I move:—
"That the Seanad desires to place on record its condemnation of the religious persecution at present being carried on in Russia."
Condemnation of Religious Persecution in Russia.
On a point of order, might I appeal to the Senator to postpone his motion until we have the Minister for External Affairs present? As the Minister who deals with the affairs of other countries I think he ought to be present.
Cathaoirleach
That is for the Senator.
Notice of this motion was given a week or a fortnight ago. If the Minister is not here the Seanad must do the best it can without him. I am told the Minister is ill, and I regret it very much and hope he will soon be completely restored to health. As far as the motion is concerned, I think we will consider it now. There is no doubt about it that religious persecution is continuing in Russia. All the churches—Jewish, Protestant and Catholic—are agreed about it, and the various peoples apparently are agreed that it exists. I need mention only three of them—the United States, Germany and England. That being so, the question arises, what good can we do to the people we wish to protect? I suggest another question before I answer the first one and that is what harm can we do to the people we wish to protect? My answer to my own question is that you can do them no harm whatever, because their condition cannot be any worse. They have reached the deepest deep. Then I proceed to answer the first question. What good can we do to these people that we desire to help? We can call to their aid an ally that has never failed heretofore, and that is not going to fail now. I allude to the public opinion of the civilised world. That is an ally we have had on our side heretofore.
There have been difficulties in inter-communications between peoples; there have been difficulties in the mentality of the peoples; difficulties in the way of intercourse between the peoples, but from now on those difficulties will gradually decrease until they eventually vanish altogether. The world is going to be governed in the future by the public opinion of its inhabitants. For that reason, I for one welcome all those pacts and convenants and agreements made between the nations. All those agreements are subject to the world's public opinion, and that opinion in a rapidly increasing manner will ratify and enforce them. The Russian people in their distress may rely upon the public opinion of civilised nations. This country has relied for many generations on the public opinion of the civilised world, and it should be the last to doubt of the gigantic power of public opinion.
I think this country should be one of the foremost champions of civilised public opinion if she is to fulfil her destiny, as I believe she will. The time has come when this country should express herself in this matter of the Russian persecutions in no uncertain tone. This is pre-eminently a God-fearing country. Our Jews, our Protestants, our Catholics are all emphatically believers. This gives them an opportunity to put their beliefs into practice. It is an opportunity for them to register themselves on the side of believers all over the world. I think that I have the unanimous support of the Seanad as representing a believing nation in putting forward this motion.
I second the motion. It is only right the Seanad should put on record their strong condemnation of the persecution Christians are suffering in Russia.
This motion has, I feel, the support of all decent people in this country. I believe that those people who are being persecuted in Russia, will have the sympathy above all of the people of the Irish Free State who know something in the past of what persecution can mean, but I venture to suggest that the scope of the motion might have been made much wider, and that we ought to condemn not only religious but political persecution whether these persecutions take place in Russia or in this country of ours or in India, Egypt or anywhere else throughout the world. We are glad to say that such a thing as religious persecution does not exist in the Free State. We all know and admit, and there is no need for apologising for mentioning it, that the 7 per cent. minority in the twenty-six counties enjoy equal civil and religious liberty with what the rest enjoy. We have to admit also, and it is a point worth remembering, that in another part of this country they have suffered considerably from religious and political persecution, although the minority there represent 35 per cent. of the people in that area.
I suggest that whilst that religious and political persecution still exists in this country, as it undoubtedly does, there is something in the nature of smug hypocrisy about our starting to lecture any people in the world until we have a clean issue at home in Ireland. I happen to be one of those people who remember the religious pogrom in this country. It so happened that I lived through it in the years 1920 to 1922. I think there was less fuss made about the thousands of my unfortunate fellow-citizens in the Six Counties than there has been worked up about Russia at the moment. I suggest it would be quite wrong for us to allow this motion to go through without calling attention to the fact that religious and political persecution exists in that area. Thousands of people were displaced from their employment. Hundreds of people were murdered, had their homes broken up, and families were scattered to the wind. It would be mere hypocrisy, at all events on my part, to let the motion go through expressing sympathy with people far away from us without calling attention to the fact that in this holy Ireland of saints and scholars we have lived through the most vindictive political and religious persecution known in our own time, and that it still exists.
We are all agreed in this country —I want to speak very carefully on this—or at all events the majority of the people of this country are agreed —that religion in education should be the rule in all schools. We do know —and probably the Russian Government would admit it—that that is debarred in Russia. We also know, and we have only to read to-day's papers to realise that religion in education, from the purely Catholic point of view, is thwarted, and to that extent persecuted still by the Six County Government.
I would like to know if this proposal has the support of the Minister for External Affairs and if it is in harmony with the Dominion attitude. As most of you know, I am not particularly concerned with the Dominion attitude, but one might be pardoned for wondering why the British Government has taken no action. It is a matter for those people who are interested in the British Government, which is the mother, or the mother-in-law of the Parliaments of these Dominions. I wonder if Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde has consulted the Minister on this matter and if it is quite in harmony with what we occasionally discuss as Dominion policy. There is another matter which might arise, and that is that our good friend the Senator who has moved the motion might in a way find himself in conflict with his own position. As Chamberlain to His Holiness the Pope we all respect him, and those of us who are Catholics agree that the Pope has expressed disapproval of this persecution. But then why does not the British Government, of which our worthy Senator is a Baronet, move in the matter? What is being held back from the public regarding the reports that the British Ministry have? These are points that occur to one, merely to prevent anything in the nature of what might be interpreted as smug hypocrisy about this business. I think that we ought to support this motion, but I think that we ought to ask the Senator who proposed it to widen its scope and to make it clear that the Senator is equally against religious persecution in the Six Counties of Ulster as against religious persecution in Russia, and is equally against it in Mexico or anywhere else, whether the persecution is religious or political persecution. I suggest to the Senator that it would be helpful, that it would be intelligible, that it would be wise to widen the scope of the motion on all these points.
I sincerely hope that the Seanad will support the motion which Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde has proposed. People of all religions in Ireland ought to be satisfied to follow up the leaders of their religions. They have not brought in any other matters, and it is quite sufficient for us to deal with this matter of Russia. It is against all civilisation, it is barbarous in the extreme; perhaps it is the worst thing that has occurred in the world, and as the motion deals with Russia alone I hope that the Seanad will not agree to the suggestions made by Senator Connolly. When the bishops and the leaders of all religions in Ireland condemned Russia they know as well as Senator Connolly or anyone else of persecutions that might exist elsewhere, but they dealt with Russia alone. I think it is quite time that somebody in authority in Ireland should express some opinion, and a very strong opinion on this question.
I am entirely in agreement with what Senator Connolly has said, and if what he suggested could be added to the motion I would be glad to vote for it. I am not at all agreed that we should follow the course suggested by the last speaker, and do nothing but follow what certain ecclesiastics say. The laity of the country are a part of the Church just as much as the ecclesiastics, and we have as much right to our own opinions in these matters, however much we may respect their opinions. If Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde would make the alterations suggested I would be glad to support him.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think it would be possible to make the alterations suggested. I do not think it would be in order. There is no clear connection between the two matters to bring them within the scope of the motion.
Personally, I could ratify the sentiment of this motion with the fullest and completest affirmation, and I have no doubt that every member of the Seanad would be of the same opinion. But I think there is a difficult question, which has not yet been answered or touched upon, and that is as to whether it is right or desirable that the Seanad, a Parliamentary House, should place this motion on record. I agree thoroughly with Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde's sentiments regarding the importance of rallying world public opinion on all questions of this kind. But there are many occasions and methods of rallying public opinion outside the Parliament Houses. Whatever one may say regarding the desirability of mobilising that public opinion, expressing the views of the masses of the people on these moral issues, I think one ought to pause a little before one asks the Parliament of the country to take a step of this kind without regard to the possible next step. We should bear in mind, for instance, that this House is a political institution in close association with the Government of the country. We are asked to place on record our condemnation of a religious persecution.
Individually, I suppose, every Senator has more or less a conviction that a persecution is being carried on in Russia; in fact, it is quite officially admitted that the laws of the country are of a character which is intended to limit and to prohibit in some respects religious practices and teaching, and I think that it is almost inevitable that those should be the laws, following the philosophy that is at the back of the Communist authorities in Russia. But when we have satisfied ourselves as individuals outside, it is surely not sufficient to say to this House that these conditions exist, without any shadow of proof at all or any shadow of evidence being adduced to the House. I think it would put the House in a rather invidious and a somewhat foolish position before the world if it were to pass a resolution of this kind without the slightest shred of an attempt to bring in evidence in support of the motion. The fact that we are individually satisfied that certain things are taking place is not sufficient to satisfy the Seanad as a body.
One might point out, too, one of the rather undesirable consequences of putting this motion upon the Journals of the House. Senator Toal seconded this motion. Some months ago he moved a motion regarding the persecution of Catholics in Mexico. Russian critics might be tempted to say: "What are the views of Seanad Eireann on the relative heinousness of the two persecutions?" In the case of Mexico the resolution that was passed expressed strong condemnation of the atrocities. This is much milder; it places on record condemnation of the religious persecution, and the critic of the Seanad in this matter will say, "obviously the Seanad does not think the Russian persecution is as serious as the Mexican, because its condemnation is not so strong." I point that out because of the opening that this practice of putting down resolutions of this kind, which are, in fact, of a political character in a political House is going to give to critics and politicians in other countries. I think it will make the House futile. As I said, we are a political body, in close association, and, in fact, with a certain amount of authority over the Government of the country. To express condemnation of the acts of a Government in another country, unless there are some other steps in contemplation, rather places the legislative authority of this country in a position of futility.
What possible next step could there be? Supposing that, notwithstanding our passing of this resolution, the persecutions were to continue, is it to remain just where it is, the resolution having been passed, all our responsibility in the matter ceases? One would feel impelled to go another step. What could that step be? Are we to bring pressure, let us say, to bear on the British Government, even to declare war or join in a crusade that is being urged by a certain minister of religion in England, that the British Government should take the initiative, to rally all the Governments of the world in a holy crusade against Russia? Are we to urge any action of that kind, or of any kind upon the British Government, to take steps to give some effect to our condemnation? I do not think it would be desirable that the Seanad should do that, certainly not without consultation with the Ministry.
There is perhaps another step. We might say that, apart from violence, apart from arms, we could at least put Russia into the position of an outlaw, and cut off diplomatic and trade relations. I do not think our diplomatic relations are very close, if there are any at all, but there are certain trade relations, and I would say that the next step, if having passed this resolution the persecution did not cease—unless we are going to be futile—would be to prohibit any trade relations between the citizens of this country and of Russia. I wonder what people in Cork would say to that. I point out these things because I feel that to pass a resolution as a Seanad we would do a futile thing. If we pass a resolution as a responsible body of men and women in this country I am heartily with it. My only objection is that it should not be the act of the Seanad as a House of the legislature. One is not going to oppose a motion of the kind no matter how much one dissents from the form of it. The sentiment is there and I agree with it, but I disagree with the proposition that this House of the legislature should be asked to place on record its condemnation of these things which ought to have some further consequence if our condemnation has no effect.
I am glad Senator Johnson has spoken as he did. I hesitated to express similar views because there is a danger that on a motion of this kind an expression of opinion might lead to misunderstanding. The public opinion of the Christian world can best be mobilised by the churches. It is the only thing that will have effect. Christianity has been persecuted and is being persecuted at the present moment in heathen countries. It is not long since missionaries were killed in China, and we did not pass resolutions condemning the action of certain people in China which is more or less winked at by the Chinese authorities in certain states. To my mind it is just futile for this House to condemn these things by a pious expression of opinion when it does not propose to do anything further. I am all in favour of meetings for the expression of public opinion inside the State, particularly in this case, by the recognised churches and while I am in the same position as Senator Johnson, that I would not like to vote against any motion for fear the action of turning it down would be misunderstood. At the same time I feel it is simply an expression of opinion. We had a Standing Order for the purpose of trying to prevent the introduction of motions which were purely expressions of opinion. In matters of this kind resolutions should not be passed by the House unless we were prepared to ask our Government to take action. If we were prepared to say that the Government should make representations to the Russian Government and if we think that would be a wise step, I think such a resolution would be proper and desirable. If we are not prepared to take any action then I feel that it does not matter twopence whether the resolution is strong or weak; it just leaves us simply as a debating society, which expresses an opinion and does nothing else.
I am sorry to hear the ideas which have been brought forward against the passing of this motion, but it is just as well that the country should know where it stands. We were asked for proofs. I would not pay the Seanad the compliment of bringing down reams of proofs. The case is over-proved against the Russian Government. In my opening remarks I asked whether we could do any good for the people we wanted to protect, because I believe that this country expects that her representatives, wherever they may be placed, should represent her feelings.
We are now in a period of antiwar. It would not be appropriate for me to suggest to the Seanad that we would go to war with Russia. It would not be appropriate for any Irish Minister to suggest going to war with Soviet Russia. But there is a very great difference between going to war with a nation and bringing the force of public opinion to bear on the intellect of that nation. That is all I propose at present. Various other reasons were put forward against this motion. One was trade—to me a most unaccountable reason. For the last two hours we have been discussing a Bill the purpose of which is to promote Irish trade. But trade and money are not the objects of human existence. All the reasons which have been urged against this harmless motion, which, after all, expresses the innate sense of a country, are material reasons, and the last country in the world where material reasons have ever counted is Ireland. Our forefathers for 300 or 400 years preserved their spiritual fidelity. They thought nothing of material reasons in those days. They acted flat against all the material reasons. No material reason will prevent me from saying what I believe is the duty of the country, and that is to protest against the persecutions that are going on in Russia.
Motion put and declared carried.