Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 1945

Vol. 97 No. 24

Committee On Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs (Resumed).

On the Adjournment last night, I was dealing with one of the greatest problems, indeed the only great political problem that now remains to be faced in this country, that is, the question of Partition. When I tried to bring the Taoiseach back to some 16 or 17 years ago he appeared to take it in a bad spirit. I would ask him not to take that attitude, since, as far as I am concerned, I have only one sincere interest, that is, to see what means can be adopted to solve that one remaining problem. The Minister knows as well as I do that while that problem remains, while this country of ours is rent in twain, no matter what we may call this portion— a republic, as some of us would wish, or a Commonwealth, as others would wish—there will not be peace. Never will there be peace while one portion of the country is unfree; while the Union Jack floats over it there will be dissension and trouble amongst our people.

I am one of those who are terribly disappointed. Not very long ago, a Minister of the present Government, the present Minister for Local Government and Public Health, Deputy MacEntee, made a statement saying: "That is a matter for the people of the Six Counties". Certainly, no Irishman will agree with that statement. It is not a matter for the people of the Six Counties, but a matter for all the people who have Irish blood in their veins in the 32 Counties. It is only the effort of the Irish people of the 32 Counties that will ever do away with the Border. It is very easy to make complaints, but what is necessary is a concrete suggestion. I suggest to the Taoiseach and the Government that the people north and south should be called together in one great convention, to discuss ways and means of building a movement, on the British side of the Border, so to speak, a movement which we would finance and build up and help in every possible way, so as to have an organisation that would remove that barrier. I do not believe that that organisation would fail.

I am one of those who believe that anything we ever got was got through the efforts of our own people and that anything we ever will get will be got in the same way. If that suggestion should fail, then there is to be in the near future some sort of a world peace conference. I would ask the Taoiseach and the Government to prepare for that peace conference and put the case of our country before it. Can one of the important nations which will have a voice in that conference, namely our neighbour, England, go before that conference knowing that their nextdoor neighbour, this country of ours, is rent in twain, probably by a method of theirs, or to a certain extent through something for which they are responsible? The English Government always talks about small nations and went into this war to fight for Poland, so that Poland would not be trampled on. Surely, they could not have the cheek to go before that world peace conference, if there were a really honest case made as regards the position they have our country in at the present time?

I do not want the Taoiseach to think I am one of those who stand up for the sake of saying something in Dáil Eireann. I stand up to put forward a suggestion, and I ask the Government to consider it seriously. It is a suggestion which might help to make this country—call it a republic or anything else you like—the Ireland that Fintan Lalor worked for and the Ireland that Pearse died for. Let me point out again that, no matter what we may call the country—be it within the Commonwealth or outside it, be it a kingdom or republic—to use the words of Pearse himself: "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace".

No doubt there is an element in this country such as that referred to last night by Deputy Dillon, when he said there was a lunacy element which adopted a certain attitude here. I am not one of those who believe in their methods in this country. I want to make that clear. I believe the reason why people are driven to that is because they think that in this Parliament of ours we are not working to achieve what some of the people who went before us died to see established in this country.

I regret one thing that occurred here last night. Quite a crowd of people came in here to listen to the debate about the republic. I regret to say that many people in this country appear to laugh and to make a skit about such matters. It is a bad day when such should be the case among our people, or that any of our people should speak lightly about such subjects. People in days gone by sacrificed their lives in order to see that this country would be free and it is a bad day when some people will talk glibly about it and will seek tickets to get into the gallery to hear what they call "fun."

There should be no reference in the course of the debates to the gallery or to the visitors there, for very good reasons.

I accept the ruling of the Chair on that matter. A suggestion was put forward here about a union of small nations. If such a thing were possible it would be a good thing and I expect our Government will look forward to such a happening and will keep their eyes open in the hope of something of that sort taking place. It is my belief that so far as the powerful nations of the world are concerned, they care very little except to see that they are quite all right themselves. If such a thing does arise as a union of small nations, I hope our Government will give every assistance in the formation of such a union.

During the war a certain amount of destruction was done to persons and property in this country by belligerent States. I ask the Minister for External Affairs to be good enough to let us know if the nations whose subjects caused that damage have paid compensation and, if so, what amount have they paid. Perhaps he would indicate if certain nations have not done so, and give us the amount that is due by way of compensation.

I am one of those who fully realise the difficult position occupied by the Minister for External Affairs during the past few years, and it is my honest opinion that he carried out his duties as well as any man could do it. I am one of those who are prepared to give credit where credit is due. I believe he did his work well, and anything I have said as regards the position of our people in the north has been said because I believe that now is the time for the Government to get ready to see that that unnatural Border will be abolished and that there will be in this country only one Parliament for all the people. We must realise that Antrim, Down, Derry and the other counties of the north reared true Irishmen who made sacrifices in days gone by for the good of the whole country.

Many people in those counties feel they are not being fairly considered and that we are not doing our part. These counties are as important to us as Dublin, Galway, Cork, Clare, or any of the other counties in this portion of the country. They are all our counties. This country must be and will be ours. We must have a 32-county Ireland and the burden of shaping things that way rests with the people of this country, whether they are north or south of the Border. We must remember that when sacrifices had to be made in this portion of the country it was the plain people who made them. The people of Northern Ireland have contributed their share.

The Deputy is now dealing with internal matters.

I am trying to point out that for years, when the fight for the freedom of this country was on, the people who are amongst those dealt with by the Department of External Affairs were with us. It is only right that we should make every efforts, financially and otherwise, to assist those people and so give some return for the assistance they gave us in days gone by. By doing that I believe we will be well on the road to the day when we can declare our whole country a republic. It should be our aim to assist them from this onwards, so that they will be with us once more in the great fight.

These are the only points I wish to make. I have made them with all sincerity. I assure the House and the Taoiseach that they were not made for any reason other than to see this country united, to establish a free, 32-county Ireland with one Parliament in full control.

Apart from the Taoiseach's speech on the subject of our constitutional position. I think it must be clear to any person who reads our Constitution that it provides here institutions and a form of Government which are entirely different from the form of Government that operates in countries which enjoy Commonwealth status to-day. I think, too, that, reading the Constitution, it must be clear to any person who desires to be convinced by the meaning of words, who desires to be convinced by reference to established practices and international usages, that the Constitution of this country is not only republican in form, but that the usages which have been adopted under it are similarly republican in form. To me the strange part of this rather belated declaration of our republican status is the fact that, whilst the Government takes its stand on the fact that the Constitution is republican in character, the very same Government did not recommend this Constitution to the people in 1937 as a republican Constitution. I think the members of the Fianna Fáil Party know perfectly well that the words "republican Constitution" were not uttered with the enthusiasm that is now available for them when the Constitution was recommended to the people in 1937. In fact, one might say that there was a kind of security silence over the word "republic" when the Constitution was being discussed and put to the people in 1937.

One of the rather strange aspects of our constitutional position as a republic is the attitude of our citizens towards it. If there is one thing which it is necessary to make clear beyond all doubt, it is the type of Government which exists in the country in which the citizens live. If you meet a Frenchman, he will tell you he lives in the French Republic, no matter what his status in France; if you meet an American, there is no doubt in the world so far as he is concerned that he lives in a republic. Why should there be any doubt here then that our people live in a republican Ireland; why should there be any doubt, eight years after this republican Constitution was passed, as to what the form of government is in the country in which our people live?

As a matter of fact, I have no hesitation in saying that, because of the silence on the republican character of the Constitution, because of the reluctance up to now of the Government to describe it as a republican Constitution, our people have developed an inferiority complex regarding the republican form of the Constitution, and there should be no doubt whatever, eight years after the Constitution was passed, as to the form of government which operates in the country of which we are citizens; but the fact that it is possible to-day to get a discussion in, of all places, the Legislature, as to whether we are or are not a republic is the clearest possible evidence that we have been hopelessly incompetent in taking steps to ensure that our people knew precisely the type of Constitution which operated here and the form of government under which they live. You can get a discussion in any restaurant, or any place where men forgather, on the question of whether our Constitution is commonwealth or republican in character.

I say to the Taoiseach that, having courageously declared that the Constitution is republican—and I want to say that I personally welcome the declaration—no time ought to be lost in making it clear to all citizens that they are living under a republican form of government and there should be no sense of inferiority on their part in living under such a form of government, any more than there is on the part of a Frenchman, a CzechoSlovakian or a citizen of the United States. Up to now, however, there have been doubts, and I hope the Taoiseach in his reply will tell us what steps the Government intend to take to make clear beyond all doubt that this is a republican Constitution, that it is desirable that it should be a republican Constitution and that our people are living under a republican Constitution.

To me, it seems rather strange that we should have associated with our republican Constitution a piece of machinery—I regard it as a politically insidious piece of machinery—known as the External Relations Act. I think the Taoiseach knows my views on the provision of that Act, because, when it was being discussed in 1936, and even before, I suggested that the Bill should not be introduced and that we should not have taken this step to fill in the gap in British constitutional practice caused by the abdication of the British King, that fact producing a situation in which he, by his action, apparently broke through all the succession practice to the throne in Britain. I suggested then to the Taoiseach that he should tell the British that, for the past 700 years, we had had a ling foisted on us, that the king was appointed by Britain and that we were never asked whether we wanted him or not, that we were never consulted as to his appointment and that he was automatically foisted on us once he was enthroned as King of Britain, but 1936 gave us a choice and an opportunity which we never had before.

We could then have said to the British: "For 700 years, against the wishes of our people, you have been making your King, king of this Motherland of Ireland. Now you cannot make him king of Ireland; we can only do that by our act here". We did not go to the extent of making him king of Ireland by any overt act on the part of this Legislature, but we went dangerously near doing it, because what we did was to recognise the King of Britain as the organ of our external relations and as the instrument for the negotiation of international agreements, and for accrediting our representatives to foreign countries. I was never able to understand then—and frankly I am more confounded to-day, especially after the Taoiseach's speech—why we selected the King of Britain as the one person in the world who should be the organ of our external relations and our instrument for the signature of international agreements. I have never been able to understand why we selected the King as the only person to accredit our representatives to foreign countries.

Will the Deputy realise that it is not permissible to criticise legislation on an Estimate? He is coming very near doing so now.

I suggest that, having declared the republic yesterday——

We did not declare the republic yesterday.

We have had it since 1937, but it was only yesterday that we announced it.

That is not true, either.

If I am allowed to make my speech I will be able to convince the Taoiseach. Up to the present, there has been a security silence around the republican character of the Constitution which I submit ought not to be there and ought not to have been there, but one cannot discuss the character of this Constitution under which we live without making reference to the instrument we use in our relations with foreign powers. We did not make a very wise choice.

The Deputy is criticising an Act and that is not permissible.

I put this to you, Sir, that we have had a formal, an open and a frank declaration, which, as I said, I welcome, that this is a republican Constitution. I want to show that if we have a republican Constitution and if it is held to be republican, there are features of our external policy as a republic which ought to have no place in the exercise of our republican functions as a Legislature. I want to show that if we are to complete the declaration of the republic and convince other countries in the world that we really are a republic, we have to do certain things in a different way from that in which we are doing them to-day.

The Deputy is advocating legislation, or the annulment of legislation.

I am advocating the abandonment of a practice which I think is in conflict with our republican Constitution.

The Deputy is entitled to argue that it is inconsistent with certain things, but not to discuss the merits of that Act.

I do not intend to discuss the merits of that Act. I merely desire to point out that that action by us is inconsistent with, and in fact in violent conflict with, the republican Constitution. I do not propose to go into the merits of that Act at all.

I thought the Deputy had some great objections to it a few moments ago.

I have the same objections now as when I voted against it in 1937.

Do you want to cut the painter?

This whole method of having a person outside this country, not responsible to this House, not responsible to the Government, a person who, in fact, has not been seen by this House or by the Government, as the one person to accredit our representatives to foreign Governments, is something which seems to me to be in violent conflict with the Constitution. Can anybody imagine, for instance, Czecho Slovakia, or France, saying to the Emperor of Ethiopia: "Look here, we want you to act in the role of accreditor of our representatives to the countries with which we desire to exchange representatives"?

The Oireachtas passed that Act. The Deputy is still criticising it.

Well, I cannot see how I can avoid making a reference to that piece of legislation.

The Deputy is not avoiding it. He has been dealing with it for about seven minutes.

If the Chair would bear with me, although I accept your ruling, I do not think I am straying from the path of Parliamentary virtue in this matter.

The Deputy is very wide of the path.

I want to put my objections, on the one side, so that I may make a suggestion to the Taoiseach as to the type of machinery which I think would be more satisfactory in our external relations than the machinery we have at present.

That would be legislation, obviously.

But, Sir, what then am I entitled to discuss?

Not legislation, plainly.

Am I not entitled to point out to the Taoiseach that if we have a republican form of government, it carries with it certain usages, one of which is our method of accrediting representatives abroad? Am I not entitled to suggest to him that I think there is a piece of machinery which we can use, in accordance with the Constitution, without doing violence to the Constitution, instead of the machinery we are using at present? That is all I desire to do, and then to leave that aspect of the subject entirely. I say to the Taoiseach—I do not think he can get any international authorities to challenge the accuracy of what I say —that in no other republic in the world, under no republican form of government in the world——

Or monarchical either.

Let the dead rest. We buried it yesterday.

I merely said "or monarchical either".

I am saying that in no republic in the world, under no republican form of government in the world——

Or monarchical.

Let the Taoiseach have the last word as usual. Under no republican form of government in the world have we a system by which a person other than that republican Government itself accredits representatives abroad. But here we have a republican form of government, and now an officially declared republic, and yet we do not adopt the very obvious practice which is adopted by other republics and other republican forms of government in selecting the President of the country to accredit our representatives abroad. I would suggest to the Taoiseach that one of the first things he must do is to make sure that this inconsistency with the republican Constitution, namely having the King of another country accrediting our representatives to foreign countries, is a piece of machinery which must be removed at once.

The Deputy is again advocating legislation.

I suggest to you, Sir, that we can use an existing institution, the institution of the President, so that in the future the President of Ireland will accredit our representatives abroad. I am sure he will do it with no less competence, in fact probably with much greater competence, than it is done to-day. Of course, for the best part of the war we were not able to appoint a Minister to Germany or to Italy, because presumably our organ for foreign affairs would not function for the purpose of accrediting such a Minister. It is possible, of course, that he was not asked to do so. If he was not, I think there was considerable wisdom behind the decision not to ask him, because I imagine that, if he had been asked, in the circumstances of the war, to accredit a Minister to Italy or to Germany, there would have been, to say the least of it, a little ripple on the water. I suggest to the Taoiseach that we are sitting on a powder barrel in connection with this piece of machinery for accrediting our representatives abroad. One of these fine days we may discover that the King does not want to do this job at all. You might have an announcement to that effect next week when he reads the Dáil reports of this week. You might very well have a situation next week when the King might say: "I never asked for this job. I do not know why I should do it seeing that you are a republic. I am not going to do the job any more." If the King goes on strike next week, I want to know where the Taoiseach stands with his instruments of foreign relations? Suppose the King takes the attitude next week that he will sign no more letters of credence? Suppose the King gets sulky next week and says: "I will not function any more in this capacity," I wonder will the Taoiseach be glad or will he be regretful? Would the Taoiseach desire the King to go on strike in this respect and not function any more? If he would be glad, the Taoiseach can get the same effect to-morrow by repealing this Act.

The Deputy is again advocating legislation.

I am only talking about the effect on the Taoiseach's mind of the King going on strike.

He could try the Governor of Northern Ireland.

When the Taoiseach comes to refer to the External Relations Act in his concluding speech, as he did in his opening speech, I should be very glad if he would tell us whether the Government has the same affection for it now as it had in 1937; whether in fact a need for it exists at all; whether the circumstances of to-day justify its continuance, having regard to the rather peculiar circumstances in which it was passed in 1937. Seeing that we have a President elected by the people, a President who, the Taoiseach says, is the chief personage in Ireland and takes precedence over all other citizens of the republic, I cannot see why he cannot be selected as the instrument of our relations with foreign powers, and the person who would function for us in accrediting representatives abroad. With a President alive and healthy, thank God, in this country, having the dignified position he has under the Constitution, being the chief personage of the country and the first citizen, I cannot for the life of me understand why he cannot accredit our representatives abroad or why we must get the King of another country to function for us in that way under a republican Constitution.

In the course of this debate reference has been made to our relations with other countries in the Commonwealth, and on that aspect of the matter I should like to say that I think every sensible person in the country will desire to maintain good relations, especially with those small, new self-governing units, which constitute what is described as the British Commonwealth of Nations. Being a small nation ourselves, we are anxious to maintain good relations with all the small nations of the world, feeling that, the world being what it is, there probably is a greater community of interest between the small nations than there is between the large nations and the small nations. There are very special reasons for maintaining friendly and cordial relations with the native self-governing units which comprise the British Commonwealth of Nations, inasmuch as millions of our people have adopted those lands as their homes, and have made magnificent contributions to the building up of those new, self-governing entities. There is no reason why we should not have with Britain, and with the other self-governing units in the Commonwealth good relations, politically and economically. There is no reason why we here should worry in the slightest what form of government Australia, New Zealand, Canada or South Africa adopts for itself. The form of government in those self-governing entities is a matter for the people living there. If they decide to introduce a constitution orientated with aspects of government which are associated with republics, that is a matter for them.

The way in which the Australians, the Canadians, the people of South Africa and the people of New Zealand live and desire to govern themselves, is a matter entirely for the peoples of those countries. It is no business whatever of ours. I submit that the inescapable corollary of that is that it is no business of the people of Britain, Australia, Canada, South Africa or New Zealand what form of Government we fashion for our people here. That is a matter for the Irish people, just as the citizens of those other countries must be permitted to fashion their own forms of Government in accordance with their own needs.

It ought not to be necessary, especially in the circumstances of to-day and so soon after the declarations contained in the Atlantic Charter, that we should have to remodel our method of government and replan our political lives, in order to be on good terms with any other people. Good terms, politically and economically, can best be produced, I think, if there is a recognition of all the nations desiring good relations, that it is the function of each people to select its own Government and to determine its own form of government. Whilst, therefore, desiring that we should have good relations, politically and economically, with Britain and with other self-governing units of what is described as the British Commonwealth of Nations, I think we should say very definitely—and I think this is the appropriate time for the Taoiseach to say it—that we are not prepared, as the price of maintaining these relations, to submit in any sense to a veto over the political institutes which we establish here, that the form of government under which we live is a matter which can only be decided by the Irish people and that interference with that form of government cannot be permitted under any circumstances.

I am not unaware of the fact that a declaration of that kind may have its reactions and its economic repercussions. I think that what we have to establish once and for all is that our people know the type of government under which they live: that they know they live under a constitutional form of government. Having made that clear, and having removed an inferiority complex from our people in that respect, we can then discuss with the units comprising the British Commonwealth of Nations, as well as with small nations anywhere else in the world, the conditions of mutual assistance and of mutual exchange which are necessary in order to produce the good neighbour policy.

Apparently, there are some Deputies who imagine that unless we submit to a proscription of our right to decide our own form of government, a proscription imposed by other countries who do not apparently, desire us to depart from their concepts of constitutional status, we must be content to abandon any close association with the self-governing units in the Commonwealth. I do not think that contention is sustainable. It is certainly not sustainable on constitutional grounds. Denmark to-day is not a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and does not utilise the King of Britain for the purpose of her external relations with other countries.

Denmark had its own form of government; it has its own king; it has its own concepts of life and a pride in its own institutions and usages of government; but that fact does not prevent Denmark from sending to the British market, at better prices than we can get there, an amount of agricultural produce as well as the products of her secondary industries, which are vastly greater than the amount which we send to the British market. It is not, therefore, apparently necessary for Denmark to be in the British Commonwealth of Nations to act towards Britain as a good neighbour. It is not necessary that she should utilise the King of England as an organ for external association, or that she should in any way limit her right to decide her own form of government as the price of being able to trade in the British market. If it is possible, under British constitutional practice, to permit a self-governing country like Denmark enjoying national status to the fullest, to send considerable quantities of goods to the British market, and to enter into trade agreements with Britain—to be on the relations of the good neighbour with Britain—surely it ought to be possible for a republican government in Ireland—for republican Ireland—to evolve relations with Britain, and the other countries of the Commonwealth, on the basis of mutual respect for each other's rights, and with a desire for mutual assistance in times of difficulty, if necessary, as well as for an exchange of those goods which it is possible for all those who constitute the group to arrange.

I think it would be a fatal mistake to endeavour, because of the mistaken belief that you can only trade with Britain on the basis of accepting the constitutional status prepared by Britain, to induce our people to accept as their method of government here a constitutional position equivalent to that of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I think it is as clear as daylight that our people desire to exercise the rights, and to enjoy the status, of a mother nation, because the essential difference between this country and the units which comprise the British Commonwealth of Nations is that this is a mother country, whereas the nations which constitute the British Commonwealth can never in any sense claim to be mother nations. It is clear at all events—the last 700 years prove it in the same way as the last 20 years prove it—that our people will accept no limiting status of that character. It is clear to me, and I think it must be clear to every person who knows the real mind of the country, that our people desire to exercise all the sovereign rights which go with a nation such as ours. They want to enjoy political freedom in its highest concept. They claim for themselves here no less status in the comity of nations than that which is rightly enjoyed by the other liberty-loving nations of the world. Any attempt to peg our people to an acceptance of Commonwealth standards of constitutional practice seems to me to be capable of producing nothing but political strife, and that any attempt to stand in the way of the nation desiring to exercise its fullest powers in the matter of national freedom can only be accompanied by an intensification of the political strife from which, happily, we are now getting away.

I suggest to the Taoiseach that he has been wise in making the declaration that was made in its extended form yesterday, but it is not sufficient to make a declaration and then lapse into the silence that we have had since the Constitution was enacted in 1937. It is desirable that our people should know, as the people of other countries will know where republican forms of government have been promulgated, that they are living under a republican form of government, and that if they desire to live under a republican form of government, encumbered by no external pressure, then they have got to accept the responsibilities which flow from the acceptance of a republican constitution. If we are going to have a real republican government here, if we are going to display in our relations with other powers throughout the world those qualities of republican government which are recognised to be associates of republican governments throughout the world, then there is one thing we have got to do, and that is: we ought not to be satisfied with being a three-quarter republic or a seven-eights republic; we ought to be a complete republic and we never can be that so long as we accept the King of another country as the one and only person entitled to accredit our representatives abroad or to sign international treaties for us.

I conclude, therefore, Sir, with a request to the Taoiseach that, having made this courageous declaration yesterday, he ought to make an equally courageous one this evening and intimate that this country desires to be a complete republic, that the association of the King with the republic is something that is inconsistent, something that cannot be defended, and that the External Relations Act will be repealed so as to enable us to stand up in our full manhood as a republic.

The Deputy wound up by advocating legislation.

I am surprised that Deputy Norton should have concluded his speech by saying that the Taoiseach, yesterday, made a statement. I am not as long in this House as Deputy Norton has been and I certainly would not claim to possess his wisdom, but I could not get any definite statement out of what the Taoiseach said yesterday. I never heard a more Delphic utterance. That is the effect it had on me. I did not know yesterday whether we were a republic or a member of the Commonwealth and, frankly, I do not know to-day, whether we are a republic or a member of the Commonwealth. However, that may be due to my own density of mind.

I expected yesterday to hear, in addition to a discussion of the constitutional position, a statement on the wider aspects of our external affairs. The points on which the Taoiseach touched were really very limited. They concerned our relations with Great Britain and, therefore, with Northern Ireland and, to some extent, our relations with the Commonwealth. These are very important matters, but they represent only one of the many aspects of external affairs. There are many other countries in the world with which we have some form of relationship, through trade or through the fact that our people are in touch with those countries. I thought the Taoiseach would have said something about Japan. I feel that at least one voice in this House must be raised on that matter. Japan is at present engaged in war. We have been neutral and we are neutral. Yet we have seen the tragedies which happened to Irishmen, Irish priests, in the Far East. I, as an Irishman, cannot allow the occasion to pass without expressing deep abhorrence of these brutalities.

On a point of order. Is the Deputy in order in talking about priests who were killed in Japan or killed by the Japanese?

He is in order. It is External Affairs.

Thank you.

I want to express the abhorrence which I and every Irishman and woman felt of that sad occurrence and to say that, arising out of these incidents and other incidents, I personally—of course, I am not the Government; I am not a member of the Government Party—would ask the Taoiseach to break off relations with Japan. I am sure they should be broken off.

Will the Deputy go out to fight them? Would he join the British Army and fight them?

There are other aspects of our external affairs and external relations. A war has just ceased in which Germany was engaged.

The Deputy did not go to Spain.

During the course of that war, despite our neutrality, damage was done to this country amounting to at least £600,000. I think a statement is due from the Taoiseach as to what efforts will be made to collect compensation, and what likelihood there is of such efforts being successful. There are Germans living in this country, members of what was the German diplomatic mission. Many people would like to know, now that that diplomatic mission has terminated, what is going to become of those persons, and when they are going to leave this country. They would also like to know what is going to become of the men who are at present interned in the Curragh, when they are going to leave, and how they are being paid at present. If there are assets in this country to the credit of these German nationals, I think this State has a very big claim on such assets, in view of the damage which was done to Irish property.

We sheltered everybody in this country—the Huguenots and the Jews.

I am not proposing that we should indulge in any measure of inhospitality to people but we have had damage done to us— about which the Taoiseach, I am sure, knows a great deal more than I do— and I am only asking that we should be given our due in that connection. Nothing, unfortunately, can bring back those who lost their lives in the bombing raids on this country and at sea.

I hope, in his reply, the Taoiseach will refer to the matters I have mentioned and will give us a statement on the very wide issues involved in the matter of our external affairs. That is the issue which confronts us as a nation, whether we are a republic or in the Commonwealth, according to various encyclopædias. Those issues are still in front of us—the issue as to what Irishmen and women are going to do in the changing world to-day, the issue as to what our trading relations with the world at large are to be, the issue as to what our financial relations and political relations with the world at large are to be. All these matters are crying out for explanation and I would ask the Taoiseach to refer to them in his reply.

Listening to the Taoiseach introducing this Estimate yesterday, one could not help being reminded of the saying about the man who sheared the pig—"he produced a good deal of sound, but no wool". I might say, in fairness to the Taoiseach, that some of the Deputies who followed him in the debate repeated the same process. The Taoiseach's statement was remarkable, not so much for the things he told this House as for the things he failed to tell us. He answered the two specific questions: he told us that according to the dictionaries we are a republic and also that as a nation we are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Facing this matter realistically, I am prepared to accept the view that this country has a republican Constitution and is, therefore, a republic. I would go further and say that, since 1921, this country has been a de facto republic. The Taoiseach may not agree with that view, but I am not going to emphasise it too much, for fear that I might hurt his feelings. The question arises, however, as to whether it was wise to withhold from the people the information that the Taoiseach disclosed last week and yesterday. The Taoiseach may have had certain very good reasons for keeping the republic under a shadow or a cloud, but when he is concluding this debate I would like to hear what those reasons were. There is no doubt that the withholding of that information has had a certain undesirable effect. The Taoiseach may have considered that the time was inopportune to emphasise our republican status during the uncertainty which prevailed before the emergency and during the difficulties of the emergency itself. However, it is necessary here and now when replying to this debate that he should take the House into his confidence and tell us the exact reasons why he adopted such an unusual course.

The effect of the Taoiseach's statement last week and yesterday on the people of this country has been both good and bad. To those who looked upon a republic as something sinister, something evil, something undesirable, it may have come as a kind of relief to find that, after all, they had been living in a republic for a number of years without it affecting their health or well-being to any great extent. There are other people, however, who are bitterly disappointed, those who look upon a republic as an El'Dorado, as something grand and bright and prosperous. To those people, it is a bitter disappointment to find they have been living in a republic and in it have endured all the little difficulties and vexations the people had to put up with during the past seven years.

The Taoiseach also told us that we are members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I accept that statement and am not prepared to be overcritical about our position in that Commonwealth. If there is a unique international organisation in the world, it is the British Commonwealth of Nations and if there are things which appear difficult to reconcile with our republican status, things that appear difficult to explain, those things may be attributed to the fact that the British Commonwealth of Nations is a unique international organisation. I do not think there has ever been before an alliance or organisation in which one nation could be neutral while the others were engaged in war. That just shows how remarkable and unique the Commonwealth is.

Having accepted the view that we are a republic and having accepted also the Taoiseach's view that we are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the question that arises in the people's mind to-day is: "Where do we go from here?" What is the future policy? Is it the policy of the Taoiseach that this nation should remain in the British Commonwealth? The people of Ireland are entitled to a clear and definite statement on that point. Some of us, five or six years ago, might have been critical of the policy of this country remaining within the Commonwealth and may have felt then that it would lower our status, would drag us into any war in which Great Britain might be engaged; but the events of the last five or six years have shown that membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations does not in any way impair our status as a sovereign nation and does not involve us in any difficulty or danger in our international obligations.

I am at a loss to find any coherent reason which could be put forward as to why we should not remain members of this organisation. The Leader of this Party, Deputy Blowick, emphasised the desirability of our nation linking up with other nations similar to us in outlook, in constitutional status and in governmental institutions. What could be more desirable than that our nation should be closely associated with our nearest neighbours, the people of Great Britain, and should also be closely associated with those young and vigorous nations, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa?

These are nations which can help us, which can give us assistance and co-operation. They are nations in which our people are represented, inasmuch as a large section of our population emigrated to them and helped to build them up. Through co-operation with these nations we can achieve a wide influence in world affairs, an influence that is desirable. We will lose nothing by that association; we apparently stand to gain everything.

The Taoiseach was also strangely silent on the question of national unity, which was referred to by the Leader of this Party and also by the deputy-Leader. I am inclined to think that some of those who referred to the matter were rather too optimistic when they said that the Six Counties might be no longer a question for the Department of External Affairs when this Estimate comes before the House again. I feel the solution of the problem of Partition is one of great difficulty, one that demands the energy, the resources and the best qualities of all our people. That is why I believe to be sound the suggestion put forward that we should have a national convention to deal expressly with Partition, a convention constituted on somewhat different lines from the groupings of political Parties. We should invite into this convention all vocational classes and religious denominations and we should bring together people who are, perhaps, not all actively associated with politics, but people who are actively associated with the economic and cultural life of the country — we should bring them together and get them, by united action, to forge some machinery which may overcome, or assist in overcoming, this difficulty.

How far does the Deputy regard that as concerned with external affairs?

Only in so far as this representation would be drawn from the Six Counties as well as from the Twenty-Six Counties. That is the reason I mention the matter. I believe there is in the Six Counties a growing feeling in favour of national unity and that feeling ought to be strengthened in every conceivable way. A move such as has been suggested by this Party seems to me to be urgently desirable. During the past 20 years we have done very little to cope with this problem; very little action has been taken to overcome the difficulties of the situation. It is time that some action should be taken, and, whether it is sufficient to command the optimism and secure the confidence of all our people or not, something of that sort should be given a trial.

In connection with the problem of Partition, and also in connection with external affairs, I have long felt that there is this danger facing the country, that we may allow ourselves to be drawn into Party conflict in regard to contentious external matters. During the first 20 years of the life of this nation our political differences were based mainly on foreign policy and that was in itself an evil. It is desirable that we should get away from that state of affairs. It is desirable also that an effort should be made by all Parties in this House to lift external policy out of the region of Party conflict. For example, an instance was given to-day in which certain citizens of this country were reported to have been assassinated in another country and a demand was made that certain action should be taken. That is a situation which might arise at any time.

It is a dangerous thing for people who are not conversant with all the aspects of the international situation to make demands on the Government which it may not be possible to carry out; to make demands which might have the effect of creating serious difficulties for our State. It is very easy to work up a popular political agitation in regard to some aspect of external policy. It is very easy to get a good deal of publicity for such a campaign and for that reason action in regard to external policy would naturally appeal to a minority Party which might seek to extend its power and influence.

I suggest that instead of political conflict with regard to external questions, we should have co-operation. We should have a committee of all Parties to deal with external questions. In making that suggestion I am not advocating that Parties in this House should give up any of their fundamental rights. That would be a very dangerous thing to do, because the right of every Deputy to discuss Government policy on every question cannot be challenged or interfered with. If the Government are prepared to meet other Parties in a reasonable way and discuss external questions with other Parties reasonably, then I think other Parties would be prepared to meet them and in that way a delicate and difficult situation might often be avoided. We are a small nation in a troubled and stormy world. We cannot afford to rush hastily into any international difficulty. We have to weigh every issue carefully so that it will not be made the basis of political conflict.

I think the suggestion that we should have a council or committee of all Parties to deal with external matters is a sound and reasonable one, but it will depend for its success on the manner in which it is met by the Government, and particularly by the Taoiseach. If the Taoiseach is not prepared to act fairly with other Parties in this matter, co-operation would be absolutely impossible. If other Parties are prepared to forgo advantages which might come to them by making political capital out of some action which the Government might be forced in the national interest to take, then we would expect the Government would not seek to make political capital out of any action they could take in the political sphere. Unfortunately, we have had too many examples in recent years of advantage being taken of difficult international questions that arose. We had examples of the Government seeking to represent that they and they alone had the ability to deal with international matters. I am appealing for mutual co-operation and for that co-operation in regard to external matters. We have enough things about which we can have Party conflict within the country and it is desirable that a small nation such as ours should not stage bitter Party conflicts in regard to delicate external relations.

The speeches from the Opposition Benches have, to my mind, been very largely beside the point. It is no exaggeration to say that the greater amount of the comment which came from those benches had little or nothing to do with the real question under discussion. When people decide to discuss something, the sensible thing to do is to get a clear understanding of the matter to be discussed, to know exactly what the matter to be discussed is. The Taoiseach, quoting from the highest authorities, very rightly laid down clearly to all who were listening what was under discussion. He laid down clearly what a republic is. The question is: Are we a republican State? He showed clearly what a republican State means and then proceeded to show that we were, in actual fact, a republican State.

Deputy Mulcahy continued the discussion and spoke of us as hanging our heads, as acting in a cowardly way, as apologising to other people for our attitude. I was sorry to hear Deputy Norton speak, in much the same way, of an inferiority complex. All during the stress of recent years, we certainly did not hang our heads. We did not act in a cowardly way, and we apologised to nobody. Certain great Powers asked us to do this, or suggested to us to do that, but we took up the attitude that we were masters in our own country and that the affairs of this country were for ourselves to deal with. The very word "republic" is self-explanatory. Whether you take it directly from the Latin res publica, or from the French republique, a republic is a thing of the people, an affair, a concern of the people. We acted in these recent perilous years on the basis that our State was a thing of the people, a concern of the people, and the significant thing is that these great nations who would have liked us to do this or that, to their credit, understood our position and respected it.

At fairs, seaside places and places where people congregate in great numbers, it is very usual for a quack to hold up a pill, a powder, a lotion or a medicine and claim that it will cure all diseases under the sun. Foolish people sometimes believe the quack. They leave the trained medical man, the skilled physician, and accept the cure-all, very frequently with tragic, and sometimes with fatal, results. Deputy Mulcahy holds up to the people of Ireland a cure-all. His cure-all, his panacea for every Irish ill, is nothing more or less than a table, decorated, festooned or surrounded with statesmen of various nationalities, amongst whom must be an Irish statesman or representative. With that cure-all, we are assured that everything will be well—trade will flourish, the country will radiate prosperity, the Border will disappear and everything will be lovely. I am afraid the Deputy is an optimist. For upwards of 100 years, representatives of this country sat around a table. They sat around the table of the British House of Commons and there mixed with Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen. Very little came of it and remember that we had a much higher representation around that table than we could hope to have around the table which Deputy Mulcahy suggests.

Another common attraction at seaside places and bazaars is what they call a hall of mirrors. It is simply a room panelled with mirrors of various sorts and when you look into one, what is short becomes tall, and when you look into another, what is wide becomes narrow. A low-sized, rotund lady may look into one and be quite flattered to see herself shoot up suddenly into willowy, slender proportions, and a long hank of misery may look into another and be quite pleased to see himself a rotund and well-fed individual. Deputy Dillon appears to want to herd all Ireland and everything Irish into some sort of hall of mirrors. He wants to paint the distortions which he sees and to publish these distortions to the world. That is a very reprehensible attitude for Deputy Dillon or any other Irishman to take up.

Deputy Dillon wants to represent what is good as bad, what is laudable as reprehensible and what is truth and honesty as lies and trickery. He spoke of many Nazis being in this country, and he even said that there was one Nazi at least among the Government. Now, the only trace of Nazism that we saw in this country was at the time that the Blue Shirt movement was initiated. That was a deliberate attempt to establish a Nazi régime here, and Deputy Dillon, I understand, was a leading spirit in that Blue Shirt movement.

Were they the Blue-shirts all the time or where were they formed at all?

The only trace of Nazism that strangers can see in this country at the present time, the only thing touching on Nazism or anything associated with it of which they can carry news back to America, is that we have a real live "Haw-Haw" in this House. I think the Taoiseach was altogether too charitable when he described Deputy Dillon's astonishment as resembling the astonishment of Moliere's Bourgeois Gentil-homme. Moliere's middle-class gentleman's astonishment was a simple, honest, sincere astonishment. He really did not know that he had been talking prose all his life. But there is nothing simple, nothing honest, nothing sincere, in the astonishment registered by Deputy Dillon. I will give Deputy Dillon this much credit: he registered all the signs of astonishment and he is an admirable actor. I think it wrong for Deputy Dillon or any other Irishman to seize the opportunity of the presence of large numbers of strangers in this city and in the gallery of this House to misrepresent Irishmen, to misrepresent the state of things in this country, to misrepresent the nation and the nation's leaders. At a time when it is surely necessary for every one of us to be circumspect, Deputy Dillon is reckless. At a time when we should try to make our position understood among the other nations, Deputy Dillon trots out every bit of mischief that his fertile imagination can conceive. I do not know if the visitors to our gallery really understand what the Deputy represents in this House.

On a point of order: the Deputy is not entitled to refer to the visitors in the gallery. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled on that already to-day.

That is so, Deputy.

Very good, I apologise. I say that it is very wrong for any Irishman to misrepresent us at the present time, and, on account of the amount of publicity which that particular gentleman gets, it might appear to strangers that he represents something in this House. He stands alone; abhorred by this Party, which was elected with an all-over majority by the people of this country; cast out by the Fine Gael Party; avoided by Labour; shunned like a plague by Clann na Talmhan. He stands alone.

He stands in abject isolation. That is the man who tries to misrepresent Irishmen and Irish leaders to the world at the present time.

I intended to deal only with one aspect of the matters which arise on this debate, namely the question of Partition. Deputy Blowick, the deputy-Leader of the Farmers' Party, and some other members of that Party, have raised the question of Partition. I have a feeling—a feeling which had been borne in on me after 20 years' experience of home government—that the most false cry ever raised in this country is on the question of Partition. If there were any sincerity behind it, I would not use the word "false". I discussed on one occasion with an industrialist whether he would like to see the Border abolished in the space of about 48 hours. He said: "Not damned likely." Those were his exact words. What efforts have been made to abolish the Border? Deputy Cogan a moment ago expressed a whole lot of pious opinions about what could be done and what should have been done in order to abolish Partition and secure for ourselves a 32-county State. Whether it is called a republic or an Irish Free State is immaterial to me. While I know that Deputy Cogan was quite sincere in expressing those views, I would put the same question to him as I intend to put to the Taoiseach: "What efforts have been made by anybody in this House to bring about the end of Partition?" The Nationalists in the northern part of the country will tell you that they have been completely disgusted by the way in which they have been treated by the Twenty-Six County Government. That cannot be denied by anybody who has travelled in Northern Ireland. There is one way, of course, in which we could have placated the North. A policy was outlined by the much-abused Deputy Dillon yesterday when he indicated several methods by which arrangements could be entered into, and mutual understandings brought about—by having "a pow-wow", to give it a common or garden name, with the people in the Six Counties. Here and there, compromises could be effected which would meet the views of the other people. The question was asked, by, I think, Deputy Dillon: "Is it worth while?" and he demonstrated to the satisfaction of everybody in this House that it is and was worth while.

To come back to the question as to what efforts have been made towards bringing about the unity of North and South, is it not true to say that the strength of the Northern opposition to any kind of union with the South has been considerably strengthened of late? We had the latest rabbit out of the bag yesterday in the form of a republic. It came as a very big surprise to most people in this country when they were told yesterday by the Taoiseach that we had established a republic. It is a terrible reflection on the intelligence of our voters in this country to be told to-day by one or two speakers that this is in our Constitution. I daresay that most of the voters in this country have not behind them the resources that the Taoiseach had. Very few of them have in their households the various dictionaries which were hauled to the aid of the establishment of this republic yesterday, and in other ways the country has been misinformed as to our whole position. If the manufacturers in this country, who are so well dug in behind tariff walls, were asked to-morrow morning would they agree to have the Border abolished I wonder what would they say. What would a lot of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party say to-morrow if some Minister of the Northern Government were to suggest to his brother Ministers up there that it might be a very useful gesture to the Southern Parliament to come in with them and have a Parliament representing 32 Counties? I wonder what some of the Irish industrialists would say to that, and what some leading members of Fianna Fáil would say to it? I think it would come as a bombshell, and a most unwelcome bombshell, to the members of that Party. Now, of course, we have established a republic, on paper.

A lot has been said here about the British Commonwealth of Nations and of our membership of that important body. Suppose, we were to opt out of it to-morrow morning, what would happen? Will that strain our relations with Britain or will it help to establish more friendly relations with other countries, for instance, with America? The broadcasts of the Taoiseach to our kith and kin in the United States were a feature here some years ago. I am wondering now what will happen if our people are left outside the important body that is to be established in postwar Europe to arrange for an exchange of trade, etc. It is true, I suppose, to say that the belligerent nations will well look after their own interests first. If we are not represented at that convention, even though we remained neutral in the war, what is going to happen? As far as I can see, it would be a most disastrous thing for this country to opt out of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It may be a very fine thing, a very patriotic thing, to say that we have now established an Irish republic. I do not know what the repercussions of that are going to be, or if the position has been considered by the Taoiseach. I well remember an occasion a few years ago when United States troops landed in this country—in Northern Ireland. They were told then that they were invaders, but they objected to that name being put on them.

Who told them?

They were told they were invaders. The United States Minister very quickly called those who said that to order, and said that they were not invaders, and that they were in territory that did not come under the aegis of the Irish Free State at the time. The American Minister pointed out at the time that if any American soldier was shot, that, well, we would hear about it. I have the feeling that if we are not to be represented in the British Commonwealth of Nations, and that if we cannot sit around a table with representatives of the United States and of Britain and of the other countries, it will be a bad thing for this country, a thing that, I think, we will all regret for the remainder of our lives.

Listening to this debate I cannot help recalling the words of an English poet—Alexander Pope. I hope that I will not be traduced as a traitor, or accused of lack of patriotism, if I do quote an English poet in this republican House. In his Essay on Man he wrote:

"For forms of government let fools contest;

Whate'er is best administered, is best."

The Taoiseach gave us several definitions of a republic. Every one of these definitions will fill the bill for any sovereign State, irrespective of what that State may be, whether it is an absolute monarchy, an autocracy, a limited monarchy, a socialist republic or a democratic republic. All these definitions convey to us that a sovereign State is recognised by certain characteristics: that it has an Executive independent of any superior authority, that it has a Head of State independent of any superior authority, and that is has a free Parliament, subject only to the sovereign people. Admittedly, we have all these characteristics. So has the monarchy in England, so has the republic in France, so had the Reich in Germany, but that is all beside the point. What counts in any country, or in any State, is not the form of government, but the essence of that Government: the manner in which that Government is conducted, whether it is conducted by the people and for the people, not to-day or to-morrow, but always and all the time: whether that Government is conducted in the interests of the entire community and not in the interest of any Party, not in the interests of any individual and not in the interests of any class or section of the community. In other words, whether the administration is strictly honest and impartial and devoted all the time to the common good. I do not care whether we are in a republic or out of a republic; I do not care whether we are in the Commonwealth or out of the Commonwealth; I do not care whether we are an absolute monarchy or a limited monarchy if our people are getting the government which they should get.

I think that this debate has been all beside the point because the test, which I suggest is the real test, is whether the people are being governed in the right spirit and in the right manner according to law, both the legal and constitutional law and the moral law. In other words, are the interests of the people being preserved by the Government of the day, because any Government is but a passing phase in the life of a people? That Government has only a trusteeship for the people, and has only to try to preserve the people's interest.

I want to say that I would have much preferred not to see this debate take place at all, and to see no declaration, of the kind that was forced from the Taoiseach, made. I would have preferred to let things, if you like, drift as they were until a more opportune time had come when these things might be declared in the open. As a Deputy I do not want to force from the Taoiseach any secrets of State policy relating to foreign affairs or to defence. In anything I say I want it to be clearly understood that I appreciate the position of both the Defence Minister and the Foreign Minister in any State, because there are certain things that they cannot place before the public, and that at times they must keep back from the public. Subject to that, I want to say that there are other things on which, having regard to our constitutional development and to the peculiar position in which we find ourselves, we must have some light. There are certain propositions which I want to put to the Taoiseach in this matter.

The first proposition is one that I put previously to the Minister for Defence when I was told that it would be more opportune to put it on the Vote for the Department for External Affairs. It is this: Are we now deliberately committed to a policy of isolation? Do we think it is in the best interests of this country that we should isolate ourselves not only from the Commonwealth of Nations but from the rest of the world, and, incidentally, from the rest of Ireland? Is it in the best interests of the country that we should set ourselves up here as a republican institution? Is that calculated to remove the Border? What are the reactions on the other side of the Border in official circles in Belfast to that? The only note that I saw struck from the other side of the Border was the one that was struck by Sir William Davidson, the Grand Master of the Orange Lodge, who welcomed the Taoiseach's declaration, not because he welcomes a republic or because he wants to go into a republic or into any association with the Twenty-Six Counties, but because he thought that, by drawing that line, it was the best way the interests on the other side could be preserved. I want to face these things in an absolutely realistic spirit and I do not want to introduce a note of carping criticism. Partition has been mentioned. Let us for a moment try to put Partition in its proper perspective. The former Administration of Cumann na nGaedheal was blamed by the Governwent Party, when in Opposition, for Partition. There are three or four facts to remember about Partition. The Northern Parliament was brought into being, on an Order in Council, on the 4th May, 1921. The Northern Parliament met in Belfast on the 27th June, 1921, and Partition was a fait accompli before the 11th July, 1921, when the Truce was signed between us and Great Britain. These are facts that are apt to be forgotten in the cloud of politics to day, but they are essential facts and there is no use in blinking at them.

At the time that the Northern Parliament was introduced, certain functions were given to us, under the 1920 Act. We could have set up a council of Ireland. We could have had representation from South and North on that council and the ultimate aim of the 1920 Act was, by setting up that council, to remove the Border. But we down here went a different course. We went our own way. We ignored the 1920 Act and the people in the North, much against their own will, accepted the 1920 Act—largely, at that time, a nuisance to them— because they did not want to be separated from the United Kingdom. These are the historical facts and we might as well face them. Having accepted that position, they proposed to continue with that position.

Unfortunately for ourselves, down here, when the Treaty came along, we disagreed over the Treaty, we failed to take opportunity of whatever advantages we might have in the constitutional position at that time. Our differences put the clock back 50 or 100 years. There is no use in anybody in this House saying that to-morrow morning you can remove Partition by a flourish of the pen. It simply cannot be done in that way.

I should like to put this to the House also: The Northern Parliament exists by virtue of an English Act of Parliament. It has no constituent powers, good, bad or indifferent. It is purely a Parliament which may keep law and order in Northern Ireland and has functions in purely Northern Ireland affairs. Certain Imperial functions, such as the Crown, foreign affairs, war, declaration of war, and all these, are outside the province of the Northern Parliament. So also are many reserved services, such as customs, post office, even agriculture, and so on. When people stand up and say that all these things can be wiped away in a flourish of the pen or in one whisper—as the republic was declared—I say it just cannot be done. It cannot be done for the simple reason that it is not a matter as between Belfast and Dublin. It is a matter concerning the Imperial Parliament. It is a matter concerning the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have to face up to these realities.

I mention these facts for the simple reason that I believe no effort, good, bad or indifferent, has been made to face up to the constitutional position in regard to Partition. We have to face, not only Stormont, but Westminster as well. We have to keep that very clearly before our minds. I feel that the declaration that has been made is calculated to have a reaction the reverse of what was intended by us. I believe a declaration of this kind will only stiffen the backs of the people in Stormont and will lose for us whatever little sympathy we have left in Westminster.

I am not worried about the constitutional position here. The only thing I am concerned with is, are we getting good government, are the citizens getting fair and impartial government? If they are, it is immaterial what you call the form of State—quite immaterial. Many people have been worried about the External Relations Act and about the King in the Constitution. From 1921, the constitutional development of this country has been a compromise between the King in the Constitution—the King in Parliament, in other words—and a republic. The Treaty and the first Constitution were a compromise on that basis. The King was originally accepted in the Constitution more as a symbol of unity, as a symbol of the possible reunion of North and South, than as anything else. It was not for the essential intrinsic value of a monarchy as against a republic that he was accepted. He was accepted simply and solely as some organ which in time might possibly bring about the reintegration of the national territory.

The King in England—that we hear so much about—the King in the English Constitution, is a figure-head. He has no prerogative power to day. All his prerogative have gone. He is a figure-head who can only—if you like —spread a social influence or a moral influence in the community. The Parliament in England is paramount. It is a limited monarchy. Parliament is sovereign and if to-morrow morning Parliament in England saw fit, the King could go—and nearly went, in 1688, or whenever they had their great revolution.

We are a republic! If we are, we are the strangest form of republic that was ever constituted, because in a republic there is one head of State— one sole and absolute head, usually called a President. But here you have two heads. We are a constitutional monstrosity. For internal purposes, the President is the President of the republic. For external purposes, the King is the President of the republic. I do not know whether we are a republican monarchy or a monarchical republic. On one famous occasion Winston Churchill was asked in the British House of Commons to define the constitutional status of this country—after the Constitution of 1937 had been enacted—and his answer was that, so far as he could see, Éire was an inexpressible anomaly. In 1931 the Statute of Westminster was passed. By virtue of that statute we are declared to be as follows:—

"The expression ‘Dominion' means the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State and Newfoundland".

That statute was passed by the British Parliament, at our request and with our consent, and it followed on the Imperial Conference of 1930 and the Imperial Conference of 1926. In 1926 our status was defined as follows:—

"The Dominions are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."

I say that, despite the Constitution of 1937, and despite the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, no change, good, bad or indifferent, has taken place in the constitutional status of this country.

Rubbish! What about the Oath of Allegiance?

I will deal with that in a moment. The Statute of Westminister went further. Section 2 (2) made this provision:

"No law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of a Dominion shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Parliament of a Dominion shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as the same is part of the law of the Dominion".

That position was created, not in 1937 but in 1931. In 1938, the question of our constitutionality and the right to abrogate, amend, repeal or do what we liked with the Constitution or the Treaty was raised in the famous fisheries case, Moore v. Attorney-General. That case went to the Privy Council of England, which ruled that this House had the right to abrogate the Treaty and the Constitution. Therefore, in all this business we are not performing any miracles, we are simply availing of the law largely brought about by the efforts of the late Kevin O'Higgins and the previous Minister for External Affairs, Deputy P. McGilligan. My friend from Limerick has asked about the Oath of Allegiance.

When was that done?

All I will say about it is that, when the Constitution of 1922 was passed, the circumstances were entirely different from those of 1937. Certain things had to be taken in with the Constitution, willy-nilly, or we went back to fight "immediate and terrible war", as Lloyd George expressed it. Many of the things in that Constitution, though you might read them to be extraordinary, were archaic formalisms, which could have been repealed by the previous Government at any time. Some of them were kept there as a little pill for you people to swallow.

It will not have to be swallowed again.

When you came to swallow that pill, the Oath of Allegiance, about which you created such a lot of noise, what did you say? "It is an empty formula; you can take it, boys, it will do you no harm." And you took it.

It is gone for good.

We had a Governor-General.

Has has gone, too.

Remember, there is not much distinction in constitutional law between the President of Ireland as he now stands and the Governor-General.

The Governor-General was appointed by the King.

He was appointed by the people of this country, as he was recommended by the Executive Council. He was appointed in theory by the King of England, but in fact by the Executive Council of the Irish Free State. Let me say this much about all the removals of these little pin-pricks of the old Constitution— they were all done unilaterally. So far, they have not been called to question, but a day of reckoning may come. This is a warning I want to sound: you can twist the lion's tail for a long time, but you may twist it too long and the time may come when suddenly the lion may turn and devour you.

I did not get up to answer Deputy Ó Briain. What I want to make clear is that I am concerned with government in the interests of the people. I am concerned with defence and foreign policies which will be calculated to promote the common good of this country. I am concerned with the foreign policy which will be aimed at removing the Border, in time. I say that all the tinkerings with the past Constitution, all the constitutional developments that have taken place here unilaterally may have all been very well down at the crossroads in Ballydehob but, taking the longer view and looking outside, they may eventually embroil us in a very serious dispute.

At the present time, as I see it, we are in a position of isolation. I want to know if it is the policy of the Government to continue in isolation. Are we in cold storage or are we forced into that position? It is time that the country should know where we stand in this matter. So far as we can see, no effort is being made by the Government to establish any contacts with the people on the other side, in the matter of business or trade. Last week a conference on air took place and the entire Dominions were represented, while this week there is a conference on Commonwealth Telecommunications, which will have a very important bearing upon Commonwealth co-operation in business and trade. I want to know if we were invited to that conference, and, if not, why not. Did we seek to go there, and, if not, why not? In either case, I want to know if we had any reply.

I have read in the papers that 47 nations are being invited to a conference in London next September, which will deal largely with educational and cultural matters. Are we going there? Have we been invited? If invited, do we intend to be there? If we have not been invited, do we intend to seek an invitation? As I said on the Vote for Defence, other conferences are bound to take place. There is bound to be a conference on Commonwealth Defence in the near future and another conference on Foreign Affairs. Do we intend to absent ourselves from them? Have we cut the painter? I say we have not, I say we still have the nexus of the King for foreign relations, for accrediting ambassadors abroad and for the reception of ambassadors here. Apart from that, I want to know if we intend to use our position as a member of the British Commonwealth for the promotion of trade relations with other members of the Commonwealth and particularly with Great Britain.

The second question I wish to raise is whether it is proposed to abstain from any participation in the world organisation which is taking shape. Do we intend to apply for membership of the future world organisation? Do we intend to take any responsibility or duty in the policing of the world after the war? These matters are all pertinent to our defence and foreign policy problems here. I do not want to be accused of hypocrisy in raising the issues I am about to raise now.

You will be.

I want to raise a question seriously affecting our international position. In the Encyclical Summa Pontificatus of Pius XII, Our Holy Father, dealing with the modern notion of sovereignty of States, has said:

"This notion of absolute sovereignty which assigns unlimited powers to the State is not only an error that brings fatal consequences to the internal life of a society, it is equally disastrous to the relations of people with one another, it breaks the bonds which unite commonwealths, it robs international law of all its vigour, it makes them incapable of living together on terms of peace and goodwill."

It is the Catholic teaching that mankind is, by a Divinely-appointed law, divided into peoples, nations and communities. It is also the Catholic teaching that, because of that essential fact, it is necessary that those peoples, nations and communities should be governed by a system of law. It is also the Catholic teaching that, independent of any man-made law or any man-made convention or any man-made treaty, there is inherent in that very fact a moral law, a law of nature or a law of reason which dictates not only to men living in societies, but to societies themselves, to States, the right and the wrong. Why I mention this is that I see no evidence from the Department of External Affairs of any development in relation to international law.

International law, I need hardly say, at the present time is in abeyance; international law, if you like, has been wrecked; that is, international law recognised by States. But the international moral law is still there and it is our duty as a small nation, as a nation which has had no interests in the recent war, as a nation which claims to be a Christian Catholic State, to inculcate the principles of international law wherever we can and, beyond the fact that the Taoiseach contributed to the debates in Geneva, and one or two of our representatives from time to time have contributed to uphold Ireland's ends abroad, we have no evidence since the State was formed of what the External Affairs Department is doing in relation to the problems of international law. That Department is functioning in vacuo for all we know.

I put it to the Department and to the Minister that we have an ideal opportunity of exercising a moral influence in the councils of the nations and I want to see this small country, which claims to have a Christian outlook, going into the councils of the nations with that Christian outlook and preaching it in good days and evil days, through thick and thin, whatever the consequences to this country may be. May I quote again from an Allocution which His Holiness the Pope gave in 1942 to the Argentinian Ambassador in Rome? He said it was the duty of every nation and every Government to take every possible action to restore international law to its moral foundations. I hold that is our mission here. I hold we have an essential function here. I hold that we have a great mission and that we should seize that opportunity. It is for that reason more than for anything else that I want to see this country associated with the world organisation which is being brought into being.

The next two years will be most vital years in the history of humanity. The next two years will, perhaps, shape the future of the world for 1,000 years to come and it is important that the small nations be represented and that the Catholic viewpoint, above all, be put forward in that world council, because when you look at that council to-day there are very few Catholic voices to be heard.

Deputy Dillon has referred to a possible future conflict. I mentioned it before and I do not want to go very fully into it again. I say there is every evidence abroad to-day that a new monster will arise in Europe and that that monster will have to be faced both in the council chamber and outside the council chamber and eventually on the battlefield. There is every indication of that and I want to know what our Department of External Affairs is doing. Have we any policy in relation to these matters? Have we any policy in relation to Poland, which is being mutilated to-day? Have we any policy in relation to the other Catholic communities on the Continent that have been mutilated? These are serious matters, matters deserving the full consideration of the Minister and the External Affairs Department.

Going back to external relations, I should like to ask the Taoiseach what is meant by certain aspects of those relations. In 1936, when the King of England abdicated, we recognised the abdication under the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act. In Section 3 (2) of that Act, in giving that recognition to the King, we said this:—

"...His said Majesty shall, for the purposes of the foregoing subsection of this section and all other (if any) purposes, cease to be King, and the King for those purposes shall henceforth be the person who, if His said Majesty had died on the 10th day of December, 1936, unmarried, would for the time being be his successor under the law of Saorstát Eireann".

In other words, we accepted the abdication of the former King by a schedule attached to that Act. We recognised the new King according to the law of Saorstát Eireann. Does that mean the law of succession to the Crown in England? Does that mean that we are recognising the present King, his heirs and successors? If it does, it is in extraordinary conflict with the claim that we are now a republic. The law of Saorstát Eireann I take to be the Act of Succession in England and the Act of Settlement. These are the laws that apply to the King.

Incidentally, we had in 1927, the Royal Style of Titles Act which followed on the Imperial Conference of 1926. Before that conference the King was known as George the Fifth, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India. We changed that in 1927, following on the Imperial Conference of 1926, and he became George the Fifth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland—no "and"—and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India. Did the mere declaration which the Taoiseach made here on Thursday last wipe out all these enactments? I want to know if we are now in the position that the King has not only been dematerialised in the Irish Constitution, but simply has vanished. I want to know if he is simply put out of the Constitution completely. I want to know if, following on this declaration, we have made up our minds to secede from the Commonwealth of Nations. We have the nexus of the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act. We are hanging on, as it were, by our eyebrows to the Commonwealth.

As the Taoiseach pointed out, that is not a fundamental law of our Constitution. It is an Act of this Oireachtas which can be repealed to-morrow. Following on his declaration, does he propose to repeal the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act of 1936 and, if he has that intention, I want to know then how he proposes to seek recognition for the Irish Republic abroad, because, as he himself said, it is not the ipse dixit of any Deputy in this House which defines the constitutional status of this country; it is largely the recognition which this country will receive as a State abroad from foreign Powers? I want to know if, by removing all these things from the Statute Book and the Constitution, he hopes to find recognition for the new form of State in Washington, for example, as well as in London.

In intervening in this debate, which is of peculiar importance at the present time, it is with some sense of reluctance that I want, first of all, to refer to something which I wish to put in a personal form. Deputy Dillon yesterday referred in a somewhat peculiar manner for him to the courtesy call paid by the Taoiseach on the German Minister recently on the occasion of the death of Herr Hitler. I was very reluctant to intervene at that particular time, for many obvious reasons. There has been for the past 12 months a peculiar effort on the part of many individuals of certain States to cover up their past by climbing aboard what is, in vulgar terms, called the band-waggon. I have no desire to associate with these individuals, some of whom are even present in this House, as we heard yesterday; but, for my own self-respect, I feel that, on the occasion of this Vote, I must make my position clear.

I do so because on a number of occasions recently it has been emphasised from the Government Benches that Ministers act on behalf of this House, having been elected by the House. Therefore, the Minister for External Affairs, in his capacity as such, calling to make that courtesy visit to the German Minister might, in certain circumstances, be regarded as speaking for all the members of the House. I do not want to dwell upon the position during the last six years. My attitude goes back much further, and much further than Deputy Dillon's goes. Because of one aspect, and one aspect alone, I want to record myself here as dissociating myself from that courtesy call. I do so as a trade unionist, as a member of the Labour Party and as one who for many years had deep fraternal relations with men, women and children who were butchered by that individual.

I do not want to say any more than that, except that I can understand, because of the mentality of the Taoiseach, because of his very correct and, if you like, exact approach to certain problems, why he took that decision and carried out that particular act. At the same time, without commenting on the events of the past few years, I feel that, from the point of view of many of those who associated themselves with the Taoiseach and the movement he led in years gone by, men and women of the Irish working-class movement, Irish trade unionists, to whom he has in the past paid tribute for their services to the country, it might have been better if that call had not been made.

So far as the debate is concerned, it seems to me that, with a number of exceptions, it is worthy neither of the House nor of our country at present. To engage ourselves in pursuing some of the lines of argument developed by members of the House is not, I think, to recognise the position our country is in, nor the requirements and responsibilities which devolve upon us as a nation, whether we are large or small. From that point of view, my feeling on the opening speech of the Taoiseach is largely one of disappointment. There have been occasions in the past when the Taoiseach, speaking at international assemblies, gave utterance to sentiments which would be very valuable if re-echoed to-day, and re-echoed not only in the sense of merely giving expression to opinions, but with a determination that, so far as we could, we would play our part in seeing that these opinions and sentiments were given effect to, within our limitations and our capabilities, in the world to-day.

I do not think the statement of the Taoiseach with regard to the republic should cause so much amazement as it seems to have caused to the Opposition. We have been engaged for a long period of years in trying to attain a certain status as a nation. We have done it in different ways and different forms. We have done it quickly at times and we have proceeded slowly at other times. During the period of office of the Government of the Taoiseach, various difficulties and impingements that came upon us have, one by one, either fallen or been cast off, and it is quite true, as he said, that, for all essential purposes, we have been a republic. It would have been much better if the Taoiseach could have departed on this occasion from his weakness for developing his argument in minute and fine forms, and had contented himself with a plain and definite statement which would have been appreciated by the ordinary common people.

I do not believe that our constitutional position as a nation is dependent on any external force, and I do agree with the Taoiseach that it does not depend on his statement, or even on the statement of this House, in the last analysis, but I suggest that the basic thing to be considered, in reflecting upon whether we are a republic or not, is not merely the constitutional position, not even the feeling of those who may sit in this House, or of the Taoiseach himself, but the consciousness in the minds of our own people. I submit, and I think that members of the Fianna Fáil Party if they honestly and seriously examine the question, will agree that our difficulty in this country is that our own people are not yet convinced that they are a republican people. They are still suffering from what Deputy Norton called an inferiority complex, and until we take upon ourselves the task, and the burden which will follow from undertaking that task, of accepting that we are republicans, not only constitutionally, not only in relation to other countries, but in all that is implied by the term and until it has become an everyday part of our life, with all its concomitants, we are going to feel ourselves in an inferior position, despite what Deputy Butler said, to which I take no exception.

We have sooner or later got to face up to that position. We have to say that not merely do we regard ourselves as Éire or Ireland, a country having a republican form of government set down in our Constitution, but that this is the Government of the Irish Republic as such. It may involve certain difficulties, difficulties which I think are present to the mind of the Taoiseach and have been present to his mind since 1937. There is the difficulty of trying to step forward and attain a certain goal and, at the same time, not make the cost of the journey too heavy on our people. We have certain trade relations, financial relations, industrial relations and even social relations with England and the British Government. Undoubtedly declarations on our part which may carry us a step further, or even finally to our particular goal, may affect those relations, but sooner or later we have to consider that matter and decide whether or not we are determined finally to stand erect in national manhood or whether we are going to continue in as confused and unclear state as we are in to-day.

I believe it is not a matter which must be considered merely by the Taoiseach. I do not think it is a fair or equitable proposition for members of the House to regard the Government of the day as being merely a Party Government, and at the same time put questions to that Government which they, as Irish people and as responsible political leaders of that people, are just as much entitled to answer as any member of the Government Party. Therefore, so far as I am concerned—and I think it was also the keynote of the speech of the Leader of our Party—to clarify the issue would be the simplest and, in the long run, probably the least expensive way of dealing with the matter.

Until we arrive at national and political manhood in all its forms, we will continue to have the kind of debate we have had here for the last day or two, and, within our country, political groupings and factions about the definition of republic and republicanism, and we will not get acceptance of having arrived at a definite and clear basis of nationhood on which we can each go forward along our own particular road so far as the development of our country is concerned.

When speaking of the republic it is peculiar that in this House yesterday we had a speech by Deputy Flanagan to which no other speaker has yet taken exception. I would have preferred that some other speaker in the House had taken exception to that speech—had taken exception to the fact that somebody can stand up in this House and, associating himself with the terms "Irish Republic" and "Irish Republicanism", make a speech such as Deputy Flanagan made yesterday, in which all the bitterness and intolerance, all the rotten, medieval mind of a system which has now been crushed out of the civilised world, were amplified in association with the term "Irish Republic." As an Irish republican I want none of that. I had great respect for Deputy Flanagan. I hope that in the future he will pay less attention to circular letters, and try to get back to the basis of republicanism in this country —tolerance for the viewpoints of all men, no matter what their race or creed; acceptance of the position that all men and women of our race have a common claim on our nationhood, that they have equal rights, and that we are as determined to protect the views and rights of the smallest minority as we are to protect those of the majority. That, I think, would be a greater contribution to Irish Republicanism than the speech which Deputy Flanagan made in this House yesterday.

When we came to deal with the question of a republic, we had the contributions made by Deputy Dillon in particular, and also references by members of the Fine Gael Party as to the position which would be created by the declaration of the Taoiseach yesterday of the republican character of our Government, and the effect upon Partition and our relationship with the British Commonwealth of Nations. There are some who fear that all of this is tied together, and that the price of the unity of our country is the acceptance of a certain other position in regard to our republican aspirations, and our attitude to the British Commonwealth of Nations. I do not feel that that is so. First of all, let us be clear as to what we are speaking of when we refer to the British Commonwealth of Nations. I think, in the first place, that we have not got to accept the conception which apparently has been put forward in this House that the British Commonwealth of Nations is composed solely of self-governing nations made up of sections of the English speaking areas throughout the world, and, if you like, including ourselves. That is a conception which has been voiced and put forward during recent years by those who are not concerned with some of the darker sides of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not only a collection and grouping together of self-governing dominions, many of whom can equally claim with ourselves, if they want to go in that direction, to have republican governments in their sense of the word. There are also such other areas as India, Africa and the West Indies, where there is no self-government, and very little respect for human dignity or human rights.

One of the things in which I would be peculiarly interested is to know whether, if we do associate as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, that implies that we also accept that that Commonwealth is applicable to all the parts of what we used to call the British Empire. I think that would be something very regrettable. In the past, in our days of need, we have received encouragement and words of cheer from many of the races who to-day are still deeply within the Empire, and who have not progressed as far along the road of self-government as we have. Whatever may be the constitutional position, I think we, as a small nation who have known the bitterness of having that relationship forced upon us in the past, should not be a party to covering up the suffering and degradation of other people throughout the world to-day. I believe there is a basis for and a possibility of association with the British Commonwealth, but it can only be on the basis that we, as an independent and sovereign people, are not merely going in as sons and daughters of a mother country because we have certain political associations throughout the world, but that we are associating with that Commonwealth in the same way as we might associate with any other group of nations in any part of the world, and that we accept no responsibility and make no apology for what may be happening inside portion of that associated unit.

In doing that, I believe that we have got to make a final effort to stand erect on a national basis, as men and women. Until we are able to do that I feel that any association we may have or may desire to have in the future with the British Commonwealth is going to create points of difference within our own people which have their roots in the past and in the experience we have gone through. We cannot find a basis of association until we can cut adrift and say we are standing independently on our own feet, and, of our own choice, associating either with the Commonwealth or with any European group of nations or any American group of nations, and that we are doing that not because we have any particular interest in their political philosophy but because we have common associations as part of the world comity of nations, because we have certain trade relations which we wish to develop, and because it will be conducive to the general welfare and peace of the world. Because we have not reached that position, any mention of association with the British Commonwealth of Nations immediately raises in our minds many of the spectres and fears of the past. The fact that it is possible still to raise within our minds those fears is proof that we have not yet attained that national manhood which we should have attained, and could attain by a free act of our own will.

Deputy Dillon in particular made a very impassioned plea that we should not only be part of the British Commonwealth of Nations because of its possible consequences in regard to the unity of our country. He developed another argument: that we, as he termed it, a mother race, having units of our race spread throughout different parts of that commonwealth, could act as a cement—that was the word he used—to bind together the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America. He went on to develop that, and I believe that, of all the things said in this House during the past day or two, the line developed by Deputy Dillon was the most dangerous, because Deputy Dillon, within a period of three or four months of the end of the second world war, is already envisaging the possibility of a third catastrope in the world. He does not even seem to be appalled at the prospect. He does not even see any alternative, or any means of avoiding it. We are to take upon ourselves not the role of peace-makers, not the role of bringing together all the peoples of the world, regardless of race, creed or politics, for the material security of the peoples of the world, but we are to act as a cement to bring together another war machine for the third conflict, which may well cost civilisation its very existence. I hope that, if we are to have associations with groups of nations outside our country, they will be associations which will be conducive to the peace of the world, and not to the creation of groups and future warring parties in the world. It is true, because of the fact that our race is scattered throughout the world, that we are in the happy position of acting as carriers of thought and of influence to many parts of the world. We could be of greater assistance to any system of world organisation designed to try, as far as possible within the realities of the world situation, to preserve peace and the safety and security of the common people, than any other nation of equal size. We can only do that on the basis of entering into that organisation with friendliness, neighbourly feeling and good relations towards all peoples and all races in trying to find that common humanity which is the birthright of all the common people, and in taking upon ourselves, so far as our limited capabilities permit, such a share of the world as may fall to us. That is why I profoundly disagree with the particular line of argument that was advanced by Deputy Dillon yesterday.

The other suggestion that was put before us was that the price of making a declaration of our republicanism, of the republican character of our Government, is to be the unity of our country. I think that is a false line of argument. I am convinced that even the most rabid Orangeman, or even the gentleman whose name was mentioned in the debate to-day, Sir William Davidson, would have very little respect for us if we were to renounce the convictions that we have held for so many years—the belief in our nationhood, in an Irish Republic and in all that that connotes.

May I interrupt the Deputy for a moment? I understand that, according to Standing Orders of the House, if it is desired that the House should sit late the motion to do so should be moved before 6 o'clock. I suggest that such a motion should be moved now so that this debate might be continued to-night.

That is a matter for the Government.

I think that, unless such a motion is moved now, the debate may continue for three or four more days.

Could not that be arranged through the Whips and not by means of a discussion in the House which might take half an hour?

I think that some members of the House are agreeable to the suggestion.

I think it would be wiser for the Deputy to see the Whips than to have the matter debated in the House.

Will the Chair give me until 6.30 to have the matter considered?

If the Deputy can get general agreement, and if there is no opposition, then we can see what can be done.

Very well.

The proposal seems to me to be rather unusual.

As I was saying, I do not believe that any relinquishment of the position we have held so long, or our belief in a republican form of government, would be of avail to us in bringing us closer to that section of our people who also hold determined views on the Partition of our country. They are a peculiar kind of people, dour, determined and convinced in so far as their own opinions are concerned. They are, as has so often been expressed in regard to them, bonny fighters. I cannot see that any extension to us of that common respect which can be the only basis of unity in our country would flow from a relinquishment on our part of very dearly held convictions.

Many speakers, in the course of the debate, have referred to the question of Partition. Most of them seemed to accept it that the Taoiseach is the only individual in the country who has propounded a solution of that problem. Whether he has a solution or not, I do not know. Some time ago he challenged other Parties to propound their solutions. So far as this debate is concerned, with the exception I think of Deputy Coogan, the majority of the speakers failed to try and make an approach to the problem at all. They felt that it was sufficient to declare that the problem existed, and then made a lot of high-sounding statements as to how desirable it was that the country should be united. But their contributions in no way tried to face up to the problem. Is it not quite clear that, difficult as the problem was in 1939, it has become ten times more difficult in 1945 and for very obvious reasons? In that situation, to speak about the majority of our people in the six northern counties desiring to be united with the rest of Ireland, is only begging the question: that it is not merely a question of a majority but also of a minority whose views are as determinedly held as are the views of the Nationalist majority? Is it not equally true that whatever solution we may have for Partition one is already barred to us by general acceptance, and that is a solution through force?

We have then to find other ways and means of an approach to that section of our people who constitute a minority in Northern Ireland. The suggestion to call a conference in Leinster House, or in any other place, of representatives of the Parties in Éire and of anti-Partition Parties in the Six Counties, may be good propaganda. It may be interesting to have an exchange of views, but will it have the slightest effect upon those in the six northern counties who are determined on their particular way of life? Is it not clear that there is a gulf between us, and that we are not going to cross it merely by expressing the desire to have the unity of the country restored? One of the peculiar features that we must take into consideration now, and that was not present six years ago, is that whereas for many years probably the most compelling influence, and the only relation that existed mutually across the Border—that of the working-class movement, the trade union movement—has in so far as the six northern counties are concerned, changed its attitude in many ways. I am not speaking now of the official movement, but of the working-class men and women in Northern Ireland. In years gone by they might have been prepared to consider and discuss the possibility of reuniting those six northern counties with the Twenty-Six Counties, but they are now determined that in present circumstances there is going to be no such unity, because that unity to-day in their minds would involve not only considerations of politics and of their philosophy of life but would involve a bitter and too costly pill as regards the standard of their lives and of the possibilities now held out to them in regard to the economic and social conditions under which they hope to live.

It has been truly said that of late years instead of the two parts of our country coming a little closer together, not only have we drifted apart politically because of the events of the last six years when we took a line of our own, freely and independently, but that we have also drifted apart because the two sections of the country are drifting apart. We are not going up as we should be. Whether, in fact, those in the six northern counties have any basis in fact for it or not, they believe that their standards have progressed within that period. They point to our social services and even to the attitude of members of our Government towards the simple suggestion that plans to improve social services here might be considered. They point to what one might call the closure almost of mental freedom in this country and to many of the restrictions that they regard us to be suffering from. They feel that the cost of unity, so far as their daily lives are concerned, would be too great a price for them to pay. I do not think that sets an obstacle to the future unity of our country, but it does require that those of us, in this part, who speak on that problem have to do a little more than merely make high-sounding speeches about the unity of Ireland and the age-old desire of Ireland to have the whole of the 32 green fields restored to her. We have to be a little more practical. We have to remember that we are not speaking merely for the benefit of a 26-county audience but for a lot of hard-headed men and women in the Six Counties. That is why I do not believe that, when we come down to bedrock, any declaration of this being a republic or any further declaration that we may make will make any great change in the problem we have to meet, so far as the Six Counties are concerned.

The basic factor which occurs to the men and women in the Six Counties who wish to remain divided from the rest of the Irish people is: (1) our way of life here, regardless of the form of government, and (2) their association with the British Crown. In the last resort, the basic factor that will have to be faced so far as we are concerned is, not so much the connection with the British Crown, but our way of life and the way of life we would offer to them if they came into our family. Therefore, in looking for a solution of Partition we have not merely to do as we did in the past, namely, put all the blame on the British Government and that particular section of the British ruling class that, so far, lays down the policy for that Government. We would be foolish not to emphasise the fact of their responsibility and the part that they played, but I think it would be a mistake merely to say that Partition continues in our country because of a small group of politicians and political leaders who find that it suits their particular selfish purpose to have Partition, and that that particular group has its centre of activity in the Northern Six Counties. I think what we have to realise is that, if there is going to be an approach to the unity of our country, the main responsibility now devolves upon us who live in the Twenty-Six Counties.

I am of the opinion that basically the men and women who in a very boastful, one might say, a very aggressive way, regard themselves as Orange men and women, when they get down to certain features of life, are just as insistent on the fact that they are Irishmen and women as anybody who comes from Dublin, Cork, Galway or any other part of the Twenty-Six Counties and, in many ways, they have as great a desire to have close association with us as we have to have such association with them. Therefore, I believe the only line of approach to this problem that will produce results is to show to these men and women of our race in the Six Counties that within a united nation, embracing the 32 Counties, there is a possibility of all sections of the Irish people having a decent standard of life, economically, socially, culturally, and embracing the various philosophies of life that will make it possible for all sections to live on a decent and proper standard in so far as physical comforts are concerned and to enjoy, without fear and without reservation, what they require for their mental and spiritual advancement.

Therefore, if we are going to find a solution, it is here within our own Twenty-Six Counties we must make a beginning. I can realise that the Taoiseach meets with certain difficulties when he now has to deal with the political problem of a republic. He has given great service to the nation and I think it is true that, like many other leaders of our people in the past, he has attained to a certain point; he has brought the people with him to that point and now his difficulties are beginning to show themselves. The republic is not only a political and constitutional problem. There is a history behind that aspiration, as the Taoiseach knows better than I or many members of this House. It goes back even to the days of Wolfe Tone, when he spoke of the men of no property, and all that that connotes. It is enshrined in the Proclamation of 1916, when the leaders of our race spoke of their determination to cherish all of the children of the nation equally. To-day, republicanism and republic, in the full sense of the word, has not only a political significance, but a social and economic significance.

I am afraid that one of the difficulties the Taoiseach is experiencing now is that further progress along the political road to the republic is involved in certain social and economic difficulties that he finds insuperable. He has referred to that in the past. I can appreciate that if we are going to have and to hold a republican form of government in this country, then we are going to have certain economic and financial difficulties. We are going to have certain responsibilities placed upon us which ill-align themselves with certain policies that the Government have been following in recent years. We have to take upon ourselves an acceptance that all the people of that republic have an equal claim to the wealth and wealth-producing possibilities of that republic and that all our resources must be used to foster and build up the material and spiritual welfare of the people of that republic. That, at least to my mind, is not what has been happening during recent years. I have submitted here in the past that we have reached a state of affairs where there is a growing gap between the mass of our people and small groups of our population. That gap, instead of closing, is growing wider. I cannot conceive of an Irish republic, in the sense put forward by the fathers of Irish Republicanism, and even by the Taoiseach in the days when he spoke actively on that subject—I cannot conceive of an Irish Republic which does not involve a tremendous and widespread lifting of the standards of life of our people in the republic and a demand for measures by the Government of the republic which, I see, are not so easily taken by the Government of the day at present. I can make allowances for that and I personally believe—although it may seem to be a somewhat peculiar time to speak of it—that, in the final analysis, the republican aspirations and the republican goal that have been before the eyes of our people in many generations, will be achieved only through the activity and the final success of the movement of which I am a member—maybe not the Party but the movement—because I believe that is the only basis on which we can find now a common purpose and a common platform—one wide enough not only to embrace our people in the Twenty-Six Counties but also to embrace and bring back all of our people in the Six Counties.

Does the Deputy not think he is going beyond the scope of the debate?

I am finished on that, Sir.

One final point that has been referred to by Deputy Coogan—again largely in the form of a query—is, what is to be our attitude towards the world organisation which is now being set in being to try to preserve as far as possible the basis of peace throughout the world? Again, I do not think it is right for Deputies merely to address questions and then to sit back and not make clear their own position. Deputy Coogan, I think, did make clear his own position but generally the debate did not measure up to this particular problem. I presume that the Taoiseach will reply and state, as he has stated before, that as and when there is a world organisation that undertakes to try to preserve the peace of the world, to deal with the problems that arise, by peaceful means, to avoid and set its face against aggression, we as a people and a Government are prepared to take our part, and when we receive an invitation it will be considered and acted upon.

Because of our isolation, we have to take more positive steps. We are not the only country that was neutral during the war. Sweden was neutral also and, even before the end of active hostilities in Europe, which were being carried on at her very border, she was prepared to declare that she was committing herself to certain responsibilities as part of the world comity of nations. We were much further removed from hostilities than Sweden and by now we should have left no uncertainty in anyone's mind about our anxiety to assist in preserving the peace of the world and to take part to the very limit of our capabilities in doing so. We should make it clear that we are not concerned or interested in any association, groups or blocs for any political, economic or social basis which may give rise to future conflict. We should make it clear that we would be opposed to any such groups.

During the conference at San Francisco, the way in which the demands and aspirations of small nations were faced by so-called small nations like two of the Dominions of the British Commonwealth — Australia and New Zealand—is an indication that it would have been of great value to us as a nation and of great significance to other small nations if it were possible for us to have been present at that discussion and to have associated ourselves with other small nations concerned about the same problems.

As I mentioned here on a debate last year, we can find many common points of view and points of interest with other small nations throughout the world. Any organisation that may be set up to deal with world problems will find that the small nations can make a contribution to world peace and to the general reservation and betterment of the ordinary humanities throughout the world, a contribution greater probably than it is possible for the great nations to make. Criticism may be levelled against the present organisation because of the peculiar position taken up in it by the Great Powers. Our main concern should be to preserve peace as far as we can. It may not be possible to preserve it for all time, so we should be more concerned with the realities of the situation than with the finer points of organisation or precedence of nations.

We can take it for granted that, if there is to be another conflict, whatever rights we may have asserted in the last six years, insisting on our neutrality, it may be impossible for us to pursue the same line in the future. Therefore, to us and to other small nations, it has become a matter of life and death that we should deal with the actual realities of life to-day throughout the world, in order to associate in the common effort to preserve our communal life and preserve the world from another catastrophe. It would be well for us to take a positive line on that particular problem, realising that within a world organisation it is possible for an independent or republican people to find a basis of association with those nearest to us and even with those on the Continent of Europe. There has been a suggestion of late that even countries in the Scandinavian bloc may find a basis of association with the British Commonwealth of Nations. If we could get rid of our inhibitions and complexes and find a basis of association with the English, Welsh and Scottish peoples, just as we of the Labour movement have maintained such an association, it would be of great advantage to us as a race. We could do that within the general framework of a wider association embracing all the peoples of the world who believe in good relations between neighbours and have a well-intentioned outlook towards those with whom they come in contact.

The debate to-day is one of the most important we have had during recent months. It is essential that not only the Government but members of all Parties should face the problems that lie before us. Each of us should try to make a contribution towards placing our country back in the main current of world history, world civilisation and world development, so that we may find a basis of friendly existence and good neighbourliness with our nearest neighbours, to our mutual advantage. We should live in friendliness with countries like Australia and New Zealand which, under Governments of the Labour movement, have attained a status and have put forward viewpoints of peculiar value to us as a small nation. In close association with those countries, we would find much in common.

I hope that the Taoiseach, in his reply, will take a broader grip of the problems that face us and set aside the particular internal questions which have been the kernel of the debate. I hope he will apply himself to the viewpoint he expressed in Geneva many years ago and try to give us back again that standing in international and world affairs which he gave us by his personal contribution on that occasion.

Deputy Maurice Dockrell to-day reminded us of the fact that the European war was over and that Dublin has not been left without scars. I hope that, when replying, the Taoiseach will tell us how compensation is to be secured for those who lost their property. It is impossible to bring back the lives that were lost on that occasion, but it will be of interest to us all to hear what will be done in the direction of compensation.

Last night, Deputies were treated like a lot of schoolboys when the Taoiseach devoted about 20 minutes to reading extracts from British dictionaries—he did not read extracts from Dineen's Dictionary—to tell us what a republic was. He tried to show that we had a republic here since the Constitution of 1937. None of us could see much change since then. The cost of living did not go down; we could not buy any more goods for our £1 note during that period. It would be of interest if the Taoiseach, as Minister for External Affairs, would tell us whether he confirms the view expressed by the British authorities that we are in the Commonwealth of Nations. In all his speeches he has not said yes or no to that query as to whether we are active or associate members. I would ask him to consider, in dealing with this point, that he must have regard to another Ireland, to the half million Irishmen and women resident in Great Britain. Occasionally I meet some of them who rather protest at statements made in the Dáil to their detriment. They say we appear to forget their interests and to forget the effect of those remarks abroad.

May I say, in passing, that the passport section of the Department of External Affairs deserves our tribute. The officials there have shown the utmost courtesy during the past five years. We thank them for their courtesy during the past five years in helping our people to get away. We wish to thank them, too, for their inquiries for our friends and relations on the other side and in foreign lands. We congratulate our representatives in foreign lands for their achievements and for what they have done in upholding the name of our country. Our representatives have done well and we should pay tribute to them.

We express the hope that they will continue their efforts and try to do even greater things, especially with regard to getting supplies for this country from the countries in which they are resident. I believe our representatives can do great work in that direction. There is here a scarcity of materials, a scarcity of timber. In Northern Ireland they can get timber and those engaged in the building trade here are anxious to know why it is they cannot get the same facilities, especially as it is now stated that for external trade and other purposes we are accepted as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

In that connection, I might mention that there is confusion in Great Britain as regards the standing of Irish citizens there. I have here a letter dated 1st June, from the Civil Defence Department in Birmingham, addressed to an Irishman. It relates to the Fire Prevention (Business Premises) No. 2 Order, 1941, and it says:—

"Dear Sir—In reply to your letter of the 31st May, persons born in Éire are considered to be British subjects and are liable to perform fire prevention duties at premises where they work. It is within the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority of the factory where you are employed, if it is engaged on vital work, to decide if you are entitled to a certificate of exemption on the ground of working exceptionally long hours."

That is from a British Department and it states that persons born in Éire are considered to be British subjects. We now have a letter dated 3rd March, 1943, to the same man and it comes from the High Commissioner for Ireland, 33-37 Regent Street, London:

"I am directed by the High Commissioner to refer to your recent letter relative to the position of Irish citizens in relation to the British Emergency Order concerning fire watching and to state that, while the Irish Government, as has been frequently stated, reject the contention that Irish citizens are British subjects, they would not be justified in advising their citizens residing in Great Britain to refrain from participating in this work, which is of a humanitarian character and, indeed, amounts to self-preservation."

I read these letters to show the confusion that exists in Great Britain. The Irish Government contend that Irish-born citizens are not British subjects, and the British Government contend that they are British subjects. It is a pity that that point has not been cleared up in the interests of our 500,000 people who are in Great Britain, earning their living, and who have a great interest in this country. But they have to watch the material side—where to get their bread and butter. I think this is a question for eminent legal advisers of the Government to decide—the position of Irish residents in Great Britain.

I will get on to another little point which, because of all the talk about a republic, seems to have been overlooked. As I have mentioned the republic, I should like to know are we to assume that it has been accepted that the Twenty-Six Counties are a republic? Are the Twenty-Six Counties the republic that we older hands heard so much about in 1916 and since? I remember, when I was a member of the British Parliament, representing the Harbour Division of Dublin, the position of Home Rule was discussed and there was a private meeting over which John Redmond presided. I remember that we definitely rejected a 28-county government for this country. Tyrone and Fermanagh were offered to John Redmond and his Party. We took a vote and definitely decided against it. It is true there were certain conditions, but I know that the offer was made and it was turned down by the Irish Parliamentary Party. Here we are in 1945 reading extracts from British dictionaries to tell us that the Twenty-Six Counties of Ireland form an Irish republic.

I should like the Minister and his followers to make a note of what I have said. Maybe it will have the effect of making some people have a little regard for the men who served this country in days gone by and who did so much in a foreign Parliament against great opposition. Those who followed Parnell did everything possible, to the best of their ability, and I want to get it on the records that they refused a 28-county government for Ireland.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach does he confirm the view that we are members of the Commonwealth? If not, I wish to inform him that we are further than ever from finding that unity that will eventually abolish Partition and bring our countrymen across the Border to us. Let us be careful not to allow countries like South Africa or Canada to request an explanation from us as to where we stand, or that during the period of the Summer Recess, extending probably over three months, an answer will not be given that will injure the prospects of removing the barrier of Partition. I think every member of the House should express his views on this matter.

I am sure we are all anxious to do everything we can to bring about a united Ireland. Our countrymen across the Border are eagerly awaiting a move from this end. It is true, as I heard a Deputy say to-day, that men in Northern Ireland in high positions representing the people feel aggrieved by their treatment by the Government of this country. They do not appear to be consulted on their troubles or when there is anything going, and the representatives of Northern Irishmen are frequently asked if it is not possible for them to use their influence to get a residence permit for So-and-so, who formerly resided in Dublin but who is now settled in Northern Ireland, having gone through the blitz and rendered great service. Nothing can be done. Is there no reciprocity between the two Governments? Can the Taoiseach not do anything to see that people, who rendered service in Belfast and other parts of Northern Ireland and who have now made their homes there, will not be sent out of the country at a couple of weeks' notice? Surely southern Irish people who went there are entitled to our protection, and, if we can give them that protection through membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, it would be work well done and something worth fighting for.

With regard to the sum of £1,000 in sub-head B (5) for the repatriation and maintenance of destitute Irish persons abroad, has the Taoiseach knowledge of such Irish people abroad? I know of the case of a girl in Hanover, who, I understand, is living on the charity of people there who knew her in better days. She has had a terribly hard time and has suffered considerably. Her people here cannot find the means to bring her home. I know that we have a Red Cross Society and a Department of External Affairs, and one would think that to a young woman in a foreign land who has gone through what this woman went through, we would not only stretch out the hand of friendship and welcome but would do the practical thing, that is, direct our nearest representative to look after her, to pay her fare and give her a little pocket money and send her home to her people.

I have heard of other cases which, quite possibly, the Department has settled. I know of a few which they did settle and I want to thank the heads of that Department for their action with regard to them. It would be very wrong of me to criticise and to say that I knew cases which were not attended to and did not express thanks for what the Department have done, because I know that they have done excellent work. Finally, I ask the Taoiseach to consider the question of reciprocity between the various Governments and to ensure that anything we do will not harm in any way the 500,000 people residing in England, 250,000 of whom at the very least, according to the Minister's return, are in possession of Irish passports. Surely they are not to be treated as foreigners in the neighbouring country. I appeal to him to see that they are not so treated and that their unemployment insurance and national health insurance stamps will be accepted here.

That is for another Minister, and I think the Deputy has already raised it.

I mention it in passing as one of the number of matters involved, with a view to ensuring that nothing we do will endanger the position of our countrymen and women who sought, and got, a reasonably good living in other lands.

This debate has ranged over many parts of the world. It is, of course, a debate on the Department of External Affairs, for which the House votes a fairly substantial sum of money, and the House and the people who provide the money are entitled to know how and where it is expended and what value is being got for it. I feel that the Minister for External Affairs should have given us a survey of what our Ministers in the various countries are doing, what conferences they are attending and a general picture of world conditions as they exist to-day, because it is a well-known fact that the world is in a very unsettled condition.

There are proposals to hold meetings and conferences of statesmen of many nations, in an effort to settle the difficulties confronting them, so that an attempt may be made to sustain the peace of the world and to allow nations to live in friendship with each other. At a time like this, as in 1918, there are problems which will come before international conferences for settlement, and we have certain rights to-day which I think we should exercise, to assist people who want a settlement of difficulties confronting them, and, in doing so, we can settle some of the difficulties that confront us. In 1918, while under the heel of a military power, we saw fit to send a Minister and a delegation to the Peace Conference. We may not have got there, but we made a very good effort to get there, and I should like to feel that the Government of this country to-day was capable of as great, as valiant an effort—and we should be capable of more—as that Government in 1918, to settle the difficulties confronting the world and confronting us.

The international conference which is likely to sit has certain rules and regulations laid down for the settlement of the many problems. One of these has been called the Atlantic Charter, and there is also the basis laid down at the Yalta Conference and so on, but the general trend of these rules and charters is to arrange matters between nations so that the horrible monster of war will be eliminated from the world for a fairly lengthy time. So far as I can see, the Government here has not made any effort to get to that conference and has no plans for the settlement of our own difficulties at this conference. The use of the plural "difficulties" is not quite correct; I should use the word "difficulty", because our difficulty is Partition, which is a matter which should be settled either at an international conference or some conference established for the peace of the world, and of Europe particularly. The Taoiseach has not told us what he has done in that respect, or if he does propose to take part in it.

He has thrown out the very bland statement that we will be prepared to take our place at that conference, but he has not given us any indication as to what steps he has taken to secure a place at the conference. The people of this country are asked to expend this huge sum of money for External Affairs without any idea of the value they are going to get for it. As I said, a survey should have been made of the whole international position. What is our present relationship with the various governments of the world? With what governments have we diplomatic and friendly relations? What conferences are being attended by our representatives or Ministers Plenipotentiary? The House should get all this information to enable it to decide the big question as to whether or not the money should be voted. We have not got that, but we have got what has been described as a phantom constitutional position established in this country.

The question was asked: what is our constitutional position in the world? That question has been answered in a certain way—that we are a republic. Of course, it is quite clear that we were a republic since the Constitution was passed. We were a republic since the very first moment that we elected a President in this country. That is one of the signs of republicanism well known in constitutional law. That was only the natural development of the position established in this country in 1921. I want to say very deliberately, as a disciple of Collins and Griffith, that Collins—when he was charged with letting down something and with doing something—said that it was not a definition that mattered but what we could make of this country, and that he had the faith in himself about that. The relevant passage is on page 33 of the Debates of 19th December, 1921. At that stage, Churchill was being quoted against him, and the people who were quoting against him at that particular stage are now quoting Churchill as authority for what they are doing. This country of ours is a very ancient nation, and I agree with Deputy Dillon that whatever step we take or whatever we do should be done of our own volition and should be done with all the dignity and integrity of a nation. We are told by the Taoiseach, as Minister for External Affairs, that he is satisfied that we are a republic because the dictionaries, the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Encyclopædia Americana say that a republic is a certain thing, and he puts up Article 5 and Article 6 (1) of the new Constitution to show that we come within that definition—that is, that all authority comes from the people. Strange as it may seem, that is not new at all. It is not only in the new Constitution but in the Constitution of 1922. Article 2 of the Constitution of 1922 reads: “All powers of government and all authority, legislative, executive and judicial, in Ireland, are derived from the people of Ireland.” There is just as much authority there as there is in the new Constitution.

The Deputy does not want to institute a debate on the relative merits of the two Constitutions?

I do not, but I do want to point out, in view of the fact that the existence of a republic here has apparently surprised a number of people, that a republic, according to the definition which is being quoted for us now, has been in existence not for six or seven years but for a great number of years. If the fact that all power comes from the people indicates the existence of a republic, then we have had it for a very long time. There is no doubt about that. Of course it is true to say that the Taoiseach himself in 1937 felt that we had to put some limitation upon that, and he decided for his own reasons to put the Crown on top of this republic of ours. He called this Parliament together to re-establish the monarchy. It is rather humiliating that we are neither in nor out of the Commonwealth, as has been said by Deputy Dillon. I would be prepared to assist any Government in this country that will, by its proper deliberate act, establish the complete sovereignty of this country as a republic, not only for the Twenty-six Counties but for the Thirty-two. I have said, not only here in this country but outside it, that if by going to war with somebody we could establish the territorial integrity of our country, I for one am prepared to take that step. It might not appeal to other people, but I for one am prepared to take it. It is a well-known fact that, owing to the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we could not, by war, establish the territorial integrity of our country and the political unity of our country. Therefore, there must be some other step taken to achieve that end, and it can only be done by negotiation and compromise. In my opinion it is well worth while to take whatever steps may be necessary to achieve that political unity. I wish the Taoiseach would take the strong line, instead of being neither in nor out of the Commonwealth. It is an impossible situation. To describe it as unique does not make it very valuable. There is a word, "antique," which describes valuable things, but "unique" does not make it at all the sort of thing we want. I feel that the unique situation should be dropped, and that we should take up the correct line. There are very many problems confronting the world, and in my opinion this country has a very important part to play. It can by its influence, which is world-wide, do greater work than it is entitled to because of its numbers at home. Because of its international influence it can do many things for the restoration of the traditions and the faith that have been destroyed all over Europe and all over the world. There are many traditions which belong to this ancient nation. It is our business to advocate them and try to get them accepted all over the world. The Taoiseach, as Minister for External Affairs, will get the support of every Irishman at home if he adopts that particular line.

I heard Deputy Larkin advocate a very subtle thing. He referred to Deputy Flanagan and said that no protest was made by anybody in the House as to what he was saying. Then Deputy Larkin himself developed the point that he was against a certain philosophy because, in order to carry it out, it meant the slaughter of men, women and children. But one inferred from what he said that he was in favour of another philosophy which has been equally guilty of the same offence. He left it to be inferred that he stood for one against the other. I want to protest against that subtle speech in which Deputy Larkin propagated that particular doctrine here. In my opinion it could very easily be misunderstood by the people of the country. The Deputy put it to the Taoiseach that, as Minister for External Affairs, he should take some step to develop that philosophy. He then went on to say that he condemned Deputy Dillon in a very positive way. In the next breath he told us that he himself, as a member of the labour union, was a member of the commonwealth of workers, and that he was prepared, for certain purposes and certain reasons, to be very closely associated with the workers of Britain in particular. Of course, he is entitled to that view. Nobody, I presume, would say that Deputy Larkin was not a good Irishman, but because Deputy Dillon put up this proposal from his point of view Deputy Larkin was immediately in the direct opposite —of something which should be condemned. I leave it to the Taoiseach to deal with it. I am only referring to it so that the Taoiseach may, by drawing attention to it, feel that an opportunity has arisen in which he can refer to these two particular philosophies, and to the propositions put forward by Deputy Larkin.

On this Vote I want to say that the greatest test of the sovereignty and independence of the Twenty-Six Counties has been that, within the last six years, we have been able, because of the position that we occupied, and because of the associations we had, to remain outside the orbit of the world war and of the battlefield. Of course, if we had to go into the war people would say that we could not have stopped out, and that we were being compelled to go in whether we liked it or not. I feel that we had to make use of the instrument of freedom we had to show that it was within our power to remain out.

If we had not remained outside the war it would be said that we were compelled to go in, whether we liked it or not. Of course, again, it was a very subtle thing, because we did go into the war in a very positive way. By the non-intervention of the Government here, it was permissible and possible for thousands and thousands of our fellow countrymen in the Twenty-Six Counties—from the republic—to go and fight in the British Army. They showed that they are of a material and a quality that they have always been, and they earned distinctions in the field in many ways. I feel that that sort of situation should not have arisen. However, it is one that entitles us, in my opinion, to take part in whatever conferences are being established for the re-establishment of world peace. I want to say that I think the Taoiseach should take immediate steps to take part in the international conferences for the restoration and maintenance of peace in the world, and should do so at the earliest possible moment. He should let us know that he is doing it. I also believe that he should have as much courage as the Parliament of 1921 had when it made every effort to send its representative to the Peace Conference, to demand from it the rights of this country and to have them established and recognised internationally. The Taoiseach has that opportunity now. If he lets it pass without making some effort to end the difficulties that confront this country, and the one big difficulty in particular, he will have failed in his task as a Minister, and therefore is not worth, and should not claim, what he is asking in this Vote from the House this evening.

This Estimate gives Deputies an opportunity which, due to the emergency of the past five or six years, they have not had of discussing matters according to their consciences and as to how they are thinking. Apart altogether from the question as to whether this is a republican State or a Free State, I would like to know from the Taoiseach how we stand to-day in relation to other States in Europe and outside it. Are our representatives who are accredited to those States giving a valuable return for the money that is being spent on them? Is the gentleman who represents this country in London giving us a return for the amount of money that is being spent on his office? I ask that because numbers of Irishmen and women that one has come in contact with during the last five or six years —people who emigrated to England and returned home after a year or two or perhaps after six months—give one to understand that the system of communicating with that office is pretty difficult in so far as if they write and ask certain questions the answer is very vague and in so far as Irish citizens in Great Britain can be arrested for very simple reasons and thrown into the local police cell and kept there overnight and escorted the following morning as far as Holyhead, en route to this country.

I feel that if we are an independent and sovereign State, as the Taoiseach tells us we are, our citizens should receive more respect than they are receiving at the present time in Great Britain and even within this country. We have only to go down as far as Merrion Square to see them standing outside the passport office. I think there should be some immediate investigation made into the manner in which young men and women who go to the passport office are treated and to see that they will not be dogged, as they are being dogged at present, and made sit on the pavement from early in the morning until 5.30 in the afternoon until such time as they make up their minds to receive them.

It is all very well for the Taoiseach to tell us that this is a republic. It is all very well to listen to Deputy General Mulcahy, Deputy General Seán MacEoin, and the Taoiseach, Commandant de Valera, arguing as to whether this is a republic or not. If I cast my mind back or if I read up the history of events, I find that there was a day when these three gentlemen were united in achieving the republic and the one goal and ideal that they set out to achieve was a republic for the 32 Counties. To-day we notice that a certain fear has crept into the minds, not only of the Opposition Parties, but of the Government themselves, as to the advisability of declaring this a republic. As a young man who did not live in the days when fighting was going on to establish this republic, I feel that the revolutionary leaders felt that we, as a historic nation, had a just right to be free and independent and to establish here whatever form of State we desire, whether it be a monarchy, a republic or a totalitarian system. They felt that until such a system was achieved and such a State established the people of this country, rich and poor, could not enjoy the benefits to which they were entitled. To-day we find that, after almost a quarter of a century, having in this part of Ireland sufficient independence at least to establish that system which would give every man and woman certain rights and certain equalities, the very baby that we were prepared to place in the hands of the British régime is still on our hands and must now be placed in the hands of a native Government, that has had control of this country for the past quarter of a century and has made no effort to deal with it or to remedy the system in this so-called republic.

I honestly believe that the fear that possesses the mind of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, when they are prepared to advocate to-day the dangers of ceding from the Commonwealth and declaring an independent republic, is that if they cede from the Commonwealth and declare an independent republic, we will lose one valuable market to which we must have access for dumping our surplus unemployed, and which has been used for that purpose for the past 25 years, and which has brought about a remedy for the difficulty facing any native Administration and in particular a Party. When I say a Party, I bring together the Mulcahys and the de Valeras, because it was they combined who told us that when the system would be established, unemployment, poverty, etc., etc., would be removed and that a State in which Irishmen and women could live would be established.

I do not think unemployment can be discussed on this Vote.

It is not unemployment, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle. I am trying to point out the facts to the Taoiseach and to the Opposition Parties, who have been trying to make excuses and who have been telling us the reason why we should remain within the Commonwealth and the benefits that could be derived from such an association. I maintain that if the independence of this country is to be achieved and if we are to set about abolishing that unorthodox Border which has been imposed upon us by force of arms and maintained by the threat of arms and intervention, by no less a man than Mr. Winston Churchill, Premier of Great Britain, who has within the past four or five years constantly vindicated the right of small nations and who is perhaps now somewhere in Berlin making plausible and high-sounding statements as to what is and what is not international law, the Taoiseach should make it clear to the British Government, as the leader of the Irish people, that if they are sincere in their statements that small nations should be free and have a right to administer their own affairs. Winston Churchill and the British Government should start with their nearest neighbour.

It will be argued, are we going to continue demanding the freedom of this country, are we going to demand the setting up of a republic here and, by doing so, cut away one-fifth of the population of Ireland has been cut away, but if outside interferences in our internal affairs were stopped that would not be so. It is the threats and the encouragements and the financial support coming from a country and a Government which has been constantly shedding crocodile tears about small nations and minorities being persecuted by dictatorial powers, that is maintaining the Border to-day.

In this part of the country, under a democratic Constitution, every citizen, irrespective of his or her creed or politics, will get a fair crack of the whip and will receive equal treatment. Any Irishman who is not prepared to live under that Constitution can leave the country and live under whatever system he wishes elsewhere. There is that alternative for those who are not prepared to give their allegiance to this country. Those people should leave, unless they are prepared to stand by the man who is the Leader of the Government and who is looked upon unquestionably as the leader of the Irish people. He is backed by the majority of the Irish people and should make representations to the British Government, immediately the new Government is elected, and should ask them what their relations are to be and whether they intend to continue maintaining the unnatural position regarding the Border for another quarter of a century. He should ask them if they intend to continue balancing the Budget in Northern Ireland, if they intend to continue hand-feeding the people in Northern Ireland in order to maintain a bridgehead for the taking over of the country by force if they wish to do so. It is up to the Taoiseach to get an explanation from the British Government and to let the world know the intentions of the British Government towards its nearest neighbour, a small State which is prepared to live in friendliness and to forget the past, provided the British are willing to recognise our status as an independent State or an independent republic.

It is all very well for people to argue that by going back into the Commonwealth Britain would consider giving us some measure of freedom. I would prefer to be dominated from Dublin Castle by British rule as we were before 1922 than that we should retreat now one inch in order that we may get some kind of freedom or independence from Great Britain. We have a right to be free, we have a right to choose our own laws, we have a right to appoint our own Ministers or ambassadors to other countries. So long as we are prepared to live in harmony and peace, to further the interests of peace, to associate with any group of nations out to maintain peace, what more does the British Prime Minister want? He is ever ready to go to the aid of the people in Northern Ireland, who are prepared to invite his aid when they think they are threatened by any statement from this Parliament or from the Taoiseach himself.

I am absolutely convinced that the Taoiseach should to-night make a statement to the effect that we cannot look to the future with hope unless the British Government are prepared to start on their own doorstep. It is bad housekeeping for a woman to criticise her next-door neighbour about the cleanliness of her house if her own door-step and house are dirty. It is bad propaganda for the British Government, which is responsible for the present Partition in this country—and on one else is responsible but the British Government—to talk about the actions of other States and the deeds of other statesmen when they are perpetrating the same deeds on a helpless country which is up against a mighty empire.

If we want the people of Northern Ireland, who may differ from us in religion, but who still are Irishmen, to join with us as law-abiding citizens, and if the British Government is prepared to take its hands off and leave that question to be settled between Irishmen themselves, the economic system here must be altered. The Taoiseach understands well that, if we are to induce the people of Northern Ireland to join with us, the system which has been in operation for the past 20 years must be altered. We have made very little headway in the development of this country, in the increasing of our population, in preventing emigration, in the improvement of our social services for widows and orphans and the aged. We are far behind the people of Northern Ireland, and unless we are prepared to make some effort and to offer some inducement to them, we can hardly expect them to come in as law-abiding citizens.

If Britain would take her hands off and stop interfering in the various underhand methods in which she does interfere—namely, by financing the Parliament of Northern Ireland, by assisting the various social services there, by encouraging the spokesmen of that part of the country to continue on their present lines, telling them that if there is any interference from this part of the country they will be supported, if necessary by armed force— and if she would leave it to the Irish people to settle this matter themselves, I am convinced we are capable of settling our difficulties. That is one thing which should be made clear to Britain—that that settlement can be achieved if she gives up interfering. If Britain agrees to that, we must start out to build a completely different system from that under which we have been labouring for the past quarter of a century. We must ask ourselves whether we are going to make an honest effort to stop emigration.

The Deputy is out of order again. This is a Vote for External Affairs, for which the Taoiseach is responsible.

I admit I may not be exactly to the point, but my contention is that in order to abolish the Border we must create a system here which will encourage the people who are on the other side to join us. It is because I feel that is necessary that I mention it in relation to this Estimate. I realise that to discuss emigration or unemployment in detail would not be in keeping with this Estimate. I want the Minister for External Affairs frankly to admit— and I was surprised that men like Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy MacEoin and others did not do so—that the onus is on the British Government in regard to Partition; that it is all due to their interference, and, until they withdraw their hand, we cannot make very much progress.

I want the Taoiseach to give us some information in regard to what is happening in Europe to-day. Will he tell us if he has received any invitation to take part in some of the conferences which will be held within the next year or two? We should like to know if it is his intention to voice there, as strongly as possible, our rights as a nation. Is it his intention to make clear before that conference who is the culprit in relation to the division of this historic State? I want him to give us information as to what has happened and what is happening to our citizens who are in Germany to-day. Have we any Minister in Germany? Have we any diplomatic relations with that country? How are our citizens, if there are any, living there? How are they cared for?

I also want some information as to what has happened in Japan. I admit that as regards what has happened in Japan the information available to the Taoiseach may be very meagre. I want to take this opportunity to say that some reports which appeared in the papers a short time ago of certain statements of mine and of other people at the Mayo County Council deliberately misrepresented what was said. The statements were intentionally misconstrued by the Press. I never referred to Herr Hitler as such and such a man.

The proceedings of the Mayo County Council do not concern us.

I quite agree, but I am dealing with Japan.

Leave the Japs to the Americans for a while.

While I fully realise the difficulties which confront the Taoiseach and while I fully understand the delicacy of the situation, at the same time I feel he should demand, through the Japanese representative here, an explanation from the Japanese Government of how and why Irish citizens met their deaths in Japanese controlled territory. The Taoiseach is armed with as much authority to demand that explanation as he was when he—I hold rightly— sympathised over the death of Herr Hitler—that is, if he is dead. Some people felt that I was opposed to the Taoiseach when he offered the condolences of the Irish people on the death of Herr Hitler. I did not disagree with the action of the Taoiseach in that respect. I believe that if we were a neutral State and maintained our neutrality right to the end of the European war, and the head of the German State died, the Taoiseach was perfectly entitled to offer condolences to the German representative. The misrepresentation of the Press was, in my opinion, deliberate.

I would like the Taoiseach to indicate the position of some of our citizens in Great Britain. What is the position of Irishmen who were forced to register for the British Army, who absconded, came to this country, stayed here for over a year, went back again, were re-arrested and thrown into an internment camp or jail? I know quite a number of young men who are in that position in England to-day. They were forced to register, being brought there by the C.I.D. They had to register against their will. The first opportunity they got they came to this country, remained here for over a year, went back again to England, were re-arrested and are now in jail.

I should also like an explanation as to Irishmen who leave this country to take up a certain type of employment in Great Britain and who find that the men for whom they work are not all they expected them to be. These men decide to leave that employment and to take up a different form of work, but they are immediately arrested, thrown into a police cell and deported next morning to Ireland. I understand there is some kind of agreement in existence which binds the individual who leaves here to remain in a particular occupation for six months. I hold there is unfair treatment of Irishmen. The average Irishman may not be so intelligent as to know all the complexities attaching to such an agreement. He leaves his job merely to benefit himself and with no intention of transgressing the laws of any State. He has no intention but a good intention, yet he is arrested, taken out of his lodgings, thrown into a cell and deported the following morning. That is not the type of treatment that should be given to Irish citizens if we are a free and sovereign State. The Taoiseach should have some representations made to the British Government in relation to that procedure. Most Deputies dealt with many points in relation to foreign affairs, but I am not terribly interested as to whether we are a republic or as to whether we are in or out of the Commonwealth.

The Deputy is repeating his speech over again. This is the second or third time he has said that.

Until we have a 32-county republic, until the whole of this island is under the administration of one Government, it is useless and ridiculous to try to convince anybody about what we are. It is impossible to convince this Assembly about what we are, and, if the definition of a republic has created such a discussion as it has created here, the Taoiseach will admit that the ordinary individual in the street must find it difficult to know what we are. I feel that the Taoiseach should take the bold step of asking the British Government to refrain from interfering with the internal affairs of this country and leave the Irish people to settle their own affairs. If they do, we will be able to achieve it in a manner far more advantageous mutually than some people may think.

This debate on the question of our constitutional position gives me the impression that misunderstanding of that position outside is fairly well justified. When one reads the reports in foreign papers on the position of this country and feels the natural resentment on many occasions when serious matters are seriously misrepresented, I often find it difficult to understand why this misrepresentation should take place and what purpose is behind it, because I can scarcely conceive that people in journalistic lines outside, people not in Government circles, could be so misinformed as to the position here. It is, however, pretty obvious, listening to the debate on our constitutional position, that a greater measure of misunderstanding exists here than could be conceived possible.

I cannot for the life of me understand all this discussion about our constitutional position. Our position is as clear as daylight to most of the people, and, in my own constituency, I would say that a very large percentage of the people could give a very clear definition of our constitutional status. They understand that, according to the Constitution, we have all the liberty which could conceivably be written into a constitution. They know that, by the free vote of this Dáil, there exists for external purposes association with the British Commonwealth of Nations. What more has resulted from this discussion extending over two days than a mere statement of what is generally known throughout the country? Yet every controversial speech made here has been made in an effort to throw a doubt upon that position. It is not in the least in the interest of the State that this form of discussion should continue. At this stage, our international position would require a strong united explanation, and every Party in the House should have no hesitation in stating our position, so that outside countries will be in no doubt about it, and will have no excuse for misrepresentation.

We have listened for a long time to suggestions from outside sources, and probably inside sources, too, that we took no part in the war which has just concluded, that we were neutral and that because we decided on neutrality, we did something which was not honourable; but the people who try to throw aspersions on our decision to remain neutral are people who believe in democracy, the greater and smaller nations who took part in the war on the basis of fighting in the interests of democracy. What more did we do when we declared our neutrality than exercise the right that belongs to democracy and expert it in a forceful way? We are a small country which believes in the principles of democracy, and if countries have gone to war in defence of democracy, surely these countries must not find fault with us because we exercise our right in a forceful way. If evidence of the liberty we have in this country were required for the average person in the country, it was demonstrated when we asserted our position of neutrality when the world was at war.

It is not quite right, however, to say that this country did not participate in the war. It did. It is true that, in a physical way, our cities, our homes and our territory were not extensively bombed as a result of the war, but cities and other places in this country were bombed—some of them deliberately, and others, possibly, through mistake. It is quite untrue to say that our people took no part in the war. How many thousands of Irishmen from this country joined the Allied forces? How many thousands of our people in England and America joined the Allied forces? Was that participation in the war? Did our people stand aside completely when the world was struggling, as they said, for democracy? What about the thousands of our people who went over to work in England in factories, in the danger zones which were being bombed? Was that taking no part in the war? It is a mistake to say that we did not participate to some extent in the war. Our people took as many risks in proportion to their numbers as many of those on active service.

If we want to say, as we are entitled to say, that we are a republic, and if we want to do it openly, the way to do it is to annul the External Relations Act. Can anybody say there is anything unjust in that? If anybody asserts that in some way England and America will not stand for it, by implication he means that England and America were telling lies when they told the world that they went to war in defence of democracy. Surely we are entitled to say that we are as free as we want to be? That power is ours. We can do it within this Dáil, and why should that offend countries who love democracy to the extent of sacrificing millions of lives in defence of its principles? I do not believe for a moment that if we were to do all that it is necessary to do, and more, to declare this country beyond question a republic, it would make a scintilla of difference to our relations with England, America or any other country.

The suggestion has been made that it is not the right line to travel if we desire to make terms with our brethren across the Border. Again, I disagree, after 20 years of association with the British Crown. I am not saying a word disrespectful to the British Crown. They have acted fairly to us. They have kept their promise. The Taoiseach complimented them in his recent speech on how well they had kept their promise to us during trying times, and respected our neutrality. I daresay that they, in fairness, must return the compliment and say that we kept our promise. We said that, given our freedom, this country would never be used by any outsider as a basis of attack upon any other country. That promise was respected, and our neutrality was honourably preserved. But to say that our connection, within the past 20 odd years, has brought us one whit nearer to a solution of our Border problem, is definitely not correct. If a scheme has failed for 20 odd years; why suggest that, by a slight departure from the open door which we had kept there in the hope that it would bring about a better understanding, we might achieve our end?

There is no alteration in our position as regards England and outside affairs, nor is there any immediate prospect, as far as I can see, of removing the Border. That Border is there, and that Border is accepted now by the Parliament at each side of the Border. I think that a considerable responsibility must rest on the people here for allowing that Border to become established without raising, and continually raising, that serious problem. If there are men in this House who speak with a true knowledge of the feeling of the Irish people they will have to admit in their hearts that no liberty short of complete liberty will ever mean peace in this country here, apart altogether from wars that may occur beyond our shores. The underlying principle that has saved Irish nationality is the demand for freedom inherent in the Irish people, and no compromise with any outside country will ever solve, except in a temporary way, any differences that may exist between us.

First of all, we must satisfy that demand of the Irish race for freedom. Then, as common-sense people, I am sure we will sit down to discuss our economic problems and solve them in a sensible way. People who tell us to compromise our nationality in order to attain that end do not know the Irish people. I hope none of them comes from the country, where nationalism is as sacred as the soul of the individual. I do think that this attempt to make a political issue out of that national question is bad, and is a disservice to this country. Let us have unity. Everybody, no matter on what bench he sits, should desire to see that the standing of this country is understood and respected both at home and abroad. We have people who criticise the Constitution in which our principles of liberty are enshrined.

Why try to make little of it? Why not tell the world what our position is? Why not tell the world that the establishment and maintenance of that Border is in direct opposition to the principles of democracy? That Border is there arbitrarily. It is not there by the will of the Irish people. Who has put it there, and who is keeping it there? Let us talk bluntly about those things and we will get further. It is there because England has established it. It is there because of an Act passed in the British House of Commons. It is maintained by England. The existence of that Border creates a problem over which our Foreign Minister in this State will spend many weary hours. If he solves it, in view of the existing circumstances and conditions, he deserves well of the people.

As I have said, that Border was established by an Act passed in the British House of Commons. People in this country gave their lives for liberty. I wonder if they had in mind that the only purpose of liberty was to provide the trimmings suitable for our arrangement with outside countries? I knew some of the men who gave their lives in 1916. I knew their principles and their ideals. They died in order to better the conditions of the people. They died that the poor, amongst whom they were reared and who were their closest associates, might have better conditions under a republic or under whatever form of liberty was established.

To say that we took no part in the war, and did not suffer from the war, is untrue. Our plans for improving the conditions of the people by better housing have been interfered with. Our plans for improving the conditions of the people in the congested areas— where the conditions are the equivalent of slum conditions in the city— have been interfered with. Remember, our external planning and arrangements are very largely window-dressing. Without internal planning and improvement, there can be no hope of progress, and the difference between our present standing and that of a declared republic matters very little to the people.

Let us have that planning for internal development. Let us ensure that the men who died for liberty, the men who died to improve the conditions of our people, will not be forgotten, and that we will not merely engage in a display of window dressing. Let us develop our internal conditions. I would say, as Deputy Larkin has already said, that by developing the social and living conditions of our people we will have contributed to some extent at any rate to the removal of what is the greatest barrier to the independence of Ireland, the Border.

We have had in this country war conditions over the past six years, and the Government might be pardoned for being very careful about any remarks that they made about our external affairs. I think practically every Deputy in the House was very careful not to embarrass them or press them for explanations. But the war in Europe is now over, and one would expect a very clear declaration from the Government as to what our policy is for the future. I think the debate on the Vote for External Affairs has really centred around two questions, both of which were propounded by Deputy Dillon; Are we a republic, and are we in the British Commonwealth? We have all heard the explanation given by the Taoiseach, and I for one am quite clear as to where we stand. I should like the Taoiseach when replying to try to give us some sort of idea as to the economic position of this country with regard to other countries.

On another Vote we had a debate when some of the ground which we are traversing this evening was covered. The Taoiseach then told us about the position of the pound sterling. We are in the peculiar position that we have to export our surplus of agricultural produce. In that way balances have been piling up in England. I have not heard anybody advocate that we should reduce those balances by slaughtering calves, or any other policy, to reduce production, such as we had to do in the past.

The position is that we cannot cash those sterling assets. We cannot collect them and depart for the moon or some other place. The commonsense thing would seem to be to get goods in return for them. To do our neighbour on the other side of the Channel justice, that is, I think, what they are prepared to do along certain lines. One would expect the head of the Government would have approached the English Government to find out where we stand on the list of exports from England. I read in an article the other day where an English economist stated that the British people would be driven by dire necessity to confine their exports almost entirely to those countries that had a hard currency.

What has that to do with the Vote for External Affairs?

Our relations with external countries?

They would seem to be trade relations.

The trade relations that we have with foreign countries are governed by the relations that our Government have with them. I do not propose to go into the details of our trade relations, but with the relations that our Government are establishing with foreign governments to enable us to carry on trade with them. Now, the sooner pre-war conditions are restored over here the happier we will all be. I take it that is what the Government are working for. At the present time most people here who are engaged in trade and commerce are at sixes and sevens as to what our relations are with regard to exports from England.

That was discussed on the Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department. Is it not a matter for the Departments of Supplies and Industry and Commerce?

With great respect to the Chair, if I raised that question on the Estimate for the Department of Supplies—as a matter of fact I did not mention it—I think I would be told by the Chair that it was a question that might be raised on the Vote for the Taoiseach's Department.

It was discussed at length on the Vote for the Taoiseach's Department, and that is the objection to its being discussed now on another Estimate.

On a point of order, we are discussing a vote for expenditure arising in connection with our representatives at Rome, London, Washington, New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Paris, Ottawa, Italy. A very large part of the work is concerned with trade. We would not have incurred the expenditure that we are incurring on this Vote except for the purpose of keeping up such relations with those countries as will enable us to extend our trade and have it carried on with advantage to ourselves.

That does not alter the fact that the Deputy in discussing the question of our credits is discussing a matter that was discussed at length on another Vote. There is a standing order which says that a matter discussed on one Estimate may not be discussed on another. If there is another aspect to it, well and good.

In present conditions it is utterly impossible to discuss the question of trade with a number of countries, some of which are hard currency countries and some of which are not, without the question of currency arising on every single occasion.

That is quite true, but at the same time the rule holds and must hold if we want to have any end to the discussion on Estimates, that matters fully discussed on one estimate are not to be gone into again fully on another Estimate. Otherwise, there would be no end to discussion on the Estimates.

This is a matter of trade.

Trade was discussed on the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

I am endeavouring to discuss the international aspects of our trade. As a matter of fact, I had finished with the references to sterling. I merely brought it in in what I thought was the appropriate place, and to suggest that the best policy for the country was to try to get goods in return for our sterling assets. I was suggesting that it was the duty of the Government to find out where we stand in relation to that matter and to get down to the real kernel of it. We do not know what our trade relations with Great Britain are as governed by our Government. During all the war years we never heard, I think, of our Government going across to the other side. It used to be said that they were afraid they would be drawn into discussions on the war question and that our neutrality might suffer.

As a result of that we had no alternative but to export our male and female population on the hoof. That is really what we were driven to. For six years most people who tried to get supplies from the other side were asking "Was this for the war effort?" Now we have another aspect of that. We are told by people that the goods are in stock, but that the Board of Trade will not give a licence. Surely, that is a matter that the Government might interest themselves in. In other words, are people to try to obtain supplies from overseas with long delivery, or are they to try to get some clear-cut understanding with our neighbours on the other side?

There is another matter which I am interested in. I do not think the Taoiseach made any reference to it, and that is the question of our relations with some other foreign governments. The Taoiseach is quite well aware that we have a very serious problem in housing. The kernel of that problem is timber. I want to ask what are our relations with Russia? In the past we used to obtain considerable supplies of timber from Russia. I think that if Russia were interested in our getting timber our problem in regard to housing, so far as timber is concerned, would be over. Could the Taoiseach tell us, is there any prospect of our entering into relations with Russia or have we any relations with them, and what is our position?

I want to mention another foreign country, namely, Germany. I suppose most people would not quarrel with the idea that the Government here should collect debts from Irish nationals that were due to Germany. I presume they are putting that against what Germany is supposed to pay us. I do not know whether the Taoiseach hopes to collect anything from Germany by way of compensation for the bombing, but I do not think most people would quarrel with the idea that Irish nationals should pay to the Government here money that they owed to Germany. There is another variation of that policy, and I should like to ask the Taoiseach what he thinks of the justice of it. Some of those people in the past sent goods to Germany to be repaired, and they have a counterclaim against Germany. They have been told by the Government that they are to pay up what they owed to Germany to the Government here and that no notice can be taken of any counterclaim they may have against Germany for goods that are in Germany at the present time. I should like to ask the Taoiseach how far he thinks that is fair. Does he think that those people should adopt the attitude with their fellow Irish nationals: "The Government have taken the money with which we could have paid you for the goods we sent to Germany"?

I should like to mention one other variation of the same theme. There are parts of Czechoslovakia that were taken over by Germany. I am not a prophet but I think most people will agree that those districts are going back to Czechoslovakia. While Czechoslovakia was occupied by Germany some goods were supplied to firms in this country. The position is that the Government consider that these districts were part of Germany and that they are to collar the swag. I should like to suggest to the Taoiseach that when the Czechoslovakian Government starts functioning again it will be interested as to what became of debts due to its nationals, and they might very reasonably think about the money that was owed by Irish nationals to their nationals during the time that Germany was in occupation of their country. I hope the Taoiseach, when he is replying, will give us a clear answer to the questions I have raised.

I agree that the Taoiseach was placed in a very awkward position by the question that Deputy Dillon put to him, and I think he would be a better man if he had said no instead of yes to the question as to whether we are a republic or not. I think we need not have had all the hot air that we have had in the last two days in connection with the republic because we have no such thing as a republic at all. That is my opinion. My opinion is that the Taoiseach has no authority to declare a republic in this country. The authority to declare a republic comes from the people, not from the Taoiseach, and it is only by plebiscite that the people could declare a republic. I am firmly convinced that the people of the Twenty-Six Counties of Ireland would not declare for a republic and leave out the six counties of Northern Ireland. Therefore, we have no such thing as a republic here. In any case, a country could not be called a republic where there is not financial freedom, where the King has to sign its credentials, where there is Partition and from which there is emigration. That could not be a republic. Therefore, I think the issue does not arise.

We all know that we are unable to declare a republic and to maintain it by force of arms. We are a small, weak people, politically, financially and militarily, and we are unable to do it. It is better to face the facts. We have a partitioned country here and our problem is to unite the country so that we can have 32 counties under a native Parliament. That is our aim and ambition in this generation, as it has been for generations in the past and will be for generations to come.

I agree with the Deputy who spoke a few moments ago and who said that our aim ought to be the unity of our people, peace, contentment and love of our brethren across the Border and even across the seas. If we had developed that issue instead of having all the bickering we have had for the last 20 years we would have made more headway. The unity of our people should be our chief aim. That can only be accomplished by making the Twenty-Six Counties a place for Irishmen to live in. At present it is anything but a place for people to live in. There is dissension, disunity, flight from the land, flight across the water— absolute disunity in this House and throughout the country. We must put our own house in order before we will be in a position to get our people across the Border to see eye to eye with us. There are many things that we will have to do. The first of them is to be more reasonable amongst ourselves. We have far too much bickering. We must try to get a common platform for the removal of Partition. We have been trying to get that for years but the Taoiseach never made the slightest effort to have a united policy in this country. We expected that the Taoiseach and the leaders of the Opposition Parties would meet in Dublin or Belfast and there hammer out a solution to the problems that confront us. It can be done and it should be done. It is my belief that the people will force it later on, whether it be under the present Government or some other Government. We cannot allow our little country to bleed to death. We cannot allow dissensions to continue such as we have had in the last 600 or 700 years. Every time we were on the verge of peace and freedom, something crossed our path and we were thrown back again. I believe that we are as far away from the unity of our country as ever unless we change our tune altogether. I think the declaration from the Taoiseach was a bad day's work for Ireland because the Twenty-Six County people do not want a republic. What they want is a 32-county Ireland. We do not care whether you call it a republic or a Commonwealth so long as it brings work, peace and contentment to all our people. That is the issue at stake and that is the issue we should concern ourselves with primarily.

We want to make Ireland a nation such as she was 700 years ago. We should try to do it, with the grace of God. It will not be done by bickering, hatred and discontent. Such things should not be part and parcel of a Christian, Catholic nation. We have been free for 25 years, but many things must be cleared away before we can call ourselves a free and proud nation. Our financial freedom must be undertaken. We are not financially free.

The canker of Partition must be eradicated from the body politic and we must have harmony amongst ourselves. We must remember that there is a Parliament in Northern Ireland, where they have had their own elections and have to solve their own problems. Partition was there before we set up the native Government here, so we need not try to blame this Government or the last Government for it. We should call on the British Government to do her part in putting an end to Partition, so that these little islands may live in harmony. If Britain goes down, some other big nation will take her place, but if Britain swims Ireland will swim also. We may be forced even to have a political or a military alliance with our nearest neighbour, as the red flag of Communism is spreading fast over Europe and there is only America, Britain and Ireland to stop it. A united Irish Parliament co-operating with its nearest neighbour would be of great assistance towards that end.

We must remember that the farmers here depend on the markets across the water. I would like to ask the Taoiseach whether he consulted the farmers before he made his declaration recently, to see what repercussions there would be on the farmers next month or next year. It was they and they alone who saved us and fed this nation during the last four or five years and they are entitled to our thanks. Are we to leave them in the lurch, to fend for markets for themselves, if our neighbours say: "If you are a republic, go and live as a republic"? Did the Taoiseach think of this before he made his speech yesterday? If he did, and if he can solve that problem, he is a great man.

I ask him not to be bickering about a republic. We do not want a Twenty-Six County Republic, but rather to strive for the unity of Ireland. We can get that only by compromise with the North and by cooperation, justice and fair play. It is my belief that the Border will go, not in 200 or 300 years but in our life time, and it is my belief that Britain and the North want it to go but that the cantankerous spirit in Dublin and Belfast is preventing that from happening. The majority of the people whether Catholic or Protestant, want to see a united Ireland, working in co-operation with our nearest neighbour.

I wish to place on record my appreciation of the Department of External Affairs for its attention to the many communications I have had to send to the Department. Living in a seaport town, I have had to deal with cases of sailors and those who were prisoners of war, whose parents were unable to get information about them. As a result of the efforts of the Department, many of the homes in my constituency received information about relatives who were sailors or prisoners. It is only fair, when we heard such discussion in the last few days, that we should place on record the value of the Department in the case of men who have to travel in different parts of the world.

I have been associated with Parliament for a long number of years, and regret very much that these speeches have been made during the past few days. During my time, we have had serious trouble internally, but for the last 22 years I do not believe we have been faced with the problems the Government and people are faced with at the present time. I regret that some Deputies should use their position to embarrass, not the Government but this country, by the questions they have raised. We all should consider the country before Party, and before political or personal ends. I—and my Party, too—wish to be put on record in regard to the declaration being made. I regret that Deputies here have an inferiority complex in asking what people on the other side will think or do. Have we not the full freedom here to decide, in the people's name, what our intentions are, and what our decisions are, and is not our decision final?

I think the speech of Deputy Ben Maguire gave some encouragement for the future. We are the people who have to decide, and having decided I believe the people on the other side will be glad to receive our assistance, now that we have declared that we are and have been an independent nation. Deputies are talking about the Constitution for the Twenty-Six Counties. I understood the Constitution referred to Ireland and not merely to a portion of it. I regret that this long debate has taken place, and that these statements have been made at a time when larger nations are being carved up by the military powers. We should devote our whole strength to the unity of the country and try to assist the Government in power, in anything that may happen in the future, so that the Head of the Government may be taken, not as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, but as speaking on behalf of the Irish nation.

My Party represents a very large section of the people, and we give the Taoiseach and his Government our full and whole-hearted support in the line he has taken. We hope and trust that every Deputy will realise, after two days' debate, when they read the things that have been said, that they are only a cause of regret to ourselves and a joy to the enemies of the country. Having decided on the lines we are taking, I hope we will get together and endeavour to overcome our problems. I would prefer if we had more time to discuss the more important items on the Order Paper, which are of more interest than the debate which has taken place. It is more important to the people that we should discuss old age pensions, and I hope this debate will soon end, so that we can embark on such a discussions and prove to the Government the necessity to improve the law in regard to those people.

There are one or two matters in regard to which I desire to express my gratitude to the Department of External Affairs. A kinsman of mine who was born in America was lost in Germany and, through the efforts of the Department of External Affairs, he was discovered and was treated pretty well. In another case a friend in Canada wanted a transfer and the transfer was obtained inside 12 hours after the receipt of a cable from here. I must say I got every consideration from the Department, and I wish now to express my gratitude.

From the sentimental point of view, the Six Counties, the area of St. Colmcille, is Ireland no longer. Antrim of the McDonnells, Armagh, St. Patrick's Primatial See, Tyrone of the O'Neills, Fermanagh of the Maguires, and Down, that holds the remains of St. Patrick, of Colmcille and of Brigid —they are no longer of Ireland. At the behest of whom?

There were a number of points raised in the course of this debate which, I think every Deputy will admit, it would be quite impossible for me to deal with in a speech of any ordinary length. A number of them appear to me to be points that might very well have been raised by way of Parliamentary. Question.

I am very glad the Deputies who spoke last paid a tribute to the work that has been done by the officers of my Department. As everybody knows, my position as Head of the Government would in itself be a whole-time job and it would be quite impossible for me to hold the important Department of External Affairs if I were not supported by a staff as excellent as any man ever had to work with. Our representatives abroad have held to their posts when they were bombed and, no matter what the situation was, they did their work for their country. I, for one, am proud of them and I think that our people have every reason to be proud of them.

I do not think that it would be possible for any Department of State to do as much, with the limited resources at its disposal, as our Department has done. I can say that because I know intimately the work they have been doing, and I am very glad indeed that Deputies have expressed their appreciation. I would like all these officers to feel that it is not my appreciation alone that they have, but the appreciation of all the Deputies here and the appreciation of the whole country.

There were a number of small points raised and I shall have to be pardoned if I do not refer to them. If the Deputies concerned will get in touch with me or with the officers of my Department, where there are small matters involved, I am sure they will get a satisfactory reply. If the Dáil were to continue in session, I would ask them to put down Parliamentary Questions covering the subjects concerned.

It was inevitable, when Deputy Dillon asked me certain questions, that the debate should take a particular turn. The word "republic" has meant a lot for our people in the last quarter of a century and it is only natural that any references to it would bring up thoughts and feelings and controversies which were almost certain to entail an exhibition of the differences of opinion that have been in this country during that time—a difference of outlook, a difference of approach.

Before I come to deal with that matter specifically, I would like to refer to one or two points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Deputy Mulcahy asked if there was anything that had happened in recent years that made me think that the position as between ourselves and Britain and the States of the British Commonwealth had altered in any way from the day, the 29th December, 1937, when our Constitution came into force. Yes, a war, a world war, has taken place since, a world war in which we have been neutral and in which Britain and these other States have participated. Of course, it is said that the members of the British Commonwealth have a right to be neutral. That is true, but when that right for the first time is exercised, then it is somewhat of a different matter. Obviously when Britain was engaged in a war and we were not, the position between Britain and ourselves could not continue exactly as it had been. That is what has taken place since.

If it was simply a question of one's right and that one's right was accepted without question, then one naturally would expect that no change would have taken place. As far as the Government is concerned, the right has not been questioned, I will admit, but when a position like the present position obtains you do not have between Governments the same sort of cordial approach which you would have in ordinary times. I hope to go back and deal with that aspect at a later stage, but I do want Deputy Mulcahy to realise that and that this war is not over; at least, that the war in Europe is only two months over, as I tried to express to Deputies here a short time ago, and that there is still another war on, in which Britain is engaged and in which we are neutral. The States of the British Commonwealth are also engaged in that war and they have conferences both about post-war matters and war matters and naturally they do not separate when they are dealing with these questions, one completely and absolutely from the other.

It would be ridiculous to think that you would have the same contact between our Governments to-day as you would have had before this war began. If the Deputy wants to know if we have sent any communications to them, or if they have sent communications to us which have given rise to any particular controversy, I say "No, nothing of that kind has happened"; but the fact is that a war has taken place and another is going on, in which Britain and the other States of the British Common wealth are engaged, and we are not. I do not know if that covers all the points the Deputy mentioned. We were asked if we were invited to certain conferences—were we invited and did we refuse or not? We were not invited, and I want the House to realise that, so long as I am conducting External Affairs, I am not going to humiliate this nation by going with our hat in hand to anybody.

Will the Taoiseach say whether it was by his own volition or the volition of the other members of the Commonwealth that we were not at the air transport committee which sat recently and are not at the telecommunications committee which is meeting at the moment?

I can only say that we were not invited. So far as I know, there is a custom that when States of the British Commonwealth are called together, the State in whose territory the conference meets sends out invitations. As I say, we got no invitation and we are not going to seek any. While I say that, I should also like to say that I realise that there is a war situation for Britain and the States of the British Commonwealth and that if they are discussing these matters which relate to their conduct of the war, I quite understand why we should not receive any such invitation.

Deputy Dillon a few days ago asked me a question: was this State a republic or was it not? I did not have to ransack, as he pretends, the dictionaries or encyclopaedias to give him an answer. I gave him the answer I would have given him at any time, had he asked that question. If what I say determines the situation, then I said it many times since this Constitution was passed by the Irish people. One of the recent speakers said that I had no right to declare a republic. That word had a certain sense in this country for many years past. A republic was declared here by our people on 21st January, 1919. It was a confirmation of the republic declared in Easter Week, 1916. Declaring a republic had a certain sense.

My statement yesterday was a declaration of a different kind. It was a declaration of a fact which had obtained as a fact in this country since the people enacted that Constitution. There was no concealment about it. Anybody who wanted to see for himself, who knew what a republic or a republican Constitution was, had only to read that Constitution to know what were the status and the nature of our State.

Deputy Norton suggested that there should have been more propaganda about this. What has taken place here for the past two or three days? It was idle to talk to the Irish people, or to anybody else, as to what the position of our country was, when there were two sections very interested in preventing the people from knowing the truth. There were two classes in the country who were very anxious that it should not be known: one, a section which wanted the republic as a war-cry for itself, and the other section which did not want it to appear that the achievement of an Irish republic, so far as this part of Ireland is concerned, had been put through. These two sections were interested at every cross-roads to use every means in their power to prevent the idea from getting abroad to our people that we had a republic. Propaganda would therefore have led to confusion caused by misrepresentation.

The question has been asked in this debate: "Why did you not put the name ‘republic' into the Constitution?" I did not put it in because I did not want exactly this sort of misrepresentation to go through the country. I did not want people to say: "You are trying to pretend that you have an independent State for the whole of Ireland when you have not." I have not been one of those who have talked about a republic in a doctrinaire way. To me, a republic has always meant the independence of our people, and the form of government mattered relatively little compared with that. But when our people wanted to declare their independence, they had naturally to choose their form of government.

There was only one choice left to them, one choice which could be theirs at the time, and that was to declare a republican form of government. We had no hereditary ruling houses left here from which to choose, if we were disposed to go in that direction, and it was quite obvious that, as our struggles had been against the British Crown in the past, as representing the power which invaded this country, we were not going to declare our independence in the form of a nation accepting the British Crown. Therefore the word "republic" here to us meant something more than merely a form of government. It had not quite the connotation of a form of government, because you could have independence with a monarchical form, or independence with a republican form of government.

The struggle in this country was not so much for one form of government as against another as for the independence of the country, and, so far as I was concerned, I did not want to make any point of our achievement simply because we had a republican form of Government. What I do say is that we have achieved, so far as these Twenty-Six Counties are concerned, the independence which our people desire. We have also the form of government here which our people desire, and that is all I want. But if I am asked the question: "Are you a republic or are you not?", there is only one answer I can give, one truthful answer, that is, that we are an independent republic effectively functioning, so far as 26 of our counties are concerned. That is the truth, the plain truth; it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so far as I am concerned.

I know that, because of the External Relations Act, some people can play about and throw dust in the eyes of other people who will never go to the trouble of reading completely the Constitution or the External Relations Act. We have no two heads to our State here. There is one head here, the head that is elected by the Irish people, and none other. And that is known. For the purposes of the External Relations Act we do use the head of a number of other States which are grouped together in what is called the British Commonwealth of Nations. As a mark of associations, as I have said, with that group, we use the signature, and that is all, of the head of that group for certain specified purposes, restricted purposes, as and when advised by the Government, and on no other occasion.

There are Deputies in the House who have suggested that we should repeal that Act. If any group of people in this country want to take that as their programme they can do so, but all they will do as far as this State is concerned is to remove an element of confusion. It is, I am admitting, an element of confusion, because the average person is not going to examine exactly its full meaning or anything else. But, as far as the freedom and the liberty of this State are concerned, they will not have achieved anything, because the authority lies here; it is by the authority of this Government that foreign representatives are appointed, that foreign representatives are accredited, and, in so far as any other external person comes into it, that person comes in simply and solely as the statutory agent to mark our association with the States of which he is recognised as king.

Why have we done this? In pursuance of a steady policy which has, as far as I am concerned personally, been known I am sure to the whole Irish people, a policy which was accepted by the full Republican Cabinet of 1919 to 1921, a policy by which we indicated or were prepared to indicate our readiness to be associated as an independent State with the States comprising the British Commonwealth. That was an external policy to which we have steadily adhered, and, so long as we are accepted on that basis, so long as there is no question of allegiance or anything else of that sort, I am prepared to stand by that policy. However, if it is otherwise, if our right to choose our own path and our own way is not accepted, then I certainly would not hesitate in such circumstances to put it to the test of the Irish people as to whether they wanted that to continue or not.

We have in this country, as in every other country, people with different political opinions. This country was struggling against the power of a neighbouring country for many centuries. During that period, there were settled here at various times people from across the water who had certain loyalties and certain allegiances, and those loyalties and allegiances have continued. They continued down to some 20 or 25 years ago, and in perhaps a modified form they are continued still even in this part of Ireland. In the other part of Ireland, you have those loyalties acting fully there. We have, therefore, in this nation of ours, apart from the ordinary differences that exist among all peoples —differences of outlook, differences of view about forms of government, etc— a record, in feeling, of this long struggle for our independence, the struggle between ourselves and Britain. That long contest has brought these two countries into close contact. We perhaps know each other better than most neighbouring people know each other. I do not know whether I would be right in saying that perhaps we recognise each other's good qualities and bad qualities more clearly than each nation recognises its own. Any person here who is trying to settle the affairs of this country will have to take account of that feeling. It is all very well for Deputies to dream dreams. Whoever sits on this seat, whoever is Minister for External Affairs in this State, will not merely have to dream dreams but will have to dream how his dreams are to be made come true.

I have to do that. That has been my task. For good or ill I suppose I have been for a longer period representing this country than anybody at present living. I had to represent this country during what I will call the four glorious years, and I have now had the privilege of representing this country for another 13 years. During all that time I have dreamed dreams, like Deputy Dillon or Deputy Larkin or Deputy Norton or other Deputies, and if my wishing for things would bring them about, then I think the paradise which I would have brought about here would be just as good a one as the paradise which Deputy Dillon or Deputy Norton or any other Deputy would have brought about here for our people. But I have had the task, as I have said, to try to make our dreams come true. I do not know how other people will look upon it, but I am glad to see the dream here come true anyhow, the dream of the difference between this Constitution and that, the dream of the difference between the Constitution under which we live to-day and the Constitution which passed out of existence in 1936. I do not expect others to share my views. We are all human, and I may be wrong in the feeling of pride—if you like, the feeling of achievement—when I look on that, and perhaps I do not give others credit for the achievements which they think are equally important. However, that is my feeling. I have had to try to realise the things for which this nation has striven.

We went out—most of us who are here were in that struggle—as young people in 1917 to try to realise the agelong aspirations of our people, to get political freedom, hoping that in that political freedom we could realise some of the other freedoms which have been spoken about. We had to struggle against a mighty power to do that. We were here, near the centre of one of the greatest empires upon the earth. We had to face that empire in order to win those rights, and we had to do it after that empire and its allies had gone out to fight a world war which they said was for the freedom of small nations. After that, we had to engage in this struggle. We got to a certain point, and again force was used to prevent our people from continuing the realisation of their dreams. They had to give up what they had freely, democratically founded. They were made to give it up by the threat of force and by the use of force. We had to see that ancient nation of ours cut in two by the same power, using of course the differences that existed undoubtedly between our people, but, if such differences were a justification for carving up an old nation, then there is no nation on this earth that could not have been carved up for the same reasons.

I know it will be said that I am speaking bitterly about Britain. It will, of course, be said that in the things I am doing I am animated with hatred of England. It is not true.

Will the Taoiseach move to Report Progress?

It is ridiculous to ask the Taoiseach to move to Report Progress. Why not suspend Standing Orders and allow the Taoiseach to carry on? It is the unanimous wish of the House to hear the Taoiseach.

I understood it had been arranged that the House would sit late to-night to finish the Taoiseach's Votes.

It is the unanimous wish of the House that the Taoiseach should finish.

Was it agreed that the House would sit late to-night to finish the Taoiseach's three Votes?

If there is to be no vote I suppose the matter could be arranged.

Why not allow the Taoiseach to finish a most important speech? It is the unanimous wish of the House.

That is for the House to decide and not Deputy Dillon.

If it were possible to arrange it, I do not want to have to take up these matters again to-morrow.

If there was a motion to sit late it should have been taken before 7 o'clock.

It is the unanimous wish of the House to allow the Taoiseach to conclude.

Opposed business cannot be taken after 9 o'clock.

If we are standing strictly on that, I want to say that this Estimate is not being opposed, so that even within the strict rules of the House the debate can be continued until 9.30.

If the House agrees the debate can continue until 9.30.

Agreed.

Until it is finished.

I was saying that it would be said that my speech on this matter indicated hatred of Britain. I say it is not true. I have often realised that if it had been some other country, besides Britain, that was beside us, our history might have been just the same, or perhaps worse. My desire and my hope—it is not a new desire or a new hope as far as I am concerned; it is a desire and a hope which has been with me during the 30 odd years or so that I have been speaking in public—would be to see the people of this island, and the people of the neighbouring island, living side by side as good neighbours, each respecting the other's rights and each co-operating with the other in any matter of common interest, it being understood that each was to be the judge as to whether its own interest was involved or not. That has been my aim all the time. But I am a realist, and I believed—I knew— that that object could never be realised until this nation was able to stand up as equal in right with Britain: that so long as Britain attempted to impose her will, in any form whatever, on our people, so long would it be impossible for us to have that understanding which I had desired. Therefore, the first object of my life, if I may put it that way, was to clear the ground—to make that understanding possible. I have often wondered how I came to that, how it was, so to speak, that it became almost the primary object, a more fundamental object than the freedom of the country itself. I have often wondered why I should have felt that. I suppose the realisation was bearing in on me that we were a relatively small nation, and that, if we were in our freedom going to develop completely and thoroughly, it was desirable to be on good terms with our neighbour.

Therefore, the two aims which, as an Irishman who believed in the liberty of our country, I would have naturally made my objective did not conflict at any particular stage or point. When we got the agreement of 1938 by which the full sovereignty of our people was established over every inch of these Twenty-Six Counties, I felt that if things went right at all, and that if the goodwill which had been established then could only be allowed to develop, it would not take long until both—that section of our people here who were opposing our aims towards independence and the section of the British people—would realise that the wisest course for all, the best even for the loyalties that some of those people had and the best course for all of us, was that this nation, an independent nation having whatever form of government it wanted—that this island as a whole—should be recognised as a sovereign independent State.

The question was: was it possible to get a solution which would satisfy the sentiments, in the first instance, of our own people? Suppose we class our people into two parts, the majority and the minority, the majority, undoubtedly, being those who would not be satisfied with anything less than full sovereign independence, and the minority, those who wanted to be so closely associated with the neighbouring island that they wished the sovereignty of that island and of the people of that island to extend over here. Surely, if you are trying to get a solution you must see, in the first instance, how far the majority will go. I convinced myself, and I am satisfied, that the majority would make no compromise which would involve the sacrifice of their sovereign independence. Any solution based on depriving the people of Ireland of their sovereignty over their own country was not going to be possible as a solution. That is the first point. Therefore, we are in this position that the minority, if ever we are going to get agreement with the minority, will have to agree that the form of government we have here and the relationship we have with other States must be determined by the people of this island in the ordinary democratic way, that is, by majority rule. There are people who dream that it can come along otherwise. I say they dream. Why should a member of the majority think that he would have to give up his fundamental aspirations in order to satisfy the aspirations of the minority?

I do not think it is anything that any ordinary man should do. Why should he do it? If, as I believe, the aspirations of the majority of our people would not be satisfied with anything less than sovereign independence, how can I reconcile that with the view of a minority who say they will not be satisfied if we have that sovereign independence unless that sovereign independence is transferred to another country? Is any half-way house possible?

My view is, you have first of all to satisfy the aspirations of the majority; bring the majority as far as ever you can bring them to meet the point of view of the minority; but do not make the foolish mistake of thinking that you have a solution when you try to push the majority beyond the line on which they propose to go. You cannot do it. If there are sacrifices to be made, then I think, in a democratic State, with democratic ideas abroad, if we are going to accept a democratic principle, it is only right that it is the minority in that particular case who should go to meet the majority.

Deputy Dillon, to my mind, is the political twin of ex-Senator MacDermot. He always imagines that he can get solutions of this kind by going over to satisfy the ideas that prevail in the North. You cannot do it. Is there anybody in this House so foolish as to think that if to-morrow we accepted the allegiance which some people think goes with the British Commonwealth— I want to make it quite clear that as far as our relations with the States of the British Commonwealth are concerned, there is no question of any type of allegiance; we made that quite clear back in 1933 and there is going to be no retreat, as far as we are concerned, and there is no retreat from that position—does anybody think that even if we did accept that, if we went back to the position we were in before this Government came into office, that we were going to get the people in the North to come in and to be satisfied? Is there anybody who knows Irish history who does not know that the people in the North refused to come in to even a Home Rule Parliament, that they refused to come in when the Republic was overthrown and when the British Commonwealth was accepted, with all the clauses that there are there establishing the monarchy in this country? They did not do it then. Is there anybody foolish enough to think that if the majority of our people were to sacrifice their aspirations now, they would get them to give up the cry of "Not an inch"? You know perfectly well that they would not. You know perfectly well that every step you move towards them they will regard it as a sign that you will move another step and they would not be satisfied, in my opinion, unless you went back and accepted the old United Kingdom—a common Parliament for the two countries.

Is that where we want to go? Clearly it is not, and clearly, if there is a situation to be solved, it must be made quite clear to everybody that as far as I am concerned, anyhow, and as far as any influence I have in this country is concerned, my answer to any attempt to bring us a step farther will also be "Not an inch." I want it to be made quite clear to our own people at home, if they want somebody to do it differently let them get him.

I know it is an impasse. I know it is a heart-break for every Irishman who loves his country to see that state of affairs, but I am perfectly certain that we will come to a solution much sooner if that attitude is known than if the idea gets abroad that we are going to begin slithering along again. If there is to be a tug-of-war then in the tug-of-war, it will have to be known, we, too, are going to stand put. We want the world to know, no matter what crusade may be started in any part of the world for the freedom of other nations, that as long as that curse of Partition exists in this country, our answer to all calls of that kind will be: "Let the Irish nation come together and let the whole Irish people, represented in a whole, united, Irish Parliament, decide." But not till then, as far as I am concerned, will I, for one, ever talk to the Irish people and suggest to them that they should enter into any crusades for other people's rights.

Small nations who enter into these crusades take upon themselves a terrible responsibility. There are big nations to-day and they have fought for certain principles, and we see nations that wanted their freedom, and we see them carved up. If the big nations are not able to put into effect their principles because of the situation in which they find themselves, what do you think will be the position for small nations? Would not I or any other Irishman—anybody else who is here—be in a nice position if, as Head of the Government, I had led our people into this war to save, say, Poland, and I should have to come back and tell our people here: "I am not able to do the things that I asked the young men of this country to go out and fight for?"

These are the things that people ought to bear in mind when they are asking small nations to engage in crusades. I have to say this to Deputy Dillon—I hate to say it, but I think it is right I should say it—if I had the feelings personally that Deputy Dillon has, I would not be asking my nation to go out and fight, I would go out and fight myself.

It is time that was said.

You said that before and it does you no good.

A Deputy

You coward.

I only say that because, when people stand up in this House, and, in a time when a small nation is being maligned, say things which are taken up abroad and greedily mopped up by a hostile Press and spread in the Press of the world—when they do that, they are not doing a service to their nation and they are not behaving courageously.

I think I have indicated what the external policy of this Government is. We want to be friends with Britain. We believe that it would be in our interest if we got on a state of friendship with Britain as we are with Canada, with Australia and New Zealand. But we cannot do that as long as our nation is partitioned, and we cannot accept a status which is beneath the dignity of this ancient nation. We are not a dominion. The constitutional forms which grew up and naturally expressed the position of States like Canada and Australia, which grew up as British colonies, represent their loyalties. We have not those loyalties and we cannot accept those forms. We are not a dominion or a British colony which has grown up in that way. As one of the Deputies stated here, we are, ourselves, a mother country and accept no status lower than that.

As a mother country, we have our people in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. There are no other nations so closely associated with us and no other people on earth with whom we would be better pleased to be associated in any political group. As Deputy Dillon has pointed out, it is quite true that our people are also in the United States, and it is quite true that, if our national position were accepted and our country were united, we might play an important part in association with those States. Because of our history, our people have a love for the democratic forms and democratic liberties which it is said those States are struggling to achieve. We believe that we have a contribution to make, but we know at the same time that we have not any tremendous physical powers at our back. We need to have a certain field before we can make use of the advantages which we might bring in these cases.

We have to be realists in these matters. I was at Geneva and I know how little influence we had, from the spiritual point of view, when the material interests of great States were involved; but at least it is true to say that we were able to make ourselves heard—even if ours was only a voice crying in the wilderness—and that was something to the good. We are as anxious as any Deputy on the opposite benches could be that our State should be in a position to play whatever part it is best fitted to play in the world; but we have to attend to our own problems first. It is a mistake to think that we will ever have any influence in the world, if we allow our own national personality to disappear. The most important thing that we can do for the world at the present time is to preserve for the world the things for which our people have been fighting through the centuries. We must take care that, whatever else we do, we do not lose that, because the moment we lose that we lose any power of good that we have for the world and any chance of influencing the world. If we look after these things here, the other things will be added. I have not the slightest doubt of that.

What I would wish our people to do at the present time and what I would implore those who are generally opposed to us here to do is to put behind us now the differences which we have had and which we have fought over during all these years. I ask that the Constitution which has been passed by the Irish people be accepted loyally by all of us and that we should not start unnecessary quarrels about it. Let us take it as it is and work from it for what it was intended to be—the forerunner to a Constitution which will have within the area of its effective jurisdiction the whole of our country.

I agree with Deputy Dillon that the biggest immediate political problem we have to solve is the problem of Partition. Deputy Donnellan last night put into my mouth something I never said. It is easy at a crossroads to say that de Valera said this or somebody else said that, but in this House, at any rate, Deputies will find they cannot get away with it in that way. When I am quoted, at least I have the right to demand that my words be given. I have never said that I had a plan to bring in the North. I have said more than once that if any Irishman could produce such a plan he would be so much the saviour of this country—that is, if it were a plan that would work—that I would feel it a duty, no matter what post I occupied or what other plans I had, to give way to him and let him take charge. He will be the saviour of this country who can bring about the solution of Partition and the restoration of our country, consistent with the essential that, when it is done, the majority of our people will have a right to choose any form of Government or any form of association with other nations that they please. If that essential is denied, then there is no freedom.

I naturally want to see that we have not merely unity but freedom as well. If there is anybody who has such a plan, let him come forward. I never said I had such a plan. I have always said it was the most difficult of our tasks. What I have said, and what I said on the day on which the Fianna Fáil organisation was first founded was, I believe: "If you pursue the plan which we have here, we will get to a stage in which we will have got, for this part of Ireland, what we desire; and when you have done that the problem of Partition will be isolated." I believe we have done that, It is a problem above all others for the solution of which the support of the greatest number of Irishmen can be got, a problem in solving which the nation is most united in sentiment.

I am not going to say—and I would be foolish in saying—that any method proposed will not give rise to differences as to how it is to be carried out. There are these differences, they are clearly obvious here already, but the fact is that we have isolated that problem. It became isolated on the day on which we made the settlement of 1938. At that time, I pointed out that there was only one remaining thing left to be done in order to secure the foundations which I, for one, had been working for and which I believe the majority of the Irish people desire, that is, the foundations on which these two neighbouring nations with very many interests in common could work together and co-operate in matters of common concern. I believe that is still true. The war has been a setback, but what has happened during the war was the inevitable consequence of Partition, the inevitable consequence of the fact that, as long as our country is divided by Britain's power—because it is Britain's power that has done it, making use of our differences here—so long will our people believe that there is no truth in any professions that Britain may make.

May I ask a question on a matter of personal explanation? Does the Taoiseach not know that I was the first Deputy to volunteer for the Irish Army and that my call-up papers were cancelled by the Taoiseach himself, who expressed the desire that I should not be called up by the Adjutant-General, as he required my services on the Defence Conference? If those facts are true, is it just or honourable to represent that I should seek to avoid military duties?

I think it is only fair, Sir, to say this. Any objection to Deputy Dillon's joining our Army was not because he was a member of the Defence Conference but because of the fact that we wanted no Deputies in the Army.

That was what I understood—that no Deputies were wanted.

Yes, we wanted no Deputies.

But I was told otherwise by Mr. Aiken.

I do not want to pursue the matter.

I am not surprised.

Well, the Deputy had better not urge me, because the fact is this, and I say it still, that if I had the audacity to stand up and talk about the things that were said to be in question, and the duty of our people to go and fight for these things —hang it, as long as there was no law against it, I would have gone like hundreds of Irïshmen have gone. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, the 19th July, 1945.
Top
Share