Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Aug 1923

Vol. 1 No. 37

SEANAD RESUMES. - LEAGUE OF NATIONS (GUARAN TEE) BILL, 1923—REPORT STAGE.

I understand that in the debate on the Committee Stage the second section of this Bill came in for some criticism, there being a question as to whether the section, as it was originally drafted, would not enable the Executive at any time, without consulting the Oireachtas, to accept any regulations that might at any time in the future be put forward by the League of Nations. I had a conversation with the Attorney-General and the Minister for External Affairs, and as a result I beg leave to propose the following amendment: "To delete the word ‘may' on line 36 and substitute the words ‘are or subject to ratification by the Oireachtas hereafter may be.'" The section would then read: "It shall be lawful for the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann either as a condition precedent to the admission of Saorstát Eireann to the League of Nations, or at any time after such admission, to accept in the name and on behalf of Saorstát Eireann such regulations as are, or, subject to ratification by the Oireachtas hereafter, may be prescribed by the League in regard to its military, naval and air forces and armaments." The amendment, if accepted, will make it quite clear that the Executive may accept any regulations now in force, which, of course, is essential if they are to give the necessary guarantee, but if any new regulations are hereafter brought into force the confirmation or ratification of the Oireachtas would be necessary.

I beg to second.

Amendment agreed to.

On the last occasion when this Bill was under discussion I am afraid I did not make myself quite clear to the Minister. I said that Ireland would not be represented at the League of Nations except in the Assembly. I used the word "Committee" instead of "Council" where the representative of the British Empire speaks for the Dominions. The Council is a body that does the entire work of the League. The Assembly only meets once in the year, and the Council meets very often. The Council's work cannot be interfered with by the Assembly. I am anxious to get some information, as I do not think we have a great deal of information in the matter. I had hoped some memorandum would be given to us in regard to the powers and conditions of the League. I want to know now if it is the Council that does most of the business and that the Assembly only meets once a year; that the Assembly has not the power to upset what the Council does, and that on that Council Ireland is not represented except through the representation of the person who is there on behalf of the British Empire and its Dominions. I also want to know, if Ireland goes into the League of Nations, does Ireland stand in with the debts of the League of Nations? I understand it is very heavily in debt indeed. If we enter the League of Nations do we take part and parcel of that debt?

There are one or two points I would like to refer to in this respect. Would we be in order in discussing this matter on this particular stage?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I presume the Seanad will permit this Bill to be finished to-day, and I do not think there is any objection to the matter being discussed now. It would be just as convenient if Senator Douglas would give some information on these points now.

I was unable to be present at the last stage of the Bill, and one or two points were put forward by Senator Mrs. Wyse Power that I would like to be allowed to be referred to as well. Without in any way interfering with what the Minister will say, there are some points and queries put forward by her that cannot be answered "yes" or "no." They involve explanation, and perhaps are to some extent a matter of opinion. It is quite true that Ireland would not be, by virtue of her application for membership, on the Council of the League, nor would any other nation, no matter how independent, be able to obtain membership of the Council immediately she was accepted as a member of the League and as a member of the Assembly. There are some nine nations, I think, represented on that Council. Four of these now are so-called permanent representatives. The others are elected by the Assembly of the League. Ireland will be unquestionably eligible for membership of that Council if she were elected to the Assembly, quite apart from British representation.

It is not correct to suggest that on that Assembly or in any matters respecting the League that Canada is represented by the British representative, or that the British representative acts for Canada, or likewise that the British representative would act for Ireland. It is laid down in the rules and regulations of the League that if the Council has under consideration any matter whatsoever which concerns any member of the League, then that member is entitled to be present and take part at the Council meeting when the affairs concerning his country are under consideration. If Ireland is accepted as a member of the League, then she will be entitled to attend the Council meeting if and when the Council considers anything she is vitally interested in. That attendance would be in addition to the representative of the British Commonwealth, who might be present at the League as a member of the Council. I think these things are important, and should be made as clear as possible. One point that I would like to make in answer to the suggestion made by Mrs. Wyse Power is this, that I demur entirely to the suggestion that the principal work of the League is done by the Council.

My personal opinion is that it is the Council that has failed, if there is failure, and not the Assembly or Committees or Secretariat. The Council has been unable to achieve much. In many respects it has been a failure, but not an absolute failure. It is the Assembly which has dealt with social, labour and international questions. It is my opinion that the real work of the League has been done by the Assembly, the Secretariat and the Staff, who are directly responsible to the Assembly.

And the Committee.

Yes, the Committee which meet regularly, and are responsible to the Assembly. I received a letter from Francis Hackett, who is a well-known Irish-American journalist whose opinion on this matter is of considerable importance, because of his having to some extent the Irish-American view, and his having a great enthusiasm for our becoming a member of the League. Here are some extracts from his letter:—

"With a view to writing articles for America I have been going into the work of the League in connection with the opium traffic, the traffic in women, the international labour office, the treatment of racial minorities, etc. It seems clear to me that Geneva is a magnificent field for Ireland if properly represented and backed; and I have found Americans, Poles, Spaniards, Swiss and French of this opinion.... The smaller nations need and desire the presence of a clear-minded and outspoken delegate who is disinterested, unhampered, informed, and positive. They would welcome it and profit by it. The entire Liberal Press—Continental and American—is ready for a strong injection of sincerity by an Irish delegate. The Dominions, I gathered, see in Ireland a force that can be active and positive so far as their own expansive tendencies are concerned. Former residents of Ireland, and men of Irish blood in the Dominions, look with expectancy and sympathy to the work of Ireland at Geneva. For this collection of reasons, the opportunity here should engage Irish imagination. Geneva is not a dead place. It is a resonant place, and will be immensely more so. Germany, United States and Russia must join. The caution of Foreign Office is still in the blood of many members of the Secretariat. But some of the best men I have met for years are here, and sympathetic to the possible big role of Ireland. They feel and say that Ireland can afford to be detached, critical, and especially humane. They want her voice to be raised; and they see her as capable of realising spiritual values which otherwise may not be realised."

Further on he writes, "There is also most important work for Ireland in the International Labour Office, and there should be a number of Irish women available for the secretarial work. Every other nation has seen to it, that first-rate women have come to Geneva for this work. I need hardly say that for the more important work, women as well as men have proved available. On some of the Commissions they are 50 per cent. in actual representation. ....The basic qualification is vision. In general I am fairly sceptical about the ‘big role,' but I am certain that Ireland can make a place here so big, so influential, so effective, that no other chance it has had for years—outside its chance to frame a Constitution— can compare to it. This depends, as you know, on deep preparation, independent thinking, the right kind of patience and generous feeling, and the right kind of man. I hope you will not think I am a busybody to urge the importance of it, but I believe that from here the business of the Six Counties can be settled, from here the real commercial growth, and the real diplomatic future of Ireland can be directed, and the personality of Ireland conveyed to best advantage to the Press of the world. Only these fruits cannot be gathered unless the sowing is well considered, deliberate and seasoned by the best sense."

This letter is strong. It comes from a man with imagination and a real affection for Ireland. We have already got on the staff an Irishman. In looking over a more or less official report of the staff from a United States source I was interested to find that he was put down as a representative not of Great Britain but of Ireland.

Of course, he is not a representative in the sense as if he was appointed here, but you have Ireland actually serving in a responsible position as head of one of the sections of the Labour Department of the League of Nations. I have had several letters from him, and I know he has been in close correspondence with the Minister, and that of itself has done a good deal to make some of us feel that real work for Ireland, and for Europe, can be done by us if we are prepared to go into the League. There is one other thing I wanted to say. There are arguments against the League, and there are a number of people who feel that Ireland might be better off outside the League. In my opinion if the appeal of Ireland for admission is accepted we ought to go whole-heartedly into it and act with one voice in support of our representative there.

Mr. Douglas has not answered my principal question about the debt.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The Minister will answer it. Senator Douglas might, perhaps, have been a little more specific as to your first question. I understand Senator Douglas to say that when the Council meets, if there is any matter that affects a particular Dominion, say Ireland or Canada, coming before the Council, they could not discuss that without giving an opportunity for the representative of the Dominion to be heard, and you want to know whether the representative of that Dominion would have any voting power, apart from the vote given by the representative of the Commonwealth.

In connection with that I do not think they have a vote but it is distinctly laid down that in a case of a dispute either of the disputants can lay claim to have the matter brought before the Assembly and dealt with by the Assembly. The Council has no power to deal with it except with the consent of the disputants. You can have it discussed by them but the right to have the discussion of your claim brought before the whole Assembly remains.

The last time this matter was before the Seanad certain outstanding questions were left in abeyance because we could not get definite information about them. One was this: whether if Ireland joined the League she would in certain eventualities, be committed by her membership of the League of Nations to a war of which the country as a whole did not approve. Now we are asked to enter this League of Nations, but there is still a great many questions and matters in abeyance upon which neither Senator Douglas nor any of the Senators interested is able to give us a conclusive answer. Speaking generally the main object of the League, as we all understand, is to secure the future peace of the world; that there shall be no more wars. We have also recently been coquetting with another movement in that direction, namely the Inter-Parliamentary movement, and I think we have in a sort of semi-official way decided to join that movement. That also has for its main object the elimination of war. Well, probably when we reach that stage in which the Parliaments and not the Cabinets alone shall decide as to whether there shall be peace or war we may find ourselves coming very near to the millennium.

I think if the people, who suffer most from war, through their Deputies or representatives had the deciding voice as to whether there shall be peace or war and if the countries' representatives have really the power to say whether or not one country shall go to war with another, then I think you will have a very deliberate choice made, because it is the people who are really most concerned and always suffer in war. Now the Inter-Parliamentary Union, so far as I understand its purport and trend, makes for this, that it is Parliaments and not Cabinets that will decide as to peace or war, and that it is Parliament and the representatives of the people and not a Cabinet of Ministers that is the voice of the people when ascertained by referendum or otherwise or however arrived at and by that means we will have practically seen the end of war.

Now representation on the League of Nations so far does not strengthen the view that the League is really sincere in its proposed aim of ending war. Do we find to-day the Allied Powers, who are the dominating factors and forces of this League of Nations, showing any great disposition to disarm? As a matter of fact they are strengthening their military, their naval and their air force positions and acquiring every other arm of offence one against another; they are doing that while giving lip profession to the fact that they are there for the purpose of terminating or putting an end to war.

We want to know, and I think it is only fair before we take this step that we should know, how far politically and financially this country would be involved by membership of the League of Nations. By politically I mean this: If by a majority the League of Nations should decide upon a certain course meaning war, although not immediate, but ultimate, in some part of the world, are we to be dragged after the League in that adventure, and are we to be politically and also financially involved? Senator Mrs. Wyse Power asked a question as to what extent we would be involved in the debts of the League. I do not understand the nature of that question. All the component parts and units of the League, including Ireland and England, are involved in huge national debts. I do not think it is in that sense that Senator Mrs. Wyse Power asked the question.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There can be no doubt as to the Senator's question. It was whether there was not already a substantial debt incurred by the League, and she asked would Ireland, in coming into the League, have to bear her share of that debt.

That clears up the point. Now, as between the Assembly and Council of the League, by the Covenant of the League it would seem they have equal powers. They take into their purview all matters concerning the wide world from every point of view and direction, but they can only come up for discussion either before the Assembly or the Council. I take it that the Council is really the Executive of the Assembly of the League. The Allied Powers, I understood Senator Douglas to say, are permanent members of the Council, and the other members are appointed there by election for a certain period. The Allied Powers seem to have a dominating voice; they are permanently there, and they largely influence the question of policy in regard to any question which comes up before them. There is a limited representation from the Assembly to that Council, I understand, for a definite period, and Ireland would have to take its chance amongst the other 40 or 45 or 46 units by ballot or otherwise to get elected to the Council, and then only for a definite period. While on the Council it would have a voice in the Council and, of course, power to vote. Senator Douglas says even if she was not a member of the Council the Council would not decide in a matter in which Ireland was directly concerned without inviting a statement from the representative of the nation.

That is not a matter of any doubt.

Is it also laid down that in such circumstances Ireland would have a vote?

You can give your opinion for what it is worth, but when it comes to the deciding factor of the vote you are simply not there.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Might I just intervene for one moment. We are getting a little out of order. At present we are on the Report Stage, and it was only in deference to Mrs. Wyse Power's question that I suggested that Senator Douglas might deal with the questions that were raised. But to regularise matters now I take it the Seanad will agree that we should proceed to the final consideration of the Bill, and then Senator Kenny can continue.

I am of opinion that this subject ought to be postponed.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Then I think the proper way to bring the proceedings back to regular order would be for some member to move the suspension of the Standing Orders, so that the final stages might be taken.

I move the suspension of the Standing Orders.

I beg to second the motion.

Then I presume the Report Stage is finished?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The motion now before the Seanad is in reference to the final stage of this Bill.

Motion made and question proposed: "That this Bill do now pass."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Senator Kenny is now in order in resuming his speech.

I have not very much more to say on this subject, but I would ask the Seanad to pause before coming to a decision. I do not say now that we should not join this League, nor do I say that we should. All I say is that we should pause before coming to a decision, because the worst that can happen is that at one meeting of the Assembly, which, I understand, is to be held about September, Ireland would not be represented. The League is not a thing of to-day or to-morrow, and I hope it will be a permanent institution. We are a very young Nation, and have our own troubles at home and our own load to carry. We have as much as we can carry at the moment, and it is important that we should keep clear of all entanglements.

There is no margin in our finances to permit of our taking any further financial risks, or of involving ourselves in questions that will be entirely outside of our control and into which we may be drawn, no matter how loudly we may protest. If we are members of the League we will be overborne and out-voted, and may be committed to a policy from which we cannot withdraw, and which, perforce, we may have to follow, and if we do not follow willingly, we may, I understand, be saddled with our share of the financial results of some policy or other with which we do not agree. It is a very serious thing for any Senator to ask us to subscribe to the membership of this League unless he is in a position, definitely, to give us an assurance, and to back that up with documentary proof that these things will not happen, or that under any circumstances they cannot happen. Unless he is in a position to give us that assurance he ought not to ask us blindfoldedly to enter into a combination of this sort, the result of which we cannot possibly forsee. Anyone who stands up here authoritatively, or presumably in an authoritative sense, and who is not able to give us these definite assurances should not ask us to join the membership of this League, because I think the Oireachtas and the country ought to have such assurances before it is involved in a matter of this kind.

Arising out of Mr. Kenny's speech, I desire to point out that the Government has already made application for membership of the League. Therefore, whether we like it or not we are committed to the principle of membership of the League. Senator Kenny said we would have no vote in the Council if we were not a member of it. I think that point has already been explained by Senator Douglas who stated that any disputant, in a matter that came before the Council, and with the consideration of which he was not satisfied, could ask to have it brought before the Assembly.

Senator Kenny seems to think that the whole object and the aim of the League is to attain universal peace. That seems to me, as the Minister for External Affairs has said to be an aspiration. The immediate advantage and object of the League is to provide international co-operation. There are many points of immense importance upon which international co-operation is required. There are such questions as labour, white slave traffic, the opium traffic, postal arrangements, and several other matters. I am perfectly satisfied that in joining the League we cannot possibly be involved in war without the ratification of our own Oireachtas. Senator Kenny also referred to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The object of that Union is not the same as the League. The object of the Union is to press the Governments of the various groups which belong to it to use their influence on the League in every way which Governments can use their influence.

Senator Mrs. Wyse Power made the point that she was anxious to know what chance Ireland had of getting on the Council of the League of Nations. I have a frank answer to that, and it is that there is an extremely small chance of Ireland getting on the Council. I would not like it to be thought that in anything I said in advocating membership of the League that I imagined that next year the other Nations were immediately going to elect Ireland on the Council. I do not imagine that, nor do I believe it. I do not believe that we are in such a position in Europe that we could claim such representation at the present time, or in the very near future. At the same time the power is there to elect Ireland on the Council, but I am afraid that it is hardly likely to be exercised for some considerable time. Senator MacLysaght has pointed out that if a disputant is dissatisfied with the decision of the Council on a matter which he has brought before that body that he then has the right of appeal to the Assembly.

On the question of finance a certain number of units are laid down as regards population, and I am quite satisfied, having read practically everything that has been sent out by the League, that the commitments of each member of the League are only to the extent of the number of units fixed for each member, and if we enter for one year, we enter for that year with a budget and with our number of units for that budget, and are not obliged to pay more than that. A change took place recently in the method of apportioning the units which cannot come into force until every single member of the League has ratified it. This is proof of the fact that we could not be committed to go any further than the number of units allotted to us without our own ratification.

It is very important to realise that this League is not a binding Assembly. It is an Assembly for co-operation. The whole basis of the League is a number of free nations agreeing to certain regulations for the time being, and the fact that practically unanimous ratification is required for any changes that are made shows absolutely the freedom of each nation in the League. Senator Kenny wants documentary proof that nothing will happen in the future. All I can say in answer to that is, that it is beyond me to give documentary proof to prophesy as to the future.

I did not ask that.

I understood the Senator to ask that documentary proof should be given that nothing can happen in the future. If that was not his point, I am sorry if I have misinterpreted him.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think that is not quite a correct interpretation of Senator Kenny's point. The Senator asked that the Seanad should be furnished with evidence, by documents, to satisfy it that in the event of war, in the event of the majority in the League of Nations being in favour of war of a particular kind, that the dissenting minority should not be dragged into that war against their wishes. I think that was Senator Kenny's point.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted the Senator. I thought he was referring possibly to new rules being formulated in the future which would bind him. If he read through the present regulations of the League he would find that he would not be so bound. I am in agreement with him in this, that if the representatives of the people, preferably the people themselves, are to be consulted before a country is committed to war, there will probably be no more wars. That is one of the things that we could bring into the League of Nations, because we have it definitely laid down in our own Constitution that this country cannot be committed to a war without the assent of the Oireachtas.

Our representatives in the League will be bound by the Constitutional powers of this Oireachtas, and they cannot commit us to anything that is unconstitutional in our own Constitution. We will be one of the nations represented in the League, but we cannot be committed to war without the assent of the Parliament of our own Oireachtas. That provision in our Constitution is one of the first contributions that we have been able to make in regard to international peace. I do not, and I never did, advocate our membership of the League because I thought that we were likely at the outset to be elected members of the Council. What I do say is this, that there is an international organisation and an international secretariat, and we simply cannot afford to cut ourselves away from that if we can possibly work with them.

It is not to be taken, simply because I asked some questions, that I am opposed to our joining this international body known as the League of Nations. If that were my opinion I should say that I was a very poor pupil of the late President Arthur Griffith. I asked some questions so that I might be perfectly sure joining the League, or membership of that body, would be for the good of Ireland. It is now admitted that we are not likely to be elected as members of the Council, because all the odds are against us. In any case, some of the other Dominions, which are bigger in the eyes of the world than we are at present, would possibly be chosen before us. I desire to ask now how often does this Assembly meet, and how often does the Council meet. We are told that if things do not go in the Council as we want them that then we can appeal to the Assembly. I want to know if the Assembly has the power to annul what the Council has done.

With regard to Senator Mrs. Wyse Power's questions, Senator Douglas, I think, has given a fair account of the Council of the League. The League is composed of the Assembly, the Council and the Secretariat. The Council is composed of four prominent members known as the "Big Four," Britain, France, Italy and Japan. If America came into the League it would be known as the "Big Five." Besides these, there are four other nations who have got representation by election. These nations are Spain, Belgium, Brazil and China. Ireland may or may not be elected to the Council. The chances are against her being elected, because she is only one of the 49 other nations of which only four can be elected, so that the chances of Ireland being elected on the Council are about 10 to 1 against.

The Council's decisions have to be unanimous, and that applies also to the Assembly. If, for instance, a case in which Ireland is concerned came on appeal before the Council, Ireland would have the right to go before the Council and to be heard, but not to vote. If any other country which is a member of the Council is involved in that dispute with Ireland, that country has not the power to vote in the Council. The Council's decision must be unanimous, but quite independent of the Council's decision, the country which is a disputant and is involved with some dispute with Ireland, would have in that case the right to insist on going before the Assembly, and the Assembly, as the principal body, would then have to decide whether the decision of the Council should run. Regarding debts, Ireland would be committed to the extent of her subscription. As I said here on a former occasion, I cannot give the exact figure as to what the subscription would be, but approximately it would amount to about £10,000. I understand that we would pay subscription equivalent to that paid by New Zealand. As far as I can learn, the subscription will be based on other countries' subscriptions to the International Postal Union, but, as we are not members of that Union, I cannot say what our subscription would actually be. Senator Kenny, in his speech, seemed to fear that in joining the League we might be committing the country to war.

In joining the League we will have to submit certain documents, and among them will be our Constitution, which lays down quite clearly that this country cannot be committed to war without the assent of the Oireachtas. On the question of the amendment to Article 10 of the League, this matter was raised by Canada in 1921. The interpretation of that clause was submitted to a Council of Lawyers, who held that the Article merely contained the governing principle to which all members of the League subscribe. The method of the application and enforcement of the Article thereafter is laid down in the succeeding Article. They held that the members are not obliged to take part in any military action. Of course, from the nature of our Constitution, which will be before them if they accept us, as they must accept us, they must recognise that we have limitations in our Constitution. It would be impossible, therefore, for your representative or for the Executive Committee as a whole to commit this country to war.

There is only one point which I think Senator Mrs. Wyse Power raised, and that is—how often does the Assembly meet? How often does the Council meet?

The Assembly meets annually, and the Council, I think, about three times annually, or almost biennially.

Whenever they have work to do.

We seem to know very little about this League of Nations. The gentleman who was responsible for its construction, I believe, was ex-President Wilson, and it appears to me to be a very weak fact in the case relating to the League of Nations that a representative of the country for which President Wilson spoke does not happen to be a member of the League of Nations. It appears to be that the United States does not look on the League of Nations as a useful body. It may be a very useful body later on, but at present we are in a position of darkness regarding it. We do not know what powers it has. It seems never to have exercised any powers, or to be useful in any way to any nation. I would be very sorry if Ireland found that it was useful, or that it was a source of strength and that she should be denied the opportunity of joining the League, but I am not sure. The Minister has not clearly understood Senator Mrs. Wyse Power's question, that is, what the cost will be. He gave an approximate cost, in the first instance, as an entrance fee, and he gave New Zealand as an illustration.

The annual subscription.

Well, if it is measured by population it would mean that Ireland would have to pay £20,000, because I believe the population of New Zealand is only about 1,500,000. That might be a very small sum to pay to get in, and if the advantages were of much value to Ireland I should not have any objection to paying it. At all events, it occurs to me that with all this pressing legislation before us, which we have to get rid of in a few days, this is a subject which might with great advantage be postponed for the new Parliament to deal with, and I suggest that it be postponed for three months.

That means turning down the Government.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

You are moving that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed for three months?

Yes. I think it would be a very great advantage. We could inquire more into the value of this League of Nations, and we could inquire particularly as to what the cost would be, for that is very important in our present financial position. In principle, I have no objection, but I want to know where I am, what I am going into, and I think the country ought to know what its commitments would be, whether it would entangle them in any warlike affairs or otherwise, and the subject will not suffer by having it postponed for three months. It will be a great deal more satisfactory if we can get a large fund of information during the next three months as to what the advantages of Ireland entering the League of Nations would be.

I second that, and I associate myself with Senator O'Dea's remarks. We were told by a Minister yesterday that the financial state of the country made it desirable that every pound should be carefully looked after. We have just heard that the cost of taking out membership of the League of Nations is £10,000 a year. It may be worth £10,000 a year, but I am quite certain that we Senators do not know in what way it is worth that, and we have not had the time to acquire that knowledge. We ought to have that knowledge in our minds before we agree to a measure that will cost us £10,000 a year at a time when every pound ought to be saved.

It is very regrettable that a great question of this kind should be considered upon the basis of a few thousand pounds more or less. I think it should be viewed from a wider standpoint altogether. Some people seem to think that it is desirable to build a paper wall round Ireland, that we get inside that and have no intercourse with other nations, and that we are going to commit ourselves to something dreadful if we commit ourselves to international intercourse of the ordinary kind. Apart altogether from the aspirations of the League of Nations, the very fact of the international intercourse which it provides is, I think, of very great value, and it will help, perhaps, to widen the views of those of us who have concentrated on very narrow national political questions during the past two or three generations.

We know that the League of Nations at present is, perhaps, an aspiration, but we know also that aspirations are the inevitable precursors of achievements. We know that there are dangers of a world war, which, with modern appliances at present being perfected, may mean the wiping out of civilisation in many lands. The only existing medium of trying to avert such a frightful calamity is the League of Nations. It may not have achieved much up to the present with the difficulties in its course, but we have been given ample proof here of some very useful and beneficial things that it has achieved. What it has achieved is really no indication of what it may succeed in doing in the future. Apart from that international recognition gained by entering it, the League of Nations will, I believe, serve us abroad. Our representatives in other lands are meeting with certain difficulties at present; certain questions of recognition, and so forth, have been raised. These are inevitable, of course, in the case of a new nation, but I think a great many of them would be smoothed away if, at the next meeting of the Assembly, Ireland is admitted to membership. If we turn down the Bill at this stage it will mean that Ireland's admission will have to be postponed for another year, and I hope that Senators will not allow a question of £10,000 or £15,000 to stand in the way. It may be a big sum in certain respects, but in questions of this kind it is very small.

We have been told, and I think it should be obvious to everybody, that we are not committed to war against our will, that our own Constitution covers the action of our own Executive and the Oireachtas in all circumstances. It would be very undesirable, therefore, to turn down the Bill. It commits us to comparatively little. The risks it entails are absolutely nil, while the benefits to be obtained may be material, and, at all events, it will enable us to make some contribution towards the progress of civilisation and the prevention of a war which may be the last that humanity may have an opportunity of engaging in.

I desire to ask two questions. The Bill is to authorise the Executive Council to give certain guarantees, and the first paragraph says, "whereas the Executive Council has made application." I want to ask the Minister whether that application can or can not be withdrawn, if the Oireachtas does not ratify the action of the Executive Council, and secondly, I should like to ask him whether, if we do not join before September it is not a fact that a year is lost before we can make another application to join.

Of course, Ireland can withdraw this application any time up to the meeting of the Assembly of the League, inasmuch as we are not members of the League. If the application does not go in then it cannot come up again until the following September.

This is the second time the Minister has explained most clearly and definitely the exact position of Ireland with regard to the League of Nations. I do not wish to repeat all that has been said, but I think the Seanad should find out what exactly it will cost the country if we join, and although I very often disagree with the Labour Members who sit behind me I agree with the last speaker that I think it would be a great mistake if Ireland were not to join, if she could. The conditions are these. It is the Assembly of the League of Nations that elects to the Council. There are 49 eligible for election and, as the Minister said, it is not likely that Ireland would be amongst these 49, but if questions arise that affect the country Ireland can appear before that Assembly and state her reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with what the Assembly has decided. So much for that question.

I should like to say something with regard to what Senator Kenny said. He said that the nations were not disarming as far as he could understand. Has he forgotten the Washington Conference? Has he forgotten what Lord Balfour put to the French Government when he said, "What do you want all these submarines for"? Has he forgotten that America has actually decided to take a number of her largest battleships and sink them in the Atlantic Ocean? Has he forgotten that Japan said she would do what she is going to do? Has he forgotten the enormous assembly of destroyers, of which I have seen a photograph, which America is scrapping, and which are in harbour waiting to be bought up by the ship-breakers. I do not wish to seem more clever than anybody else in the Seanad. That would be ridiculous. But if the members had, last year, really read the statements in the papers and some of the debates that occurred on the other side they would perfectly well understand the state of affairs that exists now with regard to the League of Nations. Let me say at once that, of course, it is entirely in the hands of both Houses here to decide the question of war, but I may say this that no League of Nations, no Council, will ever stop any nation from attacking another. That is perfectly certain, and if we are attacked I think that we shall give a very good account of ourselves. I quite agree with what the last Senator said, and it is tautology to say that I hope that we shall take our part in this Assembly, do it with an open mind and get the best we can out of the conditions that we find.

Listening to the debate I have been greatly troubled about one thing. Senator MacLysaght, who gets at the kernel of a thing very quickly, says that if the Seanad decides now that they will not agree to the Free State joining the League of Nations it is a direct vote of want of confidence in the Government. Are we or are we not in that position? Because it is quite evident that there are a good many of us—and I candidly confess that I am one of them—who should like more time to consider this. But if it is a fact that the Government have so committed themselves that for the Seanad now to adopt an opposite view and postpone this matter for three months—in which case we will have a freshly elected Oireachtas and a Government with a new lease of power—if we are throwing discredit on the present Government, of course, it would influence very much the decision we shall give. I do not propose at all just now to try to make points against immediate action. I think Senator O'Dea is right, but I do think that the Government should tell us definitely how they stand in the matter and in what way it will affect what they have done. Their representation will be affected by what ever attitude the Seanad now takes, and if we had that quite clearly before us we would know where we stand. Are we or are we not throwing an aspersion on our own Government if we now decide to postpone this for three months?

I wish to say that I understand now that the Government are committed to this Bill and I withdraw my amendment.

What I have forgotten and what I have not forgotten has been challenged by Senator the Earl of Mayo, and merely by way of personal explanation I would like to assure him that I forget nothing that I hear or read which is material, but I have only a certain amount of brain accommodation, a certain number of lobes in my brain, and any rubbish I hear I can find no storage for in my brain. I am asked whether I have forgotten all these appeals made by Lord Balfour and by Washington to France and other of their rivals to disarm, while at the same time they took very good care not to disarm themselves. I find no lobe vacant or available in my brain for storage of that sort. I distinctly remember that I allocated a special lobe in my brain stored up for an occasion, and the occasion has not presented itself, for the latest policy adumbrated by Great Britain, in which she has arrived at the conclusion that her naval arm, or the naval arm of any great Power, is no longer to be the deciding factor in aggressive war, and that it must give place to airship development, and that England has now committed herself to a very expensive programme of airship building. This is the reason why Great Britain, through her spokesman, Lord Balfour, is making pious appeals to all potential rivals both in trade and for world domination. This appeal to the United States and others to disarm——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Would you pardon me. I am giving you this latitude because you rose to make an explanation. I think you have concluded that, and I do not think it would be in order in allowing you to make a second speech on the general principles of the Bill. As I understand, the position is now, Senator O'Dea withdraws his motion, so the question before the House is the original question that this Bill be now passed, and upon that you have already spoken, and save for the purpose of explanation I cannot allow you to speak again, as the Standing Orders do not permit it.

I had not entirely concluded my personal explanation.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I am sorry. Then you may continue.

I had, so far as the Earl of Mayo was concerned, but I have to make a further personal explanation, or ask for some more specific data from Senator Douglas as to the constitution of the League. The Constitution of the League, so far as I understand, lays down that the Council may deal at these meetings with any matters within the sphere of action of the League, or affecting the peace of the world. The Covenant makes no discrimination between the powers of the Assembly and those of the Council, while each of the functions entrusted to the League may be exercised by either body.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I cannot by any possible latitude consider this a personal explanation. The motion is that this Bill be now passed.

On a point of order, I seconded the motion of Senator O'Dea, which was that the further consideration of this Bill should be postponed for three months, so that we should know more about what we are doing in the matter. I never agreed to the withdrawal of the motion. Can I move it?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Certainly.

Then I do move it, and I think this ought to be put to a vote. I think there is no question but that this is going to cost us £10,000 a year, and possibly a lot more. I think we ought to know what advantage this country is to gain from that, in view of our financial position.

I second it, because, although I am a firm believer in the League and an admirer of its work, I think to bring a Bill of this importance before us and to spend two or three hours in the discussion of it is not consistent with the statements made by the President and other Ministers as to trust in the urgency of the Bills brought before us. Bills like the Land Bill, Public Safety Bill, and others have been discussed for weeks and months in the Dáil, and we have been obliged to discuss them very hurriedly, because the Government have said that the need for them is so serious that it is absolutely necessary we should waive our own opinions about them. With that I thoroughly agree, but I do not think it is consistent that they should bring in a Bill which, however important, is not a matter of urgency. I do not contest what Senators have brought forward as to the cost and probability of being involved in war. I do not think there is danger of that.

I do not see how the position of Ireland would be prejudiced by the postponement of this measure until the election of a new Dáil. The only thing would be, if the Government said it was a point on which they could not withdraw, that should be taken into consideration. Am I right in saying we have already received an invitation to attend the Colonial Conference of the League of Nations, which meets in September? I understood an invitation has been sent to Ireland to send a representative to the Colonial Conference. I think Senator Douglas would probably know that there is to be a Colonial Conference.

It is an Imperial Conference.

It is under the League of Nations. Do you know anything about that, Senator Douglas?

The Imperial Conference is entirely different. Our position as a member of the British Commonwealth has nothing to do with the League of Nations at all.

The only thing that would decide me in approving of this would be if the Government said it would prejudice the position they have already taken up. Short of that I say we ought not to be wasting time over unimportant Bills, when we have got only a couple of days to go through the most important measures.

I explained a couple of days ago the reason why this Bill was brought in was to allow the Oireachtas to consider the matter, and decide about it. The reason we brought the matter in when there is real urgency about legislation is this: Last year when there was only one House in the legislature of the country—the Dáil— that Dáil passed a resolution calling on the Government to take steps to join the League of Nations as soon as the Executive considered it feasible. The Executive considered the matter and decided it was very much in Ireland's interests that we should join the League of Nations, and join this year. Therefore, on behalf of the Executive, I wrote making application for membership. The matter came up here, and this House suggested that no such action should be taken without the declared assent of the Oireachtas, as it now exists. We brought the matter up here to allow it to be discussed. It is possible to withdraw, but if we withdraw we place ourselves in this position—that the Executive of the country, acting on a resolution passed by what was then the sole legislature in the country, took steps to approach the League and asked for admission to the League, and that later on we changed our minds and withdrew that application. It puts not only the Executive themselves, but the country in a slightly ridiculous position. At the same time, I do not wish to prejudice other people's opinions, or to make them agree to a thing which they think is bad for the country.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question put: "That the Bill be now passed."
Agreed.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

A curious confusion has arisen, principally in the mind of Senator O'Farrell, as to what our procedure of this morning was. I think it was probably because it was taken before he was able to attend. As a matter of fact the Civil Service Regulation Bill was the Bill under consideration, and not the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Bill, and the Civil Service Regulation Bill was to be put through its Committee Stage. Then, there was a suggestion that the Standing Orders should be suspended to enable the concluding stages of that Bill to be taken. At that moment Senator O'Farrell rose and called attention to the fact that some promise had been given about the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Bill. The Seanad then got it into its head that we were dealing with the Electoral Abuses Bill, whereas we were dealing with the Civil Service Regulation Bill, and which had at that moment been put through Committee, and the question was not the consideration of the Electoral Abuses Bill, but as to whether the Civil Service Regulation Bill would be put through its remaining stages, so Senator O'Farrell would be quite permitted to proceed as we have not reached No. 4 on the Order Paper at all yet.

As a matter of fact, it was not I raised it first, and if I was confused, I think the whole House was equally confused.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I quite agree a good many of them, including myself.

I would wish to get your opinion on a point of procedure. May I call attention to the fact that an amendment proposed by Senator O'Dea and seconded by Senator Bagwell, and was supposed to be withdrawn by Senator O'Dea. It has been the procedure in the public boards I have been attached to that no motion could be withdrawn without the consent of the proposer and seconder.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

What is the necessity for raising this question, seeing that the same motion which had been originally moved by Senator Bagwell was then moved as a new amendment.

With all due respect, it should not have been allowed to be withdrawn without the consent of the proposer and seconder. I want the Chairman's ruling as to whether a resolution or amendment can be withdrawn without having the consent of the proposer and seconder? ,

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think so.

This is the usual practice of public boards.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

That is the reason why I allowed Senator Bagwell to be the proposer of the motion.

There was no necessity, I submit——

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

We must pass on to our business. We have got much more important business on hand.

May I ask when are we going to proceed with the Land Bill?

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

We will deal, with what we were at when the business was interrupted. The Civil Service Regulation Bill was put through Committee. If the House are of opinion that this Civil Service Regulation Bill should be put through its remaining stages we will do that if some Member moves the suspension of Standing Orders.

Top
Share