I move that the Dáil sit later than 8.30 to finish No. 4 and No. 5 (Motions by the President).
EXTENDED SITTING.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 6.10 and resumed at 7.10 o'clock,
in the Chair.
The Dáil went into Committee and resumed consideration of the Treaty (Confirmation of Amending Agreement) Bill, 1925.
I move:
"To delete Section 2."
Section 2 says that "All references in Section 2 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act, 1922 (No. 1 of 1922) to the Treaty of 1921 (in that section referred to as the Scheduled Treaty) shall be construed and have effect as references to the said Treaty of 1921 as amended by the Agreement set forth in the Schedule to this Act, and accordingly all references in the Constitution to the Scheduled Treaty shall be construed as references to the said Treaty of 1921 as amended by the said agreement." The references here are to Section 2 of the Constitution Act, not to Section 2 of the Constitution, as is reported in one of the morning papers. Section 2 of the Constitution Act provides that "the Constitution shall be construed with reference to the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland set forth in the Second Schedule hereto annexed (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheduled Treaty') which are hereby given the force of law, and if any provision of the said Constitution or of any amendment thereof, or of any law made thereunder, is in any respect repugnant to any of the provisions of the Scheduled Treaty, it shall, to the extent only of such repugnancy, be absolutely void and inoperative." I think it will not be denied that this Bill, if it becomes law, will be repugnant to some of the provisions of the Scheduled Treaty and, consequently, would be void and inoperative under this clause. The Constitution Act begins by solemnly declaring that "Dáil Eireann sitting as a Constituent Assembly in this Provisional Parliament, acknowledging that all lawful authority comes from God to the people and in the confidence that the national life and unity of Ireland shall thus be restored, hereby proclaims the establishment of the Irish Free State." It is not lightly that a legislature or a constituent assembly undertakes the work of making a Constitution, or, at least, it should not be lightly done, and it should not be lightly altered—that is to say, a Constitution so made should not be lightly altered. In the case in question we have a Constitution which is only to be interpreted with reference to the Treaty, and any law made within the powers of the Constitution which is repugnant to any of the provisions of the Treaty is void and inoperative. This section says that all references in that section of the Constitution Act to the Treaty mean to the Treaty as amended, leaving us in the position that the Constitution, which is supposed to be a stable instrument, the fundamental law, the basis of all other laws, while it is to be interpreted in the light of the Treaty and laws under it can only be made in the light of that Treaty. It is now proposed that we should amend the Treaty in such a way as is now indicated in this Bill, and so that the Constitution shall be read in the light of the new Treaty, and not the old Treaty. We are to have a variable, alterable instrument by which to test the Constitution, and it seems to me that the effect of that is to say that the Constitution does not exist. There is a consideration which I would like to put before Ministers and the House and it is: that if we proceed with this enactment leaving in the section, we are leaving ourselves in the position that at some future time, let us say after the eight years have passed, agreements might be entered into between two Governments, ratified by two Parliaments, radically altering the Treaty, and, though we have provided in the Constitution for references to the people in regard to any proposed amendment of the Constitution, the people would be debarred by means of an agreement between Governments and Parliaments from having anything to say. By this process you can alter the Constitution radically by merely altering, or making, a new Treaty. I say that that is in itself a violation of the spirit and purpose of the Constitution. It will be within the memory of the Dáil that the question of the method of changing the Constitution has already been considered somewhat lightly in this House, and it has been explained that certain judges and lawyers in high places have held that the clauses in the Constitution are such that for a period of eight years amendments to the Constitution can be made by ordinary legislation, and that that provision, as interpreted by these lawyers and judges, implies that any legislation within the period of eight years, though it be repugnant to the Constitution, shall be read in preference to the Constitution, because it has been passed by the process of ordinary legislation. As against that, Ministers have contended, and the President has said, that the Attorney-General refused to argue that case on the grounds that amendments to the Constitution must be explicitly and clearly stated to be amendments to it. That was the view taken by the House when it decided that the recent amendment to the Constitution should be by an Act designated as an amendment of the Constitution Act.
If this Bill becomes law in its present form we are putting ourselves in the position the British Parliament is in, that is to say, that the written Consituation really has very little validity as a Constitution—that it is not a constitutional document, that it is not a Constitution. It is an ordinary Act of Parliament which may be amendable by any other ordinary Act of Parliament. Let me give this illustration: Supposing that the Government here, responding to certain public opinion in this country, agreed with the British Government to introduce a Bill which in effect said that the right to establish and maintain a military defence force in Ireland is reserved to the British Government—I am putting that as a hypothetical case—and if certain agreements were entered into and ratified by the Parliaments, then the Constitution itself would have to be read in the light of those agreements. That would in effect be an amendment to the Constitution, because it would be an amendment of the Treaty. All the provisions within the Constitution make it difficult for amendments to be made in the Constitution; for instance, that 50 per cent. of the voters must vote, and that half of that 50 per cent. must be in favour of, or in the alternative that a clear majority of two-thirds of those who do vote—I think that is the provision—must agree. At any rate, the effect of the provision is that at least thirty-three per cent. of the voters on the register must record their opinion in favour of an amendment to the Constitution, which is to say that the intention of the Provisional Parliament was that there should be difficulties in amending the Constitution, that it should not be done easily and lightly. But by this process all that is required is an agreement between the two countries, that agreement to be ratified by the Oireachtas, and all the safeguards go by the board. I say that is a process which is very unwise if the Dáil has any regard for stability.
If this process is proceeded with and carried through, I suggest that the Dáil should bear in mind that it is a procedure which might be improved upon by other people with different views. If the Constitution can be lightly set aside, and the Treaty can be amended in this way and the Constitution thereby altered, then there are people with different views who can follow and better the example, and who will have a very good precedent to cite. I urge that this proposal in itself is a radical change in the Treaty, and we say it is in itself a refutation, a denial, a contradiction, of Article II. of the Constitution Act and that we ought not to put into this Bill a clause which says that all references in this Constitution Act to the Treaty shall be construed as references to the Treaty as amended by this new Treaty. If we pass it in its present form, then I urge that it simply means that the Constitution which we have been maintaining, and which is the basis of our legislation, is of no effect, that the pledge of faithfulness and allegiance to the Constitution is a pledge of faith and allegiance to something which is unstable and quite easily variable, and as a consequence there is no pledge whatever implied in Article XVII. It appears to me that in dealing with this matter the Government have taken the practice of the British Parliament as their guide, forgetting that we have by design a written Constitution. In Great Britain, of course, it is understood that no law can be rendered void because of previous enactments, that the present will of the legislature is the final court of appeal, that it is a Constituent Assembly continuing as such, and you cannot say that any particular Act of legislation is void because it conflicts with a previous Act. In our procedure we have said: Here is a Constitution Act, here is a Constitution; any legislation which is in opposition to that is void and cannot be carried through. The Ministers seem to me to have been following a procedure which would be valid if there were no written Constitution here, and to have quite overlooked the intention of the Constituent Assembly that this Constitution should be a fundamental document. I shall be interested to hear from the President or the Minister for Justice how he explains the contradiction between the Constitution Act, Section 2, and the contravention of a Treaty No. 1 by Treaty No. 2, and whether he considers that the Bill which we are now asked to make law will be valid in view of the contention in Article 2 of the Constitution Act that any such law which contains any provision repugnant to the Scheduled Treaty is void and inoperative.
MINISTER FOR JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)
It is true that, unlike Great Britain, we have a written Constitution. It is also true, as the Deputy has mentioned, that at the time when that Constitution was being enacted we were sensible enough to insert in it a clause providing for its alteration by ordinary legislation for a period of eight years. Article 50 provides:—
"Amendments of this Constitution within the terms of the Scheduled Treaty may be made by the Oireachtas, but no such amendment, passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, after the expiration of a period of eight years from the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution, shall become law, unless the same shall, after it has been passed or deemed to have been passed by the said two Houses of the Oireachtas, have been submitted to a referendum of the people ..."
Therefore, for eight years, as from the date of the passage of the Constitution Act, the Constitution may be amended by legislation passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Deputy knows that we have at no time taken the view that even within the eight years the Constitution may be amended by implication. Our contention is and has been that any amendment of the Constitution must be done expressly. And it is being done expressly in the case of this Bill which is under consideration. Section 2 of the Constitution Act provides that the Constitution must be construed with reference to the Treaty of 1921, and the effect of that is that the Constitution consists, in fact, of two documents—the Constitution itself and the Treaty of 1921, on which it is based and out of which it grew. The Treaty of 1921 is now being altered and, to that extent, the Constitution is being altered, and that being the position, it ought to be stated, having regard to our conception that the Constitution cannot be altered by implication.
The Deputy moves to delete Section 2 of the Bill under consideration—and that is the section in which the alteration of the Constitution is expressly adverted to—though he would probably admit that to whatever extent the Treaty of 1921 is being altered, to that extent the Constitution is being altered. It is simply a difference in viewpoint. We, holding as we do that the Constitution should not and, in fact, cannot be altered by implication, prefer to insert in this Bill an Article expressly stating that the Constitution must now be construed not merely in reference to the Treaty of December, 1921, but in reference to that Treaty as modified and amended by the recent Agreement, for which the endorsement and ratification of the Dáil is being sought. That seems to us the proper course. It is the course which we are advised to be the correct one in the circumstances, and, that being so, we are not accepting the Deputy's amendment.
The doctrine that the Constitution cannot be altered except by express legislation designed therefor, is, I think, common case. There is no member of the Dáil who will contest that, so far as I am aware. Furthermore, this procedure of altering the Constitution obliquely, by entering upon new terms of treaty and confirming them by a specific Act of Parliament, is perfectly legal. That, I think, also is common case. My quarrel with the Executive Council on this matter is not with regard to the legal procedure. I attack it on the ground of policy which, after all, is something much higher than mere legality, especially in regard to an infant State, as Saorstát Eireann has so frequently been described within this Chamber. I daresay that if I were to quote great authorities from centuries back with respect to the growth and character of responsible government I should be condemned as pedantic. Consequently, I will omit references that I might make to great authorities so far back as the 14th century. But the view expressed and acted upon frequently in European States may be put briefly in this way: that so long as the fundamental rights and powers of a people are dependent upon the will and the power of another Government they are not free. Test the application of that Constitutional doctrine by the present measure in regard to Article II. as framed here. We have a Constitution which is fundamental law. Any law passed here, any piece of ordinary legislation, is null and void, I take it, in so far as it is repugnant to the Constitution. But that Constitution becomes itself a variable instrument if procedure such as has been indulged in by our Executive Council is persevered in by their successors. It would always be within the competence of Gt. Britain to send a message to the Irish Executive Council that the Premier or President of the Council is required— that his presence in London is demanded—and then, under cover of some supposed danger, or because of some bargain that the British Ministry seek to enter into, the Irish Executive Minister in London puts his hand to an agreement; the agreement is brought over and the Irish legislature and the Deputies of that time—like the Deputies that surround me here—would be so much afraid of the consequences, so unwilling to challenge what the Executive Minister has done, would feel so irretrievably committed, that they would vote for it. What does that reduce itself to? That the British Ministry can, by pressure as in this case, in other cases later——
I should say that there has been no such pressure in this case, not has the incident related by the Deputy actually occurred.
I think I made it clear. At any rate, if I have not, with your permission, sir, I will repeat it, that I am speaking of what this creates a precedent for. I do not know what happened. Will it please the President for me to make the confession that I, as a Deputy, was left in hopeless and absolute ignorance of what the Executive Council were doing in our name? It was never disclosed to us. How were we to know? What I sketch is the possibility of this being a precedent to be followed by later Ministers. They go to London —are summoned to London. That does not mean that the President was summoned to London, because it is within the range of possibility that he went there voluntarily. But a future President or Premier of the Executive Council goes to London on the demand of the Prime Minister in London. A bargain is entered into. There is no way out of it. It has to be ratified in the legislative assembly. What then ensues? As the Minister for Justice has rightly stated, there are two elements in our Constitution. There are the plain articles of the Constitution and the enveloping condition of the Treaty, and, as this Section 2 of our No. 1 Act of 1922 declares, the Treaty is the all governing factor in the matter. If a British Ministry can at will—as I was saying when interrupted—by pressure or by other means, succeed in making an Irish Executive force upon a Dáil the acceptance of a new Treaty, then the Constitution is so far altered, and that means there is no Constitution. A variable Constitution that purports to be a written Constitution is a contradiction in terms. I alleged that in doing what they have done the Executive Ministry have destroyed the Constitution as an effective instrument—as the basis of our liberties here.
I quite agree with the Minister for Justice that, inasmuch as this Bill intends to alter the Constitution, it must mention specifically that it is altering the Constitution. Are these the only words, is that the only form of expression that can be used? I put our fundamental liberties above the mere question of legality. What is at issue in this point is the same thing over again as the Feetham award: a question of a legally constituted Arbitration Board finding in accordance with the terms of law its verdict——
Surely the Deputy is travelling very far from this particular section. We have agreed to the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee has agreed to Section 1. What arises on Section 2 is the question that Deputy Johnson has raised. The question which does properly arise is: is a consequential amendment of the Constitution necessary? Surely the Deputy, in fact, is going to begin a debate all over again as to why the President went to London. There is no other possible method of replying to Deputy Magennis and the Deputy must realise that.
I was practically on my last sentence, and I merely used it by way of illustration. I submit with respect that in discussing the point up to that I was quite on the subject of Section 2 and the amendment of it. My contention is that in altering—however, if you rule me out of order——
If the Deputy can give me any point I will consider it. Section 1 deals with the Agreement. That section has been carried. Section 2 deals, as is set out in the side note, with a consequential amendment of No. 1 of 1922 and the Constitution. Surely the question that arises is whether a particular agreement having been made, apart altogether from the circumstances under which it was made, this kind of section should go into the ratifying Bill? In my judgment Deputy Johnson's points were absolutely relevant to this particular section. I am at a loss to see what other points arise, but if Deputy Magennis can explain what other points arise——
If you declare that my contention is irrelevant, I submit. I would not dream of arguing with your decision.
I do not wish to interfere with debate. We are dealing with Section 2. I am prepared to hear the Deputy if he can convince me that other matters arise. This is a grave question and I would not dream of restricting debate if it were possible.
I am sure, sir, that you do not want to restrict debate. You have indicated that by your action in the Chair. I contend that Section 2, which substitutes the present amended Treaty for the Scheduled Treaty is doing something which in effect, as I argue, destroys the whole merit and value of the Constitution.
That argument is perfectly in order.
I submit with the utmost deference that I merely mentioned by way of side illustration, the Feetham Award, and I intended to finish by merely mentioning it and leaving it there. I have said all that I had to say on the matter.
I do not know what the value of a Preamble to an Act of the Oireachtas may be, but I assume it is of some value. The Preamble of the Constitution Act says:
"In the confidence that the national life and unity of Ireland shall thus be restored, hereby proclaims the establishment of the Irish Free State,"
and declares the Constitution. Thus by means of this Constitution, which is to be read in the light of the Scheduled Treaty, the Dáil declares that the national life and unity shall be restored. (By the way, I would like to point out that a little booklet, issued officially as late as October, 1923, states that this is the Constitution of the Free State of Ireland.) We proclaimed the establishment of the Irish Free State and enacted (1) the Constitution which is to be construed with reference to (2) the Treaty, and by enacting the Constitution, to be read in the light of the Treaty, we declare that the national life and unity of Ireland shall thus be restored. The Constitution sets forth in the First Schedule "shall be the Constitution of the Irish Free State." That is to be read or construed with reference to the Treaty. Now it appears it is not to be construed with reference to the Treaty. It is now to be construed with reference to another instrument or the Treaty as amended. It seems to me that that is a direct contradiction. The Minister says that this Bill, the new Treaty, is part of the Constitution Act, or rather is part of the Constitution and that the Bill or Act when it becomes law is to be treated as an amendment of the Constitution, specifically and clearly an amendment of the Constitution. Well, if that was the intention, it is a pity that the Minister did not introduce this Bill with a new title. That by the way. I think if the Constitution is to be amended by altering at stated intervals, or at any interval, or any time, the Schedule, that is to say, the Treaty, by the making of new Treaties, instead of making new Constitutions, we are setting a very bad example to our successors. I suggest that if the Constitution can be amended in this way that our allegiance to the Constitution has no weight whatever. It has no meaning, because those of us, at any rate, who came into the Dáil and declared our willingness to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution were declaring our allegiance to a particular document read in the light of a particular instrument.
Now we are to read that document in the light of a new instrument and we do not know where we are. I would like to understand what would be the demerit, what would be the loss, if this section were deleted? Would the Agreement have any less effect? Would the new Act have any less effect? I had hoped—but I have too much respect for the rules of order, and I felt that it would be probably disorderly and would not be accepted by the Ceann Comhairle—that the obvious course that we ought to take is to repeal all this latter part of Section II. of the Constitution Act of 1922, that is to say, that part which says: "and if any provision of the said Constitution or of any amendment thereof, or of any law made thereunder, is, in any respect, repugnant to any of the provisions of the Scheduled Treaty, it shall, to the extent only of such repugnancy, be absolutely void and inoperative," and so on. It seems to me if we proceed in this way we should repeal that part of Section 2 of the Constitution Act of 1922. I wonder would Ministers agree to any proposals of that sort? Ministers say that the present Bill is to be read as a Bill amending the Constitution. I suggest, to begin with, that it ought to have a new title, and that it ought to be put before the country as an amendment of the Constitution, not as an amendment of the Treaty.
Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 43; Níl, 14.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- John Daly.
- Máighreád Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
Níl
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Magennis and Morrissey. Motion declared carried.
Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill" put and declared carried.
SCHEDULE.
AGREEMENT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING THE ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT FOR A TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND TO WHICH THE FORCE OF LAW WAS GIVEN BY THE IRISH FREE STATE (AGREEMENT) ACT, 1922, AND BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE IRISH FREE STATE (SAORSTÁT EIREANN) ACT, 1922.
WHEREAS on the 6th day of December, Nineteen hundred and twenty-one, Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland were entered into:
AND WHEREAS the said Articles of Agreement were duly ratified and given the force of law by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and by the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act, 1922:
AND WHEREAS the progress of events and the improved relations now subsisting between the British Government, the Government of the Irish Free State and the Government of Northern Ireland and their respective peoples make it desirable to amend and supplement the said Articles of Agreement, so as to avoid any causes of friction which might mar or retard the further growth of friendly relations between the said Governments and peoples:
AND WHEREAS the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State being united in amity in this undertaking with the Government of Northern Ireland, and being resolved mutually to aid one another in a spirit of neighbourly comradeship, hereby agree as follows:—
1.—The powers conferred by the proviso to Article XII. of the said Articles of Agreement on the Commission therein mentioned are hereby revoked, and the extent of Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and of the said Articles of Agreement shall be such as was fixed by sub-section (2) of section one of that Act.
2.—The Irish Free State is hereby released from the obligation under Article V. of the said Articles of Agreement to assume the liability therein mentioned.
3.—The Irish Free State hereby assumes all liability undertaken by the British Government in respect of malicious damage done since the Twenty-first day of January, Nineteen hundred and nineteen, to property in the area now under the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State, and the Government of the Irish Free State shall repay to the British Government at such time or times and in such manner as may be agreed upon moneys already paid by the British Government in respect of such damage or liable to be so paid under obligations already incurred.
4.—The Government of the Irish Free State hereby agrees to promote legislation increasing by Ten per cent. the measure of compensation under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, in respect of malicious damage to property done in the area now under the jurisdiction of the Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State between the Eleventh day of July, Nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and the Twelfth day of May, Nineteen hundred and twenty-three, and providing for the payment of such additional compensation by the issue of Five per cent. Compensation Stock or Bonds.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
On a point of order, are we to take it piecemeal or as one?
As a whole. This Schedule is not subject to amendment either by addition or deletion. Therefore we take it as a whole.
With regard to the portion of the Schedule, Section 2, which deals with Article V. of the Treaty, I would like to be permitted to quote some further information on this transaction which we were fortunately in a position to get, because of the fact that we did not conclude the transaction so early as it was concluded in the British Legislature. Speaking on the Irish Agreement, the Earl of Birkenhead, in moving the Second Reading—I am quoting from the report in the "London Times" of Thursday, December 10th—said:—
"The criticism might be raised that Article V. of the Treaty had no relation to Article XII"—
It is probably within the recollection of the House that I did raise that criticism on Monday. Lord Birkenhead proceeded:—
"And that criticism was perfectly well founded. Was it seriously suggested that there was available in Ireland any sum of money which would afford ..."
—and then he mentions an extraordinary sum—
"—to this country."
He answers himself:
"The expectation was extravagant. We could have made Ireland bankrupt, but what advantage to us would be a bankrupt Ireland at our doors?"
Again further on, he says:—
"We as a nation were deeply affected by financial burdens and interests, but, nevertheless, we were a great, wealthy, resilient nation, and in dealing in terms of finance with those whom we were so deeply concerned to conciliate, we must think always in terms of national resources. No nation had permanently occupied a great place in history which could not subordinate questions of finance, however embarrassed its finances might be, to considerations of high policy."
Now there is the considered opinion of one of the signatories to the original Treaty, a man who, in the history of the boundary question, was known in his time as "Galloper Smith," the lieutenant, indeed the able lieutenant, of Lord Carson. Article V. had no relation to Article XII. That criticism is well founded. "No nation has permanently occupied a great place in history which would subordinate considerations of high policy to questions of finance." Does not that dispel the illusion that the Free State was in serious difficulties, and would be tremendously embarrassed financially by the operation of Article V. in the original Treaty. In a conversation over the telephone with a Press representative at 12.30 a.m., the terms of this new Agreement were communicated to me. I happened to recall what one of the negotiators at the time—he was then Mr. Alfred Cope, and is now Sir Alfred— said, to the effect that Article V. was never intended as anything more than eye-wash. The words were mine, not his, a paraphrase of his, for the British public, who, of course, would have been very much enraged by a settlement of the Treaty if they believed that money were not forthcoming. We must remember to read documents in the light of the thought that was current at the time they were framed. We insisted on that always until now, with regard to Article XII. I would ask the House to remember the same thing in construing Article V. That was composed for a purpose. We all remember Mr. Lloyd George's promises to the British people that he would rake every pocket in Germany. There were two promises on which he went to the electorate and got their support—one was to hang the Kaiser and the other to rake every pocket in Germany. The whole cost of the war, he told the British people, would be defrayed by Germany, and England would not have to contribute one scintilla. In the same spirit Article V. was composed. We were assured at the time—some of us, at any rate, were assured at the time— that it was, what I call for brevity, eye-wash. What did Lord Carson say about that? He wrote an article in the "Sunday Times," in which he repeated that it was eye-wash. What did he say in the debate in the House of Lords? "In regard to finance he was never in the least taken in by Clause 5, under which we were to get a large contribution from the Free State. That clause was mere window-dressing." The reporter adds "Hear. hear." The quotation continues:—"He agreed it would have been impossible ever to get a penny of the money."
These two contributions from British statesmen are very illuminating and very informative, and yet we are asked to believe here that this dreadful burden of financial debt uncalculated, and almost incalculable, was over the heads of the Free State so that its borrowing powers were practically reduced to nil. Now that bubble is burst. That is due to the fact that we here, before the thing was completed, had got what the views of British statesmen were on the subject. If it were not for this Document I should be told here when I state that Article V. had no relation to Article XII. in the original Treaty, that that was mere moonshine. Is it moonshine when you hear it disclosed by those who ought to know? Now, it has been impressed upon us again and again here—I think the Minister for Finance told us and I took a note of it at the time—that our Ministers snatched at the opportunity to settle the claim under Article V. That is an admission that there was a bargain, and that our Executive Ministers conceived that the transaction on our part was a bargain in which they were getting a good thing. We know that at any time, if Article V. had been approached, this great nation whose tradition of statesmanship is so high would never have allowed financial considerations to outweigh policy, and that it would not enforce that: that all the time they were well aware and fully conscious that the thing was there simply to satisfy the English mind.
After the bargain was made.
Deputy Sears says after the bargain was made. Now, there is an exhibition and a manifestation of this wonderful amity and friendliness which has sprung up and which is referred to so eloquently in the Preamble.
What is the relevance of that?
I would remind the House that once upon a time there was a Provisional Government. The President was then Minister for Finance, and when I raised a question about arrears of income tax due to the British Government a debate ensued on it, and after an interval the President came to this House and assured us that anyone who paid arrears of income tax paid it to the Free State revenue, and that no claim later would be made about it. Was not that a financial understanding between the rapacious British Government and the poor little Free State?
You never forgave us for that.
I do not quite see the point of that observation, but I am sure it is very pointed if one could only see it. Article V. had no relation to Article XII.! But our negotiators had given it a relation, because they asked the Irish public to believe that it was by surrender on the boundary that they got these magnificent terms. Our credit, I have already admitted, in the financial world required undoubtedly that there should not be hanging over our heads even what I described myself as shadowy liabilities or obligations. Therefore, I do not dispute the advisability of coming to a settlement under Article V. That is not part of my case. I contend that, in the light of these revelations, a good bargain could have been struck at any time, and that the bad policy of the matter is to select this moment for it as it gives the impression of being the price at which our nationals are left under British control in Northern Ireland. That is not good policy; that is not what the President describes as the result of bringing to bear on the matter all the statesmanship they possessed. Where is the statesmanship in that?
Now, as regards another portion of the schedule, the statement about the friendly relations, we have seen the declaration of his Lordship the Bishop of Down and Connor. If I may be permitted, I would like to read a comment on that and amplifying that quoted from the "Derry Journal" in the "Irish Independent" to-day:
"The grievances of the Catholics in the Six Counties which Most Rev. Dr. MacRory, Bishop of Down and Connor, drew attention to on Sunday are also emphasised by the "Derry Journal." There are places in the Six Counties, it says, where Catholic Emancipation is not yet felt in full measure. The Nationalist minority, more than 30 per cent. of the population, lived under a wholly Unionist Government. The Cabinet, the Judiciary, the whole machinery of the State was completely in the hands of the Unionists. It adds: For any position of trust or emolument in the service of the State no Catholic need apply; indeed so axiomatic is this that both the privileged Protestants and the outlawed Catholics have both come to regard it as a common-place of life—a thing as natural as the movements of the stars in the heavens. Was it no grievance, it asks, that the Nationalist majority of Derry has been jockeyed, gerrymandered and cheated out of its civic rights by a specially designed Act of Parliament? By a piece of calculated trickery a minority in Derry had been enabled to dominate a majority of the population. The Nationalist majorities of Omagh rural district, Dungannon town, and other centres have likewise been placed under the rule of a minority by a disgraceful system of representation that made one Unionist vote equal to two or three Nationalist votes. The journal draws attention to many acts of bigotry, and says that in view of these facts, which could be multiplied, it can only regard Sir J. Craig's recent speech as what Lord Carson would call ‘eye-wash,' and adds: we assure him that we shall not ‘rule the book' until he delivers the goods and gives Catholics not words but deeds and proof of his change of heart."
The question that is embodied in this has been a matter of public discussion for a long time. On September 14th, 1923, a certain newspaper which has considerable influence in respect of this subject printed the following. It is headed, "Mr. Cosgrave's Argument." It is not a quotation from anything that the President said, but it is an argument as written by the journalist himself of what Mr. Cosgrave's argument would be, judging, presumably, by his published or private statements. Bear in mind the date, September 14th, 1923—
"Our aim is the unity of Ireland based on good-will and the mutual advantage of all parties concerned. Getting a bit more territory or even a couple more counties into the Free State is, therefore, of no interest to us unless it is really to be a prelude to the incoming of the rest. If the forcing of the Boundary issue were to result in our acquiring two counties, but made the remaining four more than ever determined to maintain their isolation, we should consider ourselves losers and not gainers thereby. At the present moment we see no likelihood of grabbing Tyrone and Fermanagh in any circumstances, and even if we could persuade the British Government to force Ulster to hand them over, it is only too obvious that the other four counties, so far from following suit of their own accord, would make every conceivable effort to make partition permanent. All of which being the case, let us see whether we cannot get something worth having out of the British Government in return for our relinquishment of the Boundary Clause of the Treaty.
"The British Government have sold us somebody else's cow. When that occurs in private life the vendor is mulcted in damages. Let us collect damages from the British Government. Only two clauses of the Treaty remain unfulfilled. One is the Boundary Clause and the other is our agreement to assume a fair share of the war debt. If we play our cards well, we should be able to set one off against the other, which will put £10,000,000 per annum into the Free State's pocket."
As things have turned out that was a good prophecy, except that the estimate of the sum was a little bit exaggerated, perhaps not so exaggerated as may be thought. It was a good prophecy of the arguments now being used, but not used at that time, of course, because this is the invention of the special correspondent of the "Morning Post" in September, 1923. I say it was a fairly good prophecy of the attitude that would be taken if the President were allowed. It is an argument prefaced by the statement that "Mr. Cosgrave and his colleagues fully appreciate this position"—the position being that the Coalition Government did not put anything down in writing. But a slight rectification of the Boundary as some fondly imagined could not be anybody's interpretation of Article XII. of the Treaty.
"Mr. Cosgrave and his colleagues fully appreciated this position, and as fully realise that the Treaty was an agreement made between the Irish Free State and Great Britain and that Ulster was not a party to it. They are not, however, all at one in their view of how the situation should be best taken advantage of. The most reasonable and at the same time the most sensible view is taken by President Cosgrave and Mr. Kevin O'Higgins. If pressed to formulate it they would do so something after this fashion."
Then follows the argument I have read.
That correspondent must have had a very deep insight into the minds of the President and the Vice-President when more than two years ago he was able to prophesy almost exactly the argument that would be used in December, 1925. I am glad to see the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs here. I am going to put to him a certain speech he made on 3rd January, 1922, on the Treaty debates in the Dáil.
"The alternative for a Republic," he said, "for three-fourths of Ireland was the unity of all Ireland, and you (the Anti-Treaty Party) could never get that unity you insisted on. A Republic would definitely alienate the North-east Ulster corner and divide our unfortunate country into two separate and distinct areas, and into two races for all time. That is the programme that you have brought forward."
Even without a Republic, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is supporting this thing which he derided in 1922. He said:—
"I hold that Ulster is the very important clause of the Treaty which we consider, and to this our opponents have not in any single instance given any consideration. Had I believed that this Treaty would leave Ireland as a permanently divided nation I would vote against it."
Now he is voting for it—permanently dividing the nation.
No, not by any means.
I want to ask Ministers, in view of the position in which they are placing us, what is the interpretation of Paragraph 2 of these Articles of Agreement?
"The Irish Free State is hereby released from the obligation under Article V. of the said Articles of Agreement to assume the liability therein mentioned."
Article V. says:—
"The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof and towards the payment of war pensions."
There is a certain misapprehension in the public mind, judging by certain comments I have read, that the Public Debt of the United Kingdom referred to was the Public Debt relating to war pensions and the war debt, but Article V. says: "The Public Debt of the United Kingdom at the date hereof." Now, the Public Debt of the United Kingdom included liability for Irish Land Stock, and I want to ask Ministers whether this is a renunciation or release from the obligations under Article V. to pay anything towards that portion of the Public Debt, or rather, shall I say, whether there is any obligation to hand over to Britain any portion of the moneys collected for land purchase annuities?
There is.
That is part of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as at the date of the Treaty, and if this Bill passes in its present form I have no doubt that Ministers or their successors will so interpret it that that liability will no longer be paid.
No, that is not so.
Is it "the Public Debt of the United Kingdom at the date hereof"? Was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland responsible for the payment of interest on Land Stock or not? Was that a public liability? Was that a charge upon the Public Debt?
I want to ask, if it is allowable, whether Ministers, in making this Agreement to amend the Constitution, as the Minister for Justice has explained that this is an amendment of the Constitution, thought it worth while to discuss with the British Government Article LXI. of the Constitution? It will be remembered that that Article was discussed in the Constitution debates, and Ministers assured us that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could not be appealed to on any matters except matters of constitutional moment, and that probably they would not be appealed to more than twice or thrice in a century.
Is, the Deputy referring to Article LXI.?
Yes, sir. I am referring to the Schedule, and the Schedule is an Agreement to supplement and alter the Treaty, and therefore the Constitution.
Yes, but what Article of the Constitution?
Article LXI.
I think it is LXVI.
Yes, I beg your pardon.
That is even further away from the subject.
I am raising this point because it surely is a matter of moment as regards the relative positions of Northern Ireland and the Free State with respect to Great Britain, and inasmuch as decisions have been made touching the rights of citizens in the Free State, it might have been well considered as a matter for re-arrangement in any alteration of the Constitution.
On a point of order. In the discussion of this Schedule, is it in order to exhaust all the topics which might well have been considered when this Agreement was being arrived at, or which, in the opinion of Deputies, might well have been considered? Are we, in short, to confine ourselves to the actual contents of the Agreement which is scheduled to this Bill, or are we to travel over all the ground that, in the opinion or judgment of one Deputy or another, might have been traversed or ought to have been traversed or could have been traversed when the negotiations were proceeding?
I think we are plainly confined at this stage to what is in the Agreement. Questions of the negotiations and alternative agreements, and so on, arose, as I think I explained at the opening of the proceedings to-day, on the Second Stage. They do not arise now. That, I think, is plain. It is plain, because if one matter which is not in the Agreement can be discussed on the assumption that it might have been in the Agreement, then any number of matters might be discussed, and there would be no finality.
On the Agreement itself, the proposal is, as has been said so often, to sever the country. Definitely, and, as I believe, for a very long time, until a new revolution takes place, either constitutionally or unconstitutionally, by, shall I say, constitutional methods or by unconstitutional methods, by following the example of the Government in this way, changing the basis of our existence, or by force, the two parts of the country will be severed. It is being done by way of getting out of the grave difficulty into which the makers of the Agreement on the Free State side brought us. They came back with an Agreement which is approved of as some great triumph because they have barely saved their skins. I repeat that this Agreement which, I believe, will be disastrous and not beneficent, is not likely to be improved until that radical change to which I refer has taken place in the constitutional position of either the Northern people or the Free State people, whether by revolution by force, or by revolution through Parliamentary methods. I think there can be no unity in the country by this method. I think, on the contrary, that all the forces of Government and the influences of administration will be more and more towards disseverance. We have already seen in the course of the last three years that there has been the setting up of Northern Committees and Councils, of organisations which were hitherto unified. We have seen in many cases the actual severance of these social economic organisations. We have seen Trade Unions, Friendly Societies, professional organisations, having to recast their rules and constitutions because of the existence of different laws, different administrations.
There are going to be established, stabilised and fixed these new Governmental and administrative influences, conserving influences of the new forces, the establishing of vested interests under the new methods. Every factor, as far as I can see it, is going to move against unity, and nothing, except this one proposal that the Executives will meet to discuss matters which affect the two parts of the country, is going to be used, so far as the Ministries can effect it, towards unity. Legislation and administration will certainly tend to harden the Northern people against unity with the country as a whole. Those people who have been advocating, very enthusiastically advocating, and insisting that the Irish language should take a prominent place in the education system are going to find just the opposite influences brought to bear on the children of residents in Northern Ireland. That again is going to be a distinct influence against unity. The whole of the Agreement in my view is bad, because it is going to tend against unity. There may be clauses in it that could be justified if taken alone. The whole of the Agreement, the bargaining that has taken place, the surrender, as Deputy Magennis states, that has been made, is a surrender on the part of the Free State, and all the gain and none of the "give" has been on the part of Northern Ireland.
The President charges us with having taken a line which will militate against unity and tend to irritate and destroy any hopes that he has had and that others have had. I do not believe anything that has been said here will have any such effect. Certainly nothing I have said had any intent of that kind. I hope that all that has been done and that is being done will be undone at some time in the near future. I hope that new influences will be brought to bear on the politics of Northern Ireland. My faith in that is very small. I know how strongly entrenched in the political councils in the North the enemies of Irish unity are. The only hope that I can have is that other influences, may I say Labour influences, will by their contact with their fellow-workers in the Free State, at some time in the not too distant future, come into power and possibly they may be mollified and that that section which is liberal-minded and has some thoughts of "Ireland" will prevail. My faith, as I say, is very weak, but I will retain some hope. I would perhaps now say that as I view it the dominant political influence in Northern Ireland is in Belfast, and the dominant interest in that dominant portion of Northern Ireland is the interest of the shipbuilding and the linen industries. Those interests have their eyes outside of Ireland entirely. They bring their raw materials from abroad and they send their finished goods abroad. If Ministers are relying on the possibilities of trade interests, economic factors, weighing with the predominant political influence in the North, then I am afraid that their hopes are based on very unstable ground. However, the deed is about to be done. My mind at any rate is satisfied that I have done what I could to prevent its confirmation.
I conclude that we are discussing the whole Schedule and that I am entitled to ask for some elucidation as to certain legal points in connection with the draft of the Schedule which I raised on Second Reading, but which were not answered on that occasion. I would, therefore, like to ask the Minister for Justice a question, seeing that he is a legal authority in this matter and one of the signatories to this Treaty. I would add that I am afraid to ask the President, as any question I might put to him might be answered, as was a suggestion of mine not very long ago, that as my contribution to the establishment and to the defence of the State is of no value whatever, I have no right to ask him any question. I would, therefore, like to ask the Vice-President if he could explain the draft of the beginning of the Schedule, namely, the inclusion of the term "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty"? The Treaty of 1921 has been registered with the League of Nations as a Treaty between Ireland and Great Britain. As I understand it, a certain Lionel Curtiss, boon-companion and fellow-conspirator with Mr. Justice Feetham, invented this term, "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty," because it was considered by the British Government in 1921 that if they signed a document called a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland and that that document was not ratified by the Dáil, the British Government would be placed in a worse position than before by having concluded a Treaty and therefore partly recognised an Irish State which according to the actual terms of the Treaty would not be recognised until the agreement had been ratified by the Dáil.
took the Chair.
For that reason, this phrase. "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty," from which it is quite obvious there was the intention of making a Treaty, were employed at the head of the document which happened to be signed in December, 1921. Since then, that document has always been referred to as a Treaty. It has been registered at Geneva as a Treaty, and I see no reason why in this Agreement—made four years after the signing of the Treaty—the words used should be "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty," which would imply that there was still the intention of making a Treaty, but that the Treaty had not yet been completed. That is the first point I desire to raise. The second point is purely legal. It is stated in the Preamble to the Schedule that the Treaty was given the force of law by a British Act of Parliament. As I understand, the Treaty, so far as this country was concerned, was given the force of law by Dáil Eireann. Even if this phrase were included in the preamble or in the title of the Agreement, there should also have been included an addition setting out that, so far as Ireland was concerned, the Treaty was given the force of law by Dáil Eireann, and not by Act of the British Parliament. Those are the two points I wish to raise. I hope the Minister for Justice, as a legal authority and as one of the signatories to this Pact, will be able to give us some explanation on these points.
Deputy Johnson's hope in the ultimate unity of Ireland to-day is a very palsied one. The brightest hope for the ultimate unity of Ireland must come from faith, and I would suggest to Deputy Johnson that he should try and recover his faith in a unified Ireland. He has just now handed himself over to the enemies of the language and what they stand for —he has delivered himself into their hands—by his statement that the continuance of the educational policy recently subscribed to by the Dáil is going to be an obstacle on the road to the unity of Ireland. I am satisfied that he did not mean to do that. I am satisfied that when he considers the matter further, his faith in what the language stands for, so far as the country and the unity of the country is concerned, will increase. Whilst I was discussing with one of the Secretaries of State in Washington some weeks ago some of their problems there arising out of the very diversified character of their people and the effect on their social life and industrial life, he turned from the consideration of his own problems, and, hitting the table, said, "Keep Ireland Irish." If you are going to have a people whom you can energise and direct, a homogeneous people with traditions that you can appeal to to energise them in the work of building up their nation, leave nothing unkept that you can keep to do that. That was his meaning when he said, "Keep Ireland Irish." If we are going to solve our national problems, including the problem of the unity of Ireland, we can do nothing better than take the advice of this American statesman, who knew little about Ireland and had no Irish connections, and set ourselves to making Irish life in the twenty-six counties that we have jurisdiction over as intensely Irish as we can make it. If we are going to attempt to do that, without paying attention to our language, or if we are going to leave anything undone that can keep us our language and all that it stands for, then we are going to fail to keep Ireland as Irish as we can keep her, and in the measure that we fail to do that we are going, in my opinion, to fail in the achievement of Irish unity.
Returning to Article V., there is one point which I reserved for special consideration. In that Article it is stated that the financial settlement should be made "having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter-claim." Now, in the schedule, Section 2 purports to release the Irish Free State from the obligation under Article V. of the said Articles of Agreement. One of the points which, repeatedly, I have had to weary this House in pressing on its notice was the debt on University College, Dublin, arising out of its building. That building debt, which presses very heavily on the institution——
Is this in order?
In what way does the Deputy connect the debt on University College with the matter under discussion? I cannot see the connection.
You cannot, for the most excellent reason that I have not advanced to my second statement. I can only mention what I am going to deal with. I cannot deal with it first and mention it afterwards.
I submit it is not in order.
That is for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to decide. I say that one of the just claims of Ireland as a set-off is the debt due on the building of University College, with regard to which we have had to press the Ministers for Finance here repeatedly and that is one of the grievances of University education in Ireland——
I submit this is not in order.
Surely the fact that Article V. of the original Treaty speaks of calculations by way of set-off and that here Article V. is wiped off the map entitles me to point out one of the consequences to Irish finance. The Government here will have to undertake that liability——
I submit that this is not in order.
The debt on University College, Dublin, is not now an international question.
Then I will put it without any specific reference at all. I will put it as a supposition. If there were any just claim that ought to have been considered as a set-off and that Article V. is now waived aside, does it not follow rationally that that just claim, whatever it is, will have to be dealt with by Irish finance?
Does the Deputy contend that we could have received money under Article V.?
With all respect to Deputy Cooper, I do not raise these small points at all. I contend that the words in Article V. regarding a set-off refer to what is meant in ordinary life as a set-off or counterclaim, and that there is nothing mysterious about them. However, as the President is so anxious to cloak it from the public view, I leave it there——
I must ask you to withdraw that remark. It is an altogether improper remark.
Which remark is improper?
The statement that the President wants to cloak this matter. I have ruled that that reference to the debt on University College is not in order, as it is not now an international question.
I never contended it was.
The reference by the Deputy to the President cloaking the matter ought, I think, to be withdrawn.
In the light of that ruling, may we bring up to-morrow a list of the other things which the Deputy might withdraw?
That question does not arise at the moment.
With regard to the appeal of Deputy Mulcahy he puts his ultimate hope of the realisation of our national aim, the unity of Ireland, not upon anything in the schedule but upon what he is pleased to call "faith." Faith is the evidence of things not seen. I never realised so thoroughly before that that is what faith is as I do now.
Some people look upon faith as that thing which makes you work.
Faith, how ever, is defined by a much higher authority than Deputy Mulcahy——
We are a practical people.
It is defined, as I have stated, by the Scripture. We are a practical people and the Scripture is unpractical. Very good! Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Deputy Johnson spoke my mind with regard to what will be the trend of Ulster in the future. "We are," says Deputy Mulcahy, and I echo and "hear, hear" it every time, "to make Ireland as Irish as we possibly can." That was the specific or recipe given to him by an American who knew that America had racial problems of its own. Yes, but America's problems are all considered under Federal Government. There are States with their internal sovereignty but they are under Federal Government. Here we have racial and language problems with regard to a divided country under two separate, distinct Governments with no points of contact whatever, except what meetings may take place, not between the peoples and their Parliaments, but between their Governments. Ireland's aim— I mean again the Irish Free State: I am always forgetting that this Treaty is almost as good as amended—is to make the Irish people as Irish as they can possibly be made. Do we not know that the people of the Six Counties will be made as English as they can be made? Is that his idea of the machinery for bringing the two peoples together—one people whose majority are filled with racial pride, who have always treated the Nationalists and Catholics when they had the opportunity pretty much as the nigger was treated in the Southern States of America——
I was going to say that if Deputy Magennis can see no connection now between the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six Counties but whatever meetings the Governments may have, I understand some of his difficulty.
It has been ruled by the Ceann Comhairle that we are only to deal with what is before us. What is before us is this Agreement. There is nothing in this about the future unification of Ireland except that the Governments may come together with regard to certain problems. I may as well give the exact words:—
"The powers in relation to Northern Ireland which by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, are made powers of the Council of Ireland shall be and are hereby transferred to and shall become powers of the Parliament and the Government of Northern Ireland; and the Governments of the Irish Free State and of Northern Ireland shall meet together as and when necessary for the purpose of considering matters of common interest arising out of or connected with the exercise and administration of the said powers."
Deputy Mulcahy apparently ignores that the one little element of unification which survived is done away with. Those powers are transferred, and now the only link, if link it be, and I do not regard it as a link, is the meeting occasionally of the two Governments, but we are to be inspired with a holy faith that, notwithstanding the division to which this Dáil sets its hand, there will be a unity some time because of some agency, we know not what. Surely the whole tendency of the Northern people, or, at any rate, of its majority, will be away from the Free State. It is an area in which economic considerations count for much. They regard our nationalism as so much sentiment, as weakness and a mark of the unpractical nature of the southern mentality. If the great industries of the North, Deputy Johnson mentioned two. There is a rope factory in Belfast, one of the biggest in the world. There is a flour-milling industry, one of the biggest in the world. There is a vulcanised-material industry, one of the largest enterprises in the world. Raw materials for all those things come from abroad. All the financing that has made Belfast what it is, came largely from Scotland. All the aid, by way of subventions and subsidies, has come even in recent years from Great Britain. Is anyone such a visionary and a dreamer as to think that with all that tendency of centuries——
What about the Council of Ireland?
One thing at a time is quite enough for one to deal with. I say, when you have set those two countries apart without any machinery for bringing them together, the tendency is away and away from the South. There are districts in Switzerland where there are notices forbidding one to laugh or shout under the pain of a fine. Why?—because the slightest vibration will disturb the air and precipitate an avalanche. Once the collective masses are set going nothing will stop them. Something similar is provided for here. Deputy Mulcahy forgets the important point that when he talks of keeping Ireland Irish he is really talking only of twenty-six counties, and is willingly surrendering six counties to further and permanent Anglicisation. That is what it amounts to. I wonder am I in order? It seems I am constantly out of order because I cannot state the end of my argument as the first sentence, nor can anyone else who follows an argument in its rational course do anything but begin at the beginning. With regard to this question of the boundary difficulty, it is also dealt with in the schedule under Section 1. We are constantly twitted that we have no constructive proposals to make and never had anything to say that was helpful (hear, hear).
I shall, with the permission of An Leas-Cheann Comhairle, answer the "Hear, hear." There was a time when we were assured by our leaders that all was well, that a Boundary Commission set up under Article XII. would decide in favour of what we were looking forward to. The President, whom I regarded as our leader, repeatedly declared that he would abide by the decision. I interpreted that to mean that he had full confidence in the successful result. When the hour came to alter the Treaty, in order to allow Great Britain to nominate the third Commissioner, I proposed to the President, through the Executive Council, that in view of the propaganda in circulation in England to affect the minds of the Commissioners, a new situation had been created very dangerous to our hopes and wishes, and while, in the first instance, it would have been perfectly irregular for us to declare our interpretation of the terms of reference, that that course had been forced upon us by the action of the British Signatories, by the British Press, and by that social exchange which we know counts for so much in English society. I proposed that we should accompany the passing of that identical legislation with a resolution declaring our minds. Here is the resolution as it was returned to me. There is not a comma, not one iota, altered, not even the folds of the paper. Internal evidence will show the date on which it was written:
"Whereas since the first reading of this Bill recognised leaders of public opinion in Great Britain, including nearly all the British Signatories to the Treaty between that country and Ireland, have insistently claimed that the only admissible interpretation of Article XII. of the Treaty limits the function of any Boundary Commission acting thereunder to the mere rectification in minor respects of the border line created between six counties of Ulster and the rest of Ireland by the British Statute of 1920; and whereas this division of the area of Ireland, a nation one and indivisible, was decreed by the British legislature in arbitrary disregard of the protests of Irish Nationalists and Irish Unionists alike; and this artificial line of demarcation was drawn in direct contravention of those principles invoked for the settlement of Europe by the British in common with the representatives of the Associated Powers at the Peace Conference of Paris and without resort to a prior plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the peoples affected; and whereas the Irish Signatories of the Treaty from the first hour in which they recommended its acceptance, proclaimed without correction or demur on the part of their British co-Signatories, that Article XII. was intended to secure to our people in those Six Counties the right to choose their way of life and obedience; and the majority of the Irish people approving of the Treaty as so interpreted made an incalculable sacrifice of blood and treasure to maintain it; and whereas while we approve the policy which by the grant of ample local autonomy aims at the ultimate reconciliation of the malcontent minority resident in the north-east angle to the recognition of Ireland as their State we repudiate the pretensions of any Government to force out of vital communion with the Irish State a population which vehemently desires incorporation in it; accordingly we accompany our passing of this measure, a Bill to implement Article XII., with the considered statement of our conviction that the interpretation of the Article which British publicists have recently put forward is forced, perverse, and vicious."
Now let us imagine a resolution in terms similar to that passed as our declaration, along with our promise to England to nominate the third Boundary Commissioner, could that debacle happen which did happen? Would it be possible, I ask any reasonable man, that weeks and months should roll on and the question of the exact terms of reference never be raised? That forced to the front what were the terms of reference, what was the Boundary Commission to decide. There is a further point with regard to that, but as perhaps it is beyond the ten minutes stipulated, I may leave it over for a further stage.
I have no particular desire to appear as a special champion of this Agreement, but I do want to do any thing I can to keep what we have. We had a time when certain people in the beginning of 1922 in regard to the Treaty said that it would not bring peace, and they saw very definitely that it did not bring peace. Now we have another Treaty, and some people begin by saying that it will not bring unity, and I want to try and see that they will not arrive at the position in which they will see that unity does not come. Deputy Professor Magennis really becomes the great partitionist, because he tells us to keep our eyes on that little spot and that little line, the Council of Ireland, which is the only connection between the North and the South. It now becomes less and less. It is a matter now of meetings between the two Governments. That is the only connection between our people in the North-east and those of us in the South. Anyone who adopts that particular line of argument becomes a great partitionist. It was earlier in the day that Deputy Magennis told us, in regard to the situation, that policy is much higher than legality, especially as regards an infant State such as the Saorstát has been called. He asks us now to depend entirely on less even than legality. Surely he does not ask us to shut our eyes to the miles upon miles of border alongside of which pass daily hither and thither our Irish people? Surely he does not ask us to shut our eyes to the fact that there is organised labour in the North connected with organised labour in the South, in which Deputy Johnson has some hope? Surely he does not ask us to believe that there becomes to-day an impenetrable wall which will not only blot out the vision of the Irish people, one from another, but blot out, as he wants us to blot out, any faith among the people on one side of that wall in the people on the other side, or any faith that the work of those in improving conditions here will have an effect on the people on the other side? The Irish people living in the Twenty-six Counties, or in the Six Counties, cannot hide themselves from one another, and cannot prevent themselves influencing one another. If we have any faith in the spirit of our country, people cannot help being Irish, and the great partititionist is one who would ask us to shut our eyes on one another, to have no faith, and simply to watch the vanishing spot which is supposed to be the only connection between the Six Counties and Saorstát Eireann.
I would like to assure Deputy Mulcahy as to my position and our position in this matter. If this Bill becomes law, we shall continue in the future as in the past to endeavour to bind the people of the two parts of Ireland into one, and not to break them apart more than they are already broken apart. We in the Labour movement have kept our organisation as an Irish organisation. It is the "Irish" Labour Party and the Trade Union Congress. We had our annual meeting last year within the six Northern counties, but let me point out that with every month that passes the difficulties are greater and greater because of new legislation, because of different administrations, because of different bases on which the laws affecting the two countries are being made; it is becoming more and more difficult to maintain that unity, and with this accomplished the tendency will be more and more apart. Deputy Mulcahy contended in the last part of his speech that because there are Irish in the North and Irish in the South unity must be maintained. There are probably more Irish in England than in Ireland, and more Irish in America than in Ireland, but does the Deputy suggest that there will be political unity, and that there is a united country between England and Ireland, because of the fact that the race of origins is the same? That cannot be the contention. The fact is that political influences have overridden the social and even the industrial and economic influences. Political influences are paramount, because they are directed to diversity, and not to unity. We can see from our own experiences what is likely to happen.
We will, I believe, have within the Free State a body of opinion which, on the plea that it is necessary to bring about a unity of North and South, will urge and influence Governments here to conform in their legislation and administration to the desires and wishes of the Northern Government and Parliament, and the Northern people; to become less distinct, to conform, as I say, to the desires and wishes of the North in regard to policy and, I say it without any offence or suggestion of an unpleasant kind—of the sort that Deputy Hewat and Deputy Good would urge, to modify and moderate what I might call the national purpose with a view to that kind of unity to which the North might be inclined to accede. That will be one tendency, and then we will have the other tendency, the party following the line adopted by Deputy Mulcahy who would like to make the Free State intensely Irish. You will have in the North, I think inevitably, a minority movement, either open or subterranean, having certain Irish instincts and purposes which will try to deflect politics from that of the majority. Whether it be open or underground agitation, I think that is inevitable, and it is most undesirable, but in view of all that has happened in the country, I believe we are walking into it with our eyes open, and politics is going to be for a long time, I am afraid, and I am sorry to think it, a question of pro-Union and anti-Union with the North on those lines—pro-Irish or anti-Irish in the North. I can see no hope of unity on these lines, and yet I feel that to be the inevitable tendency of politics in both parts of the country.
Deputy Esmonde has asked me some questions, regarding which, no doubt, he hopes for an answer. I do not know to what extent it is wise to encourage the Deputy to make a selection of the person from the Front Benches who is to answer a particular question. I am not aware that I have earned any notoriety for soft answers which would encourage him to do so.
It was only comparative.
He raised two matters. He queries the description of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty which appeared in the Bill. It is, of course, the name of the document referred to, and if the Deputy will refer to his copy of the Constitution, with the Treaty Schedule, he will see that the Treaty is headed "Articles of Agreement for a Treaty." That is the name of the document, and what we needed in the Bill was the actual name of the document, and there was no advertence or wish to advert to the purport or effect of the instrument; so it was purely just a question of choosing the name. The words were inserted for the purpose of identifying a particular document. His other point is simply, I think, the result of an oversight. If he will refer to the Act No. 1 of 1922 he will see there in Section 3 that this Act may be cited for all purposes as the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act, 1922, and the Treaty was in fact given the force of law by a particular Statute of the British Parliament, and by that Act of ours, No. 1 of 1922, which endorsed——
The Irish Free State Agreement Act is not an Irish Act.
No, that is a British Act; but speaking in terms of this Agreement made between the two Governments you referred to the Treaty having been given the force of law by an Act here and an Act there, by an endorsement and ratification on each side of the Channel and by the two Parliaments, just as this Bill which we are now discussing and considering will only become valid and have the force of law when it is ratified by the British Parliament and the Oireachtas on this side. It is the same way with the original Treaty securing the force of law. There were other matters touched upon by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Magennis, and I do not know whether they call for any particular reply. They are really simply a re-hash of the material they treated us to on the Second Reading.
The land stock is not a re-hash.
I have tried hard to hold on to the facts of this position in the face of the blizzard of words that we are being subjected to. Deputy Johnson drew a picture of one area moving steadily and swiftly away from another, and I suppose it would never occur to him to consider that all these arguments would apply, and some people might suggest would apply a fortiori, if an award of the Boundary Commission, which we would consider a favourable award, a substantial fulfilment of our hopes in the matter, had been issued, and had gone through with a greater or less degree of friction and dislocation. Up there you would have an area, smaller, no doubt, standing out from your State system, containing a smaller proportion of Nationalists—a more homogeneous area, a more embittered area, because of the loss of territory and the friction that there had been in the course of the transfer—and all these terrible things, which Deputy Johnson has suggested are now going to happen, might be said to be even more likely to happen in the case of that more compact, more homogeneous, more embittered area which would still be standing out from your State system after the Boundary Commission had done its best for you. Even assuming that it accepted your interpretation of its terms of reference, all these things would be so, and so, as one might suggest, a fortiori. If what Deputy Johnson forecasted, and what Deputy Magennis re-echoed, is so, is it because of the following circumstances? Is it because approximately 20,000 people, who a fortnight ago seemed likely to pass to our jurisdiction, seem now less likely to pass, and because 7,000 people, who seemed likely to pass from our jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the Northern Government, seem now less likely to pass? Is it because an unknown liability, about which one might speculate, seems likely to disappear, and because it is proposed to substitute for this truncated, lop-sided Council of Ireland, meetings between Ministers, meetings between Governments? If the things which he forecasts are true, if his forecast is sound, then does it come down to this? That the things are true and the forecast is sound because of the circumstances which I have recited. It does not seem to hold water.
The Deputy, I think, was drawing on his temporarily gloomy imagination, and he was reciting certain fears and forebodings and, rather stretching things. He was attributing all these fears and forebodings to certain facts which can be very simply stated. If this Northern people that we have heard talk about for some days past are the very hard-headed business type of people that we are so frequently told they are, is the release of this State from a liability which has been variously estimated, ranging from £19,000,000 a year to £5,000,000 a year more or less likely to attract them towards some kind of political union, if not now, in the future? Assuming that there was no such agreement as this, and that Article V. remained, and in due course went to arbitration, and that a sum of X millions—the Deputy may have his own figure in mind; anything he likes: thirty millions, forty millions, fifty millions, sixty millions— was awarded against this State, would the mere fact of this State's inability to meet that award be an all-sufficient answer if the legal award was there against it? Would not the mere fact that such an award had been made have some reaction? Would it have any reaction, for instance, when we go, either at home or abroad, on the money markets, seeking to raise a loan for one constructive purpose or another, or for the relief of unemployment, in which Deputies opposite are quite naturally intensely interested? Would it be an attraction for this hard-headed commercial Northern people to come into a State with that kind of liability after its name, supposing it were unable even to commence to clear it off?
It may be that on reflection, and when the blizzard of words dies away, the Deputy will see that this Agreement, in fact, so far from postponing political union, so far from creating an atmosphere or a set of circumstances detracting from the prospect of political union, has, in fact, created a situation more helpful to that desideratum. He may lament the elimination of an irritant. He may have his own idea as to the precise value which the casting out of Article V. of the Treaty has. But when he will ponder over it all, and have a look at the other side of the shield, have a look at what the position would have been, say, even under a favourable award from the Boundary Commission, and considered how much nearer that would have brought us to the hoped-for objective, he may decide that, after all, in spite of the heat and intense emotion which he and others have displayed, there is another side to the question and another side to the shield.
I just want to add a few words. British Ministers have been quoted here in a reverential way by Deputy Magennis—the things they said in the House of Lords; the things they said in the House of Commons: "Now the cat is out of the bag," and the newspaper is produced and the ipse dixit quoted. I have only to remind Deputies that the things that have been quoted are the words of British Ministers facing their Parliament, explaining, expounding and defending the elimination of this financial Article from the Treaty which they concluded with Ireland in 1921. We have got to ask ourselves whether British Ministers, pushing their claim before arbitration, if Article V. had remained and had gone to arbitration, would be likely to say the same things in the same way. It is not really just as powerful an argument as it looks to come in here and say that the Earl of Birkenhead, in the House of Lords, had deprecated any great attention being paid to the financial aspect of this Agreement; that there was really nothing in Article V.; that we would never have been able to pay.
I have tried to point out that quite apart from our ability to pay, the mere making of an award against us under that Article would have rather serious reactions. What it comes down to is this. The Executive Council is sought to be indicted, is bitterly and meanly, at times, criticised for what? Because of its inability to compel a majority of the members of the Boundary Commission to bring in an award after our own heart, or in accordance, if you like, with our own view as to what was involved by the terms of reference. I say our own view advisedly and with emphasis, because it is not a new thing, not something sprung on us, that there is another conception of what was involved by these terms of reference. Right back, almost to the week in which the Treaty was signed, certainly back to the month in which it came before the British Parliament, there has been evidence of a very definite conflict of opinion, a very definite divergence of view as to what was involved by that particular proviso. It has been there all the time. It has been, of course, propagated and advocated on one side through all the channels at their disposal and with all the resources at their disposal, through the big influential newspapers, and so on. At any rate, it is not news nor a surprise to us that it is there. The Executive Council is criticised and indicted because of its failure to compel—I will not say to induce—the majority of the members of the Boundary Commission to accept their particular view as against a rival view. I think that will not stand fair examination.
resumed the Chair.
You did not say that in August, 1924.
No; why would I at any time have advocated any other conception than our own conception? That is not a fair taunt. It is a taunt the Minister for Industry and Commerce dealt with.
The Minister has misunderstood my point. That argument was stated by me when you were setting up the Boundary Commission and you refuted it on other grounds.
Arguments set up by the Deputy when we were setting up the Boundary Commission were no doubt countered and are on a par with this. Would you have exchanged Article XII. for Article V. before the Boundary Commission was constituted? No, a thousand times no. We would not have had the right. As long as there was a real prospect or a real hope or chance of the interpretation which is and has been our interpretation being given to the Terms of Reference and relief forthcoming from that Commission for large Nationalist communities presently within the NorthEastern enclave, we would not have a right to set off one Article as against another, even though the material or financial gain might be there by so doing. But it is another thing when those hopes are gone, when a particularly narrow and restricted interpretation has been placed on the terms of reference and the relief whittles down to a matter of 20,000 people going one way and 7,000 going another, when there was grave prospect of trouble all over that Northern area arising from the publication of that Award, and the creation thereby of a particular legal position. It was another thing then to say that it was not good finance and business calculated to promote the ultimate unity of the country to set off one Article against another. That was a very different situation. This is an old story, and it is worn threadbare, and when gibes and taunts are passed as if the Treaty put a pencil into the hands of this Government to draw a line after its own heart or into the hands of our representative on the Commission to draw a line after his own heart, it is necessary that there should be some comment on the futility of that particular kind of argument and the unsoundness and the untruth of that particular kind of argument. “Failure,” we are told, “blunders”—bosthoondom, a Deputy called it—of being unable to compel Mr. Justice Feetham or Mr. Fisher, B.L., to take a particular view of the terms of reference as against the rival view. If it were to be all done over again, with whatever wisdom and experience we have acquired within the last year, if we were faced with the situation anew, I honestly do not see what thing that we have done we ought to leave undone, or what thing we have left undone we ought to do in this whole matter. The difficulties of the last fortnight which had to be faced in a particular way, and of which this Agreement seems to us to be the only solution, were more or less inherent in the position, and if there is one consideration that seems to me to stand out from the whole thing, it is that this State and this people have good reason to congratulate themselves on having emerged so satisfactorily from such a difficult position and from a position which had such grave possibilities.
I am not going to follow the Vice-President in his argument, because I appreciate the fact that everything on both sides has been said in this matter. I want to say on my own behalf with regard to the Schedule before the Dáil that communion with myself and with others during the week-end makes me feel more strongly that my point of view holds good still. I want to make my protest against the statement of the President to-day with regard to opposition to this measure—at least, as far as I am concerned. I want to say that I think it was unworthy of the President to make charges against Deputies. I speak for myself in opposing this measure. After all, while the Press may be at liberty to do that sort of thing—and we have heard the President himself saying in the Dáil that the people of the country can read between the lines of what they read in the daily Press, and perhaps we will probably have the President saying that again in the Dáil before another month—when it comes to the President of the Executive Council making suggestions about Deputies' motives in a matter like this, I think it is hardly fair. Deputies have their responsibilities in this matter just as well as the President and every member of the Executive Council, and it is the right of Deputies in the Dáil to give expression to their opinions. When they do that candidly and openly it is the right of the Opposition to reply. They have had their chance. They have had their opportunity and I have no doubt they feel they have suitably replied. My motive in this matter has been perfectly honest. I protest against the statement of the President to-day. With regard to what is contained in the Schedule, part of my protest against this Bill was that, with regard to our Nationalist population in the North-east corner, we have nothing definite written into the Bill as to what their position is to be in the future. There was a suggestion, I think, on the part of the Vice-President that there were certain things that were not in this, but we were not told what these were in reality or what they might be in the future. At the moment I have in mind the position of Northern Nationalists, and I think I am within my right in drawing the attention of the Dáil to it now, inasmuch as I think we will not be in a position to discuss that in the Dáil at any future period after we have disposed of them by the passing of this measure.
It is known to me that a number of our Nationals in Northern Ireland, during the terror here—a number of them, I say, I can recall a half dozen of them—have had their property destroyed. A half a dozen of these cases have been brought to my notice, men whose property was destroyed and who sued for compensation. In the Northern Courts of Justice it was decided, in a very short period, that inasmuch as the destruction of their premises was a military necessity, they were not entitled to get any compensation whatever. I have one case in mind where the value of the destroyed property put up by the claimant was about £20,000. I have another case of £12,000, and a couple of other cases of £6,000 and £7,000. The position these people occupy to-day is the position of the refugee, driven from Northern Ireland without any home and without any compensation. No citizen of Saorstát Eireann is in a similar position to-day. Regardless of what side they might have taken in the fight, they have been compensated or they will be compensated. But our people in the North of Ireland are in a different and very difficult position, I suggest.
It seems to me that this is a matter that cannot be disregarded by the Executive Council or by the Dáil. These people stood for Irish Nationality under great difficulties. They fought their fight and they lost. I hold that they have the right to compensation that has been conceded to every citizen here in the Saorstát. I say it is the duty of the Executive Council to see that compensation is given to these people, and that they are treated in a manner that will be fair, just and equitable. It is up to us, I think, if the Dáil is going to declare that for some time to come these people are to be left to the tender mercies of the Northern Government, who so far have failed to recognise their just claims, to see that we shall not and must not take up the same attitude in this matter. I hold there is a grave and serious responsibility on the Executive Council, particularly on the men who negotiated this Treaty to which they are asking us to agree.
I think I am perfectly within my rights in bringing this before the notice of the Dáil. Although we have no written guarantees in this Bill as to what treatment our people are to get in the North, we are asked to believe that things will be better. Well, we hope that they will be better. There are times when there must be something even more positive than a mere expression of hope of better things for the future. Unquestionably there is a responsibility on the Nationalists of Ireland to see that the people who stood up for Nationality under very great difficulties in other parts of Ireland are not now going to be let down.
I want to refer very briefly to one Article of the Schedule which has not received from the Dáil the attention it deserves. On the Second Reading I called attention to Article IV. I refer to it now again. The Ministers, in the course of their replies, have not, up to the present at any rate, given any satisfactory explanation as to why this Article appears in this particular Agreement. The President, and, I think, the Minister for Finance also, referred very briefly to the point that was made about this 10 per cent. being increased in the matter of these payments, and they said they felt that they had drawn the provisions of this particular Act very tightly. They thought at the time when they were bringing that Bill before the Dáil that perhaps the sums that would have to be paid in compensation under it would be much larger than what ultimately transpired to be the case. Therefore, it was necessary for them to be particularly careful in making the provisions of the Act as tight as possible.
I submit that that kind of argument would be perfectly legitimate, perfectly reasonable and understandable, if we had the President, or the Minister, coming here to introduce into the Dáil, of his own free will and volition, an Act to revise this Damage to Property Act. There has been no explanation given as to why it should enter into this Bill as part of this Agreement. Why should it enter in here? On various occasions we have revised Acts in the Dáil when we found from experience that it would have been better if they were passed in a different way. There was nothing, so far as I know, to prevent a similar thing being done on this occasion, if the reasons were such as were put forward by the President. Seeing it here in this Agreement, knowing the history behind the movement, as I mentioned on a previous occasion, and the agitation that was carried on in England in the columns of the "Morning Post," the "Daily Mail" and other newspapers, it is a different matter. That agitation was carried on with the intention of showing that we had been unfair to certain classes of people in this country in our legislation. When one remembers that, and then finds this Article in this Agreement as part of a bargain, one cannot help feeling that the other signatories to the Agreement did ask and did insist that such legislation should be promoted in the Dáil. If that were so—and it will require some other explanation than what the President has given us to convince me that it was not so—then it looks very much to me like unwarrantable interference in our internal affairs on the part of the British Government. These are our people. They are under our jurisdiction, and I do not see why we should be asked, and why our Ministers should be asked, to bind themselves to the British Government to promote legislation which is entirely concerned with internal matters and the internal affairs of our own country.
The point was made by one or two speakers that nothing was done and nothing was written into this Treaty with regard to special concessions for our Northern Nationals. I think the reply to that given by one of the Ministers was that, although no such thing was written in, these things would come in the course of good-will; that it was an agreement between friends, and there was good-will presumed on all sides; that these things and these concessions that one would naturally look for would come as a matter of course, and would arise out of this friendship created. Might not one say equally well that this legislation would have been promoted out of similar good-will? Are we to conclude that Great Britain insisted, on behalf of her own special class that she was interested in, that it would be written into the Agreement in black and white, and that we were so trustful that we did not insist on any such action as this? Now I think we should be told definitely if this legislation was such as the Minister says, and if the Minister felt that it was such, why should he have thought it necessary to write it into this Agreement? The Minister was perfectly free to come to the Dáil and to make the case that he felt in the circumstances should be made, and then there could be done what was right and fair; but why was it necessary to write it into this Article when the bargain was being made? I think it is necessary for the Minister to explain that to the Dáil.
I will take the last point first. Before I went to London I had received many representations about the compensation which had been awarded. Those representations were to the effect that the compensation, generally speaking, was not as good as had been given under the Wood-Renton, or the Shaw Commission, as it was called. I had visits from some people, and in one particular instance I had a deputation from people who made a very strong case in respect to the compensation that had been awarded to them, and which, if the works that they proposed were to be carried out, would impose a very heavy burden on the business community. I refer to the O'Connell Street area. I saw the Minister for Finance on this matter before going to London. The relation between this and the Agreement is a simple one. Unless Article V. were out of the way, I would not have felt justified in making such a concession as this, even though there was the difference between the awards made in respect of damage done since the 11th July, 1921, and the 12th May, 1923. With Article V. out of the way, there was a case for such a concession as this. Deputies know quite well there was a difference between the sums awarded by the Wood-Renton Commission and the awards under our Act.
As regards the case mentioned by Deputy Baxter, that certain people in the North have not got compensation, although they suffered heavy loss, I admit that is so. I have heard of some cases, but the fault cannot be shelved by those people on us. After all, civilisation provides certain means for ventilating grievances. If people nurse their grievances, keep them to themselves and endeavour to throw the responsibility on the shoulders of those against whom they wish to make some political charge, no good purpose is served. With that procedure compare the businesslike procedure of other people who had complaints. Many complaints in the case of other people were grossly exaggerated. At any rate, they found some means of ventilating their grievances. They formed an association to deal with their cases and they concentrated on having public attention focussed to their claims, including the people in England, and, I suppose, also in Northern Ireland. They got sympathy.
Now, what was done by the people to whom Deputy Baxter refers? Do they expect to be spoon-fed all their lives? Is it not only fair that they would make up some sort of organisation and concentrate upon showing definitely to the world that they were not fairly treated? I mentioned that on one occasion to somebody who came to me from the North. I said this agitation that was going on in England was to a large extent a political agitation against us and was directed towards charging us with not having given sufficient compensation for loss sustained and for loss suffered by the people. There is a case there in the North and those who are our friends could at least say: "This is not the fault of the Government of the Irish Free State alone; it can also be alleged against somebody else." Nothing, however, was done.
We cannot manage to remedy the ills of everybody in every part of Ireland. People ought to try and help themselves a little bit in those matters. Probably half a dozen cases were brought to my notice. I expect that in some of those cases there were some exaggerations, just as there were some gross exaggerations in other cases. People made complaints of being badly treated by us and they complained of our Act being badly drawn.
In some criticism regarding the law passed here it was alleged that under the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Code which was in existence prior to some amendments that were made to that Act in, I think it was, 1919-20, compensation would be paid for consequential damage. That is not true. Consequential losses were compensated in one case illegally. A decree was given for consequential damage in another case and it was reversed on appeal. I think it was Lord Justice Holmes was the judge who reversed the appeal and I believe the last holder of the office of Lord Chancellor here, Sir John Ross, expressed himself very strongly on the point that it was illegal to give a decree for consequential loss. But because one illegal decision was given on that, we were pilloried for having excluded it from our compensation.
Those are the two principal matters referred to in the last two speeches. I had intended to refer to the 10 per cent. increase. Article V. still remaining undetermined, no accommodation whatever would have been given by us in respect to the Damage to Property Act. I hope that point is clear and understood.
I must confess the President has not satisfied me on this point. He has shown a relationship between Article V. and the increase of 10 per cent. that I quite accept. In other words, Article V. being out of the way, there was a case for a revision of the Damage to Property Act.
Yes.
There was a case for the President to come to the Dáil, assuming Article V. were passed, and this agreement had gone through, and point out that now that Article V. was out of the way and they knew what commitments they had to meet, they could afford to be somewhat generous. I want to know why he thought it necessary to embody that definite promise in this agreement unless—I put the question to him—the British, as a condition of getting Article V. out of the way, insisted on it.
No; that was my offer.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I cannot understand why the offer could have been made either to the British Government or to the Northern Government when it was a case where our own people here, for whom we have the right to legislate, were involved. The President could have come quite legitimately to the Dáil and said: "Now that Article V. is out of the way we will have a more generous Act to meet the cases of hardship that have been put up to us." It does not satisfy me that it was necessary to put this in unless the explanation is, and the President denies this, that the British or somebody else insisted that it should come in.
Numbers of cases have been reported to us. Many discussions have taken place as to the alleged sufferings of certain loyalists under the awards that have been granted by the Courts. Other cases have been reported to me, but, as I have already said, it was apparent to me that in one district alone the burden falling upon these people, after they had got their compensation, was rather more than they could be reasonably expected to bear if the State were in a position to come to their assistance. Now, the State would not have been able to come to their assistance unless we got accommodation in other directions, and the accommodation we have got is in connection with Article 2 of the Agreement. As regards what Deputy Baxter and others said, there were three speeches delivered here this evening. The three of them certainly hurt me very much, more in respect to what was said about other people than what was said about myself. I do not mind much what anybody says in connection with anything I do. It has no effect on me absolutely, but I do feel it when a reference is made to other people, and I felt it more particularly in respect to other people this evening. I did feel very keenly the expression "fraudulent" used by Deputy Magennis, and I also felt rather keenly what Deputy Esmonde said when he belittled some of the documents that we have produced here—the terminology that is in them. Now, we have always taken the most extreme care to have these documents drawn with a view to preserving the integrity of our position—never by word or deed or act or anything else to give away a single iota of the position that we got when the Treaty was taken over. That has been our aim and our intention, and allegations of fraudulency against those who do their best in connection with public business do not come well certainly from a member or a past member of our own Party. If I said anything which gave offence, apart from the repudiation I gave to those charges and allegations, I regret it, but I desire to say that I resent the remarks that have been made, not as far as I am concerned myself, because I do not mind what allegations are made personally against me, but I do when they are made against others, some of whom are dead. I think it is unbecoming that these things should have been said.
I am not satisfied with what the President has stated with regard to the first point that was raised. He admits himself that this matter has been brought to his notice. I take it that we will be practically finished with this position when this Bill is passed in the Dáil, but we are not finished with the position of a number of people who stood for Irish nationality in the North of Ireland, some of whom are now refugees in other parts of the country and who have lost their property through the law as it stands in Northern Ireland. They have not been able to get any compensation whatever. The position is that they are without home or compensation. Now are we going to disregard that fact? Is the attitude of the President this—that inasmuch as these people have not organised to do something for themselves, as he says— people some of whom are not able to go back to their homes and who are refugees at the moment in other parts of the country—that they are to be left in that position? What could they do by way of organisation when they were up against a Government and against the law that denies them any consideration whatever? Are we to adopt the attitude that that law is fair and just, and are we to make no effort on their behalf? Are we to absolve ourselves from all responsibility in the matter and accept the attitude of the Northern Government towards our nationals as being right, or are we to do anything about it?
I raised this matter on Second Reading, and the President's reply seemed to me to be a most extraordinary one. The President's idea seems to be because those people were unable, or because they were not organised, and not shouting their grievances from the house-tops and were not able to get the service of the Press, because they had not the "Daily Mail" and "Morning Post" to proclaim their grievances, they are not to be considered. Surely the President knows these people are scattered, not only over Ireland, but over England and Scotland as well. I know some cases where these people are hard up, and not able to get enough to eat, and surely they cannot be expected to obtain the same publicity for their grievances as the loyalists were. I thought the President had admitted that.
I must have some evidence of an organised case. That is not for us. They have representatives of their own who should raise this in another place, and it is not really a matter that I would be entitled to take up on the evidence before me. Three or four cases of hardship have been mentioned. I know of several cases of hardship amongst our own people in which I am not able to do anything.
This is plainly one of those things we ought not to discuss upon this Schedule. As a matter of fact, I think it would be a quite fair ruling from the Chair, seeing that we have passed Section 1, to say that the Schedule cannot be discussed when a motion is made that the Schedule be the Schedule of the Bill. I did not rule that way, because the Bill is one of a remarkable character, and I allowed Deputy Baxter to put a question as to the Northern Nationalists because of the extraordinary circumstances, but it is not in order. It is plain to everybody that it is not in order as well as it is to me.
There is, I submit, a point in regard to the promise, on the part of the Government, in respect of its own nationals, calling forth reciprocal action on the part of another party to the Agreement. That is the point which is made, and it seems to me that the President has not made it plain. If it is not in order to deal with the matter I will not pursue it. But when there are two Articles to the Agreement which is in question, not merely empowering but binding the Free State Government to do certain things in regard to compensation, when that is the agreement with another Government which is in the same position, or should be in the same position, regarding its citizens, then the discussion of reciprocity in the matter might be allowed.
It was allowed on the Second Stage, and it was in order on Section 1. As a matter of fact, no discussion whatever is in order on the Schedule, and, plainly, if the question of reciprocity and the question of what ought to be in the Schedule, as contrasted with what is in the Schedule, which has been agreed to by the vote on Section 1, were in order there would be no finality at all as to what could be discussed.
Question: "That this be the Schedule to the Bill," put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 58; Níl, 15.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- John Daly.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Michael Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- William Hewat.
- Connor Hogan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Risteárd O Conaill.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhair O Conghaile.
- Máirtín O Connalláin.
- Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Nicholas Wall.
Níl
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- David Hall.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Magennis and Morrissey.
Motion declared carried.