Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Oct 1922

Vol. 1 No. 22

THE DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - ARTICLE 58.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I beg to move Article 58, that "The Representative of the Crown, who shall be styled the Governor-General of the Irish Free State, shall be appointed in like manner as the Governor-General of Canada and in accordance with the practice observed in the making of such appointments. The salary of the Governor-General of the Irish Free State shall be of the like amount as that now payable to the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and shall be charged on the public funds of the Irish Free State/ Saorstát Eireann, and suitable provision shall be made out of those funds for the maintenance of his official residence and establishment." Now, this is an agreed Article as to the amount to be payable to this gentleman, and so on. Australia was chosen because of its population being nearest to ours, and also because in the provisions in the other Dominions there was a very large allowance made for travelling expenses. Simply examining the provisions in the different Constitutions, we decided that, both from the point of view of population and amount, the Australian provisions were the most suitable. Now, as to the title Governor-General, that was decided on after careful consideration, principally because it has an accepted signification with known functions and known limitations. When you call the man a Governor-General you stamp him and the limits of his powers of interference in a way that is readily understood in Canada and in the other Dominions. The suggestion to call him a Commissioner is objectionable. You call him a Commissioner, and the name conveys nothing in particular, and no one knows what are the limits of his powers. There is another objection. British Commissioners are only sent to Crown Colonies or places not autonomous, and there is one instance of a man, a Governor-General over a Dominion, who is a Commissioner for some Crown Colony that has not autonomous powers. Looking into that, and weighing the advantages of calling a man by a name that will stamp immediately his functions and the limits of his power, and looking into the fact that the word Commissioner conveys something of a slight that the British only send Commissioners to places that have not autonomy, and that it conveys to the ordinary person in the Dominions that your status is lower than theirs, we decided against the name High Commissioner or Commissioner, and in favour of the name Governor-General. We recommend that strongly, although there is nothing in the Treaty that binds us to that name.

Mr. G. GAVAN DUFFY

Is this being made a matter of confidence, or is the Dáil free to vote on it as it likes?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

It is not a matter of confidence, but we should be given credit for having given careful consideration to this matter before coming to a decision, and we do recommend most strongly to the Dáil the adoption of that particular title, on the grounds that it stamps the man's limitations in a way that every person in the Dominions will understand, and in a way that shows that if he outsteps those limits such an action is resented by them almost as much as by us. They will say if the Governor-General can do that in Ireland the Governor-General will do it here. If you call him a Commissioner or a High Commissioner you suggest that your status is less than theirs, because the British only send Commissioners to places not autonomous. There would be something almost in the nature of a revolt in the Dominions if they attempted to send a Commissioner or a High Commissioner there.

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLLS

I protest most emphatically against the remark made by Deputy Gavan Duffy when he asked whether the Dáil was free to vote on this question as it liked. I think that is an insulting remark from any Deputy and the Dáil should not take it without protest. The Dáil is free to vote any way it likes and everyone should know that that sort of remark should not be bandied around the Dáil.

Mr. T. JOHNSON

On behalf of Deputy Shannon, who is still ill, I have been asked to move that this Clause be deleted. The reasons are that there is nothing in the Treaty to warrant its insertion. The Treaty is very definite and says that the Representative of the Crown in Ireland shall be appointed in like manner as the Governor-General in Canada and in accordance with the practice observed in making such appointments. That is obviously a duty for somebody, but is not a duty solely resolving itself upon the Irish Legislature It is a duty which will devolve on the Crown to appoint its Representative, with what advice is a matter for arrangement. It is presumably joint advice and a matter for agreement between the two Executives. But to put such a Clause as that in the Constitution is quite unnecessary, inasmuch as we are bound by the Treaty. At least the method of nomination of a Representative of the Crown is set out in the Treaty, and that is not a matter for the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann. Take the respective points raised by the Minister in moving this, and that is another reason why the clause should be deleted. Now, on the question of salary, that, surely, is not a matter that ought to be put into the Constitution. To say that the salary of the Governor-General, assuming that he is to be called the Governor-General—which is to say the salary of the representative of the Crown —shall be of the like amount as that now payable to the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. That is to be put into the Constitution. What is that salary? I understand it is £10,000 a year—10,000 sovereigns, ten thousand pounds sterling. Does this mean that we are binding ourselves to pay in British golden sovereigns, or are we binding ourselves to pay the equivalent of the present value in Treasury notes? There is a possibility, of course, that the whole currency may be changed. We may, in our wisdom or unwisdom, go to the extent of turning out millions and millions of "Cosgraves," a new term which may be applied to the currency of Ireland. Now, what is the basis of the payment of this salary to the Governor-General or to the Representative of the Crown? It is obviously not the sort of proposition that should be put into the Constitution, because it is not fixed. It may vary. Circumstances may alter its whole import. The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is paid a certain sum to-day. Presumably that is based upon the values of sterling. One would wonder whether it is intended to vary with the rise and fall of the cost of living. I am serious about this; because it may vary very much, and it is not fair to that gentleman or lady who may be appointed as representative of the Crown. You are fixing his or her salary on the basis of present prices. And that is being put into the Constitution. The prices may vary, values may vary, but the Constitution is not going to vary with prices or value. And I submit, consequently, that that Article—that part of the Article—ought to be deleted. Now, in the first part a discussion will arise on the different amendments, but inasmuch as the Minister has raised the point, there is apparently a quite gratuitous proposition here, saying that he or she shall be styled the Governor-General. A phrase in the Treaty speaks of the representative of the Crown. And all that is required, in my judgment, to raise this person to the dignity to which he is entitled is to put a capital "R" to the word Representative of the Crown in the Treaty, and let him be called in the Constitution and in practice what he is called in the Treaty. That is strictly adhering to the Treaty. Some of us on these benches heard the late Chairman of the Provisional Government emphatically say that he would not be called the Governor-General.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I suggest that the Deputy might repeat that.

Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON

I just want to repeat that some of us on these benches heard the late Chairman of the Provisional Government emphatically say that the Representative of the Crown would not be called the Governor-General, whatever else he would be called. And we had an assurance that almost any title except that of "President" would be approved of. And I submit that by strictly adhering to the Treaty the restriction that applies and that is inserted there applied to him, and would put him in his proper place, or would put her in her proper place—"Representative of the Crown." Governor-General to my mind connotes very much more than that suggested by the Minister. It suggests a Crown Colony. It suggests somebody appointed as Governor with powers. It suggests powers behind him. It suggests Government, general Government. And although the British Dominions have grown out of the Colony stage and have retained the title, still it is not desirable that we should re-import that title with all its meaning into Ireland as a title adhering to the Representative of the Crown. Therefore, I beg to move the deletion of this Clause 58.

Mr. GAVAN DUFFY

I second that proposal. I take it that it would be free on the next reading to move any amendments on these clauses. And if that be so, I do not intend to press a division to-night on certain amendments which I would otherwise have moved because it is too late, and the Dáil is too empty. In case the amendment proposed by Deputy Johnson should not be passed I ask the Minister for Home Affairs to take note of one or two matters which would have to be discussed at a later stage, and about which we might come to an agreement. I say nothing at the moment about the name except that in my view any name would be better than Governor-General, but I draw the attention of the Minister to the phrase. "in like manner as the Governor-General of Canada, and in accordance with the practice in the making of such appointments." I want to get in a specific statement that this gentleman is to be appointed upon the advice of the Irish Executive Council, and in support of that I refer the Minister to Lloyd George's letter to the late President. The Dáil will remember the passage in Keith where he says:—"Logically now there is no answer to the argument that the choice of Governor will rest primarily with the State Government subject to the approval of the Crown." But Lloyd George went further in the letter of the 13th December last to President Griffith. Dealing with Article 3 of the Treaty, Lloyd George says: "This means the Government of the Irish Free State will be consulted so as to ensure a selection acceptable to the Irish Government before any recommendation is made to His Majesty." Well, using the British formula, that meant that "we will appoint a man selected by you." That is the effect of it. "We will appoint a man approved by you, the Irish people." I want to see something in the draft on the strength of that admission by Lloyd George himself. I will go further than using the words "Dominion practice." The second point is the amount of remuneration paid to this gentleman; I say nothing to-day about the glorious difference of £10,000 paid to him and the sum of less than £2,000 paid to Ministers. This gentleman can hold a Court here. A point further which requires careful consideration is this, that in each of the three Dominion Constitutions you will find an express provision for leaving it to the Parliament of the Dominions to decide how much this gentleman will have. That is the express provision, and we must get into this Constitution an equally express provision for leaving it to the Dáil. In the Canadian Act you will find a provision, I refer to Section 105. In the Australian Act you will find it in Section (3) and in the South African Act in the combined effect of Sections 10 and 152. And I draw the attention of the Dáil further to the fact that in this proposed Irish Constitution we should commit ourselves to giving this gentleman an establishment worthy of his office in addition to the £10,000, a thing the Irish people would have done in any case having accepted him. But to insert it in our Constitution is a distinct departure from the practice in other Constitutions to which I refer. Not one single one of these provides for the establishment of the Governor-General. And the reason it is put in here is because those gentlemen in Downing Street were so frightened that Ireland would not observe the Treaty that they insisted that some things which we were not in any way called upon to provide for should be inserted. I intend to vote for Mr. Johnson's amendment on the understanding that at a later stage it will be open to me to open this matter formally.

Professor MAGENNIS

May we hear from the Minister, in his reply, why it was he told us, when he was dealing with the Articles upon which the Ministry were prepared to stand or fall, that Article 58 was one of these. It may be my mistake, but I did understand that this was one of the articles that was vital. I understand, from his attitude now, that this is one of the clauses in which the Ministry expect support or otherwise they would fall. So it is not one of those described as a free clause. We were told in the opening speech of the Minister that this was not vital, and, if I do not misrepresent him, I think he regards portion of it now as vital.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

The name is not vital. There is a difference between the name being vital and the substance of the Article being vital.

Professor MAGENNIS

The general substance of the Article is already in the Treaty, and it is decided to schedule the Treaty, and consequently this is a superfluity of action in having it put into the Constitution here, unless there is a special reason. The effect seems to me to be to introduce this title in a still more objectionable way as "the representative of the Crown, who shall be styled the Governor-General of the Irish Free State," and making his salary chargeable on the public funds of the Irish Free State, and providing "that suitable provision should be made out of those funds for the maintenance of his official residence and establishment." The term "Governor-General," no doubt, as indicated by the Minister, clearly conveys to the Dominions, who are the other units in the Commonwealth of Free Nations, what the representative of the Crown is here. But I learned, from the Minister for Home Affairs, that to think about what any of the distant Dominions will consider in our regard was to be a "fool who had his eyes on the ends of the earth." That was quoted from Holy Scripture against Deputy Gavan Duffy when he proposed the consideration of the effect of certain words upon the Dominions.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Pardon me, it was in connection with the League of Nations.

Professor MAGENNIS

It was repeated by the President in connection with the item to which I have referred. The term Governor-General may have the advantage that he specifies. But, as Deputy Johnson rightly puts it, it smacks altogether of Colonial status. There is a very good historical reason for naming the Crown Representative in Canada the Governor-General, because Canada once was a Colony governed by a Governor-General. We were never a Colony. Our claim all along is that we were an ancient Nation. Why impose that on us now as if it were a necessary implication in the Treaty which recognises our Statehood as a thing in International Law? Why impose a title that is retrograde? There is, if you want to go back into history, an ancient title for the Crown Representative, namely, Lord Deputy. The name Lord Deputy has evil associations, no doubt, but at any rate the title belongs to an early part of our own history. But why should this be introduced at all into the Constitution? Let the name be the name that is already in the Treaty, "The Representative of the Crown." Anyone who is interested in the matter, such as the Premier of the Union of South Africa, will understand very well what is meant by the Representative of the Crown. It is a virtue of the Treaty that we are made co-equal members of the Commonwealth, and that we come into fraternal relation with the Dominions, and consequently they are just the people who will understand the meaning of the term. I object as vehemently as I can to the proposal to put in the Constitution that the funds of the Free State are to be chargeable with suitable provision for the maintenance of an official residence and establishment. There are many people outside this Dáil who are in a state of unstable equilibrium politically as regards whether they shall vote eventually for the Treaty and this Constitution, as an actual development in exposition of what the Treaty offers, or whether they shall continue in opposition, and I have not the slightest doubt, if a part of the Constitution be to label the representative of the Crown the Governor-General, that it will have a most injurious effect upon minds such as these. There are people nearer home whom it is of much more concern for us to influence than to influence a few distant Commonwealth citizens, no matter how distinguished they may be. It seems to me most necessary that in the development of the Constitution and the settling of the claim of right, and the things consequent on the claim of right, that we should take up an attitude that will appeal to our fellow-countrymen like this, and bring them in on the side of acceptance of the Free State. We will be told that that is playing to the gallery. I have no hesitation in this matter in saying I am playing to the gallery, but not to the gallery of this Dáil, but to the gallery in a better sense—to the people outside this Dáil. I think that is something the Ministry has frequently forgotten in these discussions—that there are Irishmen to whom we might continually make appeal for a change of heart and mind in regard to this matter, and everything we may do that would have the effect of driving them into opposition or of hardening their hearts in opposition is unpatriotic. I see no reason whatsoever for introducing this into the Constitution.

Mr. McGOLDRICK

I am not going to lose much sleep over the name or label that is going to be attached to this particular office, but what I am very particularly concerned about are the conditions that will apply to this individual. It must be laid down distinctly, if he is coming here, that he must know the Irish language, that he must be a native Irish speaker, so as to properly deal with people here in that language. That is the first essential qualification, and I think some of our Deputies here, who are so eloquent and make plenty of speeches, should know as much about the language as the subject we are talking about. I think we should lay it down definitely that that should be an essential qualification.

Mr. T. JOHNSON

I would like to say, if the Deputy would introduce a clause to that effect, and if the Ministry would accept it, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ERNEST BLYTHE

This clause is an agreed clause, and one of the reasons why it was agreed that the title should be put in the Constitution was, I am sure, the talk which was carried on in the Second Dáil. Deputy Gavan Duffy made a suggestion, in his typical style, that the representative of the Crown should be called An tAmadán Mór. That sort of humour is very easily produced, but there was the indication there that people who should be responsible—because the man who made the suggestion was one of the Signatories of the Treaty—were prepared to fix a title which would be derisive. The late Commander-in-Chief may have said that we would choose any other title rather than Governor-General, but what he had in his mind was not the particular objection to that, but to indicate that we were not bound to that title. We are not bound to accept that title, but it is well that we should take a title which has certain advantages, which prevents the carrying on of a peculiar type of humbug, which we have had some instances of in this Dáil. The Treaty and the Constitution which is being made under the Treaty give Ireland, at the present time, a particular status and a particular relationship to Great Britain, and the Crown of Great Britain. Whether we like it or not, that is where we stand, and I for one object to the kind of humbug which pretends that we have got something else. That is one reason why this title commends itself to me, rather than a title which would come from the sort of mentality that, say, produced "Document No. 2." Clause 2 of the Treaty says the relationship of the Representative of the Crown to the Irish Free State shall be similar to that of the relationship of the Dominion of Canada. It is a clause that is capable of very wide interpretation. I would suggest to the Dáil that it is capable of bearing the meaning, that the salary and provision made for the Governor-General of Canada should be the salary and provision applying in Ireland. If that is so, it is very desirable that the salary should be fixed specifically in the Constitution in agreement with the British, because it means we are getting off in this matter at the cheaper rate of Australia, rather than the more expensive rate of Canada. I think Clause 2 might be fairly held to include that particular thing, that this provision should be made for the "Representative of the Crown." I see no other reason for introducing into Clause 2 "Representative of the Crown," as apart from the Crown which is merely a small function in regard to legislation, and in regard to Executive Authority; if they alone were concerned, it would be covered by the phrase "relationship to the Crown." There is that advantage in adopting this particular clause here, as it stands. The name is not a matter of any great consequence, any reasonable name would do, but if we make any change, it should be a change that would be some improvement definitely on the name Governor-General.

Mr. KEVIN O'HIGGINS

The Minister for Local Government was right when he said that a tendency in the late Dáil to speak with a kind of cheap humour about this functionary and his title, and so on, had the result of making the British Minister insist that his status, and his salary, and his establishment, and so on, should be very definitely laid down in the Constitution. We had a reason for choosing Australia rather than other places, because it worked out cheaper to choose Australia, and because on a comparison of population Australia came nearest to ours. But as to Deputy Johnson's point, whether the amount should vary with the cost of living, I take it none of us would object if the gentleman struck after a few years, because his salary was not in proportion to the cost of living.

Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON

It is suggested that the terms might be "the rate current in the trade."

Mr. KEVIN O'HIGGINS

I have not been used to coming here and saying we do not want so and so done, because the late Chairman, or President, thought it would be the best thing to do. We have not quoted him or any other person who is not here to any extent. If any person should come here and quote something which he is alleged to have said, it should not weigh very much with the Deputies. The fact is that the late Chairman, together with the late President of the Dáil, agreed, after careful consideration, that we could not do better than select the exact name and title by which the Representative of the Crown was known in Canada and Australia, because that stamped his limits and the limit of his power and interference. The Article, as I say, is an agreed Article in so far as it provides a salary, and that salary shall be charged to the public funds, and suitable provision shall be made for the maintenance of this gentleman's residence and establishment. It is a vital clause on which we stand, and the Article was made necessary and vital largely by the kind of cheap tomfoolery that was indulged in in the late Dáil.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I think, as we have decided by accepting the Treaty we were to go in for a certain national status or a certain international combination, it is right we should go into it accepting all its commitments with dignity, and with none of that flippancy or frivolity which was indulged in at the last Dáil even by the Minister for Education in the present Government, who referred to this gentleman as the Grand Panjandrum, so that these kind of terms were not the monopoly of any one person. Still, I think it is more consonant with his dignity, and still more consonant with the dignity of this nation, that he should be called the Crown Representative rather than the Governor-General. There are certain connotations with the word Governor-General that are not happy, and I think the connotations of the words "Crown Representative" would be much more dignified both for him and for us, and I do urge, therefore, its acceptance between now and the next reading.

On a division the amendment was lost by 34 to 12, the voting being:—

Tá.

Níl.

Pádraig Ó Gamhna.Tomás de Nógla.Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.Tomás Mac Eóin.Liam Ó Briain.Liam Mag Aonghusa.Tomás Ó ConaillAodh Ó CúlacháinSeán BuitléirNioclás Ó FaolainDomhnall Ó Muirgheasa.Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.

Liam T. Mac Cosgair.Donnchadh Ó Guaire.Uáitéar Mac Cúmhaill.Seán Ó Maolruaidh.Seán Ó Duinnín.Micheál Ó hAonghusa.Domhnall Ó Mocháin.Seán Ó hAodha.Séamus Breathnach.Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.Darghal Figes.Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.Seán Mac Garaidh.Micheál de Staineas.Domhnall Mac Cartaigh.Éarnán Altún.Gearóid Mac Giobuin.Liam Thrift.Pádraig Ó hOgáin.Pádraic Ó Máille.Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Criostóir Ó Broin.Risteárd Mac LiamCaoimhghin Ó hUigínTomás Mac Artúir.Séamus Ó Dóláin.Éamon Ó DúgáinPeadar Ó hAodha.Séamus Ó Murchadha.Tomás Ó Domhnaill.Éarnán de Blaghd.Domhnall Ó Broin.Micheál Ó Dubhghail.

12

34

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The amendment is lost. I wonder if we could save time on the next two amendments? We have already discussed the Governor-General. We now have two amendments, one to delete the name Governor and the other to substitute something else for it.

Mr. KEVIN O'HIGGINS

I was not aware you intended to put that motion. There was something I should like to have added to it.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

To the amendment?

Mr. KEVIN O'HIGGINS

Yes.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I would like in that case, even if it is stretching the rule of the Dáil that the Minister for Home Affairs should be allowed to state what he wishes to state. He stated it to me, and it had a very considerable effect on my mind.

Mr. KEVIN O'HIGGINS

What I feel is, and, I think, perhaps, that Deputies should know it and weigh it, that interference with this particular title which was agreed between the late Chairman and the late President and the British Ministers cannot be rescinded in any way to the extent that would be called a breach of the Treaty. It certainly will tend to make British Ministers more difficult to deal with when it comes to question of selection of the individual. I suggest that it is the individual, his type and mentality, that will really matter, and not the title by which he will be known. Now, Deputies can weigh that for what it is worth. It is strongly our point of view that interference with that particular title will render the selection of the individual a very much more difficult matter.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

In view of that explanation, I would like to ask now if Deputy Johnson intends to press this division.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The amendment is that the clause be deleted.

Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON

It may affect the next amendment.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I draw your attention to the fact that Deputy Gavan Duffy was withdrawing his amendments.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Precisely. That is the case.

Mr. T. JOHNSON

The motion in my name is that the words "who shall be styled the Governor-General of the Irish Free State" shall be deleted. There is no need to go over the arguments again, because they were stated in the main on the last motion. I would merely repeat that it is quite a voluntary action on the part of the Dáil itself. There is no compulsion. There is not even a suggestion in the Treaty that there should be any name attached to the representative of the Crown. It seems to me to be quite definitely implied in the terms of the Treaty that the title "Governor-General" would not apply to the representative of the Crown, and I can only repeat that to me the term "Governor-General" is about the most objectionable that could be applied to such an official. I beg to move the amendment.

The amendment was put and negatived.

Mr. THOMAS NAGLE

I formally move the amendment, "To delete `Governor-General of the Irish Free State,' and substitute `Crown Representative.' " I do not think it needs any talking about.

The amendment was put and negatived.

Motion made and question put: "That Article 58 stand part of the Bill."

Agreed

Barr
Roinn