

In the context of British plans to formulate a new Home Rule Bill, the Bishops’ statement, and the publicity given to it by the Bulletin, presented a clear alternative policy. 

Another permanent feature of the Irish Bulletin was use of both the evidence and the verdicts of coroners’ juries to illustrate the excesses of the RIC. These juries, as the Bulletin was careful to point out, had been appointed by the police. Following the death by drowning of a young boy, Michael Darcy, of County Clare on 19th January, the Bulletin publicised the accounts of witnesses. One witness declared that— 

“when they ran to the river to rescue the boy who was struggling in the water, the police who were on the opposite bank ordered them away and fired at them with rifles and revolvers when they refused” (IB, 28 Jan. 1920). 

Another witness maintained that she tried to help the drowning boy, but the police sergeant “presented his rifle at her and ordered her back”. The verdict of the jury was then recorded. It unanimously—“condemned the heartless action of the police in not allowing deceased to be rescued from the river” (IB, 28 Jan. 1920; See O’Hegarty to FitzGerald, 14 Feb.’20, DE 2/10, NAI for the suggestion that Richard Mulcahy, Chief of Staff of the IRA, had more details on the death). 

The same approach was used in reporting the deaths of Miss Lena Johnston and Richard O’Dwyer, in Limerick on 2nd February 1920. The Bulletin carried the story under the headline, English Military Kill Two Limerick Citizens, on 5th February, and gave the jury verdict on 9th February under the heading, Another Verdict Of Murder Against The English Military (Irish Bulletin, 5 and 9 Feb. 1920). The verdict of the jury on O’Dwyer’s death reported that: 

“the evidence shows that the military having fatally shot two unoffending citizens and wounded two other people, marched off singing “Rule Britanni”…” (IB, 9 Feb.’20). 

In the case of Lena Johnston the verdict stated that the— 

“death was caused by a rifle bullet fired by the police without orders from their superiors. We strongly condemn their action as there was no provocation. It is what the Jury considers murder…” (IB, 16 Feb.’20; FJ of 14 Feb; and article, Baiting the Irish People.) 

Sympathy for the victims and hostility towards the RIC was generated by the Irish Bulletin’s use of accounts such as these. 

Occasionally a cutting type of humour was added to the more sombre accounts of the Irish Bulletin as, for example, when Lloyd George spoke in the House of Commons on 10th February of murders and assassinations in Ireland, and asked rhetorically “are we to withdraw out troops and leave the assassins in charge?” The Bulletin replied in a banner headline, The Assassins Are In Charge In Ireland, adding that the Dublin Castle administration connived at their activities. 

A detailed list of the critical verdicts of coroners’ juries against the Crown Forces, going back to 1916, was then provided (IB, 13 Feb. 1920). Although the Bulletin was, by this stage, covering particular occurrences in some detail, the Dail Ministry suggested on 13th February that “striking instances should from time to time be fully investigated and written up”, as they “would more readily command attention” (O’Hegarty to FitzGerald, 13 Feb. 1920,?? source and date cf. above 19 May 1920, Ibid). 

Desmond FitzGerald, who was in London when the instruction from the Dail Ministry arrived, defended the policy of the Bulletin on his return to Ireland. While in London he had continued to build on the contacts with journalists that had been well established in the past year. He met many French journalists as well as others from America, Italy, Holland, Scandinavia, Greece and Australia. FitzGerald wrote positively about all of his contacts, except of that with Steele of the Chicago Tribune, whom he described as “fundamentally anti-Irish” (DF to DO’H, 21st Feb. ’20, ibid.??; McKenna 505,506) 

On 11th February FitzGerald, in the company of Arthur Griffith and Eoin MacNeill, met Art O’Brien to discuss plans for a pro-Irish meeting in the Albert Hall (O’Brien to O’Hegarty, 12th July 1920, NAI DE 2/11, Documents On Irish Foreign Policy, vol. 1., p81 and see more).

In America itself the publicity campaign was running into trouble as a result of de Valera’s ‘Cuban’ speech on 6th February.

Harry Boland’s initial reaction had been to describe de Valera’s interview with the Westminster Gazette as “good stuff”, but de Valera’s comparison of Ireland’s relationship with England to that of America’s relationship with Cuba, and his apparent acceptance of it, appeared to qualify Ireland’s complete claim to recognition as an independent Republic (Boland Diary, 5 Feb. 1920, 2172/1, de Valera Papers, UCDA).

Even among de Valera’s own supporters, both in Ireland and America, questions were raised about the interview, and John Devoy used his paper, the Gaelic American, to make a scathing attack on de Valera’s integrity and ability. De Valera responded privately by informing Judge Cohalan that “I alone am responsible” to the Irish people. He went on to ask Cohalan to intervene with Devoy over the contents of the Gaelic American (De Valera to Cohalan, 20 Feb. 1920, DE 2/245, NAI).

Cohalan, however, stood by the policy of the Gaelic American and of Devoy. The latter, moreover, was convinced that de Valera’s interview was intended to launch a “newdeparture”, a new party to supplant the Friends of Irish Freedom, and that his action was “aserious danger to the National Cause”.

He was also annoyed that de Valera was using the funds of the Friends of Irish Freedom to pay for his own staff, the Bond Scheme, the Bureau, and the expenses at the Hotel Waldorf Astoria (‘Hudson’: Devoy to ‘Schell’; McGarrity, 20 Feb. 1920 McGarrity Papers, 17486 (4), NLI).

Despite these acute difficulties, Harry Boland concluded, somewhat surprisingly, that the month of February had been “the most fruitful since our arrival” (Boland Diary, 29 Feb. 1920, 2172/1, de Valera Papers, UCDA). He based this conclusion on the fact that the Bond Drive, thanks to the efficiency of James O’Mara and Sean Nunan, was running efficiently, and that an anti-British spirit was increasing among American public representatives.

However, Boland’s high spirits were immediately dampened on 1st March 1920, when James O’Mara offered his resignation—a resignation which de Valera immediately tried to reverse (James O’Mara to de Valera, 1 March 1920, de Valera Papers, 1728, UCDA; de Valera to O’Mara, 4 March 1920, in Lavelle, James O’Mara, pp155-6).

By 5th March Boland was confiding to Michael Collins that, although the Gaelic American had modified its attacks on de Valera, “it must be admitted that the criticism has affectedthe Bond Drive” (Boland to Collins, 5th March 1920, DE 2/245, NAI).

At a time when the unity of Irish-American efforts was paramount, divisions in the ranks were weakening both Ireland’s claim for International Recognition and the success of the Bond Drive. Liam Mellows gave some insight into the problem, from the perspective of a de Valera supporter, when he wrote on 9th March 1920 that “I was horrified beyondmeasure at the editorials of John Devoy…”

As to the Bond Drive, Mellows commented that, “it is very slow indeed”; and, referring to Devoy and his supporters, he added that “the New York gang have done nothing to help theDrive, but everything to hinder it” (Mellows to John Hearn, 9th March 1920, HearnPapers, 15986, NLI).

These divisions kept simmering away until they reached a dramatic conclusion on 19th March 1920. In the meantime, all of those engaged in publicity work in Ireland were extremely busy.

Irish Bulletin And Sir John Taylor

Brennan and Gallagher met Childers on 14th February to discuss publicity matters and, on 21st February, FitzGerald was in touch with Childers about developments in England. The close relationship between advancing Ireland’s cause in both Ireland and England, and, from that base, to a wider world was maintained.

During the month of February Childers was occupied with the National Land Bank and with the personal situation of his cousin, Robert Barton, whose trial by court martial began on 12th February. He communicated his concerns about his cousin to Wedgwood-Ben, who raised them in the House of Commons (Childers Diary, Feb. 1920, 7811, Trinity MS).

The sentencing of Barton to three years’ penal servitude, and his deportation to Portland Prison in England on 22-23 February, prompted Childers to leave Ireland immediately to visit his cousin.

While Childers was in England, Brennan and Gallagher launched a personal attack on Sir John Taylor in the Irish Bulletin of 24th February 1920. The character of the article marked something of a new initiative for the Bulletin and may have been prompted by the earlier Memorandum from the Dail Ministry.

The article may have been provoked by the knowledge that Taylor was responsible for the inner workings of Dublin Castle and, therefore, linked in some way with the recent arrest of some eighty republicans and many newly elected councillors on 2nd February, the deportation of some sixty republicans on 9th February to Wormwood Scrubs in London, and the imposition of a Curfew Order on Dublin on 20th February by Major General Boyd, acting as the Competent Military Authority.

All of these events had been chronicled in the Irish Bulletin as examples of the punitive character of Dublin Castle rule.

The article in the Bulletin, under the caption, Facts Concerning The Real Ruler Of Ireland, attributed the repressive policy in Ireland to Taylor. The title was prompted by an observation in the Sunday Chronicle of 22nd February that “the real ruler of Ireland is SirJohn Taylor”. He was identified by the Irish Bulletin as—

“the inspiring figure of the coercion regime and the person chiefly engaged in concocting another plot against Irish leaders” (Irish Bulletin, 24 Feb. 1920).

The details of Taylor’s personal background and career record were then recorded: his association with Balfour in the 1880s; his association with Walter Long in 1905-1906; and his re-emergence under Long in 1918, to whom it was claimed that Taylor owed his knighthood. It was also alleged that he had co-operated with The Times of London on two occasions: firstly, to prove that Pigott’s letters incriminating Parnell were genuine; and, secondly, by contributing to articles on “Parnellism and Crime”, he had helped to prepare the way for the Perpetual Coercion Act of 1887 (the Jubilee Act). The very Act, it was pointed out, that Taylor, in co-operation with Bell, was putting into renewed effect at the present moment.

nb: reminder of Balfour and Long’s enduring role in saga

Reflecting on these past actions of Taylor, the Irish Bulletin then maintained that he—

“has devised for Dublin Castle an improved method of propaganda against the Irish Nation and its leaders. In the Balfourian days the propaganda was carried out mainly by the “Loyal and Patriotic Union” of which Houston, Pigott’s paymaster, was Secretary …Taylor invented the new method of giving publicity to plots without running the risk the “Times” incurred. The method is to issue political manifestos against the Castle opponents in the form of Government statements or returns. For this the Castle can always claim privilege as a bar to any action such as Parnell took against the “Times”. In a word, the English Government under Taylor’s device, can slander its political antagonists with impunity in the public press at home and abroad” (Irish Bulletin, 24th Feb. 1920)

The Irish Bulletin continued:

“An instance of the manner in which Taylor works is afforded by the publication of a list of “Crimes attributed to Sinn Fein”. He takes all the offences reported and declares Sinn Fein committed them. The preparation of such a list has been a special study of this man. They are based upon a system of expansion and contraction, varying according to the pressure of the political barometer whenever it suits the officials of the English Government; for instance, preparatory to Coercive measures a list of crimes reaching to large dimensions is forthcoming. This is effected under Taylor’s system by classifying under several distinct headings what is in reality one offence.”

The Irish Bulletin then spelt out the precise manner in which Taylor manipulated the recording of one particular offence:

“For example, take a raid on a dwelling house and the effecting of an entrance by an armed party, an attack on some of the inmates inside either to gratify private revenge or for some other obscure motive. Under Taylor’s directions, this is classified under the following headings: 1. Assault on a dwelling house; 2. Burglary; 3. Firing at a person; 4. Assault endangering the life of A.B; 5. Assault endangering the life of CB; 5. Intimidation; 6. Malicious injury to property; and so forth.” (Irish Bulletin, 24 Feb. 1920)

If, however, Dublin Castle wished to convey the impression that Coercion was working, then only one offence would be recorded.

This view of Balfour’s legislation relating to the collection of figures for evictions, crimes and outrages, and of its use for propaganda purposes, has been substantiated by the recent findings of Margaret O’Callaghan, who concluded that:

“the system itself became a weapon of propaganda… Crime figures… had always been thrown back and forth indiscriminately during coercion debates and had provided party political ammunition, but the form and content of reports under Balfour substantially altered.” (Margaret O’Callaghan, Parnellism and Crime: Constructing a ConservativeStrategy of Containment 1887-1891, p113 in Donal McCartney (ed.): Parnell the Politics ofPower (Dublin, 1991; F.S.L. Lyons, Parnell (Irish History Series 3, Dundalk, 1974 pp23-4).

Moreover, O’Callaghan reported that Dublin Castle’s minute and detailed knowledge of agrarian affairs was only possible owing to the regular reports of the RIC. It was the contention of the Irish Bulletin that Sir John Taylor was, and had been, using the same RIC to make similar reports about political suspects. The Bulletin asserted that:

“Threatening Letters were a particularly malleable statistic”, as they could easily be fabricated by, what it termed, were Agents Provocateurs. These paid agents, the Bulletin declared, had played an extremely important part in the police career of Alan Bell of which they gave an extensive account. The Bulletin also noted that, in a recent letter to the Freeman’s Journal, a man had narrated how he had been approached by Superintendent Brien “to swear that he had heard a Sinn Fein member of Parliament giving instructions to men to shoot policemen” (Irish Bulletin, 24th Feb. 1920).

While these revelations about Taylor and Bell were being distributed to a wide range of foreign correspondents, Childers was active on his brief visit to England.

On 24th February Childers interviewed the Governor of Portland Prison and talked with [Brian] Barton. While convinced that “nothing will break his spirit”, he was angry at the manner of his cousin’s sentence, and was also concerned at the prison conditions.

In London, Childers made contact with Wedgewood Benn and Lord Buckmaster at the Whips’ Office of the House of Commons, showing that, despite his public pro-Irish stance, he still enjoyed an entree to the inner corridors of power.

He also saw Sir Horace Plunkett, discussing with him de Valera’s mission to America: Plunkett had just returned from America, and Lord Monteagle*, thus illustrating the broad range of contacts that he used to further the Irish cause. Childers returned to Ireland on the morning of 26th February (Childers’ Diary, 23 – 25 Feb. 1920, 7811, Trinity MS) ?? cf. Bureau ??

(To be continued)

*Lord Monteagle put forward a Bill, giving Ireland a considerable measure of Home Rule, but retaining Foreign Affairs and Defence for British rule. His Bill was defeated on 1st July 1920. (Ed.)