Taoiseach launches new stamp marking 250 years since Daniel O'Connell's birth
Born near Cahersiveen in Co. Kerry on August 6, 1775, O'Connell went on to become one of the most important figures in Ireland's history, having led the movement for Catholic emancipation.
His successful campaign brought about the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, which granted political and civil rights to Catholics in Ireland and in Britain.
He was also recognised internationally for his opposition to slavery and for providing a voice for the oppressed.
He later became known as 'the liberator'.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin, Provost Dr Linda Doyle, An Post CEO David McRedmond and Director of Trinity Long Room Hub Proffesor Patrick Geoghegan revealed the new stamp this week (Pic: TCD)
Taoiseach Micheál Martin revealed the commemorative stamp during a two-day symposium dedicated to O'Connell's life and legacy held at Trinity College Dublin this week.
The event, which took place over July 29 and 30, included a keynote speech by Mr Martin as well as lectures by the Ukrainian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oleksandra Matviichuk and former UN Special Rapporteur Professor Fionnuala Ní Aoláin.
The Taoiseach spoke at this week's symposium
'Daniel O'Connell is not just an iconic figure in our history, he was known and respected throughout much of the world because of his forthright dedication to the ideals of equality and freedom,' Mr Martin said.
'This major international conference is an opportunity to reflect on this crucial element of O'Connell's legacy,' he added.
Organised by the Trinity Long Room Hub, Trinity's flagship Arts and Humanities Research Institute, and its new director Professor Patrick Geoghegan, the event brought together leading historians, human rights experts, and public figures to explore the global legacy of O'Connell.
Ukrainian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oleksandra Matviichuk speaking at the event
It forms part of the Government's Daniel O'Connell Commemorative Programme.
'The 250th anniversary of the birth of Daniel O'Connell is an opportunity to commemorate his life and achievements and explore how his legacy can inform approach some of the same problems today when it comes to the denial of human rights and liberties,' Professor Geoghegan said.
'The Trinity Long Room Hub is delighted to bring together national and international experts to explore these issues, and the lessons we can learn from a study of the liberator," he added.
See More: 250 Years, Daniel O'Connell, Stamp, Trinity College Dublin
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
26 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Daniel O'Connell personified the perpetual importance of an independent Bar
On July 27, 1813, in the Court of King's Bench in Dublin, Daniel O'Connell rose to defend John Magee, publisher of the Dublin Evening Post, against a charge of criminal libel. His speech that day demonstrated how a skilled barrister could transform an oppressive legal system into an instrument of political change. The case of The King v. John Magee remains one of the most memorable examples of O'Connell's extraordinary ability to use his legal expertise in the service of justice and reform. The charge against Magee arose from his publication of a review criticising the departing Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Richmond. The article condemned Richmond's errors in governing Ireland and compared him to the worst of his predecessors, who were described as 'the profligate unprincipled Westmorland, the cold-hearted and cruel Camden, the artful and treacherous Cornwallis'. More significantly, it challenged the fundamental principle of British rule in Ireland — 'a principle of exclusion, which debars the majority of the people from the enjoyment of those privileges that are possessed by the minority'. This was no ordinary libel case. As O'Connell understood, it was unavoidably a political case, and it demanded a political speech. The prosecution was designed to suppress dissent and maintain the exclusion of Ireland's Catholic majority from political participation. Attorney General William Saurin made this clear in his opening, describing Magee as a 'ruffian' whose purpose was 'to excite [in the minds of the population] hatred against those whom the laws have appointed to rule over them, and prepare them for revolution'. O'Connell faced formidable obstacles. The law of criminal libel was so broad that, as he later observed, 'every letter I ever published could be declared a libel' and the libel law could 'produce a conviction with a proper judge and jury for The Lord's Prayer with due legal inuendoes'. More damaging still was the composition of the jury — hand-picked to ensure conviction. With characteristic boldness, O'Connell confronted this unfairness head-on, telling the jurors: 'Gentlemen, he [the Attorney General] thinks he knows his men; he knows you; many of you signed the no-popery petition... you would not have been summoned on this jury if you had entertained liberal sentiments'. Rather than being cowed by these disadvantages, O'Connell turned them into weapons. He began by meeting Saurin's personal attacks, describing the Attorney General's speech as a 'farrago of helpless absurdity'. When Saurin had stooped to calling Magee a ruffian and comparing him to 'the keeper of a house of ill fame', O'Connell lamented how far Saurin fell below the standards of the great Irish barristers such as Curran and Ponsonby: 'Devoid of taste and of genius, how can he have had memory enough to preserve this original vulgarity — he is, indeed, an object of compassion; and, from my inmost soul, I bestow on him my forgiveness and my bounteous pity'. O'Connell was even able to use Saurin's own words against him. When the Attorney General accused Magee of Jacobinism, O'Connell recalled Saurin's defence of himself against the same charge in 1800, when Saurin, then anti-union, had declared that 'agitation is ... the price necessarily paid for liberty'. O'Connell's response was devastating: 'We have paid the price, gentlemen, and the honest man refuses to give us the goods'. What made O'Connell's defence truly remarkable was how he transformed a hopeless legal case into a powerful platform for political reform. His bold claim: 'the Catholic cause is on its majestic march — its progress is rapid and obvious... We will, we must, be soon emancipated' is electrifying even now. What must it have sounded like in his voice, in that court, in that trial, in those times? His confidence in his legal position was equally striking. When Saurin threatened to crush the Catholic Board, O'Connell declared: 'I am, if not a lawyer, at least a barrister. On this subject, I ought to know something; and I do not hesitate to contradict the Attorney General ... the Catholic Board is perfectly a legal assembly — that it not only does not violate the law, but that it is entitled to the protection of the law' Perhaps the most significant moment came not during the trial itself, but at the sentencing hearing on November 27, 1813. When Saurin attempted to use Magee's publication of O'Connell's defence speech as grounds for increasing Magee's sentence, O'Connell delivered what may be his most important statement on the role of the legal profession. In the face of personal threats of contempt and possible imprisonment following his denunciation of the Attorney General, O'Connell stood firm, delivering an impassioned defence of the importance of an independent Bar: 'It is the first interest of the public that the Bar shall be left free... the public are deeply interested in our independence; their properties, their lives, their honours, are entrusted to us; and if we, in whom such a guardianship is confided, be degraded, how can we afford protection to others?'. This was not merely professional self-interest, but a profound understanding of the Bar's constitutional role. In a system designed to exclude the majority from political participation, an independent legal profession became the last protection of individual rights. O'Connell grasped the fact that, without fearless advocates willing to challenge authority, the law would become merely an instrument of oppression. That is why, as the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, put it when addressing the O'Connell 250 Symposium in Trinity College Dublin on Tuesday last, The Bar of Ireland has always been rightly proud of the fact that O'Connell was such a distinguished member of the Bar. Two hundred years later, the existence of a fearless independent Bar, practising advocacy and giving legal advice to the highest professional standards, remains an essential guarantee of the rule of law and the protection of individual rights. The many, often insidious, efforts that exist, whether prompted by powerful commercial, bureaucratic or political interests, to degrade or diminish the Bar are always, above all else, an attack on the rights of citizens and on the rule of law. O'Connell's performance in The King v. John Magee exemplifies the best traditions of forensic advocacy at The Bar of Ireland. Faced with a corrupt system, a biased tribunal, and impossible odds, he refused to bow his head or moderate his principles. Instead, he turned the forms and processes of an unjust and oppressive system against itself, using a political prosecution against dissenting speech as the means to condemn the oppressor and amplify the dissent. In an age when legal systems worldwide face challenges to their integrity and especially to the independence of barristers and advocates, O'Connell's example reminds us that the law's highest purpose is not merely to maintain order, but to secure justice. His defence of John Magee shows the difference a single barrister, armed with skill, courage, and unwavering principle, can make. Seán Guerin SC. Picture: Conor McCabe Photography. Seán Guerin SC is Chair of the Council of The Bar of Ireland
Irish Examiner
26 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Colin Sheridan: Obama's silence on Gaza makes Freedom of Dublin award deeply problematic
There's a long and noble Irish tradition of giving medals to people who don't need them. Mimicking our one-time oppressors, we're good at the pomp and pageantry, terrible at timing. And in this grand tradition of ceremonial sycophancy, we've now decided to give the Freedom of Dublin to Barack Obama — the same Barack Obama whose presidential legacy includes a kill list, expanded drone warfare, and now, more recently, a silence on Gaza so deafening it practically registers on the Richter scale. Now, before someone starts waving a Hope poster in my face and singing 'Is Feider Linn', let's be clear: this isn't a character assassination. Barack Obama is, by many accounts, charming, intelligent, a skilled orator, and less overtly monstrous than some who followed him. But if the bar for receiving Dublin's highest civic honour is simply 'better than Trump,' then let's all take turns. This isn't about left or right. It's about right and wrong. And giving Obama the keys to a city that prides itself on solidarity, social justice and neutrality — a city only a century since it's own liberation from colonisers, a city that once shut down its port in protest of apartheid — is a moral absurdity that would be funny if it weren't so grotesque. Let's talk about Gaza. Right now, we're witnessing an unquestionable genocide, one that even conservative estimates rank among the worst atrocities in recent memory. Tens of thousands dead. Children buried under rubble. Journalists and doctors targeted with impunity. And what's Obama's response? A few muted bromides about 'the complexity of the situation' and the usual plea for restraint — the kind of lukewarm platitude you'd expect from someone looking to protect a Netflix deal, not someone once hailed as the conscience of the free world. Remember, this is the same man who, while president, gave Israel the largest military aid package in US history — $38bn over ten years. The same man who watched as Gaza was pummelled in 2014, and then blocked efforts at the UN for accountability. In Obama's world, apparently, some lives matter more than others — and it's not the ones buried under the debris in Khan Younis So let's ask: What, exactly, are we honouring? Is it the weekly 'Terror Tuesday' meetings where he personally signed off on drone strikes — many of which killed civilians, including children, with such frequency that his administration had to redefine the word 'combatant' to keep the numbers palatable? Is it the Nobel Peace Prize he received before bombing seven countries? Or is it the charming eloquence with which he explained away extrajudicial assassinations and mass surveillance? Maybe it's the warm pint he had in Moneygall. Maybe that's enough. Maybe our foreign policy is so thin it can be blown over by a puff of Guinness foam. Obama's defenders, and there are many, will say: "He tried." They'll point to the Iran deal. They'll mention the thaw with Cuba. And fair enough — no presidency is black and white (though drone strikes absolutely are). But a Freedom of the City is not a footnote in a CV. It's a declaration of values. And at a time when Dublin has become a symbol — however small — of international moral conscience on Gaza, this award feels not just tone-deaf, but actively insulting It's worth asking how we'd feel if another country handed such an honour to, say, Tony Blair, citing his contribution to the peace process while politely ignoring Iraq. We'd scoff. We'd march. We'd write strongly-worded op-eds, the kind I'm doing now. And yet, because Obama quotes Seamus Heaney and has a smile that makes white liberals feel good about themselves, we're expected to ignore the trail of bodies left in his geopolitical wake. It's also galling because the Freedom of Dublin isn't just symbolic fluff — at least, it wasn't meant to be. It should be given to people like Nelson Mandela and John Hume — people whose lives were defined by their resistance to violence, not their management of it. To toss Obama into that company is like inviting Monsanto to an organic farming festival. Let's not pretend this is just a harmless bit of civic theatre. In a world as interconnected and morally muddled as ours, gestures matter. They signal what we stand for And giving Obama this award now — as children in Gaza die in silence, too exhausted to even scream — sends a very clear message: that brand is more important than behaviour, that the image of progress is more valuable than the practice of it. And to those in Dublin City Council who greenlit this award: shame on you. Not because Obama is uniquely evil — he's not — but because you should know better. You should know that real solidarity isn't measured in photo ops, but in principles. You should know that timing matters. Context matters. And right now, there's blood on the sand in Gaza, and silence in the White House archives. We don't need empty ceremonies. We need moral courage. And giving the Freedom of Dublin to Barack Obama is not an act of courage. It's an act of cowardice wrapped in a velvet sash.
Irish Examiner
26 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Daniel O'Connell: Stand-off at Clontarf unjustly stains the legacy of Ireland's greatest politician
Daniel O'Connell liked to remind people that he was born in the year that America began to assert its independence. His date of birth was August 6, 1775. America's Independence wasn't completed until the following July 4, but O'Connell was a good storyteller, specific with dates when needed, vague when a convenient narrative required embellishment. The Times of London reported that he took great pleasure in noting the coincidence which, 'succeeded in persuading his admirers that that incident, taken in connection with others, shadowed forth his destiny as a champion of freedom'. He was, during his lifetime and for maybe half a century after his death, considered in many circles to be the greatest Irishman who ever lived. That status would come under attack following the violent birth of the independent state in the early 20th century. The men and women of 1916 were considered in the broad public consciousness to be those whose vision and action led to the establishment of a free state. The narrative was promoted by politicians who had fought at the side or in the shadow of the signatories of the proclamation. HISTORY HUB If you are interested in this article then no doubt you will enjoy exploring the various history collections and content in our history hub. Check it out HERE and happy reading In elevating the blood sacrifice and all that flowed from it, O'Connell's contribution, and that of others like Parnell, was thus relegated. Yet what the Kerry man achieved was, by any standards, quite amazing. Arguably, without those achievements - the opening up of some narrow yet vital channels through which native Catholic people could practice their religion, receive an education and promote their culture - he paved the way for those who would secure the State, if not the island nation. That he did so through peaceful means at a time when violence ruled was, through most the 20th century, ironically seen as a failing rather than a singular triumph. On the day of his birth 250 years ago next Wednesday few anywhere could have foreseen his destiny. O'Connell was born in Carhan outside Caherciveen, one of 10 children. His family was not well off and Daniel, his bright intellect spotted early, was sent out to a wealthy uncle in Derrynane, Maurice 'Hunting Cap' O'Connell, when he was young. Hunting Cap had made much of his fortune through smuggling. He would will Daniel his home and lands which would come in handy when pursuit of politics often left O'Connell broke, although the legacy was a double-edged sword on account of its upkeep. Derrynane House which was willed to Daniel O'Connell by an uncle. Photo: Facebook As a Catholic, O'Connell had no right to an education. Hunting Cap sent him to France where he saw the brutal level of violence exercised in that country's revolution. That was to have a formative influence on him. 'Not for all the universe contains would I, in the struggle for what I conceive my country's cause, consent to the effusion of a single drop of blood, except my own,' he would state when explaining his politics. On his return to Ireland he set up as a barrister and quickly gained a reputation as an outstanding counsel. He married Mary O'Connell in a union not approved by Hunting Cap who briefly disinherited his nephew. The couple had 11 children of whom seven survived into adulthood. After Hunting Cap's death, the family moved into Derrynane House where Mary spent the rest of her days. The term 'long-suffering wife' might well be applied to her. She is buried in Derrynane and for a long period was, like many women, written into the margins of history rather than taking her rightful place in the centre. Apart from that, her husband was a well-known philanderer. (Left to right) The Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, TCD Provost Linda Doyle, and An Post CEO, David McRedmond at the unveiling of two stamps on Wednesday marking the 250th anniversary of the birth of Daniel O'Connell. One stamp depicts his release from Richmond Bridewell after his three-month imprisonment while a second stamp shows him front and centre at one of his famous 'monster meetings'. Picture: Maxwells In this respect, he was lucky with his timing. Had he lived in the post-Famine Ireland where the Church took an iron grip of power, he may well have run into serious trouble, as did Parnell for the relatively innocuous business of divorcing his wife for a new partner. O'Connell's primary focus for the first half of his political life was Catholic emancipation. For over 100 years Catholics were not allowed to practice their religion or access to an education. He saw it as his task to raise Catholics up off their knees. As his biographer, Patrick Geoghegan, told an RTÉ documentary O'Connell said he could point out Catholics on any streets 'because they were the ones who would shuffle, had bad posture, were afraid of meeting your gaze, beaten down.' Yet even then, he had his eyes on the Act of Union, which dated from 1800 and joined Ireland to Britain. In 1810, he set out his stall in one speech in Dublin. The Protestant alone could not hope to liberate his country, the Roman Catholic alone could not do it, neither could the Presbyterian, but amalgamate the three into the Irishman and the union is repealed. It was a cry echoed in the 1916 proclamation under the phrase 'cherishing all the children of the nation equally', but has remained a stumbling block down through the centuries. In 1815, O'Connell could have met his end. After criticising Dublin Corporation for its treatment of Catholics, one of the council members John D'Esterre challenged O'Connell to a duel. It took place near Naas and O'Connell, against the predictions, emerged victorious, fatally wounding his opponent. He was, by all accounts, devastated and contributed an allowance to D'Esterre's daughter for the remainder of his life. He would never duel again and became an implacable opponent of the practice. In 1823, he formed the Catholic Association and six years later he was returned as an MP for Co Clare. The British had a dilemma as he was not entitled as a Catholic to take his seat. They caved and lifted the restrictions on Catholics. The enormity of this achievement is difficult to fathom in today's world, according to Geoghegan. 'Really it was a great civil rights victory because what he was doing was giving the vast majority of the people equal rights in the country,' the historian asserted. In this illustration from 1831, John Bull supports a political see-saw on his back with the Tories on the left, weighed down by the Charles Street Committee Purse, and the Whigs on the right, with the crown on their side. The devil stands in the foreground with 'Reform' written across his head. From left to right, the Tories are Wetherell, Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Cumberland and a fat bishop; the Whigs are British prime minister Earl Grey, Henry Brougham, Lord John Russell, Burdett and Daniel O'Connell. Photo:'He believed in Jewish emancipation and he fought for Jewish rights in the British Parliament. He believed in the emancipation of African Americans who are being held in slavery in the United States and became one of the greatest champions of freedom for those people in the 19th century.' In Westminster he was a fiery advocate, adept at deploying his lawyerly capacity for argument and not a little wit. Malachi O'Doherty, in his book Can Ireland Be One, compares O'Connell's style to that of Ian Paisley. In one attack on the British for their continued subjugation of Ireland's democratic want he had a cut at Edward Sugden, who was the last English chancellor of Ireland. 'He is a pretty boy, sent here from England,' O'Connell said. 'But I ask; did you ever hear such a name as he has got? I remember in Wexford, a man told me he had a pig at home which he was so fond of that he would call it Sugden.' Later he would receive criticism for promoting the English language rather than speaking in Irish. After emancipation he dedicated himself to chasing repeal of the union which had been law since 1800. In 1840, this campaign was stepped up with the formation of the Repeal Association. In August 1843, he assembled a monster meeting at the Hill Of Tara, the original seat of the High Kings of Ireland. A reported one million people gathered to hear him. There were also meetings in the Curragh in Kildare and other locations around the country as his campaign to pursue repeal grew increasingly popular. Daniel O'Connell depicted at a the 'monster meeting' on the Hill Of Tara in Co. Meath, in 1843. Photo: Spencer Arnold Collection/At these meetings, as the Times of London would recall in O'Connell's subsequent obituary, 'the Irish populace were drilled, and marshalled, and marched under appointed leaders, whose commands they obeyed with military precision, while the master-spirit who evoked and ruled this mass movement announced to all of Europe that he was 'at the head of 500,000 loyal subjects but fighting men'.' The last sentence betrayed the contempt that much of the British establishment had for O'Connell, not to mind his capacity to peacefully pursue his aims. Casting him as somebody who used the veiled threat of violence was inaccurate and designed to blacken his legacy. Another monster meeting was scheduled for October 8, 1843, at Clontarf, scene of the last, most famous battle of Brian Boru. The British, however, decided that things were getting a little out of hand. Home secretary Robert Peel assembled 3,000 soldiers to ensure that the meeting would not go ahead and two gunships were also on hand nearby. O'Connell backed off. He knew Peel and he knew he was not bluffing. O'Connell was subsequently prosecuted and spent three months in prison. On his release, now heading for 70 years of age, he never recovered the vigour or momentum that he had enjoyed up until the stand-off at Clontarf. An illustration from 1829 depicting Daniel O'Connell after failing to take his seat in the British parliament with the words 'I'll get lave to walk back again aney how'. Photo:That event was to impinge hugely on his legacy, particularly in the wake of partition and the founding of the Irish state. At the time the radical faction, the Young Irelanders, within the Repeal movement agreed with his decision, but pretty soon after the sniping began. But what would have happened? There would have been multiple fatalities and to what end? Those who like to retrospectively apply conditions that would later prevail in the early 20th century resort to claims that the bloodshed would have sparked the risen people. This simplistic narrative has it that revolution could have come about. There is precious little evidence to back that up, even through the lens of simplistic revision. In 1843, Britannia ruled half the world by force. The conditions that would prevail in 1916 and beyond simply were not present and it is difficult to objectively imagine any outcome but needless death. O'Connell took a strategic decision, one that sat with his lifelong allegiance to peaceful means, and he gave in. The newly refurbished crypt of Daniel O'Connell which was opened by President Mary McAleese in 2009 at Glasnevin Cemetery. Picture: Colin Keegan, Collins, Dublin In modern times, chief among those who would condemn him as a choker are the contingent who supported, either in real time or retrospectively, the Provisional IRA's campaign to allegedly finish off the job of removing Britain from this island. As history has shown they didn't achieve that, despite plumbing depths of depravity, but once mired in violence it is apparently deemed necessary to claim that there never was any alternative. Whatever about his status as greatest Irishman, O'Connell was indisputably the best politician in these islands. This he managed exclusively through the force of his personality and intellect. He knew what made his people tick. He knew how to strategically use the British House of Commons to his best ends. Of course, he didn't succeed in his ultimate goal, but at a time of empire that would have been beyond anybody, through peaceful or violent means. Former Attorney General Paul Gallagher, in an essay in the Irish Judicial Studies Journal on O'Connell, put it thus: 'O'Connell worked within the law, and gave hope to a downtrodden and helpless people. He was a champion for those who never had a champion. He was a voice for those who never had a voice. He gave self-respect to those who enjoyed no respect. 'He taught the People to disown servility and to develop the courage to oppose. In a real sense all the Catholic population of Ireland were his clients.' Daniel O'Connell died on May 15, 1847, in Genoa on his way to see the pope. He was 71 and is buried in Glasnevin Cemetery, which he was involved in founding for the people of Dublin.
