Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 5 Feb 1926

Vol. 14 No. 6

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.

Mr. JOHNSON

I move:—

That it is desirable that the Dáil should be kept informed by the Minister responsible, by means of statements made from time to time in the Dáil and by the publication of relevant documents, as to important developments in international affairs with which the Saorstát is, or may be, concerned either through its membership of the League of Nations or of "the community of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations."

This motion which I have put down is not expected to be controversial. It is desired that it shall express the views of the Dáil that information regarding relations between the Free State and other countries shall be discussed in the Dáil, and that information in respect of these matters shall be made known to the Deputies, and that Ministers shall be invited occasionally, and as often as circumstances require, to convey to the Dáil such information as it is important that the Dáil should be made acquainted with. The paper that was circulated two or three days ago gives some indications, at any rate, of the kind of thing that I think is desirable should be placed at our disposal. When the Free State entered into the League of Nations it entered with the personal pledge of the President that Ireland joined in a solemn covenant to exercise the powers of her sovereign status in promoting the peace, security, happiness and the economic and cultural well-being of the human race. The exercise of these powers requires at least that the people of this country, apart from the Ministers themselves, should be made acquainted with the method and manner in which those powers are being exercised, and in which the influence of the State is being used, if that influence is being used.

The entry of this State into the League of Nations—the exercise of the powers of the State in relation to the League of Nations—implies that the people of this State, and particularly the Parliament, should have knowledge of the matters which are being discussed by the League of Nations. It is well known that within the last two years there have been discussed matters of the utmost importance to the world, to the well-being of the human race, and to this country, but we have had very little information in regard to them. Neither the Dáil nor the people have been supplied with information as to the policy that is being pressed forward, acceded to, or opposed by our Ministers.

We had discussions on what was known as the Protocol to the Covenant. Beyond the statement made by the Minister in the Dáil, we have had no information except what we could glean from the British Press. In other countries, even in countries that are component parts of the British Commonwealth, documents have been prepared, published and discussed in their Parliaments. We have had no information of that type laid before us. Then there was the later Pact resulting in the Locarno Treaty. Again, we are dependent entirely on what appears in the British Press, copied into the Irish Press. We have had no information as to the line taken, if any line was taken, by our Ministers in regard to that Pact. I surmise that there must have been communications between the Governments, communications which involve matters of general public policy with which the Parliament is involved, not merely matters of a private and confidential character.

It is desirable that the Dáil should know exactly what the position is in regard to those Treaties and obligations that have been entered into on behalf of this country. Those Treaties were ostensibly Treaties associated more or less with, and dependent upon, the League of Nations. In so far as they affect the League of Nations, we, as members of that League, are definitely affected, and it is important that we should know what the policy of our Government is in regard to those Treaties and obligations that were entered upon. There have been obligations other than the obligations implied in the Covenant of the League of Nations. By the very nature of the Locarno Treaty, there is contemplated some possibility of war, let us say, be tween Britain, France and Germany, in which those countries might be involved. That is a matter which it is important we should have some information upon. To what extent are we involved?

It has been made public, again through the Press, not through the House, that the terms of those treaties specifically state that the Irish Free State and other British Dominions, or to be more correct, the Irish Free State and the British Dominions, are not parties to the agreement except by their express consent, but that does not leave us entirely free and unconcerned. I think it is an occasion for the Minister here to raise, with the other countries and the League, or with those countries through the League, a question of the responsibility, or, shall I say, the freedom from responsibility, of any warlike action in the case of a war in which Britain is involved over a Treaty to which we are not parties. If it is expressly implied in those Locarno Treaties that we are not involved, except through our express consent, there is the implication that those other countries, France, Germany and any other country that might become involved, have no right to consider and must not be allowed to consider that the Irish Free State, merely by virtue of the fact that it is a component part of the British Association of Nations, is to become a party to a war in which Britain is engaged. I know this raises a question of the utmost importance, and I am not intending this afternoon to press the matter or to discuss it with any fullness. I think it will be necessary at some opportune time in the future, to raise the whole question, but I am only touching it now in the light of the Locarno Treaty and the implication that has been suggested that we are in no way involved unless we expressly put our signatures to those Treaties.

Then we had, as I mentioned, the discussion which took place in the last assembly, a summarised report of the proceedings of which has been circulated. Again, this very important question arose, and I congratulate the Minister for Justice in having made clear, or shall I say comparatively clear, the position of the Free State to those assembled at that meeting. It will have been observed that the representative of the British Government made a statement in regard to proposals for arbitration when disputes possibly involving war arose. Sir Cecil Hurst, the British Minister, said among other things,

"Other States might well be in a position to accept so extreme an obligation as to pledge themselves in all cases to refer their legal disputes to the Court of The Hague, even though they might affect the vital interests of their country, but the British Empire at the present moment was a very composite and peculiar political unit. It did not consist of one Government alone; it consisted of a partnership of six nations standing on a footing of equality. In a matter which affected the vital interests not only of Great Britain, but of any one of these six partners, there had to be solidarity of action. In a matter which affected either the vital interests, the independence or honour of any one of the six nations, there must of necessity be unity of action."

The Minister, in response to that, pointed out that Sir Cecil Hurst was not announcing to the Committee the considered attitude of any other Government, or at least was not announcing the considered attitude of all the six Governments towards the principle of compulsory arbitration. So far as the Government of the Irish Free State was concerned, that was not the decision on this important matter at which the Irish Free State had arrived. It is of very great importance that some demur should be entered against the phraseology of the British representative's statement when he speaks of the British Empire being a very composite and peculiar political unit, consisting of a partnership of six nations standing on a footing of equality, and that there must be solidarity of action in any matter which affects the independence or honour of any one of the six. When we entered into the League of Nations we entered into obligations as an independent State. I understand that when the term British Empire is used in the discussion at the Assembly and in all the phraseology of the official documents of that Assembly it refers to Great Britain, her dependencies and Crown colonies, and not to the British Dominions or the Irish Free State. The representative of the British Government speaks in that statement as though these States, though independent members of the League of Nations, all comprise one political unit for purposes which might involve war. My view is: it is of the utmost importance to our security and to our freedom from liability to attack that the freedom of our citizens should not be involved in a war when the independence or honour of any one of the six nations is in jeopardy.

I put it to the House that they must consider that if Great Britain or any other of the signatories to the League of Nations Covenant, who are independent members of the League of Nations, followed a policy which led to differences between the League and that country, and that if we were called upon to fulfil our obligations, we might conceivably be obliged to take action of an economic or other kind, according to our obligations, against that country which has flouted the authority of their Covenant with the League. We must not allow this view of what is called the diplomatic unity of the Empire to prevail. Otherwise, the pretence that we are independent members of the League goes for nothing, and one of the American objections to the League is supported, which says the British Empire has six votes while they would only have one. If it is assumed that it is a single diplomatic unity and that it has six votes, then there is no future for the League of Nations, and no hope for the possibility of permanent peace, because it will simply mean that this diplomatic unity of six nations is going to have supremacy in any discussions which involve votes.

There is another matter of smaller account, though of great importance, about which, I think, the House should be informed, apart from what can be picked up from small and unsatisfactory reports in newspapers. I am referring to the discussions with respect to noxious drugs. It is known that in that matter the Irish Free State representative, to its credit and to the credit of the representative, acting, no doubt, on instructions from his Minister, took a very strong part in supporting the United States view of the course that should be taken, against what happened to be the British view. I say that the action of our representative on that matter has been very highly appreciated in the United States. It was, undoubtedly, the right action, but the Dáil and the country should have been apprised of the position and should have had some official knowledge of the line of action taken by our representative on a matter of moral concern, a matter affecting vast numbers of the world's population, and, undoubtedly, affecting the well-being of the human race in a very important degree. We ought to have been informed of the line of policy that was taken by our representative on that important matter. So it is with all other questions in which whether we like it or not, we are concerned, and we are obliged to ask ourselves whether, having entered the League of Nations, we only entered it with a view to possible protection, or whether we have actually, as was promised by the President, entered into a covenant to exercise our powers of sovereign status in promoting the peace, security, happiness, and the economic and cultural well-being of the human race. Those undertakings imply responsibility, and my plea is that we should be informed of the work that is being done on our behalf, that the people of this country, and particularly the members of the Dáil, should be frequently taken into confidence and be asked to express their views on any line of policy adopted by our Ministers, so that Ministers may thereby be fortified in any action they may think well to take. Let us understand whether we are taking part in the work of that assembly or simply allowing other people to do the work and to involve us, without protest, in future commitments merely by implication. I am asking the Dáil to agree to this motion with a view to ensuring that in future we shall be informed very much more fully and more frequently than we have been in the past.

Mr. ESMONDE

I wish to second the motion. The Dáil and the country have been kept completely in the dark for several years as to what policies have been pursued by the Executive Council so far as our external relations are concerned. On very rare occasions the Minister responsible has consented to inform the Dáil or acquaint the country of what he is doing. In fact, in a very marked manner, so far as this side of the Government activities is concerned, that particular Department has not justified its existence either to the Dáil or to the country, and a Department which does not justify its existence should be suppressed, as this country cannot afford luxuries of such a kind. Not only should the House and country be kept acquainted with matters connected with the League or with the Commonwealth of Nations, but there are also many other congresses and conferences of a national character about which we should be informed. Some of these congresses are of great interest to the national life. Congresses have already taken place on questions such as emigration and matters of that kind in which we were represented and in which. I presume, a certain line of policy was followed, but we were never informed as to what that line of policy was.

Deputy Johnson has referred to the Locarno Pact and to our position in that respect. There is one point which I should like to mention in connection with that Pact, as it seems to affect our position under the Treaty of 1921, I think it is Article 9 of that Pact which states that it imposes no obligations of any kind upon us until we adhere to it. But under Article 7 of the Treaty between Ireland and Great Britain we find that:

The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to his Majesty's Imperial Forces. ...(b) In time of war or of strained relations with a foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid.

Supposing, as Deputy Johnson has supposed, that Great Britain was involved in strained relations or in a state of war as a result of the Locarno Pact, is it the opinion of the Executive Council that we would be obliged to give those harbour and other facilities under Article 7 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, in spite of the fact that Article 9 of the Locarno Pact states that it imposes no obligations of any kind upon us? That is a point on which we would like to know the opinion of the Government, as to whether they consider the Locarno Pact supersedes the Anglo-Irish Treaty, or whether the Anglo-Irish Treaty, although it came previously, is superior to the provision of the Locarno Pact.

There are many other matters which arise of great importance and interest to the country, and, apparently, the Minister concerned does not consider that the Dáil deserves any information on them, or is in any way interested in them. The numerous Conventions which have been signed—some of them signed on our behalf—at the League of Nations, which have never been brought to our notice, affect many questions which have a very vital and actual interest to large numbers of people in this country. For instance, there is the Convention which was signed on our behalf, and which has never been ratified, for the suppression of obscene publications. That was signed in 1923. and I do not know why it has not been ratified. The Dáil has never been informed as to what the policy of the Government is in that respect. I do not know whether the ratification of that agreement would involve any change in existing legislation as regards the suppression of obscene publications. There are also various interesting points in that Convention, in Article 3, I think, dealing with the actual means whereby we could assist in the suppression of this traffic. There is an obligation resting upon the Government to appoint some central authority in this country for the purpose of dealing with the suppression of obscene publications. There has been a great outcry, to which great prominence has been given in the Press, from many sections of the community protesting against the growing influx of obscene publications into this country, and the Minister for Justice said he could not legislate ahead of public opinion. Why is it that this Convention, which was signed on our behalf nearly three years ago, has not yet been ratified?

All these are matters of interest to the Dáil and the country, and are matters on which we should be consulted, but apparently it is the policy of the Department responsible that we should be kept completely in the dark and that no justification of any kind should be given why this Department should be kept in existence. That is already having its effect in different parts of the country, and different sections of the Press are demanding the suppression of this Department, on the ground that it has not justified its existence either to the Dáil or to the country. I think that the motion of Deputy Johnson is very reasonable, and it is a pity it was not passed several years ago.

Professor MAGENNIS

I think Deputy Johnson has rendered valuable service in bringing forward this matter. It is of more than exceptional importance. Deputy Esmonde professed to support him, and in doing so he made one criticism on the Department of External Affairs which, before I go further, I desire to comment upon. He said that the Department has not justified its existence, and that a Department which does not justify its existence ought to be suppressed. The Department may not have fully justified its existence in one special sense, but I contend that to exist at all is to justify its existence, and that it would be altogether a fatal blunder on our part to propose, or give countenance in the smallest measure to a proposal, to abolish this Department. It is rather a significant fact that all the quarters from which demands for the extinction of this Department proceed are precisely the quarters from which the agitation emanates against the Irish language and against every effort that we are making to make the Irish people Irish. I think it is a sinister coincidence, even if it were only a coincidence. I am rather surprised to find Deputy Esmonde, even by inadvertence, joining in that cry.

It does appear from Deputy Johnson's criticism that this Department has been doing good by stealth. I wonder does it blush to find it fame. I might quote from "Twelfth Night":

"Wherefore are these things hid?" It would undoubtedly have been not merely better in the sense of a fuller recognition of responsibility to the Dáil, but in the popular phrase would have been "better business" on the part of the Department to have reported its activities, more particularly those which have met with the unanimous and unqualified approval of other States.

It is well that the people of this State should recognise that very peculiar position, constitutionally, in which it stands, and what that peculiar position involves, or may involve, for it. Deputy Johnson has drawn the attention of the public to this consideration in a way that may be called a vivid way. The British Minister, speaking of the proposed acceptance of arbitration, declared, as Deputy Johnson quoted, that the British Empire is a very composite political unit. Undoubtedly that statement is exact, and yet its very exactness contains an error which will be likely to blind the representatives of other States who heard it, and who are not so familiar with the intricate details of our relation to the other constituents of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

The "British Empire" is a very unfortunate term, and it is all the more awkward for us when that unfortunate term occurs in the first Article of our Treaty, where Ireland is declared to be a co-equal member of the British Empire. Possibly that was a slip on the part of the draughtsman and possibly it was a deliberate statement made with design. At any rate, what Deputy Johnson has declared to be the proper interpretation of the phrase "British Empire" is undoubtedly correct. Yet, there is an acceptance of the term which makes it cover a much wider area and gives it a greater scope and application. Strictly speaking, of course, the British Empire is merely Great Britain with its dependencies, its colonies and its possessions. The people to whom the once familiar name of the present dominions and colonies of England is still, in a vague and loose sort of way, a name, think, when one speaks of the British Empire as containing the colonies of England, that the dominions are included in that. They fail to realise, what very recent years have evolved, that those nations that were once merely colonies are now States that have joined the League of Nations in their own right, and have signed the Treaty of Paris in their own right.

It is repeatedly enunciated, and I think it is a fairly correct statement on the whole, that, in addition to the League of Nations, there is a combination sometimes described as a smaller League of Nations, to wit, the British Commonwealth. That British Commonwealth is not the British Empire, but it is frequently described, even by British statesmen, as the British Empire. Obviously, it was that phraseology that came to the lips of the British Minister at the League of Nations when he said that the British Empire was a very composite and political unit, and he went on to say that it was a partnership of six nations on a footing of equality. That partnership of six nations, on a footing of equality, is not the British Empire strictly speaking, but the British Commonwealth of Nations. Then again, to speak of it as a partnership of nations and of political unity, in a context and in circumstances that would convey that the character of that unity is such as to necessitate common action, in total solidarity, where the vital interests of any one of the partnership was in danger, is to say the thing that is not true, because it is to forget one of the very important elements of our Treaty.

On the other hand are we free from attack? Supposing one of the co-equal members of the Commonwealth went to war, was embroiled with some other State, we are not free from attack. Paper guarantees in this matter are of no use. By one of the Articles of the Constitution we are, to all intents and purposes quasi-belligerents, if not fully belligerents in case of England being at war.

MINISTER for JUSTICE (Mr. O'Higgins)

Which Article of the Constitution?

Professor MAGENNIS

I forget the number, but the Article was quoted just now by Deputy Esmonde.

MINISTER for EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr. D. Fitzgerald)

Article 7 of the Treaty.

Professor MAGENNIS

I was wrong. I thank the Minister for reminding me. It is the Treaty and not the Constitution I was referring to. We are obliged to provide Great Britain with naval bases and facilities. Does anyone believe that a great power at war with England, knowing that naval bases and other facilities are provided, would refrain from attack? Therefore, it is very necessary that our position in this matter should be defined and made very clear, that it should be well understood that the Free State regards itself as on precisely the same international footing as was claimed by South Africa for South Africa, and by Canada for Canada, in the deliberations preceding the fact of their signing the Treaty of Paris, signing it in their own name, in their own right. It was declared afterwards by, I think, the late Lord Milner, acting as British Commissioner, that they were on the same standing in that matter as France or Belgium.

Deputy Johnson recalled a fact that is beyond dispute, that, at the time when the demand was made for membership of the League of Nations for the constituents of the British Commonwealth, objection was made that that would be, in effect, to multiply the vote of Great Britain and give her an unfair predominance in the League. That objection was made and enforced with great insistence by Japan amongst other nations, and it was one of the things that made me feel, and feel very strongly, that the reception of the Irish Free State into the League of Nations was of tremendous value and importance, as indicating and securing our international status, because it indicated that Japan and the other objectors realised that those States which form the elements of the political unit, the British Commonwealth of Nations, were entering in their own right; that they were exercising their own sovereignty, and that they were not committed by their being components of the Commonwealth to endorse and follow, as of necessity, the foreign policy that might be initiated by Great Britain. I think that is the case, and that is the great value of membership of the League of Nations, whatever else it may entail, or whatever cost it may involve for us on other questions.

I hold that those who believe in Ireland's right to be a nation among the nations should be gratified to find that we have that membership. But then the corollary or the sequel to that is that we should see to it—I admit it has been seen to—that our position is not misrepresented there: that we are not committed, or rather that we should not be committed to endorsing everything in the way of foreign policies which Great Britain either initiates or adopts. We should stand on our own feet and make our own decisions, and if this is to be a democratically governed State these decisions should be the decisions of the people, arrived at through the appropriate instrument for reaching decisions of the people. Otherwise, we get back to secret diplomacy and bureaucracy, exercised in external affairs, so that the nation may find itself some day committed to something which it abhors. Therefore, I agree thoroughly with Deputy Johnson that in all these matters of external affairs, for which the Minister has charge, the fullest publicity as to what is proposed, what attitude our representatives are taking, and what is the policy of the Executive Council, which includes the Minister for External Affairs, should be put fully before this House for discussion. If we do not take up that attitude, if we do not insist on that attitude being taken up, we are in effect tacitly assenting to secret diplomacy and to secret covenants secretly arrived at.

I do say that the Department of External Affairs is a valuable part, and an exceptionally valuable part, of our organisation of government, and that no consideration of economy should be pressed so far as to demand its abolition. True—I have stated so publicly— it is susceptible of better organisation. It has a career of greater usefulness, nationally, open to it. If it has hidden some of its excellent transactions from the public view, that is not a reason why its usefulness should be diminished. On the question of the Estimates, the subject of its better organisation can be more appropriately discussed. I only refer to it here lest it might seem that in repudiating any proposal to have it abolished I was at the same time leaving myself open to be taken as endorsing everything that the name covers.

It ought to be made clear beyond all doubt how the operation of the working of that stipulation in the Treaty is going to affect our safety from a military and naval point of view. That is a matter for negotiation surely. That is a task cut out for the Department of External Affairs and more particularly for the representatives that it sends to the League of Nations. It is quite possible that we may receive some guarantees. It is more than possible that the dominions, particularly of South Africa and Australia, in their own interests, would stand by us in this. It is of the last importance that we should not be only entitled a Free State, because titular freedom and actual freedom are very different things. If the results, as they work out in practice, of the stipulation referred to, be that we are necessarily objects of attack for any enemy that is at war with Great Britain or the British Empire, the position would become very serious. It seems, therefore—I hold this fully with Deputy Johnson—that what goes on in our name at the League of Nations should receive the fullest and the earliest publicity.

General MULCAHY

I desire to support very much this motion of Deputy Johnson. A note of criticism, no doubt, of the management of the Department of External Affairs must creep into speeches made on this particular subject, but I really think they have nothing to do with the motion that is at present before the House. The motion means a desire to help the Department of External Affairs to realise how it can help itself. The community of nations known as the British Commonwealth are supposed to be an association of nations bound together, say, by common interests, and in the same way the nations that form themselves into the League of Nations would say that they are bound together also by common interests. I suppose the whole tendency in that direction is that the different nations may exchange as systematically and as efficiently as possible ideas, policies, plans and helps of various kinds to better the general condition of their own peoples. Now, a lot of matters are covered by what is referred to here as "important developments in international affairs." We have our interest in all these—in matters that tend to intellectual and social advancement as well as in these matters which are intended to prevent us being engaged in wars.

We cannot help being struck particularly with the interests and the desires of our people not to become engaged in wars, but from statements made from time to time by British Ministers we cannot help being suspicious of the possibilities that lie in our particular connection with Britain from the point of view of involving us in a war. There will be very few of our people who will go abroad to international conferences of any kind that will not have to question here and there a statement of some British representative implying a certain status and certain commitments on our part in regard to British intentions and British policy. We had it at Washington, where on this question of codifying national law and outlining in a systematic way the rights and duties of nations, Deputy Johnson raised the question of what was involved in the consideration of these matters by the status of certain States, States that belonged to the British Commonwealth of Nations. In reply, we had a statement made by the responsible head of the British Delegation of 40 members there that it was inconceivable that if Great Britain were at war, the party that was at war with her would agree to recognise the neutrality of any member of the British Commonwealth of Nations simply because that member crossed its fingers and said "I am not playing." Now, when in an international assembly the responsible British representative can make a statement like that apropos of our status here or the status of Canada, and when we are considering the way in which Britain has from time to time found herself at war, we cannot help but be suspicions of what the future may contain for us in connection with our relations with Britain.

If Deputies will refer to a document recently circulated by the Minister for External Affairs they will also see the official summary of the British representative which contains the statement, "No Government of the British Empire, up to the present, considers it wise to pledge itself to refer to the permanent court all cases affecting the vital interests of the nation.""No Government of the British Empire" means no single Government of the British Empire. But there you have the question again obscuring the position as to what exactly the British Empire is, and then you have one of those little phrases that are such very effective dope in colouring the minds of people as to what the British Empire is, or as to what the Commonwealth of British Nations is, and what is the supposed position of those nations that go to make it up with regard to one another.

We found ourselves at Washington regarded by representatives of States with a considerable amount of international experience, as being in the position, with regard to England, that one of the States of the United States is in in regard to its own country, and statements such as this, to which I have referred about the Government of the British Empire, and statements such as Deputy Johnson has drawn attention to, are the things that create, amongst external peoples, the idea that the Irish Free State occupies, towards Britain, the same position that one State of the United States occupies to the United States as a whole. That appreciation of things, or misappreciation of things in the minds of outside peoples does create very serious dangers for us, because when we find ourselves on the threshold of being involved in war, through British policy, we will find ourselves in that position, perhaps, knowing very little of the circumstances that have led up to that position, and it is most necessary for our own people here that we should have all the information possible on international development that will enable them to realise thoroughly their position, and to engage in such discussion from time to time as will clear their minds as to what they intend, internationally, in respect to Britain and the other nations of the British Commonwealth in any international crisis of whatever kind. It is only by information here, and such intelligent discussion here, that we will be able to dispel the ignorance that prevails outside with regard to this country in the minds of our people.

In discussing, many years ago in the British House of Commons, a Coinage Bill and the question of decimal coinage, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was a matter on which the opinion of a mere Minister was of no importance at all compared with the opinion of the people. I think it will be readily agreed on all sides that in this matter of possible war for our country, or of possible critical diplomatic relations of any kind, the opinion of a mere Minister cannot be any great help to himself in dealing with it, and ought not to be the thing upon which the country would be made to act, but in such circumstances the Minister can only act effectively on the consolidated opinion of the people, and that it would be very unfair to the people, and disastrous to them and to the Minister himself, if he acted on anything else. It is in order to help the Minister himself and to help Deputies in this Dáil, and to help the people in the country generally, that I feel that the Dáil should very strongly support this motion of Deputy Johnson's that will ensure that we get the information that it is necessary for us to get if we are to be prepared for the future.

MINISTER for EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr. D. Fitzgerald)

I receive the motion made by Deputy Johnson with appreciation and a great deal of sympathy, but the very circumstances of the Ministry that I hold afford me very few matters to bring before the Dáil and make it rather difficult for me to come before the Dáil very often to explain things in details. Our present arrangement with regard to the activities in the League of Nations, the International Labour Bureau and other Conventions organised by the League of Nations, is that we will give the House a report on them. That will add considerable work to my Department, which has but a very small staff. Deputy Johnson expressed some doubts about Locarno. I am glad to have this occasion of making a statement on Locarno, because although we did not participate in the conference at Locarno, and had not any part whatever in it, at the same time it is of interest for us. Arising out of it may arise wars, and wars may be prevented by it. We are a small State and, in practice, a disarmed State in Europe. We are a State, remember, of that community of nations referred to sometimes as the British Empire, and we are a State with very intimate economic relations with Great Britain. Therefore, it does happen, as one might say, that Great Britain has an interest in participating in the Locarno Pact by the fact that the development of modern war has put her interest further East than formally, and in the same way when it affects Great Britain there is also the possibility that it will affect us. For that reason I shall be happy to give a general history and to some extent my own opinions also about Locarno. Deputy Johnson referred to a statement by a British representative at the League of Nations which implied, or appeared to imply, that he was speaking on behalf not only of the Government of Great Britain but of those other States which are co-equal members of the Commonwealth. I think that in view of the statements made here to-day by Deputy Johnson, Deputy Esmonde, Deputy Magennis and Deputy Mulcahy as to the lack of understanding of our position amongst other States, I may say that it was almost as well that the British representative made the mistake that he did make, because the Minister for Justice was able then to make clear in a way which otherwise he might not have had an opportunity of doing, exactly what the position was, and with the permission of the House I will read the statement he made on that occasion.

"I claim the indulgence of the Committee for a very few moments not with a view to putting forward a proposal for the consideration of its members, but simply for the purpose of guarding against a misapprehension which might easily arise— and which seems in fact to have arisen in certain newspapers—from the speech of Sir Cecil Hurst on Friday last. Portions of that very able and interesting address might be considered to bear the construction that Sir Cecil Hurst was announcing to the Committee the considered attitude not of one Government but of six, towards the principle of compulsory arbitration and the question of adherence or non-adherence to the optional clause of Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court. I wish to make it clear that so far as the Government of the Irish Free State is concerned that is not the position. My Government has not as yet arrived at a decision on this important matter. Sympathetically inclined to the principle of arbitration, it would wish to give to the question of the practical application of that clause to our special circumstances a closer consideration than has yet been found possible."

The Minister for Justice there made it perfectly clear that the Irish representatives, and they only, were in a position to speak on behalf of the Irish Government, and that the British representative did not speak on behalf of the Irish Government and the Irish people. That is a matter beyond argument, that only the Government of the Irish people is able to do any act in any way committing the Irish people to anything. We have done no act; we have not participated in Locarno, and therefore in Locarno we have taken no juridical responsibility whatsoever, although, as I say, our geographical position, our association with the British Community of Nations and our economic associations with England make it a matter of interest to us. That statement of the Minister for Justice was reinforced by a statement of the British representative, saying that the case explained by the Minister for Justice was exactly a clear statement of the case and that the British quite agreed with it.

Deputy Johnson asked if we had entered the League of Nations merely to get protection, or to exercise our power to promote peace, etc. I think that our activities in the League of Nations have been made perfectly clear. We need not claim particular credit for it, because we had no interests to protect. We have stood always on the side of the Ten Commandments, not represented by Deputy O'Connell's friend. We have done that consistently, because our peculiar position enables us to do that without loss. I am not suggesting that we are a more highly ethical people than other people. I am not saying that we have not considered other matters apart from the exaltation of the Ten Commandments, but it does happen that so far our interests and the interests of the Ten Commandments are identical.

Deputy Esmonde said that the Dáil was kept completely in the dark. I think that that is an unfair statement. From time to time, not very often, relatively seldom, I have here made certain statements, and I think that on those occasions I gave as frank an explanation of the circumstances as could possibly be given. Deputy Esmonde also referred to statements in the Press with regard to the abolition of my Department, statements which are of no interest to me, because I consider them neither enlightened nor honest. The existence of my Department is merely the implementation of the position created by the Treaty, and the position created by the Treaty was the position to a large extent desired by the Irish people.

With regard to Article 7 of the Treaty, it is very hard to say anything definite, but I might make a slight reference to it, and also a statement on Locarno. Every Convention which we propose adhering to is brought before the Dáil for ratification. We do not propose to commit the Dáil to anything without the Dáil's consent. A certain number of Conventions have been brought here from time to time. We have not ratified all of them, but considering the length of time we have been members of the League I think we have ratified more than most members. Possibly it may happen that some members are quite willing to ratify every Convention, without considering their feasibility or their intention of actually maintaining the provisions of the Convention. We do not propose to ask the Dáil to ratify any Convention which we are not determined to maintain in its fullness. Deputy Esmonde referred to the Obnoxious Drugs Convention, and complained that no member of the Dáil knew the reason for the delay in ratifying that.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Obscene Literature Convention.

Mr. FITZGERALD

The Obscene Literature Convention, yes. I think that Deputy Esmonde for one has a very good idea as to what the reasons for the delay are. In connection with the use of the phrase "British Empire," terms like these are difficult because the whole position of the community of nations has not been created by statute; it has not been created by definition; it has been created by growth. As I have said here before, it is full of illogical positions and illogical phrases.

On the one hand in statutory documents and in international instruments, the words "British Empire" have been used in the past meaning all those dependencies and dominions and everybody else. On the other hand, since the coming into existence of the League of Nations, the independence and the sovereignty of those States, sometimes referred to as Dominions, have been made more and more clear, and it is clear that as the British Empire is a member of the League of Nations, and as Canada is another member of the League of Nations, and the Irish Free State another member, the definition intended of the British Empire is the definition made by Deputy Johnson, namely, that the British Empire is Great Britain and all these States and dependencies directly or indirectly administered by the Parliament of Great Britain. I think the fact that the "British Empire" is the phrase used there rather helps us to clear up what the British Commonwealth is. The British Commonwealth is the British Empire plus all those independent States, including the Irish Free State. I may say that I think since we, the Irish Free State, came into existence we have done more than anybody else in making it perfectly clear what the position is. It has been suggested that my Department has not justified its existence. People are quite entitled to hold that view, but I am quite prepared to argue and maintain that the Irish Free State Department of External Affairs had made more progress, more clarity and more precedence in the right direction than the Department of External Affairs of any British Dominion during that time.

Somebody referred to economy. Well, I plead guilty myself to too much economy. My Department has, possibly, not done all the work it might have done, but certainly for its cost to the country it has given more return, I think, than the similar Departments in a great many other countries. Incidentally, I might mention that we are a revenue-making department. We are told that the whole taxation of this country could be reduced immensely. I take a word used in the cinemas—"featuring"—and I say that the daily newspapers might advertise themselves by featuring a leading article on the External Affairs Department. We are a revenue-earning Department, but even if we were not I do not see that the relatively small sum of money we get would make the difference between commercial ruin and commercial prosperity. Actually we receive an extraordinarily small sum, out of which sum we maintain not only the office here, which controls all communications between this Government and the Government of Great Britain, but we maintain also the office of the High Commissioner in London, the office of the Minister Plenipotentiary in Washington, the Passport Control Office in Washington, and trade representative in Washington, and trade representatives in Paris and Brussels, and our representative at the League of Nations. Our estimate was £46,000, and with the machinery we had, and on that expenditure we earned a revenue during the year of something over £20,000. On economy, I might say that everybody should economise. Newspapers and banks should economise, but I do not think there is very much ground for economy in my Department.

I think it was Deputy Mulcahy who referred to the fact that every Irish representative that goes abroad has to challenge or question a statement made by a British representative. That is natural. As I say, this position is not the result of definition. It is the result of growth, and naturally there are people whose mind is always a few years behind. They have grown up in the habit of thinking in one way, and it is not easy for them suddenly to realise all the connotations of their words in the changed circumstances and to use the exact words. In Washington this year you had Deputy Johnson and Deputy Mulcahy, who, I think, were well able to dissipate any errors or any erroneous conceptions that might arise from the statement of any other representative. We made our position perfectly clear in the League of Nations or in any other International assembly in which we participated. Of course, it is only as time goes on, after constant rectification, only slowly and gradually does the right conception enter people's minds generally.

I have been asked about Locarno. With the permission of the House, I will read a general statement of the history of the Locarno Conference.

The Conference of Foreign Ministers for the negotiation of a Security Pact opened at Locarno on October 5th, with Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Belgium participating. The request of Poland and Czecho-Slovakia to participate in the main Conference was refused, but towards the end of the proceedings those two States negotiated with Germany, the Eastern Arbitration Treaties.

The final negotiations that led up to the Conference were:—

(1) The French and British notes of September 15th.

(2) The German note of September 26th, and the note verbale delivered simultaneously.

(3) The French, British, Italian and Belgian notes of September 29th.

The French and British notes of September 15th, couched in identical terms, referred to the completion of the work of the preliminary conference of jurists at London, and suggested that the Security Conference be held in Switzerland not later than the beginning of October. The German note accepted the invitation and fixed October 5th as the date. The accompanying note verbale stated that the entrance of Germany to the League of Nations "should not be interpreted as a recognition of allegations containing a moral charge against the German people" and that "the prolongation of the occupation of a large part of German territory is considered as an injustice by the German people."

The Allied replies did not accept the contention embodied in the note verbale. The British note of September 29th, after expressing satisfaction at Germany's acceptance of the invitation to the Conference, went on to state that the question of Germany's responsibility for the war was not raised in the projected pact and that His Majesty's Government were obliged to observe that the proposed negotiations could not modify the Treaty of Versailles or alter the judgment of the past.

On September 20th the Government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic informed the German Foreign Minister of its readiness to enter into negotiations for the conclusion of an arbitration Treaty. This was the first occasion that direct contact was established between Berlin and Prague. A week or so before the opening of the Conference the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., Mr. Tchicherin, visited Warsaw and Berlin.

On October 16th the Final Protocol of the Locarno Conference was signed and the following instruments, which were initialled by the delegates, are to be signed in London on December 1st, next:

(1) Treaty between Germany, Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy (commonly called the Security Pact).

(2) Arbitration Convention between Germany and Belgium.

(3) Arbitration Convention between Germany and France.

(4) Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Poland, and

(5) Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Czecho-Slovakia.

The principal intrument amongst the foregoing is the Security Pact, destined to maintain the status quo territorial and the inviolability of the frontiers of France, Belgium and Germany such as they have resulted from the Treaty of Versailles. In negotiating this pact, two important shoals had to be avoided. In the first case it should not touch the Treaty of Versailles, in which an important part of French public opinion see its safeguard, and in the second it should not be contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations nor in any way infringe on its authority.

Articles 2 and 6 of the Pact reserve formally to France all rights arising out of the Treaty of Versailles, including that which considers a violation of the demilitarised zone as an aggression on the part of Germany. Judicially, therefore, the Treaty of Versailles has not been touched. Its text rests in its entirety.

The Covenant of the League is provided for in Article 7 as follows:

"The present Treaty, which is designed to assure the maintenance of peace and is in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations, shall not be interpreted as restricting the duty of the League to take whatever action may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of the world."

This sounds very much like the Protocol of Geneva, whose object was the pacific settlement of international disputes and the effectual organisation of a coalition of pacific States against an aggressor. Such also is the object of the Pact of Locarno. Conflicts which cannot be resolved by arbitration between the parties are taken before the League Council in accordance with Article 3. The Council will then determine the case in which assistance is to be given, even in the case of aggression of a flagrant character. Such is the meaning of Article 4. The Council shall also propose the measures to take (Article 5) in the case where one of the parties refuses to execute the arbitration sentence. It will also determine by a two-thirds majority the date when the Pact shall cease to have effect (Article 8), that is when the Covenant of the League of Nations shall in itself be considered a sufficient guarantee for the parties concerned.

The League of Nations, therefore, intervenes in several Articles and may be considered as the keystone of the whole edifice.

In the preliminary negotiations the question of the determination of the aggressor was a particularly difficult one. It was proposed that its appreciation should be left to the Council of the League of Nations, but France reserved to herself the right to act without any delay in the case that Germany had manifestly violated her engagements. Article 4 recognises this right in case of flagrant aggression, but on the other hand it authorises the League Council to suspend operations in case it should decide that, contrary to the judgment of the parties, there had been no aggression. The functioning of this, in practice, may be doubtful, but then one must not lose sight of the fact that all the work of the League of Nations is of a preventive character.

From our point of view Article 9 of the Pact has a special significance. It reads:

"The present Treaty shall impose no obligation upon any of the British Dominions, or upon India, unless the Governments of such Dominions, or of India, signify their acceptance thereof."

On this I want to say that I am merely giving an opinion that may be argued. I am not saying that what I say here should be taken as established.

From this it may be argued that in case of a war arising out of the Pact in which Great Britain is obliged to participate, the Dominions could not be considered to be in a state of war, unless their respective Governments so decide. In other words, they remain neutral, as the Treaty imposes no obligation on them, not even that of passive belligerency. This Article also raises the very delicate question as to whether the second clause of Article 7 of the Anglo-Irish Treaty could be legally enforced in such a case.

It may even be a question on that whether the second part of Article 7 of the Treaty should be enforced. However, I am not venturing to give an opinion.

The Arbitration Treaties negotiated at Locarno play an essential rôle in the whole system. It is not always an easy matter to prevent the growth of conflicts. Men and peoples can never be unanimous in their opinions for any long time. What is required is to prevent at all costs the settlement of their differences by violent methods, or in other words to organise the means of regulating them peacefully. At the fifth assembly of the League of Nations, France declared her willingness to submit all disputes without exception, whether juridical or political, to compulsory arbitration. Germany, however, prefers that political conflicts should be submitted to a procedure of conciliation, in which case the decision would not be compulsory. This method has the great advantage of being more supple and less formal. Conflicts which could not be resolved in this way should afterwards be submitted compulsorily to the Council of the League of Nations, in accordance with Article 15 of the Covenant. This latter method would not necessarily exclude violence, but it would render a resort to war very difficult.

What is most remarkable in the Franco-German Arbitration Treaty is that it contains no reservation concerning the Treaty of Versailles. There is, however, a provision to the effect that it does not apply to disputes arising out of events belonging to the past. The Treaty has not a retroactive effect, but all the conflicts that should arise in the future are placed on the same footing, whatever their juridical origin may be. Germany has certainly obtained a great concession here, which modifies profoundly in practice as well as in spirit the Treaty of Versailles.

The Eastern Arbitration Treaties differ only in minor details from the Western. There are no special guarantees beyond those already concluded between France and her Eastern Allies, or between those Allies themselves envisaging the case of Germany breaking her engagements and the application of Article 16 of the Covenant. Some States interpret this Article 16 as having only a moral character, but France, Poland, and Czecho-Slovakia, in their relations, consider it to be entirely of a juridical nature. On the other hand, France, Britain, and Belgium have, in a separate letter, accepted in their relations with Germany the restrictive interpretation given to this Article by the latter. This letter runs as follows:

"These obligations should be interpreted in the sense that each of the signatory States is held to loyally and effectively collaborate in respecting the Covenant of the League of Nations, and in opposing any act of aggression in the measure which their geographical situation and the special conditions of their armaments would permit."

This letter, which seems to lend itself to different interpretations, evidently convinced the German delegation that Article 16 of the Covenant does not oblige them to do anything that they would otherwise be obliged to do unconditionally in their own interests.

I may say this was written some time ago. I think that most of the statements made there, and the notions one had of Locarno, have been more or less proved correct so far. Deputy Johnson raises a rather difficult constitutional question. In our Constitution Article 49 sets out:

"Save in the case of actual invasion, the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) shall not be committed to active participation in any war without the assent of the Oireachtas."

That is an important point. In the event of a great European war, as one Deputy said, paper guarantees are worth nothing; they are actually nothing. It is a matter that I cannot pretend to know more about than anybody else. In the case of a great European war I think this country, and nearly every other country, is going to be directed in its policy by brute facts. What these brute facts are going to be I do not know. I have often regretted that one of the results of the Reformation was the decline of that science known as speculative theology. I think it was probably a much more valuable science than speculative politics.

I think the constitutional position will be cleared up as time goes on. That is not the only thing which is anomalous or contradictory. The whole position is full of anomalies and full of contradictions. During the last few years we have done our best, and we have been successful in various directions, in clearing up some of those anomalies. There is a possibility that an Imperial Conference may be held some time within the next year. I hope that that Imperial Conference will assist in clearing up various anomalies that still exist. I do not think it will clear all the existing anomalies up, because what has taken many generations to build up is not going to be defined and formalised in all its particulars within a year or so. I do not think I can deal any further with that point. Other points may arise. I think I have dealt with most of the points that were raised.

As to the frequency of statements here, I cannot promise that statements will be very frequent. Often there are laid on the Table of the Dáil reports of conventions and international assemblies in which we take part. I have no doubt that from time to time, either of my own volition or the volition of some Deputy, as is instanced by this motion to-day, an occasion will arise when it will be advisable to make some statement here.

Major COOPER

The Minister deplores the decline of the science of speculative theology. I speak as one uninstructed in this matter, but I believe one of the problems that concerned speculative theology was as to how many angels could stand on the point of a needle. Apparently the Minister seems to think that if that science were still in vogue it could be applied to the question of how many Dominions would stand on the point of a bayonet. I think that without referring to theology, and without referring to speculation, we can deal with this matter on a satisfactory basis.

In my humble opinion, with regard to external affairs we have really too much speculation and not enough facts, and I am not sure that the Minister's speech meets the case. I would suggest that instead of having, from time to time—infrequently, as the Minister suggested—statements made, or of having laid on the Table of the Dáil certain draft conventions and draft schemes to which we are a party, it would be better to set up a committee corresponding to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Deputies in France, of the House of Representatives in the United States, which should, at regular intervals, receive not merely reports of conventions and official documents, but official information as regards our relations with other States. It should be a Committee of the Dáil, representative of all parties. Then those parties would have sufficient knowledge and sufficient information to enable them to place a motion on the Paper to have one or other aspect of these affairs discussed.

With regard to Deputy Johnson's motion, while I am in favour of its spirit I am not in favour of abstract resolutions and discussions in the Dáil. We should have a discussion only on a definite motion. There might very often in foreign matters be a state of affairs in connection with which a motion would be undesirable. If all parties of the House were fully informed of the case, they would not want a motion and they would not want definitely to express upon it the opinion of the legislature of Saorstát Eireann. They would want to know something, of course, and I think that could be achieved better by keeping representatives of all parties informed and instructed, as is done in the French Parliament and in the Parliament of the United States.

I could elaborate this thing, and point out the advantage of having our own news. I do not think the English papers colour their foreign news, but I do think that very possibly they omit many features that would be of more interest to us than to British readers. I do not think the Canadian or Australian news emphasises the movement of Canadian and Australian opinion in the direction of a wider autonomy. I do say that we ought to have such information as we can obtain from our own official sources. It cannot always be published. I realise that, but a Committee of responsible Deputies representing all parties could be educated and informed and could act as an invaluable force to move public opinion in the direction in which the Government thinks it ought to go. I do not think the Minister or the Government need fear factious opposition. They have had very little opposition in regard to external affairs; what they have had was purely on principle and not for the sake of discrediting the Government.

I urge the President and the Minister for External Affairs to consider the advisability of setting up such a committee, which should have free discussion and full knowledge. I do not want to intrude on Deputy Johnson's right to reply and therefore I will say no more.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am inclined to think that, notwithstanding the Minister's disavowal of making any change, the result of the discussion will bring about some change. At least I hope if the motion is passed that it will be taken as an indication of the wishes of the Dáil in the matter, and that we will be kept informed to a greater degree than we have been in the past, of the policy of the Ministry in respect of matters affecting the State, whether in relation to the component parts of the British Commonwealth or in relation to other States. In the latter particular, it essentially means action taken by the League of Nations and discussion in the League of Nations assembly and so on. The circulation of the document that had been placed in Deputies' hands does indicate one of the lines which I desire the Minister should follow in future. I do not want to be taken as urging that we should be fussily poking our noses into all kinds of things and pretending to be more powerful or influential than we are, or will be for a very long time. But I want the people of this country to feel that they are units in a League of Nations and that they are not merely carried away by a stream without any say at all in the direction of that stream. I want to make the people conscious of the fact that we are a constituent part of that League of Nations, a State independent of other States, and that the very acceptance of this State into that League involves a great constitutional change not only for us but for Great Britain, and not only for Great Britain but for those other States in relation to Great Britain and in relation to Ireland.

The matter has been touched upon perhaps more fully than I had intended, because though I realise that the whole question of neutrality impinged upon the discussion. I thought perhaps it would have been better to have a discussion on that subject alone. But as it has been touched upon, both by other Deputies and the Minister, I think it is important for me to state my point of view and the point of view of many others on this matter, and I think probably the point of view of the Ministry. Notwithstanding Article 49—

"Save in the case of actual invasion, the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) shall not be committed to active participation in any war without the assent of the Oireachtas"

—it is not recognised by the other States of the world as ensuring that we shall be deemed to be neutral. It is undoubtedly the fact, in international law up to the present time, that if England were at war, then Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland would be at war. It is true also that public opinion in Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand desires and intends that these States shall not in future be automatically involved in war with any country with which England is at war, but that their Parliaments or their Governments shall have a deciding voice in such questions. That course is stated specifically in this Constitution. I am very strongly of opinion that inasmuch as these various constituent parts of this British Association have evidently laid it down by their public opinion, and in some cases by definite and formal statement, that they will not be involved in war without the previous assents of their Government and Parliament, our endeavour should be to persuade the other nations of the world to accept that position in time of peace.

It may be said that the facts of war and war-time would wipe away any paper treaty or commitment. Unfortunately, one has to admit that that has been the case in the past and possibly will be the case in the future, but that very statement rather implies that treaties and obligations and covenants and leagues are all useless and we need not and should not enter into commitments of any kind because in times of crisis these paper commitments and obligations will not be honoured. I am not such a cynic as to accept that in toto. I think, as a matter of fact, that the growth of public opinion in time of peace helps to sustain countries in a rational state of mind in time of war or in time of crisis. But we are members of this League of Nations, and the League of Nations has, as one of its endeavours, the limiting of the area of the war conflict, the limiting of the number of States that will be involved in war conflict, and as members of the League of Nations it should be part of our duty and obligation to endeavour to limit the occasions on which we can be involved in war to absolute zero, if possible, and that the other nations of the world should be induced, as far as we can do it by diplomatic means and educational efforts, to arrive at that same conclusion. That is to say, if the evil thing happened, if England became involved in war with the United States, Japan, or any European country, those other nations would recognise beforehand that neither Ireland nor Canada nor Australia nor South Africa is automatically a belligerent merely by the fact that Great Britain is a belligerent.

I think that it should be one of the functions of our Department of External Affairs to endeavour to persuade other countries through the League of Nations to accept that position. If that can be done, and I believe it can with the assistance and co-operation of those other Dominions, or many sections of their people, I think we can arrive at the stage when the realities of independence and the values of free association with Great Britain will all accrue.

I want to say in regard to one or two of the matters that have been raised, that so far from criticising the Department of External Affairs from the point of view that it is unnecessary and wasteful, and should be suppressed, I am entirely of a different opinion. Whatever may be the constitution of a Ministry, a Department of External Affairs is absolutely necessary. So far from limiting its activities, I believe that it will be essential that these activities must be enlarged. There is undoubtedly a great ignorance even amongst influential politicians in the countries of the world as to our constitutional relationship with Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, as well as with the League of Nations. I believe that it is one of the functions of the Department of External Affairs to enlighten the statesmen, politicians, and people of other countries as to our constitutional position. Now, as the Minister claims, much has been done. I believe that that is true enough, to show how much more there is to be done. I will certainly stand by the Minister in his claim that the Department of External Affairs is an essential emanation from the Treaty obligation, and that it should be used to the fullest possible extent to ensure that the countries of the world will realise the constitutional position of this country. Again, I am ready to admit with him, as everybody who has studied the matter to any degree must admit, that this whole constitutional position is one of growth and development, and it is the acceleration of that growth and development that I want to see accepted as part of the work of the Department of External Affairs. I think that the development which I have indicated will be in the direction of persuading the other nations to recognise what we claim to be our constitutional position, and to recognise that constitutional position in time of peace in relation to matters which might involve war. I think we should insist, in season and out of season, that this country is not, and will not be, automatically involved in war, merely because Britain is involved in war, that this diplomatic and military unity of the British Empire does not exist, and that we will prevent it existing. I think that should be the position, and I think it would be a position that would go towards the maintenance of peace and the prevention of war. It would also be a position which would go towards the development of real association in matters of peace and civil development, and would show that there is no antagonism between the position which continues diplomatic amity but supports the movement towards educational, personal and civic liberty. From what the Minister has said, I take it, that the motion is not being opposed, and that it will result in future in more frequent efforts at informing the House and, through the House, the country, of the position of Ireland and the Free State in relation to the countries of the world.

Motion put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, February 10th.