Before the adjournment I had been drawing attention to the policy of the Ministry up to very recent times. The policy stated by the President is, in very few words: "Our position is the Treaty, the whole Treaty, and nothing but the Treaty." The view that has now taken the place of that is that the Treaty must be amended, and amended in the particular form which this Agreement and the Bill sets forth. I quoted from statements made by the Minister for Justice and the President to show that the policy of the Government, at the signing of the Treaty, had been to maintain the unity of Ireland, and that in the signing of it some compromise was necessary for the purpose, the avowed purpose, of maintaining the unity of Ireland. I quoted also to show their insistence time and again that the friends of ours in the North-East area should be protected—"that the rights which the Treaty, signed by Griffith and Collins, won for those friends of ours in the North-East area, should be protected." That has been the policy, I said, of the Ministry up to very recent times. I pointed out that when we arrive at the 19th November the President appears to have changed his ground and laid special emphasis, not upon the rights of friends of ours in the North-Eastern counties, but upon friends of ours, citizens of the Free State, who are in the Free State, and his primary desire was to secure that they would not be transferred.
The Ministry's contention was that the terms of reference of the Commission set up under Article XII. did not permit them to bring in an award which would transfer any Free State territory to the North. I was twitted by the Minister for Justice over the position I took up when Deputy McCullough brought in his motion on the 19th November. There had been a certain amount of excitement created by the reports in the morning papers— the "Morning Post" and other papers —over the coming decision of the Commission. I took the position, which I think I was justified in taking, that this was an excitement being artificially generated, first in the NorthEastern area, and responded to by people on the Free State side of the Border. The idea was to create an artificial excitement.
I knew, if I were to believe the protestations of Ministers time and time again, that the wishes of the inhabitants had not been ascertained, that we could not contemplate a report of the Commission, a definitive report, until that process had been gone through. On those counts I deprecated, in the course of my speech, the artificial excitement that seemed to me to be in course of generation. Judge my surprise and astonishment when the President read a carefully prepared statement which showed that, instead of the wishes of the inhabitants being uppermost in the minds of the Ministry as being the dominant requirement of the Boundary Commission, they were fearful, or rather they were not fearful, according to the actual language of the President's statement, but they told us there was no need to be fearful, because the "Morning Post's" prognostication, its prophecy, could not, if the Boundary Commissioners were sane men, have any foundation in reality. "Until I have some better proof to the contrary," the President said, "than the publication in the ‘Morning Post,' I prefer to think that the members of the Commission are men who place a value on impartial justice. They will respect the considerations which have been laid down for their guidance and direction and they will not allow outside considerations to sway them from the path of judicial honesty."
We have not yet had publicly stated any really definite information as to the contents of that projected report. We have had certain hints, suggestions, and animadversions upon it from Dr. MacNeill, and we have had created an assumption that the Feetham report was to be a report very much like, if not absolutely the same as the "Morning Post's" prophecy. I take it, in the absence of any other information, and in view of the proceedings that have taken place since the 19th November, that the Ministry have now been made aware of the contents of that report and they are satisfied it was proposed to transfer considerable areas, or, shall I say areas, from the Free State to Northern Ireland.
It was because of the eruption from Donegal particularly that the President was moved, that the Ministry was moved, to go to London and endeavour to prevent the report being issued. I must say it seems to me a very strange attitude for Deputies from Donegal to adopt. There was a report expected which was to deprive that county of a certain slice of its territory and transfer it to the Six Counties. Now they feel that position has been altered. The possibility of that transfer has been avoided and, therefore, they are content. Everything else is quite satisfactory.
It was the most terrible thing imaginable for a slice of Donegal to be placed under the Northern Parliament, but in respect to the rest of the Six Counties, in respect to Derry City, East Tyrone, South Fermanagh, South Armagh, and South Down, areas which, according to the wishes of the inhabitants, according to the Treaty provisions and the evidence that was conclusive in their view and in the view of the Ministers a month or two ago, should be transferred into the Saorstát, there was no need to trouble about them. They were to be left over. On the assumption that this Bill was to pass, and on the settlement, as it is called, being ratified, it did not matter to Donegal what became of those people from those other counties, who also expected, under the terms of the Treaty, to be transferred into the Saorstát.
Was there anything really fearful, was there anything to be afraid of by the Donegal Deputies, regarding the transfer of Donegal territory into the Six County area? Why were they afraid? Was it purely for financial reasons? Was it simply and only because they feared £60,000 worth of rateable valuation would be taken from them? Was that the only reason? I wonder will any Donegal Deputies answer me that? Was their only reason that they feared certain financial loss to the County Council? If that was the only reason, let them avow it. If it was not, why are they so satisfied now that the people of East Tyrone, South Fermanagh, Derry City, South Armagh and South Down are to be left under the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament which they themselves were so fearful about?
It is a position which requires some explanation, and I think the friends of those Deputies who are on the Border, the friends of those Deputies in Derry City, will want to ask for very solid reasons why Donegal Deputies who were so fearful of the possibility of transfer of any of their friends from the Saorstát should leave the rest to the bitterness, shall I say, to the fate which they had hoped to be relieved from.
Now we have been informed—and this is the crux—that there is a new spirit developed at Locarno—no, not at Locarno, but in London. The President said "A new atmosphere of friendship and brotherhood has been created, and it is this new atmosphere which has enabled us to bring you to-day a solution of the problems which four years ago were then, as events have proved, impossible of solution.""No one even in 1921 regarded the formula of Article XII. of the Treaty as an ideal solution of the problem that it had been intended to deal with. No one looked to it to do more than relieve the situation of some of its difficulties." Well, take the first portion of that statement. Will the President give us any evidence of this new atmosphere of friendship and brotherhood? When did it begin? Did it begin when the representatives of the three Governments met in London? Was it there it suddenly sprung into life? Had it existed any time prior to that? If it had existed any time prior to that, where is the evidence?
I am as anxious as any Deputy in the Dáil to see a spirit of concord, of comradeship and good-fellowship between the people, North, South, East and West. We have been associated in our Labour movement with organisations and members of organisations that have their membership all over Ireland, and our closest friends are men who live in the North. Many of our most active colleagues are men who live in Belfast and Derry, and it is natural that we should desire to see developed, and to do nothing to prevent the development of, a spirit of amity and concord. I am one who has insisted pretty frequently upon this—that association in other walks of life than politics will eventually bring about the unity which we desire. But I am one also of those who have never depreciated, in any degree, the importance of political institutions, institutions of Government that are representative of the people. I think it is a mistake for people to say that politics do not matter, that only economic influences are at work, and that economic influences are the sole and final factor in the development of social life; I deny that; I do not hold it at all. I believe that political institutions are of the greatest importance either to assist or retard the development of that spirit of concord and growing together of a people or peoples. Therefore it is that I feel very sorely about this particular proposal, because I see in it without any question—and it is not denied—the cutting of whatever has been left of the organic unity between the two parts of this country.
I asked what was the evidence of this new spirit, this new atmosphere of friendship and brotherhood. I am told that within a week or fortnight past there has been a very considerable series of raids on political people in the North, that men in considerable numbers have been arrested and interned because of activities or alleged activities, and because of political associations of months and years ago. Now, if that is true, it does not indicate the existence of this new atmosphere of friendship and brotherhood up to a week ago. I would desire that the Minister would tell us what is at the back of this, what is the evidence of this new atmosphere, this new friendship and brotherhood. There is not the slightest doubt that everything that is contained in this Agreement, so far as the North of Ireland had a say in the matter, could have been attained any time within the last four years. There have been offers from Ministers of Northern Ireland to have these conferences in matters of common interest within the last twelve months. It has been an open secret that the Northern Ministry was anxious to have such meetings with the Ministry here, and with Ministers here, any time within the last couple of years. There is nothing new in that. But what then is the explanation? It is clearly that the claim of the Northern Government which they have insisted on from the beginning has not changed in any degree. It has been conceded. Of course, when you give a man all he asks for, he is naturally going to say you are a very fine fellow; if you continue to do the same, if you continue to give him all he asks for, he will praise you up to the skies. That is for public consumption. But he will have a certain contempt for you for private use.
I am going to ask the Dáil to consider the attitude of the Northern Government, and the Northern people any time within the last ten years, and longer if you like. Since the 1914 Home Rule Bill was brought forward, and before the Home Rule Bill was brought forward, at the time of the Covenant, their contention was: "Not an inch. What we have we hold. There is not going to be any giving away on our part to any Government in Dublin. We are not going to allow our people to come under the Governmental influence and control of these people of the South and West." There are Deputies on the Ministerial Benches who know very well the history of that time. Since the 1914 Home Rule Bill which became the Government of Ireland Act, and, following that, the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, right on from the beginning to now, they had insisted that they were not going to come within the Irish polity, they were not going to allow their people and their territory to be governed by an Irish Government.
The 1920 Act was, as they say, forced upon them against their will. It provided for a Government for the Six Counties of Northern Ireland, and, while they did not vote for it, when they saw there was no way out, they decided they would accept it, but at the same time they decided they were not going to have anything to do with the government of Ireland. Has there been any change? Not an inch.
Before the Treaty was signed, there was, as Deputy Mulcahy revealed to the House some months ago, a series of letters communicated from the delegation in London to Ministers in Dublin. Passages from those letters have been published in the republican newspapers and read by Mr. de Valera at Limerick. These letters, going on from the beginning of November, will show that there was a continual struggle on behalf of the delegation for the unity of Ireland. The Vice-President told us that the unity of Ireland was to be preserved, it was one of their desires, and "that the conditions of the North necessitated some compromise by which the unity of the country could be preserved." It is clear from the communications that were sent from the delegation in London that there was a considerable struggle in respect to the Ulster position. A proposal was made for an All-Ireland Parliament with certain rights to Ulster. Mr. Griffith said "that that was their proposal. It was not his proposal." This kind of communication was repeated over a series of letters culminating in this statement: "I said I had written them a letter in which I conditionally accepted association with the British Empire and recognition of the Crown in exchange for essential unity." The dates of those letters are very interesting if we relate them to the letters sent by Mr. Lloyd George to Sir James Craig, making his proposal and informing Sir James Craig of the intention of the British Ministers. They coincide accurately with the reports coming from London to the Dáil Cabinet. C and D Clauses of the proposal at that time state that "the Government of Northern Ireland would retain all powers conferred on her by the Government of Ireland Act. The unity of Ireland would be recognised by the establishment of an All-Ireland Parliament upon which would be devolved the further powers necessary to form a self-governing State."
That was dissented from by Sir James Craig. He said in reply: "The possible unity of Ireland is provided by the establishment of the Council of Ireland under the Act of 1920 together with machinery for creating a Parliament for all Ireland, should Northern and Southern Ireland mutually agree to do so. An all-Ireland Parliament cannot, under existing circumstances, be accepted by Northern Ireland. Such a Parliament is precisely what Ulster has for many years resisted by all means at her disposal and her detestation of it is in no degree diminished by the local institutions conferred upon her by the Act of 1920." A later letter from Mr. Lloyd George to Sir James Craig says: "All experience proves, moreover, that so complete a partition of Ireland as you propose must militate with increasing force against the ultimate unity which you yourself hope will one day be possible. Your proposal will stereotype a frontier, based neither upon natural features nor broad geographical considerations, by giving it the character of an international boundary." His (Sir James Craig's) proposals, by the way, were to increase the powers of the Northern Parliament and detach it from what was then contemplated to be the Free State. Mr. Lloyd George said: "Partition on these lines the majority of the Irish people will never accept nor could we conscientiously attempt to enforce it. It would be fatal to that purpose of a lasting settlement in which these negotiations from the very outset have been steadily directed." A little further he said: "The majority in Southern Ireland have a strong sense of responsibility for their co-religionists in the Six Counties. The majority there have an equal interest in your sympathy and support."
There was a reply to that from Sir James Craig. There had been a suggestion for a conference on the condition that they should agree to the establishment of an All-Ireland Parliament or that the proposal to establish an All-Ireland Parliament would be accepted. He says: "To enter a conference on such a condition would, in our view, be dishonest, since we know that in no circumstances would Ulster accept such a position, involving permanent subordination to Sinn Fein. We are strongly convinced that it would only tend to make settlement more difficult and encourage false hopes, if even by implication, we discussed a condition which cannot be conceded." There is ample evidence in those documents and, of course, there is the public knowledge that the Northern Government and the Ulster Unionist Council, who control the Northern Government, have consistently and insistently taken the view that they will not associate with Ireland in a political unity. But the people who signed the Treaty, the people who ratified it, and the people who acquiesced in the Treaty position rely on the position created by the Treaty, by the correspondence which led up to the Treaty; and the Minister for Justice, as well as the President, and other Ministers and Deputies, have never hesitated to make the claim that under the Treaty, Saorstát Eireann was created as an all-Ireland entity.
There were two possibilities in respect of North-East Ulster. There was the possibility of their accepting the position and retaining all their powers, and their present territory within the polity of Ireland, or if they refused to do that, then their position was to remain subordinate, with the retention of a link "by which the permanent unity of the country could be preserved," to use the phrase of the Minister for Justice. I ask the Minister for Justice, Deputy Egan, and others, who are now saying that this Council of Ireland provision was of no value, why was it inserted with such deliberateness in the Treaty? It followed these discussions about an all-Ireland Parliament. Remember, it is within their knowledge, as it is now within the knowledge of Deputies, that in those Treaty discussions there was insistence on the unity of Ireland, insistence upon maintaining that single political entity, and finally there had to be a compromise made in the final settlement which gave the North-Eastern Counties an option. There was still presented to them machinery by which unity could be preserved, some form by which the organic connection could be maintained. What was that organic connection? It was the Council of Ireland, that which it is now intended to be cut, that which was intended to retain the essential unity which Ministers then believed was essential to the welfare and the well-being of the country, but which the Ulster Unionist Council consistently and insistently said they would never agree to. Now Ministers come along and say the Ulster Unionist Council was right. They may have all they demand; we were wrong in maintaining this bond of union, or, if you like to put it so, this organic connection, which, if used, would be useful and grow, but which, if not accepted, would be an irritant and a preventative to that development into independent statehood which the Northern Government are asking for. The Council of Ireland, it has been suggested, has been insisted upon by me as a valuable contribution, and it has been said that I have a pathetic regard for it. If I may be reminiscent, I will tell Deputies that I had a conversation, I think on or about the 9th or 10th of December 1921, with Michael Collins on this very subject, and he was quite as insistent then upon the value of this Council of Ireland provision as I am to-day as being the means of securing at some time in the future the essential unity and would prevent the possibility of the absolute break which was being demanded by the North of Ireland, and which would never have been thought of by the Dáil of that period.
There are two or three Articles in the Treaty which rest upon this proposition of the Council of Ireland. The whole system envisaged by the Treaty and envisaged by our Constitution assumes that there is going to be an organic unity between Northern Ireland and Saorstát Eireann. If you cut out this now you are cutting out that completely and absolutely, and I say that your contention which has been the subject of discussion in some of the courts—the contention may be doubtful, I am not going to be dogmatic about it, but Ministers can say what they wish on this—that the territorial waters of the Six Counties are within the authority of Saorstát Eireann is cut away by the provisions of this Bill.
The contention is also cut away that there cannot be added to the Northern Ireland Government any powers without the consent of the Saorstát, and you are having placed before you now the position that all those contentions of past politicians, from I do not know how far back, but certainly ever since Home Rule was brought into the region of practical politics, to use Gladstone's phrase, that there was to be in Ireland a unity for political purposes—is now being reversed completely. In Home Rule Bills "Ireland" was dealt with. In the 1914 Act there was a possibility of partition of Six Counties for a period, and the question arose as to whether their coming in or their going out was to be a matter of fresh legislation, but in the Act that was passed there was no permanent cut away. In the 1920 Act provision was made for two separate Parliaments, with a Council which was to be a kind of super-Parliament to which powers would be added by identical Acts after consultations such as are mentioned in this provision here. The 1920 Act did not come into effective operation in the twenty-six counties. It did come into effective operation in the North, and then came the Treaty. Is anybody going to say that the Treaty contemplated the cutting out permanently of the Six Counties from Ireland as a political organisation? If you say that, then you brand these people who made the Treaty as being false in their statements. If you say it did on the contrary retain this essential unity then you are asked now to undo in this matter what the Treaty-makers did and what all other men speaking for Ireland in these negotiations for self-government also insisted upon. The question then arises as to the alternative. Ministers say: "We are prepared to cut away this bond of union or this political organic connection and we are prepared to substitute for it the conference method. We will establish something in the shape of two separate and independent Governments and make two States of this one. We will establish them as independent States without any connection, and we will trust for the growth of amity and goodwill to the development of this conference method and Government by conference in matters which concern the joint interests."
I put against that the maintenance of the provisions of the Treaty. When Deputy Egan spoke—I do not want to lay too much stress on it, but it illustrates my point—he suggested that because of this Agreement there would be automatic consultations and conferences in matters which are of common interest; that "the two Governments would meet together as and when necessary for the purpose of considering matters of common interest." To begin with, they may come together and consider matters of common interest as and when necessary, if they please. Nothing has ever prevented them but the unwillingness of one or the other. Nothing ever prevents that between any two countries but the unwillingness of one or the other. And if the two Governments come together and consult and agree upon any matter of common interest then each side "will take the steps that are necessary to give effect to the agreement." But if they do not agree, then there is no common solution of any problem of common interest. They go different ways and the probability is that unless the change takes place which is hoped for and expected by the Ministry, the policy of "not an inch" will continue. Unless in these matters of common interest the Northern Government gets its way the conference is useless. This motto of "not an inch," as anybody that understands the Ulster Unionist Council and the mentality that is embodied in it realises quite well, means that when they speak of "not an inch" they are not thinking of territory only. They are thinking of the world of social affairs, political institutions, powers of Government and social life generally.
I have had a fairly long and a very intimate experience of the Northern people who constitute the elements that go to make up the Ulster Unionist Council. I think I understand more intimately perhaps than the great majority of Deputies here the way they look at problems affecting the people of Ireland. While what I say does not embrace everyone—I know there are many exceptions outside the elements that make up the political governing body in the North—the mentality of these people is to treat the "South and West"—a term which is taken to include people even who live in Donegal or the Falls Road—as inferior clay. It is contempt they have for you. That is the mentality. You may talk about this new spirit of friendship and brotherhood, but honestly I would like to see some evidence of it. I believe there is a sufficient leaven in the commercial, industrial, intellectual and artistic life of Ulster to wipe out eventually this feeling of contempt for the mere Irish, but it is not yet in the councils of Government.
