I move the adjournment of the Dáil until 3 o'clock tomorrow.
At this stage the Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
FINANCE BILL, 1923. - ADJOURNMENT MOTION—PEACE PROPOSALS.
Before we adjourned yesterday I suggested that the statement that was read by the President should be discussed after we had had some time to think of what it meant, and what it implied. Last week there was a good deal of wonder why no statement was made in the Dáil respecting the pronouncement over Mr. de Valera's name which appeared in the previous Saturday's issue of the morning newspapers; and a good deal of wonder was expressed as to why the matter was not raised here and why the Government was not asked to make some statement. I think the Ministerial announcement made yesterday will explain why no public demand was made in the Dáil or no announcement made by the Government on their own initiative. It is apparent there had been some conversations between third parties and the Government on the one hand and between the same third parties and Mr. de Valera on the other. There is to-day a great deal of disappointment at the failure of these negotiations or conversations. I want, if possible, to save the situation by urging that the final letter, or the final letters, in the published correspondence ought not be taken as a complete closing of the door. When the statement appeared in the papers over Mr. de Valera's name saying that certain propositions could be made the basis of peace, I took occasion to say that the whole six propositions enumerated in that statement were acceptable to me and might well be embodied in a political party programme. I said that one could afford to overlook the title at the head of the announcement or proclamation as it was designated; that these six principles which were enunciated could be accepted and were as a matter of fact accepted by the people generally who had supported the movement for freedom in Ireland. I said that there was one clause in it which seemed to raise an issue of doubt —Clause 4—where people were asked to subscribe to the doctrine "that no citizen who subscribes to the foregoing can be justly excluded by any political oath, test, or other device from his or her share in determining national policy or from the Councils and Parliament of the nation." I said I subscribe to that absolutely, and I repeat that with the emphasis on the word "justly." I said on that occasion that injustices had to be borne with and this was one of them. Every injustice we had to abide by was not to be removed or cured by force, and as an item in a political party's programme it could be fought against by the ordinary political means and would eventually be eliminated and this injustice removed. And I believed that if these items were taken as the basis of an agreement between the contending forces that the next step to show an acceptance of the principles was not to enter into negotiations, but to take certain action, that action being, I suggested, a response by a simultaneous cessation of military activities on the part of the Government simultaneous with the suspension of military activities on the part of the followers of Mr. de Valera. I am free to confess that the course of the negotiations, if I may call them so—I do not think "negotiations" is quite the right word— but the course of the conversations did justify, I think, the Government's final decision, if we are going to stand upon legal and constitutional rights, and if we are going to take an ordinary amount of cognisance of the methods of the chief negotiater on the other side. I admit it must be very trying to a Government to be met with the kind of condition that was put up to them, the pernickety conditions that were put up to them for agreement. We have, nevertheless, to examine where the difference arises, what differences there are, in fact, between the position taken by the Government and the Dáil generally, and the position taken by Mr. de Valera. On examination, I think it will be found that the differences are really slight so far as they are stated in terms. They are really slight, and if the proposition is to be taken as an honest expression of an intention, there ought to be still a possibility of preventing a resumption of military activities on either side. We have, in the propositions put forward by Mr. de Valera, an assertion of the sovereign rights of the nation, and that is accepted. We have an assertion that all authority within Ireland is derived from the people of Ireland. That is accepted. We have the claim that the ultimate court of decision must be the vote of the people. That is accepted. It is embodied in the Constitution, and nobody is contravening it. On that point I would like to say that, in my opinion, Mr. de Valera and many others rely too much upon the supposed necessity for a vote of the people to determine any political issue. I have said before in the Dáil that in my view neither the last election nor the previous one was a legitimate test of the people's will, but it is not always necessary to count heads before one can understand what the decision and will of the people are on any political issue. It is only when there is a doubt that it is necessary to take a vote, and it should be obvious—I am sure it is obvious to Mr. de Valera—that on this particular issue the will of the people has been very clearly expressed, not by vote, but by their common action and acceptance of the conditions, acceptance of the Government, acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas, and generally the conformity of the great mass of the people to the Constitution that this Dáil carried and brought into operation. That should, in my view, be taken by any sane statesman or politician or observers of politics or statecraft as a clear definition of what the will of the people is, and when we have, as we have in these pronouncements, the acceptance of the proposition that the clearly ascertained will of the people is to decide the political issue affecting the people. and that as a matter of order and good government such a pronouncement must be obeyed—that, I think, is a very good advance indeed. A little over a week ago Mr. de Valera did, as a matter of fact, accept that proposition, that the decision of the people, clearly expressed, whether right or wrong according to his view, ought to be embodied in law and accepted by the people. It was only at a later stage the proviso was inserted that it must depend upon the withdrawal of a threat of war, that is to say, it must depend upon some action outside Ireland, outside the control of any people in Ireland. That was a new proviso which was inserted and which has been fought for. Now it is withdrawn. This is the important consideration. It is withdrawn not only by Mr. de Valera himself, but by Mr. de Valera speaking with the authority of, and on behalf of, those who have been acting with him, and, as he claims, on behalf of those who have been following him. That is the very important consideration I desire the Dáil to take note of. Then something further has happened. Mr. de Valera has accepted as a corollary of that that armaments must be under the control of the duly elected and authorised Government; first, that the Government shall be authorised by the people and then that arms, munitions of war shall be brought under the control of that Government. That is proposition No. 2, which has been accepted verbally by Mr. de Valera. It seems to me that the obvious deduction from that to normal men would be to abide by the declaration and ascertained will of the people, and to surrender arms to that Government. That is the position that the Government here is taking and asking for its acceptance, and asking that it should be acted upon. I said earlier that legally and constitutionally the Government was fully entitled to take that stand. I am not sure whether we ought, or the Government ought, to be rigid Puritans in this matter, and to insist upon the very letter of constitutional procedure. I think allowances have to be made for the conditions which preceded recent activities. We were not always constitutional purists or very rigid legalists. Even after the will of the people had been declared and ascertained the forces in opposition to the Government who had declared their intention of resisting the Government were not treated as rebels and treason mongers, but were, as a matter of fact, collaborated with and recognised in some measure. That may have been rendered necessary by the circumstances, but if it were necessary it justifies a claim that some departure from rigid constitutionalism would be excusable and reasonable even at this late date. I am saying this because I want to suggest that something short of the demand for absolute surrender of arms to the Government in the form which has been hitherto prescribed might ease the way to peace, while a rigid adherence to constitutional and legal right might lead us to very much more strife and commotion, very much more loss of life and destruction of property, and even at the end to no satisfactory entry into the course of peace. I was proposing to go through all the items in the programme —shall I call it—by Mr. de Valera, but it is hardly necessary to do so except very roughly.
I think all but two are easily met and are pretty generally conceded. The question of the date of a General Election is not a matter to quarrel about. The question of the modification of the date respecting the revision of the register is not a matter for fighting about. It might be noted that this is a register being prepared by the administration set up under the Constitution and according to a Franchise Act passed by the Oireachtas. If Mr. de Valera accepts that we have, at least, some recognition, some formal recognition if you like, of the authority of the Oireachtas and the Government. We are not going to quarrel either about the censorship of mails. Counsel, the other day, speaking on behalf of the State, enunciated the doctrine of the secrecy of the mails. There is no occasion for quarrel in that. I am sure that on second thoughts Mr. de Valera is not going to press for a Governmental pronouncement that the newspapers give a definite space for reporting Republican party speeches. That again is not a subject which is likely to lead to renewed warfare, nor the date on which the Dáil shall meet after the General Election. Nearly all those items are so trifling and trivial that it is only with difficulty one can have patience with the man who would put them forward in such serious circumstances. I suppose the proposition regarding Republican funds might be a difficulty, but even that is not a matter for war, and I do not think that three sensible men, at any rate, would claim that Republican funds collected on behalf of the Irish people as a whole in the fight against Britain should be made a political party fund of one party alone. I think agreement could be found upon a proposition to utilise those funds in some way which would be acceptable to both sides in this conflict. I do not know that there has been any suggestion of discrimination in matters of compensation for those who suffered loss under the Black and Tans, and who happened to have taken up arms against the Government since the departure of the Black and Tans, so that is not a matter for quarrel.
When all these items are eliminated, we are left with two, the question of the disposal of arms and the question of the oath. Mr. de Valera has said in his first statement that no individual or class of individual who subscribes to those principles of National right, order and good citizenship can be justly excluded by any political oath, test or other device from their proper share and influence in determining National policy, or from the Councils and Parliament of the nation. As an abstract proposition that is, I think, generally accepted. But when one bears in mind that such oaths are taken in all countries by people who dissent from them and consider them unjust; that even the Republican Dáil instituted an oath which excluded from the councils of the nation very large numbers of people who ought justly to have been entitled to take part in that particular work; when one remembers these things, I say that it is not a difficulty which is insuperable, but one which, I believe, can be got over. There was no necessity for those who called themselves Southern Unionists, or who called themselves Labourmen, and many others who would not take an oath to a Republic in Ireland in 1919-20, to enter into the councils of the nation; but there was nothing to prevent them taking an active part in the political life of the nation; nor is there any necessity for anyone who objects to the oath required by the Constitution denying himself the rights of citizenship and of taking all the part that he wishes in the political activities of this nation. I contend that acceptance of the privileges of citizenship in a country implies just as much loyalty on the part of the citizen to the Constitution of the country as any form of taking an oath. Political life is not denied, political influence is not denied to those who refuse to enter the Parliament of the Nation.
There is nobody in Ireland but knows that political power has been won very largely by virtue of a refusal to take part in those inner councils. I am not sure that a political movement having as an object the elimination of this unjust provision from the Constitution, and exercising its influence outside Parliament would not more quickly remove that unjust provision than the formal acceptance of it even under protest. More likely still, a combination of those outside, who refuse to come in because of an oath, with those who are willing to come in and still count it unjust, would most certainly, in my view, bring about the removal of this injustice. But we are not going to agree to the proposition that this injustice is one which can only be removed by indulging in armed warfare.
Now, my suggestion, if I may make so bold as to make it to Mr. de Valera and his party, would be, that if they cannot see their way to take the line which we on these benches presumed to take, and which, as a matter of fact, the great majority of the members of the Dáil have taken at some time or other, in saying that this oath is one they have accepted, in form, as an imposed oath, one which was made a condition of membership of the legislature—if they are not prepared to take that view, there are any amount of openings for political activity and political influence within the Constitution, and within the normal political life of the country, which would bring very valuable influence to bear upon the future legislature.
Now, we come to the other critical question—the question of the disposal of arms. The Government has set it down that military action against Mr. de Valera and his followers would cease when the arms held by them were delivered into the effectual custody of the Irish Free State Executive authorities. Mr. de Valera, on his part, has made suggestions of another kind, difficult, no doubt, but I suggest not impossible of meeting while retaining for the Government the object they wish to achieve. I suggest that what they desire is to ensure that arms shall be out of action, and out of the risk or possibility of going into action; that it is not the physical possession of arms that is so much desired, but security against the use of those arms against the State. The Government demands that these arms shall be handed over at once. Mr. de Valera in effect wants a suspense period. He has not accepted what I contend is the ascertained will of the people but professes that there must be a formal election under the new franchise before that will of the people is ascertained. In the meantime, before that decision is arrived at, he suggests that there should be a period of suspense. Mr. de Valera, as I understand documents, is implying that the Government whom we recognise is not a duly authorised or appointed Government, and he claims, on the contrary, that the Government which is known as the Republican Government to him and his followers, is the duly authorised Government of the country. His view, as I take it, is that in the conflict between these two bodies claiming to be Governments we have arrived at a period either of deadlock or defeat of one by the other. He suggests that instead of trying to drive the defeated into a ignominious position, that there should be this period of suspense, and at the end of that time all authority, and all means of enforcing authority, should be handed over to the Government which is then elected.
While I think a good deal of that is trifling and quibbling, one has to recognise that the same personality, with the same faults and the same virtues, was looked up to and honoured and regarded and trusted by the people a couple of years ago, and it might not be too much for the Government, having achieved power, having its authority recognised by the mass of the people, having arrived at the position when they can impose their authority if they so desire, to say, "We will concede something to your fancies, to your peculiar mentality, and to the prejudices and convictions — sincere honest convictions — of many of your followers." If there is, as I hope there will be, a will to peace, even this kind of action on the part of the Government will not be derogatory to them, but will add to the chance of an early peace, a complete cessation of hostilities, and general acceptance of the authority of the elected of the people.
An Ceann Comhairle resumed the chair at this stage.
I am sure that the extraordinary proviso in one of these paragraphs regarding the storage of arms has not been properly understood either by the readers or the writer, and I am not going to try to make it clear, because I do not understand it myself. I am now referring to the proviso that after the election arms should then be handed back to those who at present hold them.
It says: "These arms to be disposed of after the election by re-issue to their present holders, or in such other manner as may secure the consent of the Government then elected." I certainly would not ask the Government to negotiate on that proposition. Nevertheless, I believe that all they require could be satisfied if a means could be found for ensuring that arms are put in such a place, and in such a position, as to make it impossible for these arms to be used in opposition to the Government, pending the result of the next election and the setting up of the next Government. I am not going to make any suggestion as to how that can be done; I am not going to suggest that the Government should enter into any negotiations on this matter; but, I believe, that some action can be taken by the Government which would reassure the public, and which would assist the movement for peace, and make the chances of peace, continuous peace, very great. The driving of all those in opposition to continue their opposition until they are worn out and driven out, is not a good policy if any reasonable way short of that can be found. There are, say, 12,000 men in jail or interned. A peace that is driven by repression and only repression, is going to leave these 12,000 men in your hands perpetually until you are prepared to take the risk of letting them out. You cannot take that risk unless you have raked up all the arms and ammunition in all parts of the country. I do not know whether the military advisers will say that it is possible to gather up, by a military search, all the arms and all the ammunition in the country. I suspect they will confess that such a proposition is outside the region of practical military operations. If there are arms and munitions left behind, and you release men from the jails, in time, within the next five years, you are running the risk of these men using these arms, ammunition and explosives to continue depredations. If you can make peace with some organised body, which will claim the obedience of these men in internment camps and in prison, you will have gained very much indeed, and such a gain is worth some risk of loss of prestige or pride. The only proposition I have to make is, that we should take a leaf out of the book of those physical force anarchists who used to preach the value of propaganda by deed as against propaganda by speech and writing; that instead of propaganda by deed, in the anarchist sense that negotiations by action would probably be more effective than negotiations by speech and writing; negotiations by action, not in the way that one Minister takes it, one who believes in the strong arm at all times, but by a formal statement, for the purpose of testing how far Mr. de Valera and Mr. Aiken are capable of securing the obedience of their followers, that the Government is prepared to cease raids and arrests and active military operations for a period of three or four weeks, and by that means test how far peace is really meant. A cessation of operations for one month— given that, I am confident that means can be found to secure any risk of arms being used against the State. With these arms put in a secure place there will be no need for any further negotiation. I do not believe that negotiation on the lines that these documents indicate, is going to bring about any good results at this stage. I believe it is desirable to test the bonâ fides, to find out whether there is a genuine intention to cease military operations, provided some reasonable way out of the undertakings that so many men have pledged themselves to can be found, and if, in the meantime, say for three weeks or a month, the army would cease to collect these arms, or to arrest or disperse the forces in opposition to it. I would like the Government to make that response to these advances. I feel confident that, if they do, everything will redound to their credit, and the end would be complete success for the position they have taken up.
Before there is any reply from the Government benches there is just a view somewhat different from that expressed by the last speaker which I think it advisable to express. I find no fault with the tone of the last speaker, but I differ from some of his arguments, especially the one with which he concluded his speech—the suggestion, that in order to establish stable government in the Free State that for a period of months in certain directions the Irish Free State Government should cease to function, and precede that cessation of its functions by a declaration to that effect. I think that is not only in conflict with all conception of statemanship, but I think it is in conflict with the whole element that may bring about these conditions of permanent peace for which Deputy Johnson is so anxious. I want to say one or two things. I believe that it is time to put a stop definitely and finally to this comic opera diplomacy and hanky panky negotiation. Deputy Johnson dwelt at great length in analysing what de Valera said and the absence of a real cause for war. It is quite true there was no real cause for war except that created by the man who said he was prepared to gamble on war for the sake of the shadow of the difference between the Treaty and his alternative proposals. It was not the Government of the Free State; it was not those that stood for the Treaty, and it was not the majority of the Irish people who provoked the cause of war.
I have no doubt Mr. de Valera is the most reasonable man in the world provided he gets his own way in everything he wants. I have no doubt you could make terms with a boa constructor on similar principles: "Let me swallow you and there is no further need of conflict." I think it is time to talk horse-sense, it is time to know that there are certain basic principles of authority that must be observed in this country as well as in other civilised countries. There is one thing we have got to recognise and that is that the Ten Commandments are not yet scrapped even in the Free State, and it is in the recognition that these things shall be the basis of society in this country rather than the peculiar mentality of a certain gentleman once, as Deputy Johnson truly says, honoured and looked up to by the State, that I infinitely prefer to take my stand on the side of the Ten Commandments rather than on the side of the peculiar mentality of that gentleman. One would imagine from a good deal that has been said that it is a real, serious issue for the country to rehabilitate Mr. de Valera in the public mind. We are not concerned—at least I am not, and never have been—with his personality. I have never based my outlook upon things political on the principle of following any particular man, only following that man when I believe he was leading in the right direction. What we are concerned with is not whether Mr. de Valera objects to the Constitution of the Free State, but whether the Free State Constitution has embodied in it the elements and the principles that secure safety to the great body of the people, whether it is just and equitable, and, if it is, whether it is worth fighting to retain that in spite of the fact that certain people took up arms to destroy it on the plea that it does not agree with their particular opinion. Now, I want to say another thing. I believe there will a great need in the near future for a large corps of mental specialists and I believe that some of those who will require treatment by the mental specialists will be those self-constituted peacemakers who are meddling in something that they have no right to interfere in and who suffer from soft heads plus an opinion that they are capable of working miracles. We read in the statement read in the Seanad yesterday by Senator Douglas, and signed by him and another Senator. "We have both received letters marked `confidential' from Mr. de Valera requesting us to meet him with a view to discussing practical steps for the conclusion of an immediate peace." I want to know what preceded that; have we, behind the backs of the Government of the Free State, a number of meddling busybodies coquetting with Irregularism and trying to keep us in the dark about what is going on? I feel quite certain that Mr. de Valera did not, on April 29th, suddenly think of these two gentlemen and decide to write them a letter. Something preceded this, and I think it would be well if we could know what it was. We want to finish with secret diplomacy, especially in these things which affect the internal stability of the Irish nation. Deputy Johnson said there was disappointment at the failure of the negotiations. Well, those of us who have been in close contact with Mr. de Valera since this controversy began are in no way overwhelmed with disappointment. We knew what to expect. It all works itself down to this, to my mind, that he and those with him, having challenged in arms the authority of the State and the will of the people and having been beaten, are trying now to wriggle back, and by this peculiar diplomacy to secure that ascendency which they failed to establish by resort to arms. There is nothing very intricate in the solution of this thing. Deputy Johnson says that there is no cause for war. There is no cause for war, at least no cause for war has been created by those who stand for the sanctions of the moral law, and so far as I can judge, there is only one way to end the turmoil—and I have continuously refrained from dignifying this turmoil with the name of war. There is one easy way out of it, and that is that those who have tried to overthrow the authority of the Irish people's will shall now submit to that will and accept the decision of the people. I suppose that if I went on the same basis, or if any individual could get a few people together, arm them and create general hell in the community, I would not be regarded as waging war. I would be regarded as a common malefactor and no eminent personages, either in the Seanad or in the Dáil, would be trying to find ways and means to secure my reconciliation to the law. I think that the only negotiater that would be sent to interview me would be a representative of the C.I.D. I have no intention of saying words for the purpose of provoking bitterness, or perpetuating any bitterness that has arisen, but I say "Let us have finished with humbug and soft-headedness." Let us recognise the fact that we have some authority and some responsibility for the stability of the structure of society in this assembly. It is not by trying to alter the sanctions of the law to accommodate themselves to the peculiar mentality of those who defy the sanctions of the law that we are going to ensure that this State may survive. There is nothing vague about the position. There is no necessity, in my judgment, to analyse whether Mr. de Valera has repented of his former political heresies or not. Mr. de Valera and the Free State Government and the Dáil do not matter in the slightest in this issue. The thing that does matter is the basic principle of democratic law. If that goes, if you go out of your way to try to make this nation fit in with the jigsaw puzzle mentality of the Irregular politicians, you go very far to break down those things for which we have been standing since the Treaty was signed. Unlike Deputy Johnson, I have no suggestion to make to the Ministry in this matter, unless perhaps it is the suggestion to carry on. The Irish people expect strong, resolute action. They are with their Government, and they expect that they shall exercise the functions of a Government and not pursue the antics of amateur diplomats. That is my suggestion to the Government, to keep out of this attempt, and no longer try to find a way out of the difficulty, except the one they are pursuing, to establish the law, and to establish it in that way that every man who wishes to give allegiance to the sanctions of the law, will find within this country the authority and the power that will give him, and his, security of life and property.
I have listened with very deep regret to the speech that we have just heard from a Deputy who is one of the long-standing Sinn Feiners, and a man of experience. I think that it is as deplorable that this particular debate should be utilised to attack Mr. de Valera, as it would be were it utilised to abuse the Government.
On a point of explanation, I hope I have not attempted to attack Mr. de Valera. I said most emphatically that personalities in this matter did not count with me, but the nation does.
The Dáil can judge whether my description was fair or not, but I do object more strongly still to the spirit in which the Deputy dealt with the intervention of the two Senators, to whom the Dáil owes its very best thanks for undertaking the very ungrateful task of trying to mediate in this matter. I believe that one thing comes supremely clear out of this correspondence, and that is that negotiations should be resumed, and resumed forthwith. You have in this correspondence a very much better spirit and tone on both sides than we have been accustomed to. You have clear evidence of a sincere will to peace on both sides, and more important still, perhaps, a will to an agreement forthwith. I am one of those who consider that an agreement for peace is essential to the stability and good order of public affairs in this country. I ask the Dáil to consider for a moment what it is that stands between us and that agreement. So far as I can see there are three things. There is, first of all, the question of fundamental rights, as Mr. de Valera calls it, a matter the settlement of which is largely one of words. There is, secondly, the question of the arms, a matter of which the settlement is one of method. And then there is the oath, obviously a problem for diplomacy. Upon that first matter, Mr. de Valera accepts the principle that the will of the people is to be the supreme test.
Very good of him.
But he qualifies his acceptance with a form of words which I find difficult to understand, and which appear to me to be injudicious words, to say the least of them, in a document of this kind. He qualifies his acceptance by what looks like a statement that, in certain circumstances, the people shall not be supreme. He states the result of an election or a referendum is decisive, subject to the fundamental principle that the sovereign rights of this nation are indefeasible. Now, Mr. de Valera is a philosopher.
As a philosopher he is perfectly entitled to his philosophic theory of constitutional law. He is not entitled to seek to impose that philosophic theory upon other people as a condition of peace.
By burning their houses.
Another philosopher would be entitled to take the view that the Irish people, if they willed it, could apply for membership of the United States of America to-morrow, which would diminish their sovereignty to some extent. It would, nevertheless, be true, if that came about, that a succeeding generation of the Irish people would be equally entitled to reverse the decision, so that the principle that the will of the people is supreme covers all that Mr. de Valera contends for. The Norwegians, separated by agreement from Sweden, would be entitled to diminish their sovereignty by joining Sweden again, and a coming generation would be entitled to revoke that decision. After all, is it worth while, when peace is the issue, to bring into a matter of this kind, a question of theoretical constitutional right upon which people are allowed to differ? The question of whether the people may do wrong, or whether they may not be allowed to do wrong, is one upon which we may be allowed to differ without bringing it into our peace negotiations. I do think that on further consideration, and round a table, Mr. de Valera himself, having as serted the principle for which he contends, would very speedily realise it would be injudicious to press for the assertion of a contested principle in peace terms. Then there is the question of arms. Deputy Johnson has already dealt with that matter fairly fully. All I wish to say is this: it seems to me that the problem there is merely one of securing that there shall be a cessation of violence, and no resumption of violence. That is a problem for the military chiefs on both sides to settle in the interests of the country. The Ministry have said that they do not desire to inflict humiliation. They have the opportunity on this particular issue, which, naturally, touches Mr. de Valera and his followers closely, to put that desire into practice, and I venture to think the best way in which an agreement could be come to as to the disposal of arms, would be by bringing the military chiefs on both sides together, because it is a military matter. There is then the question of the oath. I mention those three points because I want to emphasise the fact that the difference now remaining between the two sides is not one to justify either the continuance of the struggle or the complete breaking-off of negotiations that would lead to the agreement which the country desires. There is the oath. If one thing is more certain, politically, than any other it is that the oath clause has got to go. There is no enthusiasm for it in this Dáil. There is a very general feeling against it, and there is a very general feeling against it outside. It has to go for two reasons, the first of which is that this country cannot afford to have driven into the wilderness of unconstitutional opposition those who are entitled, and ought to be encouraged, to constitutional opposition. It has to go secondly, because the clause as it stands, goes a good deal beyond what we pledged ourselves to in the Treaty. I am anxious in this debate to say nothing that would look like recrimination against Ministers from whom I have profoundly disagreed on this subject, and disagree still, but I want the facts to be looked at objectively.
The Constitution is an Act of this Dâil, and there is a clear general rule that there should be no reflection upon a statute unless on a motion to amend or rescind it. The Deputy is speaking to what really amounts to a Constitutional amendment, and while recognising the peculiar circumstances, and not wishing in any way to interfere with the debate, I would like the Dáil to consider whether we can enter into a discussion on a Constitutional amendment now. I do not think we can.
I do not wish to transgress the rules of debate.
I gave the Deputy rather more rope that he was strictly entitled to, but we have had this matter debated before in this very place.
The point I wished to make is not one to which, I think, exception can be taken.
I hope the Deputy is not now going to make a point which has been ruled out, and accept a ruling after he has made his point. That would be very sharp practice, and I am sure the Deputy is not going to indulge in it.
I hope the Chair does not assume that I was going to do such a thing.
I do not wish to reflect upon the Deputy, but I think I have made myself clear to him. I hope he does not intend to make a point which is not in order.
The point which I wished to make when I started upon this question of the oath was, that in my view, it is not reasonable to call upon the present Ministry as a condition of peace to alter that particular Clause in the Constitution, and if Mr. de Valera insisted upon that as a condition of peace he would be acting very unwisely, and without the hope of succeeding; whereas he must know, as we all know, that there are many ways by which the same object can be attained, and by which the Constitution can be amended. I think if he were to reflect upon the position he would see how peculiarly difficult it would be for the Ministry to accept as a condition of peace that this oath should be changed. I had intended to refer to the question that was debated here during the debates on the Constitution as to the necessity of having an oath in the Constitution, by way of emphasising the point that you could not ask the present Ministry as a condition of peace to change the oath. But that, I understand, is subjest to the ruling you have just made, and, therefore. I can leave that matter, by referring those interested in it, to the debates that took place at the time.
I do not wish to take up the time of the Dâil further. I do most earnestly ask the Government and the Dáil to realise how very slight, and how very far from substantial is the difference now separating the Government from the Republicans, and, on the other hand, how immensely important it is for the country that we should have peace by agreement. In these circumstances I do ask the Government not to insist with any unnecessary rigidity upon the terms which they may have set down at first before they had heard what Mr. de Valera had to say. If he, on his side, will concede a point on this matter that he calls fundamental rights, and upon the oath they on their side should show themselves conciliatory in the matter of arms. I do believe that if negotiations were resumed where they have been left off it is not only possible but probable that they will be crowned with success.
What occurs to me, on listening to the two speeches we have just heard, is that we are getting on, or perhaps, I should say, we are getting back. We are going back to the Second Dáil.
I hope not.
I hope not, but I am afraid we are. We have heard of "The Military Chiefs on both sides" before. We have heard of the military operations of the Irregulars; we have heard of the Republican Government and the Republican authorities. It is just a year and a half since I heard that before. I did not think, after all that has occurred for the last year, after the murder and arson and brigandage of the last year, that I would hear that sort of cant again. Because that is what it is—cant. Now, I do not believe that there is an Irishman or any man in this Dáil listening to me, who has any respect for the honour of his country, or the traditions of his country, but is heartily ashamed of what has happened for the last year. After all that, we are here now seriously discussing with the man who is at the bottom of the whole of it, as to whether we are to agree with majority rule, with the freedom of the Press and with freedom of speech. I do hope that the Dáil is not going to add the last touch of farce to the disgrace and decadence of the last year on a serious occasion like this, when we are talking about peace, by discussing principles of that sort with a man who has tried to violate them and outrage them for the last year. I do not want to say anything hard at all. But I do not believe you can build peace on cant, and there is no man listening to me who does not know that that is cant in Mr. de Valera's mouth. I commend this remark of Carlyle's to the Dáil:—"Let cant cease, because until cant ceases nothing good can be gained." I leave it at that.
We are also discussing fundamental rights, I understand, which are non-judicable, indefeasible and all the rest of it, and there is a cryptic clause that nobody in the Dáil, not even Deputy Johnson nor Deputy Duffy nor any of the other legal purists understands, or at least I have not been able to ascertain their attitude. The only thing the Irish people are interested in in regard to these particular clauses can be put quite simply. Do they break the Treaty; do they infringe any portion of the Treaty; and if they do that is the end of it? I have listened to discussions about the oath on various occasions in the Dáil and it has been dragged in when we have been discussing questions which have really nothing to do with it. It has been discussed from every point of view and I have always found myself fundamentally at variance with Deputy Johnson and Deputy Gavan Duffy on that point. I will not infringe the ruling which has been made in regard to Deputy Gavan Duffy in discussing as to whether the oath is in the Treaty except to say this one word. (Laughter.) I think you will not find me out of order when I say it. I have no respect for a man who signs a document and then attempts to go back of it.
That is mere impudence.
It depends on the date, I suppose.
I have an opinion, too, about the oath. Why should we risk the Treaty and why should we risk the oath? Why should we quarrel with the oath and thereby quarrel with the whole of the Treaty at this stage? What is the reason, for whom, and for what consideration?
Is not this the original point again?
This is the second Dáil again.
I will put the point in another way. I do not think that there is any political issue involved here, and when we are discussing peace I believe, if we are making peace, that any peace which is supposed to be directed to political issues will not be a real peace. I think there is something far more fundamental, far more vital than any political issues that can be involved, and I think it is absolutely necessary to keep that in mind when discussing this question of peace. Common honesty, common decency, everything that makes life reasonable has been outraged for the last year, and any peace you make now that does not vindicate common honesty and common decency will be no peace. It does not matter whether you agree with Mr. de Valera about the oath; it does not matter whether you leave the Irregulars their arms or take them from them, if you allow the people who have conducted a degrading class war by burning other people's houses, if you allow the people who have enriched themselves at the expense of the community during the last years, if you allow people who have been committing murder and arson for personal reasons, if you allow them escape unpunished as the result of your peace, then I say that there will be no peace and not a real peace. Whether you leave the oath in the Treaty or not you cannot make peace without knowing what the issue is. The real issue is common honesty and decency in the ordinary relations of life—these are the things you have to vindicate. You have to make it possible for the ordinary man to live his life in a reasonable way. You have to put the ordinary man in the saddle here in the country without challenge. If you do that there is no fear of Republicanism, and the independence of the country is not going to be kept away from you because there happens to be an oath in the Treaty now.
Perhaps it is not exactly the time when one should meditate on the beatitudes. I wonder whether any speaker considered whether there was such a beatitude as "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be pursued by Boanerges." I think the peacemakers in this case have done great service to this Oireachtas for this, amongst other reasons, that they have enabled the principles upon which this Dáil has proceeded, both as a constituent assembly and as the first House of the Oireachtas to legislate and stand over the principles of public honesty and public decency such as the Minister for Agriculture has referred to. I think we do an ill-service to ourselves. I speak as one who stands in all this controversy that has occurred with the Executive Council in the action they have taken as being the minimum of right required of them. I say it was time that the principles that are in the discussion should come into public in order that people at large might know what the substance of peace is. I feel with Deputy Johnson a considerable amount of astonishment at some of the articles that have been put forward by Deputy de Valera—after all he is a Deputy though he has not accepted the responsibility of this Dáil. He was so returned. He states in Article 3 that "as a practical rule of order and democratic Government, political issues shall be decided by the majority vote of the duly elected representatives of the people." If that had been stated by him after the past 12 months as an admission that he had been wrong during the past 12 months, it would be excellent, but one feels a considerable degree of astonishment when this is stated for the acceptance of the very people who have been endeavouring to assert that principle. I am reluctant to say anything that might cause an unnecessary amount of acerbity, and I have endeavoured to avoid always any words that might exasperate a situation already sufficiently exasperated. I feel that the right attitude to take is this, and it happens to be in perfect consonance with the rulings you have given to-day, that the Treaty and Constitution are fixed principles of this State that we have decided upon, and that it is idle and futile to go back upon that. All action taken must be action in the future, and we must be a forward-looking people and not a backward-looking people. Anything that might arise and challenge the issues decided are against the interests of the State, because we must make an end of this, and I hope this has been made an end of. It is unnecessary, I hope, that Mr. de Valera should wish to state before any member of this Dáil—when it is set down as a cardinal principle in the Constitution—that all governmental authority in Ireland—legislative, executive and judicial—is derived exclusively from the people of Ireland. That has been affirmed, and is now an article of the Constitution. It is he who is required to recognise it so throughout all those conditions examined in detail by Deputy Johnson, he is merely stating in the main the substance of what is the postulated argument of those who have accepted the Treaty, and have established a Constitution based upon the Treaty.
There is the question of the oath, which also has been accepted. We would stultify ourselves if this matter were to come again under discussion. It has been decided. It is there in the Constitution, but one is compelled to say it is really a little amazing that Article 4 of those terms requires that no such oath should be administered or demanded.
It does not do that.
"That no citizen who subscribes to the foregoing can be justly excluded by any political oath", that is a different matter which I frankly admit, but there was a time when this elected assembly, sitting where it now sits, did the most important legislative work that could have been undertaken in a State. This assembly was not then bound by oath, and Deputy de Valera never entered the assembly. If it be right now for him to say no person should be justly excluded, when no person was excluded, justly or unjustly, he nevertheless did not come here to urge his point on the benches of this Dáil, and I claim with regard to Article 4 of those terms, that he is the last person in the country who should bring it forward, he and those who could have argued the matter here but who refused to accept their responsibility in the matter. Deputy Johnson referred to a matter which must have been present in all our minds, that if Article 4 be right now, Article 4 was always right. Yet there was a time in an earlier Dáil than this, when an oath was required, and other persons were excluded when that oath was required. I refer to it not because it is a matter of antique history, but because I believe it might influence future history in a very material manner. I believe I am correct in saying that a Deputy of that earlier Dail said that the oath was taken by him in the sense that he intended to do his best for his country. If one oath can be accepted in that sense why cannot another?
I disagree with Deputy Gavin Duffy in believing there are more than two points at issue—one is the question of the oath, which is a settled issue, and the second is the question of arms. I have heard it said in this Dáil in regard to the matter of arms, that the Irregular forces—whom I do not dignify by the term of military forces—are anxious to save their faces. After all, I feel on that question, that we are not on a matter of principle. It is a matter of principle—and I am entirely behind the Executive Council in this matter of principle—that all arms in the country should be in the possession and control of the Government appointed by the people of that country. But how these arms are to be gathered in is another question altogether. If it is true that the Irregulars are anxious to save their faces, after all, that is only a human desire. People desire, when they are losing, to save their faces, and their opponents rightly will recognise that human wish, and will meet it in so far as they can. Let them do so, as long as this nation can be saved. If a system can be arranged by which arms may be surrendered to some mediators in the matter, and ultimately come into the possession of the Executive forces of the country— and, I believe, that two or three months ago, such a course was not impossible, was within the possibility of acceptance— then let that be done. It is not material how arms be got, as long as it is a recognised principle that no person should have weapons of this sort in their possession for any purpose whatever, unless it be with the sanction of the people, exercised through the legislature, and from the legislature through the Executive. I believe that if these proposed terms of settlement in the draft of the 7th May, 1923—one wonders how many previous drafts there have been; they would make a rather interesting collection, I imagine —that if all were to be pushed away and it came down to the ultimate residuum, it would be found that the question of arms is largely being decided for itself. The question of the oath is one that cannot and should not have been raised in this Dáil by a person who was elected a member of this Dáil, and who could have raised it in his place at the right time and occasion, and who refused to raise it then. He, therefore, is bound by that result just the same as the rest of us are.
I am for peace. I believe the majority of Irishmen who are not politicians by profession are for peace. But we are not for peace at any price. We are for peace that is a genuine and enduring peace. A great deal that was said in regard to these negotiations I regret. A great deal might have been left unsaid. When I heard Deputy Johnson expounding the case for accepting in some measure the propositions of Mr. de Valera, I felt as I have often felt at a sermon. The unfortunate thing about a sermon is that those to whom it is more appropriately addressed are not present, and those who are present do not require it. Everything that could be advanced in favour of a settlement has been advanced in the propositions put forward on behalf of the President. How are they met? This thing was originated by a proclamation by Mr. de Valera in which he put forward as a basis of settlement certain propositions. No sooner are these negotiations entered into than he proceeds to make some more. They are altogether new. That is exactly his history as a negotiator. Deputy Johnson said there were only two questions at issue, arms and the oath. I prefer, in the words of Virgil, to say "arms and the man." Someone spoke of him as a philosopher. I ask anyone who reads these documents to look for any trace of anything but a man who takes a mathematician's view of actuality and who prefers dialectics. There is a story of a dying Scotchman who, after he had received all the ministrations of his religion, still lingered on. His devoted wife asked if there was anything else he would like. Would he not like a drachm of whiskey, or would he like to have a wee prayer made? To all of this he said, "No, no, Meg." At last, when she pressed him that there might be something which would ease his dying hour, he said, "I want to argie." He wanted to argue.
The "Irish Times," which I have in my hand here, has a gigantic caption, "Peace Negotiations Break Down." I should like to be satisfied that peace negotiations have broken out before I am informed that they have broken down, because what I fail to be satisfied about after the speech of Deputy Johnson is that peace is seriously meant. If I thought that peace was seriously meant, if I could discover, even what chemists call traces, a small percentage, of a serious proposition for peace, I should certainly be as strong in the advocacy of it as my friends Deputy Gavan Duffy and Deputy Johnson. To show that I am not libelling the author of these propositions, and that if it is a libel the two Senators are responsible, would you permit me to read from the newspapers— I have not the documents that were served out to us:—
With reference to the statement of the Government that they could not re-open the question of the oath, Mr. de Valera stated he had nevertheless felt it right to include paragraph 4, because he believed even if they could not do so they should be asked to admit as a general principle that there should be no barrier to elected representatives who accepted the main principles taking their seats.
That is to say, he puts forward many of these propositions with the full consciousness which he admits that they were only put forward as abstract propositions. Whatever that may be it is not politics. It is mathematics.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Metaphysics.
No, pardon me. The Minister for Home Affairs ought to know better. Metaphysics exist to correct these aberrations. Observe the influence of the abstract, and the mathematics again in these propositions: "That is a practical rule of order and democratic Government. Political issues shall be decided by the majority vote of the duly elected representatives of the people." The reservation there clearly is that it is only as a practical rule, but the abstract rule will be quite different, and might be advanced and discussed and argued about sacula saculorum. There was a great deal of stress laid upon the fact that Mr. de Valera did not ask us to declare that no oath was to be taken. Again, he only asks us to subscribe to the abstract doctrine—the abstract proposition, that it is not just to ask a man who does not believe in A.B. to swear that he does not believe in A.B. Again, I ask you—is that politics? Surely, no one has proposed that a man should forswear himself, and that we declare, in asking him to forswear himself there is no injustice done to him. The proposition is:—“That no citizen who subscribes to the foregoing can be justly excluded by any political oath, test, or other device.” I am quite willing to subscribe to that. There are ever so many things in practical life, however, which could not be made to square with an abstract view, a theoretical consideration. If I had selected a seat in a railway carriage and then went to buy a paper and came back and found that a prize-fighter with a champion bull-dog had occupied the seat, although I might feel I was perfectly entitled to ask him to withdraw, as a practical man I should look for another seat instead of arguing the abstract doctrine of whether or not reservation of seats ought to be observed. Now, I said, as compared with his original offer Mr. de Valera sprouts offers as time goes on with wonderful fertility. He asks that, pending the election effective control of lethal weapons shall be secured by “(1) the strict supervision and control of all arms in the hands of the Free State forces and their auxiliaries.” Now, no sensible man who attached meaning to the words he uses would make such a stipulation. What does it mean? “The strict control of all arms in the hands of the Free State forces.” The corresponding stipulation is that the arms of his forces are to be stored in selected barracks and sealed, to be guarded, we do not know how long, by selected guardian angels. How is anyone on our part to accept this stipulation honestly and meaning to abide by it? It is an impossible requirement that arms in the hands of Free State soldiers should be under strict control. Then, again, a further stipulation, of which we heard nothing until the last stage of the negotiations, that the funds of the Republic, formerly subscribed, should be given over as an election test, not to the Sinn Fein party who collected these moneys, but to one section.
Not to the Labour Party anyway.
No, but to one section. They know the Labour Party has sufficient funds without any adventitious aid of that sort. Another condition that is to be undertaken is—and it is an ominous thing that the leader of the Irregulars should think it necessary to make this proposal—that in awarding compensation for losses there shall be no discrimination against those who have been in conflict with the Free State—I am not quoting this word for word—that there shall be a general amnesty, and that no civil action shall be taken or shall lie against any person who has supported the Republican cause in the conflict. No civil action! We did not hear of these proposals. I hope the negotiations, as they are called, will be continued, because it will be interesting to see what new conditions will be imposed as time goes on.
On a point of correction, I just wish to say that I think the Deputy has misread the quotation quite inadvertently. The words in the paper read "during the direct conflict with England," and not, as the Deputy said with the Free State.
I stated that I was not quoting the document word for word as the paper was crumpled up and I was not giving a literal transcription from it.
It was not merely not a literal transcription, it was in direct conflict with the statement in the document.
The exact words in the document are: "That in awarding compensation for losses sustained by individuals during the direct conflict with England there shall be no discrimination against those who, in the present conflict, have been supporters of the Republic."
I am afraid that by inadvertence I said Free State when it should have been England. However, it does not make much difference to the argument. I am for peace. I believe the country wants peace. I believe that the large majority of the men who are sincerely wedded to the belief in making this land a Republic, are for peace, and that is why it seems a jest, I say it now in all seriousness, that the difficulties which stand in the way of peace are "arms and the man." Are there not other men, leaders on the other side, with whom serious negotiations could be satisfactorily carried on?
Hear, hear.
Surely we are not going to let little points of etiquette stand in the way of a task so necessary to be done if the future of our country is to be saved. If the personality of any man, or the peculiar warped mentality of any man seeks to stand between the country and the peace which it so strongly desires, then there is a remedy for that.
If there is further discussion on the question, important as the question of personality may be, and no doubt personality does enter into the question, I hope that the course of the discussion will rather follow an examination of the suggestions made by Deputy Johnson, because while it is true that, to some extent, the root of the whole thing may be a question of "Arms and the Man" there is a very strong impression that there is something to be said that it is also a question of "Arms and the Men." There is more than one side concerned, and it really comes down to that. After all the trouble, turmoil, murder and arson that have happened during the past nine or ten months, it all comes very largely to the question of arms. Now it should not be beyond the ingenuity of the people of Ireland, and their representatives, to devise within a reasonable time a method of disposing of the arms' question which would not be so rigid and so hard and fast as that demanded by the Government, nor yet so wild-cat as that suggested in Mr. de Valera's document. It seems to me there is grave danger just now of a repetition of what happened when previous attempts were made to bring about peace. It happened, just when things seemed like peace, that something or other was done or said on one side or the other, and that the doing or saying of these things, created a situation which smashed the possibility of peace. I hope that on neither side, on this occasion, will anything be said or done that would have that unfortunate effect. I agree with Deputy Johnson that peace is much more likely to be got by agreement in action, rather than by agreement over a table, as in such an agreement over a table certain personalties would come into play, personalities which are very difficult indeed to deal with in a conference. But does the Government, or any supporter of the Government, seriously believe that at this stage, and after all that has happened in the last two months if we had anything like quietude, anything like an absolute cessation of hostilities for a month or six weeks that there would be any resumption, on any extended scale, of the military or semi-military, or if you like of the murderous activity of the last eight or nine months. I do not think there would. I think the feeling of the country is there would not be such a resumption of these hostilities, and if there would not be such a resumption surely then, by that time, the question of arms would be easily enough solved. After all, if the Government gets up every single rifle, and revolver, and all the ammunition, and the last of the material of every kind for making bombs does not the Government, and everybody in the country, know perfectly well that at some period or other the prisoners, or most of them, will have to be released, and that there would be still a considerable number of young men and women in the country of the opinion that Mr de Valera's supporters have held in the last eight or nine months, and that by the exertion, of perhaps perverted intelligence, as some of the Ministers like to put it, and by making certain sacrifices, bombs can be got in, at all events, in sufficient quantities to carry on on a smaller or a larger scale certain of the activities that have disturbed the country within recent periods. It is always possible, and there are some supporters of the Government who know that it is perfectly true from their experience of the last five or six years, that it is always possible for a certain number of men to take the means to do it, to take the desperate means if you like, to bring into the country, and keep in the country, enough arms to create disturbance amounting to civil war or rebellion or marauding as some of the Ministers prefer to call it. Now I note that instead of examining the utterances of people on either side, or even going into the question as to whether someone is a metaphysician or mathematician if they would take the advice, or one of the bits of advice, given by the Minister for Agriculture they would cut out a good deal of cant and realise that the bandying of expressions on one side or the other is not going to cut any ice towards peace. It may be because a certain decision has been given in the British Courts, in certain cases, that some people, on the irregular side, may be bucked up to further efforts. I hope not, I hope they will not allow anything said, or anything that has happened, to persuade them to carry on the ruinous campaign that they have been carrying on. But I hope on the other hand that nothing will come from the Government, either by word or action, that will assist those on the irregular side who want to carry on the campaign to persuade those who want to get out and get home to remain in arms opposed to the Government. It is not possible, and it should be impressed if it is possible to impress Mr. de Valera, even if he is a member of an opposing congregation, that abstract principles and abstractions while all very well in their own way will not fit in with reality. A good many of those who followed him have come to that conclusion. I am not going to go back and quote some of them whom the Government themselves have quoted here, but some of them have come up against realities. We too would prefer that coming up against realities would be coming up against the realities of life and decent life rather than it should be against the realities of the firing squads or a revolver or a rifle. There is a danger I think when what is being called negotiation has broken down that words which otherwise perhaps would be all right in their place, expressions otherwise all right in their place, may be used now when they would be out of place, and would upset any little chance there has been of coming to agreement by action, as we call it, rather than by agreement in words. There are a good many people if I may say so in the military fighting forces on both sides who do not want the thing finished. There are others on both sides whom I may call the die-hards who want to have an absolute and complete and smashing victory. I wish we could get that spirit out of the way on both sides, Let us remember that, come what may. we have all got to live in Ireland for some years to come; that there will be big differences and sharp keen and acute differences that will have to be solved and that the best methods is not always the methods of the gun even if the gun should be in the hands of legitimate Governmental authority.
It is not a much more sacred, or a holier, or higher thing to take life in the name and with the sanction of a fully sovereign and national assembly, than to take life without and against the sanction of a fully sovereign and national assembly. That is the way I think the ordinary people of the country look upon it. They do not see the niceties of Mr. de Valera's abstract propositions, and they do not see the niceties either because they have not had the opportunity, of the strict standing on the-letter-of-the-law of the Government. They think that if compromises were made in certain directions, with other people that, perhaps, a little bit of compromise with some of our own people no matter how bad they have been, no matter how evil they have been, might be for the ultimate benefit of the country. On the question that has been raised with regard to the oath, my opinion and that of my colleagues, is so well known that it is unnecessary to repeat it. I never thought that it was worth fighting about, and I still think that it is not worth fighting about. If the opportunity is grasped now there does seem a chance that given a certain state of quietude in the country with no recriminations on either side, that that particular issue might be left in abeyance for some time to arise as a purely political issue of the future, when it could be solved in the ordinary natural and constitutional way. If there is any wisdom left, and I think there is some wisdom left, in some of the armed opponents of the Government we might very well spend our time in attempting to persuade them, and at the same time to persuade the Executive Council and the Army to make the thing easy. The oath, so far as England was concerned, served a certain purpose: it helped to get England to agree to the Treaty. That in its way was a useful enough purpose. Now if there are certain things laid down in the documents which were presented to us yesterday, even though we cannot swallow them wholesale, some of them in the raw crude state in which they are, yet it should be possible to make use of them, and make them serve their turn as we made the oath in its time to serve its purpose and lastly, perhaps at the moment, the more important things of all I would ask both sides, the Executive Council here, and whatever Council is in touch with Mr. de Valera on the other side, even by action or word and sometimes words spoken are as important as actions, whatever we may think about them when written, that neither by word nor act should anything be done to hasten the resumption of the hostilities, for what we want, no matter by which means we get it, is a non-resumption of hostilities and complete stoppage of them by both sides.
A Chinn Chomhairle, Ba mhaith lionn labhairt ar an gceist seo ach níl ach fíor-bheagan le rá agam mar gheall air. There are two or three things I desire to refer to in this matter. I wish to associate myself with the ideas that have been expressed by Deputy Johnson on this question, because I believe them to be right ideals of Government, under the circumstances of this problem; and because also I know that those are the ideals which the overwhelming majority of the people that sent me here hold at present, and have been holding for some time. I agree with him that this problem of the strife is now narrowed down, according to the political leader of those opposed to the Government, to two points, namely, the question of the test for entrance into this Parliament and the handing over of arms. Now, personally, as with others, I do not think, any time should be wasted in discussing the question of the test for entrance into this Assembly. I am one of those who entirely disagree with having any test for entrance into the Assembly. I think there should be no such test, and there have been no such tests in the other assemblies which have been held. But certain force of circumstances is compelling some of us, at least, to accept that test. On the other point of the surrender or handing up of arms from those who have been active against the forces of the Dáil and the forces of the Government, the matter is, I confess, a very difficult one. It has been rendered difficult by the traditions which we ourselves have had when we were acting against the English forces. Probably some of my friends at the present time may smile, because I am so frequently speaking of peace, that I am entirely regarded as a man of peace, but at the same time I wish to remind them on this particular occasion that at one time I did have a rifle, and that I did not surrender it, and that if I honestly held the views that are, perhaps, honestly held by those who are with the irregulars and with the circumstances put before me that are facing some of them, I would not surrender it now. A certain offer has been made for the surrender of the arms in the hands of some of them. I do not think that all of those on the other side do accept Mr. de Valera as leader, but I do think that there are certain elements who are in command of small sections of those who have been fighting the forces of the Government and the Dáil worth consideration, and it is worth while once more for some sections in the Dáil, if the Government itself cannot do it, to get in touch with them. This I must say finally on behalf of my constituents that the attitude of the Government in some cases, and the actions that were taken, are not commendable to the majority of the people.
The practical reason why, without entering into metaphysics or declarations or documents or anything else, the majority of the people of the country are utterly opposed to the Irregular campaign and opposed even to Mr. de Valera's political ideas now is because of the destruction which was wrought, the blood that was shed by the Irregulars and on the same principle, namely, the shedding of blood, even when you do it by a judicial process, if you carry it to any extent, the people will turn out any Government, even a rightful Government. That is the view, so far as I can discover, of the majority of the people, an abhorrence of bloodshed, even when it is carried out by a lawfully constituted Government, and a desire for peace without entering too far into the punctilios of whether the Government is right or whether Mr. De Valera is right. I join with Deputy Johnson and others who have expressed the opinion that if there is a possibility of coming to agreement with certain persons who hold arms and who are opposed to the Government and have used these arms against the Government, that the opportunity should be availed of, because it is a very difficult thing to get in the arms, and the will of the people, as it has been spoken about so very frequently as backing up the Government in certain actions taken, so far as anybody can see at present is that hostilities, if we may call them that, and actions leading to hostilities or leading to destruction or to the loss of life, should cease and cease immediately.
I suppose, sir, it is my duty to congratulate the Deputy on his reappearance amongst us and for the very humane statement that he has made. We know it has taken people down there a very long time to come to that point of view considering that we have met here for six months before the Deputy came along to warn us, so that I am afraid it loses some of its effect by reason of the fact that it has not been done sooner.
I fear the terms in which Deputy Milroy referred to the Senators through whom these documents came may lead to some misunderstanding. I want to say that they did not thrust themselves into this business. They were approached on behalf of Mr. De Valera or by himself, and I think that they acted from a high sense of public duty throughout, and they should be honoured for the part they have taken in the business and the trouble they have gone to in connection with it.
Now, I am not impressed by these peace conditions or peace statements or peace proclamations. An examination of them does not convince me that there was any real intention of making peace; none whatever. Just about the time that the first document came in we came across this letter:—
"The men are wonderful with all the trials they have to put up with. There are peace negotiations going on at present and a truce has been arranged temporarily. The truce only applies to I.R.A. The Free State are not recognising it as they are raiding wholesale. The peace negotiations will be a great success. The Free State Government cannot accept it as the terms are a breach of the Free State Constitution; but the Irish people will accept it as at present they would take anything for peace. The truce will not last long as we are expecting a reply from the Free State; a negative result of course. The war will then start again. There has been a lot of work done lately."
Now, this was found in Ernie O'Malley's house, this particular letter, and that really confirms my own view in the commencement when I saw Mr. de Valera's first letter. But we acted as if the thing were straight from the commencement. What is the issue in this peace business? Is it peace or is it political careers for the people who have been waging destruction and creating disorder right through the country for the last ten months? If it be peace and that they subscribe to the democratic principles that they paint in those letters what is to prevent peace? Is it because they cannot get the half million of money in America, that we have to pay, that we have to tax the people to pay, and that we have to borrow to pay? Is it because they will not get that or is it because we will not seal up in barracks right through the country arms that they will be free to use or to get at any time when they take it into their minds to interview a bank manager, and so on? It has been stated—it was rather an unfortunate statement to make—that at one time a certain number of men, a small number, a hundred or two hundred, could hold up the country. We are going to see, before we get out of office at any rate, that that fetish will be exploded and that it will not be possible for a hundred or two hundred men to hold up the country, even if very important sections of the community send representatives here to tell us that they will not stand for strong action against people who do that.
Would the sealing up of arms mean a free election? I do not think so—a free election for one side in order that if the election is not going their way they can go around to where they are, take out the arms and impress their will on the people. We are told, "The Irish People will accept it as at present they would take anything for peace." If a real honest effort is made on the part of anybody acting for the Irregulars or acting for the Republicans or acting for the people who are promoting disorder in the country to come to their senses and to make peace we will deliver the goods. We have not any intention of relaxing one single soldier from his duty until we know where we are in regard to this business and we would be failing in our duty to the country if we did so. Messages I have from all parts of the country are messages of fear and apprehension that we would enter into any negotiations which would mortgage the future liberty of the people. Examine these proposals any way that you wish, in any humour that you wish, and you will find that as far as the party that has promoted disorder is concerned they are prepared to accept peace only if they are guaranteed a lease of political life.
We are not going to guarantee them a lease of political life. I do not think that any statement like this is going to hinder or postpone the making of peace by one single hour. We have said from the very commencement that we are prepared to wipe the slate clean but we are not prepared to take any risk with regard to the possession of arms by people who do not realise their responsibilities as citizens. We took that risk before; we got undertakings from them that they would hold the arms for the people and that they would obey the Government that would be selected and appointed by the people. We saw what the result was. There are very many things that I could say in connection with this particular incident that has happened now but fearing that it might be alleged that we do not want peace I will not say them. This much I will say; the thing that makes me most suspicious about those people is the fact that they will never condemn any person in this country at the present moment who commits any disorder however criminal it may be because it leans to the side of the Irregular problem. That is a bad frame of mind to be in. If you were to make peace with them to-morrow it does not mean that there is going to be a perfectly normal life. You will still have trouble. There will be still a duty on any Government to act sternly with regard to those people. I think the people the Deputy has just come from will realise in the long run that that is the sanest and best possible course for the Government of the day to adopt. I say now what almost every member of the Executive Council has already said, and that is that they are prepared to leave office, granted that the other people also leave and so leave to the people of the country the running of the country. They do not stand for that; they will not have that; they want this lease of political life and it cannot be given them at the price they ask.
The Dáil adjourned at 8 p.m.