Kieran’s Our City, Our Town Article,

Cork Independent, 19 January 2023

Recasting Cork: A Vision for Refuse

Cork Corporation records from one hundred years contain very detailed reports on a myriad of topics. One report, which was published in January 1923 in the Cork Examiner, was a report on street scavenging and cleaning.

The report outlines that the system for refuse collection for the City of Cork was antiquated and had consequently given rise to many complaints by the citizens. The Corporation’s Public Works Committee wished to introduce a reorganisation of the dumping of refuse, mud and manure and to move towards a better efficient and more economic service.

There was difficulty to obtain satisfactory dumping grounds for accumulated refuse. The procurable sites in the city’s suburbs were often situated at too great a distance, while the passages leading to some of these grounds were steep and ill-kept. The contents of each cart were on average more than about 12 cwts in weight.

The collection and removal of the street mud, together with the removal of the street manure, was under the control of the Public Works Committee. The treatment of the domestic scavenging was placed under the jurisdiction of the Public Health Committee. Trade scavenging or refuse produced by traders was meant to be carried out by the inhabitants of the various shops and houses, but for the most part was directed to be carried out by the Public Works Committee. This Committee often struggled to cope with the amount of trade refuse and hence the overall result was disorganised.

The report recommended that there should be in the future one combined central committee of public works and public health, which would he held responsible for the competency of the whole refuse work programme. In addition the report proposed that the traders should pay a cost towards an efficient facility; “By this means it will be found that a systematic collection of paper, boxes, etc., can be satisfactorily dealt with, and the present exposure of such rubbish which, flies about the streets in windy weather obviated to the benefit and health of the citizens”.

 The street cleansing staff worked across six defined geographical areas of the city with 40 men employed across winter, 41 men during the summer with 17 cart carriers in the winter and 14 cart carriers in the summer. Each of the areas included a ganger.

The report outlined that there was a certain number of older men who were employed and who had devoted years of work in the service of the Corporation. However, by reason of their ages they were unable to carry out a full day’s work. The report suggested that such men should be distributed amongst the younger men in the various areas, so as to support the spread of the heavier work across more able and younger staff members.

The lane-cleaning staff across five city areas comprised 25 men who swept the lanes the lanes of the city and collected the street manure. Eleven cart carriers assisted them in the taking away of what these latter staff collected. They were all under the direction of one ganger in each area.

The total number of loads of mud removed per month from the city’s divisional work area comprised 15,000 loads at 12 cwts, which came to 9,000 tons per annum. It was estimated that 50-60 tons of refuse excluding the mud were daily collected for dumping across the city’s suburbs, historically in a controlled way.

The report suggested that dumping barges could be placed upon the two branches of the River Lee and the city could be divided into suitable sections served by the necessary men and carriers to collect and convoy the material to the barges. The barges when filled could then be possibly carried down the river to one overall controlled tipping ground, which was possibly exist between Tivoli and Dunkettle, which at that time were going . The proposal noted: “If we assume that we must provide for the daily removal of 60 tons, and that such removal necessitates two sites on the North river and two sites on the South river, the capacity of each barge would be 14-15 tons, or even, perhaps, 20 tons, which would only entail a small vessel”.

If the barge suggestion was to be entertained, the report highlighted that two important points needed to be resolved – (1) the dust, which would arise when unloading into the barges, and (2) the rise and fall of the tide during the loading periods within the city’s quaysides. It would be necessary to furnish the barges with proper covers and convey the refuse from the carts into the barges through “covered shoots, constructed telescopically. in order to automatically meet the rise and fall of the tide, which would be of daily occurrence”.

The report detailed that any reasonable capital outlay necessary to introduce a successful method of dumping mud at a controlled space would cost roughly £17,000. In explaining the report, Mr Joseph F Delaney, City Engineer, said that the whole point in the scheme was the changing of the extent system of dumping; “where at present, loads were carried to far away places on the outskirts of the city, it was proposed to remove them to quayside stations, and thence have them convoyed down the river in barges to Tivoli, or some other suitable dumping ground”.

The proposed central dump scheme was debated amongst Corporation Council members and sites at Tivoli and Dunkettle were visited. Nothing came out of the proposals immediately though, but the idea was indirectly green lit that the city should have a controlled dumping ground for all refuse, manure and mud collected. In 1934, one was established adjacent the Carrigrohane Road, which remained open until 1975, until the former landfill at Kinsale Road replaced it.

Caption:

1185a. Slum conditions in Kelly Street, Cork, formerly off Shandon Street c.1900 (source: Cork Public Museum).

Kieran’s Our City, Our Town Article,

Cork Independent, 12 January 2023

Recasting Cork: Visions for Trade and Commerce

In the first week of January 1923, a monthly meeting of the executive of Cork Chamber of Commerce convened. Chaired by Chamber President John Callaghan Foley, John Gamon, American Consul in Cobh, and Mr A Canavan, representative of the United States Lines, Cobh, were also in attendance. The President, in welcoming the representatives of the United States, noted that Ireland owed much to the States for the relief afforded the country not only since the Act of Union, 1800, but especially during the Irish War of Independence. He wished for a formal invitation be issued on behalf of the Irish chambers of commerce to the United States welcoming a delegation of American industrialists and commercial men to Ireland.  

Mr Canavan, on taking the floor, stated that very little was known of the industrial possibilities of Ireland in foreign countries and stated that if Ireland had an efficient publicity scheme in place, its natural resources would become more commercially important. He asserted: “At present foreigners merely thought of lreland as a sort of Emerald Isle where kings were always at cross-purposes… this country was on the eve of a big industrial revival, to meet the necessities of which, it was necessary to bring foreign representatives of commerce in close touch with industrial possibilities in this country”.

Mr Canavan detailed that the second International Meeting of the Chambers of Commerce was being held in Rome and 300 representatives of the States were expected to attend the meeting and had an itinerary marked out across other European countries but it did not include Ireland. He was of the opinion that if proper communication steps were taken, a number of the United States delegates could modify their arrangements as to include Ireland in the tour.

Mr Gamon read a few extracts from an official document setting out the business arrangements of the International Conference. He described that it was a function that had a distinctly international bearing on the world’s trade and commerce; “Ireland would be the loser by not taking part in the Conference as big problems dealing with international trade would be fully discussed”.

John Callaghan Foley, President, detailed that up to a few years ago Ireland’s trade and commerce began and ended with England – but in their more contemporary years the question of getting into contact with foreign countries was taken up by the Chamber. As a result, direct cargo and passenger services were brought into contact with the port of Cork from foreign ports like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Brest, Le Havre and Hamburg.

The Chamber was in constant touch with the Irish Consul’s residence at New York, Paris, Brussels and Genoa and was successful in securing much direct business for Irish firms. Since the Moore-McCormack Line had begun to operate, 50,000 tons of merchandise had been carried direct from American ports to Cork, and a freight saving of up to £30,000 had been affected by the direct shipping. Brokerage through England, Liverpool harbour dues, demurrage, etc., had in the past added much to the cost of marketing foreign produce in Ireland.

John Callaghan Foley detailed that the Chamber, in spite of almost insuperable difficulties, had backed this direct service with American ports; “It appeared at present that the whole industrial and commercial fabric of this little island had broken down. It was not so, however, as even up to the close of last year Ireland imported £200,000,000 of foreign goods annually. In view of this figure, I am of the opinion that it would be advisable for this Chamber to get into touch with all other Irish chambers for the purpose of cooperating in inviting United States trade delegations to this country”.

Chamber member Mr Patrick Crowley maintained that the time was opportune, and that combined steps should be taken to issue a formal invitation to an American trade delegation. Referring to the state of the country he was of opinion that Ireland looked much worse through Irish eyes than through foreign ones; “Considering the fact that there was trouble everywhere in all countries political, economic social and moral, Ireland is only experiencing its share of an economic and political unrest which had permeated the peoples of all countries”. He regarded it as a big surprise that Ireland was left out of the itinerary drawn up for the American meeting delegates to Europe. He personally knew as a director of the Irish International Trading Corporation (Cork), Ltd, that US firms were very keen on keeping up business with Irish enterprises.

John Callaghan Foley concluded that in view of the fact that Messrs Henry Ford and Son had come to Cork and were at present employing 2,000 men at their Cork works, that other American firms ought to be quick in realising the facilities offered along the 14 miles stretch from Cork to Cobh. Suitable sites for large factories were available. Mr Canavan agreed with the ideas that the development of Cork Harbour offered great advantages. He stated it was his opinion that Cork, so far as natural advantages were concerned, ranked first among Atlantic ports. He had hoped that liners of 200-foot length would soon visit Cork and place the harbour as part of their routes.

Caption:

1184a. Queenstown, now Cobh, c.1920 (picture: Cork Public Museum).

Kieran’s Our City, Our Town Article,

Cork Independent, 22 December 2022

Journeys to an Irish Free State: Recasting the Southern Capital

Hidden amongst the multitude of news pieces in December 1922 in the Cork Examiner is an insightful, ambitious and detailed write-up on a lecture on town planning by Cork Corporation’s Joseph Delaney to Cork Chamber of Commerce. The main aim of the talk was the thinking through of the “future improvement and the better shaping of the city”.

It was perhaps serendipitous that the talk was almost published on the second anniversary of the Burning of Cork and also within days of the Irish Free State being formed – but all of the thoughts within the talk were to define the city’s development across the decades of the 1920s and 1930s and still echo somewhat in the current day.

Originally published in the Cork Examiner on 18 December 1922 (p.8), the article was written up in pamphlet form and can be viewed in the National Library, Dublin. In the report Joseph stresses that the urgent duty of Cork was to create a plan of city improvement and extension, develop it in gradual stages and put available financial resources to pursue such ideals, that coupled with a re-generating policy to modernise it.

According to Joseph, Cork was badly in need of the following public conveniences, utilities, and improvements. He lists a 26 point priority list of which housing and slum clearance are at the top of. He advocated for 2,500 houses on well-chosen sites, with roads, sewers, water supply, and light. What he described as the city’s “house congested jungles” should be cleared, narrow streets should be widened and house density should be reduced where there was excessive congestion.

Joseph called for the acquisition of derelict sites, which he called “form a chequer-board” on the map of the city. His vision was to lay them out as open spaces and recreation grounds – that coupled with at least two formal parks – one for the northern and one for the southern district of the city. He also envisaged a city stadium for “general sports, athletics, hors and agricultural shows, public competitions, galas, band promenades etc”. He called for new main drainage and sewage disposal schemes on “modern principles” of sanitary engineering be constructed.

  An urban mobility plan was in Joseph’s top ten of priorities. He urged for a new and improved tram service and a pavement for 65 miles of roads and streets in a “most modern road surface treatment”, a new and improved tram service, complete with latest methods of public lighting. Public conveniences such as toilets, a new well equipped abattoir, and a new suitable cattle market, a new central fire station, a new city hall, and new market spaces for meat, provisions, vegetables and fish.

Joseph Delaney’s back story reveals a learned man. Arriving to Cork Corporation in 1903, Joseph amassed nineteen years’ experience within the organisation. Joseph was also interested in Irish industrial and language movements, in the country’s national well-being, its educational advancement and in economic reform.

W T Pike in his Contemporary biographies’, published in Cork and County Cork in the Twentieth Century by Richard J Hodges in 1911 reveals that Joseph (1872-1942) was educated at St Vincent’s College, Castleknock, Dublin. Joseph trained as engineer and architect by indentured pupilage under well-known Dublin architect Walter Glynn Doolin. Joseph became a certified surveyor under the London Metropolitan Building Act, combined with private study in the engineering courses of the Institution of Civil Engineers, and of the Institute of Municipal and County Engineers.

Joseph served on the temporary Civil Staff of the Royal Engineers and was Assistant City Architect in Dublin, for five years. In 1903, he was then appointed City Engineer of Cork. On taking up the Cork post he immediately set about improving the water supply system and reducing the abnormally high rate of water wastage in the city.

However, one of the many legacies Joseph left Cork City came from a visit to the US on an inquiry into American methods of municipal engineering and architectural practice, and an inspection of public works of civic utility. There he learned about the remodelling of American towns and cities to meet the modern requirements of their everyday life and that this was a common feature of civic pride in America. 

In a spring 1921 report penned by Joseph (available in the City Library), Joseph outlines in a few pages the need for Cork to have a town plan noting that “town planning should be considered advantageous in Cork, with a view to the future improvement and better shaping of the city”. He called for this work to be investigated by specially appointed commissioners, consisting of prominent citizens and commercial and professional life, together with representatives of municipal councils.

Planning ahead was crucial and Joseph argued; “The schemes produced, and in many cases accomplished, have resulted in the complete re-casting of the plans of cities, with consequent improved public convenience, and enhanced amenity of environment”.

At a conference of the principal citizens led by Joseph, and held at the Cork School of Art, in March 1922, the Cork Town Planning Association was formed, and subsequently well-known architects Professor Patrick Abercrombie, and Sydney Kelly were invited and agreed to act as special advisors to the Association. The Association’s representative Executive Committee, which was comprised of a small committee of technical experts, were asked to prepare the data and suggest features for a town planning scheme.

Unfortunately, Joseph resigned in 1924 from Cork Corporation because of illness brought about by pressure of the reconstruction work on St Patrick’s Street. Joseph is said to have retired from Cork to Clonmel. From circa 1926 until 1936 he kept an office at 97, St Stephen’s Green, Dublin. He died at Clonmel in 1942.

Celebrating Cork (2022, Amberley Publishing) by Kieran McCarthy is now available is now available in any good bookshop.

Happy Christmas to all readers of this column.

Missed one of the 50 other columns this year, check out the indices at Kieran’s heritage website, www.corkheritage.ie

Caption:

1118a. Joseph F Delany, City Engineer, c.1911 in W.T. Pike’s “Contemporary Biographies”, published in Cork and County Cork in the Twentieth Century (1911) by Richard J. Hodges.

Kieran’s Our City, Our Town Article,

Cork Independent, 14 April 2022

Journeys to a Free State: A Civil War Looms

By mid-April 1922, tensions between the pro and anti-Treaty sides intensified further. Words such as “civil war” began to creep into speeches of the anti-Treaty side. The first acts of disobedience of Irish Free State law also occurred. This was the beginning of the Irish Civil War. On 14 April 1922, about 200 anti-Treaty IRA militants, with Rory O’Connor as their spokesman, occupied the Four Courts in Dublin.

From 1919 to 1921, Dublin based Rory O’Connor was Director of Engineering of the IRA. On 26 March 1922, Rory was one of the anti-Treaty officers of the IRA that hosted a convention in Dublin, in which they rejected the Treaty and renounced the power of Dáil Éireann. However, they were willing to discuss an approach forward.

The convention met again on 9 April. This time they set up a new army constitution and put the army under a newly elected executive of sixteen, that would select an army council and headquarters staff. Rory was one of the sixteen and within five days of the new constitution, the Four Courts were seized. They also took other smaller buildings in Dublin deemed as being connected with the former British administration, such as the Ballast Office and the Freemason’s Hall. The main aim was to incite British troops, who had not departed the county yet, into confronting them. There was a hope that the war with Britain would restart and galvanise the pro and anti-treaty sides together with a common purpose.

As described by the Cork Examiner, small crowds of curious onlookers initially gathered over the weekend of 15 and 16 April in the neighbourhood and beguiled their time inspecting the sandbag defences and timber barricades in the windows and at the entrances of the Four Courts. In several of the windows overlooking the quays loopholes had been made by smashing the glass, and the apertures were partly filled by stacks of books. A stand-off began, which was not resolved until the shelling of the building by Irish Free State Troops began on 28 June. Two days later a large explosion destroyed the building, leading to the surrender of the garrison.

On Sunday 16 April, in a speech delivered by Cork TD Mary MacSwiney at the Mountain Chapel (Ballinhassig) she declared that the people of Ireland could not go into the British Empire and to do so would be a disgrace to every man who ever died for Ireland. The audience was composed of the congregation that attended the 10.30am Mass. Leaflets were distributed at the church gate, recalling the events of 1916, and declaring that “the Republic lived on and was in 1918 constitutionally established by the free vote of the Irish people, and was maintained by the IRA in spite of all the forces England could put in the field”. The pamphlet continued: “Easter Week is with us again. We now celebrate the sixth anniversary of the proclamation of the Republic, but to-day you are asked to disestablish the Republic; to take, an oath of allegiance to England’s King and to come into the British Empire”. Finally, the pamphlet asked: “Will you do it?” and concluded with the admonition: “Remember 1916”.

Miss MacSwiney, who had a cordial reception, said that in December 1921, two weeks before, the Treaty was signed, she spoke in the village of Ballinhassig. She noted then what she believed that not one single Irishman would accept compromise, and that Ireland’s honour was safe in the hands of the delegates who went to London. She then believed in them. She felt that they went to London to try to find a way to peace with honour, but not to give away the Republic of Ireland that the men of Easter Week died to establish. She deemed that those men gave away the Republic and that they had told the people that they got the last ounce that England would give, and that the alternative was “immediate and terrible war”. Mary advocated that Britain was fighting a war in Egypt and in India, and that they had no money to follow through on the war element.

Referencing Irish patriots of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Mary commented on what they stood for; “If we allow Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith and the rest of the men who were trying to turn down the Republic to establish a government in this country they would have to imprison, and perhaps to torture and to kill the men and women who stood where Tone and Mitchell and Davis and the men of 1916 stood, for these would not go into the British Empire with their heads or their hands up. They were going to remain citizens of the Irish Republic, and they would not allow that to be turned down except over their dead bodies”.

Mary wished to advise Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith to say to British Prime Minister Lloyd George: “We will not have civil war in our country. We believe that your Treaty is good, and we might have worked it, but it is not worth civil war, and we won’t risk that. That was what honourable men would say, for there could be no peace which included a Governor-General in this country and an oath of allegiance to an English king.

Mary appealed to the people to stand true to the Republic for which so many great men had died. They had only to stand true for a little while longer, and they would win. Concluding she noted: “As sure as England tried to impose on them a Governor-General or an oath of allegiance the Irish would stand against it. Where England had interests they would destroy them. They would fight her in England, fight her in Ireland, and fight her all the world over until she came to terms with the Irish Republic”.

Caption:

1146a. Mary MacSwiney TD, 1921 (Source: Houses of the Oireachtas Archive).