66

Treaty have retained the right to have their names placed on the British Register. The Executive Council has announced that it does not intend to renew this legislation, its argument being that national dignity" requires that the medical profession should be governed from Dublin instead of from London. There is practically no popular support for the Government policy, which, it is recognised, would mean that the majority of Free State students would graduate either in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, thus inflicting grave damage on the historic Dublin medical schools, and lowering the status of the profession in the country. After a vigorous campaign on platforms and in the Press, and a series of stormy debates in the Dail, the Government agreed to re-open negotiations with the doctors in the hope of arriving at an agreed settlement. These discussions were still proceeding at the end of the year.

The Senate elections, which took place in September, were memorable less as a political event than as an experiment in the application of the proportional representation system. Candidates for the nineteen vacancies were nominated by the Dail and Senate, which naturally excluded Republicans, who decline to recognise the existence of the Oireachtas, and the ballot-paper was a formidable broadsheet containing seventy-six names. If there were fewer spoiled votes than was expected, more than half the 1,345,000 electors failed to mark papers, and the popular view is that the system is altogether too cumbrous and expensive. Eight of the retiring members were re-elected.

The Boundary Commission, which held its first meeting in Ireland towards the end of 1924, continued the work of collecting evidence in the border counties throughout the greater part of 1925. Except in the districts likely to be affected by its findings, the proceedings aroused little public interest. That the mere lapse of time had done much to modify bitterness was shown by the statement of President Cosgrave that the Free State did not desire Northern Ireland to unite with it before its people desired to do so. Early in November the Morning Post published a forecast of the award of the Commission, according to which not only had the tribunal decided against the Free State claim to acquire large areas in Tyrone, Fermanagh, Armagh, and 'Derry, but had fixed the new boundary line to include a strip of Donegal in the six counties. This announcement provoked a storm, and in a Dail debate President Cosgrave, while disclaiming any knowledge of the findings of the Commission, declared that by the terms of the Treaty the Commission was excluded from interfering with Free State territory. Professor Eoin MacNeill, the Free State delegate, announced on November 19 his resignation from the Commission on the ground that the other members of the tribunal, Mr. Justice Feetham and Mr. J. R. Fisher, were seeking to interpret their terms of reference in a manner contrary

to the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Treaty. His protest was met by a statement from the other Commissioners that Professor MacNeill had agreed to accept what became known as the Feetham-Fisher line, and a couple of days later Dr. MacNeill resigned his office as Free State Minister for Education.

Negotiations were opened between the British and Free State Governments, and, after certain preliminaries had been arranged, Sir James Craig also crossed to London. On December 3 it was announced that a Tripartite Pact had been concluded, of which the main provisions were that the boundary of Northern Ireland, as defined by the Act of 1920, should remain unchanged, that the Free State, in consideration of the payment of £5,000,000 to cover damages caused in the Anglo-Irish struggle, should be relieved of its obligations under Article V. of the Treaty in relation to war debt.

A Bill to ratify the agreement was introduced in the Dail, and after four days' debate was passed on December 10 by 71 votes to 20. Opposition to the measure was led by the Labour Party, backed by a few members of Cumann na n Gaedheal; but it was clear from the first that the country was strongly in favour of acceptance, especially as the critics failed to put forward any practical alternative. Mr. de Valera and the Republican deputies, who refused to take the oath of allegiance, held a conference on December 7 in the Shelbourne Hotel with critics of the agreement in the Dail, but it was evidently found impossible to devise a common plan of action. In the long run Republicans contented themselves with repudiating the agreement at a public meeting, while the Labour members, after fighting the Bill through all its stages, formally declared that once it became law no action would be taken by them to hamper good relations between the Free State and the Northern Governments. Thus has ended, more happily than even optimists believed possible, a controversy that throughout the four years of its existence had done more than anything else to prevent political progress in the Free State by keeping alive old enmities and intensifying the divisions between North and South.

CHAPTER III.

FRANCE AND ITALY.

FRANCE.

FOR France 1925 was a year of political crises and financial confusion. There are many people who believe that it was redeemed by the conclusion of the Locarno Pact, by which France entered into better relations with Germany; but certainly in every other respect the year was the most depressing since the

war.

When it opened M. Herriot was still in power, although it was obvious that he was losing his grip upon the curious team which he had undertaken to manage. His majority depended upon the alliance of Socialists and Radicals. The alliance had been formed for the elections of May 11, 1924, and afterwards the Cartel des Gauches might have been expected to break up. Instead, the Cartel was converted into a Parliamentary Blọc, and M. Herriot governed with the support of the two main parties of the Left, together with the Republican Socialists, led by M. Painlevé, and a more central group which called itself the Gauche Radicale. The union had been maintained by means of a common anti-Clerical policy.

It should be noted that the Socialists at no time took their share of responsibility: there were no Socialist Ministers in the Government. M. Herriot, the chief of the Radicals, counted, not upon Socialist collaboration, but upon Socialist support. Now, it became apparent early in the new year that the campaign against the Clericals was ill-advised. It had produced several unpleasant effects. In the first place, it strengthened the incipient revolt of Alsace-Lorraine, where the suggestion that the restored provinces were to be submitted to the Republican laws was badly received. Alsace preferred to stick to its old customs. The schools are Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish they are not laicised. The proposed introduction of secular education such as prevails in the rest of France was regarded as a menace. Moreover, since the Concordat still exists for Alsace-Lorraine, AlsaceLorraine must be represented at the Vatican. The French Government could not withdraw its Ambassador at the Vatican without replacing him by a special representative for AlsaceLorraine unless, indeed, it chose to denounce the Concordat.

In France generally there was considerable excitement. The Catholics joined forces with the Opposition. There were meetings of protest and the liveliest agitation. The consequence was that there were serious reactions in the financial field. The franc began to fall. Money was sent out of the country. The fiscal difficulties which were to continue throughout the year already made themselves felt. It was obviously desirable to drop the religious controversy, and the outcome of it all was that the French Ambassador was allowed to remain at the Vatican; Alsace-Lorraine was left undisturbed; and for the first time a Radical attack against the Church was utterly routed because the fight was inopportune and was producing unexpected results in various domains. So complete was the Radical retreat that at the end of the year preparations were made for a remarkable and significant ceremony at the Elysée where the Papal Nuncio, Mgr. Ceretti, was in the presence of the President of the Republic and of the Prime Minister, given the barrette of the Cardinalate (December 20). Thus ended the principal campaign in which

the Radicals and Socialists joined hands-in a rout and a

reverse.

But to hold the Parliamentary alliance together, a new programme had to be found. One began to hear the clamour for a capital levy. It was in March that the first Ministerial crisis arose. In the first place there was published a letter from the Cardinals and Bishops of France which constituted a grave menace of resistance, and in Alsace there was actually a strike of school children. At Paris there were violent manifestations on a subject which did not appear to be of much importance, but which, nevertheless, helped to undermine the prestige of the Herriot Government. M. François Albert, the Education Minister, who had chiefly inspired the anti-Clerical movement, appointed in the Faculty of Law a professor who was acting as Chef de Cabinet. It was alleged that the appointment was purely political. The Faculty itself had recommended a provincial colleague who was regarded as professionally better qualified. The law students refused to hear the new professor, and the Doyen of the Faculty clearly expressed his sympathies with them. There were collisions with the police. The Senate plainly deprecated the whole transaction, and eventually the nomination was cancelled the Doyen who had been suspended was reinstated and some discredit fell upon the Government.

It was while this dispute was at its height that a strange revelation was made. The Government had declared that in no circumstances would it consent to inflation. The legal limit of emission of bank notes had been fixed at 41 milliard francs, while the advances of the Banque de France to the State were fixed at 22 milliard francs. Certainly there was something arbitrary about these figures. If commercial needs called for a higher issue it would have been possible, with proper precautions, to have raised the limit. But the Government had adopted the rigorous doctrine that inflation in any conditions was not to be thought of, and had itself denounced the operation as fatal. Yet while it was denouncing it was shown that for three months it had been resorting secretly to inflation. In January, February, and March, the Bank had progressively emitted an excess number of bank notes amounting to several milliards. It was not so much the fact in itself as its dissimulation which caused a shock of surprise, for to cover up the unauthorised borrowings the weekly returns of the Banque de France had been less straightforward than was desirable in the interests of French credit.

The expedient to which M. Clémentel, who was Finance Minister, and M. Herriot, who was Prime Minister, had resorted was of a questionable character. Precisely at the moment when other grievances had accumulated against the Government its financial administration was exposed. M. Clémentel resigned (April 2), but M. Herriot, assuming the responsibility, faced the

Senate and was defeated (April 10). Thus the Cabinet fell, but not before M. Anatole de Monzie, who had temporarily replaced M. Clémentel at the Finance Ministry, had endeavoured, while asking for the inflation to be regularised retrospectively, to introduce a "counterpart." The counterpart, like many other schemes put forward during the year, was swept away, and the net result of the operation was that France had an authorised inflation of 4 milliard francs.

The fall of the Herriot Ministry on the fiscal terrain completely demolished the policy of the Bloc des Gauches, which had been inaugurated in May of the preceding year. When M. Painlevé was called upon to form a Ministry (April 17), he proclaimed that in future a policy of appeasement was to be followed. The situation was seen to be serious, and it was generally considered necessary to endeavour to bring about a reconciliation of Frenchmen and to call a truce around the franc. Even the Opposition was disarmed, and was prepared to give a judicious support to M. Painlevé. On the other hand, the Bloc des Gauches was dislocated. It had looked upon M. Herriot as its only possible leader. The Socialists and a large section of the Radicals did not take up a kindly attitude towards the newcomer. M. Painlevé had been President of the Chamber, and when he stepped down into the arena his place in the Presidential fauteuil was taken by M. Herriot.

The leader of the Republican Socialists, in forming his Cabinet, called upon M. Briand and M. Caillaux to assist him. M. Briand, who has, since his early days, occupied a somewhat central position, was frankly disliked by the Socialists. They had prevented him from forming a Cabinet of his own. They remembered that he had once been a Socialist, but when he became a Minister had rigorously suppressed a strike. They remembered that for a year he was Prime Minister in the Bloc National Parliament, and during his Ministry the reparation demands of Germany had been fixed at 132 milliard gold marks; Upper Silesia had been partitioned between Germany and Poland; and the occupation of the Ruhr had been begun with the installation of the French in Duisburg, Ruhrort, and Dusseldorf. On the other hand, M. Briand had, at the end of his period of office, tried to effect a rapprochement. It was at Cannes, at the beginning of 1922, that he had consented to a compromise in respect of German payments, and that he had almost completed a pact with England. He had fallen because M. Millerand, who was then President of the Republic, and M. Poincaré, who was writing articles in the journals, had protested against his concessions. Therefore, he had "fallen to the Left," and the two ideas which he had bequeathed were an arrangement with Germany and the renewal of an Entente with England.

By contrast with the subsequent policy of M. Poincaré, who