Letter from Éamon de Valera to Frederick H. Boland (Dublin)

The Attorney General and I have read the reports of the Conferences of the 3rd and 4th February. I thought I would send you at once the following:

I already asked Mr. McCauley to get in touch with you on the phone and to suggest that before any records of the Conference are passed as final for printing it would be advisable to let us have them here, if possible. The actual phrasing in these records may be of political importance hereafter.

1. The phrase 'We used the Crown merely as the symbol of our association' would not be satisfactory in a permanent record. The Association could continue even if we ceased to use the King. I may have myself used this, or some similar phrase, but I think we should get away from it. I am writing this in a hurry and I am not able at the moment to think out the best alternative in the context. Perhaps Article 29 of the Constitution may be suggestive in this connection.
2. As the term 'Dominion' is waived as applying to Ireland, it would be well to try to push the point further. Suppose you suggest two Schedules. The first would contain the countries at present listed, with Ireland deleted. These could then be referred to generally throughout the Bill as the 'dominions and territories listed in the First Schedule'.¹
3. In the Second Schedule the same countries would appear with Ireland added at the end, and they could be referred to in the Bill as the 'countries listed in the Second Schedule'.
4. It would appear anomalous that a schedule related to Clause 1 should contain any mention of Ireland. It is agreed that no purpose is served by the inclusion of Ireland in the present schedule so far as that clause is concerned. It is objectionable from our point of view because of the mental equation suggested between all the countries listed and 'H.M.'s dominions' of the 1914 Act.²
5. The new First Schedule would then relate to Clause 1, and to Clause 4 (1) (e) (vii) and the other Clauses where the phrase 'in the service of the Crown otherwise than in the service of any Government of any dominion or territory listed in the First Schedule' occurs.³
6. The Second Schedule would relate to Clause 3A, and also to the mopping-up provision, Clause 4 (1) (i).
7. By this method a number of anomalies and objectionable features of the Bill can be eliminated.⁴
8. If Clause 2 remains it would appear to be less objectionable in the alternative drafting suggested at note (3) of the draft Bill provised further that there are added limitations on the lines indicated in paragraph 7 of your report of 5th instant. I do not like the passport provision of sub. par. (111) of both Mr. Beckett's draft[s].

P.S. I do not follow how it is proposed to deal with the time factor problem of Clause 1 by a sub-section which would require that our legislation should be 'taken note' of in a British Order in Council. Please communicate text. Prima facie the proposal appears objectionable.

With regard to the suggestion that there should be two Schedules, an opportunity will arise to introduce the matter when Clause 4 is discussed in relation to the phrase 'service in the Crown etc.'

This is very hurried. I may have more to send tomorrow. Will let you know.