Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 3

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 66 (LEAGUE OF NATIONS).

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £5,350 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Deontas i gCabhair do Chostaisí Chumann na Náisiún agus chun Costaisí eile mar gheall air sin.

That a sum not exceeding £5,350 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the League of Nations and for other Expenses in connection therewith.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I do not think that I need say a great deal on this. There have been two meetings of the Assembly of the League of Nations last year which we attended, and I think I gave a report on each occasion. Deputy Johnson asked me last night if we had received from the American Government a copy of their statement to the League of Nations as to their proposal, with reservations, about the International Court, if we had received a communication from the League of Nations on that matter, and if we were invited to a conference to deal with it. Well, we were not in existence when the Protocol of the International Court was signed. It was signed by Great Britain when we were regarded as part of the so-called United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I understand that the American message has been addressed to the signatories. It is a matter we have given consideration to as to whether we should be deemed as being included in the signature which was affixed in the name of Great Britain and Ireland in the year 1921. As we were not one of the original signatories we did not receive the formal message from the American Government and as apparently the League of Nations, while this matter is in doubt, deem it safer to consider us as non-parties to the convention rather than as parties, we have not actually been invited to take part in the conference in September. We are entirely sympathetic to the project and the work of the International Court. The only thing, therefore, that is left otherwise than very clearly in the Convention is the fact that there being a doubt as to whether it is necessary for us to take separate steps now or not. As soon as we have that matter cleared up, if we judge that we cannot be regarded as parties to the International Court Convention we shall immediately take steps to affix our signature and become parties to it. I am not quite sure if that meets the point that Deputy Johnson raised.

Mr. JOHNSON

It meets the point, but it raises another. It raises the point which, perhaps I might confess, I was driving at—that is to say, the attitude that the Minister takes regarding the conventions that were entered into within the League of Nations by Great Britain. Does the Minister accept the position that all conventions which were entered into by Great Britain before the Treaty of 1921 have been accepted by the Irish Free State? Are we reckoned to be parties, as an independent State, to these conventions which were entered into by Great Britain before the Irish Free State came into a separate existence? If that is the case with one convention, if it is deemed that we are automatically parties to those conventions, we shall understand the position. But if they require a separate, formal agreement confirming decisions, treaties and conventions which were entered into by Great Britain, then we ought to know how many of these conventions we have formally confirmed. What our position is in regard to those is a matter that I think requires to be cleared up.

If we are deemed to be parties to those conventions because Great Britain entered into them before we came into existence, we ought to see that we carry out our obligations. If that is not the position, we have to examine the question as to how many of those conventions we ought to enter into formal agreement with and have registered as being parties to, and I think it is requisite that the Ministry should give us information upon that point as to what is their contention, whether that contention has been discussed by the League, whether it has been adopted by the League, whether there is any objection to it by the League, of whether it has been refused by the League. I do not know what the position is, but it is desirable that we should know where we stand, because there are some of the conventions that we would certainly desire to be formally parties to, if we are not already automatically parties to them. In this case there seems to be no doubt. If we are automatically parties to this convention regarding the world court, then I think the duty of the Minister is to intimate to the League of Nations that we are entitled to a formal invitation to that conference. By virtue of the fact that we are a separate member of the League of Nations, and certainly a separate State, we are entitled to an invitation to that conference, which is a conference of all the States that have adhered to this convention regarding a world court. I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy that request for information.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Conventions can be described as political and technical. This is one of those technical conventions which was dealt with before we came into existence and there may be a doubt as to whether we are bound by it or not. We could submit a statement to the League of Nations asking them to regard us as a State that wishes to be recorded as bound by it. I think that is what happened with certain technical conventions such as those dealing with the minimum age in agriculture and workmen's compensation and one other, with regard to the international court that will come under the head of political conventions. It raises a very serious question, one that I frankly admit I am going to try to avoid making any definite statement on. I think if we were to decide that on the whole we were bound by such conventions, in that case we might use the form used in regard to the other conventions, namely, that we wish to be regarded as bound by them. I do not wish to be forced into appearing to beg the question as to whether we are or are not bound by them. If we consider that we are not bound by them so far as the international court is concerned, we shall not ratify it. If we consider it is doubtful, as in the case of the technical conventions, we will state that we wish to be bound by it, but at this stage I do not wish to make any statement which could be regarded as a decisive statement by me as to whether we are or are not bound by them.

Mr. ESMONDE

That is a most amazing statement by the Minister. I think it is two years now since he stated that he did not know whether we were or were not bound by this convention or whether we were not members of this international court. Now, two years after, he makes this further statement. I think it is a most amazing situation, and that it is high time that some decision was arrived at as to whether we are members of the court or not. This State has been in existence for a number of years, and possibly has been a member of the court for a number of years. According to the Minister's statement we may have been a member all the time. I think it is a most unsatisfactory position. I would urge on the Minister to register at the League of Nations the First Schedule to the Finance Bill, the Second Reading of which was passed to-day. It contains the agreement between the Irish and the British Governments with regard to income tax. I understand it is the first agreement which has been arrived at between two States carrying out the recommendations of the League of Nations on that matter.

Mr. JOHNSON

I, too, think that the Minister's statement is unsatisfactory. He has insisted, and we all have insisted one time or another, that in respect to the League of Nations we are an independent unit, registered there with equal rights with every other State—member of the League. So far as the League is concerned, we are recognised as the equal of any other State in status. The Minister has emphasised, too, that within this Commonwealth of Nations all the States are equal. He has told us with a good deal of force that the Dominion status is a thing of growth and not very well defined, and that in the minds of many people it is not desirable to define it too closely. But in respect to the League of Nations, surely our position is different and should be defined, and there should be no question in that relationship as to whether we are bound by certain conventions automatically; whether we took on us when we entered the League these conventions, or whether we are not members and not bound by these conventions until we have formally notified the League that we are bound by them. Now there is a very definite distinction between acceptance and non-acceptance, and between being bound and not being bound, between having affixed our signature or not having affixed our signature. That surely is not a matter of doubt and it should not be indefinite. The League ought to know our position and we ought to know our position. I do not think it is at all satisfactory to say that when the matter arises we will consider whether we are already bound or not. I do not suppose there could possibly be another member of the League who would take such an attitude, and it rather suggests confusion on the part of the Ministry that in respect to the League we are not independent and that we have not a definite status. I think that is wrong, but I think that the Ministry is bound to take steps to make its position clear regarding these conventions so that not only we in the Dáil, but the League itself and all the other nation-members of the League shall know whether we are bound by certain conventions or not. It is a most unsatisfactory position to be in doubt as to whether we have entered into treaties or not and whether we have obligations or not.

Mr. FITZGERALD

This raises a very difficult question. Suppose England were to divide in two halves tomorrow, North and South England, and that in the name of all England, the King had signed certain documents and had ratified certain conventions, the question is whether these two parts of England, now as new States, are any longer part of the one State, and are the two bound by these conventions: is one bound and the other not bound, or is neither bound? The question is a very difficult one to answer offhand. I am afraid this Government has rather spoiled people here. We do things rather quickly, and then there is always the expectation that things will be done quickly. But this is an international question in which we have to act slowly; the other government concerned has also to act slowly, so that you have the slowness of the two Governments multiplied.

The convention is signed actually in the name of Great Britain and Ireland, as one unit, but we are separate. We may say that we are bound by it and the others are not. Naturally we have acted slowly in this. It is a matter for discussion and very serious consideration. As to whether any acts done in our name beforehand still remain, in remaining they do not take away from our status because we as a sovereign entity have the right to denounce anything that was done in our name in the past. It does not affect our status now. It only means did we inherit a convention signed in our name or did we by separating separate from that heritage and take a separate part? I think Deputy Johnson has rather misrepresented the position in thinking that it derogates in any way from our position in the League of Nations or from our status as a sovereign State. It simply means one convention was signed in the name of what is now two, and whether that one convention covers the two or whether it only covers one, and which one, is a very subtle point. It is a matter on which I think a good deal of time will go by before it is really cleared.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

I am mainly concerned with the voting of this large sum of money for the purpose for which it is down in the Estimate. I confess, if I thought I would get any support, I would move a reduction of it, because the greatest estimate that anyone can form of an individual or an institution is the estimate which he or it forms of itself. If we try to appraise the estimate which the League of Nations forms of itself we ought to see how the constituent parts of that League obey the instructions and decisions given by it. That is the way the Irish taxpayer is endeavouring to appraise the utility of that body and the utility of spending so much money as part and parcel of it. I think I am right in saying that France, Italy and England are the three largest powers within the League. What estimate did the Governments of these countries place upon the decisions of the League of Nations? We all know what France did when the League of Nations gave a decision against the occupation of the Ruhr Valley in Germany. The League of Nations expressed certain opinions on that, and France religiously ignored them. Italy was not always on good terms with other nations beyond the Mediterranean. The League of Nations expressed certain opinions on that matter, but Italy religiously ignored them.

I would like to know from the Minister if there is any instance where England accepted the decision of the League of Nations? France did not consult the League of Nations in the matter of the war against the Riffs, nor did England forget to protest against the registration of the Treaties of this State with the League of Nations notwithstanding the fact that the League of Nations had accepted these Treaties and recognised the right of this Nation to register them. On this question of the utility of the League of Nations, has the position of Egypt and of India as regards England been submitted to it for consideration? About six weeks ago, at about 7.30 in the evening, I heard a message broadcast on the wireless to the effect that there were raids in Bengal, that the troops were called out and fired blank cartridges, and that the rioters were dispersed. At 10.30 on the same night another message was broadcasted saying that 15 persons were killed and 40 wounded. It must have been a very dreadful type of blank ammunition that was fired from the rifles in India that produced such results. What the Irish taxpayer would like to know is, what value is the League of Nations to the Irish Free State?

Take the States that are outside the League of Nations. You have America, probably with the greatest gold reserve in the world and probably the strongest military power at the moment. That was the nation that made the Great War mainly a manoeuvre to train its troops. Germany is outside the League of Nations, and Russia, which is not only a note of interrogation in your political institutions, but a huge note of interrogation in your whole social order, is also outside the League. One is inclined to ask why these nations remain outside the League and of what value is it to the Irish Free State to be part of the League.

There does not seem to be any sincerity in the protestations of the great States within the League. They use the League as a kind of buffer institution between the Great War and any opportunities they may get of effecting alliances. Just as it suits them, and when they can effect alliances, they will drop the League and disobey its instructions.

It is difficult to get any publication relating to the League of Nations. It is difficult to get any real information as to what the League does. The most one can appraise it as is an institution, an international clearing-house, for all the intrigues of the world. That sums up the only function it fulfils; it can fulfil no other function, because the nucleus around which the present institution grew was composed of politicians. The effort to build a world peace around a political nucleus certainly will not succeed. Probably the Minister for Finance would be able to find another nucleus around which to build it. If anybody is in earnest in seeking the nucleus around which to build a world peace, he will find it far removed from the politicians who guide the destinies of most of the States within the League at the moment.

Mr. HEWAT

I think the last speaker on this very intricate subject has not formed a reasonable conception of the difficulty of the work that has been undertaken in connection with the formation of the League. I think the original enthusiasm in connection with its formation did not take into consideration the enormous difficulties there are in getting any body, whether it is a body of nations or individuals, into a working arrangement that will satisfy all. We have seen that difficulty in the growth of the labour position generally. We see it every day in the efforts that are made to get over the difficulties that confront the smooth working of labour and capital. We see it all around us, and yet we cannot recognise it when it comes to the point where, instead of what one might call societies, you have got nations to deal with in conclave.

If one feels inclined to be disappointed with the results of the work of the League of Nations, the exposure of differences of opinion, and the difficulty of harmonious working within the League and around it, one must at the same time recognise that the basic principle behind the whole arrangement is to endeavour to organise a state of things out of which can emerge a working arrangement that will be practicable. It is useless to express impatience in this matter. We have to be satisfied that the conscience of the world had consented to treat the matter as one that is possible of solution.

That actual harmony can be obtained over even a series of years is, I think, taking too optimistic a view of human nature as we find it embodied either amongst individuals or amongst States. In this matter one must look to every point that has been gained as an achievement, and a great achievement.

As regards the participation of the Free State in the proceedings of the League of Nations, it does not matter if we are the smallest State there or are smaller than other States represented there. I do not think you can sum up the total influence of a State either by its size or importance.

I think that by passing this Vote we accept the principle that we are going in to do our best for the common weal. Whether our best has any effect or not, the gesture we make by our representations is, I think, of very considerable value to the League and it is well worth the money that is being expended on it. If every State begins to think in the light of what is going to be gained individually, I think the difficulties will be magnified; the difficulties of arriving at a point which I think the whole world would desire the League to arrive at—a position of influence whereby their decisions will carry weight in any direction it is intended they should—will in such circumstances be magnified. There is no use in saying in this matter that laws can be laid down that will be accepted by strong or weak powers under all circumstances.

I fancy that the power of the League of Nations as a body will be of slow growth and it will be at all times subject to being upset; but the very incidents that upset it or cause disaffection for the time being will, with all well-minded people and States, be an incentive to try to get over these difficulties and arrive at a formula which will really govern the conduct of the nations associated with the Assembly.

One must feel that the progress towards a universal representation with the League of Nations has advanced and is advancing every day, even though such States as America have not come in. After all, if the League is to carry on its work, America has got to come in sooner or later. The very working of the League will be a factor in that direction. If the League is going to establish itself in the way originally intended I do not think you can look on the possibility of any nation being left out.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Would I be permitted to address myself to one of the sub-heads at this stage?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I take it the general discussion has ended now and in that case we can proceed with the sub-heads.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I desire to speak on sub-head B. I take the unusual course of standing up to express my admiration for the work of the Minister for External Affairs in connection with this sub-head, under which he has made a commendable reduction which has not got the Press notice one would expect with regard to it.

I want to refer to a statement previously made in connection with one item here. The reference, of course, was not made in connection with this Estimate, but I consider the matter is relevant. It touches on a practice that has now been stopped and that forms one cause for the reduction in the Vote. I would like to get an assurance from the Minister that that is so. The reference was made by Deputy Heffernan on the 25th March on the discussion of the Vote on Account. The Deputy intervened in the discussion, and, in response to an interruption by the President, he said:

I will tell the President all the circumstances. I went on the Continent as delegate of the League of Nations. I went there as a delegate from the Government of the Free State, and I went at the expense of the Government of the Free State. I might say that we stayed in palatial hotels and that we travelled first class, with sleeping saloons and all the rest. But I have not the faintest idea of what our expenditure was. I left shortly before the close of the Assembly and I travelled back on my own account, getting actual expenses later from the Government. I would be inclined to think that my actual expenses would not be one-fourth of my expenses when travelling as a member of the delegation. As the President has asked for an explanation, I think it is only fair that that explanation should be given.

I think it only fair a further explanation should be given. I happened to be closely associated with the official who was acting as treasurer to the delegation that year, and I also happened to be one of the few members of the delegation who remained until the end of the Assembly that year. I was amazed to see this as reported in the Official Debates. I did make some inquiries and I found that the cost of bringing Deputy Heffernan to Geneva as a member of the delegation—that is, arriving at the figure by taking the combined expenses of the delegation and dividing the total by the number of delegates—was £14 4s. 4d. The travelling expenses of Deputy Heffernan outwards from Dublin to Geneva amounted to £14 4s. 4d. Deputy Heffernan on that outward journey travelled under the personal direction and control of the Minister for External Affairs, who was one of the party. He was put on board the boat at Dun Laoghaire.

Mr. GOREY

Put on board?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There was sleeping accommodation provided to London; then there was a hurried rush across London in the morning and he got a train down to whatever was the port. He crossed by mid-day boat and arrived in Paris in sufficient time to have a little dinner. Then they got him put to bed so that he could be called early in the morning in time to get a train for Geneva. He was put aboard the train and brought straight away to Geneva. On the way back he travelled by himself. He said that he would be inclined to think that his actual expenses would not be a quarter of those when travelling there. It cost £15 5s. 0d. to bring him back. I thought it necessary to refer to this as the Deputy seems to have been under a misapprehension. He put up at good hotels and travelled saloon with sleepers, whereas on the way back he travelled as an ordinary Deputy, and was inclined to believe that his expenses would only be a quarter of those on the outward journey. I suggest what happened was that the Deputy, not being acquainted with the ways of the Continent, found that his money went to some extent astray. I do not, of course, mean that he misused any funds in any way, but that, travelling with the delegation and being one of a number of others and being under expert control of people who knew all the incidentals in connection with the journey, he got better value on the way out than on the way home. I presume that the Minister has made up his mind for the future that Deputies will not be allowed to come home apart from the official party, so that in that way money will be saved. I thought it better to draw attention to this matter, as it is on the official record, and have the facts stated.

Mr. MORRISSEY

It is a pity that the Minister did not wait until Deputy Heffernan was present.

Mr. GOREY

The Minister can now sleep with an easy conscience.

Motion put and agreed to.