A great many speeches have been made in connection with this Bill, but the two speeches that impressed me most are the speeches made by Senator Johnson and Senator Brown. Senator Johnson never leaves anything unsaid or undone that has to deal with this House or with his whole public life which I have followed with the greatest care. The kernel, to my mind, of his speech was that the rights of Ireland demanded the removal of the Oath. I presume that by the rights of Ireland Senator Johnson means the national rights of Ireland which have been referred to very sparsely during this debate. As to Senator Brown's speech, with great respect I say this was more astute than clever. In saying that I do not wish in the least, far from it, to reflect on Senator Brown, because Senator Brown is a man I have held in great regard for many long years. I might add further, knowing him as a member of the Irish Bar, that there is a familiar saying about him. I am sorry he is not here but I know that you, sir, will excuse the familiarity on his behalf, that anything Sam Brown did not know about law was not worth knowing. That is why I pay particular attention coming from Senator Brown, and Senator Brown told us that as a lawyer he would advise us to pass the Bill. This is where I think that Senator Brown is more astute than clever, because there was a certain amount of weakness in that statement that admitted to people that there was a likelihood that the Cumann na nGaedheal group in this House considered that their comrades in the Dáil were going to be let down, their comrades who had fought this Bill so sternly and so stubbornly inch by inch and it caused consternation where it was rumoured that this House was going to give the Bill a Second Reading. But, sir, Senator Brown raised the withering hopes of the Cumann na nGaedheal group in this House when he said, as Zozimus said, that he would knock "blazes" out of the Bill when passing through Committee here.
The speeches of Senator Miss Browne who excelled herself in amiability and of Senator MacLoughlin to-day have set my memory working on past events, and when Senator Miss Browne, speaking under correction, referred to the destruction of the Four Courts and said that the State was at stake if this Oath were removed, backed up by Senator MacLoughlin in a strain I did not like my memory went back. I sat out the debate in the Dáil and when I heard men hurling taunts at each other, men whom I had known to be brothers once, yes, brothers bound together in a fellowship sealed by blood, to protect each other and if necessary to die for each other, my memory went back to meetings held in the Mansion House at a time when these men were all one. My mind went back in particular to a meeting which was held in the Mansion House in the August of 1921, four months before the Treaty was signed, and when I saw many men who are now hurling taunts of dishonour at each other, when I saw these men with their hands reverently raised up to God in the intensity of their meaning with a sacredness and solemnness most difficult for me to describe, I saw them with their hands raised to the Almighty swearing the Oath to be true to the Irish Republic without any reservation whatsoever, I saw these same men signing that Oath and signing a book and handing it to the Chairman so that their names might go down to posterity, I thought there could not be any mistake as to the sincerity of these men. Is it any wonder, sir, that I should feel sad and very sad when I now see these men hurling taunts of dishonour at one another? These men broke their solemn Oath to be true to the Irish Republic although they were the men who enlisted young Irishmen into a secret society and compelled them to commit terrible deeds of murder; these men acted as recruiting sergeants for the Republican forces and compelled young men under penalty of death to swear that they would never rest until British power, influence and allegiance were pushed for ever out of Ireland. They led the young men into these secret societies with serious consequences to many of them who remained true to the principles which these leaders had taught them. As one who for over 30 years has been an elected representative of this city and who for many years occupied the highest position which the citizens of my native city could bestow upon me, I make no excuse for what I am going to say. I feel I would be a coward knowing what I do if I did not ask the young men and women of Ireland to avoid secret societies as they would avoid hell, to avoid leaders who are vicious in their teaching and leaders who protest their patriotism too much. I am sorry, sir, that I have had to deal with this matter, but from the remarks of the amiable Senator known as Miss Browne and the equally amiable Senator MacLoughlin, I felt my duty as one in the know to give this warning. In reference to this Bill, you will correct me if I am wrong, we may assume that its appearance before the Seanad is in strict harmony with Standing Orders, and I take it that if it were not and if it cut across any Standing Order, any law, any treaty or any agreement, that you would be legally bound to rule it out of order. As it is not ruled out of order I take it that this Bill becomes a domestic question for this country and for this Seanad.
[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]
I am not going to discuss, Heaven forbid, any of the legal arguments used for or against this Bill. What I am concerned about at the moment is how this Bill affects my own country and I think it would be the high water mark of impertinence for any country, no matter how powerful it might be, if it tried to interfere in the domestic affairs of any other country. What I am concerned about mainly in this Bill is how it affects my own country and how I should act towards this Bill from my own point of view without becoming an apostate to that country. Previous to this Bill being considered in the Seanad, I read in the "Irish Times" that there would be a meeting of Cumann na nGaedheal Senators in Leinster House when a line of action on the Bill would be considered and that meetings of other parties and groups were also taking place. I am speaking on this Bill as one pledged to no party and attached to no group, living in a kind of lonely isolation as I have lived all my life, but not claiming any more honesty of purpose in dealing with this Bill than those attached to any group or pledged to any party but I think that I can consequently claim more freedom of action when dealing with this Bill. If I am not wearying you or the House, as everyone who has spoken has been hallmarked as belonging to a party or a group, I hope I will be pardoned if I make my position perfectly clear. In doing so, I hope that my remarks will not be looked upon or considered as of an egotistical nature. Now speaking on this Bill as one who very early in life pinned my faith in constitutional methods, having adopted the policy of Parnell—and in saying that I do not wish to cast any disrespect whatever on any of my fellow-countrymen or women who adopted other methods for the regeneration of their country—but as I get older and older—I am not too young a man now—it is my firm and fixed belief that if down through the years the policy of Parnell had been rigidly adhered to in my opinion we would not now have a partitioned Ireland, and we would not be here discussing the Oath. I hope the President, with whom I had many dealings in days of danger, will give me credit that I never posed as anything else but a constitutionalist, and neither do I wish to do so now. Not even when the President and myself lay side by side in the filthy and horrible surroundings of Richmond Prison in 1916 when, as he must remember well, with inches of dust for our beds, our boots for our pillows and our own scanty clothing as covering, and the picture is as strongly before me now as it was in those days of Eamon De Valera lying beside me on the bare boards with his blood-stained and tattered uniform of the Volunteers, and when he and I and many others heard in the distance in the dawn of those May mornings the rattle of musketry which sent Pearse and his comrades to their doom, everyone with whom I was surrounded believing that Eamon De Valera was the next. And I did not pose even as anything but a constitutionalist when later on in 1919, when President De Valera was respected, looked up to, and called President of an Irish Republic by many, Senator Milroy and many who attempt to belittle him now being amongst the number, and when the President had a tilt with the British military authorities in which I was involved—imagine a peaceful man like me being involved in a tussle with the British military authorities.
Perhaps this is where the egotism comes in but President De Valera paid me one of the greatest compliments I received in a somewhat chequered career when he publicly stated "Your love of peace and order is well known to all who have ever met you or heard of you." Although many of my actions since have annoyed the President, friendship made under such trying circumstances is not easily forgotten, or easily broken by me at any rate. A great many arguments have been used for and against this Bill, but when discounted they are narrowed down to a few. The President said he has a mandate from the people for the removal of the Oath. From the first it was, in his opinion, a very unclean thing so far as this country was concerned. The President has told us in a phrase that has become somewhat hackneyed that the removal of the Oath will bring political peace. In my opinion the President has made his position very definite and very clear in his reply to the Rt. Hon. J. H. Thomas when he said that whether the Oath was or was not an integral part of the Treaty made ten years ago is not now the issue. "The real issue is that the Oath is an intolerable burden on the people of this State who have declared in the most formal manner that they desire its instant removal." In my opinion that is a clear and definite statement so far as the President is concerned.
The ex-President, Deputy Cosgrave, is an old friend of mine—equally as old as President De Valera—and I do not mind stating that they are two men whom I love. Deputy Cosgrave in good old Corporation style, where he learned to call a spade a spade, described this Bill as one of the greatest pieces of political chicanery in history. I respectfully suggest that Deputy Cosgrave warming to his work at the conclusion of his speech gave some reminiscences of the events of the last ten years. He mentioned Will Rogers but did not tell us who Will Rogers is. Perhaps you could, sir? I do not know him, but I presume, owing to the way his name was used that he must be a gentlemen living on his wits. Deputy Cosgrave said that Will Rogers described that on one occasion having gone through the various Chancelleries of Europe, one Prime Minister went into his Cabinet one morning and said, "There is a list of Bills; vote these as quickly as you can." As he got into a cab he said, "They are voting on them." I was present when my friend Deputy Cosgrave quoted his friend Will Rogers, and I noticed that as Will Rogers' steam-roller passed over the President it left him at any rate in no doubt as to what Party Deputy Cosgrave had in his mind. Deputy Cosgrave carried himself bravely and manfully through all these years. That does not take away from me the feeling that he has a certain amount of humour left. I imagine when Deputy Cosgrave was recalling the reminiscences of the past ten years I noticed a merry twinkle in his eye as he scanned the benches which contained his own supporters who had loyally supported him for ten years, and I presume he also had the Seanad in mind. After that the main argument used by those who spoke in opposition to the Bill, and with all due respect it would almost give you a pain in your face listening to both sides here—was that the passing of this Bill would cause annoyance to our best customers. After that each Party in the Dáil was endeavouring to justify its existence with a few persona lities thrown in to brighten up the debate. To an outsider like myself, unaccustomed to public speeches, it was very difficult to know to whom belongs the blame and to whom belongs the credit for our present state of affairs. While they were in power one Party endeavoured to prove that everything they did was right, while the Party not in power endeavoured to prove that everything the Party in power did was wrong. The other Party are now in power and are endeavouring to set things right and in the classical phrase of the Minister for Finance—white elephants included—the Party not in power will not let them. They said "We are damned if we will let De Valera get away with the goods." We are a funny people. One Party are hailed by their followers in the country as "The Rising Moon," and the other Party are hailed by their followers as "The Setting Sun."
In order to give extra tone to the debate, good breeding and high-class education, some Deputy when discussing this Bill in the Dáil referred to guttersnipes. Other Deputies naturally retorted, "You are a gentleman." Some Deputies born with silver spoons in their mouths say, "We do not want any salaries. We do not want first-class railway tickets," while other members, both in the Dáil and Seanad, think that the end of the month will never come. One of the speeches delivered in the Dáil on this Bill is worthy—or should I say unworthy—of being quoted. To my mind it betrays the vacant mind on past events and betrays the slave mind on events that are before us. The ex-Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Hogan, a clever man who knows his way about—as Senator Comyn has whispered into my ear—in one of those sudden bursts of bitter oratory for which the Deputy has become—it can be looked at two ways—either famous or infamous, made a statement, as he looked towards the President and towards the new Minister for Agriculture from which I caught this marvellous gem. It really epitomises a great many of the arguments, and a great many of the speeches that have been made in connection with this Bill. Deputy Hogan said, "I say the issue to-day is not whether the Treaty is good enough for us, but whether we are good enough for the Treaty." What do Senators think of that? One would imagine according to the dictum of Deputy Hogan that his wish was to put a slur upon our people and to belittle the country and to say that it had no solitary resource except grass; that our people are devoid of the attributes of men and women. In fact anyone in opposition to Deputy Hogan is not good enough for the cannibals to feast upon. All I can say about the outbursts of Deputy Hogan is that I am sorry for him. He is evidently a young man in a hurry and I should be very sorry to think that Deputy Hogan is a fair sample of the "West Awake."
Yesterday we heard a great speech from Senator Johnson. We heard a brilliant and a brave speech from Senator O'Farrell. The tone of Senator O'Farrell's speech as it struck me was "A plague on both your houses and I am damned sorry I have to vote for this Bill." The Labour Party voted for this Bill in the Dáil. Evidence is forthcoming that they are going to vote for it in the Seanad. In my opinion in doing so the Labour Party, from their own point of view, are doing the right thing. The Labour Party, I am very sorry to have to admit—though it should be the largest—is really the smallest Party in the country. As each election comes round it becomes considerably less and I say, with the greatest regret, that unless the political issue in this country is settled, I greatly fear the Labour Party will be blotted out altogether. That is why I say that in my opinion the Labour Party are quite right to vote for this Bill. It is a very significant thing as it appears to me that in the City of Dublin alone where I think there are 150,000 voters—I speak subject to correction—at the last election not a solitary Labour representative was returned. I can assure Senator Johnson and other Labour Senators that this is not a swan song over Labour. I assure them it is rather a Phoenix cry which I sincerely hope to see realised.
Now with this Bill, as with all other Bills, it is the duty of the Government to act where possible in the interests of all. The fundamental principle of government is not to act in the interests of the few to the detriment of the many, and though I do not wish at any time to deprive any of our citizens of their legitimate pleasure when one reads the accounts of Punchestown, the Dublin Horse Show, garden parties, at homes, graphic descriptions of ladies' dresses one has cause to think. I understand that a new horror or two is going to be added to our vocabulary, that is that there is to be a hair corset for ladies patented by Deputy McGilligan, and I suggest to the President, that to be in the fashion, he should patent straight jackets to keep obstreperous Deputies and Senators in order.
Coming through the streets of Dublin as I do, particularly O'Connell Street, at night I see strange sights. Everyone apparently happy, the picture houses crowded out, boys and girls and old boys and old girls standing in the rain, expensive motor cars parked here and there while ladies' poodles sit on cushions in state waiting the return of their mistresses. Let us look on the other side of Dublin life. Look at the filthy housing accommodation for our poor. Scan the unemployed list! Meet as I do every Wednesday at the Union gates men, women and children whose only crime is that they live true to nature by having children. Look at their scanty clothing, their pinched features, mental and physical agony, and their brows deeply furrowed by starvation. And what pertains to Dublin pertains to every town and city in Ireland. Day and night in season and out of season I ask myself what is wrong. Why are the poor people of our country to be eternally crucified in poverty? I have long come to the conclusion that except the country is nationally happy it will never be financially sound, and if it is not financially sound there is no hope for the men and women who are clamouring at the Union gates.
That brings me down to the issue of this Bill, to the issue that was before the country, and the issue which has placed President De Valera where he stands to-day, and that is the issue that we are asked to vote upon, namely, to make the country nationally happy. I hope I am not wearying the House. I shall not keep it as long as Senator Milroy did. I happen to be a member of the Seanad for two or three years, having been elected by one of those little miracles that sometimes happen in political warfare when the Whips of the different parties lash out vigorously. Three or four months ago twelve brave men and women, I say brave advisedly, inflicted my presence upon this House for another nine years. Without meaning any disrespect I may mention that is something that does not happen often in the Seanad. At the same time while I have been here I always noticed that the majority of Senators voted for anything that was brought forward by the old Government, as I often heard it expressed because they had the will of the people behind them. A few months ago when the Government of the day placed a Bill before the Seanad, President Cosgrave as he then was, told us in graphic language that it was to preserve the peace of the country and to save the young men of Ireland from themselves.
The Seanad passed that Bill. The Government went to the country after that Bill was passed. They have not returned yet. Now we have another Party in power with the will of the people behind them, and there is no use splitting straws, if I might use a rather vulgar expression, and saying that the President has not the will of the people behind him, because if he had not the will of the people he would not be sitting there, and that is not chopping cheap logic. The President tells us that he has a mandate for this Bill, which it is quite evident the late Government had not for their Bill as the elections proved. The President tells us, not so fiercely as my friend the ex-President, that this Bill is to preserve the peace of the country and to save the young men of Ireland from themselves. The language of the two Presidents is so much alike that you would think they were the Siamese twins. The question that occurs to me is this: The Seanad passed everything that came from the old Government on the plea that they had the will of the people behind them.