I beg to move:—
That in the opinion of the Dáil the Government ought either to abandon the profession of Republicanism or to seek authority from the electorate for the immediate establishment of a Republic.
This motion has been on the Order Paper for a very long time; it has really been on the Order Paper for the better part of three years, because the genesis of it was at the time of the First Reading of the Constitution Amendment (Removal of Oath) Bill, when I stated that the time had arrived when we ought really to make up our minds whether it was in the interests of this country or not to be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and, if it was in our interests to continue such membership, that we ought not to embark upon a series of measures such as the Removal of the Oath Bill. Since then there have been other measures tending in the same direction, measures which added nothing at all to the liberties possessed by this country, but which were calculated to do a great deal to destroy any value that might arise from the Commonwealth connection, in particular as regards the abolition of partition, because, by attacking matters of sentiment which do not really interfere with the liberties of this country, we are wiping out the best available means to our hand for conciliating the feelings of the majority in the North of Ireland. I said at that time that if we were going to embark upon such a course, if it was to be the policy of the Government of the Irish Free State to be continually seeking to wound the feelings unnecessarily of people who are attached to the Commonwealth connection, if it was to be the policy of the Irish Free State to be bringing in the sort of measures that excited the minds of the more ignorant of our own people, the sort of measures that brought existing institutions in this State into disrepute by suggesting that the whole foundation of those institutions was rotten, it would be better for us to make a clean sweep of the situation and to go out of the Commonwealth.
I think that we should get on very much better in dealing with this whole matter if we realised that there are no members of this House, I imagine none, certainly that there are no Parties in this House, who desire to see the governmental institutions of this country imposed upon us by any sort of compulsion, compulsion from without or compulsion from within. Now, the President and his colleagues suffer, or profess to suffer, acutely from the sensation that compulsion is being imposed upon us from without. Personally, it seems to me that, before bothering our heads about that question, it would be appropriate to consider on the merits what the best course for this country would be if there were no compulsion at all and whether possibly the best course in our own interests—our material interests, interests of prestige, and every other sort of interest—is to do the thing we are alleged to be compelled to do. Personally, I deny that such external compulsion exists. It does not appear to me that the view of a few people across the water, and their desire to deny our right to separate, is of any importance. What is important is that there is no responsible person in politics in this country, on either side of the House, who does not take the view that it is up to the Irish people themselves to decide whether or not they want to separate.
While we are disputing as to whether there is external compulsion or not, I think that too little attention is paid to the other kind of compulsion, a compulsion which, to my mind, is much more a reality than the compulsion of which the President of the Executive Council complains. I am not alluding primarily to the sort of compulsion that is exercised—although it is very real—by the existence of organisation in this country which threaten the stability of the State and the safety and liberty of the individual in the name of Republicanism. I think that the existence of these organisations, and the amount of prestige which recent history, unfortunately, has given to them, does constitute a very genuine and very unfortunate form of compulsion which tends to rail-road us into being a Republic whether we want to or not. There is a more subtle and more dangerous form of compulsion, however, and that is the sort of compulsion that is imposed upon us by what I would call, without any disrespectful intention at all, the compulsion of the dead hand. It is a curious thing that, whereas there is no question so important to this country as what we call the national issue, it is of all questions the least discussed. In fact, I have never heard it discussed on its merits during the little more than three years that I have been in Irish Free State politics. It is never discussed because those who are in favour, or who say they are in favour, of a Republic will not allow it to be discussed on its merits. They do not want to hear the arguments, pro and con, stated as if the question were an open question. Their desire is to treat it as a question which is not open, a question upon which a decision has been taken, a question about which we are allowed to take one view and only one view if we are to be considered as patriotic Irishmen at all and if we are not to commit a terrible offence against the martyrs of 1916.
I resent that sort of attempt to closure discussion on a matter that is vital to the interests of this country. Several times before in this House I have alluded to the men who lost their lives in the rebellion of 1916, and I do not think I have ever alluded to them without respect and appreciation of the sacrifice they made; but the history of Ireland did not begin in 1916, and a long line of other martyrs could be quoted who had not got just the same ideas about the governmental institutions of the country that those men had. There is one fundamental feature in common between all the people who died for Ireland, whether they were Republicans or Royalists, or whatever they were, and that is that they loved their country so dearly that they were willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believed to be the good of the country. What is the obligation that is imposed on us by the memory of such men? Is it to take the precise view that they took at the time of their deaths, even though during the major part of their lives they may have held different views themselves, and even though there was diversity of opinion between the people who gave their lives for the country at different periods? Is there any reason to be tied down to one particular set of these people and one particular set of opinions held by them at a particular epoch in their lives? I say that our duty is the duty of considering the good of our country, and of considering such questions on their merits and not allowing our own minds to be closed to the consideration of what is for the advantage of the country—not dispensing ourselves from the duty and labour of thought and from the duty and the unpleasant task, if necessary, of taking an unpopular line of action, although in conflict with the trend of public opinion for the time being, and doing what in us lies to educate the people to a wider conception of what ought to be done in order to enable this country to reach its full stature and to enjoy the full fruits of liberty.
I move the adjournment of the debate.