I rise to oppose this Bill. The net purpose of it is to remove that declaration of allegiance which is imposed by Article 71 of the Act as it exists at the present time. It not merely goes back to say that anybody who failed to give that declaration of allegiance in the last number of years shall suffer no loss thereby, but it also declares that, hereafter, anybody due for any such office or for such increased emolument shall be absolved from allegiance to this State and the Constitution of this State. In relation to that other Oath Bill, dealing with the Oath we take on becoming members of this assembly, the unthinking and ignorant people of this country were very easily misled because, owing to the constitutional position of the King here, as defined by our Constitution, being identical in person with the King in Great Britain, it was very easy to appeal to old prejudices and to say that that Oath implied an oath of allegiance to a foreign monarch. That of course, was a very effective way of rallying the more ignorant people in this country, but the terms of the Oath that is to be done away with now are these:
I, so-and-so, do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will bear allegiance to the Irish Free State and its Constitution as by law established and that, in the event of my appointment being confirmed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I will, to the best of my judgment and ability, duly and faithfully perform the duties of the said office and will observe and obey such orders and directions in relation to such office as shall lawfully be given to me.
One naturally assumes that the purpose of this Bill is not to make it possible for people to be appointed to these positions who will fail to perform the duties attaching to that office faithfully. Therefore, I presume that the purpose of this Bill is to absolve one section of the community and, logically, all sections of the community, from allegiance to this State and the Constitution. I know that, in 1929, Deputy de Valera, as he was then, and President de Valera as he is now, said:
We are asked to state clearly what our attitude towards this House is. I have on more than one occasion said exactly what our attitude was. I still hold that our right to be regarded as the legitimate Government of this country is faulty, and that this House is faulty.
When that statement was made, Deputy Cosgrave was President here, and one might have said that one knew that Deputy de Valera had what one might call a legitimatist complex, and that the mere fact that Deputy Cosgrave was President here, to the mind of the present President, would imply that all people of this country were absolved from any allegiance to the State, Constitution or institutions of the State.
But one did hope when the people of this country had been persuaded to elect Deputy de Valera as President and to form a Government here that that refusal to recognise the authority of the Government and of this House would cease, and that by the mere fact of becoming President he would recognise that the Irish people having elected the Government owed allegiance to that Government as every people in every country and in all ages of history have done. That duty of allegiance was binding on all the people of this country in conscience irrespective of any Acts this Parliament may pass. Here we are now bringing in a Bill to absolve the people of this country from the duty of allegiance to this State. I would like to know is it a fact that we owe no allegiance to this State and, if we owe no allegiance to the State and to the Constitution, do we owe allegiance to any State or to any order of Government? This seems to me, speaking as an Irish Nationalist, to be one of the most disgraceful propositions ever made. It is an assertion that we Irish people are some thing lower in the human scale than any other people in any other part of the world. The Government with its majority and authority has power. They can change the Constitution and can make any laws they think are for the benefit of the country, and, at the same time, the people of this country are not bound to be submissive to these laws, and are not bound to give allegiance to this State instituted here of which the Government has control.
One might expect me rather to rejoice that such a proposition might be made, and although I have never been what I might call an enthusiast of Fianna Fáilism, I must recognise that to any Act this Government may pass I owe submission; that I owe allegiance to the State and that I owe allegiance to the Constitution as it is and as it may be changed from time to time. We are told that this Parliament is legislating and declaring that the people of this country owe no allegiance to their own State. This Government can legislate to that effect a dozen times if it likes. But it does not alter facts. You can pass this Bill, but every person will owe allegiance to the State whether they want to or not. That declaration of allegiance is binding on the conscience of everyone. As I said, I know of no more disgraceful thing than for a Government of the Irish people to come here with such a proposal. While every other people in the world possess a State that State exists for the general well-being, and demands the allegiance and the submission of the people. In this country we are something inferior. It was often said about us that we were unfit to self-government. We are now legislating to prove that we are so unfit. What is behind this? I know that up to the 14th of March, 1929. President de Valera recognised no authority in this Parliament, but presumably recognised that some body of people outside, responsible for many dastardly acts, could claim submission from the people.
During the last few years we had the Fianna Fáil Party denouncing our Party when in power on the grounds that we were what they called a coercionist Party. We were elected as a Government and recognised that the people owed allegiance. The vast majority of the people gave that allegiance from the dictates of their consciences, but other people with distorted consciences withheld that allegiance, and when they translated that refusal of allegiance into acts they were duly punished, and the law was amended from time to time so that the way of the evil doer would not be easy in this country. For that reason we were denounced as a coercionist Government. I say that this Bill clearly marks this Government as exclusively coercionist. The Government, recognising that it does not possess authority, and has not the right to claim allegiance in this country, according to the speeches of Ministers and the other Fianna Fáil Deputies, have interpreted the verdict of the last General Election as meaning that this Government, being elected, has the right to demand what in Russia would be called ideological conformity. Such ideological conformity I absolutely refuse to give. I do not recognise that the Government has the right to make me pretend what I believe is untrue. This Government and the members of the Fianna Fáil Party have been going round indicating that unless that ideological conformity is given, the material sanctions of this Government will be used against those refusing that conformity.
What authority has the Government? By being elected in a majority they got control of the army, the police and the various other forces, armed and otherwise. Consequently they are in a position of power. If they wish to deal in any way with anyone, or with any section of persons, they have all the machinery for dealing with them effectively in a penal way. But the Government, by their own declaration, recognise that they have no other authority except the control of the armed forces. They recognise that the people of this country do not owe it allegiance. As far as the past is concerned, knowing Fianna Fáil's record, one knew that the first thing they would do would be to try to get money from public funds, and to put that money into the pockets of their followers as quickly and as efficaciously as possible. One could not entirely approve of that, but it would not be really anything fundamentally and permanently bad. What I think is most objectionable in this is that it declares that for the future the Government recognises that it would be an unwarrantable thing for them to expect a people, or a section of the people of this country, to give allegiance to this State, and to the Constitution and to the institutions of the State. How any Government could get up and make such a proposal I do not understand, unless they have themselves become befogged in their attempt to befog the people.
This Government can change the Constitution, and can change the present State into a Republic, can do anything they like, or make any laws they like, but they say that the people here are not to owe allegiance to the State. If they told us that this is only for a short time, until they made certain changes, one might see the situation in another light. Here the Government is elected. We have had victory meetings all over the country. What was the victory? Was the victory merely because Deputy de Valera and his Party were going to get control of State finances and State forces, and that with the control of these finances it would be able to dispense them amongst its friends and with the control of the State forces be able to punish anyone who objected? Was that the victory that was being celebrated, or was it the victory that, President de Valera and his Party being elected in a majority, would receive from heaven authority to govern in this country, and that having received that authority, automatically and necessarily it would be bound to get from every right-minded man or woman the allegiance that every citizen in every country owes to his State? I would certainly consider that there would be a very great improvement in this Bill if it said that up to the 9th March, 1932, or the 8th February, 1933, any adverse effect anyone might have suffered by refusing to make that declaration would be remedied, and that from any given date this State was going to demand and going to get allegiance from its people. I admit, even though only that were done, it would be a scandalous thing to suggest that the Irish people only owed allegiance when a certain man was elected as President, but at least it would mean that as from some date the Irish people were going to be equal to people in every other country in the world and were going to be governed by the same moral principles.
We are apparently something different from any other people in the world. The moral law that applied always and in all cases somehow or other does not apply to us. This Bill is completely null and void. It declares that we do not owe allegiance to the State and its effect is merely that the Government will be able to give money from State finances to people who are essentially traitors to this country. We have been described up and down the country as traitors and the people who are most active in denouncing us as traitors are people who consistently declare that they give no allegiance to this country. In a paper called "An Phoblacht," week after week and even in ordinary newspapers, we see declarations from bodies that are directly responsible for putting the Government in office, declaring that they intend to give no allegiance and no submission to the laws made by this Government. Apparently this Bill is introduced merely for the purpose of placating these people. It does seem to me that it would be really better to let these people generally govern instead of doing, as they are doing, governing behind the smoke screen of the Fianna Fáil Party.
The Minister read out a long statement rather inaudibly, I must say, and I cannot pretend that I heard the whole of it but I did hear one reference to a political test. What is a political test? Is it a political test to demand that anybody performing any service which will be paid for out of public funds shall give allegiance to the State and Constitution? Is that a political test? If it is what would be a non-political test? I quite agree that in one sense it is a political test because we are all political beings and it is the mere fact of a political nature that makes it so necessary to bind us to give this allegiance, but the implication of the words "political test" implies, and is meant to imply, that it is a test binding people to one political party in the State rather than to the State itself. But here is a Bill declaring that this State is a party concern, that although Deputy de Valera is President of the Free State, the Free State is somehow or other the property, the thing as one might say, of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. Surely the Government do not intend to assert that. We recognise that they are in charge of the State, that they can govern with authority, that they have the right to change the form of the State, the Constitution or anything else, and that in general we all owe allegiance to whatever form of State there may be. But here is a most disgraceful and immoral proposal.
We declare by this legislation that it is unjust and inequitable that the people of this country should owe allegiance to their own State. It is a declaration that all that was ever said about us before, that the Irish people were unfit for self-government, was true. The people were offered self-government and they were able to form a Government and to give to that State and Constitution the allegiance which is due to that State and Constitution. The Government might, in bringing in this Bill to reward their supporters. have merely made it retrospective and have said that as far as this test was concerned while Deputy Cosgrave was President nobody should suffer for withholding their allegiance but that as from the 9th March, 1932, or the 8th February, 1933, there was going to be no more nonsense about any people in this country—a new Government having been elected by the people— refusing to give allegiance to that Government and to the Constitution whatever form it might from time to time take, that the Government was going to do its primary duty and see that conformity with the law and submission to the law were going to be enforced on the people.
I do not pretend to admire much of the legislation which this Government has brought in, but I submit that this Bill is, if anything, worse than the Bill which dealt with the Oath in this House. In the other Bill they were able to pretend a certain stupidity and ignorance. They could bring in the red herring about the King, but here there was no reference to the King. These people are merely asked to give allegiance to the Constitution as it is, and this Government comes along and says that the people of this country are not to be asked to give any allegiance. I know that as far as a certain small blackguardly section of the people in this country are concerned, this Government has already recognised their right to withhold their allegiance and to work against the interests of the people. But it is even a more serious thing to come along and make it the law of the land, giving these people the right to withhold their allegiance and to be traitors to their own State.
