Publication: UCC Student History Journal Vol 2, Issue 1
The Treasonable OffencesAct 1925: it’s Formation and Legacy
Michael George Duffy
University College Cork
The Treasonable OffencesAct 1925 emerged as shaped by Kevin O’Higgins in the context of the impending expiry of the Public SafetyActs. TheAct’s significance is tied to the fact that it was not merely in response to crisis but an attempt to define the limits of the civil liberties protected by the nascent Irish Free State.
The 1925Act provides an interesting perspective on the tensions in Irish society during the aftermath of the civil war, the vision of Ireland’s future held by the more authoritarian members of W.T. Cosgrave’s government and the origins of on Ireland’s, OffencesAgainst the StateActs. TheAct took form in anticipation of a Sinn Féin schism and in the midst of an active, confident and subversive anti-Treaty movement. Pertinently, Ireland was still waiting for the decision of the Boundary Commission,1 however theAct was in large part a piece of self-expression by the government and ‘renewed war was most unlikely’.2
Background
Could the government sink any lower? The North abandoned, the Dáil ignored, the economy in ruins, emigration rising, the people turning to Sinn Fein, the Treaty discredited.3
Such was the perspective of many republicans on the state of the nation in the months surrounding the introduction of the Treasonable OffencesAct.4
In a context of disquiet, the debates surrounding its enactment and its subsequent enforcement serve as crucial documentary evidence regarding the attitudes of Ireland’s early political figures. The consternation present at that time sheds further light, on the driving or originating factors which define modern interpretations of Ireland’s civil war politics. In replacing the Public SafetyActs,5 theAct served as the juncture between the revolutionary period and present period in this avenue of Irish legal history.
In contrast to earlier examples of Cumann na nGaedheal’s emergency legislation, what distinguishes the 1925Act in particular, was its performative spirit which in the words of Bell Bowyer, …aimed as much at the current pretensions of Republican ideology as the future protection of the State. 6 7
The attitudes of O’Higgins to the more recalcitrant members of the republican movement can be seen in his arguments in favour of the Bill’s passing, with one memorable line summarising his views with pithy phrasing, It is, of course, an easier thing, or it seems at first sight an easier thing, to coerce the bodies of your fellow citizens than to convince their minds, and men undertook a course
1 Seosamh Ó Longaigh, Emergency Law in Independent Ireland 1922 - 1948, (Four Courts Press, 2006, Dublin), at 55.
2 ibid at 72.
3 J. Bowyer Bell, The Secret Army: The IRA 1916-1979 (4th edn, Poolbeg 1989, Dublin) 49. 5
4 Treasonable Offences Act, 1925.
5 Public SafetyActs 1923-1927.
6 [Fn 4].
7 In spite of arguments from TDs such as T.J. O’Connell and Darrell Figgis’that to do such would likely legitimise the Republican movement; Tuarasgabhail idtaobh riteacha do chur amach.- Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 - Second stage (resumed), Dáil Eireann debate, 19 February 19
of coercion rather than the other methods, which are slower perhaps and more tedious, the method of convincing the people of the rightness of the par-ticular political course which they advocate.8 9
Politically, in a period of Cosgrave’s weakened health, it seemed that O’Higgins through force of character was trying to claim as much control of government responsibility as possible.10 According to Laffan however, the hardline approach taken by O’Higgins ultimately had Cosgrave’s full support.11 Though Cosgrave’s comment that he personally didn’t mind ‘an occasional outburst of sedition’,12 adds weight to the proposition that his reliance on O’Higgins may have contributed to the Act’s perceived fundamentalism.
There is an undeniable element of O’Higgins somewhat caustic public persona13 present within the arguments underpinning the Bill. This aspect might have been more restrained under different circumstances, given Cosgrave’s comparatively reserved character.
Dáil Debates
Announced first in February of 1925, the Bill was met with immediate disagreement from the Labour Party (the main opposition in Sinn Féin’s absence), led by ‘Mild-mannered Englishman’Thomas Johnson,14 who expressed profound dissatisfaction regarding the Bill’s contents. One Labour Deputy went so far as to describe the Bill as a ‘Mussolini measure’.15
Patrick McKenna of the Farmer’s Party expressed disagreement in a similar tone querying whether ‘Edward III will now be Kevin I.’16 Less fervent opposition came from some government supporters including Ex-Unionist independent and later Cumann na nGeadhael member Major Bryan Ricco Cooper, and General Richard Mulcahy.17
Moving beyond the civil war emergency measures of the Public SafetyActs,18 (which had permitted internment without trial), the government sought to instate legislation on a permanent basis which instituted the death penalty for even peripheral involvement in subversive activity,19 (see, Bell Bowyer’s reference to the law as the ‘Murder Bill’).20
8 Mr. O’Higgins, Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 Second Stage, Dáil Éireann debate - 18 February 1925, vol. 10 No.4.
9 The context of the Bill as within the aftermath of the Army mutiny (1924) should also be noted.
10 Timothy Patrick Coogan, Ireland Since the Rising, (Pall Mall Press, 1966), p.52 and p.58.
11 Michael Laffan, ‘W.T. Cosgrave: an iron fist in a velvet glove’, Atlas of the Irish Revolution, 5 December 2022.
12 [Fn 2] at 68.
13 see, ‘If some woman at a meeting would shout out: “What about the seventy-seven executions”, O’Higgins would say something like: “You’re wrong there ma’am; there were more than that shot”’, [Fn 9] at p.261. see also, “Addressing an election rally in Sligo, he said, ‘I stand over those seventy-seven executions and over seven hundred and seventy-seven more if they become necessary’”, [Fn 2] at 72, citing, The Irish Times 1925.
14 Arthur Mitchell, ‘Thomas Johnson, 1872-1963, a Pioneer Labour Leader’, vol. 58 no. 232, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, (Winter, 1969) pp.396.
15 William Davin, Dáil in Committee - Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 - Third Stage, vol. 10 no. 16, 20 March 1925; see also, Jason Knirck, ‘Afterimage of the Revolution: Kevin O’Higgins and the Irish Revolution’, vol. 38 no.3&4, Irish-American Cultural Institute, (Fall/Winter 2003), pp.212-214
16 Mr. McKenna, Tuarasgabhail idtaobh riteacha do chur amach.- Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 - Second stage (resumed), Dáil Eireann debate, 19 February 1925.
17 Major Cooper, Tuarasgabhail idtaobh riteacha do chur amach.- Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 - Second stage (resumed), Dáil Eireann debate, 19 February 1925, ‘I do not want to vote against the Bill if I can help it, but there are one or two provisions that outrage my humanity, and I could not make myself responsible for them.’; see also General Mulcahy, ibid.
19 [Fn 6]
18 [Fn 6].
19 [Fn 5] at s.1, ‘assists any state or person…’, ‘conspires with any person…’, ‘attempts to take part in or is concerned in an attempt…’.
20 [Fn 4].
The strident attitudes of some legislators can be seen in the Dáil debates, with O’Higgins proposing that those who failed to inform the authorities of any of the activities sanctioned by theAct should be punished by a prison sentence up to ten years, or a term of hard labour not exceeding two years.21 Ultimately section 2 of theAct stated that those found liable for misprision of treason should be sentenced for a term not exceeding five years with the two year limit on prison terms incorporating hard labour maintained.22 Highlighting the irony of the situation Thomas Johnson said that “most of us have been aware any time within the last five years of treason and we have not informed.”23
Section 3 of theAct reinterpreted the Treason FelonyAct 184824 by instating a penalty of up to twenty years penal servitude for “every person who encourages, harbours or comforts any person engaged in any levying war against Saor- stát Eireann ”25 This provision which could be viewed as contrary to principles to freedom of expression and other civil liberties, was especially controversial, drawing strong disagreement from members such as Major Cooper who referenced the experiences of Irish revolutionaries who relied on the aid of sympathisers or those who took pity on them.26 Indeed in the original text of the Bill section 1(e) was phrased “assists, encourages, harbours, or comforts any person engaged or taking part or concerned in any such attempt, ”27
Such actions were to be punishable by death along with other section 1 offences, with Major Cooper raising the example of a mother aiding her son now being liable to face death for her loyalty and kindness.28 The dissatisfaction of opposition members is further evidenced by sardonic comments from politicians such as William Davin of the Labour party who replied to O’Higgins’ relating of the Bill’s contents with the question, “is it an offence under this section to change one’s mind without consulting the Minister?”29 Mohr tendentiously argues certain parts of theAct arguably placed limitations on the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and under particular circumstances reversed the burden of proof.30 This latter point by Mohr is interesting in the context of more recent Irish legal history where the same point was raised in Heaney v Ireland which was famously heard before the ECtHR with regards to the equivalent section (s.52) in the Offences Against the State Act 1939, in a political context comparable to the one which had existed 75 years prior.31
21 [Fn 9].
22 [Fn 5], section 2.
23 Mr. Johnson, Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 - Third Stage (resumed), 19 March 1925 vol.10 no.15
29 Mr. Davin, Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 Second Stage, Dáil Éireann debate - 18 February 1925, vol. 10 No.4.
30 Thomas Mohr, ‘Precursors the Offences Against the State Act - Emergency Law in the Irish Free State’, (2021), in, Coen, M. (ed.). The Offences Against the State Act 1939 at 80:AModel Counter-TerrorismAct?
31 Heaney and McGuiness v Ireland, ECtHR, 2000.
Parallels with history
With the offence of treason taking its roots in monarchist legislation dating back to the TreasonAct 1351, it is perhaps little surprise that some of the Bill’s critics labelled it as ‘feudal’.32 More contemporaneously, the Bill drew on provisions of the Treason FelonyAct 1848, which had been passed in order to prosecute Irish nationalist John Mitchel,33 with the term ‘King' changed out for the ‘Irish Constitution’, this fact was not lost on then leader of the Labour Party Thomas Johnson.34
The discussions of Mitchel’s writings in the parliamentary debates surrounding the introduction of the 1848Act might perhaps have put Johnson in mind of his own writing, including the satirical A handbook for rebels: a guide to successful defiance of the British government, which cited the speeches of Ulster loyalists in trying to establish how one should organise ‘bloodless rebellion’against the crown.35
The motivation behind the harsh penalty proposed for the crime of misprision of treason was the idea that theAct ought to express the new onus the government wished to place on the citizenry, of loyalty to the new state and constitution. This attitude on the part of the executive could be viewed as evidence of insecurity, and supportive of Bell Bowyers’description of theAct as performative in nature.36 Indeed in the words of O’Higgins himself the principle marked a “…very real and very startling departure from all that code and outlook which were traditional here.”37
Many of the deputies ridiculed different provisions within the Bill, with Major Cooper asserting that the prohibition on unsanctioned Military drilling would leave every Boy Scout troop in need of ministerial permission, and that to express the belief that the Seanad was a superfluous and useless institution would fall foul of the provisions on seditious libel.38 The point regarding Boy Scout troops had some prescience given the subsequent charges brought under theAct against 12 members of ‘the Fianna Éireann boy scouts’for drilling.39
The level of power the Bill granted the executive can be seen in O’Higgins’own comment on the Bill where he stated “ …it will be a matter of Executive discretion whether, in a particular case, a prosecution should take place. One can point out that, under the provisions of Section 5, every giddy girl who shouts out at a meeting that a Deputy or a Minister is a usurper or a tyrant and so on, is liable to prosecution under this Bill. That is a particular case. But, the way I would like Deputies to regard certain provisions of this Bill is, that the alternative is to leave the Executive devoid of powers to meet offences of this kind, 40
32 [Fn 2] at 63, and see, ‘We should be careful in dealing with this matter of the law of treason, as we are dealing with a very old law which goes back to the Middle Ages and whose roots are embedded in the soil of the feudal system’, footnote 7, Major Bryan Cooper.
33 see, the parliamentary debate surrounding the 1848Act; Hansard, 7April 1848, ‘Security of the Crown’, House of Commons, vol. 98, cc20-59, Sir G. Grey - ’During the past few weeks there have been held in Ireland several meetings of what is called the “Confederation”’, ’…the writer does not merely appeal to the fancies of an imaginative people and, instead of the Queen’s authority, to establish an independent republic in Ireland’.
34 Mr. Johnson, Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 Second Stage, Dáil Éireann debate - 18 February 1925, vol. 10 No.4.
35 Johnson’s book can be viewed using this weblink,<https://digitalcollections.tcd.ie/concern/works/h128ng27g?locale=en> , last accessed 4 November 2024.
36 [Fn 9]; [Fn 4].
37 [Fn 9].
38 [Fn 19].
39 [Fn 2] at 70, citingAn Phoblacht.
40 [Fn 9].
Freedom of association
S.3(f) of the Bill (and ultimately theAct) stated “…incites any person in the civil service…to refuse, neglect, or omit to perform his duty.”41 This section met with staunch opposition from supporters of the trades unions, who believed that the clause presented an obstacle to organised labour activities.42
Regarding the Bill’s prohibitions on secret societies within the Civil Service,43 Farmers Party member, and notorious anti-semite,44 Denis Gorey expressed strong anti-masonic views.45 Deputy Gorey’s views were echoed by Cumann na nGaedhael’s, Osmond Grattan Esmonde, who in reference to the suppression of secret societies within the Civil Service, praised the action taken by Italy’s fascist government on the issue, saying “I doubt if the government in this country have the same degree of courage as Signor Mussolini.”46
The relevance and significance of hostility towards secret societies must be understood in the context of the early 20th century.As pointed to by Ó Longaigh the Irish State had by the time of the Bill’s passing, only recently purged theArmy of such organisations.47 More broadly the term ‘secret society’was used by the Catholic Church in reference to the IRA, membership of which carried excommunication.48 Interestingly, the legal definition of secret societies created in theAct, is the definition still accepted in Irish law.49The passing of the bill also has an important place in the history of capital punishment in Ireland.50 51 52
The Bill’s passing
Despite Thomas Johnson’s call for a referendum on the Bill,53 the Bill was passed with relative ease, in a context whereAnti-Treaty Sinn Féin continued to maintain their policy of abstention. The Government had a low turnout with the Dáil’s vote resulting in 30 in favour and 13 against.54 Bell Bowyer comments on the vote stating that “the Bill was popular in no quarter and O’Higgins only managed to steer the ‘Murder Bill’ through the Dáil with the help of massive abstentions 55
41 [Fn 5] at section 3(f).
42 Mr. Johnson, Dáil in Committee - Treasonable and Seditious offences Bill, 1925 - Third Stage (resumed), 19 March 1925.
43 [Fn 5] at section 9.
44 for example see his comments during the; Dáil Éireann debate - 2 May 1923, vol. 3 no. 8, Unemployment Insurance Bill, 1923 - Second stage, ‘It looks as if the Jewmen are going to replace this race if this race is to go down in idleness.’
45 Mr. Gorey, Dáil in Committee - Treasonable and Seditious offences Bill, 1925 - Third Stage (resumed), 19 March 1925.
46 Mr. Esmonde, Dáil in Committee - Treasonable and Seditious offences Bill, 1925 - Third Stage (resumed), 19 March 1925.
47 [Fn 2].
48 see discussion of the matter in; Ronan McGreevey, ‘Church’s excommunication of anti-Treaty combatants in Civil War left ‘bad taste’, says Archbishop’, The Irish Times, 2023.
49 Garda Síochána Act 2005, note on Section 16.
50 Anumber of legislators opposed the death penalty in all circumstances, See Senators Haughton and Douglas, Seanad Éireann debate - 6 May 1925, vol.5 no.2, Seanad in Committee - Treasonable Offences Bill - 1925Third Stage.
51 Note that the death penalty was not finally abolished until 1990, Criminal Justice Act 1990, section 1.
52 The final Seanad vote came to 13 in favour of removing the death penalty from the Bill (including Douglas Hyde) with 25 against (including William Butler Yeats), Section 1 amendment vote, Seanad Éireann debate - 6 May 1925, vol.5 no.2, Seanad in Committee - Treasonable Offences Bill - 1925 - Third Stage.
53 Mr. Johnson, Dáil Éireann debate - 26 May 1925, vol. 11 no. 20, Dáil in Committee - Treasonable Offences Bill, 1925 - From the Seanad.
Emphasising Bell Bowyer’s analysis are the moments of future Labour Party leader T.J O’Connell during the debate surrounding the Bill who offered similar criticism of the government stating “I want to emphasise that outside the ranks of the Executive Council nobody has said a word in favour of the Bill during the course of a long and protracted debate.”56
As noted by Ó Longaigh, the number of abstentions was a point of comment for Sinn Féin’s media organ An Phoblacht and even O’Higgins himself who was drawn to express frustration at TDs unwillingness to be seen as associated with the measures.57
Enforcement
The Act saw varying levels of enforcement, with figures from a 1939 Irish Times report covering the period 1925-1936, listing; 142 indictments, 59 court prosecutions and 60 convictions. With noticeable peaks in the figures immediately post-enactment, and for the year 1936.58 It is to be noted that it was Jeremiah Hurley of the Labour Party who enquired as to what the figures were, evidencing continued interest in the legislation from members of the party which had opposed it most adamantly more than a decade prior.
Examplesfromnewspaperreportsatthetime,includeMs.NellieKelly,awomanchargedunder the Act for possession of IRA recruitment materials and a Dennis Long of Crookstown County Cork (whose case was held before a special court), charged with drilling persons without the permission of an executive minister.59
The facts of Long’s case give a vivid illustration of the discontent in Irish society at the time, “…on the 23rd instant at Lissarda about 100 or 150 men fell into ranks at the unveiling of a monument…”60 Ó Longaigh gives further examples of illegal drilling which was a widespread phenomenon at the time, other IRAactivities included bank robbery and the intimidation of Gardaí and court witnesses.61 Other reports related to the law’s enforcement similarly emphasis the sense of unease which underpinned use of theAct. 62
As per Mohr, the levels of enforcement were dampened by ‘reluctance on the part of the judiciary to enforce the… Act’.63 This can be further seen in the attitude of the judge hearing Nellie Kelly’s case.64 It can also be found in the attitude of (later) judges in Eoin O’Duffy’s 1934 case, where the extraordinary of powers of the (Special Powers) Tribunal which had the authority to enforce the Treasonable OffencesAct and similar statutes was commented on extensively with a negative attitude taken by the relevant judges.65
56 Mr. T.J. O’Connell, Tuarasgabhail idtaobh riteacha do chur amach.- Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 - Second stage (resumed), Dáil Eireann debate, 19 February 1925.
57 [Fn 2] at 68.
58 ‘Treasonable Offences Act: Prosecutions since 1925’, The Irish Times, 3 March 1939
59 ‘Treasonable Offences Act -ADonegal Prosecution’, The Irish Times, 24August 1925; ‘Alleged DrillingCharge under the Treasonable Offences Act’, The Irish Times, 25August 1925
60 ibid.
61 [Fn 2] at 56.
62 See, ‘They included nearly 4,000 rounds of ammunition. 35 rifles and shot-guns, one Lewis gun complete with two magazines and a number of Lewis gun parts, a number of pistols and revolvers, 50 grenades, a field telephone, … light pistols, the head of the King William statue, a steel helmet, and a large quantity of documents relating to an irregular organisation.’‘“Dump” in the Mountains - The Treasonable Offences Act - Man Committed for Trial’, The Irish Times, 10 July 1931
63 [Fn 31] p.19., as stated earlier in this essay juries also resisted the Act’s enforcement.
64 [Fn 56]
65 The State (O’Duffy) v Bennett and others, [1934] 68 I.L.T.R. 146.
I think that the effect of this Bill, if it is passed, will be to fill up the gaols if it is enforced; either that or it will be passed and left there.66
The irony of this turn of events must be commented on given that one of O’Duffy’s attempts to defy the government had been a subsequently disallowed march to government buildings, where a wreath-laying ceremony would be held in memory of Griffith, Collins and O’Higgins.67 The politicised and impractical nature of the legislation can be witnessed in the attitudes of O’Higgins toward potential use of section 1 of the Act following the arrests of the leading members of the IRA alongside a significant tranche of intelligence. In documents cited by Ó Longaigh, O’Higgins stated that given present conditions such extreme measures would be undesirable.68 As outlined in police reports from theperiod,the‘moraltone’hadchangedwithinthecountry,69 andtocarrythroughonthetoughlanguage of theAct’s formation would have been reminiscent of the Easter Rising executions. Instead, section 6 was relied upon in that instance.70
It is difficult to imagine that authorities ever would have actually carried out the death penalty under the Act, given that finding a jury to convict based on it (even in the most clear-cut of circumstances) was often a hurdle too high for prosecutors,71 notwithstanding the perennial image problems attached to reliance on an English hangman. In what must be considered an ultimate example of the Act’s failure as effective legislation, no charges were brought against any of the 110 detainees interned following coordinated IRA raids on 12 Garda stations which took place on the 14 November 1926,72 despite the deaths of two officers. Instead, the State responded to calls for release in the wake of evidence that the republican prisoners had suffered abuse at the hands of Gardaí.73 the IRA had successfully evaded the provisions of the Treasonable Offences Act,74
Influence on later enactments
75
A great man in his pride confronting murderous men.
Part of the 1925 Act’s legacy can be seen in the emergency legislation brought through the Oireachtas inthewakeofKevinO’Higgin’sassassination,76 77 themorecontemporaryrelevanceoftheTreasonable OffencesAct can be seen in the later, OffencesAgainst the State legislation which is still in force albeit radically amended.78 As described by Mohr, the Offences Against the State Act 1939’s prohibitions on
66 Mr. Morrissey, Dáil Éireann debate - 19 February 1925, vol. 10 no. 5, Tuarasgabhail Idtaobh Riteacha Do Chur Amach - Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 - Second Stage (Resumed).
67 [Fn 11] p.81.
68 [Fn 2] at 69-70.
69 ibid at 56.
70 ibid at 69.
71 [Fn 2] at 70.
72 [Fn 2] at 75.
73 ibid at 76.
74 ibid.
75 the poem ‘Death’(with O’Higgins as its subject), in, William Butler Yeats, The Winding Stair and Other Poems, 1933.
76 See, Ryle Dwyer, ‘Remembering Kevin O’Higgins and his three IRAkillers’, The Irish Examiner, 10July 2017
77 O’Higgin’s assassination partly motivated by occasions such as the execution of his best man which earned him a ferocious reputation had the effect of bringing the Fianna Fáil party into parliamentary politics, see, Joost Augusteijn, ‘O’Higgins, Kevin (1892-1927)’, in, The Oxford Companion to Irish History, (2nd edition 2007, Oxford University Press).
78 See also, Niall Neligan BL, ‘The Gunpowder Plot ‘The First Act of Modern Terrorism’’, 7(4), The Bar Review, (2002), 223-226.
‘usurpation of the functions of government, illegal drilling, secret societies within the army and police force and in dealing with unlawful oaths’, are taken from the 1925Act.79
The historical impact of the prohibition on unsanctioned drilling should be noted. In the latter part of the 1920s when the more radical measures adopted after O’Higgins death had been relaxed,80 government action against illegal drilling led to resistance from the IRA which involved jury intimidation and a number of killings.Amongst those shot was 28-year-old newly-wed Superintendent Curtin who in 2010 was posthumously awarded a medal for his courage.81 Incidents such as this further aggravated the political situation in Ireland in the 1930s and to some extent resurrected the military courts.82
A further effect of the Act described by Mohr can be seen in the reduced opposition presented against the next generation of legislation lending the executive significant levels of authority. This demonstrates theAct’s role in the normalisation of a more authoritarian legal and political landscape.83 Fianna Fáil’s own Treason Act,84 and subsequent similar legislation received little of the principled opposition which the Treasonable OffencesAct inspired.
A noticeable counter-trend present in the debates can be found in Thomas Johnson’s criticism of the Bill on grounds of its similarity with the motivations of Leninist policies in Russia.85 Johnson’s use of such an analogy is interesting given his previous support of Communist Russia at the time of and subsequent to the 1917 revolution, with statements and speeches from him also supporting the creation of Irish Soviets as in Limerick,86 sympathies which presumably had been abandoned in the intervening period. This shift demonstrates perhaps, a waning of authoritarian sentiment amongst the peripheral Irish socialist movement. In a stark manifestation of these divisions within the Irish left, in the year of the Act’s passing, Jim Larkin then a Communist was found to have libeled Johnson by feeding into accusations and speculation, that he was an imperialist and English agent, abuse of this nature from members of the Larkinitemovement contributedtotheloss ofJohnson’s Dáil seat at the 1927 election.87
Conclusion
This essay has assessed the social and political factors leading to the enactment of the Treasonable Offences Act 1925 and acknowledged some of the legacy issues associated with its passing. The era’s Dáil debates, and newspaper coverage of political divisions demonstrate clear contrasts within the attitudes of the Irish right and left both of which in the context of parliamentary politics were drawn predominantly from the ranks of those who had supported theAnglo-Irish Treaty.88
Fundamentally, the law was performative in nature and it failed to effect substantive change in Irish society through its measures. Nevertheless, it set precedent for future debates and legislative processes where concerns about civil liberties were no longer fervently advocated. Its effect on future legislation has been of consequence, leaving the Act an interesting moment in the history of law in Ireland. The debates which led to its enactment and the arguments which underpinned it, lend insights intothemindsetsofthepoliticianswhoactedasthearchitectsoftheIrishFreeState,andthefoundations of the contemporary legal landscape.
79 [Fn 31] p.1
80 or ‘draconian’in the words of Bryce Evans, Seán Lemass’biographer; Bryce Evans, Seán LemassDemocratic Dictator, (The Collins Press, 2011), at 54.
81 Maria Herlihy, ‘Posthumous honour for late garda’, Irish Independent, 27 March 2010
82 Timothy Patrick Coogan, Ireland Since the Rising, (Pall Mall Press, 1966), p.262.
83 [Fn 31] p.25
84 TreasonAct 1939.
85 Mr. Johnson, Dáil Éireann debate - 18 February 1925, vol. 10 no. 4, Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 - Second Stage.
86 [Fn 15] at 403.
87 ibid.
88 Anglo-Irish Treaty, 1921.
Bibliography
‘Alleged Drilling - Charge under the Treasonable Offences Act’, The Irish Times, 25 August 1925.
Augusteijn J., ‘O’Higgins, Kevin (1892-1927)’, in, The Oxford Companion to Irish History, (2nd edition 2007, Oxford University Press).
Bowyer Bell J., The Secret Army: The IRA 1916-1979 (4th edn, Poolbeg 1989, Dublin).
Coogan T.P., Ireland Since the Rising, (Pall Mall Press, 1966).
Dáil Éireann debate - 2 May 1923, vol. 3 no. 8, Unemployment Insurance Bill, 1923 - Second stage.
Dáil Éireann debate - 26 May 1925, vol. 11 no. 20, Dáil in Committee - Treasonable Offences Bill, 1925 - From the Seanad.
Hansard, 7April 1848, ‘Security of the Crown’, House of Commons, vol. 98, cc20-59.
Heaney and McGuiness v Ireland, ECtHR, 2000.
Knirck J., ‘Afterimage of the Revolution: Kevin O’Higgins and the Irish Revolution’, vol. 38 no.3&4, Irish-American Cultural Institute, (Fall/Winter 2003), pp.212-214.
Laffan M., ‘W.T. Cosgrave: an iron fist in a velvet glove’, Atlas of the Irish Revolution, 5 December 2022.
Maria Herlihy, ‘Posthumous honour for late garda’, Irish Independent, 27 March 2010.
Mitchell A., ‘Thomas Johnson, 1872-1963, a Pioneer Labour Leader’, vol. 58 no. 232, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, (Winter, 1969) pp.396.
Mohr T., ‘Precursors the Offences Against the State Act - Emergency Law in the Irish Free State’, (2021), in, Coen, M. (ed.). The Offences Against the State Act 1939 at 80: AModel Counter-Terrorism Act? At p.13; Section 9(2) and 10(3), Treasonable Offences Act 1925.
Neligan N. BL, ‘The Gunpowder Plot ‘The First Act of Modern Terrorism’’, 7(4), The Bar Review, (2002), 223-226.
Ó Longaigh S., Emergency Law in Independent Ireland 1922 - 1948, (Four Courts Press, 2006, Dublin), at 55.
Public SafetyActs 1923-1927.
Ronan McGreevey, ‘Church’s excommunication of anti-Treaty combatants in Civil War left ‘bad taste’, says Archbishop’, The Irish Times, 2023
Ryle Dwyer, ‘Remembering Kevin O’Higgins and his three IRAkillers’, The Irish Examiner, 10 July 2017.
Seanad Éireann debate - 6 May 1925, vol.5 no.2, Seanad in Committee - Treasonable Offences Bill1925 - Third Stage.
Section 1 amendment vote, Seanad Éireann debate - 6 May 1925, vol.5 no.2, Seanad in CommitteeTreasonable Offences Bill - 1925 - Third Stage.
Section 1(e), Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 (as initiated).
The State (O’Duffy) v Bennett and others, [1934] 68 I.L.T.R. 146.
TreasonAct 1939.
Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 - report, Dáil Éireann debate, 26 March 1925.
Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 Second Stage, Dáil Éireann debate - 18 February 1925, vol. 10 No.4.
Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925 - Third Stage (resumed), 19 March 1925 vol.10 no.15.
Treason FelonyAct 1848.
Treasonable Offences Act, 1925.
‘Treasonable Offences Act: Prosecutions since 1925’, The Irish Times, 3 March 1939. Anglo-Irish Treaty, 1921.
‘Treasonable Offences Act - ADonegal Prosecution’, The Irish Times, 24 August 1925
Tuarasgabhail idtaobh riteacha do chur amach.- Treasonable and Seditious Offences Bill, 1925Second stage (resumed), Dáil Eireann debate, 19 February 1925.
“My
Poor Boy,”
-
The Unrecognised Sacrifice and Exclusion of Irish Mothers in Post-Revolutionary Pension Legislation
Emma Hurley University College Cork/ Georg August University of Göttingen
The Bureau of Military History began the process of opening the archives of the Military Service Pensions Collection (MSPC) in 2014, revealing thousands of applications for military pensions and medals from both revolutionary veterans and their dependants alike, and the related administrative and legislative records from the Pensions Board. The category of dependents stands out within the MSPC, in both how the legislation defines these dependants and how these dependants define themselves. Accessing the collection provides insight into the emotional, physical and financial turmoil expressed by dependant applicants, and cold responses of government bureaucrats.
The file relating to Mrs Ellen O’Brien, of 34 Maiville Terrace, Evergreen Road, Blackrock, Cork,1 is one of a handful of cases which shows the somewhat cruel and non-sensical nature of the legislation that the MSPC covers. Mrs O’Brien’s application for anArmy Pension under the 1953Army PensionsAct, and its subsequent rejection exposes the flaws in legislation designed by an independent Irish government supposedly grateful to those who had sacrificed their sons (and main breadwinners) to the cause of Irish freedom. Ellen O’Brien’s file, file DP2154 (and those similar to it) reveals a series of governments, civil servants and legislation that is at odds with the consensus of revolutionary veterans,commoncourtesy,andordinarywomenwhohadlost childrenforthesakeofsaidgovernments very existence. O’Brien’s experience of motherhood, and her right to what was owed to her on account of the sacrifices of her son Lt. John O’Brien (known commonly as Jack O’Brien) was declared null and void by the fine print. The ‘simple’legislation which is supposed to provide for the families of patriots reveals the politicisation and ideological signalling around motherhood and female marital status of Irish governments in the 20th century.
Legislative Background to the MSPCArchives
The MSPC owes its origins to various legislative acts – chiefly the Army and Military Pensions Acts, beginning in 1923. These acts change in which combatants or veterans they apply to – as in the original Amy PensionsAct (1923) only referred to “wounded members of Óglaigh na hÉireann,, […] theArmy and the Irish Volunteers, as well as the Irish CitizenArmy, […] and for the payment of allowances and gratuities to the widows, children, and dependents of deceased members of Óglaigh na hÉireann, including theArmy and the Irish Volunteers, as well as the Irish CitizenArmy”.2
Other revolutionary veterans initially omitted by the Saor Stát government – i.e. members of the anti-treaty IRA, Hibernian Rifles, Cumann na mBan, and na Fianna Éireann were eventually ‘provided’ for in later legislation penned by Fianna Fáil, beginning in 1932. Whilst the definitional scope of who counted as a ‘worthy’ veteran of the Irish revolutionary period began to broaden as the 20th century progressed, who counted as a worthy dependant stayed almost stagnant. The original 1923 legislation counted widows, sons and brothers under 18, daughters and sisters under 21, children between the ages of 12 and 18, mothers, fathers who were over 60 years of age or incapacitated by illhealth, grandparents, and permanently invalided siblings among those who could warrant the title of dependant.3 The definition of dependant does not change dramatically as the Irish government changes,
1 Application of Ellen O’Brien to the Army Pensions Act 1932, DP2154, Military Service Pensions Collection, The MilitaryArchives, Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin. http://mspcsearch.militaryarchives.ie/
with the exception of female dependants. Daughters and sisters under the age of 21 had to be unmarried to be considered an eligible dependent under theArmy PensionsAct (1932).4 The inclusion of Cumman na mBan veterans into those eligible to receive an Army or Military Pension did not include their widowers as those eligible to apply as dependants.
Cumann na mBan members who did apply also found limited success in even receiving their pensions, and if they were successful in their applications, the money they received was far less than their male comrades.5 Revolutionary women found their pensions relegated to categories D and E – on par with Na Fianna Éireann. This is not necessarily the product of misogynistic or discriminatory pensions boards simply not wanting to give money to women who had served their country, but rather a flaw in the legislation. Minister for Defence FrankAiken suggested that Cumman na mBan members be given special provisions to be allowed to be considered for category D or E pensions, expressing his concerns to the Military Service Pensions Committee in 1934, stating “that the same test of service [being] applied to women as was applied to men […] will result, in my opinion, in very few being granted an active service certificate”.6 Most Cumman na mBan members did not take part in active combat, but rather actedasan auxiliaryforcefortheirmale comrades,and perhaps would notbe granted any compensation for their service if not for this addition to the legislation.
Ideological Background to the Creation of the PensionsActs
Aselect few female dependants who applied for pensions or gratuities under any of theArmy Pensions actswerenotoftenmet withthesamecommonsensedemonstratedbyAikeninthe1934ArmyPensions committee meetings. One could examine Aiken’s intercession on behalf the women of Cumman na mBan as an expression of a true interpretation of the original purpose of introducing any compensatory pensions for veterans and their dependants. To provide military and army pensions for such a short and irregularseriesofconflictsisunusualonaworldstage.Nevertheless,theintroductionofsuchlegislation demonstrates a level of ‘gratefulness’, for those who gave their lives, or those who gave their family members. On the advent of the initial Army Pensions Act in 1923, General Richard Mulcahy told the Dáil, “the purpose of this Bill is such that we do not desire to leave unprovided for the dependants of anybody who is any phase of the armed struggle against the British lost his life or became incapacitated”.7 The notion that only those who partook in the armed struggle again the British were to be provided for would be replaced by 1934 with the idea that those who took part in any armed struggle for Irish freedom would be provided for. Again, on the occasion of the 1932 Army Pensions Act, Mulcahy addressed the Dáil, “The pensions bill, the text of which was made available to the public yesterday, will come as a boon to many patriotic homes throughout Ireland – homes that have given both breadwinners, and sons and daughters to the struggle for independence”, and that “The Pensions Bill, published yesterday, seeks to end an ingratitude of which the nation has been up to now guilty”.8
The ideological basis of these Acts was loyalty and gratitude towards those who gave the absolute most for the cause of Irish freedom, but in cases such as those of Mrs Ellen O’Brien, the application of such legislation is anything but. The pensions boards and the civil servants who handled Mrs O’Brien’s case – and those like hers, demonstrate a loyalty to the exact letter of the law, rather than to the nation and the people who permitted the legal systems very existence.
5 Marie Coleman, “Military Service Pensions for Veterans of the Irish Revolution, 1916–1923,” War in History 20, no. 2 (April 2013): 201–21, https://doi.org/10.1177/0968344512471126 215
‘Lieutentant Jack’, and the O’Briens of Evergreen Terrace Lieutentant John P. O’Brien of the 1st Cork Brigade, 2nd Battalion, D company was killed in action in September of 1922, in Donoughmore, County Cork.9 On the afternoon of the 14th of September, a party of eight Free State troops were moving from Donoughmore to Bantry, when “between forty and fifty Irregulars openedfire onthem”.10 The Regularforcesescape unscathedfromthisambush ,andtravelled to their intended destination to procure reinforcements. Later that evening, the NationalArmy returned to Donoughmore to find a group of irregulars still there. After both sides exchanged fire, the ‘Regular’ forces began to pursue the retreating anti-treaty forces on foot, where “they picked up the body of an irregular who had been killed during the encounter”.11 The body belonged to Lt. O’Brien, “the beloved son of Timothy and Mrs [Ellen] O’Brien”.12 Jack O’Brien’s body was interred in the republican plot in St. Finbar’s cemetery, and “the coffin, enveloped in the tricolour was followed by a large number of people to the graveside.Apiper’s band. too, was in attendance”.13 At the time of his death, O’Brien was 20 years old.14
By September of 1922, Jack O’Brien had been employed at Rushbrook Dockyard as a fitter engineer, earning £4.36 a week.15 Jack was almost the sole provider for his family – which included his invalided father Timothy, mother Ellen, and sisters Kitty - aged 15, Maureen – aged 12, and Eileen –aged 5.Timothy O’Brien, aretired cooper for the British navy was receiving a small pension. The death of their only son took a huge emotional, and indeed physical toll on the O’Briens, with Jacks’s father Timothy dying of a “sudden haemorrhage”, on May 31st, 1923, aged 60 16 Mrs Ellen O’Brien and her three daughters had lost both their streams of income within less than a year. In her letters to the department ofdefence, Ellen describesthissituation as “leaving[them] almost destitute”.17 Asmembers of the Anti-Treaty IRA were not eligible to apply for an army or military pension until the 1932 act came into effect, Ellen and her daughters were left in this unfortunate financial position until Mrs O’Brien’s application to the Army Pensions board in 1933. Ellen’s personal communications to the Army Pensions Board and the Department of Defence which are publicly available through the MSPC archive provide the unique first-hand perspective of a bereaved mother – from her very own pen.
The Initial Application, 1933 Ellen O’Brien’s letter dated February 27th, 1933, addressed to a TD for Cork City, is one of the most emotive and grievous in the whole collection. She expressed concern that her previous letters have been unanswered and appeals to said unnamed TD to intercede to the Department on her behalf. Throughout the document, Ellen grieves for “[her] boy”, and her “only son”.18 Ellen reveals that since the death of both Jack and his father that “[their] lives have been one long struggle since then”.19 O’Brien illustrates the inner conflict that seemed to be plaguing much of Irish society, that dependants and veterans alike were seen to be ‘cashing in’on the service and deaths of the revolutionary veterans.20 She writes “I do notwishtotradeonthedeathofmypoorboy(ofwhomweareexceptionallyproudof)”.21 EllenO’Brien has as such, unintentionally positioned herself as a perfect candidate for receiving her dependants pension. In Ellen’s application to theArmy Pensions board in 1933, she labels herself as Jack O’Brien’s
9 1st Cork Brigade, 26 Marlboro St, Cork, “Republican Plot - St. Finbar's Cemetery, Cork,” Cork Local Studies Digital Archive, accessed November 1. 2024, https://corkdigitalarchive.ie/items/show/2248.
10 Evening Echo, September 15, 1922, https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/
11 Cork Examiner, September 16, 1922, https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/
12 Cork Examiner. September 16, 1922. https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/.
13 “Funeral of Cork Irregular,” Cork Examiner, September 28, 1922, https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/
14 Death Cert of John P. O’Brien, DP2154
15 Survey of Rushbrook Docks byArmy Pensions Board, 6 November 1934, DP2154.
16 Deaths registered in the district of no. 6 in the Union of Cork in the County of Cork, 1923, prepared by the General Register Office.
17 Letter written by Ellen O’Brien to Cork TD, February 27, 1933, DP2154.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Coleman. 221.
21 Letter, February 27, 1933, DP2154.
“mother”,22 and details Lt. O’Brien’s military service as taking place between 1916-1922, although there is no evidence of Jack O’Brien’s actions as a volunteer prior to the Civil war conflict.
In the months following Ellen O’Brien’s initial application, she produces more letters expressing anxiety over the progress of her application. She writes that herself and her daughters are “hanging together”23, haunted by the memory of the “fearful death” of her only son – who according to her was “riddled to death by bullets”.24 Both the Old IRA Men’s Association, and a Mr. William L. KelleheralsointercedeonEllenO’Brien’sbehalf–writingdirectlytoMinisterforDefenceFrankAiken to speed along the process.25 The Old IRAMen’s association – or “The Boys” 26 seemed to taking care of the O’Briens in some capacity after the deaths of both Timothy and Jack. Ellen O’Brien’s exact condition was examined by the Army Pensions Board in September of 1934. She was no longer receiving her deceased husband’s naval pension and had no savings. Two of her daughters – Kitty and Eileen had found employment, earning a combined £2 a week. Eileen O’Brien, now aged 16, was found to be a permanent invalid. Mr J. Flanaghan, the man tasked with reporting on the material conditions of the applicant, concluded from his inquiries that “[he was] of the opinion that the claimant was substantiallydependant on the son’s earnings”.27 Thus,on the 1st of May1935, theAmyPensions Board declared Ellen “partially dependant”, and awarded her a gratuity of £112.10.28
Ellen O’Brien’s 2nd application,
1953
Ellen O’Brien would apply for the annual allowance given to the dependants of deceased combatants under the Army Pensions Act of 1953 in January of 1954.29 The MSPC also reveals that the O’Briens are still under the care of the Old IRA Men’s association at this time.30 In February of 1954 – despite Mrs O’Brien’s conditions being the exact same as they were in 1934, the Army Pensions Board takes thedecisiontodenyherapplication.31 ThePensionsboardrelaystoMrsO’Brienthatsheisnotarelative to whom theArmy PensionsAct (1953) applies to. Mothers were still included in the list of dependants in the 1953Act – so why was Ellen O’Brien (whose status as Jack’s mother had not changed since then) now excluded?
The answer lies in an error made in Ellen’s very own application in 1953. The form – filled out by the oldest O’Brien daughter - Kitty (presumably because Ellen O’Brien was unable to physically write herself – owing to her advanced aged of 82 and her Rheumatism), details Ellen as Jack O’Brien’s “Stepmother”.32 Jack O’Brien was not her biological son, and thus Ellen O’Brien’s right to motherhood and her Army Pension allowance was declared null and void. Civil servants within the Department of Defence made it clear that stepmothers were not mothers, and that they could potentially ask to recall thegratuity“madetoingoodfaithandonthebeliefthatMrsO’Brienwasthemotherofthedeceased”.33
John (Jack) Paul was born to Mary O’Brien (neé Hurley) and Timothy O’Brien on the 23rd of June1902-notEllenO’Brien.34 MaryO’BriendiedonJanuary1st of1910ofbreastcancer,andTimothy O’BrienandEllenO’Brienwouldmarryatsomepointbetween1910and1915.Regardlessofbiological status, throughout the MSPC files it becomes clear that Ellen O’Brien had developed a deep attachment
22 Application to the Army Pensions Board made by Ellen O’Brien, March 1933, DP2154.
23 Letter from Ellen O’Brien addressed to the secretary for the Department of Defence, 12May 1933, DP2154.
24 Ibid.
25 Letters from Mr William L. Kelleher, May 1934, and The Old IRAMen’s Association, November 6, 1934, DP2154.
26 Letter, February 27, 1933, DP2154
27 Report produced by the Army Pensions Board, September 14, 1934, DP2154.
28 Army Pensions Board Report, May 19345, DP2154.
29 Ellen O’Brien’s Application the Army Pensions Act (1953) allowance, January 1954, DP2154.
30 Letter from the Old IRAMen’s Association, September 1953, DP2154.
31 Letter to Mrs O’Brien from theArmy Pensions Board, February 1954.
32 Ellen O’Brien’s Application the Army Pensions Act (1953) allowance, January 1954, DP2154.
33 Letter from Mr. Scully to Mr. Armstrong, January 1954, DP2154.
34 Births Registered in the District of Queenstown, in the Union of Cork in the County of Cork, 1923. Prepared by the General Register Office.
to Jack O’Brien, a man she truly believed to be her only son. It also appears that the Ellen O’Brien had a somewhat positive relationship with the family of the deceased Mary O’Brien, as Mary’s brother Timothy Hurley advocates to the Department of Defence on Ellen’s behalf in 1934.35 Despite multiple appeals from various Cork-based advocates, including Lord Mayor Patrick McGrath who asks Oscar Traynor to give her case her “sympathetic consideration”36, Ellen was denied on the grounds that she did not count as a ‘true’relative of her very own boy, Jack O’Brien.
Definitions of Motherhood under theArmy PensionsActs
Ellen O’Brien was not alone in having her status as a mother redefined under theArmy PensionsActs. Mary McCannon applied to receive a gratuity under the Amry Pensions Act (1937) for her “only son” James McCarron - who was killed in action on the 2nd of June 1921 in Donegal.37 James’ father had since died and left his wife and three daughters in a precarious financial position.38 Her application was also denied on account that she was merely James McCarron’s stepmother. Bridget Tierney, stepmother of volunteer Patrick Tierney (who was shot dead in Ardee, County Louth in November of 1920), was alsodeniedonthesamegrounds.MrsCatherineMoore,stepmotherofJohnJosephMoorewhoperished on hunger strike on March 23rd, 1936, was denied her claim as dependant of her son whom “she reared […] from he was [sic] one year old, and when he came back from prison in bad health she nursed and maintained him”.39
Perhaps most disagreeable of all is the details of the file relating to Mrs Bridget Greehy. Mrs Greehy’s son, Thomas Greehy was killed on March 23rd, 1923, by a trap mine in County Waterford.40 In the case of the Greehy family, Thomas was Bridget’s biological son, and she was wholly dependent on him. Bridget Greehy was denied in her claim because she was “claiming in respect of the death of her illegitimate child and [was] consequently ineligible for the grant of an award”.41 The Attorney General had already ruled on another case (not yet available in the MSPC archives), that mothers of illegitimate children were not to be considered for a pension award.42 It seems that the Catholic moral fashions of Ireland in the 20th century were being applied to the very status of motherhood.
Conclusion
Much ink has been spilled in the recent past, and indeed continues to be spilled about the social status of women, and especially mothers in post-independence Ireland. The treatment and status of unmarried mothers in Ireland during the course of the 20th century has been well documented, and continues to be revealed to the horror of the public through various government inquires, and the research of historians. The files that reside in the archives of the MSPC reveal another element in the lived experience of unmarried mothers such as Bridget Greehy, and there is no doubt the true scope of the treatment of unmarried mothers under theArmy PensionsActs will continue to be revealed as the Bureau of Military History releases new files. Although utterly displeasing, the treatment of the unmarried mother under this legislation is perhaps no surprise. The Catholic moral reasoning cannot necessarily be applied to the exclusion of stepmothers under this legislation, as step parentage is seen as a virtuous vocation within Catholic teaching. The files of the women referred to as stepmothers in the MSPC that have so far been released show women who truly do consider themselves ‘mothers’of these men.
The MSPC archives also reveal the consensus of other veterans and various associations that it is simply common sense to provide for these women who were dependant on their martyred sons. A
35 Letter from Tadgh Ó Muirthile (Timothy Hurley) to Department of Defence, March 11, 1934, DP2154.
36 Letter from Patrick McGrath to Oscar Traynor, 19 March 1954, DP2154.
37 Application of Mary McCarron to the Army Pensions Board, 1937, ID62.
38 Letter written by Mary McCarron, 27 October 1937, ID62.
39 Letter from James McNulty on behalf of Catherine Moore to the Department of Defence, 26 June 1937, DP75000.
40 Application of Bridget Greehy to Army Pensions Board, 18April 1928, DP1837.
41 Internal memorandum in the Department of Defence addressed to Mr Brunty, 23 November 1937, DP1837.
42 Internal memorandum in the Department of Defence addressed to Mr. Horgan, 20 December 1937, DP1837.
legal system and a bureaucratic system at odds with mercy, sympathy, and certain loyalty to the Irish families who gave their children is revealed. If this series of legislation was meant to show gratitude –as was described by General Richard Mulcahy, it failed in its purpose. It failed these women, often in dire financial situations who were grieving ‘their boys’, and indeed the memory of these men who gave their lives for cause and country – who would not be best pleased the nation they died for was refusing to provide for their families. These legislative acts leave tales of unfinished justice and add to the evergrowing narrative of Irish motherhood, and Irish women on trial.
Bibliography
1st Cork Brigade, 26 Marlboro St, Cork, “Republican Plot - St. Finbar's Cemetery, Cork,” Cork Local Studies Digital Archive, accessed November 1. 2024, https://corkdigitalarchive.ie/items/show/2248.
Coleman, Marie. “Military Service Pensions for Veterans of the Irish Revolution, 1916–1923.” War in History 20, no. 2 (April 2013): 201–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0968344512471126.
Cork Examiner. “Funeral of Cork Irregular.” September 28, 1922. https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/.
Cork Examiner. September 16, 1922. https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/.
Dáil Éireann. Army Pensions Act, 1923. (1923). https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1923/act/26/enacted/en/print.html.
Army Pensions Act, 1932., 2 § (1932). https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1932/act/24/enacted/en/print#sched2.
Dáil Éireann Debates, Vol. 3, No. 26, 6 June 1923.
Dáil Éireann Debates, Vol. 44, No. 2, 20 October 1932.
Deaths registered in the district of no. 6 in the Union of Cork in the County of Cork, 1923, prepared by the General Register Office.
DP1837, Military Service Pensions Collection, The MilitaryArchives, Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin. http://mspcsearch.militaryarchives.ie/
DP2154, Military Service Pensions Collection, The MilitaryArchives, Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin. http://mspcsearch.militaryarchives.ie/
DP7500, Military Service Pensions Collection, The MilitaryArchives, Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin. http://mspcsearch.militaryarchives.ie/
Evening Echo. “Deaths.” September 16, 1922. https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/.
Evening Echo. September 15, 1922. https://www.irishnewsarchive.com/.
ID62, Military Service Pensions Collection, The Military Archives, Cathal Brugha Barracks, Dublin. http://mspcsearch.militaryarchives.ie/
Seanad Éireann Debates, Vol. 19, 30August 1934.
Justice When It Suits: The Birmingham Six’s Trial through
Forensics, Media, and Culture
Lena Power University College Cork
And even a liar can be scared into telling the truth,
same as a honest man can be tortured into telling a lie.
William Faulkner, Light in August
On 21 November 1974, several catastrophic bombs ripped through two pubs in the centre of Birmingham. Twenty-one innocent people died, with countless others injured. The bombs were attributed to the then highly active Provisional Irish RepublicanArmy (IRA), triggering a widespread manhunt to find those guilty of such a heinous crime. That same evening, five Northern Irishmen boarded a train from Birmingham to get the ferry to Belfast for a friend and former IRA member’s funeral, James McDade. They were Patrick Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power and John Walker. The last man, Hugh Callaghan, was to join them later. Their names, in many ways, ceased to matter in the coming days, for they were soon exclusively referred to as ‘The Birmingham Six’or simply ‘The Six’. Upon their arrival at the port, the men were stopped by police due to their accents.1 When searched, Walker and McIlkenny were found to have McDade’s mass cards in their pockets.2 The men, who had lied up until this point about the nature of their journey, were now immediately seen as suspicious.
All six men were taken to Morecambe prison, subjected to forensic tests, and put in the custody of the West Midlands Police. Within hours, four confessed to the bombings.All six were charged on 12 May 1975 and, within less than a month, found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. An apparent clean-cut case that ended in justice.And yet, in 1991, all six men walked free, their case forever immortalised as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in British history. What happened between their arrests, subsequent sentencings, appeals, and release is an excellent example of how new forensic evidence, the power of the media, and a highly fraught cultural scene resulted in a wrongful conviction. Thus, this essay examines each of these topics in three distinct sections. While the vast majority will be focused on the Six’s original trial, their appeals shall also be mentioned at times to understand the context of the situation.
The first section shall examine forensic science’s impact on the trial, particularly the infamous Griess Test. The reputation of forensic science and its simplification in trial settings shall be scrutinised, as well as how the jury’s decision was ultimately influenced by the test and biased comments from the judge appointed to the trial. The second section will look at the power of the media during the Six’s arrests, appeals and release. The use of the media can be seen as both a detriment and an asset in the trial process, as it played a role in the men’s sentencing and their release. Finally, the third section will highlight the importance of culture in the men’s arrests and treatment. The political and cultural climate during the 1970s in Britain was generally marred by the actions of the IRA, which led to anti-Irish rhetoric at times.
1 Derek Dunne, The Birmingham Six, 2nd ed. (Dublin: Birmingham Six Committee, 1989), 3.
2 Ibid.
‘Forensic Fallacy’– The Griess Test and Scientific Perceptions
The vast majority of the Birmingham Six case relied heavily on forensic evidence. The Griess Test, used to detect nitro-glycerine (commonly used in bombs), was administered to all six by Home Office scientist Dr Frank Skuse after their arrest. Only two of the men showed positive results (Power and Hill), which were later disputed. Nonetheless, Skuse declared that he was ‘99% certain of his results,’3 a statement that proved crucial not only in the charging of the Six but also their conviction. The Griess Test’s influence cannot be overstated. It lay at the crux of tying the six men to the bombings, which greatly swayed the presiding judge, Mr Justice Bridge, who explicitly stated to the jury that the evidence presented by Skuse was ‘absolutely critical’in determining the culprits.4 In the case of the Six, it was not necessarily the understanding of the Test’s results that sealed their fate but rather the standing of forensic science as a whole. Given that such evidence was presented to those without science backgrounds – lawyers, jury members, and judges – to evaluate and ultimately decide its competence, the trial could virtually forgo fact-checking.5
Furthermore, the evidence produced from any experiment or procedure is not necessarily indicative of one clear interpretation.6 Yet its reputation is the exact opposite, and its results are often seen as indisputable. In later appeals, the Test was proven not only unreliable but ultimately false as it could also test positive for nitrocellulose, a substance typically found on cigarettes and playing cards, both of which the men interacted with on the train.7 One may forgive scientific ignorance in the seventies if it was universally accepted among the community. However, another doctor was called upon to present forensic evidence, this time on the defence’s behalf. Dr Hugh Kenneth Black, a scientist with extensive experience in the explosives industry, determined that other substances besides nitro-glycerine could give a positive Griess Test.8 Black further noted that Skuse’s results should have been verified by other testing, which, with one exception, produced negative results for explosives on the men.9 Despite such differing accounts, no third-party scientist was ever called upon to make sense of the blatant polarities in the original trial.
It was ultimately the judge’s duty to present the differing accounts to the jury, a matter which quickly devolved into (admitted) bias. Bridge’s preference for Skuse’s evidence is widely documented.10 Bridge consistently contradicted his impartiality and influence on the jury by parlaying Skuse’s evidence as indisputable during the trial. This was mainly due to his belief that Black was inexperienced and that his lack of experiments to prove his point rendered his scientific opinion null.11 At one point during the trial, Bridge stated, ‘Please do not think I am seeking to pre-empt your decision on this very important issue. You may see it differently from me. I am afraid that I have made my views on this issue between Dr Skuse and Dr Black pretty plain’.12 This statement is then made somewhat redundant by Bridge’s later comments where he claimed that believing Black’s evidence
3 Regina v McIlkenny & Ors, (1991) 93 CrApp R, 287: 9.
4 Ibid., 23.
5 Peter J. Neufeld and Neville Colman, “When Science Takes the Witness Stand,” ScientificAmerican262, no.5 (1990):46.
6 Gary Edmond, “Constructing Miscarriages of Justice: Misunderstanding Scientific Evidence in High Profile Criminal Appeals,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22, no. 1 (2002): 60.
7 Peter Wilcock, “Three Judges, Six Men,” Fortnight, no. 258 (1988): 10
8 Fr Denis Faul and Fr Raymond Murray, The Birmingham Framework: Six Innocent Men Framed for the Birmingham Bombings (n.p.: 1977), 12-13.
9 Regina v McIlkenny & Ors, (1991): 24.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., 43.
12 Ibid., 46.
meant the jury believed Dr Skuse ‘must have been spending much of his professional life wasting his time Do you think Dr Skuse has been wasting most of his professional time?’.13 These leading questions undoubtedly influenced the jury to dismiss Black’s evidence under the guise of his ‘lack of professionalism’. This bias later served as a major basis for the Six’s appeals as it was seen by many to sway the prosecution’s opinion due to Bridge’s belief that the men were lying before the trial even commenced.14
Much like his bias, Bridge was markedly open about his incompetence concerning forensic science. Given that no external expert witness was involved in the trial, all scientific matters were bestowed upon Bridge, an individual with no forensic expertise whatsoever. Bridge readily admitted this, stating ‘Members of the jury, the resolution of scientific argument of this sort is particularly difficult for a jury of lay people, and I say once again that I am not going to try and go into the technicalities in detail because I would be in grave danger of misleading you.’15 This has long been an issue with forensic science in trials. Its jargon often confuses, but at the same time, cannot be oversimplified. The common idealisation of forensic evidence as a definitive fact ultimately blindsides any fallibility that may emerge.16 This ‘scientific illiteracy’is then compounded by new judges’reluctance to go against their predecessors when fresh evidence is provided,17 something that was an ongoing battle for the Six during the appeals process.
It is important to note that Skuse was excused by the Home Office in 1985 on the grounds of ‘limited efficiency’in the wake of the nitrocellulose explanation.18 Despite this, the men remained in prison until 1991 until their appeal’s approval. The irony of the Crown Court placing levity on forensic science and professionalism during the trial only to dismiss it when it worked in the Six’s favour suggests that technicalities were never the main priority. Even during the 1987 appeal, the Court still insisted on a marginal Home Office technician’s test of ‘possible nitro-glycerine’on one of the men to uphold their convictions.19 This highlights just how powerful forensic evidence’s reputation was and how the field even fights within itself at times, particularly in court proceedings.
‘Trial By Television’– The Power of the Media in the Six’s Conviction and Release
The power of the media played a crucial role in the Birmingham Six case. It influenced political and public opinion as well as the Six’s conviction and, ironically, their appeals and release. Such bipolarity of the media during a high-profile case is certainly not unusual. In particularly emotional cases, a desire for immediate justice, such as the Six’s case, is understandably prevalent. Many newspapers referred to the men as ‘the bombers’before they had even been convicted,20 thus setting the trial’s tone as it deemed them guilty before entering the courtroom. The nature of the crime and the use of graphic imagery and crass headlines by the tabloids also contributed to the general frenzy. One Conservative-backed tabloid, The Daily Express, garishly declared ‘IT’S SLAUGHTER BY IRA
13 Ibid.
14 Wilcock, “Three Judges,” 10.
15 Regina v McIlkenny & Ors, (1991): 45.
16 Edmond, “Constructing Miscarriages of Justice,” 59.
17 Neufeld and Colman, “Science Takes the Witness Stand,” 49.
18 Irris Makler, "Birmingham: The Court ofAppeal Meets Its Waterloo," Legal Service Bulletin 16, no. 3 (1991): 108.
19Ibid.
20 Rowan Moore, “Why was it so hard for our judiciary to admit they’d jailed an innocent man for 16 years?,” The Guardian, June 4, 2023.
BOMBS: 17 dead in funeral ‘revenge’’amongst images of the deceased.21 Given the large population of tabloid readers in Britain at the time, it is unsurprising that the media had such a detrimental effect on the trial’s outcome.22 The heinous nature of the crime and IRAhysteria of the time meant that the police needed to find suspects fast. Whether these suspects were the true perpetrators seemed to be of less concern.
In 1985, British television station Granada TV released six documentary-style episodes on the Six for their current affairs series World in Action. Headed by journalist and Labour MP Chris Mullin, the series analysed the bombings and was the first major form of media to shed doubt on their convictions. Black’s scientific findings were highlighted greatly on the show,23 thus sparking new interest. Without the series and the subsequent media frenzy (particularly surrounding Mullin), the Six would perhaps never have had their second appeal heard. This was further exasperated in 1986 when Mullin released his book Error of Judgment: The Truth About the Birmingham Pub Bombings, which gave a detailed account of the bombings supporting the men’s innocence. Furthermore, Mullin claimed to have spoken to the real perpetrators, something that was ridiculed by The Sun, which ran a front-page headline declaring ‘Loony MP backs bomb gang’in an attempt to ruin Mullin’s credibility.24
Nonetheless, Mullin’s work was noticeable enough to attract the attention of the House of Commons. In 1987, Home Secretary Douglas Hurd spoke to the House, stating ‘the safety of these convictions has since been challenged, notably in a book published by Mr Chris Mullin I am satisfied that there is new evidence that would justify my referring this case to the Court ofAppeal’.
25 This highlights how important media was for making actual institutional changes happen. Declassified papers from 1989 revealed government reluctance to speed up appeals was not necessarily because of doubt but fear of Tory hardliners and tabloid ‘scandals’for the Home Office.
26 In 1990, the documentary drama Who Bombed Birmingham? based on Mullin’s book was released. It provoked outrage from several perspectives, prompting comments from then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to the House of Commons that ‘we do not conduct trial by television.’27 Yet, in many ways, that was exactly what was happening. The ‘hostility’of the jury’s decision based on the appalling nature of the bombings clearly showed the government that such a reaction could backfire on them.
28
One need not look far for examples of this.A1990 interview with Lord Denning (the judge in charge of overthrowing the Six’s civil claim for police brutality) in the highly Conservative broadsheet The Spectator saw him blatantly admit that the Birmingham Six would have been hanged under his supervision.29 Denning claimed that if the Six won such a case, it would be an ‘appalling vista’against the police, and it goes without mentioning the entire British establishment of law, politicians and media.30 Thus, the presence of the media was somewhat of a double-edged sword for
21 “IT’S SLAUGHTER BY IRABOMBS: 17 dead in funeral ‘revenge’, Daily Express, November 22, 1974
22 Bronwyn Naylor, “Fair Trial or Free Press: Legal Responses to Media Reports of Criminal Trials,” The Cambridge Law Journal 53, no. 3 (1994): 495-496.
23 Regina v McIlkenny & Ors, (1991): 48.
24 Moore, “Why was it so hard.”
25 Bombing (Court Cases), House of Commons Debate, 20 January 1987, vol 108, col. 737.
26 Brian Hutton, “British government feared ‘tabloid scandal’if it released Birmingham Six,” The Irish Times, December 28, 2019.
27 Margaret Thatcher, House of Commons PQs, March 29, 1990.
28 Naylor, “Fair Trial,” 497.
29 A.N. Wilson, “England, His England,” The Spectator, August 18, 1990, 10.
30 Moore, “Why was it so hard.”
both the British government and the Birmingham Six. While both benefitted from various media entities, they also suffered greatly.
‘We are all Paddys now’– The Irish in Britain and ‘Anti-IRA’Hysteria While forensic evidence and media scrutiny were crucial aspects of the men’s convictions, a much larger issue lay in the background: culture. Given that the 1970s were the height of the ‘Troubles’in Northern Ireland and IRAactivity, hostility had steadily begun to rise against the Irish in Britain. This era of ‘anti-IRA’hysteria was greatly perpetrated by the media, which the British government heavily relied upon to promote negative public opinion of anyone who raised concern about events in the North.31 The men were mainly considered suspicious due to their accents and the fact that they lied about the reason for their trip. Their reluctance to tell the truth may seem odd, but the reality was that simply being Irish was sufficient evidence for suspicion during this time.32 The fact that it was an IRA member’s funeral they were attending was used to ‘confirm’their guilt. But to believe this is to disregard the culture of the time. The area of Belfast where five of the men came from was predominantly Protestant, with a small Catholic population. Given that the men were all Catholic and knew McDade in some way, it was not unusual for them to attend his funeral, nor can this be taken as an admission of guilt.
Still, there was the issue of the confessions. Four out of the six men had signed statements. The day after, all six appeared in court.All had blatant injuries caused by beating, something that was vehemently refused by police.33 Photographs from the time tell a different story, showing obvious cuts and bruises on the men’s faces (see Figure 1). Power, the first to sign a statement, later told of the abuse he had suffered, including punching, kicking, verbal abuse and psychological terror.34 At one point, Power was told by police that ‘even if he and the others hadn’t done it, the police were going to fix it’35 and that there was a mob outside his home ready to lynch his wife and children unless he confessed.36 The other men told similar stories of police brutality.37 Furthermore, the four statements signed had serious discrepancies, including the number of bombs and planters differing in every account.38 Despite this, they were seen as an indisputable piece of evidence.
It did not help the men’s case that only days after the bombings and their subsequent arrests, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill (PTA) was introduced. Backed by the predominantly Conservative government, the Bill included arrest without warrant of a suspected person, extension of the holding period for a person without charge, and control of travel from Ireland (both North and South) to Britain.39 The Bill was not only a huge step background forAnglo-Irish relations but also stripped many Irish people (both Northern and Southern) of essential rights in the courts. Hence, the men’s appeals were disregarded several times. In the eyes of the government, simply being Irish was enough
31 Nadine Finch, “Policing the Irish community in Britain,” in The Northern Ireland Troubles in Britain: Impacts, Engagements Legacies and Memories, eds. Graham Dawson, Jo Dover, and Stephen Hopkins, 1st ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017), 137.
32 Nadine Finch, “Policing the Irish community in Britain,” in The Northern Ireland Troubles in Britain: Impacts, Engagements Legacies and Memories, eds. Graham Dawson, Jo Dover, and Stephen Hopkins, 1st ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017), 137.
33 Makler, "Birmingham: The Court,” 107.
34 Fr Faul and Fr Murray, The Birmingham Framework, 6.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Dunne, The Birmingham Six, 9.
38 Ibid., 10.
39 Renagh Holohan, “IRA Ban, Expulsions From Britain Planned,” The Irish Times, November26,1974,1.
grounds to be considered a terrorist. Ironically, this went against their staunch Tory rhetoric as it was an admission that Northern Ireland was no different than the Republic.As Mr Gerry Fitt, leader of the Irish Social Democratic and Labour Party, put it: ‘Perhaps the Unionists at Westminster will recognise that inAnglo-Irish relations we are all Paddys now.’40
The day of the Birmingham Six’s release saw the introduction of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in response to the false imprisonment and miscarriages of justice of many beyond the Six, such as the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven. Then Home Secretary Kenneth Baker said of the Commission that its aim ‘will be to minimise so far as possible the likelihood of such events happening again’.41 Even though the Commission mainly concerned Irish cases, it never specifically addressed the treatment of Irish people.42 When it did mention the Irish, it claimed that the miscarriages of justice ‘had followed from cases of Irish terrorism’under PTAprovisions, which is factually incorrect given that none of those wrongfully convicted had ever committed nor been involved in any form of terrorism, especially the Six.43 This leaves one to question whether the British justice system truly learned anything from its mistakes. Had it not been for the mass effort of campaigning and reevaluation of forensic evidence, the Six might still be in prison today
Conclusion
Despite the horrors of the Birmingham Six’s case, it is an invaluable example of how powerful forensic evidence, the media, and the then-current cultural climate influenced the public, the jury and even the judge. By using the Griess Test as an almost ‘infallible’form of evidence and admitted bias on the judge’s part, the trial of the Six was practically doomed from the start. Furthermore, disregard for outside scientific opinion highlights that the truth was less of a concern than securing a conviction. On the contrary, forensic evidence also acted as the Six’s saving grace. This was partly due to renewed media attention and speculation of the men’s innocence. MP Chris Mullin played an invaluable role by pushing the case back into the public eye and encouraging new forensic evidence. Without this media pressure, the Birmingham Six may have never had their appeal accepted.
On the other hand, the media also served as a major deterrent for crucial figures stepping forward in support of the men’s release. Increased political pressure from the Conservative party and fear of a tabloid scandal led many to remain quiet despite knowledge of blatant injustice. This was further exasperated by a culture of ‘anti-IRA’hysteria that swept across Britain during the seventies. Subsequent police brutality and the introduction of the PTAfurther contributed, resulting in false confessions from the Six. While there have been significant steps taken in light of the Six’s release to ensure it never happens again, the interaction of key scientific, legal, and cultural facets remains unpredictable. Perhaps the greatest injustice of the Birmingham Six case is that the bombing’s true perpetrators walked free, never to be seen again.
40 Ibid.
41 Lee Bridges, “Normalizing Injustice: The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice,” Journal of Law and Society 21, no.1 (1994): 20.
42 Paddy Hillyard, “Irish People and the British Criminal Justice System,” Journal of Law and Society 21, no. 1 (1994): 41.
43 Ibid., 42.
Bibliography
Bombing (Court Cases). House of Commons Debate. 20 January, 1987. vol 108, col. 737. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1987/jan/20/bombing-court-cases#column_738 Bridges, Lee. “Normalizing Injustice: The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice.” Journal of Law and Society 21,no.1(1994):20–38.https://doi.org/10.2307/1410268.
Dunne, Derek. The Birmingham Six. 2nd ed. Dublin: Birmingham Six Committee, 1989.
Edmond, Gary. “Constructing Miscarriages of Justice: Misunderstanding Scientific Evidence in High Profile Criminal Appeals.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22, no. 1 (2002): 53–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3600634
Faul, Fr Denis, and Fr Raymond Murray. The Birmingham Framework: Six Innocent Men Framed for the Birmingham Bombings. N.P.:1977. https://online.fliphtml5.com/qjyol/bure/.
Finch, Nadine. “Policing the Irish Community in Britain.” In The Northern Ireland Troubles in Britain: Impacts, Engagements, Legacies and Memories,editedbyGrahamDawson,JoDover,andStephen Hopkins, 137–52. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvnb7jfx.18
Hillyard, Paddy. “Irish People and the British Criminal Justice System.” Journal of Law and Society 21, no.1(1994):39–56.https://doi.org/10.2307/1410269.
Holohan, Renagh. “IRA Ban, Expulsions From Britain Planned.” The Irish Times. November26,1974: 1.https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/archive/1974/1126/Pg001.html#Ar00100
“IT’S SLAUGHTER BY IRA BOMBS: 17 dead in funeral ‘revenge’”. Daily Express. November 22, 1974. https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/1699564/Birmingham-pub-bombings-ira-on-this-day.
Moore, Rowan. “Why the Birmingham Six’s story must not be forgotten.” The Guardian. March 26, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/26/why-the-birmingham-six-story-must-not-beforgotten.
Moore, Rowan. “Why was it so hard for our judiciary to admit they’d jailed an innocent man for 16 years?.” The Guardian. June 4, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/04/birmingham-six-why-so-hard-for-judiciaryto-admit-theyd-jailed-innocent-man-16-years
Naylor, Bronwyn. “Fair Trial or Free Press: Legal Responses to Media Reports of Criminal Trials.” The Cambridge Law Journal 53,no.3(1994):492–501.http://www.jstor.org/stable/4507991
Neufeld, Peter J., and Neville Colman. “When Science Takes the Witness Stand.” Scientific American 262,no.5(1990):46–53.http://www.jstor.org/stable/24996747
Regina v McIlkenny & Ors. (1991) 93 Cr App R, 287. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1991/2.html
Thatcher, Margaret. House of Commons PQs. March 29, 1990. https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108048
Wilson, A.N. “England, His England.” The Spectator. August 18, 1990: 8-10. http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/18th-august-1990/8/england-his-england
The Curse of Cham: The Scriptural Apologia forAfrican Slavery
Shane O’Sullivan University College Cork
“Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers.” – OrigenAdamantius.1
Throughout the history of Christendom, none has proved a more powerful tool of political exclusion than biblical interpretation and manipulation; the use of scripture as a means of justification for one’s own convictions and prejudices, or that of a particular group, has invariably been a key tenet of the ideological and theological framework of Western society and its attitudes toward the “Other”.2 The “Other” is a concept which permeates not just the westernised mind, but is arguably a condition of the human psyche itself; the fear of the unknown or that which is different is instilled from birth. Despite ouraltruistictwenty-firstcenturysocietyhavingovercomethisprimal faculty,withdiversitynowbeing a virtue, up until relatively recently the antithesis was the convention; differences in customs, religion or appearance served to separate societies, with such cultural or somatic variation ofttimes being weaponised against particular communities by institutions of power.3 From Giraldus Cambrensis and his pejorative coverage of the Irish, to Martin Luther’s “On the Jews and their Lies”, biblical exegesis has been a perennial tool of Christian exclusion and subsequent subjugation of marginalised peoples for centuries. Perhaps the most prolific example of this practice is the so-called “Curse of Cham”, a racialised reading of Genesis 9 which for more than a thousand years has been used as a divine justification for the enslavement of African people.4 The following treatise will discuss the biblical origin of this belief and its development up until the modern age.
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the book of Genesis traces the story of the world and humankind from Creation to the death of Jacob; it serves to illustrate the journey of man from his beginnings in Eden, through his Fall and expulsion, the death of Abel, the Flood and so on. Today it is generally accepted that these are but allegorical tales whose purpose is to convey more complex ideas surrounding obedience, sin and punishment for wrongdoing; however, prior to the advent of nineteenth century scientific theory on natural selection and polygenism, the Creation narrative presented in Genesis was widely accepted as axiomatic by Christian society.5 The Curse of Cham, or Ham, is a polemic exploitation of one such story in Genesis, that of Noah and his sons. The story of Noah’s Ark and the Flood is ubiquitous in the western mind; a thought-provoking narrative of sin, providential calamity and family, Genesis chapters 6 through 9 has inspired interpretation from a multitude ranging from Philo of Alexandria to Ridley Scott. However, it is not the Flood itself which is of interest to this study, but rather it’s immediate aftermath. The Flood destroyed all life on earth, save for those aboard
1 Origen Adamantius, Homilies on Genisis and Exodus, (circa. 230-50AD), trans. Heine, R.E. in Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C. 1982), p215.
2 For detailed analysis on the use of biblical interpretation and criticism for political ends see – Morrow, J.L. “The Politics of Biblical Interpretation: ACriticism of Criticism”, in New Blackfriars Vol.91 (London, 2010), p528-545.
3 To define what it means to embody Otherness, Paton P.A. gives a holistic analysis of the topic in “The Other in the Middle Ages: Difference, Identity, and Iconography”, in The Routledge Companion to Medieval Iconography, (London, 2007), p492-503.
4 Goldenberg, D.M. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam, (Princeton, 2003), p1.
5 Nelson, G.B. “Men before Adam: American Debates over the Unity and Antiquity of Humanity”, in When Science and Christianity Meet, (Chicago, 2003), p166.
Noah’s great ship; following forty days the deluge began to cease, and soon after the waters gradually subsided. TheArk ran aground in the mountains ofArarat in modern-dayArmenia, where Noah built a shrine to Yahweh and presented an offering to Him; Yahweh blessed Noah and his sons, saying unto them “Be fruitful then and multiply, teem over the earth and subdue it!”.6 Which is what the sons of Noah did, it is from these three men that the earth is peopled according to theAbrahamic faiths. Before doing so however, one of the sons, Cham transgressed against his father, a transgression which earned him and his posterity an eternal malediction.
So the story goes: Noah, after the waters of the Flood fully receded, became the first to plant grapevines and make wine, he then drank of the wine and became drunk. In his drunken stupor Noah’s robes fell away, and he lay asleep naked in his tent. It is here where the lines of scripture and extrabiblical tradition become blurred: drawing from the book of Genesis alone, what happens next is that Cham enters the tent and sees his father naked, tells his brothers who then cover up Noah; when Noah awakes he curses Cham’s son saying “Accursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves he shall be to his brothers”.7 Earlypatristicexegesis such as that of Origen, whichis quoted in the above epigraph, asserts that Cham not only looked upon his father’s nakedness but he also laughed at him; though not explicitly mentioned in the original biblical text, it is Cham’s mocking of Noah which garnered his progeny the curse of thraldom unto his two brothers’ descendants. Despite the name, the Curse of Cham did not affect Cham himself but his posterity alone, debate regarding why this was so has occupied exegetes for centuries; a plausible answer comes from Church Father Justin Martyr who claimed that Noah’s curse did not extend to Cham because he had been blessed by Yahweh previously, instead “the punishment ofthesinwouldcleavethewholedescentofthesonthat mockedathisfather’snakedness”.8
One might be confused as to why this misdeed of Cham bears any relevance to the enslavement ofAfrican people specifically; according to medieval Christian tradition, the people of Africa were the descendantsofCham,andthereforeofhiscursedlineage.As mentionedpreviously,followingtheFlood Yahweh implored the sons of Noah to go further afield and repopulate the earth; each of the three sons were designated a continent of the orbis terrarum (known world): Europe, Asia and Africa. Though scripture doesn’t reveal which continent was populated by whom, extrabiblical consolidation of discourse on the subject was achieved by the likes of Isidore of Seville (560-636) and Alcuin (732804);9 drawn from a fifteenth century copy the former’s Etymologies, Figure 1 below demonstrates the partitioning of the earth between the sons of Noah. Firstly, Asia was populated by the descendants of Sem (Shem), this lineage goes on to feature biblical patriarch figures of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it is from this son of Noah that we get the term Semitic, a word which is ofttimes conflated with Judaism, though it was originally used as a linguistic term to describe the languages of the ancient Middle East – Hebrew, Aramaic and later Arabic.10 Europe was populated by Iafeth (Japhet), spreading out from Mount Ararat into the Caucasus region of the Near East; it is actually from Iafeth and his settlement in the Caucasus that the term Caucasian is derived. Blumenbach, accredited with being the father of modern racial classification, first coined the term in the 1780s; he believed that white Europeans originating from the Caucasus nearArarat represented the pinnacle of human development, and that all other races thereafter were a degeneration of the Caucasian.11 This association of Iapheth and Europe is pervasive across Christian historiographical tradition, even as far as the peripheral insular society of
6 Genesis 9:7.
7 Genesis 9:25.
8 Justin Martyr (died circa 165AD), quoted in Goldenberg, D.M. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam, p158.
9 Haynes, S.R. Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification for American Slavery, (Oxford, 2002), p5
10 Schodde, G.H. “On the Semitic Languages in General”, in Hebraica Vol.1 (Chicago, 1885), p247-249.
11 Kenny, R. “From the Curse of Ham to the Curse of Nature: The Influence of Natural Selection on the Debate on Human Unity before the publication of The Descent of Man”, in British Society for the History of Science, (Cambridge, 2007), p371.
medieval Ireland, where the native Irish claimed direct descendance from Iapheth.12 Lastly then,Africa was inhabited by the descendants of Cham, a lineage which included the subjugated Canaanites, the Kushites and most famously the giant Nimrod, “a great hunter before the Lord” whom according to apocryphal discourse was responsible for the building of the Tower of Babel and the subsequent scattering of the tongues.13 In the nineteenth century the story of Nimrod and the Tower was used as a justification against interracial families inAmerica, a subject that will be touched upon later. In sum, it is this tradition of Chams descendants populating Africa that spurred early Christian exegetes to construeAfrican slavery as a direct result of the Curse of Cham; though as heinous as this explanation is, it does not adopt a racial element until as late as the ninth century when Muslim exegetes began to link slavery and skin colour as being mutually exclusive.14
The original Biblical text makes no mention of skin colour when discussing the curse put on Chams children by Noah, nor do the early Christian sources; though in the wake of Muslim conquest in North Africa beginning in the seventh century, the conflation between blackness and slavery became commonplace in order to “provide authoritative justification for enslavingAfricans under Muslim and Christianslavers”.15 Theshiftfromexplanationtojustificationofslaveryalsoinvolvedanaugmentation of the terms of the curse, as well as being endowed to eternal servitude the descendants of Cham were also marked so that they may be identifiable as such: and according to this new Islamic exegesis, the blackness of their skin was this demarker.16 Cultural crossover in the MiddleAges allowed for this idea to be disseminated into Christian theology as well, when the original curse of servitude “gradually became a dual curse of slavery and blackness together”.17 This new physiognomic association with Cham’s sin and skin colour alluded that the character of black people was outwardly manifested in their skin, i.e. that their soul was dark and therefore their skin reflected their corrupt inner nature. Of course, this is all rhetoric designed to make the enslavement of other human beings seem a providential allowance, rather than the exploitative injustice that it was; nonetheless that fact does not diminish the influence that this rhetoric had, especially following the discovery of the New World.
Once the New World had been discovered and conquered, and the transatlantic slave trade hit its pinnacle, all these theological and ethnological associations with black Africans reached their crescendo; especially during the antebellum period in the United States, where the Curse of Cham acted as the cornerstone of pro-slavery argument in the run up to the Civil War.18 The book of Genesis played a particularly influential role in racial identity politics in early US history, the story of Noah’s sons was utilised to legitimise the established Eurocentric social order and hierarchy of race, whilst simultaneously planting the seedbed for some of the most vitriolic expressions of anti-black sentiment in modern history.19 The same themes found in early Christian exegesis and medieval treatises are found in this period, however they become much more polemic, take this passage written by Josiah Priest in 1852 for example, he says – “[Black people are] exceedingly prone to acts of ferocity and cruelty, involving murder, war, butcheries, and even cannibalism, including beastly lusts, and lasciviousness in its worst feature, going beyond the force of
12 The Lebor Gabála Érenn (Book of Invasions of Ireland) traces the lineage of the Gaels from Iapheth through his son Gomer, and the journey of the Gaels from their Scythian origins to their arrival to Inbhear Scéine (Kenmare Bay) in South Kerry.
13 Genesis 10:9.
14 Haynes, S.R. Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification for American Slavery, p7
15 Firestone, R. “Early Islamic Exegesis on the so-called Hamitic Myth”, quoted in Bashir, H. “Black Excellence and the Curse of Ham: Debating Race and Slavery in the Islamic Tradition”, in ReOrient Vol.5, (London, 2019), p97.
16 Bashir, H. “Black Excellence and the Curse of Ham: Debating Race and Slavery in the Islamic Tradition”, p104.
17 Goldenberg, D.M. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam, p174.
18 Haynes, S.R. Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification for American Slavery, p8.
19 Burrell, K. “Slavery, the Hebrew Bible and the Development of Racial Theories in the Nineteenth Century”, in Religions Vol.12, (Basel, 2021), p2.
these passions, as possessed in common by the other races of men. all agreeing, in a most surprising manner, with the colour of Ham's skin, as well as with his real character as a man, during his own life, as well as with that of his race, even now”.20 Such pejorative descriptions are found in countless sources from this period, they serve to degrade the moral character of the African man, in order to make his enslavement a justified extension of the punishment issued by Noah, the inclusion of cannibalism and beastly lust almost evoke demonic imagery. This was not without precedent, for example the Puritan and Calvinist Churches were both institutions most vehemently against black emancipation, not only utilising the religious argument of the Curse of Cham, but they also further demonised black people by labelling them as, to quote Cotton Mather, “the vassals of Satan”.21
Even after the defeat of the Confederates and their institutionalised slavery, the use of Genesis to marginalise African-Americans was still in use; as mentioned previously, Cham’s line continued in Africa after the Flood, through Cush then his son Nimrod.According to extrabiblical tradition, Nimrod was the giant who built the Tower of Babel, an affront to Yahweh; to punish those who had built the Tower, Yahweh made it so that the primeval language that connected the nations was scattered up into the various languages of today’s world. Postbellum slavery apologists used this story to condemn interracial marriage, claiming that in separating the nations of the world by a language barrier, Yahweh’s intent was to prevent the mixing of races. In crosspollinating different nations, these people believed, intermarriage “breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intendsto keep separate”.22 The legacyof this belief wasfelt inAmerican societywell into the twentieth century, until in 1967 interracial marriage was finally made legal across the country. Though these beliefs are not necessarily the root cause of the conditions which they justified, they certainly made it easier for those who subscribed to such a biblically based vision of the world to qualify their actions as a part of a divinely mandated plan.
Arguably the paramount injustice exhibited by Western society, human thraldom has led to the ruination of millions of lives throughout history; this article has attempted to explain the religious justification of this injustice via the Curse of Cham story. The perennial nature of this racialised reading of Genesis, and its justification forAfrican slavery demonstrates how the interpretation of Pentateuchal narratives could facilitate maltreatment of those considered as “Other”; providing divine injunction to elevate the status of white Europeans to the highest rung of humanity’s ladder, whilst stepping on those of African heritage to get there. Now, it is important to mention that such beliefs were not the cause of slavery, but they did provide a familiar narrative framework on which to base racial prejudice upon to justify it; ultimately, the cause of slavery is financially motivated, and the use of theology to mask such greed shouldn’t excuse the perpetrators from the justice of history.23
20 Priest, J. Bible Defence of Slavery; and Origin, Fortunes and History of the Negro Race, (1852), p40.
21 Cotton Mather, quoted in Whitford, D. “The Calvinist Heritage to the Curse of Ham: Assessing the Accuracy of a Claim about Racial Subordination”, in Church History and Religious Culture, (Leiden, 2010), p29.
22 Haynes, S.R. Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification for American Slavery, p4
23 Whitford, D. “The Calvinist Heritage to the Curse of Ham: Assessing the Accuracy of a Claim about Racial Subordination”, p44.
Bibliography
Bashir,H. “BlackExcellenceandthe CurseofHam: DebatingRaceandSlaveryintheIslamicTradition”, in ReOrient Vol.5, (London, 2019), p92-116.
Burrell, K. “Slavery, the Hebrew Bible and the Development of Racial Theories in the Nineteenth Century”, in Religions Vol.12, (Basel, 2021), p1-15
Goldenberg, D.M. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam, (Princeton, 2003).
Haynes, S.R. Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification for American Slavery, (Oxford, 2002).
Kenny, R. “From the Curse of Ham to the Curse of Nature: The Influence of Natural Selection on the Debate on Human Unitybefore the publication ofThe Descent of Man”, in British Society for the History of Science, (Cambridge, 2007).
Morrow, J.L. “The Politics ofBiblical Interpretation:ACriticismofCriticism”, in New Blackfriars Vol.91 (London, 2010), p528-545.
Nelson, G.B. “Men before Adam: American Debates over the Unity and Antiquity of Humanity”, in When Science and Christianity Meet, (Chicago, 2003), p166-186.
New Jerusalem Bible.
Origen Adamantius, Homilies on Genisis and Exodus, (circa. 230-50AD), trans. Heine, R.E. in Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C. 1982).
Patton, P.A. in “The Other in the MiddleAges: Difference, Identity, and Iconography”, in The Routledge Companion to Medieval Iconography, (London, 2007), p492-503.
Priest, J. Bible Defence of Slavery; and Origin, Fortunes and History of the Negro Race, (1852).
Schodde, G.H. “On the Semitic Languages in General”, in Hebraica Vol.1 (Chicago, 1885), p247-249.
Whitford, D. “The Calvinist Heritage to the Curse of Ham: Assessing the Accuracy of a Claim about Racial Subordination”, in Church History and Religious Culture, (Leiden, 2010), p2545.
An tAthair Peadar Ua Laoghaire agus Athbheochan na Gaeilge
Daniel O’Connell Coláiste na hOllscoile Corcaigh.
Réamhrá
“Ní hé amháin gur gá na scéalta a insint, ach is gá iad a ghlacadh chugainn, a shealbhú.” - Liam Ó Mhuirthile.1
Thart ar an am seo an bhlian seo chaite, bhí mé ag dul mórthimpeall ag féachaint thart i siopaí catharnachta agus is cuimhin liom ag teacht ar leabhar beag glas. Mo Scéal Féin leis an tAthair Peadar Ua Laoghaire a bhí ann. Bhí sé léite ó chlúdach go clúdach agam. Leag mé mo mhéaranna ar fud na leathanaigh bhuí agus d’imir mé leiscoirnéal an chlúdaigh. Ní raibhdadaeilear m’intinn ach anleabhar seo. B’oscailt súl a bhí ann ar an bpáirt a d’imir rannphairtí shíochánta i gcothú na Gaeilge.
Agtús na naoú haois déag, bhí an Gaeilge mar ghnáththeanga i roinnt maith na hÉireann, áfach, chinntigh imeachtaí de chuid na naoú haois déag go mbeidh an Gaeilge i mbaol. Faoi 1900, tá sé measartha go raibh 85% den daonra dall ar an nGaeilge.2 Ar bheagán cabhrach, ghlac Gaeilgeoirí ar fud na hÉireann páirt ina hathbheochan. Ina mheasc bhí an tAthair Peadar Ua Laoghaire. D’fhás sé suas ag labhairt Gaeilge sa bhaile agus d’fhág sé Coláiste Maigh Nuad le dúthracht mhór chuig an teanga. 3 4 Cinnte ní raibh saol na gcaorach aige. Mar thugann fotheideal an ailt seo le fios, is cuntas ghairid é seo ar gníomhaíochtaí agus tionchar an tAthair Peadar ar athbheochan na Gaeilge.
An Teanga Féin agus an Litríocht
“I am sufficiently utilitarian not to regret its gradual abandonment. A diversity of tongues is of no benefit Therefore, although the language is associated with many recollections that twine round the hearts of Irishmen, yet the superior utility of the English tongue, as the medium of all modern communication is so great, that I can witness, without a sigh, the gradual disuse of Irish”.
- Daniel O’Connell.5
Na Fadhbanna roimh an Teanga Féin agus an Litríocht
Mar is eol don saol, luigh rialtas na Breataine go trom ar litríocht agus labhairt na Gaeilge ar feadhna céadta bliain.6 Chruthaigh é seo bearna mhór idir an traidisiún taifeadta ón 17ú haois déagagus an Gaeilge labhartha a raibh mórthimpeall ag deireadh an 19ú haois déag. Ní raibh an Athbheochan díreach ábalta traidisiún na Gaeilge a aithaimsiú arís. Mar bharr ar gach donas, ní raibh an teanga tar éis forbairt mar mórtheangacha eile na hEorpa, a bhí tar éis téarmaíocht a chruthú le haghaidh
1 Liam Ó Muirthile, ‘Deilbh is Dual’ The Irish Times (Dublin: 15 October 1998)
2 S. Ó Riain, Pleanáil Teanga in Éirinn 1919 – 1985 (Dublin: Colour Books 1994), 6
3 P. Ua Laoghaire, Mo Scéal Féin (Dublin: Longman Prún agus Ó Nualláin Tta. 1973) 87.
4 Ibid., 86.
5 Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh, ‘Gaelic Ireland, Popular Politics and Daniel O’Connell’(1975) 34 Journal of the GalwayArchaeological and History Society 21, 34.
6 S. Ó Riain, Pleanáil Teanga in Éirinn 1919 – 1985 (Dublin: Colour Books 1994), 6
coincheapanna a tháinig chun cinn idir an 17ú haois déag agus an 19ú haois déag.7 I ndáiríre, bhí sé ina phraiseach. Ba mhór an díol trua a bhí ann. Ní raibh an dara rogha ag Gaeilgeoirí ach an teanga a thabhairt suas chun dáta.
Caint na nDaoine
Bhraith Athbheochan na Gaeilge go láidir ar scríbhneoirí chun suim a chruthú sa teanga arís. I 1897, bhunaigh Conradh na Gaeilge féile bhliantúil darbh ainm an tOireachtas agus bhí comórtais liteartha acu chun scríbhneoirí Ghaeilge a spreagadh.8 Tá an féile seo fós ag dul ar aghaidh inniu fiú. Chomh maith leis sin, chinntigh Conradh na Gaeilge go raibh áit ina raibh scríbhneoirí Ghaeilge ábalta a cuid scríbhneoirachta a fhoilsiú go reatha.9 Faoi 1908, bhí teach foilsitheoireachta ag an gConradh,An ClóChumann.10 Bhí seoar fadmar iarracht agan gConradhchun litríocht na Gaeilge a chothú,áfach, d’fhás díospóireacht ann faoi thodcaí an theanga.
Bhí mórán i bfábhar ‘caint na ndaoine.’Dhírigh é seo ar an teanga beo, an teanga labhartha.11 Nuair a fhoilsíodh Séadna, leabhar a scríobh an tAthair Peader ina pharóiste i gCaisleán Ó Liatháin, i 1894, tharraing sé aird ar ‘chaint na ndaoine.’ Thaitin Séadna leis a lán Gaeilgeoirí difriúla.12 Bhí a gcaint féin, ní an caint a bhí ann na céadta bliain ó shin, le léamh acu.13 Bhí Séadna i mheasc na hobair a thug an bua chuig ‘caint na ndaoine’thar an caint seanfhaiseanta a bhí le fháil ón 17ú haois déag. Mar thoradh ar oibreacha ar nós Séadna, d’fhás an teanga chun a bheith ábhartha chuig gnáthdhaoine. Bhí an Gaeilge níos éasca le thuiscint agus beidh siad ar a laghad ábalta leabhair Ghaeilge a léamh agus sult a bhaint as.
Canúint na Mumhan
Tá sé ar nós go bhfuil na mhílte canúint éagsúla ann sa Ghaeilge agus is tábhachtach iad a caomhnú. Mar a thugann Carlo Ritchie le fios, tá seans ag caighdeán oifigiúil chun coimhthíos a chothú idir cainteoiríanchaighdeánoifigiúlaaguscaointeoirícanúintíeile.14 Níraibhnadeacrachtaídíreachcéanna ann roimh caighdeán oifigiúil mar atá ann inniu, áfach, is soiléir le thuiscint go raibh Gaeilgeoirí i bhfábhar teanga agus litríocht a raibh labhartha acu.
D’úsáid an tAthair Peadar canúint na Mumhan agus bhí a lán scríbhneoirí eile mór le rá ón Mumhan freisin.15 Is é fhírinne an scéil go raibh buairt ann go mbeidh canúint na Mumhan mar caighdeán de saghas éigin.16 Bhí an seans ag an tAthair Peadar chun rian dáinseárach a fhágaint ar litríocht na Gaeilge agus go mbeadh canúintí eile na Gaeilge fágtha ar leataobh ag Athbheochan na Gaeilge. Ar ámharaí an tsaoil, níor tharla é seo. Tháinig scríbhneoirí mór le rá leis canúintí eile chun
7 F. Ní Ghallchobhair, Ár dtéarmaí féin (Dublin: Cois Life 2014), 52.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 P. O’Leary, The Prose Literature of the Gaelic Revival 1881 – 1921 (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press 1994), 161.
12 Liam Mac Mathúna, ‘Caint na nDaoine’(1985) 44 (4) Comhar 22, 22
13 Ibid.
14 Carlo Ritchie, ‘Caint na ndaoine. The Irish Language as a Precedent for Standardisation’(2016) 8 Adeptus 72, 74.
15 F. Ní Ghallchobhair, Ár dtéarmaí féin (Dublin: Cois Life 2014), 52.
16 P. O’Leary, The Prose Literature of the Gaelic Revival 1881 – 1921 (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press 1994), 65.
cinn.17 Léiríonn an imeacht seo go raibh gradam an tAthair Peadar dáinséarach agus bhí tionchar mór aige arAthbheochan na Gaeilge. Ní amháin a labhairt, áfach, cé canúint a labhairt freisin.
Téarmaíocht
Bhí tionchar láidir ag an tAthair Peadar thar téarmaíocht a fhoilsíodh in Irisleabhar na Gaedhilge. Mar shampla, foilsíodh téarmaíocht teicniciúla chun úsáid i gcruinnithe i 1896.18 Níor scríobh an tAthair Peadar díreach gach uile téarma, áfach, is léir le fheiscint a chuid comhairle.19 Go háirithe sna háiteanna ina bhfuil canúint naMumhan luaite. D’obair séarísar théarmaí rothaíochta agusleictreachais idir 1896 agus 1899.20 B’iarrachtaí rathúla a bhí ann chun téarmaí Ghaeilge nua-aimseartha a chruthú, rud a bhí in easnamh agus a choiméad an teanga siar.
Tá sé tábhachtach chun tuiscint freisin gur d’fhéach an tAthair Peadar istigh chuig stair na Gaeilge in ionad a bheith ag braith ar iasachtaí ó teangacha eile. Rinne sé iarracht chun téarmaíocht a thógaint ón Gaeilge labhartha agus fiú an seanGhaeilge. Nuair a bhí mórtheangacha na hEorpa ag tógaint óna chéile go minic, bhí an tAthair Peadar ag iarraigh
Athbheochan Eagraithe
“It has always been very curious to me how Irish sentiment sticks in this half-way house – how it continues to apparently hate the English, and at the same time continues to imitate them; how it continues to clamour for recognition as a distinct nationality, and at the same time throws away with both hands what would make it so.”
- Dubhglas de hÍde.21
Cumann Buanchosanta na Gaeidhilge I 1876, bunaíodh Cumann Buanchosanta na Gaeidhilge (dá ngeirtear CBG anseo feasta) i mBaile Átha Cliath.22 An aidhm a bhí acu ná chun an teanga labhartha a chothú agus tacaíocht a thabhairt chuig staidéar ar litríocht na Gaeilge.23 Ní raibh siad an t-aon grúpa a bhí morthimpeall ag an am seo a bhí ag iarraigh an Ghaeilge a chothú, áfach, bhí siad an-tábhachtacht chuig cothú na Gaeilge i gCorcaigh. Sa bhliain 1877, bunaíodh bransa i gCorcaigh fiú.24
Bhí an-tionchar ag na heaglaisí, go háirithe ag an Eaglas Caitliceach Rómhánach, agus iad ag tacú leis aidhm an CBG i gCorcaigh chun díriú ar múineadh na Gaeilge.25 Chuir an chléir Caitliceach sagairt á múineadh i scoileanna faoina gcúram agus bhí suim speisialta ag roinnt acu sa Ghaeilge.26 Lasmuigh de scoileanna, bhí sagairt ag baint iarracht as labhairt na Gaeilge a saothrú ina bparóistí féin. Bhí an tAthair Peadar i mheasc na sagairt sin.
17 P. O’Leary, The Prose Literature of the Gaelic Revival 1881 – 1921 (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press 1994), 65.
18 F. Ní Ghallchobhair, Ár dtéarmaí féin (Dublin: Cois Life 2014), 57.
19 Ibid., 58.
20 Ibid.
21 M. Murphy, Irish Literature: A Reader (NewYork: Syracuse University Press 1987), 138.
22 T. Ó Ríordáin, Conradh na Gaeilge i gCorcaigh 1894 – 1910 (Dublin: Cois Life 2000), 20.
23 Ibid.
24 T. Ó Ríordáin, Conradh na Gaeilge i gCorcaigh 1894 – 1910 (Dublin: Cois Life 2000), 20
25 Ibid., 21.
26 S. Ó Riain, Pleanáil Teanga in Éirinn 1919 – 1985 (Dublin: Colour Books 1994), 59
Bhí sé an-tógtha leis cur chun cinn na Gaeilge i mheasc na ghnáthdhaoine agus lucht na hóige. D’obair sé chun leabhair Ghaeilge a thabhairt amach chuig páistí óige agus mar thoradh d’fhás an fonn roimh foghlaim na Gaeilge sa cheanntar áitiúla.27 Chomh maith leis sin, mhúin sé Gaeilge chuig an ceanntar áitiúla.28 Gan iarrachtaí an tAthair Peadar agus an chléir Caitliceach, ní bheadh seans ag an CBG chun mórán chur chun cinn a dhéanamh i gCorcaigh. Bhí bonn cruthaithe anois le haghaidh eagraíocht eile.
Conradh na Gaeilge
I 1893, tar éis meon na náisiúnachais agus na hathbheochana a fhás le haghaidh roinnt maith ama, bunaíodh Conradh na Gaeilge.29 Ó 1893 amach, thosaigh Conradh na Gaeilge ag stiúiriúAthbheochan na Gaeilge agus d’fhás an eagraíocht ar fud na tíre. Ní raibh eagraíochtaí eile go leor le haghaidh an Athbheochan agus bhí Gaeilgeoirí ag bailiú chuig an gConradh. B’iontach na laethanta iad don teanga agus ba mhór an t-ábhar sásaimh a bhí ann.
I 1894, tháinig cruinniú poiblí le chéile ar Shráid an Chaisleáin i gCorcaigh.30 Thóg daltaí, Gaeilgeoirí na tuaithe, agus mórán den cathair páirt sa chruinniú.31 Ritheadh rún chun craobh de Chonradh na Gaeilge a bhunú i gCorcaigh agus ceapadh an coiste.32 Ina mheasc, bhí polaiteoirí, daoine eile mór le rá, agus an tAthair Peadar Ua Laoghaire.33 D’fhás an craobh i gCorcaigh agus chinntigh siad nasc oifigiúil leis Baile Átha Cliath le teacht Uachtarán an Chonartha, Dubhglas de hÍde, níos déanaí i 1894.34 Tháinig roinnt craobhacha eile chun cinn i mbailí mórthimpeall Corcaigh. D’imigh an tAthair Peadar ar chuairt go dtí na craobhacha seo agus chaith sé roinnt mhaith ama ag spreagadh díograiseoirí áitiúla.35 Bhí éifeacht láidir ag tacú an tAthair Peadar le bunú craobhacha sna tuaithe, go háirithe in iarthar na chontae. Faoi 1898, bhí aon trian de gach bransa Chonradh na Gaeilge i gCorcaigh.36
Faoi 1898, tháinig iompar agus baill na bransaí i gCorcaigh agus faoin tuath faoi smacht anArd Craobh i mBaile Átha Cliath. D’fhás fadhbanna ceannais nuair a thosnaigh roinnt bransaí i gCorcaigh agiarraighfanachtneamhspleácharanArdChoiste.37 NíraibhgoleortaithíagnaGaeilgeoiríimbransaí Corcaigh leis cumhacht lárnach. Tháinig an caidreamh chun cinn agus bhí an bhagairt ann go scaradh an gluaiseacht óna chéile. Ina theannta sin, thosnaigh na bransaí áitiúla ag seoladh a tuairiscí chuig an bransa i gCathair Chorcaí, ní an Ard Craobh i mBaile Átha Cliath mar is ceart.38 Chuir an Ard Craobh iachall ar an tAthair Peadar Ua Laoghaire chun a tionchar a húsáid chun gach rud a cheartú.39 Chuaigh sé i mbun oibre agus chuaigh an scéal i bhfeabhas ó 1898 ar aghaidh. Bransaí seasmhach a bhí le fáil i gCorcaigh ó 1898, áfach, níor shroich siad gairmiúlacht go dtí tús na 20ú haois.40 Ní haon bhréag a rá go raibh tionchar mór ag an tAthair Peadar agus d’imir sé ról mór i gcothú Conradh na hÉireann féin.
27 T. Ó Ríordáin, Conradh na Gaeilge i gCorcaigh 1894 – 1910 (Dublin: Cois Life 2000), 20
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid., 24.
30 C. O’Kelly, ‘The Irish Language’ The Cork Examiner (Cork: 21April 1894).
31 ‘The Irish Language: Starting a Branch of the Gaelic League in Cork’ The Cork Examiner (Cork: 23April 1894).
32 Ibid.
33 ‘Cork Literary and Scientific Society: Irish Folk Lore’ The Cork Examiner (Cork: 30-11-1894).
34 T. Ó Ríordáin, Conradh na Gaeilge i gCorcaigh 1894 – 1910 (Dublin: Cois Life 2000), 29
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid., 35.
37 T. Ó Ríordáin, Conradh na Gaeilge i gCorcaigh 1894 – 1910 (Dublin: Cois Life 2000), 36
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid., 42.
40 T. Ó Ríordáin, Conradh na Gaeilge i gCorcaigh 1894 – 1910 (Dublin: Cois Life 2000), 56
Go hachomair, bhí cumhacht lárnach gné sonrach in Athbheochan na Gaeilge. Ní raibh idirgabháil le teacht ó rialtas na Breataine agus bhí eagraíocht náisiúnta, aontaithe éiginnteacht chuig asghabháil na Gaeilge. Ní hionann san is a rá go bhfuil an tAthair Peadar mar chúis leis an rath ar deireadh a bhí ag Conradh na Gaeilge, áfach, d’imir sé ról mór lena rath i gCorcaigh. Ní raibh athbheochan eagraithe agus cinnte éifeachtach le fheiscint roimh Conradh na Gaeilge agus is mór an maitheas a bhí cruthaithe nuair a bhunaíodh an eagraíocht.
Conclúid
Ar an 11ú Bealtaine 2020, bhí alt foilsithe san Irish Examiner ar an tAthair Peadar.41 San alt sin, thug an stáraí áitiúla James O’Leary le thuiscint go raibh an tAthair Peadar i bhfábhar na gnáthdhaoine.42 Tá é seo le fheiscint ríshoiléir sa chuntas gairid seo. Tá gnáthdhaoine, an lucht oibre agus an mheánaicme ar lean, mar an croí lárnach i labhairt na Gaeilge. Chaith an tAthair Peadar a shaol ag feabhsú múineadh agus taitneamh na Gaeilge le haghaidh gnáthdhaoine, tríd a dhíriúcháin ar chaint na ndaoine agus na hiarrachtaí chun an teanga féin a thabhairt suas chun dáta.
Tá an Ghaeilge i mbaol arís na laethanta seo agus tá gnáthdhaoine tar éis titim amach leis an teanga. Nuair a chuirtear gach aon ní san áireamh, tá iarrachtaí an tAthair Peadar, agus a scéal fada, mar cheacht mhaith dúinn.An té a bhíonn díomhaoin bíonn sé droch-gnóthach.
41 Pat O’Connell, ‘An tAthair Peadar Ua Laoghaire: New book pays tribute to Gaelic scholar’ The Irish Examiner (Cork: 11 May 2020).
42 Ibid.
Leabhareolaíocht
‘Cork Literary and Scientific Society: Irish Folk Lore’ The Cork Examiner (Cork: 30-11-1894).
Murphy, M., Irish Literature: A Reader (NewYork: Syracuse University Press 1987)
Mac Mathúna, L., ‘Caint na nDaoine’(1985) 44 (4) Comhar 22.
Ní Ghallchobhair, F., Ár dtéarmaí féin (Dublin: Cois Life 2014).
O’ Connell, P., ‘An tAthair Peadar Ua Laoghaire: New book pays tribute to Gaelic scholar’ The Irish Examiner (Cork: 11 May 2020).
O’Leary, P, The Prose Literature of the Gaelic Revival 1881 – 1921 (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press 1994).
Ó Muirthile, L., ‘Deilbh is Dual’ The Irish Times (Dublin: 15 October 1998)
Ó Riain, S., Pleanáil Teanga in Éirinn 1919 – 1985 (Dublin: 1st edn, Colour Books 1994).
Ó Tuathaigh, G., ‘Gaelic Ireland, Popular Politics and Daniel O’ Connell’ (1975) 34 Journal of the GalwayArchaeological and History Society 21
Ritchie, C., ‘Caint na ndaoine. The Irish Language as a Precedent for Standardisation’(2016) 8 Adeptus 72.
‘The Irish Language: Starting a Branch of the Gaelic League in Cork’ The Cork Examiner (Cork: 23 April 1894).
Ua Laoghaire, P., Mo Scéal Féin (Dublin: 12th edn, Longman Prún agus Ó Nualláin Tta. 1973).
Justice in Antiquity: Unravelling the Foundations of Roman Law
Rebecca Bourke
University College Cork
Introduction
Roman law, as the bedrock of the contemporary Western legal system, offers a profound understanding of ancient concepts of justice and legal administration. The quest for justice in antiquity was not merely a pursuit of fairness but a structured approach to governance and societal regulation. Law was, in Roman times, often considered a ‘sacred mystery’, with the administration of such being entrusted to the Pontiffs and following this, the interpretation left to the jurists.
Roman law, originating in ancient Rome from its founding in 753 BCE until the fall of the Western Empire in the 5th century CE, continued to be applied in the Eastern Byzantine Empire until 1453.1 This legal system has significantly influenced the evolution of Western legal traditions and even parts of Eastern law, providing the foundation for civil law codes across much of continental Europe and beyond.
TofullyunderstandthesignificanceofRomanlawinshapingWesternlegal traditions,onemust explore its origins, development, and enduring impact. Roman law was not merely a collection of statutes but a sophisticated framework that balanced the pragmatic needs of governance with a broader philosophical understanding of justice. From its early foundation in the Kingdom of Rome, through the structured codifications of the Republic, and finally to the comprehensive unification efforts of Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis, Roman law consistently adapted to address the complexities of an expanding society.2
This adaptability enabled Roman law to transcend its initial confines, becoming a model for legal systems across Europe, the Americas, and other regions long after the fall of the Roman Empire. The unique contributions of early jurists, the codification of the Twelve Tables, and the meticulous organisation of Justinian’s legal corpus each played critical roles in establishing principles of rule of law, rights, and legal equity that remain fundamental in legal systems today. Roman law’s journey from sacred custom to structured code highlights not only the historical pursuit of justice but also the universal principles that continue to shape contemporary jurisprudence.
In examining Roman law, this article will trace its evolution from unwritten customs to formal codes, exploreitsfoundational principles,and illuminate how these legal conceptshave left an indelible mark on Western civilization’s understanding of justice and governance.
The Origins of the Legal System
Customary Laws
The concept of ius, or customary law, was indeed at the heart of early Roman legal and social organization long before the Roman Republic emerged. In a society deeply rooted in tradition, these customary laws were passed down orally across generations, shaping the behaviours, responsibilities, and rights of Roman citizens in ways that were viewed as fundamental to their collective identity.3 This unwritten body of rules and norms was so ingrained in early Roman culture that it became synonymous with the idea of ius civile, or “civil law”, a legal framework applicable exclusively to Roman citizens.
Unlike later codified laws, early Roman customary law was not written but was nevertheless authoritative. This customary law evolved in tandem with the early Roman community's social
1 B. Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).
2 Ibid.
3 D. Nasmith, Outline of Roman history from Romulus to Justinian: (including translations of The twelve tables, The institutes of Gaius, and The institutes of Justinian) (London: Butterworth, 1890).
hierarchyandvalues,whichprioritizedloyaltytofamily,respectforelders,andadherencetoestablished customs.4 These customs governed a wide range of personal and communal matters, from inheritance and marriage to debt and property. In early Rome, kinship and social standing were central to one’s legal rights and responsibilities, with family heads, or paterfamilias, wielding significant authority over their households and property.5 The paterfamilias embodied the role of both legal and moral guardian, enforcing customary law within his family and representing its interests in broader society.
The fact that this ius civile applied only to Roman citizens reveals an important aspect of early Roman identity. In this period, Romans distinguished themselves from other communities and cultures, believing their laws to be uniquely suited to the values of their own society. As the Roman Republic expanded,interactionswithnon-Romancommunitiesincreased,and legal distinctionsbetweenRomans and non-Romans became more pronounced. This divide would later give rise to ius gentium, or “law of the nations”, which regulated interactions between Roman citizens and foreigners.6 However, ius civile remained distinct, emphasizing that Roman law was not only a regulatory framework but also a cultural inheritance, a legacy passed down from Rome’s foundational ancestors.7
This adherence to ius civile also underscores the exclusive nature of Roman citizenship in early Rome.To be Roman meant not onlytolive withinRome’s boundaries but alsotoshareinthecommunal values,customs,andobligationsthatthe ius represented.8 Thiscivillawprovidedstructureandcohesion within the early Roman community, shaping the emerging republic's social and political fabric and setting the stage for later legal innovations that would ultimately lead to codified laws, such as the Twelve Tables inthe mid-fifth centuryBCE.9 As Rome grew and itsneed fora standardizedlegal system became apparent, these early customs and laws would gradually evolve into formal, codified statutes, layingthegroundworkforthelegal systemthat wouldlaterbecentral totheRomanEmpireandWestern legal tradition.
The Twelve Tables
The creation of the Twelve Tables was a monumental step in the formalization of Roman law, emerging from a period of significant social upheaval. By the fifth century BCE, tensions between the patrician and plebeian classes had reached a boiling point. The patricians, who dominated political and judicial offices,wereoftenseenaswieldingthelawtotheiradvantage,leadingtowidespreadfrustration among the plebeians, who felt vulnerable to the unpredictability of legal outcomes.10 To mitigate these tensions and curb abuses of power, the plebeians demanded that laws be written down in a way that would allow all citizens to understand, follow, and foresee legal rulings. In response, the Roman Senate established a commission known as the decemviri ten men charged with producing a written code that would be transparent and accessible to all Roman citizens.11
The decemviri spent several years drafting and refining these laws, which culminated in the publication of the Twelve Tables around 449 BCE. These laws represented a significant evolution from the earlier ius civile, or customary law, into a codified system that could be publicly displayed and referenced. The Twelve Tables marked the first attempt to document Rome’s legal practices, covering a
4 D. Nasmith, Outline of Roman history from Romulus to Justinian: (including translations of The twelve tables, The institutes of Gaius, and The institutes of Justinian) (London: Butterworth, 1890).
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 F. Iustinianus, as translated by C. F. Kolbert, The Digest of Roman Law: Theft, Rapine, Damage, and Insult (Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1979).
8 Ibid.
9 D. Nasmith, Outline of Roman history from Romulus to Justinian: (including translations of The twelve tables, The institutes of Gaius, and The institutes of Justinian) (London: Butterworth, 1890).
10 Ibid.
11 M. H. Crawford, Roman Statutes, (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1996).
diverse array of issues including family law, property rights, debt, inheritance, and criminal justice. However, the scope of the Twelve Tables went beyond civil law; they also included aspects of public law and religiouslaw,integratingthe broader societal and institutional frameworks that shapedthedaily lives of Roman citizens.12
This codification served several key purposes. First, by setting legal standards in writing, the Twelve Tables aimed to limit the discretionary power of magistrates, who had previously been free to interpret and enforce unwritten laws as they saw fit.13 This provided a degree of predictability and security for citizens, who could now anticipate legal outcomes based on a publicly known code rather than relying on the arbitrary judgment of individual officials.Additionally, the written code symbolized a move toward equality under the law, at least in principle, as both patricians and plebeians were now subject to the same rules.14
The Twelve Tables covered a wide range of issues essential to Roman life and governance. In matters of family law, they specified the rights of paterfamilias and the duties owed by children and dependents. Propertyand contract law were also central, addressingthe transfer and inheritance of land, assets, and debts.15 These laws provided clarity on the legal status of property and obligations, supporting a stable economic system where transactions could be conducted with a shared understanding of rights and responsibilities. Moreover, the Twelve Tables dealt with criminal offenses, establishing rules for theft, assault, and murder, along with corresponding punishments that reflected the values and norms of Roman society.
Religious and public law provisions in the Twelve Tables illustrate the close relationship between law, religion, and the state in early Rome. Many aspects of public life were governed by religious rites and observances, and certain breaches of religious duty were considered legal offenses. For instance, laws related to sacred spaces and temples underscored the belief that the welfare of the state was directlytied tothefavour ofthe gods.16 Thus, the Twelve Tables codified not onlysecular rules but also religious practices, further integrating legal and cultural dimensions of Roman society.
While the Twelve Tables were not exhaustive or perfect, they provided a stable foundation that could evolve with Rome’s changing needs. Over time, these laws were expanded upon, adapted, and interpreted by jurists and magistrates to suit new situations and to accommodate Rome's growth from a city-state into a vast empire.17 As the basis of Roman law, the Twelve Tables endured for centuries as a source of legal authority and became a symbol of Rome’s commitment to structured and transparent governance.
The creation of the Twelve Tables was a foundational moment in the history of Roman law, establishing a framework that balanced tradition with a newly emerging need for transparency and fairness in judicial decisions. The principles embedded in this code influenced not only Roman legal development but also the concept of rule of law in Western civilization.18 By enshrining the customs of the past in written form, the Twelve Tables established a legal heritage that would resonate far beyond
12 Ibid.
13 D. Nasmith, Outline of Roman history from Romulus to Justinian: (including translations of The twelve tables, The institutes of Gaius, and The institutes of Justinian) (London: Butterworth, 1890).
14 M. H. Crawford, Roman Statutes, (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1996).
15 F. Iustinianus, as translated by C. F. Kolbert, The Digest of Roman Law: Theft, Rapine, Damage, and Insult (Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1979).
16 D. Nasmith, Outline of Roman history from Romulus to Justinian: (including translations of The twelve tables, The institutes of Gaius, and The institutes of Justinian) (London: Butterworth, 1890).
17 Ibid.
18 F. Iustinianus, as translated by C. F. Kolbert, The Digest of Roman Law: Theft, Rapine, Damage, and Insult (Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1979).
theRepublic,underpinningRomanlaw’sexpansion,adaptation,andeventualcodificationinthe Corpus Juris Civilis centuries later.
The Structure of the Legal System
The Role of Jurists and the Classical Period of Roman Law
The classical period of Roman law, spanning from the late Republic through the first two centuries of the Empire, marked the peakof Roman legal sophistication, largelydue to the contributions of jurists legal scholars and interpreters whose writings set enduring standards. Unlike magistrates or judges who directly enforced laws, jurists focused on interpretation, providing formal opinions (responsa) on legal questions.19 Their insights helped clarify ambiguities and established consistent principles, allowing the Roman legal system to adapt effectively to new and complex situations.
Bythe third centuryBCE, as legal mattersgrew increasinglyintricate,theroleofjuristsbecame essential. They worked closely with magistrates and litigants, drafting legal formulas and offering guidance that shaped court decisions. The jurists' influence was so significant that their interpretations often became de facto law, as theycraftedthe legal theoriesand classifications that underpinnedjudicial rulings.20 Jurists’expertisealso expandedthe legal frameworkbeyond ius civile and ius gentium, adding nuance to Roman jurisprudence and influencing laws that governed both citizens and non-citizens.
The writings of jurists like Gaius, Ulpian, and Paulus became fundamental during the classical period. These jurists' works, including treatises and commentaries, systematized Roman law and made it accessible for future generations. Unlike later codifications by Emperor Justinian, which reorganized Roman legal texts into a single collection, these early jurists provided independent perspectives that reveal the adaptability and intellectual rigor of classical Roman law.21
Emperor Justinian and the Corpus Juris Civilis
BythereignofEmperorJustinianI,theRomanEmpire’spolitical andcultural divisionrequired strategic efforts to maintain unity. Justinian aimed to solidify this unity and restore Rome's legacy by revitalizing its legal foundations. Recognizing the central role of law in connecting citizens across the diverse regions of his empire, he initiated a comprehensive legal project to codify centuries of Roman legal thought and imperial edicts.22 This monumental compilation, known as the Corpus Juris Civilis, servedasbothalegal andcultural unifier,preservingRomanidentityandauthoritywithintheByzantine Empire.
23
The Corpus Juris Civilis included the Digesta, which distilled the classical jurists’ interpretations on justice, providing continuity with Rome's legal past. The Codex presented a systematic arrangement of imperial laws, ensuring that legal principles were standardized across the empire.24 The Institutiones served as a teaching text, essential for educating future legal professionals and promoting a shared understanding of Roman law among students and jurists alike.25 Later, the Novellae updated this legal corpus with new legislation, reflecting Justinian’s own reforms.26
19 F. de Zulueta, The Institutes of Gaius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946).
20 B. Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975).
21 Ibid.
22 F. Iustinianus, as translated by C. F. Kolbert, The Digest of Roman Law: Theft, Rapine, Damage, and Insult (Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1979).
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 B. Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975).
26 F. Iustinianus, as translated by C. F. Kolbert, The Digest of Roman Law: Theft, Rapine, Damage, and Insult (Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1979).
Through this codification,Justinian’s empire couldproject a unified legal identity, emphasizing Roman traditions while providing a clear legal structure for both the Eastern and reclaimed Western territories. The Corpus Juris Civilis not only bridged Rome’s classical legal thought with Byzantine administration but also laid the groundwork for future European legal systems, cementing its legacy as a central achievement in the pursuit of justice in antiquity.
Influence on the Western World
The Western world has primarily seen two influential legal systems: Roman and English. Each evolved within empires led by ruling peoples. Roman law’s impact is largely due to Rome’s ancient dominance and lasting prestige. Similarly, English law spread globally, particularly to North America, alongside British colonial expansion.27 Roman law evolved over centuries, beginning with the early customs and traditions of the Roman Kingdom, through the Republic, and reachingits zenith during the Empire.
The lasting effects
Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis is often hailed as his most enduring legacy, profoundly influencingWestern legal traditions.28 Although it lay dormant for centuries after the fall of theWestern Roman Empire, a resurgence of interest in Roman law emerged in the eleventh century, centred at the University of Bologna.29 Scholars rediscovered and meticulously studied surviving manuscripts of Justinian’s codification, leading to a systematic revival and reproduction of Roman legal principles.
This revived Corpus Juris Civilis became the cornerstone of European legal education and practice, forming the backbone of what would become the civil law tradition in Western Europe.30 The influence extended across the globe, shaping the civil law systems of LatinAmerica and parts ofAfrica, and indirectly impacting English common law, which in turn influenced American law.31 Through its revival, Justinian’s work bridged ancient and modern legal systems, establishing principles that continue to inform legal frameworks worldwide.
Conclusion
Roman law today is often considered as more than just the laws of Roman society, rather the legal institutions which evolved under the Romans had an influence on the legislation of other civilisations long after the disappearance of the Roman Empire.
Roman law stands as one of the ancient world’s most sophisticated and enduring contributions to human civilization. Through its principles of natural law, equity, and codification, Roman jurisprudence developed into a model that transcended its own time, influencing legal systems worldwide.
Today, the study of Roman law not only reveals the ingenuity of ancient legal thought but also highlights the timeless quest for justice and fairness a pursuit that remains at the heart of modern legal systems. In unravelling the foundations of Roman law, we uncover the roots of legal thought and practice that continue to underpin the quest for justice in the contemporary world.
27 H. E. Yntema, “Roman Law and Its Influence on Western Civilization” (1949) 35(1) Cornell Law Review 77, at p.77.
28 D. Johnston, The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
29 Ibid
30 F. Mackeldey, Handbook of the Roman Law, (Philadelphia: T. & J.W Johnson,1883).
31 F. P. Walton, Historical Introduction to the Roman Law (Edinburgh: W. Green & Son, Limited, 2016).
The resurgence of Roman law during the MiddleAges, particularly through the rediscovery of Justinian’s compilations, secured its role as the foundation of the civil law tradition.32 It became a cornerstone for legal education and practice throughout Europe, extending its influence on Latin America, parts ofAfrica, and indirectly, even to systems shaped by common law, including in Ireland.33 Today, Roman law is more than an artifact of antiquity; it is a living legacy that continues to inform modern legal principles and inspire the pursuit of justice. Its enduring influence demonstrates that the quest for a just society, rooted in reason and fairness, remains as relevant now as it was in ancient Rome. Through understanding the foundations of Roman law, we gain insight into the timeless aspirations forequity, clarity, and societal order values that underpinthe legal systems and institutions of the contemporary world.
32 B. Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975).
33 Ibid.
Bibliography
B. Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975).
D. Johnston, The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
D. Nasmith, Outline of Roman history from Romulus to Justinian: (including translations of the twelve tables, The institutes of Gaius, and The institutes of Justinian) (London: Butterworth, 1890).
F. de Zulueta, The Institutes of Gaius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946).
F. Iustinianus, as translated by C. F. Kolbert, The Digest of Roman Law: Theft, Rapine, Damage, and Insult (Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd, 1979).
F. Mackeldey, Handbook of the Roman Law, (Philadelphia: T. & J.W Johnson,1883).
F. P. Walton, Historical Introduction to the Roman Law (Edinburgh: W. Green & Son, Limited, 2016).
H. E. Yntema, “Roman Law and Its Influence on Western Civilization” (1949) 35(1) Cornell Law Review 77, at p.77.
M. H. Crawford, Roman Statutes, (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1996).
