I regret to say that I consider the proposed amendment by Senator Moore as absolutely impossible and unconstitutional. I have not said anything in the resolution committing us to saying whether we are at war or not at war with Turkey. War was declared on behalf of the whole British Empire on November 5th, 1914. At that time I was on one side and Colonel Moore was on another. I strongly felt at that time that Ireland should not be connected with such a war. I was belonging to the Irish Volunteers that split upon that very point. Constitutionally and internationally I think we cannot get out of the fact that in a war declared on behalf of the British Empire, internationally Ireland was recognised as part of the British Empire, and was at war with Turkey. The ratifying machinery for such a Treaty as this is usually the Crown. Senator Moore waves to one side as ridiculous my statement that it is unconstitutional for this Treaty to be ratified without our acquiescence. I have used the word "acquiescence" very carefully. I have not used the word "recommended," and I have not used the word "concurred," because I consider that the negotiation of this Treaty was done in a way which, if not absolutely unconstitutional, bordered upon it. We, in this Resolution, state clearly our stipulation. This is a big Treaty of 150 pages long, but we state that we will not object to the machinery of the Crown being used for the ratification of this Treaty, provided that—provided that it was provided— that as far as this country is concerned we are committed to do nothing whatsoever except where some people might be in doubt as to whether we are at war or peace now, that there might be no further doubt whatsoever about it. That is clearly set out there, and that is what we are committed to. It is the fact—Senator Moore might wish it was not, and he might say so—but that it is unconstitutional for a Treaty negotiated on behalf of the whole British community of nations to be ratified without the concurrence or acquiescence of all the governments or states which form the British Empire.
The Senator referred to my statement in the Dáil that this sort of thing would not happen again. What is this sort of thing? It is that a plenipotentiary appointed by one State of the British community of nations initiated, negotiated and signed a Treaty. Not only that cannot happen again, but the fact that this Treaty was done in such an undesirable way has brought up the whole question. It was pointed out by Colonel Moore that no Treaty would be ever negotiated again which would take six governments to agree to its ratification. I think it must be recognised now that the existing machinery for such an arrangement is out of date for some time. I explained in the Dáil that although the declaration of the equality of the nations forming the British community of nations has been made, the machinery for implementing that equality was not up to date. It must necessarily come up to date sooner or later. This Lausanne Treaty has brought one aspect of the machinery to the forefront, and made it necessary for this matter to be cleared up. I cannot say on what lines it will be decided that things will be done in future. I pointed out to the Dáil, a few nights ago, that it could be met in this way. A Treaty could be initiated say to change to a state of peace. Six or seven co-equal members of the British community would be represented there by plenipotentiaries. The main point is they all agree on peace. That involves a great many other considerations, such as the limitation of boundaries and so on. They all agree on the main features of the Treaty, but when it comes to the setting down of the clauses of the Treaty they may disagree on the various clauses.
I suggest that parallel Treaties may be made agreeing in the main object of the Treaty, but possibly diverging as to the various clauses of the Treaty. In the Dáil also, a month or two ago, when I was speaking on the Liquor Treaty of America, I said I could not consider ourselves as bound by the clauses of the Lausanne Treaty, and I still cannot consider ourselves bound. We had nothing to do with the making of it, and were only presented with it at the end. I am satisfied myself, and I think the British Government agree with me, that actually in the Treaty so far as our interests are involved, there is no vital thing except the removal of doubt as to whether we are at peace or war. The other conventions do not affect us. The other conventions do not affect us because the machinery cannot involve us or the terms of our joining the League of Nations or the general situation of the League of Nations, and the mixed tribunal cannot involve us because none of our nationals have been involved in practices which would have to go before a mixed tribunal.
We have to recognise what the constitutional position is. Supposing even now when this Treaty was initiated that we say we do not like the way you are going on, and suppose that had been agreed. When it came to the ratification of the Treaty the affair would have been met at the instance of the Government of the Irish Free State. We might say we are not at war with Turkey. The Turks might think otherwise. They might proceed to intern our people, if we have people in Constantinople and other places, to-morrow. There are certain international ways of doing it. A change from war to peace should be conveyed to the Turkish Government par voie diplomatique. It is not done by one of us sitting up here and saying we are not at war with Turkey. My saying it here at another time did not make much difference. Unfortunately, I was in a minority at that time. Colonel Moore has suggested that the wording of this resolution was put for the bewilderment of the Seanad. It is nothing of the sort. We have a certain constitutional position to safeguard and certain rights and certain interests. We recognise it is desirable that this Treaty should be ratified in a general way.
It has been ratified by Turkey, Japan, and Italy, and it has to be ratified by England and France, and is to become operative when we complete its ratification. I think three on the one side have to ratify it. We recognise it is necessary in the interests of the world generally that this Treaty should be cleared away with as little delay as possible. Its constitutional effect is that it cannot, as it stands, be ratified except we make it clear that we are not objecting on our behalf to the ratification. In doing that we must also make it clear that we cannot take for the past at any time responsibility. We are prepared to do it as far as the definition of peace is concerned, but we cannot take over any responsibility for any arrangements made by the British plenipotentiary on the one side and the Turkish plenipotentiary on the other. We desire to have the matter cleared up. There is no other machinery I can see at the moment for clearing it up except by the means I see here. We agree to this, and we make it clear where we stand on this. We make it clear that we object to the Royal Title used in this as in the Liquor Treaty.
I understand that steps are being taken to have the Royal Title in accordance with the state of facts as created by the signing of the Treaty of 1921. It is also recognised in regard to Canada, as well as to ourselves, that the machinery which has been used up to the present is not in accord with the present conditions of things nor in accord with the equality that exists. That equality, I admit, creates a very complicated situation, and it is necessary, and I think the British Government have publicly indicated it is necessary, that at some early date consideration must be given to what machinery will be used in cases such as this and other similar cases in order that the co-equal States may work in harmony towards one end and at the same time make their mutual independence perfectly clear. With regard to the Foreign Affairs Committee, there was a resolution passed here some time ago suggesting that a Foreign Affairs Committee should be formed and suggesting the lines on which it should go. The matter was put before the Dáil, and the Dáil, so far, has taken no action on the matter. I do not quite see how the Ministry can be put on Commission, particularly a Ministry like the Ministry of External Affairs which involves the receiving of a great many confidential documents and despatches that the Minister is not at liberty to publish.