Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Jun 1932

Vol. 15 No. 16

Public Business. - Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill, 1932—Committee.

I should like to ask if, in view of recent events, it is intended to proceed with this Bill?

I am anxious to speak on this Bill, but, before doing so, I should like to inform the House that I had proposed to move the adjournment of the Committee Stage in view of the negotiations which we know are proceeding between the British and the Irish Free State Governments. May I ask if such a proposal would be acceptable to the Government?

I see no reason why the Seanad should not go on with this Bill. Our attitude as regards the nature of the Bill is unchanged. It is a matter for this House finally to determine. There would be a question of when we could deal with the Bill and so on, but the amendment which it is proposed to move could not be accepted at all. It is quite obvious that an amendment of this kind would mean that the Bill could not be put through unless there was agreement. Whenever there is a question of agreement, one party is always in a position to prevent agreement. On that ground, we think it is better that the Seanad should proceed with the Bill.

In view of the statement of the President, I would ask Senator Sir William Hickie not to persist in his proposal.

After the expression of opinion by the President, I do not propose to do so.

SECTION 1.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

I listened with the utmost attention to all the speeches which were made during the debate on the Second Reading. I must acknowledge that I was much impressed by the first speech which was made by the President in introducing the Bill. I was struck by the forceful and quiet manner in which he set forth the case as it is viewed by him and by his colleagues in the Government. But I heard no arguments to cause me to alter the opinions which I expressed in this House a fortnight ago, that the passage of this Bill without previous negotiation and agreement would be a breach of the Treaty.

On a point of order, is this speech in order on the first section of the Bill?

Cathaoirleach

Certainly. The section proposes to amend the Constitution in certain ways.

I said that I considered that the passing of the Bill without previous negotiation and agreement would be a breach of the Treaty and that there was no mandate for it from the country; and I could give no support to a measure which would permit it to be thought and said that Ireland refuses to keep her plighted word. I notice that no reply was made either by any of the Senators who spoke in support of the Bill, or by the President himself in his summing up, to the admirable exposition of the legal aspect of the case which was made by Senator Brown, though it was acknowledged by the Law Officer of the Government that there is more than one way in which that aspect might be considered.

The President's reasons for not referring the matter to our own courts must appeal to all fair-minded men; it is equally obvious that they could not refer to the British courts. But is there no other fair-minded tribunal to be found in all the world? What about the other sister countries in the Commonwealth of Nations? I do not think that a better court could be found than an international court set up by the Dominions which might be asked not only to give a strict legal interpretation to the question of the Oath, but might also, if occasion arose, be asked to arbitrate on any other debatable points in the Treaty. I believe that reference to such a court would be accepted by and welcomed both by the British people and the great mass of our own countrymen. The nations of the Commonwealth are growing up and times are changing. I feel that the setting up of such a court is only a matter of time. Is it not possible for our delegates to take steps at Ottawa to put such a court in being?

This Seanad has but one duty—to serve the country. It is the object of these debates to find out in which direction the path to that duty lies. I have not consulted any person or any party before making this suggestion, which I do in the humble desire to do my duty, and I beg that the House will give it their consideration. We are on the eve of the greatest religious celebration that this country has ever known, a celebration which we, of Ireland's ancient faith, hope may bring many blessings to our native land, and we know and feel that we have the goodwill and the good wishes of all those of our fellow countrymen, who, though differing from us in form of faith, will be at one with us in the desire to bring peace and prosperity to our common country.

I do not want to repeat on this section of the Bill any of the arguments I used before, but I should like to take the opportunity to make a brief correction in a statement which the President made in reference to the speech I made on the Second Stage of the Bill. He said:—

Senator Douglas talked of common forms and told us that certain common forms are essential.

I should like to draw the President's attention to the fact that I referred to five forms which are at present common and that I then said:—

How far any or all of the first four of these common forms are essential is a very proper matter for discussion if any Government chooses to raise the issue.

I want to make clear that I did not state that any forms were, in my opinion, essential. I said that they were common forms and that they were proper matters for discussion. I state that by way of correction.

I wish to make a remark about a statement I made in the House some days ago, in which I said that Senator Douglas desired that certain matters should be referred finally to the British Privy Council. I was entirely mistaken in that. He spoke about Orders in Council and I thought he was referring to British Orders in Council. That was entirely wrong, inasmuch as he was referring to Orders in Council in this country.

With regard to the main question. I wonder if any Senators, before they went into this matter, looked back to the time when this country had a free Parliament of its own? Senator Sir John Keane made a personal appeal the other day to which I should like to refer. Senator Sir John Keane has appealed for consideration for a particular section of the community that he represents and many of whom I know myself. He thinks that we ought to measure our words, our phrases and our acts to a considerable extent so as to meet the wishes of that particular section. He quoted a list of names of persons who, undoubtedly, did honour to this country in the period in which they lived. These people have been remembered with honour ever since. The Senator, however, omitted to refer to the other side of the question. He said that those who took part in the discussions long ago—Grattan and the others—did honour to the country. On the other hand, there was a large party—the majority party—who did not do honour to the country. So far as their names are remembered at all, they are remembered with dishonour. One wonders why this section of the community, which was once so prominent and which ruled the country according to its own will, should be represented in such small numbers to-day and why they should be without power to do anything but make appeals. It is very easy to see how that happens. The majority, at that time, sold their Parliament and thereby committed suicide. Any party which thinks more of another country than of its own is sentencing itself to death. That is what the party which passed the Act of Union in 1800 did. They thought they were acting in their own interests and in the interest of the country across the water but, as a matter of fact, they ruined themselves and their country. Their names are remembered now with hatred and disgust. When one considers the people of that time and those others who took the side of their own country, like Grattan and Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Wolfe Tone and Emmet— all belonging to that class—how is it that those who took the side of their own country have been honoured ever since? Because they stood by their country, whereas the others deserted their country. The American Colonies, when they gained victory over the British troops, swept out all those who had opposed them, hunted them out of the country in the most ruthless way. We proceeded in a different way. When this House assembled, Sir John Keane's party and the people who worked with him were asked to put in the names of one-half of the members of the Seanad, and they did so. They nominated their own people. Looking back at that time, those people who were put into the Seanad, with no popular support, have they done very much to advance the liberties and freedom of this country? I think they have not. I am sorry for it, because I would have wished otherwise, and during my lifetime I have always made great efforts to induce them to look at their own country, where their own interests are superior to outside interests and where they should be in every way against everyone who was not for this country. Going back to those times and examining the clause before us, we find a very curious thing, namely, that the clause before us and all the Articles of this Bill are in exact correspondence with the efforts made in 1778, 1780 and 1782 to get the liberty in this country which they had not previously. I looked back over the speeches of that time, and I wish other Senators would look back over them and they would, perhaps, see this matter in a different light. At that time Henry Grattan made a proposal in the House of Commons, a declaration of rights, and when we examine that declaration of rights we find that, practically word for word, it was the same as the declaration laid down in the Bill before us now. I think it may be of some slight interest to read the statement put forward in 1780. This is it:

"The Kingdom of Ireland is a distinct Kingdom, with a Parliament of her own the sole Legislature thereof. That there is no body of men competent to make laws to bind this nation except the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland; nor any other Parliament which has any authority or power of any sort whatsoever in this country, save only the Parliament of Ireland; that we conceive that in this right the very essence of our liberty exists, a right which we on the part of the people of Ireland do claim as their birthright, and which we cannot yield but with our lives."

Some time after this motion was brought into the Irish Parliament and passed by a large majority, a deputation was sent over from the British Parliament to ask for a little time to consider this matter. Mr. Fox was then Prime Minister of England, a friend of Ireland undoubtedly, and a very liberal man in every way, and he wished the matter postponed and sent over an emissary asking to do so. Grattan's words were, "We will not postpone it a week or a day. Go back and tell your master that." He went back, and although Mr. Fox had made a statement about that time that he did not intend to allow England to be humbled by Ireland, yet he promptly passed that Act I have just read. In doing so, they repealed that Act of George I, by which the liberties of the country had been taken away. Shortly after that they went further and passed what they called a Renunciation Act, and that Renunciation Act is practically word for word in accordance with the Statute of Westminster, which was put forward by the different Dominions a year or a couple of years ago. I have read the other Act, and I will now read an extract from the Statute of Westminster, just to show how exactly it corresponds:

"Whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom can extend to any of the Dominions as part of the law in force in that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion."

Then there is another phrase:

"No law after the commencement of this Act by the Parliament of any Dominion shall be inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England."

Those who oppose this say it is a contradiction of the Treaty. I might say something more about that Act of Union. That Act of Union was passed 18 years after the Renunciation Act in which the British pledged themselves on no account and at no time to interfere with the liberties of the Parliament of Ireland, and yet in 1800 they went back on that and passed an Act of Union between these countries. How they passed it I will not take up any time in explaining, but I will quote a statement made by Mr. Gladstone, the Prime Minister of England, who certainly cannot be called unfair to his own country. Speaking at Liverpool on 23rd June, 1886, he said:

"There is no blacker or fouler transaction in the history of man than the making of the union between Great Britain and Ireland... The carrying of it was nothing in the world but an artful combination of fraud and force, applied in the basest manner to the attainment of an end which all Ireland detested... A more base proceeding, a more vile proceeding, is not recorded, in my judgment, in any page of history."

Now I would ask those who represent the section to which Sir John Keane referred whether, claiming as they do descent from the people of that time, they are more in favour of the Act of Union or the Renunciation Act which the British passed some time before, or the Statute of Westminster, which is exactly the same. It is rather strange that after a century and a half the whole thing begins again. We go back to 1778, 1780 and 1782 when these demands were put forward by the Irish Parliament—a century and a half of struggle and difficulties and fighting between the two countries. We go back to that time until we succeeded in getting so far as the Statute of Westminster has brought us, and just as we found people opposing similar demands 150 years ago so we find people now here who are opposed to what we are doing now. I think when another century has passed they will not be a bit more admired than those who passed the Union. Step by step during that century and a half Ireland has been winning back its own liberties. The Home Rule Act was one step, the Treaty was another, and the Statute of Westminster was a third. Every Deputy I think who spoke about this Bill, and I think the Senators too, admitted the right of the Oireachtas to pass this Bill if it chose. Now the Statute of Westminster was an international act, an international arrangement between the different Dominions, and that Statute being an arrangement between the different Dominions overlaps the Treaty. The Treaty was passed some years before and the Statute of Westminster so far as it is an act of renunciation overlaps the Treaty and not only the Treaty but all Dominion Acts that have ever been passed before. Canada had an Act of Freedom, so had Australia and so had South Africa. That Statute in my opinion overlaps and does away with any part of the Treaty in which the two instruments, come in conflict. I do not know that everybody will agree with me in that but that is my opinion and it seems to me to be quite clear and reasonable, and, if not, what is the use of that Statute? Why was it passed? And why does it apply to this country? We heard of great confidence being put in the Statute of Westminster and now we are told it is no use and that the Treaty is superior to it. It is not we who are breaking the Treaty. The Statute of Westminster broke it for us. It made certain arrangements and renounced certain powers with the British had hitherto claimed over the Dominions, and they therefore renounced any arrangement we had made in the Treaty ten years earlier. I should like an answer to that. We might as well say that we are breaking the Act of Union of 1800. The Statute of Westminster was passed with the agreement of the British Government. I should like to read for the House a rather interesting statement which was made by Mr. Lionel Curtis, who wrote a couple of books upon Commonwealth affairs. The extract is taken from The Commonwealth of Nations, part I. page 492, and was written in 1919. It seems very pertinent to this occasion, especially as Mr. Curtis was very prominent in writing up and discussing Commonwealth affairs:

Treaties are never so difficult to make, or, if made, so precarious as between communities whose mutual relations are undefined. Where the independence of two States is admitted by both as unqualified and unreserved, an element of suspicion is eliminated. But where States are endeavouring to square the political circle and to reconcile their independence with common membership in an empire they view every proposal for co-operation with the utmost suspicion as "an incipient not creeping union."...

Such is human nature, that negotiators cannot resist the temptation of claiming concessions to their particular interests on the ground of Imperial obligation, and the whole atmosphere becomes tainted with hypocrisy. It was this which was constantly vitiating the relations of Austria to the rest of Germany, till Bismarck had forced her to renounce any claims from membership of a German Empire, and it is only when the absolute independence of the German and Austrian Empires was established that it became possible to establish satisfactory Treaty relations.

I think that is a very interesting comment on the present situation. In this discussion Mr. Curtis probes to the quick the reactions of Imperial and national claims and, though writing many years before Mr. Thomas, he gives us the key for the charges made against the Free State. "Such is human nature that negotiators cannot resist the temptation to claim concessions to their particular interests on the ground of Imperial obligation, and the whole atmosphere becomes tainted with hypocrisy." First the Treaty is held to be a domestic affair and should not be registered at the League of Nations. A few years later it suddenly ceases to be a domestic affair and can only be invalidated by international acts. I say with Mr. Curtis "The atmosphere is tainted with hypocrisy." The British have always denied the international character of the Treaty, and, when it was presented for registration at the League of Nations, they refused agreement, saying it was a domestic concern; in other words, that it was at the mercy of the London Parliament. Now they find that this domestic theory will enmesh them in the entanglements of the Statute of Westminster while engaged in this dispute about the Oath. They are endeavouring to escape from this dilemma by reverting to the Irish position of internationality in the Treaty. Very characteristic is this of all British diplomacy, but it will not prevent a return at some suitable moment to the domestic theory. There are a good many things I would have said, but, under the circumstances, I will not say them now, as it might not be advisable. Perhaps on some future occasion they may be applicable. What is our case? We are charged with breaking the Treaty, which it is admitted is within our right. The question of honour has been drawn in to back the lack of law. I do not know why it should be dishonourable to act in accordance with the law. If the law were the other way we would hear a lot about it. Deputy Finlay, speaking on the 28th April, said:—

An international agreement depends on the intention of the contracting parties expressed at the time.

Not one of the Irish signatories approved of the Treaty or the Oath. They accepted it under the threat of immediate and terrible war, and declared immediately after that they would change it step by step. Those who supported the Treaty at the time repeated the phrase in the Dáil. When the Constitution was drawn up the Oath was omitted. It was the intention of one of the contracting parties, expressed at the time, that the Oath should not be in the Constitution, whether in the Treaty or not. Again, if the continuance of the Treaty depended on the "intentions of the contracting parties as expressed at the time," it was certainly broken by the British. Their signatories—Lord Birkenhead, for instance—publicly declared that Northern Ireland would not include districts like Fermanagh and Tyrone, where the majorities were against the Belfast Government. Mr. Thomas says he is not basing the position on any constitutional theory or question of status, but simply on the sanctity of treaties and their maintenance. "How could we," he says, "negotiate fresh agreements with the Irish Free State if existing ones are not observed?" I wonder since when the non-observance of the Treaty has lain heavily on the British Government? I might reply to Mr. Thomas, if I were impolite enough, "Why should there be consultation with people who never kept faith with friend or foe?" But perhaps the less said about that the better.

Finally I will just say this. It is a pity that Mr. Thomas forces these things on our memories. I should like to join with honest Englishmen, of whom there are many, and to say that it is to the future and not to the past that all men of goodwill must bend their energies, but we must remember the credulous folly of the past and guard that future against a breach. The way to do this is to discard treaties imposed by violence, or threats of violence, whether by arms or by boycott in the future, as is now threatened. Let us make treaties founded upon the friendship and goodwill of the parties. Then at last there will be peace amongst nations—then, and not until then. The Act of Westminster tended that way, but an attempt is now made to set it aside in favour of an imposed Treaty.

I object to this Bill, but I do not think there is any use in doing so. I object to this country leaving the Commonwealth of Nations. I supported the last Nationalist Government, and I am prepared to support the present Nationalist Government. It is a question of peace in the country, and I will support the Government.

Before I proceed to make the few remarks that I intend to make, I wish to endorse everything that was said by Senator Sir William Hickie. I feel that it was in accordance with an occasion such as this, but I must protest that the position Senators occupy is taken in a very different way by people outside. I understand that in America, when any exciting crises arise, a number of superpatriots go around, stand on soap boxes, and shout: "My country, my country!" They are known as 100 per cent. Americans, right or wrong. It seems to me that there are a number of people here who are under the impression that that is the only work of national importance that the Seanad ought to undertake. I do not accept that view. I believe that we are here as a Second Chamber, and the purpose of a Second Chamber, whether you take ancient or modern instances, is to delay hasty legislation. I am in a very great difficulty in speaking at the moment, because I had hoped that the Government would have accepted Senator Sir William Hickie's suggestion for an adjournment. In continuing, I feel that I may say something—which is very far indeed from my intention— that might embarrass the negotiations which, we understand, are, at the moment, pending. I am not convinced that there is a majority in favour of dispensing with the Oath, but, even if there were, I maintain it is our duty— considering the very serious issues that are involved, to delay the passing of this measure. This is our function in the Constitution. I rejoice that our power to hold up any measure is very limited indeed, but we can hold it up for a certain period.

It is curious that a Party which, such a very short time ago, laid it down that "the people have no right to do wrong"—a doctrine so dear to the heart of all tyrants, whether Louis XIV. of France, or Mr. Arthur Balfour, not many years ago in Dublin Castle— should question this right of ours to make the voters reconsider their determination. The President has talked very eloquently about the various clauses that are embodied in the Treaty. I would point out to him that "the man in the street," one of whom I claim to be, has never transacted business with a High Contracting Party. We merely deal with bargain and sale in a very simple and direct way, and we feel bound by what we have accepted, without going too closely into words. The President has stated that this Treaty was carried because England threatened us with a devastating war. He goes further. He says there is no question about it that she could have destroyed Ireland. Instead she offered us a settlement which we accepted. And under that settlement the Twenty-Six Counties of the Irish Free State enjoy a measure of freedom that is not equalled in any other portion of the world. The vote of every boy or girl over 21 years of age has as much influence in selecting our Government as the vote of the President himself. We have no privileged class here. Upon the majority of these votes cast depends who are to form the Government and that Government is to make laws, raise taxes and spend what these taxes produce, untrammelled and unfettered by any power in the world. I wonder what Grattan's Parliament would think of such freedom—though the Colonel was very eloquent on showing that what they wanted would have completely freed Ireland. I suppose I will be regarded as a West Briton when I point out that Britain held Ireland when the Treaty was made. She believed she had the right to hold Ireland (a right which of course I dispute) but though possession is nine points of the law she withdrew from our shores and left us to work out our own destiny.

I take a slightly different view of the Irish national outlook from some people of to-day. My view, it has been hinted, is treason to Ireland. If so, I console myself by remembering that I am a traitor in very good company. Just as there were brave men before Agamemnon, there were staunch and sterling Irish nationalists before ever Sinn Féin was heard of. It was my privilege to have known many of them. I was for the last month of his life very intimate with John Boyle O'Reilly, whose history I hardly think it is necessary to recall to Irish nationalists. I met O'Meagher Condon on several occasions. (I may explain that he was one of the men who attempted to rescue the Fenian prisoners in Manchester and but for the fact that he was a United States citizen he would have been the fourth Manchester martyr with Allen, Larkin and O'Brien. It did not prevent his having to put in twelve years in Portland Gaol). Need I recall Michael Davitt's views? These men with the Redmonds, John Dillon, T.P. O'Connor, Joseph Devlin and their loyal comrades of the old Irish party, were prepared to accept Dominion status for all Ireland, which would have involved some such form of allegiance as the Treaty contains. Am I wrong when I suggest that the President himself at one time would have accepted Dominion status? I do not make that as any challenge to the President and he is perfectly entitled to modify his views as time goes on, but I think he will have to agree that, if he did hold those views at one time, then those of us who still hold them are not far astray. You see I claim to be merely a material patriot—one of those people abhorred by the poets, of whom Wordsworth was thinking when he wrote—

"A primrose by the river's brim

A yellow primrose was to him

And it was nothing more."

When I notice one of these very pretty flowers peeping up between the grasses I wonder if the land could not be put to better use. We must admit—we practical men—that when it comes to impressing our views upon the voters we are always labouring under a disadvantage. Why even I myself love to read the glorious page:

"How mad Orlando slashed and slew."

What a picture for all of us does not bold Sir Lancelot make with his shining armour, his waving plume and his charger treading on burnished hooves, but for all that we know that that charger, if entered at Punchestown, would stand a very poor chance indeed of winning, and that not one of us would risk a shilling of our money on him. Do not we all feel at the back of our mind that Cervantes was poking fun at something that was noble and elevating when he made a laughingstock of chivalry by creating the immortal Don Quixote de la Mancha?

We must confess too that all great reforms were brought about by idealists and visionaries, but I would point out on the other hand, that all visionaries did not prove an unmixed blessing to the world. As a matter of fact, we ourselves have paid heavily for them.

I maintain that the present position that the President's Government has taken up over the Treaty is idealistic and visionary, and likely to do much injury to the prospects of our country's prosperity as well as committing ourselves to a breach of faith. It is very likely to interfere seriously with the trade that is carried on between the two countries. These considerations are lightly brushed aside by the supporters of the Government. Don't we buy as much from England as we sell to her, they ask? This is quite true, but it loses sight of a very important fact—one cannot buy without selling. It is true we can procure machinery, wheat, coal, maize, from many lands, and they are all necessary for us. But unless we can sell what we produce these countries will supply us with nothing, for we would not be able to pay for their commodities. Germany does not want our pigs, nor Belgium our butter, nor France our cattle, and except for a cargo of shamrock, which would probably be held up at her ports for tariffs or quarantine, I do not know what we could send to the U.S.A. You see, I am a convinced anti-militarist. I hold that "Peace hath her victories," and the humdrum life in the factory or on the farm to-day is the sacrifice that Ireland requires from her young people. We hear a lot of the necessity for an Irish army, and that all our young men should be soldiers. To my mind there is no immediate prospect of war. England is not going to oblige us by landing an army corps on our shores for us to shoot daylight through. The President himself has declared that to go to war with our Northern brethren would be indefensible. May I suggest, too, that if an army were at any time wanted, it could very quickly be raised in our country? The average young Irishman does not hold his life at a pin's fee, and if there is one thing he requires very little instruction in it is the art of fighting. If you wanted to get a ship-load of men for any part of the world you have only to fire a shot in Cork Harbour, and, provided you have excitement and danger enough, I don't think you will have any difficulty in manning the ship, and I don't think that they would bother very much if Senator Johnson went down there and tried to get them a fair wage. The knowledge that they would have a little adventure would be surrendered was the usual declaration.

I had a friend in Cork some time ago. He went off to South America and after about twelve months he returned extremely badly wounded. He was asked what happened him in South America and he said it was this way: "There were two fellows out there fighting to be President and one of them was married to an Irish girl— so of course I could not let him down." May I remind you of the lines of Conan Doyle which, I think, illustrate what I say?

"There were just two hundred Irish boys all shouting on the wall,

There were just four hundred lying where they'll hear no slogan call;

But all is one for that to Michael and to Pat.

If he pays the debt in Dublin or Cremona."

That celebrates a true historical occurrence. I would point out to you also that these poor Irish boys were not fighting or dying for Ireland.

About two thousand years ago the Son of an humble carpenter lived at Nazareth. He came to give light to the world, and that light has shone since and will shine throughout the world while time lasts. During His brief life He laid down many rules for the guidance of mankind, but so far as I can remember not once did He say one word in favour of soldiering. Therefore I maintain that the position I take up can be defended on the score of Christianity.

Some time ago National Conventions were very common in this country. I attended many of them, and I remember one very well. I think it was called together because there was a suggestion that if Dominion status was conferred on Ireland two counties should be excluded from the measure. All the speakers were very irate about it, and "Not a sod nor a man will be surrendered" was the usual declaration from each of them. Towards the end of the meeting, however, a delegate got up. He explained he was from Knocknagoshel, and said that he did not agree with any of the previous speakers. He was prepared, if he was offered self-government for Knocknagoshel and the surrounding parishes, to accept it, for he firmly believed he could show that under it Knocknagoshel would thrive and that every other portion of the rest of Ireland then would claim, with tremendous force, the right to self-government. I differed from him at the time, but I think there was much wisdom in what he had to say.

England may have indeed set up the boundary between us and the Six-Counties, but England cannot keep it there. We have twenty-six of the fairest counties in Ireland to experiment with—not merely Knocknagoshel —and I think we have every reason to be proud of the way these counties have progressed during a period of depression that has been unparalleled at any time of the world's history. The Six Counties have not done well by any means. At the moment there is not a ship on the slips of the Belfast shipyards in course of construction, and her linen trade, I am told, is moribund. If material considerations alone were to count, the boundary by this would be steam-rolled flat, but material considerations will not convince the North to come in with us. If gold were discovered on Mushera mountains and diamonds on Croagh Patrick and platinum on McGillycuddy's Reeks, with no income tax and cheap drink thrown in, I do not believe that the North would enter even then. Neither can we starve the Six Counties into being our brothers. We must realise that the difficulty of getting them to coalesce with us is that they are Irishmen. One portion may be coloured green—the other a kind of orange; wash them clean and we will find them just like ourselves. They may not have all our virtues indeed. I sincerely trust that they have not all our faults, and I leave it to you to determine whether it is a fault or a virtue, but in this they clearly resemble us; "They can be led but they cannot be driven." Our forefathers suffered much from religious tests; national tests may be quite as insuperable. Our business in the Twenty-six Counties is to combine political tolerance with business progress, and in a very short time, it is possible—and with little heart-burnings—we may be a united Ireland. That is the consummation I am convinced we are all ready to strive and make sacrifices for.

Recollect that there was one quality that the Irish always claimed, and that was their capacity to assimilate the stranger until they became more Irish than the Irish themselves. Which of us takes seriously the suggestion that this measure, if passed, is likely to induce the North to join us in demolishing the boundary?

Because of the existence of this Treaty none have gone hungry, none idle. No one has been returned to this Parliament that has been kept out of public life by the terms this Treaty requires. The people that it is hoped will be turned from their present irreconcilable views by the passage of this measure declare they are as little satisfied with the policy of the President as with that of Deputy Cosgrave. None of them has hesitated to use the ballot boxes at the last election. They have all of them recorded their votes for the President's candidates. They have little, in my judgment then, to complain of. Their position is much pleasanter, I would say, than many of the inhabitants of my city. I can assure you there are streets in Cork of numerous single-room tenements where from six to eight human beings live. The average income going into these rooms does not amount to more than 10/- weekly, and the rent charged is about 1/6. Not long since I heard the Dean of Cork say that a very large number of people indeed in our city had only dry bread and tea to subsist on. Yet I would say Cork is not a poor city. I have known an instance of where two newly-built houses were offered at £80 a year. I am assured there were six hundred applications from people wanting to take them, and these houses would have been dear in the pre-war days at £25 a year.

Our capable City Manager has at the moment in course of erection one hundred and fifty houses—the rent for which is 10/- a week. He thought in printing 1,500 forms for prospective tenants to fill up he would more than cover the demand, but he found he had to get more than double that number printed. Are not these problems of very vital interest to the public, and do not we all know that such a measure as is before the Seanad to-day is not likely to put men in a frame of mind to deal dispassionately with a very terrible state of affairs? I would hate to have the fate of my country in the hands of men like myself—mere practical hard business men, but I would despair of her if her destiny were to be committed to mere visionaries—a fusion of both, in my judgment, is what is required. Quite half the Free State believe the passing of this measure will amount to a breach of faith, and a very large number hold that an understanding can be got that will allay the bad feeling that has been aroused, and that without any humiliation to any one.

I remember Tim Healy's saying to me that he did not believe a wittier man ever lived than Dick Adams, but even his best friend would not claim for Dick that he was a very dignified person. One day in the library of the Four Courts he was asked what he thought of a brother at the Bar who was very erudite, a great lawyer and full of dignity. "Well," said Dick, "it is a pity the Almighty did not give me a little of his dignity, because it would be a great improvement in us both." There are times when a little loss of dignity is a help. It has a humanizing effect: friendships have been lost both by individuals and by countries by standing too much on one's dignity. We must remember that dignity very often degenerates into one of the deadliest of deadly sins, which is pride. I have long held—though I am a very strong advocate of temperance— that pride has done more injury to people in Ireland than drink. I am talking now of the individual, but I will hold that pride in high places is yet more fatal. We have seen in modern days what pride has accomplished in pulling down empires. All through history we see how nations have been made to pay for what I am perfectly certain they themselves consider, even still, was merely proper pride. Therefore, I do not think that in urging the President to meet with the other high contracting party to the Treaty in a spirit of give and take we are asking him to do anything that in the remotest way would subject him to any humiliation. At best, life's road is very rugged; we toil across it laboriously and heavily burthened. I always believe that a compromise, which somehow people do not consider to march in step with dignity, wins at all times and everywhere infinitely more respect. May I suggest that genial understanding of the other side is a characteristic which rightly or wrongly we are inclined to claim as Irish? Would it really be un-Irish then to take a course that would bring relief to every earnest practical man, and would clear the way for us all to get down to work?

At the opening of this debate, the right of intervention by England, in regard to the proposed altering of the Treaty, was questioned. Its right to intervene in the modification of our Constitution was questioned. I think as the right of England may be questioned by this Seanad so, very reasonably, the moral right of the Seanad to prevent alteration of the Constitution may be questioned by the people of Ireland. Their legal right, undoubtedly, exists; but let us for a moment examine their moral right to cut across the expressed will of the people in this vital matter of finding a solution, which may, perhaps, be responsible for the future existence of this State as a separate entity, and, also, for the future existence of that goodwill with our neighbour Britain, which, I believe, it is the unanimous desire of the people of this island should exist. After all, we must remember the peculiar unilateral structure of this Seanad. To do that, we have to go back to the time when only a small majority section of the people took their seats in the Dáil to administer the provisions of the Treaty. The majority was represented in it, but a very large minority representation remained outside. Had they come into the Dáil at that time, who will doubt that to-day the Constitution of this Seanad would be very much different indeed from what it is? The nominees who entered the Seanad were the nominees of a Party which was slightly in the majority. The minority, which might have been in the Seanad then, and which to-day might possibly have grown to a majority in the Seanad, unfortunately remained outside.

Then when the further election to the Seanad took place in 1925, still that minority remained outside. It was a growing minority. Seventy-six candidates went to the country to seek election to the Seanad. Of the nineteen elected, few of these at the moment went to the country on a great popular issue. No mandate was given to those Senators then elected. Senators had no part in the existence of the Treaty, though they may have had a part in the formation of the Constitution, but they had no part in the terms of the Treaty. Had a majority of them the right of veto upon the terms of the Treaty, the chances are that they would have condemned its acceptance altogether, and gone back to the status quo and, perhaps, to the union that at that time existed between Ireland and England. My point is this: That the question of honour so far as the Seanad is concerned is in no way involved in this matter. They accepted the Treaty as they found it; they fell in with the views of the majority of the people, and they adopted that attitude for ten years. Is their attitude now to be to prevent that Party which has grown from a minority, and is likely to continue to grow from a minority, from governing? They gave loyal support to the past Government when it had a majority. They were in no way, as I have said, responsible for the terms of the Treaty. If they were not responsible for the terms of the Treaty, then in no way is the honour of this Seanad involved if it submits to the expressed will of the people, and gives the Government now in power at least a chance of carrying out this measure which they have informed us, and which many of us believe, is for the internal peace of the country, for the future development and expansion of its rights, and, also, for the better relations that are existing between this country and the Dominions.

We must not forget the effect which the existence of the Treaty as it stands, and the inclusion of the Oath which was forced into the Constitution by Britain, has had upon the country for the last ten years. Let us not again take any steps that would endanger the future safety of the country by refusing to give the Government a mandate in this matter. I think it is tragic that so much trouble should arise over what every Senator in this House must regard as really, in itself, a very trifling matter. No good word has been said on one side about England's keeping of the Treaty. No good word has been said on the other side of the House of the attitude adopted by our Government. We have heard nothing but threats of what may happen, problematical threats of what may happen if we do so and so. England has not, to any extent, so far as I have seen, given expression to any such threats of dire consequences as have come from some members of the Seanad if in this very trifling matter we choose to alter our Constitution.

I think it is really deplorable that, in what may be looked upon as a very serious crisis in the country's history, the Government in power is being refused a clear mandate. Practically everybody who has spoken has recognised the advisability of the removal of this Oath from the Constitution. Then, why should we, if our convictions are sincere in this matter, differ as to the mode of procedure? Is the Englishman so thin-skinned that a display of what has been termed "ill-manners" in embarking upon a certain course would excite his ire to such an extent as to create a war of any kind? Physical war is very remote, but a war that might be far more fatal in its consequences to the nation may, we are told, be launched. If England has no desire, as I believe she has not, to launch physical warfare, why should she act the hypocrite and launch upon this country a war that would be far more disastrous in its consequences—an economic war? I give England more credit for fair dealing than do some of her friends who are championing her outlook in this House. I do not think there is the remotest intention on the part of England to embark upon such a course, having regard to England's need of internal peace, peace amongst the nations, its interests in this country and its general economic interests. I say, then, that the honour of the Government and of the State which we hear so much about is in no way involved. The members of the outgoing Government have fought with all their might with the object of keeping this bargain with the English Government. They have used every means in their power honourably to keep that bargain. They are not to be blamed, and cannot be blamed, by England if they have failed—if the will of the people has predominated to such an extent that they are no longer left in the position of keeping that Treaty which they accepted, as we know, under duress as grave and as serious, perhaps, as ever a Treaty or bargain was entered into between England and Ireland. I should say that their honour is in no way involved. Much less, if at all, is the honour of this House involved. Its duty to the country should be more or less to keep the ring in this great international question. We, who have supported the Government in this matter, do not believe that any grave or serious consequences will ensure. If it is said that this House is a cooling chamber where hasty legislation may be held up, I say that this is not the time for embarking on that procedure. Agreeable conversations, we are told, are at present being carried on between this Government and the Government of Great Britain. We have every reason to hope that the Englishman will view the matter in the same light as the majority of the Irish people view it. We can say to ourselves, as Senators, that we have no mandate from the country to oppose the popular will. Does any Senator suggest that if an appeal were made to the country on this issue, the country would not give a mandate for the removal of this Oath from the Constitution?

Without regard to the consequences?

Feeling that in our heart and being convinced that that is the case, are we justified in doing other than supporting the Bill for the removal of this Oath? Instead of weakening our party at the Ottawa Conference, nothing would so strengthen their hands or so smooth the way for the future development of the Constitution of this country in the way the people desire than that that party should feel that they had behind them the unanimous support of this House. This House is a free House, I take it. If the party whips were removed, the vote on this matter would be very different indeed from what it is likely to be. I would earnestly appeal to this House in the interests of Ireland, considering the peculiar position in which the House stands as not expressing popular opinion and having no mandate in this matter, that it should give the Government a chance to carry out the important work for Ireland which they propose to carry out in this Bill.

On a point of order, may I ask if it is permissible for all speakers to cover as wide a range as has been covered by previous speakers?

Cathaoirleach

What is the point of order?

Can we continue to debate this section in the very wide manner in which Senators who have already debated it here have done?

Cathaoirleach

I am inclined to think that the speeches covered somewhat wider ground than they should have covered. The debate on the Second Reading was protracted and I allowed Senators somewhat more latitude than I ordinarily would. Perhaps Senators will remember that speeches dealing with the whole constitutional position are hardly relevant to this particular section.

Question put and declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I propose to divide the House on this section. I do not propose to address myself to the provisions of the section. All that was necessary to say to show that this section should not be retained has been already said and I shall not repeat the arguments. I shall content myself with dividing the House on the section.

I do not propose to make a speech on the objection to the second section of the Bill. A full explanation of this section has already been given, and Senators will realise that its deletion would raise the possibility of the effect of the Bill being nullified. I should like to remind the House that it was disclosed in the debate in the other Chamber that this same recommendation was deemed necessary by the Law Officer of the former administration to safeguard the Privy Council Bill which was then being brought forward. It is not the intention of the Executive to accept deletion of this section. It would, in our opinion, nullify our object, and the Executive would, in no way, be prepared to consider or accept the deletion of the section.

I intend to vote against this section, and I should like, in a few words, to give my reasons for so doing. Apart from what may be described as a rule of procedure, that there ought not to be two amendments to the Constitution in one Bill, I submit that this section is entirely out of place in this Bill. It raises a very big question and, if I may say so with entire respect, there is a great deal to be said for the view put forward by the President of the Executive Council on the Second Reading of this Bill, that the construction of an international contract ought not to be left to the courts of one of the contracting parties. There is a great deal to be said for that, but it is a very big question, and ought not to be raised as a side issue on any other Bill. It ought not to be raised as a side issue to this Bill, particularly, the object of the Bill being the removal of the Oath. Mixed up as it is in this Bill with the removal of the Oath, the question cannot get the impartial consideration to which, as an important question, it is entitled. For that reason, I intend to vote against this section, and I shall ask the Seanad to do so also.

Question—"That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 30.

  • Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
  • Comyn, K.C., Michael.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • MacEllin, Seán E.
  • MacKean, James.
  • MacParland, D.H.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • Dowdall, J.C.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Esmonde, Sir Thomas Grattan.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • 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.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Costello, Mrs.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Crosbie, George.
  • Desart, The Countess of.
  • Dillon, James.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Garahan, Hugh.
  • Granard, The Earl of.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Guinness, Henry S.
  • Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
  • Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
  • MacLoughlin, John.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • Moran, James.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M.F.
  • O'Rourke, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
  • Toal, Thomas.
  • Vincent, A.R.
  • Wilson, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators O'Doherty and S. Robinson; Níl: Senators Milroy and Wilson.
Question declared lost.
Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put.

I would divide the House on that question also.

It is consequential on the other.

Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 31.

Tá.

  • Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
  • Comyn, K.C., Michael.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Dowdall, J.C.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Esmonde, Sir Thomas Grattan.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Johnson, 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.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Costello, Mrs.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Crosbie, George.
  • Desart, The Countess of.
  • Dillon, James.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Garahan, Hugh.
  • Granard, The Earl of.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Guinness, Henry S.
  • Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
  • Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
  • MacLoughlin, John.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • Moran, James.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M.F.
  • O'Rourke, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
  • Staines, Michael.
  • Toal, Thomas.
  • Vincent. A.R.
  • Wilson, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators O'Doherty and Seamus Robinson; Níl: Senators Milroy and Wilson.
Question declared lost.

I move:—

Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—

4. This Act shall not come into force until an agreement has been entered into between the Government of the Irish Free State and the British Government providing that Article 4 of the Treaty of 1921 shall cease to have effect and such agreement has been ratified and approved by Resolution of Dáil Eireann.

Sir, I do not propose to delay the House in this matter further than to make this observation: that while opinion on every provision of this Bill was expressed from many different angles on the Second Reading, there was, I think, a majority desire, a consensus of opinion, that the duty of this House was to delay the operation of this Bill until an attempt had been made to secure agreement by negotiation between the parties concerned. I had prepared certain observations which I intended to make on this Bill before the new situation had arisen; and though I am not aware of what the subject matter of the discussion between the Government of this State and the British Government may be, I am not without some hope that this matter will enter into the conversations that may take place, and I am not without hope that some good may emerge from them. And that being so, lest some word uttered by me might tend to destroy the chance of such a happy outcome from these conferences I intend simply to move formally the amendment.

I propose to follow Senator Milroy's example in saying very little indeed at the present moment about this amendment. The reasons for it have been expressed with extreme clearness during the debate which has taken place for three days in the House. The Senators who have spoken in opposition to the principle of the Bill have explained that the whole reason of their attitude was to secure delay in the final decision of the matter in order to give time for negotiation. That fact has been clearly stated. This amendment is entirely for that purpose, and, therefore, I think that there is no use in delaying the House with further references with regard to it. This is a vital amendment. The members of the House, so far as this side is concerned, consider that the matter should be settled amicably with Great Britain. We all know of many reasons why this is absolutely necessary for the welfare of our country; and that is why we insist upon the passing of this amendment.

The reasons that have been given for passing this amendment, and the explanations that have been given why it should be passed, seem to me to be convincing reasons why the House should not agree to this amendment. Such negotiations as have been entered upon, presumably to the minds of the mover and seconder of the amendment, have been entered upon as between two equal persons or States; but this amendment, if passed, has the effect of saying that the British Parliament may veto an Act of this Oireachtas. The Dáil passed this Bill. The Seanad has agreed to the principle of the Bill, and the basis of this amendment is that the Bill, as amended, should pass. The amendment says that, notwithstanding that the Parliament of the Irish Free State has passed certain legislation concerning only the Irish Free State, we agree that that legislation passed by the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State shall not have effect until the British Parliament says it may. That is the effect of this amendment. It says: "This Act shall not come into force until an agreement has been entered into between the Government of the Irish Free State and the British Government providing that Article 4 of the Treaty of 1921 shall cease to have effect and such agreement has been ratified and approved by resolution of Dáil Eireann." That is to say, that we legislate in regard to the Constitution of the Irish Free State, but we say: "Our legislation shall not have effect until the British Government agrees that it shall have effect." I think that would be running entirely in the teeth of the whole conception of the Irish Free State and of all that has been claimed on its behalf by those who are supporting the Constitution, and particularly as regards the things that were claimed on its behalf by the ex-Minister for External Affairs.

Perhaps it is no harm that I should remind the House of what Deputy McGilligan, speaking as Minister for External Affairs, said here on the 23rd July, 1931, on this very subject practically. He was discussing the Imperial Conference, particularly in respect to Dominion legislation, and of the authority of the Imperial Parliament in respect to Dominion legislation. He said:

There is one other thing objected to, the so-called implication in a particular part of the Report that a British Parliament has power to legislate for the Dominions.

In parenthesis, I should like here to suggest to the House, to Ministers, and to publicists in this country, that we should not get into the practice of speaking of the Irish Free State as a Dominion. It is conceded even by Mr. McGilligan in this connection that even though, as a matter of convenience, the British Parliament was incorporating the word "Dominion" in its own legislation, this did not mean that we, in this Irish Free State, accepted the term "Dominion." Mr. McGilligan went on to say:

I made our position abundantly clear on that matter. Senator Douglas has put his finger right upon two points that were subject to many discussions at the Imperial Conference. There is, first of all, the constitutional fact that if the Constitutions of some of the countries are to be changed, certain measures would have to be passed by the British Parliament. Over and beyond that there was one, but I think only one, of the Commonwealth Group which said that they could conceive certain circumstances in which they might have to call upon the British Parliament to pass certain legislation for them. I said we never would do this, and I said that constitutionally we could not do it. I said that until some Government came into power which would uproot the whole Constitution and which would have the approval of the country behind it, such a thing never could or would happen; and that position was accepted. A member of another delegation said that if the Dominions had the right to ask the British Parliament to legislate for them it would be an admission of national humiliation, and so it would never be done.

I submit that the terms of that amendment in effect ask the British Parliament to legislate for the Irish Free State. Though we may pass legislation here it cannot, the amendment says, come into effect until the British Government and the British Parliament agree with its coming into effect. The case that has been reiterated, time and time again, is that the mutual relation between Great Britain and the Dominions was that they are "autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status and in no way subordinate one to another," and that "equality of status, so far as Britain and the Dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our inter-Imperial relations. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function," and so on. I find in the question that is involved in this Bill, which the Senators desire to have relegated to the will of the British Government, we are, if we are asserting equality of status, fully and completely justified, and in fact we would be going against the principle of equality of status if we passed this amendment. I was looking up the South Africa Act of 1909, and Section 51 of that Act says:

"Every Senator and every member of the House of Assembly shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe before the Governor-General or some person authorised by him an Oath or affirmation of allegiance in the following form." Follows the form. A later section, Section 152, quite definitely says: "Parliament may by law repeal or alter any of the provisions of this Act." There are certain provisions, quite temporary provisions in some cases, and other small exceptions dealing with representation of the different States in the United Parliament, and another exception dealing with the qualification of voters, and still another exception which concerns the equality of the Dutch and English language. The South Africa Act itself clearly lays down that the South African Parliament may alter the Constitution of South Africa including that section of the Constitution which describes that an Oath shall be taken. If there is any question of equality of status between South Africa and the Irish Free State there should be no question as to not merely the right, but the duty, of this Parliament to pass this Bill, and to pass it without reference to the British Parliament or British Government in respect of a matter on which the country has decided it desires should be done. Senator Douglas in the opening stage of this meeting referred to a certain speech of his own, in which he said something about the common forms which have been so reduced in number that only five remain. I was looking up these common forms and I find, for instance, one of them, paragraph (b), says: "The King is an integral part of each Parliament, which consists of the King and two Houses." I do not know where Senator Douglas gets the idea that that is common form. Is it suggested that if the South African Parliament decided to have only one House that it could not enact such a change in its Constitution without reference to the other members of the Commonwealth? I think the Senator is quite wrong in his suggestion that there is an obligation of consent to a conference and that Parliament before legislating on matters concerning this Parliament must have the consent, or, at least, must confer beforehand with the remaining members of the Commonwealth. And if I am right in that criticism, I say I am entirely right in paragraph (d), which includes this Oath as a matter of common form. I say it is not common form. The very thing we are dealing with is not common. The very words of the Oath are different and, therefore, are not common form. It is very easily seen. So when a Senator laid so much stress on common form, I think he is imagining what he would like to be common form, and therefore asserts that it is common form. I come back to the objection which I raised against this amendment moved by Senator Milroy. Not only is it running in the teeth of the whole conception of the status and constitutional position of this State, but I would put it to the House, and to those who think of the status of the Seanad, that its effect is to belittle the status of the Seanad, because once an agreement has been entered into it must be ratified and approved by a resolution of Dáil Eireann. I do not know whether the Senator thinks that that would be sufficient, and that it would not be necessary to have it ratified by the Seanad. That, of course, is a small matter, but it does indicate, perhaps, the little obliquity of view of the Senator in drafting this resolution. To come to a more important matter. I think it would be very wrong of the Seanad to suggest that legislation passed by the Oireachtas, legislation concerning this State only, should be dependent on a later decision and agreement by the British Government: if that agreement is withheld, then the legislative effect is completely nullified. It is practically making this State subordinate, and I am surprised indeed that Senator Milroy, of all people, should make such a proposal.

As I have no doubt whatever that the objective of this Bill constitutes a very definite breach of the Treaty, I desire to support the amendment. I do not wish to weary the House but I think I will have to go over a little of the ground again. The Treaty was unquestionably a partnership agreement solemnly entered into between Great Britain and the Irish Free State and that one of the contracting parties should now attempt without any negotiation to annul what is a vital condition of the instrument—

What about Article 12?

Article 12?

That was annulled by negotiation and agreement.

Oh, no, no!

It was a British interpretation.

Yes, a packed tribunal.

This attempt to annul what is a vital condition of the instrument is in my opinion a very serious breach of international usage and of international courtesy. It has been argued that the Oath is a purely domestic issue and that it has nothing to say to the essentials of the Treaty, and that it has been put there for the purposes of what I might call window dressing. Now, if language means anything, how can such an argument be sustained? The Oath is the keynote of the Treaty. Allegiance to the Crown is the keynote of the Statute of Westminster and in its recognition of allegiance to the King Emperor it is the link that binds, that holds together the entire Commonwealth of the British Empire. Break that link, sever that connection and where are you, and what are the consequences? These consequences are of a very serious nature. In relation to England and the other Dominions we become a foreign country and our nationals become aliens with no more rights nor status than a Chinaman or a Frenchman on a visit to England or one of the Dominions. Just think for a moment what that entails. Our sons and our daughters would be excluded from all service under the Crown, both in England and abroad. Irish labour will become foreign labour and as such ineligible for employment and where the Irishman now happens to have work the unemployed native labourer will see to it that the home-grown and not the foreign Irish labour is to get what employment is available. That is inevitable in the present state of unemployment throughout the world.

There is another aspect of this proposal that requires consideration. When we have cut the painter and drifted off from England and the British Empire, what will become of all the financial advantages we now enjoy as a partner in the Commonwealth? As pointed out the other day by Senator Lady Desart, any resident here who receives income from British securities will have the pleasure of paying double income tax. The privilege that we have hitherto enjoyed in this connection is no trifling matter. It has been estimated that the gain to Ireland under existing arrangements is little less than £500,000 a year, and all that will disappear. And again by severing the connection with England we at once open up a vista of no preference in relation to tariffs and duties on goods exported from Ireland. Where would our cattle trade be should England see fit to put a duty of 20/- a head on all animals from the Free State shipped to her ports? It would smash the cattle trade of the country. Butter, eggs, bacon and other agricultural products would suffer. In fact, our entire export trade would be entirely ruined. With all these facts before us, ought we not to pause and, as proposed in this amendment, ought we not to try before it is too late by friendly negotiation with our co-partner to come to some reasonable understanding regarding the matter in dispute? The President has said more than once—and at the last meeting of the House, too—and said it very emphatically, that he desires to preserve most friendly relationship with all our neighbours. Are we wise to shut and bolt the door against a friendly exchange of views on this most vital subject? For these reasons I hope and trust that the members of this House will accept the amendment and pass it.

The speeches made on this amendment have more than ever convinced me on what I felt all the time, that the Government have made a mistake in pressing that we should continue with this Bill. The speeches on this amendment have convinced me more than ever that the Government made a mistake in pressing that we should continue with this Bill to-day. As the President, however, stated, we must ignore certain conversations and negotiations which have taken place and are about to take place, and must assume that things are as they were. Perhaps, from the point of view of the Government, that is not an unnatural position to take. We often have such conversations, and both sides say that the position is exactly as before, but in many cases, nevertheless, we find that a very satisfactory agreement is arrived at. There is nothing that I would like better to see in this country than the negotiations that are taking place, and to know that an agreement would be reached which would put an end to the bad feeling which has been engendered on the other side, and I would be very sorry indeed that anything done by this House, or anything said here, should make it more difficult either for this Government or the British Government in these negotiations. For that reason I think it would have been much better if we could have postponed the discussion on this particular amendment until some time later. So far as this amendment is concerned, I suppose the only thing I can do is to take the President's advice and assume that things are as they were. In that case, the amendment represents very largely a suggestion made by me in the speech I made on the Second Stage. But the speech made by Senator Johnson, and the necessity more or less of answering it, makes me more than ever convinced that it is a pity we should discuss it now. I would like to point out emphatically, however, that this amendment does not in effect mean that the British Parliament has or can have a veto. The most it can possibly mean, and that it is intended to mean, is that the people of this country can have a veto.

Senator Connolly and the President, and I think some other Senators, made certain remarks which some, I think rather foolishly, interpreted as threats. It is no threat whatever to say to the members of this House that the decision of the people is the one which has got to prevail. No man is fit to be a Senator here if he disputes that, and if it is the wish of the people ultimately that there should be no Second House, after the matter has been discussed on its merits, it is not for any one of us here to dispute that decision, and I for one do not want to dispute it. Equally, I say that if it should happen that after a time there is no agreement as a result of these conversations, then, if the people are consulted and they wish to go on with this Bill without agreement, knowing that it may weaken our position in the Commonwealth or may even mean that we are outside the Commonwealth— then I say they have a right to do so, and no British Parliament has a right to veto it. That is the only view we can take. The fundamental difference between Senator Johnson and myself is that I believe, in view of the pledges given in the last election, that if this can be done the Government have every right to go ahead with their own pledges. If it cannot be done, they should consult the people again. That is all that I believe is intended by this amendment. Possibly the amendment can be improved, or possibly as time goes on some more adequate amendment may be suggested, but at the same time I think that as the Government feel it wise to go on with the Bill the only thing we can assume is that we are just where we were a fortnight ago—though in our heart of hearts we believe we are much further, and that after a frank discussion we may be able to get over not only this difficulty, but other difficulties that may arise. I see Senator Connolly looking at me, but I am assuming that the position which is causing a certain amount of difficulty and bad feeling has been negotiated. and I hope and believe that it will lead to a very satisfactory conclusion.

Senator Johnson drew attention to the wording of my speech on the Second Stage of the Bill, in which I referred to five forms of membership in the Commonwealth which are at present common, one of which was: "The King is an integral part of each Parliament, which consists of the King and two Houses." I then went on to say, "How far any or all of the first four of these common forms are essential is a very proper matter for discussion, if any Government chooses to raise the issue." What I meant was that so far as my own personal view is concerned I do not hold that any single one of the common forms is essential except the willingness to negotiate, and I believe it is perfectly proper for any Government to discuss any one of these forms though we know perfectly well that some of the other States place very considerable importance on them.

Senator Johnson referred to the status of this House and he said that this amendment only suggested that the decision should be ratified by the Dáil. I do not place very much importance on that, and if he chooses to make an amendment coupling this House I certainly will vote with him on the amendment. If there was a specific agreement in writing which required ratification it would come before this House, but once it had passed the Dáil, it would come into operation. There is no need to wait. So far as I am concerned it is the right position for this House to take. We would be glad to see the removal of the Oath by negotiation. If that cannot be done, there is a definite obligation to consult the people, and if the people after consultation decide to go ahead with it I have no doubt of their right to do so.

I do not propose to go into any great detail in stating my position on this amendment proposed by Senator Milroy. The speeches here to-day and on the last stage of this Bill have been rather intriguing. We have heard all sorts of points of view expressed by Senators in opposition to the whole idea of the Bill. One thing clearly emerges and that is that, whether by direct argument, or whether by sophistical reasoning, or whether by any other means that occurred to Senators, there is in this House a definite determination by a certain group that they will thwart the will of the Irish people and that they are as opposed to the complete freedom and independence of this country as ever they were, and that all the gestures and all the overtures and all the good grace that have been shown to them during the past ten years have been utterly and completely wasted.

We are lectured on honour, and we are lectured on dignity, and one can hear without much surprise such lectures from Senator Jameson, Senator Vincent and so on. Senator Vincent, in the last stage of the Bill, gave us a little homily on the dignity of this Seanad and the dignity of the State. I feel just as sensitive as Senator Vincent as to the dignity of any Irishman whether he is a Senator or a labouring man or anything else, and dignity is not a matter of gestures. Dignity is a matter of truth and honour and believing in what you do. I claim that the dignity of this House, the dignity of the Dáil, and the dignity of the country, have consistently been dragged in the mire by this very conscience test that has been imposed through representatives of the people being forced to take that Oath before they would be allowed to enter the legislative assemblies of the country.

There is one other factor that clearly emerges out of this debate, and that is, that in this critical stage of our country's history we find in what is supposed to be a national assembly the influence, in so far as it is available, thrown not on the side of the country but on the side of those with whom the country might be supposed to negotiate. We know that the main force behind all the propaganda that was used on the other side sprang from here—from those who opposed us in the Dáil and particularly from those people of influence who sit in this Chamber without any direction from the Irish people.

Senator Crosbie gave us certain mixed metaphors—a composition of daisies and hard business grit. We all know that this exaggerated idea of the hard-headed business man is an exploded myth, the business man who thinks that primroses grow in the middle of fields, whereas they grow on the sides of the ditches. I would remind Senator Crosbie that he least of all has any authority to stand up and speak for the Irish people in this House. The humiliating thing about it is that here we are in an Assembly——

On a point of order. Might I ask is this relevant to the motion before the House?

Cathaoirleach

Oh, I think, yes, Senator—quite relevant.

Senator Milroy is very anxious to do nothing to delay the House to-day. He is also very vitally concerned lest any word he might use might upset the delicate negotiations or conversations that are proceeding. Well, I feel that he may rest easy in his mind on that account. I do not think that Senator Milroy— whatever opinion he may express here to-day—will influence matters one way or the other in the conversations that will take place. What I want to bring home here, and it is my only object in standing up to speak to-day, is the fact that in this House we have 30 to 31 people who are lined up definitely, as no doubt many of their antecedents were lined up, against the country and for the Union, because when it is all boiled down that is what it amounts to.

Senators

It does not.

I have sat patiently through a good many hours of debate on this very vital measure and I think it will be conceded to me that I showed the utmost patience in listening to all sorts and conditions of speeches. I think I should be heard with similar patience. The one effective method of protest that can be made is the protest of the Division Lobby, where the names of those who voted will be handed down for generations of the Irish people to see.

We stand where Irish heroes stood in the past.

These people naturally resent the suggestion that they are going to be handed down to history as against the Irish people, and, quite naturally, because those who stood against the Irish people in the past are anathema and a curse in the minds of the Irish people to-day, and the same will happen to their successors, if they have any, a hundred years hence. It is a regrettable and a sad feature to find that people who should know better are sinning, in my judgment, against the light and against their consciences. They say: "Consult Britain. Why not?" It is not for me to say, to-day, on what basis conversations are taking place, but it is for me to point out, to-day, that this matter we are discussing is a purely domestic matter, and will be so treated in spite of any negotiations or conversations that may go on. We have had a barrage recently of anti-Irish sentiment in this country. We were told that this Bill would impede Irish freedom. That was the threat. But because that threat did not work, employers and the Press threatened; a variety of financial institutions threatened withdrawal; financial pressure was applied. Unemployment was threatened and everything which could be thrown in was thrown in, for no other purpose than to get this pro-Irish Executive and Government out of power. I want to say, here and now, that it was only when a recreant and a slave spirit was shown by the late Executive that they assimilated to themselves the support of this gang that controlled it in the past; but this country is going to go on in spite of the people who would stand against it.

Many members of this Seanad owe it to the position of the early nominations that they meet here to-day. I venture to suggest, that not one of them would be returned, in any straight fight in the country taking place upon the ordinary register to-day. They would not be even numbered amongst the first hundred if it was a straight fight for election of Senators, and well they know it. One Senator—I forget who it was—said there was not one person kept out of public life because of the conscience test. I say the Senator who made that statement has stated what is not accurate. I say he does not know what he is talking about, and that he does not know anything of the situation in this country, or what the situation has been in the last ten years. I say that many worthy representatives of our people, men who worked intelligently, cleverly and unselfishly for the good of this country, have been kept out of public life, and are being kept out of public life, because of this conscience test. Senators may not like these people's political principles, their national spirit and their national outlook, but we must realise that these people do count in the country, and whether they count or not, it is not our function to have tests to debar any person from coming into this legislature, or going into the Dáil who may want to come in.

I am opposed to this amendment because I realise it is purely a domestic question and that the amendment is an endeavour to hold up this measure in the hope that by some chance or some event taking place, this Oath Bill may never come into operation. It is the policy of the original pro-Treaty Party, who are determined by every means in their power to defeat our Party. In the hope of defeating our Party they will risk, at irreparable. injury to the country, an alliance between them and the group that always despised this country in the past. It is not a new alliance. It has been going on for years. It is an alliance standing four-square against the national aspirations of the people by those who are parties to this amendment. Perchance the Seanad may hold up this Bill for eighteen months, and then the present Executive may be out of office. That is the hope that is at the back of it. If so, what then? Does the group opposite think they have control of this country? Do they think that they have the will of the people behind them? We, by this legislative measure, are trying to find an appropriate solution, and we are denied the opportunity. That is why I resist the amendment and stake our future on this Bill.

I think, without exception, this is the most reactionary amendment that was ever proposed in this House. I wish to direct Senator Douglas's attention to the phrasing of this amendment. I do not think he read it very carefully. He usually does read things carefully and delivers himself with a good deal of exactness. When he spoke, as it were, in favour of this amendment, I understood his speech to deal with the question of negotiation, What does Senator Milroy's amendment say? It does not say this Act shall not come into force until negotiations have been entered into. It says this Act shall not come into force until agreement is come to. If ever an amendment conceded the right of veto to a measure in this House, the principle of which stands accepted, the words of this amendment are plain and unmistakable as making for veto. Senator Milroy gives his allegiance to ex-Ministers and their Party, but his allegiance has been rather an intermittent one. That Party is never done stressing the question of co-equality of status when there is in the air legislation on everything internal and domestic in this country. But here we have Senator Milroy in his amendment to this Bill, the principle of which has been accepted by a majority in this country, declaring it shall not come into force until agreement, is reached with Great Britain. Strange as it may be, I assert that if Senator Douglas is consistent he will vote against the amendment. The tone and tenor of his speech practically said so, if he did not mistake agreement for negotiation. He admits that the Oireachtas of this country has power to remove the Oath. That is admitted.

It is not disputed that this was one of the few major issues at the last election. Senator Douglas tells us that he would be in favour of the removal of the Oath if it was referred again to the people. Why refer it again to the people when they were consulted within the last six months and gave a very clear indication of their wishes? If proportional representation was not the electoral system in this country, the majority would have been infinitely larger, but proportional representation, which I hope will be retained, being in force, has within the last six months given authority to the Executive for this measure. Indeed, for years before the election was thought about, this was a major issue. That is well known. Anyone who knows the country has no doubt about that. A great many people of strong national feelings are precluded from coming into this House, though they would be elected, because of some objection to taking this Oath, and this House, after the elected House has given its majority, now stands in the way, cuts the Bill to ribbons, and, to make confusion worse confounded, presents this amendment, which means an absolute veto on legislation for Senators here.

Even if this was against some legal pretext in the Treaty, it does not affect any one man, woman or child in Britain. It affects only ourselves, and, people well disposed in Britain, knowing that the retention of the Oath is a cause of trouble here, would readily assent to the removal of the Oath even if there was a legal barrier against it. I shall regard the vote upon this amendment as a definite indication whether those who are members of this House deem themselves co-equal with Britain or not. The division list will show that.

I wish to say I agree absolutely with the interpretation Senator Johnson puts upon the amendment. I would go further, and I would say that Senator Milroy through his amendment hands the winning trump card to the other side if negotiations were taking place upon this particular question, because the amendment assumes that Article 4 of the Treaty is mandatory. Our position, through the course of the debate, has been that the questions involved in the Bill are wholly domestic. We hold by that position. No speaker opposed to the Bill has put forward any argument to the contrary. As far as I can see, the opposition to the Bill at the moment is this: On Second Reading the House accepted the general principle of the Bill.

Senators

No, no!

In the Committee Stage, Section 1 of the Bill was passed. That was a definite expression of opinion on the part of the Seanad, in my opinion, that they are not opposed to the removal of the Oath from the Constitution. The two sections which were opposed and divided upon on the Committee Stage were defeated, because those who voted against them were of opinion that the taking out of the Oath from the Constitution was a violation of the Treaty. Otherwise there is no excuse, in my opinion, for their voting against Sections 2 and 3. But having accepted the principle in general, having accepted it in a particular form in Section I of the Bill, Senator Milroy wishes in his amendment to tie up the decision, not merely of this House, but of the two Houses, and not merely of the two Houses but the express will of the Irish people. I remember, on one occasion, when some member of our Party questioned the ex-Minister for External Affairs, regarding co-equality of status claims, a very curt and prompt reply came from the Minister, that the person who asked that question was suffering from an inferiority complex.

There never has been such evidence of an inferiority complex in this House as is revealed by this amendment, and I ask Senators really to think of the consequences of the amendment. As Senator Johnson has said, and as Senator Dowdall has said, it provides that the British Government, through its representatives, in any negotiations that might take place, would have a veto on the declared will of the Irish people, and on the declared intention of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

This amendment is so scandalous, in my opinion, that it should not arise on a very grave constitutional question. From what Senators have said, I presume that they are afraid that if this Bill were passed it would put us out of the Commonwealth. I say that no action the Government could possibly take could have gone so far to put us out of the Commonwealth as the action Senators propose to take now. The same people opposed the Home Rule Bill for years and years and eventually overthrew it. When they overthrew it what did they get? They got the Treaty, which was a great deal stronger than the Home Rule Bill. That is what is very likely to happen now. If they stand in the way this country will be enraged, and may be put out of the Commonwealth, for all we know. The present amendment will go further in putting us out of the Commonwealth than any other step we could possibly take.

I want to be very careful in the few remarks I have to make. I do not want to transgress that high standard of good manners which Senator Connolly prescribes for his critics but which is conspicuously absent, to a great extent, from his own utterances, and from the relations that should prevail between the two countries. Senator Connolly is not here now but he will be able to read my remarks in the Official Report. A propos of nothing in particular, he let loose a tirade of abuse of a certain section in this House, and a certain section in the country. If he and his friends are preparing a kind of cry for the General Election that this Bill is going to be held up by this section, I wish to let him know that this amendment is moved by one who has as good a record in national life as Senator Connolly or any member of his Party. I am sponsoring this amendment not in the interest of any pro-British section, but in the interest of a continuance of peace and good will between the two nations. It seems to be forgotten that the fundamental idea underlying the Commonwealth of Nations is that it is the duty of those equal nations not to take any step which affects the others without in the first place having friendly consultation. If the consultation fails to bring agreement, then each party can break off and take its own course.

That is not what the amendment says.

Let me finish my remarks in my own way. There is no dictation, and can be no dictation between the Irish Free State and Britain so long as the Irish Free State is at liberty to leave the Commonwealth of Nations if it so desires. This amendment is intended to give the country an opportunity of weighing up all the implications contained in this Bill.

Which country?

This country. The Senator should understand that from the phrase I used. If this amendment is passed, I want to know in what way it is going to bring "irreparable damage to the country," to use the words of Senator Connolly. Members of the House know that this Bill, before it was amended to-day—indeed, almost as it stands—was brought before the Oircachtas on false pretences. Whatever mandate there was to delete the Oath—and I have repeatedly questioned that—there was no mandate sought or given for the provisions embodied in the section we have deleted. Something that resembles—if it is not offensive to say so—the three-card trick was carried out to impose this provision on the people without their consent.

Senator Johnson objects to the Seanad not being included in this amendment. I have no objection to widening the scope of the proposal so as to include the Seanad, if it be thought desirable. But Senator Connolly has spoken to-day with great emphasis on the non-representative character of this Assembly. It is the recognition of the fact that the Dáil is more directly representative than the Seanad that is responsible for the phrasing of the amendment in this particular way. If it is the desire of the House it can be amended, but I do not think that, so far as the opponents of this Bill are concerned, it really makes any great difference. If agreement is reached between the two Governments on this matter, then there will have been overcome difficulties that stand in the way at the moment.

Time and time again we have had members of this House speaking on this Bill and making contradictory statements. On the initiation of the discussion on the Bill in this House, the President spoke of this as an international matter. Senator Connolly says it is a purely domestic question. As I said on the Second Reading, it cannot be a purely domestic question and an international matter at the same time. We are taunted with having put forward no arguments to prove our contentions. Will any responsible spokesman on the other side demonstrate to me how this can be a purely domestic question and an international matter at the same time?

That is exactly what the British say—that it can be both at the same time. First, they said that the Treaty was a domestic question and they would not allow it to be regarded as an international question. When they got into trouble over that, they went back on it.

If that was the British attitude, that the Treaty was not a Treaty, they were simply following the example of Senator Colonel Moore's leader at the present time, whose whole attitude is based on the assumption that it was not a Treaty. If the British were reprehensible in that way, they were only following the headline set by President De Valera. Senator O'Doherty said the Second Reading of this Bill meant that we had approved of the principle. If the Senator were dealing with procedure in the Dáil, that might be right. As everybody knows, the Standing Orders prescribe certain procedure here which makes the Second Reading merely the same as the First Reading in the other Chamber.

On a point of procedure, I ask the Senator to quote Standing Order 77 of this House, which states specifically that "the discussion on the Second Reading shall be confined to the general principle of the Bill." If you say "yea" to that, surely you are approving of the general principle?

Whether the view expressed in Senator Johnson's interjection, or my contention, is right, is not very material at the moment. The point is whether the amendment that stands in my name is the one that should be inserted in the Bill. The only reason offered why it should not be inserted was the reason offered by Senator Johnson. Senator Connolly made no attempt to come to grips with the amendment. Senator Dowdall described this amendment as "reactionary." In what respect, he failed to indicate. Senator O'Doherty indulged in comments which would hardly come into the domain of reasoned arguments. The one objection which, if it were sustainable, would deserve most consideration, was that made by Senator Johnson. Again, let me point out that there is nothing derogatory to our status and nothing which puts a veto on our legislation in the hands of the British in this proposal. It is simply a question that this Bill raises a matter which affects the relations between the two States and that it is in the interests of a continuance of good will between these two States and of preserving our economic interests that reasoned discussion between the two Governments should take place. As I said before, if consultation fails to bring agreement, there is nothing to prevent each party going its own way. If, after ascertaining definitely what the other point of view is, and realising all the consequences that may flow from a break with England, the Irish people deliberately decide to proceed with this Bill, the passing of this amendment will not prevent them from marching to whatever destiny they decide upon. This amendment, if embodied in the Bill, will give a breathing space to the people of this country. It will give a breathing space to those responsible for the government of the State and for the direction of its fortunes at the present time. It will give the people of England an opportunity, through their elected representatives, to consider what is the best way out of this difficulty. Above all, it will prevent the precipitating of a situation in this country which may have very disastrous reactions. I think that the averting of these things is worth taking some steps to secure. I do not see how any man of peace and goodwill, which we heard so much about to-day, can urge any sustainable objection to this amendment, providing that before this Bill becomes operative there shall be agreement between the two countries. The object of this Bill is to secure negotiations. The object of this Bill is to compel the Executive authority in this State to resort to negotiations.

To bow the knee.

To bow the knee to the will of the Irish people. I make no bones about it. The object of this Bill is to compel the Executive Council of this State to enter into negotiations with the other party to this Treaty. I think the Executive Council will only be doing their duty if upon the passing of this amendment, which I hope will not only be agreed to in this House but will be accepted by the majority in the Dáil; I repeat they will only be doing their duty if they include in their present, discussions with the British representatives the particular matter raised in this House. I do not regard this as a Party matter. I am not here speaking on this Bill as a partisan. I am speaking as a citizen of this State with a responsible conception of the duties attached to the office of Senator, and I think it is almost criminal at this stage to raise those partisan issues that were raised in such a brutal and bitter fashion by Senator Connolly in the course of his remarks. Is there any good purpose to be served by stirring up and reviving old hatreds or stirring up the embers of expiring feuds? I cannot see it. When I hear a man speaking as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs spoke to-day, paying a tribute to himself and his Party as being the only Irish section of the community, I say God help Ireland from that kind of national outlook. It was the utterance of a bitter, political bigot, and I am sorry he is not here listening to me. This is not an occasion for that kind of spirit. This is an occasion when men ought to be trying to find a plane upon which the different sections can be united. I believe that good results may issue from this perplexing situation, and that the adoption of this amendment will give us time to see clearly all the implications of the Bill. To give the country a breathing space and the people a chance to understand what they have taken on, if they go ahead with this Bill, is the reason that I move this amendment. I do not think there is any point to be gained by dwelling at any great length on the matter. With regard to the objection to this measure put forward by Senator Johnson, I do not think it can be viewed in the light of a sustainable argument. I have answered that by pointing out that the fundamental basis of the Commonwealth, the relations between the different members of the Commonwealth, is the understanding that when one of the co-equal nations takes a step affecting the interests of the other States, there will be consultation between the parties concerned. That is the only kind of veto that exists, and personally I cannot see how an arrangement of that kind can be other than fruitful of good, not only for the immediate peace of the State but the continued good relations between the two countries. For that reason I move the amendment.

Senator Milroy has taken up a good deal of time and it appeared to me that he was trying to explain away something. He has repeatedly said that the object of his amendment was to delay time in order that the Government of this State and the British Government should negotiate. His amendment does not say that. His amendment is clear and distinct, and Senator Milroy is too well up not to understand the purport of his amendment. His amendment does not mean that he will hold up and delay matters until negotiations take place. His amendment says in the most definite way that this Bill shall not go into operation until agreement shall be reached. How does he propose that agreement is to be reached, for the British Government must, in the first place, say we must agree to this before it goes into operation? He tried in three-quarters of an hour to explain that away, but that is not what the amendment says; it says quite a different thing. In view of what happened——

On a point of explanation, would the Senator explain how we can have agreement without negotiation?

You can have negotiations without agreement, and Senator Milroy said that if the Government of this State entered into negotiations with the British Government, and if they failed, the people would support the Government in removing the Oath.

I did not say anything of the kind. What I said was that if the negotiations did not bring agreement, then both parties would break up and go their own course.

He talked about being anxious for negotiations, but how are we to start the negotiations? The policy to me would seem to be "dogs tied and stones loose." That is the policy we are going to have. We are sending the representatives of this State that the people will stand behind.

Was that the position yesterday?

That is the position. I find people terribly anxious to interrupt me now, whereas during their speeches I sat patiently listening.

Cathaoirleach

I will not allow any further interruptions.

It is an extraordinary thing that there is nothing annoys some people more than to hear the truth spoken. Some people get that way when they hear the truth. We talk about negotiations, and when this Bill was introduced first there was a good deal of expression of opinion that there should be negotiations on the matter before it was dealt with. There is something to be said for that point of view. There is no necessity to talk about negotiations when you have decided to stand four-square against the people with whom you have entered into negotiation. If this amendment is passed Senator Milroy said he had no objection to the Oath being removed. The only section of this Bill that has been passed is for the removal of the Oath. The other two sections have been defeated in this House and Senator Milroy still insists on moving this amendment of his. It is not an amendment holding up the Bill until the Governments will enter into negotiations but it is an amendment which states that the Bill shall not come into force until an agreement has been entered into between the Government of the Irish Free State and the British Government. It appears to me that we are doing a bad day's work: we are working for negotiations and we are sending people into the negotiations with their hands tied behind their backs. We are to come to an agreement. But the other people say: "Do not come to an agreement because we will never allow it to be put into operation." That is what this amendment says. There is no mistake about it.

Senator Guinness, in dealing with this matter, referred to the benefits that accrue to the people of this country as the result of good relations with other peoples, and he spoke about one particular point—the question of double income tax. As one who is not affected very much by income tax single or double, I want to say this: that if there is very much more of this financial juggling that we had last year, they will not have much bother in the future about double income tax.

This question ought to be considered fairly and squarely. Everybody appears to be in agreement that the Oath should be removed. There is no doubt about what the will of the people is in that matter—none in the world. The people of this country have made up their minds that the Oath should be removed, and I tell this Chamber here to-day that this amendment is an endeavour to thwart the will of the people. I think that is quite clear, and I may say this: that the Seanad to-day has committed the first operation of its suicide. By its action to-day I am afraid that the Seanad has given an indication to the people of this country that it is of no further service to the State, that it does not speak for the people of this country; and if it does not speak for the people of this country, the people have a right to take any action that may be necessary to put an end to it. I am sorry to say that, but I think it is true; and I think that the Seanad has gone a long way by its action to-day towards being responsible for its own abolition.

I did not intend to say anything in respect of this measure at this stage, but I feel impelled to pass a few-remarks by reason of the speeches that have been delivered. In the first instance, I do not think that this is an occasion on which we ought to indulge in any lengthy speech-making. I do not think that any useful purpose is being served by it, and I do not think that at the present time speech-making is in the best of taste. Senator Johnson raised the point that we are asking the British Government to veto an Act of this Oireachtas. We are doing no such thing.

You give them the opportunity.

We are doing no such thing. We are dealing with our legislation in our own way. The majority of the members of this House are opposed to this Bill. I understood Senator Johnson to say that the majority of this House are in favour of this Bill. The majority of this House are opposed to this Bill. We believe that this measure affects the Articles of Agreement between Great Britain and ourselves, the two high contracting parties. We believe that it breaks the Treaty, and we think that the Treaty should not be altered or modified except with the consent, and agreement, of the two high contracting parties. And if the Treaty is to be altered or modified in any way, it is logical that if this measure is to receive any sanction whatsoever it shall only come into force, if the majority of this House are against it, when there is an agreement between the two high contracting parties. That is logical. Senator Johnson seems to think that the majority of the Senators are of his opinion—that the Treaty is not affected, that it is a domestic matter. We hold a different opinion and we are going to express it. Senator O'Doherty said that we were doing a bad day's work, that we were handing a trump card to the other side, in opposing this Bill which is before us in its Committee Stage, that we were handing a trump card to the other side, because there happen to be negotiations of some kind or another proceeding. Why did the Government here to-day, through its President, express the opinion that we should proceed with this measure? Why did not the President, or the Minister, or some representative of the Government say that they wanted this measure adjourned, so as not to give us any opportunity of handing any trump card to the other side? We are not wanting to obstruct in any way. We have tried to be as fair as possible. For myself I have refrained from passing any comment until driven to it by the comments which have been made. There is no handing of any trump card of any kind to the other side.

We were treated to one speech here which I deplore—a speech by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. It was one of the most embittered that I ever heard in this House. It was a speech absolutely full of vile and venom and could serve no good purpose whatsoever. This Bill has been introduced into the Oireachtas, we are told, in order to bring about willing obedience to the law, and to establish peace and goodwill amongst Irishmen. The intention of those who have piloted this Bill through this Chamber seems to be to break through all peace and goodwill when they deliver themselves of such utterances as we have heard here to-day. These statements are not made in the interests of peace and goodwill, and they are very much to be deprecated in such a Chamber as this. Senator Connolly, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, referred to the gang, the gang who are behind this opposition. He said that the names of those who are behind this opposition in both Houses would be anathematised in the history of Ireland. I would ask any man in the Government Party to ask themselves whether the names of William T. Cosgrave, General MacEoin, General Mulcahy would be anathematised in the history of Ireland—the men who have played the-biggest part in bringing this State into existence, in developing our national culture, and our national ideals, and in bringing this State to the position, it now holds. We are told that our actions here to-day, that our speeches here to-day, that our opposition to the Bill are all a thwarting of the will of the Irish people. As regards the will of the Irish people, there are Deputies and Senators on the other side who have already conceded that there are two points of view in regard to this matter. No less a man than the Attorney-General has admitted that there are two points of view in connection with it. Then with regard to the will of the Irish people, I entirely disagree that this Bill, taken with due regard to its consequences and reactions, represents the will of the Irish people. It does not. If this Bill means our going outside, the British Commonwealth of Nations, and if the Government believe that the Irish people are prepared to accept this Bill, one of its consequences being our going outside the British Commonwealth of Nations, I personally, in my humble way, will challenge them to put that to the test any time they like. We were told, moreover, that this is a domestic matter. If this question of the Bill is still a domestic matter, it must not be the subject, of negotiations of any kind with England; and I want to ask solemnly in this Chamber to-day: What are the negotiations with the representatives of the British Parliament about?

About Ottawa.

Take the issues which are before the Irish people to-day in relation to affairs which concern the British and ourselves. There is, first, the question of the Oath; there is, secondly, the question of the annuities, speaking off-hand; there is, thirdly, I suppose, the question of our tariffs; and, fourthly, there is the question of the Imperial Conference, which arises out of them. And I put them in that order of their importance as affecting the people of this country. With regard to the Ottawa Conference, we are not told whether we are going there or whether we are not to go, or what arrangements we are making; and we have to get two representatives of the British Government over here to listen to what we have to tell them, and our President is going over on Friday to London to negotiate again as to the Ottawa Conference. The days of secret diplomacy are not yet over.

No, indeed.

They are not yet over. I am glad that is applauded. It comes well from the other side. As regards the days of secret diplomacy, I remember when those who are now on the Government Benches deprecated, at very considerable length, the methods employed by their predecessors in office. We know nothing at all about what is going on. This question of the Oath is a most important matter affecting our whole conditions in this country, and our future. If the Oath is not the subject of the negotiations, if the negotiations are about going to Ottawa merely, or it may be that they are about a tax on corrugated iron—if the negotiations are only about these things, why should we not be told about them? As regards the question of secret diplomacy, if it will serve the interests of this country, it is not to be deprecated; and those who resorted to this method in the past should not be attacked. If this question of the Oath is still a domestic question, what are all the negotiations about, and what is the meaning of all the hubbub? I hope somebody will take this House into his confidence and give us an answer. Senator Connolly referred to the methods adopted by the Opposition in opposing the Bill, and he talked about the wiles and guiles and all the rest of it. There is one method, at all events, which was not adopted by the Opposition, and that is the abusive method. I did not hear from those who spoke in opposition any coarse or violent references, such as references to renegade Irishmen. These terms were not used. I think on an occasion like this, considering that the purpose of this Bill is to produce peace and unity amongst Irishmen, that these terms are to be deprecated, and that they come very badly from those who use them.

The negotiations, so far as I know, which are going on between our Government and the Government of Great Britain are negotiations in connection with the Ottawa Conference, which is a conference of the entire British Commonwealth of Nations, whereas the Conference which is suggested in connection with this amendment would be a conference in relation to a bilateral Treaty which only affects two of the parties in the British Commonwealth of Nations; and the consultation in connection with the entire British Commonwealth of Nations would be regarded as rather a larger and more important matter than negotiations which would merely affect a bilateral agreement and not a multilateral agreement.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided, Tá 33; Níl, 22.

Tá.

  • Bagwell, John.
  • Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
  • Bellingham, Sir Edward.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Costello, Mrs.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Crosbie, George.
  • Desart, The Countess of.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Garahan, Hugh.
  • Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
  • Granard, The Earl of.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Guinness, Henry S.
  • Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
  • Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Kennedy, Cornelius.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
  • MacLoughlin, John.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • Moran, James.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, M. F.
  • O'Rourke, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
  • Staines, Michael.
  • Toal, Thomas.
  • Vincent, A. R.
  • Wilson, Richard.

Níl.

  • Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
  • Comyn, K.C., Michael.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Dillon, James.
  • Dowdall, J. C.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Johnson, 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.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Milroy and Wilson; Níl: Senators O'Doherty and Séumas Robinson.
Amendment declared carried.
New section ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for next Wednesday.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.65 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, June 15th.
Top
Share