The next business on the Order Paper is the further consideration of the motion which the Seanad may recollect was moved on the 21st March by Senator Douglas, and I think it would be convenient if the Seanad would give permission to Senator Douglas to say a few words, briefly stating again the effect and purpose of this motion, because a considerable time has elapsed, and the Seanad may probably have forgotten most of what took place.
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
In view of the fact that I took up a considerable amount of the time of the Seanad in introducing this motion some time ago, I think it is not fair or desirable that I should do more than very briefly re-introduce this subject, re-stating the main reasons as to why I moved the resolution, and why I trust the Seanad will pass it, and answering briefly one or two questions on the points that were raised in the discussion when the motion was originally moved. I may say that my main object in moving the Resolution has already been achieved, because, as I think I stated on the last occasion, I wish the Irish public to realise that the status which has now been achieved by Ireland is one under which they could rightfully assume that they had the right of applying with reasonable certainty for admission into the League of Nations, and that it was wise and right that the public should discuss, and that the Government should decide on its merits as to whether an application should be made on behalf of the Saorstát for membership of the League of Nations or not. I give reasons why, in my opinion, it would be desirable when the right time came, and I recognise that the Executive must decide the exact time when the application should be sent — I give my reasons, briefly.
First of all, I stated that I thought it would make perfectly clear, not only to our own people, but to the other nations of the world, that we are now for all practical purposes an independent State, and that we intend to take our place as soon as, and as much as, we could in international affairs. My second reason was that it would definitely make clear that Ireland was prepared to back Internationalism; was prepared not necessarily to approve — and I give my reasons why, in some respects, we disagreed with some provisions of the present League — but to support the general idea of the League of Nations, and that it recognised that while this League was not perfect it was prepared to go in and assist those Nations which were trying to improve the League, and to make it a success in so far as it could be made a success. Thirdly, the reason I gave was, which I still hold, that it would help to add to the sense of responsibility of the people of Ireland, who are inclined, all of us, I think, to look far too much on our own difficulties and not to realise that we, as a Nation, must take a live interest in the affairs of Nations round about us, principally in European affairs. Since I spoke the first point has, to some extent, been met because an invitation has, if to-day's paper's be correct, been definitely sent to the Saorstát inviting Ireland to take part in an International Conference on Customs, and that of itself is a recognition of our status to be International, a recognition of the highest possible importance. One point with regard to some criticism of the League has been made both in public and here as to the possibility of so small a nation having any effective part in improving the rules and the working of the League. It is a matter of considerable interest, and I do not think very largely known here, that Canada has down for consideration at the next meeting of the assembly an amendment to Article 10 by which they propose that Article 10 which, as you will remember, more or less pledges the different members of the League to recognise each other's territory, shall be amended, so that no country will, because of that Article, be obliged to take part in any war except with the consent of the Parliament of the nation concerned. This is an extremely important amendment which I imagine it will be the desire of most people in this country to support. I mention that as a matter of interest, because that has been sent out to the various nations as an amendment to the League, and, I think, has a very fair chance of acceptance. It is perhaps, a guess, but one might hope if that amendment is accepted that the United States might feel that it can at least look more favourably on the League, if it does not join it following that amendment, and I rather think that Canada, in proposing the amendment, probably had something of the kind in mind. It is also a matter of interest again that Canada, in this matter and the action it wishes taken in regard to her own nation being at war without the consent of the Parliament, is following Ireland, because I think that we are one of the first countries, if not the first, to make it a definite constitutional matter that we shall not be committed to war without the consent of the Oireachtas.
I do not wish to deal with the main points any further except briefly to refer to the matter of expense, of which questions were asked in the last debate. I understand that the apportionment of the expenses is made by a Committee and reported to the Council. As an aside I may mention that the present treasurer is a representative of China, a matter which is, I think, of considerable interest, and I was surprised, in reading the proceedings of the League, to find that its budget was presented by the Chinese representative. A certain number of units are apportioned to each nation, and it has been laid down in a comparatively new rule passed, I think, somewhere within the last twelve months, that in apportioning the units the ability of a country to pay shall be taken into consideration. It is not possible, I think, to state mathematically the exact number of units which would be apportioned to us if we were admitted members of the League but I think we might safely assume that he sum payable would be between £8,000 and £10,000. At the present moment the exact amount paid by two of the members of the British Commonwealth who are members of the League I have in actual figures. I have been unable to find in the reports the exact figures of the others. The summary of the League of Nations does not give the figures, I believe, of the different Nations, at least I have been unable to find them, but in the Report of the Parliament of New Zealand I find that they pay £10,209 and Australia pays £14,465. I believe that I am safe in stating, and I know that the Minister for External Affairs told me that this was his view also, that it would be something about £10,000, if not less, that we would have to pay if we were admitted. I think that there was a misunderstanding, and some of the rather exaggerated figures, which were not exactly suggested but were whispered about during the last discussion, were due to the fact that in the first division of its expenses some small nations did find themselves liable to much larger sums but these have already been discharged so that I think, on the grounds of expense, we would not be unreasonable in suggesting that we could spend as much for the League of Nations as we do on the Governor-General's salary.
On a point of order, would it be right to call on some Senators to adjourn their debate until the speaker has done. We cannot hear what Mr. Douglas is saying although we believe it is very interesting.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I must ask Senators who are engaged in private conversation to moderate their voices as it interferes with their colleagues hearing the speaker.
I hope the Seanad will see its way to pass this resolution, because it definitely sets down the principle that we would approve at the right time of application being forwarded for admission. I recognise, and I think every Senator here will recognise, that the Executive is the only body who can tell what is the right time for making that application. I think the assembly of the League will probably meet somewhere in the Autumn. At the same time I hope it will be found possible at an earlier date to forward an application on behalf of the Saorstát.
If I venture to dísagree with what Senator Douglas has said I hope it will require no assurance on my part to say that anything I have to urge against the motion which he has proposed is neither due to no want of sympathy with him, much less to any antagonism to the League itself. I think no man who has followed the movement in support of the League since its inception, or its proceedings during the last four years, but will admit that it has done very good work, even though nothing of the sensational character that was hoped for. That has not been its fault, however. Every man, I believe, who has the good of mankind at heart must long for the day when the League will become an effective instrument for the settlement of international differences and the cessation of wars such as that we have recently passed through, and from the effects of which we are still suffering. If I counsel for the moment, as I feel bound to do, that we should not be hasty in adopting any action which implies admission to the League at present it is solely because I think it is somewhat premature for this new-born State, faced as it is with overwhelming difficulties, not of its own making, and which require all its energies and all its resources to combat to undertake and further responsibilities such as would be involved by admission to the League. With two of the most populous and powerful nations of Europe, Germany and Russia, excluded from any participations in its councils, until such time as they have purged their offences; with the United States holding aloof and seemingly not much inclined to come into line through the persuasive arguments of Lord Robert Cecil; and, what is more important still, with two members of the League, France and Roumania, absolutely set on pursuing their own policies, to the disturbance of the peace of the whole world and in utter violation of the first cardinal principles of the League, there is I fear little prospect of those splendid ideals and aspirations materialising for which we all so hopefully looked at the time the League was formed. In these circumstances I feel that we should hesitate before we take any immediate action.
With regard to expense, what Senator Douglas has said is perfectly correct. I spent one or two days at the Ministry of the League of Nations in London, and I there learned, what we have all seen to-day in the papers, that at a meeting of the Economic Conference in March they made a recommendation to the Council that an invitation should be sent to Ireland to take part in the International Customs Conference which is to meet in October. That recommendation came before the meeting in Geneva on Wednesday, and I think Senator Douglas is right in saying that in the course of a few days we shall get a formal invitation. I do not know whether we have yet had an invitation to the Colonial Conference, but these are satisfactory indications that the League has recognised Ireland as an independent State. The fact that Germany and the United States have accepted invitations to both these Conferences is a hopeful omen that later on they may, perhaps, look with a more favourable light on the League. With regard to the question of expense, Great Britain and France each contribute something like £80,000 a year to the League. The total expense comes to over £1,000,000 a year, and towards this sum Great Britain and France are the largest contributors. The revised scale to which Senator Douglas alluded was drawn up last October, and under it the Council, in apportioning the contribution of the several members of the League, has to take into consideration their population and payable capacity. The unit of contribution is, roughly speaking, £1,100, and so many units are apportioned to each State. Judging by comparison with some of the smaller States, whose population is that of the Free State, viz., 3,000,000, our contribution would probably be fixed, Senator Douglas has said, at something between £8,000 and £9,000 a year. We may be called upon to pay more, and I do not think we will have to pay less. But even that sum is a matter of consideration at the present moment. Are we justified, with a deficit of £20,000,000, and burdens of every kind increasing, and not decreasing, in assuming a further debt of even £10,000? In normal circumstances I quite agree that it would not be worth considering, but the matter assumes a different aspect when we have nothing in our pocket to meet it. No man is more in sympathy with Senator Douglas's motion than I am, but I would ask you to consider whether it would not be better to wait and see the result of these two Conferences. I am sure that the International Customs Conference and the Colonial Conference will be productive of the best results. Our members will be brought for the first time into contact with the representatives not only of the Overseas Dominions, but with those of the great States of Europe, many of whom are Prime Ministers and other leading statesmen of the day. Such an association, and the discussions which will take place in an atmosphere which, as I have always heard from members of the League, is one of mutual goodwill and co-operation, cannot but be productive of good results to our representatives in broadening their outlook on the world's affairs and taking their minds off from always dwelling on the wrongs and grievances of their own country. Other nations of the world have far bigger wrongs and grievances than we have, and if we can contribute anything to the settlement of these, I am sure we will be all anxious to do so. I would suggest that if, before committing ourselves to membership of the League, we watched the result of these two Conferences, the experience we shall have gained will not be lost.
While I am not in agreement with the proposal I am glad it has been brought up, because I think it well that Senators should consider matters of great public importance abroad as well as at home. At the same time I do not at all agree with the proposal that the Free State should enter into any such negotiations at present. I fear the mover of this resolution has allowed his hopes to interfere with his thinking. If the League of Nations had been at all what we hoped it would have been long ago, I certainly, and I think most of the others, would have been most anxious for the Free State to join it, but it has proved to be very much otherwise. Designing politicians have made working arrangements for the organisation and apportionment of the material results of victory. It is not a neutral body. On the contrary it is deep in all the intricacies of the Treaty of Versailles, the supervision of mandates, and so on. I do not know how much Senators know about the League. All these foreign affairs have been conducted for us by other people over our heads, against our will, against our sympathies and inclinations, and we have got out of the habit of thinking about the world abroad. Moreover our private affairs have become so pressing that foreign affairs do not come very much within the purview of our vision. There was a time, a few years ago, when we did look across the European horizon for help and sympathy from the League, but we got none.
Foreign Governments are very selfish, and they only think of their own affairs, so that as we have had no trade and diplomacy to bargain with, we got nothing out of it. Now, matters are somewhat different, and we have both trade and diplomacy; we are equal to Great Britain in status, if not in power or strength; and we would have a considerable amount of influence, I dare say, but I do not, on the other hand, wish that that we should dabble too much in foreign affairs at the present time. If the League of Nations were merely weak, as it has been, I would not say much against it, but it has been much worse than that; it has been pusillanimous. It has been extremely base in its decisions, and if we come into the League we should remember that we must submit to these decisions. I think it is well that Senators should know what some of its decisions have been, because in some matters it has decided questions which will be our own main subject of difficulty before long. If Senators will have patience with me for a moment I will read to them a short statement of what the League has decided in the case of a dispute between Poland and Lithuania. That was a frontier dispute, and that is one of the questions which we also have to face.
"Vilna was the capital city of Lithuania, but was claimed by Poland, both States having been established after the late war, and desultory fighting continued until September, 1920, when the two Powers agreed to accept mediation by the League.
"October 17th — Armistice signed under auspices of League, called Suwalki, agreement to remain in force till all questions in dispute were settled. This agreement left Vilna to Lithuania.
"October 9th—General Zellgowski— a Polish freebooter — seized the city and flouted armistice.
"October 28th—League Council met and disapproved of Zellgowski, invited him to retire, and announced it would send an international army to supervise a plebiscite.
"Zellgowski did not retire, and international army did not go, but he said he would hold a plebiscite himself.
"March 3rd, 1921 — League met again and resolved that a popular consultation was impossible. It suggested, instead, direct negotiations between Poland and Lithuania, under League auspices, the preliminary conditions being the reduction and control of Zellgowski troops.
"(1) Lithuania accepted all the negotiations and conditions; (2) Poland accepted negotiations, but declined conditions; (3) League then proposed that the conditions be ignored and negotiations begun anyway. At every step the League begun by talking justice and then yielded to Poland — the darling of the Allies. Throughout it has shown itself, not an instrument of equity, but a tool of the Great Powers.
"April and May, 1921 — Poland and Lithuania met, but Poles refused to discuss League's proposals until the Buccaneer, General Zellgowski, was brought in as a third and equal party; 2 Poles to 1 Lithuanian. Mr. Hymans, spokesman of the League, declared this to be a violation of the agreement.
"June, 1921—League Council met; several members made stern speeches against the Poles, and declared that Zellgowski's troops must retire and a local police be established by the League. This was not done.
"September — Mr. Hymans, for the League, again offered a compromise, which Lithuania accepted and Poland flatly refused. So far the League was only pusillanimous. Zellgowski then held an election, his own troops presiding at the polls. Only Polish candidates were nominated, and the ensuing Diet naturally voted for annexation to Poland. The Polish Diet ratified this. Lithuania protested. The League cravenly approved it, so that Vilna became Polish. Lithuania has constantly referred back to the Suwalki agreement under which she laid down arms, trusting to the League's good faith."
May I ask from what you are quoting?
From an American paper, "The Nation," which is one of the best known, one of the best written, and one of the most liberal papers in America, one that is most respected and honoured in America, one that has always been on the side of liberty in these matters, and one that has fought very hard against all sorts of difficulties with great courage. Now that was the settlement of Lithuania. What is our own problem that is likely to come up before long? It is a problem very similar to that which I have just referred. What has been the state of affairs of our frontier problem? England has made a Treaty with the Free State by which it has arranged to establish a Committee to decide a frontier. Ulster has refused to accept, just the same as Poland has refused to accept the arrangement of the League. England is in considerable difficulty. Lord Derby was in Ulster recently and he was present when the Prime Minister declared that the frontier question was settled long ago and would not arise again. I think the probabilities are that England is very anxious for the Free State to go into the League, because then it can appeal to us and practically force us to lay our cases before the League. If the League decision is unfair in our case we should have lost our position. I say that we should not do such a thing at present. Let us stick to our agreement with England. Do not let England slip out of it. Do not let her push it on to the League of Nations, but let us stick to our Treaty, and if England breaks that Treaty we will know what to do, but if we refer the matter to the League we shall have lost all our position. The League is, as I have said, a mere tool. It is dominated by great powers, notably France and England, and it has decided practically according to their wishes and pressure. As a matter of fact it is bound so to decide. The League of Nations cannot be a League of Nations when it is dominated by great empires whose very foundations are based on interference with other nations and who compel weak, small nations to comply with them. A league of small nations may be a very good thing, but as long as we have great nations dominating this League we should keep out of it, at all events until other great nations such as America, Germany and Russia come in to hold the balance and prevent the League from being subservient as it is at present. Therefore I say, although I did not think so at one time, that the Government very wisely decided to wait and consider the matter. I say it more freely now because I was not of the opinion at the time. We should refrain from entering till quite a different situation has arisen.
The mover of this resolution advanced as one of the reasons that we should join the League that it would give the Irish people a sense of their responsibilities. He failed to define these responsibilities. One of the responsibilities seemingly is that all nations may be compelled to partake in war if so decided by the League. The amendment proposed is that any nation or member of the League may contract out of such a war if it was so decided. We do not know whether that amendment will pass or not, but we are going into this League of Nations simply blindfolded. Ireland has been for over a century trying to get free of a connection which pretty well strangled her, economically and financially. There were several vain attempts during the century to wrench ourselves free, and eventually we have succeeded in doing so. The position during all that time may be compared to that of a very game but relatively small Irish terrier tied to the tail of a hefty English bull-dog. No matter how the terrier struggled and fought to wrench himself free to go where he liked the bull-dog simply dragged him along wherever he went. Our position to-day is that Ireland, deriving no benefit from the European War, will probably have to share the War debt, a very heavy and weighty responsibility. The amount of our proportion of that debt has not yet been defined, but in a White Paper of March, 1921, I saw that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated Ireland's share by dividing the whole debt of the war up to that period by thirty-two, which was Ireland's relative capacity to bear taxation. The figures were brought out at two hundred and thirty-four millions. How far that valuation could be increased by the end of the war I cannot say, but that is a minimum at any rate. How far we will be allowed to bring any offset in the adjustment as against the enormous obligations which have been entailed by those connections, and by which we have benefited nothing, I do not know.
We got free of this entanglement and now we are on the outer rim of a dangerous whirlpool. If we venture in we may get engulfed financially. Otherwise, as we do not know exactly what our responsibility will be in any policy decided on by the League of Nations, I can see we might be doing ourselves a very grievous injury, because in any matter of arbitration between Ireland and England in the adjustment of our position, as a result of the political changes that have taken place, we shall have to take the decision of the League. We see that Powers already included in the League are wrangling among themselves. France and England are wrangling. It might so happen, no matter how we voted, that we would strain relations between ourselves and France, or between ourselves and England. The primary object of the League of Nations was, we understand, the averting of war in the future. I presume Senators will have read Mr. Lloyd George's comment as to that. He says "the dispute over reparations, that is, between the Powers composing the present League, is churning up deadly passions, and may end in the most destructive conflict on record." That is the present position of the League. No Great Power has, so far, permitted any international question in which it has a direct and vital interest to be submitted to the League of Nations. "France refused to agree to a reference to the League of any problem arising out of the Treaty of Versailles, which is so wide in its application that it touches international interests at almost every point." That shows the effectiveness of the League as at present constituted. Ireland throwing in her weight—which is a very negligible quantity — into a chaotic condition of that sort, will be of very small account. I think, for all these reasons, we might very well pause, especially as America has seen fit to refuse to be associated with a League of this sort. We are in a very safe position to-day, geographically and otherwise. We are outside all the influence of this maelstrom of European politics, and we should not allow ourselves, blindfolded, to be drawn into it without further information than we have, and until the League is further developed and shall have become a useful instrument; until it frees itself from the charge of not being impartial in its decisions. There are grave charges against it in that respect. Until the League becomes a more perfect instrument for the purposes for which it was originally intended, and until we can see, and are assured of, direct benefit in joining that League, I think we should pause and postpone the consideration of this matter. I say that the time is not yet ripe for such consideration.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not know whether the Minister for External Affairs, who is present, wishes to speak. If so we will be glad to hear him.
I have listened with great interest to the debate here, and I am very glad to see how interestedly the Seanad follows this matter. It is well known here that last year I proposed a resolution in the Dáil that at such time as it would be advisable we should take steps to join the League of Nations. That was the Government's opinion then. Since then we have considered the matter more fully, and it is even more our opinion to-day. Therefore, the Government does actually propose taking steps to join the League of Nations, and they think that it is quite possible that the matter will come up and will be on the agenda of the assembly of the League in September. With regard to expense I could not say exactly how much it will be. I should say it will be not more than 8 units. It might possibly be more, because I notice that countries with a population more or less equivalent to that of the Free State in some cases pay as much as £12,560. Anyway, I should say it would, probably, not be more than £8,000. Ireland at the present time has no money to throw away. We quite recognise that. But, in attaining freedom, Ireland was not able to disregard the rest of the world. We are a country in the world; we are a country in what is called the British Commonwealth, and we are also a European country. We cannot exist in an absolutely isolated state, and in attaining freedom we also attained responsibilities. I think it was Senator Moore said foreign Governments were selfish, and did nothing for us. During our conflict with the British I was very intimately associated with what was known as our Publicity Department, and without in any way wishing to pat that Department on the back I have to say in justice to the peoples of other countries, that we did receive very real sympathy from those peoples, and that the success that we achieved, to my mind, is very largely due to the fact that these countries followed the happenings here with interest and sympathy, and it was very convenient that we had that interest and sympathy at the time.
I might point out that I said Governments, not peoples.
I carefully said peoples, as the Governments and peoples are so intimately associated. We are one of the peoples of Europe and of the world, and we cannot consider ourselves in an absolutely selfish way. When we called upon the peoples of other countries to take an interest in our concerns here, we made the point that what happened in Ireland was not to be disregarded in other countries, and we often urged that the freedom of Ireland would not only be beneficial for this country, but we flattered ourselves by saying that we had something to give to the world in general. When we said that we believed it. I think, with regard to the League of Nations, it is particularly true. I think that we are justified in saying that we are quite independent-minded, that we are not lacking in courage, and that we have no axe to grind. Many faults have been found with the League here. We have considered the League, and I for one quite recognise that it is incomplete and that it is imperfect. I think that in the interests of the world in general, of the countries of Europe and of Ireland itself, peace and general harmony amongst countries is desirable. I think although one Senator said Ireland would be a negligible quantity in the League, although we quite recognise that we are a small country, and that militarily we are not powerful, that in that Assembly a country which has no axe whatsoever to grind and which is quite fearless, standing always for what they honestly deem to be the right thing, will have an influence quite altogether out of proportion with their military strength or their population, or any other consideration like that.
I think it was Senator Moore spoke about the Ulster frontier, and seemed to suggest that the question as to whether there should be a Boundary Commission or not was a matter which might be disputed. We made a Treaty with England, and in that Treaty England agreed to the fact that there should be a Boundary Commission. The fact that an interested gentleman in any other place should say there would be no Boundary Commission does not interest us. England has made that agreement, and we accepted it, and are quite confident that there will be no attempt made to break that agreement, knowing as we do that if that clause of the Treaty were broken that the whole Treaty would go by the board. The only question that can come up to the League of Nations would be a question as to the findings of that Commission. The League of Nations, as I have said, is not a perfect body, and is not an impartial body possibly, but it is as near an approach to an impartial body as there exists in the world at the present time, I suppose. In view of these things I have mentioned, and in view of the fact that Ireland has this responsibility of taking her place in the world, and also as she has something to gain by it as a new State, having to create the machinery of government it is necessary that we should learn from other countries. So far we have, as far as possible, in making new developments, inquired into how things were worked in other countries, and in these matters we have always had the most cordial goodwill, support, and assistance of other countries. We feel that by Ireland taking her place in the Assembly of the League of Nations, that by that closer contact we will have a good deal to gain. The net result of the Government's consideration of this matter has been in favour of Ireland joining the League of Nations, and I think that unless there should be something very much calculated to change our opinion, as I said before, Ireland will join the League of Nations this year, and that the matter will be considered in September.
I may say it is rather unfortunate that such a big question as this should come forward on a motion like this as we find that the Government practically has made up its mind to join the League of Nations. I do not know what position we are in, whether the Government requires the consent of the Seanad or whether it does not. From the speeches we have heard to-day it is a very serious matter and might have far-reaching consequences if settled at the end of a short debate and by a very small House. I admit, personally, and I have no doubt that a great many of my co-Senators will agree, that they have not seriously gone into the question at all, not knowing it was pressing. If it had been brought before us with a statement that the Government wanted the decision of the Seanad before they made up their minds I think a good many of us would have studied the question and asked a good many questions, and made up our minds as to what was the right thing to do. Personally I admit I am not in that position to-day. I should hesitate in committing the Seanad to say that they now approve of it, as I do not think we had an adequate opportunity of debating the matter. I think if the Government wanted the opinion of the Seanad we should have been told and given adequate notice, and then it would be open to us to debate and arrive at a decision Personally, I would not vote for the motion to-day as I think the Seanad has not had time to consider a question of such a serious nature.
I hold the same view as Senator Jameson, and I have risen to ask if it would not be expedient for the Seanad to appoint a Committee to go into the whole question especially with a view to considering the question of the Boundary, and as to what extent our entering the League of Nations would commit us to join in a war against our will. There are other most thorny subjects which to me seem to be questions for legal interpretation. I think it highly desirable that we should appoint a Committee with the necessary expert knowledge to report on the subject before we come to a definite decision.
I should like to ask the Minister, as he is possibly in charge of the motion, whether the action proposed by the Government is Executive action, or action by the Oireachtas, because if it is Executive action the Dáil and the Seanad will, I believe, have nothing whatever to say to it, and for that reason our discussion is futile. On the other hand, if it is to come, as I imagine important measures of this description should come, before the two Houses, we would be in a better position of knowing what the circumstances are. As Senator Jameson has stated, many of us, and I for one, know very little about the subject, so that I find great difficulty in voting upon it. If I knew that it was coming forward in the shape of a Bill and that the Oireachtas had a decision in the matter, I would prefer to wait and record my vote then. I prefer not to record my vote until I am thoroughly able to make up the subject, and hear what other bodies have to say. For that reason I would like to ask the Minister whether the matter is an Executive one, or whether it will be brought before the Oireachtas in the shape of a Bill.
I think it is an Executive matter.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
In a sense perhaps, I think the Minister is right that it would be an Executive matter, but would not the vote for the expenditure necessarily come before the Dáil?
In the estimate for External Affairs there is an estimate for the League of Nations. It will come up in that way.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I am not an expert, but it seems to me that the true position would be that if the Government regard this as an Executive matter then they must submit their estimate for the expenditure to the Dáil, and the Dáil will have a voice in the matter. I do not see where we would come in.
I do not know in what form it came before other Legislatures, but I have a dim recollection from the reports of the discussion in America that the matter certainly came before the two Houses — Congress and Senate. I do not recollect how it came forward in England or how Great Britain actually did become a member of the League.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I presume it will be open to the Government, if so advised, to submit the matter, and ask for a vote or resolution of the Oireachtas, but apparently that is not what is proposed. As I understand it, and the Minister has told us quite frankly the Government regard the matter as an Executive one.
I think it is quite inconceivable, especially as we are on the eve of an election very soon, that the Government should plunge the country into such an act such as this, joining the League of Nations without the authority of the Oireachtas. That seems to me quite incredible, and I think there must be some misunderstanding. If this country was aware that that was going to be done without the authority of the Oireachtas, there would be very serious trouble. I think there must be a slight misunderstanding.
I should like to state that this is not a Government proposal in any way. I brought it forward as a principle that should be ventilated, but I was not requested to do so by the Government, and the assumption that this is a Government matter is quite a mistake.
I was going to join with Senator Yeats in appealing to Senator Douglas to let this matter stand over for some time until the Committee is appointed to give more information to the members of the Seanad. It was admitted by some of the Senators that they had not studied the matter very much, and did not feel in a position to vote. To me the matter appears to be that the Government have almost decided to join the League of Nations. I do not see that we ought to submit Senator Douglas's motion to a vote and probably get it defeated, as it would leave us in an awkward position if the Government have already decided the matter. Most of the arguments I listened to against the motion would not carry very far with me, and if it was put to a vote I would vote for Senator Douglas's motion. At the same time I think the suggestion that Senator Yeats has put forward is the most advisable in order to give us more time and more information before deciding. I appeal to Senator Douglas to consider Senator Yeats' proposal.
Would it be possible according to the Standing Orders or the Rules of Procedure to move the previous question? It seems to me that that would be a way out of the difficulty. We would not be expressing an opinion on the resolution and it would enable the matter to be brought up on a future occasion, when, perhaps, we will be able to inform yourselves better on the subject.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think our Standing Orders have made any provision for a motion of that kind, but it would be in order for you to move that we pass to the next business.
I move that we pass to the next business.
I second the motion.
I do not think it can be too strongly insisted upon that the proposal which we have heard from the Minister that the Government have in their minds to take this very important step apparently without any reference whatever to the Dáil or the Seanad cannot be too strongly condemned. I can hardly imagine that they are serious in proposing to do such a thing. I do not know whether it was done in England, but I can hardly think so, and we have it from a Senator that it was not done in Belgium without reference to both Houses of Parliament. And in a country such as this, where there is a brand new Government, a brand new Constitution, and brand new Houses of Parliament, that the Government, which admittedly will probably not be there very long, is going to take this tremendous step without consulting Parliament at all is a thing which this Seanad should condemn in no uncertain terms. I do not know whether rejection of Senator Douglas's motion would have the effect of pointing out to the Government that we, at least, do not agree. I think the majority of the Seanad will strongly disapprove of having these things done without our leave, and I am inclined to think that the Minister did not quite mean all we have read into his remarks.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The motion before the Seanad is that the House pass on to the next business.
That is not an amendment to my motion.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No; it is equivalent to moving the previous question, but inasmuch as we have no Standing Order informing the members what exactly "the previous question" means, and it is rather a complicated method of procedure, the same result exactly will be arrived at by a motion in the form in which Senator Sir Nugent Everard has put it, and I have already admitted it.
I presume I would be entitled to speak on the motion?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Certainly.
As a matter of order, sir, I think you are defeating the very object of the motion before the Seanad if the discussion of this Resolution were to be continued. I understand that the mover of the Resolution wants now to continue the discussion. That will lead us into great difficulties with the Government if, on insufficient information, the debate were continued.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The only observations that would be pertinent to your motion will be observations limited to the one point, namely, whether it is desirable to take a vote on this now or not, or proceed to the next business.
I should like to know, on a point of order, whether the carrying of this motion will preclude me from replying to the discussion?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
If this motion be carried, there will be no discussion, and there is an end to the motion.
I take it that that is largely the object of the motion, in order to prevent further discussion of the matter here. In accordance with your ruling, I shall confine myself to dealing, not with the subject matter of the League of Nations at all, but with the motion and the attitude that is taken up here in the Seanad. I should strongly oppose that motion being carried, stating that we would not discuss the matter any more. A postponement I could possibly understand, although that is what we did previously; a rejection I could understand; a suggestion that it might be withdrawn I could understand, but a proposal to try to close the discussion on the matter, so as to prevent a reply, I cannot understand, and I cannot understand the object of the proposer and the seconder. I respectfully submit that this motion should not be carried. The passing or otherwise of the motion is relatively unimportant. I stated that at the very beginning, and if an appropriate opportunity were given for a reply I would have been willing to withdraw it, in view of the statement of the Minister, which is quite satisfactory; but I should strongly urge the Seanad not to pass this alternative motion, and I should like to say, in doing that, I think I would be in order in pointing this out. The original motion was brought forward here about one month ago; it was on a subject which had been brought before the world two, three, or four years, in almost as many different points of view. It was stated before that, as perhaps the Seanad had not paid any attention to foreign affairs for years, they could not discuss this motion unless it were postponed. We agreed to postpone it for three weeks, and I did not press the matter until there was an appropriate opportunity. The result is that there was practically a month in which the matter could be considered, and at the end of one month we are told that Senators did not consider the matter, and therefore no decision could be reached. We are told by one Senator that if they had known that the Government wanted a decision they would have considered it, but because it was only a member of the Seanad asked to have it considered, it should not be considered. That attitude, I think, is not a reasonable attitude for us to take up. If we are a public body, I think this is the proper place to bring forward and discuss public matters and record our opinion, if we have an opinion; but the suggestion that a matter of this importance would not be considered because they did not know that the Government would like a decision on the matter is, I think, making little of this Seanad, and I cannot support this. I strongly urge, quite apart from the importance of the question, that the motion proposed by Seanator Sir Nugent Everard should not be passed.
As one who got up to answer Senator Douglas's motion, I may say that I am in agreement with everything he has said. I was here when the motion was originally brought forward, and when all of us, myself included, said that we did not know anything about the question. I do not take any credit for it, but when I was in England last week I studied the question a little, and it was as a result of the inquiries I made that I came to the conclusion that, while I was in sympathy with the motion, and would do everything in my power to further it, I decided that the time was inopportune. I think it would be most unfair to Senator Douglas if this motion were now passed—most discourteous and absolutely unjustifiable in the circumstances—and I entirely agree with him. I would have suggested to him that in view of the discussion that has taken place, he should allow the matter to stand over for a time, rather than adjourn it again, seeing that we have had ample time to become acquainted with the subject, although as Senator Douglas said not more than one, or perhaps two, have given it a moment's thought since it was introduced.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The motion is not to adjourn it for a month; the motion is to end the discussion.
I know, sir; but Senator Douglas's motion was that it should be adjourned for a month in order to give the Seanad an opportunity of studying it, and I think it is most discourteous to treat him in this way.
I think I may say that I disclaim any intention of being discourteous. It is a very common thing, where the discussion becomes rather difficult, to move the previous question, and it is not discourteous.
I did not mean to suggest discourtesy. I entirely accept that.
I had no intention of being discourteous. I was under the impression that Senator Douglas had replied. I disagree with his criticism that members of this Assembly did not properly study the question. They studied it thoroughly.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You are out of order. You have already seconded this motion.
I have not spoken on it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is your misfortune.
One can always adjourn one's speech. I think that is so, according to the Standing Orders.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
With the consent of the Seanad. I will not interfere with you, but strictly you are not in order.
I only seconded it formally. I thought it allowed me to make my speech later, and I still contend that is so under the Standing Orders.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
As you made no speech beyond formally seconding it, I shall not prevent you speaking now.
I have no great knowledge of procedure, and I am sorry if I have blundered into a discourteous procedure. What I had in my mind was that three members of the Seanad had studied the question so thoroughly that they brought it before the Seanad; that we might have the border question settled, and that we might be drawn into war by the League of Nations. It seems to me that these questions require studying, and that they are largely questions of the legal interpretation of clauses, and before we discuss this question we ought to know what experts think of these clauses. I have no opinion on the question one way or another, but I want to know if, as it seems to me, by moving the previous question, and getting rid of a decision, we will not have the opportunity later on of appointing a Committee to consider the legal bearing of the clauses of the League of Nations on this question?
In view of the Minister's statement Senator Douglas has expressed his willingness to withdraw the motion, and would it not be advisable if Senator Sir Nugent Everard withdrew his motion? That would enable the motion to come to a head now.
I said if I were allowed an opportunity of replying to several criticisms of the League, I would then be prepared to withdraw. I am not prepared to withdraw at this stage.
I suggest to the mover of the amendment that he withdraw it, as it is a most unsatisfactory way of trying to shelve an important, complicated and difficult question. If it is withdrawn it will then be open to some other member to move an amendment suggesting the appointment of a Committee, and it will give Senator Douglas an opportunity of replying to criticisms advanced against his arguments, a right which he is entitled to seeing that all the speeches, except his own, have been in the one direction. I think it is only fair that that should be done, and that it will meet with general approval.
I have no objection to withdrawing the amendment if I have the permission of the Seanad. I had no intention of being discourteous. I only thought it would be the best way of postponing the discussion.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
We stand now in the position that the original motion by Senator Douglas is still open for discussion or for amendment.
I wish to move an amendment "that a Committee of this Seanad be appointed to consider whether it is or is not advisable for the Irish Free State to join the League of Nations."
I have pleasure in seconding.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The Standing Orders require that when you propose the appointment of a Committee you should mention the number and the names, but as this has more or less come in the shape of an amendment and not as an original resolution, I will not hold you to that. But you will have later on to state the names of your proposed Committee.
May I ask if the amendment I handed to you takes precedence to Senator Yeats', or comes after it?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It would take precedence had you moved it.
I was waiting for you to inform me that I might do so.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The simplest plan would be for you to move your amendment as an alternative to the amendment moved by Senator Yeats. You can move it now if you like as an alternative to Senator Yeats'.
Very well. I beg to move:—"That the Seanad without expressing an opinion on the motion of Senator Douglas desires to record its conviction that the Government should take no steps to commit Saorstát Eireann to membership of the League of Nations without the sanction of the Oireachtas."
I second.
Might I suggest that these two amendments might be combined to form an omnibus motion, without in the least conflicting?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is a suggestion that would perhaps meet the wishes of the majority of the Seanad. It would then read in this way: "The Seanad without expressing any opinion on Senator Douglas's motion desires to record its conviction, etc.," and then wind up that a Committee of the Seanad be appointed to consider the matter fully and report as to its consequences and effects to the Seanad.
Might I suggest an addition to that that the Committee consist of the speakers for and against Senator Douglas's motion, with the addition of the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That would be the whole Seanad.
The speakers I meant.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It would be better to make a selection.
I wonder is it wise to mix up two resolutions like that? The Earl of Wicklow's is perfectly clear by itself. Now I doubt that it would be a wise thing to appoint a committee to consider a matter of this kind that is not really before us yet. When the Government tell us what they are going to say in reply to the Earl of Wicklow's resolution, and whether we are going to be consulted or not, it will then be time for us to appoint committees and to put our house in order if it is then considered a wise thing to appoint a Committee at all. I think there are many objections to appointing committees on a great many subjects. Even in Senator Yeats's own proposal he is practically going to appoint members of the Seanad who have already declared their opinion to be against the thing.
I withdraw that suggestion.
It evidently would require a considerable amount of consideration as to who would be put on the Committee, and then there is the balancing of the Committee to see that both points of view are represented on it. We all know how in a small Committee a vote here or there may settle the matter.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I shall put the Earl of Wicklow's motion first and if that is rejected, I shall put the amendment moved by Senator Yeats.
I think I have the right to speak on that amendment before it is formally put. I think we should be careful before we pass the amendment proposed by Senator the Earl of Wicklow. As far as I know, and I have followed foreign affairs to some extent, although I do not claim to be an expert—applications for admittance to the League of Nations have been in practically every case matters for Executive action on the part of every Government. Foreign Affairs of this kind are usually made matters of Executive action. I do think that in making it an Executive action, as I did in the resolution, and as the Government have done, that the Government are acting quite properly lest there should be any question as to the main principle. According to the Minister for External Affairs, the Government did some time ago bring before the Dáil a resolution approving of the principle of membership of the League of Nations. That was passed by the other House, and that other House was definitely consulted. The question, I think, is a matter of Executive action, and I cannot see how any Committee of the Seanad can decide the question of time. It should be, naturally enough, left to the Government, and I think it is desirable that the Seanad, although it has no direct control over the Executive, should express its approval of the application for membership. I brought forward a resolution which apparently does not meet with the approval of the Seanad, but it was largely so that the Seanad should express its point of view. The form of this resolution ignores that the Government has consulted the other House, and it ignores the fact that these are largely matters of Executive action. The question has been asked how it came before the Houses in the United States. I think it is clear because the discussion did not take place on any formal proposal of the Government of the United States, which has never yet made that proposal, but the opposition to the Treaty was such that it was rejected by the United States Senate, which has the prerogative of approval or disapproval of treaties in the United States. That was made perfectly clear, and the United States did not apply for membership in view of that, but I do not think because the Treaty at that time was rejected and they took no further action, that in the United States that is not a matter for Executive action. If you pass this resolution you are censuring the Government on a matter, which, if you believe members of the Seanad, they pay little attention to—that is if you take them at their word. In view of the discussion on it I think it would have been much wiser if the Seanad had been satisfied to have allowed me formally to reply to some of the arguments and then let me withdraw, as I proposed. The amendment is virtually essential, and the arguments urged against a resolution which you had a month to think about seem to be much more effective than those against one which you had only five minutes to think about.
Senator Douglas stated that this was a matter which came before the Dáil by resolution.
It was the Minister for External Affairs who stated that.
I should like to ask whether a resolution passed or rejected by the Dáil should not come before the Seanad?
We were not in existence then.
Is that a good reason why the matter should not come forward in the way that Lord Wicklow has brought it forward? It will be discussed in the Dáil and will then come before us. That will get rid of having a committee to consider a matter that has not already been before the Dáil. If you pass the Earl of Wicklow's motion, you will then meet all the constitutional procedure that is necessary in this case.
I was present when this matter was before the Dáil, and although it was some considerable time ago, my memory of the matter is that it was merely brought forward as a suggestion. A messenger came over from Switzerland and the Government was pressed as to whether it would join the League of Nations or not. Some question was then asked in the Dáil as to what would happen, and the suggestion was made by the Minister for External Affairs that the Government would at some time in the future bring the matter forward. I do not think that there was any regular motion brought forward. It was merely a general statement that at some proper time the Government would bring forward the matter. Senator Douglas complained about the way he is being treated in this matter, but it was he who brought us into all this difficulty. We were not proposing this thing at all, but finding himself in a difficulty, with the possibility of the Seanad censuring a Minister, he says that as that is a terrible state of affairs, the best thing he can do is to withdraw. I do not think that that is a satisfactory arrangement.
That was not what I said.
Well, that is what I thought you said. I think we might just as well have a division, but if the Seanad does not think so I am agreeable to any arrangement.
Senator The Earl of Wicklow's motion put, and declared carried.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That disposes of the motion of Senator Douglas.
In view of your ruling that it disposes of my motion, I would like to have a record of the voting
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Very good. If the result of the division shows that this motion is carried, I shall not call upon Senator Yeats to move his amendment, but it can be brought up again.
Very well.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Richard Butler.
- Michael Duffy.
- Martin Fitzgerald.
- Captain J.H. Greer.
- H.S. Guinness.
- Rt. Hon. A. Jameson.
- Sir John Keane.
- P.W. Kenny.
- J.C. Love.
- Colonel Moore.
- James Moran.
- George Nesbitt.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Mrs. Wyse Power.
- Earl of Wicklow.
- W.B. Yeats.
Níl
- J.G. Douglas.
- Mrs. Costello.
- Countess of Desart.
- Sir Nugent Everard.
- Mrs. Stopford Green.
- C.J. Irwin.
- E. MacLysaght.
- T. MacPartlin.
- J.T. O'Farrell.
- Sir Hutcheson Poë.
Senator the Earl of Wicklow's motion declared carried.