I was saying, when we adjourned, that I approved of the Taoiseach's statement that "the very mark of a civilised State is that the guns are all under lock and key," and I put the question as to what the Government intended to do about that, and when it was, in effect, going to put the guns under lock and key, in order to merit, in the Taoiseach's own phrase, to be considered "a civilised state".
The Taoiseach, at column 1344, said: "We cannot afford any ambiguity of thought or attitude." I entirely agree, and I believe that we cannot afford either any ambiguity of action or inaction. I noted—I was present— that the Dáil debate was not a general debate. In my opinion, it ought to have been. I notice that no provision, and I know that that is in accordance with precedent, but still I mention the fact, is made for any similar statement to be made in the Seanad, and, accordingly, apart from my motion, there is no possibility of a debate at all here in the Seanad on the Taoiseach's statement. In my view, the matter is certainly one on which we cannot afford any ambiguity of thought or attitude. If we really want to avoid ambiguity of thought and attitude, let us have clear debate, in which all shades of opinion shall be clearly expressed.
I am afraid the attitude in this country and in the Oireachtas is based on the slogan: "Better say nothing." And apparently the attitude of the Government also is that it is better to listen to nothing either. I had not expected the Taoiseach to be present in person here this evening, but I had expected that at least some junior member of the Government would be prepared to come here to the Seanad, and to listen, if only to what one Senator has to say. Though I hope there will be others to follow me.
Why is this slogan so popular, that it is "better to say nothing"? What exactly are we afraid of? Are we afraid of discovering the fact that there are different opinions about this whole matter? I would suggest that, if such differences of opinions exist, then they should be made manifest in public parliamentary debate where Senators and Deputies may be taken as answerable for what they say. Too often, resort is had in this country of ours, I am afraid, to cowardly public silence. If, as the Taoiseach says, Senators and Deputies have a grave responsibility and duty to guide public opinion in these matters, then this responsibility and these duties are not best fulfilled by maintaining a cautious public silence.
I should like to say that I deplore the attitude which is symbolised by the atmosphere of hush-hush which surrounded the recent inquest in Monaghan. I am not indicting the authorities, but I think that the whole attitude in attempting to suppress the details of what took place, including the identity of the dead man, is wrong. It seems to me that, in fact, the corner's jury that night at the inquest, without evidence as to how the wounds were inflicted, could not have given the verdict it did, without in fact knowing how the wounds had been inflicted. In other words, it was made possible for them to tell a public lie, because, in private, they knew the truth. If they really had not known how this unfortunate man was shot, they could not have found such a verdict as they did. They would have had to adjourn the inquest in order to find out what had in fact happened.
There was also a burial in the middle of the night, and, no matter what way we look at it, it is an extraordinary thing to have taken place. If we are proud of him as a soldier of the Republic, why not give him a public funeral in daylight? If we differ from him in the view and the stand he took why should we allow silence to be our only answer in such an occurrence? Because I think, if we do that, such occurrences will recur.
I should now like to turn to another point in the Taoiseach's statement. He spoke of extradition, and I may say that I agree wholeheartedly with what he said on extradition. I think he put the case extremely well. He made the point, which should be obvious, that, in any extradition convention, there is always a clause which precludes the use of extradition for political offences. The Taoiseach quoted, I thought most tellingly, the opinion of Sir John Fischer Williams, the English delegate, explaining why it was that the British would not accept an extradition convention which included extradition for political offences. I thought the Taoiseach's case on extradition was most telling and absolutely sound, for the fact is, whatever way you like to look at it, that these happenings have as their basis politics. They are political offences and it is absurd to pretend that they are not. And so the Taoiseach was right.
I would say this, nevertheless, that there are, in my opinion, two implications in the Taoiseach's stated attitude towards extradition. The first of these is that it is the Government's duty to see that the Republic here is not used as a barracks and parade ground for self-chosen private armies. If the Government does its best to stop this, its attitude on extradition will be far more solidly based.
The second implication of the Government's attitude towards extradition is this, and I think it is worthy of mention, that if and when the problem here is finally being grappled, it must be recognised by our Government that these young men, however misguided they may be, are acting from political motives and consequently deserving, from those who are trying to prevent them from indulging in armed violence, of political treatment as political prisoners. I am afraid that that is a point which has frequently been missed by many Governments, once trouble starts at home. People who were in the past involved in similar happenings refuse to recognise that those who in the present are involved in similar happenings are in fact motivated by political concerns.
In explanation of the Government's reluctance up to now to take active steps in this matter, the Taoiseach said at columns 1348 and 1349 that they had in the past.
"based our policy in this matter on a detestation of repressive measures against any section of our people and on the hope that the previous statements by myself and other members of the Government, and, I am glad to say, by the Leader of the Opposition, would have the effect which we desired. Our detestation of repressive measures remains, but our hope of influencing the men concerned by reasoned statements has not been fulfilled."
I have, in all sincerity, every sympathy with the Government and with the Taoiseach in the present circumstances, and I would certainly share his detestation of repressive measures. But when it is his opinion that the time has come when reasoned arguments are not listened to, when the deaf ear is turned to them, and when things continue as if no reasoned argument had been put, then I am afraid measures of repression will have to be introduced by us to stop the bearing of arms, drilling and recruiting of private armies in this part of the country.
It is my belief that the Taoiseach, who is not in an easy position, is quite fundamentally and entirely a man of peace, but he now recognises that his appeals have failed. He recognises that in the statement that he made, and which I have just quoted, and I would ask him what, then, are the Government waiting for? Are they waiting for another act of armed violence? Are they waiting for an act of armed violence in this part of the country? I suggest that such a pause, such an interval, is merely an interval which allows those armed forces to grow stronger, and will render them more difficult to deal with, when eventually the Government decides to deal with them.
The Taoiseach also went into past history. He referred to the 1920 Act, which was, as the House knows, and Act of the British Government. I believe he was justified in going back, and that it would be absurd, as some English politicians try to do, to pretend that the present condition of Partition and the situation in the North and South has not been affected primarily and basically by the 1920 Act. I think, furthermore, that we, as public men and women, should be prepared to debate publicly our history and to go back, if need be, even further than 1920.
I believe, as I say, that the Taoiseach was justified in going back to the 1920 Act and in attributing a large share of blame to the then British Government; but I am afraid he was lacking in candour when, throughout his statement, he made no reference at all to the 1925 Agreement.
In December, 1925, the Government of this country made an agreement with Britain. The party of which the present Taoiseach is the Leader was the Government Party, or its then equivalent was. The 1925 Agreement contained the following first clause, and I quote:—
"...the extent of Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920 ... should be such as was fixed by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of that Act."
That meant of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. That was signed by William Cosgrave, Kevin O'Higgins and Ernest Blythe. It was subject to ratification, and it was due to come back here to be considered by the Dáil, and by the people of Ireland. Consequently, on the day on which it was signed in London, December 3rd, 1925, Mr. Cosgrave and Mr. O'Higgins sent a message by telegram to the people of Ireland, and they said, and I quote:—
"To-day we have sown the seeds of peace... An instrument which provides a sane and constructive solution, born of a genuine desire for peace between the two Nations has been signed. We bring back an instrument solemnly executed by friendship. This Agreement, accepted in the spirit in which it was negotiated and signed, provides a basis of a sure and lasting peace. We confindently recommend it to the Irish people."
I regard it as disingenuous on the Taoiseach's part to-day to go back to the 1920 Act, and to fail even to mention the 1925 Agreement, which amended it and confirmed certain of its provisions. The signatories said at that time that it was "solemnly executed by friendship". I feel entitled to ask: had that phrase in that context any meaning? And should we not, here, no matter what we think of that Agreement, recognise that this Agreement was in fact signed in London by an Irish Government in 1925?
At that same time, another leader, on December 6th, in Dublin, Mr. de Valera made a statement as follows:—
"To-day 48 elected members, representing over one-third of the people, are carefully excluded from voice or vote. Were they not excluded, were these Articles to be submitted to an Assembly of all representatives of the people, they would be rejected."
That was Mr. de Valera's statement, and he spoke on behalf of 48 members of the Dáil, Republicans, who refused to take their seats because of the oath to the King, in December, 1925. In his statement, he says that these people were "carefully excluded", by which he means that they were excluded by the retention of this oath of allegiance. They were excluded, in fact, I think it is fair to say, by the fact that Mr. de Valera and his followers had not yet noticed, or had failed to notice, that this oath, which would "carefully exclude" them, was, in fact, nothing more than an empty formula. So I would put a share of blame there, too, because I think that if it was worthwhile to take that oath "as an empty formula" and come into the Dáil 18 months later, in 1927, to avoid losing their seats, then it was worth while to take that oath and come into the Dáil earlier to avoid losing the Six Counties. The only effective opposition was offered at that time by the Labour Party. They called it "an unmitigated betrayal", and voted and acted against it constitutionally, but, on December 27th, that 1925 Agreement was ratified in Dáil Éireann by 71 votes to 20, and if the 48 votes of the Republicans had been in the Dáil, they would not, in fact, have constituted a majority.
Now, 18 months later, as I say, this careful "exclusion" of the Republican Deputies at that time was discovered to be only an illusion, and was circumvented by the taking of the oath. I mention, in passing, that my mother, in fact, broke with Mr. de Valera's Party on that issue, because she continued to regard an oath as a matter of some importance. These facts, however, do suggest this, that we have not the right to go back now to 1920 and to blame solely the British Government without, at least, mentioning the 1925 Agreement, even if we regret it now and would like to see it changed. I do not regard, personally, any agreement as being permanently sacrosanct and immutable, wholly incapable of revision. The fact is that in Ireland to-day the situation is bedevilled by the past of our political Parties. Each, in turn, has at one time or another advocated force and resorted to the use of force.
I should like to consider that question, because it is the fundamental one—the unlawful use of force as considered by the Taoiseach in his statement. I should like to quote now from an open letter to Thomas MacDonagh which was written in 1915 and printed by my father, Francis Sheehy Skeffington, the year before he was murdered by another military machine. What he said then——
