What strikes me about this Kellogg Pact is that there has been a great deal of hubbub made about it and a lot of solemnity gone through in its ratification in this Oireachtas. When we analyse our position arising out of the Treaty of 1921, we see by that Treaty, as far as the people opposed to it could view it, that we renounced war as a means of settling disputes between the various members of the British Commonwealth. When we couple with that the statement made by the British that when one member of the Commonwealth is attacked it is the concern of all, we can conclude that any war forces we have here are purely defensive, and defensive for one purpose, namely, when the Commonwealth is attacked. Consequently it is a sheer waste of time to be taking up the time of this House debating the matter of the signing of the Pact.
Treaty for the Renunciation of War.
Hear, hear!
But apart from all this, coming to the value of the Pact itself as an international instrument of peace, we can only conclude that this Pact is a mere platitude. In this Pact there is no attempt to renounce the causes of war. The nations come together and state: "We renounce war." And yet the causes of war, like in Geneva, are left untouched and we have the blue-eyed idealists coming back from Geneva telling the Irish people that now war is at an end because they have been there.
That is the Minister for Agriculture's phrase.
In spite of the assurance of the Father of this House that war will not come between the United States and England, we have, yesterday, Canada assuring us that when that conflict comes about she will be out of it. We link up certain things which are occurring such as the statement made by the head of the Chambers of Commerce in the United States, wherein he says: "We have 5 per cent. of the world's population, we have 55 per cent of the trade of the world, and we are going out for more." You have the statement by the President of the National Association of Manufacturers in the United States in which he says: "Of practically all the commodities that America can produce it is producing regularly from 15 to 30 per cent. more than it has a capacity to consume or dispose of profitably in other available markets. It is safe to say that a general average of 40 per cent. of all our factories that are operating at all to-day are doing so at a loss." Again, Senator Reed, on the Cruiser Bill says: "Tell me why Bermuda should be fortified?"
Hear, hear! Tell us that.
Senator Reed goes on: "Why should Britain cling to a ring of islands which command the Panama Canal? From Jamaica Britain could destroy the Panama Canal with her aeroplanes in five and a half hours. If our fleet should be divided between the Atlantic and the Pacific it would be helpless. Why does England have a fortress near Cape Horn so that we cannot sail round South America? I do not say that Britain is preparing for war with the United States, but I do say that her statesmen have enough sense to protect their own country. And any American statesman who does not take a lesson from this fact is not fit to represent the American people. I am in favour of a navy equal to any on earth. I am in favour of a navy so strong that no two navies on earth could attack it. The interest on our war debt could pay for this, and it behoves us to look after our own household."
If you couple that with the looms that are only doing 40 per cent. of what they could do, and if you realise that it is not, as Deputy O'Connell says, jealousy between nations or suspicion between nations that causes war, but the struggle for international markets, and when you weigh up that there is nothing in the Kellogg Pact renouncing the causes of war, that there is nothing in the Kellogg Pact is a mere platitude. If this Dáil were to propose a resolution and adopt it, and say "that as a means towards the internal and international peace of nations the efforts of production should be directed towards the housing, clothing and feeding of the unemployed, irrespective of whether work is available for them or not," that would be a platitude too. But weighed with the Kellogg Pact it would have just as far-reaching an effect. We have, as one of the signatories to this Pact, the British. While they are shoving cotton goods on the Indians whether they like or not, and tinned goods on other people, their own employees are going naked and unfed and unsheltered and left to charity. Their production is directed, not towards the welfare of these millions within their own shores, but to carry out the rules of a false economy —to rush for markets where and when they can get them.
The same thing applies all the world over. I grant you that England does not go to war because she loves war. Neither does America. Neither does any other country in the world. They want peace if they can get peace. They will do all they can to avoid war, but as a necessity to keep their places in the sun and to carry on with that ever-expanding market which is an essential to the present economic politic outlook in the world, war will be inevitable with whoever arises as a rival. As far as we can see the rival to England is the United States. But whether it be the United States or whether it be Russia, war is going to come, and this Kellogg Pact is not going to avoid it, because it does not do anything to renounce and do away with the causes of war. I grant you, too, that if you cut out the causes of war and do away with them it would effect the necessary change, even if you had large numbers of cruisers assembled. And if you had a certain amount of disarmament, not total disarmament, quarrels would be renewed as long as the causes of war are there, whereby in the slogan as we have had it often in this Assembly, even given out by the Minister for Agriculture, "we live by our exports." That is the slogan of the nations of the world.
It does not matter a thraneen whether thousands go and starve, go unclothed and go unhoused, just as they did in the time of the Famine. We live by our exports, and show a beautiful set of statistics. We are to judge of welfare not by the number of human beings that are happy, but by the large number of figures which we can dish up to blind a gullible public. Deputy Lemass said last night that there was one practical proposal at Geneva—namely, from the representatives of the Soviet people, when they said that the way to prevent war was to have total disarmament. All the sophistry of the Cushenduns and the rest of them was brought to bear on the individual who said that to show how silly and ridiculous it was. In the same way any attempts to come at the causes of war will arouse the same ridicule, but what will become very evident in the next conflict is the truth of the fact that when men have to slaughter one another in war there is no shortage of food, there is no shortage of housing, and there is no shortage of clothing, and people will begin to ask themselves when that state of things can exist for the purposes of war, why can it not exist for the purposes of peace?
Following up the statement that has just been made by Deputy Kennedy, I wonder would I be in order in moving that the cost to the Free State in regard to all the negotiations leading up to the presentation of this Pact—the cost of the members attending here and of the time taken up by both Houses with this—when ascertained, be surcharged on our industrious Minister for External Affairs? I agree with the statement made by a Deputy from West Cork, Deputy Sheehy, who said last night that the House would be better occupied in looking after drainage schemes and in trying to find means of employment for our starving people than engaging in this comic opera talk about the renunciation of war. When I see here in this document references to the President of the German Reich, the President of the United States of America, his Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the seas, I ask myself if this is Ireland, or is it not? The King of Ireland has decided to conclude a Treaty and we are expected to sign it. Was ever the time of an assembly taken up in a more futile discussion than that? Those opposite tell us that the King of Ireland has decided to conclude a Treaty. Yet they solemnly come in here and occupy the time of the House for days while our people outside are hungry and while we have no money to relieve their distress in any way.
The time of the House is occupied in considering whether or not we are going to sign this Treaty. That is one side of the picture. The idea that they have tried carefully to foster here is that we have got sovereign power and sovereign independence. We have ambassadors abroad and we have an envoy to the League of Nations, we that left our elected representatives lie in British dungeons after the so-called Treaty was signed. We had not the power to get those elected representatives out. We have sovereign power, we who left our soldiers who fought in order that this affair whatever it is— anyway it was they who got it—lie under penal servitude sentences in British dungeons after they were elected by the Irish people to sit here. We have sovereign power. When we consider that the time of both Houses here has been occupied for a few days on this, as well as the cost of the printing and all this gaudy show, we must admit that it is all absolutely futile because this affair has already been signed. It has already been decided on and to bring it here and talk about it is only a farce and wasting the time of the House.
The Deputy is under a misapprehension. The House has been asked to ratify this Pact and the House has power to do that. The House is quite competent to do what it is asked to do, and the Deputy should not call the proceedings a farce. They are not a farce, except in so far as he makes them so.
Is it not a farce that when the King——
The Deputy must not call the proceedings here a farce and he must not behave in any way which would tend to make the proceedings here a farce, for that would be a reflection on the Assembly of which he is a member and upon the people who are responsible for the Assembly. I want the Deputy to be clear about that.
I promise that I will cast no slur whatever on the people who sent me here. When we see that the King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, that the King of Ireland has decided to conclude a Treaty, what would happen if, after the King of Ireland had decided to conclude it, the Twenty-Six Counties rejected it? I do not know would I be in order in moving that the Minister for External Affairs be surcharged for bringing this thing here. Let us look at it in another light. Take it that we have the right to reject this in our present position.
We are going to agree now that we will use only pacific means in attempting to get anything more than we have, and that we are going solemnly to renounce war. What is our present position? A piece of an island with our industrial arm cut off, paying five and a quarter million pounds a year for the right to exist, and we are not to look for more than that. This Irish nation is to be bound by this repudiation of war, and is not to look for more than it has got already. The Twenty-Six Counties have to go every second year abroad in order to borrow ten million pounds to pay this five and a quarter millions to John Bull, and we are not to look for any better national position than we have at present. We are to go no further, and we are now solemnly to renounce war. Parnell's statement that no man had a right to set bounds to the onward march of a nation is solemnly to be repudiated by the signing of an agreement that states that we are only to proceed by peaceful means against the British Empire. Speaking last night, the Minister for Defence said there was no fear that the Fianna Fáil Party would ever be a Government. Doubtless, he has the idea that he can remain in power until he has this country driven into such a state of financial bankruptcy that there will be no other Government to come after him. That is doubtless the idea that he has in his mind about that. I am definitely of opinion that we should make no move whatever to put our signature to the Kellogg Pact for the renunciation of war so long as it means that we are to go no further, that we are to be satisfied with what we have got, that we are to condemn our people to sweat and slave, and send 30,000 of our young men and women away every year in order that we may pay £5,000,000 a year to the British Empire. We are to continue in that position and keep our people here as slaves and serfs in a country that is the fruitful mother of flocks and herds, in order that we may appear in a glorified Pact which means nothing only callousness.
Listening to the debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas regarding this Pact for the renunciation of war, and reading the amount of comment indulged in by the Press, provincial and local here, one's mind goes back to those days in the end of 1921 when the treaty of surrender was signed in London, by which we were supposed to have achieved the sovereign independence of Ireland. One remembers the double column captions that then adorned the "Irish Independent," the "Cork Examiner," and other papers of ours. One remembers the speeches made trying to drive down the throats of the people that though the Treaty was in the eyes of some of us black it should be in the eyes of most people absolutely white. Contrasting that with the speeches made here in vindication of the Kellogg Pact for the renunciation of war, one is inclined to believe, and rightly so in my opinion, that the same campaign of camouflage that succeeded in deluding 90 per cent. of the country in 1921 in regard to the ultimate consequences of that treaty of surrender is being indulged in to-day to delude 90 per cent. of the people left in Ireland into the belief that this Pact is really what it is not. Deputy Corry aroused a considerable amount of smiles from the Front Bench when he cast ridicule on the idea that we had no power or influence as regards this Pact for the renunciation of war.
It strikes me very forcibly that the very same attitude of mind, the very same mentality that is exemplified in the speeches of Deputies on the other side when there is some debate on the Department of External Affairs, the same attitude towards the status of this partitioned part of Ireland, is being taken up in the debate on this Kellogg Pact. I will not for one moment support or vote for the ratification of the Pact, not because of the idea underlying the Pact—it is ideal if it could be carried out in practice—not because I have any objection to international peace, because I realise as well as everybody that in international peace lies the only guarantee for the future happiness and prosperity of this nation, but I propose to vote against the Pact because I believe it is a hypocritical gesture, and because those who initiated and who are promulgating it do not believe what they say, and their actions after its ratification in many Houses of Assembly since the signing of the Pact prove that, and because the hypocrisy of the speeches made with regard to this State's action on the Pact should not be allowed to pass without comment.
There is no getting away from the fact, and any honest person will admit it, that when it is stated here that the Irish Free State has been invited to sign the Pact for the renunciation of war, and when that is given big headings in the papers and a considerable amount of propaganda is made about it, the people of the country are apt to be deluded that this is a sovereign State. Bluff again. The Irish Free State received that invitation from the American Government to sign the Pact, not because the United States recognised us as a sovereign entity, not because we had achieved that position of pre-eminence in the world that Ministers speak of at election times, but because, in company with South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, which is the British Empire; which, in effect, means that but for the fact we have a Dominion form of government under the Presidency of the British King, we certainly would not have got that invitation. It is only because the British Government agreed that its Dominions should be invited to sign the Pact that we secured any invitation, and not because we are a sovereign State.
With regard to the Pact, I would not vote for its ratification in this Dáil or elsewhere. The Pact contains in paragraph 2 of the Preamble the following words:—
"Persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated."
That "the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated"—that is to say, now existing between the Government of the Free State and Great Britain, presumably, as two of the contracting parties to this document for the renunciation of war. Does the Government maintain that the "peaceful and friendly" relations existing between the peoples of Great Britain and Ireland are such that we could safely and with honour sign a Pact for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, when it may be the only means at our disposal in time to come to secure the sovereign independence of our nation? Does the Minister maintain there is a state of peaceful and friendly relations between these peoples? When Deputy Lemass mentioned last night that whether we liked it or not, and no matter how an attempt might be made to camouflage the position, there was a state of smothered war in this country, he was met with a cry of protest from Deputy O'Connell and other Deputies. There is no doubt about it there is a state of smothered war in this country, and that state of smothered war will always exist while this country is unfree. There is no doubt but that the attitude of any Irishman who believes in the sovereign independence of this nation, while that state of smothered war which results from subjection continues, is one which will not be the attitude contained in the Preamble to the Pact, that there are "peaceful and friendly" relations between our people and Great Britain. When Deputy Lemass mentioned the fact that no matter how many pacts were ratified by this Assembly, and no matter how many gestures may be made in the belief that there are friendly relations existing, there is a body of people in this country who would not regard that as finally and legally binding on their conscience, he was more or less accused of exaggerating the position. No later than the day before yesterday, a newspaper was suppressed in this country for daring to print a small account of the Convention of the Irish Republican Army.
Article 2 of the Pact is an article that should certainly be studied very carefully by Deputies before they vote for its ratification—"the solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be... shall never be sought except by pacific means." That is an Article in a Pact which this Dáil is asked to ratify which should not be ratified by it while this nation is unfree. After all, we here do not represent the Irish nation; we here do not represent a unified country; we do not represent a national entity. We represent a partitioned nation, partitioned by one of the high contracting parties to this Treaty for the renunciation of war, partitioned in the interest of that high contracting party, which now, in conjunction with other high contracting parties, in her letter of acceptance of Mr. Kellogg's invitation to sign a Pact, states that in certain regions of the world where British interests must be safeguarded the terms of this Pact will not apply. Somebody said last night that the Pact was a Pact to safeguard the interests of those who have against the interests of those who have not, and there is no doubt whatsoever that if you look around the world at the present moment you will see that the statement made here that there was a tremendous amount of hypocrisy attached to bringing into this House a proposal to ratify this instrument is a fact. Take the high contracting parties at the present moment —the initial signatories to the Treaty for the renunciation of war—and what do we find? Deputy Cassidy last night and Deputy Kennedy to-day quoted from the speech of Senator Reed in the American Senate in the debate on the Cruiser Bill, and that speech gave the bald, bare facts. But there is no doubt whatsoever about it that of the nations which have been the original signatories to this Pact we find that every one of them is permeated with the same hypocrisy that is attached to the attempt to make the people of this country believe that, because this State was invited to sign this Pact, we have become a great moral force amongst the nations and are recognised as a sovereign, independent entity at Geneva.
The United States of America ratified the Pact and then passed a Cruiser Bill involving the construction of fifteen cruisers. We have the Government of Great Britain accepting the principles of the Pact and approving of it, with reservations involving, I presume, Ireland, Egypt and India, and a few weeks later involving themselves in the Birkenhead naval construction programme, costing approximately £86,000,000. The Government of France received the Pact with joy, and some time ago claimed that they were the real initiators of the idea, and the Government of France, which proposed the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, is not renouncing and will not renounce war in the case of Alsace-Lorraine, will not renounce war as an instrument of national policy, as their standing army and reserves prove, in the occupation of the Rhineland—will not, for instance, renounce war when it comes to a question of the preservation of the French mastery of the air. France does not carry out in practice the theory which she approved of in this Kellogg Pact for the renunciation of war. Germany, which was disarmed under the Treaty of 1919, which was forced upon her at Versailles, is in the same position as the rest of them, supposed to be totally disarmed, supposed to be helpless, at the mercy of this capitalistic combine described as the allies, and Germany possesses a 9,000 tons cruiser which has made the best naval experts of the United States and Great Britain revise their ideas as to the strength and the possibility for recuperation of the nations defeated in the field. Germany has signed the Pact with a great flourish, but is in the same position as the rest.
Then we come to another signatory —Japan. Japan, one of the countries which agreed to the 5, 5, 3 ratio at the Washington Conference in 1922, still maintains her hold on the Chinese possessions which she acquired through war and through the weakness of the Chinese people. All these people come along with flourishes, declaring that they will renounce war as an instrument of national policy, and yet when the only practical proposition was put up at Geneva for total disarmament and for the abolition of armies and navies, it was met with the combined propaganda of all these capitalistic Governments with statements to the effect that that was absurd. There is no honesty in this Pact for the renunciation of war. There is no real meaning attached to it; there is no real sincerity behind the proposals, and because of the hypocritical attitude of the Government of this State in signing a Pact which they know very well is only a Pact for keeping what they have by the empires of the world, I for one will not vote for it.
I ask the House to approach this question from a point of view which I hope will appeal to every member, and every section in it. I ask the House to forget for a moment how we came into being, to forget the vexed constitutional questions that divide us, and to consider this question merely as an assembly of the elected representatives of the people, careful only that in whatsoever we do the dignity, the rights and the interests of that people shall be safeguarded and conserved. It is in that spirit I would ask you to examine this instrument which has been styled "a Treaty for the Renunciation of War." I regret to say it is not the spirit manifested by the Minister when, with scarcely a word of justification or explanation, he flung this document disdainfully before us.
If this document be in fact what it holds itself out to be, a solemn Pact whereby war is for ever renounced, and if this House be in fact what Ministers have so often represented it to be, a sovereign assembly, whose every act is of serious import, because of the obligations which it may impose upon the people, then the attitude of the Government, whether expressed by the silence of the Minister for External Affairs, or in the inconsequent flippancies of the Minister for Defence, is unworthy of this House and of that document. It is true that the silence of the one Minister is as little regarded in the House as are the inconsequences of the other. We know how dearly in any discussion the Minister, whether he be the Tweedledum of Industry and Commerce or the Tweedledee of External Affairs, loves to lead the attack from behind. For one whose sole armoury is misrepresentation such a position has important dialectical advantages; for in the security of the last word lies his hope of Parliamentary salvation, but, be that as it may, we are entitled on this occasion to demand more from the Minister.
We are asked to ratify a treaty. For any legislature that is a grave and solemn act. By it a people is pledged by its honour to adhere to and, with other parties, jointly to assume responsibility for the due fulfilment of a solemn compact. Therefore ratification is not to be taken as a mere matter of form, void of all future obligation, as the Minister's viewpoint, so far as his silence expressed it, seems to be. Nor is it to be yielded lightly, taking the document at its face value, without question and without consideration of all those known facts relevant to it which may, and in this particular instance assuredly do, vitiate everything that is therein written, as would seem to be the attitude of the leader of the Labour Party.
I know it may be urged, and indeed the Minister for Defence has gone far to suggest it, that our ratification of this document is of little consequence; that we are not in very deed a sovereign assembly; that we are but a throw-back to the Partition Parliament of 1920; that because our own liberties are fettered we are not in a position to ratify the Treaty unreservedly, and that whatever renunciations we may make under this Treaty will be nullified by our commitments under another document which, according to the Minister for Defence last night, has overriding force.
In dealing with the point that has been raised regarding Article 7 of the Treaty, the Minister for Defence, if I recollect him rightly, said it meant that if Article 7 be invoked this solemn Treaty for the renunciation of war will have to go by the board. I know that the case might be put forward for treating this document lightly——
The Minister for Defence never said that.
I have not his exact words, but I have written down what I thought he said; the words are in quotation marks, and I use the phrase with the qualification "if I recollect him rightly."
You have not done so.
Subject to that I make the point. I know the case that can be advanced for treating this matter lightly, but I ask the House to repel and reject that case. It may be true that this Assembly and this State was engendered in evil days, in evil circumstances; but however equivocal its origin, I am not without hope that one day it will speak the accents of freedom and vindicate the rights and the liberties of a united nation. That one day it should do that is the only justification that can be offered for the things that were done to bring it into, and to maintain it in existence.
There are others in this House, more numerous perhaps even than the members on these Benches, who are here because they cherish that hope. It is to them I would specially appeal. Do not do this thing lightly. Remember at the very least you are pledging the honour and involving the dignity of this people, and that honour should not be pledged and that dignity should not be involved without due occasion and sufficient warrant. And shall that honour be pledged and shall that dignity be compromised by subscribing to an open and manifest lie? The document has been styled a Treaty for the Renunciation of War. But has war been renounced by a single one of the greater Powers who are parties, high contracting parties, to that Treaty? Has it been renounced by the Power which in signing has reserved to itself the right to make the initial attack in a defensive war? Has it been renounced by the Power which in signing has declared that there are certain regions—and well we know them, for we are one—where it will not tolerate interference? Do these and the other Powers which have made similar reservations believe that their associates in that Treaty have renounced war? The very reservations which they have made, the very statements of the Minister for Defence in this House, I believe, proclaim that they have not. And yet we are asked to take at its face value this document which practically every signatory has defaced and dishonoured in signing.
As we are asked to be insincere, as we are asked to link ourselves and our people—and when I say ourselves I prefer not to think of the Constitution under which we exist; I prefer to think of the mandate which we hold—with this act of universal hypocrisy, would it not be a manlier and a nobler thing for this Assembly to say, taking into account the reservations made by the high contracting parties to the Treaty, bearing in mind the honour and the dignity of this nation, and believing that treaties should be entered into solemnly and with every intention of honouring them fully, that we cannot, in view of the reservations that have been made, ratify this Treaty in the name of Dáil Eireann or of the Irish Free State, but in the name of the Irish people whom we represent. And as we are asked to be insincere in our ratification of this Treaty we are also urged to be imprudent, and that, too, by the leader of the Labour Party. Sign, he tells us, despite the reservations. We can ignore them; they are not part of the compact. One might as well say that a codicil is not part of a will.
A codicil is written into a will.
And it is signed.
And these reservations of Sir Austen Chamberlain are signed by Sir Austen Chamberlain.
And we are agreeing to the will without any codicil.
These reservations made by every one of these signatories are just as truly part of that Treaty as if they were all inscribed therein, and will have the same binding effect upon every signatory. More so, in fact, because of the manner in which they have been emphasised, and I contend that every signatory, when he adheres to that Pact, by that adherence accepts as binding every one of the reservations made by the associates, and I would ask you to consider that in relation to our own particular position here. Under another Treaty we are bound to yield certain facilities, for defensive purposes merely, we are told, to another Power. By another Treaty we have been made, for the moment at any rate, to recognise that we are one of those regions with which his Majesty's Government has made it clear in the past, it cannot suffer interference. We are one of the people whose protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of selfdefence. In the words of the Minister, their protection is a measure of selfdefence, he said last night, referring to these regions. He went on to say that it was an expression of interest in our welfare. It reminded me of the old song we used to sing some years ago:
Old Brittania loves us still,
Whack fol de diddle di do.
It was a repetition of that phrase—I am not going to say this time without sarcasm, this time without irony or, I am sure, this time without cynicism, because the Minister for Defence, or any other Minister who has a record in national affairs, who has at any time espoused the cause of Irish independence, knows in his heart that this desire of Great Britain to safeguard us against attack is not a measure of interest in our welfare, but is, on the contrary, a desire to interfere with our legitimate aspirations and to prevent our full development politically and economically.
I say that when we endorse and ratify this Pact we will be endorsing and accepting once again the humiliating conditions of Article 7 of the Treaty, but this time because there is no coercion upon us to ratify this document we will be accepting and endorsing the conditions of Article 7 of our own free will, of our own volition and without any coercion whatsoever. I suggest, for prudent motives and for no other, we should not lightly accept the proposition of the Minister for External Affairs, that we should reject his proposition to ratify this Treaty and say as we are not a free agent in this matter, and as we are not a free agent under Article 7 of the Treaty, as we might in time of war by virtue of Article 7 of the Treaty be compelled to yield to belligerents facilities which would involve us in war, then we cannot sign this Treaty without any intention or power of keeping it.
There are one or two points I want to make in reference to this Pact. My view of this is that it is an attempt to build up a solid organisation of world capitalism with a view to continuing the exploitation of the weak. I am surprised to find any Irishman advocating the abolition of war in view of the position we occupy at present and in view of the historical fact that war has been the only instrument that has served this nation in the past. I am sorry also to find the leader of the Labour Party associating himself with this appeal to sign this hypocritical Pact.
Do you know any country in the world where Labour advocates war, and you speak as an ex-Labour man here?
Yes, I know that the greatest leader of all Socialist thought advocates war.
Who is he?
War of itself is not an evil thing. Those who believe in justice should be prepared to fight for it. I might even be prepared to believe that the people who are responsible for this Pact are genuinely desirous of putting an end to war, but why? Because evolution has brought us to the state when it is no longer safe for a small group who have during the last century controlled the destinies of the people who have made war a profession and brought it into being whenever they found it necessary. They are beginning to get afraid now. The conscience and intelligence of the common people are wakening up, and there is that spirit of international brotherhood spreading throughout the world.
When it is recognised that the wealth of the world is controlled by something like five per cent. and that the other ninety-five per cent. of the people have been used in the interests of that five per cent. all down to the last couple of centuries I think we can find a very good reason for believing that there is some genuine desire on the part of those high contracting parties to find some other means of continuing their exploitation. I do say that so far as the common people of this and every other country are concerned the abolition of war will not remedy their lot. During wars there is always a gambling chance that the under dog may come on top. If we are to assist in our present degraded national position, our deplorable economic position also, in solidifying the present economic system which this Pact aims at, solidifying the unchristian system which holds the common people of the world in subjection then we are certainly playing the parts of cowards. I think it was Deputy Lemass who pointed out here last night that at the recent Geneva conference the Soviet delegates called the bluff of the other Powers when they suggested a very simple but obviously genuine method of putting an end to war by simply abolishing arms. We know the reception that proposal got. I think it is sufficient to indicate the amount of sincerity which animates these people. We heard the Minister for Defence say last night that when a solemn declaration was made by any State that it should be taken for granted that the solemn declaration is intended to be kept by those who make it. What about the solemn declaration that the Minister himself and those associated with him made in January 1919 in the name of the people of this State? In the name of the people of all Ireland there was a solemn declaration and an oath was taken to uphold that declaration.
Did the Deputy say January 1919?
January 1919, when the Minister——
I know what the Deputy is referring to quite well. 1922 is bad enough, but 1919! Let us keep to the Kellogg Pact.
Are we to take it that the lapse of time obviates the necessity for keeping to those declarations?
Lapse of time affects relevancy. That is my position. I am not concerned with declarations.
I hold that was the most solemn declaration ever made in the name of the Irish people. Because of that declaration many Irishmen are in their graves to-day and the Minister who made that statement last night was one who contributed to that.
The Deputy must go on to the Pact.
I simply want to put the point that I believe, as a representative who considers the viewpoint of the downtrodden masses of humanity, that the instrument of war, revolution and upheaval is, at least for them, of more value than it can possibly be for the people who occupy the places of power. By organised and intelligent action the majority of the people of the world, who are at present hewers of wood and drawers of water, can come into their own. They cannot come into their own without having resource to war, and I say it is not a noble doctrine for an unfree people to preach the abolition of war. Let us take, for instance, the unemployed in this city. I have visited many of their homes recently, and I have told some of them that sooner than continue to occupy their position I would prefer to go out and die on the streets, and I am not more courageous than any other man, not one bit more courageous. I think it is a nobler thing to die fighting than to die starving, and there are millions of people throughout the world who are being compelled, because of the system which these high contracting powers have manoeuvred the world into, because of the power which they have acquired, are being condemned yearly to slow, starving deaths. I am surprised to find the Cumann na nGaedheal Party leaders advocating the signing of this Pact, because it will take away from them their main plank. I wonder do the backbenchers of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party recognise that at future elections they cannot go before the people and say if you do not return us to power you are risking the putting into effect of this threat of immediate and terrible war. England holds that threat over this country, and the Fianna Fáil Party and other parties may decide to call her bluff. It is by those threats, as we all know, that the present Government occupy the position in which they are.
Paragraph 3 of this Pact states: "All changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process." If the people of this country had been allowed to indicate their national aspirations and desires by a peaceful and orderly process we would have a real national Government in control. It is not by a peaceful and orderly process that we have the present Government in power, but under the threat of immediate and terrible war. That threat has served you well in the past, and I wonder why the Government Party have now made up their minds to discard it. There is another reason why I, personally, would not like to see, or why the section of the people we speak for would not like to see, the people of Ireland indicating their desire to end war. I believe if there is any people on earth who should endeavour to have that instrument remain until they get some of their own back it is this people. Those who live by the sword should perish by it. I want to see that those who have lived by the sword, in so far as ruling this country is concerned, shall perish by it. The Ministers may smile.
It is more than a smile at that.
Paradoxical as it may seem, I am as desirous of real peace as anybody, but while the present condition obtains, there will be no peace. It would be merely trying to patch up something which is impossible to remedy. We should hold in our hands all the weapons we can and be ready to use them if and when circumstances dictate. We should not limit the means by which we will be able to win out to ultimate freedom. We have, as I said, our degraded national position to remedy. We have our economic position to remedy. The high contracting parties are now seeking for means of holding the gains which they have got other than war. It is, as I said, because they are beginning to get afraid of war. They are beginning to fear that in the event of another world upheaval other countries may do what Russia did in 1917. They do not know which of their armies may mutiny, and deal with the people who sent them to slaughter while they themselves were fattening and battening on the victims at home. That is the real cause of this so-called Peace Pact, the recognition by these astute diplomats that there is that growing consciousness on the part of the common people. The international brotherhood of man is becoming a real live force in the world, and no more will we find the millions parading behind bands and banners recognising or believing in their hearts that they are doing noble deeds. Whilst we must admit that every man who goes into war is necessarily a courageous man and a man who deserves honour and congratulations, nevertheless, we have as a result of the last world upheaval a recognition broadcast throughout the world by the dullest of minds that they were simply used as cannon fodder in the interests of the few, and that growing discontent and disillusionment will have its repercussions for the good of the common people. That is what these world diplomats fear, and personally I hope that this House will refuse to ratify that Pact or to assist in any way in solidifying this inhuman system of society, but rather to keep it in its present state of insecurity, so that when the next upheaval comes, as it will and must come, I hope that the people will be ready to grasp that opportunity and use it in their own interests.
I would not rise to speak on this motion were it not that I am urged to do so by the fact that I have heard more nonsense spoken in a serious way on this motion than I have ever listened to in my life. I think a proper setting for the speech of the last Deputy would be Hyde Park on a Sunday morning and the notes—the tootle-tootle—of a concertina. So far as the Labour policy is concerned—and when I say Labour policy, I refer not alone to the Labour policy and programme in this country, but the Labour policy and programme throughout the world—it is opposed to war. We have heard the terms "cannon fodder" used. Who are the people who suffer in all these great wars? The ordinary common people. The ordinary common people are made food for cannon. I was astonished to hear a member of any party claiming to be democratic saying that war is an eminently desirable thing, because at some time or other the under dog is going to come on top. In my view, and in the view of any other person who has given even a fraction of thought to war, war is most undesirable. I for one have always attempted to cultivate what is the peace mind.
On the bridge at Cork.
I never heard more utter piffle spoken than on this motion. We heard talk that universal brotherhood is on the increase. Universal brotherhood means "Love thy neighbour as thyself," but in the next breath we have war advocated. Universal brotherhood, international love and all the rest of it! I think the sooner we get away from that kind of piffle the better. I am prepared to accept this motion. All I am asked to say is that Dáil Eireann approves of the Treaty for the Renunciation of War. So far as reservations are concerned, we just approve of that principle and no more. I cannot understand the attitude of mind of people who proclaim the fact that they are democrats, democrats with a democratic programme, and who at the same time advocate war. We heard the lurid and blood-curdling story from Deputy O'Kelly about the horrors that would ensue as a result of war with America. Does anyone imagine that this little country is going to war with England, America, or any other big Power? All these deductions were drawn from the fact that we might at some time consider attacking America or England. There may be a humorous side to this. The Minister for Defence was inclined to deal with it in a flippant manner.
There is, however, a much more serious side to be considered. There is, for instance, the evil effect on the young people of the country produced by this class of speech and this type of literature. We know what is going on in the country at present. There are boys from sixteen to eighteen—impressionable youths who are carried away by this kind of clap-trap. I am astonished that a man of the intelligence and education of Deputy O'Kelly should preach such stuff as that, which is absorbed by young people. Let us see what is happening in the country. We know that there is intimidation practised here and there up and down the country. I say that this is not a useful contribution to national politics at this time of day. I appeal to Deputy O'Kelly and others who should have exercised more common sense, as a result of their sad experiences of past years, to cease preaching this doctrine. We have had enough trouble arising out of armed revolutions. I am opposed to the Government on many things, but I support them in this, and I suggest to those on the Fianna Fáil Benches that it is not useful, but rather does evil, to indulge in this class of oratory, either in this House or outside it.
I am sorry that Deputy MacEntee has left the House, as he had the advantage this time of the dialectical opportunity of having the last word, but he did not make much use of it. I want to congratulate him on one thing. It has been in my mind to do so for a long time. I have seen him— I use the word advisedly—deliver many speeches in this House, and I have been waiting for many months to see him, when turning over his notes, missing even one page in the hope that if he did so he would show some initiative, skill, and elasticity in trying to get away from the uninterrupted course of dulness which his speeches always display. A man who showed his capacity for changing his mind in one day with regard to politics in this country should have the same adaptability for changing his style in the middle of a debate. This should have been a serious debate. We might not have been invited to take part in the Kellogg Pact at all. We were not invited in the first instance because we are not one of the Great Powers. We were invited afterwards. If this debate is promulgated far and wide there will be very few other international agreements which we will be asked to sign. It is a notable thing in the theatrical world that the man who reaches the greatest heights in tragedy always wants to play a comic rôle. Why should any of the comedians of this House want to enter into serious debate here, and why should Deputy Mullins, Deputy Cooney and Deputy Corry insist on having their say on an international affair like this?
On a point of order. Does the Minister mean to insinuate that Deputy Mullins and Deputy Corry were not duly elected by the people, and have not as much right as the Minister to speak here?
When that question arises I will answer it.
I think A Chinn Chomhairle the Minister should not be allowed to make a remark of that nature.
I thought that Deputy Mullins was rising to a point of order. If he puts a point to me and not to the Minister, I will certainly resolve it.
Is the Minister entitled to insinuate, as he has done, in his statement that Deputy Corry and Deputy Mullins are not entitled to speak in this House, were not duly elected by the people, and have not as much right to speak as he has?
I gathered no such insinuation from what the Minister said.
That is what he said.
No, I think he said that Deputy Mullins and Deputy Corry were comedians. I think that that remark should be withdrawn.
Very well. I withdraw the expression, but I express myself in this way. It is one thing to talk uncouthly and to be uncouth, and to have a capacity for making a faux pas. The evil effect of that is a small thing if confined to our own domestic politics. It is, however, another thing, once we get into the wider spheres of international matters, to have such utterances reported as those of responsible people. There should be some responsibility upon leaders of parties as to who are to be allowed to speak on such motions. What have we had here for the last two days? We have had a definite statement from Deputy Mullins that there is no honesty in this proposal, and that there is no sincerity in this Pact.
Correct.
Let us apply that proposition to the people who put forward these proposals and who invited us to sign the Pact. Does Deputy Mullins think that it is a tactful thing; does he think that even honesty compels him to be so uncouth as to say a thing like that?
Yes.
took the Chair.
Will that lead to our being regarded as responsible people in international affairs when from the depths of Deputy Mullins's wisdom, aided by the wisdom which Deputy Corry always brings to bear on any subject of this kind, we are told that there is no sincerity or honesty in this Pact, that all the people behind it, that all the people who are backing the Governments behind it, are without honesty or sincerity in putting forward this proposal? Is this House to be demeaned by having these statements go forth as the considered view of any large section of the people, that when an American statesman seeks to crown his life's work by bringing forward something which brings the ideal of world peace before the nations and which says: "We are convinced that all changes in relation between peoples should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process," that the man who brings that forward and the American Administration who support him are to be condemned as hypocrites?
I suggest that the Minister should hold a private meeting of his Party, and he will get 90 per cent. of his supporters to tell him he is "codding."
That is as futile as anything which the Deputy has previously said, and that is saying a great deal. It is almost impossible to carry on a debate under conditions such as those prevailing here for the last few days. I wish we had as clean consciences about everything, that we can afford to have people standing up here and talking about the oppression of other nations of the world, that we can point the finger of scorn at America, as one Deputy said in regard to Nicaragua, or like Deputy Mullins can roll off references to Alsace-Lorraine and other countries. Is that supposed to be the attitude towards a pact which is put forward honestly?
Where is your proof of honesty?
Would the Deputy allow the Minister to proceed?
We were told yesterday by a particular Senator that we were not to be allowed to have peace. We are told to-day by Deputy Cooney that we are not going to have any pact in regard to peace until international capitalism has been attacked. What is the Fianna Fáil policy in all this matter? We are not going to join in a pact of peace with people who are at present engaged in oppressing small nationalities.
Deputy Cooney takes that a step further. I do not know whether his Party walks in step with him, but he says that we will have nothing to do with peace pacts until international capitalism and the present state of anti-Christian civilisation have been rectified. It is a big programme. At the same time, we would like a guaranteed neutrality in this country. That is to be guaranteed according to Deputy Little, with whom it has become a fixed idea, by England, America, Germany and France, all four countries which have been criticised by his own Party as being guilty of the oppression of small nations. Thus though we will not join in a pact with them we will accept a declaration of guaranteed neutrality from the nations that are supposed to be oppressing small nationalities. We will postpone that guaranteed neutrality until such time as these people have cleaned their hands and have satisfied our consciences that they are a clean people and that we can respect neutrality guaranteed by them.
Where does the policy, if there is one, begin and end with Fianna Fáil? We want war. We will not sign a pact of peace, on the one hand, because it is hypocritical and the people who are asking us to sign do not mean peace but want war. On the other hand, it is said that if we do sign we will be bound to peace, whereas we, in fact, want war. That is not very logical. We will not join with people who want war because we know that when they ask for peace they want war. Then we shift our balance and say: "Why should we sign for peace because ‘we ourselves'—Deputy O'Kelly being the personification of ‘we ourselves''— want war." Deputy O'Kelly wants war, with this reservation: "But oh, Lord, not in our time." We will not sign anything that will prevent somebody junior to Deputy O'Kelly having the war which he wants against his secular enemies. I wonder who are his spiritual enemies. Why this outburst of warlike feeling which has surged to the top in regard to Fianna Fáil in the few days? We will not enter into a hypocritical pact about peace when we want war. We must have war.
Does the Minister suggest that every nation which does not accept the Pact wants war?
I hate to interrupt, but I think it is unfortunate that Deputy O'Kelly is not here because I do not think he would have allowed that misrepresentation of his attitude towards peace and war. He stated clearly that he was strongly in favour of peace, and he went on to explain why it was that war conditions are there and how they must arise. It is unfortunate that he is not here to contradict that misrepresentation.
I regret the reasons for Deputy O'Kelly's absence, but I do not believe that I am misrepresenting him. He said he wanted war and that it was inevitable under present circumstances.
Two very different statements.
Under present circumstances he wanted it. We are dealing with this Pact in the light of present circumstances. What Deputy Little wants I do not know. He made the surprising discovery that we have a tremendous advantage in having this country entirely surrounded by water. Yesterday I listened to a Fianna Fáil Senator declaring that what was at stake in the Pact was the control of the seas, that, in fact, our greatest danger lay in the fact that we were entirely surrounded by water. Deputy Little has a different point of view and he has again got out on the point of guaranteed neutrality. Belgium had its neutrality guaranteed. He realises that that is not a good example with regard to the virtue of having neutrality guaranteed as an international policy. We are now switched on to another country. Would he generalise again from Switzerland and say that it is a great advantage to have a country entirely surrounded by land? And when he does make both generalisations what has he advanced for or against our acceptance of this Pact? He said that we were going to be merged in another big country if we signed this Pact. How, by signing this Pact, do we bring ourselves more closely up against another big war than if we do not sign? He added the utter futility that in the next big war the Shannon Scheme would suffer. There is a word which I have been forbidden already to use in this debate but I am at a less for a better word to describe a man who puts that forward seriously in a discussion on a pact which says that people are going to renounce any recourse to war and are going to seek a settlement of any disputes that may arise through pacific means only. Let us assume that the Pact is not worth anything and that we want war. There are many mixed minds in the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to international affairs. How by signing something which is, at least, called a peace pact, do we bring ourselves nearer or more closely into association with the next big war than if we stood out? Deputy Little complained that we did not sign as one of the principal signatories. Neither did we. An invitation was not addressed to us in the first instance. We are not one of the six great Powers and, according to the views expressed here by most people, we do not want to be one of those Powers. We have no ambitions that way. Is that any reason for demeaning ourselves in this Assembly, that we do not rank in size of territory or strength of armaments as one of the six great Powers and that we were not invited to sign in the first instance?
Deputy Corry, if I may treat him seriously for a minute, wanted to know what was the force and what was the use of carrying on this discussion when the White Paper before us announced that, amongst others, his Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas had announced his desire to sign. Does the Deputy know the difference between signing and ratifying a treaty? Does he know we are not discussing the signature of the Treaty? Does he know that what we are discussing is ratification of the Treaty? Has he any idea about this matter at all?
I have a very good idea, and that is, that when a Minister occupies the time of the House and wastes the money of this nation, or this piece of an island rather, in bringing up a thing like that, which is absolutely futile, and which he knows is a huge joke, whilst our people are starving at home, I know there is a place for him, and it is not here.
The Deputy has described that as a very good idea that he has. It is probably one of the best that he has ever had. I hope there is nobody else in the House under the same delusion in regard to this as Deputy Corry.
Will the King ratify for us?
We are not discussing the signature, but ratification. The signature was affixed to this by President Cosgrave, acting under full power issued to him on the advice of the Executive Council of this State— a separate signature and separate advice tendered, and a separate reaction to that advice. Ratification is being discussed now. I am asked why I have not laid on the Table of the House all the documents in connection with this. The documents passing as between the American Minister and myself, four in all, have been published fully and accurately, and are going to appear on the records of the Seanad proceedings. The rest of the documents are confidential. I was prepared, in answer to intelligent questioning—and intelligent questioning could have done a great deal, but there was no intelligent questioning— to give the gist of all the documents. I was prepared to state the results, prepared to say where we were on any points raised. The documents themselves are confidential and are not to be quoted, and will not be quoted. I could state the result of the documents. I indicated that. If people have suspicions as to anything that has passed between myself and some member of the British Cabinet, I only wanted to have them raised so that I should have some chance of dissipating suspicions that might be about. There was a lot of rambling talk about international capitalism; of an island being surrounded by water; and about Article 7 of the Treaty, and the Covenant of the League of Nations; nothing relevant to the documents that passed between myself and anybody in Great Britain.
I asked one question relevant to the documents—I do not know whether it was intelligent or not —perhaps the Minister will answer it: If in the original communication which he received from the British Government in connection with the Pact there was any reference to the reservations afterwards mentioned in the British note to the United States?
I would not like to say with regard to the first, but there was mention in a letter received by me from the British Government with regard to reservations, and the answer that went was that the reservations were their own, and we had nothing to do with them. We were signing the Treaty unreservedly, and the only reservations, if they could be called reservations, were the two things contained in the letter which the Minister for Defence read last night, realising that there was nothing inconsistent in the Pact with any of our commitments under the Covenant of the League of Nations——
A Deputy
Article 7 of the Treaty?
Article 7 does not come in—and realising that our right to self-defence was not impugned, we accepted unreservedly the Kellogg Pact, and what our people are being asked to ratify is the Kellogg Pact as it stands on the White Paper, no reservations and no interpretations having anything to do with it as far as we are concerned. That was the one question that was asked—I did not know that it had been asked in that form. Is there anything else in the way of suspicion that occurs to anybody on the other side with regard to the letters that passed between us and the British Government—I would like to dissipate any suspicion there might be—or are people going to reserve to themselves the right of suspicion afterwards when they cannot be answered, instead of putting it forward here in the place where they should put it forward for answer? Why should I lay documents on the Table which are confidential? The very attitude of Fianna Fáil the other day, when the Minister for Finance announced that the people of the country had to bear no burden on account of the settlement in the Wigg and Cochrane case, shows quite clearly that confidential documents relating to constitutional matters and showing progress in constitutional matters, should not ever be put before them. One Deputy could not understand how the Minister for Finance had been able to get a good settlement of the Wigg and Cochrane case. He could so little understand it, that he had to put in the innuendo: "If you got successfully through this, what was the quid pro quo?”
Was it the progress of retrogression in constitutional matters?
In the Wigg and Cochrane case? Will the Deputy wait? A document has been promised in connection with that, and there will be a Bill to implement it. Can he not wait and argue the matter then? At any rate, when there is definite progress made we have that attitude of mind. There may be letters passing between the British Secretary of State and some members of this Government. When letters are published we have all this diseased suspicion breaking out in the Fianna Fáil Party. There are questions raised as to whether that marks a little advance; and where was the balancing and retrogression? It is clear that to the inferior minds of the Fianna Fáil Party you cannot make progress at all. If you do make some progress you must go backward in some other way.
Will the Minister inform us——
I will not inform Deputy Corry of anything, as he is incapable of receiving anything.
The Minister is so used to giving away things that we were astonished that he got something for nothing this time.
It is not a question of being astonished. The Fianna Fáil Party have one big nought. This is not a question of astonishment, Deputy Mullins should remember. It is a question of disbelief and anger, actual anger; not any decent attitude at a question being settled satisfactorily, but anger at the thought that there was no political advantage to be gained out of the Minister for Finance having had to give nothing for something. No progress could be made, as progress is being made, on points that arise, if every document had to be laid on the Table here, and the suspicions and distrusts of the Fianna Fáil Party brought to bear upon them, these suspicions filtering out across to the people on the other side, and arousing their suspicions and their distortions as to what was happening.
What about the confidential documents? The Minister asks are there any other questions. I should like to ask, would he be prepared now to disclose any of the confidential documents between his Government——
I am never prepared to break confidence.
That would be giving the game away.
I certainly shall look forward to the day when the Fianna Fáil Party comes in and decides to break confidence and publish these particular confidential documents. I shall look forward with great pleasure to that day—to the results as shown— although I shall not take much pleasure in their action. Deputy O'Kelly, Deputy Lemass and others spoke of Article 7, or some Article of the Constitution. The Minister for Defence pointed out that the point which had been made was as to rights which Great Britain, under the Treaty, was guaranteed here during time of war.
And peace.
In time of peace, it says, "Such facilities as are set out or may be otherwise agreed upon." In other words, there was the idea of a settlement of that kind of thing set out in the Treaty which the Deputies apparently do not know. As far as the state of war side is concerned, there is a certain provision in the Treaty. The Minister for Defence pointed out that this seeks to avoid war coming about, and therefore seeks to avoid the circumstances which would enable that annexe or Article of the Treaty to have effect. Deputies Lemass and O'Kelly will not have it. How are we to any degree stereotyping things which people might regard as deficiencies in the Treaty by signing this document? Not in one single particular. This has no effect whatever on the Treaty, except that, in so far as it has honesty and sincerity behind it, it means that there is going to be less resort to war in the future than formerly. If that happens the portions of the Treaty that depend upon a state of war are less likely to come into operation. That seems to be regarded as a bad thing, and we are not to sign a Treaty which will try to prevent war coming about.
Will the Minister state that the facilities in Article 7 in the Treaty will not be given to Great Britain in any war which may arise in the circumstances indicated in the British reservations?
We have nothing to do with the British reservations with regard to this. This House is not regarding British reservations or interpretations.
Our obligations under the Pact?
Under the Kellogg Pact? Our obligations are that we will not resort to war. That is simply the obligation under the Pact.
That is the point. If I might explain. We signed the Pact, and by doing so give that undertaking that we will not resort to war. But, by the Treaty of 1921, we will be compelled to give military assistance to Great Britain in any war that Great Britain may embark upon. Therefore, the British reservations are a matter of direct importance to us, because Great Britain excludes from the Pact wars arising under certain circumstances in certain regions.
We do not.
Is that made clear to Great Britain?
It is clear to this House. What this House is signing is the Pact as it stands with no reservations and no interpretations other than those contained in my letter to the American Minister, that we believe that there is nothing inconsistent as between this Pact and the Covenant of the League of Nations, and that there is nothing which takes away our right of self-defence. That is the sole interpretation, if it can be called an interpretation, with which we sign. If the British have certain reservations and go to war under conditions which we think break this Treaty, then this Kellogg Pact lapses according to the document itself:—
...any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its natural interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty...
That is not the point. The point is, if Great Britain breaks the Pact, do we stand by the Pact or stand by the Treaty of 1921?
Obviously, if one signatory to the Kellogg Pact breaks the Pact the Pact has disappeared and no longer applies to this country. Article 7 has, therefore, no connection. We are not doing anything with regard to Article 7. We are dealing merely with the Kellogg Pact. We are asking the people simply to sign what is before them. We are asking the people to accept the statement:—
...that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated; convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process...
That is the point I think that Deputy Anthony was bringing out in opposition to Deputy Cooney. Nobody wants to stereotype the present condition of things. Some of the profound international philosophers of the Fianna Fáil Party have set this combination of the "haves" against the "have-nots." Where does this stereotype the conditions in favour of the "haves" as against the "have-nots?" How does it? Is it the idea of Deputy Corry, Deputy Cooney and Deputy Mullins that there can only be progress against the "haves" by means of war, that they set out that course, and that that is the only way in which they will seek——
Is not that clear to any man of common sense?
If it could be shown that there was any stereotyping of present conditions, then of course people would be ill-advised to sign this. How far is the rectification of any injustices that remain in the world, from the point of view of nationality, going to be blocked by the signature of this? Supposing as a result of this there is some growth of the peaceful mind in the world, is there not a better chance of the pressure of decent, well-informed public opinion in the world getting injustices put right? Is there not a better chance of that under conditions where decent, well-informed, educated people of the world can have their say and not the people that Deputy Cooney referred to who live and batten on munitions and armaments?
Who have made war a profession.
Supposing there is a growth of the peace mind, and the professional war-makers are not in the ascendant, is it going to be easier for oppressed people to get rid of oppressors or not?
There will be no change of heart.
That is Deputy Kennedy's suggestion. Let us seek to remove the causes of war. One of the causes of war, I gather, is forcing unwilling Indians to wear cotton goods. Let us remove that cause, amongst other equally learned ones, and we will stop war better than by this method. I have heard four resolutions suggested. One in the Seanad was that we should not sign this until we had tilled more land. Then we had the folly of Deputy Corry shown here, and we had the resolution that Deputy Little suggested and one that Deputy Kennedy suggested. I should like to have the four of them as they were stated and put them together as indicating the collective wisdom of Fianna Fáil in this whole international matter.
Will the Minister tell us in what manner he is making an advance from the present position, or does he accept the present position of the Twenty-six Counties?
This will be ratified. The instrument of ratification has already been signed. It has been done provisionally. It has been sent across to Washington, and will be presented when this House marks its approval, if it does mark its approval, by passing this resolution. There are certain interesting constitutional developments that have been marked in this whole Kellogg Pact. There has been no attention given to them. There was attention given to them in the Seanad, because certain discussions and points that were elaborated there showed just where advance had been made. The advance is that there has been independent negotiations as between ourselves and the United States Government over this matter. There has been a separate and independent signature given by us to this Treaty, as I said before, with full power given to the President on the advice of the Executive Council— full power which marks itself as one of the constitutional developments since the conference of 1926, because every one of the signatories of the States that is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations signed under full powers limited to the area and the jurisdiction of the respective Parliaments. We are now proceeding to the last stage of it. We want ratification. We have our own separate instrument of ratification signed by the King on the advice of the Executive Council of this State, and that will be presented by our representative in Washington to the American Administration.
We ask the House, notwithstanding all the cynicism and, I think, the bad manners there have been with regard to the attitude of the other nations signing this Pact, to accept it as an honest attempt to bring some idea of peaceful progress into the world in the hope, as somebody said—Deputy Cassidy appeared to believe that the Minister for Defence said it—that it is going to put an end to all wars. We hope that it may. At any rate, seeing that it is the first attempt that has been made for many years past to get preparations for peace as well considered as preparations for war, we ask the Dáil to ratify it. It is a simple thing to sign to. We do not stereotype the present conditions. We in no way take away from the particular powers we possess. We have made the fullest use of our powers that ever has been made to date, and the reasons that are connected with the signing of a pact of peace must be apparent to any mind, and do not need emphasis here. I ask the House to agree with the motion.
May I ask the Minister a question? Does he admit that it is a right and proper thing for this country to try to go forward to complete freedom and unity?
There is an implication in the question that I do not accept at all.
I would like to know if all members of the Commonwealth are sending separate instruments of ratification?
I do not think all are. I think Canada is, and we are.
May I ask another question? Suppose the Minister had answered my first question in the affirmative—that it was a right and proper thing for this country to go forward to freedom and to complete unity— he has by signing this Treaty excluded——
Is that a question?
Yes. The Minister excludes, as I say, using the weapon of war. Will he tell me if there is any other way of getting it except by an international agreement?
In signing the Pact we want to coerce Deputy Little into the idea that he must give up war.
That is not an answer.
took the Chair.
|
Aird, William P.Alton, Ernest Henry.Anthony, Richard.Beckett, James Walter.Bennett, George Cecil.Blythe, Ernest.Bourke, Séamus A.Broderick, Henry.Broderick, Seán.Byrne, John Joseph.Carey, Edmund.Cassidy, Archie J.Clancy, Patrick.Coburn, James.Cole, John James.Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.Colohan, Hugh.Conlon, Martin.Connolly, Michael P.Cooper, Bryan Ricco.Corish, Richard.Cosgrave, William T.Crowley, James.Daly, John.Davis, Michael.Doherty, Eugene.Dolan, James N.Doyle, Edward.Doyle, Peadar Seán.Duggan, Edmund John.Dwyer, James.Egan, Barry M.Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.Everett, James.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Good, John.Gorey, Denis J.Haslett, Alexander.Hassett, John J.Heffernan, Michael R.Hennessy, Michael Joseph. |
Hennessy, Thomas.Henry, Mark.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).Hogan, Patrick (Galway).Holohan, Richard.Jordan, Michael.Kelly, Patrick Michael.Keogh, Myles.Law, Hugh Alexander.Leonard, Patrick.Lynch, Finian.Mathews, Arthur Patrick.McDonogh, Martin.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.Mongan, Joseph W.Morrissey, Daniel.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James E.Myles, James Sproule.Nally, Martin Michael.Nolan, John Thomas.O'Connell, Richard.O'Connell, Thomas J.O'Connor, Bartholomew.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Hanlon, John F.O'Leary Daniel.O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.O'Sullivan, Gearoid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Reynolds, Patrick.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Shaw, Patrick W.Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).Thrift, William Edward.Tierney, Michael.White, Vincent Joseph.Wolfe, George.Wolfe, Jaspar Travers. |
|
Allen, Denis.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Boland, Patrick.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Seán.Briscoe, Robert.Buckley, Daniel.Carney, Frank.Carty, Frank.Clery, Michael.Colbert, James.Cooney, Eamon.Corkery, Dan.Corry, Martin John.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Tadhg.Derrig, Thomas.Fahy, Frank.Flinn, Hugo.Fogarty, Andrew.Gorry, Patrick J.Goulding, John.Hayes, Seán.Holt, Samuel. |
Houlihan, Patrick.Jordan, Stephen.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Kent, William R.Kerlin, Frank.Killane, James Joseph.Killilea, Mark.Kilroy, Michael.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Maguire, Ben.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Moore, Séamus.Mullins, Thomas.O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.O'Leary, William.O'Reilly, Matthew.O'Reilly, Thomas.Ruttledge, Patrick J.Sexton, Martin.Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).Smith, Patrick.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. |