style="font-size:15px;"> The Conference report also contained a draft agreement on merchant shipping.186 It was the product of a subcommittee appointed to consider the matter and Hearne represented the Free State. It met for the first time on 20 October, with other meetings agreed upon for 21–3 October inclusive. The Sankey committee considered the deliberations of the subcommittee on 24 October. Hearne spoke at this meeting, informing the participants that the subcommittee was discussing the text of a long agreement and that there were several minor points which still needed discussion. He believed that at least three more subcommittee meetings would be necessary.187
The final agreement adopted by the Imperial Conference addressed many Irish concerns, as identified by Hearne in his 1929 memorandum on merchant shipping legislation. All ships were to be allowed to fly their national colours.188 Article 9 referred to a merchant shipping system based on mutual co-operation and reciprocity.189 It was agreed that all British Commonwealth ships were to enjoy a common status and were entitled to the recognition accorded to British ships.190 This decision addressed a matter highlighted by Hearne: that the Free State would enjoy the benefits of the Commonwealth merchant shipping system, while at the same time being able to regulate its own ships. A merchant shipping agreement was signed in December of the following year, which was in accord with the agreement adopted at the Conference.191
The other subcommittee of which Hearne was a member concerned itself with the subject of nationality. This highly complex and controversial area had always been one of the Free State’s long suits and had been considered at the 1926 Conference.192 It may be remembered that Hearne had been an adviser to Kevin O’Higgins, the Free State’s representative on the committee which considered the matter on that occasion. The Irish were then anxious to establish their own nationality and rejected the British view that the entire Commonwealth should shelter under the umbrella of British nationality. The matter was referred to the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, the report of which recognised a number of general principles pertaining to nationality. Members of the Commonwealth were united by a common allegiance to the Crown and this allegiance was the basis of the common status possessed by all subjects of the King.193 The recognition of this common status, however, was in no way inconsistent with the recognition of the distinct nationality possessed by the citizens of the Commonwealth’s individual member states.194 The complexity of the subject was again evident when it was observed that the practical application of the principles was not an easy task and was beyond the scope of the report.195
The Free State delegation brought to the 1930 Conference a draft of its proposed nationality bill. In a letter to Desmond FitzGerald, Minister for Defence and one of the delegates, Hearne summarised the bill’s intentions: ‘The scheme of our bill is that we define our own nationals and give to the nationals of other parts of the Commonwealth (i.e., old British subjects), while in the Free State, all the privileges and advantages given to British subjects at the present time.’196 He prepared a memorandum for the Irish delegates on the major sections of the proposed legislation, which were in accordance with the conclusions of the Conference on Dominion Legislation. Hearne advised the delegates that ‘in future the citizens of each state will look to the law of that state for the ultimate legal basis of their status’.197 In Harkness’s words, ‘this basis was infinitely preferable, the self-conscious Dominion felt, to the old, all-embracing category of “British subject”’.198 With regard to the concept of common status, the memorandum explained the policy of the Irish government:
Our law should provide that British subjects and Canadian subjects etc., living in Saorstát Éireann shall have the same status as citizens of Saorstát Éireann … The Department of External Affairs hopes … that by virtue of their citizenship of Saorstát Éireann our nationals will be entitled to the status of British subjects while in London, of Canadian subjects while in Ottawa and of South African citizens while in Pretoria.199
At the 1930 Conference, Free State representatives explained that they wanted their own citizenship first, as defined by their own laws, and would be happy to add the superstructure of a Commonwealth agreement on common status on top of this.200 There was British opposition to any alterations in the concept of Commonwealth nationality, but the principles of the 1929 Conference report were confirmed.201
The Irish delegation and the Imperial Conferences
The Irish delegates found the 1930 Conference a difficult experience. Harkness has observed that an Imperial Conference was never a ‘soft assignment’ but this one was ‘harder than most’,202 as it displayed ‘an unusual degree of temper and engendered unprecedented bitterness’.203 The British were less than happy with aspects of the report on Dominion legislation204 and chose to argue with ‘a medieval scholastic mentality’.205 Frustrated, Desmond FitzGerald informed his wife that things were ‘very trying’; and, writing to her on 6 November, he commented: ‘Yesterday was appalling. Massed British guns directed on us – I never had such a day … Faced with dishonesty, treachery and cowardice.’206 Notwithstanding this somewhat dystopian atmosphere, the Irish had every reason to be pleased with the outcome of the Conference. Irish representatives played a prominent role in drafting the Statute of Westminster.207 This helped remove all lingering doubts as to the status of the Irish Free State and the Dominions as full subjects of international law.208 It did not give the Free State all it wanted but did give the means to facilitate progress towards the eventual achievement of many of its objectives.209 Therefore, it may be regarded as a watershed in Anglo-Irish relations.
The successes and achievements of the Free State at the Imperial Conferences were due to the calibre and expertise of its delegations. These attributes owed much to the fact that there was a striking continuity of personnel over the three Conferences, from 1926 to 1930. In terms of ministerial representation, Patrick McGilligan attended all three; and Desmond FitzGerald attended in 1926 and 1930. Attorney General, John A. Costello, was present on all three occasions, as were civil servants Diarmuid O’Hegarty, Joseph Walshe and John Hearne. By 1930, Irish ministers were the longest-serving members of any Dominion government and were advised by highly experienced civil servants. Moreover, the Irish delegates and their advisers were all around the same age210 and from the same social class. They were not just colleagues but friends and this made real teamwork possible and natural.
This teamwork was inspired and strengthened by a sense of clear and common purpose: to achieve and secure recognition of Irish sovereignty. This objective was pursued, consistently and determinedly, from 1926 to 1930. The same arguments and counter-arguments ran through each Conference and each one represented a milestone in the pursuit of the Free State’s goal. When McGilligan told the Dáil that he regarded the report of the 1930 Conference ‘as being the end now achieved to the work which the then vice-president of this state, Mr Kevin O’Higgins, started in 1926’,211 he was expressing an essential truth and fact.
According to Harkness, McGilligan was the best-briefed delegate at the 1926 Conference212 and, for the 1930 Conference, the Department of External Affairs prepared its usual thorough briefs.213 As we have seen, Hearne did an immense amount of legal preparation for both events. This was his greatest contribution – he prepared the documentation central to the presentation of the Irish position; as it was stated earlier: he informed, supported and summarised the arguments of the Irish delegates. Commenting on John A. Costello’s contribution to the delegation at the 1926 Conference, former Taoiseach, Garret FitzGerald, described him as ‘the legal genius’ of the team whose ‘immense legal skill, his brilliance in any aspect of constitutional law, gave to our delegation of ministers and civil servants such a basis of knowledge, experience and skill, that they were able to outmanoeuvre not just the delegations of the other countries of the Commonwealth, but the British themselves’.214
While this may be an overstatement, it contains much that is true and it can be applied also with some justification and accuracy to Hearne’s role at the Conferences of 1929 and 1930. While describing the achievements of the 1930 Conference, McGilligan stated that ‘the system which it took centuries to build up has been brought to an end by four years of assiduous, concentrated collaboration between
