Executive Authority (External Relations) Bill, 1936—Second Stage.

Minister for External Affairs (The President)

As set out in the Long Title of the Bill, this is a Bill to make provision, in accordance with the Constitution, for the exercise of the executive authority of Saorstát Eireann in relation to certain matters in the domain of external relations and for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.

I think the simplest way to deal with it would be to take the sections as they occur. The first section sets out:—

The diplomatic representatives of Saorstát Eireann in other countries shall be appointed on the authority of the Executive Council.

I think the wording of that makes its meaning quite clear. Sub-section (2) of that section is:—

The consular representatives of Saorstát Eireann in other countries shall be appointed by or on the authority of the Executive Council.

In one case the words are "on the authority of" and in the other case "by or on the authority of". The second section is:—

Every international agreement concluded on behalf of Saorstát Eireann shall be concluded by or on the authority of the Executive Council.

There are certain Governmental treaties and other treaties, as Deputies will probably be aware, which bear the signature of the King. Section 3, sub-section (1), providing for the exercise of the foregoing powers, sets out:—

It is hereby declared and enacted that, so long as Saorstát Eireann is associated with the following nations, that is to say, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, New Zealand, and South Africa, and so long as the King recognised by those nations as the symbol of their co-operation continues to act on behalf of each of those nations (on the advice of the several governments thereof) for the purposes of the appointment of diplomatic and consular representatives and the conclusion of international agreements, the King so recognised may, and is hereby authorised to, act on behalf of Saorstát Eireann for the like purposes as and when advised by the Executive Council so to do.

There are certain usages with regard to the use of the King for the appointment of diplomatic representatives and consular representatives and for the conclusion of certain types of international treaties. We say that so long as the King is used for purposes of that sort, to the extent that may be advised by the Executive Council, he may be used in the future.

Now, we come to sub-section (2) of Section 3. Certain criticisms were made yesterday in the debate on the previous Bill which seemed to raise certain doubts, and we thought it advisable to clear away the possibility of any of these doubts. Accordingly, there is to be circulated immediately a change which I will introduce in that sub-section on Committee Stage. I think it would be better if I read the sub-section as it will be when amended in accordance with the amendment I propose to introduce. It is designed to dispel some of the doubts raised, if at all possible, and it will read:

Immediately upon the passing of this Act, the instrument of abdication executed by his Majesty King Edward the Eighth on the 10th day of December, 1936, a copy whereof is set out in the schedule to this Act, shall have effect according to the tenor thereof, and his said Majesty shall, for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section of this section, and all other, if any, purpose, cease to be King, and the King for these purposes shall henceforth be the person who, if his said Majesty had died on the 10th day of December, 1936, unmarried, would for the time being be his successor under the law of Saorstát Eireann.

We are, therefore, scheduling the instrument of abdication; we are giving effect to its tenor by law; and we are enacting that he ceases to be King and that the person who will exercise the powers indicated will be the person who, if his said Majesty had died on the 10th day of December, unmarried, would be for the time being his successor under the law of Saorstát Eireann.

Another question that was raised was what our attitude was with regard to the Act of Succession. The advice given to me on the matter was that the Act of Succession, in so far as it would be held not to be in conflict with the Constitution, was taken over by Article 73 of the Constitution, as it was adopted in December, 1922. Accordingly, it makes provisions with regard to succession which are the law of Saorstát Eireann.

Mr. Norton

Would the President say whether any portion of that Act was in conflict with the Constitution?

The President

The portion that immediately interests us here—we do not want to go into any other question —is that dealing with the succession.

Mr. Norton

Would the President say whether an Act which is partly repugnant to the Constitution can be regarded as being in operation here?

The President

I am not a lawyer, but I would say that the parts of it that would be repugnant to the Constitution would disappear and the parts that would not be repugnant, or directly repugnant, would remain.

Mr. Costello

Would the President say what effect Article 8 of the Constitution would have on that law?

The President

I do not like to enter as a layman into very close debates on strictly legal points, and I should have to look up Article 8 because the matter has not been raised with me in any way. I shall have to leave the lawyers to argue it out at the end. The advice given to me, and the advice on which I am acting at the moment, is that this sub-section (2) does what we want to do. It makes effective the instrument of abdication, and, in addition to that, it provides for a successor for whatever purposes he is used in accordance with our Constitution. I think I can leave it to the lawyers to argue out any of the narrow points that may be raised, but I think this clears up the doubts so far as they were expressed yesterday. Personally, I do not see, unless some new points are raised, how there is any ambiguity of any kind left if this sub-section be passed as we propose to amend it.

Professor O'Sullivan

I wonder whether to-day and yesterday the President set himself out to justify the Opposition up to the hilt in every criticism of theirs on his actions both now and in the past? What were we told yesterday? What was the excuse given for the hasty summoning of the Dáil? Because an Act was necessary to deal with the abdication of Edward VIII. What are we told to-day? That the Act hastily introduced yesterday did not do it.

The President

I did not say that.

Professor O'Sullivan

Oh, no.

Mr. MacDermot

You implied it.

Professor O'Sullivan

Did I ever expect the President to say anything definite? He spoke of fogs, and I hope that Deputy Norton sees through the fog of the Act of Succession and the Act of Settlement that the President has raised.

Mr. Norton

I hope you are as clear as he was.

Professor O'Sullivan

After the explanation of the President, this is as clear as any fog he has ever created in this House or in this country. It is quite typical that the Government should call a meeting of the Dáil for a certain purpose. It is quite typical of the Government that they should pass fundamental amendments of the Constitution, so far as form is concerned, under the cloak of that purpose and give no time for their consideration. I am not speaking now of discussion but of consideration. It is equally typical that they should give more time for to-day's business which, if the President had arranged the business properly, could have been largely formal, than to yesterday's Constitution Bill. That is quite typical. There may be some very interesting points raised for constitutional lawyers in the future—I am not very much interested in these— as to whether at the present moment we have a different King from Great Britain, whether the connection is, in fact, broken. Perhaps the President would get his lawyers to answer that. I gathered from him that at the present moment King Edward VIII is still King here. He nods "yes" to that. That is the position. King Edward VIII is not King of Great Britain, therefore the succession and connection between this country and Great Britain is broken for a certain period at all events. That is the position, the fog, into which the President has got the country.

We had a very cynical acknowledgment yesterday from the President that all the damage that has been inflicted on the country is to enable the President to prove, without any chance of contradiction, that two and two make four and here to-day we have another effort on his part to turn, as he said yesterday—I am afraid the Minister for Finance does not seem to pay much attention to what he says; he attributes to me what the President said, a flattery which I do not want to deserve—"a fact into a reality." Here to-day again we are turning a fact into a reality but we do not do it in the Bill which the President has introduced. In the Bill as it stands there is no reference or no provision for the abdication of Edward VIII, not a bit. There is a provision for the recognition of another King for a certain very limited purpose. The President wants to clear up fogs and, as he likes everything to be clear and definite, can he answer this question "yes" or "no"? No, he will not. It might clear up a fog, so he cannot answer, yet he said the main purpose of these Bills is to clear up fogs. Coming in to the Dáil, I noticed in a placard of the special organ, which he controls, the announcement: "End of the Monarchy in Ireland." After the passing of these Bills will in any sense —do not tell me now you are using him for a certain purpose; I want an answer to this question—King George VI be King here? That is a definite question.

Mr. Anthony

We will hold our own King now, as we have him.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is a definite question. Perhaps he would answer it. His paper has answered it. Is that another effort in the fog? I had on one occasion the happiness to attend a meeting addressed by the President—then Deputy de Valera.

A Deputy

In a fog?

Professor O'Sullivan

In Leighlin-bridge. The President was then explaining why he preferred Document No. 2 to the Republic and he gave this explanation: "I was travelling", he said, "along the road by which I wanted to come here from Carlow, but as there had been a storm I could not come along the direct road." Perhaps the President remembers the occasion.

The President

I remember. It has no relation either to Document No. 2 or to this.

Professor O'Sullivan

Very good; we shall see. "I did not come along the direct road because there were trees blocking the way," The President said. "I came by a roundabout way but I arrived at my destination in Leighlinbridge." The President will see I am not misrepresenting him. An interesting fact is that we passed over the direct road a few minutes before the President and there was no obstacle on the road. An interesting fact is that when we were going back to Carlow there was no obstacle on the road.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Boland):

Who cut the trees?

Professor O'Sullivan

The fog, just like those obstacles, is largely the creation of the President himself. If there had been any fog in the minds of the people of Ireland or any doubts about their freedom, it was because these doubts were driven into the minds of the people by the President.

Mr. S. Jordan

You were not travelling on the same road.

Professor O'Sullivan

I suggest, Sir, that these disorderly members should keep quiet. What is the step we are asked to take here to-day? I wish to thank the President for his courtesy in supplying me with a copy of the amendment just now but I call attention to the fact that it is an extraordinary way of getting an explanation of the purposes of the Bill for which we are called to consider here to-day.

Mr. Donnelly

It is the road to Leighlinbridge.

Professor O'Sullivan

It is an extraordinary commentary, as I said yesterday, on his conception of the rights and duties of Parliament. Not merely do the people not know what the Dáil is called together to do, but the Dáil itself is not in a position to know what it is called together to do. Not until the President stands up and comes to a certain portion of the Bill do we know whether the Bill we have before us is the Bill that we were called together to deal with. If that is not contempt for the Parliamentary institutions of the country, I do not know what contempt for the Parliamentary institutions of the country is. This undoubtedly does deal with the question which we were called together to consider.

Now, there is no doubt—there was no doubt yesterday, because the thing did not do it and there is no good in the President's pretending it was for the dispelling of doubts— there is not the slightest doubt that anybody who reads that Bill as it stands could see perfectly clearly that there was no provision whatsoever for the abdication of King Edward VIII. There was a provision for another thing altogether. There was a provision for making, in the elegant language of the President, limited use of a certain person. That is all the provision there was. There was provision for nothing else. But the whole question of abdication, the question of kingship, the question of succession, so far as any other function or duty was concerned, or so far as another status was concerned, was completely ignored. Yet, this is the way the business of the Dáil and the business of the people is treated.

The amendment, Sir, that we have before us and that is now being circulated to the House does seem to meet the main purpose of the Bill. Whether it is in order or not I do not know, I am not going to raise that point, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may deal with that only on the section.

Professor O'Sullivan

As I say, it meets the main purpose of the Bill, but I am not raising that point, Sir— far from it. I have no intention whatsoever to prevent this section being operative so far as it sets out to do what it purports to do. The President gave us some, what he called, explanations. He read the first section. He spent more time on sub-section (2) than on sub-section (1). I wonder whether he was chary about pointing out that in future our diplomatic representatives will be appointed by the King and that Ministers to this country will be accredited to the King. Is not that the position? That is the position. That could have been made clear in his statement on sub-section (1). Well, now, what is sub-section (1)? Is not that the position as it is at present? That is the position as it is at present—another fact becoming a reality. Then there is sub-section (2) of Section 1. Is not that the fact as it is at present—no change there? That is another fact becoming a reality, although what is the difference between them, perhaps, only the subtle mind of the President could make out. Section 2—is there any change in fact there; is there any change in reality even there? There is none.

Now we come to Section 3. In Section 3 the President attributes to other members of the Commonwealth of Nations language which they would not use in reference to themselves. They do not use the phrase "as the symbol of their co-operation." They have deliberately selected another phrasing, but we are going to legislate for them. We are going to tell them how to conduct their business and how to recognise the symbol of their unity. We repudiate any power of other Nations of the Commonwealth to interfere with our internal relations but we are going to tell them how they ought to conceive their relations. Why should not the President use the phrase that is in the Statute of Westminster: that to which they have consented? Why has he not done that? I note the President's gesture. I told the President before not to be making these foreign gestures when I am asking a question of that kind. Why is the phrase of the Statute of Westminster not used? The President had an opportunity to give explanations, but he merely read out what was there. We were able to read that ourselves. Furthermore, I think that anybody who knows, as the President, as Minister for External Affairs, ought to know, the history of the struggle that his predecessors in office, and those who acted with them, put up for the position that we achieved in international affairs, would recognise that Section 3 is a retrogression so far as this country is concerned. Section 3, so far as this country is concerned, in our rights in international affairs, is a retrogression, and if the President had, as he ought to have, a knowledge of the development of the constitutional rights of this country in international affairs, he would recognise that. If he had a sense of constitutional issues he would recognise that; but again, in his passion for legal formula, he sacrifices both facts and realities, and that is what is bound to occur with all this thing that he is going on with: that again and again, if you insist on this legality, this legal formulism, you are going to sacrifice realities for the formula.

The President

Perhaps the Deputy would argue that, instead of merely asserting it.

Professor O'Sullivan

I am asserting that we never acknowledged the right that is now given in Section 3. We fought against it in the various conferences and we never acknowledged it. To the main purpose of this Bill, Sir, if the main purpose is contained in sub-section (2) of Section 3—the new sub-section—naturally, we have no objection. It is the one thing that should have been done yesterday, and nothing else should have been done. That is the position; but the President has tried to trick the country by utilising the necessity for passing that sub-section in order to get a great many other things—some harmful, none of them meaning anything of any consequence for the real liberties and the rights of this country, some of which may or may not—because the President gives us no information and refuses to take the House and the country into his confidence in these matters—have serious consequences for this country. He says he has had communications with other Governments, or another Government, of the Commonwealth. He refuses to tell us what was the result of these conversations, if there was any result. How can the House, or how can the country be in the position of judging the effects of what he is doing? One thing that we can know is that the country does not gain one jot in its liberty by what is being done. Whether it will lose anything, or whether its position will be jeopardised or not, the country is left in ignorance, but there was nothing done yesterday which will increase in the slightest, although it may diminish, the freedom of this country.

Mr. Norton

Sir, the haste and hurry which has characterised the Executive Council in introducing this legislation is made all the more manifest by some of the flaws which were discovered in the Bill which passed through this House last night. This morning, we have the President coming to the Legislature and saying that even the Bill, which has not had a Second Reading yet, necessitates amendments of a kind that, if the President can understand them, nobody else can. I ask myself, in this situation, whether there is any compelling reason why the Dáil should be asked to enact legislation with that speed and under such circumstances. This is a matter which seems to me to have a tremendous effect on the voluntary relations of this country not only with Great Britain but with the other countries in the Commonwealth, and yet only 48 hours are allowed by the Executive Council to the legislative assembly to consider, on the one hand, certain symbols in our internal constitution, and, on the other hand, to regulate our relations with four or five other nations. I cannot understand for what reason the President of the Executive Council can tell us that it is necessary that this legislation should be passed with the haste which has characterised our proceedings for the past two days.

We have had here a situation from 1922 to 1936 where a certain King occupied a position in our Constitution, and exercised a certain influence in our external relations, but it could be always said in respect of that monarch that he was thrust upon us; that he was one of the pivots in the Treaty which the President says has no legal or moral binding force on our people. To the extent that that monarch was thrust upon us, and to the extent that we endeavoured to mitigate the worst features of his suzerainty over us, the President of this Government or any other Government could always claim in respect of this country that he was doing his best to remove the shackles of that Treaty. But the position has been fundamentally altered by the procedure which the President is now adopting. Up to the present we had a King who had been thrust upon us. Now that King has voluntarily declared his intention of abdicating; he has indicated that, so far as this country is concerned and all the countries in respect of which he functioned as monarch, he does not desire to continue to exercise those functions. Thus we have in this country, in Great Britain and in the other countries of the Commonwealth a situation where the King has voluntarily abdicated. So far as those other countries are concerned, if they want to preserve the succession of kings, new and special legislation must be introduced.

One could understand the desire of Britain, one could understand the desire of countries in the Commonwealth which are largely populated by people of British extraction, to devise some kind of legislation designed to continue the monarchy and designed to preserve some kind of dynastic succession. But is there the same need here to introduce legislation for that purpose? Is there the same need here to introduce legislation with the same speed as those other countries in the Commonwealth? I should have imagined that the President would have contended that our whole tradition, our whole national outlook, our aspirations as a motherland, are reasons which ought to compel the Saorstát to refuse to enact this legislation with the haste of the past two days. A King is now to be appointed with a speed which must amaze everybody in this country. The President is not satisfied with arranging his legislation in such a way—if it must be arranged in that way—as to provide for the abdication of the King, who has declared he no longer desires to rule as monarch. The President is not satisfied with going that far, and leaving the remainder of the position open for the people to consider. The President wants not merely to provide for the abdication of King Edward VIII but he wants, in addition, under a guillotine motion, and in a few hours on Saturday, a day upon which the Dáil rarely meets, to provide for the appointment of a successor to the abdicated King. I cannot understand what grounds of urgency can be pleaded for legislation of that kind. The only thing one can imagine is that Fianna Fáil seems to want a King to play with for Christmas.

We have here, at all events, a situation where we are being asked for the first time voluntarily to appoint as King of Saorstát Eireann the same person who has been appointed as King of England and King of the other countries in the Commonwealth. No previous Government in this country has ever voluntarily appointed a King. No previous Government in this country has ever voluntarily appointed King of Saorstát Eireann one and the same person who was King of England. Here, by rushed legislation, panicky legislation, the House being asked to meet on Saturday, in a few short hours we are to provide not merely for the abdication of one King but for the appointment of a successor. I should like to know whether the President really thinks that that speed is of advantage to our people, or whether the British people have asked that not only should abdication be provided for speedily but that a successor should be provided for with equal speed. Is the explanation of all this speed a request from the British Government for legislation providing for legal recognition of the abdication of the King and the appointment of a successor? Is the explanation of that speedy legislation to be found in any request by the British Government that it is desirable to have that legislation enacted? If it is not, if this legislation is not being introduced at the specific request of the British Government, will the President tell the House why he considers it necessary, in the interests of the Irish people, that a successor to the abdicated King should be appointed in a few hours on Saturday.

I wonder if the President has told the British Government that the voluntary appointment as King of Saorstát Eireann of the same person who is King of England is a distasteful national operation so far as the people of this country are concerned? Has the President told the British Government that in asking him to pass this legislation with this speed the people of this country are being asked to do something which no previous Government of this country has ever done? If that fact has been pointed out to the British Government, surely it must realise that even from its own standpoint it could not dream of expecting any legislature which has claimed independence for itself to pass legislation of this kind with this speed. I think the President has been needlessly hasty in introducing this legislation. There is no need for this legislation that we are passing to-day. Yesterday's legislation could be described as progressive legislation from the national standpoint.

Mr. MacDermot

Question!

Mr. Norton

It takes the King and Governor-General out of the Constitution of this country. So far as that is done, I am perfectly satisfied that the President is moving in the right direction. Why could we not stop at yesterday's Bill? What is the need for enacting this Bill? What is the need to-day to appoint a successor to the abdicated King? The President has not been able to show one reason why it is necessary to appoint that successor. The courts are not affected by any failure on our part at this stage to appoint a successor. The legislature is not affected, because no legislation would be likely to be passed until February next. But if the President were to hold his hand, and not proceed with the legislation which is before the House to-day, the country would have an opportunity of considering the whole position, and some kind of intelligent opinion would become articulate in the country which would be a guide to the public representatives of this country as to the direction in which the people's minds were travelling. We are not being given any opportunity to consider the position. The people are being rushed, through this legislation, into committing themselves to appointing a successor to the abdicated monarch.

We are not even taking the trouble to ensure that the successor to the abdicated monarch will not be asked to take an oath distasteful to the religious beliefs of the people of this country. Has the President asked, even as the price of passing this legislation in this hasty, panicky way, that at least that oath will be deleted from the Act of Settlement? Has the President even made representations to the British Government to see that this particularly distasteful portion of the British succession ceremony should at least be deleted, as something gravely offensive to the religious susceptibilities of the people of this country? Apparently not; apparently nothing has been done in that direction. Instead, the Dáil is convened hastily, in a state of panic, by two telegrams, and asked to meet on Saturday to appoint a successor to the abdicated King. One would feel that this was a particularly suitable occasion for the President to give Document No. 2 a run. One would have thought that the President would have produced Document No. 2 on this occasion, and at least let it have a canter around the political field. I say to the President that, if he could have got back to the position of Document No. 2 in this situation, I could congratulate him on his achievement. But no effort is even being made in this business to get back to Document No. 2. No effort is even being made to try to get back to the position of external association with Great Britain or with the other countries in the Commonwealth. Instead opportunities such as this which enable us to raise the question of status by Document No. 2 or by external association, are being ignored in this matter of the appointment of a successor to Edward VIII. I would like to know from the President why when the British are expecting us to pass legislation of an abnormal character, legislation which has a particular value for them, a thousand times more than for us, he has not endeavoured to discuss with them a status comparable to that which he envisaged in Document No. 2 or in the theory of external association? The President often quotes for us views and suggestions which might have obviated the Treaty of 1921. On his behalf while that issue was being discussed in 1922 the late Cathal Brugha declared the position of the President's Party to be:—

"We are prepared to enter into an agreement, an association with the British Commonwealth of Nations as it is generally called, on the same or similar lines as that on which one business firm enters into combination with another or several others. The thing is not uncommon now; such combinations are made for certain specific purposes; the combination appoints a managing director to carry out the business of the firm but it is only for a specific purpose; each firm remains independent except for this one particular business. Say the purpose would be to do foreign trade; each firm would carry on, independently, its own internal trade; and the combination would, under this managing director, carry out its purpose for foreign trade; each firm would give a stipend to the managing director. Now, by entering into combination no firm sacrifices its independence as a firm. We are prepared, on the same terms, to enter into an association with the British Commonwealth of Nations, and for the purposes of that combination we are prepared to recognise the English Government as the head of the combination."

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy please give the reference.

Mr. Norton

The Dáil debates, 7th of January, 1922, page 331, Cathal Brugha's speech. I do not agree with the late Cathal Brugha's view that we ought to recognise the English Government as the head of the Commonwealth and it is little wonder that that remark brought cries of "Oh" from the House according to the Official Report. At all events, the main burden of the suggestion made there is that we have a certain foreign trade to carry on. The President told us that yesterday when he said that the King comes into such matters as the appointment of consular and diplomatic representatives and treaty-making. Can we consider the question of the appointment of the King in the sense that Cathal Brugha considered appointing the King for the purpose of our association with the Commonwealth? Has that suggestion even been considered by the President? Has any effort been made to get the British to recognise the soundness of that point of view from our standpoint? Have any negotiations taken place with the British Government to get that association with them that our people so much desire, to get a status more satisfactory than they possess to-day?

Yesterday the President said that he would not pass one of these Bills without the other. Which Bill was the distasteful one to the President? Was it the first Bill or the second Bill? I gather that the second Bill is the distasteful Bill to the President. The distasteful one is the one we are asked to pass to-day. That is the one about which the President himself has doubts. That is the one he dislikes. The President thinks he has got his price by eliminating the King and the Governor-General from our internal affairs. Even that is not an adequate justification for the act which we are committing to-day; for the act of voluntarily appointing the British King as the King of the Saorstát without the people having an opportunity of realising where they are going and what they are being asked to do. We have here a dismembered Ireland. We have Twenty-six Counties functioning under a status which is certainly not a status of complete independence. We have another Six Counties torn from the motherland. They are maintained in that mutilated position by the intrigues of the British Government and by the substantial subventions made to these Six Counties to maintain them in that association with Britain and its Imperial Government.

Is any effort being made to say to the British Government in connection with their desire to have this legislation implemented here that they must do something on their part to end the partition of this country? Have they been asked to use their influence with their friends in the Six Counties to bring partition to an end? Has any proposal been made to the British as the price of asking us to pass legislation of this kind for their benefit? There is a situation to-day that is full of possibilities, possibilities for the reopening of our whole relations with Great Britain, possibilities for still further reducing the number of shackles that are contained in the Treaty so far as national independence is concerned. Instead of utilising this opportunity to regain for this country the status of Document No. 2, which is the President's own creation; instead of endeavouring to utilise this situation for this country as a means of ending partition and utilising it for other possibilities we are asked to-day to pass this Bill for the appointment of a successor to Edward VIII. We are asked to pass this Bill to-day without any of these opportunities being grasped, without any explanation from the President as to the direction in which his mind is moving in the matters and without the plain people being given an opportunity of realising to what they are being committed and the ultimate consequences to the people of the act which is being committed in their name to-day.

Here we have a situation where a King, thrust upon the people, has definitely declared of his own choice that he does not desire to continue in that position. The King has broken the link. The link can be allowed to remain broken so far as this country is concerned. What is the need to repair it now? What is the need to repair it on a Saturday? What is the need for giving the craftsmen such a short period in which to repair the change? Yet, that is the very act which this Parliament is being asked to commit to-day. The King has voluntarily ended his monarchial régime here. The people ought to get time to consider that position. They ought to be given an opportunity, free from the sensationalism and vulgarities of the last few days, to review the position, to look upon the matter dispassionately and coldly, free from the sensationalism of the Press, and decide for themselves what is the best course for this country to take irrespective of the course other countries desire us to take. The President wanted to say yesterday that the line I indicated in this matter was one of openly declaring a Republic. The President must know that even the adoption of this line means no such thing.

The President

The Deputy might develop that a bit.

Mr. Norton

The President wants to say that, if we do not appoint a King now, this country will become a Republic without any formal declaration by the President. Suppose that was true, is the President taking objection to that? Suppose that position automatically followed an Act of the British monarch voluntarily committed by him, that his action resulted in the creation of a republican situation here, is that something that is distasteful to the President? I say that even then the President is not going to get a Republic with that case. The British Government and the other countries in the Commonwealth must know that an unprecedented and un-paralled situation has been caused by the abdication of the British monarch; and as a result of his abdication, the various countries in the Commonwealth are being asked to enact special legislation. The British Government ought to know, particularly from the intimation which the President said he conveyed to them in respect of the new Constitution, that asking this country to enact that kind of legislation is asking this country to do something which I am perfectly sure the British do really know is distasteful to the national consciousness of the majority of our people.

Could not the President say with every reason and with every truth that this is the first time the people of the Irish Free State have been asked voluntarily to appoint a successor to his Britannic Majesty? Could not the President say that, having regard to the feelings of the people, and to the Government's intention to introduce a Constitution providing for an enlargement of our national rights, that is not an issue which he thinks could be submitted to the people with the speed indicated in these Bills? The President could clearly point out to the British that this is an unparalleled, an unforeseen and an unprecedented development so far as our people are concerned and that they must be given an opportunity to consider the position calmly and dispassionately. That opportunity is not given to the people by passing this legislation in this hasty way. Every atom of reason is on the President's side if he tells the British that there must be no rushed legislation so far as our people are concerned. The President has every argument in his favour if he says that this is something new and something distasteful to our people. The President has every right to claim for himself, for the Government and for our people an adequate opportunity of considering the new position. But the Government has not had that opportunity, the Legislature has not had that opportunity and the people have not had that opportunity. Evidence of the inadequacy of the consideration which the whole matter has got is to be found in the fact that the legislation introduced has been admitted by the Government to be faulty in some respects even before it has actually been tried.

There is no reason for passing this Bill to-day. This Bill need not be passed with this speed. The people of the country ought to be given an opportunity of considering this matter and expressing their viewpoint on it. Every Deputy ought, when exercising his vote on the issue before the House, to be in a position to say that his vote and his action here are in accordance with the feelings of the majority of his constituents. Can any Deputy say that? Can any Deputy say that there is a majority in this country to-day for passing this Bill with this haste? Deputies have not had time to discuss the matter with their constituents. They have had no time to garner views as to the propriety or otherwise of passing this legislation. Deputies who are voting on this Bill are exercising, in the main, their own individual judgment, because the Bill is being rushed through this House with a haste which has prohibited them from obtaining any real consensus of opinion as to the views of their constituents.

I could understand the need for introducing legislation to deal with a catastrophe or to avert a catastrophe. This is neither dealing with nor averting a catastrophe. So far as the Irish people are concerned, there ought to be abundant opportunity given to them to consider the position which has arisen out of the events in Great Britain within the past few days. We did not cause that situation, and there is no reason why we should be asked to repair it with the haste which characterises this legislation. I say that if this Bill is passed by this House it will be passed without any consent from the people. It will be passed by the vote of individual Deputies who have had no opportunity whatever of sounding their people or feeling the pulse of the country. This Bill, if it is going to go through, and every other Bill that goes through, ought to be fortified with the moral authority of the people. Can the President say that this Bill has the moral authority of the people behind it? Have we now got to a stage of passing Bills without the moral authority of the people and in defiance, I believe, of the declared wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people?

If the President wants to test whether this Bill is a right and proper Bill, whether it is a Bill that is in accord with the desires of the people of this country, let him take off the Whips to-day and see whether it can get a free vote in this House which will carry it to the Statute Book. The President knows that a Bill of this kind could not be carried to the Statute Book by a voluntary vote. The President knows that there has been no time to garner the opinions of the people as to what they desire in connection with the situation created by the abdication of King Edward VIII. I pleaded yesterday, and I plead again to-day, for time to consider this matter, for time to enable the people to make up their minds, for time to enable them to realise where they are going and to realise what they are doing. I say to the President, and to the Executive Council, that there was no need to introduce this Bill to-day; that there is certainly less need to pass it to-day, and that it should be adjourned until the normal reassembly of the Dáil in February. In the meantime, the people will have an opportunity of realising what they are doing by enacting this Bill. At all events, the House ought not pass a Bill to-day to provide for the voluntary appointment of a successor to King Edward VIII without the people being given an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the question. The President, I think, holds the view that the people should be consulted on important constitutional matters, and that their views should be obtained, particularly in regard to legislation which involves important constitutional changes not covered by the mandate secured at the previous election.

Here is an opportunity for the President to test out his views in that respect. The people are being asked to do something now that no Parliament since 1922 has been asked to do. They are being asked to declare voluntarily that the Act of Settlement is in operation in this country, that the Act of Succession is in operation here notwithstanding the odious conditions attaching to these Acts, and that the country is to-day voluntarily prepared to appoint the successor to King Edward VIII. Are not these issues of tremendous importance to the people, are they not issues upon which the people should be consulted, are they not issues upon which the people should not be muddled? The speed with which this legislation is to be passed is virtually muzzling our people. I say to the President that he has no mandate whatever, and, least of all, a mandate voluntarily to appoint a successor to-day to King Edward VIII, that he has no opinion from the country such as would justify him assuming that he has that mandate, and that on an important constitutional issue of this kind the obvious duty of the President is to take the people into his confidence and to consult them on it. The best way in which the people can be consulted is by the Referendum at which this specific issue would be the only issue so that a clear-cut opinion could be got from the people. There is no need for this haste; no need for this speed. I do not know whether the British ever demanded this speed and this haste, but, whether they did or not, they ought not to be allowed to get away with asking our people to pass legislation here that is not fortified with the moral authority of the people. The British should be told that this legislation which we are being asked to pass is distasteful to our people, they should be told definitely that, so far as the Executive Council is concerned, the people must have an opportunity of considering the whole position calmly and dispassionately before they are rushed into passing legislation of this kind.

I plead with the President for delay, and for an opportunity to let the people realise where they are drifting by enacting this legislation. I suggest that if the President agrees to that the people will exercise a judgment upon this question that will not be in conformity with the provisions of this Bill. There is no reason why this Bill should be passed to-day by the Saorstát Parliament. There is no reason why it should be passed without knowing the views of the people. If we want to be respectful to the views of the people, and to have some sense of national dignity, the House should refuse to pass this Bill to-day. It can remain over until the Dáil reassembles in February, when we can look at it with fresh minds, with minds unclouded by the sensationalism of the past few days and, in the meantime, the people will have an opportunity of considering their position and the direction in which they are being asked to travel, if they are to link themselves with this Bill. These are important considerations which should weigh with the President. Seeing that he has given the House no reason for passing this Bill, and seeing that it must be a distasteful Bill to the President and to his Party, I hope he will consent not to proceed with its enactment until such time as Deputies are fortified with knowledge of what the people desire, knowledge that will be in tune with their aspirations.

Professor Thrift

I think I have seldom listened to more unadulterated nonsense than the speech we have just heard. The Deputy seems to have missed the vital points that should impress themselves upon the consideration of the House and to have completely misunderstood the essential points in the Bill before it. I agreed with Deputy Norton yesterday when he stressed that we should confine our attention to what was immediately urgent in view of the crisis which had arisen. I take that view still. I congratulate the President on having made two important things perfectly clear to-day. He brought before us to-day a position which is, to my mind, immediately and urgently necessary, namely, that we should accept of our own accord the abdication of King Edward VIII. That is necessary. The King expressed the wish to abdicate, and it is for us, on our part, immediately to accept that abdication, if we wish to do so. I take it that we do so wish. That I contend is urgently and immediately necessary. Deputy Norton failed even to appreciate the information which the President gave him yesterday, and did not appreciate the fact that this Bill is not one which appoints a new King in any sense of the word. Two points were made perfectly clear by the President, one, that we have removed the King from the Constitution here, and that in so doing we have removed the King from certain Acts of Parliament which became our Acts under Section 73 of the Constitution. It is those Acts which determine the new succession which comes automatically into operation under these Acts, whether this Bill passes or not. This Bill has nothing to do, as Deputy Norton seemed to think, with the succession. It is clear, as the President said yesterday, and as he repeated this morning, that that Act of Settlement is one of our Acts and fixes the succession, and so long as the section which has been brought before us to-day remains unadopted that Act of Settlement and the succession, as determined through it, remain in operation. Therefore, I contend that it is our first duty to adopt the amendment which the President has brought before us to-day and to put specifically into law our acceptance of the abdication of King Edward VIII.

In that connection, it is not unimportant to notice a point made by Deputy O'Sullivan. I do not refer to it for the purpose of obstructing or delaying—far from it. If we are doing a thing, we ought to be careful to see that it is done in an orderly way. I suggest that, following on the amendment the President has proposed, a further amendment is necessary in the title. This is a formal matter, if you like. I doubt very much whether it could be held that, under the title of the Bill, the amendment the President has proposed is in order. I do not wish to raise the point of order at all. I think it would be wise if an amendment of the title were made so as to preclude any possibility of the amendment being out of order. The amendment does refer specifically to certain purposes other than those connected with external relations. The title of the Bill definitely refers to external relations. I suggest that the President should extend the title of the Bill so as to put beyond all question the point to which I have referred. I do not wish to cause any delay and I do not make that point by way of obstruction. It is, I think, a point of substance, as regards order.

The President has gone very far in appreciating the difficulties—genuine difficulties—which were present to our minds yesterday. I appreciate that disposition to satisfy difficulties as regards legislation when genuinely raised. I am very strongly of opinion that the Bill is very much improved by the amendment suggested this morning. To my mind, these amendments have clarified the position immensely. It seems to be rather fashionable to-day to clarify things and prevent for arising. I do not think that it is possible to stress too strongly that this Bill is not a Bill which, in a sense, appoints a successor to King Edward VIII. If we pass this Bill, we shall do two straightforward things. We shall, on our part and of our own free will, accept the abdication of the late King. We shall appoint to the new King certain functions in relation to external matters. That is all that this Bill does. It does not ratify any appointment and it does not make any appointment. It deals entirely with functions, just as yesterday's Bill dealt with functions. It was my contention yesterday—I have exactly the same view to-day—that removing the functions did not remove the entity—that, although we had deprived the King of certain functions attached to him in our Constitution, the King remained. The King remains as such and will remain until we pass an acceptance on our part that he, as King Edward VIII, is no longer the King of this State. Therefore, I contend that it is urgently necessary that we should to-day pass into law this Bill embodying the amendment which the President has proposed to us.

Mr. Dillon

The nature of the amendment introduced confers, in our opinion, a character on this Bill which entitles it to pass to-day. We are clearly of opinion that the clarifying character of that amendment is a desirable thing and that to prevent its passage to-day would be gravely to embarrass the carrying on of government in this country. I agree that the point made by Deputy Thrift in regard to the long title of the Bill may be significant and, if the Executive Council desires to introduce an amendment directed to rectifying the long title of the Bill with a view to making the instrument effective, it will meet with no opposition from this side of the House.

There is much in the four short sections of this Bill deserving of criticism but the fact that, in its entirely, it regulates things that stand in need of regulation, makes it essential that it should pass. Therefore we shall not divide against it. Its introduction to-day has produced from the leader of the Labour Party a speech which, in my opinion is about as disreputable a performance as I have ever listened to in this House. To have the time of the House wasted and the functions of the House degraded by such performances makes one almost despair of public life in this country, more particularly when one reflects that, if Fianna Fáil were the Opposition to-day and we were the Government, that speech would have been punctuated with applause from every backbencher of the Fianna Fáil Party. Not one of them but knows that. I can only hope that that deplorable performance of Deputy Norton to-day will serve to enlighten them as to how contemptible that kind of fraud is and will teach them in future, when they have to carry on the Opposition in this House, that the Opposition have as grave responsibilities, in their own sphere, as have the Government Party. If Deputy Norton's observations have contributed to that lesson, then, humiliating as they must have been to the Labour Party, they have done some service to the public life of the country.

I wonder if the President of the Executive Council is in a position to tell us to-day whether any consultations with the other members of the Commonwealth have taken place in regard to what we are now doing. I have a feeling that Deputies on the Government side think they have a kind of duty in this matter to take a leap in the dark, that it would be some kind of high treason to find out what they are doing, that it is absolutely essential, in order to vindicate the memory of Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmet, that we should legislate in this House with the zealous resolution that we shall not know the consequences of what we are doing until we have done it.

Mr. MacDermot

Anything else would be unfree.

Mr. Dillon

That seems to be a wickedly irresponsible attitude to take up. The President of the Executive Council, when asked the question whether it was the policy of the Executive Council to sever our connection with the Commonwealth of Nations, said categorically "No"; that it is not the intention of the Executive Council by these Bills to sever our connection with the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth of Nations is founded on the principle of consultation and co-operation. That is the very essence of the association.

How can any rational man suggest to us that it would in any way derogate from the national status, or the sovereign independence of the Irish Free State, to take the ordinary prudent precautions that any State would take to ascertain what the likely consequences of its action were going to be, and must it not gravely reflect on the respect which our people ought to have for parliamentary institutions if it is brought home to our people that, in matters so crucial as those with which we are dealing, we all of us proclaim that we do not know the exact nature of what we are doing. We do not know but we want to know. The Government does not know and it is determined not to find out. The Labour Party, according to its leader, does not know and does not care.

In connection with yesterday's Bill, I asked the President to abandon his well-established practice of deceiving the people. We are familiar with the habits of continental dictators——

Mr. Davin

The Deputy is, and of one at home, too.

Mr. Dillon

——and it is to be observed that whenever they desire to cover up the evil consequences for their own people of some of their previous actions, they start a stunt, and the explanation that the people get of what that stunt is really meant to do very frequently bears no relation whatever to what the stunt, in fact, is going to effect. Now I submit that the President of the Executive Council at the present moment is speaking to the Irish people with two voices. He is in this House where his observations are subject to comment and criticism. He is reported in to-day's Irish Press as saying that the effect of this legislation simply was “that they were clearing up the constitutional situation and making it clear to everybody what the situation was. They were removing fictions.” That is what the President said when he introduced the Bill. Now let us examine what the President says when he publishes his newspaper the following morning.

An Ceann Comhairle

To refer to newspapers as official documents is an undesirable practice. If any Minister of this House is connected with the directorate of a paper he is not responsible in that capacity to this House. Newspapers are not official documents.

The President

In case there should be any misunderstanding, may I say that I have had nothing whatever to do with what is in the newspaper. I did not write anything in it and I have not read or seen the paper yet.

General Mulcahy

Ascribe it to the Party fogmakers.

Mr. Dillon

I take it that I am not to be precluded from quoting from a newspaper?

An Ceann Comhairle

If the President says that he has not written or read what appears in the newspaper mentioned the article cannot be quoted as being the President's.

Mr. Dillon

I am quoting it as the opinion of the newspaper of which the President is a director, controlling policy. I fully accept that the President has neither written nor read this article. I do not allege that this article was written on the President's dictation or suggestion, and I am prepared to believe that the President does not intend to read it fully.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy sees the difficulty. If the Deputy reads an article from one newspaper as expressing a Minister's view, 20 newspapers may be quoted in this House with equal authority and, I suggest, equal irrelevance. What relation has the article to the matter under discussion?

Mr. Dillon

I do not quote this as the President's view or as a view which he accepts. I do quote it as one of the extraordinary phantoms which have emerged from the fog the President has been responsible for creating. The President's words in engendering the fog were that "they were clearing up the constitutional situation and making it clear to everybody what the situation was. They were removing fictions." Out of that fog emerges the following amazing article:

"A Great Advance.—A marked and far-reaching advance towards realising the ideal and the reality in concrete form of Irish nationhood was taken yesterday in the Dáil when one Bill was passed and another introduced which will be passed to-day... It will be admitted that these are great and revolutionary changes which are now or which will by to-morrow be the law of the land."

"Clearing up the Constitution as it is and removing certain fictions." The President is reported in the Irish Press this morning as having said that yesterday. The leading article goes on:

"This the Government have now done, but they also came to the conclusion that it would be expedient when dealing with the matter that other changes should be made which would establish the uncontrolled and unfettered authority and jurisdiction of the Free State Government in all internal matters. In pursuance of this policy they have now established the most democratic system of government perhaps in the world, and, not merely that, but they have made as the foundation stone of the Constitution the sole and sovereign authority of the people of the Free State in every sphere of life and activity."

"Clearing up the Constitutional situation as it is and clearing away some fictions." Was it the intention of the President, when he introduced this legislation, to state the constitutional position as it was and as he knew it to be, and to clear away what he knew to be fictions; or, was it his intention so to bewilder his more gullible supporters as to induce them to indulge in extravagances of that kind?

Mr. Davin

Would the Deputy quote from the Ballaghadereen Echo?

Mr. Dillon

Which did the President intend to do? I think the President did intend to fool his own more gullible supporters into believing that he was making some fundamental change in their lives. The Governor-General has signed the Bill which we passed last night and it is now law. I want to put this question to Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party: Do you all feel freer in consequence of that? Is the country burgeoning into new prosperity? Is there any change in this Chamber, in fact or in theory? Not the least. We are exactly where we were. No one knows that better than the President. He has removed the King, a symbol, from our Constitution.

Mr. Davin

That is not right; the King cleared out.

Mr. Dillon

So far as our everyday lives go, the position to-day is exactly what it was before, because the thing which has been removed was the instrument of the people's will and had no function whatever that it could exercise except under the guidance and control of this House, representing the Irish people. But we removed that; we removed that in the knowledge that some of those symbols which had no positive effect on the everyday life of our people may very well mean the destruction of our membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, which no rational member of the Fianna Fáil Party wants to bring to an end.

The President

No inconsistency now.

Mr. Dillon

None; does not the President see that? The President sees it, but he is praying to God that Deputy Seán Moylan will not see it. How does he expect Deputy Corry to see it? Deputy Corry does not know whether it is Christmas or Easter that we are approaching and the President banks on that. The President has behind him a Party who have no more notion of what he is doing at the present time than they have of what is in the mind of the Shah of Persia.

Mr. Briscoe

At the present time— you are quite right.

Mr. Dillon

They have not the faintest notion.

Mr. Briscoe

Nobody else has.

Mr. Dillon

I entirely agree with the Deputy. Nobody has an idea of what the President is up to. But Deputies will go down the country and protest that the King has gone——

Mr. Briscoe

That is a fact.

Mr. Dillon

——and, in the enlightened words of this great newspaper, they will say "These are great and revolutionary changes."

Mr. Coburn

And there will be cheers and shouts of "Up the Republic."

Mr. Dillon

That is fooling the people, and the President knows it is. It is fooling the people the same way that the dictators of Europe fool their people when they want to whip up their courage. In my opinion it is degrading the good name of this country. I would have respect for men who weighed the consequences of declaring a Republic and, having recognised the measure of the material loss that such a course would involve, and the spiritual loss too, would go to the country and say "We are going to do it, or at least, if you want us to retain the powers of government, we are determined to do it." One can have no respect for a Government which seeks to drag our people along a course of action without inviting the people to envisage the consequences of what it is proposed to do and confronting them with a sense of duty and responsibility. The President cannot, or will not, tell us what he believes the consequences of these two Acts are going to be.

It makes me uneasy for the whole future of Parliamentary Government in this country to observe the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party in dealing with a matter of this kind. They seem to have no sense of responsibility. They do not seem to realise what they are doing and they rather resent the suggestion that Deputies of this House should discuss or examine carefully the proposals before them. I now urge on the Government again that we should have a clear statement to-day from the Executive Council of what they consider the ultimate consequences of this legislation are going to be.

I would strongly urge on the President, in view of the fact that it is his declared policy to remain within the Commonwealth of Nations, to take the ordinary steps that membership demands, that reasonable consultation should be had at the earliest possible moment with our fellow-members with a view to preserving our association and with a view to avoiding a position arising in which we will be told that our continued membership of that association is no longer desired by our fellow-members. Disastrous as the severance of that connection would be for our country, I would much prefer that it should come by the voluntary act of our own people than as a result of a contemptuous expulsion by nations with whom we ought to have friendly relations and with whom we can have friendly relations if we only take the rational means of going about it.

Other speakers have directed attention to the fact that the measure before us to-day is the effective instrument for legalising the abdication and that the abdication was made the occasion of passing through this House yesterday a Constitution Amendment Bill which it is now admitted had no connection good, bad or indifferent with the abdication at all. If the President thinks that is honest, his conceptions of honesty and mine do not coincide. When this House rose last night, I venture to say that 80 per cent. of the Deputies in it believed that the Bill which passed through the House yesterday had something to do with regularising the abdication position.

It is noteworthy that at no stage of the debate yesterday was it said on behalf of the Government that it was not proposed to deal with the abdication in yesterday's measure and it is noteworthy that the Executive Authority (External Relations) Bill before us now was left in its ineffective form until the debate concluded last night and an amendment is brought in this morning to make it an effective instrument. The entire suggestion in yesterday's debate was that these two Bills together legalised the abdication, that neither alone would be effective to do it and that therefore there was urgency in securing the enactment of the two.

I think there are Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches so foolish as to think that kind of thing is cute. It is not; it is disastrous. Unless a democratic Government voluntarily submits itself to the parliamentary discipline of being compelled to answer questions, however inconvenient, truthfully, when they are addressed to them by the official Opposition in Parliament, parliamentary government cannot be carried on. We all know that parliamentary government is a difficult responsibility; we all know that it is easy for dictators to get through difficult situations because they need not answer questions and they can tell any lies they like and avoid a crisis by doing that. We all know that democratic governments experience, from day to day, the difficulty of appearing before Parliament and being subjected to interrogation. The very essence of good parliamentary government is that, if interrogation is made, truthful answers will be forthcoming. Quite frequently in properly run Parliaments the leader of the Government will address a confidential request to the leader of the Opposition not to ask him a particular question for the reason that it would be highly inexpedient that an answer should be published at the moment, and if both sides are carrying on parliamentary government in a proper way, such a request is gladly acceded to.

Mr. Davin

As you acceded to it the other night.

Mr. Dillon

I said "if parliamentary government is carried on in a proper way." If the leader of the Government gets up here and, quite casually, says that previous confidences of his to the leader of the Opposition were published in the papers almost the moment he got them, and when asked to refresh our memory so that we could check up on it and correct the false impression in the President's mind, the President's reply is that he did not remember when it happened or how it happened or why it hap-pened——

Mr. Anthony

If the Deputy was told that he had no right to speak here at all, would he consider that democratic government? The Minister for Finance told me last evening that I had no right to be here at all.

Mr. Dillon

I hope the Deputy will have a full opportunity of speaking to-day. I am concerned more for the implications of these Bills than for the things they actually purport to do. The President, as Deputy O'Sullivan says, is sometimes given to making foreign gestures and smiling blandly, but surely he must realise that if he is going to take up the position he has adopted in regard to these measures and to the situation that existed prior to them, parliamentary government is going to become extremely difficult to carry on. He cannot carry on parliamentary government without an Opposition and he ought to know that. He ought to know from his own experience that the Opposition in this House passed through a trying time as Government, established a Government in this country in face of difficulties into which we need not go, and when the constitutional time came, vacated their position and handed over to him with the most scrupulous rectitude, a rectitude to which he was glad to pay tribute in this House. As leader of the Government, he has always got all the co-operation from the Opposition in this House he was entitled to expect. By his own actions, he is rejecting that kind of co-operation now, and, in the future, so long as we constitute the official Opposition here, the President will get all the co-operation that an Opposition ought to give, but he is making it more and more difficult to give it effectively by the attitude he has adopted.

It is only right to say that if we are to judge of the responsibility of the Labour Party by the kind of speech their leader made here to-day the President had better open his eyes to the fact that if this Party ceased to be the official Opposition, he would not be able to carry on parliamentary government at all, because if he adopted the attitude towards almost any body of men, that he adopts towards a body such as is constituted by my colleagues, who were largely responsible for founding this State, patience would have given up long ago. The fact is that this Party has shown a patience and a courage in carrying on parliamentary institutions which can only be accounted for by one fact, and that is that they built up the State and now feel it their duty to keep it standing.

Mr. Davin

Can the Deputy discuss any political subject without referring to the civil war?

Mr. Dillon

I have no desire to refer to any war. I am now referring to the parliamentary institutions of to-day and to-morrow in this House, and I am making the case to the President that an absolute essential for their successful maintenance is that he should recognise that Parties, other than the Government Party, have a function in this House and that their rights and demands should receive respectful consideration. The Government has a right to demand from the Opposition reasonable co-operation, but that can only be got if both sides are prepared to play the game of democratic politics according to the rules. Unless the game of democratic politics is played according to the rules, some other system of government will take its place, and I do not believe that any Deputy wants to substitute any other system for parliamentary government.

The conduct that has surrounded the introduction and passage of these Bills has, in my opinion, done a grave disservice to parliamentary government in this country. I say that the Bill which we enacted yesterday and which is now an Act of this State was carried by fraudulent misrepresentation.

Mr. Davin

You refused co-operation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Bill debated yesterday is now an Act and cannot be commented on in that fashion. There is a place for testing the matter but not in the Parliament which passed it.

Mr. Dillon

I do not desire to pursue that line, but yesterday the two Bills were connected and we were told they were interdependent.

An Ceann Comhairle

I just want the Deputy to realise that one is now an Act.

Mr. Dillon

One is now an Act, and the extraordinary situation is that we are now not in a position to refer to that Act which yesterday was represented as being an integral part of this Bill, but which to-day, it emerges has no relation to this Bill at all. I am primarily concerned in regard to the proceedings at present going on here for two things, and I believe I speak for this Party in that regard. They are (1) to ensure that neither of these measures operates to destroy our membership of the Commonwealth of Nations as a free, sovereign and independent State and (2) to ensure that what appears to us to be the entirely improper procedure that was pursued in regard to these Bills in their introduction by the Government will not become a precedent for future action, because, in our judgment, such procedure jeopardises parliamentary institutions in this country. On the first matter, we have repeatedly asked for assurances from the Executive Council and the President's reply is that he is not in a position to give any assurances because he himself does not know; that he communicated with one other member of the Commonwealth, and that he cannot remember what was the nature of the reply or whether there was any reply. He does not know whether the correspondence was written or not, and he forgets when it took place.

The President

I did not say any of those things—not in that form, anyhow.

Mr. Dillon

Has anything the President ever said been repeated by anybody in the form in which he said it?

Mr. Davin

That is the language of co-operation.

Mr. Dillon

Let me put no false words into the President's mouth. The President made a certain statement about the correspondence he had with another member of the Commonwealth in reference to matters analogous to those referred to in these Bills yesterday. Has the President since yesterday been able to trace up the correspondence, verbal, formal, informal, written or otherwise, that took place with a view to refreshing his memory as to what actually did happen; and if he has, would the President be good enough to let us have, if it was verbal, a copy of his aide mémoire which doubtless exists in his office to remind him of what actually happened; if it was written, a copy of the correspondence; and if neither exists, then at least a verbal statement of his best recollection of the nature of the exchange, because that would be some guide to the House of what the probable, not inevitable and not certain, consequences of this legislation were?

The second thing I ask the President to do is to let us know in clear and categorical terms whether he thinks the procedure connected with the passage of this Bill and yesterday's Act are in the best interests of Parliamentary procedure in this country, and, arising out of that, whether, with a view to making the proper working of Parliamentary institutions easier in this country in future, he will say to-day whether or not he stands over his statement that the Opposition betrayed confidences which he reposed in them? If the President spoke in haste and said perhaps a little more than he meant to say, nobody is going to jibe or jeer if he gets up and says so, but the President must see that if we are paraded before the country as having received confidential communications from him and published them, it becomes impossible for us confidentially to co-operate with him ever again. We would not accept a confidence if it were true that we had ever betrayed a confidence. The President knows perfectly well that we never have.

We could take up the position of saying that so long as he said that kind of thing, we would have nothing to do with him. That kind of observation must precipitate war, and in a state of war you are not prepared to make any approach. Somebody must make an approach. I have not consulted my colleagues and I have not asked them to make the approach but I am going to make the approach now, and I ask, in the best interests of Parliamentary institutions in this country, will the President, if he is satisfied that that statement has no foundation in fact, withdraw it with the same publicity as that with which he made it? If it is not withdrawn, we cannot give that co-operation that we want to give and it is well that the country should know it. If it is withdrawn, we offer to give, as we have always done for the last five years, all the co-operation that the Government is entitled to expect from the constitutional Opposition. These are grave matters. Some of them we can resolve to-day; others we cannot, but I do strongly urge on the President that in regard to both these matters which I have mentioned, the House is entitled to a very clear and categorical statement from him. He is in a position to make a clear statement in regard to both these matters and if the best interests of the country are to be served, we ought to get it. As far as our connection with the British Commonwealth is concerned, let it be clear and definite that we are against anything which would impair or injure it. Let that be clear. Nevertheless, as this amendment is going into this Bill, and as the passage of that amendment is essential to the proper carrying on of the Government of this country, we shall not vote against the Bill to-day because, in order to deal with any objectionable items in it, it would be necessary to reject the whole measure and that would make the carrying on of Government here impossible for the time being. Therefore, accepting the responsibility of opposition, we recognise the Government's right to enact that amendment. A further opportunity may arise later, I hope, to examine the entire situation that arises out of these two Bills. Let us hope that these Bills may not have repercussions in a way that every Deputy in the House may have cause to regret.

Mr. MacDermot

Deputy Dillon put, once again, the very relevant question to the President why he thought it necessary to abstain from the sort of conference and consultation that is a necessary characteristic of the Commonwealth system. The answer that the President gave yesterday—I do not know if Deputy Dillon was in the House when he gave it—was that that would be an infringement of our freedom. I think that answer of the President should not be forgotten because it is a state of mind that crops up again and again in our external relations, in our relations with the other members of the Commonwealth, and the sooner its existence and its absurdity are generally recognised the better for this country. If Great Britain were going to turn herself into a republic to-morrow, her Government would certainly think it necessary before doing so to get into communication with the other nations of the Commonwealth. Does it follow that Great Britain is not a free country? During past years, and at this moment, Great Britain has been and is consulting other members of the Commonwealth about matters affecting their mutual relations. Does it follow that Great Britain is not a free country? If a man goes into partnership of any kind and agrees to act in a certain area of activity in consultation and conference with his partners does it follow that he ceases to be a free man? May it not be that that partnership has given him a greater scope, a fuller activity in this world than he would have without it, that his freedom, taken as a whole, has been increased and not diminished by the new status of partnership which involves obligations of consultation and conference?

The Bill that was presented to us yesterday has been changed into an entirely new Bill by the amendment which has been brought in to-day. The Bill as it was presented to us yesterday was, to my mind at all events, a matter of no urgency. It could have stood over until February or longer still, not only without disadvantage to this country but with positive advantage to it. But the Bill, as it now is, is on a different plane. Deputy Norton has argued that it could be left over to February or to some later date in order to give the people of this country full time to realise its implications. What status, I wonder, does Deputy Norton propose for this country during that interval? Is he prepared for those months to go out of the Commonwealth and accept all the logical consequences of being out of the Commonwealth? Is he prepared to see the people of this country, of every class, treated as aliens by Great Britain? Is he prepared to see the trade of this country subject to all the restrictions to which the trade of countries not in the British Commonwealth is subject? If he is, he should have said so plainly in his speech. I do not know whether he has given any consideration to the matter but, whether he has or not, I can only describe the way in which he has dealt with it as unworthy of the dignity of this House and unworthy of any Deputy claiming to be a responsible representative of the people.

Deputy Norton has said that this Bill is of far greater importance to the British than it is to us. Is that statement true? Any technical inconvenience that might be caused to the British by our refraining from passing this Bill could be readily remedied by them by immediate legislation in their parliament. I do not see that any suffering of a substantial character could be brought upon the people of Great Britain by our acting in the way which Deputy Norton recommends, but it is very clear that great suffering might be brought upon the people of this country by acting in the manner which Deputy Norton recommends. It is clear that if the stream of emigration to Great Britain were blocked up, our unemployment problems here would be greatly accentuated. It is clear that if the situation of 1934 were renewed, or if a situation worse than that of 1934 were created, with regard to our trade with Britain, the farmers and the whole agricultural community of this country would suffer acutely. It appears to me that the statement of Deputy Norton, that the passing of this Bill is of more importance to Great Britain than it is to us, will not stand a moment's examination.

Now, as I have said, the amendment which has been introduced to-day changes the whole character of this Bill. I still intensely dislike this Bill, but I agree with Deputy Dillon that it is no longer a Bill that a responsible Deputy can vote against. I would have voted against the Bill as it was presented to us yesterday, but although one cannot now vote against it one can dislike it, and I do dislike it. It is really turned into an extraordinary document, a hybrid document. The Bill that was wanted was a Bill consisting solely of the amendment that has been brought in this morning with certain excisions from that amendment. The Bill should have been this:—

"Immediately upon the passing of this Act, the instrument of abdication executed by His Majesty King Edward the Eighth on the 10th day of December, 1936, (a copy whereof is set out in the Schedule to this Act) shall have effect according to the tenor thereof and His said Majesty shall cease to be King, and the King shall henceforth be the person who, if His said Majesty," etc.

That is what the document ought to have been, instead of being a Bill both the short title and the long title of which proclaim it to be a Bill dealing only with external relations and matters connected therewith. I said yesterday that, in my judgement, if King George VI saw the Bill that was presented to us for the regulation of our external relations, his reaction would probably be: "Thank you very much, but I am not interested." What it was proposed to do was not to recognise him as in any sense the King of this country, whether for internal or external affairs, but to say that, having removed him entirely from our Constitution, yet, so long as he was recognised as King by certain other countries, we were prepared to delegate to him certain formal functions in connection with our external affairs as and when advised by the Executive Council to perform these functions.

The amendment that is now being brought in goes further, and it is really humorous to see the way in which it does that. The President is still, apparently, not prepared to say that the new King shall be King. What he does say is that his late Majesty "shall cease to be King for the purposes set out in the preceding sub-section"—these purposes that I have mentioned, namely, acting for us in certain formal functions concerning our external affairs—"and for all other, if any, purposes." It says "if any." Why "if any?" What is in the minds of the Government? Do they consider that there do exist other purposes or not? Is not this a typical example of the Government's habit of trying to have things both ways? They want to be in a position to say to their supporters in this country that the King has ceased to be King of this country, and they want to be in a position at the same time to say to the British Government: "We have not gone out of the Commonwealth; we are still in the Commonwealth, and we have arranged that the late King has ceased to be King not only for the purposes of this delegation of powers in the matter of foreign affairs, but for other purposes, if any, and that the new King shall be King for such other purposes, if any." If the Government took an honest view of their responsibilities they would make the situation clear alike to the people of this country and to the people on the other side of the water, and the situation ought to be the same in the eyes of the people of this country and of the people at the other side of the water.

Deputy O'Sullivan, in a very able speech, made one remark which I confess caused me some surprise. He suggested that this Bill was giving the King too much—giving the King something that the predecessors of the present Government had steadfastly refused to give him. So, at least, I understood him to say, and I confess that his remark occasioned some bewilderment in my mind. However, perhaps it will be elucidated by subsequent speakers on the Front Opposition Bench. I do think, however, that in considering this Bill, and in considering the joint effect of this Bill and the Bill passed yesterday, we ought to compare what is being done with what might have been done. I do not think that any Government, since the foundation of the Free State, has shown enough imagination in connection with the question of the Crown. I hold myself to owe a giance to the King of Ireland as an integral part of the Irish Constitution. I am not in the least attracted by delegating powers to a foreign King— not in the least attracted by it. I believe that the King, as King of Ireland, could be an instrument of immense value in many ways, but particularly in the matter of bringing Partition to an end. In taking that view, I believe I am in the right line of Irish national tradition. At a time when the prerogatives, the power, of the King were very much greater than they are now, a famous Irishman used the following words:

"When I talk of English influence being predominant in this country, I do not mean to derogate from the due exertion of His Majesty's prerogative: I owe him allegiance and, if occasion should require it, I would be ready, cheerfully, to spill my blood in his service; but the influence I mean is not as between the King and his subjects, in the matter of prerogative, but as between the Government and the people of England and the Government and the people of Ireland."

Later, in the same work, he uses these words:

"It is, therefore, extremely possible for the most truly loyal subject in this Kingdom, deeply to regret, and conscientiously to oppose the domineering of English influence, without trenching, in the smallest degree, on the rational loyalty, so long and so justly the boast of Ireland. His loyalty is to the King of Ireland."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the reference?

Mr. MacDermot

Those words are from the best, the most famous, of the works of Wolfe Tone, written in the plenitude of his powers, and the reference is to pages 348 and 349 of Volume I of the Washington edition of "The Life of Wolfe Tone."

Dáil Éireann debate - Saturday, 12 Dec 1936

Executive Authority (External Relations) Bill, 1936—Second Stage.

A Deputy

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

The Attorney-General

Dáil Éireann debate -
Saturday, 12 Dec 1936