HC Deb 16 January 1945 vol 407 cc116-32

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Cary.]

3.8 p.m.

Professor Savory (Queen's University of Belfast)

It was on the 14th November that the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs gave the answer of the Government of Southern Ireland to the representations of His Majesty's Ministers with regard to the harbouring of war criminals. After a very considerable delay, and after being pressed again and again in the Dail to give an answer, the reply was at last received. It said: The right to grant asylum is not in question, and they can give no assurance which would preclude them from exercising that right should justice, charity, or the honour or interest of the nation so require. In other words, there is nothing whatever in that answer to prevent the Government of Eire giving asylum to any war criminals, even to Himmler and Hitler, should they land in Southern Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or Carson."] He is dead and at peace.

Mrs. Tate (Frome)

How does the hon. Member know?

Professor Savory

I want to be perfectly fair to the Government of Eire, and I would like to point out that they said: Should it be found to be detrimental to the interests of the Irish people. they could refuse the right of asylum. In other words, they leave the matter entirely open: They have not bound themselves in any way to the Governments of the Allies. Either they can, under the first clause, grant asylum to the war criminals, or under the second clause they can say that their presence would be detrimental to the interests of the Irish people, and they could refuse to give them asylum. But there is no definite answer of any kind whatever. If one compares their reply with the very definite statements made by such neutral Powers as Switzerland or Sweden, or even the less satisfactory but still adequate answers given by Spain and Portugal, it would appear that this, so far as I know, is the only neutral country which has not given definite pledges with regard to refusing the right of asylum to war criminals.

The Government of the United Kingdom have given their reply. It was part of an answer to a question, and it was given by the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on the same date, the 14th November, when he stated: The United Kingdom Government for their part, wish to make it clear that it would cer- tainly, in the words used by the Eire Government, be 'detrimental to the interests of the Irish people' were war criminals to be harboured in Eire".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1944; Vol. 404, c. 1766.] That was the answer given by the Under-Secretary. On a previous occasion the Under-Secretary said—on 21st March, 1944—that the position of Eire at the present time is anomalous. Broadly, Eire is treated by us as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 660.] I pointed out in a supplementary question that the citizens of Eire enjoyed far greater privileges in this country as British subjects than the citizens of all other Dominions. We have had answers given to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Postmaster-General showing that very nearly £11,000,000 was sent in 1943 by the citizens of Eire in postal orders to Southern Ireland. They have come over here, they have enjoyed every possible advantage and privilege, they have taken jobs which other British subjects have had to evacuate because they were called up, they have occupied their posts, and they are taking the positions of those who have gone to fight, not merely for the United Kingdom, but also for Eire. Their medical men come over here; they do not have to pass any examination whatever. They can practise without requiring any further qualification than that which they have already obtained in Eire.

Mr. de Valera, on the other hand, constantly, refers in speech after speech to Great Britain as a foreign Power, and her King is described as a foreign king. But the citizens of Eire are not treated as foreigners when they come over to this country. They are not required to be indoors by 10.30 p.m., they are not required to get a permit, if they go five miles from their domicile or sleep a night away from home, they are not deprived of having a bicycle or even of having a radio set. They are treated in exactly the same way as all other British subjects.

But for this very exceptional treatment how has Eire shown her gratitude? Let us take the answer given to us by our Prime Minister, speaking in this House on 5th November, 1940. He said: The fact that we cannot use the South and West coasts of Ireland to refuel our flotillas and aircraft and thus protect the trade by which Ireland as well as Great Britain lives, is a most heavy and most grievous burden and one which should never have been placed on our shoulders, broad though they be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1940; Vol. 365, c. 1243.] I was reading the other day an exceedingly interesting history of the war by an eminent historian, Mr. R. C. K. Ensor, which is published by the Oxford University Press. He writes of the situation in 1942, and says: As compared with the situation in 1918 the Allies were terribly handicapped by their deprivation of their bases in Northern and Southern Ireland"— by the North he meant Lough Swilly— and the necessity of flying round and not over that now neutral territory. Indeed had the island been united"— the island of Ireland— and no part of it available to them, it seems probable they might have lost the war. Had the United Kingdom not had the advantages of the bases in Northern Ireland for her Fleet and her aeroplanes, this historian says, it seems probable the Allies might have lost the war.

When the Prime Minister made the statement to which I have referred on 5th November, 1940, he was followed two days later by Mr. de Valera, who replied to him in the Dail to this effect: There can be no question of the handing over of these ports so long as this State remains neutral. There can be no question of our leasing these ports. They are ours. They are within our sovereignty. There can be no question, so long as we remain neutral, of handing them over on any conditions whatsoever. Any attempt to bring pressure to bear on us by any side, and by any of the belligerents—by Britain"— he specified Britain— could only lead to bloodshed. Then again we had, in January, 1942, the amazing protest made by Mr. de Valera against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland. This protest was couched in extraordinary—and I can only describe them with great moderation as extravagant—terms. The protest, which was handed by the High Commissioner here in London to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, was also handed by Mr. Robert Brennan, the Minister of Eire in Washington, to Mr. Cordell Hull. But Northern Ireland is outside the jurisdiction of Mr. de Valera. As everybody here knows it is part of the United Kingdom, and in protesting against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland Mr. de Valera was going entirely outside his constitutional position, was interfering in a matter in which he had no locus standi whatever. The question of whether or not American troops should land in Northern Ireland was one exclusively for the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States. Mr. de Valera however took it upon himself to protest both in London and in Washington against the landing of these American troops in Northern Ireland.

The protest was based on the ground that he objected to what he calls the partition of Ireland; that is to say, the constitutional position set up by the Act of 1920, ratified and confirmed by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Southern Ireland in 1925—this constitutional position under which the six counties of Northern Ireland are part and parcel of the United Kingdom. He made this claim on three grounds. He said that this partition of Ireland was only to be compared—and, remember, he was protesting to the United States—to the attempt made by the Southern States in the '60's to secede from the United States of America. That was one of his farfetched comparisons. The second was that he compared the partition of Ireland to the partition of Poland. As we all know, Poland was three times partitioned: in 1772, in 1779, and in 1795, with the final result that Poland disappeared altogether from the map of Europe. It was not merely a partition, it was a complete absorption of Poland into the three neighbouring States. Thirdly, Mr. de Valera maintained that this separation of Northern Ireland was to be compared to the aggression made by Germany on the smaller States. I presume that he was referring to the aggression of Hitler against Belgium, Norway, and Holland. I leave it to this House to say whether there is any real analogy between the invasion by Hitler of these independent States and the fact that Northern Ireland has remained part of the United Kingdom.

It must never be forgotten that there are two Irelands, differing from one another in political outlook, in race, in religion, and even in language, if Mr. de Valera is to have his way. Mr. de Valera has made Irish compulsory, even in those parts of Ireland where Irish has not been spoken for hundreds of years. Not only is it compulsory to learn Irish, but it is also compulsory to give instruction in various subjects, such as history and geography, in the Irish language, the instruction being given by teachers who have only an imperfect knowledge of Irish, to pupils who have not a single word of Irish. Therefore, the difference between these two Irelands is a difference not merely of race and religion, but, if Mr. de Valera is to have his way, in language as well. When Lord Durham went out to Canada and made his famous report, he saw that there were two Canadas. There was Upper Canada, or Ontario, and Lower Canada, or the Province of Quebec. Lord Durham maintained that it was impossible to place one of those Canadas under the other, because they differed in outlook, differed in language, differed in race, and differed in religion. Therefore, from that time to this those two Canadas have been two separate Provinces in Canada—now forming separate parts of the Dominion. One has not been made subordinate to the other. We in Northern Ireland demand that the Northern part of the island, which differs just as much from the South as Quebec does from Ontario, shall not be placed in subjection to the Southern half. We ask that our status, which has been accorded to us and confirmed to us over and over again by the British Government, shall be maintained. But Mr. de Valera, ignoring all these treaties—the Act of 1920, the Treaty of 1921, and the Agreement of 1925—protested against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland.

Further, a couple of years later, it was found necessary to send a request to the Government of Eire that they should dismiss from their capital the Axis representatives. The Prime Minister, in this House, on 14th March, 1944, stated: The initiative in this matter was taken by the United States, because of the danger to the American Armed Forces from the presence of Axis missions in Dublin. His Majesty's Government were, however, of course, consulted throughout by the United States Government, and gave the American approach full support. He added that a substantial disservice"— note the very choice language of the Prime Minister— to the Allied cause was involved in the retention by Mr. de Valera's Government of the German Minister and the Japanese Consul with their staffs in Dublin. The Prime Minister went on to say: No one, I think, can reproach us with precipitancy. No nation in the world would have been so patient. In view, however, of the fact that both British and British. Dominion lives and the lives of the soldiers of our Allies are imperilled, we are bound to do our utmost to obtain effective security for the forthcoming operations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1944; Vol. 398, c. 36–7] We know that the reply of Mr. de Valera was a point-blank refusal. Nothing whatever was done to comply with the very carefully-worded, and very respectful, and very deferential, request made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the American Government. No, Mr. de Valera determined to maintain his neutrality. On a former occasion I endeavoured to show—and no one has ever replied to my argument, and I believe that it is absolutely sound—that Mr. de Valera, constitutionally, has no right whatever to neutrality, in the sense of harbouring in Dublin representatives of His Majesty's enemies. Mr. de Valera's Government have a right to non-belligerency, because Eire is a Dominion. A Dominion would have to vote the credits if it were to go to war, and a Dominion Parliament has the right to refuse to vote those credits. But I absolutely deny that, constitutionally, any Dominion has the right to harbour the enemies of His Majesty as representatives. The reason, surely, is obvious. Mr. de Valera, as I pointed out just now, protested against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland. But the Crown, in September, 1939, declared war upon Germany. Now, the Crown, through the Eire Minister at Washington, who has been accredited by the Crown, whose letters of credit have been signed by the Crown, has protested against help being given to His Majesty in his war against Germany. His Majesty, on the one hand, declares war; His Majesty, on the other hand, protests against help being given to him in the war which he has declared. As I pointed out on another occasion, that is a reductio ad absurdum, and to maintain that a Dominion can be neutral in the sense of harbouring enemies of His Majesty, is absolutely unconstitutional.

Mr. Edgar Granville (Eye)

Might I ask my hon. Friend, in order to make it absolutely clear, if he will relate that to the Statute of Westminster, which gave independence to each Dominion?

Professor Savory

In order not to take up too much of the time of the House, I can only refer the hon. Gentleman, who was not present on that occasion, to the speech in which I dealt at great length with the Statute of Westminster, and of which I will send him a copy, which will give him his answer.

I was just going to relate when I was interrupted that this constitutional position had the approval of a gentleman who was the very greatest living constitutional authority—the late Professor Berriedale Keith. I have a letter in which he says that the constitutional position that I have taken up is absolutely sound from the point of view of the law of the British Empire.

When the Prime Minister made that statement with regard to his complaint of the presence of the Axis representatives in Dublin and requested the Government of Eire to dismiss them, the Prime Minister was not aware of something, which has come to light since. That is the extraordinary discovery at a garage near Brussels of no less than—according to the Secretary of State for War in a statement made in this House—10,000,000 maps of Eire which had been prepared by Hitler with a view to the invasion of Eire. There was every kind of map, 10,000,000 of them, with plenty of spare parts, showing the approach to every port in Eire both from the sea and the land. There were contour maps and even picture postcards containing every possible indication and guide with a view to the invasion of Eire. Now, we were told by "The Times" correspondent, who carefully examined these documents, that they only came into existence in August, 1940. That was many months after Mr. de Valera, on the outbreak of the war in September, 1939, had informed the German Minister in Dublin that, in this war, Eire would maintain the strictest neutrality. Therefore, while Mr. de Valera was giving his assurances that Eire would remain neutral, the Government of Hitler was making every possible preparation for the invasion of Eire. Even before the war, a map was discovered and published in "The Times" showing that, even then, the German General Staff were being instructed how Great Britain could be invaded from Ireland.

In spite of all this, Mr. de Valera has maintained the very strictest neutrality. In fact, the Government are so neutral that Dublin is a perfect blaze of light. We have heard a great deal of radiolocation, but it is perfectly certain that, during those two terrible raids on the city of Belfast on Easter Tuesday, 1941, and on the first Sunday of May in the same year, when 55,000 houses were seriously damaged in the city and no less than 942 people were killed, very great help—I say no more, and I will not maintain that the German aeroplanes could not have found the city of Belfast without the help of the blaze of light in Dublin—was given to them, and my opinion is corroborated by experts, who agree that the fact that Dublin was a perfect blaze of light made it a landmark for the bombing of Belfast and, subsequently, also of Liverpool. What happened? Hundreds of aeroplanes were seen over Dublin. They had nothing to do but follow the coast to the well lighted city of Drogheda, and, a few miles further, to the city of Dundalk, from which they had not much more than 50 miles to go to reach Belfast. The whole distance between Dublin and Belfast by road is only 103 miles. This attitude of neutrality, in maintaining this blaze of light, was undoubtedly a great help to the enemy in the terrible raids which I have described and which took place on Belfast.

The hope had been expressed that Eire would, at least, refuse to harbour war criminals, but the answer which I have quoted is so equivocal and ambiguous that it allows the Government of Eire, under the pretext of charity, to give asylum even to the very worst of Axis criminals.

To sum up, hitherto His Majesty's Government have adopted a policy of appeasement and conciliation with regard to Eire. When Mr. de Valera made his protest against the landing of American troops, no reply was made by His Majesty's Government. The fact that they made no reply to this protest, which so vitally affected the Constitution and territorial rights of Northern Ireland, had a very deplorable effect, as can be understood, in Northern Ireland. We felt that, not merely should a reply have been sent, but the Government might even have gone further and rejected altogether this protest on the grounds that it had no raison d'être and that Mr. de Valera had no locus standi whatsoever to protest against the landing of American troops in Northern Ireland. But no reply was given by His Majesty's Government. This protest was accepted in silence.

Further, nothing was done by His Majesty's Government when Mr. de Valera refused to dismiss the Axis representatives in Dublin. That refusal might have been foreseen. Any Ulster Member of Parliament here could have told the British Government that they were going to meet with a blank refusal. I maintain that it is the art of statesmanship to look ahead, to foresee one step following on another, and to see and consider what you are going to do if you are met with a blank refusal. Why was that further step not considered? What happened was this. Mr. de Valera triumphed over the fact that he had flouted the Government of the United Kingdom. He took the first opportunity of recommending the President of Eire to dissolve Parliament, and the burden of his election addresses was that he had upheld the neutrality of Eire, he had rejected the request of the British Government and that of the Government of the United States and had got away with it. He was returned with a majority over all other parties combined. Before this, he had been in a minority in the House; that is to say, in an absolute minority. He had no overhead majority, and a combination of the other parties could have defeated him, which they actually did by a majority of one. He took this golden opportunity of dissolving his Parliament and received a majority over all other parties combined. That is the only result of the request made by the British Government and by the United States that these Axis representatives should be dismissed.

Thirdly, and lastly, we have this refusal to comply with the representations of His Majesty's Government with regard to war criminals. I have pointed out that Mr. de Valera's answer leaves it entirely open to the Government of Eire to do whatever they like in the matter. They can, if they please, under the pretext of charity and justice, give asylum to these war criminals, or they can, if they like, say that it is detrimental to the interests of Ireland and refuse to receive them. In any case, they have not bound themselves in any way and, so far as I am aware, Eire is the only neutral country which has not given a definite undertaking. I, therefore, appeal to His Majesty's Government, after all that has gone before, to take a more serious and logical view of the situation. I feel that it is going rather too far to leave it open to the Government of Southern Ireland to give asylum to these war criminals should they so desire. I would only conclude by a quotation from a very great poet, who said this: Look South! the gale is scarce o'er past That stripped and laid us down, When we stood forth but they stood fast And thought to see us drown.

3.41 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

I intervene with great diffidence in this Motion on the Adjournment. My hon. Friend opposite has made a very striking, exhaustive and sincere speech on one of the most baffling problems with which, within the limits of the smaller sphere of politics, we have to deal in this House. I entirely sympathise with him in the views to which he has given expression on the attitude of the Government of Eire in two respects. First of all with regard to the ports, he will recall that, but for the powers that we gave to the Government of Eire under the Statute of Westminster, their sovereignty would have disappeared. The use of the ports was declined. This House must always regard as a great example of patience on the part of the Prime Minister and the Government of this country, the way they bore the refusal that these ports should be used in the service of the country at a time when sacrifices were being made by the Mercantile Marine on the Atlantic. When my hon. Friend spoke of the legations of Germany and other enemy countries, I am in entire sympathy with him. The Eire Government maintained that, under powers conferred upon them by this Government, they were empowered to take this stand under the Statute of Westminster because they had its full authority.

The Irish question, which has perturbed this House for generations, should, during the remaining part of this great war, be allowed to lie a little in abeyance. There is all the difficulty of raising embers which might have been burnt out. I recall that, during the progress of this war, in spite of all the difficulties of Southern Ireland in its attitude towards the obligations of defending the liberties of the world in the future, many Irishmen have come into the service of His Majesty's Government. I put a Question a short time ago to the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs which he could not answer because the statistics are not available. I asked how many Irishmen have actually been fighting on the side of liberty in this war. Though the sins of the past that my hon. Friend has succinctly presented to the House this afternoon are great and many, and, as Macaulay said of Warren Hastings, "neither few nor small," nevertheless, there is something to be said for a country which, in spite of its status in the British Commonwealth, has sent thousands of people to fight on the side of the Allies. They have come of their own volition to fight in the Navy, Army and Air Force. I take no exception to many of the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friend. I am an Irishman and have been in this House for a quarter of a century, and we have some claim to consideration in the extent to which we have made a contribution voluntarily from Southern Ireland during these sad times. There have been a number of distinctions conferred by His Majesty's Government upon citizens of Eire. I would like to call them citizens of the Commonwealth. The only vote that I ever gave in this House which has caused me misery and regret was when I voted for the Statute of Westminster. It was one of the most shameful things I have ever done.

Mr. Sloan (South Ayrshire)

The hon. Member is not speaking for Ireland now.

Sir P. Hannon

We should keep the future in view when raising questions in this House. Delicate and difficult matters might have their roots in some of the opinions expressed and statements made in the House of Commons. Difficult problems will have to be settled vis à vis the United States of America. We have seen some of the embarrassing questions which have to be settled in the United States, and let us in this House not say or do anything which may embarrass the Prime Minister and the Government of this country in settling international affairs. I do not take exception to my hon. Friend in taking the line that he has taken in the House of Commons. It is right to bring these matters before the House, and he has done it without any malice or vehemence of any kind in his arguments. This Irish question down the ages has been so much a disturbing influence in British politics, in the whole outlook in our relations with the Empire and in regard to international relations as well, that the less we say at this time of a harmful or hurtful character, the better it will be for a settlement in the future.

I think that the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions will acknowledge the contribution that has been made in many respects by Southern Ireland to the war effort and agree that it must command the respect of those responsible for the direction of the war organisation. I would say to him also that overseas, especially in our Dominions, in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and everywhere, the Irish race has played its part, and that in the United States itself masses of Irishmen have voluntarily placed themselves at the disposal of the American war administration. We should not say hard things about relationships which revive this old, historical and heated question of Ireland. It has caused enough misery in the past, let us not bring more misery in the future. I agree with my hon. Friend that great mistakes have been made and that great faults have been advanced against Southern Irishmen, but do not let there be any further arguments in this House to make it more difficult for a timely and friendly understanding in future with Irish element.

3.49 p.m.

Sir William Wayland (Canterbury)

I would like to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory). One can understand the feelings of the men of Belfast in connection with Southern Ireland. I remembered, as I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) speak of the Statute of Westminster, the time when we were discussing the treaty made between Michael Collins and others and the Government of this country. Though we wanted it to be kept in being when the Statute of Westminster was passed, the majority of the House declined, because Mr. Cosgrave, the Premier of Southern Ireland, had promised our Government here that definite things should be done, as they have been done since that time. There is no doubt whatever that the feeling of the people of this country towards the Government of Southern Ireland is very different from their feeling towards the soldiers and the men of Southern Ireland who have fought for us in different parts of the world. We have no enmity towards the Irishman as an Irishman; all we have is an enmity towards the position taken up by Mr. de Valera in connection with this war. It appears to me, and I daresay to many others, that whenever Mr. de Valera kicks the Government of the United Kingdom, all the Government here do is to give a bow in return. We have received many kicks; we have returned no angry words although we were perfectly justified, and I think that if the Government of this country had taken up a firmer attitude towards Southern Ireland than they have done, we should be in a different position in relation to Southern Ireland to-day.

3.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans)

My hon. Friend who opened this Debate has raised one particular aspect of the question of war criminals which is the subject of wide interest, not only in this country but also in the United States and among the other United Nations. As he said, approaches were made to a number of neutral countries, and they gave assurances that they would not afford right of asylum to those who have been responsible for the many crimes which have been committed by our enemies. The United States also addressed a similar inquiry to the Government of Eire and this was supported by the United Kingdom Government. The reply of Eire has already been published, and the United States commented upon it in the following terms: We are glad to have the assurances of the Irish reply, but it did not go as far as we would have liked in all particulars. The United Kingdom Government are in agreement with the view of the United States Government. The substance, as my hon. Friend will recollect, of the Eire Government's answer was set forth in the reply which I gave to a Question which he addressed to me on 14th November. As he will remember, the Government of Eire stated that: in their view, the right to grant asylum is not in question, and that they can give no assurance which would preclude them from exercising that right should justice, charity or the honour or interest of the nation so require. They also refer to the absence of a comprehensive international code applicable to the matter, and to the lack of a generally recognised court or procedure for the judicial determination of individual cases. They went on to say: Since the present war began, it has been the uniform practice of the Eire Government to deny admission to all aliens whose presence would be at variance with the policy of neutrality, or detrimental to the interests of the Irish people, or inconsistent with the desire of the Irish people or to avoid injury to the interests of friendly states, and that were such aliens to land they would be deported to their countries of origin as soon as possible. They state that it is not intended to alter this practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1944; Vol. 404; c. 1765 and 1766.] As I explained to the House on that occasion, we noted the intention of the Eire Government to continue their practice of denying admission to all aliens whose presence would be detrimental to the Irish people. It will be clear to the Irish people, as it is to the people of this country, that to harbour Axis criminals would be detrimental to their interests. There is, however, no reason to assume that any Axis criminals mean to escape to Eire and that even if they did so, the Eire Government would allow them to enter their country.

Our complaint against the Eire Government's reply is that it is equivocal, and that they have not made their position sufficiently clear. This is the point to which the United States Government, and we alike, have taken objection, and the Eire Government are well aware that this is the case.

My hon. Friend raised various other points in the course of his speech on which I should like to say a few words. In the first place he mentioned the bases. I agree with him that the fact that the bases were handed over has been, in the words of the Prime Minister which I think he used, "a grievous and heavy burden to this country". That is, of course, the case, and I agree with him and, of course, with the Prime Minister that this should never have taken place, but, after all, that agreement was made a considerable time before the war—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Not a considerable time"]—well, nearly a year or 18 months before the war, and in any case it was not an agreement for which the present Government were in any way responsible. No doubt my hon. Friend and the House will remember the speech of the Prime Minister when the Bases Agreement was brought before the House, in which he anticipated in almost every particular what subsequently happened. That Agreement was one of the burdens which we found placed on our shoulders, and there is nothing I could say now which would affect the position in any way.

Then my hon. Friend raised the question of the landing of the United States troops in Northern Ireland and the protest made by Mr. de Valera. So far as His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were concerned, they ignored the protest, and a reply was given in this House, by my predecessor, showing that we were not prepared to consider Mr. de Valera's protest. I think myself that was the best way of dealing with the situation. Our position had been made perfectly clear on numerous occasions both before and since Mr. de Valera's statement in January, 1942. I think I can make the position quite clear by quoting the statement made an 30th December, 1937, by the United Kingdom Government when the new Constitution of Eire came into being. It was in the following terms: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom take note of Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the new Constitution. They cannot recognise that the adoption of the name of 'Eire' or 'Ireland,' or any other provision of those Articles, involves any right to terrritory or jurisdiction over territory forming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or affects in any way the position of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That makes the position of the Government quite clear and we felt that it would be wrong to take any notice of Mr. de Valera's protest. We think, and we believe, and we maintain that he has no status in the matter whatsoever. My hon. Friend can be quite reassured that so far as the Government are concerned we are very conscious of the position of Northern Ireland, and that nothing which has been said by people in Southern Ireland in any way affects the position or the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

Then again he touched on the question of the Axis representatives. As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, that has been a running sore. We are only too conscious of the feeling—in fact the Government share the feeling—that to have Axis representatives in Dublin is a very unhappy state of affairs, and it is one which I have assured my hon. Friend again and again is being very carefully watched. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) made what I thought was a moving speech when he spoke for his race rather than for Eire itself. He made an appeal to the House that we should endeavour to overlook some of the actions of the Eire Government and remember the services which have been rendered by his countrymen all over the world during this War. Of course, we shall remember, and we do remember. I am sorry that I have not been able to obtain the figures which he would like to have; I have made inquiries but it has not been found possible to do so.

Major Markham (Nottingham, South)

Can the hon. Gentleman give any reasons why it is impossible to obtain the figures? It is not impossible to produce them for other parts of the British Empire. There seems to be more or less a conspiracy of silence on the part of the Government about this matter.

Mr. Emrys-Evans

There is no conspiracy of silence on the part of the Government; it is just the fact that it has not been possible to decide what numbers of His Majesty's Forces come from Eire and which do not. We have made great efforts to find out, but it has not been possible. But whatever the figures may be we are very appreciative—

Sir P. Hannon

In view of the fact that great numbers of Irishmen are recruited in Glasgow, Newcastle-on-Tyne and Liverpool I agree that it is difficult to provide the statistics.

Mr. Emrys-Evans

My hon. Friend, as I have said, was speaking for the Irish race rather than for Eire itself and we shall remember the services which his countrymen have rendered and the appeal which he has made to-day.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Four o'Clock.