I hope I will not overstay my welcome. I have no complaint against the speeches I heard this evening. On the whole, I think they are speeches that, if read in the country by all who try to put political Party prejudices aside, and think in the best interests of the country only, would do a great deal of good. The statements made would, I think, be accepted as sound and true. I sympathise even with Senators who stated that I should come here with clean hands. I have not the slightest doubt in the world, that if this discussion was taking place when all of us who are here now were gone, the matter would be approached in the right manner. We were engaged in a revolution, the main purpose of which, we believe, has been accomplished with regard to this part of the country. It has been accomplished, so far as was necessary, by revolutionary means. The vast majority of the people believe that, so far as this part of the country is concerned, we have succeeded in arriving at the object at which we aimed. The fact that we have been actors in all this, and that some people who differed from us and left us still remember the arguments we put forward in other circumstances and are applying them to circumstances which are different to-day—that is the cause of all the confusion. If it did happen that somebody was introducing this Bill with the present conditions continuing, save that there was a new generation, he would have no difficulty whatever. He would say to his countrymen, "All we are doing in this Bill is protecting the State. We have a State which the majority of the Irish people have calmly and deliberately accepted. They have provided constitutional organs of their own free will. Because that is so, any party which tries to attack the State itself, as a whole, or attack by violent means the organs instituted by the people and capable of being changed to meet any conditions, is guilty of the greatest crime against the community and should suffer the greatest penalty the community inflict for any crime." The difficulty arises from the fact that there are living both we, who are trying to establish ordered conditions, and others who were with us in the past and who are not satisfied yet that the purpose for which we were working has been achieved.
Let me go a little bit into the past. We had this country governed by a foreign authority against the will of the majority of the Irish people. That was a fact and it was that fact which we wanted—every one of us—to change. We wanted to change outside control to complete control by the Irish people. That was the reason for the fight, whether it was carried on by peaceful or by violent methods, which was made in this country up to the time of the acceptance of the Treaty. After that, you had a new situation. I hope nobody will take it that I am trying to make a case against other sections. I admit that those who have spoken here and who took a different view from me in the past have spoken in a manner to which I can take no objection. If I can possibly avoid doing so, I do not want to speak in a way which would give them any cause for feeling that I had not acted in this manner as they have acted. We had at that time a State set up by the Irish people. We were struggling to maintain it. Some of us believed it to be our duty to try to maintain it. We had a vote in the Dáil and there was a majority the other way. The reason allegiance was not given to the State by a large number of us in the period following that was that we did not regard it as having been established with the will of the people. I know that there is a difference of opinion on that. A number of Senators who have spoken felt quite differently about it. We tried to maintain the existing State—wrongly, those who disagree with us will say and, rightly, we say—in arms and we were defeated. The moment we were defeated we tried to get an acceptance of this principle of order which every thinking person must admit is necessary if there is not to be continuous fighting—namely, that political matters should be decided by a majority vote. In order to bring about the conditions in which there would be general acceptance of that, we tried to remove barriers of every kind. The majority of the people had to run very severe risks in order to do that. It was not done without a great deal of risk and a great deal of trouble. I am quite willing to admit that a certain amount of it had been done by our predecessors but, so far as we were concerned, we asked the community to run the risk in order that there might be no confusion whatever, that every person in the country might realise he was free to form any organisation he wanted for any legitimate political or economic purpose, to organise and to come into the national assembly without any previous commitment of any kind to any political principle except the principle that the representatives of the Irish people, freely elected without any barriers, should decide what the national policy was going to be. As I have said, this was the purpose of Fianna Fáil since we came into office anyhow—the purpose of the Government elected through the efforts of the Fianna Fáil organisation.
We have arrived at a certain stage. Those to whom we were opposed and who accepted the Free State Constitution say they had already arrived at that stage. So far as we are concerned, we say we have arrived at it now and they will not, I think, controvert the assertion that if there has been no advance there has, at any rate, been no retrogression so far as making it possible for everybody to realise that the institutions which are established here now are established by the free-will of that section of the Irish people who reside within the Twenty-Six Counties. A very curious thing happens when those who were opposed to us in the past talk about this thing from a more or less political angle. We had one speech which was typical of that. I admit that human nature being what it is, when people like ourselves happen to be the Government at the moment, it is a temptation to anybody who wants to make political capital to say: "You should have said these things years ago. If you have difficulties as a Government in getting acceptance of these principles now, it is because you and those who were with you previously did not say what you are saying now." I have only one answer to make to that argument, and that answer is that, from my point of view anyhow—I think it is demonstrable, though others will not agree with me— conditions were not the same at that particular time. We shall have to agree to differ so far as that is concerned. When people say I should have said these things years ago, they are asking me to say things which, at that particular time, I did not believe were true so far as the foundations of the State here were concerned. You may think that I am wrong, but you will have to give me the right to hold that view. It may be the cause, in your opinion, of the difficulty now. I have nothing to say against that, except that my view is as I have stated it and that is the view of a large number of the people who supported us and who ultimately obtained such a public backing that we were able in a free election to secure a majority.
If there is any sin, so to speak, which you hold me guilty of, I say: "Very well; we went before the people and the people, knowing that as well as you know it, did not regard it as a sin and have put us into office to do certain work." We are doing that work at present with no selfish motive. Anybody can see that, because we can be hit in that particular way for doing this duty of ours, it would be a very good reason for our trying to avoid it. In arguing on this political basis because of the natural desire to hit us politically, people who thought we were wrong in our action in the past, seem now to hold that action up as a model to be copied by others. They excuse the taking up of a certain attitude by other people now by saying to us: "You did this." If they think we were wrong at that particular time, why should our attitude then be held up as a model to-day? They cannot have it both ways. There should be no question of trying to excuse actions of the present time by referring to something we are supposed to have done in the past which they say was wrong.
People seem to think that this legislation is being undertaken in the interest of the Government. It is not a question of treason against the Government; it is a question of treason against the State. It is a question of treason against the organs set up by the people and not against individuals. If I wanted to answer Senator Madden, I would say: "Do not think of me in this matter. It is not a question of whether my hands are clean or otherwise. The question is whether the Bill introduced is, in fact, right or wrong." This is a very important matter for the whole community. No matter what Labour or anybody else wants, if you have not ordered conditions here, you will have nothing. Like some people, I had hoped that when we took away the basis of discontent politically there would be no need to arm the State with any strong powers. I was very soon disillusioned. I said in the Dáil, and I say here, that if we did not have, some years ago, immediately at our disposal that Article of the old Constitution, Article 2A, we would not have been able to have ordered government in this country at all. We would have had here two sides arming against each other and, in my opinion anyhow, we would have had civil war in this country two or three years ago had we not had that Article 2A. When the new Constitution was passed Article 2A disappeared. I felt we were taking a very big risk, because if we found in the past that it was necessary, might it not be necessary in the future? We felt we were justified in taking the risk, mainly because it should have been clear to everybody that a situation had been arrived at in which an Irish-made Constitution— made, clearly and obviously, by the Irish people themselves, voted on by themselves and enacted by themselves —should bring universal allegiance. We felt that such a Constitution anyhow, would bring universal allegiance. Unfortunately it has not. Unfortunately, there are people who still arrogate to themselves the right— even though, in a series of elections in which it was open to them to go before the people and put forward their programme, they have not done so—at any time they choose, to use force and by means of force to break up this State and establish the State that they want whether the majority of the Irish people want it or not. Clearly, that cannot continue. It is obvious that it cannot continue. There can be no progress in this country if it does continue; and, if it should continue, there can be only one end to it, and that is another violent struggle here, with all its consequences, and probably the end of the hopes that many of us have, and that is at last to see the completion of the work to obtain which we originally entered into political action.
I ask the people of this country to take this matter seriously and not to play politics about it. If the Labour Party want the support of the section of the people to whom, apparently, they are appealing at the moment in order to form an advanced social political Party, they are, of course, at liberty to seek it. They can go out, and all they have got to say is: "This must be done by peaceful methods." They can go and ask for the support of the people for that programme, and if they get the support of a majority of the people, they become the majority party, and the day they become the majority party, if they want to do so, they can formally declare a republic for the Twenty-Six Counties here if that is their programme, and they can also formally declare a republic for the whole of the country, provided they are prepared to undertake the task of making it effective over the whole of the country. If the Labour Party want to go out with that programme, they are, of course, at liberty to do so. They can ask the Irish people to declare for a republic for the whole of the Thirty-Two Counties and they can say: "If we are elected as a majority we will declare that republic formally and we will put into operation the social programme which we attach with it." There is nobody going to stand in the way, except by argument and by indicating to the people the necessity for showing, not merely the objective, but some idea of how it can be reached. Nobody is going to oppose the Labour Party if they go and look for that support and go to the country and ask to be given a majority to form a Government on that programme; nobody is going to oppose them except, as I say, by political argument or social argument, and asking that the Irish people be shown exactly how the governmental authority they propose to establish can be effectively established for the whole country. If they could do that, or if anybody could show me to-morrow how it could be done, the happiest day of my life would have been reached, and I assure you that I would not spend another moment talking to the Seanad or to anybody else about it, and I believe that the majority of the Irish people would be happy if that had been arrived at.
The difference between us and others who are working in that direction is this: that we say we have established here, unquestionably, an independent, sovereign State for these Twenty-Six Counties and that we have here only the institutions which the majority of the Irish people are accepting at the moment, and that if there is any particular part of it to which they object they can get rid of it, by legislation, if they want to do so. That being so, we say that from that basis we have a better chance of getting the whole of the Thirty-Two Counties than by any other programme, and because we see and believe that we are progressing and can progress in that direction we think that the Irish people ought not to be deprived of their hope of getting that, by action which, obviously—it seems to me at any rate—cannot be successful.
Now, mention has been made about the time we are bringing in this Bill. I spoke a moment ago about the ease with which that Bill could be passed in an Irish Parliament of this sort if this generation had passed away. It would be taken as a matter of course. This is the sort of Bill which every State has. Otherwise, the State would find it difficult to protect itself against those in the State who think that by getting guns they can get their way and that the majority would be helpless in face of them. The State has to protect itself, and this is the sort of law which has been passed in every State for that purpose. Now, as to the question of time. When the Constitution was passed treason was limited by it. It was narrowed down in it, and a new Treason Bill had to be brought in, like this, because treason, as it stood, might very well be interpreted as referring to the old State, that is, the Free State. The Act of 1925 would have been held as covering treason against the State that then existed and not against the present State. We want to make it clear that the Bill here covers treason against the State and the constitutional organs here set up by the new Constitution. It, therefore, became necessary, from that point of view; and as far as time is concerned, if any of you look up the dates in connection with the Constitution of the United States I think you will find —as a matter of fact, in a short while they will be celebrating in America the 150th anniversary of the inauguration of George Washington as President, and his inauguration practically completed the steps by which the American Constitution came into full effect; I am not saying that that was the precise date, but it was the completion of the setting up of the constitutional organs —I think you will find that they brought in a Treason Bill the next year. That is, there was a year from the completion of the constitutional organs, so to speak, and the passing of a Treason Bill to protect them. That was 150 years ago, and it is a curious coincidence that it took just about the same time here. The President was inaugurated in June last year and, just about a year later, we are passing the Bill for the defence of the organs that were established.
Now, that ought to clear up the ground and show that there was no special design in bringing in this Bill at this particular time. This Bill was inevitable. It is accompanied by another Bill which is not inevitable or, at least, which we had hoped would be avoided but which, we are satisfied, has to be brought in, the conditions being what they are, for the safety of the State. This Bill, however, could have been brought in at any time and was necessary, in my opinion, from the moment in which the Constitution was passed. Well, I do not know, but if we could have the whole Irish people here at the moment, I would work very hard to try to convince them; if we could have all sections here and, let us say, the whole Irish people in this room, I would try very hard to convince them that this is simply a protection of their rights, and nothing more. In the past, as the State that then existed was not the State which the Irish people, by a majority, wanted, you had treason against the State. You may have any State and claim that the taking of violent action against it is treason. In the past, however, the British State here—the State called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland—regarded itself as the legitimate State and regarded the action of those who, here in this country, were trying to use violent methods to get rid of it, in one form or another, as treason, but the Irish people did not regard it as treason in the sense of infidelity to the community. In our Constitution you will notice that we put down as one of the duties of every citizen fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State—the nation and the State, the majority of the Irish people in other words—and there was a clash between them and the State that was then in existence. When the Free State Constitution came into being, to a certain extent, there was a large clash also, because the fact is that, as you know, in a very short time—and it could not have happened if there were not a very large section of the people on that side—we got a majority who held that particular view. Now, I hold that the views of the majority, the vast majority—and when I say "vast" I mean a very high percentage of the people here— the views of these people coincide with the State and they are not against the State. They do not regard the State as a hostile State or an imposed State or as an outside State, but as their own State. They know that they can change the Constitution by their vote. They know that the Legislature can adopt any policy it pleases and that there is no shadow of outside control.
Senator Hogan was speaking here this evening, and I was hoping he might proceed along some of the lines of some letters he wrote recently. I thought he might question here whether we were or were not a sovereign State.
