League of Nations (Obligations of Membership) Order—Motion.

Mr. Belton

I move:

That the League of Nations (Obligations of Membership) Order, 1935, be and is hereby annulled.

This motion stands in my name and in the name of Deputy Kent. This Order is the outcome of a Bill passed here a week or a fortnight ago. That Bill gave powers to the Executive Council to make certain Orders. It gave that power in that they make the Orders and in the exercise of that power, so conferred, they have made the Order which I move to have annulled. In putting down this motion, we in no way challenge the authority of the Executive Council to make the Order, but we question the wisdom of the Order, and on that line I propose to give the reasons why we consider it unwise-and injudicious to make this Order now.

The case made for this Order is based on our obligations to the League as a member of that body. We should examine this position especially in the peculiar circumstances in which we find ourselves and ascertain what are our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations. Under Article XV of the Covenant, a matter in dispute can be referred to the Council and the Council can decide whether it is the domestic affair of the particular member or not. That has a peculiar significance for us here. We have the most stringent sanctions imposed on us, and if the matter of those sanctions were ever introduced by way of complaint at Geneva, we must take it that the ruling of the Council was that it was a domestic affair of Britain.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely the Deputy is leaving the Order already? He is endeavouring to discuss sanctions which the House has decided on and whether the Executive Council had any authority to impose sanctions. He has no right to discuss that.

Mr. Belton

I am not discussing sanctions. This House passed an Act enabling the Executive Council to do certain things and I am questioning the wisdom of the Executive Council in doing those things. The Act did nothing except to give power already in this House to the Executive Council. The Executive Council then had the power of this House vested in them and they made this Order by virtue of that power. In making that Order, they must have had regard to some considerations and I am reciting those considerations. The considerations must be that we have obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations as a member of that body, and if we have obligations under that Covenant, surely we must have rights.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise out of this Order.

Mr. Belton

What are the considerations that weighed with the Executive Council? I can only glean these from the background of this Order. As I said at the outset, and as I repeat, I am not challenging their authority to make the Order but I am questioning the wisdom of making it. In doing so, I must go over the reasons that actuated them in making the Order and these reasons must be that we are a member of the League of Nations. The President has at no time said, so far as I am aware, that we should take this line regardless of whether there was an obligation on us or not. I have carefully read all the speeches delivered on this question and the only person who made that point was Senator Blythe in the Seanad. The President did not go as far as that. He staked his whole case on our obligations. I want to endeavour to show that we have no obligations. We can have no obligations, if we have not got rights and surely, if we have not rights as a member of the League of Nations, we cannot be bound by obligations.

Mr. MacDermot

I submit that that line of argument is entirely out of order.

Mr. Belton

Deputy MacDermot——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy MacDermot is making a point of order, Deputy Belton must give way.

Mr. Belton

Let us hear hís point of order.

Mr. MacDermot

I submit that, as, in fact, you have ruled, that line of argument is completely out of order. It is perfectly easy to answer and no one would wish to shirk a debate on the general background, as the Deputy calls it, of this Order. But if it is not to be in order for other Deputies to go into these matters, it is certainly not in order for Deputy Belton to do so.

Mr. Kent

I should like to know from Deputy MacDermot——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is this a point of order?

Mr. Kent

Yes. I should like to know why he is shirking this responsibility. He said earlier to-day that there would not be intelligible argument put up as regards the annulment of this Order and I would like to know why he is so intent on shirking this responsibility?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not intend to allow Deputy Belton to discuss what he calls the background of this Order. He will have to discuss what arises from this Order and only that.

Mr. Belton

I take strong exception to the intrusion of Deputy MacDermot in the way in which he has obtruded himself in this debate. He can laugh but his sneers should be made in another place and not in this House. We have a short time at our disposal. I endeavoured to economise that time as much as possible and Deputy MacDermot has had plenty of say in this matter, both inside and outside the House, and he has made very bad use of it. It does not redound to his credit. I did not say that I wanted to debate the background of this Order but I said that to find out the reasons which actuated the Executive Council in making this Order, I had myself to search in the background. That is a very different thing from proposing to discuss it here. I said, and I repeat for the benefit of the interruptors if there is any intelligence amongst them——

Mr. Kent

None whatever.

Mr. Belton

——that I recognised that the authority under the Act passed by this Oireachtas is the authority of the Executive Council for making this Order. We accept that, and we must accept it. But we question their wisdom. If this Order was not made, the Act was a dead letter, but the Order is made implementing the Act and the Executive Council have absolute freedom of choice as to whether they should or should not make the Order. We question their wisdom in the exercise of that freedom of choice. If Deputy MacDermot's intelligence is so sluggish that he cannot appreciate that point, I pity him. I said that where there are obligations there must be rights. The question of sanctions against us was not raised anywhere to my knowledge. If it were raised, it must have been ruled by the Council that it was a domestic matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is endeavouring to travel a line which I cannot allow him to travel on this motion. He must discuss what is in this Order and not sanctions imposed on us, or the right of the Executive Council or the Government to impose sanctions on others.

Mr. McGilligan

Could he not discuss certain sanctions which are not in the Order, drawing examples from other countries?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If they are not in the Order they cannot be discussed.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it not open to discuss, not merely what is in the Order, but what a Deputy thinks ought to have been, and has been, omitted?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No.

Mr. McGilligan

Surely on sections of Bills over and over again we have discussed what is displeasing to us, namely, the omission of certain things, instead of what is actually in the section.

Mr. MacDermot

I submit that, if any tariffs could be discussed, all tariffs could be discussed. There is really no sense in labelling certain tariffs sanctions.

Mr. Belton

We have this Order before us and we question its wisdom. Surely when we question the wisdom of an act, we must give reasons for questioning it. I do not want to traverse any ground except what is necessary to give reasons for our objection to this Order. In fact, I should like a direction from the Chair——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not the duty of the Chair to indicate what case may be made in connection with any motion. The duty of the Chair is more or less a negative one, to indicate when a Deputy is travelling outside the terms of his own motion, or indulging in a discussion of what is not relevant to a motion before the House.

Mr. Belton

Part II, No. 4, of this Order states:

"On and after the date of this Order, none of the articles mentioned in Part I or Part II of the Schedule to this Order shall be exported from Saorstát Eireann to Italian territory."

We object to that Order being made. We object to it because there is no reason why this Government should interfere in a matter that does not concern us. We object to any attempt being made by the Executive Council to aid in the smallest possible way in starving the women and children of Italy. The obligations of the Covenant provide that our Executive Council may be asked for military aid.

Mr. MacDermot

Order, order.

Mr. Belton

The only element of disorder here is Deputy MacDermot.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing whatever about food in this Order or about military aid.

Mr. Belton

There is something in this Order about finance and about bills of exchange. We cannot send food to Italy unless we deal in these items. When we are prevented from handling finance, we are automatically precluded from sending food to Italy. By circumscribing our activities in finance, we cannot send our surplus food to Italy. We imposed these restrictions on ourselves of our own free will, and the Executive Council in exercising——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is no mention in this Order of restricting food sent to Italy.

Mr. McGilligan

May I point out that there is, in fact, in the method which Deputy Belton indicates, that unless cash is received in payment for the food we cannot send food to Italy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would apply to anything.

Mr. McGilligan

So it does. If Deputy Belton tags on the phrase "except where purchased as a ready-money transaction," he can bring in everything.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think so.

Mr. McGilligan

We are prohibited from having any transaction with Italy where any credit relating to the sale of goods comes into the question.

Mr. Belton

On page 3, paragraph 13 states:—

"For the purposes of this Part of this Order the following transactions in favour of any person shall without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing be deemed to be a loan made to or for the benefit of that person, that is to say:

(a) the acceptance of any obligation (whether by way of guarantee, bill of exchange or otherwise) whereby such person is enabled to raise money;

(b) the purchase of a bill of exchange other than a bill of exchange payable on demand;

(c) any credit relating to the sale of goods."

Mr. McGilligan

That is any goods.

Mr. Belton

Of course, any goods. When we cannot get credit, we cannot do business. Therefore, we cannot send any of our surplus food to Italy. We are, therefore, joining with the rest of the Black-and-Tans in starving Italy. Deputy MacDermot does not say "Order, order" to that. We are joining in this League, but not to fight the manhood of Italy. The President said: "There will be nothing of that kind; we will never conscript a man, even though we are bound under our obligations." He has made an Order by which we are cowardly to help in our small way to starve the women and children of Italy, but we have not the pluck to fight the manhood of Italy. What kind of gratitude is that? I read a few days ago in an American paper that the Italian Government was the only Government in the world that sent us a message of sympathy when the Black-and-Tans were here. I suppose Deputy MacDermot knows all about that.

Now, our first international act, so to speak, is to join with other nations in starving out the Italian nation. That in itself should be sufficient for this House to annul this Order. Circumscribed as I have been in not being—according to your ruling, which I accept—able to give fully the reasons why this House should reject this Order, my speech will be a short one. It is certainly a poor recompense for us who, in our hour of trial, got only one message of sympathy from a foreign Government—from the Italian Government.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Might I ask the Deputy to particularise when and to whom that message of sympathy was sent?

Mr. Belton

I saw it in the Gaelic American on the 2nd November.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No such message ever came.

Mr. Belton

Then there will be an opportunity for whoever was responsible for its publication to prove it or withdraw it. I accept the Vice-President's statement. I think he was out there about that time, and he ought to know all about it. Anyway, the Italians never did anything against us, any more than the Abyssinians ever did anything for us. The Italians were never against us.

Mr. Corish

We had enough against us.

Mr. Belton

Why should we now organise ourselves to starve a civilised people because, forsooth, of slave-trading savages? I wonder what is wrong in that statement? Will anybody deny that the principal trade of Abyssinia is the slave trade? Will anybody deny that in order to make more profitable slaves of them they mutilate the youth out there?

Mr. MacDermot

Is this in order?

Mr. Norton

Can this be replied to?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to proceed any further on those lines.

Mr. Belton

We have now to make our choice. Are we going to do our little bit to starve the nation that has given Europe her civilisation, the nation that has been the cradle of Christianity and the spiritual home of all Catholics in all ages? I thought the President would hesitate when the Rector of the Irish College in Rome spoke. I thought he would hesitate when his friend, Arehbishop Mannix, spoke. I thought he would hesitate when Father Coughlan of the United States spoke. Evidently he did not listen to them. But he is listening to another viear-on-earth— Deputy MacDermot. We came to an arrangement in this matter. The President is to speak at 10 o'clock and I will not take up any more of the time of the House. The House understands the situation quite well, even though the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has been very meticulous in his ruling. Even so, the case is pretty well known to every member of the House. Every Deputy here will be called upon before 10.30 o'clock to register his or her vote for or against this un-Christian and un-Catholic act, as described by Monsignor Curran, the Rector of the Irish College in Rome.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is not a correct quotation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The ecclesiastic mentioned undoubtedly objected to the sanctions, not to this Order.

Mr. Belton

Well, there can be no sanctions without this Order. The Rector of the Irish College knew very well that this was coming, otherwise his appeal was meaningless. The Executive Council made the Order and it was this Order the Rector was anticipating. It could be nothing else but this Order. This is the time when we can annul it. I hope that annulled it will be. This Order will do us no good. On the contrary, it will do us harm. This House can, by annulling this Order, exercise its choice now. When other breaches of the Covenant were not punished— when others who broke the Covenant were allowed to go unpunished—then surely that Article of the Covenant became a dead letter.

If we make this Order absolute we start a new chapter. We reimpose all those conditions that we had before anything went by default. If we make this Order absolute we will not have an opportunity again without dishonour of getting out of our entanglements. I would appeal to the President to weigh very carefully the whole situation before he reimposes conditions now. These conditions he cannot afterwards get out of without dishonour or without conscripting the youth of this country. That is quite plain to anyone who reads the Articles of the Covenant.

The President has stated that he has the country behind him in this matter. I question if he has this House behind him on the question of these sanctions. If he wants to give a fair chance to this House, I ask him to give every Deputy here freedom of choice to vote for or against the motion I am moving. I ask the Opposition to do the same. If they do not do so, Deputies on both sides of the House will be entitled to hope that they have heard the last word as to the condemnation of dictators in this country. Give the House and the Deputies a chance to speak their minds. Take off the Whips. Every Deputy was sent in here by eight to ten thousand voters, I want to say that I have not met one man, woman or child outside the House who is not against this Order. I ask the President and the Opposition as well to give the people that each Deputy here represents, a chance. Every individual to whom I have spoken is against this Order. Deputies know the views and the feelings of the people in their own constituencies. The Deputy is the custodian only of the views of his constituents and of their votes for the time being. In every democratic organisation the delegate from the branch or from the area must voice the feelings of that area. I submit that every Deputy here owes a prior duty to his constituents and to his country—a duty far above his Party affiliations.

I would appeal to the President, if he wants to know what this House really thinks, to let this go to a free vote. I suggest the same to Deputy McGilligan, who occupies the Opposition Front Bench at the moment. If you do not do that, you are afraid even of the members of your own Party. Constituents would like to be able to go to their own representatives and either congratulate them or ask them why they did so-and-so. But if they go now, what is the answer? "The Party Whips were put on and we had to vote the way we were told." Let each man stand up to his responsibility and vote according to his conscience and then face the music. If the President does not allow that, then he cannot claim to have this House behind him, much less the country. I challenge the President and the Leader of the Opposition to take off the Whips and let this go to a free vote.

Mr. McGilligan

The Whips are off, so far as this Party is concerned.

Mr. Belton

I am glad to hear it. Will the President take off the Whips? If not, then the country will know the value of his claim that it is behind him in this Order.

Mr. Kent

I rise to second the motion moved so ably by Deputy Belton. I can assure the House that I am not prompted by any vindictive spirit to any Deputy or any Party. I am really at a loss to know after the ruling of the Chair, where I shall commence to support this motion. I consider when this Order was brought into the House it was rushed with undue haste and there was no serious consideration given to the consequences which would follow its passage. I wish to give my views on this matter as plainly, as explicitly, as I possibly can, and I shall do it in an honest and patriotic way. I consider it my duty to ask that this Order, which imposes sanctions on a great Catholic country such as Italy, be annulled. I was rather surprised to hear from the Vice-President of the Executive Council the announcement that through all the years of persecution and through the Black and Tan régime there was not one word of sympathy from the Italian nation. What sympathy did we get from the English Government when they let loose——

Mr. MacDermot

Order!

Mr. Kent

You are great for order.

Mr. Corish

He did not want to hear that.

Mr. Kent

It is not palatable. What sympathy or what mercy did we get from the English Government when they let loose the Black and Tans, who unmereifully slaughtered our kith and kin?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not fall for discussion on this Order. There is no mention of Great Britain or reference to her imports or exports in this Order. The Deputy must confine himself to the terms of the Order.

Mr. Kent

I will try to confine myself to the motion. Really, as an humble individual, I cannot follow your ruling. I submit to your ruling, but I cannot follow the advice you have given me. The imposition of sanctions—can I allude to that?

Mr. Anthony

You might be ruled out of order again.

Mr. Kent

I consider it would be the greatest tribute to our illustrious dead, the men who fought for faith and fatherland down through the golden ages—it would be the greatest tribute of respect to these men to have this Order annulled. I consider, also, that it will be one of the black marks in the history of our country when we are dead and gone and perhaps completely forgotten—it will be sad history for generations yet unborn to read of this Order, imposed on one of the grandest Catholic countries in this world by an Irish Parliament. I repeat that it will be one of the blackest pages in the history of our country. I sincerely hope that my words will not be misinterpreted or my statements misconstrued. One thing I can say is this, that our President went to Geneva as the representative of our people and he discharged his obligations honourably, as we expected. I must say, also, that not since the days of Parnell, the great leader of the Irish people, had I such implicit confidence in any leader as I have in our President.

Mr. Corish

He is not going to be exported.

Mr. Anthony

The snag is in this part of it.

Mr. Kent

I have a long memory of the conflict that was waged against the English Government in this country. If the Labour Party only gave the support which we expected they would give in connection with this economic war all this trouble about the Geneva business would be settled.

Mr. Norton

Perfectly in order!

Mr. Kent

You tried to camouflage the issue as leader of the Labour Party the same as you always did.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Praise of the President in Geneva or what the Labour Party should have done in certain circumstances does not fall for discussion on this Order.

Mr. Kent

I ask the President, in conclusion, to leave this matter to a free vote of the House. If the President and the Executive Council will give way in that matter, then the unanimous support of the Irish people will be behind him in not imposing these sanctions against what I have already described as a grand and noble country like Italy.

Mr. Norton

Of all the miserable attempts to justify Italian aggression in this dispute probably the most lamentable exhibition we have had was that indulged in by the mover and seconder of this motion. Deputy Belton said these sanctions are being imposed in order to starve the women and children of Italy——

Mr. Belton

On a point of order. Is Deputy Norton not going outside the limits that I was allowed to travel on this motion?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Norton will have to observe the same limits as others who preceded him.

Mr. Norton

That means that I will have 20 minutes. Deputy Belton said the reason this Order was passed, and the way it is being enforced, was to starve the women and children of Italy. It is completely forgotten, apparently, that the necessity for sanctions is due to the fact that the Italian Government of the Italian people—that institution which passes as the Government of Italy—is pursuing a course——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss that either. The Deputy cannot travel outside this Order—whether it should be ratified or annulled.

Mr. McGilligan

Are we not to be allowed to say what is the fact, namely, that an attempt is being made to reduce an aggressive nation by starvation? I hold that is there in the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would get us into a discussion on the whole question of sanctions against Italy.

Mr. McGilligan

That is in the motion. Why not say so and be honest about it?

Mr. Norton

I am making the point, in reply to Deputy Belton, that the making of this Order is not due to any hostile or aggressive action upon our part, but is due to the fact that the nation against which this Order is deliberately and definitely made, is making it impossible for this nation or any other nation that respects its obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations to do anything else but impose these sanctions. I submit I am entitled to put forward that case.

Mr. Belton

I was not allowed to make that case.

Mr. McGilligan

That is in the Order certainly.

Mr. Belton

That was my view but I was not allowed to make that case.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not see why we should not be honest in this discussion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not know what Deputy McGilligan means by being honest in the discussion.

Mr. McGilligan

I put it to you that there is inherent in this motion a method which imposes the reduction of the Italian people, if necessary, by starvation. We are not allowed to export or to sell to them or to accept money from them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not what Deputy Belton was endeavouring to show.

Mr. MacDermot

There are many things inherent in this Order but surely that does not mean that it would be in order to discuss them.

Mr. McGilligan

I ask for a ruling on the matter.

Mr. MacDermot

The Chair ruled early this afternoon that we cannot on this motion discuss the decision already made by this House to apply sanctions.

Mr. McGilligan

This discussion would serve a useful purpose by directing the attention of the Italian people to what we did in the general Order. We made it clear that we aimed at the reduction of the Italian people by such means as financial pressure, and even starvation, by adopting this Order, and I hope that the House will vote for it knowing that that was so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What the House decided on cannot be discussed in this debate now.

Mr. Norton

I was making the point that, in taking the steps we took by the sanctions imposed by this Order, we were taking steps absolutely in conformity with our obligations, and had no option, having regard to the action of the Italian Government, and its generally aggressive policy towards Abyssinia, a weaker nation than themselves.

Mr. McGilligan

I am sure we did, and we did it definitely.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Belton suggested that we were endeavouring to impose starvation upon the women and children of Italy as if that was an act of aggression on our part; as if we were deliberately setting out to impose hunger upon the women and children of Italy. Deputy Belton has completely forgotten that what is described as the Government of Italy has, by its own action, in failing in its responsibility under the Covenant, made it impossible for this nation or any other nation respecting its responsibility to the Covenant to take any other steps.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is discussing the question whether we should or not impose sanctions upon Italy.

Mr. Norton

I submit it is not, and if I am not allowed to make that case on the matter I propose to say no more.

Mr. Anthony

I regret that Deputy MacDermot did not put down a comprehensive amendment which would enable us to discuss most of the matters now ruled out of order. I approach this matter from a somewhat different angle from that of the Deputies who preceded me I am very concerned about creating an atmosphere of world peace. I regard this Order, and Orders similar to it, as so many acts of war. Deputy Belton said, and said rightly, that if we have rights we have also obligations, and if we have obligations we have also rights. We claim the right to do certain things. Notwithstanding what Deputy Norton said, we, in this document, are imposing certain obligations upon our citizens, and, if you like, certain rights. I say this by way of preface because I want to give the President ample time to reply. Some Deputies think that we are not taking military action. Deputy MacDermot suggested as much. Well, if Part I of the Schedule is not military action, I do not know what military action means. It is set out that, amongst other things, we cannot export to Italy rifles, carbines and their barrels. They are not used for ornamental purposes. Machines guns are not used for purposes of ornament. Guns, howitzers and mortars of all calibres, their mountings, barrels and recoil mechanisms are not used for ornamental purposes. Then we come down to Category II—vessels of war of all kinds, including aircraft carriers and submarines. There is not one word about the "Muirchu." Then we have Category III, covering aircraft, etc. I would suggest to the President that, notwithstanding our membership of the League of Nations—I am not going to touch on sanctions, and I do not want to put forward an interrogatory of the President's action on that occasion —we should not be called upon to enforce this Order. We are called upon to put this Order into effect because of the action of our President at Geneva. I am relating this document to the attitude of our President at Geneva. As I have said, I am more in favour of creating an atmosphere of peace than I am in favour of creating an atmosphere of war, but I do feel that if the President, instead of making himself busy in moving in the direction which now finds its expression in this document—I have to be a little verbose in trying to explain what I mean, as I want carefully and meticulously to avoid that word "sanctions"—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Refraining from mentioning the word "sanctions" will not put the Deputy in order. I do not see how the President's action at Geneva can be related to this Order.

Mr. Anthony

Well, Sir, this Order states amongst other things that we cannot export rifles, carbines, and their barrels, etc. to Italy. It also sets out in Category III: "Aircraft, assembled or dismantled, both heavier and lighter than air and their propellors or airscrews, fuselages, aerial gun-mounts and frames, hulls, tail units and undercarriage units; also aircraft-engines." All those things in my view are acts of war.

There are other things contained in this document, the League of Nations (Obligations of Membership) Order, which, in my view and in the views of many other people, are acts of war. Any encouragement given by way of this Order or similar Orders to either of the countries engaged in this conflict in Ethiopia are and should be regarded as acts of war. If we are encouraging either of the parties to that great conflict we are engaged in an act of war. I would ask the President—he is very fond of bringing his metaphysical mind to bear on those things—if he does not consider that I am perfectly correct in saying that this document and all it purports to contain is an act of aggression and an act of war? It cannot be denied. We are, whether we like it or not, engaged in it just as much as if we had been exporting all those howitzers and all the other lethal weapons mentioned in this Order. We are to as great an extent, if perhaps not as actively, engaged in an act of war as if we had conscripted and sent out some of our manhood. Of course, I feel that that is quite a fantastic idea on the part of Deputy Belton——

Mr. Belton

It is part of our obligations under the Covenant.

Mr. Anthony

I do not for one moment feel that if it came to open war you would get very many people in this country to go out and help on one side or the other.

Mr. Belton

That is the dishonesty of the whole thing.

Mr. Anthony

In my approach to this question I also differ from those who have preceded me in this way: I am not altogether concerned with what the President of the Irish College in Rome said; I am not concerned with what other great ecclesiastics have said in this matter, but I am concerned as an ordinary citizen of this country who does not want to see this country involved in any kind of war. I do not want to see it involved either directly or indirectly in a war which, after all, is of little concern to us. I am not going to go into the lack of civilisation on the part of the Ethiopians or Abyssinians. All that Deputy Belton has said, of course, in relation to their lack of civilisation is perfectly true, while on the other hand, Italy is a grand and noble country. I feel that we could have kept our hands out of this, at the same time remembering that when we went into the League of Nations if we had our rights there were also obligations, and I think Deputy Norton would like to stand up to our obligations. On the other hand, it is rather extraordinary, to say the least of it, that out of the seven great Powers represented at that conference only three of them subscribed to the arguments which in their case also will bring forth such documents as the one I hold in my hand.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is again getting very close to sanctions. A reference to the fact that the Powers did or did not do a certain thing is clearly bringing it into the realm of whether sanctions should or should not be applied.

Mr. Anthony

I am just saying that those discussions on the part of three great Powers resulted in those three great Powers having to issue Orders such as the one we are now considering. That, I submit, is quite in order. I regret that our President who, after all, has had a good deal of experience, did not take the line that I and others like me would wish to see him taking. Whilst not shirking any of our obligations, he should at least see that he would throw in his weight on the side of peace, and not on the side of war. I am now concluding because I know that the President has not very much time in which to reply.

General MacEoin

I will not delay the House for more than a few minutes. I want to know whether the President has consulted the manufacturers in this State of rifles, carbines and their barrels before he issued this Order. I want to know whether the various factories employed in the production of machine guns, automatic rifles, machine pistols, and so on have been consulted, because I am sure the interests of those firms will be very severely handicapped if this Order is enforced. We have had so much trouble and labour building up those factories that I think they should be fully consulted before an Order of such importance is issued.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Norton will get them to go on strike!

General MacEoin

I do not know that that would be fair, because there is a contract that the workmen employed in those factories have to continue in work at least 48 hours a week, and I do not think they can strike. Of course the manufacture of bombs, torpedoes and mines is a very serious matter. I remember that one of the factories, when it was started, suffered very great hardships and handicaps in finding suitable occupation. I do not know whether or not they are still in action, but if they are I should like to hear whether they were consulted before the Order was issued. That also applies to aircraft, and so on. I should like to say, Sir, that, as we decided to take the action that we did, this Order must necessarily follow, but I should like to know from the President if in the meantime there has not been considerable wobbling on the part of some people who decided to impose similar Orders, and if it is now definitely intended to impose sanctions or impose Orders on the export of petrol and all those things to Italy. If the export to Italy of petrol, and all the various components thereof, is allowed freely to go on, I do not think there is any great point in this Order, and I do not think anything is going to be effected by it, except the one thing—we are going to allow the military machine to be used to its full limit, and the people at home will certainly suffer very grave hardships through the lack of food supplies which would be exported from the various countries to Italy. In that sense, I am in agreement with Deputy Belton that, if the Order is to have any effect, all the nations should definitely see to it that the military machine would be stopped. I maintain that if petrol, oil and all those things are allowed to be exported freely to Italy then the Order is absolutely worthless, and will go to inflict hardship on the people of Italy. What I would suggest is that instead of the Order being approved, the putting of it into effect should be postponed until it is finally ascertained what is going to be the action of the Council in applying the prohibition against the export of petrol and its constituent parts to Italy. If we are going to continue exporting these commodities to Italy, then I think we should not put this Order into force at all because it is of no importance.

Mr. MacDermot rose.

Mr. Belton

On a point of order, I understand that the President has indicated that he would require 20 minutes to speak and it has been arranged with Deputy Little that the President should begin at 10 o'clock.

The President

I have no objection to the debate going on. I think no question has been raised so far to which I need reply.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair can take no cognisance of arrangements made outside the House. The Chair must call on Deputies as they rise.

Mr. MacDermot

In any case I shall only detain the House a very few minutes. It seems to me that this Order could legitimately be challenged only on the ground that it did not conform with the decisions taken by the Dáil a fortnight ago, that it went beyond them or that it failed to carry them into effect or else that the Order is made at the wrong time. None of these things can be said. The terms of the Order to which Deputy Belton is objecting are terms that are entirely within the scope of the Bill as passed by this House. There is practically no detail in the Order that could not have been discussed in Committee on that Bill.

I think that Deputy MacEoin has undervalued the importance of the Order. I quite agree with him that if we really mean business and that if the nations forming the League could be got to act together with sufficient determination, the most useful thing they could do would be to prohibit the export of oil to Italy and I hope that may be done. Even if it is not done, however, the mere fact of cutting off the Italian export trade is bound to have a very big effect. If the Italians had only known a year ago that aggression towards Abyssinia would result in the destruction of the Italian export trade, I believe that we should have a very much less unpleasant tale to tell of the last 12 months. Deputy MacEoin says that the effect of the Order will be to inflict hardship on the people rather than on the military machine. Well, you have to hit the people in order to hit the military machine, unfortunately. You hit the military machine by creating a bad financial situation in Italy such as you will create by destroying the export trade. In modern warfare it is impossible to separate the civilian population from the military machine. In striking at one you strike at the other, too. There has been a lot of talk about military action. It is said that this action amounts to military action. If words have any meaning at all, it seems to me that that statement has no sense. Military action means that you fight, and it has never been suggested that you go to war by refusing to export munitions of war to a nation. If so, the United States would be at war with every country that is ever involved in a war, because they have forbidden the export of munitions of war to countries at war.

General MacEoin

If you strike at the military machine, is that not an act of war?

Mr. MacDermot

If you refuse to export munitions, that is not military action. It is injuring the military machine but it is not military action.

Is this Order untimely? Is it being brought into force unnecessarily soon? Deputy Anthony spoke as a man of peace in favour of methods of peace rather than of strong action, but he seems to have ignored the fact that methods of peace were tried out ad nauseam for a long period. The most tremendous efforts were made to arrive at a peaceful settlement before strong action was taken and before we were driven to carry out the obligations of the Covenant by Orders such as this.

The case put up by Deputy Belton against the Order, as far as I can make out, is that it is unpopular. Well, of course it is unpopular. It is unpopular with everybody in this House probably. None of us likes having to do these things. None of us likes sacrificing the goodwill of a nation which has done no harm to us and for which we have a good deal of sentimental feeling, but the fact that it is not popular should not deter us from performing a duty, if it is a duty. He and others have talked about the wickedness of starving the women and children in Italy but the answer to that has been already given and is a complete one. There was a letter in the English Times not very long ago answering a suggestion just of that kind in which the writer told a story of a little girl who was shown a picture by her mother of a number of Christians in the arena in ancient Rome being devoured by lions. Her mother expected her to express horror at the fate of the Christians, but all she said was: “Mammy, there is one poor lion who has not got any Christian.” People whose tears come into their eyes about starving Italian women and children should remember what is happening to the women and children in Abyssinia.

Mr. Belton

And to the slaves in Abyssinia.

Mr. MacDermot

The best answer to the various accusations of barbarism in Abyssinia is that no more barbaric method of curing barbarism could have been adopted than the one the Italians have adopted. The argument, I am sorry to say that has found most favour, and about which most has been said to-night is that Italy is a Catholic nation. I suggest that that is a really despicable line of attack. If there was any force in that argument——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy not travelling away from the terms of the motion? Is he not now discussing whether we should impose sanctions rather than whether they should take the form which they do take in this Order?

Mr. Belton

He has not been once in order to-night.

Mr. MacDermot

I quite agree with you, Sir, but I am only answering very briefly a few of the arguments which were put forward at considerable length by several Deputies. I merely want to point out that the whole possibility of any organisation for world peace disappears if Catholic nations are to be exempt from the obligations that are binding on their neighbours.

Mr. McGilligan

May I say just one word? I do not accept Deputy MacDermot's interpretation of the Rules of Order as he attempted to raise them several times to-night. The one point that it is necessary to consider here is that the Executive Council have thought fit to bring in this Order because they believe that it is necessary to implement the provisions of the Bill which has just been passed. It is necessary fully to implement what is in that. People should remember when they vote for this—I expect the House will vote for it by a huge majority— against Italy, Italy being, undeniably, a great Catholic nation, that they are doing it and doing it properly and that they are going to, if necessary, starve women and children in Italy. Let no one shirk that issue. It is not so much that we are prohibiting exports from this country that is going to count as far as this country is concerned, but rather that we are prohibiting the importation of Italian goods to this country. If Italy is not allowed to export her goods then she cannot have the money to buy anything even, possibly, food. People must vote with a clear mind as to what they are doing: that, if necessary, they are going to vote for starvation, that being better than allowing the Italian nation aggressively to massacre the Ethiopians. That is the sole issue for us. It is ludicrous for people to attempt to believe that there is no possibility of starvation. In this we are stopping all credit transactions. We are stopping the export of our goods to Italy, and taking steps to see that no Italian goods will be imported into this country. That is as clean a split as one could have, and we are doing that against a Catholic nation because we believe that that nation has behaved scandalously.

Mr. Belton

What about Japan?

Mr. McGilligan

I am not considering Japan at the moment. It may be that it should have been considered at another time, but certainly not in this discussion. Italy has been declared, by the almost unanimous voice of the world, to have acted the part of the aggressor in this.

Mr. Belton

By interested parties?

Mr. McGilligan

Possibly.

Mr. Kent

And minorities have no right to do that.

Mr. McGilligan

I never accepted that. It would have led to destruction in this country, and it is a bad phrase. At any rate, people should know what they are doing in this. If any Deputy has any hesitation about it, because he believes it is going to mean starvation, let him falter now instead of later. This is something that no one can have any joy in voting for, and no one should vote for it except under the stern condition of duty, and there ought to be a conscientious belief in the rectitude of what is being done. There ought to be an absolute, definite clear-cut and precise clarity of mind about the effect of what is being done, so that there may be no nonsense hereafter and no weakling attitude in respect to Italy on the grounds of religion.

If we take this step there ought to be no complaint afterwards that people did not know that, in the end, this may mean the break-up of Italian civilisation as it is at the moment. Some people might welcome that and others deplore it. Something was said about hitting at the machine, but if you cannot hit at the military machine there is this danger of hitting at the civilian population through the food of the people, and the necessities of life may bring about a state of revolution, the last stage of which will be worse than the first. We have got to take that risk, and people should remember that that risk is being taken by us because we believe that it is proper to take it in the circumstances that have ensued.

Minister for External Affairs (The President)

It is impossible to attempt to reply to some of the arguments that have been put forward here this evening because to do so would, in my opinion, at any rate—and the Chair has so ruled—take us altogether outside the terms of the motion. The terms of the motion are that this Order ought to be annulled. Some reason for annulling this Order should be given, but no reason for annulling it has been given except, in general, that sanctions should not be imposed. I take it that is a question the House considered when power was given to the Executive Council to bring in Orders of this sort. There is nothing in this Order that is contrary to the principle which was accepted by the House when the Bill was passed two weeks ago, and, because there is not, speakers have avoided the issue and have gone back to discuss the general principles which were debated when the Bill was before the House.

There has been some suggestion of wobbling that might be related to this Order: the suggestion that at this time we should hold our hands and that the time for this was not appropriate. I do not see any indication whatever of wobbling. The proposals in question here were decided on and agreed on by 52 States. These States agreed that Italy had acted the part of the aggressor. Fifty-two States agreed to the major part of these proposals, 48 to another portion of them and 44 was, I think, the smallest number that we had assenting to any of these proposals. These are being carried out. As a matter of fact, proposal No. 1 is in effective operation in 48 State-members of the League; proposal Nos. 2 is in effective operation in 47 State-members of the League; proposals Nos. 3 and 4 are in effective operation in 43 State-members of the League, and proposal No. 5 is in effective operation in 42 State-members of the League. There is no indication of wobbling in that. Apparently, there is the question of further sanctions and the disposition to examine these: to see how far agreement can be got about the imposition of them, and whether these further sanctions would, in fact, effect a purpose for which these sanctions were intended, the purpose behind them being to prevent, if possible, aggression such as Italy has been held to be guilty of in the case of Ethiopia.

That is the whole issue here. I have not heard any argument except one of wobbling which could properly be related at all to the Order. I have nothing, therefore, to answer—nothing except that. I am not going to go back again on the broader question as to whether we should or should not impose these sanctions. That question was very definitely decided by the House on a former occasion when, I think, only two Deputies dissented.

Mr. Belton

It seems strange that the President finds nothing to reply to in all that has been said by the various people. He claims that because the Bill was passed by the House it is just a matter of form to make an Order. But, does the President overlook the fact that the Act itself says that the Executive Council may make an Order in such and such terms? Therefore, the Executive Council has freedom within the terms of the Act as to whether it will or will not make an Order. There is nothing obligatory on the Executive Council to make an Order so far as I can gather from my reading of the Act. Deputy Norton said that we should reject my motion, even though that may mean starving the women and children of Italy. In effect, I think the Deputy said that we should remember that Italy is trying to starve the women and children of Abyssinia. The League of Nations was set up as an institution to put down slavery, but slavery is rampant in Abyssinia and the League of Nations has shut its eyes to that. Deputy McGilligan says that we must not blink the fact that Italy is a great Catholic nation, and that, if necessary, we must starve the women and children of Italy. Why did we not starve the women and children of Japan, which was the first nation to break the Covenant?

Mr. McGilligan

I would have supported sanctions against it.

Mr. Belton

But the case of Japan was not brought before us. Why should we rush out to support sanctions against Italy? There is not one man in this House who will say that he will support military sanctions or conscription.

The President

May I interrupt the Deputy for a moment. I repeat what I have said already, that there is no moral or legal obligation on Saorstát Eireann to impose military sanctions.

Mr. Belton

Article 16 of the Covenant says:—

"Should any member of the League resort to war, in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13 or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League...”

Sub-section (2) says:—

"It shall be the duty of the council in such case to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval or air force the members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenant of the League."

If these are ineffective will the President say if the next step must be the application of that Order? Is he prepared to come to this House and say: "We have burned our boats now. I want the authority of this House to send out so many men, so many guns, so many aeroplanes, so many tanks, and so many ships of war"? If that is not enough is he prepared to say that we must have military service for the manhood of this country to support it because it is our duty? Is the President going to say "Yes" to that? Is there one Deputy who, under any circumstances, would vote for conscription? Not one. Surely anyone who would vote for it without being prepared to go the whole hog, and to conscript every man, would be a hypocrite or dishonest. Deputy McGilligan said: "Let us do things with our eyes open." I say to Deputy McGilligan: "Let him do it with his eyes widely open." There is no one better able to comprehend the English language than the Deputy. He cannot contradict the sub-section of the Covenant that I have read. When the League delegates did not impose sanctions against Japan we have a way out. They did not come to our assistance when sanctions were imposed against us, and they are still operating against us. The President as our representative in Geneva never asked the Council of the League to consider that question. He has accepted the position that, according to the Covenant, it is a domestic matter. Otherwise he neglected his duty. The road is quite clear. I do not suppose any other Deputy will put up a motion dealing with this question. If the House turns down this motion, and if the Order becomes absolute— and we have a way out because sanctions were not imposed against Japan—that way out will be gone, and we will have to fulfil all our obligations and with the various Governments we will be asked to say what military help we will give. What will be our answer? Are we to break our word? Are we to dishonour our bond or are we to send out our Army and to follow that up with conscripts? That is the situation and that is what the House will vote on to-night. I will read a letter that Lieutenant-Colonel Cyril Rocke, D.S.O., British Military Attaché in Rome 1918-20, has addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Perhaps it would be better if I read a paragraph, as it will be illuminating on the civilisation that Deputy Norton referred to.

Mr. MacDermot

Is this in order?

Mr. Belton

It is as much in order as Deputy MacDermot's interruption. I want no Imperialist butting in to ask whether I am in order or not.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy MacDermot is entitled to raise a point of order. The Chair does not see how the civilisation of Ethiopia is relevant to this debate.

Mr. Belton

It was not mentioned at the beginning, but it came in in the middle.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not attempt to reintroduce that matter.

Mr. Belton

It slipped in. The letter proceeds:

"As to the League of Nations itself—crippled at its birth by the descrtion of the United States—it lost all sense of decency and Christian morality——"

Mr. MacDermot

I submit that this is out of order.

Mr. Belton

I submit that it is not.

Mr. McGilligan

We have not heard what is in the letter yet.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not yet know what the Deputy's argument is.

Mr. Belton

The letter continues:

"——when it admitted into its Council such countries as Afghanistan and Abyssinia, not to mention Liberia...

Abyssinia, where as a part of everyday life unspeakable horrors are perpetrated and go unpunished ...

Does your Grace of Canterbury realise that in Abyssinia thousands of little male children are mutilated every year to qualify them for the slave market of the ruling race of that fair but unhappy country?"'

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 28 Nov 1935

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Nov 1935