The Treaty Debates | Explore the Debates

Explore each day's debate on the Treaty

Introduction: The Second Dáil

In May 1921 elections were held for the two parliaments that had been established under the Government of Ireland Act 1920. There was no polling for the Southern Parliament, where all candidates were unopposed, with 124 Sinn Féin Members and four independent unionists returned. Sinn Féin did not recognise the new Southern Commons and established the Second Dáil, which was attended by those elected for Sinn Féin in the South and in the North. Although six Sinn Féin candidates had been returned in the North, five (Michael Collins, Eamon de Valera, Arthur Griffith, Seán Milroy and Eoin MacNeill) had been elected to both, while one, John O’Mahony, was elected to Fermanagh alone which meant the Second Dáil had a membership of 125.

Éamon de Valera addressing the Second Dáil, 23 August 1921 / Spaarnestad Photo collection

The Second Dáil convened on 16 August, a month after the Truce, with a fanfare that contrasted with the clandestine meetings of the previous two years. The First Dáil had led a largely furtive existence, meeting only occasionally, often in private houses, with many Deputies on the run or imprisoned.¹ The Second Dáil held its first public session in the Round Room of the Mansion House, where cheering crowds met the Deputies’ arrival and that of President de Valera who was escorted by hundreds of Volunteers.

The Second Dáil had before it some important business: to discuss the recent talks that had taken place with the British Government, to agree on a response and prepare for negotiations on an agreement between Britain and Ireland, including who was to go – and crucially who would not go – and their instructions. This discussion on negotiations was, naturally, of the utmost sensitivity and so these debates took place in private over seven sittings which began on 18 August and ended with Dáil Éireann’s ratification of the delegation on 14 September 1921. The Dáil did not meet again until after the Articles of Agreement were signed in London on 6 December, after which it met to discuss the agreement’s approval.

---

¹ Dáil Éireann, which had first met on 19 January 1919, was declared an illegal organisation on 12 September 1919. It met only a handful of times thereafter, mostly in a large house in Mountjoy Square owned by Alderman Walter Cole, in Flemming’s Hotel in Gardiner Place, owned by Seán O’Mahony TD, as well as the Oak Room of the Mansion House.

Day 1: Wednesday, 14 December 1921

Public and private sessions

Members of the Second Dáil were cheered by an earnest but restrained crowd when they arrived at Earlsfort Terrace to discuss the Treaty before they were to vote on a motion in the name of Arthur Griffith:

That Dáil Éireann approves of the Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed in London on 6 December 1921.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 14 December 1921

The Council Chamber filled with Deputies at one end and some 100 newspaper men and women from titles at home and around the world at the other. The unenviable task of chairing proceedings went to the Deputy for the Derry City and NUI constituencies (one of five TDs to represent constituencies on both sides of the Border), Professor Eoin MacNeill, who had been elected Ceann Comhairle, or Speaker, in August. Faced with unclear parliamentary procedures and inexperienced Members, combined with high stakes and often fraught nerves, MacNeill did his best at what he described as a “troublesome and tiresome” job. To one side of him was de Valera, who sat with Stack and Brugha, facing Griffith, Collins and Cosgrave on the other side of the room.

Eoin MacNeill, Ceann Comhairle, arriving at Earlsfort Terrace / Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland

At 11.35 a.m., the clerk called the roll and prayers were said by the chaplain, Rev. Dr. Browne. The first bone of contention was whether the Dáil should meet in public or private, Waterford Deputy Vincent White having proposed private sittings because Deputies would be more likely to speak freely.  Some, including Michael Collins and Cathal Brugha, favoured public sessions but eventually the House agreed to Richard Mulcahy’s amendment that the Dáil debate the merits of the Treaty in public session and its genesis in private, in a session expected to conclude that evening.

"De Valera argued that the Treaty represented voting away Ireland’s independence and since Dáil Éireann had no authority to do so, it was ultra vires."

In the afternoon, the Dáil discussed the instructions given to the plenipotentiaries and whether they had exceeded the mandate given to them by Dáil Éireann during its private sittings in August. De Valera argued that the Treaty represented voting away Ireland’s independence and since Dáil Éireann had no authority to do so, it was ultra vires. The meeting continued for hours in chaotic fashion. Despite the Speaker’s assertion that he was chairing with a rod of iron, the business of the session was unclear. Collins, among others, complained it was impossible to speak without interruption, and at least one Deputy complained that the Dáil had wasted practically the whole day. By the conclusion of proceedings, at 9.30 p.m., no progress had been made.

Day 2: Thursday, 15 December 1921

Public and private sessions

When the Dáil went into private session at lunchtime on the first day, the President, Eamon de Valera, had indicated that it would last for the afternoon and that public session would be resumed the next morning. In fact, the Dáil continued in private when it met at 11 a.m. on Thursday and continued in private for two more days, resuming in public only on Monday, 19 December.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 15 December 1921

The discussion on the credentials of the plenipotentiaries continued from the previous day with much debate on what documentation from the Treaty negotiations should be distributed to the Members. An ad hoc committee set up to decide which documents would be put before the House had made its recommendations but now there were demands that Robert Barton’s notes be circulated, along with debate on their status. This discussion was followed by brief statements from the plenipotentiaries, which quickly degenerated into a sharp to-and-fro about their credentials. Then the debate took a distinct turn.

Robert Barton, second from right, with other members of the delegation that negotiated the Treaty / Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland

Although the substantive matter before the Dáil was the adoption, or otherwise, of the articles of agreement signed in London, de Valera had come up with a plan to “counter Treaty with Treaty”. Quickly christened Document No. 2, it was a hastily drafted compromise that was similar in many ways to the Treaty but rather than envisaging Ireland as part of the Commonwealth, it proposed that its relationship with Britain and the Commonwealth be one of “external association”, a concept de Valera famously illustrated using a diagram of circles that touched rather than intersected.

"By the evening, tensions were becoming more apparent, with testy exchanges between Erskine Childers and Arthur Griffith prompting an appeal from the Speaker to avoid division into hostile camps."

De Valera was followed by Seán T. O’Kelly, who supported the document in the hope that it might save the country from “the consequences of a Parnell split or worse”. In a lengthy contribution from the floor of the House, however, the Speaker, Eoin MacNeill, was adamant that the only matter on which the Dáil could vote was whether the articles of agreement that had been signed in London were agreed.

By the evening, tensions were becoming more apparent, with testy exchanges between Erskine Childers and Arthur Griffith prompting an appeal from the Speaker to avoid division into hostile camps. George Gavan Duffy proposed that the Dáil continue in private session for another day as its aim was to clear the air and, as many had not yet spoken, the air was not clear yet. Others were conscious of time. James Dolan was frustrated at the aimlessness of proceedings and argued that the House should sit in public so all Members could say why they would or would not support approval and then vote accordingly. Griffith agreed: “If we defer our decision beyond Saturday at the latest you will have trouble in the country. I think we will have to hold a public session on Saturday. If we go over the week-end people will get impatient and they will cry out why has not the Dáil been able to make up its mind.” Instead, the Dáil agreed to meet again in private the next day and consider the confidential documents that were to be put before it.

Day 3: Friday, 16 December 1921

Private session

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 16 December 1921

The Dáil was 40 minutes late beginning its business on Friday, as it met to consider eight documents. Most related to the negotiations, namely:

• Credentials of plenipotentiaries, 7 October
• Instructions to plenipotentiaries, 7 October
• Memorandum by the Irish representatives, 22 November
• Memorandum by the Irish delegates, 28 November
• British proposed articles of agreement, 2 December
• Secretary’s notes of Cabinet meetings of 25 November and 3 December
• Amendments by the Irish representatives to the proposed articles of agreement, 4 December
• Robert Barton’s notes of two sub-conferences, 5–6 December.

Members were anxious that the documents should remain safe and confidential. Each copy had to be signed for and returned lest it go astray; no notes were to be made of their contents and they were not to be brought outside the Council Chamber. Deputies were compliant, leaving reporters to complain of their general disinclination to pass information to the press. Erring on the side of caution, however, Desmond Fitzgerald issued an order to the republican police not to allow the pressmen beyond the lower hall because, when they wandered the Earlsfort Terrace corridors, they could not but overhear what was being said.

Desmond Fitzgerald / Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland

Before starting the third day’s business, there were efforts to put manners on proceedings. A suggestion was made that speakers from each side would give their names to the whips, who would give them to the Speaker to be called on. At that point, not all Members knew who the whips were. Moreover, it raised the question of whether Deputies were expected to take sides in advance. As Dr. Patrick McCartan observed, “Are there Whips this side of the House and that side of the House? I feel there are plenty like myself who do not belong to either side.”

The housekeeping disposed of and the documents distributed, debate resumed, this time largely on the matter of the oath. Cathal Brugha’s contribution when he criticised the delegation met with angry responses from Griffith and Collins, with whom relations had been poor for some time. The Speaker’s patience had worn thin and Brugha’s tone proved too sharp, prompting MacNeill to warn against a split. “Aren't we wasting our time with a lot of nonsense?” he asked, appealing for respect. Several opponents of the Treaty protested that MacNeill had overstepped his position and after that he ensured his deputy was in the Chair when he thought his contributions would veer too far into politics over procedure.

"As Dr. Patrick McCartan observed, 'Are there Whips this side of the House and that side of the House? I feel there are plenty like myself who do not belong to either side.'”

Later, Seán MacEntee, who was from Belfast and was a TD for Monaghan, spoke at length, his contribution notable for his focus on Ulster and partition, a subject that was largely absent from the debates before or after. MacEntee was also unusual in that he referred to the debates on the Treaty that had been taking place in parallel in Westminster. While the Dáil continued its discussion, on this day, the House of Commons voted by 401 to 58 to present an Address to the King approving the Treaty. The same address passed in the Lords three days later, although it was 13 March 1922 before the Act, 12 Geo. 5, c. 4, which actually ratified the Treaty, was passed by the British Parliament.

By the close of the third day, matters had not progressed far and the confidential documents remained largely unread and undiscussed, making a further day of private session necessary. Several Deputies were worried about the public which had been kept largely in the dark about proceedings to date, prompting a proposal that the President and Collins, as head of the delegation, would issue a joint statement to reassure the people on the developments, or lack thereof, in Earlsfort Terrace. Eventually, the House adjourned at 9.50 p.m amid laughter at WT Cosgrave’s suggestion that the Dáil adopt an American fashion where the members of the Senate or Congress hand in their speeches so they may be read by whoever wishes to read them. “Have we any chance of getting that done here so as to save some time?”

Day 4: Saturday, 17 December 1921

Private session

On the fourth day of sittings, the newspapers published a joint statement from de Valera and Griffith that Saturday’s private sessions would be the last and that the motion on approval would be taken up in public session on Monday.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 17 December 1921

That very little progress had been made over 18 hours of debate was obvious when proceedings began with further discussion on the powers of the plenipotentiaries and whether the Dáil had the authority to adopt the Treaty at all.  Soon, however, attention turned to the question of what would happen if it failed to come to an agreement and whether it had the capacity to carry on fighting what Kevin O’Higgins described as “intensified war”. General Seán MacEoin, who spoke as a “plain soldier who realises what it is to be at war”, put it bluntly: “if England goes to war again she will wipe all out as she was prepared to wipe out in the latter end of the late war”. He was far from alone in suggesting this. MacEoin took issue with the claim of the Minister for Defence, Cathal Brugha, that the Army was at that point much stronger than it was before the Truce. Seán Etchingham, a hardliner, remained unmoved, stating “I may be a die-hard, but it is better die hard than soft. Terence MacSwiney died hard; he was over ninety days dying. What did he die for? Did he die for this thing that is before us?” MacSwiney’s sister, Mary, answered that he had not.

"All six women Deputies – MacSwiney, Clarke and Pearse along with Madame Markievicz, Dr. Ada English and Kate O‘Callaghan – opposed the Treaty."

This was the dividing line of the debate for much of the rest of the day. As well as hearing from MacSwiney, the House heard from Kathleen Clarke, whose husband, Tom, and brother, Edward Daly, had been executed after 1916, and Margaret Pearse who said she “would be haunted by the ghosts of my sons”, Patrick and Willie, were she to vote for the Treaty. All six women Deputies – MacSwiney, Clarke and Pearse along with Madame Markievicz, Dr. Ada English and Kate O‘Callaghan – opposed the Treaty.

Kathleen Clarke, Countess Markievicz, Kate O'Callaghan and Margaret Pearse arriving at Earlsfort Terrace / Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland

If, in stark contrast to the women’s contributions, most of the military men’s contributions were in favour of approval, the Minister for Defence, Cathal Brugha, was not among them. Brugha was adamant that they could and should fight on but his contribution towards the end of the day’s proceedings was regarded as too sensitive and was not recorded. The Official Report merely noted that Brugha “here made a statement in reply to the last speaker as to how the army stood”. Eventually, 20 minutes shy of midnight, the House adjourned, finally bringing the “secret” sessions to an end.

Day 5: Monday, 19 December 1921

Public session

Deputies arriving at Earlsfort Terrace for their first public debate since 14 December could not have failed to notice the array of placards that had popped up overnight. Next to one urging Members to “Stand by Collins and the Treaty” were others stating “Up the Republic” and “No Free State”. The motion on the Treaty was about to be moved and the public were determined to have their say.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 19 December 1921

After the roll-call, the Speaker announced that, at the President's request, Document No.2, which had been discussed in the “secret sessions”, had been withdrawn from discussion and would remain confidential. Arthur Griffith was anxious that it not be withheld from the public but also concerned that it was difficult to avoid its contents during the debate. He reluctantly agreed to try to avoid the document and said that he would not “hide from the Irish people the proposed alternative”. De Valera's unwillingness to publish the document continued to annoy Griffith over the coming days but the matter before the House was now the motion "That Dáil Eireann approves of the Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, signed in London on December 6th, 1921." As Griffith began to put his case for the Treaty, a legion of journalists and telegraph messengers pushed forward to listen. He was characteristically measured and direct and his well-prepared argument appealed more to reason than emotion, although it caused some confusion among observers who were not familiar with the contents of Document No. 2.

"The contributions of both Griffith and de Valera were applauded, observers remarking it would have been a wise person who could have told which attracted the most support."

Griffith’s motion was seconded by General Seán MacEoin, who spoke briefly and put forward a pro-Treaty case that was often repeated: “To me symbols, recognitions, shadows, have very little meaning. … To me this Treaty gives me what I and my comrades fought for; it gives us for the first time in 700 years the evacuation of Britain's armed forces out of Ireland.” De Valera, although his speech may look mediocre on paper today, was said to have electrified the room. Whereas Griffith drew on Thomas Davis, de Valera drew on Parnell, emphasising the Treaty would restrict “the onward march of a nation”. De Valera’s stance was to be reinforced later in the day by the likes of Austin Stack, Count Plunkett and Erskine Childers. The contributions of both Griffith and de Valera were applauded, observers remarking it would have been a wise person who could have told which attracted the most support.

Arthur Griffith arriving at Earlsfort Terrace / Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland

It was afternoon when Michael Collins took to the floor. Again, the note-takers' pencils began to scratch furiously.  Collins stood over his signature in London and, speaking more animatedly as he went on, hammered home his now-famous point that the Treaty “gives us freedom, not the ultimate freedom that all nations desire and develop to, but the freedom to achieve it”. On Ulster, which took up precious little time in the debates as a whole, he claimed the Treaty would lead to “goodwill and the entry of the North-East under the Irish Parliament”.

The last word was granted to Robert Barton, whose speech attracted much press coverage the following morning.  Alluding to Lloyd George’s threat of immediate war if the Treaty had not been not signed, Barton admitted he preferred the option of war but he dared not accept responsibility for it. For this reason, he said, he had offered his signature.

Day 6: Tuesday, 20 December 1921

Public session

Deputies were half an hour late taking their seats on the morning of 20 December and began their business with more procedural disarray after a last-minute change to the agenda. De Valera had sought the change to allow him to introduce a motion on his Document No. 2 after the vote on the Treaty, although the document was yet to be formally put before the House.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 20 December 1921

It was Seán Etchingham who set the wheels in motion for the anti-Treatyites, emphasising what he considered to be the horrors of dominion status and the oath of allegiance. With preacherly fervour, he set the tone for many of the hardline speeches to follow and proclaimed those who gave their lives since 1916 had not done so for “colonial home rule”. Appeals to the dead were becoming so common that the next speaker, Fionán Lynch, saw fit to exclaim the “bones of the dead have been rattled indecently in the face of this assembly”. This was an accusation often directed towards the women Deputies.

Whatever about speaking for the dead, speaking for the living was also becoming a problem. Lynch himself got rattled by an interruption from the Hon. Albinia Broderick, sitting among the visitors who took issue with his statement that he could speak for the people of South Kerry. The Irish Times reported that Ms Broderick was immediately approached by two republican policemen and escorted from the room.

Albinia Broderick (right) and Mary MacSwiney arriving at Earlsfort Terrace / © Illustrated London News Ltd/Mary Evans Picture Library

A bitter note was struck in the early afternoon when Griffith, based on a misunderstanding, objected to a motion to enter yet another private session. De Valera lashed out at the implication that information was to be withheld from the public, saying: “I think something else besides the Treaty has come from Downing Street.” His apology, issued later, attracted applause.

"Appeals to the dead were becoming so common that the next speaker, Fionán Lynch, saw fit to exclaim the 'bones of the dead have been rattled indecently in the face of this assembly'."

One of the most distinctive speeches of the day was that of Dr. Patrick McCartan. Held to support the Treaty, he had put his name down to speak against it, apparently as a manoeuvre to make his speech more dramatic. It seems to have worked. He cut a striking figure as, uniquely, he appeared to pour scorn on both sides of the Cabinet, concluding that both had betrayed the Republic. The day ended on a conciliatory note when Michael Collins suggested the debate continue after Christmas to give every Deputy a chance to speak. But it was not all Christmas cheer: allegedly, he commanded that all Deputies be on time the following morning. According to reporter Pádraig de Búrca, Irish journalists heartily said “amen” to this prayer for punctuality.

Day 7: Wednesday, 21 December 1921

Public session

Whether it was because of Collins’s warning about timekeeping the previous evening or the possibility of further debate after Christmas, Deputies arrived punctually on 21 December.  It was a day on which the press expected a vote, and a day on which the press itself would come under scrutiny.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 21 December 1921

Before lunch, Members heard from the two plenipotentiaries who had not yet spoken, George Gavan Duffy and Eamonn Duggan. Both recommended the Treaty. Duffy, whose head and heart were at odds over it, claimed his signature had been extorted from him by the threat of war, whereas Duggan said he had signed it freely. Duggan’s comments on the oath of allegiance drew the ire of de Valera, who offered a clarification on his alternative oath.

After lunch, Collins drew attention to comments made in the morning, particularly by JJ Walsh, about inaccurate reporting by the press. He suggested that speeches be made in front of the Speaker’s Chair so journalists at the back of the room could hear better. According to one reporter, the acoustics were so poor that not a sentence of a 15-minute speech made in the morning was heard distinctly.

"Mary MacSwiney ... delivered a scathing invective against compromise that took almost three hours."

The afternoon’s business was characterised by contrast. WT Cosgrave, employing all the tricks of a seasoned orator, attacked every argument he had heard against the oath of allegiance, which he claimed could be interpreted any way one liked.  Cosgrave's dry tone introduced welcome levity to the proceedings and even de Valera had to laugh when he sent up the President’s mathematical approach to politics: “If x be absolute independence and y be independence, we are told that we are abandoning what is the relative value of x and y to one another.”

Mary MacSwiney / Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division [LC-F8- 10831]

There was no laughter during the contribution which followed as Mary MacSwiney delivered a scathing invective against compromise that took almost three hours. As she warmed up, she is reported to have removed her hat, her scarf-collar and her coat, and as she did so certain Members quietly removed themselves from the room. According to The Irish Times, “she was eloquent, tearful, ironic, fervent, reproachful, implacable; but bitterness was the driving force behind her every word, and a more unprofitable speech could not be imagined.” De Valera would later remark that her speech affected the final vote.

By the close of day, the two sides were almost head to head, 15 Deputies having spoken in favour of the Treaty and 13 against. With so many still to speak and no ruling to limit the length of speeches, the prospect of concluding before Christmas was becoming increasingly bleak. A frustrated Arthur Griffith proclaimed Members should be able to say what they have to say in ten to 15 minutes. No doubt Griffith's impatience was felt throughout the country.

Day 8: Thursday, 22 December 1921

Public session

By the morning of 22 December, weariness was evident on the face of practically every Deputy in attendance, most notably de Valera, who by now appeared haggard and pale. Also evident were the many empty seats when the Speaker called the House to order. Debate fatigue was taking its toll. If a sense of decorum had existed on day one, it had now given way to slackness, to such an extent that some Members would succumb to the temptation to smoke while listening to the proceedings. It was as if they forgot the world was watching.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 22 December 1921

Despite the prospect of yet another day of repetitious speeches without time constraints, Deputies had few olive branches to hand, and every so often well-intended remarks lapsed into self-righteousness or sloganeering. “Damn the Treaty” would be the watchword of Tipperaryman PJ Moloney, and “Hands off the Republic” would be that of Seán Moylan, an uncompromising republican from North Cork. 

It was Professor Michael Hayes of the National University who spoke first, arguing the Treaty would give Ireland unprecedented status abroad. Next up was the Minister for Education, Sceilg (Seán Ó Ceallaigh) who condemned the Treaty as an insult to the memory of martyred comrades. His remarks were echoed by Kathleen Clarke.

“Liam de Róiste, defending the Treaty in the afternoon, went so far as to imply that if Deputies contributed only in Irish, the quibbling over words that characterised the debate in English would not arise. This related to the debate on the difference between a Free State and a Republic, since "Saorstát" and "Poblacht" were used interchangeably in Irish.”

The position of the Irish language was a matter that several speakers raised during the debates, which had largely been in English. It was emphasised in particular by Gaelic League founder Pádraic Ó Máille who, like Sceilg before him, wished the entire business could be conducted through Irish. Liam de Róiste, defending the Treaty in the afternoon, went so far as to imply that if Deputies contributed only in Irish, the quibbling over words that characterised the debate in English would not arise. This related to the debate on the difference between a Free State and a Republic, since "Saorstát" and "Poblacht" were used interchangeably in Irish.

Richard Mulcahy, Chief of Staff of the IRA, also began in Irish. He went on to confess that while de Valera’s alternative had not received the airing it should have, he could see no option but to accept the Treaty. When the Speaker, Eoin MacNeill, stepped from the Chair to speak, he claimed anti-Treaty contributions should have been made before the plenipotentiaries were sent to London.

Richard Mulcahy / Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division [LC-DIG-ggbain-36973] 

At the end of a day of speeches that the Belfast News-Letter dubbed as “wild”, the question of suspending until after Christmas arose. While de Valera wanted the debate to be concluded the following evening, Michael Collins proposed a motion to adjourn until 3 January. Seán MacEntee, who saw “grave national danger” in adjourning for Christmas, objected, but Collins’s motion, seconded by Madame Markievicz, was finally carried. While Christmas may have been saved, the relieved Deputies buttoned their overcoats to a stern injunction from de Valera: “There must be a common agreement that there will be no speech-making in the interval.”

Day 9: Tuesday, 3 January 1922

Public session

The Dáil returned to the Council Chamber after almost a fortnight’s absence. The break had been significant. After Christmas, on 27 December, de Valera had written that had  the vote been taken on the 22nd “it was thought we might have got a majority of one or two against the treaty. But the press is hard at work throughout the country trying to get the local public bodies, county councils etc, to pass resolutions in favour of the treaty – and the Church is also hard at work.”  That morning, The Freeman’s Journal observed that “so far as the expression of public opinion … is concerned, the country may be said to have already ratified the Treaty”, but its adoption by the Dáil was not yet certain if a few Deputies were induced to contemplate rejection.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 3 January 1922

All the Members of the Second Dáil were Sinn Féin candidates who had been returned unopposed at the general election. This Sinn Féin dominance did not accurately reflect the opinion in the country, something that could be gauged better from the local elections in 1920, which had been contested by the Labour Party and others representing interests beyond that of just nationalism. The difference between the mood in the country and in the Dáil was mentioned by pro-Treaty Cork Deputy JJ Walsh in the morning who observed that in Cork, at least. “If we were to ask the people of Cork to vote for or against the Treaty,” he suggested, “we would have 90 per cent. voting for it. That is a unity that this country, neither for a Republic nor at any other stage of its history, ever enjoyed.” Although Walsh’s figures were supposition, the time Deputies’ spent back at home in their constituencies had an impact on at least two of them, Daniel O’Rourke and Peter J. Ward, who said they had been opposed to the Treaty but had changed their minds after talking to constituents over the break.

"One regular observer noted that Members had taken to reading the paper or going for walks in the corridors during the debates, which were beset by repetition and irrelevancies.”

For the most part, the mood was rather flat. Pondering a day’s “dreary debate”, one regular observer noted that Members had taken to reading the paper or going for walks in the corridors during the debates, which he said were beset by repetition and irrelevancies, and “the irony is that they all assure us they are going to be quite brief”. If the contributions felt long, however, they erred towards ten or 15 minutes. The debate carried on much as it had done, although with a little more of an eye to the left.

Piaras Beaslaí / Wikimedia Commons

Speaking in the morning, Piaras Béaslaí looked forward to what might follow the Treaty, arguing that “when the British have evacuated our country the Free State will be just what we make it; and we can make it a great and glorious land, the home of a fine Gaelic culture, of a highly developed agricultural system that will rival Denmark; with industries developed perhaps as some people advocate, on co-operative, non-capitalistic lines; of brave and beautiful ideas worked into practice.” Madame Markievicz, who followed him, was unimpressed by what she described as a sugar-coated Home Rule Bill, and observed that she stood for “James Connolly's ideal of a Workers' Republic […. a] co-operative commonwealth”. This was only one of several mentions of Connolly, who had not featured in the debates previously but whose name was invoked at the opening and closing of proceedings on the first long day back after Christmas.

Day 10: Wednesday, 4 January 1922

Public session

It was a day that “began quietly, proceeded drowsily and ended in a heated scene that left everyone anxious and breathless”, according to one account. Debate had resumed wearily on Document No. 2, with natural frustration that some three weeks after it had been outlined, it had still not been formally put before the House.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 4 January 1922

De Valera, who had worked on what had been a hastily written draft over the recess (dubbed “Document No. 3”), pondered that he was “ready at any time to bring it forward if the other side agree to I bringing it forward as an amendment”. When an impatient Arthur Griffith asked if he was ready to give the document to the press, de Valera replied, “I will move it to-morrow”.

Eoin O'Duffy / Wikimedia Commons

Notable contributions included that by Eoin O’Duffy and a “no surrender” oration from Liam Mellows, which was delivered to Members engrossed in their newspapers. There were occasional light-hearted exchanges but these were in stark contrast to some of the contributions made as Members grew more tired and frustrated. Daniel McCarthy – among the IRB men who had accompanied Michael Collins to London – told the House: “I am going to make up my mind like Michael Collins—as a plain Irishman. I see no allegiance in the oath. If there were I would not take it. Every speaker who claims to have English blood is opposed to this Treaty.” The frequent casting of aspersions on the bona fides of those who had family who were not Irish, among them the President and Erskine Childers, was taken up with gusto by The Freeman’s Journal the next day, attracting considerable criticism in the House.

“The House rose as the two men faced off, much to the excitement of the press.”

As yet another day drew to a close without progress, and the House agreed to adjourn, de Valera announced that he planned to move  his alternative to the Treaty as an amendment the following day. This had not been agreed with the Speaker or the House and the pro-Treaty side objected vociferously to this move. Moreover, Griffith complained that the document that the President planned to put to the House (Document No. 3) was quite different to that which he had outlined before Christmas – leading de Valera to complain Griffith was “quibbling”. When de Valera asserted “I am responsible for the proposals and the House will have to decide on them. I am going to choose my own procedure”, Griffith countered that it was not in his competence to choose his own procedure: “This is either a constitutional body or it is not. If it is an autocracy let you say so and we will leave it.” The House rose as the two men faced off, much to the excitement of the press. Griffith, for his part, decided to take matters into his own hands and privately passed a copy of Documents Nos. 2 and No. 3 to the Irish Independent and The Freeman’s Journal, which printed them the following day.

Day 11: Thursday, 5 January 1922

Public session

Thursday was described as a day of “sensations and rumours of sensations”. The real business of the day took place off stage but there was enough carry on to create a diversion, at least. The day’s business began at 11.15 a.m. but adjourned almost immediately until 3 p.m., before eventually resuming after 8.30 p.m. The previous evening’s proceedings had ended on a sufficiently fraught note that the press had anticipated some good copy the following day.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 5 January 1922

As it was, the newspapers themselves seemed to become the main stories of the day. For starters, an English journalist from The Times had been kidnapped. The foreign press corps called for a boycott of proceedings, which their Irish colleagues considered but ultimately rejected because they did not think English reporters would do likewise if an Irish journalist were to meet the same fate in London. The journalist was released the next day. He had been brought to Cork but was otherwise “no worse for wear”.

Erskine Childers / Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland

Later, when the House finally resumed its business in the evening, the debate turned to whether the Dáil would expel some of the Irish pressmen so that, as the Irish Independent observed “at one time we had a section of the press threatening to suppress the Dáil and at another we had the Dáil threatening to suppress a section of the press”. The cause of the latter was a personal attack on the President, and on Erskine Childers, by The Freeman’s Journal that morning, echoing some of the statements of the previous day. The former “had not the instinct of the Irishman in his blood”, and the latter was “an ex-spy”. Members were united in criticising the editorial but ultimately Richard Mulcahy withdrew his proposal to expel the Freeman unless it apologised, with some, including Collins, careful to assert their belief in press freedom. In the middle of this inconsequential debate, Harry Boland, who had been absent in the United States until now, arrived in the Chamber to enthusiastic scenes, but he reserved his remarks for the next day. His arrival coincided with a departure of another kind, as the Speaker read a letter of resignation from Tipperary Deputy Proinsias Ó Druacháin (Frank Drohan), who had chosen to step down rather than vote for the Treaty.

“As it was, the newspapers themselves seemed to become the main stories of the day. For starters, an English journalist from The Times had been kidnapped.”

Nothing of substance arose from the proceedings in the Council Chamber that day, but just before the adjournment Eoin O’Duffy told the House of efforts by a group of Deputies from both sides over the previous two days to avert a schism in the movement. This committee consisted of five anti-Treaty Deputies (Seán T. O’Kelly, Liam Mellows, PJ Ruttledge, Art O’Connor and Seán Moylan) and four pro-Treaty Members (Patrick Hogan, Joseph McGuinness, Michael Hayes and Eoin O’Duffy). With Mellows having dissented, they had agreed on proposals whereby de Valera would continue as President and the republican Deputies would abstain on the Treaty vote. When the proposals were put to de Valera on Thursday afternoon, he flatly rejected them. The committee continued their talks into the evening and night, the Dáil having agreed to sit in private session the next day to discuss where things stood.

Day 12: Friday, 6 January 1922

Public and private sessions

The sitting began in private to discuss the report of the committee that had been trying to reach a compromise behind the scenes. Eoin O’Duffy told the House that although the committee had agreed on almost all points the night before, the members who opposed the Treaty did not want the nature of the agreement to be revealed. There was a certain degree of resentment among ordinary Deputies that these talks were going on behind the scenes and they were only to be told of them in another private session, but there was general support on all sides for anything that could maintain unity and avoid a split. Just as the House was about to adjourn for lunch, de Valera entered the Chamber and dropped a bombshell when he announced “I am going to settle all this thing by resigning publicly at the public session”.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 6 January 1922

Onlookers at the afternoon session, who expected little but more dull, divisive speeches, were treated to a statement that would have newsboys rushing through the streets within moments. De Valera, looking deathly pale, rose to his feet and declared emphatically that his Cabinet was irrevocably split, not only on personalities but also on fundamentals, and that he could no longer operate on that basis. Accordingly, he offered his resignation. His thinking was that if he were to be re-elected, he could put his alternative treaty to the British and appoint a new Cabinet that agreed unanimously with his policy of defending the Republic. Perhaps recalling criticism in the press and Dáil that his policy was just his own pet scheme, he proclaimed he had only to examine his own heart to be told what the Irish people wanted. Meanwhile, commentators were left scratching their heads as to whether he was to resign from his position as President of the Dáil or as Prime Minister.

Éamon de Valera and Arthur Griffith (seated) at the Truce negotiations in London, 1921 / Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland

In the pandemonium that followed, Collins and Griffith objected to any motion to change the agenda to discuss de Valera’s resignation. Collins dismissed the announcement as “drawing a red herring across our path”. After a fiery engagement on the best course of action to take, de Valera climbed down and took his resignation off the cards, and a decision was made to continue with a fast-tracked debate on the Treaty.

When the speeches on the Treaty resumed, they grew more explosive as the day wore on. Séamus Robinson, for example, caused a sensation when he read out a letter on behalf of numerous IRA brigades who felt betrayed by the signing of the Treaty. De Valera, conscious that a Deputy should not speak on behalf of a brigade and perhaps afraid the British might learn about a split in IRA ranks, reprimanded him. Collins was reportedly not in the room to defend his position. The greater part of Robinson’s scorn was directed at those pragmatists who had, throughout the debates, denounced ideals and symbols as shadows and unrealities. Considering  the increasingly bitter tone of some of the contributions, it seemed a split in the ranks of the Deputies was now irrevocable.

Day 13: Saturday, 7 January 1922

Public session

There was considerable anticipation on Saturday morning as Members arrived at Earlsfort Terrace for the conclusion of proceedings. After all the discussion, the result was still rather unclear. Joe McGrath, the pro-Treaty whip, told the Irish Independent that there was “no doubt” it would be defeated. The numbers seemed quite evenly matched and the result would turn on the votes of four or five Deputies whose intentions were unknown. In fact, the pro-Treaty side had looked at the numbers and were fairly confident that they would win by at least one vote, but there was nothing to be gained by saying so.

• Read the Official Report of the Debate of 7 January 1922

The day began at 11.30 a.m. when the Speaker read a motion he had submitted in his own name as another attempt to avert a split, but it had virtually no support and was never put to a vote. Aside from longer contributions from Harry Boland, Joe McGrath and Paudie O’Keeffe, the morning’s business was brisk, with some Deputies competing to see who could make the shortest contribution that they might finally bring things to a close. The failure of the committee of backbench Deputies to secure an agreement on its proposals meant that there was nothing to be gained by dragging things out.

Cathal Brugha by John F. Kelly

In the evening, there were concluding remarks from senior Deputies on both sides. The Minister for Defence, Cathal Brugha, got up just after 5 p.m. and spoke until almost 6.30 p.m. in a contribution that was, at best, unwise. He launched an attack on Michael Collins that was so personal and poisonous that it was said to have cost the anti-Treaty side between two and four votes. There followed a break for an hour before the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Arthur Griffith, was given the floor to conclude in front of a full house. Speaking for just over an hour, he delivered a powerful speech. He finished at 8.30 p.m. and then, at last, the vote was called.

“The morning’s business was brisk, with some Deputies competing to see who could make the shortest contribution that they might finally bring things to a close.”

It took several minutes to call the voice vote, with Deputies answering “is toil” (for) or “ní toil” (against). Some 121 Deputies voted. The Speaker abstained, and two, Tom Kelly and Laurence Ginnell, were absent. Arthur Griffith and Seán Milroy, two of the five holding seats in the Twenty-six Counties and in Six-County constituencies, objected to their not being allowed to vote twice, but it made no material difference to the result once the votes were added up, a process that took two long minutes. Padraig de Brúrca wrote how “Suddenly a mighty cheer was heard outside. The waiting crowd had got the result even before the Speaker had had the totals placed in his hand.” Sixty-four for, 57 against. Inside the room, the response was quite different. Frank Gallagher, the former Sinn Féin propagandist who opposed the Treaty, recalled: “there was complete silence. Nobody moved, nobody cheered, nobody even spoke. Minutes passed.”

Eventually a pale de Valera rose and spoke briefly to affirm the Republic. He was followed by Michael Collins, who emphasised that the result was not a triumph of one side over the other, and suggested that there be co-operation between both sides. The House adjourned on Saturday night, with the two sides arranging to meet separately the next day before Dáil Éireann met again on Monday.

Epilogue

Dáil Éireann met twice after the Treaty vote before it adjourned for six weeks. When the Dáil met again at Earlsfort Terrace on Monday, 9 January, Michael Collins suggested once more that a committee be established between the two sides to preserve unity and for public safety, but this was rejected by the opponents of the Treaty. De Valera went through with his resignation as President, following which Kathleen Clarke (rather reluctantly) proposed him for the position once again. De Valera lost, but by only two votes. The next day, Arthur Griffith was unanimously elected President of the Dáil, de Valera having withdrawn from the House, “followed by his entire body of supporters”. Harsh words were exchanged between Members as they left.

Anti-Treaty TDs / Military Archives, IE/MA/HS/A/0863

After a new Cabinet had been ratified, the anti-Treaty Deputies returned to the House, which was addressed by a Labour delegation before hearing a statement of policy by the new President, Arthur Griffith. Griffith’s suggestion that the House adjourn for a month to allow the new Government the opportunity to act was agreed. As he put it, “We cannot meet every day here and at the same time try and carry out the things.” With reassurances that the Army would remain disciplined, and after Griffith and de Valera had thanked UCD for the use of the hall, the Dáil adjourned and did not meet again until 28 February.

"The approval of the Treaty was a most significant event. It facilitated the withdrawal of Britain from 26 counties of Ireland, as well as the creation of an irrevocable fault line in the nationalist movement."

Dáil Éireann may have voted for the articles of agreement but, according to article 18, they had to be submitted for approval to a “meeting summoned for the purpose of the members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland”, which included the four unionist Members from Trinity College. Griffith called a meeting of this Assembly, which met in the Oak Room of the Mansion House on 14 January. It was a perfunctory meeting. The Ceann Comhairle, Eoin MacNeill, did not preside and no record was kept. There were no speeches, just business, mostly undertaken in Irish. A roll was taken, the Treaty was accepted and a Provisional Government was appointed. Within an hour, the Assembly had concluded, never to be heard of again. Two days later, on 16 January, the Provisional Government, under the chairmanship of Michael Collins, took office, which it held until the first anniversary of the signing of the Treaty. The Provisional Government existed alongside the Cabinet of Dáil Éireann, the two overlapping significantly.

Pro-Treaty TDs / Courtesy of the National Library of Ireland

The approval of the Treaty was a most significant event. It facilitated the withdrawal of Britain from 26 counties of Ireland, as well as the creation of an irrevocable fault line in the nationalist movement. Time and again during the debates, Members had appealed for unity and warned of the consequences of schism, recalling the Parnell split that had riven the home rule movement only 30 years earlier. With more at stake, and with arms, this split would become immeasurably worse. The Treaty debates were long and often repetitious. Many contributors were, to steal a phrase, “politicians by accident”. Though some had for three years been Members of Dáil Éireann, which itself had met infrequently, few had much experience of public speaking or debating, and there were probably more soldiers than orators in the House.

Sometimes, personal animosity or political difference led to sharp and visceral exchanges. A century on, however, it is often the friendship and the occasional light moments between Members on opposite sides that strike the reader of the debates as remarkable.

But did the Treaty debates make any difference? Did anything that was said in the Council Chamber change any hearts and minds in the end? Among the Members, it seems largely not. If it was indeed the case that the Christmas recess pushed some Members who were unsure towards approval, it suggests the TDs were influenced by the mood in the country rather than debate among themselves. There was one instance where the debate itself was widely believed to have swung votes, that of Cathal Brugha’s attack on Collins which shocked even those who were on his side. And, of course, there was a great deal of lobbying outside the debate itself. Ernest Blythe recalled talking a good deal to two Deputies, both of whom voted for the Treaty having been “for a long time entirely uncertain”. But if the debate did little to change the result of the vote, perhaps it had an effect all the same. Richard Mulcahy, for instance, felt some of the statements made in the Dáil by anti-Treaty Deputies had an inflammatory effect on the Army. Similarly, the historian Michael Laffan has noted that “public opinion was influenced by the fact that the settlement was opposed by so many Dáil members”.

A year or two after the Treaty debates, WT Cograve, then President, told the Dáil:

Well, if I have learned one lesson in my life, it is that debates similar to those on the Treaty will never take place again in this country. I think that they exhausted all the oratory in the country, and that nobody wants to see a repetition of them. So much so, I think, that one man wrote in one of the Dublin papers that he went to confession and confessed that he had stolen a goat and the penance he got was to read the Dáil speeches on the Treaty debate seven times.

A more charitable position was taken by the late historian Peter Hart, who wrote that the Treaty debate was often derided as hysterical and intellectually unimpressive, but unfairly so:

This was one of the very few occasions in modern history in which Irish nationalists sought (or were forced) to define and defend themselves and their politics in open debate, and they did so often with great skill and insight, as well as with passionate intensity. They discussed Irish history, the state of the post-war world, and the principles of nationality, democracy and citizenship. There were many personal testaments of belief alongside the abstracted logic of constitutions and practical assessments of what the movement had achieved. Out of this sprang most of modern Irish politics, its parties and ideologies. Few other countries can claim such an honest and profound starting point.