County Secretary’s Office, Waterford County Council, Dungarvan dated 21 August 1920
Reference Code: IE/WCA/WCC/GNA/131
Repository: Waterford City and County Archive
Context
Created in 1872 under the Local Government Board (Ireland) Act, and replacing the functions of the previous Poor Law Commissioners, the Local Government Board of Ireland was the body which oversaw local government administration across Ireland, including public health, sanitation and municipal government. An agency of the Dublin Castle administration, it was responsible for liaising with local authorities, such as the various county councils, urban and rural district councils, and Boards of Guardians, across the country, providing grants and funds to those authorities to support their wide ranging works. Based in the Custom House in Dublin, the British controlled body had five board members including both the Chief Secretary and Under Secretary for Ireland. Following the establishment of Dáil Eireann in 1919 as a rival to the parliament in Westminster, De Valera appointed William T. Cosgrave as Minister of a new Department for Local Government in April 1919, with the aim of displacing the Local Government Board and of gaining control of local government structures in Ireland.This was vital for proving the legitimacy of the Dáil and its ability to credibly administer the complex systems of government. Preparations for this began immediately and included the new ministry encouraging local authorities to
apply for as much funding as was possible through grants from the British authorities,in anticipation of the eventual significant loss of revenue which would occur when the hoped for separation of local authorities from the Local Government Board took place. This separation and wresting of control was made fully possible by the landslide victory of Sinn Féin and their allies in the local elections of 1920 (January and April). January’s election saw Sinn Fein gain control of 172 out of Ireland’s 206 urban councils, while in April 338 out of the 393 available rural councils were won. These bodies quickly proceeded to recognise the Dáil as the principal source of governmental authority in Ireland, pledging allegiance to the Dáil. Thus began the process of breaking from the Local Government Board. This included an ending of correspondence with the Local Government Board and the refusal to meet the requirement of forwarding minutes of meetings to them or to comply with the
Local Government Board auditors sent to audit the annual accounts. On occasion these changes were brought about by significant pressure from the new Department and indeed by March 1921 any such continuing activities or contact with the Local Government Board by council functionaries was designated as ‘treasonable practice’.
The establishment of control of local administration in Ireland and the ending of the influence of the Local Government Board was an incredibly challenging task for Cosgrave and his assistant minister Kevin O’Higgins. Following the banning of the Dáil in September 1919 by British authorities, its ministries and staff were required to operate underground, frequently moving offices (which were subject to raids and seizures) and avoiding arrest and imprisonment by hiding out and having to go on the run. In the case of the Department for Local Government, the scale of the success in the local elections of 1920 also meant that a large staff was required to administer the needs of councils (making it the Dáil’s largest single department) – no mean feat to manage in the prevailing clandestine conditions. With the loss of direct grants from the Local Government Board to councils, the question also immediately arose as to how they could be adequately funded, although rates continued to be gathered this would not be enough to cover all of the local authorities’ responsibilities, particularly in an atmosphere of post-war depression and increasing civil disruption and destruction. Indeed there was, under this pressure, a gradual downgrading of the provision of services by councils. Further, in 1919 Westminster made local councils liable under the Malicious Damages Act (1919) for compensation claims arising out of injuries inflicted during the War of Independence. The response of Cosgrave’s Ministry of Local Government to this was to direct all councils not to strike a rate for the amount involved. In 1921 the department followed this by stating that anyone making a claim under the legislation was guilty of “the highest crime against the state”. Despite all of these challenges however, by 1921 the vast majority of local authorities continued to recognise the authority of Dáil Éireann and the department under Cosgrave and O’Higgins, had successfully supplanted the Local Government Board – demonstrating the ability of the Dáil and its ministries to act as a legitimate and effective government for Irish people across the country. The Local
Government Board office at the Custom House was burned out by the Dublin Brigade of the IRA in May 1921 and many of its records were destroyed.
Questions
Looking at the format of the document (e.g. its formal header, overall style), what significance can be drawn from its official appearance?
Discussion: As the perception of its legitimacy as the democratically elected government was as important as its practical control of the country, Dáil Éireann needed to establish itself quickly as a competent administrator of power. This document is clearly designed to demonstrate both the government’s preparedness, administrative adeptness and its specifically Irish nature. Using a green header in Gaelic font and mix of English and Irish language, the letter visually denotes its variance from British correspondence, and with its formal typed and headed appearance, indicates that the new government was a fully functioning administrative body. The importance of such details for securing and maintaining the confidence of local council administrators and representatives was key to the Dáil’s plan to supplant the existing structures of power. In the challenging circumstances facing the department, speedy handwritten letters may have been easier, however, the goal of creating a working government and being seen to do so can be observed in this short official missive.
Why might the address line have been crossed out? What can this tell us?
Discussion: This detail could be seen to give a hint as to the prevailing state of affairs the Ministry was operating under in 1920.Following the banning ofDáil Éireann as a ‘dangerous association’ across the country in September 1919, all government offices were subject to constant raids and seizures by Dublin Castle authorities – Dáil headquarters themselves were raided on Armistice Day of the same year with records seized and staff arrested. It became an offence simply to be found in possession of an official Dáil document, punishable by a prison term. William T. Cosgrave was himself arrested and imprisoned in March of 1920.
The Ministry of Local Government was therefore required to move repeatedly from offices on Harcourt Street to Clare Street, Parnell Square, O’Connell Street and Wicklow Street. Looking at the date of this letter it is apparent that it was sent at the height of the War of Independence not long after Cosgrave’s arrest and just months before he would go on the run once again.Unlike the early portion of 1919 (when perhaps this headed paper was first printed), with this dangerous state of affairs it was likely impossible for reasons of both security and practicality to include a return address for correspondence as: a) it was possible such an address would have changed by the time any letter arrived b) it could alert authorities to any current offices of the department and c) as authorities were aware of the Dáil’s early meetings at the Mansion House any correspondence going there would most probably be seized. It is quite likely then that the address was crossed out as a result and no alternative given. As much as the appearance of official competence was of key importance, this feature of the document perhaps speaks to the wider challenges and chaotic
environment the department was operating in.
The last line of the letter is handwritten rather than typed – what could this indicate?
Discussion: Archival letters with handwritten additions, such as this item of official Dáil correspondence, are often drafts of letters which would subsequently be re-typed for sending. In this case, as the recipient is a County Secretary located in Dungarvan and this record is held by Waterford City and County Archive, it is more likely this is the letter as it was received by J.H. O’Sullivan, County Secretary, Waterford County Council. So why was the letter not retyped to include Cosgrave’s additions as would perhaps be more usual for an official letter such as this?
As referred to above, the department was operating under a great deal of pressure and so the time and opportunity to do so may have been limited. However it is also possible that this portion was deliberately left in Cosgrave’s hand to indicate the specific importance of this piece of instruction and the fact is was the Minister’s clear wish that it was adhered to. The line ‘You may take it that local authorities have no further use for the L.G.B (English)’ is emphasising the importance for the council to bypass the Local Government Board and wait for directions from the Dáil’s new Department of Local Government. As it was vital that the control of local government in Ireland was fully achieved through the breaking of ties to the Local Government Board, reminders such as this, particularly when written in the Minister’s own hand, were important.
This letter appears quite simple at first glance – how significant are its contents?
Discussion: Both the contents and the style of the letter speak to a chaotic time in which a changeover of power was being secured in extremely difficult circumstances. Councils were clearly awaiting direction as to their future course and it was essential that they hold fast in the face of pressure from both the Local Government Board and British authorities more generally. Despite this, the clarity and formality of the document highlights the clear intention of the newly elected Irish government to posit themselves as a credible, working alternative to Westminster and Dublin Castle in the immediate term. Due to imprisonment, illness and periods in hiding W. T. Cosgrave was frequently unavailable as Minister and Kevin O’Higgins, Cosgrave’s substitute, was often responsible for the business of the department. However at this point in 1920 Cosgrave was clearly available and, despite the challenges, attending to the important business of keeping communications with councils clear in order to secure and maintain their support. In this way the document, however simple, forms part of a window into a key moment in the development of the government of the Republic.
Jennifer Brannigan, Archivist, Irish Archives Resource
Further Resources:
This text has been researched and made available with the support of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.
