Before the Conference began, the Irish government proposed that the status of the Dominions be discussed and that anachronistic obstacles to the exercise of their sovereignty be removed.67 The Irish contributed to the clarification of the meaning of Dominion status and, according to D.W. Harkness, their major contribution in this regard was contained in what he described as a ‘remarkable memorandum’ drawn up by ministers and officials, the latter almost certainly including Hearne. Dated 2 November 1926, it was written two weeks into the Conference, which had begun on 19 October. Thus it represented an analysis and restatement of Irish aims, informed by the discussions of constitutional and diplomatic issues at the Conference. Entitled ‘Existing Anomalies in the British Commonwealth of Nations’, Harkness has described it as a document
of great breadth and it recognises that matters which affected one Dominion had repercussions upon all. Far from being a list of domestic grievances its aim was to create throughout the whole Commonwealth an atmosphere of co-operation based on the fellowship of equality … It raised questions of a penetrating nature that went to the heart of the imperial structure: questions that required the closest scrutiny at the highest level.68
The memorandum69 was predicated on a central contention of the Irish delegation that ‘the principle of the absolute equality of status and the judicial and constitutional independence of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations is now admitted beyond controversy’. Accordingly, attention was drawn to the outstanding anomalies and anachronisms which appeared most to detract from that principle. The Free State insisted on the fundamental right of the government of a Dominion to advise the King on all matters relating to its own affairs. In effect, what was being demanded was that a Dominion government should enjoy the kind of constitutional relationship which existed between the monarch and the government in Britain, when the former acted solely on the advice of the latter.
The memorandum identified what it regarded as an anomaly in the role of the Governor-General in each Dominion – he was both representative of the King and the British government. This dual role gave the Governor-General the constitutional right to interfere in the affairs of a Dominion. To remedy this, the memorandum argued he should represent the King alone and act solely on the advice of the Dominion government. Consistent with this view was the insistence that the powers of reservation and disallowance conferred on the Governor-General be abandoned. In keeping with the assertion of the constitutional independence of the Dominions, their legislative enactments should enjoy extra-territorial effect. Finally, the assumption in international treaties that the signature of plenipotentiaries, appointed solely by the British government, was binding on the governments of the Dominions was utterly unacceptable. Rather, the principle should be accepted that no Dominion could bind another; only the signatures of plenipotentiaries appointed by a Dominion government could have the effect of binding it by international agreement.
The 1926 Imperial Conference is famous for the so-called ‘Balfour Declaration’, which described the Commonwealth as founded on the root principle of the equality of status of the Dominions: ‘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.’70 Decisions made at the Conference reflected this declaration of equality. The Governor-General would cease to be the representative of the British government and was to represent solely the monarch, holding in all essential respects the same position in a Dominion as the King in Great Britain.71
It was recognised that it was the right of the government of a Dominion to advise the monarch in all matters relating to its affairs; the corollary was that the British government did not have the right to offer the monarch advice contrary to that of the Dominion government.72 Equality had implications for matters such as reservation and disallowance of legislation and its extra-territorial effect; the Conference recognised that these were complex legal and constitutional matters which would require detailed consideration by a committee of experts to be established for that purpose.73 This was the origin of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, to be discussed later in this chapter. Finally, no Dominion was to be committed to obligations by another, and this included Great Britain.74
Hearne and Conference committees
The committee on nationality, on which O’Higgins was the Free State representative and Hearne his adviser, made little progress.75 The Irish were anxious to establish their own nationality; the British were determined to allow only Irish citizenship within British nationality. For Britain, allegiance to the Crown was crucial. The Irish were determined to refute what they regarded as the British ‘umbrella’ theory – that all the Commonwealth members should embrace British nationality. Minor matters were settled; it was decided to refer the more complex ones to the Conference on Dominion Legislation.76
John Hearne was the Free State representative on the subcommittee on overseas settlement, a body concerned with the problems associated with this policy in the Commonwealth. The policy had been defined at the 1923 Imperial Conference as ‘a redistribution of the white population of the Empire in the best interest of the Empire as a whole’.77 This definition was accepted by the committee which proceeded to examine proposals for its successful implementation. Matters discussed included the selection and recruitment of migrants; their reception and welfare; family settlement; the settlement of juveniles; and the settlement of women and girls.78
The report of the subcommittee was very comprehensive79 and adopted by the Imperial Conference on 19 November.80 The fact was, however, that, in terms of Irish concerns, both the report and the activities of the group which produced it were unimportant, if not actually irrelevant. The parts of the Commonwealth interested in overseas settlement were Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Southern Rhodesia. It was not a matter of any concern to the Irish government and there was little evidence of active participation in discussions by Hearne. His one reported contribution served to underscore the tangential nature of the subject for the Free State: ‘The representative of the governments of Newfoundland and the Irish Free State intimated that conditions in their territories precluded co-operation on their part.’81
This effective disengagement by the Irish delegation perhaps explained the acceptance of language in the report which otherwise might have elicited objections. It spoke of the need to stimulate the outward flow of population from the ‘Mother Country’ to the general advantage of the whole Commonwealth.82 In other circumstances, the description of Britain as the ‘Mother Country’ might have been challenged and rejected by the Irish; here it was tolerated in the context of a policy which was the product of colonialism and the colonial legacy in terms of the other Dominions, and apparently accepted as such by them. These regarded Britain as the ‘Mother Country’. Consequently, a country that was a reluctant Dominion was not going to raise objections to an issue that did not impact on it.
Nor should there be any surprise that the Free State, a country with an anti-imperial history and reputation, did not object to or even express a view on a policy that was a variation on the idea of plantation, a concept in Irish history redolent with notions of cultural, religious and racial superiority. After all, overseas settlement entailed the distribution of white people in the Dominions, who differed culturally, religiously and racially from the indigenous peoples. The Irish remained silent – this aspect of overseas settlement, as with the entire policy, simply did not have consequences for the Free State. Once again this aspect reflected the colonial legacy of the Dominions, lands essentially peopled by white settlers. Any comment might have caused offence among other Commonwealth governments and the Irish delegation would not have wished to cause such offence – it would have served no purpose in terms of Irish self-interest.
The official Irish response might also have been influenced by another consideration. Jason Knirck has written of the Irish tendency to write