The Political Significance of the Coinage of the Irish Free

State

SUMMARY

This article examines the political context of the new Irish coinage that was introduced in 1928. It attempts to

illustrate how the coins of the Irish Free State were products of the political circumstances of their time. The

article also analyses the political negotiations concerning the future of the large quantity of British coins that

remained in circulation in the Irish Free State. The conclusion will argue that the Irish coins issued in 1928

were of considerable political importance as symbols of national identity visible to the general public on a

daily basis. Symbols of this nature were of particular significance to the Irish Free State because its status as

a sovereign state was open to dispute in the 1920s and 1930s. The Anglo Irish Treaty of 1921 made it clear

that the Irish Free State was a Dominion of the British Empire. This article will argue that the political

background to the introduction of the new Irish coins reflect wider controversies that dominated Irish politics

and external relations in the years between the two world wars.

Main Text: 13,065 words.

Key Words: Coinage, Irish Free State, Political, Dominion, Religion, Irish Language.

1

THE NEW IRISH COINAGE

The ressurection of Irish coinage in the 1920s announced the arrival of the Irish Free State

to the world. No distinct Irish coinage had been minted for over a hundred years. The last

official Irish coins had been produced in 1822 and depicted portraits of King George IV on

one side and a crowned harp on the other. The coming into force of the Act of Union in

1801 and the merging of the British and Irish Exchequers in 1817 sounded the death knell

for a separate Irish coinage. In 1826 a proclamation came into effect that assimilated the

silver and copper coinages of Great Britain and Ireland.1 No official Irish coins were

minted for a hundred years after this date.

The long absence of circulating Irish coins finally came to an end when a new series

was issued in 1928. However, the harp on the twentieth century coins was not

accompanied by a crown and the current monarch, King George V, was nowhere to be

seen. Indeed, at first glance the coinage of the Irish Free State seemed to be a complete

break from the coinage of the British Empire. Emblems of the monarchy that symbolised

Imperial unity were excluded. The inscriptions on the coins were entirely in the Irish

language with no concession to English or even Latin. The entire series was made up of

depictions of animals in place of the heraldry that dominated the coinage of the United

Kingdom and the British Empire.

These features were not accidental. Ernest Blythe, the minister for finance, provided

a series of instructions for the ‘committee on coinage designs’ responsible for choosing

designs for first new Irish coins in over a century.2 The most important instruction

provided by Blythe was that the effigies of living persons should not appear on the coins.3

This was and remains an emblematic feature of the coinage of a republic, such as the

United States of America. Blythe also stipulated that most, if not all, of the coins should

have the harp on the obverse side that would normally have contained the King’s portrait.4

The coins that were finally issued in 1928 were intended to be unambiguous in declaring a

2

distinct Irish identity and in announcing the arrival of a new sovereign state to the

community of nations.

The need to stress the sovereign status of the Irish Free State on the new coins was

intensified by the fact that this status was far from clear in the 1920s. Although the

territory of the Irish Free State had seceded from the United Kingdom it remained an

integral part of the British Empire. This was apparent in the opening provisions of the

Treaty signed by British and Irish delegations in London. Articles 1 and 2 of the 1921

Treaty made it clear that the Irish Free State would remain within the British Empire and

enjoy the same constitutional status as the self-governing Dominions.5 In 1921 the

Dominions included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland.

Although the Dominions had made great strides during the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries in the direction of becoming fully sovereign states it remained unclear

whether they had actually achieved this status in the 1920s. Significant limitations on their

autonomy remained in place.6 A detailed study undertaken in 1929 that directly considered

the question as to whether the Dominions constituted sovereign states was answered in the

negative.7

Dominion status lay at the foundations of the settlement inherent in the 1921 Treaty.

Yet even staunch supporters of the Treaty in Ireland had real difficulty with accepting the

idea that their new state was actually a Dominion. An innate rejection of the concept of an

‘Irish Dominion’ led Colonel Maurice Moore to declare to the Seanad (the Irish Senate) in

1931 that ‘Ireland is not a Dominion. The Treaty stated that Ireland had the status of a

Dominion, but it does not state that we are a Dominion’.8 Irish commentators insisted that

their state was autochthonous and represented the revival of an ancient European nation

that could not in any way be compared to the daughters of ‘mother Britannia’ in the new

world.9 The struggle concerning the identity of the infant Irish State continued until the

adoption of a new Irish Constitution under the guidance of Eamon de Valera in 1937. The

new Constitution took great pains to separate the status of Ireland from the Dominions.10

The final links would not be severed until 1949 with the declaration of a republic and a

formal withdrawal from the Commonwealth.11

3

The impact of the Treaty settlement on the provisions of the 1922 Constitution could

not be denied in the early years of the state. Historical accounts concerning the struggle

over the identity of the Irish Free State in the inter-war years tend to focus on the

controversial parliamentary oath and other divisive provisons of the 1921 Treaty and 1922

Constitition. Yet it is important not to underestimate the importance of non-legal symbols

in asserting the identity of the Irish Free State. Although the act of painting the postboxes

green is often presented as a symbol of frivolous and superficial change it must be

admitted that this development was far more visible to members of the public in their

everyday lives than complex issues of constitutional law. The significance of accessible

symbols of separate identity, of which coinage is but one example, should not be under-

estimated. For example, W.B. Yeats referred to stamps and coins as ‘silent ambassadors of

national taste’.12 The founders of the Irish Free State were aware of these realities and were

determined that these popular symbols would be seen to diverge from the practice followed

in other Dominions.

4

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COINS AND OTHER STATE SYMBOLS

This article examines the political background and repercussions of the introduction of the

new Irish coinage in 1928. It attempts to illustrate how the coins of the Irish Free State

were the products of the political circumstances of their time. This ensured that many of

the major preoccupations of the new state were reflected in their creation. These

preoccupations include the place of religion and interdenominational relations in the infant

Irish Free State. The new coinage also reflects the new state’s ambition to revive the Irish

language but also reflects the challenges that have always hampered this project. The most

important preoccupation reflected in the coinage of the Irish Free State concerns the issue

of national sovereignty. Existing accounts of the creation of the new coinage tend to

confine their analysis to the designs of that finally appeared on the coinage of the Irish Free

State. This approach supports an overall conclusion that the Free State’s approach to state

symbolism departed radically from the precedents set by the other Dominions.13 However,

a more nuanced picture of the political significance of the new coinage becomes apparent

when the entire process of creating the new coinage is examined. This includes the

drafting of the necessary legislation, the choice of the artist who would execute the

designs, the minting of the coins and the political negotiations concerning the future of the

large quantity of British coins that remained in circulation in the Irish Free State. This

broader perspective will illustrate that the many aspects of the new coinage reflected an

acceptance of the existence of the ‘Irish Dominion’ apparently rejected by the designs that

appeared on the coins.

Symbols of Irish statehood were not limited to the appearance of green postboxes.

The most important symbol of political change in the infant Irish Free State was the

appearance of a new tricolour flag of green, white and orange that appeared over

government buildings in 1922. The appearance of the tricolour was at variance with the

position under which the Union flag was used in all parts of the British Empire.14 The

solution adopted by the Irish government was to simply fly the tricolour while refraining

from enshrining it in law as the national flag. The tricolour continued to be used in an

5

unofficial capacity until Article 7 of the Constitution of 1937 finally provided legal

recognition of its status as the national flag.

The Irish government did not adopt a national anthem directly after the creation of

the Irish Free State although ‘The Soldier’s Song’, which would later become better known

as ‘Amhrán na bhFiann’, was often used in practice. Nevertheless, it was not uncommon

for ‘God Save the King’ to be played when Irish football or rugby teams played abroad in

the 1920s and 1930s. Foreign hosts assumed that this was appropriate for the Irish Free

State as it was the anthem used by Dominions such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

In 1926 the Irish government decided to adopt ‘The Soldier’s Song’ although this was not

enshrined in any legal instrument. Controversy concerning the identity of the national

anthem continued throughout the 1930s.15

The first definitive Irish stamps did not include a portrait of the King.16 Instead, they

depicted a map of an undivided island of Ireland which was, in itself, a powerful political

statement.17 The absence of King’s portrait or royal insignia remained a constant feature of

the postage stamps of the Irish Free State, a position that did not escape notice in the

United Kingdom.18 The decision to print a new series of Irish banknotes was reflected in

the enactment of the Currency Act 1927. The resulting banknotes depicted the portrait of a

woman intended to be an allegorical representation of Ireland.19 However, it is important

to emphasise that banknotes, at least in the early twentieth century, represented a much less

politically charged form of currency than coins. Unlike coins, the banknotes issued in

Great Britain and Ireland before 1922 seldom included a portrait of the ruling monarch.

Coins are far older symbols of autonomy than stamps, banknotes, national anthems

or even flags. The ancient status of coinage ensured that, unlike banknotes and stamps, it

was considered to form part of the Royal Prerogative.20 This meant that coinage fell within

the customary authority of the Crown, although by the nineteenth century this authority

was largely superceded by statutes passed by the parliament at Westminster.21

Nevertheless, the King or Queen regnant was deemed to have the right to be consulted as

to the designs and inscriptions that were placed on all coins intended for constituent parts

6

of the British Empire.22 In addition Dominion legislation assigned responsibility for

designs, dimensions, denominations, weight and fineness to the Governor General as

representative of the King or Queen.23 The name or portrait of the ruling monarch was

included on the obverse side of coins as important symbols of Imperial unity. This set

coinage apart from stamps and banknotes which displayed far less consistency in including

such symbols.

COINS AS SYMBOLS OF EMPIRE

Although the pound sterling circulated in many parts of the world, the British Empire

never had a single currency. Nevertheless, the British government did take a direct interest

in the issuing of currency throughout the Empire. In the nineteenth century the use of the

power of disallowance, the effective vetoing of a statute in force, was not uncommon in

matters of currency. In 1843 a New Brunswick statute on coinage was disallowed on the

grounds that it had incorrectly specified the rates of value of the relevant coins. A similar

fate befell a Canadian statute of 1850. The royal instructions given to Governors-General,

sent out as representatives of the King or Queen, often forbade them to assent to legislation

that related to matters in which London was considered to have a direct interest, which

included the issuing and regulation of currency.24 In the early twentieth century the British

government retained substantial control over mints established at Sydney (1855),

Melbourne (1872), Perth (1898) Ottawa (1907) and Pretoria (1911) which were considered

branches of the Royal Mint.25 A number of Imperial statutes, which were ultimately

consolidated into the Coinage Act 1870, confirmed that London enjoyed sweeping powers

over coinage and legal tender throughout the Empire including the design of coins.

However, by the dawn of the twentieth century these extensive legal powers held by the

United Kingdom began to be seen as incompatible with the growing autonomy of the self-

governing Dominions.

The enhanced status of the Dominions of the Empire was manifested when Canadian,

Australian and New Zealand troops contributed to the prosection of the Second Boer War

(1899-1902). The Royal Mint recognised this development by mentioning the Dominions

7

on coins produced throughout the Empire. Coins produced from 1901 onwards described

the monarch as ‘Britt. Omn. Rex’ or ‘Britanniarum Omnium Rex’ meaning ‘King of all the

Britains’.26 The description of the Dominions as ‘Britain beyond the seas’ or ‘daughters of

mother Britannia’ was not uncommon in this period. Nevertheless, by the dawn of the

twentieth century Britainnia’s daughters were beginning to articulate their emergence into

adulthood in their own terms.

The move towards greater autonomy in the Dominions was reflected in challenges to

Imperial control over coinage. Canada and Australia used the enactment of their

Constitutions to assert the claim that their parliaments had the power to legislate on

currency, coinage and legal tender.27 Yet, the designs that appeared on the new Dominion

coins continued to reflect symbols of Imperial unity and portraits of the King dominated

their obverse sides. The enhanced status of the Dominions found expression in requests

that the King appear bareheaded on their coins, as he appeared on the coins of the United

Kingdom, rather than crowned as he appeared on the coins of dependent colonies. This

desire was not fulfilled until 1936. Dominion coins continued to refer to the King/Emperor

as ‘Britanniarum Omnium Rex’ or ‘King of all the Britains’.28 In 1922 the Irish Free State

was recognised as the latest addition to the self-governing Dominions of the British

Empire. It remained to be seen whether the Irish would see their new state as another of

the ‘Britains’ beyond the seas.

THE DECISION TO CREATE AN IRISH COINAGE

In 1922 Michael Collins made enquiries as to the feasibility of creating a new Irish

currency based on the gold standard. He was quickly dissuaded from pursuing this idea.29

There was little enthusiasm for breaking with the perceived stability of the pound sterling

and creating new barriers to trade with the United Kingdom.30 Although the proposal to

create a new coinage for the Irish Free State in the mid-1920s was a much less radical

proposal, it did meet with opposition in the Oireachtas on the basis of fears that this

initiative would be a stepping stone to a change in currency.31

8

The failure to sever links with the pound sterling did not necessarily preclude the

Irish Free State from producing its own coins and banknotes. The possiblity of issuing

Irish coins and ten shilling banknotes was given serious consideration in 1923.32 The

decision was postponed on the advice of H.S. Guinness, governor of the Bank of Ireland.

The Irish Free State was still in its infancy in the early 1920s and recovering from a bitter

civil war. Guinness argued that initiatives to create Irish coins and banknotes should be

left until settled conditions prevailed.33 The proposal to mint a new coinage for the Irish

Free State was revived in 1925 and announced to the public the following year.34 This

decision was influenced by a number of important factors. First, the creation of new Irish

coins would provide some level of control in avoiding a shortage or surplus of coins in

circulation. This would be particularly useful since there was considerable uncertainty as to

the number of British coins in circulation in the Irish Free State in the late 1920s.35

Secondly, the creation of a new series of Irish coins would ensure that the profits that

accrued from the issue of new currency would remain in Irish hands. These profits were

very considerable. In 1928 the face value of the first issue of new Irish coins was

approximately £750,000. However, the cost of striking this issue was approximately

£249,000, exclusive of freight and insurance. This represented a profit margin of almost

200%.36 The Irish government could not ignore economic benefits on this scale.

The third incentive to create a new coinage was based on the perception that coins

represented an indispensible symbol of the autonomy of the Irish Free State. W.T.

Cosgrave believed that just as Jesus had used the tribute penny as evidence of Caesar’s

dominion, so the new Irish coins would reflect ‘our dominion’.37 A department of finance

memorandum issued in 1924 noted ‘It is a normal function of any modern State to provide

its own currency’.38 However, the same memorandum recognised additional

considerations concerning matters of sovereignty that were unique to the Irish Free State.

First, the memorandum stressed ‘the Dominion Governments of Canada, Australia and

South Africa have their own currencies’.39 This implied that if the Irish Free State did not

issue its own coins and banknotes it would be seen as enjoying less status and autonomy

than these Dominions. The memorandum also raised powerful reasons that were grounded

in internal politics for issuing Irish coins:

9

‘it may well be argued that the introduction of our own coinage would be generally welcomed by well-

wishers of the Irish Free State as bringing home vividly to the ordinary citizen the wide extent in one

important respect of the independence assured by the Treaty. The public effect might thus be valuable by

tending to discomfit further the oppenents of the Treaty settlement. Moreover, the appeal to the popular

imagination might tend to enhance, if only in a small way, the prestige of the State and thereby help to

strengthen public credit.’40

The decision to create a new coinage caused some apprehension in the Irish Free

State, which sometimes found voice in the Oireachtas (Irish parliament). The issue of

inconvenience to travellers was often raised. This resulted in calls for an arrangement

between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom for reciprocal acceptance of coinage

similar to the Latin Monetary Union that still operated on the continent. Captain William

Redmond, son of the late John Redmond, stressed the convenience of being able to give an

Irish sixpence to the porters at the ferry in Holyhead. Members of the Oireachtas of

nationalist and unionist backgrounds cautioned against the introduction of the new coinage

by arguing that there was no demand for this initiative among the Irish people who would

be disturbed by the change. The government was accused of seeking easy profits from the

proposed coinage, described as ‘leprechaun gold’, while gambling with the economic

stability of the state. These arguments had a tendency to conflate the separate issues of

creating a new coinage and creating an independent currency that was not linked to

sterling. The Irish government rejected these objections and insisted that there was a

discreet yet powerful desire among the Irish public for an independent coinage. This

demand was often identified with the wider struggle to achieve self-determination and

assert a distinct national identity.41

One of first steps taken by the Irish government in creating a new Irish coinage was

to examine Dominion statutes on coinage as guidance for future legislation by the

Oireachtas.42 In most respects the Irish legislation adhered to Dominion precedents. The

Irish government declined to legislate for criminal offences associated with coinage and

preferred to rely on legislation passed by Westminster to regulate such offences.43 The

only major departure from Dominion precedents concerned the vesting of responsibility for

10

the designs of the coins in the minister for finance in place of the Governor General.44 On

the other hand, the Irish Free State stuck to Dominion precedent by ensuring that formal

communications with Royal Mint in commissioning the coinage were made through

Timothy Healy, the Irish Governor General.45

The Coinage Act 1926 maintained the link with sterling and also retained the existing

British denominations. This meant abandoning any prospect of decimalisation of the

coinage which had been proposed by Sinn Féin soon after its foundation by Arthur

Griffith.46 Determined individuals in the department of finance and in the Oireachtas

continued to press for decimalisation throughout the 1920s.47 Nevertheless the Irish

government shied away from this radical step on the grounds that this would exacerbate

existing fears concerning the introduction of the new coinage.48 Decimalisation would also

have displaced many of the British coins currently circulating in the Irish Free State. It is

important to emphasise that the Irish government was not proposing the immediate

replacement of all existing British coins with Irish coins. The two coinages were intended

to circulate interchangeably in the Irish Free State on the assumption that the British coins

would be phased out on a gradual basis.49

The enactment of the Coinage Act 1926 ensured that the new Irish coinage would

continue to follow the old system of pounds, shillings and pence that had first been

standardised by the Carolingian Empire more than a millenium earlier. Yet the Irish

government was not content to mimic the coinage of United Kingdom in all respects. The

1926 Act provided that the new Irish coins above the value of one penny would differ from

their British counterparts in terms of bullion content. The Irish government placed

particular emphasis on the new bullion content of the higher value coins of shilling, florin

(two shillings) and half crown (two shillings and sixpence). The 1926 Act provided that

new Irish coins of these values would contain 75% silver. 50 By contrast, their British

equivalents issued from 1920 onwards contained only 50% silver. There were practical

advantages that buttressed the Irish decision to diverge from the British model. It was

generally believed that a higher silver content would make the new Irish coins more

durable than their British counterparts.51 However, this decision also ensured that the new

11

coinage would be more expensive to mint and precluded the eminently practical solution of

melting down the British coins currently in circulation in order to make their Irish

replacements. It is clear that part of the decision to raise the silver content of the higher

value coins was based on uncertainty as to the reaction of the Irish public towards the new

coins. The department of finance repeatedly stressed the need to overcome prejudice

against the new system of coinage. It recognised that although a higher silver content

would reduce the profits available to the state from issuing the new coins, it would also be

‘of some advantage in obtaining a good reputation for the coins in popular estimation at the

outset’.52 Ernest Blythe told the Dáil that part of the decision to include a higher silver

content was ‘to assure people, and to be able to point out definitely to them that here is a

coin intrinsically better than the coin it is replacing’.53

The need to reassure the Irish public precluded acceptance of the bold suggestion of

Senator H.S. Guinness to mint all the new Irish coins in base metals.54 This suggestion was

ahead of its time and was gradually adopted when the composition of the threepence and

sixpence was changed from nickel to cupro-nickel in 1942. In 1951 the first shilling, florin

and half crown coins were also struck in cupro-nickel instead of silver.55 However, the

association of metal content with prestiege was as old as coinage itself. Aristophanes’s

play ‘The Frogs’ contrasts the unalloyed gold and silver coins associated with ‘men we

know for upright, blameless lives and noble names’ with the wretched issues of ‘men of

brass’.56 In the 1920s the provision of a higher silver content in Irish coins than in their

British equivalents was used to stress the economic soundness and respectability of the

new Irish Free State.57 The proposal to strike the new Irish coinage in base metal was

completely unacceptable for a new and insecure political entity that was highly sensitive to

the nature of its portrayal on the international stage.

THE DESIGNS OF THE NEW IRISH COINS

The question of designs arose soon after the decision was made to mint a distinctively Irish

coinage. The designs of old Irish coins and ancient celtic coins from other countries were

provided by the British museum but were considered too primative for inclusion in a

12

modern series of coins.58 The department of finance initially consulted George Akinson of

the Metropolitan School of Art. The inclusion of the design of a harp, similar to the

designs that already appeared on Irish state seals, was favoured in the earliest discussions.59

Preliminary designs created by Akinson, which included representations of Saint Patrick

and Cuchulain, elicted a lukewarm response from the Royal Mint.60 The inclusion of

portraits of other prominent persons, such as Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins, soon

became embroiled with questions concerning the portrait of the King. Ernest Blythe

solved this problem by indicating that there should be no portraits on the coins.61

The committee on coinage designs established in 1926 consisted of W.B. Yeats,

senator and poet, Dermod O’Brien, president of the Royal Hibernian Academy, Lucius

O’Callaghan, director of the National Gallery of Ireland, Thomas Bodkin, then a governor

of the National Gallery of Ireland and Barry Egan, who ran a firm of goldsmiths and

jewellers in Cork and would later be elected to Dáil Éireann.62 Leo T. McCauley of the

department of finance acted as secretary.63 Members of the public were invited to assist

with their work by submitting ideas for designs but the response proved disappointing.64

The committee adhered to Blythe’s direction to avoid the use of portraits.65 It even

rejected the possibility of depicting an ‘ideal head typifying all the grace and virtue of our

race’ on Irish coins. The committee, on the advice of leading antiquarians, also rejected

‘hackneyed symbols’ such as round towers, sun bursts and shamrocks. The shamrock was

rejected on advice from the Royal Society of Antiquaries in Ireland on the basis that it had

‘no dignity of age behind it being no more than a hundred years old’.66 Although the

claíomh solais or ‘sword of light’ of Irish mythology had been used as the symbol of the

Gaelic League and appeared on some of the earliest Irish stamps, it was rejected for use on

the new coinage on grounds of ‘obscure allusiveness’.67 W.B. Yeats had little enthusiasm

for the suggestion that the coins depict symbols of Irish industries. He noted that the Irish

Free State had few industries and expressed doubts as to the ‘decorative value of the porter

bottle’.68

13

The committee’s final recommendations were delivered in August 1926. These

proposed that the designs be ‘representative of the natural products of the country’. The

designs would be representations of animals with the ‘more noble and dignified types’ on

higher denominations and ‘more humble types’ on the lower.69 The committee decided

that the harp should be used on all the obverse sides and provided the option of basing the

final design on the Trinity College, also known as the ‘Brian Boru’ harp, or the Dalway

harp.70

The committee chose to place a horse, of a breed known as an ‘Irish hunter’, on the

half crown coin. This design was chosen in recognition of the international fame of Irish

horses. The committee was also guided by aesthetic reasons in that horse designs had been

used successfully in a number of ancient Carthaginian and Greek Sicilian coins that had

particularly impressed W.B. Yeats.71 The salmon was chosen for the florin as a natural

Irish product and in recognition of the ‘salmon of knowledge’ of Irish legend. The choice

of the bull for the shilling was also inspired by an ancient Greek Sicilian coin admired by

Yeats, although no series of Irish natural products would have been complete without some

reference to cattle.72 The wolfhound chosen for the sixpence coin was one of the few

suggestions sent in by members of the public to find favour with the committee. It was

finally chosen as an animal that was often associated with Ireland in preference to the

depiction of the greyhound favoured by W.B. Yeats. Unfortunately, the decision to give

the wolfhound a smooth coat in place of a shaggy one ensured that it was often confused

with a greyhound.73 The coinage committee decided against giving the wolfhound a

shaggy coat because it feared that when the coins became worn the dog would appear to be

suffering from mange.74 The hare was chosen for the threepence coin which, like the

sixpence, would be made of pure nickel. The decision to mint the threepence coin from

nickel was based on perceptions that the British silver threepence was an inconveniently

small coin that was difficult to pick up off a flat surface.75 In time this decision was

extended to the sixpence coin which was also changed from a small silver coin to a larger

and thicker piece made of nickel. Members of the committee were convinced that the

homeliness of the hen chosen for the penny would appeal to farming women who

14

traditionally took care of poultry.76 The Irish considered reducing the size of the penny but

finally decided to maintain the traditional British dimensions.77

It was anticipated that the choice of a pig for the half penny would result in a certain

amount of mockery. One Irish civil servant even suggested that it might offend Irish

jews.78 Patrick Hogan, minister for agriculture, complained that the sow had a relatively

small litter which might suggest that it was a poor breeder.79 Nevertheless, the committee

decided that the ridicule directed at this animal was unfair and that it could not be denied

that the ‘noble and useful’ pig was a valuable natural product of Irish agriculture.80 The

anticipated ridicule did emerge but much of it came from sources that were not impressed

with the series as a whole or, in some extreme cases, were hostile to the very existence of

the Irish Free State.81

The Irish government considered omitting the farthing from the proposed coins, a

practice that had already been followed in Australia.82 The small coin was eventually

included in the series that was released in 1928. Thomas Bodkin, a member of the Royal

Irish Academy who sat on the committee on coinage designs, took credit for the choice of

the woodcock for the farthing as ‘a bird beloved by all true sportsmen – shy, scarce and

elusive, like the farthing itself, and yet to be found in Ireland in larger numbers than

elsewhere’.83

The choice of animal designs provoked a surprising amount of division within the

government before the details were ever made known to the public. Government ministers

argued vehemently against the choice of a sow and piglets for the half penny and proposed

its replacement with a ram or, if a pig must be chosen, the depiction of a boar.84 The entire

committee, with the single exception of Barry Egan, offered their resignations when the

minister for finance decided to depart from their recommendations on the pig, wolfhound

and woodcock designs.85 Peace was only restored when tempers cooled and the committee

got its way.86 A government proposal to move the woodcock onto the three pence coin was

also vigourously rejected by the committee on the ground that it would ‘give the bird an

undue predominance over the hen which appears upon the penny’.87

15

W.B. Yeats justified the final choice of the animal designs by commenting ‘what

better symbols could we find for this horse-riding, salmon-fishing, cattle-raising

country?’.88 Yeats himself was the driving force behind the proposal to use animal

designs. He had originally suggested the horse, salmon, bull and hare.89 The theme of

‘natural products’ was not strictly adhered to in the choice of animals. The wolfhound,

hare, woodcock and Yeats’s suggestion of a fox did not fit comfortably within this

description.90 The rejection of plant symbols that were undeniably national products

suggest that the real theme concerned animals found in Ireland.91 Although the use of

animal designs for an entire series of coinage is not unusual in the twenty first century, it

was a novelty in the 1920s.

COINAGE AND THE IRISH LANGUAGE

One aspect of the new coins that did raise questions of accessibility concerned the decision

of the department of finance that all inscriptions, including the values of the coin, should

only appear in the Irish language.92 This feature would obviously separate Irish coins from

those of the rest of the British Empire. Although bilingual references to the denominations

of the coins was considered in 1925, the earliest proposals insisted that the name of the

state appear in the Irish language only.93 This decision was almost certainly motivated by

the linguistic ambiguity that attached to the name ‘Saorstát Éireann’. Although the official

English translation of this name was ‘Irish Free State’ it was also capable of being

translated as ‘Irish republic’.

The coinage committee never challenged Blythe’s direction that all inscriptions on

the proposed coins should appear exclusively in the Irish language. This decision did have

the potential to cause problems within Ireland as a significant section of the population was

unfamiliar with that language. The meaning of many of the inscriptions of value were

obvious enough, such as pingin for penny and scilling for shilling. However, the use of

reul for sixpence and leath reul for threepence created greater difficulties. These

considerations inspired the committee to include numbers of value on all denominations.

16

One member of the committee on coinage designs joked that this feature was necessary

‘for the sake of those who are too idle or too stupid or–like myself–too old and too

occupied to learn Irish’.94 The new coinage reflected political aspiration and reality in the

Irish Free State in the form of insisting that a position of exclusivity be given to the Irish

language while tacitly admitting that much of the population struggled to understand basic

words in that tongue.95

THE ARTIST

Political considerations also entered into the process of choosing an artist to execute the

designs. It was decided not to have an open competition but to send invitations to seven

artists to submit designs.96 The committee decided that at least three of the seven artists

should be Irish.97 Jerome Connor, Albert Power and Oliver Shepherd were finally selected

as Irish sculptors worthy of invitations to submit designs. It would have been politically

desirable to have chosen at least one design created by an Irish artist. However, President

W.T. Cosgrave was alone in favouring the designs of the Irish artists when the final works

were examined.98 The designs of the Swedish artist Carl Milles and the American artist

Paul Manship did not win support in the committee or among members of the Irish

government. Although the committee admired the ‘violent rythmical energy’ of the

medals of the Yugoslavian artist Ivan Mestrović, the letter of invitation was sent to the

wrong address and he missed the deadline. This ensured that he was not numbered among

the seven artists who officially took part in the competition. Nevertheless Mestrović did

create an obverse design of a woman with a harp which he generously donated to the Irish

Free State and would be used on the seal of the Irish Central Bank after 1965.99 The two

serious competitors for the commission were the Italian artist Publio Morbiducci and a

young and little known artist from Yorkshire called Percy Metcalf.

Publio Morbiducci had designed the depiction of the fasces on some of the coins of

Mussolini’s Italy.100 Yeats’ enthusiasm for this design may have been connected with the

admiration that he expressed for Mussolini and Italian fascism in the 1920s.101 Morbiducci

took the competition so seriously that he actually sent coins depicting his proposed designs

17

even though the competition only required that artists submit plaster casts.102 Although

Morbiducci’s designs enjoyed a significant level of support within the Irish government,

the final commission did not go to to the Italian artist.103

The committee finally selected the designs submitted by Percy Metcalfe. One

commentator has noted that Metcalf was ‘the youngest and in some ways the least

distinguished of the competitors’.104 Metcalfe proved a fortunate choice as the young artist

proved willing to make a considerable number of design changes, as demanded by the Irish

authorities, that might have met resistance from a more established artist.105 In addition,

the young artist requested a fee of 45 guineas for each design in contrast to some of the

other artists who demanded as much as £250 and £280.106

The choice of a British artist to create the first new Irish coins in over a century was

the cause of predictable grumbling, especially among disappointed Irish artists. J.J.

O’Reilly, creator of a claíomh solais or flaming sword design that appeared on many of the

earliest Irish stamps, later wrote of the ‘indignation that was felt and expressed at the time

by Irish designers at the Government’s action in handing over the work of designing the

coins to England, completely ignoring its Irish artists of whom I was one’.107 It was also

alleged that Irish artists who had been invited to take part in the competion had been

unfairly treated.108 Although reactions of this nature were only to be expected, it must be

recognised that Metcalfe’s reputation rested on artistic accomplishments that had the

potential to arose much greater political controversy in Ireland had they been widely

known.

Percy Metcalfe had first made his reputation at the British Empire Exhibition of

1924. His powerful depiction of steely faced lions were chosen for inclusion on two

commemorative medals as symbols of the British Empire.109 The success of these designs

resulted in a commission to produce a large sculpture of a similarly featured lion as a

fitting symbol of the ‘modern British Empire’ for display at the palace of industry at

Wembley. This Imperial lion was so successful that many additional copies of this work

were produced at to meet public demand.110 Although the Irish government had chosen

18

designs that eschewed all links with the British Empire they could scarcely have chosen an

artist more closely associated with symbols of Empire. The commission to design the

coinage of the Irish Free State advanced a career that would see Metcalfe work on the

coins of many parts of the British Empire including the United Kingdom, Canada,

Australia, New Zealand, Southern Rhodesia, Mauritius, Fiji, Egypt and Iraq.111 Metcalfe’s

completion of the Iraqi commission was actually used by commentators who were hostile

to the designs on the new Irish coinage. The Drogheda Argus asked its readers ‘whether

the designs appropriate for the heathens in Irak [sic] should be fit symbols for the coins to

be circulated in a Christian and civilized and cultured country like Ireland’.112

19

THE USE OF THE ROYAL MINT

The establishment of separate coinages within the existing Dominions had been facilitated

by the presence of Dominion mints, even if these were overseen by the Royal Mint in

London. The Irish government was disuaded by its advisors not to follow this Dominion

precedent on practical grounds.113 The Royal Mint estimated that it would take the Irish

Free State a minimum of 18 months to construct a mint and an additional two years before

it was ready to produce any coins. It was also concluded that an Irish mint would have

little to do after the intitial recoinage. The Royal Mint estimated that an Irish mint would

only have enough work to occupy one month of the year.114

The Royal Mint was intially pessimistic as to its chances of winning the

commission to produce the new Irish coinage. Soon after the signing of the 1921 Treaty

mint officials expected that the Irish would give their order for the new coinage “to France

or the United States, or anywhere in fact but to the hated English”.115 Some months later

the Royal Mint went to the trouble of producing cost analyses to guage the possibility of its

winning a future Irish contact.116 Although the Irish did consider mints in continental

Europe for minting the new coins, it soon became clear on both sides of the Irish Sea that

the Royal Mint offered the fastest and cheapest service for producing an Irish coinage that

followed British donominations of pounds, shillings and pence. Consequently, the Royal

Mint was confidently expecting to win the contact when the first tentitative enquiries came

from the Irish government in 1924.117

Notwithstanding the practical foundations of the decision to commission the Royal

Mint, W.T. Cosgrave did try to make political capital out of the choice during Anglo Irish

negotiations in the years that followed.118 On other occasions the choice worked to the

disadvantage of the Irish government as a result of predictable accusations that the

nationality of the artist and the location of the mint meant that the new Irish coinage was

actually a British imposition. Yeats’ muse Maude Gonne gave a scathing review of the

new coinage as having been ‘designed by an Englishman, minted in England,

representative of English values, paid for by the Irish people’.119

20

ABSENCE OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS

The committee on coinage designs made a conscious decision not to place religious

symbols or images of saints on the coins. Thomas Bodkin insisted that the invitation to the

public to suggest designs did not elicit proposals of religious symbols, apart from one lady

who suggested a depiction of a ‘kneeling angel pouring money from a sack’.120 This was

not entirely true as although call for suggestions from members of the public had proved

disappointing, they had received proposals that included depictions of Celtic crosses and

Saint Patrick.121 It may be recalled that George Akinson of the Metropolitan School of Art

had also suggested the inclusion of Saint Patrick in a future Irish coinage when he was

consulted in 1925.122 Thomas Bodkin justified omitting portraits of saints by describing the

irreverence that would have resulted from the use of such images: ‘I saw in my mind’s eye,

a peasant at the fair being paid for a bonham with the image of St Patrick and, impelled by

the habit of centuries, to spit upon that image for luck before he rammed it in his trouser

pocket. I saw two loafers at the bar of a public house tossing as to which of them should

pay for drinks, according as to whether the image of St Bridget or St Columcille came

uppermost’.123 W.B. Yeats responded to charges made by some observers that the coins

were anti-Christian by grumbling “I wish they would tell us what coinage seems to them

most charged with piety”.124 Objections concerning the absence of religious symbols in the

final designs began long before the coins were actually issued.125 In 1927 the Government

was asked during parliamentary questions in the Oireachtas ‘whether something more in

keeping with the Christian glories of Ireland should not be substituted for a series of

designs which are regarded by many people as a travesty on our country’.126 This murmur

of criticism began to grow in intensity as the date for releasing the new coins approached

in late 1928.

The exclusive use of animal designs was perceived in some quarters as being pagan

in nature. The committee that chose these designs was accused of ‘a turning down of

God’.127 The cathedral chapter of Tuam went to the trouble of passing a resolution:

21

That we consider the designs of the proposed new coins utterly unsuited for the coinage of this ancient

Christian nation. We are strongly of opinion that they should give expression to the ideals which kept the

national and Christian spirit alive in this land through the centuries.128

One of the most extreme reactions appeared in a letter to the Irish Independent:

If these pagan symbols once get a hold, then is the thin end of the wedge of Freemasonry sunk into the very

life of our Catholicity, for the sole object of having these pagan symbols instead of religious emblems on our

coins is to wipe out all traces of religion from our minds, to forget the ‘Land of Saints’, and beget a land of

devil-worshippers, where evil may reign supreme.129

The decision to stick with the animal designs despite the backlash on the grounds of

religion could be presented by modern historians as an example of a triumph of secularism

and an example of the infant Irish Free State standing up for values of tolerance against

sectarianism and bigotry. The latter was certainly an image that the Free State government

was anxious to project in order to confound predictions that Irish self-determination would

be equivalent to ‘Rome rule’. The government made extensive use of the positive

publicity generated as a result of a similar controversy involving the appointment of a

Protestant woman, Letitia Dunbar-Harrison, as a librarian in Co. Mayo despite the protests

of members of the local Catholic community.130 Yet it should be noted that those who

defended the designs of the new coinage in the 1920s tended to do so by appealing to

religious dogma and supported this by reference to members of the Catholic clergy who

approved of the designs.131

Criticism of the designs of the new coins was not confined to religious

considerations. The designs were also accused of perpetuating the stereotype of Ireland as

a society dependent on agriculture. Other critics condemned the artistic elitism of the

coinage committee and would clearly have prefered the ‘hackneyed symbols’ of shamrocks

and round towers that had been rejected.132

The reaction to the designs of the new coinage within Ireland could be contrasted

with a largely positive reception in Great Britain. Winston Churchill made sure to praise

22

their beauty when opening important negotiations with the Irish government in early

1929.133 While this might be dismissed as a clever negotiating tactic, these opinions were

shared by more disinterested authorities in the 1920s and afterwards. A correspondent

with the Manchester Guardian wrote:

‘I think that the Irish coinage will be acknowledged as the most beautiful in the modern world. I doubt if

any country … would have had the imagination and freedom to lay down the conditions that would have

made such designs possible.’134

The Royal Mint predicted that the coins would be extremely popular with

collectors and advised the Irish government to expect a demand for sets that was five

times the figure originally anticipated.135

Thomas Bodkin acknowledged the generous praise of British commentators on

behalf of the coinage committee but added that such praise would have been still more

welcome had it come from Irish sources.136 This seemed an ironic fate for a coinage

intended to break with British traditions and assert a distinctly Irish identity.

Nevertheless, it is important not to over-estimate the opposition within Ireland to the new

designs. The designs were praised and defended in many sections of the Irish media. It

is equally important not to stereotype the British reaction to the designs. The exclusion

of the King’s portrait from Irish coins had long been anticipated.137 Nevertheless, this

breach of tradition and Imperial unity did not go unnoticed or unremarked.

ABSENCE OF MONARCHICAL SYMBOLS

When Ernest Blythe opened a public exhibition of the new coins in November 1928 he was

anxious to stress ‘The possession of a distinctive coinage is one of the indications of

sovereignty’. Bythe was also anxious to promote the new coins as the first genuinely Irish

coinage.138 Previous coins minted for Ireland had included portraits or devices of foreign

monarchs. The new coinage of the Irish Free State did not include such a portrait despite

its constitutional status as a Dominion of the British Empire. It is important to emphasise

that King George V was officially the Irish head of state and enjoyed a prominent place in

23

the Constitution of the Irish Free State.139 Nevertheless, these realities would not be

reflected on the new Irish coinage.

The absence of the King’s head on the new Irish coins had been anticipated long

before the designs were revealed to the public. The attitude of Irish nationalists to royal

symbols was well known on both sides of the Irish Sea. Patrick Pearse, the leader of the

1916 rising, wrote of that the presence of the royal portrait ensured that ‘A good Irishman

should blush every time he sees a penny’.140 The King’s portrait was conspicuously absent

from Irish stamps issued since 1922. The Royal Mint had expected from the outset of

negotiations with the Irish government that the new designs would not include any such

portrait.141 Pessimistic mint officials even speculated whether the Irish government would

demand that the Irish harp be removed from the shield of the royal coat of arms that

appeared on some British coins.142 Although the exclusion of the King from the new Irish

coinage was long anticipated; this feature did attract significant attention after the designs

were finally revealed to the public.143

It is likely that much of the opposition to the initial proposal for an Irish coinage

from the Irish Times and from Irish politicians from Unionist backgrounds was based on

the expectation of an exclusion of royal symbols even if other grounds, such as harm to

relations with Northern Ireland and the alleged absence of obvious public support for the

initiative, were raised in public. It must be admitted that the opposition within the

Oireachtas to the new coinage did include a disproportionate number of Protestants.

Thomas Johnson, leader of the Labour Party, openly speculated that the absence of the

King’s portrait on these coins might have been a contributory cause of this opposition.144

Shopkeepers did report a preference among some customers to accept coins bearing the

King’s head when the new coins were released for circulation.145 This is likely to have

reflected Unionist sentiment although innate conservatism and the knowledge that pre-

1920 British silver coins had a higher silver content must also be taken into consideration.

The mere proposal for a separate coinage for the Irish Free State was seen as a

barrier to reconciliation with Northern Ireland. The Irish Times wrote ‘nothing will

24

convince the people of Northern Ireland that a separate coinage is not meant to provide a

stepping-stone not only to an independent currency, but also to an independent

Republic’.146 The Irish Free State coins began to circulate in Northern Ireland soon after

being issued in 1928 since the Irish pound was linked at parity with the pound sterling at

this time. Some of these coins, in particular the large pennies and florins, were defaced

with punchmarks reading “REM 1690”, an exhortation to remember the Protestant victory

at the Battle of Boyne of 1690. The defacement of Irish coinage in Northern Ireland

resumed on a larger scale in the 1970s with the beginning of the “troubles”.147

Relations with Northern Ireland were not considered when deciding on the designs

that would appear on the new Irish coins. Nevertheless, the relative importance of national

symbols ensured that they occupied a significant part of the tentative discussions in 1926

surrounding Kevin O’Higgins’ proposal for unification within a ‘Kingdom of Ireland’.

O’Higgins conceded that any unified entity would have to place the King’s portrait on

coins and stamps.148 The absence of any such portrait on the Irish coins produced in 1928

was used in Northern Ireland as a symbol of the impossibility of unification.149 It was also

used to cast doubt on the reality of the continued status of the Irish Free State as a

Dominion of the British Empire. Arthur Berriedale Keith, a leading authority on British

Imperial law, noted ‘It is significant of the unique position of the Irish Free State that all

trace of the Crown is eliminated from stamp and local coinages alike’.150

Questions concerning the Irish coins were raised at Westminster a few weeks after

the new coinage was finally issued. Lord Danesfort, a Unionist peer with Irish roots, was

unimpressed with the ‘designs of somewhat ignoble animals such as pigs and barn door

fowls’.151 Nevertheless, Danesfort’s real complaint concerned another aspect of the

designs on the new Irish coins:

‘On that coinage there is one design which is conspicuously absent from every silver and copper coin issued

by the Free State, and that is the design which of all others you would expect to be there—namely, the head

of His Majesty the King. That design has been completely eliminated from the new coinage as it had

previously been eliminated from the design of the postage stamps already issued by the Free State. … Is there

25

any precedent of any of His Majesty's Dominions issuing coinage with the head of the King eliminated from

the design?’152

Danesfort raised the possibility of using legal powers claimed by the Coinage Act

1870 in controlling the designs used on the coinage of constituent parts of the Empire.153

He was not alone in these opinions. Yet, the truth was that this course of action was no

longer realistic in the early twentieth century. In the nineteenth century it had been

possible for London to insist on legal provisions ensuring that it had the final say on the

designs of coins of the future Dominions. This was no longer feasible with respect to the

increasingly self-confident Dominions of the early twentieth century. It had been

possible for London to disallow, or veto, coinage statutes from the future Dominions in

the nineteenth century. However, in 1929 this power was declared obsolete.154 The

coinage of the Irish Free State exposed the significant gap that had opened between the

formal legal status of the Dominions and political realities in the twentieth century.

26

THE REPLACEMENT OF BRITISH COINS IN THE IRISH FREE STATE

Although the symbolism of the designs on the new Irish coins attracted considerable

attention in the 1920s, the uncertain future of the British coins circulating in the Irish Free

State ignited a political controversy based on firm financial grounds. It should be

remembered that the Irish government planned from the outset to gradually replace the

British coins circulating in the Irish Free State. However, the question of what would be

done with the displaced British coins remained unsettled. The solution for the British

copper coins (pennies, half pennies and farthings) was simple. These could be melted

down and used to mint their Irish replacments. This solution was not available with

respect to British silver coins because that the Irish had already decided to mint coins

above the value of a penny with a different metallic content. The Irish government seemed

confident from the outset that their British counterparts would be content to buy back the

displaced silver coins at face value. Warnings by members of the Oireachtas that the

British might not prove so obliging were brushed aside by Irish ministers.155 However, the

British government made it clear that this solution was unacceptable soon after the Irish

began informal negotiations with the Royal Mint.156

Winston Churchill, as chancellor of the exchequer, insisted that the United Kingdom

already had an ample supply of coinage as the Bank of England already had £5.5 million of

silver coins in storage.157 In any case, it should be remembered that there were very

substantial profits to be made from minting coins. It was far more lucrative for the United

Kingdom to buy bullion and mint new silver coins rather than accept the British coins

circulating in the Irish Free State at face value. In these circumstances the Irish

government should not have been surprised that the United Kingdom was only prepared to

accept British coins circulating in the Irish Free State at their bullion value rather than their

face value. This did not prevent the Irish from making vigourous objections to Churchill’s

obstinate stance that threatened to deprive them of their own profits in minting the new

Irish coins. The Irish government argued that the Irish people would not understand why

British coins that bore the King’s portrait were only worth their bullion value. Ernest

Blythe made it clear that British honour and credibility were at stake. He told the Dáil (the

27

lower house of the Irish parliament) that if the United Kingdom refused to take these coins

at face value ‘it would be very like dishonouring a cheque’.158

Churchill was determined to take a hard line on this issue and ensure that “the Irish

should pay for their own follies”. He estimated that the loss to the British taxpayer in

taking back the silver coins circulating in would be approximately £1,800,000.159 He

insisted that British taxpayers would not understand why they should be deprived of this

considerable sum ‘just because the Irish want to get rid of the King’s head’.160 Churchill

maintained that if the Irish wanted to indulge ‘this sentiment’ they should do so at their

own expense.161 As far as Churchill was concerned the Irish had acted recklessly in

producing a new coinage without proper consideration as to what would happen to the

displaced British coins. He concluded “I have not the slightest intention of helping the

Free State out in this matter” and that “they should suffer every inconvenience and loss”.162

A Treasury official added with apparent glee “I doubt if they [the Irish government] yet

appreciate the difficulties they will get into”.163

It was anticipated that the Irish government would respond to Churchill’s stance with

illicit transfers of silver coins into the United Kingdom at face value. An analysis by

British legal advisers revealed that there was no existing legal basis for refusing the

importation of British coins into the United Kingdom. Section 49 of the Customs Law

(Consolidation) Act, 1876 only provided that bulk importation of coin or bullion had to be

reported to customs. Section 2 of the Customs Amendment Act, 1886 only allowed

parliament to prohibit importation of coins “coined in a foreign country”. Churchill

ordered that draft legislation be prepared that would grant powers to prohibit the

importation of significant quantities of British coins into the United Kingdom. He warned

the Irish government that British opponents of 1921 Treaty would derive considerable

satisfaction from legislation of this nature which he predicted would go through parliament

with ease.164 Churchill pressed on with his plans to draft the necessary legislation

notwithstanding the anxiety expressed by other British ministers at the negative impact it

would have on Anglo Irish relations.165

28

The response to Churchill’s threats received the personal attention of W.T. Cosgrave,

president of the executive council (prime minister) of the Irish Free State. The Irish leader

seemed deeply offended by the suggestion that the introduction of new Irish coins was

nothing more than a reflection of Irish ‘sentiment’. Cosgrave insisted that a new Irish

coinage was a logical outcome of the political change that had occurred in Ireland and an

important aspect of the achievement of fiscal independence.166 The cornerstone of the

argument put forward by the Irish government was that the British had accepted the return

of silver coinage at face value from Australia in 1910 and South Africa in 1922 following

the introduction of their national coinages.167 The Irish insisted that the treatment of these

Dominions must be treated as precedents and that the same facility must now be made

available to the Irish Free State.168

Churchill denied that any Dominion precedent had been created in the treatment of

Australia and South Africa. His position was partially based on flucutions in the value of

silver but the key argument focused on the nature of the new self-governing state in

Ireland. The Irish Free State might have been recognised as a Dominion under the 1921

Treaty but, unlike Australia or South Africa, it had once been a part of the United

Kingdom. Churchill argued that British and Irish taxpayers had been joint beneficiaries of

the profits accrued from the issuing of the silver coins that now circulated in the Irish Free

State unlike their counterparts in Australia or South Africa.169 In any case Churchill was

keen to deny that there was any general obligation on the United Kingdom to accept the

return of excess silver coins from its colonial possessions or even from the self-governing

Dominions. In 1923 the United Kingdom had refused such requests from Fiji and

Nyasaland and had initially refused a request from the Dominion of New Zealand. In cases

where silver coins had been accepted at face value they had been received on the basis of

agreed annual quotas, as had been done for Sudan and British West Africa and also for the

Dominion of New Zealand in 1924. Although in practice the United Kingdom had usually

given way to requests to accept the return of excess silver, Churchill was convinced that

there was no legal or moral obligation to take back coins at face value. Instead, this was a

matter for negotiation between the United Kingdom and the colony or Dominion in

question.170 In any case, Churchill and the Treasury were convinved that none of these

29

Imperial precedents applied to the Irish Free State as its taxpayers had shared in the profits

in the minting of British silver coins unlike any of the colony or the other Dominions.171

The dual identity of the Irish Free State as a Dominion and successor to the United

Kingdom in the territory of the 26 counties was the cause of numerous legal complications

in the 1920s and 1930s. In strict legal terms the two positions were not always

compatible.172 The psychological difficulties that even Irish supporters of the 1921 Treaty

had with the idea of an ‘Irish Dominion’ provided the Irish government with a powerful

incentive to favour the alternative position of treating their state as a successor to the

position of the United Kingdom. The negotiations concerning the replacement of silver

coinage is interesting because it saw a reversal of this preference. The Irish government

insisted that a Dominion precedent had been set in this area and demanded that their state

be treated as a Dominion rather than as a successor to the position of the United Kingdom.

W.T. Cosgrave was convinced that it would constitute ‘unfair and unexpected

discrimination against us’ if the Irish Free State were treated differently from Australia and

South Africa in matters of coinage.173

The replacement of coins in the Irish Free State soon became entangled with other

Anglo Irish financial disputes.174 The addition of the dispute on coinage was used to

portray the Irish as habitual spongers who continually asked for financial concessions

while not living up to their own moral debts. Lord Danefort asked his fellow peers in the

House of Lords:

‘Is there any one in the Irish Free State who ever thinks he has got enough out of the British Government? …

What do they think? Do they think they should have another million or another two millions?’175

The emotions raised by the dispute over the replacement of silver coins in the Irish

Free State illustrate the truth of Oscar Wilde’s words ‘Even these metallic problems have

their melodramic side’.176

30

Churchill’s threats caused panic among the Irish banks when they learned of the

possibility that their substantial stocks of British silver coin could soon be reduced to their

bullion value. Irish banks tended to store large quantities of silver coins in order to cover

the issue of their banknotes. For example, the National Bank of Ireland held £400,000 of

silver coins in storage in the mid-1920s.177 In early 1927 the Treasury instructed the Bank

of England and the British commercial banks to cease the established practice of accepting

transfers of British silver coins from Irish banks.178 The impact of these instructions was

soon felt. For example, the Provincial Bank of Ireland was refused when it asked the Bank

of England to take between £120,000 and £150,000 in silver coins. The Provincial Bank

tried again with Barclay’s Bank but met with similar results.179 In their desperation the

Irish banks turned to the Royal Mint to redeem the full value of their stocks of silver

coinage. The Provincial Bank of Ireland asked the Royal Mint to redeem its stock of

British silver while the National Bank of Ireland asked if it could send £200,000 in silver

coins. Once again the Irish banks were refused.180 The ban on accepting transfers of silver

coins from banks in the Irish Free State was soon extended to Northern Ireland since many

banks had branches in both jurisdictions. The uncertainty and confusion created by this

reality ensured that even banks in Northern Ireland without any branches in the Irish Free

State soon found their requests to transfer silver coins refused. For example, the Midland

Bank felt obliged to refuse a transfer from its own affiliate, the Belfast Banking Company,

which had no branches south of the border. This led to concern within Whitehall that

Northern Ireland was not being treated as part of the United Kingdom simply because it

had “the misfortune to march with the Free State”.181

The Royal Mint proposed a number of solutions to the dispute created by the

creation of the new Irish coinage. It suggested that Irish government should itself redeem

the British silver circulating in circulating in the Irish Free State. Alternatively the British

and Irish governments could swap coins or bullion.182 These measures would have

deprived the Irish government of much of the profits received from minting new coins.

The Royal Mint further suggested that the United Kingdom receive a share of the profits

accrued from minting coins to offset costs of return of British silver coins.183 Nevertheless

officials in the Royal Mint were confident that the Irish would reject all such proposals and

31

added “it would be surprising if they were any more disposed to bear the cost of any part of

that operation, than they have been to bear the cost of withdrawing troops from Southern

Ireland”.184 Finally, it was suggested that the new Irish coins be introduced slowly to avoid

displacing large numbers of British coins circulating in the Irish Free State.185 This

proposal would have delayed the anticipated profit and, in any case, was incompatible with

the declaration of national sovereignty desired by the Irish government.

Churchill pressed ahead with his plans to amend the law so as to ban the import of

silver coinage from the Irish Free State. British officials considered adding a special

provision to a draft Finance Bill or a Northern Ireland Bankers Bill. Churchill’s own

preference was for a distinct statute giving new powers to ban the importation of coins.186

A draft provision was soon produced for consideration by the British government:

“The power conferred by Section two of the Customs Amendment Act 1886, of prohibiting

by proclamation the importation of such coins as are mentioned in that Section shall extend

to the importation of coins current in a foreign country and the importation from a foreign

country of silver coins of the realm; and the said Section two shall have effect

accordingly.”187

The Dominions Office protested the use of the term “foreign” in relation to the Irish

Free State, even though it was far from unprecedented to do so in relation to Dominions

and colonies in the particular context of customs legislation. Nevertheless the Dominions

Office persisted and added “This point is of special importance in relation to the Irish Free

State, since we are particularly anxious to afford no excuse to the Irish Free State for

treating the United Kingdom as a foreign country in the ordinary accepted sense of the

term”.188 Although the term “foreign” was finally removed from the draft provsion the

Dominions Office remained unsatisfied.189 The Dominions secretary Leopold Amery was

deeply concerned as to the impact that this dispute would have have on Anglo Irish

relations. The cabinet finally agreed with Amery notwithstanding considerable personal

sympathy for Churchill’s position.190 The Irish Free State had had a difficult divorce from

the United Kingdom and Dominion status and partition continued to chafe Irish

32

nationalists. It likely that members of the British cabinet concluded that it was not worth

jeopardising the Irish Free State’s remaining Imperial links over pieces of silver. The

cabinet favoured a compromise with the Irish government. In January 1929 Churchill

negotiated an agreement that would see the United Kingdom accept the phased return of

British silver coins at face value over the next ten years.191

This agreement endured despite efforts made by Eamon de Valera to reopen the

dispute in 1932 as part of the ‘Economic War’.192 This trade dispute was sparked when the

Irish government refused to reimburse the British treasury for “land annuities” derived

from loans to Irish tenant farmers to buy their land in the decades before the creation of the

Irish Free State. The excalating dispute saw the Irish government make counterclaims that

it was entitled to compensation in relation to matters such as the alleged overtaxation of

Ireland before 1922 and losses incurred as a result of the British abandonment of the gold

standard in 1931. The ressurection of the issue of the return of British silver coins at face

value caused considerable confusion in London where it was believed that de Valera was

seeking to breach the arrangments for a phased return reached in 1929. The belief that de

Valera was seeking the immediate return of all British silver coins at face value resulted in

British officials questioning the wisdom of the 1929 arrangement. The United Kingdom

was annually accepting silver coins worth £60,000 at face value but just £20,000 in

bullion. This gave the Irish Free State an annual profit of £40,000 while it defaulted in

paying millions of pounds in land annuities that the British believed were owed to the

United Kingdom. The Irish banks, which still retained large stocks of British silver coins,

were spooked by rumours that the 1929 arrangement would break down and began to

quietly transfer their coins to Belfast.193 Winston Churchill’s legislative solution of

prohibiting the importation of British silver coins from the Irish Free was briefly

reconsidered.194 The British government finally decided to seek the moral high ground and

stick to the 1929 arrangement. Dominions secretary James Thomas concluded “we were

not going to have it said, when dealing with a Dominion Agreement, that there could be

any default of any sort on our side.”195 In the end de Valera did not demand the immediate

return of all British silver and merely enquired as to the final fate of the remaining British

silver once the arrangment reached in 1929 expired in 1939.

33

Improved relations between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State following

the Anglo Irish Agreement that terminated the “Economic War” in 1938 saw the extension

of the 1929 arrangment. It was agreed that an additional £60,000 of silver coins would be

accepted at face value by the United Kingdom every year between 1940 and 1950. Indeed,

the dispute over the gradual replacement of British silver coins in the 26 counties had an

ironic conclusion. The disruption caused by the outbreak of the Second World War led to

a shortage of silver coins in the United Kingdom. This led the Royal Mint to indicate that

it was prepared to accept more than the agreed annual figure of £60,000 of silver coins at

face value. Unfortunately, the Irish were suffering from similar shortages and responded

that they were “unable to see any possibility of repatriating any British silver coin in the

near future”.196 The coins that neither side had wanted in the 1920s proved to be useful

after all.

34

CONCLUSION

The creation of the new Irish coinage in the 1920s was not an enterprise that was devoid of

risk. The decision to boost the silver content of the higher value coins was based on a

sense of insecurity as to their reception by the Irish public. In addition, the Irish

government had taken a substantial financial risk in minting the coins before securing

agreement as to the future of the British coins currently in circulation in the Irish Free

State. The exclusion of the King’s portrait and any reference to the monarchy on the Irish

coins was bound to attract controversy. Nevertheless, the value of a separate Irish coinage

as a declaration of sovereignty was too important to be ignored by the Irish government. It

was, as Irish governmental memoranda suggested, essential in emphasing that the status of

the Irish Free State was no less than the Dominions of Canada, Australia and South Africa

which had issued their own token coinage soon after coming into existence. The Irish

government was not deterred by sceptics who argued that the other Dominions did not

suffer inconvenience in having a separate coinage from the United Kingdom since, unlike

the Irish Free State, they were seperated from that country by great distances.197 It should

be remembered that the right to issue a separate coinage was one of the distinguishing

features between the autonomy offered by successive proposals for Irish ‘home rule’ and

the status finally achieved under the 1921 Treaty.198 It should also be noted that many Irish

commentaters who supported the Treaty insisted that the true status of the Irish Free State

was not just equal but in excess of that enjoyed by the ‘daughters of Britannia’ in the new

world.199 The creation of an independent Irish coinage was an essential aspect in

maintaining claims of this nature.

The story of the creation of the new coins incapsulates much of the political history

surrounding the origins of the Irish Free State. The refusal to depart from the coin

denominations inherited from the British typifed much of the outlook of the ‘conservative

revolutionaries’ of the Cosgrave administration. In addition, the need to establish an image

of respectability for the new state was an important component in the decision to mint

coins with a higher silver value than their British counterparts. Finally, the designs of the

coins that were finally minted in 1928 reflected the denial of an ‘Irish Dominion’ that was

35

common even among Irish supporters of the settlement inherent in the 1921 Treaty. The

instructions given to the committee on coinage designs demanded a break with the

conventions followed on coinage throughout the British Empire. The symbolism of new

Irish coins were closer to those of the republic that had been denied by the 1921 Treaty.

This reality ensured that no substantial change in the national coinage was necessary when

Eamon de Valera introduced a new Constitution in 1937, apart from changing the name of

‘Saorstát Éireann’ to ‘Éire’.200 No additional change was necessary because the dominant

message of the coinage of the Irish Free State had always been a denial of the very

existence of an ‘Irish Dominion’.

Yet, the relationship between the Irish Free State and Dominion status was more

complex than might be suggested by the symbols that appeared on the coins. Behind these

images lay origins that were deeply intertwined with Dominion status. The existence of

separate coinages in the Dominions was used to justify the need to create a distinct coinage

for the Irish Free State.201 The first step taken by the Irish government in drafting the

legislation to create this coinage was to examine Dominion precedents in Canada and

South Africa. The Irish demanded strict adherence to Dominion precedents when the

British government initially refused to accept British silver coins at face value. It was

argued that a failure to treat the Irish Free State in the same manner as other Dominions

would constitute unwarranted discrimination. The Irish position on this matter can be

explained as having its basis in tactical considerations aimed at saving considerable sums

of money. However it also needs to be emphasised that Irish senstivity at being treated

differently from the older Dominions was a recurring theme in the 1920s and early 1930s.

For example, W.T. Cosgrave repeatedly expressed his disatisfaction at the progress of

Anglo Irish negotiations concerning the ownership of the Hugh Lane pictures by insisting

that the United Kingdom would never treat one of the other Dominions in such a

manner.202 In addition, the stance taken by the Irish government with respect to the

replacement of British silver coins was not the only occasion in which the Irish authorities

chose to treat their new state as a Dominion and not as a successor to the position of the

United Kingdom. In 1928 the Irish Supreme Court was faced with similar choice in the

case of Performing Right Society v. Bray Urban District Council and produced a decision

36

that treated the Irish Free State as a Dominion.203 The contention that the new Irish state

was a British Dominion had a profound impact on Irish internal politics and external

policies in the 1920s and 1930s. Although this reality was effectively denied by the

designs that appeared on the new Irish coins it constituted an integral part of the history of

the creation of the coinage that was finally issued in 1928.

The final ‘Dominion aspect’ of the new Irish coinage occurred immediately after the

first coins were minted. The first Irish coins produced since 1822 were placed in sets and

sent to the United Kingdom and to each of the Dominions.204 The only other state to enjoy

this privilege was the Vatican.205 Once again, the special relationship with the other self-

governing entities of the British Empire was fully recognised. This provides another

example of the manner in which the history of the new Irish coinage reflects the full

complexity of the identity of the Irish Free State as an entity founded on the acceptance

and rejection of Dominion status, both inextricably intertwined.

37

1 Colgan, Edward, For Want of Good Money, p. 176. 2 Although these instructions were not supposed to be strictly binding on the coinage committee they were treated as such in practice. See McCauley, Leo T. ‘Summary of the Proceedings of the Committee’ in Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 19-34 at 20-1 and W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Brian Cleeve, 25-39 at 26-7 and NAI DT S6244A, lecture by Thomas Bodkin, 30 November 1928 and NAI DF F17/23/29, interim report, 6 August 1926. Blythe would later make it clear during a dispute with the committee that its functions were only advisory in nature and that he made all final decisions. NAI DF F17/23/29, McElligott to Yeats, 4 November 1927.3 NAI DT S6244A, lecture by Thomas Bodkin, 30 November 1928. See also NAI DF F17/23/29, J. Brennan to E. Blythe, October 1925.4 NAI DT S6244A, lecture by Thomas Bodkin, 30 November 1928. See also NAI, DF F17/23/29, J. Brennan to R.A. Johnson, 2 October 1925. 5 Article 1 provided ‘Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and the Union of South Africa …’. Article 2 of the Treaty linked key aspects of the status of the Irish Free State to that enjoyed by Canada. The classic account of the relations between the Irish Free State and the Commonwealth is Harkness, David, The Restless Dominion, Macmillian: London, 1969.6 For example, see Article 66 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State and Mohr, Thomas, ‘The Foundations of Irish Extra-Territorial Legislation’, Irish Jurist, 40 (2005): 86-110.7 Noel-Baker, P.J. The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in International Law, p. 356.8 Seanad Debates, vol. 14, col. 1625, 23 July 1931.9 Swift MacNeill, J.G., Studies in the Constitution of the Irish Free State, vii-ix and 9-10; Stephens, E.M. ‘The Constitution’. In: Saorstát Éireann Official Handbook, 72-81 and Dáil Debates vol. 17, col. 756-761, 15 December 1926.10 For example, see Article 5 ‘Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state’.11 Republic of Ireland Act 1948.12 Seanad Debates, vol. 6, col. 501, 3 March 1926.13 For example, see Morris, Ewan, Our Own Devices, p. 173 and Caffrey, Paul ‘Nationality and Representation’ in Ireland, Design and Visual Culture: Negotiating Modernity 1922-1992, eds, King, Linda and Sisson, Elaine, 75-89. 14 Saker, H. The South African Flag Controversy, 1925-1928.15 Irish Times, 21 April 1976.16 It should, however, be noted that in 1922 a number of British stamps with portraits of King George V were overprinted with ‘Rialtas Sealadach na hÉireann 1922’ or ‘Saorstát Éireann 1922’.17 Irish Times, 7 December 1922.18 Keith, A.B. The King and the Imperial Crown, p. 358.19 The commission to provide this portrait was given to Sir John Lavery R.A and the portrait is based on his wife Hazel Lavery. The resulting series of bank notes are popularly, though unofficially, known as ‘Lavery notes’. 20 TNA-PRO CAB 24/204, memorandum on the ‘Operation of Dominion Legislation’ December 1928.21 Ibid. 22 Keith, A.B. Responsible Government in the Dominions Vol. III p. 1187.23 Section 8, Coinage Act (Australia) 1909 and Section 20, Canadian Currency Act 1910.24 Keith, A.B. Responsible Government in the Dominions Vol. III, pp. 1182-4.25 TNA-PRO CAB 24/204, memorandum on the ‘Operation of Dominion Legislation’ December 1928 and Keith, A.B. Responsible Government in the Dominions Vol. III, p. 1185. The Sydney mint was discontinued in 1926 under the Sydney Mint (Discontinuance) Proclamation, 1926.26 Chamberlain, C.C., Guide to Numismatics, p. 17.27 Section 91 (14) and (20) of the British North America Act 1867 and Article 51 (xii) of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 190028 This title was used until 1953 when it was removed on the basis a new conception of the Commonwealth. Chamberlain, Guide to Numismatics, p. 17.29 NAI DT S3875, T.A. Smiddy to W.T. Cosgrave, undated 1922 and Secretary of President’s Office to all ministers, 11 December 1922. See also Moynihan, Maurice, Currency and Central Banking in Ireland, 1922-60, p. 20. Officials within the British Treasury joked that a future Irish currency might be called the “Collins”. TNA Treasury, F4447/1, memorandum of O. Niemeyer, undated 1922. 30 This was reflected in a series of articles in the 1923 volume of the journal Studies on the possibility of introducing a new currency for the Free State that revealed deep-seated fears of rampant inflation and disruption of trade with the United Kingdom. McCartan, Bernard, ‘A New Currency for the Free State’ Studies 12 (1923): 77 with responses by leading academics and bankers at 191, 193, 195 and 198. See also Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 161-3, 27 January 1926.

31 Ernest Blythe declined to give an assurance that the introduction of the new coinage was not a stepping-stone to a new currency. Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 196, 27 January 1926.32 NAI DT S3875, Memorandum for Executive Council, 14 June 1924. 33 NAI DT S3875, memorandum on ‘Silver Coinage and Ten Shilling Currency Notes’, H.S. Guinness, 2 February 1924. 34 NAI, DF F17/23/29, memorandum on proposed coinage for the Irish Free State, 31 August 1925.35 Ibid. H.S. Guinness estimated that £1,473,136 of silver coinage was in circulation in the Irish Free State. 36 Dáil Debates, vol. 28, col. 834-5, 6 March 1929.37 Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 175, 27 January 1926.38 NAI DT S3875, ‘Memorandum on Token Coinage’, department of finance, undated 1924. 39 Ibid.40 Ibid.41 Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 178, 27 January 1926 and col 169, 437, 439-42, 444 and 449, 4 February 1926.42 NAI 2002/14/603, South African Coinage Act 1922 and Canadian Currency Act 1910. 43 DF F17/23/29, Brennan to Johnson 16 November 1925. The only exception can be found in Section 4 of the Coinage Act, 1926 which imposed a fine of £100 for the issuing of unofficial coins or tokens intended to be used as money. See Coinage Offences Act 1861 and Coinage Act 1870. 44 Section 2, Coinage Act 1926.45 TNA Treasury, F4447/2, T.M. Healy, Governor General, to L.S. Amery, Dominions Secretary, 3 May 1926 and NAI GOVG 1/F749.46 NAI DT S3875, Acting Secretary, department of finance to President, 14 December 1922.47 Ibid. See also Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 184-6 and 190-1, 27 January 1926.48 Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 192-3, 27 January 1926.49 Section 5 of the Coinage Act 1926 confirmed the continuance of British coins as legal tender but Section 6 gave the Executive Council the power to terminate this position by means of statutory instrument.50 This followed a recommendation made by the department of finance in 1924. NAI DT S3875, ‘Memorandum on Token Coinage’, department of finance, undated 1924.51 Ibid. See also Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 160, 27 January 1926.52 NAI DT S3875, ‘Memorandum on Token Coinage’, department of finance, undated 1924.53 Seanad Debates, vol. 6, col. 509-10, 3 March 1926.54 Ibid. at col. 506-7.55 Coinage Acts, 1942 and 1950.56 Aristophanes, The Frogs, available at http://www.archive.org (accessed 3 October 2012).57 Colbert, J.P. ‘The Banking and Currency System’. In: Saorstát Éireann Official Handbook, 97-108.58 NAI, DF F17/23/29, R.A. Johnson to J. Brennan, 25 September 1925.59 NAI, DF F17/23/29, J. Brennan to R.A. Johnson, 2 October 1925.60 NAI DF F17/23/29, R.A. Johnson to J. Brennan, 12 November 1925.61 NAI DF F17/23/29, J. Brennan to E. Blythe, October 1925.62 NAI DT S6244A, committee on coinage designs appointed by the minister for finance, 19 May 1926. Langley A. West, Master of the Corporation of Gold and Silversmiths of Ireland, was originally proposed to sit on the committee, NAI DF F17/23/29, J. Brennan to D. O’Brien 19 May 1926. West declined on the grounds of being ‘utterly crippled with rheumatism’ NAI DF F17/23/29, L.A. West to J. Brennan, 25 may 1926. Manning Robertson, fellow of the Royal Architectural Society was considered to fill West’s place. NAI DF F17/23/29, L.T. McCauley to J Brennan 1 June 1926. Barry Egan was finally chosen to fill the final seat on the committee. NAI DF F17/23/29, L.T. McCauley to J Brennan 3 June 1926. 63 Ibid. 64 NAI DT S6244A, ‘The Irish Coinage Designs’ and Morris, Our Own Devices, p. 87.65 NAI DF F17/23/29, J. Brennan to E. Blythe, October 1925.66 Ibid. See also McElligott, J.J. ‘Irish Coinage Past and Present’ in Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 9-18 at 15-6, and W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Cleeve, Brian, 21-24 at 23-4. 67 Colbert, 1932.68 Foster, R.F., W. B. Yeats - A Life, II, p. 333.69 NAI DT S6244A, committee on coinage designs – interim report, 6 August 1926.70 NAI DT S6244A, letter of invitation sent by Leo T. McCauley, department of finance, September 1926. The committee briefly considered recommending the use of the Ullard harp as a third model. NAI DF F17/23/29, Interim

Report, 6 August 1926 and McElligott to McCauley, 9 August 1926. Although the Trinity harp was ultimately selected, the Dalway harp also had its supporters. NAI DF F17/23/29, McElligott to Blythe, 9 August 1926. 71 NAI DT S6244A, Schedule to Interim Report of the Committee of Coinage Designs, paragraph 4.72 Ibid. 73 Ernest Blythe tried to insist on the shaggy coat but relented in the face of opposition from the coinage committee. TCDMS Bodkin Papers, 6963/24, meeting of the coinage committee, 14 October 1927, J.J. McElligott to secretary, committee on coinage designs, 21 October 1927 and 6963/29, Leo T. McCauley to coinage committee, 15 February 1928.74 TCDMS Bodkin Papers, 6963/26, coinage committee to J.J. McElligott, 29 October 1927.75 TNA Treasury F4447/1, J. Brennan to Otto Niemeyer, 16 April 1925.76 NAI DT S6244A, committee on coinage designs – interim report, 6 August 1926. 77 TNA Treasury F4447/1, J. Brennan to Otto Niemeyer, 16 April 1925.78 NAI DF F17/23/29, McElligott to Blythe, 9 August 1926.79 NAI DF F17/23/29, Hogan to McElligott, 14 December 1927.80 NAI DT S6244A, ‘The Irish Coinage Designs’, lecture delivered by Thomas Bodkin at the Metropolitan School of Art, Dublin, 30 November 1928.81 For example, Hansard, House of Lords, vol. 73, cols. 508-9, 13 March 1929. 82 NAI, DF F17/23/29, memorandum on proposed coinage for the Irish Free State, 31 August 1925.83 NAI DT S6244A, ‘The Irish Coinage Designs’, lecture delivered by Thomas Bodkin at the Metropolitan School of Art, Dublin, 30 November 1928.84 The committee on coinage design admitted that they had considered the use of a ram instead of a pig for the half penny coin. NAI DT S6244A, committee on coinage designs – interim report, August 1926. Ernest Blythe made clear his preference for a ram design. NAI DT S6244A, Leo T. McCauley to Secretary, Executive Council, 9 August 1926. The final invitation to the artists provided a choice between a boar, sow and a ram for the half penny. NAI DT S6244A, letter of invitation sent by Leo T. McCauley, department of finance, September 1926. Several artists, including Percy Metcalfe provided designs depicting a ram but this animal was not chosen for inclusion in the final series. NAI DT S6244A, committee on coinage designs – report on designs submitted in connection with the limited competition, 22 March 1927. A ram design was again considered but rejected for conclusion among the designs for the Irish decimal coinage. Moynihan, Maurice, Currency and Central Banking in Ireland 1922-1960, p. 33.85 NAI, DF F17/23/29, coinage committee to McElligott, 25 October 1927, TCDMS Bodkin Papers, 6963/24, handwritten note on the back of J.J. McElligott to secretary, committee on coinage designs, 21 October 1927.86 NAI, DF F17/23/29, McElligott to Yeats, 27 October 1927 and 4 November 1927. 87 NAI, DF F17/23/29, coinage committee to McCauley, 29 October 192788 Yeats, W.B. ‘What we did or tried to do’ in Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 1-8 at 2, and W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Cleeve, Brian, 9-20, at 10. 89 Foster, R.F., W. B. Yeats - A Life, II, p.333.90 NAI DF F17/23/29 J.J. McElligott to E. Blythe, 9 August 1926. The committee also rejected Yeats’ additional suggestions of a barley sheaf and a greyhound. Foster, R.F., W. B. Yeats - A Life, II, p.333.91 J.J, McElligott of the department of finance proposed a sheaf of wheat. NAI DF F17/23/29 McElligott to Blythe, 9 August 1926. This suggestion was later taken up by Ernest Blythe. NAI DT S6244A, Leo T. McCauley to Secretary, Executive Council, 9 August 1926 and NAI DF F17/23/29 McCauley to McElligott, 24 August 1926. W.B. Yeats also proposed the inclusion of a barley sheaf. Foster, R.F., W. B. Yeats - A Life, II, p.333. 92 McCauley, Leo T. ‘The Summary of the Proceedings of the Committee’ in Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 19-34 at 20-1 and W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Cleeve, Brian, 25-39 at 26-7 and Coinage (Dimensions and Designs) Order 1928 (S.I. No. 76/1928).93 NAI DF F 17/23/29, J. Brennan to R.A. Johnson, 2 October 1925.94 NAI DT S6244A, ‘The Irish Coinage Designs’.95 The insertion of accents over the Irish words caused some difficulty and delayed the minting of the coins. NAI DF F17/23/29, account of meeting between J.J. McElligott, secretary of department of finance, and deputy master of the Royal Mint, undated.96 W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Cleeve, Brian, 1972, p. 11. This method of choosing an artist by means of a limited competition was admired by the Royal Mint which recommended this method for use in designing new coins for Australia. NAI DT S6244A, ‘The Irish Coinage Designs’. 97 Yeats, W.B. ‘What we did or tried to do’ in W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Cleeve, Brian, 9-20, at 11.98 NAI DT S6244A, coinage designs, summary of views of the ministers. The designs provided by the seven artists can be accessed in in Coinage of Saorstát Éireann. Jerome Connor did not restrict his designs to the animals laid down by

the coinage committee. He submitted a design of a woman reaping in a field with a round tower in the background for the half crown and a boy’s head for the penny. These alternative designs failed to gain support with the coinage committee or the Irish government. 99 Yeats, W.B. ‘What we did or tried to do’ in W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Cleeve, Brian, 9-20 at 12 and Colgan, Edward, For Want of Good Money, p. 179. The coinage committee hoped that Mestrović’s design might be included on a five shilling coin that might be added to the series. This was refused on the ground that no such denomination was recognised by the Coinage Act 1926 and that additional legislation would be necessary. NAI DF F17/23/29 McElligott to Bodkin, 8 November 1927.100 Yeats, W.B. ‘What we did or tried to do’ in W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Cleeve, Brian, 9-20 at 12.101 Valdez Moses, M. (2001) The Poet as Politian, Reason, available at http://reason.com/issues/february-2001 (accessed 12 April 2012).102 Percy Metcalfe sent photographs that depicted his designs in coin-sized formats. NAI, DF F17/23/29, secretary, department of the President to secretary, department of finance, 26 April 1927.103 NAI DT S6244A, coinage designs, summary of views of the ministers. The patterns submitted by Morbiducci evoked a great deal of interest in the years that followed with extremely high prices paid for surviving patterns and at least one proposal that they be re-used for a new series of Irish coins. One such proposal was made by Fianna Fáil TD and future Minister for Education, Gerard Brady in 1980. Evening Herald, 21 May 1980. 104 Cleeve, Brian ‘Afterword’ in W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Cleeve, Brian, 68-75 at 72. 105 See NAI DT S6244A, ‘The Irish Coinage Designs’ and McCauley, 1972, pp. 38-9.106 NAI DT S6244A, committee on coinage designs – report on designs submitted in connection with the limited competition, 22 March 1927. The relatively modest level of the fee quoted by Metcalfe did not prevent the Irish government from seeking to reduce it further. Metcalfe proved resourceful in resisting these efforts insisting that he had cut already cut down his prices to the minimum because he regarded the Irish Free State as a comparatively poor country. DF F17/23/29, department of finance note to Mr Leydon, 11 June 1927. The large number of changes to the original designs required by the coinage committee and the Irish government ensured that Metcalfe actually had to be paid more than his original price. DF F17/23/29, McElligott to Metcalf, 3 May 1928.107 Irish Press, 8 July 1964.108 Irish Times, 18 August 1964.109 Cleeve, 1972, p. 73.110 http://ashteadpottery.com/metcalfe.html (accessed 18 February 2012). Metcalfe subsequently received commissions to design medals for the visit of the Prince of Wales to South Africa and the visit of King Faud I of Egypt to the United Kingdom. Caffrey, Paul ‘Nationality and Representation’. In Ireland, Design and Visual Culture: Negotiating Modernity 1922-1992, eds, Linda King and Elaine Sisson, 75-89 at 86.111 Metcalfe was also involved in designing the George Cross, the Great Seal of the Realm, the Mond Prize medal and the Nobel Prize medal. Devine R., Metcalfe, Percy, in Dictionary of Irish Biography, 6, p. 493 and Cleeve, 1972, p. 73 and Caffrey, Paul ‘Nationality and Representation’. In Ireland, Design and Visual Culture: Negotiating Modernity 1922-1992, eds, Linda King and Elaine Sisson, 75-89 at 86.112 Morris, Our Own Devices, p. 95.113 NAI DT S3875, memorandum on ‘Silver Coinage and Ten Shilling Currency Notes’, H.S. Guinness, 2 February 1924 and ‘Memorandum on Token Coinage’, department of finance, undated 1924. 114 TNA Treasury, F4447/1, R.A Johnson to Secretary of the Treasury, 30 March 1922.115 TNA Treasury F4447/1, R.A. Johnson to Otto Niemeyer, 26 January 1922.116 TNA Treasury F4447/1, notes on a proposed coinage for Ireland, 29 March 1922.117 NAI DF F17/23/29, offer of Swiss Metalworks compared with British offer, 21 October 1926 and Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 161, 27 January 1926. See also TNA Treasury F4447/1, J. Brennan to Otto Niemeyer, 10 July 1924.118 NAI DT S4517, Cosgrave to Churchill, 9 July 1928.119 Foster, R.F., W. B. Yeats - A Life, II, p.334.120 Bodkin, Thomas ‘Postscript to “Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 1928”’ in Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 43-47 at 43 and W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Brian Cleeve, 55-60 at 55.121 Morris, Our Own Devices, p. 87.122 NAI DF F17/23/29, R.A. Johnson to J. Brennan, 12 November 1925.123 NAI DT S6244A, ‘The Irish Coinage Designs’.124 TCDMS 7001/1740/3 W.B. Yeats to Thomas Bodkin, 20 December 1928.125 See Irish Independent, 20 July and 26 July 1927.126 Dáil Debates vol. 20, col. 1199, 2 August 1927.

127 Bodkin, Thomas ‘Postscript to “Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 1928”’ in Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 43-7 at 44 and W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Brian Cleeve, 55-60 at 56.128 Ibid.129 Ibid.130 See Mohr, Thomas. ‘The Privy Council appeal as a minority safeguard for the Protestant community of the Irish Free State, 1922-1935’ Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 63(3) (2012): 365-395.131 For example, Bodkin, Thomas ‘Postscript to “Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 1928”’ in Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 43-7 and Brian Cleeve (ed) W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, 55-60.132 Morris, Our Own Devices, pp. 97-8.133 Barnes, John and Nicholson, David (eds), The Leo Amery Diaries: Vol. I, pp. 581-2.134 The Evening Standard stated ‘We may well be jealous of the beautiful new Irish coins’ while the Nation concluded ‘The Free State has the most beautiful set of coins in the world’. Bodkin, Thomas ‘Postscript to “Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 1928”’ in Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 43-7 at 47 and Brian Cleeve (ed) W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, p. 60. 135 NAI DF F17/23/29, account of meeting between J.J. McElligott, secretary of department of finance, and deputy master of the Royal Mint, undated.136 Bodkin, Thomas ‘Postscript to “Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 1928”’ in Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, 43-7 at 47, and W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, ed. Brian Cleeve, 55-60 at 60. 137 NAI DF F17/23/29, Robert Johnson to Joseph Brennan, 5 August 1926.138 Irish Independent, 1 December 1928.139 For example, see Articles 12, 24 and 51.140 Morris, Our Own Devices, p. 174.141 NAI DF F17/23/29, Robert Johnson to Joseph Brennan, 5 August 1926.142 TNA Treasury F4447/1, R.A. Johnson to Otto Niemeyer, 26 January 1922.143 For a contrasting opinion, see Morris, Our Own Devices, p. 102. 144 Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 446, 4 February 1926.145 Morris, Our Own Devices, p. 102.146 Irish Times, 20 January 1926.147 For example, see https://www.cointalk.com/threads/irish-political-tokens.188964/ (accessed 15 August 2014).148 Barnes and Nicholson (eds) The Leo Amery Diaries, Vol. 1, p. 483.149 Morris, Our Own Devices, pp. 180-2. 150 Keith, A.B. The King and the Imperial Crown, p. 358.151 Hansard, House of Lords, vol. 73, cols. 508-9, 13 March 1929.152 Ibid. at p. 509.153 Hansard, House of Lords, vol. 73, col. 454 and 508-11, 12 March 1929.154 See the report of the 1929 ‘operation of Dominion legislation’ conference. Cmd. 3479 at 35.155 Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 438, 440-1 and 448, 4 February 1926 and Seanad Debates, vol. 6, col. 504, 3 March 1926.156 NAI DT S4623, L.S. Amery to T.M. Healy, 14 April 1927.157 NAI DT S4517, Churchill to Cosgrave, 13 June 1928. 158 Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 448, 4 February 1926 and Seanad Debates, vol. 6, col. 508, 3 March 1926.159 The dispute over the withdrawal of British coins was further complicated by uncertainty as to the total value of silver coinage in circulation in the Irish Free State. The British put forward a figure of £3 million while the Irish estimates were closer to £1.5 million. NAI DT S4517, Churchill to Cosgrave, 13 June 1928 and Cosgrave to Churchill, 9 July 1928.160 NAI DT S4517, Churchill to Cosgrave, 13 June 1928.161 Ibid.162 TNA Treasury F4447/4 untitled note by Churchill, 6 April 1928 and R.V.N. Hopkins to Chancellor of the Exchequer, 25 July 1928.163 TNA Treasury F4447/1, financial secretary to chancellor of the exchequer, 25 January 1926.164 NAI DT S4517, Churchill to Cosgrave, 13 June 1928.165 TNA-PRO CAB 23/57 ‘Irish Free State – Silver and Currency in’, 23 May 1928. Although Churchill had threatened to introduce legislation banning the importation of silver coins from the Irish Free State he was aware that this measure would not prevent the Irish government from finding other ways to dump silver coins in the United Kingdom, most likely across the border with Northern Ireland. TNA-PRO CAB23/58, ‘The Irish Free State – silver currency in’. Ernest Blythe

had told the Dáil in 1926 that British refusal to accept silver coins ‘would not prevent us getting rid of the coin at its face value, but the process might be slower’. Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 448, 4 February 1926 and Seanad Debates, vol. 6, col. 508, 3 March 1926. W.T. Cosgrave raised the possibility of the Irish Free State making certain payments agreed under the ‘Ultimate Financial Settlement’ of 1926 to the British Treasury in the form of silver coins. NAI DT S4517, Cosgrave to Churchill, 9 July 1928. Winston Churchill was adamant that the British government would be under no obligation to accept payments in this form. TNA-PRO CAB 24/197 ‘Silver and Currency in the Irish Free State’ memorandum by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 31 July 1928. 166 NAI DT S4517, Cosgrave to Churchill, 9 July 1928.167 It was estimated that the United Kingdom was accepting £100,000 a year in silver coins from Australia since the introduction of its own coinage in 1910, with a short hiatus between 1918 and 1921, and another £100,000 a year from South Africa since it had introduced its own coinage in 1922. TNA Treasury F4447/4 memorandum on Mr Cosgrave’s letter, 25 July 1928.168 Ibid. and NAI DT S4517, draft response to Churchill, December 1928. See also Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 448 and 451, 4 February 1926.169 NAI DT S4517, Churchill to Cosgrave, 28 August 1928 and TNA-PRO CAB 24/197 ‘Silver and Currency in the Irish Free State’ memorandum by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 31 July 1928.170 The Colonial Conference of 1907 did decide “The Government which issues the coin must bear the cost of its renovation … so long as it remains in circulation; and if circumstance should ever arise to require its withdrawal from circulation the liability would rest on the Government to redeem it at its face value”. In the 1920s the British government argued that this resolution only applied to worn out silver coins and that the British government could still place limits on how much worn out silver it accepted in a particular year. TNA Treasury F4447/5, memorandum on “redemption of British silver coins from Dominions and colonies”, undated.171 TNA Treasury F4447/5, memorandum on “redemption of British silver coins from Dominions and colonies”, undated TNA CAB 24/197 ‘Silver and Currency in the Irish Free State’ memorandum by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 31 July 1928 and NAI DT S4517, Churchill to Cosgrave, 28 August 1928. 172 For example, see Mohr, Thomas. ‘British Imperial Statutes and Irish Law: Statutes Passed Before the Creation of the Irish Free State’ The Journal of Legal History, 31(3) (2010): 299-321.173 NAI DT S4517, draft response to Churchill, December 1928.174 For example, see Hansard, House of Lords, vol. 73, cols. 513-4, 13 March 1929 and House of Commons, vol. 224, col. 1126, 31 January 1929.175 Hansard, House of Lords, vol. 73, cols. 518, 13 March 1929.176 Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest (1895) Act 2.177 TNA Treasury F4447/4, British Silver Coin in the Irish Free State, 21 March 1927.178 TNA Treasury F4447/4, British Silver Coin in the Irish Free State, 21 March 1927.179 TNA Treasury F4447/2 R.A. Johnson to F.W. Leith Ross, 2 March 1927180 TNA Treasury F4447/2, B.G. Catterns to F. Phillips, 15 March 1927.181 TNA Treasury F4447/3, R.A. Johnson to F.W. Leith Ross, 16 June 1927.182 TNA Treasury F4447/3, R.A. Johnson to G.G. Whiskard, 16 June 1927.183 TNA Treasury F4447/1, memorandum by Otto Niemeyer, undated 1922.184 TNA Treasury F4447/1, R.A. Johnson to secretary of the Treasury, 30 March 1922185 TNA Treasury F4447/1, Otto Niemeyer to J. Brennan, 14 July 1924 and NAI GOVG 1/F749, L.S. Amery, Dominions secretary to T.M. Healy, Governor General, 14 April 1927.186 TNA Treasury F4447/4, Liddell to Phillips, 14 February 1928 and note by Winston Churchill, 6 April 1928.187 TNA Treasury F4447/4, Draft Clause – Power to prohibit the importation of certain coins, undated.188 TNA Treasury F4447/4, note attached to E. Hale to C.W. Hardisty, 14 May 1928.189 The amended version of the draft provision read “The power conferred by section two of the Customs Amendment Act 1886, of prohibiting by proclamation the importation of such coins as are mentioned in that section shall extend to the importation into the United Kingdom of coins current in any country out of the United Kingdom and the importation into the United Kingdom from any such country of silver coins of the realm, and the said section two shall have effect accordingly.” TNA Treasury F4447/4, draft attached to C.W. Hardisty to E. Hale, 17 May 1928.190 TNA Treasury F4447/4, silver and currency in the Irish Free State, 23 May 1928.191 Barnes and Nicholson (eds.), The Leo Amery Diaries: Vol. I, pp. 581-2.192 British Parliamentary Papers, Cmd. 4184, papers relating to a conference between representatives of the United Kingdom and of the Irish Free State, 14-15 October 1932.193 TNA Treasury F4447/5, W.B. Spender, Ministry of Finance, Northern Ireland to S.D Waley, Treasury, 9 April 1932.194 TNA Treasury F4447/5, memorandum on withdrawal of United Kingdom from the Irish Free State, 9 June 1932.195 Hansard, House of Commons vol. 267 col. 679, 17 June 1932.

196 Only £60,000 of British silver coin was sent to the United Kingdom between April 1940 and March 1944. The return of coinage in the quantities agreed in 1938 was only resumed in 1944 when the war was almost concluded. Maurice Moynihan, Currency and Central Banking in Ireland 1922-1960, p.132. 197 Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 165, 27 January 1926 and col. 441, 4 February 1926.198 Section 3, Government of Ireland Bill, 1886; Section 3, Government of Ireland Bill, 1893; Section 2 Government of Ireland Act 1914 and Section 4, Government of Ireland Act 1920.199 Swift MacNeill, J.G. ‘Thoughts on the Constitution of the Irish Free State’ 5(1) (1923) The Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 52 and Studies in the Constitution of the Irish Free State, pp. 9-10.200 This change appeared on Irish coins issued from 1939 onwards. Coinage (Dimensions and Designs) Order, 1938 (S.I. No. 78/1938).201 NAI DT S3875, ‘Memorandum on Token Coinage’, department of finance, undated 1924.202 TNA-PRO, CAB 24/180 C.P 230 (26) ‘Lane Picture Bequest – Note by Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs’, 8 June 1926. Similar charges of discrimination were made with respect to appeals from the Irish courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. For example, see Dáil Debates, vol. 14, col. 133-4, 27 January 1926 and Seanad Debates, vol. 6, col. 413, 24 February 1926. See also Hughes, H. National Sovereignty and Judicial Autonomy in the British Commonwealth of Nations, p. 82.203 [1928] I.R. 512. See Mohr, Thomas. ‘British Imperial Statutes and Irish Law: Statutes Passed Before the Creation of the Irish Free State’ The Journal of Legal History, pp. 310-1.204 NAI DT S6244A.205 Ibid.

Bibliography

Coinage of Saorstát Éireann, Dublin: Stationary Office, 1928Saorstát Éireann Official Handbook, Dublin: Talbot, 1932Barnes, John and Nicholson, David (eds), The Leo Amery Diaries: Vol. I, London: Hutchinson, 1980Caffrey, Paul ‘Nationality and Representation’. In Ireland, Design and Visual Culture: Negotiating Modernity 1922-1992, eds, Linda King and Elaine Sisson, 75-89. Cork, Cork University Press, 2011Chamberlain, C.C., Guide to Numismatics London: English Universities Press, 1960Cleeve, Brian, (ed) W.B. Yeats and the Designs of Ireland’s Coinage, Dublin and New York: Dolmen Press, 1972Colgan, Edward, For Want of Good Money, Bray Co. Wicklow: Wordwell, 2003Foster, R.F., W. B. Yeats - A Life, II: The Arch-Poet 1915-1939 Oxford: OUP 2003Harkness, David, The Restless Dominion, Macmillian: London, 1969Hughes, H. National Sovereignty and Judicial Autonomy in the British Commonwealth of Nations, London: P.S. King, 1931Keith, A.B. Responsible Government in the Dominions Vol. III, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912Keith, A.B. The King and the Imperial Crown, London: OUP, 1936McCartan, Bernard, ‘A New Currency for the Free State’ Studies 12 (1923): 77 and 191, 193, 195 and 198Mohr, Thomas, ‘The Foundations of Irish Extra-Territorial Legislation’, Irish Jurist, 40 (2005): 86-110Mohr, Thomas. ‘British Imperial Statutes and Irish Law: Statutes Passed Before the Creation of the Irish Free State’ The Journal of Legal History, 31(3) (2010): 299-321Mohr, Thomas. ‘The Privy Council appeal as a minority safeguard for the Protestant community of the Irish Free State, 1922-1935’ Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 63(3) (2012): 365-395Morris, Ewan, Our Own Devices: National Symbols and Political Conflict in Twentieth-Century Ireland, Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2005Moynihan, Maurice, Currency and Central Banking in Ireland 1922-1960, Dublin: Central Bank of Ireland, 1975, p. 33Noel-Baker, P.J. The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in International Law, London: Longmans, 1929Saker, H. The South African Flag Controversy, 1925-1928 Capetown: OUP, 1980Swift MacNeill, J.G. Studies in the Constitution of the Irish Free State, Dublin: Talbot Press, 1925Swift MacNeill, J.G. ‘Thoughts on the Constitution of the Irish Free State’ The Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, 5(1) (1923): 52