With the main idea behind this Pact, those for whom I can claim to speak are in full sympathy. The idea of ending war appeals to us as I think it would appeal to every humane person. Those of us who took any interest or whether we took an interest or not, whether our interest was deep or otherwise, in the history of the last fifteen or sixteen years and the wars that have taken place during that time, ought to, if we have any feeling for humanity, bear in mind the awful things that have happened in Europe. We ought to bend all our energies and use all our influence to endeavour to promote the idea of international peace, and to end war as the supposed purpose of the Treaty now before us is. However, from our point of view, we believe that it would not be right for us, those of us in particular who stand for the absolute and complete independence of our country, whose idea and ideal it is to work and use all means without restriction to achieve that object, the freedom of our country—we do not think that it would be right for us now, without a similar declaration being made by those who hold our country in subjection—a definite declaration without reservation—and who are strong enough to use force to hold our country—without a similar declaration being made by those people, the responsible heads of the British Government, who control the British Empire, we do not think that it would be right in the name of our own people and in the name of those who are carrying on that fight still, that we should say in advance that we will give up the only means that have yet been used with success to bring that powerful secular enemy of ours to her senses.
We know that other means have been tried down the centuries, especially in the last century and a half or so. Constitutional means have been tried with out effect by our people and by people speaking in the name of Ireland to bring that secular enemy to a sense of the justice of the rights of Ireland These methods have failed. We know that other methods, methods of force, were not adopted by us because of any love of force. That applies to our people generally. It is not because our people are a pugnacious people or a people who resort unnecessarily to arms, but because there were people in the country who were prepared to make any and every sacrifice so that the freedom of the country might be achieved. That was why war was resorted to at any time by our people. We do not think, speaking so far as we can in the name of those who are out to win that freedom for all Ireland, that it would be proper or right, even in the name of a part of Ireland such as this State can speak for, to tie the hands of our people behind their backs and to say to the enemy, "We give up the only means that have yet proved in any way successful in winning recognition from you of the rights of the people of Ireland to their freedom." I say again that we want peace; we desire peace. We would be prepared at the same time as that secular enemy of our country to make a declaration, if they gave up the force by which they have divided this country in two, by which they have held this country so long, we would with gladness and joy make a similar declaration that war for us is over. "You drop force in holding our country, you give our people the right to express their wish and their will with regard to their country freely and in an unfettered way, without holding over them the threat of war." Then we say that we are prepared to join with any and every nation in a declaration that will have sincerity behind it that wars of any kind between nations and peoples should end.
I do not suggest that the United States or the Secretary of State for the United States, who is primarily responsible for the bringing forward of this instrument was anything but sincere in his object. I do not suggest that the Governments or some of them who signed that declaration were not sincere. Some of them were, I am sure. Some of them, we cannot hold, were absolutely sincere, seeing that to our own knowledge at the present moment a threat of force is used; a threat of war is used and held over our own heads to prevent the liberty and the unity of our own country being accomplished. What sincerity there is in the declaration by a nation that holds this country, by the declaration of that nation that they want international peace, when they are doing their utmost to prevent such peace being accomplished between themselves and their nearest neighbour, we cannot see. We cannot believe that the intentions of such a country or of such a Government are honest. Therefore, to that extent, speaking of one country at any rate, we believe that the signature of that country to this document is not sincere. While it is useful perhaps to have on record even a declaration from that Government in the name of their people that they want international peace, we would like to see action as well as words. Therefore, taking the stand we do as to the rights of our country and the rights of our people to use any and every honourable means constitutional or otherwise, to achieve the full freedom and unity of our country, we cannot in sincerity and in honesty agree to a declaration of that kind until some of those—at least one of the countries who have already signed it make a similar declaration, not merely by words but by acts, that they have come to the same conclusion that war in all sincerity ought to be brought to an end as a means for ending disputes between nations.
There are other reasons why we believe difficulties are in our way in agreeing to ratification of this Pact. We hold that we are not free. While we are free certainly to sign that Pact, we are not absolutely free agents. We can be forced at any time by a certain neighbour of ours into war whether we like it or not. We have no choice in the matter. One reason for that is Article 7 of the Treaty signed in 1921, the Treaty on which the Constitution of this State is founded. Article 7 says:—
(a) In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto, or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State; and
(b) In time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid.
We are not strong enough to prevent England, in case she were at war or in case war were threatened even and she desired it, from making use of our country, our harbours or territory. Therefore, England can send her fleet into our harbours and her armies into our territory. She could do that before this Treaty was signed I know She is doing that definitely now. This Treaty has been signed, and so far as it could be done by that instrument having been signed we are willingly assenting to the fact that England can force our country to be the cockpit of war in case war did come about, let us say, between England and the United States. We look upon the Kellogg Pact as a desirable thing, but we think that we ought to be absolutely free to decide the full destinies of our own country before we make any declaration binding ourselves not to use all the means we might be able to use to win the full freedom of our own country.
The terms of the Pact itself are certainly admirable. In the fourth paragraph of the Preamble there are just one or two lines to which I have already said we take objection: "That any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty." In self-defence, in defence of our own rights and liberties, when Dáil Eireann was established in 1919, in defence of the rights and liberties of the people of Ireland and of all Ireland war was waged on a neighbouring Power. We used the natural rights of our citizenship to defend our liberty which was attacked. Are we going to say now that, for all time, no matter what invasion of our rights and liberties may be made by the only country that ever interfered with our rights, whatever they do to us, whatever rights they filch from us, whatever invasion of our liberty they may be guilty of as they are guilty at this moment, we will stand with our hands tied and let England do what she pleases to us? It might be, if we were all ideal Christians, the desirable thing to do. I am afraid we are not. We have not yet arrived at that advanced stage of Christian civilisation and we have had it proved in our history that England will listen to nothing else from this country but the mailed fist. In my time, I do not want to see war again. I do not want to see shooting. I do not want to see bloodshed. I earnestly and sincerely hope it will not happen in my time and that we may be successful by other methods. I am not going to preach a different doctrine now from what I preached from my earliest boyhood, that it is the right and duty of every young Irishman to defend with arms, if necessary, the rights and liberties of the whole people of Ireland. Others may have changed their tune on that matter. I cannot bring myself to change the doctrine I was brought up on, that I have endeavoured to practise and have preached and will continue to preach as long as I have power and voice to do so.
In the letter that the Minister for External Affairs sent when announcing the decision of the Executive Council to adhere to this Pact, he made clear that the Kellogg Pact would be signed subject to the commitment of the Free State under the Covenant of the League of Nations. The date is not on this extract, which is taken from the "Irish Times" of the 17th July, 1928:—
As I informed you in my Note of the 30th May, the Government of the Irish Free State were prepared to accept unreservedly the draft Treaty proposed by your Government on the 13th April, holding, as they did, that neither their right of self-defence nor their commitments under the Covenant of the League of Nations were in any way prejudiced by its terms.
Article X of the League of Nations binds every adherent of the League of Nations to back up every other member of the League of Nations in preserving the present boundaries of the signatory countries. Article X of the League of Nations, when the Constitution of the League of Nations was in course of adoption, was opposed by Dáil Eireann of 1919, and Dáil Eireann, through its representatives and spokesmen, had a great deal to say in inducing America to turn down the ratification of the Constitution of the League of Nations in America. Dáil Eireann spokesmen everywhere they were, in Ireland or outside of it, emphasised that Article X of the League of Nations gave England the right to demand the help of other nations signatory to that Treaty in trying to preserve the boundaries that then existed, Ireland being regarded by Great Britain as part of her territory. Under Article X—that was our gospel at that time—she could claim the right to ask all other countries signatory to that Treaty to come and assist her in fighting Ireland, if necessary, to preserve the territorial integrity of the British Empire, which included Ireland. That argument was preached up and down America; that argument met President Wilson when he went on a great tour through the United States in favour of the League of Nations. Everywhere he went Dáil Eireann representatives and those they could influence met President Wilson. In every town through which he went Dáil Eireann funds were used to have huge full-page advertisements in the newspapers, stating that Article X, if agreed to, would assist Great Britain in keeping Ireland within the British Empire and in preserving the boundaries as they then existed.
It is interesting to mention that the very first protest that was made against Article X, before ever a word was mentioned about it in the United States or anywhere else, was made by the envoy of Dáil Eireann in 1919 on behalf of Dáil Eireann, and it was on that protest that America based its opposition, on the very words of that protest that was used throughout America to influence America. It influenced many Senators and Congressmen. We had considerable influence at that time as a united people, fighting for our rights, and the arguments that Dáil Eireann used at that time were very largely responsible for the fact that America refused to ratify that Covenant and refused eventually to join the League of Nations. In this letter that the Minister for External Affairs sent to his Excellency, Mr. Sterling, the representative of the United States, it is clearly stated that this Pact was signed subject to the commitments of the Irish Free State under Article X of the League of Nations Covenant. So far as that Covenant binds Irish citizens, in any way, to respect the present boundaries —I am not alone talking of the boundaries that exist in our own country now and ought not to exist, but I am also refusing to be bound by, so far as we can revise them, the boundaries of the British Empire in so far as countries like Egypt and India are concerned—we deny the right of Ireland's name to be used in guaranteeing these boundaries, and we refuse to ratify any instrument, however good in itself, that means inferentially that we recognise the boundary in our country or boundaries in those other countries I have mentioned that are there under duress. Though our might is not great, though our moral influence or otherwise in the world's diplomacy, particularly, may not be great, I say we would not be true to our history if we guaranteed in that way by our signatures any Pact to assist any empire, English or otherwise, in holding down any people that wish to be free.
Therefore, if there is an implication, as I maintain there is, in that signature, owing to the letter of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, that we bind ourselves to respect the boundaries of the British Empire, as at present constituted, we repudiate that signature and we say that we, at any rate, can have no hand, act or part in agreeing to it.
I asked here yesterday if the Minister would be so kind as to lay on the Table, for the information of members of the House and the public in general, the correspondence that passed between London and Dublin—between the English Government and the Government of the Irish Free State—with reference to this Pact. The Minister did not see his way to lay such correspondence on the Table. I was anxious, and I believe there were other people anxious, that all this diplomatic business should be done in the open. You remember one of the principles for which America was supposed to have entered the war. One of the principles laid down by President Wilson was "open diplomacy, openly arrived at." We claim, in accord with that principle, that all the correspondence and documents should be laid on the Table. We are being asked to sign this document in the dark. We do not know all the principles that we are being committed to. There is one particular aspect of it that I would like further light upon. There is a letter that was sent by Sir Austen Chamberlain, the English Foreign Minister, to the Secretary for the United States, Mr. Kellogg, not exactly by way of putting forward reservations. I believe he repudiated the idea that this letter was to be regarded as putting forward reservations. I think if we use the word "interpretations" we will be accurate in describing the letter that was sent by Sir Austen Chamberlain on May 19th from the English Foreign Office to Washington. There are 13 articles in this particular letter, reservations or interpretations, whatever you like to call them. They were put forward by England not exactly as conditions, but as interpretations, giving her idea of what this Kellogg Pact would mean to her and how far she intended to go in her own interpretation of the meaning of the Kellogg Pact. In the course of Article X of that important letter it is stated:—
The language of Article 1, as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, renders it desirable that I should remind your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's Government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Their protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defence. It must be clearly understood that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain accept the new Treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect.
When asking for the correspondence that passed between the Executive Council of the Irish Free State and the British Government or other Dominions of the British Government with reference to this Pact, I was particularly anxious to know if any effort had been made to get from England an interpretation of what England meant by the certain regions of the world over which she maintains a right to look after their special welfare and integrity. During the time the negotiations which finished in the signing of that regrettable Treaty of 1921 were on we know that the English Ministers declared that it was necessary for the peace and safety of England that she should hold Ireland, and that is the reason why they hold Ireland to-day, and why their garrison here in this country are holding our harbours and why they claim that it is necessary for their peace and safety. I was anxious to know if any effort was made by the Irish Free State to have the language in that Article X. of the letter of Sir Austen Chamberlain clarified, and to find out if England still maintained and declared that it was necessary for her peace and safety, and the safety of her Empire, that she should hold Ireland as she holds it at present, and that, despite the fact that she was negotiating and signing a Pact with America to renounce war, she still found it necessary, and would continue to find it necessary, to tell us and tell the world that holding Ireland was absolutely necessary for her peace and security. Possibly I will be told that the Executive Council of the Irish Free State are not concerned with what England says to America as to the interpretation she may give of her signature. That would be all very well, if we could accept that, if Ireland were not in the unfortunate position of being like the mouse and the cat so far as Ireland and the British Empire are concerned. That would be all very well if we were an absolutely free country, if the whole people of Ireland had been given absolutely and definitely the right to decide freely for themselves what form of government they desire.