Senator Colonel Moore has given notice that he desires to make a personal explanation arising out of a remark made by the Minister for Defence which appears in the Official Debates of the Seanad.
Personal Explanation.
Cathaoirleach
I ask the permission of the Seanad to make a personal statement with regard to what happened at our last meeting. Speaking on Senator Johnson's motion on 26th February, I said: "I regret that the Minister has changed his mind since I knew him first and nominated him as a member of Parliament in 1918." The Minister for Defence, in replying to that, said that I belonged to the same association as he did—meaning the Irish Volunteers—in 1914. I had not previously referred to 1914 at all. I referred to 1918. But, anyway, the Minister goes back to 1914, and he says that "he and I belonged to the same organisation." Then he went on to say that when "it became perfectly clear that it was about to be made illegal that Senator Colonel Moore left it and associated himself with another organisation which looked more popular for the moment and which had every guarantee of not being made illegal."
As I have said, I referred to 1918, but the Minister has chosen to go back to 1914. I want to make a statement about that. The Irish Volunteers were formed in 1913. In 1914 their numbers had greatly increased. I was a member of the Provisional Committee. I was appointed to a command in the Volunteers the same year. Some time afterwards the Volunteers became a very important organisation with about 150,000 men. Some disputes arose. There was a split, but not, as the Minister states, because the organisation was declared to be illegal. The association was never declared to be illegal. It could never have been declared illegal, because if that were to be done it would be necessary to suppress the Ulster Volunteers. At that time it could not be done. There was no suggestion that the organisation should ever be made illegal. The Minister, in making that statement, was absolutely wrong.
When the Minister talks of the party to which he belonged, there was only the one party at that time. There could have been only the one party until the split occurred. However, a split did occur. From that until Easter Week in 1916 neither the side to which the Minister belonged nor the side to which I belonged was declared illegal. Therefore, from beginning to end the Minister is entirely wrong in his statements. The split occurred mostly—I do not want to go extensively into the question—on account of Mr. Redmond making a declaration at Woodenbridge that he wanted the Irish Volunteers to fight in Belgium. I had previously objected to his making that statement. He promised that he would not make any such statement. He did make the statement, and immediately he did so there was a split. When the split occurred the Volunteers became divided in, I should say, the proportion of 20 to 1. I know very well what I am talking about, because the leaders of the split came to me and consulted me. They consulted me as to what they should do at the time. Therefore I am very well informed on the matter. The Minister for Defence is not informed about the matter, because he was in no particular position at the time. I never even heard of him. From that on, as I have said, there was no illegality whatever about the organisation one way or the other. Therefore, I left because I knew perfectly well that practically all the Volunteers would not join with those who were splitting off.
I was in command of the Volunteers at the time. I knew that the majority would be against them, so I remained where I was. What I want to say is that the other side never quarrelled with me or objected to anything I did. When Easter Week, 1916, arrived, though at the time I belonged to a separate party, I joined the party who were fighting and who were then declared to be illegal. I remained to the end with the party who were fighting. I was in the same position as the Minister for Defence was in. In 1918 I nominated him to be a member of Parliament. Before that, in 1917, I had succeeded in bringing the two Volunteer parties together—joining them in one. When there was real fighting I was there—not when there was only talk of fighting in 1914. The worst part of this business is that the Minister, knowing that I was with him during the whole of that time, meeting him constantly, meeting him in the street, in his own house, and in various places, working with him all the time—that knowing all that he should bring this accusation against me. If the Minister knew anything, or thought back on it, he must know that he was perfectly wrong from beginning to end in the statement he made. I must say that in the circumstances it was a very disgraceful statement for any Minister, or anybody else, to make. That is all I have to say.