Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 21 Feb 1929

Vol. 28 No. 2

Public Business. - Treaty for the Renunciation of War.

Mr. McGilligan

I move:—

"That Dáil Eireann approves of the Treaty for the Renunciation of War, signed at Paris on the 27th day of August, 1928, a copy of which was laid upon the Table of the Dáil on the 20th day of February, 1929, and recommends the Executive Council to take the necessary steps for its ratification."

I stated yesterday that I did not intend to make any lengthy preliminary statement in moving this motion, but that if points were raised, if there was any suspicion among people, any distrust as to the manner in which the Pact was negotiated, or as to the circumstances of the signing or ratification of it, I would deal with them. The history of the Pact is so recent I do not intend to go into details concerning it. It will be within the recollection of most people that in June, 1927, a proposal was made by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Secretary of State in America that both Powers should enter into a bilateral pact renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, and that a settlement of international disputes should be sought only by pacific means. Towards the end of that year the Secretary of State in America proposed that a better contribution towards world peace could be made if, instead of confining it to the two nations then concerned, it were thrown open and an attempt made to get the adherence of the principal Powers of the world. The result was that in April, 1928, a Note was sent to the other four Great Powers asking that they should all become co-signatories to a treaty renouncing war as an instrument of national policy. An invitation was extended to this country in May, 1928 under circumstances which have already been discussed in this House and the original Pact, without any modification, was signed for this State by President Cosgrave in August of that year. It was signed under full power issued to him on the advice of the Executive Council, a full power, it should be noted, that in this case, as in the case of all other signatories from the Commonwealth of Nations, was limited to the area of jurisdiction of this Parliament. In that respect his power was of an equality with that of the signatories who signed on behalf of the other States, members of the Commonwealth, inasmuch as they, Great Britain included, had their powers limited to the area of jurisdiction of their own Parliament.

The Pact, the terms of which were circulated yesterday is now before the Dáil for approval by the passage of this motion so that the Executive Council can take steps to ratify it. As I have already explained, the American Administration goes out of office in March and wish to complete the Pact before then. To meet their wishes we, acting similarly to all the other Governments, are taking steps to get ratification achieved before the 4th March. In order to do that this exceptional step had to be taken by us: The instrument of ratification was prepared on our advice and despatched to the Charge d'Affaires at Washington. On the receipt of the message that this motion, ratifying the Pact, has been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas it will be presented to the Secretary of State in America. The ratification has been done by the King on the advice of the Executive Council. It is a notable event in our history in so far as it is the first time that there has been an international agreement signed by any State member of the Commonwealth other than Great Britain as a separate instrument of ratification. It is the first time that we negotiated and ratified an international agreement of this kind. The reasons which prompted the bringing forward of this Pact for the Renunciation of War are matters of common knowledge. People may be cynical. A great deal of cynicism was expressed to-day in the Seanad as to the effects of it. As to whether the full fruits may come from it in regard to the universal abandonment of war I am not concerned, but I think it is time that we should play our part in promoting the idea of peace and not refuse by any action to promote the main and simple idea of this Pact which is to try and have disputes between nations settled otherwise than by warlike means. The Pact says that there should be no recourse to war and that a settlement of international disputes should be sought only by way of pacific means.

Mr. O'Kelly

With the main idea behind this Pact, those for whom I can claim to speak are in full sympathy. The idea of ending war appeals to us as I think it would appeal to every humane person. Those of us who took any interest or whether we took an interest or not, whether our interest was deep or otherwise, in the history of the last fifteen or sixteen years and the wars that have taken place during that time, ought to, if we have any feeling for humanity, bear in mind the awful things that have happened in Europe. We ought to bend all our energies and use all our influence to endeavour to promote the idea of international peace, and to end war as the supposed purpose of the Treaty now before us is. However, from our point of view, we believe that it would not be right for us, those of us in particular who stand for the absolute and complete independence of our country, whose idea and ideal it is to work and use all means without restriction to achieve that object, the freedom of our country—we do not think that it would be right for us now, without a similar declaration being made by those who hold our country in subjection—a definite declaration without reservation—and who are strong enough to use force to hold our country—without a similar declaration being made by those people, the responsible heads of the British Government, who control the British Empire, we do not think that it would be right in the name of our own people and in the name of those who are carrying on that fight still, that we should say in advance that we will give up the only means that have yet been used with success to bring that powerful secular enemy of ours to her senses.

We know that other means have been tried down the centuries, especially in the last century and a half or so. Constitutional means have been tried with out effect by our people and by people speaking in the name of Ireland to bring that secular enemy to a sense of the justice of the rights of Ireland These methods have failed. We know that other methods, methods of force, were not adopted by us because of any love of force. That applies to our people generally. It is not because our people are a pugnacious people or a people who resort unnecessarily to arms, but because there were people in the country who were prepared to make any and every sacrifice so that the freedom of the country might be achieved. That was why war was resorted to at any time by our people. We do not think, speaking so far as we can in the name of those who are out to win that freedom for all Ireland, that it would be proper or right, even in the name of a part of Ireland such as this State can speak for, to tie the hands of our people behind their backs and to say to the enemy, "We give up the only means that have yet proved in any way successful in winning recognition from you of the rights of the people of Ireland to their freedom." I say again that we want peace; we desire peace. We would be prepared at the same time as that secular enemy of our country to make a declaration, if they gave up the force by which they have divided this country in two, by which they have held this country so long, we would with gladness and joy make a similar declaration that war for us is over. "You drop force in holding our country, you give our people the right to express their wish and their will with regard to their country freely and in an unfettered way, without holding over them the threat of war." Then we say that we are prepared to join with any and every nation in a declaration that will have sincerity behind it that wars of any kind between nations and peoples should end.

I do not suggest that the United States or the Secretary of State for the United States, who is primarily responsible for the bringing forward of this instrument was anything but sincere in his object. I do not suggest that the Governments or some of them who signed that declaration were not sincere. Some of them were, I am sure. Some of them, we cannot hold, were absolutely sincere, seeing that to our own knowledge at the present moment a threat of force is used; a threat of war is used and held over our own heads to prevent the liberty and the unity of our own country being accomplished. What sincerity there is in the declaration by a nation that holds this country, by the declaration of that nation that they want international peace, when they are doing their utmost to prevent such peace being accomplished between themselves and their nearest neighbour, we cannot see. We cannot believe that the intentions of such a country or of such a Government are honest. Therefore, to that extent, speaking of one country at any rate, we believe that the signature of that country to this document is not sincere. While it is useful perhaps to have on record even a declaration from that Government in the name of their people that they want international peace, we would like to see action as well as words. Therefore, taking the stand we do as to the rights of our country and the rights of our people to use any and every honourable means constitutional or otherwise, to achieve the full freedom and unity of our country, we cannot in sincerity and in honesty agree to a declaration of that kind until some of those—at least one of the countries who have already signed it make a similar declaration, not merely by words but by acts, that they have come to the same conclusion that war in all sincerity ought to be brought to an end as a means for ending disputes between nations.

There are other reasons why we believe difficulties are in our way in agreeing to ratification of this Pact. We hold that we are not free. While we are free certainly to sign that Pact, we are not absolutely free agents. We can be forced at any time by a certain neighbour of ours into war whether we like it or not. We have no choice in the matter. One reason for that is Article 7 of the Treaty signed in 1921, the Treaty on which the Constitution of this State is founded. Article 7 says:—

(a) In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto, or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State; and

(b) In time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid.

We are not strong enough to prevent England, in case she were at war or in case war were threatened even and she desired it, from making use of our country, our harbours or territory. Therefore, England can send her fleet into our harbours and her armies into our territory. She could do that before this Treaty was signed I know She is doing that definitely now. This Treaty has been signed, and so far as it could be done by that instrument having been signed we are willingly assenting to the fact that England can force our country to be the cockpit of war in case war did come about, let us say, between England and the United States. We look upon the Kellogg Pact as a desirable thing, but we think that we ought to be absolutely free to decide the full destinies of our own country before we make any declaration binding ourselves not to use all the means we might be able to use to win the full freedom of our own country.

The terms of the Pact itself are certainly admirable. In the fourth paragraph of the Preamble there are just one or two lines to which I have already said we take objection: "That any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty." In self-defence, in defence of our own rights and liberties, when Dáil Eireann was established in 1919, in defence of the rights and liberties of the people of Ireland and of all Ireland war was waged on a neighbouring Power. We used the natural rights of our citizenship to defend our liberty which was attacked. Are we going to say now that, for all time, no matter what invasion of our rights and liberties may be made by the only country that ever interfered with our rights, whatever they do to us, whatever rights they filch from us, whatever invasion of our liberty they may be guilty of as they are guilty at this moment, we will stand with our hands tied and let England do what she pleases to us? It might be, if we were all ideal Christians, the desirable thing to do. I am afraid we are not. We have not yet arrived at that advanced stage of Christian civilisation and we have had it proved in our history that England will listen to nothing else from this country but the mailed fist. In my time, I do not want to see war again. I do not want to see shooting. I do not want to see bloodshed. I earnestly and sincerely hope it will not happen in my time and that we may be successful by other methods. I am not going to preach a different doctrine now from what I preached from my earliest boyhood, that it is the right and duty of every young Irishman to defend with arms, if necessary, the rights and liberties of the whole people of Ireland. Others may have changed their tune on that matter. I cannot bring myself to change the doctrine I was brought up on, that I have endeavoured to practise and have preached and will continue to preach as long as I have power and voice to do so.

In the letter that the Minister for External Affairs sent when announcing the decision of the Executive Council to adhere to this Pact, he made clear that the Kellogg Pact would be signed subject to the commitment of the Free State under the Covenant of the League of Nations. The date is not on this extract, which is taken from the "Irish Times" of the 17th July, 1928:—

As I informed you in my Note of the 30th May, the Government of the Irish Free State were prepared to accept unreservedly the draft Treaty proposed by your Government on the 13th April, holding, as they did, that neither their right of self-defence nor their commitments under the Covenant of the League of Nations were in any way prejudiced by its terms.

Article X of the League of Nations binds every adherent of the League of Nations to back up every other member of the League of Nations in preserving the present boundaries of the signatory countries. Article X of the League of Nations, when the Constitution of the League of Nations was in course of adoption, was opposed by Dáil Eireann of 1919, and Dáil Eireann, through its representatives and spokesmen, had a great deal to say in inducing America to turn down the ratification of the Constitution of the League of Nations in America. Dáil Eireann spokesmen everywhere they were, in Ireland or outside of it, emphasised that Article X of the League of Nations gave England the right to demand the help of other nations signatory to that Treaty in trying to preserve the boundaries that then existed, Ireland being regarded by Great Britain as part of her territory. Under Article X—that was our gospel at that time—she could claim the right to ask all other countries signatory to that Treaty to come and assist her in fighting Ireland, if necessary, to preserve the territorial integrity of the British Empire, which included Ireland. That argument was preached up and down America; that argument met President Wilson when he went on a great tour through the United States in favour of the League of Nations. Everywhere he went Dáil Eireann representatives and those they could influence met President Wilson. In every town through which he went Dáil Eireann funds were used to have huge full-page advertisements in the newspapers, stating that Article X, if agreed to, would assist Great Britain in keeping Ireland within the British Empire and in preserving the boundaries as they then existed.

It is interesting to mention that the very first protest that was made against Article X, before ever a word was mentioned about it in the United States or anywhere else, was made by the envoy of Dáil Eireann in 1919 on behalf of Dáil Eireann, and it was on that protest that America based its opposition, on the very words of that protest that was used throughout America to influence America. It influenced many Senators and Congressmen. We had considerable influence at that time as a united people, fighting for our rights, and the arguments that Dáil Eireann used at that time were very largely responsible for the fact that America refused to ratify that Covenant and refused eventually to join the League of Nations. In this letter that the Minister for External Affairs sent to his Excellency, Mr. Sterling, the representative of the United States, it is clearly stated that this Pact was signed subject to the commitments of the Irish Free State under Article X of the League of Nations Covenant. So far as that Covenant binds Irish citizens, in any way, to respect the present boundaries —I am not alone talking of the boundaries that exist in our own country now and ought not to exist, but I am also refusing to be bound by, so far as we can revise them, the boundaries of the British Empire in so far as countries like Egypt and India are concerned—we deny the right of Ireland's name to be used in guaranteeing these boundaries, and we refuse to ratify any instrument, however good in itself, that means inferentially that we recognise the boundary in our country or boundaries in those other countries I have mentioned that are there under duress. Though our might is not great, though our moral influence or otherwise in the world's diplomacy, particularly, may not be great, I say we would not be true to our history if we guaranteed in that way by our signatures any Pact to assist any empire, English or otherwise, in holding down any people that wish to be free.

Therefore, if there is an implication, as I maintain there is, in that signature, owing to the letter of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that we bind ourselves to respect the boundaries of the British Empire, as at present constituted, we repudiate that signature and we say that we, at any rate, can have no hand, act or part in agreeing to it.

I asked here yesterday if the Minister would be so kind as to lay on the Table, for the information of members of the House and the public in general, the correspondence that passed between London and Dublin—between the English Government and the Government of the Irish Free State—with reference to this Pact. The Minister did not see his way to lay such correspondence on the Table. I was anxious, and I believe there were other people anxious, that all this diplomatic business should be done in the open. You remember one of the principles for which America was supposed to have entered the war. One of the principles laid down by President Wilson was "open diplomacy, openly arrived at." We claim, in accord with that principle, that all the correspondence and documents should be laid on the Table. We are being asked to sign this document in the dark. We do not know all the principles that we are being committed to. There is one particular aspect of it that I would like further light upon. There is a letter that was sent by Sir Austen Chamberlain, the English Foreign Minister, to the Secretary for the United States, Mr. Kellogg, not exactly by way of putting forward reservations. I believe he repudiated the idea that this letter was to be regarded as putting forward reservations. I think if we use the word "interpretations" we will be accurate in describing the letter that was sent by Sir Austen Chamberlain on May 19th from the English Foreign Office to Washington. There are 13 articles in this particular letter, reservations or interpretations, whatever you like to call them. They were put forward by England not exactly as conditions, but as interpretations, giving her idea of what this Kellogg Pact would mean to her and how far she intended to go in her own interpretation of the meaning of the Kellogg Pact. In the course of Article X of that important letter it is stated:—

The language of Article 1, as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, renders it desirable that I should remind your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's Government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Their protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defence. It must be clearly understood that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain accept the new Treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect.

When asking for the correspondence that passed between the Executive Council of the Irish Free State and the British Government or other Dominions of the British Government with reference to this Pact, I was particularly anxious to know if any effort had been made to get from England an interpretation of what England meant by the certain regions of the world over which she maintains a right to look after their special welfare and integrity. During the time the negotiations which finished in the signing of that regrettable Treaty of 1921 were on we know that the English Ministers declared that it was necessary for the peace and safety of England that she should hold Ireland, and that is the reason why they hold Ireland to-day, and why their garrison here in this country are holding our harbours and why they claim that it is necessary for their peace and safety. I was anxious to know if any effort was made by the Irish Free State to have the language in that Article X. of the letter of Sir Austen Chamberlain clarified, and to find out if England still maintained and declared that it was necessary for her peace and safety, and the safety of her Empire, that she should hold Ireland as she holds it at present, and that, despite the fact that she was negotiating and signing a Pact with America to renounce war, she still found it necessary, and would continue to find it necessary, to tell us and tell the world that holding Ireland was absolutely necessary for her peace and security. Possibly I will be told that the Executive Council of the Irish Free State are not concerned with what England says to America as to the interpretation she may give of her signature. That would be all very well, if we could accept that, if Ireland were not in the unfortunate position of being like the mouse and the cat so far as Ireland and the British Empire are concerned. That would be all very well if we were an absolutely free country, if the whole people of Ireland had been given absolutely and definitely the right to decide freely for themselves what form of government they desire.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

What about Document No. 2?

Mr. O'Kelly

England stepped in and did not allow that to happen. She partitioned our country and holds six counties of Ireland, which are garrisoned by her army. England holds the harbours of Ireland, which are garrisoned by her navy, to prevent the people of Ireland from declaring freely and in an unfettered way what their own will and wish is with regard to the liberty of our country. We have to recognise England still as a dominating political influence in the two parts of this country. England still has a definite, clear dominance here. Therefore, we are bound to take notice of any declaration of this kind made by the Foreign Minister of England in the name of his Government. We are bound to use our intelligence and to read between the lines that England still maintains her right to hold this country, as she says, in the interests of her own security. Therefore it is our duty, and it would be at least the duty of those interested in the freedom and unity of Ireland, to see, when Governments were being asked to sign an important declaration, that it was an opportunity that might be used with advantage to try to induce, diplomatically if you like, from England a declaration that, now that she was giving up war and declaring that she would give up war for ever, except, as she says, of course for defence, but at any rate renouncing war, she would be prepared to recognise the right of this people that she holds in subjection to absolute freedom of choice as a people and a nation, not as a divided country as at present, but as a united people, to declare their will and wish with regard to the future of their own country. I would be anxious to know if any attempt was made to avail of the opportunity that was given when the Irish Free State was asked to adhere to this Pact to use diplomatic influence in order to secure from England a declaration that she, at any rate, was sincere and intended no further to impose by force her will or wish on this country or on any of the two parts into which she has divided it.

England has issued her own interpretation; America has done the same. America has declared that the Continent of America is her sphere of influence and, therefore, that England or any other country should not, without it being considered an unfriendly act, interfere in the internal affairs or arrangements of the nations composing the sphere of influence over which the Monroe doctrine is supposed to rule. That is America's affair. I object to imperialism anywhere, but we on this side of the House, at any rate, are more particularly interested in the influence and dominance that is exercised by one Empire over us. Until we have got rid of that influence and secured the freedom of our own country most of our efforts must be used to free our own country, and when we have freed it, as, please God, we will free it and unite it again, we will be in a better position to use whatever little influence we may have in the affairs of the world to induce empires to give the right that we claim for our own people to other subject countries the world over.

In asking if there is sincerity behind this Pact one is forced to take notice of the fact that while its ratification was being discussed in some Parliaments Bills were before the Parliaments of the different nations asking for money supplies to increase and, in some cases, to increase by huge amounts, the armaments of these same nations. A few days after agreeing to the ratification of the Kellogg Pact America voted a sum of money to enable its Navy to be very largely increased. Fifteen new cruisers are to be built. England, after signing this Pact declaring against war for ever, has revised her intention recently expressed to reduce the building programme of her Navy. Only a few days after the Kellogg Pact was agreed to in America, England announced she intended to increase her Navy by the addition of three cruisers, one of ten thousand tons and two of eight thousand tons each, every year for the next five years. That is to be the minimum building programme. We know that France is building a large number of submarines and that Germany is laying down again the basis of a fleet. All these nations are signatories to the Kellogg Pact.

In the case of America, it must be realised that the commerce of America is growing. The nation has very recently grown remarkably prosperous; her industries and commerce have extended to an extraordinary extent, and her commerce is with every corner of the world. Therefore America claims the right to protect her commerce; she claims the right to a fleet that will adequately protect her ships of commerce in every sea. For a long time, more than a hundred years or a hundred and fifty, England has claimed that she and she alone has the right not alone to protect her own commerce which nobody would refuse to her, but to dominate the seas.

During the last war America claimed freedom on the seas as a neutral, as she was in the early stages of the war. She claimed the right to have her ships of commerce pass in and out of the war zones of the seas without molestation. That right was not admitted. Therefore America claims now that the only way she can protect her ships is to build a fleet big enough to protect them and big enough to face the biggest fleet on the seas. She is building a fleet, we are told by the American Press that will at least equal that of England, and that being so, has it not followed in history—I need not remind anybody, for they know as well as I do—that war was the consequence of such armament-building in the past? The possibilities are that, as a result of this rivalry that is existing, and that will continue and grow in intensity, that conflict may occur between England and America on the seas. It is not stretching our imagination too far if we look back into history.

Where is Ireland going to come in in case that happens? We are deeply interested, whether we like it or not, in these two great peoples and nations. We have close relationship of blood and otherwise with both these countries. Millions of our people have passed into the United States and formed part of that great people. Millions of our people have gone to England, and their descendants are citizens of Britain to-day. Where are we going to be if that conflict takes place, as perhaps it will? If it takes place, what is going to be the position of Ireland? Under the present diplomatic and political conditions that now exist in Ireland and the relations that exist between England and Ireland, if they are continued, Irish harbours and seas round Ireland will be red with the blood of her own people, and her own territory will be used whether we like it or not, whether we wish to take sides or not, as the cockpit of this conflict which, it is not too great a stretch of the imagination to picture, will take place.

Unless we can get rid of the political and diplomatic commitments that bind our people under the Treaty of 1921, signed, as I maintain, under threat of war, and the commitments under the League of Nations Covenant, signed willingly in the name of some of the people of Ireland by the Executive Council and get recognition for our country as a definitely neutral State the prospect for Ireland in a possible war between England and America is certainly not pleasant to think of.

In view of all these arguments, and owing to the refusal of the Minister to give us the information that we are asking for, owing to the commitments of Ireland at the present time, diplomatic and political, willingly agreed to in some cases, unwillingly in others, we cannot, we believe, honestly and sincerely give a vote in favour of the ratification of this Pact, though we do say honestly and sincerely that from our hearts we would be happy to see Ireland in a position to sign the Kellogg Pact or a similar international declaration made in the name of free nations, made in the name of Ireland, as one of the free nations—absolutely free and independent, and a united Ireland. If Ireland were free and independent and were asked to sign such a declaration, no body of people in Ireland would be happier or more pleased to make the declaration under the conditions I have suggested than those for whom I speak.

Mr. Lemass

I was rather astonished at the reticence of Deputies of parties sitting in other Benches not rising to speak upon this question. In order to give them an opportunity of reconsidering the effect of their silence and perhaps deciding what they are going to say, there are one or two minor points on this question with which I shall occupy the House. In the first place I would like to draw attention to the reasons given by the Minister for External Affairs in refusing to make available to Deputies the documents that passed between his Government and the Government of Britain in relation to this Treaty. I asked the Minister yesterday to state definitely what were the special reasons for maintaining secrecy in connection with this Treaty, and he evaded the answer by asserting that he had already answered. Since that we have had an opportunity of actually examining the very words he used, and we find that they are merely a general expression of opinion that it is usually undesirable to publish documents passing between members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, because otherwise all constitutional progress would be made impossible.

I can understand that there are very many documents which passed between the Minister for External Affairs and the British Government which in the interests of constitutional progress or otherwise it might be very undersirable to publish. These documents, if ever they do see the light of day, will be found to deal with many, various and certainly very interesting matters, starting back from the order which came originally, no doubt, for the initiation of the Civil War. But although I can recognise that there is a very strong argument for maintaining secrecy in respect of the greater portion of the correspondence between the Government here and the Government in Great Britain surely in this case of a Treaty for the renunciation of war, if on no other ground whatsoever, there is no reasonable ground for refusing to let the light of day shine on the facts relating to it. If ever there was a case for open diplomacy this is one.

The very fact that there has been a refusal to disclose these documents is in itself an indication that there is something to be concealed. What is to be concealed it is not very difficult to guess. Certain indications have been given to us to the nature of the communications which were addressed to the Minister for External Affairs here from His Majesty's Government in Great Britain. We are very completely in the dark as to the nature of the replies. Deputy O'Kelly has made certain references to the reservations by the British Government in respect of Article 1 of this Treaty. Article 1 of this Treaty reads as follows:—

"The High Contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another."

To that solemn declaration there appear the signatures of the various representatives of His Majesty, acting on behalf of a number of His Majesty's Dominions. It was in respect of that particular Article that the British reservations were produced. The British Government, before accepting the invitation to become a party to this Treaty, thought it desirable to point out to the Government of the United States.

"that the language of Article 1 as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy renders it desirable that I should remind your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's Government has been at pains in the past to make it clear that any interference with the integrity of these regions cannot be suffered."

Now it is true that later on in the same communication the British Government asked the Secretary of the United States Government to observe that the detailed arguments in that paragraph are expressed on behalf of his Majesty's Government in Great Britain. They stated, however, that they had been in communication with the Governments of the various Dominions and had ascertained that they were all in general agreement with the cordial principle of the proposed Treaty. I wish the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for External Affairs—since things that are equal to the same are equal to one another—to tell us if the actual reservations which were ultimately made by the British Government were first communicated to him, and if they were considered by him, and if he Government sent any definite expression of opinion to the British Government with regard to them? This matter was discussed in the Dáil before on the motion for the adjournment, and the Minister for External Affairs made the amazing assertion that we were no more concerned with the British reservation than we were concerned with the reservations made by the French Government, or by the United States Government. He made that assertion, despite the fact that this State is operating under a Constitution based on a Treaty containing Article 7. Deputy O'Kelly has just read that Article. Under it the Executive Council are obliged to give to the British Government in time of war such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require. I would ask the Deputies to realise that in that Article of the Treaty of 1921 there is no qualification whatsoever placed upon the term "war." It does not merely refer to a defensive war. It refers to any war in which Great Britain may be engaged, and in that connection we must therefore study the reservations which the British Government thought fit to make to Article I of this Article. It means that we are directly concerned in these reservations. If we are to renounce war we must make it quite clear to the other signatories of this Pact that we are only in a position to give a very limited renunciation. Because whenever it should suit the interests of another signatory; whenever another signatory feels fit to engage in any war in any of these regions of the earth in which they feel they have been appointed by God to guide the natives, or whenever there are strained relations between that other signatory and the people residing in these regions, we will be compelled to ignore this Treaty which we are now asked to ratify and abide by the original Treaty of 1921.

When the Vote for the Department of External Affairs was under consideration in this House, either in the previous session or the one before it, I drew attention to the conflict which might possibly arise between the commitments which the Executive Council had made under the Covenant of the League of Nations and the commitments which they had made by the signing of this Treaty in respect of Article 7. By the Covenant of the League of Nations this State was committed not to give facilities to any belligerent in any aggressive war. I asked the Minister for External Affairs to tell us, if it should happen that Britain had become engaged in an aggressive war within the meaning of the Covenant of the League of Nations and insisted on her right under Article 7 of the Treaty to secure harbour and other facilities here, would we honour our bond with the League of Nations or with Britain? I asked the Minister to tell us which tie would prove the stronger in that event. I could not get an answer, or, at any rate, I did not get an answer. I think that the very same question arises for answer in connection with this Treaty We are hereby asked to declare that—

"Persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end, that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between the peoples may be perpetuated."

If we are persuaded that the time has come when there should be a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, will we take up or will the Executive Council take up with the British Government the obligations of Article 7 of the Treaty with a view to having that article eliminated? And if they will not do that, will they make it clear to the Government of the United States that we are not free agents in this matter in the renunciation of war, and will they make it clear to the Government of the United States if it should happen that Britain will denounce the Pact and engage in a war in contravention of it, that we, under this Treaty, would be bound to stand by Britian and to violate our signature to this Treaty? I agree with Deputy O'Kelly that it does appear that this Treaty, as an instrument for the prevention of war, is not worth the paper it is written on. If the nation whose representatives signed this Pact really desire to banish war from the earth, let them renounce not war, but renounce what causes war. Let them renounce aggression. Let Britain withdraw her armies from Northern Ireland and let France withdraw her armies from German territory. Let them get their cannon and beat them into tractors, and take their fleets and send them to join the German fleet at the bottom of the North Sea. If they do that, then we will have some concrete evidence of their sincerity.

Some time ago when the representatives of Soviet Russia attended a disarmament conference at Geneva and made the astounding proposal to abolish armies they were laughed at. On the faces of every one of the professional diplomats of Europe there appeared that kind of smile which we are accustomed to see on the faces of Ministers when we ask them in the Dáil to honour the promises that they make during elections. But the Russian proposal was turned out of court. It was ignored; it was denounced by every Government because it cut right down to the root of things and stripped the sham of all this pretence which is being maintained by these Governments to effect general disarmament or to renounce war.

We are, no doubt, one of the smallest and probably one of the least significant signatories to the Pact, but we can give a lead to the others. Let us therefore give them a lead. Let us tell the British Government that, having signed this Pact, we are going to honour it, and that henceforth Article 7 of the Treaty holds no weight. Let us see what the British Government will reply. Test the sincerity of their signature to the Pact. Let us announce that in no war, whether it be a war of aggression or of defence in which Britian engages, will we allow ourselves in any way to be involved. We have been involved in wars for very many centuries and in consequence of the fighting we had to do in order to preserve our own existence, other people got the idea that we like it and they called us a fighting race. We, being the fools we are in that connection, became ourselves convinced that we liked it, and we were rather proud of the title of a fighting race. But we know that we are a people with a desire for peace deeply ingrained in us to an extent which probably does not exist in any other race on the earth. We know that if we are allowed to live our own lives in peace that we would never be the aggressor against any other country. We know, too, that although there does appear to be on the surface of things peace in Ireland at this moment, there is in existence what was described over a hundred years ago in Grattan's Parliament by a speaker there, a state of smothered war. There is no fighting on at the moment and there is no violent disturbance of conditions, but that is merely because the stronger power with which we are contending has succeeded for the moment in buying one half of us and in intimidating the other half. At some future date there will come a renewal of courage to the Irish people, and if those conditions still prevail on that day, then all the Pacts in the world or that can be brought into the world will not prevent a renewal of war here to achieve the longdesired independence of our country.

If Britain has the least sincerity whatsoever in the signing of the Pact, if she has the least desire to give a lead to the world towards the renunciation of war, she can take a very effective step towards that end by merely making a simple declaration that she will not attempt to interfere by force with any desire on the part of the Irish people, by their free vote, to establish a Republican form of Government here, and another declaration to the effect that she will not support the minority in the North in maintaining the partition of our country. I would dislike very much to see any Irish Government, even this Irish Government, poor and all as is my opinion of them, associated with an act so obviously hypocritical as this act is.

I am not a cynic. I believe there is amongst all the peoples of the earth a very real desire for world peace. I believe there is a very real desire for the creation of conditions under which war will be impossible. But I do think that until that desire finds expression through some other channels than the recognised channels of diplomacy, then it is liable to prove fruitless. If we and if the other people of the earth are going to leave it in the hands of those who conducted and initiated the world war of 1914, and imposed the treaty of conquest which followed that war, then we will perhaps get quite a number of declarations of this kind, but we will get no real attempt to solve this problem and ensure, in the words of this Pact, that the various signatory Powers shall henceforth seek to promote their natural interests by orderly processes.

I ask the Dáil to repudiate this Treaty. I ask it to reject this motion to ratify it for the various grounds that I have mentioned, first, because this Dáil, if it is going to stand by the Treaty of 1921, cannot consistently sign it; secondly, because there is in this country at the moment a state of war which sooner or later will become more obvious, but which undoubtedly does exist; and, thirdly, because documents of this kind will prove useless unless they are preceded by a general determination on behalf of the Governments concerned to stop the means of war which they are now piling up within their respective shores.

Mr. T. O'Connell

I had not the advantage of hearing the Minister's statement when he was introducing this motion, nor had I the advantage of hearing Deputy O'Kelly's speech. I listened to Deputy Lemass and, listening to him, I have been wondering exactly what is the question before us, whether this Parliament should ratify this document, or whether Britain should ratify it, or whether some other country should ratify it. The question before us is not the action of Britain or France or the United States, or the insincerity of any of these countries. They may be insincere, but the question we have to ask ourselves is: Are our signatories to this document sincere in their renunciation that they have set their hands to? If we believe they are, then I hold it is our duty to ratify the Pact. I have listened to many admirable speeches from Deputy Lemass since he came to this Parliament, but I am afraid I cannot congratulate him on the speech he has delivered just now. I believe it is the type of mind disclosed by the speech of Deputy Lemass in his particular outlook that is responsible for a good deal of the wars that have occured in history.

That suspicion seems to be always oozing out as to what the other fellow is going to do. There is a good deal of that in this country at present. There is a good deal of it in other countries, and it is because it exists in the Chancelleries of other countries that wars are bred. It is out of such suspicion as exemplified mildly in the speech of Deputy Lemass, that wars are bred. We have in this country many people unfortunately who seem to talk about, and even to gloat over, the prospects of war between the United States and Great Britain, and they think that when that day comes the millenium will have arrived for Ireland. That is the sort of talk, no doubt ill-informed, that one hears, and I am afraid it is encouraged by speeches of the type we have just heard from Deputy Lemass. There is no need for any sensible man to say that it will be an unfortunate day for this country if it happens that war should break out between the United States and England. No matter what Government may be in power, or how anxious we are not to be drawn into such a war, no matter what the people will do to declare their neutrality, they will be bound, in spite of all that, to get embroiled in a war between those two nations. It ought to be the bounden duty of every person of good-will to do everything possible in his power to prevent a catastrophe of that kind from coming about. We have a document before us which was initiated by the United States. Deputy Lemass seems to think that it was an amazing assertion on the part of the Minister to say that we were not responsible for the reservations which Great Britain made. The Minister is the authoritative mouthpiece of this country.

Mr. Lemass

I would like to correct the Deputy. I did not say that the Minister was not responsible, but what the Minister said was that we were not more concerned with the British than with the French reservations, and I say that that is an amazing statement.

Mr. O'Connell

I take it that, speaking for the Government, the Minister said that we were not accepting these reservations, that we are taking no responsibility for them, and that we are accepting the Pact without any reservations. I accept that statement from him as the responsible Minister for the time being, and that we are signing it without reservation of any kind. It is not our fault if Great Britain has made certain reservations. We do not stand by them. We have made our position clear with regard to reservations. The fact that this is a Treaty for the renunciation of war as a national policy is a reason why this Parliament should ratify the signature of its representative. If we do not do so, what is the alternative? If we refuse to adopt this motion, let Deputy Lemass say what he likes with regard to his reasons for refusing to accept it, all over the world it will be assumed, and I think it is bound to be assumed, that we refused to ratify it, possibly because we are a fighting race, and like to have a fight now and again, that we refuse to accept the Pact because it contains a renunciation of war. In that event we would be marking ourselves out in a very special way from the other nations whose signatures are appended to this document. I think it would be a wrong policy on the part of this Parliament to reject this motion. It may be said that it does not make much matter one way or the other, as we are a small nation.

I agree to the extent that our actual physical interference in war would make very little difference but it seems to me that, in so far as we can it is our duty to preach peace. Perhaps it is more our duty to do so than if we had great armaments behind us. I believe that small nations like this can do a great deal to cultivate the peace mind in the world and to cultivate it more in our own little bit of the world perhaps than anywhere else. I do not know whether I belong to the half that was bought or to the half that was intimidated, but I do say that the statement from a responsible, sensible Deputy like Deputy Lemass to the effect that there is a state of war existing in this country at present is a statement that is bound not to do good, and not to make for that peace for which we are all very anxious, no doubt none more so than Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Little

There is a prisoner of war in Belfast.

Mr. Fitzgerald

rose.

Mr. Little

Is the Minister going to conclude?

Mr. Fitzgerald

No. The proposal before the Dáil is that we ratify a Treaty which lays it down that we are "Persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between peoples may be perpetuated." I gather that the Party opposite do not wish to ratify that Treaty. I admit that the two speeches to which I have listened did not make it clear on what grounds they do so, but I think the statement that a "frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between peoples may be perpetuated" represents the attitude of mind of citizens of this State. We accepted that unreservedly but we did use a phrase in our letter that we held that neither the rights of self-defence nor commitments under the League of Nations were in any way prejudiced by the terms of that. Deputies opposite wish us not to ratify that Treaty. It is very hard to understand what their objection to it is. They seem to imply that we are not free to do it on the one hand. We are perfectly free. They seem to imply that the signatories of Great Britain and the United States are not sincere in their statements. In ordinary relations between States when a State makes a solemn declaration one must assume that it means what it says unless it actually breaks its word. We are urged to say that because Article 7 of the Treaty of 1921 states certain things in the event of Great Britain being at war it nullifies the effect of this Pact. As a matter of fact, by this Treaty Great Britain undertakes not to resort to war. The terms of Article 7 apply only in case of war. The suggestion is that Great Britain has no intention of keeping the Treaty. I cannot see how we can get up here and assert that we know something that is in the mind of a Government, or potential Government, of another State when that State says that such a thing is not in its mind. Therefore Article 7 is not invoked because if what is laid down there needs to become operative it means that what is laid down in this Treaty has been negatived and it means that this Treaty has gone by the board. So far as this Treaty may be helpful in preventing such a situation arising we should be very thankful that it is forthcoming and that we have an opportunity of assisting its application.

Mr. Lemass

What about the League of Nations?

Mr. Fitzgerald

It was suggested that the Treaty of 1921 was contradictory to the commitments of Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Deputy can make his mind perfectly easy on that point. When we applied for admission to the League of Nations, all relevant documents were laid before the Committee of the League of Nations which had to consider the conditions here, and how far those conditions were compatible or not compatible with membership of the League of Nations. The Committee adverted fully to everything governing the Constitution here, and that Committee decided, Deputy Lemass notwithstanding, that there was no contradiction there. I have never been able to get head or tail of the policy of the Party opposite, but I think I am not misrepresenting them when I say that some of the statements made over there were roughly this—that we might want to go to war with Great Britain, and that we did not want this instrument to tie our hands if we were prepared to do that. I think that is a very fair interpretation of some of the remarks on the other side. On the other hand, I understand that Deputy O'Kelly has a great grievance. It may be the geographical situation of Ireland is what it is. He seems to have a great grievance because Great Britain is so much bigger than we are, or that we are so much smaller than Great Britain. He complains that we are not in a position to beat Great Britain. At the same time he complains that nothing should be done which may prevent him, in his martial ardour, from doing that at any moment he thinks fit.

I gather from Deputy Lemass that there are only two classes of people in this country—those who are bought, presumably ourselves—unfortunately I have not seen the colour of the money —and those who are intimidated— everybody in the other party, apparently, except Deputy O'Kelly. He apparently does not belong to this country at all. Deputy Lemass was very much concerned about the reason for what he calls secrecy, the reason for not making public every document which passed between this Government and the Governments of other countries.

Mr. Lemass

In relation to this Treaty.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I do not know why he does not carry it the whole way. Deputy O'Kelly's position implies that he stood for what he called open diplomacy. Presumably what he meant was open covenants, openly arrived at. The Party opposite are always assuring everybody that they are going to be the next Government here. Personally, I do not believe that they are, or ever will be. They think in their jubilant moments that their advent is very imminent. I think they are equally wrong in that, but if they are at any future time to become a Government, they have made what I consider to be the wildest, I won't say dishonest, promises to the unthinking people of the country. That might just as well go along with the other promises, but if they think that if ever they become a Government here that every communication passing from this State to every other State, that every conversation that they may have, will at the moment of its occurrence or immediately after be made public for everybody to read——

Mr. Corry

Is it better to commit the country first and then tell them about it?

Mr. Fitzgerald

I know that it is a splendid idealistic thing that everything should be done in the full light of day, but in ordinary human relations it does become a little difficult at times. As a matter of fact, I have heard people say how creditable it was to the Vatican and the Italian Government that they were able to negotiate the recent Treaty without the inconvenience of publicity being thrown upon them.

Mr. Lemass

There is quite a number of documents extant that we would be very glad to publish.

The President

You came across one in the last couple of days that you never expected to see.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The Opposition Deputies who spoke were very much concerned about Paragraph 10 of Sir Austen Chamberlain's letter, which may be described as a form of reservation. Our Minister for External Affairs has stated that we accept the Treaty unreservedly. There is something in the nature of a reservation in Sir Austen Chamberlain's letter, and Deputies voiced their concern about it. This is the reservation: "It must be clearly understood that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain accept the new Treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect." The respect to which it refers is "that there are certain regions of the world, the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our people's safety." Now, we know that the great objective in diplomacy of the people opposite is to secure a guarantee of neutrality. They tell us that the people who are to guarantee it are Great Britain, the United States, Germany and France. If such a thing were brought about by the diplomacy and wisdom of the people opposite, do you not think that a Treaty declaring a guarantee of neutrality would be in these terms: "We, the Government or the plenipotentiaries of such Government, undertake henceforward to regard the welfare and the integrity of the Irish Free State as a matter of vital interest to our honour laid down here in this Treaty?"

Mr. Lemass

Will we have to give the same facilities, the facilities of Article 7, to them? It would be rather awkward for us.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I, as an individual, would be very glad if I could get a lot of people vitally interested in my welfare and arguing from the person to the nation, I would be very anxious to get a whole lot of nations vitally interested in our integrity and welfare. The Party opposite seem to think that it is a direct reference to the Irish Free State, and it seems terrible to them that Britain should be interested in our welfare. I hope that more countries than England will be interested in our welfare.

Mr. Lemass

Not to the same extent.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I do not see that there is much to worry about. I do not see that this thing refers to the Irish Free State. The question of the Boundary was brought in, and it was said that we were committed to maintaining the boundaries of other States. The Covenant of the League of Nations does not permit anyone to interfere in the domestic concerns of any other State, and under this the existing boundaries of any existing State must be regarded as part of their domestic concerns. I do not know whether the Deputy sees my point there.

Mr. Lemass

Not quite.

Mr. Fitzgerald

That being so, I do not quite see how we are affected in maintaining or destroying.

I presume the Deputy does not propose that we should proceed to wage war, say, on Poland, to abolish the Dantzig corridor, but if on the other hand, the people of Germany want from the inside to change their frontier, or the people of Poland want it, that is an internal matter for them, and we do not comment on it, under the Covenant of the League of Nations. What is the objection by Deputies opposite to our signing this? I do not want to stress the fact that they want to leave their hands free to wage war on England, and at the same time to complain that England is so much bigger than we are. Do they suggest that we do want to remain belligerent? If we do not want to remain belligerent why should we not at least have the credit of being fundamentally, probably more than any other nation in the world, a peaceful people? I think we are satisfied that we do not want to resort to war as far as it is humanly possible to do it, and I believe that those who will come after us will not want to resort to war. This Treaty guarantees that we will not resort to war, although we have made it perfectly clear that in the event of agression against us, we shall not regard this Treaty as prohibiting or preventing us from defending ourselves nationally. What is the objection? It is because England is hypocritical. If Britain had agreed to this without any reservation whatever, what would be the attitude of the other side? They would have said that Great Britain agreed to this, but what of Egypt and India. If they refused to agree to it they would say there is imperialistic England, always wanting to use the weapon of warfare any time it suits her. If they did put in specific reservations, they would come along and say, here is England making reservations, and they try to imply, somehow or other, that we are concerned in those reservations. We are not. A Deputy quoted an Article of the Treaty which refers to a time of war.

Mr. Lemass

It refers to times both of peace and war.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Does it?

Mr. Lemass

The Minister is not as familiar with the Treaty as I am.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Yes, but I thought you quoted this, "We shall in time of war give such facilities, etc." I thought that was what you objected to.

Mr. Lemass

We object to both parts.

Mr. Fitzgerald

You object to the whole Treaty?

Mr. Lemass

Oh, no, but to this, with special emphasis.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I thought you objected to the whole. Deputy O'Kelly insisted upon referring to this "as your Free State." It is our Free State. It being our Free State they go about and say to the Irish people they are the natural custodians of it. This logic is beyond me. I wanted to deal with any points made on the other side. The thing seems to me perfectly clear. Here we are, the bought half at any rate, absolutely standing unreservedly for the abolition of war as a weapon of national policy without any reservation whatsoever, prepared to stand by that all the time. We are asked by the United States and other Governments, who assure us that they to a greater or lesser degree stand for that same thing, to join with them in declaring that we stand by it and that we will do our best to maintain that condition of affairs. We more than any other people do stand for it, and yet the Party opposite demands that we should refuse to stand for this because they assert England has a dominating influence in the political conditions of this country. I cannot see it. As far as the Free State is concerned, England has no influence whatsoever. The Government which signs this Treaty is the Government of the Free State. It commits only the people of the Free State. It does not commit the people of the Six Counties, who are outside the area of our jurisdiction. The frontier of this State does not include the Six Counties. If the Deputies opposite want to be free to wage war on England in order to win back that irredenta they are quite right, I suppose, in being perfectly frank and pretending they are preparing for war. But I think if they come out and tell the people of this country that they propose within any sort of reasonable time to declare war on England, at the same time lodging a protest against her being so much stronger than we are, they will rather have to change their political speeches.

Mr. Lemass

When did the war stop?

Mr. Fitzgerald

I understood it was about the 12th July, 1921, when a truce was declared, and that truce went up to 6th December, when a treaty was signed.

Mr. Lemass

It was an armistice.

Mr. Fitzgerald

That Treaty was submitted to Dáil Eireann and approved by a majority. It has been more or less before the people of this country in a number of general elections ever since, and I think the party which is both for and against the Treaty at their biggest point were only able to get one vote in three. I do not think there is very much need to stress all these points. It is said that England has a dominating influence here. It is lovely to say that outside, but really there is no need to say that here.

Mr. Mullins

It is quite obvious here.

Mr. Fitzgerald

There is one point I would love to get on to, but I am afraid the Ceann Comhairle would not permit me. There was a reference to the order that came for the initiation of civil war. I would love to deal with that, but all I can say is that that order came from the Four Courts, when they proposed certain conditions that were unacceptable to any civilised people in the world.

Mr. Lemass

Is that the one Churchill referred to?

Mr. Fitzgerald

I was a member of the Government here at the time. I know the circumstances and I assure the Deputy that Churchill did not hasten or delay the Civil War by one day or by one hour. Deputy O'Kelly seems to think that this Treaty deprived us of the rights of self-defence. Let him be assured, as he can take it from the letter of the Minister for External Affairs, that it does not deprive us of the right of self-defence.

Mr. Lemass

What letter is the Minister referring to? Is it the one he read out here on the occasion of the last debate?

Mr. McGilligan

There were two letters.

Mr. Fitzgerald

"As I informed you in my note of the 30th May, the Government of the Irish Free State were prepared to accept unreservedly the draft Treaty proposal by your Government on the 13th April, holding, as they did, that neither their right of self-defence nor their commitments under the Covenant of the League of Nations were in any way prejudiced by its terms."

Deputy O'Kelly may rest assured that his ardour for defending himself, whether attacked or not attacked, will not be interfered with. It is hard to deal with people who talk of England's dominating influence here. It is hard to talk to people who will not recognise ordinary, existing facts, but I think that we have come in for a great deal of misrepresentation in the world. A great many things have been said against us that were true and a great many things said about us that we would rather were not said, whether they were true or not. At this time, when a pacific nation is particularly popular and appreciated in the world, when I am satisfied that the bought half, which is only two-thirds of this country, would stand utterly for peace and there is occasion here for uniting with other countries——

Mr. Corish

New mathematics.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I think that is the case, if you count the votes at the last election. I think you will find that we are standing for something which is for the welfare of the world. We have an opportunity here of assisting that cause—not only here, but in many countries in the world—by binding countries with a clear definite statement of that as a policy. I think the Irish Free State as much as any, and probably more than most countries, is pre-eminently justified in signing this Treaty. I am not a bit afraid as to what the Dáil will do, but it does seem a little unfortunate that in the Seanad this afternoon, and to a lesser degree here this evening, there have been statements from the Opposition benches which one can only call clearly unfriendly statements not only to England but also to the United States of America, and also, I think by Deputy Lemass, to France. I do think if we stand for peace we can only hope to do our best to get other people to do the same. If we do not stand for aggression we can only do our best to encourage other people not to stand for aggression. I think it is quite unnecessary for people here to get up and criticise what is being done by other Governments when they do not advert to the full circumstances. We really have enough to take on. As Deputy O'Kelly practically admitted, we are not strong enough even to beat England. That being so, I think that until we have at least done that, there is no need to try to create a situation of friction or a situation possibly leading up to war with the United States of America, Great Britain, France and Germany.

Mr. Lemass

And Switzerland.

Mr. Corry

Do not forget the Chinese.

Mr. Fitzgerald

That is evident. I know other people who went around preaching a very severe doctrine, and then became rather sucking-dovish in their later age. They do not cling to the glories of their youth as much as they did.

Mr. Little

The way I would like to look on this question is to see how the present situation can be best used for the sake of Ireland, not taking a purely hidebound view of the Free State as at present constituted. The Minister, who spoke very carefully, limited his attitude of mind purely to that of the Free State. He has ignored Ireland all through. He ignored the whole question of Partition and all the merits of the case. He ignored the fact that for the first time in all history Ireland has been divided into two parts and is kept divided by England, and that so long as that is so you cannot expect ordinary Irishmen to regard England as friendly country or to regard Ireland as being in a condition of justice which must be at the root of any peace. It is all very well to say we have reserved our right of defence in these negotiations prior to signing the Pact. But what does defence mean? Is Ireland a nation being so defended so long as Partition exists?

Last night we had a debate upon the question of one prisoner up there who may be regarded as a prisoner of war, because that prisoner is there for the simple reason that he stands uncompromisingly for Ireland as a whole and Ireland free. Because he is such an effective and dangerous agent for the ideals for which he stands—the freedom and unity of Ireland—and for that reason only, he is in jail to-day. If anything could bring home to the minds of Irishmen to-day that there is a condition which is not a condition of peace in this country it is the fact that Deputy de Valera is in jail. It may not be a condition of open warfare but it certainly is not a condition of peace. This Pact is false from every aspect that you can take it. There is hardly a country in the world or a newspaper in the world that has not pointed to its hypocrisy. Germany was ringing with its hypocrisy. The French papers referred to it and talked of the way in which it was signed and of the armaments and armies which are developing side by side with it. We will lose the respect of no country in the world by not signing this thing and we will gain nothing in the world by signing it except that we will show the world that we are acquiescing in this game which is a farce.

People who devote their best energies at present to examining the relations between these countries are convinced that either we are on the verge of a new war between England and America or else that England must take a second place or become, as a very distinguished Englishman recently put it, like one of the northern nations of Europe. That is the position that is developing at the present moment and that is the position which we must either avail ourselves of or else wreck ourselves, because if we are going to miss this opportunity we are going to be merged in another big war, and one of the first things that is going up in that war is the Shannon Scheme. Being concentrated in one place a few bombs will settle it.

The position is seriously and really developing. All the elements of war are there. There will be a struggle for markets. Behind most wars there is an element of a struggle for markets. Every effort that has been made by each country to try and tide over that situation—the struggle between the big financiers and the struggle for the markets—has failed. Big economic experts say now that war may come in two years, but they think it will certainly come within ten years. That is a situation which we have to face. Are we going to get anywhere by signing this farce? We would get very much further if from a united House here there went a statement to the effect that we could not sign this document until our freedom and neutrality was recognised by both these countries. In that way we would stir up a public opinion which we cannot possibly stir by merely signing this thing, showing that we are acquiescing in a farce and following the lead of the King of Great Britain and Ireland. We are not signing as Ireland. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was at great pains to prove that it was not Ireland, but the Free State, that was signing. In any case we follow merely as one of the minor signatories to this, not one of the principal parties, and, naturally, no seriousminded person who repudiates partition and all that goes with it in the present settlement, could acquiesce in the signing of this document because the relations are false relations. The point about the preamble is this, that anyone who signs this must acquiesce in all present relations. The present relations existing between England and Ireland are ruled by the Treaty, and ruled, so far as this particular matter is concerned, by the rights under that Treaty which England has of occupying this country in time of war. Those are the relations at present in existence, and paragraph two of the preamble must be read in that connection: "Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means...."

Mr. McGilligan

Do you agree with that?

Mr. Little

I want to point out that the relations at present existing are such that they are entirely in favour of England. They are conditions which, if Ireland to-morrow were in a position to defend herself against these relations with arms, she would do it. Justice comes before peace. We want peace, but there is no use in our playing at the farce of saying that you can have real peace until justice has first been attained. I am not willing to admit that Ireland is incapable of playing a big part in the situation at present. Ireland may be small and weak from the point of view of armed resistance, but if there were a united mind demonstrated from this House, clearly indicating that we all stood together for the complete freedom of the whole of Ireland, we would gather a new strength, or rather I should say the old strength of the Irish race around us again. We should command the same respect which we commanded when we were at the height of our strength. We should command the same moral respect from other nations throughout the world.

It is impossible to prophesy what exactly will happen. All we know is that there is a sort of balance of power being created and a conflict between two great countries, and that out of a situation like that there is great hope for Ireland to be derived, because England's difficulty will always remain Ireland's opportunity. England, with the menace of war from America upon the one hand, and the menace of difficulties from Russia, Afghanistan and India, on the other hand, will be in a very difficult predicament within the next five or ten years. Ireland's position will be by no means so weak as some people may contend, and the first thing we have to do is to get rid of that illusion, that inferiority complex, and feel that we are capable of going very far. I will go so far as to say that our capacity to achieve complete freedom by peaceful means depends largely upon the amount of courage we have in putting forward our full claim all the time, and making as much diplomatic difficulty for our opponents as possible all the time. At present England is making supreme efforts through the machinery of the League of Nations to get America into some agreement with her on that basis. She is using public opinion in Ireland, she is using various agents in different places, to induce the League of Nations to bring about such agreement with herself as will give her a position of strength.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Might I ask how long the Monroe doctrine is in existence?

Mr. Little

I do not see the bearing of that on the point I was making. Undoubtedly, England is making that effort, and she is doing so because she is in a weak position. That is her difficulty, and obviously, following the old rule, we should try to prevent, as far as possible, her coming to an agreement with America. It was by having that outlook of determination in the past that we got as far as we did. It was by using that method of opposing England in America that we made ourselves effective at all, and I suggest that that is the proper policy that we should adopt to-day, and that is the peaceful policy—I mean that is the policy which, because it is based on justice, is more likely to lead to a permanent peace and to a peaceful settlement for ourselves, than acquiescing in what most countries in Europe admit is a pure farce, and in playing England's game in the League of Nations. I was amazed to hear Deputy O'Connell say that, no matter what neutrality was established in Ireland, we were bound to get into a war, say, between England and America. I could not imagine any Irishman being so absolutely mad as wanting to get into the mess of a war between America and England.

Mr. O'Connell

I did not say wanting to get in, surely. I said we could not keep out of it.

Mr. Little

The word the Deputy used, I think, was "bound." Even if I put a wrong interpretation on it, still, taking the interpretation which I accept now, Ireland would be bound to get into it, simply because of her geographical position.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

Can you change it?

Mr. Little

There is a great deal to be said for her not being bound to get in. I do not profess to be a prophet. These are things which you have to weigh pretty carefully. You cannot prophesy and say that Ireland will or will not, get in. But you have to consider it in relation to other countries. First of all, Ireland having sea all round it, is an advantage. If Ireland were in the position of Belgium, which was always the cockpit of wars between France and Germany, then it might be inevitable that in a war between America and England she would be bound to come in. But where you have a sea-board, and the interruption which prevents invading armies from crossing, it is not easy to break a neutrality of that sort, once it is established.

Mr. G. O'Sullivan

What about the air?

Mr. Little

I really do not wish to discuss all the aspects of this matter now, because the more one goes into them the more you would have to sit down and think quietly and think out those different aspects. But take the comparison I made of Belgium, we are in a far more favourable position as regards other countries than Belgium is. Take the case of Holland in the last war. Holland was not involved in the war between the other countries because there you have neutral waters.

Mr. T. O'Connell

Because it did not suit the belligerent Powers to go into Holland. That was the only thing that kept Holland out of the war.

Mr. Little

Why did it not suit them?

Mr. O'Connell

Because of its geographical position and the food production.

Mr. Little

Yes, and also because it did not suit them politically. Take the geographical reason first. There was water between Holland and England which made it difficult for either side to carry out a great invasion. From the political point of view the lesson of Belgium had been learned by Germany: that the invading of a neutral country on the whole weighs against the country that invades, because it turns the world against it. On the other hand, England was not willing to invade Germany from Holland because she also would lose propaganda value by invading, so there was a political reason there too. There is a strong political reason why it should be a very bad thing for America to invade England through Ireland because it would turn the Irish in America against such a war. On the other hand, if England broke the neutrality of an Ireland which was once declared free it would give America an opportunity of infusing a terrific enthusiasm in the Irish in America to fight against England. So that there are very serious political reasons why, if once Ireland's neutrality was declared, we should be pretty safe from being involved in any war between the two countries. The alternative given for this, according to Deputy O'Connell, is to cultivate the peace-mind. I do not know how you cultivate the peace-mind.

Mr. O'Connell

I did not say you did.

Mr. Little

It seems to be about the most futile advice you could give to anybody. I would suggest the first thing is to cultivate a mind for justice, but to cultivate a mind for peace where there is no justice behind it is to cultivate the habit of walking upon a quagmire.

Mr. Timothy Sheehy (Cork)

We on this side of the House have not intervened in this debate, but after listening to the very interesting speech of Deputy Little I could not remain silent. The great war that he and Deputy Lemass and Deputy O'Kelly are to promote in the near future would have the effect, in the first place, of blowing up the Shannon scheme and taking £5,000,000 out of the pockets of the Irish ratepayers. Was there ever such nonsense spoken as we have heard in this Dáil to-night. We are talking about wars and the results of a war that will not take place for half a century or until we are all dead, if it ever takes place. It is most ridiculous to hear those Deputies talking seriously of wars all over the world. Would it not be much better for us in this Dáil to be talking about drainage schemes, development schemes, and other schemes for the building up of the nation instead of all the arrant nonsense we have to listen to here. I stand up to support the signing of the Treaty, and I know perfectly well what I am talking about when I say that the overwhelming majority of the people of the Twenty-Six Counties are solidly behind the Government in signing the Treaty. We are all sick of war and all this kind of talk. What we want is peaceful development and the cultivation of the peaceful mind as Deputy O'Connell has said, and let us put war on one side. Deputy Little has talked of the United States. I remind him that when George Washington was fighting for independence there were thousands of gallant Irishmen in the fight with him and from that day to this the American nation have never forgotten it and when America closed its doors to every other nation we always had free entrance into the country. Let us drop all this talk about war. Long may the Stars and Stripes wave. We need not be afraid that war will break out to-morrow. There will be no war between England and the United States, and you may take that from Tim Sheehy. I tell you straight that if such a war broke out it would not be fought on Irish soil. I do not believe it. The Americans would hold the land of St. Patrick sacred, and there will be no fighting here if Deputy Little and Deputy Lemass do not start a war themselves.

Mr. Cassidy

I am sorry I was not present to hear the speech of the Minister for External Affairs in regard to the Kellogg Pact. From what I heard from the Minister for Defence, I came to the conclusion that that Minister was under the impression that the signing of this Pact would bring about a cessation of all wars. I am sorry that I cannot, in view of the facts which I will place before the House, claim such an optimistic turn of mind as the Minister for Defence. It should be borne in mind, in discussing this Pact, that Mr. Kellogg, the Secretary for State for the United States of America, invited the nations of the world, in the first instance, to sign this Pact without consulting the American Senate. Furthermore, there are not many people who have gone into detail as regards the various interpretations that have been placed upon this Pact. In fact, I might say that no two similar interpretations have been placed upon it. The interpretations placed upon it are almost as numerous as the Deputies in this House. That being so, one would imagine that the Government, in asking this House to ratify the Pact, would have placed upon the Table the correspondence that took place between the American Government and the Executive Council, and also the correspondence that took place between the British Government and the Executive Council.

The Minister for Defence seemed to suggest that ratification by the nations of the world of this Pact would bring about a cessation of war. He suggested that when this Pact is ratified, swords will be beaten into ploughshares. In my belief, the opinions of the nations must be determined by the policy which the nations are pursuing. According to a statement made by Senator Reed in the American Senate, the opinion in regard to peace in England is manifest in a standing army of 404,000 men and in a navy of more than 700 great fighting ships; in fortresses that line the shores of the world and dot the seas: in guns that command every avenue of progress; in the present construction of vast fortresses; in the present building of 78 war vessels. The opinion of France is expressed in a standing army of 727,000 men; in a reserve army of 5,610,000 men; in the efforts of that great country to dominate the air and to control the waters under the sea by a vast fleet of submarines. The opinion of Italy is registered in a standing army of 380,000 men and reserves of 2,990,000 men. The opinion of Poland is registered in a standing army of 242,000 men and in reserves of 2,000,000 men. The opinion of YugoSlavia is shown in a standing army of 142,000 men and reserves of 2,050,000. The opinion of Czecho-Slovakia is shown in a standing army of 140,700 men and reserves of 1,489,000 men. The opinion and purpose of Japan are registered in its standing army of 310,000 men and reserves of 2,038,000 men.

The Minister for Defence went on to point out that he is here speaking to people who will not recognise facts. I suggest to the Minister that he has not recognised the fact that while the nations that signed the Pact are crying aloud for peace, at the same time, according to the statistics I have quoted, they are preparing for war. I believe that the twenty-six counties are in favour of peace, but, at the same time, I do not think it should go out from this House that we believe that the nations which have subscribed to the Pact up to the present are sincere in their desire for peace. I believe that there is a large amount of hypocrisy manifested by the preparations which these countries are making for war. Although we were told that this Pact will bring about peace, negotiations had hardly been started by Mr. Kellogg in order to get the various nations to sign than he made a large number of reservations. The first reservation includes defensive wars—the right to defend territory from attack; secondly, to protect trade and commerce everywhere; third, to protect nationals on sea and land; fourth, the invasion by armed forces of the territory of a foreign country for protective or punitive purposes. We are further told that it implies the right to make offensive-defensive wars—that is, to make the initial attack when it is for defensive purposes; further, that it involves the right to defend all national interests. The principal reservation, as far as I can interpret it, is that regarding defensive wars. Anybody who has read anything about history knows that 99 per cent. of the wars which have been fought for the past few hundred years were termed "defensive wars." Nations which are going on the offensive make the people of their country believe, by Press propaganda and otherwise, that they are engaging in a war to protect the interests of their people. I should like to believe that the nations which have signed this Pact are really sincere in their desire to bring about peace. I believe the majority of the people of this country desire to have peace, but peace, not with certain reservations at the present time laid down by Great Britain, with regard to the partition of this country. I am sorry I cannot share the optimism manifested by the Minister. I think we should ratify the Pact in order to show to other nations that we are sincere in our desire for peace, but it should not go out from this Dáil that we believe that the other nations which I have mentioned are sincere in their desire for peace. I believe there is a lot of hypocrisy about their action. I believe that it should go out from this Dáil that while we recognise that nations have signed this Pact to show their desire for peace, Britain, and quite a large number of other countries, are really preparing for war, and have engaged in hypocrisy in signing this Pact.

Mr. Kennedy

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.