1925
Please Note: 1924 and 1925 do not attempt
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 when trying to construct the new state. Rather they follow two major 'left-over'
issues (i.e. the Army Mutiny of 1924 and 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 |