The Bishop of Sale and de Valera

New Zealand Tablet, Volume L, Issue 3, 18 January 1923, Page 11

The Bishop of Sale and de Valera

WAS IRISH REPUBLIC ABANDONED?

The reply by Eamon de Valera to the Bishop of Sale’s statement in the Tribune of August 31, 1922, that de Valera had abandoned the idea of an Irish Republic before the Treaty with England was signed, has elicited the following rejoinder from Dr. Phelan:

I see by the last issue of the Tribune that Mr. de Valera has made some comments on an interview which I gave to a representative of the Tribune in August last. That interview appeared in the Irish Independent on

October 18, and on October 20 Mr. de Valera challenges a statement made to me, in October, 1921, by the late Harry Boland. The high opinion I had formed of that charming and lovable character makes it incumbent on me to say a word in his defence. . «

The statement challenged is:Was Mr. de Valera alone responsible for the paragraph in , the second last letter to Mr. Lloyd George (September, 1921) saying that

# the Irish deputies going to the London Conference were representing "an independent and sovereign State" ? ■ When that'letter appeared in the Irish and British .. press, the general opinion formed in Ireland was that the extreme' members of the Irish Cabinet forced this against the will of the saner party, of whom Mr. de Valera was considered the leader. ■; ' v . :.*•■ : . \V;;,\ '.■'• .-'•• ~ • That : letter almost wrecked the hopes of a Conference. Members of the British Cabinet were called to Scotland to consult with the Prime 'Minister. Then Mr. de Valera's ' final letter was sent, explaining away the words, "independent and sovereign." "'' * .*'.;.. • -* ; s - : .'\

•We, in Ireland, who were not in the secrets, regretted the insertion of .' that clause, because it meant a climb down and a humiliation before the Conference was possible.

A fortnight after those letters had appeared I was' a passenger' on the Celtic, and had as a table companion and a particular friend the late Harry Boland, Naturally, I was anxious to ascertain ' who was responsible for the clause that would have proved fatal unless it were withdrawn. ' ■ . ' •• • „ .

De Valera Alone Responsible.

Harry Poland gave me the minutest details of the incident how every member of the Cabinet opposed the insertion of those words, and that Mr. de Valera was entirely responsible for the clause. He, then related to me the interview with Mr. Lloyd George when he delivered that letter in, Scotland, and told me that the Prime Minister said, if Ireland was a sovereign and independent nation why did she want a conference with England at all ? Then Harry Boland returned to Ireland to report the position ; and the final letter, explaining away that clause, was sent, and preparations were made for the Conference.

• In his letter to the Irish Independent Mr. do Valera denies that he was alone in claiming the recognition of a Republic for Ireland before the Conference took place, and he quotes as evidence what took place at a meeting of the Cabinet on October 25, when Harry Boland and myself were in America !

But the circumstances under which I received the information from Harry Boland leave no doubt in my mind that his version was true. And nothing that I have seen from Mr. de Valera has altered my opinion on the subject.

Unchallenged Points.

‘ln the interview given to the Tribune, and repeated in the Irish Independent, I made other statements, on the authority of Harry Boland, which Mr. de Valera does not touch ; arid, as those statements help to confirm the one which he disputes, I must briefly outline them.

The question in dispute is:Were the plenipotentiaries empowered to accept something' less than a Republic at the London Conference ? ; 1 . v - '

1. Harry Boland’s assurance to me was in the affirmative, And this view was expressed on different occasions and under different circumstances. He. himself was sent to America to represent Mr. de Valera, and to 'educate the Irish-American .opinion on the point. At that time, it will be remembered, there was an extreme section in America who were opposed to the London Conference that is, opposed to the Irish representatives going there. The opinions of those “friends of Irish freedom” was that the Republican flag should float in Ireland, and that England should be ignored. VV 4

The mission of Harry Boland, as he repeated again and again to me, was to combat that extreme view: to assure' the American people that the five representatives sent to London would wring from England the last ounce and that what they accepted the Irish people would welcome; and the millions of Irish outside Ireland should be .- satisfied with > the decision of the Irish people: . Acting on the advice of Harry Boland, ’ I preached that doctrine both to press interviewers, and at a great Irish meeting in San Francisco on Monday, November 7, of last year. , • ’ . 'V “■ . '

What Arthur Griffith Said.

2. That the Irish representatives t were empowered to accept less than a Republic is evident from a. statement made by the late Arthur 'Griffith in his Dundalk speech. On that occasion he said ; —Before the plenipotentiaries went to London their now opponents had given up the idea of asking for a/ Republic. Before he left for England he had said he could not bring back a Republic, and their opponents agreed. x ■' V '‘ s

_ Inconsistency. Why did not Mr. do Valera question this statement, as he did the statement made to me by Harry Boland? 3. When I asked Harry Boland, why did not Mr. de Valera go;to the London Conference?, the reply was that, as President of the Republic, he could not accept anything less, arid he knew that would not be granted. But, - whatever the representatives accepted would .be put to the Irish people, and if they : endorsed the action of the Irish members of the Conference the Republic ceased to exist, , and the : Free State; came info ■ being. ; During that. chat

Harry Boland and myself contrasted the wisdom',of Mr; de Valera in asking the Irish people to decide their own fate with'the folly of President Wilson at the Paris Conference committing the - American people to what they refused to accept. | -7 7; A

But did Mr. de Valera act consistently by consulting the Irish people and abiding by their verdict When the Treaty was placed before the Dali, he refused to accept it; and he was voted out of position by a majority .of the members of the -Irish Parliament.’ He then* in place of going direct to the people, urged a postponement of that final court of appeal. In the meantime, his agents were rendering public meetings in the country impossible. Yet, when the people were allowed a voice r they - returned an overwhelming majority in favor of the Free State.

Did Mr. de Valera even then abide by the will of the people? .Far from that sane course of policy. He establishes a military t dictatorship, drenches Ireland with Irish blood, and creates a reign of terror to which the terrorism of the “Black-and-Tans” was mercy itself.