I move: That the Bill do now pass.
Citizenship Bill, 1934—Fifth Stage.
Sir, as this Bill was originally presented to the House, it was a somewhat half-baked and amateurish but comparatively harmless measure. During the course of the Second Reading debate, the President apparently suddenly woke up to its possible publicity value and decided on converting it into one of those shackle-breaking measures of which we have heard so much from the Vice-President and the other leaders of the Government Party. In that ambition he relied upon the never-failing assistance of an organisation known as the Irish Loyalists' Association, which has frequently given him valuable aid in the past and, no doubt, will in the future. It is a sort of penny-in-the-slot machine. Whenever the President puts in a penny the slot never fails to respond and there are cries of "help!""police!""fire!""murder!" and other loud noises, which admirably correspond with the President's desire as representing himself as taking a step onwards in the grand national march towards the 32-county republic.
Now, considered as a step towards a 32-county republic, this Bill is just as bogus as previous measures that have purported to be steps in that direction. The Government has not advanced one inch in that direction since it came into office. Deputy Donnelly says they will not stop until they arrive there. What it is they will not stop, I do not know, unless it is humbug, cant and deception of the electorate, and I am afraid that indeed they will not stop that as long as they find it can be conducted with profit. In actual fact, a 32-county republic is unattainable. If Deputies opposite were serious in desiring us to make even an attempt to attain it, they would bring in conscription to-morrow and instead of spending millions yearly in degrading ourselves by sending our goods to the British market, and giving bounties to get our goods into that market, we would be spending the same amount of money on organising an air-force with plenty of bombs and poison gas.
We have enough of that here.
We would be preparing for the day when, with the Deputies opposite in the front line, we would advance against the North and against the forces of the British Empire. Until I see some sign of that sort of preparation I decline to believe that one single word said by the Deputies opposite about a 32-county republic can be taken seriously. This Bill certainly carries us no distance at all in that direction.
As I have said, the President, in the course of the Second Reading debate, uttered a phrase with reference to the alleged impertinence of anyone who hereafter would refer to us as having the status that is shared by the citizens of every portion of the King's Dominions. But he is not actually taking any steps, nor is he predicting that he will take any steps, to see that we do not, in fact, degrade ourselves by taking advantage of such privileges as that status confers. His opinion is that henceforward such privileges will be on a different basis and that a Convention will be made between this country and Great Britain for the exchange of reciprocal privileges. The President shakes his head. So it appears that I have taken even that part of the Bill too seriously.
The Deputy has not read the Bill.
The President will contradict me if I am wrong in saying that he wishes that any privileges that the inhabitants of this country possess as a result of our association with the British Commonwealth should rest on the basis of some sort of agreement of a reciprocal character between the two countries, rather than on the basis of the common status possessed by all the inhabitants of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I suggest, if it came to making any such reciprocal arrangements, that the President would be very slow to give to the British the kind of facilities that they at present give to us. I wonder if he would really allow Englishmen to become officers in the Free State Army by competitive examination without any restriction as the British allow us into their army. I wonder if he would allow Englishmen to enter into open competition for posts in the Civil Service as Irishmen are allowed to do in England. But, even if he were to go to the extreme of generosity in these matters towards the British, it can hardly escape the attention of the House that what we have to offer falls very far short of what the British at present give us. We certainly have not the opportunities for careers of distinction available in this country for incoming Englishmen that the British have for incoming Irishmen. Still less are we in a position to protect British subjects or to protect English citizens in various parts of the world in the same way as the British extend their protection to Irish missionaries in China and other countries, civilised or semi-civilised. It would be open to doubt if on the basis of reciprocity we would have very much chance of obtaining the advantages we have at present. I suppose the House can hardly be blind to the consequence of our really being treated as aliens by the British. If the President were to be taken at his word we should be treated as aliens. In fact, it would be an impertinence on the part of the British to treat us in any other way. Nurses, doctors, engineers, even the harvesters who go to England to make money and spend it in this country would suffer extremely and severely and the unemployment problems of this country would be correspondingly increased. Supposing that in the course of time the British decide to take us at our word in this matter—I do not think there is any early likelihood of their doing so—but supposing the time came when they did? I can see the Minister for Defence rising in this House to say, as he said the other night with reference to cattle quotas, that the British were acting with perfect propriety in the interest of their own people, that the time had come when they felt it necessary to find more employment for their own people and, accordingly, to close opportunities to us, and that the Fianna Fáil Government, so far from being in any way to blame for bringing that state of things to pass, had shown most extraordinary sagacity and foresight by passing the measure which we are considering to-day. The argument would be about as convincing in this case as it was in the case of the cattle quotas.
Is it really true that the possession of this common status and the exercise of the privileges conferred by that status are something that is degrading to this country or that is contrary to the national tradition—
Certainly.
I suggest that it is not. In a recent speech at Trinity College the President announced that those from this country who had contributed to the building up of the great world-wide institution, which goes by the name of the British Commonwealth of Nations, had been Irish Unionists, who had not been in sympathy with the aspirations of our people. I absolutely deny that. I contend that far the greater percentage of the effort that has gone forth from this country towards building up and developing the British Commonwealth has been that of Irish nationalists. As an instance of that, I venture to repeat something I said in a speech in the country the other day: that if the President and Lord Craigavon were to pay a visit to-morrow to Australia, there would probably be 100 persons to cheer President de Valera for every one there would be to cheer Lord Craigavon. We have earned by the shedding of our blood and the sweat of our brow the privileges throughout the British Commonwealth which the President now considers it an impertinence for the British to attribute to us as part of our common status in that Commonwealth. It is so far from true that it is against Irish nationalist tradition to take advantage of these opportunities that even the man whom the Party opposite describe as their greatest hero—Wolfe Tone—no less than five times in the course of his brief career, sought to obtain employment by the British Government overseas in connection with that very work of developing and building up the British Commonwealth. I remember well that at the time of the Home Rule controversy—before the war—there was not one of us then active on nationalist platforms who would not have resented the suggestion that Irish nationalists had not done a great deal more than Irish Unionists had done to create and develop the British Commonwealth. Consequently, I believe that the President's attitude on the matter is founded on an entirely wrong view of history and on an entirely false philosophy.
I said yesterday, with reference to this Bill, that it was one more instance of the Government's neglect of the principle to which they affected to agree in this House—that the primary object of Irish statesmanship was to produce reconciliation and reunion between North and South. This, as amended, is exactly the kind of measure, and the language used in connection with it is exactly the kind of language that tends to irritate and alienate the majority in Northern Ireland. If for that reason alone, apart from anything else, I deeply deplore the inclusion in this measure of Section 30, which the President added at the eleventh hour, and the remarks which he thought fit to make in connection with it.
This Bill is, I suppose, now about to pass into law. I only hope that the talk that has gone on in connection with it, representing it as, in some way, a step towards separation and a republic will be abandoned, because it is all nonsense. As I said before, the measure is, for the most part, innocuous, but there has been inserted in it, at the last moment, something which is intended to make it one of those sham shackle-breaking demonstrations by which the Party opposite are in the habit of attempting to excite their followers and persuade them that they are really doing something to arrive at a 32-county republic. I hope that common sense will prevail, that any factitious excitement that has been aroused by what has been said will die down and that President de Valera and the Irish Loyalists' Association will be equally disappointed by the whole of this business turning out to be a damp squib.
I should like to ask the President to answer a simple question in the most unambiguous terms he can use. I regard this measure as one of a series of pin pricks which the President has been urged to deliver by a body outside this House. This is one of a series of Bills, beginning with the Bill for the abolition of the Oath, which, in my view, have been introduced in order to satisfy a body of persons outside this House who are giving the President and his Government almost as much trouble as they gave Deputy Cosgrave and his Government when in office. I should like to have from the President on this occasion, a very clear and unambiguous declaration as to whether he intends to proceed in the direction of declaring a republic for the Twenty-Six Counties or whether he intends to declare a republic for the 32 counties. As Deputy MacDermot has said, if the intention of the President and of his Government had been to create an atmosphere favourable to the inclusion in and the entry into this State of our brothers in the North, that intention has been negatived by the introduction of this measure and measures closely allied to it. The declaration I want to get from President de Valera, on behalf of his Government, is as to whether it is his policy to establish a republic for the Twenty-six Counties, or a republic for the Thirty-two Counties. Let the Irish people know exactly where they stand. My experience goes to show that most of the ordinary, common people are quite satisfied to remain within the institution known as the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is unnecessary for me, at this stage, to labour all the advantages that are to be gained and that have been gained by membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
It is not necessary for me either to relate to the President the damage that can be done and already has been done to Irish nationalists abroad by the introduction of this measure followed by the other Constitutional Bill which, I believe, also is going to do inestimable damage to our nationals abroad. The President himself must know that many of our people have got, on their merits alone, very lucrative positions abroad, notably in Great Britain. These positions are being jeopardised every day, not by the action of the British Government, but by the action of many citizens in Great Britain who feel annoyance and natural annoyance at the numerous pinpricks that President de Valera and his Government are gratuitously giving to Great Britain. I would like a clear indication from the President as to whether he intends to pursue this policy of pinpricks, or is it his intention to declare without any doubt a Republic for the Twenty-Six Counties——
The debate, on the Fifth Stage of the measure is restricted to the scope of the measure. This Bill deals with citizenship and Irish nationality, and does not claim to decide between a Republic and a Commonwealth.
I shall at once bow to your ruling, but I think I was dealing with certain declarations of the President on this and similar measures.
The Deputy must confine himself now to this measure. It would not be in order to discuss similar measures.
Very well, Sir, on that basis I am afraid I cannot have from the President the declaration I sought to get. I have only to say in conclusion that while this Bill may appear quite innocuous, in so far as it relates to the citizens of Great Britain, it certainly will have serious reactions upon many of our own nationals who have been able to secure lucrative and decent employment in Great Britain and in the British Dominions.
What I object to strongly in this Bill is that nationality and citizenship are transmissible only through the father. I think that is a very poor compliment to the women of Limerick and to the members of the Cumann na mBan. It is really a relic of the great influence of Roman law, under which the woman was looked on as either under the patria potestas or in manu maritil, or the principle of the old English law, that husband and wife are one and that the husband is that one. I think that, in these modern days, when women have been emancipated and justly emancipated, there should be accorded to the wife the same rights as are accorded to the husband. And I am very much surprised that the President and his advisers should have thought it the proper thing to do to confine Irish citizenship only to the children of an Irish, or Saorstát father. I understood the other evening when I put a question to the President that he agreed—but I may have misunderstood him—that the word “parent” or “either parent” should be substituted for “father.” But I see in the Bill, as it now stands, that it is only through the father that citizenship may be transmitted. I may point to the fact that in very many countries in early times, descent was traced not through the father, but through the mother. That may come as a surprise to some members of the House, but if they will look at the Greek word for brother—adelphos—they will see that it suggests that it was through the mother and not through the father that succession came. At any rate, without referring to past precedents or ancient history, I do think that, in these days of enlightenment, the same privilege should be accorded to the wife as to the husband, so far as citizenship and nationality are concerned.
I would like to ask the President one or two questions. The first is whether he thinks this Bill would suffice in the event of the country becoming united and whether it would serve as a model to those who, perhaps, might not have as big a claim to the word nationalist as many members of the Fianna Fáil Party have. As an Irishman I am very solicitous about the good name of the country. As far as this Bill is concerned, the words of a great Irish patriot come very vividly before my mind; the words delivered by Robert Emmet in his speech from the dock, which were something like this: "when my country shall take her rightful place amongst the nations of the earth, then and not till then let my epitaph be written." I take it that the real inference to be drawn from these words is that Robert Emmet anticipated how his name would be immortalised, as all Irish heroes' names are immortalised, by the Irish people, especially when they are dead and gone. And what Robert Emmet told the Irish people in these words, as it seems to me, was: "Say nothing about me! Forget all about me until you have finished my work!" I would say to the President that when Ireland takes her rightful place as a nation, one and undivided, amongst the nations of the earth, then and not till then let such a Citizenship Bill as this be introduced in this House.
I want to refer en passant to something that the President said the other day which might be misunderstood. I had said that in such a Bill as this regarding nationality the principle should be assumed as the normal course that the wife should have the nationality of her husband. I then indicated that as all other countries did not accept that principle, naturally it would be right and proper in the case of Irishwomen by marriage being liable to be rendered Stateless, that our Government should take steps to see that such women did not become Stateless, but would have the protection and rights of Irish nationals until such time as they acquired another citizenship. The President and the Attorney-General seemed to imply that certain signatories to a certain document protested against the principle of a wife having her husband's nationality and, as one of those names was that of a man who agreed with me, I think the statement was very misleading. Apart from that I feel it was rather a pity that we ever discussed this Bill. The fact of its having been discussed as much as it was might easily give the impression it has really been well considered. I do not pretend to know what is in the mind of the Government, but it seems to me the Bill was introduced and rushed through the House for a certain reason. It is quite conceivable in relation to another Bill that it might be in the interests of the people of this country to hasten its passage into law. I feel quite convinced that the reason of this indecent haste is not concern for the people of this country, but what people in another country might think of certain people in this country. The Bill was introduced as a Citizenship Bill and, to-day, for the first time, we have before us a Bill entitled “Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill.”
Yesterday an amendment was rushed through the House saying that this Bill may be cited as the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill. I do not think we actually amended the title, but we certainly did arrange, as far as this Bill is concerned, that it may be cited under a certain name. We might have said that this Bill could be cited as the Bacon and Pork Bill, and then that would be the way it would be referred to in the courts.
The Bill that was argued here through various stages was the Citizenship Bill, but now we are presented with a Bill called the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill. Whether this Bill is actually being put through in accordance with the law of this country is a matter about which I am not very sure. I regret very much that we discussed this Bill, because I have very grave doubts as to the purpose of certain sections of it. I do not think the Bill was given proper consideration. It has not been properly considered, because there was a rush to get it through this House before Christmas, not for any reason affecting the interests of the people of this country, but largely because of what people outside this country might think about certain other people. I think one of the reasons why there is so much that is doubtful in this Bill is that those responsible for it were not thinking of what we wanted for our people here; they were merely thinking of certain people outside this country.
I do not pretend to have examined this Bill with great legal precision, but there are certain things in it that to me would seem to need serious questioning. In the first section, I observe that the word "citizen" when used in relation to Saorstát Eireann includes a person who is a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution. I gather from that that the person who fulfils the conditions set out in Article 3 is a citizen. Then I go on to Section 2, and I see that people under certain conditions not quite defined shall be natural-born citizens of Saorstát Eireann, and later I find that certain people shall be regarded as naturalised citizens. You may have a Bill about sons, and then you can say that under certain conditions people shall be regarded as adopted sons. I do not know of anybody who would be regarded as a citizen simpliciter in this Bill, except people under Article 3 of the Constitution. There are provisions thereafter for natural-born citizens and naturalised citizens. I notice it is implied in the first clause that the genus citizen is something wider than the Article 3 citizen, because the word citizen includes the Article 3 citizen. If I were called upon to swear according to this Bill who else is a citizen, I know there is some entity which includes the lesser entity, namely, the Article 3 citizen as a citizen. Thereafter, I find natural-born and naturalised citizens, but no citizen simpliciter.
If you treat a citizen as a son, those other people might come under the heading of adopted sons; but an adopted son is only an adopted son, he is not a son. I am not quite sure what the position created by this Bill is in regard to that. I find in Section 21 that a person who, after he has attained the age of 21 years, becomes a citizen of another country, shall thereupon cease to be a citizen of Saorstát Eireann. In another part of the Bill it is stated that the word "citizen" in relation to other countries includes a subject. According to the British law, we are all British subjects. When a young man becomes 21 he does actually become a British subject according to British law. I do not say there is any act of his own volition implied in that. Section 21 merely uses the words "becomes a citizen of another country." What is "becoming a citizen of another country?" Any one of us can go to England to-morrow, or in ten years' time, and we are the equivalent of citizens there; we are subjects in that country. What is the purport of that clause in relation to the cases I have mentioned? A person who attains 21 becomes a British subject by British law. Does he automatically lose his Irish citizenship? I admit it does not imply any volition on his part, but this clause does not say any volition is required. One could go through this Bill and argue many points of a similar nature.
What was the Deputy doing on the Committee Stage?
We were told the Committee Stage had to be finished by midnight on a certain night. There was clearly an attempt to rush this Bill through the House and that rushing had nothing to do with the necessities of the people of this country. It was only needed, in the President's mind, because of what, I presume, he thought people outside this country might think of him and this Bill. He came to the Dáil and we here were told that the Committee Stage of this Bill had to be put through by a certain time. The Dáil had to sit until midnight and we were told the Committee Stage would have to be completed by that time. We were told that the Bill had to be put through all its stages before the Christmas Recess. Such tactics do not permit of the proper consideration of a measure of this nature. I rather regret that we discussed the Bill at all. We are passing a Bill through now which, I think, leaves a tremendous number of loopholes. I am not a lawyer and I am not discussing the measure from that angle; but it seems to me that this Bill has not been given the consideration it requires. It has not been properly considered from the point of view of what is needed for the people of this country. It was considered only in relation to other matters.
We are told that the Bill has to be passed through the Dáil to-day. I think the whole treatment of the Bill has been thoroughly wrong. The measure has not been considered from the point of view of the interests of the people of this country. Various important changes have been made in it as late as yesterday. We are told we have to finish it to-day. As far as I can, I would like to indicate that the Dáil has not properly considered the Bill and any flaws that may be found in it will be in no way due to negligence on the part of the Dáil, but will be altogether due to the fact that the Government wanted the measure made law within an unreasonably short time and all the haste is certainly not in the interests of the people of this country.
Perhaps the first thing I should do is to deal with this suggestion that this Bill has been rushed, and that the Dáil has not been given a fair opportunity for considering the terms of the measure. I have a few dates down here in connection with this Bill; I thought this sort of thing would be tried on. I have a note here that this Bill got the First Reading——
May I ask what Bill the President is referring to?
I am referring to this present Bill—the Bill of which we are having the Fifth Reading now.
The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill?
Yes.
I never saw it until to-day.
That is the main tenor of the Deputy's argument always. Some little, petty, miserable point like that is the basis of all his talk.
Why change the title if it is a petty and miserable point?
We thought it right to change the title.
Because it is a petty and miserable point?
The reasons will come later. The Deputy was allowed to speak as much as he chose. I just interpolate one remark about the time during which the Bill is before the House, and I expect to be allowed to say what I want to say, the Deputy having got, without interruption, all the opportunity he needed. This Bill got its First Reading on the 27th June. Of course, the First Reading, I admit, does not mean much. All it ought to do is to put Deputies who are interested in a subject of this kind thinking about it.
An ex-Minister for External Affairs, when he sees the First Reading of a Bill on Irish Nationality or on Saorstát Citizenship, might be presumed to have sufficient interest in it and to have sufficient material either directly or indirectly at his disposal to find it worth while to do a little bit of thinking about the matter, and not try to do it on the Fifth Stage of the Bill. The Bill was circulated on the 5th November. That is the date on which ordinarily the study of a Bill in which Deputies were interested would begin. It got its Second Reading ten days later—on the 15th November. Surely there was ample time in those ten days for Deputies who were interested— particularly, again I would say, for ex-Ministers for External Affairs—to study the terms of the measure. There was an interruption of 13 days in the Second Reading, so now we have had 23 days before the principles were decided upon—23 days in which to study the Bill. Not merely that but we gave, as an interval between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, from the 28th November to 12th December. And this is the Bill if you please that is being rushed! This is the Bill which Deputies have not got an opportunity to consider. This is the Bill to which Deputies who were interested did not get time to put down considered amendments. To-day is the 19th December—seven days later. Yesterday we took the Report Stage, and the Deputy knows that if there are any amendments which merit consideration they can be considered on the Report Stage. Nobody putting through a Bill like this would dream of denying anybody an opportunity of consideration for an amendment that was any value. On the introduction of this Bill I said I hoped that it would not be dealt with by the Dáil as a Party measure. I indicated that it was a Bill of very far-reaching importance, and I asked the co-operation of members on the opposite benches as well as of members here who are supporting the Government. I am quite well aware that there are people on the opposite benches who have had an excellent opportunity, if they had wished to avail of it, of understanding the implications of this measure. There are two ex-Ministers for External Affairs on those benches. One of them is a lawyer by profession. He is also a professor of International Law in the University. It would not be too much to expect that people equipped like that, and with such sources of information at their disposal, would come in here to the discussion of this Bill in the manner in which an Opposition really can be prepared.
I wanted to get the fullest consideration for this measure in the interests of the country as a whole, and I suggested that I would welcome any criticisms or any suggestions which would help to make this Bill what I should like it to be, that is a thorough-going basis for Irish Citizenship and for the determination of Irish Nationals. I am not going to deny for one moment that there were some helpful criticisms and some helpful suggestions, but they did not come from Deputy Fitzgerald. In fact the Deputy who is now accusing us of rushing this measure through did not deign to go into the principles of this Bill, except to talk about something which was not in it—suggesting that the Bill was somehow or other cutting across the ideal of the unity of the marriage tie. There was, I say, a certain number of helpful suggestions, and I think that any person who is here will admit that where there was an attempt to make a point which had to be met it was carefully considered. Deputy MacDermot said that this was a half baked measure when it was introduced. I do not agree with that at all. I want to say that of the amendments which were introduced not one of them touched the vital principles of the Bill. They were, in the main, amendments of detail, and where there have been changes made here they are changes which were made not because they were necessary but on account of criticism which might suggest that the Bill contained something which it did not contain. It was thought advisable to make those changes in order that there might not be any public misconception about the character of the Bill. It was not a half baked measure. It was a measure carefully considered and worked out in its details to secure that certain principles would lie at the basis of our citizenship.
It is quite obvious from some of the remarks which were made that it is necessary to repeat once more what are the principles of the Bill. The first criticism we got was from an ex-Attorney-General, who suggested that this Bill was of a local character; that the word "citizen" had nothing to do with nationality and was quite a different word from the word "national." We do not agree with that at all, but lest there might be some people who might be misled by statements of that sort, we amended the title in order that we might make quite clear what our view is—that as far as the application of a Bill of this kind is concerned they represent one and the same thing. You will find in the laws of some countries that the word "citizen" is used. In the laws of other countries, you will find the word "national." You will find that, for the most part, "citizen" is applied in the Republican countries— although not universally, absolutely or exclusively so—and you will find the word "national" used in others. The word "national" is used very frequently in international treaties, in regard to international conventions, and so on. To say that there is any vital change made in the Bill by changing the title from "Irish Citizenship Bill" or "Saorstát Citizenship Bill" to "Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill" is to speak nonsense. The Bill is entitled to be called that if we want to so call it, and I just put in an amendment calling it that in order that there might not be any misrepresentation of its character or any suggestion that it was of local application, such as was made by Deputy Costello. What are the provisions of this Bill? What is its character generally? What is the need for it? Some Deputies suggest that it is only when this nation took its rightful place amongst the nations of the earth that we should bring in a Bill like this. There has been urgent need. I am not going to suggest that it would not be a much prouder moment to bring it in under these circumstances than it could possibly be at the present time. It is however, the best we can do at the moment. Its need has been urgent for the last ten or twelve years. I remember how surprised I was when in America about 1929 to be told by a member of a women's organisation there, who was trying to get our nationality law in order that she might know the position here with regard to the status of women, so as to make representations at the Hague or elsewhere, that she had written to the Department here and that she could not get any information; that, in fact, there was no nationality law here at all. I began to examine the position, and everybody who has examined the position knows perfectly well that there has been a hiatus here in this matter since the passing of the Constitution. The Constitution dealt with a situation as on a certain date, and left it to subsequent legislation to provide for naturalisation, etc., after that. That is the first thing for Deputies to get into their minds.
What was the position established by Article 3 of the Constitution? Deputy McGilligan, on the Committee Stage, purported to give a certain interpretation of that Article. I read his speeches afterwards and tried to get at what he meant; but I am not satisfied that anything I could understand from his statements is in the Article itself. If you read the Article, you will find that it establishes a certain body of citizens as at that date. They are the people who were domiciled in Ireland at that date. That was the condition precedent for being regarded as a citizen—that you had your domicile in Ireland on that day. On to that were imposed certain conditions. It was not sufficient that you should be domiciled in the area of jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann at that period. Over and above that condition, you had to be born in the territory, or either or both of your parents had to be born in the territory; or you should have resided ordinarily in the territory for a period of seven years previous to that date. There were two conditions, therefore, before you could be regarded as a citizen under Article 3—that you were domiciled, that you were born there yourself, that one of your parents at least was born there, or that you had a certain period of ordinary residence in the area. Moreover, Article 3 made it quite clear that your title to citizenship of Saorstát Eireann could only be made good within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Saorstát. So that you had a limitation of citizenship to being within the limits of Saorstát Eireann and you had also the special conditions which had to be fulfilled before you could be regarded as a citizen.
It also stated that provisions for the acquisition of citizenship would have to be made by ordinary legislation—that the future acquisition of citizenship would have to be arranged by legislation. It was clearly intended that legislation would follow—that legislation in a Bill such as this would follow immediately. It has not followed until now. This is the first attempt to introduce the legislation which was clearly contemplated under Article 3 of the Constitution. Clearly then the body of citizens was limited to the people who were born in this country, who happened to be domiciled here. People who were born of Irish fathers outside the area and who, ordinarily, by the laws of most countries, would be regarded as Irish nationals, were not provided for. Children who were born in this territory itself subsequent to 6th December, 1922, were not provided for.
We did not happen to have any real difficulties in the matter. There has been no question, for instance, of naturalisation. We had no means, however, by which a person could be made a naturalised citizen of the Saorstát unless we were prepared to use the Acts of another Parliament for that purpose. An Order had to be introduced in 1925 for the restriction of aliens, and that Order had to be made on the basis of a foreign Act. Consequently, no one who at all considers the position in which we are at the moment, and will be until this Bill becomes law, can deny that there is urgent need for a Bill of this sort. Let nobody say that this Bill could very well have been postponed; that it is brought forward as a matter of pinpricking and the rest; or that its urgency is simply for some reason that has not been made apparent to the House. The reason for the Bill is obvious. Deputies may not agree that we are meeting the necessity in the best way; but, at any rate, let nobody suggest either of these two things, which have been suggested in the speeches made from the opposite side —that the Bill has been rushed, or that there is no need for the Bill and that we might very well have left things as they have been for the last 12 years.
The next thing is what are the provisions. As I pointed out, under Article 3 there were people born in this country who, according to the laws of any other country, would have been regarded as citizens who were not provided for at all. They did not happen to be domiciled here. They would, by the laws of any other country, have been regarded as citizens. Provision has to be made for them in this Bill. It must clearly provide for those who have been born since 6th December, 1922, and for those who may be born in the future. We have, therefore, to arrive at some basis on which we are going to fill up these blanks left by Article 3. The basis upon which we proceeded was this. We said: "We will take Article 3 citizens, and we will not touch them, and wherever the word `citizen' is used afterwards it must be remembered that that class will be included in the term `citizen' and that all the rights they possess will be left without interference." The first class of citizens then are those who are created by Article 3. We are not in any way limiting the rights or privileges which they got, but we are extending them in the sense that we are giving a wider scope to their privileges by deleting the contracting words "within the area of the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann" that appeared in Article 3.
We have the right to give our laws extra-territorial effect, and we are doing it both in regard to Article 3 itself and in regard to this Bill. Then we introduced a slight amendment which, of course, Deputy Fitzgerald would make a great deal of, pointing out that this Bill was to be regarded as having not merely municipal and internal effect, but that it was to have international effect also. That was quite clear. I only introduced that in order to meet the misrepresentation which had been started and which was getting a certain amount of currency by people on the opposite benches, whose opinion would appear to people outside to have some weight. Without any doubt whatever, we have the right, and nobody can question it to make laws with extra-territorial effect. Let every Deputy in the Dáil remember that, according to the Hague Convention, the question whether a person is or is not to be a national of a country is to be determined by the laws of that country. It is by this Bill that it will be determined internationally whether a person is or is not a citizen of Saorstát Eireann. I say, however, that the introduction of these words did not, in effect, alter the scope of the Bill. The Bill would be as wide if these words were not there at all. It was put there to make clear to the people who might doubt, or who might be affected by the ex-cathedra opinions expressed on the opposite benches, that the words had some limiting or narrowing scope.
Going back again to the provisions of the Bill, Article 3 citizens then remain with all their rights undisturbed. We are making provision for those who were born in this country before the 6th December, 1922, but who did not happen to be domiciled here and did not come into the class of Article 3 citizens. We are making provision for those by making it easy for them to become citizens. We are eliminating completely in their case the conditions of residence. We have then this class, Article 3 citizens, and we have those who are to be henceforth, from the 6th December, 1922, citizens under this Bill. Those born in our territory after the 6th December, 1922, when this Bill becomes law, are entitled to be regarded as natural born citizens of this territory.
Somebody said in the examination of the Bill here that we were grabbing people. The rule that people born in a certain territory belonging to a certain State are to be natural-born citizens of that State is a rule that is at the fundamental basis of citizenship. We are not grabbing anybody. It may be that persons born in America would by the law of the United States be regarded as American citizens provided certain conditions are fulfilled. With regard to people born here of British fathers—we will suppose an Englishman is over here with his family and there are children born here—these would be quite apart altogether. They would be entitled to be regarded as natural-born British subjects. It is a fact, therefore, that people like that would have dual nationality. On the one hand there would be American citizens, and by our laws they would be Irish citizens. But that happens again and again throughout the whole world. There was a Convention at the Hague, the purpose of which was to try to mitigate the evil effects of this dual nationality. The various States represented indicated as a fundamental principle that the ideal thing would be that each person should have only one nationality and that no person should be without nationality. That is an ideal but it is an ideal at the moment which is unattainable. It happens in regard to numbers of individuals and numbers of States that an individual will want some time, according to the law of the several countries, to be a citizen of more than one country. That is not an ideal, but it is a hard fact which has to be taken cognisance of. The Convention at the Hague was concerned with a conflict on matters of that sort, and was engaged in an endeavour to try to mitigate hardships and anomalies of that sort that result from such a situation. In claiming as natural-born citizens of ours all those who were born here in our own territory we are not doing anything unfair or strange.
We have two classes of citizens, Article 3 citizens and natural-born citizens. There is also another class of natural-born citizens—those who were born of Irish fathers outside our territory. They are automatically Irish citizens if they are born of an Irish citizen father outside this territory. If they are children of a natural-born citizen—where the father himself was not born here in our territory—then they do not automatically become our citizens. They become so only when the fact of the birth is registered, and when they come of age. If they then indicate that they wish to retain their Irish citizenship they can do so. These are the classes of citizens that we have got so far—those who are citizens under Article 3 and those who are natural born citizens by reason of their own birth or that they are born outside this country of an Irish father. We have provisions in the Bill which enable us to adopt into our community strangers coming here who desire to be citizens. Naturally we are very careful in giving that privilege. It is a privilege regarded as such by every community that a stranger should be given the privileges which naturally belong to the community.
What we do is we give to the Minister for Justice, who is the Minister referred to under this Bill, an absolute discretion, with certain limitations. In general he has absolute discretion, and he has the right to determine whether a stranger who wants to adopt our nationality should be given that privilege. We naturally impose conditions. We impose conditions of residence. That is a condition of five years' residence in this country out of the previous nine years. One of these five years must be spent here immediately before the date of the application. It really means that there must be a total of five years ordinary residence within the previous period of nine years. The Minister will have to get the necessary information, forms will have to be filled in in the required manner, and the person must be of good character. If the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom the privilege of our citizenship should be granted, he can grant a certificate of naturalisation. When that certificate is issued, the person receiving it will have all the rights and privileges of citizenship the same as if he had been a member of the community by some natural right—the right of blood or of having been born in our territory. It is natural, when we give a privilege of that sort, that we ought to retain some power of withdrawing it in the event of abuse. We have provisions in the Bill which enable the Minister to withdraw the privilege, if abused, and to cancel the certificate of naturalisation. In general, the principle is that the Minister should have absolute discretion in this respect. An amendment was put forward from the opposite benches to provide that these provisions be administered by the courts rather than by the Minister. We discussed that. We, on our side, admitted that, in other countries, there is administration through the courts. However, having considered the matter fully and weighed the merits of both methods, we decided that it was better that the provisions should be operated through the Department of Justice. There was a difference of opinion on that here, and, on a vote, it was decided in our favour. The whole class of citizens will, therefore, include, as long as they are alive, those who got the privilege of citizenship under Article 3 of the Constitution, those who are natural-born citizens, because they were born in our territory, or were born of Irish fathers, and, finally, those adopted into the community. We make that adoption very simple in the case of a person who has left the community through marriage and who desires to return. But the three main classes of citizens are as I have stated. So far, where is the objection? What is there in these principles to which anybody could reasonably object? Deputies may have different viewpoints on several matters, but the method here is clear and distinct and is not particularly novel. Where we have not insisted rigidly on certain residence qualifications, it is because we recognise, on the one hand, the limitations of Article 3, and, on the other hand, the fact that our people have been scattered over the world. In special cases we have sought to make it easier for them to come home again.
The only suggestion of fundamental difference—putting aside the question as to whether the previous provisions I mentioned should be administered by the courts or by the Department of Justice—was as to whether descent should be through one parent or through both parents. We have adopted the principle of descent through the father alone. The Deputy who spoke a moment ago seemed to imply that that was something extra ordinary, that it was a strange and novel thing to do and that we should have adopted the principle of descent through either parent. That was considered. I do not mind confessing that, if I thought for a moment that it was not going to lead to the conclusion that, on examination, I found it would lead to, I should have put that principle into the Bill. Personally, I think that, as women before the law are regarded as persons who have direct, immediate obligations, they should equally get rights under the law. But, here, I saw that we would be moving in a wrong direction. I already pointed out, on an earlier stage of this Bill, that we have dual nationality and multiple nationality. The ideal would be that a person would have one nationality and one only. Descent through either parent would be bound to lead to confusion. I have shown how a person born here of American parents will be, by American law, an American citizen and, by our law, an Irish citizen. In one case, citizenship will arise because of the fact that he was born on our soil and, in the other case, because of the blood-tie—being born of American parentage. There is enough conflict there. Why should we increase the conflict and the confusion by having descent through either parent? As no hardship that I could see would result from it, I—not without regret—set aside the principle of descent through either parent and restricted myself in the Bill to the principle of descent through the father. If the principle of descent through the mother had been well established elsewhere, I should not object. I did not want to have descent through the father simply because he was the father but because that principle is almost universally established, whereas the other principle would be novel and strange. I should rather have descent, in present circumstances, through the mother alone than to have it through both parents because there would be less confusion but, in this case, we would be establishing a new principle and we would be leading in the direction of increased confusion rather than in the direction of unifying the idea of nationality and towards that ideal by which persons will have only one nationality and no person will be without nationality.
Lest there should be any hardship imposed on the women of our race who may have married abroad and desire to come back, we have special provisions in the Bill by which, if they lose their husbands and desire to come back here, on indicating that they wish to resume their citizenship, they will be deemed to have resumed it and to have come back into our community. The point dealt with there is the only point on which women's organisations would have any fault to find with this Bill. Some representations were made to me on the matter by women's organisations but, on the whole, I found that these organisations were reasonable and that they realised that this Bill is a move in the right direction—that it does seek to avoid all the hardships which women had to suffer as a result of the application of the law that a woman, on marriage, took the same nationality as her husband or, at least, lost her own nationality, which was worse than getting the nationality of her husband, because if she got the nationality of her husband, she had, at least, some nationality. Very often, however, she lost her own nationality without any provision for getting the nationality of her husband.
I am very sorry to interrupt the President but I should like to remind him that an arrangement was made between the Government and Opposition Whips that this Bill should be disposed of by 4.30.
I got no intimation to that effect.
I do not wish to be unnecessarily disagreeable about the matter, but I should like to say that a large number of members wish to speak on the motion for the adjournment.
Then, I should rather wait until to-morrow. I think it is very important that this Bill should be understood and that a good deal of the misrepresentation of this Bill should be dissipated so far as I can dissipate it. Consequently, I think it is only right that I should continue to explain the nature of the Bill and meet the criticisms levelled against it. I regard it as a very important measure and, in every way, a piece of pioneer legislation. It affects people all over the world and I think it is very important that full understanding of its provisions and of the principles on which it is based should be acquired. I was talking of our attitude in this Bill towards women. One of the things we have also provided for is that there should be no hardship to the children of an Irishwoman who goes abroad and gets married. If there is any desire to return, we have provided that she should be regarded as an Irish citizen rather than a citizen of any other country. We have a special provision where on the application of the parent, an Irish citizen or a person of Irish association, it is possible for the Minister for Justice to accord the rights of citizenship.
On a point of order. I submit that this detailed exposition of the clauses of the Bill is out of order on the Fifth Stage of the Bill and is only appropriate to the actual moving of the Second Reading.
On the point of order, it has been repeatedly ruled by the Chair that on the final stages of a Bill, Deputies are entitled to discuss what is in the Bill.
But not in detail.
It would be very difficult to fix the limits of relevant discussion. The President has confined himself to the subject-matter of the Bill and is quite in order.
This is the first time I ever heard a speech of this character on the Fifth Stage of a Bill.
The Deputy will learn more as time goes on. I am dealing with the Bill because of the remarks made by Deputies on the Opposition Benches. It was not my intention, but the more I heard Deputies opposite speaking on the Bill, the more convinced I felt of the necessity of explaining the Bill, so that no one could suggest it was passed without a thorough understanding of what is contained in it. Up to this point I was dealing with the provisions of the Bill in regard to the classes of citizens that it will take cognisance of. Up to this point there has been only one fundamental matter of principle to which objection has been taken, and that is the principle that nationality should descend through the father. Again, I think there was, though I am not quite certain, a vote on that matter, and the majority of the House decided with us —I will admit I had decided for myself before with a certain amount of regret —that we had to work on that principle. But the suggestion has been made from the opposite benches that this was contrary to the principle which had been adopted in Article 3. I say Article 3 was not dealing with the idea of transmission of nationality as such. It was dealing with those who were to be regarded as citizens on the 6th day of December, 1922. It was one thing when we were dealing with a certain situation and asking that our people be admitted under certain clauses and saying that if they are of an Irish father and mother we will do that. That is for a particular grade. It is quite another thing to accept as a principle that you should have transmission of nationality through an Irish parent. We have not adopted that principle, but we have carefully considered the question of hardship or of unequal treatment that might result to women through it, and we have tried in various parts of the Bill to make provision accordingly. I think no one will find that anything that could be done in reason short of accepting a principle which would lead to confusion has been omitted.
Again, throughout the Bill there is the idea of removing this rigid, automatic operation of the law. We have recognised in regard to individuals and families that there are particular circumstances that ought to be taken into account. You cannot in every case get legislation to do it, but we have made arrangements so that there will be a certain amount of elasticity about the application of the general principles which are in the Bill.
The next big point of principle in the Bill is the question of the effect of marriage on nationality. I have already touched upon that. I have said that we do not adopt the principle that the wife should automatically, whether she wished or not, and no matter what the circumstances, become of the same nationality as the husband. The principle we work upon is this: that marriage of itself should not take away citizenship or confer citizenship, and we have worked that out again with the idea of making it easy to maintain the unity of nationality in the family. That principle has also been attacked from the benches opposite. There was the suggestion on one side that it was against the general Christian concept that the family should not be of the same nationality. We admitted that it is advisable for husband and wife to have the same nationality, and we have tried as far as we can to make it possible that it should be so. But our law is not going to operate so that it will be automatic irrespective of the hardships that will follow. We contest the statement that it is a fundamental factor in the unity of a family that the husband and the wife should be of the same nationality. We admit that it is desirable, just as I think in general it would be desirable that the husband and wife should be of the same race, traditions and so on. That is my view, but other people could find reasons for a different view. But we know perfectly well that the world does not go on in that way to-day, and that it is not against any Christian, Catholic or religious principle that people of different races should marry. I should say that, if you examine it home, and consider it fully, you will find that the marrying of two people of different races is more destructive of that ideal unity (by reason of the fact that the sentiments and traditions of the two people who form that family are different) than are the provisions contained in this Bill. When you examine the position and find what are the opinions of Christian thinkers and Catholic writers on a matter of this sort, you will find very rapidly that the view that I have expressed is the view shared by those prominent thinkers.
I told the Dáil, and lest there be any doubt in your minds on the subject I shall repeat what I said, that the League of Nations set up a Consultative Council on which eight international organisations of women were represented. Four out of the eight claimed to represent 45,000,000 women from different countries. They claimed not merely abstract equality in this matter of nationality, but that a woman should not, by the automatic operation of law, lose her nationality; that when her husband changed his nationality, her nationality, through marriage, would not be changed without her consent. Another organisation was a Catholic organisation representing 25,000,000 women, and they put in a claim for recognition of the hardships that were imposed by the automatic operation of law and asked that legislation would be designed towards meeting that particular point. Is it not inconceivable that there should be a demand made for this on behalf of 25,000,000 Catholic women if that were contrary to Catholic principles, Catholic teaching or Catholic doctrine? It is, of course.
There were petitions signed by individuals, prominent Catholic laymen, prominent prelates, secular and regular clergy, 8,000 signatures in all, all prominent people throughout the world. I mentioned some of the names here on the last occasion, names known to you all, and I need not repeat them now. Deputy Fitzgerald tried to create some confusion with regard to what they asked for. Here is one of the terms of the petition: "That a woman, whether married or unmarried, should have the same right as a man to retain or change her nationality." That was the principle subscribed to by those 8,000 people. That was the purpose of the petition; that was what they demanded, and M. Jacques Maritain, who was the person Deputy Fitzgerald referred to and in whose views he concurs, signed that petition, so that Deputy Fitzgerald need have no qualms of conscience with regard to the principle that is embodied in this Bill.
We have made the position easy in this Bill. Marriage of itself does not affect nationality, but if an alien is coming here to marry an Irishman or woman, what is the position? If a woman comes in here, on her marriage with an Irish citizen she can apply to the Minister for a certificate of naturalisation and, if the Minister is satisfied that she is a person to whom such certificate can be granted, he will grant it at once; there is no delay about it; he has only to be satisfied that she is a person to whom such a certificate should be granted. If a man comes here to marry an Irishwoman and he has been two years in residence here, he also can be adopted into our political community and get the full rights of citizenship. That is making for the unity of the family, not by the automatic operation of law, which says: "You shall be of one nationality," but by making it easy for the individuals who ought to have that desire themselves, to have the same nationality. If an Irish person is going out, that person is given a year in which to indicate that he or she wants to retain Irish nationality. If they do not indicate their desire to retain it and they are going abroad and they acquire the nationality of some other country, then by acquiring the nationality of that other country they will cease to be Irish citizens.
On this question of the provisions with regard to marriage and the manner by which we provide for the circumstances that follow marriage, I do not think any reasonable person has any cause for complaint. I would say to Deputy Good, who is one of the members who put down an amendment on this particular matter, that on general principles, whatever feelings he might have towards the principle that a wife should automatically have the same nationality as her husband, I do not think he can say, on reading this Bill, that every possible provision is not made for enabling the wife to be of the same nationality as the husband. If there is any disunity and they are not prepared to meet on that, I do not think the automatic operation of law is going to remedy the defect.
I come to the next main set of provisions, which bring us more closely to the point touched upon by Deputy MacDermot. I refer to the provisions in this Bill for mutual citizenship or reciprocal citizenship; in other words, the provisions by which we are enabled to give to the citizens of other countries who may be here privileges similar to the privileges which those countries confer on our citizens. That is a general provision. We do not know the future, and it is important that we should begin on the right principles. As I have already said, we are rather fortunate coming in at this stage and introducing a Nationality Bill, because we have clean ground to work from. Other countries have had their nationality laws in operation and a lot of complications have occurred and certain things have happened as a result of them, and it is very awkward to make a change. That is the reason I am anxious that this Bill should be on the right foundation, that we should establish it on the right foundation, so that changes will not be desired later, because if they were desired they might be more difficult by reason of the operation of this measure over a period.
Power here is taken, under two sets of conditions, to give to the citizens of other countries the same privileges that those countries accord ours. That is stated in general terms. There are certain restrictions made, but in general terms it means that we are prepared to give in like manner to what we get. I forget what words Deputy MacDermot used in connection with the Bill. He was quite eloquent a few hours ago or half an hour ago or whenever he was speaking.
An hour and a half ago.
He had a wonderful vocabulary. He must have looked up a big dictionary this morning. He was quite eloquent with regard to the bogus character of this Bill, and the deception and all the other things we heard about. I should like it to be pointed out where there has been deception in this Bill. I hope that when I have finished it will be quite clear to everybody that there was no question of deceiving anybody. Is there anything wrong or foolish about saying that we are prepared in certain circumstances to give to others what they are prepared to give to us? To-morrow, circumstances might be such that it would be of value to the United States of America, for instance, to give certain privileges to our people in return for getting some privileges here. It might be said that that is not likely to occur. We do not know the future. Deputy MacDermot would have been prophesying 20 years ago a very different state of affairs from the state of affairs which he sees to-day. Perhaps in 20 years time he may find that he is as foolish a prophet to-day as he would have been then. It is a very foolish thing to prophesy with regard to matters of this sort. The German Empire was a very powerful one. I remember the time when reading history, that I regarded it as one of the greatest States in the world, and thought it very unlikely that anything was going to shake it. I remember how the policy of German statesmen was pointed out to me. We had a great war, and it completely altered those conditions and changed our ideas about those matters. We began to think that, perhaps, people who are lauded as being great are sometimes foolish. I would, therefore, suggest to Deputy MacDermot that he should be very careful about suggesting, because there is a principle here which at the moment does not seem likely to be applied except in one particular direction, that it is not wise to have it as a principle. It is a principle making for self-respect. It is the sort of principle one can have here, and stand over it. It is a principle that cannot be misunderstood by anybody. That principle provides that wherever, by the law of any country, our citizens get certain rights, we can confer similar rights here on the citizens of that country by an order of the Executive Council. There are countries at the present moment by virtue of whose law our citizens have certain privileges and certain rights. Because of those rights which are accorded to our citizens we say we are prepared to give—and will give, by order of the Executive Council, once this Bill becomes law—to the citizens of those countries here rights similar to the rights which are conferred on our citizens by those countries. There was one suggestion in every line of Deputy MacDermot's speech, and it is probable that it is the same sort of thing he will deal with on the adjournment motion. It is perfectly in order here, so I may as well deal with it. At least it seems to me, a Chinn Comhairle, that it is in order, and that I have a right to deal with it. Does the Deputy imagine it is solely for love of us—one would imagine from listening to the Deputy's speech that that was the idea in his mind— that, say, in Britain our citizens have been accorded the rights which they have been accorded in the past? I hope the Deputy is not so foolish.
The Deputy never said that.
The Deputy implied it in almost every word he spoke.
No.
The Deputy can deny that that was his intention, but I will leave it to the Deputies of the House who were listening to decide whether it was not implied in practically every word he spoke that we were wanting something both ways; that we were at fault; and that the privileges which were given to us were given out of goodness of heart and altogether for love of us.
Rubbish!
The Deputy's words will appear. The Deputy in fact, if he will only examine himself, will see that he has taken upon himself, here in this House, the rôle which the Irish Times used to take upon itself outside. I would suggest that this particular rôle, instead of working in the direction in which the Deputy had in mind, is driving him in the opposite direction, because it offends the good sense of any person who knows and examines the situation. It is not for love of us that our citizens have been accorded those rights. I tell the Deputy that if those were the things which mattered most to the Irish people there was a time in which the Irish people might have regarded themselves as being in a superior position to the position of a Dominion. They were part of the Imperial Parliament, if you please, if that was going to satisfy them, and they had privileges in that position which were indistinguishable, as far as the law went, from those which the British had, but the Irish people were not content with that. The Irish people did not want to be assimilated in that way. They were not prepared, in return for those privileges, to give up their own independent nationhood and nationality. That is the difficulty. That is the thing which is not appreciated either by the English or by the section of our people who are minded in that direction. Those people, who do not understand our viewpoint on this matter, and who do not understand that we are not prepared to make that sacrifice or to make that bargain, think, of course, that we are foolish. That is a matter of opinion. The one thing which is completely wrong about it is their idea that we want to have it both ways. I, for one, on any occasion on which I have spoken to the Irish people on this matter, have made it quite clear that we cannot have it both ways; that we have to make up our minds if we do want Irish nationality, and want to have it in its fulness, and to be everything that we want to be as an independent nation, we cannot expect to have that independence and, at the same time, to have the advantages which might flow, for instance, if we were prepared to be represented in the Imperial Parliament, and to be indistinguishable from the English. I remember many a time on platforms throughout the country telling our people: “You have a choice. You can be a footman or lackey in the lord's mansion, and if you get some of the kicks you can also have some of the good things that are going there. If you do not want that you may have to be content for a while with the plain furniture and the plain living and so on of the cottier. Make up your mind which you are going to have.” Our people have had no doubt whatever as to their decision if the choice must be either independence, and the simple life you can have here, with our resources in this country, or on the other hand the sort of conditions which might obtain if they were prepared to forget their nationality and be indistinguishable from the English. My attitude has been: “Make up your minds which it is. Remember if you do want to be independent in the other position, and those with whom you are dealing want to force you into a certain position you must be prepared for it.” I, for one, never suggested to anybody that it was possible to have it both ways. Everybody does like to have it both ways, and, mind you, there would be nothing wrong in our people making use to the full of any advantages that accrued to them, not from any particular right that they had of themselves to get them, but from the fact that others have good reasons for wanting to give them. Any privileges given to our people, or that have been given to our people in Great Britain in the past, have been given, not because the British wanted to confer privileges upon us, but for their own Imperial and other purposes; they wanted to try and assimilate our people and, for their own interest, wanted to have our people in that position. What has been all this trouble between the two countries, not merely in recent years, but practically through the centuries? Is not that the basis of it? —that we were not prepared to give up our own independent nationality, and that the British wanted, whether we wished it or not, to regard us as British subjects and citizens.
What is in this Bill, at any rate, is this: there is a clear indication on our part that, so far as we are concerned here, or our people throughout the world are concerned, we want to be Irish and nothing else. The British are quite at liberty at any time they want to take away these privileges which are given at the present time. Certainly, we do not want them if the basis for them is to be the basis suggested by the British, and, apparently, a basis in which Deputies opposite concur. I am saying that without any heat at all. I think it is very necessary that the difference which exists between the mind of the national section of this people and the viewpoint expressed by Deputy MacDermot and a number of others should be clearly distinguished.
We are then in these mutual provisions saying: "We are not going to say why it is you give them to us, but we admit that our citizens are, in fact, getting certain privileges in Great Britain, and in Canada, Australia and South Africa by the law of these countries; we say that, in so far as our citizens are getting privileges in these countries, we are prepared to give to the citizens of these countries, with the exceptions mentioned, similar privileges. One of the first acts of the Executive Council when this Bill becomes law will be, by Order, to confer on the citizens of these countries privileges akin to the privileges our people get in these countries. We consider that that is fair. We are giving as much as we can. To the suggestion "that the value of your privileges is not so great as the value of the privileges you are getting in return," we say: "We are giving as much as we can give; as far as we are concerned in this matter, it is our all, so to speak; we cannot give any more." If the British want to narrow down the privileges our people are getting to the privileges we give, they are entitled to do so. If we, by our Acts, for instance, by the Control of Manufactures Act, are restricting the privileges that can be given in this way to the people of other countries, they are at liberty to, and they can, if they want to, cut down the privileges of our people to the same extent.
The idea then in this Bill is equality in this matter. It is the only basis on which you can ever have continued association between this country and the other countries in regard to citizenship. We are not going to accept a common citizenship. The idea of common citizenship is repugnant to our people, because by "common citizenship" they interpret "common nationality," and we are not going to give up our nationality. We are prepared to work with these and associate with them in this particular matter on the principle that we give as much as we get: that there is an equality of status in both cases.
Now we come to this question of common status, which has been referred to by Deputies opposite. There never has been acceptance on this side of what the British would call the legal basis of that common status. As far as our people have been concerned— either the previous Government or this Government—in so far as there has been anything that could be called a common status at all, it has simply been this: that we recognise that there is at the moment a certain association; that on account of the fact of these States being associated to form a group of States, what you might call a minor League of Nations, the citizens of these States have a common relation to one another, stand on the same basis with regard to one another, which distinguishes them from other people who are not members of that group; and they give effect to this basis of common relationship by giving reciprocal rights and privileges. That is the only way in which I can see it can be worked out. As far as we are concerned in this Bill, as regards the acceptance of the common status or rejection of it, we are not doing anything that was not done by our predecessors. Our predecessors took the same attitude on this particular matter and in public and private, as far as I know, utterly rejected the suggestion that the common basis was that which has been suggested from the opposite benches.
In the repeal sections of this Bill, which are, as you will notice, in the form "if and in so far as they were ever in force," etc., we are getting rid in Irish law of the idea of "British subject." Whether they were in Irish law before or not, since the Treaty, is more than a disputed question. The view mostly held is that they did not operate here at all. That view can be defended. But there were certain things done, and certain views expressed, which might suggest the contrary; and as we are here in a position to remove doubts and to resolve ambiguities, we take the direct way of doing it by saying that, if and in so far as they were deemed to have been operative here, they are now removed. The fact of it is, that by Irish law henceforth no person born in this country, no person who is a national of ours by our law—and it is by our law that internationally that will be determined—no one who is a national by our law, and that is internationally recognised, no one, in virtue of being our national or born here, will be regarded as a British subject. Deputy MacDermot answers: "You know well that you are not doing anything effective by this; that anybody who goes over to Great Britain can to-morrow claim to be a British subject." If he does, he claims it under the laws which Great Britain can change. We are not asking the British to continue to keep the law in that particular way. We do not ask any of our citizens to do that.
Do you ask them not to do it?
I certainly ask them not to do it. As I say, as long as we are giving reciprocal relationships, they ought to be entitled to get these privileges; and if the British want to deny them they are at liberty to do so. If they do give them, we know perfectly well that it is not for love of us they do it. That is our position. We want every Irishman and woman throughout the world, who are our nationals, to be proud of it and any privileges they seek they ought to seek in virtue of being our citizens.
That brings me to another point: the question of the services that are rendered by British Consuls to our people abroad. So far as I know, that has been accepted on one basis only, even by the previous Government here. The only basis on which it has been accepted is the basis of agreement on those services which are to be rendered. In some places where there were Canadian or South African representatives and we had none, if agreement were made, as it can very well be made, with the Canadian or Australian or South African Governments or any of the others, these services could be rendered to our nationals. For the matter of that, an agreement could be made with Switzerland or any other country. We might make agreements with them in return for which they would give this service. We would not want it for nothing. We would give other services in return. But as a matter of agreement we could ask for the good offices of the representatives of another country as well as those of the British.
It is quite true, and there is no use in our denying it, that the British representatives happen to be in those places to which our people mostly emigrate. It is in those places that the services of the British Consuls are asked. I do not deny that on occasions we have been helped and our citizens and nationals have been helped most willingly and generously by the British Consuls. But on what basis? If it were to be the basis that we were to be British subjects we would do without that service. That is the attitude of our people. We are not ungrateful for any services rendered. We are as grateful to the British for rendering them as we would be to the Consuls of any other country in the world who would render these services to us. But if good will is to be brought about between the two countries and if we are to understand each other and if there are terms of friendship to be got these are to be got on the basis of equality. In regard to equality in these matters, unless we are stupid, we have always to recognise the fact that we have not got the extensive services and not the same thing to offer in regard to matters of that kind as the British have to offer. That is an obvious fact.
Now on the question of what price we are prepared to pay for this, I want to say that if the British are not prepared to give them without demanding certain sacrifices, the position will be that we will not ask them. We will have to look for those services somewhere else. In the meantime, our State is recognised and we are able to get by one method and another, either directly or indirectly, the services of the representatives of the Governments of other countries with regard to our nationals. Consequently the position with regard to the Consular Services is not changed a whit by the passage of this Bill and it would not be changed if the British were, to-morrow, to come along and do what Deputy MacDermot thinks would be a disaster. They are entitled to do it.
If they were to say: "We are restricting the privileges heretofore given to your citizens similar to the privileges you give citizens in your country," we would have to be content with that. I admit that we have representatives in only ten or twelve places, and if the British said: "We want no help from you and as you are not giving us anything in that particular matter, we will make no bargain with you and we will give you nothing," I say we would have to put up with that. Our people, who are engaged in seeking their complete independence, have full cognisance of that. Deputy MacDermot has not full cognisance of it. Our people realise, what they have realised for many generations, and that is that if they want to be independent they have got to make sacrifices which that independence involves. I think perhaps I have covered the ground sufficiently.
Hear, hear.
Does Deputy MacDermot think so? A matter passed through my mind a few minutes ago to which I was going to refer, but I do not remember it at the moment. I think I have said enough to show our attitude with regard to this Bill. I hope to dispel any suggestions that there is any attempt on the part of the Government to deceive. It cannot take off the British Statute Book a British Act. If we pass an Act here claiming that everybody who was born in the United States of America was a citizen of ours, I would call a thing of that sort impertinence. I would find it hard to find a word which would be applicable to such a state of things. But such an Act would remain here and the laws of the United States could not end it. The United States would have their own laws and if we were stupid enough to claim everybody born in the United States as a citizen of ours no law passed in the United States could end that. In the same way we cannot take off the British Statute Book an Act of theirs which claims that the people born in this country are British subjects. All we do is that we do not acknowledge ourselves to be British subjects. That is all we can do. We cannot take an Act off their Statute Book. If the British want to take it off their Statute Book we will welcome their doing so. Deputy MacDermot will be surprised to hear that just as in 1919 we would have welcomed all these consequences from which Deputy MacDermot seems to shrink now——
No, the President shrinks from them.
The Deputy seems to think that the people of Ireland would shrink from these consequences. The representatives of the vast majority of the Irish people met here in Dublin in 1919. They declared the independence of this country and pledged themselves and the lives of their young people to maintain that independence. Does the Deputy suggest that the people who did that did not know what they were about? Does he suggest that the people who met here and tried to secure the independence of this country and pledged the lives of the young people thereto did not mean what they said? How does the Deputy explain that? They knew what independent nationality would involve for them and was likely to involve for them. When at the end of that period negotiations had been entered into, the Republican Cabinet of that date was prepared to offer reciprocal rights such as were being offered under this Bill. Again, Deputy MacDermot would say that it was because the British wanted to carry our burden on their shoulders; that it was because they loved us they wanted to do that. Consequently they sent the Black and Tans here. For what? To keep us so that we would be what they said in their Statute Book we were. By plain talk like that I hope we will understand each other and that we will remember that this Bill is doing nothing in which there is any deception and that what we are doing is to get the English to release that grip by which they regarded us in the past as British subjects.
The Deputy, by other contacts, has lost some of the feeling that is caused in matters of this sort. The word "subject" is abhorrent to an Irish nationalist, and the word "allegiance" is equally abhorrent, so far as it is to an outside country or the representative of an outside country. These things do cut against and do hurt national feeling. "What is it," asks the Deputy, "but a name?" A name can sometimes be a very real thing and have very real consequences. Because our people object to this word "subject," I am delighted it is going to be, so far as Irish law is concerned, wiped out. If I could wipe it out elsewhere in so far as it may have any application to us, I should do it. When this Bill is through, the proper thing for the people across the water to do would be—we cannot compel them to do it—to make their law of such a character that there would be no suggestion in it that they claimed us to be something we do not want to be. We are not accepting any common citizenship. That must be clear—no common citizenship. We recognise that we are in a group of nations. We are quite prepared to recognise that the individual citizens of these nations are, with respect to us while we are in that group, in a special relationship. The only basis on which we are willing to found that relationship is that we are prepared to give mutual privileges and accord mutual rights. If any other basis is forced upon us, then we do not want to have anything to do with it. I think that I have, so far as it would be reasonable to do so, explained the principles and provisions of this Bill and what it is intended to achieve. It is a straightforward Bill and, I think, a comprehensive Bill. It is a pioneer Bill with regard to the rights of women. Probably no nationality law in the world will be so much in accord with the international Hague Convention as the law here will be when this Bill is passed. I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House for its final passage.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 36.
Tá.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennet, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.