LORD SALISBURY said he felt it his duty to say at once that the British Government could not entertain a proposal for writing off Article 5. It would be impossible to persuade the Cabinet or the public to accept such a course. The Government were, however, prepared to consider proposals for postponing payment under that Article. He and his colleagues had been much impressed by the feeling in the Free State, however unaccepted that feeling might be in North-East Ireland, that the Roman Catholics in the six Counties were not receiving fair treatment. Whether this was the case or not, the mere fact that such a feeling existed did great harm to the interests of good government. It was essential that people should not only be well treated, but to think that they were well treated. He personally could not see that proposals for the improvement of the position of the Northern Roman Catholics on the one hand and proposals for the modification of Article 5 on the other were in pari materie. He agreed, however, that fair treatment of all members of the community was essential and indeed it was a fundamental consideration of British policy. He and his colleagues had accordingly asked Sir James Craig whether any steps could be taken to improve the position of Catholics in Northern Ireland. They were anxious not only to eliminate injustice, which was not, of course, admitted, but to destroy the feeling that injustice existed.

SIR JAMES CRAIG said that he was most anxious that a belief in justice should become general among the people in Northern Ireland. His difficulty was that many unfounded criticisms had been circulated against his administration before the two Nationalists members had entered the Belfast House of Commons. Since that time many illusions had been dissipated. For example, the fact that at least one-third of the Royal Ulster Constabulary were to be Catholics had now become more generally known. As regards the Judiciary there had, it is true, been a recent difficulty in appointing a Catholic, but so far as the stipendaries were concerned he had recently appointed a Catholic. Monies voted by the Northern Parliament in relief of unemployment were strictly allocated on the basis of population, namely two-thirds for the relief of Protestants and one-third for the relief of Catholics. The questions asked by nationalist members of the Ulster Parliament had done much to destroy old misconceptions. The widows and orphans pension Scheme was being administered with absolute impartiality between Protestants and Catholics and much had been done to break down the old difficulties of the Catholics working in the shipyards. If only those in Northern Ireland were left alone by mischiefmakers they would win through successfully. If any practical suggestion were made to him he would do his best to meet it. For his part he was willing to make a suggestion that the two Governments of Ireland should meet together for joint consideration at an early date. If charges were made against either Government let those who made them substantiate their case before the joint Cabinet meeting.

MR. CHURCHILL said that in his view the proposal for the joint meeting of the two Irish Executives was a matter of enormous importance. The Executive Officers of both parts of Ireland had a vital interest in achieving success. This proposal was, however, only a fraction of the task with which the British and Irish Governments were faced to-day.

MR. COSGRAVE enquired what business could be transacted by a joint meeting of the two Irish Cabinets. He foresaw great difficulties if it were to act by (say) a majority vote.

MR. CHURCHILL agreed that to achieve success mutual agreement was essential. He was anxious to know whether Sir James Craig's suggestion would be valued in the Free State.

MR. COSGRAVE thought that joint meetings would in themselves be excellent, but if they were brought forward at this stage as a contribution to the present discussions they would certainly be regarded as a piece of eye-wash.

LORD SALISBURY said that the essential thing was to restore confidence. The Free State had relied on obtaining from the Boundary Commission a relatively large territorial extension embracing a substantial number of Roman Catholics.It was clear that this anticipation would not now be realised. The present suggestion was therefore that the existing border should be maintained. Under such an arrangement the Free State Ministers would have lost the chance, for which they had hoped, of looking after the interests of the Roman Catholics on the border. Would not good result by the appointment of an official liaison officer, appointed (say) by the Roman Catholics and Nationalists in North-East Ireland? Would they not feel increased confidence if they had their own official representative to put forward their grievances? Such a representative would, he contemplated, be on close terms of confidence with Sir James Craig and would have direct access to the Northern Irish Cabinet. The appointment of such an Officer would form part of the terms of arrangement whereby the Free State definitely abandoned their hopes of assisting the Catholics on the boundary. It would, in fact, be a substitute for their former ambitions.

MR. COSGRAVE thought that it would be a mistake to define a proposal to this end in the form of a definite agreement. It would be better to allow it to be the natural outcome of a growing improvement of mutual understanding.

MR. CHURCHILL said that for his part he was most anxious to see joint action by the two Irish executives. The practical question was, however, to meet the immediate emergency. He suggested that the Free State Government might make its stand on the following points. (i) Article 12 had been abrogated. (ii) As regards Article 5, a Moratorium had been agreed to for x years. (iii) A responsible liaison Officer had been appointed by the Catholics in Northern Ireland to represent them and to defend their interests. (iv) Agreement had been reached for periodical joint consultation between the two Irish Governments. Such a scheme in his view was a general proposition that was worthy of consideration. All were agreed that unity in Ireland was the goal to be aimed at and that the results of partition were bad. A definite declaration on the part of the Irish Governments that they would meet in joint Council from time to time might do good to the cause of unity.

SIR JAMES CRAIG feared that such a proposal might in the present circumstances be a source of embarrassment to Mr. Cosgrave.

MR. O'HIGGINS enquired whether this proposal was put forward in substitution for what he had indicated, namely the restoration of proportional representation in North-East Ireland? That system had been specially devised for the protection of minorities and had been imposed by the British Parliament in the Act of 1920, both on what was now the Free State and on North-East Ireland for the specific purpose of securing adequate representation for minorities. That safeguard had since been abolished by the action of the Northern Parliament.

SIR JAMES CRAIG took the view that the proper place for dealing with the grievances of minorities was the Ulster House of Commons. He personally considered that proportional representation had been a failure in every country that had adopted it. Many foreign countries were now reverting to the British system. In view of the results of the Free State Senate Elections he believed that the Free State Government would themselves have to abolish it.

MR. O'HIGGINS said no objection had been made against proportional representation so far as elections to the Dáil were concerned. Had it not been for it[,] representatives such as Major Bryan Cooper of the minority in the South would never have been elected. A strong protest would be raised if the Free State proposed to abolish this system. In his view the real criticism of the Senate Election lay in the fact that the whole country was merged in a single constituency and that there were 76 candidates for 19 vacancies.

MR. COSGRAVE said that people in Southern Ireland took the view that proportional representation was a security for minorities. It was, in his view, a fair method, but the objection to it was that parties were apt to be so evenly divided that[,] in order to form a Government[,] coalitions were necessary.

MR. CHURCHILL suggested that the questions at issue should be further considered to-morrow when he hoped it would be possible to reach a definite agreement. He accordingly suggested that the present meeting should be resumed at 12 noon. He would himself see Sir James Craig at 11 a.m.

The Conference then adjourned.