Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 30 - 05 June, 1929

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 66—External Affairs.

Mr. Blythe: I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £39,276 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Gnóthaí Coigríche, agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin.

That a sum not exceeding £39,276 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for External Affairs, and of certain Services administered by that Office.

I think that the Minister for External Affairs wishes to discuss this and the Supplementary Estimate for £2,763 together.

An Ceann Comhairle: I take it there is no objection to doing that. We can take a decision separately, if necessary.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr McGilligan): I propose at the beginning to indicate certain changes that appear on the face of the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs, and to refer to the scheme of reorganisation which those changes indicate. It will be observed from the Estimate that representatives abroad have been scaled to a particular grade so far as salaries are concerned, with, I think, one exception, and also that secretaries in these various offices have been put in a particular grade, the object being that in the reorganisation we ought so to assimilate salaries and positions that the representatives will be easily interchangeable, not merely with other representatives accredited to foreign capitals, but also with civil servants at home. The difference with regard [787] to expenditure that has to be met, and the expenses that fall on people abroad, is met by giving increased allowances of different types, which are detailed for the different offices in London, Washington, New York and other capitals. That indicates the reorganisation of which I spoke when I was last dealing with this Vote. We have now, if not entirely, almost completely achieved the position which we set out to achieve, namely, that these people will be readily interchangeable, and that no distinction in grade and salary will impede a transfer from one foreign office to another where it seems to us that the change is suitable to the service generally. The Headquarters Vote shows an increase of over £3,000, and an increase in staff, apparently, of six persons. One of the officers attached to headquarters has been assigned for temporary duty at Geneva, so that, so far as that office is concerned, the amount opposite his name for salary must be deducted from the gross increase, giving an increase of about £2,000. That is due to the reorganisation of the headquarters staff in order to cope with the increased duties which fell on them.

Up to about a year ago there was continued in existence the old staff and the old office which had been functioning from about 1922. The organisation had been unchanged pretty well during that time and it was found that the accumulation of work to be dealt with by the office was so great that the officials were being overburdened and the work was not being properly handled. With the recognition of the importance of the office and in advertence to the enormous increase of work that had fallen to the staff, there was a decision that certain changes were necessary and these changes are shown here. The headquarters staff consisted of a legal adviser, a principal officer, two assistant principals and two junior administrative officers. Two old posts have disappeared, the post of a special correspondence officer and one of the temporary [788] administrative officers. The principal officer is, of course, the official to whom I previously referred as having been sent temporarily to Geneva. There is therefore an increase in the headquarters staff of three administrative officers and a very slight increase in the junior staff. There have been a few typists added.

Under the heading of Great Britain, an increase is shown of about £1,000 due mainly to the increased representation allowance that has been given to the new High Commissioner, a representation allowance which was found to be necessary when we had considered what had been allotted to the previous High Commissioner and the inroads made on his personal income by reason of the fact that the personal representation allowance was not sufficient. It will be noted that under Sub-head (B) 2, rents, rates, etc., there is an apparent increase on the face of the Estimate, but the receipts will show that there has to be set-off against that a sum of £470, leaving the net amount estimated this year under that heading less than what was previously estimated. I should point out also that under the heading of receipts there is coming in a sum of £1,180 as rents paid by subtenants for part of the High Commissioner's Office.

In the Washington Office there is a total cost of something over £9,000 representing an increase of a few hundred pounds on last year's Vote. That follows from the ordinary reorganistation of the office where certain posts have been more or less superseded, and where a number of people have been allowed to carry on who are to be superseded. Provision is made for a Minister, a counsel, and a secretary. In New York there has been a considerable change. There is there an increase of £2,000 as compared with last year. The whole character of this office is being changed. Previously there were two officers having different functions, one being a trade representative concerned solely with matters of trade and the other being [789] a Passport Control Officer, who had to deal with visas and the passport of any alien sailing from New York and proposing to land in this country. It is proposed to re-establish this office as a Consulate-General which will have to deal with trade, consular visa, and passport questions not only for New York, but for the whole of the United States, so far as is practicable. The Vice-Consul appears in the Estimates for the moment. This official is temporarily stationed at Boston and carrying out visa functions in the case of aliens sailing from that port. At the moment visas are being granted for sailings from all ports in the United States of America, and the revenue from that is estimated somewhere between £17,000 and £18,000. There is an expectation even since that figure was set down that the receipts under that heading will be found to be increased. It is intended not merely to visa passports, but in future to issue passports from the United States to all our citizens who want these passports and who are sailing from the United States. From that alone we expect to get in an amount of £1,500.

Last year the representation to France and Belgium amounted to £3,700. For these two offices the amount this year is estimated at £5,300, showing an increase of £1,600. It is proposed, at any rate temporarily, to close down the existing offices in Brussels and to close down the existing offices in Paris, replacing these by a Legation in Paris immediately. We will make provision also for carrying on the work which was being done exceptionally well at Brussels. The provision that is made under the heading of Brussels under this Estimate is for only part of the time—until such time as a Legation has been set up in Paris. Similarly the item “Trade representation” under the head of “Irish bureau” will disappear hereafter. Provision is made to carry on that until such time as the Legation in Paris has been established. The last item under these [790] detailed headings is completely new. Up to date there has been no representation to Germany. It is now proposed to establish a legation as soon as approval for this Vote has been given. Provision is shown only for part of the year. It is estimated at £4,400 during the present financial year. The total of the Vote, with these increases, omitting the supplementary, which I will deal with later on, is £59,796, an increase of £11,000 on last year's Vote. The receipts are £28,180, leaving the net expenditure a little over £30,000. The net expenditure for the State on all services is £21,000,000. A calculation will show that we are, in fact, spending here on foreign representation something less than 3/- out of every £100, and that comparison is useful when taken into consideration with figures which I have for a few other countries. In Finland 17/- on every £100 is spent on foreign representation; in Norway, 24/-; and in Denmark, £313,000 is spent on external representation. Those are the only points to which I wish to refer at the moment.

With regard to the detailed headings the sum as set out in the Supplementary Estimate is not, of course, the full amount that will be required for the legation when in full working order for the period of a year. Although there is the intention to get this office at least established as soon as possible, it will not be in full working order until October, and the Estimate is calculated from that date. Those are the details of the officials and of the salaries being paid to those officials, and they represent, so far as I am concerned, almost completely the reorganisation I spoke of previously. We have now got to the point, as I said before, that Ministers have been scaled at a particular rate, and the main officials scaled also at a particular rate, rates which bear comparison as far as the basic rate is actually concerned with certain posts in the home Civil Service. Allowances will be made for the conditions under which these people will have to live by way of extra allowances set out here, representation [791] allowance and transport allowance. The offices, if this Vote be passed, will then compare with establishments at London as previously, Washington as previously, New York, suffering a certain change, and the League of Nations in a transitional period, some change further still being required, Brussels office to a certain extent disappearing for the time being, and new offices being established in France, Germany and at the Vatican. With this staff we will have to rest content for the moment, although there is pressure constantly exerted to have further offices opened up, but one must wait until time shows what the value of these other representations is and the value the State is going to gain from the new appointments that are being urged. At the moment this appears to be the mere minimum representation that any State dealing in any serious way with external matters must have.

Our first association is with the British Commonwealth of Nations. Our membership of that association of States called the Commonwealth of Nations, as I stressed on a previous occasion, is that of a completely independent State, freely associated with other member States and co-equal in status with them. The supreme executive authority in every exclusive concern of this country is exercised on the sole advice of the Executive Council. The Commonwealth conception imports no limitation of the internal sovereignty of any of its members, and imposes no restrictions upon the exercise of its external sovereignty by any such member, save those imposed equally on every international person as a member of the family of nations by reason of the acceptance of the obligations of the Covenant of the League. In the year 1926 the principles underlying the status of each of the members of the Association of States to which we belong were formulated and declared to the world. The declarations then made did not proclaim a constitutional [792] system suddenly established, but rather collected, co-ordinated and consolidated a body of constitutional principles theretofore gradually accepted, but then for the first time authoritatively interpreted and formally acknowledged. Thereafter the principles then formulated were to be universally recognised as the governing factors in the relationships of the member-States of the Commonwealth to each other, and the relationships of each member-State to the Commonwealth as a whole. It was made manifest to the world that the new definition of status then declared postulated far-reaching readjustments in the external relations of the member-States with international society at large. Our contribution to the formulation of these constitutional doctrines was positive, persistent and decisive. The vigilance and diligence which have been exercised in applying them to our routine relations with other States within and without the Commonwealth, in removing anomalous legal forms, in securing the discontinuance of practices that have no place in modern democratic life, and no justification in present constitutional theory, and generally in conforming every aspect of the Commonwealth scheme to the principles on which it rests, has been, and must continue to be, the special work of the Department of External Affairs.

In the autumn of the present year a Committee of Experts from every State in the Commonwealth will meet to discuss the formal amendment or modification, or repeal of enactments still on the Statute Book of the United Kingdom which are inconsistent with the existing legislative powers of the member State Parliaments. Our purpose is that whatever remnants there may be of the old order of Imperial control will be removed and the last legal vestiges of the organisation now superseded swept away. The entire legal framework in which the old system of central rule was held together will be taken asunder and will never be put together again. A new legal structure will take its place, in which no [793] bar or barrier to future constitutional development will be found. The free co-operation which is the basis of the Commonwealth idea, the instrument of its usefulness and the expression of the individual sovereignty of its members, will be clothed in forms which reveal rather than conceal its reality. The House will realise what an amount of watchful, painstaking and highly technical labour that work involves. No more exacting work has been or is being done in the service of the State than that which this Department has to show. It is needless to emphasise the importance of that work and the consequences which must follow its well-doing. The system or polity to which we belong is not a vague and nebulous political formula. Our Treaty with Great Britain and the Constitution of the Irish Free State gave a new direction to constitutional thought, and set going new forces and new processes in constitutional speculation within the Commonwealth of Nations itself. The constitutional historians of this time will hereafter record the great achievement this has been. In a far larger field the historian of international politics will find the landmarks of our progress.

I have adverted to the accepted criteria of status in the Commonwealth of Nations. It is unnecessary for me to review in this House the credentials of Statehood in the post-war organisation of the world. Statehood has now two readily discernible, because well-defined and unmistakable, marks or characteristics the possession of which proclaims it to be a State, entitles it to the rights of a State, and imposes upon it in international life the duties and obligations of a State. There is (1) the Treaty-making power, and (2) the right to diplomatic representation in the capitals of other States. We become signatories to international treaties, commercial treaties and political treaties. We do so because we take the view that the international treaty represents the great and growing conspiracy of peace-loving mankind against the calamity of war. We have sent representatives abroad and we are sending more representatives [794] abroad primarily as part of our contribution to the organisation of peace as the world's most impressive need. Our Legations abroad are not ornamental establishments. Their expenses are, as the Estimate shows, being cut to the bedrock requisite for the position which the Ministers will hold and the duties will in the nature of things be different in the different countries. But they will be informed and dominated by the paramount policy of peace, and of arbitration and conciliation as the instruments of peace. The exercise of the Treaty-making power of this State and its conduct on a larger scale of diplomatic intercourse with other nations are closely co-related because directed, in the first instance, to these ends. I have taken these aspects of the position to show to the House the extent of the work which the Department of External Affairs has been engaged upon and the extent of the work which the continuance of its activities in new spheres will bring in its train.

The traditional national policy of this country has been that Ireland should take her place amongst the nations. Ireland has taken her place amongst the nations. We speak clearly and audibly in the assemblies of the world. At Commonwealth Conference, League Assembly, and in the Chancelleries we have a place, a responsibility and an influence. We have assumed an irrevocable share in the burthens of international life, a share which we could not have shirked and would not have postponed. If our influence is to be increasingly felt in the promotion of progressive causes, and if our efforts are to be thrown more and more into the balance of forces working for the peace and harmony of the world, our new responsibilities must be solemnly understood and seriously undertaken.

We approach this year the opening of three new offices. The Supplementary Estimate deals with the establishment of a legation to the Vatican. In an Irish Parliament I do not think there is much need to put forward arguments to justify [795] the creation of a diplomatic post at the Vatican. Our whole history has received its dominating characteristics from our adhesion to the principles of the Catholic religion, of which the visible head is the Bishop of Rome. This State does, indeed, count many thousands of loyal citizens who do not acknowledge the primacy of the Pope; but there will be very few amongst them who will not recognise that the Papacy is an exceedingly important factor in the affairs of nations and individuals, and that accordingly this State should not be less eager than other nations to secure its good-will and co-operation. For the vast majority of our people, however, whether in this country or scattered through the United States and the various nations of this Commonwealth, this present stage of our history has been pre-determined in all its details by our fidelity to the Church of Rome, and to the illustrious line of Pontiffs who have occupied the Chair of Peter.

From time to time in our history our relations have assumed something more than a religious aspect. In the days of Elizabeth, the Papal Court was the great refuge of exiled Irish leaders. In the final war of the Gaelic chieftains under Hugh O'Neill, the Papacy took a lively interest, being ever active on their behalf with foreign Powers. When the last hopes were crushed and the leaders were compelled to flee, they went to Rome, where they were received with sympathy and generously provided for by Paul V.

The only example in our history of formal diplomatic relations with the Holy See was the sending by Innocent X. to the Confederation in 1645 of Rinuccini, a close personal friend of Eoin Rua O'Neill, who, when the inevitable clash between the old Irish and the Ormondites came, unhesitatingly took sides with the old Irish.

Nearly three hundred years elapsed without any renewal of official relations. Our attempts at making official relations in the immediately [796] post-war period were not successful. The position of the Holy See was rendered exceedingly difficult by the circumstances arising out of the war, and no amount of good-will and tact on both sides could have changed the situation. These were the things that, personally, I had before me when I was entrusted with the task of approaching the Vatican on the point of opening up diplomatic relations between this country and the Holy See. I do not know if any Irishman could have approached that task without feelings of great emotion. Personally, I assert that it was with feelings of considerable emotion that I took the steps preliminary to the opening up of diplomatic relations formally and permanently with the Holy See. I had the task of informing the Holy See that the establishment of official relations would be a source of very great satisfaction, not only to the Irish people here in this country, but also to the millions of our race all over the world. It was the feeling of my Government that the Irish Free State should definitely give to the world this sign that the attachment to the things of the spirit which had been the outstanding characteristic of our people in the days of persecution continued to be the chief characteristic of the organised Irish State. It seemed to us to be especially appropriate that this exchange of diplomatic relations should take place just at the moment when the Vatican State was being recreated and when the Centenary of Catholic Emancipation was being celebrated in Ireland. The Holy Father has been pleased to take cognisance of this latter circumstance and it is hoped that his Envoy will reach Dublin on the 24th June, so that his solemn entry into this State may form the appropriate climax to these celebrations.

I hope every citizen of this State, no matter what otherwise his views may be, will regard this event in its true perspective, detached from the passing quarrels and jealousies of our time and will welcome the Papal representative as the envoy, not only of the religious head of the vast [797] majority of the Irish race, but also of the oldest and most glorious monarchy in the world.

It is my intention to send our Minister Plenipotentiary immediately to Rome on the passing of this Vote so that diplomatic relations with the Holy See will have been formally established by the 25th June.

The establishment of diplomatic relations with France and Germany is an obvious step in the development and expansion of our international relations. France is our nearest continental neighbour. Our paths in history have frequently run together. The roll of honour of her armies contains the names of many Irishmen who gave their lives in her service. There has been a traditional mutual esteem between our two countries for many centuries, and a considerable degree of sympathy has always been found in France for this country in her political struggles.

It must also be remembered that Paris is one of the great world centres of diplomacy and international action, and there is no nation in the world which has not its representative there. To neglect Paris would be to remain outside the great stream of world progress and to ignore one of the most potent means of securing the good will of Europe.

Germany has come more and more into our national life since the war. Her experts have been amongst our best helpers in the reconstruction of this country. She is a great and growing nation occupying a geographical position of great importance between the Latin and Slav peoples, and her commerce is expanding with astonishing rapidity.

London, Washington, Berlin, Paris, Geneva and the Vatican are the great nodal points of the life of nations. Representation at these centres is the very minimum which any country with a State existence should secure. We hope, of course, to extend our representation at a somewhat later date to Canada and some other of our sister nations in the Commonwealth. We are in constant touch with these nations by correspondence, but it is felt that the [798] method of personal contact will become more and more a normal requirement as our relations increase.

The new offices when established will fall into line with those already set up. They will have activities that will change, as I said previously, according to the circumstances of the different countries: but, ordinarily speaking, all these offices will work much along the same lines. I possibly should stress here, simply for the reason that so much vague and ill-informed talk was heard on the last occasion on which the Vote was before the House, the fact that the opening up of these offices—what some people are apt to decry by the title of political offices—is important in the ordinary commercial and trade relations as between this country and the other countries in which we have offices. I did say last year that the main duties of these officials of ours abroad will be primarily that of commercial intelligence, and I stress the fact again, because there is apparently everywhere a disposition to query the opening up of some of these offices and to ask in detail what commercial good, what increase of trade is hoped for from their establishment. Again, one must view the present situation and take that in its relation to what is hoped might eventuate in future. At the present time England is our chief and greatest market. While recognising that fact, and seeking to consolidate our position in that market, an attempt has been made, and will continue to be made, to get openings elsewhere. It was realised in the post-war world that a trade representative who has no diplomatic status has a less easy way of approach to the heads of States, has less authority, has even much less chance of acquiring contact with business people, with commercial people of standing, and, on the whole, has much less authoritative and genuine information to give about the country in which he is representative to the office at home; and his information with regard to openings here, or with regard to what comes from this country, is [799] less well received as coming merely from a trade representative than as coming from one associated with an office of the ordinary type dealt with here.

There are varied activities and there are various functions which these foreign representatives have to perform. I take the London office as an example, because, as I say, England at present is our chief and greatest market. But, if I do stress London, I do not want it to be taken that I am minimising at all the efforts, or even trying to decry the efforts, of representatives elsewhere than in London. One might easily point to the balance of trade as between two countries. One might take any of these countries where either we had representation previously or where we intend to open up offices and say, “What have we to offer these countries?” or better still, “What have these countries to offer us?” “What is the possibility of success in improving the economic situation in this country by reason of representation abroad?” A short-sighted view might easily lead one to declare that as far as all the offices, excepting only London, were concerned there is no function for our representatives abroad, and that our representatives abroad, in so far as they have been in operation for some years, have not been successful. That is, as I say, the short-sighted view. One could again, in opposition to that, take, say, the flow of trade as between this country and Belgium prior to the establishment of any representation there, and see what increase there has been, and decide as to whether or not that increase has been entirely to our advantage. But that would be leaning too much, or giving in too readily to the short-sighted view which will seek to judge everything merely by trade results. There is the point of view of intelligence acquired, the point of view of information supplied, and the point of view of precedent, and the comparison made and contrast instituted [800] between what happened in other countries and what is happening here; and all this information and contrast and comparison leads, if people receive the information intelligently, to development in this country. There might be an enormous amount of information circulated as between the External Affairs Department and the Department of Industry and Commerce, and through them to traders and industrialists in this country, and no appreciable increase shown year by year in the volume of trade passing between the two countries. I stress that because I have found a disposition to rule the value of all that has passed simply by the trade that is passing, and to say that the office is successful or unsuccessful according as the volume of trade has increased or decreased.

I could go into detail with regard to the information supplied from all the other offices. I take the function of the Commissioner of Trade in Great Britain as being an office about which people here in this country would know most. I would like to deal with some of the duties performed by this office, which might be a revelation to people who think that they know all that is done or neglected by that particular office. Other offices which are not so near to our vision and which do not appear to be so important in our regard, may have just as good a case from the point of view of information supplied and the development suggested as the Commissioner of Trade in Great Britain may have. I have had reports from the office in London showing that the officials radiating from there—the word is badly used, because there are very few of these officials—have duties throughout Great Britain and not confined to London merely, and I could summarise the functions of that office under a number of heads.

A great part of their work is performed in effecting introductions between commercial people on both sides. A great amount of time is spent in that office in providing [801] commercial intelligence to people here about England and to people in England about this country, and a great amount of tact and a great amount of research is required to give advice about openings for commerce and about the standing of commercial people.

On the question of marketing, the Commissioner in London, and the whole office in London have been very alert, and people here will have read of some of the activities of that office in this particular respect. They will have known of the exhibition of Irish produce made on certain occasions. They will have heard from time to time of the reports that appear and filter into the Press from producers with regard to advice that is given as to marketing, the better conditions that prevail in competing countries, and suggestions as to how produce that is well found here and produced here in good quality should be presented to the buying public in those countries into which it is sent in the best possible way. A great amount of time, particularly of the outdoor staff, has been spent inspecting commodities that come across from this country, and a great deal of effort and a great amount of diligence has to be observed by that office in dealing with certain commercial disputes that arise from time to time, and in seeing that not merely is justice done, but that lessons can be drawn from particular episodes about which disputes arise. The movements of markets and prices are surveyed at short intervals and reports are frequently sent home, and the two Departments of Government in this country are regularly in possession of the latest information with regard to the trend of prices and the state of markets for Saorstát goods. Certain traders' interests from time to time get involved and assume an importance that cannot be left to the individual trader to protect, and where there seems to be an item falling for consideration that has a repercussion and reaction, beyond the individuals themselves it is the duty of the office to be vigilant and on the watch and to intervene to see that no harm, at [802] any rate, will come, possibly, even to the individual concerned, but that certainly no harm resulting from a bad display of goods, bad marketing or goods badly sent, or even sent under false pretences, should ensue to Irish produce in general as a result of activities of one or two traders.

Publicity has to be given to everything that comes from this side and publicity has many forms; through the Press, through exhibitions and displays that from time to time have been made in the biggest retail stores in England, through window display competitions which are again becoming a feature of the Commissioner's work in London and are becoming more and more demanded as the fame of one exhibition spread from one neighbourhood to another. In addition to that there have to be conferences attended with representative associations, and arrangements made so that the exchange of goods can be facilitated. Questions frequently arise on the matter of transport of goods between the two countries and here, again our office in London being situated close to the main railway system which deals with our produce find themselves in frequent consultation so as to get complaints enquired into, to get differences smoothed over, and, even, at times, to get questions of special rates gone into where consignments are of a particular type, or where the particular numbers seem to deserve these.

There are customs details to be attended to arising out of a variety of matters. Recently tourist development has assumed an importance which one or two years ago it neither had nor seemed ever likely to have. Here again the London office is playing a considerable part, but the end of its activities there is not even approaching. There have been established in the past few years a number of commercial committees upon which we have had to have representatives both from this side and from the London office. Recently there was established a railway committee on national development. There has been sitting, for a long time, an imperial [803] economic committee. There has been co-operation for months past with the Tourist Association not merely of this country but of Great Britain and Ireland. On the Imperial Shipping Committee we are represented, and on the Empire Marketing Board we have a permanent representative, and there are a number of other minor committees dealing with research and commercial matters in general on which we have taken certain action.

In addition to dealing with the work which is thrown on it, through the activities of the offices abroad, the Headquarter staff has to consolidate the position which I previously referred to as being now obtained in the Commonwealth of Nations and in its association with other States, members of the League of Nations. There are also separate items that arise from time to time for special consideration. The two Departments of Industry and Commerce and of External Affairs were concerned in the question of treaties —the Department of Industry and Commerce being mainly concerned in the details of commercial treaties. Negotiations have been opened with eight countries on the basis of the most-favoured nation treatment for the conclusion of commercial treaties. The countries in question are: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Spain and the United States, and proposals for the opening of negotiations with a view to concluding treaties have also been made as between the Irish Free State and Greece, and the Irish Free State and Turkey. Political treaties are rather more the concern of the Department of External Affairs on its own. The question of making arbitration treaties with the principal of European countries and the United States has been under consideration for a long time. It is hoped that some of these will be completed in the course of the present year. It is proposed—I put in the remark here in answer to comments that have been appearing in the Press and notices elsewhere—to adhere to the protocol against the [804] use of asphyxiating gas in war. There are a variety of special questions that fall for consideration from time to time. One international conference on the question of copyrights occupied a lot of time about a year ago, and an exchange of views has been going on since on the convention that proceeded from the conference dealing with the matter. In the spring of next year a conference has to be attended dealing with the codification of international law and the preparation of views on that, and a statement is at present under consideration.

The question of passports I dealt with specially in connection with the offices in Washington, New York and Boston. Of course, an amount of work under that head falls also on the headquarters staff of the special passport office at home. It will be understood when I say reports coming from our representatives abroad on a variety of matters, not to the same extent by any means as I have described as being part of the function of the Commissioner in London, but nevertheless extending over a vast number of subjects and going into great depth as far as investigations are concerned—that the examination and distribution of these reports to people likely to be interested and to get benefit from them entail a considerable amount of work even upon the headquarters staff. I simply again refer back to the activities I speak of with regard to the office in London and ask people to make up their minds whether or not even the reorganised staff at headquarters for which I ask provision in this Vote seems to be either extravagant in numbers or in the emoluments granted to those people for dealing with the reports founded on the activities of those offices abroad.

There has not been and there cannot be given to the Dáil, in sufficient clarity or in sufficient amount, evidence of the work of these people. It is clear that there should be—and it is a thing towards which I am working—a presentation of reports at least from the office in London and the presentation of reports annually [805] by the offices abroad to the two Houses of the Oireachtas. It will be understood that that was impossible heretofore with a staff which was changing, and with offices which were not and could not have been established on a permanent basis because there had been no clear view, and there could not have been a clear view, as to the exact situation in any of the countries mentioned. We now have a fairly clear view of the whole situation. The staffs and offices have been reorganised and new offices, as I indicated, are about to be opened. From this onwards it will be the aim that, in more detail than during previous years, members of the House will have an opportunity of gauging from reports the value of the information supplied by these offices and the extent of their activity. When I say the members of the House have not an adequate opportunity of dealing with that to-day I do not mean to convey there is merely a compilation of information by people abroad channelled through the offices here and pigeon-holed and inspected only by people who may happen to be interested and who may happen to inquire. There is quite a good distribution of this information to the people definitely interested, to advisory committees operating under the auspices of the Department of Industry and Commerce in the different industrial groups in this country and to commercial people of every type.

The difficulty all along has been to get organisations to deal with in this country instead of individuals. After a certain amount of endeavour we have got to a point. There had always been a certain amount of organisation amongst the trading and importing classes as opposed to the industrialists and the people to whom we would ordinarily look for an increase in exports. There are now in operation a big number of advisory committees representing the different industrial groups, and most of these are actively functioning. Some from time to time failed and refuse to meet or do not find that they have [806] any interest in common on which they could meet, or they have so many disagreements that it would be better they did not meet. On the whole there is a tendency, which in another department I have tried to foster as much as possible, towards cohesion amongst groups of definitely organised bodies, and our information is circulated through these bodies to different commercial and industrial interests and any business groups that we can find taking an interest in and likely to benefit from the information we have got. The information is disseminated mainly through the Department of Industry and Commerce. In addition, quite an amount of information has been specially called for. There has hardly been a Commission of Inquiry on any subject in the last three or four years which has not requested information regarding conditions which seemed to offer some sort of contrast to conditions abroad. On every occasion where information has been requested we have found our offices abroad able to get authoritative views expressed and have proper information supplied. That is an important side of the work. There are a great many members of this House who have served on Committees from time to time and they have found themselves in a position to request information about conditions which seemed really to afford a good comparison from other countries. I think they will realise, and could give testimony here, that on every occasion when information has been asked that information has been supplied readily, authoritatively, and in great detail.

I now submit this Vote to the House. I pointed out the increase in the offices previously established, the increase brought about owing to reorganisation and the increase necessary by reason of the opening of three new offices. I have simply indicated, as a sign of what is happening in the rest of the Department, what has happened in the office of the High Commissioner in London, particularly on the trade side. The [807] smaller items of this Vote do not, I think, call for any explanation other than what I have given on B2, where there is a big increase on the London side. I stress again that if people are disposed to quarrel with the amount of money to be spent on external affairs and propose to base their criticisms on the money spent and the value received from it merely on the flow of trade as between this and any other country, that they are going entirely on a wrong basis. I will get back to the figure I quoted previously, and I will take the expenditure of this State as shown in this book. It is £21,000,000. The entire Vote asked for our foreign representatives amounts to less than three shillings in every £100.

Mr. Byrne: Could you give a comparison with Belgium?

Mr. McGilligan: I have not the figures at the moment, but I could get them later. I invite comparison with any other nation in respect of the actual money that is spent and the value that is received. I ask those people who served on Committees to remember the information that was provided for their use from time to time by our foreign offices. There has been proceeding here for four or five years past—the extent of the movement I will indicate in another Vote—a quiet but very steady change over in the position of this country from being almost entirely agricultural to being partly industrial and partly agricultural. On another Vote I intend to go into the details and to show the extent of the change. The change has been considerable and steady, and I claim that the activities of the out-offices of the Department of External Affairs and the activities of the headquarters staff have helped to a degree that is not recognised at all in the steady change over in conditions in the country. One is apt to divide trade representatives abroad into sections, one representing industry and commerce and agriculture and the other dealing with external [808] affairs. There should be no such distinction made.

It is quite unfair to people who have in the past been doing very good work under very bad circumstances, under circumstances of disorganisation, disorganisation that was necessary, disorganisation that at any rate was inevitable, because a clear view could not be had of the situation. By another Vote it will be seen what the extent of that change over has been. And if one examines this Vote and the offices that have been opened abroad and takes the test—and it is not a decisive test—from the figures that can be got of the flow of trade in any of the countries here mentioned and this country, there will be there given some evidence of an increase. And when we get the report published hereafter showing the information circulated by the people abroad, either because it was requested specially or called for by some body or committees that were sitting here in Ireland, seeing that it was likely to be of use to certain people, I think there ought to be agreement on that basis that the amount of money spent is negligible in comparison with the importance of the office.

In this year, in which the Estimates generally have shown a reduction, this Estimate shows an increase. But this Estimate could easily have shown even a bigger increase. I make no promise whatever that a further increase may not be necessary in the future. I make no promise whatever as to that, because I claim for this service, as I do for all services, but for this service in particular, that the expenditure on it very well repays itself, and that that expenditure is very well worth what is spent, not only in the matter of status, but in the value received in the way of information and the increased activity between this country and other countries in which we are represented abroad. I move this Vote.

Mr. O'Kelly: I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. I—and I think I can [809] speak for those here with me on these benches—would not at all cavil at the amount of money set forth in the Estimate here on this Vote under Foreign Affairs; we would not object even if more money were spent for this purpose, if we could afford it, on one understanding, and that is that we could speak for Ireland and that we could truly say what I say the Minister did not truthfully say when introducing this Vote a short time ago, that Ireland has taken her place amongst the nations.

The Minister must have spoken with his tongue in his cheek. Ireland has not taken her place amongst the nations. The Irish Free State has to some extent, if you like. But you cannot talk for Ireland, and well the Minister knows it. He is from the Six Counties himself. His home place, where he was born, is cut off from being represented by anybody speaking in the name of this House or anybody speaking as a representative of this Assembly or of the Government elected by this Assembly. I wonder if the Minister for External Affairs made that point clear when he spoke as he told us he did to His Holiness? He talked of Ireland re-opening diplomatic relations with the Vatican.

Ireland has not re-opened diplomatic relations with anybody anywhere. We feel, and feel deeply, on this misrepresentation of Ireland's position that is going on even here to our very faces and that has been done to-day even by the Minister himself who attempted not alone to try to put his finger in our eyes—and he ought to have gone beyond that stage now— but in the eyes of the world, or in the eyes of anybody who will read his remark that Ireland has taken her place amongst the nations of the earth. I wish to the Lord it had. It might have done so if some of the Minister's colleagues had only a little more courage. We would not object to the amount of money spent, even although we are as heavily taxed as we are, in sending representatives to the various nations mentioned in this Estimate, [810] to America, France, Germany, Brussels or elsewhere, or even to Greece and Turkey, two countries that the Minister so appropriately put together.

We would not object to sending those representatives if we could afford it. If we could afford it we would be glad to send them in Ireland's name. We would be glad to send representatives abroad. We would insist on sending representatives abroad, because we believe that Ireland's history as a nation, if we could speak for Ireland, Ireland's history and status, and Ireland's record in the past, and Ireland's hopes for the future, if she were free to-morrow, would entitle her to send representatives abroad, and entitle her to claim a status amongst these nations, great or small, that would be equal to our history, which is something not to be ashamed of. As to the salaries of representatives, very large salaries in some cases, they look big for a poor country like ours. But these representatives have to live in countries where the cost of living is high. Certainly, those who live in America, and perhaps those who live in London, have to meet a very high cost of living. I do not know so much about France in the last five or six years.

Perhaps the cost of living is high there too, and the same, perhaps, applies to Germany, but the figures here on the Estimate are perhaps the lowest sums that can be given to those representatives abroad if they are able to uphold the dignity, whatever it be, that attaches to their position. But we object to any penny of that money being spent so long as there is attached to it any shadow of misrepresentation of Ireland's position. If the instructions given by the Minister to the representatives he sends abroad are in the nature of the remarks he made here to-day about Ireland's position and about Ireland taking a place amongst the nations, then these gentlemen—these representatives abroad—are misrepresenting our position. They are lying to the public wherever they are. They are there speaking in the name of a [811] partitioned country, and in the name of the Twenty-Six Counties and not in the name of the historic Irish nation which the Government betrayed and partitioned.

That is our position. That is one of the reasons, if not the primary reason, why we object to spending any money in so far as individuals are concerned on a service which misrepresents the country's status, misrepresents the country's position, and misrepresents her future. We would not object—I know I would not object—to the staff being increased to cope with the work imposed upon the headquarters staff by reason of the increase in the number of representatives abroad. But, to our minds, the whole External Affairs Vote is vitiated by that idea—that these gentlemen, owing to the instructions they receive and owing to the equivocal position of Ireland to-day, misrepresent Ireland and her condition. The Minister spoke of re-opening negotiations with the Vatican and referred to Rinuccini and Hugh O'Neill. Why? If Hugh O'Neill came back here to-day he would be an alien. He would have to pay his ten shillings for his visa. If Rinuccini were back here to-day he would probably be doing what he did in his day, denouncing and excommunicating the Treatyites, excommunicating them for being false to their oaths. That is what he did. Probably the Minister has not read much of his history or else he would not have brought his name into the discussion. Rinuccini did a man's part when he was here. He stood for the independence not of 26 counties but of the whole 32 counties, including that from which the Minister comes. We would be very happy, indeed, if we could welcome here any representative who would renew and reopen the diplomatic relations that were broken when Rinuccini was recalled because he denounced the Treatyites of his day. It would not be necessary to say these things—some of them are not pleasant to say—if the Minister faced the position [812] frankly and honestly and did not talk about Ireland taking her place among the nations. Let him be honest, fair to himself and his Government. Tell the truth and people will then know exactly where you stand.

Mr. Davin: Is it a fact that Deputy de Valera, the Leader of the Deputy's Party, attended an inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Berlin as representative of 26 counties?

Mr. O'Kelly: Certainly; but did he not tell them that he represented 26 counties, and not 32?

Mr. Davin: Did he?

Mr. O'Kelly: I am sure he did. I have no objection to the Minister sending out representatives for 26 counties provided that he lets the people know on whose behalf they are speaking. Let him be straight and honest and not talk, as he does, about Ireland taking her place among the nations, a lie that is not worthy of a Minister, even a Minister of the Free State. We believe in diplomatic representatives abroad and we believe that they are not only desirable, but necessary. If the Minister sent his representatives abroad to tell the world what the exact position is here, how the country has been partitioned, and if they let the world know exactly that we are hoping some day to use our diplomatic influence, be it little or great, to retrieve our lost province and to restore Ireland's unity as well as her independence, then it would be worth sending Free State representatives abroad; but when he sends them abroad with a lie on their lips, we cannot stand for it. We need not be ashamed to speak abroad in the name of Ireland. There are few nations that meet in international conclaves that have a prouder record than we have or that can demand as a nation her rightful place at international councils. We may be a poor and impoverished nation to-day, with our territory reduced, but that does not get away from the fact that we have a record [813] and a history of which we need not be ashamed. I believe, with the Minister, that it would help Ireland and Ireland's trade if our position were better understood abroad and if we were properly represented there, but you should not send representatives, either diplomatic or trade, who will misrepresent the situation here.

The Minister when talking about sending representatives abroad—this is a matter which in all fairness we should stress—referred to our co-equal position, how we had advanced and how we are co-equal partners in the commonwealth of nations. The Minister talked about the status of our representatives abroad, but he did not tell us, as he should have, that the representatives which he sent abroad most recently had to have their credentials signed, not by him, not by the President, but, as in the case of the recent Envoy to Washington, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Queen Mary, Prince of Wales—I am not sure about the Duke of York—and the Prime Minister of England, Mr. Baldwin. These were the people who signed the credentials of the Free State representatives. They are a Committee of Regency, or something like that, owing to the illness of the King of England. If the King of England were well enough to sign them I believe he would have done so. When these people go abroad and hand in their credentials, signed by a Committee of Regency, I believe that there is a certain honourable understanding that they must be, so to speak, good boys and not hurt the susceptibilities of the people who sign their credentials. That understanding may not be expressed on the paper. In fact, I know it is not, but the fact remains that their credentials are not signed by the heads of the Irish Free State. These documents are signed by the King of England, if he is well enough to do so, or by Queen Mary, the Prince of Wales, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and up to recently, Mr. Stanley Baldwin. In future they will probably be signed by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. These are the gentlemen—and ladies—who sign [814] the credentials of what the Minister calls Ireland's representatives. God help Ireland's representatives who speak with credentials signed in that manner.

Mr. Davin: It will be better in future with a Labour Government in England.

Mr. O'Kelly: I do not think that will change it. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is as much an Englishman as Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. Davin: He is a Scotchman.

Mr. Sheehy (Cork): Although he is going into power he is not trying to upset the English Constitution as the Deputy's Party is trying to wreck ours.

Mr. O'Kelly: The Deputy seems to be very much concerned with the British Constitution, but I am not.

Mr. Sheehy: I admire the Labour Party; they are a sensible lot.

Mr. O'Kelly: Why do you not join them?

Mr. Sheehy: I am in favour of Labour and always have been.

Mr. Davin: We will have the Deputy next time.

Mr. O'Kelly: It looks like it. I say when the credentials of the Free State diplomatic representatives are signed by such people as the King of England, the Queen of England and others, there must be some understanding not to hurt, injure or interfere with the interests of the British Empire so long as they hold such offices. In fact, I would not be surprised if there were some understanding that when they go abroad to Washington, France or anywhere else, as diplomatic representatives, from part of the entity known as the Commonwealth of Nations, British nations, they must act in concert with and in consonance with component parts of the Commonwealth, in such places as Washington, Paris or Berlin, that though they may not have any written instructions, they would be false to their position if [815] they took a direct line of their own, a separate and distinct line in diplomatic matters that might affect that Commonwealth of Nations and stand for Ireland as against these other component parts of the British Commonwealth. They must be to some extent affected in their public and perhaps in their private capacities, by such relationship, by the fact that their credentials are so signed and that they are so accredited, through such channels. Though coming from part of Ireland they are accredited through England, through the heads of the British Government, through British Kings, Queens and the like, to these other nations. They are bound to be affected, and whether they originally took that stand, the Empire stand, or not, they are evidently induced. and they are certainly encouraged to do so, once they occupy that position.

I am fortified to some extent in that view by a little document that somebody sent me here recently. It is the heading to the notepaper of an organisation called the “British Empire League.” It gives the names of perhaps about one hundred—I will not read the whole of them—of the most important and distinguished people from all parts of the British Empire. The patrons are His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen. Then it goes down or up, whichever way you like, and on the list is the name of one of the Free State representatives, Professor T.A. Smiddy, M.A. Is it part of the instructions of that representative from the Minister in pursuance of the policy of standing by the Empire that he preached here to-day, that the representatives he sends abroad are to join such organisations for boosting the British Empire and to stand for that organisation as against Ireland, Egypt, India or any other nation that might be in conflict with that Empire? It is certainly a changed position. It is certainly additional proof, if any were necessary, that we have changed from what the Minister referred to as Ireland's national [816] traditional position. We have run away from it very much. We have forgotten it. We have now joined the Commonwealth of Nations, and we instruct our representatives, Mr. T.A. Smiddy and others, to uphold the British Empire and all its component parts against all-comers and against all those with whom we used to sympathise in days gone by as nations rightly struggling to be free. The Minister also spoke of the equality of status of what are called the Dominions. In that regard I wonder if it occurred to him that there is a law in existence which prevents anybody being King of England, except a gentleman of one faith. The King of England, whoever he is, according to these laws must be a Protestant and can be nothing else. I am not very materially interested in the religion of the King of England, but there is a test of that co-equality of status of which the Minister speaks. If you have that equality of status, why have not we the right to demand that there be a Catholic king? I guarantee if the Minister tried to pursue equality on these lines, he would be soon told where he got off, as the Americans say.

The equality of status is a mere phrase, a chimera that means nothing. If the necessity arose for Ireland to insist on her equality we know what would happen. We have no right to legislate for the King of England. If we had equality of status we could make a law leaving the King of England free to choose any religion he pleased so far as Ireland or the Free State was concerned. That we have no authority to do. So much for our equality of status judged from one point at any rate. As regards the Supplementary Vote, I understood from the Ceann Comhairle that these two Votes were being taken together and that the vote on this motion would be taken to cover the Supplementary Vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: They are being discussed together, but they will be put from the Chair separately.

[817] Mr. O'Kelly: The Supplementary Vote raises matters of great importance. There is no Catholic in the country who would not receive with great joy the news, if it were true, that Ireland was in a position now to re-open diplomatic relations in Ireland's name with the Vatican. Every Catholic would be proud and happy. It would give a cheer to Irish hearts that they have not known for a long time if such an announcement could be made. There is no Catholic who would cavil at spending money on such a diplomatic relations. There is no Catholic but would feel that we had gone a long way on the road to restoring Ireland to her proper position if such an announcement could be made with truth. But it is, to my mind at any rate, humiliating that when negotiations are opened to renew and re-open relations with the Vatican—it is an excellent thing to have such communications with the Vatican and to know that we are in close touch diplomatically and otherwise with the one person who speaks, religiously at any rate, for the vast majority of the Irish people—such diplomatic relations can only be re-opened in the name, not of the Ireland that the Popes of by-gone days knew, but of a partitioned country.

We have the very centre of Catholicism, Armagh, the Primatial See of Ireland, cut out and excluded from any connection with the diplomatic relations that are now being re-opened with the Vatican. It is a humiliating position that when such diplomatic relations are being re-opened, we have to acknowledge that it is England and England's Minister to the Vatican that is entitled to speak in the name of the Primatial See of this Catholic country of Ireland, not the Irish Free State, nor the diplomatic representative that the Minister for External Affairs here will send. That representative will have no status and no right to speak in the name of the Catholic Church at Rome or elsewhere. He will speak, as the other diplomatic representatives will speak, in the name of a partitioned country. It is particularly [818] odious, when sending a representative to the Vatican, that the representative will have to play second fiddle to the British Envoy there. That Envoy claiming, as he will claim, to speak for Armagh, the Primatial See of Ireland, will claim precedence over anyone you will send to the Vatican. I do not know how the Vatican officials will get over that claim once it is presented to them.

To my mind, there are two bases on which this matter of the diplomatic relations of the Irish Free State with the Vatican should be considered. The first one is the sending of a representative from the Free State to Rome. Subject to the remarks I have earlier made about the misrepresentation of our position by diplomatic representatives abroad, I would say that there is plenty of good work that such a representative could do at Rome. He could be kept busy, if he wished to be busy, by contesting and fighting English influence at the Vatican, where such influence is attempted to be used to the detriment of Ireland. I know a little about these things, but even if I knew nothing in my own personal way, history tells us what these influences are, and how watchful any Irish representative at Rome must be. He would have to be up early and up late watching the interests of Ireland, fighting for the rights of Ireland against English interests and influence there.

Is there anybody who has any doubt in that matter? If there is anybody simple enough not to know what is going on there and the influences that are sought to be brought to bear on the Vatican against Ireland's interests, he has only to read a book published about six months ago, the life of the late Archbishop of Dublin, written by Monsignor Walsh. It is probably in the library. Anyone who wants to get information will get very valuable information in that book as to the fight Archbishops Walsh and Croke had to make in the eighties for Irish rights against the power and influences of England. You need not go beyond that book, but if anyone wishes to go further there is plenty [819] of material. Whole libraries could be filled by documents and statements of one kind or another showing how English influence was used to the detriment of Ireland and how the Vatican was sought to be used as an instrument for the keeping of Ireland in subjection. Any man, provided he be the right kind, sent from the Irish Free State to Rome could have plenty of hard and profitable work in looking after Irish affairs there and in doing his best to contend with the influences that will be used against him and the position he stands for and against Ireland's interests.

Of course, to be of real value, to be able, in a thorough-going and successful fashion, to compete with England, such a representative ought to be able to speak for Ireland. Unfortunately, no representative we can send out there can speak for Ireland. Not alone can he not speak for Ireland—he can only speak for part of it—but he will have a representative there to meet and contend with who is able to speak with authority for the other part of Ireland and for what, from the Catholic standpoint, is a very important part of Ireland indeed—the Primatial See. It will not help any representative we send out there in that fight, even if he is willing to make that fight—and I am not sure whoever is sent will be—that his credentials will be signed by the King of England, or Queen Mary, or the others whom I mentioned earlier, because it will put him in an inferior position to the diplomatic position England has already established at the Vatican.

Difficulties will arise as a result of the partition of Ireland when the diplomatic relationship of the Irish Free State with the Vatican gets working. There will be difficulties at Rome for the Irish representatives, but such difficulties will be nothing to those that will arise here as a result of the partition of Ireland. Very serious difficulties will arise for our people, the Church, and the Vatican representative. Imagine the position of the Church in such circumstances. The dioceses [820] of Ireland are not coterminous with the boundary of the Irish Free State. You will have the greater part of the Archdiocese of Armagh outside the diplomatic sphere and influence of the Vatican representative, but you will have a material part of this diocese inside the Free State area. Who is going to settle the differences that in all probability will arise when it comes to arranging where the power of the diplomatic representative begins and ends so far as Irish Free State dioceses are concerned? That is an important question, and it will certainly give rise to serious trouble in the days to come. The Minister did not tell us what the status of the Vatican representative will be, whether he will be a nuncio, a delegate, or envoy, but whatever status he will have he will occupy a dual position; he will be a diplomatic representative of the Vatican State, accredited, I suppose, indirectly through England, to the Irish Free State Government, and as such he will deal, like all diplomats, with ordinary affairs of State, but he will also occupy a position in relation to the Catholic Church here, and in that position he will be the authorised agent of the Vatican to the Irish Hierarchy. What authority he will have over the Irish Hierarchy, of course, I do not know.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Surely that does not arise on the Vote?

Mr. O'Kelly: It is very material.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: There is nothing about it in the Vote.

Mr. O'Kelly: There is, certainly. You cannot send a Minister to the Vatican without the arrangement, that evidently the Minister has made, that the Vatican sends a Minister here. That naturally follows. On that position, seeing that it is one that is bound to have important consequences here, I would like to know —I have serious doubts and misgivings in my mind on the matter—whether those who are very intimately and seriously concerned in this matter, those whose views ought to be given very serious consideration in a [821] matter of this kind, were consulted, for instance, the Primate of All Ireland or the Archbishop of Dublin; whether, for instance, the place where the new diplomatic envoy of the Vatican will reside was considered. Was any bishop or any priest consulted before the Minister made this arrangement. I would be glad if the Minister would be kind enough to inform us whether these people were consulted and, if so, whether they are satisfied with the arrangement. If they are, so far as the Church is concerned I have nothing further to say.

This matter of the representation here of the Vatican is a serious one, because it raises religious as well as political issues. We of the Fianna Fáil Party believe that we speak for the big body of Catholic opinion. I think I could say, without qualification of any kind, that we represent the big element of Catholicity.

Mr. Davin: Do you speak for the bishops?

Mr. O'Kelly: We do not, but we speak for the big element of Catholicity. I do not want to go into that. Let the Minister examine the counties and the representation and I will abide by the result. We think that this is a matter that may affect the future of our country seriously. Going into our history we know that efforts have been made by England to interfere in a very material way by using the Vatican with Ireland's fight for freedom in days gone by. These efforts have been made repeatedly. If a representative of the Vatican of that kind is here we would not like that any effort should be made to use any such diplomatic machinery in the future to interfere with any attempt that may be made, constitutionally or otherwise, to restore the independence and unity of Ireland. These are important things that are bound to arise. They will be more likely to arise as a result of the new arrangement which the Minister asks us to provide money to bring about.

I do not suppose that we are entitled to discuss the question of [822] the position of the Six Counties in connection with this arrangement. It would be very interesting to go into it if the Chair would permit us to do so for a few minutes, and see how the Six Counties are likely to be affected.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy may take it that I would not allow him.

Mr. S. Jordan: Into the Six Counties. Have you any authority there?

Mr. T. Sheehy (Cork): A LeasChinn Comhairle, give the Deputy a chance to bring them in.

Mr. O'Kelly: That is what I would like to do. I want to see the Vatican position used to help that. I would like that this re-opening of negotiations between the Irish Free State and the Vatican would be used to help to restore the unity of Ireland. If it could be used to do that I think it would be money well spent. I do not know if it ever occurred to the Minister in connection with his arrangement about the Vatican sending a representative here or if any mention were made of it in these negotiations that such diplomatic representatives here would be in no way associated, directly or indirectly, with the court of St. James. I mention that for this reason. I remember in the early days of the war hearing of efforts being made to have a diplomatic representative from the Vatican sent to London. The British Government sends an ambassador to Rome, but the British Government does not allow the Vatican to send a representative to London. In the early days of the war efforts were made to secure diplomatic representation for the Vatican in London. These efforts were not successful, but suggestions were made at that time that a nuncio might be sent to Dublin and that he would be the diplomatic representative for the British Islands. I do not know if in the sending of a diplomatic representative to Dublin there is any suggestion that such representative should be in any way associated with the court of St. James or that there [823] should be in any way a link between Dublin and London so far as Church matters are concerned. If anything of the kind were contemplated it would be a further reason why I, for one, would vigorously oppose spending our money for such purposes.

There is one other matter I should like to refer to. As I said earlier, we do not object to the Minister sending representatives abroad and increasing the number or spending a little money on such matters, always on the understanding that the true position is stated and understood. But in that connection, even for the good name of the Free State which, after all, is a material part of Ireland, I should like to be satisfied that the Minister is taking the greatest care to select people whose record is without blemish—people who will bring honour and not dishonour on the Free State or on any part of Ireland. Of course I do not suppose we are to take the newspapers as gospel for anything the Minister may be about to do, but I have seen names mentioned from time to time, and from my own personal knowledge I believe that there are things against some of the persons mentioned that would render the men concerned unfit to be sent abroad as representatives of the Free State. I speak of things that are on the records of the Minister's own Department, that are in the dossiers and on files, and that he should know about, and that the Secretary of the Department should know about—some of them anyway. I will not mention names, but I think the Minister ought to examine carefully the names that have appeared in the Press and see that he is absolutely secure in the type of men he proposes to send—if the Press be correct—to some places abroad. At any rate, even for the Free State, I would say: “Send the best you can get; send men who will do you credit, and who, if they are sent to represent the Free State, will not do Ireland's good name harm, but, in fact, will increase its prestige. That is what I would be anxious about. In that connection the Minister ought to reexamine [824] the names that have appeared in the Press and the files in his office.

There is one other matter. Some months ago I was asked if delegations that have gone from here from time to time to Geneva and other places, representing sometimes employers and employed, and sometimes bodies with no particular qualifications of that kind, and who had their expenses, I presume, paid, had ever submitted any reports. No reports of any kind were ever submitted here or ever appeared from these delegations as to the result of these conferences, and beyond the information they themselves gave, or some information that perhaps was supplied to the Department, nobody seems to have been much the wiser as the result of their visits. We would be glad to know that in future such delegations will be asked to make formal reports to the Department and that such reports will be made available for Deputies.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: If at any time I had any thought of supporting this amendment, I have no doubt whatever as to what my action ought to be after listening to Deputy O'Kelly's speech. I find it more difficult day after day to discover where exactly Deputy O'Kelly, and presumably his colleagues, if they support the line he has taken, stand in relation to this State and Parliament. The whole thing seems to have been one wail of despair, or rather one continued effort to belittle the status of this State. That seemed to be the whole gist of his speech— we are such a poor nation, such a poor State; such a poor people! It reminds me of a jazz tune that was pretty familiar to listeners-in last winter: “We are miserable, oh, so miserable, down on Misery Farm.” That is his attitude. He talks of the misrepresentation of our position abroad. It is nothing to the misrepresentation of our position that we heard to-day. He starts off by declaring that we dare not in future refer to our country as Ireland. It is unfortunate that six counties are not within the ambit of the Irish Free State and of this Parliament. [825] That is an unfortunate position which we all regret. But it is not a unique thing in history, as Deputy O'Kelly knows, that portion of a country has been for a time outside the country's jurisdiction. In 1870 France lost two of its fairest provinces, but it did not thereafter cease to call itself France, or to speak of itself as France to the nations of the world. Germany has lost some of its provinces, but it does not go round calling itself the German Free State, or German something else, but still calls itself Germany.

My experience in meeting people outside this country would lead me to believe that the best service we can do to the country is to continue to call ourselves and speak of ourselves as Ireland, and not to go advertising, as Deputy O'Kelly would have us do, the position we are in. I cannot understand what Deputy O'Kelly's point of view is in seeking thus to weaken and, to some extent, misrepresent the position which this State occupies. I know, in any case, that if it ever happens that Deputy O'Kelly will hold the portfolio of External Affairs in this Parliament, then indeed our position will be a rather extraordinary one. What would the Deputy have us do?

Mr. O'Kelly: Tell the truth.

Mr. O'Connell: He has not failed to show us that the representatives we send abroad are, in fact, doing more than they are sent to do in representing this State. But, if he is to be logical, he would propose to abolish completely the Department of External Affairs. Does he propose that? Does he propose that there should be no such Department, no foreign representatives of any kind attached to the State, until such time, whenever it may come, as the Six Counties are within the ambit of this Parliament? Is that the proposition of the Deputy? Are we to hide our heads until that comes about, whenever it may come about? He expressed [826] anxiety to get in the Six Counties. We are all as anxious as he is to get in the Six Counties, but if there is one thing that will keep the Six Counties out of this State it is this continual belittling of the State, the powers of the State, and the status that it occupies in the world. That certainly, to my mind, is the one thing. They are not going to come into a miserable little State-let, such as Deputy O'Kelly pictures. Why should they do it?

As I say, I find it more difficult day after day to discover exactly what the position of Deputy O'Kelly and, presumably, his colleagues is in this matter. I think he does no service to this State when he tells us that our foreign representatives are going abroad with the lie on their lips, and that they are going to the Vatican with the lie on their lips. I am beginning to doubt whether Deputy O'Kelly has a really true conception of the position at all. To my mind, he got frightfully involved in regard to this matter of our representative at the Vatican. We are not discussing here, and we have no right or authority to discuss here, the representation of the Catholic Church in Ireland at the Vatican. That is not the position. We are sending a representative of the State to the Vatican. Most of Deputy O'Kelly's references to that particular part of the Vote seem to be a criticism of the possible future action of the Vatican representative here. We are not discussing a Vote for the Vatican representative to the Irish Free State. What the Vatican representative may or may not do is not a subject for discussion here at the moment.

Again, the Deputy dealt with the question of equality. He derides the idea that there is co-equality among the nations. Our duty is to insist upon every possible occasion that there is such equality, and to keep on insisting that there is such equality, and to do everything that may be necessary to have that equality recognised not only by States members of the British Commonwealth but by other nations in the world. We are not going to reach that attitude, [827] if we desire to do so, by adopting a line of criticism such as Deputy O'Kelly did in his speech to-day. He says that our representatives are sent abroad on the understanding that they are not to hurt or injure the interests of the British Empire.

I take it that the first duty our representatives should have in their minds is to protect our interests against every other body; but that it is not part of their duty to go with a tomahawk against England or any other country, that it should not be their duty to go out and injure the interests of any country but to play their part in bringing about friendly co-operation between all countries and the representatives of all countries with which they may come in contact. That ought to be the duty of the representatives of the Free State. We hear very often from the Fianna Fáil Benches —in fact it is very difficult for speakers on those benches to get away from it—of our relations with England and what England is doing and is not doing. I wish we could get away from England some time. Let us set the example in this Dáil and forget about her for some time, stand upon our own legs and talk about ourselves. Even Russia would be preferable for a change. I did not intend to take very much part in this debate and I would not have spoken at all were it not that I felt it right that a protest should be entered against the line taken up by Deputy O'Kelly in his speech. It seems rather strange that from time to time Deputies on both sides of the House, who were, and let us presume are, nationalists in the highest sense of the word, or who claim to be at any rate, must be reminded of the necessity of maintaining and strengthening the national attitude.

There are some points arising out of this Vote about which I would like to ask the Minister. He tells us it is proposed to issue reports from the various Legations as to the activities of their representatives abroad. That would in my opinion be [828] very desirable. I would like to ask the Minister how it is that we have not up to the present issued a Saorstát year-book. Does that come within the purview of his particular vote?

Mr. McGilligan: No, that belongs to the Statistics Department.

Mr. O'Connell: In any case, I think it is a matter that ought to be attended to. Many countries publish a year-book in which all sorts of information about the industries of the country are given, and these books of reference are extremely useful, to commercial people especially. I imagine that our foreign representatives especially would find such a year-book extremely useful in their activities abroad. Because of the information which a satisfactorily and carefully compiled book of that kind would give to our representatives abroad I think it is essential that such a book ought to be published every year. I found, in the course of a visit abroad last year, many inquiries being made as to whether or not we had such a year-book or whether I could tell people where they would get copies of it, because amongst the members of the British Commonwealth, especially Canada, Australia and New Zealand, such year-books are published, and people gain a great deal of information from them.

There is another matter. The Minister mentioned that he hopes to extend the number of Legations. I would very strongly urge that at the earliest possible opportunity direct representation should be secured especially in Canada. It is a growing country with a very considerable Irish population. It is a country that at the present time imports a considerable quantity of goods that we could supply if the traders there were kept in touch with the quality and the special variety of the goods that we would be in a position to send them. They do import a considerable amount of goods from England and Scotland that we would be in the position to supply them with, and I believe a [829] representative of ours, especially in Montreal, would be of valuable service to the country.

There is one question on the matter of equality of status that I intended to ask the Minister to find out—what progress had been made in regard to it or what progress is likely to be made or whether any action will be taken in regard to it at the Imperial Conference. The Minister will remember the incident when Britain declared that she would not recognise the interference of the League of Nations in any dispute which arose between members of the Commonwealth; whereas such arbitration might be recognised if a dispute arose between a member of the Commonwealth and another country other than a member of the Commonwealth. I say definitely that while that position holds, if it is the position and if Britain insists upon that position, then there is no equality of status. I would urge the Minister and the Executive Council to have that point clarified and to insist that there should be equality. I know that at the time it did occur, I am speaking from memory now, the Executive Council did hold the view that the League of Nations should have a right to arbitrate in matters of dispute between members of the Commonwealth. I believe that was the view that was held at the time and that is the view that we should continue to hold. I should like to know if any progress has been made towards getting that view recognised. Taking the view I do I am in favour of the extension of and the strengthening of the representation of this country in other lands. I have an idea born of a certain amount of experience that the people of this world take other people largely at their own estimation. One of the greatest nations in the world has been largely built up on that spirit, known to themselves as boosting.

I think if we went in a little more for the policy of boosting ourselves rather than belittling ourselves that we would make more progress in the world. I believe that ought to [830] be our line. The more one learns about other countries the more one will discover that there are very many things in this country that we can boost ourselves on. I believe that that should be our attitude, and I believe that this sum which is asked for in this Vote is money that will be well spent. While there may be criticisms, criticisms that I and those sitting with me in this House have often got to make, we are not complaining that the Executive Council are, as Deputy O'Kelly would have us believe, pretending to be what they are not, but rather we complain of their not insisting on being what they are.

Mr. George Wolfe: I conclude that on this amendment we are entitled to discuss any point; that we are taking the whole subject of External Affairs now, and that there will be no further discussion. That being so, there is a matter that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister for External Affairs. I previously brought it to the notice of the former Minister. I put a question to him on this matter. I want to bring to the Minister's notice the difficult position of desirable aliens in this country. In fact, these aliens do not hold any status at all. Of course there are large numbers of aliens who could not be considered desirable, perhaps, for different reasons. They might come here to start a competition in some way that might be detrimental to our own people, or otherwise they might not be of use to the country. But there are certain numbers of people in this country, foreigners who are attracted by the country, who would be desirable and who would like to settle down in this country if they could get a status. There seems to be a difficulty in a great number of cases in attaining that position.

The former Minister for External Affairs told me that this matter was engaging the attention of the Executive Council, and that at a suitable date it would be dealt with. I should be glad to know if there is any likelihood of this matter reaching maturity at an early date? Because [831] in the case of persons of foreign extraction with whom I am acquainted, and who are very likely to make desirable citizens of this country, the position is difficult in many ways. They feel that it would be a great advantage to them if their status in this country could be clearly defined, and that they could become citizens of this country by naturalisation. There seems to be, for one reason or another, considerable difficulty in this matter. Perhaps the Minister would kindly say whether anything has been done. The late Minister indicated to me some time ago that there would. As regards other parts of the Vote, I should just like to say this, that I agree with what the Minister says—that the expenditure on establishing relations abroad through our having representatives in other countries is money well spent.

It is not an advisable thing, as is generally held, to have all one's eggs in one basket. Though everybody would desire an increase in our extensive trade with England and everybody would like to see it grow more extensive than it is, still the more we can increase our trade by other means the better it will be for the country. In that respect I agree with the Minister that the money that we are spending on that will be an increasing expenditure. I think that money will be money that will be well spent and money that will be of advantage to the country.

I agree with every word that Deputy O'Connell has said in his criticism of Deputy O'Kelly's speech. I do not think there is anything that Deputy O'Connell left out that I would like to have said myself. I think it is deplorable that a Deputy of this House should so set himself to run down his own country for what was, shall I say, just pure Party purposes. I wonder what Deputy O'Kelly and his Party have ever done to lessen the difficulty of drawing the Six Counties into the Saorstát? Personally, I have never seen anything that they have proposed or accomplished that could be said in any way to have facilitated that most desirable consummation. [832] The Vice-President on one occasion made a rather pertinent remark in regard to our relations with the North. He compared our present and future relations with the Six Counties to the relations between two neighbours who did not know one another very well, neighbours who were living side by side. One of these neighbours looked over the wall into his neighbour's garden. He was not quite sure whether he would know his neighbour or not or whether the neighbour was worth knowing. He looked over the wall and he saw that his neighbour's garden was well kept, that his buildings were in good order, and he said: “That is a man I would like to know; I think it would be an advantage for me to know that man.” So it is with the Northern counties. When they see that it is to their advantage to come in with us, that day they will come in and there will be no further trouble in the matter. Nothing will ever be gained by belittling our own status here. To think that anybody could possibly imagine that we can make the day of unity between the two parts of the country draw nearer by belittling our own status is a very far-fetched idea.

Deputy O'Kelly said that the reading of Archbishop Walsh's life would reveal the malign influence which England exerted against our country at the Vatican. Well, it is now proposed that we should have a representative of our own at the Vatican. Is it likely that that representative will do anything detrimental or will do anything that is not to the best interests of this State, appointed, as he will be, by this Government or by any Government that is likely to be here? I fail to see such a possibility. Deputy O'Kelly draws a deplorable picture of the evil that is being done to the Catholic faith by the division that has taken place between the North and South in Ireland. I always understood that the Catholic faith was not bounded by parishes or provinces or countries, that it was universal. In the case of the Protestants of this country a division [833] makes no difference. Much more is that the case so far as the Catholics who belong to the more widespread faith are concerned.

I listened to Deputy O'Kelly's speech with deep regret that anyone in this House should think it part of his duty to run down his own country in the way the Deputy did. I hope there are not many others who hold such opinions as those to which Deputy O'Kelly gave vent to. Indeed, I hope that neither in the House nor outside the House are there many such people. I do not believe there are. Of course, I have not the slightest idea of voting for this amendment. I did not really mean to say very much about this amendment, because, as I have already said, Deputy O'Connell has voiced everything that was in my mind. I entirely agree with everything that Deputy O'Connell has said, every iota of it. I sincerely hope that this amendment will be rejected by a thumping majority.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Mr. Briscoe: There was a matter of information which I hoped the Minister was going to give the House when he was introducing this Vote. That information was in connection with details as to the working of these offices abroad in connection with trade development generally. I quite appreciate the difficulty of these offices abroad developing trade, and I, for one, do not want to suggest for a moment that representatives abroad should act as commercial travellers. I also realise that representatives abroad go with the development of trade. It is not that representatives go abroad for the purpose of saying: “We are here representing our country and we have these particular articles to offer on the one hand, and we are prepared to discuss certain international relations on the other hand.” Usually when a country develops an interest in another country, that country requires somebody in the other country to protect its interests as well as to protect its own citizens. As the Minister [834] pointed out, with the exception of England as far as our trade interests abroad were concerned, we would not have a right to vote money for representatives abroad for that purpose. But now that we have those representatives abroad and, particularly since we have some experience of the work of these men abroad, we should be able to outline some policy with regard to trade development generally. There was a time when we had a representative in Germany. That office was closed down and we ceased to have a representative there, notwithstanding that, as compared with other countries and possibly with the exception of America and England, that was the one country with whom we had a trade interest not only with regard to imports, but also with regard to the development of exports. Now we are going to have a representative there.

Mr. Byrne: What were the exports?

Mr. Briscoe: There were plenty of exports, and if the Deputy likes I will give him some details.

Mr. Byrne: Give me some details now.

Mr. Briscoe: Fish were sent in quantities to Germany and wool was sold in smaller quantities with a developing trade. Perhaps Deputy Byrne does not know that and he might like to dispute it.

Mr. Byrne: The exports to those countries were very small.

Mr. Briscoe: The wool sales practically ceased when we ceased having a representative in Germany. I happen to have had experience of the connection in the early days between this country and Germany. I know attempts were made to develop trade and certain results did come about. I do not want to ask for reasons why things changed, but I would like the Minister to outline what course he or his Department will take in trying to develop trade generally. I know it is a difficult [835] subject. If this country had articles to offer at prices which would attract foreign buyers, we would not require representatives abroad for the purpose of getting people to buy our stuff because the articles would sell themselves. We have in this country a tremendous quantity of raw materials which could be utilised abroad and also here if we had some means of utilising them. No effort is being made by the Department of Industry and Commerce through our foreign representatives to find out how best to utilise our raw materials. That is a type of work which they could usefully do. They have the entrée into all the offices abroad and they could there get information and statistics with regard to development which would be of considerable value to the people of this country. According to the way the Minister spoke, he seemed to indicate that we might expect a certain income from the sale of visas and passports. We have quite a respectable proportion of our population in America and we do require contact with our citizens who are in America. Therefore it is necessary to have a representative there. I cannot understand how the Minister can speak of all the different out-offices of the Department of External Affairs in the same manner.

The Minister speaks of making these foreign offices provide the same kind of service. We know that each particular country will require a distinct and separate service based on the conditions prevailing in that particular country. I would like to hear from the Minister, for the information of the public generally, what facilities are going to be offered to the citizens of this country to develop trade abroad, how we are going to be represented for that purpose, and whether our representatives are going to act abroad for our citizens as the representatives of other countries act here for theirs. It is all very well to say that we have got a trade representative here and an Embassy there but what I want to get is some idea, other than [836] that conveyed by the mere expression “trade development” as to how our trade representatives are going to set about doing that. I am sure that the Minister will say that people should go to his Department and that they would get all the information they want there. They may get a certain amount of information there but this is a new departure in a sense and the Minister should be in a position to say why he hopes that this country is going to benefit in regard to trade development by having representatives abroad. The Minister did not lay much stress on that point when introducing the Estimate though he gave a detailed statement, and I hope that when replying he will tell us how our representatives abroad are going to develop trade. I do not suppose that they will have show-rooms or open shops, such as that which the Canadian Government have in Dawson Street here, showing the produce of the country. I do not know whether the Government will sent abroad the ship which recently called at English ports displaying samples of Irish products. I hope that the Minister will tell us what these representatives propose to do to help the export trade of this country.

Mr. Byrne: I think that everybody will congratulate the Minister on his excellent speech in introducing this Estimate. He gave us a great deal of useful information and he clarified the whole position in regard to the activities of our representatives abroad. He dealt with the duties of those representatives and pointed out that they fell under two heads. First, political or quasi-political duties, and, secondly, what might be termed commercial duties. The strange thing is that though differing from Deputy Briscoe I am almost in the same position as he. I should certainly like to know how our trade representatives abroad mean to develop trade. We have been told by the Minister that certain things like exhibitions were dealt with by our representatives. Speaking, however, as a business man, like Deputy Briscoe, I may say that I have had sad [837] experience of exhibitions, and I know that very little monetary return is derived from them. The Minister told us that there will be representatives in Washington and London, and I am sure that no one will quarrel with the representative who will shortly be acting for us at the Vatican.

The Minister stated that he proposed to discontinue our trade representation in Belgium, and that it was his intention to set up a Consulate-General in Paris. In the course of his excellent speech the Minister said that one of the most valuable features of trade representation was the fact that this country would be put in the position of being able to draw valuable comparisons between ourselves and countries abroad. I am not considering the Vote from a political point of view. I recognise the great importance of maintaining the political status of this country abroad. I agree with every word which Deputy O'Connell said, but, looking at the Vote from an entirely commercial standpoint, it strikes me that if there is one country with which valuable comparisons can be drawn it is Belgium. I asked the Minister a question regarding the amount of money which Belgium was spending on trade representatives abroad, but he was unfortunately unable to give me the figures.

If we draw a comparison between Belgium and ourselves, I think we will come out of it very badly. Belgium is one of the most progressive countries in Europe. It has no unemployment problem. In fact, within the past few months, about 10,000 extra men have had to be drafted into Belgium to deal with industrial pressure. In Belgium the coal industry, the glass industry, glove-making, machinery, hardware and other industries are all in a good condition. Looking at Belgium from an agricultural point of view, there is a valuable object lesson to be drawn. Anybody who studies external affairs knows that Belgium is able to supply all her home requirements so far as cereals are concerned. These facts should be valuable [838] to us, especially on the eve of industrial development. I agree with Deputy Briscoe when he asked the Minister to state what methods our trade representatives abroad intend to use to develop trade.

Mr. Moore: Are the Belgians such fools as to grow wheat?

Mr. Byrne: I believe that they are self-sufficient in that respect. That may be one of the points which this country can with advantage inquire into. I am not one of those narrow-minded individuals who for party advantage would ask a question such as that just asked by Deputy Moore. We are now on external affairs which should be discussed apart from party. It seems to me that many of the industries existing in Belgium could easily be studied with advantage to ourselves. That is one of the reasons that I demur when the Minister informs the House that he does not intend to continue our trade representation in Belgium. I believe that if useful information can be obtained so far as our industrial and commercial future is concerned, it can be obtained with greater advantage from Belgium than from any other country. The Minister gave a clear résumé of the duties of our trade representative in London and pointed out that that representative acted in various capacities. He also stated that it was part of the duties of our trade representatives to inform various countries as to the products of this country. That was one of the reasons why I asked Deputy Briscoe what this country was able to sell so far as France and Germany were concerned. I know no commodity which France could with advantage to herself buy from this country.

Mr. Davin: Guinness's stout.

Mr. Byrne: Deputy Davin speaks of Guinness's stout. I thought France had a preference for light wines, but apart from Guinness's stout and Jacob's biscuits, which are being sold in these countries, we want something in the way of increased [839] exports from this country, and if we send trade representatives abroad I say there should be some return from these trade representatives. The Minister was perfectly conscious of that viewpoint in the country when he stated that there was a large volume of opinion in this country anxious to know what we were obtaining from the £70,000 spent on this Vote. I have been asked by many very well-informed people: “What are these trade representatives doing? What are your trade representatives in France and in Germany going to do for you?” I was surprised when I heard Deputy Briscoe say that some little trade existed between Germany and ourselves. I am one of those who go to the Statistical Department to study the statistics of exports and imports, and I say no trade exists except an import trade.