THE BOUNDARY PROBLEM.
WE wish we could feel that it was safe, and therefore wise, to say nothing more about the Boundary problem till Parliament meets. Unfortunately, we cannot solace ourselves with a policy of silence. It is unfor- tunately evident from Mr. Cosgrave's speech in the Dail, and • also from the inferences that must be drawn from Mr. De Valera's speech, and perhaps even more from the attitude of that part of the Press which supports the action of the Government in introducing legislation to alter the settlement made in the Treaty, that the Free State's claim is not merely for rectification of the boundary, but for a radical alteration of the area to which both the Northern and the Southern Acts apply. From what we know of the decision given by the highest tribunal in the Empire, i.e., the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it has become necessary to the Free State's contention to make an effort to convert the Boundary Commission from a voluntary Commission, as the Judicial-Committee in effect decides it to be, into a compulsory Commission. This means a repeal of a portion of the statutory settlement based on the so- called Treaty and the giving to the newly constituted Boundary Tribunal of the power to vary not only the Free State Act but the Act creating the Northern Province.
A great deal has been said about the intention of the Treaty, but it is obvious that its intention was to do what it, in fact, does, that is, to create a voluntary Boundary Commission for rectifying the frontier line on a strictly lhnited scale. In other words, the intention was to rectify the boundary line subject to certain strict conditions as regards geography and commerce. There are thus two predominant conditions : (1) that the Commission can be set up only by voluntary action ; and (2) that even then its decisions must be in accord with the limitations prescribed in regard to economic and geographical considerations. And now we are told in effect by Mr. Cosgrave that, whatever the Act says, he was assured that what was meant was a com- pulsory Commission and a fundamental alteration of the area, not mere boundary rectification.
Against this we have the plain and clear statement of Mr. Chamberlain that he and his Unionist colleagues in assenting to the Act giving statutory force to the Treaty agreement were convinced that all they Were doing was agreeing to rectification. Nothing was further from their thoughts and intents than a funda- mental alteration of the area. Sir James Craig has always told us that his abandonment of determined opposition to the Act was due to the assurance he received that only rectification was intended and further that no Boundary Commission could be established except upon a voluntary basis. With these safeguards he thought it his duty, however strong his- personal dislike of the policy which the British Government had adopted, to refrain from anything in the nature of obstruction, In spite of these facts we are, apparently, going to see a Bill forced through Parliament, a Bill based upon the presumption that when the Government passed their- Act giving statutory sanction to the Treaty they intended, though they expressed the exactly opposite view in actual words, to have a compulsory Boundary Commission, and further- that, when they talked about boundaries, they did not mean boundaries or their rectiffcation, but fundamental alterations of the area laid elbwrr -in the Act establishing the Northern Province. This being the case; and this question of intention being the main matter in dispute, Parliament is surely not to be called upon to act in the dark.
If this tremendous step; which incidentally may actually mean the partial repeal of the Colonial' Boun- daries Act (58 and 59 Victoria, Cap. 84) under which self-governing communities in the Empire are secured against alteration of boundaries except by their own consent, is taken on the plea of intention, Parliament must come to a decision as to what the' intention was. But obviously the question of intention cannot be settled by rhetorical speeches in debate. The right thing for the House of Commons to do, and the fair thing, would be to appoint a Parliamentary Committee to examine the matter and hear evidence. The power not only to administer an oath, but to relieve Privy Councillors of their Privy Councilor's oath, and to call as witnesses the chief persons concerned in making the Treaty and ascertain what they believed to be the intent of their action would, of course, be given to the Committee of Inquiry. Mr. Lloyd George would describe his intention, and would be asked to say exactly what assurances he gave (1) at the beginning of the negotiations for a Treaty and (2) during its course not only to the Free State leaders but to Sir James Craig and the Ulster Government. Similar questions must be put to and answers received from the other negotiators, including Mr. Cosgrave and the representatives of the Irish Government. Mr. Cosgrave surely cannot and would not refuse to give such evidence, considering that he is a party to the pact on behalf of which the new Bill is to be introduced. To refuse to recognize the right of the House of Commons to question him would in effect be to declare that Ireland had separated from the Empire and so from the purview of the Imperial Parliament. If the House of Commons by a party majority insists on legislating in the dark and refuses to hear what pledges were given not only before the passing of the Free State Act, but also before the passing. of the Northern Province Act, then it seems to us that the House of Lords ought to perform this function.
We have two other points to make. One is to remind our readers and the public generally that this question of the pledges, intentions, and nature of the Boundary clause is no new thing. A reference to the files of the Spectator shows how much the matter was in our minds in February, 1922.- We then talked about the deplorable uncertainty into which Mr. Lloyd George had plunged the whole question of the Ulster Boundaries : " That ques- tion, upon which there need never have been any doubt, is the supreme evil- of the moment."
We went on to describe the astonishment with which Sir James Craig, when he met Mr. Collins with high hopes that they would be able to come to a voluntary agreement, was confronted by the tremendous claim for annexation, i.e. for an- alteration of the area so fundamental that it would have reduced the Northern Province to half its size as set forth in the Act of 1920. It was on this occasion that Sir James Craig, whose words may be depended upon absolutely on this or any other issue, put forth the following announcement :- "Owing to the fact of Mr. Collins's stand on the Boundary Commission, and the Irish dacgation's agreement with Mr. Lloyd George that larger territories were involved, and not merely a boundary line, as Sir James Craig was given to understand privately by several British Ministers, and from statements of Mr. Lloyd George in the Rouse of Commons, no further agreement was reached."
To put it quite plainly, what happened was that Mr. Michael Collins set before the astonished eyes of Sir James Craig a map which, lie was given to understand, was Mr. Lloyd George's own official map and whieh was marked. with the blue pencil of -the then Prime Minister. Instead of handirig over a few lioman Catholic districts to the Free State and a few Protestant districts in Donegal to the Northern Province, it withdrew nearly half its territory from the Northern Province. .. It will be seen fro-m the following _Passage, taken from an article which wrote at the time, that our demand for an investigation of what was said to the parties concerned before the passage of the Act giving effect- to the Free State Treaty is. not any new-fangled device on. our part to c&raplicate or embarrass the issue, but is merely a repetition of an old demand " The astounding thing about the deadlock is that both Sir James Craig and Mr. Collins are equally positive that their claims are supported by assurances given to them in conversation by the Prime Minister and other members of the Cabinet . . . It is abso- lutely essential that the Government should clear up the mystery at once. They should nay where they stand. They should inform the nation beyond possibility of further doubt whether they in- tended, as Mr. Collins avows, that there should be a great change of territory, or whether they meant that -there should be only such a fiectification of the boundaries as would remove from Ulster a few :groups of Sinn Feiners, and add to Ulster a few groups of loyalists. Although we have followed Irish affairs with much attention we cannot call to mind any report or speech or letter which gives us reason to believe that there is justification for the view which Mr. Collins taked. We did not dream that rights so solemnly pledged to _Ulster and guaranteed by 'Act of Parliament in 1920 were really regarded as legitimate matters for dliA.ussion. We trusted we the Prime Minister, and we have -to admit sorrowfully that we were 'wrong to do so. In Parliament on Tuesday the Prime Minister had an opportunity of making the facts clear, but all he said was to the effect that the Collins-Craig dispute must not be taken too -seriously, and that the best course was to wait a little longer and see if the principals could agree. This, surely, was a very ominous treatment of the matter, since everything depends upon knowing exactly what Ministers of the Crown said during the negotiations.
If readers want to trace the matter further, they should refer, to Mr. Chamberlain's speech during the debate on Wednesday, February 8th, 1922. We summarized it as follows :— - " Mr. Chamberlain, in answering Captain Craig's speech, defended the Prime Minister, and said that if he was dishonoured all the members of the Cabinet were also dishonoured, Ie.:cause their action find been common. He declared that the rights and privileges of , -Ulster 'had been left-intact' and that they would not be altered without her consent.: Mr. Chamberlain then quoted at length promises and pledges which had been made by the Prime Minister."
.We may add to these quotations a quotation from the .letter. which Sir James Craig sent to the Prime Minister on December 14th, 1921, in regard to the Treaty :— "A question which vitally affecti our interests is the decision to eatatheil a Commission to revise the boundaries between Northern Ireland and Southerri Ireland. Theri is, I believe, no precedent in the history of the British Empire or taking any territory from an established Government without its sanction. Moreover; this is a . breach of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which was put into operation only last June, when His Majesty the King in person opened the Parliament of Northern Ireland. At our meeting oit December 9th you explained that it was only intended to make a slight readjustment of our boundary line, so as to bring into Northern Ireland .loyalists who are now just outside-our area and to transfer correspon- dingly an equivalent number of those having Sinn Fein sympathies to The area of the Irish Tree State. The Lord Chancellor's speech, however, has given encouragement to those endeavouring to read into it a different interpretation. As I intimated to Mr. Austen Chamberlain by telephone before leaving London, I reserved to my Government the right of dissenting from the appointment of any Boundary Commission."
. We have thought it necessary to put these unpleasant and harassing facts on record, but we are glad to be able to add that Mr. Baldwin has visited Ulster and has been in consultation with Sir Jaines Craig. That is excellent news. Mr. Baldwin is not a man who &an possibly add to the betrayals or the double -dealings under which the South is told one- thing and the North another. If we may venture upon advice to the Ulstermen, it is that they should let themselves be guided by Mr. Baldwin's advice. After the treatment that they have received already, it would be too much to advise them to put themselves unreservedly in the hail& of any English politician, though personally we think that they would be quite safe in Mr. Baldwin's hands, but, at any rate, we do most earnestly urge them to give Mr. Baldwin their i0P0r41 confide4ce and to let him act as a negotiator..., - • To Mr. Ramsay MacDonald we will only say, " Remem- ber the Ruhr and what has. come -from armed' occupation under partisan allegations as to the meaning cif a Treaty, and the claiming of the pound of flesh on allegations as to intention; - - If -you -force- your Bill through -and-insist on a compulsory Commission, you will have to apply these decisions either by allowing a civil war in Ireland, or else by sending your own troops to shoot down the Ulstermen." We would. also ask Mr. MacDonald to take as a precedent his own wise -decision with regard to the Sudan. It is almost an exact analogy. The Egyptians are 'claiming the right to. coerce the Sudanese because, as-they say, they have never consented, and never will consent, to the partition of their country. The fact that the Sudanese themselves like the " partition " and detest the idea of Egyptian - domination is brushed aside by the Cairo Government just as the protests of Ulster are brushed aside by the Irish Republicans when they declare that they will not have the sacred soil of their island divided. If Mr. MacDonald and his Government apply sound principles to the Sudan, why cannot they apply them to Ulster ?
Previous page
