The British Ministry of Information, as set up in the early days of the second World War, was often regarded with suspicion in the 26 counties (then referred to as "Eire") as well as in Britain. But its handling of Irish neutrality did not always follow Prime Minister Winston Churchill's line. The Ministry initially proved a graveyard for Ministers seeking to reconcile the aims of the press (to obtain as much information as possible) with those of the military (to give as little as possible).
Duff Cooper was Minister of Information between 1940 and 1941, and as an erudite and cultured man, might have been thought ideally suited to the job.
However, his scheme to monitor public opinion through the use of anonymous observers was discovered by the Daily Mirror. The Minister was duly vilified over the "Cooper's Snoopers" episode. It was Cooper who described the Ministry as being staffed by too many brilliant amateurs and not enough civil servants.
His successor was Brendan Bracken from Templemore, the son of a Fenian activist. He had arrived in London via Australia and became a successful newspaper publisher. After winning the parliamentary seat for Paddington, which even then had a substantial Irish population, he rose in the Conservative Party through an association with Churchill so close it led to allegations that Bracken was his illegitimate son.
It is not clear whether it was his policy to protect Eire's reputation over neutrality (he was usually in line with Churchill), but certainly there were others at the Ministry who would have supported this policy. The poet John Betjeman had been a regular visitor, knew members of several prominent Anglo-Irish families, and was an Irish speaker.
After working for the Films Division at the Ministry, Betjeman became the press attache at the Legation in Dublin in 1941 - my copy of his Letters boasts a photograph of him, his wife, and R.M. Smyllie (then editor of this newspaper) outside the Palace Bar in Fleet Street. He forwarded reports to the Ministry recommending that, because the interests of the two countries were so linked, it would be counter-productive to mount any systematic propaganda campaign. The papers of Colonel Dan Bryan (head of Irish military intelligence at the time) at UCD show that he was not regarded as a threat by the Irish Intelligence community.
Back at the Ministry, Betjeman collaborated with Nicholas Mansergh, another Tipperary man, who was to become the eminent constitutional historian and Master of St John's College, Cambridge. Mansergh, whose son Martin is special adviser to the Taoiseach on Northern Ireland, published Britain and Ireland in London in 1942. He hoped to produce an impartial account of Anglo-Irish history for British people of good will who might otherwise have been "frightened off the Irish Question by its apparent complexity". He felt that ignorance of the subject would leave public opinion dangerously dependent on an ill-informed press. The book concluded by examining neutrality in its historical context, hoping that even differences over such a fundamental issue could be resolved. It is an interesting coincidence that both father and son have been involved in endeavouring to improve Anglo-Irish relations.
In particularly difficult periods in Anglo-Irish relations during the Emergency, Betjeman and Nicholas Mansergh arranged for letters from the Dublin-based journalist Pamela Hinkson to be published in the London Times. These explained matters relating to the heavy censorship of the Irish press - that many people were unaware of German atrocities, and might have been more sympathetic to the Allies if they had been. Other activities were arranged, including a series of Irish speaking engagements by the Tablet's editor Christopher Hollis, aimed at promoting the Allies as defenders of Christianity. Hollis also reported back on meetings with such senior figures as de Valera, Joseph Walshe and Archbishop McQuaid.
In its relations with the press, the Ministry urged restraint in the coverage of Irish topics, as the hope persisted until almost the end of the war that de Valera could be persuaded to abandon neutrality. In May 1940, the forerunner of the Sunday Mirror, the Sunday Pictorial, claimed that Eire had been paid £50,000,000 sterling to lease back the Treaty Ports returned in 1938.
John Dulanty, the High Commissioner in London, immediately protested against this spurious claim, and the chief press censor, Admiral Thomson, intervened on his behalf. Thomson issued letters to prominent editors, publishers and journalists, but refrained from issuing banning orders, D-Notices, because the damage had already been done.
On another occasion, Walter Crozier, the editor of the Manchester Guardian, was asked by Dulanty if a number of recent articles hostile to Irish neutrality was sponsored by the Ministry. Both Crozier and his managing editor were unaware of any such action by any branch of government.
There were hostile stories and cartoons about the neutrality issue, though it appears they chiefly derived from the speeches of Churchill. His "Parliamentary Review of the War" of November 1940 was printed almost verbatim without comment in the London Times, as was then the practice for major speeches.
In turn, his remarks critical of Irish neutrality as a threat to British security and supplies were expanded on by leader writers, columnists and cartoonists, promoting higher public awareness of Churchill's personal views in the tabloids. Previously, neutrality had been seen as an amiable eccentricity, and readers were reminded that the fundamental ties between the two countries still remained intact. The contribution of Irish volunteers in the armed services and in industry was acknowledged, the Ministry even producing a booklet on the subject. The tone of the November 1940 speech may have resulted from a sense of relief at having recently obtained American naval assistance and significant intelligence breakthroughs.
Subsequent press articles were noticeably more critical of the Irish policy, at best regarding it as rash in view of the fate of other neutral countries. A similar process occurred in May 1945, shortly after de Valera's visit to the German minister to express, as diplomatic protocol required, his condolences on the death of Hitler. On this occasion Churchill, in a radio broadcast, accused de Valera of frolicking to his heart's content in Dublin with the German and Japanese ambassadors. This provoked the famous response from de Valera reminding listeners of the malign influence of Britain over the centuries.
Again, the broadcast without commentary or explanation to the public, and its direct reporting in the press, caused the controversy to escalate beyond the level to which it would otherwise have risen. The initial Times report of de Valera's visit to the German minister, and that of the flying of national flags at halfmast in Lisbon on Hitler's death, were both equally brief. However, it was the Irish diplomatic gesture which caused controversy in the British press. Even at this stage another letter appeared in the Times from Pamela Hinkson, explaining that the visit did not imply a lack of support for the Allies.
It is intriguing to speculate on the influence of British press reporting of Anglo-Irish relations on those who were to direct policy in subsequent years.
Kevin Chappell is completing a PhD on the press treatment of Anglo-Irish affairs 1930-1995 at Aberdeen University
