Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Apr 1922

Vol. S2 No. 5

THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT.

I see no place here on the Clar by which an opportunity would be given us to discuss the President's statement.

I suggest we discuss it now. I am prepared to have it discussed now.

Well, A Chinn Comhairle, I do not think that ever an Executive were so convicted out of their own mouths as the Executive of Dáil Éireann were convicted by the reports that have been read. The present position is due absolutely to the policy which the Executive, by a very small majority, has got the Dáil to accept-Anybody who understood at all the feelings of the people of this country might have known that an agreement such as that which was proposed could not be accepted by the people of this country with the feeling that it was going to bring peace or stable conditions to the country. At the time, I pointed that out clearly. Now, we have those reports there, throwing upon us the blame for conditions which have been brought about indirectly by their policy and directly by the methods by which they are trying to put that policy into effect. The President, in his statement, made here says:—"Dáil Éireann has been obstructed and flouted by a section of the Opposition."

I say that Dáil Éireann has been obstructed and flouted by the Ministers. At the last Session of Dáil Éireann, when, in order to maintain the authority of Dáil Éireann, I said that unless Ministers acting in any executive capacity here in Ireland accepted definitely that they would be responsible to this House, I for one, would not sit here. The President took the attitude of accepting responsibility on their behalf. But immediately that was accepted by the President, the Minister of Finance, said when asked a question "Certainly not." This is the Official Report I am quoting from. Mr. Griffith said——

"President Griffith", if you please.

I am reading from the document which has been furnished to me from the Official Report.

It is not the Official Report.

Then you are wrong in reading it to the House as the Official Report.

Well, if it is not the Official Report, it is no use to me.

A DEPUTY:

Mr. de Valera had no right to lead the House to think it was (cries of "Order").

I will have to ask members to refrain altogether from these interruptions.

I asked that the Official Report be furnished us here. I have at present a report. I understood I was reading from the Official Report. But here it is as it is in the paper, and we can have it corrected to-morrow if there is anything the matter with it. In this report we have:

"Mr. Griffith: What I said on the night I was elected President of this body remains—that I would maintain it until the election was called. There is no question whatever about that but if this body is going to be made the means of harrying those in the Provisional Government with little questions and little obstructions, I protest against this body being used for that purpose. Every Minister here is a Minister for Dáil Éireann. As a Minister for Dáil Éireann he is going to see that the Provisional Government works in harmony with Dáil Éireann.

"Mr. De Valera: Hear, hear.

"Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly: And responsible to Dáil Éireann.

"Mr. Collins: Certainly not."

Mr. O'Kelly protested against that answer but that answer was only in line with the answer we had received from the Minister of—I will have to specify him by name because I don't know in what capacity he is acting, the so-called Provisional Government or Dáil Éireann, Mr. Kevin O'Higgins. He also took up that attitude, and so did Deputy Hogan. Now these answers in that position were a definite repudiation of the authority of Dáil Éireann. They were a definite repudiation of the sovereign authority of this Assembly. That attitude was not taken up until recently. It is that attitude that has been responsible for the whole condition of the country from the start. I tried, as one member here, to maintain the authority of this Assembly over the whole question of administration, legislation and all the rest in the country. I maintain, therefore, that the primary flouting of the authority of Dáil Éireann, and the obstruction of Dáil Éireann, has been by the members of the present Executive of Dáil Éireann. It is said that efforts have been made to seduce the Army——

Hear, hear. So there have.

I have been watching that, and I say, from the evidence at my disposal, that the seduction of the Army of the Irish Republic has been by the members of the Executive——

A DEPUTY:

What Executive?

They have been seducing them from their position as soldiers of the Irish Republic and part of the Army—(Cries of "Name")—I repeat that. I am going to make my own speech. It is said here that British troops are evacuating our country. Are they giving up the principal ports?

Read Document No. 2.

I will make my speech. Are they evacuating the six counties—North-East Ulster? British troops are not, in the proper sense, evacuating the country; and by this Treaty you give them the right for ever to remain or come back if there is a question of war between England and a foreign State. It is said here, that the position in North-East Ulster has been aggravated by the action of the Opposition. I say it has been aggravated because of the Boundary Commission.

It is obviously the policy of that minority of Ireland, who are a majority in that area, or part of that area, to maintain those six counties by military force despite any decision that the Boundary Commission may arrive at. They are entrenching themselves in that policy. And the policy of the Ministry has been to perpetuate the cutting-off of these six counties—to make that perpetual. We were told here yesterday that "the Provisional Government came into existence as a consequence of the approval of the Treaty." The Provisional Government, as a Government, could not come into existence. It was not in the power of this assembly to ratify that Treaty, notwithstanding the words used by the President of this assembly, referring to the approval of this agreement as ratification. This Treaty is not ratified. It is not in the power of this assembly to ratify it, and therefore the Provisional Government, as a Government, could not come into existence as such. This assembly had no power to give away the Government of the country to any hands but its own. I refer to this assembly and not merely the Cabinet. For, again, it is not the procedure here at all to regard the Cabinet as the Government of the country. Every member here, whether on the Cabinet side or on the minority side, is a member of the Government of Ireland, and it is not in the power of any section to give away the rights of the minority, to give away the sovereign rights to any other body. Everything in these Articles of Agreement that would be consistent with the maintenance of the sovereign authority of this assembly could be done. But anything that would be inconsistent with that could not be done and is illegal. And every time the Provisional Government acts as a Government it is a usurpation.

I see here that they are to uphold and assert the right to a free expression of opinion and freedom of election. We have been fighting all the time for a free election, for free self-determination for the Irish people. But this is not a free choice. Read up the speeches that were made by members on the majority side. See in how many of these is the question of a threat of immediate war brought in as a basis for their decision. Therefore, it is not we who are interfering with the right of the Irish people to freedom of election, and freedom of the expression of their free will as to what form of Government they should have. It is the British Government, by force, that is doing it. And those who point to the action of their fellow countrymen, who are consistent now as in the past, and try to bring odium upon that action, try to turn their backs upon what deserves the term of odium—the British Government itself. It is these who are preventing freedom of election in the proper sense. Recently, the Labour Party issued a Manifesto in which they reminded the members of this assembly of their duty as a Government. There is a paragraph in that on which I cannot lay my hands now. I have referred to it in several speeches, but this unprejudiced Press took good care that the principal things I wanted to say would not be reported. I agree with that paragraph and practically with the whole of that Manifesto. I agree particularly with the paragraph which points out that every member in this assembly is responsible for the Government of this country and every member has a duty now to perform to the Government of this country, and every member who does his duty can conform to that and see that there will be a Government which will insure stable conditions, which will end this present position of a divided Army. That position has been brought about definitely by the action of the Executive. Since the last night on which this agreement was accepted by the majority here, I pointed out that the one thing was to see and to keep the Army intact. And, personally, as the outgoing President, I met the Divisional Officers of the Army, and I asked them to give to the new control the same loyalty that they had given to the old so long as the Army was preserved intact as the Army of the Republic. The national safety demanded that. But the Executive, anxious to present the country with another fait accompli, another Free State in existence, and all Free State Army in existence, and all the rest of it, quite forgot the fundamentals of this whole situation, the fundamentals which have for 750 years been the basis of this fight between Ireland and Great Britain: They proceeded at once—instead of looking ahead, seeing what the necessities of the present situation demanded—to build up this Free State Army, with the present result. Remember how the Army had been formed: how they had come first of all as a Volunteer force, how it was under their own Executive they had first entered the fight, how, when asked to take the oath of allegiance to Dáil Éireann, they insisted that the members of Dáil Éireann themselves, take the same oath of fealty to the Republic. If you remember that up to even as late as last September that independent Executive governing body of the Volunteers was in existence, you will understand the question better. All these realised that the time had come for them to see to it that they would not be seduced and that they would not have the Army of which they were part used for any purpose but for the purpose for which it was originally formed. And it is that which brought about the present situation. I say then, regarding the proposals of the Labour Party, that we are the government of the country, that the members of Dáil Éireann should take over the government of the country and arrange, as we arranged before, for proper co-operation and proper working in harmony with the Army Executive. And it can be done. We can do it and I hope that after the exhibition—I don't like to call it by a harder name than this—in the Dáil, the members of Dáil Éireann will take over the Government of this country, and not let it run into chaos.

Does anybody else desire to say anything about my statement?

I wish to deal principally with the statement of the President, that the position in North-East Ulster has been aggravated by the action of the Dáil, and the action of those who imposed the Belfast Boycott. I am very sorry that the President of Dáil Éireann, in order to make a little Party capital, should be ready to try to trade on the miseries to which our fellow-Catholics and our fellow Republicans in North-East Ulster are subjected. We cannot agree that the position in the North-East has been aggravated here in the Dáil, because the facts do not bear out that. The facts flatly contradict the President's statement. What are the facts? Generally, they are these: that, in order to make effective the English policy of partition in this country, the Government of Sir James Craig, acting with the connivance and co-operation of the English Government, has carried on what is practically a campaign of extermination against the Nationalists in the six counties. That campaign has been practically continuous now since July 1920, but at certain notable periods it has been intensified. For instance, immediately after the signing of the Treaty—when the Delegates of Dáil Éireann, who were returning to London on December 4th to break on this question of Partition, since the then Chairman of the Delegation flatly refused to break on the question of the Crown—there was for a moment, a lull in the murder campaign in Belfast. All that full continued during the time of the Dáil debates on this Treaty. But no sooner had the Chairman of the Delegation succeeded in getting the majority of the members of the Dáil to accept the principle of partition, than the murder campaign broke out. And it broke out with intensified fury. It continued from that until immediately before the Chairman of the Provisional Government met Sir James Craig in London. Then for a day or two it ceased, while negotiations were going on. And then no sooner had the Chairman of the Provisional Government signed that Pact with Sir James Craig, whereby it recognised the Ulster Government and recognised Partition as an accomplished fact in this country, then the persecution broke out again with intensified fury. And it continued in that way until the English Government, taking advantage of the situation which was created in Belfast by the massacre of the McMahon family on Friday 24th March, called to London its servants, the Provisional Government. And with them went the President of this Dáil. A further Pact was entered into. This time the President of the Dáil went one step further. Having accepted Partition himself, he now entered into a Pact whereby, under the plea that it was made in order to safeguard their interests, he could seduce the Republicans of North-East Ulster to partition from their anti-Partitionist view. They were to get them to betray the integrity of their country by getting them to join the Ulster Constabulary. That is a very significant fact.

If, when the war was raging here in this country, a member of this Dáil had urged that the people of Ireland, in order to protect themselves from the fury of the Black-and-Tans, should join the Black-and-Tans, what would have been his fate? The President of Dáil Éireann who was first elected to Parliament in order to protect his country against partition, now tries to get the Nationalists of North-East Ulster to make partition an accomplished fact. Again, the persecution, after this significant pact, breaks out in North-East Ulster. With what object? I say, in pursuance of the policy which the Chairman of the Provisional Government has agreed upon. Certain members of the English Parliament who could not come to this Dáil to take the oath of allegiance were prepared to go to England to take the oath of allegiance to the English King. They were now about to conclude a further pact whereby members who were elected to the Ulster Parliament in May of last year are about to enter the Ulster House of Commons. They have not done all that very willingly, and they have not done all that very wittingly, but they have been forced to do it as the inevitable consequence of the Treaty. And if the position in North-East Ulster is worse to-day than it was three months ago, it is not because of the opposition here in this Dáil, but it is because the members of the Provisional Government, and those who signed the Treaty, have been between the nutcrackers—between Craig in Belfast and Churchill and Lloyd George in London. Between both of them they are being forced now to make partition a reality in this country.

Now, I want to give a specific contradiction to the statement the President made. He stated that the intensification and the aggravation of attack upon the Nationalists in North-East Ulster were due to the attitude of the Opposition in this Dáil. What are the real facts of the situation? On March 18th 1922, nine days before the Volunteer Convention was held, there were six Nationalists murdered in Belfast and sixteen wounded. On March 23rd, four bombs were thrown and one Nationalist was shot. On Friday, March 24th, the McMahon family were murdered in Belfast. The Convention of the Volunteers was held on March 27th. How, then, can the President of the Dáil substantiate his statement, that the position in Belfast has been aggravated by the Opposition in this Dáil, and particularly by the re-imposition of the Boycott? How could there be any aggravation of the case, so serious had it been already? Remember this, that though the Volunteer Convention declared the Boycott, it was not until some days later that any steps were taken to re-impose the Boycott. Now we are told—at least it is insinuated—that the efforts of the President of the Dáil and the Chairman of the Provisional Government to save the Nationalists of the North, are being frustrated by the attitude of those who stand, as he did, for a united Ireland. We are told that all these Pacts that were made in order to save the Nationalists were rendered nugatory by our action. What are the most significant facts in connection with that? The Pact was signed on the 30th March. On the following Sunday, before anything was done in regard to the Boycott, seven more murders took place in Belfast. We know how Sir James Craig has kept every Pact he has made with the Chairman of the Provisional Government, and with President of Dáil Éireann, since the first one. I suppose the members of the Cabinet are considering now, since there is a lull in Belfast, that it is time to make another Pact, in order that the massacres may be again intensified.

I would like to call attention to one statement of the President, that when he was elected President he undertook to keep the Departments functioning. I remember, the day before the election, I myself asked him if he would undertake that no man who had sworn his oath to the Republic and was appointed Minister of Dáil Éireann would be appointed also to the body that was to subvert the Republic. He would not give that promise. At the time he was elected President of Dáil Éireann, he was obliged to declare that Dáil Éireann was the Government of the Irish Republic. He has not kept his promise to keep the Departments of Dáil Éireann functioning. He has declared that, only for the Opposition, the condition of the country would be peaceable. No member of this Assembly who stands true to the Republic has done one single act or said one single word inconsistent with the Government of the Republic, and, because of acts and words from the other side, I maintain that the report of the President is not correct. With regard to Belfast, I wish I had time to read for the House some of the statements made in 1914 and 1915 by President Griffith himself with regard to Mr. Redmond and his attitude towards Partition. The position in Belfast is the direct result of the Treaty. And the murder campaign there carried on is carried on by and with the direct consent of Lloyd George. It has happened according to plan, but a little too soon. All the murders were to take place if the Treaty had been accepted after the Republic had been turned down. When the Boundary Commission was set up, the murder campaign was to break out in Belfast, and that would enable Lloyd George and Company to say to the world "See what those Irishmen are doing; didn't I tell you it was a religious war?" All these things we have tried to fight. And one of the things we have tried to fight is that cry preached, that the war in Ireland is a religious war between North and South. It is not. After all the efforts that we have been making to destroy that campaign, President Griffith and Mr. Collins go to London, meet Craig and Churchill and there they make an agreement by which half the Special Police would be Catholic, giving their official Irish sanction to the lie which we have tried so hard to fight, that this war in Ireland is a religious war. They have played consistently into the hands of the English since they signed that disgraceful Pact in December, and nothing has proved that so much as the state of affairs in Belfast. For every evil that has happened, and will happen in the country, as a consequence of that Treaty, the blame must be laid by the Irish people—as it will be laid by the Almighty God Himself—on those who signed that Treaty. I see President Griffith and the other side laughing. I suppose it is part of the Anglicisation of the present Ministry to laugh at the name of Almighty God——

We laugh at the fact of your speaking for Almighty God.

No; but He goes to first causes, and He does not try to put the blame of acts, which are due to you, on the heads of those who have remained true to the Republic. Now, let us try in this to avoid bitterness if we can. The situation in the country is very serious. But the blame must be laid on the proper shoulders.

It must be laid on those who signed the Treaty. It is the Treaty that is the cause of the disruption of the country. It is the Treaty that has been the cause of the murder campaign in Belfast. The position created last July, that Ireland was the place for Irishmen to talk to each other, was given up when the Ministers of Dáil Éireann and Sir James Craig like a pack of naughty school boys, at the summons of the Headmaster, went to London to discuss this matter.

Has anything been done with regard to the situation in Mullingar? We are sitting her comfortably but there is probably slaughter going on there. Are we going to sit here and let that go on? I think, as the sovereign assembly of this nation, it is time to prevent this slaughter there anyhow.

Hear! hear! I will now read this paragraph which I couldn't find a while ago.

I object, on a point of order. A Deputy is allowed to speak once on a motion. We are here to do business, and we have a lot of business to do. Some of us will be occupied until 11 and 12 at night and after it. It is too much of a good thing if a man who gets up to make a speech cannot have his documents ready.

Am I, or am I not, to read the paragraph that I could not lay my hands on a while ago? I am asking am I or am I not?

There is no objection.

The quotation from the paper which I could not lay my hands on a while ago is this—it is from the manifesto of the Labour Executive:—

"Dáil Éireann the sovereign assembly representative of the people reassembles on Tuesday next. The members of that assembly have a solemn responsible duty to perform. To their charge has been committed the task of safeguarding the lives and liberties of the people, not to the Ministers not to the Army but to the rank and file of the members of the Dáil. It is for them to assert the sovereignty of the Dáil over all other councils or Governments in Ireland. It is for them to unite the army and bring it under a simple command which might defend the nation and its liberties against foreign intervention. The army was enrolled for this purpose and for this purpose it should be maintained. The country demands that the Dáil should assert its authority and accept the responsibility of governing or confess its impotence and make way for the people."

Am I entitled to speak now?

I again ask has there been anything done about Mullingar?

I received no report on the subject, except that we heard that there was some fighting going on there to-day.

I ask liberty to emphasise a point because I raised it and got a very specific answer when the same subject was under discussion at the last session of the Dáil. This question of subordination of Dáil Éireann was under discussion and some Minister—I think it was Minister of Publicity on the other side—gave a dubious answer as to his responsibility to this Assembly.

MR. FITZGERALD:

That is incorrect.

And Mr. Griffith gave to that question the answer that he held that this was the sovereign authority in Ireland, the sole governing body in Ireland, and he reiterated that no other Government had a right to function, as against Dáil Éireann, as the Government in the country. Now, I asked a question—were the Ministers to be responsible to Dáil Éireann? The President did not give an answer, a definite, straight answer, to that. The Minister of Finance did. He answered "Certainly not." And I called attention to his answer, and called attention to the fact that his answer differed so diametrically from the answer given by the President of the Dáil that one supposed Government of this country was speaking with two voices. That point was emphasised later by the answer given to a similar question put to the Minister of Economics and I think to the Minister of Agriculture. Both these gentlemen repudiated the sovereignty of this assembly and told us they would not be responsible to this sovereign body. I maintain that the trouble that has arisen since in this country is due primarily to the unsatisfactory answering and to the repudiation by the Minister of Finance of his President. He repudiated not alone the President but he repudiated the sovereignty of this assembly and, thereby, gave a lead to those in this country who wished to set up a usurpation—another Government to function in the place of Dáil Éireann in this country. Now, what has happened? The disorder that has since arisen, I maintain, is the result of that. I think now that disorder has had the effect of bringing them to see the error of their ways, to quote the phrase used by one of the other members with reference to Mr. de Valera on another memorable occasion. If this report in the Independent of Tuesday 25th April is correct, the Minister of Finance—I am sorry to say he has not remained—now agrees that there is one sovereign assembly in Ireland and that that assembly is Dáil Éireann. Well, that is something gained, if he will only act up to his words, and if those who repudiated Dáil Éireann a short time ago will be as wise as he is and act up to his words and act up to his policy which he there outlined for them. He said one thing that is not correct. He is reported as saying that the Provisional Government was set up by Dáil Éireann as an interim arrangement to give effect to the vote of Dáil Éireann in approval of the Treaty. We all know that Dáil Éireann did not set up a Provisional Government. This is a point where he shows his good judgment and wisdom for he says “the Provisional Government exists because...” That is not the point; the Provisional Government has no power as far as Ireland is concerned. He is reported as quoting Mr. de Valera, and in answer to that Mr. Collins says “The Provisional Government exists because Dáil Éireann approved of the Treaty, and because of that only. That is the authority of the Provisional Government and that only.” I want to know then if this statement of Mr. Collins—“We know that the authority here in this country is Dáil Éireann and is not any other authority or Government”—is to be accepted as the policy of the Executive? If that is definitely and clearly understood, I believe that having that published, not alone in the words adopted but in the action taken by this Executive to maintain that Government as the sovereign authority in this country, would go a long way to prevent the disorder of which the President complains—and rightly complains— in his report. I personally do not stand for anything but freedom of speech (Hear! hear!). Now here or anywhere or at any time. President Griffith laughs, but I defy him or anybody else to prove that I ever stood for anything else in any time during my career, which is longer than most members here.

A DEPUTY:

You repudiate your leader then?

I am responsible for nobody but myself. I am responsible for my own actions only, and I defy the President and everybody else to say that I ever stood for anything but whole-hearted freedom—not mongrel freedom, such as the Treaty gives us. I am for freedom of speech, and full freedom, and I maintain that the chaos that has resulted is due to the bad example given in this House when I raised the question of sovereignty on the last occasion.

MR. FITZGERALD:

There is just one point I would like to refer to. Deputy O'Kelly attributed a dubious statement to me. My statement is perfectly clear. When the matter of my appointment was up, the member for Clare dragged in matters about the Provisional Government. And I said I had nothing to do with the Provisional Government, that I only represented Dáil Éireann.

Last January, as an independent member, I took occasion to make a protest against fratricidal strife, and on that occasion I was told that it was nonsense to speak of fratricidal strife. I was told—and we were all told—that there was a constitutional method of settling our differences. There is a constitutional method and if the Anti-Treaty Party remained true to that, we would have no trouble in Ireland to-day. If they go back to it now, we will have no trouble in the future.

As to Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly, I am in a position to bear out everything that he has said—that he has stood for free speech and free elections—but I regret that his new-found companions are not able to stand up here and say they agree with what he says. I disagree with the Deputy when he states that the primary cause of the present conditions is the statement of the Minister of Finance. And I say that the Anti-Treaty Party— those people who got their positions from the people—are the cause of it. I furthermore say that it is not this Dáil who are the government of this country. It is the people, and from the people you derive whatever authority you have got and not an inch more (applause). I am very glad to see I have made so many converts. I am very glad that I am able to bring to the true fold those erring brothers who have so long taken the wrong paths, and I am glad to see that they are now coming to realise—they will realise it sooner or later—that they will not and cannot flout the will of the people in this country without being made amenable to the people for it. We were told that it is due to certain members of the Executive that this turmoil has occurred. There is a perfectly natural, constitutional method of dealing with any members of the Executive who misconduct themselves. And it is a matter for regret that there is so much ineptitude and so much inexperience on the part of the Anti-Treaty side that they are incapable of seeing it. There is a method of moving a vote of want of confidence, so that any Minister they wish could be excluded from the ranks. I think that the ex-President is at least long enough in public life to understand that that procedure is better than turmoil and slaughter and fratricidal strife throughout the country. Is it an excuse for the delinquencies of a member here, or a member of the Cabinet that people should be shot in the country? Is that the argument they have got, and is that the excuse they have to give to the people of Ireland? Never in the whole course of my public life have I heard such nonsense as I have heard here. One member stood up and said we didn't keep the various Departments of the Dáil functioning. That was repeated by every member on the other side, but not a single one of them has mentioned a Department that is not functioning. The Department that I represent has shown a very much larger amount of work done for the last three months than in all its previous existence. And let those of you who oppose the Treaty remember that it would not be possible to do that if the enemy was here. And well you all know it! Is it with the authority of Dáil Éireann that one of your members stands up and proposes an illegal levy down in his county or that a member of this Dáil sees a man of proved pluck, the Secretary of a Co. Council, who braved the Black-and-Tans, faced with a revolver by a member of the I.R.A.? Is that a constitutional Government, and is that to be stood over by the ex-President? Is it according to the law of Dáil Éireann that such things as that are done? I have never heard of its being condemned. If we have a constitutional way of settling things, let us settle them. If the ex-President thought he was doing right when he brought the Army under the Minister for Defence, what about the ex-President's somersault in sanctioning and condoning, or attempting to condone, the new disorder that has occurred? One thing I have to tell these people—every one of them—is that they are bolstering up something that is fizzling out. And well they know it. What about the coup you were to bring off? Have you got powers of limitation to impose upon the Press and the people of Ireland? If you think this is the place to announce them you are here now in great numbers and you are called upon by the people to answer for the delinquencies you have committed. I see some members of the opposition laughing; it is very amusing indeed. Perhaps Ireland and the people of Ireland are a joke, according to the Anti-Treatyites. Very well, the people will give them the answer when they come before them.

As my name was mentioned, I want just to say one or two short words. I have not very much experience in this Dáil but I honestly say that I was surprised at the assurance of Mr. de Valera coming here and talking about the sovereignty of the Dáil or the sovereignty of the Irish people after all that has occurred. I never repudiated the sovereignty of the Dáil.

I never did. Mr. de Valera repudiated the sovereignty of the Dáil and he repudiated the sovereignty of the Irish people and is playing fast and loose with it. And he knows it.

That is untrue.

I will prove it. I say that the Dáil is the sovereign assembly in this country, but I refuse to be shoved into the position of answering for what I do as a member of the Provisional Government and at the same time of being forced—in order not to hurt the susceptibilities of Mr. de Valera and other people here—into the position of denying the existence of the Provisional Government. That is the position I am taking up.

You are not governing but you are exercising——

I think Mr. de Valera made a speech already.

Five speeches.

I said before I have not much experience here, and the first time I ever heard the sovereignty of the Dáil being repudiated was immediately after the Treaty was approved by this Dáil. There was direct repudiation and denial of the sovereignty of the Dáil then and that direct repudiation came from Mr. De Valera himself. I will tell you what it was. You all remember that we had debated this for days and days and that the Dáil had given its decision on the Treaty. After it had given its decision, as it had a right to do, Deputy de Valera allowed his friends to put forward his name here for re-election as President. He admitted that, if he was re-elected, he proposed to form his Government from the minority of the House.

I deny it. I did not do anything of the kind. Let us have the record.

I am in the hands of the House; they were all here.

We ask for the record of this. These false statements are being made, and once made and once you give them a start, it is very hard to catch up with them as I know. It is a lie.

When anyone can convict me of a lie, let him do so.

The Minister for Agriculture now is making a statement of fact. Let him read it. Let him read the quotation upon which he bases his statement.

I am not reading anything. I was present at that meeting. I have not gone to the records of the Dáil. I put it to every honest man on the other side. Am I telling a lie? I often heard Mr. de Valera here say "The worst case of all is to be bad and to be poor after it all." I commend that saying to them all. I need not go any further into the matter. President Griffith will cover the ground; I have merely to say that much for myself.

I suggest that a statement of that kind is a serious statement and that the speaker should withdraw it, until he has brought the material to prove it.

Every cloud has a silver lining, and I am very glad to see a return to sanity. I am very glad to see that here to-day Mr. de Valera told us that the Dáil was a sovereign assembly; it is only a step further to get to the sovereignty of the people. It is wonderful when people are in power how they delegate authority to themselves and, when they are not in power, how they try to take that authority away. When the Opposition were in control, they did away with the Executive in the Army and decided to take the Volunteers under control of the Dáil; not alone that but under the Dáil Cabinet's control. To-day we are told that the Dáil itself is the Government of the country. Of course it is, and of course it was. But when the Opposition was in power it was the Cabinet. They want it different to-day, because some people would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven. The night before Mr. de Valera's famous letter was published, wherein he advised the people not to have the Treaty, I advised him, in the presence of Mr. Brugha and Mr. Stack, not to send that letter to the Press. I said it was for the Dáil to decide that; that it was not the Dáil Cabinet sent them to London and I said that the Dáil Cabinet should not have asked them to report to the Dáil Cabinet at all but that they should have reported to the Dáil itself. You all remember that the Debate here on the Treaty all turned on the one point—that the plenipotentiaries did not come back and report to the Dáil Cabinet. Now we are told to-day that the Dáil is a sovereign assembly. That is an admission, anyhow. I would recommend the Deputies here to-day to admit that the people, the sovereign people, are the people that ought to decide this whole issue, and the sooner it is put to them the better. While we are coming here and squabbling for power, people are being slaughtered all over the country. Let the people decide and decide quickly, and let all this squabbling end. We are making a disgrace of ourselves.

Some of the Ministers who have been speaking here have poured a great deal of scorn on people like myself. As far as I can see, apart from the many details that have been mentioned, there remains this great question of the liberty of the people and the authority of the people.

A Chinn Comhairle, I understood this debate was on my statement. Is it or is it not? Is this to go on all night, or are they talking round the whole thing and talking on every subject, or am I to reply? If Professor Stockley is speaking on my statement, well and good. There is no reference in what he has said up to the present to it.

I don't want to force anything.

The attack in force and the preparation for the coup contemplated have begun. As for the statement of the late member for Monaghan—the man who refused to resign his constituency—I think his record is a sufficient answer to any statement he makes. As between himself and the lady member for Cork, who states that the direct result of the Treaty was the Belfast massacres, he states the massacres started in July 1920. I submit he should settle that matter with her. As for Mr. de Valera's statement, I have something to say.

When you have a bad case throw mud at your opponents.

He has charged the Ministers of the Dáil here with repudiating the authority of the Dáil. That is absolutely a falsehood. They repudiated the right of the men here who were seeking to wreck the Treaty, after Dáil Éireann had approved the Treaty and by their approval of it had set up a Provisional Government, going into all the details of that work. If the Provisional Government has acted against Dáil Éireann, it is quite legitimate for the Ministers responsible to be called to account. As I said before, we are not going to allow this policy of obstruction to work on a perfectly false basis. Mr. de Valera states that we, on this side, are responsible for the turmoil in Ireland. The men responsible for the turmoil in Ireland are the men who, having been defeated in the Cabinet on the issue of the Treaty, and having been defeated in Dáil Éireann on the issue of Treaty, having stood up and said there was a constitutional way of settling our differences—after all that, went out and used the weapons of intimidation in an attempt to divert the Irish people from giving their verdict on that point. Those people are Mr. de Valera and his supporters. Mr. de Valera has spoken here about the Republic. He has once again suggested that we did something that he would never have been a party to.

So you did.

Now I have kept silent. I will keep silent no longer. I have kept silent too long and now I am going to tell the Irish people where Mr. de Valera stood. He came back from America when I was in prison, and he advised the members of the Dáil to ease off the war (Cries of "No").

President Griffith is right.

He advised the members of the Dáil to ease off the war. It is a fact. Deputy de Valera entered into his negotiations with the British Government when I was in gaol, and he described himself, not as President of the Irish Republic, but as spokesman of the Irish people. When I was going to London—when the Cabinet sent me to London with the other plenipotentiaries—I knew that neither I nor any other man could bring back a Republic and he admitted to me that it could not be done. He made a speech in which he said he took his oath in the sense of doing the best he could for the country. He made a speech in which he said he was not a doctrinaire Republican; he sent a Deputy here to America to prepare the country for——

For external association which was a united Cabinet policy.

And he said to me before I went to London "Get me out of this strait-jacket of the Republic."

I deny that.

I want the people of Ireland to know that. You can deny it as often as you like. I have a right in a matter of this kind——

I have a right in a matter of this kind, to protest against this——

On a point of order——

I must ask you, a Chinn Comhairle, to keep this man in order.

Can a member make a point of order without being shouted down?

It is not a point of order. I am not going to be intimidated by any gunmen.

There would be none of us here if there were not gunmen.

Whatever is going to happen in the future, I want the people of Ireland to know that——

I think the President of the Republic ought to withdraw that remark "gunman" to a soldier of the Irish Republic. It is an infamy to have a man like that make such a remark. I ask that the President of the Republic withdraw that remark.

A DEPUTY:

What about General Adamson?

If any soldier of the Irish Republic objects to the word, I certainly withdraw it. Now if Mr. de Valera will restrain himself while I speak and afterwards make all his denials I don't mind.

Will I have an opportunity?

A DEPUTY:

Certainly.

If the House gives me an opportunity, I will reply.

How many speeches is Mr. de Valera going to make?

To answer every lie.

Now, he has denied what he said to me, I will let the Irish people decide. I will let the man who talks about being a Republican, and who agreed to have the King of England and the payment to the Government of England and association with the King of England and the Government of England for defence and treaties—I will let that man be judged by the Irish people as to his sincerity.

I am prepared to be judged by any judicial assembly you set up.

Now I want to know am I to speak without being continually interrupted, or am I not? I am stating now what I kept silent about, that when we were sent to London we were sent there with the knowledge that the Republic was not possible.

You were sent there with a definite plan.

We were sent there to arrange how best the aspirations of Ireland could be reconciled with the community of nations known as the British Commonwealth; not an Irish Republic. That is what we were sent there for. Mr. de Valera has pretended to the Irish people that somehow he didn't know what was going on or what happened in London. Every night from Hanns Place a special courier was sent to Mr. de Valera and everything that happened was conveyed to Mr. de Valera. Now Mr. de Valera is suggesting to the Irish people that somehow he was kept in the dark. I say at once, and now—because events may happen to us through Mr. de Valera's friends— that I brand that as a falsehood. He knew everything that was going on. That is all I want to say on this subject. Those people have got up here and professed themselves die-hard Republicans. Why didn't he send Lloyd George in July 1921 a simple statement that we would negotiate on no other basis but the recognition of the Republic? Why did he withdraw that basis and send us there? We went there, and fought there, and we won there. And when I was going to London Mr. de Valera said to me "There may have to be scapegoats." There is a member here on the Opposition side who heard that remark. I said I was willing to be a scape-goat to save him from some of his present supporters' criticism; and Mr. Collins and myself were willing to be scapegoats so long as Mr. de Valera got what he wanted and so long as Mr. de Valera's face was saved. That is the inner history of what happened. And the reason I am referring to it is this because of something that has happened and is happening within the last two weeks. In the last two weeks an attempt was made on the life of my colleague Michael Collins. ("Shame" and laughter from some Deputies). Yes; there is laughter there; you are going to hear something more of it. In this present week there is a paper Poblacht na hÉireann, edited by an Englishman who has spent his life in the Military Secret Service of England—I will give Childers' record if necessary.

I will give it to you to-morrow, Childers.

Give it now.

To-morrow will do. There is a paper edited by an Englishman named Childers. Now I want to read the names here. The paper is edited by Erskine Childers, T.D.

Is it correct to say that a member of this Assembly was in the Secret Service of England, without producing incontrovertible proof?

I will produce it to-morrow.

Let us have it to-morrow.

You will have the fact that he was in the Intelligence Service against Germany.

In the Secret Service?

Yes, Childers, in the war against Germany.

Of course, I was an Intelligence Officer in the Air Force.

In this Republic of Ireland, edited by this Englishman who has spent his life in England's service, in this paper for which Mr. de Valera is responsible——

Withdraw that— that I spent my life in the Secret Service —withdraw that at once.

I will give you your record to-morrow, Childers. Now the editor of this paper is Erskine Childers, T.D.; assistant editor, Frank Gallagher; Manager, Joseph McDonagh. Some gentlemen laughed here when I referred to the attempted assassination of my colleague and friend—Michael Collins. When recent incitements were made about "wading through blood" we were told they meant nothing. We know what they mean, and we are not going to let gentlemen ride off on this thing when they inspire dupes and young and impetuous boys to do what they want done. Now here is the article, "The A.B.C. of It" it is called:

"When A and B were at war, and wanted peace, A entrusted C on its behalf to negotiate with B, and C's instructions were in writing as follows, so that there could not be any mistake in either memory or understanding:—‘The complete text of the draft treaty about to be signed will first be submitted for A's consent.' One day A was much surprised by C returning with the treaty complete and signed without having submitted it. ‘I assure you,' said C, ‘it is the best that could be got.'‘Very well,' said A, feeling pleased, ‘the best that could be got must be a good treaty. Let me see it.' A had confidence in C. The first clause enacted that A must cease to exist, the agent having negotiated the extinction of his principle, with an option as to suicide quite in the classical manner. ‘Is this the best you could get?' asked A. ‘It is indeed' replied C, and it wouldn't be so good but that I happened to catch B in one of his best moods. I'd prefer that first clause a little less exacting but read on and see how ample are the compensating provisions in the other clauses. They even enable me to become guardian to your children when you are dead, and to take control of all their property.' While A studied the compensating clauses, C announced a national triumph, got loud cheers and proceeded to invent a new constitution as dictated by the enemy and without any place in it for A. Having read through, A said: ‘Can I constitutionally execute a provision by which my own execution is exacted? For instance many of the provisions are such as could only be carried out after my death and it is assumed that I must carry them out while I live. Does not this make a constitutional difficulty?'‘Not at all' said C, ‘the thing is simple. First of all you transfer to me all obligations, apart from the first clause. Then you execute the first clause yourself, since nobody else can.' Meantime A's children began to ask ‘What about Daddy? We'll not have this treaty executed. Let us rather execute the man who signed it for us behind our backs'. At the time of writing, C was still alive, but his numerous offspring were growing more and more determined."

I say that that is a deliberate incitement to the assassination of the plenipotentiaries and they won't get off with it.

An assassination of whom?

An assassination of the plenipotentiaries.

You know whom don't you?

I have spoken here in answer, because I know what is going on; I know that this atmosphere is being prepared. The Irish people will not be deceived as to the motives and objects of the men on the other side if they proceed with this policy. I have only to say this: these Englishmen, who are only backers of Englishmen, who think they are going to prevent the Irish people from expressing their views on the Treaty will not do it; they won't be able to do it. The Irish people's answer to them is our answer to them, and it was Curran's answer to the soldiers of England—"You may assassinate us but you won't intimidate us."

When the President of Dáil Éireann makes charges such as he has made, I think it is only fair that an opportunity should be afforded, first of all, to this assembly itself and, secondly to the Irish people to get to the bottom and get to the truth of this matter.

Very well. All the correspondence, all the memoranda of the negotiations, are available and in the hands at present of the present Executive of Dáil Éireann. There are in this country men who are able to weigh evidence. I demand, as a right, that this evidence of my position in these negotiations be sifted judicially and that the full correspondence be published. On a former occasion, the Minister of Finance suggested it was to be published and we waited a long time. I suggest that a judicial committee shall be set up to sift this evidence and that necessary witnesses be examined before them. In the early secret session of Dáil Éireann this matter was gone into. You realised and he realised at the time that a body like this is no body by which you can sift evidence and I demand as a right that such a body be set up and also I demand as a right that the correspondence dealing with this Treaty be published. Dáil Éireann at a secret session got certain documents—one of these documents is No. 7—of my negotiations as President with the Chairman of the Delegation. I have repeated here what I said in the private session because what I said then has been misrepresented. This is the first paragraph of that note of October 25th. It is a memo of Arthur Griffith and it reads:—"I have received the minutes of the 7th session (that is the 7th session of the meeting of the delegation in London) and your letter of the 24th. We all here are at one (that was the majority of the Cabinet—but when a fait accompli was presented to them one member of the Cabinet definitely turned over and another member afterwards turned over) we—that is the Cabinet in Ireland at the time and I want you to note the date, October 25th, —all here are at one that there can be no question about asking the Irish people to enter into arrangements which would make them subjects of the Crown or admit allegiance to the British king. If war is the only alternative, we can only face it, and the sooner the other side is made realise that the better.” Is there any ambiguity there?

On a point of order if Mr. de Valera is entitled to read the private document would he mind reading the reply.

I will read the whole of it and let the whole of it be published.

Read the reply.

I will read it and let it be published before the people are fooled.

The people won't be fooled.

I ask you is there anything ambiguous about that paragraph? I am making an answer to a definite charge, that I sent you over to make a scape-goat of you.

He has read that but what of our rejoinder?

I have a right to defend myself against a mean charge.

You have no right to quote extracts.

You have no right to misrepresent a private conversation.

I have not, sir, but you have.

I stand here by every line of Document No. 2. I never went away from it.

You often did.

Give an example.

Your colleague stated there was no oath in that document.

Neither is there an oath in that document.

You dictated the oath afterwards and three members of the delegation can bear that out. You dictated the oath here in the Mansion House.

My attitude in this whole matter was that the whole Ministry of Dáil Éireann agreed on a policy of external association. The delegation took over to London with them a rough draft of the treaty on that line. The object of the negotiation was to try if by discussion with the other side, a settlement on these lines could be made out. And on October 25th—six weeks or so before the Treaty was signed and eleven days after they went to London—they got a definite expression from me and the other members who were at that time the majority of the Cabinet—they got a definite expression of opinion, a definite decision "that we all here are at one, that there could be no question of our asking the Irish people to enter an arrangement which would make them subjects of the Crown or demand from them allegiance to the British King. If war is an alternative we can only face it, and I think the sooner the other side is made realise that the better."

He has read portion of his letter but he has not read the reply. He has stated it was a decision of the Cabinet but he wrote to us that it was not a decision at all.

I have not finished. I am not going to misrepresent you as you misrepresent me. The second part of my letter is this: "As time is so pressing, the Ulster question should be pushed ahead at once." I am sorry that we have got to reveal the national attitude to the enemies of our country.

Why reveal it?

When you make charges, there is no other way of doing it. I don't want to read this paragraph if I can help it.

You are reading Cabinet documents there now.

I don't want to read these paragraphs if I can help it. I suggest that the whole correspondence be laid before a committee or that it be published.

The Cabinet will publish the whole correspondence.

I suggest that the whole of the correspondence between me as President and the Chairman of the delegation be given here to the members of Dáil Éireann and let them decide whether it is to be given to the Press or not.

The whole correspondence of all kinds will be issued to the public.

There is no harm anticipating. There is no reason why this comparatively short correspondence should not be issued to the public to-morrow, and if you give an opportunity I ask that a judicial committee be set up.

Is it admitted on both sides that something is going to take place now that is going to damage the national interest? While I am here, acting on behalf of all of you, I feel that the national question is likely to drift into a question of personal vindication.

I would wish it were done otherwise. I am sorry to use it.

The members of Dáil Éireann have been reminded from both sides that they are the sovereign authority and that they are the government of the country and I would like them to assert themselves in this matter.

I suggest that all the documents and correspondence should be published at the same time.

If there is a proposal about their being published, I would wish to say that when I was reading the second part of that, the remark about the national interests, which is a wise one, I felt before here that it is exposing your position and the position of the Government of Dáil Éireann which ought to be a sovereign assembly and a sacred assembly, and that it should not be done. But there is no other way, unless you appoint a Judicial Committee. These unworthy charges should not be allowed to pass without there being some means left to those who are attacked of defending themselves. I held a responsible position. I held, and I hold, that, after all, I did my duty in that position. I hold I am to-day defending what I regard as an honourable position, defending the sovereign rights of the Irish people—the sovereignty of the Irish nation. And it is not fair that those who are in that position should have to bear, without an opportunity of vindication, the remarks made by the President, that a position had been given up by me or that I had used him unworthily. My own position is this—I have stated it here in the private session of the Dáil—that having a conception of this external association, and the larger ministry of Dáil Éireann having set up that as the basis of the negotiation it was alleged by members of the Cabinet that I myself changed so to speak the foreign policy of the Republic or did my best to have it changed, when with the idea of the Republic there was associated a foreign policy which was not essential to the safeguarding of the country. The word Republic denotes not merely sovereignty but independence. What I changed was the idea of foreign policy in connection with the Republic. And I used here, in the private session of Dáil Éireann, the words that "I helped to batter down the walls of the isolated Republic." I maintain that I defended the sovereignty of the nation and after the day the chairman of the delegation came back—my criticism is here in the notes—I criticised this on the grounds of giving away the sovereignty of the Irish nation, that it was inconsistent with the sovereignty and unity of the Irish nation. These remarks are down in black and white in the secretaries' record of the proceedings of the Cabinet meeting. I deny that I have treated the members of the delegation in the manner that has been suggested. I say it is an infamous suggestion and I would not be fit to be alive if I had done that. I have said here in Dáil Éireann definitely that my position was that if there was something which I thought the Irish people should take under the circumstances—while I personally could not be myself the sponsor of anything less than that for which my comrades had died, with which I associated isolation to a large extent, as well as the sovereignty of the country—if there was something less than that, whilst I myself could not take it, yet I would never do anything to stand in the way of the Irish people accepting it. But I am now in this particular case standing against this Treaty because I don't believe the Irish people should accept it.

Let them judge for themselves.

Exactly! Give them an opportunity of judging for themselves. I stood for that position and I will be consistent with it the whole time. I have been accused of not standing up for the sovereignty of Dáil Éireann. The record of every meeting here is a testimony to the fact that I stood up for the sovereignty of this assembly.

Even when you walked out.

I walked out as a legitimate protest against the election as President of Dáil Éireann of a man who should uphold the Republic, but a man whose policy it was to destroy it.

You know that to be a falsehood. Document No. 2 was the thing that let down any chance of a Republic.

The reference with which I am dealing is my going out. It was the only protest that I could make against the election as President of one who was subverting the Republic. I wanted to maintain the Republic until the time the people were entitled to speak on this question. That was the only protest I could make against the election of a Minister whose policy it was to destroy it, and I made that protest. My statement is on record.

So is your Cuban statement.

Oh! you are mean! You are vilely mean! You know you said those who attacked me on that occasion were mainly responsible for the record of terror in Ireland.

I think this has gone far enough.

I think it has.

I want to make a suggestion. The honour of this assembly, the honour of the nation and the honour of the men in this assembly should be of grave concern to us all. And I suggest, in view of the regrettable incident that has just passed, that a Judicial Committee of Inquiry be set up by this House to investigate the charges made by the President of the Republic against Mr. de Valera.

I want to say a word on behalf of the assembly. You will remember that—I think it was at the first of your private meetings when you were discussing this Treaty— I warned you that you were allowing the discussion to pass from the merits of the policy of the proposal that was before you—whether it be in your judgment a right one or a bad one, or an indifferent one—to a discussion on the merits and actions of persons and individuals. Now the suggestion has been made of a Judicial Inquiry. Every person who is criticised—every person who is incriminated—is endeavouring to have himself defended. But it was not to hear charges or to make charges against any individual, no matter how highly placed, that we were sent here. It was not to decide such charges either. Now, I am not leaning one hair's breadth on one side or the other and I am not thinking of one side or the other in what I am saying at present. We were not sent here as followers of either one man or another man. The responsibility that has been thrown upon us here is not to decide upon the merits of that man or this man or whether that man or this man has acted rightly or whether that man or this man has acted honourably or dishonourably. The one thing we have to deal with is this great and crucial decision that is before the Irish people. I say nothing on one side or the other with regard to that but I ask every member of the Dáil not to allow any personal matter to come in or be brought between us and our responsibilities to the nation. It is not a tendency of ours any more than in any other assembly to do this. These personal questions arise in every assembly in the world and the people who are mainly interested, the principal parties, naturally, cannot escape from attaching great importance to them. But we know the critical state of our national affairs at present and I hope that every single one of you will insist that we confine ourselves to the national issue. And if the other issue is to be settled it can be settled. There can be a proper means of settling it. Let not that be done hastily. In two or three years or ten or twenty years time it will be all the same what person was right or what person was wrong. It will not be the same as regards decisions taken in the interests of the country. I am not suggesting that when charges are made that there should not be every possible opportunity of defending them. But I ask the Dáil to agree with me that this personal question shall not be allowed to take up their attention at the time when great national interests are in such a crucial stage.

I agree with every word you are saying. But this question unfortunately is not a personal question. It is the main argument apparently of the other side for getting their Treaty accepted, that I am in the same boat as themselves. Therefore this is an argument for the acceptance of this Treaty, and I want this matter examined because I believe it would be helping to an honest national decision. On that ground again, I ask that there be no further drawing of red herrings across the national issue, and that a Judicial Committee be appointed to examine into this question.

I have said that there should be publication of the documents.

They are in course of preparation. I want to explain one point of that, lest it should be misunderstood by the Opposition. The Dáil Cabinet will not, I am sure, publish any Cabinet documents without agreement with the other side.

Remembering the rather vivacious proceedings that have taken place.

I take it that the President wound up the debate and that the motion should now be put.

There is no motion necessary in this debate.

You said that every member of this House has an opportunity of making a personal explanation. A gross charge was made against me now that I had all my life, up to the present day, been in the Secret Service of England——

What I said was that you had spent your life in the service of England and the secret service, and you said yourself that you were in the intelligence department.

He said he was going to produce my record. Now, I want precisely to know what is to be done about this? Is he going to circulate this record?

No; I will give it to yourself.

If there is any proposal to be made with regard to an inquiry, let it be made after due consideration.

I wish to move that the President's statement be not approved.

I don't think a motion would be taken on that.

In my experience of the meetings of the Dáil the President's statement was never approved. It was made.

There was no motion taken on the President's statement. A discussion was allowed on it.

Cad na thaobh gur cuireadh an nidh sin romhann in aon chor mar sin?

Ní ceart duit é sin a iarraidh orm. Rinnead an rud ceudhna cheanna ag na cruninnigthe seo.

Are we to understand that on these reports that come before us we are not entitled to take the sense of the House?

I am not referring to the reports at all. Only to the President's statement.

Mar a bhfuilimid sásta leis na tuarasgabhala a cuireadh romhainn, cad a tá againn le dheanamh? Cionnas a chuirfimid é sin in úil don Dáil agus don tír?

There is no motion before us now.

Barr
Roinn