I am not going to answer that question. If I am wrong in that, if no professor has said such things, it will not apply to him and the cap will not fit him. I touched on the question of Partition and I pointed out that some Deputies are clearly following the line indicated by Senator MacDermot, as he was at the time, in the Seanad—that these people imagine that, by giving away the rights of the majority, they will conciliate the minority. They will do nothing of the kind. Our whole history has proved the contrary, and I hope, whether in our time or when we are gone, there will be no people in this country so foolish as to adopt that course. It is a fatal course. I hope also that there will be no people in this country who will lead the Irish people into making sacrifices on promises, that if they make such sacrifices they will get a united Ireland, because so sure as the Irish people make these sacrifices in advance, for the sake of a united Ireland, so surely, when it comes to the test, will it be said: "We cannot coerce Ulster," and they will be cheated.
That will be the answer which will be given to people who demand anything for the sacrifices they may have made. They will be told: "We cannot coerce Ulster"; but there is part of Ulster which is being coerced. We deny the right of any nation at any time to partition our nation, to cut it in two, but surely whatever case might be made for doing that on the ground of a minority who objected to the rule of the majority, it should not apply to areas like South Down, South Armagh, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry City. These are continuous areas adjoining ours, and if a boundary has to be drawn in this country, for the supposed purpose of protecting the right of the minority, that boundary line should not have been drawn where it is. We all know that; we all know that Partition is a cruel wrong to this country; and we all know that the sentiments of our people are such that, so long as that cruel wrong is continued, the good relations we would like to have with our neighbour cannot be based on a sound foundation.
We have been trying to get that sound foundation. We believe, and I think that in this I speak for the vast majority of our people, that it would be to the interests of the peoples of these two islands, situated as we are side by side, to be on the friendliest and most cordial terms one with another. We fully recognise here in this island that our people and the people of that other island have very many interests in common—interests material and, some of them, spiritual. We believe that co-operation on the basis of common interest should be possible, provided, of course, it be always understood that each side would be able to decide for itself whether the matter in question is in its own interest. But all that possibility is prevented by this unnatural partition of our country and every person, whether in this island or the other, who wishes for these good relations will do everything in his power to try to end this Partition.
The question of defence has been mentioned. The question of national defence is, of course, one which the Government of this country has to keep in mind, and everybody with the slightest understanding will know that in that matter we have common interests. If the whole of this island were enjoying its complete independence, one of the first things which would have to be considered by the Government here would be what measures could be made available for our common defence in time of need. Even for a united Ireland, there would be great difficulties in that regard, for several reasons, one of which would be that Britain is an Empire. We have no imperial aspirations and no imperial interests, but Britain, on account of her imperial interests, might be engaged in wars of various kinds. For instance, there might be a war in Japan, or somewhere far away and remote from us, in which the immediate defence of this island would not be involved.
That would be one type of case, and to arrange a policy of defence which would apply only when our interests were clearly involved would be by no means an easy thing, even for a united Ireland, to work out. It would be extremely difficult, but obviously it is something which a completely free country would have to look out for. Although only a portion of our country is free, we have to keep that in mind, but all these problems which are complicated in any case, are made almost completely insoluble by the existence of Partition. However, there is no use in dealing with purely hypothetical matters. That matter does not fall for consideration at present, and all I want to say to the House is that there is nobody here who can have more reason to think about these matters and to be anxious about them than I.
I fully realise that these matters of defence might in certain circumstances be vital for us. In the European war, we were neutral, and, as a neutral state, we had very many anxieties. We had anxieties from both sides, and the only attitude we could take up was that we would defend our territory here against any Power that came in to attack it. That may have to continue to be the national policy. I feel certain it will have to continue to be the national policy so long as Partition obtains. If there were a united Irish Parliament, meeting and considering these questions, it is possible that there might be a different line of approach.
However, I want to assure Deputies that this is a matter about which we are naturally concerned, and that we do not want on a future occasion to find ourselves in the position in which we found ourselves when the recent war broke out. It is for that reason that we have asked the House and that I ask the House now to support us in all the measures for national defence which would enable us to meet a situation, such as the situation we had to meet, with the greatest strength this nation can put forward. I do not think there is any point in my discussing that further. It is a very big question in itself and there is no need for me to go further into it than in general outline.
I come down now to one or two matters, apart from the general questions, which were raised. Deputy Dillon said that the German Minister was here as the representative of Nazism. I say that is not so. I say that, when we receive the representative of another State, we are not concerned with the internal policy of that State as long as we have peaceful relations with that State. It would be an intolerable situation when a representative comes to our country from another country if we should by the fact of receiving that representative appear to show favour or disapproval. Refusal, as you know, is practically tantamount to breaking off diplomatic relations. It is regarded almost as a hostile act against any State. It must be clearly understood, and I am sure it is understood in States that have long experience of these matters, that when a representative of a foreign State comes here he comes as the representative of the people and of the nation, not of the particular Government, and his reception by us implies no question of approval or disapproval or any decision upon the policy of that State. The German Minister here then, in the same way as his predecessors had been, was a representative of the German nation.
Next, I come to the question of my visit. My visit to the German Minister was taken in accordance with the procedure and the practice that had been established here, and which is almost a universal practice. Again, that act of courtesy must not be regarded—of course everybody who did not want to use it for a particular purpose knew that it did not imply—as approval or disapproval or judgment of any kind on the policy of the German people, or the State he was representing here. That was well known, but, because this country took up an attitude such as Switzerland or other neutral countries took up, and because that attitude did not please the propagandists, they wanted to malign this country and misrepresent it. There was not much publicity given to the fact that I came here and asked the Dáil to adjourn when the death of the President of the United States was announced. That reminds me that we do not wait to get official notice of the death of the head of a State. We do not have to get official notice: "the head of such a State died at such an hour". When the report of the death of the head of the State is received, we naturally assume that that report is true. We delay a little while, perhaps, sufficiently long to make sure that there was no fundamental mistake, but when it is reported generally that the head of a State has died we accept that fact, and we pay the necessary courtesies.
As I was saying, when we came here and adjourned the Dáil, as a particular mark of respect to the American nation, and when the flags here were at half-mast in our city practically from the moment we heard of the death of the President of the United States until his burial, there was very little publicity given to it. It did not suit the propagandists to give that particular publicity; but on the other occasion, inspired from certain quarters, they thought they had an excellent chance to do harm to this country, and they published it in the form they thought would do the greatest harm. I want to say this, that I did what I did as my duty. I was quite aware when I was doing it that it was capable of being misrepresented, but I am going to do my duty here in this country and pay the necessary courtesies as Minister for External Affairs even though I have to face the misrepresentation and our country has to face the misrepresentation which it causes. To do anything else would bring us into absolute contempt. I do not want to deal with that, I think, any further. With reference to Deputy Larkin's remarks, may I say that my doing what I did does not suggest that any people who may differ in their opinions from me or from us are in any sense individually committed to any views, because my action implied no judgment of any kind.
Another matter was raised, again to misrepresent the situation. I should like to know what member of our Cabinet is supposed to have Nazi views. I do not know quite what is the intention behind that, but I should like to know who is the member of our Cabinet who is being accused of having Nazi views.
