I wish to ask the Minister to respond to recent correspondence in the national media on proposed changes in the Office of the Chief Herald which suggests that this ancient office has been abolished as a result of a "turf war", to use the American parlance, which seems to have broken out between that office and the National Library. I refer specifically to a letter by Dr. Susan Hood of Portrush, County Antrim, to The Irish Times last week in which she referred to this development as “both surprising and shocking”. She pointed out that the office has become the focus for people throughout the world trying to trace their Irish roots or have their coats of arms confirmed in Ireland. Dr. Hood made the significant point that the Genealogical Office operates on behalf of citizens on both sides of the Border and thus transcends the political divisions created since Partition. The Minister in his well reasoned reply to Dr. Hood's letter indicated that he believes the Genealogical Office's interests are best served by placing the supervisory role, inclusive of the granting of coats of arms, clearly under the executive authority of the director of the National Library.
The origins of the Genealogical Office date back to 1552, long before the establishment of the National Library, which was founded in 1877, based on collections acquired by the Government from the Royal Dublin Society, the beginnings of which are also predated by the Chief Herald's Office. In 1552, King Edward VI formally introduced heraldry to this country by establishing the Office of the Ulster King of Arms, generally known as the Office of Arms. The first King of Arms and principal Herald of Ireland, Mr. Bartholomew Butler, was required by his terms of appointment to "ratify existing coats of arms and assign new ones to meritorious individuals".
In 1943, the Office of Arms was transferred from British to Irish administration and was then located in the Bedford Tower in Dublin Castle. It was renamed the Genealogical Office and was headed by a State official, the late and much respected Dr. Edward MacLysaght, whose contribution to reorganising the office cannot be overstated, as I am sure the Minister will agree. It is interesting to note that the original title of Ulster King of Arms was probably used because when the Irish office of arms was established by King Edward VI in Dublin in 1552, Ulster was not yet subdued by England, which is a rather strange irony in the context of the current relationship between Britain and Ireland. However, as Dr. Paisley might say, that was then and this is now.
Interestingly, in 1922, when all branches of the Civil Service came under the control of the new Irish Government, the Office of Arms was for some reason an exception — the Minister might be able to enlighten me on that as he is a student of history — and it continued to function under British control. On the death of Sir Neville Wilkinson, the last Ulster King of Arms, in 1940, no successor to the office was appointed by the Crown and the registrar, Mr. T.U. Sadlier, carried on in his capacity as Deputy. The first director of the National Library, Dr. R.J. Hayes, put in a claim to the Government in 1943 that if and when the Office of Arms was transferred, it should be attached to the National Library under the Department of Education. As no other Department of State showed any interest in the matter, the National Library was given jurisdiction almost by default.
It is interesting that no appointment was made for three years. In the current controversy, although I use the word advisedly, the Minister in his recent reply to Dr. Hood's letter stated that he has arranged as a priority for an appointment to fill the relevant vacancy in the Genealogical Office to facilitate the continuance of the important work being done now, as in the past, and that it is expected that this appointment will be made soon. Perhaps he will be able to tell us when that appointment will be made because I draw his attention to what happened in the interregnum between the death of Sir Neville Wilkinson in 1940 and the taking over of the Genealogical Office by the Irish Government in 1943.
With regard to Dr. MacLysaght's early days in the office following his appointment, suffice it to say that his reference in his diary to "cleaning up messes" is appropriate. His worst experience was what confronted him in the Office of Arms in April 1943. It seems that the registrar, Mr. Sadlier, seldom kept a copy of a letter, most of his official registers were months in arrears and he possessed only the most rudimentary ideas of account keeping. Dr. MacLysaght also said that there were no letters in the in-tray because Mr. Sadlier did not keep them. According to Dr. MacLysaght, he was also an unrepentant Unionist, having nothing but ascendancy contempt for the new Irish Government regime. However, the good doctor said that he liked the man and had some sympathy with him.
It seems that when Mr. Sadlier was offered the position in the Irish Civil Service during the changeover of the Administration in 1922 he refused and said he was not prepared to work under the Irish Government because of his predilection to Unionism. As the Office of Arms was still under British administration, the only Civil Service position he could find in the Republic — one must be grateful he wanted to stay in this country rather than leaving — was in the Office of the Ulster Herald.
He said the result of his refusal to work for the Irish Government was employment in a subordinate and badly paid post in the library of the Kings Inns. He had reason to believe that when he lost his job in the Ulster office on the transfer of powers by the British Government to the Irish Government in 1943, he would be given a similar job in the College of Arms in London. However, his appointment was never made because the printers of Stubbs Gazette were familiar with his name and the then Garter King of Arms — the equivalent of the Irish Genealogical Herald — was particular in such matters. Mr. Sadlier ended his life in penury.
On 1 April 1943 Dr. MacLysaght was appointed as the Irish Chief Herald under the jurisdiction of the National Library and immediately set to work on the vexed problem of the Irish chiefs. I am not sure if you, a Chathaoirligh, sought to become an Irish chief, but at the time you and I would not have had any problem doing so. It seems that anyone could choose to call himself the "Mac This" or the "O That". Such people, without much difficulty, could get themselves included in the list which appeared annually in Thom's Directory, Whitaker's Almanac, and elsewhere under the heading, “Ancient Irish Chieftains”. The situation verged on the ridiculous when a Mr. Phelan became known as O'Phelan Prince of the Decies and half a dozen other people were quasi-officially designated by titles to which they had no right. It was a fulltime job to sort them out and, according to Dr. MacLysaght, the sheep were eventually separated from the goats. We can rest easy in the knowledge that anyone who has been designated a chieftain of Ireland since 1943 lays some credible claim to the title.
Time does not allow me to relate other examples of the earlier difficulties faced by the new Chief Herald. However, I refer to Dr. MacLysaght's opinion of heraldry as it was practised during his time. He said it was a bogus operation. This does not apply to the official Office of Arms. Scotland, for example, has legal sanctions to enforce its decisions. Dr. MacLysaght was referring to what he called commercial heraldry where some unscrupulous firms — there are honourable exceptions as most firms are responsible — thought nothing of giving a customer, for whose name no arms was recorded, an illustration of one which sounded something like it. For example, if a Mr. Brain visited one of these unscrupulous people he might get a coat of arms for O'Brien and so on.
Even when one of the required names is available, it is not pointed out that, apart from the sept arms — the original family arms — the arms only belong to the descendants of the person or the persons named in the grant or confirmation. The Cathaoirleach would need to prove a direct line from the family which originally got the Naughten coat of arms in 1552. I am sure he would have no difficulty doing so, as I and the Minister would have no difficulty proving our lineage.
This does not apply to the important work of the Genealogical Office. I would be glad if the Minister could assure me that the unique character and functions of the office will be explicitly provided for in statute to preserve and safeguard in the long term the important facets of Irish life represented by it. Earlier I referred to Scotland having legal sanctions to enforce its decisions, does the Minister intend to give the same legal effect to the Office of the Chief Herald and, if so, what are his proposals in that regard? The purpose of this exercise was to put on record the importance of this office, its unique history, its context in our life and its tourism value.
