We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
The Irish Race Conference met in Paris at the end of January 1922 to initiate a new world organisation that would link the people of Ireland with their cousins around the globe. The gathering of delegates attracted comment wherever the Irish had settled, and even the Belfast Telegraph noted its opening ceremonies. The South African Irish newspaper, The Republic, heralded the conference as a ‘family reunion on a world wide scale’, but, like many family gatherings, disagreement was to follow in its wake. The idea of a conference was first mooted in February 1921 by the Irish Republican Association of South Africa (I.R.A.S.A.), to support the efforts then being made to win international recognition for an independent Irish republic. However, the I.R.A.S.A. did not see its work stopping there, envisaging the creation of a worldwide organisation that would link the Irish overseas with their compatriots at home. Over the following months the idea was developed into plans for an Irish International that would pursue a programme of social, cultural and economic objectives in Ireland and abroad. As The Republic explained,
It is not the Ireland of four millions that we are thinking of now, nor even merely the potential Ireland of ten or fifteen millions. We are thinking also of the Greater Ireland, the Magna Hibernia across the seas, the millions of Irish people throughout the world. Though these Irish are now citizens of their adopted lands, they must not be, and they are not, wholly lost to Ireland. They also are to share in the great destiny of their motherland.
Just how such wide-ranging aims were to be realised would prove a matter of dissent among delegates when they assembled twelve months later in Paris. But in February 1921 the proposal inspired only enthusiasm and hope for the future.
The idea of the conference was a product of the belief prevalent at the time that the Irish had ‘yet to give to the world the best which is in them’. The official programme for the new race organisation captured this sentiment, declaring the organisers’ belief that ‘Ireland has much to give to the world’. It was widely expected that this potential would be realised once the Irish were free to govern themselves. It is thus ironic that it was ultimately over the relationship between the new Irish government and the overseas Irish that the conference, and all its worthy ambitions, would founder.
1 Belfast Telegraph, 21 Jan. 1922.
2 The Republic, 12 Mar. 1921.
3 Russell, George, The inner and the outer Ireland (London, 1921), p. 12Google Scholar.
4 Fine Gaedheal, Jan. 1922 (copy in N.L.I., MS 27676 (1)).
5 For a brief account of events see Keogh, Dermot, ‘The treaty split and the Paris Irish Race Convention, 1922’ in Études Irlandaises, no. 12 (Dec. 1987), pp 165-70CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A more detailed account can be found in Daniel, T. K., ‘The scholars and the saboteurs: the wrecking of a South African Irish scheme, Paris 1922’ in South African-Irish Studies, no. 1 (1991), pp 162-75Google Scholar. Both versions contain a number of inaccuracies.
6 De Valera to Art O’Brien, 13 May 1921 (N.L.I., MS 8428).
7 Freeman’s Journal, 26 Jan. 1922.
8 Irish Independent, 26 Jan. 1922.
9 Daniel erroneously states that Hayes ‘played a flying visit to the opening session’ (‘The scholars & the saboteurs’, p. 165), whereas he played a controversial role in events.
10 Freeman’s Journal, 26 Jan. 1922.
11 Fine Gaedheal minutes, p. 4 (N.A.I., DFA 76 (4)).
12 Michael MacWhite report, Jan. 1922 (MacWhite papers, in family possession).
13 Brennan, Robert, Allegiance (Dublin, 1953), p. 335Google Scholar.
14 Mac-White to Griffith, 8 Jan. 1922 (MacWhite papers).
15 MacWhite to Gavan Duffy, 11 Jan. 1922 (ibid.).
16 Kathleen Hughes to Robert Brennan, [Nov. 1921] (N.A.I., DFA 75).
17 Michael MacWhite report, Jan. 1922 (MacWhite papers).
18 [Provisional Government], General Report on the Race Conference (N.A.I., DFA 77 (3)).
19 Irish Independent, 29 Jan. 1922.
20 Minutes of Fine Gaedheal committee meeting, 30 Jan. 1922 (N.A.I., DFA 74 (4)).
21 Eoin MacNeill, preliminary report, 3 Feb. 1922 (ibid., DFA 73 (3)).
22 Joseph Walshe to overseas organisations, 25 Feb. 1922 (ibid., box 27).
23 Report of Dáil committee of inquiry, 26 Apr. 1922 (ibid., DFA 77 (2)).
24 Gavan Duffy to Benjamin Farrington, 16 June 1922 (N.A.I., DE5/29).
25 MacWhite to Gavan Duffy, 2 Feb. 1922 (MacWhite papers).
26 MacWhite subsequently claimed that a meeting had been offered by Thomas on the spur of the moment, thereby preventing any consultation with Dublin.
27 Farrington to de Valera, 31 Jan. 1922 (N.A.I., DE2/206/192 (3)).
28 The Republic, 8 Oct. 1921.
29 Farrington to Col. Maurice Moore, 9 Sept.1921 (N.A.I., DFA 85 (1)).
30 Eugene Scallon to _____, 6 Oct. 1921 (ibid.).
31 Irish Independent, 28 Jan. 1922.
32 Gavan Duffy to Cardinal Gasparri, 30 June 1921 (N.L.I., MS 10780).
33 Griffith, Arthur, The ‘Sinn Fein’policy (Dublin, 1905), p. 14Google Scholar.
34 Dáil Eireann rep., 1921-2, p. 214 (2 Mar. 1922).
35 Robert Brennan to de Valera, 15 Mar. 1934 (U.C.D.A., de Valera papers, 1931/1).
36 William Macauley to Joseph Walshe, 29 May 1929 (N.A.I., DFA EA2/225).
37 Both Keogh (‘The treaty split & the Paris Irish Race Convention’, pp 165-6) and Daniel (‘The scholars & the saboteurs’, p. 173) make this point.
38 Kiernan, T. J., ‘On representing Ireland abroad’ in Administration, ii, no. 3 (autumn 1954), p. 31Google Scholar.
