The Effect of Changes of Sovereignty Upon Nationality

DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1941.tb02811.x
Published date01 July 1942
AuthorF. A. Mann
Date01 July 1942
218
MODERN
LAW REVIEW
July,
1942
hardship must arise from any such provision, which to me appears to be
a
retrograde step.
In conclusion
I
think
a
number of
Miss
Chambers' criticisms are directed
to
a
state of affairs which was probably
far
more prevalent fifteen or
twenty years ago than
it
is
now. There has been much progress, and we can
look forward to further great improvements in the period of post-war
reconstruction-with increased benefits and greater protection for the
workers.
L.
E.
HAMMOND.
THE EFFECT OF CHANGES
OF
SOVEREIGNTY UPON NATIONALITY
The important decision of a Divisional Court (Lord Caldecote,
C.
J.,
Humphreys and Singleton,
JJ.)
in
Murvay
v.
Parkes
(1g42),
I
All
E.R.
558,
primarily raises the constitutional problem
of
Anglo-Irish relations.
To comment on that part of the case must be the privilege
of
the trained
constitutional lawyer. The case, however, also involves some narrower
aspects, and it is
on
these that one who
is
in no way qualified, nor intends,
to trespass upon those large issues, may perhaps venture to offer some
observations.
The appellant, Michael Murray, was born in
1908
in that part of
Ireland which is now known
as
Eire. He had lived in England since
1934.
but was domiciled in Eire. In
1941
he refused to submit himself
to
medical
examination under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act,
1939.
on
the ground that he was not
a
British subject but
a
citizen of Eire. He
appeared before
a
magistrate, was convicted, and his appeal by way of
case stated failed.
It
was agreed that by virtue of Art.
3
(First Schedule)
of the Irish Free State Constitution Act,
1922,
the appellant was a citizen
of the Irish Free State, but the Court held that nothing had occurred that
resulted in the loss of his wider British nationality.'
I.
After having explained that no enactment had given the Irish Free
State the right to secede from the British Commonwealth of Nations,
and that, moreover, the Government of Eire had never purported to
exercise any such right, Lord Caldecote proceeded to indicate with diffi-
dence that,
if
the international validity of any secession of Eire depended
on recognition by the United Kingdom, he could not find
it
to have been
granted either by the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Act,
1938.
or by
the agreements scheduled thereto. Similarly, Singleton,
J
.,
shortly re-
viewed the legislation of
1938,
but failed to find anything to prove that
"the government which was set up in that part of Ireland which was
formerly the Irish Free State, has been recognised by H.M. Government
as
a
sovereign, independent, democratic state." Now the point which
is
remarkable for present purposes is that the Court, however guarded
its
language was, even ventured to touch upon the question of whether or
not in fact the United Kingdom had recognised Eire as a sovereign inde-
pendent state. In the words of Lord Finlay in
D~ff Development
C.
v.
1
In
the same sense Keith,
The Governments
of
the British
Empire
(1935).
pp.
121.
122;
Jourmal
of
Comparative Legislataon.
XVII
(1935).
pp.
115,
116.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT