Yesterday I gave the Minister notice, by your leave, that I proposed to direct his attention to a matter which has arisen in connection with one Department for which he is responsible. Recently the Minister appointed a new chairman of the Commissioners of Public Works in the person of ex-Senator Connolly. That procedure was something for which there was no exact parallel in the past, because a gentleman who had been engaged actively in politics was suddenly and precipitately transferred to the Civil Service. The Opposition deliberately refrained from comment upon that new departure, because we had no desire to make the work of Mr. Connolly—as he now is—in any circumstances more difficult than it would ordinarily be, but, having taken up the responsible position of chairman of the Commissioners of Public Works, Mr. Connolly appeared at a meeting held in Trinity College, Dublin, recently, and there delivered a speech of a controversial character, dealing with current political issues in a reasonably trenchant way. It has long been the established rule of public life in this country that persons in the Civil Service will refrain from taking part in controversial politics of any kind during their tenure of office. From that rule it would appear that Mr. Connolly has very widely departed, and while we have no desire to dwell unduly on what may have been an indiscretion or an error of judgment, I think we are entitled to ask from the Minister for Finance a very categorical statement that a speech of that character was not delivered with his approval, and that in future he will require members of the Civil Service strictly to observe the well-established convention that speeches of that character must not be delivered by them while they continue in the service of the State.
It would be open to us, Sir, perhaps, to deal with this matter more controversially and to employ stronger language. If, however, an adequate undertaking is forthcoming from the Minister for Finance, it would serve no useful purpose to exaggerate what may have been no more than a casual incident into a serious cause of complaint or a grave act of misconduct. On the Appropriation Bill, Sir, as a whole, we are entitled to ask the Government, generally, whither the policy, which they proclaim, is leading this country. The President, on a recent Estimate, took occasion to announce that it was his intention to bring before this House and, subsequently, before the country, a new Constitution. One of the star features in that new Constitution was the creation of a new constitutional person in the State who, to use the President's terms, would be the ultimate custodian of the people's constitutional rights. Now, we on this side of the House have taken the view at all times that in political matters the will of the majority of the Irish people is sovereign, and that they have an absolute right to determine at all times what the constitutional position of this country will be. In our view, if the people of this country wish to be led out of the Commonwealth of Nations, they have a perfect right to give orders to whomever may be their leaders to lead them whither they wish to go. I submit, however, to this House that it is a very great crime against the Irish people to delude them into pursuing a course of action which may result in terrible losses for the people themselves.
I think all Parties in this House are agreed that our people want, and are prepared to make any sacrifice to have sovereign independence and national unity. I think also that no greater mistake can be made by any politician in this country, or by any public man in this country, than to imagine that at any stage of our history the Irish people will be prepared to set in the balance, against what they conceive to be the proper national status of this country, any material consideration. Once any body of men get it into their heads in this country that the people are prepared to depart from their determination to have for Ireland national sovereignty and independence for some material consideration, they make a mistake which will ultimately sacrifice the confidence of the people. I believe that our people want national sovereignty and I believe that the great crime that President de Valera has perpetrated against our people is that he has used all his powers of persuasion to persuade our people that national sovereignty and independence are indissoluble from the conception of a Republic and that, unless you have a Republic, you cannot have national sovereignty and independence.
I say that that statement is false, and I say that a man in the public life of this country, who devotes his energies to persuading the people that that statement is exclusively true, is doing this country great injury and is betraying the confidence of our people. If a young man, who is a supporter of our Party, came to me and told me that while, from all material points of view, he felt that we were right, nonetheless he could not get out of his head the idea that the national position of this country demanded the declaration of a Republic, I would say to that young man: "Leave our Party, then, if you cannot be convinced that your attitude is mistaken, and join a Republican Party which will be an honest Republican Party and which will have as its immediate object the declaration of a Republic and the vindication of national honour without counting material cost." It is because, however, we believe that the national sovereignty of this country and its traditional claim to independence are effectively vindicated by membership of the Commonwealth of Nations that we stand for that constitutional position, and my submission to this House is that something graver even than that is involved, because although the vindication of a right at any given moment is important, the preservation of the thing you fought to get is infinitely more important. I say that the only effective means of vindicating the right of this country to be sovereign and independent, the only effective means of securing the unity of Ireland as opposed to the Free State and the Six Counties, and the only effective means of maintaining those things for all time against the aggression of any European Power, or of Great Britain herself, is by establishing and maintaining our position as a sovereign and independent nation in the Commonwealth of Nations, and I would not wish, in any coming general election, to have the vote of any man or woman in this country who did not believe that with all the sincerity that I believe it. I would regard it as a great tragedy if the people of this country failed to face those issues, to make up their minds honestly upon them, and to vote in accordance with the dictate of their conscience. Great as the catastrophe would be, in my opinion, for the Irish people, and all they stand for, if our people were forced into declaring a Republic after the next election, I think it would be an infinitely greater catastrophe if our people were induced in a general election, such as is coming upon us now, to vote upon false issues and to allow, in such a general election as is coming upon us, the fundamental issue to be overshadowed by things which are, in comparison, trivial and temporal.
I want to ask the President, therefore, to stop back-sliding; to stop fooling his own Party, and to stop fooling the people of this country. We are being told that there is going to be a new Constitution; that some kind of puppet is going to be set up as the ultimate custodian of the people's rights. There is only one vital question that has got to be answered in connection with that new Constitution, and that question is: Does the Constitution provide for the retention of His Majesty the King in the Oireachtas of this country? If it does, it leaves this country within the Commonwealth. If it does not, it takes this country out of it. I ask this House, and I ask this country to face that issue, and to recognise that if the President comes before them proposing a Constitution which is designed to evade that issue, and to confuse the people's minds upon it, he is coming before them for a dishonest purpose. I ask the House to adopt words spoken in that connection by a man to whom much lip sympathy is paid by members of the Fianna Fáil Party. I venture to quote the words of somebody whose good faith as an Irish nationalist has not yet been impugned by supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party. Thomas Davis wrote:
"On an equality with England and out of reach of her rapacity there is nothing in the privilege of the monarch to which Ireland could be averse. The respective advantages of each country would compel from them mutual respect, and the Throne would ever be the honourable medium of adjusting international differences."
Applying that to the situation obtaining in the Commonwealth of Nations to-day, I adopt every word and line of it, and I ask Deputies to insist that the leader of Fianna Fáil, President de Valera, will face that issue honestly and plainly, and take the people into his confidence upon it; that he will not approach it at the general election which, in all probability, will supervene before another Appropriation Bill is discussed here, with a dishonest and fraudulent attempt to persuade the people that they were in the Commonwealth and out of it, and that they could continue so indefinitely. I believe that sovereign independence is ours within the Commonwealth, and I believe that unity can be achieved. I want to say, in that connection, that national unity in this country, to be of any value, must be national unity based on the consent of all parties. I hope I will not be trespassing too far on the patience of the House if I venture again to quote the same man in that connection. Thomas Davis wrote:
"However closely we study our history, when we come to deal with politics we must sink the distinctions of blood, as well as of sect. The Milesian, the Dane, the Norman, the Welshman, the Scotchman and the Saxon naturalised here must combine regardless of their blood, the Strongbowian must sit with the Ulster Scot, and he whose ancestors came from Tyre or Spain must confide in and work with the Cromwellian and the Williamite. This is as much needed as the mixture of Protestant and Catholic. If a union of all Irish-born men ever be accomplished, Ireland will have the greatest and most varied materials for an illustrious nationality and for a tolerant and flexible character in literature, manners, religion, and life of any nation on earth."
May I commend these words to the politicians in Northern Ireland and in Southern Ireland who, instead of trying to put doctrines of that kind into practice in their respective spheres of influence, waste their time and damage the national interest by discharging broadsides at one another across the Border? If this is a Christian country at all, it would be infinitely better for politicians on both sides to try to preserve Christian peace and Christian decency in their own spheres of influence, than to spend their time upbraiding one another and stirring up all those passions that can be a curse to this country by ebullitions delivered from the safe skyline of their respective States. In Northern Ireland and in Southern Ireland peace is badly wanted between Protestant and Catholic, and between native-born and naturalised Irishmen. Hanging over the country at present is a cloud of apprehension associated with the 12th July in Northern Ireland. Whatever politicians may have said recently or in the past, every ordinary man, Protestant and Catholic, hopes and prays that when that festival, and other festivals which are the occasion of such celebrations have passed, there will be peace and quietness between all sections of the people, either in Northern Ireland or the Free State, and anyone who utters a word, on one side or the other, calculated to inflame passions, will do grave disservice to whatever political Party he is associated with, and, what is infinitely worse, do grave disservice to Ireland. I feel very strongly on this matter at present, because I feel that democracy in the world is threatened, and I think that our country can make a great contribution to protect democracy and individual liberty for the people of the world if we only put our minds to it. I see dictatorships on the Continent of Europe, and in the Far East, running amok and trampling on the rights of their small and defenceless neighbours, and I feel that the individual democracies of these countries is going to be destroyed, one after another, if they cannot combine in defence of the things in which they believe. Mind you, there are many people, obsessed with the necessity of preserving international peace, who take up the position that under no circumstances will they be induced to fight. I say that it is of vital interest to the whole of humanity that all who believe in democracy and individual liberty should combine to devise a Rubicon on which they would be prepared to stand, and behind which they would be prepared to fight. I say that the greatest service to the cause of international peace at present would be that the democracies of the world should come together and combine their genius, whatever it may be, to abate any existing international evils that obtained, by agreement, and to agree amongst themselves to notify all and sundry that there was a Rubicon behind which united democracy would stand together and fight to win, or be ultimately and finally destroyed. Nothing was more fatal than to seek to defend precious ideals by warning dictatorships or tyrannies, of the kind that we have existing at present, that under no possible circumstances would the democracies of the world fight. Unless we are all prepared to become the slaves of these dictatorships, we should inform them now that while we stand for international peace, and are prepared to make sacrifices, there is a line beyond which we will not go, and if they attempt to cross it they will meet with the opposition of a series of peoples who are prepared to fight for that freedom, prepared to die for it. I believe we can make a contribution to that through international influence, and in that connection I refer Deputies to a letter that appeared from one of the most distinguished defenders of international understanding and free institutions living to-day, Professor Nicholas Murray Butler of Colombo University. He wrote a long letter to the Times, the full substance of which I commend most especially to the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, because it is written from the detached point of view of an American democrat, who looks back on the evolution of that great free country to which he belongs, and points out how along similar lines the redemption of the democracy of the world may still be achieved. He ends his letter with these words:
"The findings of the international conference held at Chatham House in March, 1935, on the invitation of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, surely indicate the first steps that are to be taken. Those findings were unanimously supported by some 60 of the world's leading statesmen, economists and men of affairs, coming from a dozen countries. They point clearly to the fact that international monetary stabilisation and the lowering of barriers to international trade are essential to that return of confidence upon which alone co-operating action by men or nations can be built. We must first of all rebuild the broken confidence of men and nations in each other, and then proceed to lessen or to remove the economic temptations to armed conflict. Given these, other gains will rapidly follow."
I urge the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to study that letter and those words, and to consider carefully whether they have not got a very special application to our country.
The President, speaking at Geneva, says that he deplores on behalf of the Irish people, and of all the small nations of the world, that the Great Powers cannot learn the lesson that wars end with peace conferences and always have done so. If that be true, if that be the universal lesson of history, why cannot the sequence of events be deliberately altered and let the peace conference precede the war, instead of the war the peace conference? Does it not sound strange to hear President de Valera uttering these words of infinite wisdom at Geneva, when we in this country look about us at the casualties of the war that has been ravaging Ireland for the past four years? Four years ago President de Valera told this House that he had tried to settle but that, because Britain and he could not agree about fundamental matters of principle, there was no use holding conferences because negotiations could get nowhere. Accordingly the war was started to settle the matters of principle which made the conference impossible. In Geneva we have to confer first and fight afterwards but in Ireland we have to fight first and let somebody coming after the President do the conferring.
Surely in this country we can give the world a lead in the practice of the doctrines that the President so eloquently preaches? Cannot the President go even at this hour to Great Britain and say that, while he does not ask her to admit fundamental facts as he sees them, and that while he denies her the right to demand that he shall admit fundamental facts as she sees them, they have common ground in one matter and that is that somebody must pay the holders of the land bonds and that rather than fight a war to decide who shall make the payment, they shall sit down together to discuss that question? Would that not be the most eloquent tribute that could be paid to the course of action which President de Valera recommends to the whole world? I know of no matter that is outstanding between Great Britain and this country that could not be amicably settled. We are told, in tones of deep drama by the President, that the ports are occupied and that while that is true the chains of oppression are wrapped round the lily white limbs of Ireland. Surely a matter of that kind is capable of being resolved if an attempt is made to resolve it. If the President feels that any national indignity is involved by providing accommodation of that kind, which he himself admits would have to be provided in case of war, some approach to settlement might be made on the lines that, while Great Britain would undertake to lease these ports from us, thereby acknowledging our inalienable right to their territorial possession, we would in exchange pay back to her whatever rent we received for services whereby British gun-boats would co-operate with the Ministry of Fisheries of Saorstát Eireann to protect our fishermen in their own fishing grounds on the west coast of this country. I do not say that in these exact terms an arrangement could be arrived at but surely along these lines some pact might be effected which would remove the causes of irritation and annoyance which according to the President at present exist. With goodwill, matters of that kind can be overcome.
The reason I deal with these matters is to appeal to the Fianna Fáil Party to make up their minds as to the fundamental issue. Do they accept before the people the responsibility of taking this country out of the Commonwealth of Nations? If they do, can they not persuade themselves to do it with dignity and honesty at the earliest possible moment? If, on the other hand, they mean, as I believe many of them at the backs of their minds really do, that they want to stay in the Commonwealth because they know that, through that, national dignity and national security can best be obtained, I ask them to set themselves honestly to the task of establishing good relations with the other members of the Commonwealth by endeavouring honestly to overcome the causes of misunderstanding or irritation that exist between us and Great Britain or any other member of the Commonwealth with which we are associated. I believe that in doing that, not only would Ireland derive great benefit, but that Ireland would be given the opportunity, as I believe she has the will, to do real service in the cause of human liberty and the cause of democracy the world over.
I believe that, as a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, her power for good would be immense. I believe that as an isolated republic her power for anything would be negligible. I believe that if her ultimate destiny were an independent republic of 32 Counties she would become the pawn of whatever big Power held the field in Europe at any given time. I believe she would sink to the same international status as is at present occupied by the small independent nations of Europe, masquerading as independent countries and taking their orders from the Foreign Office of some neighbouring Power. I should be long sorry to think that the Irish nation would take up such a position in the life of the world. I believe that as a member of the Commonwealth we can exercise an influence out of all proportion to our numbers or wealth. I believe that we can carry on an imperialism of the only kind that can be justified, an imperialism of peaceful penetration of ideas and of men throughout the world where we shall be everywhere welcomed, genuinely and honestly. I believe that if this country has a destiny at all, that must be the destiny it has and I should be proud to be part of the generation that started it on the way to do that kind of work all over the world. I think that all Parties would be bitterly ashamed, if by mishandling the opportunities which have been made available, we threw away these unprecedented opportunities and brought Ireland back to the miserable position from which she has been rescued by so many men of past generations who have done such splendid service to the country which we are trying to serve now.