Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 4 Nov 1932

Vol. 44 No. 9

Vote No. 66.—External Affairs.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £24,383 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1933, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Coigríche agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin.

That a sum not exceeding £24,383 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, 1933, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs, and of certain services administered by that Office.

The total of this Estimate for 1932-33 is £79,383. The total estimate for 1931-32 was £61,689, made up of an original estimate of £59,879 and a supplementary estimate voted in March, 1932, of £1,810. The net increase, as compared with last estimate, is therefore £17,694. This somewhat large increase is not due, in any great extent, to increased services or to increased rates of pay. It is due in the main to: (1) The inclusion of a sum of £9,644 for compensation to officers, serving outside Saorstát Eireann and Great Britain whose salaries and allowances are fixed in national currency, in order to make good to them the depreciation in their emoluments that followed the abandonment of the gold standard in September, 1931. (2) The inclusion of a sum of £3,508 as the estimated extra amount of national currency required (a) to meet the salaries fixed in foreign currency of other officers serving outside Saorstát Eireann and Great Britain, and (b) to meet other payments, that is, travelling expenses, postage, stationery, telegrams and telephones, newspapers, etc., which have to be made in currency other than national currency. (3) The inclusion of an exceptional item under sub-head A.5 (Official Entertainment) of a sum of £5,500, which was, at the time the estimate was compiled, intended to cover the cost of fitting out premises suitable for the State Reception on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress in June, 1932. These three items accounted for £18,652, and if they were excluded the estimate for 1932-33 would be £60,731 as compared with an estimated normal expenditure of £59,879 in 1931-32.

Dealing with the special item of £5,500 referred to above provided to meet the cost of the State Reception on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress, at the time that this item was prepared it was contemplated that premises which were not Government property would be used for the State Reception. In April, however, the Executive Council decided that the Reception to His Eminence the Papal Legate should be held in Dublin Castle. Any expenditure on the fitting up of the Castle premises would be expenditure on State property which would be available for future occasions. Accordingly the Castle premises were re-decorated and restored. The main expenditure on this work will fall on the Vote for Public Works and Buildings. Only such portion of the expenditure as is unreproductive will fall on the Vote for the Department of External Affairs. It is anticipated that when final adjustments have been made the total cost of the State Reception which will fall on the Vote for the Department of External Affairs will be about £1,600, as compared with £5,500 provided for. The balance will represent a saving for surrender to the Exchequer.

The Government has arranged for the setting up of a Consulate at Chicago in order to provide further facilities for our nationals in the U.S.A., both in regard to protective functions and in regard to development of trade. The office for the present, at all events, will consist of one Consul with a stenographer, and the estimated annual cost, inclusive of rents, etc., will be about £2,400 at current rates of exchange.

In furtherance of the Government's policy to develop Continental countries as markets for Saorstát products, a new post of Commercial Secretary has been created at Paris.

The Saorstát Minister for France has also been accredited to Belgium and it will be thus possible for the Legation at Paris to safeguard Saorstát interests in that country also.

In order to afford the Dáil information as to the total net cost of maintaining foreign representation I would direct attention to the fact that to the figure of £79,383 in this estimate must be added the sum of £1,710 as on page 307 of the printed estimates. In addition, in order to get a clear view of costs, the sum of £11,660 provided for in the Vote for Public Works and Buildings must be added to cover the cost of rents, maintenance, furnishing, etc. of Saorstát establishments abroad. The total gross cost is therefore £92,753. As against this total gross cost it is necessary to set off fees collected by the Department both at home and abroad. These fees for the current year will, it is estimated, amount to £40,000. This is £16,000 in excess of the sum of £24,000 shown on page 307, the excess being due mainly to (1) the increased number of passports and visas granted abroad for visitors on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress. and (2) increased value in national currency of the fees collected in foreign currency owing to the abandonment of the gold standard.

It is not anticipated that the full £79,383 of this estimate will be expended before the end of the year. A saving of approximately £9,500 is anticipated, due mainly to the following circumstances:—(a) a saving of £1,700 in the item—salary for the Minister for External Affairs — the duties of this post being performed by the President. (b) A saving of approximately £4,600 on the provision under Sub-head A.5 for official entertainment. (c) A saving of approximately £2,000 in the provision for Germany, due to a vacancy in the Minister's post.

Other casual savings will bring the total up to a net of £9,460. It will thus be seen that the total net expenditure on External Affairs for the current year will be £43,293, or about 4/-for every £100 of the total State expenditure.

Does the President propose to say anything to the House about the report promised on Mr. O'Mara's visit to America?

It is not ready for presentation yet.

Is it likely to be before we discuss the Appropriation Bill?

I do not think so.

It was promised for this debate.

It is not ready.

Will it be brought forward as a special item?

A special Vote will have to be got in connection with it.

The President says that a Consular post will be established at Chicago at an annual cost of £2,400. Will he say for what purpose? Is it purely for the protection of our nationals against gunmen?

I propose to answer all questions together, at the end of the debate.

My first inclination would be to move that the President's address be printed and circulated at the expense of the Society, it sounded so like the formal address people hear in societies outside. I also felt that although he commented at great length on the loss we suffered by reason of the rates of exchange there is no Appropriation-in-Aid. I do not know whether it is one of the items about which we claim damages from the British Government but there is no Appropriation-in-Aid hinted at, or set down here as likely to be secured. We are told also that as well as a new post being created at Chicago a new post has been created in Paris. We are not told why. Although previously we attempted to get some indication of the qualifications of the gentleman appointed to the post, we are as wise now after the Estimate has been moved as we were previously when we tried to get this information by way of question. The President also has failed to state anything about the Ottawa Conference. Although, in answer to a question of mine some days ago he told me that the expenditure was £2,700, which I assume is limited to subsistence and travelling expenses; although he told me that that sum of money was borne partially on this Vote; and although this is a Vote on which we might have expected some statement from the President as to the value to this country of the expenditure even of that sum of £2,700, or the possibility of value accruing to the country, which led him to send out a delegation of the strength which was sent out after the lack of preparation previously, we got no statement about it.

I propose to discuss Ottawa from one angle only upon this Vote. I previously suggested that the President might issue some account of the Ottawa Conference, so that the people of the country might get some idea of the chance that was missed at Ottawa, or how far that chance that was presented to us was availed of by our representatives to get some benefit for the country. I suggested at the time that the edition, if it were published in a particular illustrated form, might be useful as a Christmas present for his Republican friends. I also suggested that it was possible that we might be able to get some emoluments for the Stationery Office if it were published in an attractive form showing the Ministers of the present Government in a particular garb which they have always disdained and did not allow us to see upon them in this country. I presume the reason why that suggestion has not been agreed to is because the President will probably feel that it would have to be published in a peculiar form. He might then have to reveal to the people what his colleagues of the I.R.A. decided to keep from the people when they stopped the "Movie-tone News" showing these gentlemen arriving in the garb which is so disdainful to himself and his colleagues. I suppose the only comment that can be made is that it might have been subject to the gibe, that, if published at all, it would have to be in a decently-bound edition—it would have to be in what I might describe as "limp Republican leather."

I want to find out what was the change in policy on something that was counted a very fundamental item on 16th July, 1931, and which apparently did not so annoy the conscience of the leader of that delegation when he found himself at Ottawa. I want to find out what did we get in the way of "a mess of pottage" by reason of that particular delegate selling his Republican soul at Ottawa. On 16th July, 1931, in this House, as reported in Volume 39 (6), from Col. 2315 onwards of the Official Reports, the present Vice-President of the Executive Council, then Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly, adverted to certain declarations made at a conference and spoke of them in a most aggrieved strain. He read the message which had been sent to their Majesties the King and Queen. He read the portion which stated that the members of the Commonwealth assembled in conference

join in thankfulness for your Majesty's restoration to health and earnestly hope that your Majesty and Her Majesty—

he then thought fit to interpolate,

"they forgot about all the little majesties;"

we had a couple of little majesties present at Ottawa and I do not think they helped the situation very much

may be spared for many years to inspire the feelings of love and affection which unite all the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations under the Crown.

His very delicate comment on that was: "What hogwash!" Then, later, he continued:—

What allegiance do we owe to the British Monarch or his family? What have they ever done for us? It is good enough if we do not keep, as I hope as a Christian people we do not keep, bitter hate in our hearts for those responsible for what they were responsible for even in recent times in this country.

This is peculiarly apt at the present time:—

And then we are told the Minister of the Free State acted in the name of decent Irish people, decent Irish Catholic people, and was very much concerned in presenting his respectful duty to the King, joining in thankfulness for His Majesty's return to health and earnestly hoping that His Majesty and Her Majesty may be spared for many years to inspire the feelings of love and affection which unite all the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations under the Crown.

That was described by Deputy O'Kelly as ludicrous. He continued:

Is there any greater lie the Minister could tell than that we are inspired by feelings of love and affection in this regard? Love and affection for what? Is it love and affection for the Black-and-Tans? Is that what inspired Mr. Minister McGilligan to present his dutiful respects to His Majesty in our name?

Deputy Moore came to the rescue and said, "He was not serious." Deputy O'Kelly continued:—

"Perhaps he spoke with his tongue in his cheek. It would not be the first time, and I am sure it will not be the last."

Then he turned to the closing address, where the words used that attracted Deputy O'Kelly's criticism were "desire, at the conclusion of the Conference, again to present our respectful duty to Your Majesty. We pray that under Divine Providence Your Majesty and Her Majesty the Queen may long be given health and strength..." Deputy O'Kelly's criticism was:

I have no objection to their having all the strength and health that they want and that God may give them as far as their individual persons are concerned. It is no concern of mine. What I object to is what follows: "to preside over the destinies of all the nations of the Commonwealth, and that the assurance of the devotion and affection of your peoples may support you in this great task."

This criticism is very pungent towards the Vice-President at this moment:—

We repudiate any right in the Minister to speak for us, and certainly to speak for us so far as we represent and can speak for the vast majority of the people of Ireland. We are not concerned to preserve the authority of the British King over this country. We are concerned more to get rid of it, so that our people may be able to live in prosperity in the country, a thing which the British King or Queen or Princes will never help them to do.

In conclusion he said:—

I think I have said enough about the lying statements, for lying I believe they are, to which the Minister added his name in the name of this Irish Free State, this partitioned part of Ireland. Probably the Minister believed that 90 per cent. of the people would never hear of that, that they would never bother their heads about it, and that, even if they did, they would realise that he was not sincere.

That is harking back to Deputy Moore's assistance.

Deputy Moore was not in the House that day.

He is quoted here as having spoken.

I am not responsible.

I remember the Deputy speaking on that occasion. At any rate, he is quoted in the Official Report here as having spoken.

That is an every-day mistake.

Let us leave Deputy Moore out of it. It is really immaterial.

Mr. O'Kelly continued:

Probably the Minister believes that 90 per cent. of the people would never hear of that, that they would never bother their heads about it and that even if they did they would realise that he was not sincere. That would be the excuse that would be offered by many of the gentlemen on the benches opposite. They would say "Oh, what harm was it to send to the King a declaration of that kind? Were not the other's signing? We know very well that the Minister spoke with his tongue in his cheek?"

And then there was this declaration from the man who is now Vice-President of this country and who went to Ottawa:—

On matters of that kind we on this side do not intend to speak with our tongues in our cheeks. It is not our habit to do so. We intend to be honest and straight. We do not intend that anyone should have any misunderstanding of our position on that matter.

And, being honest and straight, and not speaking with his tongue in his cheek, that gentleman went to Ottawa this year, as the leader of the Irish Free State Delegation, and he presented his respectful duty to the King and thanked him for the gracious message which had just been read by His Excellency the Governor-General and he joined in thanksgiving

For your Majesty's continued health, and earnestly hope that your Majesty and Her Majesty the Queen may long be spared to strengthen the feelings of love and devotion shared by all the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

And that is not with his tongue in his cheek. That is being straight forward and honest and saying what he intends to say. There is no lying statement about that, and, when the Conference was concluding:

The representatives of the Governments of the British Commonwealth, who have been assembled in conference at Ottawa during the past few weeks, desire at the conclusion of the Conference again to present their respectful duty. They pray that Divine Providence may continue to give your Majesty and her Majesty the Queen health and strength to preside over the destinies of all the nations of the Commonwealth, and they renew the assurance of devotion and affection of your peoples.

Take that in conjunction with what I have read. The excuse might be made "What harm was it to send the King a declaration of that kind—were not the others doing it; the Minister spoke with his tongue in his cheek"—those are the excuses that Deputy Moore might offer for the Vice-President, but the Vice-President negatived those in advance.

On matters of that kind, we on this side do not intend to speak with our tongues in our cheeks. It is not our habit to do so. We intend to be honest and straight. We do not intend that anyone should have any misunderstanding of our position on that matter.

And now where are we? The excuse was made that probably ninety per cent. of the people would never hear of that. A little bit better than that was done this year. An attempt was made to convert some section of the people into the belief that no such thing happened at Ottawa. The Irish Press of July 22nd, 1932, had great headlines:—

"Two outstanding speeches at Ottawa Conference."

"Free State and South Africa Face Facts."

And then there was this heading:—

"Departure From Custom in Reply to Address."

Then we go on:—

A sensation was caused yesterday at the opening of the Imperial Economic Conference at Ottawa, when the first business, after King George's address, was taken. The usual procedure is to send a declaration of loyalty in reply. There was doubt as to the attitude of the Free State delegation on this subject, but when the reply was read it was found to contain no definite expression of loyalty.

That is not lying, remember.

This according to the United Press, is believed to be the result of previous agreement with Mr. O'Kelly, the head of the Free State Delegation.

Now, let the people who believe that nonsense compare the particulars that were previously sent. I think they all appear in what was sent this year. Let them publish in the paper, and mark the difference, and see can they stand over this nonsense that there was a departure from custom in reply to the Address, and that, whatever departure there was had come about as a result of a previous agreement with Mr. O'Kelly, the head of the Free State Delegation. Mr. O'Kelly did not speak with his tongue in his cheek. Mr. O'Kelly joined, and properly joined, in addresses which, when others joined in them, he described as lying statements, hogwash and things that they were certainly not going to do. They were going to be honest about all this.

The same individual, the Vice-President of this country, has presented to this country for our £2,700, and the Delegation that was sent to Ottawa, this thing—a trade agreement between the Irish Free State and the Dominion of Canada. It is noteworthy for only one thing, that it is signed by "Seán T. O Ceallaigh, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Local Government and Public Health, on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State," but for what is in it, for all the value that is in it, he might have saved himself the mental anguish that must have been upon him when he signed in that capacity. What else did we get from Ottawa? We are going to have two other Agreements. At least, it is hinted that we are going to have two other Agreements. We have not seen them yet, but we are told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whose main occupation is creating unemployment in this country, that this is a valuable Agreement. Unless he is misreported in the Press, he said that the value of the agreement was to be deduced from this fact that, in return for giving Canada certain preferences in this country, we got the very preferences that Canada gave Great Britain on goods going from Great Britain to Canada. That is an interesting statement. It is a valuable trade agreement that we should get for Irish Free State goods going into Canada the very preferences that British goods get going into Canada. The only conclusion that one can draw from that is that, granted freedom of competition, and no favour for the British in the Canadian market, we can beat the sellers of British goods in some respects. The peculiar thing is that we cannot do it in our own country. We have got to get preferences and tariffs of all types against British goods coming into this country, but, when the scene shifts, and it is a question of sending goods manufactured here to Canada, it is a valuable trade agreement that we can enter the Canadian market on terms of equality, not on terms of preference, with Great Britain.

There were many comments made about Ottawa before it took place, and while the Conference was on, and even if a delegation from this country had gone to Ottawa this year, the feelings of the British Government not excited in any hostile way against us, I doubt if we could have made any agreement, because it was clear from questions that were put and answered in this House and from discussions we had, that there was no preparation for the Conference. I asked the President himself one day as to what previous arrangements had been come to with, say, producers in the country, and his statement was that he knew that a committee had been set up with a group of Ministers to discuss trade matters. I asked how long that was in session, and he said he thought a couple of months ago. It finally turned out to be a month ago but that was all the President knew about it. We asked if there had been any previous passage of memoranda as between the Irish Free State and any other countries who were to be represented at Ottawa, because we knew that these memoranda were going as between other delegations, and all we knew was that we had been severely snubbed by the British so far as that side of things was concerned, that we had got some comments or questions from the Australians and that we had close contact with Southern Rhodesia, with which our trade is about £1,300. An unfortunate delegation was launched across the ocean to meet a hostile British Delegation and, without any preparation, without any serious attempt having been made here to find out from producers in this country whether they thought benefits might accrue to them from an agreement, and without any touch with other delegations.

The delegation was foredoomed to failure. We had to go to the expense of sending all these people across to Ottawa. It was not too heavy an expense if there was anything to be gained from Ottawa. We had to go to the trouble of sending these people over, taking them away from their ordinary work at home, in order to attend a Conference absolutely and clearly destined to be a failure so far as this country was concerned. As the Conference proceeded various articles were published in order to soothe the minds of people here. There were indications that there was going to be tremendous bickering at Ottawa; there was going to be trouble as between the British and the Canadians and the British and the Australians, and we were told that likely enough there would be nothing coming from Ottawa. If that had happened, our delegation then was not to be blamed for making such a poor show.

I have a cutting here from an American newspaper. It is headed with the phrase: "Irish leader holds Ottawa has failed." The letterpress states "Dan Breen, a member of the Irish Dáil, who has been in the United States making a survey of a market here for Irish Free State products, sailed yesterday on the Dresden, of the North German Lloyd Line. His name was withdrawn from the list of those sailing on the liner, but he was found on the ship and asked to comment on the Ottawa Conference." I do not know whether the Deputy was sent to make a survey of a market for Irish Free State products, but he took on himself to reply: "It has been a complete failure," he replied, "England asked for everything and got nothing." The newspaper article continues "Mr. Breen said the tariff issue——"

What newspaper is the Deputy quoting from?

From "The New York Times," August 12th.

I never gave them an interview.

I do not say that the Deputy did give them an interview. This is what the paper says: "Mr. Breen said the tariff issue was a Godsend, and the Free State now had the opportunity of developing trade elsewhere than in England." There should be no criticism of Deputy Breen for saying that.

Deputy Breen has definitely denied that he ever said that.

I did not hear him saying that.

I did not say it.

The Deputy denied that he gave an interview.

I am denying that what you are reading is true.

I did not say that the Deputy gave an interview. There is just one last comment I would like to make arising out of this. This is what the paper says: "Many Irish-Americans were on the pier to bid him good-bye." I suppose that is correct?

It may be.

"They crowded around him, hailing him as a hero and kissing him on the cheek." Will the Deputy deny that? This is the sort of thing that was said, if not by Deputy Breen, certainly by people at home—"Ottawa was going to be a failure.""Britain was asking for everything but would give nothing." We will discuss Ottawa and the trade repercussions of Ottawa on this country in another debate, but at this moment it is valuable to have revealed to the House what the Vice-President said on 16th July, 1931; what he assented to as Vice-President of this country and as leader of the Irish delegation to Ottawa; what his Press, the Government Press, tried to gloss over by misrepresenting that those things were happening, and what we got for it all —this trade agreement with Canada. It is valuable to have these things exposed.

I do not want myself to be misunderstood in this connection. I think that the Vice-President of the Irish Free State behaved properly in sending these addresses to the King. But it is very hard to know what was the policy of the Government at that time. Why should the unfortunate Vice-President of this country, who always boasted of his faithfulness to certain traditions, have been asked to agree to these things if there was not something in the way of a policy, something that betokened a change of policy from what was happening here at home? Had the Vice-President freedom of action out there? Had he any instructions when he went there?

We were told there were bridge parties at Ottawa. I am sure there were. There is nothing to complain about in that respect. But it is a desperate thing to have a man sitting even at a card table all night and only allowed to say "No bid" every time a call was put up to him. It surely is a desperate thing if that is all he is allowed to say when there are any negotiations of a trade type going. There have been new regulations issued in the last couple of days in relation to card games. There are now penalties for what we call fingering cards in the dummy. Where was the dummy on this occasion? Government Buildings? We were told there were telephone conversations going on across the ocean, conducted in Irish. There was talk about "A chara" and "le meas mór." I wonder was "Le-meas" more than "A chara?" Surely that is not the way in which any sort of decent trade negotiations should be conducted between this and any other country?

The Vice-President did some good by not proceeding to make at Ottawa the ludicrous spectacle he would have made if he had persisted in his ideas of 16th July, 1931. What did we get for it all?—this agreement with Canada. On another occasion we will talk about the absence of any agreement with Great Britain. The British had announced before we went to Ottawa that they could make no agreement, no new agreement, with a country which to their mind had already broken one. They asked how could they expect that there would be more sanctity for an agreement at Ottawa than for one made in London or in Dublin. Against that declaration he went out, and with that declaration ringing in his ears the Vice-President accepted certain logical conclusions from his appearance at the Conference. We dragged away a number of very important Civil Servants who could have been very well occupied at Ottawa, but who, because it was clear they were not going to be well occupied there, might better have been left at home to carry on the very valuable work they ordinarily do in their Departments here.

I have asked the President about the emissary that he sent to the United States on some secret mission. We asked previously about that. We asked if we would get a report on his activities there, what expenditure was connected with his visit, and what results were got from it. We did not get any word of that to-day. We are now promised that we will have a debate on that matter on another occasion.

There is one other point I want to deal with. I want to refer to a particular event that took place in Paris, and to ask if the President has given any general ruling to our representatives abroad about interfering in the foreign Press when matters referring to this country are discussed in the foreign Press. In a French newspaper "Figaro," and also in another newspaper under the same editorship, I find that on a particular date the Irish Minister in Paris addresesd a letter to that newspaper. I want to know if that was officially done. Would the President answer that question? Was that letter addressed officially or was the Minister of the Irish Free State acting on his own responsibility? I am going to assume—because I know the Minister is a very capable man—that he was requested to write this letter and I want to know if we can get any general policy stated arising out of it.

This paper had written an article critical of a certain Deputy and our Minister in Paris intervened, asking, as he was entitled to ask under French law, that his reply should be given the same space and the same importance in its page as the previous communication had been given. Our Minister took up the cudgels on behalf of the Deputy who had been attacked, describing his life as far as he knew it, negatived certain things stated about that Deputy, and in particular, set out to disprove that that Deputy had any communication with a financial group which this paper had alleged were organised for the spread of Communism in the world. The Minister's letter decided to pass a comment, and did pass a comment that the Deputy's patriotism was beyond all doubt.

Now, two things arise from this. Can we take it that our foreign Ministers have got orders that on every occasion—and let me confine it to one class—Deputies are criticised in the foreign Press they are to reply. Are they going to say on all occasions that their patriotism is beyond question? Are they going to give a résumé of the lives of Deputies? Where are they to get these details? Was the particular Deputy consulted by the President, or by his officials before the Irish Minister was asked to write the letter? If our foreign Ministers have to take up the cudgels when any Deputy is attacked, or his patriotism called into question, they are going to have a busier time than heretofore. It has been done on one occasion. Are we to take it that this is a very exceptional case? What makes the case exceptional or where is the line to be drawn?

A second thing arises from the letter. It is surely undesirable that Ministers of this country abroad should engage in newspaper controversy at all, and it is particularly undesirable that they should engage in such controversy if they cannot carry it on to the end. What happened in this case? Criticism was passed and our Minister intervened. He wrote a letter in which, as I stated, was the striking phrase that a particular Deputy's patriotism was beyond question. The newspaper replied, but the Minister did not reply again. Must we take it that the Minister was silenced at the second reply of the newspaper? I do not think that would follow in the ordinary course. An inevitable and an immediate conclusion would be drawn. That is the conclusion many people will draw. Unless our Ministers are going to be asked, once they enter into correspondence of this type, to continue it to the bitter end, until the editor of the paper ends the discussion, then we are putting ourselves in an unfavourable position by engaging in such controversy at all. May I say that, as a general rule, in any controversy with a newspaper, the newspaper always has the vantage point.

At any rate the point in question, and upon which the whole article had been written, was whether or not a particular Deputy had touch with a certain organisation, the alleged purpose of which was to spread Communism in all countries. The implication, of course, was that that Deputy was being used as an agent for the spread of Communistic activities in this country. After the first letter, Count O'Kelly replied. The newspaper which published the reply published at the same time another letter, and to that our Minister has not yet replied. It stated that, as far as this gentleman's patriotism was concerned—about which the Minister had certified—they accepted that he had not touch with Communism, but said that they would go a step further. They stated: "Without doubt he would have in his capacity as Minister for the Irish Free State access to the police archives of Dublin." They continued: "We shall be surprised if he does not find there a letter of recent enough date which might change his opinion of the Irish patriotism of this particular Deputy." He says: "This concerns a letter addressed by the latter to Mr. Seán Dowling, who is described as one of the chiefs of the Communist Party in Ireland." They give the letter:—

Dáil Eireann, Leinster House,

Dublin.

26th September, 1931.

Mr. Seán Dowling,

4, Harbour Row, Cobh, Cork.

My dear Seán,

I have just returned from a visit to London and amongst the different visits which I paid was one to the Russian Consul on the subject of the individuals in whom you were interested. They had not received the letters previously sent to them but were in possession of my previous correspondence in the matter. The Consul promised faithfully that he would submit this question immediately to Moscow and would ask that it should be examined right away. This is only to inform you that I have not lost sight of that matter. Hoping you are well....

That purports to be the letter which the newspaper says can be got in the police archives.

What is the date of the newspaper?

May 28th, 1932.

And the date of the letter?

26th September, 1931. Our Minister has not replied to the newspaper. Surely it is realised that once we engage in a controversy of this sort, unless we are prepared to continue it to the end, people may come to wrong conclusions if we give it up at a stage. The case seems to have gone by the board. What then was the use of having intervened at all? Is there going to be any general rule arising out of this? Are we to take it as a standing rule that it is our Ministers' duty to reply—I confine it to a limited class—if any member of the Oireachtas is attacked in the foreign Press? If he is to reply, where is he to get the details on which he will found his reply? Is it by touch with the individuals attacked? Has it been done in this case? Where does he get the statement as to the individual's patriotism? That is a very important question. Is it from that individual himself? And where does this correspondence end? I hope the President will give us some information on these matters. If the President has not seen that paper I am prepared to give him a copy. I am assuming that it was on the instructions of the Government that our Minister in Paris acted as he did. I am assuming that our Minister in Paris was correct, and that he would not have written that unless he had orders to do it. I want to know who gave him the orders, and if the gist of that letter was sent from here and why a further reply was not sent to the retort which the French newspaper made?

These are matters which I decided to raise upon this Vote. The Ottawa Conference is too serious a matter to be discussed in detail on an Estimate like this. It will arise later. All I thought fit to raise was the clear illpreparation and the clear indications given to us that our journey to Ottawa was going to be unsuccessful, and to point out some of the things that happened there in order to contrast them with the absence of gain to this country from anything that happened there; to say how much we have lost and how the opportunity possibly of a nation's lifetime has been forfeited. These are matters that we will come to discuss later.

But even in what I have raised there do arise one or two questions. In what position was the Irish delegation that went to Ottawa this year? Leaving aside the results gained or not gained, what was the position of the Irish delegation that went to Ottawa this year? Had they any responsibility? Were they tied to the telephone the whole time? Had they any general instructions given to them and if so can these instructions be declared? Sometimes it is not possible and sometimes it is not desirable to do so, but is it possible to declare what the instructions were on this occasion? Is it possible to declare them with regard to these declarations that were made by the Vice-President and if he had the freedom to make those declarations? If so, can that policy of speaking in that way at Ottawa be reconciled at all with some of the things that are happening here at home? And if there was that change of policy as denoted by these addresses made at Ottawa can we be told how far is that change likely to go? There would be a great deal of comfort got by people in this country if we could have an answer to that question at the moment on these things. These things can be answered leaving aside the discussion of what might or might not have been obtained.

On the other questions I have raised a very precise answer could be got from the Minister for External Affairs regarding the instructions given to Ministers abroad with regard to intervention in the Press and whether it is considered a desirable thing generally or ever to enter into a controversy with newspapers because they happen to criticise in a general way a Deputy of this House. If it is regarded as undesirable to intervene generally can we be told what was the particular item that marked out this criticism as exceptional and that called for this question? I should like to ask as a last question from the President has this ever happened before? Is it known to him in the records of our Department that any of our Ministers was ever asked to intervene and did intervene in a foreign newspaper in connection with an attack made on a Deputy here? What was the exceptional nature of this criticism that drew our foreign Minister into the Press?

I rise for a moment to ask the President to reconsider his decision not to give us any information about Mr. O'Mara's visit to America, and about the prospects for improving the market for Irish products in the United States. It seems to me that we ought not to be asked to sanction the expenditure of £2,500 for the expenses of a Consul in Chicago without being told something to justify us in that expenditure at a moment when economy is so vital to us. As we can only afford £1,000 a year as salary for the Minister for Finance, it seems to me that some solid reasons ought to be given for spending £2,500 on a Consul at Chicago.

There have not been very many serious questions raised on this Estimate. Deputy MacDermot asked what we want a Consul in Chicago for. If he knew America he would understand why. Not merely would it be well for us to have a Consul in Chicago, but it would be also a very good thing for us —and I am considering the matter— to have one in San Francisco. If the Deputy listened to my statement he would have learned from it that we got in fees this year £40,000, fees which were gathered by our representatives abroad in connection with passport visas and so on. The United States, as regards our representatives, is in a very peculiar position. We have more visitors here from the United States and there are more of our nationals in the United States who are interested either in coming here or in other matters concerned with this country than probably in any other country. To my mind it is going to be not a matter of expense but in the long run a matter of direct profit, even from the monetary point of view, to this State to have that Consular staff at Chicago. I think that is all that it is necessary to say about it.

Do we get £40,000 in visa fees at the moment?

My estimate was £40,000.

Does not a lot of that come from Chicago at the moment?

Yes, some of it does and some of it does not. There are fees that are going elsewhere which could be collected by our representatives in Chicago if they were there.

Is not the net point of Deputy MacDermot's question how much extra are we to get from the establishment of an office in Chicago?

Nobody knows better than the Deputy that it is not possible to estimate how much extra these would be, but I am quite satisfied, knowing Chicago and San Francisco, that if we had representatives there the money we would get in fees in these two places would more than cover the cost.

The next point that has been raised is the question of what instructions are given to our representatives abroad with regard to replying to attacks upon Irish citizens here. No instructions are given as a general rule. It is their duty as representatives to defend the honour of this State and of our people and, in so far as they can manage it, to prevent any foreign people getting a wrong impression by misrepresentations. In the case that the Deputy has mentioned, what seemed to me to be an infamous libel, not merely on an individual—though he was made the centre of it—but on the whole Republican movement, was involved. The whole country here as a result of that article was being libelled. The Deputy knows that there is no real method of getting after a libel in the French Press, that no individual has an effective means of defending himself. In that particular case, as it was not merely a Deputy of this House that was libelled, but the whole nation and the whole movement, I gave instructions that the facts should be put before the French people in that letter, and I equally gave instructions knowing, as the Deputy has remarked, that the editor of a newspaper has generally the last word, that when the facts were stated authoritatively by a representative of our people that the matter should cease at that point: that there was not to be a continued Press controversy.

These are the facts with reference to the case that the Deputy has mentioned. I deem it the duty of our representatives abroad to defend the national reputation and the national honour to the best of their ability and, if they do not ordinarily, and should not ordinarily, communicate to the Press by way of letter, it would be their duty to communicate with us and ask for instructions as to whether statements which they knew and believed to be false, and which were damaging, should not be corrected. That happened in this case, and I take full responsibility for what was done.

The next thing is the Ottawa Conference. At the end of his statement the Deputy told us of all the might have beens: that this country may have lost something that it would be worth a generation to work for, or something of that sort. Suppose that the delegation had not gone, I am sure we would have heard something of the very same type of speech from the Deputy.

A good deal worse.

If that is so——

It should have gone, but it should have got results.

The Deputy very often did not get results.

I should like to know when.

I think if we looked up the files a little bit we would find some cases where he did not get results. The files, I think, would reveal cases where the Deputy tried to do things and where he did not succeed.

I like to have references always.

I think it is a bad practice to take files and quote——

Hand them over to a Minister who does not consider that.

I think it is a bad practice, in any case, to take files and quote from them, and if it can be avoided I think it ought not to be done. But I think the Deputy himself will not deny that he tried to get results and did not get them. It is inevitable. Every time you try to do a thing you cannot guarantee, in advance, that you will succeed. That is why you say "Try, try, try again." Our delegation went to Ottawa because it was not Britain alone that was being represented. At Ottawa other countries, besides Britain, were represented, and while I am quite willing to admit that trade relations with other countries were of far less importance than the relations with Britain, at the same time if there was nothing else in it but to meet the representatives of these countries and see what trade relations could be built up, it would have been worth the while of our delegation to go. The expense, as the Deputy himself has admitted, has relatively been inconsiderable.

I am not going to admit either that the Civil Servants who were on that mission were not engaged during the time, nor am I going to admit that there was no preparation in advance, for there was. The direct preparation that might have been possible if Britain had been prepared from the start to indicate that she was going to contemplate seriously a trade agreement with us—that sort of preparation perhaps did not take place. But, as far as our delegation was concerned, and as far as Irish statistics and information from this side were necessary for that preparation, the statistics were there and they were examined. The preparation was done, and is available for the various Departments at any time that it may be necessary. Therefore, the Government had to decide whether the delegation should go or should not go. It decided to go, and now we have got the principal critic admitting himself that the Government was wise in sending the deputation.

The next point is: To what extent the delegation were free? The delegation, like most delegations going on business of that sort, got their instructions. I am not going to give the details of these instructions. It is not necessary. They had adequate powers to do their work, and with safeguards that were considered to be valuable. Within these instructions the delegation acted, and acted with credit to themselves and with credit to the country, is my opinion.

Before they went the fact that addresses of the sort referred to by the Deputy would, in all probability, be presented, was known and the delegation was sent by the Government in full knowledge of that fact. Play has been made by the Deputy with a statement that appeared in the Irish papers that the Ottawa Conference was likely to be a failure. If the Deputy reads the English papers, the Canadian papers, the American papers, the South African or Australian papers, he will find that in these papers, no less than in the Irish papers, it was said for a considerable period that the Ottawa Conference was going to be a failure from the point of view of bringing about valuable trade agreements between Britain and Canada. Why is it that the Irish newspapers have been singled out for attack? It is common knowledge, certainly I am sure it is within the knowledge of the Deputy, that there was a constant criticism in British newspapers even, of the Ottawa Conference during the period until almost at the last moment. The "Irish Press," in particular, has been attacked because it published a certain statement, which the Deputy, when reading, had before him—as coming from the United Press. The United Press, as the Deputy knows, is a news agency, and the "Irish press" simply published what it got from a world news agency. I am perfectly certain that other newspapers, no less than the "Irish Press," carried the same news.

I would like to see them.

I am perfectly certain that I saw them.

No—not that it had been done at the request of Mr. O'Kelly.

I doubt that very much.

I am certain of it.

My impression is that I saw it in other papers—the very same story carried from one of the world's agencies. Of course, the Deputy wants to pretend that there was some deliberate purpose behind that—the same sort of thing that he wanted to bring out the other day when he asked whether a certain letter of credence was sent to the King or not. We took office here as the result of the Treaty position, as one of the co-equal States of the British Commonwealth. We went to the people and asked to be returned on that platform. We gave to the people a certain promise. We have kept that promise faithfully, and we mean to keep it faithfully. Our political objectives are known to the people, but as long as we are here under the mandate which we have got, we propose to act in accordance with that mandate. The whole of our actions since we came here are consistent with that mandate and we are not attempting to deny to anybody any consequence of any action of ours that is necessarily to flow from the fact that we came here and took office under these conditions.

I do not see, therefore, what the Deputy has been driving at. He thinks probably that we are not prepared to take full public responsibility for that course. We did it before the election. We have been doing it since the election, and we will continue to do it until we get another mandate from the Irish people. So that everything that necessarily flows from our policy we stand over it; but within that mandate we propose to do everything we can in the interest of greater freedom for the people and in the interest of greater prosperity for our people. When we went to Canada—to Ottawa—we went there knowing what the attitude of the British was. What does the Deputy want us to do? To surrender, I take it, our right to retain the Land Annuities?

No, to be honest.

To surrender our right to advance, step by step, with Canada. When the oath question was here, we made it quite clear that we believed that that oath could be removed within the Treaty and within the present Constitutional position, without asking permission from Britain or from anybody else, and we proceeded to remove it. In a similar way, we believe we are entitled to retain the Land Annuities, and we mean to do it. What does the Deputy want?

To be honest.

No, that is not what he wants.

To be honest.

In what regard?

With regard to these declarations.

Very well, he wants us to be honest. We are honest. Deputy O'Kelly was honest, and his honesty was recognised in Ottawa.

He has two types of honesty.

The trouble with the Deputy is that he has neither.

You should be a good judge!

As I say, what the Deputy wants is that we should surrender our right to do away with tests which we believe are against the internal peace of the country, and against the best interests of our people, that we should surrender moneys that belong to us in the hope of getting from Britain some trade agreement or other. That is not our position. We are quite frank and honest about it. Far from being worthy of blame in any regard for sending the delegation to Ottawa, the Government could do nothing else than send that delegation, unless it was going to be misunderstood and misrepresented still more than the Deputy has tried to misrepresent the position now. I am surprised that there has been nothing more of substance in the remarks the Deputy made. For a number of years, he was Minister for External Affairs. This is his first time in opposition dealing with this Estimate. He knew the internal working of the Department, and I expected that we would have had something more constructive in the way of criticism than what we have listened to to-day.

Arising out of this matter of the article in the "Figaro," do I take it that the President issued instructions to the Irish Free State representative in Paris to contradict this infamous libel on the Irish people? When this letter was written on September 26th, 1931, did the President inquire as to whether or not that letter was bona fide, because it is alleged to have been written on the stationery of this House.

What letter is the Deputy referring to?

The letter dated September 26th, 1931.

Had the president that letter before him when he got the other letter published in the "Figaro"?

I think it was in the "Figaro" after Count O'Kelly had written.

The President issued instructions that the criticism of a particular Deputy should be answered?

Because in my own knowledge they were libellous and false statements.

Did that Deputy reveal his correspondence to the President, and, if not, did not that Deputy mislead his President?

I made all the inquiries I thought necessary to arrive at certain conclusions. I made first hand inquiries from the Deputy in question before I gave the instructions. I satisfied myself, and the other letter did not arise until the reply had appeared.

It had been written on September 26th.

The letter did not come to my knowledge. There is no reference whatever to any such thing in the first article and I am perfectly certain that the second also if examined home can be proved to be absolutely harmless and would be only used by those who wished to misrepresent both the Deputy in question and also Republican activities in this country.

The President decided to answer the criticism in a French newspaper. He consulted that Deputy and he says the Deputy was quite frank with him. Now there is a letter alleged to be from that Deputy. His answer is that if that is examined it will be found to be harmless. Did the Deputy in question show it to the President, and if so, did he show it to be harmless? Did it emerge at all? I say if it did not emerge at all then the Deputy was not frank with his own President.

I would not agree for one moment with the conclusions that the Deputy has drawn. Any matter that I asked the Deputy any question about he answered me frankly and fully. I do not know whether, as a matter of fact, the letter is in existence or not, but suppose it is, does the Deputy hold that because some letter which he had not adverted to was not brought to my notice at that time that the Deputy would necessarily be deceiving me? I do not see what that particular letter had to do with the whole position, and if I were asked whether or not the Deputy had, by not showing me that letter, deceived me, I would have to ask myself how far that was relevant, how far would it naturally occur to the Deputy's mind immediately the other question was raised. As I say, from what I have heard of the letter, I regard it as of no consequence whatever, and as not in any way relating to the original charges, so that to the Deputy I definitely answer that instead of...

On that point, what was the charge? Relations with Russia—relations with Moscow—Communism.

Very much more than that, as the Deputy well knows.

That was in it. That was in it, and that was part of the denial Count O'Kelly put up, and after that denial is put up we find a paper is able to quote a letter from the Deputy to a man in Cork, about his visit to the Russian Consul in London, referring to previous letters and stating that the Consul had promised to take up the matter immediately with Moscow. Is that relevant to public criticism of this Deputy—that he had some relations with Moscow? Surely it is relevant. However, that matter can remain.

There are two points raised on the President's rejoinder. The "Irish Press," that is to say the newspaper called the "Irish Press," quoted a phrase about Ottawa. It said that by agreement with Mr. O'Kelly the customary declaration of loyalty to the King was left out. I repeat, the newspaper called the "Irish Press" published a comment about Ottawa to the effect that the usual declaration of loyalty at the opening of a conference like the conference at Ottawa was left out, and that it was left out at the request of Mr. O'Kelly. Now the President's answer to that is silence on whether it is a fact that the customary declaration of loyalty was left out; silence also on whether it is a fact or not that there was a customary declaration of loyalty previously, and, if there was no one at this time, whether the omission was due to the Irish delegation. The only point on which he does answer is he said that the quotation, which I myself said had emerged, came from the United Press.

Read the quotation.

I have, unfortunately, given it away, but I admit it was from the United Press. I wanted to ask this—what is the United Press? Does the President, as a newspaper man, know? Is it the British United Press, and why was the word "British" dropped?

There is a United Press of America.

Was it the United Press of America or was it the British United Press?

The two are associated companies. They are really one.

And the hated word "British" was left out. But that hated word "British" was not so hated by the people whose activities had been reported at Ottawa, because we have now a declaration from the President that he accepts responsibility for what his Vice-President did in accepting those resolutions that were proposed at the beginning and at the close of the Ottawa Conference. I am very glad that he accepts responsibility for them, but he has not explained the thing I asked him to explain. On the 16th July, 1931, Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly, as he then was, said: "We are not going to speak with our tongues in our cheeks at any of those conferences. It is not our habit to do so. We intend to be honest and straight. We do not intend that anyone should have any misunderstanding of our position in that matter." Now, he was criticising a resolution which asked that Divine Providence might give their Majesties health and strength "to preside over the destinies of all the nations of the Commonwealth, and that the assurance of the devotion and affection of your peoples may support you in this great task." Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly, on the 16th July, 1931, objected to that. He called it a lying statement, and he said he was not going to speak with his tongue in his cheek, he was going to be honest, as was his habit, and he was not going to have any misunderstanding as to his position. Then he went to Ottawa, and stood up there and accepted—and the President says he accepts responsibility for this—the same statement which was a lie on the 16th July, 1931. What is the explanation?

Previously, when the same declaration, to which the Minister for Industry and Commerce also agreed at Ottawa, was made, he accepted it and a good thing that he did, but he was in this House and joined in the debate in which Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly, on 16th July, 1931, called this declaration "hogwash." Why the difference? Did the then Deputy Lemass agree with the then Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly in condemning it in this way? We were told that the Minister of the Irish Free State acted in the name of the decent Irish people in presenting his respectful duty to the King, joining in the thankfulness for His Majesty's restoration to health, and earnestly hoping "that your Majesty and Her Majesty may be spared for many years to inspire the feelings of love and affection which unite all the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations under the Crown."

And then the Minister for Industry and Commerce, being present at Ottawa, accepted this: "Desire to present their respectful duty to the King. They join in thankfulness for Your Majesty's restoration to health and earnestly hope that Your Majesty and Her Majesty may be spared for many years to inspire the feelings of love and affection which unite all the peoples of the British Commonwealth of Nations." That was the opening. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was also present at the end of the Conference and he accepted this: "To His Majesty the King, Emperor of India. We, the Prime Ministers and Representatives of the Governments of the British Commonwealth of Nations, who have been assembled during the past few weeks, desire, at the conclusion of the Conference, again to present our respectful duty to Your Majesty." Imagine Deputy Lemass, as a Deputy, on the 16th July, 1931, saying that. He went to Ottawa to be honest about all this. It continues: "We pray that Divine Providence may continue to give to Your Majesty and to Her Majesty, the Queen, health and strength to preside over the destinies of all the Nations of the Commonwealth, and that the assurance of the devotion and affection of your peoples may support you in this great task."

A Deputy

That is why they are getting such good health.

What is the difference between the 16th July and now?

Will you give us that again, Deputy McGilligan?

This matter will arise again on the Appropriation Bill if the Deputy is interested. Is it not time we did know an honest view about this? Any time I went to these Conferences I accepted declarations of that kind and I was not speaking with my tongue in my cheek. I knew the responsibility of the contract this country had taken on when it joined certain associations and it was going to live up to them; but we have people who now represent themselves in this country as a Government, objecting that way on the 16th July and then a little more than a year later without tremor or scruple going back on all that. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is now accepting something which is not Irish, which a Catholic should not accept—is he being honest or dishonest? I do not see there is any word for it but dishonest conduct. So long as Deputies cannot make up their minds where they are going to stand politically, is there any explanation that can be offered in this House on an occasion when it should be offered that a statement which was a lie and a dishonest thing and something which is not Irish and for which a Catholic should not stand for in July, 1931, could be stood for by people who expressed themselves as going to be honest, it was their habit to be honest, and they were going to have no misunderstandings about their position, and not going to speak with their tongues in their cheeks.

The President said he gave instructions to the delegation before they left, or did he find it as usual with his instructions that they did not carry out the mind he thought he had when they left and then there had to be amendments and alterations sent across the ocean by long distance telephone. What position did our delegation find themselves in if they had advanced, as rumour certainly has it they did advance, to some point of fraternisation with the British delegation with a view to a trade agreement, what position did they find themselves in if they suddenly found that fraternisation had suddenly to stop because of a message from this side? The President accepts full responsibility for all that happened out there. The President has answered as if I had criticised the sending of this delegation. I never did. But what I do criticise is the sending of such a delegation in such an unprepared way when it was certain no results could come of it, and even if it was not certain no results could come of it I think it is proper to criticise the delegation now on the results that have been obtained. I am told frequently I attended Conferences or Delegations, or that the late Government attended them without gaining any results. I would like the President to point out any Conference which we attended so barren of result as the Ottawa Conference, and so entirely devoid of material results to this country. We may have gone to Conferences over and over again with a number of aims in view and not succeeded in them but there was never a Conference we came away from so completely empty handed as the unfortunates did who were sent across the ocean.

You came away minus.

That has got to be proved. We know the gifts the Minister brought back and how dangerous they are to the country.

Might I interrupt at this stage?

If the Deputy does not want to give way I cannot compel him to.

If Deputy McGilligan continues in this strain he will absorb all the time of the House.

Yes I would like to hear the Deputy explain.

The mysterious person referred to in this foreign paper, as most of the Deputies happen to know, is myself. I want to make a short explanation and I will leave the judgment fall on the shoulders of Deputy McGilligan or myself, not only by this House but by the Editor of that paper who was fed with the most libellous lies of this country and of myself from this City of Dublin. The Deputy did not read the full article or the series of articles, but he did refer to a letter. I should like, first of all, to ask if the Deputy knows who it was sent what purported to be a letter written by me to the Editor of that paper, and if he is further aware whether a certain friend of the Deputy's had to sever his connection with a certain paper in Dublin because the proprietors of that paper refused to publish this same letter without having proof of its authenticity. I want to refer to the letter. The Deputy is well aware that after the passing of the Safety Bill a great number of raids took place, and in the raiding of the residence of Mr. Seán Dowling, of Cobh, this particular letter addressed by me to Mr. Dowling was found. I should like to know was it the Minister then or his colleagues then who took a copy, or what purported to be a copy, of that letter, to try and make use of it for electioneering purposes, or how did it become public if it was a letter that was captured in a raid? Now the letter itself, as the Deputy well knows, is perfectly harmless, and I think the Deputy himself, in his administration of the Department of External Affairs, had correspondence with a person who was legitimately entitled to live in London, namely, the Russian Consul. My letter arrived in this way: at that particular time a number of mechanics, late employees of Ford's, were unemployed and in great distress in Cork, and this Mr. Dowling asked me to write to the Russian Consul and find out if work could be made available for these men and, if work was made available, whether they could be permitted to send home remittances to their starving families before their visas would be got through the Department of External Affairs to allow them to seek employment elsewhere. A list of the names was sent to the Russian Consul, and my letter to Mr. Dowling followed a visit I paid to the Russian Consul asking him if he had any reply to make, and he said he had not received the list of names but when received he would send them on to Russia to find out if they would be given employment. If that is the letter, I can test the accuracy of it, because if it is produced I do not think it reads exactly as was read by the Deputy. There are one or two words changed here and there, I do not say by the Deputy, but I certainly say if the Deputy has seen the original letter——

I have not.

——then if the Deputy asks to see the original letter he will find that it does not read exactly as he has read what purports to be the letter. I should like to know if the Deputy knows who fed the Editor of the "Figaro," and "L'Ami du Peuple" with all this filth that was supposed to be accurate information about this country and about persons in it. Is the Deputy aware that a friend of his own is one of the persons, and does he take responsibility for that person having access——

Who are you speaking of?

I will not mention the man's name in the House, he is not here. He was referred to on previous occasions here. If I am going to be adjudged as a very undesirable or bad person because I tried to secure some alleviation of distress of my fellowcitizens in this country, then, I accept the judgment not only of persons in this country, but also of the editor of that particular paper.

May we take it from Deputy Briscoe that in his discussion with the Russian Consul in London he was acting absolutely on his own?

Absolutely, as a Deputy of this House who was trying to secure some alleviation of the distress of other fellow-citizens who were up against a great difficulty.

Citizens from Cork.

I think the Deputy should be asked to state if the proposal he was discussing with the Soviet Consul was to send a number of Cork workmen to earn their living in Soviet Russia.

If the Deputy wants me to make it perfectly clear I shall do so. Ford's in Cork had for a number of years given extensive employment to Cork people in the manufacture of tractors which were sent to Russia. I do not know whether that could be said to be Communism on the part of the previous Government. This business ceased almost, at one time. These men became unemployed, and they were in great distress. They organised to find out if they could not be given employment in Ford's factory in Russia. The only arrangement under which they would agree to go was that they would be allowed to send home remittances to keep their starving families in Cork. On that basis I spoke to the Russian Consul when he came over here to open up a branch of the R.O.P., which he did with the consent of the late Minister for Industry and Commerce, who I think could not be accused of being too favourable to him. The Deputy referred to the "Catholic Mind." I wonder if his mind is a purely Catholic mind.

This is a personal explanation. We are not discussing the mind of anybody.

All I can do is to give the actual facts.

He is talking about a newspaper.

I think he is not.

These are the absolute and accurate facts. As regards the reference that the President would have been very anxious to find out or that he might have been deceived by not having been informed, if the Deputy read the first article in the paper he would know that no suggestion of this kind could enter anybody's mind. In the second place, perhaps the Deputy would tell us how this Editor got the letter. Who got it from the police files?

Who gave it to whom?

Who gave it to the Editor of the French paper? Who gave it to the gentleman who tried to have it published here?

If the Deputy is suggesting that I gave this letter to anybody or that I know anything about who gave it, I do not.

It was in the custody of your Government.

Arising out of the statements of Deputy Briscoe, the President said he was made aware of all relevant facts, and in the light of these facts instructed our Minister in France to take action. I doubt very much if the President was aware that Deputy Briscoe—with the best possible intentions, no doubt—was making arrangements for Cork men to go to earn their living in Soviet Russia. I doubt very much if the President of the Executive Council would approve of an organisation for exporting Cork workmen to Soviet Russia to earn their living. I think it would be well if the President would modify what he has already said and let the House know if that course met with his approval, because I can scarcely believe it would.

Perhaps I would be the one Deputy, apart from Deputy Anthony, who would be most in touch with Ford's workers in Cork. I never heard that any Cork workers employed in Ford's ever wanted to go to Russia. This is the first time I heard it.

This man Seán Dowling is a Cork workman.

Did he want to go to Russia?

Is the President going to refer to the matter of which I have just spoken?

If further questions are going to be asked, I said that the Deputy himself did not see the first article. I said at the time the first article of this series—I do not know whether it could be called a series— appeared certain charges were made which seemed to indicate that the Republican movement had been financed by money from Russia, not to-day or yesterday, but in the past, and that I knew the sources and I knew the accounts to which the moneys were applied and the sources from which they came. At that early time Deputy Briscoe was also assisting the Republican movement and had got commissions from the late Michael Collins and others to do certain things. In order to satisfy myself as to the effect of these particular transactions I asked Deputy Briscoe about them. These were the relevant facts for the first issue. It has nothing to do with this letter. This letter did not appear for a long time afterwards. I said that any information I asked of Deputy Briscoe he gave it to me fully and frankly in regard to anything that had reference to the first article. This occurred at a latter stage. I made up my mind that it would not be right for our Minister to continue correspondence with the Editor of the paper who apparently was going to deal with an official file in the same manner as if some private person had written him a letter. I did not think the matter was worthy of a further letter, when the first explanations that would have been convincing and satisfactory to any fair-minded person, were not accepted. Then he received this letter, but I had already decided when I saw the conduct of the Editor that our Minister would not be asked to deal with it any more. I am asked what would have been my view on the matter if it came before me. I know that Deputy Briscoe from my own personal knowledge has interested himself more than any other Deputy I know in trying to secure work for people who are out of work.

A Deputy

In Russia.

It was an admirable plan so long as the work was at home.

I am not saying that if I were asked I would have given my approval. I do say this, and I think it is only fair to Deputy Briscoe, that there is probably no other Deputy in the House who tries to get work for so many people.

Every Deputy does.

No other Deputy does. Other Deputies do not pay anything like the attention that Deputy Briscoe pays to people out of work, and in trying to put them into work.

To bring foreigners here to get work.

As to what happened in this particular case I know nothing. This is the first time I have heard a full explanation of it. I felt confident before I heard the explanation that the meaning and the interpretation which those who are opposed to Deputy Briscoe would try to take out of the letter is part of an infamous campaign against him, and I knew what they would want to read into that letter. If I had been asked I would have seen the objection which Deputy Dillon had in his mind to such a course. I was not asked, but I do say that if Deputy Briscoe made a mistake, the mistake he made was the mistake of heart, of being anxious to get other people who wanted work, work anywhere——

A Deputy

Too soft.

Yes, possibly he was too soft, and I wish that a number of other Deputies in the House were as soft-hearted as he is in regard to getting work for people who are out of work. I feel it to be my duty to say that here publicly, because I have for a number of years been in close touch with the work that Deputy Briscoe is doing from morning until night. I say that as far as doing his work in that particular way is concerned he is a model Deputy for the House.

There are two or three comments that ought to be made arising out of the intervention of Deputy Briscoe. There is enough material in them surely for the President to make another reply to "Figaro." There is enough material if he merely repeats what he said here, if he would not be accused of doing, what in the foreign press he is accused of doing here, slighting everybody else because he quoted that Deputy's answer and got him into a bit of a mess almost as bad in the process. The Deputy is held up here to the public as a man who has done more for the unemployed than any other Deputy. Apparently Deputy Norton is to be replaced as leader of the Labour Party. I never did think he would last long.

You nearly came to an end at the last election.

I do not understand that.

Look at your poll at the last election.

I am prepared to compare that with what the Deputy received.

The intelligentsia!

I agree that those who elected Deputy Davin were the intelligentsia.

I was elected at five or six different elections.

Scorn is cast upon everybody else with regard to the unemployed because Deputy Briscoe has been criticised.

What has this to do with the debate?

The Deputy was not here when the debate started. This matter is part of the criticism of the Ministry of External Affairs, in intervening in the foreign press, in connection with Deputy Briscoe, on a question put by me, whether it is to be the general practice to defend a Deputy in the foreign press, or whether it is an exceptional case not to happen again. I got no answer to that. I have seen very unwholesome things, and scurrilous things in the foreign press, in reference to Deputies in this House. I have not seen our Minister in America, for instance, drawn in to defend Deputies here. I have not found that the President went to any of the Deputies criticised and asked them to tell him the whole truth, as he asked Deputy Briscoe and, having got the whole truth, got a letter written explaining what the whole truth was. It turns out now that it was not the whole truth the President got from Deputy Briscoe. Are we to have it established now as the practice that if Deputies are assailed, in the foreign press, the President is going to adopt something like the same procedure as he adopted with regard to Deputy Briscoe. The particular Deputy will be asked what this amounts to, and a letter will be written in which the Minister for External Affairs will state that the Deputy's patriotism is beyond question. That is a statement which I think we ought to conclude it is possible to make of every Deputy in this House. Therefore it is a retort that can be made about every Deputy without any ado if any Deputy is attacked in the foreign press. Is the President going to give our Ministers abroad the task, when criticism appears about any Deputy, of saying that whatever else that Deputy is his patriotism is beyond question. It has been done as regards Deputy Briscoe. I regard it as rather exceptional that he should be singled out for that style of thing more than anyone else. Why was the practice adopted in this one case and not in others?

The President said, as far as he was concerned, that the gravamen of the charge in this paper was not the attack on Deputy Briscoe at all, but the movement attacked á propos of Deputy Briscoe. Will the President put cyclostyle copies of the letters in the Library for Deputies to see so that they can make up their minds as to whether that was the serious charge made? What will the President go on to defend? What does he mean by the Republican movement? Is it what was called the old Sinn Féin movement, which was a movement of an united Party up to a certain period, or is it one part of that movement at a certain period, and is it only that Party he is to defend? If that is what it amounts to we are having a party use made of money paid by the tax-payers; that is a partisan use of certain funds. Since this matter has been raised it is important that the President should cause—and it would cost little—cyclostyle copies of the letters in question to be made, so that Deputies could read for themselves what was the charge made and what was the seriousness of it, and how far it is applicable to Deputy Briscoe or to the movement, and which stands in the foremost place in the criticism.

You do not understand French yourself.

I pretend to know a little of it.

You cannot know much if you have not read the original.

I am ready to go through it word for word with the Deputy, and we can see if we cannot arrive at the thing the President has put as to what the meaning is and let other Deputies understand it.

I am perfectly agreeable. I accept that challenge now.

Let us have the correspondence.

There is only one other thing. The Deputy says the original is out. It may be. I was translating it.

It lost in its translation from the French.

The Deputy has the original?

No, it is in the police courts. Some of the Deputy's friends saw it. Has Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald seen it?

As to its having gone to some friend of mine I do not know what the Deputy means. I gather he is talking of a person connected with the monthly periodical.

Yes and who left because of this letter.

The gentleman is not a friend of mine, I do not know him. I have nothing to do with getting that letter into his hands from the Editor of "Figaro." I do not know how it got there. I do not know anything about it except what I saw in the French newspaper.

You were well briefed anyway.

It is easy to read the letter.

The translation is bad.

Then I was not well briefed.

It is your translation.

I would like to have the letter as read and paraded put opposite to what I read and see the difference in the translation. There is surely one big issue arising out of all this and that is the use made of our foreign representative. We have had no answer from the President on that. We read the statement about this incident. There must be some general principle in regard to their duty or general instructions that must be laid upon them that never before existed and we want to know what these are. Is it that our representatives must write to the Press when a Deputy is assailed in his patriotism or in his connection with any movement of a political type in the country, and, if so, is the intervention going to be after touch with that Deputy, and is it going to be a re-statement of what the Deputy likes to say in his own defence, or is there going to be any other mind operating upon it and any other criticism passed upon it to water down what the Deputy might say in his own defence? Can we have some general statement made here?

Might I ask if the Deputy in his third speech forgot to read the particulars of the address presented to the King and Queen by the Ottawa delegates?

We were told that the Minister for Local Government was very honest in Ottawa, and he probably was. In fact, he was so honest that he signed the one and only document which emanated from the Ottawa Conference, and which was circulated to this House "on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State." That is a very honest admission. I think that on this Estimate it might be made a little more explicit.

Read it out again.

"Signed on behalf of His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State." What I want to know is this—it can be easily answered, and it will save a lot of trouble with regard to our constitutional position—can we take it for granted that the Fianna Fáil Government, led by President de Valera, constitutes His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State?

Deputy McGilligan asked whether if any Deputy was attacked in a foreign newspaper our Ministers abroad will immediately feel it part of their duty to defend him. I made it quite clear that that is not the position. I made it quite clear that in this particular case it was the whole Republican movement, the whole movement for independence—not merely as it has been since the Treaty, but as it was before it—that was attacked. The suggestion in the early days was that it was German gold was financing the movement, and at a later period it was going to be Russian gold. I wanted to make it quite clear that the Republican movement here, in so far as it was financed at all from outside, was financed in a publicly known way by contributions from America, as well as by the contributions of our own people here, and no others. That was our interest in the matter. To do that it was absolutely necessary to make that known as far as Deputy Briscoe himself was concerned.

His patriotism?

Yes, his patriotism.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn