The Curious Case of the Mayo Librarian (18 page)

Christina Keogh, who had also served on the selection board, was an influential member of the LAI. She acted as its honorary treasurer for twenty-two years and went on to become its first woman president in 1958. The Irish Central Library for Students was founded in 1923 and Miss Keogh was appointed librarian. ‘She was a small slender woman,' Dermot Foley wrote of her in an article in
An Leabharlann
, ‘whose frail physique was incapable, one would have said, of absorbing the punishment inseparable from the offices she held. But Chrissy Keogh was made of tough material with a gift for amusement.'
21

Miss Keogh also worked with the Carnegie Trust in Ireland as librarian and technical adviser in association with the Trust's organising librarian, that languid man of the theatre, Lennox Robinson. ‘To see them walk together along Merrion Square,' commented Dermot Foley, ‘was something to remember, and I have cause to remember it, for, impertinent brat that I was, I addressed them as the starling and the stork. Instead of being mortally offended, this chirpy slip of a girl looked skywards at the melancholy height beside her and laughed outright.'
22

After Lennox Robinson's enforced resignation in 1924, Miss Keogh continued her work with the Carnegie Trust without him. ‘We who have grown up with the county schemes,' wrote Dermot Foley, ‘of which she was attendant nurse from the cradle of poverty in which they were born, must ever feel grateful that a dedicated officer was at the heart of the whole affair managed by her and Robinson for the Carnegie Trust.'
23

The situation was made difficult for the LAI in that Fr Stephen J. Brown, SJ, was also a member of the executive board. A writer of numerous guides to literature, Fr Brown was nevertheless an unabashed supporter of censorship. His Catholicism was paramount. ‘As for the rights of art and literature,' he once said, ‘Neither has any rights against God.'
24
His rationale was that ‘as we know in English-speaking countries, Ireland not excluded, Catholics have to live in a mental climate that is far from being Catholic. We must be inoculated against it; we must take measures so that the climatic conditions may not offset our spiritual health.'
25

Fr Brown was a lecturer in the School of Library Training, University College Dublin. He held strong views on the role of the librarian. In his book,
Libraries and Literature from a Catholic Standpoint
, he writes, ‘It is when one comes to realise the power and influence wielded, however unobtrusively and indirectly, by the librarian, that one becomes convinced of the importance to religion in its wider sense of the conscience that is behind that power and influence. Catholics claim no monopoly of conscientiousness, nor even of the Christian conscience, but they certainly have clearer principles to guide their conscience and usually a better training in these principles. I submit that Christianity and public morality have much to gain by the presence of Catholic librarians in public libraries across the world.'
26

Fr Brown was librarian of the Central Catholic Library where Miss Ellen Burke had been employed, and it was he who had suggested she write a letter to Dean D'Alton, the infamous letter that was read out at the special meeting of Mayo County Council and that was subsequently published nationally.

One might conjecture that Tom Gay and Christina Keogh felt precluded from drawing attention to the Mayo controversy at the executive-board level of the Library Association as they were interested parties, having sat on the selection board for the Appointments Commission. However, given the level of debate at national level, with libraries literally front-page news, the LAI could hardly avoid the issue either. In reality it was not quite so straightforward.

The first stirring of debate at board level was at the Library Association's meeting on 17 December 1930. A motion critical of the Local Appointments Commission and its recruitment procedures was tabled. It was quickly sidelined in favour of a compromise proposal. It was agreed to send a delegation from the LAI to meet with the LAC to discuss their concerns. The carefully chosen three-person deputation included both Tom Gay and Fr Brown.
27
At the next executive meeting, on 16 January 1931, Tom Gay, in his capacity as joint-editor of
An Leabharlann
, submitted for the consideration of the board an article dealing with the Mayo dispute, which he suggested should appear as an editorial. However, John Roy proposed and was seconded by Fr Brown, ‘that without prejudice to the statements made in Mr Gay's article, no reference whatever be made to the Mayo controversy in the next issue of
An Leabharlann
.' The minutes of the meeting give no reason for their opposition nor were any details given of the ensuing debate but on a show of hands the resolution was passed by six votes for to three against.
28

Mr Gay's editorial was blocked. He promptly tendered his resignation as joint-editor of the magazine. It was a delicately gauged reaction by Tom Gay. He stepped down as editor but he chose to remain on in the more important role of chairman of the executive board.

The Library Association had been formed in 1928. Among its aims were to promote libraries in Ireland and ‘to promote whatever may tend to the improvement of the position or qualifications of librarians.'
29
This makes it all the more remarkable that it took no public stance on the Mayo librarian case. Despite their silence on the Mayo issue the LAI saw fit to comment on what had happened in Leitrim. Again, at the instigation of Tom Gay, a motion expressing disquiet at what had transpired was passed at a meeting of the executive council on 23 January 1931. It viewed ‘with great concern the action of Leitrim County Council in rescinding at its meeting on 3 January, its earlier resolution to adopt the Public Libraries Act, and it earnestly hopes that the Leitrim County Council will, in order to promote the general welfare and cultural interests of the people of the county, reconsider its decision.'
30
Tom Gay proposed this resolution and, according to the official minutes of the LAI, it was unanimously adopted. However, this was not the whole story. The
Irish Independent
gave a different slant to what had transpired. The paper reported that the original motion proposed had been amended at the meeting. Fr Stephen J. Brown, SJ, it was stated, had argued that the original motion was too specific and that they should make the resolution general, and it should be disassociated altogether from the Mayo business in case it would cause that dispute to spread.
31
There were also fears that if Leitrim treated the resolution with disdain, as they were quite likely to, they might start a chain reaction that would spread to other councils.
32
Presumably the fear was that other counties might decide to rescind their adoption of the Public Libraries Act and that all the advances in development of the public library system in Ireland would be undone.

Equally prominent and influential in the early years of the Library Association, Fr Brown seems to have blocked any public reference to the Mayo state of affairs. Reading between the lines, it would appear that there was some dissension amongst the council of the LAI on what approach to take to the Miss Dunbar Harrison situation. Yet the council did not seem to have much of a problem taking a public stance on the admittedly less contentious Leitrim circumstance.

The carefully chosen three-person deputation from the Library Association met with the Local Appointments Commissioners on 24 February 1931. Tom Gay reported back to the executive board. Nothing came of it. The LAI published no details of this meeting and there seems to have been no further discussion of the Mayo situation at board level.

The Library Association's report, dated October 1928–April 1929, had stated that, among other aims, the organisation was founded ‘to provide a pivot round which all library interests should revolve, a centre at which professional problems could be discussed and competently solved, and a vantage ground from which a sound and suitable policy would be advanced.'
33
If the LAI discussed the Mayo controversy they did so only in private. It is one of the ironies of the situation that the chairman of the LAI executive board, Tom Gay, penned the above statement.

A stalemate had developed within the Library Association so no clear stance could be taken. The most high-profile dispute involving libraries and librarianship passed by without the very organisation that represented professional librarians speaking out on it. One could argue that the Library Association had ducked its first big challenge, either from a lack of unity or a lack of nerve.

Chapter 15

1.
NAI D/Taioseach S2547B.

2.
Ibid.

3.
Irish Independent
, 9 December 1930, p.9.

4.
NAI D/Taioseach S2547B.

5.
Ibid.

6.
Irish Independent
, 9 December 1930, p.9.

7.
Sheamus Smyth,
Off Screen: A Memoir,
p.205.

8.
Kevin Rockett,
Irish Film Censorship
, p.63.

9.
The Irish Times
, 4 April 1925, p.6.

10.
Catholic Mind
, vol. 1, no. 10, November 1930, p.273.

11.
Terence Brown,
Ireland: A Social and Cultural History 1922-2001
, p.189.

12.
Irish Independent
, 12 March 1943, p.3.

13.
Eunan O'Halpin,
Defending Ireland
, p.187.

14.
Richard Hayes Papers, National Library, 22984 (6).

15.
Martin Hartline & M.M. Kaulbach,
CIA Study: Michael Collins and Bloody Sunday
, https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v13i1a06p_0004.htm.

16.
David Neligan,
The Spy in the Castle
, pp.78-79.

17.
Tim Pat Coogan,
Michael Collins
, pp.76-78.

18.
David Neligan, op. cit., p.79.

19.
Martin Maguire,
Servants to the Public:
A History of the Local Government and Public Servants Union 1901-1990
, p.276.

20
An Leabharlann
, vol. 11, no. 1, March 1953, p.31.

21.
Dermot Foley,
An Leabharlann
, vol. 21, no. 3, September 1963, p.77.

22.
Ibid.

23.
Ibid.

24.
Quoted by Paul Blanshard,
The Irish and Catholic Power,
pp.110-112.

25.
Stephen Brown,
Libraries and Literature From a Catholic Standpoint,
p.92.

26.
Ibid.

27.
LAI Minutes Book, 1928-1931, LAI Archives, Box 3.

28.
Ibid.

29.
An Leabharlann
, vol. 1, no. 1, June 1930, pp.16-19.

30.
An Leabharlann
, vol. 1, no. 4, March-May 1931, p.97.

31.
Irish Independent
, 24 January 1931, p.4.

32.
Ibid.

33.
LAI,
Report of the Executive Board Oct. 1928–Apr. 1929
, p.5.

The
Catholic Bulletin
, never a journal to shy away from the possibility of a conspiracy theory, had strong views on the activities of the Local Appointments Commission and did not refrain from voicing them. ‘The commissioners,' it wrote, ‘as is known, have a well-equipped office. One prominent personage therein, a Catholic, has openly taken his position. A son in Trinity College is a hostage to the new ascendancy … The unfortunate “board of selection” is really to be pitied. All these boards are known to be blinkered by the “brass-hat boyos” who first select them, then run them in blinkers and finally arrange “results” with chronic disregard of the recommendations of these truly pitiable “selection boards”.'
1
The
Catholic
Bulletin
was of the opinion that the ‘Free State is a happy hunting ground for pension or job-seeking masons.'
2

Christina Keogh, James Montgomery, Tom Gay and the other members of the Local Appointments Commission's selection board were, by any standards, respectable members of society and pillars of the community, serious and committed public and civil servants. It seems unlikely, given their background, that any accusations of partiality aimed at the interview board could hold true. This, of course, did not stop interested parties from making such allegations.

The ironic effect of the attacks on the LAC, such as those by the
Catholic Bulletin
, was that it made the Cumann na nGaedheal government more determined than ever to defend not only Letitia Dunbar Harrison but also the LAC and all of its mechanisms. Cumann na nGaedheal had emphasised all along that the LAC was not an extension of the government but a stand-alone body. In its efforts to protect the LAC, the government went to extraordinary lengths and, in the process, compromised the very reputation for independence and confidentiality they had sought to protect.

In a Dáil debate in 1928, Minister Ernest Blythe had outlined the guarantees of confidentiality that members of selection boards had been given. ‘Further, people who have acted in selection boards,' he said, ‘have been given an assurance that their reports would be treated confidentially. They were given a guarantee in the following terms – All communications and information which the members of the board receive as such are to be regarded as strictly confidential and the commissioners will so regard any reports or information which a board forwards to them.'
3

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?

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.

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 to 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:

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: