I do not think there will be any other opportunity in this House to say what I think ought to be said. The Bill is now in a form which the House cannot amend at this stage, and it will go to the Dáil, and one may assume that the Dáil will not agree to the amendments made by the Seanad and it will then, presumably, come back to the Seanad. It seems to me that, at this stage, some notice ought to be taken of events that have occurred across the water, particularly since the Bill was before this House. Speeches that have been made by responsible people, giving indication of the minds of responsible people in Britain as regards the position of this Free State, require some action or, at least, some expression of views from this House and from the Dáil. The discussion in the British House of Commons, and, particularly, the speech of Mr. Lloyd George, who was Premier at the time of the passing of the Treaty, and statements made in the public Press by responsible constitutional authorities, show that there has been practically no change of attitude from that which was taken up by them before the Treaty. I refer particularly to the speech of Mr. Lloyd George, and it seems to me that, notwithstanding the developments in constitutional relations from the 1926 and 1930 Imperial Conferences, and the declarations made on these occasions and the subsequent passing of the Statute of Westminster, there is not indicated any change in the mental attitude of responsible British politicians as to the relations between the two countries.
It appears to be still the view of those responsible authorities that this country is now enjoying an extension of self-government, conceded by the British Parliament. I cannot think that that is the view of this Parliament. It certainly was not the attitude of the Ministers of the late Government, and it would appear to me, in view of the fact, which I think is undeniable, that the sentiments expressed by Mr. Lloyd George received the heartiest support from the House of Commons, that the position of this country in relation to Britain, and in relation to the British Dominions, has to be re-asserted by this Parliament, and that the right and proper and appropriate way of re-asserting that position would be for this House, when the opportunity arises after the Bill has been discussed in the Dáil, very definitely to adopt the position that is stated in the Bill as it came to this House from the Dáil. I do not think I shall go into detail with regard to the statements made in the British House. They are on record in the reports of the House of Commons debates of 17th June, and it is quite clear that the attitude of mind is that something has been granted in the way of self-government to this country by the British Parliament, and that nothing can be enacted by this Parliament which the British Government may think detrimental to British interests. These statements were not made in so many words, but that was the effect of Mr. Lloyd George's speech, which was so heartily applauded by members of Parliament, by Ministers and by the Press subsequently.
Then there have appeared certain other speeches by responsible politicians in Britain, and a letter from a responsible constitutional authority, Professor Berriedale Keith, which again seem to me to call for some notice. While I do not think it desirable that Ministers here should take formal notice of letters which appear in the Press, even from so responsible a legal authority as Professor Berriedale Keith, that should not debar one such as myself from taking notice of such a contribution, which undoubtedly expresses views very commonly held by authorities across the water and by some people in this country. The assertion is made, for instance, in a letter to the "Morning Post" of Friday last, that "in Irish constitutional law, which alone is relevant, the legislature"—that is, the Irish Free State legislature—"is not a sovereign body in the same sense as is the British Parliament"; that it is given definite powers by the Constituent Act of 1922 enacted by the Constituent Assembly, and that the courts arc bound to interpret its legislation in the light of the powers accorded them. There is one point that I think should be noted in that regard, and it is, that the constituent assembly, which comprised, I think, 126 members, never recorded more than 50 votes in favour of the Constitution or the Constitution Act. The Second Reading of the Constitution Bill was accorded 47 votes in its favour, and the highest recorded vote in favour of any section of the Bill was 50. Now it is suggested by so high a constitutional authority, that the Oireachtas, the Dáil and Seanad, of 1932, or any subsequent year, a Dáil consisting of 153 members, fully representative, has not the same authority as that assembly of 1922, and that, for all time, this Parliament is limited by the decisions of that assembly, which was known as the Constituent Assembly, or as the Provisional Parliament. This is not the place to decide such a question, but when that thought prevails in the minds of legal authorities, it appears to me that these who conducted the Government of this country for ten years, and made such claims in regard to the powers of this Parliament, ought to be heard in refutation of any such argument.
Then, a further statement is made, which, I think, clearly misrepresents the position of the President and the Government in regard to this Bill, and in regard to the powers claimed for this Parliament. The President's argument is said to run that the power to amend the Constitution and the Constitution Act is unlimited because the power of the Canadian Parliament is unlimited. That is not the position, as I understand it, that is taken by the President or the Government here at all. Even under the constitutional developments which have been formulated in the Statute of Westminster, the position is clearly, that, so far as the Canadian Parliament is concerned, they of their own initiative, and of their own free will, accepted a limitation of their powers in regard to the alteration or amendment of the British North America Act. That is a matter of Canadian governmental policy and not a constitutional limitation imposed upon Canada by the British Parliament. The position of this State, and of South Africa, and the other Dominions, formulated by the Statute of Westminster, as I understand it is, clearly—I mention South Africa in particular, because it is definitely formulated in their own Constitution Act —that there is freedom and no restriction whatever on the legal powers of Parliament, and that if, as a matter of governmental or Parliamentary policy, it is decided to do a certain thing, to wit, to repeal the Oath clause of the Constitution, there is no limitation on these powers. If the Canadian Parliament desire to change their policy, there is really, I am quite certain, no Canadian Minister who would hesitate to affirm that the powers are there, as soon as it became Canadian policy to make the change. As it is Irish policy to make the change, there is no limitation on the powers of this Parliament to make the change. It appears to me that in view of the position that has developed, in view of the attitude taken across the water, in view of all the assertions made in past years, and, particularly, in the past six years, by Ministers representing this State as to the authority of this Parliament, there is only one way of re-affirming our position that there is no limitation on the powers of this Parliament in any matter affecting the concern of the State and that is, when the opportunity comes, for this Seanad to re-assert it by passing the Bill in the form in which it reached this House.
