I beg to move the adjournment of the Dáil until 3 p.m. on October 21st.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - ADJOURNMENT DEBATE—THE BOUNDARY QUESTION.
The information I have on this matter is as follows:—
"This morning, in the British House of Commons, Mr. Baldwin asked the British Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his Majesty's Government had yet received the report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the question submitted to them arising out of Article 12 of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland.
"Secretary of State for the Colonies: Yes, sir. The report was presented to His Majesty in Council yesterday afternoon and will be laid before Parliament as soon as it is printed.
"The effect of the Report of the Judicial Committee on the first four questions submitted to them is that the refusal of the Government of Northern Ireland to appoint a member of the Commission is a casus improvisus in the Act of Parliament implementing the Treaty, that is to say, that it is a contingency which was not foreseen at the date of the passing of that Act, and that, if the Government of Northern Ireland maintained that refusal there is no constitutional means under the existing Statutes of bringing the Commission into existence.
"The House will perceive that this Report raises grave issues. His Majesty's Government have no doubt that it was the intention of Parliament when they approved and ratified the Treaty, that in the event of the Government of Northern Ireland exercising their option under Article 12, the Commission to be appointed under the proviso to that Article should, in fact, be appointed; and they feel that they are bound in honour to secure, so far as lies within their power, that that intention is carried into effect. They most earnestly hope that even at this late stage the Government of Northern Ireland may see their way to appoint a representative on the Commission; but I must make it clear that, if that hope is not fulfilled, the Government propose forthwith to introduce legislation to give effect to what was the undoubted intention of the Treaty, and to press for the passage of that legislation through Parliament regardless of the consequences to themselves. Not merely the honour of His Majesty's Government, but the honour of this country is involved in seeing that an obligation definitely imposed upon the United Kingdom by a Treaty is fulfilled in spirit and in letter, and my colleagues and I are not prepared to omit any step which is in our view necessary to place the good faith of Parliament and of the British people beyond question."
I desire to ask if the Minister has had, preliminary to any discussion, any information at his disposal above and beyond the statement he has read, which is a published statement.
No. I have only had this information within the last hour.
The statement read by the Minister seems to show that the anticipations of the newspapers, and the press agencies, have been well founded, and I think, on that ground we may assume that the other anticipations regarding the intentions of the British Government are probably just as well founded: that is to say, it is proposed to introduce legislation but that legislation may be held over until later on in the year. Now, this matter has been before the country since January, 1922. I do not know the date when the Minister announced here that the Executive Council had appointed their member to the Boundary Commission. Since that time it has been obvious that the Irish Government had proceeded to carry out their obligations, that they had in every respect, so far as I understand, fulfilled the obligations that they had entered into in signing the Treaty, and have—I repeat what I have said several times— rather given away too much of the rights which were secured to Ireland under that Treaty. But let that pass. The fact remains that Ireland has fulfilled her obligations—obligations entered into under pressure and under duress, as was generally admitted, and under the threat of greater force. Now, all that time has elapsed and the other party to the Treaty has not yet fulfilled its obligations. The reason for that may be satisfactory to the British Government, and to the British people, but we are not concerned with that. It seems to me that our business is that having undertaken to fulfil the obligations that we entered into, it was the British Government's duty to find out how, and by what means, it could fulfil its obligations. The fact that so long a time has passed without this Treaty being implemented in all respects, seems to me to justify us in saying that the Treaty is broken and should be renounced. It seems to me that we are in the position of having fulfilled the Treaty entered into on behalf of Ireland and that the British Government has not found a way to fulfil its obligations.
It proposes to do it in the future, and to raise all kinds of questions of domestic strife within England. I do not think that we should sit down under that. I think that we should take the position that the Treaty has not been fulfilled, and, therefore, it is renounced, and that we should proceed at the earliest possible date to remake our Constitution. I know that is a serious statement to make, but I believe it is called for by the circumstances, and I believe that if the Government would agree to that line it would have the backing of the great majority of the people. If the Government does not agree to that line, if the Government proceeds to act as if the Treaty had been fulfilled, then the Government will not be meeting the wish, and they will not be acquiescing in and fulfilling the will of the Irish people.
One cannot avoid the creation of a state of mind that the attempt is to amend the Treaty, as though any Act of the British Parliament could amend the Treaty. I think we should make it quite clear that we are not going for one moment to accept any such position. The majority of the people ratified and approved of the ratification of the Treaty in the circumstances that prevailed, despite their belief and contention that it was not fulfilling the will of the Irish people, but that it was better than continued warfare. Having fulfilled our side, and the British Government having failed to fulfil their side, I submit that our position is that the Treaty no longer binds us, and that we ought to proceed to make a new Constitution, and to make new arrangements with Britain which would satisfy that Constitution. It seems to me that is the right and the proper position for the Dáil and the Government of this country to take up, and I hope we shall have some statement from the President giving us an assurance that the rightful position of Ireland in this matter is maintained, and that we are not any longer satisfied to be the plaything of the British Parliament or of British public opinion.
Does this alleged decision of this Judicial Committee of Britain imply that the Six Counties are still within the jurisdiction rightfully of the Free State, and that an unforeseen contingency renders Article XII of the Treaty inoperative without legislative amendment by England? If that is so, what steps does our Government intend to take to see that if Article XII stands in this position, the option exercised on the part of Northern Ireland as to going out, is rendered nugatory, is unaccepted, and is denied to have any binding obligations on us here in the Saorstát. We have put up with an intolerable amount of delay on this question, and now we are faced with a shuffling attitude, which seems to be an endeavour to evade obligations. The people in the country, in our area, in the North, are becoming very much incensed with regard to this question, and rightly so, because in a Treaty like this entered into between two nations, they see a third party which is merely a tributary or a subordinate body to one of these nations, pretending to be able to effectively render inoperative and futile the decisions that have been arrived at, as well as the Treaty that has been agreed to by those two sovereign nations. If that is the case, then there is an end to all honest belief in international action on the part of nations; if subordinate authorities within these nations have the right to object to the international decisions arrived at. A great deal of responsibility hangs on our Government. The Constitution will undoubtedly have to be amended if this clause should, by any means, fail to give effect to the decision that it was intended to give effect to, and under which it was accepted on the part of this country of ours. The issue is a fateful one for all parties, I suppose, but not very much so far as we are concerned, because the road is clearly open to us should anything happen to render abortive this Treaty in any particular feature of its construction. The road is open to us, and that is the clear one that we should pursue, viz., to resume control over our nation.
I am disposed to agree with Deputy Johnson and also with Deputy McGoldrick on this matter. There is no doubt that we will have to amend our Constitution if this Treaty is not implemented. I would advocate the doing of that at once were it not for the fact that I think the delay in implementing it is due to the lack of backbone on the part of our Minister for External Affairs. I do not know why it was allowed to go on so long, but I have a shrewd idea. This thing has been drifting and drifting, and would have been allowed to drift further were it not for the pressure brought to bear on the Ministry. I agree with Deputy Johnson that the time has been long enough, and only for the fact that I feel that the delay was due to some extent to our own Ministry I would advocate a re-settlement of the Constitution at once. We have paid for our honouring of the Treaty, and if our Ministry had been doing its work this business that is going on now should have gone on months ago. I think there should be some time limit fixed, because if not this thing may continue to go on, and our children's children may go on discussing this Boundary question. If and when we decide that we have waited long enough, I think we should then change the Constitution.
I have time and again got up in this Dáil and advocated a stronger and more assertive attitude by the Ministry on this question of partition towards the British Government. The principal thing that I objected to all along was the delay, not that I suspected, or expected, that the British Government would ultimately fail to carry out this clause of the Treaty, but that all the points and all the circumstances and everything that has occurred since the Treaty was put into effect by us, points to the fact that it is the intention of the British Government to let us down on this clause of the Treaty. Now, we in Ireland have made very big sacrifices for the Treaty. Members of the Government, and every Deputy in this House, as well as hundreds of men in the old I.R.A. scattered all over the country, made very big sacrifices. They exposed their lives and their property and exposed everything that was dear to them during the last two or three years to carry out this Treaty in the spirit and in the letter.
What is the result of all these sacrifices to-day? What have we got by all the sacrifices that we have made and all the sacrifices we might have had to make had the Irregulars been successful in the fight against us for constitutional Government? What has been the result, I ask?
The result is that after all these sacrifices the treacherous British Government and treacherous British leaders have come and let us down, and let us down badly. That is the conclusion I have come to here to-day; that we have been very badly and treacherously let down by British political leaders, and in that they have been only true to tradition. Some of the Deputies on these benches have accused the leaders of our Government here of being weak. I do not know was it weakness. I would not like to blame any of the members of our Government for being weak, or accuse them of any responsibility for it.
The people I hold responsibility are the British Government and the British Ministry, Liberals, Labour and Tories, they are all equally responsible—and bigger men, greater men, and probably more far-seeing men than the men on the Government Benches here have been let down by England. Probably to-day we are in the position of saying that we have learned a lesson, and I think we should act on it. Deputy Johnson has advocated a policy to-day which I cordially approve of, and that policy is that we set about at once to revise this Treaty. I think the time has come for it, because I do not see any possibility of the British Government carrying out their side of the agreement. Nothing that I see in the present situation points to it.
On the question of the North of Ireland, I think the more one considers this question of partition the more one is inclined to the view that it might be better for all concerned, for the unity of Ireland, for peace and amity, understanding and good-will in Southern Ireland, and for brotherhood and an entente with Northern Ireland, if nothing else can be achieved, that it would be better for the Twenty-six counties for the time being to go their own way in the direction that probably three-fourths of the population of Southern Ireland are inclined, towards a bigger development of the present Constitution, a development in favour of, or in the direction of Republicanism, call it what you will, and let the Six Counties go their own way for the time being. I am convinced now that if this partition under that Article of the Treaty is carried out you will have no unity of Ireland in this generation, because the new animosities that must be developed, and the new bitterness that must be infused into the people, North and South, will preclude any understanding for this generation at least. I hold, then, that this is a very good opportunity for getting rid of a clause of the Treaty that I must say I never very much approved of. I would let the Six Counties go their own way, and I would remove the menace which the Six Counties fear, the menace of dividing up their little State and reducing them by force or invading them.
I would remove that once and for all, and I would let them go their own way, because I am convinced that economically, religiously, politically, and in any sense you look at it, we are all one, and every activity leads us into the channel, inevitably, of unity. Now, if we insist on the border business, if we insist on our pound of flesh, we do bring some Nationalists into Southern Ireland. We certainly would, I suppose, if the Treaty were carried out in the spirit and in the letter. As it is at the moment, even if we had the Boundary Commission set up and if certain districts in Ulster were handed over to us what guarantee even then is there that the British Government and the British Ministry might not let us down? What guarantee have we that these districts will be handed over to us? It is a matter of pure conjecture, and there is no certainty in it. Therefore, I say: leave the Nationalists in a solid body in the Six Counties in the North of Ireland, and let them work out their own destiny there. There is room and there may be an opportunity of having an understanding with Sir James Craig, and he is the only man I would have an understanding with. I would let the British stand out, and if possible, let him restore the status quo in Ulster, restore Proportional Representation, and let him give us back control of our county councils.
Is the Deputy arguing against the carrying out of the Treaty?
I am not arguing against the carrying out of the Treaty, I am just supporting a statement that Deputy Johnson made.
Oh, no. Deputy Johnson did not make these statements.
Well, these are some arguments I am adducing in support of a revision of the Treaty. I say this is a good opportunity for getting rid of that Clause. As I say, it is impossible to have it carried out now. The British Government will see that it will not be carried out. I was speaking of the question of the Nationalist minority in the Six Counties, and I say that if you take away these Catholics and these Nationalists from Tyrone and Fermanagh what about the Nationalists in Belfast who will be left in a smaller minority than ever? I say, therefore, that I think the time has come for a revision of the Treaty. It is better to have it passively settled, to more or less reconcile sections of the population in the Twenty-Six Counties, than to try to achieve the impossible at the moment—that is, to secure a section of the Six Counties, annex it to Southern Ireland, and create chaos, ruin and more destruction, and accentuate the difference now existing between the Northern and Southern sections of our population.
I speak with a certain amount of diffidence on this matter because in the first place I did not expect a discussion to arise so early and I was not present when the Minister made his statement, but I have been informed of the general tenor of that statement. I believe that the Dáil has occasionally become somewhat weary of my raising this matter. I trust that Deputies who felt in any way bored by my continual references to this matter do realise now that there were very substantial grounds for apprehension in regard to what was going to happen. On the 13th June last I moved a motion in this House, and speaking to it I said:—
"I think it would be well that we should recall and that Britain should realise, if she does not already, the vital importance of Article 12. It is as vital a part of the Treaty as any other Article and its non-observance on the part of Britain will in effect be a denunciation of the Treaty and will, in my judgment, have the effect of cancelling our contractual obligations under it and of rendering it open to us, and moreover necessary for us, to revise the Constitution of An Saorstát, in which eventuality the probability is that several provisions of that Constitution would be altered and others deleted."
I said that with a full knowledge or understanding of the serious implications involved. What is the position to-day? The position we have arrived at cannot be accurately described perhaps as a virtual denunciation of the Treaty by Britain, but it is one which fills every citizen of this State with forebodings and with serious apprehension that England is engaged in a very deep and long-thought-out manoeuvre, to wriggle out of her obligations under that Clause. Now, Sir, there was a time when England might have played that game with success, without loss of prestige and with gain to herself. So far as this country is concerned that day has long since gone and if England attempts to do that which we apprehend, to evade her obligations under the Treaty, to refrain from fulfilling in the letter and the spirit all that was intended when that solemn international Treaty was signed—if she fails to do that then she fails not with success or continuance of prestige; she fails with ignominy, loss of prestige and loss of honour and she frees our hands to go our own way in whatever way the people of this State decide without any compulsion or any influence from any external source. I wonder do British Ministers realise the brink of the tragedy for them which they are approaching? It will be a tragedy for England if the one Treaty that she ever made with this country that the majority of the people of Ireland believed she would honour, if events prove that on the occasion when the most democratic Government that England ever had was in power, that that was the occasion when that expectation was disappointed and when that obligation of England was dishonoured.
I hesitate to speak with any degree of dogmatic language as to what we should do at this moment. It is a moment for restraint on our part. It is a moment perhaps for a little further exercise of patience, but it is a moment to speak straight and bluntly, that we are not going to allow England to get out of her obligations under this section of the Treaty with impunity. English Ministers are ruling a great Empire, and it may be that they think that the affairs of this little nation are small, feeble things that they can afford to ignore, but the repercussions of any act of England, or lack of act, in dishonouring her signature to that Treaty, will be felt far outside this State and all through the Empire which England rules. We are on the last day of this session. We are at the verge of the Recess, and we will not meet for some time, it appears. I wonder would it not be well if we had in mind and that the Government should consider the reassembling of the Dáil on the occasion when the final decision of England is taken within the next week or two, as to what are the immediate intentions of the British Ministers. They tell us it is necessary, I understand, that further legislation is required. When I spoke here on a previous occasion, I said that if that was the conclusion which this Judicial Committee arrived at, it was in effect an admission that certain persons not parties to the Treaty, were competent to denounce it; certain parties exercising simply subordinate authority under the British Government and under the British Parliament are competent to denounce a solemn international Treaty made between representatives of Ireland and that superior Parliament. That is a doctrine which I think it is highly dangerous for Englishmen to pursue, but it seems to me that that doctrine is now being voiced, not because it is believed, but because British Ministers and British politicians —I think they hardly deserve the name of statesmen—have adopted that doctrine because it affords them an opportunity of escaping their obligations under the Treaty. They are going to introduce an Act of Parliament to implement that clause. When are they going to introduce it? When are they going to pass it? When are they going to set up this tribunal to carry out this Article? These are matters of vital importance to us.
When their announcement is made known and when their announcement is made informing us of these things, I think it would be well that the Dáil should assemble again to consider what attitude we should take towards them, for if the introduction of that Bill to implement this essential part of the Treaty, is all that is to take place during this session of the British Parliament, we can certainly anticipate its passage into law will be very remote in some future session of that foreign assembly, and the setting up of the Boundary Commission will be still further remote. In the meantime everything is being done to make the position of that Boundary Commission something entirely foreign to what it would have been if it had been set up when the Treaty was ratified by the Parliament of the Saorstát and the British Parliament. All the time has been spent in loading the dice against us and against our people in the Six Counties. I have apprehended this contingency for a long time. I am not going to indulge in reproaches to our Ministers, because I do see the gravity of this situation, and I do see it holds possibilities that will require not merely the whole united strength of this Dáil, but the whole united strength of the nation to face what may arise out of it. Therefore, I refrain from saying one word that might estrange any section or any individual citizen of the State, for we are facing something the results, the consequences and the nature of which none of us can yet fully foresee. Let us face it with the full knowledge that it may require great effort on our part and the full co-operation of all the resources in the nation, irrespective of how the different elements in the nation may have differed from each other in the past.
I regret that I was not present during the whole of Deputy Johnson's statement, but I gather from it that he recommends, having considered the question very carefully, that we should review our Constitution and amend it. That view has to some extent been subscribed to by two or three other speakers. I am not sure whether Deputy MacCabe spoke the minds of his friends when he was speaking.
It was my own mind.
I was thinking that. It is alleged that one of the two parties to the Treaty has not fulfilled its obligations. That is a very serious charge. It is contended that we have discharged all our obligations. The charge, as I understand it, is that any such obligations are bound up with Article 12 of the Treaty. No other allegation was made as to the non-fulfilment of any other clause so far as I can gather from the statement. Complaint may be made as to delay in carrying out the obligations under Article 12, and the published correspondence discloses the fact that the Executive Council pointed out that there had been delay, but, other than delay I do not see that there is non-fulfilment of obligations. Delay has been explained, to some extent I think, in the course of the correspondence which has been published. The Minister for External Affairs to-day, in reading out the answer that was given in the British House of Commons, mentioned that the Secretary of State stated: "His Majesty's Government have no doubt that it was the intention of Parliament when they approved and ratified the Treaty, that in the event of the Government of Northern Ireland exercising their option under Article 12 the Commission to be appointed under the proviso to that Article should in fact be appointed." He went on to say: "They feel that they are bound in honour to secure so far as lies within their power that that intention is carried into effect." The limitation, as I can see in that particular statement, is "in so far as it is in their power"—if there be any limitation. So far as it is within the power of the British Government or Parliament to complete that particular Commission there is no doubt whatever. It is a sovereign Parliament and it can carry into effect any necessary instrument to complete that particular Commission. He went on to say that he must make it clear that if the hope he expressed that the Northern Government would appoint a representative on the Commission is not fulfilled the Government, that is, the British Government, propose forthwith to introduce legislation to give effect to what was the undoubted intention of the Treaty and to press for the passing of that legislation through Parliament regardless of the consequences to themselves. I fail to see there any non-fulfilment of the obligations of one party to the Treaty. In the final sentence of this statement he says: "My colleagues and I are not prepared to omit any step which is in our view necessary to place the good faith of Parliament and of the British people beyond question."
That is a very serious statement. I do not know on reading it that one is justified in saying that there is an attempt to escape obligations, and imputing an attempt to escape obligations is a very serious matter as between one nation and another. We are dealing now as one nation with another nation, and it ought to be very carefully considered whether it is fair to impute to another nation, or to the Government of another nation, an attempt to escape obligations. I am not prepared, from the information that is at my disposal, to say or to admit that there has been an attempt on the part of the British Government to escape its obligations in this matter. I have already referred to delay. There has been delay. Delays are sometimes matters over which Governments have very little control. We may say, as one of the parties to this Treaty, that there has been delay on the part of the other party, and we are not, naturally, being a party to it, exactly in a position to judge, so far as the other party is concerned, whether there has been any unnecessary or deliberate delay. So far as any representations made by the British Government to us are concerned, the explanations as to delay must be accepted in good faith. They have pledged their good faith in this matter, they have pledged the honour of their people and of their Parliament, and on that statement I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of saying that there has been any attempt at evasion of the obligations of the British Government in this matter.
May I say a word in explanation? I am not imputing to the Government, that is to say to the Ministry, but I am imputing to the Parliament the charge of delay on the assumption, which I suggest is very well founded, that the Government is not going to proceed and pass this legislation before it adjourns, and that another two or three months delay, consequent on the refusal to pass this legislation, within the next week, that is to say before they adjourn, is an imputation that the Parliament of Great Britain is refusing to fulfil its obligations.
I received last evening a telegram from the Secretary of State saying that it was urgently necessary that he should see me without delay. The Executive Council have not yet considered and decided upon that.
Is the British Minister to come to Dublin or is the President to go to London?
He has invited me to go to London.
Following upon the statement of the President, perhaps he might not care to answer a question which I propose to put to him, because I think it would help the present situation. I do not desire to put any question which would tend to bring difficulties. My question is this: is it the view of the President or of the Executive Council that such legislation, required by England in its own interests, should be passed before the Recess of its Parliament, or whether he considers that postponement would be regarded in the same way as in the tenor of the statement made by the President now?
If that question is put for me to answer, I would consider it would be more than advisable that the legislation should be passed before the British Parliament rises.
The motion is to adjourn until October. I suggest that we should amend that motion and not adjourn beyond next Friday. The circumstances are very grave. I think we ought not to lose command of the situation by an adjournment so long as October, or even beyond a week, or perhaps the following Tuesday.
I should like to support that strongly, because we want to make very clear that we are taking this matter seriously. I think no gesture would be more striking than to show that we thought this matter was sufficiently serious.
I am altogether opposed to this proposition, if only for the reason that the spirit from which it emanates was clearly stated by Deputy Johnson in his first speech on this matter. We should not allow ourselves to be stampeded into a panic by a Press campaign in England. For the last few days, newspapers of all colours of political belief have been circulating rumours, and we are now to work ourselves up into a state almost of hysteria merely because of these pronouncements, and we are to forget the real perspective of the facts.
I made a careful note of what Deputy Johnson said. He said, "The Treaty is broken and should be renounced." Later he says, "The Treaty has not been fulfilled. It should be renounced," and he refers to this contemplated measure in the Westminster Parliament as an attempt to amend the Treaty. Let us see if these are accurate statements of fact. I quite sympathise with my friend, Deputy Milroy. I sympathise with every Irishman who has the same feeling at heart as I have, an almost incurable distrust of British politicians and British procedure in relation to this country. No one can blame us for that ineradicable distrust, but we are here, not as individual Irishmen with their individual temperaments, but as representatives of the Irish people upon whose shoulders a tremendous responsibility rests.
We are, therefore, not at liberty to speak out of our hearts under the impulse of an emotion, but to state our thought, and our cold and calm deliberate thought irrespective of the disturbance of feeling. The only thing we have before us at the moment is a statement read by the Minister for External Affairs, and portion of which was re-read by the President just now. What is stated? The effect of the Report of the Judicial Committee is that the refusal of Ulster is a casus improvisus, an unforeseen cause, not provided for, and that no constitutional means is provided under existing statutes for dealing with this casus improvisus. Deputy Milroy inadvertently spoke of that as a decision of the Privy Council. It is the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the Crown, which is really to the British Ministry. It is not a distinction without a difference, because so long as Irishmen talk of it as a decision, they are thinking of it as a tribunal to which questions are submitted and argued by both sides, and the association of ideas is at once created that in some way we are bound by that decision, and implicated in the action of that Tribunal, that we are privy to it. We are not. The British Ministry, or speaking officially, the King, took advice on this matter, and the advice is that so long as so-called “Ulster” refuses to nominate a Commissioner for the Boundary Commission, nothing can be done pending the introduction of legislation. What is the attitude of the British Government? The British Government of the moment, I admit, in regard to this casus improvisus say the Government will introduce forthwith legislation to give effect to the undoubted intention of the Treaty. Putting aside the instinctive tendency to distrust, giving the British Government the benefit that we charitably extend to ordinary citizens, even in a not responsible position, does not “forthwith” mean immediately.
"Introduce."
Introduce legislation forthwith. I see that Deputy Johnson emphasises "introduce" while I emphasise "forthwith." I lay further emphasis on the words "the undoubted intention of the Treaty." The men who speak of the undoubted intention of the Treaty negative the suggestion that they seek to frustrate the realisation of the Treaty's intention by delay. Consequently I think and submit that the introduction of words, which are not of a rhetorical flourish, might be admitted had the Ministry desired to make a statement of simpler tenor. The words, "the undoubted intention of the Treaty," negative, I submit, the insinuation that they intend only to introduce and to leave the legislation there suspended. I give value to the word "forthwith". They say that they will carry out the Treaty in the spirit and the letter and that they will take steps to put the good faith of Parliament and the British people beyond question. These words were dictated most obviously by an intelligent anticipation of what Irishmen would say on this occasion. It is, I repeat, only natural, a thing to be expected, that Irishmen, in view of what has just happened, with all the insinuations with which the British Press is reeking this morning, that the Government intend only to introduce a measure and not to proceed with it, should question the good faith of the British Parliament and, incidentally, of the British people. The weak spot, undoubtedly, is the distinction that presents itself between the British Government of to-day and the British people. Any Government—more particularly a Government that has been defeated so often of late—may be put out of office and a new Government put in. But all that is on the supposition that the British electorate, if the question be submitted to them, are determined to convict themselves of bad faith on a Treaty of almost infinite moment to the Dominions. We are to suppose that, lightly and without any further consideration, a thing that would shatter the whole fabric of the Commonwealth of Free Nations, will become the policy of the British people. The promise of the British Ministers is to introduce legislation to give effect to the "undoubted intentions of the Treaty." Will that be an attempt to amend the Treaty? Some of the Diehard journals on the other side of the Channel are trying to instil the poisonous suggestion that this provides an opportunity for revising the Treaty.
Let us see the thing in a clear light, as it should be seen by us from this side. Article XII of the Treaty arranges a certain thing as between the two contracting nations—Ireland and Great Britain. Great Britain, to carry out her portion of the bargain, finds it necessary to set up a Boundary Commission. The casus improvisus arises. In one sense of the phrase, that is nothing to us. A man sells goods to me on credit. I am to pay him at the end of three months. He delivers the goods. At the end of three months, I am a defaulter. I say: “I am not able to raise the money; I cannot pay you.” Naturally, my creditor says: “I have delivered the goods; it is for you to raise the money; it is for you to carry out your side of the contract. I fold my arms and look on while you are arranging whatever you can arrange to meet your contract.” The legislation forecasted in that message of the British Minister is legislation to enable the British contracting side to carry out its obligations under the Treaty. To suggest that it is anything else, or that it is something more, is most unfair. The suggestion that the opportunity will be seized to alter the Treaty is an absurdity. A Treaty between two nations cannot be altered merely by one of the contracting parties deciding to alter it. The conception that we are invited to entertain here is a conception of utter absurdity. But this notion has been disseminated by leading articles in, and inspired contributions to, the British Press, and we are to allow our nerves to be so acted upon as to lose our self-control over these bogies, invented, I suspect, for the purpose. It is too early—quite too early—to raise the cry: “The Treaty is broken.” If and when the Treaty is broken, it will be time enough to make pronouncements of the type suggested recently by Deputy Milroy.
As an Ulsterman, I want to make my protest, before I sit down, against the language used by Deputy McCabe. There are three ways, obviously, of settling every dispute between nations. The old-fashioned way is by war. The new way—the way of the modern world —is by arbitration and law. But there is a third way, the way of Deputy McCabe—surrender. It is all very well to gloss this thing over with nice language. But when the nice language is interpreted, it turns out simply to be a recommendation of surrender. These are the Deputy's words:—
"For the sake of an entente with Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland should allow the Six Counties to go their own way. Let the Six Counties go their own way.”
He fully realises, as I stated, that that means the abandonment of more than half the population, or certainly close on half the population, of the Six Counties. That policy is inspired by the belief that the British people seek to cover themselves with the indelible stigma of dishonouring a Treaty which they themselves, through the statesmen of the time who made the Treaty, declared to be the salvation of the Empire. That is looking at it from their own side in their own selfish interest. What a message it would be to send out at this moment to our compatriots in Ulster that we are seeking to abandon them merely because their hereditary opponents refuse to allow the Treaty to be carried out by creating this unforeseen cause! In other words, we are to acquiesce in the idea of the Die-hard Press in England, that the refusal of Ulster to appoint a Commissioner is the last word in this whole matter. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. That will have to be altered, and it will be “Ulster has spoken; the case is ended.” The veto of a questionable majority in the Six Counties of Ulster is to be declared competent to prevent the British State from carrying out a Treaty that it has solemnly entered into with another nation, and that other nation is to proclaim that it has no objection whatever to that denunciation of the Treaty, and that the very people for whose protection Clause XII was made an integral part of the Treaty are now to be abandoned. Read Clause XII of the Treaty and you will see, at once, what was the thought of those who entered into that arrangement with Great Britain. They were thinking of our fellow countrymen in Ulster—the men who carried on the fight for national independence. To quote Davis:—
"The North began, the North held on The strife for native land;
Till Ireland rose and cowed her foes, God bless the Northern Land!"
Now it is: "God curse the Northern land; they are only a political nuisance; let them go their way." That is the contribution of the National Group——
On a point of order—
I ought to withdraw that last remark. It is a contribution from the National Group.
Deputy McCabe spoke his own mind entirely.
That is a contribution from the National Group.
I admire the accuracy of the Deputy Professor's statement and his casuistry.
At any rate Deputy McCabe is a member of this House. Deputy Milroy will not object to that. I solemnly protest against a member of this House, no matter from what group or bench he speaks, uttering sentiments of this kind at such a moment.
I think the Dáil has reason to be grateful to Deputy Magennis for a really clear examination of the position created by the announcement read by the Minister for External Affairs. It is never any harm, after having been treated to a certain amount of rhetoric, to take just that kind of view of the question and just that kind of examination of the question that Deputy Magennis has given us. I agree heartily that neither the Dáil nor the country should allow itself to be stampeded by large Press headings assuring us that a crisis has arisen in England, and, presumably, that therefore a crisis must be considered to have arisen here. I think that, on examination, it will be found that neither one nor the other is the case. Press headings are good things. I am informed they help to sell papers well.
And boost Ministers.
The man in the street, glancing over the shoulder of the other man in the street, sees a large headline and rushes to the paper shop, or to the paper boy, as the case may be. There are a few things that stand out. One is this: A contract cannot be altered by one party to it.
Mr. O'CONNELL
The Government follows that.
I do not see the Deputy's joke. An international contract cannot be altered by legislation in the Parliament of one nation. Deputies used such phrases as "amending the Treaty." It is not the view of the Executive Council that the Treaty cannot be amended. The Treaty can be amended. But it can be amended only by agreement between the contracting parties, and that agreement must be ratified by both Parliaments.
Deputy McCabe said that the British Government was letting Ireland down. Deputy McCabe ought to reflect whether it lies in the power of any British Government to let Ireland down. And he might pass on from that and reflect whether it does not lie far more in the power of the Irish people, and perhaps even still more in the power of Irish Deputies, to let Ireland down, and whether it does not contribute to that end when Deputies rise with, I suggest, the minimum of consideration and give expression to such statements as the Deputy has given expression to to-day.
"Let the Six Counties go their own way," said Deputy McCabe. An ideal solution! It is a wonder we did not think of it long ago! There is just a chance that the Deputy meant the Six Counties, not collectively but individually. If he meant that, the residents of Tyrone and Fermanagh might consider that there was quite a lot to be said for it. But if the Deputy meant that, on his light-hearted suggestion, we ought to abandon the idea that this is and should be one nation, then I think that many Deputies will beg leave to differ from him. The statement of the British Minister in the British Parliament says that the refusal of the Northern Government to appoint a representative on this Boundary Commission is a casus improvisus—a contingency for which no provision has been made. Deputies should follow the excellent advice and, I might say, the excellent example of Deputy Magennis and simply not allow their judgment to be clouded by their feelings. They should put to themselves a question as to whether that statement is or is not a fact. Has that contingency been provided for, and if so, where and how? I suggest that the statement is substantially accurate and, in so far as it has not been provided for, the responsibility of that failure and neglect and oversight must be shared between the signatories of each nation, in the first instance, and, in a very secondary way, between the Parliaments. But the British Minister, speaking through the British Parliament on behalf of the British people says that it is recognised by the Government of Great Britain that it was the “undoubted intention” that this Commission should be constituted. He proceeds to state that all the necessary steps towards that end will be taken forthwith by the Government of which he is a member. Now, that is something which needs calm consideration here and certainly needs, I think, more time both on the part of the Deputies and on the part of the Executive Council than it has yet been possible to give to it. But we do not gain anything, we do not improve or advance our own position by simply waxing turbulent about the thing at short notice, and talking either about denouncing the Treaty or letting the Six Counties go their own way. Both of these proposals are proposals which I would like to examine very carefully, very closely, and at some leisure.
Speaking as one Deputy, and not so much in my capacity as a member of the Executive Council, I can say that, to my mind, the North-Eastern position was, perhaps, the biggest factor for the acceptance of the Treaty. It is true that we had set up a fighting machine here which we called a Republic. It is true that we had challenged the British administration here, both actively, in physical conflict, and by simply cutting in on the various phases of their administration, and taking them over to the control of the Departments of a subterranean Parliament. But when it came to doing business, when it came to a discussion with the representatives of the British Government, there was nothing to be gained by pretending to be unaware of the fact, that a very considerable proportion of our own population, close on one-fourth, grouped for the most part in a particular area in the north-east of the country, did not recognise, and were not likely to recognise in practice or in action the sovereignty, the supremacy or the jurisdiction of that native Parliament which, acting on the mandate of the people in the 1918 elections, we had established here. It is all right for people to vault upon platforms and say that Sir James Craig is a disloyal citizen of the Irish Republic. I doubt if the statement caused serious worry, inconvenience or loss of sleep to Sir James Craig, and I take it that if it gave any particular satisfaction to the persons who enunciated that great truth he would be willing that they would keep on enunciating it for a long time.
As a practical proposition, it did seem that that situation of close on a million people, utterly hostile to the objectives which the rest of us had written up as our war programme, did necessitate some compromise by which the unity of the country could be at least preserved, and some compromise which would enable time to play its part in the solving of a problem which had, for a variety of reasons, become very inflamed and very embittered indeed. We have to remember that we are dealing with a nation, and that in the life-time of a nation a few years— a decade—is but a heart beat. It is certainly not anything like in the same proportion that it bears to the life-time of an individual. And if time had to pass until—Deputies may stand appalled at the thought—even the boys and girls would grow up to manhood and womanhood in the north-east in a different atmosphere and with a different outlook from that which their fathers and mothers had acquired, it might be well worth while to let the time pass. I say that without prejudice to the position that the Irish Government takes and must take on the Treaty.
You begin from this: that the principle was accepted that there would not be, by the Irish Government or by the English Government, coercion to bring people under the jurisdiction of the State which was to be established here. You then move on, that equally people must not be kept out from the jurisdiction of that State by compulsion—that they themselves must decide. We have stood on that all the time. Our claim has never been for territory, but our claim has been that the inhabitants of those areas up there—those areas contiguous to the border and frontier which was arbitrarily drawn by the 1920 Act —must say their choice and that effect must be given to that choice. While that has been, from time to time, represented as a Shylock attitude, as a grasping for a pound of flesh, Deputies are aware, the people of Ireland are aware, and the people of England ought to be aware, that there has been no territorial ambitions on the part of the Executive Council of the Free State, who simply desire that the residents of these Northern areas should have their rights which were secured for them by the Treaty which Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins signed.
Does the Minister stand over the words "contiguous to the border"? The Minister said that his view was that the people resident in these areas contiguous to the border should have the right of transfer.
Personally, I never visualised a Free State oasis in an Orange Sahara, so to speak. It may be arguable. I am not inclined to dogmatise on the subject at the moment.
The Minister will realise the implications.
I do not realise any very serious implication. The position then is, that the Executive Council's information on this subject is confined to the contents of the document which the Minister for External Affairs has read. The answers given to the British Government by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are not yet in our hands, or at our disposal. My chief object in rising at all to intervene in this debate was, first, to deprecate the line which Deputy Johnson took, hot on the reading of this announcement by the Minister, and equally, or rather much more strongly, to deprecate the expressions and the general line of argument which Deputy McCabe treated us to to-day. It is in my opinion not a case for sudden decisions. It is certainly not a case for jumping to conclusions and making statements which are not justified by the facts. The Treaty has not been broken, and in my humble view the Treaty should not be denounced.
Is there any time limit to be put on the carrying into operation of the Treaty by the British Government?
That is another question. I am dealing with the position as it is now. The Treaty, as I say, has not been broken, and, I suggest to the good sense of Deputies, should not be denounced. Equally, I do suggest that a pariah, outlawed State for 26 counties, with a hostile British Statelet on its Northern frontier, is not a worthy conception to hold before the people of this nation.
Might I ask the Minister to elucidate one statement? He said that the Treaty may be amended by the contracting parties, but that any such amendment would not be binding until ratified by both parties. I presume he means both Parliaments. Are we to infer from that, that similar legislation to that which British Ministers stated it was their intention to introduce in the British Parliament will have to be passed in the Dáil?
I am sorry I lost the trend of the Deputy's question.
The Minister said that the Treaty may be amended with the consent of both contracting parties.
By agreement between the contracting parties.
But that any amendment was not binding until ratified by, I think, he said the Parliaments. What I want to ask is, does he consider such legislation as the British Government propose is an amendment of the Treaty, and, if so, are we to infer from that statement that complementary legislation will be required in the Dáil?
I have not seen the British Bill. I would like to be very clear on what is the actual proposal, much clearer than I am at the moment. Equally, I would like to be fortified by the opinion of the Attorney-General. I did state a general proposition and stand over it, that the Treaty cannot be amended save by agreement between the high contracting parties, and that such agreement would need the ratification of both Parliaments.
The point I want to elucidate is, if the inference I was disposed to draw was correct, does it mean that if we adjourn to-day, and do not meet until 21st October, even if the British did pass legislation before they adjourn, that legislation would not be operative until next October?
That is a different point.
I would like to deal with one point raised by Deputy Johnson concerning the adjournment. I would like to ask for guidance as to whether, if we adjourn to-day until 21st October, it would be in the power of the Executive Council to call Parliament together?
Twenty-five Deputies.
Yes, I think so. There is Standing Order 12 which says:
The Ceann Comhairle shall publish, at least three clear days before the opening of each ordinary Session of the Dáil, a notice, which shall state the place, date, and hour of opening the Session. If the Dáil be summoned for an earlier date than that fixed on the prorogation or adjournment, the summons shall also state the reason for such earlier Session.
The word "Session" has never been defined, either by Statute or in the Standing Orders. The reference to the word "adjournment" in the Standing Orders seems to me to cover the present case. I appear to be given a certain duty. The Standing Order contemplates a meeting of the Dáil at a date earlier than the date fixed on the adjournment. I take it the only reasonable construction of that Order is that if the Executive Council, acting through the President, requested me to summon the Dáil at an earlier date than the date fixed— the time in this case being the 21st October—I could publish three clear days' notice and the meeting could be held. Under the Standing Order that is the position of the Executive Council. An arrangement was made last week of a different nature. In reply to Deputy Johnson the President stated that if either he or I received a memorial from twenty-five Deputies a meeting would be held. Apart altogether from that promise—which was to assure Deputy Johnson that even if the Executive Council did not ask for a meeting, a meeting might be held if 25 Deputies wanted it—I think if the Executive Council themselves wanted a meeting there is power to summon it.
A new situation has arisen since last week. The question whether the contemplated legislation in England will not only be introduced but passed, seems to me to affect the question of our adjournment. If it is passed then it seems to me we would have no occasion to meet again provided the legislation is simply domestic and does not affect us directly. Of course it cannot amend the Treaty. The position I want the Dáil to be in, if that legislation is not passed, is that we have a right then to say that they have failed to fulfil the Treaty and therefore the Treaty no longer binds us. I want the Dáil to be in a position not to allow this period of three months to elapse, even under the promise of the British Government, and the chance of a British General Election. If the legislation is passed in the British Parliament before they adjourn for the Recess I have nothing further to say but I desire that the Dáil should not adjourn beyond say the 12th August or that we should have an assurance, if we decide to adjourn until October, that it would be provisional upon the legislation being passed and becoming law in England which would allow the Treaty to be completed. I feel that this is a matter which the Dáil must hold in its own hands and subject to a promise from the President that he will agree to call the Dáil together —in the event which I hope will not occur—that we shall, as a matter of fact meet on the 12th August, or not later than that.
I do not want to intervene in the discussion, but there is one other contingency besides that to which Deputy Johnson has referred which it is right to bear in mind. When the British Government legislation is in the hands of the Government it may appear to the Law Adviser of the Executive Council that that legislation is of such a nature as to imply mandatory power here in which case it would be a matter deserving of the instant consideration of the Dáil. The Minister for Justice has made quite clear, I think, what I think should never have been questioned, that the Treaty cannot be amended but by the mutual consent of both parties. It is quite possible the amending legislation may in its phrasing make some such assumption. I think in that case that is a matter the Executive Council would desire at once to place before the Dáil.
That is made clear. The Dáil can meet if the Executive Council so desires independent of the date of the adjournment. The question of twenty-five Deputies is another point. The question Deputy Johnson asked is, as to whether in the event of it not taking place the President would exercise the power is a thing to be answered.
Yes. I do not care to agree to that. I suggest that if Deputies want to be called together it is better to fix a date in the event of their not being satisfied with the undertaking we have given.
What is the undertaking?
That if in our opinion it is advisable that a meeting of the Dáil should be called we would summon it.
I press the amendment to fix the date as the 12th August.
The date now suggested is to delete the 21st October and make it the 12th August. Before we adjourn there is some confusion over the words "amending legislation." If the Treaty is to be amended the whole procedure of making the Treaty, I think, must be gone over again: that is to say representatives of both parties to the Treaty must meet, and their agreement must be embodied in legislation, and passed by both Parliaments. Question:—That the words "21st October" be deleted and the words "12th August" inserted—put and agreed to.
Main question put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned accordingly at 2.35 p.m. till Tuesday, 12th August.