I move:—
"That the Bill be received for final consideration."
Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill, 1931—Report Stage.
I have been listening to the debate on the Constitution Bill for the last three days, and while I had not much time to consult many members of our Party, I would like to suggest that instead of drifting towards unrest and war in this country we should make a definite effort to secure peace between all Irishmen. My background, I would like to say for the benefit of all Deputies here, is that I was reading up Pacata Hibernia the other day in order to find an extract showing that Sir George Carew deliberately provoked risings in this and in his own country for his own purposes. In going through this volume in order to get the extract, I came upon this:
And also it was thought no ill policy to make the Irish draw blood one upon another whereby their private quarrels might advance the public service.
I have seen our private quarrels in this country advance the service of the British, and I did all in my power to prevent them. At the time the Treaty debates were going on, the one wish in my mind was that I could surround the Dáil and make the members sit there until they came upon some solution of the problem that would save this country from internal war.
When the representatives of the Irish Republican Army, drawn from all over the country, met to discuss the situation after the Treaty was passed, I did all in my power to keep them together until the Irish representatives would have a chance of meeting to frame and discuss a Constitution. The representatives of the divisions and the members of the headquarters staff met some time about February. A proposition came before us for an Army Convention, and I appealed to the members to have no Army convention until the representatives of the people had an opportunity of threshing out the best Constitution, without reference to England or anyone else, for our people to live under. I remained under the Dáil Ministry of Defence and endeavoured to get all the Volunteers under my command to obey that Ministry. I appealed to them not to do anything which would disturb the peace of this country until the Constitution was published. I told them that if the oath of allegiance could be abolished the representatives of the Irish people could meet in the future and discuss their National problems and find out if they could agree between themselves by majority rule how they could best solve them. The Civil War broke out here about May, 1922, when we were engaged in a fairly sizable war of our own in the North in order to protect the Nationalists there. Not being mixed up in the broils in the South, and not being intimately connected with either party, I thought that we could see more clearly than the people down here where the nation was drifting. A few representatives of the Northern Republicans, including myself, came to Dublin and endeavoured to get all parties, political and military, together in order to find a solution. As a result of conferences I visited Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith, Eamon de Valera, Cathal Brugha, Rory O'Connor, Liam Lynch, and Dick Mulcahy. We got them together and finally, out of the conversations resulted the Pact. In my belief, that Pact would have secured peace in Ireland and constitutional progression without any resort to arms had it not been for the unfortunate killing of Sir Henry Wilson. That gave the British an opportunity of creating further ill-will and unrest in this country. I saw then that the British deliberately carried out Sir George Carew's policy in the North, that they created bloodshed between Protestant and Catholic, in order to further British interests. I also saw that they were deliberately creating turmoil in the South in order to further their interests. Remember Carew's words:
And also it was thought no ill policy to make the Irish draw blood one upon another whereby their private quarrels might advance the public service.
I did all in my power to prevent the Irish drawing blood one upon the other. When the Four Courts were attacked I came down here in an effort to make peace and I went from Dublin to Limerick. I took part there in conversations to secure peace between both sides when a truce had been arranged. After the fighting broke out I walked between the two fires in an effort to stop it again. The civil war unfortunately went on and I was imprisoned during my efforts to make peace. I appealed to the Provisional Government at the time to declare to England that peace could not be obtained and that the Treaty could not be put through here, unless the oath of allegiance for admission of members to the Dáil were abolished. The civil war went on and we were drawn into it to defend ourselves and to defend the position and the ideals we had. At the end of the civil war the Irish Republican Army and the Irish Republican Government put forward proposals for peace which were unanimously agreed to by all members of the Irish Republican Army and the Republican organisations in the country. Those peace proposals were turned down.
I have always regretted that the civil war took place. I have told you a few of my efforts to avoid it and I know perfectly well that it only played into the English hands. I could picture the English smiling while their policy worked out so successfully. I know the majority of the men who fought on the Free State side in the civil war had no thought of fighting to uphold the British Crown in this country. I know that perfectly well. I may have said hard things against them many a time. One is not very careful of one's language when he finds the cat spilling the milk for the breakfast, but I have always admitted and maintained that the majority of the men who fought on the Free State side in the civil war were not fighting, in their hearts, to uphold the British Crown in this country. While we have many thoughts of the Free State Army and of the people who fought against us, there is one incident I would like to relate which is also part of the background. I remember escaping under fire one day from about twenty Free State troops. After having got clear of the first lot I ran into another single soldier and he did not fire. I think that unknown soldier to me represents the best that was in the Free State Army. They were not fighting and slaughtering their own men for the British Crown.
We have a problem to deal with and I think we must admit to-day that if we pass these proposals, at the very least we are going to create a state of unrest which will not be to the liking either of members here or the people throughout the country. We have two armed forces here in this country. We have the forces under the control of the Free State Government and we have the Irish Republican Army. The members of the Irish Republican Army have only one thought. I know them; I was their Chief of Staff for many years. I know their failings as well as their virtues and I believe they are actuated by the highest motives, that their actions in some cases may be reprehensible, in fact were reprehensible. I believe, however, they are only trying to translate into action the principles for which the men of 1916 fought, and the principles for which Irish patriots fought in all ages. They may do it in a left-handed, awkward and reprehensible sort of way but those are their motives.
Our problem is clear, that there should be only one Army in this country under the control of the representatives of the people. That is our problem and let us face it calmly and see how it can be solved. If I had my way I would call a conference such as I helped to call at the time of the Pact. I would get the representatives of all Parties, political and military, together, with perhaps representatives of the different Church bodies as well, and I should put it to them that they should sign a treaty of peace between Irishmen for all time, somewhat on these lines:—
That we hereby pledge ourselves for the honour of God and the glory of Ireland to use all our influence to secure national agreement for all time by all Irish citizens to the following:—
(1) That no Irish citizen shall use arms or violence of any description against another for any purpose whatsoever except to secure obedience by all the citizens to the laws made by Dáil Eireann which should consist of representatives of the Irish people who are elected on adult suffrage and who shall pledge themselves to carry out the will of the majority of the Irish people without faith or fealty, rent or render to any power under Heaven except God alone.
(2) That all arms shall be under control of the Dáil which pledges itself as in number one.
(3) That the social relations between Irishmen shall be governed by the principles outlined by the Pope in his latest Encyclical.
(4) That no Irish citizen shall be a member of any secret society of any description.
I want to read some extracts taken very rapidly from the Pope's Encyclical. I have not got them in order, for I had not time to put them in order. This is what the Pope said:—
"To that end all the institutions of public and social life must be imbued with the spirit of justice; and this justice must above all be truly operative, must build up a juridical and social order able to pervade all economic activity. Social charity should be, as it were, the soul of this order and the duty of the State will be to protect and defend it effectively."
The second extract is this:—
"In the first place, then, it is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few, and that those few are frequently not the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure.
"This power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production, so that no one dare breathe against their will."
Communism.—"... Even more severely must be condemned the foolhardiness of those who neglect to remove or modify such conditions as exasperate the minds of the people, and so prepare the way for the overthrow and ruin of the social order."
Then on proletarian conditions, he says:—
"Every effort therefore must be made that at least in future a just share only of the fruits of production be permitted to accumulate in the hands of the wealthy, and that an ample sufficiency be supplied to the workingmen."
Dealing with the support of the workingman and his family, the Encyclical says:—
"In the first place the wage paid to the workingman must be sufficient for the support of himself and of his family. It is right indeed that the rest of the family contribute according to their power towards the common maintenance, as in the rural home or in the families of many artisans and small shopkeepers. But it is wrong to abuse the tender years of children or the weakness of woman."
Dealing with the reconstruction of social order, he says:—
"None the less, just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to the community at large what private enterprise and industry can accomplish, so too it is an injustice, a grave evil, and a disturbance of right order for a larger and higher organisation to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies."
On the question of harmony between ranks in society, he says:
"Now this is the primary duty of the State and of all good citizens, to abolish conflict between classes with divergent interests, and thus foster and promote harmony between the various ranks of society."
I had the Pope's Encyclical and some of these extracts in mind when I said that we should have national agreement that the social relations between Irishmen should be governed by the principles outlined by the Pope in his Encyclical. I think there is hope that with good will such a scheme as I have outlined for such a treaty for peace between Irishmen would be accepted and supported by all Irishmen of all sorts and descriptions. We must have the hope that we can bring permanent peace here to this country. The whole of our future happiness depends upon it. I would like to read you an extract from Terence MacSwiney:—"Our enemies are our brothers, from whom we are estranged. Here is a fundamental truth that explains and justifies our hope of re-establishing a real patriotism among all parties in Ireland and a final peace with our ancient enemy, England."
I believe that if this Public Safety Bill were postponed, and that efforts were made to bring all parties in this country together in a conference to agree upon such a treaty for peace between Irishmen as I have outlined, that it would be successful. I believe anyway that it is worth a trial. I do not think any one of us wants to go home feeling that the peace of this country is going to be as insecure as it is bound to be if we pass this Public Safety Bill. I think there is no member of Cumann na nGaedheal or any other Party here or anywhere else who would not like from this day forth to see all Irishmen fighting out our differences with words. We would all like to see the national energies directed to the solution of the economic and financial problems that face us instead of wrangling in the situation is bound to develop over differences that have arisen in the past, differences that I believe were deliberately created by the British for their own purpose.
We would like to see the representatives of all sections of the Irish people, Saor Eire, Cumann na nGaedheal, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin put forward their solution for our social and economic problems. Everyone knows the social conditions which face the majority of our people to-day. I think each member of the Dáil would go home to his family with a good heart and go home feeling much happier if he could say to his family: "I voted to-day to give Ireland a chance to develop its economic and social future in peace." I think that is worth a trial anyway, and I hope that some member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party will say so.
What Deputy Aiken says is well worth a trial. We on these benches would like to know what was there in the statement made before this House by the President on Wednesday last that prevented Deputy Aiken's speech being made then?
Did not the President say in reply to the statement of Deputy Davin "That he refused to meet the Labour people on this question until Labour and Fianna Fáil have come together and agreed on a formula"? What is the use of Labour and Fianna Fáil meeting in conference unless the other Parties to this quarrel are also represented?
Was that the reason why Deputy Aiken reserved his speech until this morning? Was it because the President wanted to be assured, and I am not clear if the President is correctly quoted, at any rate, but Deputy Derrig says that the reason that speech was not made was because the President required before he would discuss the matter with Labour that Labour would have discussed it with Fianna Fáil and that they would have some basis to warrant him in considering the matter.
Mr. O'Connell
That is not exactly the position. Representatives of the Labour Party asked for an interview with the President. The object was to see if it were possible to get the three Parties into conference. The Labour Party had had an interview with the leaders of Fianna Fáil and they had expressed their willingness to attend such a conference if the President was willing also to come into it. The President indicated that he would only come into such a conference if the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party had first settled on a formula which we could put before him for consideration, but that he should get his Bill through in any circumstances.
Because of that we are treated to the case made against this Bill by the Fianna Fáil Party for the last two days. We are treated to the case made to the country by the Fianna Fáil Party against this measure and against the Executive who put the measure before the House, and what is the case? Personal abuse of the members of the Executive Council. President Cosgrave is a coward, the Minister for Agriculture is filled with hatred for his former leader. I am an organiser of secret societies against the edicts and the principles of the Catholic Church and the murderers of Ryan, Curtin, Armstrong and those others are unreasonable. There is a case for their unreasonableness because they are attempted to be ruled by the cowardly, by the hateful, by the organisers of secret societies. Deputy Aiken does strike a particular note this morning if there is any sincerity in that note. Is Deputy de Valera, whose paper this morning asks us to treat people with understanding and on the principles of Christian charity, going to withdraw the charge of cowardice made against the President last night?
I will reply.
The Deputy does not do that.
I am prepared to do it now. It was my intention before this sitting ended to ask the permission of the Ceann Comhairle and of the House to apologise that in an Irish assembly I had imputed cowardice to anybody. To start with, I just want to say this: that I know that there is no charge that it is so easy to level and so difficult to disprove and there is no charge so unfair as the charge of cowardice, because it is a very difficult thing to know the motives which inspire men's actions and to know whether these motives are motives of cowardice and weakness. I want to say that. I was stung into a retort because a lie was repeated here which has been used as propaganda outside against myself, that I was absent from the country during the Black and Tan war. I have time after time given facts which are public knowledge that my mission in America naturally ended with the elections of November of that year, that I made the preliminary preparations for coming home, that I only waited a short time to try and leave an organisation behind me that would support the movement here, that as I was working up that organisation I saw in the papers that the Acting-President was imprisoned and I immediately came over here. As a matter of fact, my coming here was coincident with the severe part of the activities of the Black and Tans. As I was coming across I was informed that a wireless message had been received about the burning of Cork. I was here during all that time. I defy anybody to say that I neglected a single act of duty falling to my office for any purpose whatsoever or that I neglected it through any feeling of personal fear.
I was tempted to make an apology. I am going to continue it mainly because I wanted myself to retract imputations of cowardice, because even though there has been a long slavery on our people I do not think as a people, personal cowardice is a fault of ours. The President denied the charge, but he said that on personal knowledge on my part I knew that it was false. I did not know it was false. When I came home representations were made to me that I should remove the Minister for Local Government from his office because he had deserted his post.
Who informed the Deputy?
I was informed by people who had reports to make to me.
I have frequently stated that when an incident like last night's occurs it should, if possible, be ended in the briefest possible manner. The Deputy has up to the present moment, by way of explanation of yesterday's events, out of which the incident arose, dealt with his own actions. I would like at this point at any rate if we could keep the matter into the narrowest possible compass, to the particular statement which was made by the Deputy last night and denied by the President. That particular statement in my recollection did not concern a request to withdraw a portfolio from a Minister. It concerned the question of location.
It was not exactly a question of location. It was a question of running away to England.
I have it here in the "Irish Press"—"Truth in the News."
I want to be clear as to what is to be explained. A particular statement was made and that particular statement was denied. There is no use in a heated interchange across the House as to the facts. I said that I had heard both sides and I could do no more about it. I would like if we could get to the particular statement made without enlarging the circle and, therefore, from my point of view, enlarging the quarrel. If we could do that we could go on.
I was on my feet and I gave way to the Deputy. I am making the particular point I want to make and the Deputy's statement was this: "I went to the meeting when the President of the Executive Council ran away to England and I called him back."
My position is this. I intended making this statement, and in order that it should be a fair statement, fair to the President and to myself, I intended making it, not as an interruption to anybody's speech, but as a statement separate and by itself, because I think the occasion warranted it.
The Deputy had better let the Minister proceed.
I might as well finish it now. I am practically finished. I am dealing with the charge that I knowingly imputed cowardice to the President or, rather, that knowing it to be false, I imputed cowardice to the President. I want to say I am guilty of hastily retorting and imputing cowardice; but that I did that, knowing myself that the charge I made was false, I deny. I think it is only fair to the House and to the President that in regard to the things that I was told, and which are much more current on his side of the House than mine, an explanation should be given; it is very much better for the President. I am always asking opportunities myself to meet publicly these mean insinuations and these mean whispers that are going around.
There is a simple question of fact involved in regard to which two members of the House differ. The Deputy said he recalled the President from England.
Yes.
Will the Deputy say whether that is so? That was denied last night and it is the whole point.
This is not a question to which a simple "Yes" or "No" would be a reply.
Does the Deputy adhere to his original statement which the President said last night was not true? My efforts in this kind of thing are directed solely to keeping Deputies from getting into a personal entanglement. The Deputy said something that must be within his own knowledge, that he himself recalled the President from England. The President stated he was not there and, normally, although I did not apply the rule last night because of the circumstances, the President's statement that he was not in England at that moment should be accepted. Is the Deputy accepting it?
That the President was in England? The particular location of the President is not a matter of my personal knowledge, obviously.
Did you call him back?
I gave orders that the Minister should be at the next Cabinet meeting.
The Deputy is not really dealing with the simple point of fact, that he recalled a particular person from England.
That was the intention of my order on account of the representations made to me. That is how I understood it.
The facts are apparently——
I will make a statement if I am permitted.
The facts are that the President did not run away to England, was not recalled from England, was not in England (except when he was a prisoner), was not absent from any meeting of the Dáil that ever sat, except the meeting on the 29th June, 1920, whether it was the meeting before Deputy de Valera returned from America or whether it was a meeting afterwards.
I did not say anything about Cabinet meetings. I said he deserted his duty. That was the phrase that was used to me—deserted his post, rather——
The President is charged with cowardice. In a statement made by the Deputy last night that in every word of it bore internal evidence to the reader that he must have personal knowledge of it, he said "I called him back." That is one of the Deputy's contributions towards bringing about a spirit of co-operation with, and confidence in, the people who are charged with the affairs of government in this country—inspiring the people generally with confidence. The second contribution of the Deputy was that he charges me with, contrary to Catholic principles, organising the I.R.B. Will the Deputy withdraw that?
I cannot. I think everybody in the House knows perfectly well what I said. An appeal is being made and attacks are being made because certain men are acting against the Church.
Will the Deputy withdraw his charge that I acted contrary to Catholic principles or that at any time whether outside the Army or inside the Army, I organised the I.R.B.?
I say that it was in the reports.
Do not deny it, anyway.
Deputy Boland's contribution will not help us.
I will help to prove it outside this House.
Would any Deputy on that side——
I will do it. I sat with you at the same meeting in Frongoch when you reorganised it and when I came out of Frongoch I was invited by you and by Mick Collins and I would not go. I know you are one of the people who started the whole damn thing in Frongoch, you and the bunch around you. You started false propaganda in the place. I organised a group of truthful men who would not sign a lying statement. You and a few others organised this thing and passed this cursed Treaty. I know you well, Mulcahy. You are the man who afterwards suggested poisoning the British troops here.
The Deputy ought to sit down.
I am sitting down, now. I am finished. I know you all inside out.
I have some little knowledge of these things.
I know you too since you were a kid. I know every one of you inside out and you know me, too.
One of the things which has done a great deal to oil the machinery of this House is the fact that Deputy Boland has known me since I was a kid. At another time I said that if the history of this country in the last ten years was going to be judged or sifted by any tribunal, the House over which I have the honour to preside would be the worst tribunal that could be conceived or formed for that purpose.
Why should they preach the moral law? It would give anyone the sick. We know them too well.
One of the things that this House is incompetent to do, more incompetent than any other body that could be established in this country, is to sit down and sift the history of the last ten years. That is true by the very nature of the House and of the leaders on both sides.
It was all started by lying propaganda. I was a witness to it. I refused to sign a lying statement that that gentleman prepared.
Deputy de Valera and the Deputies who sit with him on the opposite benches are trying to put the cloak of Wolfe Tone around Deputy Geoghegan.
Not at all. Deputy Geoghegan never claimed to have anything to do with Wolfe Tone. Deputy Mulcahy must think he is the reincarnation of Cromwell, but I do not think Cromwell ever suggested poisoning soldiers.
And Michael Collins cannot wear the cloak of Tom Clarke.
Not you, anyway; you would have killed him, too.
Deputies who say there is a tradition in Ireland that cannot be wiped out——
Sit down, man.
—expect that the breed of Tom Clarke, of Padraig Pearse and of Sean McDermott and the organisations that they made and put into the hands of the Irish people can fade out in a day or a week. I do deny that I ever asked any man to join the I.R.B.
Will you deny that you started that organisation in Frongoch with Mick Collins and Gearóid O'Sullivan? I suggested to you that you should let it drop, and that the Republic ought to come into the open.
I was present, and the Minister cannot deny it.
Deputies on the opposite benches and the Deputies' leader get up in this particular situation to charge members of this Executive with organising a secret society contrary to Catholic principles.
Certainly, and is it not true?
That is their contribution to things.
Defend your Bill.
I acted contrary to Catholic principles, and so did you, and so did the whole lot of us.
I was an associate of Clarke, of Pearse and of McDermott. I know very little of the organisations that they formed, but I do know this, that from the time Dáil Eireann came into being the only policy of that organisation was to serve the elected representatives of the people here. If anything of a person's words, works or actions is to be judged, it is by the fruits they bring, and the fruits we brought in, picking up whatever threads of organisation, whether Volunteers or Sinn Fein or anything else, after 1916, were that we put this Parliament sitting here with an Army responsible and subservient to its will. That is our contribution, and Deputies sit with their tongues in their cheeks listening to Deputy de Valera talking about the I.R.B.
The Minister for Agriculture, consumed with hate for his former leader —such is the contribution that Deputies on the far side have to make to the solution of the present situation: hatred, cowardice, the I.R.B. I read the Deputies opposite a document of their own passed by Deputy de Valera, signed by Deputy Aiken, signed by Deputy Lemass as to their intentions in 1925 when they got arms enough with regard to this institution and with regard to the people here. Then they come here and talk about cowardice, secret societies and hatred. The last man in this country who should stoop to what Deputy de Valera has stooped to in his speeches for the last two days is Deputy de Valera.
I am ashamed that I did, that I said anything about cowardice; I am honestly ashamed of it.
Are you ashamed you said anything about organising secret societies in the country?
Do not make a confession to that man. There are others here.
It does not matter. I am ashamed I said anything about cowardice to anybody.
Are you ashamed of saying that I introduced the I.R.B. into the Army?
No, I was speaking from the facts that I saw immediately there.
Yes, facts!
I did not take it that Kevin O'Higgins was detracting you.
He knew how to treat him.
He gave him a lesson.
And you gave him a lesson.
We did not and well you know it.
We have listened for over an hour in silence to Deputy de Valera. Anyone can well understand how our feelings were outraged in regard to insinuations against the living and the dead. I claim, with all respect to the House, that Deputies should listen to the Minister for Local Government in silence and he should be given a fair hearing.
But he has been asking questions.
The last Deputy in this House who should be ungenerous in his treatment of others, because there is no person in this country whose character and capacity have been more generously considered by the people, more generously considered by those who have been in touch with him, is Deputy de Valera. We are dealing here with a social and an armed conspiracy, joined hands to a large extent by the actions of Deputy de Valera and the Cabinet and Army Council that he was associated with in 1925. The men who are leading on the military side and to some extent on the social side in connection with this conspiracy are the men who were considered by his people for sending to Russia in 1925 —men who were actually sent to Russia in 1925. As I told you the other day, they tell their rank and file that their chief weapons are the rifle, the revolver, the automatic pistol, and the hand grenade. They tell them that a lot of them are recruits and short service men, that they must be trained and that they must receive not merely a military training but also a political education.
What document is the Minister quoting from now?
I am quoting from the official organ of the I.R.A., July 1931.
Make that clear.
We are asking that there shall be sufficient power put into the hands of the Executive charged with the maintenance of order, charged with securing conditions in the country so as to enable the people to work out their economic destiny. We are asking for an instrument that will prevent that organisation growing, that will wipe out that organisation. This House, having been made an instrument and having been given full authority to exercise its functions to protect the people and to develop the country, if it will not face the facts that are there and give the Executive charged with order the powers that are necessary to maintain that order, then it is going to be as effete and as futile as the Fianna Fáil Party are now, as they were in 1925, as they were in 1922, and also as many of them were a long time before that.
Speaking in Castlebar last Sunday I made a plea for a conference between representatives of all Parties at present in this House. The main purpose I had in mind in making that plea was if possible to avoid the kind of things that we have been listening to for the past two days which it did not require much foresight on my part to know were bound to come up—things that happened from 1918 to 1925. What have they to do with the present position?
They were the origin of it.
Mr. O'Connell
In God's name let us forget them.
We cannot get rid of their consequences.
Mr. O'Connell
Many things have been said during the course of the debate and in spite of all that has been said I do believe that some good at any rate has come out of the debate. Deputy de Valera during the first day's debate referred to a statement which he made in this House in March, 1929, and said that I had misinterpreted what he meant—I think that was the word he used. I had not the reference before me at the time, but in fairness to myself I should like to quote now the exact statement and my reference to it. In column 1398, Vol. 28, of the Official Reports when speaking on the Central Fund Bill Deputy de Valera is reported as saying:
We are asked to state clearly what our attitude towards this House is. I have on more than one occasion said exactly what our attitude was. I still hold that our right to be regarded as the legitimate Government of this country is faulty, that this House itself is faulty.
Later on he said:
But as to whether you have come by that position legitimately or not, I say you have not come by that position legitimately.
Later on he said:
My proposition that the representatives of the people should come in here and unify control so that we would have one Government and one army was defeated, and for that reason I resigned. Those who continued on in that organisation which we have left can claim exactly the same continuity that we claimed up to 1925. They can do it.
Speaking immediately after Deputy de Valera, as reported in col. 1406, I said:
Now, who is the Government of this country? Where are they if they are not the Party that is sitting there? (—pointing to the Government Party—) If they are not, who is the legitimate Government of this State? Deputy de Valera made what to me sounded an extraordinary statement when he said that those who now claim to be what I took him to mean the legitimate Government of the country are people who are outside this House, who are not represented in this House. That was the conclusion I drew from what he said— I may be wrong—but that was the clear inference when he said that they could claim the same continuity and authority as they themselves claimed when they were in that position, and we know what they claimed when they were in that position.
These are the words I used. I just want to say—and I hope the incident will be closed now, because the time has come for closing it is a result of what Deputy de Valera has said later— but I want to say in fairness to myself that I made that statement honestly and sincerely. Deputy de Valera was listening to me and he did not on that occasion, or as far as I know at any time in the House since, say, until Wednesday, that I had misrepresented or misquoted him in any way. It was one of the things that I felt strongly about in regard to the position of Deputy de Valera. It was the thing, as Deputies will remember, which induced me when Deputy de Valera's name was put forward for the Presidency to vote against him for the Presidency. It was not denied on that occasion either as far as my recollection goes that Deputy de Valera had made that statement. I do not want to go into it further. Deputy de Valera has now made his position absolutely clear so far as I am concerned and that is good enough for me. I am prepared to accept the statement made by Deputy de Valera that authority to make laws resides only in this House and in this Parliament. I accept that. I said a moment ago that although many bitter and acrimonious things were said during the debate some valuable things have also been said. I personally, in any case, welcome the gesture made by Deputy Aiken to-day. I also welcome many things said by Deputy de Valera in his speech last night. We have it clear now in any case, if there ever was any doubt on the point, and there was doubt in the minds of many people, that so far as every Party in this House is concerned we are all agreed that there should be in this country one army and one army alone, one armed force, and that under the control of the elected representatives of the people in this House. It is something valuable to have that position made absolutely clear and definite, as it has been made clear and definite during the course of the debate. As I said, there were many things said, and I was more than sorry when Deputy de Valera sat down last night that we should have had from the Minister for Defence the kind of speech that he delivered. At express speed he crushed into twenty minutes a great deal of bitterness, and he described the speech delivered by Deputy de Valera as a blackguardly speech.
"Hear, hear."
Mr. O'Connell
He stands for that— it is worthy of him. It is not the way that a Minister of this State ought to receive a statement of that kind from the leader of the Opposition.
Constitutional government !
Mr. O'Connell
It is unfortunately that attitude of mind which has put us into the position we are in to-day when we are introducing the most drastic measure ever introduced in any country in order to secure and preserve peace in the country. I must say that Deputy Aiken to-day surprised me. Let me be honest enough to confess that I did not know Deputy Aiken well enough, I am sorry to say.
Mr. Boland
I should be surprised if you did.
Mr. O'Connell
Certainly, it was a very pleasant surprise to me when I listened to his speech this morning. Again, I regret the spirit in which it was received by the Minister for Local Government. Of course you want to be strong. You want to pose as strong people, want to be brave as it were. But there are times when it requires more moral courage to appear to be cowardly than it does to appear to be brave.
Why was it not made on Wednesday?
Why was it not accepted?
Mr. O'Connell
A good thing is never too late. It was a pity it was not made before Wednesday, I agree.
It was a pity.
You closured it on Wednesday.
Mr. O'Connell
Even now it should not be turned down just because it was not made on Wednesday.
It was made nine years ago.
Mr. O'Connell
Everybody knows, for instance, that when men enter a conference with masters, or when masters enter into a conference with their men, there is a stage reached when each side will say, "Yes, that is right, but if we give way it will be a sign of weakness." No party will give way, because it will be a sign of weakness. They are pretending to be strong when in reality they are afraid to be weak.
Are we to give way to the murderers of Ryan and Curtin?
Mr. O'Connell
I am not suggesting that there should be any giving way to the murderers of Ryan or Curtin. Get the men and punish them if you can, but what I am concerned about, and what everybody should be concerned about, is the furture of this country, and if there is any chance or suggestion made by Deputy Aiken or anybody else of securing peace in the future, not through fear of the law, but through respect for the law, that chance should be availed of to the greatest possible extent it can be availed of, and no method ought to be lost sight of, no avenue ought to be left unexplored, to get that result. Every Deputy sitting on these benches to-day knows and must know that a sigh of gratitude would go up from the people all over the country if it could be announced in the newspapers that the Parties in this House have come together with a view to settling this unfortunate position we have here in this country no matter what the cause of it may be, getting it out of the way in order that we can sit down then to devise a new social system for this country. Speaking of what Deputy Aiken said, let me say too that last Sunday I did say, and I say it again now, that one of the most important things necessary for us to-day would be to devise a new social system here, and I said we had already the framework of it in the Encyclical from which Deputy Aiken quoted. When I spoke yesterday or the day before about the root causes of the trouble in this country, the Minister for Agriculture stated that I did not justify what had happened, but I explained what had happened. I did not intend to justify it, because nothing justifies murder, but it is not I alone would say that if you have certain conditions in the country which are breeding ground for disorder and if you want to remove the disorder you must remove the breeding ground. The Minister for Agriculture himself used the term—"bacteria," he said, "will never breed if the atmosphere is right." We know there are conditions in this country which make the appeal of those who preach pernicious doctrines in the country seem to their limited intelligence advantageous. Could we not make some effort—a genuine effort, a big effort—to set these things right? Let us not be looking to the securing of peace alone through what you might call curative methods, but let us pay some attention to preventive methods also.
I would appeal still to the Minister and to the Government not to simply throw aside the gesture that has been made here by Deputy Aiken to-day. Whether the terms of that are entirely acceptable or not, to me in any case they sound sufficiently good as a basis of discussion and again, as I say, any parties going into conference will know the actual terms are settled at the conference itself; they cannot be settled by public meetings on one side or public declarations on the others. An appeal was made last night by His Eminence the Cardinal for peace during the coming months and the coming year. Why should we neglect any possible opportunity that may be available to bring about a state of affairs in this country where we will secure what all of us now have agreed is necessary to secure, viz., the control of all arms in this country under the authority of the Government elected in this State? If that alone could be secured, if it were possible to secure it, a very great advance would be made towards peace and prosperity in this country. I suggest that a different spirit should animate the members of the Front Government Bench, that they must not and should not always look on their opponents as being unworthy. Let us forget past differences and past history. The kind of thing that goes on occasionally here is a thing which makes very many of the people in the country say that it would be a good thing if one could pick half a dozen from each of the front benches of the two parties and give them a pension for life. I would be very sorry if the services of the men, either on this bench or on that bench, were lost to the country, but I do urge as one who had no connection whatsoever with the inner history of what happened before 1922 that all these things be put aside and that we would from this stage on make an effort to get together and work in the common interest and for the common benefit of all the people we represent.
I agree with Deputy O'Connell that talking about the past does not get us any further, and I am not going to say who started talking or who is responsible for carrying it on. I am quite content to face the situation as it stands, but I think Deputy O'Connell displays a singular lack of clarity in his speeches on this situation. Deputy Aiken's speech was delivered in a very nice tone and all that, but that anybody could think there could be any hope for betterment held out in a speech of that sort passes my understanding.
What right have you to turn it down?
Deputy Aiken talked as if the Government in this country must be carried on on a basis of unanimity, on a basis of satisfying everybody, on the basis of removing anything which any crank or madman or any peculiar faction whatsoever could object to. This is a democratic country. We accept the principles of democracy and government can only be carried on on that basis that majority rule be accepted, that the laws of the State be obeyed, that the authority of the State as it stands be respected and that those who want things changed be satisfied to persuade the majority of their people to change them. The speech of Deputy Aiken so far from being helpful is unfortunately unhelpful and Deputy O'Connell's speeches are unhelpful because they encourage the idea that those who do not like things are entitled to have them changed otherwise than by persuading the majority and that the majority should yield to them, should go and persuade and coax them and do things which the majority do not want to do as a means of avoiding armed attack. That is all wrong. That is what is wrong with the Fianna Fáil speeches. Sometimes you hear a Fianna Fáil speaker say something which is perfectly correct and that one would be glad to hear but in that speech later on or in the next speech you will hear something which is encouragement, whether it is meant to be an encouragement or not—I assume it is not meant to be—to the sort of men who are challenging the authority of the State and the authority of the majority. What we want is to face the matter straight. We have here a democratic State, with complete liberty in the people to elect whomsoever they choose, a broad suffrage for Parliament, with power to make whatever decisions it likes. There is no excuse whatever for the carrying on now in this State of any sort of armed or arming organisation. That is criminal. The mere drilling, the mere drawing of young fellows together even for drill without arms on the hillside is criminal and is especially criminal in view of our history, because everybody knows that drilling and arming will lead inevitably to murder, will lead inevitably to local bullying and to the conditions we had during even the latter part of the Truce and the early part of 1922.
Personally, I do not care what the Deputies of Fianna Fáil said or did three, four, five or six years ago. I am satisfied to say nothing of that. But what they ought to do now is to make the position absolutely clear. There is no use in talking about misguided young men. Even if they are misguided, that is a thing to say to them privately. Talking about them as poor, misguided young men, weeping tears over them, is the sort of thing that will inflame them and inevitably encourage them to go on. I do not go back to 1922, but in the speeches which are commonly delivered by members of Fianna Fáil in this House there is a great deal that does tremendous harm, a great deal that creates an atmosphere which will encourage these people to go on. I do not believe in severity or in pushing things too far, but I believe in making it clear to anybody who goes in for arming that they will get all the militarism they want and will be put down. There is no use in talking about the "supreme courage" of the people who are in this thing. I think the best of the people who were connected with the old movement have gone away from it—the best both intellectually and the best in other senses. There has been no evidence of courage on the part of the people who did these murders. As has been pointed out, when there was a Public Safety Act in force, when there was danger that they might be laid by the heels, they did no harm at all. Immediately that was gone, you had murders commencing—within a month. I have no hesitation in saying that the people who run the I.R.A. are a dirty, cowardly rabble, and must be dealt with on that basis. There is no use in thinking our difficulties—they are, of course, largely due to our history—are peculiar to ourselves. There is no use in failing to recognise the facts in the world of to-day. There is no use in blinking the fact that there is a new sort of anti-democratic theory, a new teaching of a policy of a minority seizing power.
Your policy.
That policy is all through the world. I believe that as things are going in Europe and throughout the world even Governments and States that have had no cause, for a long time, to fear armed movements or violent attacks on the majority are liable now, and will be liable in the future, to fear them. If we got to-morrow this unanimity that Deputy Aiken talked about, it might well be that we would have, within a few years, as a result of doctrines and influences which are present throughout Europe, these difficulties arising again, and when we yielded to one armed movement it would be difficult not to yield to some other armed movement in the future.
There is no use in talking about the Constitution in the way in which it has been spoken about in connection with this matter. The thing that is necessary when you are dealing with a conspiracy of this sort is to give the Executive the powers to deal with it. There is absolutely no other way of protecting the ordinary citizen. It is only by the weapons that the Executive Council has in its hands that the ordinary citizen can be protected. Perhaps the fault of this Executive was that in the past we were too moderate, that we used too gently and too sparingly the powers that were in our hands. I do not regret it, but I do think that if we had dealt with the situation at the end of the civil struggle as it would normally be dealt with, we would not, perhaps, have this state of affairs. In any case, our policy has been to use very sparingly the powers which were in our hands, and the civil struggle was certainly ended with the very minimum of bloodshed. People talk about 77 executions, but that is really nothing. If the matter had been dealt with according to rule, we would have had ten or twenty times that number. Our whole policy from the beginning has been to use just the minimum force that is necessary. I believe that once we have adequate powers in our hands, knowing the character of the men who are concerned and their tendency to scuttle for safety when there is danger, there probably will be very little occasion to put the powers into actual use. People talk about this Bill provoking civil war. There is not a shadow of a shade of danger of its provoking civil war. If there was any danger of civil war, it would be by delaying this Bill a month or two or three months until this movement could grow, until more people had been demoralised and corrupted by the bullying which has gone on throughout the country. If we were to delay this Bill eight or nine months I am satisfied that there certainly would be a position that could not be settled without some sort of civil war. The thing can now be nipped in the bud, and if there are one or two deaths I think it will be the maximum. I am quite satisfied that any delay would cause the deaths, not of one or two ruffians conspiring against the people, but of quite a number of innocent citizens doing their duty in the ordinary way and pursuing their ordinary avocations.
The atmosphere of unreality which has existed in this House for the last three days is at last brought down to fact. We have here this morning, as a consequence of speeches delivered, unanimity at least in one thing between the three big Parties in this House. We have the Minister for Finance describing the I.R.A. as a dirty, cowardly rabble. We have Deputy Boland from the Fianna Fáil Benches agreeing that they had descended to the status of criminals and we have a Deputy from the Labour Benches agreeing that any sacrifice of life or limb would be worth while to put down this conspiracy. At least, in that there is unity. There is no disagreement on the side of Fianna Fáil, Cumann na nGaedheal or Labour. Whether Ministers like to admit it or not, whether other Deputies here like to admit it or not—they may not know these people of the Irish Republican Army as I do —nothing is going to convince their neighbours or the boys who know them in this country that they are criminals. It is no use coming along with appeals for peace and nice-sounding phrases about one army in the State and high-falutin' talk that you must have peace in order to have progress if, at the same time, you are endeavouring to put these people whose motives are of the highest and purest, in the same position as you would put a band of criminals.
What is the use of Deputy Aiken's appeal this morning—an appeal that was made in April, 1923, at the time of the "Cease Fire" and which was contemptuously rejected by the Executive Council? What is the use of making that appeal to a body of men whose hearts are hardened like that of the Ministers for Local Government who immediately gets up and sneers at any appeal, and whose only ability seems to be for the slinging of mud? I tell the Executive Council, Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party that the ordinary people in the country do not care a damn about what Deputy de Valera said about Deputy Mulcahy ten years ago or what Deputy Mulcahy said to Deputy Frank Fahy ten years ago or even what the history of the past ten years has been.
The ordinary people are more concerned with the passage of this Bill and despite what the Minister for Finance said, that there is no possibility of civil war, I tell the Executive Council that they have sown the seeds of revolution in this Bill, and that every Party in this House will be equally guilty for any action that may occur so long as they tolerate peacefully and passively the action about to be undertaken on this occasion by the Executive Council.
According to the Order made on Wednesday last the question must be now put.
I protest.
There is no use in the Deputy protesting. The House ordered on Wednesday last that at 12 o'clock on Friday the question: That the Bill be received for final consideration should be put.
Question—"That the Bill be received for Final Consideration"—put.
The House divided: Tá: 82; Níl: 63.
Tá
|
Alton, Ernest Henry.Anthony, Richard.Beckett, James Walter.Bennett, George Cecil.Blythe, Ernest.Bourke, Séamus A.Brennan, Michael.Brodrick, Seán.Carey, Edmund.Coburn, James.Cole, John James.Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.Conlan, Martin.Connolly, Michael P.Cosgrave, William T.Craig, Sir James.Crowley, James.Daly, John.Davis, Michael.Doherty, Eugene.Dolan, James N.Doyle, Peadar Seán.Duggan, Edmund John.Dwyer, James.Egan, Barry M.Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.Finlay, Thomas A.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Good, John.Gorey, Denis, J.Haslett, Alexander.Hassett, John J.Heffernan, Michael R.Hennessy, Michael Joseph.Hennessy, Thomas.Hennigan, John.Henry, Mark.Hogan, Patrick (Galway).Holohan, Richard.Jordan, Michael. |
Kelly, Patrick Michael.Keogh, Myles.Law, Hugh Alexander.Leonard, Patrick.Lynch, Finian.Mathews, Arthur Patrick.McDonogh, Martin.MacEoin, Seán.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.Mongan, Joseph W.Morrissey, Daniel.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James E.Murphy, Joseph Xavier.Myles, James Sproule.Nally, Martin Michael.Nolan, John Thomas.O'Connell, Richard.O'Connor, Bartholomew.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Hanlon, John F.O'Higgins, Thomas.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, TheO'Reilly, John J.O'Sullivan, Gearóid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Redmond, William Archer.Reynolds, Patrick.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Shaw, Patrick W.Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).Thrift, William Edward.Tierney, Michael.Vaughan, Daniel.White, John.White, Vincent Joseph.Wolfe, George.Wolfe, Jasper Travers. |
Níl
|
Aiken, Frank.Allen, Denis.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Boland, Patrick.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Seán.Briscoe, Robert.Broderick, Henry.Buckley, Daniel.Carney, Frank.Carty, Frank.Cassidy, Archie J.Clancy, Patrick.Clery, Michael.Colbert, James.Cooney, Eamon. Hayes, Seán.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).Houlihan, Patrick.Jordan, Stephen.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Kent, William R.Killilea, Mark.Kilroy, Michael.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.Maguire, Ben.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Moore, Séamus.Mullins, Thomas. |
Corkery, Dan.Corish, Richard.Corry, Martin John.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Tadhg.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Doyle, Edward.Everett, James.Fahy, Frank.Flinn, Hugo.Fogarty, Andrew.French, Seán.Geoghegan, James.Gorry, Patrick J.Goulding, John.Harris, Thomas. Murphy, Timothy Joseph.O'Connell, Thomas J.O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.O'Kelly, Seán T.O'Leary, William.Powell, Thomas P.Ruttledge, Patrick J.Ryan, James.Sexton, Martin.Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).Smith, Patrick.Tubridy, John.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. |
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and Doyle; Níl: Deputies Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.