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

Mr. Aiken

I take exception to this amendment for several reasons. I object to the day on which this Bill comes into operation being called Independence Day. This Bill makes no fundamental change in our status of independence. The independence which we have here to-day will not be altered or improved in any way by the passing of this Bill. When this nation becomes united, and when the writ of the republic, which has been in existence for the last 11 years, runs over the whole Thirty-Two Counties, it will be appropriate for the Dáil at that time to name an Independence Day. Certainly, the nationalists of the Six Counties, and the people of the Irish race throughout the world who are interested in the reunification of our nation, would strongly object to the Dáil whose writ runs over only TwentySix Counties, nominating an Independence Day at this time. I trust the day will come when, by the united efforts of all Parties in this House and of the people of Ireland and the people of Irish descent, we will have a reunified country, and when the Dáil will then probably nominate an Independence Day.

Secondly, I want to object to the day on which this Bill comes into operation being declared a national holiday. Deputy Fitzpatrick, in moving the amendment last night, said that the people should rejoice on the day on which this Bill becomes law. Personally, I will be delighted at this Bill coming into operation if the prophecies of the Taoiseach in regard to it are fulfilled. He said that he recommended this Bill to the people and to this House on the grounds that it would take the guns out of politics. I would like the Taoiseach to give us some reassurance that it will take the guns out of Deputy Fitzpatrick's dumps.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Aiken's dumps.

An Ceann Comhairle

Without discussing what was said on the Second Stage.

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

Without the guns.

Mr. Aiken

We will discuss what was said on the Committee Stage by Deputy Fitzpatrick. He said that the people should rejoice. Will one of the reasons why they should rejoice be that before it comes into operation Deputy Fitzpatrick, who announced here that he was engaged in revolutionary activities up to a few months ago, will urge his companions——

Deputy Aiken was Chief of Staff and issued the "Dump Arms" order. Perhaps he will hand them over now.

Mr. de Valera

Surely if there is a question of a national holiday and of rejoicing it is in order to ask that the reasons why there really should be rejoicing would be given.

An Ceann Comhairle

In other words repeat all that was said on the Second Stage?

Mr. Aiken

I do not intend to repeat anything. All I am trying to do is to get for the country the greatest possible benefit out of this Bill. If this Bill does what the Taoiseach prophesied it would do, no one in the country will welcome it more fervently than myself.

What has that to do with a national holiday?

Mr. Aiken

It has everything to do with it, I think.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy has put me a question. That question requires no answer from me or from any member of the Government.

Mr. Aiken

It most certainly does.

The Taoiseach

I gave as the reasons for this Bill my hopes—not my prophesies. I gave as the fundamental reason for the initiating of these proposals the hopes and beliefs that I had that the guns would be taken out of Irish politics. I do not propose to enter upon that any further. I think Deputy Aiken's speech has been deplorable. I have the greatest sympathy with the idea underlying Deputy Fitzpatrick's suggested amendment. The only objection I would have to accepting it is the fact that there may be difficulties in declaring a national holiday—difficulties such as those referred to by Deputy de Valera last afternoon. I indicated in a reply I gave to a Parliamentary question yesterday that all these factors were being considered in connection with the proposals that have been made to declare a national holiday. Deputy Fitzpatrick also wishes to have this declared Independence Day. With that desire I have the fullest sympathy. The reasons for my sympathy I shall give in a few moments. The real fundamental objection to this amendment is that it provides that the day on which this Act comes into operation shall be declared Independence Day and a national holiday. The trouble, as I have already explained, is that we do not know when precisely it will be possible to bring this Bill, when it becomes an Act, into effective operation. That depends on circumstances over which we have no effective control, but we do intend to have the Act in operation as soon as possible.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether the 21st January or Easter Monday or the 24th April would be the appropriate date on which to declare a national holiday or to declare Independence Day. I have had numbers of communications from different people suggesting these three different dates. Deputy de Valera indicated his preference yesterday evening for Easter Monday if it were to be a national holiday. These matters have to be considered in the light of what has to be done in the way of clearing up details before the Act can come into operation. I hope Deputy Aiken was not being hypocritical when he said that nobody in the House would be more pleased than he if what he calls the "prophesies" that I have made were fulfilled. I always regard anybody who prefaces his remarks with the cliché "Nobody would be more so and so than I" with the greatest suspicion. I hope that the Deputy was sincere when he said that he hoped that when this Act comes into operation it will confer great benefits on all sections of our people. That is our desire and intention in bringing in this Act. I would prefer, instead of putting down in a Bill or in an Act, a specific day—no matter what day it is—to be called "Independence Day" and proclaiming it a national holiday, that it should evolve from the people themselves. When the people see this Act in operation and when they experience the effects of it—when they have forgotten the disputes and the discussions and the endless controversies that have gone on as to what our constitutional status is—they will then of their own wish give a verdict on this portion of this Act; and, if they are pleased with it, they then will spontaneously and of their own volition call a particular day independence day.

Mr. de Valera

That is common sense.

Deputy Cowan rose.

Mr. de Valera

Might I say a few words in clarification of statements I made last night in regard to a particular day being designated? The point has been mentioned as to the fact that our people abroad might possibly be confused. The Six Counties are still outside the effective jurisdiction of the State. That must be borne in mind in this connection. There was a previous occasion on which there was rejoicing, and it took us many years subsequently to make it clearly understood that we had not yet achieved our national goal.

The Taoiseach

If I might trespass on the patience of the House on a matter which I overlooked. It is in connection with Deputy Aiken's suggestion apropos the Six Counties. We all know—to use the phrase used by Deputy Aiken—that our writ does not run in the Six North-Eastern Counties at the moment. I take the view that it is not for us to put any stop or hindrance to the march of progress of our nation by reason of the fact that we have not yet control of the Six North-Eastern Counties. I am strongly of the view that our first duty is to look after our own people in this part of the country while, at the same time, doing all in our power to integrate the country as a whole. We must not put any hindrance to the march of progress of our nation because of the fact that we have not yet got the Six North-Eastern Counties. I assert here in all solemnity that the Six North-Eastern Counties are being used improperly in this debate for the purpose of bringing in irrelevant and extraneous considerations, and I think that that is to be highly deprecated.

Deputy Cowan rose.

Mr. de Valera

I do not know if the Taoiseach's remarks——

An Ceann Comhairle

I called Deputy Cowan.

Captain Cowan

We discussed the Bill at great length upon the Second Stage. Every possible aspect of it was discussed then. It was unanimously approved by the House, and I understood that there was agreement that the Government would get all stages of this Bill yesterday evening. Unfortunately, this Third Stage has been utilised by the Leader of the Opposition and by ex-Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Government for the purpose of——

An Ceann Comhairle

There is an amendment before the House and the Deputy must address himself to it.

Captain Cowan

I am addressing myself to the amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not.

Captain Cowan

Then I shall state that this particular amendment has been used by Deputies on the opposite side of the House for the purpose of whitewashing their own past. Let them whitewash their own past if they want to. Let them waste time doing that if they want to.

Mr. Moran

The Bill does that.

Captain Cowan

That is what the Bill is being used for and that is what the discussion on this amendment is being used for.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would like to hear Deputy Cowan on the amendment.

Mr. Lemass

Nobody else would!

Mr. P.J. Burke

What about the whitewashing now, Deputy?

Mr. S. Collins

You are wishy-washy.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid the Deputy missed his profession.

Captain Cowan

I do not want to take up time on this Bill and I shall endeavour——

An Ceann Comhairle

The word "endeavour" is the operative word there. I will hear the Deputy now on the amendment.

Captain Cowan

I do not think that we should discuss on the passage of this Bill anything in the nature of a public holiday, as Deputy Aiken said. I agree with him to that extent, but for completely different reasons. If this Parliament were to declare a national holiday, I could immediately get 20,000 people, living in the slums and who have been unemployed for years, to attend the public rejoicings. Would not that be a grand type of republic for which to have a public holiday? These people would enjoy that. It might whitewash some individuals in this House to declare a particular day a public holiday. There are many other things that have to be done before the reintegration of the national territory. Deputy Fitzpatrick has put his suggestion to the House in the form of an amendment. That amendment has been dealt with by the Taoiseach.

Every one of us is anxious that this Bill should be finished and done with so that we can get down to work in real earnest. We want to build houses and to end unemployment. I would appeal to Deputy Fitzpatrick to withdraw the amendment now so that all stages of the Bill might be passed. If the amendment is persisted in, I shall have to vote against it, because, until such time as we are in a position to have a 32-county republic, founded on the ideals of James Connolly, it is my submission that we are not in a position to have anything in the nature of a public holiday—a public holiday which might serve the purpose of whitewashing the past of certain individuals in this House and throughout the country.

Mr. Aiken

I want to disagree as violently as I can with the Taoiseach's attitude when he states that the foreign relations of this country are not to be conditioned by the fact that there are still six counties held by the British. The Taoiseach made a couple of statements in regard to Partition with which I thoroughly agree. He stated that we would enter into no alliance with the British while they held six of our counties; he stated that we would not enter into a western defence pact to which the British were a party while they held six of our counties. One thing that disturbed me recently was a Press communiqué issued after one of these conferences in Paris, in which it was stated, or alleged, that the Taoiseach was softening in that regard.

The Taoiseach

Who alleged that?

Mr. Aiken

It was alleged publicly here in the papers.

When I introduced this amendment I did so in a few words. I suggested that people outside should be taken into our confidence and should know exactly what we are doing. I am inclined to think that what happens here is that there are some people too long in the House, some people who have been in office too long, and they think that when they come to a decision and pass something, what is passed is accepted by everybody outside.

Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, I stated that you cannot dictate to the people; that freedom is something that is born in the hearts and minds of the people. I put down the amendment merely to give the Government an opportunity of taking the people outside into their confidence, thus being able to show that we are all agreed that we have a republic. The last Administration declared a republic, but they did not tell anybody about it; they locked it up in a Statute Book or perhaps in some dictionary. There are some regrettable features about this discussion. I do not mind anything Deputy Aiken said about me—that is not worrying me— but I think it is a pity that the Taoiseach did not reply to me after I introduced the amendment. I wanted an assurance from the Government that they are taking the people into their confidence. Having got that assurance now, I am perfectly satisfied to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. de Valera

I should like to say something in connection with a statement that was made. Having been anxious that an Independence Day would be agreed upon and having given a good deal of consideration to it, my view is that what the Taoiseach said at the end was the wisest course, that we should not try to declare by statute any day but should wait until such time was reached when we would have real rejoicing by all the people in the fact that complete independence had been achieved. In the long run that is the wisest course.

Mr. de Valera

I am saying that these words——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy dealt with that yesterday.

Mr. de Valera

If I am interrupted and asked questions, I suppose I have to give the answers.

"We were a republic and we were not a republic"—there again there is a falsehood. We were a republic—no doubt whatever about it.

Mr. MacBride

Is the Leader of the Opposition entitled to accuse another Deputy of stating falsehoods?

Mr. de Valera

Certainly I am.

An Ceann Comhairle

A thing may be false without being deliberate.

Mr. de Valera

If I say a thing is not true, I am giving an objective view of the position.

Mr. MacBride

Then I can accuse the Leader of the Opposition of stating falsehoods——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not ruling on what anybody may do on any other subject. I will not be tied up in knots.

Mr. de Valera

I say it is not true. It is not objectively true, or a fact, a statement of that kind—"We were a republic and we were not a republic." I say categorically that we were a republic.

The Minister's next point was: "We were in the Commonwealth and we were not." That is the only one of these points for which there was any basis in truth. That, I explained yesterday, was due to the fact that although we had, as is now stated, gone out of the Commonwealth in 1937 by our Constitution and previous Acts, yet those who in their previous conferences had drawn up the rules of the association, if you like, the criterion by which it was to be judged whether a State was a member or was not, said that we were a member. I, therefore, was in this position, that I could not of myself say that we were in or that we were out. There is in this country a large number of people who will not be satisfied with being out and there is a large number of people who will not be satisfied with being in. There is only one place, in such a set of circumstances, in which the two contestants could possibly be satisfied, and that is on the boundary. The moment, however, you choose a point on the boundary and say: "There, that is the only solution that is possible", both sides turn upon you and each then, because they have not got the victory, attacks. You then have the same sort of unnatural combination in the attack by the two extremes, that we see represented in the benches facing us. The position with regard to the Commonwealth, then, was simply that it was possible, because of the statement made by the British Government and other Governments at that time, that they were going to change their fundamental conception of the bond, so to speak, of the States of the Commonwealth. That is the only point in which there is any basis for these rhetorical contrasts.

Again, he said:—

"At no stage within 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' as to whether we were a republic or whether we were within the Commonwealth or not."

When I was asked specifically here in this House whether we were or we were not a republic, I said we were a republic. Then I went further to prove it, and the only way you can prove whether a description or term properly applies, is by taking the standard books of reference in which these things are discussed. I took them extensively, but I had for my pains a jibe-nothing more. It is a very simple thing, when people cannot argue against the points that are made, to make a cheap jibe. That cheap jibe is one of the things causing the difficulties with people like Deputy Fitzpatrick, who says that the Government must have kept the republic locked up all the time, as we did not know of its existence. Four or five days ago, I answered that question as far as it is possible for any human being to answer it—that is the question with regard to the Commonwealth.

Finally, with regard to my attitude during all the years of 1936 until this question was specifically put to me in my official capacity, as to whether we were a republic or not, my hope and my aim was to prevent this particular question as to names being a matter of public controversy. I did not think it was in the national interest that it should be so. I believed it was very much better that we should go on with our job which, from the broad national point of view, at that particular time was to try to seek for the reintegration of our country. That was the first job, that was the reality—these are simply descriptions and names. I know that people fight about names on labels more often than they fight about the real substance. I was anxious that every effort should be made to avoid that discussion. I knew perfectly well that we would have Deputies like the present Minister for External Affairs coming along and showing an Act of Parliament and giving his interpretation of it, and then coming along, when he is faced here and has to argue it out, and saying: "Is it constitutional or not?" If it is not constitutional, it does not exist as a law. All I can say is that, in practice, there was none of this peculiar sort of being that seemed to haunt the minds of some people when this External Relations Act was passed, some sort of a tenuous wraith of a King. We had no such thing in our practice. Our practice was simply, since 1937 or so, that five or six letters of credence were signed, of which the last I saw was in Irish, an Irish text signed by the King of Great Britain and Canada in his capacity as our agent and as a mark of our association with those States. That was the only practical thing that was done and as he was doing that as an agent he was in no sense a King of our country.

Mr. A. Byrne (Junior)

On the Second Stage I put forward the views of a large section of our people. I wish now on this stage to say that I feel that those very many citizens would wish me to say that they wish that the Act, as it will become shortly, will give the Government all they had hoped for and that it will turn out to be a stepping stone in the right direction and that it will help to bring Ireland nearer to peace and unity.

If I am correct in assuming that this sinister suggestion represents the policy of the Government, then I am going to tell them this much that, should that be their policy, there are men in this country still, men, I admit, whose love of country may on occasions, if it requires, outweigh their discretion and men who, in order to achieve the unity of their country, will adopt other than peaceful means.

Dr. Brennan

As I listened to Deputy de Valera, I must confess, I felt very much the truth of the words of the Taoiseach that he had some doubts regarding the bona fides of the arguments which had been advanced here by the Opposition. When I heard Deputy de Valera muttering something that he did not know what “status” was, I began to ponder.

Mr. de Valera

What is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. MacBride

If you keep to truth, to fundamental truth, you will always get help from this side.

Mr. MacBride

I do not think it matters very much now, but if there is a question of truth or untruth, then on every one of the statements I have made in connection with this matter I am prepared to prove that I have stated the truth, and that Deputy de Valera did not always state it, even according to his own statements.

Mr. Rooney

The Deputy himself has nothing to boast about.

Mr. Aiken

I do not want to boast about anything.

Mr. G. Boland

You could do it more than any man in this House.

Mr. Aiken

All that we can do, if we pass this and other measures, is to clear the decks for future action. We have one job of work to do as a nation, and that is to restore the unity of our country. One of the things that bedevilled our efforts over the last number of years was the fact that there were a number of politicians in this part who wanted to misrepresent completely the political status, the national status of this country. It might very well have been that if the truth about our constitutional status had been admitted by these politicians the Act which we are repealing to-day would have formed the bridge to the reunification of the country. However, that is past. Because of the way in which it was treated by certain gentlemen it became ineffective for its purpose. All that it served was an excuse for murder.

Captain Cowan

I would appeal to the Chair to ask Deputy Aiken not to pursue that line. It is discreditable to this House and to this nation.

Mr. Aiken

It was most discreditable to this nation that we had for the last 12 years certain gentlemen who were encouraging youngsters to use guns against this State on the plea that we were not a sovereign, independent nation entitled to be described as a republic if we wanted to be so described. Why is it possible to introduce and pass this measure? If this State had not been a republic for the last 12 years, since the Constitution, it could not constitutionally be described as a republic without a change in the Constitution.

Captain Cowan

Is the Deputy on record——

Mr. Aiken

The section of the Bill referring to the republic states that:—

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

Note the words "description of the State."

Captain Cowan

After the repeal of the Act.

I am asking the question in relation to Article 15, Section 6 (1) of the Constitution. That particular section states:—

It was not done in time.

Mr. Aiken

It is only right and proper that those Deputies and Ministers, who were so lately associated with these organisations which make the claim that they have a force independent of the Oireachtas of this republic, should make a clear and unequivocal statement here that these people have no right to exist as an armed body; that they have no right to hold arms and that they should forthwith give up those arms—even though they did not do it 12 years ago.

Mr. Collins

Or 20 years ago.

Mr. Aiken

Even if they have used them in the last 12 years, those arms should forthwith be surrendered to the properly appointed officers of the State.

Mr. Collins

If you are afraid, go to Pakistan.

Deputy Aiken says that for the past 16 years certain people engaged in certain kinds of activities, engaged in activities which brought them into conflict with the law, engaged in political agitations with which the Government of the day felt it necessary to deal. Has not one of our big difficulties over the past 12 years been due to the fact that nobody knew what the constitutional status of the nation was? The Minister for External Affairs has quoted speeches made by Deputy de Valera when he spoke as Taoiseach at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. Do not all those speeches make it perfectly clear, as well as his speeches on the External Relations Bill, that we were not then declaring a republic in 1936, and that we were not a republic in 1938? From 1938 until that fateful evening about two years ago, when Deputy de Valera arrived in the House, surrounded by copies of dictionaries, to tell us what our constitutional status was, not a single change had been made in our constitutional position. We were not a republic in 1938 and nothing happened to the Constitution between 1938 and 1946 except this, that in the meantime Deputy de Valera had taken to research in dictionaries and had discovered in 1946 that we were, he thought, a republic under what the British said in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and it was just a fortunate accident that the Encyclopedia Britannica described what a republic was and we managed then, according to Deputy de Valera, to be a kind of a republic by attrition.

If these people took certain action down through the years in pursuance of an ideal which was once the ideal of all our people, I am not too sure that this House and the manner in which our constitutional position was dealt with did not provide an abundant excuse for those people to misunderstand the real constitutional position. Do we not all know that over the past 25 years the constitutional status of this nation has been an issue over which there has been more political strife than any other single issue? Do we not know that we had a civil war on it? Do we not know we had almost worse than civil war when the civil war concluded? Does anybody recollect a time during the past 25 years when one could say with honesty and truth that the people were of one opinion as to what the constitutional status of the nation was?

Strife and muddiness and cloudiness have been the three chief characteristics of our constitutional status over the past 25 years. Now for the first time an effort is being made to clear up the position. Should not that be an occasion for joy? Should not that be an occasion on which all Parties could agree? Should not that be an occasion which ought to provide the cementing force between each and every Party to pool their energies and enthusiasms so as to bring about a solution of the only remaining problem between this country and Britain—the abolition of Partition and the reunification of the Six Counties with their motherland?

In the period that elapsed between my election as a Deputy and first coming into this House, I approached the future discharge of whatever duties would devolve on me here with a good deal of diffidence and quite a considerable amount of timidity. After the exhibition that has been given to-day by Deputy Aiken I feel that any diffidence or timidity on the part of any newcomer to this House was misplaced. Even though I disagreed violently with them, I always gave credit to the Deputies who comprise the Fianna Fáil Party for sincerity and nationality according to their own lights. After the mischievous, malicious and wantonly disruptive efforts of Deputy Aiken to-day and of others of his colleagues during the course of this debate, I feel perfectly entitled to say that I have radically changed my opinion. As the Tánaiste said already, we thought we could approach the consideration of this Bill in a frame of mind indicative of the unity of our desire to put this final seal on our freedom. I felt that the interpretation of past history was not something of any great moment in the consideration of this Bill. I believed, and still believe, that it was more important that we should look forward rather than backward. However, it has been made impossible to approach the consideration of this measure in a calm, objective way, by the performance of the Deputies on the front benches opposite.

I have told Deputy Aiken that he must not interrupt.

Mr. Aiken

I am not interrupting. I am only asking a question.

Mr. Lehane

Had that step been taken, had that acknowledgment been made, had there been that frank acceptance of the republican position that apparently there is to-day from the Deputies opposite but which was not present in 1938 when Deputy de Valera, leader of the Fianna Fáil Party was not prepared to acknowledge the claim that we were a republic, had there been that acceptance of the republican position, had there been even what has been described during the course of the debate as a label—I feel the expression was used rather jibingly but perhaps it is quite an adequate expression—had the Party opposite when in office been prepared to use even that label to show they had a republic, had they claimed the right de jure to legislate for the 32 Counties, had they got rid of the King whom they imported into the life of the nation in 1936—had they done these things, then the terrible events which have taken place since 1936 would not be in our history to-day.

I do not want to indulge in any way in recrimination. I do not want even to allow myself to be provoked by Deputy Aiken into a bitter or recriminatory attitude. Even at this stage, I think it is not too late to ask that this Bill should be passed by this House in such a manner and in such an atmosphere that it will go out to the world as an indication of the united attitude of the nation. But if the attitude of Deputies opposite is to be governed by the malice they feel towards the Government which has succeeded them, if it is to be dictated by selfish motives of jealousy and envy, if it is to be conditioned by what apparently amounts almost to a psychopathological hatred for the people on the Government Front Benches to-day, then it leaves one with very little hope for any progress towards the achievement of a 32-county republic. If it is a fact that Deputies opposite were so long in power that they now feel that for anybody else to exercise Governmental authority is an abuse of that authority, then it is time, I think, that they examined their consciences and realised that they are sitting on those benches opposite because they failed as republicans, because they lost the confidence of the people and that they are likely to remain on the benches opposite for quite a long time.

Mr. Aiken

He dodged the question, he did not answer the question.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

You are not the Chief of Staff now.

Mr. Seán Collins

When the Leader of the Opposition spoke on the Second Stage of this Bill, I felt that possibly in presenting this Bill to the House, the Taoiseach had, as he had hoped, brought into this House a new note of unity, a new note that would add a spirit of hope to the major problems of national reintegration that are facing this country now. When I spoke then I spoke in the honest belief that the Opposition were prepared to meet in a manly, chivalrous way in the national interest the questions raised by this Bill. I would not intervene at this stage of the Bill were it not that I am forced in honesty to myself, as well as to what I represent, to deprecate in a very emphatic way, the hypocrisy, the humbug and the nonsense that have been enunciated in an alleged support for this measure. Fianna Fáil purport to support this Bill. They do it in such a vindictive, malicious, distorted and twisted way that I would love to have been able to welcome an honest opposition rather than a queer, malicious support. If we have descended to the level in this House that on a matter of major importance, a matter that, if it is to achieve anything, must be achieved in a spirit of goodwill and in a spirit of unity in this House, we can have nothing but distortion, malice and deliberate provocation such as we have had during the course of this afternoon, then I say it would have been more courageous, more manly in every sense, for Fianna Fáil either to have supported the Bill in silence or to do in fact what they are trying to do by malice, oppose it.

We have heard in this House to-day jibes and counter-jibes about a period of history that I have appealed to the House to use as something we could look to for guidance so that we might avoid any of the tragic bitternesses and disunion of the past and that we might come here to-day manfully and well to get together in a spirit of doing our best for a country that we all put first. No matter in what particular direction our political belief may go, we all put our country first. I had hoped that we could get on this Bill and restore to this House a measure of unity that was lost on a tragic day during the Treaty debates, get it back now in 1948, so that we might work together, not talk together, for a 32-county Irish republic.

Mr. P.J. Burke

And interrupt together, as the Deputy always does.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is giving a bad example of it.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I have to remind the Deputy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has no obligation.

Mr. S. Collins

All the interruptions of an empty vessel are not going to stop me from putting on record in this House what I believe should arise in this country as a result of this Bill. I am glad on this occasion to follow. Deputy Con Lehane, as I did on the Second Stage of this Bill. I feel that there is a point of view to be argued and I possibly will not accept in full the arguments of the other two points of view, all Deputy Lehane's approach to the republic or all Fianna Fáil's approach to the republic but I do say that in all three views there has been a wealth of honest work, a wealth of work that should be coalesced now in a solid effort to march forward to a goal that is still ours. To have petty, miserable, vicious, malicious, tinkering little speeches about an emblem that is sacred to our dead, as it is to ourselves, is reducing this House to the level to which some Deputies would love to reduce the country.

I am not afraid to say, and I do not care whom it hurts, that unless we can be big enough in ourselves to efface and forget any division we may have and to get together on the question of solving Partition, we will not solve it. There is strength in unity and for the future of Ireland—I would say this publicly in this Dáil and to the country —and in the interests of this country, I hope that, no matter what differences or bitternesses I might have or should have, I would be able to lay them aside and to shake hands with a de Valera, a MacBride or anybody else when it comes to a question of the onward march for the benefit of the country.

That is the plank on which this Bill is presented to the House. It is a plank on which, if we are Irishmen worthy of our tradition, we should now be able to stand, irrespective of Party or irrespective of politics. We should be able to stand together now and get back in Dáil Éireann a unity that was once disrupted in Dáil Eireann. We should get it back here first and then it will not take us long to get it back throughout the length and breadth of the country. Let national issues be put on a higher plane than the economic policies of any individual Party. There is one big national problem remaining, one that can be solved only when people of all opinions can get together to march on from the Republic of Ireland Bill, 1948, to that Independence Day that Deputy Fitzpatrick hoped for, an Independence Day for a 32-county republic of Ireland, a republic of Ireland that can come only if we stop disgracing ourselves and making small children of ourselves in petty, vulgar, malicious abuse such as has been going on in this House during the course of this Bill.

My final remarks are these: I welcome this Bill. I do not care to whom or to what Parties the measure of credit is due. I welcome this Bill because it clarifies a position that no verbal badinage of Deputy de Valera can get around. It clarifies a position for the ordinary plain thinking man of this country and it gives a platform on which men of different specific political or economic outlook can get together for a national objective. It gives us in our time, if we are men enough and have courage enough to take it, a platform on which we can all unite on the question of the solution of Partition. This Republic of Ireland Bill gives us a hope that the younger generation may not be tainted with the bitterness, the mistakes, or the hate of the previous generation.

The Official Reports will bear him out.

Mr. R. Walsh

Arguments have been put up that this Bill brings about a republic in this country for the first time. It does not. In the very early days of my life when I was concerned in the national movement, neither I nor the men who worked with me were very concerned or very worried about whether we should be called a free, sovereign and independent State. What we were worried about was that the country should be free, call it what you like. That is the chief thing we were worried about. We heard a justification, as I said, from the Taoiseach to-day and we heard another justification of Clann na Poblachta, and for the purpose of justifying themselves they started to vilify Fianna Fáil. They take up the attitude when anybody says anything to them—to use the famous phrase which was used many times in this House against us when we were in the Government Benches—"For God's sake don't hit me and the republic in my arms." That is the attitude these people take when any word at all is spoken that throws a doubt on the bona fides of their case and they shout: “Don't hit me.”

I am glad that this Bill is being passed. It will at least prevent the people in the country from getting up and pretending that there is a state of affairs here that does not exist. We have had various examples of that within a short period. We had here to-night the old story, the descriptions of the terrible tortures in our prisons. A couple of years ago a man came here and took those statements as being true and helped to vilify this country across the water. This country is free and independent. It can do anything it likes as far as internal and external affairs are concerned. Anything the Parliament of the nation decides can be done. They can either go to war or remain at peace. The only qualification to that is that the Parliament has the decision. Why make out that that did not exist until this Bill was brought in? It simply stops the use of the British King as a rubber stamp. Has anybody on those benches beyond the cheek to say that there is anything that we could not do that this Bill enables us to do? Any exercise of our sovereignty? We already had the power to do anything we wished but we are told to-night that that is as a result of the Bill only. At least that is the implication. I am glad that the Bill is being passed and I support the Bill not that I believe it gives us a republic for the first time for we have had a republic for at least ten years or that it enables us to make a further advance towards the objective to which we all should march, a United Ireland. If I could see that this Bill was going to enable us to march more quickly and more firmly towards that great objective, then we would all certainly be in a great state of jubilation and enthusiasm as Deputy Collins wishes us to be, but it does not and certainly it will not help if this spirit displayed here to-night is any indication. It is no use for the people on the Government Benches to pretend that they are the purists. Prominent members on those benches and even Ministers to-night and last night gave, in my opinion, anything but a creditable display of good manners or the courtesy of debate.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I think, perhaps, that Deputy Walsh is not one of those members of Fianna Fáil who pay any very great attention to the utterances of their leader. He is certainly not a Deputy—apparently, at any rate —who pays any attention to the records of the utterances of his leader. Deputy Walsh wants to know why there was this confusion and what this Bill does that was not done before. I have listened to the debate for a number of hours now. Claims have been made here from the Fianna Fáil Benches that this Bill is doing nothing. I had no intention of speaking until I heard that statement made and reiterated time and again until it became quite obvious to me and to others sitting on these benches that that was the Party line to be adopted down the country. I get up here in the interests of ordinary honesty again to place on record some of the reasons why it was necessary that this Bill should be introduced and why it should be introduced in the interests of honesty in public life and honest dealing with our own people and with those across the water.

The Constitution of 1937 was discussed in this House before it was put to the people at a plebiscite. Every section of every Article in that Constitution was discussed at length. Mr. Frank MacDermot, then Deputy MacDermot, in dealing with Article 5 of the Constitution, which declares the State to be a free, sovereign and independent State, asked to have any doubts that might be created in the future cleared up there and then and he put down an amendment asking that that Article of the Constitution be altered to read: "That Éire is a free, sovereign and independent republic." He was quite frank with the then Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, as to the reason why he put down the amendment, and he stated, according to the Official Debates, that he was putting down the amendment for the purpose of eliciting the reason why the President, as he then was, refused to take this opportunity of declaring a republic.

That amendment and that blunt question from Deputy MacDermot drew one of the very infrequent clear statements from Deputy de Valera. His reply was quoted here in this debate already and I intend quoting it again. In reply to that question, which was asked by Deputy MacDermot as to why he was not using the opportunity of the Constitution for declaring a republic, Deputy de Valera stated:

"I told the Deputy, when he put an amendment down here in quite an 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."

He went on to say further:

"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."

This matter of the republic also outside it, "it" being the Constitution.

"It can be decided outside the Constitution and put as a separate and independent question."

I do not think I am misrepresenting Deputy de Valera when I say that either yesterday or to-day he claimed that this was the occasion on which it was being put as a separate and independent question. I will stand correction on that, because I have not got the quotation with me. I had only just come into the House at the time and I heard a phrase of that sort coming from Deputy de Valera's lips. I was very glad because I thought that now at last we are going to get a clear, honest admission from Deputies opposite that this Bill is doing something and that it is doing something which they did not do. That was when the Constitution was being discussed in this House. It was later voted on by the people and passed.

Deputy MacEntee and some other Deputies on the opposite benches have thought fit to jeer at the attitude adopted by members of the Fine Gael Party when that Constitution was being discussed. I say quite frankly that, whether we opposed the Constitution or not, there is not one Deputy opposite who will say that any member of this Party did not accept fully and loyally the Constitution when it was enacted by the people. That is as it should be and that is as it was.

I quoted Deputy de Valera's words in this House in 1937. In 1938, he made the matter even more clear, if it were necessary to make it any clearer. Peculiarly enough, he did this at that time at the behest of a cumann in County Donegal. That cumann asked the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis in 1938 to assert: "That this Ard-Fheis believes that the time is now opportune to declare Éire a free and independent republic", that in 1938, the year after the Constitution was adopted, the time was opportune to declare Éire a free and independent republic. Apparently, the members of the Fianna Fáil Organisation who sent up that resolution for discussion did not believe that they had a free and independent republic at that time. Deputy de Valera did not believe it either, because he spoke on that resolution. Perhaps some of those opposite who attended that Ard-Fheis will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is correct to say that the opposition of Deputy de Valera to that resolution secured its withdrawal and that it was not necessary to vote upon it.

Deputy de Valera, in his opposition to that resolution, set out the fact that there was no constitutional obstacle to declaring a republic; that you could have a republic provided you repealed the External Relations Act. As the Minister for External Affairs stated, later in the same year, he made another declaration, again a clear declaration, and again in language which could not be misunderstood that, in his opinion, we were not an independent republic; that perhaps it would be better if we were. Time went on, and in 1945 he declared we were a republic.

I say that it is that type of attitude, that type of mental jitterbugging that caused any confusion which was created. It is because Deputies opposite took up one attitude in 1937, the same attitude in 1938, and a completely different attitude in 1945 that confusion was created. Any confusion that exists is there because of that and, more particularly, because of the apparent inability of the present Leader of the Opposition in his public pronouncements to be consistent and to hold the same opinion at different times.

Apart from the merits of this Bill as outlined by the Taoiseach when introducing it, I believe that it is absolutely essential in the interests of public honesty that something of this sort should be done. When speaking on the adjournment in this House last August, I stated that we were being left in a most undignified position; that if any foreigner coming over to our country and talking to any of us as public representatives asked us what were we, what was our constitutional status none of us could give him a straight answer, an answer that we ourselves would fully believe. I believe that that applies with equal strength to every Deputy on the far side. I said last August that it would be more in accord with our dignity as a nation that the doubt should be cleared up.

I think that this Bill, at any rate, is clearing up doubts. It is a very great pity that the Deputies opposite, in their speeches both inside and outside of this House, should adopt the tone that they have. I resent, particularly, some of the speeches made by Deputy MacEntee. I think that any Deputy on these benches owes a duty to his constituents to repudiate publicly the foul suggestion made by that Deputy that this Bill was being introduced here——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy MacEntee has not spoken on this stage at all.

It does not matter to me why it is being done.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Are there always going to be questions of cheap politics and attempts to divide and split our people into different sections, attempts to divide the people, first of all into Catholics and Protestants and to stir up trouble against this Bill by one section of our people, and then when the Deputy has done enough in that direction, to try and stir up the feelings of the vast majority of the people of this country who are Catholics under the suggestion that this is a Communist-controlled measure? I hope that the Deputy will have the common decency before this debate concludes to withdraw that suggestion, and that he will be manly enough to do it. I know that he has withdrawn equally slanderous and scandalous suggestions that he made in the past.

I had hoped that all that kind of talk, all that type of cheap political trickery, would be indulged in only outside this House. I know the political advantages that the Deputy, in a personal way, hopes to gain out of that type of speech. I know also the political advantages that the Deputies opposite as a Party hope to gain by their extraordinary support of this Bill. I congratulated Deputy Sheldon on the speech that he made in opposing the Second Reading of the Bill and on the manner in which he did that. I said that if every other Deputy opposing a measure did so in the same way as Deputy Sheldon had done, that this would be a much more pleasant and much more orderly Assembly. I go further now and I say that if every Deputy supporting this Bill supported it in the same way that Deputy Sheldon had opposed it we would have a very much better and a much more orderly Assembly. Do you think that anybody listening to these discussions or reading the record of them, will believe for a second that the Deputies opposite are supporting this measure? If they are supporting it, it is the queerest kind of support that a measure like this could get.

Appeals have been made from these benches by the Taoiseach, by a number of his Ministers and by a number of other Deputies to try and keep this debate on some kind of a high level. That has not been done. I think it was Deputy Con Lehane who said: That the time is not too late yet to show every section of our own people, and every section of our people outside this country, that the Government has the support of the Opposition in repealing the External Relations Act. I am quite certain that the impression given abroad—I do not say that it was done deliberately; I think it was done mainly in ignorance—by the type of support that this Bill has received from the Deputies opposite is that, in fact, one of the major political Parties in this country, namely, Fianna Fáil, is violently opposed to this repeal. If they are supporting this Bill, why not try and do it in a decent way? Why not approach it in the manner in which the Taoiseach approached it when he introduced the Bill? The Taoiseach gave credit to all Parties who had done anything in building up this State, and in enabling it to arrive at the stage it has now reached. Why will not the Deputies opposite, at least, conclude the debate on the same level as that on which the Taoiseach started it? If they do that, even at this eleventh hour, they will be doing a good service to the people of this country. They will be lending some type of solid support to this or to any future Government in this country in trying to remove the sore of Partition.

Mr. MacEntee

We have been asked by Deputy Collins, in what was to me a moving and impressive speech, and one which I might have yielded to if I did not know the company which he had been keeping: we have been asked to jubilate at the introduction of this Bill. Well, if it gratifies him to know it, we do, but we do it because we hail the return of the prodigals. We are all republicans now, thank God; those who overthrew the republic and the Commonwealth, and those purblind politicians who could not see the republic which they acclaim to-day standing before the world and formally established by the votes of the people in 1937.

We take, as I have already said, great joy in this Bill, because it is a vindication of everything that we stood for and of everything that we did, and if the measure had been introduced in that spirit, it would have been received on these benches with a generosity and a response that would have been fitting to the occasion. But that is not how it was introduced. It was brought in as a political manoeuvre, brought in for reasons which I think have not yet been disclosed to the public. The Bill has been ushered in with the beating of burst drums and the blaring of cracked trumpets——

Mr. Morrissey

Hear, hear!

Mr. MacEntee

——as a vindication of all that was done in 1921, 1922 and 1923, and of everything that was done thereafter to prevent the re-establishment of the republic. It is a sorry thing to see a man who fought to maintain the republic in 1921 now permitting himself to be led around as a hostage to grace the Fine Gael triumph. The Minister for External Affairs is in that position. He has appeared on public platforms as a reformed rebel, wearing sackcloth with his head sprinkled with ashes to justify the betrayal of 1921. Everything that Cumann na nGaedheal did, he has raised his voice to vindicate. We are asked to accept an occasion which requires that sort of self-abasement to justify it as something which the Irish people can be proud of.

We, for our part, are not going to turn our backs on the past. We have nothing to be ashamed of in it. If you are declaring in a Bill that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland it is due to us who stood faithful to our republican principles and who had the wisdom and commonsense and political sagacity to see how they could be realised—to see how the position which had been given away could be retrieved and to see how, in fact, we might all be united once again as we are to-day united on the platform of the Republic of Ireland.

This Bill was unnecessary in order to clarify the constitutional position. If it had been necessary it would, as one of your own supporters has told you, have been brought in as an amendment to the Constitution, because it is only an amendment to the Constitution that can change the character or nature of this State. It has been brought in, you told us, to clear up confusion about the nature of the State, confusion which has been of your own creation. It is you who have beclouded the position. It is you who have tried to conceal the truth. No one can deny that our State is a republican State. No one can deny that this State is a republican State if he is true to the conclusions which the exercise of unbiased intelligence will compel him to reach. It is true that some have denied it. The Tánaiste alleged here to-day that we had not got a republic because, he said, the External Relations Act which this Bill repeals had brought the King back into Ireland. The Tánaiste, whatever other attributes his vanity may confer on himself, is not a constitutional lawyer. However, sitting beside him as he made that statement in the course of this debate was a lawyer who has appeared in the courts of this land and pleaded for and against the Constitution—a lawyer, therefore, who is experienced and versed in constitutional law.

You will concede that to me I hope. Here is what the Taoiseach, Deputy Costello as he then was, had to say on this issue when speaking just 12 years ago, almost to the week, on the Executive Authority (External Relations) Bill—the Act which is now being repealed—in answer to Deputy Norton's speech in the course of the same Debate. I am quoting from the Official Reports, Vol. 64; col. 1431:—

"I entirely disagree with the views put forward by Deputy Norton on this subject—that we are by our act to-day in a hurried fashion electing the British King as King of Ireland."

Later in the course of the same speech Deputy Costello—I am speaking of him as he then was; I do not want to refer to him as "the Taoiseach" in this context in case I might be taken as ascribing to him now the opinions that he expressed then—proceeded to say this about the Bill which Deputy Lehane, the Tánaiste and the Minister for External Affairs have told us brought the King back into Ireland:—

"Section 3 is a most extraordinary section and I am not at all sure that on its strict legal construction it may not have the effect which would, I am sure, be very welcome to some members of the Fianna Fáil Party"—

he might have added "to all members of the Fianna Fáil Party"—

"and some of their supporters throughout the country. In fact, the effect of this Bill which is"—

I have seen scurrilous letters over the signature of O'Higgins.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Then you have seen something you could understand.

Mr. MacEntee

There, on the plea and on the justification which Deputy Norton offered for bringing in this Bill, we have him in diametrical conflict with his leader, the Taoiseach. There we have a man, who professes to be and who is a lay man in legal matters, in conflict with a lawyer who is recognised as one of the leaders of the Irish bar and who is acknowledged to be a man of great experience and great learning in matters of constitutional law. He completely contradicts not only what the Taoiseach has said in relation to this matter but also what his Minister for External Affairs has said in relation to it.

He never functioned as the head of this State, but he did function as the head of the State which the Minister for Industry and Commerce tried to sustain here in 1937 and asked the people to adhere to, because this Constitution of 1922 is stuffed with references to the King and the Crown as head of the State, as the source of executive authority, as the person who appoints the judges, the Prime Minister and everything else.

Mr. Morrissey

He has performed functions as head of the State since 1937.

Mr. MacEntee

Our President is internationally recognised, and it is on that question I am going to join issue with everything that has been said before. Our President is internationally recognised as the head of this State. There is a practice long established as between nations that messages are exchanged only between heads of States. As they say in the official jargon—it is a phrase of civil service jargon that has come into common use —correspondence is conducted on the same level. When you want to go from the official bureaucratic level to the political or governmental level, you go to a higher level, and the highest point in this hierarchy is that of head of the State.

We used to hear a lot of talk about the nations of the British Commonwealth being co-equal and not subordinate to each other in any respect. The heads of States are co-equal and are not subordinate to each other in any respect and when they exchange messages they exchange them as co-equals. Here are some of the things that have happened in the lifetime of this State, when Deputy Lehane and his colleague the Minister for External Affairs, and Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Cowan and the rest of them are trying to deceive the people as to what our true position was to have regard to them.

There was an exchange of messages between our President and His Holiness Pope Pius the XI on 12th March, 1947, and if any person doubts that he can verify it by consulting the Irish Press, the most reliable newspaper in the country. On the 17th March an exchange of messages took place between General Franco the de facto head of the Spanish State and our President, de jure and de facto head of this State, and again that can be verified by referring to the Irish Press of 20th March of last year. On that same date, long before the Taoiseach dreamt he would be Taoiseach or Mr. MacBride believed that the Ministry of External Affairs was within his grasp, the President of the Swiss Confederation exchanged messages of greeting with our President.

I do not think there is any significance to be attached to the power, might and authority of the State. If I had to consider whether one State ranked higher than another, the older the institution the more august it might be and the higher prestige it might carry. But at any rate, the President of the United States, President Truman exchanged messages with President Seán T. O'Kelly, the head of this State, on 18th March of this year, long before this Bill was brought in, long before any intention to bring in this Bill was disclosed to the people.

The President of the Argentine exchanged messages similarly, as did the President of France. The provisional President of Italy exchanged messages with the President of Ireland, Uachtarán na Éireann, on 8th July, 1946, and the President of France on 3rd February, 1947. More significant than any, in view of the arguments used here in this debate to justify the contention that the republic is not in existence to-day—and, if it is in existence to-day, it must have been in existence since September, 1937—King George VI of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as he is styled, exchanged messages with our President on 19th November, 1948. Here are the heads of States recognising our independence, recognising our sovereignty and recognising our President, as co-equal with them. Yet Deputy Lehane comes in here and tries to justify the line which he and some of his associates have pursued in Irish life for the past 11 years, by saying that this Party on these benches, the Party responsible for bringing the republic into existence, did not recognise the republic.

Over the years, the only people who have denied the existence of the republic since 1937 have been those who wanted a different type of State here from that which has been in existence since 1937. Over the years, there has been, of course, a Party who wanted us to be a monarchial State, who wanted us to be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and who, because it seemed to suit their particular policy and seemed to them to be politically expedient, denied that we had a republican State here, denied it because they wanted to try to create that confusion in the public mind, which I think they did to some extent succeed in creating, in order that they might be able to say that there was little difference between this Constitution of 1937 and the Constitution of 1922 which they imposed on the Irish people by force of arms.

Minister for Justice (General MacEoin)

By majority rule.

Mr. MacEntee

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has already said that there was full room within constitutional methods to proceed. I have asked him to stop at that and not to enter on another line in any fashion.

Mr. MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

Tell that to Deputy Lehane at the Post Office.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I am telling it to you and you may leave before you hear more.

Mr. MacEntee

I am going to my tea.

Mr. Morrissey

It is a pity you did not go an hour ago.

When he wanted a commission in General Parsons' division——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Having said so much about Deputy MacEntee, perhaps the Deputy would now come to the Bill.

Mr. Killilea

As the Deputy has been allowed to say so much, there are many more on this side who will have something to say also.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I regret that certain Deputies in this House have reduced the debate to the level which it has reached now. It is distasteful to us to have to sink to this level but if one person chooses to roll in the mud, he must not object if other persons join in that proceeding with him. The Taoiseach set an example in introducing the Bill when he asked those Deputies in opposition to join with him in keeping the debate at a high level. He paid tribute to every person in every part of this country who, by their contributions to the struggle for independence, made it possible to introduce the measure we are about to pass to-day. His fairness and generosity in doing that has not won from certain Deputies on the Opposition Front Bench the recognition it should have won. We have heard from Deputy MacEntee this evening another effort to stab this Bill in the back. I say that deliberately because I think no other Deputy could have taken up the attitude he adopted in regard to the Bill. He says: "I am supporting this Bill" and, at the same time, he attempts to divide our people by turning one section against the other. That is stabbing this measure in the back. I can well understand how sentiments like that are re-echoed up in the North and across in England. I can well understand how sentiments like that find a very welcome audience amongst the Warnocks and the Basil Brookes of the North.

I do not want in anything I say here to pursue at any length the old question posed here from time to time as to whether we were a republic or not. The Taoiseach has given his opinion so far as that is concerned. The Minister for External Affairs has also given his— that we became a republic on the passing of the Constitution of 1937. That is one view on it. There are other views but I think all these discussions and queries are well summed up by what the Taoiseach said in introducing the measure, that they are part and parcel of an arid, barren discussion. I think any Deputy who heard some of the contributions to the debate last evening will recognise what "arid" and "barren" mean. Deputies in this House tied themselves up in sections of Acts of Parliament in a vain endeavour to show that the republic become a republic on a particular date and on no other. The very fact that we have confusion of this nature in this country is something that should concern us all very much. The very fact that so much thought is being given to this question and that so much time has been wasted over a period of 11 years, is surely the justification of the Bill that we are debating here to-night.

The Bill was brought in by the Taoiseach with very high hopes that it would not only clarify our national position but bring peace and unity to our people. I trust the campaign that has been carried on in this House, and indeed outside it, by Front Bench members of Fianna Fáil, will not prevent that hope coming to fruition. We have had far too much talk about guns, far too much talk about violence, far too much half-hearted incitement in this debate, and I hope that when this Bill is passed we can turn another page in Irish history and forget all that went behind it.

But let them appreciate this, that the people are judging them now, the people are watching them and they cannot get away with harmful support of any measure in this Parliament. If they are supporting this Bill, let them do so in an honourable and courageous manner, but do not let them part the Taoiseach on the back with one hand and try to harm him with the other. The Government, the Taoiseach in particular, in introducing this Bill, have given this country a chance that was lost in 1921. I hope and trust that no man, no politician, no leader of a Party that played any part in those times 27 years ago will now, by any act he might do or any action he might commit, again prevent unity in this country. The Bill holds out that hope.

If this debate is to be any criterion of the matter, so far as the Government is concerned, it is going to be exercised in that spirit. It was introduced by the Taoiseach giving credit to everyone who helped towards this day. It has been supported by Government Deputies of all Parties in the same spirit. If the hopes are not realised, the responsibility will be on the Opposition in this House to-day.

I commend the measure to the Dáil and I trust that before this debate is concluded an effort will be made by some member of the Opposition to state clearly that they are supporting this measure without misgiving and without any effort to deprive the measure of the unity it can possibly achieve. If that is done, we, in passing this Bill, will have achieved something. We will have cured a great wound and a great wrong, and we will have enabled our nation to close its ranks and step together, on certain issues at any rate.

Mr. Timoney

I feel called upon, as a member of the Clann na Poblachta Party, to answer specifically the specific question which was put by Deputy MacEntee. I do not know how to describe that question. It was a poisonous one and poisonous to Deputy MacEntee's knowledge. But the answer to Deputy MacEntee's question is that no member of Clann na Poblachta will ever take up arms against the Irish Republic. Deputy MacEntee knew that answer well when he was putting the question. It should be unnecessary to make that declaration from these benches but, lest there be any misunderstanding, lest there be any doubt about it, I am now making that declaration.

This question as to whether or not this is a necessary measure is surely answered by the days of debate and the arguments advanced from the Fianna Fáil Benches. Every Party in the House, save the Fianna Fáil Party, agrees that it is a necessary measure. They are the only people who say it is not necessary because we already had a republic; that we have it now. Surely there could not be that awful doubt about such a simple matter and, when there is that doubt, surely it is a most necessary measure to bring into this House and pass into law. The speakers on the Fianna Fáil Benches know full well that, not only the people down the country, but Fianna Fáil members in this House and members of the Fianna Fáil Party did not know what on earth we were. Members of the Fianna Fáil Party have themselves, since this measure was introduced, confessed so much. I can understand Deputy MacEntee's venom towards us on these benches. He knows well that Clann na Poblachta played a very great part in putting him where he is to-day, but what a pity it is that in a measure of this importance, a measure which has brought joy to the heart of every good Irishman, Deputy MacEntee should allow his venom to find expression as it did. All Ireland is rejoicing at this measure, I believe I can say, even the people in the Six Counties.

Dr. Maguire

Really?

Mr. Timoney

If it is going to be left in abeyance for some time, I do not see the reason for it. If we are going to remove all these smoke screens and stop any misrepresentations as to the status of our State, then the sooner the Bill becomes law and that is accepted by all, the better. But all the people on these benches do not regard this Bill as doing anything except removing those smoke screens which have been created. What the people on these benches stand for and what they want is unity and a 32-county republic. I do not know that this Bill is going to bring us one inch further on that road. If the Bill is going to lead to unity, well and good.

I cannot see how the claims which have been made from the opposite benches for unity under this Bill have been justified. From the point of view of the main issue that confronts the nation, I cannot see that this Bill is going to bring us one step farther on that road. At all events, it should be clear to everybody now that, irrespective of this Bill, the importance of the Irish Constitution seems to be realised by every Deputy. Even if to-morrow we had a united Ireland, the Constitution which was passed by the Irish people can stand in its entirety, and not one letter or word or syllable in that Constitution need be changed if we got back the six lost counties of Ireland to-morrow. That being accepted by every Deputy on the opposite benches is the best justification for the Irish Constitution passed in 1937 and should remove any doubts in the mind of anybody as to the effect of the Constitution, doubts created by some of the people who opposed it bitterly. The fact that that is now accepted by all sides is something at least that has been achieved by this Bill.

The Taoiseach

In the course of the remarks I made in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I referred to the fact that I recoiled from the prospect of spending an indefinite period in what I described as a constitutional purgatory if something like this measure had not been enacted into law. If there were any justification required for the passing of this Bill, the purgatory that we have gone through in the last few days justifies it. When I described the prospect which faced us or any Government in this country in the next few years, if this Bill or something like it had not been passed, as a constitutional purgatory, I understated the position. Deputies can understand what it would mean if, year after year, on the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs, we had—and undoubtedly we would have—a discussion very much along the lines that have taken place in the last few days.

I do not intend to go through the various points which have been raised by the Leader of the Opposition in stating what he described as the truth, but what I would prefer to describe as a point of view. Accepting it as such, I recognise that he has the right to put on record his point of view in reference to the constitutional changes effected from 1932 onwards. That is not a point of view that is accepted by everybody. It does not necessitate my giving my point of view or showing that my point of view is necessarily correct. All I do want the Deputies to understand and the people to realise is that there are various points of view. Let us admit and go on the assumption that these points of view are sincerely held. I do not require to add that they can be argued at great length, because we have had very sufficient demonstration of that here in the last few days. Let us face the position that we have now by admitting that there are various points of view, different interpretations of history, as the phrase has been used throughtout this debate, and then, having admitted that, let us agree, as Deputy Moran has stated, that at least there is some point of dispute, controversy and difficulty which is causing trouble to our people. Let us then admit that this Bill at least eradicates a cause of difficulty, dispute, controversy and, unfortunately, turmoil.

Deputy de Valera states as his view of what he wants to be accepted as the truth of the constitutional position and of the various changes that have taken place in the last 12 years, that all that time we have had a republican State here, that there has been no King in this State since 1936 and certainly since 1937, and that is why he admits there was difficulty in saying whether we were in or out of the Commonwealth. I think he ultimately came down on the fact that we were outside the Commonwealth all the time. That is the position that he wants to maintain. I have no objection to his main taining it. Whether that is accepted or not does not make any difference now. What does make a difference is that there was a very serious state of affairs here in this country which existed during the last 12 years.

The aim of this Bill is to eradicate the causes of the evils from which we have suffered in the last 12 years. If the position was, as Deputy de Valera says, that we had no King, that we were a republic and that we were almost certainly outside the Commonwealth of Nations, why was there all the uneasiness around the place for months past when we announced that we were going to bring in this measure? Why were personal attacks made upon me by at least one person and one newspaper and by Deputy MacEntee if we were doing nothing except clarifying the position? Why was there the suggestion that something frightful was going to happen and that we were aliens when we went to England? Why, unfortunately, did young Irishmen, certainly acting illegally, but I suppose sincerely, go out to create an Irish republic in this country, and go to England to create disturbances over there? Why were there difficulties, shootings, hangings and executions here in the last seven or eight years, if not before, if there is not something to be quarrelled and disputed about?

That is the point, and that is the principal reason why it could be done and would not have been done if the Bill had not been brought in. I mention that to demonstrate the ridiculous arguments put forward by Deputy MacEntee.

Now let me, for the information of Deputies, read some of these letters— I will not read the whole of them—by which foreign States accredit their representatives to us in order to demolish further the argument of Deputy MacEntee that we were internationally recognised by those people. There is no doubt that the question of a country's status in international affairs under international law in the comity of nations, depends not on the State or on any individual in it, but on the recognition it gets from the various members in the comity of nations. When the President of the United States of America was accrediting a representative to us he used, of course, a statutory agent. The name of the President is given at the top of the letter in which he is described as "the President of the United States of America". The letter is addressed to "His Majesty, George VI of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Emperor of India, etc." It says:—

"Great and Good Friend:

I have conferred the rank of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary upon (here the name appears) with the object of representing in Ireland the interests of the United States of America."

There then follow some phrases which I need not repeat. There is this:—

"I have charged him to convey to your Majesty my best wishes for Your Majesty's well-being.

May God have Your Majesty in His wise keeping.

Your Good Friend,

HARRY S. TRUMAN."

There is the document by which the United States of America accredited its representative to this country. Can anybody suggest for one single moment that the United States was accrediting a representative through the ordinary diplomatic agencies and the ordinary diplomatic practice between one head of State and another when you have there "the President of the United States of America to the King of England." or that by that document there was the slightest recognition of this as an independent Irish Republic?

When we sent our representative to Washington it was the King who did it. In sending our representative to Washington, the King addressed the President of the United States as "Our Good Friend" and then proceeded to say:

"The Government of Ireland, being desirous of maintaining the bonds of friendship between Ireland and the United States of America, have advised Us that they judge it expedient that (here the name of the individual is given) be accredited to You in the character of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Ireland.... We therefore request on behalf of the Government of Ireland, that You will give entire credence to all that (the individual is again named) shall communicate to You in their name.... We take this opportunity of renewing to You the assurance of Our esteem and regard and We commend You to the protection of the Almighty.

Your Good Friend,

(Signed) GEORGE R.J."

In the same way, Deputy MacEntee stated that His Holiness the Pope had addressed a communication to the President of Ireland. When we were sending an ambassador to the Holy See, it was the King of England who addressed His Holiness the Pope. The document was in Irish and I shall now read a translation of it:—

"YOUR HOLINESS,

Being desirous of maintaining the relations of friendship which have existed since the fifth century between Ireland and the Holy See, the Government of Ireland have advised me that they have judged it expedient that.... be accredited to Your Holiness in the character of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ireland.

I, therefore, request, on behalf of the Government of Ireland, that Your Holiness will give entire credence to all that.... shall communicate to Your Holiness in their name and I take this opportunity of renewing to Your Holiness the assurance of my sincere friendship and of the unfeigned respect and esteem which I entertain for Your Holiness' person and character.

Given at my Court at Buckingham Palace, the ninth day of April, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-six.

(Signed) GEORGE R.I."

I want to direct the attention of Deputies, particularly those who have any qualifications, aspirations or beliefs that they are constitutional lawyers, lay or otherwise, to the fact that this document discloses that the Government advised His Majesty the King to appoint the ambassador. That is the very thing that is appropriate under British constitutional law and theory. The King is advised to appoint them— is advised under this law we have here, the External Relations Act—precisely the same as he would have been advised if the External Relations Act had not passed and the original Constitution of 1922 had been in operation. That is the position now in fact and in practice. For anybody to assert, as has been asserted here, that this country was internationally recognised as an independent republic is to say something which I think any sensible person cannot accept. At all events I can say, and I do not want to go any further than this, that that is a point that can be argued. Deputy de Valera can argue till the cows come home—and I do not think the cows would ever come home by the time we would have finished this argument that he is right. All I will say is that somebody at some time may hold that he is right. There are equally cogent arguments that can be put forward, very cogently and very shortly, contrary to the views he put forward. The net result is that we have been faced with a condition of affairs where there has been, again I repeat, arid, barren and futile controversy over this thing, bedevilling the whole situation and bringing about a grave situation. I stated here when I was introducing this Bill that as a result of that controversy there had been a situation where the guns were out; where the law was in operation against those who had the guns—and those who had the guns stated that they were trying to bring about the establishment of an Irish republic—and those who had to enforce the law formed the Government of this country enforcing, what they were bound to do, the law as it stood at that time.

I am not interested in these high-falutin theories of constitutional law whether they emerge from the brains of lay constitutional lawyers or whether they emerge from the ingenuity of expert constitutional lawyers. I am not interested in the least. As I said when I was introducing this measure, the reason which impelled me and all my colleagues to take this step we are taking now was not primarily these arid, futile and barren controversies. We saw that we had not merely a chance, but a certainty, of getting the guns out of Irish politics and of establishing clearly and beyond all controversy the status of this State. That is why we brought in this Bill. That is what we hoped for.

Mr. de Valera

We all do.

The Taoiseach

Every person in this Assembly has spoken in favour of the Bill. Those on the opposite benches, the only Party in opposition to this Government, have made speeches which are almost impossible to understand. The speeches of Deputy Aiken certainly were a disgrace to this Assembly.

Mr. de Valera

In what respect?

The Taoiseach

They had something which I believe will impede the object which we and all the Parties supporting the Government have, that this measure will put an end to the bitterness between Irishmen and an end to this frightful controversy that has been going on here for the last 26 years.

I want to make one other observation before I deal with the main purpose as I have stated it in bringing in this Bill. Every single one of those people on the benches opposite who have, one after the other got up and said that they were supporting this measure—I think with the exception of Deputy de Valera—made speeches which, if they had meant anything, meant that they ought to be going to the Division Lobbies against this Bill. They may possibly explain that to the people or else they may explain and posterity may form its own judgment upon their action in reference to this measure. I do not understand it. It is neither honest nor decent. Whether it is honest or whether it is decent it is quite clearly contrary to the best interests of the Irish nation. The general chorus that was put up here by those people who were speaking for the Bill but who were making speeches against the measure was that really this thing was doing nothing at all; it was merely giving effect, statutory recognition if you like, to something which was already in existence. The whole case that was made by these people was that really there is no genuine change effected by this Bill at all. I want to make it clear that the distinction which exists and which is fundamental to the whole consideration is that if the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, is one thing it is a statute of this Parliament.

The Constitution of 1937 is an entirely different affair. If Deputies want to get from me a confession of faith on this Constitution I will give it to them. I gave it to them down in University College, Cork, shortly after this Constitution was enacted. There are certain parts of this Constitution to which I am opposed. There are certain parts I still do not like and that I should like to see changed but I will assert here—if it gives any pleasure to any people on the other side, if it gives them any ammunition to throw against me here afterwards, they are entitled to have it—that this is the Constitution of Ireland and it is accepted by us as such. Now, is that categorical enough? I said in University College, Cork, before this Constitution was ratified by the people, that once it passed through this Dáil I accepted it as a fundamental law of the State. I objected to the machinery by which it was put through. That is past history. I have accepted this Constitution, so far as it matters to anybody what I do, as the Constitution of this State for the past 12 years. I can criticise certain aspects of it. There are even certain arguments of a very dangerous character which might be advanced against it. But I have never mentioned those in connection with this Constitution. There are certain arguments, which I have never mentioned, in connection with this Constitution which might possibly throw doubt upon its validity. But I have never mentioned them. I have accepted it. I accept it as the Constitution and as the fundamental law of the country in the first place. I accept it and I have always accepted it as a republican Constitution.

Is there any ambiguity about both or either of those statements? If there is I will clear it up. That is the fundamental law of this State and that is a republican Constitution. But when you have superimposed upon a republican Constitution a statute of the type of the Executive Authority (External Relations) Act, 1936, which provides in accordance with an Article in the Constitution itself that the machinery of a monarchy can be used in reference to international affairs, then my view is that that State which has that particular machinery there, so long as it has that machinery, is not really a republican State. I am not going to arguethat. A number of people hold that view. Deputy de Valera holds a different view. The people who went out with guns and who went over to Coventry and other places were not satisfied; and until this Act is gone they would not be satisfied.

Mr. Traynor

They were looking for a 32-county republic.

The Taoiseach

If Deputy Traynor would keep quite I could deal with the matter.

Mr. Traynor

Ask Deputy Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Are not you looking for it?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

The Taoiseach

Whatever these people were looking for, whether it was a 26-county republic or a 32-county republic, they were looking first of all for a republic and, secondly, they were not satisfied that, even in respect of the Twenty-Six Counties, they had a republic.

Now, these people are satisfied with this Bill. Their spokesmen here in the Dáil have stated that. They have said that not merely are they satisfied, but they have stated that they are satisfied that it is a cause for joy and should be a source of jubilation to the Irish people. That in my view is something to have achieved. That is something of which we are proud. That is the reason why this Bill was brought in. It was not primarily brought in to try to stem the tide of senseless controversy about our constitutional status. I emphasised at the Second Reading—and I shall do it here again to-night and do it so long as I am called upon to speak on this subject—that, in my view, the reasons governing the clearing up of our constitutional difficulties are only subsidiary in relation to the view that I take of this measure and in regard to the forces that compelled me and my colleagues to bring in this Bill. We brought in this Bill not primarily to end all this controversial talk and constitutional discussions. What we are doing here will have the incidental effect of doing that. But what we really wanted to achieve was to put an end to the bitterness and to bring about unity in this part of the country.

I ask Deputies on the opposite side of the House, notwithstanding all that has been said here to-day, to accept the position that I am putting now. They are entitled, if they wish, to put their point of view on record. Now that they have had an opportunity of stating their point of view, they ought at least to take a proper view in the interests of all sections of our people and particularly in the interests of our young people.

The members of the Clann na Poblachta Party have given their point of view on this measure. Deputy Timoney very clearly and specifically stated his point of view to-day. Deputy Timoney very clearly and specifically Dockrell made a speech which was at once both courageous and statesmanlike. Is it too much to ask the one Party here which has apparently still retained the bitterness of the past 25 years to forget the past now once this Bill goes through, as apparently it is going through with the honest approval of every Deputy in the House? Is it too much to ask for that?

I do not know what political kudos or what political capital I can get out of this measure. Deputy MacEntee has been utilising one organ of the Press, with the assistance of one particular individual, to throw mud at me and to make personal attacks upon me. I do not care two thraneens about any of these things from my own personal point of view. I do not care what my political future is going to be. It would be hypocritical of me to pretend that, because of these attacks made in an endeavour to take away some of the people who are alleged to have voted for me in the years gone by, I am going to stand here as an altruist and say that I am going to bring in this Bill notwithstanding the fact that it will ruin my political career. For every one of those votes that will go from me I will gain 100 from the decent people of the country.

I want to put on record here to-day in the last speech that I am going to make in this House on this Bill and in the last speech that I hope will be made on this very controversial topic that, if I achieve nothing further in the course of my political career other than to have behind me, as Taoiseach and as head of the Government of the Irish nation, the men forming an inter-Party Government and particularly Clann na Poblachta, led by Deputy Con Lehane, I am proud that I have achieved that position and that the task has fallen into my hands of recommending this measure as an instrument which will heal the wounds that have been inflicted on the Irish nation in the last ten years and be the means of ending all our bitternesses.

That is the main purpose of this Bill. I ask now for the co-operation of the Deputies on the opposite benches. My colleague, Mr. MacBride, asked for the same. I ask it in the interests of ending bitterness. I ask that all Parties will support this measure. I ask that when they go to the country they will forget what has been said here and so put an end to all these barren controversies. I want to have the position here where we can create our own institutions, institutions which will command the allegiance, the affection and the love of all our young people now growing up and in the generations to come and who know nothing of the bitterness of the past 25 years. I suppose everybody who has anything to do with political Parties knows how difficult it has been in the past to get the young people to interest themselves in politics.

It is a source of great pride to me that the political Party to which I belong has succeeded in attracting a number of young people into its political camp. You will never get the young people to take a proper interest in Irish life or Irish politics unless there are institutions around which they can rally. This Bill will give those institutions. This Bill will give them a State which will, I assure Deputy Aiken, command the allegiance of every Irishman and Irishwoman. That is something which is worth while working for; it is even worth while throwing away one's political career and submitting for a time to personal attacks from certain in dividuals.

If the Opposition Party persists in the poisonous attitude, typified by the speeches and the continuous and constant interruptions by Deputy Aiken here in the past two days, then there will still be that uneasiness in our young people. There will still be that feeling that they have no institutions about which they can cheer in the same way as young America cheers its institutions and its State. When this Constitution was passed 12 years ago Deputy de Valera in a tour throughout the country asked everybody to read it, to study it and to learn it by heart. I venture to assert that that appeal fell on completely deaf ears. I want now the co-operation of every section of the community and of every political Party. What I want is the co-operation of every section of the community, every Party, so that that Constitution of which he is the author, if you like, or the sponsor, will be revered by our young people and that it will be the Constitution of a State in which they can have pride and around which they can rally without the poisonous bitternesses infused into this debate by Deputy Aiken and his colleagues.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 2 Dec 1948

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Mr. de Valera

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Dec 1948