"It was frankly recognised that in this sphere, as in the sphere of defence, the major share of responsibility rests now, and must for some time continue to rest, with his Majesty's Government in Great Britain." I introduced a reference to that by the history of the previous intrigues conducted in Imperial Conferences. It took all the skill of the Canadian and of the South African representatives in a previous Conference to stave off that arrangement of a centralised Navy. When this agglomeration of nations called the British Empire proceeds to make a Treaty his Imperial Majesty is to sign the Treaty with his Imperial title. On page 22 I read:—
"It is recommended that all Treaties (other than agreements between Governments), whether negotiated under the auspices of the League or not, should be made in the name of the heads of States, and if the Treaty is signed on behalf of any or all of the Governments of the Empire, the Treaty should be made in the name of the King as the symbol of the special relationship between the different parts of the Empire. The British units on behalf of which the Treaty is signed should be grouped together in the following order: Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Irish Free State, India.... In the case of a Treaty applying to only one part of the Empire it should be stated to be made by the King on behalf of that part."
Yesterday evening I showed by an examination of the specimen Treaty on page 29 that it would never be possible for a treaty entered into simply by Ireland or the Irish Free State to become registered in the League of Nations and impress the minds of foreign Powers with being the act of Ireland. Now, the Minister would call that a misrepresentation, I suppose. This State cannot enter into treaty relations with foreign Powers in its own right or in its own capacity. It must enter into treaty relations qua member of the British Empire, and that it so enters into treaty relations expressly qua member of the British Empire and only qua member of the British Empire is to be indicated by the unmistakable mark that the treaty bears—that it is signed by his Imperial Majesty with his Imperial title. What becomes of the sovereignty in external affairs of the Irish Free State if that is a fact? If that corresponds, to use the Minister's words, to existing realities, then existing realities are that so far as external affairs are concerned, the Irish Free State is not sovereign. It is merely incorporate in a larger unit and its power to conclude treaties that shall be binding because of their form among nations will be as a member incorporated in that unit. That, sir, is why Lord Balfour was so careful to declare in the earlier page from which I quoted that theirs was unlike any other previous compound State. Every previous compound State was either a federal or a confederate State. But this is neither one thing nor the other. And it is recommended that what it actually is should not be defined. But when it comes to these important matters of treaties it is very clearly defined in its character by your specimen treaty on page 29.
Now I say that not only is that a derogation from our character as a sovereign State, but it is giving complete recognition in an Imperial Conference to the allegation which I made, and which was repudiated from those benches—that the partition which the President and the Minister for Justice made was separation. I was told by the President that I was a dishonest man when I declared his partition to be other than the partition which, in the President's own phraseology, we all knew to be inevitable under Article 12. What was it, after all, but the concession of local autonomy to the Six Counties, not merely the geographical unity of the country preserved, but its character as a political entity preserved. Now, according to this arrangement, to which the Minister for Justice set his hand in our name, Ireland is not a political entity, and that dreadful fact is obscured from public recognition by the alteration in the King's title. No one dreams that the King's title was altered for the sake of alteration, or merely to see how it would read in its new form. It is there to hoodwink the Irish public, to hide from them the fact that, simultaneously with the alteration of the King's title in regard to this country, there is an alteration in the country's status. Suppose the Irish Free State did purport to enter into treaty relations with a foreign Power, is Northern Ireland bound, is Northern Ireland committed to the engagements that the treaty formulates? Certainly not, because Northern Ireland is a component of quite a different unit, the British unit. Is not that separation? There is no meaning in separation if that is not separation.
I have used this illustration before: in the portion of Europe called the Peninsula you have Spain and Portugal, continuous territory as far as earth and mountains are concerned. One of them is a monarchy and the other a republic. They are wholly different and separate States, as much so as if a sea one thousand miles wide divided them. And here, according to this document, you have as big a division, if there is any force in this declaration of autonomy, between the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties as if they were distinct kingdoms, not noticeable, because the same Imperial Crown controls them both in their corporate characters as members of the British Empire, but noticeable when one considers these details of treaty-making, that Northern Ireland goes with Great Britain always, and it never can go with the other unit, the Irish Free State. That is declared to be a state of things to which we assent. "The report of this Committee is printed in extenso below. It was unanimously adopted by the Conference on the 19th November." I have to read that, otherwise the Minister would say that my statement was a misrepresentation.
Now, on this question of the making of Treaties: "The making of a Treaty in the name of the King, as the symbol of the special relationship between the different parts of the Empire, will render superfluous the inclusion of any provision that its terms must not be regarded as regulating inter se the rights and obligations of the various territories on behalf of which it has been signed in the name of the King." Does the Minister for External Affairs approve of that arrangement? He did not dwell upon that, at least I could not find anything in reference to it specifically in his statement. The Minister said: "Instead of one high contracting party, primarily acting on behalf of the British Government, whose advice covered all the Dominions, we shall have a several high contracting party acting in a distinct capacity on behalf of each State of which he is King." The "new system gives exact expression to existing realities. There is a special bond between the States of the Commonwealth consisting, not in a supreme Governmental authority, but in a common kingship. The exact nature of the relationship outside the common bond of the King is undefined, but it is naturally felt." Imagine, if we can, it being naturally felt by an Irishman in this regard—that League Treaties and Conventions cannot be taken as applying completely—as to all their Articles— between them as if there was no special relationship whatever—again insisting upon the functioning as by an incorporated member of a larger organisation. Now, try how this works out in respect of our Constitution. Article I. of the Treaty had stated—and it cannot be too often repeated—that "Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, with a Parliament having powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Ireland, and an Executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State." More than once in this House I have had occasion to point out that Ireland, as we understood that Article of the Treaty, was something more than a geographical expression; it was a political entity, a political entity with an ancient history and glorious memories for us.
Now, Article 51 of the Constitution declares that: "The Executive Authority of the Irish Free State"—that is, all Ireland—"is hereby declared to be vested in the King." Which King? We who supported the Treaty always believed that the King in that Constitution was the King of Ireland. The oath imposed upon members of this House was always explained and recommended, as not unpalatable because the King, in the Constitution to which we had vowed allegiance, was the King of Ireland. Now what does he turn out to be?—"King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India," imperial soverign of that agglomeration of nations and states called the British Empire in this document from which I have been reading. And the executive authority of the Irish Free State that is hereby declared to be vested in the King has no executive authority whatsoever over Northern Ireland. It ought to be regarded as suspended, that the jurisdiction does not extend over the Six Counties, but, alas for that reply as a sufficient one, we have here enunciated for us, with the approval of the Ministers, that the British units on behalf of which a Treaty is signed, should be grouped together in the following order—Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all parts of the British Empire which are not separate members of the League. That is separation, a separation between Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, as complete, as thorough, as any separation can be made in political matters.
When the King's title frightened some of our Northern friends and they rushed to London to be reassured, they were reassured by the British Home Secretary, who sent them home rejoicing; there was no harm done to them by the change in the King's title. If it had been a living reality they would not have gone home rejoicing. Now we have the assent of our Ministers to an arrangement by which Ireland as a political entity is not given recognition among the nations, and yet, on the other hand, she has been received into the comity of nations as a member of the League of Nations. Where do we stand? I had always thought, and I stated it more than once in this House, that what used to be called the British Empire has, by a gradual process, been freed from many of those elements which made its name and reality so hateful to us, and the flag which was the badge of it so detestable in our sight, that it had become in large part a commonwealth of free nations, and that the only elements of empire which remained were those dependencies over which England ruled from London. But in the League of Nations, as Deputy Johnson explained yesterday, and as the Minister had earlier explained to us in this House, the British Empire means this, first the British unit of Great Britain and Ireland, and all parts which are not separate members of the League. In this document we accept our place in the British Empire, we accept the Imperial Crown as the symbol of that, and adopt the position, which I have reiterated perhaps too often, that when there is a question of signing a treaty the treaty is to be signed for us by the King, not as head of this country, as in the Constitution, but as head of the British Empire. The Minister for Justice is pleased to be amused over this, to utter comments that express his disregard. I hope the Irish people will take note. Here is a matter in which their status, that is, their self-respect as nationals, is tampered with, where their whole position is falsified, and that is a matter for jest by the chief culprit in the transaction. To leave the Minister time for reply I will make an abrupt conclusion.