The Telegraph, Brisbane, Qld. 26th December 1928 p.6
Books Burned
Galway Public Library
The destruction of books belonging to the County Galway Public Libraries, following a report from the Archbishop of Tuam, the officially appointed censor to the Libraries Committee, led to discussion at the meeting of the committee.
Mr. Lynch asked for a list of the books destroyed, as it was rumoured that some by George Bernard Shaw had been burned. The secretary said, “George Bernard Shaw is not burned, but they are put where they can be got only with the sanction of the sub-committee or this committee.”
The books burned were strongly objected to by the Archbishop, and apart from the Archbishop’s views in having them destroyed he thought the committee did well.
Father O’Dea said there was a lot of talk about this matter by people who did not know what they were talking about because they did not know what books had been burned, and these people wore not going to find out from the committee. There had been talk in “The Statesman’ about a priest in Galway having ordered Bernard Shaw’s books to be burned. No priest In Galway had done that.
Mr. Lynch;
Books by Arnold Bennett and Victor Hugo were destroyed.
Father O’Dea:
If we object to his notion the Archbishop of Tuam is condemned. He is the censor. One member of the committee proposed that the books be destroyed, and it was seconded and passed, and I do not think it is anybody’s business to be concerned further. It was only the business of the Archbishop as censor.
Mr. Lynch said the doctrine of infallibility and impeccability did not arise when they referred to the Archbishop of Tuam as censor.
Father O’Dea;
Whose Judgment, then, is to be final in the matter?
Mr. Lynch:
You know he does not read any of them. There is a big principle involved. Tomorrow, we might get an attack on books on sociology. If the Archbishop is going to give an undertaking that he will read any particular book, I will agree to his decision.
Mr. Pringle:
The only alternative is to rescind the resolution appointing him as censor.
Father O’Dea:
Then we would all get out of the committee.
The Chairman:
That would mean the bursting up of the committee and the scheme. We will not agree to any change in the censorship, except it might be well to have a discussion by the sub-committee on the selection of books. This was agreed to.
The Free State Censorship Bill certainly promises to add to the gaiety of the nation (writes the Irish, correspondent of the “Manchester- Guardian”). In the debate on the second reading one of the two ablest members of the cabinet Professor O’Sullivan, the Minister for Education, preserved a discreet silence. The other, Mr. Hogan, the Minister for Agriculture, expressed a lively sympathy with those who oppose the censorship of books. Still worse, he made fun of the Bill and suggested that it was undesirable to limit its scope to sexual morality, as the Minister for Justice wishes to do.
He alleged that all the pornographers between them have not done so much harm to Irish morality as certain, political writings which sought to show when an oath is not an oath and when, robbery is the height of patriotism.
The Minister for Justice, Mr. Fitzgerald Kennedy, had the painful task of closing the debate immediately after his colleague’s amazing speech. He made it plain that he would not agree to exclude hooks from the Jurisdiction of the censor, but suggested that it was only “cheap” editions of objectionable books that were in danger. Balzac and Aristophanes would, he said be safe.
No member of the Dail, except professor Thrift, ventured to allude even distantly to the ban on the birth-control controversy. It was therefore not surprising to see that Bill allowed its second reading without division in spite of the anxiety expressed by members every party.
In spite of the hostile criticism of the Minister’ for Agriculture and In spite of the refusal of the Minister in charge to promise any amendment beyond limiting the scope of the Bill to sexual morality
The Burren and Beyond 