Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Nov 1934

Vol. 54 No. 2

In Committee on Finance. - Citizenship Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

The President

I move that this Bill be now read a Second Time. I think this is the first time that an Irish Parliament was invited to discuss proposals for the regulation throughout the world of Irish citizenship. As the Deputies know, Article 3 of the Constitution created only a very limited citizenship. Citizenship was confined then to the limits of the jurisdiction of the Saorstát as it was on December the 6th, 1921, to certain classes of people. That article of the Constitution contemplated that conditions governing the acquisition and determination of citizenship should be determined as regards the future, after that day, by law.

No such law has been passed and the result of that has been that many anomalies have occurred. We propose now both to extend that article of the Constitution by the amending Bill which was introduced into the House on yesterday and also to implement the article by providing the necessary legislation to govern the conditions for the acquisition and determination of citizenship. The need for this has been felt both in the domestic sphere and in the sphere of our international relations. In the domestic sphere we need an exact statutory definition of citizenship. For example, we need it in connection with our electoral system, in connection with entry into the public service, in connection with our merchant shipping laws, in connection with the ownership of aircraft, in connection with those special privileges which we think should be reserved for our own citizens and in connection with our general economic system. In fact, you might say we need that in relation to every domain or sphere in which we want our own citizens to enjoy special rights and privileges.

In our external relations we require it also in a very special way. As you know, we have established diplomatic missions abroad in many countries. We have such missions at the moment in Washington, in Paris and Brussels; in Berlin and in the State of the Vatican City as well as in London. And the purpose of these diplomatic missions is not merely to establish relations with the Governments of the particular countries, but also to give such of our nationals as may be in those countries what is sometimes a very necessary protection and to provide for them advice and facilities when they need them. That advice and facilities are also afforded by our consular service. That consular service is being extended very widely now in the United States. These consuls perform many functions for the benefit of our nationals. They have notarial functions, they have functions in regard to registers, to verification of births, marriages and deaths. They have activities in the defence of the interests of our citizens both in and out of court, in connection, for example, with the estates of deceased persons—estates in which Irish citizens may have an interest.

Then there are passports. In the exercise of all those functions it is very necessary that it should be capable of being determined without ambiguity whether a particular person is or is not a citizen of our country. For that reason I think every Deputy in the House should welcome the introduction of this Bill. If you examine the Bill you will find that it falls naturally into three main sections:—first of all, the section relating to natural-born citizenship. That I think, is dealt with in Section 2. A number of sections then relate to the acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation certificate. A special Part of the Bill relates to the acquisition of citizenship by marriage. Section 13 and a few sections following deal particularly with that matter.

Then we have the portion beginning, I think, with Section 21 that deals with citizenship rights. These are the main sections—the sections dealing with natural-born citizens; the acquisition of citizenship, including the marriage provisions and the provision for reciprocal or mutual citizenship rights. Any sections that do not come directly under these are of a miscellaneous character and they more or less stand by themselves. They are intelligible generally one by one. I am going to take them for a moment, beginning with Section 2. Section 2 deals with the whole question of definition of who is, or is to be, a natural-born citizen.

Natural-born citizens, you will find, are in two categories, those who are born in the territory of Saorstát Eireann or those whose fathers are citizens, whether these fathers were themselves born in the territory of Saorstát Eireann or not, and you will find that in regard to the latter, in the case of those living outside the territory, the children of fathers who were themselves born in Saorstát Eireann, these children automatically became natural-born citizens. But the children of fathers who were not themselves born in Saorstát Eireann have to be registered in a book called the Foreign Births Entry Book, which will be kept in the Legations, where we have such, or in the Foreign Births Register, which will be preserved by the Minister for External Affairs here at home. It seems not unreasonable to demand that where the father was not born in this country and acquired let us say, his citizenship automatically through his father, he, being more detached from this country, should, if he wishes his child to be a citizen of this country, perform some positive act in that regard and that positive act is to have the birth of the child entered in the Foreign Births Entry Book. The child himself or herself, on attaining 21 years of age, will, in addition, have to signify the desire to be an Irish citizen. That, I think, covers the main provisions of Section 2.

The next series of sections govern the acquisition of citizenship by a process of naturalisation. Any person who fulfills certain conditions can apply for citizenship or a certificate of naturalisation. The Minister for Justice will consider whether the prescribed conditions are fulfilled and it is at his absolute discretion to decide whether he shall or shall not give the certificate. The conditions are laid down. There is the residence condition which demands that there shall be, previous to the application for citizenship, at least five years' residence in the territory of the Saorstát, one year immediately preceding the date of application and the further four years either continuous or summing up to a period of four years, but at any rate amounting to four years in the preceding eight. In other words, there is to be a total period of five years over a period of nine and one of the five years must be that immediately preceding the application.

There are other conditions which must also be fulfilled. The applicant must be of good character. He must have resided continuously for the period I have indicated. He must intend to become ordinarily resident in the country and he must make a declaration of acceptance of citizenship. Unless these conditions are fulfilled the certificate of naturalisation shall not issue. Certain exceptions with regard to residence are made. There is the exception made in favour of those who were not included, for example, in the limited citizenship conferred by Article 3 who wish to return to this country and they can be given a certificate of naturalisation after a period of residence of one year. The same exception is to be made in the case of certain widows. Perhaps the House may consider that that particular year is not necessary and if there is any volume of opinion in favour of cutting out that qualifying period of one year in these cases, I am certainly open to consider it.

The next portion of the Bill to which I would like to refer is that portion dealing with the nationality of one spouse where one is an Irish national and the other is an alien. We propose that marriage of itself should neither confer citizenship nor deprive an Irish national of citizenship.

You will be able to see the principles that underlie these provisions most easily, perhaps, if you classify the cases in this way : Take the case of an Irish citizen marrying a non-national, where the parties intend to reside outside the country or are residing outside the country. You sub-divide that class into those who marry subsequent to the passing of this Act and those who will have married prior to the passing of the Act. After the passing of the Act those who thus reside outside the country are given one year within which the Irish national can make a declaration of election to retain Irish nationality. If that declaration is not made within one year after the marriage, then that national ceases to be a citizen. In the case of marriage before the passing of this Act, if there is residence abroad, then a period of one year is given in which the necessary declaration can be made. In the case of marriages of that sort, where the parties propose to reside in this country, we can make the same sub-divisions as in the previous case—those who will be married after the passing of the Act and those who will have been married before the passing of the Act. In the case of those who will be married after the passing of the Act, the Bill allows a period of six months, but we may extend that on Committee Stage and make it, as in the other case, a period of a year. In the case of those who have married before the passing of the Act and who are here for a period of two years or continuously since their marriage, on the Minister being satisfied that such a period has elapsed, the non-national can apply for a naturalisation certificate and the Minister can give it.

The next group of sections to which I would direct attention is that regarding the mutual or reciprocal rights which it is proposed to grant to citizens of other countries in certain cases. The general principle is that if our citizens, either in virtue of a convention or treaty entered into with these countries or because of the law in force in these countries, enjoy in these countries certain rights and privileges, we are prepared to accord the same rights and privileges here directly as a result of the operation of this Act. Then the rights and privileges accorded to the citizens of other countries here will be those settled and agreed to in the convention. I do not think that any such convention has been entered into by our State so far. Where the law provides in other countries that our nationals get certain privileges, then the Executive Council can, by order, give to citizens of the countries in which such a law in favour of our citizens is in force corresponding rights and privileges here. There are, however, reservations. It is expressly provided in this Bill that the special rights and privileges that may be reserved by statutes, such as the Control of Manufactures Act, are still to be reserved for own own citizens.

I do not think that it is necessary for me to refer in detail to the miscellaneous provisions. The only important other provision is that contained in Section 28 regarding the repeal of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, and the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918, to the extent that they may have been or be deemed to be in operation here. The need of that, I think, will be apparent to everybody. It is a necessary safeguard to ensure that no question of that kind can arise. This is, as you will see, a very important Bill. We are anxious to have the fullest possible discussion upon it. In Committee we shall, of course, have an opportunity of examining it section by section and line by line.

Any proposed amendments will be examined and given the fullest possible consideration. I do not think that this ought to be a controversial Bill. It certainly is not conceived, and, indeed, it would be altogether wrong to have a Bill of this sort conceived, in any narrow or Party spirit. We expect that every Deputy in the House will take the closest interest in it and I feel certain that, when it passes, there will be no reason for dissatisfaction but every reason for satisfaction that the Bill has become law.

Mr. McGilligan

Will the President say what are the changes that are about to take place in Article 3 in the measure introduced yesterday?

The President

It deletes the words in Article 3 that refer to citizenship being confined within the limits of the area of jurisdiction of the Saorstát.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it the operation of citizenship or the source of citizenship?

The President

The citizenship in Article 3 is localised. The citizenship here is universalised and gives extraterritorial effect. The actual amendment would be to delete in lines 9 and 10 of Article 3 the words "within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann)."

Mr. McGilligan

I welcome the introduction of this Bill, and if I have anything to say about it is that I am sorry it has a limiting effect, and that the President, by some words in the Bill, or by some words in his speech introducing the Bill, did not declare his ideas with regard to the position that he expects our citizens, or those agreed to be our citizens, to take up, not in this country but when they are in England. That is not declared in the Bill and it was not declared by himself. The President says this change is founded upon Article 3 of the Constitution. Article 3 establishes a certain group as having citizenship rights as from the date of the Treaty. He is moving to delete the phrase "within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State." I presumed, when I heard that measure was introduced, that it was to make certain that whatever benefits our citizenship could give were not going to be confined to the territory of the Irish Free State but were rather to have extraterritorial effect. I think it is agreed —though I do not say that we should take up the position—that the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State is only over the Twenty-Six Counties. That is the view, apparently, behind the proposed amendment of Article 3. Firstly, we move away from Article 3, in three respects only, if it can be said to be a movement away at all. Secondly, in so far as we change the basis of citizenship for the future, it will cause inquiry as to why Article 3 was ever phrased in the way it is found. Article 3 says:—

Every person without distinction of sex domiciled in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) at the time of the coming into operation of this Constitution, who was born in Ireland, or either of whose parents was born in Ireland...

For the future, our citizens derive only from the father, so that the matriarchal idea is gone except for the original stock. Of course, the children of the natural stock, being themselves natural-born citizens, may transmit, through the mother—but only for one generation—citizenship to her progeny, unless the original citizens happen to be born outside this country. The third movement is, of course, an obviously and necessary one because Article 3 limited citizenship to the number of people found here at the particular time with certain qualifications. Since the year that that was passed, the stock of our citizens has been steadily growing less and less. Nobody born since the date of the passing of that Constitution has acquired citizenship naturally. We have an Article of the Constitution that declares that citizens of the Irish Free State have the right to free elementary education. The class of people who would have a right to demand that were grown beyond the stage for demanding public elementary education.

Now we come to citizens in this Bill and we find that they are:—

Every person who was born in Saorstát Eireann on or after the 6th day of December, 1922, and before the date of the passing of this Act.

Then we have the qualification in connection with the registered ship, which says:—

Every person who was born on or after the 6th day of December, 1922, and before the date of the

passing of this Act in a ship registered in Saorstát Eireann and subject to the subsequent provisions of this section every person who is born outside Saorstát Eireann on or after the 6th December, 1922, and before the date of the passing of this Act and whose father was on the day of such person's birth a citizen of Saorstát Eireann..."

With regard to those people born of an Irish father outside this country, they do not require citizenship unless to safeguard themselves. They have to register by taking some positive steps of their own. Why that limitation should be there I do not know. Most countries are content to say that people are entitled to become citizens of their country or, at any rate, that they are capable of retaining citizenship until such time as, by a positive act, they renounce it. We take the other line. We insist upon people taking some positive step to secure it by registering. There are other small matters dealing with the question of the married woman which, I think, would be better discussed when these matters come up on Committee Stage.

There are two other interesting clauses in this measure—Clause 21, the convention clause, which I join up with Clause 28, the repeal of the Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914. I call attention to the wording of that last clause:—

The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, and the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1918, if and so far as they respectively are or ever were in force in Saorstát Eireann are hereby repealed.

There is a little bit of the mixing there that sometimes characterises the Attorney-General in other matters. He is not sure whether the Act runs here or not.

Mr. MacEntee

Are you?

Mr. McGilligan

None of the self-governing dominions, as they were before the Irish Free State joined the group, seemed to have this Act running to this effect in their country because they had to take steps by special Acts of their own to make it run in their country.

The President

We will hear more about that.

Mr. McGilligan

We might have heard a little more about it in the President's introductory speech.

The President

It was not necessary.

Mr. McGilligan

In throwing it out, I see that we are not sure whether it is law or not. Now what do we do in regard to our citizens abroad? Have we any view upon that?

Let us consider the case, say, if some adherent of Fianna Fáil, in brackets Republican Party, who is studying for medicine and who eventually becomes a doctor and who turns to take up work in some panel area in England. What is he when he goes there? Is he a British subject or do we say to him in England: "You cannot become a British subject until you renounce your Irish nationality," or are we going to have that man following his leader's advice here at home saying: "I am a good Republican at home and I can be a British subject if I like abroad?" The President has begun to clear up ambiguities. One of the things involved is passports. I understand my name is no longer being used on passports. I understand the President has not yet faced up to his responsibility by having his name on them.

The President

Much better was done.

Mr. McGilligan

Much better was done. A civil servant substitutes for the President. It was time he took my name off. Somebody now in the service, willy nilly, has got to sign. And the President wants to clear up ambiguities! That is one of the things that make this matter of nationality or citizenship important. We can call our citizens what we like here. We can give them whatever privileges we like here. The real matter that arises for consideration is what happens our citizens when they go abroad. I think that the only impact of nationality, in the modern world, on the citizens of any country is that when they go abroad they carry some mark, some letter of introduction, a passport, signed even by a civil servant, a letter of introduction to the other State, and that passport guarantees, in so far as the State has any power, to the citizen when he goes abroad all the protection that that other State can give him when he is abroad.

There is a second matter derived from the passport. That is to say, that if a citizen who goes abroad becomes undesirable in another country, that other country in which he is temporarily residing has the knowledge where and to whom to return that man. What do you want for our citizens when they go abroad? The President, via a civil servant, via the King, asks certain things in the King's name. The President does all this, and it is really only shirking responsibility to be afraid to put his name to a passport. It either means that our citizens should get protection over and above what they would ordinarily get, by demanding it in the King's name or that the thing is an empty sham. At any rate there should be frankness or a clearance of ambiguity about that. The President should sign or refuse to sign. He should say that he will not have the safeguarding of our nationals asked in the King's name by the use of the passport, or he should say: “We mean what is there, and we do ask it in the name of the King. We are going to rely for protection if necessary upon British consuls where we have no consuls of our own and upon British gunboats where we have no gunboats of our own.”

Mr. Donnelly

For what?

Mr. McGilligan

If, in years to come, as happened three or five years ago certain of our nationals on the Chinese Mission are kidnapped by Chinese bandits will the President be ashamed to put his name to a document asking that protection should be given to these people by the British? If the British are good enough to give them their aid, will he refuse even to sign a letter of thanks to the people who go out to rescue these people from the hands of the Chinese bandits? What are our nationals going to do when they go abroad? Is Section 21 going to apply to the status of a British National? Is it intended to apply to it? There is no convention. Is it the intention that we are going to seek convention with England; to say that we will give English nationals certain rights here in return for rights which our nationals will enjoy when they go to England? Do we want to see the privileges of entry to certain examinations for which our people do enter in England? Are we going to have any consideration for that privilege? Do we want to use consuls who are called, properly called, British consuls in any areas where we have no foreign representatives or are we going to ask, as we may ask, the German consuls, the French consuls or the consuls of other nations to do us a service either for payment or in return for services which we shall render to these nations here? Do we want in the final resort the aid of British armed forces where we have no armed forces of our own? Shall we call, as we may call for some consideration, on the help of the armed forces of some other nation or do we take the other course of simply saying that if our Nationals go abroad they go abroad knowing that we cannot help them or at least that we cannot call on one source of help, the help of other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations? That is the main question that arises on this Bill and it was worthy surely of an introductory remark or two to have clarified the position as the President would like to see it existing between ourselves and England, Australia or South Africa, if any of our nationals are found in England, Australia or South Africa.

There is one other aspect of this that I want to consider to-night. This measure is founded on the Treaty. We know that were it not for the Treaty this House would not be sitting here to-night to receive this measure. It would not be possible of passage if it were not for the Treaty. Before the Treaty was negotiated, and invitation was sent to the people of this country to send representatives to see—I am not quoting the precise words, but this was the tone of it—if it was possible to realise Irish national aspirations with membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The Treaty was passed and certain people thought it did not realise Irish national aspirations to be allied in a community of interests with the British Commonwealth of Nations. In a variety of conferences this matter of nationality was one thing which was dealt with. In the 1929 Report there were six paragraphs which dealt with this question of nationality. The matter was afterwards debated in the Dáil in 1929, 1930 and 1931 and in the end this Report and the later Report were adopted. One of the paragraphs of the 1929 Report is as follows:

The status of the Dominions in international relations, the fact that the King on the advice of his several Governments, assumes obligations and acquires rights by treaty on behalf of individual members of the Commonwealth, and the position of the members of the Commonwealth in the League of Nations and in relation to the Permanent Court of International Justice do not merely involve the recognition of these communities as distinct juristic entities, but also compel recognition of a particular status of membership of those communities for legal and political purposes. These exigencies have already become apparent; and two of the Dominions have passed acts defining their "nationals" both for national and for international purposes.

I will read paragraph 77:—

Under the new position, if any change is made in the requirements established by the existing legislation, reciprocal action will be necessary to attain this same recognition, the importance of which is manifest in view of the desirability of facilitating freedom of intercourse and the mutual granting of privileges among the different parts of the Commonwealth.

That referred to the common status recognised throughout the British Commonwealth which had been given a statutory basis by the operation of the Act that we are repealing as far as this country is concerned if it has any effect here. As far as the Dominions were concerned they all agreed there that they should do whatever they pleased with regard to their own nationals as to the status and the rights they gave them and any other obligations that they put on them, but there was the declaration that if it was desirable to keep that common status, to define that in an Act or series of Acts, that then care should be taken that they would not be conferring upon any person "a status to be operative throughout the Commonwealth save in pursuance of legislation based upon common agreement."

I brought that Report home and it was discussed here. The man who is now Vice-President of the State said then:—

"Common citizenship did not appeal to us. To our mind, it was a degradation of our Irish citizenship and national status, and if the question of citizenship is to be settled in future we would rather have it settled on the basis of Irish citizenship dissociated from common citizenship with Great Britain, Australia and any other country. Irish citizenship and Irish nationality is good enough for us."

That was echoed by others. The man who is now Minister for Industry and Commerce threw aside with contempt the facilities available for Saorstát citizens when travelling abroad, in the way of being able to avail of the services of British Consuls. In a whirlwind of words from which it is difficult to take any sense, Deputy MacEntee, now Minister for Finance, purported to agree with both the previous speakers. That was the point of view in March, 1930: that we do not want anything except Irish nationality, and that, if we must have some declaration, then we are going to have a declaration mainly aiming at dissociation. If people wave before us certain privileges which our nationals may get when travelling abroad, then we are going to put those on one side as incompatible with our national dignity and status. We are going to have that dignity and status and we want no privileges. Could not the President tell us if he approves of what the Vice-President then said, and whether he is going to carry out that programme of the Vice-President through the medium of this Bill? That matter was discussed later in the 1930 Conference Report, which referred to nationality in this way:—

The conclusions of the conference were as follows:—

(1) That the conference affirms paragraphs 73 to 78 inclusive of the Report of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation.

(2) That, if any changes are desired in the existing requirements for the common status, provision should be made for the maintenance of the common status, and the changes should only be introduced (in accordance with present practice) after consultation and agreement among the several members of the Commonwealth.

(3) That it is for each member of the Commonwealth to define for itself its own nationals, but that, so far as possible, those nationals should be persons possessing the common status, though it is recognised that local conditions or other special circumstances may from time to time necessitate divergences from, this general principle.

(4) That the possession of the common status in virtue of the law for the time being in force in any part of the Commonwealth should carry with it the recognition of that status by the law of every other part of the Commonwealth.

That was also the subject of discussion in this House, and there were many and very interesting things said about it. But the main gist of the remarks passed on that Report was that by accepting the various paragraphs, among them being those which I have read, that I was tying this country still more tightly into the framework of the British Empire, and the word "Empire" was not used without advertence as to its meaning. I was told in 1931 that no matter what I might say the power of the British Parliament to bind the people of this country was still there and that I was strengthening it. Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, went so far as to commit himself to the statement that even in the matter of passports he knew that the King's prerogative still ran; that even in the matter of sending Ambassadors abroad that the King still ruled, and that behind the King on these matters was the British Parliament.

The President to-night, with a show of triumph, said that we have established diplomatic missions abroad. Who did? The continuity of the State is now apparent. We are the successors of the people who, in fact, did it. What does the President think of his colleague who in those days of gloom and enforced ignorance said that the King still ruled and that the British Parliament still ruled behind the King? Does he now think that?

Mr. Donnelly

You have been badly side-stepped.

Mr. McGilligan

The biggest sidestep done in this is the avoidance of the question of what our nationals are going to do abroad. Is there a recognition now that what was said in these debates in 1930 and 1931 on this very matter of our nationality was so much turgid rubbish that might have gone down at a crossroads but that certainly should never have been spoken here? The President thinks that this Bill is necessary because of our domestic needs. In respect of what? The electoral law, and in the matter of aircraft—certainly an immediate and dangerous emergency—and shipping. Surely there is no question of urgency so far as aircraft and shipping are concerned. Then as to our general economic policy. That is a point. We have nationals defined in four fairly recent Acts, but there never has been the same definition in any of them. None of the definitions corresponds with citizenship as declared in Article 3 or with citizenship as declared here. Will this in future override the definition of "national" in the control of Manufactures Act? Will a national be such a person as is here defined, or are we going to have, say, in regard to the control of industry in the country a further limitation: that you will admit not as nationals but as a group such nationals as have been here over a certain period? Then the definition of national is not required for a general economic policy except to clarify matters by saying that we can admit all the people that we admit to citizenship to the privilege of running manufacturing industry in the country.

The President said that many anomalies had occurred. I wonder where are they? Will there be anything so anomalous as the new situation, giving an original stock of citizens which depends upon birth, where either of the parents was Irish, and continuing citizenship only through the father? Previously we admitted people who could not even boast of parentage on either side being Irish, but who were ordinarily resident in this country for a period of years. For the future we are going to say that even the children of Irish natural-born fathers are not going to become citizens unless they register in a particular book and make their claim within a certain period. Why that anomaly? Why create it? I do not know if there is any example in modern law of such a restriction. As far as I know, certainly as far as the generality of nationality laws are concerned, they go the other way; the citizenship is left there, and it has got to be positively denounced or renounced before one loses it. Has this measure paid attention to the points that were discussed in 1929 and 1930? Is there now created here a citizenship which, if ever we have a common status with other members of the Commonwealth of Nations, will introduce into that common group people who previously would not have been admitted? I certainly think it may happen under the naturalisation section. If so, are we just without any thought to the matter at all repudiating the results of two conferences which our people attended? It may be that there is a case to be made against it, but no such case has been made or presented to the House. It may be that the President does not think that clash will occur, but one would like to know whether attention has been paid to the matter; whether thought has been given to it; whether examination of the classes that might come in has been made, and some provision made hereafter for ensuring that some of those naturalised persons, if they did enlarge their old circle of the common group, will not be admitted to that particular status if the status should ever be agreed upon between ourselves and the other members.

Section 21—I come back to it—is the important matter. It may be that we have decided, without any argument made to the House, that when our nationals—as we have defined them here and as we will register them hereafter and get them recorded—go abroad, we will leave them to chance. We cannot pretend that we are going to create consular establishments in all the places to which our people travel. We cannot pretend that we are going to have even facilities, apart from protection, afforded through the medium of our own offices to our citizens travelling abroad. What do we intend to do? Are we going to take the initiative with regard to conventions? Are we going to take the initiative particularly with regard to conventions— if that clause is applicable at all to members of the British Commonwealth—with say England, where quite a number of our people are, and where quite a number of them go from time to time, or are we going to make some arrangement with some other country? If so what is the other country? What do we want our people labelled? Is it advisedly that the situation has been left in the position that until the British repeal the 1914 Act in relation to our people in England our people can attach themselves to that and seek its shelter when they are in difficulty? If we are doing that advisedly, can we say that this Bill marks any advance upon the arrangements of the 1929 and 1930 conferences? Remember that we derided them as being a degradation of the nationality of the country. It is surely the biggest point to be decided on in this measure.

The privileges that people give to their own citizens at home are clearly a matter for themselves. It only requires the placing of certain things on record in a Bill of this sort. It only requires attention to one or two things—the electoral law, service on juries, etc.—and you get determined easily and without any argument all the rights and obligations to which you shall submit your own citizens when they are at home, whatever their class may be. Nobody can say that the Bill is of any importance from that angle. The real importance of that measure is its reactions in other countries. How are we to dovetail into the international situation? How are we going to get protection or facility or intercourse for our nationals when they go abroad? Is it by convention, and only by convention, or is the President going to do the double as usual, and say: "I make you an Irish citizen here at home. I repeal in its application to this country the British Nationality Act of 1914, but I am not going to move at all in regard to that Act in England. I know it is made applicable to our citizens over there and certainly in my old days I considered it a degradation for any of them to avail themselves of the provisions of it." The President may say that; it will certainly leave our citizens with some safeguard, but is it safeguarding the ideal that made himself and his group of Ministers—the Ministers who are now here—fume and rage when the 1929 and 1930 conferences came up for consideration? It was considered almost treason to even talk of the possibility of any association of our citizens with the citizens, say, of Australia, South Africa and England, even though we were as distinct, one from the other, as a German from a Frenchman. The Vice-President, as he is now, had then his clear-cut defined statement:—

"The only thing we want is dissociation of ourselves from the British."

We can consider on this measure whether the President has given that clearly. Certainly from anything which the President has said so far, I came to the conclusion that what he wants is to have still the situation which he has achieved; say, with regard to the passports:—"Anybody can sign this; I will not do it, but somebody will do it under my orders and with my consent. I know what flows from it—a request to the King with regard to protection. Some of our people can go to England and claim that they are, when they get into difficulties, British subjects, in order to get the protection of that British Act. They may, and I know that they will, when in difficulties, resort to it, but I will not make any open, clear or honourable arrangement with England with regard to the matter. I will have nothing to do with any individual who puts himself into what I consider the abject position of being a British subject. He can do it if he likes; I wash my hands of the whole thing." In the form of the Bill I judge that attitude is there quite definitely, from the mere fact that the President to-day was silent about what his intentions are under the Convention Clause.

Mr. Costello

I confess I looked forward with some eagerness to the draft Citizenship Bill, about which we have heard so much for the last few months. I was rather eager to see how the present Government would tackle a problem which was fraught with considerable difficulty, and which was indeed a problem than which there was no more difficult one facing any Government in this country under existing circumstances. When I read the draft of this Bill I had nothing but feelings of disappointment because, when it is examined and put into its proper perspective, from the point of view of domestic law and international law, it becomes quite apparent that this Bill is perfectly harmless and perfectly innocuous, as a piece of domestic legislation, with little, if any, effect from the point of view of public international law. Article III of the Constitution created this legal status of Irish Free State citizenship. That citizenship was a novel idea, not merely under international law but in the law of what is known as the British Commonwealth of Nations. So far as I can understand this Bill, even with the President's explanation of the proposed Constitution (Amendment) Bill, it is nothing but an attempted extension of Article 3 of the Constitution and, in fact, so far as I can see, is not an extension of that Article at all. Certainly, as it stands with reference to the text of Article 3 it in no way extends the underlying idea in that Article.

Article 3 created nothing more or less than what I might call, for want of a better term, local citizenship. In calling the status created under Article 3, local citizenship, I do some injustice to the brains of those people— perhaps I shall say of that man—who conceived Article 3. It was a novel idea, contrived and conceived to fit a difficult situation which existed in the year 1922; a novel idea to fit into the framework of the Treaty and the Constitution, a conception of Irish nationality as a distinct international idea, totally distinct, and in no way antagonistic to the idea, of what is known, for want of a better term, as a British subject. It was the first endeavour made by the framers of the Constitution to get within the framework of the Treaty recognition what we all regarded as our natural and inalienable birthright, our Irish nationality. Article 3 was recognised by the legal advisers of the British Government as being entirely within the letter and spirit of the Treaty.

This Bill is merely implementing Article 3 of the Constitution, which provided and contemplated that there should be legislation providing for the conditions of the future acquisition of citizenship. This is the Bill contemplated by Article 3 of the Constitution. This Bill, therefore, does nothing more than regulate existing citizenship and the acquisition of future citizenship, within the meaning of Article 3, and of a type within the definition of citizenship in Article 3 and, therefore, of a type recognised by the British in 1922 as being within the Treaty. It marks, therefore, no advance of the position that obtained in 1922. It entirely ignores the efforts of my colleague, Deputy McGilligan, and his colleagues, and the Conferences of 1929 and 1930, which got proper recognition of the idea and the ideal of Irish nationhood and Irish nationality within the framework of the Treaty, and its recognition, both in domestic law, in the law running throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations, and in public and private international law.

A very strenuous effort, as the President may learn, if he peruses the records of the Imperial Conferences of 1929 and 1930, was made to get from our confreres in the British Commonwealth of Nations a recognition of Irish nationality as something which sprang from our own nationhood, to reconcile it with what is known as the common status, and to provide by means of agreement the benefits which would accrue to us from a recognition of that common status without in any way prejudicing our Irish nationality. That was a very difficult task. I may say that it was the most difficult task that confronted the delegates of this country at the Imperial Conferences of 1929 and 1930. As the President's advisers will tell him, and as he will see from the records, it was a topic which caused more bitterness between this country and the British Government, and the British delegates, than any topic discussed from 1926 to 1930. Very considerable progress was made during these conferences. Few people recognise the work that was put into the getting of those paragraphs which were so much decried in 1930 by members of the Fianna Fáil Party, now the Government Party, or the valuable statements that are implicit, or contained explicitly in the Imperial Conferences Reports of 1929 and 1930. We might state that jurists from the other Dominions in the British Commonwealth of Nations recognised at the end of 1929, and were fully convinced in 1930, of the truth of the statements that were put forward by Deputy McGilligan, who was then Minister for External Affairs, that the British Commonwealth of Nations was not a Commonwealth of British Nations; that there were different nationalities comprised in it; that the nationality of each of these nations should be recognised nationally and internationally; and that the recognition of that separate nationality was in no way inconsistent with the regulation of the common status which existed throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Each one of these jurists and each delegate who attended the conferences of 1929 and 1930, largely as a result of Deputy McGilligan's advocacy, recognised that this country was a mother country in the same way as Great Britain was a mother country; that it had a separate nationality which ought to be recognised nationally and internationally; and that the only problem left in 1930 to solve, was to provide a basis of agreement between this country and Great Britain as to recognition of our separate Irish nationality, from the point of view of international law and get the benefits, without prejudicing our Irish nationality, of being what is known, for want of a better term, a British subject, referred to in these conference reports as the common status existing throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations. We should be entitled to expect that the present Government would have made some progress along that path. Great progress was made by the last Government in that direction.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.