I had a question on the Order Paper to-day asking the Minister for External Affairs whether Dr. Masaryk, who is Deputy-Premier and Minister of Foreign Affairs in Czecho-Slovakia, had been, on Government intervention, prevented from addressing a private meeting of the Irish Institute of International Affairs on Friday last at the Shelbourne Hotel, and if he would state the reason and the authority for such intervention. I added to that a question as to whether Press notices of the voidance of this meeting—to use a neutral term—had been suppressed by the Censor, and, if so, what was the reason for it. Deputy James Larkin (Junior) had a question down in much the same terms. They were both answered at the same time.
It was well known to the public here that this reputable statesman from a foreign country had come to this country and that he had spoken at Trinity College, Dublin, where the Taoiseach was on the same platform and that he had the felicity, not often accorded foreigners, of receiving from the Taoiseach the completely neutral remark—I am sure it was meant in a neutral spirit — that his country had suffered so cruelly in the war and that he, the Taoiseach, hoped that that country's agonies would soon be at an end. It was quite right that the Taoiseach should make that statement to this very distinguished representative of a country which had suffered so cruelly, even though it came from a platform in Trinity College.
The answer I got to my question as to why this gentleman who arrived here and spoke at Trinity College was not allowed to speak at a private meeting, at which no Press representative would be present, of citizens of this country, gathered under the auspices of the Irish Institute of International Affairs was in these terms:
"It is an obvious and well-recognised principle that when a Minister of the Government of one State is invited to address a group of citizens within the territory of another, the latter State's Government should be informed beforehand and afforded an opportunity of expressing its assent."
I am told that that principle applies even in times of peace, but much more so in times of war. I want to challenge that as a principle.
Since the question was put and replied to, I have searched my own library—I must admit that it contains mainly books on international law and this is a matter of international courtesy—and I took the opportunity of consulting a colleague who is particularly well versed in these matters, and who has what I regard as a better library on diplomatic procedure. I find nowhere a statement of this as a principle. The books I consulted are the well-known books of Hall, Lawrence, Oppenheim, Wheaton and Brierly and the French book by Fauchille. The book I had looked up by a colleague of mine was Satow on Diplomatic Procedure. If there is a principle, I should like the Taoiseach, before this matter ends, to give us a reference to some standard work or document, and I should be very glad if he would add on to his reference, if he has any, to a standard work some statement of an example known to him of where this, which may possibly be a dry principle of diplomatic etiquette and courtesy, has been operated in similar circumstances.
I am told that this principle applies in times of peace because it makes for the avoidance of possible domestic incidents, and then there follows a statement that it could never be said that the delivery of a lecture by a Minister of one State to a group of citizens in the territory of another was so much a matter of indifference to those responsible for the conduct of the latter State's foreign relations as to make it immaterial whether they were informed or consulted. I am told that this matter was a question for the Government of the country concerned, acting on behalf of the Parliament and people, to say whether it was wise that such a lecture should be given. Supplementaries indicated that the lecture was not cancelled on any decision as to whether the particular subject chosen was wise or unwise, but simply because the Government was not informed. A supplementary was put by Deputy Mulcahy to the Taoiseach:—
"Do I understand that the main exception taken is that the meeting was arranged without the Government's permission being asked?"
and the reply was "yes". The question of the wisdom or unwisdom of the lecture did not arise, at least as a foremost point.
One would have thought that if, when a distinguished man of the type of Dr. Masaryk came here and a meeting had been arranged, there was any punctilio with regard to whether the Government were informed or not, it might have been waived for the occasion and the institute told that it had happened this time, but they would be glad if another procedure were adopted in future; but notwithstanding that the lecture was arranged and the Minister was here and that he is a Minister of the type mentioned by the Taoiseach to-day, the meeting was cancelled. The particular way in which that Minister was described to-day was as a man of experience who would know what would be proper in a case like this, who, coming into a neutral State as the representative of a belligerent State, would know what would be proper. It was said that he did not go beyond the bounds of what would be proper; but if he was a man of experience who would know what would be proper, one would imagine that his discretion might have been trusted in addressing less than 100 citizens in a private room in the Shelbourne Hotel with no Press present. However, I am told that it is a matter of principle well recognised, and I should like to get a reference to this principle and some examples of where it was put into operation.
I am told that this group which issued the invitation could scarcely have been ignorant of the correct procedure. May I give the House some indication of what that group does know as a result of its experience with the Department of External Affairs? A very well-known Pole, Count Balinski, did in fact lecture to the institute on two occasions.
