Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 26 Nov 1948

Vol. 113 No. 5

The Republic of Ireland Bill, 1948—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Immediately before the adjournment of the Dáil last night, I appealed for a certain amount of tolerance for each other's views and for the claims of the different Parties that they were alone responsible for clearing the way that brought us to the position in which we find ourselves today. I made an appeal for unity, on the grounds that the question under discussion is greater than any man alive or yet to live and greater than any Party or group of Parties that exists or ever will exist in this country.

The Bill under discussion is one to give expression to the people's desire for freedom. Freedom is something that cannot be enforced on a people by a foreign or native Government. It is not an institution that they have to accept under duress. Freedom is something that is created or born in the minds and hearts of the people— they are free to give expression to their own thoughts, to elect their own representatives, to make their own laws and, over and above all, to alter or amend those laws without having to wait for the sanction or approval of any foreign or outside power. People want to be free to realise that it is in their own power and jurisdiction to appoint and receive representatives to and from the free nations of the earth.

I honestly believe that the Bill under discussion is an attempt which is going a long way to instil into the minds and hearts of the Irish people that they at last have achieved that freedom. I spoke at length last night —possibly too long—and I spoke without reference either to documents, books or previous Dáil reports. I made no claim, I read no statement or previous speech to try to prove that we were right or that any other Party or group was wrong. If, during the course of my address, I made any reference or passed any remark to which exception could be taken by any Deputy or any group in the House, I state now that it was completely unintentional. If I said anything that caused offence to anybody, I withdraw it, because I believe that this Bill should get the unanimous approval of all Deputies.

I congratulate the Taoiseach and the Ministers of the Government on whom fate bestowed the honour and privilege of introducing this Bill. It is quite possible, as some other Deputies say, that had it been introduced at some other time, the atmosphere might not be right and that the possibility of getting that unanimous acceptance that we all look forward to did not exist. I also congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Éamon de Valera, on the statement he made here on the adjournment of the Dáil last July. Through that statement, he made it possible for us to reach the position that we find ourselves in—not alone through the statement, the actual words that he used, but by the way and the manner in which he addressed himself to the Deputies in the House. I felt myself on leaving the House, at the adjournment, that the political situation had advanced by 25 years.

I am glad that the suggestion that he threw out to have the air cleared in regard to our constitutional position was accepted. I join with him in suggesting to the Taoiseach and the Government that they should, when this Bill is passed, bring it into operation on the 30th anniversary of the declaration of the republic by the First Dáil, that the 21st January should be known as "Independence Day" and be declared a national holiday. I congratulate the Deputies who are privileged to be in this House and who have the honour of voting for this Bill. I only wish to say in conclusion that personally I thank God that I was allowed to live to come in here to take part in this debate and vote for this Bill. Finally, I salute the memory of the men who, in our generation, laid down their lives in the fight for the Irish Republic.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Fitzpatrick is one of the most disarming speakers on the other side of the House and I sometimes find it difficult to determine whether he is simple and sincere or simply insincere, ingenuously speaking his mind or ingeniously beclouding the issue. I think, from what I have heard from him and from what I have known of him since he came into the House, that he is simple and sincere. I think that his simplicity was manifested to-day by the belief that he has expressed that this Bill is declaring a republic. If he is correct in the view that Section 2 of this Bill brings the republic into being, then the Congress of the United States of America has still a task before it, because in the Constitution of the United States there is no such phrase or formula as is embodied in this Bill to indicate that when the founding fathers signed that Constitution they brought a republic into being.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Will the Deputy agree that it was declared 30 years ago?

Mr. MacEntee

I think, though he expressed the view with all sincerity, that he is extraordinarily simple if he does hold the belief that the actions of himself and his associates during the past years were beneficial to the unity or the independence of this country. Speaking with inside knowledge, I say that, in my view, they were wholly baneful.

This Bill takes its Short Title from Section 2 of the measure. That section reads:—

"It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."

Now, how can we on this side of the House object to a Bill which enshrines that declaration? It confirms, without any change in the Constitution—without any change, as was indicated yesterday by the British Prime Minister, in the relations between this country and her neighbour—it confirms what we have been contending for over a long period, over, in fact, a period of 11 years. Over and over again during that time we have told the people that this State was a republic. We said that repeatedly to the people and we were sneered at and we were jibed at because men wished to deny the plain meaning of words. When an authoritative definition of the word "republic" was quoted here in the Dáil, we were told that we had a dictionary republic. Would this Bill have been written without a dictionary? Could the draftsman frame a law that would stand unless he were able to express himself in words and phrases that would be vindicated by the dictionary if an ultimate authority had to be appealed to? Such was the opposition, such was the antagonism to an Irish Republic, such was the concerted effort to deceive the people in regard to this matter, that even the plain meaning of words was denied to them. That is how the dictionary, and not the gun, was brought into Irish politics.

The Taoiseach and his Party over and over again during these 11 years have denied what we stood for. Now they bring in a Bill to vindicate us and admit the principle at last. We are glad that time has brought our revenge. This Bill is our triumph. This Bill is Fianna Fail's vindication. How then can we object to the title of the Bill or to Section 2? If a person comes along and sticks a poster on the Parnell monument declaring to all the world: "This monument shall be described as the Parnell monument," that action of his does not in any way change the Parnell monument, neither in its form nor in its character. No more does this Bill, despite what Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, declare a republic. As the monument remains the Parnell monument all the time, unchanged in any way by the activities of the bill-sticker, so does this republican State remain unchanged by the provisions of this Bill. The monument is no less the Parnell monument and certainly no more the Parnell monument because of the poster. Neither is the character of this State enhanced or diminished by the Bill. Why then should we oppose the fixing of the poster to the monument? Why then should we on this side of the House interfere with the bill-sticker? It is precisely in this spirit that we approach this measure.

One merit the Republic of Ireland Bill has. It constitutes a testimony, publicly and solemnly given, that since 1937 this State has been a republic. The testimony of the law is all the more valuable because it is those who have heretofore denied the status of the State, who have denied the truth and the validity of our statements in regard to it, who have now taken upon themselves to write our contention into the law of the land. If public men, through an Act of Parliament, desire to do penance for the public wrong, which by their false and mendacious statements they have inflicted on the nation, who are we to prevent them from making peace with their political consciences? We may regret that the repentance was so long deferred, but we are thankful and grateful to Almighty God that it has come at last. Accordingly, with what this Bill does in Section 2 we have no quarrel.

It is not to the principle embodied in Section 2 that I object. It is with the lack of principle that has characterised the conduct of the majority Party in the Coalition towards the majority of their supporters that I quarrel, because I think that what is being done in this instance is a bad thing and an evil thing and will produce evil reactions upon the future development of our democracy.

Fine Gael heretofore has stood in public life as the Commonwealth Party, the Party devoted, not merely to association with the British Commonwealth, but to unequivocal membership of that community of nations. That is something which cannot be gainsaid because there is overwhelming evidence to support that contention in the statements made in the course of the general election of 1937. The Taoiseach, in opening his speech, suggested that because of what we had done, in teeth of the opposition, on the 10th December, 1936, by removing the King from every Article of that Constitution, the members of the Fine Gael Party had suddenly changed their political character, that they had ceased to be and were no longer devoted adherents to the principle of Commonwealth Association, but had become convinced and unyielding republicans. Very well. Let us see how that statement is controverted by the facts.

In the course of the general election of 1937, when our Constitution, the Constitution of this republican State, which you all admit now exists, was before the people, and when our opponents, including the Taoiseach, were asking the people to reject that republican Constitution and to adhere to this Constitution which has as its very first Article this statement, "The Irish Free State, otherwise hereinafter called or sometimes called Saorstát Éireann, is a co-equal member of the community of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations," the then Leader of the Fine Gael Party, the former President of the Executive Council, Mr. W.T. Cosgrave, declared publicly and unambiguously:—

It ought not to be necessary for us to give any additional proof of the fact that we stand as a Party for the maintenance of one association, as a free, sovereign and independent State, with other States, members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, united by the link of the Crown."

And, in order that there might be no doubt as to where every member of the Fine Gael organisation stood, and as to what the principles were upon which every candidate nominated by that Party sought election, the Fine Gael organisation issued an advertisement which filled pages of the newspapers and put at the very top and head of that advertisement the following declaration of policy:—

Our policy is the restoration of the benefits of membership of the Commonwealth, as members of the Commonwealth to work for the ending of Partition. Association as a free, sovereign and independent State, with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Great Britain, has many advantages which have been lost in the last five years.

Lost — they contended — during the period that we were putting the King out of their Constitution.

In the course of this election campaign, the present Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Dillon——

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. MacBride)

On a point of order, I would like to submit to the Chair that a limit should be placed upon the range of the subjects which may be discussed here. Otherwise, if general elections are to be discussed, speeches made during them and advertisements published during them, this debate will be never ending.

Mr. Gilbride

A very orderly interruption.

An Ceann Comhairle

Whether this is a point of order, of course, I would not like to say definitely, but, there is no question of it, in this debate the history of the last 25 or 26 years has been interpreted on both sides of the House and the Deputy is entitled to his interpretation.

Mr. MacBride

It is his own.

Mr. MacEntee

No, it is not; I am quoting the words of members of the present Government. Mr. Dillon's prejudice to the Irish language would not permit him to use the Irish title for the organisation of which he was Vice-President and, accordingly, we have him stating:—

"The supreme political object of the United Ireland movement was to restore the unity of Ireland. To do that, they must restore the prosperity of the Free State and create a situation in which the people of Northern Ireland would be prepared to work with them here, the Constitution moving for the reunion of the Irish nation on the basis of a sovereign and independent Ireland in the Commonwealth of Nations."

Said Mr. Dillon:—

"That objective could be achieved in their time."

At Cloughjordan, the present Minister for Defence, Deputy Minister for the Minister for Agriculture, conscious of his name, I think, averred this:—

"Great men lived in this country and died in it since 1922 and the greatest men of all died"

—now listen to him here, as he tells us what the dead died for——

"... the greatest men of all died because they stood for this—that the Free State was as free as France or Germany or America and that the association with the Commonwealth was a material necessity to them."

At Cork, during that election campaign —and that election campaign constituted the critical chapter in the political history of this country over the past 25 years, because it was during that campaign that the people were asked to vote for or against our Constitution —Mr. Cosgrave stated:—

"The Fine Gael Party is convinced that membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, which in effect is a means of equality with Britain, Canada and South Africa, can be used to the political and economic advantage of our people. It is not only more profitable, but it is also more dignified to be members of that great combination than to take the line of isolation which would appear to postpone the ending of Partition, to reduce our trade, and to rob us of the benefits of our hard won freedom."

I have just three more quotations. At a meeting of Fine Gael held in Dublin to wind up its campaign, the present Minister for Education, General Mulcahy, added this postscript to the statements which had been made by the Leader of the Party, Mr. Cosgrave, the present Minister for Defence and the present Minister for Agriculture:—

"They in their time, with the co-operation and help of the rising young nationalities of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, settled for all time that the countries linked together in the British Commonwealth were absolutely sovereign and independent countries."

To dispose finally of the contention that all during these years Fine Gael, under a mask of public deception, were heart and soul republicans, we have this episode. At the same meeting at which General Mulcahy spoke, Mr. Cosgrave, Deputy Cosgrave as he was then, was asked: "Do you stand for a 32-county republic? Do you stand as Fine Gael for a 32-county republic?" That question could be answered yes or no, and it got a plain answer from the Leader of Fine Gael: "I do not." And they tell us they were republicans all the time!

When the policy of Fine Gael was reaffirmed, when the leaders had to be changed after the retirement of Mr. Cosgrave from public life, and when Mr. Cosgrave's mantle fell on the present Minister for Education, General Mulcahy, what policy did he put before his followers? What policy did he submit to the electorate? What policy but this: "We are standing unequivocably for membership of the British Commonwealth"?

I have recited these statements in order to do two things. First of all, to disprove what has been the contention of certain members of the Government throughout this debate that they have always been republicans, and secondly, to prove up to the hilt that they are men who have deceived their people and broken faith with their followers. Some of you may say what concern is it of mine. Some of you may say who do you represent here? But if the people whom Deputy Sheldon and Deputy Dockrell and to a less extent Deputy Sweetman, Deputy Cogan and Deputy Alfred Byrne and other Deputies too on those benches who are afraid to speak——

Mr. Sweetman

Who are what?

Mr. MacEntee

——represent feel themselves to have been betrayed, the responsibility is theirs since they supported Fine Gael when they came to power and when it was in opposition through thick and thin. That is not my view. I am for this Bill. I like what is being done in the Bill but I detest the way in which it has been done. The fact that there is a minority, faithful supporters of our opponents, with whom they have broken faith, so far from lessening the obligation of public men to protest against this breach of public faith, increases it though it may leave us, the men who protest, open to misrepresentation, the misrepresentation of standing for something that we have never stood for. I never stood for the British connection. I never stood for that Article I in the Constitution of 1922. I voted against the Treaty and fought against the Treaty. I was one of the men who established Fianna Fáil and who resisted every effort to turn us from the path and one of the men who had the proud privilege of advocating that republican Constitution in what was once the old imperial stronghold of Rathmines, advocating it against the counter advocacy of the Taoiseach and then the Minister for Social Welfare would not stand on the same platform with me, saying in so many words: "I will not play in your yard". I had the proud honour of seeing inducted into office the first president of what you now declare to be the republic. I am saying this even at the cost of misrepresentation and it is so easy to misrepresent the actions of public men when they have to stand up on a matter of this sort. Nevertheless I say it because the obligation is heavier on us who believe in democracy to stand up and criticise and condemn and in no way condone this breach of faith because it is a minority of our people who are affected.

Let you remember this, those of you who believe in our system; in some way what has been done will react on the honour and the public reputation of every man in public life in Ireland. People will say—and you cannot prevent them from saying it—that we are all tarred with the same brush——

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Donnellan)

The defender of the faith!

Mr. MacEntee

It is not merely my concern, but it is the concern of every man who thinks that the political life of this country should be based on good faith. For that reason I regret and deeply regret that on this occasion, which is an occasion of great pride to us on these benches, because at last we are vindicated by our opponents, there should be a section of our people who feel that they have been tricked and deceived. This should have been an occasion for general goodwill. I think, alas, that it has been marred by the way in which this good thing, this eminently desirable thing, has been accomplished.

Few political actions, of course, are absolutely unalloyed by elements of good and bad, and this is signally the case in this instance. In so far as this removes all opportunity and excuse from those who introduced it to misrepresent the character and status of the State as they have done continually in the past, it is all to the good, and let us hope therefore that it will succeed in that aim. I confess, however, that I express that hope with a certain lack of assurance that it will fructify and be fully realised. The past record of the Deputies opposite belies any such hope. I remember the perverse ingenuity with which those responsible for this measure misdescribed, misrepresented and mis-called this State in the past, and I cannot but fear that if political expediency or the exigencies of the public situation required it, the same malevolent ingenuity will be invoked to confuse the people and weaken the State, as has been so often done before.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick)

Sad.

Mr. MacEntee

However, be that as it may be the hope I have mentioned vindicated or defeated, there remains still the stark, stubborn fact that because of the way in which this measure has emerged as a legislative proposal a large section of our people, a great body of our fellow-citizens, feel they have been tricked and deceived. By whatsoever standard it may be judged, whether it be by civic justice, political expediency or common fair play between man and man, that is a deplorable state of affairs. It may be in certain circumstances a disastrous state of affairs. That is why I am gravely perturbed at what has happened.

If a large section of citizens of a country think that they have been tricked and deceived by their public representatives, what respect can they have for these representatives? What respect can they have for the Assembly in which these representatives sit? How can citizens who have been thus treated accept willingly and whole-heartedly their obligations to the State? How can they be expected to fulfil their sometimes onerous duties which the State, through the decisions of its public representatives, imposes on them? If they are to endure, States must be based on a foundation of justice and fair play, a foundation that cannot be weakened or destroyed without doing damage to the whole body politic. That is particularly true of a democracy. In a democracy, the minority is wholly dependent on the corporate honour, integrity and good faith of the majority, for in a democracy there is no supreme authority to protect and defend the minority against the abuse of its power by a majority.

That the great mass of those of our people who resent the manner in which this Bill has been brought in will fulfil their obligations and discharge their duties there is no doubt whatever. Perhaps even there may be no doubt that everyone of those who feel aggrieved at the way their confidence has been misplaced will carry on as if that trust and confidence were as full and as unshaken as before. I sincerely hope that that will be the position. But, if they do, it is due to their own innate civic virtue and respect for the law, and not because of any virtue which resides in their former representatives who represent them no longer, nor for any respect which they retain for them or the Party to which they belong, and, if they do, the merit is theirs and not yours. Perhaps, also, if they do, some thanks may be due to the recorded facts of history, so that it may be that at long last some good has come out of the civil war.

The Taoiseach, in recommending this measure to the House, said that one of the things that had moved him to initiate it was that he hoped by it to take the gun out of politics. We who have seen good Irishmen murdered because they were loyal servants of the State most fervently hope and pray that his purpose will be realised. Yet is it not vain for the Taoiseach to hope to take the gun out of politics while his own Ministers, the Minister for External Affairs, the Minister for Health and, most startling of all, the Minister for Justice glorify and exalt the gunmen?

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely the Deputy is now going away from this Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

No. The policy which the Government have been pursuing will not take the gun out of politics. If we want to achieve that object, we must punish severely and relentlessly every individual who turns a gun upon his neighbour, whether it be out of private revenge or, ostensibly, for a public purpose. We must act on the principle that a person who would use a gun to intimidate his fellow citizens or to coerce them in public actions or political opinions is an enemy of democracy and is unfit to enjoy the rights of a citizen in a democratic State. We must stand firmly on the judgment that such a man is an enemy of the people and we must make it clear to him that by resorting to the gun in public affairs he has put himself outside the pale of human sympathy and human compassion. Only by adhering to that position can the gun be taken out of Irish politics. It certainly cannot be banished from them by trying to placate the gunmen.

If the Taoiseach does not feel himself strong enough to act on that policy, then he ought to resign, he ought to get out, or we shall have only chaos and anarchy here. For, more than any other type of state, democracy may become an easy prey to lawlessness and disorder, and, more than any other type of state, democracy demands firm government and just government and there cannot be firm government or impartial government or just government if one section of law breakers is to be put above the law and granted partial immunity from the consequences of their crimes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now getting away from the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

I am dealing——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is dealing with the general policy of the Government, which does not arise.

Mr. MacEntee

I am dealing with the plea that this Bill is going to take the gun out of politics. When the Taoiseach used that argument, that one of the things which this Bill would do would be to take the gun out of politics, he overlooked the fact that what did bring the gun into politics in 1922 was just that feeling of exasperation and resentment that the minority of our people feel now. That minority has been taught to place responsibility for the Civil War on us. Even in his speech on this Bill, the Taoiseach, by implication, sought still to sustain that. What brought the gun into politics was the fact that the majority of the Deputies in Dáil Éireann, men who had pledged themselves to the Irish Republic, who had been elected to maintain it, voted seven months later to go, as the late Kevin O'Higgins declared, "into the British Empire with their heads up."

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now going into the Civil War, which has been avoided.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

An Ceann Comhairle

In the opinion of the Chair, the Deputy is getting quite out of order.

Mr. MacEntee

May I submit to you, Sir, that the Taoiseach, in recommending the Bill to the House, quoted from certain speeches made during the debates on the Treaty. He contended that everything which has been done in this Bill had its fountain source in the Treaty. He quoted from the late Kevin O'Higgins. I am quoting Kevin O'Higgins also, and I am showing that, so far from being republicans, so far from lifting a finger since 1922 to bring the present condition of affairs about, those who were the chief supporters and advocates of the Treaty, with clear-sighted vision, knew what they were doing, and, in the words of Kevin O'Higgins, declared: "We are going into the British Empire with our heads up."

It is not for me to say how they are going out of it. That is what brought the gun into Irish politics: broken pledges and shattered trust. I am not going to suggest that the people who now feel themselves tricked and deceived are going to bring it back into Irish politics or at least are going to introduce it into Irish politics on their behalf for the first time. Presumably, if they do not it is only because the temper and tradition of those who feel themselves tricked and deceived to-day differ from the temper and tradition of those who experienced a like disillusionment in 1922. But the resentment will fester, and will not make for a healthy feeling in public affairs. On the contrary, it will afford a favourable medium for those enemies of human liberty who spread the germs of suspicion and distrust about public men by which the existence of democratic States is most endangered.

Therefore, however acceptable the provisions of this Bill may be to virtually every member of the Dáil, nevertheless the fact remains that those responsible for its introduction should have disclosed their purpose to the electors when they asked for their confidence at the last general election. If the Taoiseach at that time held the convictions which he so forcibly expressed on Wednesday, and no doubt he did, surely, in all good faith, he should have unfolded these views in his election address, in his speeches and in his canvass to his constituents. Then they could have voted for him for what he now proclaims himself to be, and always to have been, a convinced republican separatist, instead of being deceived into voting for him for what he only purported to be, a strong and uncompromising adherent of the Commonwealth and a devoted admirer of the Crown. The Taoiseach has expressed his natural pride in what is for him, no doubt, a great occasion, but how much greater it would have been for him, and for the nation, if it had not been marred by the circumstances to which I have referred. As it is, it might have been, as I have already said, in more propitious circumstances, accepted with goodwill by all our people, without giving the shock of betrayal to a large number.

Mr. Donnellan

Are you worried about those people?

Mr. MacEntee

I am worried about the betrayal of any honest Irishman. I am saying to every man in public life that in these circumstances an injury to one is an injury to all, and that will be brought home to you some day. If I may say so, there are only two parallels for this in Irish history. The first I have referred to. The other was long anterior in history to it——

Mr. MacBride

The first was when you apologised for your part in this unfortunate insurrection in order to save your own neck.

Mr. MacEntee

I am glad that the Minister for External Affairs has intervened. I was going to give him the charity of my silence but there is something which will require from him an answer, something which I hope when he is winding up the debates he will answer.

The Taoiseach says that this Bill will take the gun out of politics. What is the foundation for that statement? Is it anything more than the belief that the demands of the gunmen are satisfied by this Bill? Has the Taoiseach anything more than that to support his contention? Has his Minister for External Affairs been able to give him any guarantee? Deputy Fitzpatrick, last night, said that he was here speaking on behalf of the men who have kept the guns in politics for the last 20 years. Has he been able to give the Taoiseach any guarantee or has there been any treaty, any guarantee or any definite understanding with these men that the guns will, in fact, be taken out of politics? The argument which the Taoiseach has used in support of the Bill is an argument that an inexperienced lawyer after a superficial glance at his brief might be betrayed into making, but it is unworthy of a man of his forensic skill and experience. It is a false argument, and an analysis will show that from the viewpoint of ordered government, it is an argument not in favour of this Bill but against it. To say that this Bill will take the guns out of politics is to concede the victory to the gunmen. If they are going to put away their guns because this Bill is being brought in, then they have won. But it is not, and let me make this clear, it is not the guns nor the gunmen who have enabled this thing to be done: it is the men who stood up to the gunmen, the loyal servants of this State who stood up to them, aye, and laid down their lives to ensure that the gunmen in an illegal conspiracy would never bend the legitimate Government of the Irish people to their will.

Let me ask the Taoiseach again, has he any foundation for that statement of his except a pious belief? What have been the aims of the men who have been carrying the guns in Irish politics since 1930? What sort of a republic have they visualised? It certainly is not the republic of 1916, neither is it the republic proclaimed and established in 1919, the republic overthrown by force of arms in 1922 and 1923.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now out of order.

Mr. MacEntee

Neither is it—

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is out of order.

Mr. MacEntee

I am talking about the republic.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not. He is talking about a certain section of people.

Mr. MacEntee

We have been told by the Taoiseach that the Bill is going to satisfy that section of people. We have been told by Deputy Fitzpatrick that it is going to satisfy these people. I am entitled, surely, to examine that contention, and arising out of my examination, to put certain questions to the members of this House and to the members of the Government. As I was saying, it certainly is not the republic whose constitution was enacted by the Irish people and which exists to-day. The republic which is referred to in the Bill now before the House is something far different. The men who have been carrying the guns in Irish politics for the last 30 years, the men whom the Taoiseach tells the House are going to be satisfied with the Bill, were standing for something altogether different. Its true nature can best be gleaned from a notable declaration made by the present Minister for External Affairs when he proposed that a political organisation be formed to organise and consolidate the republic on the basis of the possession and administration by the workers and the working farmers, the land instruments of production, distribution and exchange. If that declaration left any doubt as to what was the purpose of Mr. MacBride, as he then was, in establishing this organisation he subsequently removed that doubt when he declared that the means by which these objects could be achieved were by organising committees of action among industrial and agricultural workers behind the revolutionary government for the organisation of a workers' and a working farmers' republic.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is out of order.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, Sir, I am in your hands, but surely where we have a Bill before us declaring that this is——

An Ceann Comhairle

I told the Deputy about four minutes ago that he was out of order. He proceeded on the came lines, and started again with "But surely ...." The Deputy purported to state that he wanted specially to reply to the Minister for External Affairs, and not to this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

No, Sir, I have continuously addressed myself to one argument which has been submitted to this House by the Taoiseach in support of this Bill—that this Bill is going to satisfy the section who have been carrying guns in Irish politics since 1930. I, Sir, am going to show the House, and I think I am entitled to show it, what, in fact, this section has stood for. Surely I cannot be debarred from doing that. I must answer the Taoiseach. I think the public interest demands that I should answer the Taoiseach. I must answer Deputy Fitzpatrick. I must ask a few questions of Deputy Fitzpatrick and of the Minister for External Affairs, and of other members of this House who have declared in the past that they were standing for quite a different type of republic to that in existence to-day.

The Taoiseach tells me that the people who fought against that republic for 11 years are now going to put down their arms because he brings in a Bill to declare in fact that we have always been a republic. Surely I am entitled to show what these opponents of the republic have stood for and to permit the Members of the Dáil and the people——

Mr. Donnellan

The opponents of the Royal Republic.

Mr. MacEntee

——to come to a conclusion upon that issue through the instrumentality of their own good judgment and reason. In 1933 the men for whom Deputy Fitzpatrick professes to speak in this House—Deputy Fitzpatrick, who has said that he has held every rank in this organisation; that he has been a member of the Army Council and Chief-of-Staff—proclaimed the type of republic they wanted when they said:—

"We believe that the organisation of Irish life demands the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange in a State based on the needs of the mass of the people."

Later in the same year—I do not know whether Deputy Fitzpatrick was then Chief-of-Staff or whether the Minister for External Affairs was Chief-of-Staff, but they were both, I think, members of the Army Council—they declared:—

"We believe that the organisation of Irish life demands the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange...."

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is repeating himself.

Mr. MacEntee

No, Sir, I am not repeating myself. One statement was made in January 1933 and was reaffirmed in April, 1933, on a most solemn occasion. The Deputies opposite may laugh but if statements like this are made at the graveside of the men who died in 1916 they are likely to leave a lasting impression on those who hear them and it is very doubtful whether a Bill like this is going to make them depart from the principles that were laid down in 1933 and to which they assented in 1933. I have a number of other statements here which are phrased in precisely the same words. The formula was as binding upon the members of this organisation as any solemn oath or test was ever binding upon the members of any society or legislature. But, so that there may be no misunderstanding as to where precisely this organisation stood, they emphasised the significance of their declarations in the following words:—

"But there is another lesson to be gleaned from the land policy of the republican army. It asserts that no man, no group, no part of human society can own land."

Now, I say that these and other expositions of political faith issued by members of this Dáil exist to confound the Taoiseach's belief that this measure of his will take the guns out of Irish politics—unless the men who made those statements get up here now and repudiate them and say they no longer stand for the things which they professed to stand for in 1933. Side by side with this organisation, there existed then another——

Mr. C. Lehane

The Deputy is trying to make mischief.

Mr. MacEntee

——organisation which calls itself the Workers' Revolutionary Party and its——

Mr. Commons

What about the Monaghan Bacon Curing Company?

Mr. MacEntee

——object was to organise the vanguard of the Irish working-class into a revolutionary Workers' Party which will lead the daily struggles of the workers and which will fight to overthrow the capitalist State and establish an Irish Workers' Socialist Republic.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Norton)

And you sent delegates to Russia for guns to use against the Irish people.

Mr. Boland

Ask the man beside you about that. He can tell you all about that.

Mr. Norton

This is the man who is quoting Irish revolutionary workers.

Mr. Boland

I say that the Minister is saying too much about that. He has said that once too often, Sir.

Mr. Norton

Let us hear about it from the other bench.

Mr. Boland

No, let us hear it from the Government Benches.

Mr. Norton

You got Russian guns to——

Mr. Boland

There is the man who did it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Boland

Call him to order.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Remember that you are not in O'Connell Street now.

Mr. Norton

Nor in Portrane either.

Mr. MacEntee

I have said that an organisation——

An Ceann Comhairle

That organisation is not relevant to this discussion.

Mr. MacEntee

Surely, Sir, it is. While a spokesman of that organisation is present in this House, surely I am entitled to ask him whether this Bill is going to fulfil his aims? Surely I am entitled——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not entitled to ask about every section of the community now and whether this Bill will fulfil their aims.

Mr. MacEntee

I am entitled, surely, to ask the Leader of the Labour Party whether he still believes that after the passage of this Bill it will be necessary to maintain an organisation——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not entitled to ask that question.

Mr. MacEntee

Surely, Sir——

Deputies

The Chair.

Mr. MacEntee

Am I not entitled to ask the Leader of the Labour Party——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has been out of order for two-thirds of his speech.

Mr. Norton

And no other Deputy would have been allowed to remain out of order for so long.

Mr. S. Brady

That is a reflection on the Chair.

Mr. MacEntee

If I say that outside this House there are men who stand for the establishment of a workers' republic, based on the nationalisation——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not prepared to hear any more about the workers' republic in this debate.

Mr. MacEntee

That is on record. One would have thought that this is a debate in which there would be no limitation to an expression of opinion——

An Ceann Comhairle

On what?

Mr. MacEntee

We have been told here that we were proclaimed a republic. There are other forms of republic——

Mr. Donnellan

You are one.

Mr. MacEntee

——which men have envisaged than that which exists here to-day. Am I not entitled, when the Taoiseach makes his plea that this Bill is going to satisfy those men, to ask to have put before the House what precisely those men stand for. Am I entitled to ask the members of this Assembly to ask themselves the question whether in fact such men will be satisfied with this Bill? However, Sir, we have sitting here in this House Deputy Cowan who yesterday said that he stood for "an economic democracy." Am I entitled to analyse that phrase and try to show what, in fact, it connotes when Deputy Cowan uses it? Surely, if the Deputy says that he is supporting this Bill because it is going to lead to "economic democracy" I am entitled to show the House what, in the Deputy's own words, this phrase connotes; and then to ask, with that fact before their minds, whether they will or will not vote for a Bill which leads along that road. I do not think it does lead along that road, but others might be persuaded that Deputy Cowan is right and that that is the way in which we are tending.

Here is what Deputy Cowan understands by an "economic democracy":

"the destruction of capitalism, the establishment of a socialist republic for all Ireland, the severance of the political link with the British Empire, membership of the European Federation or League of Socialist Republics... public control of industries and the utilisation of the profits of industry by the State in the interests of the people."

Is Deputy Cowan going to be satisfied with this Bill? That is a very important question. That is a question which should have an answer; because Deputy Cowan has put on record what he proposes to do in order to bring about this condition of "economic democracy" which he wishes to bring into existence here. He has stated that for that purpose he proposes to use

"the returning emigrants and the demobilised soldiers...to take their place in the struggle for the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a socialist republic."

If Deputy Cowan is going to use the demobilised soldiers to establish a socialist republic is he going to "take the gun out of politics "—because the Taoiseach believes that this Bill will do just that.

Some Deputies may say, of course, that this is only Deputy Cowan. What has he got to do with Deputy Larkin and his particular republic, or with the Minister for External Affairs and his particular republic, or with the gun men outside Dáil Eireann and their particular republic? In order to fully expose the weakness of the Taoiseach's argument that is what I now propose to show.

The Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Larkin and Deputy Cowan are old team mates. Those who associate with them politically would do well to keep that before their minds and equally to keep before their minds that Deputy Larkin is the keyman. Now, because of his control over this association and because of his control over the Labour Party and the Tánaiste and over the representatives of the Labour Party in the Government, he is probably the most powerful man in the Coalition. As a letter which he wrote to the Irish Press has revealed the Tánaiste of this Government is little better than Deputy Larkin's puppet, and must dance to his tune. Hence-forward, when the Tánaiste appears on a public occasion he should be received with musical honours, and I suggest that the tune to be played by the band should be Dance, Ballerina, Dance.

Mr. Donnellan

It was the Soldier's Song that saved you on Sunday.

Mr. Norton

Is this to be permitted?

An Ceann Comhairle

It has nothing at all to do with the debate.

Mr. MacBride

How long is the Deputy going to be permitted to continue in this vein?

Mr. MacEntee

Anybody has only to refer to the Irish Press and to the letter——

An Ceann Comhairle

This debate has nothing to do with any letter.

Mr. Norton

I take it, Sir, that we will be allowed to reply to this if the Deputy is permitted to continue by the Chair.

Mr. Aiken

Was it not bad enough to upset the '98 Commemoration?

Mr. Norton

Will we be out of order if we reply to this?

Mr. C. Lehane

Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Brady upset the Commemoration.

Mr. Brady

You were the principal leader of the gang. I say that here and I will make you stand over it too.

Mr. C. Lehane

I will make you withdraw that elsewhere.

Mr. Brady

Deputy Lehane drew me into this. I had been silent until then but I shall defend myself here, or outside, against him.

Mr. MacEntee

I have said that the Minister for External Affairs and the Leader of the Labour Party and the outcast from Clann na Poblachta have been political team-mates.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with this.

Mr. MacEntee

It has, Sir. Surely, we are entitled on a Bill of this kind to consider the future development of this State.

An Ceann Comhairle

But not the association of Deputies in this House years back.

Mr. Aiken

I have sat here for the last couple of days listening to Deputy Cowan and others going back over every detail of Irish politics for the past 25 years and some of them over the past 100 years. I submit that as the Taoiseach said this Bill will "take the gun out of politics," and if, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, this Bill is going to satisfy the men with whom he was associated and who were responsible for the murder of Garda in the last seven years, Deputy MacEntee is entitled to examine the question as to whether or not this Bill will "take the gun out of politics."

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Was the Deputy in the House when I spoke?

Mr. Aiken

I was.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

You must have been listening to somebody else.

Mr. Rooney

Does the Deputy disagree with his chief?

Mr. MacEntee

May I resume?

An Ceann Comhairle

If in order, yes.

Mr. MacEntee

I assume you will be the judge of that. I think it is important that the country should know that, apart altogether from the public and ostentatious association of certain members in this House, and certain associations in the Coalition, there is another nexus which binds them which is not open to the public gaze. I think the matter is important because these men are going to exercise an influence upon the development of the republic which is referred to in this Bill—the republic which, according to Deputy Fitzpatrick, is going to be brought into existence. As I have already said, I think the Deputy is mistaken in that view. Nevertheless, since some members of the House take that view, may I be entitled to show what is likely to ensue?

An Ceann Comhairle

A point was raised by Deputy Aiken that Deputies had gone back over 25 years, or more, of Irish history. They did advert to developments as they appeared to them without apportioning praise, or blame, or casting aspersions upon anybody. They did that certainly while I was in the Chair.

Mr. Aiken

I am afraid they went beyond that when you were not in the Chair.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Corish)

The debate was clean until Deputy MacEntee started to speak.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not propose to go back 25 years. Is it in order to go back, figuratively speaking, to the day before yesterday? Is it in order to go back to something that happened just before the last general election? I do not want to be out of order, but there should be some indication as to what limits are going to be imposed on me.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Murphy)

Get a new chairman for him.

Mr. MacEntee

I am told that a Deputy was allowed, without let or hindrance by the Chair, to stigmatise me as pro-British. The Chair did not object. I have heard incidents in my life many years ago, 31 years ago, held up here, discussed here in terms that certainly were not complimentary to me, and I did not hear the Chair intervene. However, that is a matter between the Chair and myself. I should like to be permitted to proceed upon what I think is a very serious aspect of this Bill. I have tried to show, within the limits permitted to me by the rules of order, that the type of republic which the Minister for External Affairs stood for, the type of republic which the Leader of the Labour Party stands for——

An Ceann Comhairle

Does this Bill affect whatever type of republic will be set up?

Mr. MacEntee

We are told that this Bill is going to satisfy all these men.

An Ceann Comhairle

If things develop as the Deputy is afraid they will subsequently, there will be ample opportunities of debating that.

Mr. MacEntee

If things develop as these gentlemen want, the tragedy is that there will be no opportunity for debating them.

Mr. Donnellan

Mischief, mischief, mischief!

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy's tone would help to prevent such things if there were any danger of them happening.

Mr. Corish

He is the makings of the best Communist in the country; he has been trying to stir up trouble since he was defeated last February.

Mr. MacEntee

I suppose, Sir, that is in order?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not.

Mr. MacEntee

I have indicated what certain people have stood for. There has never been any retraction on their part, so far as I am aware, of any one of these statements. They held these views many years ago, and so far as I know they hold them to-day, and it is important that we and the public should know that.

Deputy Cowan, Deputy Con Lehane and the Minister for External Affairs came together to found Clann na Poblachta. The Minister for External Affairs, when he was plain Mr. MacBride, launched an organisation to organise and consolidate the republic on the basis which I have outlined. With his colleague, Deputy Con Lehane, he declared: "We believe the organisation of Irish life demands the ownership of the means of production and exchange." Deputy Larkin, the present Leader of the Labour Party, urged his followers to organise in order to establish a workers' republic based on the confiscation of private property, the nationalisation of industry, transport and banks, and of the means of production and exchange. Deputy Cowan has declared that he seeks the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a Socialist republic. To this end he proposes to enlist the returning emigrants and the demobilised soldiers in an army for the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of a Socialist republic.

Here is the important aspect. For these synonymous and identical aims the gentlemen I have mentioned brought the gun into politics. Are they fools enough to think that if they have abandoned the purposes for which they sent men to their deaths—I do not believe that all of them have— that their quondam followers have abandoned theirs? Are they foolish enough to believe that the men whom they organised and armed and disciplined in order to overthrow capitalism, and to nationalise industry and confiscate property and all the rest, are going to forego their aim because we pass this Bill? The republic described in this Bill has been in existence for over 11 years. Did that prevent arms being turned against it in the past? Will that prevent arms being turned against it in the future?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Not if you can help it.