The Minister for External Affairs made a statement, on behalf of the Executive Council, as to the attitude of the Government on what has been commonly known as the Protocol— the draft agreement for the specific settlement of international disputes. I do not know quite what the intention of the Minister may be in regard to that statement. It was promised in the House that before any decision was communicated to the League of Nations in respect of the Protocol, the House would be informed, and presumably it was intended that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the terms of the answer, or at least the general attitude of the Ministry in that regard.
I would not like it to be thought that the statement made by the Minister to-day, or that the passing of this Vote, would fulfil the implied understanding that there would be an opportunity for discussing this question before a final decision was submitted to the League of Nations. I think the statement was one which we could not follow as closely as we would like, and that we should not be taken as assenting to the general policy of the Ministry in that respect merely by approving this Vote of £46,000. Last September, I think, the representatives of Saorstát Eireann at Geneva were parties to the provisional agreement, subject to consideration and, later, to approval. The consideration, no doubt, has been given and it has taken from September to date for that consideration. The House may be assumed to be aware of the terms of the Protocol and to have given them consideration. Whether that is a fair assumption or not I am not going to pass any comment, but I think we have a right to a longer period of consideration than the passing of this Vote this afternoon would allow on the attitude of the Ministry towards this question. I take it that it is intended that the substance of the answer which the Minister has given will be communicated to the League of Nations, either at the conference to be held in September or prior to that, by written communication. I would like to have more public discussion of this matter and more study of the terms of the Protocol than there has been. The line which the Minister has taken seems to me to be this: We will agree with England, South Africa, Australia and Canada in refusing to approve of the Protocol but on entirely different grounds. We will arrive at the same conclusion so as to avoid any discord between members of this Association of Nations, but we will explain that our difference arises through different, reasoning. The Minister made a suggestion which, if I understood it rightly, was to the effect that the sanctions contained in the Protocol did not meet with his approval, and that he would be prepared to back up a proposition favouring some kind of international compulsory arbitration. The development of the arbitration courts was, I think, the implied meaning of the statement. I think I am right in saying that in the answer which the Canadian Government made to the League of Nations on this question, while declining to ratify the Protocol, they did put forward specific suggestions as to how they would arrive at a solution of international disputes. I would like it to go out from our Ministry, if they cannot see their way to agree with the particular section of the Protocol which deals with sanction, that they would put forward an alternative proposition, that they would, at any rate, approve of those parts of the Protocol which they could approve of, making reservations in regard to these one or two items which the Minister appears to have jibbed at, to use a vulgar phrase.
It is important to bear in mind what Deputy Cooper emphasised, that the main authors, the persons who are alleged to be the main authors, of the provisional agreement were the representatives of two less powerful nations —namely, Greece and Czecho-Slovakia —but it is more important to bear in mind that most of the small nations of Europe have gone to the extent of approving the Protocol in its general terms, and have signified that approval. That is a very important consideration. The fears that were mentioned by the Minister are really fears affecting the Great Powers, and I think that we would be right in assuming, prima facie, that the considerations which govern the decisions of the Smaller Powers are likely to govern the decisions which we should take. We ought to bear in mind very constantly that war between the Great Powers is going to have a very evil effect upon this country, as it has on all Small Powers, more or less, and, that whether we like it or not, we are not going to avoid the evils of warfare between the Great Powers, and that we should, if possible, assist positively in creating a world opinion which would go far towards preventing war, even war between the Great Powers. I would like that Saorstát Eireann should take an effective part, not too prominent a part—I am not suggesting that we should pretend to be what we are not—but at least that we should take a distinctive part in the work of international peace, and that we should realise that our interests are more likely to be more harmonious with the interests of the Small Powers of the world, as distinguished from the conflicting interests of the Great Powers, which, unfortunately, seem to be aiming at the strengthening of their own particular power and the declension of similar powers of their rivals. Coming to the general question which the Minister raised, I am rather inclined to the view which Deputy Cooper has expressed, that the position of this Department is not one to which we should raise any objection as regards cost, but, rather, if we were getting value, we ought to be well prepared to pay a good deal more than the sum asked for. When I speak of getting value I will repeat what I said, I think, last year, that I am not going to test the value of the Department of External Affairs in terms of trade returns. I think that that is entirely an erroneous view of what the value of the Department may be. To say that 95 or 98 per cent. of the trade of the country is with England, and that, therefore, there is no need to spend any money on representatives abroad, or to link up with any other powers than England—I think that that is an entirely false view of the position we should take. The trade test is not the best test. It may be one of the tests, but I think we would be entitled to have representatives abroad, to have a foreign policy, and to have association with the nations of the world, if we had no foreign trade at all. If every article produced in the country was consumed in the country, and if we were absolutely self-contained as regards commerce, even then, I submit, we would need to have representatives abroad, and to have association with other nations.
We surely are entitled to find out, at first hand, something of the developments of education systems, agriculture, science in its various phases, including science in relation to health, and equally all developments in all parts of the world with regard to political, social and economic movements. It is, I submit, essential for our own development and growth that we should have some knowledge of the growth of social, political, economic and cultural matters in other countries. We are not going to get that knowledge first hand until we have a newspaper printed in the country which will have the good sense to make special references to such developments. I think we are bound if we want to take our place among the nations of the world to keep in close touch with the affairs of other nations, and the growth of movements of various kinds in those countries. A question has been raised as to the number of our representatives, and the places where those representatives are. I was hopeful of seeing in this year's Estimate some reference to representation in Canada, South Africa, and Australia, but more especially Canada. We are, or should be, particularly interested in the political and constitutional development of Canada, and other nations of the British Commonwealth, and we should, I think, have a separate representative in the capitals of those countries so that we could keep in regular touch with the minds of the Governments and the people in those countries, and I am disappointed that there is no reference in these estimates to representation in the capitals of those countries.
We are reminded by these Votes that the title that is given to our representative in the case of the United States is Minister Plenipotentiary. He has been accorded a certain status. In New York there is a trade office and a representative; in Geneva a representative; in Brussels a representative, and in Paris a trade representative and head of the Irish Bureau. I would like a little more information as to the status of these representatives. Have we made any attempt to define the status of the representatives in these countries, or are we to consider them simply as ordinary visitors to those countries whose business it is to make communication with the Minister but who have no privileges of access to the Ministers of the respective countries to which they are accredited, or where they are resident? The term, for instance, representative in Geneva, I take it, means in fact a representative of the Saorstát to the League of Nations, and not to the Government of Switzerland. I do not know what his position is relative to the representatives of other countries who are members of the League of Nations. In Paris we have a trade representative and head of the Irish Bureau. That apparently is different from representative in Brussels or representative in Geneva. I wonder has any attempt been made to fix the status of the trade representative in Paris, and I would like to know how he stands in relation to the French Government. These are matters that, I think, we should have some light upon.
I was interested and somewhat amused by Deputy Wilson's suggestion about the importance of the Minister using his funds to promote propaganda in England for Imperial preference and endeavouring to persuade the town workers and the general masses of the people in England to support the party which would advocate and establish a tariff on food so that the Irish Free State would be able to get a preference. That is very interesting, and I am rather surprised that the Farmers Party has not already had its agents in England trying to promote that kind of propaganda. I think he would be right in saying that it would probably be the best expenditure the Farmers' Party could make of its money, but I think it would be undesirable for the Minister for External Affairs to enter upon such a campaign. When Deputy Wilson can persuade his friends that they ought to spend their money, or perhaps that they should raise ten times the amount of money they have to spend for the purpose of promoting the fortunes of the Imperial Preference Party in Britain, and persuading the Irish voters in Britain to support only those candidates who will advocate Imperial Preference, then I think the fortunes of the Irish farmers will be well nigh achieved. But I hope they will not wait for that before doing other more useful things at home. I support Deputy Bryan Cooper in his request that we should have much more information in regard to the policy of the Government in respect to these various matters in which they are presumably interested, inasmuch as they have had representatives attending the conferences named—for instance, the opium conference and the traffic in arms conference. There are frequent discussions of a lighter kind on various matters, at which we read that the Irish Free State is represented.
I hope the Minister will come to the conclusion some day that the people at home, especially the Deputies in this House, should get some information as to the policy adopted by their representative at these various conferences. Is it the intention, for instance, of the representative of the Free State to limit the traffic in arms, or to advocate that armaments shall be national monopolies, or that there should be a free trade in arms, and that anybody and everybody who can smuggle armaments from one country to another should be allowed to do so, and that there should be no international agreement regarding such matters? We ought to know the mind of the Government on these questions, at least to help us to form our own judgment, so that if we disagree in sufficient numbers and with sufficient violence we will be able to turn the Government out. I say, with Deputy Bryan Cooper, that we ought to have very much more information on these matters of external policy than has yet been given to us.