0025

(c) crown copyright
Catalogue Reference:CAB/24/273 Image Reference:0025

THIS DOCUMENT IS T H E PROPERTY OP HIS BRITANNIC M A J E S T V S GOVERNMENT
4
1
Printed for the Cabinet. December 1937.
SECRET. Copy No.
C P . 300 (37).
TO BE KEPT UNDER LOCK AND KEY.
It is requested that special care may be taken to

ensure the secrecy of this document.
CABINET.
Irish Situation Committee.
R E P O R T ON T H E G E N E R A L C O N S T I T U T I O N A L P O S I T I O N A N D T H E
P R O S P E C T S OF A S E T T L E M E N T OF O U T S T A N D I N G Q U E S T I O N S
W I T H T H E I R I S H FREE STATE.
A T their Meeting on the 8th December, 1937 (Cabinet 46 (37), Conclusion 6),
the Cabinet took note of a Memorandum ( C P . 298 (37)) by the Secretary of
State for Dominion Affairs covering the reply, as agreed by this Committee, to
Mr. de Valera's despatch of the 24th November last, and were informed by the
Secretary of State that it was proposed to follow up the correspondence by
an early meeting of this Committee; by consideration of the Committee's
conclusions by the Cabinet on the 22nd December, and by Meetings with Irish
Ministers in the course of January.
2. In pursuance of these arrangements we have had under consideration

the following documents which are annexed to this Report as Appendices I, I I
and I I I respectively :—
(a) A Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on the
General Constitutional Position. (Appendix I.)
(&) A Memorandum by the Home Secretary, covering an account of a
conversation with the Right Hon. J. M . Andrews, the Acting Prime
Minister of Northern Ireland, on the 9th December, 1937.
(Appendix I I . )
(c) A Memorandum, with a covering note, by the Secretary of State for
Dominion Affairs (prepared before Mr. de Valera's despatch of the
24th November was received) on the prospects of settlement of
outstanding questions. (Appendix I I I . )
3. I t will be convenient to deal first in. this Report with the General
Constitutional Position, and secondly with the Prospects of Settlement of
Outstanding Questions.
General Constitutional Position.

4. W e attach (Appendices I V and V ) two Memoranda on the constitutional
position circulated to us in May and June last by the Secretary of State for
Dominion Affairs. A f t e r very full and careful consideration of all the
circumstances we then, as stated in paragraph 1 of Appendix I, unanimously
agreed to make the following recommendation to the Cabinet as to our general
attitude on the constitutional position :—
" That notwithstanding the latest Irish Free State legislation (i.e., the
new Constitution) we should continue to treat the Irish Free State as
remaining within the Commonwealth."
5. A s a result of subsequent informal discussions with Dominion represen
tatives at the time of the Imperial Conference it was ascertained that the other
Dominions were all disposed to take a view similar to that proposed to be taken
by the United Kingdom Government, namely, to treat the Irish Free State as
remaining within the Commonwealth. I t was, however, contemplated that there
should be further communication with the Dominion Governments as to the
precise form of any public statement on the subject (see Appendix I, paragraph 2).
6. W e now recommend the Cabinet to approve the formula set out in
paragraph 4 of this Report as describing their general attitude on the
constitutional position. On the assumption that this recommendation will be
accepted by the Cabinet we have considered the form and method of the announce
ment of this conclusion. Before, however, any final decision on these points can
satisfactorily be reached it is necessary to deal with an important matter,
namely, the effect which the new Constitution purports to have in relation to
Northern Ireland.
The new Constitution vis-a-vis Northern Ireland.

7. Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the new Constitution in its final form read as
follows :—
The use of the word " Eire " or " Ireland."

Article 2 :
" The national territory consists of the whole Island of Ireland, its
islands and the territorial seas."
Article 3 :
" Pending the reintegration of the national territory and without
prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this
Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory the laws
enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application
as the laws of Saorstat Eireann and the like extra-territorial effect."
Article 4 :
" The name of the State is Eire, or, in the English language, Ireland."
8. In paragraph 14 of Appendix I will be found the four alternative courses
open to us. W e fully agree with the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that
for the reasons summarised in paragraphs 15 to 20 inclusive of Appendix I,
alternatives (a), (b) and (c) are open to very grave objection and should not be
entertained, and that of the four possible courses the one least open to objection
is (d), viz. : that while taking note of the term " Eire " or " Ireland " we should
place on record in a suitable document, for publication, that we cannot recognise
that the adoption of this name involves any right to territory or jurisdiction over
territory forming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and, that we regard the use of the name " Eire " or " Ireland " in this
connection as relating only to that area which has hitherto been known as the
Irish Free State.
9. The attitude of Northern Ireland is set out in Appendix I I to this Report.
A s will be seen, Northern Ireland Ministers no longer press their suggestion that
the title " Northern Ireland " should be changed to " Ulster." They, however,
insist that if there is to be no change of^name two conditions are essential if the
position of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is to be safeguarded.
10. These conditions are (1) that " a most categorical statement should be
made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, making clear our attitude
towards Mr. de Valera's assumption of the title of ' Ireland,' and stating in the
simplest and firmest terms that on no account would we be prepared to accept
interference with the jurisdiction of the Government of Northern Ireland without
the express approval of Northern Ireland itself." This statement should, i f
possible, be drawn up..after consultation with Lord Craigavon; and (2) that
' ' nothing affecting the position of Northern Ireland should be done in any
negotiations with Mr. de Valera without some opportunity for Lord Craigavon
and Mr. Andrews to make their case."
11. W e recommend the Cabinet (1) to approve the adoption of course (d) in
paragraph 14 of Appendix I, viz., that we should take note of the new title, but
make a declaration to the effect that " Eire " and " Ireland " describe only the
twenty-six counties, excluding the six counties of " Northern Ireland " which
are a part of the United Kingdom; and (2) to accept in principle the two essential
conditions laid down by the Government of Northern Ireland and set out in
paragraph 10 above.
The Form and Method of Announcement of the Decision.

Form.
12. I n Annex I to Appendix I will be found the text in the form approved
by us of the draft Statement for Publication subject to any Dominion comments.
W e have invited the Home Secretary to show this draft to Lord Craigavon, and
to ascertain his views on the question whether any further statement safeguarding
the position of Northern Ireland (condition (1) in paragraph 10 above) is needed,
which, in that event, we feel should be separately published, regard being had
to the desirability of avoiding as far as possible controversy with Mr. de Valera
on the subject of partition. Subject to the above^ we recommend the Cabinet
to approve the text of the draft Statement for Publication in the form set out
in Annex I of Appendix I .
Method.
13. The new Constitution will become effective on Wednesday, the
29th December, 1937. I n normal circumstances the best and most convenient
course would have been for the Statement to have been made in the House of
Commons by the Prime Minister in reply to a Private Notice Question.
Parliament will, however, adjourn on the 23rd December, and we see very great
objection to the Statement being made before the new Constitution has actually
come into force. W e think it out of the question to delay the publication of the
Statement until Parliament reassembles in February as we are satisfied that, in
order to allay anxiety both here and in Northern Ireland, the Statement should
be published as soon as practicable after the new Constitution becomes operative
on the 29th December. I n these circumstances we think that the best course will
be for the Statement to be published by being communicated officially to the Press
by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on the 30th December,
i.e., 24 hours after the new Constitution has come into force.
14. W e have authorised the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, in

anticipation of Cabinet approval, to communicate the draft Statement, in
confidence, to the Dominion Governments other than the Government of the Irish
Free State, in order that, as arranged with the Dominion representatives last
June, those Governments should be consulted as to the precise form of
announcement of the conclusion reached. The Dominion Governments have been
invited to reply as soon as possible. W e recommend the Cabinet to approve the
proposal of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to communicate a copy
of the Statement to Mr. de Valera on the 29th December, or 24 hours in advance
of its publication on the 30th December.
The Position of the Irish Free State as a Member of the Commonwealth.

15. Paragraphs 6 to 11, inclusive, of Appendix I deal with the
correspondence exchanged with Mr. de Valera on the subject of the position of
the Irish Free State as a Member of the Commonwealth. W e agree with the
Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that it would be unwise to leave
M r . de Valera's unsatisfactory reply completely unanswered; if, for any reason,
it should hereafter be found necessary.to publish the correspondence, we should
in that case, perhaps, be open to a charge of negligence. W e therefore recommend
[16335A] B 2
the Cabinet to approve the proposal that, when communicating the terms of the
Statement to Mr. de Valera on the 29th December, we should comment in our
communication to him on his reply in a manner which made our position clear but
reduced to a minimum the opportunity for further hairsplitting by him. The text
of this comment in the form approved by us will be found in Annex I I of
Appendix I to this Report. W e submit this text for the Cabinefs approval.
Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations on the General Constitutional

Position.
16. Our conclusions and recommendations on the general constitutional
position, and in particular on the issues discussed in Appendices I, I I , I V and V
to this Report, are as follows :— ;
(1) W e recommend the Cabinet to approve the following formula as

indicating their general attitude on the constitutional position :—
" That notwithstanding the latest Irish Free State legislation
(i.e., the new Constitution) we should continue to treat the Irish
Free State as remaining within the Commonwealth."
(2) A s regards the position in relation to Northern Ireland and the use in
the new Constitution of the name " E i r e " or " I r e l a n d " we
recommend the Cabinet to adopt course id) in paragraph 14 of
Appendix I , i.e., that we should take note of the new name, but make
a declaration to the effect that we cannot recognise that the adoption
of this name involves any right to territory or jurisdiction over
territory forming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, and that the use of the name in this connection is
regarded as relating only to that area which has hitherto been known
as the Irish Free State. t
(3) W e recommend the Cabinet to accept, in principle, the two essential
conditions laid down by the Government of Northern Ireland and
summarised in paragraph 10 of this Report.
(4) As regards the form and method of the announcement of the decision in
(1) and (2) above, we recommend the Cabinet to approve subject to any
Dominion comments the text of the draft Statement for Publication in
the form set out in Annex I of Appendix I it being understood that
steps will be taken to ascertain Lord Craigavon's views on the point
whether a further statement safeguarding the position of Northern
Ireland! (condition (1) in paragraph 10 of this Report) should be
published separately.
(5) W e recommend that the Statement for Publication, when finally
approved, should be published by means of an official Government com
muuication to the Press 24 hours after the new Irish Constitution
becomes operative on the 29th December, 1937.
(6) W e recommend the Cabinet to authorise the Secretary of State for
Dominion Affairs to communicate the terms of the Statement for
Publication to Mr. de Valera on the 29th December, i.e., 24 hours
before that Statement is to be published in the Press, and that in the
communication to Mr. de Valera the Secretary of State should comment
on Mr. de Valera's reply to our communication of the 3rd April
regarding the position of the Irish Free State as a member of the
Commonwealth in a manner which makes our attitude clear but
- reduces to a minimum the opportunity for further hairsplitting by
Mr. de Valera. I f the Cabinet approve this course we recommend that
approval should be given to the' text of the communication to be made
to Mr. de Valera on this subject contained in Annex I I of Appendix I
to this Report.
(7) W e invite the Cabinet to' take note that the Secretary of State for
Dominion Affairs has confidentially communicated the draft State
ment for Publication in the form approved by us to the Dominions
other than the Irish Free State, with a view to the replies of the
Dominions being received with the least possible delay, and also that
the Home Secretary has communicated the approved text of the State
ment confidentially to Lord Craigavon.
Prospects of Settlement of Outstanding Questions : The proposed
Conversations with Mr. de Valera.
17. The essential part of Mr. de Valera's despatch of the 24th November
last (for the full text of which Cabinet Conclusions 45 (37), Appendix) was
as follows :—
" The Government of Saorstat Eireann are satisfied that piecemeal
discussion between civil servants on the economic and other aspects of the
situation that would arise in the case of a major war can achieve no useful
purpose until some prior understanding in principle has been reached
between the two Governments. My Government consider it essential,
therefore, that members of the two Governments should meet as soon as
possible to consider all the important matters involved."
A n interim reply was returned to Mr. de Valera on the 4th December,
welcoming the suggestion that a meeting of Ministers should take place, and
promising a further communication as soon as possible. This reply has been
circulated as C P . 298 (37).
18. The detailed Memorandum on the prospects of reaching a settlement
of the outstanding questions prepared by the Secretary of State for Dominion
Affairs (Appendix I I I to this Report) deals with these questions under the
heads of—
(a) Defence;
(b) Finance; and
(c) Trade;
and the summary at the end of the document makes provisional recommendations
containing the outline of a suggested settlement under each head. I t will be
appreciated that these recommendations are not intended, in the event of their
being approved by the Cabinet, to tie the hands of the Ministers chosen to act as
negotiators on the United Kingdom side. On the contrary, it is intended to leave
them discretion, as to (1) whether all, or only some parts (or none) of these proposals
are actually made; (2) the priority in which the proposals are made; and (3) the
moment in the discussions at which they are brought forward.
19. W e do not, however, contemplate that our proposals should be
communicated to the Free State Delegation in the earlier stages of the negotia
tion. I t will be desirable, firstly, to encourage Mr. de Valera to make a statement
of his general views, and secondly, since the meetings are being held on his
initiative, to give him an opportunity of opening the detailed discussions.
20. The only point on which we suggest a departure from the recommenda
tions of Appendix I I I is on the question of the reserved ports. Further advice
from the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee is necessary, but we do not think that
their terms of reference should take the form of the draft at paragraph 27 I (1)
of Appendix I I I , which might be construed as an invitation to the Chiefs of
Staff to form an estimate of the political as well as the military aspects of the
policy under consideration.
21. A t our request, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the
Minister for Co-ordination of Defence have undertaken to prepare amended terms
of reference to the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee, on the lines of inviting the
Sub-Committee to give an estimate of the military significance of the reserved
ports to this country during a major war, which would cover the various possible
situations, viz. :—
(a) a situation in which the ports are retained in our own hands, and the
Free State remains friendly,
(b) a situation in which the ports are in the hands of a friendly Free State,
(c) a situation in which the ports are retained in our own hands, but the
Free State is hostile, and
(d) a situation in which the ports are in the hands of a hostile Free State.
( A copy of the revised terms of reference is annexed
(Appendix V I ) . )
Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations on the Outstanding Questions.
22. The following is a summary of our conclusions and recommendations in
regard to the outstanding questions of defence, finance and trade, discussed in
Appendix I I I to this Report: —
Defence.
I.—(1) "We have authorised the reference to the Chiefs of Staff Sub-
Committee of certain military questions relating to the value of the Defended
Ports (see paragraph 21 above and Appendix V I ) .
(2) W e recommend that subject to further consideration in the light of the
Report from the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee we should, as a part of a general
offer to the Free State Government, indicate that we should be prepared to with
draw from the ports on condition that we secured a defence agreement under
which the Free State Government would : —
(i) put into effect our military advisers' proposals for bringing the defences
both of the reserved ports and of the whole coast of the Free State up
to a proper standard of equipment and efficiency; thereafter maintain
the defences at that level; and provide some small naval vessels and
aeroplanes for coastal defence purposes;
(ii) increase considerably the personnel of their defence forces generally;
(iii) co-operate closely with us in defence matters, maintaining contact with
us in the development of their defence plans, and inviting the advice
of our experts in the organisation of their defence forces and
equipment;
(iv) purchase defence equipment, both for the defended ports and for their
forces generally, from the United Kingdom, in all cases where it could
not be locally manufactured in the Free State;
(v) arrange for the erection and operation of one or more munitions
factories in the Free State in consultation with our experts;
(vi) take such other defence action as the Chiefs of Staff in their report
may advise to be necessary.
Financial.
I I . — ( 3 ) W e recommend, that, subject to further consideration in the light
of the report of the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee, referred to under ( I ) above,
as to whether we should decide to make general proposals to the Free State
Government—
(a) we should offer to conclude a new Financial Agreement, in which—
(i) we should abandon our claim to Land Annuities payments;
(ii) the Irish Free State would pay—
(a) R.I.C. judicial and civil pensions;
(6) payments on account of local loans;
(c) pensions* payable to ex-servicemen in the Irish Free State
and administrative charges in connection therewith;
(d) administrative expenditure connected with (a) and other
minor expenditure, in addition to—
(e) payments now being made on account of damage to property
in the Irish Free State;
(iii) that as regards the R.I.C. Pensions payable in the United Kingdom
and items (b) and (d) above, we should accept a lump sum settle
ment if that would be practicable for and more convenient to
the Irish Free State than annual payments;
(The financial effect of these various suggestions is sum
marised in the Annex to Appendix I I I to this Report.)
* See concluding sentences of paragraph 13 of Appendix I I I . The arrangement proposed
is that there should continue to be a Pensions Office in Dublin which, under the general
directions of the Ministry of Pensions in London, would be responsible for payments to
pensioners in the Free State area. This office would, however, receive its funds from the Free
State Government and could perhaps be regarded in making payments as the agent of the
Free State Government.
(&) solely as a bargaining counter, we should not offer, in the first instance,
to abolish our special duties entirely, but should express our willingness
to reduce them to a level which would bring in, say, half of the annual
sum which we are foregoing.
Trade.
I I I . — ( 4 ) W e recommend that we should accompany our offer of financial
agreement with a renewed assurance that if a settlement of the financial dispute
is reached, we shall be ready to abolish (or reduce-—see (3) (&) above) our special
duties against Free State imports on condition that the Free State Government
abolishes the special discriminatory duties against United Kingdom imports, and
to enter into negotiations for a general trade agreement in the nature of our
Ottawa Agreements with the other Dominions.
Signed on behalf of the Committee :

N. CHAMBERLAIN,
Chairman.
2 Whitehall Gardens, S.W. 1,

December 15, 1937.
A P P E N D I X I.
SECRET.
[I.S.C. (32) 129]
CABINET.
RELATIONS W I T H THE I R I S H FREE STATE.
GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION.
Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

A T the last meeting of the Irish Situation Committee on the 9th June
(I.S.C. (32) 35th meeting) it was agreed :—
(1) That, notwithstanding the latest Irish Free State legislation (i.e., the
new Constitution), we should continue to treat the Irish Free State
as remaining within the Commonwealth;
(2) That informal discussions on this basis should take place outside the
Imperial Conference with representatives of the Dominions now in
London, and that, if those representatives agreed generally with our
views in the matter, a recommendation to this effect should be
submitted to the Cabinet.
2. The proposed informal discussions with the Dominion representatives
took place on the 14th June and, as a result, it was ascertained that they were
all disposed to take a similar view to that proposed to be taken on behalf of
the Government here, namely, to treat the Irish Free State as remaining within
the Commonwealth. I t was, however, contemplated that, before any public
statement was made, there should be further communication with the Dominion
Governments as to the precise form of the statement.
3. Assuming that the Cabinet approves the Committee's recommendation
on this point, the question now remaining for consideration by the Committee
is, therefore, in what form the decision should be announced. I t is clear that
the precise language in which the decision is formulated will need careful
consideration.
4. Since the matter was last considered by the Committee the new Irish
Free State Constitution has been passed, with certain amendments, by the Dail
and has been approved by a comparatively small majority at a referendum held
at the time of the Irish Free State General Election in July. A s a result of the
election Mr. de Valera no longer has a completely independent majority in the
Dail; his Party is equal in numbers to all the other Parties put together, and
he is relying at present on the support of the Labour Party. This has led to
certain difficulties regarding the Constitution which have not yet been overcome;
nevertheless, it seems certain that the Constitution generally will come into
force automatically, as provided in one of its Articles, six months after the
referendum, i.e., on the 29th December this year.
5. The changes made in the Constitution during its passage through the
Dail have been examined, - but there is nothing to which I need call special
attention except the fact that the title of the new " State " which the Constitution
purports to set up is now to be not " Eire " but " Eire or in the English language,
Ireland." (Article 4.) The term " I r e l a n d " is thereafter used in the English
text, and in the subsidiary legislation which Mr. de Valera has since introduced.
I deal more fully with this question later in this paper.
6. I t will be recalled that after the passage of the Irish Free State
constitutional legislation at the time of the abdication, and prior to the
formulation of the new Constitution, we had an exchange of correspondence with
Mr. de Valera on the subject of the position of the Irish Free State as a Member'
of the Commonwealth. A copy of the correspondence was circulated to the
Committee as the enclosure to my memorandum I.S.C. (32) 124. In the course of
our communication to Mr. de Valera we said that we understood the position to
be as follows :—
'' (i) The Irish Free State desires to remain a co-equal Member of the British
Commonwealth of Nations,
(ii) The Crown remains the symbol of the association of the Members of the
British Commonwealth of Nations,
(iii) The King's title remains unaffected by the legislation. I t is as King
of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas
that he continues as heretofore to exercise his functions in regard to
the external affairs of the Irish Free State.
On this basis the United Kingdom Government have reached the conclusion
that they are prepared to treat the Irish Free State legislation in question as not
effecting a fundamental alteration in the position of the Irish Fi'ee State as a
Member of the British Commonwealth.
-A" X "A" "7T" TV
The Governments of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand

and the Union of South Africa also are prepared to treat the Irish Free State
legislation in question as not effecting a fundamental alteration in the position
of the Irish Free State as a Member of the British Commonwealth."
7. Mr. de Valera''s reply (Annex I I I to I.S.C. (32) 124) was not satis
factory in form, since he would not accept in unqualified terms the three bases
set out above. I dealt with his reply in paragraphs 5 to 10 of my paper
I.S.C. (32) 125, which is reproduced as Annex V to C P . 300 (37).
8. Consideration of a reply to Mr. de Valera was deferred pending

completion of the examination of the new Constitution. Now that the time has
arrived for us to define in words our attitude to the situation created, it is for
consideration whether, and if so how, we wish to pursue this argument with
Mr. de Valera. I t would be possible now to send a communication to him which
would define our attitude regarding the Irish Free State's membership of the
Commonwealth on the coming into effect of the new Constitution and which would
also serve as a reply to his last note. On the latter point, if I am correct in
assuming that Mr. de Valera does not desire to challenge the ' ' basis '' set out
in our note as correctly describing the existing position, the reply to him now
might be to the effect that what our previous document had sought to establish
was the present situation without prejudice to either party's opinions as to the
future.
9. But, although I believe this assumption to be correct, it is possible that

any further communication to him on this subject will not be accepted in silence
but will provoke a further argumentative reply. On the other hand, it seems
unwise to leave his unsatisfactory reply completely unanswered; if for any reason
we find it necessary to publish the correspondence at some later date we should
in that case be open to the charge of negligence. The point for the Committee to
consider, therefore, is, I suggest, what procedure can be devised which will enable'
us to reply to Mr. de Valera and at the same time minimize the risk of provoking
further controversy with him.
10. In allcircumstances I propose the following procedure :—'

(1) W e should draw up a brief statement on our attitude to the Irish Free
State's membership of the Commonwealth. This should refer to
the fact that the other Dominions have informed us that they concur
in that attitude; and the statement should therefore be telegraphed
to them for their approval.
(2) This statement should be made public either in answer to a Question
immediately on the reassembly of Parliament, or if, as seems likely,
it is desirable to make our position clear before the reassembly of
Parliament, in some other appropriate form. I do not think it
desirable that the statement should be made in anticipation of the
new Irish Free State Constitution coming into effect on the 29th
December.
(3) W e should communicate the terms of this statement to Mr. de Valera a
day or two in advance of its publication, and in that communication
to him we should comment on his reply referred to in paragraph 7
above in a manner which made our position clear, but reduced to
a minimum the opportunity for further hair-splitting by him.
11. For the consideration of the Committee I append drafts of (a) the
Statement for publication and (&) the communication to Mr. de Valera as
Annexes I and I I . But before these are considered there is another point
which arises on the Constitution itself to which I think we must make some
reference in the course of the public statement on our general attitude and for
which I have therefore made provision in the draft statement. That point
concerns the effect which the Constitution purports to have in relation to Northern
Ireland.
The Position in Relation to Northern Ireland.
12. Article 2 of the Constitution provides :—
" The national territory consists of the whole Island of Ireland, its
islands and the territorial seas."
Article 3 provides :-—
" Pending the reintegration of the national territory and without
prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this
Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory the
laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of
application as the laws of Saorstat Eireann and the like extra-territorial
effect."
13. I t seems desirable that in any case we should not allow these Articles
to pass without some comment from us. My colleagues will remember that I
referred to the matter in one of my recent talks with Mr. de Valera ( C P . 228 (37),
page 3). But quite apart from this we cannot well avoid comment, for when
the new Constitution comes into effect the provisions of Article 4, which establishes
the new name of the State, will also come into effect. The original draft of
this Article provided that the name should be " Eire," but as a result of an
amendment accepted by Mr. de Valera in the course of the Dail debates the
Article now reads ' ' the name of the State is Eire or, in the English language,
Ireland." The Irish Free State Government no doubt intend to use this term in
future in all communications and other documents such as treaties; and they
are already following the procedure adopted by other Governments in similar
positions and are addressing communications to all the Governments with whom
they have relations asking that this term may in future be adopted.
14. W e shall have to express our attitude on this matter. There seem to
be four alternative courses to choose between: we could (a) refuse to recognise the
new title and continue calling the State the Irish Free State, (&) refuse to recognise
the new title to the extent of inventing at least for our own use some new term in
the nature of a convenient compromise, such as " F r e e State of Ireland,"
(c) acquiesce in the new title without any comment, or (d) acquiesce in the new
title, but make a declaration to the effect that " E i r e " and " Ireland " describe
only the twenty-six counties excluding the six counties of "Northern Ireland "
which are a part of the United Kingdom.
15. A s regards course (a), undoubtedly the best solution from our point of
view would be if we could get Mr. de Valera and his colleagues' to agree that at
least ' ' pending the reintegration of the national territory'' the title Irish Free
State should continue to be used. But I am afraid that there has never been any
chance of getting Mr. de Valera to agree to this. He apparently feels strongly
that the title ' ' Irish Free State '' was one of the things imposed on the Irish by the
[16335] B 2
British in 1921, and at the time of the campaign for the referendum on the
Constitution he was reported as declaring that '' The new Constitution gave the
name of Eire to the State, and they would hear no more of the Free State once
the Constitution was put in operation."
16. Whilst not attempting to prevent the Free State Government from using
whatever title it chose, we might ourselves continue to refer to the country as
the Irish Free State. Mr. de Valera's attitude described in the quotation above
might well lead him in that case to take up an intractable position. H e is capable
of refusing to receive communications addressed to the Government of the Irish
Free State even though his own country might be the principal sufferer from such
obstinacy. But the main argument against adopting this course seems to me to
be that to insist on using the old title '' Irish Free State '' might well place us in
an extremely awkward position, first in relation to other countries, and secondly
in relation to His Majesty the King. I t is practically certain that foreign
countries whom the Irish Free State are approaching with a request for the
recognition of the term " E i r e " or " Ireland " will be prepared to accord such
recognition. Certainly if the matter were called in question at all, the United
States of America would not be likely to oppose Mr. de Valera's wishes in this
matter, whilst Germany and Italy might regard this as a convenient occasion for
ingratiating themselves with the new State. Moreover, some at least, if not all,
of the other Dominion Governments would be reluctant to adopt our attitude in
the face of a request from a fellow Dominion.
17. The position of His Majesty must also be borne in mind. The Irish
Free State Government, acting under the External Relations Act, will presumably
present to the King for signature a number of documents of various kinds, which
would explicitly use the term " Erie " or " Ireland " as relating to the State.
Clearly the King could' not refuse to sign such documents without challenging
the whole basis of procedure under the External Relations Act, and inviting the
Republicans in the Free State to carry amendments to that Act which would
eliminate him altogether. On the other hand, if he did so sign, it would be very
awkward that we should in our documents employ a different term in relation to
the Irish Free State.
18. I feel, therefore, that it would be a mistake for us to insist on
continuing to use the title " Irish Free State."
19. I feel that the same objections are valid against the second
alternative (6), i.e., that we should invent at least for our own use some term in
the nature of a convenient compromise, such as " Free State of Ireland."
20. The next alternative (c) is to acquiesce in the employment of the new
title without comment. But it seems to me that this would be open to the gravest
objection. I f we were to accept the change sub silentio, would not our action be
tantamount to a recognition of the claim set forth in Clauses 2 and 3 of
the Constitution, quoted above, to the whole of the island ?
21. The fourth alternative (d) is that, while acquiescing in the use of the
term " Eire " or " Ireland," we should place on record in a suitable document,
for publication, that we do not accept or admit in any way the claim to jurisdic
tion over the whole of the island of Ireland set forth in the Constitution, and,
further, that, in acquiescing in the use by them of the term " E i r e " or
' ' Ireland '' as the name of the State, we regard it as involving the limitation of
the meaning of the term in political usage to the territory over which the Irish
Free State at present actually exercises jurisdiction, that is to say, the twenty-six
counties, excluding the areas which, though geographically part of the island of
Ireland, form part of the United Kingdom. There would, in fact, be a clear
political separation between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
22. There are various arguments against the adoption of this course. I t
would at first seem doubtful, for instance, whether any such plan would be
acceptable to Northern Ireland, or to many of the Government's supporters in
this country. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I therefore took an
opportunity of discussing the point tentatively and informally with Lord
Craigavon when he was in London in July. Lord Craigavon then took the line
that, whilst the relevant Articles in the new Irish Free State Constitution and
the proposed new title were very objectionable, it would be a mistake to take too
much notice of them. He was in favour of reducing controversy to a minimum,
and so far as Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution were concerned, the Northern
Ireland Government had contented themselves with declaring, in answer to a
question in their Parliament, that—
The Free State Government has no jurisdiction over Northern Ireland
and our constitutional position within the United Kingdom is fully protected
by the Government of Ireland A c t and other Statutes of the Imperial
Parliament. N o special steps are, therefore, required to safeguard the
maintenance of our full citizenship within the United Kingdom."
23. So far as Mr. de Valera's proposed new title for the State is concerned,
Lord Craigavon seemed indisposed to react violently to it, but suggested that
retaliatory legislation might be introduced in the Northern Ireland Parliament
changing the official title of Northern Ireland to " Ulster." But he added that
if this would require legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament as well, he
was opposed to that action. H e would then be content with the Northern Ireland
Government doing whatever it could in the way of legislation without fresh
authority from Parliament at Westminster. This whole question has been
examined by the L a w Officers, who have advised that the change of name could
only be made by altering the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act. The
question therefore arises whether in these circumstances Lord Craigavon would
be willing to acquiesce in the attribution to the Free State of the title of
" Ireland." I understand that the Home Secretary has had a conversation with
Mr. Andrews, the acting Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, on this matter,
which he will report to the Committee.*
24. Another difficulty about the adoption of course (d) is in connection with
the King's title, the relevant part of which now reads " of Great Britain, Ireland,
& c , K i n g . " Although it can properly be argued that these terms are to be read
in their geographical sense, the recognition of a new State called " E i r e " or
" Ireland " might cause much confusion on the point, and lead people in Northern
Ireland to claim that some alteration ought to be made in order to make it
perfectly clear that Northern Ireland forms part of the King's dominions. But
amendment of the King's title would present serious difficulties; it would be
necessary, under the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, to obtain legislation
both in the United Kingdom and the Dominions including, presumably ' ' Eire ' '
or " Ireland." I think that the point can be adequately met by insistence on the
fact that the expressions used in the Royal Title are geographical expressions
(e.q., the term Great Britain itself is indisputably geographical).
25. In all the circumstances I think that course (d) is the least of four evils,
and I recommend its adoption. I t is perhaps worth considering using always the
Irish term " Eire " when referring to the State, and ourselves avoiding the use of
the term " Ireland," except to describe the whole island as a geographical entity.
Summary.
26. T o sum up, my proposals are t h a t : —
(1) W e should draw up a brief statement on our attitude to the Irish Free
State's membership of the Commonwealth. This should refer to the
fact that the other Dominions have informed us that they concur in
that attitude, and the statement should therefore be telegraphed to
them for their approval.
(2) W i t h regard to the proposed new title of the State, i.e., " E i r e " or
" Ireland," we should acquiesce in its use but make a declaration, to
be included in the statement referred to in (1) above, to the effect that
' ' Eire ' ' and '' Ireland '' describe only the 26 Counties and do not
include the 6 Counties of Northern Ireland which are a part of the
United Kingdom. (This is a matter between the United Kingdom and
the Irish Free State, and we need not, therefore, expressly consult the
other Dominion Governments as to the terms of the paragraphs,
though we should, of course, inform them in advance of the line we
propose to take.)
* See Paper I.S.C. (32) 130.
(3) These statements should be made public either in answer to a Question
immediately on the reassembly of Parliament, or if, as seems likely, it
is desirable to make our position clear before the reassembly of
Parliament, in some other appropriate form. I do not think it
desirable that the statement should be made in anticipation of the new
Irish Free State Constitution coming into effect on the 29th December.
(4) W e should communicate the terms of the statements to Mr. de Valera a
day or two in advance of their publication, and in that communication
to him we should comment on his reply to our communication of the
3rd A p r i l regarding the position of the Irish Free State as a Member
of the Commonwealth (see paragraph 7 above) in a manner which
makes our position clear, but reduces to a minimum the opportunity for
further hair-splitting bv him.
M. M.
December 1937.
ANNEX I.
Draft of suggested Statement for Publication.

(As revised by the Irish Situation Committee.)
H I S Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have considered the
position created by the new Constitution which was passed by the Parliament of
the Irish Free State in July 1937, and came into force on the 29th December.
They are prepared to treat the new Constitution as not effecting a fundamental
alteration in the position of the Irish Free State, in future to be described under
the new Constitution as Eire or Ireland, as a member of the British Common
wealth of Nations.
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have ascertained that H i s
Majesty's Governments in Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand
and the Union of South Africa are also prepared so to treat the new Constitution.
W i t h regard to articles 2, 3 and 4 of the new Constitution, His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom take note of the proposed use of the name
Eire or Ireland, but they cannot recognise that the adoption of this name involves
any right to territory or jurisdiction over territory forming part of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They therefore regard the
name Eire or Ireland in this connection as relating only to that area which has
hitherto been known as the Irish Free State.
ANNEX II.
Draft of suggested Communication to the Irish Free State Government.

(As approved by the Irish Situation Committee.)
T H E United Kingdom Government have arranged for the following
statement to be published on :—
[Here insert text of suggested statement for publication (Appendix I ) . ]
Pending their consideration of the effect of the new Constitution, the United
Kingdom Government * have refrained from r-eturning any reply to the note
communicated by the High Commissioner to the Secretary of State for Dominion
Affairs on the 27th April. They do not feel it necessary to make any comments
regarding that note except to say that the object of their previous communication
handed to Mr. Dulanty on the' 3rd A p r i l was to state their understanding of the
facts of the situation, without prejudice to any views which might be held as to
the future constitutional development of the individual members of the
Commonwealth.
APPENDIX II.
SECRET.
[I.S.C. (32) 130j
CABINET.
Memorandum by the Home Secretary.

I C I R C U L A T E herewith, for the information of the Committee, an account
of a conversation with the Right Hon. J. M. Andrews, the Acting Prime Minister
of Northern Ireland, on the 9th December, 1937.
S. H.
December 10, 1937.
M Y colleagues will remember that I informed the Cabinet that Mr. Andrews
was coming to London to discuss with me on behalf of the Government of
Northern Ireland certain questions connected with the Irish situation.
The first object of the visit was to give me the chance of eliciting the present
views of the Government of Northern Ireland on the situation likely to be created
by the substitution of the name " Ireland " for that of the " Free State " in the
new De Valera constitution. In the previous discussion that the Prime Minister,
the Secretary of State for the Dominions and I had with Lord Craigavon on this
subject, it was considered that the best of several unattractive alternatives was
that after the Free State constitution had come into force the Government of
Northern Ireland should assume to itself by local legislation the name of Ulster.
A t that time Lord Craigavon felt that unless some such action was taken in
Northern Ireland there would be created a deep feeling of resentment in the
loyalist ranks. W e then assumed that this action could be taken by local
legislation. In order, however, to make sure of the position we decided to consult
the L a w Officers. The L a w Officers have now given their opinion that such local
legislation would be ultra vires, and that legislation by the Imperial Parliament
would be necessary if the change of name were to be made. I t was this new
situation that I desired to discuss with Mr. Andrews.
When I put to Mr. Andrews the possible alternative and pointed out the
obvious disadvantages that would be involved in Imperial legislation, he told me,
with the authority of Lord Craigavon, that they no longer wished to press for
the change of name. If, however, there was to be no change of name, two
conditions seemed to them to be essential if the position of the United Kingdom
in general, and Northern Ireland in particular, was to be safeguarded.
In the first place it was necessary that a most categorical statement should
be made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, making clear our attitude
towards Mr. De Valera's assumption of the title of " Ireland " and stating in
the simplest and firmest terms that on no account would we be prepared to accept
interference with the jurisdiction of the Government of Northern Ireland without
the express approval of Northern Ireland itself. Such a statement should, if
possible, be drawn up after consultation with Lord Craigavon.
Secondly, it was essential that nothing affecting the position of Northern
Ireland should be done in any negotiations with Mr. De Valera without some
opportunity for Lord Craigavon and Mr. Andrews to make their case. Both of
them were strongly of opinion that Mr. De Valera needed an economic agreement
even more than the United Kingdom needs it, and that the only effective lever
that we still had with him in the political field was the lever of the Annuities.
They, themselves, were anxious about the negotiations taking place at all
within a few days or weeks of Mr. De Valera's repudiation of his constitutional
obligations. I t appeared to them both strange and dangerous that within a few
days of Mr. De Valera creating a de facto Irish Republic and throwing out a
provocative challenge to Ulster he should be received in London by His Majesty's
Ministers and treated as a plenipotentiary in a negotiation that, if it ended in
anything, would end to his great advantage. If, however, negotiations must take
place, it was essential that the interests of Northern Ireland should be closely and
sympathetically considered. As things were at present, Northern Ireland had
incurred very serious damage from the economic war between the Free State and
the British Government. Exports from Northern Ireland to the Free State had
been enormously reduced or actually prohibited. The distributing trade, a very
important Belfast industry, had been destroyed so far as business in the Free
State was concerned. These serious facts must be taken into account in the
negotiations, particularly as the negotiations might end by giving the Republican
Free State better financial terms than loyalist Ulster.
I t was also essential that if there was to be an agreement, the opportunity
should be taken to clear up with Mr. De Valera certain outstanding cases, for
instance, the Moore case, in which a family had been misappropriated from rights
that they had possessed in the fisheries of Loch Erne under a title that had been
unquestioned for three centuries.
Again and again Mr. Andrews insisted that Mr. De Valera could not get on
without an economic settlement with Great Britain and that it would be folly to
give away the lever of the duties without receiving substantial advantages as a
return for our concessions.
I asked him whether he wished that representatives of the Government of
Northern Ireland should take part in the negotiations. He answered that this
was certainly not his wish. Any such participation in the negotiations would
compromise his position with the loyalists in Northern Ireland. He did, however,
hope that Lord Craigavon and he would be kept fully informed of any develop
ments that might concern Ulster and that we should take the opportunity of
consulting them either during the negotiations or before Mr. De Valera's arrival.
H e finally warned me against the belief that successful negotiations would
strengthen the moderate forces in the Free State. H e took the view that
Mr. De Valera would regard the result as another trophy extorted from Great
Britain, and declared that the whole history of Southern Ireland pointed to the
victory of extreme and the defeat of moderate forces.
H e left with me the following note based upon the late Mr. Pollock's diary :—
" In 1932 Mr; Pollock was at Ottawa for the Ottawa Conference and
was concerned with the efforts which the Free State representatives were
making to get special concessions.
Mr. Pollock asked Mr. Baldwin for a special interview on Saturday, the
23rd July, 1932, and pointed out how the Free State were using their tariffs
as a weapon against Ulster trade and the extent to which Londonderry in
particular had been hit by the setting up of the Free State. In his diary
Mr. Pollock records—
' Mr. Baldwin fully appreciated the arguments and promised that
before any permanent form of mutual tariffs was settled with the Free
State our Government would be consulted. This assurance was freely
given without any pressure on my part and I was fully satisfied with
my interview, which lasted twenty minutes.'
Subsequently, Mr. Pollock also saw Mr. Runciman on the matter during
the Ottawa Conference."
S. H.
December 9, 1937.
APPENDIX ill
SECRET.
[I.S.C. (32) 128AJ
CABINET.
RELATIONS W I T H THE I R I S H FREE STATE.
P R O S P E C T S OF S E T T L E M E N T OF O U T S T A N D I N G QUESTIONS.
Introductory note by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

T H E attached Paper was prepared before "Mr. de Valera's despatch of the
24th November (I.S.C. (32) 126) was received. The communication from Dublin
to some extent modifies the position, but not, I think, in essentials. I would not
now suggest that the proposals recommended in this Paper should be communi
cated to Mr. de Valera before the meeting between United Kingdom and Irish
Free State Ministers which is to take place. This meeting should first commence,
and Mr. de Valera will no doubt start by expressing his general views and making
out his case. But I doubt whether he will make any specific proposals for a settle
ment of the three questions with which this Paper is, and the meeting will be,
primarily concerned, and I still think that the deadlock is extremely unlikely to
be broken unless we ourselves make proposals.
I therefore suggest that (subject to the views of the Chiefs of Staff on the
question referred to in paragraph 7) we should approve proposals on the lines
contained in this Paper for use by our representatives in the discussions with the
Irish Free State Ministers, if in their judgment such proposals could wisely be
put forward in the course of those discussions. I think we should leave our
negotiators discretion, as to (1) whether all, or only some parts (or none), of these
proposals are actually made, (2) the priority in which the proposals are made, and
(3) the moment in the discussions at which they are brought forward. A good
deal will depend upon the frame of mind in which we find Mr. de Valera and
his colleagues.
M. M.
December 1937.
[163351 c
SECRET.
[I.S.C. (32) 128.)
CABINET.
RELATIONS WITH THE TRISH FREE STATE.
PROSPECTS OF S E T T L E M E N T OF O U T S T A N D I N G QUESTIONS.

I N my paper O P . 2 2 8 (37), with which I circulated notes of my recent
talks at Geneva with Mr. de Valera, I promised to circulate a paper on the whole
situation for consideration by the Committee. I am dealing in a separate
memorandum (Paper I.S.C. ( 3 2 ) 1 2 9 ) with constitutional questions which the
Committee have still to consider. The present memorandum deals with questions
concerning defence, the financial dispute and trade. For the sake of convenience,
I discuss these matters under their separate heads, but I think that in any
discussions or negotiations with the Irish Free State Government we should
continue, for the present at any rate, to treat them as interdependent parts of a
single question. I t may be that later on, if we get into negotiation, we shall find
that Mr. de Valera will not agree to any proposals that we would regard as
reasonable on the financial dispute, but that we could get an agreement which, in
all the circumstances, was worth while on the defence question alone. In that
case we should presumably be ready to consider the conclusion of the latter whilst
leaving the financial and trade disputes unsettled.
2. My own view is that, subject to the advice of the Chiefs of Staff on the
important question which I propose in paragraph 7 that we should submit to
them, we should now make to the Irish Free State Government a set of proposals
covering defence, the financial dispute and trade. I realise the disadvantages
attaching to our coming forward with such comprehensive proposals, but can
see no other means of making progress. On the other hand, I think there is some
chance of securing a comprehensive settlement of these three questions if we do
take this initiative.
DEFENCE.
3. I deal with the question of defence first, because it seems to me that,

before we can consider whether we are in a position to make any proposals at
all, we must seek the advice of the Chiefs of Staff on one very important question.
I t will be remembered that in May 1 9 3 6 the C.I.D. approved the following
recommendations submitted by the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee concerning the
possible transfer of the defended ports : —
(i) That the most satisfactory arrangement, if it should prove feasible,
would be a better general understanding with the Irish Free State,
which would enable our defence forces to establish the same close
relations with the corresponding Irish Free State Services as they
already enjoy with those of the other Dominions.
(ii) Provided improved relations are assured, despite the risks involved, it
would be desirable to offer to hand over the complete responsibility for
the defences of the reserved ports to the Irish Free State.
(iii) That the Irish Free State should be asked—
(a) T o supply the necessary auxiliary naval vessels for the general
harbour defence of the ports, and that if they wished to do more
than this and supply some destroyers as well, they should not
be discouraged from doing so.
(b) To take over the whole of the coast defences (guns and lights) and
to assume financial responsibility for the modernisation of these
defences in due course.
(c) To place flying facilities at the ports at the disposal of the Royal
A i r Force, to consider the provision of air forces for coastal
defence, and to concert plans with the A i r Ministry for the
co-operation of this force with the Royal A i r Force, in case of
emergency.
(iv) That the defences of the ports, after handing over, should be
periodically reviewed in co-operation with the Irish Free State to
ensure that they are kept up to date.
(v) That our desire for complete assurance of the availability of these ports
for use by our Forces and for the adequacy of their defences, in the
interests of the safety of the territory and communications of the Irish
Free State no less than of the United Kingdom, should be made clear
to the Irish Free State Government before any technical discussions
are instituted to cover the actual process of handing over.
(vi) That, as part of a general improvement of relations, consideration
should be given to the question of relaxation of our present attitude
towards the Irish Free State in regard to secret matters of defence
generally.
The substance of these proposals was put informally to the Irish Free State at
the meetings between officials held last year to consider the possibilities of a
general settlement, but these discussions led to no result.
4. I am afraid that it is clear from my conversations with Mr. de Valera
that the question of an assurance with regard to our use of the defended ports in
time of war will prove a very serious difficulty. Indeed, I think we must accept
it as a fact that he will not, because of his domestic political difficulties, give us
any such assurance; the most that we can obtain is a repetition of the assurance
which he has already given* that he will take all necessary measures to deny the
use of Irish Free State territory to an enemy of this country, and that if his own
forces are inadequate for this purpose he will invite the assistance of ours.
Apart from this point, the general heads of the understanding, which it seems
possible to secure from Mr. de Valera, would appear to be that the Free State
Government would :—
both of the reserved ports and of the whole coast of the Free State up
to a proper standard of equipment and efficiency; thereafter maintain
the defences at that level; and provide some small naval vessels and
aeroplanes for coastal defence purposes;
us in the development of their defence plans and inviting the advice
equipment;
forces generally, from the United Kingdom in all cases where it could
not be locally manufactured in the Free State;
(v) arrange for the erection and operation of one or more munitions factories
in the Free State in consultation with our experts.
5. So far as they go, there would clearly be distinct advantages for us in
such arangements. There would seem to be certain military advantages, though
as a layman I would not venture to assess them. On the political side co-operation
in defence matters might well in time help in appeasement between the two
* " On more than one occasion Mr. de Valera has said that the Irish Government would not '
allow their country to be made the base of attack on Great Britain. Any attempt to use our
country for an attack on England would be resisted to the uttermost." (Authorised statement
by H i g h Commissioner for Irish Free State at the meetings of Prime Ministers in May 1935.)
" I t is quite obvious that the people in Britain . . . . would have to give us the
assistance which we, for our. own sakes, would be anxious to call for, provided it was clear that
the whole object of it was to maintain the inviolability of our territory." (Mr. de Valera in the
Dail, M a y 19, 1937.)
countries. From the financial point of view, the Exchequer would be relieved of
certain liabilities. A t the present time the annual cost of the maintenance of the
defended ports is £162,000, but the proposals submitted for the modernisation of
the equipment at those ports involve capital expenditure of some £747,000 and
thereafter annual maintenance charges of £230,000. The requirements at these
ports were recently reviewed; they are placed in Category A in order of
importance. ( O L D . paper 266A, pages 23 to 26.) Some financial and economic
advantages would also be derived from the proposals set out under (iv) and (v)
above.
6. Nevertheless, we could not get such an arrangement unless we were
agreeable to abandoning our occupation of the reserved ports without receiving
any assurance from the Free State Government that those ports would be available
to us in time of war. Our ability to use the ports in an emergency may be a
matter of such vital importance that we should maintain our existing rights and
£orgo the kind of agreement sketched above. In this connection I would draw
my colleagues' attention to what Mr. de Valera said to me on this aspect of the
matter. A s reported in my paper ( C P . 228 (37)), he stated the issue as follows :
" I f we (the United Kingdom) stayed in the ports, our occupation of them would
remain a point of serious friction between the people of the Irish Free State and
the people of Britain. The Irish regarded our occupation as an infringement of
their national sovereignty. I f in those circumstances we were to become engaged
in war, he was afraid that feeling in Ireland would be so strong that there would
be land attacks on the ports by irresponsible but considerable Irish forces. W e
would, of course, have to defend them against those attacks. Military action
between our forces and Irish forces on Irish soil would arouse further the hostility
of the Irish people. Any possibility of their coming into the war on our side
would be at least gravely prejudiced. W e might find that we were involved in the
reconquest of Ireland. On the other hand, if we did not têmain in the ports, that
extremely unpleasant possibility would not arise. A sore point with the Irish
would have been removed. The result would be a tendency to much better feeling
on the part of the Irish towards Britain. There was much more likelihood then
that if war came the Irish would come in on our side, and much more likelihood
of our being invited to use the ports in the common defence of our two countries."
7. Obviously there is a wide diffesence between an assurance that no enemy

should use the ports, and an assurance that we should have the use of them for
any purpose we like. I suggest that the Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee should be
asked to review the position in the light of my talks with Mr. de Valera and
advise whether, from the military point of view, the retention of our existing
rights in the reserved ports is so important that it outweighs the advantages to
be gained from the kind of defence agreement outlined above. The Chiefs of
Staff Sub-Committee would no doubt consider precisely what use we should wish
to make of the ports in the event of war, and advise as to the importance to be
attached thereto.
8. I f the Chiefs of Staff advise that we should maintain our existing rights
in the ports, a new defence agreement with the Irish Free State Government is
clearly out of the question. In that case I think that any chance of getting
Mr. de Valera to reach a reasonable settlement on the financial and trade disputes
also disappears. But if the Chiefs of Staff advise that in all the circumstances
we should be prepared to take the risk involved in withdrawing from the ports,
then I think that there is also some possibility of agreements on these other
matters.
Recommendation.
9. I therefore propose that: —
(a) The Chiefs of Staff should be invited to advise on the question set out in
paragraph 7 above.
(b) I f they answer that question in the negative, we should as a part of our
general offer to the Irish Free State Government indicate that we
should be prepared to withdraw from the ports on condition that we
secured the points mentioned in paragraph 4 above (and any other
points that the Chiefs of Stall advised to be necessary).
FINANCIAL DISPUTE.
10. The annual payments to the United Kingdom Government agreed upon
in the 1923 and 1926 Settlements with the then Government of the Irish Free
State and now in default by the present Irish Free State Government, amount to
approximately £4-7 millions per annum, composed as follows :—
Land purchase annuities : £3-1 millions.
R.I.C. Judicial and Civil Pensions : £1 million.
Local Loans : £0-6 million.
Administrative and other minor expenditure : £13,000.
This statement does not include the annual payment of £250,000 in respect of
compensation for damage to property, payable by the Irish Free State under an
Agreement of 1925, since this Agreement received what Mr. de Valera considers
proper ratification by the Dail, and there has been no default in the payment.
The following paragraphs are drawn up on the assumption that this payment will
continue.
11. A s regards the land annuities, I fear that we must recognise that there
is no prospect whatever of persuading Mr. de Valera to agree to any payment on
this head as part of an agreed settlement; he has " burned his boats " in public
too completely to allow him to agree to any compromise. Moreover, it seems
extremely doubtful whether any likely alternative Government in the Irish Free
State would now adopt any different attitude to that taken up by him. The
Labour leaders support him wholeheartedly in his refusal to consider paying us
any penny of land annuities, and even Mr. Cosgrave's supporters are inclined
to adopt the line that, although the Annuities were properly paid under the old
Financial Agreements, circumstances have so changed that these payments should
be omitted from any settlement of the present dispute. I t must be remembered
that Mr. de Valera's Government has actually relieved landholders of 50 per cent,
of their Annuity payments.
12. I t appears, however, not completely impossible that Mr. de Valera

would be prepared to accept some responsibility in relation to the remaining
items, totalling about £1-6 millions per annum. As regards those items involving
payments to individuals, he might be prepared to undertake responsibility for
the payment to the individuals concerned of the amount due to persons resident
in the Free State, which would amount to about £790,000 per annum. As regards
the other items, i.e., the local loan payments, payments to individuals outside
the Free State and the various miscellaneous charges, he might agree to settle
by means of a lump sum payment to cover all these items, viz., £10-70 millions
in respect of items now in default. There is, however, some doubt as to the
ability of the Irish Free State to make a very substantial lump sum payment.
In this connection attention may be drawn to the memorandum which I circulated
to the Committee last year as I.S.C. (32) 113. In that memorandum, in
discussing the possibility of a general settlement on the basis of a lump sum
payment by the Irish Free State, it was stated that, " if the Treasury had to
make a guess as to how much the Irish Free State could borrow, they would not
be prepared to suggest a higher figure than ten millions."
13. But it will be seen that arrangements on the lines set out in the
preceding paragraph would only cover about one-quarter of the total annual
payment due to us, and I have therefore been considering whether there is any
alternative charge which we might ask the Free State Government to bear in
place of the- £3-1 millions of land purchase annuities. The only promising
suggestion which has occurred to me is that the Free State Government should
undertake responsibility for our payments to Great W a r Pensioners living in
the Free State, which amounted in 1936-37* to £1,270,000 in benefits, plus an
administrative cost in the Free State of some £35,000 per annum. The Committee
will remember that Mr. de Valera and I had some discussion on this in our recent
talks. Although the present annual payment is considerable, this charge is, of
course, a decreasing one; its capital equivalent is very much less than that of the
land annuities, being only approximately £17,000,000; I understand that it will
* I understand that the estimate for the current financial year is £1,150,000.
take another thirty-five years or so for the payments to be completely liquidated.
I t is true that under the Agreement of 1925 (which was ratified by both
Parliaments and is therefore accepted by Mr. de Valera as binding) the Pree
State Government were formally released from their contingent liability under
Article 5 of the 1921 Treaty to pay the cost of W a r Pensions; but if an agreement
is now to be negotiated on new bases, there seems no reason why we should not
put forward this proposal without prejudicing the annual payment, referred to
in paragraph 10 above, of £250,000 from the Irish Free State in respect of
compensation for damage to property. I t should be added that, for political and
other reasons, it would clearly be impossible for the United Kingdom Govern
ment to divest themselves wholly of their responsibility for the payment of
pensions, &c, to ex-Service men in the Irish Free State under existing United
Kingdom legislation. Moreover, i-t would probably be objectionable, on adminis
trative as well as political grounds, if the actual administration of the pensions
were transferred to a department of the Free State Government. In the
circumstances, the scheme which might be contemplated would be that the
existing administrative system should be maintained, i.e., that there should
continue to be a Pensions Office in Dublin which, under the general directions of
the Ministry of Pensions in London, would be responsible for payments to
pensioners in the Free State area. This Office would, however, receive its funds
from the Free State Government and could perhaps be regarded in making
payments as the agent of the Free State Government.
14. A s regards the financial aspects of defence, it will be noted that the
suggestions which I have set out above would mean the transfer to the Irish Free
State Government of certain existing and contingent financial burdens which are
at present the liability of the United Kingdom Exchequer, amounting to a
proposed capital expenditure of some £747,000 and thereafter annual main
tenance charges, amounting to some £230,000.
15. As a matter of tactics it might be wise to start with an offer somewhat

less generous than that outlined in the above paragraphs. W e might therefore
include in our proposals some additional item which we would be ready to drop,
in the course of negotiations, as a concession in the interests of agreement. This
item might be found in the Special Duties which we now levy on Irish Free State
imports with a view to recouping the money which is being withheld from us.
These duties, which are referred to in paragraph 20 below, bring in a sum of
approximately £4-1 millions a year. Since the financial proposals made in the
preceding paragraphs (even if Mr. de Valera is prepaiêd to accept them all)
involve our giving up about half of our claims, if measured by their capital
equivalent, or approximately £1-53 million a year, measured in immediate
annual income, I would suggest that we should not, in the first instance, express
ourselves as prepared to abolish the Special Duties completely in return for the
new financial arrangement. W e might offer only to reduce the duties, and to a
level which would bring us in, say, one-half of the annual sum which we are
forgoing. But I am certain that any chance that there may be of an agreement
would completely disappear if we were to insist on this, and suggest it
deliberately as an item to be given up in the course of negotiations.
16. I am bound to say that I think it is extremely doubtful whether Mr. de

Valera would be prepared to accept all the liabilities proposed, even if we with
draw the suggested retention of part of the Special Duties. But rightly or
wrongly, I thought that I detected in. him, during our last talk, a greater
realisation than he would then admit that he must come some way to meet
us in settling the financial dispute. Much would depend on how tempting
we could make an offer of a trade agreement (which would relieve his Government
and people of considerable existing financial burdens, and help him to solve
some pressing economic^ and. social problems) and a defence agreement (which he
personally greatly desires, partly for Irish Nationalist reasons, but chiefly owing
to the dangers of the present international situation). I am inclined to think
that some at least of his colleagues would use their influence (for what it is worth)
on him in favour of an agreement on the general lines suggested in this paper.
I t is true that even if he were prepared to concede all the points contained in
the following paragraph we should be making a considerable surrender of our
financial claims, but it seems to me that some compromise of this nature would
be justified if we could get advantageous agreements on other matters and secure
some prospect of improved Anglo-Irish relations. In fact, we would be pressed
to making some further financial concessions in the course of negotiations;
whether or not we felt able to. consider this would depend on how the other
departments of the negotiation were proceeding, and what price we were willing
to pay for a settlement of the three questions with which this paper deals.
Recommendation.
17. On the assumption that the Chiefs of Staff offer advice on the question
set out in paragraph 7 which enables us to decide to make general proposals to
Mr. de Valera, I would propose :—
(a) that we should offer to conclude a new Financial Agreement in
which—
(b) payments on account of local loans;
(c) pensions payable to ex-servicemen in the Irish Free State
minor expenditure (see paragraph 10) in addition to
(e) payments now being made on account of damage to
property in the Irish Free State;
(iii) as regards the R.I.C. Pensions payable in the United Kingdom
and items (&) and (d) above, we should accept a lump sum
settlement if that would be practicable for and more convenient
to the Irish Free State than annual payments.
(6) That, solely as a bargaining counter, we should not offer, in the first
instance, to abolish our Special Duties entirely, but that we should
express our willingness to reduce them to a level which would bring in,
say, half of the annual sum which we are forgoing.
18. In addition, under the defence agreement, the Irish Free State Govern
ment would be asked to bear the cost of the re-equipment and annual maintenance
of the treaty ports.
19. The financial effect of the various suggestions in (a) (i), (ii) and (iii)
in paragraph 17 above is summarised in the Appendix to this Paper.
TRADE.
20. The present position regarding trade is that a tariff war is being waged
between the two countries, mitigated only by the " coal-cattle " pacts which are
negotiated yearly. W e maintain special duties against various Irish Free State
imports which bring in a sum of approximately £4 -1 millions a year, and also
import duties under the Import Duties Acts on goods (in the case of the
" Ottawa " Dominions, free of duty) which bring in, as regards goods from the
Irish Free State, approximately £0-55 millions per annum. The total amount
withheld by the Irish Free State is £4- 7 millions per annum, of which the amount
which the Exchequer is bound to meet is £4 millions. The Irish Free State
Government have retaliated with special discriminatory duties against various
United Kingdom imports into their market.
21. I f we concluded a new Financial Agreement, it would follow that we

should abolish (or reduce—see paragraph 15 above) our special duties against
Irish Free State imports on condition that the Irish Free State Government
abolished their retaliatory duties. The way would then be clear for an endeavour
to negotiate a general trade agreement on a basis of reciprocity. The possibilities
of increasing our export trade under such an arrangement are suggested by the
following considerations :—
(a) According to Irish Free State official statistics, the United Kingdom
share of the total import trade of the Irish Free State in recent years was :—
£'000.
1930. 1931. 193S. 1933. 1934. 1935. 1936.
Total imports into the Irish
Free State 56,77(3 50,461 42,574 35,789 39,122 37,348 39,913
Of which from United Kingdom 45,432 40,772 32,629 25,032 26,090 27,046 21,254
I t must be borne in mind that since A p r i l 1935 all imports into the Free State
have been recorded by countries of origin instead of by countries of consignment,
so that the above figures for 1935 and" 1936 afford no'real basis for comparative
purposes.
(b) Whilst United Kingdom exports to the Free State are still hampered by
the special discriminatory duties imposed by the Free State Government, the
disadvantages resulting from these duties have been much reduced by the Coal-
Cattle Arrangement of 1935, and its subsequent extensions of 1936 and 1937.
The position now is that the Free State's Special Duties have been wholly removed
from coal and sugar, and its subsidiary products, and that the duties have been
reduced from 20 per cent, to 10 per cent, as regards the other commodities
concerned, viz., cement, certain electrical goods, apparatus, certain spirits, certain
kinds of machinery (excluding, inter alia, agricultural machinery), and certain
iron and steel goods. Whilst separate figures showing imports of these goods
from the United Kingdom in 1936 are not available, it may be presumed that the
removal of the remaining 10 per cent, of Special Duties would assist the United
Kingdom to recover much of the trade she has lost in these items.
(c) A s regards the possibilities of securing reductions of other Irish Free
State customs duties, it appears doubtful whether any substantial change in
favour of the United Kingdom can be secured in respect of those goods which
are subject to protective duties imposed by the Free State Government in recent
years for the encouragement of local industries. But in other cases tariff adjust
ments, including possibly the grant of preferential rates of duty, could probably
be secured. In general, the United Kingdom would be given a greater opportunity
of competing for a share of the Free State market at present supplied by foreign
countries. Free State imports of foreign origin in 1936 were valued at
£13,144,000.
22. I t must be borne in mind that one part of any general agreement would
be a defence agreement with which was included an undei-standing that the Irish
Free State Government would purchase most of their defence equipment in this
country.
23. A settlement of the tariff war would undoubtedly be welcome to
Mr. de Valera, and indeed this is one of our strongest bargaining counters in
dealing with him. Our special duties on Irish Free State imports are a heavy
burden on their producers, and Mr. de Valera admitted to me that in addition
they had cost his Government many millions of pounds, on account of compen
satory bounties to Irish producers, &c.
Recommendation.
24. I therefore would propose that we should accompany our offer to him
with a renewed assurance that if a settlement of the financial dispute is reached,
we shall be ready to abolish (or reduce—see paragraph 15 above) our special duties
against Irish Free State imports on condition that his Government abolished the
special discriminatory duties against United Kingdom imports, and to enter into
negotiations for a general trade agreement in the nature of our Ottawa Agree
ments with the other Dominions.
GENERAL.
25. Needless to say, I do not regard a settlement on lines such as have been
indicated above as in any way the ideal or final settlement of our relations with
the Irish Free State. The only satisfactory final settlement would be one in which
the Irish Free State Government accepted frankly, freely and ungrudgingly
loyalty to the King and full association with the British Commonwealth. Owing
to the attitude of Mr. de Valera and the introduction of the new Constitution, I
cannot see that any such settlement is possible for a.very long time to come, if
indeed it can ever be achieved. But any substantial improvement in any depart
ment of relations between the two countries will not only prevent further estrange
ment and hostility, it will also positively help to bring about gradually that real
friendship and co-operation which should be natural on account of the common
interests of the two countries, and which I feel certain Mr. de Valera himself
genuinely desires in principle.
26. Admittedly there is another serious shortcoming in the proposals which
I make. Though agreements on the financial dispute, trade and defence would
seem likely to have some effect in improving relations between the two countries,
they would do nothing, apparently, to mitigate the bitterness of Mr. de Valera's
and many of his countrymen's feelings about partition. Throughout all my
conversations with him during the last two years he has been at pains to
emphasise his view that no final settlement of the relations between the two
countries is possible whilst partition remains, and he has since reiterated this
view in public at his annual party meeting. What is the use, it may be asked, of
making agreements which do not touch the major cause of ill-feeling ? I can only
answer for myself that I think agreements on the lines suggested in this
memorandum would be of some help. W i t h regard to partition it will be seen
from my account of the conversations that I took the line that this was essentially
a matter for settlement between the peoples of the two parts of the island and
that it was for him and the people of the South, if they really wished to end
partition, so to order their affairs that the people of the North would be willing
to throw in their lot with them. A t the same time I did not hide my feeling that
there seems little prospect in any circumstances of partition coming to an end.
I t may be that gradually the people of Southern Ireland will realise all this, or
it may be that time will bring changes which solve that problem. In the mean
time we must undoubtedly expect continual agitation from Mr. de Valera and
his friends. But I think that under the surface a greater regard and friendship
for Great Britain is very gradually growing in the Irish Free State; and agree
ments on defence, finance and trade would do something to stimulate their growth.
SUMMARY.
27. The following is a summary of my recommendations : —

I.—Defence.
(1) That the Chiefs of Staff should be invited to review the position in the
light of my talks with Mr. de Valera and to advise whether, from the military
point of view, the retention of our existing rights in the reserved ports is so
important that it outweighs the advantages to be gained from a defence agree
ment on the lines set out in (2) below.
(2) That if the Chiefs of Staff answer the question in (1) in the negative,
we should, as a part of a general offer to the Free State Government, indicate
that we should be prepared to withdraw from the ports on condition that we
secured a defence agreement under which the Free State Government would :—
both of the reserved ports and of the whole coast of the Free State
up to a proper standard of equipment and efficiency; thereafter
maintain the defences at that level; and provide some small naval
vessels and aeroplanes for coastal defence purposes;
us in the development of their defence plans and inviting the advice
equipment;
forces generally, from the United Kingdom in all cases where it
could not be locally manufactured in the Free State;
(v) arrange for the erection and operation of one or more munitions factories
in the Free State in consultation with our experts,
(vi) take such other defence action as the Chiefs of Staff in their report may
advise to be necessary.
T16335] D
II.—Financial.
(3) That, on the assumption that the Chiefs of Staff offer advice on the
point set out at ( I ) above which enables us to decide to make general proposals
to the Free State Government—
(a) we should offer to conclude a new Financial Agreement in which :—
(b) payments on account of local loans;
(c) pensions payable to ex-servicemen in the Irish Free State
minor expenditure, in addition to
(e) payments now being made on account of damage to property
in the Irish Free State;
(iii) that as regards the R.I.C. Pensions payable in the United
Kingdom and items (b) and (d) above, we should accept a lump
sum settlement if that would be practicable for and more
convenient to the Irish Free State than annual payments.
(The financial effect of these various suggestions is summarised
in the Annex to this Paper.)
(b) solely as a bargaining counter, we should not offer in the first instance,
to abolish our special duties entirely, but should express our willing
ness to reduce them to a level which would bring in, say, half of the
annual sum which we are forgoing.
I l l - Trade.
(4) That we should accompany our offer of financial agreement with a
renewed assurance that if a settlement of the financial dispute is reached, we shall
be ready to abolish (or reduce—see (3) (b) above) our special duties against Free
State imports on condition that the Free State Government abolishes the special
discriminatory duties against United Kingdom imports, and to enter into
negotiations for a general trade agreement in the nature of our Ottawa Agree
ments with the other Dominions.
M. M.
December 10, 1937.
ANNEX.
i (£ millions.)
Existing payments Suggested Possible form of

clue by Irish Free payments by Irish payments.
State. Free State. (See paragraph 16.)
Capital Capital Lump

Annual. Annual. Annual.
equivalent equivalent. sum.
Land Annuities 3 1* 78 0
' R.I.C. pensions—
(1) I n Irish Free State ... 0 75* 9 1* 0 75 9 1 0 75
(")
(")-- (2) Outside Irish Free State 0 24* 3 9* 0 24 3 2 3 2
Judicial, civil and revenue
department pensions 0 05* 0 4* 0 05 0 4 0 05
(&) Local loans 0 6* 7 35* 0 6 7 35 7 35
(o)) Ex-service pensions—
(o
(1) Benefits 1 27 17-0 1 27
(2) Administration in Irish
Free State 0 04 0 4 0 04
(d ) Administration and minor
(d)
expenditure ... 0 01* 0 15* 0 01 0 15 0 15
0 0 , Compensation for damage to
property 0 25 5 S5 0 25 5 85 0 25
Re-equipment of defended ports ... 0 03f 0 75 0 75
Annual maintenance defended
ports (after re-equipment) 0 23 6 57 0 23
Total 5 0 104 05 3 47 50 77 2 59 11 45
* I n default by Free State Government,

f Annual equivalent of capital charge.
APPENDIX IV.
SECRET.
[I.S.C. (32) 124]
CABINET.
RELATIONS W I T H THE IRISH PREE STATE.

T H E following developments have taken place in the situation in relation to
the Irish Free State since the meeting of the Irish Situation Committee on the
11th March.
The terms of a statement for communication to Mr. de Valera were then
approved, subject to concurrence in it by the'other Dominion Governments. A s
a result of communications which then took place with these Governments (the
relevant telegrams were circulated to the Cabinet as they were despatched or
received) some verbal alterations were made in the statement which was finally
agreed as set forth in Annex I to this note.
On the 3rd A p r i l I handed the statement to the High Commissioner for the
Irish Free State for transmission to Mr. de Valera. A t the same time I repeated
to Mr. Dulanty our views on certain details of the Irish Free State legislation
which had been discussed by the Irish Situation Committee, informing him again
that two or three of the other Dominion Governments had also expressed concern
regarding these points, and shared our views regarding them. I handed him a
note on these points for transmission with the other document to Mr. de Valera.
A copy of this note is appended to this memorandum (Annex I I ) .
Had Lord Craigavon been available, I would have shown him copies of both
communications before I handed them to Mr. Dulanty. In his absence Sir Horace
Wilson got into touch with Sir Charles Blackmore, Secretary of the Cabinet of
Northern Ireland, and the latter agreed that the messages need not be held up
pending Lord Craigavon's return from abroad, as Lord Craigavon had had an
opportunity of discussing the matter with the Prime Minister in January, and
had then agreed with the general line which we proposed to take. I was anxious
that the documents should go as soon as possible to Dublin before Mr. de Valera
completed the draft of his new Constitution Bill. When Lord Craigavon was
passing through London on the 7th April, I showed him both documents. Apart
from regretting that we had included the paragraph expressing a desire to
co-operate with the Irish Free State Government (which, in his view, would
merely be taken by the Irish Free State authorities as indicative that we were
ready to make further concessions), he seemed to be satisfied with their terms.
Mr. Dulanty, after a considerable interval, handed to me on the 27th A p r i l
the reply of the Irish Free State Government to our statement. A copy of this
reply is attached as Annex I I I ] In some respects this is not a satisfactory
document, but I need not discuss it in detail now, since, in the meantime, the
new draft Constitution of ' ' Eire '' has been published.
The position resulting will, I fear, force us to consider very carefully again
the whole of our attitude towards the Irish Free State. I have had some
preliminary talk with the Attorney-General about the issues involved, and
propose to circulate a further memorandum covering each aspect of the problem
as soon as possible. I think that we should aim at reaching our own conclusions
on the matter in time for informal discussions on the situation to take place with
the Dominion Prime Ministers before they leave London.
On the 6th May Mr. Dulanty informed me that the Irish Free State
Government had decided not to participate in the Imperial Conference.
M. M.
May 7, 1937.
ANNEX I.
T H E United Kingdom Government have considered very carefully the recent

constitutional legislation of the Irish Free State from the point of view of its
possible effect on the relationship of the Irish Free State to the British Common
wealth of Nations.
In the United Kingdom Governments view this legislation involves a
departure from the provisions of the Articles of Agreement of the 6th December,
1921, and in their opinion, therefore, the changes should properly have been the
subject of prior consultation. They regret the disappearance as regards the
internal affairs of the Irish Free State of constitutional forms in relation to The
K i n g which are in use by the other Members of the Commonwealth. A t the same
time, they understand the position to be as follows :—
(i) The Irish Free State desires to remain a co-equal Member of the British
Commonwealth of Nations;
British Commonwealth of Nations;
(iii) The King's Title remains unaffected by the legislation. I t is as King of
Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas
On this basis, the United Kingdom Government have reached the conclusion
effecting a fundamental alteration in the position of the Irish Free State as a
Member of the British Commonwealth.
The United Kingdom Government hope that there may be a fuller development
of co-operation in all matters of common concern between the Irish Free State and
the United Kingdom. They, for their part, believe such co-operation to be in the
mutual interest of both peoples.
The Governments of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand
and the Union of South Africa also are prepared to treat the Irish Free State
legislation in question as not effecting a fundamental alteration in the position
of the Irish Free State as a Member of the British Commonwealth. The text of
this statement has been communicated to the above-mentioned Governments.
ANNEX II.
There are certain points of detail in connection with the Irish Free State
constitutional legislation to which the United Kingdom desire to draw special
attention, as follows :—
(a) I t is understood that the Irish Free State Government have in
contemplation the possibility of omitting from their new constitution the clause
which now appears as Article 1 of the Constitution of 1922. I t appears to the
United Kingdom Government that it is of great importance that this clause, or
its equivalent, should be retained either in the new constitution or in the External
Relations Act. They feel that without an explicit statement in legislation of
this kind the position of the Irish Free State might be obscure and embarrassment
might result.
(&) In Section 3 (1) of the Irish Free State Executive Authority (External
Relations) Act of 1936, it is thought that the words " symbol of their
co-operation " might be read to mean that while The King is recognised as the
symbol of co-operation between the other members of the Commonwealth, he is not
recognised by the Irish Free State as a symbol of its co-operation also. I t is
suggested that it is desirable to make it clear that the Irish Free State do recognise
The King as a symbol of their co-operation with the other members of the
Commonwealth.
(c) In the amendment made by the recent Constitution Amendment A c t to
Article 51 of the Irish Free State Constitution, it is suggested that the use of
the word " organ " to describe the King is unfortunate, especially as this Article
forms the only link between the Constitution and the External Relations Act.
I t is suggested that in order to make the position clear, it would seem desirable
that the Article should be re-worded so as to make specific reference to The King.
I t is hoped that the Irish Free State Government will in their new
constitutional legislation be able to make such modifications as may be required
in order to meet the three points set out above, particularly that under (a).
ANNEX III.
T H E Government of Saorstat Eireann (to be known after the passing of the

Constitution as " Eire " ) have received the Note handed by Mr. MacDonald to
Mr. Dulanty on the 3rd April, setting forth the attitude of the Governments of
the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand on the
recent Constitutional legislation of Saorstat Eireann. The Government of
Saorstat Eireann note that the Governments of Canada, the Commonwealth of
Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa are prepared to treat the
Irish Free State legislation in question as not effecting a fundamental alteration
in the position of the Irish Free State as a Member of the British Commonwealth
of Nations. They note further that the United Kingdom Government, in reaching
the same conclusion, have formulated three propositions. The Government of
Saorstat Eireann do not wish to enter into a. controversy as to the precise meaning
and implications of these propositions. They would like to point out, however,
that the acceptance of (ii) and (iii) as they stand would seem to imply that in
certain vital aspects of their Constitutional development no further evolution of
the individual States of the Commonwealth is possible.
2. With regard to the first proposition, it would be impossible for any Govern
ment in Saorstat Eireann to express an unqualified desire to remain a Member of
the British Commonwealth of Nations whilst Ireland remains a partitioned
nation. On the other hand, the Government of Saorstat Eireann would regard
the removal of the inequalities of the Treaty position and the acceptance of the
association of Saorstat Eireann with the Commonwealth in a manner consistent
with Ireland's history and aspirations as definite steps towards the desired unity
and the establishment of friendly relations between Ireland and Great Britain.
3. W i t h regard to a departure from the provisions of the Articles of
Agreement mentioned in paragraph 2 of the United Kingdom Governments Note,
it need only be said that the evolution in the status of the Members of the
Commonwealth, which has taken place since the Articles of Agreement were
signed, has created an entirely new situation; these Articles of Agreement have
been gradually replaced by legislation in the Irish Parliament based on declared
principles of co-equality. I t is on the basis of these principles also that the new
Constitution about to be presented to the people has been drawn up. The Articles
of Agreement postulated control of the Irish Parliament by the British Parlia
ment. Until that situation was ended no approach to a final settlement between
the peoples of the two countries could be made.
4. The Government of Saorstat Eireann fully endorse the hope expressed
by the United Kingdom Government that there may be a fuller development of
co-operation in all matters of common concern between them, and they share the
belief that such co-operation would be in the mutual interests of both peoples.
Department of External Affairs,
Dublin.
APPENDIX V.
SECRET.
[I.S.C. (32) 125]
CABINET.
RELATIONS WITH THE IRISH FREE STATE.

R E C E N T events concerning relations with the Irish Free State require
very careful consideration. I will set them forth in order. This memorandum
confines itself to describing the new facts which make further consideration of
the position necessary. I shall be prepared at the meeting of the Committee to
offer suggestions as to the policy that we should adopt in the face of them.
This memorandum contains many references to the Annexes to my Paper
I.S.C. (32) 124, which should be read in conjunction with it.
I.
Irish Legislation at the time of the A bdication.
2. Following consultation with the other Dominion Governments, we sent
Mr. de Valera a document concerning the Irish Free State legislation at the time
of the Abdication (Annex I, I.S.C. (32) 124) saying that we understood " t h e
position to be as follows :—
(i) The Irish Free State desires to remain a co-equal Member of the British
Commonwealth of Nations,
British Commonwealth of Nations,
(iii) The King's title remains unaffected by the legislation. I t is as King
of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas
On this basis the United Kingdom Government have reached the conclusion
effecting a fundamental alteration in the position of the Irish Free State as a
Member of the British Commonwealth."
3. The other Dominion Governments, though they did not all associate
themselves in terms with the ' ' basis ' ' as set out above, agreed with the conclusion
which we reached.
4. A t the same time we repeated to Mr. de Valera certain points of detail
regarding his legislation to which we attached special importance. They are
contained in the document printed as Annex I I to I.S.C. (32) 124, and I shall
return to these points when examining the present Irish Free State Constitutional
Bill in Section I I of this Memorandum.
5. T o these communications the Irish Free State Government sent a reply
(Annex I I I to I.S.C. (32) 124), in which, inter alia, our propositions (i), (ii)
and (iii) above are dealt with. W i t h regard to (i), it states that " it would be
impossible for any Government in Saorstat Eireann to express an unqualified
desire to remain a Member of the British Commonwealth of Nations whilst
Ireland remains a partitioned nation. On the other hand, the Government of
Saorstat Eireann would regard the removal of the inequalities of the Treaty
position and the acceptance of the association of Saorstat Eireann with the
Commonwealth in a manner consistent with Ireland's history and aspirations
as definite steps towards the desired unity and the establishment of friendly
relations between Ireland and Great Britain."
6. The reply speaks of inability " to express an unqualified desire." This
presumably implies that the Irish Free State does in some sense " d e s i r e " to
remain a member of the Commonwealth. I do not know what is the sum total
of the iniquities which Mr. de Valera has in mind when he refers to ' ' the
inequalities of the Treaty position," but I think the most important of them is
our occupation of certain Irish Free State ports. H e knows that we have offered
to end this occupation on certain conditions, the principal one being that we are
assured of the use of these ports in time of war. . I presume that by ' ' acceptance
of the association of Saorstat Eireann with the Commonwealth in a manner
consistent with Ireland's history and aspirations," Mr. de Valera means agree
ment by us that his latest constitutional proposals do not make any difference to
the Free State's membership of the Commonwealth.
7. W i t h regard to (ii) and (iii), the reply says: " T h e Government of
Saorstat Eireann do not wish to enter into a controversy as to the precise meaning
and implications of these propositions. They would like to point out, however,
that the acceptance of (ii) and (iii) as they stand would seem to imply that in
certain vital aspects of their Constitutional development, no further evolution of
the individual states of the Commonwealth is possible."
8. These are unsatisfactory words, but do not of themselves, I think, create
insuperable difficulties. In the first place, controversy with Mr. de Valera as to
the " precise meaning and implications " of the proposition that the King is
K i n g of Ireland would no doubt lead to hair-splitting arguments on the subject
of allegiance. I t seems to me that we need not enter into such controversy; we
could be content to maintain our own view regarding the duty owed by a citizen
of a country to that country's King, provided that the King is recognised.
Perhaps the way to state the position as to allegiance might be this. The King
has been King of Ireland since the reign of Henry V I I I ; Ireland is part of
the King's dominions and persons born in Ireland are therefore born within
the King's dominions and allegiance. That position cannot be altered without
denying that the King is King of Ireland, which Mr. de Valera does not deny.
When, in 1934, Mr. de Valera purported by legislation to deprive Irish Free State
citizens of their status as British subjects, we, on the advice of Sir Thomas Inskip,
then Attorney-General, said that his legislation was inoperative for the purpose.
9. Mr. de Valera's next comment is that acceptance of (ii) and (iii) as
expressed in our statement would seem to imply that in regard to the matters
there dealt with no further evolution of the constitutional development of an
individual State belonging to the Commonwealth is possible. He is, of course,
anxious to maintain his contention that it would be possible for the Irish Free
State, or the whole of Ireland, to become a complete and avowed Republic, and
yet to remain in the Commonwealth, reaping all the benefits of membership.
Though we should take a different view, we were not, when framing our statement,
considering at all the question of possible future evolution; we were seeking to
discover and establish the facts of the existing situation as left by the Abdication
legislation; and in spite of his comments and qualifications, it would seem from
his reply that Mr. de Valera does agree that propositions (i), (ii) and (iii) do in
fact describe the situation as it is to-day. W e presumably meant that so long
as that situation lasted we could feel justified in treating the Abdication legis
lation as not effecting a fundamental alteration in the position of the Irish Free
State as a Member of the British Commonwealth. In replying to Mr. de Valera
we could, if necessary, state our view that propositions (ii) and (iii) were of
permanent importance; but we need not seek to commit him here and now to
that view.
10. I t seems to me, therefore, that, had no further developments taken place,
it would have been possible to send' a reply to Mr. de Valera's message stating
in effect that what our previous document ha"d sought to establish was the present
situation without prejudice to anyone's opinions as to the future; and that, as
we understood from his message that the existing situation was as stated in
(i), (ii) and (iii), our conclusion held good.
II.
The New Constitution Bill.
11. But within a few days of receiving the Irish Free State Governments
reply the situation was further complicated by the publication of their latest
Constitution Bill (Annex I V to I.S.C. (32) 124). This is the Bill which
Mr. de Valera originally foreshadowed in his message to the King almost exactly
a year ago, which has been in preparation ever since, and the place of which was
taken temporarily in the emergency last December by the first of the Acts passed
by the Dail at the time.
12. The first comment that I would offer is that in the new Bill
Mr. de Valera has ignored completely the three points of detail to which we drew
special attention in the second note which we recently sent him (Annex I I ,
I.S.C. (32) 124). I t will be remembered that I first raised these points in my
conversations with him in January, and have repeated them on a number of
occasions in subsequent talks with Mr. Dulanty. W e attached particular
importance to the first point, i.e., the retention of Article I of the existing
Constitution (which declares that the Irish Free State " is a co-equal member
of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations " )
in the new Constitution. Several times Mr. Dulanty told me that he thought
that as a result of our suggestion Mr. de Valera would retain this Article in
some form, and that I would be shown the proposed clause informally before it
was printed, in order that Mr. de Valera would be aware of any comments that
I wished to make upon it. Nevertheless, no such clause appears, and Mr. Dulanty
gave me no warning that it had been finally decided to omit it. My colleagues
will see in Section I I , sub-section (i), of my account of my last conversations with
Mr. de Valera ( C P . 14 (37)) the reasons which he then gave for doubting whether
he could accept our three suggestions, and it may be that these are the reasons
why he has eventually ignored them.
13. The new Constitution of the Irish Free State, or Eire (which is, I
understand, the Gaelic word for Ireland), as it is to be styled on the coming into
force of the Constitution, covers a wide field. Its main features requiring
examination from the point of view of the Free State's relations with this country
are as follows : —
(1) The national territory consists of the whole of Ireland, its islands
and the territorial seas (Article 2), though " pending the reintegration of
the-national territory and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament
and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction
over the whole of that territory, the laws enacted by that Parliament shall
have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstat Eireann
and the like extra-territorial effect " (Article 3).
(2) Eire is a sovereign, independent, democratic state (Article 5).
(3) A l l powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial,
derive, under God, from the people (Article 6).
(4) There is to be an elected President who must be a citizen of Eire
and who is to " take precedence over all other persons in the State "
(Article 12).
(5) The President is to appoint a Prime Minister, on the nomination
of the Dail, and the other members of the Government on the nomination of
the Prime Minister with the previous approval of the Dail (Article 13 ( 1 ) ) .
(6) The President is to summon and dissolve the Dail on the advice of
the Prime Minister (Article 13 ( 2 ) ) .
(7) The supreme command of the Defence Forces is vested in the
President and all commissioned officers of the Defence Forces will hold their
commissions from him (Article 13 (4) and ( 5 ) ) . No military or armed force
other than a force raised and maintained by the Parliament shall be raised
or maintained for any purpose whatsoever (Article 15 (6) ( 2 ) ) .
(8) The right of pardon is vested" in the President (Article 13 ( 6 ) ) .
(9) Parliament will consist of the President and two Houses (Article 15),
and legislation passed by the two Houses will require the signature of the
President for its enactment (Article 13 ( 3 ) ) .
(10) Judges are to be appointed by the President (Article 35).
(11) There is no mention in the Constitution of the King or the British
Commonwealth of Nations, but Article 29 (4) provides that—
" The executive power of Eire in or in connection with its external
relations shall, in accordance with Article 28 of this Constitution, be
exercised by or on the authority of the Government.
For the purpose of the exercise of any executive function of Eire
in or in connection with its external relations, the Government may to
such extent and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be determined
by law, avail of or adopt any organ, instrument, or method of procedure
used or adopted for the like purpose by the members of any group or
league of nations with which Eire is or becomes associated for the
purpose of international co-operation in matters of common concern."
The equivalent section in the existing Constitution, as amended at the
time of the Abdication, is contained in a proviso which reads as follows :—
" Provided that it shall be lawful for the Executive Council, to the
extent and subject to any conditions which may be determined by law to
avail, for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular
agents, and the conclusion of international agreements of any organ used
as a constitutional organ for the like purposes by any of the nations
referred to in Article I of this Constitution" (i.e., the Article which
says that the Irish Free State is a co-equal member of the British
Commonwealth of Nations, which is omitted from the new Constitution).
14 This Constitution Bill is now being debated in the Dail, and, if it passes
the Dail, will be submitted to the people of the Irish Free State for their
approval, probably at the time of the General Election which is expected sometime
later this year. I t will not come into effect until it has received this popular
approval, when it will take the place of the temporary Act, passed at the time
o f the Abdication, which deprived the King and his representative of all functions
in the internal affairs of the Free State, and divided the exercise of those functions
between the Speaker of the Dail and the President of the Executive Council.
15. I should add that a further Bill has recently been introduced in the Dail
entitled the " Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Bill, 1937," which is
apparently intended to come into force before the new Constitution. Its main
objects are to complete the work of removing the King and the Governor-General
from the internal Constitution, and to give a pension to Mr. Buckley (the former
Governor-General). The important clause is clause 2 (1), which pi'ovides that
êvery power, function, & c , required to be performed by the King or the
Representative of the Crown is transferred to the Executive Council except in
cases where such power, function, & c , is under the Executive Authority (External
Relations) Act, 1936, " conferred or imposed on some other person."
III.
The External Relations Act.
16. The new Constitution when passed will not stand alone, nor contain the
whole of the law concerning the exercise of the functions of government in the
Irish Free State. A t the time of the Abdication a second Act was passed, the
Executive Authority (External Relations) Act referred to above. During my
conversations with him shortly afterwards, Mr. de Valera explained that he
intended this Act to remain permanently on the Statute Book, to be read in
conjunction with the proposed new Constitution Act, and be a partner to it. This
is the law referred to in Article 29 ( 4 ) of the new Constitution. Mr. de Valera
added that he proposed to give this External Relations Act a status equal with
the Constitution A c t by providing that the same special, complicated procedure
(involving, after the first three years, a referendum) which is necessary to amend
the latter A c t shall also be required before amendment of the former A c t is
possible. I presume that this is still his intention, and have asked Mr. Dulanty
to find out whether this is so.
17. Clause 3 of the External Relations A c t reads :—
3.—,(1) I t is hereby declared and enacted that, so long as Saorstat
Eireann is associated with the following nations, that is to say, Australia,
Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and South Africa, and so long as the
K i n g recognised by those nations as the symbol of their co-operation continues
to act on behalf of each of those nations (on the advice of the several Govern
ments thereof) for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and
consular representatives and the conclusion of international agreements, the
King so recognised may, and is hereby authorised to, act on behalf of
Saorstat Eireann for the like purposes as and when advised by the Executive
Council so to do.
(2) Immediately upon the passing of this A c t the Instrument of
Abdication executed by His Majesty King Edward V I I I . . . . shall have
effect . . . . , and His said Majesty shall for the purposes of the foregoing
Sub-section of this Section and all other, if any, purposes cease to be King,
and the King for those purposes shall henceforth be the person who, if His
said Majesty had died on the 10th December, 1936, unmarried, would for the
time being be his successor under the law of Saorstat Eireann.
IV.
Other Recent Developments.
18. A few other developments should be recorded to complete the present
picture. Some time after the message referred to in Section I of this memorandum
had been sent to Mr. de Valera, and before his reply had been received, our
officials met Mr. Dulanty to resume their informal exploration of other questions
outstanding between the two countries. On defence questions no progress was
made. Mr. Dulanty said that it would be politically inexpedient for
Mr. de Valera to give us an assurance that we could use the Treaty ports in time
of w ar, even though he believed that in fact those ports would be at our service.
r
But Mr. Dulanty said that he thought it would be possible to discover a formula
about our using the ports when the interests of the two countries were vitally
involved, which he hoped would be satisfactory to us. H e promised to produce
such a formula, but has not yet done so. I cannot say that I share his optimism
at the prospects, though it is just possible that a recent statement in the Dail by
Mr. de Valera to the effect that while assistance from the United Kingdom would
be welcomed in maintaining the freedom of the Irish Free State from foreign
invasion, it would be on condition that that was the sole purpose of such
assistance, was a slight move on his part towards a less uncompromising
attitude.
19. On the question of the financial difficulty, an Irish representative for
the first time showed a disposition to move from the position which Mr. de Valera
has hitherto adopted of refusing to pay a penny of the monies in dispute,
Mr. Dulanty told me in a talk on the 30th A p r i l (speaking on much the same lines
as he had adopted in his talk with our officials) that in his personal opinion
Mr. de Valera would be willing not only to relieve us of all the expenditure
necessary in putting the port and coast defences of the Irish Free State into an
adequate state of efficiency, but also to pay the pensions and other monies in
dispute so far as they were owing to individuals or authorities in the Free State,
if we were willing to make the payments to those in the United Kingdom. But
Mr. Dulanty is not always a reliable guide to his master's mind, and too much
importance should not at present be attached to this statement. I t may not be
irrelevant, however, to observe that in a recent statement in the Dail Mr. de Valera
emphasised the refusal of the Irish Free State to pay the land annuities, but made
no mention whatever of the other financial items in dispute (R.I.C. pensions, & c ) .
The conversations between our officials and Mr. Dulanty have in the meantime
been suspended.
20. The Irish Free State Government sent no special representative tO'
Their Majesties' Coronation, but Mr. Dulanty attended as High Commissioner
(as the result, I understand, of much pressure by himself on Mr. de Valera). Pie
has similarly attended many of the functions held in connection with the
Coronation. On the other hand, when he was invited to be present at two purely
Empire gatherings at the Palace—the presentation of addresses to Their
Majesties by overseas governments, and the Luncheon which followed this
ceremony—he refused, on instructions from Mr. de Valera.
21. A f t e r long hesitation the Free State Government decided not to
participate in the Imperial Conference. Mr. Dulanty tells me that he thinks
the reason is that attendance at an Imperial Conference just before a crucial
General Election would prove embarrassing to Mr. de Valera. This may have
something to do with the decision. Mr. de Valera's own explanation in the
Dail was that the Irish Free State representatives had been put in a humiliating
position at the Ottawa Conference because the United Kingdom delegation
treated them as people whose word could not be trusted, and that he would not
take the risk of putting Free State delegates in such a position at the present
Conference. He knows well that Irish Free State representatives at the present
Conference would have been treated as equals with the other representatives.
I cannot help feeling that the major consideration weighing in his mind is that
a great many of the Coronation functions-—such as the Guildhall Luncheon and
the Naval Review—were being held during the period of the Conference, and
that attendance at these would embarrass him in his Election, whilst a refusal
to attend would be openly discourteous to the King.
V.
The Problem.
22. The question that we have to answer is whether in our view the new
Constitution of the Irish Free State (or Eire) is compatible with what we had
in mind when we laid down the three propositions which formed the basis of our
conclusion that we wêre prepared to treat the last Irish Free State legislation
as not effecting a fundamental alteration in the position of that country as a
Member of the British Commonwealth. W e are not alone concerned with this
question. Before reaching any final conclusion we shall have to ascertain the
views of the other Dominion Governments, and it is fortunate that their Prime
Ministers are gathered in London just now. W e should endeavour to reach
some understanding with them on this problem whilst they are here. But first
we must consider what is our own view on the situation.
23. On the one side there are the following considerations :—
(i) Mr. de Valera would almost certainly say that our three propositions
quoted in Section I of this memorandum will be as applicable to the situation
after the passing of the new Constitution as they are to-day.
(ii) Mr. de Valera acquiesced in the Oath administered to the King
in the Coronation, which read " W i l l you solemnly promise and swear to
govern the peoples of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia . . . . "
The King was, in fact, crowned as King of Ireland as well as of the other
parts of the Empire. When Mr. de Valera said that the Irish Free State
Governments attitude to the Coronation must be one of " detachment and
protest " the grounds which he gave for this were not that the King was
being crowned as King of Ireland, or that he was taking an oath to govern
the people of Ireland, but that Ireland was still partitioned and that the
Coronation service discriminated against the Roman Catholic religion.
The fact that His Majesty was crowned as K i n g of Ireland is well under
stood in the Free State, and has led some irate Republicans to blow up
King George I I ' s equestrian statue in Dublin.
(iii) The Irish Free State Government are continuing to send documents
regarding external affairs (such as exequaturs for the recognition of foreign
consuls) to His Majesty for his signature exactly as heretofore. I understand
that these documents declare that His Majesty signs them as " King of Great
Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, & c . " No
change is contemplated so far as I know in the form of Irish Free State pass
ports, which are still being issued in the name of the King.
(iv) A few days ago the Irish Free State Government became a party
to the Egyptian Capitulations Treaty recently signed at Montreux. The
Free State delegate to the Conference received his full powers from the K i n g ;
in the Treaty it. is written that the King had appointed Mr. Cremins
as his plenipotentiary for the Irish Free State (the Irish Free State
plenipotentiary being grouped with those of other Members of the British
Commonwealth); His Majesty is described in the text of the Treaty as King
of Great Britain, IrelancL &c.; and the Irish Free State representative signed
his name amongst the group of signatures of those signing for the Members
of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This happens to be the first such
instrument that the Irish Free State has signed since Mr. de Valera came
into office, and indeed since the London Naval Treaty of 1930. Presumably,
the same procedure will still be followed after the passage of the new
Constitution.
(v) The fact is that the King's powers regarding the external affairs of
the Irish Free State remain unimpaired. I t is interesting to note that the
clause in the new Constitution dealing with the declaration of war merely
says : " War shall not be declared and Eire shall not participate in any war
save with the assent of Dail Eireann " (Article 28 ( 3 ) ) . I t does not say that
the President shall declare war, though the Constitution is careful to define
his powers and functions. I n the light of my last conversation with
Mr. de Valera, when we discussed this point, I think he has come to the
conclusion that it is for the King to declare war (with the assent, of course,
of the Dail) on behalf of the Irish Free State (or Eire).
(vi) So far as the Constitution for internal affairs is concerned, though
its form is that of a Republic, it is nowhere called a Republic. The relevant
Article runs, " E i r e is a sovereign, independent, democratic State," and
deliberately avoids the term Republic. Mr. de Valera promised his followers
a Constitution Act which would not of itself require any alteration if the
Irish Free State were to decide to become a Republic, and he has certainly
produced a Bill to this effect. But he would deny that he is establishing a
Republic.
24. On the other hand, there are the following considerations to be taken
into account :—
(i) The whole spirit of the proposed new Constitution for internal affairs is
Republican. Its provisions are much more definite than those of the existing
legislation in their elimination of the K i n g from any part in the internal affairs
of the Free State. The Abdication legislation deprived the King (or his repre
sentative) of his functions in the internal affairs of the State, but there were
features in it which made it possible to argue that the office of King had not
disappeared from the State. I t would be more difficult to argue that now. For
example :—
(a) The first Article of the existing Constitution declares that the Irish
Free State is a co-equal member of the British Commonwealth of Nations;
and the authoritative statement concerning the British Commonwealth—the
Declaration of 1926—says that all its members are "united by a common
allegiance to the Crown." I t is possible to argue, by reference, therefore
that the Irish Free State owes allegiance to the King. But this Article has
been deliberately omitted from the new Constitution, and there is no mention
of the British Commonwealth either in that Constitution or in the External
Relations Act. A l l that the latter A c t says is that ' ' so long as Saorstat
Eireann is associated with the following nations, that is to say, Australia,
Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand and South Africa," certain things may
be done (Clause 3, quoted in paragraph above).
(b) Under the existing Constitution as amended in December 1936, the
President of the Executive Council is appointed by election in the Dail while
other Ministers are appointed by him with the assent of the Dail. Judges are
appointed by the Executive Council. There is no provision regarding officers
of the defence forces, but under an A c t of 1924 they are appointed by
commissions from the Executive Council signed by the President of the
Executive Council and the Minister of Defence as Commander-in-chief. The
Speaker summons and dissolves the Dail, while the signature of the President
of the Executive Council is all that is required to make Bills passed by the
Dail into Statutes. In the new Constitution these various functions are
performed by the President.
W i t h regard to these matters therefore the new Constitution does not
take away from the King any functions performed by him. I t does, however,
emphasise the absence of the K i n g by concentrating these functions in the
hands of a single individual, i.e., the President. I t will presumably be still
more difficult, if not now wholly impossible, to speak of His Majesty's
Ministers or His Majesty's judges, or His Majesty's officers and army in the
Irish Free State.
(c) In the new Constitution Article 39 defines treason as follows :—
'' Treason shall consist only in levying war against Eire or assisting
any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy
war against Eire, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means
to overthrow the organs of Government established by this Constitution,
or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any
person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt.''
I t should be noted that the word '' organ ' ' used in this Article is the same
as one of the words used to describe the King in Article 29 quoted in
paragraph 13 (11) above. I t may be that the term has been used again
deliberately in this Article regarding treason in order to include action
against the K i n g as treason. But it is at least doubtful whether the '' organ ''
referred to in Article 29 could at least as a matter of strict construction be
described as one of " the organs of Government established by this
Constitution." I t is questionable, therefore, whether the new Constitution
recognises action against the King as treason.
(d) The new Constitution in Article 12 says that there shall be a
President " who shall take precedence" over all other persons in the State."
This presumably means either that the King is not a ' ' person in the State,''
or that, if he is, the President would be entitled to take precedence over him.
I would remind my colleagues that in I.S.C. (32) 100, dealing with the
Constitutional issues involved, the following passage occurs in
paragraph 1 1 : —
" W e think that Mr. de Valera's constitutional ideas might
usefully be tested by a hypothesis. Supposing that, after the new
Constitution has been established, the King went to Dublin, would the
King's position there, in Mr. de Valera's view, be that of a visiting
Sovereign to be received with courtesy, but, apart from the politeness
due to guests, having no status superior to the President ? Or would he
enjoy the status there of the supreme head of the Commonwealth of which
Ireland, equally with Canada, or the United Kingdom, forms a part 1''
I t would appear that these questions receive their answer in the new
Constitution, and that under it the King in Dublin would at the best have
only a courtesy precedence over the President.
In fact, these provisions of the new Constitution seem to have been
designed to emphasise the point that the King has no part whatever in the
internal Constitution of the Irish Free State.
(ii) No doubt the reasons which have kept the Irish Free State Government
away from the present Imperial Conference are transitory, and if no similar
reasons present themselves on a future occasion, the Free State Government would
take part in any other Imperial Conference. Nevertheless, the attitude of the Free
State Government to the present Conference is an indication of how weak is the
Free State's will to co-operate in matters of common concern. They will co-operate
when it suits them, but not otherwise.
M. M.
June 3, 1937.
P.S.—Since this memorandum was drawn up my attention has been called

to a statement made by Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy in the Dublin High Court on
the 11th May, 1937. In the course of his judgment in a case re Dowling (an
application for an order of habeas corpus on behalf of a man who had been
arrested on a Scottish Warrant) he is reported (Irish Independent, the 12th May)
to have said :—
" I t has now been made clear by the legislation of 1935 that our citizen
is a citizen of Saorstat Eireann for all purposes municipal and international,
and that he is not a British subject."
This statement (though it formed. part of a dissenting judgment by
Mr. Justice Gavan Duffy on the point immediately at issue in the case) has
received considerable publicity. I understand that the case itself has not yet been
concluded. I t is perhaps rather more difficult for us to stand by the position as
regards allegiance outlined in paragraph 8 of this memorandum now that the
attitude which was taken up hef'e in 1935 with regard to Irish Free State
citizenship has been challenged not only by Mr. de Valera from the political
point of view, but also, even if only " obiter," in the Free State Courts.
M. M.
June 4, 1937.
APPENDIX VI.
Terms of Reference to Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee.

T H E Chiefs of Staff are asked to advise with reference to C.I.D. Paper
No. 416-C :
(1) For what purposes is it intended to employ the Defended Ports in the
Irish Free State in the event of a major war where their use is
needed ?
(2) I f the Ports remained in our hands and if on the outbreak of war the
Irish Free State were to adopt a hostile attitude, would the Ports
under those conditions be of sufficient importance to us to warrant
the additional measures necessary to ensure their security?
(3) I f the Ports had previously been, handed over to the Irish Free State,
and if on the outbreak of war the Irish Free State were to deny us
their use, would the importance of the Ports be so great as to warrant
military operations to regain the possession and use of them?

0025

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0025

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(c) crown copyright

Catalogue Reference:CAB/24/273 Image Reference:0025

SECRET. Copy No.

TO BE KEPT UNDER LOCK AND KEY.

It is requested that special care may be taken to

Irish Situation Committee.

2. In pursuance of these arrangements we have had under consideration

General Constitutional Position.

The new Constitution vis-a-vis Northern Ireland.

The use of the word " Eire " or " Ireland."

The Form and Method of Announcement of the Decision.

14. W e have authorised the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, in

The Position of the Irish Free State as a Member of the Commonwealth.

Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations on the General Constitutional

(1) W e recommend the Cabinet to approve the following formula as

Signed on behalf of the Committee :

2 Whitehall Gardens, S.W. 1,

[I.S.C. (32) 129]

Irish Situation Committee.

RELATIONS W I T H THE I R I S H FREE STATE.

GENERAL CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION.

Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

The Governments of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand

8. Consideration of a reply to Mr. de Valera was deferred pending

9. But, although I believe this assumption to be correct, it is possible that

10. In allcircumstances I propose the following procedure :—'

Draft of suggested Statement for Publication.

Draft of suggested Communication to the Irish Free State Government.

[I.S.C. (32) 130j

Irish Situation Committee.

Memorandum by the Home Secretary.

[I.S.C. (32) 128AJ

Irish Situation Committee.

RELATIONS W I T H THE I R I S H FREE STATE.

Introductory note by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

[I.S.C. (32) 128.)

Irish Situation Committee.

RELATIONS WITH THE TRISH FREE STATE.

Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

3. I deal with the question of defence first, because it seems to me that,

7. Obviously there is a wide diffesence between an assurance that no enemy

12. I t appears, however, not completely impossible that Mr. de Valera

15. As a matter of tactics it might be wise to start with an offer somewhat

16. I am bound to say that I think it is extremely doubtful whether Mr. de

21. I f we concluded a new Financial Agreement, it would follow that we

27. The following is a summary of my recommendations : —

Existing payments Suggested Possible form of

Capital Capital Lump

* I n default by Free State Government,

[I.S.C. (32) 124]

Irish Situation Committee.

RELATIONS W I T H THE IRISH PREE STATE.

Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

T H E United Kingdom Government have considered very carefully the recent

T H E Government of Saorstat Eireann (to be known after the passing of the

[I.S.C. (32) 125]

Irish Situation Committee.

RELATIONS WITH THE IRISH FREE STATE.

Memorandum by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.

P.S.—Since this memorandum was drawn up my attention has been called

Terms of Reference to Chiefs of Staff Sub-Committee.

You might also like