The much-trumpeted sworn inquiry held in Castlebar on 17 December proved a tame affair. In its report the Western People seemed somewhat disappointed. ‘The inquiry into the affairs of Mayo County Council, to which the public looked forward with such interest, is over. It lasted twenty minutes, and was entirely devoid of incident, or any of that bitterness or recrimination one might have expected under the circumstances.’1
According to The Connaught Telegraph, ‘No one in the town seemed to take the least interest in the proceedings and when the inquiry began the only non-officials present were Mr P. Higgins and Mr T.S. Moclair …’2
Canon Hegarty from the library committee subsequently arrived at the inquiry, as did Councillors Morahan and Jordan. Mr Seán McGrath appeared as solicitor for the council. The county secretary, Mr M.J. Egan, was also in attendance.
Opening the inquest, the inspector, Mr Séamus MacLysaght stated, ‘It must be well known to you all that this inquiry has been occasioned by recent developments in the county. The pivot of the inquiry hinges on the appointment of a county librarian. It would serve no useful purpose to hold a rambling inquiry …’3 He went on to say that, generally speaking, the Minister for Local Government was very satisfied with the administration of the council and for that reason it was all the more regrettable that the inquiry was necessary. However, there was a statutory obligation which the council could not refuse to discharge.
Mr McGrath, on behalf of the council, stated that they welcomed the fullest and most searching inquiry. They were there to facilitate the inspector.
‘The County Council feel,’ Mr McGrath declared, ‘that they have nothing to hide, and in fact are very proud of their tradition as perhaps the one council in Ireland in the fore-front of administration.’
Mr McGrath asked the inspector to listen to evidence about the general state of affairs in the county, but the inspector retorted that Mr Egan could give it to the press. Councillor Morahan intervened at this stage, insisting that the evidence be read to the inquiry.4
The county secretary then read a prepared statement of evidence as regards the financial health of the council and its activities in such areas as roads, education and the Irish language.
‘Their motto and slogan,’ Mr Egan declared, ‘was “Economy and Efficiency”.’
At the conclusion of the evidence, the inspector thanked Mr McGrath for the manner in which he had helped him.
The Mayo News worked itself up into a fine lather of indignation over the inquiry.
The government that has decided to dissolve the County Council is composed of some sixty persons of vapid intellect and atrophied intelligence. These persons are kept together by a lively sense of favours to come and with the cohesion of the weak witted, present a feather bag face to all attacks.
With the fifty odd mugs and thugs who compose this group of compressed selfishness, we are not particularly concerned. But it is quite refreshing to find our local ciphers looking at themselves. The government of which the Cumann na nGaedheal deputies form part say ‘You county councillors are either rogues or fools; we must suppress you because you are also bigots,’ and the three TDs say, ‘We are all rogues or fools. Suppress us because we are bigots …’
It would be quite in accordance with the facts if the government deputies endorsed the opinion of their own cabinet that they are weak witted or dishonest or both, but really they should draw the line before giving the opinion of self-confessed morons that the priests and people of Mayo are in the same class when they make the plea ‘We are humble liars, Sir’, the ‘we’ should not include the whole population …
It would be ungentlemanly, rude, nay, it would even appear bigoted if Mayo representatives should protest against being kicked into the gutter with a lying label on their necks for a more subservient implement than the council succeeded in being. BUT THE COUNCIL PROTESTS AND THE SLIPPER LICKERS PROCEED [Capitals, Mayo News’s own].
And meanwhile all the ‘broad-minded’ people were condemning the library committee. Gentlemen who can read but don’t were showing that they were not like the common ruck of papists. Some of them had read three or four books even. And from the height of their literary attainments, sneered at the bigotry of the unlettered, and after these litterateurs came the battalion of economists. They as a rule, boasted that they had never read any book but assured the world that England would retaliate. England would boycott everything from Irish pigs to Irish policemen. For the first time since 1916 we had a clear division, verminous slipper lickers on one side and the people who stand upon their feet on the other.5
The Mayo News revealed some information from an obviously well-connected source. ‘On Thursday morning [18 December],’ it wrote, ‘it was learned in Castlebar that the government’s legal advisers had informed the cabinet that they had no legal status in their attempt to get a mandamus against the council …’ The government was now ‘taking steps to dissolve the council.’6
The Minister for Local Government, Richard Mulcahy, was considered one of the ‘hard men’ of his party. He had been very close to Michael Collins and had delivered the eulogy at his funeral. He had been Minister for Defence in the previous Dáil but had been forced to resign for his role in the Army Mutiny in 1924. He later made his political comeback as Minister for Local Government and Public Health.
Fianna Fáil tended to avoid direct attacks on President Cosgrave, preferring to concentrate their criticisms on Richard Mulcahy. As Minister for Local Government he was the main target of the political opposition to Miss Dunbar Harrison’s appointment. However, Edward P. McCarron, secretary of the department, also became embroiled in the dispute. Mr McCarron was a career civil servant who had worked for the British administration in Ireland pre-1921 as a local government auditor, class 1, and had continued his career in the Free State in the Department of Local Government. In 1922 his appointment to a senior post in the Free State civil service had been controversial. The following excerpt from the Dáil gives a flavour of the proceedings:
Deputy Joseph McDonagh asked the Minister for Local Government, ‘Is it a fact that Mr McCarron offered his services to the British military in Drogheda in Easter week?’
To which the Minister for Local Government replied, ‘I cannot say whether it is a fact. I was not in Drogheda in Easter week.’7
This was hardly a ringing endorsement for Mr McCarron. He was greatly distrusted by many local authorities as the Cosgrave government strived to re-assert central control over some of the wayward county councils. Having worked for the British administration in Ireland, Mr McCarron was in many ways a convenient whipping boy; he was seen as a remnant of colonial rule and was cordially detested, especially by Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin. Another rumour that was circulated about him was that he had tried to enlist in the British army during the First World War.8
The Mayo News devoted an impressive amount of venom to Mr McCarron and his perceived role in the Mayo affair. ‘And now we come to the hero of the piece, Mr E.P. McCarron,’ it wrote. ‘He is the great little council smasher of the decade. For his English masters during the late Redmondite period any council that was not sufficiently pro-British was smashed. After the 1916 War of Independence, any council that dared to employ Irish rebels was smashed (signed E.P. McCarron). During the aftermath of the war any public body that did not hunt out those with Irish leanings got their quietus signed E.P. McCarron.
‘During the Black and Tan terror the councils that were not pro-British and Tan had to go into hiding per orders signed E.P. McCarron. After the Treaty, councils that worked to bury the hatchet of civil war had their pro-Irish officials hunted, signed E.P. McCarron. What is the secret behind all this? That E.P. McCarron will serve anyone who pays his salary?’9
Meanwhile there was unrest in the county. The Leitrim Observer reported a ‘protest by peasants’. ‘At a meeting at Louisburgh on Sunday thousands of peasants protested against the appointment of an official lacking an adequate knowledge of the native tongue.’10
The report submitted to the department by Mr Séamus MacLysaght was short and to the point. Save for their action in refusing to sanction the appointment of Miss Dunbar Harrison, Mayo County Council was given a clean bill of health.
Richard Mulcahy ensured that the results of the inspector’s inquiry were published in the national and regional newspapers. In a government notice, a copy of the letter to Mayo County Council signed by E.P. McCarron, secretary of the Local Government Department, was published in full. The report commenced, ‘The Minister for Local Government and public health directs me to state, for the information of the Mayo County Council, that he has received the report of the local inquiry held on the 17th …’ The conclusion of the report is as follows:
This evidence shows conclusively that the council acting with full knowledge refused to give effect to the appointment of Miss Dunbar, a person recommended by the Local Appointments Commissioners to fill the vacant post of county librarian for Mayo. The recommendation was made in accordance with the provisions of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926. The council, therefore, had no function in this matter other than to invite Miss Dunbar to take up duty. In refusing to do so the council has failed to give effect to a statutory duty.
… The minister for his part is advised that upon him rests the statutory duty of ensuring that due effect is given to the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commissioners. Since the inception of the act nearly 1,000 recommendations have been made by the Appointments Commissioners, and in all cases the local authority concerned has appointed the person recommended where such person was willing to accept the appointment.
… The recommendation of the Local Appointments Commissioners was made over four months ago, and the delay which has already occurred in appointing Miss Dunbar to the position to which she is legally entitled is unreasonable. Apart from that consideration, members of the council are placing themselves needlessly in the invidious position of assuming personal pecuniary responsibilities.
… In all other respects the County Council since election have administered faithfully the laws of the Oireachtas. For that reason and because, as already indicated, of the possibility that some doubt remains as to the true facts, the minister considers the council are entitled to a further opportunity of considering the matter. I am accordingly to say that a final decision will not be taken until 1 January …11
Now that the government had received the anticipated report from the inspector the next move was to give Mayo County Council an opportunity to change its stance. Using the excuse of a letter written by Canon Hegarty, which called into question Miss Dunbar Harrison’s eligibility on the grounds of age and experience, the department gave the Council one last opportunity to reconsider. The fact that Miss Dunbar Harrison had been born in February 1906 and was under the twenty-five-year age requirement was yet another revelation calling into question her appointment.12
Chairman Michael Davis refused to have anything to do with the convening of a special meeting, so the county secretary, M.J. Egan, took it upon himself to organise it. Canon Hegarty’s letter seems little more than a pretext, which served to get the matter back on the agenda despite the fact that the council had already met and voted on it. The following notice was issued to each member of the County Council by M.J. Egan:
You are hereby summoned to attend a special meeting of the Mayo County Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Courthouse, Castlebar, at the hour of one o’clock p.m., on Saturday, 27 December 1930, to consider communication from the Minister for Local Government and public health in regard to the council’s refusal to appoint Miss Dunbar as county librarian, and to consider their former decision on the matter in light of the facts set out in the minister’s letter.13
The meeting was arranged for Saturday, 27 December, just days before the government’s self-declared deadline of 1 January. As the Leitrim Observer asked, ‘Is it the olive branch?’ The paper went on to declare that ‘Mayo was always a model loyal body, and never flung the glove to the department until the present situation arose.’14 It could be argued that the councillors weren’t being offered much of an olive branch if at the same time they were being reminded of their ‘personal pecuniary responsibilities’.
The government had let it be known, by every means possible, that they were absolutely determined to abolish the council if it did not change its mind and accept Letitia Dunbar Harrison as county librarian. Nevertheless the ball was back in the council’s court and it was up to them to make the next move.
Notes
1.Western People, 20 December 1930, p.3.
2.The Connaught Telegraph, 20 December 1930, p.5.
3.Western People, 20 December 1930, p.3.
4.The Connaught Telegraph, 20 December 1930, p.5.
5.Mayo News, 20 December 1930, p.5.
6.Ibid.
7.Dáil Debates, 1 March 1922.
8.Mary E. Daly, The Buffer State: The Historical Roots of the Department of the Environment p. 99.
9.Mayo News, 20 December 1930, p.5.
10.Leitrim Observer, 20 December 1930, p.1.
11.Irish Independent, 22 December 1930, p.6.
12.Ibid., 24 December 1930, p.8.
13.The Connaught Telegraph, 27 December 1930, p.5.
14.Leitrim Observer, 27 December 1930, p.4.