Volume 3 1926~1932


Doc No.
Date
Subject

No. 176 NAI DFA 27/11

Extracts from a letter from Thomas J. Kiernan to Joseph P. Walshe (Dublin)
(Secret) (Copy)

London, 30 January 1929

Dear Walshe,

I did not quite appreciate Batterbee's points until you used the phrase 'simultaneous ratification'. I quite understand what the Dominions Office are after. As I told you, I have seen none of the correspondence and Batterbee read me only part of your letter of yesterday. Pacaud1 tells me that the cable which, according to Batterbee, reached the Dominions Office from Ottawa this morning has not yet reached the High Commissioner in copy. I was not aware, either, that the present United States administration regarded ratification before their departure merely as a matter of preference.

[matter omitted]

It is clear that unless the papers are sent on Wednesday, 20th February, they could not reach the White House before the present United States administration leaves office.

Batterbee has spoken to me again and I understand from him that he has, since he spoke to me this morning, spoken to Mr. Amery and that Mr. Amery is seeing Sir Austen Chamberlain to discuss the matter. Batterbee gave me a note of the Canadian private telegram which has been received:-

  'Doctor Skelton suggests privately that preparation of the Kellogg ratification on behalf of Canada might be proceeded with in anticipation of telegraphic notification by Canadian Government.'

Mr. Amery proposes replying that the same suggestion had occurred to him and that it had been privately put to the Irish Free State and that the Irish Free State saw constitutional difficulties; but on the other hand if ratification is to be in during the lifetime of the present administration Mr. Amery cannot see how it is possible to avoid some advance action of this kind.

Canada is not anxious to be last with its ratification and Batterbee says that all the Dominions Office wants is to help Canada and to help the Irish Free State and in view of the time difficulty this suggestion of an advance preparation is suggested.

He read me an extract from a despatch from the British Ambassador at Washington2 stating that Mr. Kellogg had called before him the representatives of all the signatories of the Pact and had expressed an urgent hope that their Governments would ratify the Pact before he left office, so that he could hand over the ratified Pact to the new administration; and that he was telegraphing to the American Ambassador in London instructing him to prevail with Sir Austen Chamberlain to have the ratification of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain completed before March 4th. The American Ambassador in London had seen Sir Austen Chamberlain and spoken to him to the same effect.

Batterbee says that Mr. Amery cannot write to our Minister making a suggestion for action which may be regarded as unconstitutional, and that Mr. Amery instructed Batterbee to speak to me on the subject and to say that he personally believes it would help if the High Commissioner were to hasten his return to London by a few days so that they could talk the matter over. I explained to Batterbee on the lines of our conversation this morning.

You will have seen in Hansard (and in yesterday's 'Times') the answer given by Sir Austen Chamberlain in the House of Commons to a question by Lieut. Commander Kenworthy on the subject of British ratification. Batterbee puts it (saying of course that it is not for him to mention it) that it would not be unusual for our Government to ratify the Pact and to tell the Dáil and Seanad that it had done so.

I do not know what our Minister wrote in his letter of Friday to which you referred, or whether it called for a reply; but in this matter the Dominions Office are perfectly frank in saying that the reason for the semi-official correspondence and for the talks with me is that the Secretary of State does not want to put in writing what he wants to suggest.

After reading this long note I have thought it better to telephone the main points, and I think perhaps if you would give me a note by tomorrow of an answer to give to Sir Harry Batterbee it would be well, because I do not think Mr. Amery will reply till I turn up a definite answer. I might e.g. say that there are reasons in the mind of the Executive Council why in an important matter of this kind action should not be taken in advance of the meeting of the Oireachtas; or perhaps the Executive Council may take another course.

Yours sincerely,
[signed] T.J. Kiernan

1 Lucien T. Pacaud, Secretary at the Canadian High Commission, London.

2 Sir Esme Howard.