Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 Nov 1927

Vol. 21 No. 18

ORDERS OF THE DAY. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT (No. 2) BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE.

Debate resumed on the motion: That this Bill be now read a second time.— (Deputy de Valera.)

Táim ag cuidiú leis an mBille seo. Ba mhaith liom a rá, ar an gcéad dul síos, go mba cheart an mhóid seo do bhaint amach as an Acht mar gheall ar an diobháil a rinne sí don Gheadhilg. Gan caint ar rud ar bith eile, ba leór sin. Cuireadh isteach ar scéimeanna ranganna Gaedhilge i gcúig no sé contaethe agus briseadh suas cuid mhaith acu—go h-áithrid i gContae Mhuigeo, i gContae na Gaillimhe agus i gContae Bhaile Atha Cliath —mar gheall ar an mhóid seo. I gContae Mhuigheo bhi na múinteóirí ag obair ar feadh sé mí, no mar sin, nuair a cuireadh an t-Alt seo den Acht i bhfeidhm. Dhiúltaigh na múinteóirí glaca leis an mhóid agus briseadh suas na ranganna. Ba é an cás céanna é ag muinteóirí na Gaillimhe. Cuireadh deire leis na ranganna nuair do dhiúltaigh na múinteóirí dul fé mhóid. Rud ba mheasa ná san, cuireadh ruaig ar Gaedhil a bhí ag obair go dúrachtach ar feadh na mbliánta ar son na tíre— daoine a rinne troid ar son na h-Eireann seachtmhain na Cásga. B'eigin dóibh dul thar sáile.

Rinne an t-Aire Tailte agus Talmhaíochta tágairt do'n cheist seo iné. Bhí sé ag caitheamh droch-mheasa ar thír-ghrádh na ndaoine agus ar na feara so atá ar thaobh nea-spléachas na h-Eireann. Ba mhaith liom a chur i n-iúl don Aire go raibh duine amháin. ar a laighead, 'na chontae féin a thuig céard ba tír-grá ann agus b'éigean do'n fhear seo imtheacht as an tír. Colm O Gaora ab'ea an fear go raibh iachall air dul thar sáile mar gheall ar an Alt sin. I mBaile Atha Cliath bhí cúigear múinteoirí ag obair go cruaidh agus na ranganna a bhí fén a gcúram, bhí siad ag dul ar aghaidh go maith. Bhí na ranganna san briste suas agus an t-Alt seo ba chionntach le sin. Anois níl an obair á dhéanamh chor ar bith. Bhí na múinteóirí ag saothrú an méid airgid a bhí ag dul dóibh. Bhí Colm O Gaora—agus na daoine eile cosúil leis—sásta leanúint den obair a bhí idir lámhaibh aca ar an méid airgid a tugadh dóibh. Nuair a bhíonn duine sásta obair do dhéanamh, nuair a bhíonn sé ag saothrú a thuarastal, nuair a bhíonn sé i n-ann an obair do dhéanamh i gceart, nuair a bhíonn sé foghluimthe agus céim aige do réir an phuist a bhíonn aige, ní ceart aon rud eile d'iarraidh air. Briseann rud mar sin isteach ar shíocháin aigne agus ar shaoirse aigne duine. Is cuma má thagann an phágh as chiste Puiblí nó as chiste príomháideach—sí an t-aon cheist amháin, an bhfuil sé ábalta ar a chuid oibre do dhéanamh agus an bhfuil sé sásta í do dhéanamh. Ní cóir don Rialtas nó do dhuine ar bith eile ceisteanna eile do chur air.

Is aisteach an rud é go bhfuil dlí mar seo i bhfeidhm sna sé contaethe. Sul a bhfaigheann duine, pé Gael no Gall é, post ón Rialtas sna sé contaethe caithfidh sé móid do thabhairt no fuirm do shighniú go mbeidh sé dílis do Rialtas Craig. Is aisteach an rud é sin agus ní aontuíonn na Teachtaí annso leis. Támuid ag síul go dtiocfaidh an t-am nuair nach mbeidh sa tír seo ach aon rialtas amhain. Ach má éilionn Rialtas Craig ar daoine móid do ghlaca bheith dílis dóibh agus ma fágtar an mhóid seo 'san Acht annso, ce'n chaoi a cuirfear deire le sgoilt na tíre? Caithfidh duine a admhail nach bhfuil mórán maitheasa i Stát gur éigin dó rud mar seo do dhéanamh. Tá seanfhocál ann—"Ní feidir fuil a bhaint as turnip." Muna bhfuil dílseacht do Rialtas i gcroidhe na ndaoine, ní féidir é a chur ionta le móid no le páipéar do shíghniú. Muna bhfuil daoine fén Rialtas ullamh seirbhís dhílis do thabhairt don Rialtas ní thiocfaidh aon atharú aigne ortha mar gheall ar páipéar do shighniú. Deirim gur fearr don Rialtas an mhóid seo do chur i leath-taoibh. Ní árduionn sí meas na ndaoine ortha féin no ar an Stat. Déanann sé sclabhuithe desna daoine in áit saoranaí agus is feárr saoránaí saora do bheith ann ná saor-sclabhuithe.

Ma tá duine sásta an obair do dhéanamh, ní ceart éileamh air móid do glaca. Deirim-se nach ar mhaithease do'n Stát é. Nior cuireadh isteach an mhóid sa chaoi go mbeadh meas agus ard-mheas ag na saoranaí. Cuireadh isteach é mar rud beag, suarach, nimhneach. Duine le aigne nimhneach nea-Ghaelach a chuir isteach i. Gidh na bhfuil móran measa agam ar an Rialtas, is oth liom gur cuireadh isteach an airtiogol so mar is comhra é go bhfuil soisgeal Craig agus na Sasanai acu. Sé seo an rud is mó a thaithneann le daoine cosamhail leis an Teachta J.J. Byrne, an Teachta Jasper Wolfe agus le muinntir na bPoppies. Is chun iad do shasú a chuireadh isteach í.

Ach ni hé sin an taon chuis amhain. B'fheidir go bhfuil raisiún eile ann. Tá intinn an-chumhang ag daoine airithe agus ma flúichann duine a bhróga ba mhaith leis, na daoine eile do dhéunamh amhlaidh. Tá eagla orm ná bhfuil coinsías an Aire socair agus tá faitchíos air go dtiocfaidh an lá nuair ná bheidh morán measa ar na daoine a thug an mhóid seo isteach, mar gheall ar a ndearn sé in-aghaidh na tíre. Ba mhaith leis na daoine seo a bheith in ann a rá, nuair a thiocfas an t-am so, go raibh gach uile duine eile có h-olc leo féin. Ní ceart do'n Rialtas a rá gur acu san atá an ceart agus go bhfuil gach uile duine eile mí-cheart. Is rud beag suarach é seo nach féidir le duine é do chur isteach ach amhain duine ag a bhfuil intinn beag suarach. Táthar a rá gur in agaidh Tréasúin an tAlt seo. Ní creidim é sin. Ní tuigtear céard is Treasún ann. Tá muinntear na tíre níos táchtaí ná an roinn seo den tír. Tá daoine in Eirinn—agus beidh, le congnamh Dé—nach mbeidh sásta a bheith dílis do roinnt de'n tír. Tá daoine in Eirann d'foghluim náisiúntacht ó shoisgéal an Phíorsaigh. D'foghluim siad céard is tír-ghrá agus céard is saoirse ann agus chuir siad rómpa a bheith dílis don tír—don tír ar fad agus ní don dhá leath di.

Iarraim ar an Aire agus ar na daoine ar an taoibh eile den Tigh—má tá siad dáiríribh in a n-abrann siad—gan an rud suarach seo do fhágail san Acht. Tá an Rialtas ag iarraidh guthanna na bhfurmóir agus d'iarrfainn ortha anois, nuair a bheidh Vótáil ar an mBille seo, cead do thabhairt do sna Teachtaí a nguthanna do thabhairt do reír a mbarúil féin. D'iarrfainn ar an Rialtas gan iarraidh ar an Aodhaire iachall do chur ar na Teachtai dul i gcoinne an Bhille. Beiridís cead a gcinn agus cead a gcos do sna Teachtaí agus táim cinnte go bhfuil Gaedhil ar an dtaobh eile atá sásta in a gcroidhe agus in a n-aigne nach cheart a nguthanna do thabhairt in agaidh aon dhuine atá sásta a chuid oibre do dhéanamh agus atá in-ann é do dhéanamh chó maith.

Nuair do dhiúltuigh múinteoirí an mhóid do glaca, tugadh isteach in a n-áit daoine nach raibh i-nánn an obair do dhéanamh chó maith leo. Thárla go raibh teastas dhá-theangach ag na múinteoirí a bhi ag obair agus cuireadh in a n-aiteanna daoine nach raibh acu ach an gnáth-theastas, daoine gur theip ortha teastas dhá theangach d'fháil. Act tá siad san maith go leór chó fada agus a chuaidh siad síos ar a nglúnaibh ós cóir an Rialtais.

Má tá an Rialtas chó chinnte go bhfuil furmhór na ndaoine ar thaoibh na móide seo, iarraim ortha cead a thabhairt dos na Teachtaí guthanna do thabhairt mar is maith leo. Má dhéanam siad sin, b'féidír go bhfeicfeadh siad nach bhfuil gach ball de Chumann na nGaedheal ar aon intinn lén rud beag suarach seo.

Ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl do sna Teachtaí agus do sna hAirí nach bhfuil aon mhaitheas 'sa rud seo. Muna bhfuil dílseacht don Rialtas agus meas ortha i gcroidhe na ndaoine, ni chuirfidh páipéar do shigniú aon leigheas air. B'fhearr do shíocháin na tire an t-alt seo d'fhágailt amach. Eireódh mórtas Gaedhil dá bhfeicfeadh siad aon chomhartha ón taoibh eile go raibh siad chun na sean-rudaí nimhneacha atá ag roinnt na ndaoine do chur ar leathtaoibh—da dtabharfadh an Rialtas gesture, mar adéarfa. Muna ndeannann siad sin agus muna nglacann siad leis an mBille seo, ná ceapaidís nach mbeidh aon chur isteach ortha agus gur féidir leo suidhe go socair, ná ceapaidís nach dtiocfaidh an lá nuair a eireoidh na Gaedhil chun a ndicheall do dhéanamh ar son saoirse na tire. Ní chuirfidh páipéar do shígniú cosc le sin. 'Sa bhlian 1916, do throid daoine ag a raibh páipéar sighnithe do Rí Shasama, do throid siad ar son na h-Eireann. Níor chuir sin aon bhac ortha agus ní chuirfidh an rud beag suarach seo aon bhac ar Ghaedhil an lae iniu. Muna scuabfar amach an rud suarach nimhneach seo déanfidh na Gaedhil féin é.

I would like, for the information of very few perhaps of the Deputies who are here, to remind them that it is my belief, and that I think it is their own belief, that in enforcing this declaration on public servants and on the servants of the State, they are not in any way benefiting the State or acting in the best interests of the State. I say that because if a person does not give allegiance voluntarily he certainly will not give it because of having been forced to sign a paper. When a person is forced to do that, it certainly is not going to make him give the State allegiance. Deputies on the Government benches will know that if a man is forced to sign a declaration of allegiance, as hunger has forced many an Irishman to sign such a declaration, that will not prevent these men afterwords from doing all in their power to advance this country beyond its present status. Deputies here perhaps do not agree that everybody in Northern Ireland, in every public position, should be forced to give allegiance to the Government of the Six Counties. If they were to agree to that then they should agree that the Six Counties should always remain under a Six County Government. I can very well understand Deputies being in favour of this declaration if they agree that this country is to remain as it is, if the Saorstát is to remain as it is, a Twenty-Six County Government within the British Empire. I can very well understand Deputies who think like that being in favour of forcing public servants to sign this declaration but if they want the Gaels of this country to unite North and South and when it is feasible to make some advance nationally then, I do not see any reason for asking for such a declaration as this.

Anyway if the signing of this declaration is forced on every individual in the State through stress of circumstances, that is not going to change the position as far as some of us see it. We believe that in spite of all the declarations that may be forced on the citizens of the State the time must come when an advance must be made by this State. When I was speaking here before, the President said that we on those benches (or rather I) were rattling the sabre. I tell the Minister now that by enforcing this declaration on the citizens of this State he and his Government are rattling the sabre. They are throwing down a challenge which is equivalent to rattling the sabre and if through force of circumstances, people may accept that now, it may not always happen in the same way. The Minister for Agriculture last evening tried to rally to his side the weak men on the Government benches who believe that there is no necessity for a miserable thing of this kind in any Act. There are men on the Government benches who do not think it necessary in the case of servants who are capable of doing their work. Very few of them who do not agree that it is sufficient to ask any servant of the State to do his work capably and well and that nothing more should be asked of him. The Minister of Agriculture tried to rally those on other lines. He talked about violence and treason and all that kind of thing. He defined treason, of course, in his own way. I remember reading at one time somebody's definition of treason. He said: "Treason never prospers; what is the reason? For if it prospers none dare call it treason."

The Ministers should well understand that, for many of the Irish people hold that they were the first men in this country, and they were the only men, to commit treason; but because their treason prospered by the force of English arms, their treason has turned out now not to be treason. Their definitions of treason are not going to be accepted by the Irish people in that way. If this section were put in by the Ministers because they wanted to please Deputy Cooper or because they wanted to be more English than the English themselves, as Craig wanted from his servants, that is not the view of the Irish people. The Ministers may take up that attitude; they may want to be more English than Craig. We can understand that position. But the Ministers should realise that no matter what declaration they force on the Irish people, it will not prevent the people from thinking right nationally and from making an advance nationally. If the majority of the Irish people, or at least always the good minority, think they can advance nationally, they will first think of the national advance and they will not think of any declaration of this kind that is forced on them in their hunger.

It is because this declaration is no good, and because it will prevent nobody from taking up arms against the State at any time, that I think it should be removed. It will not prevent a man from taking up arms if he thinks he ought to do so. Does the Minister for Local Government think because a man signs this declaration it will prevent him from taking arms against the State? I think if he believes that, he has not looked at the situation properly. I realise that it will not. If I signed a declaration yesterday and if, to-day, I was prompted by some motive to take up arms against the State, I would do so. I would not think of that declaration if I believed that my decision of to-day to take up arms was right. It would not prevent me going against the State. The only thing that this declaration will prevent is a certain unity amongst the best elements in this country. It will make the people feel that while there are those bull-dog methods being carried on by the Government, there is no hope for Gaelicising this country.

The Minister for Local Government should be the last man to force a declaration of this kind in any public service. Ministers have experienced the futility of this declaration. They have talked very much about the majority will and about the freedom of the people and the great status to which we have advanced. I would ask them to allow a free vote of the House on this matter. Let them take off their Whips and give a chance to the men on their benches who are Gaels and who believe that the only thing to be required of a man in a position is that he is capable of doing the work and that he does the work. I have spoken to members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party individually and I know what their views are. If the Whips are taken off, I believe that a majority in this House would be got to vote for this Bill.

On the introduction of this Bill some Government Deputies, who, I believe, have not changed their opinion, voted against it. Deputy Esmonde is one of these. Others whom I have spoken to opposed it, because it is a mean thing to put in between Irishmen. Of course, if they do not take off their Whips I realise that we will probably lose on the vote. It is unfortunate that we all, on both sides of the House, have come to realise that you have on the Government Benches the same old rusty machine that you have had for the past five years. They will all vote against this Bill if the Whips are not taken off. If a chance is given, some of them, I think, will vote differently. But simply because somebody on their benches says that this is the right thing to do, the machine will twist its wheel automatically. It is a ridiculous thing, when men are sent here to work in the best interests of the people, that they are always going to answer to the whistle of the machine. When the Public Safety Act was under discussion it was voted by the Government members because it was required for five years. President Cosgrave said, "We want this for five years," and they all said "righto." Shortly afterwards he said, "We only want this for two years," and the machine said "righto." Only about a quarter of an hour afterwards he said, "We only want this for one year," and they said, "That is just the very thing—righto," and the machine voted again automatically. Many of these promised their constituents that they would not be part of the cogs of that machinery, that they would think freely in the best interests of the people, and I wonder what their supporters will think when they see all the wonders of that machine, the wonderful slavish authority that is being maintained by that machine. I ask the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance—they at least were supposed to have at one time, and they probably have yet, a special interest in matters of this kind—to realise the difficulties and the harm that has been caused already to the language by this thing. In opposing this Bill I ask them to remember that they are not advancing nationally; that instead of doing what they first promised, to remove when they could the obstacles in the road to full freedom, they are now putting on the road to freedom every obstacle they can. This is not imposed by England, it is imposed by themselves. They put this in to tie down Irishmen; to make slaves of them all; to say, "Because you work for me you must be a slave for me." We are living in the twentieth century, and the Irish people and the whole world should have advanced a little more, and be able to think more freely. Because a man is getting a miserable salary, he should not be a slave to the big man who holds a stick over his head. All those who were either dismissed or forced to resign because of this clause were prepared to give a declaration to work conscientiously. They had qualifications to do the work they were appointed to do, and when a declaration of that kind can be got from any official, I think the best thing for the State is to let a man of these principles work for the State in order to prevent bitterness between people.

I should like to assure the Deputy who has just spoken that he is making a very great mistake if he thinks there are any Deputies on these benches who, because they have the ideal of the Gaelicisation of Ireland, or because they believe in the fullest freedom and the fullest development of this country, have any sympathy whatever with the mover of the Bill.

Is it the mover of the Bill is in question? Is it because of the mover of the Bill you are opposing it?

The Party which moved the Bill. I am opposed to this Bill precisely for the reason that I believe in the necessity for the Gaelicisation of this country, precisely for the reason that I believe there is something in this country bigger than any State formula, bigger than any State machinery. I believe, and I think Deputies on these benches also believe, that the lives of the people of the country need not and cannot be bound down within any political formula or any system of Government. But there is one thing that we do believe: every person in this country should give allegiance to, and that is the principle, that it is only the majority of the people of this country who have the right to rule it. The Deputy who spoke now made reference to rattling the sabre. We on these benches hold that the only people who have the right to rattle the sabre are the majority of the people of the country, and it is precisely because we hold that that we are against this Bill. I personally have a great deal of sympathy with people who, through honest convictions, have lost appointments, have lost their way of living, because they refused to take this declaration. I have known one man, who has been a friend of mine for years and years, who happens to belong to that category. I have the greatest possible sympathy for him because I believe he is quite sincere. At the same time, I believe that he took the action he took simply because he was deceived by the propaganda of the Fianna Fáil Party.

A DEPUTY

At what time did that take place? There was no Fianna Fáil Party then.

Deputy Lemass last night spoke about people passing milestones during the last few years. I think Deputy Lemass and his Party have passed a good many more milestones in the last three months than this Party have passed in the last five years. There is one particular milestone they have passed to which I would recommend their attention in regard to the question at issue in this Bill. I am doing this now seriously, and with no intention of making Party capital out of it. I suggest to Deputy de Valera and his Party that, instead of coming here and talking vague and confused metaphysics about this question, they should go to the people whom they deluded into refusing to take this declaration, whom they deluded into throwing away their livelihood, and tell them, what they told the Irish people three months ago, that this declaration was an empty formula.

A DEPUTY

We did go to them.

I do not agree that it is an empty formula. But if it is an empty formula for Deputy de Valera and his Party, it can only be an empty formula for those whom they deluded. I do not agree that it is an empty formula. I believe that it is a declaration, and a declaration which is not only binding on the people who are compelled to take it by the Act, but binding ipso facto on every law-abiding citizen of the State, whether he takes it or not. This declaration requires no more from anybody than simply that they should bind themselves not to use force against the majority of the Irish people. I hold that every citizen is bound not only by law, not only by political law, but by the moral law, to obey that doctrine.

More metaphysics now.

I should like to know whether Deputy de Valera agrees with that.

I do not agree with your statement of that proposition at all.

I want to discuss this matter honestly and fairly, and I think that if it is honestly and fairly discussed it may be possible that some kind of understanding may be arrived at in regard to the matter. I have heard views expressed from the opposite side with which I cordially agree. I quite agree that if men are determined to use violence against the country, against the Government or the State, no declaration of this kind can prevent them. But there are other means of preventing them.

A DEPUTY

You have the means.

That is not the object of the declaration. It was to see that people who had it in their minds to use violence against the government of the majority of the people of this country should not be drawing salaries paid by the majority of the people of this country. That purpose was, I believe, achieved in certain cases.

On a point of information, would the Deputy inform the House did he always stand on what he has stated here for people not using force against the majority of the Irish people?

Did he stand for it on the 28th June, 1922, when a few people who only got power from England used force to destroy the Government set up here by the majority of the Irish people?

It would take a long time for Deputy Tierney to explain that.

I have no intention of answering it.

I know you have not, because you cannot.

Will Deputies on the Opposition benches really understand what they are doing? They are creating a situation that people who speak against them should be constantly interrupted, while those who spoke on behalf of the Bill were listened to. It is only right and reasonable that Deputies who opposed the Bill and who speak on the opposite side should be listened to also.

The difficulty is this: We have attempted, more than once, to get down to the foundation of this question, and we find that our opponents are free to assume to be true things that we deny. All their arguments are based on these false assumptions, which we controvert, and that is the whole difficulty.

That is not the difficulty at all. We have here debates on various questions, but the situation is sought to be created that Deputies on one side of the House only can talk without interruption. This debate will be concluded by the Deputy who moved the motion for the Second Reading of this Bill; he has the right to conclude the debate. Deputies have a right to speak after Deputy Tierney and put their point of view, and whatever leave or licence Deputy Tierney gets other Deputies will get also.

I have one answer to Deputy Aiken, and I think it is not out of order. I am prepared to leave the question to which the Deputy referred to the historian of the year 1922.

Why not leave it there, then?

I have not mentioned it; it was dragged in by Deputy Aiken. You can leave out that question of 1922 altogether if you like. I have definite views about that, but ever since 1922 the people have had half a dozen opportunities of deciding the point by open and free voting as between Deputy Aiken's views and mine. They have decided it several times, and until the authority that decided it has decided otherwise I hold that the decision has the force of law, and that not only is it a political crime to try and change that decision by force, but that it is a moral crime also. In asking these people to take this declaration you are asking them to do nothing which the ordinary citizen is not bound to do whether he takes this declaration himself or not. I think the whole difficulty arises from the use of the words "loyal" and "loyalty."

Deputies opposite believe that men asked to subscribe this declaration are asked to subscribe to every article of the Free State Constitution, to every article of the Treaty and to every action of the Government. I believe that is not what is meant by the word "loyally." I believe it is possible to take that declaration and to refuse to subscribe to, if you want to, every single article of the Constitution and of the Treaty, and to hold that these things should be altered. But I believe, whether that declaration is there or not, you are not entitled, morally, to use violence against the majority of the Irish people to alter one line or commoa of the Treaty or the Constitution. I said it was open to Deputy de Valera and the leaders of the Party opposite, to go to the people they have led into this position and say, as they announced for themselves, not, if you like, that this declaration is an empty formula, but that it is a thing which binds them to nothing to which they are not bound already. I certainly, for one, if that attitude was adopted and if that plea was made and accepted, and if that declaration was taken in that spirit, should be very glad to see every possible effort made to bring back the people who lost their livelihood through their refusal to take that declaration, and to see all possible effort made to heal whatever bitterness or trouble may have been caused by the misunderstanding of this declaration. But until we get down to the bed-rock proposition that nobody has any right, whether Irishman or Englishman or anyone else, to use force against the majority of the people of this country, we will not be able to get anywhere upon this or any other question.

Mention was made here yesterday evening, I believe, of a Deputy in the Fianna Fáil Party who, at some time, refused to take this declaration and was, at a later stage, elected a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I suggest to the Deputies that brought forward this interesting case that it is not a case to be extraordinarily proud of at all. The Deputy in question is in the curious position of the gentleman in the apologue, who first strained at a gnat and then swallowed a camel. Perhaps now he can look back with a certain amount of amusement to the innocence that led him a year or a year and a half ago to refuse to make a declaration not half as strong as the one he took willingly a few months ago.

Not willingly, surely.

The Deputy seems to have a different meaning for ordinary words from that of ordinary people.

A DEPUTY

You are not an ordinary person surely.

I believe what is wrong in all this matter is that the Fianna Fáil Party have been confusing two things all the time. They have been confusing political formulas and phrases and systems with a thing which is bigger and more lasting than any political formula or phrase in this country. They are confusing the right to work for the advancement of the Irish nation with working for the advancement of the particular State which the Irish nation happens to adopt as its from of expression for the time being. There is no reason why we should not all agree to put the nation above the State, why we should not all agree that the State is simply the accidental and momentary expression of the nation, that it is simply the expression of what the nation agrees to take from time to time, and that there is no such thing as any political formula, Republic or Empire, or anything else to which the nation is bound, or towards which the nation is compelled, by any set of political principles, to work.

I saw that Deputy de Valera nodded in agreement when I said that. But where I differ from Deputy de Valera is that Deputy de Valera apparently has at the back of his mind the notion that somehow or other this Irish nation is bound to the doctrine of the Republic, that somehow or other this nation is bound down to some one set of political principles or political formulas, that Deputy de Valera has drawn up for it. That is where I differ from him. I hold that while we have spent the last five years fighting and wrangling about the accidental and momentary political formulas of the nation, which I say is older and greater than any political formulas——

What nation?

The Irish nation that is represented as an historical fact by the Irish language and by the traditions of the Irish people. (Interruption). A distinction will have to be made in the Standing Orders between rational interruptions and interruptions that are merely cries of rage.

I think the Deputy has no right to speak for the North of Ireland at all.

The Deputy has not said one word about the North of Ireland.

The Deputy has a perfect right to speak about the Irish nation. So have we all. There is not going to be any ruling that a Deputy cannot speak about the Irish nation. He can.

I wish we did a little work for the Irish nation then.

We can talk about it.

Some of us can neither talk of it nor work for it. While we have been wrangling and fighting about a political formula with which Deputy de Valera wants to bind down the Irish nation, either now or in the future, that nation has been brought almost to the point of extinction. Deputy de Valera's principle is that people have the right to work secretly and immorally against the majority of the people for the setting up of some political formula that Deputy de Valera believes in. If that doctrine is to be broadcasted and accepted, I believe that we are coming to the extinction of the Irish nation, which, as I said, is older and greater than any political formula, whether it be Deputy de Valera's political formula or my political formula.

I would appeal to Deputies, sincerely and honestly, to realise that it is time that we came to an agreement on that one point—and it is the one point that will make all the difference—that we would leave out 1922 and leave out the prospect of scoring points over one another about what happened in 1922, that we would accept the doctrine that for the time being the Irish people have accepted and have agreed to work this State, and that it is wrong and immoral for any Irishman, or for any Englishman or anyone else, to try by force to prevent the Irish people from using and working any State that they want to use and work. That is a simple doctrine, and I can see no motive or no reason which would induce any one to refuse to accept that doctrine, except the motive or the reason that he wants to score over a political opponent, that he wants to prove now that he was right four years ago.

We have had these poor people refusing to take that declaration. We have had some of them sent off to other parts of the world; we have had them thrown out of employment; we have had them thrown out of employment on the belief that Deputy de Valera willed that they should be thrown out. Having willed that, he took back what he said, and he now comes forward with a different policy and a different doctrine. If there is anybody to whom these people should go for redress, if there is anybody whom they could accuse of being responsible for their loss, it is Deputy de Valera and the Party which now supports him. Deputy de Valera talks about re-uniting the people. He wants to re-unite the people on a principle which is the father of disunion; he wants to re-unite the people on the principle that any small band that likes can come along and use force against the majority of the people. That is the only principle that he has. That is the principle that dictates the proposal in this Bill, the principle that anyone who likes is entitled, not only to say, "I do not agree with this particular from of State that the Irish people have at present," but to go further than that and to say, "I will cut my neighbour's throat in order to prevent him from accepting this particular formula that the Irish nation has accepted." I say that that doctrine is the doctrine of the father of disunion, and I say in all sincerity that if Deputy de Valera thinks he is going to re-unite this country on the principle of anarchy he is doing a thing that will bring about the extinction, not of this State, but of this nation, more surely than the bitterest enemy of this nation could succeed in doing. I think there is a bigger principle involved in this matter than Deputies realise. It is a matter that is well worth spending time in discussing. Until we have thought it out and have cleared our minds as to whether we stand on the principle which I have enunciated or whether we stand for Deputy de Valera's principle of disunion and anarchy, we will not make any progress in this House, in this State, or in this nation.

Deputy Tierney mentioned the case of an official who was dismissed as a result of declining to take this declaration——

He was not dismissed. I beg your pardon. Perhaps the Minister misunderstood me. This was the case of a man who was a candidate for a local appointment and who was elected, but who refused to take the declaration, and then did not get the appointment. I think it was quite right that he should not get the appointment, although I have great sympathy with him.

Deputy Tierney made an attack upon the mover of this Bill, and it all turned on the one charge, the charge that this Party stood for the use of force. That, I submit, is ignoring the history of the last few years. I am not going to make an attempt to go into the rights and the wrongs of the last few years, but I wish to point out to Deputy Tierney that the whole significance, from the time of the "cease fire" order, of the policy of Sinn Fein, and then of the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party, has been an attempt to get back upon the basis of a peaceful movement towards freedom, and that there is nothing in this matter of the test about violence at all. It is a question of the deep convictions of certain individuals, certain non-conforming nationalists, who feel that they are deeply committed. You may say, if you like, that they love the Republic not wisely but too well, but there they are; it is their psychology, and it must be allowed for and recognised in the State and in the nation.

At any time in the past history of Ireland you will find individuals who, from the point of view of the Government of this country, may have been inconvenient to the constitutional movement—men like O'Donovan Rossa. But will anybody who is a sincere nationalist deny that they were an asset to the nation? Will anybody deny that the country would be in a bad condition if it had not got those people, with those uncompromising convictions of Irish nationality in them? Every nation in the world has these extreme left-wing men with national principles. Every country and every constitution allows for that, because they know that in times of national crisis these men are a tremendous asset to the state. There are men opposite who must remember when they were in that position, when men like the President were amongst a small group of Volunteers who were taking up an attitude that was regarded as uncompromising, unpractical and dangerous, who were a lot of dangerous desperadoes, and so on.

We got our chance when the time came, when other channels for the march of the nation were shut off, when it became perfectly clear to the nation that it was impossible to make any advance on the lines of Home Rule, and when it became necessary to have the episode of 1916 and so on.

You find that this spirit, which, in certain individuals, is essential to the general life of the nation, spread. I submit that this particular test does not deal with the question of violence at all; that the people concerned are not necessarily people who are trying to use violence. It is the general opinion of people of commonsense in Ireland at present that violence would be a very inexpedient way of trying to do anything for the purposes of helping on the march of the nation. But this test is definitely setting bounds to the march of the nation, and we can fall back on the old phrase of Parnell that there should be no bounds to the march of the nation. Deputy Tierney spoke about something greater, the nation being greater, the progress towards complete freedom being greater. Well, then, for God's sake, let us get rid of anything that is in the way of that. These people who have taken up the attitude of conscientious objectors are debarred from position in the public service. As a matter of fact, perhaps, the very best test of their character is the fact that they are willing to make sacrifices for the beliefs that are in them. This thing is odious to the minds and hearts of, at least, one-third of the Irish people. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture emphasised yesterday the importance of majority rule, and he really carried the question of majority rule too far Everybody admits there are times when a majority is wrong. There are times when it is necessary to oppose majority rule. Everybody will admit that. The Minister and his colleagues opposed majority rule on one famous occasion.

I am not going into the merits as to whether they were right or wrong, but they did it when they broke the Pact which had been voted for by the majority of the Irish people.

They did not break the Pact.

They broke the Collinsde Valera pact, which was made an Act of Parliament of the Second Dáil, which was voted for unanimously by the Ard-Fheis, and voted for by the majority of the people at the election. I am not going now into whether they were right or wrong, but they cannot stand up here and say that they stand for majority rule, having that history behind them. On another occasion their tribute to majority rule was of a very doubtful nature indeed, and it was not so long ago when they, by some means or other, persuaded a majority of Mr. Jinks to move from one side of the House to the other, and on the strength of that went to the country. That was not a tribute to democratic or majority rule.

Then again on the question of the majority mandate for the retention of this particular test let us go into the figures of it. Let us first of all distinguish between those who acquiesced in the Treaty and those who were in favour of this test. I submit there is no majority returned to this House favoured with a mandate to retain the test. Check the figures of the last general election. There were 57 Fianna Fáil, 13 Labour, 2 National League, and 2 Independents, who were very definitely dissociated from the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. That gives us 74. The Cumann na nGaedheal Party of 61, and the Farmers 6, make 67, who, we will say, were whole-hog out for the Government policy, tests and all. There were 11 Independents, who, at least, were doubtful on this question of the test. Some of them may have been in favour of it, but some of them certainly did not get a mandate from their constituents. I want to go as far as I can in conceding to our opponents in this matter. Suppose we allow them 7, and suppose we exclude 4 others as doubtful, what do we find? We find that we have 74 on one side and 74 on the other.

The Independents are not against it.

We will give the Deputy the right figures.

You must see what was their mandate from their constituents. I submit it is an extremely doubtful matter, that the mandate is equally divided, and that it is obviously a case where, if people really had regard for democracy, for the fair agreement which must be the basis of any Constitution, there would be some common goal by which that test would be treated in such a way that it would be possible for these conscientious objectors to take part in the life of the nation, just as they were taking part in it before, or as they wished, in serving it in a public position. That is my contention, and I say that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture was not entitled to make the plea that there was a majority of the people in Ireland in favour of this test. Further than that, he pressed the point of majority rule very far indeed. His attitude on it was undemocratic, anti-national and unjust. He said that majority rule was the only basis of the Constitution. I submit there is another basis of any Constitution enacted in Ireland, and that is the principle of putting Ireland first and the interests of the British Empire or any other country a long way after those interests of Ireland. That should be the test of loyalty, and it should be the test by which citizens of this country ought to decide. I submit there are people in Ireland who do not stand that test, men who are represented in this House, who put the interests of the British Empire first and the interests of Ireland second.

I think that is perfectly obvious. For instance, I would like to challenge Deputy Cooper as to whether he does not put the interests of the Empire first.

I am perfectly prepared to accept that challenge, if the Deputy will sit down. I have put Ireland first. If I put the British Empire first I would have gone out of Ireland four years ago. Fifteen thousand electors gave me their first preference.

I am very glad to hear Deputy Cooper committing himself to the principle that he puts the interests of Ireland first, and I hope that, on the first occasion there is a conflict between the British Empire and Ireland, Deputy Cooper will prove the strength of his commitment this evening. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture took up the attitude, apparently, that majority rule, right or wrong, must be obeyed on all occasions. The preamble to the Constitution says:

"Dáil Eireann, sitting as a constituent assembly in this Provisional Parliament, acknowledging that all lawful authority comes from God to the people, and in the confidence that the national life and unity of Ireland shall thus be restored, hereby proclaims," etc.

The authority comes from God to the Irish people. I submit if that is the authority, it can never be an authority to do wrong; and, further, that attitude has been condemned time after time by the Church to which the Minister for Lands and Agriculture and myself happen to belong. It has been condemned time after time, and the claim that liberty has the right to wrong has been referred to by very wise and learned people as the cloak of malice, and that what applies to the individual applies also to the State.

To anybody familiar with the controversies of the last fifty years it is a commonplace that in the conflict regarding the Church's attitude majority rule is very often wrong and immoral. If you want a palpable example of it to-day you have only to refer to Mexico. The case there is very much on all fours with our situation. Undoubtedly the Catholics of Mexico are in a minority and they are taking up what the Minister says is an immoral attitude by opposing the majority. They are being shot for that. The time will come when their local government will impose tests on those who will not submit to majority rule, and the world will point to that country and say "that is an unfair and penal law as it prevents these people getting back into the life of the Mexican nation." So I say this is an unfair and penal law which continues the spirit of the civil war in this country, and it has no basis in justice or democratic principle of any sort.

The same charge might be made against the Pope himself and those who followed him in refusing to recognise the King of Italy as King of Rome and in standing out as conscientious objectors against that system. In that way it is clear that there are very marked limits to the principle of majority rule, and that we are beyond these limits. We are doing the best we can to heal the wounds of the nation. We have gone very far in humiliating ourselves. We have gone very far in hurting the national spirit that is in us in the matter of that article in the Constitution which deals with the oath—Article 17. We have gone as far as we could, and we did not do it for personal reasons, but because we felt that the life of the nation was at stake, that the existence of the republican spirit in Ireland was at stake, and that, if we did not take up the attitude we did, grave injury would have been done to this country. That is a very different matter to the matter of putting a test to individuals, and when Deputy Tierney appeals to us to act on behalf of his Government, to enforce on our followers further humiliation, I contend that he is doing something which is very much against the spirit of Irish nationality.

The Minister for Lands and Agriculture said that there was duress upon England as well as on Ireland in accepting the Treaty. As he brought the matter into his speech, and was allowed to discuss it, I think I may fairly deal with the question. He took as an example that there was duress upon him, if he brought bullocks into market, as to the particular price that would be fixed for them. That is not the same kind of duress. There is a sort of influence there, but he is not starving, and there is no man with a big stick standing behind the man who is bargaining with him. He could take his cattle back again to his farm, and he is a free agent in the matter. But the big stick was there in the case of the Irish nation. There was a division of opinion in Ireland, and the people were distracted and terrorised and the element of duress was there. I submit, from the point of view of the future, it is not wise for anybody in this House to deny that element of duress, because an opportunity might arise when it would be very much to our advantage to make the point that there was duress in connection with the settlement of 1921. It is childish to say that there was the same kind of duress in the case of England, because in the case of England the influences bearing on her were essentially moral influences. The English people were faced with world opinion against them, because they were opposing right with violence, they were using force of a very vile kind to put down the spirit of a small nation and the just claims of the Irish people. That was the the biggest element, and armed action in this country was chiefly valid because of the sacrifices which it involved on the patriots of Ireland. At any time the British, at the height of their military strength, could have destroyed this country only for the strong moral argument which paralysed their arm. Therefore, the influence brought against them was not the same as the vile duress which was ultimately brought to bear against us and which prevented us from achieving all we wanted and were entitled to achieve.

Again, there is a vital flaw in that test because it implies allegiance to a State which only represents twenty-six counties of Ireland. That commits people to the principle of partition. It is most odious, and, I submit, it is just as odious to those on the opposite benches as it is to us. It is terrible to think that any citizen should be forced to make a confession of giving allegiance to a State which represents only twenty-six counties of Ireland. I submit that we should try and get rid of that in the most united way possible in this House. Those on the Government benches are divided in their opinion. You find that in all their speeches. Individuals are divided in their own minds. At one time they want to do the best for the nation as a whole, and suddenly the old civil war mood seizes them and seems to paralyse their brains and hearts and prevent them getting on to the road by getting rid of all those tests and oaths, all those difficulties, all those binding influences, which prevent the spirit of Irish nationality from working freely in Ireland. I would go so far as to say this: If the President and his Government were to take up a courageous and generous attitude on the question of Irish nationality, they would not only bring greater peace and security to Ireland, but anybody who really serves the Irish nation, freely, generously and courageously, will become magnified by that and will gain glory by doing a thing which is really national and which will remove all bounds to the march of the nation.

I understand that two Deputies in the Opposition Party in the course of this debate have stated that on a previous occasion I voted in favour of a similar motion to that embodied in the Bill, and for the removal of the oath of allegiance in regard to these particular officers. I cannot remember the circumstances; but if it is true that on that occasion I voted in favour of such a proposal, I wish to apologise to the Dáil for doing so. I have not had time to look up the Official Reports, but if it is true as the Deputies have stated that I voted for a similar proposal, I apologise, because it was a serious lapse on my part.

In my opinion, I have nothing to apologise for as regards the attacks and criticisms I have made against members of the Executive Council during the last four years in any matter which would affect the relations of this country with England. I have nothing to apologise for in any of the criticisms I made of the Executive Council for lack of activity in standing up for the rights of this country as against the Government of the United Kingdom. But I certainly realised all through that time that it was the duty of every member of the Dáil to stand by the Executive Council in the attempts they made and the measures they brought forward to secure the sovereignty of this State within its boundaries.

To ensure partition.

No. It is quite clear that this measure brought forward to-day is leaving open to question the loyalty of public servants to the State. For that reason it is a motion to weaken the authority of the State. As I have always held, and I believe now, that the sovereignty of the State can never be recognised throughout the world if it is not recognised by its own people at home, I regret if I voted on previous occasions in favour of a motion embodying the principle of the Bill now before the House. The last speaker referred to the oath as an oath of allegiance to the Twenty-Six Counties. In that respect I think it is quite clear there are two policies before the House. There have been two policies before the country for the last five years. There is the policy of the Government, which has been to establish the State and to make it a sovereign and model State which would attract towards it the other part of Ireland. There is, on the other hand, the policy of the opposite Party, which is to degrade the State and to prove that it is not a sovereign State: to reduce it to the position of a county council or a non-sovereign body, without any prospect of improvement if that is done. These two policies have been fairly clearly before the country for the past five years, and I do not think it is advisable to go into the whole question on this occasion. I only rose because I have been told that two members of the opposite Party had accused me of voting for a motion similar to the proposal in the Bill.

I suppose the President and members of the Government will kill the fatted calf in order to welcome back to the fold the prodigal from Wexford after that momentary burst of independence which seems hereditary in the Deputy's family.

The Deputy's family can be left out of the debate, surely.

I agree, but if we cannot discuss it in debate we can keep it in our minds. Many of us remember the early days of Sinn Fein and the efforts which one or two people made then to cast off the coils of party organisation. The Deputy has, I believe, made full and sincere retraction to the President for any momentary indiscretion of which he may have been guilty. I am going to refer to only one of them.

What indiscretion?

The indiscretion of asking Deputy Lambert, as he then was, to take over certain military posts in Wexford during the time the Army was in mutiny.

I did not hear what the Deputy said.

It is just as well you did not hear what the Deputy said, as it is nearly as irrelevant as the Deputy's own speech was. We will hear what Deputy MacEntee has to say on the Bill, but not what he has to say with regard to Deputy Esmonde.

While listening to Deputy Tierney's speech it struck me there was very little dividing him from the men victimised under this formula which we are asking the Dáil to discard for ever as a piece of disciplinary legislation. He said that the nation was greater than any formula, greater than any constitution. Certainly I should be surprised if the Irish nation were not greater than this particular formula, which only operates in respect of one particular portion of this nation. The Deputy charged Deputy de Valera with being guilty of the crime of preventing the Irish people from using and working this State. In that respect, what about the section of the Irish people who do not come within the ambit of this State? What about the Nationalists of the Six Counties? Who was it prevented them from using and working this State? Who was it prevented those of them who were anxious to accept the Treaty and the Constitution of Ireland, which we were told was to be established under the Treaty? Who was it but Professor Tierney's leader, the President, who scrapped Article 12 of the Constitution and prevented a section of the nation from using and working this State?

The nation is greater than any formula, greater than any Costitution. Certainly I suggest that the Irish nation is greater than this particular Constitution, which is an inconsistent and paradoxical document, a Constitution in which not only do certain Articles contradict each other, but even portions of the same Article contradict each other. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture yesterday answered a taunt which Deputy Lemass had levelled at him concerning a declaration which he had made about the Oath, the King and the Constitution. He said that those things which he had said, those declarations which he had made, were mere words and meant nothing. Practically every sentence in the Constitution stands forth as the achievement of men to whom declarations, are just mere words, meaning nothing. But to our organisation, the great mass of the people whom we represent, and to the men who refused to sign the test which is embodied in the Local Government Act of 1925, the one vital, effective, binding portion of that Constitution is that part of Article 2, which declares that "All powers of government and of authority, legislative, executive and judicial in Ireland"—mark, Ireland, not the Twenty-Six Counties—"are derived from the people of Ireland"—from the whole people of Ireland, from the excluded cast-off Nationalists of the six counties, as well as the Nationalists of the twenty-six counties. That declaration expresses our fundamental conviction. It expresses the principle for which this nation has struggled through centuries. It expresses the deep and sincere belief of those who have not and will not subscribe to the test which the Local Government Act of 1925 imposes. Only in so far as this assembly is the instrument which gives practical effect to that declartion under the Constitution do we recognise this assembly at all. That, I take it, is what Deputy de Valera meant when he said he came here and recognised the authority of the assembly and of the Deputies here as men who had mandates from the Irish people. On that basis we are here, and on that basis, I am sure, within a short period we shall assume the Government of this country and of this State. Yet we are told that, in the meantime, the people whom we represent, the people who will shortly be the dominating section in this nation, are to be penalised, are to suffer civic disabilities, and are to be, virtually, outlawed. We are told that by a Government which has already been defeated in this House, and which only managed to hold one of its electoral strongholds by the few hundred votes of its mercenaries—for that is the real significant thing that emerges from the result of the Carlow-Kilkenny election.

I wonder how the result of the Carlow-Kilkenny election emerges from Section 71 of the Local Government Act.

It is a pity to interrupt him.

I suggest it does, because we want to show that the Government in maintaining this declaration are penalising those who represent the majority of the Irish people.

The Minister for Local Government said that the real reason why this clause had been inserted was to preserve complete confidence in Local Government throughout the country. If the last elections indicate anything they indicate this: That outside the counties which were the former Unionist strongholds in this country outside the counties which were the strongholds of the Imperialist garrison in this country, the native race in Ireland has repudiated and withdrawn any confidence or any majority it gave to Mr. Cosgrave's Executive or Government. Exclude the preferential representation which the Universities get, exclude the gerrymandered representation which the National University gets, and where is Mr. Cosgrave's majority? Exclude the Army votes——

I submit the argument of the Deputy is out of order.

The argument of the Deputy is a great deal more than out of order; it is out of all reason.

I am simply discussing the point which was made by the Minister for Local Government. If he, in stating his case and in endeavouring to justify the retention of this declaration, wanders into the path of unreason, those who wish to refute him must follow him——

It is very hard on the Deputy.

Into the path of unreason. I remember when the Minister for Local Government was described as a cloudbank, and I am unable to walk through a cloudbank without seeming to lose my way.

But what supreme impudence it is to say that the men who pay the local rates, who are taxpayers in this country, the men who, as I said before, really do speak and do voice the deepest and sincerest political convictions of this people, are to labour under these civic disabilities. You do not exclude them from taxation. You say to them, pay your rates and pay your taxes. By what law of equity or justice do you debar them from civic emoluments?

I know nothing to equal the calculated impudence of the Government in this matter except, perhaps, the hypocrisy of the arguments which they have advanced to sustain it. The Minister for Education told us that the one lesson this declaration was designed to enforce was that those who served the State, either in local bodies or in the central Government, should not use violence, intrigue, or illegal means to upset the State. When the Minister for Education made that statement I looked to see if the Minister who led the opposition in this debate— the Minister for Local Government— were in his place. He was not. He was absent. He must have had some premonition of what the Minister for Education was going to say, a premonition that must have made him, at least, feel uncomfortable, because only a little over three years ago the Minister for Local Government was engaged in just such an intrigue, an intrigue which almost upset the Government and nearly precipitated a war.

We are told by the Minister for Local Government that the purpose of this declaration is to preserve complete confidence throughout the country. How did he square his actions of that time with the declarations he had made, with his obligations even to his own colleagues in the Government at the time? How did his actions in March, 1924, increase or diminish confidence throughout this country? First, as to the declarations which he made and the obligations which, as Minister for Defence, he owed his colleagues——

Is it in order for the Deputy to read his speech?

I am reading a few quotations.

I draw your attention to the fact that the word "intrigue" has an erotic flavour that I do not like to have imported into this debate.

I think the Minister for Lands and Agriculture had better discuss that with the Minister for Education, for he rolled the word off his tongue as if he loved it.

Having enjoyed and appreciated all that, I do not propose to allow Deputy MacEntee to tell us what the Minister for Local Government said in the year 1924. I think it is completely irrelevant. I want to state now that a discussion of the Army crisis, as it is popularly called, is out of order in this debate. It is sad, but I think it is so.

I do not think it is. With all due respect to you, the point I wish to adduce is that declarations of this kind are valueless, and I wish to prove it by citing an incident in which the Minister for Local Government himself participated. Surely, I am entitled to prove that. I am better entitled to prove it, if I can, by bringing in the personal element. The Minister wishes to enforce this declaration for a certain public purpose, and I wish to show that he has made many declarations and that every one of them, in turn, has been valueless. For instance, the declaration he made to his own colleague, the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, was valueless. I submit to you, A Chinn Chomhairle, that in view of the arguments that have been advanced on the Government Benches, I am perfectly entitled to answer and to refer back to what took place, and to the declarations that were made three years ago in order to prove that case.

The difficulty is that in the events of 1924 we have a very controversial subject, and if the Deputy persists in going into them they will be gone into generally. I see the Deputy's point, that he wants to prove that declarations of a certain kind were valueless. The trouble is that the case he proposes, unfortunately, will not be accepted. It will be repudiated by the other side, and that will bring us to a discussion of a matter very different from this Bill, which aims at deleting Section, 71 of the Local Government Act of 1925. I will hear the Deputy a little bit further.

Am I entitled to quote from the Official Debates on that occasion, to quote from the declarations made by the then Minister for Defence, the present Minister for Local Government and the then Minister for Justice? Am I entitled to quote here from the debates which took place in regard to this matter? I submit that I am perfectly entitled to do that, and that I am entitled to show that the Minister for Local Government, then Minister for Defence, who made and subscribed to certain public declarations, at the same time behind the backs of his colleagues in the Cabinet was, upon his own admission, engaged in organising what the then Minister for Justice described as "a faction, society or organisation within the Army." I submit that it is perfectly relevant in this debate, in order that I may show how utterly worthless declarations of this kind are, to cite the Minister for Local Government himself as an example.

Might I point out that the measure which it is proposed to repeal bears on its face the date of 1925, while the incident which the Deputy wishes to recite to us took place in 1924. The incident, to which the Deputy refers, occurred in 1924, so that it was with full knowledge of whatever occured in 1924 the Dáil, in its wisdom, passed the Act of 1925.

It is not a question of chronology at all. I will hear Deputy MacEntee on the question whether he is really introducing another subject. I will hear him on that point.

I am not going to deal with the merits or the demerits of the Army mutiny. That is entirely outside and irrelevant I agree, but what is relevant is this: that there existed, as the late Mr. O'Higgins said, in the Army "factions, organisations and societies," and that the head of one of these societies, if not the titular, at least the actual head, was the then Minister for Defence. His own statement made before the Committee of Inquiry proved that, because though the nominal heads were the then Chief of Staff, the then Adjutant-General, Deputy O'Sullivan, and the then Quartermaster-General, these officers, in the exact words of the Minister for Local Government, "continued their membership of the Irish Republican Brotherhood Organisation with my approval and after consultation with me." Now consider the situation.

On a point of order. I understand that the Deputy is quoting from the Report of the evidence given before the Army Inquiry Committee. I was a member of the Army Inquiry Committee.

The Deputy is not quoting from the Report of the Army Committee at all.

I am quoting from the debates which took place in this House on the report.

The Deputy is entitled to quote from the debates. Will he please give the reference?

I am quoting from a debate which took place in this House on the 26th June, 1924. The quotation I have taken is from a speech of the Minister for Local Government. Now consider the situation. Here you had Minister entrusted with one of the most important Departments in the State, a Minister well versed in declarations, oaths and tests, who had taken many and administered some, and who had associated with him officers with a like facile conscience. For some purpose, which has never been disclosed, these officers, with the approval of the Minister, set themselves to organise a secret society within the Army. As I have said, their purpose was never disclosed, but at any rate the then Minister for Justice thought that it was a purpose contrary to the public interest. He protested against it to the then Minister for Defence early in 1923, and, as he said himself, "I charged to Deputy Mulcahy that officers were being summoned up from the country to sit in uniform in Portobello under the chairmanship of Lieutenant-General O Muirthuille for the purpose of reorganising the Irish Republican Brotherhood. I charged that the staff of the Army were an inner circle or upper circle of that secret society, and these two allegations were blandly denied by the ex-Minister for Defence." These are not my words, but the words of the then Minister for Justice, who was Vice-President of the Executive Council of the Free State at that time.

"These two allegations were blandly denied by the ex-Minister for Defence." Here is a Government of which one of the Ministers has shown that his denials, his declarations and his commitments to his colleagues were worthless, and of which another member has declared that his declarations in regard to oaths in this House are mere words and mean nothing, asking this House, notwithstanding that, to enforce that test and that declaration, a test and a declaration which the actions and words of the Ministers themselves prove to be of a kind that is utterly worthless. They ask you to enforce that upon what is now, I believe, more than one-third, and certainly within a short period will be a majority of this nation.

What is the use of it? What value or what security will a declaration of that sort give to the members of this House? How does it in any way help to foster or develop the economy of this State? How does it make for a stable Government? You have been told by one of the Deputies on these benches that instead of refusing, as he did, to take that declaration, had he done so and seen the day after that there was going to be a chance to win the freedom of this country by upsetting the Constitution of this State and of this House he would have disregarded his declaration and have held it to be null and void. Is not that the position that was taken up by many British civil servants here in Ireland and by many members of the R.I.C. in Ireland, at the direct instigation of the Minister for Local Government? Is it not because they disregarded such declarations that the Intelligence Service of the Republic was so efficient and so effective?

What political value is there in such declarations that they should be imposed upon people? That is the question that the Dáil has to ask itself. You know very well that when you do impose such declarations upon men, and when they are compelled by the force of starvation to take them unwillingly, you breed in their breasts resentment, you engender there feelings, not of loyalty, not of affection to this State, but feelings of distrust, of hate, and a desire for revenge. If you want to make this State really representative of the aspirations of the Irish people, really deserving and worthy of their allegiance, really able to command this allegiance, then wipe out all tests, all oaths, all declarations. Deal with all men evenly and alike.

The Minister for Lands and Agricultude of the Minister to some of the that those who would not accept the majority rule in this country should not be permitted to live in this country. I wonder what would have been the attitude of the Minister and some of the Deputies who sit upon the opposite benches and who follow him into the Division lobby, in the years 1912 and 1913. What would have been his attitude to, say, the President of the Junior Branch of the Irish Unionist Alliance and those who were prepared to resist the majority will in this country? Would he have allowed Deputy Cooper to live here? Would he have allowed those who sit upon the same benches as Deputy Cooper, and who adopted the same attitude as Deputy Cooper in regard to this question, to live here? Remember it is an old saw that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We want to wipe out these degrading, these unnecessary, these ineffective oaths, tests and declarations from the Constitution of the State and from the Statute Book of the State. We want to let every man who lives in Ireland see that he has a right to enjoy any emoluments his talents fit him for in the public service. Is not that the best way of securing stability? Is not that the natural way of securing it—to give every Irishman an equal chance of entering into the service of the State without having to commit himself to repudiate or violate the principles he holds sacred and dear?

Think of the reactions of this matter. There is a question of a coming loan. Here you have men who pay rates and taxes. In a short time the Deputies on these benches, in common with the Deputies on other benches, will be asked to accept certain commitments in regard to the loan. Suppose we were to take the same narrow attitude in that matter as the Government have taken; suppose we were to say, "You are borrowing seventeen millions of money; some of that has been used to enforce the policy which is embodied in that test in the Local Government Act; some of that money is to be expended in enforcing the policy which is embodied in the Public Safety Act; some of that money, in short, is to be used to drive republicans by force of starvation either to submit or to emigrate." Suppose we were to say, "Two can play your game. Debar us from entering freely into the public service and we will not accept responsibility for this loan. If we come into power, returned by the votes of the people who are being victimised by the legislation passed in this House, we will repudiate your loan and we will repudiate all your commitments." What effect would that have upon the public interest? Would the ill-effect, would the additional burden imposed upon the ratepayers and taxpayers of Ireland, be worth the declaration which you have embodied in this Local Government Act? Remove that declaration and there will be no question of such repudiation.

At the present moment I, for one, may say that, and I have a perfectly open mind in the matter, that I do feel if our people are to be regarded as outlaws, then outlaws we will be. We will not accept any responsibility for the commitments entered into by the majority in this House. That is a plain, straightforward declaration, and, remember, though we are in the minority to-day we inevitably are going to be the majority to-morrow, because we speak the ancient voice of Ireland——

The principles for which we stand are the principles for which the Minister for Local Government stood in 1916, the principles for which the President of the Executive Council stood in 1916, and the principles which, if those people were only true to their innate instincts and traditions, they would espouse to-day. We do not stand for a partitioned Ireland, for a Dáil which has under its control only the twenty-six counties. We stand for a Government and an Assembly that will embrace the whole of the 32 counties. As surely as grass grows and water runs, one day or another, and I believe very much sooner than the Government or the Ministers expect, there will be a majority in this House who will stand for those principles, who will wipe out those things. But take care whether that majority assumes responsibility for the commitments entered into by another majority which contemns the principles for which we stand, which victimises those who upheld them, which tries to deprive them of their right to live in Ireland.

It is a matter of common prudence and commonsense. If it were only the mere bread and butter aspect of the question, and nothing more, would it not be far better to have the 477,000 electors whom we represent satisfied that themselves and their families would have a chance to earn their bread in this State; satisfied that if their talents fitted them to enter the public service they could enter it freely? Would it not be a prudent and a wise thing to make that a rule of the State, to wipe out all the things bred of the resentment and bitternesses of the Civil War period, to close that chapter, to fix our minds on the future and to enable us to say: "We may differ as to the origin of this Assembly, but at least we will make the first part of Article 2 of the Constitution the determining factor in everything, and any Irishman who accepts that—that all the powers of government and all authority, legislative, executive and judicial in Ireland are derived from the people of Ireland—any man willing to accept that will be a fit candidate for the public service, and nothing more than his acceptance of that will be asked from him.

It is accepting that, endeavouring to make that principle a reality, that we have come into this House. In temporal affairs we acknowledge no power and no authority except the authority which Deputies derive from the votes of the people who sent them here. We acknowledge no other power and no other authority, whether it be an Imperial throne or a Papal tiara. We stand for the rights of the people, and we ask Deputies to stand for the rights of the people. We ask them to wipe out that degrading declaration, and to say, as Deputy Tierney says, the nation is above any Party formula and above any Constitution, and any man who is willing to accept the Irish nation can freely enter into the services of the Irish nation.

Debate adjourned.

In accordance with the Order made to-day, the House will adjourn until the 15th February, 1928.

Barr
Roinn