Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 May 1930

Vol. 35 No. 2

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 67—League of Nations.

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh that £4,630, 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, 1931, chun Deontas i gCabhair do Chostaisí Chumann na Náisiún agus chun Costaisí eile mar gheall air sin.

That a sum not exceeding £4,630 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, 1931, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the League of Nations and for other expenses in connection therewith.

We are opposed to the expenditure of this sum of £7,820 as a grant-in-aid towards the expenses of the League of Nations and a sum of £1,450 for the travelling and incidental expenses of Saorstát delegates to League meetings. We cannot see that any advantage is being gained by citizens of the Saorstát through our membership of the League and, in fact, we are inclined to doubt the utility of the League from the point of view of international good-will. The main purpose of the League, when its establishment was first determined on, was the encouragement of good international relations between nations, but it is becoming largely an institution for the propagation of free trade ideas. The whole drive and purpose of the League at present appear to be the establishment of something in the nature of a European Zollverein. That fact was adverted to by the Minister for Education, speaking at a meeting last year, as reported in the White Paper circulated by the Minister for External Affairs.

He said that it was true that absolute free trade was not formally the doctrine of the League of Nations, but he was nevertheless of opinion that in practice the drive in certain quarters was towards full free trade. He also said that there was some justification for the view that if full free trade was not the expressed policy of the League there was ground for suspecting that it was the ultimate goal.

We do not think that it helps to solve the serious economic problems of this country to have our Minister for External Affairs, and other representatives of the Saorstát Government, attending periodically at meetings at Geneva and there finding themselves in a position in which they are almost forced to apologise for the few and puny attempts made here to protect Irish industries. It appears that international finance has got the League in its grip and is striving to remove trade barriers because their removal will be profitable to itself. If the League of Nations is to be a useful institution it must be based on a clear recognition of the fact that nations exist. If nations exist, they exist for the purpose of providing for the welfare of the people who compose them. European free trade, or world free trade for that matter, might possibly help the people of Europe as a whole, or the people of the world as a whole, but it does not follow from that fact that it will help the people of the Free State in particular. The Government of the Free State should be primarily concerned with the welfare of the people of this country. If the policy of the League of Nations is, as the Minister for Education described it, one of free trade, the sooner the Saorstát expresses dissatisfaction with that policy, and its belief that it cannot be made applicable to circumstances here, by withdrawing from the League the better.

I would like the Minister to tell us whether he has taken action at any meeting of the League to assist the people of India in their struggle to obtain the independence of their country. It will be remembered that it was at one time a strong argument used by certain colleagues of the Minister that the status obtained in the Treaty should be accepted by us because by doing so we would be putting ourselves in a position to assist the people of India and people of countries similarly circumstanced to obtain at least similar status. That argument possibly had a considerable effect in influencing the very small majority by which the Treaty was passed in the Dáil, but it appears to have been forgotten almost immediately afterwards. The only indication of Government opinion given in this House on the subject of India has been the sneers of the Minister for External Affairs and occasionally those of other Ministers. They seem to think that this matter is one for laughter, derision and scorn. Of course, having become imperialists and having been consorting with those who guide the destinies of the Empire they cannot be expected to see things now in the same light as they saw them in 1922. That would be asking too much, but we think that they should occasionally remember the arguments they used and the promises which they gave in connection with these matters or, at any rate, attempt to make a show at justifying them.

One of the purposes for which the League is supposed to exist is to rectify the grievances of minorities. There is a minority in this country with a grievance. As Ministers are aware a certain section of the population of the six north-eastern counties are of opinion that they suffer political disabilities which are imposed on them because of their religion. It should be the duty of the Minister for External Affairs to take up with the League of Nations the question of these disabilities without waiting to be asked to do so.

I would remind him that it was contended by his colleagues eight years ago that the Free State established by the Treaty consisted of the entire thirty-two counties of Ireland. In any case he has an obligation to the people of the six north-eastern counties which has not been destroyed by the subsequent betrayal of these people in 1925. If it is a fact that political disabilities are imposed upon a section of the population of the north-east, because of their religion, and if the Minister can rectify that position by representation at the League of Nations it is his duty to do so. Has he done so? Does he propose to do so? Does he consider this matter one for derision, the same as most other matters referred to here? He is concerned with nothing apparently except these nice juridical points with which he occasionally deals when these Estimates are under consideration, or on the occasion of the consideration of Conventions like those which we have been asked to ratify to-day, which are of only academic interest to us. There are certain matters which are of live practical interest to the country. I have mentioned at least one of them and I want to know has the Minister done anything in regard to it at Geneva, and, if not, why he proposes to waste £9,000 of the taxpayers' money to keep the League in existence. Have we gained anything by it otherwise than the assertion of what, in the Minister's mind, was the full nationality of the country?

We never believed that it was necessary to spend any money or to send delegates anywhere to assert that fact. The Minister is possibly aware of a doubt in his mind, and he is anxious to remove the doubt in other minds by continuously appearing at international conferences as an equal with equals. If that was necessary at any time, it has ceased to be necessary now. Whatever international status was gained by the Free State is now freely recognised. This money can be better spent unless it can be shown that the machinery of the League can be at any time utilised for the betterment of the people of the country. That has not been shown. Heretofore the only activity of our delegates at the League meetings has been, as I said, to apologise for the ineffective measures of protection which public opinion forced this Government to concede to Irish industries some years ago. We are opposed to this Vote.

In supporting what my colleague has said in regard to a certain section of the population of the Six Counties, I would like to say that that certain section of the population was "sold," according to the words of the President. I do not like to use bad language, but I might use, if it could be taken as a precedent in this House, the statement of the President that it was a "damn good bargain."

Is not that peculiarly irrelevant to this Vote?

It is not.

I beg to differ with you.

The ruling of the Ceann Comhairle must be observed. It is absolutely irrelevant.

Very good. If we are spending money in sending delegates to the Geneva Conferences, the first thing, I submit, they should do is to take up the case of the minority in the Six Counties and to see that that minority is treated in a proper manner. At the present time, either politically or religiously, that minority is not being treated as it should be treated. Although they are compelled to pay rates and taxes, pound for pound, with everybody else, they are placed under this disability, that because of their religion and their politics they are only allowed for the building and the maintenance of Catholic schools, fifty per cent. of the amount allowed to the people of other religions. These people, under certain regulations arrived at, are being deprived of rights to which they are justly entitled. Since they are a minority and since because as a part of that bargain, they are put under these disabilities, it is up to anybody sent to Geneva to fight their case to the best of his ability. That is not being done, any more than our representative is fighting the case of any minority or any struggling small nation that may be under the domination of the British Empire. It is principally in regard to that minority in the Six Counties that I have risen to speak. My colleague has protested against this Vote. I most emphatically endorse that protest for the reasons I have given, and until a certain representative of the Free State does a certain job in Geneva, in regard to struggling small nations and in regard to the minority in the Six Counties, we will continue to register our protest in this House.

I fear that having listened to the last two speeches we cannot see the wood for the trees.

You cannot see Ulster for Cork.

We are beginning to ignore the main purpose for which the League of Nations was established—namely, the promotion of mutual good will between the nations who are represented at its conferences from time to time. On the question of the advocacy by one of the representatives at the League of Nations of world free trade, I understand that any of the delegates are not bound to abide by decisions taken on this particular matter. It is merely an expression of opinion made by one of those delegates representing one of the nations. I do not know which at the moment, but it is, of course, a very debatable question whether world free trade would or would not be a good thing. We do know that the setting up of these trade barriers between nations has had very evil results in the past. It does not at the same time prevent this country from adopting any fiscal policy which it may choose, and I think, as I have already said, that we are beginning to get away from the main purpose for which the League of Nations was established. I propose to support this Vote.

Since the "Skibbereen Eagle" so far forgot its sense of humour as to keep its eye on the Czar of Russia I do not think there has been anything so ridiculous as Deputy Lemass on this Vote, and I do not propose to deal with him at all.

Am I to take it that the arguments used in 1922 are forgotten now?

The Deputy is overdoing it a little. He should take a rest for a bit.

Am I to take it that the Minister is comparing the Free State with the "Skibbereen Eagle" and Geneva with Russia?

Do I take it that the question of the political disabilities of the Catholic minority in the North-east is a matter which does not concern the Minister?

I am not saying whether it concerns me or not. I am dealing with the League of Nations. The Deputy is overdoing it. He should take a rest.

Motion put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 28.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Clancy, Patrick.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Colohan, Hugh.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • White, John.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and Peadar Doyle; Níl, Deputies Killilea and Stephen Jordan.
Motion declared carried.
Top
Share