Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1926

Vol. 17 No. 10

QUESTION ON THE ADJOURNMENT. - THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE REPORT.

Professor MAGENNIS

Before I resume, I desire to protest against the way in which this important matter has been dealt with by the Government. Some time ago a day had been arranged upon and set apart to discuss this. The discussion was postponed in order to permit of the presence of the Minister for External Affairs, and that postponement is so contrived that the debate takes place in a more or less zigzag fashion, as was proposed for the closing day before the Dáil adjourns for the Christmas Recess. Now, there is no necessity whatsoever—and I say this with all due deference to the Minister for External Affairs, and without the slightest intention of being offensive—for his presence. The matters with which we are most concerned were dealt with on our behalf, as I pointed out in the debate yesterday evening, by the Minister for Justice. The whole tenor of the document which we are discussing, for it is this document rather than the Minister's speech that is in question, betrays the fact that neither Great Britain nor any of the pro-British Dominions— that is practically all of them—have the slightest desire to recognise among our Ministry as one of our Executive Council anyone clothed in the character or invested with the title of Minister for External Affairs. I protest against this all the more because it brings so prominently under one's notice the fact that what we have to protest against as regards domestic operations within the Dáil itself, so frequently, is an uprise of a bureaucratic spirit which is being displayed once more in an intensified form with regard to what I call the intra-Imperial relations. This is an autocracy that is steadily growing in power and influence. This Imperial Conference, ostensibly a meeting of Ministers from the various components of the Commonwealth of Nations, is in reality a super-Cabinet, by various devious intrigues, arrangements and agreements contriving to transform the real character of the status of the components of the Commonwealth, without leaving, in our case at any rate proper room—ample time—for submitting this agreement to the full examination of the Parliament. I say that the scandalous way in which this is dealt with in a contemptous fashion is indicative of that spirit which exhibits itself so frequently in this House, and has led me to denounce the members of the Executive Council as constituting a junta of autocrats. It is a junta of autocrats. When, yesterday. I expressed regret at the minimising of our status by the Minister for External Affairs some members were under the impression that I merely meant a rhetorical device to asperse him. I wish to assure the Minister that I had no such intention. My regret is sincere. I believe, and have good reason to believe, had he been our chief representative in these matters he would not have set his name to the document which breathes the spirit which is in the opening page of this report on the status of Great Britain and of the Dominions. Would the Minister for External Affairs, for example, have allowed to pass unanimously this declaration in regard to the British Empire, "That free institutions are its life blood, and free co-operation is its instrument."

I draw the Minister's attention to the great anomaly, the anomaly of anomalies, in the relations between this country, Great Britain, and the Commonwealth of Nations—the fact that six counties of Ireland are regarded as a component of the British unit when there is a question of signing a treaty on behalf of Great Britain and the dependencies and colonies that belong to her. I say that that does not express the feelings of the Irish people. I say, further, that it outrages the sentiments of the Irish people and when a so-called responsible Minister of this Parliament sets his hand to it he falsifies in the face of the nations the position our people take up. Our co-operation in the British Empire is not a free co-operation. If it is, those who recommended the Treaty to us lied to us, for they told us that they signed that instrument through which we became incorporated with the British Commonwealth of Nations, under duress, a threat of imminent war. I protest, if there is no one else to protest, against the falsification of our position, leaving the wide world who read this document to believe that we are now, after the second period of coercion that led to the London Pact in December last, willing members of that Commonwealth.

Surely every opportunity ought to have been made, ought to have been taken—where it cannot be made it must and should be taken—to acquaint the nations with the fact that under duress, so recently as December last, we were obliged to part with a portion of our territory that carried with it nationals to the amount of over one million. I say that this agreement has very considerably altered the status, particularly as regards the foreign affairs of the Free State. I advanced several arguments last night, drawn from a criticism of various pages of this document, to show that political ascendancy, or hegemony, as it is called, has been claimed on behalf of Great Britain in the Empire. I did not quite properly hear the statement which the Minister read. He is only recently here from an illness, and I can understand his difficulty in making himself heard throughout the entire reading of the document.

MINISTER for EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Fitzgerald)

Does the Deputy say that his misrepresentation of what I said is due to my improper articulation?

Professor MAGENNIS

If the Minister says that I misrepresent him I welcome his correction. I am not aware of misrepresenting him in any particular. Does he mean to-night or last night?

Mr. FITZGERALD

Last night.

Professor MAGENNIS

Very good. I have the report in the daily papers to go on. I read it very diligently. I re-read it, in fact, and I cannot remember anything in the notes which I quoted from at the time that in any way misrepresents him. I do not require to misrepresent him to make a case, because the case he made against himself and against his Government is too thoroughly made here to require any additional making. I will convict him from this report, unless the report is erroneous, of making misrepresentations of the very facts that are stated in this report. If it becomes a question of misrepresentation. I say that it is due to me as a member of this House for the Minister to point out the misrepresentation. I invite that.

Mr. FITZGERALD

With your permission, sir, the Deputy said:—

"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."

I pointed out afterwards that the Deputy suggested that a phrase of mine referred to the whole report as a description of the British Empire.

Professor MAGENNIS

And when the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair and that allegation was made, I immediately retorted that it referred particularly to the very portion of the document which I am now going to criticise, that is to say, the specimen treaty.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I maintain that it is a misrepresentation of what I said.

Professor MAGENNIS

I maintain, with all respect, that there is no misrepresentation. The words were used by the Minister with regard to what, to me, is the vital part of this entire document. He quoted my words. I stand over those words. I do not retract them. They are a faithful reproduction of his own words, and, as a piece of criticism, there is no distortion. There must be some element of distortion to make misrepresentation.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I maintain there is distortion. I think nobody can put any other connotation on his words. He says that the British Empire is a form of Confederation not known in any International Law books and that it is a peculiar thing. He also says that I stated that this thing gave an exact expression of reality.

Professor MAGENNIS

I do not know what the Minister is quoting from, but I have a distinct recollection of what I said. I read from this document the words of Lord Balfour, presumably:—

"Nothing would be gained by attempting to lay down a Constitution for the British Empire. Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organisation which now exists or has ever yet been tried."

That is Lord Balfour's own description of this evolution, this evolved entity, called here the British Empire. It is not mine. I will deal with that in its own place, but out of courtesy to the Minister I take it up now temporarily. This extraordinary agglomeration of States, which corresponds to no composite State hitherto known, written about, or discussed in text books of International Law, has a great function in its character. The British Empire has a great function, namely, the making of treaties. When I discussed its character as a treaty-making body or organisation I alleged that the formula prescribed for it through the Imperial Conference of this year is not corresponding to realities as realities are set down in our own Treaty and Constitution. The Minister says that it does—that in its character as an Empire it does correspond to existing realities. I contend that it does not correspond with the realities set out in our documents. I hope the Minister is satisfied with his interruption.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I am satisfied that the Deputy clearly intended to convey the idea that, what I stated was an exact expression of existing realities, was a definition of the British Empire.

Professor MAGENNIS

Certainly not. The Minister himself even admits that the passage he is now reading is from an incomplete report. He said he had not got a complete report.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I did not say anything of the sort.

Professor MAGENNIS

I understood you to say so just now. You failed— but I should address the Chair and say that the Minister failed—to read on for some reason or other. That conveyed to me that he had not got the complete report.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I failed to read on simply because I had more regard for the time of the House than the Deputy has. He spoke for an hour last night.

Professor MAGENNIS

I did not speak for an hour or half an hour last night.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Ministers, as well as Deputies, must stand in their places and address the Chair.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It seemed to be an hour last night.

Professor MAGENNIS

There is a persistent effort made from those Benches to talk about the length of speeches when there is a question of affairs of State of the utmost magnitude involved. No later than last week or thereabouts, when there was no greater item under consideration than the defence of a gardener charged with murder, the newspapers noted with satisfaction that his counsel spoke for four hours and that Mr. Justice O'Byrne addressing the jury on the question, occupied two and a half hours. But it is a matter of reproach to me that I occupied half an hour last night in a debate on a question which concerned the nation and its future. I think we have had enough of these cheap jibes. I permitted the Minister to interrupt me and now I continue my discussion of the Paper. He says here:

"The King is at once the symbol of that association and of that autonomy. The functions incidental to kingship constitute the sole operative constitutional element in the maintenance of the Association."

That, sir, is not true. Otherwise, the Imperial Conference would not take place. It would be meaningless if it did take place and if it provided no bond of Empire or no tightening of the bonds of Empire.

"The kingly function is to reign, not to govern."

The King reigns but does not govern. Very good. Let us apply the test. In Great Britain the King reigns but does not govern. Who does govern? The British Government. In the Free State the King reigns but does not govern. Who does govern? The Irish Government. In the British Empire, where the King reigns as an Imperial sovereign, who governs? Can the Minister answer that?

Mr. FITZGERALD

There are six governors.

Professor MAGENNIS

Is there a government or is there not?

Mr. FITZGERALD

There is no one government of the Empire.

Professor MAGENNIS

There is not but according to this document, carefully studied, the hegemony of the Empire belongs to Great Britain and the British Government. And that is claimed for it by Lord Balfour in this document. Let me read from page 13:—

"Equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our inter-Imperial relations."

That equality is declared in the formula, which has been repeated again and again, that "the component parts of the Commonwealth are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any 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." That is the formula. There are trustful, guileless people who will take that formula as sufficient. If they do, they will have to shut their eyes, and make themselves oblivious to a very important "but," upon which Deputy Johnson dwelt at some length last evening.

But the principles of equality and similarity appropriate to status do not universally extend to function.

Government is function. I challenge the Minister to deny that—the plain meaning of ordinary words in the English language. Any organised creature that performs a characteristic act, does a particular special class of work, does it in virtue of his special organisation that befits him for it. The structural organisation is the basis of activity. The operation or function flows from it. One is characteristic of the other. The function in this case is government, and though the components are autonomous communities within the British Empire, I fasten attention upon "the British Empire," which is that for whose cohesion and union so much is said at this Imperial Conference.

But the principle of equality and similarity appropriate to status do not universally extend to function. Here we require something more than immutable dogmas."

What is that "something more?"

"For example, to deal with questions of diplomacy and questions of defence."

Minor and trifling questions no doubt as regards the international relations of the component elements of the Commonwealth. For these little questions of diplomacy and questions of defence.

"We require also flexible machinery."

The instruments of government are the machinery of government. Government is function, and the machinery and instruments of government in these important offices of Treaty-making, of negotiations, and of defence, can from time to time be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world.

"This subject also has occupied our attention."

And you find the result of the attention it has secured when it is stated that "Imperial defence" must lie and Imperial negotiations for a long time to come must lie mainly in the hands of the British. This agreement, it should be remembered, is to be considered in the light of the previous proposals made to Dominion representatives at the earlier Imperial Conferences. Would the Minister tell the House whether or not the idea has been abandoned of a centralised Imperial Navy? That is soon to become a live question for us under the Treaty arrangements. Is the Imperial defence to be undertaken by a centralised Imperial Navy, in time of war, to be under the control of a high commander, a man the British may appoint? The answer, so far as I can gather it from this document is, that "for a long time to come these matters must rest with Great Britain." So that if a war break out within that period, vaguely referred to as "a long time." then one can see where we stand and how we are committed. Our Army, it is to be noted, too, is to have an equipment and an organisation and a mode of training to correspond with that in the other elements of the Commonwealth. Why, I wonder? Is it in order that it can operate in the field under a single command? Is not that preparing for an Imperial force? And we are to agree to all this without discussion, and it is an offence to these sacrosanct, high and mighty personages on the front bench, that plain members like us should dare to criticise these arrangements.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The Deputy is not a plain member.

Professor MAGENNIS

On page 22 all these items with regard to diplomacy and Treaty making, are dealt with——

Mr. FITZGERALD

The Deputy talked about arrangement for an Imperial unified navy. He then said this is to be undertaken or controlled by the British Government. I would ask him to read the account of that a little more fully.

Professor MAGENNIS

Here it is on page 25:

"We went on to examine the possibility of applying the principles underlying the Treaty Resolution of the 1923 Conference to matters arising in the conduct of foreign affairs generally. It was frankly recognised that in this sphere as in the sphere of defence, the major share of responsibility rests now, and must, for some time continue to rest with his Majesty's Government in Great Britain."

Is the Minister satisfied?

Mr. FITZGERALD

Yes, but that is quite different from what you said a few moments ago.

Professor MAGENNIS

I will read it again so that the Minister may have an opportunity of knowing what is in it. I am beginning to dread, sir, that this document has been signed without examination.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I am not questioning what is in the document, but what the Deputy said was in it.

Professor MAGENNIS

"It was frankly recognised that in this sphere, as in the sphere of defence, the major share of responsibility rests now, and must for some time continue to rest, with his Majesty's Government in Great Britain." I introduced a reference to that by the history of the previous intrigues conducted in Imperial Conferences. It took all the skill of the Canadian and of the South African representatives in a previous Conference to stave off that arrangement of a centralised Navy. When this agglomeration of nations called the British Empire proceeds to make a Treaty his Imperial Majesty is to sign the Treaty with his Imperial title. On page 22 I read:—

"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 the 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. 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.... In the case of a Treaty applying to only one part of the Empire it should be stated to be made by the King on behalf of that part."

Yesterday evening I showed by an examination of the specimen Treaty on page 29 that it would never be possible for a treaty entered into simply by Ireland or the Irish Free State to become registered in the League of Nations and impress the minds of foreign Powers with being the act of Ireland. Now, the Minister would call that a misrepresentation, I suppose. This State cannot enter into treaty relations with foreign Powers in its own right or in its own capacity. It must enter into treaty relations qua member of the British Empire, and that it so enters into treaty relations expressly qua member of the British Empire and only qua member of the British Empire is to be indicated by the unmistakable mark that the treaty bears—that it is signed by his Imperial Majesty with his Imperial title. What becomes of the sovereignty in external affairs of the Irish Free State if that is a fact? If that corresponds, to use the Minister's words, to existing realities, then existing realities are that so far as external affairs are concerned, the Irish Free State is not sovereign. It is merely incorporate in a larger unit and its power to conclude treaties that shall be binding because of their form among nations will be as a member incorporated in that unit. That, sir, is why Lord Balfour was so careful to declare in the earlier page from which I quoted that theirs was unlike any other previous compound State. Every previous compound State was either a federal or a confederate State. But this is neither one thing nor the other. And it is recommended that what it actually is should not be defined. But when it comes to these important matters of treaties it is very clearly defined in its character by your specimen treaty on page 29.

Now I say that not only is that a derogation from our character as a sovereign State, but it is giving complete recognition in an Imperial Conference to the allegation which I made, and which was repudiated from those benches—that the partition which the President and the Minister for Justice made was separation. I was told by the President that I was a dishonest man when I declared his partition to be other than the partition which, in the President's own phraseology, we all knew to be inevitable under Article 12. What was it, after all, but the concession of local autonomy to the Six Counties, not merely the geographical unity of the country preserved, but its character as a political entity preserved. Now, according to this arrangement, to which the Minister for Justice set his hand in our name, Ireland is not a political entity, and that dreadful fact is obscured from public recognition by the alteration in the King's title. No one dreams that the King's title was altered for the sake of alteration, or merely to see how it would read in its new form. It is there to hoodwink the Irish public, to hide from them the fact that, simultaneously with the alteration of the King's title in regard to this country, there is an alteration in the country's status. Suppose the Irish Free State did purport to enter into treaty relations with a foreign Power, is Northern Ireland bound, is Northern Ireland committed to the engagements that the treaty formulates? Certainly not, because Northern Ireland is a component of quite a different unit, the British unit. Is not that separation? There is no meaning in separation if that is not separation.

I have used this illustration before: in the portion of Europe called the Peninsula you have Spain and Portugal, continuous territory as far as earth and mountains are concerned. One of them is a monarchy and the other a republic. They are wholly different and separate States, as much so as if a sea one thousand miles wide divided them. And here, according to this document, you have as big a division, if there is any force in this declaration of autonomy, between the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties as if they were distinct kingdoms, not noticeable, because the same Imperial Crown controls them both in their corporate characters as members of the British Empire, but noticeable when one considers these details of treaty-making, that Northern Ireland goes with Great Britain always, and it never can go with the other unit, the Irish Free State. That is declared to be a state of things to which we assent. "The report of this Committee is printed in extenso below. It was unanimously adopted by the Conference on the 19th November." I have to read that, otherwise the Minister would say that my statement was a misrepresentation.

Now, on this question of the making of Treaties: "The making of a Treaty in the name of the King, as the symbol of the special relationship between the different parts of the Empire, will render superfluous the inclusion of any provision that its terms must not be regarded as regulating inter se the rights and obligations of the various territories on behalf of which it has been signed in the name of the King." Does the Minister for External Affairs approve of that arrangement? He did not dwell upon that, at least I could not find anything in reference to it specifically in his statement. The Minister said: "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." 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 kingship. The exact nature of the relationship outside the common bond of the King is undefined, but it is naturally felt." Imagine, if we can, it being naturally felt by an Irishman in this regard—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—again insisting upon the functioning as by an incorporated member of a larger organisation. Now, try how this works out in respect of our Constitution. Article I. of the Treaty had stated—and it cannot be too often repeated—that "Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, with a Parliament having powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Ireland, and an Executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State." More than once in this House I have had occasion to point out that Ireland, as we understood that Article of the Treaty, was something more than a geographical expression; it was a political entity, a political entity with an ancient history and glorious memories for us.

Now, Article 51 of the Constitution declares that: "The Executive Authority of the Irish Free State"—that is, all Ireland—"is hereby declared to be vested in the King." Which King? We who supported the Treaty always believed that the King in that Constitution was the King of Ireland. The oath imposed upon members of this House was always explained and recommended, as not unpalatable because the King, in the Constitution to which we had vowed allegiance, was the King of Ireland. Now what does he turn out to be?—"King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India," imperial soverign of that agglomeration of nations and states called the British Empire in this document from which I have been reading. And the executive authority of the Irish Free State that is hereby declared to be vested in the King has no executive authority whatsoever over Northern Ireland. It ought to be regarded as suspended, that the jurisdiction does not extend over the Six Counties, but, alas for that reply as a sufficient one, we have here enunciated for us, with the approval of the Ministers, that the British units on behalf of which a 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. That is separation, a separation between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, as complete, as thorough, as any separation can be made in political matters.

When the King's title frightened some of our Northern friends and they rushed to London to be reassured, they were reassured by the British Home Secretary, who sent them home rejoicing; there was no harm done to them by the change in the King's title. If it had been a living reality they would not have gone home rejoicing. Now we have the assent of our Ministers to an arrangement by which Ireland as a political entity is not given recognition among the nations, and yet, on the other hand, she has been received into the comity of nations as a member of the League of Nations. Where do we stand? I had always thought, and I stated it more than once in this House, that what used to be called the British Empire has, by a gradual process, been freed from many of those elements which made its name and reality so hateful to us, and the flag which was the badge of it so detestable in our sight, that it had become in large part a commonwealth of free nations, and that the only elements of empire which remained were those dependencies over which England ruled from London. But in the League of Nations, as Deputy Johnson explained yesterday, and as the Minister had earlier explained to us in this House, the British Empire means this, first the British unit of Great Britain and Ireland, and all parts which are not separate members of the League. In this document we accept our place in the British Empire, we accept the Imperial Crown as the symbol of that, and adopt the position, which I have reiterated perhaps too often, that when there is a question of signing a treaty the treaty is to be signed for us by the King, not as head of this country, as in the Constitution, but as head of the British Empire. The Minister for Justice is pleased to be amused over this, to utter comments that express his disregard. I hope the Irish people will take note. Here is a matter in which their status, that is, their self-respect as nationals, is tampered with, where their whole position is falsified, and that is a matter for jest by the chief culprit in the transaction. To leave the Minister time for reply I will make an abrupt conclusion.

Mr. BAXTER

The ground covered by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Magennis has been very interesting, and I think it is good that the House has been afforded an opportunity of hearing a point of view that would not have been given expression to had not these Deputies spoken. The Minister read a statement; he covered the ground over which they had travelled, the work done in London when they represented this country at the Imperial Conference. I think it is true to say that that statement was received in this House in chilly silence. I do not think there was any enthusiasm on the work of the Imperial Conference, and I think that that is fairly representative of the feelings of the country. I would be glad if the report of the Imperial Conference contained something over which we could enthuse. I have searched for it and I cannot find it. I wish it were there. I think it is an indication of the good sense of the House, of the spirit of nationalism—it may perhaps be silent at the moment— that undoubtedly the work of the Imperial Conference, as represented by the document produced here, has not brought any measure of satisfaction whatever to the nationalists of this country. There may be a few who see hope. I do not feel that the sovereignty of this State has been accepted in the way that we understand it. If we are understood to be in free association with the nations of the British Commonwealth might I ask why instead of the term "autonomous community," could we not have inserted in this report the words "sovereign states"? What objection was raised, or what objection could there be, to a recognition on the part of those who composed the Imperial Conference to give to this country what this country believes is its full right? It may be a small matter to them. It may be on their part an effort to deny to this country the right for which we have always fought and which, whatever their point of view about it may be, we will continue to maintain. Is there free association in this community of nations as far as we are concerned? There might be free association if there was a frank recognition of the sovereign status of this State and if there was a preparedness on the part of the other communities, as they are styled here, within the British Empire that the Irish nation is a nation and still lives.

If we are free associates in that Commonwealth, are we free to do as we please in the best interests of this State? Are we free to make what Treaties we desire with foreign countries? Are we free to disassociate ourselves from others in that Community of Nations? To come down to home matters, to a matter that this House had under consideration only a few months ago, have our Courts the right to decide issues between citizens of this State? Is the right of our Courts to adjudicate in such matters to be questioned, and is judgement to be passed upon it by a Court in another country? May I here remark that our Ministers thought fit that something so vital to this State as that could wait for another time for the Imperial Conference to pass judgement upon it? If it were something that had not cropped up, something which might arise in the future, we could understand such an attitude and such a decision as that. I think this attitude and this decision unworthy of the men who went over to represent and maintain the rights of this country at that Conference. I should like to hear from them the case they made, and whether this was a protesting acquiesence or a voluntary one.

A great deal has been said as to this part of the Report where equality of status is inserted in the first part of the paragraph and taken away in the latter part. I do not know that our rights in external affairs have been clarified in any respect by that section of the Report. I think our position was clearer before this was written, and I feel that whether it is written there or not the point of view of the people of this country and the representatives in this House must still remain the same as regards what they can do and their rights in dealing with foreign Powers. Let them tell us how free we are in our dealings with foreign peoples and with matters here at home. Are we at liberty to say good-bye to-morrow to the British Empire, if we so choose? Or is this meant when they say that we are freely associated? What are the threats? Are there still threats if such a course is suggested?

There is to be an amendment or alteration in the King's title. Deputy Magennis has discussed that at length. I confess that I would much prefer to see the title of the King left as it was. Before the change he was "George V., by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." It was always believed by Nationalists in this country that such a thing as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not exist, and that such a title was, to use a word that Deputy Gorey used earlier to-day, a fictitious title. It was unreal, and being unreal, perhaps we might have permitted something to pretend to exist which we did not believe and for which we had little respect—none. We come right up now against a new position, against the "King's position" in this country. I do not like getting so near the King, and I do not think there are very many people in this country, except a very small minority, who want to get any nearer the King. If representatives of this country want to outrage Nationalists' opinion, they have only a little bit further to go, when I believe Nationalist Ireland will give its answer and pass judgment on such a policy. I fear there are dangers—that this change may bring him very near indeed. There may be people across the sea who would like to see him come to us. There are some here who would be very glad—a few. There may be others on whom he might be forced, just as other things have been forced upon people in this country. A very difficult and dangerous position will then be brought about, and, as somebody said elsewhere, black flags will be hung out when that day comes for the people of this country.

Might I ask what is the significance in the title for this country of the phrase, "Defender of the Faith"? What significance has that from the point of view of the majority of the people of this nation? Was there any plea advanced that that part of the title should be eliminated?

There are some other points in the Report to which I should like to make reference. When our Ministers sat at the Conference table with the representatives from Canada, Australia and South Africa, and when they sat down with those would be representatives from India, I would like to ask what was their contribution to the solution of the problem that is confronting the Nationalists of India? Does this mean an acceptance on the part of the Nationalists of this country of the position whereby Nationalist opinion in India will be subordinated to the interests of a minority, just as existed in this country for generations? I think that it is not worthy of people like ourselves who know so much about oppression, who have suffered and lost so much, that they should not show sympathy with people in other parts of that far-flung Empire undergoing such an ordeal.

I want also to be a little clearer as to what the position is with regard to the point mentioned in the Report as to Acts sent from the Dominions to England for sanction. I want to know if that point has ever been raised, has ever cropped up, and what the position in this country is. It is new to some of us, as many points that have been debated up to the present in this matter were new. I think that the Ministers who went to the Conference have done well not to enthuse over what they have done. The position, as I see it, has not been bettered since the signing of the Treaty. I am prepared to recognise that work over there is not as simple as it might appear at a distance. I am prepared to believe that men may have been doing their best. I am not in a position to understand exactly what was the outlook over there. But as far as I am personally concerned, I am not satisfied with the results. I would be prepared to welcome an effort that was going to bring beneficial fruits. We have not got it in this document. Whether men from this country have gone over there, accepting the position as represented to us in this Report, declaring their fidelity and their devotion to the King or not, there is one thing they may make their minds clear about, and I hope it is fairly clear, that no position will be accepted by this country other than the sovereign position which the people of this nation have always fought to establish and maintain as being the rightful position for this State to hold.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

One would think by the tone of Deputy Baxter's contribution, and perhaps to some extent by the tone of others, that the purpose for which we went to London was to negotiate a treaty with the British Government. That, of course, was not the purpose. The Treaty was negotiated five years ago, and at the outset of the few brief remarks I have to make it may be well to refer Deputies to some articles of that Treaty. The first is this:—

"Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the community of nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, with a Parliament having powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Ireland, and an executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State."

The second is this:—

"Subject to the provisions hereinafter set out, 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, and the law, practice and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown or the representative of the Crown and of the Imperial Parliament to the Dominion of Canada shall govern the relationship to the Irish Free State."

Deputy Baxter says he is not satisfied with the results. After long study of Deputy Baxter in the Dáil I am not surprised at that. I think it would be a task of extreme magnitude to secure results that would be satisfactory to Deputy Baxter, or that would banish, even temporarily, his settled melancholy. He is not satisfied with the results. He apparently is under the illusion that we went to London recently to negotiate and conclude a treaty with Great Britain. I venture to point out that we did not, that the Treaty was made five years ago, and that we went to London as representatives of the Government of the State which is based upon that Treaty of five years ago.

Deputy Magennis reminded us that the Treaty was signed under duress. If that is so, many treaties, almost all treaties, are signed under duress. I shall not go into the question now how much there is in the statement that that particular Treaty was signed under duress. I shall not go even into the question of whether or not there was any degree of duress on the British signatories, whether or not it embodied their summum bonum, their ideal conception of Anglo-Irish relations. We can leave that on one side. The Treaty was signed, whether under duress on the one side or under duress on both sides, we need not pause to haggle about; it was signed; it was placed before the Dáil; it was approved by a majority of seven, and this State is based upon it. That is all truism. It is the kind of truism which it seems necessary to repeat to the Dáil, and which ought not to be necessary.

What precisely did we go to London for if not to negotiate and conclude a treaty? We went to take part in this triennial Conference between the governments of a group of states of which we are one. Before going, we indicated, in broad outline at any rate, the matters which we proposed to raise there as the representatives of this State and of its people. From time to time throughout the last three or four years matters have come under notice in the constitutional mechanism of this community of nations, in the constitutional practice which, to us, appear incompatible with the conception of complete co-equality of status. These matters were noted for reference, noted for attention at just such an occasion as offered in this Imperial Conference. Anything, everything, that to us appeared to conflict with the conception of the fullest co-equality of status was raised by us in that Conference. I make this offer to Deputies, that if they, from their study of the constitutional mechanism of this community of nations known as the British Empire, can direct our attention to other matters, those will be attended to, whether at an Imperial Conference or by direct representation to the British Government. By one or the other course at any rate those matters will have attention. The matters raised by us at the Imperial Conference were exhaustive of the points of practice, the points of constitutional machinery, which struck us as being in conflict with the conception of co-equal status, and they are set out in this Report.

They were dealt with in detail at the inter-Imperial Relations Committee, presided over by Lord Balfour: not all have been dealt with to a conclusion. Some, for what seemed a good and sufficient reason, have been left over for a fuller examination by a committee which is to be set up in the near future. But many of the matters have been dealt with to a conclusion, and dealt with to a conclusion satisfactory to those who raised them. Now, I do not complain overmuch of the state of mind revealed in the speeches, particularly in the speeches of Deputy Magennis and Deputy Baxter. One has to remember the antecedents of our whole position: one has to remember that for very many centuries we were an unfree people, and that we have borne the fetters so long, they have eaten so deep, that even when they are struck off there are those amongst us, believing or professing to believe, that they are still there: those amongst us who cannot realise their freedom and are unable to raise their heads and look their fellow man in the face, and say we are a free people. The whine of the slave was in those two speeches.

Mr. BAXTER

And we are not able to sing "God save the King."

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I would like to bear the Deputy singing anything if only to show there was that much heart in him. "A group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions," and then follows the declaration "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." Deputy Magennis is not satisfied. I am not surprised. I do not think Deputy Magennis would be satisfied with even an entirely different status, an entirely different form of Government. I think Deputy Magennis would be dissatisfied, profoundly dissatisfied, with a republic, except on the conditions that he were president of that republic. In a speech which it might be unkind, perhaps, to describe as lingering sourness long drawn out he analysed, or attempted to analyse, this report and by every device of which he is master, of misrepresentation and distortion, he attempted to show that we had been, so to speak, busily engaged for six weeks in London riveting fetters on the limbs of our unfortunate country, and Deputy Baxter shook his head and said he was afraid that was so.

Mr. BAXTER

I was afraid that you were not taking them off.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

There is a fair offer made to Deputy Baxter: if he can point to matters of constitutional practice which, in his opinion, conflict with co-equality of status he should do so.

Mr. BAXTER

Of sovereign status is it?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Within the limits of that Treaty.

Mr. BAXTER

Will the Minister answer my point. Is it sovereign status?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Within the limits of this Treaty which, after all, does constitute the limitations under which we went to work. If the Deputy can point to any matters of practice, of usage, or anything in the constitutional mechanism of this community of nations of which we form one that conflict with the conception of the fullest co-equality let him name them.

Professor MAGENNIS

Lord Balfour named them at the foot of the page from which you have quoted.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Listening to parts of Deputy Magennis's speech I formed the impression that he was under the illusion that the day before this Conference began Ireland was a single political entity and that the day on which it ended it was two political entities. Now the position with regard to the relations between the Irish Free State—

Professor MAGENNIS

On a point of order, the Minister charges me with using all the devices of misrepresentation and distortion. Lest he should incur that charge or be guilty of it would he quote the passage in which I used such a grotesque phrase: that is, that the day before this Conference opened Ireland was a political entity. He knows I charge him and his colleagues with making it cease to be a political entity last December.

The PRESIDENT

What did you say in December, 1922? You are responsible for it, and you are on record.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Perhaps there is too much on record. It would be better if the Minister for Justice were allowed to proceed.

The PRESIDENT

Too much for him.

Professor MAGENNIS

At an earlier stage of the debate when you, sir, were not present I yielded to the Minister for External Affairs a considerable space in which to accuse me of misrepresentation. I am now accused of misrepresentation once more. I think the passage ought to be given in which I stated that, the day before this precious Conference began, Ireland was a political entity and that the day after it had ceased to be. I say that is a grotesque misrepresentation of anything that I did say.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

No one knows quite so well as the Deputy that I was not purporting to quote. I could not quote him. I am afraid I have not got his speech off by heart, and as I have not got the records of the last hour and a half of it to hand I could not quote even if I wanted to. I did say that listening to portions of his speech one would form the impression that the day before the Conference began this country was a single political entity, and that by the time we had finished our work it had become something different.

Mr. BAXTER

When you put your hands to it.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The Deputy knows and Deputy Baxter knows, that that is not the position: that the relations between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland remain unaffected by anything that happened at the Imperial Conference. They are as they were before that Conference. Deputy Magennis referred to the change in the King's title. The change in the King's title is simply something that is now decided, and that has been overdue for a considerable time—that might have been done and perhaps should have been done any time after the establishment of the Irish Free State. It was convenient to consider the matter at the Imperial Conference. With regard to the position of the Governor-General, that is one of the anomalies and anachronisms to which general reference was made prior to the Imperial Conference. The Governor-General dated back to the Colonial phase in the development of the Dominions, retaining, not in fact or in reality, but in form, something of the complexion of being not merely an emanation of the King, but of being to some extent an emanation of a British Minister and a British Department of State. Attention being drawn to that fact, that state of affairs will no longer continue. Paragraph C. of the Report of this Inter-Imperial Relations Committee covers the ground of portion of dominion legislation, and sets out in that portion of the report some of the matters which will be further investigated by the special committee which is to be established. The terms of reference of that Committee are given on page 17 of the Report:—

To inquire into, report upon and make recommendations concerning: existing statutory provisions requiring reservation of Dominion legislation for the assent of His Majesty or authorising the disallowance of such legislation.

The present position as to the competence of Dominion Parliaments to give their legislation extra territorial operation.

The practicability and most convenient method of giving effect to the principle that each Dominion Parliament should have power to give extra territorial operation to its legislation.

The principles embodied in or underlying the Colonial Laws Validity Act,

and so on. At the bottom of page 16 of the Report you have the statement that

"it should be placed on record that, apart from provisions embodied in Constitutions or in specific statutes expressly providing for reservation, 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 views of the Government of that Dominion."

We were told, from time to time, by critics of the established State and of the Treaty on which it is based, that the King, throughout our Constitution meant, in fact, the British Government. The Governor-General was depicted as a person with one ear to the telephone taking down the instructions of Whitehall to be conveyed to Merrion Street. The King never meant the British Government or any British Minister, but even in form, even under these shreds of constitutional fiction dating back to the Colonial phase of the development of the Dominions, whatever shred of justification there was for that assertion has now to go, and these seven States, composing the British Commonwealth of Nations, stand in form and in fact, and in reality, on a footing of most complete equality of status. That is a fact which has been realised in all of the Dominions: has been realised in South Africa and in Canada, and that I believe is realised here despite the indications to the contrary in the speeches of Deputy Magennis and Deputy Baxter.

Mr. JOHNSON

Before the Minister departs from that point will he clear up the meaning of this proviso "apart from provisions embodied in Constitutions," referring to the fact that in our Constitution there is provision made for reservations in accordance with the practice in Canada? This paragraph says that "apart from such provision it is recognised that it is the right" and so on.

MINISTER for EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Fitzgerald)

I think actually that most of the points that have been raised here were covered by my statement yesterday. As the Minister for Justice has said, we did not go there to scrap the Treaty or to change it. We went there to bring practice in form with the Constitutional position. Clause II, of the Treaty says:—

"Subject to the provisions hereinafter set out 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, and the law, practice and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown or the representative of the Crown and of the Imperial Parliament to the Dominion of Canada shall govern the relationship to the Irish Free State."

Deputy Magennis quoted, again and again, the co-equality referred to in Clause I. of the Treaty. We are governed by practice, and when I stated in my report that I considered this eminently satisfactory it was because it had modified the practice, bringing it more in accord with co-equality. I have not stated that there is anything established in the absolute, but merely that there is a transition from a position which had been fairly good to a position which is much better. Deputy Magennis constantly conveyed the impression that this report establishes what he calls separation. He challenged the Minister for Justice to show that he had said that. The Deputy refuted my statement that a certain Treaty procedure was an exact presentation of existing realities. As far as I could judge, I may have been wrong, but I gathered that he found the non-exactness of that representation in the putting of Northern Ireland, not with the Irish Free State, but with Great Britain, and he also stated—I speak from listening to him in a rather casual way—that Ireland entered the League of Nations, and suggested that we had changed our status. The suggestion was that the Free State is now in the League of Nations, whereas before Ireland was in the League of Nations.

Professor MAGENNIS

I repudiate that statement. It is bad enough to have the Minister not aware, as he showed earlier, of what was in the document, but if he is not able to quote an opponent's statement he should not profess to quote it. If he gives his own imagination, the House will accept it as such.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I stated it merely as an impression. I think the Deputy introduced the difference between the way Ireland entered the League of Nations and the way she is now. I think that difference had some reference to the question of partition.

Deputy MAGENNIS

No. Deputy Johnson and I made it clear to an ordinary intelligence that the character of representation in the League of Nations is wholly at variance with the kind of empire to which the Minister for Justice sets his hand in this report. I contend that is a very different statement from that which the Minister professes to quote for me.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I was only dealing with that case because I was afraid the Deputy's statement might convey a wrong impression to people outside. As I have the Deputy's assistance in correcting that impression, and if by any chance there might be people outside like myself who might have got that impression, I am glad to have it cleared up. At the same time I contest that statement. I will now deal with Deputy Johnson's statement. The Deputy in one part of his statement said I allowed myself to think of this country as being in the same position as New Zealand believed herself to be in. That is not so. Although Deputy Magennis seems to think I am a much ill-used person, I think both he and Deputy Johnson may take me as as good an interpreter of the constitutional position of this country as the Ministers of any other Dominion. Deputy Johnson quoted Professor Berriedale Keith—I am rather glad he did so because it happens to clear that matter up:—

"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 difference of locality."

The discontinuance of a system of issuing unlimited powers to the British, plenipotentiaries, I maintain, entirely defeats the position as indicated there by Professor Berriedale Keith and represents one of the eminently satisfactory results which I consider this Report indicates.

Deputy Johnson quoted the League of Nations Act, and I think that Deputy Johnson and Deputy Magennis are rather at sea in this matter. We entered the League of Nations as a fully self-governing State, and that is not incompatible with the term "Dominion" as now used. These two terms are not contradictory; they are not incompatible. In the Covenant the words "State" and "Dominion" are used. That does not imply a watertight distinction between the two. The use of the term "State" does not conceal "Dominion status." On the entry of the Saorstát into the League, the Sixth Committee noted in its Report to the Assembly that the Saorstát was a Dominion forming part of the British Empire upon the same conditions as the other Dominions already members of the League. Deputy Johnson said:—

"I wonder does the Minister contend that the position of the Irish Free State in the League is 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."

The Deputy is aware we inherited the practice of Canada, which was to be included in all League instruments indented under the British Empire, and with a tangible unity among them that was effected by the unlimited full power of the British plenipotentiary. That was the position implying subordination and possibly capable of an interpretation prejudicial to the whole position of the Saorstát, a position certainly capable of an interpretation of inequality with Great Britain. That is a position which is now changed. Equality of status has reached its full development.

The Deputy asked did we look for anything beyond that position. There is now full recognition of equality of status, although there is not full implementation. I have not stated there is. That does not imply any last word or any impossibility of changing the present position as time and circumstances may permit.

There was one point that exercised the minds of Deputy Johnson and Deputy Magennis, and I will try to make it clear. The word "active" in front of "obligations" in the section headed "Negotiation" was referred to by them. They make deductions from the insertion of that word this year as differing from its use in 1923. Deputy Johnson quotes paragraph 3:—

"When a Government has received information of the intention of any other Government to conduct negotiations, it is incumbent upon it to indicate its attitude with reasonable promptitude."

He points out that the British Government, having informed us that it is negotiating for a treaty, may assume its policy is generally acceptable unless it hears from us to the contrary, provided we are not involved in active obligations. He has mis-read the position. The exchange of information may be called a courtesy arrangement, and in a general way it exists among all world powers and powers with close geographical and other interests. The word "active" is inserted before the word "obligations" in the interests of clarity.

I said in my statement yesterday any treaty made by any state may be held to impose possible obligations on other states. Even to a greater degree is that true of states so closely associated as members of the British Commonwealth. Recognition of the state of affairs brought into being by a treaty is an obligation incumbent on the whole community of states. The British Government might empower a plenipotentiary to act on its behalf but not on our behalf, in order to conclude a treaty declaring a closed season for fishing in certain waters. They notify us that they propose to do a certain thing. If we do not reply they are justified in assuming we have no objection. On the other hand, we might write saying that Irish fishermen fished in those waters. They might abandon the treaty or decide that the interests they had in mind in making the treaty justified them in going ahead with it.

Or to take another case, more real to the Dominion position, the British Government might enter into negotiations with China with a view to nullifying or modifying treaties which gave rights not merely to English citizens, but to Canadian, Irish and other citizens. The annulling or modification of these treaties necessarily affects the status of our nationals in China. They notify us of the negotiations. If they do not hear from us they presume we do not consider the obligation as important or that we are nationally involved. On the other hand, we might notify them that we considered the matter of such importance that we wished to participate in negotiations and that we proposed to appoint a plenipotentiary to act on our behalf. It does not imply that all negotiations that we do not demur from we are parties to them. We cannot be party to any negotiation or treaty except by the act of a plenipotentiary appointed on the advice of this Government. The distinction between "obligations" and "active obligations" was necessary in order to make it clear that the general assumption with regard to passive obligations is more obviously justified in the relations of the Commonwealth States inter se.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister meet the point that would arise supposing there was deprecation of the arrangements, let us say, between Great Britain and Italy in regard to the sphere of influence in Abyssinia. The Ministers here are advised of such a proposal. Is there any obligation imposed on our Ministry to concur or demur or to keep silent? If they know of such a proposal and no attention whatever is paid to it, is there not an assumption that the Government of Italy, for instance, would believe that we, too, are participants in that compact?

Mr. FITZGERALD

I do not see how they could. The negotiator acts on behalf, and has power to act solely on behalf, of the British Government with powers covering merely the extent of area of their jurisdiction.

Mr. JOHNSON

May I point out these actions will not be actions of plenipotentiaries but actions of governments, presumably; that is to say, there is no formal treaty. Is it proposed that the Dominions are formally to make known to the powers that this new position has been created?

Mr. FITZGERALD

It is not entirely a new position. The position that the Deputy is dealing with really existed before.

Mr. JOHNSON

Can the Minister give any evidence that any power not British has acknowledged and recognised that the position existed hitherto?

Mr. FITZGERALD

One might say so. The Treaty of Locarno, Clause 9, made it perfectly clear that Sir Austen Chamberlain was not acting with a mandate from us.

Mr. JOHNSON

What was the real point in making the particular foot-note saying in these things the Dominions are not obliged to concur?

Mr. FITZGERALD

I have tried to stress that, which I think is a very important point. It was necessary there because of this habit existing prior to this date of the issue of unlimited full powers to the British plenipotentiary. These powers were issued and they have always been issued and that was the practice we have inherited. Unless that were put in, the powers covered all parts of the King's realm.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister go further and tell us whether it is proposed to alter the document that the Ambassador in Rome or Berlin has at present, which is a full power to act on behalf of the British Empire?

Mr. FITZGERALD

The Ambassador in these places acts for us in his normal capacity. As regards his normal capacity here, I have a note here on that point. Deputy Johnson deduces from the system of consultation from the use of the British Foreign Office and from the frequent reference to the British Empire that we are committed to all actions of the British Government in foreign affairs unless we specifically dissociate ourselves. That is a misinterpretation. The British Ambassadors act as mandatories for us in the exercise of their normal functions. Their normal functions are the protection of nationals. They act for us otherwise only in so far as they are empowered to do so expressly by this Government.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think this matter is very important. Will the Minister say whether the position of a British Ambassador in a foreign capital was such as to enable him hitherto to speak on behalf of the Governments of the British Empire? That is to say, the King as representing these Governments—is that position changed and is any notification to be made that the position is changed?

Mr. BAXTER

Let us suppose the signing of a new treaty takes place. Suppose we are not prepared to acquiesce, will that treaty also contain a foot-note similar to the one retained in the Locarno Pact?

Mr. FITZGERALD

There will be no need for Clause 9 in future. I think Deputy Johnson puts that question. There was, as far as I know, during our time no British Ambassador with extra-normal functions. The Deputy refers to negotiations between England and Italy with regard to Abyssinia. I hold and presume, and am satisfied that we are in no way included in this. If we are sent a notification, what would happen is, that we might be interested and we might see we had a particular lot of Irish nationals in Abyssinia that it was intended to put under the Italian sphere of influence, and we would suggest that we should be parties to this treaty, and that these nationals should be included in the British sphere and the Italian sphere. If we had no actual interest there we would not participate, and we would not share responsibility.

Mr. JOHNSON

Do we not come right up against the question of belligerency? Supposing that negotiations between England and Italy led to warfare, would Italy recognise that we are not participants—that we are neutrals?

Mr. FITZGERALD

The Deputy knows that is a particularly difficult thing to answer. It is a matter that I cannot possibly give a straight answer to now. Inasmuch as the only Government empowered to advise the King on affairs of this State is this Government, and as it is pre-eminently an affair of this State whether we will be at peace or war, presumably the King cannot declare war on behalf of us except on the advice of this Government. We know that on these occasions legal forms go by the board, and so far as I can interpret it, it would mean on strictly theoretical constitutional lines that the King could only declare war when he had simultaneous unanimous advice to that effect from all the Governments. That would be the constitutional position.

We may as well face facts. We know war usually comes with a rush, and people do not consider the niceties of constitutional practice. Great Britain, for instance, might advise the King to declare war on Italy, and then there would be a discussion, the nature of which at the moment I could not outline. One might say, first of all, that the King's subjects are at war when he is at war, and therefore Ireland is at war; and someone else might say that the King has no authority to declare war on behalf of this country when he has no advice from our Government, and therefore we are not at war. I cannot go any further now.

Mr. JOHNSON

Can the Minister say whether there has been any understanding that this new position is going to be made a subject of discussion and negotiation with non-British powers with a view to their recognition of our immunity from war until our Government, through ordinary agencies, declares war or commits a belligerent act?

Mr. FITZGERALD

I cannot say that. Inasmuch as the British plenipotentiary acting in any of these cases has the terms of his full powers clearly defined according to the geographical area of his Government's jurisdiction, we are excluded that much more than we were before, and we are to that extent, presumably, more in the direction Deputy Johnson wishes to go than we were before. There is that much of an advance.

Both Deputies Johnson and Magennis seem to gather from the reference to functions at the bottom of the early part of the report that there is such a thing as diplomatic unity. The whole trend of their discussion was on that point. Deputy Johnson says government is function. Yes, but all function is not government. I refer to a case of function there. The British Ambassador in any capital, let us say in Vienna or Madrid, acts as our mandatory in his normal functions. In that way the British Government, who sent him and pay his way, exceed in function our function. They are not in any way usurping the right of our Government. Their man acts as our mandatory. If all function is government, as Deputy Johnson implies, then you might say that the British Consul in Singapore is the real government, and not the British Government. On the contrary, he acts as their agent, and we can also mandate him, and, as we are on such close terms with the British Government, we let him act as our mandatory to serve our nationals in that area. Their normal functions are the protection of nationals.

Both Deputies seem to have gathered that there is diplomatic unity. There cannot be diplomatic unity when there are a number of different Governments advising, and when their advice in any one specific matter may be divergent. The Deputy referred to this as the kernel of the whole matter. He has in the document before him almost all the assurance he requires. The document, to my mind, represents quite clearly a step in the direction he desires. He has it clearly laid down that in the affairs of this State no Government but our own can advise. He has it also clearly laid down that the full powers issued by the British Government to their negotiators will be limited to the area of jurisdiction of that Government.

Now, with regard to exequaturs, Deputy Johnson asks where is the advance in the new practice. The advance is that the exequatur is now issued on the advice of Irish Ministers, and is received by the foreign representative from the Irish Minister. Against this, he urges that the application is made by the Irish Government to the Foreign Office in London. The application is made through diplomatic channels. It happens so far that whereas there are foreign Ministers in London there are none in Dublin, and the only channel for application so far is in London.

When one argues about this report and complains that it does not make Ireland a republic, complains that the King is there and so on, and that the Treaty position is still the Treaty position, even if a bit better, that there is retrogression rather than advance——

Professor MAGENNIS

Would the Minister say which of the three of us who spoke uttered that idiotic comment which he attributes to some one of us?

Mr. FITZGERALD

It was a synthetic answer. Deputy Magennis was very much concerned that my name did not figure as prominently in the report as that of the Minister for Justice. He very generously seeks to exculpate me from guilt in the matter. As a matter of fact, I shared in the drafting of a large and important section of it, and I take full responsibility. Deputy Magennis said that the Imperial Conference is a super-Cabinet. That is obviously and grotesquely incorrect.

Professor MAGENNIS

The grotesque remark comes not from me but from Sir Robert Borden.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I would suggest to Deputies, without in any way wishing to give myself undue importance, that they might, at least, regard me as a slightly better guide in these matters than any of these distinguished statesmen who are studied with such assiduity.

The PRESIDENT

Hear, hear. It is a pity you are an Irishman because an Irishman will not be quoted.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Deputy Magennis constantly refers to the Imperial title. I suppose he means the title covering the whole of the King's realm.

Professor MAGENNIS

The Minister for External Affairs ought to know what is meant by the Imperial Crown.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is not the Minister for External Affairs explaining what he means by the words, and can he not be allowed to do so?

Professor MAGENNIS

On a point of explanation, when he attributes inaccuracy to me, I am entitled to ask him to point out where the inaccuracy lies.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

So much enthusiasm is displayed in pointing out inaccuracies on all sides that people are not really allowed to become inaccurate. The Minister must be allowed to continue and it can then be shown how inaccurate he is.

Professor MAGENNIS

Might I submit that the Minister has just now made a charge against three of us who spoke from these benches? He said that we used certain expressions which he quoted, but he refused to deal with them. I spoke of them as idiotic comments, and they are idiotic. When he attributes them to us he ought to have the courtesy to say to which of us he attributes them.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am going to allow this debate to continue beyond eleven o'clock. On this occasion there cannot obviously be exact quotation from speeches made on any side, but I have constantly to listen here to Deputies attributing meanings to speeches which, in my judgment, they did not bear at all. I have consistently refrained, and shall continue to do so, from interpreting what anybody has said. I cannot see how a debate can be conducted unless a speaker is allowed to say that a speaker on the other side has said so-and-so. It has constantly been done, and I do not know any way of getting out of it. When a speaker quotes he must quote accurately, but when he says: "I gather this impression," he must be allowed to go on. From the point of view of Deputies who speak against Ministers and against the Government, it would be a serious thing if they could not be allowed to explain what they gathered from Ministers' speeches.

Professor MAGENNIS

I would not presume to argue with you for a moment, sir, but I submit that the Minister purported to quote exact words. He used the term "Republic." I never mentioned the word "Republic" from beginning to end, nor did Deputy Johnson nor Deputy Baxter, and we three alone spoke.

Mr. JOHNSON

I did not imagine that the Minister was quoting.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I do not think that anybody really did.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I do not see anything objectionable in the word "Republic."

Mr. FITZGERALD

Unfortunately, I am speaking immediately after certain impressions were conveyed to my mind. I do not think that my mind is quite so inexact as Deputy Magennis thinks. He said yesterday that I spoke about things being settled which were, in fact, referred to a committee for further discussion. I do not think I did. I said that certain matters were referred to a committee of experts. I did not in any way misrepresent the facts on that, whereas, on the other hand, we heard something a while ago about a unified navy, and so on. I am not aware that we share in a unified navy. At present we have not any sort of navy worth mentioning, but such as it is, it is all right. When the Deputy argues by insisting that common methods of training, etc., make a unified army and navy, I cannot follow him. I gather from the Deputy that he presumes that every time there is fighting going on our army and the other army will be on opposite sides. I do not think so. I think the whole tendency will be to keep this country at peace, and not to go to war with any country, much less go to war with our next-door neighbour, who is much stronger. Deputy Magennis spoke about treaties being signed by the King as misleading people abroad. The King does not sign treaties. They are signed by the plenipotentiaries representing their Governments.

Professor MAGENNIS

Appendix page 29: "His Majesty the King (here insert his Majesty's full title").

Mr. FITZGERALD

It is not a signature.

Professor MAGENNIS

It says here: "insert his full title."

Mr. FITZGERALD

In 1924 there was a question of the Lausanne Treaty and a liquor treaty with America and there was a debate on the King's title here. One of the Deputies said that there was strong objection taken to the misrepresentation in the title, as it did not correspond with the fact, inasmuch as it spoke of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I may be thoroughly dishonest, I may be a blackguard and so on, but I would certainly consider myself such if I got up now and said that never until I saw this document was I aware that the King was described otherwise than "King of Ireland." There was a discussion here, and on the strength of that discussion I saw the then Prime Minister of England, and afterwards I told the House that I had his assurance that steps were being taken to change it. The steps were slow, but they have moved on since then and the title corresponds more now to the political fact than it did. The political entity here is the Irish Free State. Deputy Magennis undoubtedly talked about the signing of a treaty by his Majesty. At the bottom of it it says: "In faith whereof the above-named plenipotentiaries have signed the present treaty." The Deputy objects that his title used in treaties is given in full instead of his being given separately as "King of Ireland."

Professor MAGENNIS

I protest against this persistent misrepresentation. I never used such an expression. I said that I would test the position of Ireland by seeing how a treaty could be made. I never asked to have the King of Ireland make a treaty. I specifically said I would decide the status by this as a test. The Minister ought to understand clear English.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I will put it to the other members of the House.

Professor MAGENNIS

The Minister will have it in the Official Report.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Even now, the King has his full title. I thought the Deputy would prefer his partial title. The King is in the Constitution as part of the Oireachtas and as the Executive. The Deputy accepted that. When a treaty is made, in the King's name, it is on the advice of this Government, and the plenipotentiary acts as instructed by this Government. I was rather surprised that the Deputy so much wanted "the King of Ireland," as distinct from the rest of his realms, because one of the chief opponents to having the King separately King of Ireland was a man whom, I understood from the newspapers, Deputy Magennis was angling for as an ally—Mr. de Valera, the man who objected to it most. I understood from the newspapers that Deputy Magennis was assuring him that they had a common point of view on that. I was surprised that Mr. de Valera did not bite to the fly. Deputy Magennis went to the other extreme and was all for the King of Ireland. I am with the Deputy on that point of view. The partition of Ireland did not enter into the matter but, so far as I could gather in my stupidity, Deputy Magennis devoted almost all his conversation to the whole question of partition. Again he said:—

"It seems to me if, after the expiration of the month allowed to Northern Ireland to exercise its option, the decision be for partition, the responsibility for that in large measure should be understood by the people of Ireland to rest, and rest heavily, upon those men who have set out to devastate the country and to destroy the body of Ireland in order, as they allege, to save her soul."

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

What is the Minister quoting from?

Mr. FITZGERALD

From the Official Report.

The PRESIDENT

November, 1922.

Professor MAGENNIS

Before this Minister turned partition into separation.

The PRESIDENT

"Responsibility for partition"—your own words.

Professor MAGENNIS

"Partition" before the Cosgrave "partition and separation."

Mr. FITZGERALD

I take it that the second partition must have been simply supererogatory. Deputy Baxter wonders if we took any action about the "Defender of the Faith." That title, I presume, was given to ancestor of the King's and his successors by the Pope. I think that the Pope is well empowered to give such honours.

Mr. BAXTER

A very worthy defence.

Mr. FITZGERALD

One Deputy expressed surprise about sending Acts to London and asked what was the position in this country. I suggest that Deputies would read, at least casually, the statement I made here yesterday. I stated in that what the position was here.

Mr. BAXTER

Was that matter ever put up?

The PRESIDENT

It was, and they turned it down.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Deputy Magennis also talks about our status in the League of Nations. When we entered the League of Nations, we could only do so provided we had full jurisdiction and control over the area that we governed. Therefore, we entered for the present area of the Free State. If we had purported to enter for the whole thirty-two counties we would not have been eligible for entrance. Therefore, I cannot see that there is any change in our status in the League of Nations by the points raised here. There is, in fact, a change by the fact that we are no longer indented under cover of the phrase, "British Empire," and there is no plenipotentiary but the one appointed by this Government who has power to act in any way for the Free State, whereas before there was the British Empire with other Dominions indented underneath it and the British plenipotentiary with unlimited powers making a tangible unified representation on it. That has now gone. The plenipotentiary appointed by the British Government has no more power to act for this State than our plenipotentiary has to act for theirs. In that there is actual co-equality. I said yesterday that that was an exact and precise representation of the existing state of affairs, but Deputy Magennis said that it was quite the contrary. But it was not.

Every document is susceptible of several interpretations. I said yesterday something like this: that, in fact, there is no such constitutional organism as the British Empire. There is a series of States with one unifying feature, the King. There is no central government or federal Government. Each Government is complete in itself and no Government has control over any other Government, although there are certain forms existing still which, as I have said, are recognised in their temporariness and which will be done away with as time and circumstances permit.

Professor MAGENNIS

May I ask is there any such thing as a community of nations known as the British Empire? Are these words without meaning?

Mr. FITZGERALD

The Deputy knows that I have said that there is no constitutional organism but there is such a thing as the British Commonwealth of Nations, which cannot really be described as a constitutional organism.

Professor MAGENNIS

Has it a King?

Mr. FITZGERALD

It has a King acting separately on the advice of each Government.

Professor MAGENNIS

As regards each state?

Mr. FITZGERALD

As regards each state in regard to all their affairs, external and internal.

Professor MAGENNIS

Has the community of nations known as the British Empire and ruled over by an Imperial sovereign, no entity?

Mr. FITZGERALD

It has no constitutional entity.

Professor MAGENNIS

Is it unconstitutional?

Mr. FITZGERALD

We could go on in this way all night.

Professor MAGENNIS

The Minister undertook to reply to me. Part of my case was that there was a community of nations known as the British Empire, that it has functions, that the control of them by way of government is the King in his imperial character, and that treaties are signed on behalf of each state with the King's name at the head of the treaty.

Mr. FITZGERALD

The Deputy says that there is a political entity called the British Empire. There is not. He says that it is ruled over as regards government by an imperial King. That is incorrect. The King's function is to reign, not to govern. That is done by the Governments of the various countries. The King acts on the advice of each separate Government. These advices might quite easily be contradictory, and nullify each other. With regard to one Government he can do one thing, and with regard to another Government a different thing, because in his functions he is several. Every document is capable of several interpretations. Here we have a series of states, having been one they have grown into several with all sorts of anomalies. There is nothing particularly illogical about it in any direction in the move from chaotically logical into logicality a little less chaotic. The document in front of you is logical.

Professor MAGENNIS

But is it satisfactory?

Mr. FITZGERALD

Yes, it is eminently satisfactory, inasmuch as it improves the position and makes it clearer than before that there is a root principle, which is co-equality. That co-equality is co-equality of independence. We could be co-equal in this way: every Government would have to submit or yield to a veto of, say, five other Governments. That is not so. Each Government is a complete and independent thing in itself. I made a statement yesterday giving the interpretation of this Government to the document, and I suggested that the only interpretation of the document, which matters to the members of this Dáil or to the people of this country, is the interpretation put upon it by their own Government. The acts and practice of this Government will be guided by our interpretation. It is, therefore, quite irrelevant to quote the interpretation of outsiders, and a lot of time has been wasted here in quoting interpretations, most of which were made before the document was written. I think Deputies should be satisfied that my statement represents the interpretation which we are going to follow, and, if Deputies, including Deputy Baxter, who I believe would not wantonly or wilfully misconstrue it, would read the document carefully they would find in it what was the practice before, and what was the practice we got by the Treaty—that the practice and constitutional usage of Canada should be the practice and constitutional usage here. That was accepted by Deputy Johnson, Deputy Magennis, and Deputy Baxter. They will find in my statement yesterday what was the practice we inherited and what are the proposals for altering it. I am satisfied that the proposals show a definite improvement in the direction in which we wish to go. Therefore, I say the document is eminently satisfactory. Deputy Baxter spoke of enthusiasm, but I am afraid that my nature at this time of life is incapable of enthusing. I made, as well as I could, a clear statement to enable Deputies to understand the implications of that document. I do not ask anybody to enthuse about it. I do not say that we have now arrived at perfection, but I say and maintain that every intelligent reader of the document will agree that it is eminently satisfactory.