sign in sign up
<<
Home , Commonwealth of Nations, Dominion, Irish Free State, Timothy Smiddy

THE STATUS ®F THE IRISH FREE IN THE BRITISH ®F NATIONS The adoption of the title, the British , dates, in its modern sense, from its use in the Irish Constitution Act of 1922. 1 The British Commonwealth of Nations grew out of the change from th6 old to the new which followed the first World War. The Commonwealth represents an association of theoretically equal nations bound together by a common and founded upon the principles of consultation and cooperation.2 It is not the concern of this study to differentiate between the Commonwealth and the ritish Empire other than to limit the Commonwealth to Grew Britain and the . The entered the community of nations known as the British Commonwealth with the ratification of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between and as a , or rather, with the same constitutional status of the other Dominions, ' The Irish Free State as a Dominion. The Irish Free State obtained the same constitutional status of the other Dominions with the reluctance of all the Irish Nationalist leaders. The goal of the Irish Nationalists was a . When. it became abundantly clear that a Republic could not be obtained the delegation sent to negotiate with the British in in 1921 agreed to "Dominion status" . This acceptance of Dominion status was confirmed by a majority of Dail Eireann as the best compromise available, and as an alternate to the,

1 Article 1 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State provided, "The Irish Free State (otherwise hereinafter called or sometimes called Saorstat Eireann) is co=equal a member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations." a Cf. the observations in this regard in W.Y Elliott, The New (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1932), p. 12. s The Irish Free State is not specifically called a Dominion in the Articles of Agreement. Article 1 states, "Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of , the Commonwealth of , etc." Later, in the Irish Constitution, which in turn depends upon the Articles of Agreement, there is still no specific statement that the Irish Free State is a "Dominion ." Article 1 of the Constitution simply refers to the Irish Free State as "coequal a member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations ." However, this can be considered as rendering sufficient con- stitutional-acknowledgment since all of the co-equal members of the British Commonwealth are considered as having Dominion status. This lack of use of the specific label of Dominion status did not give rise to any question- ing of the Free State's membership in the Commonwealth . The point is raised simply because it is unusual that in the instruments which gave - birth to the Irish Free State the term "Dominion" was not specifically.used . Clause 1 of the Statute of cleared up any misapprehension in this regard by listing the Irish Free State as a Dominion .

184 The Canadian Bar Review [Vol. XXII

Thoseresumption of war with Britain. 4 who disagreed with this decision and remained adamant about the Republic commenced the . The acceptance of "Dominion status" was conditioned by the belief, on the part of the Irish leaders who accepted it, that it was a stepping stone to independence. It has been said that the Irish Free State is not a Dominion. Why has this charge been made? What is a Dominion? For our purposes, a Dominion is one of the so-called "equal states" of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The Irish Free State is certainly such an "equal state." Dominion status, according to Lloyd George, was, "something that has never been defined by Act of , even in this country, and yet it works perfectly."s Such a definition was hardly acceptable to the Free State point of view.' All of the Dominions except the Irish Free State advanced to their respective position of self-government by evolution. The Irish Free State achieved its status by revolution and an international treaty. This is an important aspect, because, if the relation of the Irish Free State to the Imperial Parliament was to be the same as that of Canada, as fixed by law in Article 2 of the Articles of Agreement of 1921, then two entities were made analagous in practice after completely different means and view- points had been employed to arrive at their positions. The British Government assumed that the Irish Free State which had come into existence by revolution and reluctant agreement with Great Britain, could be placed on the identical constitutional basis of the other Dominions who had achieved their status by evolution. In addition, it was assumed and hoped, with little factual background to give optimism to such assumptions and hopes, that the Irish Free State would evolve along the same lines as other Dominions. The subsequent history of the Irish Free State has shown that these assumptions were ill-founded. The process of evolution is basic to the orthodox British conception 4 "The Irish Bulletin made unaffectedly merry at the expense of a policy which threatened war if Ireland declined as a `free Dominion to join volun- tarily a free association of free nations." cited by Frank Pakenham, Peace by Ordeal, (London, Jonathan Cape, 1935), p. 87. c Cited by Nicholas Mansergh, The Irish Free State, (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1934) p . 35 f. n. 4 . 6 The Irish objection never stopped with quarreling over a definition but was concerned with the whole concept of Dominionism insofar as it concerned restrictions of Irish or the relation of the Irish Free State to Great Britain . In terms of personalities the acceptance of Dominion status by the Irish Free State represents a victory by over Eamon De Valera. That victory, it must be emphasized, was Dominion status as it came into being for the Free State in 1922, not the enlarged concept of the period following 1932 when De Valera was President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State.

1944] Status of The Irish Free State 185

of the progress of Dominions. This has not been the course which the Irish Free State has followed ; rather, it has forced departures. This conception of evolution as the basis for the achievement of positions by all the Dominions except the Free State is also the basis for the claims that the Irish Free State is not a Dominionn 7 The underlying factor in this denial of the term Dominion must not be confused with Dominion status. That is to say, those who claim that the Irish Free State was not a Dominion due to the fact that it had not been a ,' and came into existence in a manner different from other Dominions, are one in agreeing that the Irish Free State possessed the same constitutional status as other Dominions. It would appear then, that this dispute is no more than a quibble over terms. For our purpose the Irish Free State maybe considered as ,a Dominion. Even the securing of external association by the De Valera Government need not change the status of the Free State as a Dominion. Certainly the De Valera Government recognized that the Free State retained its status within the British Commonwealth of Nations .9 This was also the official position of the British Government. 7 The leading assertions that the Irish Free State was not a Dominion are: , "The Position of the Irish Free State in the British Commonwealth of Nations," from Great Britain and the Dominions, (Harris Foundation Lectures, Chicago, of Chicago Press, 1928), p. 109: "While the Irish Free State has some times been implicitly referred to as a dominion, it is not so, while yet it has the status thereof. In fact, Ireland has always been a nation." The Hon. , Chief Justice of the of the Irish Free State, "Character and Sources of Constit- ution of the Irish Free State," American Journal, vol. 14, August-September, 1928, p. 440: "The idea which it is intended to convey by the statements in question [that Ireland is not a Dominion] would be better expressed by saying `Ireland is not a colony.' . . . Ireland is not a British colony but an ancient nation, which has entered into the British Community of Nations, clothed with the constitutional status and equality of a Dominion member of that community." Raoul de Warren, L'Irlande et ses institutions politiques, (Nancy, Berger-Levrault, 1928), p. 273 ff. conducts his discussion under the subtitle, "l'État Libre d'Irlande n'est pas un Dominion." He bases his contention on the arguments that Ireland was not a colony and that the Free State was founded by an international treaty which was not the case with the other Dominions. e The importance of previous colonial status is frequently overemphas- ized and would appear to be careless terminology which weakens any defin- ition of the Commonwealth. Yet in as recent and careful a work as Robert . Stewart, Treaty Relations of the British Commonwealth of Nations, (New York, 1939) the, conclusion is reached, p. 363, "The essential characteristic of the present-day British Commonwealth of Nations is that once subject to imperial supremacy, in law and in fact, have become `co-ordinate members with each other and with Great Britain' in the Com- monwealth Association ." This study is typical of most recent studies of the Commonwealth which treat the background of Anglo-Irish relations as if it did not exist. 9 At the time of the Crisis De Valera .made it clear that the Free State was not severing its connection with the British Commonwealth of Nations, cf. Dail Debates, vol. 64, 11 , 1936, col. 1232.

186 The Canadian Bar Review [Vol. XXII

The elimination of the restrictions on the sovereignity of the Irish Free State came about, in the early period, largely through the Imperial Conferences. When De Valera came into office he was able to achieve a still greater degree of independence by unilateral declarations resulting from legislation within the Free State. In the last analysis, however, the right to take such action was based on the crowning result of the Imperial Conferences, which, from the standpoint of the Irish Free State, was the Statute of Westminster. The Imperial Conferences .10 The Imperial Conferences are intended to meet approximately every four years and have as their primary aim the affording of opportunities for consultation on matters of common interest to Britain and the Dominions. In brief, the Imperial Conferences have sought to reconcile the autonomy of the Dominions with the unity of the Commonwealth. For the Irish Free State, however, the Imperial Conferences were a vehicle by which she might obtain, and sometimes take the lead, in asserting Dominion autonomy. The Imperial Conference of 1923. The Imperial Conference of 1923 was the first Imperial Conference attended by the Irish Free State. Its reception was a cordial one." The Minister for External Affairs, Desmond Fitzgerald, was the chief representative and the Free State played a relatively small part in its first conference appearance. 12 The principle work of the 1923 con- ference was with regard to the negotiation of treaties. It was agreed that no treaties would be negotiated "by any of the of the Empire without due consideration of its possible effect on other parts of the Empire, or if circumstances so demand, on the Empire as a whole."" It was further provided that other governments within the Empire should have the opportunity of expressing their points of view, and, where necessary because of similarity of interests, participating in the negotiating. Full provision was made for informing the other 1° It should be recognized that the discussion which follows is intention- ally not concerned with the larger scope of the Imperial Conferences, but with the aspects which have influenced Anglo-Irish relations during the period of the Free State. " This was indicative of the desire of the ritish Government to make the Dominion status of the Anglo-Irish Treaty* Settlement work. Cf. also the opening speech of General Smuts who represented , Imperial Conference, 1923, Appendices to the Summary of Proceedings, Cmd. 1988, pp. 14-15. 1z The attitude of the Irish delegation is perhaps best explained in a phrase in "The Opening Speech by the President of the Executive Council, Irish Free State," ibid., p. 18, "This business is new to us." 11 For the full statement of this provision cf. Imperial Conference, 1923, Summary of Proceedings, Cmd. 1987, pp. 13-14.

1944] , Status of The Irish Free State 137

parts of the Empire of the steps in the negotiations . None of these developments worked a hardship or caused particular objection in Ireland. So far as the Free State was concerned, the most important result of the 1923 Conference was that Imperial control over commercial treaties had been ended. The Conference was handled by the Executive Council in the Free State and there was almost no discussion of it in the Dail. The Imperial Conference of 1926, The Balfour Report was the major accomplishment of the 1926 . Conference. It was in this Conference that the worth of Kevin O'Higgins, Vice-President of the Executive Council of the Free State, was recognized by the other Dominions. He played a leading role in the formation of the Balfour Report. The Report of the Inter-Imperial Relat- tions Committee, better known as the Balfour Report, is important in its entirety for the Irish Free State. This Committee pur- portedly was not attempting to lay down a constitution for the ritish Empire, yet its results were a form of constitutional revision within the British Commonwealth of Nations forced by the Irish Free State, South Africa, Australia, and Canada. The Commonwealth, which the Committee referred to as, "the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions," had, in the Committee's opinion, reached full development. ®n this premise the position and mutual relations within the Commonwealth were defined in terms of equal and autonomous communities united by a common alleg- iance to .14 The title of the King was changed to accomodate the Theominion status of the Irish Free State.15 Heads of States 14 Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, Cmd . 2768, p. 14; "They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations ." (Italics are used in the Report). A dispute in the Dail occurred at a later date over "freely associated," cf. Dail Debates, vol. 64, 12 December, 1936, cols . 1484-1487, in which De Valera observed, ibid., col. 1487, "I am not certain that in all cases it is free ." . Is The old title dated from the Royal Titles Act of 1901 and was, ", by the Grace of God, of the of Great Britain and Ireland afid of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, , of ." The new title was, "George V, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, ." Cf. Imperial Conference, 1926, Summary of Proceedings, Cmd. 2768, pp. 15-16. r3 °A comma had been added and Ireland was given the status of a separate entity in the 's title although the Irish Free State was not mentioned by name . It is interesting that so far as the title of the King was concerned, there was no question of the unity of Ireland. That is to say, there was no differentiation between what Britain called and the Irish Free State. The title reads "Ireland and the British Dominions beyond

188 The Canadian Bar Review [Vol. XXII

form was agreed upon as the one by which treaties, other than agreements between Governments of the Commonwealth, should be concluded, and this was to have later repercussions for the Free State because of its inter se implications. The Irish delegates were interested in the abolition of the right of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but the internal com- plications of Canada and Australia in this regard made unanimous action impossible and the Conference failed to take astand that was favorable to the Free State which proceeded to handle the problem of appeals by ad hoc legislation which prevented a specific appeal. The Free State asked that an elucidation be made of the constitutional practice in relation to Canada. This was deemed necessary because Article 2 of the Articles of Agreement of 1921 provided that "the position of the Irish Free State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada." The Committee on Inter- Imperial Relations went a considerable distance in assuaging the fears of the Free State about the disallowance or reservation of Dominion legislation by Britain. In constitutional practice it gave the particular Dominion the right to advise His Majesty's Government in Britain about its own affairs with the expectation of having that advice accepted. The Committee rather than define Canada's rights spoke of the broader concept of the rights of Dominions. This would have been ideal except for a phrase of reservation used by the Report which might be used to negate this advantage so far as the Free State was concerned." The Imperial Conference of 1926 achieved a considerable measure of autonomy for the Dominions in theory, but there was considerable scepticism how far this theoretical autonomy would be allowed to function in actual practice. The Free State Government in its desire to achieve more practical results than the generality of the Balfour Report, was enthusiastic about referring many of the details with which it was concerned to the the seas etc." This does not specifically say that Ireland was a Dominion; it was not in actual fact inasmuch as only the Irish Free Statewas a Dominion and that part which Britain called Northern Ireland, that is six northeastern , was, except for certain limited internal functions, a part of the United Kingdom or Great Britain. The problem of Irish unity was a touchy spot which still remains unsolved and it is probable that the title adopted caused the least objection . 'a Imperial Conference, 1926, op. cit., p. 17, "On this point we propose that it should be placed on record that, apart from provisions embodied in constitutions or in specific statutes expressly providing for reservation, it is recognized that it is the right of the Government of each Dominion to advise the Crown in all matters relating to its affairs. . " The clause that has been placed in italics was broad enough to cover the Articles of Agreement and the Irish Constitution both of which contained provisions of limitations which might be interpreted "for reservations."

1944) Status of The Irish Free State 189

Experts Conference, known officially as the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation. The personal influence of Lord Balfour was one calculated to arouse resentment among the Irish Nationalists, particularly the older ones.l' Many persons considered Kevin O'Higgins to have been duped by the power of Balfour's personality 'and to have made unnecessary concessions." It is significant that the approval of the 1926 Conference was not secured from the Irish although it was presented for discussion. In the Fail, Desmond Fitzgerald, the Minister for External Affairs, who presented the Report, said, "this Imperial Conference has given eminently satisfactory results."" Yet, throughout the Dail discussion he was on the defensive. The opposition criticized the Conference, particularly the acceptance by the Cosgrave Government of imperial co-operation, by asserting that the Irish Free State had accepted the status of a self-governing Dominion rather than the position of a self- governing state." This more restricted position in the eyes of the opposition meant that the Free State was bound to a unity of foreign and defensive policy with the Empire as a whole rather than as an individual state. In this sense, the opposition con- sidered the Report a real challenge to.the Free State's international status. It was even suggested that the results of the 1926 Conference for the Free State were in disagreement with its plenary rights as an independent member of the . To all this Minister Fitzgerald, speaking for the Government, answered in anticipation, "Absolute equality of 17 The Irish referred to Balfour as "Bloody" Balfour since his days as Chief , when, in spite of many improvements of the educational system, his administration was unpopular because it had been harsh, from the Irish standpoint, in dealing with Irish . This curse of the memory of the past plagues many aspects of Anglo-Irish relations. 18 This view is largely a matter of political opinion although there -is no question that O'Higgins did agree with the Balfour point of view. This attitude on the part of O'Higgins was one of the factors which led to his assassination . It is apparent from his speeches and actions that O'Higgins was coming to visualize the place of the Irish Free State as a leading one within the British Commonwealth and he was on the way to becoming a Commonwealth statesman after the fashion of of South Africa, rather than just an Irish statesman . Kevin O'Higgins was influenced by the later ideas of Michael Collins which due to Collins' death were never clearly formulated. He went further in his ideas of cooperation with Britain than Collins and his attitude represented the early official position of the Cosgrave Government, an official position that was deeply resented by Irish Republicans. is Dail Debates, vol. 17, 15 December, 1926, col. 728. The full discussions cover, ibid., cols. 711-770; and 16 December, 1926, cols. 876-920. The opposition view has been taken from the remarks of Deputies Magennis and Johnson. The Republican Deputies had not yet entered the Dail but the views expressed, by the small opposition were similar to the Republican point of view in this instance.

1911 The Canadian Bar Review [Vol. XXII

status has been definitely formulated . It now remains to adapt the machinery of legislation and administrative practice to that principle."" The Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation 1929. The plan of this "Experts Conference" was to translate the theor- etical aspects of the 1926 Conference into practical application. The Free State was represented by the Minister for External Affairs, Patrick McGilligan, and the Attorney General, J. A. Costello. The aim of this Conference in the words of Mr. Mc- Gilligan, when he opened the discussion on it in the Dail was, "It aimed at making it clear to everybody that the power of the United Kingdom Parliament over Dominion has gone."22 The objectives of the Free State were in the main accomplished at this Conference, so far as the increase in its autonomy was concerned, although the report as a whole was designed, as Minister McGilligan observed, to "get the greatest possible agreement from the six peoples who were gathered together."" The Republican deputies had entered the Dail and this was their first opportunity to criticize an Imperial Conference . Their objections were typically Republican in character and questioned the validity of the accomplishments while pointing out the advantages of a Republic. The Govern- ment based its case on the assertion that now, "The old unitary system of by the old Parliament of the United Kingdom has definitely departed. "24 The "Experts Conference" of 1929 was the first Imperial-type Conference to be approved by the Dail.21 The Imperial Conference of 1930. The intent of the 1930 meeting was to continue consideration of the problem of giving practical effect to the declaration made in the 1926 Conference . It drew from the "Experts Conference" and incorporated their report in the official Report of the 1930 Conference. The Free State delegates participated actively in this Conference . Partic- ularly does the contribution of the Irish Minister for External Affairs, Patrick McGilligan, deserve special mention for he was generally considered to have played an outstanding part in this Conference . The matter of the Great Seal was discussed and it was hoped that there would be no significant changes ; later

21 Dail Debates, vol. 17, 15 December, 1926, col. 728. 22 Ibid., vol. 33, 19 , 1930, col. 2077. 21Ibid, cols. 2056-2057. 24 Dail Debates, vol. 33, 19 March, 1930, cols. 2076-2077. 2s Ibid., cols. 2050-2167, and 20 March, 1930, cols. 2195-2330. These discussions indicate the conflict of the Cosgrave and De Valera Parties in the of Dominion affairs .

1944] Status of The Irish Free State 191

the Free State was to depart from tradition and have its own. Great Seal. The concept of an inter-Imperial tribunal was considered but never came to fruition. The crowning achieve- ment of the 1930 Conference was the resulting Statute of West- minster which gave legal authority for Dominion autonomy which the Free State had set as its goal within the Imperial Conference. The approval of the report of the Imperial Confer- ence of 1930 was attacked by Fianna Fail, the De Valera Party. The Statute of Westminster. The Irish Free State, as a result of the Statute of Westminster, secured in fact what the report of the 1926 Conference implied in the way of the removal of any . possible restrictions of autonomy. Henceforth, the Irish Free, State might exert full power to make laws having extra-territorial jurisdiction." No law made by a Dominion Parliament could be challenged on the basis that it did not accord with the law of Britain, and, furthermore, any Dominion legislature might repeal or amend any existing Act passed by the British Parliament to the extent that such a law was a part of the Dominion's law." In addition,, it was agreed that no future act of the British Parlia- ment might have effect in a Dominion without the request or consent of that Dominion." The position of the Irish Free State as a Dominion was definitely stated for the first time in a major document. ` The possible effect of this legislation on the future of the Irish Free State was a matter which aroused controversy. Obvious dangers were seen by a group within Britain and the Statute itself was challenged in the House of Commons by who pointed out that under such provisions the Free State could legally abrogate, the Treaty of 1921.29 British opinion did not become reconciled to this right of abro- gation on the part of the Free State until the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council admitted this was within the of the Irish Free State." Actually, in the abolition of the Oath of Allegiance and the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the final authority was the Statute of Westminster. It is apparent from the dis- cussions in the House of Commons on the Statute of Westminster 26 The Statute of Westminister, 1931- An Act to give effect to certain resolutions passed by Imperial Conferences held in the years 1926 and 1930, 11 December, 1931, 22 Geo. V. c. 4., Clause 3 . 27 Ibid., Clause 2, Section (2) . 28 Ibid., Preamble. The legal status of the preamble is peculiar and was challenged by Winston Churchill in the House of Commons discussion . 26 259 H.C. Deb. 5 s., 20 , 1931, zfi col . 1193. Cf. Moore v. Attorney General of the Irish Free State, [1935] A. C. 499.

192 The Canadian Bar Review [Vol. XXII

that a portion of British opinion had not fully realized, or were unwilling to realize, its implications for the Irish Free State. That this portion of opinion in Britain was a distinct minority was only partially indicated by the overwhelming vote against their proposals of restriction. The fact that no restrictions were made for the Free State portended well for Anglo-Irish relations so long as the Cosgrave Government remained in office. The Imperial Economic Conference of 1932. The Conference, as the 1932 Imperial Economic Conference was popularly known, occurred during a crisis in Anglo-Irish relations. The Irish Free State under the new De Valera Government which had supplanted the Cosgrave regime was in the process of abolishing the Oath of Allegiance. In retaliation, Mr. Thomas, British Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, indicated that Britain would not negotiate tariff agreements with a Government which it claimed failed to live up to existing agreements." This attitude intimated exclusion from the Ottawa Conference, or, At any rate, no agreements with Britain, Actually, the Irish Free State was represented at the Conference but no agreements were made with Britain. The Irish representative was Sean T. O'Kelly, Vice-President of the Executive Council and a staunch Fianna Fail leader. In his opening statement for the Free State he emphasized that while the Free State wished to cooperate in the discussions, there had arisen special difficulties, as he termed the Anglo-Irish war, which might revise the trade and internal economic structure of his country." The desire of the De Valera Government for external assoc- iation was apparent in a resolution made by the Irish delegation opposing an Imperial Economic Secretariat," The Free State under the Fianna Fail Party was not interested in the same inter-Dominion cooperation that had typified the Cosgrave regime. The British Government had utilized an Imperial Conference to bring economic pressure to bear on the Free State Government because of an Anglo-Irish dispute. The New Attitude of the Irish Free State toward Imperial Conferences . The introduction of the De Valera Government to an Imperial Conference was the Ottawa Conference. It was the last such conference at which the Irish Free State was repre- " 265 H.C. Deb. 5 s., cols. 15-20. Imperial Economic Conference, 1932, Report of the Conference, pp . 85-86. 11 Ibid., p. 24.

1944] Status of The Irish Free State 193

sented in an official capacity. This determination not to attend Imperial Conferences grew out of antagonism between the Free State and Great Britain. It was typical of the Fianna Fail concern with external association that as a party it was opposed to the limitations which it believed participation in inter-Dominion Conferences imposed. The Right of . The question whether a Dominion has the right of seceding or not is one that has intrigued writers who have dealt with the British Commonwealth, but it has received no adequate answer. . So far as the Irish Free State is concerned, the most complete answer is that it did not make the attempt. Certainly, it was not the intention of the British officials at the time of the negotiations for the Treaty of 1921 to concede the right of secession. If this had been the situation they would have granted the Irish demands for aRepublic and the Free State would never have existed much less have joined the British Commonwealth. The acceptance of the Treaty Settlement by the Cosgrave Government lessened for the period of its regime the importance of secession. When the De Valera Government came into power the picture changed. The desire for a Republic on the part of De Valera and his followers was well known. The British resistance to the idea of a Republic raised the possibility that secession of some form would have to precede the declaration of a Republic. A factor which added confusion to the problem was , the division of Ireland into the Free State and Northern Ireland. The De Valera Government made it plain in the discussions in the Dail that it was not interested in declaring a Republic for the twenty-six counties. It preferred to wait for the time when it would be possible to set up a thirty-two county Republic. Soon after his assumption of office De Valera requested a statement from the British Government as to whether it would use force if the Free State did secede. The British Government refused to indicate what its action would be in a situation that it considered purely hypothetical .34 The conclusion most reason- ably drawn from this inter-change of notes is that the British Government denied the Irish Free State the right of secession. An incident which lends credibility to this interpretation is De Valera's own statement on the results of his question. "Great 34 The notes from both Governments are reproduced in full in 283 H.C. Deb . 5 s., 5 December, 1933, cols. 1456-1461 .

194 The Canadian Bar Review [Vol. XXII

Britain," he claimed, "was keeping Ireland within the British Commonwealth by threatening to employ force of arms."35 The right of secession of a Dominion is not discussed in plain terms in any of the major documents or conferences of an Imperial nature in which the Irish Free State has participated. It has been suggested that since there was no limit set to the Treaty of 1921 between Great Britain and Ireland, this fact alone, interpreted through the concept of rebus sic stantibus, gave the Free State the right of secession." Such an interpretation would hardly be expected to meet with British approval . The Balfour Report which emanated from the Imperial Conference of 1926 contained the phrase "freely associated" in the statement on the equality of status of the autonomous communities. This phrase has served as the basis for the claim that such free association implies the right of secession. Another sentence in the Report, "Every self-governing member of the Empire is now the master of its destiny," has also afforded grounds for similar claims. The Statute of Westminster which translated the Balfour report into a legal commitment granted greater autonomy to the Dominions, it is true, but the concept remained, so far as the Commonwealth was concerned, of a mutual consent which made no specific provision for the Dominion that did not consent to the point of desiring to break away. The overwhelming weight of British authority points to the conclusion that the Irish Free State did not have the right of secession.37 The Irish Free State as a Dominio-ri: Canclusio-ra . The Irish Free State was the last member of the British Commonwealth to be accorded the constitutional status of a Dominion. It assumed in many respects the position of an enfant terrible among the co-equal members of the British Commonwealth. Because it had never been a colony and had come into existence by revol- ution and the reluctant acceptance of an international treaty rather than by evolution the Free State refused to accept for itself the orthodox definition of a Dominion. Within the Common- wealth it led an offensive against many of the restrictions on the 35 , December 8, 1933, (7 :1), "Mr. DeValera asserted that but for this threat the would be free within twenty- four hours." 36 Friedrich Apelt, Dos Britische Reich als volkerrechtsverbundene Staatengemeimchaft, (Leipzig, Theodor Weicher, 1934) p. 170. A brief discussion of the Irish Free State and secession may be found in Roger Gallopin, Le Conflit Anglo-Irlandais, (, Recueil Sirey, 1935). ,37 A typical and yet one of the most authoritative statements may be found in A. Berriedale Keith, The Sovereignty of the British Dominions, (London, Macmillan, 1929), p. 191.

1944] Status of The Irish Free State 195

autonomy of Dominions, and later, by unilateral action progressed even further along the road of complete sovereignty and inde- pendence. The emphasis of the Irish Free State in its Commonwealth membership may be divided into two phases. The first, the Cosgrave phase, was one of cooperation with the Commonwealth, while yet attempting to achieve complete sovereignity. The second, the Ire Valera phase, was one of attempting to secure external association. External association meant that the Free State should be associated with the British Commonwealth of Nations as an external member for certain limited functions which it should itself determine and with the very clearly under- stood right of severing that connection whenever such a course appeared desirable to the Irish Government. The De Valera goal was a Republic but 4s a compromise he would accept if necessary, as he had indicated in 1921, external association. The main delimitations of the autonomy of Dominions achieved by the Irish Free State in cooperation with the other members of the Commonwealth have been discussed. In addition, the Free State pioneered in the sending of its own diplomatic representatives, in obtaining its own Great Seal, and in its regul- ations of . The Irish Free State passed citizenship legislation which denied British citizenship to citizens of the Free State. This was a denial of the common citizenship of the Dominions within the Commonwealth based theoretically on allegiance to the Crown. It was no boon to the smooth course of Anglo-Irish relations that the Irish Free State at the end of its fifteen years stood almost within the limits De Valera had requested and been refused in 1921. The rapport which Britain had established with the Cosgrave Government completely disappeared durihg the De Valera regime. Yet De Valera no longer represented extremism in Irish demands. He was able to gain greater concessions from Britain than the more conciliatory Cosgrave Government and he has made political capital of that fact. The great contention of Anglo-Irish affairs. at the beginning of the Irish Free State remained the same when the Irish Free State ended and became Eire or Ireland ; it was the right of the Irish people to set up a Republic for the whole of Ireland; While that idea was still alive in Ireland the success .of Irish Dominion- ship would always be a temporary one. JOSEPH SWEENEY. Mt. Ranier, Maryland, U.S.A.