I followed the statement of the Minister with very close attention. It was an arresting kind of speech and I may say that it was a convincing speech, but convincing in a way which, I am sure, the Minister did not intend. It was a convincing vindication of the action taken ten years ago which he opposed, and it was a devastatingly convincing condemnation of the attitude he took then, and of the policy he has since pursued. The whole strength of the case that he has made has been based, and is based, on the growth in status and stature of this State from the beginning in 1921, which beginning he opposed. And the whole weight of his argument is this: that we have so grown from that origin, in stature and status and strength, that we are now potent enough to break treaties with impunity.
As I listened to the Minister developing his case and bedecking it with the trappings of pro-Saorstát argument, my mind went back to a good many years ago when I read of the pirates who, sighting what they thought was a potential victim, hoisted a friendly flag so that they might more readily approach that ship, board it, loot it, and scuttle it. I say that this is a political pirates' Bill and that its object is to scuttle the Free State. Why, Sir, the pirates are already on board. Last week, I believe, from the crew's quarters, we heard the strains of the pirates' shanties in the Dáil. One of those pirates, disguised as Minister for Finance, is engaged in the looting, and another, heading the squad that is being told off to do the scuttling, has appeared here to-day to enlist the services of Senators in that operation. For some time past the Press gang has been putting forward this view, that if the members of this House do not consent to be impressed into doing this work of the pirates, they will have to "walk the plank." Well, sir, whether I walk the plank or not as a result of my attitude on this Bill is a very secondary consideration with me in this discussion. But before I do, I have a few things to say about this precious proposal of these comic opera buccaneers; I have a few reasons to adduce why the duty of this House is to throw out this Bill and throw the pirates overboard.
And before this House gives its assent to this Bill there are several phases of the issue which it raises which require a much fuller explanation than the Minister has yet given. There are certain important questions that require to be answered, and answered, not in ambiguous double-meaning terms, which may mean one thing to the average mind but which are capable of quite a different interpretation in the indirect mental processes of the Minister. We want straightforward answers to plain questions. The people, Sir, after all are entitled to frank dealing in this matter. It is their security, their lives and their fortunes which are involved in this transaction, and which will be imperilled and possibly forfeited if the course which the Minister asks us to embark on should prove to be lacking in sound statesmanship and true wisdom.
The importance of stressing the necessity for Ministerial frankness in this matter is rendered very acute because of a rather amazing example of the lack of frankness displayed by the Minister to this House the last time he was here, and displayed in regard to a matter which has such a direct bearing upon this particular question which we are discussing that I think that it is not only relevant to introduce it but an imperative duty to direct the attention of the Seanad to it. It will be recalled that on the last occasion that the Minister came before this House—it was in March I think —he came to make, presumably, an official statement of policy. Before he spoke Senator Johnson, in the course of some speculations on what he anticipated the policy of the Government might be, deprecated very, very strongly the course of action that had been taken by the Minister some time previously in confiding to the Press a statement of Government policy which Senator Johnson argued should have been made to the Dáil before it adjourned. "I hope and trust," said Senator Johnson, "that the example of last week is not going to be followed frequently." Senator Douglas, who followed, drew attention to certain matters that had figured in the forefront of the election programme of the Minister, and he urged forcibly and repeatedly that in regard to those matters which may affect the relations between this State and England, before any action of a definite or irrevocable nature should be taken, every effort should be made to effect the desired changes by friendly efforts in the friendliest possible way. I quote the words. They are important enough to bring them very definitely before the attention of this House:—
What may ultimately result, we are not immediately concerned with at the moment, but I cannot help feeling that if they could see their way to give us an assurance that before any action of a definite or irrevocable nature was taken, an effort would be made to bring about the desired changes by friendly conversation and in the friendliest possible manner—I am by no means convinced that some of these difficulties could not be removed in that way—if they could give us that assurance a great deal of the uneasiness which exists in the country might by avoided.
In the course of the statement which the Minister made a little later he made but scant and, I think, only indirect allusion to this appeal of Senator Douglas. But he would give no assurance such as was asked for. He spoke in a lofty manner of what he terms his mandate and of his determination to give effect to it. And not only did he not give an assurance—I am coming now to the serious part of this matter, and if I did not regard it as of serious import I would not delay the House with it— not only did he not give the assurance asked for but he indulged in language which, in the light of subsequent events, seems to have been deliberately intended to mislead the Seanad and to keep it in the dark as to his intentions until the House adjourned. Here are his words:—
We are asked why we do not begin negotiations .......... our position is that this is a purely domestic question.
We feel, however, that it would be quite absurd for us, seeing that we are determined, no matter what happens, to carry out our mandate, to make representations such as have been suggested. Nothing could come of these representations.
I ask you, Sir, what impression was that language calculated to make on the mind of anyone listening to it save this, that there would be no precipitation of a further critical strain upon public feeling in this country or upon the position between this State and England until the Minister was ready to present his specific proposals to the Oireachtas and that the Oireachtas would be the first recipients of his intimate confidences in this matter? But, Sir, it was not until the Seanad adjourned not to meet again for several weeks, that we learned that before the Minister stood in the Seanad on that day, definite and irrevocable action had been taken. It must have been with astonishment that Senators read that evening in the Press the information that had been withheld from them by the Minister when he was addressing them, and that when he was addressing the House upon that occasion he had already, so to speak, crossed the Rubicon and that the first shot in the next round with England had been fired. The British House of Commons was informed of it that night, and I want to know why that information was withheld from the Seanad when we were discussing a matter which was very pertinent to it. I want to know why the British House of Commons was considered as entitled to prior information before the Oireachtas concerning the intentions of the Minister about this purely domestic question. We could only learn from the lips of Mr. Thomas what the policy of the Minister for External Affairs for Saorstát Eireann was. I venture to say that if the late Government had been guilty of anything nearly approaching this it would have been sufficient to have precipitated Senator Johnson headlong into a two column protest in the daily Press. But, Sir, the reason I bring this matter forward to-day is not merely because I think it deserves the censure of this House as wrong procedure, but because this matter that we are dealing with is of such vital importance to this State, and because I suggest that here we had a deliberate lack of frankness on the part of the Minister in dealing with this matter, and because I think it is the imperative duty of this House to insist that in the Minister's handling of the Bill that is before us to-day, there will be no repetition of this kind of thing, that there will be no cloaking or masking of hidden intentions, but that we shall have a full, frank statement, not merely of what, in the opinion of the Minister, the immediate effect of ceasing to take the Oath is, but as to what is the real purpose behind this Bill and where the policy that inspires it is going to land the people of this State.
Now, Sir, I come to the actual Bill itself. I leave aside for a moment the very questionable wisdom of the proposal, and I come to the grounds upon which it has been carried through the Dáil and brought to this House. I contend that the only valid authority upon which a proposal of this nature could rest is a clear mandate from the people, the electorate, that such a proposal should be proceeded with. I am aware that the Minister has made the claim repeatedly that he and his Government have certain mandates. In the Seanad on the last occasion on which he spoke, the occasion that I have just been referring to, he claimed that he had such a mandate by an overwhelming majority of the people. That statement was about as accurate as many others delivered since he came into office. Repeatedly in Press interviews, and in reply to messages from him to the Dominion Premiers and in correspondence with the British Dominions Secretary, he repeated that claim. In one of his speeches in the Dáil during the consideration of the Bill in that House he again made that claim in these emphatic terms:
"Either you will have to give up elections as giving a mandate at all, or you have to accept that we have a mandate here."
Now, I accept neither one nor the other of these alternatives of the Minister. I have gone to the trouble of trying to ascertain how far these repeated assertions of his are in accord with fact. I find it impossible to reconcile the two, and I am forced to the conclusion that either the Minister does not understand the meaning of the word "mandate" in its application to democratic electoral sanction for legislation, or he is a sort of political transcendentalist, one of those superior beings not under the necessity of discriminating between the regions of prosaic fact and the airy realms of imagination. Repetition after repetition that he has such a mandate, and that the people have delivered their will, has been made, and I have arrived at the conclusion that the explanation must be that the Minister has a chronic preference for fiction rather than fact, and suffers from the illusion that the former may be transformed into the latter by sheer vehement repetition.
I absolutely challenge the accuracy of the statement of the Minister that he has a mandate for this. If there was any basis for that claim it would be reflected in one or other of two things:—The majority returned to support him in the Dáil, or a majority of first preference votes cast for his Party at the polls. And the Minister knows, and so does every member of his Party, and so does every thinking man and woman in this State who has given any consideration to the matter, that in neither one nor the other of these directions can he find support for this claim.
At the General Election his Party was returned in a minority of nine. In the matter of first preferences his Party was faced with a majority of over 140,000 against them, and I ask what becomes of this overwhelming majority vote which he assured the Seanad he had on the last occasion he spoke here. What becomes of this unequivocal mandate that he has been telling the world about? He knows, and every man in his Party knows, and every man and woman in this House knows, and the Oireachtas knows, that there is no mandate for this Bill, and that this Bill has been brought before us and is being carried through the Oireachtas under false pretences.
What the Minister has got is not a mandate, but a small majority with the assistance of the seven wise men of the Labour Party, not a single one of whom has one iota of authority from his constituents to support the Minister in this Bill. He secured that support by dangling before the noses of these seven wise men a bunch of specious promises in the same way as the proverbial bunch of carrots is dangled before the nose of the proverbial donkey.
In regard to the attitude of the Labour Party, it is not out of place, as showing how difficult their claim to support this Bill is to recall the fate of their nominee at the last Election that was held in the Saorstát and the first that took place immediately after Labour had declared their support of this Bill. What was the result? Their nominee was defeated, and not merely defeated but was almost at the bottom of the poll. That was the first opportunity, and the only opportunity since, that the Electorate have had of pronouncing on what the seven wise men had done in their name. And if there is any significance to be attached to a mandate from the votes of the people, then I think Labour should have taken that as a line of reasoning by which to judge their action and policy.
Senator Johnson, it is true, has made an effort, to me a very unconvincing effort, to explain the tactics of his colleagues. His words are interesting enough to recall. Speaking during the Election I have referred to, he said:—
The Labour Party adheres to the belief that the Oath constitutes no barrier to social and economic requirements and industrial development. These should be our primary concern. At the present stage of the country's history there was no compelling necessity that the time and energy that should be devoted to other purposes should be devoted to the abolition of the Oath. But if the responsible Government believe that the country's welfare requires that it should be removed from the Constitution the Labour Party would have no hesitation in supporting them in that proposal.
Now there is a childlike and bland innocence about that reasoning of Senator Johnson which reminds me of Bret Harte's Heathen Chinee. To say the least, it is peculiar, and for Senator Johnson, a most extraordinary departure from precedent. It will be observed that he does not base his support on these proposals in this case on their merits. On the contrary, it will be noted that he prefaces his statement of support by a denial of the merits of these proposals to which he was giving his support, and he only gives his support because the responsible Government of the day wanted that thing done; because the Government thought that the country's welfare required that the Oath should be removed from the Constitution, and that, therefore, the Labour Party would have no hesitation in supporting them in their proposals.
Now, if my recollection be not very much astray, hitherto recommendations on matters of drastic policy in the interests of the people's welfare by the responsible Government at the time for the last ten years made no such touching appeal to Senator Johnson's heart. On the contrary, the very fact that there were recommendations from the responsible Government seemed to be quite sufficient to send him into vehement and determined opposition. Therefore, this may possibly be another example of politics making strange bed fellows and strange converts.
I notice that one of the seven wise men has made a unique discovery. He has found a unique substitute for the democratic mandate of sanction for legislation. He has unearthed the nursery mandate and said he found it in the cradle. I have heard of wisdom flowing from the mouths of babes and sucklings, but we also know that a good deal of babbling nonsense emanates from the same quarter, and I am inclined to class Deputy Norton's prattling with babbling nonsense. And if that is the only justification he can find for the action of his colleagues and himself, then the sooner the better, I think, that he goes out of grown-up politics and goes lack to his cradle where he can listen-in to the Postmaster-General broadcasting bed-time talks to juvenile politicians. The necessity for labouring and emphasising the importance of this mandate aspect of the matter arises in great measure from the fact that the Minister has practically anchored his whole case to it. He based his whole claim to introduce and pass this Bill on that ground. Speaking on the 27th April, moving the Second Reading, he quoted from his election manifesto, a copy of which I have retained as a souvenir of that historic contest.
"We pledge ourselves," he said, "that if elected in a majority we shall not, in the field of international relations, exceed the mandate here asked for without again consulting the people."
And he went on to say that the pledge that they gave to the electors they proposed scrupulously to honour. Therefore it follows, in my opinion, that if it is shown, as I think I have shown, that this Party was not elected in a majority and no mandate was given for this Bill, then the whole justification for proceeding further with it falls to the ground and vanishes. This Bill, every clause of it and every word of advocacy of it since the election is in excess, not of the mandate asked for, but of the mandate given by the people. And if, therefore, the Minister is still anxious scrupulously to honour his word and his pledge to the electors, the way to do so is to abandon this unwarranted offspring of his political miscalculations and to get on with the real work of government and administration.
I have another word or two to say in regard to this manifesto of the Minister. He declares now that this matter of deleting the Oath from the Constitution is a purely domestic question. That has been his argument on many occasions, but he has not consistently adhered to that. Even to-day he strayed into what must be an error from the point of view of his argument, by describing it as an international matter. However his mind may have fluctuated between the purely domestic question aspect and the international matter aspect, when he drafted this mandate I think he had no doubt in his mind that it was an international matter and not a purely domestic question. In this manifesto, which he used as the text for his Second Reading speech in the Dáil, he placed the Oath amongst international matters and declared the programme as a whole might be divided roughly into two parts, that which had relation to international and external relations of the State, and the other part which had reference directly to domestic matters.
Remember that he was arguing and dealing with this matter of the Oath and he proceeded immediately then to link that statement that I have just quoted to his pledge to the electors not to exceed the mandate in regard to international matters without further consulting them. The obvious inference from that was that when he drafted this manifesto, he did regard, and wished the electors to regard the matter as an international one. It is important to remember that in making that statement, dividing the programme outlined in this manifesto into two divisions, he placed international matters first, and this matter of the Oath is an international matter in the first part of his programme giving it pride of place at the head of the list, and rightly so. It stands out amongst these items. I have good reason to remember this programme. I made many a speech on the subject during the general election. This item of the Oath stands out in the whole list as pre-eminently to be included there and it is an international matter. However some people may think I am driving at an open door, I am not. This is an international matter and obviously concerns States other than, and in addition to, this State, and the other State so affected must be considered and consulted if a grave blunder in international relations is not to be committed. That is my point of view. We have a more explicit statement from the Minister than even that which I have already quoted. In the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil the Minister argued against the suggestion that the Courts should be allowed to decide a certain aspect of the Oath question and he said: "I have another objection which I already mentioned that this matter should not be left to our Courts to decide, as it is a wrong principle." Mr. McGilligan: "What is a wrong principle?" The President: "To have the Courts decide an international matter."
Now I wonder does the Minister agree with our dissent from his reasoning about this difference between an international and a domestic matter. It cannot be purely a domestic matter in the Oireachtas and an international matter on the hustings. If it is a purely domestic question, then the Minister was humbugging the electors when he drafted this manifesto. If it is an international matter, then he is misleading the Oireachtas in his arguments to get the Bill passed into law. He cannot have it both ways. He said in the Dail:—
"I say that nobody in the Opposition has proved that we are violating the Treaty by removing the Oath. Legal luminaries on the other side did not prove it."
And he went on and again repeated the statement on 3rd May:
"It has not been proved on the other side that there is a violation of the Treaty. The mere statement does not prove it. The whole argument is on the assumption that there is violation involved, but there has been no attempt whatever to prove that—none whatever."
I wonder is the Minister really very much worried as to whether there is a violation of the Treaty in this Bill. I think if he was perfectly frank with us, and with the country, he would say his position was that he did not give a hang whether it violated the Treaty or not but he knew that there was a certain body of citizens in the country that must be calmed and pacified and, therefore, he had to engage in a piece of special pleading in order to demonstrate that there was no violation of the Treaty in this Bill. I wonder was he thinking of this Bill when he delivered this utterance? It is from a little pamphlet entitled "National Policy, outlined by Mr. de Valera at the inaugural meeting of Fianna Fáil at La Scala, Dublin, in May, 1926." There is one little paragraph on page nine:—
"I have been asked what we would do if we secured a majority. My answer is to say we would ignore the Lloyd George construction of the Articles and deal with them exactly as with the Oath." Is that the language of a man scrupulously anxious to avoid any violation of the Treaty? I have quoted the statement he made in the Dáil and I think he repeated the same statement or in similar language in the House to-day. I really wondered that there has not crept into his mind, if he has perused the speeches of those who opposed and criticised him in the Dáil, some doubt as to whether he may not possibly be wrong. I doubt whether, if he had perused carefully, and with a detached mind, statements made criticising his proposals he would still continue to adhere tenaciously to his own belief in his own political infallibility. I suggest, at any rate, that the Minister in his leisure moments, if he has any, or if he should proceed to Ottawa his journey out there might be made much more instructive and a little entertaining by contemplating his own errors by a perusal of columns 653, 654 and 655 of the Official Reports of the 27th April. There he will find a statement by the Minister for Justice in the late Government and it is very pertinent and so fully answers the complaint of the Minister that he obviously did not hear it and did not read it. It would be too bad if the opportunity was lost to bring it before him. This is the speech dealing with the repeal of Section 2 of the Constitution Act, that is Section 2 of this Bill. This is the language which the late Minister for Justice used on this matter. As a layman it seems to me to be fool-proof as a legal argument. It certainly was not taken up and dealt with by any Minister speaking after it was made, except by oblique reference to it by the Minister at a later stage on an amendment by Deputy McGilligan. Here are the words of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney:
"It is said here that this Act is not a violation of the Treaty. I will go very much further to prove that it is a violation of the Treaty. I am going to prove that it is an absolute repudiation of the Treaty; it is a denouncement of the Treaty if it becomes law and the Treaty will no longer have any valid or binding effect in this country. If this Bill becomes law we will cease to be here and now members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I will proceed to develop that point. Section 18 of the Articles of Agreement for a treaty between Great Britain and Ireland is very clear, definite and specific. It says: ‘This instrument shall be submitted forthwith by His Majesty's Government for the approval of Parliament and by the Irish signatories to a meeting summoned for the purpose of the members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland, and if approved shall be ratified by the necessary legislation.' That Treaty was not binding on this country nor binding upon Great Britain until it was ratified by legislation. What is the legislation to ratify it? The legislation which ratified it is the very legislation with which this Bill is dealing. The only ratification of the Treaty is to be found in Section 2, the section which this Bill hopes to repeal. The Section sets out ‘The said Constitution shall be construed with reference to the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland set forth in the Second Schedule hereto annexed (hereinafter referred to as the Scheduled Treaty) which are hereby given the force of law and if any provision of the said Constitution or of any amendment thereof or of any law made thereunder is in any respect repugnant to any of the provisions of the Scheduled Treaty it shall to the extent only of such repugnancy be absolutely void and inoperative.'"
The ex-Minister for Justice continues:—
"In consequence, if the whole of Section 2 is taken away, not portion of it, then the Treaty has no longer got the force of law in this country. That section is the ratifying section and that statute is the ratifying statute. Repeal that statute and you go back to an unratified Treaty. That is a perfectly plain principle of the construction of statute law... Pass this Bill, make this law, and you will have brought about a state of affairs which will be the same as if Section 2 of the Act of 1922 had never been passed at all. In other words you will have brought about a position of affairs that the Treaty is not ratified and is abrogated."
The Minister said that no attempt had been made to prove that this Bill was a violation of the Treaty, none whatever, but a mere statement. Is that a mere statement or is it not a perfectly clear and lucid analysis of the position—the vital position of the Treaty? I say that the only man who can argue so blindly from the facts and deny that there is a violation of the Treaty is the man who is determined whether there is or is not a violation of the Treaty, that this Bill shall go through and smash the Treaty. After that statement that I have quoted was made the Minister for External Affairs and the Attorney-General both spoke and neither attempted to answer Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney nor Deputy McGilligan on that point.
The Attorney-General went to great pains to prove that we had powers legally to repeal the whole Treaty. I suppose if we did, that such an Act or such a repeal would have all the legality that this sovereign Parliament could invest it with. But what neither the Attorney-General nor the Minister for External Affairs was able to prove was this: that you are able to smash and violate the Treaty and maintain it at the same time. That is exactly what the Minister for External Affairs is trying to do. Unless he has achieved the faculty of working miracles I do not see how he is going to manage it.
On the Committee Stage the Minister made some reference not directly to the statement I have quoted from the ex-Minister for Justice, but to the same argument that was raised in a subsequent place on an amendment by Deputy McGilligan. He practically admitted the contention made by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. He went as far as it was possible for him, consistent with the position he takes in regard to this Bill, to admit that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and Deputy McGilligan were right in their contention that these sections that he was repealing were vital to the maintenance of the Treaty. I have the actual report here.
These are the words of the Minister, and I ask you to mark their significance: "I am quite willing to admit that something may be said on that particular basis for the contention that it is the section of the Act, the particular section that gives the force of law to the Treaty." That is the section he is repealing, which would be referred to as the ratifying legislation. In that sentence the whole case that he has been making that this Bill does not violate and break the Treaty breaks down; it is an admission that such violation is perpetrated by this Bill. I do not know whether he will admit that, seeing that the Minister is apparently, in spite of his protest here to-day, coming to the conclusion that there is something to be said for those who claim that this violates the Treaty.
But it might drive home to his mind to quote once more for him what has already been quoted several times— that is, the declaration of his present allies or one of them, Deputy Davin. I am sure Deputy Davin will be gratified to learn how he has come to be regarded as a great authority on constitutional law. In any case, I wish to add my little offering to the tributes in that respect that have been paid to the worthy Deputy within the last two weeks. On October 3, 1922, these were the words of wisdom that fell from the lips of Deputy Davin:—
I listened very carefully to the speech of Deputy Gavan Duffy to find out from him, as one of the signatories to the Treaty, if anything took place in the negotiations that went on that would allow any member elected to the Free State Parliament to ignore this Oath or leave it optional. However, I am sorry to point out that nothing in his remarks cleared the air, so far as that matter is concerned. I am rather surprised, however, that if Deputy Gavan Duffy foresaw all these objections when he was representing the Irish people as one of the plenipotentiaries, why he did not make provision for all the things that he has referred to here to-day.... Looking at the position any way I may, I cannot close my eyes to the fact that the subject of this Oath forms Article 4 of the Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, as signed by the representatives of both nations, and afterwards passed by Dáil Eireann.... It is at all events undoubtedly a fact, that no member present gave any indication to his constituents that he was in opposition to the Treaty, or indicated that he would imperil its operation in any way. It must be plain to everybody that the violation or alteration of any vital clause in the Treaty by one of the high contracting parties that signed it would render the whole agreement null and void. Unless Deputies are prepared to face this position honestly and say they are ready to accept the full consequences of their action, notwithstanding promises, explicit or implied, given to their constituents, they are only wasting the time of this Dáil in moving amendments which, if accepted, would leave the English free to say the Treaty was no longer in existence. Personally I gave a clear and emphatic promise to my constituents that I was prepared to make the best of the Treaty. I was elected to the Dáil by a very emphatic majority, and I am not now going, for the sake of any display or to satisfy any sentimentality, to defend a course that would be tantamount to antagonism to the policy on which I was elected. To my mind, all these arguments about the Oath are a mere storm in a teacup. If I were convinced the taking of the Oath would prevent me from placing Ireland first and above everything else I would emphatically refuse to subscribe to it. In the first part of the Oath I am asked to swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established.... Consequently the second part of the Oath, as far as I am concerned, is mere window dressing, and is in no way going to compel me to do or say anything that would not be in the best interests of the Irish Nation. The proposal to abolish or alter the Oath at this stage is like trying to destroy the middle storey of a house after the building has been completed. To take the objectionable storey away you must abolish the whole structure.
I have shown on the Minister's own admissions, and not merely his admission but on his specific declaration, that this is an international question. We have it on the authority of Deputy Davin that it is a violation of the Treaty, and I have shown that there has been no mandate given by the people for this Bill or for any breach of the Treaty. The Minister said, to advert to the whole topic I was refering to, that a mere statement that this Bill violates the Treaty is no proof. I have shown that there has been more than a mere statement, but I say that it is a mere statement that he has a mandate to bring forward. This Bill has no mandate; I have given facts to show that there is no mandate for either the violation of the Treaty that this Bill proposes or for any other violation. I want to ask the Minister a very straight, a very definite question, and I want a straight answer. Is it his intention to take the Saorstát out of the Commonwealth? That question permits of and necessitates a definite unequivocal reply—yes or no. The issue that he is raising, I contend, in his proposal is secession from the Commonwealth, and whether that issue be a wise one or an unwise one, at any rate it is grave enough for the Parliament of this State that will have to make the decision to face in all its bearings.
Again I say and repeat what I urged at the beginning, and that is that the gravity of this issue is such that we here who have the responsibility of either assenting to and sanctioning the proposals of the Minister or rejecting them or amending them—that it is an imperative duty on us to insist that the Minister will open his real mind to us and tell us where he is taking this State by his policy. It is not sufficient for him to tell us that when the people are willing and ready to declare for a Republic, he is prepared to lead them. We want to know where he is going to ask the people to travel if he gets this Bill into law and he goes to seek for an extension of his mandate in regard to international matters. We want to know here and now, because the direction he will then propose to ask the people to follow will have some bearing on the decision we will have to come to in regard to this measure to-day.
So far as an ordinary mortal can follow the workings of the Minister's mind, it would seem that he would like to be in the Commonwealth and out of it at the same time. He told the Dáil some time ago that he and his Party were only accepting the Treaty for the time being, and I think he would like to have, so to speak, his feet inside the Commonwealth and his head outside—his body being materially incorporated with it internally, and his soul having only external association. Now I am quite aware that the Minister has repeatedly asserted that this Bill does not affect our status in the Commonwealth. He may have convinced himself of that, but I wonder how many outside of his own immediate partisans he has brought to that conclusion? But again I say, even if we admit that, which I for one do not for a moment, we want, and we are entitled to, a fuller disclosure of his projected policy than we have yet secured.
We want to know if, when he goes to seek for an extension of his mandate to dabble in international matters, whether that extension of his mandate will be towards the consolidation, strengthening and widening of our position in the Commonwealth, or will it be a mandate to destroy the last lingering vestiges of association by which the Commonwealth may survive. Because there have been certain statements made both by the Minister and his colleagues in the Government which would seem to indicate that the policy of the Minister and his Government is definitely to take this State out of the Commonwealth.
I want to know is this Bill the first step on the road of that policy, and we are entitled to know, because if it is deliberately part and parcel of the policy to bring about the severance of this State from the Commonwealth, then I say that is a consideration that will weigh very, very heavily with certain people in making up their mind as to the decision at which they will arrive. I repeat we are entitled to know from the Minister, and it is the kernel of the whole situation, what are his intentions towards the Commonwealth? Is he prepared to get up and say "I do not propose to take the Saorstát out of the Commonwealth of Nations"? or is he prepared to get up and say "It is my avowed object to take the Saorstát out of the Commonwealth; this is the beginning of my policy towards that end, and when I have secured this I will prosecute the next stages towards that object"? We are entitled to have a full declaration from the Minister as to his policy on this question. I said a few moments ago that there had been certain declarations which seemed to indicate that it is his purpose to take this State out of the Commonwealth. For instance, in Ennis on October 12th, 1930, the Minister said:
He had no interest in the British Commonwealth of Nations, and he held that the Government should not be trying to involve them in unnecessary and entangling alliances at the Imperial Conference.
Will the Minister say whether behind this Bill there is not the same mind and the same driving force behind this declaration as in Ennis two years ago? One of his colleagues who sits with him here to-day visited the Historical Society in Trinity College on the 18th of this month and he delivered an address there. There was no official report given, and I can only depend upon what the Press stated. The statement of the Postmaster-General in regard to the Commonwealth was as follows:—
He claimed a special right to discuss the Republican position with regard to partition. Having lived for thirty-six years in Belfast and with friends of every possible shade of political opinion, he was convinced that the only argument which would ever appeal to the North-East Irishman was the evidence that membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations was not advantageous. The only way to prove this to them was the establishment of a prosperous economic State outside the British Empire in Southern Ireland.
This was about a week ago. I could quote similar statements not merely from the Postmaster-General, but from Ministerial colleagues of the Minister in the Government, with absolutely the same trend of thought; and what we want to know is: is this Bill intended to implement the ideas expressed in these statements I have quoted? If it is, then this Bill is a Bill to implement the severance of the Saorstát from the Commonwealth of Nations, and I think it is important enough to be faced and weighed in all its bearings and implications, and that a decision to support this Bill should be based upon the grounds that withdrawal from the Commonwealth is a wise thing and a good thing for the Saorstát. If we believe that, then here is the first step to secure that good and wise thing. If we believe that it is unwise; if we believe it would be a disadvantageous thing for this State, then, judging the matter from that point of view, this Bill, I think, would not receive much support.
The Minister has dwelt with a reiteration which has become almost nauseous about his hypothetical analogy with Canada and South Africa, and what they can do. If what he says is correct, if there are any grounds for that argument, then surely this is a matter of common concern to all these Dominions and a matter which is one which would merit being discussed between the representatives of these Dominions before one Dominion arrives at an isolated decision? The Minister spoke in the beginning and referred to the existence of confusion of thought. In that he uttered one of the few things with which I agree with him. I do not know that we agree as to the quarters in which the confusion reigns or exists, but he seems to confuse co-equality of function with identity of origin. Those States, Canada, Australia and South Africa, have their constitutional basis and origin in British Statutes. This State has not. This State has its constitutional origin in the Treaty of 1921. The Treaty of 1921 enters into our Constitution because that Constitution is in a large measure the offspring and outcome of the Treaty, and to use the argument that the President, the Minister for External Affairs, has used seems to suggest it might be argued that co-equality means identity and identification, and that as we are co-equal members of the Commonwealth and are bound by the Treaty, therefore the other members of the Commonwealth are bound by the Treaty also. This kind of argument is simply riding a plausible argument to death. If the Minister can demonstrate this it would be a sound position for him to take up. If he can demonstrate that we have reached the stage in State development, national development and constitutional development when the provisions of the Treaty are no longer binding on the people of this State—if he can demonstrate that then he can demonstrate that we can give effect to this Bill. But his argument from the analogies he draws as to what Canada and Australia may do are neither convincing nor in my opinion sound. Sometimes they appear to be somewhat puzzling. But the point I am trying to drive home is this, that no matter how the Minister and his colleagues may assert that this Bill does not violate the Treaty and does not affect our status in the Commonwealth; no matter how much they may say so, assuming they are anxious to avoid doing these things, can they give us any assurance that the other members of the Commonwealth will not take the viewpoint that this Bill does violate the Treaty and does sever the contact of this State with the Commonwealth and treat us accordingly? Can they give us an assurance that that will not be the attitude adopted by the other members of the Commonwealth if this Bill becomes law? At any rate it is a matter which the Government should investigate because if in a moment on the assumption of a certain attitude on the part of these State members of the Commonwealth, this Bill passes, we may find we are in the humiliating position where we will be told that we have cut the painter and that there will be no further inter-State communication with us. I think some investigation in advance might obviate such a humiliating position and the Government are in duty bound to prosecute such an inquiry.
I am not arguing that we are not competent to secede from the Commonwealth. That, in my opinion, is certainly within the rights and powers of this State, and that right was admitted and defined as far back as the 30th March, 1920, in relation to the Dominions and the Commonwealth at that time by the late Mr. Bonar Law in the British House of Commons, when he used these words:—
There is not a man in this House who would not admit that the connection of the Dominions and the Empire depends upon themselves. If the self-governing Dominions, Australia and Canada, choose to-morrow to say, "We will no longer make a part of the British Empire," we would not try to force them.
The events of the years that have intervened since then have added weight and effectiveness to these words to a degree which no man could have foreseen at the time they were spoken. Since then the relations, not merely between Ireland and Britain, but also between the Dominions and Britain, have undergone a radical, fundamental transformation. It is no exaggeration to say that the very concept of Empire, which in those days regulated these relations, has vanished. The term Empire itself has fallen into disuse. In the place of the Empire of that day, where Britain exercised an over-riding dictatorial veto, we have now the Commonwealth of co-equal sovereign States, each supreme within its own domain, and among that very association exists the Saorstát, where the authority of Britain is as non-existent as it is in Peru. I am, therefore, not challenging the right of this State to secede from this association, but I am urging that that is the real issue that is being raised in this Bill, not the mere question of deleting the Oath or indulging in a little constitutional reform. The real issue we have to face in this Bill is secession from the Commonwealth.
I am asking the Seanad to consider, before it assents to this Bill, whether that course is a wise one to pursue; whether or not it may not be folly of the greatest magnitude to do this thing at the present time and in this way and under existing circumstances. The Minister raised a new issue to-day with regard to the Oath. He gave us a dissertation on the philosophy of Oaths. He is not now concerned about the implication that this Oath is a derogation from our status or is a perpetuation of British authority. It is a pure question of the consciences of those poor people outside who, so far as I know, are still determined that the Free State shall go, lock, stock and barrel. There was a time when the Minister took a quite different view and succeeded in creating a rather spurious public opinion about this matter of the Oath. He would hardly deny that, even if he were here. I have his words of false prophecy which he indulged in ten years ago, where he declared that this Oath would have enthroned permanently the authority of England in this State. I have them here and they can be cited if necessary. But the ten years that have intervened have so exploded that theory that he then pronounced that he knows that if he adhered to the theory of the argument he then put forward in favour of the Oath, he would be laughed out of court. He assumes a new pose now.
Those ten years have given the lie to the utterly fallacious contentions which he made when he was opposing the Treaty. Now he will not have an oath of allegiance to the authority or the will of the people; he will not have an oath or a declaration of any kind from the elected representatives of the people. That may or may not be a sound idea. I suggest that it is an entirely new issue to raise, and an issue that should be discussed entirely apart from the storm of vexed controversies that the Minister has for the last ten years succeeded in arousing around the question of this particular Oath. This is neither the time, nor is this the manner, to discuss the question whether this State as a State should have a declaration of some kind from its elected representatives, and the purpose of this Bill is not to deal with that matter. The purpose of this Bill is to strike at what is considered the most vulnerable part of the Treaty, on the principle that the strength of the chain is its weakest link, and that by smashing what may seem its most vulnerable part the whole structure of the Treaty will come tumbling to the ground.
Another argument that was used by the Minister and his supporters to generate bitter opposition to the Treaty in connection with the Oath was that this Oath would enable Britain to exercise authority here and act in an aggressive manner to the people of this State. An assumed apprehension of aggression from England represented a large part of the driving force behind the campaign of the Minister and his supporters—an assumption of aggression on the part of England against this country—and it is therefore pertinent to inquire if we withdraw from the Commonwealth and later on there should be international complications which involve Britain and this State, what guarantee have we against any aggressive action that England may then feel inclined to take, and what power would we have to restrain such aggressive action on the part of Britain? If you are depending upon foreign countries coming to your aid in that extremity, I am afraid you are depending upon a very, very feeble hope. If there is one thing our history should teach us, it is that there is no altruism in the foreign policy of any foreign country.
At the present time, by virtue of our status in the Commonwealth, we have a guarantee against aggression from Great Britain to a very ample degree. I know the Minister will smile when I refer to this guarantee, but the guarantee, and the words in which it is written, are a much better defence for this State than whatever may be behind the Minister's smile. I refer to the letter of General Smuts to President de Valera on August 4th, 1921, in which he makes this declaration:
If, as I hope, you accept, you will become a sister Dominion in a great circle of equal States, who will stand beside you and shield you and protect your new rights; who will view an invasion of your rights as if they were their own rights; who will view an invasion of your rights or a violation of your status as if it were an invasion and violation of their own and who will thus give you the most effective guarantee possible against any possible arbitrary interference by the British Government with your rights and position.
In fact the British Government will have no further basis of interference with your affairs, as your relations with Great Britain will be a concern not of the British Government but of the Imperial Conference, of which Great Britain will be only one of seven members. Any questions in issue between you and the British Government will be for the Imperial Conference to decide.
I remember, on reading the report, I discovered where that quotation had been cited by one Deputy in the course of the discussion, and the Minister, when he came to refer to it, became somewhat facetious. He seemed to assume that because General Smuts did not immediately accept his version of the merits of this controversy that therefore General Smuts was acting as a supporter of English aggresion in this matter. There has been no aggression from England in this matter. If there has been any truculence, anything that savours of aggression in this controvery so far it has emanated from the Ministers of the Irish Free State. But it is surely a matter worthy of consideration whether the guarantee against possible aggression indicated in that letter should be lightly thrown away, especially when, so far as any human mind can discern, there is no evidence of an adequate substitute guarantee likely to be available to replace it. Certainly the Minister, so far, has failed to indicate the remotest prospect of any.
I am taking the view, as I have already stated, that the issue we are considering is secession from the Commonwealth, and I am taking the view that if that is so it is only right, before we come to a decision to assent to or reject this Bill, we should consider what are the likely reactions to follow from its passing into law; what are the reactions likely to follow from withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Nations? What position would we occupy? I do not know. We certainly will have ceased to have Commonwealth status—we will not be an independent nation—we will be a fragment of a nation; apparently we will not be a Republic, an isolated Republic—not even an externally associated Republic.
We will have all the disadvantages of isolation and none of the advantages of either an independent Republic or of Commonwealth status. We have to consider what exactly will be the constitutional position we will occupy. So far, it has not been indicated. Can the Minister inform us this: if under such circumstances nations which have recognised our status by accepting our representatives and sending their representatives here will continue or withdraw that representation? Will our representation on the League of Nations be continued or withdrawn? Remember that this recognition and representation which we have secured arises directly from the status we have won through the Treaty, and it is important that we should know, and know before this discussion terminates, how far these matters have been considered by the Minister before introducing this measure. Is he in a position to give us any assurance that such international recognition as we possess will not be withdrawn if and when we abandon the position from which such recognition is derived?
I come to another possible reaction. Can he enlighten us upon the policy that his Government intend to pursue if, consequent upon a rupture of relations with England, this State is confronted with a tariff wall blocking the entry of its products into the markets of that country, or at best making the marketing of them there an uneconomic proposition? Has the Minister secured alternative markets for our produce in that eventuality? If so, will he tell us where those markets are situated? If he has not secured alternative markets and if a critical economic position for this State arises, will he tell us how his Government are prepared to cope with such a critical economic position? I read in an interview which he gave to a representative of the "News-Chronicle" some time ago that, referring to the possibility of a trade boycott by England, he said: "We should undoubtedly suffer during the initial period, but the final result would be beneficial."