The Evolution Of British Policy And The Emergence Of A 

Sinn Fein Publicity Department

In The Years After The Easter Rising

Mss notes, Part 28

The Propaganda Battle Over The Death Of Thomas MacCurtain 

Following MacCurtain’s funeral, nb date, which was marked by a united display of sympathy that crossed the divide of republicans and unionists, Catholic and Protestant, soldiers of the IRA, and ex-soldiers of the British Army;  the Irish Bulletin condemned the use of the press by Dublin Castle even more strongly:  on 1st April the Irish Bulletin asserted that—

“the British officials in Dublin Castle may not be able to govern Ireland, but… they control Irish news and can fearlessly blacken the name of a dead Irishman”.  

The opinion of Arthur Griffith was then given—

“…the reports of a ‘Sinn Fein Black Hand’ had broken journalistic law and contained an infamous falsehood, attempting to prevent knowledge of the truth” (Irish Bulletin, 1 April 1920).

Another view of MacCurtain’s murder was voiced by the Daily Mail‘s Irish correspondent on 3rd April 1920:  

“A theory is gradually gaining ground, that Mr. MacCurtain, the Lord Mayor, fell victim to a new secret Anti-Sinn Fein organisation modelled and run upon the exact same lines of the famous Ku-Klux-Klan” (Daily Mail‘s Irish correspondent in Cork Weekly News, 3 April 1920 in John Miller Borgonovo, Intelligence And The ‘Anti-Sinn Fein Society’: the Anglo-Irish Conflict in Cork City, 1920-1921, unpub. thesis, UCC, 1997, p6) (cf. below) check Daily Mail owner). 

The Daily Mail reported that, contrary to the allegations made by Lord French and others, it was MacCurtain’s reluctant support of the IRA that led to his murder,  and that his killing may have been provoked by a fiery speech denouncing “the methods pursued by the police against Sinn Fein”.  The report concluded that—

“the murder of Mr. MacCurtain may be followed by a sort of ugly triangular duel between the forces of the Crown, Sinn Fein, and private bands of avengers” (Ibid). 

Whatever about an anti-Sinn Fein organisation being responsible for MacCurtain’s death, this reference to such a body did presage the very active presence of an Anti-Sinn Fein Society in Cork later in 1920 (more Borgonovo).

Following these inspired ‘official’ reports in the press, Lord French, in an interview with Mr. Greenwall, the Special Correspondent of the Daily Express, declared confidently, on 6th April, that MacCurtain had been murdered by a group of Sinn Feiners.  French’s diary confirms that an interview did take place at 4.30 pm (French Diary, 6 April 1920, French Papers 75/46/3, IWM).  

The exact words of French, as published by Greenwall in the Daily Express, were that “the Sinn Feiners themselves sentenced Cork’s Lord Mayor to death and duly executed the sentence”  (O’Donoghue, MacCurtain, p189; Irish Bulletin, 9 April 1920, giving extract from the Daily Express)  

At this stage, faced by protests from the legal representatives at MacCurtain’s inquest, the ‘official story’ began to unravel.  The Irish Bulletin, in its issue of 9th April 1920, published a detailed account of the duplicity underlying the ‘official’ story.   ?Daily Express 

The Daily Mail was having second thoughts about its account of the MacCurtain murder, the Irish Bulletin reported, and noted that it had stated, on  7th April, that—

“if the authorities are satisfied that the information in their possession is accurate, we hold that it is their duty to publish it” (Irish Bulletin, 9 April 1920).  

Lord French’s interview with Greenwall of the Daily Express was then given and its discrepancies with the earlier ‘official’ report in the Daily Mail were pointed out.  A statement by Arthur Griffith on 7th April was then published, in which he affirmed that— 

“Lord French and those who inspired him may be assured that the Irish Nation will drag the identity of the assassins of one of Ireland’s noblest patriots into the light of day, despite the efforts of the Piggotist gang to shield them…” (Irish Bulletin, 9 April 1920)   

For Arthur Griffith, ever since he had used the word ‘Camarilla’ in December 1919, any reference to Piggott was intended as a reference to Taylor and his supporters (Irish Bulletin, 12 December 1919.  The word camarilla means a cabal).  

Even Griffith, however, must have been surprised by the alacrity of Taylor’s response, which he made on the following day.  The statement from Dublin Castle on 8th April stated that— 

“the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland desires to state that the published report of a conversation on Tuesday with the Special Correspondent in Dublin of the London Daily Express was not only unauthorised by his Excellency, but is a misrepresentation of what passed on the occasion” (Irish Bulletin, 9 April 1920)  

This disclaimer was immediately repudiated by the Daily Express in its issue of 9th April and was carried in the Irish Bulletin:  

 “Our special correspondent has now returned from Ireland and he repudiates Lord French’s denial of the words attributed to him.  He uttered them.  More than that, he said things which, in the view of our correspondent, should not have been said for publication by the Lord Lieutenant, and so he did not make them public” (Ibid).  

The Daily Express disclaimer continued by stating that—

“the portion of the interview referring to the Cork murder has naturally created a great sensation in Ireland, and Lord French, who failed to foresee the storm, now attempts to evade it by reflecting on the professional honour and veracity of a capable and experienced journalist”  (Irish Bulletin, 9 April 1920).  

The Daily Express concluded that Lord French—

“cannot, by a mere official denial, escape the responsibility of his words by asserting that the interview was unauthorised” (Irish Bulletin, 9 April 1920).

These revelations were sufficient in themselves to tarnish the ‘official’ story from Dublin Castle.  However, in its issue of 9th April, the Irish Bulletin also produced a report from the Special Correspondent of the Yorkshire Post—which further damaged the credibility of the pronouncements from Dublin Castle.  

The correspondent had interviewed Sir John Taylor on Wednesday, 7th April, the day before Lord French’s disclaimer was published, and he narrated—

“…this evening I asked Sir John Taylor, the Assistant Under-Secretary, why, if the authorities possessed information as to the identity of the assassins they did not produce it in evidence at the inquest.  The reply was that it was a matter of policy” (Irish Bulletin, 9 April 1920).

Taylor was then reported as stating that—

“…it may be that the Lord Lieutenant’s latest talk will create surprise, that the language should lack the customary shape of an important announcement.  I am able to afford a little enlightenment by stating what is the Viceroy’s view of a conversation with a newspaper representative.  Lord French said this evening that he never sanctions an interview. “If a journalist prints anything of what I say or do not say, that is his affair”…” (Irish Bulletin, 9 April 1920)       

Rejecting these Dublin Castle explanations as “whispered calumny” to attract “wide publicity”, the Irish Bulletin asserted that:

“Lord French has made a definite statement, shielding the police, defaming the dead, and accusing a National organisation of being guilty of the murder.   Dublin Castle will assert anything and deny anything regardless of truth”.  

The Bulletin then concluded defiantly, with a special appeal to its foreign readers, that— 

“Alderman MacCurtain was murdered by British paid police.  People outside of Ireland who care for justice will have seen Lord French’s statement.  But they will never see him produce the proof of it” (Irish Bulletin, 9 April 1920).

In the light of these public revelations in the press, Lord French and Sir John Taylor were called by the jury to present their evidence at the inquest on 12th April.  Both declined to appear and on that day, 12th April, Lord French held a meeting of the Privy Council to discuss the Hunger Strike (Thomas MacCurtain Inquest, Calling Of Witnesses 12 April 1920, CO 904/47B; French Diary, 12 April 1920, ibid).  

French held another meeting on 14th April with General Macready—on the very day that he arrived in Ireland—and with Sir John Taylor (French Diary, 14 April 1920, ibid). 

On 17th April 1920 the inquest jury presented their unanimous verdict: 

“…we find that the late Alderman MacCurtain, Lord Mayor of Cork, died from shock and haemorrhage caused by bullet wounds, and that he was wilfully murdered under circumstances of the most callous brutality, and that the murder was organised and carried out by the RIC, officially directed by the British Government, and we return a verdict of wilful murder against David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of England;  Lord French, Lord Lieutenant;  Ian MacPherson, late Chief Secretary of Ireland;  Acting Inspector General Smith of the RIC;  District Inspector Swanzy and some unknown members of the RIC” (Irish Bulletin, 19 April 1920; J.A. Murphy, Cuimhne Dha Laoch, MacCurtain and MacSwiney, Cork, 1995, p6 for a recent account of the jury verdict).   

The Sinn Fein Publicity Department promoted the inquest verdict, but it was so sensational that little promotion was needed as it attracted the attention of the press throughout the world.  

Writing publicly soon afterwards, Erskine Childers, who had attended the MacCurtain inquest for one day, reviewed the actions of Lord French and Sir John Taylor, and concluded that their—

“…concocted calumny had received world-wide publicity through the powerful anti-Irish Press in America and Europe.  There can be no question that it was deliberately put into circulation by a Castle official in order to forestall the inevitable verdict at the inquest.   A typical example of Castle methods” (Erskine Childers, Military Rule In Ireland, Dublin, 1920, p22; Childers Diary, 26 March 1920 for attendance at inquest, 7811, Trinity MS).

Later in the year, the events surrounding MacCurtain’s death were recalled and revived in dramatic form in America at the hearing of the American Commission on Conditions in Ireland.  These hearings, the brainchild of Dr. William Moloney, were held in Washington and served as a remarkable forum for publicity in the Irish cause.  

The testimony of Mary MacSwiney and of two of Thomas MacCurtain’s sisters-in-law, Susana and Anna Walsh, presented to the American people in December 1920 not only the harrowing details of MacCurtain’s killing but also the confused and contradictory statements of General Strickland, Ian Macpherson, Lord French, and Sir John Taylor.  

The verdict of the inquest jury of “wilful murder” against Lloyd George and the British Establishment was also given a new lease of life (American Commission on Conditions in Ireland, Washington, 1921, evidence of Mary MacSwiney, pp343-365, Susanna Walsh, pp 627-653, Anna Walsh, pp 653-664).

The British propaganda machine, however, refused to give second best to the inquest verdict and continued to perpetuate the version of Lord French—that Sinn Feiners were responsible for MacCurtain’s murder.  Writing in 1921, Major Street declared that: 

“an inquest was held, and after protracted sittings a verdict was returned attributing the murder to members of the police.  It has since been conclusively proved that no members of the police were concerned in the attack, and the matter remains at present a mystery” (Street, IO, pp79,80)  

Street mentioned that several theories had arisen to explain MacCurtain’s murder:  firstly, the IRA had acted against him because they were fearful that he would make revelations about their operations;  and, secondly, that the IRB had acted against him because they suspected him of ‘infidelity’ to their cause. 

(Florence O’Donoghue, Tomas MacCurtain, Soldier and Patriot, Tralee, 1971, p154 for the statement that, despite differences over the death of a Volunteer, “it did not disrupt the good relations” between MacCurtain “and those of his officers who were IRB men”.  This included the leading IRB man, Sean Hegarty)  

For the implied accusation of ‘infidelity’, Street relied on “a well-informed correspondent”, writing in the London Times of 29th March 1920.  The same source in The Times was used by Captain H.B.C. Pollard, writing in 1922, to draw the same conclusions as Street and Lord French (Pollard, Secret Societies, p194).  

Neither Street nor Pollard adverted to the controversy surrounding the dubious veracity of Lord French’s statement (see Manus O’Riordan on IRB;  see book on O’Hegarty).  

Both Street and Pollard had important roles in British propaganda during the War of Independence and it was to be expected that their books would continue to disseminate the same material that they had used for publicity purposes.  Indeed, the books themselves served as an integral part of the propaganda campaign.  Moreover, in 1923 their version of events was given a place in the historical narrative by Professor Alison Phillips, Lecky Professor of History at Trinity College, who stated that—

“it was known to the authorities, however, that the Lord Mayor, who was said to have refused the sanction of the use of Corporation funds for the purpose of the “war”, was “executed” as an object lesson to the weak-kneed supporters of the cause…” (Phillips, Revolution, p175).

In conclusion it may be suggested that the events surrounding the death of MacCurtain provide a prime example of propaganda techniques affecting the writing of history.  

Other events in the same month of April 1920, notably the Hunger Strike of Sinn Feiners in Mountjoy Prison, raised the same issues. ?? Foster and Hart and Hopkinson and Townsend; and ?? cf. Curtis on Coercion for camarilla names.   

To be Continued