asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will state the precise date on which the present Irish Minister to France was officially accredited to Belgium, and if the method of his appointment was in all particulars in conformity with the principles discussed and settled at recent Imperial Conferences.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Minister to France.
The Irish Minister to France presented his credentials as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Irish Free State to Belgium on the 7th September. He was accredited on the advice of the Government of the Irish Free State in accordance with the established constitutional practice.
The last portion of the reply I assume means that the credentials were countersigned only by the President and signed by the king.
The usual constitutional practice was followed.
They were signed by the King and countersigned by the President only?
The Deputy knows the practice.
The President is afraid to state the practice?
Not in the slightest. I simply wanted to recollect, to make sure that the Deputy was putting it properly.
Is that putting it properly?
With regard to the fact that it was signed, yes.
That it was countersigned by the President only and that it is the King's signature that was countersigned by the President only?
That statement is not quite right, that it had the King's signature only. It is not correct.
May we have what is correct? Was it signed by the King?
The letter, of course, was drawn up by us, that is the letter of credence, and, as it was the usual constitutional practice to have it signed by the King—yes.
And countersigned by the President.
It never has been.
Can we not get a straight answer to this question?
The straight answer is that if the Deputy had been more explicit in his question he would have got a more explicit answer.
And the only statement the President made was wrong?
No. As the Deputy well knows there are documents of a different character signed for different purposes.
And in the President's desire to be explicit he went wrong.
No, you went wrong.
The Deputy knows very well he made a false suggestion when he knew perfectly well what the procedure was.
And I am pointing out what the President did not know?
The President did what he knew was the constitutional practice at the time.