It is with a great deal of reluctance that I made up my mind to take any part in this debate at all. Discussions of this kind have become almost a recurrent vice with the Dáil. At regular intervals we have debated matters of politics and matters of police and mixed them together in the most inextricable fashion in which all sorts of ancient charges are furbished up again and thrown across the House. As far as I can see, there is only one slight sign of improvement in all this, and that is that whereas such debates used take place a few years ago on the Army Estimates, debates of the very same type and semi-political discussion have been transferred now to the Police Estimates. I suppose that may be taken as a sign of the fact that the situation is, at any rate, easing somewhat, and that if we are not by any means in an ideal position we are at least better off than we were a few years ago.
My reason for intervening in the debate at all and allowing myself to be subjected for a few minutes to this vice is, that certain things were said in the course of the debate which I do not think should be allowed to pass unnoticed by those of us who sit on this side of the House. I said that this type of debate was a kind of disease. The discussion that has taken place shows pretty clearly that it is not so much in itself a disease, as a symptom of a disease, and a very serious disease. Everybody is as anxious as possible that we should have the most perfect police force, and that while every rigour should be shown to criminals, there should be no interference whatsoever with the ordinary citizens by the police or anybody else.
Charges have been made in great number during the last week to the effect that such interference is taking place, that the ordinary citizens are being interfered with by the police, and that where such interferences are alleged to have taken place, the fault lies altogether on the side of the police. Deputy Lemass told us last week that his Party was the only Party which stood for peace in this country. Every other Party apparently, including not only ourselves but the Labour Party, were opponents of peace and the most subtle and dangerous opponents. The arguments which Deputy Lemass uses, not so much to prove as perhaps to insinuate that statement, is a rather curious sort of argument. He indulges in a kind of metaphysics which may be all very well for the public platform but surely should hardly pass in this House without some slightly deeper discussion. He suggests that because the Fianna Fáil Party at a certain stage changed its name from whatever name it called itself before that stage arrived and took certain rather superficial action, therefore it has become, all of a sudden, a Party of perfect peace.
I suggest to Deputy Lemass that, granting that a change has taken place, everything depends on whether the change was a change in essence or a change merely in accidentals; and I suggest that a change of name is of no importance whatsoever unless it involves a change in policy and a change in the inner workings of the Party's mind, so to speak. The Fianna Fáil Party have now externally and as far as accidentals are concerned, abandoned their previous warlike attitude. They have taken to themselves a new name, or rather an old name, and they have strung together a series of election devices and put these before the people as a policy. They are always prepared to talk at great length about their policy, what their policy is, and so on. There is one fundamental element in a policy which should be the first thing to be considered in the policy of any Party. On that I suggest that out of Deputy Lemass's own mouth the Fianna Fáil Party have not suffered any change whatsoever.
Deputy O'Higgins last week recalled to Deputy Lemass a statement that he had made in a speech previously. Deputy Lemass at that time got up and corrected Deputy O'Higgins. When he made that correction, or purported to make that correction, the Official Report of the debates was not available. The Official Report has since been circulated, and I find that Deputy Lemass not only made the statement on which he was challenged by Deputy O'Higgins, but he actually made a statement which is more serious, if anything, than that with which Deputy O'Higgins charged him.
Deputy Lemass laid down certain conditions. He said: "If we could get some definite assurance from the Ministery," and he then laid down a series of conditions upon which he said he thought he "could promise on behalf of the people whom we represent the fullest possible co-operation except in connection with these laws which were passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing." He first of all made conditions. Having made these conditions he proceeded to make exceptions for the carrying out of these conditions. He went on to explain that "in relation to the ordinary criminal law which we all want to see obeyed you can get that co-operation if you ask for it." When he said "if you ask for it" he obviously meant "if you agree to the conditions that we lay down." He said you can get our co-operation in seeing that the ordinary criminal law is obeyed on certain conditions, but we make an exception and that "exception is in connection with these laws that were passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing." Deputy Lemass denied or tried to evade these words when challenged by Deputy O'Higgins.
These words are now in print and Deputy Lemass must answer for them. What do these words mean? These words mean, if they mean anything, that the Fianna Fáil Party first wish to make conditions before they will give any co-operation to the State in seeing that the ordinary criminal law is obeyed. That means that the Fianna Fáil Party before they give any co-operation in seeing that ordinary criminals such as burglars or people guilty of criminal assaults, and other crimes, apart altogether from any political consideration, are punished, must get conditions. That is the first element in the Deputy's speech. That means that the Fianna Fáil Party do not agree, in their capacity as legislators, to assist in the carrying out of any law whatsoever which this Dáil makes at the present momenf.
I suggest that is a very serious statement, and when a Deputy makes a statement like that on behalf of a Party which he claims speaks for half a million voters, he is giving out of his own mouth the best possible indication of the real source of the disease from which this country is suffering. If there is anything wrong, if the police are exceeding their duties, if attacks do take place on individuals, as the Fianna Fáil Party allege, then I suggest that the one great contributing cause to that evil —I suggest the greatest contributing cause to that evil—is the fact that, in Deputy Lemass's own words, they must see certain conditions carried out before they will agree to co-operate in the enforcement of the ordinary criminal law.
He goes further than that and he says that even if these conditions are granted there is an exception that he must make, and that is the exception in connection with these laws that were passed for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing. It is not clear what exactly Deputy Lemass means by that exception, but I think it is not unfair to say that he wished to except and exclude altogether from the operation of any laws those who choose to object to laws which were passed for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing. It is not unfair to attribute such a meaning to Deputy Lemass, because that is the meaning that Deputy Lemass's leader has several times given expression to. Over and over again in this House we have been brought back to the fundamental position that there are numbers of people who wish to use arms against these laws that were passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing, and who wish to overturn that political status by force of arms. We have pointed out that if there are people here who want to change the political status of the country, there is an obvious and easy method for them to adopt in bringing about that change.
There is one method, and that is that they can vote for the Party which has as its policy the changing of that status. If the votes are sufficiently numerous they can put that Party into power as a Government and so change the status that they desire to change without the loss of a single drop of Irish blood. But the position, apparently, is that whether or not they are willing to use their votes in that fashion, and whether or not they are willing to support the Party for which Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera speak, they insist on having the right at any moment they choose to take the lives of other Irishmen in order to upset the political status now existing. It is a serious matter to have a political party proclaiming that it will not co-operate in putting down ordinary crimes such as burglary until certain political conditions are granted. It is the great evil from which the country suffers, and no kind of quibbling and no amount of producing anonymous documents and statements, such as Fianna Fáil Deputies have been producing here—no amount of wild complaints—will get over the fact that the real reason for whatever unsettlement and whatever difficulties exist in the country is that there are certain people for whom the Fianna Fáil Party speak here who insist on having for themselves, and by their own authority, the right to take the lives of Irishmen and Irishwomen in order to upset the political status now existing in the country.
Deputy O'Connell said he was inclined to agree with Deputy Lemass on one point. Deputy Lemass suggested that it would be advisable that the detective force should not include within its numbers men who had taken part in the civil war. He said it would be advisable, just as happened in 1922, when this State was set up, that people who had to do with the civil war should be removed from any position where they might come into conflict with people whom they had to fight. I wish to point out to Deputy O'Connell that before any such state of affairs can come into existence he must get Deputy Lemass and his Party to change their minds on this fundamental point. He must get them to remove their objections to these laws which have been passed for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing. He must, at least, get them to admit that these laws can be changed by the exercise of the vote, and shall not be changed by any other means, and that all Irishmen of every party will stand together to see that only one method of changing the laws is allowed to be in force in this country. Until Deputy O'Connell does that, I suggest to him that he is blinding himself in purporting to agree with what Deputy Lemass said.
He draws a parallel between the state of affairs after the civil war and the state of affairs after the Treaty was passed. I would like to point out to him that there is absolutely no parallel. In 1921 a Treaty was made between conflicting States. That Treaty was passed by a majority of this House, ratified by two Parliaments, and it became the law of the land. In 1923 nothing of the kind happened; there was no Treaty; there was no conclusive, formal ending of whatever state of war existed; there was no reason, therefore, why the State should cease to be on the defensive after 1923 any more than there was before 1923. The only change that took place was that the Party which afterwards chose to change its name and to call itself Fianna Fáil decided to put away the guns and the bombs which it had previously been using against the majority of the people in this country.
When this discussion is going on it is apposite to ask: "Are these bombs and guns still in the keeping of the Fianna Fáil Party, and if they are not, where are they?" I suggest to Deputy O'Connell that until he knows where these bombs and guns are, and until the people of this country or the authorities in this country, whoever they may be, know where they are and who is in control of them, no sensible citizen, much less a responsible member of this House, should suggest that the men who so ably defended this country in 1923 and previous to 1923 should be removed from the task of defending this country now against the same enemies who attacked it in 1923. No sensible man can deny that that is the position of affairs. We know that there are enemies in this country. We know that not a month passes without some so-called political crime being committed in an attempt to do away with these laws that were passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing.
If Deputy O'Connell or if Deputy Lemass desires that the men who defended the country in 1923 and previous to that should be removed from the task now, I would like to know if they would agree to having the same conditions apply to the other side. Would they ask that the men who were attacking this State in 1923 should cease from the task of attacking it now, and would they ask that the whereabouts of the weapons which were used to attack it in 1923 should be made known to the people who are liable to be attacked now, just as much as they were liable to be attacked in 1923? I suppose we will go on with this kind of debate year after year, and have the same series of confused charges collected, or purporting to be collected, from all over the country. We will have the same series of electioneering propaganda tossed out in the Dáil, as if it were gospel truth, and at the back of it all we will have people now and again, like Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera, admitting quite openly and quite candidly that not only do they not stand for cooperating in putting down ordinary crime, such as burglary, but that they do not even stand for the protection of any citizen whatever against anybody, whoever he may be, who likes to come along and say that he will take the life of that citizen, in order to upset laws passed here for the purpose of maintaining the political status now existing. We will have that state of affairs going on, I suppose, for years.
I suggest to Deputy Lemass, to Deputy de Valera, and to their Party, that there is no use at all in coming here and masquerading as a Party of peace, no use at all in using all that fine language, painting themselves white and everybody else black, telling the people that they, and they alone, are the bringers of peace and goodwill, so long as they continue either to make speeches containing statements such as these, or in their heart of hearts to uphold and to approve of policies such as are contained in these statements. These statements, I say, betray the root of the evil from which this country is suffering, and I say that every citizen, no matter who he is, should realise that the country will continue to suffer from these evils, that men will continue to be killed, that outrages will continue to take place, and that these debates and charges will go on as long as Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera continue in the same frame of mind fundamentally as in 1922 and 1923.