Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Dec 1937

Vol. 69 No. 15

In Committee on Finance. - Supplementary Estimate—Vote No. 67 (External Affairs).

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1938, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs and of certain services administered by that Office (No. 16 of 1924).

A paper has been circulated showing how the sum of £10 is arrived at. Before I go into details I might tell the House exactly what the matter is about. For some years we have had informal conversations concerning an exchange of representatives with Italy. It has been from the beginning the policy of this State to have diplomatic relations with the principal nations of the world. That policy is founded on reasons of vital national importance which there is no need to discuss. Italy was the last remaining great country in Europe with which we had not yet exchanged diplomatic representatives. There has always been a very friendly feeling between the peoples of the two countries. Deputies are aware of the antiquity of our friendly relations with the Italian people. I need only mention the name of St. Columbanus and other great Irishmen of the early Middle Ages who helped their Italian fellow-workers to maintain and develop a Christian civilisation throughout the whole of the peninsula. Their memory is still revered by the Italian people, and I believe it is the experience of all Irishmen who travel in Italy that the welcome extended to them by the people is particularly warm.

The purpose of this Vote is to establish a legation at the Quirinal, and, in so doing, to return the friendly gesture of Italy in appointing a diplomatic representative here last summer. With regard to the item of £10, the Estimate is intended to cover roughly two months, February and March. We expect that the appointment of a Minister for whom provision will have to be made will be made by the 1st of February. All the details are based on a two months' period. The total cost for that period under various heads would be £897, but there is a saving of £887 on other heads, so that we have only to provide a further £10 to meet the total bill. The details were given on the paper. If there are any points upon which Deputies wish to get information I will be happy to give whatever we have.

Has the Minister been appointed?

The appointment has not been made.

To whom is it proposed to accredit him—the exact title?

The exact title will be, as Deputies are aware, the title taken by the sovereign, King of Italy and Emperor of Ethiopia.

Does this involve recognition of the annexation of Abyssinia?

No, it simply recognises the name taken by the sovereign by which he has to be recognised according to the general courtesy and comity of nations.

Has France recognised that title?

It is necessary in every State when there is a change of ministers or consuls effected which involves letters of credence. I take it also that letters of recall would involve recognition.

Up to this what countries have recognised that title?

They are in various forms. For instance, by accepting credentials with the formula "King of Italy, Emperor of Ethiopia", you have the Argentine, Poland, Yugo-slavia, Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Iraq, Peru, Costa Rica. By showing an intention of setting up a consulate in Addis Ababa, you have Bulgaria, Poland, Roumania, CzechoSlovakia, and by transfer of their legations to Addis Ababa into consulates-general England, France and Belgium. The position of the United States is not clear. By accrediting their representatives to His Majesty the King and Emperor—Albania, Panama, Guatemala and Yugo-Slavia, and there is formal and express declaration by Germany, Austria, Hungary and Switzerland.

How many countries have recognised the King of Italy as Emperor of Abyssinia?

In various forms in any change effected in the case of Ministers, or if new ministers were appointed, you have to take the title which is the title assumed in the State itself.

How many countries have already recognised the King of Italy as the Emperor of Ethiopia?

By addressing that title and accepting credentials, so far as that answers the Deputy's question, I have given a large number of countries, also those that have set up consuls. Of those that transferred legations into consulates-general I have given a number that have accredited representatives to His Majesty the King and Emperor. By express declaration the de jure position is accepted by Germany, Austria, Hungary and Switzerland.

Do I understand—I ask because the information may be of importance and may be news, not merely to us but to other countries—that the President wishes to convey that, for instance, France and Great Britain have recognised the title?

The President, apparently, kept until the last what has been the tit-bit of his whole Estimate. Obviously, one of the important matters which we ought to have been told at the outset was the fact that we are now appointing a Minister to Italy, and that by the Letter of Credence which our Minister is going to present there we are formally and definitely acknowledging Italy's annexation of Abyssinia. The President has quoted a number of States which have done that. That is a matter for these States. But it is rather remarkable that the list comprises, mainly, some South American States and other States which, in that act of aggression against Abyssinia, supported Italy. Apparently we are to line up with these States now and recognise Italy's annexation of Abyssinia, the greatest piece of international violence and injustice that has been committed during this generation.

It is not so long since the President was at Geneva making speeches condemning the violence which was being done to Abyssinian independence, condemning this outrageous violence on the part of an aggressor, and condemning also the fact that a weak member of the League was having territory grabbed from it by a country which simply aimed at, and has aimed at for a considerable time, the open annexation of Abyssinia. While we had the President adopting that role at Geneva, and asking this House to pass a Bill imposing sanctions on Italy for so doing, now a short time after we have a Supplementary Estimate introduced here to recognise that, because of her capacity to beat Abyssinia into surrender by the use of mustard gas and all the other frightfulness associated with warfare, we are to appoint a Minister to the Italian State, thereby recognising its outrageous annexation of Abyssinia as well as the complete subjugation of the independence of that State. Why we should select this moment for doing it I do not know, seeing that we contrived to carry on between 1922 and 1935 without taking the step which we are now asked to take.

I think it is a most unfortunate event that the President, at this stage, should ask us to appoint a Minister to Italy, especially in view of the fact that we propose, by a formal Letter of Credence, to recognise not merely Italian sovereignty in Abyssinia, not merely Italian political influence there but the complete annexation of the Abyssinian State by Italy. What is the purpose of making this hasty appointment in this way? Would the President tell us what is the volume of our trade with Italy, what is the annual value of the goods which Italy takes from us, and the value of the goods which Italy sends here? Is the volume of trade such that, while this whole question of the recognition of Italy's annexation of Abyssinia is occupying an important place in European international politics, we must rush in and appoint a Minister to a State with which we have virtually no trade at the moment? Italy, the other day, told the world that she has now withdrawn from the League of Nations because, apparently, the League has not been willing to come to heel when Mussolini chose to ask the League to come to heel. Italy announced to the world the other day that she is leaving the League of Nations simply because her annexation of Abyssinia is not recognised with a wholeheartedness equal to the ferocity with which that annexation was carried out.

The President stated that Great Britain and France recognised that annexation, but I think that if he makes further inquiries he will find that that statement does not represent the facts of the situation accurately. It may be true that both France and Britain have reduced the status of their legations at Addis Ababa. It may be that in the new situation they do not find it necessary to retain ambassadors there, and have reduced the status of their representation there to that of a consular general. That is not a recognition of the Italian annexation of Abyssinia. I think the President's information on that aspect of the situation is far from correct. In fact, if my memory serves me, there is quite a spot of annoyance at present on the part of Italy because France will not accredit her representative in Rome to the King of Italy on the ground that he is claiming also to be the Emperor of Abyssinia.

I wonder how the President reconciles all this with our continued membership of the League of Nations, with the speech that he himself delivered at Geneva as well as the fact that it is not so long ago since he asked this House, and rightly so, to pass a Bill imposing sanctions on Italy for her outrageous annexation of a State which was an equal member of the League of Nations with us? If there is any one nation that should stand out against a recognition. of that annexation it is this State. The history of this country is, in many respects, not unlike the history of Abyssinia, a country that has suffered at the hands of the despoiler and Imperialist. We here in this country have had a history somewhat like that. In these circumstances we are asked to accredit a representative to the Italian State as distinct from the Vatican: to accredit a Minister to the Italian State, and there by give recognition to the annexation of Abyssinia. I think that the President might very well withdraw this Estimate and not ask the House to pass it in existing circumstances, especially at a time when the whole question of the annexation of Abyssinia is occupying an important position in European affairs.

I do not know that the Deputy is quite accurate in saying that the question he refers to is occupying an important position at the present moment in European affairs. The attitude of this Government in regard to that dispute is pretty well known, I think, to all members of the House. We adopted the attitude that we did in agreement with a large number of States in the League of Nations in October, 1935. We took a decision later in 1936, in accordance with a similar decision of the States in the League of Nations to remove sanctions. In other words, the States in the League had to admit that they had failed in the purpose of putting on these sanctions. The position that we have to face is this: that over a number of years we have been having, as I said earlier, informal talks with Italy in regard to the establishment of a legation in Rome at the Quirinal. These talks have been going on for a considerable period. In accordance with our general policy we have been anxious to have a representative at Rome.

For what purpose?

For the same purpose as we have representatives in the United States, in France, Berlin and other places.

What is the amount of our export trade with Italy?

We have never taken up the attitude that trade is a fundamental thing in regard to the appointment of diplomatic representatives. In a variety of ways, it is important for a State like ours, one claiming recognition as a State amongst the States of the world, that we should be represented in all the principal States of the world——

And thereby assist in preventing Abyssinia from being represented.

Would the Deputy please allow me to finish? We are not doing anything of the kind. Every State that wants either to change a Minister or to appoint a new Minister must of necessity, in accordance with international custom, give to the Sovereign to whom the representative is being accredited the title that is assumed in that State. For instance, if there is a representative being accredited to the United States of America, then it is the title of the head of that State that is chosen and not one by the State that is sending the representative. It is certain that every State will have to do that. When we are certain that every State is going to do that, are we to continue to postpone something that has been long overdue? We have taken this decision on the basis that this does not affect and cannot affect the question of Ethiopia. That question has been taken as settled so far as the other States are concerned, and so far as the question of the establishment of Consuls-General is concerned, we have to take into consideration the question of States having an immediate interest in that particular area. Consequently, the question for us to determine is whether the appointment of such a person to Rome, which, as I have said, is long overdue, is to be effected now or whether we are to wait indefinitely, knowing well that our attitude with regard to Ethiopia would have nothing to do with the ultimate results, and knowing that every State that has to carry on its business with other States—and, by "business" I do not mean trade, but the ordinary affairs that have to be carried on between nations—ultimately, if it is going to have relations with Italy, will have to accept the style and title that the head of the Italian State gets, and not any other title. The matter of the title of the head of a State is decided by the State itself.

We had no immediate and direct quarrel with Italy, and in the matter of Ethiopia we acted as one of the States in a group. We took our part in that action, and, when that action was found to be unsuccessful and could lead to no good results, and when the other States in the group decided that they should abandon it, we acted similarly. The question for us is whether we have to continue saying that these negotiations had begun before this time and whether we are now simply going to let these things stand over or not. I think we ought to face the reality and go ahead.

The President says that it is now found necessary to accredit a Minister to Italy. Of course, we already had a Minister at Rome accredited to the Vatican, but the President wants to accredit a Minister to Italy as well, and the President says that we cannot help the fact that the King of Italy has chosen, as his title, Emperor of Ethiopia as well as King of Italy. Surely we are not all living in the clouds? Do we not all know perfectly well that the King of Italy has chosen the title of Emperor of Ethiopia merely because of the fact that the military forces of Italy, with bombing planes and mustard gas, aided and abetted by political manoeuvring on the part of certain active members of the League of Nations, have been able to bring Abyssinia to its present position? Is it not clear to everybody, who has given any attention at all to the matter, that Ethiopia was encouraged by certain States to resist Italian agression on the promise and in the belief that it could look forward to certain support and powerful assistance from certain members of the League of Nations? We all know that these promises were not carried out, with the result that the Italian military machine was able to steam-roll its will on Ethiopia, and the King of Italy is now styled Emperor of Ethiopia—not on any moral grounds, nor because of the approval of other nations, but because the Italian military machine, by means of bombing planes and mustard gas, has been able to steam-roll its will on the people of Ethiopia. As a matter of fact, the reason that the King of Italy is now entitled Emperor of Abyssinia, instead of Emperor of Eire, is merely because the Italian military machine has been able to conquer Abyssinia, and has not been able to come over here.

Are we not definitely recognising the fact that, because the Italian military machine has been able to subjugate the independence of Ethiopia and because, by virtue of that fact, the King of Italy has now become Emperor of Ethiopia— are we not recognising that subjugation by now definitely accrediting a Minister to a King who has absolutely no authority whatever to assume the title of Emperor of Ethiopia? What right has the King of Italy to assume that title any more than to assume the title of Emperor of Eire? None. The only right—if it could be called so—that he has to that title is the fact that his military machine has been able to stifle the independence of Ethiopia; and now we, in this country, which has suffered so much in the past from the aggression of another country, are accrediting a Minister to Italy and thereby recognising, in a frank and open manner, that the King of Italy is entitled to call himself Emperor of Ethiopia, not as a result of the will of the people there, but because of the force of the Italian military machine and the bombing planes and mustard gas that have been used to beat the Ethiopian people into submission.

The President says that we cannot get on with Italy unless we make this appointment. Well, it seems that we have been able to get along without such an appointment fairly well in all those years up to the present. I am not aware of any irreparable loss that has been suffered by our people by reason of the fact that we had had no Minister accredited to the Italian Government. What were the actual losses to our people occasioned by the absence of a representative in Italy?

What would be the result if we did not have representatives anywhere?

Well, I am prepared to hear the President on that question also. Here, however, at a time when what is left of Abyssinian thought is trying to enlist the sympathy of the world, and particularly the sympathy of the small nations of the world, in support of its right to regain its independence, this small nation of ours selects this time to recognise Italian domination in Ethiopia. Let these States in South America do what they like. They have no past like ours, or even comparable to ours. There was a time when we protested that his Britannic Majesty had no moral authority to assume the headship of this country of ours and no right to function here in Ireland, and we said to the world that his Britannic Majesty had no right to function here because he has no moral authority derived from the Irish people to do so. Are we not in precisely the same position in dealing with Ethiopia? The King of Italy has no moral authority to exercise any jurisdiction over Ethiopia. The only authority that he has, as I have said, is the same as that which the British claim to have over this country, namely, that by their instruments of war they could beat and baton the people into submission. Is that the kind of over-lordship we ought to recognise? Is that the kind of over-lordship that this small country of ours, with its particular past, should recognise? Yet, by this action, in effect, we are saying to Italy and the world that, although we ourselves have been despoiled by an invader in previous years, and although we are only a small nation, living, in many respects, at the mercy of the larger nations in Europe, we, knowing our own history, still are going to line up beside Germany, Austria and Italy and also beside some States thousands and thousands of miles away from us?

Why not say France?

France has not done it. The President has been silent on that. It may be that Deputy Walsh should be the Minister for External Affairs, because, apparently, he knows more about it than the President. The President has been very silent on the French recognition of the Emperorship of Ethiopia by the King of Italy. Everybody knows it is not a fact. Now, in all our nakedness we are saying to the world that we recognise the Italian annexation of Abyssinia. A small nation like Ireland, with its past, is proclaiming that to the world. It is unfair that we should be put in that position. We have done without a Minister in Rome for 15 years, and we should contrive to do without him for another 12 months, and then consider the position in the light of conditions then existing.

There are two sides to that.

There are two sides to everything.

There are two sides to a very large number of things. Sometimes you have to look at both sides very carefully before you make up your mind which is the right one. What we are doing at this moment is that we are recognising a fact—a fact which will be recognised by every State that has to change or accredit a minister. What does the Deputy suggest is going to happen in a year's time? We have been for some years, as I have said, in negotiation for the purpose of trying to get a legation established at Rome. There is no use in saying that we have already a legation at the Vatican. That does not function in the Italian State—it functions in another direction. Italy was one of the chief States of Europe with which we had not had, up to the present, diplomatic relations. It has been our policy—a policy that was there before our time and since our time in office—to get representatives established in the principal States in the world. There are very good reasons for it—reasons which have nothing to do immediately with trade. You have no remedy—even if you wished to have a remedy—for it, except not to do it. The Deputy is fond of saying: "Do not do anything".

That is the President's policy.

I do not think it is. It is not the first time the Deputy suggested "Do not do anything; let things alone", without looking at all at what was going to happen. Are we going to be any better in this matter from our point of view if we wait until two or three of the big Powers do it, or are we going to act on our own——

Will we be any better then?

——according to our own sense of what our needs require, instead of waiting for others? The attitude we have adopted is there is a de facto position staring us in the face and we must take account of that. If we wish to have a representative in Italy, as has been our wish, then we give to the sovereign of that country the title which he has taken or which his own people have taken. That is the title we have to recognise—we can do nothing else. We have decided that it is in the national interest that we should have this legation established. The Italian Government last July, I think it was, accredited a Minister here, and, in accordance with the regular custom, it is due that we, having accepted that Minister, should send a Minister back. In doing that we are satisfied that we are doing everything that becomes our people and our nation.

No action of ours can change the position. I doubt if any action of any of the States in the world can change the position at the moment. Are we simply to blindfold ourselves and not look at things which are staring us in the face? We think it is in the national interest to make this appointment. What we are doing is, we are giving de facto recognition to the title which the sovereign has assumed and which has been given to him by his people. We have either to do this or not—there is no half-way house about it. If we do not do it now, it probably will not be done at all—certainly it will not be done next year or the year after. It has to be done now or not at all. I think that it would be quite wrong for our people to avoid having a legation in that country when, in doing so, we are doing what we know other States will do the moment they have reason for doing it, as we have.

Another victory for Fascism.

The President made two statements which, in my view, are inconsistent. First of all, he stated and has repeated that all the rest will recognise it and, on the second occasion, he added, "When they are in the same position as we are." He further said that our appointment of a representative at Rome will not be recognition. I cannot see how those two statements can hang together. As regards the statement that the other States are in the same position as we are, he must be aware that France has been without an ambassador in Rome for a considerable time, apparently for the reason that she will not recognise the King of Italy as King of Abyssinia. The President asks, "Are we to wait indefinitely?" My answer to that is, "Yes." Common action was taken at Geneva, and I can see no reason why this country should depart from that common action and should not wait until it is agreed amongst all the Powers that they should unite in recognising Italian suzerainty over Abyssinia.

How does the Deputy think that there will be general agreement? There is no question of an agreement on this matter. This will be done by each State as its own interests are involved. We are giving de facto recognition. We are not going into the merits of the quarrel. We have to send a Minister and we are sending one, and we have to address the head of the State in which the legation is being established by the title which he has chosen, or which has been given to him. We are not breaking away from any common action. We took common action with the other States and, when they changed, we changed, and not before. There is no international agreement of any kind from which we are departing by taking this action. The States are acting independently about it. There may be States which have some special quarrels with Italy and they are dealing with matters like this in their own way, according as it suits them. We have no quarrel, as such, with the Italian people. We have considerable relations with the Italian people and wherever our people go in Italy they are received with special warmth by the Italian people. Are we going to take up the attitude of simply waiting until all the other people, who at the moment have particular quarrels, fix up their quarrels and send representatives? There is no inconsistency between the things I have said. What we are giving here is de facto recognition of the title, and is it not necessary?

It is a recognition of the suppression of the Abyssinian people.

The Deputy can take it any way he likes.

Is not that a fact?

I have stated what is the fact.

You did not.

The fact is that we are going to send a representative to Italy. We have to address the head of the State by the title which he has chosen.

Even though he has no moral authority?

Either you want that or you do not. The House has to make up its mind about that. Do you want to have a legation or do you not? If you say you do not, well then vote against it.

We do not.

Very well, if you do not, vote against it. If you do, and I think the national interests are best served by having a legation, then you must accredit your representative to the head of the State according to the title which he himself has chosen and which his people have given him. There is no way out of it.

I deplore the low moral tone which the Government have taken up in this discussion. I think we can agree with everything the President has said but not as to his conclusions. He has said that the Italian annexation of Abyssinia is being de facto recognised and will be recognised, in a period of time, by all the Great Powers. He seemed then to go on to say: “Well, we should be one of the first to recognise that fact.” He has been asked if there are any important trade matters waiting on this and he has replied, with admirable candour, that there are not. He says that we have always lived on terms of very friendly relations with the Italians. I agree with that statement, and there is no reason why we should not continue to live on friendly relations with Italy, but that is no reason why we should not recognise that the conduct of our best friend was either right or wrong. Owing to our peculiar geographical position and other circumstances, we can afford to take up a high moral tone without having to pay a price for it. I think what the President has not answered, and what I should like that he should answer before this discussion closes, is: Does he approve of the annexation of Abyssinia or does he not? If he approves of the annexation of Abyssinia, and if this House supports him in that attitude, the sooner we hasten in with our representative addressing the King of Italy as the Emperor of Abyssinia, the better. We can do that straight away, if we approve of the annexation of Abyssinia, but there are a certain number of people who feel that the annexation of Abyssinia was not right and that, even though we are very good friends of the Italians, and although they have been very friendly disposed towards us, their conduct in this matter was not correct.

If we are compelled to fall in at the tail of the Powers who have recognised the annexation of Abyssinia, I suppose ultimately we shall have to do so, having made our gesture, but we need not do so at this juncture. There is no trade hanging on it. There is nothing else resting on it. Certainly from the moral point of view I, personally, feel that we ought to go slow on this question of recognition. I should like the President to answer that question instead of saying: "We shall ultimately find that other Powers have recognised the fact; we must be realists and face facts." We have got to ask ourselves: was the annexation right or was it wrong? If it was right, we should immediately proceed to recognise it. If it was not, we ought to fall in at the tail of other nations who refuse to recognise it. It seems to me that is the point which has not been brought out in this discussion.

Why should I speak to the House about a subject that was not before the House? When something could be done to deal with this question of Abyssinia, we were not slow in dealing with it. I should not be asked now to talk about the question whether we consider the annexation of Abyssinia right or wrong. We dealt with that question when it was before the House.

You are going back on that now.

We are not going back and the Deputy knows we are not.

Of course, you are.

The Deputy knows perfectly well what we did: We stood firmly by all the other States when the matter was being debated by the other States. As long as anything could be done effectively we were there. We have now come to a situation in which everybody, who does not want to blind himself, must realise that States, according as there is need for representation, must recognise the existing situation, unless they want to withdraw their ambassadors. Even then they would probably leave a charge d'affaires there. States who have a special quarrel with Italy may use the opportunity for the furtherance of their own ends but there is definitely a necessity for the maintenance of relations between these countries. Because there is that need, ultimately the States who must have their legations there must have their representatives accredited to the head of the State by the title which he has assumed. We are giving him a de facto recognition of the title which he has assumed. We are not, in doing that, going back on anything that we have done.

Undoubtedly you are.

Whatever may be the position in regard to the de facto side of the question, there is no question here of a de jure recognition. If the Deputy would give a little bit more consideration to this question of recognition, he would notice that States generally proceed exactly in that way, by giving de facto recognition in a situation of this kind. They cannot do otherwise. Our giving de facto recognition is simply recognising an existing fact. There is no question at issue as to how that fact came about or about the rights or wrongs of the question. We have had to make up our minds in this matter. We have been carrying on negotiations for years with a view to having a representative at the Quirinal. To a certain extent these negotiations were suspended during the active operation of the sanctions. Now these sanctions, that joint action, have failed. Let us recognise that. Are we then to put aside our original intention and not go on with the idea of establishing a legation in Italy or are we to wait at the tail until some other people decide on this question of recognition. I am not suggesting that we want to be in the front but I certainly do suggest that we should not simply wait at the tail of other nations and do it when other people decide to do it. We have got to make up our minds for ourselves as to when it is proper to establish this legation.

I think that in doing it at the present time we are doing what the national interests suggest. We are not pronouncing any judgment whatever on the quarrel. We are not asked to do so; it does not come up. What we have to ask ourselves is whether or not we are going to send a representative of ours and establish this legation at the Quirinal. I say that if you do not, then, if you want to have this consistency which you talk about, you must not do it as long as this question is not settled to your liking. It is no excuse to wait until other States do it. By our action we are in no way prejudicing the ultimate results of that quarrel. Of that I am certain. In making this appointment we are only doing what any other State would do, having advanced to the point of negotiation to which we have advanced.

The President tells us he is only recognising a fact, and apparently he states that with great approval. That may be a very sound doctrine, but if the President looks back to the last 25 years he will recognise that there were a great many facts which he was not prepared to recognise. He was not prepared to recognise the fact of the domination of this country by England. This Dáil was established in 1922. He was not prepared to recognise that fact. Those of us who did recognise the fact, and came in here, got any amount of misrepresentation and abuse from the President and his colleagues.

Let us go back to '98 and have a real row.

Well, 15 years is a fairly good stretch, and our recollections of those 15 years may be clearer than our recollections of '98. Perhaps that is what makes the Minister so uncomfortable. Perhaps he would prefer to go back to 1649 or 1072 or some other convenient date, and then we can romance with greater freedom?

I am prepared to go back as far as the Battle of Clontarf.

Fifteen years will do me. That will cover the public record of the Minister and his colleagues. We applauded the action taken by the President at Geneva when he protested against the attack on and destruction of Abyssinia. We are of the same opinion still, although the President has changed.

I have not.

Some people think that to change is to improve, and to be perfect is to change often. If that be so, the President is rapidly approaching perfection. We, as a small nation, always claimed our freedom and independence, and have always given our sympathy and whatever support we could to other small nations seeking to preserve or establish their independence. Thirty or 40 years ago the whole of nationalist Ireland applauded the resistance of the South African Republics to the aggression of England, and we have always given the same sympathy to Egypt and India. Although we saw Abyssinia crushed with the greatest display of frightfulness that the world has seen, and which shocked the whole world, we now hurry in, in order that the name of this State may be added to the long list of South American Republics, which will be used as an argument to compel bigger States to use this new title. The President has not contradicted the statement that neither France nor Britain has recognised this new title, and I understand that to be the position. Nothing will be gained by passing this Estimate and establishing this legislation. What is the urgency for it? The President said it is not altogether a question of trade. I agree it is not, but trade enters into it. What will it mean in trade? We have not been told. Is there a single worker or farmer or any other person in this country who will have an extra pound in his pocket as a result of the establishment of this legation? I hope we will reject this Vote.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 11.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Crowley, Fred Hugh.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davis, Matt.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Esmonde, John L.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Friel, John.
  • Fuller, Stephen.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Gorey, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keating, John.
  • Kelly, James P.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael J
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Linehan, Timothy.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Meaney, Cornelius.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Munnelly, John.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O Briain, Donnchádh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Shaughnessy, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, John M.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Rogers, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Oscar.
  • , James.
  • Wall, Nicholas.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Benson, Ernest E.
  • Brasier, Brooke.
  • Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Heron, Archie.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Lawlor, Thomas.
  • McGowan, Gerrard L.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Brien, William.
  • Pattison, James P.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Heron and McGowan.
Question declared carried.
Supplementary Estimate agreed to and reported.
Top
Share