Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Oct 1924

Vol. 8 No. 23

TREATY (CONFIRMATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT) BILL, 1924.—SECOND STAGE.

I beg to move the Second Reading of the Treaty (Confirmation of Supplemental Agreement) Bill, 1924. I have already made a Second Reading speech on the introduction of this measure in August last, and I think that it is unnecessary for me to go into the matter now in any great detail. This Bill is an agreed Bill, in the sense that it is based on an agreement made between the Irish Government, on the one part, and the British Government, on the other part, to meet a contingency that was unforeseen when the Treaty was made. I have observed references by British politicians and British signatories to the Treaty, opinions which were carefully concealed when the negotiations, that resulted in the Treaty, were being undertaken. Had these pronouncements been made at that time there would not have been Irish signatories to the Treaty. We made this Treaty not with these men; we made it with the British nation. And the British nation, through their Parliament, have faithfully carried out their part of the undertaking. It is now for us to carry out our part of this agreement. The view of the Government has not been affected by these pronouncements. I therefore formally move the Second Reading of this Bill.

The question is that the Bill be now read a Second time. Two amendments have been handed in to this Motion:—

"To delete all after the word `that' and substitute therefor the words:—

"The Dáil declines to give the Bill a Second Reading because in the opinion of the Dáil the non-appointment of the Commission provided for by Article 12 of the Treaty of December 6th, 1921, in the matter required by the Treaty invalidates any action taken by the Northern Parliament under the same Article, and that, therefore, Articles 14 and 15 automatically become operative; and the Dáil is further of the opinion that the Executive Council should forthwith take whatever course they deem to be necessary to give effect to the Treaty in respect to the Government of Northern Ireland."—(Deputy Johnson.)

To insert after the word "That" the words "this Dáil, having taken note of the opinions expressed in Dáil Eireann and elsewhere in connection with the recommendation to accept, ratify and enact the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, by the members of the Irish Government who were signatories to the said Treaty, that Article 12 of that instrument contemplated that, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions, and in the event of Northern Ireland contracting out of Saorstát Eireann all territories within Northern Ireland in which a majority of the inhabitants wished to return to Saorstát Eireann should be returned to Saorstát Eireann as by law established on December the 6th, 1922, and believing that no other interpretation is acceptable or should be enforced, resolves that."—(Deputy Figgis.)

The amendment by Deputy Johnson is in order and will be moved. The amendment by Deputy Figgis is simply a declaration of opinion. It is out of order on the grounds of procedure. It is an expression of opinion which might meet with approval, possibly with general approval, in the Dáil, but it does not affect the Motion that the Bill should now be read a Second Time and it would have no effect on the Bill when passed. If accepted, that amendment would open up vistas of amendments preceding the Second Reading of Bills, which we could not contemplate. I am, therefore, taking Deputy Johnson's Amendment.

With regard to that amendment which you have just ruled out of order, perhaps you will permit me just to say this that the amendment was based upon an amendment adopted in respect of a similar Bill in another Parliament. You have just ruled it out as an improper amendment. The object of my putting the amendment down has been fully and amply met by the ruling you have just given.

I confess I would very much like that this rather specially called meeting of the Dáil —shall I call it an emergency meeting of the Dáil—had been a matter affecting the problems of unemployment and hunger that prevail in the country. I think we probably would have been in that case much more serviceably doing the work for which we have been appointed. I put down an amendment to this Bill in the hope that the Dáil will agree with me that it is the Treaty that was signed in December, 1921, that we require to be fulfilled and not the new Treaty which has been made by the two Governments, as has been pointed out by the President, and which has been ratified by one of the Parliaments. I want to argue that the Bill which is now before us does not in fact secure the fulfilment of the 1921 Treaty, but rather, that it is designed to make easy and to legalise an evasion of the 1921 Treaty. When this matter was before us on the First Reading debate, I spoke of the risks, that I thought we were running and the promises that were being held out to the friends of the Free State in the Northern area which were not likely to be fulfilled. I gave certain reasons for my belief in that respect. I think the incidents that have happened since that debate in general have confirmed all my contentions, except one which Ministers may think is the vital one, that is that the British Parliament has in fact passed the Bill. But it has passed that Bill with such gracelessness as even in that case to confirm much of the arguments that I used on that occasion.

The Chairman of the Commission, who, in fact, will be the Commission, has been subjected to pressure of a kind which I imagine is hardly paralleled in any circumstances anywhere. Nominally, he is an impartial Chairman appointed by a third party; in fact, he is the Chairman appointed by one of the parties to the dispute, and that party, through many of its chief exponents of policy, has done its utmost to prejudice the mind of that so-called impartial Chairman. Now, I have said —I say it again—that with the best will in the world and the greatest desire to be fair and honest in his judgment, the Chairman of that Commission, who, as I say, is in fact the Commission, cannot act impartially. We have a letter written in March, 1922, by one of the signatories of the Treaty, Lord Birkenhead, a great statesman who evidently was expressing his doubts as to the effect of the Treaty. He was presumably expressing the view that the Irish interpretation of the meaning of that Treaty was possibly a right one. But that signatory to the Treaty, who was Lord Chancellor, and who had every prospect of being again Lord Chancellor, and, therefore, a possible patron of the Chairman of the Commission, has said to that Chairman of the Commission, through publicity, that if he does not interpret his functions in the way the English signatories to the Treaty have interpreted it, then he can be nothing less than a lunatic. The other signatories to the Treaty, most of them, have practically said the same thing. They have said that there were understandings with, and that there were undertakings given to, representatives of the North-East corner of Ireland in regard to what was meant and in regard to the securities that they were embodying. The House of Lords, as has been pointed out, have done their best to make sure that the decision of the Tribunal, which is referred to in the Bill, shall be prejudged and predetermined. I say all these factors strengthen the view that I expressed at the time, that there can be no hope of a just judgment from that Tribunal, that it would not give to the Northern people a fair chance, or that the interpretation which the Dáil in 1921 and 1922 put upon it was the right interpretation.

But there is something even worse than that. We had a statement from the President, and a statement—presumably an authoritative statement— by the High Commissioner in London, to the effect that the Free State, at any rate, bound itself to accept the decisions of the Tribunal, whatever they might be. On the other hand, the British spokesmen tell us in so many words that they are not thinking of accepting the decisions of the Tribunal as final and conclusive. We had the British Lord Chancellor, Lord Haldane, saying he deprecates attempts to forecast what the arbitrators will do, and then he says: "They may take a very large view. If they do it is just possible—I am not expressing the smallest opinion about it—that the principle suggested in a letter written by the noble Earl, Earl Birkenhead, to Lord Balfour in 1922, and which was recently printed in "The Times," may be a true construction. If it is so, that is a matter which can be tested in the courts. On the other hand, if the Boundary, when it is drawn, is one which does not greatly affect Ulster, which does not tear anything out of her vitals but merely adjusts the matter in accordance with the three considerations I have mentioned, then it may be no question of substance will arise." Later on in the same speech he says, speaking of the amendment that was then under discussion: "This amendment amounts to a prejudgment of the case which is going to be arbitrated upon. I myself do not express any opinion as to the merits of the case which has to be arbitrated upon. Far be it from me to prejudge acts legal Tribunals should decide. In the first place, it is a question for the arbitrators, and if it is that the arbitrators decide something which is not within their competence to decide, then recourse may be had to the Law Courts. I do not know how any decision will be enforced; enforcement is a matter upon which I decline to speculate, for the good reason that the question of enforcement may never arise."

You have one of the parties telling the world that this country is bound to accept as final the decision of arbitrators, and the other party to the arbitration telling the world that the decision of the arbitrators, if it aggrieves them, is one in connection with which they may go to the courts—which courts they do not say, but they presumably mean the British courts. I wonder whether, in anybody's memory, there has ever been such arbitration? One side says: "I accept the finding as conclusive," and the other side says: "If I am aggrieved, then I shall go to the courts." But there is something more. We have been told quite clearly, warned beforehand by people who are spokesmen for the Northern Parliament and public opinion, and I think with tremendous force, that this Bill which we are dealing with, the complement of the Bill which was dealt with in the British Parliament, cannot be in any respect a conclusive action. Lord Carson, speaking on this matter warned us, as he warned the British Parliament, in language which, I think, we must take notice of before we pass this Bill:

"This Bill is a mere skeleton. What is to be the procedure under the Bill? There is no procedure set up by the Bill. Is there authority given to these Commissioners, and if so where, to go into Ulster at all if they are ordered out? Is there authority given to these Commissioners to summon a single witness? If so, where is it? Is there authority for them to get a single document? If so, where is the authority in the Bill? They are to take the wishes of the inhabitants. How? I suppose some of you know something about Ulster. Is it to be done through the ballot-box? Under what law is the ballot or an election by ballot to be set up, and in what way are you to take the opinion of the inhabitants of Ulster, and of what inhabitants? I ask all these questions because, believe me, they will be back here with another Bill when they begin to try to put this Bill into force."

So that we have a promise in this Bill that we are asked to pass, of a succession of legislative efforts made in the British Parliament to fulfil the intentions of this Bill. And yet it is suggested that when you get the Commission set up all that is to be done is to bring in a report delimiting the area of Northern Ireland. I believe in all the discussion on this matter we find ourselves brought down to this question— whether the Treaty is to be maintained in full or whether we are to take this policy of the Vice-President of tolerated secession. The Bill, I said, is an attempt to make easy an evasion of the Treaty. I believe the Treaty ensured, if it had been maintained, the unity of Ireland.

I believe that within the Treaty, and as understood by the signatories to the Treaty and the majority of the Dáil which confirmed it, there was the consciousness that within this Article XII. no matter what happened in the Northern Parliament, there was ensured an Irish National Authority for at least some spheres of Government, to wit, railways, contagious diseases of animals, and fisheries, and the preservation of that National authority over the whole country. Even in so attenuated a form as that, that provided for us an assurance of ultimate unity for government in general. I have argued this before and I am not going to enlarge upon it. I insist upon it as the true reading of the position that was created by the signing of the Treaty, but, as I think, unfortunately the power which was ensured to the Free State in that document has been set aside for a period of three years after December this year. Having set aside that instrument of national unity we are invited in this Bill to agree to the policy of secession.

The amendment I have put forward is an attempt to bring the Government back to the policy enunciated in opposition to the policy of secession by the Vice-President, a policy enunciated by the President in May last. On that occasion the President gave an interview, formal, carefully arranged, to a representative of the "Chicago Tribune." The Attorney-General was present on that occasion, and I suggest that the circumstances justify us in asserting that the President in stating what was the Free State Government's opinion on that occasion gave a statement of opinion based upon the advice of the legal authority in Ireland, the Legal Adviser.

I should like to say that that is an incorrect interpretation.

The Attorney-General was present at the interview, and the President then said:—

"The Treaty was made not with a part of Ireland but with the whole of Ireland for whom our plenipotentiaries spoke. But to satisfy the fears and prejudices of some Irishmen in the North-East they were given in Article XII, the right to contract out of the Free State by presenting an address to the King to that effect. Article XII., therefore, goes on to make an important provision. It says, `Provided if such address is so presented a Commission consisting of three persons shall determine the boundary.' "

We hold that the whole situation is governed by that word "provided."

"If Ulster persists in refusing to appoint a Commissioner her process of contracting out becomes incomplete and she automatically reverts to her original position as part of the Free State. It would be our duty then to provide for the Government of Ulster as far as our powers go."

He goes on to say that "under the Treaty, of course, Ulster retains a separate provincial Parliament and control of her public services. The only difference is that the reserved powers now exercised by the British shall be exercised by the Irish Parliament and the members elected in Ulster to the British Parliament would sit in Dáil Eireann. We expect England to carry out the Treaty as scrupulously as we have done, and we are sure she will."

I am asking the Dáil to agree with the President, and to disagree with the Vice-President. I am asking the Dáil to agree that the Treaty that was signed and agreed to in the Dáil in January, 1922, containing that Article XII, was a Treaty which gave Ulster, or the Ulster Parliament, the choice, under certain conditions, to contract out of the Free State. It has been ruled, on behalf of the British Government—and the existence of this Bill in this House seems to be an attempt to ask us to agree that that ruling was a right one—that the acceptance or nonacceptance of the proviso in Article XII., providing for the setting up of a Commission, gave the Northern Parliament an option to agree or not to agree to the setting up of that Commission. I maintain, and I think that the Dáil will agree, that the option in regard to the proviso runs parallel with, and contingent upon, the option in the main body of the Article regarding the contracting out, and vice versa. The acceptance of the one option carries with it the obligation to fall in with the other. That is to say, that the choice of contracting out is, in fact, an agreement to set up a Commission in the manner provided for in the Treaty, and to abide by the decision, and I agree with the President, and I ask the House to agree with him, that having failed to fulfil the second part of the obligation, any exercise of the choice under the first part of the Article is invalid, and consequently the Article itself falls as not being fulfilled.

I think, furthermore, that it may be contended with a great deal of force that Article XII. of the Treaty is nonoperative for other reasons. We had statements made that assurances were given by the British signatories to the Northern representatives, and it is not denied by the present responsible authorities in Britain, the present Government of Britain, that certain undertakings have been given to the Northern people. Those do not appear to have been disclosed to the Irish signatories. In that case I suggest that it might be argued that the Article as a whole has been made invalid by the fact that the contract was not an open one. Then on another count it may be argued, with some force, I think, that Article XII. should not operate because it appears from the discussions that have taken place that the signatories were not dealing with the same thing. I have an extract which is of some moment in this respect from an authoritative work, Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. VII., page 354, under the title, “Contract.”

"It is an essential of a valid contract"—

and I am now assuming that this Article XII. is part of the contract—

"that the parties should assent to the same thing in the same sense; they must have the same intention, and this intention must be declared. If it appears that they were negotiating or contracting with regard to different things, or in contemplation of diverse terms, there is an absence of the essential mutuality, and consequently no contract."

Now, if Article XII. is invalidated by that absence of mutuality, then the Treaty as a whole, minus Article XII., operates, and there is no opting out. These I put forward simply as a support of my main contention, the main contention of the President, the main contention of the Government, in May. "Our position," he spoke of. The contention of the Government in May was that the failure to validate Article XII. by appointing the Commission in the way it was set out to be appointed in the Treaty, thereby consenting to that Treaty delimiting the area of Northern Ireland, makes the whole Article, and any act done in consonance with the Article, invalid, and as a consequence, the Treaty as a whole, minus that Article, runs as effective.

There have been some superior critics who have pointed out that this amendment of mine is incomprehensible, and impracticable, and impossible of enforcement. They did not say that in respect of the Government's policy enunciated in May last. But incomprehensible as it may be, impracticable as it may be, impossible of enforcement as it may be, the responsibility in the matter will not be ours; the responsibility in the matter of enforcing the Treaty with respect to Northern Ireland will then remain with the British Government. It will be their duty to transfer to the Free State Government the functions which they at present control, and the responsibility of carrying out the Treaty as a whole will be theirs, and not ours. I have said that the alternative to this policy is the policy of the Bill and the policy of the Vice-President of the Executive Council, that of secession, that we shall tolerate the secession, that this might be called a Bill to facilitate the complete secession of Northern Ireland from the Free State. I could well have understood, and gone a long way to agree with, the acceptance of the Vice-President's view that this is the right policy to adopt had the Government maintained Article XII. in its entirety. Had they ensured the maintenance of this organ for the Government of the whole of Ireland with respect to even minor functions, then I could have understood much of his argument.

But I feel very strongly that, without that unifying bond, to persist in this policy of secession is not going to assist in the better government of this country for the future. It is not going to assist in the good government of the country, and I wish to argue, too, that it is not going to assist in that friendly approach between the two communities which most of us desire to see. Had we maintained the position that the Treaty gave us, then I think we could, much more hopefully, have made an attempt to invite co-operation between the Northern community and ourselves. But, having given away so much, to persist in the policy of secession seems to me to be utterly destroying all those expectations that the country shall be, if not at an early date, at some date, completely unified. You would then have all the influences tending towards unification, whereas, I fear, under the policy of the Vice-President we are going to have influences tending against unification. The amendment asks the Dáil to agree with the policy of the Government in May, and to disagree with the policy of the Government of the present day. It is for the Dáil to choose whether it intends to move towards unification of government in Ireland or away from that policy of unification. I beg to move the amendment.

I beg to second.

It is perhaps, not inappropriate that I should follow Deputy Johnson in this debate, seeing that so much of his speech was directed against what he was pleased to call the policy of the Vice-President, the policy of tolerated secession. The Deputy does me too much honour. I have not attempted to formulate any new policy on this matter. My efforts have been confined to an exposition of policy on this matter which is now almost three years old. My references to tolerated secession were portion of an exposition which I believed, and now believe, to be an accurate exposition of the Treaty and of the manner in which the Treaty approached this problem which undoubtedly does exist in the NorthEastern portion of the country. It is true that for two or three years, or more, we managed to ignore, and it may have been the height of wisdom to ignore, the existence of that problem; but, when it became a matter of practical negotiation face to face with the representatives of the British Government, the existence of the problem forced itself upon the notice of the Irish no less than the British signatories. I repeat what I have said on the matter: that the Treaty, recognising the existence of that problem and recognising the existence of a roughly homogeneous population in the North-East of the country whose ideals and aspirations were different from the ideals of the great bulk of the country's population, sketched out alternative courses. One of these courses will be found in Article XIV. of the Treaty, and the other is set out in Article XII. One road was the road of political unity under which the Northern Parliament would retain intact its Six County Area jurisdiction, would retain the substantial powers of local autonomy conferred by the Act of 1920, and would fall into the same relationship with the National Parliament, the Parliament of the Free State, as had previously existed with Westminster. That was one of the alternative courses. It is the course which has been rejected. And the other course was the way of secession, the way of tolerated secession. The Northern Parliament, by petition presented to His Majesty, could secure exclusion from the political system of the Irish Free State for as much of its area as could show a reasonable case for such secession. It is a question of determining the proportions of the problem, of determining the area which contains the homogeneous population to which inclusion in the political system of the Free State is distasteful.

That is the task of this Commission. The onus is placed on this Commission, which was originally intended to be tripartite, of determining the proper boundaries of the jurisdiction of the Free State and of the Northern Parliament, and the factors which were to guide, and are to guide, that determination are set out under the proviso to Article XII. of the Treaty. The exposition of that is not the outlining of a new policy, and the Deputy knows it. He is ingenious and occasionally even arch in argument, but the Deputy knows that that is an accurate exposition of the alternatives which are set out in the Treaty, and by which it was sought to meet this internal problem in our country: the problem of the existence of a population in the North-East, who, for the present, at any rate, are full of distrust and suspicion, and, to some extent, of hostility towards their fellow-countrymen. The Deputy has talked of an interview given by the President in May, and has made considerable play with it. But something has happened since May. Since May the predominant Government and Parliament of the Northern area has expressed its willingness to come in and make good the default of the subordinate provincial Parliament, and we have concurred in that course. The Deputy's view is that we should not have concurred in that course. That, of course, is a point of view which the Deputy is entitled to hold. We have taken the other decision, and the Bill which the Dáil is asked to consider to-day is simply a Bill confirming an agreement arrived at between the President, representing the Executive Council of the Free State, and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald representing the British Government.

The Deputy, and those who hold with him that no such agreement should have been arrived at, should be a little more clear and a little more detailed in explanation of the alternative. They should tell us just what their solution for this problem is in the absence of a Commission to determine the Boundary; whether the existing Boundary is to remain, shutting out, as it does, from the jurisdiction of this State, large areas containing homogeneously nationalist communities. The Deputy has told us before, and seldom loses an opportunity of telling us, that the Council of Ireland had wonderful possibilities, and that in fact the suggestion is that the existing Boundary might well stand, and that the Council of Ireland was an invaluable link and bond, and germ and blossom, and so on, of unity. I fail to see it. I have never been impressed by the Deputy's enthusiasm for this Council of Ireland——

As a weapon of argument and negotiation.

And his obviously sincere lamentation at the fact that by agreement its constitution has been postponed. The Council of Ireland in its constitution is as follows:—

"Subject as hereinafter provided, the Council of Ireland shall consist of a person nominated by the Lord Lieutenant acting in accordance with instructions from His Majesty, who shall be President, and forty other persons, of whom seven shall be members of the Senate of Southern Ireland,

I am reading from the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, establishing a Parliament for Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland and a Council of Ireland.

"thirteen shall be members of the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, seven shall be members of the Senate of Northern Ireland, and thirteen shall be members of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland."

It would appear, therefore, that that Council would be constituted of twenty representatives from the Northern area, twenty representatives from the present area of jurisdiction of the Free State Government, and the Chairman, a person nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, acting in accordance with instructions from His Majesty. I do not want to be dogmatic as to who in the altered state of affairs since 1920, would, as things stand at the moment, appoint that Chairman, but, on view, it does appear to me that we would not have the appointment of the Chairman.

Does the Minister agree that it is part of the Treaty obligation to set up this Council in respect to Northern Ireland?

I agree that it was part of the Treaty obligation, and that it was part of the Treaty obligation that has been postponed by agreement, but what I am on at the moment is an attempt to examine the exact virtues and values which the Deputy suggests lurk in that particular piece of machinery. You would have equal representation from both areas and the Chairman, who, as I say, presumably would not be appointed by this House. The scope of that Council would be certain things—Diseases of Animals, Fisheries and Railways in the Northern area, not of the entire country.

Deputies will remember that Lord Justice O'Connor, presiding over a Railway Commission set up by the Provisional Government, put his view on that matter very clearly on record: that the scope of this Council would be confined to certain services in the Northern area. This Northern area would have half the representation on the Council, and would, I suggest, have also a considerable voice in the appointment of the Chairman of the Council. Now, I could never understand the Deputy's apparently very great belief in the usefulness of that Council. In my opinion the powers, from our point of view, said to exist in that Council, were of a very nugatory character. As a link, or a bond of union, it might, to people given to that kind of thing, have a certain sentimental value, but it had little more. It had, I suggest, very little practical value. Now, I understand that I am trampling, in a hob-nailed way, on one of the Deputy's most cherished illusions.

You are kicking the air.

I regret the fact, but the Deputy knows I would not wish in any way to be wantonly cruel to him. But I have felt for some time back the necessity of relieving my feelings about all this, which seems to me very fatuous enthusiasm on this subject of the Council of Ireland. The Deputy has put his view clearly that this Bill is not designed to secure the fulfilment of the Treaty of 1921, and that, in fact, it is designed to facilitate evasion. There, of course, we differ root and branch with the Deputy. From our view-point, the purpose of this Bill is to secure that a Commission will be constituted which will determine, in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, corrected where necessary by other factors, the boundaries between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland. The local Parliament, the subordinate provincial Parliament in Northern Ireland, has made default in taking the necessary steps finally to constitute that Commission, and the predominant Parliament of that area has made good that default. We regard that as no departure in substance or in intent from the Treaty of 1921. We regard it as a necessary and proper step to secure what the Treaty of 1921 purported to secure, namely, a competent Commission to arbitrate upon this question, which is incapable of settlement by agreement, this question of where the boundary line between the two jurisdictions should be drawn.

The Deputy has pointed to a certain Press campaign in England and the utterances of certain politicians, which no doubt could fairly reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to influence this Commission. It is true that over a period certain British journals have engaged in a campaign which we here could not but regard as advocacy of a breach of faith. It is true, also, that politicians in England have made statements which we regard as conflicting with the clear purpose and the clear intent of the Treaty. That is very regrettable. But, neither this Government nor the British Government has power to prevent utterances of that kind, or to prevent statements of that kind appearing in British newspapers. That is a thing to keep in mind. One draws attention to the utterances of men who were signatories to the Treaty. There are men in this country who were signatories to that Treaty, and we would scarcely wish that their utterances would be taken up and dealt with as clearly showing the intention of this Government. If Mr. Robert Barton were to deliver himself of an address inconsistent with his signature at foot of that Treaty of the 6th December, 1921, this Government would not wish that the view should be held here or in England that he was delivering himself of an accurate interpretation of their outlook on this whole matter. I question whether we would be prepared to accept ex-Deputy Gavan Duffy as an authentic spokesman on this subject. So, approaching this question of the utterances of British politicians who are not now members of the British Government and have no responsibility for the internal administration of Great Britain, or for its external relations, one must approach it in that way, recognising that these men are now simply individual free-lance politicians, subject to those influences to which politicians the world over are subject, thinking in terms of their own political fortunes and futures, which considerations, sad to say, do have weight with politicians in England, as elsewhere.

We must not take the view that the statements which are delivered from time to time by individual politicians are correct interpretations of the mentality of the British Government. It would be as unfair as if they were to take the statements of Mr. Robert Barton or Mr. Gavan Duffy as correct interpretations of our attitude. And while I say that, let me not be thought to be in any way an apologist for these gentlemen, or for the statements which they have made. I have never been able to reconcile the views embodied, say, in Lord Birkenhead's letter of March, 1922, as we are told, with his own utterances on the very day on which he signed the Treaty, when he pointed to the closing down of the County Council Offices, in Omagh, in the County Tyrone, as sufficient evidence, if evidence were needed, of the necessity for a Boundary Commission, I do not know how he would reconcile that statement with the conception, which he now advances, of three men walking along an existing line, the existence of which must be recognised, and making a dinge here and a bulge there. And when Mr. Lloyd George, a week later, on the 14th December, 1921, said that it was quite clear since the Act of 1920, at any rate, that the majority in these two great counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh obviously wished to be with their Southern neighbours, I do not know how he would reconcile that statement with the conception which is now advanced, and which apparently has gained some favour amongst politicians of all parties in England. If there were men in his Government who held that other narrow opinion, it was strange that no protest came from them on the 14th December, 1921, when reference was made to the Counties Tyrone and Fermanagh, and to the anti-partition majority in those counties. These things have always been a source of some surprise to me, and, without attempting to pronounce upon the political integrity of these men, I say that I would be glad to hear from themselves an explanation of those so obvious inconsistencies.

The President has pointed out that this Bill is not one which admits of amendment. The agreement which he arrived at with Mr. MacDonald, by which the British Government is empowered to appoint a third Commissioner, in default of appointment by the Northern Government, must be either confirmed or rejected by the Dáil. Those who asked the Dáil to reject that agreement, to refuse its endorsement to that agreement, should, I submit, be very explicit, indeed, in their exposition of an alternative policy. It is merely a negative policy to say: "Do not endorse this agreement; do not have the Commission constituted." What then? People in Tyrone and Fermanagh, South Armagh and other places will want to know what then; will want to know very definitely what the alternative policy is of those who are against the confirmation of this agreement, this inter-Governmental agreement, and who are against the passing of this Bill. The Council of Ireland, diseases of animals, thistle cutting, sheep dipping, will not suffice as an alternative policy, even supposing that we had, which I submit we have not, very ample powers over those services in the North. I submit we have no power. We have, it is true, on that Council of Ireland a fifty per cent. representation, but the pivotal person, the chairman, is not our nominee. So, do not for the sake of that shadowy idol of Deputy Johnson, that Council of Ireland, face the Nationalists of the North, who have been waiting and watching for this Boundary Commission, and tell them that you have ample power over the thistle-cutting of the Six Counties. You have not that, nor any power at all. It is unfortunate that a necessity arises to consider such a Bill as this. Two years ago all sane people and all responsible people hoped that the necessity for the operation of the Boundary Commission would not arise at all. But the alternative which the Northern Parliament had, the alternative of political unity, with its local Parliament and its substantial powers of local autonomy, has been spurned, has been rejected, and the way of secession has been chosen.

I see no alternative now but to secure that that secession will be confined to its proper scope, to its reasonable proportions, and that this Commission will proceed to investigate the question of how much and what portion of Northern Ireland is entitled to such secession on the basis of the wishes of the inhabitants, corrected where necessary by the application of those other factors. We have said, again and again, that there need be no Commission if Sir James Craig and his Government will join with us in saying this eminently fair, this eminently reasonable thing:—"We have no desire to bring or keep within our jurisdiction areas containing inhabitants to whom our jurisdiction is distasteful."

If that principle, that sentiment, could be agreed upon by both Governments there would be no need for arbitration. It is because one Government will not subscribe to that principle of recognising the wishes of the inhabitants as the determining factor in the matter of jurisdiction that arbitration is necessary. This Bill is to enable that arbitration to take place. Despite all that has been written with ink on paper, despite all the utterances of individual politicians in England, we believe that that arbitration will be conducted fairly and honourably, just as we are bound to say that in this whole matter of the Treaty, and in everything that has arisen under it, we have been treated fairly and honourably by four succeeding British Governments.

I oppose Deputy Johnson's amendment. In supporting the passage of this Bill I do not accept it as a Bill which announces and submits to the country a policy of tolerated secession of any part of this country. I feel that the passing across our discourse here of the round and bald phrase "tolerated secession" shows that there must be behind the mind of the Minister who made use of the phrase something of a very qualifying nature. On the face of it the bald phrase itself suggests a policy, and if we are going to have it put before us, we ought to have it put before us in a very explicit and formal way. I do suggest to the Ministry that if they are thinking of putting forward such a policy they ought to refer to the mass of documents relating to the negotiations in London, and they will see plenty of material there that will show that the proposition of tolerated secession to our Plenipotentiaries would have brought the Conference there to a very abrupt termination.

I oppose Deputy Johnson's amendment because I feel that the non-passing of this Bill now would put an impediment in the way of the British people in showing us what their honour is. We understand from the President that it has been represented to him by the present British Government that in order to fulfil their undertakings to our representatives, and therefore to our people, they require this Bill to be passed here. Now, we have made a Treaty with the British people, and it is a matter of very considerable importance to us in matters arising directly from this Treaty, and arising out of the ordinary development of life of the people here, with this Treaty as the starting off ground in the relations of our people with the British, to know what the honour of the British people is worth. On the 11th October, 1921, when our representatives first sat down with the British representatives to discuss the question of a proposed Treaty, Mr. Lloyd George, in reply to some words of recollection with regard to broken Treaties, said:—

"You have never made a Treaty with the people of this country before. Treaties in the past have been with Oligarchies ruling this country. This is your first chance of having a Treaty with the people."

If the honour of the British people is of no higher standard than that of some of their representatives who, with those very words on their lips, sat down to undertake the conclusion of the Treaty on behalf of the British people, then we have something to fear here, and I submit to the Executive Council that if the breaking of their honour by the British people is to be allowed to go as lightly unchallenged and uncontradicted by the Executive Council as have the dishonourable utterances of British signatories our fears must be indeed increased.

I have to refer to the letter of Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Lloyd George's references thereto, and I will read one or two passages from that letter. Lord Birkenhead's letter was written to Lord Balfour on the 3rd March, 1922, and was given world-wide publicity on the 3rd September, 1924. It backs up Craig's claim to have and to hold what he has. The following passage is contained in the letter:—

"But assuming that it was intended that a Commission should operate which might conceivably wholly change the character of Northern Ireland by an enormous reduction of its territory, I think it would have been necessary to say that a Commission shall determine in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, etc., what portions of Ireland shall be included in the Irish Free State and what portions shall be included in Northern Ireland and shall fix the boundary between the portions thus allotted."

It contains this paragraph also:—

"Yet, until Collins made the suggestion, no living soul in either House ever suggested that the Clause was capable of the fantastic meaning of which Craig now professes himself to be apprehensive."

It also says:—

"The real truth is that Collins, very likely pressed by his own people and anxious to appraise at the highest value the benefits which he had brought to them, in a moment of excitement committed himself unguardedly to this doctrine, and that it has no foundation whatever except in his overheated imagination."

These are from Lord Birkenhead's letter. This is an extract from Lloyd George on the 10th September. He said: "I stand by the letter itself and all it contains." Here we have it that these two British signatories to the Treaty practically bluntly state that Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins in their negotiations with them consented to surrender to a tyranny such as we have seen the North Eastern Government to be—considerable populations of our people object intensely to come under that tyranny or under that Government—and that having done that, came home here and pretended that they had acted otherwise. These lies have been broadcasted to the world. They have been left practically uncontradicted, and they hold the ground with the English people, they hold the ground with foreign people, they hold the ground with some of our people at home, and they hold the ground with our people in the Six Counties.

And with Mr. Justice Feetham.

We are not dealing with him, we are dealing with the British people. These lies, as I say, have been left practically uncontradicted by the only people who are responsible or who are able to contradict them, namely, the Executive Council, and by the only material with which they can be contradicted, namely, the material relating to the London discussions which is in the possession of the Executive Council. It is not enough that in face of such statements, statements damaging to the honour of our Plenipotentiaries and to the honour of men who laid the foundations of the State, in the face of such dishonourable maligning of these men that the Executive Council would simply say: "We have heard these views, we cannot reconcile them with previous statements, and they have no effect on us." They have no effect, perhaps, on the Executive Council, but surely they have effect on the people who heard them. I submit very earnestly to the Executive Council that with the details they have at their disposal, they should give the lie to British statesmen who, in their own country, must be looked on with a certain amount of honour and respect. By convincing details the Executive Council can show that there were fundamental conceptions in the minds of Griffith and Collins in facing the question of this Treaty, considerations that were insistently discussed with the British representatives and definitely entertained by these British representatives, and that among these conceptions there were:—(1) the recognition by the British of the essential unity of Ireland (2) that a divided Ireland was a British product and that in the ultimate the British were responsible for solving that difficulty created by them; (3) that it was their responsibility to deny help of any kind to any section who should deny the essential unity of Ireland; and (4) that in any struggle against this idea by any section in the North-east, no such section should be allowed to grab large unwilling populations of our people and batten upon their resources and upon their labour to perpetuate a divided Ireland. It can be shown, for instance—I have mentioned some of the details here, and although they are scattered they should be known to and completely supplemented by the Executive Council—that on the 14th October, Arthur Griffith argued that partition was so unnatural that among Unionists, certainly in Armagh and Derry, and probably in the remaining counties, partition would be repudiated if it could be left to a free vote.

Furthermore, on the 17th October, Mr. Griffith argued again that in Armagh and Derry there was a sufficiently large percentage of anti-Unionist Protestants to ensure that these two counties, if left free to vote, would vote themselves out of partition, that we were prepared to reason with the Six County people and could probably come to an agreement with them if the British could decide, but that failing such agreement the people must be entitled to choose freely whether they will come in with us or remain under the Northern Parliament. He argued that in order that dissatisfied areas would not remain inside, he considered the Poor Law areas the best unit, but that the constituency might be taken as a unit for option if desired. He made it clear that it was the British who had made the Six County position, and that they must repair it if agreement could not be come to in Ireland. Lord Birkenhead himself considered the question of local option on the basis of constituencies, but considered it would not work, and both Lord Birkenhead and Lloyd George spoke then of option for the whole of Ulster, that is, the Nine Counties. It can be shown further, that on the 24th October Irish proposals were put in which argued that "should we fail to come to an agreement, and we are confident we shall not fail, the freedom of choice must be given to the electorate within the area." Various documents can be put in and statements quoted by which it was made perfectly clear and insisted upon that the only possibility of Ireland considering association of any kind with the Crown, was an exchange for essential unity, a concession to Ulster. It was stated on the 29th October that "The unimpaired unity of Ireland is a condition precedent to the conclusion of the Treaty of Association between Ireland and the nations of the British Commonwealth." Further, it can be shown that on the 30th October, Lloyd George's attitude, in the presence of Lord Birkenhead, was that he could carry a Six County Parliament subordinate to a National Parliament; and alternatively he said that he would try to carry a plan for a new boundary.

At a meeting on the 2nd November, Arthur Griffith pointed out that a particular paragraph of a document drafted had been altered by the British so that it might read to imply that he accepted the Six County area as the area of a subordinate Parliament, and as a result it was altered to ensure that it could not be so constructed. Furthermore, at a meeting between Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins and Lloyd George's Secretary, on the 8th November—Lloyd George, who agrees with every word of Lord Birkenhead's letter — Lloyd George's secretary said that he was of opinion that Lloyd George should, as an alternative to the Ulster refusal, offer to set up a Government with all the proposed powers for the Twenty-six Counties and appoint a Boundary Commission to delimit "Ulster," confining this "Ulster" to its Partition Act powers, and that this would give us most of Tyrone, Fermanagh and part of Armagh, Down, etc.

It can also be shown that at a second meeting between the same gentleman on the 9th November and Mr. Duggan and Arthur Griffith, Lloyd George's secretary stated that Lloyd George proposed that "a Parliament for the twenty-six counties should be set up with such powers as were agreed upon between us, and that a Boundary Commission to delimit the Six County area be established so as to give us the districts in which we were a majority." The correspondence between Lloyd George and Sir James Craig between the 10th November and the 17th November, speaks for itself. In Lloyd George's letter of the 14th November, he states with regard to representations of Sir James Craig: "We cannot finally overlook the effect of your proposals upon the welfare of the minorities in Southern and Northern Ireland. In both parts of Ireland there are considerable communities cut off from the majority of those to whom they are bound by faith, tradition, and national affinity." Again, in the first draft proposal from the British of the Treaty, dated the 16th November, 1921, we have it that the "provided" portion of what is now Clause XII. of the Treaty, read: "Provided that if such an address is so presented a Commission shall be appointed to determine in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants the boundaries between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland, and for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the boundary of Northern Ireland shall be such as may be determined by such Commission."

Now, what were Lord Birkenhead and Lloyd George thinking of when they put on the 16th November, after all this correspondence with Sir James Craig, in that proposal before the Irish representatives, a plain unqualified "In accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants." I have no doubt that it can be shown that at a subsequent meeting with a map of Ulster before them, Lloyd George pointed to the small spot which is the Glens of Antrim, and said to Michael Collins: "You do not claim that an island like that should be transferred to you?" and Collins said "No, I suppose we cannot justly claim that." Lloyd George answered "Well then, if that is the case, there will be no difficulty in finding a formula." I submit it was as a result of an exchange like that that the addition which is now in Clause XII. of the Treaty "so far as may be compatible with the economic and geographical conditions," was made. Finally, and as a comment on those remarks of Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Lloyd George it may be shown that on the 5th December, 1921, Michael Collins met Lloyd George and put it up to him that a letter should be pressed for from Craig as to whether in the matter of the essential unity of Ireland his attitude was (a) acceptance on conditions and name these conditions, or (b) rejection. Collins was dissatisfied with the North East position and he wanted to have a definite reply one way or another from Craig. For the sake of definiteness as to Craig's position, he described himself as being as agreeable to a reply rejecting as he was to a reply accepting, because, as he put it, should it be the former we would save Tyrone and Fermanagh and parts of Derry and Armagh and Down by the Boundary Commission, and thus avoid such things as the raid on the Tyrone County Council and the ejection of the staff.

These are but fragmentary references to what Lord Birkenhead's "living souls in either House" of the English Parliament, who acted as representatives of the English people, heard and considered through October, November, and December, 1921, from Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins and our representatives. The complete details of this matter are with the Executive Council. Are Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith to lie maligned and slandered, dishonoured in the minds of their own people and of others? Are foreign peoples to be misinformed of our own conception of our nation?

Are English people to be misinformed on our national matters, and on other matters of serious common concern to them and us by the uncontradicted lies of persons who are their representatives, and whom, no doubt, they consider to be honourable? What are our people in the Six Counties to think in the light of these British suggestions? I trust the Executive Council feel the danger and the dishonour of a failure on their part to deal with these lies convincingly and adequately. Wrenched from British politicians by the gallant struggle and endurance of our people, forced on us by British politicians as far as objectionable Clauses of it go by threat of their visions of such an alternative policy of destruction as even some of them shrunk from, trampled on in their difficult position by some Irish politicians—under such trying circumstances our people did enter into a Treaty with the people of Britain in the sincere hope and belief that that Treaty would be a starting-off point for a peace and lasting friendship between the two peoples.

Our people have stood by that Treaty at the cost of much sacrifice. But as well as our own the English people must be made to know the truth before the Boundary Commission is set up. The English people should know the truth, and the truth is that the Treaty we entered into with them was not a Treaty with Tyrone and Fermanagh torn from us by any faked majority, any majority possibly faked by a gerrymandering of the electoral areas there with the sanction of the British Crown by such a gerrymandering subsequent to the signing of the Treaty between the British and the Irish people in December, 1921. That Treaty was not a Treaty which denied the essential unity of Ireland in form or in fact. That Treaty was not a Treaty which will give us the memory of Arthur Griffith or Michael Collins dishonoured by the lies of any British persons, politicians or others.

The responsibility of the Executive Council is that in this important and vital matter the air shall be cleared for the British people so that the British people, who are the people we are to deal with, shall not be misled by lies of their representatives, of politicians, and in opposing Deputy Johnson's amendment and supporting this Bill, I do it in order to clear the way, and leave nothing which should be attributed to us in any way as hiding from the British people what the position is, from the point of view of their honour, and letting us see in this Boundary question what their honour is.

I rise to oppose Deputy Johnson's amendment because I think it inopportune. At the time a breach of the Treaty occurred, or what may be regarded as a breach, the suggestion now put forward in the form of an amendment in this clause by Deputy Johnson might be very useful. Now things have gone so far that it is in the nature of an afterthought, and I think it should be let slip. My opinion at the moment is, that the interests of unity could best be served by letting this proposal for the appointment of a Boundary Commissioner for Ulster go through, because I think it more or less clears the pitch for a settlement. I hold the opinion I expressed some time ago that the Boundary Commission will not settle everything. The ideas in the mind of those people on the Irish side who accepted this Article XII. were that it should lead ultimately to Irish unity. Only for some unfortunate circumstances that occurred after the signing of the Treaty, and subsequent to the appointment of the Provisional Government, I believe it would have, more or less, led to that happy ending.

As it is now, I fear the chances are still more remote, rendered so by the attitude of the principal signatories to the Treaty on the British side, including Lord Birkenhead, Mr. Lloyd George, and, in fact, every one of them. The contemptibly mean attempt made by these people to prejudice the Commission, and to prejudice especially the Chairman of the Commission, against the Free State, renders the chances of the Boundary Commission bringing us anything in the nature of peace in Ireland very remote indeed. The words of the President some time ago, to the effect that the Irish people or the people of the Free State would accept the decision of the Boundary Commission as final, have, I believe, done infinite harm to the chance of settlement or unity in this country.

From my own experience, and from what I know other people feel and think in the Free State, I believe that the findings of the Boundary Commission under Article XII. will not be final, nor will they be accepted as final by the people of the Free State. I believe that the suspicion is widespread—I suspect it myself, and I believe there are very few people in Ireland who do not suspect it—that the findings of the Commission will be so prejudicial to our interests, and to our aim, that no Government, no pro-Treaty Government in this country, can stand up for twenty-four hours before the Irish people and accept it as final. It is futile to argue that any Ministry could resist the demand of the Irish people in view of the evasion and treachery of the British signatories to appeal it to the League of Nations. That is my firm belief. I have been told that everywhere, and it is generally understood all over the country that one of the principal reasons why we joined the League of Nations was to have a final Appeal Court in case that the findings of this Boundary Commission went against us.

I think the events of the last few months, and the statements and evasions of the British signatories to the Treaty, confirm the belief in the country that no matter what the findings are, even if the Commission gives us, say, two or three counties, the matter is to go before the League of Nations. Now, putting it before two British Commissioners and an Irish Commissioner immediately raises this above the level of a domestic issue; and I contend that it is our paramount interest to keep this question between the North and the South of Ireland a domestic question as far as possible. Certainly submitting it to even a British Commission, and it really is a British Commission—two British nominees to one Irish nominee—is making it more or less an international question, and leaving it open for British incendiaries and British politicians to butt in constantly into our domestic affairs here. If we make a settlement with our own people here in Ireland, a settlement on terms that will give a fair deal to the people in the North and South, I believe we will have all the essentials of a domestic settlement, and we will keep the question of partition merely a domestic issue all through, and prevent further meddling by interested outsiders in our affairs. I believe when this Commission is set up that the way will be clear for an understanding, or an attempt at an understanding, between the people of Northern and Southern Ireland, and I believe that such a settlement and such an agreement will be the only foundation on which a permanently united Ireland will ever be built.

I am not quite sure whether or not this discussion is going to be any advantage to the country. I would have been much more satisfied in my mind as to whether or not I could agree with Deputy McCabe if he had given us a little more of substance as to what precisely are the ways and means by which this suggested agreement that he alludes to is to be brought about. With the temper prevailing in one certain part of this country there is no accommodation. I remember once upon a certain occasion, a certain distinguished politician referring to another distinguished politician, who now holds high office in this land, saying, "conciliate so and so—conciliate a tiger." If we could get from the Six Counties some response, some gesture of reasonableness—and when I speak of the Six Counties I should say those who for the moment exercise jurisdiction over the Six Counties—if we could get them to discuss this question upon a basis of even sanity, there would be some glimmer of hope that there would be a possibility at some time in the not remote future that such accommodation might be secured. But there is none. There has not been, since this controversy took an acute form, any indication of any evidence that they are willing to accept the fact that this is a nation. There has been no recognition of the fact that this is a nation. There has simply been an insistence upon the outlook of, I think, a dying ascendancy that its function is to destroy this nation. With that spirit there is not and cannot be any possibility of accommodation. With the recognition of the fact that this nation is one, that we have no enmity to any section, or any class or creed, in the country, with the recognition of the fact that these things must be discussed by the citizens of this nation on the basis of civilised thought, if we get that or any evidence of that, then we will have the groundwork for some such suggestion as Deputy McCabe has put forward.

I listened with great attention to such portions of Deputy Mulcahy's speech as I heard, and I think that I share very largely his views. Mr. Lloyd George recently suggested that the wailing of the Irish Banshee was being heard again. Mr. Lloyd George is an ingenious man, but on this occasion he mistook the expressions of some of his own countrymen, trying to dishonour their own signatures, for the wailing of the Irish Banshee. The Irish Banshee has not been heard in British politics for some time, but it is something more than the Irish Banshee that Mr. Lloyd George and his compatriots will have to face if they carry out this apparent attempt to torpedo this international agreement. I think in this matter my position is almost identical with that of Deputy Mulcahy. I think it would not be wise, I think it would be short-sighted, to prevent the passing of this Bill. If this Treaty is going to be broken or dishonoured, let the onus of that act of dishonour not be on the shoulders of this Assembly.

As I said when this matter was previously discussed, I am not convinced that the Treaty has yet been dishonoured; but I must say that British politicians seem to have gone out of their way deliberately to proclaim their intention to secure that it shall be dishonoured. It is when the threat becomes a reality, not before, that we should take cognizance of the situation in so far as our responsibilities will be concerned. It would be unwise, I think, if we did not pay some very considerable attention to a certain passage in Deputy Johnson's speech which, I think, was a quotation from Lord Carson. I think it is of great importance, and it is certainly not with any desire to embarrass the Government or to jeopardise the passing of the Bill that I also refer to it. I refer to it in order that it shall be clear that we know where we are going, and how far this Bill is going to take us in regard to Article XII. of the Treaty. It is essential that we shall know exactly how far it take us, and how far it fails, and in what respect it fails to implement Article XII of the Treaty. The wishes of the inhabitants have to be ascertained. The wishes of which inhabitants, what areas, counties, constituencies, rural district areas, poor law areas, and parishes? What are the areas? That is not indicated.

If there is any indication from the speeches of politicians that could be considered as an indication of the area that has to be taken, it would be the speech to which the Minister for Justice has referred, the speech of Mr. Lloyd George, when he instances the Counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh, the majority of the inhabitants of which are desirous to join with the Saorstát. There is no doubt in the mind of anyone who has followed the course of this controversy as to what are the areas that are in question. There is no doubt whatever. The British and their supporters in the Six Counties are trying to give the impression that the Act of 1920 was something sacrosanct which cannot be tampered with without sacrilege. What was the Act of 1920? It was the Act of the British Government dividing this country into two parts, and then they say: "There you are; it is a domestic question; settle it between yourselves." It was one of the most monstrous acts of foreign despotism that was ever perpetrated masquerading as an act of parliamentary evolution. This is our domestic question that we have to settle between ourselves and the people of the North, to undo that monstrous wrong perpetrated by the British Act of 1920, and yet we are told that this is the wailing of the Irish Banshee.

If the phrase of the Minister for Justice in regard to tolerated secession is to become the indication of policy in this matter, we know well the areas in which the secession will be so tolerated. I am fully aware of the areas that are in question—Tyrone and Fermanagh, South Armagh, South Down, East Down, Derry City, and a great portion of South Derry county. The majority of the people in these areas resent and protest against being left under the jurisdiction of the Belfast Parliament. It was the very fact that the protests of these people were on record, it was the very fact that the iniquitous persecutions of the Belfast Government towards those people were on record, that brought Article XII. of the Treaty into being. It was not the question of whether a parish on this side or a parish on that side of the boundary set up by the Act of 1920, was involved. It was no question of that sort that brought Article XII. into being. Every man who was at that Conference in London knows that well, and when it is implied or stated that the transfer of territory was neither considered, discussed nor contemplated in Article XII. of the Treaty, the man who says that and who was present at the discussions says something which is false and something which he knows to be false.

Mr. Lloyd George said, in one discussion, the Treaty would not have been signed if there had not been recognition of certain things that were perpetrated and carried into effect by the Act of 1920. The Treaty would never have been signed in London if Article XII. had not been embodied in it and if it was not understood that Article XII. was to secure for the inhabitants of the areas I have alluded to the right and means of saying whether they would remain under the jurisdiction of the Belfast Parliament or be transferred to An Saorstát.

I think that fact requires to be emphasised. That was the purpose, and the sole purpose, of Article XII., and I repeat that when British politicians state something to the contrary, British politicians who were responsible Ministers at the time and who were parties to the Treaty, they say something which they know in their hearts is contrary to the fact, something which is an attempt to wriggle out of the commitments that England was committed to under Article XII. of the Treaty. But the main point I wish to make was that in reference to the speech of Deputy Johnson. We ought to realise that this Bill is not the last word in this matter, and cannot be the last word. The wishes of the inhabitants have to be ascertained —the wishes of the inhabitants of what areas? I have indicated the areas that I suggest were in contemplation as requiring that test when this Article was framed, but are these the areas whose inhabitants are going to be considered? Once it is decided which inhabitants are referred to the question comes— Who is going to ascertain these wishes? Is it the Boundary Commission, the British Parliament, or the Northern Government? Have the Boundary Commission machinery at their disposal to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants? What powers do they possess— and, as I think Deputy Johnson quoted from Lord Carson—have they power to call a single witness or to occupy a single house in the Six County area for the purpose of taking a ballot or plebiscite? I say there is something deficient here which will call for further supplementary legislation in order to implement Article XII. of the Treaty. I say that without any desire to imperil this Bill or to embarrass the Government. I believe this Bill should, and must, go through. I have no desire— the matter and the effect of certain things that are impending are of too grave moment to the people in the Six Counties—to use such a question as this as something to secure Party advantage. I am quite sure that no one in this House desires that. It is a grave matter for us. It may be only a question that by some is regarded as a political irritation, but to the people in the Six Counties it is a matter of life and death, and I think that is realised, and that no man will wish to see utilised the lives and the fortunes of these people as a medium to secure Party advantage. But I do suggest that we make it clear to all whom it may concern that we realise just how far this Bill will take us and realise also what its limitations are, so that when its full possibilities have been explored and understood, if we discover we have got once more into a cul-de-sac, the taunt cannot be hurled—“Oh, you are tricked again.” I suggest these are matters worthy of serious consideration by the Government, and while I am supporting the passing of this Bill I am supporting it not in the spirit of an enthusiastic believer that we are going to get fair play from those whom we hoped, but supporting it in the spirit of an alert critic of those who seem inclined to attempt to evade their responsibilities, and as one who also wishes to convey to the people of the North East of Ulster the message that we still here in the Saorstát stand exactly where we stood in regard to them when the Treaty was passed. We claim all Ireland as one and we insist that this guarantee of their rights to decide how they shall live and be governed shall be carried into effect, and that no quibbles of any British Minister or British ex-Minister will nullify the sanctity of that charter of their liberty.

There are a few matters arising out of this Bill to which I think it necessary to draw the attention of the Dáil. In the first place, it is not the first time that an alteration has been made in the Treaty, but it is the first time that it has been thought necessary to have the alteration made in this particular way. I am not making that statement on my own. I am quoting the statement made by the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Thomas, in the British House of Commons, when the complementary Bill to this one was under discussion. He stated on that occasion: "How many honourable members of this House remember that this is the second time the Treaty has been altered? The first time it was altered it was done at the request of the Northern Government, and there was nothing said then about it being an unalterable Treaty."

Now it is to me incomprehensible why, after the first alteration was made by a simple agreement, it is necessary to bring this Bill to the Dáil to have a second alteration. The Dáil or the Provisional Parliament was not asked to agree to the previous alteration. Is the position that the previous alteration, because of that omission to ask the Dáil to agree to it, is no longer operative, or if it is operative, why is it necessary that this procedure should be adopted on this occasion?

Perhaps the reason may be found in another portion of Mr. Thomas's statement. He takes it as something to be proud of. He takes credit for the fact that the signature of our President was obtained to this agreement altering the Treaty, and he say: "Suppose my right honourable friend had been the least bit careless, and had been indifferent to the consequences"—that is, suppose he had not secured the signature of the President—"it would have meant that the Dáil could then, without consultation with us, have immediately altered the oath, and said `because you presume to alter a Treaty to which we are parties without our signature we claim the same right to do it without yours.' " That aspect of the question has not been touched upon, and no explanation has been forthcoming from the Government with regard to that. There are many people in this country who hold that it is at least as essential, and possibly more essential, that unity should be attained in the Twenty-six County area than that we should spend so much of our time pursuing the phantom of unity with people who do not want to have anything to do with us. The Minister for Justice has made very light of the suggestion of Deputy Johnson with regard to the Council of Ireland. It may be that this Council would not be a very great deal of benefit in its actual operation, but it did provide for an all-Ireland body. To my mind its chief value lay in the fact that it gave us something to bargain with and we, without any consideration, apparently, of the value of that as a bargaining instrument, simply surrendered our rights in the matter.

Would the Deputy explain the bargaining value?

Well, in any case, evidently the British Parliament, or some members of the British Parliament, believed that there was that value still in it.

But does the Deputy believe it?

Well, will he explain it?

It must have some value when it was necessary for the Northern Government to approach this Ministry, and also the British Ministry, in order to get it suspended. The chief arguments that have been put forward by those who spoke in opposition to Deputy Johnson's amendment, pointed to the fact that if we failed to pass this Bill we would be breaking faith with the British and breaking faith on the Treaty. Would that be the case? Would we have broken faith with the British on the Treaty if we failed to pass this measure? I give it as my opinion that that would not be the case. I think that the speech delivered by Deputy General Mulcahy contained the strongest arguments possible in support of Deputy Johnson's amendment. He is anxious that we should test the faith of the British people. I think that a sufficient test has been applied; we know what it is worth, and it is not worth much. Surely nobody in Britain can say that those in this country who undertook to put the Treaty into force have not shown sufficient evidence of their faith in the Treaty without going this step further. I was anxious to hear what the Minister for Justice would have to say on the point raised by Deputy Johnson with regard to the promises beforehand on the part of the Saorstát Ministry, that no matter what the decision of this arbitration body would be, we would accept it. I think that a statement of that kind was an extremely serious one, and in all the circumstances, to say the least of it, an unwise one. Here we have two parties to an arbitration, one party saying that no matter what the decision of this arbitration is, it will be accepted; the other party, if it can properly be said to be a party to the arbitration at all, the Northern Government, saying: "We will not accept it unless it suits us." Human nature is human nature, and I am perfectly satisfied that statements of this kind, statements of acceptance on one side, of non-acceptance unless it suits them on the other side, and the third party, the British talking of appeal in case it is not pleasing, are bound in the nature of things to have an effect, and a very serious effect, on the minds of those who are charged with the work of arbitration.

Deputy McCabe opposes this amendment, although he quite honestly stated that he does not believe that the alternative will get him anywhere. The Minister for Justice said that those who are supporting the amendment were expected to show what the alternative was. I suggest that that was shown pretty plainly, but to my mind it is this: We will accept this Bill and put it through in order to set up a Boundary Commission, which, I think, nobody believes in at this time of day. I think the number of people in this country who believe that any good will come out of this Commission is exceedingly small. The belief that we had when the Treaty was accepted has disappeared. At that time those who accepted the Treaty in the Dáil voted for it, I believe, every one of them, under the impression that a Boundary Commission would be immediately set up and that the Counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh, and possibly large portions of other counties would, as a matter of course, come into the Free State. How many in Ireland believe that that will be the outcome of it now? To my mind, there are very few indeed, and yet we are so anxious to go to the last extent to prove our honour with people who have shown they are not honourable in the matter that we must take that alternative of setting up this phantom Commission rather than accept the alternative which is put into our hands by the action of the Northern Ministry. What is that alternative? What position are we in as a result of their refusing to carry out the conditions on which the opting out was allowed?

The Northern Government exercised their right of option but refused to carry out the only condition on which they had a right to exercise that option. They have not carried out the conditions. Therefore, the opting out is invalid, and we are in the position that we would have been in if the opting out had not taken place. That is my reading of the position. Deputy Mulcahy very properly quoted from documents to show what everyone in this country believes to be a fact, that the North-Eastern problem is a British problem and not an Irish problem. If it is a British problem, the responsibility for its solution rests with the British, and it is our duty to say to the British: "We have carried out our part of the Treaty and the responsibility now rests with you. Our position is this, that we refuse to recognise the validity of the position of the Ulster Parliament in opting out. It is up to you to solve the problem. If you do not solve it, then we are free to take our own course as to our future action in this country."

I am voting against this Bill for the reasons I advanced on the First Reading. Even Mr. Thomas has stated that it is an amendment of the Treaty. My objection to the Bill is that if it is an amendment to the Treaty, as I hold it is, then I say the Treaty was not amended in other essentials. It might have been so amended, and I hold it could have been. As it has not been so amended, I cannot see my way to support this Bill. The Minister for Justice asks, what is the alternative to the Commission if this Bill is not put through? I give it as my opinion that there is very little enthusiasm for the Commission to-day compared with what there was when the Treaty was put to the country. The people of the country have very little faith in the good that is supposed to come out of this Commission compared with the faith they had in the men who stood for the Treaty. I would ask the Minister himself: has he as much faith now in the good that is supposed to come to the Saorstát from this Commission as he had two and a half years ago? I am sure he has not, and no man in Ireland to-day has that faith. What, I ask, is the reason for that? I suggest the reason is that we are dealing to-day with the same class of British politicians that the Irish nation always had to deal with. These politicians broke their word to the Irish nation in our time, just as their predecessors did, in their relations with Ireland, in the last 700 years. I am convinced that the people of this country do not believe that good will come out of this Commission, and, to my mind, what the Dáil ought to be engaged on to-day is the question as to what they will do when the Commission has failed. We know that five out of the six British signatories to the Treaty have put an interpretation on the authority of this Commission that is a contradiction of what they said when they signed the Treaty. I say that that, on the part of British statesmen, is breaking the Treaty. They have, as Deputy Johnson stated, prejudiced the position, and no Commissioner selected by them can be expected to give an impartial decision on this matter. What is to be the action of our Ministry when they discover that the people whom they tell us would come into the Saorstát because of the operation of this Article of the Treaty will not be brought into it, but rather will be kept under the heel of the Northern Parliament? That is the situation that will certainly confront our Ministry. It will also confront the men who stood for the Treaty, and who argued very strongly that this Article in the Treaty would bring in, not alone Tyrone and Fermanagh, but Derry, South Armagh and South Down.

I agree that this is not a Party question. It is a problem that confronts the whole Irish Nation. It is a matter that concerns all parties in the Dáil as well as all parties outside it. I say, too, that if to-morrow a change were to come about, this same problem would confront the people who might be in power. Because of that fact, it seems to me that we in this part of Ireland have a duty cast upon us to do all we can to protect our fellow citizens who live in the other part of Ireland and who seek to live and to maintain the tradition of the Irish Nation. We have a duty to do by coming together to face the situation that certainly will confront us when, as I say, this Commission fails to give to the Saorstát what those who believe in the Saorstát thought it would give. We have a duty imposed on us now to come together and to prepare for that situation when it confronts us. It is not, to my mind, any use having faith in the fact that the present English Government may, perhaps, have given a little more indication of faith than some of the signatories to the Treaty. If we are to put trust in these men we will certainly be depending on a reed that will break. It is, in my opinion, the duty of our Ministry to face the situation as I have stated it. This Bill, I presume, will be passed. By passing it, I ask how much farther will it bring us on the road to unity or to an increase in the territory of the Saorstát, or to a decrease in the territory under the authority of the Northern Government? Very little, I fear, and I think the majority of Deputies in this Dáil are of very much the same opinion, that is, if they are honest about the matter. There is no use in holding out the hope to the Nationalists in the North of Ireland that they ought to have faith in this Commission and that relief is going to come to them because of it. I think that they themselves have not, to-day, very much faith in it. I think, too, it would be very much better for all of us, for all parties in the South as well as for Nationalists in the North, to be prepared for the situation that will surely confront us. This Bill is not going to get us any further, and we might as well face the situation now as twelve months hence when, perhaps, the Commission will have brought in its findings. Perhaps, I say, because we have no guarantee that it will bring in a finding. It may never bring in a finding, and I say it is folly for Deputies here, who are the representatives of the Saorstát, to be playing a waiting game when a bold policy, as Deputy O'Connell urges, of trying to unite our forces in the South would certainly be more advantageous to the Irish Nation. It is a waste of time, in my opinion, to be discussing a measure like this in which very few people here, or even outside this Dáil, have any faith.

It was not my intention to have spoken, and except for the speech made by Deputy O'Connell I would not have done so. He did do what Deputy Johnson did not. He did bring us face to face with the actual body of argument contained in the amendment of Deputy Johnson. What is the alternative he puts before us? There are two alternatives before the House at the present moment, and I do not think that either is very satisfactory, but at any rate the immediate question is Deputy Johnson's amendment. Deputy O'Connell did bring us to the very brink of the problem with which that alternative would confront the nation if we accepted it. But he went no further. He said that if the amendment were to be accepted by the House what would happen would be that Article XII. would be cut out of the Treaty. We would then be faced by the fact that the authority of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann would extend over the entire thirty-two counties What exactly is the value of having an authority that extends over thirty-two counties, when there is no method of putting it into operation that has yet been indicated to us? Surely we are getting back to the very point from which this country started quite a long time ago when certain names were called out in Dáil Eireann in January, 1919, as representatives in the Dáil at that time, but they never came to the Dáil. Laws were passed that purported to have authority throughout the whole thirty-two counties, though we had no authority through the thirty-two counties then. The alternative that Deputy Johnson presents, at the present moment, is simply to say: "Let us as the Dáil and the Seanad of the Oireachtas, continue from this moment to declare that all the laws passed in these two Houses shall be the laws that shall have full weight and sanction and full force and authority in the six counties at present under the jurisdiction of the Northern Parliament, as well as in the Twenty-six Counties at present under the jurisdiction of the Free State."

We have the means of putting them into operation in the Twenty-six Counties, but I have yet to learn how that authority claimed over the Six Counties is to be made good, and the only definite plan, as put before us, is implied in the acceptance of the amendment. I think we have not had a case made out for that amendment. There are alternatives and there are methods. I do not think they were exactly the methods Deputy Johnson had in mind, but at any rate the fact before us at the present moment is this: that if we were to accept this amendment and reject the Bill, if we were, according to the indication and invitation of Deputy Johnson to cut Article XII. out of the Treaty and to assume at once that the authority of the Oireachtas extended to the Six as well as over the Twenty-six Counties, we would not advance ourselves one little bit on this question; we would merely have stated that the authority of the laws of this Parliament extended in Antrim and County Down where, as we knew very well, they did nothing of the sort.

Would the Deputy say what will be our position if this Bill is passed, and what authority we shall have to enforce the new Treaty?

I am coming to that. I am not negligent of that difficulty. I am now dealing with the immediate question before the Dáil, which is Deputy Johnson's amendment. I do say that he has not made good his case simply because he has not shown what is going to be done, if his amendment be accepted, to make the authority of the Oireachtas a good and sufficient authority for the Six Counties as well as for the Twenty-Six Counties. That is a problem to which I had hoped Deputy Johnson would have set himself, and he did not do so. I do not blame him for not doing so, because there is only one way that the authority could be made good and that is by the authority of force. I will deal with the alternative in due course. I am now dealing with one thing at a time. I am dealing with Deputy Johnson's method. He started by saying that he deprecated any trouble in Ireland at present because of economic want and need, and now he has presented us with an amendment that if adopted would compel us to take measures to enforce the authority of the Oireachtas in certain parts of this country where that authority has been disputed and unfortunately rejected.

Now Deputy Johnson retorts, and rightly retorts, what is the alternative method. What will happen if this Bill be enacted? I agree, and I think he has indicated in his speech that not a very great deal of satisfaction is to come from that course either. If the Boundary Commission is set up, according to the terms of the Treaty, all the Boundary Commission is required to ascertain is what are the wishes of the inhabitants, and when English politicians have said that there is no method by which the Boundary Commission can procure machinery for ascertaining these wishes, for calling witnesses and so on, they were stating what is obviously a fact. We have started on a course in adopting this Bill, as it will be enacted, and it will not be the only Bill of its kind. It will be the first of a series, because when the Boundary Commission is set up it will find that it has no authority whatever to do any of the things it is called upon to do under the Treaty unless the British Parliament passes fresh legislation to empower them to do so as the paramount Parliament for the Six Counties in Ireland.

How will that be enforced?

And when that legislation is passed, and it will be required, the situation will be exactly the same as before, because the British Parliament will find, as it found frequently before, that when certain persons in this country decorate themselves, to the exclusion of all others, with the word "loyalist," that loyalism is strictly a qualified one. However, of the two alternatives before the Dáil, the immediate one is in Deputy Johnson's amendment, and I see no way out of that in the least. The alternative amendment with all its difficulties and its disadvantages and shortcomings is the only one that we can possibly put our hands to, and for one great strong reason, the reason that I regard as paramount in the circumstances.

Deputy Baxter and one or two others have referred to British politicians having broken their word. The President and the Minister for Justice both claimed that British politicians had kept their word. I do not think it at all improbable; I think it is exceedingly possible that British politicians, at the time of signing the Treaty, did have the interpretation in their minds they now profess to have—some of them at least. Our point is that our signatories had not that interpretation in their minds. When the Parliament in Northern Ireland failed to carry out the second paragraph of Article XII. once it took advantage of the first paragraph of the Article, then left that second paragraph in a way that it could not be implemented without special action by the supreme authority over the Six Counties in the NorthEast, and when the Government of that supreme authority, that is the British Government, stepped forward and said: "We will make good this defalcation; we will do it, having the power to do what the Northern Parliament has not done," I think we are left with no alternative but to say, in so far as the other signatory to the Treaty had it in its power to keep Article XII, of the Treaty, that other signatory has done its part, and we have no alternative but to continue and do ours. There is no alternative to that. Whatever difficulties there be are rightly difficulties of the British Government, because the British Government is the paramount Government in the six counties of North-East Ireland. Their Legislature is the paramount Legislature. They are its difficulties; they are not ours. What has happened is that at the present moment the British Government has stated: "We will make good, so far as it has yet occurred, the defalcation that has occurred." Then we are left with no alternative but to say that Article XII. has been made good, as far as it can be made good, by the other party signing the Treaty—the British Government. Therefore, we have no alternative but to proceed on the basis that the Treaty has been kept so far in regard to that important Article. There are difficulties in the future. They are not difficulties primarily of this Parliament, this Oireachtas, or of this Government. They are the difficulties of the British Parliament and of the British Government, which is the paramount authority under Section 75 of the 1920 Act for the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. It is not for us to answer those problems. They are very grave problems. If the Boundary Commission finds itself unable to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants there is a method by which that ability can be procured for it. It will have to do so if the Treaty is to be kept. If there is no ability for doing so at the present moment then it will be for the British Government to provide that power, it being the supreme authority in the Six Counties, and if, and when, it fails to do so, then it will be time enough for us to say that the Treaty has not been kept. But that moment has not yet arrived.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 65.

  • Pádraig F. Baxter.
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Séamus Eabhroid.
  • David Hall.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Líam O Daimhín.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Níl

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Richard H. Beamish.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • John Conlan.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • John Daly.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileán, Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Darrell Figgis.
  • Henry J. Finlay.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Tomás Mac Artúir.
  • Seósamh Mac Bhríghde.
  • Alasdair Mac Cába.
  • Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
  • Líam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eóchadha.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Pádraig Mag Giollagáin.
  • Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
  • Risteárd Mac Líam.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Eóin Mac Néill.
  • Líam Mac Síoghaird.
  • Líam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Proinsias O Cathail.
  • Risteárd O Conaill.
  • Partholan O Conchubhair.
  • Conchubhair O Conghaile.
  • Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
  • Eóghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus N. O. Dólain.
  • Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
  • Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon S. O Dugáin.
  • Donchadh S. O Guaire.
  • Séan O Laidhín.
  • Aindriú O Laimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Risteárd O Maolchatha.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Pádraig K. O hOgáin (Luimneach).
  • Seán M. O Suilleabháin.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Seán Priomdháil.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
Amendment declared lost.

resumed the Chair at this stage.

References were made during the course of the discussion on the amendment to the fact that the Treaty was not made between the Irish Free State and the British Government. The Treaty, in fact, recognised Ireland as a separate and distinct country. It is written on it and in it. I have been rather struck with the similarity of view which appears to prevail among certain members of the Dáil, and certain members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland who sit in the British House of Commons. Expressions were used here indicating that there was no doubt whatever but that we were going to get nothing out of this Article, and I find that the apprehensions of the persons I have mentioned who are members of another Parliament, or rather of two Parliaments, arise from an entirely different conception of the result. I think that it is unwise for persons other than those who constitute the Commission to state in advance what the decision of that Commission is going to be. Speaking a day or two after the Treaty had been signed, Lord Birkenhead referred to the fact that incidents such as those which had occurred during the previous few-days, which meant the suppression of the Tyrone County Council, were incidents which this particular Article would obviate and prevent in the future. Now, what was meant by that statement? It meant in essence that Tyrone, in his lordship's mind at that particular moment, was to be detached from the Northern Parliament. If you detach Tyrone, what becomes of Fermanagh? If my recollection of the map is correct, and if Fermanagh were to remain in the Northern Parliament, it would be an island. I do not know whether his lordship contemplated such a position of affairs as that—four counties together. Suppose for the moment that there was no reference to the wishes of the inhabitants in the other four counties—one county disconnected and the other a sort of little province or dominion of a superior Parliament— what would these four counties think? I find his lordship must have forgotten that particular statement made at that particular time. Looking at this question with an unprejudiced eye, if it be possible to do that as long as one lives in this country, one is certainly forced to the belief that there are firm convictions in the minds of members of the Northern Parliament that the results will not be the same as those anticipated by Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Baxter, and in that connection I find a slight similarity between the apprehensions of Lord Carson and those of Deputy Baxter. His lordship finds that he has been deceived by every British Government that ever lived, and Deputy Baxter, if he has not been deceived up to this will not, I hope, be deceived.

I hope that the President will not have such an experience.

I am expressing no opinion on that. They have not deceived me up to this; they played fair and square and we did the same.

On the surface.

On this matter of the Treaty. I have expressed my opinions very freely on British Governments before the Treaty was signed, but I have to admit, and I am glad to be able to admit it, that since we made the Treaty no British Government has deceived us, and the instrument which we have here to-day is evidence of their good faith. Some Deputy asked what would be the result if this Bill did not pass. Is our good faith impugned? It is not. It is a matter for the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas can refuse to accept this Bill. It is an arrangement made between two Governments. It has been accepted by one. We have indicated, I think, by the reception of this particular measure on its introduction to the Dáil on the 12th August last, that it was more than likely that it was going to pass. The vote which has just been taken is, perhaps, further evidence of that, but it is within the power of the Oireachtas to reject this measure. If it be rejected some positive policy must be adopted to meet the situation that would then arise. Deputy Milroy asked questions as to—(1) what areas were to be investigated to know the wishes of the inhabitants; (2) what machinery was to be adopted; and (3) what was to be the method of enforcement. As regards these three questions, I would say that they would have been more properly addressed three years ago to the plenipotentiaries when recommending acceptance of the Treaty.

Is that merely a debating point?

I say that without any feeling of disrespect. I am not going to interpret the duty, the responsibility, or the authority of the Boundary Commission. It is for them, and their authority is as strong now as when the instrument was first signed nearly three years ago. It was then accepted by the Dáil without question, and I am sure the Deputy had not in his mind any attempt to score off the Government in asking those questions, which are, however, questions for the Boundary Commission. There were matters mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy. I do not know whether it was in the Deputy's mind that the various documents which passed from the plenipotentiaries when they were in London to the other members of the Dáil Cabinet who were in Dublin should be published. If these are the documents that are in question, I must say that I could not agree to their publication. Deputy Mulcahy may not be aware of the fact that the documents which the plenipotentiaries received from the British Government were marked "strictly confidential," and the documents which they received from us were similarly marked. They are not free, and would not be entitled to publish these documents. We are not free and would not be entitled to publish them either. Speaking from recollection, I should say that the late President Griffith and the late General Collins were against publication, certainly unless the sanction or agreement of the British Government were given.

Would these documents be available for the Commission?

That is a question of which Deputy Gorey would, I think, have to give notice, as I certainly could not answer it right off.

Will the President apply to the British Government for leave to publish the documents?

I was going to ask the President if it was within his recollection that President Griffith in the Dáil gave a pledge in January, 1922, that he would seek for that sanction.

I believe that that is the case but it was not done; at least we did not get sanction for it. I cannot say whether such a request was made. I say, however, from my own knowledge of negotiations that it is unusual to publish documents which passed previous to decisions being come to.

Unusual circumstances have since occurred.

In view of the British statesmen's interpretation of those negotiations would it not be well that the Commission should have a clear indication of what was in the minds of men when they signed the Treaty?

It does not, in my view, affect the business of the Commission which is concerned with the interpretation of that Article, not what was in the minds of the persons who made it. There are many cases where there is no possible chance of an agreement being come to, where some form is agreed on which both parties would accept. It does not meet the case of either, but is the fairest method of getting an agreement.

They agreed on the Treaty, and it was what was in their minds at the time they signed that holds good.

No, no more than an Act which has passed this House would be interpreted by the opinions given by Ministers or supporters of the Bill. If it transpires that those opinions are not in the Act, the Act will hold.

I want to ask if in the meantime the attitude of Griffith and Collins is going to be misrepresented by the lies of persons who sat down at tables with them for two or three months. Are Griffith and Collins dead? If they were alive what would they have said in answer to Birkenhead and Lloyd George, and are the people responsible going to say nothing in face of the lies that the representatives of the British have scattered about with regard to those men, and are the British people, whose honour is of so much concern to us, going to be allowed to drift along the path of dishonour that their plenipotentiaries and representatives have diverged along?

The reputation of those two men in this country is undiminished and undiminishable, and no allegations made against them, and no attacks on their honour by British statesmen can ever affect the respect and honour of the Irish people.

And therefore we must let them be traduced and belied?

By Irishmen, too!

Question—That the Bill be read a Second Time—put and agreed to.

Top
Share