|
The
Republican Congress - Notice of Dismissal - Interview with the Bishop
|
THE
REPUBLICAN CONGRESS
At an IRA convention in March
1934, a motion was proposed to establish a Republican
Congress. This was intended to be an umbrella group covering
republicans, trade unionists, small farmers and people on the
left of Fianna Fáil. When this motion was voted down, a group
broke with the IRA and decided to have a meeting of the
Congress in September 1934. Edwards was among the first to
leave the IRA and he joined the Republican Congress with the
likes of Peadar O'Donnell, George Gilmore, Frank Ryan and
Peter O'Connor.
In
Waterford, members of the Congress were very active and one of
their great successes was the exposure of the slum landlords
in the city and the terrible living
conditions in places like Little Michael
Street, New Street, Brown's Lane and Kearney's Court (off
Patrick Street). Edwards had now found his true avocation,
that of a polemicist, with his contributions to the Congress
newspaper (also called the Republican Congress). From
the beginning of the paper in May 1934, reports from Waterford
appeared in almost every issue, usually on the front page,
with headlines such as SLAVERY IN WATERFORD (2 June 1934);
SNOBBISH WATERFORD TOWN CLERK (21 July 1934); SLUM DWELLERS OF
WATERFORD/CONGRESS WORKERS ATTACK WARRENS (28 July 1934);
WORKERS CAPTURE STREETS OF WATERFORD (4 August 1934); SCABS
CHASED BY STRIKERS (1 September 1934); FIERCE CLASHES BETWEEN
STRIKERS AND POLICE (8 September 1934). Edwards wrote those
reports from information supplied by fellow Congress members.
He believed in a policy of 'naming and shaming' and his
reports were full of colourful language. He nicknamed one
local businessman 'Mattie the Rat' and wrote that 'At
present he decorates the city Council ... He is also sometimes
held up to the workers of Waterford and especially to those he
is depriving of a Christian living as a model Christian. The
Lord deliver us.'[1]
Edwards believed that all his troubles with the Church started
with the exposure of the slum landlords. He wrote that
Monsignor Byrne (he was created a Monsignor in October 1933)
was a trustee of some slum property, although Edwards was
unaware of it at the time, and that this was the cause of
Byrne's animus towards him.[2] Byrne was, however, attacked by
name and even called a liar. The following appeared in the
issue of Republican Congress dated 18 August 1934 under the
heading Editorial Notes (written by Frank Ryan).
Right
Rev. Mgr Byrne, Waterford P.P., is a strong upholder
of Imperialist-Capitalism. He makes a habit of
invoking religion in politics. His latest effort was
to ban the Builder's strike on the grounds that a
strike 'involves serious risks to higher interests,
to the sacred interests of justice and charity,'
etc., etc. He trots out the lie that he will be
'very sorry if the workers put themselves in a
position in which they cannot have public approval.'
It is high time that unwarranted
interferences of Mgr Byrne be checked. Mgr Byrne is
talking for the bosses. He is on the side of the
bosses. In his opinion 10½d. an hour (when they can
get it) is good enough for 'common people.' The Mgr
does not know what hunger and want mean; he has
never experienced either. The workers of Waterford
save him from hunger and want. Mgr Byrne is a
priest. Let him cease to be an Imperialist
mouth-piece.' |
Prior to the Republican Congress
Convention, that took place on the 29 and 30 September 1934,
in Rathmines Town Hall, Brother Flannery had warned Edwards
that his attendance at the convention would lead to his
dismissal. This was the third time that Edwards had been
warned by his co-managers. In 1932, after Edwards had spoken
from an IRA platform, Monsignor Byrn
| sent
for me and spent three hours pleading with me to
leave the IRA 'for the sake of my soul!' When he saw
that no words of his could prevent my soul from
going to the devil, he dropped the pose of Mentor
and spoke to me as a Boss. He said that if pressure
were brought to bear on him as Co-Manager of the
school, 'he would be very reluctant to consent to my
dismissal.' About a year later he repeated the
threat. Similar threats, though not so openly
expressed, were made by Bro. Flannery, Superior of
Mount Sion ... [He] took quite a different line. 'A
school is like a shop. And you know that the man who
keeps a shop cannot offend his customers by publicly
expressing any opinion on controversial subjects. In
the same way a teacher must be careful not to offend
the parents of the children.[3] |
Edwards, however, was committed to his course and he attended
the Convention where he made two speeches—one on internal
organisation and the other on the Irish language.
NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
On his return to
Mount Sion he was again summoned to the Superior's office (on
2 October 1934) and was asked if he were the Mr. Edwards who
was reported as having attended and spoken at the Republican
Congress held in Dublin on 30 September 1934. Edwards answered
in the affirmative and he was then ordered to cease teaching
catechism to the Confirmation class, pending a review. On 15
October 1934, he was served with three months notice of
dismissal. Edwards, who was financial secretary of the INTO
branch, brought the dismissal notice to the attention of the
INTO executive. The Irish School Weekly, the journal of
the INTO, recorded on 10 November 1934, that representatives
were deputed 'to deal with a case of threatened dismissal in
the Waterford area.'[4] There was some disquiet, locally,
about the threatened dismissal and the school's co-managers,
Brother Flannery and Monsignor Byrne, wrote to the local
press, each explaining his involvement in the issuing of
notice
|
Sir, As
an unjustifiable attack has been made on the revered
Parish Priest of Ballybricken in reference to the
termination of a teacher's appointment in the
Christian Brother's School, Mount Sion, I desire to
make it very clear that responsibility for serving
the notice of the termination of the said teacher's
employment is entirely mine.
Yours faithfully
12/12/'34
S. J. R. FLANNERY
Dear Sir, Rev. Brother Flannery has sent me a copy
of a letter which he is sending you for publication.
What he states in his letter is true—I would add
even chivalrously so. He must, however, permit me to
state that he took me into consultation on the
matter and that I approved of his decision.
Yours faithfully,
12/12/ 34
W. BYRNE, P. P.
Edwards
replied
Sir, In reply to the letters which appeared in your
issue of the 12th inst., re my threatened dismissal,
I wish to state that I have made no attack upon Mgr.
Byrne, and that if such an attack has been made, I
am in no way responsible.
I do not know who is responsible for my dismissal,
and the letters of the Joint Managers do not make
the matters clearer. What I do know is, that I am
being dismissed unjustly. I was of the opinion that
a teacher could only be dismissed on one of three
grounds, namely, inefficiency, immorality or
irreligion. No charge has been made against me under
any of these heads, and no such charge can be made
with justification.
Yours sincerely,
13/12/'34
F. EDWARDS.[5]
|
The first salvos of the war had now been fired and over the
following three weeks the city was in uproar. A public meeting
in support of Edwards was mooted, but was postponed at the
request of the INTO. The local INTO Branch Committee sent a
resolution to its executive committee asserting that a 'very
serious principle' was involved in the case and requesting the
Executive to ensure 'an amicable settlement.' On 21 December
1934, this committee heard a submission from Edwards in
person. The executive committee resolved to seek reasons for
the proposed dismissal and to send a deputation to meet the
bishop of Waterford.[6] The INTO president and general
secretary met bishop Kinane on 4 January 1935 and the bishop
showed them a document that he had prepared asking Edwards to
sign an undertaking, which would be made public, to dissociate
himself from the Republican Congress and not join any similar
movement in the future. He told them that the notice of
dismissal would be withdrawn if Edwards were prepared to sign.
Subsequent to this meeting the INTO representatives met the
Mayor and the chairman of the Worker's Council, both of whom
had backed Edwards, and told them that they would advise
Edwards to accept the bishop's proposal. Attitudes had
hardened and become polarised and as the new year approached
it was clear that some desperate measures were needed to break
the deadlock.
INTERVIEW WITH THE BISHOP
Rumours abounded in the city
that the bishop was about to give a reason, after a delay of
almost three months, for the proposed dismissal of Edwards.
This reason was to be in the form of a pastoral letter
condemning the Republican Congress, the IRA and, in fact, all
republicans who had not repented for their opposition to the
1922 Treaty. On Saturday 5 January 1935, the day after the
INTO had seen the bishop, an interview took place between the
bishop, Frank Ryan (the editor of Republican Congress)
and local schoolteacher Seamus Malone (teacher of Irish at
Newtown School). The following are extracts (relating to the
Edwards case) from that interview as written by Frank Ryan and
published in Republican Congress.
| Bishop
Kinane received Malone and myself immediately on
arrival at the Cathedral. Our interview lasted over
an hour. I set down here extracts from the notes
taken by each of us. We do not claim that the
conversation is reported verbatim ... [but] we
emphasise that the substance of the statements are
correctly reported by us. As arranged by us, before
the interview, our questions fall under certain
headings, aimed at the elicitation of the views of
the bishop[7] |
After
prolonged questioning of the bishop concerning his position
with regard to the Pastoral Ban of 1922, whether the bishops
condemned any imperialist organisations and what the bishop's
views were on the 'Blueshirts', Malone asked;
|
Q:
Supposing, for arguments sake, that your Lordship's
condemnation of the Congress is right. Edwards could
not have been aware of it, was not made aware of it,
in fact, until this week. Is it then not exceedingly
harsh treatment to victimise him for an offence of
which he could not have been aware?
A: Mr. Edwards should have known from the
pronouncement of his P.P. Monsignor Byrne that
membership of the Congress is contrary to Catholic
teaching.
Q:
Is Mgr Byrne, therefore, also entitled to decide
their faith and morals for the people of Waterford?
A: He undoubtedly is for his own parishioners
...
Q:
Is there not a grave danger of abuse of this
authority?
A: I feel sure he would not abuse his
authority.
Q:
Mgr Byrne is regarded by the majority of his
parishioners as a bitter Imperialist. Is it not
unfortunate that he was the priest on whom Edwards
was so dependent for advice on such questions?
A: I consider Mgr Byrne an excellent type of
Irishman.
Q:
Mgr Byrne sent advice to Edwards, through Mrs.
Edwards and Miss Edwards, advice of a political
character?
A: I believe that is so.
Q: You are aware that the Mgr attacked Miss
Edwards for selling Republican emblems near the
Church and tried to hunt her away, while at the same
time he allowed a seller of Imperialist emblems to
remain. Would you consider that a good introduction
for friendly advice?
A: The Mgr admits to me that he committed an
error of judgment on that occasion and has expressed
regret.
Q:
He has not expressed regret to Miss Edwards. Is not
his liability to error, and his failure to undo the
injustice he did to Miss Edwards proof that he is an
unreliable teacher for Mr. Edwards?
A: You must not speak thus of Mgr Byrne.
Q:
The late Dr. Nulty[8] of Meath, who condemned the
Plan of Campaign, and the late Dr. O'Doherty in his
hatred of Republicanism were looked upon as tyrants.
Yet both these bishops declared their willingness to
forgive and forget ... Why be a greater tyrant than
they? Why condemn Edwards for a crime which you have
not hitherto pronounced a crime?
A: Far from acting as a tyrant, I am prepared
to have him reinstated, or at least transferred if
he signs an undertaking that he will not associate
with certain organisations.
Q:
Are the Blueshirts among these organisations?
A: The Republican Congress is the only
organisation mentioned.
Q:
You are depriving the man of his position, refusing
him a reference, and thus making it impossible for
him to gain a livelihood, and you are doing all that
because he attended the Republican Congress, months
before you declared your disapproval of the
Congress?
At this stage there was a heated scene during which
I lost my temper ... For charity's sake I will not
report my utterances. One point I did make clear; no
denial can disprove it: The Pastoral was invoked
three months after, to cover up the victimisation of
Edwards, and to check the opposition to that
victimisation.
Malone continued his questions:
Q:
Are you aware that the signing of such political
tests as you demand of Edwards is looked upon with
such disfavour in Ireland that men have faced the
firing-squad rather than sign undertakings less
objectionable than this? [The bishop stated that the
document presented to Edwards was not a political
test. It concerned faith and morals only. He said he
would agree to Edwards' signing the document
privately].
Repeated requests drew from His Lordship the
explanation that he was refusing to allow Frank
Edwards to get another school because 'it would be
on his conscience to see a teacher holding such
views' in charge of young people. He admitted that
there was no evidence, no charge even, that Edwards
presented his personal views directly, or
indirectly, at school. Edwards was an efficient
teacher in every way. His Lordship alleged that a
few Ballybricken residents had objected to Edwards
being employed as a teacher. Malone replied:
Edwards' slanderers, the Imperialists who for three
years have been engineering his dismissal do not
hail from Ballybricken. The residents of
Ballybricken were amongst the first to offer
sympathy and support to Edwards. They are hard
fighters politically, but I believe they would be
not so uncharitable as to act as the Joint managers
of Mt Sion Schools have acted.[9[
|
|
|
