On the motion for the Adjournment, Deputy T.F. O'Higgins has given notice that he wishes to raise the subject matter of Question No. 138 on the Order Paper of the 30th October, 1957.
Adjournment Debate. - Collins-Griffith Commemoration Ceremonies.
I gave notice of my intention to raise on the Adjournment to-night the subject matter of a reply by the Minister for Defence to a Parliamentary Question which I raised last Wednesday. I asked the Minister last Wednesday why members of the Army were not permitted to render appropriate military honours to the memory of the late General Michael Collins and the late President Arthur Griffith at ceremonies held for this purpose last August at Dublin and Béal-na-Bláth.
The Minister in his reply stated that in order to avoid the difficulties involved in selecting individual anniversaries in commemorating which the State might participate, a special day, Easter Sunday, had been set apart on which the State celebrated the securing of independence and honoured all who took part in the struggle to achieve it. It is a matter of regret that now, 35 years after the foundation of this State, it is necessary that a member of this Parliament should register a protest with regard to the manner in which those at present in authority respect the honour and the memory of the twin architects of this Parliament and of this State.
The late President Arthur Griffith was the founder of Sinn Féin. It is to him that the movement which led inevitably to the foundation of this State will be attributed by the historians of our people. Arthur Griffith was the first head of the Government here. A man who by reason of his service to Ireland and by reason of his contribution to the foundation of this Parliament and to the formation of the Government of which the Minister is now a member, is surely a person whose memory should be revered by our State.
General Michael Collins was the leader of the fight for Irish freedom, a man whose name was feared and dreaded by British forces and a man whose name was a by-word in every Irish house throughout the War of Independence. He was also the founder of the Irish Army and its first Commander-in-Chief. For some years, the Irish Army have paraded with full ceremonial to pay an official tribute to the memories of Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins. They did so wearing the same uniform as Michael Collins wore when he died in action at Béal-na-Bláth in 1922. They did so as soldiers in the Army of a sovereign State and as soldiers in an Army paying tribute to its first Commander-in-Chief.
It was, therefore, with some concern that the Irish people learned last August that this year the Irish Army would not be permitted to attend the ceremonies in Glasnevin, ceremonies which have been carried on each year for over 30 years, and the ceremonies in Béal-na-Bláth, and pay an official tribute to the memory of both these great men.
It was further a matter of concern for the people to learn that the Dublin Brigade of the I.R.A., who were in charge of the Dublin ceremonies, had been notified by the Department of Defence that if they availed of the services of Army buglers and drummers at the commemoration ceremonies, the personnel engaged must wear civilian clothes. Those circumstances, coming to light last August, undoubtedly created a very deep feeling of indignation amongst the people of this country.
Our people could not forget that last year in County Wexford, properly and rightly, the Irish Army paraded to pay tribute to the memory of an Irishman who founded the great Navy of the United States, nor could they overlook the fact that this year the Irish Army paraded again with full ceremonial to pay tribute to the memory of an Irishman who founded the Navy of the Argentine Republic. But here, at home, the Irish Army was prohibited by deliberate action from honouring the memory of its founder and Commander-in-Chief, and I must attribute that action to the Minister, though I believe that, while his may have been the ultimate say, it was not the responsible voice.
It was fully my responsibility.
I do not believe that for a moment.
I say it was.
I do not believe that for a moment.
The Deputy implies, in other words, that the Minister is a liar.
Order!
I do not believe that for a moment. The Minister is a young lad and it was his boss who spoke. Here, at home, our Army was not permitted to honour the memory of its founder and Commander-in-Chief. It is regrettable that this matter should have to be raised here, but I would feel it wrong if some voice were not raised in protest against such action. The man who decided that the young Irish soldier, wearing the uniform of Ireland's Army, could not participate in honouring the memory of the first President of this State and the founder of Ireland's Army is the man who seeks to perpetuate bitterness and keep our people divided.
Why is it necessary to denigrate men like Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins? Why is it that we must honour in Ireland only Irishmen who have served elsewhere? Why must we never pay due and proper tribute to the men whose valour and courage and determination made it possible for all of us here in this Parliament to breathe the air of freedom? Why, at a time when the young men of Ireland are being fooled into joining illegal and treasonable forces, should the Government fail to respect, properly and adequately, the men who founded the lawful forces of this State? Is it any wonder these young lads, who to-day are joining illegal forces, think their course right when the elected Government, through its head and through its Minister for Defence, prevents the lawful Army of the country from adequately and properly honouring the men who founded it, inspired it and protected it in times of difficulty?
The Minister said in his reply to-day that the reason the Army was not permitted this year to attend these ceremonies was the difficulty in selecting particular commemoration ceremonies. Now, whether or not the Minister agrees with me, and no matter what other members of the Government may think, the place held by Collins and Griffith in the memories and affections of the Irish people can never be diminished: they will be writ in Irish history as the twin architects of the State that we all honour now.
In 1954, in 1955, and in 1956, the soldiers of Ireland's Army paraded with due military ceremony at Glasnevin cemetery and at Béal-na-Bláth and there on every occasion they rendered an Army's tribute to the memory of both these soldiers. I never heard anyone question the propriety of their doing so; I never heard it suggested that they were doing less than right in memory of these two great patriots. I wonder why it was that, this year, without any previous warning, it should have been found difficult to select these two ceremonies for due military honour? Both in Glasnevin cemetery and at Béal-na-Bláth, it is a heartening thing that one can record that many of those who attended the ceremonies last year and in previous years were men who differed politically from both Griffith and Collins, men who took a different stand in the unfortunate Civil War of 35 years ago, but nevertheless men who came to pay a soldier's tribute to the memory of both these men. I know, and I am certain the Minister knows, that the most serious condemnation of the Taoiseach's and the Minister's prohibition this year came from those who took a different side from Collins in 1922.
The Deputy knows that the Minister is entitled to ten minutes.
I have only one sentence to add. Might I suggest to the Minister that he should take my raising this matter here to-night not as intending any perpetuation of the differences of the past, but as a sincere effort on my part to ensure that next year, both at Glasnevin and at Béal-na-Bláth, the Irish Army under his ordinance, if he should still be in office, will parade with full ceremonial to pay a well-deserved tribute to the memories of Griffith and of Collins?
I find difficulty in understanding why, first of all, this question should have been put down and, secondly, why it should have been considered necessary or desirable to raise it on the Adjournment. The answer to the question was perfectly clear; the reasons which were stated there for this decision were perfectly clear and such as would, in my opinion, be considered entirely justifiable by any reasonable person. Before the question was put down at all, the reasons which prompted my decision to revert to the original procedure in these matters had been made quite clear by the Taoiseach in a letter which was published in the papers. The decision was taken for those reasons which were given there and no other reasons. The reply stated:—
"In order to avoid the difficulties involved in selecting individual anniversaries in commemorating which the State might participate, a special day, Easter Sunday, has been set apart on which the State celebrates the securing of independence and honours all who took part in the struggle to achieve it. This is, of course, apart from the annual State commemoration at Arbour Hill for those who died in 1916.
In those circumstances the Army did not officially take part in the ceremonies referred to by the Deputy."
Deputy O'Higgins concluded his remarks to-night by stating that it was not his purpose to arouse old bitternesses. I cannot see what other purpose he could have hoped to serve. It was to avoid the necessity of making selections that the previous Fianna Fáil Government decided to set aside the one day for commemorating all these events and all these anniversaries that it would be considered desirable to commemorate. It must be obvious to everybody that there are very many men who died during the period from 1916 up to 1923 whom it would be considered by different groups desirable to commemorate, and there is an obvious difficulty in making choices.
For instance, this was a proposal to commemorate the date, 22nd August. An equally strong case could be made for the commemoration of other dates, for instance, the 8th December. We did not want to have to make invidious distinctions and so we came to what I think was a very wise and prudent decision, to set aside the one date to which there could be no objection, namely, Easter Sunday, commemorating all who died in the struggle for independence.
What is the difficulty about commemorating the first Commander-in-Chief of the Army?
The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption.
I was interrupted by the Minister.
I corrected the Deputy's misstatement.
There was no misstatement.
The Deputy stated it was not my decision. It was my decision.
The Minister said himself just now it was the Government's decision. It will be on the record.
The record can be duly changed.
The Minister is entitled to his time.
Surely it can be visualised that if there were a number of these commemorations and if the Army had to take part in every one of them, the number of these occasions in which the Army would be participating would become excessive.
There is only one Commander-in-Chief.
I believe it was my duty to try to keep politics out of the Army. Deputy O'Higgins has tried to give the impression that the Army always attended these celebrations. In fact, as he well knows, that is not the position at all. This idea of the Army attending these celebrations was first introduced in 1948. It had never been the position prior to that that the Army took part officially in these commemoration ceremonies. I cannot see what other reason there could have been for this changing of the policy in this respect in 1948, if it was not the desire of the then Government to reintroduce these bitternesses to which Deputy O'Higgins has referred.
That is a most uncalled for remark.
I was accused by Deputy O'Higgins of trying to reintroduce these old bitternesses.
I never made any such accusation.
If they have been introduced, it was not by me but by the Government that first adopted this procedure of selecting for commemoration occasions——
That is a most uncalled for remark.
——which would be likely to have that effect. The Deputy has stated that there was only one founder of the National Army. I understood that it was always contended that this Army was the successor to the Army that fought throughout the struggle for Independence. Is it now Deputy O'Higgins's contention that there was a new Army formed in 1922 which was founded by Michael Collins? He stated there was no previous warning that this was likely to happen for this year, but I would remind him that, on the change of Government in 1951, the position that obtained prior to 1948 was reverted to.
I do not propose to follow all the Deputy's remarks because if I did, I would only be helping him in his apparent objective of reopening old sores. I can only state that the sole reason for taking the decision to revert to the original position was that we considered that the decision come to originally to commemorate all these men who gave their lives in that struggle by one ceremony in which the Army would participate was the wisest one in the circumstances. Anybody who attempts to set up this new idea of commemorating individual anniversaries is, in my opinion, doing a disservice to the Army, first of all, and a disservice to the nation.
So far as I am concerned, I am determined to keep the Army out of politics. Therefore, if we are to ask the Army to take part officially in the commemoration of this anniversary, I certainly could not resist requests for the Army to take part in the commemoration of anniversaries of other men who are equally entitled to be honoured.
"Conscience doth make cowards of us all."
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 20th November, 1957.