1925
Please Note: The chronology for 1924 and 1925 does not try to give the
comprehensive month by month detail that is attempted for the previous five
years. In particular, no attempt is made to chronicle the various issues
that arose in the construction of the two new states in the North and South of
Ireland (on which there is now a quite extensive literature). Rather they follow two major 'left-over'
issues from the revolutionary period, which are the Army Mutiny of 1924 and the
working out of the Boundary Commission.
|
Mar |
The Boundary Commission
conducts formal hearings throughout NI, particularly along the border.
They hear from many local people. Meetings were held in Rostrevor,
Warrenpoint, Armagh, Newcastle and Newry. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
316 |
|
Early-Mar |
Craig announces
election to NI parliament to be held on 3rd April. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
317 |
|
Mar-21 |
27 delegates
attend nationalist convention in the Grand Metropolitan Hotel in
Belfast. Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin led by Healy, Donnelly and Michael Lynch
while nationalists led by Devlin, O’Neill, Leeke,
Harbison and Nugent. McCartan attended on behalf of the Free State
government. They decided to maintain 1921 pact with each side putting
forward six candidates. Eventually 11 candidates were put forward as
the nationalists decided not to contest Down (as they did not want to
highlight unionist majority in the county). On the contentious issue of
abstention, it was decided that Devlin and his colleagues from Co. Antrim
could take their seats as soon as the Boundary Commission had reported and
that other constituencies were free to decide at local conventions.
Separately, Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin put forward six candidates (including De
Valera in Down). |
Phoenix (1994),
pgs 318-319 |
|
|
|
|
|
Apr-03 |
The election to the
52 seats in the NI parliament results in 32 Unionists; 10 nationalists
(Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin and old nationalists); 3 NILP; 4 Independent Unionists;
2 Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin and 1 UTA (Unbought Tenants’ Association). This
represented a reduction in Craig’s overall majority of 12 seats.
Pro-Treaty Sinn Féin and old nationalists got 91,452 votes as compared to
20,615 for the Anti-Treaty Sinn Féin candidates. |
Phoenix (1994),
pgs 320-321 and Walker (1992), pgs 47-48 |
|
Apr-22 |
From 22nd
April until 6th May, the Boundary Commission held meetings in
Fermanagh and Tyrone. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
322 |
|
|
|
|
|
May |
During May and
early June, the Boundary Commission held meetings in Derry and then moved
onto Omagh and held meetings until early July. |
Phoenix (1994),
pgs 322-323 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jul-22 |
In a confidential
memo to the Minister of Defense, the new Chief of
Staff of the Free State army, Gen Peadar MacMahon, warned that there was the
possibility of armed resistance from loyalists to any transfer of territory to
the Free State by the Boundary Commission. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
326 |
|
|
|
|
|
Oct-17 |
Agreement reached
by Boundary Commission in private on the changes to the border.
‘Rectification’ won out. 180,000 acres were to be moved to Free State
(mostly in South Armagh) and 50,000 were to be moved to Northern Ireland
(mostly in East Donegal). Balance of population movement was 31,000 to
Free State and 7,500 to NI. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
328 |
|
|
|
|
|
Nov-07 |
The Morning
Post publishes a leak of the Boundary Commission proposals with an
accompanying map. It causes dismay among border nationalists and Free
State supporters (particularly in East Donegal). |
Phoenix (1994), pg
329 |
|
Nov-10 |
Following a letter
from Cahir Healy to Kevin O’Higgins on the 9th November which
asked if (a) MacNeill was going to submit the proposed new boundary to
Executive Council for approval; (b) would the Executive Council endorse any
boundary that did not transfer ‘substantial areas’ to the Free State and (c)
would border nationalists be consulted before any final decision was arrived
at. The Executive Council decided that the signing of the report was a
‘matter for Dr MacNeill’s sole discretion’ and
accordingly it did not require to be informed of the proposals beforehand. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
329 |
|
Nov-11 |
Cosgrave says in
the Dáil “So far as territory now
within the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann is concerned, the contention of
the Executive Council is that the provisions of Article 12 of the Treaty
cannot be construed as empowering the Commission to transfer to Northern
Ireland any of that territory, and representations, oral and written, have
been made to that effect to the Commission. I am aware that a large volume of
evidence as to the wishes of the inhabitants in the border areas has been
placed before the Commission” |
Dáil Debates Vol 13 (11th Nov 1925), col.
113-114; |
|
Nov-19 |
Dáil passes motion
approving the Executive Council’s representations made to the Boundary
Commission that Article 12 of the
Treaty cannot be construed as empowering the Commission to transfer to
Northern Ireland any of the territory currently in the Free State. |
Dáil Debates Vol 13 (19th Nov 1925), col.
609-641 |
|
Nov-19 |
Cosgrave received
nationalist Tyrone delegation who expressed concerns about the border changes
being leaked from the Boundary Commission. They stress that there
should be no report from the Boundary Commission rather than a bad
report. “If a bad report, NacNeill should not
sign. This view is generally held.” Similar views expressed by
delegations from Strabane and Keady. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
329 |
|
Nov-20 |
MacNeill resigns
from the Boundary Commission. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
330 |
|
Nov-24 |
In a
speech to the Dail, MacNeill says “There was at no time any debate between the members of
the Commission as to the principles of interpretation … The details came
before us in a very gradual and a very piecemeal manner and it may be
contended that I was at fault, that I was remiss, that I failed to appreciate
the circumstances, failed to see what I might be ultimately up against, when
I did not demand, require and challenge, at the earliest convenient stage, a
discussion of the general principles of interpretation and a decision upon
those principles. That may be so. I think it is probably true that a
better politician and a better diplomatist, if you like, a better strategist,
than I am would not have allowed himself to be brought into that position or
difficulty. We worked on in that way without decision until a complete
boundary line had been presented to us, and after that we entered on the
consideration of how and in what form an award ought to be issued and
communicated. That is to say, a draft award was actually in existence. I
cannot, from my recollection, give the date, but I think the date mentioned
in the statement of Messrs. Feetham and Fisher, the
17th October, is probably the date. After that time we were engaged in
discussing details with regard to the issue and publication of the award. In
the time that intervened I did come to the conclusion that when those parts
of the award were put together and regarded as a whole, that is, as an award,
it would not be possible for me to defend them, that they would be
indefensible as a right interpretation of the Treaty, that they would be indefensible
as giving effect to that franchise which was denied in the case of the Act of
1920, that they would be indefensible as not being consistent, one part of
the award with another. I did not come to that conclusion rapidly or suddenly
or without reluctance. I did desire, if it were possible, that we should have
an award which all three Commissioners could sign, and it was not until it was clear to me
that that was not going to be possible and that there was no likelihood of its
possibility, that I decided to withdraw from the Commission.”
MacNeill also resigns as Minister of Education. |
Dáil Debates Vol 13 (24th Nov 1925), col.
802-803 |
|
Nov-25 |
Cosgrave opens
direct consultations with British Prime Minister Balwin
in an effort to suppress the Feetham-Fisher report. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
330 |
|
Nov-26 |
A week of
intensive negotiations between the British, Free State and NI governments
started. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
330 |
|
Nov-29 |
At the three
government discussions, O’Higgins says that his government might be able to
accept no change to the border if they could point to substantial improvement
in the position of nationalists in NI. In particular, he points to the
existence of 45,000 Specials and to the abolition of PR. Craig was obdurate
on concessions to the minority. However, he intimated that in return
for dissolution of the Council of Ireland that he would give on two minor
points (a) give a verbal assurance on the reduction of the Specials and (b)
allow the British Prime Minister to settle the question of the release of
prisoners. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
331 |
|
Dec-01 |
O’Higgins’
suggestion to Craig that PR should be restored was not supported by Cosgrave
who endorsed Craig’s objections to the system. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
332 |
|
Dec-03 |
Tripartite
Agreement signed by the British, Free State and NI governments. Essence
of this agreement is (a) the Boundary Commission’s report is to be
suppressed; (b) boundary between Free State and NI was to remain unchanged;
(c) Free State to be released from Article 5 of Treaty which had left it
liable for a share of the British public debt; (d) powers of the Council of
Ireland were to be transferred to the NI government and (e) the two Irish
governments were to “meet together, as and when necessary, for the purpose of
considering matters of common interest”. (Last clause was never invoked
and Cosgrave and Craig were never to meet again.) |
Phoenix (1994), pg
332 |
|
Dec-04 |
The Irish News
remarked that “Money decided the great Boundary Question at last” and
exhorted nationalists to organise themselves to recover their civil rights. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
334 |
|
Dec-07 |
After meeting in
Omagh, a number of leading pro-Treaty figures in west Ulster (including Healy
and Lynch) issued a statement declaring that border majorities had been
“callously betrayed”. Several other border leaders, including Harbison,
held an ‘Anti-Pact’ meeting in Dublin presided over by de Valera. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
333 |
|
Dec-09 |
The Tripartite Agreement
is unanimously approved by the NI parliament. Craig announced the
disbandment of the ‘A’ Specials and that the British government would review
the cases of political prisoners. He would not assure McAllister (a
nationalist MP) that PR would be retained for parliamentary elections and
asserted that the minority had no real grievances. |
Phoenix (1994), pg
334 |
|
Dec-10 |
After four days of
debate, the Tripartite Agreement is passed by the Dáil by 71 votes to
20. Winding up the debate, Cosgrave urged northern nationalists to
attend the NI parliament and said “if
they make their case and if they do not receive justice, then it is time
enough for [the Dáil opposition] to say to me that there has been no success
in this, that there was no good feeling and good-will [between the two
countries]. But until that time comes, every good Irishman who loves this
country, every man who wishes to see this country placed on a sound
foundation, everyone who looks to the nation instead of to the individual or
party, must, if he is an honest man, support this [Agreement] as the best
thing that could be done under the circumstances.” Cosgrave was later
to describe the Tripartite Agreement as a “damned good bargain”. |
Dáil Debates Vol 13 (10th Nov 1925), col.
1768 |
|
Dec-12 |
The editor of the
pro-Treaty Ulster Herald declared that the desertion of the border
nationalists by the Free State government would be “classed … as one of the
blackest chapters in Irish history”. In a letter to the editor of the Irish
Statesman just over a year later (on the 18th December 1926),
Cahir Healy said “The Free State leaders told us that our anchor was article
12; when the time of trial came, they cut our cable and launched us,
rudderless, into the hurricane, without guarantee or security, even for our
ordinary civil rights.” |
Phoenix (1994), pg
333 |