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 indigenous peoples out of their references to the other Dominions.83 This raised the vexed question of the relations between Irish nationalism and non-white regions of the Commonwealth. The Irish, it would seem, did not want to be too thoroughly connected with peoples widely perceived as inferior.84 In any case, this was not a major issue for the Irish Free State, as the matter of settlement was not one which preoccupied the attention of Irish policy makers. Nevertheless, the impact on indigenous races did not act as a spur to voice even the mildest concern. For the Free State, overseas settlement and its related matters were incidental and, therefore, principled observations and objections, if there were any, went unspoken.
Hearne’s membership of this committee probably reflected the fact that he was the most junior of the officials in the Free State delegation. He was appointed to represent the state on a body regarded as unimportant. He was the diplomatic rookie who drew the proverbial short straw and his nomination was a kind of apprenticeship. He did what was required of him: he said little and discharged his duties unobtrusively. The resultant report meant nothing in the Free State. Tellingly, the Free State was not represented on the committee on overseas settlement at the 1930 Imperial Conference.
The 1926 Conference was a success for Irish ministers and officials. This is evident when the November memorandum identifying anomalies is compared with the final report – very many Irish concerns had been addressed. The Balfour Declaration certainly gave cause for much satisfaction. In the Dáil, Desmond FitzGerald asserted that the Conference would ‘be regarded by historians as marking a definite step forward in the development of the individual states of the Commonwealth as distinct political entities in the general society of nations’.85 Listing the various decisions taken by delegates, he stated that relations between Great Britain and the other Dominions were now based on the root principle of equality of status.86
The commitment, competence and hard-work of the civil service advisers were a very significant factor in the success of the Irish delegation. The daily routine of Hearne and his colleagues was demanding and exhausting. They were accommodated in the Hotel Cecil, located between the Thames Embankment and the Strand,87 and here Hearne stayed for thirty-six days.88 The civil servants were virtual prisoners, a fact described by Diarmuid O’Hegarty, secretary to the Executive Council:
The points arising out of the conference and the memoranda which had to be prepared and submitted required careful consideration by the officials from the Department of External Affairs, the Draftsman’s Office [Hearne] and the executive council, who were in constant attendance on the ministers … Daily and even hourly conferences were necessary. Instructions, decisions, and memoranda were urgently required and given. Correspondence had to be attended to without delay. The volume of work was very heavy. During the days which I attended the conference not one of the officials engaged thereon on our staff had the opportunity of taking a walk. They were practically confined to two rooms – one used by the typists and the other employed as a conference room and dining room.89
For John Hearne, the 1926 Conference was an important occasion in his career. It was a significant conference in terms of the constitutional development of the Free State and he had been one of the advisers who had contributed to this development. He was to attend two other conferences – a clear indication that his contribution in 1926 was adjudged valuable by his ministerial and civil service superiors –where he was to play a more important role in terms of the Free State’s continuing constitutional evolution. However, he attended in
