The Curious Case of the Mayo Librarian Read Online Free PDF Page B

labelled the Dáil debate ‘The Battle of the Books’. ‘Mr Davis,’ it wrote, ‘from whom we cannot withhold our sympathy, was torn between two loyalties. He is not merely a member of the government party, but is a chairman of that party in the Dáil. On the other hand, he was chairman of the dissolved County Council, and we may assume that the local pressure which compelled him thus to challenge his own government and, perhaps to endanger its very existence, was exceedingly strong. He must have known that all the government’s opponents in the house would rally joyfully to his amendment. Fortunately, the debate and its result not only have not impaired the government’s position, but have strengthened it. Mr Davis’ amendment has been defeated by seventy-three votes to sixty-two – a quite substantial majority for the cause of political and religious tolerance.’
    The Irish Times went on to concede that ‘the only case for the amendment was that County Mayo is now enduring the pangs of intellectual famine. Its library service is virtually at a standstill, and the books from more than one hundred rural centres are lying idle at Castlebar. This is a sad state of things and its continuance will do harm; but infinitely greater harm would have been done by the Dáil’s refusal to support the government’s liberal and enlightened policy.’ 13
    In conclusion The Irish Times wrote that ‘the Dáil’s acceptance of Mr Davis’ amendment would have been an invitation to administrative chaos; for every public body that Mr Mulcahy has been forced to suppress or correct would have hastened to challenge him in parliament.’ 14
    The Times of London was by now taking an interest. ‘Although the republican party [Fianna Fáil],’ it wrote, ‘have occasionally paid lip-service to the principles of religious toleration, they, nonetheless, took up the cudgels for the Mayo County Council, and attacked not only the “horrid arbitrariness” of the minister but also the appointment of a Protestant to a post in a Roman Catholic country.’ The paper went on to claim that if Mr de Valera should win the next election that, ‘Protestants may be promised equality of opportunity, but are likely to be effectively debarred from public service in the Irish Free State.’ 15
    The Catholic Bulletin , predictably enough, was not impressed. ‘The stage management,’ it wrote, ‘of the three days that preceded the Mayo library and County Council debate held by Mr Mulcahy as dictator and general on Wednesday, 17 June, would be no credit even to a minor travelling circus. Mr Davis, chairman of the Cosgrave Party Machine, had been remarkably quiet all through the past six months … that the Davis motion was a palpable frame-up, to afford a would-be dictator an opportunity of whitewashing himself is but too obvious.’ 16
    The following day a meeting of the Cumann na nGaedheal parliamentary party discussed the matter but, following a statement by Michael Davis and a short debate, decided not to take action against him and he remained in his position as chairman of the party. This would lead one to believe that his own party leaders did not take his public act of rebellion too seriously. They condoned his action. In fact they may even have colluded in it.
    Eamon de Valera’s complaints to the Ceann Comhairle had some justification. He suspected that Michael Davis had put down his amendment and the government had manipulated the order of business so as to get his debate on to the floor of the Dáil in advance of Deputy Ruttledge’s motion on the dissolution of Mayo Council, thereby drawing the sting out of that debate. This may only have been a bit of debating-room sharp practice but it was some form of small victory for the government.
    Notes
    1. Dáil Debates, 17 June 1931.
    2. Ibid.
    3. Ibid.
    4. Ibid.
    5. Ibid.
    6. Ibid.
    7.