Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs. – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Wednesday, 19 Jun 1946

Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs.

An tAire Gnóthaí Eachtracha (An Taoiseach)

Tairgim:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £74,960 chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfas chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1947, chun Tuarastal agus Costas Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha, agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin (Uimh. 16 de 1924).

That a sum not exceeding £74,960 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1947, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs, and of certain Services administered by that Office (No. 16 of 1924).

There are two Votes for this Estimate, a Supplementary Vote and the principal Vote. I propose to take them together for the purpose of explanation. I shall deal with the Supplementary Vote first. The Supplementary Estimate, amounting to £9,750, makes provision for three new developments in our representation abroad—the raising of our mission at the Holy See to the status of an Embassy, the sending of a representative to Australia and the sending of a representative to Sweden. There is also an additional provision of £500 for official entertainment. The new Embassy at the Holy See is the first Irish Embassy ever to be established abroad. It is a notable step in the development of our foreign representation and is, I am sure, welcomed by our people.

It is a step which must have a deep significance for those of us who look back over the past and remember the tenacity with which, throughout so many centuries, our nation has preserved its attachment to the Holy See. It has particular significance in the circumstances of to-day. It serves, moreover, to emphasise the places held by the people of this island and the people of our race on the continents of America and Australia in the Catholic Church throughout the world. We had a striking illustration of how wide flung our race is during the year when we welcomed to our shores no less than seven Cardinals who were either born here or derived their descent from this country. I should like to take this opportunity of repeating that their visits gave us the greatest pleasure and that we regretted very deeply the death during his visit of His Eminence, the late Cardinal Glennon, Archbishop of St. Louis.

I have, as the Dáil knows, long looked forward to the time when it would be possible to arrange an exchange of representatives with Australia. Australia is a great country with a very bright future in store for it. Its productive efforts during the war show what it is capable of. There are many people of Irish birth and descent in Australia and, I think, we are all proud of the part they have played in the foundation and development of the Australian Commonwealth. Australia is, of course, one of the countries with which our association with the British Commonwealth brings us into special relationship. We hope and believe that the exchange of representatives will serve to extend and strengthen that relationship in the commercial, economic and other fields. The Government in Canberra have nominated a very distinguished Australian to represent them here and we are looking forward to welcoming him in the near future. Our representative will leave here for Australia in the next three or four weeks.

The Supplementary Estimate also provides for the establishment of a Legation at Stockholm. The new Legation will be in charge of a representative of the rank of chargé d'affaires. The Swedish Government have notified us of their intention to establish a diplomatic mission in Dublin with a representative of similar rank.

Mr. Dillon

Why have you elected to send a chargé d'affaires instead of a Minister?

The Taoiseach

That was the arrangement come to. I suppose small countries are anxious to limit their expenditure if they can. This is also a development which I am sure will be generally welcomed. We have important trade and other relations with Sweden which we are anxious to foster. Sweden is an important source of supply of various raw materials which we require, principally timber. Irish vessels are now trading to Swedish ports and following the air agreement which was signed recently in Dublin an air service between Dublin and Stockholm is expected to start operations within the next two months. Apart from these practical considerations, we are particularly happy to have closer relations with Sweden because, in the international sphere, Sweden has always stood for just those things which are important to us as a small State. Those of us who have been at Geneva will remember the work of successive Swedish delegations in upholding the ideal of international organisation founded on international law and justice. I am as sure now as I was then that any international order must be, if it is to last and be successful, founded on those principles and I am convinced that countries like Sweden which have stood unselfishly for those principles in the past have an important role to play in the world of to-day and tomorrow. I expect that our representative in Stockholm will be able to take up duty there within the next fornight or so.

As I have said, I propose to take the principal Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate together. The necessity for introducing the Supplementary Vote at this time arises from the fact that the arrangements with other countries which were necessary were not completed when the Estimates were being sent to the printer. As Deputies will see, in the principal Vote there is no substantial change now as compared with last year. The increase of £3,317 is almost entirely accounted for by automatic, routine factors—normal increments of salary and bonus and an increased provision for travelling due to the deferment of home leave by officers who were unable to get home during the war.

I do not think I need say much as regards the work of the Department itself now that things are gradually returning to normal. Travel restrictions being relaxed and transport becoming easier, much of the special activities which grew up during the war are slowing down or disappearing. Irish people who were stranded on the Continent or in the Far East are in most cases now able to return home, and repatriation and travel facilities have been arranged in a number of such cases during the year. All matters of this kind present much less difficulty now than they did a year ago. Where the lack of financial means constitutes a barrier, assistance may be afforded out of sub-head B (5) of the Vote, and perhaps I might mention here, because I answered a Parliamentary question on the subject within recent months, that, in view of representations I have received since my reply to that question was given, it has been decided to make provision under that sub-head to enable Mrs. William O'Brien, who had to leave her home in Northern France in 1940 and has been living since in the southern part of the country, to return to her former home in accordance with her own wishes and to reestablish herself there.

While some of the special functions which the Department undertook during the war are gradually coming to an end, there has been a considerable revival, during the last 12 months, of a type of work which normally claimed a good deal of attention before the war, namely, preparing for and attending international conferences and discussions of various kinds. There have been many international conferences and meetings during the year, covering a wide range of different problems, and, although many of them were of a technical character and, therefore, of primary interest to other Departments, for various reasons they all concern the Department of External Affairs in greater or less degree.

We had a full delegation at the General Session of the International Labour Conference at Paris last October, and we have at present a delegation at the special conference on the working conditions of seamen now taking place at Seattle.

In the sphere of international air development, there have been conferences at Paris, Montreal and elsewhere, and I think our delegations, consisting of officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce, were able to play an active and useful part at them. We had the pleasure of being hosts to the Transatlantic Route Service Conference here in Dublin some months ago, and Deputies will have seen that this country was recently elected, by a very flattering majority, to the vacant seat on the Council of P.I.C.A.O.

As regards international food problems, we had a delegation, headed by the Tánaiste and the Minister for Agriculture, at the European Cereals Conference in London early in April. We were represented by an observer at the Conference on Urgent Food Problems convened at Washington by the F.A.O. last month, and we recently accepted an invitation to become associated with the Food and Agriculture Sub-Committee of the Emergency Economic Council for Europe. Still in the field of food and agriculture, we have arranged to be represented at the Review Conference of the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux to be held at London in a week or two; we were represented at two sessions of the Permanent Committee of the International Institute of Agriculture at Rome last March, and we will be represented next month at the meeting of the General Assembly of this body which is expected to discuss the winding-up of the institute and the transfer of its functions to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

The International Institute of Agriculture at Rome is not the only international body whose position is at present being reviewed in the light of the new circumstances created as a result of the war. The future position of the International Committee on Refugees was discussed at a conference at Paris in November at which we were represented by our Minister to France. An official of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs attended the conference held at Brussels in March to discuss the future of the International Broadcasting Union, and a delegation will leave in the course of the next few days to attend the meetings at Brussels and Geneva at which the proposals drawn up at the conference in March are to be considered. Then, of course, there was the final meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva in April at which the scheme which had been worked out for winding-up the League and transferring its assets to the United Nations Organisation were approved.

There are other conferences of a more or less technical character which might be mentioned—a Commonwealth Scientific Conference and a Commonwealth Conference on Standards which are now meeting in London and at both of which this country is represented. Moreover, we recently accepted an invitation to send an observer to the first meeting of the International Health Committee of the United Nations Organisation.

In addition to multilateral conferences, there are, of course—as there must be in every Foreign Office— bilateral discussions of one kind or another continually taking place on all sorts of matters. As Deputies know, we had a trade mission to Sweden in February. There have been informal conversations on trade matters with other countries. I might, perhaps, mention here that we expect to have negotiations with the British authorities very shortly on the subject of the unemployment insurance of Irish men and women who served in the British forces or worked in Britain during the war.

A factor which is likely to have an influence on the future organisation of our diplomatic and consular representation abroad is the development of our mercantile marine and air services. Irish ships are now trading to a considerable number of ports on the European Continent as well as to ports in America and Africa. As Deputies know, too, a number of air agreements with Continental countries have been signed during the year, and it is likely that direct air connections between Ireland and several places on the Continent will come into operation before very long. The development of passenger traffic on these services must not be hampered by the lack of proper facilities for obtaining visas, or by difficulty in securing the other consular services which travellers normally require.

Similarly, we must make proper provision for affording the normal consular services in the case of our ships. In order to meet these needs as regards places in which we have at present no representatives of our own, I have at the moment under examination a scheme for the appointment of honorary consular representatives abroad, not only in the places on the Continent likely to be served by our shipping and air lines, but also at places on the North American and other Continents where the presence of a direct consular representative would be a convenience either to our own people resident there or to merchants, travellers and others interested in this country.

I think I have dealt with most of the matters that would arise normally from consideration of the figures of the Estimate, but if there are any other points which any Deputy wants to raise I hope I shall be able to deal with them when replying.

Mr. Dillon

Can the Minister say what the supplementary amount of £500 for official entertainment is required for?

The Taoiseach

It is a matter of covering expenses already incurred by the abnormal situation of the last few years when there were special visitors.

General Mulcahy

The Taoiseach considers that he has touched upon all the points. I do not think anybody ever covered with so light a touch so many spots scattered in many different directions. I do not know if I remember the opening lines of a poem which mentions dawn on the hills of Ireland. The Taoiseach's introductory statement struck me as something like the dawn of something. He told us that Australia is a country that our association with the British Commonwealth brings into special relationship with.

What is the relationship, political, social, economic, or financial to the British Commonwealth in respect to Britain, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada? I ask the question at this point so that the Taoiseach may be thinking it over. Now that there is a dawn of some kind, let us begin to look into the dawn to see exactly what we would like to discover there. Therefore, I ask in the political, social, economic and financial sphere what are the special relationships we have with any of the countries of the British Commonwealth.

The Taoiseach mentioned the establishment of an Embassy in the Vatican as a step of deep significance. There is no use in using words and pretending that they mean something. Now that we have an Embassy at the Vatican, we ought to have it made a little clear as to what is the deep significance of that act of ours. The Taoiseach mentioned how wide flung as a race we are. There is no way in which we can see that so well as when we say that our people have built up the Church in nearly every country in the world. But there is no place, particularly in some of the places mostly associated with English speaking countries. where our people have built up the Church where they have not brothers and sisters building up their administration, their industries or commerce.

It is particularly in relation to the significance of the establishment of our relationship with the Vatican, and its reaction on our public work here, that I would like to ask for some explanation if not now, in the months immediately in front of us, because comparatively recently, at the beginning of this year, recent Vatican policy was commented on in the publication of the Royal Institute of International Affairs called The World To-day. In a small paragraph, the writer says:

"The whole attitude"—

that is, of what he describes as recent Vatican policy

—"may be summed up in words spoken on the Pope's Coronation Day: `More than ever must the Church assume a social character in proclaiming and realising the Gospel'; and the wide range of subjects and persons embraced in Papal speeches, from science to journalism, from mathematicians and doctors to congressmen, teachers and trade unionists, is proof enough that the Vatican is not content with a religion confined to a part of life."

I should like to ask whether in our conduct of public affairs and in our social organisation and the development of both social and political machinery, we are likely, as a result of the establishment of this new Embassy, to be more guided in our work than we seem to have been in recent years by the various suggestions, representations, teachings and warnings enshrined in so many of the Encyclicals. Referring to Christmas Eve Allocution of the Pope, the article in this publication says:—

"An important place in the second part"—

that is, the second part of that Christmas Eve Allocution

—"was given to the problem of securing a properly informed public opinion—‘one fed on truth, not poisoned by propaganda'. Statesmen, therefore, have ‘a democratic duty', as the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of England, Wales and of Scotland said in the Pastoral broadcast by the Vatican a year ago, ‘to educate and inform the people they serve'. The great majority of men, continued the Allocution, are peaceful if told the truth and not stirred up by lies.... From the question of an informed public opinion it is a small step to the question of civic responsibility. The Pope's Message on Christmas Eve, 1944, with its distinction between the inert ‘mass' and the self-conscious ‘people' seems to mark an evolution from the earlier conception of the citizen as the innocent victim of his country's Government, to what might truly be called an Anglo-Saxon view of responsibility. Take, for example, what the Pope said in an audience he granted last year to British Ministry of Labour officials who had been lecturing to the troops in Italy: ‘The people cannot shirk responsibility for the conditions under which they live, if they fail to exercise their right and duty to help to shape them'."

I think we might even see in the statement that the Taoiseach has made to-day how little the Government here care for an informed public opinion and for giving the facts of the situation to our people, for feeding them on truth instead of propaganda which can be distorted in one way or another.

It will come as a surprise to many people, and as a welcome surprise to a lot of people, to read the Taoiseach's remarks to-day about our association with the British Commonwealth, bringing us into special relationship with, at any rate, one of the members of the Commonwealth. They will all be asking themselves what these relationships are and why we do not do anything about them. The Taoiseach has indicated that, in a very short time, representatives of this country will sit down with representatives of the other members of the British Commonwealth to discuss various scientific problems, various questions of standards and, I think, questions related to food matters. What kind of consultation has gone on between the Government and Irish scientists preliminary to these conferences which will enable the representatives of the Irish Government to speak the mind of our Irish scientists?

In the same way, what consultation has there been with any of the trades or organisations in any way affected by the fixing of standards as a preliminary to Irish representatives sitting down with representatives of the other members of the Commonwealth to discuss standards? What kind of preparation has been made for these conferences? There has been no preparation at all—at least no preparation in public—and I do not think that the Irish mind can be expressed at any conference without public discussion from which both the public as a whole and the various organised bodies concerned can have an opportunity of knowing what are the subjects for discussion. To say that the Taoiseach touched on these matters is almost to exaggerate what has happened. We have had no indication as to the scientific purposes for which these conferences have been called, what is on the agenda of any of these conferences, who are the people sent as the representatives of Ireland or what preparation has been made for them.

Now that a move is being made to send Irish representatives to some Commonwealth conference, the question will vitally and very emphatically arise: why were we not at the conference held comparatively recently at which the Prime Ministers of all the Commonwealth countries sat down in serious consultation to decide the commercial and financial principles upon which they were going to try to base their discussions with other countries in the world, with a view to establishing, as it seemed to them, the best possible system and the best possible principles of international trading, so that, by mutual co-operation in world trading, every country might have an opportunity of increasing employment and raising its standard of living to the highest possible level? Why were we not at that conference and what information have we got as to the principles of commercial and financial procedure decided on by these countries? Because we are vitally interested in the decisions taken there; and we are vitally interested in the outcome of the various conferences that will be held in the future, and for which that conference was merely a preparation. I have already asked the Taoiseach on a prior occasion for some information as to whether we were invited, or represented, at that conference, or notified as to what was discussed there. He had no information to give. He has not given us any information now. He has told us that any necessary consultations would take place in good time. What is involved? The United States Government invited a world-wide conference to be held next year to deal with trade and employment. As a preliminary to that, the President of the United States invited a certain number of countries to a preliminary conference—that is, the United States Government invited the Governments of the United Kingdom, of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Belgium, Luxembourg, Brazil, China, Czecho-Slovakia, France, the Netherlands and the Soviet Union, to a preliminary conference this year.

As a preliminary to that, there was a conference held representing the members of the British Commonwealth and Empire. In relation to that conference, the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Morrison, explained that it was vital for the success of the negotiations in which the United Kingdom delegation would be engaged, that it should enter any such negotiations with a full understanding of the considered views of trade, of industry, and of labour. Not content with calling a Commonwealth preliminary conference to the preliminary conference called by the United States, they exhaustively canvassed the trade unions and the industrial and commercial interests in Great Britain with a view to seeing what matters of importance were then under consideration by any branch or section in Great Britain of which note should be taken when the representatives of the United Kingdom sat down in conference with the other Dominion Premiers, or with the preliminary group of countries, or in the subsequent international conference later on.

To some extent we are more vitally interested in the outcome of these conferences than other countries, because we are dependent to an enormous extent for our export trade, and particularly for our export trade in agriculture, on Great Britain. For what are we keeping representatives in London and in the United States of America, and elsewhere, if we are not keeping them there in order to increase our markets at home, and thereby increase our employment at home and raise the standard of living in the country. In what other way can we achieve that except by co-operation with other countries? The Estimate shows that in personnel we are going to spend £15,813 in London, and we are going to spend £24,395 in the United States. There is, perhaps, a certain want of proportion in the amounts of money shown there, but I do not want to go into that now. It may be important. What I particularly want to concentrate upon is what is going to be done by mutual conferences and mutual discussions to see whether we cannot get something out of our relations with Great Britain, which will react favourably on the employment, and wealth, and the prosperity of this country.

In the year 1929 Great Britain was taking £45,000,000 of our domestic produce—agricultural and industrial. In 1930 she was taking £43,000,000. In the heights of the economic depression Great Britain was taking £37,000,000 of our national produce. Our market with Great Britain was bringing into this country more than one-quarter of our total national income. By 1938 Great Britain was only taking from us £20,000,000 worth of our domestic produce. We had reduced ourselves to a position where only one-eight of our national income was coming from the sales of our production to Great Britain. I mention that in order to demonstrate to the House what sound relations and the proper handling of our affairs between ourselves and Great Britain could mean to this country.

I would like to ask the Taoiseach whether he has got from those countries where we have representatives — such as Canada and Australia—any information as to how these various countries are pursuing their international relations in trade and commerce and how they are trying to bring about a position of full employment and a higher standard of living in their countries as a result of that. I refer particularly to Canada. Anybody who has any knowledge of world affairs to-day and anybody who is interested in the work and struggle that is going on in these various countries to build up industry and provide employment, must have their eyes on Canada. They must have seen that, not content with the enormous developments that are taking place there both in agriculture and in industry, Canada is making tremendous efforts through her representatives, particularly in Great Britain, to build up and develop markets for her goods, and thereby provide employment for her people and a better standard of living because of the vigorous development of international trade.

In the beginning of this year the Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce visited London. Speaking in London of the activities of the Canadian Government in her search for full employment and a rising standard of living through trade with Great Britain, he said that the Government of Canada had fixed, as the target for post-war exports, the figure of 1,750,000,000 dollars—this was an increase of about 50 per cent. above the pre-war level in dollar value, but was only about 15 per cent. higher in the amount of goods exported. That is, they were fixing that as the target for that part of the national income which they intended to achieve through their export trade. He went on to say: "Some people had suggested that this transformation in Canadian economy meant that Canada would be able to practise a greater degree of self-sufficiency in the future than had been possible in the past, that they would be less dependent on world markets for the sale of their surplus goods and that their imports could contract in volume." He wanted to repudiate that suggestion as emphatically as he could. For years to come it would be impossible for Canada to get a high level of employment and national income unless they continued to be a very extensive export nation. About one-third of their total national income normally came from export trade.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy relate that to External Affairs, because it was all discussed on the Vote for the Department of the Minister for Industry and Commerce already, on. which it would seem more relevant. Expansion of trade is hardly a matter for this Vote.

General Mulcahy

There is nothing that we are voting this money for except to expand trade by the presence of our representatives abroad.

An Ceann Comhairle

But it was all discussed on Industry and Commerce with the Minister who deals with that matter.

General Mulcahy

There was no ray of suggestion given on the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that we were going to take our place as a normal member of the British Commonwealth of Nations in sitting down to discuss in international conference with representatives of the other members any aspect of our economy or trade. The Taoiseach has lifted the veil this evening. We are going to sit down and we are going to discuss scientific matters and the deciding of standards and we have a general idea—at least I think we have a general idea—of what that may mean, but we have not been told that we are going to sit down and discuss in international conference what we are going to do for our trade. We have been told by the Taoiseach, in relation to Australia, that our association with the British Commonwealth brings us into very special relationship with Australia. I have asked the Taoiseach if he will tell us what relationship, social, economical or financial, or in a trading way we have with Australia, because I feel that it would shed light on the relationship that he has in mind between ourselves and the other members of the Commonwealth. I consider that our trading relationship with Great Britain is the real, vital thing both in our economy here and in our foreign relations. I think that we could for a time scrap all our foreign relations abroad if by doing so and by concentrating on our foreign relations with Great Britain, particularly the trading side of it, we could get the benefits out of that relationship that I believe we could, because we have no standing, no prestige, no strength any place in the world unless we have sound economic strength, unless we have greater employment at home and a higher standard of living. We have no strength either for defence or any other thing that people want to have in the world. So that, apart altogether from the particular note that the Taoiseach struck in his opening statement, there is no aspect of external affairs at the present day worth discussing commensurate with the trading aspect of it. What I am seeking to find out is, when are we going to sit down with the members of the British Commonwealth to discuss our general trading relations with them as freely, at any rate, as we seem to be going to sit down and discuss scientific matters and standards and such other things as the Taoiseach mentioned when he touched so lightly upon such a number of matters that it was not easy to take such a note as would help us to discuss them here.

Therefore, I submit to you, Sir, that when I ask the Taoiseach to bear in mind what we are keeping this £15,000 staff in London for, and when I emphasise that we have no business at all in keeping them there if they are not attending in the most effective way possible to our commercial and trading interests, that I am entirely in order. I do not think anything else would be worth discussing on the Vote.

I take it that any international discussions of any kind come under External Affairs and it seems to me that the staff in London are being used in a general kind of way to carry on discussions, almost back-room discussions, that should be carried on more openly by more qualified and more equipped persons. That does not reflect in any way on the capacity, particularly of the High Commissioner in London, who I am sure has had an extraordinary job, particularly over the last six or seven years, but I conpletely repudiate that he is in any way adequate to deal with the matters that require to be discussed and that should be not only discussed but actively worked at if we are to take advantage of the new dawn in the world and, maybe, the new dawn in the political outlook of the Government suggested by the Taoiseach to-day.

The Report on Post-Emergency Agricultural Policy laid special emphasis, in paragraph 94, on the urgency of certain things. It says:—

"We are also convinced that, if we make no particular effort to develop export capacity now, the United Kingdom market will become adjusted to doing without our contribution, and we shall find it more difficult to open export outlets for our produce at a later date when the more acute post-war scarcities have come to an end."

You might say that that was the most urgent keynote of the whole of that report because it pointed out how important agriculture was to the country, including the industries of the country, and how important the export trade was to agriculture, and that the only export trade was the export trade that we knew by experience that we had. I have shown that before the economic war hit the country, the British market provided us with more than a quarter of our production, that we got by sales in the British market of our agricultural and industrial production more national income than in the total production of our agricultural industry at that time. So that, that is the importance of it and, as far as we can know, we have had no consultation of any kind through our Government or through our representatives in London or a systematic way of dealing with our trade with Great Britain. On the other hand, we see that even the greatest countries in the world are leaving nothing undone to secure that they shall have, in the most effective way, contacts with any country in the world that can be of any use to them. We have seen in various ways that long-term contracts have already been negotiated with Great Britain for their produce in Sweden, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand. On the other hand, we are in the position that we do not know in what way the Government has done or will do anything to open up markets for our manufacturers and particularly for our agriculturists.

I again want to emphasise that unless the Government take vigorous action and are prepared to step as willingly into the discussion on trade matters as they appear to be to step into discussions on aviation and scientific matters, we will be left an impoverished country. In the problems distracting the world, various countries have little thought for people who remain in the background and when we realise how much our agricultural industry depends on the British market and how much our general economy depends on that market, there is no excuse for leaving our Parliament and our farmers in the obscure position in which they are. The dairying and bacon industries of Denmark were built up entirely on the requirements of the British market. They are being re-established to-day on the requirements of the British market. We have no bacon or butter to send there, and very few eggs. Will we get back into the production of these things and secure that, by building up these industries again on the requirements of the British market, we will be able to have eggs, butter and bacon for our own people?

The Taoiseach's statement to-day gives us hope that he has some answers to give us on some of these points before the debate concludes. I urge him to go back to the text that he presented me with when he said that in our membership of the British Commonwealth we have special relations with Australia. Will he discuss these special relations and apply what he thinks our special relations with Australia are, to Great Britain? Will be tell us if he has taken new steps in relation to Australia and will he tell us what new and active steps he has taken with Great Britain, so that we may see some chance of getting back the increase in national income that we would get back if we secured our old place in the British market?

Mr. Dillon

There are two minor matters connected with this Vote with which I would like to deal before discussing the broader questions that were raised by the Minister for External Affairs. One is the item for official entertainment. I am in a position to speak freely about this because I have no official position whatever and, on official occasions, I am entitled to no preferment or no recognised place in the protocol. I should like to direct the Minister's attention to this fact, that going to public functions is becoming an intolerable embarrassment because there is a growing tendency to turn every public occasion, which ought to be a joint participation amongst us all as representing the State and every section in it, into a kind of de Valera rally. That is most unbecoming.

The President has his position defined in the Constitution and everybody recognises that if he attends an official function of any kind he should have a place of unique preferment as the representative of all Parties. But in my submission, if the Taoiseach attends a public function at which the President is the principal guest, the position in the protocol of the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Opposition should be identical because their positions in Parliament are complementary. They are both recognised as having an unique position in Parliament; one is the Leader of the Government, the other is the Leader of the alternative to the Government, and that is recognised in statutes and in a variety of matters. Therefore, it creates no new precedent by giving it official recognition on State occasions.

If the Minister for External Affairs is the host at a dinner given to a distinguished foreigner, I suggest it is his duty to lean backwards in extending special consideration and courtesy and preferment to the Leader of the Opposition. I have given up going to official entertainments for the simple reason that I will not partake in functions as a representative of this House when I feel that the Leader of the Opposition and those who are entitled to full recognition of their position, not as individual men but as respected members of this House, are deliberately slighted and put upon. I have no intention of going to any more public functions to participate in such gross improprieties as I have been witness of.

I think this business of giving banquets in Dublin Castle at which Ministers and their ladies are present and there is no representative of any other section of this House, is grossly unbecoming. I think if the Minister for External Affairs gives a State banquet he ought to invite to that banquet representatives of all sides of the House —of all Parties in the House. Nobody pretends that these State banquets are a barrel of fun, because they are not; they are rather stiff, awkward ceremonies in Dublin, London, Paris, New York, Washington or wherever you have to attend them. It is not right, if we are entertaining State guests, that the guest himself should feel, by sitting down at the State banquet, he is, by implication, expressing a preference for one side or the other in the internal politics of the country. It would be more desirable if, for the occasion of his visit, all sides assembled around the festive board to do him honour and to demonstrate that whatever our views on internal politics may be, we are glad to collaborate for his entertainment and to do him honour.

I suppose the Taoiseach has on occasions felt that the presence of persons with whom he might not be on quite familiar ground has made the occasion rather more stiff and awkward than it otherwise would be. He ought to know that these occasions are never very joyful. I have been at them in many countries, as has the Taoiseach, and they are mostly a bit of a bore. If you are to conduct them at all, things ought to be done decently and with due propriety and recognition of the fact that they are State banquets and not banquets given for the edification of the Fianna Fáil Party.

If there are banquets to be given by the Government, I suggest they should be carried out on a decent scale. I shall never forget the day we served canned asparagus to the American Ambassador. I was ashamed of myself. What was worse, we made a separate course of it. I do not blame the Taoiseach for that. He has more to do than checking over the menu of a State banquet.

What you have to do is to make clear to the officers responsible for the organisation of a fiesta of that kind that no considerations as to allegations of extravagance should be permitted to minimise the tribute to the guest whom we are entertaining. When we serve quails in aspic at such a function it may be true to say, of most of us sitting round the table, that far from it we were born——

Mr. O'Donnell

They are mighty hard words to pronounce.

Mr. Dillon

——but that is a matter about which we need not trouble, as whatever luxuries we permit ourselves are provided merely in honour of the guest whom we are entertaining.

Lastly, in official entertainment, I think the time has come when there should be established in the Department of External Affairs or some other Department an officer of protocol. Most people are ashamed to admit that they do not know what to do at these official functions. I do not know whether I am expected to go in a silk hat or a tail coat, and the ridiculous part of it is that most people in this country seem to think that that is something to be ashamed of. It is a problem with which every man finds himself confronted, and if he could ring up the officer of protocol and ask what he was supposed to do, he would be told that straightway and he could go home and rest in peace.

Another detail to which I wish to refer is that a great many of our people in poorer circumstances are required under existing conditions to get visas at the United Kingdom offices. If the British had an edge on us, I would not blame them, but I find it hard to believe that the British Government desires to work off their grudge against us on poor people who have to go and get visas. When I compare the atmosphere that obtains in the United Kingdom Visa Office with the atmosphere that obtains in the United Kingdom Liaison Office, it is a standing source of astonishment to me, because in the one you receive courtesy and consideration, whilst in the other the contrary is the experience. When you ring up the United Kingdom Liaison Office, if the officer cannot do all you want, he will go to the ends of the earth to explain the reason, but if you ring up the United Kingdom Visa Office——

An Ceann Comhairle

Has the Minister any responsibility for that?

Mr. Dillon

He has the responsibility to make any representations he may think fit to the British Government that if the British Government have any grudge against this country, they ought to vent it on him and not on the unfortunate labourers seeking visas. If the Minister will direct the attention of the responsible authority in Great Britain to this matter, something might be done about it.

I shall come to it. The Minister for External Affairs led off to-day with the statement that our special Commonwealth position established a peculiar relationship between ourselves and Australia. President O'Kelly recently announced, on the occasion of his receiving the freedom of Wexford, that he accepted it, not as Seán T. O'Kelly but as President of the Irish Republic. Captain Macheath in the Beggar's Opera used to boast “how happy he could be with either, were t'other dear charmer away”, but our Minister for External Affairs can dance as merrily with the Republic on one arm and the Commonwealth on the other as if he were a dancing Apache. Let me read for the edification of the House the letters of credence supplied by our Minister for External Affairs to the foreign representatives of the Irish Republic over which President O'Kelly presides when they are going to represent us in Belgium or Sweden. This is addressed to the King of Sweden:—

"My Brother,

The Government of Ireland being desirous of maintaining the relations of friendship which exist between Ireland and Sweden, have advised me that they have judged it expedient that XY be accredited to Your Majesty in the character of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Ireland."

Mark the words, "have advised me." Who is "me"? While I am finishing this there are seven Fianna Fáil Deputies here who might start writing on a piece of paper their forecast of who is "me". It proceeds:—

"The Irish Government feel assured that the choice of XY would be perfectly agreeable to Your Majesty and that he will prove himself worthy of this mark of confidence.

I, therefore, request on behalf of the Government of Ireland that Your Majesty will give entire credence to all that ... shall communicate to Your Majesty in their name, and I take this opportunity of renewing to Your Majesty the assurance of my sincere friendship, and of the unfeigned respect and esteem which I entertain for Your Majesty's person and character.

Given at my Court at Buckingham Palace, 20th day of June, 1946.

I am, Sir, My Brother, Your Majesty's Good Brother,

GEORGE, REX IMPERATOR.

Countersigned—

EAMON DE VALERA."

There is not a whisper of suspicion about poor President O Ceallaigh who got the freedom of Wexford because he is President of the Irish Republic. Is it irrelevant to say to the head of a Government, who had a republic in Wexford, who had those letters of credence in Buckingham Palace, and was suspended, like Mohammed's coffin, between two positions in the Dáil that he is:—

For the rest, I refer Deputies to The Prince, in which they will discover the greatest character sketch of the Taoiseach, and I hope they will read it. Has the time not come when we ought to make up our minds whether this country is going to be in the commonwealth or a republic? I want to ask the House if it does not agree that this is a disgusting, fraudulent, dishonest attempt to blind our people as to what is the true status of this country, and corrupting our whole national character. Is there not something contemptible and rotten about pretending to be one thing when we are, in fact, something else? Is there not something horrible in bawling about a republic down the country and flirting with the Commonwealth from the Front Benches of Dáil Éireann? Does nobody feel humiliated that the President should be declaring in Wexford that he got them freedom there because he is President of the Irish Republic, at the very moment that the High Commissioner for Ireland is proceeding to Buckingham Palace in a silk hat and frock coat to get that document I read out signed by the King of England, in order to persuade the country to which we were sending an envoy extraordinary to accept him as the representative of this country? Have we reached such a stage of mental dishonesty that that does not sound obnoxious to the simplest Deputy? Why should we go on degrading ourselves by that ambiguous rôle? There is nothing to fear. If it is the right thing to do to declare a republic why not declare it? If Fianna Fáil believes that an Irish Republic is the desire what is to stop them?

There can be no suggestion that Great Britain is going to invade us or to attack us. In India we have seen Great Britain telling the Indian people that if they want to come into the Commonwealth they will be welcome, but if they want to go outside it they will extend the hand of friendship to them. Such words were uttered by the Prime Minister of Great Britain a few days ago. So far as Egypt is concerned the moment the Egyptian Government expressed a desire that British troops should leave the country the British said: "Very well, we will go." They entered into negotiations at once to arrange the matter. There is no question of anybody invoking any sanctions if we want to declare a republic. Why do we choose to masquerade before our own people as a republic, but to move about the world by virtue of the document I have read, signed at Buckingham Palace by the King of England for the time being?

I do not think any Deputy sitting on those benches will find any difficulty about the answer in The Prince by Machiavelli. They will find there “that it has come to very few people to know what they truly are, but to all to know what they appear to be.” Therefore, what is important is that to those who desire to mislead and deceive to maintain appearances, it does not matter what you do. History is true; Machiavellianism, through it succeeds for a time corrupts men who use it and corrupts people who submit to it. If we cannot be true to ourselves then we can be true to nobody. There is no Deputy on the Fianna Fáil Benches at the moment who is not prepared to go down the country and defraud his own supporters into the belief that he is a republican while, at the same time, he applauds the devious, dishonest and tricky expedients of these letters of credence, wherewith to introduce our diplomatic representatives to the foreign courts where we desire to be represented. It is that kind of dirty, fraudulent dishonesty which is distintegrating the public life of this country. It is that kind of horrible, amorphous, intangible fraud which makes it impossible to maintain normal political relations in this country.

I can understand a man who is a republican and who wants to establish a republic cut off from Great Britain, and take the consequences. I differ profoundly from him, but at least I know what he is talking about. I can combat his arguments and understand his position, but is there any living creature who could decipher what Deputy Allen believes this country to be? The only answer he could make would be "If you want to know the answer to that question, you had better ask the Chief." The distressing thing is that, at one time, Deputy Allen would have been ashamed to make that answer, but to-day he thinks it is clever. He thinks he is as cute as the bees. Does Deputy Allen ever look back on his own record, to the time when he knew he wanted a republic, when he knew he wanted this country to sever the last connection with England, when there were no qualifications or reservations in his own mind?

Mr. Allen

There are none at the moment, either.

Mr. Dillon

Now he belongs to the republic in Wexford and to God knows what when we are getting letters of credence to send our ambassadors abroad.

Mr. Allen

Under an Act of this Oireachtas.

Mr. Dillon

The only blessing is that he just does not think about it, or he would meet the same fate as the man who was asked whether he wore his beard inside the blanket or outside it when asleep and who died of insomnia trying to find out the answer. What I hate about this is its fraud, the corrupting, rotten dishonesty which enshrouds it and the triumphant satisfaction of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party that they have at last worked out a position on which they can stand, a position of so ambiguous a character that no one can successfully challenge it and which the people can be corrupted into accepting as something worthy of this country. But they had to be corrupted to accept it.

There was a time when our fathers would have scorned, would have despised anybody who spun that yarn in answer to the question: how does Ireland stand? But the queer thing is that, in our country now, dishonesty and prevarication are being elevated into virtues cognate with fortitude and counsel. It is no longer noble in this country to be wise; the virtue is to be cute. It is no longer noble in this country to face the consequences of the things you do and to take them, whatever they may be; the virtue of to-day is to have your cake and eat it, if you can get away with it.

The tragedy is that, despite all that we on this side do, the principles of Machiavelli are, for the time being, prevailing in our generation, with the deplorable results we see in the standards of decency and rectitude which are manifested in the public life of this country and its private life as well.

I will not sit down without saying frankly what I think, and I dare the Taoiseach to do as much. On its merits, is this country to be a republic or is this country to elect on its merits to be a member of the Commonwealth? For two reasons, on its merits, I want Ireland to be a member of the Commonwealth. The first reason is this: I believe the Commonwealth to be a dynamic political institution in the world. I believe the world to be threatened at present with as great a menace as that with which it was threatened in 1939. In 1939, the house of Beelzebub became divided against itself, and, in the course of the war, the Communist half of the house of Beelzebub fell upon the Nazi half, and the Nazi half perished—perished by the mercy of God's Providence.

I believe there at present exists in the world a menace from the Communist half of the house of Beelzebub which has survived, and I believe that menace will be manifested in war within the next ten years, unless the United States of America and the British Commonwealth of Nations manifestly are resolved to stand together and to resist any aggression against one, in combination with the other. I believe that if Communist materialism believes it possible to strike at Great Britain alone, or at the United States of America alone, and were assured or encouraged to believe, that on such a stroke being made, one of these nations would stand idly by while the other was destroyed, in our lifetime we would see Communist Russia undertake the destruction of Great Britain and the Commonwealth of Nations for the purpose of dominating all Europe.

I believe that were she able to undertake that task and to tackle Great Britain standing alone, she would destroy her and would dominate Europe, and that we would see in our time such a persecution of the Church as was envisaged by Pope Pius XI when he wrote Mit Brennender Sorge against the Nazis of Germany. In the course of that persecution, no people in Europe would suffer more deeply than our own people here in Ireland, and I believe that, in the process of effectively dominating the Continent of Europe, one of the outposts of that domination would be the island which belongs to us, and which Russia would require effectively to control the western approaches to the Continent of Europe and ensure that the United States of America would not find a foothold upon it from which to undo a conquest of that kind.

On the other hand, I believe that if it is made manifest that the United States of America and Great Britain are going to stand together the Russians, who are realists, will perceive that they have no chance if they challenge a conflict with an Anglo-American alliance; and, seeing that, they will never make that challenge. If we have an Anglo-American peace and Russia is dissuaded by realism from challenging it, then that is the greatest guarantee of peace that the world can have; that is the greatest guarantee of an enduring peace. And we have something more—and anyone who knows America and knows the Commonwealth of Nations, as most of us in this House know it, must realise this—we have a guarantee that in that peace there will be established the world over the one fundamental principle without which 95 per cent. of our people cannot live; that is, a fourth freedom—but, perhaps, a paradoxical fourth—namely, freedom for Bishops. If Deputies will reflect on that, and on all that it implies, they will understand that, though we may be democrats and love many things and prefer to have them, there is only one thing without which we cannot live and only one thing without which it would be better that we should cease to exist altogether, and that is, freedom for Bishops to discharge their pastoral duties; so far as that is guaranteed, Christian men and women can continue to inhabit the world. Without that, they might as well lay down their lives for their souls. Does anyone believe that in a world in which an Anglo-American alliance was the prevailing power that freedom would not be guaranteed? How, then, does that react on us? Here is my submission.

I want to see Ireland a member of the Commonwealth of Nations because the evidence of my eyes to-day, and of my experience of yesterday, leads me to believe that that organisation is a dynamic organisation, adaptable and capable of changing to meet the changing circumstances of the world. We went into it in 1923 when it was an empire. Irish statesmen conceived the concept of a commonwealth in place of an empire. They led the other nations of that empire to accept the commonwealth concept and created in the world what has been recognised inside and outside the Commonwealth as a unique constitutional concept, which has been the envy of those who have not been admitted within its circle. For the 20 years that that constitutional concept has functioned it has served a great purpose in the preservation of human liberty and the providing of a citadel in which freedom could survive.

I think that to-morrow's morrow calls for a further change because we can see with our own eyes that all over the world to-day, and particularly in Europe at the present time, every problem that besets mankind is rendered a thousand times more complex by the multiplicity of national barriers with which the surface of Europe is chequered—customs barriers, immigration barriers, monetary barriers, every sort of institution to divide neighbours from neighbours.

Has it ever occurred to the Deputies of this House that but for the fact that the United States of America constituted itself a Federal Union 150 years ago, that continent would be flooded in even greater degree with the problems which are at present baffling Europe? The 49 States of that Union to-day, but for this federal concept, would have 49 armies, 49 customs barriers, 49 immigration laws, just as in Europe to-day there are innumerable armies, customs laws and immigration barriers. I believe that the Commonwealth of Nations has an important lesson to teach in the future, and I believe that it is one which our people should be prepared to learn—that is, to constitute itself through its existing members into a new federal union in which there will be no frontiers recognised between its members, but each State member retaining, as the Federal States of the United States do, full sovereign jurisdiction over its internal affairs but conceding to the Union Federal Government the right and duties of peace and war, of foreign policy, of tariffs and of customs; thus giving to all men within its bounds free passage for man, money and goods over the entire surface controlled by the federal union and, at the same time, so designing its constitution that there might ultimately be within its bounds room for other sovereign States who desire to join and who accept the fundamental principles in which we believe, but not necessarily accept the governmental principles. I can see a day when such a federal union might comprise, not only the existing States of the present Commonwealth of Nations, but such States as Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, and even some day France and Italy and Spain and Portugal as well.

I can see the day when such a federal union will exist here in Europe and throughout the Commonwealth, bound, not by any legalistic tie, not by any attempt at fusion, but bound by treaties of friendship and understanding and co-operation with the Federal Union of the United States of America. Is there any force in the world that could dare then to break the peace? Is there doubt in the mind of any man that in any part of either of those vast segments of the world the freedom of bishops would ever be challenged; and if we in this country—Ireland—to-day have a hand in bringing that about will we not have shown ourselves equal to a very lofty destiny? It will have this additional value that at this time when the whole social outlook of Ulster finds itself veering away from the social outlook that dominates, and looks like dominating England for some years to come, there may be found a more open mind in Belfast to-day than there has been for many a year on the subject of their return to the nation where they truly belong. But, if they are to be induced —and inducement is the only tolerable method of bringing them home; coercion will not do, the Taoiseach's futile pipe dreams notwithstanding —if they are to be induced, while not ceding them any fundamental in which we believe, it is an essential prerequisite that we recognise the things to which they attach fundamental importance as we must insist that they recognise the things on which we lay peculiar emphasis as well. As I understand the present position, there is one fundamental upon which all Parties in this country can find common ground and that is that we want to see Ireland united, sovereign and independent. I believe most of us would agree that we want her as a nation not only to prosper but to fulfil a destiny worthy of her in the world. The purpose I have outlined here to-night is no pipe dream. There are those in other countries in the Commonwealth who think as I think now. I have heard Dutchmen to say that they longed for the realisation of such a federation as I have outlined, in which their sovereignty could make its contribution.

I believe there are many other sovereign States in the world at this hour who realise that their freedom and independence depend ultimately on the strength of such a federal union as I envisage and must ultimately perish unless that haven of refuge can be found. If then we can thus build a citadel for independence, for sovereignty, for peace, and above all for the undying freedom of Bishops to discharge the duties of their pastoral office, would we not be doing something that was truly worth while and does such a destiny for our country compare unfavourably with the Wexford Republic that accredits its ambassadors from Buckingham Palace?

Mr. Cogan

On this Estimate the most important issues that arise and that must receive first consideration from this House are: first, what are we doing to secure national unity within the State, the restoration of the Six Counties to the rest of Ireland, the abolition of the hateful Border which is a source of torment to everybody who loves this nation; secondly, what is to be for the future our relationship with the British Commonwealth of Nations? It is absolutely essential that there should be a clearly defined and clearly stated policy in regard to both these matters, which are the most important issues before the nation to-day.

I am not deeply concerned as to what is our exact constitutional position at the present moment. I believe it is true that this nation is at the present time a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and that it is equally true that this nation is at the present time a republic of some sort. It may be argued that it is absolutely impossible to combine those two positions, that there cannot be a republic within the British Commonwealth of Nations but, is it seriously suggested that we should alter the existing position in any way? I do not think there is any Deputy who wants seriously to alter the Constitution under which we live. I have never heard a definite specific proposal for the amendment of the Constitution in such a way that would make it less republican in outline than it is at the moment.

I would go further and say that this country has enjoyed republican status since 1921 and that it was unfortunate that that position was not recognised sooner. We, therefore, accept the position that we have, in broad outline, a republican type of Constitution. It may be a unique republic, if you like, but there is an extraordinary number of different kinds of republics in the world. There are republics in Eastern Europe the citizens of which enjoy no liberty. There are democratic republics such as the United States of America, and others. The word "republic" is very wide and covers a great number of States and a great variety of conditions.

The question is not so much whether we are in the British Commonwealth at the present time or not—because I think it will be accepted that we are in the British Commonwealth—the question is, what is our future policy to be with regard to the British Commonwealth? Is it the policy of the Government to adhere to membership of that Commonwealth for the future or have they definitely made up their minds that when opportunity offers they will secure exemption, release or escape— whatever you like to call it—from that group?

I should like to hear from the Taoiseach a clear-cut, definite statement on that question, because it is a most important question which concerns not only this nation but the other members of the Commonwealth. The other members of the Commonwealth are entitled to know what our future relationship with that organisation is to be. Are we going to retain our membership or are we going to abandon it at the earliest possible opportunity? I do not think that it is right or proper for any Party or any Deputy in this House to adopt an insincere or dishonest attitude in regard to our future relations with the Commonwealth. In relation to external affairs, all Deputies should speak honestly and sincerely and, particularly, it is the bounden duty of the Taoiseach, as Head of the Government, to speak with absolute honesty and sincerity, not only to the people of Ireland but to the people of other nations, and explain fully what his intentions are for the future in regard to external affairs and what he believes is the best policy for this nation. Having said that, I am not prepared to depart from the principle which I have laid down. I am prepared to state, definitely and clearly, that I believe it is in the best interests of this nation that we should retain our membership of the British Commonwealth.

I do not believe in playing up to any irresponsible and ignorant section of the community who believe that a completely independent republic will confer benefit upon this nation. I do not believe in those people who held some sort of a better republic than we have as a carrot to dangle before them. That is an unworthy policy. I will not say that it is dishonest, because there may be people who believe that separation from the British Commonwealth of Nations may confer benefits. But it is a foolish policy and one which cannot in any way advance the best interests of our nation. Six or seven years ago there might have been people in this State who believed that partnership in the British Commonwealth would involve our country in England's wars. Six years of neutrality, during the greatest emergency in which Great Britain has ever been involved, ought to convince everyone that the British are prepared to honour their promises and their obligations to other members of the Commonwealth and that there is not demanded from members of the Commonwealth any sacrifice of blood or money which that member will not be willing to make.

I think this nation has learned a lot in the last seven years and I think the majority of our people have taken in and digested the lesson of experience. Whatever case might be made for striving to end our connection with the British Commonwealth six or seven years ago, there is no case whatever to-day. The British Commonwealth of Nations is a unique organisation. It does not demand any membership fees; it does not impose upon its members any definite responsibility; it does not impose on its members any particular type of constitution. It leaves its members absolutely free to work out their own destinies in their own way and to withdraw from membership at any time they think fit. That is sovereign independence; it is a great measure of sovereign independence, perhaps a greater measure than Portugal, Spain, Holland or Belgium or any other small nation enjoys.

Recognising that, we ought to be quite honest and sincere in proclaiming to our own people and the nations of the world, particularly the other members of the British Commonwealth, that we intend to retain our membership, if permitted to do so. A clear statement by the Government on that question is urgently necessary.

It may be that during the emergency the Government felt it was not desirable to emphasise too strongly our intention of remaining a member of the Commonwealth lest that statement might be taken by belligerent States as a suggestion that we were not inclined to hold strongly to our neutrality and that we were inclined to join on one side of the conflict. But there can be no such excuse at the present time. The war has ended and we are facing a period of peace, which may be long or short—that depends on the goodwill and good sense of all nations, including our own.

It is desirable, on the threshold of a period of peace, to define our attitude towards other nations. If the Government have made up their minds to remain within the British Commonwealth, it is clearly desirable that they should convey, in the clearest possible language to the other members of the Commonwealth, that that is their intention. By so doing they will help to promote better relations between this country and Great Britain and the other members of the Commonwealth. If, on the other hand, the Taoiseach has an idea that at some time in the future it will be desirable that we should sever our connections with the Commonwealth, it is only right and honest to let the other members know that such is our intention. That is what I consider to be the foundation of an honest, straightforward external policy.

The Taoiseach

Why does the Deputy think along that line? What have I said or done that would indicate anything of the kind? On what is the Deputy basing all this?

Mr. Cogan

I am basing my argument on the fact that the Taoiseach has not done or said anything that would make it clear whether he desires this country to remain within the Commonwealth or not.

The Taoiseach

I have said several times I was quite satisfied with the present arrangement if it would include the whole of Ireland.

Mr. Cogan

There is, possibly, in that statement a kind of threat to Great Britain and the other members of the Commonwealth that if we do not get the Six Counties we will take the Twenty-Six Counties out of the Commonwealth. I do not think that is a wise or sensible kind of threat to hold out. In the first place, I do not think that anybody could conceive it as desirable that our Twenty-Six Counties should separate themselves from the Commonwealth and that we should set up an isolated republic in the Twenty-Six County area with a boundary over 200 miles long facing six of our counties. I have simply pleaded for more plain speaking to Great Britain and the other nations of the Commonwealth. There is everything to be gained by cultivating better relations with those nations. There is everything to be gained at the present time by cultivating a better understanding and a better relationship between this country and Great Britain. There is also a great deal to be gained by creating closer and better relations between this country and such great young nations as Canada and Australia.

Personally I do not claim to be a well informed person, but I am sure that prior to the last world war, I had not as high an opinion of the nations of the British Commonwealth, of their economic strength and even of their military strength, as I have at present. I think that those nations have astonished, not only their allies but their enemies in the recent world war by the strength and vigour which they have shown. That strength and that vigour are going to be demonstrated in future in the progress they will make in solving their economic problems and perhaps in helping the older nations of Europe in solving their economic difficulties.

I think if there was a clear-cut statement that we intend to preserve our association with them, we could do much to better our international position and to raise our prestige in the eyes of the world, and as a result perhaps raise the standard of prosperity of our people within the State.

On the question of Partition, I think there is also need for a clearer definition of policy than we have got up to the present. What are our demands on Great Britain in regard to Partition? Do we want them to clear out of the Six Counties regardless of what the wishes of the majority of the people of the Six Counties are or are our demands something more moderate, something which might be more acceptable to Great Britain than these? There are two ways of ending Partition—one by force of arms or force in some way, compelling the majority in the Six Counties to submit to the rule of the majority of this nation. We could ask the British to clear out and leave us to deal with the Six Counties as we thought fit. That is one policy —a policy which is perhaps suggested by some people in this State but it is not a policy which I think any sensible person would recommend. What is the alternative policy? There is only one alternative, that is the policy of inducing the majority of the people in the Six Counties to accept our from of government and to come into this State, on a federal basis with local self-government, or in some other way. If we accept the view that the Six Counties must be brought in on a voluntary basis by inducement, that there is no solution of the Partition question except by a voluntary reunion of this nation, then we have got to make up our minds what demands we are going to make on Britain.

What is our policy towards Great Britain in regard to Partition? What is our grievance against Britain in regard to Partition? I think in a matter of this kind, our grievance should be clearly defined and clearly stated. Here again on this question, I want to be quite honest and open in regard to what I think is the sound policy. I think that the sound policy in regard to Great Britain is simply to say that we accept the view that the majority of the people of the Six Counties cannot be coerced but we request and demand from Britain that she shall not offer any bribe or any inducement to the people of the Six Counties to remain outside this nation. If the British are prepared to accept that demand and to meet us in a reasonable way, then I think we have no reasonable ground for quarrelling with the British nation. Whatever wrongs the British may have perpetrated in this country so far as the Twenty-Six Counties are concerned, we are prepared to forget and forgive. Whatever wrongs they may have inflicted in regard to Partition, we are also prepared to forget and forgive, provided they do not continue to induce the people of the Six Counties to remain separated from us.

There might perhaps be another reasonable demand that we should make to Great Britain on this question of the Six Counties. That is, that as long as the Six Counties are under the control of the United Kingdom, Britain should see that the people of the Six Counties are allowed a free choice as to what from of government they require or whether they wish to be reunited with the Irish nation. It would be the duty of the British Government to see that the people of the Six Counties will always have a fair system of election, a fair system of voting and an absolutely free choice as to whether they wish to rejoin this nation or not. These are the demands which, I think, our nation ought to make on Great Britain in regard to this question, and if these demands were made in a reasonable manner, I think that the way would be paved for a much better relationship between this nation and Great Britain than at present exists. I think also that the way would definitely be paved for the ultimate reunion, perhaps within a reasonable time, of this nation. I think that if the British are prepared to withdraw all inducements and incentives to the Six Counties to separate from the Irish nation, the reunion of this nation can be looked forward to within a very reasonable space of time.

I think if the British withdrew all the inducements and incentives that were given to the Six Counties to separate from the Irish nation, reunion could be looked forward to within a reasonable time. I feel that this is an occasion for honest, sincere and open discussion of the question with the British Government. We know that there has been a very great change in the Government of Great Britain. We know that a new Party has come into power there, which has not been to any great extent associated with the British foreign policy of the past, and it is possible that this new Party, which looks like remaining the dominant Party for a long time, might be prepared to meet our demands in a reasonable way. There, I think, is the best means of a reasonable external policy, one calculated to improve our position in the world and our position internally.

While it is interesting, and sometimes amusing, to listen to Deputy Dillon when he is attacking Government policy, whether foreign policy or economic policy, he is always at his best when he is destroying. But when he puts up a constructive suggestion, in which he sincerely believes, he usually leaves himself open to very serious criticism. When he spoke of moulding the British Commonwealth into a federation similar to that of the United States, I think he was going much farther than any person in this House would advocate. I do not think this House would desire that we should accept a lesser status of sovereignty or control of our affairs than we now enjoy, knowing that the States in America have very limited powers in regard to many fundamental matters upon which this nation would like to exercise complete control. It is travelling too far to seek to remould the policy of the British Commonwealth. We have to accept it, more or less, as it is. We may be able to make changes as time goes on, but we are not going to alter the Commonwealth out of shape, and I doubt if it would be desirable to do so on the lines advocated by Deputy Dillon. If we are going to part with any of our sovereign powers in regard to foreign affairs, we should only part with such rights to a well-constituted world organisation, and such an organisation is apparently a long way off. Until such an organisation arises, it is our duty as a nation to maintain the strong and adequate control over our foreign affairs in matters of defence that is enjoyed by other nations. I do not think that the proposal suggested by Deputy Dillon could be seriously considered. We would be spending money which is voted for External Affairs foolishly if we did not immediately, now that peace has arrived in the world, define our future position in regard to the Commonwealth, and define clearly what our demands on Great Britain are in regard to Partition.

As far as the Six Counties are concerned, and the people there, we can only seek to win their support and allegiance to our nation by just, equitable and good government in the Twenty-Six Counties. The Protestant minority in the Twenty-Six Counties can be of great help to us in winning the support and confidence of the people in the North. I think the more fully the minority here enter into their full share of the national life, and their full share in the public affairs of this State, the better it will be, and the sooner we can look forward to confidence being established amongst the people in the North and to a willingness on their part to accept our nation and to be united with us.

Would the Deputy please address the Chair?

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

The Taoiseach has decided that he will answer when concluding the debate. I doubt very much if I shall be any wiser when he has concluded the debate. I should like to proceed along the road the Taoiseach apparently was following and to assume that the Taoiseach paid a visit to London and said to one of the Ministers of the British Government: "I wish to end Partition," to which the British Minister replied: "I will end Partition for you. I will compel the North to go in with the South." That is the logical conclusion to be drawn from any suggestion I have heard for bringing about the end of Partition. If that is the Government's method, I want to say that I would not like to see it come about on that basis. I should not like to see the North brought in with us by compulsion.

If the North is not to be brought in by compulsion from outside—and I am speaking only for myself—I suggest that the only other course open to us is to bring the North in by negotiation. During the 14 years of Fianna Fáil Government, I have never heard of a single approach to the North to find out, either officially or unofficially, on what terms Partition could be ended. I do not know if the Taoiseach or the Government regards that course as one which should not be pursued, as being an impossible line of country; but if it is an impossible line of country, I think it would serve to clarify the situation if we could be told it was an impossible line of country, and that the only possible method of ending Partition was a request to Westminster or Downing Street to bring compulsion on the North.

I have said that I would not like to see that course adopted, even if it brought about the ending of Partition, because, expressed in the simplest terms, it would be applying the medicine to other people which we objected to having applied to ourselves. In other words, doing unto others what you would not they should do unto you. I should like the Taoiseach, when replying, to enable me to tidy up my mind for the succeeding years as to whether the approach to ending Partition is to be via a ticket to London or a ticket to Belfast.

Mr. Davin

I do not want to go into the high politics which have just been discussed, but if Deputy Dockrell had read the papers carefully recently, he would have found the answer to the awkward question he has put to the Taoiseach in the speech made by the President in Wexford on a recent occasion. I take it that that speech must have been submitted to the Minister for External Affairs and members of the Government before it was delivered.

During the past six or seven years, a very high percentage of the population of this State were forced, by economic circumstances, to emigrate to a neighbouring country. During recent times, and particularly since the end of the recent world war, several questions have been addressed to the Minister for External Affairs for the purpose of ascertaining the exact number of citizens of this State who went to a neighbouring country, and I would like to know now if the Taoiseach has the figures at his disposal. I know his Department must have them available, and I ask now for particulars as to the total number of citizens who left this State for civilian work in Great Britain since the outbreak of the war in 1939; and, if he has these figures in detail, I would be interested to know the number of citizens who were given permits to go to Great Britain for work in the building trade, for instance, the number of females who were given permits to go for domestic service, and the number particularly—and there can be no danger now in giving this figure—who were given permits for the purpose of joining the fighting forces. Those figures would be very interesting and the Minister concerned cannot now say, as he could have said during the period of the war, that it would not be in the public interest to publish these figures. It is in the public interest to have them published now, because there has been a great deal of confusion created in the minds of the people from time to time by the different answers given to questions in this House by the Minister for External Affairs since the end of the war. Give us the total number of citizens of this State——

The Taoiseach

Why do you not ask for them?

Mr. Davin

——who were given permits for the purpose of joining the fighting forces in Great Britain. I dare say permits were not given for that particular purpose; but it is known at any rate that a very large number and a very high percentage of the citizens of this State joined the fighting forces. Anybody who comes in contact with people from the other side, and particularly with politicians from the other side, must be impressed by the hostility shown to the people of this country. It was circulated in Great Britain by a particular type of propagandist during the war that we were pro-German. If figures can now be furnished to show the number of citizens of this State who freely and voluntarily joined the British fighting forces I think that will disprove the attempts made in the direction to which I have already referred and disprove the statements of those who still express themselves in hostile terms both to the Government and to the people of this country. I was recently handed a document circulated by a responsible citizen of this city who holds strong nationalist views. I have that document in my posession at the moment. It was printed by Cahill & Co. In that document it was stated that 12 of the senior officers of the British fighting forces—Army and Navy—were born in Dublin, Mallow, Galway, and the Twenty-Six Counties generally; and ten citizens of this State received the honour of the Victoria Cross as against one from the Six Counties. I would be interested personally to get these figures for the purpose of disproving the statement made that we adopted a pro-German attitude during the recent war, and for the purpose of disproving that there is any ground for the hostility shown by responsible British citizens to the Government of this country and the people of this State in connection with our attitude in relation to neutrality, which, to the British people, meant a pro-German attitude on our part. I hope the Minister will understand the reason why I ask for these figures. In our point of view it will be helpful in removing a wrong impression from the minds of people who have adopted a hostile attitude to the Government of the country at a critical period in our history.

I would also like to raise another matter—it is, perhaps, a minor one— as to whether the Department of External Affairs would use its good offices with some British organisation for the purpose of enabling citizens of this State to send parcels to relatives who are in the Army of Occupation in Germany. I was recently handed a document issued by the Department of External Affairs giving permission to a citizen of this State to send a parcel to a family friend in a town in Germany. When the parcel was taken to the post office here the Parcels Department of the General Post Office refused to handle it because there was no organisation in existence for the purpose of getting the parcel sent direct to one of the principal cities in Germany, although a permit was actually issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce for this purpose. Is it possible, without too much trouble and without any compliment, for the Department of External Affairs to use its good offices with the British Government, or the British Red Cross, in this connection? I understand the Irish Red Cross have no contacts of a widespread continental nature for this purpose. Is it possible to make contact with the British Government in order to arrange for these parcels to be sent direct, in the same way as they are sent by relations of British citizens serving or living in that part of Germany occupied by British forces? If it is sound policy—and I am sure it is—for the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture to issue permits to send out of this country parcels of butter, or eggs, or other essential foodstuffs to relatives living in Great Britain, surely it would be good policy to use some organisation, or some section of the British Government, to get parcels sent to relatives of Irishmen living in Germany in the occupied areas. I put that now to the Minister concerned and, perhaps, at some future date something may be done by the Department of External Affairs in this connection.

There is no use, therefore, in asking for any clearer statement of policy from the Taoiseach and his Government than what we can apprehend ourselves or interpret from the actions of the Government and from their statements. Similarly, as regards our relations with Great Britain and the other nations of the Commonwealth, I judge our results, not by what the Taoiseach or his Ministers say, not by mere words or verbiage, I judge them by our actions.

The position of this Party in reference to that matter has been made abundantly clear. The international status that we enjoy at the present moment, the prestige that we have in the family of nations, has it roots in the work that was done from 1926 until 1930. I state that, not as a matter of pride in the personalities of the colleagues, both living and dead, with whom I was associated in that work, but I state it merely that the people of the country may realise, particularly those people who are now coming of age, 21 and 22, who were not born in those times. Our position has never varied in that matter. But, even taking the position as we have it at the moment in the Constitution, I still say that there is a vast field to be explored by the Government, still keeping whatever association they have, or say they have, for the benefit of this country nationally and internationally.

There has been a conference of the Prime Ministers of nations, like Canada and South Africa, in England. Why were we not there? It may be that there was a good reason for our Prime Minister not being present at that conference. If so, I think this House ought to be told it in this discussion. The very fact that our Prime Minister was not there is rather an indication, in the absence of any clear explanation, that we do not intend, at least, that the Government of this country under the present Leadership does not intend, to give any practical or open effect—and I emphasise the word "open"—to that association which I gather that the Taoiseach in some obscure way still says exists. Whether I use the word "association" accurately in the sense of that he used it or not, I do not think at the moment matters a whole lot. I firmly believe that we can achieve very useful results, both nationally and internationally, in that association and that our national and international status will be enhanced by developing that in a proper way, with full appreciation of the fact that we are a sovereign and independent nation in free association with these nations.

I think it is quite waste of time on an Estimate of this kind to be asking for Government policy on this matter of Partition and our association with the Commonwealth of Nations. I think it is quite clear how we stand as regards that. So far as I am concerned I have fully made up my mind on the interpretation to be put upon this statement of the Taoiseach and his colleagues and their actions in particular. We are not present at any of these international conferences. I am told that the Taoiseach to-night gave a list of the conferences at which representatives of this nation attended during the last 12 months. It is all to the good if something can be achieved for this country in a practical way or in the international sphere from attendance at these conferences, but, at best, they are only technical conferences. There is not a single political conference in the entire of the list that was given to me at which our representatives attended. No representative of this country attended at a single political conference that has been held in the last 12 months. Certainly, so far as I know, there has been no approach between Ministers of this country and Ministers of Great Britain in reference to the national or international affairs of this country in the last 12 months. There was an opportunity to which I have referred in connection with the meeting of the Prime Ministers of Canada, South Africa and Australia, in England recently and I think the House is entitled to have some explanation as to why our Prime Minister or a representative nominated by him was not present.

What I would like to know is this: We have something in the nature of an association, whether that is the word the Taoiseach will use himself or not, I do not care. It is something in the nature of association even according to whatever interpretation the Taoiseach may from time to time put upon any form of words that we or he uses. We have some association. So far as we know, that has given no practical result but I do think that there is something surreptitiously being done in connection with that, and it is all to the good even if it is done surreptitiously. I think there is some contact between this country and England. I do not know what contact there is between this country and South Africa and Canada with a view to rendering closer the ties that bind this country to those great nations.

The debate on this question of foreign affairs—external affairs as it is called here and foreign affairs as it is usually called—in most Parliaments of the world attracts the greatest interest in the Parliament, but it is perhaps significant that, certainly since I became a member of this House, the one debate that attracts the least attention of Deputies is the debate on our foreign affairs. I would have thought that the Minister for External Affairs on an occasion of this kind, in particular, the first occasion when he introduces the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs at the conclusion of the world conflict, would have given the benefit to the House, and through the House to the country, of whatever his Department has learned of international affairs in the last 12 months and the prospects of world peace and how the fluid forces which are operating rather in an undirected way at present in world affairs may possibly impinge upon and affect this country's vital interests. We have no such statement from the Minister for External Affairs. We have merely an uninteresting account of the international conferences, of a technical character, that were attended by our representatives. We have a statement that because we have some close relationship with Australia, we are going to send our representative there, presumably by "representative" he means a High Commissioner, but I would like to know if his Department through our very able, conscientious and hardworking representatives abroad, or otherwise, is keeping in touch with world forces which many people and all people who have the interests of peace and the interests of their own country at heart are so closely watching to-day. Have we been told by the Prime Minister, the Minister for External Affairs, anything at all about the international position in the last 12 months or for the future or how that is going to affect this country? I think it may be safely assumed that in the conditions which will subsist in future, with the development of air transport and the scientific achievements that emerged during the course of the last world conflict, this country, as the small island that it is on the shores of the Atlantic, will never again be allowed to be an isolated country. What will he do about that, and how are our interests being watched?

Last autumn the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister for External Affairs, summoned home to the Department all those representatives of this country who were abroad. A photograph appears in the paper of these gentlemen surrounding the Minister for External Affairs. That is all the information the House got as to what transpired at that conference of our representatives with the Minister for External Affairs. I put down a question when Parliament reopened after the Recess, and in it I asked the Minister if he had any announcements to make following upon that conference with our representatives abroad. In effect, I was told he had not. Surely some information was given to the Minister about world conditions, about our interests and how they were being affected by world forces? If any such information was given, the House and the country have not been vouchsafed any portion of it. I suggest we are entitled to it. We did not get any information then and we did not get much to-day.

This country has little interest in world politics because of its isolation and, largely, because of the fact that most people have had their interests occupied, in the last six or eight years particularly, in looking after their own purely selfish and economic interests. I do not use the word selfish in any derogatory sense. There are people in this country who would like to be educated in international affairs. I have always regarded the Department of External Affairs as one of our most important Departments. In my view, it is the function and the duty of the Department to see that this country is educated in international matters. If we had facilities available to our people for the acquisition of knowledge on international matters, I believe there would be a far greater interest, and a greater appreciation of our position, in international affairs and this country would have a far greater influence in world affairs. It is that aspect of this Estimate that I am interested in. I have long since ceased to expect anything of a definite character in relation to Partition. We hear speeches at election times on Partition, but we never have had a contribution of a practical character on the solution of that problem, or any indication of any practical steps being taken in reference to that matter. I have also long since ceased to have any interest in eliciting from the Prime Minister, or any member of the Government, what is his view of our relation with the British Commonwealth of Nations.

That is the position. Let there be no mistake. If there were a heads of State treaty to be entered into between the United States and Ireland—the type of treaty that in international affairs is recognised as the ordinary form of a heads of State treaty—it would be between the President of the United States of America and the King of Great Britain. I have no interest in that except that the people will not have any illusions about it. So far as I am concerned, whether it is a Commonwealth, a Kingdom or a Republic I have no interest in the form of Government. What I have an interest in is our international prestige, our international influence and the extent to which the form of Government that we enjoy will affect the happiness and welfare of our people. To that extent I have an interest in the form of Government, but to no other extent. The form of Government makes no difference, provided we have freedom, that we are an independent State, and a fully fledged member of the family of nations. I do not care whether the head of State resides in Buckingham Palace or Phoenix Park, provided we are a sovereign State and that we are nationally and internationally free. Forms of Government mean nothing. I suppose it is impossible to avoid slipping into old clichés, and perhaps I will be forgiven if I recall a couplet of Pope's:—

"For forms of government let fools contest;

Whate'er is best administer'd, is best."

I should apologise for that old tag, but it comes to that in the end.

I should like to be told what is happening in the world internationally. We have not been told a single thing by our Minister to-night. World affairs are an absorbing hobby, not merely to the student of international relations; they are of vital interest to the poorest person in this country, or may become so. We want to know what forces are acting internationally and how they are being directed and, if they are not being directed, are they coming towards this island and, if so, what will the impact upon our country be. If that impact cannot be diverted, will it do this country much damage? I want to know if our Minister for External Affairs is acting as the watch-dog of our national interests. We are not being told that.

I have stated that we have, and I believe that we have, in our representatives abroad men of integrity and ability. I believe they must have told something to the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister for External Affairs, about world affairs, about the effect of the war on this country, about how we stood with other countries and what were the matters we should be considering in our relations internationally. These are the matters that I think should be the subject of discussion here. Our relations with Great Britain are important, the problem of Partition is of vital importance but we are not going to get anywhere in a discussion on the Department of External Affairs along those lines. Have we any contact with the Northern European countries? What are our relations with the United States of America? Surely that is a matter of vital import to this country. Surely, the matter of our relations between this country and the United States is one that should be watched and safeguarded. Surely, it should be the duty of the Minister for External Affairs to tell this House, and through this House the country, whether there are still any lingering doubts in the minds of the people of that great Republic in reference to our attitude during the war.

If there are doubts, what steps are being taken to explain our attitude and our difficulties? So far as I know in the statement made by the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister for External Affairs in opening the debate he made no reference to that. Again and again, since I became a member of this House, I have protested at the procedure adopted by the Minister in giving us bald, uninteresting statements of the activities of his Department and as to the cost of it in any one year and the previous year. We never were supplied with any material upon which to base a proper discussion on foreign affairs or world policy. We never had any material upon which public opinion could be informed and educated.

I said at the outset of my remarks that I would ask one question. I do not know whether or not I shall get an answer. I put down a question some time ago about the widow of the late William O'Brien. I should like to know if the Minister has made any provision for that in the Estimate and, if so—I am informed by my colleagues, I was not here myself, that the Minister made some reference to the matter in his opening statement—if that provision can be rendered effective at once. There is no use in allowing the matter to lie dormant for some further time as it is one of extreme urgency.

Mr. O'Connor

If there is anybody in this State who has any doubt about our international status, I would tell him that he can clear up that doubt very quickly by reading our Constitution, which has been in force since 1937. There, in one line, he will find that in Article 5 Ireland was declared to be a sovereign, independent democratic State.

Mr. Coogan

Does that mean a republic?

Mr. O'Connor

Read the Constitution and you can draw your own conclusions from it. It does not matter what quibbles may be raised, there is our declaration. Could we have anything better?

Mr. Davin

What about the Act of Succession?

Mr. O'Connor

We might have been in doubt as to whether that status would be recognised throughout the world. We might have still remained in doubt for many years but for the fact that within a very short time after the Constitution was enacted, it was put to a very crucial test, one of the most severe tests, and that test was the terrible war which has raged all around us. Throughout that war, by reason of this Constitution, our country maintained its neutrality. It was not dragged into the war as an appanage of any group of nations or as the vassal of any other State.

Mr. Morrissey

By reason of the Treaty.

Mr. O'Connor

Mr. Coogan

It proceeds:—

"and is hereby authorised to act on behalf of Saorstát Éireann for the like purposes as and when advised by the Executive Council so to do."

On a message to this House.

Mr. Coogan

I want to come to the Wexford Republic via Article 13 of the Constitution:—

"The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, communicate with the Houses of the Oireachtas by message or address on any matter of national or public importance.

The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, address a message to the nation at any time on any such matter.

Every such message or address must, however, have received the approval of the Government."

I want to know this from the Taoiseach, as Minister for External Affairs: Did the President of Ireland have the authority of the Government for the statement which he made at Wexford? He expressly made the statement when the honour was being conferred upon him.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not an inquiry into the action of the President.

Mr. Coogan

The action of the President when he said this was a republic affects our external relations. I hold that if we are a republic, and that there is a change from whatever we were by virtue of the whisper of the President at Wexford, it affects our international status, and by virtue of that fact, I am entitled to comment on it. The President stated there that he received the freedom of Wexford as President of the Republic of Ireland. These were the words he used, though he is designated in the Constitution as the President of Ireland. I want to know if he had the authority of the Executive and of the Taoiseach for that declaration. We have had in this year of grace, 1946, two declarations for the republic, one by the Taoiseach, a whisper out of the Oxford dictionary and forthwith the republic flew out like a moth, and also the declaration in Wexford. We also had two or three extraordinary statements from the Taoiseach in the course of this debate in reply to Deputy Cogan who wanted an answer to certain questions. These were as to our relations with the Commonwealth. The Taoiseach interjected to ask what he had ever done to sever the connection with the Commonwealth. He asked the Deputy to point to one occasion in which he had severed connection with the Commonwealth. In justification for the appointment of an ambassador to Australia, he told us that that was being done by virtue of our association with the Commonwealth. Let us be clear about these things. The mind of the public outside is confused. Deputy Cogan is confused. I am confused. Deputy O'Connor, I am sure, is confused.

Mr. O'Connor

Not a bit.

Mr. Coogan

Dr. O'Higgins

But you left the instrument or organ.

Mr. Coogan

When King Edward VIII of England abdicated, we had an opportunity of proclaiming a republic. We were severed definitely from the Commonwealth for a number of hours or days, and, in a great hurry, this Act was passed. Under Section 3 (2), the abdication of the former King was recognised in these words:—

"Immediately upon the passing of this Act, the instrument of abdication executed by His Majesty King Edward the Eighth on the 10th day of December, 1936 (a copy whereof is set out in the Schedule to this Act), shall have effect according to the tenor thereof and His said Majesty shall, for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section of this section and all other (if any) purposes, cease to be king."

Quite.

Mr. Coogan

It is impossible to deal with external affairs until the House makes up its mind on what we are. We are given nothing about external relations, and, for want of something to speak about, we have to define ourselves. We have got nothing from the Taoiseach, as Deputy Costello has said, about what is happening in the outside world, about what relations are being developed in the outside world and about what we are going to do in relation to other nations, and, in particular, to our neighbours. I am not advocating any particular form of government any more than Deputy Costello did. I do not care a hoot if it is a monarchy, a republic or a soviet, so long as the decent people, the common people of the country, get good government; but I cannot see good government here so long as we have this chicanery and quibbling, this evasion and confusion. I say emphatically that all this evasion and all this confusion is being deliberately caused to cloud the people's minds and take them away from the realities of conditions here.

Partition has been mentioned. In the name of all that is good and sensible, does the Taoiseach believe that by the President going to Wexford and declaring an Irish Republic, he will undo Partition? Is not an act of that kind calculated to make more firm that boundary between us? Is it calculated to induce the Orangemen to come in here when we find ourselves disputing whether we are in the Commonwealth or out of the Commonwealth? There is a fable—I think it is one of Aesop's fables—about the mountain and the mouse. The inhabitants around a mountain heard the mountain groan and grumble and rumble for days. The thunder within was terrifying and the people fled to a distance. From a distance, they saw the mountain quake, and, when it quaked, out walked a small mouse, a republican mouse. That republican mouse played the republic up and down until the cat came along, and, the moment the cat came along, in the mouse ran. That seems to be our position here—in and out. When the cat is out, the republic is in, but when the cat is in or about the place, the republic goes out. Let us get rid of all this. Let us get down to Michael Collins's slogan—let us get on with the work of building up this nation and let us not bother about the formulae or about the forms.

Mr. O'Connor

Are you not bothering about them now?

Mr. Coogan

I am not bothering about them. I am not in the least concerned with them. I want the Taoiseach to face up to this position once and for all, and to say definitely whether we are going into the Commonwealth, whether we are staying in it or whether we are going out of it. That was the question put to him, not by me, but by Deputy Cogan, Deputy Dillon and others. I want that answered straightly.

General Smuts, in an interview with an Irish Press correspondent this evening, regretted the fact that we were not present at the conference of Prime Ministers which was called for the purpose of discussing a number of very important Commonwealth matters— defence, finance, trade and all that flows from Commonwealth relations. So far as I know, we were not represented at that conference. The Taoiseach was not there nor was any of his Ministers. Our absence from the conference was commented upon, but no ill-feelings were shown.

The Taoiseach has told us the number of conferences that were attended by representatives — civil servants, subordinate Ministers and others. These attended at conferences but the most important conferences of all— T.A.O. and the Dominions Conference —were not attended by any representative. We had, I believe, an observer at T.A.O. in Washington. We had nobody to meet General Smuts, or any of these people. Now, General Smuts and these other people are no more concerned than I am as to our future constitutional development. We are free to go our own road. So are General Smuts and these other people.

The association of the Commonwealth of Nations is dynamic and progressive. It is not static. You can be a republic overnight and still be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. Let us cut out the twaddle of pretending we are not in the Commonwealth. If we are a republic within the Commonwealth let us say so and face up to that. Let us say to the people who are concerned: "This is the stand that we are taking; we will go in with you whole-hog otherwise." I think it is essential for the future of this country that we must take that stand, and we must co-operate with these people, particularly in defence matters. We are not able to manufacture our own weapons of defence and we must get them from somewhere else; we must keep in line with the other nations in the matter of progress in relation to new lethal weapons of all kinds and in relation to air progress of all kinds. Why not let us be honest with ourselves? Why not let us go in with our heads up instead of by these back-door methods?

Already there are indications that the Taoiseach, who is a very wily politician, is preparing you people on those benches for that rôle. He has already taken the necessary steps and he is preparing you for that, ably assisted by the Tánaiste. They are very wily fellows who do not take their hurdles all together; they take them in little easy strides but they always get the little horse safely over on the few occasions when they make him jump.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Oh, I see.

The Taoiseach

Yes or the President of the United States of America, or if there was a U.N.O. organisation, we could have that.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I can only take in a certain amount at a time, so do not give us too much.

Mr. Norton

The Taoiseach

Yes, apparently, last year—read the debates.

Mr. Norton

I want to get back to the evolution of the republic. Deputy Dillon raised a question as to whether it is a republic or whether we are in the Commonwealth. Instead of being able to say: "There it is in black and white in the Constitution," the Taoiseach refers to dictionaries. Instead of being able to say: "Our President has been elected by the people. He does everything that Presidents in other countries do. He accredits our Ministers and looks after our relations with other Powers," we are told that we must not judge by that standard and we shall have to see what the dictionaries say about republics. Having looked up the dictionaries, the Taoiseach comes to the conclusion that a republic is a kind of State in which certain things happen and, begob, we must be a republic because these things happen here.

It is for the country to decide whether it wishes to be a republic, a monarchy or a hybrid State. If we want to retain republican status, or assert that we have it already, the normal way is to put into the Constitution "This is the Republic of Ireland" and then let our President exercise, in respect of that republic, the same rights as the president of every other republic exercises as regards the relations of this nation with other nations. But we are not satisfied with that. The Taoiseach has found another way of regulating our relations with other Powers. He says that we will have a republic for internal, ornamental and decorative purposes and the President will do all the flummery stuff within the State. We will let the President do all kinds of embroidery work with respect to State activities, but when we come to accrediting a representative to a foreign State, we will ask George the Sixth to do the accrediting and George the Sixth does the accrediting.

I want to tell the Taoiseach that he is in a very dangerous position with this gentleman who does the accrediting of our representatives to other countries. He did not ask the man whether he would do the job at all. We simply passed an Act and we passed over to that poor man the job of accrediting our representatives to other countries. I do not think he was ever asked by us to do it or that the Taoiseach had ever an interview with him to ascertain whether he would do this job. During the war George VI would not do the job because George VI was at war with Germany and Italy as King of Great Britain and the other countries in the Commonwealth. Of course George VI being Dr. Jekyll in relation to the war would not be Mr. Hyde for the purposes of the Republic of Ireland, and he would not, therefore, accredit our representatives to these countries.

The Taoiseach

Why do you say: "he would not, therefore"?

Mr. Norton

The Taoiseach is a very wily politician and if the Taoiseach did not consult George VI to ask him to accredit our representatives to these countries, I suspect the reason was that he was afraid that George VI would get angry and would say that he would no longer act for us in accrediting representatives in these other countries. The Taoiseach would then probably wake up when he found that George VI would no longer consent to accredit our representatives to any foreign Power. Then we would have nobody to accredit our representatives to foreign countries. Suppose the King goes on strike and says: "Look here, I am not going to do this job any longer; it is an anachronism; it puts me in a wrong position with my subjects in other countries. I am not going to do the job any longer." The Taoiseach will complain probably then that he is being put out of the Commonwealth, that that is unfair, that he intended to remain in it as he wanted the King for the purpose of accrediting representatives in foreign countries. If that happens—and it may happen—the Taoiseach will have a pretty bad headache.

What is the reluctance to getting rid of this anachronism of having the King accrediting Irish representatives to independent States in Europe? Mind you, it is bad enough to have him accrediting representatives to Canada and Australia, but it is doubly humiliating to have to ask him to accredit our representatives to independent foreign States. Will somebody tell me why this man was picked to do that particular job? Might we not as well have found some other monarch in Europe or could we not get the President of the United States, for instance, to do the job? Could we not get the President of some South American Republic and say to him: "Look here, you will do this job just as well; we do not want to declare a republic in a whole-hearted way but we should like in order that we might be able to do things in a republican way to get somebody other than the King of England to accredit our representatives"? But the Taoiseach goes out of his way and he selects the King of Britain to do the accrediting of our representatives.

I think the Taoiseach is not fair to the President in this matter because the President is merely getting the secondhand headship of the State and he is not allowed to do the things that are done by Presidents in other countries. I want to know what is the hesitancy or unwillingness in allowing the President of the Republic to accredit our representatives to other Powers in the same way as Presidents in other countries accredit their representatives to foreign independent States? The Taoiseach has an excellent opportunity of clearing up this whole position now. The Taoiseach has taken the attitude that the position of the republic is to be clarified by reference to dictionaries or by reference to the action taken by film actresses when they want to change their nationality. I think our constitutional position should be clarified apart from what film actresses may do or what dictionaries may say. There is an excellent opportunity for getting that clarification now. The British Government has sent a delegation consisting of three important Ministers to India for the purpose of discussing the Indian problem and the measure of freedom that can be given to the Indians. The British Prime Minister has said publicly to the Indian people: "Look here, you are perfectly free to declare complete independence and to go completely outside the Commonwealth if you want to do that, but for old time's sake, please, if you can see your way, stay within the Commonwealth." He said furthermore that the Indians are not to be under any compulsion to stay in the Commonwealth, that they can do what they like and exercise the fullest measure of independence in deciding what form of political institutions and what form of external relations they will have in future. There is the offer by the British Government to the Indian people.

Do you imagine if the British are going to tell the Indians they can go out of the Commonwealth, that they can be as independent as Britain herself or as independent as any foreign country, that they are likely to worry in the slightest if we decide in future that we are going to ask the President of the Republic to be the organ of our external relations instead of thrusting the job on the King of England? The British are going to give the Indians the fullest measure of political liberty, with no coercion whatever to remain in the Commonwealth. Are they likely to bother their heads if we decide to dispense with the King as the organ of our external relations? They would stand condemned before the world if they attempted to interfere with us in that way. If they are offering new treaties to the Egyptians and the fullest measure of political liberty to the Indians, why should anybody fear that they would dream of interfering in our affairs here simply because we dispense with the anachronism of having the King of Britain as the organ of our external relations with independent countries? I do not think the British would worry in the slightest were we to get the position clarified.

And always was.

The Taoiseach

Mr. Norton

We want the President to sign these letters.

I told the Deputy in general terms. I am not at liberty to tell him everything. I am giving him the matter so far as I know it and in so far as I can do so. I know that in general they were discussing matters in which we were not concerned because we did not take part in the war; and these were discussions at which we could not properly be present or, if we were invited, in which we could not properly take part. When things settle down somewhat more and when the peace treaties have been signed and an attempt made to build up a world organisation, then there will be some point perhaps in our having representation. The fact is that the war situation has not entirely ended yet in the sense that peace has not really been restored. No peace treaties have yet been signed. There is not agreement, apparently, amongst the principal States. From that point of view we must, to some extent, still regard ourselves as being in the war situation or in the same situation in which we have been for some years past. The time has not yet come in which we can look forward to purely constructive work in which we would naturally be anxious to engage.

Here, in this House you have one set of Deputies suggesting that we have no contact with the British, that we cold shoulder them completely, and keep them at a great distance from us; on the other hand, you have other Deputies accusing us of having subterranean and other hidden methods of approach. The fact is that there has always been contact of various kinds. Britain is taking goods from us, as she always did; she is not yet in a position to give us the goods we want or expect to get in return. The Minister for Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture, the Minister for Supplies and the Department of Supplies, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Department of Industry and Commerce, all have been constantly in touch with British Ministers and Departments about matters of importance in relation to agriculture, trade and so on. It is quite wrong to suggest that these contacts are not in existence. You can do a great deal of work without having any conference. A great deal of the ordinary day-to-day business all over the world is done without any conference. Conferences very often denote that there is a crisis, or something of that sort. Conferences very often denote that big changes are taking place.

At the present moment there is no possibility of any big constructive changes taking place because all the nations of the world to-day are interested in only one big issue—that is, they want to get the nations at peace; they want to get the treaties signed and thereby lay the foundations of security in the future. They want them to form some kind of world organisation. Until these things are done there is no use in talking about being ready to take part in other types of constructive effort; there is nothing we can do to help at the moment and we are losing nothing by not being represented at these conferences.

Some minor matters were raised in the course of the debate. Deputy Davin asked about the number of people who went to Britain. All information available on any question of that sort can be obtained by means of an ordinary Parliamentary Question. I do not think it would be possible for us to supply the exact information sought. I do not think the details he asked for could possibly be given. First of all, people went abroad and there is the possibility that the same people returned, or others returned in their stead. The Minister for Finance in his Budget speech gave what he regarded as the net result of movements out and movements in. As far as I am concerned I must say that it looked to me a very small figure; I think it was 78,000. I myself was anxious that it should be checked and counter-checked. It did not seem to me at first sight that the balance could have been so small; but neither the checking, nor the counter-checking, revealed any error. I do not think it would be possible to give the details for which Deputy Davin asked. Neither do I think that we ought to make any point, as he did, of the fact that a number of our people, who went abroad, volunteered. What they did they did as private individuals. As far as this State is concerned, this State was neutral. It was so deliberately, and it stands by that now just as it stood then; and we are not now going to pretend that we were other than neutral. I do not think there are any other matters to which I need refer.

General Mulcahy

The Taoiseach intimated that he had certain information with regard to the Conference of Prime Ministers held recently. It was stated by that conference that certain principles of commercial and financial policy were decided which, to their mutual advantage, would guide the Governments of the various Commonwealth countries in the International Conference which is scheduled to take place soon in relation to trade and employment. Has the Taoiseach information as to what these principles were; has he taken any action in respect of that matter; or has he made any observations upon it?

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 19 Jun 1946

Committee on Finance. - Vote 65—External Affairs.

Mr. Morrissey

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Jun 1946