Volume 1. No. 105. NAI DFA ES Box 32 File 220
Osmond Grattan Esmonde
The day previously a special edition of the 'Commonwealth Gazette' was published containing a new regulation of the 'War-precautions Repeal Act' whereby customs officers might require an oath of allegiance from any British Subject before admission to the country.[...]At present they have no contact whatever with the State, and are in general hostile to the policy of the Irish Government.[...]
Volume 1. No. 142. UCDA P150 1913
Erskine Childers (Dublin)
Memorandum by Erskine Childers on Irish defence as affected by the British proposals of 20 July 1921
July 1921.
OUR DEFENCE policy.[...]
We must be clear first as to what our naval and military policy would be were we free to decide upon it as an independent nation.[...]
It must, of course, be a purely defensive policy.[...]
OUR policy IN THE NEGOTIATIONS: In view of the conditions and our national defence policy what should be our standpoint and object in the present negotiations bearing in mind _ at any rate this is my own personal opinion _ that the defence question will be more important than any other in determining our status as a nation, together with all our political rights and privileges.[...]
But the Commonwealth could give the additional guarantee and - most important of all, the United States _ the only power which in the foreseeable future can threaten England in the way she professes to fear.[...]
Japan in 1914 attacked the Chinese territory leased to Germany and treated China as she pleased thereafter; Ireland, with ports leased to Britain, would be committed by implications to all British war and foreign policy.[...]
In a war in which Ireland freely took part and offered port-facilities for, the organisation could rapidly be built up with no prior preparation, and in point of fact it might well be a feature of Irish defence policy to organise a small craft defensive service, as suggested above.[...]
O'Ceallaigh 1Handwritten note on text: It is assumed that the Treaty is to be with the 'Commonwealth of free nations' and its King.[...]
Volume 1. No. 168. NAI DE 2/304/1 No. 2 Secret
Eamon de Valera (Dublin) to Arthur Griffith (London)
Memorandum from Eamon de Valera to Arthur Griffith (London)
14 October 1921
is not our policy.[...]
Volume 3. No. 129. NAI DT S4529
W.T. Cosgrave (Chicago)
National Radio address from Chicago
21 January 1928
You have a settled policy of high tariffs, but then you have the resources of an area of continental magnitude from which to draw.[...]
I feel, however, that any survey would be incomplete if I did not say a few words on the matter of our cultural aims and our educational policy.[...]
We are co-equal partners in the group of nations known as the British Commonwealth.[...]
Volume 3. No. 241. NAI DT S5340/1
John J. Hearne (Dublin)
Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation
15 July 1929
It is in the perspective of the Irish Free State Constitution, what it is and what it involves, that the contents of the entire Commonwealth conception are coming more and more clearly into focus.[...]
Theories and practices which linger on from the days of the British Dominions into those of the Commonwealth States are being subjected to critical scrutiny and reviewed in the light of that new international phenomenon and its frank implications.[...]
The facts relating to the establishment of the Irish Free State and the nature of the Pact on which it is founded have given to its Constitution an international character not shared in their origins by the Constitutions of the other member-States of the Commonwealth.[...]
The Commonwealth will not appear to the world in its true perspective for the group of constitutional edifices which it is - each unit in the group, although not symmetrical with every other, yet splendidly proportioned to the ends and aims of all - unless and until the shadows cast upon it out of a dead age are lifted.[...]
'The State', 'the Commonwealth', 'status' are spoken words.[...]
It is wholly right, therefore, that as the last criticisms of the old British Empire must be based upon the newest of the Constitutions in operation in the States which have succeeded it the first criticisms of the British Statute Book in its outlandish inconsistency with the powers of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth should be based also on that Constitution, what it is and what it implies, as at once their foundation and criterion.[...]
In practice, however, considerations of policy and expediency necessarily restrict in various ways the exercise of the full legislative competency of every State.[...]
Moreover, did such a rule exist, and were such a restrictive meaning to attach to section 735, the further question would arise as to whether a provision limiting the competency of Dominion legislatures enacted in a statute of the year 1894 could operate as a limitation of the legislative competency of a coequal member of the Commonwealth of Nations in the year 1922 or after.[...]
The character of that controversy has been undergoing a gradual metamorphosis and what began as a legal discussion of status and of principles governing the interpretation of statutes has been continued as a political discussion of practical measures for securing uniformity in administration in matters of common concern to the 'Imperial' Parliament and to the members of the Commonwealth of Nations.[...]
It has been uniformly sought to insist upon two limitations of the positive legislative competency of the members of the Commonwealth of Nations.[...]
It is nowhere expressed in a constitution of any member of the Commonwealth of Nations that there is any territorial limitation to the operation of a law made by such member.[...]
It appears to me that there may be cases in which it is necessary for the peace, order and good government of a member of the Commonwealth of Nations that such member should be able to pass a law to operate extra-territorially; and that the words of the constitution of such member are wide enough to sanction extra-territorial operation of laws made by the legislature of such member in such cases.[...]
I think therefore that the limitation sought to be imposed on the positive legislative competency of the legislature of a member of the Commonwealth of Nations ought to be expressed in the terms of the constitution itself of such member, namely that the operation of the laws of such member is limited to the purposes of peace, order and good government.[...]
[matter omitted] The second limitation sought to be imposed upon the positive legislative power of a member of the Commonwealth of Nations has statutory foundation in the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865.[...]
[matter omitted] The momentous developments of the past few years have resulted in a constitutional situation within the Commonwealth of Nations in which the United Kingdom as at present constituted is no more than one of the self-governing states of the Commonwealth.[...]
The basis of unity amongst the members of the Commonwealth is no longer to be sought in legal bonds but rather in the consciousness of common interests or the menace of common dangers.[...]
The new constitutional character of the Commonwealth finds expression in the formula 'freedom and constitutional equality', indicating the freedom of the constituent States to co-operate or to act separately and equally in the exercise of every function of government, legislative, judicial and executive.[...]
The old legal bonds have succumbed to the strain put upon them by the foregoing conception of the character of the Commonwealth developed side by side with the progress of constitutional status amongst the constituent States themselves.[...]
It is unnecessary to advert here to the place which the whole theme of the constitutional status of the States of the Commonwealth has come to occupy in contemporary literature relating to the Commonwealth of Nations and in the pronouncements of statesmen in both Houses of the 'Imperial' Parliament and in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth States themselves.[...]
There exists through the present British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations an elaborate administrative machine regulating merchant shipping set up under the Merchant Shipping Acts.[...]
That administrative machine it is submitted forms part of the necessary machinery of Commonwealth cooperation.[...]
The advantages of the use of that part of the machinery of cooperation to the overseas States of the Commonwealth are very great; the advantages of its use to the Irish Free State would be enormous.[...]
It seems to me that while the proposed Merchant Shipping Bill may be as freely drawn as considerations of policy require (and such considerations are outside the scope of this memorandum) the ultimate tendency will be to frame the measure in a way that will seek to secure to the Irish Free State the advantages of the existing administrative machine regulating merchant shipping in the British Empire and the Commonwealth of Nations.[...]
It has the advantage of giving the Minister for Industry and Commerce the opportunity of taking such powers as he may wish to exercise in the matter of the registry of ships and of at the same time affording the Irish Free State the facilities which the use of the administrative machine set up under the Merchant Shipping Acts affords the other members of the Commonwealth of Nations.[...]
The merchant shipping code of the States of the Commonwealth would then derive the binding force of such of its provisions as apply generally throughout the Commonwealth not from a statute of the 'Imperial' Parliament but from the statutes of those States themselves enacting those provisions as an international convention.[...]
Volume 3. No. 539. NAI DT 2486A
Press release (Dublin)
Channel of communication with Britain & Great seal
27 March 1931
These developments mark another stage in the success of the policy of the Irish Government to bring Constitutional forms into conformity with the Constitutional position now existing.[...]
Volume 3. No. 553. NAI DT S4040B
Memorandum (Dublin)
The General Act
11 June 1931
The Optional Clause is not a Heads-of-States agreement and we have always held that non-Heads-of-States agreements apply between the Members of the Commonwealth in the absence of an express provision preventing them from doing so.[...]
Volume 3. No. 568. NAI DFA 26/3
Francis T. Cremins (Geneva) to J.P. Walshe (Dublin)
Speech delivered by Binchy to League of Nations Assembly
18 September 1931
If the Members of the League are not prepared to do this; if groups and blocs of States are formed outside the auspices of the League of Nations; if the States concerned take up the attitude that the internal arrangements of those groups and their policy towards other States are solely their own concern, outside the jurisdiction of the League and its organs, if, in this way, groups of States are formed within which and between which the principles of the Covenant are a dead letter - then I think the League will have become an empty framework outside of which will be found the realities of international life.[...]
Volume 3. No. 522. NAI DFA 11/3
Memorandum (Dublin)
General Disarmament Conference
25 February 1931
This policy (if maintained) and its membership of the League Council will probably result in the Saorstát Representatives having to make at an early stage a statement on the Saorstát's present armament and future armament programme.[...]
The Saorstát Representatives could possibly play a 'waiting game' and watch developments, but a statement or programme will have to be prepared unless the Saorstát Representatives in addition 'to playing a waiting game' base their policy on a 'certainty' that the Conference will fail and fail at an early stage.[...]
External Affairs would hardly agree to the adoption of such an attitude and policy.[...]
Quotas in the Commonwealth At the Washington and London Naval Treaties the Commonwealth was treated as a unit for the purpose of allocating Naval Armament.[...]
103 'Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, Allocation of Quotas to the Several Parts of the British Empire', indicated that the Admiralty desire one Commonwealth quota for naval armament, the War Office a separate quota for each Dominion and India, and that the Air Ministry state a separate quota only is practicable at present but when Aerial Communications improve there should be only a single aerial quota.[...]
As the sum total of separate quotas allocated to Britain, the Dominions and India would probably considerably exceed the total of a single Commonwealth Quota, the other Powers may object to a separate allocation of quotas in the Commonwealth, or urge that the separate quotas should be reduced.[...]
Military and General policy It is generally assumed that it is not desired to antagonise Great Britain and the British Service Authorities on Defence questions.[...]
If Saorstát action at the Conference is not (where possible) to conflict with British policy, it is desirable we should know the British proposals in advance.[...]
In this connection it is desirable to state that on previous occasions at Geneva, Saorstát Representatives have definitely and openly opposed British policy on certain matters.[...]
One, that it will result in an attempt to commit several independent members of the League in advance to the policy of one of the Great Powers and that such an attitude is directly contrary to Saorstát policy in League matters.[...]
Such consultation in advance also serves to perpetuate the system of League Groups which is also contrary to Saorstát League policy.[...]
Nomination of Representative in Accordance with Previous policy Information is not at present available as to the circumstances under which they were appointed, but Saorstát Representatives attended the Geneva and London Naval Conferences and the Saorstát, though not in practice affected, ratified the London Naval Treaty.[...]
Volume 3. No. 518. NAI DFA EA 231/4/1931 178/31
Count Gerald O'Kelly de Gallagh (Paris) to J.P. Walshe (Dublin)
General Activities of Paris Legation
10 February 1931
As regards the last item, I would even go further and say that we must emphasise not only our co-equality, but, if it be not a contradiction in terms, our potential preponderance in Commonwealth councils as a mother country and as the natural leader of the Dominions in matters of European policy.[...]
