Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Jun 1932

Vol. 15 No. 15

Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 932—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Before I pass any remarks on this Bill, I would ask the indulgence of the House to make a personal statement with regard to the use of the word "hypocrisy," which I applied in connection with Senator Douglas on the adjournment last night. After the House had adjourned Senator Douglas was courteous enough to come to me, and to put me in possession of information with regard to the adjournment on Wednesday week. If I had been in possession of that information I would not dream of using an expression that would be in any way regarded as offensive. I wish to withdraw the expression, to express my regret, and to apologise. I also trust that the expression will not go down in the records of the House.

I regard this Bill as dealing with nothing but the internal affairs of this country. I do not see how it can in any way affect any citizen of the Commonwealth of Nations—British or Colonial—outside this country. In my view it deals with what is purely internal, and with what makes for peace. There are a number of people in this country, rightly or wrongly, who will not attend or come into a representative assembly or Parliament because of the Oath in the Constitution. Whether these people be justified in their abstention or otherwise, this being an internal matter, I think this Oath should be deleted so as to permit everybody, no matter what his view, to stand for election, and to take part in our deliberations. We read the view expressed by Senator Brown, that this measure is a violation of the Treaty. He did not elaborate that. He simply made the statement. I do not think anyone in this House would very lightly set aside the expression of opinion of a gentleman like Senator Brown but, on the other hand, we had a speech here from Senator Johnson, who was associated with the proceedings which eventuated in the Constitution—I think he was a member of the Constitution Committee—and was in close touch with all the negotiaitons that took place which led up to the passing of the Constitution. I do not readily set aside his view, when he expressed an opinion the direct opposite to that expressed by Senator Brown.

I have not been in any way influenced by any speech which I heard in opposition to this Bill. Indeed some of the speeches, Senator Bagwell's in particular, would lead me to favour and to support this Bill even if I had not a very definite opinion arrived at before he spoke. Senator Bagwell's speech was instinct in every sentence with intolerance and ascendancy. He recounted an anecdote of the cross-examination of a young man by an elder man of opposite views which eventuated in a challenge to fight. I am sorry Senator Bagwell is not here. I would like the Senator to put the boot on the other foot. How would Senator Bagwell like to be taken practically by the ear by a truculent and arrogant farmer and cross-examined as to why his spiritual home was in England, and not in this country, and if the answer was not satisfactory, to be challenged to fight? It is that sort of anecdote—I will not dignify it by the name of argument—that made English rule in this country so intensely hateful to many people. Senator Milroy's speech was dealt with in his absence yesterday. I will not say anything about it but, I think, if anybody was likely to scavenge the political dustbins of the years 1920 and 1921, and revive some of Senator Milroy's utter ances in those years, they would not hang together very well with the speech that he made on the Second Reading of this Bill on Wednesday week. I am told that this Bill will have trade reactions detrimental to this country. Senator The McGillycuddy of the Reeks was very insistent upon that. This is a matter on which I speak with very considerable experience. I spent twenty-five years in practically all the industrial parts of England and if I wanted to disguise the fact that I was an Irishman I could not do it. During those periods political feeling between Britain and Ireland frequently ran very high and to the credit of the English trader I am positively convinced that I never lost a bit of business by reason of political ill-will or ill-feeling. The plain man in England that Senator Brown referred to—and his opinion is one that is important in this country— does not care one row of pins whether it is a condition precedent to occupying a seat in the legislative Chamber in this country whether the members take an oath or not. Knowing the plain man, the Englishman, I feel convinced that he would treat with contempt, and, with no little disgust, the opinion of a man who simply took an oath which in his heart of hearts had no moral sanction. He would far prefer to cut out that and to deal with the reality. In actual fact the plain man, when he comes to do business, puts his politics in his pocket and makes the best bargain he can. Even if it were not so, I am far more exercised in my mind as to the views of the plain man in this country. I think there must be very few members of this House, or of the Dáil, who are really convinced that the plain man in this country wishes it to be a condition precedent to taking a seat in the Parliament that they should give allegiance to any man whether the Crown, whether the King in person, or whether the King as King of England or as head of the British Dominions. I do not think the people of this country are actuated by any such views. This measure is an alternative to the so-called Peace Preservation Acts and Constitutional Amendment Acts which we had recurring within the past ten years. This is a measure which really promises peace and as such I support it.

Before dealing with the Bill itself I would like to clear the air on one or two matters that have arisen in this debate, and which show the trend that is, apparently, going to be exercised throughout the country. Senator Connolly, in what I might term a really bitter speech, ended up with the desire to be friendly with everyone, but alluded to the members of this House coming here in first-class carriages and motor cars. I do not know what the intention of that jibe was—for it was a jibe. All I know is this, that the very first person to shriek if the members of this House as constituted paid their own expenses would be Senator Connolly. It would be an undemocratic House. Why then the jibe? Senator Dowdall last night, but more especially on the hustings in Cork, held up this House to obloquy because they had adjourned, as he expressed it, after four hours, having done nothing for four months. In his opening speech the President of the Executive Council said here that he presumed the members of this House had made themselves conversant with the pros and cons of this question. I live in the country. I deem it of the greatest importance that I should be able to read and to consider not merely the statement of the President of the Executive Council, but of the leaders of the Opposition. This measure passed through the Dáil on Thursday night. I got the reports on the following Wednesday morning. Those reports included the speeches that took place in the Dáil on the Report Stage, on the various amendments moved, which were of the utmost importance, and also the speeches on the Fifth Stage. Personally, I think this House had no right to sit on Wednesday, and that we should be given at least a week after a measure of this importance had been passed through the Dáil to consider the arguments that were put forward by both sides. I merely allude to this because I think Senator Dowdall in Cork said in a different speech that the expenses of the adjournment would pay for the building of a house for one labourer. That speech could only be made for one object, and that was to bring this House into disrepute. I do not care whether this House is abolished to-morrow or not, but while it is in existence I think its dignity should be upheld by every member of the House.

This Bill, presumably, is an attempt to remove the Oath out of the Constitution. The President, in his opening speech on the Second Reading in the Dáil, laid great stress upon the frank way in which he put this question of the abolition of the Oath before the people. I know Senators are aware of what he said, but in spite of that fact I feel myself absolutely enforced to read the words he used on that occasion, for this reason, that in almost every debate that has taken place on any subject the President has always complained that his words have been twisted out of their meaning. The President said on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill in the Dáil:

Before the last election there was widely published throughout the area of the Free State a manifesto to the electors in which the Fianna Fáil Party put forward, in very explicit terms, the items of the programme which, if elected in a majority, they would endeavour to put into operation. The first item on that programme was as follows: "To remove the Article of the Constitution which makes the signing of the Oath of Allegiance obligatory on members entering the Dáil." The following note was added: "This Article is not required by the Treaty ...."

And then he went on to say

We pledge ourselves 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.

In other words, he told the people of Ireland that this question of the Oath had nothing to do with the Treaty. Nothing could be more explicit than that language. He said to the ordinary plain people of Ireland without any further explanation that this Oath is not required by the Treaty. How did he come to that conclusion? Without question it must have been a matter for considerable thought and it must have been a matter of considerable doubt. Finally, we find he was satisfied by his legal advisers that the Oath was not mandatory in the Treaty. But I am not satisfied at all with that matter. The Attorney-General when he spoke in the Dáil said this. And it must be remembered that the Attorney-General is a very important member of the community and that his views should be listened to with great respect. He says:

First, on the question as to whether the Oath is obligatory or not, I admit that there are two views. Any lawyer would be silly, on a difficult question which has been discussed over several years, to lay down positively that his own interpretation of certain things is absolutely the correct one.

That is the foundation, I presume, on which the President tells the people of Ireland that the Oath is not required in the Treaty. He has told them that frequently—that there is no other question whatsoever that the Oath is not required, but he puts a different view of it in his speech of the 3rd May. He is tackled on the question as to whether he is justified in removing from the courts of this country the power to decide on the validity of Bills passed by the Oireachtas and he says:

Our attitude is that this should not be a matter for our own domestic courts at all. This is a matter of the interpretation of a Treaty which has to be taken up with the main parties.

And then he goes on to say:

When we have got this Bill through and settled our own position with regard to our own attitude here then let the British talk about it. Let them make their protest against it. We are quite prepared to hear them. We are quite prepared to hear what they have to say, but any dealings with them about this Oath will be as equals.

I shall read the rest, fearing it should be said I was not reading the context in full:

At the present moment, and in the present position here, we are inferior because they have imposed something upon us which is going to deprive us of that equality of status which is absolutely necessary for us if we are to talk with them about this Oath on equal terms.

That is a totally different proposition to that which he put before the people of Ireland during the election. In his speech in this House on the Second Reading of this Bill he said:

The only really substantial objection to the removal of the Oath as put forward is the one that I have indicated, namely, that it is supposed to violate the Treaty.

He goes on and says:

"I pointed out in the Dáil already that it stands to common sense that domestic courts ought not to be used as courts in any country for deciding international matters, for the very good reason that if they should decide in favour of the home government," and so on.

He then says:

It is to prevent the Treaty being regarded, so to speak, as our fundamental law. That is a position it ought not to occupy, and the whole purpose of the Bill, outside the direct part for the removal of the Oath, is to put this Treaty in its proper place as an international instrument.

That was not what he told the people. He never said one word nor did any member of the Fianna Fáil Party about putting the Treaty in its proper place. I agree with the President that the whole question here is whether the Oath is obligatory in the Treaty or not. The Fianna Fáil Party complains that everybody merely asserts and never attempts to prove things. I have been trained in the law and I know how easy it is to make a case on this side or that. This is a most difficult question and it is almost impossible for the representatives of the people to put this question in a speech before a representative assembly without going into details of abstruse legal arguments.

There is no question about it there is a case to be made on either side and that being so, it is the very last thing that should be legislated for unilaterally. It is essential that it should be dealt with by bilateral consultation. There is no question about it that this Bill is bad because it is founded on an absolutely wrong principle. If matters are so doubtful as the Attorney-General told us that things have two views, is it statesmanship to try and commit the people of Ireland by means of a Bill to a position from which they cannot withdraw? That is the point which the President states in his own speech which I quoted, when he said that after we have determined our position here then let the British talk. What he wants to do is this. That without a real understanding amongst the people he commits the people of Ireland to a certain position. If this Bill passes, every law-abiding citizen in this country must be behind it. I say that is not fair; it is not just and it is not right. That is the position as conceived by the President admittedly in his own words. I agree with Senator Johnson and with Senator Douglas: If the President came before this Assembly and said that in his view, as President of the Executive Council, this Oath was detrimental to the peace of the country and asked us for a resolution to the effect that we believed it was—

He would not get it.

The Senator prejudges the position. I certainly would vote for it if I were satisfied of one thing. I will not go so far as Senator Douglas does, but if I were satisfied of one thing and one thing only, and that is that the abolition of the Oath did not mean the entry into either House of the Oireachtas of people who had already taken an oath for the destruction of this State as it stands, I would vote for it. If the President of the Executive Council could assure me of that fact I personally would vote for the resolution, although the effect of a resolution is different from that of a Bill. This is definite and binds the people. A resolution gives power to talk, and to talk in the only way this country can talk, that is in no sense of inferiority whatever. What is the position in this country? The Treaty was agreed to. I know the attitude the President and the Fianna Fáil Party took up as regards the Treaty.

There is no question that they admitted it was accepted. The only question is, as they say, that it was accepted under force majeure. The President, in speaking on the Report of the Commonwealth Conference in the other House, said that there was not a member of the House, with two exceptions, who spoke on the passing of the Treaty who regarded it as anything except a Treaty that they were compelled by superior force to accept. The only important word in that whole sentence is the word “accept.” This Treaty was unquestionably accepted by the will of the Irish people. I do not say that they liked it, but it was accepted. And acceptance means that they are prepared to abide by it. What is it? It is an agreement between two people, between two sovereign States if you like. That is an agreement that cannot in any possible way be broken, repudiated or altered except by agreement. If the Treaty and the principles of the Treaty are not acceptable to the people of Ireland, at the present moment is there anything to prevent them from going to the other people who are parties to the Treaty and pointing out in what way they are not acceptable? We have been living under this Treaty for the past ten years—not without success. I am not advocating for a moment that this Treaty is the final word between this country and England, but I do say that so long as we made the agreement, no matter how it was made, and it was accepted by the majority of the people, we are bound by that acceptance; the only way in which they can change that and hold their heads up before the world is by negotiation and not by a Bill like this. This Bill goes to the root of the Treaty without question. Can you tell me that that Oath was put there without any purpose whatsoever? It was an Oath that was fought over and discussed.

Senator Johnson, in the course of his remarks, said that this Bill was a logical sequence of the Treaty and he ends up by saying that if the Oath was mandatory in the Treaty then this Bill does not affect the mandatory effect of it at all. That is true and I agree with it. Nothing you can do will affect the mandatory effect of that Oath and it is sheer nonsense to say that, the Treaty being drawn up under the circumstances in which this Treaty was drawn up and discussed so thoroughly as it was, that the Oath which everybody at the time looked upon as mandatory should now after ten years be discovered not to be mandatory. I do not care two pins what Mr. Thomas or anybody else says, but I am anxious to preserve the rectitude of this country in its dealings with other nations, and in that respect I would suggest to the President of the Executive Council and to the other members of the Ministry that when they are dealing with international affairs they are not speaking as Fianna Fáil—they are speaking for the whole people of this country, and the dignity with which they can speak is a matter of supreme importance to this country. They cease to be Fianna Fáil when they voice the opinion of this country.

Senator O'Doherty in his speech yesterday referred, not in a very well read way, to the question of Canada. Can anybody tell me that Canada, if she wishes to do so, cannot remove the Oath from the Constitution? Of course, there is no question about their being entitled to remove it. They can remove it, but it would be a distinct breach, a distinct break not only of their own Constitution but with the other Party concerned. Canada is a federal country and there is a lot of misapprehension on this matter. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all federal countries and in such countries one of the most important things, in view of the Constitution, is the question of the rights of the States against the Federal Government, and the rights of the States are so important in their own eyes that there is always a fear of the Federal Government curtailing those rights. That is where the analogy with this country ceases and for that reason they have deliberately given up their right to amend the Constitution.

In the debate before the Canadian House—the Federal House—the Prime Minister recalls the fact that under the British North America Act "express provisions were to be included in the United Kingdom Act to make it clear that the new Dominion powers would not confer any new power through repeal or alter the constitutional Acts of the Federal Dominions, or to make laws on any solely provincial or State matters. Under the present Constitution it was only necessary for their Parliament by a majority humbly to address His Majesty that legislation be enacted to bring about the passing of legislation amending the British North America Act."

The Liberal member, the Hon. E.P. Lapointe, in reference to that said:

There was, however, the question of the right of amending their Constitution. He had never felt that the necessity of having to confirm by Imperial legislation any change they desired to make in the British North America Act meant essentially that Canada was a subordinate country. It was a condition that came to them of their own free will.

That is the position of Canada. It is nonsense to say: Can anybody deny that Canada can take the Oath out of her Constitution without reference to any other authority? There is no question about that. She can do it, but it means a breach of all her agreements. With regard to this particular matter —and this is a question that approaches us more closely—I wish to express my own view. And while I am on this subject of expressing my own view, may I point out, since there has been a lot of comment by various people both in the House below and in this House, that there seems to be an idea that because a national question is raised by way of a Bill nobody is to express an adverse opinion. If it is raised by way of a Bill it is the duty of every member who does not agree to express his views. He is given the opportunity by that of doing so and it is sheer nonsense and very misleading to try to prevent him from expressing his opinions on the ground that it is a national matter.

This is not a question of Irish nationalism. This is a question of whether the country is going to do right or whether it is going to do wrong. Apart from what I say, I give to the movers of the present Bill, if they can make anything out of it, a statement that the Lord Chancellor made in the House of Lords. Of course, the mere fact that it is the Lord Chancellor will be sufficient for Senator O'Doherty and others to say that of course it is sheer nonsense. I cannot really argue against such a state of mind. In a debate in the House of Lords which took place on the 26th November, 1931, the Lord Chancellor spoke as follows:—

Turning to the question of the Irish Free State (the Lord Chancellor said) that as things now stood the Government in Great Britain was bound morally by the Treaty. Legally though the Government was bound, Parliament could in law repeal or amend the Act by which the Treaty was confirmed. But a moral obligation would remain, and it would be conceded by all that no Government and no Parliament in Great Britain could free themselves from that moral obligation. The Irish Free State was in a rather different position. The moral obligation rested upon them as heavily and bound them with as great a force as it rested upon and bound the Government and Parliament of Great Britain. But they were bound in addition by a legal fetter. The effect of the present Bill would be to release them from that legal chain.

It put them in exactly the same position as the Government of Great Britain and that was the only effect of the Statute of Westminster. The Lord Chancellor continues:

But they had not contended, and did not now contend, that they would thereupon become free to break the Treaty. Each and every one of those obligations would rest upon them, and be of the same force and effect as it was before. Furthermore as their powers to amend the Constitution were limited, so that they could not make any amendment in it inconsistent with the Treaty, they would be as much bound as before to retain all those features of the Constitution which were bound up with the Treaty.

That is so. When this agreement was entered into without question on both sides, it was agreed that the provisions of the Treaty should bind the Constitution of this State without question. Following upon that the Constitution Act was brought in and does what the Treaty really requires. If you are to take the spirit of the agreement that was entered into it said: 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....

That is the spirit of the Treaty. I do not care about anything that happens. I look upon the charter of the liberty of this country as being founded upon the Treaty. That is the real charter of liberty of this country. However, as times go on, if amendment is necessary and things can be taken out of that Treaty by agreement, so much the better. But while that Treaty is in existence it is the charter of the liberties of this country, even though to a certain extent it circumscribes the absolute freedom of this country. I do not care what Statutes of Westminster are passed. They were mainly passed for colonies which had grown out of English Acts of Parliament. This country is far superior in its position and Constitution to any country in the British Empire. It is founded on a Treaty which presupposes practically all that the Statute of Westminster has given. So long as that Treaty is in existence the country is bound by that Treaty, whether it was accepted under pressure or not. That is not the question. It never is in a treaty. There is hardly a treaty made in the world between two peoples—except, perhaps, such an agreement as we made with France, and even then we had to bring a little pressure to get that treaty—where a little pressure does not enter. This Act, on the President's own admission, is doing something which he never put before the people. As a matter of fact, it is smashing the Treaty.

In no other way can you smash the Treaty except by repealing the ratifying Act, and the ratifying Act of that Treaty is the section of the Constitution which this Bill wishes to repeal. There is no getting away from it. The President said that he is going to put it in the place it belongs. The place it belongs is the place it holds now, and that is the governing matter for the Constitution of this State. Until that Treaty has been abrogated—you have a legal right to repudiate it, you can do that legally, but you cannot do it morally—until that has been repudiated or altered by negotiations you cannot do it. If this Bill passes, I have never heard one word as to where it is going to lead us. I think the people of the country are entitled to be told by anybody who introduces such a Bill as this where it is going to lead them.

Hear, hear.

The people are entitled to be told where it is going to lead them. I do not know whither it is going to lead. The questions that are raised by this Bill are so big, and the repercussions are going to be so great that nobody knows where it is going to lead. I am not talking about expediency or markets, or this or that thing, but the repercussions are so great that nobody, not even the President, can tell us where we are going to stand. I think the people of this country, before they pass this Bill, are entitled to know where they are going to stand when it has passed. The only real argument I have heard— and I did not hear it, but I saw it— for the abolition of the Oath is that this country should never again have to undergo the humiliation of hearing the first and leading citizen of this land describe the manner in which he dodged the Oath.

I do not think that since this House was established, a more foolish and futile piece of legislation has ever been discussed in the House than the Bill that has occupied our attention during the past two sittings. No matter what is said about the mandate that this Bill has behind it, I maintain that it has no public demand behind it whatever. Although the Fianna Fáil Party have for the past ten years endeavoured to make the Oath a major political issue, it remains an issue in which the plain people of this country are very little concerned indeed. Notwithstanding the fact that the Fianna Fail Party put the removal of the Oath in the forefront of their election manifesto anybody who has been through the election knows that it was the least attractive and the least interesting part of their programme even to their followers, not five per cent. of whom cared what Oath their representatives took or whether there was an Oath at all, and the percentage of them who would refuse £360 a year rather than take the Oath in the Treaty or any other oath would be very small indeed.

To say then that the Oath is an intolerable burden on the people of this country is to say what is grotesque. In the debate on the Treaty the late Arthur Griffith has left on record his opinion of the sincerity of some of the people who are objecting to the Oath. Arthur Griffith's words were:— He had listened to discussions on the Oath. If they were going to have association with the British Empire they must have an Oath. But what he was going to speak about was this: In that Assembly there were men who had taken Oath after Oath to the King of England, and he noticed that they laughed loudly when insulting references were made to young soldiers there on account of the Oath. He had seven different oaths that were taken by different members to His Majesty by gentlemen who sat on the English Bench and other gentlemen who were going to vote against the Treaty because they would not have an oath. This hypocrisy, which was going to involve the lives of gallant young men was damnable. The hypocrisy of men who hung their flags out when the King of England came to Ireland, the men who received him and fought in his armies and sat on his Bench is damnable hypocrisy.

If Griffith were alive he would say that the hypocrisy is still more damnable to-day because he would find that the original objects of his scorn were now reinforced by a new set of ex-Imperialists who have since found salvation in the ranks of Fianna Fáil, and along with them he would find another set of recusants even more despicable still. I refer to those who had first received the Treaty with enthusiasm, who urged the acceptance of the Treaty—who encouraged men to die for the Treaty and who are now joining with its enemies to destroy it, of course from highly patriotic motives and inspired by lofty ideals. They tell us that the great objective of this Bill is to secure internal peace to enable certain elements that have refused to recognise the Government and the institutions of this State to become reconciled to them and to enter the Dáil where they can give the country the benefit of their sage advice and weighty counsel. And then when that happy event takes place we are assured the State is to blaze into prosperity. Unemployment is to cease, the working people are to be made happy and comfortable, the farmers are to be made rich, peace is to reign over all; in short, Plato's Republic is to be born. It is an alluring prospect, but just as in the famous recipe for making hare soup, the first item is to catch your hare, so I would like to know if the Republican hare that has turned tail from the direction of Leinster House is going to be caught by the mere contrivance of abolishing the Oath.

So far I am unable to see any indication that it will. Because the members of Sinn Féin have not said nor has Saor Eire or its militant ally, yet said that the mere abolition of the Oath will satisfy their pious scruples. Indeed I have noticed that when challenged on this point in the Dáil President De Valera and his colleagues were ominously silent. But while they have been silent the people for whom this Bill is supposed to cater have left the country under no illusion, they have stated and unequivocally that they will not be satisfied with the mere removal of the Oath, a proposal which they turned down with scorn when put up to them a few years ago. And on every occasion since and at every opportunity they have publicly declared that they will not recognise any Government nor enter any Parliament that is not the Government and the Parliament of an Independent Republic for the Thirty-two Counties, nor, most important of all, will they lay down their arms until that is established. Meantime, their idea of one Army in the country is one that the Army will be the Army of the Republic.

In face of these declarations this Bill is a failure in advance; and except the President has some undisclosed facts or some agreement which has not been made public, this Bill is a mockery and a delusion in so far as it pretends to placate the extreme section in this country. I want to say that so far as that section is concerned, however we may disagree with them, however we may dislike their methods, their attitude towards this State is at least honest and consistent; and it has been made even respectable by the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party which pretends to preserve the Treaty while strangling it, and which under the pretence of creating peace and stability introduces this Bill, the inevitable result of which will be the creation of disorder and instability.

Lest it should be thought that this is the biassed opinion of a political partisan like myself, let me call an impartial witness in the person of Senator Thomas Johnson, who in June, 1927, when discussing the Fianna Fáil programme for the removal of the Oath, gave it as his considered opinion that it

would not provoke war with England, but it would provoke such an upheaval to commerce and industry and such a destruction of the still growing sense of stability that the consequences to this country would be especially grave, and consequences to working people would be especially grave, and many things which have not yet passed the danger point would be toppled over the abyss. He had taken his share in endeavouring to bring about radical changes in the political complexion of the country and its social organisation, but he was not foolish enough to say they could do in a weak and delicate national organisation what could be justifiable in a state of normal prosperity. This country could not stand another period of unrest and survive. They should not run the risk of upsetting this country's life and growing peace by a further commotion.

In the numerous quotations which Senator Johnson gave yesterday he seems to have overlooked his own, which is a complete answer to his learned dissertation of yesterday. I do not think that any Senator here could make a more effective speech against the present Bill than the speech I have quoted. Senator Johnson now disregards the grave consequences which he then foresaw and he and his Party, not very enthusiastically, but I would say quite stoically, are now assisting President De Valera to head this country for the "abyss" referred to by the Senator and an abyss in which it is bound to land by the passage of this Bill, which in spite of all the ingenious arguments of its supporters, is clearly a violation of the Treaty of which no Senator who is not blinded by political prejudice can have any doubt after hearing the opinion of a lawyer of the eminence of Senator Brown.

There is nothing more disheartening for the future of the country in this whole sordid business than to see the representatives of Labour who always professed to stand for the Treaty, now taking refuge behind the quibble that this Bill does not violate the Treaty. Because it is nothing but a quibble to maintain that a Bill which proposes to delete the principal sections of an Act passed in the Parliaments of both countries to give legal validity to a Treaty does not violate the Treaty. It is a quibble which may be successfully imposed on the intelligence of a cross-roads audience of Fianna Fáil, but which good care is taken to prevent being tested in the proper place for testing all quibbles and that is in the Courts of Justice of the land.

It is a quibble which will dishonour this country before world opinion and bring it down to a lower level of honour than the England of the 17th Century that dishonoured the Treaty of Limerick about which we were accustomed to talk so much in the past. Now all Irish Nationalists have been brought up on the story of the breach of the Treaty of Limerick, but I venture to say that few Irishmen have taken note of the facts relative to that Treaty.

The signatories were Patrick Sarsfield, who signed not on behalf of the Irish people but on behalf of an expelled King of England, and General de Ginkel, afterwards the Earl of Galway, a Dutchman entirely oblivious to the niceties of English politics. The Treaty guaranteed liberty of conscience to the Catholics and an evacuation of the troops. The latter condition was honourably carried out; the former condition was repudiated by the English Government. This disgraceful conduct has been thrown in their teeth ever since. The war in which the Treaty was an episode was a war between William and James —on the issue, whether tolerance to Catholics would be permitted or not. The English Parliament and people were so determined that tolerance would not be granted that they effected a revolution and exiled their king. The Dutchman, de Ginkel, overlooked this. Being himself citizen of a State where tolerance had recently been hardly won, he was likely to assume that such a condition would be granted by his co-religionists in England. But he had obtained no express authority on that point. The result was that the English repudiated his Treaty as soon as it was reported. Since that day the English Government of the day has been held up to universal execration for its breach of faith.

The Treaty of 1921 was negotiated by plenipotentiaries who included the Oath in their Treaty. Their conduct was approved and their Treaty was ratified by Dáil Eireann, representing 32 counties, after a three weeks' debate, and that ratification was endorsed by the successive votes of the Irish people for ten years afterwards. If complaint is made against the English people for repudiating a Treaty where they had the excuse that it was made without authority by an alien, hired to fight a battle in which he was expected to fight for the very antithesis of his Treaty, how much more are the Irish people bound by a Treaty concluded by plenipotentiaries authorised to negotiate the association of Ireland with the British Empire?

And if that association was to have been negotiated without an Oath, then I submit the time to have determined that was not ten years after the Treaty had been signed, nor ten hours after the Treaty had been signed, but ten days before the plenipotentiaries were sent across. That was the time for deciding whether this country would give allegiance to the British Crown or not. And there was ample opportunity given, for Lloyd George very definitely raised this issue in the correspondence that preceded the sending over of the plenipotentiaries. In every letter that Lloyd George wrote, from first to last, he insisted that there could be no settlement, nor any conference for a settlement, except on the basis of allegiance to the British Crown. In view of the present situation, his insistence on this point is worth recalling.

On August 13, 1921, he wrote: "We must direct your attention to one point upon which you lay some emphasis, and upon which no British Government can compromise, viz., the claim that we should acknowledge the right of Ireland to secede from her allegiance to the King. No such right can ever be acknowledged by us."

On 17th September, 1921, when refusing the claim that our delegates should go as representatives of a sovereign people, he declared: "We cannot consent to any abandonment, however informal, of the principle of allegiance to the King, upon which the whole fabric of the Empire and every constitution within it are based. It is fatal to that principle that your delegates in the Conference should be there as representatives of an Independent and Sovereign State. While you insist on claiming that, conference between us is impossible."

This was followed up on the next day, 18th September, by this statement: "From the outset of our conversations, I told you that we looked to Ireland to give allegiance to the Throne and to make her future as a member of the British Commonwealth. That was the basis of our proposals, and we cannot alter it."

When these challenges were made, that was the time to have met them. That was the time to have said, "We will never give allegiance to a foreign King." But the issue of allegiance, which was then definitely raised on the English side, was never straightforwardly met here.

Instead of giving a plain and blunt refusal to these demands for allegiance, the issue was side-stepped and evaded. Even when Miss MacSwiney raised the matter in the Dáil and proposed to delimit accurately the powers of the delegates, her proposition was turned down. Our delegates were sent across —after Lloyd George had refused to receive them as representatives of a Sovereign State—on an invitation which invited them merely as spokesmen of the people whom they represented to negotiate an association with the British Empire—an association which every man in the country who had read the correspondence knew entailed an Oath—which every man in the Dáil at the time knew entailed an Oath, or if they did not know it they were not fit to be representatives of the people. Yes, every man in the Dáil knew some form of Oath was necessary, including President De Valera, who a few days before the plenipotentiaries signed the Treaty dictated the following Oath as one which he was willing to take:—

"I do swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of Ireland and the Treaty of Association of Ireland with the British Commonwealth of Nations and to recognise the King of Great Britain as head of the associated states."

Where did you get that?

I got it in the public Press of the day and it was never contradicted. The only attempt that I have seen or read by President De Valera to explain this is that they were casual words— casual words! Casual words dictated by the head of the Government at a final consultation with plenipotentiaries when they were going across to take the most momentous decision ever taken in Irish history— and when they got the nearest approach to the form of the dictated Oath that it was possible for men to get and when they got an Oath much milder than that taken by other members of the Commonwealth. Their settlement was turned down. And to-day, eleven years afterwards, behind the work of Griffith, Collins, and O'Higgins, the attempt is now being made in this Bill to raise the issue of allegiance which was shirked in 1921. We have been told that the settlement then made was the cause of 10 years of turmoil, blood and tears. That I deny. On the contrary, I say that the genesis of whatever trouble took place in this country was not in the signing of the Treaty but in the failure to face up and meet definite issues when they were raised by Lloyd George in the preliminary correspondence.

And it was the same in regard to Partition. As an Ulsterman, I was interested in the statement of President De Valera when he said that he will only now negotiate with the British on the basis of Irish Unity. That, too, would have been much more appropriately and much more effectively said eleven years ago. The time to have said it was when Lloyd George made his first offer of settlement in July, 1921—an offer which the President says he told Lloyd George he would not be seen taking home with him. In these proposals, Lloyd George laid down that the settlement "must allow for full recognition of the existing powers and privileges of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, which cannot be abrogated except by their own consent."

If a stand was to be made on the question of Partition that was surely the time to have made it. That was the time to have refused to negotiate except on the basis of Irish Unity. But it was Craigavon who refused to negotiate then. And in spite of Craigavon's refusal and in spite of Lloyd George's statement the negotiations went on. What was the reply sent to Lloyd George on the question of Partition? It consisted of a perfunctory protest of a few lines in which Lloyd George was told we could not admit the right of the British Government to mutilate our country, but at the same time saying that we did not contemplate the use of force.

And although reams of correspondence passed between the President and Lloyd George—extending over six weeks—the great and important question of Partition was never again even once referred to. The importance of Partition was only realised after the Treaty was signed, when it was found it could be used as a weapon to defeat the Treaty. And even then it was not immediately realised, as President De Valera's alternative proposals, known as Document No. 2, contained a number of clauses which were identical, word for word, with the corresponding clauses of the Treaty. The appearance of these clauses in Document No. 2 is an irrefutable proof that the objection to the Treaty on the ground of Partition was neither an honest nor a sincere objection—and if the principle of Partition was admitted in the Treaty it was also admitted in Document No. 2, and that means that it was admitted by every member of the Second Dáil.

Every thinking man in Ulster knows that whatever chance there was in these clauses of immediately undoing Partition was destroyed by revolt against the Treaty, and whatever flicker of hope of re-uniting the country has since been springing up is now being quenched by this Bill. Because, even if this Bill were to succeed in placating the small minority of Republicans here—which it is not going to do—it is bound to alienate the feelings of almost a million people in the Six counties, who have been brought up on British traditions and whose attachment to British Royalty and British citizenship is part of their religion. The policy of further alienating these people may appeal to bigots and to certain short-sighted fanatics, but it is not statesmanship. The aim of any statesman who has at heart the unity of Ireland should be not to cater for any extreme section, but to try to find a political formula which would be a common denominator for the various sections that make up the population of this island.

In the words of the late Kevin O'Higgins, the aim of true statesmanship should be to keep to the middle of the road, neither turning to the extreme left to the anglophobes nor to the extreme right to the anglophiles.

The bulk of the people of this country want to keep to the middle of the road, politically, because nobody who knows anything of the political history of this country for the past forty years is under the delusion that the bulk of the people of this country are Republicans. If the test of Republicanism means that a man is willing to fight for a Republic when opportunity offers, then there is not 10 per cent. of Republicans in the country. The number of genuine Republicans do not constitute 10 per cent. of the population. I admit there is a bigger percentage of pseudo-Republicans.

These people, of course, make the biggest noise. They are very fond of referring to their political opponents as Imperialists, and applying that epithet to those opposing this Bill. I would remind them that men who fought for a Republic and suffered for a Republic, and who have as much reason to be as bitter against the British as we had—men like General Hertzog and his followers in South Africa—have taken a more full-blooded Oath of Allegiance to the British Crown than the Oath in the Treaty. If these men are Imperialists and the men who were supporters of British rule in this country, and who wore the livery of Britain down to 1921, and who are now with Fianna Fáil—if these are Republicans, then we should all be proud to be called Imperialists.

I saw men on Fianna Fáil platforms in Donegal at the recent election who tore Republican flags from children's hands at Senator O'Doherty's election in 1918. I know others who, as public men in 1921, refused to recognise the Local Government Department of Dáil Eireann, and who, when the public body of which they were members passed a resolution confirming to Dáil Eireann, they had the British renewed—these people are not Republicans.

The French say it takes three generations to make a Republican. But here they can come over from Shropshire or Lanarkshire, and if they learn to say and níl and wave the Tricolour they are regarded as Republicans. And whether they came from Shropshire or Lanarkshire, or from Jerusalem or the Isle of Man, they are regarded as truer Gaels and are considered better patriots than mere natives, even though the latter could trace back their ancestry to Brian Boru of the Norman invader. But whether parvenu Republicans or those born in the purple, Republicanism is not compatible with the unity of this country, and neither is this Bill.

Because this Bill will place the country in a sort of politically hermaphroditic condition, when we shall be both inside and outside the British Commonwealth, we shall be neither a Free State nor a Republic, but a sort of nondescript entity, in splendid isolation, clothed scantily in a hair shirt.

The people are not being fairly treated in connection with this Bill. They are not being told whether they are being led.

The authors of this Bill should state clearly whether their intention is to take us out of the British Commonwealth or not. Whatever their intention they should take steps to find out whether the effect of this Bill will be to place us out of the Commonwealth, and if that is the effect what will be the consequences?

If we are out of the British Commonwealth and the British markets are closed to us, then we should be told if any arrangements are being made to provide alternative markets. Because if no arrangements are made to provide alternative markets, then it is nothing short of criminal to run the risk of having our present markets closed and causing that upheaval to commerce and industry which Senator Johnston dreaded. The people are being treated to the same kind of evasive tactics and the same kind of looking through a wall of glass as resulted in Civil War.

All these considerations were before the Dáil, and the Dáil has decided to take the responsibility of passing this Bill. The Dáil can claim popular authority which the Seanad cannot claim. They are the direct representatives of the people. The majority in the Dáil claim that this issue for the removal of the Oath was put before the people at the election, and that there is a mandate for it. In my opinion the office of the Seanad is not to decide what mandate a Government elected by the people may claim. It is rather to draw attention to the dangers of ill-considered policies and legislation. Accordingly, I agree with the view of Senators Brown and Douglas that the best course is not to divide against the Second Reading of this Bill. Because the Second Reading in the Seanad—unlike the Dáil—does not mean, as some people think, an approval of the principle of the Bill. It merely shows a willingness to consider the Bill and see whether, before the Final Stage, suitable amendments can be inserted that will prevent the Bill having the disastrous effects I have outlined. I am confident that in carrying out this duty the Seanad will not be deterred by the ill-mannered and undignified threats of Ministers, who, dressed in a little brief authority, now attempt to use against this House "the big stick" which they so loudly condemn when used against themselves.

This House has stood up to threats before. The members of the Seanad have defied and defeated the campaign of murder and arson by which it was sought to prevent this House functioning when it was first set up. We are not going to be intimidated now by threats of pinchbeck dictators who now glibly talk about the will of the people which they despised and trampled upon when it suited their purpose.

I want to say, sir, that I propose to vote for this Bill, first of all, for the reason that I believe that this Oath should never have been in the Constitution, and secondly, because I believe that the vast bulk of the people of Ireland are in favour of the removal of the Oath from the Constitution. I do not propose to follow the example set by other speakers in giving lectures on history or in dealing with the farthest parts of the earth, while giving their opinions with regard to this particular Bill. I think that there is no necessity for the members of this House to give lectures on history or to give quotations from the speeches of everybody who has ever made a speech. I should like to say this: That a good deal of play has been made by the opponents of this Bill and the people who are about to oppose it, when they talk about the sanctity of Treaties, and when they talk about the good name and the honour of this country. Well, I think we are all concerned with the good name and the honour of this country. I want to say quite openly and frankly that I think that the Government has taken the proper course of action to secure the removal of the Oath by doing it through the machinery of the Oireachtas without consultation with anybody else. I believe we are quite entitled and quite within our rights in doing that; and I go farther and I say that the Government would be extremely foolish to enter into negotiations with the British Government on this particular point with regard to the sanctity of this Treaty, having regard to the circumstances that arose when the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland were under discussion.

I have heard a great deal of talk in the course of this discussion in regard to this measure being responsible for preventing the unity of Ireland. We have been told that the people in the north-east portion of this country would never have unity with the other people in the country if this measure was passed. It is most extraordinary, but it is a historical fact notwithstanding, that within a few days after the signing of the Articles of Agreement for the Treaty, there was a meeting between the representative of the majority in the north-east portion of Ireland and Michael Collins as the representative of the people of this part of the country. An agreement was signed by these two men in good faith and I much admire the position that they took up. They said: "We do not want a third party being nominated by the British to settle this question. We will settle it ourselves." Both men meant it in good faith, but they had been double-crossed. Documents are here to prove that the British statesmen double-crossed them, that they told Sir James Craig on the one hand one thing, and that they admitted to Michael Collins, on the other, that it meant another. Documents are here in a white paper printed by the British Government giving the full facts of the situation. And this gentleman who was responsible when the Boundary Commission was set up on which they appointed two representatives—the gentleman who shuffled the cards in the game in which we were cheated over the Boundary settlement, now with his tongue in his cheek talks about the sanctity of Treaties. And we are expected to go to the same gentleman to-day and ask him to negotiate on this particular question with regard to the rights of the country. Sir James Craig and General Michael Collins, at a meeting held in Dublin, issued a statement of which this is the kernel:—

The Boundary Commission as outlined in the Treaty to be altered. The Governments of the Free State and of Northern Ireland to appoint one representative each to report to Mr. Collins and Sir James Craig, who will mutually agree on behalf of their respective Governments on the future boundaries between the two.

That document was signed by the two statesmen. At the time when Sir James Craig signed that document he had been given to understand by representative British statesmen that it did not mean what they intended it to mean in their negotiations with Michael Collins; and that statement was made quite openly and publicly in the British Parliament. The following agreed statement was issued afterwards by the late Michael Collins and Sir James Craig after their second meeting when they discovered that they had been double-crossed:—

The following agreed statement was issued this afternoon by Mr. Michael Collins, Chairman of the Provisional Government, and Sir James Craig. The discussion between Mr. Collins and Sir James Craig was almost entirely confined to the subject of the Boundary Commission. Owing to the fact that Mr. Collins stands on the Boundary Commission and the Irish Delegation's agreement with Mr. Lloyd George that large territories were involved in the Agreement and not merely a boundary line, as Sir James Craig was given to understand privately by several British Ministers, and the statement of Mr. Lloyd George in the House of Commons, no further agreement was reached and a very serious situation has consequently arisen.

A good deal of talk has been made about the breaking of the Treaty. Article 12 of the Treaty was very explicit and it is laid down in Article 12 that a Commission was to be made up to consider the boundary between north-east Ulster and the rest of the country, to take into consideration the wishes of the inhabitants and all the other circumstances. Is there any member of this Assembly who will agree that the intentions of the Treaty under Article 12 were carried out? Will the people of Tyrone and Fermanagh agree that the terms in the Articles of the Treaty of Agreement were carried out? Will the people of South Down and Armagh agree? Senator MacLoughlin may be satisfied if his little portion was left in the Free State. Donegal is all right. Tyrone and Fermanagh were all wrong. Armagh and South Down were all wrong. Does anybody suggest that the spirit and the letter of the Treaty were not broken in the settlement of this vague Boundary Commission in which the British Government appointed two representatives, that they ever had the intention of carrying out in a strict sense the letter of the agreement entered into? No, it is the history of British diplomacy all over the world. I am sorry to have to say that, but it is true.

I believe in square dealing between man and man and nations and nations, but the fact of the matter is this, notwithstanding all that has been said about the honour and the sanctity of treaties, that the history of every people who entered into negotiations with the British Government proves that they did not get a square deal. That is the reason I say that I do not think it is fair nor do I think it is right for the members of this Oireachtas to stand up and accuse their own people of want of honour or honesty in carrying out this agreement. I have nothing further to say on this particular Bill except to say this, that Senator Douglas when he was speaking on the matter referred to the position of the Seanad and said that we ought to hold up this Bill with a view to getting the opinions of the people in the country on it. Now I think I am right in saying this, that the majority of the members of this Seanad who will vote against this Bill are the people responsible for taking out of the Constitution the provision that gave power to consult the people by a Referendum on questions of this kind. The very people who will vote against the passing of this measure are the very people who took out of our Constitution the provision that gave us the power to consult the people by a Referendum on questions such as this.

I have no doubt in my own mind what the view of the people of the country is—people whom I have met in all classes of life, people who are not supporters of the Labour Party, who are not supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party, but ordinary citizens who are supporters I may say of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. Very many of those whom I have discussed this question with are almost unanimous in giving expression to their opinion that this Oath should be removed from the Constitution. Some are in favour of it because of different reasons. I have given my reason that I believe it should never have been there. I give a further reason that it is a wrong thing to be compelling men and women to take an Oath they do not believe in. You are asking them to commit perjury; you are asking them to believe in a thing they do not believe in and you are compelling them by circumstances to take that Oath that they are not entitled to take. I do not believe in political tests. I voted against the Oath for the civil servants. I have always been opposed to it. For that reason I will vote for elimination of this Oath from the Constitution.

My disagreement with the Bill is not so much with the matter as with the manner in which it has been approached and handled. I have no means of finding out what the English Government thinks, but I know definitely that the English people are desperately exasperated with what they consider the want of courtesy displayed by the President of the Executive Council in refusing to discuss the matter of this Oath with the co-equal partners of the Commonwealth. It was the duty of the Government to inform the electorate of what the consequences would be if they left the British Commonwealth. It is not fair to ask people who have no knowledge of these matters to give a vote on a subject of that character. I think it is our duty in the Seanad to try and show them, before they are called upon to vote, what the result may be before they leave the British Commonwealth.

There is one point which has not been explained fully, and I wonder whether it has occurred to the President what the passage of this Bill would mean to the citizens who draw fixed incomes from the other side of the Channel? There is a large percentage of these people I know, and no matter what these people think or say, they cannot alter the investments from which their income is derived. There are elderly couples who have decided to end their lives in the land of their birth, and there are others who have settled down where the days of their childhood or married life were spent.

They may not carry much weight politically, they may be of little importance in the eyes of the world, but they gave an appreciable amount of employment and they pay their income tax or taxes out of the money derived from other countries than ours. Do you suggest for a moment that England will continue this arrangement if we are to move away from the Commonwealth? Surely there is a large number of us on whom this double income tax will fall with great severity? To the lowest incomes it will mean 10/- on every £; on the higher incomes it may be raised to 17/-, and how in that case shall we be able to carry on?

Many of us will have to leave the country if we wish to maintain the standard of living to which we have been accustomed. Those of us not so well placed, will have to cut our clothes according to our cloth, and the only way to bring down expenditure, and live within our depleted incomes will be by the dismissal of employees. It will result in a servant or two less, a man or two less, and a smaller number of grooms and stable lads. What are these unfortunate people to do who may lose their jobs? I speak feelingly. I may be forced to withdraw from many activities which involve the payment of salaries and wages, to withdraw from things I love, and to make 5/- do the duty of 20/-. It is a thing I deplore very deeply, but it appears that I shall have to curtail many of my services.

If I might say a few words, if I might trespass on the time of the members of the Opposition, England's faithful garrison in Ireland, I do not see why the Opposition should resent my remarks. If the King were here or if Mr. Thomas had been here for the past few debates I am sure he would have been delighted. It has been suggested that this objection to foreign interference in our daily lives is a matter of recent origin. It has been suggested even that it was nothing more or less than the product of a deranged mind. We have history quoted by various Senators. We had had all kinds of quotations. Senator Milroy is not here I am sorry to say. He had to go to "Dublin Opinion" to find something that would apply to Senator Connolly, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Several other Senators went even further away than that and I would suggest that before the debate finishes some of the Senators on the opposite benches would quote from the concluding lines of the "Croppy Boy" and have the courage of their convictions and stand up in the House and say: "I hold this House for my Lord the King. Ten years ago many of our people were deceived and led to believe that we could carry on in peaceful conditions and still have this Oath of Allegiance to a foreign king imposed.

But the experience of these bitter years has taught us that if we are to have the Oath of Allegiance to a foreign king imposed on the people of this country it can only remain there at the expense of internal peace. And if we cannot have internal peace we cannot hope to have stable government and without stable government we cannot hope to have prosperity. It is said at this period to find in our midst a body of Irishmen, at least claiming to be Irishmen, some of them are real Irishmen; all of them claiming they are, definitely prepared to disregard the expressed will of the people, definitely prepared to sacrifice the security of the State in a last desperate effort to wring from the people of this country a hollow expression of loyalty to a foreign king and tribute to a foreign empire. To-day we are at peace. The members of the Opposition say we have but the peace of submission. In fact they go so far as to say that we had greater peace before the election. We had perhaps peace, but that peace was the peace of the wilderness, the result of the policy which was in line with that of Robespierre who said: "Let us cut the throats of all our opponents and then we are sure to have peace."

The British Government tried to kill the national spirit in this country. The Cumann na nGaedheal Government thought they could succeed where England failed, but the national spirit has survived, and even in the last election when the people were threatened with all kinds of war and desolation, Communism and all the rest of it, that same spirit which nerved our forefathers in years gone by, which nerved them to the field of battle with sticks and stones in their hands, which nerved them for the dungeons and for the gallows itself, came to the rescue of the people of the Twenty-six Counties, and despite all those threats they voted for the Party whose programme it was to bring about the complete independence of the Thirty-two Counties of Ireland. There have been so many quotations since this debate started that I see no reason why I should not do a little of it. "If the throne stand as a barrier between the people of Ireland and the supreme right then loyalty will be a crime and obedience to the Executive will be treason to the country." These, as I say, are not my words, neither are they taken from the debates in the Dáil in the last few weeks. They are the words of Thomas Francis Meagher, the leader of the Confederates in 1848, the words of one of Ireland's greatest soldiers and I may add one of her greatest statesmen.

Senator Miss Browne read up a lot of history to show us that in every generation we had the leaders of the people prepared to recognise the King of England. This is one of the reasons why I quote this statement of Thomas Francis Meagher, and I may warn the members who are making such statements that every statement made in this House is being recorded and that the day will come when posterity looking over these debates, perhaps will hold the same case up and say that in the year 1932 when the question of the Oath of Allegiance came up before the Parliament of Ireland we had your great-grandfather or your great-grandmother or somebody else's great-grand-aunt ready and willing to give an Oath of Allegiance to the King. They say we had a greater peace before the election. Men were taken from their homes, husbands torn from their wives, fathers of families shot down in the prime of life and all in the interests of peace. "Oh, liberty what crimes are committed in thy name!" They brought in amendments to the Constitution until the men who drafted it could scarcely recognise it. They passed dozens of Public Safety Bills, but I say the first real Safety Bill ever brought before this House is the Bill you are asked to pass at the present time and which I hope you will have the good sense to pass.

Lest I may forget I cannot let this opportunity slip of replying to a statement made by Senator Bagwell. He is not here; I am sure he is not in the bar. I do not know where he is.

Is that statement in order saying that Senator Bagwell is not in the bar?

Cathaoirleach

It is not a Parliamentary statement and Senator Quirke, I am sure, made the statement thoughtlessly.

I am sure it was not intended.

Well, you must give me credit for not being so well up in parlour etiquette as the leaders of the Opposition. I am a plain Irishman here under sufferance. Senator Bagwell took it on himself to drag before this assembly a stage Irishman to be ridiculed by this House or at least by a section of this House who comprise England's faithful garrison backed up by a few renegade Irishmen. Perhaps I am not in order again, but I cannot call them by any other name, and if the mixture mixed, if I called them patriotic Irishmen they would be more pleased, but it would not mix with the British colonists who fill up the benches opposite and it would be all right if we brought that man before this House for ridicule.

Perhaps I could let it go, but as a man who held the rank of officer in the Third Tipperary Brigade and in the Second Southern Division I resent that statement. As it did not appear in the Press perhaps I had better repeat it. He told us what he considers a funny story where one of the Third Tipperary Brigade was questioned by a respectable farmer who happened to be a friend of Senator Bagwell. In the course of the questioning this alleged member of the Third Tipperary Brigade is supposed to have said that what he understood by freedom was "so that he could do what he bloody well pleased." Now Senator Bagwell may have given a good exhibition of the superiority complex and of the superiority complex of the other members of his Party, but I tell him and I tell the House and I tell everybody else listening to me that Senator Bagwell is not going to get away with that statement.

Another threat.

And furthermore if it ever came to a question as to who represents the popular sentiments in Tipperary, I do not know who the man is that he referred to, but I have no hesitation in saying that he represented popular sentiment in Tipperary before Senator Bagwell or any member of the Opposition Party.

Again we have people who say we ought to be more careful lest we fall out with our best customer over such a trivial matter as the Oath. Some years ago there may have been some justification for this, but after an election in which the issue was clearly explained are you the members of the Opposition, prepared to go back to that period; are you prepared to have another round of the Constitution (Amendment) Act? Are you prepared to throw men into jail, to put them against the wall and shoot them down?—and, if you are, I hope you will plead for time to consider the matter as you pleaded for this.

I went during the last election around the County Tipperary. I went to various towns in the County Waterford, County Kilkenny and County Carlow and a few other counties and I never stood at a meeting, I never spoke before the people that I did not mention that the first and most important part of our programme was to remove the Oath of Allegiance to a foreign king. Then we have Senators coming up here and saying that the matter was not put before the people. I put that matter before the people fully confident that the Fianna Fáil Party meant to carry out their pledges and if I did not believe that they meant to carry out that one pledge I would not be here to-day pleading the cause of Fianna Fáil. If I were to believe that a change of Governments only meant a change of Presidents, a change in Cabinet Ministers and a possible cut in the salary of the Governor-General, I would not be here to-day standing in these benches. If I were to believe that the plain people of Ireland, the peasantry as the Opposition calls them, the mere Irish, the men who are alleged to have said that what they meant by freedom is so that they could do "what they bloody well pleased"; if I were to believe that this peasantry were to continue to be beaten into subjection by gun-bullies and detectives, if I believed that the new Government would continue to submit to foreign interference in the political and economic life of this country and with their programme open to us another path to Empire, I would have to try to find better employment; I would have no hesitation in going back to the country and telling the young men of Ireland to arm once more for the battle. The experiment of Fianna Fáil on Constitutional lines having failed, the people would no doubt turn in desperation to the only means at their disposal, a resort to arms. Recent events also indicate that the best legal advisers, the legal authorities of the late Government, advised them to take in another matter the very course which we now propose to take at the express wish of the people and that implies that the Oath is unnecessary even for the peaceful operation of the Treaty. And if unnecessary Oaths are repugnant—we hear so much about repugnancy—if unnecessary Oaths are repugnant to the Decalogue itself, then I say that these gentlemen who are standing for the Oath are misusing the Treaty position to impose on an unwilling people the degradation which is repugnant to the Decalogue, and therefore I say without fear of contradiction that religion as well as the national dignity and self-respect call for its absolute and immediate removal.

The Opposition has ever expressed its respect for the will of the people. The people of these Twenty-Six Counties at least have spoken. The elected representatives of the people have spoken. Is it consistent, I say, with your professed respect for the will of the people, with your professed respect for democratic rule, to flout a measure which they have asked for? I say if you do that, if you should succeed, which I know you will not, you will succeed in flouting the measure but you will not succeed in defeating it. In flouting that measure you become disturbers of the public peace, and as disturbers of the public peace, I hope you will be prepared to take the consequences.

Another threat I suppose?

Very well, likely. Being a member of the Party of Fianna Fáil I could not say anything straight. I have to twist it. In that line I may add I have read the debates in the Dáil: I have read the debate in the Seanad. I have sat here patiently and listened to several remarks which did not please me at all. As a result of all my reading and listening I have come to one conclusion and that is that remarks have been passed in this House and in the Dáil, and at every cross-roads in the country, I may add, by the members of the Opposition, that they would not dare to make in any country in the world where Irishmen are congregated. I do not like reading—you all know I am able to read and write—but the thing is getting popular. Everybody who stood up here has read ten or fifteen minutes. Anyhow, they are entitled to do that and I do not question their right. But I do wish to allude to this. Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald, in the Dáil on the 27th of April last said:

"After the Treaty was signed we had a letter from the Cork No. 1 Division of the I.R.A., led by Mr. Liam Lynch, who was afterwards one of the leaders of the murder gang outside."

Then he goes on a bit further to say: perhaps I may be accused of twisting again, but if I read it all, seeing that you are a bit overworked—

Cathaoirleach

No one is accusing you. Senator, you are getting plenty of opportunity. You ought not to attribute to the House an attitude that it has not expressed.

I am sorry if I am not in order. As I said before I am not well versed in the etiquette of this dignified Assembly.

Cathaoirleach

Nobody has accused you, Senator, and I am merely pointing out to you that you ought not to attribute to the Seanad an attitude it has not expressed.

Well, Deputy Fitzgerald in the Dáil went on to say:

"Those poor blind fools were ready to accept that; with their swelled heads and ignorance they did not realise that they were prepared to accept a thing that was repugnant to every conception of Irish nationalism."

I say that that is typical of statements made by several other Deputies in the Dáil and typical of Senators here, and I say it is nothing more than a poor attempt to blot the fair fame of all who fought for freedom in this country, and to rank in the category of fools and criminals the bravest man the world ever knew, Liam Lynch, whom he characterised as one of the leaders of the murder gang.

The Opposition say, at least several members of the Opposition say, that the Oath is a matter of no consequence. Then I say why act like rather disagreeable schoolboys, holding up the legislation and incidentally, the progress of the State, for what you yourselves consider and deem is a matter of no consequence? We of Fianna Fáil consider it a matter of vital importance, and that is why we are pressing for the passage of this Bill. But as I say, the members of the Opposition have repeatedly said that this Oath was a matter of no consequence. How then can you justify your dog in the manger policy; how then can you hold up the legislation of the State? How can you try to succeed in a way which, if you did succeed, could have no other result than to plunge this country into another era of fratricidal strife, another round of perjury and corruption? I say that by flouting this Bill the Seanad is throwing down the gauntlet to the people of Ireland, and I assure you the people will accept the challenge. In the course of the debate, I do not know how other people look at it, or what interpretation they put on some of the speeches.

All I have to say is that I on my part accept Senator Milroy's apology for his actions in 1916. I also accept Senator O'Farrell's apology for voting on the side of the Government which I believe he intends to do, and the only conclusion I can come to is because he carried the stigma of Labour, he would not be received by the other side of the House. We have accepted several other apologies, and I will conclude by asking the Irish men and women, those with Irish names, to remember what they are about to do and to take measures to provide that their names will not go down to posterity as upholders of the Crown in this country. In every generation we had the King's O'Donnells, the King's O'Neills, the King's Browns, Quirkes, and all the rest of them, and in God's name consider the matter and do not have your names, the names of respectable families, in the South of Ireland, in the West of Ireland, in the East and in the North of Ireland, go down to posterity as the King's Irish.

A great many speeches have been made in connection with this Bill, but the two speeches that impressed me most are the speeches made by Senator Johnson and Senator Brown. Senator Johnson never leaves anything unsaid or undone that has to deal with this House or with his whole public life which I have followed with the greatest care. The kernel, to my mind, of his speech was that the rights of Ireland demanded the removal of the Oath. I presume that by the rights of Ireland Senator Johnson means the national rights of Ireland which have been referred to very sparsely during this debate. As to Senator Brown's speech, with great respect I say this was more astute than clever. In saying that I do not wish in the least, far from it, to reflect on Senator Brown, because Senator Brown is a man I have held in great regard for many long years. I might add further, knowing him as a member of the Irish Bar, that there is a familiar saying about him. I am sorry he is not here but I know that you, sir, will excuse the familiarity on his behalf, that anything Sam Brown did not know about law was not worth knowing. That is why I pay particular attention coming from Senator Brown, and Senator Brown told us that as a lawyer he would advise us to pass the Bill. This is where I think that Senator Brown is more astute than clever, because there was a certain amount of weakness in that statement that admitted to people that there was a likelihood that the Cumann na nGaedheal group in this House considered that their comrades in the Dáil were going to be let down, their comrades who had fought this Bill so sternly and so stubbornly inch by inch and it caused consternation where it was rumoured that this House was going to give the Bill a Second Reading. But, sir, Senator Brown raised the withering hopes of the Cumann na nGaedheal group in this House when he said, as Zozimus said, that he would knock "blazes" out of the Bill when passing through Committee here.

The speeches of Senator Miss Browne who excelled herself in amiability and of Senator MacLoughlin to-day have set my memory working on past events, and when Senator Miss Browne, speaking under correction, referred to the destruction of the Four Courts and said that the State was at stake if this Oath were removed, backed up by Senator MacLoughlin in a strain I did not like my memory went back. I sat out the debate in the Dáil and when I heard men hurling taunts at each other, men whom I had known to be brothers once, yes, brothers bound together in a fellowship sealed by blood, to protect each other and if necessary to die for each other, my memory went back to meetings held in the Mansion House at a time when these men were all one. My mind went back in particular to a meeting which was held in the Mansion House in the August of 1921, four months before the Treaty was signed, and when I saw many men who are now hurling taunts of dishonour at each other, when I saw these men with their hands reverently raised up to God in the intensity of their meaning with a sacredness and solemnness most difficult for me to describe, I saw them with their hands raised to the Almighty swearing the Oath to be true to the Irish Republic without any reservation whatsoever, I saw these same men signing that Oath and signing a book and handing it to the Chairman so that their names might go down to posterity, I thought there could not be any mistake as to the sincerity of these men. Is it any wonder, sir, that I should feel sad and very sad when I now see these men hurling taunts of dishonour at one another? These men broke their solemn Oath to be true to the Irish Republic although they were the men who enlisted young Irishmen into a secret society and compelled them to commit terrible deeds of murder; these men acted as recruiting sergeants for the Republican forces and compelled young men under penalty of death to swear that they would never rest until British power, influence and allegiance were pushed for ever out of Ireland. They led the young men into these secret societies with serious consequences to many of them who remained true to the principles which these leaders had taught them. As one who for over 30 years has been an elected representative of this city and who for many years occupied the highest position which the citizens of my native city could bestow upon me, I make no excuse for what I am going to say. I feel I would be a coward knowing what I do if I did not ask the young men and women of Ireland to avoid secret societies as they would avoid hell, to avoid leaders who are vicious in their teaching and leaders who protest their patriotism too much. I am sorry, sir, that I have had to deal with this matter, but from the remarks of the amiable Senator known as Miss Browne and the equally amiable Senator MacLoughlin, I felt my duty as one in the know to give this warning. In reference to this Bill, you will correct me if I am wrong, we may assume that its appearance before the Seanad is in strict harmony with Standing Orders, and I take it that if it were not and if it cut across any Standing Order, any law, any treaty or any agreement, that you would be legally bound to rule it out of order. As it is not ruled out of order I take it that this Bill becomes a domestic question for this country and for this Seanad.

[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]

I am not going to discuss, Heaven forbid, any of the legal arguments used for or against this Bill. What I am concerned about at the moment is how this Bill affects my own country and I think it would be the high water mark of impertinence for any country, no matter how powerful it might be, if it tried to interfere in the domestic affairs of any other country. What I am concerned about mainly in this Bill is how it affects my own country and how I should act towards this Bill from my own point of view without becoming an apostate to that country. Previous to this Bill being considered in the Seanad, I read in the "Irish Times" that there would be a meeting of Cumann na nGaedheal Senators in Leinster House when a line of action on the Bill would be considered and that meetings of other parties and groups were also taking place. I am speaking on this Bill as one pledged to no party and attached to no group, living in a kind of lonely isolation as I have lived all my life, but not claiming any more honesty of purpose in dealing with this Bill than those attached to any group or pledged to any party but I think that I can consequently claim more freedom of action when dealing with this Bill. If I am not wearying you or the House, as everyone who has spoken has been hallmarked as belonging to a party or a group, I hope I will be pardoned if I make my position perfectly clear. In doing so, I hope that my remarks will not be looked upon or considered as of an egotistical nature. Now speaking on this Bill as one who very early in life pinned my faith in constitutional methods, having adopted the policy of Parnell—and in saying that I do not wish to cast any disrespect whatever on any of my fellow-countrymen or women who adopted other methods for the regeneration of their country—but as I get older and older—I am not too young a man now—it is my firm and fixed belief that if down through the years the policy of Parnell had been rigidly adhered to in my opinion we would not now have a partitioned Ireland, and we would not be here discussing the Oath. I hope the President, with whom I had many dealings in days of danger, will give me credit that I never posed as anything else but a constitutionalist, and neither do I wish to do so now. Not even when the President and myself lay side by side in the filthy and horrible surroundings of Richmond Prison in 1916 when, as he must remember well, with inches of dust for our beds, our boots for our pillows and our own scanty clothing as covering, and the picture is as strongly before me now as it was in those days of Eamon De Valera lying beside me on the bare boards with his blood-stained and tattered uniform of the Volunteers, and when he and I and many others heard in the distance in the dawn of those May mornings the rattle of musketry which sent Pearse and his comrades to their doom, everyone with whom I was surrounded believing that Eamon De Valera was the next. And I did not pose even as anything but a constitutionalist when later on in 1919, when President De Valera was respected, looked up to, and called President of an Irish Republic by many, Senator Milroy and many who attempt to belittle him now being amongst the number, and when the President had a tilt with the British military authorities in which I was involved—imagine a peaceful man like me being involved in a tussle with the British military authorities.

Perhaps this is where the egotism comes in but President De Valera paid me one of the greatest compliments I received in a somewhat chequered career when he publicly stated "Your love of peace and order is well known to all who have ever met you or heard of you." Although many of my actions since have annoyed the President, friendship made under such trying circumstances is not easily forgotten, or easily broken by me at any rate. A great many arguments have been used for and against this Bill, but when discounted they are narrowed down to a few. The President said he has a mandate from the people for the removal of the Oath. From the first it was, in his opinion, a very unclean thing so far as this country was concerned. The President has told us in a phrase that has become somewhat hackneyed that the removal of the Oath will bring political peace. In my opinion the President has made his position very definite and very clear in his reply to the Rt. Hon. J. H. Thomas when he said that whether the Oath was or was not an integral part of the Treaty made ten years ago is not now the issue. "The real issue is that the Oath is an intolerable burden on the people of this State who have declared in the most formal manner that they desire its instant removal." In my opinion that is a clear and definite statement so far as the President is concerned.

The ex-President, Deputy Cosgrave, is an old friend of mine—equally as old as President De Valera—and I do not mind stating that they are two men whom I love. Deputy Cosgrave in good old Corporation style, where he learned to call a spade a spade, described this Bill as one of the greatest pieces of political chicanery in history. I respectfully suggest that Deputy Cosgrave warming to his work at the conclusion of his speech gave some reminiscences of the events of the last ten years. He mentioned Will Rogers but did not tell us who Will Rogers is. Perhaps you could, sir? I do not know him, but I presume, owing to the way his name was used that he must be a gentlemen living on his wits. Deputy Cosgrave said that Will Rogers described that on one occasion having gone through the various Chancelleries of Europe, one Prime Minister went into his Cabinet one morning and said, "There is a list of Bills; vote these as quickly as you can." As he got into a cab he said, "They are voting on them." I was present when my friend Deputy Cosgrave quoted his friend Will Rogers, and I noticed that as Will Rogers' steam-roller passed over the President it left him at any rate in no doubt as to what Party Deputy Cosgrave had in his mind. Deputy Cosgrave carried himself bravely and manfully through all these years. That does not take away from me the feeling that he has a certain amount of humour left. I imagine when Deputy Cosgrave was recalling the reminiscences of the past ten years I noticed a merry twinkle in his eye as he scanned the benches which contained his own supporters who had loyally supported him for ten years, and I presume he also had the Seanad in mind. After that the main argument used by those who spoke in opposition to the Bill, and with all due respect it would almost give you a pain in your face listening to both sides here—was that the passing of this Bill would cause annoyance to our best customers. After that each Party in the Dáil was endeavouring to justify its existence with a few persona lities thrown in to brighten up the debate. To an outsider like myself, unaccustomed to public speeches, it was very difficult to know to whom belongs the blame and to whom belongs the credit for our present state of affairs. While they were in power one Party endeavoured to prove that everything they did was right, while the Party not in power endeavoured to prove that everything the Party in power did was wrong. The other Party are now in power and are endeavouring to set things right and in the classical phrase of the Minister for Finance—white elephants included—the Party not in power will not let them. They said "We are damned if we will let De Valera get away with the goods." We are a funny people. One Party are hailed by their followers in the country as "The Rising Moon," and the other Party are hailed by their followers as "The Setting Sun."

In order to give extra tone to the debate, good breeding and high-class education, some Deputy when discussing this Bill in the Dáil referred to guttersnipes. Other Deputies naturally retorted, "You are a gentleman." Some Deputies born with silver spoons in their mouths say, "We do not want any salaries. We do not want first-class railway tickets," while other members, both in the Dáil and Seanad, think that the end of the month will never come. One of the speeches delivered in the Dáil on this Bill is worthy—or should I say unworthy—of being quoted. To my mind it betrays the vacant mind on past events and betrays the slave mind on events that are before us. The ex-Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Hogan, a clever man who knows his way about—as Senator Comyn has whispered into my ear—in one of those sudden bursts of bitter oratory for which the Deputy has become—it can be looked at two ways—either famous or infamous, made a statement, as he looked towards the President and towards the new Minister for Agriculture from which I caught this marvellous gem. It really epitomises a great many of the arguments, and a great many of the speeches that have been made in connection with this Bill. Deputy Hogan said, "I say the issue to-day is not whether the Treaty is good enough for us, but whether we are good enough for the Treaty." What do Senators think of that? One would imagine according to the dictum of Deputy Hogan that his wish was to put a slur upon our people and to belittle the country and to say that it had no solitary resource except grass; that our people are devoid of the attributes of men and women. In fact anyone in opposition to Deputy Hogan is not good enough for the cannibals to feast upon. All I can say about the outbursts of Deputy Hogan is that I am sorry for him. He is evidently a young man in a hurry and I should be very sorry to think that Deputy Hogan is a fair sample of the "West Awake."

Yesterday we heard a great speech from Senator Johnson. We heard a brilliant and a brave speech from Senator O'Farrell. The tone of Senator O'Farrell's speech as it struck me was "A plague on both your houses and I am damned sorry I have to vote for this Bill." The Labour Party voted for this Bill in the Dáil. Evidence is forthcoming that they are going to vote for it in the Seanad. In my opinion in doing so the Labour Party, from their own point of view, are doing the right thing. The Labour Party, I am very sorry to have to admit—though it should be the largest—is really the smallest Party in the country. As each election comes round it becomes considerably less and I say, with the greatest regret, that unless the political issue in this country is settled, I greatly fear the Labour Party will be blotted out altogether. That is why I say that in my opinion the Labour Party are quite right to vote for this Bill. It is a very significant thing as it appears to me that in the City of Dublin alone where I think there are 150,000 voters—I speak subject to correction—at the last election not a solitary Labour representative was returned. I can assure Senator Johnson and other Labour Senators that this is not a swan song over Labour. I assure them it is rather a Phoenix cry which I sincerely hope to see realised.

Now with this Bill, as with all other Bills, it is the duty of the Government to act where possible in the interests of all. The fundamental principle of government is not to act in the interests of the few to the detriment of the many, and though I do not wish at any time to deprive any of our citizens of their legitimate pleasure when one reads the accounts of Punchestown, the Dublin Horse Show, garden parties, at homes, graphic descriptions of ladies' dresses one has cause to think. I understand that a new horror or two is going to be added to our vocabulary, that is that there is to be a hair corset for ladies patented by Deputy McGilligan, and I suggest to the President, that to be in the fashion, he should patent straight jackets to keep obstreperous Deputies and Senators in order.

Coming through the streets of Dublin as I do, particularly O'Connell Street, at night I see strange sights. Everyone apparently happy, the picture houses crowded out, boys and girls and old boys and old girls standing in the rain, expensive motor cars parked here and there while ladies' poodles sit on cushions in state waiting the return of their mistresses. Let us look on the other side of Dublin life. Look at the filthy housing accommodation for our poor. Scan the unemployed list! Meet as I do every Wednesday at the Union gates men, women and children whose only crime is that they live true to nature by having children. Look at their scanty clothing, their pinched features, mental and physical agony, and their brows deeply furrowed by starvation. And what pertains to Dublin pertains to every town and city in Ireland. Day and night in season and out of season I ask myself what is wrong. Why are the poor people of our country to be eternally crucified in poverty? I have long come to the conclusion that except the country is nationally happy it will never be financially sound, and if it is not financially sound there is no hope for the men and women who are clamouring at the Union gates.

That brings me down to the issue of this Bill, to the issue that was before the country, and the issue which has placed President De Valera where he stands to-day, and that is the issue that we are asked to vote upon, namely, to make the country nationally happy. I hope I am not wearying the House. I shall not keep it as long as Senator Milroy did. I happen to be a member of the Seanad for two or three years, having been elected by one of those little miracles that sometimes happen in political warfare when the Whips of the different parties lash out vigorously. Three or four months ago twelve brave men and women, I say brave advisedly, inflicted my presence upon this House for another nine years. Without meaning any disrespect I may mention that is something that does not happen often in the Seanad. At the same time while I have been here I always noticed that the majority of Senators voted for anything that was brought forward by the old Government, as I often heard it expressed because they had the will of the people behind them. A few months ago when the Government of the day placed a Bill before the Seanad, President Cosgrave as he then was, told us in graphic language that it was to preserve the peace of the country and to save the young men of Ireland from themselves.

The Seanad passed that Bill. The Government went to the country after that Bill was passed. They have not returned yet. Now we have another Party in power with the will of the people behind them, and there is no use splitting straws, if I might use a rather vulgar expression, and saying that the President has not the will of the people behind him, because if he had not the will of the people he would not be sitting there, and that is not chopping cheap logic. The President tells us that he has a mandate for this Bill, which it is quite evident the late Government had not for their Bill as the elections proved. The President tells us, not so fiercely as my friend the ex-President, that this Bill is to preserve the peace of the country and to save the young men of Ireland from themselves. The language of the two Presidents is so much alike that you would think they were the Siamese twins. The question that occurs to me is this: The Seanad passed everything that came from the old Government on the plea that they had the will of the people behind them.

No, not everything. We have held up Bills.

Well, they were very few. The question, for the Seanad, without being flippant, is, are they going to be true to the traditions of the past ten years of supporting a Government who have the will of the people behind them, or are they going to be looked upon by the country as a Seanad—I do not like using the word —of party hacks?

We heard a great deal of words and a great many threats were used as to the financial and status tragedy that would overtake this country if the Oath is removed. We are told as to status that no more will our Ministers receive invitations to attend at the Court of St. James. I read a very, very vulgar suggestion, which I think I should hardly mention to the House, that the court dress and the gilt sword of our Ministers may be sent to the daisy market in Mary's Lane. We are told in all seriousness that no more will our Ministers be allowed to carry on a political flirtation at Geneva, and we are told of all the financial losses that we are likely to sustain.

Our cattle, our sheep, and our cocks and hens, and last but not least we are told that never more will our pigs grunt to the refrain of "Rule Britannia." Such nonsense! In fact, such an alarming picture has been painted of financial ruin and of political degradation, that it should soften the heart of the fiercest gunman in the country or the fiercest Republican in the Seanad to vote that the Oath be retained. In fact, all told, we are going to be struck off the roll of British motherhood, we will become a Cinderella amongst the British Commonwealth of Nations and like the Raking Paudeen Ruadh of old we may throw a budget on our backs and knock at the door of the different nations of the world to tell them that Ireland is still on the map.

The British Commonwealth of Nations to my mind is an anomaly; in this way: that one nation is compelled to take an oath of allegiance to the King of another nation.

Senators

No, no.

Oh, dear me! What do we hear at all? That one nation is compelled to take an oath of allegiance to another nation. There are no "noes" this time.

Imagine the gentleman who has just said "No" thinking to himself that King George will be compelled to take an oath of allegiance to Mussolini! I have been through England a great deal. I have lived among the English people for long periods at a time. I have made many friends in England, men, women and girls, the kind of friends that makes pleasurable one's journey through existence, and I always found that the English girls loved the Irish boys, and I found that the men and women in England were completely fed-up with the misstatements engineered towards this country by a type who always have and always shall and always will be making an endeavour to keep the peoples of the two countries apart.

Since the European War, a bond of friendship has grown up between the democracies of the two countries which no smoke-screen thrown up by frightened politicians in Ireland and hysterical statesmen in England can destroy. But the class of people that the English and the Irish people have in their mind as always causing dissatisfaction between the two peoples, who are now against the removal of the Oath, are people whom the English and the Irish people have found out long ago to have squared and compassed, as in the City of Dublin, the finance, the business, and the land of both England and Ireland for generations. The people of England and Ireland—and I am glad to put them together—wish to be friendly with each other, and in the very first statement that the President ever made in the Seanad he nobly stated that he was anxious and that those associated with him were anxious that a friendly spirit should exist between the peoples of the two nations.

The class of people that the English and the Irish people found out in 1914 to be saturated with treason and sedition, the class of people who are mostly concerned with the removal of this Oath, were the people who in 1914 defied the British Constitution, defied the British Parliament, mutinied in the British Army for which I believe the penalty is death, and threatened to kick the King's crown into the Boyne. One of the leaders of that time afterwards turned out to be a craw-thumping Imperialist and crawled into the position of an instrument of law in the English State, and Galloper Smith of the Old Brigade was the man who compiled this Oath, even— and this may be a little secret history to the Seanad—even bamboozling the great Lloyd George into accepting it. As Birkenhead said to Lloyd George: "I have spiked De Valera's gun over the Republic by the partition of Ireland, and Churchill and myself will do the rest." And they did the rest by shoving this Oath down the throats of the majority of the people of this country under— although it may be a hackneyed phrase —the threat of immediate and terrible war, and that statement has been vouched for by two of the Irish plenipotentiaries who admitted they signed the Treaty under duress. To give a semblance that war was pending I had myself as Lord Mayor of Dublin in the Mansion House a code that a gunboat was standing by to carry the news to Belfast. At that time I wondered, as I wonder still, why Lloyd George, Birkenhead and Company had not the Atlantic Fleet around the corner. How much more impressive it would have been, how much more awe-inspiring it would have been to carry the news to Lord Birkenhead's friends in Belfast—the Treaty on or off, the Oath in or out! In my opinion one of the greatest pieces of political chicanery, bluff, eyewash and hoodwinking that ever was perpetrated in the history of mankind was that a gunboat should be sent to Belfast to the friends of Lord Birkenhead who only a few years before swore that they would keep no law and no Oath to the English Government. And we are told that to pacify them the gunboat was to proceed to Belfast to tell Lord Birkenhead's friends that the Treaty was on or off and the Oath in or out. A few evenings ago an article appeared in the "Evening Mail," a bright, readable little newspaper, a relic of old decency, no doubt, true to its policy for which no one can blame them. They are consistent and far straighter than some newspapers that come amongst us with their heel on God and their hands out to Mammon. The "Evening Mail" told us what was the duty of the Seanad, it told us the Seanad cannot hold up the Oath Bill indefinitely that it can postpone its operations for a period of 18 months, that the removal of the Oath is a blow to National honour; its removal will be a dishonour to Ireland.

I think, sir, with due respect that that makes the issue perfectly clear and perfectly sound, with no amount of blind swiping by politicians. Which is most dishonourable to Ireland—the retention of the Oath or the removal of the Oath? I am sorry for my own sake that I am keeping the Seanad too long. Prime Minister MacDonald about ten days ago described the method which regarded treaties as scraps of paper, to be altered or ended as suits either party, as a method of disunity. It destroys confidence; it bases arguments on force rather than on honour; it strikes at the root of moral solidarity.

It is not I who am disrespecting the Seanad now. I suppose with due respect if I belonged to a party and if I belonged to a group there would not be such laughter or disorder or such insults offered to my statements.

[The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]

The statement that I have just read from Prime Minister MacDonald is in my opinion a noble statement, a statement that must commend itself to every honourable man and woman. It is the rock on which all treaties and all agreements should be built, namely honour. It is a rock which should protect the weak from the strong—honour. It is the rock which should protect the innocent from the tyranny of the bully as announced by Prime Minister MacDonald. It is a statement which should be placed on the breakfast table of every statesman, every politician, every business man, every professional man and on the breakfast table of the humblest amongst us. It is a statement founded on the fundamental principles of society—honour.

Now let us see briefly how British statesmen have practised what the Prime Minister of England now teaches about honour and scraps of paper. It is really wonderful how grandiloquent and how pious British statesmen can become when it suits them. They talk about scraps of paper. In 1783 the sovereignty of the Irish legislature was recognised. That was a memorable British Statute which declared it "established and ascertained for ever and shall at no time hereafter be questioned or questionable." That was the result of the spirit provoked by the successful revolt of the United States of America in the same way as there was a spirit provoked by the revolt of the brave boys of 1916 to 1921.

Yet scarcely had George III signified his royal assent to that scrap of paper referred to 200 years afterwards by the Prime Minister of England, quoting the language of his King, than his Ministers began to debauch the Irish Parliament. No Catholic had for over a century been allowed to sit within the walls of that Parliament and only a handful of the population enjoyed the franchise. But in 1800 by shameless bribery of a majority of corrupt colonists there was procured through London the subjugation of that Parliament. These members of Parliament betrayed the existence of their legislature by pensions, grants and bribes.

I have a penchant for Prime Ministers in selecting my quotations this evening. In 1912 another Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith said “I have always maintained Ireland is a Nation, not two Nations but one Nation” and Prime Minister Asquith in 1915 said “We shall not pause or falter until we have secured for the smaller states of Europe their charter of independence.” The charter of independence of Ireland was a mongrelised Ireland and an Oath of Allegiance to a foreign King. Still another Prime Minister stated “Centuries of ruthless and even brutal injustice, centuries of insolence and insults have driven hatred of British rule into the very marrow of the Irish race. There remains the one invincible fact to-day that she is no more reconciled to British rule and British interference (mark that) and British Allegiance (mark that too) than she was in the days of King Henry.” That is a statement from Prime Minister Lloyd George in the British House of Commons on March 7th, 1917.

I have here another quotation from another Prime Minister, Prime Minister Gladstone, and in my humble judgment this is the pick of the basket. "The union with Ireland has no moral force; it has the force of law no doubt; but it rests on no moral basis. This is the line that I would take up if I were an Englishman. This is the line which as an Englishman I now take up." With the greatest respect I suggest that is the line which the Seanad should take up in the matter of this Bill namely that the Oath may have the force of law, but in the words of a great English statesman Mr. Gladstone, "it rests on no moral basis."

Again, in reference to this Bill and the sanctity of agreements, Britain is not basing its case upon the Oath, upon any constitutional question or status, but simply on the sanctity of Treaties and the maintenance of agreements. Mr. J.H. Thomas, Dominion Secretary, told a meeting in Hove Town Hall, on 20th May that Britain is not basing its case on the Oath, upon any constitutional theory or question or status, but simply on the sanctity of Treaties and the maintenance of agreements. Now, sir, when a man gets to a high position by grit and determination, as Mr. Thomas undoubtedly has, it is very difficult for him to remain there without making mistakes and I feel sorry when such a man, by grit and determination, has got to one of the highest positions in his country that he should let himself down. I hope, sir, that I will prove to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Seanad, that poor Thomas has let himself down badly when he refers to the sanctity of Treaties and the maintenance of agreements. I met the Right Honourable J. H. Thomas when he was plain Mr. Thomas. I remember on one occasion in particular, in April, 1920, when a hunger strike was on in Mountjoy Jail, Mr. Thomas was in Dublin in connection with the business of railway workers of which he was Secretary. He called on the Castle authorities about the hunger strike but got a very cold reception which apparently left him in very bad humour. The Prime Minister, Mr. Bonar Law, in the British House of Commons referred to outside interference, and laid it down definitely that there would be no relaxation extended towards the hunger strikers; if they did not go off the hunger strike they might die, and for reasons that I need not go into now within 24 hours the men had won and all were released unconditionally. So much for the thundering "no" of a British Prime Minister. As Lord Mayor of Dublin I was invited to a meeting of railway workers the following Sunday.

Cathaoirleach

Is this quite relevant to the Bill?

I will show it to you, sir. If it is not I will certainly withdraw and apologise. I pledge you my honour that it is. As Lord Mayor, I was invited to a meeting of railway workers which took place in the Antient Concert Rooms on the following Sunday. Mr. Thomas was the principal speaker at the meeting. I publicly thanked him on behalf of the citizens for the interest he took and the sympathy he extended to the hunger strikers, and this, sir, with due respect, is where I get into order. I have no desire to transgress the rules of order. I have too high an opinion of your kindness and forbearance. Mr. Thomas said—this is the man who harped on the sanctity of agreements a few nights ago and about English statesmen honouring their bond—that it was a disgraceful and degrading thing that British statesmen were so devoid of honour as to break an honourable and binding agreement, solemnly come to, in respect of the treatment of political prisoners and when he, Mr. Thomas, went back to England he would tell his fellow-workers how British statesmen had made the name of England a by-word among the Nations over broken agreements with Ireland. Mr. Thomas has since rounded many corners and Mr. Thomas—I am very sorry for him, he was a friend of mine and the next time I am having tea with him I hope the Prime Minister will be there.

With the duty off.

The next time I am having tea with him with the duty off, in the eloquent words of Senator Fanning, I hope the Prime Minister will be there and I will refresh both their memories about real dishonour and broken agreements. Now, sir, let us get away from the maudlin taunts about dishonour. Let us get away from the hypocrisy as regards the sanctity of agreements and from how many head of cattle will be lost to us in the English markets. Let us deal with this Oath as it affects Ireland. Let us understand what Ireland means and what Ireland stands for. One would think from the way that we have been referred to in this Seanad that it is only a few years ago since we came on the horizon of civilisation, that we were a primitive race, that we had no history, no religion, that we were a lot of degenerates who could not keep our word. Let us, in dealing with this Oath, look on it as it affects Ireland, the Ireland of the Oliver Gogartys, the Ireland—to get back now perhaps not to as great a man as Saint Patrick—the Ireland of Oliver Cromwell. It just occurred to me—an inspiration—that if the cage was left open which holds the spirit of that arch-pilferer, adulterer and murderer and if that spirit was hovering around Dublin or the Phænix Park in a few weeks time he would see the faith which he did his damnedest to kill triumph and, please God, within a short time he will see the nation which he attempted to destroy triumphant. When I hear Senators and members of the Dáil referring to the Irish Free State, honest to God, it sets me mad. The Irish Free State: a nation, in the words of Prime Minister Asquith, a nation, not two nations then. We have to take off our hats to the Irish Free State, a country which has been very well described in an address which was presented to the President of the United States of America in 1919. Most of the headings in it were supplied by President De Valera; a great deal of the matter was supervised by Arthur Griffith, John Dillon, Eamon de Valera, Joseph Devlin, William O'Brien, of Mallow, Senator Johnson, and Mr. William O'Brien, on behalf of Labour. That historic document told the President of America who held it up before the people of the world, and it was not contradicted then, that Ireland was a nation, more ancient than England and is one of the oldest in Christendom. Its geographical boundaries are clearly defined, it cherishes its own traditions, history, language, music and culture and it throbs with national consciousness.

On a point of order. Has the status of this country anything to do with the subject before the House?

Cathaoirleach

I think I could hardly rule that it was not in order in the debate seeing that we have so many statements of opinion. This is a statement of opinion as regards Ireland's status, and I do not think that I could rule it out of order.

I thank you very much, a Chathaoirligh. I did not hear what Senator Vincent said, being a little hard of hearing when Senator Vincent speaks. But with the greatest respect through you, sir——

Cathaoirleach

Proceed with the paper, Senator, I have ruled that you are authorised to do so.

With the greatest respect, it is sad and very sad that we should have a member of the Seanad finding fault with a document that was compiled by the brilliant and great Irishmen whom I have mentioned.

On a point of order. I did not find fault with the document, I only said that it was not pertinent.

Cathaoirleach

Quite right, Senator. I would ask Senator O'Neill to proceed with the document without any further criticism on the matter of order.

I forget where I was. I will read it again.

Proceed with it. Read it over again. We have no desire to miss anything.

You may learn something that you have never learned before:—

"Ireland is a nation more ancient than England, and is one of the oldest in Christendom. Its geographical boundaries are clearly defined. It cherishes its own traditions, history, language, music, and culture. It throbs with a national consciousness sharpened not only by religious persecution, but by the violation of its territorial, juristic and legislative rights. The authority of which its invaders boasted, rests solely on an alleged Papal Bull. The symbols of attempted conquest are roofless castles, ruined abbeys, and confiscated cathedrals.

The title of King of Ireland was first conferred on the English Monarch by a Statute of the Parliament held in Ireland in 1542, when only four of our counties lay under English sway. That title originated in no English enactment. Neither did the Irish Parliament so originate."

I think, sir, according to those great men whom I have mentioned, that we cannot get behind the fact that Ireland is a nation separate and distinct and is under no obligation whatever of allegiance to any foreign power.

And when the European War broke out—and I am glad to see my true friend, and I say true friend advisedly, Sir William Hickie, has arrived, and if any man knows more about what the Irish boys did in the European War than another, Sir William Hickie is the man—I am quoting this and putting it in order in this way: To use the words of Mr. Healy, a wail went out from the Allies that the war was for the protection of small nationalities, that it was to make the world safe for democracy, and every student of history remembers President Wilson's fourteen points, which I am not going to read for you.

I do not know where the voice comes from or I might retaliate. The propaganda carried on in this country as to the debauchery of women and children in Belgium, gallant little Belgium, played on the bravery of our Irish boys. And again, sir, if I might quote, the action of these Irish boys for the protection of small nationalities, for the protection of their own small nationality, has been well described in this historic document which, as I said, before he came in, the President had a noble hand in compiling. I do not want, sir, with due respect, to take any advantage of your forbearance, but I want to show what our Irish boys did for the protection of small nationalities and in particular for the protection of their own:—

Heretofore in every clime whenever the weak called for a defender, wherever the flag of liberty was unfurled, the blood freely flowed. Profiting by Irish sympathy with righteous causes, Britain at the outbreak of the war, attracted to her armies tens of thousands of our youth, ere even the Western Hemisphere had awakened to the wail of "small nations."

Irishmen, in their chivalrous eagerness, laid themselves open to the reproach from some of their brethren of forgetting the woes of their own land which had suffered from its rulers, at one time or another, almost every inhumanity for which Germany is impeached ....

Nevertheless, in the face of persistent discouragements, Irish chivalry remained ardent and aflame in the first years of the war. Tens of thousands of the children of the Gael have perished in the conflict. Their bones bleach upon the soil of Flanders or moulder beneath the waves of Suvla Bay. The slopes of Gallipoli, the sands of Egypt, Mesopotamia and India afford them sepulture.

Cathaoirleach

Senator, this is really a history of the Great War and I think it is hardly relevant. I wish to help every member if I can. But I think it is out of order to discuss the Great War in detail.

My point is, with great respect, I am endeavouring to show that a wail went out for the protection of small nationalities.

Cathaoirleach

Yes. But this is a Bill for the removal of an Oath, and I really do not think that it is relevant.

I am just finishing now:—

Wherever the battle-line extends, from the English Channel to the Persian Gulf, their ghostly voices whisper a response to the roll-call of the guardian spirits of liberty. What is their reward?

The Seanad to-day is considering whether or not we shall have an Oath of Allegiance to a partitioned Ireland. I am commencing to think, a Chathaoirligh, that you are right, that I am trespassing too much on your kindness in going into historical facts.

Cathaoirleach

Not at all. If they are relevant I am sure we shall be very anxious to hear you.

If they are not I will not feel in the least offended if you put up your finger. I want now to show, sir, that although the War was for the protection of small nationalities Ireland included, it was all window-dressing by English statesmen who now prate so much about honouring our bonds and about the sanctity of Agreements, and after hundreds of thousands of our people had died for the protection of Ireland a tax was imposed upon this country not of money but of blood, a tax which was met and defeated by the joint efforts of nationalists of all shades of political thought, combined with the Catholic Church with its Princes at its head and the will of our people, a fact which goes to prove what can be done in Ireland if our people joined together in one vast brotherhood as they did in the days of Conscription when not a solitary life was lost, not a solitary shot was fired and when, by the united efforts of a united Ireland, by constitutional means, we defeated that blood tax. And I hope that lesson will be taken to heart by the young men and women of Ireland in the days to come.

Although I fear it would be trespassing too much on the forbearance of the House I will quote an historical document of that period. It is a document giving adherence to the pledge that Ireland was a nation, separate and distinct. It sets out that "we pledge ourselves solemnly to one another to resist conscription and to uphold the dignity, the name and the fame of Ireland by the most effective means in our power." That pledge was taken in the presence of Laurence O'Neill, Lord Mayor of Dublin, by John Dillon, Eamonn De Valera, T.M. Healy, Arthur Griffith, Joseph Devlin, William O'Brien of Mallow, Senator Johnson, and his two Labour colleagues. I only hope to God that there were some left in our country with the patriotic spirit that was with us in 1919 when we defeated by the joint efforts of the will of the people the infamous tax of blood that was to be imposed upon us. Facts are stubborn things for some people. With that pledge and with this Bill placed constitutionally before me, with the opportunity to remove this Oath by constitutional means, I consider I would be best serving my country by voting for the removal of this Oath. In the words of Michael Collins "It is a stepping stone in my opinion to greater things." I am not satisfied with the Treaty. There is no use in me humbugging myself that I am. I would not be true to the teaching of my Fenian father if I said I was. "It is a stepping stone" in the words of Collins "to greater freedom which has been so long delayed." The removal f this Oath in my opinion will enable the young men and women of Ireland to join together openly and above board without any secret societies to work for the further regeneration of the country. The removal of this Oath, will, in my opinion, enable the young men and the young women of Ireland to have their bannerettes blessed as they are blessed almost every Sunday by the clergy of all denominations and will allow them to go marching to the lilt of "Rory of the Hills" and "A Nation once again". I sincerely thank you, sir, and the House for the forbearance that has been extended to me. I may not live to see my cherished hope of an independent and united Ireland. I am a fairly old man now and, for the time I am left in this dear old land of mine, I shall fervently pray to God to save Ireland from her enemies abroad and her false friends at home.

Whether this Bill which proposes to remove the Oath from the Constitution is, or is not, a breach of the Treaty, whether there is or is not a mandate for it, does not come into my consideration. What I am concerned with is the effect this Bill will have on the peace and prosperity of the country. It is from that point of view I have considered it, and it is from that point of view I hope the Senate will consider it. A good deal has been said about the duty of the Senate. To my mind, the duty of the Senate is very plain, and that is to hold up and delay hasty or ill-considered legislation. I am convinced that this is a Bill on which the Senate should exercise its function of delay. Even if we concede that the Government contention is correct, and that they have a mandate for the Bill, considering its serious implications, I say it is the duty of the Senate to hold it up, and to give the country another opportunity to re-consider its decision. I am not concerned about the Oath, although I have no objection to taking the Oath and keeping it. I am concerned about our trade with England and, even at the risk of being described as an anti-Nationalist, my remarks will be with reference to our trade and to the effect the Bill will have on the trade. I feel alarmed at the bad feeling which has been growing up in England since the introduction of this Bill.

In this House I represent the principal trade of our country—the live stock trade—and I want to tell the President and the Seanad that the members of that trade are gravely alarmed at the consequences which may ensue if this Bill becomes law. Many of the farmers are also greatly alarmed. Many of those farmers who are engaged in the cattle trade are very much perturbed, and they were supporters of the present Government at the recent election. The farmers of this country are in a bad way. For a considerable time they have been selling their produce at less than the cost of production. They are depressed and despondent because they cannot meet their liabilities. Their only ray of hope for better prices lay in the results of the Ottawa Conference. Is that hope to be blighted as a result of this Bill? Is the opportunity going to be let slip through the exaggerated nationalism of our Government? I cannot term it anything else at a time when the whole world is keenly interested in the Ottawa Conference. Many of our foreign competitors are trembling at what the result may mean to them. While this country has most to gain by that Conference the attitude of our Government seems to be that of indifference to the result. At present we have a 10 per cent. preference in the British market. After the Ottawa Conference that percentage might be considerably increased and extended to live stock and live stock products. Even if we had only 10 per cent., the business men of this House know that no manufacturer could hope to hold out and to compete against a competitor who has received a preference of 10 per cent. for goods of the same quality. If, in consequence of the general policy of the Government, we lose our preference in the British market, or if there is an embargo on our live stock or high tariffs put on our exports, I want to ask the President where can we find another market? The President must have considered this question. I would like to have his answer. There is no use in telling us that England would never put tariffs or an embargo on our live stock or agricultural produce; that they cannot do without it. That is a fallacy. They can do without it. There is no use in being told that we can give our trade to France, to Belgium, or to Holland, and that they will take our products. I have been told by some supporters of the Government that there are at present negotiations going on with France, that they are going on very successfully, and that we will be able to have an alternative market there. I doubt it very much. They say that England would never lose her trade with this country, that our trade being so useful to her she could never put an embargo or a prohibition against our stock. It may be worse. It may be, if we leave the British Commonwealth of Nations,— to my mind this Bill is the preliminary to doing so—that we may not be able to get our products in at all. We may be placed in the same position as Denmark, Russia, CzechoSlovakia or other countries. We are told that our trade with England is so great that that could never happen. Our trade with Britain is ninety per cent. of our total exports, and Britain's trade with us is only eight per cent. of her exports. It would be a lot more serious for us to lose our market in England than for England to lose the Irish market. If we once lose our market it would be very difficult for us to get it back.

In compliance with the arrangements made by the leaders of the different parties I do not want to delay the House any longer. But before I sit down I would make an appeal to the President, not in any sense in any Party spirit, but as a business man. I appeal to him, that before he goes any further and before any more ill-will is allowed to grow up in England, he should try and settle this question in a friendly conference with the British Government. By doing that he will help to re-establish good relationships. I ask him not to lose this opportunity of establishing greater friendship and goodwill with that country, and by doing so he will help to bring about that reunited Ireland which we all so much desire.

As it is evident that we cannot finish this debate to-night I move that the House do now adjourn.

I oppose that. I think that as a result of the discussion with the leaders of the various groups it is possible to finish to-night, and I do not see any good purpose that could be served by adjourning to to-morrow. As I understand it, there are only about three more speakers and I think we should sit on and finish this Stage of the Bill.

Cathaoirleach

I have a list of six Senators who desire to speak.

Even so, if they curtail their speeches to the same extent as the last speaker I think we could get through.

I think we ought to make some effort, once in four or five years, to sit for a few hours longer than usual and we ought to finish this Bill to-night.

I do not think a serious debate of this kind ought to end in an atmosphere of fatigue. I do not think it is fair to the older members of this House.

Cathaoirleach

The question has been proposed that the House stands adjourned until 11.30 a.m. to-morrow. If the House desires to alter the hour it can do so.

I move as an amendment that the House continues to sit until the debate on the Bill is finished to-night.

I beg to second that.

Perhaps the Senator would put in the hour to which we are to sit.

Cathaoirleach

How can he reasonably do that?

I was more or less transported into the realms of eternity since listening to Senator O'Neill. If some definite hour was stated I would be prepared to go on although I am somewhat fatigued.

I have no objection to fixing an hour but it would be impossible to fix an hour if there were long speeches.

Cathaoirleach

It is impossible to fix an hour. We must have a certain number of speeches and then the reply of the President.

I suggest that if we do sit late we should fix an hour. One speaker could speak for hours and keep us until midnight, and the President may be making his reply in the small hours of the morning so that I suggest an hour should be fixed for adjournment.

Cathaoirleach

A motion has been made that we adjourn until to-morrow morning to which an amendment has been moved that we continue to sit until the Bill is finished to-night.

On a point of order, if the amendment that we continue to sit is carried would it be in order, at a later hour, to move that the House do now adjourn?

Cathaoirleach

Yes. I shall now put the amendment that the House continues to sit until the debate on the Bill is concluded.

Question put: The House divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 21.
Tá.

Bellingham, Sir Edward.Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.Comyn, K.C., Michael.Connolly, Joseph.Counihan, John C.Cummins, William.Dillon, James.Farren, Thomas.Garahan, Hugh.Johnson, Thomas.Linehan, Thomas.MacEllin, Seán E.MacKean, James.

MacParland, D. H.Moore, Colonel.O'Doherty, Joseph.O'Farrell, John T.O'Neill, L.Phaoraigh Siobhán Bean an.Quirke, William.Robinson, David L.Robinson, Séamus.Ryan, Séamus.Toal, Thomas.Wilson, Richard.

Níl.

Bagwell, John.Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.Brown, K.C., Samuel L.Browne, Miss Kathleen.Costello, Mrs.Douglas, James G.Fanning, Michael.O. St. J. Gogarty, Dr.Griffith, Sir John Purser.Guinness, Henry S.Hickie, Major-General Sir William.

Keane, Sir John.Kennedy, Cornelius.McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.MacLoughlin, John.Milroy Seán.O'Connor, Joseph.O'Hanlon, M. F.O'Rourke, Brian.Staines, Michael.Vincent, A. R.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators O'Doherty and Seamus Robinson; Nil, Senators O'Rourke and Gogarty.
Amendment declared carried.
Debate resumed.

There is some misunderstanding about the length of time which Senators were to take up so I promise not to delay the House for more than a few minutes. My view as regards the Oath is shortly this: I uphold it because I took it. It may seem strange for a man who took an Oath having to explain the reasons for keeping it. Anyway I am constrained without bringing the matter of conscience into it at all, as one who took the Oath, to keep his bond. There are many people to whom the Oath was repugnant, including myself. To those who are not Oath-bound I think the appeal would have been better made than to those who are. Mr. Thomas took an oath in a certain sense when he was engaged in keeping up his end of the Treaty. We took the Oath to keep up our end of the Treaty. But why should it be a question of who feels the more humiliated? When the President addressed the House I got two impressions: one was his anxiety to induce a feeling in the House that he was solicitous about the Treaty. Whether or not that was his state of mind I do not know. The other impression was this, that he was hypersensitive about humiliation. Well with that latter condition nobody can deal. People who are not free cannot be made free. If people cannot meet anybody else on earth as equals such people cannot be inspired with sufficient self-confidence to be freed from humiliation even when they are free.

With regard to the Treaty there are two sides to it. Mr. Thomas stated his side and he said that this Bill is the breaking of the Treaty. Though it may or may not be logical in a sense to consider that the Government are solicitous about not breaking the Treaty I can only say that there are other ways of getting rid of a gangway than by breaking it. The gangway may be put aside. I do not think the Government are mad, and that being so they must have envisaged the results of breaking the Treaty, or at any rate they must have considered the results of severing the commercial connection as well as the political connection with Great Britain. Senator Vincent remarked that that position had not been defined or examined, but surely there are certain features of it apparent to anyone, and I think they are twofold. If we completely or even incompletely sever our connection with Great Britain and at the same time get rid of the problem of the Oath which is to bring so much peace here, will not destitution arising from loss of trade give rise to a condition here that will not be amenable to force at the President's command? In other words will not destitution lead to desperation? We must not forget the fact that there are in this city 50,000 people who in referring to the places where they live do not speak of a home. They speak of a room. These 50,000 people have no homes but rooms. I was speaking to a man the other day, a Director of the Dutch Air Lines, and he said, "I have left your principal streets to walk n the side-streets and I notice a sub-human population of anæmic people, prematurely aged, children without teeth carried about by young withered women. You will not see anything worse than that in Russia." In other words a condition which is associated with Soviets is already here without the other side of Bolshevism, which is co-operative farming.

I do trust that the Government have considered that side of the question. There is no question about it, if we lose the British connection we lose communication with the outside world. It was said that Christianity could not have spread so easily had it not had the advantages of the Roman highroads of communication. In those days it was as safe to send a letter from here to Turkey as it is now to send it across to the side of the parish. If we lose the British communication it will greatly embarrass that part of the Catholic Church which is active, the Irish part of it, the missionary part of it. In Rome the Italian priests are more or less the civil servants of the Vatican. The greater part of the organising, administering, and missionary work of the Church is done by Irishmen throughout the world. Twenty years ago, a Protestant doctor, an Imperialist, left this town to go to New Zealand and he was forbidden to work there for six months. He was held up from activity for six months although he was a loyalist British subject who went to a loyal part of the Empire. How about a citizen practitioner from an alien and untrustworthy nation going to New Zealand or arranging to go to Orange Ottawa, or an Irish clerical recruit to the diocese of Archbishop Mannix? He might be forbidden to land in Australia as Deputy Esmonde was forbidden to land, or held up for a year and then only given the facilities which we give to a German waiter—a few months' sufferance. This is what we may be confronted with if we leave the Commonwealth or leave ourselves to be kicked out of it as undesirables. The consideration of the value of communications to this country is of supreme importance, because we have been hitherto marooned by the want of our own shipping. It is impossible to get out of this country on an Irish ship. We have not a sufficient fleet to do our own fishing, and the boats we have, when they go to sea, make provision to be back "in time for the pictures." We have no mercantile marine and no Navy. We have let the air communications of the country remain undeveloped. So far as Ireland itself is concerned it is already sundered from the orb of the world. This is the last country which can afford separation from Europe, as it is the country which needs communion with Europe politically and intellectually more than all others. Culturally, intellectually and politically we are already marooned. I do not want to embarrass the President by keeping any form of test in this country, but there is another consideration which I have no hesitation in voicing. Hitherto in this Chamber I have not had sufficient evidence that would allow me to think that the Fianna Fáil idea of freedom is sufficiently definite and sufficiently liberal to justify this nation in separating itself from five other nations who have the Anglo-Saxon idea of freedom. In plain words the Irish idea of freedom is not sufficiently generous or free. It needs to be kept up to a higher standard and ideal. If we separate ourselves from five nations who are jealous of freedom and who know what freedom means and is, we may fall into the kind of "freedom" that might result from the mentality of Senator Connolly. That is a very serious consideration. It may take 100 years for a people like us emerging from such conditions as they insist on or imagine themselves to be in, conditions of overwhelming "slavery," to arrive at that tolerance and feeling for equality which freedom means. The current idea of freedom seems to be to down your neighbour and to humiliate him. We must keep with the nations who understand that the first principle of freedom is a freedom that does not permit interference with the personal liberties of the citizen. Until we arrive at a worthy idea of liberty, let us not lose sight of the English criterion. As things trend just now I would prefer to live in an English colony than under a Belfast Connolly whose idea of freedom permitted him to adopt a course of trying to intimidate this Seanad. It is not I but he who has a poor opinion of Irish courage if he imagines that we, the Irish Seanad, who defied this kind of Republicanism before would succumb now to intimidation. It was not a compliment to the courage of Irishmen to imagine that they would not resist him. I naturally must be forgiven if I interpret his threat, which he told me to take anyway I liked, in the light of my own experience of the narrow mentality by which this country lost £35,000,000, in breakages and damage, and which cost some men their position, some their houses and some their business in the last civil war.

Those who have had short experience of the Republic may have a sympathy with those who complain of the threat of "immediate and terrible war." The experience which I had of "the immediate and terrible"law of the Republic during its short reign and during the time I came into contact with it was that I noticed that the law against duelling had been repealed and an effort had been made to divest such trials by combat of their disconcerting uncertainty. This explains the presence on one side of seven fully-armed men protected by a woman, and on the other side only my naked self protected by my retiring disposition. That is the only experience I have had of “the Republic” and naturally when you are threatened with the same sort of thing again in the Seanad and with a possible return to that condition of things, you do begin to suspect that the notion of freedom in some of the Republican Ministers' minds is neither adequate nor alluring. And I think that as a result I am justified in my reluctance to separate from the five nations who have invented freedom, if I may say so, in its modern manifestations. We are safer connected with people more jealous of freedom than ourselves. This is not a question of loyalty to England. It is a question of loyalty to Liberty which may perish unapplied to generous principles and spacious life. Communications may be cut and everything that Ireland as we know it stands for endangered. There is the question of communication of ideas, and the reception back of the ideals from Europe. It seems to me that the Government have, certainly Senator Connolly has, seen and recoiled from European civilisation. It is only an excuse to belittle it. When they have nothing better to put in its place than pinchbeck tyrannies, the Fianna Fáil of their own resources cannot keep this nation in the forefront of Europe. They prefer to make it an ostrich bed. This is taking it for granted that even such an autonomy is possible and that with separation from England we might have a State similar to the Austrian Tyrol, in Ireland. The Austrian Tyrol polity depended on the most amiable Empire in the World, the Austrian Empire. It is a pious dream but it takes no account of Bolshevism. Bolshevism is here already; in ignorance and in savagery of thought, in intolerance of individual opinion, in intolerance (as I met it) of individuality. The factors of more of it are here in the existing poverty, a poverty which will be certainly increased by the loss of the commercial connection with Great Britain. I do not think the President has sufficiently realised the effect on our market of the patriotism of the English consumer. Mr. Thomas may be doing his best to keep up his end of the bargain, but can he insist on the father of the English family buying Irish produce? Already the Irish race is stigmatised as Treaty breakers. English shops boast “No repudiation goods sold here.” In five months instead of being a land flowing with milk and honey, as we were promised ours should be, it is flowing with mulct and humbug. That is a condition that has been created by the Five Months' plan of Fianna Fáil. When you see a nation suddenly become unpopular that is bad for the exports of that nation. I have not got the returns for the last month, but it is certain that there is going to be a great falling off in trade and the first thing the Government is going to do as a result of this Bill is to increase destitution here. There are 50,000 people living two and three families in one room. I know that this condition of affairs has been going on for years. It may be said that the present Government must get a chance of dealing with the housing problem and if the removal of the Oath is to give it a chance, more power to it. I took the Oath because I was confronted with the conditions that were insufferable. I saw the Black and Tans laying waste the country and the men with whom I was associated were surprised at the measures of freedom that the Treaty such as it was gave us. I was glad that some settlement was arrived at. I was also glad that we should have a chance of showing what we could do. If this Oath Bill, and the obstacle we are setting up against its removal, is to increase ill-feeling, a greater danger will ensue, and that is class bitterness. I would be very sorry then that I have had to object to it, but remember that I am Oath-bound. That is the position that people do not realise. Honest men do not commit perjury—it will not appeal to certain Senators. You cannot expect people who are honourable to help others in disloyalty to their Oath. The Oath means loyalty to the Commonwealth and that really means that the Oath is a ticket to the world's best Co-operative Store.

I do not want to dwell too much on this market question. It may look too much like materialism. But I little dreamt that it would be I who should have to implore our people not to give our Nation the name of men foresworn. Already the name of Irishmen in Tanganyika is a bad example to the blacks, as a result of our breaking of this bond. This matter could have been negotiated just as the Society of Friends exempted themselves from swearing. And that could have been done by agreement with Great Britain.

I have absolute assurance that the Oath would have been easily waived when a certain case was made for it if it had been done in the right way. I do not want to increase anybody's difficulties by asking why was not that done, or by describing it as a gesture of bravado and dilating on the vis a tergo that led to this attempt to humiliate England. It was a gesture which really humiliated Ireland. Cromwell left us our honour. The Englishman has got away with the moral end of it as he usually does, and I am afraid this time with absolute justification. Anything that would bring about bitterness in this country should be guarded against. An attempt has been made to hold the Seanad up to public opprobrium as a society of Capitalists, to which we are supposed to come in first-class carriages and motor cars. One can buy a motor-car now for £10. Every Senator in this House, with one exception, has to pay income tax. And that exempted Senator exemplifies the Government's policy of economy by being a supernumerary Minister. I hope such attempts at creating bitterness will be scotched early from this source for decency's sake. Attempts at working up class hatred should be discouraged. I said in an article, for which I have been severely criticised by Senator O'Doherty, who I think called me a carrion crow, that the conditions such as these which have arisen now could only come about in a country befooled and ignorant of its own history —a country which any demagogue can hoodwink. It was an earnest attempt on my part to make Ireland safe from demagogy. The Senator calls me a carrion crow, which coming from him is a sign of displeasure. To him that bird is a symbol of distress. I have been told that most of his military manoeuvres were calculated to avoid contact with it, and that he got the bird because the bird did not get him. Curious! But if that article of mine were taken home and studied it would show that it is meant to teach the Irish people the first condition of freedom; to free them from this infernal bogey about courage. Why should they have to be told about their courage? Brave men do not require assurance on this score. There are three or four slogans. The Englishman has to be told that he is a muddler. You will have to tell the Frenchman that he is full of bonhomie; you have to tell the German that he is full of romance. These are the three ways of fooling the people on the Continent, but when it comes to the Irishman—it reacts even on the demagogue! You have to tell the Irishman that he is the bravest man and the most generous man in the world; but that unfortunately, alas, and inscrutably sad, but true there is still a little further to go on the road to freedom (although that same road to freedom goes in circles like a convict's exercise ground). Brave as he undoubtedly is, in reality he is a slave still. I say that anybody who would undertake to lead people of this sort has certain responsibilities and disabilties. He has to dress like the manager of the Cats' Home. He has to look grave and at the same time be filled with the milk of human kindness but touched withal by a gentle melancholy on account of the dope he must administer in the end. Thus you will come to know what way the cat will jump politically.

When anyone examines the facts of our history he will find that we were easily conquered because of our class hatreds. Any conqueror can count on class hatreds in order to be assured of the conquest of Ireland. What history there has been has justified Mr. Churchill's charge about our being fissiparous. I have been brought up in the ordinary traditions of nationality. I cannot flatter myself that some distant posterity may ask, looking back, "Why did those fellows betray their country? The Oath was removed but why did they not vote to get rid of it?" The reasonable answer is that we took the Oath and stood for our country's honour (however foolish we may yet appear). The question how will this break with our market affect the Government is not the question for us, but for the Government, who should realise what the results may be. In Berlin some years ago I spoke to an armament maker and I said to him "How is it that you are supplying the Russians with instruments and munitions of war which may be turned against you?" and he said "You forget they are Russians." The reference was to the fact that the Russians were fighting amongst themselves. If this country continues in the same way the gift of liberty that England gave us can only be a stultifying apple of discord. Let us prove we are worth freedom before we risk all by attempting more. We are frustrated by class wars. We are only developing bitternesses and grievances amongst ourselves. We just lack allegiance, no matter to whom it is to be given.

The only advantage this country has is a geographical one. Our position in the Atlantic and the possibility of our developing our harbours put us in a most favoured position. But we are just like the Russians, no matter what advantages we have we are unable to avail ourselves of them. Now I hope it is understood that it is not out of hostility to the opposite Party that I am speaking against this Bill, but my reason is that when one takes an Oath one must abide by it. Five months ago this country was envied and her position was certainly solvent. The Fianna Fáil Party told the people that the old Government's wastefulness was to be stopped, that the annuities were to be withheld because proportionately this country was overtaxed by England more than any country in the world, and then to that overtaxation it added 1/6 in the £. The election and the return of the Fianna Fáil Party to power was the greatest confidence trick ever played on our people. I do not want to make capital out of statements made on electioneering platforms but I do hope that it is fully understood by the Government that when I personally object to the removal of this Oath it is because I am pledged by it to uphold it, and secondly that I am very grateful for the advantages for which it is a formula by no means empty because I am greatly concerned for the maintenance of amenities under which we live. I would wish to draw the attention of this Government or of any Government that may be in this country to the principal asset of our country, the position it holds in the Atlantic. As long as we have the assurance that we cannot be governed without the removal of the Oath—and I do trust the people who give that assurance, because how can the removal of an empty formula enable people to govern if they cannot govern?—then the people are being, to my mind, fooled. The great danger is not the danger of any action by Great Britain, but the danger that may arise or be created here as a result of impoverishment on the top of more impoverishment. We are poor enough as it is. The danger is that the Government, when it finds itself incapable of keeping order, will hand us over to the armed semi-military unemployed and save its face again in the smoke of a ruined Ireland.

A man who controls seven millions of the Indian people told me that every five years population increases, and as the land does not increase that the Government is confronted with two alternatives. It must migrate the people or else get factories established to keep them employed. We see what Ford's factory has done for Cork. Here we have an agricultural population and a certain amount of emigration. Emigration is a very desirable thing. Great Britain had emigration equally with us. Emigration is no disgrace. The result of the English emigration is the British Empire. Ireland had emigration and the result is the quota! If this country were allowed to go on having whatever emigration it wished it could have continued the interchange of her produce for English hardware and its retail here. It would be better than the vision of a spoilt lay-brother (spoilt by the poor Clares) of an Austrian Tyrol in Ireland. Ireland set back in the XIIIth Century! All right— only for the Communists and the XXth Century!

One of the things that often interferes with a country is that it does not know how well off it is. We did not know how well off we were here when we were able to keep a population and make the land take on the onus of the support of our people. The land did the work, the cattle grew, and we sold them to England. The country kept up the small semirural towns retailing manufactured goods from England. We avoided factories. That is a civilisation that cannot be excelled, because you had nature; the earth that is not a blot on humanity working for you. It is only consistent with a certain amount of emigration, and I do not think, no matter how simple our lives are, that this country could ever support seventeen millions of people, which is the figure that has been mentioned by the President—nor would the farmers welcome them. It is a sad thing to think that the fewer in the country the better. There are 45,000,000 too many people in Europe, and this country was able to keep its population by the English market, for the sale of its agricultural goods and by emigration. We can never hope to compete with an English population trained to factory work, nor do I think it would be desirable. I would not like to see the towns of Ireland turned into such towns as have grown up in England, and such as Ford is creating in Cork, or rather that Cork is creating from Ford's. If the Government can give us an assurance that it is prepared to guarantee us law and order and that we will not be returned to the revolutionary conditions of ten years ago, or handed over to "the real owners of Ireland"—those whom the Government ran away from—if they can give us an assurance that even to save their faces they will not again take advantage of chaos, then I will say that I regret that I must be excused for not helping with my vote. I do not mean that in any ironical way, but I, at present, decide for the freedom that the connection of the Oath assures. I do not want to break my word. And, as a countryman of Shane the Proud. I do not want to come sidling in here unable to hold up my head because of broken troth. My position is that I took the Oath and by my Oath I will abide.

I am sorry to delay the House at this late hour but, like the last Senator, I will not guarantee that I will only speak for seven minutes. I will not give any pledge, so that I will not have any pledge to keep. I think if an example was wanted of the mentality that should make us seriously consider the advantages of remaining in the Commonwealth the debates in this House and in the Dáil afford it. I may be wrong, but in my view the whole attitude of speakers on both sides has been introspective and unappreciative of the real issues that are involved—a sort of attitude that might be suitable if we lived as a detached planet away from the world, away from all the reactions of intercourse with other peoples. The main line of argument appears to me to be entirely beside the real point and not directed to the issue at all. We have had interminable discussions as to the legal technicalities. Senator Johnson yesterday spoke as if he was speaking before some tribunal which had power to decide the issue. If we were legally entitled to do this it might be germane, but is that the issue at all? Surely the issue is something quite different? The problem is in a sense an international one. There is another party to this whole transaction who is vitally involved, and these arguments have no bearing on the attitude of the other party at all. Senator Johnson will also realise that this sort of arguments have no force in this House, because so far as one can understand the majorities are nearly all mechanical and, no matter how convincing your argument may be, no substantial number of votes will be affected. We have had discussions as to the proper place for the Treaty, as to the relations of foreign and municipal law, as to sovereign status and as to the mandatory character of the Oath. What has that got to do with the issue at all? The issue is perfectly simple to the plain man. Two parties have made an agreement. One side takes certain action which is resented by the other. One side says: "I did not break the Treaty," and the other side says: "You have broken it." Is not that the issue? What would reasonable men do in these conditions? Surely before they got to separation or breaking off relations or to force a situation that the President has forced—you have only to read this evening's paper to see that it is very serious—would they not have a talk and ask is there no common ground between us? That is the ordinary way of the world and that is what makes us so anxious about the future of this country. It seems outside the understanding of ordinary plain people. I am sure that the President in his own private dealings—if he had a dispute with a neighbour about a boundary would, before going to law, go and see if he could not fix the matter amicably. Unless the Government is possessed of a false sense of national vanity or unless there is no case that they can make, they should never have taken up this impossible and implacable attitude from the start. We made a bargain and in the eyes of the other party we have broken it. We seem to have abandoned even the ordinary attitude of courtesy as between two peoples. We seem to adopt a sort of "take it or leave it" attitude and yet, on the other hand, we expect to be friends with the party whom—I say it deliberately—we have insulted. We seem to claim for ourselves pride and self-respect and we do not seem to acknowledge or recognise that any other people have or are entitled to those same considerations.

That is why I feel so humiliated over the whole action of this Government and the whole position that has come about. The President and others state that this is not a bargain at all, that it was made under what was called duress because apparently if an agreement had not been come to in 1921 there would have been a further outbreak of hostilities, but is not that the position more or less that affects all negotiations between two combatants? Is not that the position that affected France and Germany? Is not one in the relation of the victor and the other of the vanquished? I was rather amazed to hear, for the first time, an admission that we were vanquished. I have always heard, in a rather boastful way, that we brought the great power, England, to her knees. What are the facts? Were we vanquished? We might have that admission at least. If every treaty is going to be violated because at the time it was made one party was not in a position to get all it wanted where would the whole of our international policy be? There would be nothing but chaos. We should be back to the position that brought such a lot of trouble to the world. We had it expressed by Bismarck—I do not know whether President De Valera would agree with Bismarck's view—that Treaties were only valid when reenforced by the interests of the contracting parties. As soon as your interests are not affected you need not honour your bond. You can take what line you like. I am in the position partly from inclination and partly because I suffered in the Civil War and had my house burned and at that time had to leave my home and had other reasons why I have not yet become fully repatriated—I have had an opportunity of seeing it from the two sides, and I can assure the House that there are people on the other side, ordinary people whom you meet in society and elsewhere who, as a rule, are not very much interested in politics, and who are really concerned as to the attitude of this country at the present time. I met people with a judicial mind and in the eyes of these people we stand discredited. If you take the Press, where has the Government any support? I think the only support it has got is from the independent Labour Party. I notice that the Irish Press is very assiduous in collecting little snippets in support of the Government policy, but I have never seen anything from a paper so democratic as the Daily Herald in support of that policy. Their quotations are from a few obscure and almost unknown journals. Occasionally some statement wrested from its context is brought out to justify the attitude of the Government. Those who championed Ireland's case in the past are now disgusted. There is a feeling towards this country which is not very different from that held by Britain and France and others towards the Germans in the War. There is a feeling that we are an impossible people. Those who always prophesied that Ireland could never make good now say: “I told you so.” I met a person prominent in affairs only the other day and he said jeeringly: “I gave you five years. You have taken ten, but now you are back in the mess again.” That is what is going on, and it is best that we should get away from this introspective and insular attitude and that we should know what other people are thinking about us. One feels almost ashamed to be an Irishman in the company of those people. It is in vain that one argues that this attitude is only held by a bare majority, if a majority at all, of our people. One tries to explain that there is a strong section in the country who are loyal to their bond.

They say "That is all very fine, but look at the impossible attitude of the Government. There is no continuity in your policy. One Government honours its bond for ten years and gets the country on its legs, and another Government comes in and upsets it." That is what other people are thinking. I think it is well that we should know it. The President must surely be aware of the trade reactions. I am sure if he asked his High Commissioner he would tell him, because it is well known that private individuals who are in a position to choose customers, retailers and wholesalers, are disgusted and say, "Why should we buy Irish goods now that the Irish are behaving as they are? We can buy Danish goods. The market is glutted with goods and we will not buy Irish goods." That is a very unfortunate position and it is sure to react on our trade, and in these days of abundance and low prices it is very serious. It is an expression of the spirit, not of the form, and it is the spirit that counts. I do hope that the President will have regard to that, because he himself seems to be utterly out of touch with what is going on in the world. And in that connection I think that the House will be very concerned that the President is not going to Ottawa, because after all it is through mixing with other people that one gets a true sense of proportion and gets to know the true facts and the relative merits of one's own case. On the other hand when the Minister for External Affairs, the President of this State, stays away from an important Conference like that—he has to remember the contacts, political and social—it is almost tantamount to a breach of the responsibilities of his office. And how does the Government view all this? With an attitude of unconcern which seems to welcome isolation and almost to enjoy basking in the shades of other people's ill-will. They seem to feel in it all a kind of spiritual discipline and to hope that by isolation the country will once again find its soul. There are two definite attitudes that appear to be open to us to take, either that of co-operation or that of isolation. But this sitting on the fence seems opposed to any national development, national peace or national reconstruction. We cannot have it both ways. Members of the Commonwealth must, like colleagues in a joint enterprise, be frank and friendly. They must come together. They must confer and acknowledge the obligations of partnership. We either play the game or clear out. There are certain rules of the game which we should play. The rules are simple. Sport and war are different things and almost even worse than war is this attitude of false dignity and refusing to meet people in a frank and friendly way. The President seems to talk peace and yet he breathes defiance, which is fatal for friendly dealing.

Regard for a moment the advantage of Commonwealth status, because I do not think anybody has clearly examined that. I wonder has the President himself examined it? It is not an association to be lightly spurned. If it was not for our Commonwealth status we would not occupy the position in European politics that we do to-day. Does the President suggest for one moment that we should be on the Council of the League of Nations except by virtue of our membership of the Commonwealth of Nations? And our position on the Council of the League of Nations has brought us a position of dignity and made us known to the world in a way that we would not have been known if we were an isolated Republic. There are grave dangers in this attitude of selfish nationalism. Has not the Pope only lately referred to this exaggerated nationalism which is dividing the whole world into separate compartments, which is refusing to co-operate, which is building up entirely a small selfish and very narrow civilisation, which has restricted markets, which becomes introspective? In this connection I should like to refer to what Senator Connolly said about tests. Senator Connolly said that tests were objectionable and that the Oath was the most objectionable of all. I suggest that this sort of nationalism, as expressed by Senator Connolly, is nothing but tests. I suggest that Senator Connolly's attitude is a reeking test tube. His remarks about motor-cars and first-class carriages are tests and all they stand for are tests. His attitude towards other games than Gaelic is a test. His concentrated nationalism is a test and the remarks that are hurled at us about doing England's dirty work and making England's case are tests. Because we stand up for what we think is right we are not true Irishmen. All these are tests and tests far worse than any Oath, than any symbol of allegiance of a free country to associate with other countries on a free basis.

Look into the future of our civilisation. Does anybody seriously think that this position of water-tight nations, of selfish tariff barriers and of refusing to co-operate, thinking of one another with jealousy and suspicion is likely to produce stability? The peace of Europe is in danger to-day, and if something cannot be done to break down this national isolation war or worse things will follow. What is the rational solution of this? Surely it is some compromse—something not like the empires of the past and maintained by force and the power of kings and dynasties, but some association of peoples with national affinities with the same ideals, working for peace in the world, for better civilisation—and what can be better on those lines than the principle of the British Commonwealth, which is admittedly experimental, but which nobody can say is binding on the freedom of its constituent members? The President will jeopardise the whole of that position in a precipitate spirit. He will not discuss it with the parties involved. He will not give the country time to ponder to say "No!" On we go! Far better spiritual discipline for a nation wishing to find its soul. I think that is a very grave responsibility, and the only thing apparently that can check it—I wish to God his own better sense would shake it but apparently he seems adamant. We know he is a very purposeful character—the only thing that can check it is this House. It is its duty to put a restraint on this mad and reckless adventure. At least the country should have time to consider at least there should be an opportunity for better counsels to prevail, and to see whether time may not bring about some reasonable accommodation.

Some of the supporters of Fianna Fáil may ask what racial affinity have we with Britain. What is to be gained by bringing the Nations of the Commonwealth closer together? They argue that Ireland alone and separate is the only real goal of the Celtic civilisation. I would suggest as a nation we have got more in harmony with the ideal of the Commonwealth than the French Canadians and more than the South Africans both in blood, language, propinquity, and if they can happily and loyally in a spirit of accommodation work in the interests of the Commonwealth, why in the name of goodness cannot we? They are a free people and they would resent any interference with their liberties, and they are doing this not I should say with love particularly, but for self-interest. I suggest that our interests are in the same direction. We have language, propinquity, trade, and, in spite of what extremists may say, much sympathy and understanding. If this thing were decided on a referendum I say that some of the extremists would have a rude shock. That is the plain issue.

Come to the Oath. We know that the Oath is only an instalment—the President said so—towards this blessed Republic. If it were tested by referendum on the issue of the Republic versus Commonwealth I would not be anxious about the issue, and the President should enable that to be brought about. You have only to go to Irish gatherings in London on St. Patrick's Day to see a happy people well-employed, well-dressed, evidently prosperous to see that there is a very strong bond of interest between Irishmen overseas and Irishmen in this country and is it right by action such as is now contemplated to jeopardise the social relations, the professional careers and the employment of those people?

Now I come to the position of what I call for want of a better term—I do not say it in any way that would suggest offence to others—the attitude of the loyal minority. Their position is vitally affected by the relations of the two countries. I have every sympathy for Senators like Senator O'Doherty who have their resentment perhaps to the British connection, who see only in a Gaelic civilisation the realisation of their ideals and who even regard things British as vulgar, and to be avoided, but on the other hand I claim that he should have regard to the feelings of the loyal minority. They may not be large in numbers but can anybody deny that they do contribute largely to the well-being of the State? Even in material matters, matters of taxation, I suggest they pay out of all proportion to their numbers. In country life they are the only centres of civilisation. They are large employers of labour. They are respected by the poor all around them. Their names adorn the pages of Irish history. If you take the names of famous Irishmen known to the world do they not nearly every one of them come under the term that we, for the want of a better term, call Anglo-Irish—Swift, Goldsmith, Burke, Wellington, Roberts, Bishop Berkeley? All these men have added lustre to the Irish name. That element still survives in the country, and is it right that the President or the Government should jeopardise their position? Of course, they are good Irishmen although they do not see eye to eye with the President. They made their contribution to Ireland's life, but they are bound to England by tradition and in some respects by blood and by inter-marriage, and their sons and they themselves have served in the English professions. They have been brought up in a spirit of loyalty to the Sovereign and they have, I would suggest, every right to be considered. This Treaty was in a large measure the charter of their rights and now all that by a brusque act is to be thrust aside and these people are going to run the risk of being severed from all they held sacred. I know others, like Senator Colonel Moore, who gave long service to the Crown—

I took no Oath, no more than did any other officer, and why is it necessary to have it here if it was not necessary in the British Army?

I cannot believe that Colonel Moore, with his long and gallant service to the Crown, does not feel these bonds of affection and would not really at heart seriously shun severance from the Commonwealth.

Now we come to the question of negotiation. It is for these reasons that I have already given that I urge the House to put the Government in a position where if they want negotiation at least time should be left for better counsels to prevail. We should not despair if they are given a little breathing space. It might be possible if the President goes to Ottawa and is forced to mix with and to hear what others say that he will see the gravity of the step the Government proposes to take.

There is one difficulty that of course presents itself to me in respect of conversations. Of course, on that point the President should make up his mind and also inform the country. I can imagine the President meeting whomever it may be—Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thomas is a very genial person. I can imagine the President addressing him and saying: "Now, Mr. Thomas, peace and security for us are involved." Mr. Thomas would at once say: "Is the Oath the only thing? Where do you stand?" Because I think Mr. Thomas might say that accommodation was possible over the Oath. "You presumably will accept the Governor-General and the Commonwealth. If that is the only thing the Oath can be got over. But where do you stand?" The President would have to say, if he has not changed his mind: "We stand where the mandates of the people tell us to stand. We only stand for the Oath at present but when people say ‘Move on' we move on. When the people say ‘Republic' we are Republic." I can imagine the smile on Mr. Thomas's countenance when that is said. I can imagine him saying "No, Mr. President. You cannot put that over on me. Politics does not work in that way. As a Government you must have a policy and we cannot have conversations without a policy. You cannot simply say that you are going to wait until the country coughs up something better. Every Government has a policy. You cannot go the whole distance with other people who expect to know where you stand. Unless you know where you stand you cannot negotiate." I think the House has a right to know that. It is an impossible position to be put in, to ask us to pass this Oath Bill, believing that it is only an instalment and that we are moving on by steps, according as political opportunism may suggest towards a Republic. It means years and years of unrest which it is unfair to inflict on the country, and which any Government which has a sense of responsibility should avoid. If for reasons beyond its control, if owing to the pressure of other forces which it cannot or will not resist it cannot set any limit to the inroads on the Treaty, he should be honest and say so. If he feels that he will be borne steadily and unresistingly on the tide towards a Republic, better say so now and let the course be clear and defined. It is a dishonest pretence to proceed to plead the policy of limited mandates and give no lead to the people. Nothing could be worse than the unrest, than the policy of this attrition on the Treaty will involve. For these reasons and because of the very serious issues at stake, and because the position appears to be growing more and more serious every day, I think if the House ever had a duty cast upon them it is cast upon them now not to reject this Bill, but to give breathing space to amend this Bill, so that the thing can be seen in perspective, so that we shall try to see ourselves as the world sees us and so that we may come to a better sense of reality as to the issues involved and the serious responsibility at stake. Personally, I will vote against the Bill. I could never be a party in any way, formally or otherwise, to any act which would break the solemn word which we pledged in 1921, when the Treaty was signed.

[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair].

I find it rather hard to get anything like a clear grip of the arguments that have been put forward by Senators in discussing this Bill. I expected, at any rate, that the legal minded members here, who are opposed to the Bill, would devote themselves to the question, whether or not this Bill could reasonably be regarded as a violation of the Treaty. After all, that is the fundamental question. If it is not a violation of the Treaty, why should we be threatened for passing it? Why should the question of national honour be brought in? Where are the insults that we are supposed to be hurtling at a neighbouring nation? Where is the evidence of enmity, which I have heard mentioned so often in the debate? Surely that is the question of all questions that the Seanad should have addressed itself to, if its members were serious about this Bill, and not acting as if they were in collusion with some other people in trying to prevent our people here doing a thing they are not able to show they have not a right to do. I have heard of bitterness being stirred up across the water. Who has stirred it up? I say that the people who have done most to stir it up are the people who wantonly suggest that there is enmity behind our action; that we are insulting the people across the water, and that we are out to break our pledged word. I say that these are the people who are responsible for any enmity that may exist. We are not responsible for it.

I looked to the legal members of this House to argue the fundamental question. What do we find? The senior lawyer in this Assembly, the member who has been referred to with admiration by other Senators as being one of the legal luminaries in the country, refused to deal with the question. He sidetracked it and went on to repeat cheap jibes. That is not the sort of thing I would expect in a debate of this sort. Other Senators, in order to cover up their inability to deal with this question, following the lead given across the water, suggested: "Oh, this is not a question at all of status." With us it is a question of status. It is a question whether the present status does or does not relieve us from any obligation which may have been originally in these Articles of Agreement. I ask whether the declarations of 1926 and 1930 when representatives of this part of Ireland and representatives of the British Government sitting down with others solemnly proclaimed that there is equality of status, and that there is to be no interference by one nation with another, and with its internal sovereignty, whether that does not in itself supersede any restriction that might have been implied by a previous agreement. That is my view, and it is because that view is too precious to this country that we could not risk anything like the suggestion that there was doubt about it. There are two things. Either we have or we have not that status. If we have that status, any limitations of co-equality that are involved in the Treaty are gone. If it be held that the limitations under the Treaty persist, then we have not got that co-equality of status. One thing is certain, and that is that the Treaty, interpreted as the British want to interpret it, is not consistent with co-equality of status.

As I pointed out at the beginning, we are not, in this Bill, asking the Seanad to agree to a policy of severance. That is not involved here. What is involved is the simple question, whether we shall have imposed upon our own members a test that prevents a section of the people from being represented in the Parliament of the country over which we have jurisdiction. That is what it involves. I put this question of status originally, and I asked Senators whether, if the people of Canada found it to their interest to remove the test which they have—the Oath—could they not do it? I am referred to Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster. We do not have to be told by Senator Vincent that that section was put in at the will of the Canadian people, and that it is there solely because the Canadian people, for their own internal reasons, wanted it. I was literally correct when I said that if the people of Canada wanted to remove that Oath they could do it, because the limitations of that section would be taken away in the morning if the people of Canada expressed a wish that it should be removed.

Senator Douglas talked of common forms, and told us that certain common forms are essential. That was not the view of the members of the Imperial Conference. They discussed this question of common forms, and what emerged? Only two things were reserved. One was that there should be no tampering with the law of succession to the Crown by Britain; no change except with the common will of all the nations involved. The other question was that there should be no change in the Royal style and titles. The people who were best competent to examine and go into the question on behalf of the various countries did so, and what do we find? We do not find the Oath of Allegiance amongst them. It would have been scouted as common form because it was quite obvious that that was a matter—as Senator Douglas suggested—that might be left even to a Standing Order in one of their Parliaments; that it was so domestic a question that it should be regarded as a Standing Order, and would certainly not have been accepted as something that deserved to be excluded, but as a thing that could be done by one of the nations acting separately. You have in the Preamble to the Westminster Act a selection of the things that were considered necessary. I suggest that these things were carefully considered, and were done in no haphazard way. An examination was made as to what was really essential and what was accidental. As a result of that examination you get these two forms. We are not proposing to tamper with either of these forms. Even the British Government or their representatives did not say what has been said here by Senators. They have not suggested, and have not tried even the quibble that has been tried here by suggestion, that you have the power to do it, but that you have no right to do it. Nobody is talking about power without right. What we claim is that we have the right to do it if the Imperial Conference decisions of 1926, 1929 and 1930 mean anything. I would suggest that what is really involved here is whether that declaration solemnly made is to have the meaning and content that any plain man would give it, or if it is to have some restrictions that are to apply to this country, and to keep us in some inferior status to that of the other countries.

Suggestions were made that we should have done this by negotiation. I have already given the reason why, as it was of such tremendous importance to know our position, that we should not have begun like that. There was nothing curt or brusque in our action. There was no gesture of defiance in that attitude. If I go about my way doing a thing I have a perfect right to do, and if some neighbours without any warrant whatever question my action, am I to stop doing what I have a perfect right to do? I do not think so. If there was any question of explaining our attitude I would be quite ready to explain it. The suggestion is that it is either an exhibition of weakness or of strength. It was not intended to be an exhibition of weakness or of strength. It was an ordinary precaution that was absolutely necessary the moment a single question was raised as to whether we had a right to do this or not. Senators suggested that we should hold this Bill up until the people have an opportunity of considering it. The people have considered it for a long time. It has been before the people for ten years. It is said that we do not know the consequences. No human being can foresee the consequences of any action. I see Senator Milroy facing me. He was an ardent protectionist.

I am still.

The Senator is an ardent protectionist. Supposing when you put on tariffs, Britain says "No, we object," can you foresee the consequences?

There is no parallel.

Is there not? The moment you try to do anything that you have a right to do, if someone does not wish you to do it or utters a caveat, and threatens, can you foresee what you have to do? What have you to do? Either retreat or stand your ground. You have to do either one or the other. I would say that as to our policy on tariffs, which for our own protection are absolutely necessary, that if certain British interests thought that threats would prevent our carrying them out, would suggest threats if it were thought threats would be effective. Would Senator Milroy run away from those threats? When talking about the Treaty I would like to remind Senator Milroy that even the right to impose tariffs he would not have got were it not for the Republican Cabinet refusing the first draft, so that the rights of fiscal autonomy here are due simply to the fact that there was a certain section of the Cabinet that stood for Ireland's rights in the matter. That may be some historical information for the Senator, but of course, Senator Milroy does not want to face historical facts at all. He says that it is wrong or untrue for me to say that the Treaty was imposed by force on the Irish people. Senator Johnson quoted from the late Kevin O'Higgins to show what his view of it was, and how it was imposed. I could have brought here the Official Debates on the Treaty and read for the Seanad the statements that were made by some of the negotiators—and no one contradicted them— in which they set out what were the conditions. Then, I suppose everybody expects that to a Treaty which was imposed like that everyone is going to be full of loyalty. Of course they are not.

[The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]

When a Treaty is imposed by force you have to submit to it. You wish to change it; you do your best to change it; you try if possible to get the opposing party to agree to change it, and there is such a thing ultimately as denunciation of treaties. So far as I can find out the members of the Senate think that denunciation of the Treaty would be the honourable course.

I was asked what was the policy of the Government. It is suggested our policy is simply to ask people what they want and to do exactly what the people want without any leadership in the direction in which the people are asked to go. That is not our policy at all. What we tell the people, at the present time, is that there is a certain issue of a constitutional character before them, that we believe that issue, and I believe it to-day exactly as I did when I made the statement at the election, to be one which does not involve any international difference. It should not involve any international difference no more than a man doing a thing he is entitled to do should involve an attack upon him by his neighbour. Why is it we want this particular change? I want it because what I want to see gained for the Irish people is the right, the recognition of the right, freely to choose for themselves whatever form of Government they want, and whatever relations they want with any other, Government. That is what I am trying to get for the Irish people. And I want to see that done, if possible, by peaceful means, and I want to see every section of the Irish people at liberty to pursue peaceful means towards that end. I want to take away from any section of the Irish people a desire to use means other than those to achieve this end. I want to make it possible—and this is the Government policy—for that section of the Irish people who may be in a minority to-day perhaps, but who may come to be in a majority in two years time to give them the opportunity, when they are in a majority to be able to give effect to the will of the Irish people. I do not want to put them, as the previous Government wanted to put them, in a position to be excluded from going up at election time, and to keep them in such a position that even if they were the vast majority of the people, they could not have any representation, and that this minority which might be elected wrongly might be in a position to maintain that they represent the Irish people. If you put up tests which exclude a section from representation, it is not fair that another section should be allowed through this test to proclaim that they do represent the Irish people. Doubts were expressed here as to whether in fact if the Irish people were allowed to choose they would choose association or membership of the British Commonwealth or isolation as a Republic. I confess I could not answer that question. But one thing I can certainly answer and that is that if there is an attempt to derogate from the status proclaimed for the Twenty-Six Counties, there will be no doubt about their answer to it— none whatever.

In 1921 when I was in a position, also, of responsibility and I had to take upon myself as a result of that responsibility, to suggest a policy at that time, I suggested a policy of external association. No closer association would have been compatible with the position that had been proclaimed here. I suggested external association of the whole of Ireland that had been proclaimed as a Republic— external association which would have meant that Ireland would come in and associate with the representatives of Canada, Australia and so on, on terms of practical equality. What was the difference between that and the Treaty? It was this: that it would have been compatible with the State that we had sworn allegiance to. It would have done something more, because it would have removed from any doubt whatever the question of whether the constitutional position would be reflected in the legal position in the British Commonwealth of the time. Things were not quite the same in 1921 as they have been since the Imperial Conference of 1926.

The question of whether the rights which Canada claims to be constitutional rights, and which the other States claim to be constitutional rights, would, in fact, be allowed to over-ride the legal position that England might claim was a question that was in doubt, and the Statute of Westminster was principally intended to end that doubt for all time. We were looking ahead. We wanted to make sure in 1921 that we would have in our relations with the States of the British Commonwealth, actually, legally, a guarantee of the same constitutional rights that Canada and Australia claimed they had, and which were really in doubt from the point of view as to whether they would be held to over-ride the legal position that actually existed. I thought for one, at any rate, that the Twenty-six Counties here, as a result of the 1926 and 1930 conferences, had practically got into the position—with the sole exception that instead of being a Republic it was a monarchy—that I was aiming at in 1921 for the whole of Ireland.

As a result of the Treaty.

I am quite willing to give to Senator Milroy or anybody else any credit that can be got for the policy they aimed at, and I am prepared to confess that there have been advances made that I did not believe would be made at the time. I am quite willing to confess it, and it is because I do not want to see these advances which I think have been made beyond what would be reasonably expected at the time, lost, that I am anxious that no retrograde steps should be taken at the moment. And I say, Senators and other persons, whether here or elsewhere, who value that advance, should not permit themselves to be driven back by any threats, altogether unjustified. Let us stand on this.

If we do go to Ottawa and meet there British representatives, and if there is a council, representative of the other States, and this question is discussed, I believe that every one of them will realise that we are fighting the common fight in standing up for this principle in this case, and that it is a common fight and that there are common interests involved there.

As I said, I have been disappointed and very disappointed with this debate. It has been, to a very large extent, a repetition of the debate elsewhere, and the calmer consideration that I expected here has not, in fact, been given to it. The history of the period has been misrepresented here as it was misrepresented elsewhere. I think it was Senator MacLoughlin who wanted to suggest that we accepted allegiance to the Crown before our representatives went over to London. That is not true. I have here a letter that, on behalf of the Republican Government, I sent to Mr. Lloyd George on September the 12th. Mr. Lloyd George had previously made that claim. Here is the paragraph:—

In this final note we seem it our duty to reaffirm that our position is, and can only be, as we have defined it throughout this correspondence. Our nation firmly declared its independence and demanded recognition as a sovereign State. It is only as representatives of that State, and as its chosen guardians, that we have any authority or power to act on behalf of our people.

Mr. Lloyd George put off the con ference, which was to be held at Inverness, on account of that paragraph. Other communications were exchanged. Mr. Lloyd George stated his position; we stated ours. We went into that conference, as two parties, neither of which had abandoned their position. The final letter was one in which you had these words:—

"Our respective positions have been stated and are understood."

That was the basis on which we entered the conference. The attempt is made to make it appear that we are acting defiantly, and unfairly, and our action is the result of some inferiority comlex, we are told. I heard extraordinary quibbling used here that if people are equal partners there cannot be any question of dictation. Of course we all know there is no right of dictation, but we all know, also, that even where there is equal partnership you may get one of the partners attempting to dictate without any right to do so. What we resent is the attempt, in this case, to dictate, and it is precisely, as I have said, because this thing touches our status that we cannot give way in the matter. If we do the result surely will be this: that it will be interpreted that the status that is proclaimed as co-equal status does not apply to us and that the right of interference solemnly renounced by Britain at these conferences persists so far as Britain is concerned in relation to this country. That is a thing that I certainly do not want to see happen.

I shall go back again to this question of what our policy is. In 1921, when I was in a similar position of responsibility, I took upon myself, if you like, the odium at the time of suggesting this policy of external association. That showed that I was prepared, and that the Republican Government at the time were prepared, to examine it with an open mind. I am prepared to examine it with an open mind to-day. But what I claim is that the Irish people, as a whole, must be free to choose or refuse that without any threat, and that when they do, and that when I have got to the point where I have got that freedom, then it will be time enough for me, in view of the circumstances that will obtain, to declare what side I am going to stand on. Why should I not reserve until that period the right to say which side I stand on? I believe that an independent Republic for the whole of this country in such association could be prosperous.

I defended association on the grounds that there were certain of our people whose sentiments towards Britain was such that so far as it was possible to satisfy them without interfering with the rights of the majority, they would be satisfied. But if you ask me whether a completely independent Ireland would not have a more prosperous career in front of her than an Ireland bound to the British Empire, I would say, for my part, that she has, and that whilst we here have all the advantages that might be derived from the association, we have not heard at all of the disadvantages that might be derived from it. I am not arguing the question out now; it can only be properly argued when the time comes that the Irish people are free to make a choice, and one of the results of this Bill will be to give them that freedom, because without it there is no freedom given to them— even to the people of the Twenty-Six Counties—to choose. That test is a denial of freedom. And as for the people who say that we do not understand what freedom is and that in order to appreciate freedom we need to be tied up and entangled with some other people—well, all I can say is that I find it very hard indeed to understand their mentality. There is something about that attitude of mind which suggests to me the very inferiority complex that they attribute to others. Freedom is a thing that is not too difficult to understand. It may be difficult to get a phrase to express it, but it is not difficult to understand it. A man was quoted here to-day as saying that it was freedom to do as one pleases. Whilst that had reference only to an individual, applied to a nation it gives something like a fair definition of freedom—to do what a nation wishes to do.

What about the Treaty?

A Senator

That is not playing cricket.

The Senator got a long time and he did not attempt to show where we broke the Treaty. I say his arguments would be more germane to this Bill if he had attempted to do so. Is it because Mr. Thomas or somebody else cares to shout out that you have broken the Treaty, that you have done so? Have we not as much right to maintain that we have not as he has to maintain that we have? I hold that any court examining this question in the light of declarations of 1926 and 1930 would hold that we were not violating the Articles of the Treaty that gave us our status, and that we were well within our rights.

There has been no attempt whatever to argue that question, and it is not answered. Of course I know that freedom to do what you please is restricted by the rights of other people to act similarly, but no right-minded man, if he has any real social sense at all, feeling that he is living in a community where there are other people with rights, is going in the exercise of his freedom to abuse his freedom in the sense that has been suggested. Who has abused it in fact? Is it a small country struggling for independence, or is it a powerful country, a country which because of its power deprives others of their God given rights? Who is it that is acting against freedom? We heard about exaggerated egotistic nationalism. Who is going to tell me that Imperialism is not the worst form of exaggerated nationalism? Of course it is. It is the very form of nationalism that makes other nations subservient to its own. We have never tried to do that. The whole struggle of our people has not been one of aggression but simply of defence. The aggressors have not been on this side of the Irish Sea. Why then should we, when we are simply asking to be allowed to maintain our right to govern ourselves in our own way and care for our own interests without interference with any of the rights of other people, be accused of egotistic nationalism? Is this what is at the back of the minds of the people who talk that way—that we are not content to be national slaves? It is similar to what might have operated, let us say, in the Southern States of America when the subject negroes there asserted their God-given rights to act independently and not to be the slaves and chattels of other individuals. Apply the same thing to a nation and you will understand without any difficulty what the ex-President pretended he could not understand—the national aspirations of the Irish people.

We say we are not the aggressors. We are not trying to insult anybody. As a matter of fact, I believe that the success of our policy would bring the peoples of the two countries nearer together than the policy of Sir John Keane and the other Senators would bring them. Where are you now? You are in 1932 now and so far as these countries are concerned you are practically in the position that I was trying to get in 1921. Had the British statesmen been wise enough then they would have got the position of goodwill which they will never get by attempting to force their views on us. There was a wonderful opportunity at that time of getting goodwill. You had a Conservative Government in England and a strongly national Government in Ireland. A peace voluntarily made and entered into between two such Governments would have had in it a basis of finality, would have been based on something solid. What did the British do? They lost an opportunity that comes rarely in the lives of two peoples. It was admitted to-day, at least it was admitted after the 1926 Conference, that practically the position for which I was striving in 1921 could then have been reached. I will admit there was a United Ireland in it then. But look at what it has cost us. I do not want to go over the history of the period. Some people here have suggested that I have been detached, but I suggest that it is they who have been detached. They have been more attached to the interests of other people and classes than to the interests of the people of Ireland. I suggest it is they and not we who have failed. If the British statesmen had only been wise enough then they would have saved us, as every one of the plain people of this country knows to be a fact, from the blood and tears that have been shed during the past ten years. Do you think that it is a pleasure for me to hear, when the result of a division on this question is called out, and it is found that the number on the one side is 77—that that is the number of 77 executions of brother Irishmen which have had to be effected in order to put through that question? Is it pure rhetoric to talk of blood and tears when we know the history of the past ten years, and if I tell Mr. Thomas, if I remind him—I did not think it would be necessary to remind any Irishman of it—that that is what the Treaty has cost, am I doing something unfair to the Irish people?

Senator Milroy does not agree.

Certainly not.

Oh, no. Senator Milroy may say he does not agree, but he must agree that the last ten years have been years of sorrow.

For which the Treaty is not responsible.

The people were divided by that Treaty. I give the Senator credit for being better than that. Now where do we come? The Seanad proposes to hold this up—to give time for consideration. They did not give much time when other matters—matters of the life and death of people who were just as much entitled to consideration, whose feelings were as much entitled to consideration as their own—were in question.

A matter of common concern.

They did not justify the Second Chamber on that occasion. They want to do it now. Very well, I can only say that the Irish people will ultimately have to be the judges of their conduct. We are told it is a threat. It is the only democratic way, finally, of getting the will of the people through. Senator Sir John Keane may think that the Irish people, in this matter, are going to change their minds. I do not believe the Irish people will. They have been told that they have a certain status. They know that we are simply maintaining and asserting that status, and the Irish people who accepted the Treaty —not to mind those who did not accept it and voted against it—will take good care that they get that status if they are going to be in this Commonwealth at all. We are told about how our cattle trade is to suffer. Do the Senators ever ask themselves is there not another side to this question? It is a peculiar thing when people are talking about the Oath, that in one breath they will say it is the most important thing in the world and in the next breath they will say it is worth nothing. Apply this to the British. Do you think the British are going to risk all that is involved over a mere nothing? Because there are risks for them as well as for us. Are they going to do that simply because they want, if you like, to make it appear that a recent Government could not have done this—that it was something of great difficulty? I do not believe they are. I have, naturally, to be anxious about the prosperity of this country, to see that anything in reason that can be done to prevent any harm coming to this country will be done. But I fear a much greater harm ultimately resulting to this country through a retreat from the position we have taken up than in going on with it. Much greater harm. I am asked what hopes we have for internal peace if it goes through. I am reminded that there is a section to whom I am anxious to give an opportunity of expressing their will by the ballot, that that section is not going to avail of it, and that, in fact, we will not have peace. I am prepared to try. Let it not be our fault anyhow if there is not peace. If advantage is not taken of the freedom to be represented in the Assembly with no further commitments than to accept the majority will of the people, then any blame that may attach to the future will not lie with us, whereas it will lie with us if we allow an exclusive test such as this Oath to continue. We are opening a way to enable every section of the Irish people to be represented in the Parliament here— every section to be able to have its full weight at election times. In a big question concerning the future of this country, its government and relations with other countries, it gives every section an equal right to cast its vote and to have its voice heard. That is democracy as I understand it, and fair play to all sections. Any section that will stand outside that will have put themselves clearly beyond all democratic right, because they will have rejected the only course to a peaceful solution that exists. That is why I fought for it right through, and why I opposed the Oath in the first instance— because it was going to be a test, it was going to prevent ordinary real democracy from operating. I did not start this, as some people would suggest, as some sort of election stunt. I fought for it for ten years. I opposed the Treaty because of the test, not solely because of it, but one of the principal reasons was that test.

You never mentioned it. I challenge the President to quote us one word he said about it during the Treaty debates.

Before the Treaty came to the Dáil at all I spoke of it. To such an extent did I deal with it in the Republican Cabinet when the proposals were before us that I was asked was that the only thing I objected to and I said it was not, that it was a summary of all the things I objected to. But over and above being a summary I objected to it most as a test which prevented the people who did not accept it from having their rightful say in what national policy should be adopted. I saw it was going to be a barrier, would in fact negative the policy that was suggested as the policy of the stepping stones because it prevented people from stepping along. I said it would be there as a barrier, as Senator Gogarty pretends it is a barrier to himself now. Forsooth because he is taking this Oath he could not constitutionally agree to the removal of the Oath in the Treaty.

This is the type of man who will come out and tell us that we are fooling the people, that we are pretending that the Oath is something that it is not. Here we have a Senator who presumes to lecture us and to tell us how we should be dressed and the rest of it. This Senator tries to pretend that because he has taken this Constitutional Oath he is absolutely debarred in this Assembly from voting for its removal, or coming here after the King's assent through the Governor-General is finally to be given to the Bill. If ever there was confusion of thought it is the confusion of thought that is exhibited in a statement of that kind. There were people who were not excluded as Senator Gogarty suggests he himself is excluded, people who would be excluded by this barrier in the first instance from going up for election.

It is the removal of that barrier that we want now. As I say, reason is undoubtedly on our side and if the British people are reasonable in the matter they will see that there is no indication in this Bill either of defiance or anything else like that towards England; that this is a measure promoted in the first instance to give us here the internal peace to which we are entitled, something which I suggest to the Senators is much more valuable than some of the things that they have set their hearts on; much more valuable indeed. There is no conceivable injury to England that I can see coming from this Bill. I say that good will come to England so far as the relations between this country and England are concerned. In that I see only good coming from it. Once the British admit that we have, in fact, the status that is in the Treaty then we are in a position of certainty in their regard which will remove many of the questionings that are present to Irish minds at the moment.

So that there may be no doubt about the attitude of the present Government I state this in reference to what was called the limited mandate. I asked for a limited mandate in the General Election on behalf of our Party in order to make it possible for every section to express its will by the removal of this Oath. That was the first step. That is all we propose to do during the lifetime of the present Government and I suggest that that is all that anybody has a right to demand from us. We will be before the people again at the next General Election and we will similarly put forward a policy that as a Government, if elected, we will carry out. What is expected from us? To predict years and years ahead; to give pledges as to what will happen years and years ahead! We give no such pledges. We say that during the lifetime of the present Government the policy will be exactly the policy that was put forward to the people at the General Election; no more and, if we can help it, no less.

It is not quite germane, perhaps, that I should mention it, but Senators spoke of the poverty in our midst. I do hope when our social programme comes before this House that those who have expressed themselves in such sympathy with the poor, with those who are living in our slums, will support the measures that are put forward for their relief.

We will see. We will then have a test of their sincerity in the matter of this Oath.

There is no sincerity there.

I hope there is, I do really hope there is. I am not saying that sarcastically because I hope that the very expression of these things will carry conviction into their own hearts and make them realise that there are social problems demanding relief. Every hour spent on this Oath Bill is keeping the Government away from attacking those problems. We have a legislative programme in the Dáil which is going to occupy the attention of this House and the attention of the Dáil during practically every sitting hour between now and the time when it is proposed to adjourn the Dáil. We cannot afford therefore with all these matters remaining to be dealt with, to have any unnecessary speeches made here. I do not suggest that there should be any curtailment of the liberties of the House. I do not want anything of the kind, but I do say that it ought to be possible to get closely to the Bills presented and to be as brief as possible in the speeches.

If I have digressed in my reply it is because some of the speeches made were much outside the scope of this Bill. I believe it is in the interests of our country, and I believe it is in the interests of good relations between this country and Britain that this Bill should pass. I believe that. It means a certain amount of toil, but it cannot be helped. I ask the Seanad to do it. The members of the Seanad can help very much. If they want to foster the good relations between this country and England I suggest that they would be much better occupied in talking to their friends on the other side instead of using the arguments and the reasons which they put before us. If they talk in that spirit to their friends across from England it would be much more productive of good relations between the two countries. I really believe they can forward the interests of this country in that way by getting English statesmen to face up to the actual situation that exists in this country.

There is no use in trying to deal with this country as if it were a British Colony; none whatever. We are in a unique position in the British Commonwealth of Nations at the moment. We occupy a very unique position and Senators here can use influence in another direction too. They talk about the unity of this country and the possibility of harm being done to the ultimate unity of the country by the passing of a Bill of this kind. That threat has been used on every possible occasion. I think when the Divorce Bill was not accepted the Irish Times next day said “That bars and bolts the door on Union forever.” Why must this threat always be brought forward when we are trying to do anything here that we find necessary for our own benefit? Let some of those who threatened us show us any practical steps that they have taken to bring about the unity of this country.

Let them show us any practical advance that has been made by the other parties concerned. Let them use their arguments and their influence, I suggest, with people with whom they ought to have influence to put forward a practical proposal to that end and let us know where we stand, so that we will know if we are foregoing some of the rights contained here that we will at least know why we are foregoing them. No such thing has been done. These threats are held there as a bogey. We are told that these people are just about to come in and that they would come in were it not for the action of the people down here. We are not such innocents as to be caught with chaff like that. We are not to be fooled like that. If there are practical proposals let us have them. These proposals should begin with Great Britain. In the long run it is the British statesmen, and not the British people, though the people are responsible for the Government—who are responsible for partition.

Let us hear from British statesmen if they have changed their minds and say whether they do want to see the unity of this country brought about, or does the attitude of Mr. Lloyd George still express their views? That is the attitude that was expressed in that famous letter he wrote which suggested that even if the people of the Six Counties wanted to unite here with us that British policy would stand in the way and that they would try to prevent it. I suggest that it is that attitude of mind that is preventing the union of this country and I suggest again that before threats are likely to be effective, we must see some indication that the other people will come in and see that they use their influence with the British statesmen to prevent them if possible from trying to keep those people out and so continuing partition.

At the present time, British statesmen have been subsidising them to keep them out. There is no doubt whatever about that. Then it does not do for British statesmen to suggest that this is a division between Irishmen and that Irishmen will not come together. British statesmen by subsidising partition are preventing union and are preventing the natural coming together of the people of this country. After all, this is a natural unit and it should not be partitioned.

We could have our political differences in this country just the same as in Europe and America. In all countries there are political divisions such as in America, France and in Great Britain herself. I have not analysed, as I said, the political situation country by country. But I know the political situation in America. I know there are States in America that go Republican time after time and I know there are States there that go Democratic time after time. Was there ever a suggestion in America that those States should be separated from the main body of the Union? There was not. Why should the fact that we have political aspirations here lead to a division of the country? Why should it have led to a division? We have got partition that is based on gerrymandering. That is the position that is going to maintain a permanent majority in the Six Counties.

Whatever may be said about it the people we represent are really animated by goodwill—goodwill towards the people of the North and goodwill towards the people of Great Britain. It is not good enough to suggest "Why did you kick me downstairs?" What have we done like that? We do not like the Oath and we indicated that quietly to Mr. Thomas when he asked for information. We told him that in the exercise of our rights we proposed to bring in this measure. Was there any indication of hostility in that or in our telling Mr. Thomas that? We might have told Mr. Thomas to go and mind his own business, but we did not and there have been friendly negotiations between the two Governments since this started. There is much more indication of hostility amongst the opponents of the present Government here, hostility based on political grounds, than there is between Great Britain and ourselves.

Let the members of the Seanad who might have influence across the water not use their influence in the direction in which apparently they are using it at the moment. I do not wish to say more on the matter. I have detained the Seanad longer than I intended, but I want to assure the Seanad that the Government's attitude towards our neighbours is not animated by any feeling of enmity. We are simply anxious that the foundations shall be truly laid and surely laid, the only foundations on which both countries can continue.

Cathaoirleach

I now put the question "That the Bill be now read a second time."

There cannot be a division unless five members demand it.

Cathaoirleach

It is within my discretion to say whether there can be a vote taken or not.

We are quite satisfied if our names are recorded as against the Bill.

Mr. Robinson

I think if a division is challenged that a show of hands is necessary.

Cathaoirleach

There is nothing about a show of hands in the Standing Orders.

Mr. Robinson

The Standing Orders say that five Senators must demand a vote.

Yes, that is necessary by the Standing Orders and before you decide the matter I would ask—

Cathaoirleach

It is not necessary so far as I understand. I have decided that a division has been properly called for.

With all due respect I doubt very much if you can have a division unless there are five Senators demanding it.

Cathaoirleach

I have made a ruling and now I will give you the reason for my ruling. Standing Order 47 (2) says:—

After the Cathaoirleach shall have declared the result, in his opinion, of the putting of any question, any Senator may demand a division upon that question, whereupon the division shall be taken, provided always that the Cathaoirleach, if in his opinion the division is unnecessary, may call upon the Senators who demand the division to rise in their places.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 21 ; Níl, 8.

Tá.

  • Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
  • Comyn, K.C., Michael.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Dillon, James.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • Linehan, Thomas.
  • MacEllin, Seán E.
  • MacKean, James.
  • MacParland, D. H.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • O'Farrell, John T.
  • O'Neill, L.
  • Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Robinson, Séumas.
  • Ryan, Séumas.

Níl.

  • Bagwell, John.
  • Bellingham, Sir Edward.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M. F.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators O'Doherty and Robinson; Níl: Senators Sir William Hickie and Sir John Keane.
Motion declared carried.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 8th June.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 8th June.
Top
Share