I move the adjournment of the Dáil until to-morrow.
DEBATE ON THE ADJOURNMENT. —THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
Speaking on the Imperial Conference, I speak on the assumption that, as a summary of proceedings has been circulated, Deputies have either read it or have it before them. The Imperial Conference, which has just ended its labours in London, consisted of representatives from all the States of the Commonwealth, together with representatives of India.
The Conference has for some years become triennial; it has no powers delegated to it from any of the peoples or governments in the Commonwealth. It has none of the attributes of a supreme federal council, and it does not claim to have them. It is simply a meeting of the representatives of the independent governments of the Commonwealth for the purpose of conferring together and endeavouring to discover the most effective means of furthering the interests of each member of the group and of the group as a whole. With this end in view, it formulates certain conclusions, the acceptance or rejection of which depends on the will of the governments. These conclusions do not essentially affect the status of the members of the Commonwealth, which is based in its broader aspects on the fundamental and now completely accepted constitutional principle of absolute co-equality. But speaking in particular of the conclusions of the inter-Imperial Relations Committee, they are intended to make clear the implications of co-equality and to prepare the way for the gradual elimination of legal machinery and administrative practices which are not in conformity with that principle.
This Conference has given more time and attention to this question of the elucidation of status than any conference which preceded it, and, I have no doubt, it will be regarded by historians as marking a definite step forward in the development of the individual states of the Commonwealth as distinct political entities in the general society of nations.
Before entering into a detailed explanation of the Inter-Imperial Relations Report, it is well to review for a moment our own position in the world as a nation. These conclusions from the very nature of the bonds which bind civilised nations together, must affect to a greater or less degree not only our own State and all the States of the Commonwealth, but the whole body of states constituting civilised society, and that is the perspective in which we should examine our individual position. Our country, considered as a unit, is amongst the smallest in Europe, but it has made a greater racial contribution to the building up of the great new countries of the world than any of our neighbours, with the exception of Great Britain. That factor gives to our country, considered by itself, a degree of influence which in modern international life should be a powerful force for increased prestige and prosperity if we have the vision and the determination to make use of it. But apart from this we must remember that modern conditions of international life make it incumbent on every country to enter into treaties and agreements with its neighbours, to make certain concessions to them, to waive certain rights, in the interests of its commercial or political well-being, or even existence. The mutual waiving of rights is guided by —and is a recognition of—community of interest. The League of Nations, as its machinery and institutions develop, may obtain such tangible recognition of the community of interest and interdependence of all countries as will give sufficient guarantees for the elimination of war, the political and commercial integrity of its members, and make any other group arrangement unnecessary. But it would be foolish to imagine that the system of group association, whether engendered by geographical propinquity or by other ties, can cease to operate within any period susceptible of being estimated, even approximately, by our generation. No political regime in this country could ignore those agencies and remain isolated without substantial injury to this country. Adherence to a group involves acceptance of obligations arising from the community of interests or the historical factors which brought about its formation.
Our State is a member of the British Commonwealth. But if it were not so declared to be by the Treaty of 1921, I think it is pretty certain that we should adhere to some group. And I am satisfied that geographical and other conditions, the natural flow of our commerce and many other agencies at present existing, would lead us to association with our nearest neighbour. Great Britain, and with the Commonwealth of which she is a member.
I would ask Deputies to bear in mind that the report before them is not that of a conference bringing the British Commonwealth group into existence, but a report such as might be agreed to by the representatives of the various Governments already forming that group, for the elucidation and possible improvement of their system of cooperative working.
In my statement made here on June 3rd I referred to existing anomalies which I hoped would be to some extent remedied by the deliberations of the Imperial Conference. They were anomalies because there was a recognised principle with which they were incompatible. That principle is set out on page 13 of the Report before you, viz.: They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The King is at once the symbol of that association and of that autonomy. The functions incident to kingship constitute the sole operative constitutional element in the maintenance of the association. The kingly function is to reign, not to govern. He is a constitutional monarch. As such he acts solely upon the advice of the Government of each individual State in the affairs of that State.
But as I stated on June 3rd, the existing position being the result of growth, that principle was not yet fully operative. It has been one of the functions of my Department to note these anomalies as they come before us in practice.
Naturally we recognise that the common kingship created a relationship making for and necessitating harmony and co-operation between the Governments of the various States of the Commonwealth, a harmony and co-operation already eminently desirable because of the close economic and other interests actually existing between them.
These mutual interests necessitate certain mutual arrangements. The attitude of the Government is, and will remain, that those mutual arrangements should be dictated by that mutual interest and by that only. Forms and practices still existing merely as remnants from a time when the Government in Great Britain retained authority and power over the Dominions were not calculated to assist harmony and co-operation, but might at some future time be the cause of misunderstanding and friction and be actually dangerous to the necessary co-operation. They also could undoubtedly tend to mislead people at home and abroad. They should, therefore, be eliminated, not necessarily immediately or in haste, but certainly without needless delay.
If I may refer again to the statement made by me on Estimates here on June 2nd-3rd last, Deputies may remember that I referred to anomalies under three headings. I said: "Under one heading is the office of the Governor-General. The office originally was that of a representative of the Colonial Office, as it was then. Although the Governor-General's office has evolved entirely from that, there are still existing certain anomalies reminiscent of it. I think these anomalies should be removed. Another thing is that although the equality of status is recognised, there has been, so far as I know, practically no exercise of extra-territorial powers. I think extra-territorial powers should be possessed and exercised, not merely by one member of the Commonwealth, but by all co-equal members of the Commonwealth. The third general heading is that it should be made clear, beyond any doubt, not only in principle but in every detail of implementation, that in so far as the work of the Government of any individual Dominion is concerned no one should have any say in regard to, or interfere with, or veto the work of that Dominion, except the Government of that Dominion."
We prepared memoranda on the various matters under those headings that had come to our notice.
Governor-General.—In this matter I would refer Deputies to page 15 of the Report:
"The formal recognition of the Governor-General, as representing the King, to the complete exclusion of any functions hitherto exercised as representative of the British Government, entails certain adjustments in the system of communication and consultation between the Dominions and Great Britain and the Dominions inter se. Communications now will no longer be between the Governor-General and the British Government but between the Governments direct. But it is felt that a group of States so closely associated should at least have the same facilities for communicating their views to each other as normally exist between States having no particular bond between them. The normal system existing between States is an exchange of representatives. Details of such an arrangement are to be considered."
Extra-Territorial Powers.—I refer Deputies to page 16 of the Report, paragraph C, and to page 17, second and third paragraphs and paragraph marked II. (a) It will be seen that this matter has been referred to a Committee to be set up consisting of experts from the various States of the Commonwealth. It will also be noted that in paragraph II. (a) of Terms of Reference for Experts Committee is recognised the principle that each Dominion Parliament should have power to give extra-territorial operation to its legislation in all cases where such operation is ancillary to provision for the peace, order and good government of the dominion. Associated with this is the question of Merchant Shipping. I refer Deputies to (d) p. 17 and 18.
Merchant Shipping.—Sections 735 and 736 of the British Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, enact that no change in the provisions of the Act concerning emigrant ships and coastal trade can be made by dominion legislation unless such legislation is accompanied in the case of coastal trade by a suspension clause, and in both matters that such legislation can only receive operative effect on the publication in the dominion of an order of the British Privy Council issued for that specific purpose. It will be seen that a Special Committee is also to be set up to consider this matter with a view to adapting legal machinery to constitutional principle.
Sole Right of a Dominion Government in the Affairs of that Dominion.— Firstly I refer to page 16 of the Report, paragraph (a). The practice there referred to of sending Acts to London and receiving the reply that "His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his powers of disallowance" did not exist as far as this State is concerned. Nevertheless, the existence of such a practice was dangerous and misleading. Although it had no relation to fact, it would undoubtedly convey the impression that the British Government retained the power to advise disallowance of all Acts passed by other Governments in the Commonwealth. Paragraph (b) on the same page raises the matter of reservation of Dominion legislation, with its implication that the British Government advises on that legislation. The statement at the bottom of page 16 that "it is recognised that it is the right of the Government of each Dominion to advise the Crown in all matters relating to its own affairs. Consequently, it would not be in accordance with constitutional practice for advice to be tendered to His Majesty by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain in any matter appertaining to the affairs of a Dominion against the view of the Government of that Dominion," puts on record the now incontestable fact that the veto on Acts by, and the reservation of Bills for the consideration of, any Minister outside this State no longer exists even in form or theory.
The qualifying clause: "Apart from provisions embodied in Constitutions or in specific statutes" has no application to the Saorstát. That qualification was made necessary by special cases: (1) arising from the desire of the people of a Dominion so expressed in a Constitution, as, for instance, in the case of a Federal Dominion whose people have chosen the method of reservation as a protection of the State Parliaments against the Federal Parliament: and (2) in the case of contractual engagements such as arise under the terms of the Colonial Stocks Act, 1900, by which a Dominion, as a guarantee to British lenders that their contractual rights will not be taken from them by Dominion legislation, gives to the British Government power to reserve legislation contrary to those contractual rights. The Committee of Experts to be set up, referred to on page 17, is to report upon such special cases and to make recommendations upon them. But, as I stated a while ago, none of these cases exist with regard to the Free State.
King's Title.—In the King's title the anomaly of the description of this State as part of a political unit which came to an end with the Treaty is to disappear. Measures to effect that change will be taken at an early date.
Appeals to the Privy Council.—In the past appeals to the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council were founded on the right to hear such appeals vested in the Privy Council by British statutes nearly a hundred years old. In the course of time this right has been attenuated by changes in the Acts and Constitutions of the Dominions until by constitutional evolution the right to hear appeals has been substituted by the right to appeal, vested in the various parts of the Commonwealth if they wish to make use of it. In other words, the statutory right of the British Privy Council to hear appeals from the Dominions has become the constitutional right of the Dominions, depending for its exercise on the will of the particular Dominion concerned. It was urged at the Conference that where changes in the existing system might raise issues in which other parts of the Commonwealth other than the one primarily affected were concerned, changes should be carried out only after consultation and discussion.
It will be seen that the Irish delegation, while not pressing for the immediate abolition of the practice of receiving appeals, maintained its right to bring up the matter again at the next Imperial Conference.
Another and very important aspect of the sole right of the Government of a Dominion in the affairs of that Dominion is its exercise in relation to foreign affairs in general. The infringement of that fundamental right has been more real in this sphere than in that of internal affairs. This was natural for a number of reasons:—
(1) The control by Dominions of their external affairs is of recent growth;
(2) The machinery used is so frequently the British Foreign Office and the British Diplomatic Agents;
(3) The lack of general interest in this sphere of national life, arising from the detached attitude of the ordinary citizen until such time as his own or his nation's life or welfare are threatened.
I refer Deputies to page 21 in the section dealing with Procedure in relation to Treaties, paragraphs headed "Negotiations."
It may be stated, roughly, that the foreign affairs of every nation are of interest to every other nation. The proposals for consultation between the Governments of the Commonwealth reiterated from the Report of the Imperial Conference, 1923, are clearly desirable between States so much associated. The Treaty arrangements of the one may easily affect another, at least in passive obligations. It will be seen that no State can involve another in active obligations without their definite assent.
The general attitude of the Saorstát Government is that we should not be committed even to passive obligations except by your own definite act. It will be seen, therefore, that the second part of the last paragraph of this section applies to the Free State and not the first.
In the beginning of the preamble to the Treaty of Versailles the description "British Empire" is used alone when describing the parties between whom the Treaty is being made. The Dominions are enumerated only at the end of the preamble, in which the list of the plenipotentiaries is set out. The powers issued to the British pleniptotentiaries were unlimited, and accordingly from the international point of view, could be regarded as covering the Dominions as well as Great Britain; the signature of the Dominions might be held to do nothing more than interpret or explain the scope of the British signature. To that extent it can be argued that the Dominions did not sign the Treaty of Versailles on a footing of equality with the other signatory States. Their signature was in a sense superfluous, and owing to the unlimited scope of the powers issued to the British plenipotentiaries they would have been deemed to be included without separate signature. This grave defect, raising serious doubts as to the independent status of the Dominions, persisted in varying forms in all League Conventions. The British Empire is, indeed, followed in these conventions at the beginning of the preamble by a list of the States of the Commonwealth taking part, but Great Britain is not set out separately. The British Empire delegate is the delegate appointed on the advice of the British Government, and his credentials give him unlimited powers. It, therefore, can also be argued with regard to these Conventions that the unlimited full power of the British plenipotentiary covers all the Dominion Governments, and their signature becomes merely an indication of their acceptance of a situation imposed on them by the British signatory. This view was considerably strengthened by the custom of indenting the names of the Dominions in the list of signatories under the signature of the British Empire plenipotentiaries.
The question of our status in League international treaties and conventions had been giving the Saorstát Government considerable anxiety, and they looked to the Imperial Conference as the most appropriate occasion for putting an end to the doubts and anomalies which were generally harmful to our prestige and particularly capable of injuring us in the League of Nations. I think that a careful reading of Section V. of the Report will show that these difficulties have been very largely eliminated. The covering term, "British Empire," and the unlimited powers of the British plenipotentiaries disappear. Each State of the Commonwealth will now be represented exclusively by its own plenipotentiary appointed on its sole advice. The special relationship existing between the separate units of the Commonwealth will be symbolised by replacing the expression "British Empire" in the preamble, with its implications of federalism and one dominating government, by the King's title, to indicate the actual link between the States of the Commonwealth. Instead of one high contracting party primarily acting on behalf of the British Government, whose advice covered all the Dominions, we shall have a several high contracting party acting in a distinct capacity on behalf of each State of which he is King. This old system whereby the British signature was made in the name of the British Empire by a plenipotentiary whose powers, being unlimited, could be held to cover also the Dominions whose names were indented beneath, could only imply a federal empire with one supreme government, and was contrary to fact.
The new system gives exact expression to existing realities. There is a special bond between the States of the Commonwealth, consisting, not in a supreme governmental authority, but in a common King. The exact nature of the relationship outside the common bond of the King is undefined, but it is naturally felt that League treaties and conventions cannot be taken as applying completely—as to all their articles —between them, as if there was no special relationship whatever. They accord to each other mutual privileges and mutual rights which might easily be disturbed if there was not a general understanding that these treaties and conventions apply amongst themselves only when special agreements are made between them for that purpose. No inter se clause will in future be inserted in League documents. Nothing on the face of any international instrument will leave room for any other interpretation of their special relationship than that they are under the same King acting in a several capacity. Henceforth also Great Britain will be set out in these international instruments on an equal footing with the other Commonwealth States, and the powers of her plenipotentiaries will be limited territorially in like manner with the powers of the other members of the group. That fundamental change in the interpretation and elucidation of status represents a considerable advance, and I wish to use this opportunity to pay a tribute to the moderation and fairness of mind with which the British delegates at the Conference accepted the definite formulation of this and other incidents of the basic principle of co-equality.
Ratification.—The act of ratification is the most important act connected with a Treaty. Unless otherwise specially provided, a Treaty becomes operative only in virtue of its ratification by the heads of the States concerned. In most modern States Parliament's approval is obtained for the act of ratification. References to ratification will be found under (a) and (b) of Section V. Two points are clearly set out:—
(1) That any question as to whether the nature of a Treaty is such that its ratification should be concurred in by all the States of the Commonwealth is a matter for discussion and agreement between the Governments, and
(2) that any Government which prefers not to concur in the ratification of a Treaty unless it has been signed by a plenipotentiary authorised to act on its behalf can advise the issue of full powers to a plenipotentiary so to act.
The act of ratification by the King in respect of the Saorstát can only be valid when he is formally advised to ratify by our Government.
Representation at International Conferences.—The same general principles govern representation at International Conferences. No obligations need be accepted without representation. If obligations are to be undertaken by the Saorstát, the Government will advise the issue of special full powers in respect of the Saorstát to its own or to a common plenipotentiary, according to the importance to this country of the questions at issue. The powers of each State of the Commonwealth, including Great Britain, will be geographically limited. The plenipotentiary of one State can only act for another on the issue of specific full powers for that purpose. When issues of serious importance to the Saorstát are likely to arise at international conferences summoned by a State external to the Commonwealth, I feel that it would generally be desirable for the Saorstát to be represented by a separate delegation. Our Government does not approve of the form of representation employed at the Washington Disarmament Conference of 1921, at which the British Representative held unlimited full powers, with the implication already explained. It can, therefore, only accept the methods of representation set out in the sub-paragraphs I. and III. of paragraph 2 of Section V., namely, representation through a common plenipotentiary and representation through separate delegations.
It may take some years to bring the functions of each State of the Commonwealth into complete harmony with the principle of co-equality. The British Representatives abroad and the British Foreign Office continue to act as the channel of communication with foreign countries for the Dominions until each has its own representatives in all countries with which it may have relations. The direct channel is, of course, already in use between the United States Government and the Saorstát Government. But, as I have pointed out, very important changes are set out in this Report to bring the position in regard to foreign affairs into harmony with the declaration of the beginning of the Report. The nature and extent of the responsibilities in foreign affairs of the individual States of the group, and the precise manner in which that responsibility is to be indicated, has been made clear. No one of them can be committed to active obligations without representation under full powers issued on the advice of its own Government, and even when the obligations are of a passive character, involving, for instance, a modification in the status of citizens of the Dominions in foreign countries, the Dominions concerned are free to appoint a representative at the negotiations if they wish to do so. It should also be clearly stated that the extent to which a particular member of the Commonwealth is interested in and bound by any Treaty can be clearly set out in a statement attached to his signature. No doubt some of the Dominions will continue to regard the assumption of passive obligations in treaties which mainly concern Great Britain as a matter of no importance, but it seems to me that we should take a different view.
Issue of Exequaturs to Foreign Consuls.—Another important aspect of our international status has relation to the issue of exequaturs to foreign consuls. It has been the custom for the British Government to advise the King to issue their exequatur to foreign Consuls de Carriere appointed to the Dominions without previous consultation with the Dominions. The result of this procedure was to create an impression in the minds of foreign governments that the British Foreign Office was acting, not on a mandate from the Dominion Governments, but in its own right, in advising the issue of these exequaturs. So far as the foreign Government was concerned, the intervention of the Dominion Government as a sovereign state was completely obscured. Henceforth the exequatur will be issued on the advice of the Dominion Government alone. It will be countersigned by the appropriate Dominion Minister and will be handed to the foreign consul on his arrival in the Dominion for the purpose of exercising his functions.
By whom will it be issued?
By the King.
Through which agency?
The King is advised—in the case of the Irish Free State by the Government of the Irish Free State—to issue the exequatur for the Consul de Carriere from such a country. When that consul arrives in Dublin the appropriate Minister here will hand him his exequatur. Does that answer the question?
Oh, yes; it answers the question.
Special Questions: Article 36. Permanent Court: It was considered opportune to discuss two questions relating to the Permanent Court of International Justice. One was the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory ipso facto, and without special agreement in relation to any other members of the League, accepting the same obligations. There was no undertaking and no agreement that any State of the Commonwealth should not recognise this compulsory jurisdiction any time it pleases, but before doing so the Government about to take action will discuss the matter with the other members of the Commonwealth. So far only twenty-two States members of the League have accepted the optional clause, and the majority of these States have limited their acceptance to a period of five years. The tendency amongst all States, including the Commonwealth States, is to favour the greatest possible extension of the method of arbitration, and it is exceedingly probable that as the European war becomes more remote and present causes of international suspicion more attenuated, there will be a general acceptance of the optional clause.
American Reservation.—The second question affecting the International Court was that of the adherence of the United States of America to the Protocol. It will be remembered that the United States Senate decided early this year to adhere to the Protocol, provided certain reservations were accepted by all the States which had accepted the Protocol. The reservations were generally to the following effect:—
1. Adherence should not be taken to involve any legal relation on the part of the United States to the League of Nations, or the assumption of any obligations under the Treaty of Versailles.
2. The United States should be permitted through special representatives, on an equality with the members of the Assembly and the Council, to participate in any and all the proceedings of the Council or the Assembly for the election of judges to the Permanent Court.
3. The United States should pay a fair share of the expenses of the Court.
4. The United States should be free at any time to withdraw its adherence and the Protocol should not be amended without its consent.
5. The Court should not render any advisory opinion except publicly, after due notice to all States adhering to the Court, and it should not, without the consent of the United States, entertain any request for an advisory opinion on any point or question in which the United States has or claims an interest.
At the Conference held in September of all the members adhering to the Protocol, it was felt that the acceptance of these reservations, especially numbers four and five, would put the United States in a privileged position as regards the other signatory States. It was, therefore, generally agreed at the September Conference that a suggestion should be made to the United States Government that, in order to insure equality of treatment, a majority of not less than two-thirds of the signatory States should possess the corresponding right to withdraw their acceptance of the special conditions attached by the United States to its adherence to the second part of the fourth reservation and in the fifth reservation. In this way the status quo ante could be re-established if it were found that the arrangement agreed upon was not yielding satisfactory results. The acceptance of the presumption in the fifth reservation that the adoption of a request for an advisory opinion by the Assembly of the Council required a unanimous vote would make the ordinary operation of the Court exceedingly difficult. A note setting out these difficulties is being sent by all the signatory States to the Government of the United States. The Imperial Conference merely took note of the fact that all the Governments of the Commonwealth were in accord with the conclusions of the Special Conference in Geneva.
Locarno.—With regard to the Locarno Commitments, it will be noted that the Conference passed a resolution congratulating the British Government on the efforts it had made for securing the peace of Europe, culminating in the agreements of Locarno. The question of formal commitments to active obligations under the pact does not arise.
If I may speak of the Report in general: it will be noted that the principle of co-equality is stated and referred to frequently. The nations of the Commonwealth are declared to be "equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their internal or external affairs." They are freely associated, and the link between them is the Crown. The method of attaining the unity that is necessary or desirable is "free co-operation.".. "But every Dominion is now, and must ever remain the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation."
The inter se relations between Great Britain and the other States of the Commonwealth are based on the root principle of equality of status.
The link between those co-equal States is the King. He stands in the same relation to the other States of the Commonwealth as he does to Great Britain. The advice of the Government concerned will be the only effective basis for all his executive acts, whether internal or external. The British Commonwealth, as a whole, is perhaps the loosest federation of States known in history. From a single Federal State it has evolved to several States with a Monarchy several in its functions, each State complete master of its own destiny, anachronisms in legislation and constitution notwithstanding. In so far as these anachronisms exist, they exist as anomalies. Nothing can be deduced from them beyond their existence. They are expedients, and I think that all through the Report will be found a clear recognition of their temporariness. They remain merely until they are removed, according to the convenience of time and circumstances. The Report proposes the removal of many of the most important, for example:—
The Governor-General ceases to have any of the functions or attributes of a representative of the British Government.
The British Government cease to imply a right to advise disallowance of our Acts.
Bills cannot be reserved for deliberation or decision by British Ministers.
The major anomalies in the exercise of our treaty-making powers are removed, including the unlimited full powers of British Plenipotentiaries.
Others, though their removal is not actually set down in the Report, are to be referred to committees of experts with a view to their removal. These include:-
British statutory provisions requiring reservation of Dominion legislation, or authorising the disallowance of such legislation;
The competence of Dominion legislatures to give their legislation extraterritorial operation;
The principles embodied in the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865; and
Existing statutes affecting Merchant shipping and naturalization.
To recapitulate: The work of the Imperial Conference is, so far as foreign affairs and intra-Commonwealth relations are concerned, has been largely a work of clarification and elucidation. Absolute co-equality of status has been definitely formulated. It now remains to adapt the machinery of legislation and administrative practice to that principle. That adaption can take place very soon in most matters. Our relations with foreign countries will for some time be largely carried on through the British Foreign Office and its representatives abroad acting as mandatories. Consuls will gradually be appointed to foreign countries as the need arises, and through them, as well as through the Consuls-General here, most of our routine business can be carried on. It cannot be said that all our difficulties incidental to status have been solved. Time and experience will probably emphasise the importance of others which may now appear trivial. But, nevertheless, as far as matters affecting our status taken as a whole are concerned, this Imperial Conference has given eminently satisfactory results. I feel that this is an opportunity which I must avail of to pay a tribute to the friendly spirit animating all the delegates at the Conference towards the Irish Free State. Difficulties were discussed and met in the most friendly spirit by all without exception, and I firmly believe that the better understanding arising from these friendly discussions will produce the best possible results on our future relations with all the members of the Commonwealth and indirectly on our own commercial prosperity and political well-being.
The Minister has made a statement dealing with a very important matter, undoubtedly affecting this country intimately, and on a subject which will, I presume, have a good deal to say in regard to its future development, politically and constitutionally. I feel that that statement has not been as reassuring as I had hoped it would have been. I would rather, if it had been possible to avoid it, have left this rather big constitutional question somewhat aside for a little while, because I would like not to be an agent in forcing an issue of this kind upon the public mind, to the exclusion, even partial exclusion, of economic and industrial questions. We are all familiar with the charge that politicians, and governments more particularly, have been in the habit of directing the attention of people to external affairs at one time or another when pressing social issues arise in the country in question. I hope that will not be the result of any contribution to this discussion that I may make—that we shall divert the attention of the people acutely to this constitutional question at this stage, because I would much prefer that some consolidation, shall I say, of the home position and general improvement in the economic state of the country would be attained before any big constitutional issue would be the subject of heated discussion within the country. Though that may be a hope, we have to recognise the fact that constitutional questions and economic questions are very closely allied and largely interdependent.
I say that the Minister has not given me the satisfaction that I was rather hoping for, inasmuch as he has not removed the doubts that have arisen in my mind as a result of reading the report which has been circulated. It appears to me that so far from having achieved an advance in the constitutional position of the Irish Free State, there has been, in fact, a retrogression. That may seem to be a curious statement to make in view of the applause which has been given to this document, as a result of the work of the Conference, in South Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Yet I think I can detect a reason why we should look upon this somewhat differently from people in those countries. I think one of the defects in the Minister's statement lies in this, that he has for the occasion allowed himself to think of this country as having been, let us say, in the same position as New Zealand believes herself to be in.
Probably the most satisfactory statement of the Minister was that with which he began when he explained that the Conference was a body which had no powers, that it was a meeting of representatives of Governments. That of course, is a statement which confirms the Minister's statement made before going to the Conference. He said:—
"The Imperial Conference is a body which meets, but which has no absolute power. It is not able to control anybody. It is a meeting of representatives of those States which form the British Commonwealth of Nations and comes together preeminently for the purpose of deciding what the relations of those States shall be."
It might be of interest to examine for a little while the approach to this Conference of some of the parties that took part in it. From that I think we will be able to understand why the result should have been thought so great an achievement for them, when it cannot be thought so great an achievement for us. I find, for instance, that in New Zealand during a discussion which took place in the House of Commons there, prior to the representatives leaving New Zealand for the Conference, the Minister for Finance, who made the official statement, and who appears to have been thoroughly well versed in the constitutional position, as he understood it, gave expression to what he believed to be the views held in New Zealand. He said:—
"I think the view that New Zealand has held, through the late Prime Minister and Sir Francis Bell and Sir James Allen, is the view expressed by Professor Morgan in his statements—namely, that the Dominions, while they may have been granted numerous privileges, including full opportunities of consultation, yet the ultimate responsibility for decision in foreign affairs and of taking action on it still rests with the Imperial Parliament and the Imperial Government... There are those who advocate an Imperial Parliament, and those who hold, as Canada does, that we should have a loose alliance of each Dominion with the Mother country, each Dominion acting according to its own view of the situation as it arises and co-operating or not as it thinks fit. But it has often been pointed out that that creates an illusory situation, because, though a Dominion may claim to be consulted and declares that it will not act unless it thinks it necessary to act, we cannot get away from the fact that foreign Powers will pay no regard to what a Dominion may consider its international status, and will regard the whole of the British Empire as at war if any part of it is at war, especially if the Mother country is at war."
Again he says:—
"As I have pointed out, the British delegates (he is speaking of conferences) represent officially the whole British Empire, but those of New Zealand, Canada and Australia represent only their respective countries.... Britain is the only one that enjoys the distinction of merging her identity in that of the Empire."
That is more or less a re-statement of the position which the Minister has now told us was the League of Nations position in reality. Again he says:—
"My view, and what I believe to be the view of New Zealand, as distinct from other Dominions, is that we have not acquired the new status which has been so frequently spoken of by the other Dominions and that we still, while we have the fullest rights of consultation, occupy a position of inferiority as compared with Great Britain."
Further he says:—
"I only wanted to emphasise the point that in my view the supposed equality of the nations composing the British Empire has never been real."
That is the position of New Zealand and New Zealand Ministers—the position they held when they left New Zealand to go to the Conference. I venture to say that it is not very far from the position which General Hertzog thought South Africa was in but is very far indeed from the position which the Irish Free State claimed and was, in fact, in, constitutionally and internationally.
In support of that statement I am going to quote the claims that we ourselves made when we were seeking admission into the League of Nations.
It will be remembered that on the day of entrance the President attended and made a speech in which he said:
"Ireland has to-day formally, yet none the less practically, entered into a new bond of union with her sister nations, great and small, who are represented in this magnificent world concourse. After a long journey through many tribulations, an international Treaty has brought to Ireland peace.... To-day, with all the nations whose spokesmen form this assembly, Ireland joins in a solemn covenant to exercise the powers of her sovereign status in promoting the peace, security, and happiness, economical and cultural, the well-being of the human race."
That may be discounted by some as merely rhetorical, but I want to contend here that it had a substantial backing. The House will remember that before application was made to the League of Nations authority was given by the Oireachtas to authorise the Executive Council in the name of and on behalf of Saorstát Eireann, to give certain guarantees to the League of Nations and to accept certain regulations prescribed by that League. Let me make the point, which I will come back to, that the League in its first article made provision that, in addition to those States which initiated the League of Nations following the Covenant, provision was made for entrance into the League of any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony not named in the annex, provided that "it shall give effective guarantees of its sincere intention to observe its international obligations." I draw attention to the Act authorising the Executive Council to make application to the League and to give guarantees. The preamble recites this. "Whereas the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann has made application to the League of Nations, Saorstát Eireann being a fully self-governing State, be admitted to membership of the League." That has a reference, of course, to this Article I., which says "any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony." We did not designate ourselves as a fully self-governing Dominion or Colony. We took the first term, and described ourselves a fully self-governing State entering into the League. The special attention was drawn of all the members of the League to the Constitution of the Free State and to the Article of the Constitution which refers to the inability of the Government to covenant for active military service without the consent of the Parliament and so on. All these facts were specially represented to the League and to all the covenanting States, and with all that knowledge the League accepted the Free State a member as a fully self-governing State, and this fully self-governing State, Saorstát Eireann, entered into obligations equal and identical with the obligations entered upon by every other State in that League.
There was no question then of our subordination; there was no suggestion there of the inferior position which the New Zealand statesmen believed their country to be in. I am making the suggestion that while the satisfaction which has been derived and expressed by Ministers in the far-off Dominions may be accounted for by the belief they had of their inferior status, we have no right to derive satisfaction from any declaration of equality of status. I think we have a right to be disappointed; at least doubtful whether we have not rather receded in status— declined in status—if that document were to be taken as representing what will be accepted universally as the facts of the case. Let us not forget what the Minister drew attention to: the fact that Ireland does occupy a different position in the world from New Zealand, Australia and Canada, inasmuch as she has peopled the world and has been, to a great degree a mother country, that we have not gradually extended political authority from that of a minor colony growing in strength and power to a Dominion, and ultimately to a fully self-governing State, but that in fact we entered upon that status at one bound, as one may say, as a result of a struggle, and by means of a Pact or Treaty between the two nations. It has not been a case of slow growth and steady accumulation of authority and power, and therefore there is a distinction to be drawn between the position of the Dominions and the Irish Free State.
As I read this document, not only the report of the inter-Imperial Relations Committee, but the document as a whole, I cannot get away from the impression, however much I try, that the effect of it is to fix in the minds of the participants in the Conference—and through the report to fix in the minds of other countries, which is of more importance still—this idea of the diplomatic and military unity of the British Empire, and that the elements and States composing it, who are within their respective spheres sovereign, as a whole are to be treated as a unit when dealing with non-British nations. Taking the document as a whole, one realises, I presume correctly, that it is the report of the Conference itself. It is not the report of our delegates to the Conference to this House. It is the report of the Conference, and apart from this particular portion of it one finds a discussion on mandates, protectorates, general economic questions, defence and so on. We learn that in this, as in the previous Conference, there were full explanations and reports given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Great Britain to the Conference. We have, for instance, what I cannot understand, a paragraph on questions dealing with the work of the Permanent Mandates Commission to the League of Nations. Great Britain has a mandate, a trust from the League. South Africa has a trust from the League, and so has Australia and New Zealand, and they are responsible to the League for the carrying out of these trusts, but they come to the Imperial Conference in London and discuss amongst each other as to the way they are carrying out their trusts. The report, in the final paragraph, has these words: "The Governments represented on the Committee found themselves in complete agreement on these matters, and at the instance of the Committee the Conference approved of the terms of a Note which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs"—that is, the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs—"on behalf of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain proposed to send to the Secretary General of the League of Nations."
Why such consideration should be given by this Imperial Conference to the work of trustees, acting on behalf of the League of Nations, when their responsibility lies wholly and solely to the League of Nations, I cannot understand, except on the assumption— and this is the point I want to make— that the Conference has deemed itself to be the international person, that is to say, that the British Empire is all one and is the international person. That idea runs right through this report, and to me vitiates the argument of the Minister. One might say, if one were treating the matter merely from a debating view-point, that the very fact that you have Premiers of New Zealand and Australia with Lord Balfour and the "Irish Times" applauding. This, notwithstanding the attitude of the Premiers of South Africa and Canada, makes one feel doubtful whether the apparent value of this declaration is justified.
Now, let us examine somewhat closely this report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee. We have the introductory portion, which deals with the status of Great Britain and the Dominions, and embodies a declaration referring to the self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions:
"Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."
I think it is no harm to direct attention to the change in the position as accepted by our Ministers in this report from that described by the Minister for External Affairs in this House some months ago. It will be remembered that there was a question of what constituted the British Empire, and I put forward a proposition that, as understood in the League of Nations, according to the practice of the League of Nations, the British Empire comprised Great Britain and her Colonies and Protectorates. The Minister for External Affairs used these words:
"Since the coming into existence of the League of Nations the independence and sovereignty of these States, sometimes referred to as Dominions, has been made more and more clear, and it is clear that as the British Empire is a member of the League of Nations, and as Canada is another member of the League of Nations, and the Irish Free State another member, the definition intended of the British Empire is the definition made by Deputy Johnson, namely, that the British Empire is Great Britain and all those States and dependencies directly or indirectly administered by the Parliament of Great Britain. I think the fact that the phrase as used there rather helps us to clear up what the British Commonwealth is. The British Commonwealth is the British Empire plus all those independent States, including the Irish Free State. I think since we (the Irish Free State) came into existence we have done more than anybody else in making it perfectly clear what the position is."
Now, the position is the exact opposite according to this document. The British Empire now, according to the document, is the British Commonwealth of Nations plus the Protectorates and India and the Colonies, and all the realms of the King—they constitute the British Empire. I say that is a complete change from the definition held by our Ministers only eight or nine months ago.
Let it be noted that throughout this document you have the Empire in almost every paragraph. You have the Commonwealth of Nations referred to four or five times. Well, the declaration which I have read announces that these Dominions are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, etc. But a little further down we have statements—what you might call the framework—which might well be quoted in the future and which certainly should be preserved.
"Every self-governing member of the Empire is now the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever.... And, though every Dominion is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its co-operation...."
Looking back upon the history of this country since 1921, one cannot but have regrets that these phrases, if meant sincerely and honestly and fairly, were not used at that time.
Hear, hear.
We would have been saved very much tribulation. This country would have been in an immensely stronger position to-day, and the relations between England and Ireland would have been infinitely more friendly and beneficial to the world's progress had that position been declared and established in 1921.
I ask Deputies to note one paragraph in this statement. I am doubtful whether Ministers who accepted it really appreciated the purport of it or, if they did, whether they would be prepared to endorse it to-day. Speaking of a Constitution for the British Empire, the paragraph goes on:—
"There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development—we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions."
"Has ... reached its full development"? Is this the final word in the evolution of the British Dominions or the Irish Free State? Do we look for nothing beyond the present position? I leave the question without pressing for an answer.
Now, we come to a declaration of the equality of status. We have had it referred to frequently and it appears to be very definite; but, note particularly the last paragraph on that page which, to my mind, nullifies all the declarations about equality of status so far as international relations are concerned:
"Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our Inter-Imperial Relations. But——"
Write this word with three Capitals— BUT
"the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function. Here we require something more than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and defence, we require also flexible machinery...."
To say the various nations within the British Commonwealth have equality of status and then to say there is something more—there is dissimilarity of function—is to say in effect that within this British Empire the elements constituting the Empire, the Dominions comprising portion of the Empire, may be authorities—final and complete authorities—over their own internal affairs—in matters affecting their own internal affairs—but when they come to decide external affairs in relation to other countries, then there has to be a distinction, then we come to the question of function. It is like saying that you have Ministers, heads of Departments, forming an Executive Council in the Free State; as regards equality of status each one of them is equal with the other, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce does not, and has no right to, interfere with the internal affairs of the Ministry of Defence. But the members of this Executive Council have different functions, inevitably. The Minister for Finance does not hesitate to exercise authority within the Department of Industry and Commerce over the head of the Minister concerned, and one sees that so to function will prevent the Minister for Industry and Commerce exercising completely that equality of status. There is collective responsibility and equality of status but inequality of function.
The analogy makes it clear that in relation to external affairs, diplomacy and defence, the inequality of function leaves Great Britain with the controlling hand. That equality of status is negatived by this acceptance of the inevitable inequality of function.
One has had some insight, perhaps, into the working of some of the big multiple stores and establishments where the business is conducted through various departments. The firm is dealing with a variety of merchandise in a very big way, and its method of doing business is that all its various branch establishments act by and through the head office. The buyers go out from head office, payments are made from head office, accounts are sent out from head office, but, in view of the development of commercial methods, certain changes take place, a reorganisation is made, and henceforth, instead of the buying being done by the head office, instead of accounts being paid and payments made at the head office, there is a devolution of authority. Departmental managers are given power to issue cheques, to buy for their own departments, to make contracts in the name of the firm. But if something goes wrong, a creditor says:—"I have to go to headquarters for payment of my account. I have to sue headquarters if there is a breach of contract." The equality of status between branches is all right, but there is inequality and differentiation in function, and the primary and essential function is undertaken by one Department, that Department being in this case the Foreign Office and the Ministry for War and Naval Affairs in Great Britain. Only last week there was a debate in the House of Lords, and the Chairman of this Committee, Lord Balfour, entered into the discussion, and, I think, as an indication of what is in the mind of the Chairman as to the meaning of this report, I am justified in quoting some of his statements. Repeating the phrase regarding inequality of functions, he said:—
"There cannot be, of course, equality of function in this Empire. That must depend on the circumstances of the moment. At the moment and for many years to come —many, many years to come—the main burden of defence must necessarily fall on this country. For many years to come, perhaps for an indefinite period, owing to our geographical position the leading part, and at present by far the most important part of the conduct of our foreign affairs, must also fall on this country."
British Empire foreign affairs! Criticising the statement made by Lord Parmoor, he said further:—
"I am sure that the procedure suggested by the noble Lord, the procedure of having a committee of lawyers to look into the exact relations which now exist between the Mother Country and the Dominions, to see exactly what degree of preeminence the letter of the law gives to the Mother Country, to see exactly what difficulty might, in conceivable circumstances, arise if international law put its fingers in our domestie affairs, can only end in disaster."
Further, he said:—
"I do not, of course, deny that the position of the Dominions in relation for example, to the League of Nations carries with it anomalies. That had nothing to do with the Conference."
These three phrases illuminate, I think, the line of thought of the Chairman of that Conference. He undoubtedly was thinking in terms of the British Empire as an international unit, as an international person, and, as I read it, the document is permeated right through with that general conception. I feel that the report, if my reading of it is correct, will have the effect of retarding normal political development in this country. It will place obstacles in the way of maintaining and improving relations between Ireland and Great Britain and I think it will prove to have a disintegrating influence in the League of Nations. I have quoted the references in the President's speech at the League of Nations and documents which were circulated to the League and which formed the basis of the Covenant which the Irish Free State, a full self-governing State, entered into with the other States, members of the League. The Minister has laid some stress upon the subordinate position of the Dominions whose names followed the term "British Empire" in the covenant at the Treaty of Versailles. The insistence of the fact that the Dominions were in the League by that document undoubtedly lead to the appearance of subordination. I wonder does the Minister contend that the position of the Irish Free State in the League of Nations was in the same way subordinate as that of, say, New Zealand because of the fact that New Zealand went in under the cover, if I may say so, of the British Empire. I think that that is an entirely wrong contention, a declining of our claims and a failure to appreciate the importance of our status.
We did not go into the League under cover of the Versailles Treaty. This State, as a political State in its present form, was not constituted until after that treaty was entered upon and we entered into that covenant with other nations as a full self-governing State, independent of and separate from the cloak of the British Empire, and, therefore, we have no right to assume that because the British Empire entered into that treaty we inevitably were in it. If that were the case all the claims made at the time were entirely unfounded and we were deceiving ourselves and each other in passing Acts and making formal representations. We must insist upon the fact that when we entered into the League we entered into it with all the rights and authority of a fully self-governing State. We entered into obligations, and other States entered into obligations with us, and that very fact we ought to claim as recognition of international status. In fact, I think we should claim that the very acceptance by the League of the Irish Free State on the terms on which we entered it was a testimony, a certificate, to the world of the fact that we are a fully self-governing State with international rights. If that is the case how can we claim that this particular document adds anything whatever to our status? Does it not rather detract from our status?
The Minister has made reference to certain phrases in this document, and I want to ask some questions about them, at least to ask Deputies to take a note of them. I am referring to the paragraph relating to the relations with foreign countries and the negotiation of treaties. You will see, if you refer to the references to the 1923 Conference on page 19, and particularly on page 20, that there are several references to "obligations." Paragraph 2, (a) "Bilateral Treaties imposing obligations on one part of the Empire only to be signed by a representative of the Government of that part." Further, "Rectification of Treaties impose obligations." In this year's Conference report, however, any reference to "obligations" is preceded by the word "active." I ask you to note that change when reading this document. Under the sub-head "Negotiations" you have a reference to the 1923 Agreement regarding the negotiation of treaties, and the proposed enlargement or amendment of those regulations or agreements. Paragraph 3 says:—
"When a Government has received information of the intention of any other Government to conduct negotiations it is incumbent on it to indicate its attitude with reasonable promptitude."
I would like you to read that in this way in order to understand its significance:—When the Irish Free State Government has received information of the intention of the British Government to conduct negotiations— negotiations for a treaty—it is incumbent on the Irish Free State Government to indicate its attitude with reasonable promptitude, and so long as the British Government receives no adverse comments and so long as its policy involves no active obligation on the part of the Irish Free State Government it (the British Government) may proceed on the assumption that its policy is generally acceptable. It must, further, before taking any step which might involve other Governments in active obligations obtain their definite assent. What does that involve? We are told that we are to be kept informed on all matters of foreign policy, at least on all matters in this case which deal with the negotiation of treaties, and the Irish Free State Government is to be informed of the initiation of any negotitions. If we do not make any adverse comment, and so long as no active obligations are intended to be imposed on the Irish Free State, then it is presumed we concur that the British policy is generally acceptable. Why should we be called upon to say anything of the kind? What should we be called upon to concur or to demur? I ask, what does it involve? To my mind, if this is to be carried out with any regard for intelligent criticism, it involves that our Department of External Affairs will have to be enlarged and multiplied so that it may make itself familiar with foreign affairs in all parts of the world. Wherever the British Empire has any touch of any kind there are problems.
We shall be bound, if we are going to enter into the spirit of that proposition, to have our Government department fully informed in regard to all matters of international diplomacy and foreign affairs generally. Did we contemplate that? Is it necessary? I believe it is very important that if we are to take a proper place in the work of the world, the peace and well-being of the countries generally, that we must play a due part in international affairs. I think that part ought to be bounded by the idea involved in the League of Nations, and we should work to the greatest possible degree through that League of Nations. But we cannot undertake this obligation, and undertake it intelligently, by assenting to or concurring in any proposal that Great Britain may initiate, and do it blindfolded, unless we are going to say we have full confidence in her ability, in her power, in her knowledge. The Minister said, in regard to the last paragraph of this sub-head that we were only bound by the latter portion of it. The paragraph reads:—
"Where by the nature of the treaty it is desirable that it should be ratified on behalf of all the Governments of the Empire, the initiating Government may assume that a Government which has had opportunity of indicating its attitude and has made no adverse comments will concur in the ratification of the treaty."
There are, therefore, some treaties, presumably, which, by their nature, are to be ratified on behalf of the Governments of the Empire. But the Minister said it was only the latter part of this paragraph that we were concerned with. That is to say:—
"In the case of a Government that prefers not to concur in the ratification of a treaty unless it has been signed by a plenipotentiary authorised to act on its behalf, it will advise the appointment of a plenipotentiary so to act."
But supposing the Irish Free State Government or any Dominion Government prefers not to concur in any case, whether a plenipotentiary has signed it or not—that is to say, the Irish Free State Government says it is not concerned with this matter and will have no responsibility whatever towards it—there is nothing, so far as I can read, in this document which will meet the case of a Dominion which says it is not concurring in the negotiation or not participating in the treaty which has to be entered into by all the Governments of the Empire. I note that the Minister lays stress upon the change in the form of future treaties, and here is where I am unable to understand the Minister's high claim that a great change and a great advance has taken place. The Locarno Treaty and other treaties were entered upon by a plenipotentiary with powers issued by the Crown on behalf of, presumably, the British Empire as a whole, and in the case of Locarno, when the plenipotentiary realised that he could not bind formally, Canada, Australia and the Dominions, he put in a proviso to this effect: "The present Treaty shall impose no obligation upon any of the British Dominions, or upon India, unless the Government of such Dominion or of India signifies its acceptance thereof." If one wanted to provide the means whereby the Irish Free State would be formally exempted from any obligation of a treaty entered into by Britain, one would have thought that that was specific enough, and even the clearest way in which such dissociation could be indicated. But the Minister makes the claim that this new formula is a greater protection inasmuch as the treaty has to be signed by his Majesty the King for Great Britain, for the Dominion of Canada, for the Irish Free State, and if it happens that the Irish Free State is deleted— and he does not sign for the Irish Free State—then the Irish Free State is under no obligation and is not by any means bound. I ask, where is the benefit in the new method as compared with the Locarno method? We have a treaty in future entered upon and signed by heads of States. It is agreed that in future all treaties, whether negotiated under the League or otherwise, shall be made in the names of heads of States and the treaty is to be made by George V, by Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India. It is he who enters into the obligation, the contract, the compact, the convention, whatever you like to call it, the treaty, with the King of another country or the President of another country on behalf of his dominions, that realm over which he rules. It is proposed to leave out, or rather to specify the particular political States which are specifically bound by the contract.
Again, where is the advance as compared, let us say, with the Halibut Treaty between Canada and the United States? I cannot see it, and it seems to me if a breach of the treaty takes place, that the other contracting party would look to the head of that combination, whoever it might be, to make good his contract. If that was so serious as to result in strained relations or war, it would be a war against all the King's subjects. I say, I cannot understand the claim that a great advance has been made by changing the form of that treaty so long as the treaty has to be made in the name of the head of the combination of States, and not merely by a head of a State which as such has been accepted through its membership of the League as a fully self-governing political entity.
Professor Berriedale Keith, dealing with matters such as this, wrote in his last book: "In political matters proper there has been no attempt to obtain separate powers of adherence or withdrawal for the Dominions, and it is clear that such an attempt would be meaningless. It is impossible so long as the Empire retains any unity for one part to be treated in political questions differently from another part, and the separate adherence to and withdrawal from treaties is only possible as in commercial treaties where differentiation of treatment could be based on a difference of locality."
It seems to me, that this new form of compact may be useful enough if you are proposing or dealing with a treaty which, as in the case of the Halibut Treaty only refers to specific portions of the King's Dominions. But it does not alter fundamentally the position of any of the King's subjects; that is to say, if there is an obligation broken and a demand is made for fulfilment which is resisted. Then the whole of that international unit known as the British Empire is involved. Again, I think it prudent to quote Lord Balfour.
My own personal view is that the relations are those necessarily of equality. None of us conceive that, of this agglomeration of free States, one is above the other. One may have more responsibility than another. One may be in more danger than another. One may be closer to the centre of international complications than another. But all are on equality. That is the very essence, as I understand it, of the British Empire. As to exactly what that equality involves, as to exactly what degree of responsibility each has for the other—that. I personally think, very little is gained by refining, discussing or defining....
I should say that, so far as this country is concerned, we are bound to go to war to defend any part of this Empire which is in danger. Personally, I think the duties of all the other members of the Empire to us are not less than our duties to them, but, as to the particular conditions under which that great duty is to be exercised, I do not believe anything is gained by inventing hard cases beforehand.
The Premier of Australia, Mr. Bruce, speaking in the House of Representatives just prior to the Imperial Conference, said:-
Despite some changes in the status of the Dominions during and since the war, the British Empire was, in his view, still a single unit, so that when Great Britain went to war the Dominions also were at war, although active participation would still depend upon the determination of each Dominion. In opposition to views which had been expressed in other Dominions, he maintained that the Dominions must be either inside or outside the Empire, and that the notion of being "independent nations" was "hopelessly irreconcilable with the idea of the unity of the British Empire." It was impossible for us in Australia to escape our obligations while we remain inside the British Empire and it is impossible to make a declaration of independence.... Whilst we enjoy its privileges, we must also accept its obligations.
That is quoted from "`The Round Table" which, in turn, is summarising a debate in the Australian House of Representatives.
I may, at this point, quote "The Round Table," which is not authoritative but speaks with a good deal of responsibility in these matters:
Under international law, and in the view of all foreign nations, the Commonwealth is a single international entity. It is presided over by a single Sovereign and it goes to war and makes peace as a unit, even though, as at Versailles, for internal reasons, it requires to be represented at Conferences by an embarrassingly large number of plenipotentiaries. Yet that means that when Great Britain, in pursuance of her policy or her Treaty obligations in Europe or elsewhere, goes to war, her partner-nations are, ipso facto, placed in a condition of belligerency also. They may take no active part in the war, but under international law they have the status of belligerents, with all the liabilities and obligations that status implies.
What is the date?
September of this year.
That was prior to the Conference.
Yes, I am coming to that. We are not forgetful of Mr. Churchill's statement immediately after the Saorstát Treaty, when he said:—
When the King declares war, all subjects of the British Empire and of the Dominions of the Crown are from that moment at war. As to the degree of active participation in the war, it is for the self-governing Dominions to decide for themselves. They have always been jealous of their powers to decide. Canada, Australia, and other parts of the British Empire are brought into war by the act of declaring war, and an enemy may attack them and attack their ships or may imprison their citizens.
I should like to test the value of this document and these proceedings by the answer to the question whether we are any nearer under this document to the position in which the non-British nations will be prepared to recognise the neutrality of the Dominions until those Dominions perpetrate an act of war or commit some belligerent act or make a declaration of war? If I could feel any confidence that we were any nearer that position, then I would give my blessing to this document and to these proceedings. But I feel that, so far from that being the case, we have gone farther away from that position. To attain that position, I believe we would have been on surer ground had we maintained that, in entering the League, we entered on condition that we had become an International State, independent and sovereign in relation not only to those Dominions within the British Commonwealth, but in relation to other States also. This document and these pronouncements concede equality of status within the British Commonwealth but inequality, or at least unity, in relation to all non-British States and Governments.
I said that I thought this position would be an obstacle to the development of cordial relations between Ireland and Great Britain. I put the matter in this way. Questions arise in Eastern Europe or Western Asia in which the British Government is concerned. Our Government is informed of what the British Government is doing. It may agree or it may disagree with that policy. It is required by the nature of this document to express a view, because if it expresses no view it is presumed to concur in the policy of the British Foreign Office in regard to those distant complications. If our Government made it a practice to dissociate itself from every move of the British Foreign Office of which it was informed, would that be likely to tend towards the development of friendly relations? It seems to me that if our Ministers are required to express any views upon British foreign policy, the members of the Dáil are entitled to inquire from our Ministers what their position is in regard to these British complications.
If they act in any way in regard to British foreign affairs, they are responsible to the Dáil for their actions, and I can imagine great difficulty arising if all questions of that nature in which our Ministers have a responsibility are to be the subject of discussion in this House. As I said before, to do justice to the obligation will require great expenditure on Foreign-Department staffs to keep our Ministers informed, and I think that is an obligation that we ought not to look at with a friendly eye. Yet, if our Ministers are to be informed of every move in regard to foreign affairs of the British Government, and are required to concur or to disapprove or to dissent—and if they do none of these things they are presumed to concur—surely that is an anomalous position, and one which is likely to lead to internal friction here and to irritation as between our Government and the British Government. It must be borne in mind that the procedure outlined in regard to negotiating treaties in this document is also the procedure in regard to all foreign affairs—"the general conduct of foreign policy." If we take it to be British foreign policy, our Ministry is to be informed of every development of British foreign policy.
Something is happening in China today. Something happened in Italy a few weeks ago. An agreement was entered into between the Government of Great Britain and the Government of Italy regarding Abyssinia. Abyssinia lodged a protest with the League because an understanding had been arrived at between those two Governments in regard to the territory of Abyssinia. Was our Government informed of that? Was our Government expected to concur in that? Was it expected to dissent from it? Did it dissent, did it concur, or did it take no action? If it took no action, is it presumed to have assented? That is the position that I find myself up against owing to this document. I ventured last week, when the question of this report was under discussion in the Dáil, to ask the Minister if he would inform the House, when making a statement, what share, if any, of responsibility for British foreign policy and British military and naval policy is borne by the Saorstát Government, and whether—to take a concrete illustration—the Executive Council accept any responsibility for British policy in China or for any contemplated military action in that country, apart from action taken under the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Minister did not respond to that invitation, and I am still in the dark.
I consider I have answered that.
Well, the Minister maintains that he has answered that. I missed the answer, I must say. Will the Minister tell us whether the Executive Council accepts any responsibility for British policy in China?
No, certainly not. This Government has not advised any action in China, and, as I have stated here, time and again, nothing can be done in any way committing this country except on the definite advice of this country.
That is an explicit statement, and I think that it ought to be followed by a formal statement by our Government and, better still, to be formally approved by the Dáil and Seanad, intimating to every Government that the Irish Free State is not involved in any action of any Government in the British Empire except its own, that it accepts no responsibility for British policy anywhere except the policy initiated by and carried through on the advice of its own Executive, and that any such advice that may be given will be definitely and clearly the action of the Irish Free State. To my mind we come to the kernel of this whole problem when we touch that issue. Wars are not usually the result of breach of treaty obligations. Recently I read somewhere that the method of procedure of ambassadors was almost invariably not to put down anything in writing, to proceed by word of mouth; perhaps an aid to memory would be written, but they usually did not commit their words to writing.
A British ambassador in any country is henceforward to be understood in all cases to be acting only for the British Government, or rather, not to be acting for the Irish Government unless he specifically announces the fact that he is so acting to the government to which he is accredited. I think it is very important that that position should be made clear, because, following upon that, we may arrive at the stage when these other countries will recognise the independent status of the Irish Free State. We may even arrive at the stage when perhaps the Prime Minister of South Africa would be more definitely satisfied in his aspiration that her independent national status should cease to be a matter in dispute, and should have become internationally recognised. That was General Hertzog's hope when he entered the Conference. He says that he is satisfied that that hope has been fulfilled. I hope that before this discussion ceases the Minister will give us some indication of what steps it is intended to take to secure that international recognition of independence.
The Minister dealt with the question of the issue of exequaturs to foreign consuls, and he seemed to claim that there was a great advance in the fact that henceforward such a document would be countersigned by a Dominion Minister. But I would say that until the foreign country which is to be represented in the Dominion—in the Irish Free State—by a consul applies to the Irish Minister no change has taken place. What is proposed in this document is that foreign countries shall continue to apply to the British Foreign Office for permission, and that that permission will not be given by the British Foreign Office on behalf of the King unless with the countersignature of the Dominion Minister. Where is the advance? Surely we have to move towards the position when that foreign Government will apply to the Irish Free State Minister, not through the British Foreign Office, but direct, and that the signature of the King will be taken directly by the Irish Minister. To claim that that is an advance is in keeping, as I fear, with the claim in regard to the whole document; it is not an advance but a retrogression. When we were speaking on this question the other day the President interjected— not a considered interjection, but still worth noting as indicating the state of mind and the point of view—that he was not aware that China had been discussed at the Imperial Conference. But I find a reference in this document that "Hong Kong on the other hand had been through a difficult period owing to the serious situation in China and the Canton boycott of shipping." And we find, of course, reference to the King of Iraq, the Mosul frontier, and many other matters of that character. So that the responsibility of the Irish Government for the conduct of the British Government in Hong Kong does seem to have had some consideration and there does seem to be some share of responsibility, by virtue of the fact that they discussed the matter and reported upon it to the Imperial Conference.
There are very many other points in this Report which go to confirm the view that the majority of the Conference and the draftsmen of the Report had in view the British Empire as a diplomatic unit. We have, for instance, this reference to the optional clause of the International Court of Arbitration. One would wonder why these six or seven nations, members of the League, each presumably with different interests, each presumably acting independently, should all by one voice agree not to accept this optional clause. Is there no difference of interest or difference of view which would allow one at least to enter upon this agreement? Why should there be the presumed necessity for unity of action in a matter of that kind? We have references in regard to the question of representation at international conferences. No difficulty arises, they say, because co-operation is assured by the application of Paragraph II. of C of the Treaty Resolution of 1923, and that Treaty Resolution of 1923 is a statement that they will all agree to meet and discuss at international conferences: "Where there is a British Empire delegation on which the Dominions and India are separately represented, such representation will also be utilised to attain this object," the object being the fullest possible exchange of views between the Governments before and during negotiations. But this goes a little further—not merely the fullest possible exchange of views but "co-operation is ensured." Why should that be presumed? We know in practice that while there has been discussion there has frequently been conflict and opposition. "Co-operation is assured." That, I say, is again a suggestion that there is a single foreign policy for the British Empire.
What will be the effect of all this upon the League of Nations itself? If the view that I am outlining is taken by the Powers outside the British Empire as a valid one, if all these suggestions of unified foreign policy are accepted as correct by these non-British nations, how is it to be looked upon by the non-British nations in the League? In September of this year the candidature of the Irish Free State for representation on the Council of the League was put forward. Canada insisted, and I think at an earlier stage General Smuts had insisted, that the Dominions were just as free to seek representation on that Council as Poland, or Germany when she entered the League, or Norway, or any other country. But presuming this unity of foreign policy, this co-operation in foreign affairs, what will the other members of the League say henceforward when there is a suggestion of representation of any British Dominion on the Council of the League? The fears of the United States are being confirmed, that the British Empire would be represented by six or seven delegations, that the United States would be represented by one; that there would be a British Empire representative on the Council of the League, by virtue of the British Empire's position, and another representative of a Dominion also on the Council, both presumed to be acting in co-operation. That, I say, is inevitably going to lead to misunderstanding, possibly friction, and possibly, also, to disintegration within the League, if that view is a valid one and if it is not clearly disowned by some act of our Government.
I put the position to Ministers that it would be a valuable contribution to the development of international affairs, the growth of the power and influence of small nations, the growth towards independence, and mutual contacts of this State with others, if they would make some declaration, and convey that declaration to all the other States within the League and outside the League, very much more explicit than this document gives, that we in this State are not responsible for any act unless definitely and clearly the act of our Government. When that is done I think we may take the further step, and seek by the most convenient means to get this State, at any rate, and the Dominions, so far as they wish to arrive at the position, recognised as not involved in war when Great Britain is at war. I know, of course, that many questions are involved in that position. I know that such a declaration, when accepted, would necessarily involve some revision of our constitution. But that is a comparatively small thing if we can get the acquiescence in the principle of other countries, and I am pretty confident that it would not be difficult to get the acquiescence of that country which is closest to us. I finish, as I began, by saying that the Minister's statement did not to any degree remove my doubts and fears regarding the import of this report. I hope when I am able to read what he said that I shall understand it better and see light. I hope that other Ministers who may follow may give us more light, and that, in fact, my criticism is unfounded —that it is entirely mistaken, and that we can rest assured that there has been a big step forward, as Ministers claim, towards independent, sovereign status, and recognition of that status by the other nations of the world.
I understood that a Minister would reply to Deputy Johnson. It is hardly fair that someone like me should follow on the same side, and then that some Minister or Ministers should follow after. It has not been the practice in debates hitherto to have leaders on the same side following each other.
What side is the Deputy on?
I am not on the same side as Deputy Johnson absolutely.
Is it proposed to conclude this debate at 8.30 this evening?
If it suits the convenience of Ministers, I would move the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow, so that they would have time to consider what course they would take. Would it be in order to move the adjournment?
The adjournment has been moved, and this debate is on the adjournment motion. It is difficult to see how time can be found for it to-morrow without some agreement. It has already been decided that from 7 o'clock to-morrow evening a discussion will take place on the Report of the Select Committee on the Land Bill, so that there will be difficulty in getting any time to-morrow unless by some special arrangement.
Very good. I will follow on with your permission. I desire to congratulate the Minister on two things. I am glad to see him restored to health and I am glad to note his return to political affairs. I sympathise with him, however, in the minor part that he has been forced to bear in these Imperial Conferences. In this report of intra-Imperial relations the chief role was played by the Vice-President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State. It is true that other Ministers and members of the Conference attended particular meetings. This discussion has been exceedingly well staged by the Government. We were asked to postpone a discussion of the matter until the Minister for External Affairs had been restored to health. That, as I conceive, conveyed the impression to the public that the protagonist of the whole affair had been the Minister for External Affairs. We have a Minister for External Affairs, and we regard his existence and that of his Department as the outward and visible sign of the sovereignty of the Free State, and yet when questions of international policy, questions which affect treaty-making and the rest are under discussion, so far as we can gather from this report, the affair is debated in London on our behalf by the Minister for Justice. It does seem strange that the report of the intra-Imperial relations, amongst others, could not be debated here, according to the judgment of the Executive Council, appropriately in the absence of the Minister.
I listened very attentively to the statement which the Minister read out to us, and could detect very little in it that is not already printed in this report, except a word of occasional comment. For example, he said that the Conference was with a view to clarification. That may have been its aim, but I fear it has missed its aim—if I might make a deliberate bull—with wonderful precision. The Minister told us that it has produced an eminently satisfactory result, though all things have not been cleared up. I propose to follow him in detail, as he followed the report, and examine if this is really eminently satisfactory from an Irish point of view. That report, such as it is, was unanimously adopted by the Conference on the 19th November. Therefore, it was signed and approved on our behalf by the Minister for Justice. Here is his effort at clarification.
It is very important for us to know exactly where we stand, particularly at the present moment, in the British Empire and to see what precisely the British Empire is. We are told at a later page in the report that that was a matter of anxiety on the part of the Irish representatives, and they raised it more particularly in regard to certain items that affect the position of Canada. We are affected. It is not for us an academic question as to what precisely the British Empire is when one who reads our Constitution with the scheduled Treaty discovers that Article 1 of the Treaty declares that "Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the community of nations known as the British Empire. ..."—I need not read the remainder—and that the first Article of our Constitution declares:-
"The Irish Free State (otherwise hereinafter called or sometimes called Saorstát Eireann) is a coequal member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations."
Everything in the Constitution that is not in full accord with the Treaty is, of course, ultra vires, and would not have been adopted in the British Act of Parliament which confirmed it and gave consent on the part of Great Britain to our Constitution. Consequently, the Irish interpretation of what it means to have the same constitutional status in the community of nations known as the British Empire is that the Irish Free State is a coequal member of the community of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Whether that means to identify the two expressions, British Empire and British Commonwealth of Nations, is a matter, no doubt, for dispute. Deputy Johnson has reminded the House of a statement made by him and adopted by the Minister for External Affairs with regard to the exact definition of the term British Empire. The British Empire, as a member of the League of Nations, means, of course, Great Britain with her dependencies, Crown Colonies and the rest. For us, the Irish Free State is a member of the League of Nations received in her own right. If the League of Nations view be correct, Ireland is not a part of the British Empire. If the first Article of the Treaty be correct, Ireland is a member of the Community of Nations known as the British Empire. If the statement made here, page after page, be correct, the Community of Nations known as the British Commonwealth of Nations is included within the British Empire, and Ireland as a component thereof is ipso facto thereafter included in the British Empire. I may say in passing that we can hardly take this report as authoritative with regard to the correct use of terms in this regard, inasmuch as you will find towards the end of page 14 the same peculiar statement in respect of the King's Title. "Some time before the Conference met it had been recognised that this form of title hardly accorded with the altered state of affairs arising from the establishment of the Irish Free State as a Dominion." The Irish Free State was never established as a Dominion. Our claim always had been, and was frequently admitted in speeches made by British statesmen, that we were not a colony that had grown to statehood, but that we were a State of long, in fact, of ancient, standing. I take, as against this report, rather the authority of a great statesman like Grattan, and prefer to take declarations repeatedly made in his speeches by which the proper view of what occurred, because of the Treaty is that Ireland, or rather a portion of Ireland, struck off her shackles, and that, unlike Australia, we had not evolved from a penal settlement for Great Britain into a self-governing State and member of the League of Nations. I mention that in passing partly to indicate the extraordinary views entertained about Ireland by these experts—experts in matters concerning the composition and the status of the components in the composition of the British Community of Nations.
Now this document owes a great deal to Earl Balfour, who is a very distinguished writer and philosopher, like his colleague and personal friend, Lord Haldane, who is one of the great metaphysicians of the present day. I recognise his fine Roman hand in many of the terms and expressions here. "The Committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained by attempting to lay down a Constitution for the British Empire." The British Empire, as Deputy Johnson rightly insisted, is dealt with here almost invariably as a political entity, a unit which will be recognised in international law as the international person. After calling that a political entity, this Report disclaims any particular value accruing from an attempt to lay down a Constitution for it. That is, like the mother country of the Dominions—not the mother country of Ireland—that the Constitution should remain unwritten. In Imperial Conferences, such as this is, it provides a tremendous advantage to the highly trained and unquestionably skilled performers of Great Britain. What is the relation of the Imperial Conference to this not undefined or ill-defined but somewhat impalpable thing for which, notwithstanding, an international personality is claimed? Is it a mere conference of Ministers without authority attaching to its decisions? Can its results be spoken of as decisions, or is it a super-Parliament? No one seems to know. Lord Balfour would be the last man who would desire to have it decided. His attitude in philosophy has always been the coquetting style of argument, with a nebulous result, leaving the question where you found it—a sort of negative attitude to great problems: that the solution put forward is not a solution, but that at any rate it is not his business to solve the problem. Here we are left at the very first page dealing with the status of Great Britain and the Dominions. We are left with a document, of which the professed merit is that it conduces to clarification, with a pronouncement about Empire and the inter-relation of its parts which leaves confusion worse confounded. One item of it I do subscribe to as particularly true. "The British Empire ... bears no real resemblance to any other political organisation which now exists or has ever yet been tried." Yet, speaking of this peculiar thing, for which there is no place in the international law text-books as being neither a Confederation nor a Federal State, the Minister for External Affairs says that the document gives exact expression to existing realities. I think the House will admit that the Minister is very easily satisfied if this is an exact expression of existing realities.
Deputy Johnson has already dealt with the other particularly Balfourian statement at the opening of this section: "Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our inter-Imperial relations. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function." There speaks the philosopher in the jargon of philosophy. Examine what it covers. It covers many items repeated over the entire extent of this Report which claims political ascendancy in the combination for the Government of Great Britain as advising the King. Here, says Lord Balfour, we "are requiring something more than an immutable dogma.""Immutable dogma" will do very well for the italicised portions of the Report, but when these are to be reduced to practice we are told they must not be put into practice. Practice is a question of function, and nobody knew better than Lord Balfour that function and structure are co-relatives: that the passage to structural organisation of anything or to any institution is through your observance of its function. How does the thing work? This political monster called the British Empire is to function, first as regards defence and as regards international diplomacy through his Majesty's Government of Great Britain. When you pierce through all this fine tangle of philosophic language what you get in the end is that it is not advisable—the Minister for External Affairs adopts the very phraseology of the Report—for a long time to come, and that it would not be reasonable to do this. We must hope for the other thing, but, all the time, the fact that is left uncontested and unquestioned is the political ascendancy of Great Britain in the Imperial combination, and that is what the Minister is pleased to call the "implementation of co-equality." Co-equality is pronounced as attaching to the Irish Free State. That is the first declaration in our Constitution, and years after that was proclaimed it becomes necessary for a Minister to talk about the "implementation of co-equality." It had remained a theory evidently, or perhaps that is not the exact description: it had remained a theory, but the practice that was growing up was contrary to it. Now, what have we got by way of "implementation of co-equality" either as regards internal affairs or as regards external affairs? As regards internal affairs, well, we have got the title of his Majesty the King, and then all this excited gush in some of our papers about the wonderful victory this was for Ireland—the alteration of his Majesty's title. It is not difficult to prick that bubble.
Are we not discussing my statement and not the newspapers?
The title of His majesty the King at present reads: "George V., by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King..."
The Conference was unanimously of opinion that it should be changed to read:-
"George V., by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King..."
Incidentally it is stated that subject to His Majesty's approval the necessary legislative action shall be taken to secure that change. In what Parliament, the Minister has not told us. Is it in this Parliament?
If it is in any Parliament, it will obviously be in this one.
If it is in any Parliament? That is a new light upon the darkest British Empire. So that this applauded change need not get actuality, and the great gain, then is to have it proposed? If it is such a boon to Ireland, why should we not clutch at it and secure it at the earliest moment? If it means nothing to us, why parade it as a glorious victory to have done it? Now, I test the value of this change by trying how it affects our status internationally. The Minister told us——
The Deputy has, on a number of occasions, misrepresented what I said. He has just made casual reference to its being paraded as a glorious victory. I made no reference to it as a glorious victory. On another occasion the Deputy said that I referred to the Report as giving exact expression to existing realities. I did nothing of the sort. I was referring to a definite form—I think in connection with negotiation of treaties—a definite method, and I said that method gave an exact expression to existing realities. I wish the Deputy would keep to what I have said and not wander.
I have already said that the parading of the glorious victory was done, not by the Minister, but by the Press. I do not think, therefore, I have anything to withdraw in that regard. On the other point, the quotation that I made, "as giving exact expression to existing realities," was in regard to the very point I am now proposing to deal with, namely, treaty-making. I wish to test what gain there is to Ireland in the changing of the King's title, by seeing how it would affect our international relations. That leads us to a great many items, unfortunately, of detail. I should like to mention here that the Minister told us that the object in most of these suggestions is to get rid of anomalies or to remedy anomalies.
As a means of overcoming this difficulty it is recommended that all treaties (other than agreements between Governments), whether negotiated under the auspices of the League or not, should be made in the name of Heads of States, and if the treaty is signed on behalf of any or all of the governments of the Empire, the treaty should be made in the name of the King as the symbol of the special relationship between the different parts of the Empire.
I shall return to that presently. For the moment I want merely to link it up with the specimen treaty on page 29. We will suppose that a treaty applying to only one part of the Empire, to wit, the Irish Free State, is being entered into. That treaty must be made by the King as the Head of the State. It should be made by the King on behalf of that part. Now, if the King's title restores us to the position before the Union, when Ireland was regarded as a Kingdom, can the King of Ireland enter into treaty relations with a foreign power? If Ireland is a Kingdom with a King, Ireland should be able to enter into foreign relations with another power. Now, in the appendix specimen form of treaty, we have the following:
The President of the United States of America, His Majesty the King of the Belgians, His Majesty the King (here insert His Majesty's full title) His Majesty the King of Bulgaria, etc., etc....
His Majesty does not sign the treaty on behalf of Ireland as King of Ireland; he signs the treaty with the title set out on page 15:
George V, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.
The foreign power with which the Treaty is made, and the League of Nations with which it is to be registered, are to take note that the Emperor of India is as much concerned in this business, which ostensibly is a treaty between Ireland and the foreign power in question as Ireland.
This is the implementation of co-equality, this is the clarification and this is the removal of anomalies! You remove one anomaly by creating another which debases our status, which removes from us the status that we were granted by entrance into the League of Nations. The Minister said —I suppose he will not repudiate it— that he regarded this as a definite step forward. I adopt Deputy Johnson's language: it is a definite step backward, and a very pronounced step backward.
Now, following the King's title, we have the position of Governors-General. That item has been clarified. The description that some time ago I gave in this House of the real standing of the Governor-General—that he was not a Lord Lieutenant—is now admitted. But what is the consequence of whatever alteration is to be made? "... the recognised official channel of official communication should be, in future, between Government and Government direct." We have that referred to, with further detail, at a later stage of the Report, from which it appears that the Minister for External Affairs is functus officio, because the conferences will be between Prime Ministers and communications between Government and Government, as between Ireland or a Dominion with Great Britain, will be through the Prime Ministers. There is some hope held out, however, that when Great Britain is to communicate with one of the Dominions she will appoint an agent-general to represent her. But the one thing made manifest about it— there can be no doubt whatsoever—is that the Free State Minister for External Affairs is not recognised as an existent being, with a definite function inside the Commonwealth of Nations; that is to say, in dealing with Great Britain, he is not permitted, as Minister for External Affairs, to deal with Great Britain or with a Dominion.
He said he was getting rid of anomalies—that he looked forward to getting rid of anomalies. What contribution does he make here to the removal of the great anomaly from our point of view? I direct his attention to page 22, to the portion dealing with the making of treaties.
The British units on behalf of which the Treaty is signed should be grouped together in the following order: Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Irish Free State, India.
Is not that an anomaly—that while the King's title becomes "King of Great Britain, Ireland, the British Dominions beyond the Seas," yet, in questions of treaty-making, Northern Ireland goes with Great Britain and the other parts of the British Empire? Is not that an anomaly which should excite horror and indignation—at least indignation —among Irishmen?
Remember this, on the question of treaties, that the very first article of our Treaty—the very first article of a Treaty for which so much blood and treasure were expended—declares that Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the community of nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State. Remember that the entity, the geographical, historical, political entity, that by the first article of the Treaty is declared to have the constitutional status within the community of nations, is Ireland, and not twentysix counties of Ireland. "...and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State." And yet, according to this precious agreement about which there was unanimity, with our representatives present at the discussion, in making a treaty Northern Ireland is to be linked with Great Britain and the other parts of the Empire. I say that is the great anomaly, and that not only has nothing been done to remove it but the character of it as an anomaly is accentuated.
I will draw the Minister's attention to another anomaly. On page 16, you find, dealing with the various points in connection with the operation of Dominion legislation which, it was suggested, required clarification:
(a) The present practice under which Acts of the Dominion Parliaments are sent each year to London, and it is intimated, through the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, that "His Majesty will not be advised to exercise his powers of disallowance" with regard to them.
Is not that an anomaly—that with all these declarations of co-equality, with these italicised declarations about the standing of the various members of the Commonwealth of Nations, the Government should have as one of its Ministers a Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs?
Have we a Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs? Disallowance and all those other things of high politics are to be transacted by this Minister of Great Britain. Still, notwithstanding that it gives pre-eminence amongst the nations to Great Britain, we are to speak about co-equality being implemented. The thing is a contradiction. The Minister spoke, I presume, with inadvertence in regard to another matter on that page in terms he could not stand over. Perhaps my note is inaccurate, but he spoke of things being settled which are really referred to a Committee for further discussion. All these things, about extra territorial operations and the former reservations of power to disallow certain statutes of Dominion Parliaments, have been referred, as we are informed on page 17, to a Committee to inquire into and report and make recommendations. These are not settled. They are as far off clarification as ever. On one very important point—most important to us— one to which we devoted a sitting of the Dáil not so long ago—namely, the question of the appellate jurisdiction of our Courts, what do we find? Page 19:-
"The question of some immediate change in the present conditions governing appeals from the Irish Free State was not pressed by the Minister for Justice."
Was not pressed in relation to the present Conference, though "it was made clear that the right was reserved to bring up the matter again at the next Imperial Conference for discussion." Nothing doing to-day—perhaps at the next Session you can go into the matter, so we must regard it as clarified.
Once more I return to page 16:-
"It was explained by the Irish Free State representatives that they desired to elicit the constitutional practice in relation to Canada, since provided by Article 2 of Articles of Agreement for a Treaty, 1921."
The Irish Free State representatives themselves put that position in quotation marks to show that it is taken with accuracy from the Articles of our Treaty.
"the position of the Irish Free State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada."
Either these statesmen were grossly ignorant of the effects of our relation to Great Britain under the Treaty, or they were trying to throw dust in the eyes of the public, because the Ministers who expressed that anxiety are the Ministers of the Irish Free State with jurisdiction over 26 counties. I already referred to that point. At the bottom of the same page we find that there are two principles admitted by Lord Balfour, although his view is that when it comes to questions of practice, immutable dogma in the form of principle may be disregarded:
"It is recognised that it is the right of the Government of each Dominion to advise the Crown in all matters relating to its own affairs."
On two occasions, at least, I quoted in this House the declaration of General Smuts on behalf of South Africa, and other declarations of the Prime Minister of Canada, all proclaiming this. Has their claim been conceded? "It is the right of the Government of each Dominion to advise the Crown on all matters relating to its own affairs." Is it the sole right? That is what is in question—not that they have the right to advise, but that they alone have the right to advise.
"It would not be in accordance with constitutional practice for advice to be tendered to His Majesty by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain in any matter appertaining to the affairs of a Dominion ..."
Is there a full stop? I had expected a full stop, but this is what we have:
"It would not be in accordance with constitutional practice for advice to be tendered to His Majesty by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain in any matter appertaining to the affairs of a Dominion against the views of the Government of that Dominion."
Therefore, there are simultaneously two advisers to His Majesty the King in his capacity as owner of the Imperial Crown. The Home Government advise him as to its wishes, and the British Government advise him as to its wishes, and it appears to be only a law of etiquette, a rule of good behaviour, that it would not be nice, if the Government of the Dominion did not like it, that the advice given by the British Government should prevail. That is no co-equality. So long as it is within the competence of the British Government in London to advise the King on matters affecting the Dominions, then the Dominions are not the sole and unquestioned arbiters of their own affairs.
I would ask you to note very carefully a matter that was debated here when we were enacting the Constitution, to wit, the extra territorial effect, or possible extra territorial effect, of legislation. Is that cleared up? Has this Parliament any extra territorial jurisdiction over its nationals, over its territorial boundaries? Is that cleared up in this great instrument of clarification? It should be placed on record that, "the constitutional practice is that legislation by the Parliament of Westminster applying to the Dominions would only be passed with the consent of the Dominion concerned." To test co-equality, is that relation reciprocal? Can we say "vice versa," in other words? Apparently, the Parliament that stills calls itself the Imperial Parliament of Westminster, does persist in claiming authority with extra territorial effect, but can we, through this implementation of co-equality, exercise a jurisdiction of that sort, provided we have the consent of Great Britain? The British Government abhor the suggestion. No such reciprocity is possible. Again I say, here is political ascendancy within the Imperial connection with the British Government.
I pass on to another point, "Treaties and the Empire," at page 21. This is with regard to the imposition of active obligation on various components of the Empire as arising out of the Treaty. The Minister used fine words. For a little while he remembered that he was an Irishman, and he said: "We are not to be committed even to passive obligation." If I am wrong in the quotation I beg of him to correct me. I would rather discover that I was wrong. It is an absurd statement— proved up to the hilt to be absurd by the quotation of Lord Balfour which Deputy Johnson read. Apart from that, does the Minister forget Treaty No. 1, which to me is the Treaty? He speaks about shrinking from even passive obligations. This document makes it clear that, in the absence of demur and positive declarations against commitment, we are committed. I read Article 7 of the Treaty:-
"The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces:-(a)... and (b) in time of war or of strained relations with a foreign power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid."
Under the Treaty such facilities must be accorded. What becomes of the Minister's fine words about not being committed to passive obligation? On page 25, "General Conduct of Foreign Policy," we have these striking words:
"It was frankly recognised in this sphere (the sphere of defence) that the major share of responsibility rests now, and must for some time continue to rest, with His Majesty's Government in Great Britain. We felt that the governing consideration underlying all discussion of this problem must be that neither Great Britain nor the Dominions could be committed to the acceptance of active obligations except with the definite consent of their own Government."
There is the definite assent, through the Treaty, expressed beforehand as regards passive obligation, and, according to this document, there can be active obligation only if we are agreed. We can be hurried into it. In a previous debate in the Dáil on our position in case England went to war, it was made quite clear that no belligerent could possibly regard an Irish national as out of the war, in virtue of his being a British subject. We here are reminded of the fact of being British subjects, because an important item in the oath has reference to our common citizenship with Great Britain. Perhaps forgetfulness of these things is so rife today I may be pardoned for reading it:-
"I...do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established, and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V., his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain, and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations."
The Dáil must adjourn now, and it seems to be equally plain that this debate must be continued by some method at another time. An arrangement has been made, I think, to take the debate on the Land Bill proposals to-morrow evening at 7 o'clock. I take it the Minister for External Affairs will provide some time to-morrow for the continuance of this debate, because, I take it, he desires to speak himself again.
I think there was more or less an indication that there would be a vacuum, if I may say so, to-morrow. The business on the Order Paper is not likely to occupy a great deal of time, and the discussion of the report on the Land Bill would not be taken up until 7 o'clock. There probably will be some time between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock during which this debate may be resumed.
Probably the debate can be resumed between five and seven o'clock.
The Dáil adjourned until 3 p.m. on Thursday, December 16th.