The Reluctant Taoiseach

by David McCullagh

  His suggestion was greeted by some nods around the table, before Gerard Sweetman intervened to shoot it down. He accused O’Higgins of following sentiment rather than practicality. “How, he asked, could we oppose, in the fiftieth anniversary of Easter Week, the oldest surviving officer of that Rising with a man who had been old enough in 1916 to have fought in the Rising and had not? He said that if we did so, we would expose John Costello to the most humiliating of defeats.” O’Higgins was “astonished and hurt” by Sweetman’s brutal intervention. Worse was to follow for him, though, as Patrick Lindsay proposed that O’Higgins should run instead. Having come to propose Jack Costello, Tom O’Higgins emerged from the meeting as Fine Gael’s presidential candidate.121

  Sweetman was undoubtedly influenced by his dislike of Jack Costello; but he was probably right. O’Higgins made a very good showing in the election, precisely because he was a (relatively) young candidate who offered a fresh approach to the office. Had Costello stood, he would certainly have been attacked for his lack of a “national record”, and on that ground de Valera was unassailable.

  The presidential election also prompted Garret FitzGerald, by then a senator and member of the front bench, to formally apply for membership of Fine Gael. He approached Costello to ask how he should go about doing so. “His response was, as usual, forceful, blunt and idiosyncratic. ‘Forty years in politics; twice Taoiseach; never joined Fine Gael.’ Somewhat timorously I suggested that times were changing … With apparent reluctance and perhaps with a hint of disappointment at my conventional approach to politics,” Costello gave him details of how to contact the constituency organisation.122

  Within that Dublin South-East organisation, Costello was regarded with some awe—despite his personal modesty. The younger Alexis FitzGerald (nephew of Costello’s son-in-law of the same name, and later a Fine Gael TD and senator himself) recalled that when the former Taoiseach entered a constituency meeting, the members would stand up. Costello would wear his grey hat until he arrived at the top table, where he would ceremoniously remove it. As in most political organisations, there was a certain amount of infighting in Dublin South-East; Jack Costello was one of the few unifying factors in the room. Even if he really wasn’t a member of Fine Gael, Costello took the local organisation seriously enough. Whenever he had something he wished to say to a wider audience, he would either deliver a speech to a branch meeting or, if no suitable meeting was due, he would gather a group of constituency activists to his house, where he would read out his script before sending out the press release.123

  The round of constituency work continued—much of it done by correspondence, though the house at Herbert Park remained a magnet for supplicants. There were “so many rather troublesome people calling at my house” that he had to insist on not seeing people unless they had a written appointment.124 The search for houses remained one of the main issues for his constituents. As he told the Dáil, he advised them, “I can help you to get into Heaven but I cannot get you a house from the Dublin Corporation.”125 He continued to insist that he represented the ordinary voter, claiming his canvassers told him “if there was a big car outside a house, they did not call because it would have been a waste of time”.126

  In 1968, Jack Lynch’s government attempted once again to get rid of Proportional Representation. Liam Cosgrave had privately supported the abolition of PR in 1959—this may have been a factor in his defeat by James Dillon in the leadership election of that year. Then he was a member of the front bench; when the question resurfaced in 1968, he was party leader. He attempted to persuade the parliamentary party to his point of view with an “emotional speech” described by one TD as “possibly one of [his] worst”. Cosgrave was immediately followed by John A. Costello, who gave “a brilliant address which set the tone of the debate”.127 The parliamentary party might well have rejected Cosgrave’s approach anyway, but the force of the intervention by the former Taoiseach clearly helped.

  Costello spoke forcefully and effectively in public against the proposal, which he characterised as “the government effort to resurrect the dead corpse of nine years ago”. The proposed changes were, he claimed, “objectionable in principle, unsustainable in argument, productive of injustice and designed … in the political and material interests of the members of the government and the Fianna Fáil Party”.128 Reviewing the speeches he had made on the subject in 1959, Costello confessed that he had been wrong. “On several occasions I did say … that I believed that if the people turned down these proposals, that would be the last they would ever hear of the proposal to abolish pr. I misread my friends, the Fianna Fáil party …”129 The result was much more emphatic than in 1958, with the Government’s proposal defeated by 60.8 per cent to 39.2 per cent. Once again Dublin South-East was even more opposed, voting against by 70 per cent to 30 per cent.

  As his retirement from active politics approached, Costello became increasingly conscious of his place in history, and made a number of efforts to put across his side of the story. One saw him prepare a detailed memorandum on the events which led to the declaration of the Republic. This was circulated in the late 1960s to various influential figures.130 Another was a series of interviews with the political correspondent of the Irish Times, Michael McInerney, published in five parts in September 1967 under the title “John A. Costello Remembers”. McInerney described his interviewee as “impressive, with a resonant, slightly Dublin accent, of sturdy build and with a rough charm … He has a straight direct manner, without any of the charisma of a Pearse, a Griffith, or a de Valera …” The articles attracted considerable attention, not all of it positive.

  Joseph Brennan, former Secretary of the Department of Finance and Governor of the Central Bank, objected to a suggestion that the Shannon hydro-electric scheme of the 1920s had “received fierce opposition from … Department of Finance officials”. Brennan rejected this claim, and urged Costello to “take proper steps immediately to withdraw it at least in so far as it may seem to concern myself”. In his reply, Costello enlarged his claim, saying he believed that Brennan had threatened resignation unless the scheme was fully examined by Finance. In a not-so-subtle threat, Costello added that he didn’t wish this to become public knowledge. Brennan demanded to know the source of his information; Costello refused to tell him. As Brennan probably guessed, the source was Patrick McGilligan, who as Minister for Industry and Commerce had defeated Finance objections to establish the scheme. In the final letter in the exchange of correspondence, Brennan repeated his criticism of Costello’s “diatribe”, adding that he particularly resented the “unfounded suggestion” that he had threatened resignation.131

  As well as annoying former mandarins, Costello also helped a number of academics in groundbreaking research into Irish history and political development—David Harkness on the evolution of the Commonwealth, A.S. Cohan on the development of the Irish political elite, Brian Farrell on the role of the Taoiseach.132 One researcher, looking at the office of the Attorney General, found him to be “a garrulous and entertaining man”,133 and this certainly comes across in one of his most important attempts to give his view of his career, a “Seven Days” television interview with David Thornley.

  Costello was reluctant to do the interview, insisting that the programme’s editor, Muiris Mac Conghail, come in to Leinster House so he could meet him. After 12 years in opposition, Fine Gael regarded RTÉ with suspicion, believing the station to be under the political influence of Fianna Fáil. Mac Conghail found the former Taoiseach “gruff”, but evidently satisfied his concerns. The fact that the interview was to be conducted by Thornley was part of the attraction—he was highly regarded as a serious broadcaster. Apart from the historical interest of covering controversial topics like the declaration of the Republic and the Mother and Child scheme, Mac Conghail believed the interview could have contemporary political significance. Fianna Fáil had succeeded in “making ‘coalition’ a dirty word”. He thought Costello, as the only head of a coalition gove
rnment up to that point, might give a different view of the possibility of inter-party co-operation.

  The interview was recorded before the 1969 election, but broadcast on 24 June, one week after polling. As it happened, Fianna Fáil had an overall majority, but had coalition been an option, the interview might have been influential in the process of Government formation.134 Speaking before the results were known, Costello warned that if a second general election was caused by a refusal to co-operate in coalition formation, “the people would take a fierce vengeance on any party that doesn’t carry out their will”.135

  By the time the interview was broadcast, Costello had left the Dáil and Thornley entered it (as a Labour Party TD). Costello, who had no experience of television, was uncomfortable, but with Thornley’s expert guidance delivered a vintage performance. The encounter admirably demonstrated his belligerence when challenged on controversial episodes like the declaration of the Republic and the Mother and Child crisis. He and Mac Conghail became friendly as a result of the interview—Costello was later godfather to Marcus Mac Conghail.136

  In March 1969, with a general election on the horizon, constituency activist Tony Keane had written to Costello “to request the honour of again proposing your name for adoption as a candidate. Needless to say we will do all in our power to ensure your rightful place at the head of the poll …” However, the prospective candidate, just three months short of his seventy-eighth birthday, turned down the offer. “I think it would be a very bad headline for one of my age to put himself forward. It is a matter of very great regret that I must cease to be a Deputy for the Constituency which has done me the honour of electing me so consistently and for so long … I assume of course that Senator [Garret] FitzGerald will be put forward and accepted as my successor.”137

  Fittingly, his final contributions in the Dáil were on a controversial Criminal Justice Bill. Costello declared himself to be against anything which prevented the right to free speech and free assembly. “We should not erode those principles and constitutional rights unless the public interest imperatively demands it.” The final words he spoke in Leinster House were a warning that giving Gardaí the proposed extra powers would bring the force into disrepute “by reason of the fact that the people will not trust them and will be afraid of them. That would be a bad day’s work for this House to do.”138

  At the selection convention for Dublin South-East at which he formally announced his retirement from politics (and which chose Garret FitzGerald and Fergus O’Brien as the Fine Gael candidates in the constituency), Costello made a lengthy speech. Acknowledging that co-operation between Fine Gael and Labour in Government didn’t seem possible at that time, he observed that “this should not always be so”. Coalitions were the norm in other countries using proportional representation, and the people had proved they wanted to retain PR. Through that system, they could choose a single-party government, or they could indicate that they wanted parties to co-operate. In a clear warning to the anti-coalitionists in Labour, he added, “The party which fails to heed the people’s voice will do so at its peril.”139

  Costello also used this “farewell speech” to take a cut at Fianna Fáil. He claimed the Government was not just “bankrupt of ideas”, it was “arrogant, divisive and harmful”. He continued, “the Taoiseach has the unenviable task of trying to impose a code of conduct on his colleagues which is contrary to the traditions of his party, and which they do not understand. It is little wonder that he has failed. A party which has ruled as long as Fianna Fáil has may come to feel that it does so by divine right.”140 The Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, responded in a speech to a Fianna Fáil convention in Mallow a month later. It wasn’t his party that didn’t understand, he said—it was Fine Gael. “They have not understood for almost 50 years … that is why Fine Gael have such a record in Opposition—a record unrivalled almost in any Western democracy.” He advanced the intriguing argument that by criticising Fianna Fáil, John A. Costello was in effect criticising the Irish people, who had voted for them. Lynch challenged Costello to prove his claim that businessmen viewed a subscription to Fianna Fáil as a good investment, and in turn criticised the record of the two Inter-party Governments. He concluded with the hope that “we might all be able to conduct this general election campaign on a higher and on a more responsible level”.141

  He may have been leaving the stage, but Costello obviously retained the ability to needle his opponents. He also played an active role in the election campaign in Dublin South-East. The younger Alexis FitzGerald was director of elections in the constituency. As a courtesy, he brought Garret FitzGerald’s proposed election address to show Costello. The former Taoiseach took out a pen and started crossing bits out and adding amendments. Sadly, these were completely illegible, even to their author.142 Of more benefit were his speeches, which stressed Fine Gael’s emergence as “the party of national reform, of liberal belief and social and economic progress. It has through time developed into a party espousing the belief in social justice which I have throughout my career stood for.” His support for “the doctrines of the just society” was of course particularly useful for FitzGerald, given his pronounced liberal views. Costello also observed that developing policy in opposition was “no good … when the people are hungry for action in government now”. He again criticised Labour’s refusal to contemplate coalition. They were “caught in a mesh of socialist theorising”, but would be forced to abandon this untenable position following the election.143

  Dublin South-East was clearly in safe hands; his chosen successor topped the poll with 31.5 per cent of the first preference vote; Noël Browne (again running for Labour) was second and Fianna Fáil’s Seán Moore, the only sitting TD contesting the election, came in third. Costello also campaigned for another FitzGerald, his son-in-law Alexis, who contested the Seanad election. Alexis asked him to write to a local councillor “saying, if you had a mind to, some nice things about me … Sorry to bother you with this but there is no point in going in to the sea if you don’t intend to swim and I find in me daily increase in ruthlessness.”144 The letter—saying very nice things indeed—was sent and Alexis was duly elected.

  A gala presentation evening for Costello, put on by his constituency organisation in December 1969, illustrated the breadth of his career. No fewer than six speakers were required to cover the various facets of his life—Liam Cosgrave on the parliamentarian; Garret FitzGerald on his contribution to the foundation of the State; Tom O’Higgins on the Taoiseach and leader of the opposition; Tommy Doyle on the constituency campaigner; and Alexis FitzGerald on his contribution to Fine Gael. But the main event, undoubtedly, was the speech by Costello himself. He noted at the beginning that in his reply to a similar presentation, Seán Lemass had spoken for just two minutes; he said his reply, by contrast, “is going to last I’m afraid for a long time”. He wasn’t joking—his speech went on for no less than 51 minutes.

  After covering his lengthy career in public life and paying tribute to many who had helped him along the way, he urged his audience to remember the achievements of the Inter-party Governments. “It’s worth talking about, because we did something that hasn’t been done since.” And he urged the party to believe that Fianna Fáil could be beaten. “You can beat it if you go the right way about it … I suggest to you, put upon your banners the Just Society, that Fine Gael is not a Tory party … it’s for all sections of the Irish people, but particularly for the poor and the weak and the distressed.”145

  One piece of unfinished business which occupied Costello’s time was the Mansion House Anti-Partition Fund. Just under £55,000 had been donated in 1949, but not all had been spent. The remainder of the fund, invested in Government loans, increased from £4,900 at the end of 1964 to £7,700 a decade later. It was difficult to get all the members of the committee (Costello, Norton, MacBride, de Valera and Aiken) to agree on any course of action. Costello was clear—he wanted the Fund wound up. In August 1961, after some press comment about the fund, he
wrote to the other members saying no useful purpose would be served by leaving the money unallocated. He believed it should be “expended for some anti-Partition purpose and the nature of that would have to be carefully considered”.146 Both de Valera and MacBride agreed that the money should be used147 but nothing happened, possibly because the 1961 general election distracted the committee members.

  Bill Norton’s death in December 1963 further complicated the situation; now the surviving committee members had lost the power to direct the trustees to pay out funds. The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach suggested legislation to clarify the membership so the money could be paid out and the Fund wound up. Costello suggested a simpler solution: the committee should assume it had the power to co-opt Brendan Corish in Norton’s place, and then disburse the funds and dissolve.148

  Again, nothing was done. In November 1968, the committee met in Áras an Uachtaráin—apparently the first meeting since 1955. It met again in December 1969, at the request of Seán MacBride, to “take stock of the position … in the light of recent developments” (the outbreak of the Troubles). Costello supported the idea of holding a meeting. “I feel that we might be the subject of criticism if, having regard to the happenings in the North, we did not have a meeting … It may be eventually decided that no action is called for but at least it could not be said that the Committee had not considered the position.”149 This meeting was again inconclusive, although in October 1971 the committee agreed to pay £500 to Father Brian Brady of Belfast to support a legal challenge to internment. It was also decided to pay for the production of two pamphlets outlining the case against partition, and the events leading up to the outbreak of violence in the North.150 A note on the file in November 1974 stated that the preparation of the pamphlets had not been “pursued to fruition”, and the committee hadn’t met since.151 Thus ended Costello’s Northern initiative of 1949.