Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 May 1925

Vol. 11 No. 13

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS—VOTE 59.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

“Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £31,973 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh, chun bheith iníochta rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun íoctha Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Roinne Gnóthaí Coigríche.

That a sum not exceeding £31,973 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of External Affairs.”

MINISTER for EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald)

I would like to make some remarks on this Department in general before the debate on the Estimate takes place. On last Friday week, when this Estimate was due to come on, two Deputies of the Independent Party in this House got up and asked that it be postponed. They stated that one reason for wishing to have it postponed was that it was an important Estimate. It is very gratifying that Deputies, particularly of that party, should consider this Estimate so very important. Of course I do not need to tell Deputies in this House, especially those who read the newspapers, that for a long time a feature of Dublin journalism has been leading articles proposing the abolition of the Department of External Affairs. One of these newspapers purports, or is so considered by many people, to represent the interests and point of view really represented by the Independent members in the Dáil. The critical attitude towards the existence of this Department and the work of it, I might describe by analogy, as falling into two types. One I might compare to the attitude taken up by the Ethiopian ruler who, when after years had been spent in building a railway in his country, and when he saw a railway engine puffing towards his palace, said, "I thought it was much bigger." The other attitude is that of the lady who said that she was a very devout Catholic, but did not approve of the Mass. The first attitude is that of those people who say that they consider the Treaty as a very good thing, a Treaty by which we were made members of the Commonwealth of Nations known as the British Commonwealth, and while approving of the Treaty, they insist on pretending to themselves and to other people that the Treaty is something that it was not and that this country is not a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I, and the other members of the Government, accept the Treaty literally, exactly and in toto. The other point of view is the point of view of people who say, “Oh, yes, we accept the Treaty.” But some of those people, before the movement with which I and my comrades were associated, may have been known as Unionists or Home Rulers. They say, “We accept the Treaty,” but their arguments are based on the assumption that the Treaty is either the Act of Union or the defunct Home Rule Bill of 1912 or 1913. The Treaty is neither the Act of Union nor the Home Rule Bill, nor is this country separated from the British Commonwealth of Nations. We stake our attitude entirely on the Treaty and we stand by that.

I might point out that this exaggerated criticism—if I might delay the Dáil to refer briefly to this matter; it is not very important—is really very complimentary to our Finance Department. Anybody reading the Irish newspapers would have understood that the greatest economy that could be effected in the nation's finances would be the abolition of the Department of External Affairs. More weight is given to that as an economy than to any other possible economy suggested. Our total normal recurrent expenditure is £24,012,488. If you look at our Estimates you will find that there is an estimate for our Department of £46,973. To that you may add £2,711, allied services. You also may add a further £6,824, making a gross total of £56,508. From that you should deduct money earned by the Department, viz., the income on passports and visa fees, estimated at £14,300. The net cost of the Department is, therefore, £42,208, representing a little more than one-sixth per cent. of the total expenditure of this Government, so that the greatest economy that could be effected can only be brought to the extent of one-sixth per cent. of the total expenditure. I think the Minister for Finance is to be very much congratulated. I think there is no other Government in the world whose greatest economy, even if they went to the extent of breaking the Constitution of the country, could only amount to one-sixth per cent. of the total national expenditure. So much for the criticism of the newspapers. On the other hand, we might as well face the situation quite clearly. We are a State, a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Our position in that membership has been described as that of a co-equal partnership. It is also admitted that no agreement can be made in the name or on behalf of the Irish Free State, unless it be made by, or with the assent of, the Irish Government.

Looking to see what difference there is in our position, as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and not as a member of the British Commonwealth, what could be urged against us? There is one possible thing that I see could be urged against us. Supposing we were an isolated country, not associated with any group and we said we were not going to bother about external affairs. It might easily happen, although there are countries who have lost their existence from that attitude, that foreign affairs would not be attended to. I think we are in this position, if we do not attend to whatever foreign affairs we have, though they might be relatively small, they will be attended to all the same, but not by us. It would mean, as well, a deviation from the position of the Treaty to the position that certain people would much rather have, to Unionism or the old Home Rule Bill. Our foreign affairs are not considerable, compared with a country like France or Britain, but they exist and they are important, as no country lives alone.

I think that the spending of, roughly, one-sixth per cent. of our total expenditure is not excessive in view of the importance of the work done. Although we expend less than any country I know of, and less than any other country in our position, and although we were the last State to take up the position that we have taken up, the last year seems, to me at any rate—I may be prejudiced, of course—to represent a fairly considerable advance. We are the first State in our position to send a fully accredited Minister Plenipotentiary to represent his country with a foreign Government. We took certain other actions which were, as I say, creating precedents, such as the registration of the Treaty of the 6th December, 1921, with the League of Nations, and the establishment of a Passport Visa Office in Washington.

As I said on a previous occasion, I admit that although the equality amongst the nations which are members of the British Commonwealth of Nations is recognised, the implementation of that equality is not quite up-to-date. I admit that it is not; I admit that there is still a good deal of leeway to be made up, but I suggest that, provided there is progress in that direction, provided that things are advancing in the right direction the whole time, we should be satisfied. I submit also that we are of a different mentality, a different psychology, from most of the people forming the Commonwealth of Nations, but we recognise that that Commonwealth was the result of growth, that growth is slow, and also, when you belong to a community, you cannot rush ahead as quickly as if you existed alone. In a body that is the result of growth, among people who, from our point of view, have an exaggerated idea of the importance of precedent, progress is slow, but as far as I can see, I think that during the last year, progress has been satisfactory.

I have referred to certain steps which we have taken and which, hitherto, have not been taken by the allied States. Last year was very important in Europe because of the big attempt that was made to solve the question of the pacific settlement of international disputes. With the permission of the House, I will take this opportunity to give, as clearly as I can, my own ideas upon what has been known as the Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would the Minister say if they are Government ideas? Is he speaking on behalf of the Government, or are they his own ideas?

Mr. FITZGERALD

If the Deputy waits, he will see.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is rather important to know whether the Minister is giving his own personal views or the Government's views.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Does it not automatically follow that, as a Minister of the Executive Council, he is now speaking for the Government?

Major COOPER

I wanted to put a question, but my question is Deputy Johnson's question. Neither has been answered.

Mr. FITZGERALD

We have given earnest consideration to the Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, drawn up at the Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations. We have approached the subject with due advertence to the admirable intentions which animated the authors of that document, and with which we are in complete accord, namely, that a basis should be found which would enable differences arising between nations to be adjusted without recourse to arms, and thus remove from the sphere of international relations the menace of war.

For this country—a small nation with no aspirations to territorial aggrandisement and no interests other than the social and economic welfare of our people and the maintenance of cordial intercourse with all other nations—the attractions of a scheme which has for its objective the maintenance of international peace are manifest. In so far, therefore, as the Protocol constitutes a unanimous manifestation by the States Members of the League of their genuine desire to render recourse to war impossible, we welcome the opportunity which it has afforded for the study of measures devised for that purpose, and while on consideration of its details we find ourselves unable to recommend its acceptance, we wish to place on record that we are by no means of opinion that the object of the framers of the Protocol is beyond the realm of achievement.

The Covenant of the League of Nations, while it marked a notable advance in the direction of international peace, cannot be regarded as an instrument capable in all circumstances of preventing war. Its machinery for dealing with disputes is somewhat unwieldy, and the preponderance on its Council of the more powerful States tends to diminish its prestige amongst the smaller nations, who have less to gain and more to suffer by international strife. But it is our opinion that the place of the League of Nations in world civilisation is not to be gauged by the suitability of its machinery to arbitrate in disputes between Nations when they arise in acute form—rather is it to be measured by the efficacy of the intercourse between States to which it has given rise in resolving differences before they become acute by harmonious interchange of ideas and by mutual appreciation of national aspirations and national difficulties.

The Covenant of the League of Nations makes provisions for certain sanctions in the case of a State which resorts to war in disregard of its obligations. It has always appeared to us that the application of these sanctions would present grave difficulties, and that the machinery for effecting them would in practice prove unworkable. It is true that sanctions could in all probability be effectively enforced against a relatively small State engaging in hostile operations for purposes of aggrandisement, where the verdict of the world-conscience would be unanimous in condemnation of the objects for which resort was had to war. But it appears equally evident that, in the case of aggressive acts by one or other of the greater Powers, and particularly where world opinion was divided as to the merits of the dispute, the sanctions could not be enforced. We are, accordingly, forced to the conclusion that, while the sanctions of the Covenant may prove a useful deterrent in the case of small and turbulent communities, they are quite powerless to prevent either the oppression by a larger Power of small States or the occurrence of a war of world magnitude. It may also be observed that the application of sanctions implies the maintenance of armaments rather than their abolition, and in this respect is scarcely compatible with one of the primary objects of the Protocol, viz., disarmament. The portions of the Covenant, therefore, dealing with the impositions of sanctions appear to us to be the least valuable for the general purposes of the Covenant, and an extension of these provisions, such as is contemplated in the Protocol, the least profitable avenue of exploration towards improvement.

The expressed intention of the framers of the Protocol to exclude from the new system of pacific settlement any disputes which may arise regarding existing territorial divisions appears to us to detract considerably from the value of the instrument. Many existing frontiers were fixed by Treaties negotiated before the shadow of the Great War had receded and before the passions which the War aroused had subsided. The passage of years may prove these delimitations to be convenient and equitable; on the other hand, it may in time become apparent that present boundaries are in some cases unsuitable and provocative of ill-will. We realise that the stability of the Continent of Europe, and the prevention of a renewed international race in armaments must depend largely on the extent to which the existing apprehensions of nations, whether well or ill-founded, regarding possible interference with their territorial integrity can be allayed. As long, however, as some of the more powerful States refrain from participation in the League of Nations the feeling of uneasiness and distrust will continue. The continued absence of certain of these States from the Councils of the League is in some degree admittedly attributable to their unwillingness to be called upon to take active measures to maintain for all time existing frontiers, even though these should prove to have been inequitably drawn. We fear that the conclusion of an agreement which must to some extent appear to these nations to partake of the nature of an alliance confined to States' members of the League emphasising by implication the immutability of these frontiers and imposing upon members additional obligations, particularly by way of participation in disputes and in sanctions, is not calculated to induce them to accept the responsibilities of membership and is, therefore, likely to hinder rather than further the progress of world pacification and disarmament.

The Irish Free State, because of its geographical position, because its armed forces have been reduced to the minimum requisite for the maintenance of internal order, and because of its Constitution, which provides that, except in case of invasion, it can only be committed to participation in war with the consent of the Oireachtas, cannot be regarded as a material factor in the enforcement of sanctions. Consequently the foregoing observations on the Protocol are not affected by any considerations especially affecting the Irish Free State, and are dictated solely by our genuine desire that the League of Nations should realise the aspirations of its founders by uniting all nations in the common interest of world peace.

If we might express an opinion upon the measures by which these aspirations may best be realised, and naturally we do so with the utmost diffidence, we would suggest that the solution is to be found not in an endeavour to close the fissures in the Covenant by elaborate definition or drastic sanction, but rather in an effort to enhance the moral influence of international conscience. An extension of the principle of Arbitration which serves to define and enunciate international judgment and which relies in the last resort on the moral pressure of world opinion and not upon the application of material sanctions appears to us to be the most effective feasible means of attaining, at least in a large measure, the objects which the Protocol has in view.

The League of Nations has justified its existence even if account is taken only of the immense scheme of social progress which it has initiated. The reconstruction of countries devastated by the Great War which has been accomplished under its aegis, the succour which has, through its machinery, been afforded to hundreds of thousands rendered homeless by international calamity, and the measures which have been adopted for the suppression of traffic in arms and of vice are achievements of which it may justly be proud.

It is not without significance that in this section of the activities of the League it has had the active co-operation and support of States which have not hitherto found it possible to accept obligations of membership, and perhaps it may not be too much to hope that the opportunities thus afforded for intercourse between member and non-member States may by the further development of these activities be instrumental in allaying the apprehensions and in removing the prejudices which hinder the full co-operation of those States in the efforts of the League for the maintenance of international peace.

Major COOPER

On a point of order, are we discussing Vote 59 or Vote 60, or are we discussing both together?

Mr. FITZGERALD

I said at the beginning that I would like to discuss the work of this Department, with the permission of the House, in a rather general way.

Major COOPER

But can we discuss the League of Nations on this Vote?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Would the Minister state what is the document from which he quoted, whether it is an official document or not?

Mr. FITZGERALD

It is a document which I had drawn up and which I had circulated to the members of the Cabinet, but I have not heard from all the members of the Cabinet whether they agree with it in detail or not.

Major COOPER

Is it in accordance with precedent to quote a document that has been laid before the Executive Council? I understood that such documents are considered strictly confidential.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I did not say that it was laid before the Executive Council. I said that I had circulated it to the members of the Executive Council.

Major COOPER

Will the Minister define the difference?

Mr. FITZGERALD

The difference is too obvious to admit of definition. I thought, as this Department does not often come before the Dáil, that possibly a number of people would be interested in the general policy of the Department, and I thought also that as the question of the Protocol has figured very largely in the world Press and in the minds of people in all parts of the world during the last year, certain Deputies might like to know what has been the attitude of my Department towards it. I had to go into things a little generally because the consideration of this Department, as I tried to indicate at the beginning, to an extent almost raised the old Treaty debate again, because the attacks made upon the existence of this Department had been attacks upon the Treaty position, and because under the Treaty, as I pointed out, no act can be done or agreement made on behalf or in the name of the Irish Free State except by or with the consent of the Irish Government. Therefore the proposal that the Irish Government should not bother about it, or that somebody else should do it, was to some extent an attack on the Treaty position.

When we look over the Estimate we find it is divided into two parts, dealing respectively with headquarters and representatives abroad. About headquarters, I do not think I need say a great deal.

The representatives abroad include the High Commissioner in London.

One of the methods of attack on this Department was to say that as practically all our trade is with England there is no need to have a Ministry of External Affairs. On that I can only say that it is news to me to know that England is an internal affair. I have always been brought up to regard it as an external affair, and in our present position I am inclined to regard it as our most important external affair. We have also three offices in America, the Office of the Minister Plenipotentiary in Washington, the office of the Trade Representative in New York, and the Office of the Passport Control Officer in New York. The salaries and the costs in America are rather higher than those in Ireland or other places owing to the fact that the general standard of living in America is higher. Besides that, we have an office in Geneva for League of Nations purposes. I do not know whether I have Deputy Cooper's permission to discuss that office in Geneva, as we are on this Vote instead of the League of Nations Vote. So far we have considered it to our advantage and considered it necessary and useful to maintain that office in Geneva. The office in Brussels, from the point of view of trade, has been particularly successful. The office in Rotterdam will not be continued much longer, but we are discussing with the Department of Industry and Commerce whether or not a similar office should be opened in Germany. The office in Paris is small. We hope that development in trade will probably make it necessary and desirable to enlarge that office. The argument that because most of our trade is with England, even not contesting for the moment that England is inside Ireland, to my mind, does not prove the absence of necessity for the other offices. I believe, as a matter of fact, that 95 to 98 per cent. of our exports are taken by England. It seems to me that although we are England's nextdoor neighbour, although the whole economic orientation must, possibly for and after our time, leave England our greatest customer, that that proportion is unnatural and that in any normal economic circumstances more than 2 per cent. of our exports should go to countries other than England. I think that with any normal improvement in productivity in Ireland and in business methods the offices in other countries should all more than justify their existence. I think that on results already achieved the office in Brussels has already done so. I think those are the chief points I want to put before the Dáil before this Estimate is actually discussed.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I was one of those whom the Minister criticised for the offence of stating that the Vote of this office was an important one. I plead guilty to that offence. I thought it was an important one, and I still think it is an important one. I agree with the Minister in all that he has said with regard to the position of the Free State under the Treaty.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I would remind the Deputy that we are taking the sub-heads first.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Are you taking the sub-heads before the main question?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

There is certain criticism with regard to the sub-heads that I wanted to make, but I thought they would flow better and more naturally out of the comments on the general position. For example, it would be hardly possible to discuss the question of the representatives abroad until we could go into the relative importance of the various offices abroad. And that is a question of general policy.

Mr. HEWAT

I also suggest that the main question on this Vote is the whole thing, and that it would be very difficult to discuss the sub-heads before that.

Mr. JOHNSON

Move a reduction in the Vote, and then you can discuss it.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Deputy Johnson's advice to me is to move a reduction on the Vote, and I now formally move a reduction of £100 in order, on that amendment of mine, to be able to discuss the general policy, subject to your ruling.

Mr. JOHNSON

May I suggest, on a point of procedure, that the question of increasing the cost of the Department would surely depend upon the general explanations that may be given upon the points of policy, and the general policy should surely be considered before we enter into a discussion on details.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Am I in order?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The procedure here in the past was to take the sub-heads first and have the general discussion afterwards.

Mr. WILSON

That is right.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I cannot see why it is necessary, in this case, to depart from that procedure.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I can do it, sir, by moving a reduction.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It would be very undesirable to have two general discussions.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

There need not be two discussions. I formally move a reduction of £100 now, and in doing so I echo what the Minister has said about the importance of the external relations of this State in the position which it has now assumed. I must not be taken, in any way, if I enter into any criticism of the administration of the Department as——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The amendment, I take it, is that the expenses of the Headquarters Staff be reduced by £100?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I refer you to Standing Order 93, with great respect. It says: "It shall be in order, before entering on the discussion of the items in a Vote to move that the Estimate in question be referred back to the Minister in charge of the Department for reconsideration." That is what I will now do. On that, I think I can discuss any matter I like to raise on the general discussion of the Vote.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I must not be taken, in entering any criticism with regard to any particular section or part of the Vote, as derogating in any way from the importance of the position that Ireland had assumed under the Treaty. I agree with the Minister that this particular Department is one of the most—I would be inclined to say the most—important Department of the State. I find some embarrassment in saying what I am about to say, although I have said it before in the Dáil. Because the functions of this Department are so important and necessarily so responsible, I think they would be better rendered, and more naturally rendered, by the head of the State, with all respect to the Minister. The other sections of his Department, dealing with the appointment of representatives abroad, really fall under two different heads altogether. I think the whole of this Vote should be divided, and it is only divisible under these two heads, There is one section of service done by those representatives abroad. That is the diplomatic section. There is another section that is not diplomatic at all and that deals purely with trade and commerce. Those services that are diplomatic, I suggest, are those that should more naturally fall under the constant and continual review of the head of the State, who is responsible ultimately to this country for the guidance of its policy with regard to the affairs of other countries. Those that fall under the trade section fall equally under the constant review, and must necessarily fall under the constant review of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister has already admitted that with regard to the second section of the Vote. He has said that one of the offices abroad, that at Rotterdam, is to be closed up. He has anticipated my criticism under that head and I am relieved from the necessity of making it. All I will say is that anyone who would compare the trade and shipping statistics for the year ending December, 1924, in respect of any of the representative officers appointed abroad, would have to come to the conclusion that that was a right and proper decision to be taken. But by whom taken? Ultimately I suggest the decision was one that was taken and must of necessity have been taken by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It may be decided to use the moneys that will be saved in that way for the opening of some new office elsewhere—the Minister has suggested Germany. There might be several places suggested and they would need to be considered carefully and considered as a business proposition. I am not dealing with the trade section purely but with places where commodities manufactured by Irish manufacturers can find a sale. I include in that expression "Irish manufacturers," agricultural manufacturers as well as the more strictly industrial manufacturers.

That is, I think, more naturally the function of the Department of Industry and Commerce and not the Department of External Affairs, in the sense in which we have hitherto considered that Department, and in the sense in which the Minister himself has justified—and rightly and properly justified—that Department. His justification was based, not on the development of trade, but upon the maintenance of a certain international standing and status. Those things, I suggest, are naturally the function of the President of the Executive Council. I do not know whether the Minister intended to enforce my argument in so convincing a manner as he did to-day. But he did so. He read a document here, and when one or two Deputies asked him whether that document expressed the views of the Executive Council, with all respect to the Minister, he was not too clear or categorical in his answer. If the President of the Executive Council had read that document, or given expression to the views contained in it, there would have been no necessity for the putting of that question. The Minister, I think, has just now made a remark. I did not hear the Minister's soliloquy but I take it he does not agree with me. I suggest that no view of that kind in regard to the general attitude of this State on subjects of that description and type given expression by the President here, would have been open to any question such as was put to the Minister, and which the Minister could not satisfactorily answer. I think that, now the President is in the Chamber, we should have a statement from him as to his views with regard to the Protocol and with regard to the position of Ireland and the functions of the representative of Ireland at the office at Geneva.

The PRESIDENT

As I understand the Constitution, it is laid down that a statement made by an Executive Minister is a statement which involves and commits, and is the collective responsibility of each and every member of the Executive Council. I never heard any other interpretation in regard to a matter of this kind.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Is the President aware that the Minister refused to say it was a statement for which the Executive Council was responsible?

The PRESIDENT

The Minister's refusal was probably due to the fact that the thing was so obvious that there was no necessity for the statement. That would have been my explanation at all events.

Mr. FITZGERALD

The word "we" was the word used.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I suggested in answer to a question put by Deputy Johnson, that the particular interpretation now given was the only possible interpretation. I put that to the Minister and he did not accept it.

The PRESIDENT

I take it that that was due to the Minister's delicacy. He was so amazed at such a question being asked that he did not think it necessary to give the assurance required.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The President is very adroit. In any case, we have it now that those are the views of the Executive Council. The President's interposition enforces all I have said. There are just one or two subsidiary questions on which I would like to have fuller information. Regarding the two Passport Offices—one in Dublin and one in New York—I think the Minister, in making his statement, might have given some fuller details as to the number of passports that were handled, and that he might also have indicated to us what the compensations were on the ther side of the balance sheet. There are certain revenues coming from these offices, and those revenues help to diminish the responsibility of the Exchequer in regard to the various items mentioned here.

Mr. FITZGERALD

The revenue is given there.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Is there any similar statement in regard to the New York Office? I have not been able to find it.

Mr. FITZGERALD

It is given also.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

As regards the position at Geneva, there have been statements that the person who represented us there is no longer representing this State. I take it that that is not the case and that the person who represents us there is the same person who was appointed at the beginning. As regards the representative appointed at Paris, as head of the Irish Bureau there, I was in Paris last year and I happened to meet a couple of editors of the Parisian papers. They told me that they were getting a great deal of what one of them described as "dangerous propaganda" from the Republican Department in Paris. The gentleman responsible for that Department, I believe, once held the same position under the Free State, but then decamped to the opposite camp. The suggestion was made to me that our Department in Paris, in addition to attending to the various duties allotted to it, ought to keep a more careful and watchful eye on the conduct of propaganda, from the Free State point of view. I need not tell the House, what every Deputy knows, that Paris is not only important as the capital of the French State, but that it is in many ways the centre of Europe. Propaganda conducted from there ramifies very widely abroad, and propaganda was then being conducted and has since been conducted by Republican agents in a way prejudicial to the prestige of the Free State. I urge that we ought to undertake the countering of such propaganda from our office in Paris.

Mr. WILSON

I desire to extract some information on a few points. I assume that the Ministry is the proper channel by which communications would be made inside the Commonwealth of British Nations. The farmers of Ireland are being oppressed by the depreciation of currency in the British market. Denmark is pouring in its butter and bacon into the English market on a depreciated currency. We are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, whether we like it or not, and we ought to take advantage of that position, which is a good one, and try as a member of that Association to secure some preference in the British market for our trade, which is being affected by the depreciation in the currency I mention. I do not know whether that particular business is the business of the Department of External Affairs or not. If it is, I would direct the Minister's attention to that point, because I, for one, will not accept the position taken up by our representative at the last Imperial Conference, when he said he would look on at what was passing, but that he was not very much interested one way or another. I think the Minister should see that the interests of the producers of this country, who are severely handicapped by this depressed currency, ought to be attended to, and that we, as partners in the community of nations, should get any advantage that there is to be got out of membership of that association of nations. I believe that, as the English farmers are looking for protection, it would be possible to secure such advantage.

I am not concerned very much with our representatives at Washington or any other place. What I am concerned with is, where we can get the best prices for the goods we have to sell. I appreciate the fact that we have trade representatives on the Continent. At the same time it must be remembered that our market is in England, and if we could secure a preference of even five per cent. for our goods in England it would mean a lot more to us than, for instance, to be sending old horses to Belgium to be slaughtered. That is a class of trade that we do not appreciate, though I suppose it is good to dispose of bad stock. I am not taking up this attitude with any idea of opposing the Department. I am asking rather that it should devote its attention to matters which are of great importance to us, and that it should not be wasting its energy on these political essays, propaganda, and all the rest on the Continent—matters which do not concern the farmers of this country one iota.

Major COOPER

I am not going to fight the Minister on the ground that he has selected. I am not going to state that his Department is doing too much. My quarrel with it is that it is doing too little, or else that we know too little about what it is doing. I am not going to criticise the Estimates because they are excessive, but I am going to criticise them because they are altogether inadequate. When you deduct the money obtained for passports here, this Department costs about £40,000 a year, and that includes the cost of representatives abroad. The Labour Exchanges under the Ministry of Industry and Commerce cost more than double that amount simply for administering the dole, while to represent our trade and our interests, and to maintain our prestige in Europe and America, we vote only £40,000 a year. At the Farmers' Union Congress and other centres of intellect, I sometimes hear it said, and sometimes read that it is said, not by members of the Farmers' Party in the Dáil, but by less responsible people, that we should imitate Denmark and frame our expenditure on the same scale as Denmark. What does Denmark spend on its Department of External Affairs. I find that it expends a sum of £290,000, or a quarter of a million more than we expend.

Mr. WILSON

Has Denmark colonies?

Major COOPER

Denmark, I think, sold her last colony to the United States about four years ago. The expenditure I have mentioned is not for colonial affairs, but for external or foreign affairs. Have we no colony? Is not the United States our colony? We have given it self-government. We have allowed it to be self-governed and we control it to a certain extent.

Mr. JOHNSON

And it declares itself a republic.

Major COOPER

Exactly. We have not imposed any crushing fetters on that colony. We have interests in the United States, and they have interests here quite as great as any that Denmark has in her colonies. To get away from that subject, I desire to ask the Minister if he can give us some more details than he has given us as to what our foreign policy is. He said that the growth of the policy of his Department was slight, and that it was possibly too slow. I think the Minister must have been reading some handbooks on horticulture, and discovered that some plants grow quickest in the dark, for the growth of his Department is known to very few people, either in the country or in the Dáil, and it must have taken place in the dark. He told us very little to-day, and for the first time, about the Protocol which came into being some time about last August. We, at least, know the attitude of the Executive Council to the Protocol. It objects to the Protocol on two grounds, the first being that it is powerless to prevent the oppression of Small Powers by Large Powers. Who are the parents of the Protocol? They are two, Messieurs Politis of Greece, and Benes of Czecho-Slovakia. Both of these are very Small Powers, but they are intensely national, and they consider that the Protocol would give them some sort of protection. We are in very much the same position as Greece in certain respects. We have an ancient history but inadequate means to support it, and yet we do not think it expedient to follow Greece.

The next objection, as far as I could make out, was that the Protocol stereotypes boundaries. What the Protocol does is to prevent the forcible alteration of boundaries, and I think the last voice in the Dáil in favour of the forcible alteration of boundaries vanished with Deputy Milroy. The Protocol, as I understand it, is not to prevent the alteration of boundaries by treaties or agreements, but rather it tends to encourage that. What the Protocol does is—though the Minister did not refer to it to-day—it provides the machinery to define the aggressor and that might be very important to us. In the event of a breach of a Treaty, the Protocol provides machinery, possibly imperfect machinery—I do not say it is absolutely perfect—not only to define the aggressor, but also to obtain the judgement of the League of Nations at any rate, and possibly of the world, upon that. Still the Government do not see their way to adopt the Protocol. At least we know where we are. We stand against small Nationals like Greece and other small Nationals which have ratified the Protocol. We also stand against France. We know where we are.

There have been other important conferences, not strictly conferences of the League of Nations, because countries like America and Germany, who are not members of the League of Nations, were not represented at them. There was a conference on opium. That is a conference, I believe, we were not represented at, and as Mr. Dooley says, I only read about it in the papers. What action was taken at that conference? Does any Deputy know except the Minister? Does the Executive Council know? Possibly it does, but the ordinary Deputy has no knowledge whatever of any action that was taken at that conference with regard to the traffic in dangerous drugs.

Professor MAGENNIS

The report of it was published in the newspapers.

Major COOPER

It was in the papers, but not as a communication from the Department of External Affairs through its own correspondent in Geneva. I suggest that we should have official information from our own representative. The newspapers are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. I think we are entitled to official information on a matter of that kind, and that we should not be left to depend on the information given in the newspapers. Like a good many other people I read the newspapers, and if I did not read them I should not have this information, that there was a conference or whether we were represented at it. But for the fact that the Minister told us about it we would know nothing at all. The subject that was before the conference is one that affects us very deeply. This traffic in noxious drugs is a growing evil.

Mr. BAXTER

I desire to know from the Deputy if he holds that the publication of the report of the opium conference is a matter for the Publicity Department under the Ministry of External Affairs, or how does he suggest the report should be published.

Major COOPER

I understand that our representative at that conference was an official of the Ministry of External Affairs. Therefore, I take it that he should have made some report to the Minister, and I suggest the Minister should have placed that report, either in full or in part, at the disposal of the Deputies. That is the manner, I suggest, in which it should have been published. The British Parliament is constantly receiving reports from its Consular representatives dealing with commercial and other things. These reports are constantly laid on the Table of the House of Commons and are circulated amongst members, and I think the same course should be followed here. Otherwise we are liable to be left too much in the dark.

There is another conference sitting at the moment. It is a conference dealing with the traffic in arms. That is a subject that is of vital interest to this country. The international traffic in arms that is going on is a subject of very great interest to the State, not I would say to any Party in the State, but to the State as a whole. The indiscriminate importation and sale of arms is a matter of vital importance to us. I believe that we were represented at that conference, because I happened to ask the Minister, and he was good enough to tell me. I do not think that has been published in the papers. I think that we should have official information from our representative at that conference as to what was the policy adopted in relation to this question. Will that information be given to the Dáil, and will it be published? I contend that we have a right to know these things, and until we do know them there will not be an educated public opinion that will shape our action wisely. There was one other conference which, as far as I know, we were not represented at at all, and I should like to know why we were not, and what our views are on the subject. That conference considered the subject of reparations. It was presided over by General Dawes, now the Vice-President of the United States. Were we consulted at all as regards that? We are closely concerned in that matter because Article 5 of the Treaty impresses on us some responsibility for the British war debt. Any German reparations that may be paid to Great Britain would diminish that debt, and, therefore, our views had a right to be heard as to the method by which reparations should best be extracted from Germany.

I now leave that point, and I propose to summarise what I have stated by saying that we do not get the information that we ought to have, and that I think it is necessary for us if we are to deliberate wisely on these points. I now come to another point, and this is a matter that the Minister did not refer to.

What is our policy in relation to the North of Ireland? I am not referring to the Boundary Commission which is sitting and the matter of which is sub judice, but no one will imagine that the Boundary Commission will report in favour of the inclusion of the Six Counties in the Saorstát. So that Northern Ireland will still be a fact and will continue to be a fact for some years to come, although I have never despaired of the ultimate union. Have we not a policy with regard to Northern Ireland? I do not quarrel with the Ministry because we have a High Commissioner in London. I think we ought to have a High Commissioner in Belfast as well. There is, in my view, necessity for continual consultation between the Ministry of Industry and Commerce or the Ministry of Agriculture in our Government and those of Northern Ireland; there are numerous problems to be dealt with. After all, the boundary line is only one on the map. But roads cross each other, and there are rivers running through which are bound to raise problems. If we had a permanent representative in Belfast these problems would be very easily solved, and by keeping in touch with the Press in Belfast we could dispel some of the mists that have hung over this question and have prevented us finding a way out. So far as I have seen, the Belfast Press has not given very much notice to the latest judicial appointment by our Government to the fact that a Belfast Presbyterian, educated in the Queen's University, has been appointed a judge of the High Courts in the Saorstát. At any rate, I have not seen that very much notice was taken of it in the newspapers in Belfast. Neither has there been sufficient notice taken here of the fact that the Belfast Government, having occasion to appoint a resident magistrate, appointed to that office an Irish Catholic who was formerly chief reporter of the “Irish News.” These facts are creditable to both Governments, and they show that these appointments were removed at any rate far out of the sphere of party and out of the sphere of bigotry. That being so, we should try to emphasise these points that make for union and not for separation, and we will do that best by being directly represented in Belfast instead of being at the mercy of every scaremonger and of every rumour-monger who wants to make bad blood between the two areas.

I leave Northern Ireland and I turn to Europe. What is the position of our representatives there? They are, as far as I can see, men of very great culture, men of very great ability and men very keen on their jobs. They are most anxious to promote trade and commerce —that side of the question I will leave to Deputy Good and Deputy Hewat— but these men are most anxious to raise the credit of Ireland in the sphere of cultured intelligence and to explain the influence of our literature, of our art, and of our music, but they are most inadequately paid. In two cases, Brussels and Geneva, they have houses, but these houses are a burden. They are large-sized houses requiring servants, but these men are only given salaries of £750 in the one case and £950 in the other. These salaries do not compare at all favourably with the salaries of other diplomatists. Brussels is an expensive city, and Geneva, in view of the rate of exchange against us, is extremely expensive, and our representatives are thus put in a very unfair position. I am glad to see that there has been some small increase in the Vote this year, but still the Estimate is miserably inadequate. If a man has to stand up and to hoist his flag and say, "I represent the Irish Free State," he must be enabled to press in and to move in the circle of other diplomatists and not be as it were a sort of hangeron. We spend a certain amount of money on propaganda, on the Brussels Press, in articles, in books and so on. I believe that that money would be better spent by promoting visits of Ministers and other eminent Irishmen to foreign capitals. The ordinary newspaper of high rank does not take kindly to propaganda. It learns very quickly to recognise propaganda and will not take it. I believe we should be represented if possible by Ministers at every International Congress. There you would get publicity for nothing. You would have reporters waiting about to interview our representatives. I wish the Minister for Industry and Commerce had been able to go to the Inter-Parliamentary Congress at Rome the other day, instead of sending a Senator who was of course a most admirable representative, but there would be much more interest and curiosity displayed if the Minister himself had been present. I wish it were possible to send one of our Ministers to the Conference at Geneva instead of having to depend on our permanent representative whom everyone knows. There is widespread ignorance in Europe as to the condition of affairs in this country.

When I was abroad, late last summer, I found a great many people, members of Parliament and others, under the impression that one of the Deputies for Clare, who has not taken his seat in this House, was languishing in a dungeon in chains, and when I told them that he was at liberty and quite free to go up and down the country making speeches, they were perfectly astonished, and said that they did not know that things were so settled as they were. I have spoken too long. This Department might be of the greatest use to the country, but at present it is not of that use. I do not want to blame anyone. I am quite sure that good work is done, and is being done in that Department, but at present it is not at all as useful as it might be; it is almost useless. One reason is, that the Minister for External Affairs is the Cinderella of the Executive Council. I am not going to attempt to define who are the ugly sisters, but the Minister for Finance is, or ought to be, the good fairy.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister for External Affairs made a statement, on behalf of the Executive Council, as to the attitude of the Government on what has been commonly known as the Protocol— the draft agreement for the specific settlement of international disputes. I do not know quite what the intention of the Minister may be in regard to that statement. It was promised in the House that before any decision was communicated to the League of Nations in respect of the Protocol, the House would be informed, and presumably it was intended that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the terms of the answer, or at least the general attitude of the Ministry in that regard.

I would not like it to be thought that the statement made by the Minister to-day, or that the passing of this Vote, would fulfil the implied understanding that there would be an opportunity for discussing this question before a final decision was submitted to the League of Nations. I think the statement was one which we could not follow as closely as we would like, and that we should not be taken as assenting to the general policy of the Ministry in that respect merely by approving this Vote of £46,000. Last September, I think, the representatives of Saorstát Eireann at Geneva were parties to the provisional agreement, subject to consideration and, later, to approval. The consideration, no doubt, has been given and it has taken from September to date for that consideration. The House may be assumed to be aware of the terms of the Protocol and to have given them consideration. Whether that is a fair assumption or not I am not going to pass any comment, but I think we have a right to a longer period of consideration than the passing of this Vote this afternoon would allow on the attitude of the Ministry towards this question. I take it that it is intended that the substance of the answer which the Minister has given will be communicated to the League of Nations, either at the conference to be held in September or prior to that, by written communication. I would like to have more public discussion of this matter and more study of the terms of the Protocol than there has been. The line which the Minister has taken seems to me to be this: We will agree with England, South Africa, Australia and Canada in refusing to approve of the Protocol but on entirely different grounds. We will arrive at the same conclusion so as to avoid any discord between members of this Association of Nations, but we will explain that our difference arises through different, reasoning. The Minister made a suggestion which, if I understood it rightly, was to the effect that the sanctions contained in the Protocol did not meet with his approval, and that he would be prepared to back up a proposition favouring some kind of international compulsory arbitration. The development of the arbitration courts was, I think, the implied meaning of the statement. I think I am right in saying that in the answer which the Canadian Government made to the League of Nations on this question, while declining to ratify the Protocol, they did put forward specific suggestions as to how they would arrive at a solution of international disputes. I would like it to go out from our Ministry, if they cannot see their way to agree with the particular section of the Protocol which deals with sanction, that they would put forward an alternative proposition, that they would, at any rate, approve of those parts of the Protocol which they could approve of, making reservations in regard to these one or two items which the Minister appears to have jibbed at, to use a vulgar phrase.

It is important to bear in mind what Deputy Cooper emphasised, that the main authors, the persons who are alleged to be the main authors, of the provisional agreement were the representatives of two less powerful nations —namely, Greece and Czecho-Slovakia —but it is more important to bear in mind that most of the small nations of Europe have gone to the extent of approving the Protocol in its general terms, and have signified that approval. That is a very important consideration. The fears that were mentioned by the Minister are really fears affecting the Great Powers, and I think that we would be right in assuming, prima facie, that the considerations which govern the decisions of the Smaller Powers are likely to govern the decisions which we should take. We ought to bear in mind very constantly that war between the Great Powers is going to have a very evil effect upon this country, as it has on all Small Powers, more or less, and, that whether we like it or not, we are not going to avoid the evils of warfare between the Great Powers, and that we should, if possible, assist positively in creating a world opinion which would go far towards preventing war, even war between the Great Powers. I would like that Saorstát Eireann should take an effective part, not too prominent a part—I am not suggesting that we should pretend to be what we are not—but at least that we should take a distinctive part in the work of international peace, and that we should realise that our interests are more likely to be more harmonious with the interests of the Small Powers of the world, as distinguished from the conflicting interests of the Great Powers, which, unfortunately, seem to be aiming at the strengthening of their own particular power and the declension of similar powers of their rivals. Coming to the general question which the Minister raised, I am rather inclined to the view which Deputy Cooper has expressed, that the position of this Department is not one to which we should raise any objection as regards cost, but, rather, if we were getting value, we ought to be well prepared to pay a good deal more than the sum asked for. When I speak of getting value I will repeat what I said, I think, last year, that I am not going to test the value of the Department of External Affairs in terms of trade returns. I think that that is entirely an erroneous view of what the value of the Department may be. To say that 95 or 98 per cent. of the trade of the country is with England, and that, therefore, there is no need to spend any money on representatives abroad, or to link up with any other powers than England—I think that that is an entirely false view of the position we should take. The trade test is not the best test. It may be one of the tests, but I think we would be entitled to have representatives abroad, to have a foreign policy, and to have association with the nations of the world, if we had no foreign trade at all. If every article produced in the country was consumed in the country, and if we were absolutely self-contained as regards commerce, even then, I submit, we would need to have representatives abroad, and to have association with other nations.

We surely are entitled to find out, at first hand, something of the developments of education systems, agriculture, science in its various phases, including science in relation to health, and equally all developments in all parts of the world with regard to political, social and economic movements. It is, I submit, essential for our own development and growth that we should have some knowledge of the growth of social, political, economic and cultural matters in other countries. We are not going to get that knowledge first hand until we have a newspaper printed in the country which will have the good sense to make special references to such developments. I think we are bound if we want to take our place among the nations of the world to keep in close touch with the affairs of other nations, and the growth of movements of various kinds in those countries. A question has been raised as to the number of our representatives, and the places where those representatives are. I was hopeful of seeing in this year's Estimate some reference to representation in Canada, South Africa, and Australia, but more especially Canada. We are, or should be, particularly interested in the political and constitutional development of Canada, and other nations of the British Commonwealth, and we should, I think, have a separate representative in the capitals of those countries so that we could keep in regular touch with the minds of the Governments and the people in those countries, and I am disappointed that there is no reference in these estimates to representation in the capitals of those countries.

We are reminded by these Votes that the title that is given to our representative in the case of the United States is Minister Plenipotentiary. He has been accorded a certain status. In New York there is a trade office and a representative; in Geneva a representative; in Brussels a representative, and in Paris a trade representative and head of the Irish Bureau. I would like a little more information as to the status of these representatives. Have we made any attempt to define the status of the representatives in these countries, or are we to consider them simply as ordinary visitors to those countries whose business it is to make communication with the Minister but who have no privileges of access to the Ministers of the respective countries to which they are accredited, or where they are resident? The term, for instance, representative in Geneva, I take it, means in fact a representative of the Saorstát to the League of Nations, and not to the Government of Switzerland. I do not know what his position is relative to the representatives of other countries who are members of the League of Nations. In Paris we have a trade representative and head of the Irish Bureau. That apparently is different from representative in Brussels or representative in Geneva. I wonder has any attempt been made to fix the status of the trade representative in Paris, and I would like to know how he stands in relation to the French Government. These are matters that, I think, we should have some light upon.

I was interested and somewhat amused by Deputy Wilson's suggestion about the importance of the Minister using his funds to promote propaganda in England for Imperial preference and endeavouring to persuade the town workers and the general masses of the people in England to support the party which would advocate and establish a tariff on food so that the Irish Free State would be able to get a preference. That is very interesting, and I am rather surprised that the Farmers Party has not already had its agents in England trying to promote that kind of propaganda. I think he would be right in saying that it would probably be the best expenditure the Farmers' Party could make of its money, but I think it would be undesirable for the Minister for External Affairs to enter upon such a campaign. When Deputy Wilson can persuade his friends that they ought to spend their money, or perhaps that they should raise ten times the amount of money they have to spend for the purpose of promoting the fortunes of the Imperial Preference Party in Britain, and persuading the Irish voters in Britain to support only those candidates who will advocate Imperial Preference, then I think the fortunes of the Irish farmers will be well nigh achieved. But I hope they will not wait for that before doing other more useful things at home. I support Deputy Bryan Cooper in his request that we should have much more information in regard to the policy of the Government in respect to these various matters in which they are presumably interested, inasmuch as they have had representatives attending the conferences named—for instance, the opium conference and the traffic in arms conference. There are frequent discussions of a lighter kind on various matters, at which we read that the Irish Free State is represented.

I hope the Minister will come to the conclusion some day that the people at home, especially the Deputies in this House, should get some information as to the policy adopted by their representative at these various conferences. Is it the intention, for instance, of the representative of the Free State to limit the traffic in arms, or to advocate that armaments shall be national monopolies, or that there should be a free trade in arms, and that anybody and everybody who can smuggle armaments from one country to another should be allowed to do so, and that there should be no international agreement regarding such matters? We ought to know the mind of the Government on these questions, at least to help us to form our own judgment, so that if we disagree in sufficient numbers and with sufficient violence we will be able to turn the Government out. I say, with Deputy Bryan Cooper, that we ought to have very much more information on these matters of external policy than has yet been given to us.

Mr. HEWAT

I sympathise with the Minister in the position in which he finds himself by having very far-reaching questions thrust upon him which he will find it rather difficult to answer either for himself or on behalf of the Government. This Vote, before I came to the Dáil to-day, did not occupy in my mind any higher place than that represented by the expenditure of £46,973, mainly on salaries. It seems to me that that amount is either too small, or that it is too large. The view has been put forward that the work of this Department has not been as efficient as Deputies would like, and that they have not got the information as to its working that they would expect to get from a really live department undertaking such important work as that of foreign affairs. It appears to me that complete foreign representation is beyond the means of the Free State at present. For trade purposes the representatives abroad are not, in my opinion, of any great use. On the other hand, if our export trade were developed it would certainly be very necessary that the representation abroad should be extended. But, as far as this Vote is concerned, I think you may wipe out the influence of our foreign representatives on the trade of the country. In any event, that branch of the work ought to come under the Department of Industry and Commerce. It is clearly impossible for the Minister for External Affairs to govern the policy of the country as regards commerce without at all events cooperating with the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

As to the political side of the question, we have a Minister Plenipotentiary at Washington, and a High Commissioner in London. It seems to me that these representatives could speak with greater force as representing the Government directly rather than through the medium of the Department of External Affairs, which does not, and could not, bulk very largely in the eyes of the world on the basis of the expenditure before us. I certainly would not wish to belittle the work done by the Minister. His work must be largely carried on without any great amount of publicity. As far as foreign policy, however, is concerned, it seems to me that Deputy Figgis is right in saying that that work is of very great importance to the country. It would, I think, bulk larger, and more importance would attach to it as coming from the Government through the Executive Council. It may be that the Government look to the growth of this Department in due course. As regards that, if it were conducted on definite and progressive lines, it would be an advantage.

When I said that the sum to be voted is either too large or too small, I meant that beyond the status quo being maintained there is neither advancement nor retrogression. In my judgment, the Department should be able to justify a very considerable extension of its operations. I do not think it can be left as it is, neither advancing nor going back, that every year a certain amount should be voted without any substantial progress being shown in the way of development or results, beyond issuing passports to people who want to leave the country.

Mr. BAXTER

I take it that just as we have home affairs to attend to, so also have we foreign affairs. If we have, as the Minister said, we have either to attend to them ourselves or they will be looked after by somebody else. I do not think that we can afford to delegate to any other State the work of attending to our foreign affairs, small and perhaps unimportant as they may seem. We will have to look after them ourselves. The next point is: how much can we afford to spend on the work of looking after these affairs? One body of opinion in the country thinks we ought not to spend anything at all. Others of us perhaps think that the country can only afford to spend a certain definite sum on any service. While I am as enthusiastic as any Deputy about our foreign affairs being looked after by a Department of our own, I think we have to recognise the fact that the country cannot very well afford to go in for spending as much money on our Department of External Affairs as, say, Denmark can. When a Deputy says that we have either got to spend more or spend less, it is rather difficult to understand what his policy is with regard to our foreign affairs. We may accept it, I think, that the amount that is being spent is small. If we could spend £100,000, I believe that the external affairs would be there to attend to. They are there to-day to be attended to, to a much greater extent perhaps that we can afford money to spend on them. For the taxpayer the question is: Are we going to decide that more shall be spent; that our foreign affairs demand that the Department should employ a large number of officials; or are we to decide that we are to go on slowly, but perhaps surely?

Even in the political arena to-day the situation is so difficult and complex that I doubt whether our entering into it with a grandiose sweep would make any great difference in the political events of the world. I do not think we would influence political opinion in any of the great countries to any considerable extent. In a sense perhaps we are doing just as well by marking time, rather than trying to do what we could not accomplish. We have to take notice of what other countries are doing if we are to safeguard our own liberties. But beyond merely watching, I do not know that our position in the world makes it possible for us to influence political policies in any of the great countries, and I do not think it is wise to attempt it.

With regard to our trade, we recognise that to-day it is to a great extent with England, and the argument is used by some people that if we look after our affairs in London we can afford to neglect them elsewhere. I am inclined to think that we can look after our trade only by looking after it not alone in the country to which we export our goods but by watching what our competitors in these markets are doing in their own country.

I think the Minister suggested that representation at Rotterdam should be dropped and consideration given in lieu of that to the appointment of a representative in Germany. I suggest to the Minister that the trade competitors of Ireland deserve attention from his Department. We cannot afford to accept mere statements from a foreign newspaper as to what these countries are doing, and as to their methods. I agree with Deputy Johnson regarding representation in Canada and Australia as these countries to-day are formidable competitors of Ireland. While there is not any possibility of selling our products to these countries there is no doubt that these countries are going to restrict our sales to other countries. In so far as that competition exists I feel that the only way we can keep abreast of the times is to watch how these people beat us and the methods they employ.

I always feel that one of the countries that inflicts the greatest hardship on the people of this country, and does more damage at times than the bayonets of England, is that little country so much is said about—Denmark. The small farmers in Ireland have to compete with the farmers of Denmark, and if competitors in any country are to be watched, Danish farmers have to be watched. If the Department of External Affairs is to serve any useful purpose with regard to the trade of this country, I think it is in a country like Denmark that our representatives should be. I suggested that on this Vote last year, and I want to hear some argument why such a policy should not be pursued. If there is criticism of this Department —and I agree with Deputy Cooper and with Deputy Johnson when they say that we do not know what the Department is doing—the fault to a certain extent must be laid at the door of Deputies. Every day we are in touch with the other Departments, because we are made conscious of their existence by our constituents. We have to go to them, and we see what they are doing in matters that concern the everyday life of the people. We are rarely called upon to interview the Department of External Affairs, and it is only when the Vote comes round once a year that the work of the Department comes under review or, perhaps, when a question like the Liquor Treaty comes up for discussion. The Minister has got to make known to Deputies what his Department does. It is for the Minister to make known the policy of the Department to the Dáil and to show that it is trying to serve the interests of the country.

With regard to Deputy Cooper's references to our attitude to the North, I always feel that the policy of the North is influenced largely from outside. It is a very old story. I am inclined to the view that the policy of the North will change towards the rest of Ireland when certain interests outside the North make up their minds that it is time it should change. When England decides that less money is to go to the Northern Exchequer in order to enable the Northern Government to pay its way, and to keep the peace with its unemployed and others, the North will begin to look to the South. When England is prepared to accept the position that the North and the South combined are necessary to make Ireland, we will have reached the stage when the North will come to us.

That we could bring any influence to bear by sending a High Commissioner to Belfast is a contention I do not agree with. I think it is better and sounder to realise that the policy of the North is not formulated there but is influenced from outside. A High Commissioner in London can serve a useful purpose, and I think he ought to be able to do a great deal more to bring the North and the South together than a High Commissioner in Belfast.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

In a rather elaborate statement the Minister, while he said a good deal, conveyed very little. I must congratulate the Minister. He showed at his best what I shall call the tantalising secretiveness that we always associated with the old diplomacy. There is one aspect of the Minister's speech that I should like to deal with. If I made a correct note of his statement, it was that we have no ambition for territorial aggrandisement. I thought they were rather anxious to get in the Six Counties. Apart altogether from that, we would like to know what is the policy of the Government on the question of colonisation—if they have a policy—or if they have considered the matter? Are we to understand from the Minister's statement that if it were perfectly feasible to get a colony in Africa or anywhere else, say one of those States known as mandated possessions, that the Government would turn it down? We hope not. It is certainly a bit of a risk. It marks, as the Minister would say, an orientation of policy. That brings me to another point. Would it not be a means of increasing our trade and would it not provide an opportunity for colonisation?

Do the interrupting critics on the right and left doubt that? As a matter of fact, what makes up the greatness of England more than that very thing, her success in colonisation? Will they deny that? Within reasonable limits what has been made such a great success by the British can also be made a success by us. I believe if it were possible to get a slice of Africa, such a thing is perfectly feasible. In fact, it could be due to us under the terms of the Imperial connection. Did not the South African Commonwealth take over German West Africa? If we could get some part, say some part of the States taken from Germany during the great war, such, for instance, as East Africa, I believe it would be one of the most advantageous things possible for the Irish Free State. I am perfectly serious in this matter. You have there a virgin soil. Unfortunately, when people have to emigrate from this country, they usually go abroad to other countries that are not under our flag. Suppose we had a colony such as I suggest, and if we could induce the people who are determined to emigrate to go to that colony, can you realise what it would mean? They would still remain subjects and they would still retain the home ties. They would live under our flag and they would do a considerable lot towards increasing our export trade. That colony would be a natural means of securing a good export trade for this country, because the colonists would naturally turn to the home land for Irish products to meet their requirements. When we are entering into those financial relations with Great Britain, I submit that it would be well worth our while to make a sacrifice in money for the purpose of possessing a colony.

There is one other thing which Deputy Wilson slightly touched upon, and that is the question of Empire preference. In this thing I support him whole-heartedly. If it were possible for Saorstát Eireann to get in within the first zone of the tariff wall in its trade with Great Britain, if we could get preferential treatment in the British market for our commodities, which for many years will be mainly agricultural, will anyone dispute the fact that it will be a matter of the most serious consequence for us and the greatest possible material advantage? I submit it would be most important. We would like to have some statement as to the Government's policy on this question of Empire preference. I would like to support Deputy Baxter's plea for having a Consulate at Copenhagen in order to keep us informed as to the trend of developments there. By having that Consulate we would have a certain and reliable means by which we can get ready, accurate and reliable information as to development in the nation which is our most serious trade rival. I believe these things are perfectly feasible, and I would ask the Government to take them into consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON

Tariffs on apparel, for instance?

Mr. FITZGERALD

The last speaker said that in my opening remarks I mentioned a lot and conveyed a little. I said a certain amount, no doubt, and I stated it as clearly as possible, and I regret if it did not reach other Deputies. Deputy Figgis suggested this Department might be divided into two parts, one under the President and the other under the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. Whatever would be done with the individual who is in charge of this Ministry is a matter in regard to which I am perfectly indifferent. As to the suggestion that it should go under the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, most countries put this trade section, as you would call it, under the Department for External Affairs, for the reason that every representative who is abroad has a certain diplomatic and a certain national side. There are certain complications always arising, and the trade side is the more clearly obvious. When a question of trade arises, I automatically turn and consult the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The man whose business is entirely connected with trade is far more likely to make a mistake—to put his foot in it, as you might say—on a diplomatic, political or national point, than a man who would be dealing with diplomatic, political or national points would be likely to put his foot in it in regard to matters of trade, on which he could consult an expert. For that reason even this activity which relates to trade should be in a Department always watchful for and cognisant of political or diplomatic points. Deputy Figgis seemed to me to overlook one point, which is rather relevant to the matter of collective responsibility in the Executive Council. He asked what was the number of passports issued. Roughly, in the last year we issued about 20,000 passports, and our estimate for the coming year is based on the same number. We issued 20,000 passports, representing about £9,800. Our estimate for the coming year in regard to visas for New York—it is merely an estimate—is 2,500, representing £4,500.

As regards the question of propaganda, a Government cannot propagand in the same blatant way as an irregular organisation can, and propaganda cannot be expected to work miracles immediately. The best propaganda that we had abroad during the last few months has been the presence of parties who are not connected with the Government party; the results of the bye-elections, the introduction of the Shannon scheme, and the Budget. These things, I think, carry more weight abroad than any perfervid article that may be written by a man anxious to fight for the Irish Republic in Paris. Deputy Wilson asked would this Department be the only means for communication with other members of the British Commonwealth. It would, because those other States are not inside Ireland. His proposal that we should induce the British people to change their economic and their tariff policy on our behalf is a bit too optimistic, I am afraid. He said that I, or some representative who was at the Imperial Conference, merely went there to look on. As far as I remember, I went there to see what I could get.

Mr. WILSON

Does the Minister mean to say that he will get something without asking for it? You must ask before you receive.

Mr. FITZGERALD

On the contrary, asking for it does not necessarily mean that you get it. I do not think the Deputy's viewpoint is feasible. The elections in England have been fought on the question of for or against tariffs. In regard to articles we produce possibly we could enter into negotiations, and perhaps an arrangement might be made between the two countries, whereby they would reduce their tariff in so far as it relates to goods of Irish manufacture or products of Irish origin. Then possibly we could give a quid pro quo. But on any stuff that the Irish farmer produces, no duty is applied in England.

I am sorry I did not get a note of Deputy Cooper's remarks about the Protocol. He said it was drawn up by representatives of small nations. Exactly who wrote it down does not matter a great deal. The Protocol was drawn up on lines that it was thought would be acceptable to France and England. It was actually the demand of France and England, and the nearest coalescence of their points of view.

Major COOPER

It was presented to the League of Nations as a report from Messieurs Benes and Politis.

Mr. FITZGERALD

If Messieurs Benes and Politis sat together and considered their own countries it might not have been exactly as it was. I certainly think the chances are that the point of view of the small nations will always be nearer to the Ten Commandments than the point of view of the big nations. I do not think it follows that ethics are the sole possession of the small nations. I do not want to comment on any particular small nation, but I think amongst certain of what we call the small nations of Europe there might be certain people subject to them with our very particular national point of view.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Does the Minister include the Balkans in his generalisations as to the observance of the Ten Commandments?

Mr. FITZGERALD

The Balkans are a collection of nations, and I do not profess to be an authority on them. I think it has been suggested—it was Deputy Johnson who suggested it—that this attitude on the Protocol that I put forward here was brought about by a desire to come to a conclusion, and that the steps towards that conclusion, which were indicated, were carefully arranged to be different, but to come to the same conclusion as was come to by England and other members of the British Commonwealth. They were not carefully arranged to be different. I just want to say, if they are not identical with those of England, that in approaching this matter we approached it from the point of view of the ethics, from the point of view of the Ten Commandments, and we had no other consideration in our minds. When I said there that we had no desire for national aggrandisement, that we had no arriere-pensée and no selfish objective, and that we merely looked at the thing from the declared objects of its framers, namely, the attainment of a world peace and disarmament, I said what was a fact. We looked at it to the best of our abilities; we brought our intelligence to bear on it as well as we could. It is not easy to propound a scheme, and what we put forward was what we honestly believed was the most feasible, ethical and effective thing that could be done. I did not get a note of one part of Deputy Bryan Cooper's remarks, but I think that he complained of the omission of a thing which I had carefully read out. We do definitely come along and give honestly what we think and what we believe should be done, and what we believe might be effective to a large extent at least. We suggest that in the Protocol, drawn up as it was by people living on the Continent of Europe who had a feeling of insecurity almost verging on hysteria, that these people only considered all the time the need for material sanction. Nobody would trust his neighbour unless he had somebody who was committed and bound to assist him to crush that neighbour with a big stick when trouble arose.

We are looking at the thing from the ethical point of view, not from any consideration like that which was based on this hysterical preoccupation on the point of view of security. We come along and say that we have this stressing of sanctions, this, as you might say, arming, to force by our arms, all our neighbours to disarm, this waging of war to force other people to be peaceable. That was the wrong attitude. When you look around and see that there are countries in the world who take up that attitude you will realise the elimination of war is a difficult thing. There is only one weapon and that weapon is public opinion. That public opinion can be codified and assisted by the principle of arbitration. I admit if you take a big country that is thinking of going to war in certain circumstances it does not matter what you think or what any other country thinks. It would really come to this: they would sit down to consider "Will we lose more by waging a war on these people and crushing them than we would by losing it and having world opinion against us." I do not say it would make war impossible, but I say it is a step towards making war impossible. Such as it is, Deputies may disagree with our opinions on the matter. They may think that we, or somebody else, could have put up a better scheme. The matter comes up again at the Assembly of the League of Nations in September. Deputy Johnson has said that Deputies would have a right to more time to consider their attitude on the Protocol than they have got now. Really you have from now until September to consider it. It may be that all these arguments are put forward at the present time and that in September other nations will come forward with other plans which, considered from the point of view of ethics and perfection, we might consider more effective, better and more radical than the inadequate suggestions now put forward. If any draftsman puts forward another scheme likely to meet with the approval of the nations and likely to be effective in the object which the Protocol and its framers had in view then we are prepared to say that we will support it always subject to the approval of the Dáil. The whole matter is still under consideration and will come up for consideration again in September.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister say whether it is proposed to send a formal communication containing the substance of the answer the Minister has given to the League of Nations before September?

Mr. FITZGERALD

I think that would be a very good thing.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am rather asking whether it is intended that that decision of the Executive Council will be a fixed one and that it will be communicated to the League of Nations or is it intended to defer any formal answer until the Minister and his representatives attend the Conference in September?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Might I carry Deputy Johnson's question one step further and ask the Minister if he considers that the reading of that memorandum in this House in connection with this Vote will in his mind carry any confirmation from this House towards it?

Mr. FITZGERALD

I meant to deal with Deputy Johnson's remark at a later stage, but the Deputy's remark and those of other Deputies have coincided on this question. The word "decision" has been used. The word "decision" can only be applied to this extent, that we are not, at the present moment, going to sign, ratify, or recommend the acceptance of the Protocol as drafted with this great stress upon sanctions. That is the Government decision at the present time.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think the Minister has mistaken the point I am making. Other nations have formally notified the League of Nations of their attitude towards the Protocol in writing. Is it the intention of the Minister to do the same thing, to convey the substance of the answer he has given or is it rather his intention to defer any formal answer until he is present in person in September?

Mr. FITZGERALD

I was suggesting before that the Deputy gave a wrong impression and possibly had a wrong impression as to calling it a decision. I think that it is not a very vital matter whether we should write this to the Secretariat now or whether we ought to wait until we go to the Secretariat and make a preliminary statement on these lines. I want Deputies to know that this Protocol did not meet with our approval, that although its objects met with our approval, the means, particularly those means which took the form of material sanctions, did not meet with our approval, that we would not recommend the House to accept it, and that when it comes up for further discussion in the League of Nations, unless further considerations are brought to bear, such as would be calculated to change our point of view, we would not recommend or support its acceptance as the document to govern international action in the future. As to the matter of whether we should send a formal document to the League of Nations containing that statement, I think that it might be quite acceptable that we should send a document to the League of Nations merely informing them that on this day the Minister for External Affairs had made a statement to the Dáil in such terms.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister will perhaps excuse me if I draw attention to the fact that in his statement, so far as I could follow it—it was not very easy, I may say—there is not merely a refusal to ratify or approve of the Protocol, but there is a counter-suggestion. It is the question of whether the counter-suggestion in its present form should be made without having a formal discussion in the Dáil, or whether it could not be amended by further discussion, enlarged, perhaps, made more positive, perhaps. That is the point I am making. I feel that there is some importance to be attached to this, that the Ministry, on behalf of the Saorstát, is making a counter-proposition to the League of Nations. It ought to have more discussion in the Dáil before it is made in the formal way that has been suggested.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Is it not a fact, from the Minister's own statement to-day, and arguing on the basis of it, that before any statement can be made by him or by our delegates in the assembly, confirmation by the Dáil would be necessary?

Mr. FITZGERALD

That is not so, because any statement made there requires confirmation of and agreement by the Dáil afterwards. Deputy Johnson has, I think, made a slight mistake. A number of countries have communicated with the League of Nations, informing them of their decision when that decision was that they accepted the Protocol. Two countries, to the best of my knowledge, have informed the League of Nations that they disagreed with the Protocol. They were England and Canada.

Mr. JOHNSON

Canada made a counter-suggestion.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Well, I have indicated here a counter-suggestion, and I may say that I have seized this opportunity to deal with this matter generally. We do not bring in many Bills; people do not ask us many questions, and, therefore, we do not come before the Dáil as often as other Ministries. Other Ministers have a constant stream of legislation, and there is a certain amount of agitation to get away for the summer if it is proposed that people should stay on to deal with matters at the end of the session; but unless they do that I have to drag in my affairs almost by the hair of the head to get them before the Dáil at all. If you have a man at a conference, he sends home a report. I am quite prepared to lay portions of such reports on the Table, but that will not bring matters very much before the Dáil or the public. I have indicated to the House our general attitude on the Protocol. If the House wishes to have a discussion on the Protocol, it may postpone the adjournment of the Dáil for a day or two. I cannot speak for the Ministry at the moment, but personally I have no objection to that. I think other people may object to our taking up so much time, because it is not strictly vital. No matter what is done by the League of Nations in September, if we agree to anything, or put forward anything that is accepted, we have to come back to the Dáil with it. I am quite prepared, as I have said, to lay on the Table the reports, or an outline of the reports, of our representatives at various conferences. I think that in 1924 we were represented at some fourteen conferences.

Deputy Cooper asked a question about Northern Ireland. We have had, of course, certain negotiations, departmentally and otherwise, from time to time with Northern Ireland. No state of war exists, but at present it is actually hard to say whether Northern Ireland is an external or an internal affair. We do not know what Northern Ireland is until its boundaries are defined by the Boundary Commission.

Major COOPER

Is the Boundary Commission delimiting Belfast?

Mr. FITZGERALD

It is delimiting Northern Ireland, which is the unit. As for keeping in touch with the Belfast Press, in my time I have had a good deal to do with the Press. With regard to the Belfast Press, I have not had the opportunities that Deputy Cooper has had, and at no time in my Press work would I have considered it a good thing nationally to placard or shriek from the housetops what a wonderful thing it was that a Protestant, who was a Belfast man, had been made a judge in the Free State. I do not see anything to wonder at in that. Tears of joy or gratitude do not well to my eyes when a man fails to cut my throat or to rob me; neither do they well to my eyes when the Northern Government happens to give some position to a man who belongs to the same religion as I do.

Deputy Johnson and Deputy Cooper asked about the status of our representatives in Europe. The representative in Geneva is accredited to the League of Nations. We also notified the Swiss or the Cantonal Government of his position there, so that that Government gives him certain exemptions and certain privileges. Other representatives, that is to say, at Brussels and at Paris, have not a defined position. Our representative in Brussels is given diplomatic privileges and exemptions by the Belgian Government. He has thus the privileges which are given to Ministers Plenipotentiary, but he is not actually accredited. So far Canada and other countries have Commissioners, Agents-General, and so on.

Mr. JOHNSON

What is the position of the Paris representative?

Mr. FITZGERALD

Well, actually for Paris and Brussels neither of them is accredited. Our representative in Paris is only an acting representative. I think it may be necessary to break somewhat new ground by appointing accredited consuls, that is to say, consuls for whom we would request ex equators. Until we have seen clearly whether there is any advantage to be got from having ex-equatored consuls I would rather not establish the precedent of these Commissioners, as has been done by Canada; I would prefer to leave it open until we decide whether or not we shall aim at the fully ex-equatored consuls.

I think Deputy Johnson expressed the wish that Saorstát Eireann should take a distinct part in the work for international peace. I do not suggest that the lines of my speech at the League of Nations, or the lines of my statement here, have anything to recommend them except that they are thoroughly sincere and honest. I believe that it is possible for other people to put up much cleverer propositions but propositions which may not have the same degree or the same quality of sincerity and honesty. I think that the qualities of sincerity and honesty are the qualities which will make for international peace. That is the gift, such as it is, that we bring as our share of the attempt to secure international peace, and the lines that I have indicated, and the lines on which we are working, are the lines of sincerity and honesty.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I hope the Minister by his constant repetition of that does not suppose that anyone in this House thinks that he lacks either of those attributes.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I do not suggest it at all, although certain remarks of Deputy Johnson might be misread. Deputy Johnson also spoke of the necessity for international relations for the improvement of political, social, economic and scientific matters. We have representatives abroad and where we have not representatives we communicate directly to a government and we received from every government we dealt with every possible assistance on administration, science, or on any other point.

That brings me to the suggestion, I think, of Deputy Baxter. I had discussed with the Minister for Agriculture the question of Denmark and other countries which are rather more organised and more mobilised than we are in agriculture. I think the lines the Minister and I favour, and to which I think the House will agree, are that it is not a matter of sending a definite resident representative to countries like that. What you want in order to get the information the Deputies spoke of is more an expert commission to go there containing possibly two or three representatives of the Department of Agriculture and possibly some practical farmers in Ireland. They should go to those countries accredited by our Government, be received and assisted by the foreign government and look into the whole workings of agricultural arrangements in the country.

I think for the purpose Deputy Baxter spoke of, that is the natural way to do it, and I think most Deputies are aware that last year the Minister for Agriculture visited a number of highly organised agricultural countries for the purpose of getting certain enlightenment. Deputy Johnson spoke of representatives in Canada, South Africa and Australia. I hope to have an arrangement either by having a representative in Canada or an arrangement from the office of the Minister in Washington whereby we shall have somebody if not continually in Canada at least intermittently in Canada, able to keep us in closer touch with the Canadian Government and the views of that Government on matters of constitutional interest to us.

Deputy Johnson asked as to the relations and the position of our representatives in Geneva as compared with other representatives in the League. I think that they hold exactly the same position.

A good deal of the criticism was to the effect that we did not develop further. We have done a certain amount, as I said, in the last year. We have developed in America particularly. We succeeded in doing certain things. I think it may have been before the last Estimate that we had got, for instance, an alteration made in the Emigration Bill. We have a Minister in America, and so on. The year under review does represent a certain development, an advance ahead of any other country in our position in the British Commonwealth of Nations. I think that is something. We are going slowly. Take the question as to what is the status of our representatives on the Continent of Europe. I admit that so far it has not been defined. If it had and if, possibly, we had been in a greater hurry defining it, it might have been defined as commissioner, agent-general, or some term which has not a universal diplomatic significance. By taking longer to go into the matter we may find a more definite diplomatic position, namely, that of an ex equatored Consul. I desire to go slowly and see what is happening. I desire not to start new offices unless I see that they will achieve something not necessarily in the way of increased trade, but work of value to the country, Once you have one of one thing, once you have a Minister in Washington the difference between having no Minister and one Minister is greater than the difference between having one Minister and one hundred Ministers, from the point of view of status. That is so even if our affairs in America were not of vital importance to us. Even if the work of the Minister in Washington might have been nil, it would have been important and worth while to have a Minister there. Once that is done I think the appointment of any other Minister or Consul like that, which is only repetition of the same thing, would require to be justified by showing that a useful purpose was fulfilled.

Deputy Connor Hogan spoke about Colonies. When I said that so far we are not aiming at present at territorial aggrandisement, the Government of the Irish Free State have not in mind any particular country as a Colony which we hope to get. With development we may change or our needs may become clear in that direction and we may begin to agitate and try to get Colonies. I hope if we do we will have some consideration for the people to whom the country belonged for the last thousand years rather than proceed on the line that the only thing that matters is the extension of our trade and the selling of Irish agricultural produce to the colonists and the natives.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I intended to ask a question of the Minister to-day but it escaped my memory. I think the Dáil ought to have some information given it—I presume it will come from the Minister's Department, though perhaps it may come from the President. I do not know. At any rate, it should come from the Executive Council—as to the reply to the letter sent to the Secretariat by the British Foreign Office dealing with the registration of the Irish Treaty in the archives at Geneva and our right that matters in the Treaty should be brought under international supervision if any occasion or need arose. Now, that statement was made, and the British Minister's letter was quoted in the Press of this country and in the Press of a good many countries besides. I do not remember that our reply was quoted. I asked a question in regard to it, if my memory serves me correctly, and I was told that the matter was under consideration. I do think that matters of that kind should be communicated to the Dáil, seeing that the Minister cannot come, and does not come constantly before the attention of the Dáil in regard to legislation and matters of that kind. Such matters should be circulated to Deputies in order that they should know what is happening in his Department.

Mr. FITZGERALD

So far as I remember, our action in that matter was communicated to An Dáil and was widely published in the Press. I cannot say that for certain off-hand. What happened was—the British Government sent a letter, which many people misinterpreted, which was roughly on these lines, that in agreeing to the Covenant they had, say, a mental reservation and put a certain interpretation on the thing; that in viewing the matter from that date they consistently held that point of view. In view of that, they held that the Treaty should not be registered. We replied and said that we read Articles 10 and 15 of the Covenant, that we took the words to mean what they said and that we understood that all our Treaties with countries included in the League of Nations were to be registered, that we did accordingly register the Treaty and that whatever was in any individual's mind at the time was a thing that we did not think affected the question. That reply was widely published, as far as I remember. The Treaty is registered.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The matter before the Dáil I believe is an amendment of mine to send this Vote back for reconsideration. I moved that in order to have a certain kind of discussion. I beg leave of the Dáil now to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Major COOPER

I want to call the attention of the Dáil to sub-head A (2), (Travelling, incidental expenses and newspapers). Sub-head A (2) has been increased by £350; it is, I think, devoted to the translation of Press articles and books for abroad. Now this is not, as a rule, a very valuable form of propaganda. These books, and the journals that contain these articles, are generally found covered with dust on the tables of railway waiting rooms and hotels. I think, before we agree to this considerable increase, we should have some explanation as to the principle upon which this propaganda is being done. There is nothing more valuable than to have an article published in a widely-circulated daily or weekly paper, but there are certain classes of papers which live on propaganda, in which there is nothing but propaganda and which sometimes charge for it— papers which have a circulation largely consisting of free copies. That is a class of paper that no intelligent person wishes to read. What are the photographs for that we are circulating? Are they photographs of the Seven Churches and the Lakes of Killarney, or are they photographs of the seven members of the Executive Council being emblazoned on the journals of the world?

I am not objecting to photographs, because sometimes a bad article can be redeemed by a good photograph. I think we ought to know more about these articles. We should have some samples of them and we should have a justification of the increase in this charge. It may be a legacy from the old Publicity Department which has now ceased, but we do not derive much benefit from the abolition of the Publicity Department if the items are only transferred to other parts of the Vote. Although the Vote of £8,693 for publicity is gone we find that there is an actual net increase in the total Vote.

Mr. FITZGERALD

The type of things we regularly get requests for are articles on Irish trade and commerce and on Irish agriculture. You see sometimes a special number devoted to the development of trade with Ireland, in which you might see a photograph of the Spring Show this week, or you might have a photograph of Guinness's brewery or of the Dáil, or of the Executive Council. They sometimes ask for special photographs and we supply them. There are also general articles. I just had in my hand to-day an article reprinted from "Le Flambeau Belge" by the Minister for Justice. It was a translation of a certain address he gave. These things happen regularly. We need a certain amount of money to meet requests for these articles from journals of standing, and especially trade journals, such as "L' Exportation Belge." These journals ask for certain photographs to illustrate these articles. It would be rather ridiculous if we had to write to them and to say: "We cannot give you any article or any photograph." Therefore we put down this in order to have some funds to meet these requests. I think if the Deputy came into my office I could show him a whole lot of these journals in which these articles appear.

Major COOPER

I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's explanation. What is the cost of circulating an article or speech by the Minister for Justice? It is roughly only the expense of typing it. That could be done in the office of External Affairs. I am not going to suggest—and I am sure the Minister would not suggest—that the Minister gets a royalty on these articles. It is probably a reprint of a speech he made, entitled "Three Years' Hard Labour." The cost of circulating an article like that ought cost nothing. It is printed in pamphlet form. If too long for a daily paper, the portion of it that it is thought desirable to print could be typewritten in the office at a small charge.

With regard to the trade journals, the best form of propaganda would be to supply the "Journal of the Irish Chambers of Commerce." That would be very useful propaganda, and it could be got at a moderate rate. An article in that would be better and more informative than any other article, because it would have the backing of the Chambers of Commerce behind it. It is possible this is valuable work, but it is doubtful whether this is the most valuable form of propaganda. As a rule, articles in trade papers are not generally read. An article in the "Corriere de la Sera" or in the "Journal des Debats" would be much more valuable, because they do not take outside articles which they believe to have emanated from Government sources. The papers asking for those articles are papers that want either to get free copy, or that they have some vague hope of getting advertisements or payment for inserting those articles. I venture to think it would be better not to put down so large a sum in the Estimates for this class of work, and to turn a deaf ear to the requests of these papers, because they carry little weight. I would like to ask are any of those articles supplied to Canada or Australia or the United States, where it is desirable to clear up misapprehensions? As a matter of fact, there is a market for the very worst articles in the United States. I know that, and I know that you can even get paid for them, because I sold some of them myself. If the Minister would get in touch with an American syndicate he would find that he will not have to pay for the publication of articles, because the American syndicate will pay for them, particularly if they come with the authority of a Minister of the State.

Mr. FITZGERALD

The Deputy's proposal seems to be that this Vote should be withdrawn in favour of circulating the "Journal of the Associated Chambers of Commerce." I would not like the Deputy to hear what our Minister for Industry and Commerce has to say to that proposal. With all the respect which is due to the "Journal of the Associated Chambers of Commerce" it does not always supply what you might call "a long-felt want." The Deputy insists upon talking about papers. It is not always a question of papers, though you may have a paper like the "Manchester Guardian Supplement." Obviously the "Corriere de la Sera" or the "Journal des Debats" are not going to have an elaborate article dealing with Guinness's Brewery or the bullock trade in Ireland, or the Butter-grading or Egg-grading Bills. They do not do that in these little papers. But those papers are not the only papers we have. We have reviews like the "Revue de deux Mondes" and other periodicals, the names of which I cannot recall at the moment.

Major COOPER

Has the "Revue de deux Mondes" printed anything prepared by the Minister?

Mr. FITZGERLAD

Yes, the "Revue de Geneve" and "Le Flambeau," and half a dozen French reviews, and a great many American reviews print articles from time to time. To-day I was asking the Minister for Industry and Commerce to have an article prepared from his Department for an English review—I do not know at the moment what its title is, but it deals with system in business and advertising and that sort of thing. The sum of £300 is a small sum. You will require a certain number of photographs for those articles. From the point of view of the usefulness of the article printed, it is desirable sometimes to have reprints made. The article printed from the Minister for Justice in "Le Flambeau" was reprinted in pamphlet form. "Le Flambeau" is not a scurrilous organ living upon propaganda, as the Deputy knows, and it was useful to our office in Brussels to have a certain number of pamphlets giving information on the various aspects of affairs in Ireland. That called for a certain expenditure. It did not cost a great deal to have a couple of hundred pamphlets printed, but what it did cost would, in a similar case, come out of this £300.

Major COOPER

I would withdraw my objection if the Minister could assure me that all articles sent out by his Department dealing with trade are passed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. If they emanated from those Departments, they might be of value.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Except for articles in the "Journal of the Associated Chambers of Commerce," we would take responsibility for them.

Major COOPER

Has the Minister read this month's number?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This month's number is exceptionally good.

Mr. CORISH

It must be devoted to praising the Shannon scheme.

Mr. HEWAT

The Minister did not throw any odium on the "Journal of the Associated Chambers of Commerce" when he made use of it for his own purpose.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I say this month's number is commendable; it is extraordinarily good.

Mr. HEWAT

Is that because it suits the Minister or from a critical point of view?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is splendid from the point of view of judgment— simply judgment.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The paper to which Deputy Cooper referred—the "Journal des Debats"—did, last autumn, print an article by a well-known person—probably not so well known as he should be—Seán T. O'Kelly, on the existing Irish Republic, which article, I believe, was propaganda.

Major COOPER

There is an item here under the heading "B. 7"—Loss on Exchange. My experience is that sometimes you lose on exchange and sometimes you gain on exchange. What I would like to know is, why we should always lose on exchange? Has the Minister any information to give us as to what the exact loss was on exchange last year? If you are carrying on the whole year, the general experience is that you work out fairly evenly in regard to exchange. I do not know whether we pay our officials abroad in the money of the country to which they are accredited or in our own money, but the general tendency of Europe has been to gain on exchange from this country rather than to lose. It is a very small item, but I would like to know why we should always lose.

Mr. FITZGERALD

We do not always lose. Last year we gained on exchange, but we have to provide against loss.

Major COOPER

Has not the Minister the surplus from last year?

Mr. FITZGERALD

They do not allow us to keep any little thing made in that way.

Major COOPER

The Minister should have embodied that in his opening statement.

Vote put and agreed to.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move that we report progress.