Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jun 1944

Vol. 94 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs.

Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha (An Taoiseach)

Tairgim:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £64,779 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1945, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha, agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riaradh na hOifige sin (Uimh. 16 de 1924).

That a sum not exceeding £64,779 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1945, 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).

An Ceann Comhairle

With Vote 65 will be taken the Supplementary Vote for the same Department in item 9 on the Order Paper.

The Taoiseach

This is not a Vote that varies much from year to year. The increase of £1,779 in this year's Vote arises automatically from normal salary increments, emergency bonus and adjustments in exchange compensation. In estimating the total net cost of this service to the Exchequer, regard must be had on the one hand to the cost of allied services and on the other to the estimated receipts from passport and consular fees, as well as to the amount of the Vote itself. Details of these are given in Part II of the Vote. Bringing these into the account, the estimated total net cost of this service in the present financial year works out at £5,457 less than last year, due mainly to an estimated increase of some £6,000 in the extra Exchequer receipts.

The work of the Department of External Affairs continues, of course, to be concerned very closely with the circumstances of the emergency and the problems which it creates both for us in this country and for our citizens living abroad. Usually when we think and talk of our people living abroad, we have in mind principally countries like the United States, Australia and New Zealand in which large numbers of our people have established themselves and found permanent homes. We are, perhaps, apt to forget sometimes how many of our people are to be found in other parts of the world, in many different countries of Europe, in the missionary areas of Africa, and in many parts of the Far East and the Pacific.

This is one of the facts that is constantly brought home to us in the work of this Department. There are over 2,050 of our citizens whom we know of, living in the different countries of Europe. Most of these are resident in the larger countries, Italy, France, Spain, Germany and so on, but we have also had requests for assistance of various kinds from our citizens in countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Hungary, Finland, Yugoslavia, Roumania and other parts of Europe. Indeed, there is scarcely any country of the Continent in which at least some of our citizens are not to be found. The same is true of the Far East. There are several Irish religious communities in the Philippine Islands. Many Deputies will have read a recently published account of the Irish Jesuit Mission during the fighting in Hongkong. The Maynooth Mission has houses in Burma, Korea and many parts of China. There are Irish religious communities at Peking and Hankow and another at Rabaul in New Guinea. Some of these places are much in the news these days. We would like those of our people who are living in them to know that we think of them, and of the sufferings which they share with the populations among whom they live. It is, of course, one of our primary duties as a State to protect the interests and help to lighten the sufferings of our citizens living abroad so far as we can do so, and I need hardly say that it is the constant concern of the Department of External Affairs to do whatever is possible in this regard within the means at our disposal.

I gave the Dáil some account of this work in speaking on this Vote in previous years. We have an arrangement for giving our citizens abroad news of their families in this country and of giving their families news of them, when, owing to the absence of other means of communication, they are unable to keep in direct touch. Over 1,635 inquiries of this kind were dealt with during last year. When our citizens living abroad are unable to maintain themselves and cannot obtain funds from their bank accounts or relatives in this country owing to the absence of communications, the Department assists by collecting the necessary monies here and ensuring their transmission. Over £12,000 passed through the Department for this purpose last year and the amount transmitted to Irish citizens abroad since the beginning of the war is now about £50,000. Where Irish citizens abroad wish to return home, the Department does what it can to arrange the journey, taking the necessary official steps to obtain the requisite exit permits, visas, travel reservation and so on. Travel is always a difficult matter under war conditions and never more so than now. Last year, however, 97 Irish citizens were able to return home from the Continent.

Some of them had been in internment, but were released by the authorities concerned on condition that their return home would be arranged. In any country at war, foreigners easily become an object of suspicion, and there have been cases in which Irish citizens living in foreign countries have been interned, and have even received more serious sentences on charges of different kinds. The protection of our citizens in matters of this kind is, of course, an important task of the local representative. He must act to see that the person concerned has a proper legal defence, that he is tried before a proper tribunal and that his interests are protected in other ways. Frequently, the representative concerned intervenes officially after trial, to secure a mitigation of the sentence or the exercise of clemency. I am glad to say that the representations of this kind that have been made, have, on the whole, been met fairly and, in many cases, have been completely successful. Similarly, as regards Irish property. Here and there in the war areas or areas under military occupation in Europe, particularly in France and Italy, there are Irish-owned building properties, principally the houses of Irish religious communities, but also house property owned by individual Irish citizens. Wherever necessary, the natural character of such property is attested by the local Irish representative by means of a certificate posted on the outside of the building after due investigation of the Irish ownership. Property certified as Irish in this way has been exempted from requisitioning, billeting and other similar military measures, and, generally speaking, its neutral character has been satisfactorily respected.

The representatives abroad have also, of course, their ordinary diplomatic and consular functions. I saw the suggestion made somewhere recently that our offices abroad would be more useful if they were consulates instead of legations and in a position to discharge consular duties. That implies a misunderstanding of the position. All our legations abroad have consular as well as diplomatic functions and afford precisely the same services to our citizens as would be available at a consulate. There is no distinction drawn between the staffs of the diplomatic and consular branches of our foreign service and, in that regard, I think, we are in line with the trend of development in other States. To take an example, all officers of the Department serving abroad, whether in a legation or a consulate, have been given by statute the powers of notaries public and commissioners of oaths. This is a usual consular power and I think that it has proved in practice very useful to Irish citizens living abroad who have to execute legal documents for use in this country or complete claims for military service pensions, or transact other business of a like nature. As Deputies already know, work of this kind in relation to the estates of deceased persons of Irish ancestry is an important task of our offices in the United States. The amount paid to Irish beneficiaries from such estates during last year was over 766,000 dollars.

All this work which I have described depends greatly, of course, on the zeal and devotion of the officers of the Department serving abroad; and the conditions of difficulty, discomfort and, sometimes, even personal danger under which many of them have to live and work nowadays is a fact to be remembered. I am personally ever conscious of it, and I am certain that the members of the Dáil will feel, with me, proud of the manner in which our officers abroad are discharging their duty in a most difficult situation. During the year, we lost our legation in Berlin with practically all its contents. Our two legations in Rome suffered minor damage at different times during air raids on that city. The staff of the High Commissioner's Office in London also had to work under similar conditions at various times. It is difficult to give anything like an adequate picture of the daily work of these officers abroad because of its great variety and because it differs from place to place according to local conditions. To take one example: in countries at war there are usually elaborate and intricate official formalities to be complied with as regards such matters as rationing, employment, change of residence, hospital treatment, compensation for war damage and so on. Exacting as those may be for the natives of the country concerned, they are doubly so for foreigners in that country. Our legations abroad are always available to help our citizens in matters of this kind. Indeed, the annual reports of the various officers abroad show that there is hardly an hour of the working day in which there is not somebody in the waiting room looking for protection or advice or assistance in solving some difficulty or other. The Dáil may be assured, I think, that the offices we have abroad have been a help and support to all our citizens within their reach. Indeed, whenever I receive letters from Irish citizens in difficulties in countries in which we have no representative, my regret is that our foreign representation is so restricted and that we have no representatives on the spot to help them.

Another aspect of the work of the Department and our representatives abroad is the action taken at the request of the Department of Supplies to facilitate imports from overseas. The conduct of overseas trade under war conditions is no easy matter. Even if you have the shipping space, you have to find your way through a mass of official regulations, export permits, navicerts, transit licences, blockade permits and other official requirements before you can get your goods across the seas and landed at an Irish port. In spite of all the difficulties, we have imported goods during the year from countries as far away from one another as Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, Argentine, Brazil, Portuguese West Africa and Uruguay, as well as from countries like Britain, the United States, Canada, Spain and Portugal. Wherever necessary, the services of the offices abroad have been at the disposal of the Department of Supplies in connection with the obtaining of export licences, blockade permits and other facilities in connection with these shipments. As an example, an arrangement has just been made under which the French authorities in North Africa will make available up to 20,000 tons of phosphate rock for export to this country during the present year.

Another activity of the Department which has, I think, been of some benefit to traders is the collection of outstanding commercial debts by the officers abroad in cases where, owing to exchange restrictions or the interruption of communications, the creditors in this country were unable to collect these debts themselves through the ordinary channels. Over £3,500 was recovered for Irish firms in this way within the last 12 months and about £12,000 has been collected since the beginning of the war. I may say, in this connection, that an arrangement has at last been concluded with the Government of Spain for the liquidation of the Irish commercial debts frozen in that country since the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War.

General Mulcahy

In view of the proposal that has been made, we do not wish to discuss the Vote for External Affairs separately from the Vote for the Taoiseach's Department.

The Taoiseach

With regard to the Supplementary Estimate, I am asking the Dáil to approve the payment of £2,800 to provide for the cases of a number of Irish citizens now resident in this country who were formerly employees and pensioners of the Shanghai Municipal Council but are unable at present to obtain payment of their pensions owing to the circumstances of the war in the Far East. The Shanghai Municipal Council was, as Deputies probably know, the governing authority of the international settlement at Shanghai. It was an international body, composed of citizens of the three great Powers with extensive interests and treaty rights in the Shanghai area—the United States, Great Britain and Japan. The council had its own permanent staff and a number of our citizens have, in the past, been employed in its various departments as engineers, inspectors of taxes, officers of the police force and so on.

Employees of the council were permanent officials with pension rights, and payment of their pensions was secured by a pension trust fund held in a bank in Shanghai. The investments of the fund, however, were held in local currency debentures, and any exchange compensation required in respect of the payment of pensions to former employees of the council living outside Shanghai, was ordinarily provided by the council itself out of its ordinary revenues. Since the outbreak of war in the Far East, transfers of pension payments to former employees living in this and other countries have been totally suspended, with the result that the pensioners living in this country, some eight in number, found themselves in somewhat difficult circumstances.

The same problem arose in other countries, particularly Great Britain, because many of the pensioners of the council are British subjects. The British authorities met the difficulty by agreeing to make advances to their pensioners, subject to an undertaking to repay as soon as the transfer of funds from China becomes possible again. We are proposing to take similar action in the case of the Irish pensioners. What we are proposing to do is to advance the amount of their pensions to each of the persons concerned, subject to an undertaking in each case to refund the amount of the advances as soon as the payment of their pensions in the ordinary way, with arrears, is resumed.

As I have already said, the ultimate payment of these pensions is secured by a substantial fund held in trust in Shanghai. There is one point I should mention in that connection. Under a series of treaties concluded between the Chinese Government and other Powers last year, foreign extra-territorial rights in China, including the Shanghai Municipal Council, were abolished and the Chinese Government undertook in taking over control of the official assets of the International Settlements to assume and discharge all their official obligations and to recognise all legitimate rights there. No such treaty was concluded in our case, simply because we have never claimed, and do not claim, any extra-territorial rights for our citizens in China and, therefore, an abolition treaty was neither necessary nor appropriate in our case. I hope and expect, however, that in any settlement that may be made as a result of the abolition treaties, Irish citizens, in respect of whom extra-territorial rights have never been claimed, will receive treatment at least as favourable as that secured by the treaties to citizens of countries which had extra-territorial rights and abrogated them and that, therefore, notwithstanding the treaties to which I have referred, the security afforded by the pension trust fund in respect of pensions payable to Irish citizens will not be impaired.

Mr. Dillon

Inasmuch as the Leader of the Opposition does not propose to discuss this Estimate, there are some matters to which I wish to refer. First, it gives me pleasure to pay my tribute of gratitude to the Department of External Affairs, of which the Taoiseach is head, for the help they have given in any case where I have asked their assistance on behalf of persons who applied to me, and for their unfailing courtesy in meeting, to the very best of their ability, any problems or difficulties that I have put to them. Secondly, in regard to the Supplementary Estimate introduced by the Taoiseach, I congratulate him on taking a businesslike and sensible view of the particular dilemma which was provided for in the confines of that Supplementary Estimate.

With regard to the Estimate as a whole, we hear a lot, arising out of other Estimates submitted to this House, about post-war planning. I wonder does this country ever intend to do post-war planning in respect of foreign affairs. I do not imagine there are many people left in this world labouring under the illusion that small nations can manage their affairs in a vacuum. All that we do, or can hope to do, in this country is materially conditioned by the state of the world in which we live. During the past 12 months interesting and significant events have taken place throughout the world. Portugal was approached by the British Government, nominally in pursuance of an old treaty, to give special facilities in the Azores for the successful prosecution of the war, and Portugal afforded those facilities on their territory to Great Britain. Spain was approached with a view to suspending or reducing her exports of tungsten to the Axis nations and, after some negotiation, she consented to do so. Turkey was approached to suspend the export of chrome to the Axis nations and, after some negotiation, she not only agreed to do so, but to sell all her chrome to the Allies. Sweden was approached to suspend or reduce shipments of ball-bearings to the Axis nations and, after some negotiation, she consented to do so. Now the foreign policy of this country, vis-a-vis the United States of America, was crystallised in words quoted by the Taoiseach some months ago and they were as follows:

"No wish that I can express can measure the depth of my esteem for you or my desire for your welfare and glory. And farewell the many dear friends I have made and the tens of thousands who, for the reason that I was the representative of a noble nation and a storied, appealing cause, gave me honours they denied to princes—you will not need to be assured that Ireland will not forget and that Ireland will not be ungrateful.

That, I think, pretty adequately crystallises the general feeling of our people in regard to the United States of America. I rarely find myself prepared to subscribe to statements made by the Taoiseach, but in that case I do not think I would exaggerate when I say that, in using those words, he spoke for almost every citizen of this country. It was a source of profound regret to me when the United States of America addressed an appeal to us to exclude the German Minister and the Japanese Consul, in order to contribute to the security of the United States of America, that we found ourselves constrained, unlike Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Sweden, to refuse. But out of that refusal at least one immensely important fact emerges to which the minds of our people should certainly be directed, because it provides a comparison between the attitude adopted by the Axis Powers in circumstances of that character and the attitude adopted by the Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America.

When the Axis Powers wanted to exclude the representatives of the United Nations from Holland they addressed no note to them; they made no inquiry. They blasted Rotterdam out of its foundations; they invaded that country and they put the foreign diplomatic representatives out of that country by force and violence and in the process they destroyed the Dutch Army, they enslaved the Dutch nation and they even claimed the right to conscript the Dutch people. When the Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America desired a similar accommodation in this country they addressed a Note asking us to give them that which they wanted and, after due reflection, our Government decided that they did not choose to give the United States of America that accommodation or that concession. There was no question of using violence against us. There was no question of using force. There were no threats employed. There were no sanctions invoked. On the contrary, the United States of America said at once: "If you decline to give us that which we have asked for, we do not challenge your right to refuse. We acknowledge that you are a Sovereign State fully entitled to give or withhold anything and everything that is within your gift." Rightly, in my judgment, they felt entitled as a Sovereign Government and, as they believed, an old friend, to ask us frankly for something in our gift which they felt was of very great value to them, if we were in a position to give it to them, but the moment we indicated our reluctance to give what they asked, the moment we indicated that we were not prepared to interpret the words "Ireland will not forget and Ireland will not be ungrateful" as a kind of anticipatory undertaking to assist America if and when she should require our help, the United States of America instantly acknowledged our rights and studiously declined to invoke anything resembling force against us—and this although they had at their disposal approximately 1,000,000 men with armaments and resources sufficient to overwhelm the best that we could put in the field in 48 hours.

I find it very hard in the face of these facts to believe that anyone in this country is truly neutral as between the Axis Powers on the one hand and the Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America on the other hand. If Ireland has to choose, after this war, between a world in which the rule of the road shall be that unless a small nation acceded to every demand of its powerful neighbour it would be steam-rolled, as Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Poland and Greece were steam-rolled, and a world run on the lines that a powerful nation asked a small nation what they wanted but, if they were refused, recognised the right of that small nation to run its own affairs in its own way, it is difficult for me to believe that any rational man in this country is indifferent as to the issue of this war and as to which philosophy will prevail in the post-war world. I am not indifferent; I am not and never have been neutral as between the United Nations and the Axis and it is a constant source of shame to me that our people who have so long been the champions of liberty in the world should now be represented before the world as knowing no difference, being quite unprepared to take sides in a conflict between Germany on the one side and the Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America on the other.

I look back with satisfaction on the fact that since this business first presented itself to Irish minds I have constantly repudiated the doctrine of neutrality and have constantly kept before our people their obligation in honour at least to make their attitude clearly known as between Germany on the one hand and the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Nations on the other. However, I want to say this, and I say it for all to hear, that although the position of neutrality taken up by our Government is well calculated to create misunderstanding abroad, the fact is, whatever the people in America might imagine to be the case from superficial appearances, that 99 per cent. of our people in this country are pro-American and that those who use the attitude adopted officially by our Government to represent to the United States of America a cold indifference on the part of our people misrepresent our people. The truth is that, whatever the present difficulties and stresses may be if there should eventuate any hard feeling after this war, it will come exclusively from the American side because, so far as our people are concerned, in their hearts, they are as warmly drawn to the American people as they have ever been. I do not disguise that it has been one of my great solicitudes during these years lest a misunderstanding should develop between the ordinary people on both sides of the Atlantic, in our country and in the United States of America.

A great many people here forget that in America the Irish-Americans represent only a very small fraction of the community. Out of 120,000,000 perhaps there are 10,000,000 who have any connection with Ireland however remote. It is vital to the interests of our people that we should retain the sympathy and understanding of that 110,000,000 who know nothing of Ireland but what they read and hear. It is mainly in their ranks that misunderstanding might be planted and might grow. It is going to put a very great test on their understanding that, in this time, people whom they looked upon as their dependable friends have not come up to their expectations of what friends would be prepared to do. For that reason I feel that every step that can be taken should be taken to persuade them that, whatever strategic circumstances have forced upon our Government the attitude which they have in fact adopted, the spiritual affinity between our people, the deep friendship and understanding which have characterised our relations for so long are no less strong and deeply felt amongst the masses of our people than they ever were.

I want to put this categorical question to the Taoiseach because it is fundamental to the whole question of post-war planning. Are we in the Commonwealth or are we not? The British Government says we are. I want to know what the Taoiseach intends the foreign policy of his Government to be. It is his duty to tell the country what is his foreign policy in regard to that matter and whither it is proposed to lead the nation. Heretofore it has been suggested in terrorem that any declaration of that kind might bring disastrous consequences upon the nation. It is now manifest to the most obscurantist citizen of this State that, so far as our two powerful neighbours are concerned —Great Britain and the United States —they recognise our freedom to do what we please and they abrogate any claim to interfere by force with us. We are absolutely free in this country to do exactly what we think is in the best interests of the country. In that situation, and in the knowledge that action suited to the general policy of whatever Government is in office may be called for at the very moment when the war comes to an end, I want to know from the Taoiseach are we in the Commonwealth or are we not? I am in favour of retaining our membership of the Commonwealth and using it for three ends: (1) to secure the unity of the Irish nation and the abolition of the Border; (2) in order to make the influence of a predominantly Catholic nation effective in the counsels of the nations of the world; and (3) in order to ensure for our people an opportunity of securing employment on equal terms throughout the territories of the Commonwealth of Nations to which we at present belong.

In regard to partition, I am convinced that unless a modus vivendi is discovered for our permanent membership of the Commonwealth, however that Commonwealth may develop post-war, there is no prospect of getting rid of the Border in our time. I want to get rid of the Border not only because that is the natural ambition of every Irish nationalist in Ireland and outside it, but because, if the Border continues, there is going to develop upon it social problems incomparably graver than any we have yet had to contend with. Nobody who is not familiar with the conditions obtaining on the Border at present can realise the perils which are developing there. There is growing up a system of smuggling to and fro across the Border which is corrupting our public services north and south of the Border. I venture to say that the corruption is worse north of the Border than it is south. It is corrupting all our people and it is particularly corrupting the children who are being habitually used as messengers for the purpose of defeating the vigilance of the preventive officers on both sides of the Border. The deplorable fact is that no section of the community is making any attempt to stand up against these abuses. Men, lay and clerical—it may as well be said openly—to whom we ought to look as bulwarks against the development of such traffic, are themselves taking part in it, and we have arrived at the point where certain smugglers are carrying across lorryloads of goods, are being waylaid by hi-jackers, are arming themselves against them, and hi-jackers are arming themselves to overcome the force used against them.

I have seen a closely analogous situation developing in Chicago when Dion O'Bannion and Al Capone were rising. When that situation began, respectable citizens of Chicago laughed at the thing. It was then a question of getting a bottle of whiskey, and respectable men were inclined to say: "If we cannot get it any other way, we have to get it this way." I lived in Chicago to see the day when no man could go into the Cicero district of Chicago unless he knew he had the tacit consent of Al Capone, in which the whole municipal services of that great city broke down and were dominated by the gangster element, and, until the Federal Government intervened, the stranglehold of that gentleman on that city of 2,000,000 people was virtually absolute. No honest man dare walk the streets, or at least he did so in considerable trepidation and, if you were murdered in the city by an agent of Al Capone, no respectable citizen would see your body lying in the gutter. They would pass you by and leave you rather than run the risk of the vengeance of the gangster element which controlled the city at the time.

Many people in this House may think I exaggerate, but I warn you to-day that, if the Border continues where it is for another decade, we shall see develop there a situation closely analogous to the Chicago situation before the Federal Government of the United States intervened to put an end to it. There is already developing in certain areas on the Border a situation in which respectable people go in fear of their lives lest they come into conflict with some of the smuggling gangs and, in my opinion, this situation is developing steadily. I have been advised by many of my own supporters not to dwell upon that subject, because the horrifying fact is that respectable men, whom ordinarily one would be proud to claim as one's friends, are themselves engaged in it. There seems to be a complete suspension of all moral sense in regard to that matter along the Border on both sides, north and south. That is one of the very potent reasons why I believe it is urgent and vital to the life of this country that we should get rid of the Border.

Another reason is this. So long as this war is on, the Fianna Fáil Government very properly has locked up at the Curragh Camp all the gentlemen who claim the right to use violence towards their neighbours but, when the war is over, I do not suppose we can keep them in perpetuity. So long as the Border is there, any blackguard in this country who wants to draw a gun on some neighbour or policeman, instead of being regarded as a danger to the community, as another murderer deserving of execution, is going to gather a cloak of respectability around himself and say that he did it in order to abolish the Border. So long as they have the right to say that in this part of the country, the effective enforcement of the law in normal times will be extremely difficult. Are not these facts that I expound, the truth? If they are the truth, is it not vitally urgent to get rid of the Border, and if it is vitally urgent to get rid of the Border, can we get rid of it on the basis of bringing the Six Counties of Northern Ireland out of the Commonwealth with us? If we cannot, and if we mean business about getting rid of the Border, are we prepared, having examined the constitution of the Commonwealth and recognised that it interferes in no particular with the absolute sovereignty of the Irish people within the Irish nation, to work with it and in it and, thereby, take a practical step towards the abolition of the Border? Is it or is it not true that an island of 3,000,000, with no material resources of any kind, can carry but little weight in the councils of the nations of the world? Is it or is it not true that, if that nation is admitted to participation on terms of absolute equality with the other nations of the Commonwealth of Nations, she can wield in that Commonwealth considerable influence? Is there anybody in this House who denies that we went into the Commonwealth of Nations, or the Empire as it was then known, in 1923, and that within ten years we so metamorphosized its whole constitution that the Taoiseach himself, on coming into office, discovered that he had Constitutional powers at his disposal, by virtue of the metamorphosis effected in the Commonwealth of Nations by our statesmen, which enabled him to do by Act of Parliament all the things to achieve which he had been prepared to fight a civil war unsuccessfully?

If our influence within the Commonwealth, on its very self, was so vast, is it unreasonable to anticipate that in the post-war world, were we cordial participants in its activities, our influence would continue to be felt and that that influence would continue to be a Catholic influence: that the philosophy underlying the politics of the Catholic State would find effective expression not only within the limits of that Commonwealth but, through it, on the world at large? Can it be doubted that as a member of the Commonwealth we can be more effective and influential in the councils of the world than we can ever hope to be as a separate State of 26 counties.

Lastly—and though this is purely mundane it is a matter of very real significance for our people—the National University of Ireland and T.C.D. are turning out approximately twice as many professional graduates as this country can absorb. These graduates have got to get employment somewhere if they are to live, or else we have got to close the doors of the universities on all the professions, just as, mind you, we had to do in the case of the training colleges in respect of national teachers. We could not export our national teachers and, therefore, the only thing we could do, when we had too many of them, was to close down the training colleges and prevent any more from being trained. If we have not opportunities for doctors, engineers, and other professional classes, educated in our universities, in the Commonwealth of Nations, then the only remedy is to close down these faculties until the surplus is absorbed, over the next ten or 20 years, in the service of our own country, and that means that large professions will be, virtually, for ever closed to the masses of our people. I want for our people the right and opportunity to earn their living throughout the Commonwealth. It is a very precious asset to our people, which has been of immense advantage to them in the past, and which should be of immense advantage to them in the future. Now, the ludicrous thing is that a considerable body of our people, knowing that in their hearts, are prepared in public to repudiate such a desire and say that it is a shameful and un-national aspiration. I glory in the right of our people to enjoy the benefits of that Commonwealth, which they have played no small part in building up physically and constitutionally. I want to belong to it, not only for the advantages it confers on us, but for the security it gives us that our soverignty, independence and unity, once established, can be maintained not only to-day and to-morrow, but for all time, so long as that Commonwealth exists.

I want to know from the Taoiseach, what is his policy in this matter. Are not the people entitled to know whether at the end of this war the Twenty-Six Counties of this country are to cut themselves away from the Commonwealth and declare their independence as a republic? Are not the people entitled to know whether it is the Taoiseach's policy to incorporate the Six Counties of Northern Ireland in an Irish republic, cut off and distinct from the Commonwealth of Nations, or is it his ambition to incorporate the Six Counties of Northern Ireland in a united Ireland based on Document No. 2? Is it his intention, wrapped in the raiment of Republicanism, to walk with his head erect into the British Empire? Surely, that is not a secret which may be properly buried in the Taoiseach's heart? Surely, the Irish people have a right to be told where his Government proposes to march in regard to that matter? I made it quite clear what my views are on that subject, and I want to know, as an elected representative of the people, whither the Government are trying to lead this nation, so that those of us who agree with them may collaborate with them, and that those of us who disagree with them may challenge their decision in the country.

Mr. Donnellan

It was not our intention to take part in this debate, and I do not propose to detain the House very long. I only wish to make a few remarks in connection with certain statements that have been made by Deputy Dillon. One thing that the Deputy said was this: "We do not forget." No doubt, we do not forget, but when Deputy Dillon makes such statements as he has just made. I feel that he himself forgets. After all, I do not see any reason why, at the present time, we should do anything or say anything that would give an opportunity to any of the belligerent Powers to interfere with our positon of neutrality. Deputy Dillon says that he is not neutral. Of course, he may not be, but within the last 12 months we have had two general elections, and that issue was not put up before the people by any candidate standing, I think, for any Party in this country, or by the Independents. Deputy Dillon has pointed out that we here are the representatives of the people. Following that, I would say that we are here as the representatives of the people, pledged to carry out the wishes of the people, mind you, whether we like it or not, and I think that many of the statements that have been made by Deputy Dillon—and I am not saying this in any sense of disrespect to him— are not for the best interests of our country or the people whom we were elected to represent. The one thing about Deputy Dillon's statement which has impelled me to speak is his statement in regard to membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. Now, at this very critical period in the history of Europe, and of our country, why should we make any reference to that matter, one way or the other? I do not want to be misrepresented in connection with this matter, but I want to make it clear that other countries captured the British market in their day, and yet they did not shout, either inside or outside the Commonwealth. As far as my personal view is concerned, I think we must all realise that England and the Commonwealth of Nations are our best customers, just as we are the best customers of England. We want to live on friendly terms with her, as I suppose she wants to live on friendly terms with us. I do not think it well that there should be any discussion on that whatsoever at the moment. Surely there will be plenty of time later on to discuss these matters.

The one thing which the Deputy mentioned in which I am interested was the question of the Border. The Deputy tells us about the terrible corruption that exists there. He may be right in that; I do not know anything about it, living as I do in the West of Ireland, but his statement reminds me of an article I read in a foreign journal not so long ago from the pen of a certain journalist who visited this country. He began by telling us how he crossed the Border and about the racketeering which was carried on there. I was prepared to believe some of these statements, but when he proceeded to describe his experiences in Dublin, which he subsequently visited, and made certain statements which I knew to be wrong, I found that I could not place any reliance on the statements that he made in regard to the Border either. As regards the abolition of the Border, my opinion is that it was the determination of the people in this portion of the country, the people from 1916 to 1921, which brought us to the happy position which we have to-day in the Twenty-Six Counties, and I believe that it is the determination and the unity of our people here combined with the determination and unity of our friends in Northern Ireland that will eventually win for us the abolition of the Border. I do not believe that any friendship with belligerent nations can do that. Some of us remember the conditions which prevailed in 1914-1918, and we know that the very same grand promises were held out to us in those days. We were told that the war from 1914-18 was being fought in the interests of small nations. The great statesmen of those days tried to persuade us that they were fighting our cause, and they would almost convince one that they are doing the same thing to-day. I think we should be delighted to find ourselves in the happy position which we occupy at the moment, that our children are not being sent out to foreign lands to sacrifice their lives for nothing, as they did in those days, I regret to say.

Above all Departments, the Department of External Affairs has some very difficult questions to handle. It has a very hard job to do and it is doing it very well. Of course, Deputy Dillon says that 99 per cent. of our people are pro-American. I believe that 99 per cent. of our people are pro-Irish, and I hope the day will come when, in the Twenty-Six Counties, 100 per cent. of them will be pro-Irish and that, in co-operation with those across the Border who are pro-Irish, they will abolish the Border. It is my honest opinion that in that way we can abolish the Border.

I regret that Deputy Dillon made some statements in regard to the people in the Curragh Camp. Very often hard things have to be done but I hope that we shall soon find ourselves all together and that those people will realise, as Deputy Dillon has said—I agree with him in that statement—that their idea of going out with the gun is not the best. I hope the day will soon come when we shall be with those people and they shall be with us in one united effort to do away with the Border. Deputy Dillon says the people of this country are not indifferent. I must confess, even though I am speaking for myself, that to a certain extent over all Ireland there is a certain amount of indifference as far as taking sides in the war is concerned. There is, in fact, full indifference on that question, and that should be the way. I shall not detain the House any longer. Anything I have said I can assure the House is not due to any hard feelings. On my part, I am just expressing the views of the people whom I represent and people all over the country whom I know. As far as the Commonwealth is concerned we want to live, I repeat, on friendly terms with England as our best customer as we are her best customer. There is no need for us to placard our Imperialism, our love for England or our love for Germany, our hatred for England or our hatred for Germany either. I think we should try to work together here and to remember with gratitude the efforts of the people who put us in our present position which is so much better than the position which we occupied in 1914-18.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I do not intend to make a speech on this Estimate as this Party does not desire to speak on it but I just want to ask the Taoiseach a question. Before doing so I should like to pay my tribute to the work of the Department of External Affairs. I do not think there is any Department of State which carries out its work more efficiently or more courteously. I can speak from personal knowledge of that. Many people, in fact everybody I know who has had occasion to get in touch with the Department, have testified to the kindness and courtesy with which they were treated. I think that in a Department which deals with the outside world that is a very satisfactory position. Deputy Dillon made a very interesting speech this morning and I should like to make just one remark in connection with it, that speaking personally I have felt there were moral issues involved in this present war. I think that all of us have realised thoroughly what these moral issues are and it has been a disappointment to me personally that this country did not officially make its feelings known as regards these moral issues and that the Government did not show how the Irish people really feel on the issues involved. That is all I wish to say on that matter. The question which I wish to ask the Taoiseach has reference to the travel ban. I have received a number of letters from people on the other side in connection with this matter. There are many people over there, some of whom are in the Forces, to whom this travel ban is causing a good deal of hardship. I know that the Government here is not in a position to answer this question absolutely. It is a unilateral matter but if the Taoiseach could give any information on the subject it would be very gratefully received by many people who are anxious to be allowed to come to see their relatives on this side and whose relatives are anxious to see them.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Dillon asked some questions, and his asking them suggested to me that he is a very innocent man. He ought to know, as a Deputy of this House, what the nature of our present relationships with the States of the British Commonwealth is. There are defined in two documents —namely, the Constitution which gives certain powers in the executive domain and the External Relations Act. There has been no suggestion by this Government that we propose to change these in any way. I do not propose to try to give any special definition of the character of these relationships, and I certainly do not think the present is the time to start discussing these matters without any advantage whatever to be gained.

With regard to Partition, nobody can be in the slightest doubt as to what our attitude towards Partition is. Within the framework of the existing relationship, Partition can be ended, if the people have the will to end it. If the idea is that we should go back to the position from which we have emerged in order to secure that, then, I for one do not stand for it, and that is not the policy of this Government. I said in the Seanad on the previous occasion that there were sacrifices which we were not prepared to make, even for unity. The people of this island have a right to the unity of their territory, and they have in addition a right to be independent and to determine their relationships with other countries. One of these is not to be sacrified for the other. In that particular speech in the Seanad, I pointed out that there were things which, as an independent nation, as a people entitled to independence, we were determined to pursue. Very often, we are told, when we ask the people to make efforts to restore the Irish language, that by doing so we are going to hinder the coming together of the two parts of the country. Again, we say we have the right, if the majority of the people want it, to have the Irish language, as well as the unity of the country, and we are not going to sacrifice the one, in the hope— because it is only a hope—that we can get the other by doing so.

It has often been said that the division between the two parts of this country is due to religious differences. Is it to be suggested that if we are to bring about the unity of the country, the majority here who hold one belief are to surrender that belief and adopt that of the people on the other side? There are certain things which we hold and we mean not to sacrifice a single one of them. That may mean that it will take longer to achieve the unity of the country. In my opinion, it will not. The whole question of Partition in the past has been a constant surrender so far as the views of our side are concerned, in order to attain that object, and it has not attained that object. The course suggested by Deputy Dillon is that we should go in exactly the same direction with the same results.

Deputy Dillon spoke at the beginning of his speech about our future policy. He used a phrase at the beginning— that we cannot do certain things "in vacuo”. I forget what exactly are the things in vacuo which he wants, but he wants us at this particular time, with the position of the world as it is, to give exact definitions. We can have our own views and keep them to ourselves. When the time comes to express those views as public policy, when it will be possible for us and the people to whom we are speaking to see exactly what the conditions are, that will be the time at which we can state publicly and definitely what our policy is going to be. We have to wait and see what the ultimate conditions will be.

So far as our general attitude is concerned, we have indicated more than once that, so far as Government policy in concerned, we are quite prepared to play our part in any world organisation of States in which the sovereign character of these States is admitted and acknowledged and association will be one of free will. We are prepared to play our part in preserving peace in the future and in trying to bring about better conditions for human beings in every country. We have shown that that has been our attitude and that we are prepared to live up to it, in our attitude towards the League of Nations. It cannot be said that, so far as our public expressions with regard to what ought to be done are concerned, we have played any part in bringing about the present disasters which have overtaken the world. I do not say that what we suggested might not have been impossible in view of the problems which other nations had to deal with, but I do know that representatives of this country, whenever there was an opportunity of doing so, tried to get the States of the world to realise that they were drifting towards another world war. I well remember asking whether the horrors of another world war were necessary to teach us that certain things should be done to maintain peace.

Deputy Dillon talks about our attitude to the United States of America. Anything I said with reference to gratitude was true, and Deputy Dillon is not doing a service to this country in trying to misrepresent our attitude. On a previous occasion in the Dáil, I gave a pretty extensive account of the nature of my mission to the United States in former years. I did not go there as the representative of this country to ask the United States to go to war for us. I would not have had the "cheek" to do so. I asked that recognition should be given by the United States to the declaration of our people that they wanted an independent State, an independent republic. I asked for recognition of that republic. I did not get that. That was asking very much less. If the United States, a powerful State, had considered that it was in its interest to give us that recognition, it was in its power to do so. I have no doubt whatever that it would have offended Britain at the time, but it was a country sufficiently powerful to be able to do what it considered right without the danger of being destroyed.

Does Deputy Dillon suggest that there are people in America who have had greater cheek than I had when I went to the United States and that they were going to ask us, a small country with relatively small defences, to put itself in the position in which it might be destroyed, or at any rate in which it was forsaking the attitude which it had calmly and deliberately decided on at the beginning of this war? We declared our neutrality then, and again I would say that Deputy Dillon, when talking about neutrality, ought not to be so very careful to say that it is the policy of the Government. He knows very well it is a policy which was accepted by the vast majority of Deputies, the representatives of the people—that, as was said by Deputy Donnellan, it is a policy which was accepted and approved by the people as a whole and testified to in two general elections.

The policy of neutrality of the State is no indication as to what the individual members of that State may think. Individual members in this community of ours here will have different views with regard to this war, its merits and so on. As far as the individual citizen is concerned, there is no question of indifference implied in the neutrality of this State. The neutrality of the State was adopted in the interests of the community as a whole as a definite national policy under the present circumstances. As I say, it connotes nothing as to the feelings of individual citizens with regard to the States at war. Anybody can interest himself in giving guesses as to what the percentage is on one side or the other. I have my own views on that matter, but it is not for me to give expression to those views, because my official duty is to say and to maintain that as a State we have adopted and are pursuing a policy of neutrality. To state that that policy denotes, in regard to every individual in the country or to the mass of the people, an indifference, is clearly a misrepresentation of the facts. There are things which Deputy Dillon's remarks suggested to me to say to him, but I refrain from saying them. They have been said in this House already, and, if he is ashamed, as he says, of the attitude of our people on this particular matter, I must say that most of us are more ashamed of a person who expresses views such as he has and does not himself personally act in accordance with them.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Has the Taoiseach finished?

The Taoiseach

Yes.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Can he give me any information with regard to the travel ban?

The Taoiseach

I am not at the moment in a position to give accurate information. That depends on the circumstances of the moment, and there are negotiations and conversations taking place with regard to the matter. We will probably know in a very short time.

Vote put and agreed to.