I move:—"That the Bill do now pass." We have been given a good deal of advice this week as to how this country should be governed. Not the least remarkable event during the week has been the attitude of the leader of the Labour Party in this connection. We were invited to attend a conference. What is the date of the invitation? We were invited to attend a conference with other Parties in the House after a series of events have occurred here which disgraced the country, which have brought odium on its good name, which sapped the foundations of ordered society, which interfered with the progress of the country, and the people who make that invitation know better than any other people in this country how vital to stability, to good order, to progress, to employment, are ordered conditions in the State. When was the invitation extended to us to have this conference?
Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill, 1931—Fifth Stage.
Now.
Why not after Superintendent Curtin was murdered?
It was made nine years ago.
Why not after the poor boy Ryan was taken out and murdered on the roadside?
It was made nine years before.
Why not after Mr. MacInerney's house had been fired into in Clare and he himself wounded? Why not after Mr. Lynch's house was fired into in Clare?
Nine years before.
Not until certain authorities took on themselves the right to govern, not until then. Very little different from that is the cry "Hands off the ruffians." Very little different to advice of that sort is the invitation we get to go into conference. Deputy Aiken said that nine years ago we were invited to go into conference. What happened nine years ago? The people of the country were blackmailed.
Why did you break the Pact?
We stand, and we have always stood, for democratic rule in this country. Why should not the people without any Pact be allowed to express their views on any matter presented to them? Why? Because there were armed people in this country not subject to control and refusing to recognise the authority of the Parliament of the people. I did not wish, and I had no desire during the introduction of this measure to bring before the people the events of the last eight or nine years. We are invited to do it. By whom? The leader of the Opposition is the very first person who starts in, this man who wants to have himself regarded as a pacificator, as a great man, with great ideals who, when he uses one sentence follows it with another which makes it impossible for anybody to understand what he means; this man who, pretending to show respect for me, dislikes me more and has greater hatred for me than any other man in this country has for another.
More contempt.
Poor martyr!
We come to the Bill. The people in the House who are opposed to the Bill do not want to deal with it.
We want to hear about the Bill, not personalities.
The Bill itself describes what exactly it is. If there are people in this country talking in military terms and who want to be regarded as soldiers, they will be treated as soldiers. If there are people in this country who are going to menace democracy, who are going to prevent the common people registering in the ballot-box what they want as Government, as the Constitution or law, a military tribunal will deal with them. The military tribunal is going to deal with them in the presence of the prisoner, a right and a privilege denied to Superintendent Curtin, a right and a privilege denied to the poor boy Ryan, who was murdered on the roadside—Lord, have mercy on his soul! He did not get Christian attention before he was executed. In the case of Superintendent Curtin, he was sent before his God without a moment's preparation. Is that Christianity?
A Deputy
What about Noel Lemass?
When we say that we are going to stop that and take steps to deal with that, we are invited by the leader of the Labour Party to have a conference. What about the souls of these men? Have they not got Christian rights and liberties? Is the State going to fail to guarantee these rights and privileges to God-fearing men?
It was denied to the man who was shot by your guard.
The Deputy's Party has some responsibility for a man called Adamson, killed in Athlone.
Prove it.
The Deputy's Party has responsibility for some of the extraordinary events that occurred in this country, which made our name a by-word throughout the nations for the better part of twelve months. What was the attitude of the Leader of that Party in May, 1923, when he was up against it? What was his attitude? Last night he made a speech here in which he said he put up propositions to Senator Douglas and Senator Jameson which would be accepted by business men. Mark the selection! If I say that there must be fair dealing with non-Catholics and non-Nationalists, with those who comprise the citizenry of the country, what am I taxed with? Masonry! Whom does the Deputy send for when he is in a fix?
I did not send for them.
They certainly did not go to the Deputy without being sent for.
Approaches were made to me.
I made no approaches to the Deputy, and my answer to these two men when they came to me was, "It is not a matter for me. I cannot say ‘Yes' or ‘No' on these matters. I have a responsibility to the people of this country, and I cannot deal with Mr. de Valera"—posturing, at that time, as President of the Republic, posturing, at that time, as a man who had authority in the country, and trying to rob and loot the people of the country of their God-given rights and privileges. I said, "No truck, no negotiations unless there is a surrender of arms." I did not want to humiliate them. I did not want their arms. I said "I am not interested in them. They can be delivered up to a Bishop anywhere. Let them be burned, but these arms cannot, and will not, if I have any responsibility for the government of this country, remain in the hands of those who are not subject to the authority of the people's Parliament." Was that an undue or unreasonable condition to make, occupying the position I held at that time as President of the Executive Council?
His Majesty's Minister.
I suppose the Deputy is a member of his Majesty's Opposition in the House. All the rights and privileges we hold come from the people of this country. I have no further right than that.
And the King.
From the people of this country who put me here——
And the King of England.
In the first place, they have elected this House, and in the second place, this House elects me. I do not want to occupy this position for one moment beyond the will of the House, and, speaking personally, I would say it is through no effort of my own. I have not got to live on it. It is no advantage to myself—none whatever.
Some of your colleagues have.
Deputies have not got the faintest sense of fair play.
Play the game, anyway.
What is the situation we are dealing with? I have a document in my hand in connection with Deputy Derrig, who has just spoken, a Republican Government Proclamation:
1. Republican Government Proclamation, dated 2/12/'22, will be rigidly enforced throughout your area from this date. Where people continue to pay income tax, Land Commission annuities, payments to the Congested Districts Board, spirit tax licences, or any other moneys demanded by Free State "Government," they shall be fined the amount paid or have goods seized or confiscated for the amount.
2. Inland Revenue officers, surveyors of taxes, Land Commission agents, bank managers, and all persons collecting finances for enemy will be ordered to cease forthwith. Any official disobeying this order will be shot.
Give us a few more.
It states further:
Mails will be raided at regular periods and all documents connected with enemy revenue destroyed.
That is Deputy Derrig in 1922.
I do not deny it.
These are the people now subscribing to democracy. I want no possible political advantage out of this.
Not you.
Does the President want to discuss all the events of that period? He has gone back to 1923, and if he wants all the events discussed he will get them. He is not going to pose here as the guardian of public morality on the events of 1923.
Will Deputy Lemass sit down?
Deputy Derrig is the man who had his eye shot out. An unofficial execution like the others.
Deputy Clery is of no assistance in the preservation of order in this House.
I am of assistance wherever the truth is to be told and not the damn lives we are listening to.
The Deputy need not shout. He is not a bit vexed.
Deputy Derrig's eye was not mentioned. It was shot out— an unauthorised execution. It is not their fault that he is here to-day.
The Chair has taken the line since Wednesday that this debate in all the circumstances was necessarily one in which very great latitude should be given. The Chair's view, and I gave it again to-day, on history in this Dáil is very well known. When the President rose to speak to-day he was challenged by way of interruption as to what happened nine years ago. I wish he had not been challenged, and I wish he were not dealing with what happened nine years ago, but it was dealt with last night. To some extent it was dealt with on Wednesday, as was what happened in 1924. What has been done for one Deputy must be done for another Deputy, but we cannot have a scheme in this House whereby the President of the Executive Council and the Leader of the House is singled out particularly not to be heard. He must be heard.
If he wants to pose as the guardian of public morality of the events of 1923, he must hear everything.
I am not sufficiently foolish to imagine that when there is a civil conflict in the country, and when armed men are going about, that all the virtues are on one side and all the sins on the other. Not by any means. But when I was challenged by people who posture as being without sin, and who charge me with sin I just look up the records and I did not do it without being invited. "Any official disobeying this order will be shot."
How many were shot?
It does not matter. The Deputy lost his eye and other people lost their lives. (Disorder). If I am in a war I want to win the war. It was not I won it. It was the people won it. The fact of the matter is that there are a great many people over there who were very lucky.
We lost.
Are you sorry that we were lucky?
The main reason why they lost was that they had not moral sanction behind them in their work.
They had not the pluck to shoot.
They had the pluck to escape.
They were too damned soft-hearted.
I am afraid the softness extended to their heads in a great many instances. What are we here for and what are we dealing with? We are dealing with a very important measure, and for what reason? People say "deal with the causes." What are they? What gave rise to all this?
Ernest Blythe.
I am afraid we must come up a little bit from that time. I venture to say that the same allegations are being made on that side regarding membership of certain organisations.
I am not referring to that.
Very well, leave it there. I may be allowed to make my speech now. Take the most modern instance we have. There is a publication in this country called the "Irish Press." What is this contribution towards our conditions in this State? After all what is there to support any Government in any country? Respect for authority. What is its contribution towards respect for authority? Take a single practical instance: a paper, the "Irish Press," which postures as an impartial journal. How does it treat this House? How does it treat the leader of the House? The leader of this House is called "Mr. Cosgrave, President of the Free State Executive." How does it call the Minister for Agriculture? "The Free State Minister for Agriculture." What is the meaning of all that? Every possible attempt is made by that paper to belittle the institutions of this State.
A Deputy
Suppress it.
It would be a pity to suppress it; it will suppress itself. I think after the few incidents that have happened I ought to be allowed now to go on. Deputies on the opposite side do not get the better of me. Respect is not for authority. What is the real danger affecting democratic Government all round the world to-day? It emanates from Russia. There is a new system in operation there. It is against religion. It is against the most cherished traditions of democracy the world over. What are the things which lead towards a matter of that sort being considered by the people? In the first place you withdraw respect for authority. You start and undermine as far as it is possible citizenship and all that it connotes. You start with the belittling of the State and bring it into disrepute and make every possible onslaught on ordered conditions in that State. Having done that, and having criticised religious institutions, the road is clear for an attack upon our most cherished ideals in connection with Government. Every single journal emanating in this country that adopts that line is practically tilling the field and sowing the seeds of Communism and of Bolshevism in the State. We are now asked to a conference. Is it intended to invite the leaders of Saor Eire into a conference?
Certainly.
The only people intended to be at the conference were the three Parties in this House.
If that is so, your conference will fail.
So there is a dispute between the Parties at present.
Mr. O'Connell
No.
We started, then, with exclusion. What is the conference to do and why should it do it now? Why should it not have been when those incidents occurred, those deplorable, regrettable and tragic incidents? Are we conferring with the people outside who are making these attacks upon the State?
Mr. O'Connell
I did not suggest that.
I understand that Deputy Aiken made that suggestion this morning—that the people making the attack on the State should be invited to the conference.
I believe that all Parties should be in the conference.
Deputy Aiken says that all Parties, including those who were making an attack on the State, should be in the conference. Here is an extract from "An Phobhlacht" of the 29th August, 1931, headed "Hoist with his own petard":
"The time has come when all those who have hitherto clung to Parliamentary methods should take stock. They, too, must discard their be-life in Parliamentarianism for direct action. They can no longer continue to sit in safety upon the green be-flagged Parliamentary stool. For the people, their faces pressed more and more into the capitalist mire, are impatient. They realise more clearly than ever that a change of Parliamentary Government is but a change of bailiffs; that a mere reshuffling of Party labels, such as is now going forward in John Bull's Own Island, is but a clapping of a new sticking-plaster upon a cancer which should be cut out at the roots; they realise that the quack remedies of politicians are useless, and above all, that the cancer must be cut out with the bayonets of the people. FitzGerald-Kenney relies on the gun. Judging by the temper of the people, it may be that he will be hoist with his own petard."
Are the people who published that article to come into the conference?
Without them it would be useless.
Mr. O'Connell
Not so far as I am concerned.
You are not going to persuade them——
You won't, and you can't.
Then obviously there is another method of dealing with them. And still we are told that force is no remedy. Is there anybody here going to go out and to tell them that force is no remedy?
It was said last night.
Was that the first time it was said?
No.
Then there is the problem. That is admitted. They were told last night that it was very wrong and useless. I would like to know what Mrs. Curtin would think of it and what poor Ryan's father thinks of it.
And what Mrs. Bondfield thinks of it.
Yes, and not alone Mrs. Bondfield, but Mrs. Adamson and every other one of them. Deputies opposite have now accepted democratic rule.
They always did.
Yes, as they did in 1922 when the Four Courts was taken possession of. Did they accept democratic rule then?
We did.
Now listen, we are charged, and this House is charged, with a very big responsibility. Let us, if we like, close over the past absolutely, though as long as Deputies opposite are interjecting and charging and making their charges I do not know how we can do it. If that policy of democratic rule had been adopted a few years ago, what would be the condition of affairs to-day? For years I read an extract from American papers and addresses given by Deputies opposite in America in which this country was held up to public odium, so much so that when we went to America a great number of people there did not believe that there was such an office in this State as that of Prime Minister or President of the Executive Council. I know of a number of instances where my visit to the President of the United States was the only evidence that would have shown these people there that there was an independent State in this country. When our officers went to America and took part in the jumping competition, there was evidence then that there was an independent State here. Why was that? Because of propaganda from the Deputies opposite before they came in here.
Not true at any time.
That is an extraordinary state of affairs. All these insidious events of the last few years have themselves contributed towards making the situation that we have got to solve to-day.
After the President's speech everybody will believe that we are all Communists here, and the President will have to contradict that in America before long.
Any extracts from Lord Birkenhead's speeches there?
There is a tradition in this country to which I would direct the Deputy's attention, and that is that in every Irish heart, every truly Irish heart with Irish blood in it, there has always been respect for the dead. Let us not depart from that.
A person who makes any interjection then is not Irish?
Deputy Cooney made that interjection. I have given him his answer. Let us have respect for the dead. Last night the leader of the Opposition said: "These men are misguided, if you will, but they were brave men, and now let us at least have for them the decency and the respect that we have for the brave. They have done terrible things recently, I admit, if they are responsible for them. I suppose they are. Let us appeal to them and ask them in God's name not to do it." That is a remarkable pronouncement. I wonder what would Mrs. Curtin say if I went down to her and made that speech to her?
She would agree with it.
Would she not say: "You ought to have said that before you shot my husband"?
That is extraordinary.
Yes, Deputies cannot understand anything except what is to their political advantage.
The President did not say anything about——
Are we going to get back to 1921 and 1922 again?
Would the Deputy say that to the people who slaughtered my uncle nine years ago and before the civil war started?
Would the President say it to the people who slaughtered Deputy Lemass's brother?
I condemned that shooting, and I said so at the time.
You did not punish them.
I did not, because I did not know them. If I knew who they were I would punish them.
What about Kevin O'Higgins' murderers?
The President knew who murdered Bondfield?
If Deputies maintain they are in favour of majority rule, then they must support this measure. This measure is supported by the majority of the House.
It is not majority rule.
Then what is the meaning of this Assembly? Are we, the Government, to go to a general election at this time when faced with an issue of this kind? Are we not, as a Government, to govern? Are we to go out to the people and say to them: "I am not able to govern the country; I must come to you and ask you to show me how to do it."
A Deputy
You are changing the Constitution.
Yes, in order to strengthen the Constitution and to enable the Constitution to deal with a situation which was not envisaged at the time when the Constitution was framed. The Constitution envisaged peaceful conditions. This envisages a state of war, an intermediate stage in which men's lives may be taken and in which property may be destroyed, in which the writ of the State may not run. There is no provision for that in the Constitution at present.
Why not consult the people?
Deputy Cooney must not interrupt.
When I have got a job to do I do it without asking anyone about it, because I am here to govern. It is no advantage to the public situation to be told that these people are unreasonable. They must be told deliberately that they have no right to do these things and that the State will throttle any person who commits murder or destroys property.
Any person who attempts to take life must be punished. It is not a question of saying they are unreasonable or dense. It is a question of guilt and a question of crime, and if they are criminal or guilty people they must be treated as such. There is no use in telling them in God's name not to do it again. Neither of these two Parties, Fianna Fáil or Labour, is fit to govern. Neither of them knows what to do in a situation like this. They talk about a conference with the enemies of the State when the State itself is trembling in the balance. That is not the time to have a conference. It is the time to govern. Some months ago there was an attack on a guard outside the house of the Ceann Comhairle. That was an attack upon the sovereignty of this House, the high Court of Parliament. We were not then advised to have a conference. Was there any denunciation of that crime? Not at all. It would not suit the politicians.
On a point of explanation——
The leader of the Opposition was heard here last evening practically without interruption. The President has not been allowed to enunciate two successive sentences without interruption. It is absurd. The President is entitled to speak.
May I say, sir, that——
The Deputy is to say nothing. The President is entitled to continue his speech.
There are fundamental issues and fundamental differences dividing us here in connection with this matter, and we are asked to go into a conference. Were we asked to go into a conference before? What are we to go into a conference for? To put in pawn the people's rights and privileges. We cannot do it. No Government can do it. That is not the way to govern. As I have said before in my speech opening out the case for this measure there has been for years past a continual movement of quite a number of periodicals detracting from the respect that ought to be shown to authority.
Week after week and month after month that has gone on. As it goes on people believe or will perhaps come to believe sooner or later that there is something in it. And as that support is withdrawn from authority it comes into contempt, and according as it comes into contempt further criticisms are made, further allegations are made, and we have the culmination of it when Deputy Fahy mentioned here the other evening that they were fit to govern, and let us get out and let the right men govern. Just look for a moment at what that is. The minority party in the State is to govern. Will the enemies of the State accept what Deputies opposite say on these matters? Deputy Lemass some time ago addressed himself to this subject and told us what he is to do if he is the responsible Minister for Justice. Is he going to say to them: "Let us have a conference on it?" Such humbug! If a united expression of opinion went from this House in connection with this matter there would be no great difficulty in governing the country. Why is it denied?
It is stated that we want to get political advantage out of this. I invite the two Parties to take a share in this political advantage, to take away from us if there is political advantage in it that political advantage, and let the people see that there is no politics in this business but government, and let it be known to everybody in this State that we are standing for the democratic right for rule by the people for the people. These are the things that are attacked now. Other attacks may be made later. When the eyes of the young men outside or the old men outside, or anybody outside who are armed are upon the proceedings here to-day, they will take their cue from the criticisms that there are of the Government and of the Government proposals for dealing with this matter. A matter was mentioned in the "Irish Times" yesterday about an incident in Mountmellick, where some young men called on the town clerk. They told him to call a meeting to condemn this Bill. The Clerk told them that a meeting could only be called by five members. "Call the meeting," was the order given him. I know nothing about that except what appeared in the Press. The young men told him to go out and call that meeting. He went out and called the meeting and they came in and passed a resolution unanimously condemning the Bill. Is not that a nice state of affairs?
Did the President read the incident in this morning's "Irish Independent" about a civic guard who shot at a bottle and hit a man?
I did not. It is like a great many other stories we hear, a great many of the statements made. Is not that a proof of what I am saying? The Deputy introduces an item which damages slightly or tends to damage authority.
It is a fact.
Precisely. And whoever shot Superintendent Curtin will read the paper and say, "That is one for us." If we go a step further and look at other countries, look at Great Britain and its Government. In a time of crisis, if you ask any man in the street, "What about this?" he will tell you that the Government will get out of this all right. That is the Englishman's sense of citizenship. It happens here in Ireland, and what is said outside—what is said by the Deputies opposite? "Oh, begob, Cosgrave is downed at last." Supposing it happened that Deputy de Valera was President of the Executive Council and one of the Deputies asked, "What about this crisis? The long fellow will have to give another twist——"
That is very dignified language for the President of the Executive Council.
There was a very dignified statement made here last night about the President of the Executive Council. It was stated that he was called back from England. I said that that statement was untrue, and so it is; it has not a shadow of foundation of truth. That was a very dignified statement, was it not?
It was made in the full belief that it was true.
It is untrue.
Has it been withdrawn?
If the President would give all the circumstances it would be very helpful to Deputies on his own side.
If what?
If the full circumstances of the putting of Kevin O'Higgins into your place, or in that particular Department, were given——
I will invite the Deputy to describe them.
I think we ought to go on with the Bill.
Let us examine the situation. The Deputy made a statement last night that he was here during the Black and Tan war—the whole of it.
I did not. At least, if I did, I said the intensive part of it.
Another modification, but that does not matter. The Deputy stated last night that he came back from America and had to send for me to England. That was a deliberate statement. If he sent for me, he had the information himself.
Oh, now!
The Deputy either sent for me or he did not.
I did send for you.
I deny that absolutely and emphatically. I had no communication with the Deputy directly or indirectly.
Indeed you had. How did you go to the Cabinet meeting?
I was summoned by Mr. O'Hegarty, not by the Deputy.
My order was that you were to come to that meeting.
"My order!" The Deputy is getting more jocular as we go along. His statement last night was that he sent for me and ordered me back from England. I was not there. The Deputy did not order me back.
Where were you?
Were you in Wales?
The Deputy did not order me back. The Deputy adhered to that statement last night. Does he still adhere to the statement he made last night that he ordered me back from England?
The President was not in the House to-day when I referred to this matter. I was prepared to make a full statement, but the Ceann Comhairle intervened. If I get permission from the Ceann Comhairle I am prepared to make that statement.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I will give way to the Deputy.
It appeared to me that the statement that was to be made to-day was to be a statement about something else.
What has all this to do with the Bill, anyway?
The statement of the Ceann Comhairle is, in my opinion, not quite correct, and that is within the knowledge of the Deputies who were present.
A particular statement was made last night and was denied. If I could get that particular statement cleared away I would be as happy as Deputy Davin wants me to be.
You cannot get it cleared away.
The position is that a statement was made about the President being in England. The President has stated that he was not in England, and I think we may accept that.
We do not care whether he was or not.
I will quote some extracts from Deputy de Valera's own Press. I am sure it will do him justice:
Just as Deputy Fitzgerald concluded, Deputy W.T. Cosgrave returned to the House and said: "Deputy de Valera, I understand, declared during my absence that he had to call me back from England. That statement is untrue: absolutely without a shred of foundation. I was in England twice previous to his (Deputy de Valera's) return from America. On both occasions I was in prison." Deputy de Valera had been absent when Deputy Cosgrave made this statement, but he entered as Deputy Cosgrave sat down. Amid great excitement Deputy Cosgrave repeated his statement when Deputy de Valera took the seat.
Deputy de Valera: That is not so. It is true.
Deputy Cosgrave: It is absolutely untrue to the Deputy's knowledge.
Deputy de Valera: I will stand by it.
Deputy Cosgrave: I will make you withdraw it...
Deputy de Valera (to Mr. Cosgrave): You will not. How did Kevin O'Higgins get in?
Deputy Cosgrave: I will tell you. ... I will tell the Deputy now if he likes.
I think we ought to go on with the Bill.
Hear, hear! Refer it to the military courts.
This is the best Bill that has been introduced into this House since it first sat. This is a Bill to secure life and property; it is to secure ordered conditions which are being menaced by a conspiracy and by a number of conspirators. This Bill will, we hope, put an end for all time to armed attacks upon citizens of this State to protect whom is the duty of the Government of this State. It is the duty of this House to ensure every liberty and safeguard that it is possible in human experience to confer upon the citizens of this State. This Bill will do more than that. It will enable us for all time to get rid of a conspiracy against democracy, against religion, against authority, and it will give us an opportunity of ensuring that God's commandments will be obeyed in this country.
The President, in concluding just now, said that this was the best Bill that had ever been introduced into this House. I am not conversant with all the Bills that have been introduced since the House came into existence, but since I came here I know of no Bill that has the seeds of disorder and civil strife within it to a greater extent, or indeed to any extent, than the one now before the House. The President said that he was not playing politics, but government. I listened carefully to the speeches made by those who spoke in favour of the Bill, chiefly the Ministers opposite, and after hearing them I am not shaken in the belief that I start with, that this Bill is playing politics and nothing else. If I needed proof of that, the speeches made this morning by the President and by the Minister for Local Government would, in my opinion, prove my contention to demonstration.
I do not know whether I will get credit for sincerity among the members on the opposite side for what I am about to say. This I do want to say: that neither I nor the Party I belong to wish to play politics when dealing with this Bill. We believe there is a serious problem to be dealt with in this country. That problem, as the President said, relates to fundamentals. Fundamentals go down to the very roots of our national being and are at the bottom of that problem. That problem, to my mind, is a political problem, and not a social one. Arising out of the political problem, there does exist, to a large extent, a social problem, but if agreement could be got on the fundamentals and we could work together to solve the fundamental differences that lie between us, there is, as Deputy O'Connell said to-day, a fair and an open field ready to be tilled in a direction that would bring good fruit socially to this country.
To my mind, this Bill makes no attempt to solve that political difference or to bring closer into contact on the fundamentals that separate them the two great political ideas in this country. Deputy Aiken gave expression in his speech this morning to the thoughts that have been uppermost in my mind in the last few days. We know how his advances were met. There is not, I think, an individual member of this House that has felt, whether justly or unjustly, at any rate that has felt more bitterly or has given expression more often to that bitterness in this House in the face of the Deputies opposite, than I have. In some respects perhaps I have not the same reason as Deputy Lemass or Deputy Derrig or others for having personal bitterness, for feeling sore over the treatment meted out to Republicans during the civil war. They have, just as members on the other side of the House have, reason for feeling bitterly. I know that many on our side have deep down in their hearts a terrible bitterness arising out of the events that happened here from early in 1922 onwards.
These are facts, and you cannot get away from them. All the recriminations that the President and the Minister for Local Government may indulge in cannot get away from them. The President can have his cheap gibes at members on this side as much as he likes, but that is not government, it is not statesmanship, and it is not patriotism, especially when he says, and we must admit it, that there is a difficult and dangerous problem before us to be tackled. Cheap gibes will not help to solve the difficulty. Of course, there are two sides, and there have been gibes and jeers over the last nine years, and probably these will continue. This House has been in existence for roughly nine years, and I doubt whether we are to-day one bit further away from the bitterness engendered by the civil war than we were nine years ago.
Hear, hear. Who is responsible?
Who is responsible? I suppose we are all responsible. I am responsible, I may be responsible to a considerable extent, but I say this, and I challenge denial of it, that Deputy Mulcahy, the Minister for Local Government, and Deputy Cosgrave, the President of the Executive Council, have not to-day or at any time within my knowledge either in this House or outside of it, done their duty as patriotic Irishmen to bring about a better state of affairs. They have not done that at any time during the last nine years, and they certainly have not done it, or attempted to do it, in this Bill. It is not government that this Bill is meant to improve. In my humble opinion it is not government they are playing at but politics.
Civil war.
We have gone through civil war here and we know what the results of it are. We know that certain teachings—I do not want to go over all this, but it has been gone over in the last two days—were engendered in the minds of young men, and that certain doctrines as to militarism and shootings were not alone taught, but practised, probably too liberally and too generously in this country. The men who led in that practice had for certain reasons control of the country, and they have been the most successful in getting their comrades down by bloodshed and otherwise. Successful as they have been they ought, in my opinion, to try and practise a little generosity and Christian charity. Deputy Cosgrave, the President of the Executive Council, the great preacher and example of piety, is not to my mind practising Christian charity, and until he does learn a little Christian charity and practises it he need not expect that there will be any change of heart or of mind among the young men who still stand where he stood a couple of years ago, for the complete independence of this country.
The instalment of liberty and independence won is an advantage, but we have not gone the whole road, and he knows it. There are young men in the country who believe, as he believed once and maybe believes still, although he does not practise it, that the independence of Ireland is a good thing. Some of them have indulged recently in methods that, to my mind, are not helpful, and will not bring about the independence of the country. They will be more likely to put obstacles in the road to that independence. But I would like the gentlemen on the opposite side, particularly those who took an active part in the Republican movement a few years ago, to remember that the practices and methods that were taught will take a long time to be eradicated. You cannot change these things in a day or in a year, and certainly we have not succeeded in ten years. We have not made an effort in ten years to eradicate the methods that were so successfully and ably practised by the Minister for Local Government. The Minister for Defence yesterday talked about Bloody Sunday. Throw your minds back to Bloody Sunday and look at the awful things that happened on that day in the City of Dublin, organised by the Minister for Local Government.
For the protection of the people.
I grant you that all the things that were done in those days were done for the protection of the people as he says. Nevertheless, methods were engendered and actions were taught and some men who took part in these self-same actions directed by the Minister for Local Government in those days are the men who in recent years, since the Free State was established, have believed in and practised the same methods.
Not distinguishing between British spies and the Irish people.
I am going to make that point—not distinguishing between the fact that there is a free State——
Between British spies and the Irish people.
I did not interrupt anyone, not even the Minister for Local Government. Not taking cognisance that a change has come about, a big change, I want to make that point. Even so, every mind does not move as rapidly or as slowly, whichever way you like, as the minds of some of the people opposite, or as some of those who now support the Free State. All minds do not move alike. It takes a longer time to bore changes and alterations in conditions, national, social and otherwise, into some minds than into others. You cannot change the tradition, because it is a tradition. You cannot alter it in five years. We certainly have not begun to alter these things since the Free State was established. To-day we are to a large extent in the same position as we were nine years ago. We are in a worse position, if we only judge by the speeches we have listened to to-day. They are not helpful to anything. If there have been hurtful things said from this side of the House, as unquestionably there have been, and I have often said them myself, those who have the responsibility of Government have a greater responsibility even than those on the Front Opposition Bench. I particularly would ask the President to bear that in mind. They have a moral duty imposed upon them as a Government to give a lead to the country that no other citizen has.
Every one of us has a responsibility to our country and as Deputies to give good example. We do not always live up to it. I have not done so myself any more than anyone else. But if there is a greater responsibility on some shoulders than others, that responsibility attaches to the members of the Free State Government. In these matters they should try to remember and try to deal with the situation that we are confronted with in the light of that responsibility. I do not accept the inference I drew from the President's speeches two days ago and to-day, that this country is faced with a Bolshevic revolution. I do not admit that Bolshevism is existent to any extent even here in the City of Dublin, where it is most likely to exist. There are theorists on Communism here in the City of Dublin—probably a good number of them, I do not know how many—but to attempt to get this House and the country to believe that this State is in danger of a Bolshevist revolution is certainly farcical. The statements made in that connection by the President will, I am satisfied, not help the Eucharistic Congress in the coming year. The exaggerated statement made by him as to the social revolution in preparation here is like the statement that the President made when there was a by-election on in North Dublin a couple of years ago— a wild, irresponsible statement made by the President of the Executive Council, which he had to withdraw, which he had to come to the House and withdraw.
I beg your pardon. I never withdrew it. I stand by every word of it.
I have not with me here a communication to the "New York Times" that the President made in an interview, but I have it at home.
The Deputy stated that I had to come to this House to withdraw it. I did not. I justified it, and gave my reasons.
I do not think so. My recollection is that he withdrew it.
Not at all. I shall try and get the record.
Some time or other, if I may, I will bring in the "New York Times" cutting and read out the apologia which the President had to make for the wild, irresponsible statement he made about the shocking and awful conditions in the Free State two years ago. He recognised after a while that that statement was bound to injure the credit of the country abroad and he had to modify it and practically withdraw it. That is my recollection of the statement published in the "New York Times." The statements he has made in the last two days with regard to the unbalanced social conditions in this country, or this State, are equally irresponsible, to my mind, are equally unfounded, and will have to be withdrawn by him before many weeks. If they are not, they are bound to hinder many people who would otherwise be looking forward to coming to this country next year, from coming.
I admit that things have been done here, that crimes have been committed in the last year that the Government are bound to deal with, that the Government are bound to search for the authors of and to punish them. But compare the calendar of crime in our State with that of any country in Europe, and I think in that comparison we stand high and need not hide our faces. The crimes which have been committed here of a civil nature and the crimes that have been committed here of a political nature are few. I do not want to minimise the seriousness of these crimes that have been committed, but I do say that there is no case for painting this country as one of the black spots of Europe, and that is what a stranger, listening to the discussions here in the last few days and the speeches of the members of the Executive Council, might be induced to believe, if he took them seriously.
I do not think that Russian ideas and the Muscovite doctrine that the President talked of have got any hold in this country. In that connection, somebody gave me this morning a copy of Mion-tuairsc An Chéad Dáil, 1919-21. Deputies on this side of the House are being charged with association with Russia, giving countenance to people who went to Russia to learn Bolshevic doctrine and come back and spread it here. We were told that we were giving whatever countenance and help could be given by members of the Party in Opposition to the spread of Bolshevik propaganda here. I have here the minutes of a meeting of Dáil Eireann in the Session of June, 1920, and on page 174 it says: "Mission to Russia:—The Acting-President moved —(the Acting-President, I think, was Mr. Arthur Griffith)—that the Ministry be authorised to dispatch a diplomatic mission to the Government of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic with a view to establishing diplomatic relations with that Government."
Now we have it.
That is going back to 1920. I do not think Arthur Griffith, as I knew him, was a Communist. He never was.
Nor Cosgrave.
Deputy Cosgrave, as he was then, was a member of the Executive at that time.
It was only after that that Russia turned anti-God.
Was the Czar there then?
There is no doubt about it being Soviet because the Acting-President of that day made sure to give it its full official title "That the Ministry be authorised to dispatch a diplomatic mission to the Government of the Russian Socialist, Soviet, Federal Republic" and Deputy Cosgrave, as he was then, was a member of the Executive Council. The Minister for Local Government was in that Executive, too, I think.
Does the Deputy recognise no difference between that mission and the mission of 1925?
No.
Does the Deputy deny that the mission of 1925 was a military mission to learn the use of arms and to come back here at a time when the Deputy was in New York explaining how the army here and the State were to be destroyed?
That was not the purpose of the mission of 1925.
The Deputy should go back over his documents.
On that I have only the document that the Minister for Local Government read and I have known the Minister for Local Government to fake documents before.
I must say it has passed out of my recollection.
I do say, from what I have heard in the last day or two, that the mission of 1925 was not a military mission. Deputy Boland told us yesterday that he was on that mission and was not there for military purposes.
What did the Army Council represent to the Cabinet that the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General and the ex-Quartermaster-General of the I.R.A. at that particular time would go to Russia following the communication that passed from the Military Attaché in New York?
Does the Minister know what the mission to Russia sent by ex-President Griffith was negotiating for?
What did it go for?
For guns.
Deputy O'Kelly has six minutes and he ought to get these six minutes.
As a result of the things that were said in the last day or two, I had made notes for a speech, and it was not going to be a very pleasing one. I was going to go back, like President Cosgrave, into history, and tell him, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Local Government and some others of his colleagues some things I knew about that happened in 1921-22-23 and so on, but I do not feel like it. The occasion may arise again. If it does I will meet it, but I do feel that we have a serious problem before us. We have a problem that endangers the lives of good Irishmen, whose lives would be of value to this State, that engenders a continuation for another ten years of the present conditions and the conditions of the last nine years. I feel now at this moment that I would be acting an unpatriotic part in helping to continue these conditions.
I was reminded by Deputy O'Connell of the appeal for peace that was in this morning's newspapers. I certainly will do my best to bring about that condition of peace and good order that we ought to wish for, particularly in view of the coming year. I could talk to the Minister for Local Government on the history of the I.R.B. I know more about it than most people in this House. I was in it from the time I was eighteen years of age. I was brought into it and there is nothing that happened from about 1900 up to 1922 that I do not know a good deal about. I could, perhaps, tell a good deal that would not be helpful to bring about peace but I do not want to go into that, certainly not now. I do not think it would be helpful.
I do not think the charges the Minister for Local Government made here this morning against Deputy de Valera will help. He talked of Catholic principles. I certainly admit that I did not obey the teachings of the Catholic Church as long as I remained a member of that I.R.B. organisation, nor did Deputy Mulcahy as long as he remined a member of that organisation. Our Catholic ecclesiastical leaders in this country year after year urged us not to be in that secret society. The Minister for Defence is a great Catholic now. He was not so for many years, if we were to judge him by that standard. The same applies to the Minister for Local Government. The same applies to some extent to Deputy de Valera, I think not so much, because, as far as my recollection goes, he was not more than a few weeks, perhaps a few months, in that organisation.
Give them general absolution.
I wish we could get absolution for the things that arose out of it from 1922.
1916.
It made Easter Week. What about the Fenians?
I am not ashamed of it. Were these gentlemen as good Catholics in these days as they are now? I am sorry that the atmosphere is such as it is in view of the fact of the year that we are entering. I do say that it is not statesmanship and it is not government but it is dirty, low party politics that is being played by the introduction of this Bill. An effort could be made that would need generosity on the part of the Executive Council to deal with the situation. An effort could be made that would need statesmanship, but they do not seem to have it in their possession at the moment. They are acting the part of vindictive men and they are not acting the patriotic part in introducing a measure of this kind particularly at this season. There are things that could be done, that would not abrogate from them or attempt to take one shadow of power they hold in this country as the Government of the majority and which could be done to try to solve, in a peaceful and statesmanlike manner, the problem that we are up against. But they have not given thought to it. There are economic problems here which require to be dealt with, problems such as housing which, if solved, would help to cure the social disorders that are life in our State. These problems are great and pressing but no attempt has been made to deal with them. To my mind, it is the political problem which is the primary and fundamental cause of the issues with which we are faced. A gesture was made here, first of all, by Deputy O'Connell, leader of the Labour Party and then by Deputy Aiken. I did not know this morning what kind of a speech Deputy Aiken was going to make. I had a different kind of speech in my mind. But, listening to the speech that was made and reading the statement that was published this morning, I decided that any words I had to use would be in favour of bringing about a peaceful, statesmanlike solution of the political problems with which we are faced.
Tá
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Coburn, James.
- Cole, John James.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis, J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlan, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, William Archer.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Leary, William.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Mark.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.