Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 May 1933

Vol. 47 No. 4

Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1932—Motion of Enactment.

Tairgim:—

Toisc an Bille Bunreachta (Móid do Chur ar Ceal), 1932, do chur go dtí Seanad Eireann an ladh lá de Mhárta, 1933, do réir rúin do rith an Tigh seo an lá san fé Airtiogal 38A den Bhunreacht, agus toisc an tréimhse de thrí fichid lá luaidhtear san Airtiogal san do bheith caithte o cuireadh an Bille sin amhlaidh go dtí Seanad Eireann, deintear, leis seo, a bheartú le rún, go dtuigfear, ós rud é nár rith Seanad Eireann an Bille sin laistigh den tréimhse sin de thrí fichid lá, an Bille sin do bheith rithte ag dhá Thigh an Oireachtais i gcionn an trí fichid lá san sa bhfuirm inar cuireadh é amhlaidh gó dtí Seanad Eireann an ladh lá de Mhárta, 1933.

The Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1932, having been sent on the 1st day of March, 1933, to Seanad Eireann in pursuance of a resolution of this House passed on that day under Article 38A of the Constitution, and the period of sixty days mentioned in that Article having elapsed since the said Bill was so sent to Seanad Eireann, it is hereby resolved that, as Seanad Eireann did not pass the said Bill within the said period of sixty days, the said Bill be deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas at the expiration of the said sixty days in the form in which it was so sent to Seanad Eireann on the 1st day of March, 1933.

Ni gá dhom an tairisgint seo do mhiniú. Tá sé soiléir go leor agus ní gá níos mó do dhéanamh ná é do chur ós comhair na Dála.

I wish to oppose this motion. This is a matter that has been very fully discussed on previous occasions. It is a matter of a breach of the Treaty. We do not intend to go into it now except to say that in the case of a treaty, the fact of one party to that treaty claiming the right to interpret it without regard to the agreement of the other parties, makes the international position of relations between countries based upon contractual arrangements quite impossible. It would mean that the only sanction as between nations hereafter, as far as I can see, would be war or some warlike act. When two parties come together and purport to make a treaty, no one party can claim they have the right to interpret it or distort it as may suit their convenience. There is another point. The President indicated at a Party gathering a couple of weeks ago, and again in reply to a question to-day, that he proposed changing the constitutional form of this State and abolishing the Treaty from which this State took its being, in piecemeal fashion. Now, I am no upholder of the theory of mandates. I think when a Government is elected by the people, the Government has itself to decide what is best for the lives of the people, but I say that it was an outrage against ordinary honesty for the Government to seek power to abolish the State as it exists and create a new State without making it clear to the people that that was going to be done as a result of the election. Supposing it were right to do that, it seems to me if this piecemeal transmigration of the Free State into some sort of republic were to be agreed to, the last way by which that should be done is by this abolition of the Oath. I have said before that I personally objected to that clause of the Treaty which insisted upon this Oath, because I regarded it as something of an insult to the people of this country as it implied that unless outside pressure were put upon us we, in this country, being an inferior people to all other peoples, would perhaps come here to legislate and to make laws binding upon the consciences of other people and hold that our own consciences should be unbound. If we are going to have this piecemeal evolution from one from to another, why should we begin with the abolition of the Oath?

If we abolished the various details and would up with the abolition of the Oath, there might be some rectitude in it but what are we doing now? The President will agree that the Government of which he is the head is the Government of the Irish Free State. He, I think, feels stronger, if possible, than I do on the necessity to have authority in government and on the moral rights of that Government to demand from the citizens loyalty and obedience to the law. During that period of evolution, if that Oath is maintained, if that proper position is maintained that, as long as this State remains the Free State, and, as long as the present Government is the present Government, and, as long as the King is part of the Constitution of this State, then, irrespective of this Oath, the duty that the Oath sets forth is binding on everyone of us and not merely on members of the Dáil, but on the people walking about the streets. It seems to me that taking this step, as the President is doing, is the clearest justification I know for the British Government insisting on having that clause in the Treaty.

The President, by this Act which he has brought in and which he now proposes to pass, is clearly, as he is performing a positive act in order to create that situation, proposing that, in this country, the State of which he is the head has not the right to claim loyalty and obedience and fidelity from its people. If that doctrine of his is sound, then we are here in a state of anarchy. How does this State exist except by the assent of the people and by the insistence of the Government that there shall be that obedience to law that is implied in that word "fidelity"? I, on national principle, must oppose this. I know that the President has appealed entirely to ignorant prejudices and to the more ignorant sections of the community and, by playing up the past, has created what I might call a sense of untruth amongst the people, a disregard for truth, a mental cowardice, a refusal to face up to fact and he has certainly got a certain amount of support in the country for the abolition of this Oath. He, as head of the Government, must recognise that if we, coming in here to legislate, do not owe fidelity and obedience to this State and to those sections which form the Constitution, the Executive Council, the Governor-General and so on, if the Government has no right to insist on that, by virtue of what does the Government govern?

Is the Government proposing to make the laws passed in this Dáil effective in this country solely through the means of the material sanctions under its control, such as the army and the police, or does the Government, although it abolishes this Oath, recognise that its own members, the members of this Dáil and every citizen of this State, are bound under a law which is not mutable as the ordinary laws we pass are but, under an immutable and unchanging law, to give that loyalty, fidelity and submission to law which we, coming into the Dáil, so far have asserted in a set form that we accept? I cannot understand, although I do not propose to argue about the President's general policy, why it is—he talked to-day about various things which were objectionable, presumably, to the Irish people, and which he proposes, some in the immediate future and some as opportunity arises, to abolish by legislation— he begins with the Oath. By some short or long time, we are going to come in here with free consciences, refusing to recognise authority in the Constitutional authority in this country, and, at the same time, are going to impose laws on the people of this country and to enforce those laws through our police, and, if necessary, with the assistance of the military, and are going to enforce those laws to the very point of taking life. If we do not owe the duty that we set out in that Oath, what right has the Government and its machinery to take a man's life for the transgression of law in this country? What form is there behind law in this country? Until we get to that form of State that is so dear, as the President would like us to believe, to his own heart, there is going to be no State here; there is going to be no real law in the country. We are only going to have a body of men, to use a favourite phrase of Fianna Fáil when they were in opposition, a junta, controlling certain armed forces, and, having gone through certain empty forms here, in the way of discussion, voting and so on, are going to enforce laws on the people of this country, and going to pass an Act, here and now, indicating clearly to the people that the Government does not recognise that there is any virtue of authority in itself. It seems to me—I do not want to use strong words—to justify the very worst things that were ever said about us. The statement was made about us that we were not fit for self-government. What is the President saying?—"Where other people are able to organise their society, to put authority over that society, which will have the right to expect obedience and which will have power to enforce obedience, we are something inferior to all the rest of the peoples of the world," and although we go through the form of elections and having an Executive Council and all the rest of it, so long as we have not the right to ask of the people of this country that they will give obedience to their own law and respect to their own institutions, I must protest on every possible ground against this step that the President is taking here.

When this Bill was introduced and throughout the various debates that have taken place upon it, the principal argument put forward in its favour was that it would reconcile a section of our population to the existing order of things in this country. I take this opportunity to ask the President if he still holds by that argument. Watching as carefully as one can watch as a spectator and as a student of the Press, I have been unable, from the day this Bill was introduced to this present day, to find any evidence that the passage of this Bill will draw into this House any persons who hitherto stayed away from it or will reconcile any section of the Irish population to the Constitution of the Free State who have hitherto refused to be reconciled to it. I think that my feeling on this subject is borne out by the speech which the President made the other day and to which I alluded in a question to-day—a speech in which he put before us a long vista of further measures apparently designed in the same spirit to reconcile people whom I believe to be irreconcilable unless we go the whole distance of declaring a Republic. If we are to go the whole distance of declaring a Republic, I take the view now, as I took the view on the First Reading of this measure, that the sooner we do it the better and that a Republic in prospect is far more damaging to the prospects of curing poverty in this country and to the prospects of curing Partition in this country than even would be a Republic in actual reality.

I have no hesitation in continuing my opposition to this Bill and the whole of the National Centre Party is solid in opposition to this Bill. We regard it as a piece of paltry chicanery which achieves no useful object. We regard it as largely, and, perhaps, mainly, responsible for the economic war and for all the miseries that are flowing from the economic war. We regard it as something which makes honourable, dignified and satisfactory relations with the people across the water an impossibility and regard it as something, leaving aside altogether the people across the water, which is inconsistent with any desire for decent world conditions and decent relations among the nations of the world.

I should like to know whether the President can give us any assurance that this is really the last of the abolition of the Oath. We have been abolishing it for so many years, but it seems to bob up again and again, and I should like to know whether this is really a funeral ceremony or not. I myself am very tired of it. I am opposed to it not so much for the reasons expressed as for the reason that in passing this Bill the Government is lowering the honour of this country to the level of the honour of the British Government. We are, to a certain extent, breaking the spirit of the Treaty. The British Government, as we know, were the first to break the Treaty in respect of Article 12. That is no reason, however, for following their example. The British held that the terms of Article 12 of the Treaty, which said that the boundary of this State should be determined according to the wishes of the inhabitants, meant, in effect, contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants. Now the Government of our country comes along and assures us that the words the Oath to be taken really mean the Oath not to be taken. The Oath itself, if you look at its phraseology, is a grotesque collection of words—a concatenation of incomprehensibility. The first part of it is quite clear and the second part means absolutely nothing. We are asked to give fidelity to the head of the Commonwealth for two facts that do not exist. We are asked to give fidelity, first of all, because of an alleged common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain. That, according to the ordinary rules of grammar, might mean that Ireland and Great Britain are two citizens and have common citizens. Otherwise it might mean that the people of Ireland and the people of Great Britain have common-citizenship. That, as we all know, is not true. The great majority of the people of Britain are not citizens of this State and there are many citizens of this State, including, I think, the President himself, who are not British subjects, and so the first reason is nonexistent.

The second reason is that Ireland is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. That, as we all know, is also not a fact. It was a fact, I believe, for a few hours on the morning of the 5th-6th December, 1922, but it is not so to-day. The ghost of this Oath, which I believe we are abolishing now—although I am still not convinced that we are abolishing it and feel that it may come bobbing up again—certainly will haunt the present Government whenever it tries to make any agreement with our neighbours.

Deputy Fitzgerald has suggested that this is a direct breach of the Treaty. It is obviously an expression of opinion on the part of the Government to break the Treaty. It is a Bill to compel you, sir, and the Chairman of the Seanad to admit into the Chamber, and admit as a member of the Oireachtas, someone who has not taken the Oath as prescribed in the Treaty. In my opinion, the Treaty will not be formally broken until an overt act has been committed and until a person has taken his seat and has voted in one of the Chambers of the Oireachtas without taking the prescribed Oath. That possibility might have been upon us in the next few days had the last by-election in the Seanad turned out otherwise. That has been postponed. I think it will be found that the British Government will consider, once that has happened, that the Treaty will be broken. In this case, as in all other cases, an easy solution could have been found of the interpretation of the Treaty had the British Government themselves bothered to abide by our example some years ago at Geneva. They are now suffering, as we are suffering, from the results of the short-sightedness of Mr. Arthur Henderson and the British Government of that time. They refused to follow our example and accept the authority of the international courts in all questions of the interpretation of treaties. Unfortunately, the mistake of Mr. Arthur Henderson and his colleagues at that time has resulted not only to the disadvantage of his own country but also to the disadvantage of ours.

I do not know whether I should refer to the arguments that we have just listened to from the various speakers, but if I might advert to the arguments of the last speaker, at any rate, I should say that he, for one, has given one good reason why this Oath should be removed. I do not say that it would be a sufficient reason, but it is one good reason. That is when he described it as a "concatenation of incomprehensibility." That, I think, was the phrase the Deputy used. People who wanted to interpret it one way, could do so. For us, the important thing was that a large section of the Irish people interpreted it in a very definite way, and the fact that the British Government imposed it as an obligation gave them very good reason for thinking that it had a very special signification. At any rate, it has been before our people for a number of years. Nobody can say that this Oath is going without full knowledge on the part of the Irish people that it is going. We were elected in the last election, and we were elected in the previous election, to get rid of this Oath. This is the last step and I hope that we are never going to hear of it again.

Why were we interested in getting rid of this Oath? We were interested in getting rid of it because we knew that the majority of the Irish people did not want any confession of allegiance to a foreign king on the part of their representatives. We wanted to get rid of it because this formal acknowledgment on the part of the elected representatives of the people, no matter how that acknowledgment might be whittled down by those who set themselves up to interpret it, meant that a large section of our people were not going to acknowledge the authority of the elected representatives of the people. If you want to have Parliamentary institutions continue amongst an enlightened people, a people who are devoted to democratic representation, you must make sure that every section of the people have a chance of being represented without, in the first place, having to foreswear any opinions which they can legitimately hold.

The opinion that a large section of our people legitimately hold is this, that they have a right to be completely free, that they have a right to determine for themselves, without any interference from outside, what their form of Government shall be, and if association with other States be suggested to them that they shall be at liberty to determine whether it is to their own interest to belong to that association or not. If you want the authority of the elected representatives of the people to be respected by all sections of the people, then it must be possible, I say, for all sections of the people to elect whomsoever they choose to represent them. There must be no barrier such as this Oath, there must be no test which, by bearing on their conscience, would have the effect of excluding them. I say to Deputy Fitzgerald that the moment this Oath is removed the authority of the elected representatives here will gain a respect throughout the country that it never had before, and our object in putting this through is to get that respect. The moment the Bill is through, there is a new situation created in this country. Once this Bill is through, and once it is clear that every section of the people have a right and an opportunity to elect their own representatives and to send them in here to this Parliament, where the laws which are governing them are being passed, then I say there is no excuse, no reason, no justification for refusing to accept the authority of the elected representatives here.

May I interrupt the President?

With the President's permission.

There is partition in Ireland.

I am quite aware that there is partition in Ireland but we are here in a part of this country and we have to govern ourselves. There is only one rule under which we can have government and authority in this country and that is by allowing the people to elect freely their representatives and then to allow their representatives to decide by a majority vote what the national policy shall be. For the first time in ten years, once this Bill is through, we shall be in that position. To hear Deputy Fitzgerald talking one would imagine that this House had authority because we were giving some formal obedience or allegiance through an oath like this to a foreign monarch. What is the source of authority here? The source of authority must be the Irish people themselves, and the citizens of this State, once this Bill is passed, when accepting majority rule in this House, are accepting an authority that comes directly and immediately from the Irish people.

May I explain? I do not recognise that that authority comes from the Irish people. The only authority here comes from God. It does not come from abroad.

The Deputy need not air his little bit of knowledge which is known to every schoolboy. Every Catholic schoolboy, at any rate, knows what the Deputy has about one hundred times tried to make himself out as an authority for quoting. I have said directly that here the authority does not come from the allegiance to a British king. The authority in this House comes from the Irish people. That that authority—the right to rule —originates from the Almighty we all know. But the decision as to who will rule comes from the Irish people and the majority of the elected representatives represent the Irish people's authority in that matter.

Who have no right to do wrong.

The Irish people, as I said on a previous occasion to the Deputy, no more than anyone else, have not a right to do wrong. No, they have not.

Who decides?

It is true. It is a fact. I do not see what point the Deputy makes out of it now, or ever could make out of it.

Mr. Hogan

You do not want to see it.

I do want to see it. I did not say the Irish people are infallible. I am not saying it now.

Mr. Hogan

Who is going into theology now?

I am going into commonsense.

Will the President say when it was stated by anyone here that authority came from allegiance to the King, and from what date authority centred in the Irish people, according to him?

I have said that at all times authority, in so far as it can be delegated here, comes from the Irish people.

Who said it ever came from the King of England?

Your colleague there, five minutes ago.

Mr. Hogan

Not at all.

The Deputy was trying to make out that the whole basis of the authority here was swept away because we took that Oath away.

We will hear Deputy O'Doherty on partition.

For the present we shall hear the President.

I have been asked from what date. I say go back during the past ten years and examine the history of it. Do not examine it as it has been written by the propagandists on the opposite side. Do not examine it with a phrase like "irregulars" in your mind, which was coined at the time. Go back and examine it. How did the Treaty originate? The Treaty originated and eventuated directly in the destruction of a State here which was established with the full approval and consent of the Irish people and maintained with their consent. That was at that time unconstitutionally disestablished. I do not want to go back into particular incidents. We know of them. The Pact was broken and we got into a Civil War. During that Civil War, of course, the people who happened at the time to have power wanted to make out that they were the constitutional authority. That was denied at the time. Going down through the whole of the period the one effort that was made by some of us was to try to get a rule by which the differences of opinion here could be settled. Our opponents on the opposite benches during all that period tried to prevent that by insisting on representatives of a certain section of the people, before they could become effective as representatives, taking an oath which they did not want to take.

There was no necessity to take an oath between September and December, 1922.

There was a civil war begun by the members on the opposite benches during that time.

You began it, and we ended it.

No, we did not. You began it. We are ending it here to-day, thank God. (Applause in public gallery.)

I had occasion twice during the last Session to call the attention of Deputies to the fact that they are responsible for visitors to the public gallery. If there is any further interference from such visitors the gallery will be closed indefinitely.

We are ending it. We are ending this civil war and the causes of this civil war.

Mr. Hogan

Was that oath taken by the members of the Parliament which accepted the Treaty, which was a Parliament of all Ireland? Will you give an answer to that?

We are hearing recently a great deal about the Constitution and the sacredness of this Constitution and that power, measures of force even, could be justified if the present Government did not keep to this Constitution. The people who are writing that and saying that to-day are the people who could not see eye to eye with other people when they were holding that point of view with regard to another Constitution and another State. As far as I and the people who have been with me in the formation of the organisation of Fianna Fáil are concerned, our outlook now is, and all the time has been this, that the Irish people themselves must be permitted freely to determine their own national policy and, in order to make such a policy possible of operation, we must make it clear that no section of the people is debarred from representation, if those people are able to get it, in this House. That is the purpose of the removal of the Oath. The object is to get stable, settled conditions here, to get some road along which political differences can be settled. We have struggled for that. What we are doing to-day was offered at the end of the Civil War to the then Government—to the members of the then administration.

Why was it not offered at the beginning?

And more was offered —and more.

It was offered and turned down for petty political reasons.

Turned down, too, was the loot that the President wanted. The President wanted the loot, too.

It was turned down for petty political reasons.

The President wanted £1,000,000 along with it.

The Irish people have spoken and have determined, by their majority vote, what section in this House represents them.

Mr. Rice

Might I ask the President a question?

If the President gives way.

The President should be given an opportunity to make his speech. We are not surprised at Deputies over there squealing, but they should try to take their medicine quietly.

Mr. Rice

Deputies on the Government Benches cannot take it.

God save the King!

Mr. Rice

May I be permitted to ask the President if he proposes, having repealed the Oath, to renew the proposal contained in his Document No. 2 to pay an annual sum towards the upkeep of the Royal Household?

There was nothing of the kind, nothing about a national tribute, in Document No. 2.

Mr. Rice

There was a provision for an annual sum for the upkeep of the Royal Household.

The Deputy knows nothing about it; he knows nothing about the circumstances in which that document originated; he does not even know the substance of it.

The Deputy was in a twist at the time.

Mr. Rice

I know all about it.

The Deputy's question and other questions of that sort can be raised in their own good time. We are dealing now with one definite question to-day, and that is the removal of the Oath. At the end of the civil war an opportunity was given to the previous administration to bring about those settled conditions in this country which I believe we are going to bring about—politically settled conditions, at any rate—to-day. Once this Oath is taken away and once it is quite clear to every section of the Irish people that they can freely elect their representatives, that they can go to the Irish people with any policy they choose and, if they get a majority for it and can get a majority vote in this House also for it, that becomes the policy of the Irish people and that they are at liberty to go ahead with it, those settled conditions to which I have referred will obtain.

When that is so I say there is no excuse for anybody to prepare in any way for the use of force. When people are denied legitimate rights there may be some excuse for it. When there is no denial of these rights, then any attempt to use force or to prepare to use force is clearly a preparation on the part of people to enforce their own will upon another section of the people. It must be clear to every reasonable person that that is an attempt to establish a dictatorship and there is no justification for it and no Government could permit that to go on unchecked. It would be quite clear that if this or any other Government under such conditions allowed to go unchecked preparations of a military type, they would be permitting preparations for civil war. I, for one, cannot see of what use arms in this country at the present time can be if they are not intended for civil war. If they are not so intended, what are they for? Are they to defend the rights of our people as a whole against strangers, against foreigners? Obviously, if the interests of this country are to be defended effectively against an outside power, they can only be defended effectively when they are defended by the body which has the authority of the Irish people behind it and can get the support of all sections of the people.

The immediate responsibility for defending the interests of the country must and does rest with the majority of the representatives of the people, elected in a free assembly. That must be clear. Therefore, it seems to me, at any rate, that whatever preparations of a military character there were in the past, these preparations are no longer justified on any basis whatever. They cannot be effective against a foreign enemy. If any such efforts are not supported by the Government they cannot be effective. If the Government want to protect the nation's interests they can call on every citizen to come along and play his part in the national defence. If the arms are not for use to defend the country against an outsider they must be for use at home, and it is quite clear that any Government would be guilty of a grave dereliction of duty if it were to permit any such thing to go unchecked.

Personally, I believe that the vast majority of the young people of this country who were looking for the attainment of the rights of this country in the past in arms will see now that, if the rights of this country are to be achieved by arms, then they can only be achieved by arms under the direction of the elected representatives of the people and not otherwise. It is for that reason I have said on every occasion on which I referred to the importance of removing the Oath—it is for that reason I said to Deputy MacDermot on another occasion—that I am perfectly certain that when this Oath is gone it will be possible for all sections of the people to advance their political views and make this country as free as they want to. When they can do that through political institutions, they will use these institutions and will not dream of resorting to force, and I say that, even though here and there you may have a few people who may say otherwise. That is only natural.

I am sorry to interrupt the President again. I interrupted him already but I should like to ask him is he aware that there is a very active recruiting campaign going on at the moment?

I am aware that there is an active recruiting campaign in all directions, on all sides.

I would like to say that I object to them in all directions.

What we have to do as a Government is to see that this recruiting does not become a danger. If it is used for political purposes and as a political organisation, and if we are satisfied that there is no danger to the elected authority of the people here it is all right. Of course different people may think it a danger at different stages. If it does seem to the Government to become a danger, then it is the duty of the Government to stop it and use whatever resources they have to stop it. As I have said— I believe I know the Irish people and the young people of the country just as well as others—once this Oath is removed you will have a complete change of attitude on the part of the people of the country. I know that the Republican movement, when we started Fianna Fáil, was divided because a large number of people who opposed us at that time never dreamt that we could get to the position that we have got to to-day when the Oath is removed. There would have been quite a different attitude then, if it were felt to be feasible. If there are quite a number of people who want to go further, we too want to go further. If there are people who say they will not be satisfied unless there is a Republic for the whole of Ireland, well, they are entitled not to be satisfied with less, and they are entitled to ask for a Republic for the whole of Ireland with all their might. What they are not entitled to is this: to assume to dictate by force to the majority of the people. They are not entitled to do that, and the Government would not be doing its duty if it permitted that. Why we have been striving to remove this Oath for the past ten years is because we wanted to bring about that position of political stability in this country—that everybody who had reached manhood in the country should come out and stand and demand that every section of the people should obey the laws made by the majority of the representatives of the people. But as long as there was a barrier there which made this not the Parliament of the whole people of this part of Ireland, but a Parliament for a section of the people, then we could not with any effect go out and preach and maintain that the authority of the majority of the representatives should be upheld.

The moment the Oath is gone a new position is created here. We will continue to have differences of political opinions. Why should we not? Some will hold one thing is good for the country and some will hold another thing. Why should we not hold different views? The main thing is that we should be able to resolve these political differences by peaceful means, not by armed force. That is the position we will have got to when this Bill is passed, and I say it was well worth all the trouble and anxiety in order to bring that position about.

Partition has been referred to. I know this country is divided. The question is are we, in this part of Ireland, able at the moment to assert our authority over the whole country? We are not. Have we the right to do it? I say the people of the whole of Ireland have a right to rule themselves in their own way. We have a difficult political problem to deal with in Partition. The first step in dealing with it is to get ordered political conditions here, such as I believe we are going to have the moment this Oath Bill is passed.

I believe further that the passing of this Oath Bill is not a violation of the Treaty and if it were a violation of the Treaty to get that Oath Bill passed I, for one, would violate the Treaty because of the importance it would be to the Irish people to have settled conditions. No outside people has a right to keep us at each other's throats by insisting on a thing of that kind. If the Treaty had to go in order to get that Oath removed, then I would say "Away with the Treaty." But, as it happens, I for one believe, and I am supported in my opinion by lawyers as good as any, that in removing that Oath we are not violating the Treaty. We are simply exercising a right which we have, even under the Treaty, under our present status. That has been the attitude of this Government during the whole of this controversy.

I have referred to the Civil War and to the conditions under which this State originated. There will be people for some time—we do not expect a change altogether overnight—who will use the arguments that were applicable some time ago and will not be applicable to-morrow or the day after. That sort of thing happens all the time. We cannot help it. We have only to be patient until we show that these arguments do not hold. I referred to the Civil War because I wanted to point out that the conditions under which it was fought led to a wrong type of thinking. Propaganda that was used by those who were here at that time, and who wanted to win and wanted to get their views accepted, had its effects. I believe we are going to have clearer thinking from to-day on, and that what really matters—namely, that the majority of the representatives freely elected are henceforth going to be the sovereign authority in this country— will be clear from the statement to which Deputy MacDermot referred in his question this afternoon. That statement was that it is the intention of this Government to remove all the causes of annoyance—everything that would appear to conflict with the sovereign right of this nation to govern itself. We have to keep in mind the aim of bringing about unity in this country. We shall be in a better position to do that after to-day, because we shall be better able to resolve our own difficulties in this area.

I hope that I, for my part, will never have to return again, even in argument, to the conditions of the Civil War. I hope when this Bill is passed that I, for one, will be able to refrain from dragging into our debates here the circumstances of that time. We have a wonderful country here. We can do a great deal with it. If we all try to work, giving fair recognition to other people's different view-points, if we all try to work for that objective of making this, what we want it to be, a great nation, then we will succeed. Those who say that we have not the whole country here can work as hard as they like for unity. The harder they work the better we, and every good Irishman, will be pleased with it. The harder such people will work to bring about complete freedom of the whole country the better we will all like it.

What we do want is no longer to be divided by things imposed from without. If we make up our minds that we will stand together against any outside threat of any kind, any outside interference, I think we shall have gone a very long distance towards achieving the ideals for which so many Irishmen gave up their lives. There are men on both sides of this House who understand what I mean. They know that even this State, such as it is, could never have come into existence, that such liberties as there are could never have come into existence but for the sacrifices made by Irishmen who gave up their lives for Ireland. That being so, I think all of us here should do our best to put aside the differences of the past and to work so as to make of this country what the men who died for it would like it to be.

Question put.
The Dail divided: Tá, 76; Níl, 56.

Aiken, Frank.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick.Boland, Gerald.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Brian.Brady, Seán.Breathnach, Cormac.Breen, Daniel.Briscoe, Robert.Browne, William Frazer.Carty, Frank.Clery, Mícheál.Concannon, Helena.Corish, Richard.Corkery, Daniel.Corry, Martin John.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Timothy.Daly, Denis.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Doherty, Hugh.Doherty, Joseph.Dowdall, Thomas P.Everett, James.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Fogarty, Andrew.Geoghegan, James.Gibbons, Seán.Goulding, John.Hales, Thomas.Harris, Thomas.Hayes, Seán.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).Houlihan, Patrick.Jordan, Stephen.

Kehoe, Patrick.Kelly, James Patrick.Kelly, Thomas.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Keyes, Michael.Killilea, Mark.Kilroy, Michael.Kissane, Eamonn.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Lynch, James B.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moane, Edward.Moore, Séamus.Moylan, Seán.Murphy, Patrick Stephen.Murphy, Timothy Joseph.O'Briain, Donnchadh.O'Dowd, Patrick.O'Grady, Seán.O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.O'Reilly, Matthew.Pattison, James P.Pearse, Margaret Mary.Rice, Edward.Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.Ryan, James.Ryan, Martin.Ryan, Robert.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Traynor, Oscar.Victory, James.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

Alton, Ernest Henry.Anthony, Richard.Beckett, James Walter.Belton, Patrick.Bennett, George Cecil.Broderick, William Joseph.Brodrick, Seán.Burke, James Michael.Burke, Patrick.Byrne, Alfred.Coburn, James.Cosgrave, William T.Costello, John Aloysius.Craig, Sir James.Curran, Richard.Daly, Patrick.Davis, Michael.Davitt, Robert Emmet.Desmond, William.Dillon, James M.Dockrell, Henry Morgan. Nally, Martin.O'Connor, Batt.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Neill, Eamonn.

Doyle, Peadar S.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.Fagan, Charles.Finlay, John.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Good, John.Haslett, Alexander.Hogan, Patrick (Galway).Holohan, Richard.Keating, John.Lynch, Finian.MacDermot, Frank.MacEoin, Seán.McFadden, Michael Og.McGovern, Patrick.McGuire, James Ivan.McMenamin, Daniel.Minch, Sydney B.Morrisroe, James.Mulcahy, Richard. O'Sullivan, Gearoid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Redmond, Bridget Mary.Reidy, James.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and G. O'Sullivan.
Motion declared carried.
Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.
Top
Share