User:Jnestorius/Oath of Allegiance (Ireland)

In the Irish Free State, the oath of allegiance (also Treaty oath, legislative oath, Free State formula, and other names) was an oath of allegiance to the Free State Constitution and an oath of fidelity to King George V. Legislators were required to take the oath before taking their seats in the Oireachtas; similarly for extern ministers not members of the Oireachtas. It was to be administered by the Governor-General or an authorised representative. It read:

I ... do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established, and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V, his heirs and successors by law in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of nations.

The requirement and wording of the oath was specified in Article IV of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921, which formed the basis of Article 17 of the 1922 Constitution, enacted by the pro-Treaty Constituent Assembly. The Treaty ended the 1919–21 War of Independence, but the oath and other contentious provisions led to the 1922–23 Civil War. Fianna Fáil, founded by the anti-Treaty losers of the Civil War, entered Dáil Éireann in 1927 after its TDs were deemed to have "complied with ... Article 17"; the party claimed they had subscribed to an "empty formula" rather than taken an oath. The oath was abolished in 1933, shortly after Fianna Fáil first formed the Free State government.

Background

British oaths

Main article: Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)

Members of the British House of Commons, as well as members of the Parliaments of British Dominions like Canada and Australia, swore an Oath of Allegiance to the monarch:

I... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

In 1918, a requirement had been introduced for British civil servants to take an oath of allegiance, and several Irish nationalists were dismissed for refusing to do so. The rules agreed by Sinn Féin at its October 1917 convention prohibited from membership anyone whose position required an "oath of allegiance to the British Government". After Sinn Féin won the 1920 Dublin Corporation election, the corporation's technical education committee resolved that "any teacher who is a permanent Civil Servant and who has consequently taken the oath of allegiance to the King of England be not continued in his employment"; this triggered a dispute resolved by amending the reoslution to "any teacher who is a permanent Civil Servant be not continued in his employment".

Irish republican revolution

See also: Irish War of Independence and Irish Republic

Republicans established the First Dáil in 1919 and proclaimed themselves the legitimate government of an Irish Republic, in opposition to the administration of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Dáil built a parallel civic administration while the Irish Republican Army (IRA) fought a guerrilla war against the British security forces. Agents of the Irish Republic, including members of the Dáil and the IRA, were required from 20 August 1919 to swear an oath of loyalty to the Republic. The oath read:

I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I do not and shall not yield a voluntary support to any pretended Government, authority or power within Ireland hostile and inimical thereto, and I do further swear (or affirm) that to the best of my knowledge and ability I will support and defend the Irish Republic and the Government of the Irish Republic, which is Dáil Eireann, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, so help me, God.

Not all officials did in fact take the oath, although all TDs at the Dáil's next sitting on October 27 did so, as did those then absent who were present on 29 June 1920. In May 1921, the First Dáil resolved to treat that month's elections to the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and House of Commons of Northern Ireland as elections to its successor, the Second Dáil, in which anyone elected who took its Oath of Allegiance would be entitled to sit.

Treaty negotiations

The oath in a late draft of the Treaty, with "British Empire" replaced in red by "British Commonwealth of Nations"

Main article: Anglo-Irish Treaty

As Southern Ireland became increasingly ungovernable, a ceasefire was agreed for 11 July 1921, and in October negotiations for a political settlement began at 10 Downing Street. Éamon de Valera, the President of the Irish Republic, sent a negotiating team of five "plenipotentiaries" to London, which returned to Dublin several times for discussions with the De Valera and the rest of the Dáil cabinet. Some points of contention in the Treaty negotiations were "Partition" (the ability of Northern Ireland to opt out of the new Irish state); retention by Britain of three Naval bases; and financial matters (annuities under the Irish Land Acts, compensation for war damage, state pensions, and national debt apportionment). However, the most contentious issue, which ultimately led to the Civil War, was the extent to which the new state would recognise the British monarch. The wording of the Oath would be the focus for this contention.

The British wanted Ireland to be a Dominion like Canada and Australia, while the Irish wanted a republic unconnected to the British monarchy. De Valera envisioned "external association" as a compromise arrangement, where Ireland was in free association with Britain, and the King was the head of the association, but not of Ireland itself. This was the proposal in Irish memoranda of 22 and 28 November, and endorsed at a Cabinet/Delegation meeting on 25 November. A subsequent legislative step in this direction was the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act 1936. De Valera's idea has subsequently been seen as an antecedent of the dispensation since 1949 whereby the British monarch is Head of the Commonwealth but not head of state of member states other than Commonwealth realms. But the 1921 proposal was rejected, as "[n]o British Government could attempt to propose to the British people the abrogation of the Crown." While on November 28 the British wanted the same Oath as elsewhere, they said that "though it was an immense difficulty for them, they would try to modify it". A version on 29 November was rejected by the Irish delegation; another on 1 December read:

I........................solemnly swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State; to the Community of Nations known as the British Empire; and to the King as the Head of the State and of the Empire.

George Gavan Duffy's minutes of the Cabinet/Delegation meeting on December 3 noted unanimous rejection of this Oath, and countenanced the resumption of the war that had stopped that June. De Valera said that "[w]ith modifications, however, it might be accepted honourably, and he would like to see the plenipotentiaries go back and secure peace if possible." Duffy recorded an alternative Oath which De Valera had suggested:

I ........................ do solemnly swear true faith and Allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State, to the Treaty of Association and to recognise the King of Great Britain as head of the Associated States

While Cathal Brugha opposed even this alternative, he was prepared to accede to preserve cabinet unity.

On December 4, the Irish plenipotentiaries in London proposed an Oath similar to De Valera's:

I do swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of Ireland and to the Treaty of Association of Ireland with the British Commonwealth of Nations, and to recognise the King of Great Britain as Head of the Associated States.

David Lloyd George was willing to give ground on the form of the Oath, provided the first three clauses of the draft Treaty were accepted; these prescribed Dominion status, with a Governor General. On 5 December Michael Collins showed Lord Birkenhead an Oath which he had drafted with the other members of the Executive of the Irish Republican Brotherhood in the Gresham Hotel on December 3. Birkenhead made some modifications; finally Arthur Griffith replaced the words "British Empire" with "British Commonwealth of Nations"— what would be the first official use of the latter term. This was the form agreed in the Treaty, which the Irish delegates signed without further consultation with Dublin.

Treaty debates

See also: Treaty Debates

The Treaty having been signed on 6 December 1921, special sessions of both the Second Dáil and the British Parliament were called to ratify it. Regarding the oath, many of the same points made by supporters of the Treaty in the Dáil were made by opponents of it in Westminster, and vice versa: Irish nationalist opponents argued the connection with the King was too strong, while British unionist opponents argued it was too weak. In each assembly, speakers referred to statements made in the other. As with the negotiations, the Dáil debate was concentrated on the Free State's relationship with the monarchy. [Donnelly 2019 has more on UK debates]

The Dáil debate on the Treaty was held in closed session December 14–17, and open session from 19 December 1921 to 7 January 1922. Many TDs felt that voting for the Treaty, or taking the oath it mandated, would be a violation of their previous oath. De Valera's "Document 2" alternative to the Treaty, presented in Secret Session, has the following text pertaining to the crown, but no oath:

2. That, for purposes of common concern, Ireland shall be associated with the States of the British Commonwealth, viz: the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa.

6. That, for purposes of the Association, Ireland shall recognise His Britannic Majesty as head of the Association. ...

Points made:

• De Valera referred to the lack of any oath in his Document No.2, whereas pro-Treaty speakers pointed to his proposed oath of 3 December.

The oath is different from that taken in other Dominions

|George Nicolls || ppaa || |We were told that this was a Dominion oath that will be taken. The Dominion oath is this, “I swear to bear true faith and allegiance to His Majesty King George, his heirs and successors,”—faith and allegiance. The Oath in this Treaty is an absolutely unique one. You have got no oath like it anywhere and I tell you, instead of the delegates we sent over being befogged by the Welsh Wizard, that they befogged the Welsh Wizard in a way that he was never befogged before. The plain rank and file man like myself is impressed with this, I think, that there is no doubt in any of our minds that the issue is ratification of the Treaty or war. When I find the combined brains of the members of the delegation—Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins, Eamonn Duggan, Robert Barton and Gavan Duffy—when we find their combined brains bringing us home this, when I find these combined brains coupled with the spirit of men like Commdt. McKeon, Gearóid O'Sullivan and the numerous survivors of Easter Week that are here, I must certainly say it seems good enough for me in any case.

Charles Curtis Craig:

I would like whoever next addresses the House from the Government Bench to explain to us why the Oath which is good enough for us is not good enough for Sinn Fein.

Thomas Moles:

Then there is the express Oath, which is exactly in common form with the Oath we take at the Table of this House when we enter it. That Oath, Sinn Feiners refuse to take. If the Government really mean this as an Oath of Allegiance, if they expect it to be binding upon the consciences of those who take it, in the way that the Oath which we take here is binding upon us, why do not they give the Sinn Feiners the Oath in the same form? Why do they go in for this imbecile caricature of an Oath of Allegiance? If they mean allegiance to the King, why do not they put in the word "allegiance" before the word "King"? They cut it out deliberately, in deference to the Sinn Fein delegates with whom they have been conferring, and they cut it out because the Sinn Fein delegates refuse to be bound by that Oath of Allegiance.

Lord Oranmore and Browne:

I must say that I have not much opinion of that qualified allegiance, which is very different from the robust form which most of your Lordships took at the Coronation.

Baron Farnham:

We are told that the Free State is to be modelled on the Canadian Dominion. If so, why not the Oath also? I can think of only one reason, and that is to make secession more easy.

Marquess of Salisbury:

it differed absolutely from the Oath which is taken by the subjects of His Majesty in every other part of the Empire. I have a list here—I can assure your Lordships I am not going to read it—of the Oaths of Allegiance of the various Dominions—the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Union of South Africa. In every one the words are repeated, and they are approximately the words which every one of your Lordships has repeated at this Table— "…be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty." Those words are not in the Irish Oath and the noble and learned Viscount yesterday asked why they were not in the Irish Oath.

Kevin O'Higgins in the draft Constitution debate:

In fact, this particular oath prescribed in the Treaty, and in the Constitution for the Free State, is a much more innocuous matter than the full-blooded Oath of Allegiance taken in these three Dominions [Canada, Australia, South Africa]

it is better, more explicit and more detailed

|Austin Stack || ppaa || |I have taken the opinion of Mr. Arthur Clery on the Oath. He is a man whose nationality cannot be questioned and whose bravery cannot be questioned because he has acted as one of our judges from the commencement. His opinion was to the effect that this Oath was at least as binding in allegiance to the English King as the simple oath that is taken by the members of Parliament at the present day.

Winston Churchill:

the oath is not the same in this case as in the rest of the British Empire. Complete fiscal autonomy is conceded. It is true that the Irish Free State can raise, within certain limits, a small army of its own. But to all these arguments we can reply, and no doubt replies will be made to them. In our view they promise allegiance to the Crown and membership of the Empire. That is our view. The oath comprises acceptance of the Irish Constitution, which is by Articles 1 and 2 of that Constitution exactly assimilated to the constitution of our Dominions. This oath is far more precise and searching than the ordinary oath which is taken elsewhere. It mentions specifically membership of the Empire, common citizenship and faithfulness to the Crown, whereas only one of these matters is dealt with in the Dominion oath.

Laming Worthington-Evans:

I have not time to go into the history of the oaths which have from time to time been taken in this Parliament, but I did have time, while the hon. Member was speaking, to look up Anson on Constitutional Law, and I extracted this: There were at one time three oaths. There was the Oath of Allegiance, and this is how Anson defines it: "It was a declaration of fidelity to the reigning Sovereign." That is precisely what this is—a declaration of fidelity to the reigning Sovereign. Then there was the Oath of Supremacy, which was a repudiation of the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of any foreign prince, prelate, etc.; and then there was the Oath of Abjuration, which was a repudiation of the right and title of the descendants of James II. to the Throne. In 1858 a single form of oath—the oath with which we are now familiar—was prescribed instead of the three oaths of allegiance, supremacy and abjuration, but Anson's description of the Oath of Allegiance is that it was a declaration of fidelity to the Throne, so that in this oath, as included in the Treaty, we have got this: We have got the Oath of Allegiance in the declaration of fidelity: "I will be faithful to His Majesty King George V., his heirs and successors by law." And we have got something in addition—a declaration of fidelity to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established; and, in further addition, we have the declaration of fidelity to the Empire itself.

more ambiguous, unclear

Lord Hugh Cecil:

It belongs to a category of documents, some of them very excellent documents, some of them very important and famous documents, which are composed with a desire by ambiguity to turn the edge of conflict. ... If things were perfectly smooth, if prospects were bright, if there were cordial goodwill, if there were true agreement, you would not have ambiguous language, and the fact that you have had to take refuge in ambiguity shows the difficulty in which you are landed.

| Michael Colivet || ppaa || |What I desired to ask had reference to paragraph 4, which deals with the oath to be taken by members of Parliament of the Irish Free State. The oath includes this, “I will be faithful to His Majesty, King George V, his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to, and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations”. Is that to mean that we promise to be faithful to King George in the dual capacity of King of Great Britain and Ireland, and as head of the group of states forming the British Commonwealth of Nations? What is the meaning? |Kathleen O'Callaghan || ppaa || |I understand that that Oath of Allegiance to the Free State was the oath of subjects that we would take in honour of the Free State except that it was an oath of fidelity in virtue of common citizenship to the head of the Government. I find that Mr. Lloyd George in his speech on Wednesday says that under the Treaty he has secured an Oath of Allegiance to the British King and the British Empire. I want to know what to do about it. Mr. Churchill says the same. How are we to interpret article 4?

Charles Curtis Craig:

It is the most extraordinary rigmarole and conglomeration of senseless words I have ever read.

Lord Hugh Cecil:

What the meaning of the words "in virtue of" may be I do not know. I doubt if anyone does know.

Duke of Northumberland:

the Oath of Allegiance, which would appear to have been designed in order to offer as many loopholes as possible for evasion.

Viscount Finlay:

What may be described by some people as a reason, by others as a qualification, is appended to the declaration of allegiance to His Majesty— "In virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations." What do these words mean? What was in the minds of the Irish delegates when they insisted on the introduction of these words? We do not know; I dare say we never shall know. But what is perfectly plain is that there was an objection, and an insurmountable objection, to taking the Oath of Allegiance in the form in which it has been taken hitherto by everyone in the British Empire.

Viscount Sumner:

a complicated phrase, which looks well on paper but bears as much or as little meaning in its three lines as your conscience likes to put upon it ... why was this curious instrument concocted except, once more, for the purpose ... of arriving at some common form of words which both parties might accept largely because it means so little, largely because it can be interpreted by either side in the way that suits its interest or its conscience when the time for decision comes.

Is the oath compulsory?

|- |Ernest Blythe || ppaa || |Whether or not the oath is obligatory is certainly a matter that could be disputed.

The phrase in the Treaty was “The oath to be taken shall be….” “Yes,” said De Valera, “If any oath be taken…. It is, however, no breach of treaty to delete all oaths altogether.”

John Pretyman Newman HC: It might be said, on the other side, that, as a matter of fact, the question of taking the oath is provided for in the Schedules to this Bill, in Article 4, but Article 4 does not say that, members of the Free State Parliament shall take the oath. It merely says: The oath to be taken by members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in the following form. [1]

Kevin O'Higgins in September on the draft constitution:

It has been said, there is a certain argument, which my common sense, if I had that quality, vomits. It has become known as "the whiskey and soda argument," that because the Treaty only says "the Oath to be taken by members of the Parliament of the Free State shall be so and so," that is only the same as saying that the whiskey to be taken by members of a certain club shall be John Jameson's "Three Star," and because teetotalism is not absolutely forbidden in the club, and it is not absolutely prescribed that all members of the club shall take whiskey, just in the same way where it was not prescribed or intended by the Treaty, that all members of the Parliament should take this Oath, but it was meant if they particularly wanted, and if they insisted on taking an oath, then that this would be the oath they would take. I would like that some Deputy other than myself would undertake the task of arguing that particular point across the table with British Ministers, particularly when we remember that in the last stages of the negotiations for this Treaty there was quite considerable tension about this matter of the Oath, and that eminent British lawyers and eminent British politicians racked their brains to devise some form or another that would be least objectionable to Irish sentiment by safeguarding the particular position they wished to safeguard. Finally they sat down at a table, and with considerable labour brought forth this particular form, and we are asked to believe all this trouble and racking of brains and head-scratching was about an Oath which was to be purely optional, and which a Member need only take if he had a stomach for it later. That, to my mind, is not a serious argument; it shows a finicky, irresponsible outlook which should be no part of those responsible for the governing of this country to cater for. The clear intent of the Treaty — and the reverse is not arguable — was that that particular Oath was to be the Oath to be taken by the Members of Parliament before taking their seats.

George Gavan Duffy next day:

I turn again to the Oath and I am astonished at what I find in the draft Constitution. I ask myself whether that is going to be one of the Clauses on which this Dáil is not going to be allowed to have a free voice. I looked up that Clause yesterday again when the Minister for Home Affairs in his inimitable style made mince meat of the whiskey argument. Let me tell the Minister for Home Affairs that he does not appear to have grasped the arguments against the Oath appearing in the Clause as it does. I will develop that on another occasion. I merely draw his attention to this:—

When we are talking of what is explicit and implicit in the Treaty one thing is, I think, sufficiently clear in connection with the oath. Two things, I should say, are sufficiently clear in connection with the oath. One is that the Dominion precedent and practice have nothing to do with it under the express wording of the Treaty itself, and the other is that the question whether there is to be any exemption or not is plainly left —by that solemn document we signed in London — is plainly left to the decision of the Irish Parliament to be established under the Constitution, and we here have no business and no right to prejudge the matter which ought to be left, and is by contract left to our successors.

Sinn Féin took Dáil oath and refused to take Westminster oath

Would the Treaty oath break the Dáil oath?

|Joseph MacDonagh || ppaa || |For the sake of duty everyone should take the Oath of Allegiance to the Irish Republic and you cannot compromise on that by talking another oath with reservations and every honest man and woman should keep an oath and they cannot keep it if they are going to take another. |John J. O'Kelly || ppaa || | I want to say further that [in] the position in which, I was placed in the Dáil it is my duty to administer the Oath of Allegiance to every member of the Dáil. I took that Oath of Allegiance and I interpret that as taken by myself and administered by comrades as a vow of life-long service and consecration of my life to the Irish Republic, not as a question of days and weeks but as a vow that consecrated my life to the service of the Irish Republic. |Mary MacSwiney || ppaa || |your oath to the I.R.B. is subordinate to your oath to the Republic and that the Irish Republican Brotherhood is very much an inferior thing to the Republic established ... no man who since took the oath of allegiance to the Irish Republic from the 21st January 1919 ever can withdraw from that oath for this was recognised by the country and established by the Provisional Government then |- |Seán MacSwiney || ppaa || |I have sworn an oath to the Republic, and for that reason I could not vote for the Treaty. In my opinion any man who has sworn an oath cannot accept the Treaty. |George Noble Plunkett || ppaa || |We have taken an oath of fidelity to the Republic, and are we going to take a false oath now to King George? |- | Joseph MacDonagh || ppaa || |There are some who are going to vote for this Treaty who say they will never take the oath of allegiance. That reminds me of the sixty-three men who would not vote for the Union but gave up their seats and let other people vote for the Union. |- |Seán T. O'Kelly || ppaa ||

|only the other day some of the men who here signed the proposed agreement helped to render civil servants who took a similar oath of allegiance under duress, ineligible as teachers in the Dublin Trade Schools, while for the same reason other civil servants were driven out of the Gaelic Athletic Association which, to my personal knowledge, they had done much to build up and restore to popularity....

I am opposed to it finally because to support it or even condone it would be tantamount to perjuring myself and would contribute, in my humble opinion, towards perjuring the sixty or more colleagues to whom, by your authority, I have administered the Oath of Allegiance to the Saorstát. |- |Margaret Pearse || ppaa || |I consider I'd be perjuring myself in breaking the oath I had taken to Dáil Eireann. |- |Patrick O'Byrne || ppaa || |in the Dáil, I took a solemn Oath of Allegiance in accordance with this mandate, and without any mental reservations. Am I now to be asked to break what I hold to be the most sacred oath, and that on the ground of expediency? I could never do so; with me it's a matter of conscience. Were I to vote for this Treaty it would be a cowardly act, done merely through fear of incurring public disfavour, while all the time in my heart I would feel I would have been wrong, and would have a sense of shame. |Daniel O'Rourke || ppaa || |I have taken only one oath to the Republic—that was the Republican Army oath; the oath to the Saorstát was not a Republican oath. My oath to the army I will keep; I will not join the Saorstát Army and I don't care who takes exception to that. Marquess of Salisbury:

What is to become of the Oath of Allegiance to the Irish Republic? Everyone of the members of Dail Eireann has taken an oath of allegiance to the Irish Republic. Is that to be repealed? Did the noble and learned Viscount and his colleagues, who negotiated on behalf of the Government, stipulate that it be solemnly done away with?

In December 1922, aa anti-Treeaty "Committee of Irish Catholics" (George Noble Plunkett, Arthur Clery, Conn Murphy, and Cáit O'Kelly) sent a memorandum to he Pope arguing that the Free State authorities were illegitimate as they had broken their Dáil oath.

The spirit of the Dáil oath is more important than the letter

|- | Éamon de Valera || ppaa || |I told the Dáil that before they elected me they should understand that if I took office as head of the State I would regard my Oath solely in the light that it was an oath taken by me to the Irish nation to do the best I could for the Irish nation, and that I would not be fettered if I were to be in that position |- | Robert Barton || ppaa || |I do not seek to shield myself from the charge of having broken my oath of allegiance to the Republic—my signature is proof of that fact. That oath was, and still is to me, the most sacred bond on earth. I broke my oath because I judged that violation to be the lesser of alternative outrages forced upon me, and between which I was compelled to choose. |- |Eoin MacNeill || ppaa || |his truth to Ireland is binding upon him more than any oath—any political oath that he has taken or possibly can take, and that if he takes a political oath and that political oath is explained to him to tie his hands or otherwise in a case in which he is called upon to act upon his responsibilities in a most critical state of affairs, if he believes that by setting that oath aside, and by acting in freedom from that oath he could do better for his country—then he is bound to break that oath. |- |Ernest Blythe || ppaa || |I believe that in making my choice I am not fettered by the oath I took as a member of this Dáil. I believe that if I hold myself back from doing what I believe would be best for the Irish nation because it conflicted with the terms of that oath, it would be doing wrong, because I took that oath as President de Valera took it—as an oath to do my best for the freedom of the Irish nation. |- |Alexander McCabe || ppaa ||

|I regard the oath as a binding obligation on me to use every endeavour to secure the realisation of the ideal. It never, in my mind, barred any particular methods of achieving it, nor did it specifically mention the methods advocated by the opposition.

As to the oath, all I can say is that it is unpalatable to me— it is, I believe, to us all. Nor do I like the idea of being associated internally or externally with a man eater; but I am prepared to take the Treaty for what it is worth, and as a stepping stone to getting more. |- |Joseph McGinley || ppaa || |I have no qualms about the oath which I took on coming into this assembly; the people sent me here to get absolute separation if I could—I am for absolute separation if I could see a way out—but they sent me here to use my own free will; and if I could not get absolute separation at the present time I was to take something by which we could work out our own independence in the long run.

Some had in fact taken Westminster oath or British Army oath before taking the Dáil oath

|- |Seán McGarry || ppaa || |I do not like talking about this question of oaths, because you are tempted to say things which you might be sorry for. But I would like to ask the Minister of Defence whether he has had, or has still in the I.R.A., people who have already sworn allegiance to the King, as soldiers of the British Army? They have done good work, and we did not ask them when they were joining up: “What about the other oath?” |- |Seán O'Mahony || ppaa || |The two oaths [Dáil and Treaty] are too fiercely conflicting to admit of either reconciliation or approachment. ... What John O'Leary said of the New Departure Republicans in 1878 can, with even more force, be said of the self-deluded Free State Republicans in the Dáil to-day (applause). In spite of all this, Davitt, O'Connor Power, J.F.X. O'Brien, John O'Connor, and other members of the Fenian organisation persisted in their policy and took the Oath of Allegiance. |- |Daniel McCarthy || ppaa || |The 1918 election was not fought on the issue of an Irish Republic. It was fought for the principle and the right of self-determination. At that time we had a cartoon about the vacant chair at the Peace Conference to be filled by Count Plunkett. That is what the people voted on; not on what particular form of Government at all. It is only right to say that. Members have no right to say they were elected on the Republican issue and are not going to take the oath. They were nothing of the sort. I am not going to debate this point of the oath. As one of the Whips I have done my best to control the number of speakers and the length of speeches, but I failed. I am not going to go over the oath. We have lawyers on both sides who have made their cases. Some say they cannot take it, while others say it is all right. I am going to make up my mind like Michael Collins—as a plain Irishman. I see no allegiance in the oath. If there were I would not take it. ... We have heard Deputies speaking about breaking an oath and what a dishonourable thing it is. Was it dishonourable for the Fenians to send a major into the British Army to corrupt British soldiers? |- |Arthur Griffith || ppaa || | in this assembly there are men who have taken oath after oath to the King of England; and I noticed that these men applauded loudly when insulting or slighting references were made to the young soldiers here on account of the oath. If a man considers an oath such a momentous thing, what did these gentlemen who took the oath to the King of England— what, I ask, has become of their oath at the present time? I have an arrangement of oaths here, seven different oaths taken by different members of this assembly to the King of England.

If they already broke previous oaths then no future oath is efficacious

|- |J. J. Walsh || ppaa || |I have met a number of men who have said that this Dáil has spent too much time discussing oaths. ... The Irish people are thoroughly fed up with this ju-jitsu exposition and things of that nature. I may tell you that I have a very elastic mind on oaths. I do not say that oaths are not a very forceful issue with me as between me and my country. If, for instance, a British soldier during the last half-dozen years offered me a rifle on condition that I would take this oath, I would take it. I assure you I would keep on taking it for a month if I could get a rifle and ammunition by taking this oath. The taking of a meaningless and harmless oath would not prevent me.

Robert Lynn:

I pay no attention to the question of an oath. A man who swore an oath of allegiance to the Irish Republic six weeks ago, and is prepared to swear allegiance to an Irish State, which is to be responsible to a British Commonwealth of Nations, which does not exist, will have no trouble whatever in taking any oath, and this oath is really camouflage. It is really for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the British people.

Thomas Moles:

If they take the Oath in the form in which it has been put; in these Articles of Agreement they are bound to break the Oath which they have already taken to the Republic. There is no escape from the position, and you are asked to believe that these men are utterly incapable of breaking an oath, yet none the less will take another oath which involves the breach of the oath already taken.

Duke of Northumberland:

We have also been informed by another eminent Sinn Fein leader, Mr. O'Brien, that those who take this Oath have previously taken another; so that it is perfectly clear with what mental reservation that particular gentleman will take the Oath.

But if they refused to take Westminster oath they do take oaths seriously

Earl of Donoughmore:

Can anybody seriously maintain that any substantial body of men anywhere could take that Oath of Allegiance and that it would mean nothing? Why, you have a proof of the opposite under your eyes at the present time. There are, I believe, about seventy Sinn Fein members of the House of Commons. Why are they not there? Because they would not, in existing circumstances or in past circumstances, take the Oath of Allegiance. Would they hesitate to take the Oath of Allegiance if it meant nothing? I draw from their present attitude the fact that they realise that if they took an Oath of Allegiance it would mean something, and from that I draw the augury that if that is their attitude—and they are not the most moderate body that may come to the head in Ireland if a new Constitution is started—if a majority of Southern Irishmen accept this Oath and consent, to take it, you are safe in believing that, they will carry it out in the same way as any other honourable men would anywhere else in the world.

=But if they will take Treaty oath this implies it is weaker than Westminster oath=

Viscount Massereene:

The noble Earl asked why it was that the Sinn Fein members in another place had refused to take the Oath of Allegiance in that House, and he very properly gave the reason that they refused to take it in another place because it does mean something. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these same Sinn Fein members who refuse to take the Oath of Allegiance over here for the reason that it means something, are perfectly willing to take the form of Oath prescribed in this Treaty for reason given to the House at the opening of this debate namely, that to them it means nothing.

The oath does not invoke God, or deny mental reservation

Ronald McNeill:

This new oath of allegiance omits the usual words which terminate oaths of all sorts in this country: "So help me God! "Hon. Members in this country who are accustomed to affirmations and all sorts of objections to religious formulas may say that this omission is a small matter; but the Irish are a religious people, some may think that they are even a superstitious people, and they have a rather topsy-turvy mode of expression, and I know perfectly well what the ordinary Irishman will say when he sees this oath. He will say: "Oath! This is not an oath. There is divil a word about the Almighty in it."

Duke of Northumberland:

We have also been informed by another eminent Sinn Fein leader, Mr. O'Brien, that those who take this Oath have previously taken another; so that it is perfectly clear with what mental reservation that particular gentleman will take the Oath.

Viscount Massereene:

There is another significant thing about this Oath; I do not know that anyone in this debate has drawn attention to it. The words which would consecrate that allegiance, the binding words, which are "So help me God," are not found in this precious Oath. They are words of special significance to all Irishmen.

Marquess of Salisbury:

finally which is significantly absent from the Oath in the Articles, there is this— "I take this obligation freely and without any mental reservation, or purpose of evasion." It appears to be thought very important in Ireland that you should not only take an oath but swear that you do not mean to evade it. It is absent altogether from the Oath of Allegiance in the Articles.

Reference to "common citizenship" as opposed to "reciprocal citizenship"

See also: Commonwealth citizen

| Éamon de Valera || ppaa ||

|I want to make it clear that on October 26th the Minister for Local Government, who have [sic] spoken in favour of ratification were [sic] agreed that under no circumstances could we recommend to the Irish people to become the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, or to take an oath of allegiance, or to give any allegiance to him. ... If you take this new Treaty—if you accept it—the executive authority will be solely derived from Great Britain. The Irish people's ministers will not be the Irish people's ministers but his Majesty's; the army would be taking the oath of allegiance, not to the Irish State as far as I understand it, but will be taking the oath of allegiance to His Majesty. ... I am substituting reciprocal citizenship for common citizenship. Common citizenship would make every Irishman a British subject. Reciprocal does not. ...

At a certain time during the negotiations we agreed as a Cabinet that we would be ready to accept that, when Ireland was associated with the states of the British Commonwealth, Irishmen would be ready to accept the King of Great Britain as head of the association—not as Commonwealth, because we are not in common. |Séamus Fitzgerald || ppaa || | I am against the Treaty ..., “in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain”. Perhaps there might be some statement from the House explaining “common citizenship”. I prefer the President's term even if I expect to take the very reciprocal citizenship I will be in the very same position as the British government supposes me to be at present. “British citizenship” that I will never be now practically under the words of the Treaty if it were adopted [sic]. |- |Francis Ferran || ppaa || |Again, well you have common citizenship. I would like to ask whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs arranged with Lloyd George as to which was which; as to whether Mr. Lloyd George became an Irish citizen or the Minister for Foreign Affairs became a British citizen. You can't have a hermaphrodite citizen, partly one thing and partly another. I wonder do the Deputies realise the obligations that are imposed on Ireland by this British citizenship. |- |James Ryan || ppaa || |there is one big point that we cannot get over and that is the point of common citizenship. Lord Hugh Cecil:

The citizenship, it will be seen, is attributed to Great Britain.

Duke of Northumberland:

it is only given on a rather curious condition—in virtue of the common citizenship and in virtue of adherence to the Commonwealth of Nations known as the British Empire. As regards the common citizenship, of course, that is the one thing the 93 Irish have always denied. But, in any case, if there is any doubt as to the meaning which they will attach to this particular Oath, it has, fortunately, been dissipated by Mr. Michael Collins himself who, in an interview with the Press, has informed us that he regards Ireland as a sovereign and independent State, which has formed an Alliance with this country for its own purposes, and, in virtue of that Alliance, it takes this oath of fidelity to the King. It is obvious that if Ireland is a sovereign and independent State, which voluntarily enters into an association with our Commonwealth of Nations, it is perfectly easy for it to withdraw from that association whenever it pleases.

For the 1930 Imperial Conference the Free State government drafted a nationality bill based on reciprocal citizenship between Dominions; the UK government insisted on a wording emphasising the "status in common" of "every Subject of His Majesty". In the event Irish nationality law was not updated until 1935, after the oath and treaty obligation had been removed. In 1937 the Modern Law Review said the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1935 had "severed the bond of allegiance [to the Crown]".

"fidelity" rather than "allegiance"

|Patrick Hogan || ppaa || |I have heard Madame Markievicz say we are taking the Oath of Allegiance to the English King. I have the misfortune to be a lawyer but I have heard more pettifogging from members here than I ever heard from lawyers in my life (applause). I am asking you to read the Oath—misinterpret it if you like but don't misquote it. There is no Oath of Allegiance to an English king or to any other king. Be clear about that. I don't know whether I ought to read it for you or not. “I do solemly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established”. Is there any allegiance to that? That much of it is alright I presume anyway. “And that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V. his heirs and successors”. When all the excitement is over I wanted to point out that personally I always feel foolish in making verbal distinctions but they seem to appeal to this Dáil. In any case I don't want to put a lawyer's interpretation but I want to put an ordinary plain educated man's interpretation on these words. Any man that looks at Nuttall's dictionary will see that there is a difference between allegiance and faith, and if there is, why then say we are giving an oath to an English king? There are lawyers in this Assembly and I ask them to contradict me if I am wrong when I say that faith is what you would give to an equal, what you are to every man. It is the same as recognition, absolutely the same as recognition. If the word recognition means anything it means that you will be faithful to the bargain you entered into and to the person with whom you are entered into the bargain. This is the sort of thing I don't like because it is like juggling with words and these are ordinary words and they can be interpreted in the ordinary way but this Assembly seems to love having them errected [recte dissected]. Now let us have the point settled and will anyone get you here and say that we are giving an Oath of Allegiance to an English king or to any king. | Michael Colivet|| ppaa || |I could never bring myself to take that Oath of Allegiance to a foreign king. And that oath is landrum [recte laid down] in the Treaty although it does not state “allegiance”. I fully admit with Deputy Hogan that the word “faithful” has not the same meaning as “allegiance” but it does mean faithful and “faithful” has a meaning and it means faithful to the King in a dual position in virtue of Ireland's common citizenship with Great Britain and her adherence to membership of the Commonwealth or words to that effect. |- |Eoin MacNeill || ppaa || |There is no allegiance in it [the Treaty Oath] except to the Irish State. |- |Brian O'Higgins || ppaa || |My conscience tells me the oath embodied in the Treaty signed in London is an oath of loyalty to the English King; an admission that the King of England is King, also, of Ireland, that I am a British subject, that my children are British subjects; and such an admission I never intend to make |- |Desmond FitzGerald || ppaa || |without abandonment of principle or without any breaking of oaths, we are doing a thing it is quite feasible for us to do in supporting this Treaty. The Republic has been spoken of as if it were a thing existing unchallenged. If that is so, I don't know what we were fighting for.

David Lloyd-George:

The main operation of this scheme is the raising of Ireland to the status of a Dominion of the British Empire—that of a Free State within the Empire, with a common citizenship, and, by virtue of that membership in the Empire and of that common citizenship, owning allegiance to the King. [Interruption] And swearing allegiance to the King. [Interruption]

there has been complete acceptance of allegiance to the British Crown, and acceptance of membership in the Empire and acceptance of common citizenship.

Martin Archer Shee:

The Prime Minister made a great deal about that oath being an oath of allegiance, but it is not an oath of allegiance at all ... They first of all swear allegiance to the Irish Free State, and the second part is only an oath of fidelity to His Majesty as head of the British Commonwealth of Nations. To begin with, there is not a British Commonwealth of Nations, and in the second place, fidelity is not allegiance. When we come to look into it, there is no other Dominion in the British Empire in which the Members of their respective. Houses of Parliament do not swear allegiance to the Crown. Why Ireland should be allowed not to do that I fail to understand, except upon one ground, and after all it is the ground upon which this Agreement has been framed. It is, of course, because the Sinn Feiners refused, if they had to swear allegiance, to go on with the negotiations.

Sir William Davison:

Again and again we have had Ministers going up and down the country saying, whatever was given away, whatever was surrendered, the Oath of Allegiance to His Majesty was a sine qua non which would never be given up. I ask hon. Members of this House where, in this Agreement, is there an Oath of Allegiance to His Majesty, the King.

Thomas Adair

They propose to set up an Irish Free State, to give even more than Dominion Home Rule, in so far as they claim no oath of allegiance to the Sovereign, though it is in the most unmistakable way contained in the oath that is necessary in the Dominions overseas. No matter what the Prime Minister has said to-day, there is no oath of allegiance to the King in these proposals

Ronald McNeill:

A good deal has been said about the difference between swearing to be faithful and swearing true allegiance. This new oath was prepared by the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. They know perfectly well that the term "true allegiance" has a long antiquity behind it, and has a definite legal implication. The promise to be faithful means much or little, according to what the promiser has in his mind.

Viscount Sumner:

which does not say allegiance but only says faithfulness to His Majesty

Marquess of Salisbury:

I turn to the supremacy of the Crown. It is said that it is protected by an Oath of Allegiance. The Leader of the House, speaking the day before yesterday, said that these Irishmen will "own allegiance to the same King." Where does he find it in the Agreement? It is not in the Agreement.

Note the Irish text of the oath:

Bheirim-se..............................mo mhóid go solamanta go ngéillfead agus go mbead fír-dhílis do Bhun-reacht Shaorstáit Éireann ar n-a bhunú do réir dlí, agus go mbead dílis dá Shoillse Rí Seoirse V., dá oighrí agus dá chomharbaí do réir dlí, de bhrí chó-shaoránachta na hÉireann leis an mBreatain Mhóir agus de bhrí gur ball í agus go leanann sí den chó-chruinniú náisiún a dhineann suas an Có-chiníochas Briotáineach.

Here "fír-dhílis" to the Constitution is clearly superior to "dílis" to the King (even without the extra "go ngéillfead"). (The translation would have been made after June 1922.)

De Valera's 1937 Constitution mandates fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the state.

Balfour Declaration of 1926 mentioned "common allegiance to the Crown" — how did that play in the Free State?

D. P. O'Connell in 1957 said of the 1949 London Declaration: 'the Crown is no longer the essential bond of association within the Commonwealth ... On the other hand it is to be noted that the Declaration stressed "common the allegiance to the Crown." Too much significance should not be attributed to this formula.' Well the full Declaration says...:

• The Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, whose countries are united as Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and owe a common allegiance to the Crown, which is also the symbol of their free association, have considered the impending constitutional changes in India.
• The Government of India have informed the other Governments of the Commonwealth of the intention of the Indian people that under the new constitution which is about to be adopted India shall become a sovereign independent republic. The Government of India have however declared and affirmed India’s desire to continue her full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations and her acceptance of The King as the symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.
• The Governments of the other countries of the Commonwealth, the basis of whose membership of the Commonwealth is not hereby changed, accept and recognise India’s continuing membership in accordance with the terms of this declaration.
• Accordingly the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon hereby declare that they remain united as free and equal members of the Commonwealth of Nations, freely co-operating in the pursuit of peace, liberty and progress.

...which pace O'Connell doesn't necessarily mean that India will continue to "owe a common allegiance to the Crown" after it has "become a sovereign independent republic".

Primary loyalty is to Free State Constitution

|- | Eamonn Duggan || ppaa || |Who is to say what oath our Army is to take? Ourselves. ... There is a lot of talk about the oath. I know the people are sick of lawyers' interpretations of the oath. What I suggest is that any plain ordinary man of average intelligence reading the oath can see there is only one oath of allegiance and that is to the Free State, and the only other thing in the oath is that you pledge yourself you will be faithful to the bond you are entering into, and that you recognise the King as head of the Commonwealth you are in.

The Labour Party over Christmas proposed as a compromise, rejected by de Valera:

Prior to this meeting it shall be agreed by both sides that, in the framing of the Constitution, the governing clause of the Constitution shall be 'that the legislative, executive, and judicial authority in Ireland is, and shall be, derived solely from the people of Ireland' All the acts of the Dail and the Provisional Government shall be determined by this clause, and the interim Government shall be subject to the assumption that the Constitution containing this clause becomes effective.

In these circumstances the form of oath in the Treaty would then imply 'allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State (or Saorstat Eireann) as by Law established'—such Law to be established by Dail Eireann : and the Constitution will be governed by this essentially republican clause. This meets the President's point on this particular question.

The Constitution hasn't even been written yet, so it's a pig in a poke

Lord Oranmore and Browne:

There is another point with regard to the Oath I am anxious to elucidate. The words begin: "I … do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established." What I am anxious to find out is what is the Constitution of the Irish Free State, and by what law will it be established.

Marquess of Salisbury:

I want to know about this Oath of Allegiance. What do the Irish leaders think about it? We do not know. We wait day after day. We hear there are discussions going on in Dail Eireann, secret discussions like the discussions in Downing Street, and the British people, of course, are not told. Perhaps at this moment Mr. de Valera is putting to Mr. Collins this question: "What precisely do you understand is the force of the Oath of Allegiance?" What I want, to know is what will the answer of Mr. Collins be, and that of his negotiators. Are they going to say: "Of course, it is an Oath but we look upon our allegiance to Ireland as coming in front of our faithfulness to the King, and you may make yourselves quite easy about that." Some of your Lordships may think I am over-suspicious, but we are asked to ratify this Agreement without knowing. Why should we not know first? Why should your Lordships be hustled in a few days into pledging yourselves to ratify what you do not understand and have no means of understanding?

But the king is in the constitution, so loyalty to the constitution is loyalty to the king in any case

This overlaps with "While the form of words might be similar, the underlying constitution was significantly different, therefore the nature of the oath was also different".

| Erskine Childers || ppaa || |As to the Oath I have to say very little. A great deal of importance is attached to it very naturally because so to speak it crystallises and symbolises a certain physical state of things—but only a very few people take the Oath, a hundred or two going to the legislative assembly. They are not more bound by the taking of that Oath than any of those sent into Parliament or any citizen of the Irish State or rather, I should say, a subject of King George's because under that Treaty every Irishman and every Irishwoman will be, don't mistake it, a subject of King George. But the Oath as I say sums up the position in a few words for those who are to go to the legislate [sic]. Every citizen of Ireland will be in this situation. He will be a subject of King George and he must be loyal and faithful to that authority which carries with it British authority or he must be a rebel to that authority. |P. J. Ruttledge || ppaa || |I say that your oath to the Constitution of the Irish Free State is an oath to Great Britain. |- |Thomas Hunter || ppaa || |as a Republican, I could never recognise the Government of George V. of England in either internal or external association.

Is the description of loyalty to the King as "in virtue of" common citizenship and Commonwealth membership an explanation or a restriction?

|Eoin O'Duffy || ppaa || |As regards to the form of oath it appears from most of the discussion, and so far as I am concerned, to be divided into two parts—the first part says we give allegiance to Ireland and the second part [241] we promise to be faithful to King George as head of the group of nations. I do not want to take an oath to any English king but I do say the first part neutralises the second. If you bear true allegiance to Ireland I say the rest has no meaning. You must first of all swear to be loyal to Ireland and I think the other matter is a mere form of words after that ... I recognise it as a stepping stone only, I regard it as not being final, otherwise I would be false to my oath and my country. |Austin Stack || ppaa || |this form of oath may be divided into two parts. In the first part you swear “true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established.” As the President has stated, according to the Constitution which will be sanctioned under that Parliament, it will be summoned by the representative of the King of England and Ireland and will acknowledge that King. I say even that part of the oath is nothing short of swearing allegiance to the head of that Constitution which will be the King. You express it again when you swear, “and that I will be faithful to His Majesty King George V., his heirs and successors by law.” That is clear enough, and I have no hesitation whatever in reading the qualifying words. I say these qualifying words in no way alter the text, or form, or effect of this oath, because what you do in that is to explain the reason why you give faith, why you pledge fealty to King George. You say it is in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and the meaning of that is that you are British subjects. ... If I, as I hope I will, try to continue to fight for Ireland's liberty, even if this rotten document be accepted, I will fight minus the oath of allegiance and to wipe out the oath of allegiance if I can do it. |- |Liam de Róiste || ppaa || |in conscience I am satisfied that the form of oath in the Treaty is not an oath of allegiance to an English monarch but is an oath of allegiance to Saorstát na hEireann. That oath in my view admits no right of an English King to be ruler of Ireland or head of the Irish State.

Lord Hugh Cecil:

What the meaning of the words "in virtue of" may be I do not know. I doubt if anyone does know.

Viscount Finlay:

What may be described by some people as a reason, by others as a qualification, is appended to the declaration of allegiance to His Majesty— "In virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations."

Lord Oranmore and Browne:

I have little faith in a qualified allegiance. I do not think allegiance can be qualified any more than virtue, and allegiance bears the same aspect with regard to qualified allegiance as a virtuous woman would with regard to a woman of moderate virtue.

in the latter case, is the commonality itself permanent? if not, then removing the commonality would obviate the oath

| Kevin O'Higgins || ppaa || |I say and [recte that] the fidelity in the Oath which we say will give to the King of England is contingent on England respecting to the full the terms of this Treaty. If she tries to infringe on those terms then, in so far as that Oath was taken at the cannon's mouth, its binding force disappears. |Eamonn Duggan || ppaa || |Members of Parliament are required to swear an Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State. This is the one thing absolutely clear about the Oath. They then say they will be faithful to the King and his successors, not absolutely and unconditionally, but by virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Gt. Britain and her adherence to the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth. That is the legal interpretation. It is the opinion of one of the lawyers working with us in connection with the delegation. |Gearóid O'Sullivan || ppaa || |We are told we will have to swear an Oath of Allegiance to the King of England. We have never heard of an oath of allegiance to individuals in this country. We always found these things very hard to swallow. I was enquiring for some friends what exactly this oath meant. You will be told if it means anything from a hundred other things, first it is an oath of allegiance to Ireland. When the Parliament of the new Government of Ireland is set up it will draw up its own constitution to which you are loyal and once said you will be faithful to the king because he is one of the contracting parties. Suppose this person said when a man gets married he promises to be faithful to his wife which is a very different thing from owning allegiance to her ... He explained to me according to English law if one party to the contract is unfaithful that a contract is dissolved. I do not know whether we are bound down in this Assembly to swear that at no future date will we divorce King George but I do know that we certainly cannot swear for the next generation or any other. |Arthur Griffith || ppaa ||

|Now, many criticisms, I know, will be levelled against this Treaty; one in particular, one that is in many instances quite honest, it is the question of the oath. I ask the members to see what the oath is, to read it, not to misunderstand or misrepresent it. It is an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the Free State of Ireland and of faithfulness to King George V. in his capacity as head and in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and the other nations comprising the British Commonwealth. That is an oath, I say, that any Irishman could take with honour. He pledges his allegiance to his country and to be faithful to this Treaty, and faithfulness after to the head of the British Commonwealth of Nations. If his country were unjustly used by any of the nations of that Commonwealth, or its head, then his allegiance is to his own country and his allegiance bids him to resist (hear, hear).

We took an oath to the Irish Republic, but, as President de Valera himself said, he understood that oath to bind him to do the best he could for Ireland. So do we. We have done the best we could for Ireland. If the Irish people say “We have got everything else but the name Republic, and we will fight for it,” I would say to them that they are fools, but I will follow in the ranks. I will take no responsibility. But the Irish people will not do that. |- |Kevin O'Higgins || ppaa || |Some call it an oath of allegiance. I do not know what it is. I can only speak of it in a negative way. It is not an oath of allegiance. There is a difference between faith and allegiance. Your first allegiance is to the Constitution of the Irish Free State and you swear faith to the King of England. Now faith is a thing that can exist between equals; there is, if I might coin a word, mutuality, reciprocity. It is contingent and conditional, and I hold if you had sworn allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State anything that follows on that is not absolute but conditional on your Constitution being respected, and conditional on the terms of the Treaty being adhered to. ... If we consider our rights are infringed, then we stand solely on our allegiance to the Constitution of the Free State, and nothing else. |- |Francis Ferran || ppaa || | You have the declaration or promise—a provisional promise, somebody said—fidelity to the present King of England. I never heard before of this kind of conditional partnership between a subject and his sovereign. That is certainly a new constitutional status. [skeptical] Charles Curtis Craig:

the Oath which is contained in this document is, as an Oath, not worth the paper on which it is printed. ... it is nothing more than a legalisation of treason under certain circumstances. ... That means to say, that if Sinn Fein passed a resolution, which I maintain she will do in a very few years, constituting herself a Republic, then these gentlemen who swear allegiance to the King are by the very Oath itself absolved from that allegiance.

Lord Hugh Cecil:

That suggests that there in the mind of Sinn Fein the possibility that allegiance to the Free State and allegiance to the King may point in different directions, and they have therefore accepted this form of Oath because it seems to provide that allegiance to the Free State is in any event to have precedence of allegiance to the King.

Sir John Butcher:

This formula means that so long, and so long only, as the Irish Free State adheres to the British Commonwealth of Nations, so long, and so long only, will a man who takes this oath be faithful to the King, and his fidelity is only by virtue of this adherence. There is not a word in the Treaty binding the Irish State to continue adherence to the British Commonwealth of Nations. If that be so, so far from this oath being any help to keep the allegiance of the Irish Free State, it is an absolute help to them becoming independent, because it will be open to them at any time to declare that they give up their adherence to the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the moment they give up that adherence their oath falls to the ground, and with an easy conscience, if they desire that help, they can declare their independence and set up an Irish Republic.

John Gretton:

In the first place, undoubtedly, the Free State will be established by some instrument which has been passed by the Imperial Parliament, but once the Dominions State has been set up, according to the terms of the Agreement, it will have unfettered power over its own legislation, administration, and the whole affairs of Southern Ireland, and there will be nothing to prevent the Irish Free State altering their constitution and declaring an Irish Republic, which will immediately bring this oath into conformity with the oath which the Sinn Fein representatives who are parties to this Agreement have already taken to an Irish Republic.

Duke of Northumberland:

It is obvious that if Ireland is a sovereign and independent State, which voluntarily enters into an association with our Commonwealth of Nations, it is perfectly easy for it to withdraw from that association whenever it pleases.

Lord Sydenham:

Instead we have a very ingenious formula, in which the rebel leaders promise only that they will be faithful to His Majesty so long as they belong to the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Viscount Sumner:

when you find, without precedent so far as I know, a dual obligation expressed in an Oath, ... what is to happen if a person who has taken this oath should think that there was a conflict between the two parts of it? What is to happen if the people who take this Oath, having already sworn allegiance to the Irish Republic some time ago, discover that there is a conflict between the allegiance to the Irish Free State and faithfulness to His Majesty, "in virtue" and so forth? Can they be accused of violating their Oaths if they prefer the Irish Free State to the rest of the Empire?

Marquess of Salisbury:

There are two limbs to the Oath of Allegiance in the Articles. The first is that of true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State, and the second of faithfulness to the King. What I want to know is this. Supposing, at a critical juncture of imperial history, the Irish leaders should consider that those two branches of the Oath were in conflict—that could never arise in the case of us or of the Dominions, because we simply bear true allegiance to His. Majesty—but supposing the Irish leaders thought that the two were in conflict, which is to prevail? I do not think we can doubt which is to prevail.

De Valera's proposed oath was little different from the Treaty oath

Difference too small to fight over

| Arthur Griffith || Pro || | I want to understand that the difference between us and the members of the Cabinet at home in the end was not the vital difference between the Republic and the Crown. It was a difference of the degree of recognition of the Crown; a difference between the degree of the Oath of Allegiance; and on that principle, that small difference to ask the people of Ireland to go back to war is a thing I will never do. |James Dolan || ppaa || |To my mind that Oath [sc. in the Treaty] is no different in substance to the oath suggested by our President when giving his last recommendation to these men going to the council chamber to tussle with the delegates of the British Empire. There is no difference in substance. There may be a difference in words and [recte as] we are told by the President here when he first spoke against the ratifications of this Treaty in this Assembly. We are told that the difference was very little, merely a shadow, but that he was prepared to make or break on that shadow. I put it to you, the representatives of the people of this country, are you prepared, as the Minister of Defence has said we will have to do, are you prepared to ask the men and women of Ireland to stand up and fight for— what?—for a shadow? For a quibble of words, I say, not for a principle. |Séamus Robinson || ppaa || |A great many clever men seem to think it is not an oath and others seem to think it is because Lloyd George himself seems to think it is. I am a Republican and I hope there remain Republicans—so many great men have changed I fear for myself too. Touching on the different documents, certainly I am not in love with Tweedledum or Tweedledee but still I believe there is a difference but it is not a difference worth fighting about. |- |Arthur Griffith || ppaa || | If you are going to have a form of association with the British Empire, call it what you will, you must have an oath; and such an oath was suggested and put before us and not rejected, and put before the plenipotentiaries when going back to London. The difference between these two oaths is the difference in the terms.

Baron Farnham:

the most important evidence of all comes from the organ of Sinn Fein. It says:— "The Oath is objectionable. It is the real crux. It is objectionable only because it implies association with the British Empire. In itself it is harmless, and as its primary allegiance is to the Irish Free State it is as weak an Oath as could be devised. But it was obvious from the beginning of the negotiations that the Oath of Allegiance, or association, would be the end of it; and this is an Oath of Association far more than it is an Oath of Allegiance. This Treaty will not settle the Irish question. Her destiny is to be an independent nation, not a member associated or otherwise with any Empire. The Irish Republican Brotherhood, which has been the political sheet anchor of Ireland since Stephens founded it more than sixty years ago, will go on."

Baron Farnham:

It is a great joy, apparently, that the enemies of the Empire have condescended to take an Oath of Allegiance to a Free State instead of to their King, but we hear not one sigh for those hundreds of thousands who throughout have been loyal to their King and have now to take an Oath of Allegiance to a Free State and give up their Oath of Allegiance to their King. ... Do they really think that a simple, if ungrammatical, formula for showing when an oath is not an oath is really going to represent for this country all the responsibility of governing a turbulent and hostile portion of the British Empire? We are told that the Free State is to be modelled on the Canadian Dominion. If so, why not the Oath also? I can think of only one reason, and that is to make secession more easy.

the most important evidence of all comes from the organ of Sinn Fein. It says:— "The Oath is objectionable. It is the real crux. It is objectionable only because it implies association with the British Empire. In itself it is harmless, and as its primary allegiance is to the Irish Free State it is as weak an Oath as could be devised. But it was obvious from the beginning of the negotiations that the Oath of Allegiance, or association, would be the end of it; and this is an Oath of Association far more than it is an Oath of Allegiance. This Treaty will not settle the Irish question. Her destiny is to be an independent nation, not a member associated or otherwise with any Empire. The Irish Republican Brotherhood, which has been the political sheet anchor of Ireland since Stephens founded it more than sixty years ago, will go on."

While the form of words might be similar, the underlying constitution was significantly different, therefore the nature of the oath was also different

This overlaps with "But the king is in the constitution, so loyalty to the constitution is loyalty to the king in any case". |Frank Fahy || ppaa || |the essential difference between the draft Treaty now before us for consideration and the alternative suggested by the President. The essential difference strikes me as that in one we were British subjects and in the other we are not. I maintain there is that difference in the Oath apart altogether from the matters of defence and the infringement of our rights by holding our harbours and the permission to England to use all the resources of the country in the matter of rail transit and other resources in case of war. | Éamon de Valera || ppaa || |It was said that they had only an oath to the British King in virtue of common citizenship, but you have an oath to the Irish Constitution, and that Constitution will be a Constitution which will have the King of Great Britain as head of Ireland. You will swear allegiance to that Constitution and to that King; and if the representatives of the Republic should ask the people of Ireland to do that which is inconsistent with the Republic, I say they are subverting the Republic. |Kathleen O'Callaghan || ppaa || |When I asked the question as to the nature of the oath, every legal man in this assembly, and many who were not legal or logical, tried to explain it. I still fail to see how in swearing an oath of allegiance to the Free State I can avoid King George. To my mind—and, as I said before, I am only a plain person—in swearing to the Constitution of the Irish Free State I cannot avoid him. He is in the Constitution. |- |Seán T. O'Kelly || ppaa ||

|Clause 4 of this Treaty lays down the form of oath that must be sworn by each individual Member of the Parliament of the Irish Free State. That path I cannot give a willing vote in favour of. I am not a British citizen or subject, and I could not, without injury to my own self-respect, willingly subscribe to an oath or declaration of fidelity to which I did not agree. In justification of my refusal to subscribe to that oath, I claim that it is a contradiction of the Constitution of the Sinn Fein Organisation to which we are all supposed to belong. It is a violation of our Manifesto.

I know that it will be claimed by other speakers that this oath is not an oath of allegiance to the King of England. For me, whether you describe it as an oath of allegiance or fidelity, or my word of honour, or even the vaguest undertaking, it is all the same, because the important thing is not so much the form of expression or declaration but the system of government which they are meant to typify. Government by Governor-General! Dominion status for Ireland! | Éamon de Valera || ppaa || |The word Constitution occurred in both these oaths. In one there was not a vestige of British authority left in Ireland, and in the other case, this oath of the Treaty is the oath in which the British King must be recognised as head of the Irish State. There is a tremendous difference, although the same words are used in both. |- | Mary MacSwiney || ppaa || |You say you take first and foremost an oath to the Constitution of the Irish Free State. Do you realise that it is an Irish Free State “as by law established,” and that that law is to be made in England? |- |Cathal Brugha || ppaa || |Now, this oath question came up before us and it was clear from what was said that we could not have unanimity on it. Therefore, so far as the Cabinet was concerned, it was dropped; and the President, so far as my recollection went, said something to the effect that, if nothing else was between us, he would be in favour of taking a certain oath and he spoke out some words. However, that was only his own personal opinion; so far as the Cabinet were concerned there could not be unanimity; and it was dropped.

|You swear to bear true allegiance to the Constitution of the Free State of Ireland as by law established; that is, in itself, if there was not a word about the King to follow, and there is—that, in itself, would be an Oath of Allegiance to the English King, because he would be the head of that Constitution.

In any case, De Valera's proposed Document 2 contained no oath at all

|- |Frank Fahy || ppaa || |Document No. 2 contains no oath whatever. |- |Edward Aylward || ppaa || |Not only do they become British subjects but they take an oath to a British King. ... The Deputy who first introduced this so-called alternative oath in Public Session gave the impression to the public that this oath was contained in the President's alternative proposals; and that Deputy knew absolutely and perfectly well that there was no oath contained in the alternative proposals. |- |Richard Corish || ppaa || |Now the last speaker has spoken of the oath; he said it was not in Document No. 2. I know that the oath was not in Document No. 2, but we have it in another record. The oath was mentioned at a Cabinet meeting and [300] President de Valera recited the oath to which he would agree; and one of the plenipotentiaries took it down across the table; owing to President de Valera's position as head of the nation I hold that the delegate had a right to interpret his views as to what the oath should be; and he took down the exact oath and in the exact words that the President used.

By law established

whose law?

Lord Oranmore and Browne:

There is another point with regard to the Oath I am anxious to elucidate. The words begin: "I … do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established." What I am anxious to find out is what is the Constitution of the Irish Free State, and by what law will it be established.

British Commonwealth of Nations, not British Empire

|Robert Barton || ppaa ||

|“Allegiance to the Constitution of Ireland, association of Ireland with the community of nations”. Now I have got “Com.” I don't know whether that means a Commonwealth of Nations or a Community of Nations. I don't know. “Association of the ‘Com’ of nations and recognition of the head of that ‘Com’ ”. Now the President gave another. My memory of it is that instead of a Community of Nations he said, “the head of that association” and after I got back to London I drafted this oath with Mr. Childers' assistance, “I do solemnly swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of Ireland and to the Treaty of Association of Ireland with the British Commonwealth of Nations and I recognise King George V as head of that Association”. Mr. Childers and I drafted that oath. Mr. Gavan Duffy came in later. He had been to Mass. We asked him whether he agreed with this and as far as I remember he said he did. We then met later, the other three members of the delegation coming in. There was some discussion then as to whether the oath should read, “Association” or “Associated States”, and it was changed to “Associated States”, but in my opinion the President said “Community of Nations” or “Commonwealth of Nations” or “Association” and nothing else.

He [de Valera] did not say King George V. I drafted that with Mr. Childers' assistance John Gretton:

The allegiance to the Throne is the bond that binds the British Empire together. This new Irish Free State is to be admitted as the one exception to that universal bond. What is the British Commonwealth of Nations? It does not exist. The Dominions beyond the seas have refused to submit to any constitutional change setting up a British Commonwealth of Nations. It has often been proposed to federate the British Empire, and to set up a Constitution in some form of Commonwealth, but it has always been refused. The Government have not been able to persuade the representatives of this new Irish Free State to swear allegiance to the Throne. They prefer allegiance to something else—allegiance to the Irish Free State, which is to be set up by an Act of this Imperial Parliament, and they swear fidelity to the King, as the President or the chief citizen of something which does not exist. Surely this is the most ridiculous and the least binding oath or form of oath that one could possibly conceive.

Lord Sydenham:

Instead we have a very ingenious formula, in which the rebel leaders promise only that they will be faithful to His Majesty so long as they belong to the British Commonwealth of Nations. It appears that the term "Empire" could not be used. Germany alone appears to remain an Empire after the war. Have we really come to be ashamed of the old title of the greatest and most beneficent achievement that our race has ever accomplished?

oath as specific deal-breaker

| Seán T. O'Kelly || Anti ||

|I am opposed to this Treaty for one specific reason—for one reason than will not allow me as an individual to give a vote in favour of it, and that is because there is in it an oath of allegiance to his Britannic Majesty. ... When I came up against the Treaty, immediately I read it in Paris ... and saw that the oath of allegiance was contained in that document, I felt bound to do everything I could as one individual to defeat the Treaty.

If President de Valera's document is not accepted by the Dáil or not accepted by the other side, I with the further threat of war as one individual would refuse to sign or give my vote to any agreed document which would include the oath of allegiance. |- |Cathal Brugha || ppaa || |With regard to the oath, I never agreed to take any oath and when the President made this suggestion of his own I said, “Nothing doing; there is going to be no unanimity on such an oath as that” | Erskine Childers || ppaa || |at the end of the discussion on the oath I expressly raised the point myself as to whether scrapping the oath in the British draft meant scrapping of the first four clauses of the British draft, that is to say the clauses setting out Dominion status. The answer was that of course the oath did, all the clauses went and Dominion status was scrapped. ...

clause 1 of the amendment does away with the King of Ireland altogether. Consequently they are not giving an oath to him as King of Ireland. |Constance Markiewicz || ppaa || |When I saw the first copy of the Treaty it came to me like a bolt from the blue. I had no more expected that the plenipotentiaries would have agreed to the Oath of Allegiance to the King of England than that I should have agreed to it myself. ... in that Treaty, you absolutely and deliberately by swearing an oath to the King of England, put the Republic behind you. You, as it were, pledge yourself to an authority other than the Irish Republic. In the document that the President puts forward there are many disagreeable things but there is no giving up of the Republican position. ... We in such a way ought to discuss the giving up of our ports and other things to England. But that is a totally different thing from swearing an oath of fealty to the English King and I say again that will never do. |Seán Etchingham || ppaa || |even if it were greater than this in the measure that has been given to us of local government I could not accept the Treaty so long as I had to swear an oath of allegiance to the British King. |- |Richard Hayes || ppaa || |I am firmly convinced of one thing regarding this Treaty, and it is this: but for the oath contained in it, ninety-nine per cent. of this Dáil would accept it, as a compromise at least. I say that the oath is just as unpalatable to those who are voting for the Treaty as it is to those who are voting against it. |- |Ada English || ppaa || |if this Treaty were forced on us by England—as it is being forced—and that paragraph 4, the one with the oath in it were omitted, we could accept it under force; but certainly, while those oaths are in it, oaths in which we are asked to accept the King of England as head of the Irish State, and we are asked to accept the status of British citizens—British subjects—that we cannot accept

Don't care about oath

|- |Lorcan Robbins || ppaa || |I do not care threepence about so-called oaths. I believe in ultimate Irish freedom. I am voting for the Treaty because we are getting an Irish army, and if we get an Irish army armed to the teeth, it is for England if she wants to take it back to take back the Treaty by force of arms; that is why I am voting for the Treaty. |- |Eoin O'Duffy || ppaa || |As regards the oath, I am no authority on these things, but I must say that my conscience is at ease on the matter. Until we secure an isolated Republic there will be some symbol or some form of connection with Britain. While there is there must be some form of oath or recognition, and we should not be wasting our time over any form of words which, when examined very carefully, will have more or less the same meaning. There will be always some form of recognition of his Brittanic Majesty until we get an isolated Republic.

Votes

At Westminster, a special session was called; at the State Opening of Parliament on 14 December 1921, the King's Speech was devoted entirely to the agreement. The vote of thanks on the speech was passed on 16 December, by 401 votes to 58 in the Commons and 166 votes to 45 in the Lords. The agreement was given force of law by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922 on 31 March 1922, and formally ratified under the Irish Free State (Constitution) Act 1922 on 5 December 1922.

The Dáil vote on the Treaty on 7 January 1922 was passed by 64 to 57 with 3 abstentions. Article 18 of the treaty required ratification by "a meeting summoned for the purpose of the members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland". This meeting was held on 14 January 1922, attended by 60 of the 64 pro-Treaty TDs and by the four members returned at the 1921 election for the University of Dublin, who as unionists had not recognised the Dáil. The anti-Treaty TDs boycotted the meeting, which ratified the Treaty and appointed a Provisional Government under Michael Collins.

Constitution

See also: Constitution of the Irish Free State

On 16 January, the British administration began the handover to the Provisional Government by transferring Dublin Castle. The Provisional Government established a committee to draft a Constitution, which would be enacted by the Dáil and Westminster. The first draft was intended to conciliate anti-Treatyites and did not make explicit reference to the Oath. Although the Free State's Executive Council would be made up of Oireachtas members, there was provision for Extern Ministers, outside the Oireachtas and hence not Treaty-bound to take the Oath. This would facilitate anti-Treaty ministers joining a national unity government. The British government rejected this draft as not safeguarding the terms of the Treaty. The Provisional Government made concessions. On 16 June, a modified draft agreed with the British was published; a general election the same day provided the TDs of the Third Dáil, initially a "Provisional Parliament" or "Constituent Assembly". It had a pro-Treaty majority and the Provisional Government continued in office. Members were not required to take any oath; nevertheless the anti-Treaty TDs were abstentionist.

The IRA split over the Treaty into the "National Army" of the nascent Free State and the anti-Treaty IRA dubbed "Irregulars" by the Free State. Anti-Treaty officers held a convention in March 1922 which established an Army Council to which volunteers had to swear an oath of loyalty; de Valera viewed this as incompatible with the Dáil oath and tantamount to a military coup. The Irish Civil War broke out on 26 June between the National Army and the Irregulars.

The Constituent Assembly finalised the Constitution, making amendments to the Provisional Government's draft. Article 17, specifying the Oath, was agreed without amendment on 3 October. Kevin O'Higgins, moving for its adoption, said "it is not a particularly pleasing task to stand over it, and it is not a pleasant task to submit it here to an Irish Assembly. We would much like if the necessity for so submitting to it did not exist". An amendment proposed by George Gavan Duffy to make the oath optional was defeated. On 25 October, one of the final amendments to the draft Constitution was to Article 55, to require the Oath of Extern Ministers. That day, the Dáil passed the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act. This contained the text of the Constitution and the text of the Treaty as schedules, and stated that the Treaty took precedence over the Constitution. The Irish Free State (Constitution) Act was approved at Westminster, by the Commons on 29 November and the Lords on 4 December. The British Act said the Irish Act would come into force when given Royal Proclamation. The British Act was given Royal Assent on 5 December.

Implementation

On 6 December 1922, the UK Privy Council met in London and George V signed the Proclamation which brought the Constitution into effect and the Irish Free State into being. A document, Instructions to the Governor General of the Irish Free State, was sent from Buckingham Palace to Dublin; it specified that the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland was to administer to the incoming Governor-General both an Oath of Allegiance and his specific Oath of Office. Thus, T. M. Healy was sworn in at his home in Chapelizod by Sir Thomas Molony. Healy's oath of allegiance was not the Oireachtas Oath: in accordance with Article 3 of the 1921 Treaty, it matched the Canadian Oath of Allegiance.

Healy's first act was to administer the Oireachtas Oath to Michael Hayes, the outgoing Ceann Comhairle of the Provisional Assembly, and authorise Hayes to administer the oath on his behalf. Under Article 81, the Third Dáil could continue as the Dáil of the Free State only if TDs took the Oath. The non-abstentionist TDs assembled at 5.15 pm. The Governor-General was not present and the public gallery was closed. Starting with W. T. Cosgrave and then his ministers, TDs one by one spoke the oath to Hayes and "subscribed" to it by signing the book in which it was written. Immediately afterwards, a statement on behalf of the Labour Party was read by its leader Thomas Johnson:

In conforming to clause 17 of the Constitution we follow the practice of the political parties of the workers in all countries where Capitalism is the established order, whether it works through the institutions of a Monarchy or through the Institutions of a Republic. We recognise the act of taking an “Oath of Allegiance” as a formality, a condition of Membership of the Legislature, implying no obligation other than the ordinary obligation of every person who accepts the privileges of citizenship. ... The terms of the Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland signed on the 6th December, 1921, and the clauses of the Constitution conditioned by that Treaty concerning the relations between Great Britain and Ireland are accepted by us, as they are accepted by the people generally, under protest, having been imposed upon Ireland by the threat of superior force, and were not freely determined by the people of Ireland or their representatives. We make our Declaration of Allegiance intending to fulfil our pledge, with the proviso that if at any time it shall be deemed wise and expedient by the people of Ireland in the exercise of their sovereign right to denounce the Treaty or alter or amend the Constitution, in any respect whatever, nothing in our Declaration of Allegiance shall be a barrier to our freedom of action. We desire further to record that in promising to be faithful to King George V. and his successors we also promise to be equally faithful to the men and women of all nations whether they be rulers or subjects, heads of States or plain citizens.

Next, Hayes was re-elected Ceann Comhairle. From then until 24 July 1923, Dáil oaths would be administered by the Ceann Comhairle on behalf of the Governor-General.

Patrick Gaffney had been returned at the 1922 election for the Labour Party, but left to join the Communist Party of Ireland in protest over the oath. He participated in the Third Dáil when it met in September, but withdrew when the Constitution came into effect, and never took the oath.

Seanad Éireann, the Free State's upper house, first met at 12.15 pm on 11 December. The Senators were administered the oath by Eamonn Duggan, who was a TD rather than a Senator. Four absent Senators took the Oath from Duggan the following day. The Cathaoirleach was elected later that day, and it was he who subsequently administered the oath to new Senators.

The anti-Treaty IRA lost the Civil War in 1923. Its Chief of Staff, Frank Aiken, ordered a ceasefire on 30 April 1923. De Valera and the IRA was prepared to decommission its weapons if the Government met several conditions, one of which was removal of the Oath; it refused. On 24 May 1923 Aiken ordered the IRA to "dump arms", but not to surrender or decommission them.

The Gaelic Athletic Association had in 1918 introduced a ban on its members' taking an oath of allegiance to the British crown, in response to the requirement for such an oath imposed on UK civil servants under the Defence of the Realm Act. In 1922, the ban was quietly dropped, so as not to affect Free State legislators.

Under the Electoral Act 1923, candidates who were elected to the Dáil did not have their deposit returned until they had taken the oath. Payment of members began when they "took ... the oath", with an exemption for absences due to "illness or ... some other involuntary and innocent cause". The standing orders of the Dáil were amended on 24 July 1923, such that the clerk of the Dáil took responsibility for ensuring TDs took the oath. "The suggestion of Professor Keith that [the 1927 constitutional amendment providing for the automatic return without election of the outgoing Ceann Comhairle] was designed to save from opposition the member on whom was incumbent the unpopular duty of administering the oath is clearly without foundation, since the latter function is performed not by the Ceann Comhairle, but by the Clerk of the House." The oath was thereafter administered, not by speaking it aloud in the chamber, but by signing a register in the clerk's office. The date when this occurred after a general election would be before the day the new Dáil first assembled. In the Senate, with more former Unionist members, the oath continued to be taken in the Chamber till 1928. It changed its standing orders after that year's triennial election, at which the first Fianna Fáil senators were returned, and before the new session in which they would sit. The Dáil nominated half the candidates for the 1925 Senate election; the rules it agreed beforehand provided that only members who had taken the oath could participate in the nomination process.

The Executive Council in 1925 established a committee to review the Constitution and propose amendments. The committee chose to exclude from its deliberations Commonwealth relations and provisions necessitated by the 1921 Treaty, including the oath.

A 1931 Constitutional amendment provided that the Executive Council could nominate, without a by-election, a replacement for an Oireachtas member who had been assassinated or kidnapped; such a replacement was required to take the oath as for elected members.

Other official oaths

The two Governors-General after Healy took the same two oaths as he had; an Oath of Allegiance:

I .............................. do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to His Majesty, etc. his heirs and successors according to Law. So help me God.

and a separate Oath of Office:

I .............................. do swear that I will well and truly serve His Majesty, etc. in the office of ................................. So help me God.'

In 1928 James McNeill was sworn in at Leinster House, taking the oaths in both English and Irish. As the office of Lord Chief Justice had been abolished, these oaths were administered by the Chief Justice of the Free State, Hugh Kennedy. In late 1932, De Valera wanted to dismiss McNeill and have Kennedy act as Governor-General until a successor was appointed. However, Kennedy would have been required to take the same Oaths to serve as acting Governor General, which he refused to do. [zzz McMahon 1982 doubts this since CJ oaths already taken were similar to GG's] So, to minimise the interregnum, McNeill was permitted to stay longer in office and resign rather than be dismissed. The role of the third and final Governor-General, Domhnall Ua Buachalla, was deliberately circumscribed; he took the oaths in the living room of his brother's house.

Republican internees ending a hunger strike in November 1923 had to sign an oath to be released. Those who refused were held for longer, from a few months up to 1926.

Irish barristers prior to independence were appointed "King's Counsel" (KC). The barrister received a patent of precedence awarded by royal prerogative, and took an Oath of Allegiance to the King. After the Courts of Justice Act 1924, the patent was awarded by the Chief Justice and no oath was made; the title was officially "Senior Counsel" though some continued to use "King's Counsel". In 1937, the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act transferred the prerogative from the King to the government. The title "KC" still had some usage till the Republic of Ireland Act took effect in 1949.

The oaths taken by public servants did not mention the monarch, but did mention the state and constitution.

The 1923 Defence Forces oath was to

bear true faith and allegiance to our country and faithfully serve and defend her against all her enemies whomsoever.

Leo Kohn characterised the absence of reference to the Crown as "forcibly exemplif[ying]" "Irish insistence on the internal sovereignty of the Free State". The revised 1924 oath was to

bear true faith and allegiance to, and against all enemies whomsoever, defend, Saorstát Eireann and its Constitution as by law established and ... render good and true service and obedience to the Oireachtas and Government of Saorstát Eireann under the Constitution.

This was replaced in 1937 with oaths beginning "I will be faithful to Ireland and loyal to the Constitution".

The Garda Síochána oath was to

render good and true service and obedience to Saorstát Eireann and its constitution and government as by law established

This remains in force, adapted for the 1937 constitution.

The Courts of Justice Act, 1924, specified for judges:

I ... do solemnly and sincerely before God promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my skill and power execute the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (or President of the High Court, or Judge of the Supreme Court or of the High Court or of the Circuit Court or Justice of the District Court as the case may be) of Saorstát Eireann without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann as by law established.

This was superseded by the oath specified in Article 34.5 of the 1937 constitution, though not formally repealed until 1961.

The 1925 oath for local government officials:

I, the said A.B., do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I will bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its constitution as by law established and that, in the event of such appointment being (or whether such increase is or is not as the case may require) confirmed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I will to the best of my judgment and ability duly and faithfully perform the duties of the (or my as the case may require) said office and will observe and obey such orders and directions in relation to such duties as shall lawfully be given to me.

This was repealed in 1933, retroactive to 9 March 1932, the day the first Fianna Fáil government took office.

During the 1922 transition period, in the lead-up to the Civil War, both the Provisional Government under Michael Collins and the parallel Dáil ministry under Arthur Griffith required an oath of fidelity from their respective civil servants:

I have not taken part with, or aided or abetted in any way whatsoever the forces in revolt against the Irish Provisional Government and I promise to be faithful to that government and to give no aid or support of any kind to those who are engaged in conflict against the authority of that government’.

Seán Lemass, on the Local Government (No 2) Bill, 1927:

I think I am correct in saying that at one period they publicly advocated the acceptance of the Treaty on the grounds that the Oath section in the Treaty would only be applicable to members of the Executive Council. The second milestone was reached when it became necessary to impose that Oath upon every member of the Oireachtas. Then they went further, and a declaration similar to the Oath was imposed on public servants. The next step they came to was to impose that declaration on the employees of Local Government boards. If they keep going on in that direction it will soon be necessary to take a declaration before it is possible to live in the State at all.

A. Berriedale Keith in a 1932 letter to The Scotsman: "Mr. Cosgrave was permitted to eliminate the Crown's connection with the Free State's army and Civil Service and other aspects of government".

In 1930, the government was considering the introduction of legislation to regulate Irish nationality. John J. Hearne of the Department of External Affairs commented on a draft Nationality Bill in 1930:

It would not be possible for us to confer a Commonwealth-wide status on persons naturalised under our law unless the conditions to be satisfied and the procedure to be complied with were substantially the same here as elsewhere throughout the Commonwealth. Presumably, however, the form of oath (if any) to be taken by applicants for naturalisation in Saorstát Éireann could not be the form contained in the Second Schedule to the Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914. It is suggested that if any oath is prescribed it will be an oath of fidelity to the Constitution of Saorstát Éireann or of fidelity to Saorstát Éireann.

In the event, the first Irish Nationality Act would not be introduced until 1935, after the Oireachtas oath had been abolished; the declaration made was

solemnly declare that I freely accept citizenship of Saorstát Eireann, and that I will obey the laws of Saorstát Eireann and faithfully fulfil all my duties as a citizen of Saorstát Eireann.

Notes and queries

Re-take oath after re-election

The original requirement was to re-subscribe after each election; did that end before the 1933 abolition?

• When the Dáil reconvened after the August 1923 general election, its resolution nominating the Executive Council specified that Eoin MacNeill, who was abroad at the time, would be Minister for Education "when he will have complied with Article 17 of the Constitution"; this even though MacNeill had already taken the oath in the previous Dáil.
• 1923-07-24 new S.O.1:

  When all the returns to writs issued for a General Election to Dáil Eireann shall have come into the hands of the Clerk of the Dáil he shall issue notices to all Teachtai returned, notifying them that their attendance is required on a day (or days) to be named by him, which shall be prior to that mentioned in the Proclamation for the summoning of the Dáil, for the purpose of complying with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution

Wording of Dáil record of subscriptions

• 1922-12-06 election "The Deputies took and subscribed the Oath in the following order"
• 1923-09-19 election "The following Deputies have complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution"
• 1924-06-11 LIMERICK DEPUTY TAKES HIS SEAT. "AN CEANN COMHAIRLE Deputy Richard O'Connell has complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution, and he can, therefore, take his seat."
• 1924-11-26 DEPUTY TAKES HIS SEAT. "I have to announce to the Dáil that Deputy Denis McCullough has complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution and he may, therefore, take his seat."
  • previous section NEW MEMBERS
• 1924-12-02 NEW DEPUTY TAKES HIS SEAT. "AN CEANN COMHAIRLE Deputy Michael K. Noonan has complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution and may therefore take his seat."
• 1925-03-18 RETURNS TO WRITS

  AN CEANN COMHAIRLE The Clerk will now read the returns to Writs issued.

  The Clerk read the following:— [...]

  AN CEANN COMHAIRLE: The following Deputies have complied with the conditions of Article 17 of the Constitution:—Deputies Tierney, Conlon, Leonard, Bolger, Roddy and O'Reilly. Those Deputies may now take their seats.

  Deputies Tierney, Conlon, Leonard, Bolger, Roddy and O'Reilly took their seats in the Dáil.

• 1926-02-23 Teachtaí Nua (New Members).

  The CLERK In compliance with Standing Order 121, I have to report that the following members have been elected to serve in the Dáil for the undermentioned constituencies:—

  William Norton, Baile Atha Cliath (Dublin).

  James Dwyer, Laoighis agus Ifáilghe (Leix-Offaly).

  AN CEANN COMHAIRLE Deputy Norton has complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution and may therefore take his seat.

• 1926-02-24 DEPUTY TAKES HIS SEAT. "AN CEANN COMHAIRLE I have to announce that Deputy Dwyer has complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution, and he can, therefore, take his seat."
• 1926-03-23 DEPUTY TAKES HIS SEAT. "AN CEANN COMHAIRLE Deputy Séan Mac Curtáin has complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution and can, therefore, take his seat."
• 1927-01-25 DEPUTY TAKES HIS SEAT. "AN CEANN COMHAIRLE Deputy Daniel Breen has complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution and may now take his Seat."
• 1927-06-23 general election "AN CLEIREACH The following are the names of Deputies who have complied with the provisions of Article 17"
• 1927-07-26 DEPUTY TAKES HIS SEAT. "AN CEANN COMHAIRLE announced that Deputy Patrick Belton had complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution."
• 1927-08-12 NEW DEPUTIES TAKE THEIR SEATS. "The Clerk reported that the following Deputies had complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution:"
• 1928-04-18 NEW DEPUTY. "Mr. VINCENT RICE, member for the constituency of North Dublin, was introduced to the Ceann Comhairle by Mr. Eamon Duggan (Parliamentary Secretary to the President) amidst applause. ... Mr. RICE took his seat."
• 1930-12-11 New Deputy. "Mr. Thomas Finlay member for the constituency of Dublin County, was introduced to the Ceann Comhairle by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President (Mr. E. Duggan) and took his seat."
• 1930-06-18 New Deputy. "Mr. James Geoghegan, member for the constituency of Longford-Westmeath, was introduced to the Ceann Comhairle by Deputy Gerald Boland and took his seat."
• 1931-07-01 New Deputy Takes His Seat. "Mr. Thomas Harris, member for the constituency of Kildare, was introduced to the Ceann Comhairle by Deputy Gerald Boland and took his seat."

Cross-reference List of Dáil by-elections. Summary: Where some election winners are FF, clerk reads return first, then CC says who "complied with the provisions" After initial FF 1927 influx, no mention of compliance when introducing new member.

Wording of Seanad record of subscriptions

• 1922-12-11 "The Senators took and subscribed the Oath in the following order"
• 1923-03-15 NEW SENATOR. "Mr. William Cummins took and subscribed the Oath."
• 1923-12-12 NEW SENATOR SWORN. "Mr. Thomas Foran took the oath and subscribed the Roll of Membership."
• 1923-12-19 NEW SENATOR SWORN. "Mr. S.L. BROWN, K.C., took the oath and subscribed the roll."
• 1925-03-18 INTRODUCTION OF NEW SENATOR

  AN CATHAOIRLEACH: I propose that for the future, in the case of a Senator who is taking his seat for the first time, either the Senator who has nominated him or another Senator, at his request, should escort the new Senator to the stairs when he comes up for the purpose of taking the oath. I think that would be a convenience to the new Senator in many ways. Any Senator now desirous of taking the oath will please come to the table.

  Mr. John O'Neill, the newly-elected Senator, was then escorted by Senator Dowdall to the table, where the oath was administered by the Cathaoirleach

• 1925-12-09 SENATORS SWORN IN. "CATHAOIRLEACH: Senators desirous of taking the Oath will please come to the Table. / The following Senators then took the Oath and subscribed the Roll" [includes outgoing Senators]
• 1925-12-14 SWEARING IN OF SENATOR. "Mr. J.J. PARKINSON took the oath and subscribed the Roll as Senator."
• 1926-02-11 NEW SENATOR. "Senator S.L. Brown, K.C., took and subscribed the oath."
• 1927-02-02 NEW SENATOR SWORN. "Mr. Patrick Joseph Brady took and subscribed the Oath."
• 1927-03-30 SENATOR TAKES HIS SEAT. "Mr. Patrick Joseph Hooper took and subscribed the oath."
• 1928-03-14 NEW SENATOR. "Sir Walter Nugent, having taken the Oath, subscribed his name to the roll of Senators."
• 1928-11-28 PRIVATE BUSINESS. - NEW STANDING ORDERS

  LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH I beg to move:—

  That the following new Standing Orders be inserted before Standing Order No. 1:—

  1. The next ensuing triennial period of the Seanad shall be reckoned as commencing on the 6th December, 1928.

  2. After the Return showing the result of a triennial election to the Seanad has been duly received by the Clerk of the Seanad from the Seanad Returning Officer, each newly-elected Senator desiring to comply with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution may at any time within the prescribed period communicate his desire to the Clerk of the Seanad who shall make all necessary arrangements for that purpose.

  3. The Clerk shall summon a meeting of the Seanad for 3 p.m. on the first Wednesday occurring after the 5th day of December at the beginning of each triennial period. So soon as a quorum is present and prayers have been read the Senators present shall in the absence of the Cathaoirleach elect one of the members of the panel of Senators appointed under Standing Order No. 3 to preside, and should neither be available the Seanad shall appoint one of their number to preside; the proceedings shall be opened by the Clerk at the Table reading the names of the Senators duly returned at the preceding triennial election in the order of their election.

  4. The Seanad shall then proceed to the election of a Cathaoirleach.

• 1928-12-12 SENATORS ELECTED AT TRIENNIAL ELECTION. "The Clerk read the names of the nineteen Senators duly elected at the Seanad Triennial Election, 1928, in the order of their election, as follows"

1927-05-11 CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION. "to the Constitution, and have failed to comply with the provisions of Article 17 thereof, obtaining"

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN asked the President if he can state whether his attention has been drawn to a statement attributed to the Minister for External Affairs and published in the Irish Press on the 8th March, 1927, wherein that Minister is reported as having declared to the effect that in the eventuality of members of certain political parties in the Saorstát, who heretofore have refused allegiance to the Constitution, and have failed to comply with the provisions of Article 17 thereof, obtaining a majority amongst the elected representatives of the next Dáil, the present Government would have no option but to make way for them, whether such statement represents the considered opinion of the Executive Council, and if he can further indicate the existence of constitutional machinery enabling the Executive Council to make a transfer of function to such persons, while preserving the unity of the Oireachtas.

William T. Cosgrave The PRESIDENT I have not read the statement. The Dáil is summoned to meet after the General Election. The Constitution provides for the nomination and appointment of a President of the Executive Council and Ministry. It will be for that Ministry to answer for any situation which may confront it. It is not any part of my duty to solve difficulties which may confront other political parties in the improbable eventuality of the electorate returning a majority for breaking the Treaty.

Fianna Fáil enters the Dáil

[zzz expand from Ó Beacháin 2010]

Sinn Féin's anti-Treaty republicans contested the 1923 Free State election but did not take their seats. This abstentionism was not specifically due to the Oath, but rather because they denied the legitimacy of the state. In 1925, Sinn Féin's Standing Committee secretly authorised its President, Éamon de Valera, to treat abandoning abstention from the Dáil as an "open question" if the oath were abolished. De Valera was receiving legal advice from George Gavan Duffy, who in July 1922 had resigned in disillusion from the Provisional Government, and moral guidance from Peter Magennis and John Hagan, Irish Catholic clerics based in Rome. In 1926, de Valera brought a motion to the Sinn Féin ard fheis proposing that if the Oath was removed, the party's abstention would be a matter "not of principle but of policy". The motion was defeated by 223 votes to 218, and de Valera and other leading anti-Treaty Republicans left the party and in March 1926 formed Fianna Fáil. In his inaugural address to the party, de Valera imagined a neutral observer of the Free State's politics, in which "nearly one half of the electorate was shut out from having an effective voice in determining its rulers, and that fully two thirds was opposed in spirit to the existing regime"; the observer "would have no difficulty in tracing the anomaly to its source, the oath of allegiance to a foreign power acquiesced in by the majority under the duress of an external threat of war".

In the June 1927 election, 44 Fianna Fáil TDs were elected, compared to 46 for the governing Cumann na nGaedheal and just 5 for Sinn Féin. Fianna Fáil's TDs attempted to enter the Dáil, having received legal advice that they could not be kept out; nevertheless, the clerk refused to let them in unless they took the Oath. Cumann na nGaedheal governed on under W. T. Cosgrave. On 1 July, Fianna Fáil began gathering signatures for an initiative (permitted under Article 48 of the Constitution) to remove the oath of allegiance. On 10 July 1927, Kevin O'Higgins, Vice-President of the Executive Council, was assassinated by IRA dissidents. The government line against Republicanism hardened. Patrick Belton took the oath on 26 July, and was expelled from Fianna Fáil. The government introduced the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill requiring all candidates for Dáil elections to promise that they would take the Oath if elected: breach of this undertaking would disqualify a person from standing for election for five years, and a seat not taken up within two months would be forfeited. Fianna Fáil lodged a protest under Article 47 of the Constitution, whereby 40% of TDs could demand a controversial Bill be put to referendum. The government responded with a bill to amend the Constitution to prevent TDs who had not taken the oath from making such protests, and to abolish the provision of initiatives. The government also introduced a Public Safety bill, giving it sweeping emergency powers, under which a party which refused to take the oath might be banned as seditious.

External images
Cumann na nGaedheal posters at the 1932 election deriding Fianna Fáil's 1927 U-turn on the oath
The hen that took 5 years to lay an egg and then it was empty
The dead who died for an "Empty Formula" Was it worth it?

On 5 August 1927, faced with total exclusion from Constitutional politics, Fianna Fáil TDs met to discuss "the question as to whether our commitments were such that they precluded us even in the present emergency from deviating from our former line of action and the strict letter of our pledges with respect to non-subscription to the Free State formula for entry into the Free State Parliament". Paddy Smith recalled in 1977 how De Valera persuaded TDs one by one, finally asking "if members believed that the Free State formula must, in the conditions of the future, be subscribed to by those who are going to remove it, did they think we should do it now rather than leave it to others?" All except Frank Carney said yes. On 9 August party's Ard Comhairle (executive committee) agreed by 44 votes to 9 to give TDs "a free hand" on the question. A notice published in the press communicated these developments, adding:

It has, however, been repeatedly stated, and it is not uncommonly believed, that the required declaration is not an oath; that the signing of it implies no contractual obligation, and that it has no binding significance in conscience or in law; that, in short, it is merely an empty political formula [...]

Even while Fianna Fáil were abstentionist, the Cumann na nGaedheal government lacked a working majority in the Dáil. Although Fianna Fáil still felt precluded from participating in a government of the Free State, it was prepared to give confidence and supply support to a minority government composed of Labour and the National League Party, provided they agreed to abolish the Oath. (Frank Munger says they agreed only to open negotiations with the UK on amending the Treaty for abolition.) On 11 August 1927, the Fianna Fáil TDs went to Leinster House. The Irish Times reported the following day that the whips were first to arrive, at 11am, and were introduced to the clerk of the Dáil by the Labour and National League leaders; TDs arrived "in twos and threes" ending with de Valera, Martin Corry, and James Ryan at 1.35; all had left by 2pm, "their coming and going [having] passed almost unnoticed". Most later accounts of what happened in the clerk's room were provided by de Valera himself. According to these, he was first of his party to sign: first he read out a declaration in Irish and English, then he moved the Bible to the far side of the room, covered the words of the oath, and signed his name on the roll. Frank Aiken said de Valera vowed "that the Clerk would live to see the Book containing our signatures burnt publicly on the beach". When the Dáil met the following day, the clerk informed the Dáil that the TDs (namess listed alphabetically) "had complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution". De Valera sought advice from a number of people including Michael Browne, then professor of moral theology at Maynooth, who wrote "If the swearer makes public the sense in which he swears the oath and is allowed to swear then ... he is bound only in this sense and to this extent". Dorothy Macardle resigned as Fianna Fáil's director of publicity, saying "I can have nothing to do with asking Irish men and women to take that oath", although she remained a supporter of the party. Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington broke fully from Fianna Fáil over the "lapse from Republican principles & traditions".

De Valera had said in the campaign for the June election that those who took the oath not meaning to keep it were "nothing less than perjurers"; Cumann na nGaedheal quoted this against his new contention that Fianna Fáil's compliance had been merely pro forma. Daniel Mannix, the Irish-born Roman Catholic archbishop of Melbourne, defended de Valera's claim that he had not taken an oath, saying he had "no more told a falsehood than I would if I sent down word to an unfortunate visitor than I was not at home." De Valera had visited the United States before the election, and his action regarding the oath was endorsed there, after some hesitation, by the Ancient Order of Hibernians and the Association for the Recognition of the Irish Republic. In 1932, De Valera explained his actions in the Dáil:

What was the situation at the time? The situation was this. In order that the oath would not matter to the people they told them—and you all know it—all these years that there was no oath at all, that it was not an oath. Believing that “I swear” would mean an oath, I said, in my opinion, it was an oath. My view was that it was an oath. But the Deputies opposite had said quite differently. They said that it was not, that it was a mere formality —they used the words long before I used them—and had no binding significance whatever, that anyone could take it, and that it meant nothing. I asked myself whether in a crisis like that I would be justified in staying outside if it were, in fact, true that this thing was a mere formality. I could only find out in one way. In order that the people's attention should not be attracted to it, instead of taking the oath—as they would have done, if they dared to stand over it as a thing the Irish people would stand for—publicly, as in other Parliaments, they hid it away in a back room, hid it away out of sight, so that the public could not know what it was. I said that at least we were entitled to find out. We published a declaration and here is the original document, signed by every member, in which we stated our attitude. The attitude was in fact this: the majority party of that time held that this was no oath at all; we are going to put it to the test. In order that our coming in here might not be misrepresented we made a public declaration as to what our intentions were. When we came to take this so-called oath I presented this document to the officer in charge and told him that that was our attitude— there were witnesses present for every word—that this was our attitude; that we were not prepared to take an oath. I have here the original document written in pencil, and in Irish of the statement I made to the officer who was supposed to administer the oath. I said: “I am not prepared to take an oath. I am not going to take an oath. I am prepared to put my name down in this book in order to get permission to go into the Dáil, but it has no other significance.” There was a Testament on the table and in order that there could be no misunderstanding I went and I took the Testament and put it over and said: “You must remember I am taking no oath.” That has been done by every member of our Party and it has been said that it conformed with Article 17.

Ronan Fanning comments:

To de Valera's opponents, as indeed to neutral observers, the episode might have the air of a charade, if not of a farce. Well might they ask why what could be treated as an empty formula in 1927 could not have been so treated in 1922? But de Valera's object, as always, was to sustain his supporters, not placate his opponents. However tortuous his reasoning, it enabled him to save face by rejecting the hated oath, so retaining the mass of republican support Fianna Fáil had won in the election. What mattered was not the ritual of reservation but the reality of participation.

David McCullagh suggests a foreshadowing of the 1927 prevarication occurred in the buildup to the 1916 Rising, when de Valera, an Irish Volunteers officer, reluctantly and contingently sworn into the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) to preclude IRB officers countermanding his orders.

Sinn Féin ceased standing for election after the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Act. When giving evidence in the Sinn Féin Funds case in 1948, de Valera began by disputing the claim made by Sinn Féin's lawyer that Fianna Fáil had taken the oath in 1927. Judge Theodore Conyngham Kingsmill Moore pointed out that the question was not relevant to the case, but nevertheless allowed de Valera to give a lengthy explanation. In 1951, the fourth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary added an entry for Fianna Fáil, defined as "Eamon de Valera's party, which took the oath and entered the Dáil Éireann in August 1927". This came to de Valera's attention in 1956, and he complained to Oxford University Press, stating "No oath was taken, nor was an oath demanded by the official in charge, and many witnesses are available to prove this." The 1958 reprint of the Dictionary changed the definition, making no reference to the oath.

Abolition

Early proposals

The Labour Party supported abolition of the oath in principle, but did not make it a central plank of its election manifestos and did not raise the issue in the Oireachtas. Before the 1923 general election, William O'Brien proposed that republican TDs should take their seats provided that the oath were abolished and Civil War prisoners released; Margaret Pearse vetoed the idea. Clann Éireann's manifesto in the June 1927 general election included abolishing the oath.

In 1925, the Irish Boundary Commission, established under Article 12 of the 1921 Treaty, proved so controversial that the Irish and British governments agreed to suppress its report. Negotiations were held to make the consequent amendments to the Treaty. During these, the Irish government argued for amending Article 4 to make the oath optional, saying that, without the extra TDs that had been expected from territories ceded to the Free State by the boundary commission, the Dáil needed to admit the abstentionist Sinn Féin TDs to reach a workable size. The British rejected this argument. Comhairle na dTeachtaí, Sinn Féin's symbolic anti-Treaty assembly, debated entering the Dáil in order to vote against ratifying the 1925 Treaty amendments, but ultimately voted not to do so. This foreshadowed the ensuing split with Fianna Fail. William Magennis left Cumann na nGaedheal in protest at the Boundary Commission and founded Clann Éireann, which sat in the Oireachtas but stood for abolishing the oath. By the time of the next general election, Clann Éireann had been eclipsed by the formation of Fianna Fáil.

The instructions issued to the first Governor-General in 1922 required him to disallow any Act contrary to the 1921 Treaty, by withholding royal assent. The right of disallowance was withdrawn from governors general as a recommendation of the 1926 Imperial Conference and explicitly by the Statute of Westminster 1931, implicitly rescinding the 1922 instruction.

Dan Breen, elected in 1923 as an independent Republican, took his seat in January 1927. On 6 April 1927, supported by James Everett and David Hall of the Labour Party, Breen introduced a private member's bill to delete Article 17 of the Constitution. It was, unusually, voted down on its first reading, President Cosgrave saying, "We oppose its First Reading because we believe in honouring our bond, we believe in the sanctity of international agreements."

As soon as Fianna Fáil entered the Dáil, Labour's Thomas Johnson as Leader of the Opposition gave notice of a motion of no confidence in Cosgrave's government. However, at the division on 31 August, two National League TDs failed to support the motion. Cosgrave survived on the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle, secured an adjournment until 11 October, then called another election for 15 September, which returned the government party in a stronger position.

In November 1927, Fianna Fáil began collecting signatures for an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment to remove the oath. By Article 48 of the Constitution, 75,000 signatures would trigger a requirement to legislate or hold a referendum. The petition's proposed rewording of Article 17 was:

Every member of the Oireachtas, after the Chairman of the House to which such member has been elected shall have signed the roll of members of such House shall publicly, when the Chairman of such House is in his Chair, sign such roll and upon so signing such member shall be entitled to take his seat and to vote in such House and to enjoy all rights and privileges of members thereof, anything in any Act contained to the contrary notwithstanding.

On 3 May 1928, when the petition contained 96,000 signatures, De Valera attempted to lay it before the Dáil. The standing orders contained no provision for dealing with the petition, and Cosgrave objected to the presentation, and claimed that since the proposal conflicted with the treaty, it was ultra vires. A debate proceeded over several weeks, ending in July when the government rushed through a constitutional amendment removing the provision for initiatives.

At the 1930 Imperial Conference, the Dominions demanded legislative independence from Britain; the Statute of Westminster 1931 effected this in UK law. The British government had suggested that the 1921 Treaty should be made an exception to the Statute, but W. T. Cosgrave objected and was supported by the other Dominions. This meant the Irish Free State could no longer be prevented by the Privy Council from removing the Oath from its Constitution, although Cosgrave said his government would not do so unilaterally. At the bill's committee stage in the Commons, John Gretton proposed excluding the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922 and the Irish Free State Constitution Act 1922 from the Statute, but this was rejected by the government. Sean Murphy from the Department of External Affairs went to London before the 1932 Irish general election asking for UK agreement to remove the oath, arguing that otherwise Fianna Fáil would win the election, remove it unilaterally, and take further anti-monarchist measures. The UK government refused.

Fianna Fáil in government

Main article: Constitution (Removal of Oath) Act 1933

Cosgrave lost power to De Valera after the 1932 election. Fianna Fáil did not have an overall majority and discussed forming a coalition government with Labour, but disagreed over the oath: Labour leader Thomas Johnson was prepared to "make every effort" to have the oath altered or removed, but only "by agreement with the British Government". Instead Labour agreed confidence and supply support for a Fianna Fáil minority government. Opponents alleged abolishing the oath would entail leaving the Commonwealth, but de Valera emphasised the limited nature of the proposal. De Valera's first legislative action was the introduction of the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill. The bill amended both the Constitution and the 1922 Act of the Provisional Parliament under which the Constitution had been enacted. It removed the section of the Act which gave the Treaty primacy over the Constitution; and it removed from the Constitution both Article 17, which specified the Oath and mandated it for Oireachtas members, and also the clause in Article 55 which mandated the Oath for Extern Ministers. The Dáil passed the bill in May 1932, in the face of strong opposition from Cumann na nGaedheal. University of Dublin TD William Thrift argued that, besides violating the treaty, abolishing the oath would alienate Southern unionists. The Senate, which had an anti-republican majority, passed several amendments in June, whose intended effect was to prevent the oath's removal from happening without the agreement of the British government. In July, the Dáil rejected the Senate amendments, whereupon the Senate insisted on them. A 1928 amendment to the Constitution provided that, in such a dispute, after an intervening general election the Dáil could resubmit its version to the Senate, which would automatically become law after 60 days if the Senate did not pass it unamended. De Valera called a snap election for January 1933, campaigning on the oath, and winning an overall majority. The bill was duly resubmitted by the Dáil in March 1933, and the Senate declined "further to consider the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1933, until it has been made the subject of negotiation between the Executive Council and the British Government with a view to an amicable agreement." Sixty days later, the Dáil invoked its authority and the bill was passed, on 3 May 1933.

Until the Constitution (Amendment No. 21) Act of 2 November 1933, the Governor-General had a reserve power to withhold or reserve the Royal Assent required to enact an Oireachtas bill. There was speculation that one reason for Fianna Fáil's hastening the departure of James McNeill was a fear that he would use this power. While convention and the Balfour Declaration 1926 had made this power practically obsolete, A. Berriedale Keith felt McNeill had the right to withhold Assent because the bill's "nullity" was "so clear that assent would be improper"; Leo Kohn and H. V. Evatt disagreed, arguing that only the judiciary, not the executive, could decide whether legislation was invalid. [zzz McMahon 1982 refutes this] The removal was unpopular and controversial in Britain; De Valera protested at what he called "an unwarranted outburst" by James Henry Thomas, the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who in the House of Commons had called the bill "nothing less than a repudiation of the settlement of 1921 as a whole". In a 1932 letter to Thomas, de Valera stated:

Whether the Oath was or was not 'an integral part of the Treaty made ten years ago' is not now the issue. The real issue is that the Oath is an intolerable burden to the people of this State and that they have declared in the most formal manner that they desire its instant removal.

Between the bill's introduction and its enactment, British diplomats raised the possibility of agreeing a change in the wording of the oath to "bring it into closer correspondence with the wording employed in any other Dominion", which the Irish did not regard as any concession. Stafford Cripps said in the Commons:

[A]s far as the legal obligations were concerned, there was no doubt whatever that the Irish Free State had a perfect right to abolish the Oath and set aside the Treaty. There is no doubt at all as far as the legal obligations are concerned.

• [zzz More on UK response in McMahon 1981.]

After the constitutional amendment abolishing the oath, an Electoral Amendment Act was passed to remove references to the oath from electoral law. The standing orders of the Dáil and Seanad were also amended. The Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1933 removed the requirement that Oireachtas members take the Oath before being paid. The first person to take a seat in the Oireachtas without subscribing to the oath was Robert Rowlette, a unionist returned for Dublin University in a by-election, who took his seat on 15 November 1933. (The last to take the oath had been Eamonn Duggan, who won a Seanad by-election in April 1933, and took his seat on 10 May.)

Subsequent developments

1933–1937

The act which abolished the Oath in effect abrogated the entirety of the 1921 treaty. The treaty included annuity obligations under the Irish Land Acts, which De Valera's government ceased remitting to Britain. This move had been a popular part of the Fianna Fáil manifesto in both 1932 and 1933, and led to the Anglo-Irish Trade War, which continued until the 1938 Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement.

In 1934–35, two courtcases questioned the legality of successive governments' constitutional amendments: Moore v Attorney General and The State (Ryan) v Lennon. The Constitution (Amendment No. 22) Act 1933 removed the right to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) against judgments of the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State. Weeks before the act came into force, Robert Lyon Moore, a Southern unionist from County Donegal, had received leave from the JCPC to appeal one such judgment; he now petitioned the JCPC to rule on whether the appeal could go ahead. The Supreme Court, conforming to the Irish law, refused to participate in the process. In 1934, while Moore's case was pending at the JCPC, the Supreme Court heard Ryan v Lennon, a case relating to the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act 1931. Although a majority held that the 1931 act was legal, three justices dissented, including Hugh Kennedy, the Chief Justice. Their argument was twofold: first, that the Third Dáil's act limited the Free State Oireachtas' powers to amend the Constitution and gave it no power to amend the Third Dáil's act; and second, that the 1931 amendment exceeded those limits. The majority disagreed on the second point, but did not express disagreement on the first. In their arguments at the JCPC, Moore's lawyers referred to the Ryan v Lennon arguments. They claimed that appeal to the JCPC was guaranteed by the 1921 Treaty and that the abolition of the supremacy of the Treaty by the Removal of Oath Act was ultra vires for the Free State Oireachtas, because the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act 1922 had been passed by the Third Dáil before the Oireachtas came into existence. In 1935, the JCPC ruled that both the abolition of the right of appeal and the earlier abolition of the oath were legally permitted under British law by virtue of the Statute of Westminster. From the British point of view, the Removal of Oath Act was not merely an explicit amendment of the Third Dáil's act but, more importantly, an implicit amendment of the subsequent Westminster act.

The JCPC's ruling in Moore contrasted with that in 1932 in Attorney-General (New South Wales) v Trethowan. In 1930, after both houses of the Parliament of New South Wales passed a Lang ministry bill to delete sections of the constitution, opponents secured a court injunction to withhold royal assent to the bill, on the ground that the relevant sections specified that they could only be deleted after a referendum, which had not been held. The ministry appealed to the High Court of Australia and from there to the JCPC, both of which upheld the injunction on the basis of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. The Statute of Westminster 1931 would repeal the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 in Australia, but not until the Parliament of Australia had passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. The Coloured vote constitutional crisis in South Africa in 1951–2 was another instance where courts prevented parliament repealing an entrenched clause.

The Fianna Fáil government's gradual abolition of monarchist symbols continued in 1936 when the office of Governor-General was eliminated. Based on Ryan v Lennon, it seemed likely that, if asked to rule on the Removal of Oath Act, the Supreme Court would have overturned it. In the event, the Supreme Court never ruled on the oath. It would have been an ironic subversion of Éamon de Valera's principles of republican sovereignty for him to rely on a JCPC decision in opposition to an Irish court's. This tension contributed to de Valera's decision to replace the Free State constitution altogether instead of merely amending it repeatedly. The office of President was created by the 1937 Constitution, rendering the newly renamed state of Ireland "a republic in all but name". It was the first Inter-party government which completed the process with the Republic of Ireland Act 1948.

Later oaths

The 1937 Constitution prescribes several "declarations" for office holders:

Article 12.8

The President shall enter upon his office by taking and subscribing publicly, in the presence of members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, of Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, and other public personages, the following declaration:

"In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God direct and sustain me."

Article 31.4

Every member of the Council of State shall at the first meeting thereof which he attends as a member take and subscribe a declaration in the following form:

"In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfil my duties as a member of the Council of State."

Article 34.5.1°

Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and subscribe the following declaration:

"In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me."

Later views

Séamus Murphy wrote in 1985, "To many of those born after 1950, ... it seems incomprehensible that so much blood, sweat and tears should have been expended on such things as the oath of allegiance and forms of Commonwealth association. Cui bono?".

What part did the existence of the Oath in reconciling Southern Unionist opinion to the Free State?

1922 journalist:

Coming back to the vexed subject of the oaths an interlude occurred, Eamon de Valera again rising to explain his position. There were cheers and counter-cheers. One felt, however, we were entering the region of pure casuistry, nebulous, unpalpable and unreal.

W.P.M. Kennedy, Ulster-born Canadian historian, writing in 1923:

Thirdly, the oath is the most remarkable recognition of a new state of affairs. "Allegiance" is still sworn, but not that allegiance redolent of autocracy or clothed in the trappings of hereditary monarchy, formal and powerless though it may be. Great Britain is not the "mother country" of the Irish Free State and allegiance is sworn to the Constitution of the Irish Free State, itself as we shall see the creation of the Irish people as much as that of the United States is the creation of its citizens. To the King and his lawful heirs "fidelity" (not allegiance) is sworn, and that fidelity is in the treaty itself solemnly pronounced to be a consequence, not of indefeasible right or of parliamentary power in the Crown to claim or demand it, but of Great Britain's common citizenship with the Irish Free State in the British Common wealth of Nations and of Great Britain's membership of and adherence to that Commonwealth. The Crown thus takes its place in an international document as a formal link between nations, and Free State fidelity to the Crown depends not on allegiance but on the permanence of the Community of Nations and on Great Britain's continued common citizenship in it. That oath is one of the crowning triumphs of political science. It is magnificently realistic. It gives domestic and international recognition, in solemm form and in sealed and plighted faith, to the obiter dicta of the Imperial Conference of 1921. When Mr. Lloyd George then said that the Dominions had been "accepted fully into the comity of nations" and that they were "equal partners in the dignities and the responsibilities of the British Commonwealth," and when the Conference closed by expressing its "unanimous conviction that the most essential of the links that bind our widely spread peoples is the Crown", the words lacked political power and force. The oath in the Anglo-Irish treaty has supplied the defects. The citizens of each Dominion owe allegiance to their organized group life expressed in their political institutions, and they owe formal faith to the Crown as long at the Commonwealth lasts, with Great Britain as an equal member. The oath is the statement in different words of what I conceive to be the strict interpretation of the Covenant of the League of Nations the Dominions guarantee the territorial integrity of each other and of the Commonwealth, and the Irish Free State is bound to the Commonwealth as each constituent nation is also bound on the mutual coherence of all the British nations, symbolized as an entity by the Crown, in whose name the Dominions signed the peace treaties. I need hardly add that foreign relationships are of course still governed by the conditions which I recently outlined in THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW.

Nicholas Mansergh in 1948: 'Lord Birkenhead is reputed to have described [the oath] as "the greatest prevarication in history," because there were embodied in it so many nice inflexions of meaning in a vain attempt to reconcile all parties to its adoption.'

Pakenham in 1937:

The story that Birkenhead described this Oath as the “greatest prevarication in history” has been authoritatively denied.

Imposing, as has already been explained, no legal obligation, its exact significance need not hold us back long. It is clear, however, that Englishmen can read into it a promise (1) to preserve the Irish Free State, and by implication to keep at arms-length the Republic; (2) to keep Ireland on a basis of common citizenship, whatever that may mean, with England, and within the same Commonwealth ; also, perhaps, as De Valera feared, (3) to pay a kind of indirect allegiance to the Crown through allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State of which the King is head.

Irishmen, on the other hand, can (1) not only resist this last claim and deny that allegiance to the Crown or other British Institution is anywhere contained, but (2) can deduce an allegiance to Ireland prior to and over-riding all other obligations; an allegiance to Ireland permitting a breach of faithfulness to the British Royal Family and to the connection with the British Commonwealth, if the continuance of such faithfulness or connection should ever come into conflict with Irish interests.

T. Ryle Dwyer said, "After de Valera led Fianna Fáil into the Dáil in 1927, there were those who argued that he could have done the same thing [with anti-Treay Sinn Féin] in 1922 and avoided the Civil War, but [...] he could not have done so. He exhibited almost inexhaustible patience in trying to bring all of Sinn Féin along with him between 1923 and 1926, but he was dealing with a galaxy of cranks, who were not for turning."

A 1929 memorandum on nationality and citizenship prepared by the Department of Justice at the request of the Department of External Affairs for the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation:

The reference to 'common citizenship' in the Oath means little or nothing. 'Citizenship' is not a term of English law at all. There is not, in fact, 'common citizenship' throughout the British Commonwealth: the Indian 'citizen 'is treated by the Australian 'citizen' as an undesirable alien.

Jeremy Finn:

The focus of the debate in the Dail was on the very pointed definition of “alien” as being someone other than a citizen of the IFS – and thus according British or Dominion citizens the same legal status as those from outside the Commonwealth. This was strongly criticised by a range of opposition deputies

The critical problem [for the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1935] was that Fianna Fail government wished to use a very restrictive definition of citizenship which would distinguish between the citizens of the IFS and other British subjects, contrary to the consensus reached at the 1930 Imperial Conference (after strong argument to the contrary by the IFS representatives) that citizenship laws should be broadly similar throughout the Commonwealth, and no Dominion would legislate separately.

Nicholas Mansergh 1934: [paraphrases unless : at start]

In the British and Dominion Parliaments the Oath taken is one of unqualified allegiance to the King. In this respect the Oath prescribed in the Treaty differs considerably. Its import was stressed by Professor Keith, when he wrote:

The adoption of a new form of Oath emphasizes that the fidelity of the members of the Parliament of the Free State are primarily to the Constitution and only secondarily to the Crown".

p.35:

undue attention was attracted by the question of the Oath ... In insisting on its imposition the British Government provided the republicans with a focal point for their opposition.

p.56: RemOathBill rare example of Senate voting against Dail

p.98: Senate again refused OathBill after 1933 election -- Mansergh criticises (cf Salisbury Convention)

p.108: Treaty mandated Oath; Const provided when and how.

The Oath has played a very considerable part in the history of the Free State.

p.268:

Only an imperfect comprehension of the prevalent Irish political thought can have led the British Government to make the Oath mandatory under the Treaty. For in Ireland the Continental doctrine of national sovereign Rights inevitably regards such an Oath as an infringement of National Sovereignty.

p.269:

If one allows the present approximation of Irish to Continental political thought, it is at once apparent that in making the Oath mandatory under the Treaty the British Government made a grave blunder. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the disruption of the Treaty Settlement could not have been better planned than it was by the insertion of that provision.

p.279-80: the Oath was not defended on its merits, but as a Treaty obligation, and conversely [next quote]

p.287: Oath and LandAnnuities main election issues. FF claimed in 1932 that Oath not mandatory in Treaty; moreover,. 1926 and 1930 ImpConfs gave right.

p.280

It was, in fact, because the Oath raised the whole question of the sanctity of the Treaty Settlement that its removal was placed at the forefront of the Fianna Fail programme

No provision in the Constitution has more profoundly affected the history of Irish political parties than Article 17.

Tom Garvin 1996:

which the anti-Treatyites untruthfully labelled the 'Oath of Allegiance' in a marvellous lie of silence that has become institutionalized in Irish popular culture

Bill Kissane, 2005:

Under the leadership of de Valera, [the anti-Treaty] outlook increasingly concentrated on the oath of allegiance as their main grievance with the Free State, which enabled Fianna Fail to combat the accusation that their position in 1922 was fundamentally anti-democratic. Indeed, the abolition of the oath enabled de Valera to call for all republicans to recognize the Free State and claim that his party had helped the society recover from the civil war.

Suggestion that FF later inflated the importandce of Partition in the Treaty debates to downplay the importance of the oath and hence gloss over its later inconsistency.

See also

• Monarchy in the Irish Free State
• Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom)
• Irish republican legitimism

References

• Bell, J. Bowyer (1997). The Secret Army (3rd ed.). Transaction. ISBN 1560009012.
• Coffey, Donal K. (2016). "The Commonwealth and the Oath of Allegiance Crisis: A Study in Inter-War Commonwealth Relations". The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History. 44 (3): 492–512. doi:10.1080/03086534.2016.1175735. ISSN 0308-6534. S2CID 159507827. Retrieved 27 April 2020 – via academia.edu.
  1. under FF's view of treaty, it should have formally repudiated the treaty when breaching its obligations [ figleaf the old FF denial that oath was obligatory]
  2. CnaG had given up long attempt to negotiate end of JCPC and planned unilateral removal; UK had rejected on basis that IFS const status was Canada-frozen-1921 status, not Canada-evolving-sync status
  3. UK 1932 govt held off objecting to FF to see if economic war might lead CnaG back to power
  4. Canada refused to side with UK, on basis that it was a bilateral issue not a Commonwealth issue; South Africa was even more supportive of IFS's rights
• Coogan, Tim Pat (1990). Michael Collins. Hutchinson.
• Curran, Joseph Maroney (1980). The birth of the Irish Free State, 1921-1923. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 9780817300135.
• Dempsey, Pauric (2000). "Trinity College Dublin and the New Political Order". In Cronin, Mike; Regan, John M. (eds.). Ireland: The Politics of Independence, 1922–49. London: Macmillan. ISBN 9780333720509.
• Dunphy, Richard (1995). The making of Fianna Fáil power in Ireland, 1923-1948. Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780198204749. Retrieved 17 April 2011.
• Garvin, Tom (1996-10-15). 1922, the birth of Irish democracy. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 9780312164775.
• Kissane, Bill (2005). The politics of the Irish civil war. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199273553.
• Laffan, Michael (2 December 1999). The Resurrection of Ireland: The Sinn Féin Party, 1916–1923. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139426299. Retrieved 9 December 2016.
• Harkness, D. W. (1969). The restless Dominion: the Irish Free State and the British Commonwealth of Nations 1921–31. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan. Retrieved 15 October 2019.
• Heuston, Robert Francis Vere (1964). Essays in Constitutional Law (2nd ed.). London: Stevens – via Internet Archive.
• Lee, Joseph (1989). "Consolidation: 1922–32". Ireland, 1912-1985: politics and society. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521377412.
• Lee, J. J. (2001). "De Valera's Use of Words: Three Case-Studies". Radharc. 2: 75–100. ISSN 1531-7293. JSTOR 25122320. [Pages 75 to 85 compare Treaty with Document No.2]
• McMahon, Deirdre (September 1981). "'A Transient Apparition': British Policy towards the de Valera Government, 1932-5". Irish Historical Studies. 22 (88). Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd: 331–361. doi:10.1017/S002112140002633X. JSTOR 30006731. S2CID 159496806. {{cite journal}}: |url-access= requires |url= (help)
• Maguire, Martin (2005). The civil service, the state, and the Irish revolution, 1886-1938 (PDF). Ph.D. thesis. Supervisor: Eunan O'Halpin. University of Dublin, Trinity College.
• Maguire, Martin (2008). The Civil Service and the Revolution in Ireland 1912-38: 'Shaking the Blood-stained Hand of Mr Collins' (PDF). Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719077401. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
• Mansergh, Nicholas (2007) [1934]. The Irish Free State - Its Government and Politics. Read. ISBN 978-1406720358.
• Mitchell, Arthur (1974). Labour in Irish politics, 1890-1930: the Irish labour movement in an age of revolution. ISBN 071650099X.
• Munger, Frank (1975). Rose, Richard (ed.). The legitimacy of opposition : the change of government in Ireland in 1932. Contemporary Political Sociology. Vol. 1. London: Sage. ISBN 0-8039-9909-7. ISSN 0305-3482. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
• O'Donoghue, Martin (2020). The Legacy of the Irish Parliamentary Party in Independent Ireland, 1922–1949. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-78962-030-6. Retrieved 12 May 2020.
• Prager, Jeffrey (2009-12-10). Building Democracy in Ireland: Political Order and Cultural Integration in a Newly Independent Nation. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521125116. Retrieved 17 April 2011.

Unread

• Cahillane, Laura (2016-04-15). Drafting the Irish Free State Constitution. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9781526114372. Retrieved 23 October 2017.
• Canning, Paul (1985). British policy towards Ireland, 1921–1941. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198200684. LCCN 85196574. Retrieved 26 February 2020 – via Internet Archive.
• Canning, Paul M. (11 July 2014). "The Impact of Eamon De Valera: Domestic Causes of the Anglo-Irish Economic War". Albion. 15 (3): 179–205. doi:10.2307/4049069. JSTOR 4049069.
• Coffey, Donal K. (2018). Constitutionalism in Ireland, 1932–1938: National, Commonwealth, and International Perspectives. Springer. ISBN 9783319762371. Retrieved 17 October 2019.
• Dawson, Robert MacGregor (1965). The Development of dominion status, 1900-1936. London: F. Cass. Retrieved 26 February 2020 – via Internet Archive.
• Donnelly, Seán (2 October 2019). "Ireland in the imperial imagination: British nationalism and the Anglo-Irish Treaty". Irish Studies Review. 27 (4): 493–511. doi:10.1080/09670882.2019.1658404. S2CID 203052588.
• Dolan Stover, Justin (2015). "Redefining Allegiance: Loyalty, Treason, and the Irish Free State 1922-1932". In Farrell, Mel; Knirck, Jason; Meehan, Ciara (eds.). A Formative Decade: Ireland in the 1920s. Irish Academic Press. ISBN 9780716532828.
• Foster, G. (2015). The Irish Civil War and Society: Politics, Class, and Conflict. Springer. ISBN 9781137425706.
• Gwynn, Denis (1928). The Irish Free State 1922–1927. London: Macmillan. pp. 52–65, 139–141. Retrieved 15 October 2019.
• Harkness, D. W. (1969). The restless Dominion: the Irish Free State and the British Commonwealth of Nations 1921-31. London; Melbourne: Macmillan. LCCN 75388003. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
• Harrison, Henry (1937). Ireland And The British Empire, 1937: Conflict or Collaboration?. London: Robert Hale. Retrieved 26 February 2020. [a unionist-tinged retrospective]
• Hennessey, Thomas (November 1996). "Ulster Unionism and Loyalty to the Crown of the United Kingdom, 1912–74". In English, Richard; Walker, Graham (eds.). Unionism in Modern Ireland. New Perspectives on Politics and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 115–129. doi:10.1057/9780230509849_7. ISBN 9780230509849. Retrieved 9 March 2018.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Kavanagh, Aileen (1 September 2012). "Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments from Irish Free State to Irish Republic". In Carolan, Eoin (ed.). The Constitution of Ireland: Perspectives and Prospects. Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper. Dublin: Bloomsbury Professional. pp. 331–354. SSRN 2211460. Retrieved 31 August 2020 – via Social Science Research Network. Kennedy CJ dissent in The State (Ryan) v Lennon [1935] "argued that there were four limitations on the amending power under Art.50, three of which were violated by [amendments 10,16, and 17]"; the four were "the natural law limitation". "the Treaty limitation", "the 'fundamental principles' limitation" and the "overriding authority of the people limitation". Only the Treaty limitation was accepted by the majority and all accepted it did not apply to The State (Ryan) v Lennon.
• Keith, Arthur Berriedale (1932). "Notes on Imperial Constitutional Law". Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law. 14 (4). Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law: 255–282. JSTOR 754202.
• Keith, Arthur Berriedale (1938). Dominions As Sovereign States; Their Constitutions And Governments. London: Macmillan. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
• Kennedy, Michael (2003). "'Nobody Knows and Ever Shall Know from Me That I Have Written It': Joseph Walshe, Éamon de Valera and the Execution of Irish Foreign Policy, 1932-8". Irish Studies in International Affairs. 14: 165–183. JSTOR 30001970.
• Kissane, Bill (26 September 2007). "The re‐equilibration of democracy in inter‐war Ireland". Democratization. 6 (3): 190–210. doi:10.1080/13510349908403627.
• Knirck, Jason K. (2006-01-01). Imagining Ireland's Independence: The Debates Over the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742541481.
• Kohn, Leo (1932). The Constitution Of The Irish Free State. London: Allen & Unwin. pp. 53–56, 215–219, 372–384. Retrieved 26 March 2018.
• Lowry, Donal (November 2008). "The captive dominion: imperial realities behind Irish diplomacy, 1922—49". Irish Historical Studies. 36 (142: Ireland and the British Empire-Commonwealth). Cambridge University Press: 202–226. doi:10.1017/S0021121400007045. JSTOR 20720274. S2CID 159910307.
• Macardle, Dorothy (1951). The Irish republic (4th ed.). Dublin: Irish Press.
• McCracken, J. L. (1958). Representative government in Ireland, a study of Dáil Éireann 1919–48. London: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 15 October 2019 – via Internet Archive. [Index sv "Oath of allegiance"; esp pp.155–157]
• McInerney, Michael (10 October 1968). "Gerry Boland's Story (3) [1922–27]". The Irish Times. p. 12. Retrieved 20 August 2020.
• McMahon, Deirdre (Summer 1982). "The Chief Justice and the Governor General Controversy in 1932". Irish Jurist. new series, Vol. 17 (1): 145–167. JSTOR 44026929.
• McMahon, Deirdre (1984). Republicans and Imperialists: Anglo-Irish Relations in the 1930s. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300030716 – via Internet Archive.
• Mitchell, Arthur; Ó Snodaigh, Pádraig (1985). Irish political documents, 1916-1949. Blackrock, Dublin: Irish Academic Press. ISBN 0-7165-0588-6. Retrieved 26 February 2020 – via Internet Archive.
• Munger, Frank (1975). The legitimacy of opposition : the change of government in Ireland in 1932. Contemporary Political Sociology. Vol. I. London: Sage. ISBN 0-8039-9909-7. Retrieved 26 February 2020 – via Internet Archive.
• Pakenham, Frank (1967). Peace By Ordeal: An Account, from first hand sources of the Negotiation and Signature of the Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921 (3rd ed.). London: New English Library. OCLC 455878. — the first (1935) edition is available via Internet Archive.
• Ó Beacháin, Donnacha (2010). "'Slightly Constitutional' Politics: Fianna Fáil's Tortuous Entry to the Irish Parliament, 1926–7" (PDF). Parliamentary History. 29 (3): 376–394. doi:10.1111/j.1750-0206.2010.00212.x. ISSN 0264-2824. "this article presents a detailed account of Fianna Fáil's evolving attitude towards the oath of allegiance and how it succeeded in overcoming ideological reservations to take its seats in the Irish Free State legislature"
• Ó Beacháin, Donnacha (2010-11-12). Destiny of the Soldiers – Fianna Fáil, Irish Republicanism and the IRA, 1926–1973: The History of Ireland's Largest and Most Successful Political Party. Gill & Macmillan. pp. 80 et seq. ISBN 9780717151660. Retrieved 8 January 2015. details of 1927 workings
• O'Grady, Joseph P. (November 1989). "The Irish Free State Passport and the Question of Citizenship, 1921-4". Irish Historical Studies. 26 (104): 396–405. doi:10.1017/S0021121400010130. JSTOR 30008695. S2CID 159821785.
• O'Halpin, Eunan (2003). "Long Fellow, Long Story: MI5 and de Valera". Irish Studies in International Affairs. 14. Royal Irish Academy: 185–203. doi:10.1353/isia.2003.0002. JSTOR 30001971. S2CID 245849629. pp.194–195, 1943 study for Secret Intelligence Service in Dublin by "a friendly and well-informed University Lecturer":

  He did not unilaterally tear up a solemn treaty! No! The phrase in the Treaty was "The oath to be taken shall be...." "Yes," said De Valera, "If any oath be taken...." It is, however, no breach of treaty to delete all oaths altogether. The point is that rather than cold-bloodedly assert motives comprehensible to every Irishman and approved of, perhaps, by a majority, De Valera invariably made a moral case for his action which fooled few even of his supporters. And the moral issues he raises are comprehensible to the Roman Catholic Irish rather than to the Anglo-Saxon world—they are the issues of the confessional and come well from a man who was for considerable periods excommunicate and yet probably never without the sacrament.

• O'Sullivan, Donal Joseph (1940). The Irish Free State And Its Senate: A Study In Contemporary Politics. London: Faber and Faber. p. 660. Retrieved 15 October 2019. [Index sv "Parliamentary oath"]
• Pulju, Anne (2009). "De Valera Performs the Oath: Word, Voice, Book, and Act". In Brady, Sara; Walsh, Fintan (eds.). Crossroads: Performance Studies and Irish Culture. Springer. pp. 129–140. doi:10.1057/9780230244788_11. ISBN 9780230244788.
• Walker, Graham (January 1992). "'The Irish Dr Goebbels': Frank Gallagher and Irish Republican Propaganda". Journal of Contemporary History. 27 (1): 149–165. doi:10.1177/002200949202700107. JSTOR 260782. S2CID 153667653. "Overwhelmingly, 'the great debate' centred on the oath of allegiance and the question of betrayal of ..."
• Wheare, K.C. (1949). The Statute Of Westminster And Dominion Status (4th ed.). London: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 26 February 2020.
• Whelan, Noel (2011-11-04). A History of Fianna Fáil: The outstanding biography of the party. Gill & Macmillan. pp. 39 et seq. ISBN 9780717151981. Retrieved 8 January 2015. more detail on FF in June-Aug 1927; more detail in quotes and backroom debates; sequence of events differs: says petition signatures began after June denial of entry, not in November.
• Williams, Wilbur Laurent (6 July 1932). "Great Britain and the Irish Free State". Foreign Policy Reports. 8 (9). New York: Foreign Policy Association: 101–108. Retrieved 26 February 2020. [US reportage]
• Younger, Calton (1969). Ireland's Civil War. New York: Taplinger. pp. 144, 181, 183f, 192, 194, 201, 203, 209, 211, 220, 295, 298, 494, 502, 506f, 512f. ISBN 978-0-8008-4240-6. Retrieved 18 September 2020 – via Internet Archive.

TCD, Samuels Collection

• "The oath of allegiance, boys" [song lyrics] box 5 no.9
• 'Clause by clause: a comparison between the "Treaty" and Document No. 2' box 2 no.90a
• "Here is the oath of allegiance which members of the British Parliament must take ... Are you going to vote for a man who will take this servile oath?" box 4 no.82 — no info on date or relation to Treaty oath

DIFP

• * Department of External Affairs (April 1932). Text of notes exchanged between the Irish Free State and the British Government relating to the oath and land purchase annuities (PDF). Vol. P.650. Dublin: Stationery Office. Retrieved 27 October 2015. (I think that Irish notes are in DIFP, but UK notes not)
• DIFP website:
  • 8 June 1920 Diarmuid O'Hegarty to Eamon de Valera (New York) The Dail has decreed that all its members, clerks, officials and employees shall take an oath of allegiance to the Irish Republic ... It will, of course, be incumbent upon all persons employed by the Republican Government in any capacity whether that of diplomatic agent, ambassador or in any minor post to accept this oath before their appointments can take effect.
  • Report on Mission to New Zealand and Australia by Osmond Grattan Esmonde (Undated but post-July 1921) Before the expiration of the term we had left for Sydney, Australia, where we arrived Jan. 16th. The day previously a special edition of the 'Commonwealth Gazette' was published containing a new regulation of the 'War-precautions Repeal Act' whereby customs officers might require an oath of allegiance from any British Subject before admission to the country. I claimed the advice of a solicitor and issued a short statement to the effect that I had understood Australia was a tolerant country where people might hold what opinions they chose provided they obeyed the laws of the land.
  • 29 November 1921 Arthur Griffith to Eamon de Valera (Dublin) On the Oath of Allegiance which we instanced in part of the conversation they said, though it was an immense difficulty for them, they would try to modify it, if that would help us. ... They offered us a form of Oath of Allegiance different from their one, which we stated would not do. We raised the question of Defence and Trade.
  • 3 December 1921 Copy of secretary's notes of meeting of the cabinet and delegation held 3 December 1921 Mr. Collins ... Oath Allegiance would not come into force for 12 months - question was, therefore, would it be worth while taking that 12 months and seeing how it would work. Would recommend that Dail go to country on Treaty, but would recommend non-acceptance of Oath. [...] President ... could not subscribe to the Oath of Allegiance nor could he sign any document which would give N.E. Ulster power to vote itself out of the Irish State. With modifications, however, it might be accepted honourably, and he would like to see the plenipotentiaries go back and secure peace if possible. [...] President ... suggested the following amendment to the Oath of Allegiance:- 'I …… do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the Irish Free state, to the Treaty of Association and to recognise the King of Great Britain as Head of the Associated States.' ... (d) Delegation to return and say the Cabinet won't accept Oath of Allegiance if not amended and to face the consequences, assuming that England will declare war. (e) Decided unanimously that present Oath of Allegiance could not be subscribed to.
  • 4 December 1921 Amendments by the Irish Representatives to the proposed Articles of Agreement The Oath to be taken by members of the Irish Parliament shall be in the following form:- I do swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of Ireland and to the Treaty of Association of Ireland with the British Commonwealth of Nations, and to recognise the King of Great Britain as Head of the Associated States.
  • 4 December 1921 Arthur Griffith to Eamon de Valera Lloyd George ... felt that the Cabinet must confirm their impression that although they might have considered some change in the form of the oath, this was a refusal of the fundamental conditions. ... I pointed out there was a distinct effort to meet them in the proposals and instanced the oath which brought in the name of the King.
  • 5 December 1921 Memorandum of an interview between Michael Collins and David Lloyd George He went on to say that the break was therefore definitely on the question of 'within or without' the Empire (at this stage he did not refer to allegiance except to say that he would be willing to consider any form of Oath in order to meet or attempt to meet our wishes). ... The question of the Oath was then referred to again, Mr. Lloyd George insisting that paragraphs 1 and 2 of their document were the substance, that a definite understanding had to be arrived at on those, then we could discuss the form of Oath.
  • 5/6 December 1921 Notes by Robert Barton of two sub-conferences held on December 5/6, 1921 at 10 Downing St. ARTHUR GRIFFITH replied that some alteration might be made in the Oath. / BIRKENHEAD said that Mr. Collins had handed in to him that morning a form of oath on which he (Mr. Collins) had been working and then produced it with his (Birkenhead's) alterations. We objected to the final words being 'British Empire' and suggested 'British Commonwealth of Nations.'
  • 6 December 1921 Final text of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland as signed. The oath to be taken by Members of the Parliament of the Irish Free State shall be in the following form:- I ……. do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established and that I will be faithful to H.M. King George V., his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.
  • 9 August 1922 Memorandum by Ernest Blythe on policy relating to Northern Ireland and covering letter In order to prepare the way for a state of feeling which may lead to the unity of Ireland it is necessary that we should immediately change our policy in regard to various minor matters. ... (c) Catholic members of the Northern Parliament who have no personal objection to the oath of allegiance should be urged to take their seats.
  • 15 September 1922 Memorandum on Irish membership of the League of Nations by Patrick Sarsfield O'Hegarty with covering note by J.J. Walsh There are three things in the Constitution which we ought to fight to the utmost limit we can: (1) The Oath, (2) The King's Veto, (3) The Privy Council's Veto. The Treaty provides no machinery through which to fight them. If we could gain membership of the League of Nations at once we could fight these three points.
  • 30 May 1923 Memorandum to each member of the Executive Council by Kevin O’Shiel, with covering letter by O’Shiel 10. POINTS OF VIEW ON THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION ... There is the point of view of people who consider that the next milestone must be, not National Union, but the ejection from the Constitution of that nefarious conglomeration of words called the 'Oath of Allegiance', and also sundry other demoniacal but utterly powerless phrases referring to a person called the King and expressing the right of Citizens of the Saorstát to appeal to the British Council – all precedental deadletters.
  • 10 July 1923 Unknown (Possibly one of Smiddy's agents) to Timothy A. Smiddy
  • 1 December 1925 Draft notes of a conference held in the Board Room, Treasury, Whitehall, London MR. COSGRAVE referred to another suggestion which had been made, viz. that the Oath should be made optional by modification of Article 4. Those in favour of such a course would argue that owing to the breakdown of Clause 12, by which it had been hoped to bring in more members to the Dáil, the only other way of strengthening that body would be to let in the 48 republican Deputies. Such a course, if adopted, would give poor chances of stability for the State and it would moreover make the republicans a political entity which they were not at present. Great benefits might be hoped to follow if agreement were reached with Sir James Craig. Indeed, there was already a change of atmosphere for the better.
  • 21 August 1930 Extracts from a letter from John J. Hearne to Stephen A. Roche Naturalised citizens: It is assumed that the granting of certificates of naturalisation in Saorstát Éireann will be in accordance with procedure and subject to conditions similar to those laid down in Part II of the Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914. It would not be possible for us to confer a Commonwealth-wide status on persons naturalised under our law unless the conditions to be satisfied and the procedure to be complied with were substantially the same here as elsewhere throughout the Commonwealth. Presumably, however, the form of oath (if any) to be taken by applicants for naturalisation in Saorstát Éireann could not be the form contained in the Second Schedule to the Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914. It is suggested that if any oath is prescribed it will be an oath of fidelity to the Constitution of Saorstát Éireann or of fidelity to Saorstát Éireann.
  • 1 March 1932 Letter from Michael MacWhite to Joseph Walshe The Secretary of the British Embassy, Mr. Michael Huxley, called to see Mr. O'Donovan on Sunday last. He was anxious to get some information relative to the outcome of the elections in the Saorstát and seemed rather perturbed over the declared intention of the Fianna Fáil party to abolish the oath of allegiance and withhold the land annuity payments.

Mr. Huxley thought that repeal of the Article of the Constitution embracing the oath would be a very serious matter for all concerned as the thread that joined the Saorstát to the British Commonwealth of Nations was so finely drawn that it had almost approached the vanishing point already, so much so that Foreign States were asking them why the Free State which was drifting away from them should get preferential treatment to the detriment of those whose friendship for Britain is unquestionable and of long standing. ... From the way he spoke one might be inclined to conclude that Great Britain would be willing to sacrifice the land annuities rather than that the oath of allegiance should be removed.

• • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]
  • [17]
  • [18]
  • [19]
  • [20]
  • [21]
  • [22]
  • [23]
  • 29 October 1932 Note by Sir Edward J. Harding of a conversation with Joseph P. Walshe Sir H. Batterbee and I represented as strongly as we could that the whole of the policy of the United Kingdom Government, both Imperial and international, was directed to the maintenance of the principle of the sanctity of agreements. We said that we felt that there was no real prospect of reaching agreement unless, in some manner or another, Mr. de Valera could be induced to accept this principle. Mr. Walshe frankly admitted that, in his view, Mr. de Valera had gone the wrong way to work over the Oath question; he emphasised, however, the great difficulty which Mr. de Valera was likely to have in overtly recognising that he had taken a wrong step. He also represented that there was the further difficulty, as regards the Oath, that its continuance was regarded in all parts of the Irish Free State as a method of control by the United Kingdom Government. ... The United Kingdom Government took the position that Mr. de Valera's action with regard to the Oath Bill was a breach of the Treaty, under which the Irish Free State was constituted as a Dominion, and we did not think that they could possibly agree to any modification of the Articles relating to the Oath which was not based (a) on the recognition that any modification of the Articles of the Treaty was a matter for consultation and agreement between the two Governments, and (b) on acceptance of the position of the Irish Free State as a co-equal member of the Commonwealth and of the relationship existing between the King and each member of the Commonwealth.
  • 29 October 1932 Handwritten memorandum by Joseph P. Walshe on British-Irish relations 'My Personal Opinion' I believe that it would be quite impossible for Mr. de Valera to enter into negotiations on the specific question of the Oath. The oath continued into the new Irish State all the historic grievances and discontents of the Irish Nation. It epitomised for the people all the old elements of servitude – and no Govt. however moderate or conservative could have held out much longer against the clamour for its abolition. That clamour has nothing whatever to do with the position of the King as the Constitutional Monarch of the I.F.S. The Ireland of today must be regarded as inseparable from the Ireland of history. The Oath is regarded as the symbol of all that was evil in our history and its permanent abolition is a fundamental necessity of our State life. No realist Statesman could seriously contemplate reintroducing – what was in real fact treated as an empty formula by all parties – as a serious issue between the two Govts. If the issue of the Oath is raised again by G.B. it will be regarded as an act of tyranny and enmity – and the raising of the issue will be treated by the Irish people as an indication that our continuance in the Commonwealth is neither consistent with our dignity as a people nor desired by G.B.
  • 30 October 1932 Fragment of a handwritten memorandum from Joseph P. Walshe to Eamon de Valera on aspects of British-Irish relations On the Oath question I got them to the point of asking an assurance from you in private to British Ministers that you would not go in with the Bill without consulting with them with a view to discovering how best to reconcile the desired modifications of the Treaty with the position of the I.F.S. as a coequal member of the Commonwealth and with the relationship existing between each member and the King. The fact that such an assurance would be private makes it more important for them to put a reference to the King in to Art. 1 of the Agreement. / They are afraid that the reference to Ireland’s special position might have constitutional consequences in Canada and S. Africa but they are ready to put the general idea in another form either in a preamble or in our article.
  • 5 November 1932 Letter from Joseph P. Walshe to John W. Dulanty (London) enclosing copy of a memorandum on the powers of the Governor General I enclose a Memorandum concerning the vesting of the powers and authorities of the Governor General in the Chief Justice for presentation to the King. On giving this Memorandum to Sir Clive Wigram you should make it absolutely clear that the Chief Justice will not take the oath under any circumstances. And perhaps it would also be well to add once more that the general attitude here is entirely opposed to the imposition of oaths or tests from outside or to making the taking of such oaths or tests a condition of good relations between the two countries. ... He [Hugh Kennedy] objects to taking any oath if such be necessary and he declares that there is no legal or other obligation which compels him to do so. When it was suggested that Section III. of the Letters Patent could be so interpreted as to exclude the Chief Justice from the category of persons who should take the oath the Chief Justice replied that he could not in any case act without a formal Warrant. ... while the Chief Justice is prepared to act on this Warrant the exercise of the powers and authorities of the Governor General by him might be questioned on the ground that the provisions of the concluding paragraph of Section III of the Letters Patent could be interpreted as imposing conditions precedent to the vesting of the powers and authorities in the Chief Justice with which he had not complied. It therefore becomes clear that the only sure way to remove the difficulty is to amend the Letters Patent
  • 14 November 1932 Letter from John W. Dulanty to Joseph P. Walshe (Dublin) Sir Clive asked whether the President, the Speaker of the Dáil, and the Chairman of the Seanad were prepared to take the oaths normally taken by the Governor General. I said that I was not sure that this question arose. We understood that the British Ministers were not required to take any oath on the occasions when they were appointed to serve on Commissions, similar to that now proposed, during the King’s illness and also during his absence in India. ... Whether or not they took an oath on being appointed members of the Special Commissions he was not clear. But he went on to point out in all three Commissions the powers of the Counsellors were rather restricted to formal routine matters and there was no power to dissolve Parliament ... Sir Clive said that he felt sure the King’s view would be that, with every wish to help his Government in the Irish Free State, he could not close his eyes to the fact that the Government of the Irish Free State and the Government of the United Kingdom were at variance on the question of the Oath. It appeared to him impossible for the King in face of this dispute to do anything until the two Governments had settled the dispute between themselves. Would it not be possible for the Law Officers of the Irish Free State and the Law Officers of the British Government to meet and reach an agreement on the Oath question about which at the moment there were fundamentally divergent views?
  • 19 November 1932 Memorandum by the Department of External Affairs on the Governor General As His Majesty is aware, the Chief Justice will not take an Oath of Allegiance, and the Government of the Irish Free State cannot urge him and in his default cannot ask any other person to take that Oath. Furthermore, the Attorney General is of opinion that when the Office of Governor General becomes vacant and no person or persons are specifically appointed in his stead the Letters Patent contemplate that the powers and authorities of the Governor General vest automatically in the Chief Justice by virtue of his office, and that in his case no special formality is required.
  • 20 November 1932 Michael McDunphy The Attorney General accompanied by Mr. Hearne of the Department of External Affairs called on the Chief Justice with a view to discussing with him the question of his assumption of the duties of office as Acting Governor General pending the appointment of a successor to Mr. James McNeill. The Chief Justice stated that in his opinion it would be obligatory on him to take the oath of office and the oath of allegiance, and that he did not desire to take these oaths.
  • 22 November 1932 Extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Cabinet A doubt having arisen as to whether, on the vesting in the Chief Justice of the powers and authorities of the Governor General in the circumstances provided for in section III of the Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor General of the Irish Free State dated 6th December 1922, the Chief Justice is thereupon obliged to take the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath of Office prescribed by section II of the Instructions to the Governor General of the Irish Free State, dated 6th December, 1922, it was decided that the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs should travel to London at once to instruct the High Commissioner to discuss informally with the King the question of modifying the said Letters Patent and the said Instructions so as to make it clear that, in the circumstances mentioned, it would not be obligatory on the Chief Justice to take the Oaths in question.
  • 9 May 1934 Letter from John W. Dulanty to Joseph P. Walshe Mr. Grenfell said that he had been having confidential talks with certain people whom he did not name and he would like to take up the question now of a general trade agreement, not merely of coal, but before doing so he would like to get Mr. Thomas’s views on certain outstanding question between the two Governments. ... Mr. Thomas stated with regard to the Oath their view that this question was not a serious impediment at all and could be got over.
  • 24 January 1936 Minute by Michael McDunphy on the Governor General King George V died on the 20th January, 1936, and was succeeded by his son King Edward VIII. Section 7 of the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868, provides inter alia that 'No person shall be compelled in respect of the same appointment to the same office to take such Oath or make such affirmation more times than one.' It is clear, therefore, that it is not necessary for the Governor General to retake the Oaths.
  • 21 December 1936 Letter from Robert Brennan to Eamon de Valera The form of government in the Irish Free State is democratic. The Fianna Fáil Party had previous to the election put forward a program and had stated that they would not move beyond that program. It consisted on the political side mainly of:- (a) The refusal to pay the annuities. / (b) The abolition of the oath. / (c) The ultimate abolition of the position of Governor General. / (d) The abolition of the Senate. / (e) The removal of the appeal to the British Privy Council. / I pointed out that this election program had been fulfilled even beyond the expectations of the Electorate since the abolition of the Governor General was not expected to take place during the life of the present Parliament. The Government had no mandate to go further.

Debates

	Dáil	Seanad	Commons	Lords
Treaty	December 1921: 14 c7–16, c101–140, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22; January 1922: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7		Vol 149, December 1921: 14 cc27–8, cc33–8, cc48–124; 15 cc133-258; 16 cc305-63	Vol 48, December 1921: 15 cc58-134; 16 cc135-217
Abolition of oath beta.oireachtas	1932: Apr 20, 27, 28, 29; May 3, 4, 4 ctd, 19; Jul 22; Oct 19 1933: Mar 1, 15; May 3	1932: May 25; Jun 1, 8, 15, 28; Jul 13, 20 1933: Mar 8, 8 ctd, 15; May 10	1932: 5 May vol 265 cc1280-2, 6 June vol 266 cc1588-90, 17 June vol 267 cc675-752	1933: 11 May vol 87 cc854-71

External links

• Fianna Fáil enter Dáil Éireann (11 August 1927) documents from UCD Archives
• National Archives of Ireland: TSCH/3/S5464: Oireachtas: administration of oath of of allegiance to members of Dáil and Seanad Jan 1923-May 1933; more details of 30 records 1927–1932

Ireland Category:Government in the Irish Free State Category:1933 in Ireland Category:1927 in Ireland Category:1922 in Ireland Category:1921 in Ireland Category:Political history of Ireland Category:Monarchy in Ireland