The Curious Case of the Mayo Librarian
Page 17
The attorney general, John A. Costello, had already given his opinion that the LAC was neither independent of the Dáil nor of the executive council. While the executive council was not entitled to control the manner in which it carried out its duties, it was entitled to obtain any information that it thought proper in order to ascertain that the Commission was carrying out these duties in a proper manner.4 Ellen Burke, by calling into question the board’s decision, had set in motion this chain of events. In order to defend the LAC, President Cosgrave required them to furnish him with as much information as possible.
The state papers contain documents that reveal not only the marking scheme used by the selection board but also the actual marks received by some of the candidates. Ellen Burke was the only unsuccessful candidate whose marks were publicly aired. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Miss Burke’s allegations, having the result of her interview revealed in this way can only be described as a breach of confidentiality. Presumably, the government felt justified in doing so because Miss Burke had been the one to go public first.
The Catholic Bulletin, in particular, published detailed attacks on the LAC and its procedures in the recruitment process for the post of librarian in Mayo. Every deviation from accepted practice was seen as part of a conspiracy theory or a fiendish plot to foist a Protestant librarian on Catholic Mayo. The Bulletin’s January 1931 edition listed twenty queries that they directed not at President Cosgrave, but at the so-called ‘brass-hat boyos’ that the paper alleged were running the LAC.
Among the questions which the Catholic Bulletin raised, was who had devised the conditions with regard to age, qualifications and experience for these appointments? And had these conditions been altered? The Bulletin alleged that there was an ‘aggressive ascendancy’ that was particularly concerned with medical and library appointments, two sensitive areas ‘affecting the morality of the Irish people’. ‘The Protestant ascendancy,’ it wrote, ‘will continue in being, with all its assumptions of superiority, as arrogant as they are unfounded, and with all its venomous purposes of imposing its alien thought, its special standards of moral conduct, standards now publicly and palpably debased, on the Catholic people of this country.’5 This was the basis of the Bulletin’s conspiracy theories, though the insertion of a Protestant in the library service of County Mayo does seem like a somewhat convoluted way of undermining Catholicism in Ireland. However, there were questions to answer. There was enough uncertainty surrounding the activities of the LAC to raise some doubts about the selection of Letitia Dunbar Harrison.
– Miss Dunbar Harrison was not yet twenty-five.
– Miss Dunbar Harrison did not have a library qualification.
– In the first advertisement for the post Irish was listed as an essential requirement. In the second, this was relaxed.
The LAC had an answer for each of these questions. In cases such as this, work experience could be counted to make up the required age. This was custom and practice at the time. The advertisement had stated that a library qualification was desirable rather than essential. President Cosgrave had explained in the Dáil that the reason the Irish language requirement had been relaxed was because of the difficulty in recruiting experienced librarians with the requisite competence in the language. Miss Dunbar Harrison would have three years to reach the desired standard. As county librarians worked alone in many of these newly set-up organisations, it was felt that practical experience was more relevant than an academic qualification. There was a certain ambiguity as to what counted as practical experience. The Library Association of Ireland had received a letter from a different unsuccessful candidate, Miss Kerrigan, asking for clarification of what exactly the LAC meant by ‘library experience’.6 In his letters to the press, Canon Hegarty had also questioned this procedure. Was it service in a library that counted as ‘experience’ or was it service as a librarian?
‘Vouched expenses of locomotion’
It is perhaps instructive to look at the job description and conditions of employment for the Mayo post.
The Conditions of Appointment
County Librarian – Mayo
1. The post is whole-time, permanent and pensionable.
2. Salary £250 per annum with vouched expenses of locomotion when travelling on official duty.
3. Applicants must be not less than twenty-five nor more than forty years of age on 1 May 1930, with the provision that actual service as librarian not exceeding two years may be added to bring a candidate’s age to the minimum limit of twenty-five years.
4. Duties of county librarian: – To act as secretary to the county library committee, to check and keep all accounts, to compile lists of books for submission to the book-selection committee, to attend all meetings of the committee and other meetings at which the library scheme may come under review, to prepare reports and be responsible to the committee for the proper management and supervision of the scheme throughout the county, to superintend the staff of the county book repository and generally to advise and help towards development of the scheme by promotion of lectures and such other duties as may from time to time be assigned by the committee.
5. Essential qualifications: – (a) Good general education, (b) Training in or experience of library work. A diploma in library training and practical experience in office organisation are desirable qualifications.
6. A substantial preference will be given to qualified candidates with a competent knowledge of Irish. If no qualified candidate with a competent knowledge of Irish be available the successful candidate will be required to comply with the terms of the Local Offices and Employments (Gaeltacht) Order, 1928.
7. Preference will be given to those who have had experience in the organisation and management of public libraries.
8. The person appointed will be required to enter into a fidelity guarantee bond of £200 as security for the proper discharge of the duties of the post.
9. In the event of a female officer being appointed resignation on marriage will be compulsory.7
The ninth condition is the infamous ‘marriage bar’ which survived in Ireland up to the 1970s. It goes without saying that this ultra discriminatory policy would be illegal modern Ireland.
‘Women who love it more than marriage’
Librarianship was one profession in which it was socially acceptable for women to show an interest. In the 1935 report on public library provision in the Irish Free State, of the twenty-four county librarians listed, half were female. In an interview with Maura Laverty in 1930, headlined ‘Taking Charge of a Library – Women Who Love it More than Marriage’, Roísín Walsh, Dublin city’s librarian, explained, ‘Almost without exception the women who dedicate themselves to library work grow to love it so much that they can rarely forsake it – even for the attraction of married life. Seriously though, I have yet to meet the woman librarian who does not find her work utterly fascinating and engrossing.’8 In the same article Maura Laverty made the claim that Roísín Walsh, city librarian-elect of Dublin, was the first woman in Europe to attain such a position.
There were ways around the marriage bar. In 1936 Kathleen White resigned from her post as county librarian of Leitrim in order to get married and was replaced by Vera Carey. Four years later Vera Carey herself was about to be married and submitted her resignation as required. Her brother happened to be a solicitor and like all good solicitors he found a loophole in the legislation. While she was required to resign upon marrying there was no impediment to her being re-employed. Having discovered that there was no bar on it Vera McCarthy, as she was by then known, promptly re-applied for her old job and was re-appointed.9
There was a good deal of conflict at this turn of events in Leitrim. ‘At national level, there was the embarrassment that a loophole in the legislation had been discovered and a flurry of activity to stop this happening again.’ At a local level there was yet another heated debate as there was support for an alternative, local candidate.10 Libraries and controversy seemed t
o go hand-in-hand when it came to Leitrim in the 1920s and 1930s.
The headings under which the interview board assigned their marks were as follows:
– General Education
– Professional Qualifications
– Practical Library Experience
– Special Experience
– Personality
– Irish
Irish was marked separately to the other categories, with either a pass or a fail grade being assigned. The category ‘Special Experience’ covered such areas as familiarity with the county library service, knowledge of rural Ireland and also of office organisation.
The following is a comparison of the marks received by Miss Dunbar Harrison and Miss Burke:
Miss Dunbar Harrison
Miss Burke
General Education (100)
80
65
Professional Qualifications (150)
0
100
Practical Library Experience (100)
50
10
Special Experience (150)
40
0
Personality (200)
150
75
Total (700)
320
250
Both women failed the Irish test. The pass standard was set at 75 per cent. Ellen Burke fared slightly better with 40 per cent while Letitia Dunbar Harrison received 20 per cent.11 So, according to these figures Miss Dunbar Harrison prevailed due to her personality, her experience and her education. The lack of any professional qualification did not prove to be a handicap. The selection board seemed to be more impressed by practical know-how than academic achievements. There is, of course, a discrepancy in that they were interviewed at different times by a slightly altered interview board: Miss Dunbar Harrison on 4 April 1930, Miss Burke on 12 July 1930. The original chairman, James Montgomery, had not been available on the second date ‘owing to an urgent business call’.12 The Commission also passed on the information that, at a later date, Ellen Burke applied for the post of county librarian in Clare. Having gone before a different interview board she was again unsuccessful. This post went to Dermot Foley.
The commission also released Miss Burke’s marks on this occasion, emphasising that she had gone before the board as No. 6, i.e. they did not know who she was. The Commission was anxious to make the point that even though the Clare interview took place after Ellen Burke’s name had entered the public domain with regard to the Mayo controversy, she would not have been discriminated against as this board would not have known her name. Nevertheless, Miss Burke must have felt under a great deal of pressure. Her marks for personality declined from 75 out of 150 the first time to 40 out of 200 at the second interview. She also failed the Irish test a second time, again receiving 40 per cent. Her marks this time were as follows:
General Education (100)
70
Professional Qualifications (150)
100
Practical Library Experience (100)
10
Special Experience (150)
10
Personality (200)
40
Total (700)
230
The doubts cast on Miss Dunbar Harrison, as to her age, experience, lack of qualifications and her inability to speak Irish, had all been answered by President Cosgrave. The political problem facing him was that while he could answer each of these accusations, he could not win over those of a paranoid disposition, who were convinced that a conspiracy was afoot. Some of the mud being flung was bound to stick.
The situation was one of stalemate. Six months had passed and there was still no sign of a solution. Commissioner Bartley administered the day-to-day business of the county, meeting with a certain amount of resistance. Letitia Dunbar Harrison worked away as librarian in the courthouse in Castlebar while the vast majority of the population of Mayo refused to have anything to do with the libraries she was running. However, after six months of relative quiet all of a sudden the controversy flared back into life.
‘A first-class political crisis’
On 17 June 1931 the political correspondent of the Irish Independent reported that ‘the circumstances surrounding the abolition of the Mayo County Council and the appointment of Miss Dunbar Harrison as librarian threaten to bring about the defeat of the government to-day, and to create a first-class political crisis.
‘The central figure in a situation which developed over the week-end with almost dramatic suddenness is Mr Michael Davis, chairman of the government party in the Dáil and chairman of the Mayo County Council. Very quietly … and without consulting any of his colleagues he handed in … a motion: That the Dáil declines to give a second reading of the Local Government Bill, which includes as one of its provisions a proposal to extend the power of the Minister for Local Government and public health in relation to local authorities dissolved by him until the minister takes the necessary steps to restore the Mayo County Council. The government takes a very serious view of the motion and it was specially considered by the cabinet …’
Michael Davis was called in for a special meeting with President Cosgrave and Richard Mulcahy but he was determined to hold his ground. He told the Irish Independent that as chairman of Mayo County Council, he felt very keenly the action of the minister in suppressing it. ‘I could not,’ he said, ‘allow the opportunity which this bill presents to pass without bringing the matter up.’ He regretted that circumstances should have arisen which compelled him to take this course. The Local Government Bill, 1931, set out to strengthen the power of the Minister for Local Government, enabling him to more easily dissolve county councils. The danger for the government, as the independent put it, was that on a vote, Michael Davis was ‘almost certain to take with him into the division lobby against the government two members of the government party for Mayo – Messrs M. Nally and M. Henry.’ 13
The Irish Times reported that ‘a piquant situation’ had arisen. ‘Deputies of all parties,’ it wrote, ‘were greatly intrigued at the situation … The probable explanation is that the government deputies from County Mayo have found it necessary, owing to local pressure, to have the question debated in the Dáil.’14 The Irish Times added that the two Fianna Fáil TDs, P.J. Ruttledge and Richard Walsh, had had a motion on the order paper for some time, but hadn’t had the opportunity to move it.
That the Dáil disapproves of the action of the Minister for Local Government and public health in dissolving the Mayo County Council, and demands its immediate restoration.
Was this a minor mutiny or would he gain the support of other TDs from the government’s backbenches? It was rumoured that other west of Ireland backbenchers might vote against the government. The Irish Independent calculated that, allowing for members who were ill, the government could be beaten by one or two votes. If other Cumann na nGaedheal deputies joined the revolt and Davis was successful with his amendment, it could bring down the government.
Notes
1.Catholic Bulletin, January 1931, vol. xxi, no. 1., p.16.
2.Quoted by Margaret O’Callagahan, ‘Language, Nationality and Cultural Identity in the Irish Free State, 1922-1927’, Irish Historical Studies, vol. 24, no. 94, November 1984, p.275.
3.Dáil Debates, 1 June 1928.
4.Mary E. Daly, op. cit., p.133.
5.Catholic Bulletin, vol. xxi, no. 1, January 1931, p.18.
6.LAI Minutes Book, 1928-1931, LAI Archives, Box 3.
7.NAI D/Taioseach S2547A.
8.Newspaper clipping, undated, LAI Archives Box 1.
9.Rosemary Cullen Owens, A Social History of Women in Ireland 1870-1970, p.265.
10.Seán Ó Súilleabháin, op. cit., p.16.
11.NAI D/Taioseach S2547A.
12.Ibid.
13.Irish Independent, 17 June 1931, p.5.
14.The Irish Times, 17 June 1931, p.7.
Chapter 17
‘A weakling and a wobbler’
At long last t
he Mayo library controversy was going to be the subject of a debate in the Dáil chambers. On 17 June, Richard Mulcahy moved the second reading of the Local Government Bill, 1931. Michael Davis then proposed his amendment, opposing the bill on the grounds that the minister should not be given any more authority until such time as Mayo County Council was restored. He outlined the background to his decision to rebel against his own party.
‘I think it will be within the knowledge of every member of the house,’ he said, ‘if not within the knowledge of every individual in the Free State, that the position of Mayo County Council loomed very much in the limelight in the not-too-distant past, and I think I might place on the shoulders of the Minister for Local Government the sole responsibility for putting the Mayo County Council out of office.’1
Deputy Davis went on to summarise the series of events that had led to the installation of Miss Dunbar Harrison as librarian. He argued that Irish had been required. ‘The Mayo County Council was dissolved,’ he declared, ‘not, I am in a position to claim, for inefficiency.’ He explained that the inspector sent down by the minister to investigate the state of affairs had only spent fifteen minutes at the sworn inquiry.
‘There was no question of anything being wrong,’ he said, ‘it was a question of the disobedience of the council.’
Mulcahy seemed surprised at the brevity if not the tone of Michael Davis’ comments. ‘Am I to understand,’ he enquired, ‘that that is all the criticism that there is on the matter?’
The Ceann Comhairle then opened the debate on the amendment. P.J. Ruttledge, a Fianna Fáil TD from Mayo, expressed disbelief and cynicism as to the motives behind the actions of Deputy Davis, claiming that he himself had in fact submitted a virtually identical amendment to the Ceann Comhairle.