Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Nov 1925

Vol. 13 No. 9

THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION.

Before proceeding with the business might I ask if the President has any statement to make respecting the resignation of the Minister for Education from the Boundary Commission?

The President wishes to make a statement.

It was not my intention to take up the business without making a statement. I have to announce to the Dáil that Dr. MacNeill, representative of the Irish Free State on the Irish Boundary Commission, has resigned, and that his resignation has been accepted. The matter is engaging, and will continue to engage, the most careful consideration of the Government. The Minister for Education, Dr. MacNeill, has also tendered to me his resignation of the office of Minister for Education, which has been accepted, and he now asks leave to make a statement.

In view of the statement which has been made by the President, it is proper that I should make a statement to the Dáil explaining the position as I understand it. It is within the knowledge of Deputies how I came to be appointed to act as a member of the Boundary Commission. Some other names I think were considered but the decision arrived at was that I should be asked to undertake that duty, to act in that capacity, and I consented. I understood that appointment to place me in the position that I was, so to speak, a plenipotentiary. Moreover, I understood, and understand, that in that capacity I was not purely and simply the representative of a Government nor was I an advocate for a particular point of view. I was and I undertook to be a representative of a trust created by the Treaty, by Article 12 of the Treaty, on behalf of all persons who might be affected by the operation of that Article and it was in consonance with that view of my position that at the very earliest stage of the proceedings of the Commission, I agreed with my fellow-Commissioners that those proceedings should be confidential and that agreement I faithfully observed.

The Commission in the first instance having come together, made a tour of a fairly wide extent in connection with the Boundary—I should say not merely the Boundary which existed under the Act of 1920 but with the possible extensions of that Boundary—and on that tour we interviewed a very large number of people. The next stage in our proceedings was taken up with the hearing of evidence. That lasted for a considerable length of time. I think, in round numbers, something like 1,000 witnesses were examined, and many representations were received. The next stage consisted in the assortment and classification of this evidence and its consideration in detail. After that, the Commission came to the point of deliberation, of giving effect to the terms of the Treaty and to the evidence laid before it. Up to that point, no question of the principles of interpretation had formally arisen, though, no doubt, it must have become known to many of the witnesses that indications of views with regard to the principles of interpretation were made in the form of questions addressed to witnesses.

Now, with regard to the stage of deliberation on the evidence, and on the manner of giving effect to the Article and the evidence, a statement has been issued and has appeared in the Press under the names of Mr. Justice Feetham and Mr. J.R. Fisher. That statement has probably been read by the Deputies.

"In view of the publication of the statement that Dr. MacNeill has resigned his position as a member of the Irish Boundary Commission, the other members of the Commission (the Chairman, Mr. Justice Feetham, and Mr. J.R. Fisher) desire to issue the following statement:—

"Our relations with Dr. MacNeill in the transaction of the Commission's work have been relations of the closest mutual confidence, and these relations continued up to the 20th November, when, on his return from Dublin to attend a meeting of the Commission, he announced to us his decision to withdraw, and tender his resignation of his position as member of the Commission to the Executive Council of the Irish Free State. In view of the part Dr. MacNeill had taken in our proceedings throughout the last twelve months, this announcement came as a complete surprise to us.

"Up to that date Dr. MacNeill had made perfectly clear his intention of joining with us in signing the Commission's award embodying a boundary line, the general features of which were approved and recorded in our minutes as long ago as Saturday, 17th October. It was contemplated that a statement should be issued at the same time as the award, indicating that the members of the Commission had agreed to sink individual differences of opinion for the purpose of arriving at a unanimous award, but not specifying any point on which such difference had arisen. Since October 17th, the whole work of the Commission has proceeded on the basis of the definite understanding between us that our award embodying the line agreed upon was to be unanimous, and a full detailed description of the line, with the necessary maps, has been in course of preparation.

"In order to prevent grave misconception, it appears necessary to make this statement now, but we must reserve a fuller statement until the time comes to issue our report."

With regard to that statement the first remark I have to make is that it purports to disclose a part, and only a part, of the internal proceedings of the Commission. The statement claims to have appeared necessary in order to remove a grave misconception. My view of it is that the statement, as issued, and as worded, is calculated to cause grave misconception. Where it states bare facts I do not controvert it; but in the colouring, the very decided colouring, which it gives to the statement of fact, I do most distinctly controvert it.

It is true, as that statement indicates, that the members of the Commission had arrived at an agreement as to the high desirability of having an award signed by all three Commissioners. But the ground of that agreement has not been stated. The ground for it was not that the Commissioners were unanimous as to principles of interpretation upon which the award was to be based, or consequently that they were unanimous as to the manner in which the principle should be applied in detail. The ground for that agreement was purely and simply this: that the form of the award, when it appeared, should provide the least possible fuel for renewed, perhaps embittered, controversy.

The statement issued by Mr. Justice Feetham and Mr. Fisher also fails to make clear that this agreement was reached at a very early stage of the deliberations of the Commission, following the taking of evidence, and before there was any formulation of an award in whole or in part. That agreement anticipated and assumed, on my part, the formulation of an award which, as a whole, would be based on right principles of interpretation and on consistent application of right principles of interpretation. It would be quite wrong to suggest—I hope it would be absurd to suggest—that I bound myself in advance to accept any award, howsoever it might happen to be based and worked out, that might be proposed for my acceptance.

The statement of these two gentlemen further says:—

"It was contemplated that a statement should be issued at the same time as the award indicating that the members of the Commission had agreed to sink individual differences of opinion for the purpose of arriving at an unanimous award, but not specifying any point on which such differences had arisen."

It was not a question of differences of opinion which might be ignored so as to arrive at unanimity. Still less is it true that there was a definite understanding. I quote from the published statement:—"The definite understanding between us that our award, embodying the line agreed upon, was to be unanimous." If the word "unanimous" is to be understood, as, I think, most people understand it, to indicate that we were of one mind as regards the principles of interpretation and, consequently, as regards the application of those principles in detail, any statement to that effect would be quite untrue. There were in fact, profound differences, not merely differences of opinion, between us—I shall say between the Chairman and myself—as to the fundamental principles upon which an award ought to proceed, and these differences were known to the Chairman at the time when we were engaged upon the consideration of the details of the award.

As the internal proceedings of the Commission have been brought before the public in this statement, I hold myself at liberty to explain to you more fully some of the points—it would be impossible, except in a statement of very, very great length, to go into all the points—and the major points, upon which there was a distinct difference, not of opinion, but a difference held between the Chairman's view of interpretation and mine. I held that the true view and the right interpretation of Article 12 of the Treaty, in the main, was this: that it was to enable the exercise of a franchise to take place which had been denied and withheld in the case of the Act of 1920; that, in fact, Article 12 revised the operation of the Act of 1920 so far as the fixing of a boundary was concerned. The Chairman held a quite distinct view. He held that the Act of 1920, and the time which had elapsed, had created a status quo which should only be departed from when every element and every factor would compel us to depart from it.

The Article put forward specified three governing conditions. The first one was the wishes of the inhabitants, which, as I say, and I hold, meant to me, and meant, I think, to every reasonable man, enabling people, enabling citizens, to exercise a franchise which had been denied to them and withheld from them in the case of the Act of 1920, that exercise of a franchise to be qualified by compatibility with economical and geographical considerations; in other words, it was not to be so exercised as to set up either economical or geographical anomalies, so interpreted as to bring about that result.

The Chairman's point of view, as clearly indicated at an early stage in a question addressed by him to at least one witness, imported, to my mind, a new governing and dominant condition into Article 12, a political condition, a political consideration which was made a dominant consideration, which was proposed as a dominant consideration, and which did not appear at all within the terms of the Article and could be only read into it by a kind of constructional effort, namely, that if the wishes of the inhabitants were found to indicate a desire on the part of the inhabitants of certain districts to be included under the Free State jurisdiction, and if that inclusion would have the effect of seriously reducing the extent of territory under the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, so as to produce a political effect on the Government of Northern Ireland, and so as to place the Government of Northern Ireland in a distinctly less advantageous position than it occupied under the Act of 1920, then the political consideration was to override the wishes of the inhabitants. To that position I need not say I never assented. It was not in the Article, I say it was not in the Treaty, and that it was only by what I call a constructional effort it could be brought into play at all.

Again, there was the question of the relative importance to be attached to economic considerations, as compared with the wishes of the inhabitants. For me, at all times, as I have explained to you, it was a case of restoring a denied franchise and the wishes of the inhabitants were the dominant consideration. But, in the Chairman's view, it was competent, in one part of our award, for us to make economic considerations dominant and, in another place, to make the wishes of the inhabitants dominant. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to go beyond those points which, I think you will agree, are cardinal and fundamental points, in order to indicate to you that an award by the Commission, if it professed to be unanimous, would have professed to state to the public the thing which was not. What I agreed to—agreed to on the ground I have stated, the ground of prudence, the ground of avoiding renewed and, perhaps, deepened controversy—was not to pronounce unanimity where there was no unanimity, but, purely and simply, to sign the award, in common with the other Commissioners.

The course of deliberation, from the conclusion of the evidence forward, followed lines which, I admit, placed me in a position of exceptional difficulty. There was at no time any debate between the members of the Commission as to the principles of interpretation and no definite decision taken which could lead to an application of such principles and to their consistent application—to their application in the same way in different districts affected by the award. The details came before us in a very gradual and a very piecemeal manner and it may be contended that I was at fault, that I was remiss, that I failed to appreciate the circumstances, failed to see what I might be ultimately up against, when I did not demand, require and challenge, at the earliest convenient stage, a discussion of the general principles of interpretation and a decision upon those principles.

That may be so. I think it is probably true that a better politician and a better diplomatist, if you like, a better strategist, than I am would not have allowed himself to be brought into that position or difficulty. We worked on in that way without decision until a complete boundary line had been presented to us, and after that we entered on the consideration of how and in what form an award ought to be issued and communicated. That is to say, a draft award was actually in existence. I cannot, from my recollection, give the date, but I think the date mentioned in the statement of Messrs. Feetham and Fisher, the 17th October, is probably the date. After that time we were engaged in discussing details with regard to the issue and publication of the award. In the time that intervened I did come to the conclusion that when those parts of the award were put together and regarded as a whole, that is, as an award, it would not be possible for me to defend them, that they would be indefensible as a right interpretation of the Treaty, that they would be indefensible as giving effect to that franchise which was denied in the case of the Act of 1920, that they would be indefensible as not being consistent, one part of the award with another. I did not come to that conclusion rapidly or suddenly or without reluctance. I did desire, if it were possible, that we should have an award which all three Commissioiers could sign, and it was not until it was clear to me that that was not going to be possible and that there was no likelihood of its possibility, that I decided to withdraw from the Commission.

Now, with regard to my relations in other respects, I have said my position was one of particular difficulty. Part of its difficulty was this. I was both in that position of being a member of this Commission, acting as such entirely on my own responsibility—entirely and without qualification on my own responsibility and at my own discretion—and while that was my position as a member of the Boundary Commission, I was at the same time a Minister in this Government and a member of the Executive Council. I have said we came, in the Boundary Commission, at the outset, to agree that the proceedings within the Commission should be confidential and not for publication, not even for communication to Governments, without at least a previous understanding among ourselves. I scrupulously observed that condition. No person, no colleague, no friend, no confidential intimate, not my brother, the High Commissioner in London, with whom I was in constant touch while I was there, no member of my family, no member of this Government, obtained from me any inkling of the internal proceedings of the Commission. Then the stage was reached at which I felt that I could not join in a joint signature of the kind of award proposed to us. Why? Because the reason for which a joint signature had appeared desirable, namely, the avoidance of renewed and possibly embittered controversy, could not be avoided and was not avoided in the course of events. That was made particularly evident to me by the effect produced by the disclosure through the Morning Post of a version of the proposed award.

I come down now to the very latest stage in these developments. I have observed up to now the same reticence as all along with regard to the proceedings of the Commission. I would not have broken that reticence were I not challenged over the name of the Chairman of the Commission in a statement which itself deals with the internal proceedings of the Commission. That statement has for its object to put me in the wrong, and perhaps to some extent succeeds in showing that I was at fault, though not, I think, in the way in which the signatories to the statement intend. I did assume when the agreement to sign jointly was made between us and that, remember, was before, not after, the formulation of an award—I did assume at that time that the award would proceed upon reasonable and consistent principles of interpretation. I think that it was only upon such an assumption that I would have been entitled to make any such agreement. I do not think anyone could assume I would make such an agreement, or that I made the mistake of falling into such an agreement on any other basis than that the award would be defensible on the grounds of interpretation and of consistent interpretation, and I find myself convinced that the position in which I now am— the position in which I have allowed myself to be—forms the reason and a conclusive reason why I should not continue to be a member of this Government which will have the future responsibility for dealing with this particular matter, and for that reason I have intimated to the President that I desire to resign the position, in the Government, of Minister for Education.

I do not know, sir, that there is anything I can add. I have endeavoured to be as fully explanatory as the occasion demanded, and if there be anything that is not explicit in what I have stated, I think it must be due to the more or less involved nature of the position. It is very difficult to state in detail, but that certainly is not due to any desire on my part to withhold anything of material import either from the Government of Saorstát Eireann or from this Assembly.

Before Deputy Johnson proceeds, if it is desired to take a debate on this question now, I think it would be better if it took place on the motion for the adjournment by the President, so that we may have something before us. If the President would move the adjournment we could have the debate more easily.

Very well, sir. I move that the Dáil do now adjourn.

My object in rising, a moment ago, was to invite the President to state what is the position taken up by the Executive Council in this matter, and, if I may respectfully suggest, it is due to the House to have a statement from the Executive Council as to how they view their position in face of the developments of the last two or three days. I suggest, that in moving the adjournment, the President should state the position of the Executive Council so that we shall know exactly upon what ground we stand before we come to discuss the matter.

I have already stated the matter is engaging, and will continue to engage, the most careful consideration of the Government, and beyond that I do not intend to depart.

The refusal of the President to explain the position of the Executive Council is difficult to understand, and I think makes it imperative on some of us to express certain views. I am confident that, when we come to read the statement made by Deputy Dr. MacNeill, we shall be able to appreciate better what his motives were, and what his explanation is. It is certainly difficult for me to understand what the relations were between the Minister for Education, a member of the Executive Council, and the member of the Boundary Commission who considered his position that of a plenipotentiary. It all the time seemed to many of us, and the view has been expressed frequently, that the dual position was incompatible with that of an independent member of the Commission, and it seems to me that the responsibility for the course of events which Deputy Dr. MacNeill has followed has to be borne by the Executive Council, at least to an equal share.

Notwithstanding the assurances that the Executive Council were not acquainted with the smallest fact in regard to the internal working of the Commission, it is nevertheless true that the Executive were made acquainted with the proceedings of the Commission when these proceedings took the form of receiving evidence from the inhabitants of the Saorstát in respect of their claim for transference to the Six Counties. It is not evident, from anything that has been said yet, that any protest was made against the receiving of evidence of that kind. That evidence was received by a member of the Executive Council, with the knowledge of the Executive Council, and it is not until very late in the day, indeed, too late in the day, as I think, the Executive Council protests that it was beyond the authority of the Commission to bring in any report which dealt with the territory, or the inhabitants in the territory, of the Saorstát, and because of that I say that the Executive Council has to share the responsibility.

We know that emphasis has been laid, consistently up till recently, very recently, upon the obligation contained in Article 12 that the Boundary that was to be fixed was to be determined in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants. We are told to-day that probably one thousand witnesses were heard. That is a great number. I do not know what the population of the areas affected might be, but certainly it is not possible to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants by hearing individual witnesses or even men who claim to be representative. But it almost seems, from the statement made in public by the President, in company with the Minister for Finance, that the Executive Council is satisfied that the wishes of the inhabitants have been ascertained, and in my view it is urgently necessary for the Dáil and the country to know whether this contention of the Executive Council was fairly and carefully and duly formulated. Do they say that the wishes of the inhabitants have been ascertained and, on the evidence thus obtained, the Commission either unanimously or by a majority would be entitled to fulfil their functions, that is, to determine the boundary between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland? I maintain that they cannot do any such thing without due ascertainment of the wishes of the inhabitants, and that cannot be ascertained by merely inviting the opinions of individuals or representative persons.

There is no way to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants except by asking them what their wishes are. We do not know, inasmuch as the President has declined to express the views of the Executive Council, what proposals they intend to put forward to safeguard the interests of the inhabitants in the area of the Saorstát, and far less do we know whether they have any views at all as to the inhabitants who are citizens of that portion of Ireland which is at present beyond the border of the Saorstát.

In the absence of any guidance, of any assistance, whatever from the President it is hard to know whether one ought to express one's thoughts, but I feel that we are being placed in the position of having to submit to the magnanimity, to an act of grace, of the Northern Government in respect to territory which has been, and is, within the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann. It is no use disguising the position. Though no report has been made I think we are entitled to assume, in fact we have the testimony of the Minister for Finance to this effect, that certain portions of Saorstát Eireann in County Monaghan and County Donegal were to be assigned to the Northern Government. If we take that as correct, then I say we are placed in the position of having to wait upon the grace and magnanimity of the Northern Government if we want to avoid contention, which Deputy Dr. MacNeill has told us was his desire, and has been the desire of everybody else. Those residents in the Six County area who have been urged to be patient, who were being assured on the authority of members of the Saorstát Eireann Government that the award would be satisfactory to them, these people are being placed in the position now of absolute hopelessness so far as the Saorstát Eireann Government is concerned. We have no guidance, no assistance, no word of hope to hold out to either the inhabitants of Saorstát Eireann territory who may be transferred by the decision of the Boundary Commission, or to the residents in the Six County area who had expected and believed that they had a right to be transferred to the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann. I cannot but think that the position we are and have been placed in by the conduct of affairs of State in this matter by the Executive Council is one which is humiliating. I think perhaps it is better that I should not go further into this matter and express all that one feels, and that one is tempted to say regarding the responsibility of the Executive Council for the very difficult and untenable situation we have been placed in. I think that we have a right to expect that the Executive Council will not merely say that they are considering their course, but they should state, for the information of the Dáil and of the country, what is their position at this time, and what stand they intend to take in view of all that is being stated here, and has been written in the newspapers. I think the House has a right to demand from the Ministry a complete statement of their views and of their position in this matter.

I think that when we were listening to Deputy Dr. MacNeill this evening there was one feeling, or rather two, in the minds of almost all of us. One was sympathy. For his uprightness of character the Dáil always has respected and always will respect. The other feeling was one of astonishment that, in his own words, he should have allowed himself to be placed in such a position. I do not want to emphasise the facts of the case. I think it was extraordinarily unfortunate that he allowed his duty as a plenipotentiary to over-ride his duty as a member of the Executive Council because, I believe, that parliamentary government is impossible unless complete confidence exists between members of the Cabinet and of the Executive Council. He saw his duty otherwise, but he was in a different position to the other Commissioners, inasmuch as they had no colleagues and he had. I think the situation would not have arisen had he viewed his duty otherwise. The other thing that amazed me was that before he knew what the report was to be, before he knew even the principles on which the report was to be drawn up, he was willing to agree that it should be signed jointly by all three Commissioners. That to my mind sounds like signing a blank cheque.

I tried to make it clear that I did not and could not bind myself to an agreement of that kind.

I understood Deputy Dr. MacNeill to say that all Commissioners agreed that an agreed award was desirable and, if possible, they should sign it. That was going a very long way, and I am afraid from what Deputy Dr. MacNeill said later that even though they were not unanimous they were anxious at least to attain the appearance of unanimity. Perhaps the Minister would explain that, because if I am mistaken others might be mistaken also and it is desirable that we should get the facts.

I took distinct exception to the word "unanimous" twice used in the published statement by Mr. Justice Feetham and Mr. Fisher. The word "unanimous" would appear to the ordinary reader that we were of one mind. As a matter of fact, there never was any agreement that even our signatures should be held to imply that we were of one mind. On the contrary, as put in that statement, but not I think fully put in it, the statement said that along with the award there was to be an accompanying statement explaining, as they say, that we had some difference of opinion but not specifying any specific difference. In other words, there was to be a statement indicating that there were differences and that we were not unanimous. That statement, as I understood it, and anticipated it, was to be of a much clearer and stronger character than merely saying that we had some difference of opinion.

I am afraid I do not quite understand yet. The matter is one that could not be cleared up without a very long speech, and though Deputy Dr. MacNeill gave us a long speech already, it is obviously one we have to read. I think he will agree the position in which he was placed was not a fortunate one, and one he did not wish to occupy. I need say no more about that. I think the Ministry took too fine a tool for their work. The polished steel of Deputy Dr. MacNeill's mind was no match for the cudgel play he met with in debate. But we are all responsible. The nomination was made by the Ministry, was never challenged by any Party in the Dáil, and if the Executive Council are responsible we are all responsible. There is no good in recrimination. I appeal to the President not in any hostile or Party spirit-I do not think there is any intention to use this to Party advantage-to give the country some guidance. Every day passions will be aroused, words will grow hotter, and tempers more violent if we are left without guidance. The Government may not now find themselves to be in a position to announce a full and complete policy, and we would not press them to do so, but merely to make the statement that the matter is engaging, or would engage, the attention of the Executive Council is, to renew a metaphor again, asking us for a blank cheque. I do not believe that will be satisfactory to the people as a whole. They look to the Government for guidance, and would be satisfied, possibly, with a brief indication of what the policy is to be. Otherwise the Government are putting a strain on the temper and minds of the people. That is not fair. If the Executive have a policy, and it is announced, disadvantageous though the circumstances and conditions are, they will find that the vast majority of the people will rally around them and try to get out of the situation as best they can.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

One of the many advantages of being in opposition is that one can ignore facts, or at any rate, pass very lightly over them. Deputy Johnson, from long force of habit, can pass very lightly indeed over them, and talk abstractions. This evening he has talked abstractions as to what ought to have been done at this and that stage of the proceedings of the Boundary Commission by the Executive Council. The wishes of the inhabitants, he says, have not been taken, and there is only one way of taking their wishes, that is by asking the inhabitants what they are, or, in other words, by a plebiscite. That is a view with which, in the abstract, no one could disagree. It is an eminently sound view. Deputy Johnson knows, or should know, that there were circumstances which render the taking of the plebiscite a matter of very considerable difficulty for the Boundary Commission. He may say those circumstances should not have existed, but in fact they did exist, and the Boundary Commission, like the Executive Council, had to deal with facts as they were and not as they would like them to be. Had the Commission power to take a plebiscite, and had it been equipped with the necessary executive and administrative authority, would it have required further legislation to so equip it, and would it have been wise for the Boundary Commission or for the Executive Council to press for such further legislation, in view of the delay, and in view of other things-such relevant considerations, for instance, as the attitude of one House of the British Parliament towards this whole matter, the House which, at the outset of the Commission's work made a very flagrant and very deliberate attempt to influence its findings by a resolution which embodied a particularly limited view of the meaning and intent of Article 12 of the Treaty. There is one way, says Deputy Johnson, to find the wishes of the inhabitants, and that is to ask the inhabitants what their wishes are. That, no doubt, is an excellent way in the abstract, but in the concrete there seemed another way, not letter perfect, but substantially satisfactory. There were statistics-there was the Census of 1911.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Of population. Evidence was taken from both sides on the question of whether or not the 1911 census would form a fair basis, supplemented, no doubt, by evidence from witnesses, for the deliberations of the Commission. It is not a secret, it is not a private matter, that in the North-East corner of this country politics have followed very much the lines of religious divisions, that ninety or ninety-five of every one hundred Catholics are Nationalists, and that ninety or ninety-five of other denominations are, shall we say, non-Nationalists. It is in the light of that fact that the Commission proceeded to inquire from this person and that, on both sides of the question, as to whether they would agree that the 1911 census provided a substantially fair and accurate basis for their deliberations. Was there anything there calling for violent dissent from the Executive Council? Was there anything there which should have caused them to make representations to the Commission that if it felt itself not to be equipped with the power to take a plebiscite it should proceed at once to secure that it would be equipped with such powers by further legislation, having regard to the delay such further legislation would involve and to such other relevant considerations as I have indicated.

The conduct of the affairs of State in this matter by the Executive Council, said Deputy Johnson, is humiliating. In respect to what? What have we done that we ought not to have done? What have we left undone that we ought to have done? We have taken every step duly in accordance with our Treaty of peace with Britain, and our conduct in relation to this Commission compares favourably with the conduct of any other Party concerned (Deputies: Hear, hear). If we are faced now with a new and grave situation arising, as the Deputy knows, largely from factors outside our control, let that situation be envisaged and faced from the point of view of the best interests of the State and not from the point of view of the best interests of a Party. (Deputies: Hear, hear).

This situation in its fulness became known to us last Saturday morning. Last Friday evening, after the Dáil had adjourned, a code wire reached us from London announcing that Dr. MacNeill had withdrawn from the Commission, and was returning that night. He reached Dublin on Saturday morning. It is since Saturday morning that the situation in its fulness has been known to the Executive Council, and I submit to the reason and good sense of Deputies that the Executive Council ought not to be challenged three days later to make a statement as to its future policy. (Deputies: Hear, hear.)

The matter is sufficiently grave to call for deliberation. From time to time, in the Press and otherwise, we are warned against the dangers of hasty and ill-considered decisions. Let us apply those excellent warnings to the present situation, which is grave enough to warrant them. If we are to deal with this situation, if it is we who are to have the responsibility for dealing with it, then we are entitled to say to the Dáil that we must not be challenged hastily or brusquely for a statement of policy on this whole matter. If wrong can be pointed to in the past which, in the opinion of the Dáil justifies the withdrawal of confidence, that is one situation. But if there is no such wrong, and if it is the opinion of the Dáil that it is we who must continue to deal with this situation, then we have a right to ask time, ample time, to consider it in all its bearings, to weigh it very fully, to form our best judgment on courses and their possible reactions, and it would ill become the Executive Council, simply under pressure from this Deputy or that, three days later to rush out with some crude or ill-considered statement as to what it proposed to do. Remember it is not wholly a question of what we propose to do. There are other agencies and other elements in the situation than those that we control. One hopes that there are others besides ourselves giving very grave consideration to this new position that has arisen, and equally alive to its possibilities.

I have no intention to speak at length. I rose simply to indicate dissent from the view of Deputy Johnson that the Executive Council has been remiss in the past in its dealings with this matter, and to deprecate his suggestion that it owes the Dáil hic et nunc a statement as to its policy for the future. As for the past, I contend that step by step we have done the things which we ought to have done in accordance with the Treaty. As to the future, I submit for the consideration of Deputies that we are entitled to somewhat more time than has elapsed between this and Saturday morning last.

Can the Minister indicate how much more time?

As much time as will be necessary for the most careful consideration of a most important matter. It does not help for people to say: "Tear up the Treaty; let us have another scrap."

Will the Minister indicate how much more time he will require before this matter is brought forward again?

I have nothing further to add to what I have already said. We have a very deep and very conscious appreciation of the gravity of this position. In his statement this evening Dr. MacNeill said:—

After that time we were engaged in discussing details with regard to the issue and publication of the award. In the time that intervened I did come to the conclusion that when those parts of the award were put together and regarded as a whole, that is as an award, it would not be possible for me to defend them, that they would be indefensible as a right interpretation of the Treaty, that they would be indefensible as giving effect to that franchise which was denied in the case of the Act of 1920, that they would be indefensible as not being consistent, one part of the award with another.

In face of that we are asked to give an immediate outline, or a date when our policy is going to be outlined before the country. If there is one thing I have learned in public life during the past few years it is that the greatest dangers are to be apprehended from scare-mongers. In this morning's Press we read that there were midnight meetings of the Cabinet. I do not know of them. I think I am entitled to know about them. I was not present at them, and from information I have received from the other Ministers they were not present at them either. Consequently, those Cabinet meetings were held probably in Deputy Johnson's house, or some place like that.

We are faced with a very serious proposition here. It is a time when we have asked for restraint, for common sense, for appreciation of our responsibilities as a nation. I hesitate to think that the statement which was issued yesterday evening over two names, with the search-light of that statement bearing down on it, stands an honest exposition of the circumstances of the case. True it may be, every word of it. Is it the whole truth? How does it stand in the light of that statement? And are there two people still sitting, not nominees of this State, thinking of issuing an award? We are asked to define our policy with regard to that. This is too serious an occasion for an immediate outlining of policy, for even naming a date when the policy of the Government will be outlined, and I am entitled to say, if the Dáil is not satisfied with that, that there are opportunities afforded it within the Constitution for asking for the resignation of the Government and getting another one that will do it.

It is my duty, if the Ministry will not give any indication as to the period of time required to formulate, for the benefit of the Dáil, their position, to ask the Dáil to agree to discuss this matter on some occasion within the rules of Order.

It is with a great amount of delicacy that I intervene in this debate. On behalf of the Party I represent I assure the Dáil that they have no intention of making this a Party question-a question of Party advantage. I do not think it is important what length of time the Executive Council take to make up their minds on this question. What is important is, not when they will do it but what they will do. I think it is up to every citizen of the Saorstát who is worth his salt to be prepared to take a part in anything that may eventuate. There is, perhaps, only one thing for which I hold the Executive Council responsible, and that is, when this Commission began to function evidence was taken from the Free State side of the border. That must have given a fair indication to anybody who claimed to be responsible for statesmanship what was in the mind of the Commissioners and what they were driving at. It must have been a fair indication that the terms of Article 12 of the Treaty were absolutely ignored.

In the last Dáil there was no doubt in the mind of anyone what the terms of the Treaty meant and what Article 12 meant. When evidence was taken from this side of the border I think it was plain to any man claiming ordinary intelligence-perhaps my view is wrong but that is the view I take-that something was aimed at and that there was something in the minds of certain of the Commissioners not justified by Article 12 of the Treaty. I am not prepared to criticise the Government with regard to their representative on this Commission. A choice was made and we have the results. Neither am I going to ask for a hurried decision. The question is too grave. As the Minister for Justice said, it is at least sufficiently grave to warrant due deliberation. At this critical stage I think the least said about the matter the better.

Deputy Johnson has asked for a statement of policy on this grave matter. I think we would all like a statement of policy to guide us, to assure us, and give us the lead that we look to the Executive Council to give on such a matter as this. But I think Deputy Johnson will agree that recent developments have been so rapid that it may not be quite possible for the President to state what the policy of the Executive Council will be in the matter. This is a very important matter, much more important perhaps than many Deputies realise, and particularly important for those whose interests will be concerned. It asks for long and deep consideration from-and should get it-the Executive Council, after viewing all the circumstances that surround it, and all the dangers attaching to any hasty action, because any hasty action taken may have very far-reaching effects. I hope we will have no repetition of the calls that we had in the Press from certain people for resignations, or of the claims made by different sections for party capital out of recent events.

Different sections?

I am not referring to the Dáil, but to the country and to what appeared in the Press. I think this is a time when the whole country should forget party interests and stand very solidly behind the men who will have to handle this situation in the immediate future. When we are crossing the stream is not the time to call for a change of horses. I hope the country will back the Dáil in offering its fullest confidence to the Executive Council in any action it may take to put the position correctly as far as the interests of the Saorstát are concerned.

Deputy MacNeill, we are informed, and believe, kept his bond strictly. The Executive Council observed the correct attitude throughout. This House, in spite, perhaps, of what Deputy Cooper said, also observed the correct attitude. I am afraid that I cannot say as much for some of the other parties to this transaction, if one is to judge from the obvious leakages and information which appeared in various organs of the Press and from various platforms, evidently informed, if not inspired. I feel that our position in this matter is still straight and still clear and strong, and I hope that nothing will be done to weaken that position, in this House or outside it, by recriminations of one kind or another or by hasty pronouncements by Deputies, and certainly not by any hasty decisions or pronouncements by the Executive Council. We are all concerned only with the best interests of the country, and I think that that should be our guide in this matter to show those who desire to attack the integrity of the Saorstát that the whole nation stands behind the men who are going to handle the situation on their behalf.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 3 p.m., Wednesday, November 25th.

Top
Share