Did the existence of that republic prevent arms being turned against it in the past? Will this Bill prevent arms being turned against it in the future?
The Republic of Ireland Bill (Resumed).
It is not necessary for the Deputy to repeat himself.
I was merely taking up the thread of my statement where it was broken. I do not believe it will, unless a public renunciation is made by the Minister for External Affairs, the Leader of the Labour Party and those who support them, of the aims which they submitted to their followers 16 or 17 years ago.
I do not think that that arises.
I think it does, because——
I shall have to ask the Deputy to sit down. On three or four occasions he has disagreed with the Chair.
Well, Sir——
The Deputy will sit down.
In ordinary circumstances, and if one did not want to keep this debate on a high level, one would be tempted to follow Deputy MacEntee into the mischievous, deliberately mischievous, paths which he has chosen to follow to-day. But I do not want to pursue Deputy MacEntee in the exhibition of political buffoonery that he carried on to-day.
"Buffoonery" must be withdrawn.
Political buffoonery.
It must be withdrawn.
All right, Sir. In order to comply with the requirements of the House, I will withdraw it here, but—
The withdrawal must be unqualified.
There will be no illusions in the public mind as to what I think of it when I speak on this subject elsewhere to-morrow. The Deputy's performance here was a circus-like performance; it could not have been worse on a Bill of this kind, which ought to command the serious consideration of every Party, as it commanded the serious consideration and a dignified approach on the part of the Leader of Deputy MacEntee's own Party. Deputy MacEntee could not be expected to comply with the standards of decency set by other people. He must insist on this occasion, as on all other occasions, in reducing the level of debate to the Biddy Moriarty standard. That is what the Deputy did to-day.
Deputy Lemass yesterday made one statement which, I think, must be corrected. I think the Deputy is indebted to his imagination for the facts, or alleged facts, which he served up to the House. He told us yesterday that the External Relations Act was opposed by all Parties in the House and that the reason for opposing it was because all Parties felt that Fianna Fáil was going too far. Therefore, they opposed the Act. If that were intended to be a serious contribution to this debate, all I can say is that Deputy Lemass's statements are falsified by the factual records which exist in that connection.
I do not want to disclose what took place at a conference between the Leader of Deputy Lemass's Party and myself two or three days before the External Relations Bill was introduced, but I will ask Deputy de Valera to stand up and acknowledge, as he must, that a few days before the Bill was introduced, the Labour Party, at his invitation, saw him and urged that the Bill ought not to be introduced. I do not need to refer to the discussion which then took place. It is sufficient for me to quote the Official Dáil Debates on the matter. I speak in this debate from probably a unique position inasmuch as the Labour Party in 1936 was the only Party in the House which opposed the enactment of the External Relations Bill. Speaking for the Labour Party—and I think it is necessary to quote this in juxta-position with what Deputy Lemass has said—I said at column 1395 of Volume 64, No. 5, of the Dáil Debates:—
"We have had here a situation from 1922 to 1936 where a certain King occupied a position in our Constitution, and exercised a certain influence in our external relations, but it could be always said in respect of that monarch that he was thrust upon us; that he was one of the pivots in the Treaty which the President says has no legal, moral or binding force on our people. To the extent that that monarch was thrust upon us, and to the extent that we endeavoured to mitigate the worst features of his suzerainty over us, the President of this Government or any other Government could always claim in respect of this country that he was doing his best to remove the shackles of that Treaty. But the position has been fundamentally altered by the procedure which the President is now adopting. Up to the present we had a King who had been thrust upon us. Now that King has voluntarily declared his intention of abdicating; he has indicated that, so far as this country is concerned, and all the countries in respect of which he functioned as monarch, he does not desire to continue to exercise those functions. Thus we have in this country, in Great Britain and in the other countries of the Commonwealth a situation where the King has voluntarily abdicated. So far as those other countries are concerned, if they want to preserve the succession of Kings, new and special legislation must be introduced.
One could understand the desire of Britain, one could understand the desire of countries in the Commonwealth which are largely populated by people of British extraction, to devise some kind of legislation designed to continue the monarchy and designed to preserve some kind of dynastic succession. But is there the same need here to introduce legislation for that purpose? Is there the same need here to introduce legislation with the same speed as those other countries in the Commonwealth? I should have imagined that the President would have contended that our whole tradition, our whole national outlook, our aspirations as a motherland, are reasons which ought to compel the Saorstát to refuse to enact this legislation with the haste of the past two days. A King is now to be appointed with a speed which must amaze everybody in this country. The President is not satisfied with arranging his legislation in such a way—if it must be arranged in that way—as to provide for the abdication of the King who has declared he no longer desires to rule as monarch. The President is not satisfied with going that far, and leaving the remainder of the position open for the people to consider. The President wants not merely to provide for the abdication of King Edward VIII but he wants, in addition, under a guillotine motion, and in a few hours on Saturday, a day upon which the Dáil rarely meets, to provide for the appointment of a successor to the abdicated King. I cannot understand what grounds of urgency can be pleaded for legislation of that kind."
That speech was made from the Labour Party Benches on 12th December, 1936, and all the wiseacres in the Dáil reproved the Labour Party for daring to oppose the Bill. We had advice from all sides of the House, I must say, at that time telling us of the dire and dismal things that would follow the adoption of the Labour Party line. One Leader of a Party at that time, who has now left the House, said then what some people were saying last week. I was urging at that time that, with all the sensationalism abroad by reason of the King's abdication in the circumstances in which that abdication was brought about, the people ought not to be asked in 48 hours to appoint a new King, and to provide for the fractured law of succession in this country, that they ought to get a chance, and ought not to be whisked into this legislation without knowing what was involved. I was pleading then for time, so that the public could settle down to a non-sensational appreciation of the situation, so that we might garner an informed opinion as to what the people then thought and might fashion our legislation solely with regard to Irish interests, and not from the point of view of trying to re-regularise a condition which had been fractured by the King's abdication. I was pleading for time, and urging that the House ought not to be brought together on Saturday to pass this Bill under a guillotine motion, and I said that, if the House had not been brought together on Saturday, the Dáil would not normally meet until the following February, and in the meantime we would have got some information as to what people thought on the matter. The then Deputy MacDermot, speaking on that motion, said what folk have been saying for 12 years up to last week. He said:—
"Deputy Norton has argued that it could be left over to February or to some later date in order to give the people of this country full time to realise its implications. What status, I wonder, does Deputy Norton propose for this country during that interval? Is he prepared for those months to go out of the Commonwealth and accept all the logical consequences of being out of the Commonwealth? Is he prepared to see the people of this country, of every class, treated as aliens by Great Britain? Is he prepared to see the trade of this country subject to all restrictions to which the trade of countries not in the British Commonwealth is subject? If he is, he should have said so plainly in his speech."
That was the temper of this House in 1936 when that Bill was discussed. I think it is to the credit of the Labour Party that, while all other Parties went into the Division Lobby in favour of the Executive Authority (External Relations) Bill, 1936, the one Party which then consistently voted against the Bill was the Labour Party. Its wisdom, whatever might have been thought of it then, has surely been justified by the developments which have taken place here during the past few days. I quote these statements merely for the purpose of saying that Deputy Lemass was departing violently from the truth when he asserted that the Bill was opposed by all Parties because the Government at the time was supposed to be going too far. It was opposed by the Labour Party because we felt that its enactment was putting another shackle on our people, and, over the past 12 years, that has been clearly recognised, more clearly in the past few years, until now we have reached a stage at which nobody is so intellectually or constitutionally poor as to pay tribute to the External Relations Act of 1936. It is going now and its going will be welcomed by everybody who believes in peace amongst our own people in their own land.
We have had, of course, predictions of the strife and friction which would follow the enactment of this repeal. We have had Cassandras telling that doom and disaster were around the corner for the nation. We have had the poison pens—and, worse still, the poison tongues—let loose in an effort to frustrate the intentions of this Government to repeal the Act. But we have lived to see good sense and statesmanship triumph, and now we have reached a position in which not only we, on the one part, but Britain and those countries associated with the British in the Commonwealth of Nations, now recognise that our title deeds to repeal this Act are in no way in question, that as an independent legislature we have that right. There has been no demur by any other Governments at the fact that we propose to repeal this Act. Instead, they have all, with a statesmanship that does each of them credit, recognised our right to repeal the Act and have agreed to adjust themselves to the new relationships which will follow the enactment of this Bill. That has been a happy development and it has been a healthy development. It shows that the old concepts of imperialism which once governed the relations of one nation and another, are, in portions of the world, at all events, receding, and that there is now a wider and deeper appreciation of what independence means in national affairs. Therefore, with that halcyon picture outside, with a certainty now that none of the friction and strife which was forecast for us is going to materialise, with a conviction that the world now recognises the republic of Ireland over the area of jurisdiction of that republic, we can look upon this Bill calmly and dispassionately and we can analyse its value and its usefulness to our people, not merely at home but to the status which it will give Irishmen and women throughout the world.
I claim for this Bill, as other speakers have claimed, that it will bring domestic peace to this island of ours, which has too long been torn by domestic political strife. I say, further, that this Bill perhaps more than anything else that has occurred in the past 25 years, is going to bring about a measure of domestic peace on a high political level such as we have never experienced before. The status of our nation which was often in doubt, often misty, surrounded by constitutional fogs emitted by the External Relations Act, is now clear and beyond doubt. It is clear now to our own people and to the world that this portion of Ireland over which the writ of this Parliament runs is the republic of Ireland. There is no further ambiguity about that.
No one will have to ask in future whether this portion of Ireland is in the Commonwealth or outside it, or half in and half out. Irishmen throughout the world will not now be called upon to explain why, if we claim to be a republic, we have adopted the unique practice adopted by no other republic in the world of finding a foreign King to accredit our representatives to a foreign State. All that cloudiness and mistiness is now gone. In the future, this is the republic of Ireland, and the Head of that republic of Ireland, the President, will accredit our representatives to foreign countries. That is something to be thankful for, and something in which we should all take pride. This Irish republic does not belong to Fianna Fáil, to the Labour Party or to the inter-Party Government. Life here in this country of ours is what each and every one of us makes it. Ireland, to each and every one of us, is our motherland, and everything that makes Ireland strong exalts Ireland, and everything that exalts Ireland ought to be occasion for gratification amongst each and every member of the House. It is because of that fact that yesterday and to-day ought to be occasions of thankfulness by the Irish people, and particularly by those who are privileged, by the votes of the people, to sit in this House.
I want, therefore, to look upon the enactment of this Bill as something which brings joy to the heart of each and every Irishman and I deplore the circus-like tactics of any Deputy who tries to play down this Bill or tries to give the impression that Irishmen are not gratified that the constitutional status of the nation has been clarified before the whole world. So long as we had a Constitution which failed to declare that the nation was a republic, so long this country would continue to throw up men and women who would strive according to their own lights to achieve that republic. Their methods may be wrong, their reasoning may be wrong, their approach might be wrong —that mattered little from the standpoint of securing domestic peace and happiness. The very fact that they reasoned differently, that they thought differently, that their approaches were different, was all brought about by the fact that they could not see here a living constitutional republic and, as long as it did not exist, there was provided the motive power for periodic convulsions of national feeling, all striving to attain what they thought was the national objective, the establishment of a republic. Now that they know what the position is, nobody need be convulsed now, nobody need demonstrate now over the establishment of a republic in the Twenty-Six Counties of Ireland.
That has been clearly and definitely established, and in the future it will be a dastardly crime, and ought to be, against the Irish nation to raise guns or to lift guns in this portion of Ireland to establish here what this Bill does definitely establish, namely, an Irish republic within the jurisdiction of this Parliament. We ought, therefore, as the Taoiseach said yesterday, have no more guns in Irish politics. God knows, we had enough of them, and they did their mischievous work, too. When you think of the cemeteries around the country that are whitened by the bones of Irishmen, struggling and striving over the past 25 years to achieve a republic, there ought now at all events to be no more political violence in this part of Ireland. There ought to be no more violence, and because of that, there certainly should be no more of the repression of which we have had too much over the past 25 years. One thing we ought to take special joy in is that political executions, as we have known them in the past, an insult to all that Irish nationalism stood for, are now at an end. Let us hope the political executions are gone for ever, and that no more will it be necessary for us to witness the disedifying spectacle of shooting and hanging Irishmen who have managed to break the law because of their embroilment in political strife with the object of establishing here the Irish republic.
What a different story we might tell to-day, what a different story might have been told over the past 25 years, if we had been able 25 years ago, even in the Twenty-Six Counties, to declare that this was the republic of Ireland. When we look back over the vista of those 25 years and see the milestones of sadness, bitterness and tragedy which mark that vista, because of the indeterminate constitutional position of the State which functioned here, surely we should take heart to-day and, looking back over the road we have travelled, realise that in these days we are doing something which would have gladdened the hearts of many Irishmen if they had been able to do these things 25 years ago. Now the nation may unite, as it could never unite before, in taking pride in the status which we have achieved and in seeking to secure for the nation that full measure of its national manhood, the establishment, not of a 26-county republic, but the establishment of an indivisible Irish republic for the 32 counties of Ireland.
The fact that we have been able to reach the position which we occupy to-day, leaving behind us bitterness and friction, is an achievement of which I think all Parties are entitled to feel proud. The eradication of domestic political strife will enable us, or should enable us, to concentrate on national reconstruction and national regeneration without dissipating our energies in barren strife over the political status of the nation. Before the world now at all events we can talk with one voice. We can tell the world what our constitutional position is and the world, from this day forward, will be in no doubt that when people talk about Éire or Ireland they talk about the Republic of Ireland and not Éire or Ireland with the misty Constitution we have had in the past. Rooted here in the future then in peace, we can offer friendship to all the countries of the world with which we have ties. In the matter of trade, in the matter of citizenship with Britain and the other countries which comprise the Commonwealth of Nations we can offer reciprocity on a basis which will safeguard the rights of our citizens in those countries and which will permit of the free flow of trade with all these countries. So far as Britain is concerned, there is opened up for the British people in their relationship with this country a new understanding and a new appreciation of values.
The desirability of establishing our constitutional position without ambiguity has now been clearly recognised by Britain and the other countries of the Commonwealth. So far as Britain is concerned now there can be no question in any way of our national inferiority to Britain, no question that our independence is one with less than the British. There can be no question now that our independence is in any way openly or impliedly subservient to any form or any symbol imposed from outside or adopted by us from outside. Our relationship therefore on the independence level, so far as this portion of the country is concerned vis-a-vis Britain, is a relationship of absolutely independent countries, a relationship which permits of no doubt and no ambiguity as to the respective measure of independence on either side.
We are now left with one problem, happily a problem that does not disunite, or even tend to disunite, our people, and that is the problem of Partition. That is the one outstanding problem between this country and Britain. Happily, it is the one outstanding problem on which we can all agree and towards the solution of which we can contribute, with geared-up enthusiasm and geared-up loyalty of the national feelings of our people, in order to end the mutilation of the Irish nation. Partition is not an Irish problem in the sense that it was not made by Ireland. Partition is a British-made problem. Partition, as we know it to-day and as we knew it in 1920, is the product of an ascendancy and an imperialism which has now departed or is departing. Partition, so far as Britain in her relationship with this country is concerned, is a suppurating wound which prevents the fullest co-operation between the British and the Irish nation. Partition, so long as it exists here, is tarnishing the good name by which Britain would desire to be known throughout the world.
We who are aware of the realities of Partition, we who can see Partition in practice, we who can judge the claims of those who vaunt their partitionist propensities, can put a true value on those claims. We see Partition as the result of British imperialism that created it. We see Partition maintained for the aggrandisement of a junta in the North who are concerned with their own elevation and their own power of control, striving to maintain portion of Ireland as a puppet State of the British Empire against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people. That junta protests its loyalty to the British King, but in our lifetime we have seen the same junta not unwilling to make a treaty with the German people for the purpose of uprooting the King from his constitutional position in the Six Counties. Yet these people, who not so long ago boasted that they would have pleasure in kicking the Crown into the Boyne, are the same people who now parade their artificial loyalty in the hope of continuing to obtain British Government support for the puppet Government which exists in the Six Counties.
At all events, on that subject of Partition, there is one task facing each and every Party here. No matter what issues may divide us in other spheres, we must dedicate ourselves to the task of ending Partition. This Bill, while we are removing every other source of constitutional discord amongst our people, provides us with an unrivalled opportunity of uniting our forces, so that we may use the strength of the Irish at home and the strength of the Irish spread throughout the world in one last crusade to bring to an end the partition of the Irish nation.
Our demands in that respect may not in themselves be sufficient, but I think —and I speak with some sense of responsibility in the matter—that we are entitled to say to the British Government that it has a moral responsibility to make a contribution to the ending of Partition here, and the greater the contribution it makes, the sooner it brings an end to Partition, the sooner it will open for the British people and for the Irish people an era of permanent peace between the two countries.
Nobody here is actuated by deliberate hostility towards Britain. Many mistake the love of our people for Ireland as hostility to Britain. In this matter we ask Britain only to renounce her right to occupy the six northern counties of Ireland. We ask Britain to do in respect of the whole of Ireland what Britain has had to do in respect of Burma. If it is right to give the Burmese the right of self-determination, decided by the entire Burmese nation, how can Britain claim the moral or legal right to deny the same measure of self-determination to one of the oldest countries in the world?
We must, I think, say to Britain— and this is evidence of the value of putting our point of view on the subject before the world—that Britain must not be misled into thinking that the bitterness and malice which flow from certain people in the Six Counties represent loyalty to the British King or the British Crown or the British people. That bitterness and malice are just a masquerade for loyalty, and Britain will be all the richer in her store of knowledge as to the difficulties in which Partition is wrapped and as to the ways by which Partition can best be ended if she does not make the mistake of imagining that the bitter tirades which emanate from the Six Counties represent loyalty to Britain. They represent the screeches of a junta concerned with maintaining themselves in power.
I believe that this Bill, which is now being enacted by the Dáil, and which, I hope, will be enacted by the votes of every organised Party in the Dáil, not only provides common ground for all Parties on Partition, but, as I said at the outset, will bring domestic peace to our own land and will clarify Ireland's constitutional position before the world. Surely, in these days, there is much to be said for a Bill which offers so much to our people and offers it without the possibility that it will bring either reaction or strife with those countries with which we have intimate association.
The members of the Fianna Fáil Party support any advance that is made to make this country free and independent from shore to shore. I was very delighted to hear the Tánaiste's appeal for unity and common understanding and goodwill. If I might digress a little, I would say that I wish the same motives had prompted the same man to pay homage to the men of '98 on last Sunday.
That is quite wide of the mark.
If you were there, the same as I was there——
I was. That does not make it relevant either.
And to see what was happening, to see the danger of hundreds of people being killed in O'Connell Street.
I am not going to listen to the Deputy on that.
However, I will not go any further on it.
Why did you not keep you little barking dog quiet?
I heard Deputy Cowan speaking here yesterday evening. He went through the history of the last 25 years, and he boasted very strongly that he voted against the Constitution of 1937 which is making it possible to introduce this Bill dealing with the External Relations Act.
Would the Deputy develop that argument?
Deputy Cowan went further to point out the reasons why he voted against it. Every statement that he made pointing out the reasons why he voted against it was only making the case for the Constitution of 1937 that he so much hated at that particular period. Reference was made to the continued pressure to undermine the confidence of the people of this State. Another gentleman, Deputy Oliver Flanagan, referred to Deputy MacEntee and he said that he was doing damage in this country. I must tell Deputy Flanagan that Deputy MacEntee was a soldier of Ireland in 1916 and 1922 and onwards.
By accident.
And defended the republic when Deputy Flanagan and some of his satellites were not——
Were not born.
Were not known of.
Including yourself. We did not see the Deputy in an emergency uniform.
Yes, I was.
After the war.
The Taoiseach, when he introduced this Bill, spoke of harmony, concord and justice. I hope that some members of his Party will adopt that spirit. We are, as alleged, entering into a "new era." Deputy de Valera, my honoured chief, was responsible for bringing about that state of affairs, with the Fianna Fáil Party, and he gave an opportunity to every man to express his views in a constitutional manner. There is a feeling in the country that there is an attempt by certain political juntas to deprive people of the right of free speech, and I hope that that is not the freedom we are to look forward to. I hope and pray that after this day's work and the work of the last few days, we will have peace and harmony, and that that feeling of there being an attempt to obstruct people in public speaking will go.
The Deputy might come to the Bill.
I am referring to the appeal made by the Taoiseach when he said that this Bill would be responsible for peace, concord, good fellowship and goodwill among all our people, and I am referring to a point which is very essential for freedom in any democratic country in the world, that nobody should interfere with the right of free speech and that no juntas should interfere with people who are expressing their views. If any man is prevented from expressing his views by people who hold contrary views, or if he is victimised in any way, there are courts in this country that will uphold him.
The Deputy is travelling very far from the Bill.
I am only taking a cue from the Taoiseach. I do not want to embarrass you.
Parsnips.
This political seagull, Deputy Collins, never gives anybody a chance to speak. I emphasise that down through the ages people here have died for complete freedom. I want to be put on record as saying that I have been a witness during the last year or two to the adoption of certain tactics by people who claim to be extreme republicans with regard to freedom of speech, and I hope that the unity, concord, justice and understanding that the Taoiseach has appealed for will be adopted in the future.
I suggest that the Deputy pass on from that.
On numerous occasions in this House Deputy de Valera pointed out that we were an independent republic. He pointed out that we were completely free to do anything we liked within our own country. Some opposition speakers made the point that we were not free to develop our own policy and economy in this country. That is a transgression of the facts and they tried to misrepresent them. We are told by the same people that there will be an air of lightness in the whole country. I welcome this new step to advance the freedom of the country. The republic, as has been stated in this House, was first declared in 1916, and was ratified by Dáil Éireann on 21st January, 1919, but, as my honoured chief said, I hope that, having taken this step, we will not go back on it.
You are a fine armchair soldier.
I was not an armchair soldier. I was a member of the Irish Republican Army and proud of it.
Not when there was any fighting to be done.
Deputy Collins ought to keep quiet.
On two occasions in Irish history the republic was sold but it was not sold by members of the Fianna Fáil Party.
What about the "empty formula"?
I hope that, this step being taken, it will be determined for all time. I hope that we are not going to go back again on history and that our march will be forward and not backward.
With regard to the North of Ireland, we are all anxious no matter what our political views, to see the day that we will have regained the Six Counties that have been taken away from us by Britain. If any man is striving to do that and if any man has striven it is the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party. When he was Taoiseach here with the Fianna Fáil Party he strove hard for that end. He has taken the line of trying to forget the past bitterness and of trying to re-unite the nation after the Civil War. No man can take that from him. We wish to see this nation on the onward march we have so much longed for. The Government members have tried to misrepresent us on numerous occasions. Listening to the statements made by members of some political Parties, you would imagine that something wonderful had happened by the introduction of this Bill. It would not have been accomplished but for the various steps taken by the Fianna Fáil Party in removing the obstacles that remained after the Treaty, the stepping-stone to further freedom. Under the 1937 Constitution, the Treaty was completely scrapped. Those juntas in the inter-Party Government have tried to misrepresent those facts. We have made our statements from public platforms and told the people what we stood for.
The Deputy should deal with the republic.
I am dealing with the republic.
Shouting at me that he is dealing with the republic does not necessarily make the Deputy deal with it. He has been dealing with the Fianna Fáil Party for the last ten minutes, and I suggest that he come to the Bill.
Does the Deputy say that the Treaty was abolished by the Constitution of 1937?
I answered you a few minutes ago, and I am not going to answer you again now.
Do you disagree with Deputy Lemass that the Treaty was a stepping stone?
No, I say that it was alleged to be a stepping stone.
This is not a court for cross-examination.
I wonder why the Treaty was amended in 1938 if it was abolished in 1937.
The Deputy can keep on wondering.
One thing is certain that Deputy Burke will keep on wondering.
The cue taken by certain Deputies of the Opposition was most commendable. They tried by their good example to re-unite all sections of our people. I would go a long way to see all the bitterness and misunderstanding removed. In all countries, after a civil war a certain amount of bitterness exists. Now that we have decided on constitutional methods and that we are to be guided by a majority rule in all matters concerning the Parliament of our country, I should like to make an appeal to those people who think they are right in taking a different stand so far as this country is concerned. They are only causing trouble to themselves and are not advancing this country one bit. We have a great opportunity under the Constitution of 1937, one iota of which does not need to be changed in order to embrace the 32 Counties. That Constitution was brought in by Fianna Fáil and was framed with the sole idea of trying to meet the wishes of all sections of our people and to advance along those lines. After the civil war in the United States, Abraham Lincoln declared that a civil war was sometimes inevitable. The passage of time has proved that those who fought against the Treaty at that time were right.
Abraham Lincoln did not say that.
I am not quoting Abraham Lincoln now. History has proved that we were right because we did not agree to the boundary put up between north and south and to the Boundary Commission in 1926 and all the consequences which followed. Our job now in this Parliament is to try as far as possible——
To undo the harm you did.
—to unite shoulder to shoulder to undo the harm that was done by people associated with the building of that boundary in 1926 which tore our country asunder. I do not want to have any recriminations. The position is that that wrong was done by the people on the opposite benches, who claimed during the last few days that they were ardent republicans all the time. I welcome the conversion of these people to our point of view. When the Fianna Fáil organisation was formed in 1926 we took a certain stand and we have never deviated from that. If you want any evidence on that point, you have only to remember what our chief did by travelling in the United States, Canada, and other places.
The Deputy is now dealing with Canada and other places.
I am dealing with the Six Counties.
I am very sorry to have to interrupt the Deputy, but if he does not come to the Bill very shortly I will have to ask him to resume his seat.
I am dealing with Partition.
The Deputy, so far as I know, was dealing with the United States, Canada, and Australia.
May I claim your indulgence for a moment to make a case for our Party here? We have been striving to make this country an independent republic.
The Chair is not interested in what any Party did in endeavouring to make the country an independent republic. The Chair is interested in something relevant to the Bill before the Dáil.
The chief point we are concerned with is what steps we are to take to bring the Six Counties under this republican Constitution of 1937. Deputy Cowan gave me justification for this, because he voted against the 1937 Constitution and wore the blue shirt at that particular period.
The fact is that I was a member of the Labour Party then. Your history is entirely wrong.
No matter what our domestic differences may be, I hope that none of us on either side of the House will lose any opportunity to justify the men who went to a premature grave to make it possible that we should have a Parliament in this country and a republic, not for the Twenty-Six Counties, but for the 32 Counties, free, independent and sovereign, without any shackles with any country in the world, and able to join as a free, independent country in the community of nations as a whole.
As Deputy M. O'Higgins and Deputy Fitzpatrick have stated, it would be well for the dignity of this House if those who disagree with the Bill before the House would follow the headline set by Deputies Sheldon and Dockrell. Deputy Dockrell stated that the way that Ireland was going to the republican goal was not the way that he would travel, but in its journey he wished it God speed. Deputy Sheldon had somewhat of a different view on it, because he said that at the appropriate moment he will bring in an amendment asking for a postponement of the effect of this Act. During the course of his speech he conceded that the Crown was an irritant to the people. In that, his expression was mild, because the Taoiseach in his opening speech declared without any equivocation what the Crown meant. It is to remove the influence of the Crown absolutely and entirely that this Bill was introduced. Is there any republican who is not glad at least that this Bill has been introduced? It is nothing more or less than a confirmation of the declaration of the Irish Republic made in 1916 and ratified in 1919. There are some people—there are a few in this House—who believe that the republic still exists de jure and de facto. They believe that it has always been in existence, and they are quite prepared to agree wholeheartedly to the enactment of this Bill. There are people in this House who have taken an oath to the Irish Republic: to defend the republic against all its enemies, foreign and domestic. These people have kept their oath and kept faith with the generations of republicans who have preceded them. Deputy Sheldon's difficulty and Deputy Dockrell's difficulty are in themselves surely indications that in the minds of a minority, until this Bill was introduced, there was unity between this country and what is known as the Commonwealth of Nations. If that was the view of a minority it is well that once and for all the position should be clarified. The Fianna Fáil Party claim that unquestionably a republic existed, and as the Taoiseach rightly said in his opening speech, he did not know where he was in regard to that declaration, and neither did anybody else. The fact remains that this minority, ably represented by such excellent Deputies as Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Sheldon, at least, in the Parliament of the nation, gave expression to the doubt that they had. Surely, that at least is a slight justification for the action of the Government in declaring beyond yea or nay the position of this country before the world.
Some sneers have been passed on this Bill because it claims to exercise jurisdiction over part of our territory, and because on that account it is untenable and unacceptable to Irish republicans. What was the position of France from 1870 to 1916 when Alsace and Lorraine were separated from the mother country? Did France call herself anything else but the Republic of France, and if any analogy is needed as a justification for our Government's action, it is, to some extent, vindicated by that chapter in the world's history.
If I were to follow Deputy Lemass and Deputy MacEntee through the gutter of vituperation and venomous spite which they have uttered here, it would be legitimately politic for me to dwell on certain actions which the Fianna Fáil Party had taken at their entry into this House in relation to the sanctity of a sacred oath. It would be equally justifiable for me to refer to Deputy Lemass's coarse references to the influence of Clann na Poblachta in the formulation of this Bill. I refrain from doing anything of the kind because I think that this occasion is one where any true republican must rejoice at the fact that the prospects of the unification of our people are enhanced by the introduction of this Bill. The materialistic republicanism with which we were associated for the past 16 years is now to be replaced by a Bill which resurrects the spiritual aspects of Irish republicanism. The Taoiseach has brought us back to the stage in our history when, as we were in 1919 and 1920, we can be united again under the banner of the Irish Republic.
Scathing references have been made to the conversion of Fine Gael. I am not here to defend Fine Gael, but I am here to state that it is a proud day for any republican to have to admit into the concourse of republicans any Irishman, no matter what his past may have been. Since I came to this House I have met some of the younger members of the Fine Gael Party, and I am proud to state that I have been edified by their conduct and by their national outlook, and that I hope they have contributed largely, as I believe they have, to the necessity for the introduction of this Bill, and because in those Fine Gael Benches I see again the resurrection of the republicanism which existed before 1922. If that occurs, surely this nation will owe a debt of gratitude to the Taoiseach, who introduced this Bill. If, as we hope, this Bill and the discussion on it will be promoted and consummated in a spirit that is consistent with the true spirit of Irish republicanism I think that we in this House can express our sincere gratitude to God for being privileged to be present here to see the vindication of that effort.
When I was speaking in this House on the 22nd July last I, on the Vote for the Taoiseach's Department, made so bold as to state that I was perfectly certain that when the pages of history came to be written the name of John A. Costello would be written thereon in letters not of gold but of something much more beautiful, namely, spiritual achievement. Later on in the same debate I was criticised for putting the mantle of Wolfe Tone around the Taoiseach and declaring that we were going to march forward to an Irish republic under his leadership and guidance, or words to that effect. I am sorry that I can claim no prophetic knowledge but I am glad that even at that stage I was able to anticipate, or I thought that I could anticipate, what we might hope for from the leader of the present Government. We in Clann na Poblachta have joined that Government. We have joined that Government as Irish republicans. We hope that our influence has been good in the development of the true republican spirit of Ireland. We hope that we will have contributed our share to the unification of all Parties in the struggle for the realisation of Irish ideals and, if we have done that, we shall have justified our existence. Not only that—we shall, I hope, have effected the consummation of many a desire that bitterness will be ended and that instead peace and concord will prevail.
I do not intend to delay the House very long, but I feel that I should like to say a few words on this Bill. I think I may say without claiming too much that my people, though not republican, strove hard for the good of the people of Ireland as a whole. In doing that work they did not intend that there should be any complexity with Great Britain any more than with any other nation. Their aim was always the good of Ireland and they felt that, in the main, it was wise to be bound up, economically as well as geographically, with the Commonwealth of Nations. I, in turn, held that opinion and for quite a long time I understood that we were within the British Commonwealth of Nations. Then for a number of years we had a complex state of affairs in regard to our international status. I am very pleased that the position has now been made plain because heretofore we were neither in the Commonwealth nor really outside it. We claimed any benefits that might come to us by virtue of being a member of the Commonwealth while at the same time we claimed that we were not in it. Surely no decent, responsible Irish person, belonging either to the majority class or the minority class, could stand such hypocrisy.
I am glad that at this hour we had a statesman—Mr. John A. Costello, whom we all admire—to come in here and make the statement which he made on Wednesday last. It was a statement of which the world might well be proud, and of which we on this side of the House are certainly proud. We had to wait 26 years for Mr. Costello to come in here and introduce a Bill proclaiming our republic. I grant that it applies to only Twenty-Six Counties, but nevertheless the measure ought to please all Irish men and women. They will realise that at last we have something in common with which to bind ourselves together, and that there can now be an end to personal political animosity. We are a republic now, and we should take off our coats and work for the people. I take Mr. Costello's word for it that through this measure the people of this country will be united as they never were before. I accept also his statement that our friendly, cultural and economic relations with Great Britain have not been cut off. We realise that it is essential for this country to have a customer and Great Britain is our best customer. Nobody, not even you or I, can live without a friend or a friendly neighbour. Mr. Costello has explained to us and to the world in general that this measure will make no actual difference, and that the terrible prophecies which were made to members on this side of the House in regard to our future relations with Great Britain, because we dared to proclaim ourselves to be an independent republic, with all its terrible implications, were ill-founded.
As I have already said, I was not a republican and I can, therefore, look at this Bill in an unbiased way. In future Irish citizenship will, in my opinion, be recognised in an honourable way. We can now truly say we are Irish and be proud of it. There is another matter to which I should like to refer. If I may be permitted to say so, we all realise the importance of friendly relations with Great Britain. The Taoiseach has said that this measure will make no difference to these relations. They, in turn, understand our reasons for taking this action—firstly, of uniting once and for all our people and, secondly, in order to have a better understanding and better relations generally.
I would like to say a word for a group which is commonly referred to as "the minority group". In the past we had Irish men and women calling themselves republicans without our country being truly a republic. Now we have got freedom and surely that freedom must mean the same for every man and woman throughout the country. It may have happened in the past that because some of us were not in that so-called minority some may have thought we believed we had a right "to swing our weight," if I may put it that way, over the minority. The minority group may have felt that that was the situation. That was never the situation. I am sure that every one of us here believes that every man and woman has a right to a "fair crack of the whip" and they will get that through this republic. There is no cause for fear. We all understand and appreciate that that minority has done much for the freedom of Ireland, some of them, perhaps, years before any of us were born, and we would like to give them all the credit of being good Irish men and women. Whether they are in the majority or in the minority makes no difference to us. We want them to feel that they have a perfect freedom just the same as everybody else. There is no complex of any kind. We all realise that they played their part as Irish men and women in the past.
The same approach would help enormously, I think, so far as the problem of Partition is concerned. We must show the people in the six northern counties that we in Southern Ireland have thrown in our lot with a republic and that we are satisfied with that. I must confess that I was amazed during some of this debate. I heard Deputies whom I would have thought should have been delighted with a republic, criticise it. To put it simply and without exaggeration, they were inclined to show bitterness against the Government for introducing this Bill. I think it is time that we should sink our personal differences and forget the past. Our aim should be to encourage the people of Northern Ireland by our spirit of unity down here. As well as that, we should encourage them by our increased prosperity to come down and join us in a united Ireland. That is, after all, the ambition of every decent Irish man and woman.
I think, too, that the passage of this Bill will give some encouragement to our own people in the Twenty-Six Counties. We now have our republic and we have put an end to constitutional issues once and for all. The people generally feel that too much time has been wasted in the past through the introduction of legislation of one kind or another clarifying our constitutional status. All that legislation is merely a bundle of paper now. In the past it meant little to the people except to throw a smoke-screen over their eyes. They have grown somewhat disillusioned and slightly fearful that their representatives in Dáil Éireann are losing touch with their common problems and worries. The people are happy now in the knowledge that we have at last achieved a republic and satisfied the ambitions of most of them in that respect. We must now look to their problems.
Comment has been made that the Taoiseach chose the wrong time for the introduction of this Bill. I think that he chose the right time just before the Christmas recess. We can now start in the New Year full of ambition to work for the people. That is our first duty. The Taoiseach has, in my opinion, allayed the uneasiness of those people who were not satisfied with our erstwhile state when we were half within the Commonwealth and half without it. The late Tom Kettle, a gallant Irishman, once wrote: "Since so much has been written, let us write the rest and let us write it clearly." That is what the Taoiseach has done. I stand for what he did because he has put us once more on the map as an independent nation.
Ní raibh fúm focal a rá gur chuimhnigh mé orm féin. Nuair a chuimhnigh mé gur teachta mé ón dúthaigh a mbíodh an Piarsach ann ag foghlaim Gaeilge, agus Éamonn Ceant agus Mac Diarmuda agus Plunkett, dúirt mé liom féin go mba chóir dom rud éicín a rá, mar bhí an Piarsach ar mo theaghlach féin agus cuid dá chomrádaithe. Nach bródúil an lá é seo againn agus cuid den rud a cheap sé dhá dhéanamh againn? Tá fáilte an domhain roimh an mBille seo agus tá fáilte ag an tír roimhe. An bhfeiceann sibh an ghrian a chuir Dia sa spéir ag scalladh isteach tríd an bhfuinneoig sin ar m'aghaidh? Tá sí ag cur fáilte roimh an mBille agus dá bheannú. Is cosúil le lár an tsamhraidh é i gceart-lár dubh an gheimhridh ó labhair an Taoiseach. Gan aimhreas, is cosúil. An méid teachta a labhair le trí lá dúirt siad nach raibh tada anois uainn ach an tórainn a sciobadh. Bheinnse bródúil dá mba fhéidir an tórainn a sciobadh, mise agus mo dhream, ach tá rud is mó ná sin le déanamh againn, dá mhéid é. Nár dhúirt an Piarsach nach tír gan teanga? Beidh mise ag dul thar theach an Phiarsaigh i Rosmuc ar mo bhealach abhaile as seo go meán oíche. Ardóidh mé mo hata in ómós dó féin agus dá mhuintir agus don dream a bhí in éindigh leis, agus cuirfidh mé seacht míle beannacht le na n-anam. Ach tá faitíos orm go mba fhéidir go dtiocfadh guth ón teach ar ais ag fiafraí dhíom: "cár fhág sibh an Ghaeilge le sé bliana fichead, nó céard a rinne sibh dhi?" Le trí lá támuid ag sciolladh anseo agus níor labhradh ach cúpla focal Gaeilge. Cén dochar ach go bhfuil Gaeilge mhaith ag go leor de na teachtaí a labhair. An faitíos atá oraibh í a labhairt agus sompla maith a thaibhairt don tír? Sé bliana fichead ó shoin, nuair a bhí díospóireacht ar bun sa Dáil creidim gur labhradh i bhfad níos mó Gaeilge. Nach shin é a chruthaíos go raibh níos mó meas againn ar an nGaeilge an t-am úd? Le sé bliana fichead tá na mílte punt dá chaitheamh ar mhúineadh na Gaeilge againn, dhá ligean orainn go bhfuilmid dá múineadh. Cá bhfuil an toradh air sin? Níl a dhath le feiceál nó le clos sa teach seo. Tá sean-fhocal ann adeir go mbíonn a chosúlacht lena chois. Ach níl an cruthú anseo. Má tá fearg orm, níl neart agam air, ach caithfidh mé suaimhniú.
An bhféadfadh rud ar bith a bheith níos nádúrtha ná ag luí le réasún níos mó ná gurb é an tAire Seán Mac Giolla Bríde atá leis an gcloich chóipeála a chur ar an mBille seo ar son na ndaoine? Seán Mac Giolla Bríde, mac an Maoir agus Maud Gonne, a mháthair. Ar éigin a bhí mé mórán le airde mo ghlúine nuair a chonnaic mé den chéad uair í nuair a tháinig sí go Cárna. Nárbh í an pabhsaé gléigeal í? Bhí geallta bád sa gCaiseal agus bhí na sluaite daoine ann. Bhí dream áirid ag iarraidh fáilte a léamh roimh Lord Zetland ar an gcladach nuair a tháinig sé den loing chogaidh. Chomhairligh Maud Gonne agus an tAthair Ó Murchadha (a cailleadh le goirid ina shagart pobail i Mainistir Mhuigh Eo) chomhairligh siad dóibh gan aon fháilte a chur roimhe, agus ghlac na daoine a gcomhairle, agus b'éigean do na buicíní an fháilte a léamh ar bhord an tsoithigh ar an bhfairrge. Is maith liom go bhfuair sí saol fada agus go bhfuil sí beo inniu le gníomh a mic a fheiceál. Go mba fada buan í!
Dúirt na daoine atá caillte go mion minic an t-amhrán sin: "Cé air a bhfuil faitíos '98 a chasadh"? Nach mór an feall nach bhfuil cuid acu beo inniu go gcasfadh siad amhrán eile do mholadh 1948, agus muid ar fad ag teacht le chéile agus muid a choinneál le chéile. In ainm Dé agus na Maighdine Muire, ó d'fhágamar an choill agus gur tháinigeamar ar an réiteach, tagaimis le chéile, mar, chomh cinnte is atámuid anseo, imeoidh sinne, agus tiocfaidh daoine in ár ndiaidh sa teach seo, is ná bíodh sé le rá acu nár tháinigeamar le chéile tar éis an lae inniu le haghaidh an tórainn a sciobadh agus a scaipeadh agus an Ghaeilge a chur in áirde.
Like all the other members of this House who claim that they are republicans, I welcome this measure, which clears the air once and for all as to what our status is and what we are to be referred to in the future. The position was, of course, as the Taoiseach described it, a sort of political purgatory. We were asked time and time again were we or were we not a republic, and we were put in the position that we could not definitely declare whether we were in the Commonwealth or out of it. This Bill clears the air definitely and it assures us that we are and will be from this onwards an Irish Republic and, as far as the Twenty-Six Counties are concerned, we will be referred to as that by the nations of the world and looked up to as free and independent within our own little State in our own little island. The pity is that we cannot, even at this stage, give any definite guarantee or have any definite pointer as to what can be done to reunite our country and bring in the six north-eastern counties which have caused so much strife and talk and political differences between the North and the South for many years.
I think the progress that has been made by this Government since last February must give great hope and confidence to the younger generation of republicans and nationalists. In the short space of a few years it may be possible to reach agreement so that the 32 Counties will bear the same name as the Twenty-Six Counties bear now. The Taoiseach was clear and emphatic in his introduction of this measure and he stressed that no wrong will be done to any section of the community, and if the northern people who fear that association with the Twenty-Six Counties would be in any way detrimental to their interests would consider the situation in a broad, open manner, they will see that there can be no doubt that their excuses for staying outside the republic of Ireland are now without any foundation.
I know intimately some of the younger generation of northern nationalists and republicans and I can say that so far as all religious beliefs—Protestants, Presbyterians and Catholics—are concerned, they are all most anxious, irrespective of their religion, that the Border should be done away with. Unfortunately, the ruling classes in the North are determined that while they have any say in the matter the Six Counties will remain loyal to the Crown and to the British Commonwealth, but we are hoping that perhaps some day in the near future the Border will go. We have Sir Basil Brooke on the other side of the Border thumping the table and saying: "Not an inch will the Government of Northern Ireland move." They are determined not to alter by one iota their attitude in this matter and until, within the Six Counties, something arises which will put sense into the heads of steadfast and headstrong people such as Sir Basil Brooke and his colleagues, I doubt if even the best approaches from this Government, with an assurance from England that they will be as helpful as they can and will not be antagonistic to the unification of our territory, we shall be able to make much progress. Very little can happen while the ascendancy classes and aristocratic classes in Northern Ireland hold sway.
When this Government was formed six or eight months ago, any person who would tell me that within the year we would have moved this far would have found me not at all inclined to that belief. I would not have the slightest notion of believing any such statement. Like many others here, I had a certain suspicion that the Fine Gael Party and their supporters throughout the country would not ask to be taken out of the British Commonwealth. I am very glad to find, from the short association I have had with them, that the members of the Fine Gael organisation, and especially the younger element, are even more republican than I was myself. I once thought, like Sherman of old and the Indians, that the only good Englishman was a dead one, and that the only way to get anything for this country from England was by force, or at the point of the bayonet. Now I realise that we are all alike in our ideals, and, if this Bill has done nothing else, it has brought about a perfect understanding between the different Parties who form this Government.
Credit for the introduction of this Bill goes to the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs, and there is no doubt that this country's status in the eyes of the world has increased immensely in the past eight months by reason of the impression created by the Minister for External Affairs in the different countries he has visited and at the different conferences he has attended and the help given to him by the Taoiseach. These two men deserve great credit and great respect not alone from Deputies but from the country as a whole for what they have done to further Irish interests, so far as the outside world is concerned. The British Government and Mr. Attlee, the Prime Minister, have been most helpful in the matter, too. They have recognised quickly enough this country's status and are willing to give us the concessions we enjoy, to be on friendly terms with us, to honour all trade agreements made and to live in friendly and close co-operation with us, their next-door neighbours. That is all Irish people want—the forgetting of past spleens and differences, which has been brought about by the introduction of this Bill.
We must, however, realise that political freedom for the Twenty-Six Counties and even for the 32 Counties of Eire goes hand in hand with economic freedom. I once heard political freedom or a republic described as a purse made of pure gold but empty when handed to the people. It would be very little use to have a republic here and to be in economic difficulty, unable to provide for the Irish people or to secure their interests in the matter of the provision of employment for the people who are growing up; but, in the light of the trade agreements with England and other countries, the future for this country must be regarded as brighter, a position which must give a certain satisfaction to the members of this inter-Party Government who have proved in a short space of one year that they are able to do something of the doing of which there was no indication for 25 years past.
The happy relationship now set up and the Taoiseach's assurance that never again will it be necessary to put an Irishman to jail because of his political ideals, will give contentment and peace to those people who may still believe in force as a necessary means for the establishment of either a 26- or 32-county republic. There are at present in the six north-eastern counties young Irishmen who, we must all admit, are still under a foreign flag and still, if you like, aliens within their own country, and if these young fellows do not see something being done in the next few years, in the matter of the reunification of our country, they will be inclined to treat this Government in the same manner as its predecessor was treated. The wave of republicanism there will spread across the Border, and this Government may perhaps find that it may have to go back on the assurance it gave to Irish nationalists here, to the younger generation, who will go out in sympathy with their brothers across the Border. I believe that if the men who have introduced this Bill are given a chance, are given any help, they will, by peaceful evolution, be able to bring about reunification, and make this country what we would all like to see it, a 32-county independent republic.
The danger, of which we were told, of our becoming isolated if we declared the republic is something we are now glad to know cannot arise, because it is practically impossible to isolate Ireland. With so many millions of our people scattered to the four corners of the earth, their ties must always be with the country where they were born, and those ties are even stronger in the second generation than in the first. Their devotion to Ireland is much greater in many cases than that of those who originally came from Ireland. We could not possibly, therefore, ever be isolated from the outside world, and it is a fine thing, too, that, when our representatives go abroad, when our Ministers go to conferences, they can say that they represent, if not the whole of the 32 Counties, at least an independent republic of the Twenty-Six Counties, which is of their own making.
With the exception of a few bitter references in the course of the debate, the Bill has got practically unanimous support. Those who oppose it have their own reasons for doing so, but, in view of the assurance given that the small minority they represent will be treated on an equal footing with the majority, they should not worry as to their future. Slowly but surely now, we are moving along the road to complete ultimate freedom.
The Treaty was accepted as a stepping-stone. It was described by Michael Collins as not being his ideal, not what he wanted but freedom to achieve freedom. The oath of allegiance has gone and the External Relations Act is now being repealed, and the task which the Government have before them is one which they would be well advised to get down to. They should not let the grass grow under their feet in this respect, and perhaps in the very near future, or at least within a very few years, we will be able to come in here and declare proudly, happily and contentedly that the cause for which so many Irish men and women have died in the years gone by has now been reached in its ultimate aim, that the next republic that we declare here will be a republic for the 32 Counties of Eire and that the Government that introduces it and the Ministers concerned will be as honest and as sincere about it as they have been in introducing this measure.
I do not doubt for a moment that it is the wish of every man, irrespective of Party, to see this country free, and I have not the slightest doubt that in the ranks of Fianna Fáil there are as good and as honest nationalists as there are in the ranks of the Government. Therefore, when this perfect agreement exists between all members of this House, their job should be much easier. A more united front could not be presented to this Parliament or to the British Parliament and, with the efforts of all pulling together, we should bring about that which we so anxiously desire, the freedom and independence of our 32 Counties.
I support this Bill and in doing so I have some satisfaction, as I have personally always favoured the repeal of the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act and I suppose it is only human to be satisfied with the accomplishment of a viewpoint which one holds. I do so in particular because I regard the repeal of the Act as ending any question of doubt as to the status of this country. While I do not intend to traverse the ground that has been covered already, or to discuss the constitutional evolution which has resulted in this development, I think everyone will agree, no matter on what side of the House, that it was degrading not alone to the Parliament but to the people that they should be obliged to live under conditions in which some doubt existed as to the form of State which obtains. When we look at other countries, at the great nations of the world, at countries big and small, in almost every case one is struck by the fact that they are recognised as a particular form. A country like the United States of America is universally accepted as a republic, just as England is universally accepted as a kingdom. We here have the same right and feel the same desire to have our status internationally recognised and internationally accepted. For that reason possibly more than any other, I have always personally favoured the repeal of this Act.
In supporting the present measure, I think it is essential to have some short examination of the conditions which have contributed to this situation. When this State, which was then known as the Irish Free State, was established in 1922 under the Treaty between Great Britain and this country, this State was regarded under that Treaty as being a co-equal member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. While those who supported the Treaty and accepted the responsibility of implementing it accepted that position at that time, there were other people who took the opposite view, who regarded the Treaty as objectionable and who did not recognise the State as then established. Over the first ten years, developments took place, constitutional developments, which resulted in greatly extending and substantially increasing the freedom of action which the Government and Parliament had under the Treaty. Those developments culminated in the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1930 or 1931. In 1932, a change of Government brought with it a new policy, under which the new Government did not feel obliged to implement the Treaty or to work out the implications of the Treaty in practice. Beginning with the removal of the oath and the various amendments of the Constitution, finally a situation was arrived at in which the new Constitution of 1937 was introduced and passed. Prior to the introduction of that new Constitution, the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act became law in December, 1936. It retained the King for certain functions.
It has been alleged in the course of this debate that because the members of the Fine Gael Party at that time adhered to what they considered were their obligations as the followers of those who signed the Treaty for this country, feeling they were obliged to maintain that position or that it could be altered only by agreement, their action is inconsistent with their support of the present measure. The Taoiseach in introducing this measure adequately dealt with that contention when he said that once Britain by her actions, either expressed or implied, accepted the situation which resulted from the passage of the new Constitution, those who felt themselves under an obligation to honour what they considered was their word and which they regarded themselves as bound to, were released. However, the fact is that, over many years here, under successive Governments operating different policies, this country has achieved, and will finally under this Act achieve, complete and absolute independence over the Twenty-Six Counties. In achieving that, it has succeeded in establishing a type of State which has for generations been the aim of successive movements in this country.
But the compelling reason for removing this Act from the Statute Book, for clarifying our position is, on the one hand, to make our status quite clear to people outside as well as to those at home and, on the other, to enable any section in this country, who feel that they are in any way hampered or that their freedom of action is in any way restricted by the fact that we had some sort of association with the foreign monarch, to exercise fully their rights of citizenship. I think, no matter who may object to it, that the phrase which the Taoiseach has used—namely, that this Bill will take the gun out of politics— is appropriate, appropriate in the sense that for the last 26 years at different times small groups, either because of tradition or because of views which they held, possibly because after the revolution of 1916 they felt that they could not act in accordance with the lead which had been given to them or with the principles which they held dear, were not prepared to recognise the State established here. They sought occasionally, happily less frequently in recent times, to take action which resulted in shootings and in a number of deaths. Whether one agrees with their views or not, the fact is that these occurrences took place, and while it is a happy symptom that no shootings of that nature occurred in very recent years, that situation coloured political life here for the last 26 years and resulted in a number of people at one time or another being lodged in jail. That was always destructive of harmony in domestic politics and prevented the operation of normal constitutional, political action.
While the vast majority of the people accepted and recognised the lawfully elected Government there was, nevertheless, a rankling sense of injustice in the hearts of some people who felt that while we were associated in any form with the British Crown, we were preventing them from playing their part in the political life of the country. I think in that sense the phrase which the Taoiseach has used is appropriate and that, if examined in the light of history, it stands the test. I think everyone on all sides of the House shares his fervent hope that the enactment of this measure will once and for all end any resort to physical force against any person or servant of this State on political grounds.
The fact that since this measure was introduced we have succeeded in having our status internationally recognised is, I believe, a very substantial step forward. Whatever may be the contentions to the contrary, this is the first occasion on which the British Government and the Governments of other countries, members of the Commonwealth, recognised this country as a republic. Once we have got recognition for our status it is, I think, a legitimate hope that we shall get recognition for our claim to extend our sovereignty over the whole of the country.
It has been alleged that because this step has been taken we in the Fine Gael Party have broken faith with our followers. I have dealt earlier with the suggestion that members of this Party who were here in the past and who felt that they were obliged to adhere to the Treaty and to membership of the Commonwealth, are now inconsistent. I can, as I said at the outset, speak for myself and I feel that in this matter, not alone have I been consistent but when I look back on a discussion which took place here in June 1947, on the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs, reported in Vol. 107, column 44, I feel that I can support this measure and, in doing so, justly claim that my action has been consistent. I said then:—
"From time to time the Taoiseach refers to our external position, refers to the External Relations Act, and discusses our sovereignty. Very often he says that we are completely independent and that, if anyone has any doubts on the position, he has only to look up the External Relations Act and the Constitution and, further, that we can at any time, if we want to, repeal that Act. Certainly, I, for one, would far prefer to see that Act repealed than that we should continue this never-ending form of apology when we are not certain where we are and when we wish other people to believe that we are one thing whereas, in fact, we are another."
Later on I said:—
"I think the External Relations Act is a tricky manoeuvre and I think its abolition would enable this country to stand forth for what it is, to stand forth for what it has been in the past and, in the future, to stand forth as an independent State conscious of our status and of our history. I think it would be far more honest and far more in keeping with our position to repeal that Act."
While I believe that this step has resulted in the recognition for the first time of our position, it will also enable this country, as the Taoiseach has stated, to have far better relations with Britain than at any time in the past. I think anyone who examines the various constitutional developments here, will recognise that every time we succeeded in achieving some measure which enabled us to exercise more control, some measure which in some way contributed to increasing our liberty of action, some measure which, if it be possible to express it in that way, increased our independence, each successive step resulted in better and more cordial relations between the two countries.
It has been said in some quarters that this is an isolationist step, that it will result in this country treading a lone path. I think, whatever validity there is in that argument, falls to the ground when we examine, only taking into consideration the time that this Government has been in office, the number of agreements that have been made, the number of conferences which the Minister for External Affairs has attended, in each and every one of which the paramount aim of the Government and of the Minister has been to see that this country cooperates with other Governments and other nations either in establishing or attempting to establish peace and concorn or in working out agreements and arrangements under which the material well-being of peoples in different countries could be improved. We have made agreements this year, a trade agreement with Britain, with France and with the Netherlands. The Minister for External Affairs has represented the country at the Committee of European Co-operation in Paris. On each and every one of these occasions we have endeavoured, not alone to strengthen the ties which already exist between this country and other nations, but, where possible, to extend them and, where possible, to increase our association and to improve the contact which already existed.
I think that anyone seeing the results which have flowed, seeing the success which has attended these agreements, must realise that this step is not an isolationist step and that, on the contrary, it will contribute to greater harmony and greater friendship because it will enable us to work on a better basis, on a more sure foundation because Britain recognises and appreciates our point of view in a way in which she has not appreciated it in the past.
It has been stated that this step was taken at an inopportune time. The question has been put, why are you taking it now? Why are you breaking the link? Why is it being done at this moment? Of course, to anyone who asks that question I think it is a reasonable answer that most people who ask that question in that way would ask it in the same way no matter when a step of this kind was taken. The fact is this country has never wavered in its claim to complete and absolute independence and whether people at different times, in different ways, have expressed that claim or have sought the achievement of these aims by different methods, it has always been the aim, just as it is the aim of this Government, to achieve complete sovereignty over the Six Counties as well as over the Twenty-Six. To suggest that this step that is being taken will in some way impair the prospect of unity is, I believe, contrary to fact.
It is being alleged that because it is being taken, because the link is being broken, we will in some way estrange or antagonise the ruling classes in the Six Counties. That contention might have some validity if it was made in 1922 but, when one examines the relations of this country over the last 26 years, it becomes more and more obvious that, no matter how closely we were associated, no matter in what form the King was present here, the people in the Six Counties refused at any and every time to make even the slightest contribution or even to come a fraction of the journey towards reuniting the Six Counties and the Twenty-Six.
To say now that this step is an unfriendly gesture or that it has in some way dug a deeper gulf or in some way widened the breach between here and the ruling classes in the Six Counties is not only untrue but is flying deliberately in the face of facts. No matter what steps were taken by any Government over the last 26 years the answer in the North consistently has been "not an inch" and that is the same whether this Government or the past Government or the previous Government were passing legislation here or taking steps to increase or in some way to improve the status and, consequently, the character of this part of the country. I believe that that allegation and that claim has no foundation whatever.
While that is so, I think that everyone recognises, particularly the people of goodwill in Northern Ireland recognise, just as the people of goodwill in Britain recognise, that in the world at the present time the people of this country, because of our tradition and because of the fact that the vast majority here profess the Catholic faith, have a contribution to make to world events and to the establishment of world peace, a contribution which will enable ordinary people throughout the world to live their lives in ordered conditions of reasonable security. And, because we have that contribution to make, with the passage of time and as a result of the events which have taken place, fair-minded, independent people, no matter where they are, are forced inevitably to the conclusion that the solution of Partition must come and that the sooner those who are against its solution realise that the ending of Partition is inevitable, the sooner can this country play its part and contribute its quota to the betterment of conditions in the world, not alone to the physical and material rehabilitation of those countries that have been afflicted by war and all that war has meant, but to the spiritual strength of Europe and the world.
As I said earlier I do not feel called on to refute the allegation that this Party has broken faith with its supporters. I have always personally taken the view and have expressed at successive elections that I would endeavour in so far as I could to serve the interests of those whom I represent, and I used the phrase time and again "according as the changing circumstances of the time might require". I think it is a false conception of the duty of a representative to allege that this decision is breaking faith with supporters. If it is contended that this Party has supporters among the minority section in the country, it is equally true to say that the Party opposite has them. Experience since 1922 has shown that in the earlier years the majority of the minority in the community supported the Cumann na nGaedheal Government but, as time went on, the majority in the minority supported Fianna Fáil.
The allegation that we have in some way broken faith does not stand the test. I, at any rate, refute that suggestion and I do not propose to dwell at length upon it, because, as I said, I take the view that once a Deputy is elected it is a matter for himself, subject to the principles which he adheres to, to take whatever steps he believes are not alone in the interests of his constituents, but in the interests of the nation. I think it is not inappropriate at this stage to recall the words of Edmund Burke when returned as member for Bristol. All of us have experience of making speeches at the conclusion of a poll. Edmund Burke said on that occasion:—
"Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness, and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But, his unbiased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
I believe these words are appropriate on this occasion because, so far as I am personally concerned, I have adhered to the view which I expressed here last year and which I expressed on numerous occasions in public, that I favour the repeal of this Act, that I favour it on the ground that it clarifies our status and, more than that, I believe it offers an era of peace and concord not alone amongst our own people but, because of the recognition which we are achieving abroad by this step, that it must inevitably contribute in a substantial way to the unity of this country. The fact that it has been accepted is a testimony I believe to the righteousness of our claim to the sovereignty of the 32 Counties.
Tar éis an deá-shompla a thug an Teachta Ó Mongáin dúinn agus an achaine a dhein sé mar gheall ar labhairt na Gaeilge, ba mhaith liom beagán a rá agus, ar a laghad, tosnú as Gaeilge.
Táimse, in éineacht leis an Teachta Ó Mongáin, an-bhródúil as an mBille seo, agus an-bhródúil as toradh na hoibre atá idir lámha againn na laetheanta seo. Ní fheadar an bhfuil sé de cheart agam tagairt a dhéanamh don Tríú Céim den Bhille anois, ach tá a fhios agam go dtaitneoidh sé leis an Teachta Ó Mongáin a chloisint go bhfuil leasú curtha isteach san Oifig ag beirt againn de Chlann na Poblachta, chun ainm Gaeilge a chur isteach sa mBille mar ainm na tíre, sé sin, "Poblacht na hÉireann" chomh maith le "Republic of Ireland".
At this stage of the debate my intervention is, perhaps, somewhat belated. There will, however, be another stage and my remarks now will perhaps be more directed to that stage than to the one which is almost finished. I have been wondering what useful purpose has been served in the minds of the Deputies who have given us a historical review of the past 30 years. One is tempted to say an alleged historical review, because those Deputies who went into the history of the past 30 years could hardly be said to have given the history of Ireland during that period, but each to have given the history of his political Party from his Party's point of view. I suppose a useful purpose has been served by these Deputies from the point of view of the historian of later times, who will indeed have some job on hand to assess the merits and demerits that have been pointed out. But, from a national point of view, I wonder has any useful purpose been served.
With that in mind, I feel that when the next stage of the Bill is before the House the history of the past 30 years ought to be omitted and that, consonant with the desires expressed by most Deputies, our eyes should be directed to the future and not to the past. As I said, each Deputy, speaking for his own Party, claimed that any national advances made were to a great extent to the credit of his Party. Deputy Fitzpatrick, I thought, took the right line when he pointed out that each contributed his own quota. As those Deputies have claimed praise and have pointed out faults, I think that perhaps I am not out of order in taking a line from them to this extent, that I am entitled to claim some praise for the Party to which I have the honour to belong.
If nothing else were done by this Dáil, I think that this Republic of Ireland Bill is a complete justification of the birth and formation of Clann na Poblachta, which had as one of the principal planks of its platform the forgetting of past bitternesses, disputes and disagreements and facing the future with a united front. That hope has, to a very great extent, reached fruition in these historic days and I do not think it is improper for me or for any member of my Party to claim the credit which is our due in the bringing about of this state of affairs.
When Deputy Lemass had been speaking only a very short time the Minister for External Affairs intervened in the hope that Deputy Lemass would keep off the critical fault-finding line on which he was just beginning, but unfortunately without avail. If Deputy Lemass had then acceded to the request of the Minister, this debate would have been over much earlier and would have left much happier memories than unfortunately there will be in the minds of people who have been abused and accused perhaps sometimes in the wrong. However, it has taken its course, and, as I said in my opening statement, I do hope that on the next stage of the Bill there will be a different line pursued. After all, what individual is there in this House, or what Party, who can say "I never made a mistake," who can say "I never made a grievous mistake"? Why take our stand on the errors of other people, and how sensible it would be to take our stand on the merits which we ourselves profess?
Deputy Mongan made a very impassioned plea on behalf of the Irish language. I do not know if it is within the rules of order now to say, so as to ease the Deputy's mind, that there is an amendment going in on the Committee Stage to bring the Irish title of the country into the Bill. I think it was a necessary amendment to have put in. The debate has dragged on for a long time. I have expressed my dissatisfaction at the great length of the speeches that were made so that I feel it would be inconsistent on my part if I were to delay the House much longer. However, I have felt that I, like everyone else, should contribute some little quota to the debate.
Finally, when the last great day arrives for Ireland, when the abolition of the Border will come to be an accomplished fact, I hope that if we cannot at this stage forget the past that at least then we shall be able to face the future in that frame of mind and in the words of that great Irishman who was quoted by Deputy Mrs. Redmond—that we shall then be able to "keep the past for pride" and not for recriminations and fault finding.
We are not concerned to-day with the interpretation of the history of any period that is past. We are concerned with the moulding of the future, and with the circumstances and the opportunties of the future, so that Irishmen and Irishwomen may be able to make use of their opportunities, to develop their talents and to use the resources of this country to live here and to develop a civilization and a culture that is, and will be, an expression of our race. There is a tendency for people on political platforms, or in Parliamentary assemblies, to interpret history, and particularly to interpret the days that they are passing through. The tendency, very often, is to interpret it in terms of the blood that has been spilled in the past, but unfortunately, the real interpretation of passing days is to be found in the blood that follows them to-morrow.
If you want an interpretation of a period that is past in the history of Europe or in the history of the world from 1920 to 1939 you do not look for it in the blood that was spilled from 1914 to 1918 in that first world war. You look for it in the blood that was spilled in the ghastly tragedy of the world from 1939. When we discuss our affairs here we are looking to the future. We can learn nothing from the past, I think, that will help us in the future except to realise what were the opportunities that we lost that prevented the people in our time from making a better use of their lives and of giving greater service to our country.
Some of us came into public life when Irish volunteers were called for to defend the work of the Irish people, when the Irish Home Rule Bill was being brought before the British Parliament in the days before 1914. When we were asked to come into public life at that time we were asked to come and defend Irish tradition on the one hand and to defend the work of the Irish men and women of that day, working through peaceful political channels to work out the freedom of our country. Yesterday was the 35th anniversary of the day on which most people who are engaged in politics in Ireland to-day came, from avocations of one kind or another, into the political arena. What was the call that brought them together, the call that went up from the Rotunda rink on the night of the 25th November, 1913, the call that Irish volunteers were wanted:
1. To secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to all the people of Ireland.
2. To train, discipline, arm and equip a body of Irish volunteers for the above purpose.
3. To unite for this purpose Irishmen of every creed, and of every Party and class.
They came together to defend the work of a generation of Irish men and women in the political field. The circumstances of the time called them and set before them the objects that they wanted to attain as well as the manner in which they wanted to attain them. Unfortunately, at that particular time they had, for the peaceful purposes they had in view, to set out "to train, arm and equip a body of Irish volunteers to secure and maintain the rights and liberties common to all the people of Ireland," and by doing so maintain our nation—to help our nation to live and to find its destiny in the world.
As I have said, that was the way in which most people who are working in Ireland to-day found themselves in the political life of this country. Their words at that particular time would have had no significance in the world if it were not for the work, the deeds and the character of the people who carried out these deeds. In the same way, none of our words ever since would have had any significance or any power of achievement but for the way in which men and women bent their minds, their energies and their courage to do the work of the day that was passing, with strong hope and strong faith in the future.
It so happened that the appeal for the defence of the Home Rule Bill at that time had, as circumstances turned out, to call people to different purposes as the days passed. On the 21st January, 1919, our people found their representatives assembled in Dublin and there they declared their outlook to the world. Part of that declaration of their independence showed what they wanted it for. The Irish people were resolved to secure and maintain complete independence in order to promote the common weal; to re-establish justice, to provide for future defence. to ensure peace at home and goodwill to all nations and constitute a national polity based upon the people's will with equal rights and equal opportunity for every citizen. "Peace at home and good will to all nations." We thank God that in the unfolding of history, guided by the word and the thought and the energy of all its people devoting themselves in whatever way they thought best, we find ourselves to-day in the position that every section of this Parliament accepts the sovereignty of our people over Twenty-Six Counties of our national territory — the sovereignty that the Irish Volunteers, protecting and guiding and helping our people, set out to achieve from the day they rallied to help Redmond to the day they rallied around Dáil Éireann in 1919.
It is useless to think now of what would have been if, on the 21st January, 1919, we could have had the powerful and the free and the strong voices speaking to us from the far ends of the earth that we had yesterday speaking to us from Australia, South Africa and Canada and that we could have had, speaking from Great Britain, a voice speaking in similar terms to the voice that spoke yesterday. But, thanks be to God, we have it now and it is not for us to go back over the past and to interpret any of our decisions to-day in the terms of the past.
Deputy Cosgrave has just spoken of the fact that many people have challenged Fine Gael with a betrayal of its trust to the people in that it stands for this Bill. He has admirably quoted from Edmund Burke principles that he feels guide him, and principles which should guide any man with a mind or a conscience of his own. It is a grand thing in this Parliament to-day and in circumstances such as this to see young Ireland stepping into the position their fathers so valiantly secured, inspired by thoughts such as these. I do not think any member of the Fine Gael organisation or any leader of the Fine Gael organisation need explain in any way why he supports the Bill that is before this House to-day. It has been suggested, because we expressed ourselves in words—with such words as I did express myself—that we stand unequivocally for the maintenance of membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations that we either bind the imagination of our supporters or our people or bind ourselves in our actions in any way. One of the difficulties dictionarians have is that they have to wait for actions until they can find their words. When we spoke in the terms of the call to the Irish Volunteers or when Pearse or MacNeill spoke, in 1913, and when we spoke in the terms in which we spoke from the Dáil that was set up in 1921, we were dealing with the affairs of that time but we were dealing with the full hopes and aspirations of our people, and nobody either abroad or at home need ever misunderstand what these were.
We deal in realities and the messages that came to us yesterday from Canada, Australia, South Africa and Great Britain show the realities with which we are dealing—our people's work and the relation of our people's work to the work of the people of Canada, Australia, South Africa and Great Britain. We find the most suitable words to interpret our actions and to interpret our deeds but, so far from being restrictions on our deeds, our words are intended to inspire us and to inspire others to see what we see. They are intended to guide others and to direct others to the path that we are travelling and to induce them to follow us. There never was a time in the history of our country when our people did not want to live not only in peace and concord but in the fullest co-operation with the people of Great Britain. If the Crown is passing out of any relationship to our Constitution or to our Parliament to-day it is because the Crown failed to realise its significance in relation to the work and in relation to the destiny of our people. To-day, with full sovereign power over our people, we are thinking of the future. We are supposed to be removing the symbol of the Crown, one symbol of an inspiration, and securely and clearly establishing there another; we are supposed to be removing the symbol of the Crown and we are resurrecting the symbol of the republic. If we thoughtlessly remove one symbol, and thoughtlessly replace it by another without knowing what that other means, then our last state will be no better than our first. It was my privilege on the first day the first Dáil was set up, 21st January, 1919, to propose the adoption of the democratic programme and in recommending it to the Dáil and to the country at that time, I said:
"Má tá uainn ár dtír a mhaireachtaint agus bheith beo i dteannta í d'fhuasgailt caithimíd i shlánú Deinimís é go cruinn agus go h-ealadhnta. Tuigimís go cruinn sa ghnó san cad is í ár dtír—an Eire seo a bhíonn mar thaidhbhreamh agus mar thairngearacht ag an uile dhuine dá clainn ó thús a óige. Tuigimís gur ab í an tír seo í, áluinn mar a dhein Dia í, saidhbhir le saothar a muinntire, geal le na ngáire, aoibhinn le n-á meidhir, naomhtha le n-a gcreidheamh agus a ndeagh-mhéinn. Tuigimís gur ab í an mhuinntir seo againn ag maireachtaint go meidhreach agus go síothchánta imeasg an tsaidbhris a bhronn Dia ortha agus ghá oibriú chun a gcothuighthe í. Agus nuair a chuirfimíd chun an oibriú san do réidhteach agus do riaghlú, deinimís é ar slighe a chosgfaidh éinne de lucht miosgais agus foghla ar theacht ag guid an tsaidhbhris dóibh féin agus ag bochtanú na ndaoine.
Ní féidir le náisiún bheith saor an fhaid agus tá an chuid is lugha dá mhuintir gan saoirse. Ní féidir le náisiún bheith beo agus 'na bheathaidh an fhaid agus a dhiúltuighthear d'aon chuid des na daoine a gcion ceart féin den mhaoin agus den tsaidhbhreas a bhronn Dia orainn go léir chun sinn a dheanamh beo, agus chun na beatha bhuanú ionainn."
Since the dawn of that day some of us have stood in the middle of Irish politics, of the people and with the people. We have seen how much opportunity has been lost because we thought in terms of one symbol or another without clearly realising what any symbol meant. We set ourselves out in 1921 for all the freedoms that are so valiantly spoken of to-day. We asked for nothing but these freedoms. We wanted them for our people so that, having them for our people, we might help to have them for other people too. We kept that always before our minds through all those years and to-day we find ourselves recognised in the far ends of the earth as a sovereign independent nation—an Irish Republic. We hope that we shall realise what that means. We are substituting for the symbol of the Crown the symbol of the people. When we substitute the symbol of the people, then we must recognise what the people mean.
The Irish people had guns put into their hands in 1913 by the circumstances of that time. It was not because they turned to guns by any natural philosophy of theirs or by any particular instinct. They turned to them as a man does who grasps the hands that grip his throat in an effort to throttle him. They turned to guns at that particular time as the only thing to which they could turn to save their own lives and take away the stranglehold upon their nation. They turned to guns in 1916 to let the voice of Ireland be heard throughout the world. Everything that has happened since in our own country and outside has demonstrated to us the miserable futility and incompetence of guns to do anything except to destroy men, their character and their faith. The weapon to which we turn now to maintain the strength of our people is the weapon of the Christian mind, the Christian will, Christian courage and the Christian dedication of the Christian's work. In the days during which we have been discussing this particular measure I do not think that there is anything we should keep before our minds but what Irish tradition and Irish philosophy and outlook and life would be if we never had to turn to guns and turn to anger and bitterness either internationally or intra-nationally in dealing with public life.
In dealing with many matters, before this Government came into office and on public platforms I urged that in this House every possible bit of information that would establish the true facts in relation to economic life in the world and to our own national life should be made available to every Deputy. I suggested that in international matters there should be a parliamentary committee on international affairs. I would have been glad—and I am sure every member of the Government would have been glad—if, in the last few months, when these matters were absorbing the attention of the Government we could have brought the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party into our councils and let them see what was happening in connection with this issue. We know from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that we would have had nothing but agreement, acquiescence and approval from him of what was being done. Had we been able to have them associated with us and giving us the information that they had we might have been spared some of the blemishes that have been cast upon this debate.
I take my mind back to the almost religious dignity of the ceremony that surrounded the opening of the first Dáil on the 21st January, 1919, and I compare it with the atmosphere that has at times permeated this debate; I feel then that many have no understanding of what Irishmen and Irishwomen have been able to do through the grace and assistance of Providence in spite of all the difficulties since the year 1919. Surely, when we get this Bill enacted and when we have established here the rights and principles common to all the people of the Twenty-Six Counties and when we see that it is possible in the difficult work of government to unite men and women of every creed, class and Party we must then look forward to a new era in which on every side of this House we shall get nothing but the calmest and the most generous consideration in the difficulties and the work that still confront us.
Much has been said in the course of this debate with regard to the Partition of our country. The Crown had many opportunities in our political lifetime of showing that it was an instrument which reflected the people. It failed in relation to the Home Rule Bill in 1914. It failed in relation to the post-war situation in 1918. It failed to live up to the expectation of those who so constructively put their signatures to the Treaty of 1921. The Treaty of 1921 was accepted with the Crown in the belief that the Crown would operate to wipe out the blot of Partition. The Crown has failed and the Crown has gone. For the people of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain and, perhaps, South Africa the Crown is something strengthening, unifying and inspiring these nations, helping the people to link their efforts mutually together for the goodwill of these countries. For Canada, Australia, New Zealand, for Britain itself, there remains a blot upon the Crown and that stigma will remain there so long as loyalty to the Crown saddles the Crown with responsibility for the partition of Ireland and the foreign rule that from the British Parliament goes on in the Six Counties. But now that we are clearly and unequivocally showing that the symbol in this country is the symbol of the people uniting the efforts of all Parties and all creeds and classes to build up their country, we can know that that symbol, properly understood and properly served, will not fail in bringing about the unity of the country when the Crown did fail.
Listening to this debate, it seemed to me that it would have been much better, both for our country, our form of Government and the political ideals to which members of all Parties have expressed allegiance, if the debates had been reduced very much in extent. At times it seemed to me as if the republic had almost been drowned in a spate of oratory. I think it would have been much better, from the point of view of what I believe all sections in the House are trying to achieve, if we merely passed a simple Bill repealing the External Relations Act, and left it at that, and did not indulge in retrospective history. It might have been much better if there were silence on that aspect.
We are telling ourselves to-day that by the passing of this Bill we are establishing the Republic of Ireland. I am in favour of a Bill to repeal the External Relations Act, but I have some doubt as to whether it would not be better to leave out the second clause of this Bill, not because I have any doubt, as we are present circumstanced in the portion of the country for which we speak, about our right to deal with our own affairs as we wish. Last year, on another debate, we were driven to the position of trying to clarify the minds of our people as to their status, by reference to a dictionary. I expressed the view that so far as our powers and rights are concerned, there was nothing to deny us regarding ourselves as republicans.
Republic and republicanism are something more than merely a form of words and one of the things I regret in this debate is that the clear stream of republicanism from which, I think, practically all the members of this House at one time or another did take inspiration and did receive the courage which enabled many of them to acquire in history an honoured place—that that stream has been clouded, even by those who did so much to bring us towards a realisation of that republican dream. People are not led or driven to the point of engaging in a valiant national struggle by the keenly-pointed constitutional arguments that have been used here for the past two days. It is something that is instinctive in them and is born out of their very being, their history and tradition. I think it is true to say that over recent years there has been less real republicanism in this part of Ireland than we have known for many a year previous, say within the last 15 or 16 years. I do not think it is of great importance to attach responsibility for that to anyone, but it is well to understand that, if we are going to revive in our people belief, not merely in an Irish Republic, not merely in republican traditions, not merely in all that goes to make manifest a Republican form of Government, but, more still, revive belief in all that was not implied and all that was meant by the fathers of republicanism here, we should try to get ourselves back to the simple and clear basis on which our present republican movement started in the years referred to by the Minister for Education.
I believe that while it may be good for public men to get on the stool of repentance, as many have done in the course of the debate—they have confessed their confusion and mistakes—it would have been better if we had accepted the position that certain things have been achieved in one form or another, in certain cases by the organised mass political movement of the Irish people, at other times by force of arms and at other times still by the use of constitutional machinery, to accept the position at which we have arrived and try to build on that basis and reinspire in our people the belief that made this whole development possible 25 or 30 years ago. It is regrettable we have not done that.
I will be brief in this matter, because I cannot criticise others and be guilty of the same fault myself. One thing stands out clearly and that is that the clear stream of republicanism has been clouded and requires to be clarified. So far as our Party is concerned, we also have passed through that period during which these constitutional changes have taken place and our record as a Party is associated with the various developments. On this particular issue, as the Leader of our Party stated earlier, we have been clear in the sense that we did not want the Act and therefore we have no responsibility in having it repealed. We have, as far as we can, within our constitutional framework, accepted the position that we are committed as a people to a republican form of Government, that we are a sovereign people and that we should not depart from that even from the point of view of providing machinery for certain acts outside our territory. However, that particular decision was taken and now we have to amend that decision. It would have been better if we had confined ourselves in this Bill to repealing the Act of 1936 and left the situation as it was.
I was reared, because I come from the working class and labour movement, in a republican tradition and belief. Never at any time can I conceive in any form whatever the benefits of monarchy. I have an unqualified and unlimited belief in the common people. They make mistakes, but they correct those mistakes in time, and often the mistakes they make are mistakes which should be attributed to their leaders and to the disabilities placed upon the common people in the matter of obtaining a clear view and a clear perspective. Therefore, when I say that the term "Republic of Ireland" has a certain sentimental meaning and that I appreciate the viewpoints put forward by members of the Opposition, it might have been better if we had accepted and agreed amongst ourselves that we were for all practical purposes a republic in this part of the country, and, at the same time, refrained from using the term "Republic of Ireland", until in fact it was a republic of 32 counties. I am saying that because I believe it has some attachment to what I regard as that clear conception of republicanism which existed in this country. In making that criticism, it is well to recall that the same criticism can be levelled against our Constitution in the sense that the Constitution is enacted for 32 counties and yet we are confined to 26.
These are the kind of things that have caused the confusion in the minds of our people and Acts such as that which we are repealing to-day have added to that confusion. I believe that the main responsibility and the main task which members of all Parties, irrespective of our differences on other domestic matters, should undertake is to try to clarify again the minds of our people on that republican tradition, because that republican tradition is something more than merely having our own Parliament, having the right to enact our own laws, to speak our own language and to order our own affairs. It is something which is the source of inspiration of our people, which gives them the power and the ability to regard in wide perspective our future development and to apply themselves to that development unselfishly and with determined purpose.
I am not convinced that we have yet started to travel a great deal of the road towards that republican conception which has been in the minds of our people, even if it has not been clearly defined by them in the past. When men followed Tone or Davitt, Connolly and Pearse in 1916 and even later leaders and followed them under the slogan of a republic of the Irish people, it seems to me that they had a greater conception than merely that we should make our own laws, speak our own language and express our nationality. At least, so far as the common people are concerned, it implied much more than that, because always in the current of Irish history there have been two main streams. One has been a broad, powerful and very often silent stream, the stream of the common people moving forward in mass and carrying other sections with them, and the other a stream running lighter, more frothy, showing more on the surface and reflecting more definitely the more articulate, more conscious sections of the Irish people. So far as our history is concerned, the confusion has come from that second stream. The main stream of the Irish people has gone on definitely and incessantly, flowing over or around obstacles and bringing us to the point at which we are to-day. That broad stream has not yet reached its confluence with the sea, and I feel that it is our task from now on to see if we can give realisation to the dreams of the untold generations of common people who have carried our movement on.
I have said that I am one who can see no benefit in monarchy. Neither can I see any benefit in wealth, and, so long as, in our Republic of Ireland, wealth is still a form of privilege, we have not got the republic that the fathers of republicanism dreamed of or the common people strove for. So long as we have children who have an insufficiency of food and clothing, we have not realised their conception of a republic. So long as one boy or girl is denied opportunity because of lack of the education given to another boy or girl, we are falling short of our ideals. So long as there are old men and women living in bleakness and without comfort in their old age, many steps still face us in our forward march. It is these common things which go to make up the life of the common people which were the source of the inspiration of these people in that long history. Our arguments about the Statute of Westminister, the External Relations Act, the Constitution of Ireland in 1937 or whether the Treaty was used as a stepping stone or not fall to the ground and become infinitesimal, so long as we have here those disabilities still pressing on our people and so long as these people are not receiving the attention they should receive from those charged with responsibility in this House.
I understand that at an earlier stage of the debate to-day Deputy MacEntee asked for definitions of the republic that some of us would like. I listened for some considerable time to Deputy MacEntee, and, for once, I must confess I agree with a great deal of what he said. He said it in his own inimitable way. I have no objection to Deputy MacEntee's viewpoints, and, despite what has happened, I have no desire to deny him free speech. Personally, I think his free speech is a very valuable contribution to much of the progress we can make on this side of the House, but he is entitled to ask the question what we mean by a republic.
I wonder would Deputy MacEntee object if I said that the republic I would like is the same type of republic as that which the men in 1916 expressed in the very simple words: "a republic that will cherish all the children of the nation equally," or if I said I stood for the same type of republic as that for which Jim Connolly stood, a republic in which the common people would be not merely entitled to vote for a Parliament once in five years but would be in control of the political, economic and social ordering of the country in which they lived, a republic which would have for its highest purpose not merely the glorification of a national dream, but above all, the ennoblement of a people, the raising of their standard of living and the development of their innate ability and culture.
Deputy MacEntee may possibly agree with that definition, or he may feel that I have some hidden motive in putting it forward. I have no hidden motive. The beliefs I hold to-day are the beliefs I took in as a schoolboy when I was taught by Patrick Pearse. I may have come to be able to formulate them a little more clearly, a little more definitely, but they are the same beliefs—a belief in our people, a belief in Irish men and women, a belief in the common people who have been the rock on which the Irish nation has grown to manhood and a belief in these men and women in the matter of bringing into this country a mode of life which will make it possible for men and women to remain in their own homeland and live an ordinary decent existence. Until we have achieved that, it seems to me that our conception of a Republic of Ireland falls very much short of the dreams of the fathers of republicanism and of the unspoken thoughts of the common people.
I want to touch on one or two other points which have been touched on during the debate. There has been great talk of our possible association with the Commonwealth of Nations and our previous association in that respect. I have no objection to this House or the Irish people associating with any group of nations, so long as we associate as a sovereign and free people. Our people are entitled to make that decision and everybody is entitled to speak for and against it. All I hope is that, now or at any time in the future, if the people are asked to commit themselves, they will have the fullest and freest understanding of the commitments and that the commitments will be entered into by the Dáil, entitled to speak on behalf of the people as a whole. If that occurs, neither I nor anyone else under a democratic Government can have any objection.
At the same time, let us not forget that, in speaking of association with the Commonwealth of Nations, it is like speaking of O'Connell Street, which has got a very nice facade, behind which there are very dark slums. Because there is a Government in the United Kingdom representing the movement of which I am honoured to be a part, that is no reason why there should be silence and no criticism. There is still a British Empire and that Empire operates for the undoing and unhappiness of countless millions of people. Therefore, in agreeing to have any association with the Commonwealth of Nations made up by the British Dominions, let us not at the same time be party to drawing the veil over what goes on beneath the form of that Commonwealth which, in previous days, was known as the British Empire, and which was the object of detestation by many people in this House.
Similarly, when speaking of Partition, let us not be as foolish as Deputy Cowan is. He wants another army. We have had many armies in this country, all because of our inability at times to act together as Irishmen and agree upon a common policy. Those who stand for Partition in the North of Ireland are not merely the Basil Brookes but also the ordinary common men and women. They may be misguided, misled, bigoted and completely wrong in their outlook, but so are very many members of this House and so have been many others in the past and unhappily will be in the future. They are our people, not merely Irish people but of the common stock of Ireland; and they have made in the past a great contribution to Ireland. When I listen to Deputies suggesting that we march across the Border with guns in our hands, it reminds me of another speech made in this House, when a Deputy suggested that the cure for the failings of our northern brothers and sisters was to pour sulphuric acid on them. It smacks of the same thing. May we also recall that it may be very easy to speak here of marching across the Border with guns in our hands, but that one of the characteristics that have contributed to the name of Ireland has been that dour northern ability and dour determination to maintain their position and fight for it.
If we want this problem of Partition solved, I do not think the repealing of the External Relations Act or our nominal breaking the link with the Crown is going to make a great difference. There are much more fundamental things than that. I have said at times that one of the contributions we have to make in this country is to show that Irishmen, operating under our own Government, under our own laws for economic and social progress, can provide for themselves a standard of life that is equal to and sufficient for their needs; and that we can also, on the basis of a united country, provide that reasonable and acceptable standard also for our brothers and sisters in the North, if they would come in and work with us. I have also expressed a belief that the ending of Partition is not merely one that must be looked for from the British Government in isolation, or looked for from the North in isolation.
It is a problem with many faces. Because we have a Labour Government in the United Kingdom, let not those who belong to the Labour movement be backward in saying that that Government must face up to the present state of affairs. It will have to accept the responsibility if not for its own act at least for the act of the Government it has succeeded. Therefore, part of the problem lies with that Government and with the members of our own working-class in England who support them in maintaining that Government in power.
Equally, let us recall that in the North of Ireland there is not merely a problem of exercising force against part of our own people. There is also the same problem that we have been dealing with in this House for the last two days, to try to effect a change of mind, a change of outlook and an acceptance of new positions. That has got to be done, as it has been done in the Twenty-Six Counties during the past 25 years. The same problem faces us in relation to the Six Counties, in the case of a great many of our own people. That is a problem which cannot be tackled and achieved merely from this side of the Border. It has to be done in regard to a great many of those of our own people who are still mistaken and mislead on this problem of Partition in Northern Ireland.
Whatever progress we are going to make on Partition, and all of us on that problem can accept the viewpoint that we desire to see that division of our country ended, for many and diverse reasons, let us all at least agree that, whatever we do as a contribution to the ending of Partition, it will not be speaking on the lines of the use of acid or the use of arms against our own fellow-Irishmen. That is not only a mistake, it is largely unforgivable. It is a peculiar thing that many of those who to-day use these terms spoke in the same terms some 12 or 13 years ago, but spoke them then in relation to using arms, not against the Northern Government but against the Government elected in this part of the country by the Irish people. It is well to keep these things in mind and remember the roots and the background of some of the things that are being said to-day.
I believe that we have made a step forward. I do not think it is such a grave or significant step as many would have us believe, but a step that could have been made at any time within the recent period. It will help to some extent to clarify the minds of our people. The greatest contribution from all Parties in the House will be to accept the point of view that a great many mistakes have been made, and probably by all of us, that it is no use trying to explain and defend those mistakes to-day, that we should accept the position that has been achieved by the contribution of many sections of the Irish people marching towards a certain goal, maybe by different roads and different methods, but now that we have reached a certain stage on that road, we should accept that and see if we cannot use that as a base for a step forward still further. Let us not, by our disputes and discussions, by our desire to correct and rewrite history, add further confusion to the confusion that is already in the minds of our people.
The idea of nationalism, of nationhood, the belief in the republican tradition and in the Irish Republic, are very simple and very basic ideas. Let us try to get back to these same basic ideas in the minds of our people. Let us get rid of arguing about fine points, the dictionary meanings of words and the relationship of our statutes to statutes passed in other Parliaments; and let us base ourselves, as we have done in the past, on the belief in our own sovereignty and our own nationhood, and our determination that that nationhood and sovereignty is only justified to the extent that it is utilised for the common people, for their advancement and the general progress of the nation.
May I break into this debate briefly, to speak on one point, that is, as to whether the passing of the Republic of Ireland Bill will make still more impregnable the fortress in which the Partitionists of the Six Counties at present find themselves lodged? Born in the area which afterwards became that fortress, I must confess that my association with politics at a very early age derived nothing from that stream of republicanism to which Deputy Larkin referred. In what I thought to be fiercely exciting times before 1912, we dealt with something called Home Rule. I knew the sacrifices that were being made to bring about that particular consummation. I lived as a young man to see things develop in the North of Ireland which certainly revived the habit of using the gun in this country and which strengthened those who had that old tradition but who had abandoned bringing it out in an armed way.
I lived to see the time when threat of a revolution—whether it was pretended or real is a matter that people can decide for themselves—went to the stage when that revolution was scheduled to take place. People who had been paraded for me as having an intense loyalty, as people who could never live other than constitutionally, found it easy to transfer their loyalty from King to Kaiser and to threaten that, as far as they were concerned, the Crown would be kicked into the Boyne. I have been reading to revive my memory as to what that was all about and I ask people to revive their memories as to what the Home Rule legislation of 1914 came to, if they want to answer for themselves the question as to whether the removal of the symbol of the Crown from our Constitution will make any difference to people on whom the Home Rule legislation of 1914 had such a powerful effect. "The Home Rule Bill"—I read from a pamphlet written in these words by the late John Redmond—opened with a statement that there was to be an Irish Parliament, and it continued:—
"Notwithstanding the establishment of the Irish Parliament or anything contained in this Act the supreme power and authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things within His Majesty's dominion."
In a commentary on that Mr. Redmond said:
"Thus there is here established, and declared on the face of the Bill what Mr. Asquith called ‘the overriding force of Imperial legislation, which can at any time nullify, amend or alter any Act of the Irish Parliament'."
There were certain things specifically reserved from the control of the Executive to be established here—matters affecting the Crown, the making of peace and war, the Army and the Navy, treaties and foreign or colonial relations, dignities, treason, naturalisation, aliens, lighthouses, coinage, legal tender, weights and measures, trade marks, copyright and patent rights and also trade with any place outside of Ireland with certain exceptions that are given. In the commentary, Mr. Redmond pointed out that that particular provision prevented any action on the part of any Irish Parliament to give protection to native industries. There was a power of veto reserved for the Lord Lieutenant. He could "give or withhold the assent of His Majesty to Bills passed by the two Houses of the Irish Parliament subject to the following limitations:
"He shall comply with any instructions given by His Majesty in respect of any such Bill; and (2) he shall, if so directed by His Majesty, postpone giving the assent of His Majesty to any such Bill presented to him for assent for such period as His Majesty may direct."
There were conditions in regard to finance. In respect of these, Mr. Redmond said: "Ireland can impose no new customs and cannot therefore protect Irish manufacturers." The finance clauses of this Bill would bewilder anyone reading it and the only conclusion that one can come to is that there was to be no effective control in the Parliament to be established. That drove Ulster to revolt. That led to a transfer of loyalty by the people who were supposed to have a loyalist tradition, to the person who was about to become the greatest enemy that Britain ever had.
I turn to another commentary upon that particular matter. One phrase used about it was that the British Government were engaged "in the hopeless effort of Frankenstein to control the actions of the powerful and independent monster to which they are giving life". This was obviously written by a Unionist. Then we had the famous remark to the effect that this piece of legislation was such as "should have been conceived in Bedlam and born in Colney Hatch". The end of the commentary was:
"The Bill proposes to set up an Irish Executive and to place under its control the lives and liberties of the loyalist community in Ireland. Any such Executive will inevitably be manned by the men who for the last 30 years have been responsible for the organised intimidation and lawlessness which have paralysed the ordinary law and brought suffering and death into many a home. For the last five years since the advent to office of the present Government, this organised tyranny has reigned triumphant in every part of Ireland outside Ulster and owing to the cowardly connivance of the Irish Executives the various forms of agrarian outrage, including murder, moonlighting, cattle maiming and boycotting have run rampant and unpunished. Since the Peace Preservation Act was dropped some three years ago there have been about 800 outrages with firearms involving the death of 28 persons and the mutilation of nearly 200 others. Little wonder if, in the light of such experience, the loyal and law-abiding subjects of the King in Ireland are fixed and unaltered in their determination to resist to the uttermost by every means in their power, and at any cost or sacrifice, the attempt to rivet upon them for all time the fetters of such an intolerable and cruel tyranny."
That sounds amusing to-day. The man who wrote these words lived to become a very honoured member in the Parliamentary institutions of this State. He obviously found in practice that people here were not at all the murderers, moonlighters or cattle maimers as he had described them. Years flowed on and that man undoubtedly in the end of his years did his best to reconcile the people for whose benefit he wrote that sort of stuff to an association with this part of the country.
I go back on that history simply to ask people if they believe that when so much was made about so little in 1914, can any credence be given to the idea that by merely stopping our progress in this piece of legislation now, we shall attract these people now to come in here? The answer may come that if they thought so strongly and behaved so badly about what was so unimportant, they cannot be expected to have any better appreciation of the institutions established here since than they had of the Parliament likely to be established in 1914. But time has had its effect. Time has had its effect not merely on the people of the North —and they are the people we have to win. It has had its effect on people outside and it is by these people outside we are going to win Ulster. I have been lucky enough to have an official experience which links 26 years ago with the experience of the last few months and over all that period it was borne in on me that, as the years went on and as this country developed its institutions and developed them freely in a proud way, we had won the respect of people outside and that in addition we were gaining the respect of the people of the United Kingdom. In recent months that particular development has been more strongly than ever noticeable. I may be putting this too strong—it may be what has been described as wishful thinking—but I have the feeling nowadays that when one mentions the northern question to members of the United Kingdom, they are anxious to get away from the subject, they feel embarrassed and even a little shamefaced about it. The reason is not far to seek.
At this moment, the world is dividing itself into two areas. In one area, with variations here and there, the ordinary freedoms that we all want to have do exist. In the area that is behind the curtain, these freedoms are not allowed. It is not fair, and I do not want the example taken or pressed home, to compare what has been done in the North of Ireland and what has been happening behind the iron curtain, but the people who are concerned with what is happening in Russia and elsewhere must at least appreciate that what is happening in the North is not in accordance with the freedoms that they want for the rest of the world. There is coercion in Ulster.
Last night, we had the phrase repeated that has been so often used that Ulster is not to be coerced. The answer to that is, is Ulster to be allowed to coerce others? There is undoubtedly developing the view that at the moment in the Six County area, in parts of it at least, there is something that can be described as coercion.
I do not know whether, in the end, this will be described as coercing Ulster but the force of public opinion will work a change and particularly the force of the good public opinion that is spreading and growing in England, the growth of which, I think, will be helped when this legislation is passed. The public opinion in England has a great force. When it is joined by the public opinion of the good members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, that force can be overwhelming. To this will be added the force of those other nations who meet the United Kingdom representatives and the representatives of the Commonwealth at the international gatherings that are taking place in many parts of the world and many seasons of the year.
When there falls for discussion this matter of freedom of peoples, whether people are to be allowed to have free association, free political association, freedom to express their votes and fully to express their votes, freedom that they should not be gerrymandered so as to give a false appearance, to give a representation as if there was a solidarity in the Six Counties which we know is not there, when these things fall for discussion, when freedom generally falls for discussion, inevitably we find that the good member of the Commonwealth and the good member of the United Kingdom is looking over his shoulder to see is a long shadow cast of what is happening inside the area that is partitioned off. That force of opinion is gathering and it may be that in the end Ulster will be coerced, but it will be coerced, not by what Deputy Larkin laments over having had so much trusted to it in this country, the fear of force, but coerced by the growth of a good public opinion, a good public opinion which we are helping to mould by what we are doing in this particular piece of legislation.
Deputy Larkin thinks we speak too much of history. One of our poets long ago said when that phrase was put to him about forgetting the past: "We keep the past for pride", and so we do, and it is only national that it should be done. But there is no longer any edge in that reminiscing about the past. It is for ourselves, so that we can pass on a tradition we inherited and that we partly made. There is no longer, as there used to be, a feeling of hostility towards our neighbours. There is not even a lack of appreciation of their good qualities. There is not even any grudging appreciation of the relations that they have established with us over the years, which they are still maintaining and which, as you have seen, they propose to maintain, notwithstanding what is happening.
These are the things that I put in the balance against the mere removal of a symbol which, certainly in 1912, counted for nothing when it was a reality, if certain very mild measures with regard to self determination or Home Rule were going to be passed. I put in the balance against the removal of that, all the growth of goodwill and good feeling there has been, the reality of friendship instead of the pretence over the years, and I ask people to believe that the passage of this Act ought to have a beneficial result, ought to enable us, distracted no longer by political considerations, to bend ourselves to making the best of what this country can offer, to arrive at the establishment of a type of republic which Deputy Larkin has spoken of, where all the children will be cherished equally and where they have a good and equal chance.
Those things that I have mentioned and one other thing, the pressure of world events, which are shaping circumstances beyond our individual moulding, added to the new appreciation that there is of conditions inside Ulster, those two things may, in the end, work the coercion which people futilely at the moment promise will never be exercised against Ulster. If we can aid the growth of these feelings, if we can now, when this measure is passed, take up a certain position in international affairs, the balance is favourable in regard to the Six Counties and those who are there.
I am one of those, I suppose, who has been criticised, although not by name, as having in this matter approached a position which had not been fully disclosed to those who voted in the last election. I would like to quote in that connection what Deputy de Valera said in 1937. In answer to a Deputy who was opposing him and who interjected some remark, he said:
"The Deputy knows full well that no Government can possibly get mandates for everything it is called upon to do during its period of office. The whole theory of government is this, that you have representatives of the people entrusted during the period they are in office with work in the interests of the people and expected to carry on the government in their interests. You cannot say in advance all the possible things that have to be done."
With the fullness of that, I would not agree, but it expresses a point of view. It expresses a point of view which has good philosophic backing although, followed to extremity, that might be harmful.
I feel that people might complain of me individually if they felt that what I was doing in helping to pass this piece of legislation was going to lead either to isolation of this country in world affairs or was going to lead to the development of unfriendly feelings as between this country and those who are in the Commonwealth with which up to some period this country was associated. That is not going to be the result. This country aims at friendlier feelings and, if this country leaves the particular association, it is because it believes that outside that association it can do more good, in company with it, than it might do in something that would seem to be an enforced attachment. If anybody thinks that that is quibbling, I ask that the matter be let simmer for a bit.
As the months go on and develop into years it will be found that what was said in this House was perfectly true and a good forecast of what is likely to happen. I do not think anybody will be found to say that this is a measure to which any dangers would be attached or even any suspicion between two friendly peoples.
I have one matter of personal pride in this affair. When Dáil Éireann met for the first time on January 21st 1919 there were five people associated with the Government then established—and that was a Government for the Republic of Ireland. Four of them are dead: Brugha, Collins, MacNeill and Plunkett. The only survivor of the quintet is General Mulcahy and I feel some personal pride that in the movement that has taken place I am associated with him, a follower of his leadership and am now attached to a Cabinet group which includes him.
I would like to say that I hope the Minister for Finance is right, that this Bill may lead more quickly to the reunification of Ireland. Nobody outside this State has any right to object to what we are doing. The Bill is our own affair. Various individuals or various Parties here may criticise, perhaps, the methods by which this Bill has been introduced, but that is no affair of anyone outside the country. We are perfectly entitled to take up this attitude if we desire. No matter how the matter was introduced or what preliminary consultations Deputies had with their constituents, it is within our constitutional rights to do it. It is within the Constitution passed by the people; otherwise the Government's legal advisers would not have attempted to bring in this Bill. I have no doubt, as there are a number of lawyers in the Government, that they have taken particular care to see that this Bill would be upheld in the Supreme Court, which is, after all, the authority on constitutional interpretation, if it should ever be challenged.
The unfortunate thing about clause 2, in my opinion, is that it is not necessary. It is not necessary to pass an Act of Parliament to describe this republic as a republic. It is unfortunate that when the republican State was set up it was not recognised by all the members on the Government Benches and friends of theirs outside. However that is past history. Let us thank goodness that they have at last recognised the constitutional position. They can pass an Act of Parliament within the Constitution which is not challengable by anybody in the State describing this republican State as the Republic of Ireland. If political Parties would only seek the absolute truth instead of certain political advantages, it would have been entitled "The Description of the State Bill" because the republic has existed here since 1937 and it could have been described as such without an Act of Parliament. If they want to make certain that their own followers and others would describe it as the Republic of Ireland then I hope this Bill will carry out that intention and that we will have no more argument on that score.
There is one aspect of this business which was referred to, first of all by the Taoiseach in various speeches he made in support of this measure and also by Deputy Fitzpatrick last night, which I would like to advert to and I would ask the Minister for External Affairs to refer to it in his closing remarks. Deputy Fitzpatrick referred last night to the people who had taken revolutionary action in the seven years following 1939. Let us pass over the results of that revolutionary action but this at least is quite obvious: the arms with which those revolutionary actions were carried out or perpetrated are still, despite the best efforts of the police authorities to collect them, in the same hands and if this Bill would result in getting those arms into the hands of the State, if it could so bring them under control that they would not be used without the authority of this Oireachtas then a lot of good would have been done.
I had hoped that Deputy Fitzpatrick would use his influence with the people with whom he has been lately associated-according to himself last night—to have these arms collected and placed at the disposal of the Government elected by the people. The Minister also, I think, adverted to that situation. I do not know whether he meant it or not, but a speech he made recently would give some countenance to a plea made by certain individuals outside who up to the present time have not recognised the validity of our Constitution or the authority of the Government elected under it. It might give some excuse to those who claim the same right to use force as the legitimately appointed servants of the State. I trust that the Minister in concluding this matter will make it quite clear that no one has any right to use force or take life in this State unless constitutionally authorised to do it—that is the legitimate and recognised servants of the State. I am particularly interested in this matter because for a long number of years—we are all going back over past history—when the Treaty came along to be passed, my objection to the oath of allegiance and pushing it down the throats of the people by force was that it was not going to keep internal peace. There was going to be internal friction as long as there was a body of Irishmen here enforcing an oath of allegiance to the British King. When I got in 1922 an instruction from the provisional Government of the time or the Minister for Defence of the Dáil to attack, I refused to attack my fellow-countrymen unless the Government of that time would offer a constitutional way for all opponents of the Treaty to carry on for the republic.
I urged him to say to the British that the opposition to the articles of the agreement which they had imposed under threats of immediate and terrible war could not be suppressed in this country until, as I put it,—I got the original document the other day when I was looking through some old things: "the present is an occasion, probably the last, to say to England that the opposition to the Treaty cannot be suppressed unless Ireland is allowed to frame her own Constitution." We are not framing our own Constitution here to-day but we are in Clause 2 passing a declaratory clause to describe the nature of the State that was formed here in 1937. I would ask the Minister for External Affairs in concluding to say that it is illegitimate, illegal, immoral and contrary to the national interest for any body of men to hold arms or to use them without the authority of the Government elected under our Constitution. If we can get out of this situation one piece of national advantage, it will be all to the good. It would be a great national advantage if the group with which Deputy Fitzpatrick said he was associated would recognise the situation and assure the country by the collecting and the surrendering of their arms that they were not going to use them against the Government or the servants of the State.
If the spirits of the noble patriots down the ages who bravely died in the endeavour to establish a republic in this country were hovering around this House to-day they must have suffered a second purgatory when listening to the miserable and malicious contribution of Deputy MacEntee on this memorable occasion when the debate should have soared to a very high level. Deputy Lemass also referred in a very outrageous and vindictive spirit to the magnificent effort made by great men in 1921 and even the greater men still who lost their all in the attempt to bring about a situation by which the agreement then made might eventually lead to the realisation of a free and united Ireland. Those who at that time accepted the Treaty were not pleased with the position and stated so definitely. They realised, however, that under the conditions which then prevailed and in order to prevent further useless bloodshed it was better to accept the position as it was and, by means of what I might call constitutional evolution, gradually reach the stage by which we could fortify our position and eventually achieve what we all fondly hope to win.
At all times down through the ages men were willing to accept a certain amount of freedom in order to gain further freedom. That was the attitude of the men who accepted the Treaty in 1921. If we look at it from a military point of view, generals in battle, when they make a certain advance, fortify and strengthen the position they have attained in order to prepare themselves for a further advance. So, too, in 1921 the people who accepted the Treaty accepted it as a means to attain further freedom and in the years that followed every opportunity was availed of to strengthen the position in order to attain the final goal of Irish freedom. Perhaps if those who opposed the Treaty in that year had united in a great effort to make that advance, years previous to this this House would have assembled to pass a Bill not only for the establishment of a republic for the Twenty-Six Counties, but for the 32 Counties.
The Fianna Fáil Party stated that they never accepted the Treaty. If that is so, why was it that in 1927 they entered the Dáil and accepted all the implications of that Treaty? In 1937 they passed the Constitution which they stated made this country a republic. Why was it that in after years Deputy de Valera on various occasions in this House and elsewhere was continually called upon to describe the status of this State and even had to refer to and, I suppose, carry about with him those weighty dictionaries in order that he might be able to convince his questioners of the status of the nation? Again, if that Constitution established an Irish republic, what was the need in 1936, when the English King abdicated, to summon the Dáil by telegram within 24 hours in order to pass the External Relations Act? I would say that in fact during those 24 hours that intervened between the abdication of the King and the passing of the External Relations Act the Twenty-Six Counties were an Irish Republic. If the Fianna Fáil Government wished to establish the status of this country then, it was only necessary for them to sit tight and do nothing. By the passing of the External Relations Act we set up a peculiar kind of State, a mongrel kind of State. We had a leg in and a leg out of the British Commonwealth. There was no sincerity about it.
We are very proud to be associated with this Government, representatives of the Parties who set up the new Dáil in 1922 and the other Party who may be regarded as the extreme side of the republican movement in establishing once and for all the Republic of Ireland. There is no apology needed on the part of Fine Gael for their attitude right down through the years. We were all republicans. We simply accepted the position as we found it and did our best in the intervening time to bring about such a situation as we have to-day. In fact if the Constitution of 1937 was never enacted, I fail to see how we could be prevented from passing a Bill declaring this country a republic and setting up a Constitution in accordance with the new position.
In the South, we have always lived in harmony with our Protestant fellow-countrymen. We can look back with pride on the wonderful efforts that leaders who belonged to the Protestant persuasion made in the past. In fact, if the records are looked up, it will be found that in all periods of our history they were amongst the leaders of our people, and so I hope that those of them who are in this part of the country will now contribute their share generously to enable us to bring in those people of their religious persuasion in the North who are alleged to be in the majority. After all, would it not be better for the people of the North, instead of being a shire of the United Kingdom, to belong to a free and united Ireland? They have nothing to fear from us. We would welcome them with open arms. They can take their part here in the Parliament of the nation and express their views here as they wish. I think that they can feel perfectly sure that no act of this Parliament and no act of the people in the South will in any way interfere with their religious or national aspirations.
I think it is a privilege for the members of this House to be elected here by the votes of the people and to be associated with this important measure. I trust, as Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, that the day on which it comes into force will be declared a national holiday, and that, again, in the not distant future a day will come which will change that date into one on which we shall be proclaiming a republic for the 32 Counties.
The Leader of the Opposition, Deputy de Valera, in the course of his remarks, told the House that this Party was supporting this Bill. That statement, of course, did not preclude or deny the right to any member of this Party from expressing his views whatever they might be, whether for or against the Bill, if he so desired. I feel rather sorry, therefore, that some kind of arrangement has been arrived at to bring this debate to a conclusion this evening. To a certain extent that arrangement does preclude a number of members of the House from expressing their views, if they had any desire to do so.
The Taoiseach, and I say this without any disrespect to him, spoke for three hours. To my mind he spoke two hours too long. I an quite realise the urgent necessity for making it clear to the British Government and to the other members of the Commonwealth that this Act did not in any way limit the friendship which has existed for quite a number of years now between ourselves and the British and the other members of the Commonwealth. But I doubt if it was necessary, or if it was desirable or advisable, to have made the wide survey which the Taoiseach made of modern happenings, political and historical, because that gave the line which this debate has followed. I feel pretty certain that this debate could have concluded at the latest yesterday if the Taoiseach had spoken merely on the Bill and its effects and left it at that, but as a result of his dissertation, we have had Deputies going over the past in the way that they did.
I think it was Deputy Sheldon who made the suggestion that this Bill, when passed, should not become law until after the next general election. The Deputy mentioned, I think, the year 1953. Well, there is a precedent for that suggestion because, by a strange coincidence, Deputy Mulcahy, when the Draft Constitution was before this House in 1937, put down an amendment to it on somewhat similar lines. The amendment proposed:—
"To delete all words after the word ‘that' and substitute the words ‘the Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to Bunreacht na hÉireann until six months after the re-assembly of Dáil Éireann following the next general election'."
Deputy Mulcahy then went on to say that:—
"The additional words should run like this: ‘So that urgent matters of vital interest to the people may have at the present time the undivided attention of the Government, the Dáil and the people.'"
I suggest that the same might be said of the present position, the present circumstances and the present Bill. Deputy Mulcahy, when moving that amendment, went on to describe the conditions which existed at that time in the country. He spoke about the poverty of the people, their difficulty in being able to purchase the requirements of life, and, generally, he pictured a position bordering on famine. Now, I am not going to follow his example in that respect.
I am going to suggest that, whatever the condition was then, it is to a certain extent more difficult now because the cost of the necessaries of life in that period were very much lower than they are at present. If there was any substance in the Deputy's argument at that time then there must be substance in it still and one would ask himself if there was any dire necessity for bringing in this Bill at the present time and deferring more necessary legislation. Deputy Larkin has spoken rather strongly on the question of our attitude with regard to Partition. The Minister for Finance was, apparently, incited to make a speech as a result of Deputy Larkin's contribution. Deputy Larkin's contribution arose from a statement which was made by Deputy Cowan in which he suggested that the young men of this country should go across the Border and end Partition—I presume by force. Deputy Larkin must have presumed similarly. Recently the Taoiseach was compelled to make a statement, which I am going to quote, by reason of pressure that Deputy Lehane was, apparently, putting on him. I quote from Volume 112, column 1520:—
"I say here, realising that I must speak with restraint and a sense of responsibility, that, for the first time since 1922, this Cabinet will, by its policy and its actions, give some hope of bringing back to this country the six north-eastern counties of Ulster. I must speak on that subject, as I say, with restraint and responsibility, but I do make that assertion with all the confidence that I have in me."
The Taoiseach made that statement with the knowledge of the situation which exists; with the full realisation of his responsibility, and he was making an appeal. Anyone who likes to look up the reference which I have given will see that he made an appeal to Deputy Lehane not to press a certain matter which he was raising. I subscribe to the views expressed by Deputy Larkin. I do not believe that the question of Partition will be settled by force. I believe that eventually it will be settled by good-will and by the realisation on the part of those responsible for the Partition of this country of the injustice that is being inflicted on this country. It may take some little time to bring that realisation home to those gentlemen in Great Britain who are responsible but I believe that eventually justice will prevail. I should be very sorry to think that any young man would be induced by any word or act of any member of this House to cross the Border for any bellicose purpose. I know quite a number of gentlemen in the North of Ireland. These men have their own convictions in regard to the northern aspect of matters and they hold those convictions just as strongly as I hold my convictions in respect of matters down here. I am convinced that we could better their heads for a week at a time and that we would not succeed in influencing them one iota in regard to their convictions. I believe, however, that it would be possible to convince them by our actions down here and by the success of our affairs down here and perhaps by argument but certainly, as far as force is concerned, they are Irishmen and Irishmen will always react, if they are Irishmen, to force. I have respect for the views of the Taoiseach as a lawyer. I should like to say, however, that when he made the statement in this House on Wednesday in the course of which he told us he was satisfied, and I think he linked the Minister for External Affairs with his view, that from 1936—
1937.
I may be wrong and if I am wrong I apologise but I got the impression that the Taoiseach said 1936. I took it that he was referring to the 27th Amendment to the former Constitution. If I am wrong then what I am going to say has no force but my impression was that he stated that from 1936 we were outside the Commonwealth. What I was going to say was that he was right the other night and that he was wrong when he was speaking on the Constitution on the 12th May, 1937, when he said: "We are here as a Parliament passing this law and we are here as one of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." I am satisfied that we went outside the Commonwealth of Nations when the 27th Amendment to the former Constitution was passed. There can be no question about it, of course, that we were completely outside it—and that is a recognised fact by the Leader of the Government and, I presume, by the Minister for External Affairs so that there is no necessity to go into it.
Would the Deputy agree that the Treaty was still in operation in 1938?
I would not.
Why then was it amended in 1938—the British-Irish agreement of that year?
The Constitution was passed on the 29th December, 1937.
Correct.
We got the Ports back in 1938.
By deliberate amendment of the Treaty.
Deputy O'Higgins, in the course of his remarks here last evening—and Deputy O'Higgins is one who so grossly exaggerates his case that it is very difficult for those of us on this side of the House to take him seriously at times—stated that he agreed, referring to the External Relations Act, that while it was understood abroad there was confusion and misunderstanding about it at home. I submit that it was understood abroad because Deputy O'Higgins and his colleagues were unable to influence the people abroad in the same way as they were able to confuse them and make them misunderstand the position here at home. Neither one nor the other is misunderstood now. When I speak of Deputy O'Higgins as one who grossly exaggerates his case I am going to produce statements of his as evidence of that fact. These statements were made at the time when we were discussing the draft Constitution in this House.
I think the Deputy is referring to the Minister for Defence and not to——
I am referring to Deputy O'Higgins in 1937.
Acting Chairman
And now the Minister for Defence.
And the Minister for Defence now.
Acting Chairman
As there are three Deputies O'Higgins it is better to be quite clear.
I agree. I am referring to a statement made in 1937 and I presume I am in order in referring to him then as Deputy O'Higgins.
Acting Chairman
Perfectly, as long as it is clear now which one you mean.
This is what he said when discussing the draft Constitution and discussing the particular clause in reference to the President:—
"So we are to pass this document in haste in order to make it possible for an autocrat or dictator, partly through the machinery of this document as it stands, and partly by the legislation of a docile and servile Government, to have powers conferred on an individual in this country that the country would even shirk giving to an executive group."
At a later stage in the same debate he went on to say in respect of the President:—
"He is to be immune from all the laws of the land. The law is good enough for you and me, the law is good enough for the man and woman outside, but this particular individual, during his seven years, can commit any or every crime and there is no law made by Irishmen that can touch him."
He can hardly have read the Constitution when he made that statement because, if he had read the Constitution, he would only have had to refer to Section 10 of Article 12 to see how the President is dealt with under that Article. As if that were not enough, referring to the President again, he said:—
"He is to be Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and the powers he will exercise under that title will be whatever powers are given to him by law, and those powers are unlimited. He will not only have a stranglehold on Parliament, but he will have the operative command-in-chief of the Army."
There have been two Presidents since that Constitution was enacted. Firstly, there was President Dr. Douglas Hyde. I am sure that it is amusing for us who passed through that period to relate Dr. Douglas Hyde to an autocrat or a dictator. The same applies to his successor. During the emergency we went through a very trying period. It is true that by virtue of the Constitution the President is Commander-in-Chief of the Army; but to my knowledge, and I was there during the whole of that period, never under any circumstances by word, act or deed did the "autocrat" or "dictator" interfere in any way with matters with which the military authorities were concerned.
He dare not do it, in fact, under law.
I only mention these matters to show the form of abuse and misrepresentation that was hurled against the Constitution—a Constitution which is now accepted as the Standing Orders, if you like to call it that, under which this nation operates. Were it not for the Constitution against which all this abuse was levelled it would not be possible for the present Government to put through this House the Bill they describe as the Republic of Ireland Bill.
In conclusion, I want to say that I am supporting the Bill. I am glad that the situation is being clarified. That will be of benefit within the nation and outside of the nation because of the manufactured misunderstanding and confusion that was deliberately provoked here.
By Deputy de Valera.
No, by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins and his colleagues.
Did you read Deputy de Valera's speech to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis in 1938?
I have, perhaps, read more speeches than the Deputy has.
You ought to look at it again. It is useful.
And I think if the Deputy read a few more of them he might change his tune. The fact of the matter is that I am glad to see this Bill being brought in and, as far as I am concerned and as far as the Party of which I am a member is concerned, we will support it as the Leader of our Party has stated.
I suppose, a Chinn Chomhairle, that the tendency to justify one's past actions is a normal human tendency. It is a tendency which probably gets greater play in the life of a politician and in the life of a public man than there is scope for in the lives of ordinary individuals. Therefore it was. I suppose, only to be expected that in the course of this debate we should have had a cavalcade of justification from all sides of the House. However, on the whole, the debate has been well conducted.
I should like at the outset, replying on behalf of the Government, to express our appreciation for the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. He took a constructive and reasonable attitude in approaching this Bill. With one or two noticeable exceptions the other members of the Opposition also behaved reasonably. They, of course, justified their own respective past utterances but, as I have said, that is only a normal human tendency. I should also like to express the thanks of the Government and I think the thanks of the House generally to Deputy Byrne, Senior, and Deputy Byrne, Junior, for having withdrawn their amendment. It was what I would have expected them to do under the circumstances, and we are grateful to them for having done it.
With the passage of this Bill we shall have reached an important milestone in the development of our history, an important landmark on the road towards the achievement of our national objective. I do not want either to exaggerate or to minimise the importance of the landmark which we have reached. I might summarise the importance of this event in this way. When this Bill comes into operation, it will be the first time in the history of our country that the Republic of Ireland has been recognised internationally; it will be the first time we will have secured its recognition in the international sense. This Bill does not declare the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland was established in our generation in 1916, subsequently by the votes of the people in 1918, and it was formally declared again in 1919. But, though it was established then, it never secured full international recognition. Accordingly, this will be the first time that the Republic of Ireland will, as a separate State and entity, take its place amongst the nations of the world and be recognised as such by them. That in itself is an historic event and marks an important point in the progress of our nation. I think that we should all agree that that is an important feature of this Bill.
Many Deputies have said, and rightly said, that this Bill does not declare a republic. But this Bill, in the international sense, settles the status of this country once and for all. The position after the passage of the Bill will be that we will have a de facto republic in this portion of our national territory over which we have control. We, of course, claim de jure authority by Article 2 of the Constitution, which provides that our national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas. The new Act will extend to the whole country in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, we are not establishing a 26-county republic. Pending the reintegration of our national territory, however, the de facto application of the Bill, as distinct from the de jure position, will be limited to the area in respect of which our laws apply.
Broadly speaking, the passage of this Bill will achieve four main purposes. In the first instance, it will place our status and sovereignty completely above question or dispute. Hitherto the position was undoubtedly anomalous, despite what has been said from the Opposition Benches. We were in the extraordinary position of having a head of State, possibly, for internal purposes, but of having no head of State for external purposes. We had a President and we had no President; we had a King and we had no King; we were a republic and were not a republic; we were in the Commonwealth and we were not in the Commonwealth. At no stage throughout the last 12 years, since this Act was passed, was any member of the Opposition Benches who then occupied these benches in a position to say yes or no, whether we were a republic, or whether we were in the Commonwealth or not.
Questions were asked often in this House. There was never any yes or no answer as to whether we were in the Commonwealth or not. I have searched through every utterance that I could find, made by the present Leader of the Opposition in these years. There were many replies given. You can read the replies but, having read them, you could not say whether the answer was yes or no. As to the question of whether we were a republic or not, different views were expressed. In the early stages, after the passing of the Constitution, I do not think that any suggestion was made that the State was a republic in fact. At a later stage the Leader of the Government, the then Taoiseach, did say that we were a republic, by reference to dictionaries and to various methods of interpretation. When the Constitution was being considered by this House, an amendment was moved to provide that the State would be described as a republic. The amendment was moved in this House on 25th May, 1937, and it was opposed by the Taoiseach, who was then President of the Executive Council. He informed the House:
"I told the Deputy, when he put an amendment down here in quite the opposite direction, that the thing to be aimed at in this Constitution in my opinion, as there is an acute difference of opinion of such a character that it would mean that we would not get acceptance of this Constitution by a large section of the people, was to leave this matter to be decided as a separate and independent question——"
that is, the question of whether the State would be described as a republic or not.
"Whether you take one view or the other view you will have against this Constitution a number of people who, otherwise, would not be against it. In the same spirit, as we try to meet Deputies on the opposite side where it is at all possible, I think we ought to leave this matter also outside it. It can be decided outside the Constitution, and put as a separate and independent question. I think that is the proper place for it, and so I have to resist the amendment."
I am reading from the Official Report, Volume 67-68, columns 973 and 974.
The position, therefore, was that, on 25th May, 1937, when the present Constitution was being considered by this House, the Head of the Government took the view that the question of whether we were a republic or not was a matter which was to be dealt with separately by separate legislation. That is what we are doing here to-day.
That was in 1937. In November, 1938, addressing the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis and speaking on a motion before that Árd-Fheis asking that the republic be declared, the then Taoiseach said:—
"There is no constitutional obstacle. There may be obstacles of fact or on material or other grounds but there is no legal obstacle to your declaring a republic in the morning. Dáil Éireann has only got to repeal the External Relations Act, 1936, and you have a complete republic in fact for this part of Ireland."
That was in November, 1938, and I quote from the Irish Press of 23rd November, 1938. In December, 1938, Deputy de Valera, speaking at University College, said:—
"I say deliberately that it would be better for the nation if we were an independent republic. You may say that it might not be in the material interests of the country—I will admit it—but it would give us that unanimity of sentiment about which the Auditor speaks."
Again, later, he said:—
"I for one am sorry because I feel that we were able to say we are an independent republic there would be none of this confusion which exists at the moment which is helping to cause dissatisfaction and is in a sense, a source of danger."
What is the use of criticising the Taoiseach for the speech he made here the other day? Was he not expressing the very sentiments which the Leader of the Opposition was expressing in 1938, the very doubts that Deputy de Valera then had and which have proved to be only too true since? That is the position the Government is seeking to remedy now.
I am sorry if I speak with some heat on this. There should be no heat in a matter of this kind. It is a matter upon which the House should be in complete agreement. It is a matter upon which there should be complete unity. In independent countries the question of national sovereignty is never an issue. It is always above Party politics, always above the turmoil of Parliamentary conflict. It is only when a country loses its liberty or its sovereignty that the question of sovereignty becomes an issue. We are doing no more and no less than trying to set the question of our national sovereignty above dispute.
The second purpose which we hope to achieve by this Bill is somewhat linked with the first—the first being the question of putting our sovereignty above doubt, because all the doubts and controversies surrounding our sovereignty and status had become sources of internal conflict. The desire for national independance is as old as the conquest of Ireland by Britain. Throughout the centuries, the struggle for it continued in varying degrees. It became ingrained in the tradition of our people and the achievement of national independence has, for centuries, been the national ideal of our people. For a century and a half, that ideal of national independence became crystallised in a desire for the establishment of an independent, sovereign Irish Republic.
It is hardly necessary to review the successive movements that have occurred since and their successes and their failures over the last century and a half. In our generation, we saw the Irish Republic proclaimed in 1916 and subsequently ratified by the votes of the people in 1918. The Treaty which resulted in civil war tore our country from end to end, divided our national forces and created bitterness and sufferings amongst our people. Normal political development and normal political controversy have been impossible as a result of the civil war. The civil war ended officially in 1923, but a state of incipient civil war has continued ever since. Cycles of violence and cycles of oppression followed each other with rhythmic regularity—acts of violence, military courts, executions, internments, hunger strikes, dead bodies—that has been the history of this country for the past 25 years. Just look at our Statute Book. Look at the laws passed in this Chamber—laws that are destructive of all the elementary principles of justice and democracy. Are these the conditions that we are to continue? Are we to continue the government of this country by the use of extraordinary methods, by the use of methods that are destructive of the ordinary rules of justice? Is every Government that sits on these benches to find itself forced to fight a section of its own people, a section of its people who in fact share the same ideal as they, namely, the establishment of an independent Irish Republic?
The two successive Governments that preceded this Government were faced with the impossible task of trying to reconcile, on the one hand, the traditional ideals of the Irish people with the requirements of British policy as regards the Crown, on the other. It was an impossible task. They made, and I grant it freely, bona fide and able attempts to meet that position and I should like to pay a tribute to the achievement both of Mr. Cosgrave's and Deputy de Valera's Governments. They both, in their spheres and in their time, sought continually to enlarge our sovereignty, and sought to do that often in the face of grave difficulties, and they did succeed in making a tremendous amount of progress, progress which probably enables us here to-day to pass this Bill. I am not going to try and share praise or blame between the various Parties. I have been too closely identified myself with the struggle of the last 25 or 30 years, to attempt to take an objective view in these matters. It suffices me to realise that the national need is for unity, for unity of purpose, unity on the ideal for which, after all, we all stood together. It is all very well to make speeches here, to quote utterances that were made in the last 25 or 30 years; but, after all, most of the older ones amongst us came into public life purely and simply on the basis that it was our aim to establish an independent Irish Republic in this country. Many of the younger ones came into this House because they were related to some others who had fallen in the struggle, or who were taking an active part in the struggle. Is it not time we buried the history of the last quarter of a century?
Is it not time that we got our people united together to achieve the complete unity of our country, when we would be enabled to have normal political development, normal political discussion without bitterness, without hatred, without trying to create Party advantages? The second purpose, therefore, of this Bill is to try and remove from our body politic that canker which has disrupted our political life in the last 25 or 30 years. Mind you, an analysis, if you stand back and analyse the position, always amounted to this—it was always due to an attempt to reconcile the traditional ideal of our people with the requirements of British policy of the day. Surely our sole consideration here should be the reconciliation of our own people and the achievement of unity amongst ourselves?
Again, before I pass from this, lest I may have been carried away in saying things that would sound critical of Deputy de Valera's Government, I want to give him full credit for the work he and his Government did in maintaining and establishing the sovereignty of this country. I think it would be unfair, on an occasion of this kind, not to give full credit for his achievement. Likewise, I think it would be unfair not to give full credit to Mr. Cosgrave's Government for their achievements in their day, in their time, in their circumstances.
Very largely, this attempt to reconcile Irish aspirations with the requirements of the Crown over the last quarter of a century was not only contrary to Irish ideals, but it was lacking in reality. The British Crown could have no place here, it had no place in our history and no reality in our relations with Britain. This brings me to the third reason, the third purpose that we hope to achieve by the enactment of this Bill. We have not had normal relations with Britain either, over the last quarter of a century or more. Because of the unhappy history of our relationship, normal friendly, political developments have not been easy. There are now only two points of friction left between our two countries. All the others have been removed. These points are Partition and the constitututional forms maintained by the External Relations Act which are repugnant to Irish sentiment and unrelated to the facts of Irish history. We are not in a position to remove Partition by our own unilateral action, but we are in a position to remove the other point of friction and that is what we are doing now.
We believe that, by removing these points of friction, Anglo-Irish relationship can only improve. Efforts to cast our relationship in unwelcome and inappropriate moulds have always been severe causes of conflict. The repeal of the External Relations Act is the last step that will have to be taken to remove this cause of friction. Freed once and for all from the strain of constant differences and constant controversies, our relationship can only improve. To create a sound framework for this relationship, it must be appreciated that what matters is the substance and not the outward form of the relationship. With Britain and the Commonwealth countries we share many things in common that, were it not for past history and irritants, would have meant that our countries would probably have been much closer together.
Millions of our people have made their homes in Britain and other Commonwealth countries. We share largely the same ideals, the same democracy, and the same way of life. The vast bulk of our commercial intercourse is with Britain. The population of our two islands moves freely from one to the other. All these factors would normally have led to very close friendship indeed, had it not been for the survival of the cause of friction to which I have referred. It is our hope that it will be appreciated that, contrary to the views expressed in certain sections of the Press, the step we are taking is, in fact, a constructive step towards the achievement of more normal and friendly relations. In this way, not only the ties of friendship and kinship, but the long established traditions, the economic and social and trade arrangements, based on a common interest, will be able to develop more normally.
As Deputies already know, the talks took place at Chequers on the 17th October and at Paris on the 16th November. These were concerned with the question of the effect of the repeal of this Act, the effect that it might have on the arrangements in regard to trade preferences and citizenship rights. Doubts had been raised as to whether these arrangements could be maintained once the Act was repealed. These doubts were voiced in sections of the Press in a way which we felt and still feel was entirely misleading. There was a danger that some of the comment which was made might be construed as an open invitation to other countries to put forward claims which, in our view, could not be justified.
In our belief, no other country would even think of putting forward such unsustainable claims. In any case, these matters were the subject of the conversations at Chequers and Paris. I want to say at once that the talks were strictly limited to this subject and did not deal with anything else. There was no talk about alliances or defence agreements or anything of the kind nor, I may say, was there the slightest disposition to question the right of the Irish Government to repeal the Act. The repeal of the Act was generally accepted as being entirely the business of the Irish Government and the discussions dealt merely with the position that would exist once the Act was repealed.
I should like to state here that all the conversations were courteous and that the official announcements issued after the meetings to that effect were not merely polite formulas. I should like to pay a very special tribute here to the tremendous assistance given to us in the course of these conversations by Dr. Evatt, Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and Minister for External Affairs for Australia, who is also, at present, President of the U.N.O. Assembly. Throughout all the conversations, he played a leading and active part and was of tremendous assistance. He was very busy at the time, but he was able to cast aside whatever duties he had to perform, to assist and take part in the conversations we had. Perhaps it would seem as if I had singled out Dr. Evatt if I did not also make reference to the tremendous help and assistance received from Mr. St. Laurent who attended the conferences at Chequers and later from Mr. Pearson, who attended the Paris Conferences on behalf of Canada and also from Mr. Frazer, Prime Minister of New Zealand. I should say that the attitude of the representatives of the Commonwealth countries as distinct from the attitude of the representatives of Britain was most helpful throughout. I have said "as distinct from the attitude of the representatives of Britain" not because the attitude of the representatives of Britain was not a friendly attitude, but because I intend to refer to their friendly cooperation in the matter separately.
From the first, we regarded the doubts which had been raised as being groundless and we took occasion during the discussions to explain the reasons for our view. It was our view that we had ceased to become a member of the Commonwealth after the new Constitution came into operation. By Article I of the former Constitution, the 1922 Constitution, the State was declared to be a co-equal member of the community of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations. My view is that once that Article was repealed and once no equivalent Article was included in the 1937 Constitution, we ceased, as from that date, to be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We pointed that out and we pointed out also that there was no question involved of creating new rights, that we were willing and desirous of continuing the exchange of trade preferences and citizenship rights that had existed hitherto. We pointed out that these exchanges of rights held together and are interdependent, that they are part of the traditional and customary factual relationship between Ireland and the various States concerned. The essence of prescriptive rights is that we accord to them and they accord to us certain rights which none of us extends to others. We explained our view in relation to the trade preferences. I do not think that I need at this stage trouble the House with an examination of the principles contained in the Geneva Agreement on Tariffs or in the Havana Charter, but from these documents it is quite clear that the trade preferences existing between Ireland and States which form the British Commonwealth are safeguarded, not by reason of membership of the British Commonwealth but by their geographical description. It is true that these Agreements or the Charter do not include all the countries of the world but we felt satisfied that quite apart from these Charters, on the grounds that these were long-standing, traditional and customary rights, no other country could step in and claim like rights.
We discussed the position of citizenship rights. As Deputies know, our citizens in Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Commonwealth countries generally, are not treated as foreigners or aliens in the ordinary sense. On the contrary, they enjoy practically all the rights and privileges of nationals in these countries. Similarly, British, Canadian and other Commonwealth citizens here are not treated in the same way as foreigners, but are given political rights which put them in virtually the same position as our own citizens. It will be clear, therefore, that the citizenship arrangements are quite sui generis arising from our past relationships with these countries. They are governed by the fact that in relation to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, and to a lesser extent Canada, we occupy the position of a mother country. As one Commonwealth statesman put it to me recently: “No matter what the law says, how can we regard you as a foreign country when 25 per cent. of our people are Irish?” The fact is that these special arrangements which we have with Britain and the Commonwealth countries are the consequence of a particular set of historical facts which do not, and cannot, exist between us and other countries. In these circumstances the suggestion made that the rights which Ireland accords to Commonwealth countries in virtue of that special relationship and vice versa, should be claimable by other countries as if they were rights exchanged by virtue of mere commercial agreements or treaties was, to my mind, from the beginning, quite unjustifiable.
In dealing with this question of citizenship rights, there was an important development. I have dealt with it already in earlier debates in this House. Since the establishment of this State, and indeed since the days of Henry II, we have been claimed by British law as British subjects, each one of us, whether we lived here or in Great Britain or elsewhere, owing allegiance to the King of England. This position has continued right up to the present. Of course, under our own law and the Constitution, we claim our own people as Irish citizens, but Irish citizens as such have never been recognised under British law. We were just classified as British subjects. This position resulted in a serious conflict of nationality law which led to many complications. Many representations were made by Irish Governments in connection with this matter and, finally, after many discussions, a general scheme was worked out whereby Irish citizens would be recognised under British law in Britain and in Commonwealth countries as Irish citizens and not as British subjects.
The House will remember that this matter was debated earlier this year in the House. As a result of negotiations and discussions that took place, a new British Nationality Act has been introduced and passed into law. By its provisions, four categories of people are provided for. They are: first, United Kingdom citizens; secondly, Commonwealth citizens or British subjects; thirdly, Irish citizens and, fourthly, aliens. This Act has the effect of settling this century-old struggle and, for the first time, Irish citizenship as such is recognised by Britain and by the Commonwealth countries. I noticed that Deputy Sheldon when he was talking referred three times to himself as being Irish. It may surprise Deputy Sheldon to know that under British law he will not be recognised as an Irish citizen until the 1st January next.
Now, similar legislation has been or is being introduced in Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth countries. Broadly speaking, I think their scheme of legislation will be more or less along the same lines. There may be some variations. We hope that each of these countries will recognise Irish citizenship in their nationality law.
Since this debate opened to-day I have received from the Prime Minister of India, Pandit Nehru, and from the Prime Minister of Australia messages of goodwill and indicating that they propose to afford to us certain rights. In the case of South Africa probably the understanding is that for the time being we will continue to accord to each other an exchange of rights but subsequently we will have to negotiate a detailed agreement with South Africa dealing with the exchange of rights. I have given in brief outline the subjects and topics that were dealt with in various discussions that occurred. Undoubtedly, any important political change, any change of status, results in a good deal of difficulty. We have to face these difficulties and I think we will be able to surmount them with reasonable ease. We have certainly received the utmost co-operation and goodwill both from Britain and from the Commonwealth countries. I should like to pay a special tribute to the assistance which we received from the British Government in this matter. They met us with understanding and goodwill.
Mr. Attlee, the British Prime Minister, gave the matter a considerable amount of his personal time and I think I would express the views of my colleague the Minister for Finance, who was present during the discussions we had with him when I say that he impressed us by his high degree of integrity and his understanding approach to our problems. We also received considerable assistance, both at Chequers and in Paris subsequently, from Lord Jowitt, British Lord Chancellor, who at all times was prepared to give us the assistance of his ability and experience in dealing with these matters. Mr. Noel Baker, who was present at all these discussions, also took up a very helpful and constructive attitude.
There are just one or two matters that I want to deal with that arose in the course of the debate. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the possibility of the 21st of January next being fixed as the date of the coming into operation of this Bill when passed into law. I think that suggestion subsequently received support from different quarters of the House. It may be a coincidence that that is the date that the Government had in mind when discussing the date of the coming into operation of the Act. I do not know whether it may present a difficulty or not. I do not know whether all the necessary consequential adjustments that have to be made will have been completed by then. If they have been completed by then, certainly, it would be a very appropriate date.
I do not want to start going into any controversial issues but I think that, for record purposes, there are certain things that should be stated. Much of the discussion has centred around those provisions of the External Relations Act which deal with accreditation of diplomatic representatives but there are other sections in the Act which I think deserve a good deal of consideration, one in particular which, to my surprise, was not adverted to by any of the Deputies. Section 3 (2) which, I understand, was not in the Bill as originally drafted, provides as follows:—
"Immediately upon the passing of this Act, the instrument of abdication executed by His Majesty King Edward the Eighth on the 10th day of December, 1936 (a copy whereof is set out in the Schedule to this Act) shall have effect according to the tenor thereof."
The effect of the words I have read are to give the force of law to the Act of abdication which is set out in the Schedule. I think that there can be no doubt that this is the effect of the words I have read out. You then turn to the Schedule and you find that the first words of the schedule are as follows:—
"I, Edward the Eighth of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Emperor of India...."
Therefore the effect of sub-section 2 of Section 3 is to give the validity of law to a declaration by that monarch, as he then was, that he was King of Ireland. On the 11th December all traces of the Crown and of the King had been removed from the Constitution. On the following day an Act was passed declaring the King of Britain to be King of Ireland. This is not an Act of the British Parliament; this is an Act of this Parliament. The section then goes on:
"And his said Majesty shall, for the purpose of the foregoing sub-section of this section and all other (if any) purposes, cease to be King and the King for those purposes shall henceforth be the person who, if his said Majesty had died on the 10th day of December, 1936, unmarried, would, for the time being, be his successor under the law of Saorstát Eireann."
What law? I think I am correct in saying and that I am not disclosing any secret if I say that that particular sub-section in this particular form was not the sub-section or the words that the then Taoiseach had in mind in the framing of that Act. I have considered them and considered them very carefully and I have come to the clear conclusion that the effect of that sub-section was to declare the King to be the King of Ireland for those purposes and all others, if any.
There has been a lot of talk as to the 1937 Constitution, as to whether it was a republican Constitution or not. My view has been that in form the 1937 Constitution is a republican Constitution. If the 1937 Constitution is a republican Constitution, then there can be no room for a King in it. If there is no room for the King in it, then this Act was unconstitutional since 1937 and an unconstitutional Act has been operated by the Administration since 1937. I think that in law there would be no answer to that case. You cannot have a King in a republican Constitution. The logical result that flows from that position, therefore, appears to me to be that either this Constitution was in its nature a republican Constitution, in which case this Act was unconstitutional and has been unconstitutional since 1937 and should be declared unconstitutional, or this Constitution was not a republican Constitution because you cannot have a King in a republican constitution presumably—I take it that there can be no dispute about that. To mymind, that is the kernel of the position as it has existed. I do not think it matters very much now that steps have been taken to terminate it, but I think, legally, that anybody will agree that that is the position.
Numerous references have been made —I think Deputy de Valera made numerous references—to the fact that the Constitution was not recognised as a republican Constitution and that that was done for mischievous purposes internally but that externally there was never any doubt saving—I think he mentioned—one case.
Frankly, I think that internally a lawyer would have a considerable amount of trouble in making up his mind as to whether this Act was constitutional or not, so I do not blame anybody for being confused internally, and externally I think there has been a good deal of difficulty too. I think that Deputy de Valera referred to these difficulties on a number of occasions. I think that on a number of occasions Deputy de Valera, then Taoiseach, explained that it was all very well to talk about repealing the External Relations Act but that you would have to make sure that other countries would recognise it if you did it and accord full recognition. He said so in 1945 and explained that we would have to go through all the States represented here at that time and beg each of them to agree to the new definition and we had neither the time nor the inclination to do that nor did he think it necessary to do it because apart from the difficulty of getting States to favour the small State and to incur the displeasure or enmity of a greater State—apart from all that— there was a question of policy involved. There were a number of such statements in debates here year by year. I think this year on my Estimate, when the matter was mentioned, Deputy de Valera said: "It all depends; if you can get enough States to recognise you, all right". That may have been difficult. The External Relations Act may have served a useful purpose some time but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served now by going back into an analysis as to whether it was necessary at the time it was passed or whether it should have been repealed before. If I have started any argument I should like to say that it is purely for the purpose of putting on record what my view was. Deputy de Valera said that one thing we must make certain about is that having passed this Bill into law there should be no going back. I think that every Deputy in this House will agree with that proposition and I think everybody in this country will agree with it too.
Deputy Dunne mentioned the question of titles of nobility. Titles of nobility are dealt with in a couple of Articles in the Constitution, and I do not think anything arises on the passage of this Bill to be dealt with.
Deputy Sheldon and Deputy Dockrell both made very sincere, very reasonable and very able statements to the House, statements that I think deserve the careful consideration of Deputies. Nobody who heard them could doubt their sincerity. I think, however, that Deputy Dockrell, while expressing his opposition to the measure, really at the same time stated the reason why this was necessary. I took down his statement at the time because it struck me as being rather typical: "Ireland must go her appointed way, and her appointed way was the achievement of an independent, sovereign republic." I think Deputy Dockrell agreed that that was her appointed way and Ireland is going her appointed way. I should like to say this both to Deputy Sheldon and to Deputy Dockrell. The vast majority of the people have had over the last century to put up with things that were highly repugnant to us. Is it not up to them as a small minority in this country to accept the viewpoint of the majority which I take it is in accord with their own national sentiment and their own national position? To a large extent those who were referred to as the ex-Unionist minority have provided many patriots in the past. They have always been good citizens and we feel that to a large extent their opposition is based more on prejudice than on reality. We feel that there is room for them and we want them in our midst. We want them as good citizens in the republic, as good as they have been before, and we know that they will be good citizens in the republic.
Deputy Aiken mentioned the question of whether the constitutionality of the description of the State to be the Republic of Ireland had been considered. It has and the Government are satisfied that it was constitutional, otherwise the Government would not have brought in this measure in this particular way.
Remarks have been made as to the title of the Bill and it was suggested that there is a political reason for that title. Actually the title of the Bill came from the draughtsmen and was not accompanied by any political reason.
Deputy Aiken raised a number of points. I do not think there is very much substance in the points he raised. I think they were merely a repetition of points raised before. He said that there was no need for Section 2. Section 2 is the section that declares Ireland to be a republic. I think that from the various statements made by the Leader of the Opposition it is quite obvious that there was a need for clearing up that doubt. It was a need which was felt by the last Government, just as it is felt by this Government.
The Deputy also asked what my attitude would be as to the use of arms for the overthrow of the Constitution. My attitude has been that the 1937 Constitution was a valid Constitution and that the use of arms to overthrow it was illegal. I do not want to be controversial. I am sorry that appeals I made before were not listened to in that respect. If the Deputy who asked the question had himself taken steps essential in that respect during the war, possibly some lives lost since might have been saved.
Will the Minister use his influence with Deputy Fitzpatrick to get the arms used for revolutionary action up to 1946 handed over to the State?
The Minister will use all his influence to secure the unity and peace of this country and to do it effectively and not to carry on a vendetta, as was carried on before.
Mr. de Valera
There was no vendetta, which is an improper word.
The Minister should not stall on that question.
I have not stalled on your question. I have told you what my attitude was. I have been misrepresented so often that you probably have forgotten what it was. I am sorry to introduce these notes into this debate, notes which should not be introduced. We should be able from now on to place the sovereignty of our country above dispute and above controversy and should be able to have complete agreement on it. I think it was Deputy Fitzpatrick who said yesterday evening that this Bill was not the property of any particular Party in this House, that it was the property of the House as a whole and the people as a whole. This is undoubtedly right.
Probably those who deserve the greatest credit of all for this Bill are people who are no longer with us, who are no longer alive, people who in the generations that have gone by gave their lives for the achievement of an independent and sovereign Irish Republic. I think it is only right that in passing this Bill we should bear in mind that those who gave their lives in past generations for the freedom of the country, for the achievement of this independent republic, have made this possible. I think the best tribute we can pay them is to try to bury our own petty dissensions and try to secure unity of purpose in the maintenance of the sovereignty of our country, unity of purpose in the achievement of the unity of our national territory. I think that if we of all Parties in this House really get together sincerely and work in co-operation for securing the ending of Partition we can do it.
Mr. de Valera
There are a few questions I want to ask. Naturally, I am not to be taken as accepting a number of things which the Minister has said. The first question is: Is there any danger of Section 2 being regarded as contrary to the Constitution?
No.
Mr. de Valera
I do not think so myself, either. The next question is, how is this section going to be implemented? On official documents we have at the top: "Eire." Is there the suggestion that the title, "The Republic of Ireland" will also be used?
When the motion for the Second Reading has been put and decided on by the House, I intend to move that this Bill will be enacted both in the Irish language and the English language. The Government amendment to be proposed in Committee will provide that the title in English will be "The Republic of Ireland", and in Irish—"Poblacht na h-Éireann".
Mr. de Valera
That was not quite my question. The question was, how is the section to be implemented? Is there some suggestion that with "Eire" on official documents, "The Republic of Ireland" will be put in, or "Poblacht na h-Éireann", if you are using the Irish title?
If you will keep in mind that Section 2 of the Bill is a description of the State, and that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the name of the State, there will be no trouble about it.
Mr. de Valera
The Taoiseach has not got my point.
Perhaps not. It is not easy always to get it.
Mr. de Valera
My point is that this section describes the State. I can see that if there is a cataloguing of our State in some document, that we will be describing it. In the case of the United States of America the name of the States is the United States, just as the name of our State will continue to be "Eire". For generations—I do not know when it began—it has been described, without any official Statute as "the Republic of the United States". We can speak of our State as "The Republic of Ireland", or "Poblacht na h-Eireann," when using the Irish form. I am thinking of an official document of the States. Will that title appear on it and in what manner?
Whenever necessary, a description of the State will appear on it.
Mr. de Valera
That will be very seldom.
On French documents you have "Republique Francaise”.
Mr. de Valera
That is different, because that is the name of the State.
I am taking it that in the future, as in the past, the name "Eire" will occur on official documents as the name of the State, and that only in some particular cases, where it is necessary to describe the State will "Poblacht na h-Eireann" or the other be put in?
In the English language the name of the State is "Ireland," and the description of the State is "The Republic of Ireland." In the Irish language the name of the State is "Eire," and the description of the State is "Poblacht na h-Eireann." If you keep that in mind, the matter is perfectly clear.
Mr. de Valera
I am only interested in seeing how it will occur in official documents.
If you will leave the matter alone it will probably arise in practices, and settle itself in practices without our laying down rules.
Mr. de Valera
The last thing I would ask the Taoiseach to do would be to lay down rules. The only thing I wanted to know was, what he envisaged in connection with it? That is all right.
The next point is: even though we do have an Irish version—and I think that is quite right—passed into law at the same time as the English version, I still think that we ought to have in the English version, as we have in the Constitution, "Poblacht na h-Éireann." I propose to put in an amendment on that.
The official amendment will cover that.
Mr. de Valera
My amendment then will not be necessary?
Not unless you are not satisfied with what we do.
Mr. de Valera
My amendment would be very simple.
The Government amendment will provide that, in the English section of the Act, the description of the State shall be "The Republic of Ireland", and in Irish "Poblacht na hÉireann". In the Irish section of the Act, you will have "Poblacht na hÉireann", and "The Republic of Ireland" in the English language.
Mr. de Valera
I think that settles the question.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:
That the Bill be reprinted in both the official languages.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:
That the Bill, as reprinted, be considered in Committee of the whole Dáil on Wednesday, 1st December.
What will be the latest date for tabling amendments?
The Deputy can put them in up to the last minute, but I would appeal to him to have the Bill finished as quickly as possible. It is desirable that any question of uneasiness that exists should be settled as quickly as possible. I appeal to Deputies to co-operate with us in that.
Is it proposed to take all stages on Wednesday?
I would like to get all stages on that day if Deputy Cowan can put a curb on his ingenuity.
Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 6 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 1st December, 1948.