It was applied for last Monday week. Now, it may be said, and quite pertinently, that the law and practice and constitutional usage of Canada in respect to the relations between the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann and the Crown are to be applied. I take it that in the matter of political treaties the Ministry has paid deference to what it may urge is the practice and constitutional usage of Canada. We were all made aware in recent years of the fact that constitutional usage cannot be defined very accurately as something that is fixed; it is quite variable and grows and develops. In the matter of treaties I submit that constitutional usage and practice, as defined by Mr. McKenzie King, in the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada last week, is eloquent, and of great importance. The subject in question was a treaty which had been signed at Lausanne in reference to Turkey, and I propose to read an extract which purports to be from the Hansard Report of the Canadian House of Commons. The extract is as follows:—"We were asked shortly before the present Session of Parliament whether the Government would signify its concurrence with the ratification of the Treaty and Conventions in question. We take the position that, not having been invited to the Lausanne Conference, and not having been represented there, and not having, for the reason I have mentioned, signed the Treaty, the Treaty does not impose any obligations on Canada, and the parts of the Empire on which it does impose obligations are the only parts that should be expected to sign and ratify it. As we do not regard the Treaty as imposing obligations on Canada, we do not feel it necessary to submit the Treaty to Parliament for its approval, or in its name to signify concurrence with its ratification.
"In saying this we made it quite clear again that with respect to the course pursued by the Lausanne Conference we had no exception to take to the procedure followed. However, we pointed out it must be apparent, quite apart from any action or representations on the part of the Government of Canada, that a different procedure had been followed at Lausanne from that followed at Versailles and Washington, namely, direct representation and participation by duly authorised plenipotentiaries, formal signing by Canadian representatives approved by Parliament and the assent of His Majesty on behalf of Canada."
Now, I want to know whether in the negotiations of any of those treaties, and particularly of the treaty which has been the subject of discussion, Saorstát Eireann made any appointments or gave any authorisation to any plenipotentiary to conduct negotiations; whether they were specifically informed that Saorstát interests had been or were affected; and whether they were informed day by day by telegram of the course of the discussion. Were they also informed in regard to the discussions and negotiations in respect to the Lausanne Treaty, or is it acknowledged by all the other nations comprising the community of nations known as the British Empire—including Great Britain—that Saorstát Eireann is not affected and has no obligation under the Lausanne Treaty? In the course of the discussion in the British House of Commons last week the Prime Minister said: "During negotiations telegrams were sent every day to the Dominions and to India." He then went on to say: "The Irish Free State had no difficulty..." There was an interruption there. The sentence was not finished, and we do not know what was in the mind of the British Prime Minister when he said that the Irish Free State had no difficulty. Was he going to say that they had no difficulty in giving their assent to the signature? Has the Executive Council given any assent to the ratification of the Lausanne Treaty? Has it been consulted? Has it considered all the implications and obligations, or has it been consulted and declined to give its consent to the ratification? Has the British Government been informed that as the Irish Free State is not concerned with the defence of the Straits, or other matters arising out of the conventions of that Lausanne Treaty, that "we are not signing and that we are not assenting? We are expressing no opinion, and we declare ourselves unbound by any such Treaty."
We ought to know what the attitude of the Executive Council is in regard to that Treaty and also in regard to any other Treaties which have been made in the name of the United Kingdom, and whether they have formally protested with all the other nations comprising the British Commonwealth of nations, against using this term, "United Kingdom," as binding Saorstát Eireann? If they have not done that, if there has been no formal protest, if there has been no formal renunciation, then we shall be held to be bound by Treaties of the kind that have been entered into, and we shall be held to be in honour pledged to the fulfilment of any undertakings that may have been entered into. I am anxious to know, for the credit of Saorstát Eireann, whether, first, the Executive Council has been duly informed of all these negotiations in these matters, or whether they have made it clear that they are under no obligation in regard to any Treaty which they have not formally signed, and that no Treaty has been signed on behalf of Saorstát Eireann, no trading agreement has been made unless the formal appointment of plenipotentiaries or negotiators has been made by the Government of Saorstát Eireann. It may be said in regard to this Lausanne Treaty that it was a Treaty of Peace, and that the negotiations began at a date before the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann was passed. The first Conference was held, and adjourned after a short time, in November, 1922, but a new Conference began in April after Saorstát Eireann had been formally established. Unless there has been a clear understanding in regard to Saorstát Eireann's position in respect to Treaties, there ought to have been some communications made day by day, and the Dáil should have been informed of what the attitude of the Government has been. Similarly in regard to the Liquor Treaty, I want to know whether formal appointments were made of any plenipotentiary to negotiate on behalf of Saorstát Eireann. I am not satisfied that all the requirements have been fulfilled by the mere discussion and acquiescence of an Imperial Conference or the reporting of the accomplished fact. I read in the summary of the proceedings of that Imperial Conference certain resolutions respecting Treaties drawn up by a Committee of which the Minister for External Affairs of the Irish Free State was a member, and finally agreed upon by the Conference, which contains a paragraph as follows:—
"Before negotiations are opened with the intention of concluding a Treaty, steps should be taken to ensure whether any of the other Governments of the Empire likely to be interested are informed, or that if any such Government considers its interests will be affected it may have an opportunity of expressing its views, or when its interests are intimately involved, of participating in the negotiations."
Was this Liquor Treaty one which the Government of Saorstát Eireann considered intimately involved the interests of the Saorstát? Presumably that is their view now, inasmuch as they bring forward for approval these Articles of Agreement. If that were the case, then it was essentially for the fulfilment of this resolution of general agreement that the Saorstát should have been participating in the negotiations. May we be informed whether as a matter of fact, the Saorstát did participate in the negotiations, and were the participants appointed by the Saorstát?
I do not want to be taken as opposing or criticising adversely the proposed Liquor Treaty. Time will come for discussion upon that when the matter is formally before us. I believe, as a matter of fact, that it is very desirable that we should make clear to the United States of America that an agreement, having for its object the prohibition of irregular traffic in intoxicating liquor into the United States, should be arrived at between this country and the United States. I further believe that we ought to intimate to the United States Government that we rather favour the extension of the limit of territorial waters: that we are not satisfied that the Article which speaks of a three-mile limit is satisfactory to all concerned— that the matter will be discussed at a later stage. I am not making this point about the negotiation of the Treaty in any spirit hostile to the Liquor Treaty. I want to make sure that the Government of Saorstát Eireann did participate in the negotiations or that if they did not that they were kept informed day by day of the course of the negotiations, and that they have disagreed formally with the terms of the Preamble and the assumption that the United Kingdom is a State entity of which Saorstát Eireann forms a part.
Another point that I want to draw information upon is whether any treaties, in which the Saorstát is involved, have been agreed to by the Government since the passing of the Constitution. If there have been any such agreements, either Treaties or Trade Conventions or agreements, what are they and why have they not been submitted to the Dáil, and whether it is the view of the Executive Council that the Dáil is not concerned except to agree and bear the cost, if any cost is ever involved? I take the view—it is coming to be the settled practice, I think, in Great Britain—that all treaties, and not only formal treaties, but all agreements, commitments and undertakings which may involve international obligation of a serious character, even though no signed and sealed documents may exist, should be laid before the Oireachtas. I want to know from the Minister for External Affairs, or from the President, whether that also is his view, and whether that is the view of the Executive Council, and if not, what objection they have to laying before the Oireachtas the text of all agreements, commitments, or undertakings which they may have entered into.
I also want to ask for information in regard to the relations of the Saorstát with other States outside of Britain which are members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Has the Government entered upon any direct negotiations with the Government of Canada, South Africa, or Australia? Have we any representative, for instance, in Ottawa? I suggest that it is very important, in view of the Constitutional position, that we should have a representative at Ottawa. I think the Dáil should be informed in regard to such matters as that, and as to what is the view of the Executive Council.
Then going outside this community of nations forming the British Commonwealth, where do we stand with regard to representation in Paris, in Washington, in Moscow, in Berlin, or in any other country? I think it is not too much to ask the Minister to give the Dáil some information so that we shall know where we stand, and so that we shall have some idea of the place that the Free State occupies in the world's affairs. When a Treaty or Articles of Agreement for a Treaty, are put before us it immediately brings us face to face with international obligations, and I do not think that we can view in right perspective even a treaty of the kind that is being placed before us without having an understanding of the general position that Ireland occupies in the world of nations. I think it would not be too much to ask the Minister whether there have been any negotiations of a trade character, let us say, apart from diplomatic, with America, with Canada or Russia. I see, by the way, that the Canadian Government has intimated to the Government of the Union of Soviet Republics that they are prepared to recognise that Government and that Union. It has occurred to me, and I think it is worth pursuing, that Ireland might well derive very great advantages by entering into relations with that Union of Soviet Republics, from a trade point of view. I think it is possible that the Government of Russia would be prepared to enter into understandings and agreements with the Government of the Irish Free State to supply materials of a kind which this country certainly requires, and to supply them on probably better terms than can be got in any other way, and possibly with very considerable political advantages. Russia has an immense quantity of timber. Russia some day, if not yet, will be an exporter of flax, and I am not unhopeful that the Government of Saorstát Eireann would be able to conclude an agreement whereby all flax coming from Russia to Ireland would come through the agency of the Government of Saorstát Eireann. That might have very considerable political consequences, and it is well worth while for the Executive Council to try whether some such arrangement could not be arrived at.
The term that is applied to citizens of the Irish Free State in the British passports is "British subject"; the term that is applied in the Irish passport is "citizens of the Irish Free State." That is in a passport issued in October last.
A good deal of discussion has taken place in regard to the status of citizens. I think I am right in saying that there are no British citizens; they are all British subjects. The term "citizen" does not fit in with the constitutional position of residents in England, and I think it well to draw attention to a statement made by the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa in regard to citizenship, inasmuch as it has some relationship to the question of Irish citizenship and constitutional usage.
"There is no equality," he said, "of British citizenship throughout the Empire. On the contrary there is every imaginable difference. In some parts British subjects have no political rights whatever; in others they have modified rights of one kind or another; in others again they have the fullest political rights.... There is no common equal `British citizenship in the Empire,' and it is quite wrong for a British subject to claim equality of rights in any part of the Empire to which he has migrated or where he happens to be living.... The newer conception of the British Empire as a smaller league of nations, as a partnership of free and equal nations under a common hereditary Sovereign, involves an even further departure from the simple conception of a unitary citizenship.... Each constituent part of the Empire will settle for itself the nature and incidence of its citizenship. The composition and character and rights of its people will be the concern of each free and equal State in the Empire.... The common kingship is the binding link between the parts of the Empire; it is not a source from which private citizens will derive their rights. They will derive their rights simply and solely from the authority of the State in which they live."
That last is a paraphrase from the Constitution, you may say, of Saorstát Eireann, and I have pointed out that in that Constitution and under the Treaty all authority, legislative, political and otherwise, is derived from the people of Ireland; that the Government is in the hands of Parliament, with an executive responsibility thereto; that the Executive authority is vested in the King acting under the advice of the Executive Council, that the King is responsible under the Treaty to Parliament, and I make the assertion that as we assert these rights of equality, other nations within the British Commonwealth will realise that their rights are also equal to ours and that there will be, in fact, a community of free nations, and that it is a Free State, and no Dominion, in which we live. I think that there has been failure on the part of the Executive Government to assert that position. I think that in failing to maintain the fullest possible status which was accepted as something short of what was fought for, but as acceptable in the circumstances, and under the pressure of greater force, we ought to make the best of it as we said we should do, but to be quite certain all the time that while we were making the best of it we were not going short of the best. I think it may be found that they builded better than they knew, and that some at least on one side gave away more than they were aware of but if we fail to maintain that position we are failing doubly because we are failing, and have failed, to give citizens in this country the advantage which they would have had of the material and social kind had there been no political freedom granted or obtained or secured. If we are not going to maintain the fullest political rights, and if it had been said we have given away some of our rights in that matter because we are going to maintain all the advantage appertaining to residence in a big industrial country and a wealthy country, that we are going to improve the pensions instead of reducing them, that we are going to enlarge the provisions regarding workmen's compensation, regarding unemployment insurance and the like, then one could have understood it, but if we are going to give away both political rights and these other social benefits, then we are in a very bad state indeed.
And I would urge upon the Dáil that we are bound to insist upon the Executive Council taking the last particle of value out of the Treaty and asserting in every possible way the freedom from intervention and the full value of the status within that British Commonwealth that was secured. I think one might fairly argue, without over-forcing, that there is a status outside the British Commonwealth for Saorstát Eireann which does not appertain to any Dominion within the British Commonwealth, but I am not pressing that now. I feel, however, that it is due to the Dáil to have a full statement of the position internationally, a full statement of the relations between the Government here, the Government in Britain, the Government in Canada, and the Government in every nation of the British community of States, and I would ask that in future the Dáil should be made aware, frequently and fully, of all negotiations in regard to treaties, and that no treaty should be approved and no agreement entered into unless and until the Dáil has had an opportunity of criticising or rejecting it.
