The Irish Free State passport and the question of citizenship, 1921–4

1989 ◽  
Vol 26 (104) ◽  
pp. 396-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph P. O’Grady
Keyword(s):  
British Empire ◽  
The Other ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
Free State ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
The Status ◽  
Irish Free State ◽  
British Commonwealth ◽  
Direct Answer

The issue of citizenship played a major role in the negotiations that led to the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; but that point was overshadowed by the tendency of those who negotiated the treaty (and the authors who have written about it) to see the issue of ‘common citizenship’ as only one point under the heading of allegiance to the crown and membership of the British Empire. That it was a central issue is clear, however, for at one point in the 1921 negotiations Lloyd George asked, ‘to put it bluntly will you be British subjects or foreigners? You must be either one or the other.’ Arthur Griffith, the leader of the Irish delegation, answered: ‘in our proposal we have agreed to “reciprocity of civic rights”. We should be Irish and you would be British and each would have equal rights as citizens in the country of the other.’ That exchange caused the British to ask the Irish for a direct answer to the question, would they ‘acknowledge this common citizenship?’. The Irish, however, only responded with the words, ‘Ireland would undertake such obligations as are compatible with the status of a free partner’ in ‘the community of nations known as the British Commonwealth’. Those words did not satisfy the English negotiators, but in the end the Irish accepted an agreement in which the words ‘common citizenship’ appeared in the oath to the king which all members of Dáil Éireann would have to take. That satisfied the British demands on allegiance to the crown.

Constitutional Developments in Saorstát Eireann and the Constitution of Éire: I, External Affairs

1937 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 842-861 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur W. Bromage
Keyword(s):  
Free State ◽  
Constituent Assembly ◽  
Good Government ◽  
The Status ◽  
Irish Free State ◽  
Commonwealth Of Nations ◽  
British Commonwealth ◽  
British Commonwealth Of Nations ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

Under terms of the Treaty of 1921 between Great Britain and Ireland, it was agreed that: “Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa, with a Parliament having powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Ireland and an Executive responsible to that Parliament, and shall be styled and known as the Irish Free State.” The status of the Irish Free State was further defined by this language: “Subject to the provisions hereinafter set out, the position of the Irish Free State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada, and the law, practice and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown or the representative of the Crown and of the Imperial Parliament to the Dominion of Canada shall govern their relationship to the Irish Free State.” The Imperial Government gave this treaty the force of law by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act of March 31, 1922. To implement the treaty, Dáil Eireann, sitting as a constituent assembly, enacted a constitution for the Irish Free State in 1922. This constitution declared: “The Irish Free State (otherwise hereinafter called or sometimes called Saorstát Eireann) is a co-equal member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.” It was given the force of law by the Imperial Government in the Irish Free State Constitution Act of December 5, 1922.

Newfoundland Reverts to the Status of a Colony

1934 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 895-900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert A. MacKay
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
British Empire ◽  
West Indian ◽  
Responsible Government ◽  
The Status ◽  
History Of ◽  
Commonwealth Of Nations ◽  
British Commonwealth ◽  
British Commonwealth Of Nations

Newfoundland, which proudly boasts that she is “Britain's oldest colony,” which has enjoyed responsible government since 1855, and which has been ranked by the Statute of Westminister as one of the Dominions of the British Commonwealth of Nations, voluntarily reverted to the status of a crown colony governed by a commission responsible to Whitehall. The event is without precedent in the history of the Empire. While certain West Indian colonies which have enjoyed representative assemblies have voluntarily given up their elected legislatures, no colony which had attained responsible government has ever before renounced it. The incident is sufficiently unique to be of interest alike to students of the history of the British Empire and of political science in general.

scholarly journals Geweld in 'n evangelie van liefde: Die Evangelie van Johannes se perspektief op geweld teen Jesus en sy dissipels

2008 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Van der Watt
Keyword(s):  
Gospel Of John ◽  
The Other ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Status ◽  
Opposing Group ◽  
The One

Violence in a gospel of love: The perspective of the Gospel of John on violence against Jesus and his disciples This article is the first of two articles in which violence in the Gospel of John is discussed. In these articles strong techniques of vilification in the Gospel are pointed out, according to which the status of the opposing group is radically discredited by the Jews on the one hand, and the followers of Jesus on the other hand. In the first article violence and vilification by the Jews, or disciples of Moses against the followers and disciples of Jesus are investigated. It is argued that the central issue of the conflict revolves around the question: Where is God's presence to be found? Among the Jews or among the followers of Jesus? The conflict and violence in John could be understood against the backdrop of this important question.

Chicanery and candour: the Irish Free State and the Geneva Protocol, 1924–5

1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (115) ◽  
pp. 371-384
Author(s):  
Michael Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
World Order ◽  
The State ◽  
Free State ◽  
Complex Issue ◽  
Irish Free State ◽  
British Commonwealth ◽  
Cumann Na Ngaedheal

The foreign policy of the Irish Free State under the Cumann na nGaedheal administrations of 1922–32 was a far more complex issue than has generally been realised. Policy had a greater scope than simply Anglo-Irish relations. It had two basic foundations. Through the 1921 treaty, the state reluctantly joined the British Commonwealth. Then, with great deliberation, the Free State joined the League of Nations, being admitted on 10 September 1923. By developing an active multidimensional foreign policy using these structures, the new state sought to show its ‘international’ and European credentials. The Irish Free State was to carve out a small niche for itself in the post-Versailles world order. An analysis of the Free State’s response to the Geneva Protocol of 1924 provides a case study of this multifaceted foreign policy in action.As the foundations of Irish foreign policy in the 1920s, the League and the Commonwealth were played off against each other. A prominent stance at the League indicated that although the Free State was a dominion, it was not tied to the imperial line and could act independently to secure its own interests. The Free State’s position as a radical dominion was emphasised through League membership as the state used its independence at the League in the 1920s to develop the concept of the Commonwealth as a looser international grouping of equals. This approach to foreign policy served to benefit both core aspects of the state’s foreign relations. Generally these two core aspects of foreign policy complemented each other.

Defining the Heathen in Ireland and Africa: Two Similar Discourses a Century Apart

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona Bateman
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Roman Catholic ◽  
The Other ◽  
Free State ◽  
British Imperialism ◽  
Space And Time ◽  
De Se ◽  
Protestant Missions ◽  
Irish Free State

AbstractThis article looks at two different missionary projects separated by space and time: British Protestant missions to Ireland in the mid-nineteenth century; and Irish Roman Catholic missions to Africa in the 1920 and 1930s. It argues that in both cases missionary discourses were strongly influenced by prevailing public attitudes towards the 'other', in the earlier case the Irish, in the later case, the Africans. Using evidence from a range of contemporary mission publications, the article highlights the similarity between British Protestant efforts to 'colonise' Ireland in religious terms and later Irish Catholic attempts to create a 'Spiritual Empire' in Africa in the context of the recently-formed Irish Free State and in contrast to the ostensibly materialistic and corrupting influences on Africa of British imperialism. Cet article se penche sur deux projets missionnaires séparés dans le temps et l'espace: les missions protestantes britanniques en Irlande au milieu du 19e siècle, et les missions catholiques irlandaises en Afrique dans les années 1920-30. Il montre que, dans les deux cas, le discours missionnaire a été influencé par la façon dont le rapport à l'«Autre,» qu'il soit irlandais dans un cas ou africain dans l'autre, était généralement conçu. Par l'analyse de nombreuses publications missionnaires, le texte révèle les similarités existant entre les efforts des protestants britanniques pour «coloniser» religieusement l'Irlande et, plus tard, les efforts des Catholiques irlandais pour créer un «Empire spirituel» en Afrique dans le contexte du nouvel Etat Libre d'Irlande et d'un désir de se distinguer des influences matérialistes et néfastes de l'impérialisme britannique en Afrique.

Select documents XLVI: ‘Unofficial emissaries’: British army boxers in the Irish Free State, 1926

1996 ◽  
Vol 30 (118) ◽  
pp. 206-222
Author(s):  
David Fitzpatrick
Keyword(s):  
British Empire ◽  
Free State ◽  
Internal Stability ◽  
British Army ◽  
Economic Dependence ◽  
The Troubles ◽  
Domestic Security ◽  
Fianna Fail ◽  
Irish Free State

By October 1926 the Irish Free State seemed to have emerged at last from the prolonged nightmare of the ‘Troubles’. Within three and a half years of the abandonment of armed insurrection by the republicans, Cosgrave’s government had proved unexpectedly effective in securing both internal stability and external reconciliation with its former antagonists. In May 1926 de Valera had committed his followers to parliamentary struggle by founding Fianna Fáil, thereby marginalising intransigent republicanism until it became a lingering irritant rather than an immediate menace to domestic security. The tripartite agreements of December 1925 had perpetuated partition and resolved some of the thorny fiscal problems raised by the Anglo-Irish treaty. The process of reconciliation with Britain was crowned during October and November 1926, when Kevin O’Higgins and the Irish delegation played a creative and enthusiastic role in remodelling the British Empire at the Imperial Conference in London. The consolidation of the Irish Free State as an autonomous dominion of twenty-six counties, comfortably acknowledging its strategic and economic dependence on Britain, seemed virtually assured.

scholarly journals “The Statute of Westminster, 1931: An Irish Perspective”

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 749-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Mohr
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
British Empire ◽  
The Self ◽  
Free State ◽  
Significant Events ◽  
History Of ◽  
Irish Free State ◽  
White Settlement

The enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 represents one of the most significant events in the history of the British Empire. The very name of this historic piece of legislation, with its medieval antecedents, epitomizes a sense of enduring grandeur and dignity. The Statute of Westminster recognized significant advances in the evolution of the self-governing Dominions into fully sovereign states. The term “Dominion” was initially adopted in relation to Canada, but was extended in 1907 to refer to all self-governing colonies of white settlement that had been evolving in the direction of greater autonomy since the middle of the nineteenth century. By the early 1930s, the Dominions included Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, and the Irish Free State.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document