Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Aug 1924

Vol. 8 No. 22

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

The PRESIDENT

I move for permission to introduce the Treaty (Confirmation of Supplemental Agreement) Bill, 1924. The purpose of the measure is to confirm and ratify an agreement entered into between myself on behalf of the Government of Saorstát Eireann and the British Prime Minister acting on behalf of the British Government. The agreement which this Bill is intended to ratify is designed to supplement Article 12 of the Treaty of 1921. Deputies are familiar with the course of events which have taken place in connection with the Boundary Commission since the passing of our Constitution, and if in the course of my remarks I refer to them and other matters in detail, it is because of the persistent misrepresentations and the repeated falsehoods which have been, and are being, continuously and sedulously circulated by the anti-Irish Press. The campaign has been recommenced with redoubled vigour and with daily increasing disregard for the elementary principles of truth and justice within the last few weeks. The most powerful Press combine in England has descended to methods hitherto unknown to decent journalism, and no device is too mean and too shady if it serves the purpose of those who are endeavouring to rekindle the dying embers of party passion against our State and against our people.

In the normal course, the text of proposed legislative measures does not become available to Deputies until permission has been given for their introduction. On this occasion, I have, with your consent, sir, arranged that copies of the measure were in the hands of the Deputies before I rose to move this motion. I should say that it is the intention of the Government that the remaining stages of this measure shall not be taken until the reassembly of the House after the Recess. As soon as this motion has been dealt with, I propose to move that the House do adjourn until 21st October, with the proviso, of course, that in the event of circumstances arising which might render an earlier resumption necessary or desirable, the House will be summoned to meet at such earlier date as may be thought fit. In the circumstances, and having been acquainted of the desire of Deputies that the debate on the motion for First Reading should afford an opportunity of a comparatively lengthy and general discussion of the new circumstances and considerations which have arisen —a desire which, I hasten to add, is fully justified—I thought it only fair to the House to put at the disposal of members all the information available to the Executive Council. For the same reason I felt that the House was entitled to have before it the complete text of the Bill which I am asking for permission to introduce.

When our story comes to be written again after the atmosphere of the present time has passed away, I believe it will be recorded that as a people we showed the virtue of patience in an eminent degree; tried by justice postponed, tested by calumny and distortion of fact to our disadvantage, we have been patient as befits a Christian people, patient to the very limits to which patient could be a virtue in our time and circumstances. Today we see that limit definitely marked. Let us take stock and see how we stand. The strange hostility by which some people are animated towards this country has bred that monstrous invention, the two-nation theory, Ireland and what is now falsely called "Ulster."

The province of Ulster properly so called is one of the historic provinces of Ireland, inseparably bound up in Irish History and sentiment, wrapped with every other part of our land in the patriotic affections of our people. The territory of Ulster is part of the historic territory of Ireland.

What then is this "Ulster" which is being used by certain newspapers and politicians as a kind of battle cry against Ireland?

It is a portion of our ancient province of Ulster occupied by a population (the origin of the occupation is a matter of history) which, unlike divers other settlers in the different parts of the country, has not completely fused in the general population, yet has not remained alien. Its history is now part of the history of Ireland. Its economic interests are not opposed to the economic interests of the country as a whole. But the policy of certain politicians has kept that population in the North Eastern corner of Ireland detached from the common cause of the Nation in whose bosom they rest.

The politicians in Britain whose vain effort it was to extinguish the Irish nation, determined to establish that portion of Ulster as a province of Great Britain under the title of Northern Ireland, and they have since tried to stamp it with a separate nationality and to steal for it the ancient name of Ulster. That solution of a difficulty originally created by British politicians was accepted by those in political ascendancy in that corner of our country and the Northern Ireland Province was given a constitutional existence within the supremacy of the Government of Westminster.

The Irish Nation was no party to that act of dismemberment but regarded it as a further casus belli between Great Britain and ourselves. That it was an act to which the consent of the Irish people had yet to be given was clearly recognised in the Treaty of December, 1921.

But the dissectors were not satisfied with the cutting off of that portion of our country whose population was politically detached from us. With a grand sweep they gathered into their new province populations united to us by every tie of blood and affection and community of interest. Was the new province established for the ostensible purpose of preventing the coercion of the detached population of the North East to be used as an instrument of coercion over those thousands who wanted to live and work with the majority of their fellow countrymen? The Treaty of 1921 offered the greatest possible measure of relief against that form of coercion, which British statesmen could not defend, while the echoes hurled back their battle-cries of the preceding seven years—"Self-determination,""Government by consent of the governed"—and their loud grief for the thraldom and joy for the release of Alsace.

The Treaty gave effect by Article 12 to the principle which had been proclaimed fundamental in the European War and embodied in the Treaty of Versailles whose very terms are invoked in prescribing that a boundary shall be fixed between Northern Ireland and the rest of the country according to the wishes of the inhabitants subject only to the limitation of economic and geographic considerations.

But it is said that the new province was no party to the Treaty of 1921. This is an attempt to blow hot and cold, to "approbate and reprobate," as the lawyers say. The new province owes its existence to the British statute entitled the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. The political leaders of Northern Ireland take their stand by that Act; the present-day political mischief-makers in England talk of that Act (imposed on Ireland against the will of, every part of Ireland) as a pledge of honour. None of these people seem to pay much attention to the realities of the Act of 1920 about which they are so blatant.

Let them turn to Section 4 for the list of subject matters forbidden to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, where they will read that they may not touch (among other things) two very pertinent subjects, namely, matters arising from a state of war, and treaties. When, therefore, a truce was called in the Anglo-Irish War, and negotiations entered into, which culminated in the Treaty of 1921, the provincial Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland were not, and could not be, parties to the truce, the negotiations, or the Treaty. Their status would have impliedly excluded them. The British statute to which they cling expressly excluded them.

Were, then, the people of Northern Ireland voiceless in these transactions? Were they left without participation in matters affecting them? Not at all. This is one of the delusions which are now being sedulously and maliciously fostered among the great public which so largely consists of casual newspaper readers. The people who accepted the creation of the province of Northern Ireland, accepted the exclusion from its powers of the topics I have mentioned, accepted the reservation of these and other matters to the British Parliament, accepted representation in that Parliament thereby to participate in the exercise of the sovereign authority over these matters.

There is, therefore, not the scintilla of a doubt but that the people of Northern Ireland who accepted the Act of 1920 were, according to that Act, as much party to and bound by the Treaty of 1921 as the people, say, of Lancashire or London.

That is, of course, apart from the fact that the Dáil then spoke for the whole of Ireland, a fact which I am not stressing here, because it is well to answer your opponent out of his own mouth.

Moreover, the validity and binding force of the Treaty were admitted and recognised in the fullest manner when the Parliament of Northern Ireland adopted the procedure prescribed by it for suspending the jurisdiction of the Irish Government in the Six Counties.

There can, therefore, be no question that the Treaty is of binding obligation between its signatories, and that that obligation properly and legally binds the province of Northern Ireland equally with every other part of Ireland and Great Britain.

In the one-sided Press campaign which has been carried on with great vigour in England against us, it has been sought to make us appear as the unreasonable people throughout this business, while Sir James Craig is most reasonable.

Though all ears be closed to the true merits of the case, I wish to refer briefly to the more important facts.

First, see how the Irish people recognised facts when they made and ratified the Treaty. The new provincial Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland, though not accepted or recognised by the Nationalists of the North, was still functioning if in a lopsided and ungracious manner. The Treaty, with the concurrence of the Irish people, offered recognition to the North Eastern Parliament in either of two ways. Either the province should become a province of Ireland, retaining to the full its constitutional status as created by the Act of 1920, with its Parliament, its Government, its Law-Courts and Judiciary, its Governor, together with any other privileges which might be agreed, and with its existing area of jurisdiction, on the condition of recognising the essential duty of Ireland in a Dominion Government for the whole country from which would be excepted the powers conferred on the NorthEastern Parliament and Government. In this Parliament, according to the Constitution as enacted, the Six Counties of the North East would have had a very large and powerful representation and would, beyond doubt, have exercised a powerful voice in moulding the future history of the whole country.

I say that that was a reasonable, moderate and fair proposal—based on recognition of facts. I say that it was then, as it is now, the solution of this factitious problem which can claim statesmanship and common sense and which can promise permanence. I say that it was blocked by politicians whose aim was not peace, friendship or good will, but the detaching from allegiance to Ireland of this small corner of our island and the maintaining there of a salient if not actualy hostile, at any rate not over friendly.

I cannot believe that the people of the North East, even of Belfast, have ever had put before them the actual proposals which their politicians rejected, without even an attempt to negotiate for further advantage or safeguards, for I cannot believe that that hardheaded, common sense people would have permitted that course to be taken if they had been allowed to understand it in all its bearings.

For the time being, this statesmanlike solution must unhappily be regarded as in abeyance (though we on our part are always willing to enter into any negotiations for its reconsideration) and we are thrown upon the other conditions stipulated by the Treaty for recognition of the existence, the continued existence, of the Government of Northern Ireland set up by the Act of 1920—the condition which, by rejecting the first condition, the Parliament of Northern Ireland elected to stand by, but now obstructs in operation.

That condition contained in Clause 12 of the Treaty is, as I have said, founded upon the principle which emerged on a war-cry throughout the world in the European war, and was crystallised in the Treaty of Versailles, in a formula which fell naturally and of course, into its proper place, in the Treaty of 1921.

The Irish people agreed to recognise the Constitution of a province of Northern Ireland, even if it would detach itself from the country to which by nature it belonged, and become a province of Britain on condition that people who had been swept into it should in their turn have effect given to their wish not to be so detached, but to remain part of their native land, sharing its destiny. That is to say, while the Irish people, in their eagerness for peace and goodwill within the shores of Ireland, made a treaty whereby they forbade themselves coercion over the people in the North-eastern corner who might elect to stand aloof from the National Government, they stipulated that the nearer population should not be coerced to quit their own nation to denationalise themselves.

Yet the calumny is kept circulating that we are seeking territory out of the jurisdiction of the provincial Government and to coerce its population to secede from the rule of the Northern Government and surrender to the rule of the Saorstát. That is a gross and deliberate calumny. The Northern politicians claim the right under the Treaty to determine for themselves that they shall be governed from Westminister—Conceded. We insist on the condition that the people who claim the right under the Treaty to determine for themselves that they shall be governed by an Irish Government shall have that right made effective. We do not seek to coerce anyone—but we say that the principle of no coercion shall be applied fairly and impartially.

Indeed, if we were inclined to waver to our insistence on this principle, events must have urged us on. The Northern Government had not even the tact to wait for another time, but proceeded with shameless urgency to disfranchise the very people for whom, fortunately, the Treaty gave this protection. They have been made into the hewers of wood and drawers of water that their temporary governors without concealment consider is the proper sphere of people of their race and faith.

The British Government has never hesitated to acknowledge its obligation to carry out the Treaty in the letter and in the spirit. As I have already explained, the obligation of the British Government binds also Northern Ireland. That obligation includes an obligation to give effect to Article 12 of the Treaty. The British Government has recognised that obligation by introducing as a Government measure a Bill in accordance with an agreement between the two Governments to end the obstruction of the Northern Government to the performance of that Article. Should that Bill be passed, the complete and final performance of the Treaty becomes a matter of course. We agree that the Bill meets the situation in a simple and effective manner. The decisions of the Boundary Commission under the Treaty (which was given the force of law in both countries) would have been effective legally without further legislation on our part. We propose to give the force of law to the agreement scheduled to the new British Bill in order that the findings of the Commission as now constitued may be effective in like manner.

It is true there has been delay. For that our own troubles are in part responsible. We have had perforce to devote our whole energies to the establishment of ordered Government here before we could face the question of election between our Government and another. Then followed changes of Government in Britain, each new Government on assuming office taking up this question anew, and each hoping it might be relieved of the trouble of dealing with it. The panacea was a conference with Sir James Craig. We desire earnestly peace and amity. Where others were hopeful, I went again and again to the conferences. I had to confess that there was nothing offered which I could bring to this Dáil and say, "Here is a working proposition," or, even, "Here is a hope of a working proposition." The statements which have been made in the British Press as to demands and counter-demands are quite untrue. As I have over and over again pointed out, we have never staked a claim to this piece of territory or that. But I adhere to the principle of the Treaty (by whatever machinery worked out) that the wishes of the inhabitants shall prevail, and I am unable in any conference to admit that the ideas of any pair of conferring politicians shall override those wishes.

I have met Sir James time and time again in an effort to discover whether accommodation could not be secured. Time after time Sir James has maintained the same attitude. In his own words he "will not budge an inch." He has never budge an inch. He has never made the slightest advance towards accommodation. He has never made any practical contribution to a solution of his difficulties. I see that in a recent statement he has reiterated his willingness to meet me. I have never been unwilling to meet him, but if his attitude remains uncharged I can imagine no useful purpose which could be served by the meeting. If he agrees to appoint his Commissioner, I on my part am quite prepared to do everything in my power to assist in the determination of the boundary in a manner fair and reasonable to all concerned.

At the last meeting of the Dáil Deputies stated that the Treaty had been broken. This allegation was sufficiently answered on that occasion. There has been delay in fulfilment certainly, but, so far as the British Government is concerned, they have stated in unequivocal terms that His Majesty's Government have no doubt that it was the intention of Parliament when they approved and ratified the Treaty, that in the event of the Government of Northern Ireland exercising their option under Article 12, the Commission to be appointed under the proviso to that Article should in fact be appointed, that they felt bound in honour to secure so far as lay in their power that that intention would be carried into effect. They added that not merely the honour of His Majesty's Government, but the honour of their country was involved in seeing that an obligation definitely imposed upon them by a treaty would be fulfilled in the spirit and in the letter.

Since that meeting the Agreement which is now submitted to you was signed and His Majesty's Government have undertaken in the strongest possible manner to see it through. I have since received a letter from the British Prime Minister which I will read to the House:—

10, Downing Street,

Whitehall, S.W. 1.

Sir,

Mr. Thomas and Mr. Henderson, on their return from Dublin on the 6th instant, gave to me and to the Cabinet a full report of their discussions on the previous day with you and with your colleagues.

As a result of that report, we decided that unless in the meanwhile the Government of Northern Ireland has appointed a member of the Commission to be set up under Article XII of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty, Parliament should be asked to meet again on the 30th of next month, instead of on October 28th as had been originally intended, for the express purpose of passing into law, in priority to any other business, the Bill which was introduced into the House of Commons yesterday for the purpose of giving the force of law to the Agreement dated the 4th instant which has been signed by you and by me on behalf of our respective Governments.

His Majesty's Government fully appreciate that you and your colleagues have not in any way receded from your view that this Bill ought to be passed into law forthwith: but they hope that you also appreciate the difficulties with which His Majesty's Government are faced; and that the Oireachtas and people of the Irish Free State will understand that His Majesty's Government fully and unreservedly accepts the view that it is an honourable obligation undertaken by the people of Great Britain towards the people of the Irish Free State to secure that the Commission shall be set up and that its decisions shall be made effective by the Governments concerned.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,

Your most obedient servant,

J. RAMSAY MACDONALD.

To the President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State.

This letter repeats the undertakings previously given. I may say that the Government deeply regret that the British Government did not see their way to press their legislation to a conclusion before their recess. We had a very full and frank discussion with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Henderson and impressed upon them with all the force in our power the advisability of so doing, but they appear to have found that the difficulties in their way were too great to enable this course to be pursued. This decision has been received by us with very great regret. We deplore the delay which is being availed of by an unscrupulous and partisan Press to stir up political passions in Great Britain. We advised strongly against the delay, but we were unable to secure the acceptance of our advice.

We have no reason to think that the Bill which has been introduced into the British House of Commons will not be passed. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that the British legislature will be jealous of its plighted honour and of the honour of its nation. Should this not prove to be the case, a new situation will have arisen which the British Government and the British people will have to consider and face. We, too, shall have to face that situation if it comes, and while we do not anticipate it, we shall not be found unprepared to make our recommendations in its regard.

We are reasonable people—we have proved it—we greatly desire peace and goodwill with our neighbours, and will not refuse to attain it by agreement if the opportunity offers. We desire, above all things, the unity of Ireland; but if a piece of Ireland is to be detached from community with the Irish nation, then we say that the metes and bounds of that piece shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as economic and geographic conditions allow. That is a policy for which we confidently claim the support of this Oireachtas.

Mr. JOHNSON

The President's statement appears to indicate that he has taken a very firm line, but I am going to ask the Dáil not to agree to the First Reading of this Bill. The President says that in the event of the British Parliament not accepting the Bill, we will be free to take our own course. I want to suggest that the time has now arrived when we should take our own course, and by that I do not mean to suggest any extraordinary or violent procedure. I suggest that we have arrived at the position when the whole situation created by the signing of the Treaty has been completely altered. I think that the question cannot very well be considered satisfactorily until we examine into the basis of our powers here. I think it will be found on reading the speeches of British Ministers and the writings of British publicists and journalists, and even in the reported advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that they all proceed on the assumption that the powers of the Oireachtas are derived from an Act of the British Parliament. They always think in terms of the development of a Crown Colony to a self-governing Colony, and from that to a Dominion with sovereign powers, and that the powers have all been increased by definite Acts of the British Parliament. It has been assumed by all these people that the same course has been followed in connection with Saorstát Eireann. It is necessary for us, I say, to bear in mind that from our point of view that is an utter mistake. We have in the Constitution—Article 2—the fundamental statement: "All powers of Government and all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial in Ireland, are derived from the people of Ireland." Until we bear that in mind, and insist upon that in every respect. we shall find ourselves carried away by the logic of the argument of the opponents who assume all the time that the powers are derived from Britain, and that they may vary those powers.

I want to draw the attention of the Dáil to what I consider a sufficient reason for not accepting this Bill, not proceeding in wasting any time over it, because, as I contend, it is a definite breach of our authority, that is to say, our constitutional authority. Those of us who were members of the Constituent Assembly will remember how we were informed that there were a number of Articles which had been agreed to by the Provisional Government and the British Government, and which the Provisional Government were prepared to stand or fall by, and in effect that it had been insisted that those Articles should form part of the Constitution. In the Constitution Bill, that is to say, the Act which preceded the Schedule —the said Schedule being the Constitution—Section 2 stated: "The said 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, which are hereby given the force of law"—and this is the point I wish to draw attention to—"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." Now, part of that Constitution was the Treaty. The Constitution had to be read in conjunction with that Treaty, and in every possible way it was insisted that nothing that we could do to extend the Constitution could in any way violate or be repugnant to, as the phrase goes, the Treaty.

I point out that the Treaty clearly states that the Commission to define the area of Northern Ireland shall consist of three persons, one to be appointed by the Government of the Free State, one to be appointed by the Government of Northern Ireland, and one, who shall be Chairman, to be appointed by the British Government. I think that we can all agree with the statement of the Judicial Committee that that is to be read and taken in its natural and ordinary meaning, namely, the respective Executive Governments responsible to their respective Parliaments. In the case of Northern Ireland, that is the Parliament created by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Now, I put it to the members of the Dáil that by the Act of the British Government in imposing upon us that limitation that we could not extend or diminish, we could not alter our Constitution, we are bound by the limitations of the Treaty. We are, therefore, bound by that limitation, and we cannot pass a Bill which alters that Treaty unless we are made free to alter our Constitution outside the Treaty in other respects as well as in this respect. If that is conceded, that we are free to alter our Constitution and to pass legislation which will be repugnant to several distinct sections of the Treaty as well as to one, then we know where we are.

I suggest that we should have a Bill introduced not merely to alter this Article XII of the Treaty, or to add something which is supplemental, and in effect alters it, but that we should have a larger and more extensive Bill altering that Treaty in several other respects as well as in this respect. I think that it might be no harm, while arguing this way, to draw attention to the statement of one of the Signatories to the Treaty, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, who said on Saturday:—

"We are now told that there is to be an amending Bill. I hope that that necessity will be avoided, for the very reason for which we opposed amendments in the first instance. If you once re-open that transaction you re-open everything; you cannot confine your amendments to one question. If from one side an alteration or amendment may be proposed it may equally well be proposed from the other side."

Another publication which on this question of the Government of Ireland has an immense influence is the Spectator, and anybody who has followed public affairs relating to Ireland for the last fifteen years will know that an agitation in the columns of the Spectator has usually been followed by events, and that the judgement, or advocacy, of the Spectator, whether as a matter of influence or prescience I do not know, is probably more responsible than any other influence in England for the “Two Nations” theory, and for the setting up of a separate Northern Ireland Government. The Editor of the Spectator writing last week said:—

"The form of the Bill is unusual for in fact it asks Parliament to alter the terms of the Treaty as embodied in the Act establishing the Free State. Thus the new Bill becomes a precedent for amending the Irish Act through the action of the British House of Commons. On this we will only make two comments. The first is that the new Act confirms the ultimate power of the British Parliament to legislate for all Ireland. The second is a reminder that Acts which can be passed under moral duress can be repealed."

I quote this as showing how the minds of very eminent and very influential people in England are moving, and I want to say that the passing of this Bill will in fact be beyond our authority, the authority of our Constitution. But if it is passed, then it leaves us free to alter the Constitution in other respects, even though those other respects may be held to be repugnant to the Treaty.

It may be said that that is a very desirable position to create. It may be so, but what is to be the cost and what is to be the price paid by the passing of this Bill? We are going to set up a Boundary Commission. We are going to ensure that a Boundary Commission shall be set up so far as we can. The Boundary Commission that is to be set up now is to consist of three persons, one of whom is to be appointed by the Free State Government, and two to be appointed by the British Government. I wonder whether Deputies who were in the Dáil that approved of the Treaty, would have so approved of it had it contained a clause stating: "Provided that if such an address is so presented a Commission consisting of three persons, one to be appointed by the Government of the Free State, and two, one of whom shall be Chairman, to be appointed by the British Government"—I wonder if that had been in the Treaty whether it would have been approved by the Dáil of 1922. I think not a single member of that Dáil who may be a member of this Dáil would affirm that that would have been passed, and that the Treaty then would have been ratified. But if there is to be an alternation, why say that the British Government shall appoint two? Why not the Irish Government? Surely the Irish Government has more right to appoint a second than the English Government. But why appoint a third at all? Could not the two Commissioners who have been appointed proceed to act, and if they disagreed could not they come to their respective authorities and seek to appoint a third as an umpire, as is done in most arbitrations. I say that if there was anything to justify the setting up of the Commission at this stage the method of setting it up is not satisfactory.

My chief objection lies in this; that if that Commission fails to satisfy any of the people who have been hoping and expecting to be brought into the jurisdiction of the Free State the blame would be thrown on this biassed Commission, two of whom were appointed by the British Government and only one of whom was appointed by the Irish Government. It may be said that there is less risk of the third person being biassed if he is appointed by the British Government than if he were appointed by the Northern Government That may be, but at any rate the Northern nominee would be subject to Northern influence, would be subject to Irish influence, and would not at least be subject to the charge that it was outside influence that decided this matter. I believe then, even if we create this Commission, when this matter has been decided, if it fails to accomplish what many people in the North think it ought to accomplish, and that a Commission appointed under the provisions of the Treaty would accomplish, the blame will be thrown on the Commission because of its biassed character. But the objection is even a greater on than that. The President in a speech which he made on the 18th June nearly three months ago, related the course of events in regard to the setting up of this Boundary Commission. He showed that the matter had been pressed on the British Government month after month until in June he had written a letter to the British Prime Minister in the course of which he said that Mr. Thomas had written him on the 10th April to the effect that all necessary steps had been worked out in advance. It is now the 12th August and we are in the position of having to approve an agreement which cannot become effective for at least two months, and may not become effective then, and which in the meantime is going to give an opportunity that will be fully taken advantage of to arouse all kinds of political animosity in England and also in Ireland and then with no certainty that the Commission will be appointed. But during all those months what has happened? There has been, as the President pointed out in his speech to-day, a very persistent propaganda, and it is having its effect. There is propaganda not merely with the effect of rousing passions, but also with the object of creating amongst that class of persons whose passions are not so easily aroused, a state of mind regarding this problem, as to what was the intention of the Treaty.

At the time of the Treaty debates this matter of the Boundary was foremost in the thoughts of the people. The position of the North-Eastern portion of the country was a matter of very great concern. We were assured that Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Treaty did provide the framework of national unity in either of the contingencies. If the Northern Government agreed to accept inclusion in the Free State, then it is a matter of plain sailing, and as the President has explained to-day the Northern Government would continue to exercise jurisdiction in so far as its powers, under the 1920 Act, were exercisable over the area of the Six Counties; but if they did not accept that, and if they opted out, as the phrase goes, then they were to retain the powers of the 1920 Act, but the area of their jurisdiction was to be defined by the Boundary Commission, and defined under specific safeguards to the people of the present Six-County area. That area was to be determined in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, subject to compatibility with economic and geographical conditions. We all know what was in the minds of the signatories to the Treaty. We all know what was in the minds of the Dáil and of the public when that was agreed to, and we have every reason to believe that had the Boundary Commission been set up within a reasonable time of the signing of the Treaty, within a year of the signing of the Treaty, or within fifteen or eighteen months of the signing of the Treaty, there was every likelihood that the Irish interpretation of that would have been accepted by the Commission.

There has been, as I said, persistent propaganda of another kind, and the sub-conscious mind has been affected in such a way that everybody in England who writes and speaks about this matter assumes that there is to be a rectification of present frontiers and a variation of the Boundary. I go so far as to say that that state of mind has been created even in the person of the proposed Chairman of the Commission. It is not what you might call absolutely evident, it does not stand out clearly; but it is implicity in his statement published on 7th July, indicating that he was going to Ireland to see things for himself.

Speaking of President Cosgrave and of Sir James Craig, he said: "They have also concurred in my proposal that I should make a tour on either side of the border in order to familiarise myself with the economic and geographical conditions, so that I may be able to follow the points raised in any discussion on the Boundary, and they have kindly promised to give me facilities for the purpose of this tour, which will be of a purely private character." I say that that phraseology indicates that, in the mind of the proposed Chairman of this Commission, he is going to consider the present Boundary, when his business will be to consider what shall be the Boundary of Northern Ireland and what shall be the area over which the Government and the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall have jurisdiction and that is to be defined by the wishes of the inhabitants, subject only to economic and geographical conditions. There is nothing in that clause of the Treaty but would support my view: that if it were necessary, the wishes of the inhabitants of Antrim, Down and Belfast City would need to be taken as well as of Tyrone, South Down, and Fermanagh; but that statement of the proposed Chairman of the Commission precludes any such possibility from his mind.

General MULCAHY

The Treaty?

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not know what the reference is to, because here we are asked to accept the introduction of a Bill which is to ensure the setting up of a Commission, which is to be paramount in this matter of defining that area. Two of the Commissioners are to be appointed by the British Government, and one of them, the Chairman, has expressed himself in these terms.

Mr. GOREY

Would the Deputy read again that extract from the statement of the proposed Chairman of the Boundary Commission?

Mr. JOHNSON

The extract reads: "They (meaning President Cosgrave and Sir James Craig) have also concurred in my proposal that I should make a tour on either side of the border in order to familiarise myself with the economic and geographical conditions, so that I may be able to follow the points raised in any discussion of the boundary, and they have kindly promised to give me facilities for the purpose of this tour, which will be of purely private character."

Mr. GOREY

I think that is perfectly plain.

Mr. JOHNSON

I freely admit that that is quite compatible with my interpretation, but if my interpretation of the powers of that Commission had been in the mind of any person as a possibility, he would not have couched his sentence in that language. It is indicative, in my view, of a prejudice in favour of the idea of an alternation or adjustment of the existing Boundary. I do not want to press this too far, because I know that the statement even of the Minister for Justice last week can be interpretated in a wider sense; but when we have our own Ministers referring to areas contiguous to the Boundary, again I say that in evidence of the way the lapse of time and persistent propaganda have affected the mentality of the people who are going to be the determinants on this question. There are members of the British delegation who signed the Treaty telling us day after day, some of them, that what they intended was a rectification of the existing Boundaries. I say that all these things have gone very far to prejudice the chances of the Treaty being implemented by this Commission in the way it was intended at the time of the signing by the Signatories on both sides. The lapse of time since the signing of the Treaty has so prejudiced the position that we would be far better not to agree to the setting up of this Commission at this time, not to facilitate, shall I say, the British Government in its present attempt to implement the Treaty and to fulfil its obligations. They have failed for two years, and now they are coming forward when the ground has been poisoned at the end of that period. We are going to set up a Commission, and when it has reported —the chances are that it will report according to the mentality of the man who wrote that letter, the second nominee of the British Government— you have then fixed the Boundary and you have then made the Partition absolute except for the possibility that still remains that in five years' time the main part of that Section 12 will have been implemented.

When Section 12 was under discussion at the time of the Treaty debates some of us knew there was implied in that Section and in Section 13, the assurance that, no matter what they might do with the Boundary, whether the area of the Northern Government was made larger or smaller, however larger or smaller, there was implied in it the framework of national unity through the operations of the Council of Ireland; that even from the first day, that in so far as respects those three functions of railways, fisheries, and contagious diseases of animals, the Free State Government and Parliament will have some say in the administration of these three matters in the Northern Counties. In that you had the assurance that at some time there would be a unified Government, at least for certain functions, over the whole country. I pointed out as well as I could on the 18th June, that that had been given away, and that we had practically handed over the one redeeming feature of these partition clauses, which would have secured to the country an assurance of ultimate unity. Although that had not been utterly destroyed it has been almost lost to us by the action of the Provisional Government in conceding a five year period before any such Council should come into operation.

I would like to hear from the Ministry what is their reason for bringing this Bill to the Dáil. The President told us a fortnight ago that the question between the Northern Government and the British Government was a domestic matter between the two Governments, that the question of the advice to be given by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the Government as to how it should carry out its obligations was a matter purely for that Government. They had given that advice, and they told the British Government that they had no statutory powers to implement the Treaty. I want to know what is it that has impelled our Government to bring this Bill before us. Are we to understand that it is a mutual recognition, that there can be no alternation, diminution or extension of the statutory powers of the Northern Parliament and Government without the consent of the Free State Parliament and Government? Is that the reason why this is brought for confirmation by the Dáil? If that is so, then it is satisfactory. I would like to have some positive assurance authoritatively that can be quoted to that effect. Is it, on the other hand, because it is to be an alternation and an amendment of the Treaty, and that as such it cannot be altered except by the act of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann? I would have thought, from the assurance given in the Dáil a fortnight ago, that if the matter was one between the British Government and the Northern Government as to how the Northern Government was to appoint its representative on this Boundary Commission, there would have been no need to bring this forward; but I suspect it is because it is recognised that it is an amendment of the Treaty, an alteration of the Treaty, and that as such it must be approved and ratified by both Parliaments. Well, I think, as I already said, that we are not allowed by our Constitution to alter that Treaty in this way, because in this way it is repugnant to the provisions of Article 12. I believe that the best way to deal with this matter is to adopt the view that the failure to implement the Treaty, the failure to define the area of jurisdiction of the Northern Parliament and Government owing to the failure to appoint a Boundary Commission, makes it incumbent upon us to make a new treaty, not merely in respect of this provision, but in respect of other provisions as well. Do not let us fall into the habit of assuming that the Treaty was one of those things that Ireland jumped at with joy. Let us remember that it was something taken and accepted under very great pressure, under the pressure, as Mr. Austen Chamberlain said on Saturday, of the threat to raise an additional 100,000 men. It is worth quoting, just to remind Deputies and the country of the conditions under which this Treaty was signed. He said:

"We have no doubt of our power to put down disorder in the long run and to bring back Ireland to its allegiance, if that were necessary, by force of arms, but we thought with all the memories of the Great War behind us, with all the mourning families and the vacant places that it was our duty, as statesmen, as trustees for the British people, that we should make a last effort at conciliation, before we came to you, as we were prepared to do and were on the eve of doing, to raise an additional one hundred thousand men to bring the struggle to an end. So we entered on the negotiations."

We chose to accept the Treaty with all its impositions, including the imposition that we could not alter the Treaty to any degree, and we have kept our word. By a fault for which, no doubt, both sides were jointly responsible, but by a fault, which the British Government say is a fault which they have no statutory authority to amend, it has not been found possible to implement the Treaty in this respect and, therefore, the Treaty in this most important respect cannot be made operative. Now, then, are we so pleased with everything in the Treaty that we are to help the British Government out of a difficulty without getting something for it? If we must alter our Treaty and our Constitution to satisfy the desire for the Boundary Question to be settled and partition to be ensured, then let us do something which will enable us to make friends with our people here. Let us get something more out of it than a mere alternation which would get the British Government out of a difficulty.

The Judicial Committee advised them that they had no statutory power. I want to know if our Government took any steps to get advice as to its powers with regard to the implementing of this Article of the Treaty, and the setting up of this Commission, and what was the advice that its legal advisers gave them. Some of us remember a statement made by the President to newspaper correspondents recently. I think that he could not have made that statement unless it was on the advice of his legal advisers which in relation to the Irish Government is just as competent, just as influential as the advice of the Privy Council Judicial Committee is in relation to the British Government, that the failure to set up this Commission nullified the action of the Northern Government in opting out of the Treaty arrangements, and that as a consequence the provisions of Article 14 became operative. I would like to know whether that is the position of the Government. Is that the advice that was given by its legal advisers, and are they prepared to stand upon that advice, as the British Government was prepared to stand on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? I would like a very definite assurance that the Government here is not accepting as authorative, the advice to the British Government of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and that because of that advice it is taking these steps. I would like to have the assurance of the Ministry that it is acting entirely as an autonomous body with its own legal advisers at its disposal, and accepting the advice, in regard to its legal power and authority, of its own legal advisers; not the Privy Council nor the Crown itself.

I believe that the setting up of the Boundary Commission, after all that had passed, and the drawing of a boundary is not going to do any good but is going to do great harm, inasmuch as that boundary is going to be a much more definite thing than the present one. I would much rather say we stand upon the fact that Saorstát Eireann covers Ireland, that we have in accordance with our promise, agreed to forego the rights, the jurisdiction, and the authority over those six counties or such portion of them as may be decided until there is a willingness to come in and join us, but that in the meantime, because of the failure to implement the Treaty as it was drafted, that we should enlarge our authority, that we should amend our Constitution, that we should aim at the general support of the many thousands of good men and women who are available to support a Constitution revised, without the obnoxious sections which were forced to import into our Constitution. I believe an opportunity arises now to rally to the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann many thousands of people who have been estranged, and that we can do it because of the failure of the British Government to fulfil the Treaty, and that the time has passed for any further delay. We should not proceed to the setting up of this Boundary Commission by the method proposed in this Bill, and I therefore am going to ask the Dáil to refuse to agree to the proposition of the President.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

Listening to Deputy Johnson one's mind went back to the first speech he delivered in the Dáil after the recent elections. I remember that speech well. I remember its substance. I did not agree with it. I thought that the Deputy was laying down for himself, and, to some extent, for his party, restrictions which it was unwise for any Deputy to attempt to lay down even for himself, and still more for his party. The Deputy seemed to me to be chagrined somewhat at the election results, and he rather obliquely lectured the electorate. If I might be so bold as to paraphrase, it amounted to this: Very good. You have brought it on yourselves. I interpret these results as an instruction to me and to my party to refrain from comment, from criticism on the broader matters of policy, to confine myself strictly to what might be regarded as industrial matters, strictly labour matters. The electors in the bulk have chosen to give their support to two parties, one of which is not represented in this House, and the other of which is. I and my colleagues interpret this result as a clear warning to us to keep off the grass, so to speak. I felt tempted to follow the Deputy that day, and question the wisdom or even the propriety of any Deputy laying such a self-denying ordinance upon himself, but I was deterred by the conviction that a week, ten days, or a fortnight would see the end of that which I considered a rather foolish self-denying ordinance, a self-denying ordinance which was less than justice to the electorate in general, and to Deputy Johnson's constituents and to the constituents of the members of his party in particular. No Deputy ought to try to tie himself up in that way, still less the leader of a party, and still less the leader of the party which forms the opposition in the Dáil. In practice, Deputy Johnson very soon departed from the self-denying ordinance, which he laid down for himself and his party in that first speech in the Dáil, and he struck out into the broad waters of general politics, as any leader of any Opposition must. The Deputy takes the line now in the Dáil and before the country that the time has arrived to take our own course.

Mr. DAVIN

Hear, hear.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Deputy Davin enthusiastically endorses the advice.

Mr. DAVIN

Without qualification.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I would prefer less enthusiasm in endorsement and more care in definition and explanation. It is an ideal thing to "take one's own course." Everyone likes to take his own course. Every individual, and a fortiori every community and every nation, knows that to take one's own course is pleasant. But the phrase is vague. It should be defined and explained in the context. Deputy Johnson spurns definitions. He loves the upper ether. “Let us take our own course”—in the upper ether. What does he mean by it; what exactly does it involve? Well, I suppose he would repeat another political leader's advice and say “Wait and see.”

Mr. JOHNSON

Might I say that it involves exactly the course that would become operative after the British Parliament has thrown out the Bill.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Well, I thank the Deputy for his explanation, as far as it goes. When and if the situation which the Deputy outlines arises, that situation will be considered in its surrounding circumstances. I take it that whoever forms the Executive Council of the day will deem it their responsibility to outline a policy to the Dáil. But the Deputy is advocating a course hic et nunc. He ought to be more explicit. “Take our own course.” The Deputy has not been precise and one can only guess that he is advocating the renunciation of the Treaty, that he is advocating the amendment of the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the Treaty. Now, if he means that, he should put it in plain words. Because, assuredly, it is a matter of some importance to the people of the country, and the humblest citizen, and the humblest elector is entitled to understand what Deputy Johnson means when he says, “Let us take our own course.” If he means that we are to tear up the international document which forms the basis of our relations with our neighbour country, which neighbour country, incidentally, constitutes our main, if not our only market, then, he should say that quite clearly, facing all its possible consequences and reactions, political and economic, to put quite on one side military consequences.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is that another threat?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It is not another threat from me. The Deputy, no doubt, realises that in public life one cannot always be ethereal and abstract, that one must occasionally come down to earth and face facts. On what grounds does he ask us to do this? If this is the course that is advocated, let us examine the justification. Having waited two years, we are asked to wait six weeks, with a letter in the hands of the President of the Executive Council from the Prime Minister of England containing the most emphatic and explicit pledges that on the re-assembling of the British Parliament, this Bill taking final steps to constitute the Boundary Commission, will be taken up and will thereafter be given priority over all other business, and will be pressed to its conclusion; and containing the explicit statement that the British Government recognises, as we recognise, that this is a matter affecting the honour and the good faith not merely of the British Government, but of the British people, and that the Prime Minister recognises the honourable obligation to constitute this Commission and to give effect to its findings. And that is what we are to call "bad faith!" That is what we are to call a breach of faith, demanding or justifying, on our part, the denunciation of the Treaty, or the amendment of the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with the Treaty! I know as well as Deputy Johnson knows why the Treaty was accepted. I know as well as he knows the circumstances in which it was accepted, and I know that in the minds of many Deputies who accepted it, one of the most potent factors was the plea put forward by the delegation from Labour which put against the doctrinaire politics that were being thrown across the Dáil, the big human factor of the condition of the country and the country's people.

Mr. DAVIN

Are we any better off to-day?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

This is an eleventh hour decision of Deputy Johnson and his party. It was put before the country for the first time last week. "The Treaty is broken and is to be denounced. There should be no Boundary Commission. It will do more harm than good. The situation will be worse after it." And when a colleague with a crude mind said "But after all it is the Treaty," Deputy Johnson disposed of him with the remark "The Labour Party was not in the Dáil when the Treaty was accepted."

But we thought we represented the people of the country, and, if we did not, the Labour delegation came before us and put its point of view, Deputy Johnson, I think, being one of the number. The Treaty, forming as it does the basis of our relations with our neighbour-country, holds, in our opinion, possibilities for this country and for this country's people, rather too valuable to be thrown away in a light and airy way and in a set of circumstances which is not considered abundantly to justify that course—to be thrown away with the minimum of advertence to what is to take its place, with almost negligible consideration of the vistas opened up by that particular line of policy.

We are not standing up in the Dáil to-day accusing either the British Government or the British Parliament or the British people of bad faith. A situation exists which calls for vigilance on the part of this people, on the part of its representatives and on the part of its Government. But no situation exists which would justify a charge to the world that the British people had broken faith, and that, therefore, we proposed to "take our own course." What is that course, anyway, leaving out—if one can leave out such an important consideration— the fact that it involves, or would seem to involve, in so far as one can guess at what it means at all, a severance of friendly relations with a neighbouring country of 40,000,000 people, constituting our main market. What is that course even with regard to these six North-Eastern counties? Are they, as Deputy McCabe suggested the last day, "to go their own course"?

Mr. JOHNSON

May I say that there is no question of severing friendly relations? There is an international tribunal if they consider that a breach is a severance of friendly relations.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I am trying to get down to earth. I am trying to find out what this advice means. If I came to the conclusion that it was good for the country or good for the people, the Deputy can take it that I would follow it. What does it involve with regard to the six North-Eastern counties? Are they to "go their own course"? If so, quite a large minority there would find one short and simple descriptive phrase for that. The Treaty secured for them certain rights. Our claim, as the President emphasised, has never been a territorial claim. It has been a claim that people would not, by compulsion, be excluded from the jurisdiction of their choice. It has been a claim that areas consisting homogeneously or predominantly of people who wish to be included in the jurisdiction of the Free State Government should have those wishes given effect to. But Deputy McCabe, and possibly Deputy Johnson, suggest that that claim should not be persisted in.

Mr. A. McCABE

In that case, does the Minister mean migration?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

No. I do not mean migration. The Deputy is thinking of congested districts. The suggestion seems to me to be that we should play the game with those who are not our friends either in this country or in England would wish us to play — that we should put ourselves in the wrong, that for fear the British Government and the British people might at some time in the future break the Treaty, we should break it now and play the game of all those who feel a difficulty either in the North or in England with regard to Article XII. We are to surrender the rights which we won for the large minority in the six counties, considering the six counties collectively, because, in fact, they are in a majority in individual counties. We are to surrender the rights which the Treaty, signed by Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins, won for those friends of ours in the North-East area; we are to tear up now the international document which secured those rights for them. We are to put ourselves before the world in the position of being branded and blackguarded from end to end, as people who have broken faith. And all for what? For fear that the British Government, in September or October, or November or December might break faith! The thing is not practical politics. It is all right to use airy phrases about "going one's own course." But you can go your own course into a bog, just as you can go your own course along a straight, plain, steam-rolled road. If we do not look out on the course we are going, no one else is going to look out on our behalf and say "Watch your step, you are in the morass." Deputy Johnson used the argument that this legislation which has been introduced by the President is repugnant to the Treaty and, therefore, contrary to an Article of our Constitution which states that:—

... 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 the Parliament and the Executive Council of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) shall respectively pass such further legislation and do all such other things as may be necessary to implement the scheduled Treaty.

The meaning of the word "repugnant" in that context is not in doubt. A law would be repugnant to the Treaty if it attempted to enact something which the Treaty, by express terms, or necessary intent prohibited— for example, if it attempted to endow any religion or to impose any disability on account of religious belief. But this agreement, signed by Mr. MacDonald and the President, is not in any way inconsistent with any provision of the Treaty nor is the Act which gives effect to it. It contradicts no term of the Treaty. It provides for a possibility which was not provided for in express terms by the Treaty.

I stress "in express terms," because it might well be held that the contingency which has in fact arisen was provided for by implication. It might well be held and argued that it was an implication of the Treaty that any default of a subordinate Parliament and Government would be made good by the predominant Parliament and Government of the area concerned. The Treaty was negotiated and entered into with the British Government, and it would be possible to hold under Article 12 that it was at least an implication that any default by the subordinate Government and Parliament would be made good by the British Government. The British Government propose to legislate to make good that default, and because it would be—to put it at the lowest—unwise to take the view that even in a matter of that kind an international document could be altered by legislation in one Parliament—in the Parliament of one party to it—it is proposed to put through this Oireachtas a Bill in similar or, in fact, I think, in identical terms. Therefore, when Deputy Johnson asks us whether we regard this as an alteration of the Treaty, I would like to distinguish. It is fulfilling the intent of the Treaty. It is even rendering explicit what might be considered an implication of the Treaty. It is establishing machinery whereby the predominant Parliament makes good the default of the subordinate Government, and it is not, as the Deputy suggests, repugnant to the Treaty within the meaning of the Article of the Constitution which he quoted.

The Dáil faces this position with two views before it: one put very clearly by the President; the other indicated in general outline by Deputy Johnson. One course suggests patience and vigilance. The other course—somewhat ill-considered in my opinion— suggests that we here and now take the view that the Treaty no longer exists, that it has been broken by cumulative delays on the part of the British Government and that we should take our own course. The best way, Deputy Johnson says—and I was a long time waiting for his conception of the best way—is to take the view that failure to appoint a Boundary Commission makes it incumbent on us to make a new Treaty, not merely with respect to this particular provision, but in respect to other provisions as well. One could sit down and draft a Treaty ever so much better and desirable from the point of view of the great majority of the citizens of this country than the existing Treaty. The existing Treaty, however, is signed by representatives of a British Government and by Irish plenipotentiaries. I would not anticipate very much difficulty in securing the signatures of Irish representatives to a Treaty which one would sit down and draft, having an eye to improving defects in the existing Treaty or removing objectionable features.

Where the rub would come—perhaps Deputy Johnson has ideas or suggestions as to how it might be got over— would be in securing the signatures of representatives of the British Government. He says that the best way is to make a new Treaty, not merely in respect of Article 12, but in respect of a great many other Articles. The Deputy should negotiate and secure the signatures and come back to the Dáil with it and ask: "Is not this a much better Treaty that I have got for you than this old one that you have been working for the last two years and that you found inconvenient in parts—which will you have?" I do suggest that before he asks the Dáil and the Irish people to tear up that which they have got, and to put the fates and fortunes of this country back once more into the melting-pot, he should, at least, come down to earth and outline in a practical way the steps he would take to meet probable, or even possible, consequences of that course and the steps he would take to ensure that the new Treaty that he would negotiate and get signed would be a distinct advance on the old one which we are invited to tear up.

Mr. MILROY

I am disappointed in the speech of the Minister who has just sat down. There is a good deal in it with which I am in thorough agreement and I hope to some extent to indicate that in what I have to say. But I do not think it is facing fully and frankly the situation with which we are now confronted and have to consider simply to conclude his speech with a taunt by inviting Deputy Johnson to do what he knows has no relevance at the moment —to go and make another Treaty. I am not in agreement with Deputy Johnson's attitude. I do not consider his contribution to the controversy—if we can call it that—as helpful to any great extent. I do not concur in his contention that Article 12 of the Treaty has yet been violated. I think that Deputy Johnson's appeal to this Dáil has been much weakened by the statement which preceded it some days ago that the Boundary, even if set up, could fulfil no helpful function. I think that more or less invalidates the whole plea that Deputy Johnson has put forward. "The setting up and functioning of the Boundary Commission would not be good for anybody." If that is a fact we leave it open to the British to say that in failing to do that they refrained from doing something that would have inflicted injury on the people of the country. I say that shatters the basis of the contention—the reasonable convincing contention—that the Treaty has been broken because this clause has not up to the moment been put into operation.

For my part, I am sorry that this clause or Article has not been put into operation. References have been made to the delay that has been involved. Deputy Johnson dwelt on them at length as indicating how these delays have jeopardised our position and our claim. But neither he nor the two Ministers who preceded him drew attention to what was the primary cause of that delay, and the factor that brought our position and our claim to a position of almost fatal embarrassment. That factor is not, I think, represented in this Dáil to-day. The primary factor responsible for that delay and that dangerous position which this country was brought to under that clause was created by those who plunged this country into bloodshed and ashes. When we are apportioning blame and considering where the responsibility lies, let that not be forgotten, and let not the public memory run away with the idea that those who are responsible for that have now expiated their offences, and are now the latest brand of heroes and savers of this State.

Although I find Deputy Johnson's contention somewhat unhelpful, I am not much better satisfied with the general attitude of the Executive Council. I am not blaming them for those conditions and factors of a disastrous nature which brought this country almost to irretrievable ruin, and jeopardised, almost fatally, our claim under Article 12; but I am criticising them for not having taken more energetic steps than have been taken to retrieve the position that was thus brought about. Again I want to ask, has the Dáil been fairly treated in regard to this Bill? An agreement has been entered into between the heads of the British and the Saorstát Governments, and that agreement is brought before us, not for consideration, but for post factum approval. Is that a way to deal with the Dáil that will inspire us with confidence, that we can trust our Executive to carry this through without committing us without our consideration to some step or commitment, the implications of which we will have no knowledge of until it becomes an accomplished fact? I would be glad to support the Government in this matter if I could. I recognise that a certain set of circumstances has arisen for which the Executive is not perhaps primarily responsible, though I do not entirely acquit them of responsibility. A certain particular set of circumstances has arisen, and some course of action must be pursued which will extricate the parties to the Treaty from a certain unforeseen dilemma into which they have fallen. I have one objection to this Bill.

The matter to which I am going to allude may have been an oversight, and if I can get an assurance of an amendment to it I am prepared to support the Bill. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 says:—

This Act shall come into operation on the date on which the said Agreement set forth in the Schedule to this Act is confirmed by Act of the British Parliament or, if such Act is passed before the passing of this Act, shall come into operation on the passing of this Act.

The third paragraph of the Schedule says:—

NOW it is hereby agreed, subject to the confirmation of this Agreement by the British Parliament and the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State, that, if the Government of Northern Ireland does not before the date of the passing of the Act of the British Parliament or of the Act of the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State confirming this Agreement, whichever is the later date, appoint the Commissioner...

The words "whichever is the later date" are the words to which I want to draw attention. We may put this Bill through all its stages to-day. We commit ourselves and the State to whatever is the view of that Bill on the other side as that Bill stands. That Bill in the British Parliament has also been confronted with such a precarious possibility of immediately passing, that there have been, I think, indications by British Ministers that they are prepared to dissolve the British Parliament and go to the country on it. Once again the old game will be played and Ireland, and Ireland's claims and Ireland's position will become the shuttlecock of British party politicians. To what end? What will be the ultimate end? I, for my part, cannot say, nor can any Deputy here.

Who knows what the whirligig of British politics at a General Election will bring? It may be that those ex-Ministers who have been repudiating the spirit in which the Treaty was signed will be returned to power, and all that they would have to do would be to hold up indefinitely the Final Stages of the Bill in their own Parliament, and we are bound to it, because this does not operate until whichever Act is latest goes through its completed stages. I want to know whether or not the Executive are prepared to embody in the Bill words specifying a certain limitation of time, a certain date when it must become either operative or cease to be valid as a Statute. I trust that that consideration will not be regarded as one unworthy of the consideration of Ministers, because greater things may hinge on it than merely whether or not the Ministers secure my vote in the Division which, I presume, will follow this.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

May I say, sir, that it is not proposed to proceed further than the First Stage with this Bill.

Mr. MILROY

I quite understand that. I gathered that from the President's statement. But there is such a thing as giving approval, even in the formality of a First Reading, to a principle which may react upon us and upon our decisions at a future stage, and before I cast my vote on the First Reading of this Bill, I would like to have a statement of what is the mind of the Ministry with regard to that particular point. I think that the statement of the President to-day contained much that was overdue. I have alluded to the regrettable position of substantial embarrassment in which we stand in regard to Article 12 of the Treaty, as construed, regarding our attitude and its effect upon the lives of the people of the Six Counties, who, we know, desire to be united with the Saorstát. Other speakers have referred to that, but one is inclined to ask: has that delay not been deliberately produced in order that the data which would influence the decisions of the Boundary Tribunal would be fundamentally different— superficially different, perhaps, it would be more accurate to say—than it would have been if the Boundary Tribunal had sat and functioned immediately after the passing of the Treaty. If that objective has been deliberate, or whether it has been deliberate or not, that particular condition has been reached, and I want to know what has the Executive Council done to avert such a condition of things. There was a time, in the middle, I think, of the turmoil that took place in this country which had disastrous effects upon our position, when the Executive Council set up a Boundary Bureau, which collected a certain amount of data, a volume of valuable data, and then, I believe, it closed down, and there has been at the moment when it was most necessary, at the moment when, as the President stated, the anti-Irish campaign was recommenced with redoubled vehemence, hardly a single word of a counteracting statement emanating from an authentic source on behalf of the Executive Council. So much was this policy of silence pursued, that one was almost diffident about raising the matter in this Assembly, lest perhaps Ministers might resent some allusion to the subject. I suppose they were taking their cue from the idea of the Minister for Justice, who told us recently that a decade was only a heart-beat in the life of a nation, and we, I am sure, or at least the people in the Six Counties who have been looking forward to a reunion with the Saorstát, will look perhaps with as much satisfaction upon being asked if they can stand another heart-beat of the nation as they looked to de Valera's plea that they should stand another round with England.

I say that it is time to take this matter seriously, and I certainly feel satisfaction in believing that the Ministry are at last awake to the fact that this is a serious question, and not merely a fad of a few people who have some responsibility in connection with North-East Ulster. I hope when we have finished with whatever course we have to pursue in this matter that the records of the decisions arrived at will not be such as will show that the decisions of the Executive Council were like the sentry who allowed the enemy to slip past him when his back was turned and then declared his helplessness for what followed. There has been a good deal of comment about the goodwill and the honourable intentions of the British in the matter. I do not know what particular species of the British Commonwealth is alluded to as being villains. Politicians were denounced, I do not know whether it was by the President or by the Minister for Justice, or both, as being men with heinous propensities so far as this State was concerned, but there was some section of the British who were filled not only with the milk of human kindness, but with all the virtues that a man can possibly be made the victim of; they were more virtuous in this respect than our own Ministers, and that is saying a great deal. But there is one gentleman, I do not know which category he comes under, the saints or the sinners, who happens to be Sir Henry Slesser, the Solicitor-General. A few days ago, speaking at Leeds, he said: "The Coalition Government fixed up a Treaty with the Irish in which it was agreed on Ulster going out of the Irish State that a Boundary Commission should be set up to fix the boundaries between Ulster and Catholic Ireland."

The first thing these Ministers who are so devoted to the cause of justice, fair play, and fair dealing, when they are in a position of responsibility to deal with a serious matter like this, one would imagine would do would be to acquaint themselves with the facts of the situation. This is not a question of a division between Catholic Ireland and some other section of Ireland that is not Catholic. It is time that the national position in this matter was stated clearly and emphatically. That is one of the reasons why I welcomed the statement of the President because there was a nearer approach to a broad statesmanlike vision and appreciation of the subject in his speech than in any statement that has fallen from the lips of anybody.

The Sunday Times of August 3rd said: “For Britain or any party in Britain to take sides in the controversy between the Free State and the Government of Northern Ireland would be an act of political lunacy.” There is no controversy between the Free State and Northern Ireland; there is no equality of status between the two factors so mentioned. This paper in the same issue says: “As between the two Irelands Great Britain must be benevolently neutral.” There are no two Irelands in this country. There is one Irish nation, and there is one pro-British faction that is trying to disrupt the Irish nation. There is no equality of status, no equality of claim, and the sooner that is asserted emphatically, and vehemently if you like, in order to counter the smoke screen of propaganda abroad the better. That is why I criticise the Publicity Department of the Government for remaining silent while this deluge of transparent humbug, hypocrisy, and lies has been sent abroad as an authentic statement of the facts of the situation. I also endorse the statement of the President that this is not properly described as a claim for territory. It is not a squabble between two factions haggling over territory; it is the Irish nation asserting its position, trying to retrieve the blunders created by British legislation of four years ago. That is the position on the one hand, and on the other hand the position is, I suggest, a pro-British faction trying to torpedo the nation and thwarting the national aim. There is nothing sacrosanct about the Six-County Parliament. It has neither historic foundation nor moral basis. It is the mere arbitrary carving out of a certain section of this country to suit the whims, the caprices, of a certain section of irreconcilable political leaders. There is no use in being mealy-mouthed about the facts of the situation. That is the fact—those who are posturing as the co-equals of the Saorstát are those who have refused to recognise or accept the fact of the Irish nation, and to bulwark up their position is to endeavour to facilitate the achievement of the end they have in view. We have not finished with this matter when this Bill has been disposed of.

Certain British ex-Ministers are making allegations quite the contrary to the statements made at the passing of the Treaty—I speak of certain British signatories to the Treaty. If this Bill, or its counterpart in the British Parliament, meets with defeat, and a General Election ensues, and a political upheaval follows, then those gentlemen who to-day are renouncing their own signatures, like some of our own did at a certain time—they copied a very undesirable example—may be the Ministers that our Executive Council may have to deal with. Then let us recognise the fact that we may have to consider seriously, as a course of practical politics, something that is right up to us as the one honest possible thing to do, to go our own course. Two of the leading signatories to the Treaty have taken steps that must at least give even the most sanguine believers in British faith reasons for doubt. These two signatories are Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Austen Chamberlain. On one occasion Lord Birkenhead made a statement, a reply to which appeared over the name of Deputy Duggan. It was an occasion when this British nobleman said, I think, that all that Article 12 meant was a rectification of the Boundary. Deputy Duggan, commenting on that, said, referring to this particular Article: "It has several times been pointed out that the decisive words, `in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions,' are almost identical with those implied in the Treaty of Versailles when dealing with the line to be drawn in plebiscite areas such as East Prussia and Upper Silesia. In those cases the words were interpreted to mean no mere rectification in an existing frontier, but the drawing of a completely new frontier."

If that had not been the understanding, and if that had not been the spirit behind that Article, neither that Article nor any other Article of the Treaty would have been signed. I have insisted all along, at the various interventions I have made in these discussions, that the spirit as well as the letter of that Article must be kept. The spirit of that Article is not to be enunciated by the thoughts of certain English politicians three years after the Treaty was signed, but rather by the spirit which prevailed and animated the people who at that time signed the Treaty, especially those representing the nation whose territory was in question. What was the object of Article XII? To allude to it as being only for the purpose of a rectification of the line, that is to say, the giving of a little bit here and the taking of a little bit there, is to shut out of consideration the very vital and dominating fact which necessitated some such clause as that. It is utterly undeniable that that clause was constructed and inserted in the Treaty because there were large areas within the jurisdiction of the Six-County Parliament which had protested and repudiated its authority, not merely from its inception, but repudiated the idea of any such authority prior even to its inception. On the 14th December, 1921, a week after the Treaty was signed, Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister of England at the time, said: "There is no doubt, certainly since the passing of the Act of 1920, that the majority of the people of the two counties referred to, Tyrone and Fermanagh, prefer to be with their southern neighbours rather than to be under a Northern Parliament. Take it either by constituencies or by Poor Law Unions, or if you like by counting heads, you will find that the majority in these two counties prefer to be with their Southern neighbours. What does that mean? If Ulster is to remain a separate community she can only do so by means of coercion, and it is by means of coercion only that Ulster can keep these two counties. I do not believe in Ulster coercion."

That is the doctrine that is now being preached by the then colleagues of Mr. Lloyd George. It is being preached by them as a sacred principle in which civilisation and civic rights are enshrined, the very principle upon which Belfast and its political adherents emphasised and enforced their claim to remain outside of the jurisdiction of the National Parliament. That claim can now be quoted against themselves as a justification by areas such as Tyrone and Fermanagh and other areas. If Ulster repudiates coercion from Dublin, though I think its apprehensions in that respect are quite unjustified, but if it is justified in repudiating the authority of the National Parliament in the National capital, surely those in the areas to which I have alluded are equally justified in repudiating authority, wielded in the Belfast Parliament, which is repugnant to them. I stress that point because it has been the insistent objective of quite recent propaganda that there can be no question of interfering with the territory at present under the jurisdiction of the Belfast Parliament. That area is now regarded by those political advocates of Belfast as a more sacred entity than anybody else ever regarded the whole of Ireland—at least so it appears on the face of it. I say, there is nothing sacrosanct about the Six-County area. It is simply an artificial jerry-mandered entity carved out to suit the whims, caprice and the political domination of certain pro-British fanatics.

That brings me to another point. We will assume that the Boundary Commission is eventually set up. What, I ask, has been done to prepare the advocates who will appear before it on behalf of the Saorstát to equip them with all the necessary data? It will not do to hand them a large bulky tome of evidence a day or a week before the Tribunal sits. The case of this claim, right and interest of the Saorstát is one of a formidable nature and one which cannot be wholly assimilated in a few days. I want to secure information from a representative of the Ministry as to what steps have been taken to see, even if the Boundary Commission is set up, that we will not be caught napping, but that the case for the Saorstát as regards the evidence and data that we will have to present to the Commission, will be such as will bring not merely conviction to any fair-minded Tribunal, but that it will be presented by persons competent to do so.

I want finally to say this: The Boundary Commission may not be set up; it may be that the exigencies of politics across the water will be such that, however well intentioned those who wield authority there at the moment may be, others may succeed them who will be less jealous of their nation's honour and their nation's name, and it may be that Article 12 of the Treaty will be violated or will not be honoured by the British. It may be that we will have to face as an actual situation that which some of us up to the moment have apprehended, and which spokesmen on behalf of the British have derided as almost beyond the compass of possibility. But if this situation does arise, if we are let down and if Article 12 is not implemented, and if that fact is made patent to the world, is the Executive here prepared to face the consequences of the situation which will then inevitably arise, and have they, I ask, given any serious consideration to that possible contingency? I say that the nation that foresees contingencies is able to meet them, but the nation that only trusts to luck and gives no thought to what may be the dangers that will arise to-morrow will, when these dangers come upon it, be impotent and at the mercy of its enemies.

I sometimes think that the attitude of our Executive has been one of satisfaction from the point of view of the polite correspondent. It has been one of dignity, undoubtedly, but it has been one that sometimes struck me as being that of dignified impotence. I do not think that the Ministry need take up that attitude, because I believe that if that situation does arise, grave though it may be, it can call for the full resources of this nation to back it up in whatever steps may be necessary to vindicate the national position. I do not speak with any desire to harass or to embarrass the Government in the difficult work they have had to carry through and which is still before them. My desire is to strengthen their hands, if that can be done, but certainly as the Bill stands at the moment, and without some assurance that a time limitation will be placed upon the operation of that clause, I feel that I cannot give the Bill my support, even for a First Reading.

Mr. BEAMISH

What are we really debating at the present moment? We are debating a matter of a corrective amendment to be introduced through an Act of Parliament to set up a Commission. We have heard a good number here of those against the Treaty but a majority probably of speakers for the Treaty. Deputy Johnson made a suggestion about fair play, and his suggestion about fair play as regards the Commission seems to be that the Irish nation should nominate the third party on the Commission. It was as if you were to toss a penny with two heads in the air, and that we should call "head" when we all knew beforehand that head only could turn up. That is not my idea of fair play, and I think it is the most anti-Irish idea I ever heard emanating from a gentleman who, I believe is an Irishman. What would be the result of such a wild idea as that if it came from our Executive Government? It is perfectly clear, of course, what the result would be. The result would be that we would be told that we had obtained benefit, to the prejudice of the Northern Counties. That undoubtedly and reasonably would be the conclusion arrived at. The suggestion which has been made by our Government is a wise suggestion. They say that England after all is more or less a third party in this matter, but is not so implicated in the question of the Boundary as the two other parties concerned directly are. That is quite correct. We have heard, of course, Deputy Milroy ask: If the end of the world were to come suddenly and that everything was blown up, where would we all be? That is the whole argument that has been placed before us. I am quite certain that if such a thing happened the Deputy would be in Heaven; but we are not going to lose the Treaty for that. It is perfectly clear that we must stand by our own argument. There are several interpretations with regard to this amendment, but it seems to me that first of all we are to suspect everybody but ourselves. We are the only holy people in the world. I do not think we are; I think that we make mistakes like most other people; I also think we are fairly straight, but we must give the same amount of credit to our so-called enemies as we desire our so-called enemies should give to us. I do not believe the British Government for a moment intends to sell us over this agreement, and I think the majority of our people probably would agree that at the bottom of their hearts the British Government intends to make a settlement, if they possibly can, and that we intend to hold by the Treaty, if we possibly can. But we cannot do that by tossing up a penny with two heads. That is asking too much and it is asking a concession too great from those who are not perhaps quite in agreement with us.

What Ireland requires is a settlement and that the Treaty be confirmed so that the people may settle down in peace. We were told by a Deputy on the other side that we are no better now than we were before. The obvious answer to that is that if we only settle down to work we will be better off, because it is work that will solve this thing. If we only throw our full weight into the balance and do our best in the future, this country of ours is going to be a great country. It is not by overpaying men who only do half work that we are going to prosper. What we really want to do is to unite, to join hands, and to do our level best and we will prosper. We should look at what is fair on the other side. Do not let us pin our faith to that wretched two-headed penny.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy, I am afraid, is travelling outside the limits of the discussion.

Mr. BEAMISH

I am sorry, and I will try to get back. In my view, our duty is to stand by our Treaty and to work in earnest here in Ireland for the good of our country, and we should do everything in our power to promote the trade prosperity of the country. This Bill is only a corrective alteration. It does not make any basic alteration in the Treaty; it does not break up the Treaty, it is but a slight corrective alteration, and if we stand by that we will be standing by our country which will assuredly improve and prosper.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The Minister for Justice referred to two, amongst several consequences that would follow upon the line of action suggested and recommended to the Dáil by Deputy Johnson. He referred to possible military consequences; he referred also to possible economic consequences. Both of these consequences are of the very gravest importance, and he was right to indicate them, but there are consequences that I want to refer to which, I think, are even more immediate than those to which he referred.

Deputy Johnson's argument has been based on the assumption that Great Britain has broken the Treaty. Deputy Johnson corrects me and says that Great Britain has failed to fulfil the Treaty, and, because of that failure, we should come to the conclusion that the Treaty is null and void, and we should come to the decision to make an end of it. Has Great Britain failed to fulfil the Treaty? Let us be perfectly just to all parties concerned. Has Great Britain failed to fulfil the Treaty? We know that the Northern Government has failed to complete the honourable commitments of the second paragraph of Article XII., having taken advantage of the first paragraph of that Article. That, however, is not the question. It is not the Northern Government with whom the Treaty was made. The Treaty was made with the British Government, and has it failed to fulfil the Treaty? There has been delay. The President referred to what he described as our having carried the virtue of patience to an eminent degree. It could be so described. There has been considerable delay in regard to Article XII. At whose door must responsibility for that delay be laid? The second paragraph of Article XII. could have come into force at the end of December, 1922. It was due to the Executive Government of this State to make the demand that the Boundary Commission be at once put into force. There were questions asked—I asked questions at the time—as to when that action was to be taken. I do not want to go into the past, but I want to arraign facts before us, recognising that the responsibility is one for which we all have to take our part. In December, 1922, we could have come forward and said: "Paragraph I. of Article XII. has been taken advantage of. We claim that Paragraph II. follows, and should be put into force at once." We did not do that. The Executive Council was never called on by anybody in the Dáil to do that, and it did not do it. No action was taken until the following July, when a Boundary Commissioner was appointed by the Free State.

I am only stating what was apparent from the circumstances of the time, when I say that in July, 1923, it was extremely improbable that the Boundary Commissioner would have been appointed but for the fact that an election was pending in August. When the election was completed, there having been an understanding immediately prior to the election that immediately after the election this Government would press for the appointment of the Chairman of the Boundary Commission, no such action was taken until very much later, until early this year. The initiative that lay within our own functions as a Free State through the Executive Government was an initiative of which we did not take advantage, and if there has been delay, and there has been delay, that delay is one for which—let us be perfectly frank about it — we are primarily responsible. I know very well all the circumstances that led to that responsibility. I have never minimised, and I am not going to minimise, the great difficulties with which the Executive Council had to deal during the whole of 1922 and 1923. We know that there was a condition of civil war at the time, and it might have seemed very unwise to press for a Boundary Commission while that state of affairs lasted. I believe that if there is an evil pending, and if there is a problem to be faced, it is better to face it and to be first in the field. I still think, in spite of the circumstances that prevailed at that time, it would have been wiser for us, immediately the Northern Government had taken advantage of the first part of Article XII., to have stepped forward and said: "We claim that the second part follows, and we claim that the Boundary Commission be at once set up." I think if that had been set up, the Northern Government would have found it extremely difficult to take the action which they took later of deciding not to appoint a Boundary Commissioner. That was not done. Delay has occurred owing to the circumstances prevailing in the country, for which the main responsibility must be laid on the shoulders of those — I do not know who said it, but it was said earlier in the debate, and it was a just thing to be said—who created civil war in the country. I suppose it is not disputed that the main responsibility does lie there.

Mr. DAVIN

How long?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

In any case until the autumn of last year. For the responsibility for the delays that have since occurred we have to take our share. If we were to step forward at this moment, acting on the advice of Deputy Johnson, and say that Great Britain has failed to keep the Treaty, and, therefore, we regard the Treaty as null and void and inoperative — I am perfectly sure no such thought was in Deputy Johnson's mind but I put it to him — it would be possible for our action to be interpreted in a very unfortunate light indeed. We have an example hitherto of people who have found a technical flaw in Article XII. of the Treaty, the Northern Government, and it has taken advantage of that technical flaw not to fulfil an honourable obligation. I think that is an example we should take note of to avoid and not take note of to copy.

I come to another matter which Deputy Johnson referred to, and that is the appointment of the two Commissioners. I think that is a flaw. I think it would be better when we are dealing more or less in the same circumstances as occurred at the end of 1921, because we have here an agreement scheduled to this Bill to which signatures are attached, I believe it would have been wiser under the circumstances if the agreement had been of the form that two persons be appointed, one from the British Government to act as Chairman, and one from the Free State, to function, and no third person should be appointed. Deputy Beamish made frequent references to the two-headed penny. That is an argument which cuts two ways. As things now stand, we are dealing with a coin to which there are two heads. They are heads to which we must not call, but to which the other people must call. I think that is a criticism of some substance, but we have to deal with the fact that this is an agreement which has been achieved, and I do not follow Deputy Johnson in the argument on which he laid great emphasis, that is the argument that a Commissioner appointed by the British Government would be more hostile to the interests of this country, and to the inhabitants of the districts concerned, than a Commissioner appointed by the Northern Government. I think, however, that Deputy Milroy has put his finger upon a very evident flaw in this Bill, which is one which I think everyone must have noticed, directly he read it when first it appeared. I would suggest to the President the way to meet that case would be if he gave an assurance that no further stages of this Bill would be taken until all stages would have been completed in the British Parliament. I think that is a fair condition to require. We know there are circumstances of difficulty in the British Parliament. We know there will be very little circumstances of difficulty in the Oireachtas of the Free State.

The PRESIDENT

Deputies are anxious to conclude the business to-day, and it is for us to decide now whether we are to have an adjournment, and then at what time we will take a division, if there be a division on this motion. I am prepared to meet the wishes of the House. I make the tentative suggestion that we should adjourn some time between this and seven o'clock for an hour, and then sit until we finish.

Mr. HALL

I do not think that suggestion would meet the Deputies' convenience or facilitate many of them. As the restaurant is closed we will have to go outside. I suggest we should continue for another hour and then adjourn until to-morrow.

Mr. GOREY

I suppose the Deputy is talking on a full stomach. I am talking on an empty one.

Mr. McGRATH

If the balance of the Deputies speaking would confine themselves to the Bill we might be finished in an hour.

The PRESIDENT

I think there is agreement to sit beyond 8.30. I move accordingly.

Agreed.

The Dáil adjourned at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I would like to resume by drawing attention to a comment that was made to me during the hour's recess — that I did not seem to have appreciated the manner in which the whole position has been seriously prejudiced during the last 19 or 20 months, owing to the delay in putting into operation Article XII. of the Treaty. I appreciate that to the full. It is a very serious prejudice indeed. It has given the Northern Government an opportunity to repudiate its responsibilities, while reaping all the advantages of that Article. It has left us in the position, at the present moment, where it can be justly claimed that we have all the disadvantages of Article XII., with very few advantages indeed. It has left us in the position that a serious, menacing campaign has been opened against the Free State in the British Press. Indeed the British Press has made the somewhat startling discovery that anterior legislation takes precedence over later legislation, and claims a higher value. That is a most remarkable discovery which would have very interesting developments if it were pursued. If, for example, some tax collector this year went out and collected 5/- in the £ income tax, because the statute two years ago said that income tax was to be 5/- in the £, and claimed that later legislation could not amend that, it would produce a very interesting situation. Yet that is the position taken up to-day. The Act of 1920 has been set aside on the responsibility of a Parliament in which members of the Six Counties are represented, by a later Act to which they were a party.

Nevertheless, in spite of these things, in spite of the fact that legislation is always held to be amended by subsequent legislation, the British Press, at the present moment, is speaking about the 1920 Act as if it were something that had not been amended by the very Parliament that enacted it. That is the prejudice, and the very serious prejudice, that the delay has produced. Yet another prejudice to which reference has been made has been produced. The assumption is being made — and I would wish that the Executive Council would take an opportunity of making a clear declaration on this very fact—that there is some Parliament in some other country that has the power to make laws for this Free State, and that has the power to over-ride acts done by the Parliament of the Free State. The Parliament of the Free State derives its authority from one instrument and one instrument only — that is the Constitution enacted by the Constituent Assembly of Saorstát Eireann. That assumption also is reaping us certain disadvantages, and it is quite clear that Deputies who maintain here that we have been very seriously prejudiced are only stating what is manifest, and what I believe, too, will become increasingly manifest in the remaining weeks before we reach the culmination of the present proceedings, when we will have what has been described earlier in this debate as "ramping, raging propaganda."

That is all true. I realise to the full the serious prejudice that has been created. But I want to be just in this matter. I think we would not be just if we were to endeavour to do anything that would appear as snatching an advantage. I think we must, in frankness and candour, admit that if there be prejudice because of delay, for that delay we are just as much responsible as anyone else, and for the earlier stages of it we are primarily responsible. That is why I do feel that it is possible to criticise the action or the inaction of the Executive Council in leaving this matter over so long. In spite of the difficulties they had to encounter, and in spite of the unsettled conditions of the country, if action had been taken earlier, that action would be for the advantage of the country.

Nevertheless, I think that we are not in a position to say: "There has been default for which the other party is solely responsible." Until we do get into such a position it is not possible for us to proceed to the line of action that has been commended to the Dáil by Deputy Johnson. Deputy Johnson's action, if I understand him correctly, is that we should say at once "There has been default; we are not to blame for that default; the other party is to blame; we therefore clear ourselves from responsibility for the Treaty and we proceed at once to the revision of our Constitution." I believe that the Constitution will yet have to be revised and revised within the four corners of the Treaty. I believe that can be done and will yet have to be done. But I think that immediate action of this sort to be taken because of some default which we can claim would be action that would put us wrong, and action that in any other country would be held to be very near "sharp practice." That is why I think that the right procedure for us is to follow the lines indicated by the President here. While I support the First Reading of this Bill, I do it in the hope that we will have some assurance that there will be no subsequent stage of this Bill taken, until and unless the British Parliament has completed every stage of its equivalent Bill. Then we shall be free to proceed with ours. For the reason I stated, immediately prior to the tea interval, there are no difficulties here. That is recognised on both sides. But it is recognised that there are difficulties on the other side, and that there are possibilities—even probabilities—that the British equivalent of this Bill will not survive all its stages in the British Parliament. Therefore, I answer the question Deputy Davin put me earlier during the sitting. He wanted to know if this matter was to be allowed to continue indefinitely, and if not, what the term was to be. I say the term is very clearly indicated to us. We re-assemble on October 21.

The British Parliament, according to the agreement made with the British Premier, will re-assemble on the 30th September. That gives them three clear weeks in which to enact their Bill before we meet. If, when we meet on 21st October, legislation has not been enacted in England in respect of the British equivalent of this Bill, then we will know that the time has arrived when we can seriously speak about a default having occurred in regard to the obligations of the other contracting party to the Treaty in respect of Article XII. of that instrument. I do not believe that time has arrived yet. I think it would be premature to take any such action as is proposed. It would be not merely action that would be premature, but action that would put us entirely in the wrong. Consequently, I think the action indicated by Deputy Johnson is action that the Dáil should not follow. It should give a First Reading to this Bill, and ask the President to give an assurance, when he concludes the debate, that no further stage of the Bill will be attempted to be taken until we know that the equivalent has been enacted in the British Parliament and that we have firm and secure ground under our feet.

Mr. GOREY

On this question of the Boundary we, on these Benches, have been more or less silent. With the exception of one Deputy, I do not think we have really contributed anything to the debates. Listening to Deputy Milroy this evening, I was struck by the statesmanlike manner in which he approached this question. We all know his personal feeling on the question. I think a tribute is due to him for the statesmanlike and moderate way in which he made his case. But I think he was rather charitable in his references to English politicians. He referred to some of them as "a pro-British faction." I would be very glad to think they were a pro-British faction. The fact of their being a pro-British faction would mean that their sentiments were altogether British and were altogether national. But I am afraid I cannot agree with Deputy Milroy that they are a pro-British faction. Reading their references and recalling their actions in the past, I should be more inclined to say they were a pro-party or a pro-class faction, which is altogether different from a true pro-British faction.

Mr. DAVIN

What does "true pro-British" mean?

Mr. GOREY

People who love their country as a nation, and not people who put party politics before it. That is what I mean. To describe these people as "pro-British" is to attribute to them a virtue which, I think, they do not possess. Anybody reading between the lines will, I think, come to the conclusion that it is party politics and power that is behind this big agitation in England at the moment. When the late British Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, made the declaration, that I think Deputy Milroy referred to, a week after the Treaty was signed and before the ink on it was yet dry, he was not contradicted by the other British signatories. He was not contradicted by Lord Birkenhead or by Mr. Chamberlain. Three years afterwards these politicians think well to give a new meaning to this Article of the Treaty, different from the well-defined meaning that Mr. Lloyd George gave it then. That phrase, "government by the consent of the governed," had a distinct meaning three years ago. It was clear to the minds of everybody. It was clear to the minds of every signatory to that Treaty. It was clear to the minds of the British people and to the minds of the people of this country. The new meaning read into that Article now is a false meaning; it is a meaning intended for political purposes, and it is a meaning that is not sincere. There was no doubt then in anybody's mind, no doubt in Lord Birkenhead's mind or Mr. Chamberlain's mind, as to what they were signing, and their meaning at that time is my meaning to-day. As far as I can judge English politicians from their utterances, to my mind they hold their honour and the honour of their nation pretty much as cheap as certain members of the human family hold their virtue. Their honour seems to be for sale or for hire for political and party advantage. Political parties in England have put and are putting up millions to control the Press in order to control public opinion, or rather to create it. These big financial combines are able to put up millions to control or create public opinion. It is quite possible that some of their money might be spent in purchasing other things. It is quite possible that their money might be expended in seeking to change the opinions of men as well as newspapers.

Deputy Johnson has outlined a certain course of action in connection with this matter. I think the line he has suggested is altogether a mistaken one. We ought, I think, to wait for a clear-cut and definite issue, and we have neither one nor the other. My party are prepared to go as far as any party if there is a definite breach. We and the people we represent are prepared to take our places, as we have always taken them in the past. I do not want to anticipate a breach. I do not want this Dáil to take any premature action. There is no reason why we should begin by putting ourselves in the wrong. But, if we have a definite breach and a clear-cut issue, our duty is clear. New circumstances will have arisen, and there can be no doubt in anybody's mind as to the line he should take. Deputy Johnson suggests going our own way. I am sorry he did not tell us what was his way. We are all to go our own way without any definite object. I think it would be a hopeless way. We would probably lose our way. He said, I think, that we assume that our power is derived from Britain and can be varied by Britain. We do not assume anything of the sort.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to explain. I did not say that Deputy Gorey or any other Deputy assumed that. I said there was a danger of being affected by that assumption, which is the general assumption in England.

Mr. GOREY

If that was all, I will pass from it. That assumption has very little foundation here. One of the main reasons why we hold that Great Britain should keep her part of this Treaty is because we kept ours. Do we want the people and Government of Great Britain to keep their part of the Treaty? I take it we do. If we do, is it a good argument to say that we should not keep ours? The Treaty is a Treaty between two parties, and if we want the British to keep it, our duty is to keep it also. If the British choose to create a breach a different set of circumstances will have arisen. We are bound by this Treaty. This Bill does not alter or amend Article 12. I say that, although Mr. Chamberlain and other politicians have hinted that we propose to amend the Treaty. I say that this Bill does not alter a comma in the terms of the Treaty, but it does propose to remedy a defect in the machinery by which the Treaty was to operate. The idea in agreeing to this Article was to provide the machinery to put the Treaty into effect. We are dealing with the machinery, and not with the Treaty. True, it might perhaps have looked better in some other part and not in this particular Article. It might perhaps have been put in a definition clause, such as we have in some of the Bills introduced here. But it does not affect the Treaty. This Bill does not propose to amend the Treaty. The only oversight was that, in the event of that particular machinery failing to act, such a provision as is contained in this Bill was not inserted.

Deputy Johnson seems to have the peculiar idea that this Commission, constituted as it is going to be, will be a more undesirable Commission than the Commission proposed in the Treaty. From the point of view of the Free State I should expect as good, if not better results, from the two Englishmen and an Irishman than from a Six County man, an Irishman, and an Englishman. It might perhaps be suggested that a direct representative of this little corner of Ireland would carry agreement with the people there and the fact that they are not directly represented would tell against any arrangement come to. I do not see that at all. Deputy Johnson also referred to a letter written by the Chairman of the Commission, and I would ask him to requote the particular passage that he read. I take it that what the Chairman wrote is a very clear indication of what he meant, that he wanted to familiarise himself with the position so as to understand the discussion that went on between two people who knew what they were talking about, and not with any particular idea one way or the other. That is reading into the letter something that is not in it. Deputy Johnson, I think, said that the Boundary was a mistake. I saw the report of a speech by an ex-Deputy — Mr. Cathal O'Shannon — in which he also used the same words, and said that the only people who could settle this were the labour people. Labour has a good deal to settle before approaching that matter.

Mr. DAVIN

So have the farmers.

Mr. GOREY

We have not made any remarks about what we are going to settle. There is no use in indulging in mock heroics or cheap rhetoric. There is a possibility, but not a probability, that this crisis will develop into something that will test men's mettle. Judging from the interjections of Deputy Davin, I expect that I shall be serving under Major-General Davin. I have yet to be convinced that there is a breach of the Treaty, either by the British Government or the British people. Perhaps if the party in England who have most to say in denunciation of the Treaty were in power, they would have some sense of national honour and the language they would use would be different. It may be said that they have a free hand now and that probably they are taking advantage of that free hand. Whether they have or not, our duty is pretty clear. There is not a breach of this Treaty. This Bill forges what I might say is a missing link to the Treaty, and we on these benches — at least most of us — are prepared to support the Bill. We believe there is not a breach, notwithstanding the millions that have been invested to manufacture English opinion. Until there is a breach, we will go on in our sane calm way. I think it is the duty of every Irishman to keep his head in this crisis.

Mr. McGRATH

I have only a few words to say in connection with the Bill that is now before the Dáil. I am not satisfied that such a Bill was at all necessary. I am not one of those who say that the Executive Council is responsible in any way for the delay that has been caused up to the present. The difficulties were enormous, and, as Deputy Milroy said, it should not be forgotten that the main cause of the delay in the initial stages was the extraordinary time we went through here and in the Six Counties. I believe that by passing this Bill, to use a common phrase, we will be dragged at the heels or at the tail of one or other of the English parties. We have no guarantee that a similar Bill will go through the English Parliament within the next couple of years. It is because I believe we will be committed to waiting on the Bill going through all the stages in England that I am opposed to this Bill. I saw no way out of it until Deputy Figgis made a suggestion. I think the suggestion is a reasonable one. It is one that would get over my difficulty, at least if the President could give us a definite promise that after getting the First Reading he will await the passage of the Bill in England before he proceeds with the Second Reading, I think he could very well promise the people on the other side that he will be able to get the Bill through in a very short period. Really, I am afraid that if we go through with this Bill within the next couple of months we may be committed to waiting until the British Bill is definitely put through all stages. The House of Lords quite possibly, and probably, will throw the Bill out. We must face that fact. It is quite possible that there may be two general elections in Great Britain before the question is settled. To my mind, we would then be definitely committed to waiting on the convenience of those on the other side. That is the only reason why I will vote against the First Reading of this Bill. I certainly will not vote against it if the President promises to hold it up after it gets the First Reading. Then not alone will I not vote against it, but I will vote for it.

The PRESIDENT

It was not, and is not, my intention to proceed with this Bill until the other Bill has passed through the British Parliament.

Mr. BAXTER

I approach this question from a different angle to that of Deputy Gorey and others. At the outset I want to say that it is very probable Deputies and other people in this country who stood for the Treaty must, within the past few weeks, have been carefully examining their consciences. The whole position, the right and wrong of the Treaty and its acceptance must be in the minds of Deputies who in a previous Dáil, and later took a very prominent part in getting the people of the country to accept the Treaty, and in establishing the Treaty here through force of arms. In Ireland there were people who believed that even in that Treaty English politicians were not sincere. One of the main contentions against the acceptance of the Treaty was that even in the Treaty, England was not sincere. It was very forcibly put, even to the people who stood for the Treaty, that there might have come a time in this country when the rear-guard might have to be called upon. Even at this moment it would not be a bad thing if all parties in this country kept that before their mind The Treaty is not yet operating fully, and no one knows yet if English politicians are going to make good and fulfil the Treaty to the letter. Some of them are already fighting shy of the Treaty — some of the Signatories. As an Ulsterman, I want to say that it is my firm conviction that the whole problem we have to deal with in the NorthEast is not a problem of Ireland but a problem created by England, and kept there to-day by England and by English politicians. In dealing with this matter it would be well that the Executive Council would recognise the fact, if they have not already done so, that they are dealing with a problem created by England, maintained by English politicians with English money, and English propaganda. That is the difficulty and it is one they should be thinking of. They are dealing with a section of people living in this country who ought to be anxious for its welfare, and whom one would expect to look at the question from the point of view of Irishmen, while in reality their outlook and all their acts are entirely influenced by England. Their attitude would be entirely different if English influence was removed.

Beyond doubt there would be no Ulster problem but for England, and the Ulster problem could not live twenty-four hours but for English statesmen. Let the English Army be taken away, let English financial assistance be withdrawn from that portion of Ireland and you will see how long the Ulster problem will last. It ought not to be forgotten that that is the true aspect of this whole case, and we must recognise how difficult a problem it is to solve when we see that we are trying to deal with English statesmen in solving a problem which is really the making and the keeping in existence of English statesmen. We ought to look to the other side, and remember that the people of this country might be thrown back upon themselves to deal with the problem in some other way, because English statesmen, in spite of pretences, will still keep that problem there for us and for themselves, because they still want to have a foothold within the four seas of Ireland. That is why they are anxious that it should be kept there, and in spite of anything that Deputy Gorey, or other Deputies, may choose to believe they are anxious to keep it there. They may try to solve it, they may try to trick us in the solution, and I have more than a fear that that is what our Executive Council will be up against. Are they looking to-day to what must be their action and the action of the Irish people when they are faced with that situation?

We know what is the history of this country in its relations with England and the signing of Treaties, and in spite of anything that has been said here it does seem to me that this Bill is really an amendment of the Treaty. Perhaps I may not interpret it correctly, but anyhow the argument that has been advanced, that the Treaty cannot become fully operative unless we pass this Bill, is to me a statement that that clause in the Treaty is to be amended before the Treaty can fully operate. That may not be so. That is how it seems to me. We have this to amend the Treaty. Personally I am glad that it is possible to amend the Treaty. When the English Ministers thought it good enough to cross here in a terrific hurry — and it seemed to be a terrific hurry — it was something to the good that they had to come in such a hurry. I would be glad to hear that it was because of pressure from this side that they had to cross over. If it is necessary that this should be in order to assist the English Government in carrying through its part—because as far as I can see, the Free State Government has done its share, nominated its representative on the Commission, and made all arrangements — I am in agreement with Deputy Johnson that something ought to be got for it. If it is possible to amend one clause of the Treaty there are other clauses that are very badly in need of amendment, and the very fact that we do not know what may yet be the fate of this clause, because what may be the fate of this clause may be the fate of the whole Treaty, ought to have made our Ministers think of such a situation arising later.

The President pointed out that because of the action of the Northern Government a large section of the people who want to be within the Saorstát have been disfranchised, and that all the people who have stood for a united Ireland in the past have not recognised the Act of 1920 or the Acts of the Northern Government, and are therefore not represented. He said that these people's rights which they were entitled to enjoy under the Treaty were preserved for them. I would also like to say that because of this Treaty a very large section of the people of this country are voluntarily disfranchising themselves, just as the people under the Northern Government are disfranchising themselves, and it would be a very good day's work if in conjunction with this Bill amending Clause 12, an arrangement was made whereby other clauses in the Treaty would be amended and thereby remove the disability that that section of our people are labouring under to-day, namely disfranchisement, because they are not prepared to recognise a certain clause in the Treaty.

I do think that that ought to have been kept in view. We do not know what is to be the fate of the Treaty, and we do not know where all those Deputies and Ministers who have stood for the Treaty and, we might say, waded in blood for it, may find themselves later on, and what account they may have to give to the country if all of us have to ask were we not very foolish to have fought at all. I think that ought to have been before the minds of the Ministry, and if such an effort were made and such a Bill introduced here to amend other sections in the Treaty I certainly would very gladly support it. I do want to add to what Deputy McGrath and Deputy Milroy put forward, that all this delay that there has been is making those people in the North who are affected by this Boundary feel that there will never be any alteration. This is the experience of those who live a few miles on either side, that all this seems to be so much talk, and while it is all right for Deputy Figgis to urge that the disunion here has been the cause of the delay, there has been plenty of time since, and very little has been done. It is not right to assume that it was the disunion in this part of the country that was responsible. Was it the failure of the other side to do its part? Is it still their failure that is responsible for the delay? During all this time what has that section in the North been doing to entrench themselves? During all these months and years they have been carefully but surely making arguments — making arguments, I say — to prove that sections of territory in the North that ought really to come under the jurisdiction of the Saorstát cannot be transferred. They are manufacturing arguments for this. In one part, for instance, the Northern Government constructed a bridge across Lough Erne to prove, naturally, that one part of the territory that it might be argued should be within this portion of the country cannot be separated from the other part for economical reasons. We have, as somebody informed me the other day, the authorities in the North coming down to County Down from Belfast for their water supply in order that they may have the argument later on: "How can you separate South Down from Belfast? Having the city dependent on South Down for its water supply, economically it cannot be done." We have all this going on, slowly but surely.

Deputies who have never been as far North as the Boundary cannot at all appreciate the position as it exists. It is all very well to say that this Bill will do the needful, will make this clause in the Treaty operative. Even if it were going to do all that, I say it would not be acceptable from my point of view, because I believe that if this is for the British Government to enable them to save their faces in a way, and give them time, something more ought to be got for it than has been got. But, as well, this whole problem must be brought to a head at once. The Ministry here ought to say what way it is going to be done, and when. If this clause is not to operate, then the Ministry ought to say that it is not to operate. If it is to operate, they ought to say when. The whole thing must be brought to a head, and very quickly. As Deputy McGrath has pointed out, it ought not to be permitted to drift on for months or years, and have us called upon every two or three months to pass judgment on the situation as it exists. The least that can be done is to say that if this clause is not operating by the end of this year, the position that Deputy Johnson has advocated will be accepted, and will be the accepted position of the whole country.

Deputy Johnson pointed out that England has not up to the present honoured its part. There is no questioning that it has not, and the argument of the Minister for Justice seems to me to be an apology, at least in part, for the action of the British politicians. I do say that the history of British politicians up to the present, from our point of view, has not been such as to call for any apology for the things they have done from anybody in this country, and I would suggest to the Minister for Justice, even in all his wisdom, that it would be a very advisable thing that no Deputy would say anything that might be taken as an apology for any action of the British Ministry, because later on that same Minister, or Deputy, might find himself in a very difficult position, making an apology for himself, because of the repeated failure of these English Ministers, which would only be a repetition of history with regard to their dealings with this country.

Major COOPER

Like Deputy Milroy, I am the victim of many virtues, and, equally like Deputy Milroy, one of those virtues is diffidence in addressing the Dáil, and I hope also in brevity. I would not address the Dáil now if it were not that I want to address myself to the practical situation as it was put before us by Deputy McGrath. There is, as far as I can see, no use in canvassing blame in this matter; no use in saying our Government should have done this and the British Government should have done that, and going back on the past. There is no use, as far as I can see, in studying newspaper cuttings and refuting newspaper arguments. If we are going to try to refute all the misrepresentations that have been put forward on this question we had better go into permanent session for a week.

Mr. MILROY

For a month.

Major COOPER

Deputy Milroy says for a month, and I agree that if the refutation is to be of the length of Deputy Milroy's and others a month would be required. I do not want to do that; I want to address myself to the practical situation adumbrated by Deputy Milroy, put into form by Deputy Figgis, and supported by Deputy McGrath, that in proceeding with this measure we should have regard to the progress of a similar measure in the British Parliament. Deputy McGrath said that his opposition to this measure would be withdrawn if the President would give an undertaking that we should not take the Second Reading of this Bill until it has passed through all its stages in both Houses of the British Parliament. I have no objection. If the President is willing to give that undertaking, I should be glad to hear it.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

He has given it.

Major COOPER

The President gave an undertaking that he is not going on with the Bill until the 21st October, but we have no undertaking that the British Parliament will have disposed of that Bill in its present form between the 30th September and the 21st October. I do not know if the National Group have accepted the President's undertaking, but will the President consider giving an undertaking that we should not take any further stage of the Bill until a similar stage has been taken in the British Parliament?

The PRESIDENT

I do not intend taking the Second Stage of this measure until it has passed through all its stages in both Houses of the British Parliament.

Mr. MILROY

The point I want the President to be perfectly clear on is this: the Bill may go through all stages in the British Parliament, but emerge quite a different measure from what it appears now. We want to be very clear about that.

The PRESIDENT

That is not in my undertaking. My undertaking is this measure which is in the agreement. Only by agreement can this measure be passed, and only by agreement do we pass it here when it has been passed elsewhere.

Major COOPER

I think it is clear that in the event of this measure being altered in any essential particular we have a free hand.

The PRESIDENT

Yes.

Major COOPER

But we are not committed by our vote to-night to give anything more than approval of the measure before us. It would not be fair to ask the Dáil to adopt any other position. I am glad to hear the President give that undertaking. It will, I think, remove opposition to this Bill, and it will also give a certain amount of time. I for one have not absolutely despaired, even now, at the eleventh hour, of reaching some form of amicable settlement. It is no use talking as if the Northern Parliament did not exist, or ought not to exist. It does exist. Deputy Milroy said that it was not sacrosanct. I am not going to commit myself to affirming the divine right of any Parliament. The divine right of Parliaments may have replaced the divine right of kings, but I think it would be a mistake to put the authority of any Parliament on a higher ground than the acceptance and consent of the people. In any case the Belfast Parliament does exist; you cannot blow it away by talk, and you cannot anathematise it out of existence; it has survived even the refusal of Deputy Milroy to take his seat in that assembly. It does exist, and we must look at facts as they are, and not as we would wish they should be in an ideal world. It does exist; the people of Northern Ireland exist, and it would be very much better if we could — it is difficult, but I believe, not impossible — come to some form of agreement. I believe that we are standing on forms and ceremonies, determined not to give away a point on one side or the other, when in reality there is very little difference between us. I believe neither party in the controversy desires to have populations they cannot assimilate. I do not believe that we want large populations who believe that we are ridden by, shall we say, the Scarlet Woman, and we do not desire large populations who wish to embarrass the Minister for Justice by parading in regalia on the 12th July.

I think there is still an avenue on which a way to a settlement can be found. I would say that with more confidence if I did not know that Sir James Craig was ill, because I believe that in the long run, though the President may not have been aware of the impression he was making, he would convince Sir James Craig that there was very little between them. I may add that my conviction, that we really can do nothing in this matter without goodwill, has been reinforced very powerfully in the last few days. It has been reinforced as the result of a speech I heard made by Mr. John Devoy, in which he held forth the hope that we could bring in Northern Ireland of their own free will. He uttered no word of threat, and he was not disposed to use a threat. He is himself a Northerner.

Mr. McGARRY

No, he is a Kildare man.

Major COOPER

Mr. Devoy seemed to think that that was a desirable possibility, and on this occasion I am well content to stand on the same footing as Mr. Devoy. I now turn to two general points made in the discussion. Deputy Baxter made the point that the Treaty was being amended, and that we ought to ask for something. In whose interest, I ask, is the Treaty being amended if it is being amended? In whose interest is it that this new Commissioner is to be appointed by the British Government? Is it not, ostensibly, at any rate, in support of our right?

A DEPUTY

Ostensibly?

Major COOPER

Ostensibly, I agree, but where would there be rejoicing if this Bill were defeated here to-night? It would not be in Westminster, but in Belfast. If, therefore, the Treaty is ostensibly amended in our interests so that its provisions may be carried out in accordance with the request of our Government, we are not, I hold, entitled to ask for anything further. If it was being altered in opposition to the wishes of our Government, then we should have a very strong case for asking for a further concession, but at the moment we have not. My last word is that, although I shall vote for this Bill to-night, I am not entirely enamoured of the method of proceeding by the Boundary Commission, because I agree with Deputy Johnson that whatever the Boundary Commission decides, we shall not get all that we expect, and a considerable number of people will be disappointed.

That will be a factor rankling in the State in the future. I would have preferred if the Government, two years ago, had followed the policy of the late General Collins when he met Sir James Craig and decided to deal with the matter independently of the Boundary Commission. I believe that if General Collins had lived that that would have been the most satisfactory result. But we cannot retrace our steps now. For the last eighteen months the Government has been pressing for the appointment of the Boundary Commission, and if we were to turn around now and ask for something else we would be told: "You are so unreliable and you change your policy after so short a notice that no responsible Government can deal with you at all." That is the way in which we should be put in the wrong, and not the British Government, if any such thing were done at this stage. Therefore, we must abide by the Boundary Commission. We have appealed to Cæsar, and by Cæsar's verdict we must be guided.

Mr. DAVIN

The President, in his statement this afternoon, informed the Dáil that it was his desire and intention to lay every particle of evidence before Deputies when asking them to give their support for the measure which he is now asking for leave to introduce. There is one thing which the President did not make clear to me, and it is a thing I would like to understand and to have some explanation upon. In interviews that have been given by British Ministers, as well as in correspondence that has taken place between the Prime Minister of England and the President of this State, references have been made to the difficulties which confronted the British Government in giving immediate effect to the setting up of the Boundary Commission. I think that the President is bound, if he has the information at his disposal, and I am sure he has, as a result of the conferences that have taken place at the Viceregal Lodge, to tell us what are the real difficulties—difficulties which were explained undoubtedly to the President—in the way of the British Government giving immediate effect to their Bill before the adjournment in the House of Commons on last Friday. I confess that, as far as I am concerned, I would always be inclined to look on England's difficulty as Ireland's opportunity, and I look upon this as Ireland's greatest opportunity so far. I may say that I would be very slow, even in matters of less importance than the subject under discussion here to-night, to approach with any enthusiasm the scrapping of any agreement, but if one party to an agreement has not shown, and is not prepared to show, a fair disposition to give effect to its side of the bargain, then I say it is open to the other side to take advantage of that opportunity.

When approaching the consideration of the President's statement which has been looked forward to with great interest by members of the Dáil, and perhaps with much greater interest by the people outside, we have to take into consideration not the views of the Party with which we may be associated in this Dáil, but rather the general feeling of the electorate. I say that the people outside, and particularly that section which has always held Nationalist opinions, view with grave suspicion any promises made by British Governments and British Ministers, and the people's view outside, so far as I can gather it in many parts of the country, is that this policy of dilly-dally and of delay on the part of the British Government is merely for the purpose of evading the issue. The suspicion, which undoubtedly exists abroad to-day, will not be removed to any great extent by the statement made by the President here this evening.

I see in the statement made by the President to-night a much stronger point of view and a much more courageous view than the view that was taken by the Minister for Justice. It appeared to me from the two speeches delivered that there were two opposite points of view held in the Ministry as to the desirability of going ahead with this measure, and as to why England could not carry out its part of the bargain before the adjournment of the British Parliament. The President stated quite plainly that he did not accept as satisfactory from British Ministers or the British Government the delay which is about to take place, whereas the Minister for Justice, with a wave of his hand, asked "What about six weeks?" There, I see in these two statements a different point of view apparently expressed on behalf of the Executive Council. The Minister for Justice, rather than justify the position of the Council with which he is associated, went on to criticise at great length a speech made in the Dáil last September by, I think, Deputy Johnson, which had nothing good, bad or indifferent to do with the matter we are now discussing. I have heard prominent Labour people connected with very important positions in the British Labour Government express the view that they do not hope or expect to get a clear majority in the British House of Commons after the next General Election. If that is the view held by the British Labour Government, and I think that view was expressed very clearly by Sir Henry Slesser in Leeds last Saturday week, then, as Deputy Baxter said, it would take two General Elections in England before this matter could be settled, and before it could be settled to the satisfaction of the people of this country, that is, if it can be settled at all with England.

We all know, at least those of us who have any connection with the British people, that if there was a General Election in England to-morrow apparently upon this issue, the election would not be fought on this issue at all, except in Lancashire or some of the other constituencies where Labour and other members are always cadging for Irish votes. The real issue at the next election in England will be the policy, socialistic or otherwise, of the present Labour Ministry, and it will not be fought upon this particular issue, even if it is necessary to have a General Election upon this issue. If the honour of England and the good name of the British Government is involved in giving effect to the bargain by carrying out this Boundary Commission, I say it was the duty of the British Government to go to the British people before the adjournment of Parliament took place. One Minister, before he left on a visit to South Africa, said he would leave it to the commonsense of the Irish people to decide the issue. I would be very glad if they would clear out altogether and leave it to the Irish people to settle, and I believe this question would be settled more satisfactorily by the Irish people themselves than by any enforcing of it by the British Ministry. I do not agree that it should be settled in the way Deputy Gorey suggested. I never subscribed to the doctrine that we can only settle our internal squabbles by force of arms.

Mr. GOREY

It was the honour of serving under you that was troubling me.

Mr. DAVIN

I will leave it to Deputy Gorey to serve under Major-General O'Higgins, whose good name in military matters was so well-known in pre-Truce days. Now, if the matter is to be settled by any other methods, except by conciliation and conference, there is only one way it can be settled, and that is by the application of what is known as economic pressure; in other words, if you like to put it bluntly, by the application of the Belfast boycott, which would hit these people in the stomach and where they would feel it most. That is the only way it will be settled if it is not settled by conciliatory measures.

The Minister for Justice in making a plea on behalf of Britain for her delay in carrying out this necessary part of the Treaty, referred to the fact that we were dependent upon England for our principal markets. How long are we to depend upon England for our main sources of supply, for all the things we require, if we do not attempt to make the best use of the machinery set up by the Treaty? What share of responsibility has the Minister for not making use of the machinery we have received through the Treaty for developing the resources of this country? It is only by developing the resources of the country that we can eventually come on even terms with England in matters of that kind. I hope and believe I am not a politician. Whether I am or not, and I am not very much concerned with the period that I am to remain in public life, so long as I am in this House, I will give, or endeavour to give, expression to the views that I believe to be held by the majority of my constituents. When I sought election to this House I stated quite distinctly on this question that I did not accept the Treaty as final, and that I only accepted it as a method for developing the resources of the country and to make our country self-supporting and economically free. I would not, as I say, approach with a light heart the repudiation of a bargain that was made or accepted under such conditions, but I do say I have no hope whatsoever of the British Government giving effect to their part of the bargain, and I believe that the policy of dilly-dally on the part of the British Government is merely for evading the responsibility which they undertook when they signed the Treaty. In support of that view I must take, as being to a certain extent the attitude of the British Government itself, the views expressed by one of the signatories to the Treaty, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, which were to the effect that the Boundary Commission was to be set up for no other purpose than that of straightening a line that was crooked and for the rectification of the boundary. I say that was not what was in the minds of the people who accepted the Treaty or stood for the operation of the Treaty when they came into this House. I think every man in Ireland to-day with national sympathies or outlook, or who had a national outlook at the time the Treaty was signed, had in mind that the operation of the Boundary Clause in the Treaty meant that the Free State should at least include the Counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone. I regret that the debate this evening has taken the course of a debate merely on Party lines. I do not want to be forced at a later date, as I believe I would be by my constituents, to give a vote for a proposition such as is before us to-day when I have the opportunity now of giving a vote of my own free choice. I believe that if England was fully convinced that the honour of her nation was at stake, and that the honour and good name of her Government was involved, she would not have waited for six weeks to honour her part of the bargain, but would have done so before the adjournment of the British Parliament on Friday last.

General MULCAHY

I do not quite see with Deputy Davin that this debate is running on party lines, but I feel a very keen sense of regret that it should have run along the lines it has run on. This Bill is one thing—a Bill to set up alternative machinery to carry out the functions of the Boundary Commission—and the implications as regards the passing of a Bill of that kind, are one thing, but the matters drawn into the debate this evening are quite another thing. Two very important things were drawn into the debate. One was the sizing up of what has been described as a suspicion of English breach of faith, and another was the question of the repudiation of the Treaty. On matters that are matters of national policy this Dáil is not so divided into Parties that there are different Party lines adaptable on matters of big national policy. What would really be the symptoms of British breach of faith, at any rate in connection with the Treaty and the carrying of it into effect, should be very definable symptoms, and what would be the reasons that we would consider on the question of the repudiation of the Treaty should also be very definable reasons. In considering any of these definable reasons I do not think that this House is so divided up in Parties that it would divide on those reasons. I think it is due to the country that no Party in the Dáil should slip haphazardly into a debate in which charges would be made against the British for breach of faith, and in which reasons would be put up for repudiation of the Treaty. It is not fair to the country that we should slip in a haphazard fashion into discussion of those things here. It can be so clearly defined that it is up to those who are leaders of Parties in the Dáil to define them themselves, and it is due to the country that a decision should be taken privately by Party leaders before there would be any haphazard discussion here. I do not accept it that there are any symptoms of British breach of faith at the moment, and I do not see any reasons put up in the debate here that we should consider repudiation of the Treaty on this particular point.

It is within our power as representatives of the Irish people to consider repudiation of the Treaty at any point we like, and for any reasons we like. The practical matter, I submit, before us, is whether we accept this proposal which has been made for the setting up of the Boundary Commission, and I propose to support the Bill brought in by the Executive Council. I can see that the Executive Council could not have done any other thing in the matter, and I do not see any alternative way of getting the work proposed by the Boundary Commission carried out. In the matter of delay. I quite agree with Deputy Baxter that the sooner this matter is definitely settled the better for the people of the whole thirty-two counties. We do not mean to stipulate or demand of the Executive Council that they shall stipulate a particular date by which everything in connection with the Boundary Commission, and the settlement of any Boundary, shall be fixed, in order to fix in our own minds a determination that the matter must be done by a reasonable date. As between the leaders of the different parties they might have an understanding between themselves as to what would be a date that they would consider, if things had not been settled, that a definite crisis in connection with the Boundary would have arisen; but I submit there is no necessity in demanding that a date shall be fixed. As far as the people of the country generally are concerned, the Treaty was accepted for the reason that it was taken as a repudiation on the part of the British that they wanted to interfere in the internal affairs of Ireland, whether in the internal affairs of Antrim in Ireland or Cork in Ireland. We accepted certain limitations. We accepted a certain idiom with regard to the headstone of our Government machinery here and certain limitations with regard to these Northern counties. We accepted in the Treaty a certain idiom with regard to the headship of our Government here, and the matter of how Irish administration was to be carried on was left absolutely in the hands of Irish people from Cork to Antrim. The Boundary Commission is of importance to us as the machinery by which we can have expressed the wishes of the inhabitants of the Six Counties as to what portion shall be content to be a subordinate province to an English Parliament, or an Irish Parliament.

There is one point that is perhaps something to the good if a second representative is appointed on the Boundary Commission by England as distinct from one appointed by the Six Counties. We do not know whether the politicians of the Six Counties are hiding from us the wishes of the electors of the Six Counties in many matters. If you have a second representative appointed by England, with a Chairman and our Irish representative, determining in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographical conditions, the boundary between the North East and the rest of Ireland, we will know by the manner in which the Boundary Commission sets about its work whether the intention of England is to set up there an Alsace-Lorraine for its own purpose, or to carry definitely into effect what we accepted the Treaty as giving us, that is, the administration of the Government of Ireland in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants. That is the principal point I feel we will have to bear in mind in connection with the Boundary Commission. As I say, it is regrettable that other things will be brought into the discussion, and it is even regrettable that discussion, even on that particular matter, should take place. We should be able to make up our minds in silence, and those who are leaders here in the Dáil should be able to make up their minds in silence, as to what they require for the proper and faithful carrying out of this Treaty. If they make up their minds on that, they will be able to make up their minds as to what line of action they should take, as a big national group, in case out of the Boundary Commission reasons should arise that would suggest repudiation of the Treaty to us, or in case definite symptoms do arise of British bad faith in the matter.

Mr. DALY

I think after the guarantee the President gave a few moments ago that he would not proceed with this Bill until a similar Bill will pass through all its stages in the British House of Commons and House of Lords, we should pass this Bill unanimously here to-night, and it would be a strength to the Bill because if we do not pass it and if it is defeated, it would be relieving the British Government of its responsibility and obligations to this Dáil. They are committed to carrying out Article 12 of this Treaty, and they have made a bargain. This Bill should be carried through this House here to-night, and if it were not then they could go to the world and say those people cannot be dealt with at all. If the British Parliament or House of Lords throws out this Bill, and the British people begin to trick us as they often did before, then we can meet them as nation to nation, in the world's court of the League of Nations, and I am certain they will not face it.

I believe myself in the honesty of the Labour Government in England, and I am certain that Mr. Thomas, when he said they will carry out this Bill in the letter and spirit, was speaking for the majority of the people of England. As Deputy Gorey said a few moments ago, there were millions of money spent in this propaganda in England. I agree with him, but it is no good. I believe the British Parliament and the House of Lords will pass this Bill right through. We had the same fears at the time of the Treaty, and all those dreads that we had proved to be only dreams. I think after the guarantee given a moment ago by the President to Deputy McGrath and Deputy Major Cooper, that he will not proceed with the Bill until it is the law of England, that it is only right that we should unanimously pass it.

Mr. WHITE

As a common or garden Ulsterman, with a little bit of interest in that benighted province, and knowing something about what the Boundary means to the people on both sides of it, I would like to give the Dáil my impressions of this debate and of the debates that have preceded it on this question. My first, and I might say my only, impression is that these discussions will not bring much comfort to the suffering Nationalists of the Six Counties, whose fate should be the first consideration of every party in this House and outside it. But from the trend of the speeches I have heard delivered now and on previous occasions, the fate of the Nationalists of the Six Counties seems to be only a secondary consideration, at least with some of the Deputies, who seem more desirous of scoring a point against the Government, and making party capital out of this question, than of affording any practical help for the relief of the victims of the Northern Government. I do not think I can be accused of being a slavish supporter of the Government. I have criticised them when I thought they deserved it. I have voted against them when I believed they were wrong, and I hope to do so again. But in this question of the Boundary, in my humble opinion, criticism of the sort we have had has a distinctly harmful effect, and simply serves to encourage the Orange diehards in their attitude. The best way to serve the cause of the Northern Nationalists is to strengthen and not to weaken the hands of the men who are engaged in this most important task. I claim to speak with some experience as to the effect of these discussions and these debates on the feelings of the people of Ulster. It fills the Orange diehards with glee and our own people with dismay when our Government here are pictured as a set of fools, who can be humbugged as they like by British Ministers. The only hope for the people in the North is a Government here which can act with the whole strength of the Dáil at its back, and which will not be sniped at by every Deputy who thinks he has a grievance against them. Undoubtedly there has been delay, and exasperating delay, in setting up this Boundary Commission, but I contend that it was the delay that occurred after the signing of the Treaty, and not the delay of the past six or twelve months that has caused all the harm.

Mr. HALL

On a point of order, is the Deputy entitled to read his speech?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

No, he is not.

Mr. WHITE

I am merely refreshing my memory.

Mr. GOREY

On a further point of order, I wonder why Deputy Hall did not interrupt when Deputy Johnson was reading his speech.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is not a point of order.

Mr. WHITE

When this Commission was not set up immediately after the signing of the Treaty, Craig and his die-hards got time to dig themselves in, and the events here of the past two years furnished them with plenty material to entrench themselves. And when they got this respite and this opportunity to fortify their positions perhaps it is as well for us to advance with caution now. I hear a lot of talk about revising the Constitution. I want to say as little as I can about the Constitution, for that is a subject on which I do not feel qualified to speak. It is only statesmen of the calibre of Deputy Figgis can speak with any authority on the Constitution. But I hope those who do talk of revising the Constitution realise what it means and are prepared for the consequences which will follow. If, as Deputy Johnson contends, the Government have not exercised sufficient pressure on the British Government, why does he not go over and exert pressure and exert his influence on his comrades of the British Labour Ministry? Instead of making speeches about amending the Constitution and scrapping the Treaty, why does he not go over and head a deputation to the English trade unions and arouse the feelings of the great British democracy as to the wrong that is being done by denying the right of self-determination and the elementary rights of citizenship to the working people which comprise the mass of the Nationalists of Ulster? The people of Ulster and the people of Ireland would appreciate this action much better than they do the making of platitudinarian speeches on the scrapping of the Constitution, which will simply play the game of the English die-hards and give joy to every enemy of Ireland.

Mr. LYONS

I just want to voice my opinion as to why it is my intention to vote in favour of the introduction of this Bill. I think I am doing so in the best interests of the people who sent me here. We have heard a great many speeches to-day in opposition, but, to my mind, a certain amount of popularity can be got from a large number of people outside here on any speeches delivered against any measure of peace and freedom to the country, as long as those speeches mean war and destruction to the property of the people of the Saorstát. I am quite satisfied with the opening statement made by the President, that the English Government are not going to act contra to the Treaty. I am quite satisfied that the present Government of the Free State is quite serious. I am not speaking here as one who does not know the wishes of his constituents. Last Sunday I addressed meetings in the constituency of Longford and Westmeath. I am only voicing the wishes of the people there, who told me to oppose any amendment that would be introduced in the Dáil against the Commission to be set up on the Boundary question. For that purpose I intend to vote in favour of the introduction of this Bill, and am doing so in the best interests of the country. I am doing so in the best interests of the people. I am sure every Deputy here fully realises the amount of opposition there is outside. I really think that this is no place for Deputies to come forward in the hope of getting false popularity by opposing this Bill introduced by the President for the purpose of bringing peace and stability to the country and promoting the industrial prosperity of our people.

Mr. HALL

As one Deputy who has not come here to court false popularity, as Deputy Lyons has alleged, I would like to say a few words. As to the allegation that we here on these Benches or any of us who speak on the motion here are out to court popularity, I wish to say that I would be perfectly well satisfied if President Cosgrave to-night would say that it is his intention before this Bill passes through the British Parliament, to press the British Ministry for the deletion of the words regarding a later date in line 41 of the schedule. If that is not his intention, if he is not able to promise that, I cannot see how any Deputy could honestly vote for the Bill. This particular line is Great Britain's own making. It is made by the British Ministers and put into the hands of our present Government here. This Government in England about which we are speaking has gone on its holidays, as it were, simply to evade the issue. It will return some time in September. It will pass the First and Second Reading of the Bill, and then the Committee Stage will come on. The Bill will be amended, and the Government will be defeated. On the Government being defeated on a big issue, they will have to go to the country, and the possible result will be that they will be beaten at the Election, and we will again be thrown back on the reactionaries—on the people who have exploited Ireland in the past, and who are prepared to do it again. We have had declarations from those who have been signatories to the Treaty, and who to-day ignore the Treaty—that is to say, in the full meaning that it would bear. We have Austen Chamberlain and several others who are adherents of Austen Chamberlain, writing in the Press and making speeches at public meetings, at receptions, at big dinners, and luncheons, and such places, indicating that Article 12 of the Treaty means no such thing as the setting up of a Boundary Commission for the reconciling of the National ideas of the people in the two counties now included in Northern Ireland — Fermanagh and Tyrone. I certainly say, despite the great things that Deputy Lyons may have been told by his constituents down in Longford and Westmeath, that he has not the direction of the majority of his constituents to vote the way in which he has stated he will vote here to-night.

Mr. LYONS

On a point of explanation, before the last election and before I was elected to this Dáil, I gave my word on all the platforms from which I spoke, just the same as a great number of Labour Deputies here gave their word, that I would support the Treaty. I intend to stand by these words, and I will support the present Government in passing this Bill. As I have already said, I consider it is the only means of bringing about and ensuring peace and prosperity in the country. Deputy Hall is wrong in stating that I am not voicing the opinions of the majority of the people who sent me here. I am voicing the opinions of 7,000 electors in Westmeath and Longford in supporting this Bill. That is more than the other Labour Deputies here can claim.

Mr. HALL

I would be sorry to make any statement that might be misinterpreted. I did admit that Deputy Lyons has been sent here, as a Deputy representing the people of Longford and Westmeath, to work the Treaty, but not to come in here to violate the Treaty by voting for the Bill that is before the Dáil to-night.

Mr. A. McCABE

I have already said a few things about this Boundary question. In what I said, I more or less expressed my own opinions. I have seen no reason to withdraw the statement I made, despite the finely-spun phrases of Deputy Magennis and the sarcasm of the Minister for Justice. I still hold those opinions, and I believe time will prove that I am right. At the moment, I do not want to embarrass the Government in any way, but I clearly visualise at this moment what is going to happen. It happened before when the Irish question was made a catch-cry for British political parties. These same parties —Liberals and Labour—are out to make the Irish question a catch-cry again, and I believe they will land it where they landed it several times before. I said I would say nothing about it or interfere with the policy of the Government at the moment. But it looks as if they will allow this question to drag on for two or three years. I believe events will prove that I am right. It is very bad policy, when you are fighting with a man who has hit you on the same spot six or seven times before, and who you know is prepared to hit you in the same place again, to let him do so.

I go from the Border question to the few remarks made by the Minister for Justice. I protest most emphatically against those remarks. I protest against the dragging of Lloyd Georgian methods or Lloyd Georgian gestures into this Assembly. It is too late now to be dragging them in. It might be all right at the time the Treaty was before the Dáil—before we had firmly established our status and our right to nationhood, before we were known as a State all the world over, or before the world recognised us as a State. It might be all right at that time to drag these threats into this Assembly. But now it is rather late. I must also protest not alone against military threats, but against economic threats. That, in my opinion, is mere piffle. Everybody who is familiar with economics knows that. Nations nowadays live on each other. They are inter-dependent, and you might as well say that the farming community in modern times could live without the modern town or city community, as that England and Ireland could live without each other. We are absolutely dependent on each other. The argument used by the Minister for Justice that we were dependent economically on England cuts both ways. Because the real fact of the matter is that England is more dependent economically on us than we are on England. Even at this particular moment here in Ireland we are giving the traders of England a preference of 11 per cent. or 12 per cent. on their goods against the Germans and Americans and every other nationality. What is worse, we do not get any return whatsoever for it from England. Nations nowadays live on each other. They are absolutely inter-dependent, and it is a most fallacious argument to use in a case like this, that we should pander in politics to England or any other nation because we have a big exchange of goods with them.

I protest against the dragging of these arguments into this Assembly, but at the same time I must say that I have not very much belief in this clause of the Treaty. In common with Deputy Cooper, I express the hope to-night that some way may be ultimately found of getting rid of this clause. The step I, in common with other Irishmen, North and South, would like to see taken would be in the direction of some link that would express the unity of Ireland, some link that would show to the world that, if we are not united politically, we are united economically, socially and culturally. I would agree to the delay in the hope that the President would take advantage of the invitation extended or the sentiment expressed by Sir James Craig and meet him to discuss this question in a heart-to-heart talk, not in London under the baleful influence of British politicians, but here in Dublin or in Belfast, and see whether any alternative can be found to forcing this Boundary issue.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I have listened with considerable interest to this debate. In a great many instances, I think Deputies have strayed very far from the point at issue. I agree with Deputy General Mulcahy that the debate has proceeded beyond the limits that should attach to a debate on a subject like this. The remarks of the last speaker, Deputy McCabe, somewhat astonished me. I feel that if Deputy McCabe was conversant with the state of affairs in the areas included in the enclave of Sir James Craig, his tone would be very different. It is all very fine to invite people to endure hardships and sacrifices and to show that you are prepared to continue to submit them to these trying ordeals. But there is very little ground for the assumptions that underlie Deputy McCabe's logic in this matter. I deprecate very strongly any continuation of these conferences. I think these conferences are only devised for the purpose of killing time. I would be very slow to approve the entrance of any of our Ministers to a conference at which the door is securely locked against any hope, present, prospective, or eventual, of national unity. If Sir James Craig were prepared to accept any conditions which would promise even eventual reunion with the rest of Ireland, he would find no lack of accommodation here. We would be prepared to go to the utmost extreme, consistent with the national principles which we endeavour to uphold, to meet him. With that knowledge before them, I think we should have from the Northern area some gesture that would prove to us that they are prepared to regard themselves as Irishmen, apart from any prejudices which may attach them to another country.

Deputy Johnson condemned the reference by the Minister for Justice to contiguous areas. I submit that the Boundary Commission will necessarily deal with contiguous areas to the present Boundary line, but these will be contiguous Parliamentary areas. These Parliamentary areas, on the other side of the line, are entitled by their majorities, I should say, to decide upon the Government they are going to stand in with. There can be no question whatever as to what that decision will be. We have in the City of Derry a majority of 6,900. In the County of Tyrone we have a majority of something like over 7,000. In the County of Fermanagh we have a majority of a little over 8,000. If we take these three areas— Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry City— we have a majority of 21,900. For any person to contend that there would be any difficulty whatever for a fair judicial tribunal to decide which Government these people should live under is preposterous. It is plain sailing. The Treaty ordains and directs the procedure, and the Treaty is an international document. By that document not alone do we stand, but by it Britain must stand. This present confirmation of an agreement, which is stigmatised as a Bill, is merely intended, so far as I can see, to enable the British Government to carry out what the Judicial Committee decided they could not carry out without it. After the Commission has been established—as I have no doubt it will be established, whatever delays may intervene—and has given its decision, there will still be heartburnings and complaints. I have no doubt that will be so. There are still within the Six Counties three Parliamentary areas in which majorities will be found that would take them to this side of the line. Of course the economical and geographical conditions stipulated in the Treaty will intervene here, and it is very doubtful if anything can be done in regard to those areas. There is talk about a homogeneous Six Counties. Immediately after the Redistribution Act of 1885 was passed, these Six Counties had a representation of 25 in the British Parliament. That was in the days of Parnell. Thirteen of those representatives were followers of Parnell, and twelve were supporters of the Conservative Government. That gives some idea of the nature of the claim that the population of the Six Counties constitutes a homogeneous community. I do not know if these people are within the Free State. I am not perfectly satisfied on that point. They were to go out in accordance with Article XII. of the Treaty on a petition. Was such a petition lodged? What class of petition was it? Have we any copies of it? Do we know whether they are constitutionally out of the Free State? That is a question that requires to be looked into by the Government, because I am of opinion that the whole question of the petition has been bowdlerised in some shape or fashion, and I do not know that they are constitutionally out of the Free State. I cannot see how Deputy Johnson, with his usual good sense and high order of political acumen, can decide to adopt the attitude that he has adopted in relation to this.

Mr. JOHNSON

Time will tell.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I would regard it rather as a sort of betrayal of the people of the Six Counties. Those people were already betrayed by the action of those who opposed the Treaty. They submitted the people there to a very serious betrayal and left them in a predicament that has resulted in great hardship for them. Now, for Deputy Johnson to come along and try to continue that position and assume the mantle of those that betrayed them before, is, I think, doing a very bad day's work for these poor people.

Mr. JOHNSON

Might I ask the Deputy if he will say what will be the position of the Nationalists in Belfast and Antrim under his proposition?

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I quite understand Deputy Johnson's reference to those who would remain, but we are hopeful that if and when the Boundary Commission has decided, and if and when the people are assigned to the areas which they wish to go to, that the remnant will be so uneconomic it will not be possible, to my mind in any case, for a Government to continue with that remnant. The Government has been blamed for delay and they have been charged with weakness. The people of the Six-County area that you come across are all inclined to charge the present Government with deplorable weakness on this question of the Boundary. I do not believe they are weak. I believe they have been acting very firmly and very sensibly. At the same time, any evidence of the slightest weakness on their part at present would be absolutely fatal, not alone to their own existence, but to the existence of the Free State and to the fortunes of the people in the Six Counties. I adjure them to stand absolutely firm behind that Article of the Treaty, to see that it is carried out in the spirit and in the letter, as far as it is humanly possible for a Government to do that. If they do that, they will have kept themselves right, they will have kept the nation right, and they will have done the best they possibly could for the people who are at present interned.

I may say I have been a supporter of the Treaty, and supported it on the momentous occasion when it came up for consideration as to whether it should be rejected or accepted. I say now, as I said then, that if either party then had stated that they were only prepared to accept the Treaty on condition that there would be no opting out and no Boundary Commission, I certainly would have stood with that party, let the consequences be what they may. There was no such party in that Dáil. Both parties had agreed that this particular area was not to be coerced. Hence there was no alternative but to support the party that it was thought was most likely, as nearly as possible, to achieve our object. Unfortunately, it has dwindled down now to a question of subterfuge, chicanery and dodgery, more or less, among newspapers and politicians. They have made it a sporting question of their own.

The attitude of Sir James Craig in giving such profuse invitations to conferences and, at the same time, acting towards his minority in the way he is acting, is very difficult to understand. It is very hard to understand the mentality of a body of men who pretend to be friendly and propose friendly conferences, and who, at the same time, are engaged in trying to enslave, to disfranchise, and in every way they can to injure the community that happens to be a minority in the Six-County area, but a majority within the Parliamentary area to which they belong, and who, under the Treaty, should have had their rights long ago given to them, and should have been on their proper side of the Boundary line.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

It is, perhaps, a far cry from Clare to Antrim, and as some Deputies, particularly Deputy Mulcahy, are opposed to thinking aloud, I do not propose to go very far into the arguments with reference to this Bill. I must confess to a great sense of humiliation when listening to some of the arguments put forward in favour of the measure. It has been made clear to me—more clear than it has been ever made before—that this Parliament is a subordinate Parliament. It was never so clear to my mind as it is now that this Parliament is more subordinate to the Imperial Parliament than the Parliament of Belfast.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Why?

Mr. HOGAN

I will tell you. As I understand the functions of the Belfast Parliament, it can only deal with internal matters, and in matters affecting relations between two nations—England and another nation—it has no say. It is only in its own internal management that it has a say. There was a Treaty between this nation and England, and the Belfast Parliament—a subordinate Parliament—refused to do what it was supposed to do by the Imperial Parliament. The Imperial Parliament held up the Treaty in order to please the Belfast Parliament, and imposed upon this Parliament the necessity of passing legislation in order to put that Article of the Treaty into operation. That makes clear to my mind that the Belfast Parliament is not a subordinate Parliament, but that this Parliament is a subordinate Parliament.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Q.E.D.

Mr. HOGAN

It may be Q.E.F. if you will wait long enough. Possibly that tag of Euclid comes very rightly from the Minister for Justice who told us about the economic pressure and the military pressure. The same Minister, on other occasions, would tell us how well off we were in belonging to the League of Nations. Has he forgotten that we have a just cause, that the League of Nations is there to protect us, or is there any good in belonging to the League of Nations? If there is, what is the use in coming forward this evening and telling us about the great military power and the great economic power of the sister isle across the water? I do not understand what is wrong in the drafting of Article XII. Of course I have not the legal mind that the Minister for Justice has. I do not understand what is wrong with Article XII. any more than is wrong with any other Article of the Treaty, and why it is necessary to introduce legislation here in order to put it into operation.

Supposing we did as Belfast has done. Belfast has refused to put into operation a certain provision of Article XII. of the Treaty. If we refuse to put into operation provisions of Article IV. what would the British Parliament say to us? Would they enforce fulfilment of that Article?

Professor MAGENNIS

Yes.

Mr. HOGAN

Of course they would. Why do they not force Belfast to put into operation its part of Article XII. of the Treaty? To my mind that is another proof that we are more a subordinate Parliament to the Imperial Parliament than the Belfast Parliament

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

That is the purpose of this Bill.

Mr. HOGAN

What is the need of further legislation to do it? Would England force us to introduce fresh legislation in order to put Article IV. into operation, just as it is necessary to introduce fresh legislation to put into operation Article XII. of the Treaty? The Imperial Parliament has forced this Parliament to bring forward fresh legislation. Would the Imperial Parliament also say that fresh legislation was necessary to put into operation Article IV., or any other Article, if we refused? If we cannot assert the dignity of our Parliament, then we ought to cease presuming and boasting that we are a National Parliament and not a subordinate Parliament. To my mind there is only one method to bring those who signed the Treaty with this Nation to a sense of their responsibility. If they have any sense of responsibility where their interests are concerned, they never had any sense of responsibility regarding their signature where this country is concerned. I am sure the fact that they have a big army has influenced them in ignoring that responsibility. It would be just as well that we would preserve our honour even at the expense of risking a good deal, rather than sully our honour and reduce our status to that of a subordinate Parliament, more subordinate even than the Belfast one.

The PRESIDENT

It rather surprised me to hear some of the arguments that were put forward against giving this measure a First Reading. As I explained, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, the Bill was circulated while I was asking for permission to introduce it. On the face of the measure there is an agreement between the two countries, not an agreement between myself as Chairman, let us say, of a Party in this House and Mr. MacDonald as leader of the Labour Party, but in our respective positions as heads of the Government we represent. Those Governments include not the particular parties of which the two principals are the heads, but the States, and commit the States to this particular agreement.

Mr. JOHNSON

Subject to ratification.

The PRESIDENT

Of course.

Mr. JOHNSON

Therefore not committing?

The PRESIDENT

Committing them in so far as the importance of the person who represents the particular State in question is concerned, subject always, as in all cases of treaties or arrangements between Governments, to ratification.

Mr. JOHNSON

This is an important point. Are we to assume that the President's argument is that once the head of the Government or the State had signed an agreement subject to ratification, that it is committing the State?

The PRESIDENT

No, but he signs in his capacity as head of the State. It cannot be legal or binding until the particular Parliament of the State ratifies it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Therefore it is not committing the State.

The PRESIDENT

Except in so far as the provisional arrangement of everything in connection with it commits it. It has been put forward by more than one Deputy that the real weakness is that we are dealing with a particular political party in England. We are not, and we never did. We have had committed to this particular Treaty four separate Governments in England, Mr. Lloyd George's Government, Mr. Bonar Law's Government, Mr. Stanley Baldwin's Government, and the present Government of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. Each and everyone of these in the spirit and in the letter committed himself to carrying out this. We are not dealing with a party. It is a matter of indifference as far as politics or the relations between the two countries are concerned, what Government is in power in England, just as it is to them what Government is in power here. The Government in each case represents the State and the people. This is not a political question in England. It is a question of honour, of truth, and of public right between one country and the other. It should not be made the subject of a party discussion here as to what one particular party or another will do. In this matter I believe, however we may differ as to the methods of dealing with it, that the Dáil acts as a whole, and that there are not any party manæuvres in the matter of criticism.

I do say that I strongly and fundamentally disagree with the last speaker in his explanation of our subordinate position to the Belfast Parliament, in view of what I have said. I would like to know what the view of the last speaker would be, supposing for a moment that the British Government, in order to mend this particular defect, introduced a measure into their Parliament, passed it through all the stages, and presented the accomplished fact to us, and said, "How do you like that?" To my mind that would give some colour to the argument of the Deputy if it did happen. What has happened? An agreement has been come to by the heads of the two Governments, and that agreement is contained in the schedule of the Bill. If the Dáil does not subscribe to that the instrument has no effect. Let us not get away from that. As far as that is concerned, too much stress on that particular point might give rise to much the same class of arguments in another place as have been given expression to here.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair at this stage.

The PRESIDENT

Some time or other there must be ratification of agreements between Governments or we get nowhere. The only other matter which I think calls for any comment from me is the statement made by Deputy Baxter, in which, I believe, he said that there were people who were excluded and disfranchised from coming here, and that we, by force of arms, maintained the Treaty position. I dispute and I repudiate both of these statements. In the first place it is in the recollection of every Deputy that it was other people who attempted by force of arms to prevent acceptance of the Treaty. We were not allowed in certain places to address public meetings; the railway lines were torn up; the roads were blocked and trenched; trees were knocked down, and every possible obstacle was placed in the way of those who wished to explain what the Treaty meant to the people of the country.

Now No. 2. When we assembled here in September, 1922, in Dáil Eireann, anyone who had any conscientious scruples, or any objection to Article 4, as described by Deputy Hogan, could have come in and maintained his scruples.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

And one did.

The PRESIDENT

One did, as a matter of fact, and there is no use in saying: "We were the people who were right," as some of them, I suppose, will say. The fact is, that in this matter we have got no complaint about British good faith up to this. We have banked on it and accepted it, and I will give expression to the fact that they have kept their faith with us. They have not yet broken it. I do not believe they will break it, and if they do, the dishonour is theirs, and not ours, for having been taken in. I do not believe they will break their faith. It is a very serious thing to break faith between nations. Since we have made this agreement good faith has been kept. I am banking on that. If they break it, it is not my honour that is involved, but their own, and I do not, for one, believe that they will do it.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 10.

Tá

• Richard Beamish.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• John J. Cole.
• John Conlan.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• Louis J. D'Alton.
• John Daly.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
• Seán de Faoite.
• Darrell Figgis.
• Henry J. Finlay.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Good.
• John Hennigan.
• William Hewat.
• Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
• Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
• Seán Mac Garaidh.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
• Eoin Mac Néill.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Seosamh Mag Craith.
• Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
• Patrick McKenna.
• James Sproule Myles.
• Martin M. Nally.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Mícheál O hAonghusa.
• Ailfrid O Broin.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Próinsias O Cathail.
• Partholán O Conchubhair.
• Conchubhair O Conghaile.
• Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Séamus N. O Dóláin.
• Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Donchadh S. O Guaire.
• Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.
• Séamus O Leadáin.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Pádraig O Máille.
• Risteárd O Maolchatha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
• Pádraig K. O hOgáin (Luimneach).
• Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
• Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
• Caoimhghín O hUigín.
• Patrick W. Shaw.
• Liam Thrift.
• Nicholas Wall.

Níl

• Pádraig F. Baxter.
• Seán Buitléir.
• Séamus Eabhróid.
• David Hall.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).

Question declared carried.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

When will the Second Stage be taken?

The PRESIDENT

On October 21st. That is not breaking my word. You must give a Second Stage. If it is not passed in the other place we can move to have the Order discharged. I will keep my word with regard to that, and I am sure that the Dáil will accept that.