Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Jul 1933

Vol. 48 No. 16

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 66—External Affairs.

The President

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £51,681 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, 1934, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Coigríche agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin.

That a sum not exceeding £51,681 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, 1934, 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, £77,681, for 1933-34, compares with a total of £79,393 for 1932-33. In order to arrive at a figure which will show the total net cost of foreign representation, it is necessary to add to this figure of £77,681 the sum of £15,120, which will be expended from other Votes, as explained on page 307 of the Estimates. The total gross expenditure will, therefore, be £92,801. The fees estimated to be collected by the offices at home and abroad for services rendered on visa, passport and general consular services are £30,000, as against £42,000 in 1932-33, so that the estimated net cost of foreign representation in 1933-34 is £62,801. The abnormally high sum of £42,000 collected in 1932-33 was due to increased visa fees from visitors to the Eucharistic Congress notwithstanding the fact that a specially reduced scale of fees applied for such visitors.

Of the expenditure of £62,294 on salaries, wages, allowances and travelling expenses of officers abroad and on stationery and other incidentals abroad, a sum of £16,771 is for exchange compensation and loss on exchange due to the abandonment of the gold standard in September, 1931. Similarly, of the sum of £15,120 anticipated to be expended on other Votes, £3,250 may be attributed to loss on exchange due to the same cause, i.e., a total of £20,021 is attributable to these abnormal circumstances. Excluding this abnormal item, it will be seen that the estimated net cost of foreign representations would be £42,780.

The decrease of £2,441 under sub-head A (1) for the salaries and wages of the headquarters staff, is attributable mainly to (a) a saving of £1,700 on the salary of the Minister for External Affairs, the duties being at present discharged by the President, and (b) certain reductions in the junior staff. I am at present having a reorganisation of the headquarters staff carried out which will, I anticipate, result in some further savings being effected.

A saving of £4,139 is envisaged this year as compared with last year on official entertainment. Last year's provision was abnormally high in order to provide for Government entertainment on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress. Furthermore, I have decided to reduce the expenditure on official entertainment by half compared with normal years, that is, from £1,250 to £625.

The sub-head containing provision for the salaries, wages, allowances, etc., of representatives abroad shows an increase of £5,115 as compared with last year. This increase is due mainly to the decision of the Government to extend Consular representation in the U.S.A. by the establishment of Consulates at Chicago and San Francisco in order to afford essential services to the large number of our nationals in the mid-western and western States of America. At Paris, as I have already explained to the Dáil, a new post of commercial secretary has been established to foster and develop trading relations with France and Belgium.

The other items call for no special comment. The increases are due mainly to extension of offices in U.S.A. and Europe.

Mr. Fitzgerald

When I was in charge of External Affairs I was expected, in introducing the Estimate, to give some account of the operations of that Department during the previous year, but the President has not seen well to carry on that practice, and it seems to me rather a pity; because in this Estimate practically the main part of the Government's policy should be raised. I suppose that might be more appropriately raised on the Vote for the President's own Department. During the last year we had the Ottawa Conference ending in disaster for this country. Previously it would have been very hard to convince the ordinary man in this country, owing to lack of experience historically, that external affairs were any concern of ours; but during the last year or so the people have found that through bad policy in regard to our external relations the ordinary man in the street, the farmer, the farmer's labourer and everybody else, can be made to feel the consequences and suffer. I am assuming that such matters as the Conference in London, the economic war, the disastrous failure to achieve anything in Ottawa and such matters, might be more appropriately dealt with on the Vote for the President's own Department.

When I compare last year's Estimate and this year's Estimate, probably because of stupidity on my part, there are things I cannot quite understand. For instance, on page 306, sub-head A 6, there is reference to the special mission to the United States of America in 1933, it gives the Estimate for this year at £480, while last year it was £980. I suppose there was a Supplementary Estimate last year for a special mission this year. Then there was a special mission to the U.S.A. in 1932, and the amount in that respect is set out as £682. I am not quite sure whether there was a Supplementary Estimate for that year and whether that was the amount spent. With regard to the special mission last year, an outsider was brought along and sent to America. To the best of my memory, when we asked what this was about we were told he was going to make a sort of survey or inspection of the offices there. It seems an extraordinary thing that a Government Department with branches abroad is not able to do its own work. An outsider, a man with no capacity for such work——

The President

Is that in order on this debate—the Estimate for the previous year?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not know to what period the Deputy is referring.

The President

He is referring to the year 1932-33.

Mr. Fitzgerald

If we look up the Official Debates, vol. 43, cols. 4 and 5, it will be seen that after this trip to America last year we asked for some report as to what had happened. To the best of my memory the President indicated that at a later stage he would give a report to the House. To the best of my knowledge no such report has been given. On col. 4 of vol. 43, ex-Deputy Blythe asked for information about it and the President said:

"The object of Mr. O'Meara's mission was to inspect our existing establishments in the United States and to examine the possibilities of extending our trade and consular representation with a view to providing further facilities and developing trade between the two countries. He has given me a report on the results of his investigations embodying certain recommendations which are under consideration. When the examination of the report has been completed I shall be glad to explain the position to the Dáil. I will at the same time give the Dáil the details of the expenditure involved."

The President

That was fulfilled, but the Deputy is dealing with the previous year's Estimate. Again, I contend it is out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy is dealing with matters not concerned with the financial year under discussion——

Mr. Fitzgerald

I am dealing with the activities of the Department during the last 12 months.

The President

I submit this has reference to the previous 12 months.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The date is the 5th July. The President is technically right; it is about a week more than a year ago. We voted money in connection with a Supplementary Estimate and the President undertook to give us information as to the purpose and the result of the spending of that money.

The President

I submit that explanation was given in the Dáil. The Deputy has got only one part of the report; he has not gone to the trouble of getting the other part.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Perhaps the President will give the date?

The President

I have not the date just now, but I know it was done.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Perhaps the President will get his officials to give us the reference. This year we had another special trip to America and it was also made by an outsider. The Dáil votes money for the maintenance of a Department which has the duty of looking after our external affairs, but from time to time the President brings in somebody from outside and sends that person careering around the world to do business that, I presume, this Department should be doing. There is a special sum of £480 and when there is a thing like this I think the Dáil is entitled to get some information. Normally in regard to Departmental work we can ask any question. For instance, we can ask questions relating to the office in Paris, in Berlin or Rome, but when these outsiders are sent around the world, apparently the President objects strongly to any questions being raised about it. I submit that what the President has done in this case is practically a notification to the Dáil that he is not satisfied that the Department for which he is responsible is capable of fulfilling the functions for which it exists.

I pointed out earlier that when our external affairs are running smoothly nobody will say that they matter tuppence; but, on the other hand, when they are not running smoothly, everyone feels the effect. Consequently, this is a very important Department. We have offices in various foreign countries and the purpose of those offices is to maintain good relations and promote the interests of this country and its nationals in those foreign countries. At this time, when everybody is agreed that great economy is necessary, one naturally looks to see that that economy is exercised and that we are running this Department in order to get the maximum good results from the minimum expenditure.

When I turn to the Paris office I find a completely new system under several headings. There is a Commercial Secretary at a salary of £400-15-£500, and the figure for the year 1933-34 is £415. Then we have a local allowance of £275, a representation allowance of £200—this sum will not be vouched for —and a rent allowance of £150 for an unmarried man and £175 for a married man. The actual sum for the year is £175. Now, it will be seen that all that comes to a sum of more than £1,000. I am not going to pretend that I think that particular appointment was made because such an office was necessary. I have no doubt that if the present occupant of that post were removed to another office nobody would be appointed to fulfil his functions because there are no real functions.

I referred here on a previous occasion to the time when a man who was appointed asked to be given £300 and he would start a farm near Bordeaux. I can understand the President may have felt he owed a personal debt to that man for past services. It seems to me regrettable that that £300 was not available at the time because the State might now be saved the expenditure of over £1,000. Even if we accept an expenditure of over £1,000 for an unnecessary office, other questions arise as to the appointment made. I think the President is aware that at the earlier stages the man appointed walked off with the property belonging to this State. I should like to ask has that property been restored? I doubt very much if it has because, on the 23rd of the tenth month, 1925, this gentleman wrote to the President's agent asking:

"Am I responsible for the correspondence from 1919 up to date or am I to destroy it or otherwise dispose of it?"

He was told to retain possession of those files, and I should like to ask the President if those files have been entered amongst the Minister's property in the Paris office. I should also like to know what about the furniture. I do not remember the exact value of the furniture, but I think it was estimated at about £50,000. What steps have been taken for the restoration of that? I take that case referred to. On the 17th November, 1925, this gentleman wrote to somebody:

"I am of opinion that we are not likely to realise more than about 4,000 francs when selling off."

On 23rd October in letter No. 216 there occurs the pasage:

"Is all the furniture of which you have an inventory to be sold off? Can this be disposed of at any time prior to 31st December? Is the amount which may be realised to be converted into sterling right away, and in what way do you wish the money to be remitted to Dublin after all the expenses in connection with the liquidation have been met?"

A letter sent to him on the 1st November—I shall give the President the reference because this letter should have been restored to the Paris office, it is letter No. 58, from U.S.F.A.— states:

"Office furniture as per your inventory—M.F.A. (Minister for Foreign Affairs) would like you to retain for your work for us such furniture as you consider will be needed, and the same with the typewriter. All the furniture not required to be sold at your convenience and when it is all liquidated, he would like you to send us an account of the transactions. M.F.A. will then send instructions re disposal of the balance. Correspondence files dated from 1919—M.F.A. asks that you will kindly retain these for the present."

I am assuming that there would be a likelihood of a return or a restoration of these things to the Paris Office as belonging to the people of this country who had paid for them. I am also assuming that the files are now in the Paris Office. It seems peculiar that a man who walked off with the property of the State should be appointed, but I do not want to go into the past as much as that. The President probably had personal reasons for making up things with this gentleman and to recognise the previous services of this gentleman. I should like to know, however, that he did not put undue pressure upon the President. I am aware that this gentleman was occupied in certain deals in France which I think could possibly be used by the President.

The President

Let us hear about them.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Yes; I shall tell you about them. In the year 1925 the President and his Party were taking steps to get their Party financed by the Russian Bolshevik Government, and this man was to act as intermediary.

The President

That is a falsehood, from the very start.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I shall tell the story. Negotiations were entered into with a man referred to sometimes as Marino.

The President

I never heard of him.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Very well then; I shall refer the President to the correspondence. This man was a native of the south-east of Europe. He was over here and saw the President. Afterwards he was in France and spent a good deal of time with a gentleman who is now appointed in the Paris Office. That gentleman acted as a go-between with Marino and his friends. He was in touch with them and he informed people that they were members of the Russian Government.

I refer now to letter 197, which should be in the Paris Office. It is dated the 16th August, 1925, and is written by Mr. L.H. Kerney and is addressed to the U.S.F.A.—that is the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who at that time was a gentleman named Robert Brennan. It reads:

"Marino. Our friend has just gone to Marseilles for three weeks and wishes me to keep for his return the letter which he says he entrusted to your care and which he hopes you are sending me. I understand that this was a communication addressed to a very important personage, whose name I need not repeat; he says you were to have forwarded this by a very safe channel. I hope he has not misinformed me, that there is no misunderstanding, and that I can let him have the missive on his return. He seemed to attach great importance to it."

If the President cannot identify Marino I shall, of course, give his name.

The President

Give his name.

Mr. Fitzgerald

His name was Ciubranovitch. Again, on the 5th of the ninth month, letter No. 201, Mr. Kerney wrote again:

"As to Marino: I cannot get his opinion until his return, but would not use for this purpose an untried address. Perhaps you might instruct our usual intermediary to write to me at latter address, to await my acknowledgment and then, if it functions without a hitch, to forward by that channel; I would be expecting it and would advise my friend accordingly. Unless we do this it may mean subjecting Marino to a delay which he would find irksome and inconvenient. The date mentioned in this paragraph of your letter can be summed up as 25, and if further reference to it is ever necessary, I would suggest your using that number."

During the whole of this correspondence it was held that great secrecy should be maintained and that no risks should be taken with covering addresses. On the 30th of the same month the same gentleman wrote to the U.S.F.A.:

"Marino. I have this morning handed to him personally the letter to which he attached so much importance and for which he is greatly obliged."

And he goes on to give the reason which is:

"Professor Baldacci, a well-known Italian publicist, is coming to Paris in a few days time; he will be visiting England and Ireland, spending probably three or four weeks in the latter country (at Marino's request) for the purpose of ascertaining for himself the real position. He will be calling on you."

On the 26th October, 1925—for the President's information, I may inform him that this letter is No. 55 addressed to L.H. Kerney—the U.S.F.A. wrote:

"Will you very kindly tell Marino that I forwarded his kind letter to M.R.A. and convey to him verbally the following answer in reply. M.F.A. desires that you will kindly thank Marino many times for the friendship and devotion clearly proved in every word of his letter. After carefully considering Marino's proposal, while bearing in mind every detail of their formal talk together, and with much regret M.F.A. has reached the conclusion that under our present circumstances it would be better not to send Signor della Sedia, or any other until we had more information than we at present possess. It is here that Marino could render us a very valuable service. M.F.A. asks of Marino's kindness to ascertain for him from the person Marino hopes to see the extent of financial assistance that might be expected; the exact manner in which its transfer would be effected and the conditions, if any, attached. Also whether absolute secrecy could be maintained, so that the whole transaction would remain unknown to the agent here in England and elsewhere. You will know without my telling and can describe how great are the difficulties. For us these would be greater than they are even for others in like case. Yet the need also is greater perhaps. While the objectives are of necessity unlike, it is the selfsame obstacle that stands in the way of both. This for the person of whom Marino writes. Once M.F.A. possesses this information it might be possible to adopt the proposal or rather the example Marino plans to set."

This for the person of whom Marino writes. Once M.F.A. possesses this information it might be possible to adopt the proposal or rather the example Marino plans to set.

"In all, this you will understand all M.F.A. has in mind and will be able to express his gratitude for Marino, who shows such remarkable generosity in what he is trying to do for Ireland. If only it were possible to do as much in return. If the day comes when we can do this, we shall not forget."

I do not know whether that means that we are committed now to declaring war on Jugo-Slavia. Does the President deny this correspondence?

The President

I know nothing about it.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Well, the U.S.F.A. on the 26th October writing to Mr. Kerney said "The M.F.A."—which means the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and that is the position which the President, as he will remember, occupied at that time.

The President

I am not so sure of that.

Mr. Fitzgerald

It said: "Will you very kindly tell Marino that I forwarded his kind letter to M.F.A. and convey to him verbally the following answer in reply."

If the President wishes to disown all knowledge of this matter I am ready to ask him to require Mr. Kerney to hand over the files and I hold that those files should be made available to this House. The letter was dated the 26th October. I myself was personally aware when this gentleman, referred to here as "Marino," interviewed the President. I also saw him. He tried to see me abroad and I refused to see him because I understood that he was in touch with Bolshevist agents. I will read again—

"M.F.A. asks of Marino's kindness to ascertain for him from the person Marino hopes to see the extent of financial assistance that might be expected, the exact manner in which its transfer would be effected and the conditions, if any, attached. Also whether absolute secrecy could be maintained, so that the whole transaction would remain unknown to the agent here in England and elsewhere. You will know without my telling and can describe how great are the difficulties. For us these would be greater than they are even for others in like case. Yet the need also is greater perhaps."

Mr. MacDermot

Whom is that from?

Mr. Fitzgerald

It is from a gentleman who signs himself "U.S.F.A." which means Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. At that time, it was generally occupied by a man named Brennan. He acted as Secretary to Mr. de Valera, who—I do not like to use the word—"postured" as Minister for Foreign Affairs of an illusory Government outside of this House. Does the President deny that this correspondence took place? I have given him every date. The letters of October, 1925 figure around the numbers 55, 58, 63 and so on, whereas the letters I have quoted from are numbers 197, 201, 210, 211 and 216, and the last was sent on the 23rd October, 1925.

Previous to this period the files belonged to this State. They were made off with by Mr. Kerney—various things, including typewriters and other possessions were made off with by Mr. Kerney who, at the time, was advised to retain possession of these files. It was the President's duty to see that the property of this State, that was taken away by this gentleman when he went off in 1923, should be restored, and, when he was appointed to this office in Paris, to bring in these files to that office because they effectively belonged to the Government of this country and to the people of this country. I ask if he has done so, and I maintain that the President was bound to see that he returned those files and made them available. I may tell the President that the contents of these files were known, not merely to this Government, but to two other Governments, but I will say this, that if it is a fact—as has transpired and as I was aware at the time from the correspondence—that this man in France abused the hospitality of that country by being in secret relations with the agents of other countries, or at any rate of another country, which was doing its best to subvert order in various other countries, including France—if that man acted, together with a man called "Marino," whose name is Ciubranovitch, for the purpose of getting financial aid for certain revolutionary people in this country—I say that, if he acted in that secret way on French soil, it is not calculated to improve our relations with France that he should now occupy an official position in the Paris office.

I know that the same thing can be said with regard to the President, but I want the House to understand that whatever a man has done in the past, when he is elected to the position of President or some similar position, other countries cannot take any exception to whatever may have happened previously; but when it comes to the case of an official it is a different matter. The President may contradict me—it is a thing which can be put to the test afterwards, because the documents are in the possession of two other Governments and should be in the possession of Mr. Kerney—but if I am right in this, then the appointment of that man in France is a direct affront to the French people. The French Government does not necessarily advert to the matter, but this action follows on other unfortunate things that happened and of which the President is aware. I do not want to drag up the matter again. I am referring to the unfortunate thing that happened a year ago on the occasion of the reception by the French Ambassador when——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Did it happen during the currency of the present financial year?

Mr. Fitzgerald

I could not say that, but I believe it did. The President should know the date. I am referring to the reception in Dublin by the French Ambassador when they skedaddled out and created a lot of trouble. I was glad to see that the President did try to make amends a month or so ago and swallowed all his principles and wore a top hat in Paris, which I entirely approve of. The only thing I regret is that he did not wear it on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress but he evidently realises now that he made a terrible blunder on that occasion and did his best to make amends for it. I remember seeing Deputy Little, on the famous night of that reception by the French Ambassador, rushing across the room and colliding with people dancing on the floor in his endeavour to get out before the Governor-General might get in contact with him. It may be that our whole foreign relations are managed in such a way at the moment as to bring us nothing but harm. Of course it may be said that that is an essential part of the Government's policy—the economic war and all the rest of it—but I do object to going gratuitously out of our way to make trouble. This man would have been satisfied if he had got £300 to start a farm at Bordeaux. The President and his Party at this time were very hard up. I agree that they did discharge this man because they could not afford to keep him at the beginning, and finally they agreed to keep him on part-time giving him £15 per month. They were still hard up. It is a pity they were so hard up as all this might have been over if they had £300 available to satisfy him at the time. This man has acted as the agent for the President for these years and he does know, I think, an awful lot about the President.

As the House will see from the correspondence, his associations with "Marino" were involved in negotiating with certain other people to get money over to this country from Russia. I should not like to think that that had anything to do with the fact that he is now appointed so expensively, because this country cannot afford more than £1,000 per year for fulfilling a quite unnecessary office. I am not surprised that the President casts doubt upon that correspondence. I do not want to suggest that the President is in any way trying to mislead the House, because I am prepared to have the matter looked into.

There is one further question I should like to ask. The President has been to Rome recently. I presume that the President went as a private person, paying his way out of his private pocket and not out of State funds. If that is so, of course I have no right to refer to it. To the best of my memory, however, Deputy Cosgrave, as President of the Executive Council, went to Rome also as a pilgrim in 1925. I think he went as a private person and, if he did I personally would have resented that anybody should have raised any question whatever about his going there. The President went there as a pilgrim, I understand; he went there as a private person. Therefore, I assume— I do not even like to ask the question —that that trip cost the State nothing whatever. It will be remembered that while the President was in Rome his own personal newspaper brought out a perfectly ridiculous story by a man who is so old that I would not like to attribute blame or responsibility to him. I never did even when he was a good deal younger. A perfectly silly and rather scandalous story——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely this does not arise on the Vote.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I am questioning whether it does or not, because I understand that when that perfectly ridiculous and scandalous story was put in the President's personal organ in the office of that newspaper a telegram was received from the President in Rome telling them really to keep clear of that. The reason I raise the matter is that I should like to know was that telegram paid for out of the President's personal pocket, or does it in any way become a cost to the State. If it was paid out of his personal pocket, I have no right to discuss it. If, on the other hand, it should, by any chance, by inadvertence or otherwise, have come down on the cost of, say, our Roman office, then the question would arise. I do think the President, in his position as President and as Minister for External Affairs, in leaving this country on that pilgrimage, should have taken steps to see that, in so far as his personal ventures or possessions, or whatever you like to call them, are concerned, nothing untoward should happen that might injure this country. As a matter of fact, what did happen? This scandalous story is published with a scandalous leading article, which even stated more than the story had in it. The story was published under the name——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing about a story in this Estimate. There is nothing about any paper publishing anything. There is no money in the Estimate for the publication of any paper.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I think there is something for the sending of telegrams.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What was the particular date on which the telegram was sent? Does it come into this financial year?

Mr. Fitzgerald

Yes, the month of May last.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be for next year's Vote—from March to March.

Mr. Fitzgerald

We are now considering an Estimate for the cost of this Department from last March—which is before May—until next March. Consequently, I suggest, with all respect, that I am pre-eminently within the prescribed period.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The point I am raising is how the article or news paragraph, or whatever it is, which is referred to, comes within the consideration of this Estimate.

Mr. Fitzgerald

If the publication of that article led to the cost of a telegram being sent from Rome, and if that telegram should, inadvertently, have been paid for out of the moneys we are voting, or if even any of the staff in Rome, who are being paid for, were in any way used for the sending of such a telegram, I think it would be perfectly pertinent to the matter we are discussing. Of course, in this as in all else, I am ready to bow to your ruling.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not find any reference to it under the sub-head "France" on page 311. Let us see the sub-head "Rome."

Mr. Fitzgerald

I feel perfectly certain that under some sub-head there must be something or other provided for correspondence, telegrams and so on. I would refer you to page 312, under the sub-head of "Rome"— postage, £10, telegrams £15, telephones £30, stationery £15.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely we cannot discuss the veracity or otherwise of certain items of news in a certain newspaper.

Mr. Fitzgerald

If the non-veracity led to the President—it is a telegram I am talking about, and in order to explain the telegram I have to refer to this scandalous——

The President

The Deputy might first of all inform himself as to whether there was such a telegram. All he is doing is trying it on in all directions.

Professor O'Sullivan

It is the business of the Minister to answer questions when they are put.

The President

I suggest that before imputations are made the Deputy should first of all try and find out whether his facts were right.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I have heard that such a telegram was received in the office of the Irish Press from Rome. That is what I stated.

The President

I say such a telegram was not sent.

Mr. Fitzgerald

That is all right then. If the President had stated that earlier it would have been all right. If it was not sent it obviously could not have been charged on the Vote.

The President

I suggest that the Deputy is abusing his position when he brings it up here as if it were a fact.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I said it with a negative tone in my voice. If the President had even shook his head I would have accepted it. I waited to see if there was any contradiction on the part of the President, but there was not. He has given it now, and we will let the matter drop. This is a Department whose importance has been brought home to the people of the country during the last year or so as it never was before. Some of the most important things in the history of the Department have happened in that time. On the one hand, our whole relations with the Government of Great Britain have become strained, leading to an economic war. The President gave us no information whatever on that. As far as my memory goes, in giving no information he has departed from precedent. When I occupied the position of Minister for External Affairs I had to refer in my opening statement to the major things that had happened during the year and to give some account of them, which was useful in giving Deputies some picture of what had happened during the year so that they could co-relate the comments they had to make. At present, when the Department costs nearly £100,000 a year, when anything requires to be done in America somebody from outside is brought in and sent over to America at additional cost, which implies, as I said, quite clearly that the President does not think that the Department for which he is responsible is competent to do what it was established to do.

Having, in fulfilment of his Government policy, which I do not wish to quarrel with at the moment, made a certain amount of trouble all round, he then adds £1,000 to the cost in relation to the Paris office by appointing a person whose appointment—if his past activities are what I believe them to have been and what are indicated in certain correspondence which was shown to me from time to time, quite authoritatively—is not merely pitching £1,000 of Irish money into the gutter, but would definitely be doing harm, and instead of improving our relations with France, would be injuring them. I do not think the President wants to do that, because having made one gaffe, he hastened to do his very best to remedy the thing afterwards by fulfilling the necessary forms when he was in Paris. I should like to ask, and I hope the President will not take exception to my asking, whether the President's trip to Rome, which was clearly of a personal nature, was borne out of this Vote. I do not want the President to turn around and say I am trying to suggest it was, because if the President tells me it was not I am not going to dispute it. I do not think I am being unjust to the President in raising this point, because it gives him an opportunity of assuring the Irish people that his whole journey to Rome did not cost the people of this country one penny. If that is so he can say so, but if it did actually impose some cost on the people of this country, then I should feel bound to protest. We have an office over there and there was no particular function for which the President was necessary there as President. I can quite understand that it is a right and proper thing, in view of the position he occupies in this country, that he should go over and perform the pilgrimage. If—I put that word "if" in—it were a fact that it imposed cost on the people of this country instead of on the President's own purse, then, I think, it would be a matter that we should protest against very loudly. I am not going to develop that point very much, because if I go on developing what would be rather scandalous if it had happened the President will get up and say that I am trying to suggest those things. I will not pursue it lest it be said that I am trying to misrepresent the position, but I do ask here and now that the President will inform us whether the trip to Rome cost the State anything. If it did impose cost on the State I should like to be informed of it. I think this House has a right to know that. I think also, as I said, that I am not being in any way unjust to the President.

I should like also to know if the President is going to deny that letter No. 55 of 26th October, 1925, from U.S.F.A. on behalf of M.F.A.,— U.S.F.A. meaning Under-Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and M.F.A. meaning Minister for Foreign Affairs—in answer to Mr. Kerney's letter No. 213 of 14th October, 1925. If the President denies that such letter was sent on his behalf or was sent by those acting under him, namely the gentleman referred to as U.S.F.A., well and good. Then I would ask that Mr. Kerney produce the files up to and including 1925, to show whether or not such a letter appeared. The letter says: "M.F.A. desires that you will kindly tell Marino that I forwarded his kind letter to M.F.A. and convey to him verbally the following answer in reply." The following answer, if that letter is bona fide, is from President de Valera himself—that is Mr. de Valera acting in the capacity of Minister for Foreign Affairs for a body outside this House. If he was responsible for that communication being sent through Mr. Kerney to M. Ciubranovitch to be conveyed to an agent of the Bolshevist Government, relating as it did to financial assistance which was hoped for from this important person, then I say that the President, in his present position, can afford to tell everyone that as far as he is concerned that is all over. As far as the official is concerned, the man who was enjoying French hospitality at that date and was abusing that hospitality by getting into touch with secret agents in France, then I say that the appointment of such a man would be a scandal, would be calculated to bring discredit on this country, calculated to interfere with the good relations between this country and other countries, calculated to put distrust into the minds of other Governments as to the subterraneous activities of this Government, and would be an appointment which this House and this whole country should protest against. If the President is prepared to deny that letter, I ask him to produce the files from the Paris office.

Mr. MacDermot

I am not sure, sir, that I have altogether grasped the point made by Deputy Fitzgerald with regard to the President's visit to Rome. It seems to me that it was a very proper act on his part to visit the Vatican.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Hear, hear!

Mr. MacDermot

Assuming that a visit of that kind was proper, I do not at the moment quite see why the President should be made to pay for it out of his own pocket, because he happened to get in a pilgrimage at the same time. If that is the suggestion—I do not know if it is—I cannot quite see the justice of it.

There are one or two questions which I should like to ask. I gather from the figures given in this Estimate that the cost to the State of our representation overseas is £62,801—£92,801, less £30,000 for fees from visas. I wonder if figures are in any way available for dividing up that £30,000 into the various countries for which those fees arise?

The President

Almost entirely U.S.A.

Mr. MacDermot

If I recollect aright the President expected that there would be a substantial increase under that head as compared with former normal years, not of course as compared with the Eucharistic Congress year, as a result of the establishing of representatives at Chicago and San Francisco. I should like to know if any such increase has materialised, and whether this estimate of £30,000 is larger than estimates that used to be made in normal years.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Deputy will see that on page 311.

Mr. MacDermot

I apologise. Where on page 311?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Representatives abroad: San Francisco, £2,230 as against nil.

Mr. MacDermot

That is not what I asked. I asked whether the revenue from the visas had been increased as a result of the appointment of these gentlemen. I am sure there is nothing in these Estimates about it. There is a provision made for loss of £2,733 in Exchange. I take it that will be cut in half for the current year if the United States dollar continues as it is now or even declines. I share Deputy Fitzgerald's regret that the President did not give us some account of our external policy in general—some account of what has been going on. We are spending over £60,000 a year on these representatives abroad. It would be certainly reasonable to give such an account of what was being done as would satisfy us that that money has been well spent.

I wonder, for example, whether our representation in Germany can be worth the money it costs us. I even wonder about our representation in France, though I do that with great reluctance, because I happen to be specially interested in the City of Paris and the Irish Legation there as a centre of genial hospitality which I have had the pleasure of enjoying. I wonder with regard to both these countries, particularly Germany, whether the money spent is really worth while, or whether it would not be really more worth while to have legations in Denmark and Sweden, which are countries of our own size and in which much more might be learned about the organisation of agricultural and industrial activities. However, I speak as a novice in these matters. I dare say there are advantages attaching to our representation in Germany of which I am not aware. Of course, if either of these countries is promising as a market for our produce there is a great deal to be said for representation there. But so far we have been given only the most fragmentary or mysterious allusions as to what has been accomplished in the way of securing foreign markets.

I had hoped that on this Vote for External Affairs the outline would have been filled in to some extent.

Necessarily, the external matter which most affects the welfare and prosperity of this country is the matter of our relations with Great Britain and, therefore, I am afraid that very few of us can feel satisfied with the record of our Department of External Affairs during the past year. The President, the other day, when he was passing through Paris, made a speech to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in which he expressed regret that the spirit of St. Vincent de Paul did not permeate the League of Nations at Geneva. He expressed the view that much better work would be accomplished there if it did.

Mr. T. Kelly

We need that spirit here more than in Geneva.

Mr. MacDermot

Yes. On the way back the President made a speech to the American Club in Paris in which he chastised Great Britain and British policy in a manner that was not at all suggestive of St. Vincent de Paul, nor indeed was it in a manner which seemed to promise success in the negotiations which we hoped might be initiated in London to settle our dispute as a sort of side-line to the Economic Conference. Moreover, as Deputy Kelly has just remarked, the President's admonition to the League of Nations as to the spirit of St. Vincent de Paul might be appropriately applied in relations with political opponents nearer home.

Professor O'Sullivan

He has gall and wormwood for them.

Mr. MacDermot

I am making these few scrappy observations and, without desiring to be cantankerous in any way, I hope that the President, in concluding the debate on this Vote, will say something in general about the activities of the Department of External Affairs and convince us that the money spent has been well spent.

Mr. Esmonde

There is only one point of difference as between this year's Estimate and last year's in the matter of External Affairs and that is the increase in the representation in the United States. This change in our policy took place during the course of last year. A Supplementary Estimate was introduced and the Vote was passed by agreement. We did not get an opportunity from the President to hear what was the reason for the change of policy. We have now got representatives in Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. I presume there was some definite need for these appointments. In that connection, I presume our representative in Chicago has taken some steps to see that we are properly represented in the World's Fair. Otherwise their only function is one of a semi-legal character connected with wills and bequests from Irish people in America to relatives at home. I notice that the papers a few days ago reported a judge in the Free State as announcing that in future he would not accept documents in the Free State certified by British Consuls, that they must be certified by Irish Consuls. That seems to be rather a sweeping statement for a judge to make, because we have these Consuls only in four or five States in America and where we have not got our own Consuls it is the usual practice for members of the Commonwealth of Nations that the British Consul acts as our agent while taking, of course, the fees. For that reason, I think, the President should make it clear that judges in this country are entitled to receive documents certified by British Consuls when there is no Irish Consul in that State.

The President

The question of whether we get value for our money is a very natural question to ask in regard to this Vote. It has been asked on every occasion on which the Vote was before the House and it is really very difficult to be able to reply to that question in a convincing way. I quite agree that if our external trade with countries outside of Britain was of larger proportions than it is, it would be much easier from one point of view to satisfy Deputies in this House that the money had been well spent. As a matter of fact, our trade with countries abroad is considerably limited and our representatives abroad, both Ministers and Secretaries of the various Legations, have been very busy in trying to extend our markets and to redress what is at present the adverse balance against us in most of these countries. At the present time it is extremely difficult to get into European markets or into United States markets on account of the very high tariffs there and also on account of the quota system. We are determined that these balances will be redressed, and that if countries outside want to get goods in here to the extent of some £1,500,000 they will have to take from this country in return a very considerable portion of that amount in goods. If they do not it will be necessary to take steps to prevent their goods coming in as freely as at the present moment. We have activity proceeding in this respect in the various Legations. Our representatives have been hard at work, and more and more the Department of External Affairs is developing the trade side of the activities of our offices. I cannot say, on the purely trade basis, that at the present moment the money spent is justified, but our activities are far greater than they were in the past, and the defence of this expenditure must be, for the present at any rate, on the very same lines as it was defended in the past, and that is that we cannot afford not to be represented in certain countries abroad.

There are certain centres which immediately occur to one as centres where we ought to be represented. The first is the United States. As a matter of fact, our establishments are almost self-supporting there. When you consider the millions of people of our race there and the relations between the people in America and our own country, the services that are constantly being rendered to our nationals there and to citizens of the United States who are of our race and want to come here, I think there is not the slightest doubt that we can defend our representation in the United States—our representation at Washington and the Consulates that have been established in a number of the other cities of America. The principal Consulate is in New York. Before I took office you had also a Consulate in Boston. We have extended that to Chicago and San Francisco. The reasons for the extension are that, from my own knowledge of the United States and from the reports which we got from visitors from these cities, it was obvious there was a need for Consulates there to give service to our own people with regard to estates and a number of other things. I was satisfied that Consulates in these particular cities of Chicago and San Francisco would meet their costs.

I know the establishment of Consulates has been a source of very great satisfaction to friends of ours in these cities. They are too recently established to be able to show whether my anticipations in that regard are correct. That remains to be seen. We have offices in New York and Boston, in Chicago—which deal with a number of the middle States—and in San Francisco. We feel the presence of our Consuls there is going to be a matter of very great convenience to our nationals and also to friends of Ireland, American citizens who are of our race and whose contact with this country is very close. One of the duties performed is in connection with estates. I have some notes here which indicate that last year there was about £9,000 recovered for our nationals by our Consuls. When you consider the size of the United States and the fact that, previous to our Consuls being established, British Consuls had to be approached by our citizens for the necessary facilities, I think you will agree that we were justified in establishing these offices. I think the House will be convinced from the figures we have of our revenue from the United States that representatives in the United States are justified. I think anybody who knows the country will agree that on account of the size of the territory and the cities in which the new Consuls have been established, they were a natural development. I think there can be hardly any real criticism in regard to representatives in the United States.

Mr. MacDermot

I wonder if the President considers it is convenient to reply to the point I raised?

The President

I am going back on that. I am at the moment trying to develop the question the Deputy asked —are we justified in our expenditure in regard to our relations with foreign countries? The next place that suggests itself as a place where we ought to be represented is the Vatican. As a Catholic nation our relations with the Holy See are probably as close, if not closer, than those of any other country in the world. I think, therefore, that the expenditure in that regard is an expenditure which will not be questioned by any Deputy. I can pass on from that. The next place is Geneva. If we are to be members of the League of Nations, I think we will have to continue to be represented at Geneva. The activities of the League of Nations, such as they are, are all concentrated at Geneva, and, if we do want to keep in touch with world affairs generally and to take our place as a nation amongst the nations in the League of Nations, it is necessary that we should be represented there, so I would say Geneva is the third. If we were to cut down our expenditure at all I think these three places would have to be excluded.

When we come to France and Germany, it becomes more difficult to say exactly what we are getting for our money. I admit that. France has practically closed her ports against all imports. Our trade with France is very light but, such as it is, the balance is against us. I took occasion, when I was in Paris recently, to point that out to the proper authorities and to urge— our Department is constantly urging— that the balance of trade be redressed. However, I think it is an expenditure in regard to which you find it difficult to see what the country is getting. In the past, in the Republican days, we felt, when we wanted the position of this country to be known in all important centres, we were justified in sending a representative to Paris. France being a great nation, one of the greatest nations on the Continent, we felt is was to our interest to send representatives to the capital of that nation in order that our position as a people claiming the right to complete freedom should be known. Therefore, on the ground of general insurance, so to speak, to see that Ireland's point of view in any matters that concerned our country might be properly represented in France, we felt we were justified in continuing the representation which began in the past, when it was more difficult for us to meet the cost of that representation.

What I have said about France might apply also to Germany. In the case of Germany our trade is not in a satisfactory position. We have got certain representations made, and certain advantages have been secured, but I am quite willing to confess we are not at all satisfied, and efforts are being pressed to redress the adverse balance of trade between Germany and ourselves. But from the point of view of representation in general, I think our Legation in Berlin must be on the same general lines as our Legation in Paris. Deputies may differ as to whether, in fact, we are getting value for our money. Speaking for myself, I think the expenditure is justified both in Berlin and in Paris, although I am not asking other Deputies to accept what I say or to agree with me. But it is also the opinion of the Government and we propose to continue to have our representatives, both in Paris and in Berlin. As regards Belgium, our representative in Paris also represents us in Belgium, and we are in the happy position that our representative in Paris is familiar with Belgium and knows the conditions there exceedingly well.

I think I have said all I can say to justify the expenditure of this money on our representatives abroad. I have shown that there are three centres, at any rate, where it can be shown certainly that we are getting value for our money and that we must be represented there. In the case of the other two countries, they are great nations on the Continent, and I think we ought to continue having representatives there.

Mr. MacDermot

The President has left out London.

The President

In the case of London our High Commissioner is doing work which has been done in the past there. He is very actively engaged. He is in touch with both the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs and he, also, keeps in very close touch with the work of the Department of Agriculture. On the ground of L.S.D., I think, we can well justify his presence in London.

Mr. MacDermot

In a dying market.

The President

Now, that covers the field in general. It is very difficult to prove to anyone who wishes to look for a return in pounds, shillings and pence that we are justified in continuing this expenditure. So far as the Government is concerned, we feel we are. We feel there is going to be no retrenchment at present in any of these offices and we cannot see any time in the future when a Government is likely to come along and propose that any one of these establishments should be cut out.

The next question was with regard to special missions to the United States. The first special mission of Mr. O'Mara to the United States was on foot last year. Shortly after I took office, I sent him over to the United States because I happened to know that he knew the conditions in the United States as well as any of our representatives could know them, through the attitude of large sections of our friends towards existing establishments there; and the sending over of Mr. O'Mara was intended so that he might observe and consider a number of questions and give us a report upon them. Some of them were of a very confidential character and I do not think at that time I suggested I would give them to the Dáil. They were there to give me information which I felt was necessary for the proper conduct of the Department. I got that information and also certain suggestions with regard to the development of systems over there. Certain inquiries had to be made. These inquiries were made by them, and mainly as a result and consequent upon Mr. O'Mara's first report. There were certain changes which were suggested might be made by me. The position generally was that our establishments in the United States would have to be greatly extended because of the greater number of American citizens using them than they enjoyed up to that period.

Now the expenditure was sanctioned by the Dáil. It was brought in as an Estimate. I remember a statement I was prepared to make. Deputy Fitzgerald is correct in saying that no statement, as a matter of fact, was delivered here. The Vote went through. I do not know whether I was actually present on the occasion. I know about a statement that was to be given to the Dáil but the fact is, I think, that the Vote passed without discussion and I do not think any statement was made.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Was that after the 5th July?

The President

It was in March, 1933.

Professor O'Sullivan

This year.

The President

March, 1933. It is true, as a matter of fact that there was no real discussion. The statement prepared in my Department was not given. With regard to the criticism that Mr. O'Mara was an outsider, anybody who knows the conditions in the United States and the attitude of a very large section of American citizens to our establishments in the United States will understand why somebody who knew the conditions and customs and had the confidence of the people was being sent. However, as I say, that was last year's business, properly speaking, and not this year's. With regard to the sum, attention is called to £480 and £980. The two of these should be added together in order to get the total Estimate for the particular mission. The reason it was divided into two was that it took place at a time when only part of the expenditure was estimated for this financial year. It is really the same payment. Adding these two you get the sum of over £1,400.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Was there a Supplementary Estimate for this £980?

The President

Yes. I am perfectly certain that Finance took care that the usual financial procedure was adopted and that this Estimate was introduced. The point that needs explanation is this: £480 for the year 1933/34 and £980 for the year 1932/33. Each year of the estimate divided into two parts according as the expenses were envisaged for 1932/33 and 1933/34. We have got an account of that. In fact the mission did not cost half that sum. Whatever may be said of Mr. O'Mara as an outsider, I find it very hard to understand how a member of the Executive Council could in any circumstances be regarded as an outsider. Mr. Connolly was a member of the Executive Council; he knew America, and he had, in fact, at one time been Consul representing the people of this country in New York. He was sent over on a very definite mission to make preliminary arrangements with regard to the repayment of the Republican Loan.

As far as the Estimate is concerned, the actual expenses are less than half the Estimate. I simply point out that it was a member of the Executive Council who went on this last occasion and that he was particularly fitted for the mission because he knew America well. He had been there for a number of years and knew the circumstances particularly well, inasmuch as he had in addition to being there for a number of years as Consul, also carried on business as a private individual in that country.

That is with regard to the special missions in the United States. Now we come to some other items. I do not know if I would be justified in talking about criticism. I find it very hard sometimes to get words to characterise the statements of Deputy Fitzgerald. The Deputy has made suggestions with regard to Mr. Kerney, and every one of these statements, as far as I am aware, is unjustified. Mr. Kerney represented the Republic, and when Deputy Fitzgerald talks about going away with the loot and running away with the property of the people, I want to tell him that I still believe to-day, and that a large section of the Irish people still believe to-day, and that history will yet prove, what is more, that the State established by the Irish people in 1919 continued to be the State and was the State which the Ministers, by their attitude in suppressing the courts and so on, tried to overturn by a coup d'étât, and those who stood for the State—and Mr. Kerney is one— did not try to run away with anybody's property. They tried to defend the State set up by the Irish people and to hold the property of that State for the people, and neither Mr. Kerney nor I, nor anybody associated with that movement, are going to offer any apology for our actions to Deputy Fitzgerald. Mr. Kerney represented us in Paris. He tried to maintain the position as long as possible. He gave accounts to the proper authorities—the people to whom he was reporting and, so far as I know, there is nothing that can be said about Mr. Kerney except that which is good.

That is as far as the question of property is concerned. I did not ask for these files. Once that kind of thing is raised, we get immediately into the same sort of question we would have if we were dealing with the balance of the American money. I did not ask for the files. It is possible they will be given, but it did not occur to me to ask for them. As a matter of fact, I doubt if Mr. Kerney has them in his possession at the moment. There is, however, a suggestion about the appointment of Mr. Kerney to which I must refer. It is known even by our Department that Mr. Kerney accounted to the old Dáil authorities and, therefore, in so far as he is concerned personally, nothing whatever can be said against him. It is characteristic of Deputy Fitzgerald when he is talking to suggest that I had some personal reason for appointing Mr. Kerney and he tries to develop that by reading out fairy tales to us. The suggestion, as far as I can discover what the Deputy has been at, is that somehow I was personally in Mr. Kerney's power and that, to placate Mr. Kerney, or something of that sort, that is the reason he was appointed to the office in Paris. I am not quite sure, but as far as I could discover what the tortuous suggestions of the Deputy were leading to, I think that was his aim. I say that is an absolute falsehood. I am in no person's power.

Mr. T. Kelly

Hear, hear.

The President

I am free to take any action I choose and Mr. Kerney was chosen for the position because he had proved an efficient officer in the past and he was entitled to be considered for the post as a faithful servant in the past and because, in addition to that, we believed he had special aptitudes which would be useful to our people in France. For these reasons he was appointed to the post and, since he has been there, he has proved himself a most valuable and efficient officer. Now we come to the suggestions. It is an extraordinary thing that Deputy Fitzgerald had all this information for all these years and was quite well aware of it and, it appears that the French Government were aware of it, and that there was never a suggestion until now about it. I can say a word or two on that matter. First of all, with regard to the gentleman to whom Deputy Fitzgerald referred, I know nothing about what names he may have had, such as "Marino." I know nothing about it. I doubt if Mr. Brennan was in the office at all in that period. I could not tell the House exactly when Mr. Brennan gave up acting in that capacity but I doubt if he occupied the position of Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs since the Treaty.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I think the President is probably right. The initials are different, but it was the U.S.F.A.

The President

It is an extraordinary thing that the Deputy should make suggestions about a person who is not here to defend himself, without being sure of his facts. The Deputy should be a little more careful.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I was talking about the U.S.F.A., and the President must know who occupied the position at the time.

The President

I know nothing about it.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Was there such an office?

The President

I do not know that there was. The Deputy, apparently, knows all about it. Now the Deputy comes and suggests that it was somebody else. It is sufficient for the Deputy to get anything in order to try and weave his imputations and suggestions.

Mr. Fitzgerald

My imputation was simply that it was the U.S.F.A. and that he was acting for the President.

The President

The Deputy's imputations are all of the same character. With regard to this particular person, I knew that there was a certain Montenegrin refugee who came over here. I knew nothing about him, but, like a great number of other people, he asked to see me and I saw him. I did not know him and I placed no confidence in him. I know nothing about him except that he was like hundreds of other people from other countries who come to see me. He told me that Montenegro had been deprived of its freedom and a number of other things, gave me the story of the conditions in his country and of all the wrongs under which his country suffered. I listened to what he had to say. I did not even check up upon whether his statements were true or false, because I was not going to take any action which would make it necessary for me to check up on what he said. I knew nothing about him, and, as a matter of fact, I did not care very much, because there was no particular action I could take which would make it worth my while to probe that matter home. The Deputy talked about a lot of letters. I do not know anything about these letters. The Deputy went on to suggest that these were written at my instance. As I say, the only thing I know about this man was—I would not have known him only his name was mentioned; I could not even now spell his name—that he came over and asked to see me. Somebody, I could not say who, gave him some sort of an introduction. I saw him and he told me the story of Montenegro and I know nothing more. Deputy Fitzgerald says he met him himself. I do not know what he said to Deputy Fitzgerald, or what representations he made to him. It is quite possible, because Deputy Fitzgerald happened to be a Minister at the time, that he would have said very much more to him, and would try to influence him very much more than he tried to influence me.

Mr. Fitzgerald

On a point of explanation. I read from a letter written by the gentleman who occupied the position of Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I read the letter from "M.F.A.," which means Minister for Foreign Affairs. The date of this is 26th October, 1925. The President knows whether or not he at that time was Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The President

I do not know, as a matter of fact. I doubt very much if I was.

Mr. Fitzgerald

"M.F.A. asks of Marino's kindness to ascertain for him from the person Marino hopes to see the extent of financial assistance that might be expected."

The President

The terms of the letter, I suggest, are internal evidence that I never had anything to do with it.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The President could find out whether that letter was written by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

The President

The Deputy has interested me sufficiently to see what it was all about.

Mr. Fitzgerald

And find out who was the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time.

The President

The Deputy is making statements which he does not know anything about.

Mr. MacDermot

Is not the relevance of all this connected, not with the President at all, but with Mr. Kerney?

The President

I suggest to the Deputy that Deputy Fitzgerald has tried to make it relevant. He has tried to make it appear that I made this appointment in Paris, because Mr. Kerney had been a go-between between me and some Bolshevik agent, or something of that sort.

Mr. MacDermot

I appreciate that that may be so. The only point, however, that the House is interested in on this Estimate is that Deputy Fitzgerald suggests that Mr. Kerney was in intimate communication with Bolshevik agents and, therefore, he is an unsuitable person for his present position.

An Ceann Comhairle

I was not in the House when Deputy Fitzgerald was speaking. I do not know what statements the Deputy made, but the President is quite in order in answering any statements made.

The President

I suggest that Deputy Fitzgerald had two strings to his bow. He was trying to fire at two people. His first shot was at me—that I abused my position in appointing Mr. Kerney because, forsooth, I had some personal reason—my evil ways were known to Mr. Kerney and I had to buy him off. That is the suggestion made by Deputy Fitzgerald and it is worthy of him. The second suggestion is that Mr. Kerney is not a suitable person for his position. I think the French Government are well able to look after themselves. If the French Government felt that there was an insult, or anything wrong being done by us in making that appointment, they would have made their objection. Again, of course, because he is not asked in this House for anything more than mere suggestion, Deputy Fitzgerald suggests that we are doing a very wrong thing and that we are insulting the French Government, with whom naturally we want to be on friendly terms, having our representative there, by appointing somebody that he represents Mr. Kerney to be. It was Deputy Fitzgerald's representation of Mr. Kerney and nothing else. I know Mr. Kerney and I know Deputy Fitzgerald. The Irish people know Deputy Fitzgerald anyhow.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I hope they do.

The President

And I think if we had to choose a person who would do honour to this country and who would fairly represent this country, we would not have much difficulty in choosing between Deputy Fitzgerald and Mr. Kerney. Mr. Kerney at any rate has been appointed by the Executive Council, on my nomination, as Commercial Secretary. I take full responsibility for Mr. Kerney. I believe that Mr. Kerney has not been guilty of any act that would make him non persona grata with the French Government. Another incident has been brought up. The Deputy spoke about our making amends. We offered no insult and no insult was taken. No suggestion was ever made by the representative of the French Government to this country that there had been an insult offered. No insult was taken. No insult was suggested, and there was nothing, therefore, to amend. Therefore, my visit to the President of the French Republic was a State visit paid to him in my official capacity and received as such, and there was no question of its being a visit simply to make amends for some supposed insult. The suggestion of insult was made by Deputies on the other side who wished to try and turn that particular incident in a different direction from the direction it was in.

Mr. Fitzgerald

It was first published in the Irish Press.

The President

The next thing is about my visit to Rome. My visit to Rome was a State visit and I was accompanied by officers from my Department. I went to Rome as the head of the Government of this country—as the Catholic head of the Government—and I went there officially and not as a private individual. I went officially to the Holy See and to Rome and, as one Deputy remarked, whilst there I also, as a private individual—if you can separate the two—performed the exercises of the Holy Year. One part of my visit there was not official, though indeed it might have been. The expenses of the journey to Bobbio, both for myself and the officials who were with me, I made quite clear before I left, were going to be paid out of my pocket. But the other part was a State visit to Rome and the Holy See. It was undertaken in my capacity as head of the Government and it was in that regard it was appreciated. On my way back I also paid a State visit to the President of the French Republic, to the French Premier and to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I do not know if I have covered all the points raised.

Mr. T. Kelly

Indeed you have well covered them.

The President

A point that I have not dealt with is the whole question about external policy, but I think the House has had more than one opportunity of dealing with that particular matter and I do not think it is necessary to weary the House with it here.

Mr. MacDermot

The President has not answered a rather interesting question by Deputy Esmonde with regard to Irishmen in other cities of the United States besides the one where our Consulate exists. He says that certain legal authorities in America— it was news to me—were making difficulties about accepting——

Mr. Esmonde

It was an Irish Judge who objected to documents being brought into his court from a city which had an Irish Consul, because the document was verified by a British Consul. I think the judges should know what the procedure is.

The President

The best I can say about that at the moment is that I will have the matter looked into. I do not know the circumstances, and cannot, therefore, make any statement on the matter.

Professor O'Sullivan

There are one or two points which I should like to put to the President. I understand that he has the approval of Deputy Kelly, but as to whether he has answered Deputy Fitzgerald, well, I do not think he has. I quite agree that it is exceedingly difficult, on the mere question of pounds, shillings and pence, to weigh up the value of our various representations abroad, but to a certain extent the President tried it. I am not finding any fault with him for doing that. I think he made it quite clear, however, that our representations abroad will have to be judged on other grounds. The following question, which I should like to put to the President, is relevant, and would certainly interest the people of the country. The President will remember that he began to show that in America our representation paid for itself. He had very obvious answers as far as America was concerned. Then he went on to refer to Paris, Brussels and Berlin. Roughly speaking, I may say if you take in our representation in Rome, we have now representatives in touch with Italian speaking people, French speaking people and German speaking people. I think so far as French speaking people and German speaking people, and indeed so far as Italian speaking people are concerned, the President more or less suggested that from the point of view of pounds, shillings and pence it might be hard to put up a case for them. What about those markets that they are finding, which the Minister for Agriculture told us all about? Could not the President now justify their existence by pointing out that they have found all those markets which are going to replace the 95 per cent. market that we have lost? I presume that is the work they have been doing. I presume our representatives in Paris and Brussels have been busy in that respect. I presume our representative in Berlin has also been busy in that respect. Does it mean any more than the removal, for instance, in the case of the French or other Governments of certain veterinary regulations, and permission for our products to enter, or does it mean a guarantee of any price?

Mr. T. Kelly

The Germans are buying cattle now.

Professor O'Sullivan

I know, but the Deputy unfortunately does not represent the country, as he proved by his speech about the fine hats which the farmers' daughters are wearing throughout the country. I do represent a country constituency, and the price paid by the German buyers at the present moment is certainly not sufficient. If that is all that has been done, namely, the opening up of markets, and the getting in of cattle at the price paid at present, I submit that that is not of any value.

Mr. Kelly

You admit that the Germans are buying them?

Professor O'Sullivan

Our prices have fallen so low that the Germans can afford to buy them.

Mr. MacDermot

Has not Deputy O'Sullivan heard of the markets that have been obtained in "Ruratania"?

Professor O'Sullivan

I quite agree with Deputy MacDermot that they are as likely to be of real and substantial value in that particular country as they are in the countries that have been mentioned by the President. I suggest that this is an excellent opportunity for the President to show further justification, if further justification were needed, for our representations on the Continent. What are those markets that they have obtained for us and what is the value of them?

The President

If the Deputy had been here he would have known that I touched on that point. I mentioned it but the Deputy was not in his place.

Professor O'Sullivan

You explained what the markets were?

The President

I explained the position with regard to the markets in Germany and France.

Mr. MacDermot

The President explained that the position was thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Professor O'Sullivan

Quite. Then he did not explain the point I am raising, because we got it from his Minister for Agriculture that they were replacing the English market we have lost, and would, therefore, be thoroughly satisfactory. May I suggest that my absence from the House does not render my question any less relevant?

Vote put and agreed to.