Alvaro Jaspe

---

University of Ulster, Northern Ireland | Published: 15 March, 2011
ISSUE 6 | Pages: 8-20 | PDF | DOAJ | https://doi.org/10.24162/EI2011-1997

The Consulate in Dublin.

By the end of 1930, the newly established (1927) Spanish consulate in Dublin, had developed a comfortable routine of diplomatic activity which included the  writing of its annual report which revealed that at year’s end, a total of nineteen Spaniards were residing in the Free State, whilst a further three were resident in the North (two in Derry and one in Garvagh.  The majority of these nationals were students or members of religious orders, (6 each), domestic staff or chefs, the remaining number.  Reports were compiled by Consul General Antonio Saque on matters such the difficulty of trade between the two nations given high Irish tariffs and the government subsidies received by the Irish tourist industry. One of the main events of the year for the Consulate was the move of its “cramped” offices in Westmoreland Street to more acceptable premises in Fitzwilliam Street Dublin (Archivo General de la Administración,  Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, IDD no.39, 54/11726, reports of 2 and 31 December 1930).  This was quickly followed by an “At Home” gathering held by the Consul at the Gresham Hotel which was attended by President Cosgrave and the Ministers of Finance and Foreign Affairs and several diplomatic representatives (Irish Times, 16-2-31).

Even into this diplomatic order there were signs that not everything back in Madrid was quite as mundane.  Earlier on in February, Saque had received a direct instruction from the office of the Principal Secretary in Madrid to “play down any inflammatory or alarmist reports” on the situation in Spain which had recently appeared in sections of the Irish press (AGA Leg.14 C.54/11726 14-2-30). A view reinforced when five months later on 2 May he belatedly wrote to his new superiors in Madrid expressing his regret at not having contacted them earlier to express his support and loyalty to the new regime “given the uncertainty and disagreement of how to proceed in discussions with my colleagues dispersed around the world” After these initial doubts, Saque was taking the opportunity to “dispel any previous doubts” about his loyalty and sent his strongest expression of support for the new governmental institutions, who “as representative of the most genuine form of democracy, will allow Spain to discover the path toward prosperity” (AGA Leg 14 C.54/11726, 2-5-31). 

This delayed response did not do enough to assuage the Spanish government’s aim of appointing suitable and enthusiastic representatives to its diplomatic posts to defend the interests of the new Republic. (Egido Léon 2000: 191)  So it was that by the summer of 1931 Saque was replaced by the more suitable Emilio Sanz y Tovar who by the beginning of August was reporting of the political instability in Ireland in the run up to the next general elections which were being undermined by “various secret societies condoned by the Catholic Church” which had survived President Cosgrave’s “nine year repression.”  Despite that, his first impressions were that the country was “relatively strong” and that  any change of government might allow “these societies to extend their influence.” (AGA, Leg 14 C.54/11726, 8-8-31) 

The arrival of the new Consul to Dublin as representative of the new government in Madrid seemed to herald an era in Spanish-Irish relations.  The Foreign Ministry in Madrid, despite the difficulties of conducting a coherent foreign policy in the light of constant government changes (11 foreign ministers in 5 years) did, overall, seem more prepared to court the Irish Free State as a diplomatic ally and possible future trade partner. This period in Irish-Spanish relations was not marked by quite the same level of  anxiety over whether to do so would be harmful to its relations with Britain, so typical of the period 1924-1930 (Jaspe 2008: 130).  The Consular office in Dublin whilst also reflective of the changes occurring in Madrid, with four different occupants of the post in five years, each with differing attitudes towards the extremism of Irish Republicanism on the one hand or the conservatism of the Church on Irish society on the other, steadily pursued this overriding policy of developing diplomatic, business and cultural ties with Dublin. This paper focuses mainly on the tenure of  Emilio Sanz y Tovar, 1931-1933, as Consul. 

Tovar, recently appointed by the new Foreign Ministry in Madrid was particularly enthusiastic about his brief of developing ties with the Free State.  To allow greater independence from the Embassy in London, one of his first proposals  in August 1931 was to maintain the geographic unity of Ireland, in diplomatic terms at least, by arguing that the Derry and Belfast consular offices should be part of the same jurisdiction (AGA Leg 14 C.54/11726, 20-8-31).  On 2 September he informed Madrid that whilst he had not officially presented his credentials to the Irish Minister McGilligan, he had been officially welcomed by the Joseph Walshe,  head of the diplomatic service who assured him of “the Irish government’s appreciation of this high ranking consular position” after talking at length about the good relations “that have always existed between our two countries.”  At this meeting Tovar had stated that Madrid’s purpose in establishing and developing the diplomatic ties between the two nations was to “demonstrate its esteem and support for the Government of the Free State.”  To this end Tovar proposed that trade between the two countries should be developed beyond the existing level as well as the “spiritual and cultural bonds between them.”  Also discussed was the first official exchange of language students and teachers.  Both parties agreed that they would do everything in their power to facilitate a strengthening of ties (AGA Leg 14 C.54/11726, 2-9-31).  By the end of the year the cultural ball was well and truly rolling as in December the Spanish football team arrived to play  return friendly at Dalymount, (Ireland had played in a 1-1 draw with Spain on 26 April) where despite a tour of the Guinness factory the day before, the visitors came out 0-5 winners (AGA Leg 14 C.54/11726, 5-12-31).

The warm reception given to the II Republic’s new representative by Joseph Walshe in many ways sums up his personal, and Ireland’s, ambiguous response in 1931 to the political upheaval being experienced in Spain.  A committed Catholic, and republican, he was convinced international Catholicism could play a vital role against mainly leftist totalitarianism in Europe. He followed the rightist movements in France and Spain with interest, in particular the career of José Maria Gil Robles, admiring as he did the CEDA’s authoritarian politics mixed with Catholic social policy (Kennedy 2008: 191). The awareness of the strong historical ties between Spain and Ireland was something many fellow Irish shared and many, though by no means all, found it difficult to marry their own Catholic republican ideal with the secular, left leaning republican model taking shape on the Iberian peninsula.  It was not so much a case that the establishment of the first attempt at twentieth century democracy in Spain passed Dublin by; it did not as official and public opinion will demonstrate.  Arguably it is more accurate to state that they did not know how to respond to this similar, yet different form of Iberian republicanism. 

Irish responses to the Spanish II Republic.

The main Irish daily newspapers reflected this dichotomy of opinion over the Spanish Second Republic and general interest in Spanish affairs.  The influential Irish Times in particular regularly carried features on the political situation in the run up to and in the wake of the Municipal elections in April and of the consequences of their outcome. See Irish Times, “Boycotting the Elections”, “New Powers for the Cortes” (9-2-31); “Opposing Forces Gaining”, “King May Surrender”, “The Future of Spain”, (16-2-31); “Spain Again in the Melting Pot, the Spanish Crisis” (18-2-31); “King Alfonso’s Future”, “Football in Spain” (26-2-31). The latter concludes: “we must welcome this healthy keenness for Association Football among peoples who hitherto have devoted themselves to crueller sports as the bull-fight.  In the present condition of Spanish affairs a football boom will be a blessing if it diverts the public mind from political abstractions.” 

In its editorial of 14 April the paper stated that:

The voice of the Spanish people has been heard for the first time in eight years, and its verdict is precise and clear… urban Spain, in all its strongholds, endorses the Republican demands … all the most active elements in Spanish democracy are willing, even eager, to welcome a Spanish Republic … For the first time the impulses of democracy seem to have established a real hold upon south-eastern Europe … They are in revolt against a long sway of costly and, one the whole, inefficient autocracy, which has varied between the corruptions of nominated cabinets and the severities of dictatorship.  King Alfonso will be lucky if holds his throne; certainly he must resign himself to a drastic curtailment of its privileges (Irish Times, 14-4-31).

Opinion elsewhere in the Irish press and society as a whole, if not quite as outspoken in favour of the new Republic, wavered between praise for having broken with the monarchical institution and recognising nationalist aspirations in Catalonia, tempered with a fear for the future of the Church and the Catholic Monarch, reflecting the political ambivalence toward this movement within Ireland. 

The Irish Independent initially seemed to endorse the opinion of the majority of Spain in favour of the Republic (15-4-31) whilst the Sunday Independent chose to analyse the increased power of Catalonia in the new Republic stating: “From being the ‘bad girl’ of the family of the Monarchy, Catalonia has changed its role, and is now the strong child of the new Republic.”  In a full page report on the role of the region, “which has almost succeeded in imposing its terms of regional independence upon the Central Government of Madrid” the paper concluded “All relics of the Monarchy will be removed in time, and it is the strong opinion of everybody that the King has gone forever” (Sunday Independent, 19-4-31).  This struck a chord with the  concept of a national identity asserting its independence against an overbearing imperial master, but a note of caution still prevailed, even here.   The Vatican’s failure to formally recognise the new regime in Spain was noted (Sunday Independent, 19-4-31). 

This emotional conflict was also evident in regional titles.  For example on 25 April the Connacht Tribune reported that with Alfonso XIII’s departure, “a resounding blow was struck for a Republic” but three weeks later emphasised the civic breakdown surrounding the sacking of religious buildings and the departure of the Spanish Primate from Spain (16-5-31).  For its part, in the Cork based Southern Star the columnist, Finnerty, though acknowledging the “recent peaceful revolution in Spain” felt that “general sympathy is felt with his Most Catholic Majesty Alfonso who has suffered for the misdeeds of others” before reminding his readers of the historical ties between Irish Catholic history and Spain (25-4-31).  The Anglo Celt sympathised with the “badly advised” departing monarch who did so “in the interests of his country” (18-4-31). 

Even the Irish Times in its April editorial “A King Departs” lamented the loss of “Spain’s most gifted, most experienced and most resourceful man of affairs” going into exile, noting with alarm that with Catalan proclamations of independence, “the shadow of a Spanish Ulster looms on the horizon of the Spanish Free State” (15-4-31).  The impact on the relationship between the Vatican and Republican Spain was itself the subject of another editorial two days later where it was noted that the nation’s new rulers were still Catholic, “The coming conflict –or reconciliation-between political liberalism and religious conservatism may furnish a deeply interesting chapter in the nation’s history” (Irish Times, 17-4-31).   As such the observations and comments regarding the events in Republican Spain were the equivalent of holding a mirror to the political divisions that still prevailed within Ireland in the wake of Independence and Civil War: of support on the one hand, and fear and suspicion on the other, in the break with the old established order and the uncertainty of what would follow.

The letters from the public on the subject of Spain seemed to reflect this schizophrenia of opinion.  In a letter to the editor of the Irish Times, E.T. Keane of Kilkenny argued that in “the hour of adversity of the patriot King of Spain” that it would be “a graceful and generous gesture on the part of the Government of Saorstat Eireann to extend to him an official hand and cordial invitation to make their future home in Ireland” given the “time-honoured links uniting Ireland to Spain.”  He did not feel that this stay would be for long given the certainty, “that sooner or later ,when the Spanish people are thoroughly fed up with the bunch of adventurers, anarchists, atheists and doctrinaire professors who have engineered the revolution, King Alfonso will be recalled to the throne” (Irish Times, 18-4-31).  The public support generated by this campaign to bring Alfonso to Ireland resulted in none other than the President of the Executive Council, Cosgrave, having to publicly announce that “whilst he would be honoured if the King did come here, there was no question of inviting him for the simple reason that there is no place available which would afford suitable accommodation.”  It was emphasised that this was the “only reason” preventing such an offer.  Cosgrave understood why some of his countrymen were proposing such a move given that “the Spanish people had always been good friends of Ireland” (Irish Times, 20-4-31). 

Other letters such as the one from the anonymous ‘queremos saber’ (we want to know) of County Wicklow challenged the view “accepted universally in the press of this country that the anti-Monarchists in Spain secured an overwhelming victory in the recent municipal elections in the country” when more monarchist than republican councillors were returned (predating Pío Moa by 70 years).  The debate was continued the following day in the letters when ‘El bachiller Sanson’ (Sanson the graduate) replied that the difference in size between the municipalities was the key to the victory adding “The Provisional Government probably never realised the perplexity that might arise in honest minds abroad” (Irish Times, 24 and 25 April 1931 –Sanson, was in fact Dr.Walter Starkie, the first professor of Spanish at Trinity).

In the Irish Independent, a Bradley McCall wrote from Barcelona giving his analysis of events in Spain where the “cunning and elegance of the Bourbon” Alfonso had made “one mistake, and that a fatal one, his treatment of Catalonia.”  These “thrifty and business like people” had been promised “home rule — the price of their importance.”  Failure to deliver by Primo de Rivera and the King had cost both dear, which within the Irish context could be seen as leave the North well alone. Spain under the “most devout Catholic” Alcala Zamora stood a chance, but Mr McCall was convinced that ultimately “Russia will have a say” and that the Communists would remain “strong” (Irish Independent, 26-5-31). Such evidence would once more suggest that Irish attitudes to events in Spain quite accurately reflected the post civil war tensions prevalent in 1930s Ireland whereby the conservative incumbentCumann na Gaedhal government of William Cosgrave, advocate of the Free State status quo viewed the increasingly republican stance of de Valera’s Fianna Fáil and its courting of IRA, as anti-Catholic revolutionary radicalism.  This division gradually extended to the interpretation of events in Spain in April 1931 which, when viewed from the Irish perspective, were seen very much along the anti-Catholic or revolutionary/republican lines with Catalonia often cast in the role of Northern Ireland. What part republicanism would play in the new state was at the forefront of the 1932 and 1933 elections and it was quite natural that many Irishmen’s interest in Spanish events reflected the political tensions within their own domestic political situation.

The initial reforms of the Provisional Government, in particular those pertaining to the Church, and the Spanish elections of June 1931 were thus avidly followed from the pages of the Irish newspapers.  The Irish Times devoted most column inches, and greatest editorial comment to the legal, constitutional issues regarding the emergence of the new Republic and its new constitution, again with obvious domestic overtones. See Irish Times articles “The Spanish Republic” (27-5-31); “The Spanish Elections” (24-6-31 and 29-6-31); “The New Cortes” (14-7-31); “Spain’s Troubles” (23-7-31); “Spain and Catalonia” (5-8-31); “Conflict in Spain” (26-8-31). Over the disputes regarding the drawing up of the new constitution it proclaimed in its editorial of 18 August, “The New Spain” that the new document “has little to recommend it.  Indeed, its sole merit, perhaps, is its insistence that Spain be a unitary State, although the extent of autonomy yielded – especially to Catalonia-does much to abate this virtue.”  Its leader was taken aback by the sweeping social and religious reforms that had been enshrined by the new document, focussing particularly on the dissolution of the religious orders and the introduction of divorce.  Even the most mainstream lay newspaper Ireland blanched at the complete break between State and Church concluding in the same editorial that “we cannot visualise Roman Catholic Spain in a virtually pagan trough” (Irish Times, 18-8-31).

The Irish Independent very quickly abandoned its neutral, wait and see stance, and became increasingly anti-Spanish Republican as it focussed more exclusively on the social reforms and distancing between Church and State, though it continued its support for the policies which favoured Catalan autonomy, again mirroring the divisions in Ireland for and against partition and Home Rule. In so doing the paper remained true to its anti-Parnell, Home Rule origins of the early century.(Pro-Catalan articles see Irish Independent — Spain and Catalonia, 2-5-31; Catalan Home Rule, 5-8-31)  The anti-Catholic, Communist nature of the Spanish Republic was expounded at length in articles entitled “Spain and the Soviet”, of 16 October, “Communism in Spain of 20 October or “Pope’s Sorrow for Spain” where it was now clear that “Spain, after her good and heroic past, has allied herself with the persecutors of Faith.”( Irish Independent, 22-10-31)  In November the article “How Moscow’s agents are working in Spain” made it clear that the recently passed Constitution was an example of how the “middle class Revolution in Spain under Zamora” would witness, like Kerensky in Russia in 1917 the “… setting up of a Peasant and Workers Republic, controlled by the same (Soviet) powers” (Irish Independent, 11-11-31). This difference between types of republic needed to be made clear to Independent’s moderately nationalist, unswervingly Catholic readership. After all, on the one hand, he was being convinced by some in the autumn of 1931 of the appropriateness of a republican political settlement for Ireland, just not of the Spanish type.  In its 16 October “Spain and the Soviet” leader the Independent accused the Azaña Government of trying to introduce “the doubtful blessings of aRed Republic” but that this “Red republicanism” would not find a lasting home in Spain “whose Catholicity has stood the test of centuries … any more than it would amongst the Catholic people of Ireland.”  As such a Catholic, green republicanism was fine for Ireland, not the red, socialist brand erroneously chosen by Spain.

A similarly ambiguous view was taken by the recently established Irish Press, with strong Fianna Failconnections.  Its first edition on 5 September 1931 carried an article on the role being played by Catholic working women in Barcelona, trying to persuade their husbands to abandon their anarchist inspired strikes.  Initial reports on Spain followed in this vein of praising the nationalist, conservative, elements of the Republican movement in Spain, but observing a far more reserved attitude to the anti-clerical leaning of the reforms, especially with regard to the Church.

On 10 September 1931 it published an article by Jaume Ruiz Manent entitled “Catalonia’s struggle for freedom.”  This warned the Irish Press readers that Catalonia’s nationalist aspirations were being endangered “by the peril of anarchism.”   The paper promised that it would continue representing “Ireland’s interest in the struggles of other peoples for national freedom” but felt a special bond with Catalonia where, like Ireland, language and history were “a symbol of the revival of the nation” (Irish Press, 10-9-31).  The initial favourable attitude to the Republic in Spain seemed to be reinforced by close informal links between the Irish and Spanish political elites as evidenced in a series of four articles sent back from Spain by Michael Lennon in September 1931 which started with an interview with Victoria Kent, first woman barrister in Spain and socialist Spanish minister of prisons within the Justice department in the provisional government. Her Irish credentials, “kinswoman of Thomas Kent” the Cork IRA Commander executed in 1916 according to the report, were almost as impressive as her career. Lennon commented that he had expected to see “the Irish name to pass from public life in Spain” so closely associated were they with the outgoing Crown.  Her presence, it was suggested, was a symbol of the moderation which still prevailed within the administration. The article prompted the first editorial comment entitled “Truth from Spain” where although it was admitted that many Irish men and women found themselves to be “perplexed” regarding events in Spain, it was felt:

We in Ireland, hereditary friends of Spain, have nothing to say, touching on the Spanish people’s repudiation of the monarchy, save that we wish them happiness under the newregime.   It is not for us to judge whether their decision is wise; but we may say this, that is simply evident that the old order brought its fate upon its own head by neglect of the people’s grievances and hostility to reform.  We watch anxiously lest the flood of change should carry away good things as well as bad (Irish Press, 15-9-31).

True to its promise to base their and Irish opinion on the words of the Republican leaders in Spain, “rather than on partisan reports” the following day’s title carried an interview with none other than Minister of Justice, Julian Besteiro entitled “Future of Catholic Church in Spain.”  Lennon was critical of Besteiro’s and other ministers “Republican credentials” but welcomed the minister’s comments where he played down the disestablishment of the Church but emphasised the need for “a new Concordat with Rome.”  His rejection of mob violence against Church property and enthusiasm for a “negotiated settlement” with the ecclesiastical hierarchy obviously struck a chord with Lennon and the Irish Press leader, the latter very keen to emphasise that it was the first title in Europe to publish Besteiro’s policy toward the Church in full (16-9-31).  In the third report from Spain, after attending a session in the Spanish assembly, Lennon had seemed to have sympathised at least with the Republican authorities in Spain.  The attacks on the Church were symptomatic the blame of  “Spanish Catholic Aristocracy” who in opposing social reform and Catalonia’s struggle for independence had allied the Church with “disedifying types whose wealth offends and goes against natural justice.”  To support his claim he quoted one of Besteiro’s assistants, a Father Posada, who stated that now at least the clergy were “free to speak” unlike before, implying a certain sympathy for the sister Republic in Spain (Irish Press, 17-9-31).  

A series of articles favourable to Spain and its anti-monarchical government appeared over the next few weeks, including practical shopping advice for Irish travellers in the country (Irish Press, 23-9-31, 24-9-31, 2-10-31, 5-10-, 31, 6-10-31). This attitude was not one that prevailed. Already on 15 October the paper noted with dissatisfaction in its editorial, “Ungrateful Avila” that the “fanatical” municipal authorities there were removing St. Teresa de Avila’s name, “curiously like an Irishwoman in her spirituality”, from all street signs.  The news of the Constitutional attack on the religious orders meant that the Irish Press became almost as critical of the II Republic as the Irish Independent.  The reports and editorial comments made on Spain between October and December 1931 (see Irish Press 16, 17, 21, 22, 26, 27 October; 4, 6, 18, 24 November; 2, 12, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 December) meant that theIrish Press whilst welcoming social reform and local autonomy for Catalonia,” could not reconcile itself with what was ultimately, in its view, an “unchristian constitution” (9-12-31). It too tried to distinguish between green, religious, Irish republicanism and the red, heathen Spanish variant by noting that in Spain, “the Communist element gained the upper hand so quickly” because Spain was only superficially Catholic, unlike Ireland, “where the people support the Church.”  Again criticism of the Spanish ecclesiastical authorities was implied because of their “apathy and ignorance” in allowing events to unfurl.

Consul Tovar : Irish perceptions of  Spain / Madrid’s view of Irish politics 1931-33

Consul Tovar was very aware of these divisions in Irish politics as his reports to Madrid in the run up to the February 1932 elections testify.  He was also particularly attuned to the continuing sniping that developed from sections of the Catholic press against the Republican government in Madrid as the view of Spain’s new administration conforming to anti-Catholic republicanism took hold. In January 1932 he still believed that de Valera’s republican Fianna Fáil party would lose out to Cosgrave’s government because of the “cuestión batallona” (key issue) of the Free State’s standing with Britain, particularly with regards to the economy which he felt de Valera’s radical policies would harm.   On 2 February he wrote that the elections of 16 February would decide “if the country wants to continue along present lines or, if on the other hand, it wishes to discover new economic and political solutions.”  A de Valera victory would end the Free State and see Ireland emerging as a state “almost totally independent from England.”  Rumours of the creation of a united Ireland were circulating around Dublin but Tovar seriously doubted that the people of the north “nearly all Protestant and of Scottish descent” would agree to such a union.  Problems regarding the currency, the role of Irish civil servants, the impact on agriculture were all factors that Tovar believed would “sweeten many of the radical and extremist” policies of de Valera who he was now convinced would narrowly emerge triumphant (2-2-31).  On 22 February Tovar gave a detailed breakdown of the Fianna Fáil victory stating that Cosgrave lost the election through complacency and because he was too overtly anglophile.  Ireland would now become a republic and the Oath of Allegiance sworn by Dail representatives would also be removed, with wide sweeping effects on Ireland’s relationship with Britain. Tovar commented that de Valera would promise the minority Labour party all sorts of concessions regarding “dangerous economic experiments such as nationalization of banks, industry and trade” in order to “get his hands on the reigns of power” but that they would be diluted once that had been achieved (22-2-32).

Away from the political changes in Ireland Tovar gave an update on the work being down by the Consul to promote Spanish language and culture in Ireland.  The former had not grown considerably given the “obstacles toward language learning, so typical in English speaking countries” (AGA, Leg 14 C.54/11727, 9-3-32). Spanish at Trinity College was growing under the tutelage of Dr. Walter Starkie, the recipient of the Order of Alfonso XII in 1928 and also at University College under Professor Maria Degani.  Other “less important” institutions were also teaching Spanish but it was the first official ‘teacher/student exchange’ organised by the nuns of the Sacred Heart of Mount Anville in Dundrum that particularly caught the Consul’s eye.  They had established a system of bringing over wealthy and educated young women from Spain “señoritas de buena sociedad” (ladies of good standing) who were given the opportunity to learn English and be put up for free in the school in return for giving Spanish classes to the students.  “They tend to stay for a couple of years and are free to come and go as they please, even being allowed to accept invitations away to the country in the company of distinguished families.” (Ms Emilia Ubeda of Madrid and Constancia Monsalve were the most recent graduates of the scheme).  No Spanish organisations or publications existed as yet and there were no Spanish religious orders despite the presence of Spanish seminaries in Dublin amongst the Jesuits and other orders. (AGA, Leg 14 C.54/11727, 9-3-32)

After analysing Fianna Fáil’s narrow victory and their dependence on the support of the Irish Labour Party Tovar concluded that he was not sure what to make of de Valera himself who he described as “appearing to be influenced in his policies by a type of mystic sentimentality.”  The economic war that would result with Britain might accrue some benefit to Spanish trade (AGA 11726, 18-3-32).  Indeed, four days after that report Permanent Secretary Walshe visited Tovar in the Spanish Consulate and discussed “a preferential trade agreement between Spain and the Free State.”  Unlike previous negotiations in the 20’s when the Consulate was established, Walshe wanted any future discussion regarding this matter of mutual interest to go exclusively through the Dublin Consulate as the possible intervention of the Spanish Embassy in London would go against the principles defended by the current Irish Government” (AGA 11726, 22-3-32). Whilst the de Valera was looking for new friends, the government in Madrid exercised caution, not wanting to damage their own economic dependency on British investments further.

As the first anniversary of the Second Republic approached the continued criticism from Irish sources of the Republic in Madrid, and the significant influence these had in European and  particularly US Catholic circles, meant that Tovar was directly instructed by the Ministry in Madrid in March 1932 to quell articles critical “of the change of regime in Spain” and instead “influence opinion so that the advantages of the new institutions and national and political progress” were more widely known.  He was to also ensure that the mainly religious, “Spanish colony resident in Ireland” keep their public commentaries favourable to the government.  Tovar replied on 19 March that he would “with all conscientiousness and effort” attempt to counter “all references that are critical of our Motherland and transform any hostility or indifference into appreciation for Spain and the Republic” (AGA, 19-3-32).  This task alone would become more or less a full time job as references to Spain in the Irish press generally became more vocal in their criticisms as 1932 progressed.

The Irish Independent dedicated no less than five editorials and dozens of articles in the four months up to the Republic’s first anniversary chronicling in detail the descent, in its view, into chaos and bloodshed being unleashed by Communism, accurately reflecting the mood among ecclesiastical circles in Ireland to the Godless events unfurling in the once most Catholic of nations.