Electronic edition compiled by Donnchadh Ó Corráin
Funded by University College Cork: Department of
History and Computer Centre and
Professor Marianne McDonald via the CURIA Project.
1. First draft, revised and corrected.
Proof corrections and structural mark up by John McAleer
Proof corrections and structural mark up by Donnchadh Ó Corráin , Tiarnán Ó Corráin
Extent of text: 323 000 words
Distributed by CELT online at University College, Cork, Ireland.
Text ID Number: E900003-001
Availability [RESTRICTED]
Available with prior consent of the CELT programme for purposes of academic research and teaching only.
Original hardcopy copyright to the Government of Ireland.
CELT: Corpus of Electronic Texts
The whole has been retained.
Revision 2. Text has been checked, proof-read twice, and parsed using NSGMLS. Corrections are welcome and will be credited to those making them.
The electronic text represents the published text. Titles, such as those of newspapers are tagged title; such titles are usually in italic but it has not been thought necessary to mark the rendition.
Quotation marks are rendered q; where quotation marks are used to highlight words these are tagged hi; but the boundary betwen the two is fluid and the markup consequently, to a degree, subjective. Lengthy quotations and citations of significant legal and other documents are embedded as separate texts.
The editorial practice of the hard-copy editors has been retained. Soft hyphens have not been retained.
div0=the whole text; div1=individual sessions of parliament.
Speeches are tagged sp, and speakers are taggedspeaker. Otherwise, names of persons (given names), and places are not tagged. Terms for cultural and social roles are not tagged. Interruptions from the floor of the house, and descriptions of exits, divisions, etc. are tagged stage.
This text uses the DIV1 element to represent the Session.
Created: By the Cabinet Ministers and Deputies of Dáil Eireann Date range: 1921-12-14 to 1922-01-10.
Beatrix Färber (ed.)
Julianne Nyhan (ed.)
Peter Flynn (ed.)
Margaret Lantry (ed.)
Peter Flynn (ed.)
Mavis Cournane (ed.)
Donnchadh Ó Corráin (ed.)
Tiarnán Ó Corráin (ed.)
Donnchadh Ó Corráin (ed.)
Donnchadh Ó Corráin (ed.)
John McAleer (ed.)
John McAleer (ed.)
Pamela Butler (ed.)
The meeting of Dáil Eireann to deal with the Peace Treaty began in the Council Chamber, University College, Dublin, on Wednesday, December 14th, 1921. The Speaker (Dr. Eoin Mac Neill National University and Derry) took the Chair at 11.30 a.m., and immediately opened the proceedings by saying:
SPEAKER
In ainm De, glaodhfaimíd an rolla.
The Clerk to the Dáil, Mr. Diarmuid O hEigceartuigh,
called the roll, the following Deputies answering:
Prayers having been said by the Rev. Dr. Browne,
PRESIDENT DE VALERA said:
Tá fhios againn go leir ce an fáth go bhfuilimíd anso iniu agus an cheist mhór atá againn le socrú. Níl mo chuid Gaedhilge chó maith agus ba mhaith liom í bheith. Is fearr is feidir liom mo smaointe do nochtadh as Beurla, agus dá bhrí sin is dóich liom gurbh fhearra dhom labhairt as Beurla ar fad. Some of the members do not know Irish, I think, and consequently what I shall say will be in English. The question we have to decide is one which ought to be decided on its merits, and it would be very unfortunate if extraneous matters such as what I might call an accidental division of opinion of the Cabinet, or the causes which gave rise to it, should cut across these considerations. I think, therefore, it would be wise to give a short narrative of the circumstances under which the plenipotentiaries were appointed, and to explain the terms of reference, if I might call them so, or directions given to teem, and to explain them in so far as I can do so, consistent with public interest. If anybody wants a mere detailed explanation, or wants to probe into the difference of opinion more deeply, we can do so at a private session. WE can easily resolve ourselves into a private session and go fully into the matter. Really there is nothing extraordinary in the division of opinion, for this reason, that when the plenipotentiaries would report, it was obvious the Cabinet would have to take a policy. Either the whole Cabinet would have to go over-if the possibility of division was to be eliminated, the whole Cabinet should take responsibility for the negotiations, which was a thing that would not be desirable for other reasons. Even if they did there might be divisions. You could scarcely eliminate differences of opinion. It was necessary then either that the plenipotentiaries should be a whole Cabinet or that there should be other persons than members of the Cabinet. What we did was, we selected three members of the Cabinet with two others and it was obvious if these plenipotentiaries were to be in a position to do the work given to them they should have full powers of negotiation. At the two meetings of the Dáil at which they were appointed I made it quite clear that my own point of view, and the point of view of the Cabinet as a whole - at least I took responsibility for saying it was the view of the Cabinet- was that the plenipotentiaries should have full plenary powers to negotiate, with the understanding, however, that when they reported, the Cabinet would decide its policy, and whatever arrangement they arrived at, it would have to be submitted to the Dáil for ratification. The question of committing the country completely without ratification by the Dáil was of course out of the question. This assembly would not have sent any five men to negotiate a treaty which would bind the nation without some chance of a larger body of representatives of the nation having an opportunity of criticising and reviewing it, and, I would say under the circumstances, of the nation itself reviewing it. Now, that was quite a common sense understanding. They had to have the plenary powers in order to be able to do their work. If there was a definite difference of opinion, it was the plenipotentiaries had the responsibility of making up their own minds and deciding on it. we had ourselves the right of refusing to agree with them, if we thought that was right. It was also obvious that the Cabinet and the plenipotentiaries should keep in the closest possible touch. We did that. We were in agreement up to a certain point. A definite question had then to be decided and we did not agree. I do not know if the Chairman of the Delegation or the plenipotentiaries would have any objection—it would not in any way interfere with public interests—if the Cabinet instructions were given. Is there any objection? I do not think there is.
Mr. ARTHUR GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
No.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Here is the actual text of the instructions which I wrote with my own hand at the Cabinet meeting on the 7th October:-
¶1] The Plenipotentiaries have full powers as defined in their credentials.
¶2] It is understood before decisions are finally reached on the main question,that a dispatch notifying the intention to make these decisions will be sent to members of the Cabinet in Dublin, and that a reply will be awaited by the Plenipotentiaries before final decision is made.
¶3] It is also understood that the complete text of the draft treaty about to be signed will be similarly submitted to Dublin, and reply awaited.
Now I want you to pay particular attention to that particular paragraph. The instructions proceed:
That was all done with the exception of paragraph three. It is obvious that a treaty which would be a lasting agreement between two nations, and which may govern the relations of nations for centuries, is a document which, even when you have agreed upon the fundamental principles, should be most care fully examined. My idea was when the plenipotentiaries had arrived at an agreement on the treaty, and had a rough copy of a document which they were prepared to sign, that document, in its full text, would be transmitted, because in the case of a treaty, even verbal, the exact form of words is of tremendous importance. I have only to say with respect to paragraph three that the final text was not submitted. When the previous draft, which considerably differed from the final text, was submitted, that I said I could not sign, and I do not think the other members of the Cabinet, whose views on a vital question we had to determine for ourselves earlier, would sign. With the knowledge that we could not accept that, the plenipotentiaries, acting in accordance with their rights, signed the treaty, and as far as the relations between the Cabinet and the plenipotentiaries are concerned, the only point is that paragraph three was not carried out to the letter. This was most important, and I feel myself, had it been done, we might have got complete agreement between the Cabinet and the plenipotentiaries. I say that in order that everyone may realise that this is a case of a difference of opinion between two bodies, which in a case like this would naturally and did naturally arise, and therefore I am anxious that it should not in any way interfere with the discussion on the treaty which the plenipotentiaries have brought to us. We are to treat it on its merits. Just as you probably will hold different opinions on the merits of it, so we in the Cabinet hold different opinions on it. The main question at issue as far back as the third week in October was decided by us, and, those who were in favour of the decision on the side I am taking were certainly a majority of the Cabinet, though the whole Cabinet was not present at the meeting. I am ready to answer any questions about the conduct of the negotiations that may be in the public interest, and if there are any questions, or any matter which you wish to probe, further that is not in the public interest, I would be glad to answer it in a private session so that you may understand it thoroughly.¶4] In case of a break, the text of the final proposals from our side will be similarly submitted.
¶5] It is understood the Cabinet in Dublin will be kept regularly in- formed of the progress of the negotiations.
Mr. P. O'KEEFFE (Cork):
Chím anso rún ar an gclár ón Dr. de Faoite. Ba mhaith liom fhios a bheith agam an bhfuil se chun an rún san do chur os cóir na Dála iniu What is to be done in
MR. A. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
I wish to say as regards any suggestion that the plenipotentiaries exceeded their instructions, that I, as Chairman of the Delegation, immediately controvert it.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It will settle nothing if one says one thing and another says the other. What I said, and I think it will be made evident by an examination, if anybody wishes to appoint three or four independently to look into the matter, it will be made evident that paragraph three of the instructions was not exceeded; but paragraph three was not carried out. The Treaty was signed in the small hours of the morning after the text—after certain alterations had been made, and we never saw the alterations. Had I seen it, I would have used any influence I had to try to secure unanimity in the matter, and then if we could not secure unanimity, we knew where we were. The chance was lost by the fact that after certain alterations had been made, instead of sending the final draft to us, and taking time over it, so that matters could be fully considered, it was rushed unfortunately. That is all I have got to say about it.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
The original terms that were served on each member of the delegation have not been read out. The thing has already taken an unfair aspect and I am against a private session. I have no particular feeling about it. I suggest that a vital matter for the representatives of the nation, and the nation itself, is that the final document which was agreed on by a united Cabinet, should be put side by side with the final document which the Delegation of Plenipotentiaries did not sign as a treaty, but did sign on the understanding that each signatory would recommend it to the Dáil for acceptance.
DR. V. WHITE (WATERFORD):
I formally propose that this meeting of the Dáil, and, if the Dáil approve of it, subsequent meetings also, be held in private. Of course this does not preclude having a session of the Dáil, so approved, public. I do move this resolution as an humble member of the Dáil, because I for one respectfully submit to all concerned that certain points—if I might say so, certain obstructions—require to be cleared away before this all- important, this terrible question, is decided one way or the other. My chief reasons for suggesting to the Dáil a private meeting at first are these. These points must, I respectfully suggest, be cleared up, and secondly, in a private meeting I think it will be generally conceded that members of any assembly where such an important question arises will talk more freely and will ask questions with greater facility. I will not weary the Dáil further, but will formally move that this meeting of the Dáil and, if the Dáil so approves, other meetings, be held in private.
Mr. P. O'KEEFFE (CORK):
I beg to second Dr. White's motion.
Mr. D. CEANNT (CORK):
I move that this session and other sessions be held in public. I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the information we are getting here from time to time. During the last five or six months—during the truce—my constituents at home could tell me that letters have been received from members of the staff that the whole question was settled up two months ago. And yet we are going around the country without knowing a thing about it. What I want to say is to repeat what I have been saying to my constituents for the last five or six years. What I am now about to do and say I am quite prepared to do publicly. I move that this and all other sessions be public.
Mr. J. O'DWYER (CO. DUBLIN):
I think nobody in this Dáil has the slightest reason to fear publicity. There is this to be feared, that we here with this enormous responsibility cast upon us may be slightly over-awed in the first place by the presence of people who have not got the responsibility that we have. Number two, I feel that we are all young men and young women in this very important departure in our national affairs, and it is quite possible that with the best intentions in the world that we will say things which will bear a construction that we do not intend. For that reason more
MR. R. J. MULCAHY (DUBLIN):
I propose as an amendment that whatever explanations may be required as to the genesis of the present document, and the present situation, be conducted in private session but that the motion for the ratification of the Treaty be brought forward and discussed, and all matters in connection with it dealt with at the public session.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I second that. It is obviously the reasonable way of dealing with it. This question of finding out how differences of opinion arose is the only question that cannot be probed except in private, whereas the big question is a matter for the whole nation obviously and it should be held in public. The reason for introducing the explanation at the start on my part is that I want to try to get rid of any misunderstanding that might be caused by a division of the Cabinet. There are rumours of various sorts going about and statements being made, such as, for instance, the statement made by one of the members of the delegation just now, which are not really a fact. That can be decided only in a private session satisfactorily. I am very glad to support the motion of the Member for Clontarf.
MR. SEAN MCENTEE (CO. MONAGHAN):
I am sorry that I find I have to differ from the President in this matter. It is quite obvious one of the factors which must determine the position of the Dáil is whether the Dáil is in honour or otherwise bound to ratify the treaty proposed to them. You cannot, no matter how you try to do it, disassociate the question from the question of whether plenipotentiaries have exceeded the powers or instructions given to them. There are some of us to-day who may be called upon later to justify the positions they are taking before the country. Every factor that determines the position ought to be made plain to the public and we ought to be able to say to ourselves, and to say it without fear of contradiction—and there are the public facts to prove it—that we were not bound to ratify the treaty which the delegates proposed to us. For that reason there ought to be no private session of the Dáil except upon one subject—that which relates to our military, financial or other resources. Remember the Treaty is not yet ratified. Anything like that which would give information to the enemy or would be helpful to them in the subversion of Irish liberties should be private; but all other matters—any matter in which every person in this island is fully interested—ought to be decided openly and in public.
MR. SEAN MCGARRY (DUBLIN):
I agree with Mr. McEntee. There are one or two little points that ought to be decided in private session. I wish this session of the Dáil could be held on the Curragh, so that every man, woman and child in Ireland could hear us. We are entitled to tell the public what the difference is, and what difference has been. We have a responsibility to the public that elected us without question.
MR. J. J. WALSH (CORK):
I must say I am in entire agreement with Mr. McEntee. There is nothing which I am entitled to hear at this meeting which every member of the Irish nation has not an equal right to hear.
MR. SEAN ETCHINGHAM (WEXFORD):
I agree with the Member for Monaghan. There are matters that should be dealt with in private, but apart from these, I am anxious that these proceedings should be conducted before the representatives of the world's Press in the manner in which the Irish Parliament should be conducted. The country has been kept in the dark and the people are saying so. The liberty and interests of Ireland are the concern of every man and woman and boy and girl, and they should be as conversant with it as any of us. Let us have all the public discussion we can. The Member for Dublin says he would like to have this meeting at the Curragh, but we could not be heard down there (laughter). It would be just like the remark of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, which we would not hear down here. Let us have a public session ; let us thresh this thing out. We have nothing to fear, any of us. I believe we are all here in the interests of Ireland.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
I am not in favour of a private session in so far as anything that the Dáil has a right to know, and in so far as anything that the Irish people, who are our masters, have a right to know. There may be differences of opinion between some of us—differences as to past and future action—that members of the Dáil would be ultimately concerned in before they would make up their minds whether or not there would be a private session or whether or not the terms should be ratified. I must again protest against what I call an unfair action, and I do not call it unfair except from this point of view. If one document had to be read the original document, which was a prior document, should have been read first. I must ask the liberty of reading the original document which was served on each member of the delegation of plenipotentiaries.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Is that the one with the original credentials?
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER fOR FINANCE):
Yes.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Was that ever presented? It was given in order to get the British Government to recognise the Irish Republic. Was that document giving the credentials of the accredited representatives from the Irish Government to the British Government presented to, or accepted by, the British delegates? Was that taken by the British delegates or accepted by them?
MR. A. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
We had no instructions to present it.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I am asking a question.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
May I ask that I be allowed to speak without interruption?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I must protest.
MR. P. O'KEEFFE (CORK):
The House has a right to decide the motion that is before it. The Irish people are our masters and we are the masters of our Cabinet.
THE SPEAKER:
Order; we must have order.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
I only ask that I be allowed to speak without interruption. I am not going to interrupt any speaker and that is a small right to ask. The original credentials were presented and they read:
and that was sealed with the official seal of Dáil Eireann and dated the 7th day of October, 1921. Then there were five identical credentials. Now I do not object to the second document being read, but the prior document should have been read first and we have agreed, those of us who differ—those of us who take one stand—to make no statement which would in any way prejudge the issue until this meeting of Dáil Eireann. Publicly and privately we did not prejudge the issue; we even refrained from speaking to members of the Dáil. I have not said a hard word about anybody. I know I have been called a traitor. [Cries of ‘no, no’].In virtue of the authority vested in me by Dáil Eireann, I hereby appoint Arthur Griffith, T.D., Minister for Foreign Affairs, Chairman; Michael Collins, T.D., Minister for Finance; Robert C. Barton, T.D., Minister for Economic Affairs; Edmund J. Duggan, T.D.; and George Gavan Duffy, T.D. as envoys plenipotentiaries from the elected Government of the Republic of Ireland to negotiate and conclude on behalf of Ireland, with the representatives of his Britannic Majesty George V. a treaty or treaties of settlement, association and accommodation between Ireland and the community of nations, known as the British Commonwealth. In witness hereof I hereunder subscribe my name as President.
SignedEAMON DE VALERA
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
By whom?
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
If I am a traitor, let the Irish people decide it or not, and if there are men who act towards me as a traitor I am prepared to meet them anywhere, any time, now as in the past. For that reason I do not want the issue prejudged. I am in favour of a public session here
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
The main point is settled. By the admission of the delegates themselves, and it is the only thing we are concerned with here, we did not send them, and it would be ridiculous to think that we could send five men to complete a treaty without the right of ratification by this assembly. That is the only thing that matters. Therefore it is agreed that this Treaty is simply an agreement and that it is not binding until the Dáil ratifies it. That is what we are concerned with. Now as to the differences that have arisen. I did not read out that first document because I was informed that it had not been accepted, in other words it had not been presented. It was given to safeguard the plenipotentiaries going over in case they should be asked by one Government from another:‘Where is your authority to negotiate a Treaty with us?’ I am very glad to know that the Prime Minister has accepted that document from the Irish Republic. Now we all can go back to meetings of the Dáil. At these meetings I made our position perfectly clear, that the plenipotentiaries were to have the fullest freedom possible. It would be ridiculous to send them over if we were all the time to interfere with them from Dublin. There was an understanding that certain things would be done so that we in Dublin would be in a position to help in so far as we could help to come to an agreement or explain disagreements. The most important paragraph in these instructions, and its importance will at once appeal to every reasonable person, was paragraph 3, which laid down that a complete draft of the Treaty should be submitted to Dublin and a reply awaited. That is a document every line of which was going to govern the relations of two countries for perhaps centuries, and it was important that that document should not be hurriedly signed and that there should be a certain delay. In fact one of the reasons I did not want to be a member of the delegation was that the delegation should be provided against hasty action. I do not mean to say that if we had signed finally the document it would have mattered. There would have probably been a division. I would not have referred to it at all but all sorts of misunderstandings have been created in the minds of the people about it. I want to get rid of that as a disturbing factor in your minds when making out the merits, or not, of the agreement; we hold one view, the delegates another.
MR. M. HAYES (NATIONAL UNIVERSITY):
There is a motion before the House, and the motion distinctly provides that the ratification should be moved in public, and therefore it seems to me that members who desire to speak will get ample opportunities for stating their views in public. I think that every member of this House should state his or her views for or against the ratification of this treaty in the most public manner possible. The motion before the House
THE SPEAKER:
I suggest that Dr. White's motion and the motion of the Member for Clontarf Division might be reconciled in this form—that the Dáil go temporarily into private session.
DR. WHITE (WATERFORD):
I am quite agreeable to that suggestion.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA (MINISTER FOR DEFENCE):
Táim-se na choinnibh sin. Do reir a bhfuil ráite ag sna daoine atá i bhfabhar an tsocruithe níl einní acu le ceilt. I object to a private session.
MR. J. J. O'KELLY (LOUTH):
On a point of order there is one important matter I would like to clear up. The President has stated on the authority of the Minister for Finance that the original document read by the Minister for Finance was presented to and accepted by the British Premier. Now I would like anyone here to have impressed on him the importance of that statement and of that position. I would like to put that question for a final and authoritative answer as to the document referred to having been presented to the Prime Minister and accepted by the Prime Minister as the original credentials of our delegation.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
I do not wish to create a wrong impression. I did not say accepted, I said presented.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is very important on
the question being bound. We are dealing with other people who have
signed the Treaty. If these people were led to understand that the
signing of that Treaty ended the matter, then we have nothing here to
do. If any document was presented to them that would give them the
impression, and if they accepted that document and wished to interpret
into the word conclude
that ratification was
not necessary, that would be in despite of the fact that we here in
appointing plenipotentiaries in two sessions made
it clear ratification was necessary.
THE SPEAKER:
We must dispose of the motion.
MR. A. STACK (MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS):
Clear up the point.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
This is a most important
matter. In the original credentials, in order to give them the fullest
powers, they were empowered—using the technical term—to
negotiate and conclude a Treaty. Evidently the Minister for Finance
wishes to lay stress on the word conclude
.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
No, sir.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
What is the point then
of raising the original credentials, if the word conclude
did not mean that when you had signed it
was ended. I want to know whether the delegation of the British
Government accepted these credentials as the basis.
MR. M. P. COLIVET (LIMERICK):
There is a motion before the House that we go into private session.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is most important
that we should know where we are in this matter. The honour of this
nation, which is dear to us, is at stake; I say it was never intended
that the plenipotentiaries—that the five
people sent from this nation—should have power to bind this
nation by their signatures irrevocably. There is no sense making a
point of my original credentials unless it means conclude
. The whole bearing of that would have to
be considered from a very technical point of view. It is a technical
term. Lest there should be any misunderstanding about it I want to
know whether the British Government accepted the credentials as the
basis on which they accepted you as plenipotentiaries to negotiate a
treaty or not.
Dr. MCCARTAN (LEIX AND OFFALY):
I do not think the question arises.
concludedoes not arise.
MR. SEAN MCGARRY (DUBLIN):
I think that the question of the right of the Dáil to ratify or reject the agreement has never been questioned.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It was suggested that I was hiding something from the House.
THE SPEAKER:
The House is really discussing Motion No. 2.
MR. A. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
There will be no wrong impression at all events in the minds of members who have to vote. these credentials were carried from President de Valera. We were instructed if the British Delegates asked for credentials to present them.
MR. A. STACK (MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS):
They were not presented.
MR. A. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
I believe Mr. Lloyd George saw the document. They were not presented or accepted. The point President de VALERA wants to know about is as to whether we considered that we had full power to make a treaty to bind the nation without the Dáil being consulted. Now the British Ministers did not sign the Treaty to bind their nation. They had to go to their Parliament and we to ours for ratification.
MR. LIAM DE ROISTE (CORK):
As one who in previous sessions stood up for the rights of the private members, I think that the motion should be put. I think the members of the Dáil here are masters of the Cabinet as the Irish people are ours. I must ask you as Chairman of this assembly to put the motion.
THE SPEAKER:
I made a suggestion to get the motion into satisfactory form. The motion in Dr. White's name is that the session be held in private. That would mean the whole session. The amendment by the Member for Clontarf Division is unnecessarily long, I think. To my mind it would be sufficient if it said that the Dáil was to go temporarily into private session, because when it does go into private session you cannot limit the points the Dáil may discuss. Therefore I suggest that it would meet the case that the Dáil should go temporarily into private session.
MR. G. GAVAN DUFFY (CO. DUBLIN):
I hope the Speaker's suggestion will not be accepted. The amendment of the Member for Clontarf restricts the public session. I have no objection to that as long as the motion for the ratification of the Treaty will be discussed in public.
THE SPEAKER:
I have not made any suggestion that would limit public discussion. In fact the only point in my mind is to simplify procedure.
MR. D. O'CALLAGHAN (CORK):
Upon this question of a public session may I suggest that we are all vitally concerned in the matter before us and that we will not be found lined up for or against ratification, and that our attitude will not be for the justification of one particular set of men or another, but having before us the unquestioned patriotism of every man and woman in the Dáil, that the only concern of every individual member of the Dáil or Cabinet is the best interests of the country. I think, and I am not very optimistic in that, that the result will not be a barren discussion one way or another, meaning naturally disaster to the country, but will result in a decision which will be satisfactory from the point of view of all concerned here and to the country as a whole.
MR. SEAN ETCHINGHAM (WEXFORD):
We have had the President's statement. Are we going to consider the ratification of the Treaty?
THE SPEAKER:
The Member for Wexford has spoken already.
MR. A. STACK (MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS):
Would I be in order in making a further amendment?
THE SPEAKER:
Not until the amendment by the Member for Clontarf is disposed of. It is:
That any explanations as regards the genesis of the Proposed Treaty in the present situation be given and discussed in Private session, but that the introduction of the proposed Treaty itself and the discussion thereon take place in public session.
The amendment was put and carried.
MR. A. STACK (MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS):
I move the further amendment:
That the session of An Dáil be held in public until such time as a matter arises which the Dáil considers should be discussed in Private session.
COUNTESS MARKIEVICZ (MINISTER FOR LABOUR)
Seconded.
MR. COSGRAVE (MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT):
May I respectfully draw your attention to No. 8 of the rules of debate by members, which states that the subject under discussion should be kept to, and another rule is that a member is not allowed to speak more than once.
The SPEAKER was proceeding to put the amendment to the House, when,
MR.D. MCCARTHY (DUBLIN):
Do you really think that in order? I do not think it is an amendment at all.
THE SPEAKER:
Oh, yes, it is a valid amendment?
MR. M. P. COLIVET (LIMERICK):
Is not the last amendment a direct negative to the previous amendment?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I suggest that some people think if we go into private session that we might not come out in public session at all.
MR. M. HAYES (NATIONAL UNIVERSITY):
We must go into public session on the motion for the ratification of this Treaty.
THE SPEAKER:
The difficulty with regard to the amendment is that it does not regulate any time at which the private session should take place.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA (MINISTER FOR DEFENCE):
Whenever anyone thinks that we should go into private session let him say so, and let him tell us the reason why we should do so.
MR. S. MILROY (CAVAN AND FERMANAGH):
I think so far as this last amendment is concerned it resembles something like a Jack-in-the-Box as regards when we retire into private and come out into public session.
THE SPEAKER:
Certainly, it would raise a great difficulty in regard to the order of procedure.
MR. J. MCDONAGH (DIRECTOR OF BELFAST BOYCOTT):
The only thing I think that should be definite is that the question of the ratification of the Treaty should be in public session. If it is definitely decided that the question of the ratification has to be in public session I do not think anyone objects to a private session before that—if it is absolutely understood that the ratification of the treaty should be in public.
THE SPEAKER:
I take that to be the unanimous desire of the Dáil.
MR. R. MULCAHY (DUBLIN):
The objection I see to the amendment is that the question of private or public session will cross the tracks of every single question requiring explanation that comes before us.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA (MINISTER FOR DEFENCE):
Therefore do not go into private session.
THE SPEAKER:
It is the general wish that the motion for ratification should be discussed in public session. In putting the amendment I do not see how I or anyone in my place can regulate the order of procedure.
The SPEAKER put the amendment which was defeated and the previous amendment was put as a substantive motion and passed.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
I suggest it is only right to the Press and public that we should give definite times and state the limit of the private session so that they may be facilitated.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I propose that we take the private session this afternoon and that we go into public session at 11 o'clock in the morning. This means that we continue the meeting this afternoon, and we meet tomorrow for the sole question of ratification.
THE SPEAKER:
I suggest it would save trouble to retire now, if we adjourn until the afternoon session.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I suggest we keep on until 2 o'clock. We probably could dispose of the points of difference in an hour. If not we can meet again at 3.30. I propose we should meet in private session until 2 o'clock and if not finished then we shall resume at 3.30, and that when we meet to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock we shall take the motion on the question of ratification.
This concluded the public sitting.
THE SPEAKER (DR. EOIN MAC NEILL) took the Chair at 11.25 a.m.
The Secretary, MR. Diarmuid O hEigceartuigh, called the roll. The
following Members answered their names:
THE SPEAKER:
The President informs the House that the document presented to the Dáil for a certain purpose at the Private Session is now withdrawn and must be regarded as confidential until he brings his own proposal forward formally.
MR. A. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
Am I to understand, Sir, that that document we discussed at the Private Session is to be withheld from the Irish people?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
No. But I don't want to have the debate interfered with, the direct debate on the Treaty, by a discussion on a secondary document put forward for a certain purpose in Private Session. That document will be put forward in its proper place.
MR. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
I want to know is the document we discussed as an alternative to be withheld from the Irish people, or is it to be published in the Press for the people to see?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I put forward the document for a distinct purpose to see whether we could get a unanimous proposition by this House. That has not been achieved. I am going to put forward the proposal myself definitely to this House as my own proposition which I stand for. That was for a different purpose.
MR. SEAN MILROY (CAVAN):
Before that document can be regarded as private, I think the President will have to get the assent of this House. We weren't informed it was merely for private discussion. This is a matter that goes to the root of the whole issue before this House, and I think it a rather curious point to raise now when the Public Session has begun, that we should be informed that it is to be regarded as a confidential document. I, for my part, refuse until this House assents to that proposition.
THE SPEAKER:
We cannot have a discussion on this at this point. The only matter that arises is that the President's request as read out by me has been expressed to the House. We must now proceed with the orders of the day.
MR. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
A Chinn Chomhairle, I submit I am here to move this. Are my hands to be tied by this document being withheld after we were discussing it for two days?
MADAME MARKIEVICZ (SOUTH DUBLIN):
I wish to say that when the document was given to me it was distinctly stated it was confidential, and I have treated it as such.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I have no objection to the document going anywhere, except this, that I wanted this House, if possible, to have a united policy. I was prepared to stand on a certain document. It would cease to be of value unless it was a document that would command practically the unanimous approval of the assembly. It was given to the assembly distinctly on that understanding to get objections to it. I intend proposing what I want to stand on as my own proposition before the Irish people. That was not my proposal definitely; it was a paper put in in order to elicit views. I am ready to put
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
I as a public representative cannot consent, if I am in a minority of one, in withholding from the Irish people my knowledge of what the alternative is. We have to deal with this matter in the full light of our own responsibility to our people, and I cannot in my public statement refrain from telling the Irish people what certain alternatives are.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is not proposed to withhold either that document or any documents from the Irish people, if this House wishes it, in its proper place, but I hold it is running across the course of the debate to introduce now for the public a document which has been discussed in Private Session. It means that the Private Session might as well not have been held.
THE SPEAKER:
I wish the members to understand that this is not a matter of the Chair's ruling that this document is confidential. It is simply a matter of a request made by the President and communicated by me to the Dáil, through the ordinary courtesy of procedure, as the President's desire. I do not make any ruling on it, but any discussion on it is out of order. We most proceed now with the orders of the day.
MR. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
It is not a question of courtesy; it is not a question of the rules of procedure; it is a question of the lives and fortunes of the people of Ireland. While I shall so far as I can respect President de Valera's wish, I am not going to hide from the Irish people what the alternative is that is proposed. I move the motion standing in my name—
Nearly three months ago Dáil Eireann appointed plenipotentiaries to go to London to treat with the British Government and to make a bargain with them. We have made a bargain. We have brought it back. We were to go there to reconcile our aspirations with the association of the community of nations known as the British Empire. That task which was given to us was as hard as was ever placed on the shoulders of men. We faced that task; we knew that whatever happened we would have our critics, and we made up our minds to do whatever was right and disregard whatever criticism might occur. We could have shirked the responsibility. We did not seek to act as the plenipotentiaries; other men were asked and other men refused. We went. The responsibility is on our shoulders; we took the responsibility in London and we take the responsibility in Dublin. I signed that Treaty not as the ideal thing, but fully believing, as I believe now, it is a treaty honourable to Ireland, and safeguards the vital interests of Ireland.That Dáil Eireann approves of the Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, signed in London on December 6th, 1921.
And now by that Treaty I am going to stand, and every man with a scrap of honour who signed it is going to stand. It is for the Irish people—who are our masters [hear, hear] not our servants as some think—it is for the Irish people to say whether it is good enough. I hold that it is, and I hold that the Irish people—that 95 per cent of them believe it to be good enough. We are here, not as the dictators of the Irish People, but as the representatives of the Irish people, and if we misrepresent the Irish people, then the moral authority of Dáil Eireann, the strength behind it, and the fact that Dáil Eireann spoke the voice of the Irish people, is gone, and gone for ever. Now, the President— and I am in a difficult position—does not wish a certain document referred to read. But I must refer to the substance of it. An effort has been made outside to represent that a certain number of men stood uncompromisingly on the rock of the Republic—the Republic, and nothing but the Republic.
It has been stated also here that the man who made this position, the man who won the war—Michael Collins—compromised Ireland's rights. In the letters that preceded the negotiations not once was a demand made for recognition of the Irish Republic. If it had been made we knew it would have BEEN
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I will make my position in my speech quite clear.
MR. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
What we have to say is this, that the difference in this Cabinet and in this House is between half-recognising the British King and the British Empire, and between marching in, as one of the speakers said, with our heads up. The gentlemen on the other side are prepared to recognise the King of England as head of the British Commonwealth. They are prepared to go half in the Empire and half out. They are prepared to go into the Empire for war and peace and treaties, and to keep out for other matters, and that is what the Irish people have got to know is the difference. Does all this quibble of words—because it is merely a quibble of words—mean that Ireland is asked to throw away this Treaty and go back to war? So far as my power or voice extends, not one young Irishman's life shall be lost on that quibble. We owe responsibility to the Irish people. I feel my responsibility to the Irish people, and the Irish people must know, and know in every detail, the difference that exists between us, and the Irish people must be our judges. When the plenipotentiaries came back they were sought to be put in the dock. Well, if I am going to be tried, I am going to be tried by the people of Ireland [hear, hear]. Now this Treaty has been attacked. It has been examined with a microscope to find its defects, and this little thing and that little thing has been pointed out, and the people are told—one of the gentlemen said it here—that it was less even than the proposals of July. It is the first Treaty between the representatives of the Irish Government and the representatives of the English Government since 1172 signed on equal footing. It is the first Treaty that admits the equality of Ireland. It is a Treaty of equality, and because of that I am standing by it. We have come back from London with that Treaty—Saorstát na hEireann recognised—the Free State of Ireland. We have brought back the flag; we have brought back the evacuation of Ireland after 700 years by British troops and the formation of an Irish army [applause]. We have brought back to Ireland her full rights and powers of fiscal control. We have brought back to Ireland equality with England, equality with all nations which form that Commonwealth, and an equal voice in the direction of foreign affairs in peace and war. Well, we are told that that Treaty is a derogation from our status; that it is a Treaty not to be accepted, that it is a poor thing, and that the Irish people ought to go back and fight for something more, and that something more is what I describe as a quibble of words. Now, I shall have an opportunity later on of replying to the very formidably arranged criticism that is going to be levelled at the Treaty to show its defects. At all events, the Irish people are a people of great common sense. They know that a Treaty that gives them their flag and their Free State and their Army (cheers) is not a sham Treaty, and the sophists and the men of words will not mislead them, I tell you. In connection with the Treaty men said this and said that, and I was requested to get from Mr. Lloyd George a definite statement covering points in the Treaty which some gentlemen misunderstood. This is Mr. Lloyd George's letter:
10, Downing Street, S.W. 1 12th December, 1921.Sir,—
As doubts may be expressed regarding certain points not specifically mentioned in the Treaty terms, I think it is important that their meaning should be clearly understood.
The first question relates to the method of appointment of the Representatives of the Crown in Ireland. Article III. of the Agreement lays down that he is to be appointed ‘in like manner as the Governor-General of Canada and in accordance with the Practice observed in the making of such appointment’. This means that the Government of the Irish Free State will be consulted so as to ensure a selection acceptable to the Irish Government before any recommendation is made to his Majesty.
The second question is as to the scope of the Arbitration contemplated in Article V. regarding Ireland's liability for a share of War Pensions and the Public Debt. The procedure contemplated by the Conference was that the British Government should submit its claim, and that the Government of the Irish Free State should submit any counter-claim to which it thought Ireland entitled.
Upon the case so submitted the Arbitrators would decide after making such further inquiries as they might think necessary; their decision would then be final and binding on both parties. It is, of course, understood that the arbitrator or arbitrators to whom the case is referred shall be men as to whose impartiality both the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State are satisfied.
The third question relates to the status of the Irish Free State. The special arrangements agreed between us in Articles VI., VII., VIII. and IX., which are not in the Canadian constitution, in no way affect status. They are necessitated by the proximity and interdependence of the two islands by conditions, that is, which do not exist in the case of Canada.
They in no way affect the position of the Irish Free State in the Commonwealth or its title to representation, like Canada, in the Assembly of the League of Nations. They were agreed between us for our mutual benefit, and have no bearing of any kind upon the question of status. It is our desire that Ireland shall rank as co-equal with the other nations of the Commonwealth, and we are ready to support her claim to a similar place in the League of Nations as soon as her new Constitution comes into effect.
The framing of that Constitution will be in the hands of the Irish Government, subject, of course, to the terms of Agreement, and to the pledges given in respect of the minority by the head of the Irish Delegation. The establishment and composition of the Second Chamber is, therefore, in the discretion of the Irish people. There is nothing in the Articles of Agreement to suggest that Ireland is in this respect bound to the Canadian model.
I may add that we propose to begin withdrawing the Military and Auxiliary Forces of the Crown in Southern Ireland when the Articles of Agreement are ratified.
I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant,
D. LLOYD GEORGE.
Various different methods of attack on this Treaty have been made. One of them was they did not mean to keep it. Well, they have ratified it, and it can come into operation inside a fortnight. We think they do mean to keep it if we keep it. They are pledged now before the world, pledged by their signature, and if they depart from it they will be disgraced and we will be stronger in the world's eyes than we are today. During the last few years a war was waged on the Irish people, and the Irish people defended themselves, and for a portion of that time, when President de Valera was in America, I had at least the responsibility on my shoulders of standing for all that was done in that defence, and I stood for it [applause]. I would stand for it again under similar conditions. Ireland was fighting then against an enemy that was striking at her life, and was denying her liberty, but in any contest that would follow the rejection of this offer Ireland would be fighting with the sympathy of the world against her, and with all the Dominions—all the nations that comprise the British Commonwealth—against her.
The position would be such that I believe no conscientious Irishman could take the responsibility for a single Irishman's life in that futile war. Now, many criticisms, I know, will be levelled against this Treaty; one in particular, one that is in many instances quite honest, it is the question of the oath. I ask the members to see what the oath is, to read it, not to misunderstand or misrepresent it. It is an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the Free State of Ireland and of faithfulness to King George V. in his capacity as head and in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain and the other nations comprising the British Commonwealth. That is an oath, I say, that any Irishman could take with honour. He pledges his allegiance to his country and to be faithful to this Treaty, and faithfulness after to the head of the British Commonwealth of Nations. If his country were unjustly used by any of the nations of that Commonwealth, or
Peace with England, alliance with England to some extent, and, under certain circumstances, confederation with England; but an Irish ambition, Irish hopes, strength, virtue, and rewards for the Irish.
That is what we have brought back, peace with England, alliance with England, confederation with England, an Ireland developing her own life, carving out her own way of existence, and rebuilding the Gaelic civilisation broken down at the battle of Kinsale. I say we have brought you that. I say we have translated Thomas Davis into the practical politics of the day. I ask then this Dáil to pass this resolution, and I ask the people of Ireland, and the Irish people everywhere, to ratify this Treaty, to end this bitter conflict of centuries, to end it for ever, to take away that poison that has been rankling in the two countries and ruining the relationship of good neighbours. Let us stand as free partners, equal with England, and make after 700 years the greatest revolution that has ever been made in the history of the world—a revolution of seeing the two countries standing not apart as enemies, but standing together as equals and as friends. I ask you, therefore, to pass this resolution [applause].
COMMANDANT SEAN MACKEON (LONGFORD AND WESTMEATH):
A Chinn Chomhairle I rise to second the motion, as proposed by the Deputy for West Cavan (Arthur Griffith) and Chairman of the Irish Delegation in London. In doing so, I take this course because I know I am doing it in the interests of my country, which I love. To me symbols, recognitions, shadows, have very little meaning. What I want, what the people of Ireland want, is not shadows but substances, and I hold that this Treaty between the two nations gives us not shadows but real substances, and for that reason I am ready to support it. Furthermore, this Treaty gives Ireland the chance for the first time in 700 years to develop her own life in her own way, to develop Ireland for all, every man and woman, without distinction of creed or class or politics. To me this Treaty gives me what I and my comrades fought for; it gives us for the first time in 700 years the evacuation of Britain's armed forces out of Ireland. It also gives me my hope and dream, our own Army, not half-equipped, but fully equipped, to defend our interests. If the Treaty were much worse in words than it is alleged to be, once it gave me these two things, I would take it and say as long as the armed forces of Britain are gone and the armed forces of Ireland remain, we can develop our own nation in our own way. Furthermore, when it gives us this army it simply means that it is a guarantee that England or England's King will be faithful to us. If he is not, if the King is not faithful to us, well, we will have somebody left who will defend our interests and see that they are safeguarded. It may seem rather peculiar that one like me who is regarded as an extremist should take this step. Yes, to the world and to Ireland I say I am an extremist, but it means that I have an extreme love of my country. It was love of my country that made me and every other Irishman take up arms to defend her. It was
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I think it would scarcely be in accordance with Standing Orders of the Dáil if I were to move directly the rejection of this Treaty. I daresay, however, it will be sufficient that I should appeal to this House not to approve of the Treaty. We were elected by the Irish people, and did the Irish people think we were liars when we said that we meant to uphold the Republic, which was ratified by the vote of the people three years ago, and was further ratified—expressly ratified—by the vote of the people at the elections last May? When the proposal for negotiation came from the British Government asking that we should try by negotiation to reconcile Irish national aspirations with the association of nations forming the British Empire, there was no one here as strong as I was to make sure that every human attempt should be made to find whether such reconciliation was possible. I am against this Treaty because it does not reconcile Irish national aspirations with association with the British Government. I am against this Treaty, not because I am a man of war, but a man of peace. I am against this Treaty because it will not end the centuries of conflict between the two nations of Great Britain and Ireland.
We went out to effect such a reconciliation and we have brought back a thing which will not even reconcile our own people much less reconcile Britain and Ireland.
If there was to be reconciliation, it is obvious that the party in Ireland which typifies national aspirations for centuries should be satisfied, and the test of every agreement would be the test of whether the people were satisfied or not. A war-weary people will take things which are not in accordance with their aspirations. You may have a snatch election now, and you may get a vote of the people, but I will tell you that Treaty will renew the contest that is going to begin the same history that the Union began, and Lloyd George is going to have the same fruit for his labours as Pitt had. When in Downing Street the proposals to which we could unanimously assent in the Cabinet were practically turned down at the point of the pistol and immediate war was threatened upon our people. It was only then that this document was signed, and that document has been signed by plenipotentiaries, not perhaps individually under duress, but it has been signed, and would only affect this nation as a document signed under duress, and this nation would not respect it.
I wanted, and the Cabinet wanted, to get a document we could stand by, a document that could enable Irishmen to meet Englishmen and shake hands with them as fellow-citizens of the world. That document makes British authority our masters in Ireland. It was said that they had only an oath to the British King in virtue of common citizenship, but you have an oath to the Irish Constitution, and that Constitution will be a Constitution which will have the King of Great Britain as head of Ireland. You will swear allegiance to that Constitution and to that King; and if the representatives of the Republic should ask the people of Ireland to do that which is inconsistent with the Republic, I say they are subverting the Republic. It would be a surrender which was never heard of in Ireland since the days of Henry II.; and are we in this generation, which has made Irishmen famous through out the world, to sign our names to the most ignoble document that could be signed.
When I was in prison in solitary confinement our warders told us that we could go from our cells into the hall, which was about fifty feet by forty. We did go out from the cells to the hall, but we did not give our word to the British jailer that he had the right to detain us in prison because we got that privilege. Again on another occasion we were told that we could get out to a garden party, where we could see the flowers and the hills, but we did not for the privilege of going out to garden parties sign a document handing over our souls and bodies to the jailers. Rather than sign a document which would give Britain authority in Ireland they should be ready to go into slavery until the Almighty had blotted out their
You will be asked in the best interests of Ireland, if you pretend to the world that this will lay the foundation of a lasting peace, and you know perfectly well that even if Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins set up a Provisional Government in Dublin Castle, until the Irish people would have voted upon it the Government would be looked upon as a usurpation equally with Dublin Castle in the past. We know perfectly well there is nobody here who has expressed more strongly dissent from any attacks of any kind upon the delegates that went to London than I did.
There is no one who knew better than I did how difficult is the task they had to perform. I appealed to the Dáil, telling them the delegates had to do something a mighty army or a mighty navy would not be able to do. I hold that, and I hold that it was in their excessive love for Ireland they have done what they have. I am as anxious as anyone for the material prosperity of Ireland and the Irish people, but I cannot do anything that would make the Irish people hang their heads. I would rather see the same thing over again than that Irishmen should have to hang their heads in shame for having signed and put their hands to a document handing over their authority to a foreign country. The Irish people would not want me to save them materially at the expense of their national honour. I say it is quite within the competence of the Irish people if they wished to enter into an association with other peoples, to enter into the British Empire; it is within their competence if they want to choose the British monarch as their King, but does this assembly think the Irish people have changed so much within the past year or two that they now want to get into the British Empire after seven centuries of fighting? Have they so changed that they now want to
One of the great misfortunes in Ireland for past centuries has been the fact that our internal problems and our internal domestic questions could not be gone into because of the relationship between Ireland and Great Britain. Just as in America during the last Presidential election, it was not the internal affairs of the country were uppermost; it was other matters. It was the big international question. That was the misfortune for America at the time, and it was the great misfortune for Ireland for 120 years, and if the present Pact is agreed on that will continue. I am against it because it is inconsistent with our position, because if we are to say the Irish people don't mean it, then they should have told us that they didn't mean it.
Had the Chairman of the delegation said he did not stand for the things they had said they stood for, he would not have been elected. The Irish people can change their minds if they wish to. The Irish people are our masters, and they can do as they like, but only the Irish people can do that, and we should give the people the credit that they meant what they said just as we mean what we say.
I do not think I should continue any further on this matter. I have spoken generally, and if you wish we can take these documents up, article by article, but they have been discussed in Private Session, and I do not think there is any necessity for doing so. Therefore, I am once more asking you to reject the Treaty for two main reasons, that, as every Teachta knows, it is absolutely inconsistent with our Position; it gives away Irish independence; it brings us into the British Empire; it acknowledges the head of the British Empire, not merely as the head of an association, but as the direct monarch of Ireland, as the source of executive authority in Ireland. The Ministers of Ireland will be His Majesty's Ministers, the Army that Commandant MacKeon spoke of will be His Majesty's Army. [Voices: ‘No’.] You may sneer at words, but I say words mean, and I say in a Treaty words do mean something, else why should they be put down? They have meanings and they have facts, great realities that you cannot close your eyes to. This Treaty means that the Ministers of the Irish Free State will be His Majesty's Ministers [cries of ‘No, no,’] and the Irish Forces will be His Majesty's Forces [‘No, no’.] Well, time will tell, and I hope it won't have a chance, because you will throw this out. If you accept it, time will tell; it cannot be one way in this assembly and another way in the British House of Commons. The Treaty is an agreed document, and there ought
I hold, and I don't mind my words being on record, that the chief
executive authority in Ireland is the British Monarch—the
British authority. It is in virtue of that authority the Irish
Ministers will function. It is to the Commander-in-Chief of the Irish
Army, who will be the English Monarch, they will swear allegiance,
these soldiers of Ireland. It is on these grounds as being
inconsistent with our position, and with the whole national tradition
for 750 years, that it cannot bring peace. Do you think that because
you sign documents like this you can change the current of tradition?
You cannot. Some of you are relying on that cannot
to sign this Treaty. But don't put a barrier
in the way of future generations.
Parnell was asked to do something like this—to say it was a
final settlement. But he said, ‘No man has a right to set’. No
man can
is a different thing. ‘No man has a
right’—take the context and you know the meaning. Parnell
said practically, ‘You have no right to ask me, because I have no
right to say that any man can set boundaries to the march of a
nation’. As far as you can, if you take this you are [cries
of ‘No’ and ‘Yes’] presuming to set bounds to the
onward march of a nation [applause].
MR. AUSTIN STACK (MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS):
It happens to be my privilege to rise immediately after the President to support his motion that this House do not approve of the document which has been presented to them. I shall be very brief; I shall confine myself to what I regard as the chief defects in the document, namely, those which conflict with my idea of Irish Independence. I regard clauses in this agreement as being the governing clauses. These are Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. In No. 1 England purports to bestow on Ireland, an ancient nation, the same constitutional status as any of the British Dominions, and also to bestow her with a Parliament having certain powers. To look at the second clause, it starts off—‘Subject to provisions hereinafter set out’—and then she tries to limit you to the powers of the Dominion of Canada. What they may mean I cannot say, beyond this, that the Canadian Dominion is set up under a very old Act which considerably limits its powers. No doubt the words ‘law, practice, and constitutional usage’ are here. I cannot define what these may mean. Other speakers who will come before the assembly may be able to explain them. I certainly cannot. To let us assume that this clause gives to this country full Canadian powers, I for one cannot accept from England full Canadian powers, three-quarter Canadian powers, or half Canadian powers. I stand for what is Ireland's right, full independence and nothing short of it. It is easy to understand that countries like Australia, New Zealand and the others can put up with the Powers which are bestowed on them, can put up with acknowledgments to the monarch and rule of Great Britain as head of their State, for have they not all sprung from England? Are they not children of England? Have they not been built up by Great Britain? Have they not been protected by England and lived under England's flag for all time? What other feeling can they have but affection for England, which they always regarded as their motherland? This country, on the other hand, has not been a child of England's, nor never was. England came here as an invader, and for 750 years we have been resisting that conquest. Are we now after those 750 years to bend the knee and acknowledge that we received from England as a concession full, or half, or three-quarter Dominion powers? I say no. Clause 3 of this Treaty gives us a representative of the Crown in Ireland appointed in the same manner as a Governor-General. That Governor-General will act in all respects in the name of the King of England. He will represent the King in the Capital of Ireland and he will open the Parliament which some members of this House seem to be willing to attend. I am sure none of them, indeed, is very anxious to attend it under the circumstances, but if they accept this Treaty they will have to attend Parliament summoned in the name of the King of Great Britain and Ireland. There is no doubt about that whatever. The fourth paragraph sets out the form of oath, and this form of oath may be divided into two parts. In the first part you swear ‘true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established’. As
- Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,
In the strife 'twixt truth and falsehood for the good or evil side.Applause
COUNT PLUNKETT (LEITRIM AND NORTH ROSCOMMON):
A Chinn Chomhairle, I rise to support the President in his motion to reject the resolution put forward by Mr. Arthur Griffith. I have the greatest personal respect and a recognition of the personal honour of those who went to London in the hope, in the expectation, I presume, that they would bring back a settlement that could be agreed to by the Irish people and ratified by them, and that would be satisfactory to the conscience of Irishmen. But I am sorry to say that Mr. Arthur Griffith, while he has kept the word of promise to the ear, has broken it to the cup. I am in favour of the rejection of this Treaty on the ground that it is not reconcilable with the conscience of the Irish people. I am in favour of its rejection because I myself in conscience
The scheme put forward by Sir Horace Plunkett and Captain Henry Harrison was scornfully laughed at, because it was common knowledge that these gentlemen could not deliver the goods. Accordingly Captain Harrison dissolved the Dominion League. The schemes put forward at the Convention called by the English Government were rejected with scorn, for no broad-minded Irishman would enter that assembly. It was a manufactured assembly and did not express the views of the Irish people; but to-day by a side-wind you are told that the only thing for you to do is to accept these rejected things.
You were told that your national liberties will be secured by handing them over to the authority of the British Government. You are told that the vile thing that was rejected, not only by our generation but by past generations of fighting men, that this scheme by which we will be put under the authority of the Imperial Government, swearing an oath of allegiance to the English King, that this is the means by which you will achieve your liberty. If you were to achieve it by this means it would mean by treachery among our own, it would mean that we are to be false either to one oath or the other, and if I take an oath and devote myself to the fight for national liberty I am not going, whatever the threat of war or any other device, to abandon the cause to which I have devoted my life. I am faithful to my oath. I am faithful to the dead. I am faithful to my own boys, one of whom died for Ireland with his back to the wall and the other two who were sentenced to death. And I saw them afterwards wearing what has been described as the livery of England during the beginning of a sentence of ten years, penal servitude. Am I to go back now on the ingenious suggestion that by some unexpected contrivance Ireland is to secure her liberty by giving it away. No, I am no more an enemy of peace than Arthur Griffith. I am no more an enemy of an understanding, an honest, straight understanding, between England and Ireland than any man here, but I will never sacrifice the independence of Ireland simply for the purpose of securing a cessation of warfare. Now look at what has been already accomplished. The men of 1916 went out and fought the whole power of the British Empire. Did they lose? They went down, but they went down as victors. Instead of an irresolute body of people who had handed over their judgment to a little group of politicians, they were a resolute nation backing the little forces of Ireland, so that the power of Ireland was not in the hands of a few hundred men, but in the hands of four-and-a-half millions of people. That is the position which the men of 1916 secured, and that fight has been carried on ever since not merely with the countenance of the Irish people, but with the assistance and backings of the Irish people. To tell me that the men who allowed their houses to be burned over their heads and still did not relinquish their nationality, the men whose children were shot before their eyes and who for the national good had given up all hope of success in this world, were going to sign a document handing over these liberties to the English Government in the hope that England in a fit of generosity will not take the bond as binding. No. As men of honour we must respect our oaths, as men of principle we must stand by the principle of liberty, and as men whose word is as good as their bond we must see that no man takes an oath here with the secret intention of breaking it. We have taken an oath of fidelity to the Republic, and are we going to take a false oath now to King George? Under no conditions will I sacrifice my personal honour in such a manner. I don't believe that the men who foolishly imagine such a thing can be done can resist the corruption that inevitably comes of dishonour.
MR. JOSEPH MCBRIDE (NORTH AND WEST MAYO):
I am standing in support of the ratification of the Treaty brought home from London by the plenipotentiaries of Ireland. I support it because I consider it will be for the best interests of this country. I support the ratification because I know the people demand its ratification. I support the ratification of it because I know that the ideals for which I have worked, and for which others who are listening
The House adjourned at 1 o'clock until 3.30 to enable President de Valera to attend the ceremony of his induction as chancellor of the National University. On resuming after luncheon, THE SPEAKER took the chair at 3.45 p.m.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
A Chinn Chomhairle, much has been said in Private Session about the action of the plenipotentiaries in signing at all or in signing without first putting their document before the Cabinet. I want to state as clearly as I can, and as briefly as I can—I cannot promise you to be very brief—what the exact position was. It has been fully explained how the Delegation returned from London on that momentous Saturday to meet the Cabinet at home. We came back with a document from the British Delegation which we presented to the Cabinet. Certain things happened at that Cabinet Meeting, and the Delegation, on returning, put before the British Delegation as well as they could their impressions of the decisions—I will not say conclusions—arrived at at that Cabinet Meeting. I do not want unduly to press the word decisions. I want to be fair to everybody. I can only say they were decisions in this way, that we went away with certain impressions in our minds and that we did our best faithfully to transmit these impressions to paper in the memorandum we handed in to the British Delegation. It was well understood at that Cabinet Meeting that Sir James Craig was receiving a reply from the British Premier on Tuesday morning. Some conclusion as between the British Delegation and ourselves had, therefore, to be come to and handed in to the British Delegation on the Monday night. Now, we went away with a document which none of us would sign. It must have been obvious, that being so, that in the meantime a document arose which we thought we could sign. There was no opportunity of referring it to our people at home. Actually on the Monday night we did arrive at conclusions which we thought we could agree to and we had to say ‘Yes’ across the table, and I may say that we said ‘Yes’. It was later on that same day that the document was signed. But I do not now, and I did not then, regard my word as being anything more important, or a bit less important, than my signature on a document. Now, I also want to make this clear. The answer which I gave and that signature which I put on that document would be the same in Dublin or in Berlin, or in New York or in Paris. If we had been in Dublin the difference in distance would have made this difference, that we would have been able to consult not only the members of the Cabinet but many members of the Dáil and many good friends. There has been talk about ‘the atmosphere of London’
Now, Sir, before I come to the Treaty itself, I must say a word on another vexed question—the question as to whether the terms of reference meant any departure from the absolutely rigid line of the isolated Irish Republic. Let me read to you in full (at the risk of wearying you) the two final communications which passed between Mr. Lloyd George and President de Valera.
From Lloyd George to de Valera. It is a telegram. In that way the word 'President' was not an omission on my part.Gairloch Sept. 29th, 1921His Majesty's Government have given close and earnest consideration to the correspondence which has passed between us since their invitation to you to send delegates to a conference at Inverness. In spite of their sincere desire for peace, and in spite of the more conciliatory tone of your last communication, they cannot enter a conference upon the basis of this correspondence. Notwithstanding your personal assurance to the contrary, which they much appreciate, it might be argued in future that the acceptance of a conference on this basis had involved them in a recognition which no British Government can accord. On this point they must guard themselves against any possible doubt. There is no purpose to be served by any further interchange of explanatory and argumentative communications upon this subject. The position taken up by His Majesty's Government is fundamental to the existence of the British Empire and they cannot alter it. My colleagues and I remain, however, keenly anxious to make in cooperation with your delegates another determined effort to explore every possibility of settlement by personal discussion. The proposals which we have already made have been taken by the whole world as proof that our endeavours for reconciliation and settlement are no empty form, and we feel that conference, not correspondence, is the most practicable and hopeful way to an understanding such as we ardently desire to achieve. We, therefore, send you herewith a fresh invitation to a conference
in London on October 11th where we can meet your delegates as spokesmen of the people whom you represent with a view to ascertaining how the association of Ireland with the community of nations known as the British Empire may best be reconciled with Irish National aspirations.
From de Valera to Lloyd George. 30th Sept., 1921.We have received your letter of invitation to a Conference in London on October 11th, with a view to ascertaining how the association of Ireland with the community of Nations known as the British Empire may best be reconciled with Irish National aspirations.
Our respective positions have been stated and are understood, and we agree that conference, not correspondence, is the most practicable and hopeful way to an understanding. We accept the invitation, and our delegates will meet you in London on the date mentioned, to explore every possibility of settlement by personal discussion.
This question of association was bandied around as far back as August 10th and went on until the final communication. The communication of September 29th from Lloyd George made it clear that they were going into a conference not on the recognition of the Irish Republic, and I say if we all stood on the recognition of the Irish Republic as a prelude to any conference we could very easily have said so, and there would be no conference. What I want to make clear is that it was the acceptance of the invitation that formed the compromise. I was sent there to form that adaptation, to bear the brunt of it. Now as one of the signatories of the document I naturally recommend its acceptance. I do not recommend it for more than it is. Equally I do not recommend it for less than it is. In my opinion it gives us freedom, not the ultimate freedom that all nations desire and develop to, but the freedom to achieve it [applause].
A Deputy has stated that the delegation should introduce this Treaty not, he describes, as bagmen for England, but with an apology for its introduction. I cannot imagine anything more mean, anything more despicable, anything more unmanly than this dishonouring of one's signature. Rightly or wrongly when you make a bargain you cannot alter it, you cannot go back and get sorry for it and say ‘I ought to have made a better bargain’. Business cannot be done on those bases. I must make reference to the signing of the Treaty. This Treaty was not signed under personal intimidation. If personal intimidation had been attempted no member of the delegation would have signed it.
At a fateful moment I was called upon to make a decision, and if I were called upon at the present moment for a decision on the same question my decision would be the same. Let there be no mistake and no misunderstanding about that.
I have used the word ‘intimidation’. The whole attitude of Britain towards Ireland in the past was an attitude of intimidation, and we, as negotiators, were not in the position of conquerors dictating terms of peace to a vanquished foe. We had not beaten the enemy out of our country by force of arms.
To return to the Treaty, hardly anyone, even those who support it, really understands it, and it is necessary to explain it, and the immense powers and liberties it secures. This is my justification for having signed it, and for recommending it to the nation. Should the Dáil reject it, I am, as I said, no longer responsible. But I am responsible for making the nation fully understand what it gains by accepting it, and what is involved in its rejection. So long as I have made that clear I am perfectly happy and satisfied. Now we must look facts in the face. For our continued national and spiritual existence two things are necessary—security and freedom. If the Treaty gives us these or helps us to get at these, then I maintain that it satisfies our national aspirations. The history of this nation has not been, as is so often said, the history of a military struggle of 750 years; it has been much more a history of peaceful penetration of 750 years. It has not been a struggle for the ideal of freedom for 750 years symbolised in the name Republic. It has been a story of slow, steady, economic encroach by England. It has been a struggle on our part to prevent that, a struggle against exploitation, a struggle against the cancer that was eating up our lives, and it was only after discovering that, that it was economic penetration, that we discovered that
[Reading]: The status as defined is the same constitutional status in the ‘community of nations known as the British Empire’, as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. And here let me say that in my judgment it is not a definition of any status that would secure us that status, it is the power to hold and to make secure and to increase what we have gained. The fact of Canadian and South African independence is something real and solid, and will grow in reality and force as time goes on. Judged by that touchstone, the relations between Ireland and Britain will have a certainty of freedom and equality which cannot be interfered with. England dare not interfere with Canada. Any attempt to interfere with us would be even more difficult in consequence of the reference to the ‘constitutional status’ of Canada and South Africa.
They are, in effect, introduced as guarantors of our freedom, which makes us stronger than if we stood alone.
In obtaining the ‘constitutional status’ of Canada, our association with England is based not on the present technical legal position of Canada. It is an old Act, the Canadian Act, and the advances in freedom from it have been considerable. That is the reply to one Deputy who spoke to-day of the real position, the complete freedom equality with Canada has given us. I refer now not to the legal technical status, but to the status they have come to, the status which enables Canada to send an Ambassador to Washington, the status which enables Canada to sign the Treaty of Versailles equally with Great Britain, the status which prevents Great Britain from entering into any foreign alliance without the consent of Canada, the status that gives Canada the right to be consulted before she may go into any war. It is not the definition of that status that will give it to us; it is our power to take it and to keep it, and that is where I differ from the others. I believe in our power to take it and to keep it. I believe in our future civilisation. As I have said already, as a plain Irishman, I believe in my own interpretation against the interpretation of any Englishman. Lloyd George and Churchill have been quoted here against us. I say the quotation of those people is what marks the slave mind. There are people in this assembly who will take their words before they will take my words. That is the slave mind.
The only departure from the Canadian status is the retaining by England of the defences of four harbours, and the holding of some other facilities to be used possibly in time of war. But if England wished to re-invade us she could do so with or without these facilities. And with the ‘constitutional status’ of Canada we are assured that these facilities could never be used by England for our re-invasion.
If there was no association, if we stood alone, the occupation of
the ports might probably be a danger to us. Associated in a free
partnership with these other nations it is not a danger, for their
association is a guarantee that it won't be used as a jumping-off
ground against us. And that same person tells me that we haven't
Dominion status because of the occupation of these ports, but that
South Africa had even when Simonstown was occupied. I cannot accept
that argument. I am not an apologist for this Treaty. We have got rid
of the word Empire
. For the first time in an
official document the former Empire is styled ‘The Community of
Nations known as the British Empire’. Common citizenship has been
mentioned. Common citizenship is the substitution for the subjection
of Ireland. It is an admission by them that they no longer can
dominate Ireland. As I have said, the English penetration has not
merely been a military penetration. At the present moment the economic
penetration goes on. I need only give you a few instances. Every day
our Banks become incorporated or allied to British interests, every
day our Steamship Companies go into English hands, every day some
other business concern in this city is taken over by an English
concern and becomes a little oasis of English customs and manners.
Nobody notices, but that is the thing that has destroyed our Gaelic
civilisation. That is a thing that we are able to stop, not perhaps if
we lose the opportunity of stopping it now. That is one of the things
that I consider is important, and to the nation's life perhaps more
important than the military penetration. And this gives us the
opportunity of stopping it. Indeed when we think of the thing from
that economic point of view it would be easy to go on with the
physical struggle in comparison with it.
Do we think at all of what it means to look forward to the directing of the organisation of the nation? Is it one of the things we are prepared to undertake? If we came back with the recognition of the Irish Republic we would need to start somewhere. Are we simply going to go on keeping ourselves in slavery and subjection, for ever keeping on an impossible fight? Are we never going to stand on our own feet? Now I had an argument based on a comparison of the Treaty with the second document, and part of the argument was to read the clauses of the second document. In deference to what the President has said I shall not at this stage make use of that argument. I don't want to take anything that would look like an unfair advantage. I am not standing for this thing to get advantage over anybody, and whatever else the President will say about me, I think he will admit that.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I never said anything but the highest.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
Now I have explained something as to what the Treaty is. I also want to explain to you as one of the signatories what I consider rejection of it means. It has been said that the alternative document does not mean war. Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not. That is not the first part of the argument. I say that rejection of the Treaty is a declaration of war until you have beaten the British Empire, apart from any alternative document. Rejection of the Treaty means your national policy is war. If you do this, if you go on that as a national policy, I for one am satisfied. But I want you to go on it as a national policy and understand what it means. I, as an individual, do not now, no more than ever, shirk war. The Treaty was signed by me, not because they held up the alternative of immediate war. I signed it because I would not be one of those to commit the Irish people to war without the Irish people committing themselves to war. If my constituents send me to represent them in war, I will do my best to represent them in war. Now I was not going to refer to anything that had been said by the speakers of the Coalition side to-day. I do want to say this in regard to the President's remark about Pitt, a remark, it will be admitted, which was not very flattering to us. Well, now, what happened at the time of the Union? Grattan's Parliament was thrown away without reference to the people and against their wishes. Is the Parliament which this Treaty offers us to be similarly treated? Is it to be thrown away without reference to the people and against their wishes?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
What Parliament?
A VOICE: The Free State
MISS MACSWINEY (CORK CITY):
Which Parliament?
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
I would like you to keep on interrupting, because I was looking at a point here. I am disappointed that I was not interrupted more. In our Private Sessions we have been treated to harangues about principle. Not one Deputy has stated a clear, steadfast, abiding principle on which we can stand. Deputies have talked of principle. At different times I have known different Deputies to hold different principles. How can I say, how can anyone say, that these Deputies may not change their principles again? How can anyone say that anybody—a Deputy or a supporter—who has fought against the Irish Nation on principle may not fight against it again on principle; I am not impeaching anybody, but I do want to talk straight. I am the representative of an Irish stock; I am the representative equally with any other member of the same stock of people who have suffered through the terror in the past . Our grandfathers have suffered from war, and our fathers or some of our ancestors have died of famine. I don't want a lecture from anybody as to what my principles are to be now. I am just a representative of plain Irish stock whose principles have been burned into them, and we don't want any assurance to the people of this country that we are going to betray them. We are one of themselves. I can state for you a principle which everybody will understand, the principle of ‘government by the consent of the governed’. These words have been used by nearly every Deputy at some time or another. Are the Deputies going to be afraid of these words now, supposing the formula happens to go against them?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
No, no.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
I have heard deputies remark that their constituents are in favour of this treaty. The deputies have got their powers from their constituents and they are responsible to their constituents. I have stated the principle which is the only firm principle in the whole thing. Now I have gone into more or less a general survey of the Treaty, apart from one section of it, the section dealing with North-East Ulster. Again I am as anxious to face facts in that case as I am in any other case. We have stated we would not coerce the North-East. We have stated it officially in our correspondence. I stated it publicly in Armagh and nobody has found fault with it. What did we mean? Did we mean we were going to coerce them or we were not going to coerce them? What was the use of talking big phrases about not agreeing to the partition of our country. Surely we recognise that the North-East corner does exist, and surely our intention was that we should take such steps as would sooner or later lead to mutual understanding. The Treaty has made an effort to deal with it, and has made an effort, in my opinion, to deal with it on lines that will lead very rapidly to goodwill, and the entry of the North-East under the Irish Parliament [applause]. I don't say it is an ideal arrangement, but if our policy is, as has been stated, a policy of non coercion, then let somebody else get a better way out of it. Now, summing up and nobody can say that I haven't talked plainly I say that this Treaty gives us, not recognition of the Irish Republic, but it gives us more recognition on the part of Great Britain and the associated States than we have got from any other nation. Again I want to speak plainly. America did not recognise the Irish Republic. As things in London were coming to a close I received cablegrams from America. I understand that my name is pretty well known in America, and what I am going to say will make me unpopular there for the rest of my life but I am not going to say any thing or hide anything for the sake of American popularity. I received a cablegram from San Francisco, saying, ‘Stand fast, we will send you a million dollars a month’. Well, my reply to that is, ‘Send us half-a-million and send us a thousand men fully equipped’. I received another cablegram from a branch of the American Association for the Recognition of the Irish Republic and they said to me, ‘Don't weaken now, stand with de Valera’. Well, let that branch come over and stand with us both [applause]. The question before me was were we going to go on with this fight, without referring it to the Irish people, for the sake of propaganda in America? I was not going to take that responsibility. And as this may be the last opportunity
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS (KILDARE AND WICKLOW):
I think everybody will agree that we have listened to a most able and eloquent speech. I most heartily agree to it, though I am in profound disagreement with the conclusions of the speaker. He has said many things which I admire and respect, he has said others that I profoundly regret. All of us agree, I think, that we have listened to a manly, eloquent, and worthy speech from the Minister for Finance [hear, hear].
I wish to recall this assembly to the immediate subject before us, one side of which was hardly touched upon, indeed if it was touched upon at all, by the Minister for Finance, the question whether Dáil Eireann, the national assembly of the people of Ireland, having declared its independence, shall approve of and ratify a Treaty relinquishing deliberately and abandoning that independence. I must say for my own part that I missed in the speeches both of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Finance some note, however distant, of regret for the effect in significance of the step they were taking, and had taken, in London, that is, they were asking this assembly, Dáil Eireann, to vote its own extinction in history, which they more perhaps than anybody else had done so much to make honourable and noble. There is one thing more I would like to say, because I think the two speeches delivered by the leading members of the delegation have left it still obscure. I hardly know, indeed, what impression is left upon the minds of the delegates as a result of their speeches. It is the question of what the delegation was entitled to do and set out to do when it went to London as compared with what it has done. The Minister for Finance spoke of an isolated Republic and said quite rightly that there was no question when the delegation went to London of an isolated Republic standing alone without tie or association with any other association in the world. No such question was before Dáil Eireann or the nation. The sole question before the nation, Dáil Eireann, and the delegation was how is it possible to effect an association with the British Commonwealth which would be honourable to the Irish nation? And it ought
There was no question in the action of the delegation in London of acting on some subconscious or unadmitted resolve to betray the Republic and to commit Ireland to an association which would forfeit her independence, none to my knowledge, at any rate, and I was secretary to the delegation. The proposals on our side were honourable proposals. They stated in explicit terms that they demanded the preservation of the independence of our country, to exclude the King of England and British authority wholly from our country, and only when that was done, and Ireland was absolutely free in Irish affairs, to enter an association on free and honourable terms with Britain.
That, alas! was lost in the last hour of the time the delegation spent in London and the result was the Treaty. The Minister for Finance has spoken generally of that Treaty as placing Ireland in the position of Canada, giving her Canadian status-‘equality of status with Great Britain’ was the phrase used by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I think, too, by the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Foreign Affairs used the phrase, ‘a final settlement’. ‘A settlement that is not final’, was the phrase used by the Minister for Finance. There was that broad and fundamental distinction between them. At any rate the settlement is commended to you as placing Ireland in a position virtually as free as Canada, although technically making her subject to the control of the British Crown and of the British Parliament. Apart altogether from the question as to whether this assembly shall, or even can, surrender its own independence and declare itself subject to the British Crown and Parliament, does the Treaty before you carry out what the Minister for Finance represented that it does carry out? It does not. It should be understood clearly by Dáil Eireann—by all here—that this Treaty does not give you what is called Dominion status. The Minister for Finance passed lightly over this clause concerning the occupation of our ports. He did less than justice to the subject. You have read, all of you, no doubt carefully, Clauses 6 and 7 of the Treaty. What is the actual effect of those clauses, and how do they affect the status of Ireland if this Treaty were to be passed? It is not merely a question of occupying ports. Clause No. 6 in effect declares that the people of Ireland inhabiting the island called Ireland have no responsibility for defending that island from foreign attack. Foreign attack can come only over the sea. This clause declares that Ireland is unfit, or rather for we all know the real reason—too dangerous a neighbour to be entrusted with her own coastal defence. And, therefore, in that clause is the most humiliating condition that can be inflicted on any nation claiming to be free, namely, that it is not to be allowed to provide defence against attack by a foreign enemy. There is, it is true, a little proviso saying that the matter will be reconsidered in five years, but there is no guarantee whatever that anything will result from that reconsideration, and the most the reconsideration will amount to is that she is to be allowed to take over a share in her own coastal defence. Clause No. 7 declares that permanently and for ever some of our most important ports are to be occupied by British Forces. Here there is no question of Dominion status, no question of constitutional usage—these qualifying words that are used in the second clause of the Treaty. For ever that occupation is to continue, and in time of war, says sub-section B., or strained relations with a foreign Power, such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purpose of such defence as aforesaid. In other words, when she pleases to announce that there are strained relations with a foreign Power, or when England is actually in war with a foreign Power, any use whatever can be made of this island whether for naval or military purposes. I need not say that no such conditions or limitations attach to any
MR. HOGAN (GALWAY):
On a point of order, is a Deputy entitled to deliberately misquote one of the documents in front of us? Here is the letter read by Mr. Griffith: ‘The framing of that Constitution will be in the hands of the Irish Government’.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS (KILDARE AND WICKLOW):
The Deputy who has just spoken has made a very interesting interruption. He quotes from a letter of Mr. Lloyd George, and with all respect to the Minister for Finance, who objected very strongly to our quoting from Mr. Lloyd George, the Deputy behind him is in agreement with him.
MR. HOGAN (GALWAY):
If there is to be quoting it should be actual quoting.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS (KILDARE AND WICKLOW):
‘The framing of that Constitution will be in the hands of the Irish Government, subject (of course) to the terms of this agreement’ [applause]. Now I do seriously wish to warn the members of the Dáil if they are going to take this tremendous and momentous step of ratifying this Treaty, not to do it under any foolish and idle illusions as to the meaning of what they are doing. Does the Deputy really suggest that Ireland is going to have freedom to form any Constitution she pleases—‘subject to the terms of this agreement’ and every limitation, and there are a hundred of them, that are in this Constitution of Canada under the British Act of 1867, all the fundamental limitations as to the authority of the Crown, and the authority of the British Government will inevitably appear in the Irish Constitution if it is framed under the terms of this Treaty. What will appear? The first thing that will appear will be that the legislature of Ireland will be no longer Dáil Eireann, the body I am addressing; it will consist of King and Commons and Senate of Ireland. The King will be part of the legislature of this island, and the King will have powers there. If not the King himself, there would be the King's representative in Ireland, the Governor-General, or whatever he may be. The King, representing the British Government, or the Governor- General, will have power to give or refuse assent to Irish legislation. Now I know very well—no one better than I do—I may just say in passing, I, like all lovers of freedom, have watched and followed the development of freedom in British Dominions, and Canada with intense interest. No one knows better than I do that power is virtually obsolete in Canada. Do you suppose that power is going to be obsolete in Ireland? How can it be?
A DEPUTY:
40,000 bayonets.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS (KILDARE AND WICKLOW):
If Ireland's destiny is to be irrevocably linked
with England in this Treaty, if the association with her is that of a
bond slave, as it is, under these Clauses 6 and 7, do you suppose that
that supremacy of England is going to be an idle phrase in the case of
Ireland? Do you? Don't you see every act and deed of the Irish
Parliament is going to be jealously watched from over the water, and
that every act of legislation done by Ireland will be read in the
light of that inflexible condition that Ireland is virtually a
protectorate of England, for under this Treaty she is nothing more.
‘Under the Constitution of Canada, the Executive Government and
authority of, and over, Canada, is hereby declared to continue, and be
vested in the Queen’; that is to say now, the King. That clause, or
something corresponding to it, will appear in the Constitution of
Ireland without question. And here again what does the King mean? The
functions of the King as an individual are very small indeed. What the
King means is the British Government, and let there be no mistake,
under the terms of this Treaty the British Government is going to be
supreme in Ireland [cries
A DEPUTY:
We cannot help that.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS (KILDARE AND WICKLOW):
I know we cannot help it, but there was one way of helping it. That was to have stood by the proposals that were made in London by the Irish Delegation to the British Government, until the last moment. That was the way to avoid it, and to declare, as they declared, that authority in Ireland—legislative, executive, and judicial—shall be derived solely from the people of Ireland [applause]. That was a way out of it, and I hope and believe it remains a way out of it still [hear, hear]. Establish that principle that authority in Ireland belongs solely to the Irish people, then make your association, and the rights of Ireland are safe. Pass that Treaty admitting the King to Ireland, or rather retaining him he is in Ireland now, retain him while recognising him, recognise the British Government in Ireland, and your rights and independence are lost for ever. It should be remembered, too, that the King's representative in Ireland, the Governor-General, will be there definitely as the centre of British Government in Ireland. I do not know if it is realised what the full significance the proximity of Ireland to England means. But you cannot have it both ways. It is useless for the Minister for Finance to say certain things are necessary because Ireland is nearer England, and at the same time to say that Ireland would get all the powers of Canada which is 3,000 miles away. These two proposals are contradictory. The Governor-General in Ireland will be close to Downing Street. He can communicate by telephone to Downing Street. He will be in close and intimate touch with British Ministers. Irish Ministers will be the King's Ministers; the Irish Provisional Government that under this Treaty is going to be set up, within a month would be the King's Provisional Government. Every executive Act in Ireland, every administrative function in Ireland, would be performed—you cannot get away from it—in the name of the King. And the King and the Government behind the King would be barely 200 miles away, and capable of exercising immediate control over what is done in Ireland. And if anyone were to raise in any particular matter the status of Canada in connection with the Government of Ireland, what would he be told? Canadian status? Why, the King's Government is not only here in the person of the Governor- General, exercising it on his behalf, but the King and the King's Forces are in actual occupation of Ireland. It is useless for you to pretend that the King's authority and British authority are not operative in Ireland, when it is actually occupied by British Forces and you are forbidden to have Irish defensive naval forces of your own. Follow on that point a little. The Treaty promises Ireland to have an army, and a letter of Mr. Lloyd George's says the British Army is to evacuate Ireland if this Treaty is passed, within a short time. But do you suppose under this Treaty, your Irish Army is going to be an independent army? Do you really suppose if British troops are evacuated from the country in a short period, there is anything to prevent them returning under full legal power? Constitutional usage would have nothing to do with the matter. It has in Canada. The British Government would never dare to land a British regiment in Canada without the consent of the Canadian Government. Do you suppose that would be so in Ireland? [A Voice: ‘Why not?’] I will tell you why not. Under Clauses 6 and 7 you abandon altogether and hand over to the British Government responsibility for the defence of Ireland. There is something about a local military defence force. If you place under a foreign Power responsibility for the defence of the coasts of Ireland, inevitably and naturally you place responsibility for the defence of the whole island on that foreign Government. How can you separate the coastal defences of an island from its internal defences? Are you to have two authorities? One saying what garrisons are to be here, and the other saying what garrisons are to be there along the coast, and how they are to be co-ordinated with some central armed military body. Those matters can only be settled by one authority—Army and Navy matters both—and that one authority will be obviously, and on the very terms of the Treaty, the British authority. Then you will find the letter of the law, the legal conditions, stepping in. What will be the Irish Army? It
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS (ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT:
I rise in support of the motion that the Treaty of Peace with Britain, signed by our plenipotentiaries in London and now before us, be approved by An Dáil. I would like, before entering upon argumentative or controversial matter, to say to those with whom I find myself at variance on this matter at issue, and to the great hearted man who leads them, how bitterly I feel this separation. It has been the purest pleasure of my life to work in comradeship with them. It has been my proudest privilege. I do not anticipate that I shall ever experience a keener pang than I felt when I realised their judgment and conscience dictated a course which mine could not endorse. If in Private Session I have been over-vehement in pleading a case, I think the President will be the first to understand and make allowances. I pay willing tribute to the sincerity and to the lofty idealism of those who hold different views from ours on this issue. Now I wish at the outset to make it clear that, in my opinion, this discussion should not centre round the question whether or not our plenipotentiaries should have signed these proposals. They are within their rights in signing; no one, I think, questions that. We could have given terms of reference to the plenipotentiaries; we gave none. We selected five men from An Dáil—men of sound judgment, conspicuous ability; men whose worth had been tested in four strenuous years. They were men capable of sizing up the situation. They were men who knew our strength and men who knew where and how we were not strong. They were men who knew the present situation and knew the future prospects, and we sent these men to London, trusting them, and they have brought back a document which they believe represents the utmost that can be got for the country, short of the resumption of war against fearful odds—a war which could be only one more test of endurance on the part of a people who have endured so gallantly—a war in which there could be no question of military victory. They have brought back a document which they believe embodies all that could be got for the country short of such a war. They signed, and they would have been false to their trust did they fall short of their responsibility for signing, and they are here to answer you and the country for signing. I have said they were entitled to sign. They did so on their individual responsibility. They were nominated, it is true, by the Cabinet, but they were appointed by An Dáil, and their responsibility was through An Dáil to the Irish people. Their mission was to negotiate a treaty of peace with Great Britain which on their individual responsibility they could recommend. Now this cannot be too much emphasised. They could not produce this final document here for discussion and consideration otherwise than over their signatures, and backed by their recommendation. At the last moment there were terms put up, not for bargain, but as the price of the signatures. There were big improvements on the final document—improvements affecting Trade, Defence, and North-East Ulster—and they were not put up to be brought back for consideration. The plenipotentiaries turned the matter over in their minds and they decided they ought to sign. They decided they would be cowards if they did not sign [applause]. They signed, and this document is theirs and not yours. It is perfectly open to you to reject it. It was perfectly free to the Cabinet to refuse to endorse it as Government policy. They did so. The President and two Ministers recommend its rejection. You are as free to reject this document; the English Government, if it so decided, was also free. Anything the English Government has done since, such as releasing prisoners, was done with full knowledge of the fact that the Parliament of each Nation had yet to declare its will, and without the endorsement of both Parliaments this instrument was null and void. It is not true, as has been stated by some newspapers, that there would be any
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Are Cabinet matters to be discussed here in Public Session?
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS (ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT):
I think so; I think the Irish people are entitled to hear the genesis of the present situation [applause].
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I hold Cabinet matters are matters for Private Sessions of the Dáil. I do not care what the Irish people are at liberty to get of communications and documents; but as responsible head of the Government, I protest against Cabinet matters being made public.
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS (ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT):
I think the President, and the dissenting minority, if I might put it that way—the two Ministers who stand
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I am quite ready that should be done. I protest still on principle against a member of a responsible Government speaking in public in reference to the negotiations.
MR. J. N. DOLAN (LEITRIM AND NORTH ROSCOMMON):
We are deciding the fate of the nation and everything should be told.
MR. D. CEANNT (EAST CORK):
From what Mr. O'Higgins is after suggesting—that he will go through all the private documents from the Cabinet—is every member in the assembly entitled to produce every letter he received from London about this business?
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS (ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT):
Is Document No. 2 Cabinet matter?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
As regards Document No. 2, I requested the House that it would be considered confidential, seeing the circumstances under which it was given to the House, until I brought forward a proposal that I was to put before the House. No responsible member of any Government would stand for one moment in my position after matters of this kind had been made public.
MR. LORCAN ROBBINS (LONGFORD AND WESTMEATH):
How are we to debate if we have not the articles brought out?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
If all the articles are to be produced, let them; but any references on parts are not fair.
MR. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
Is there any objection to producing a document that has been discussed in Secret Session for three days: are the Irish people not to be allowed to see that document?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It was a proposal on my own initiative for the distinct purpose of trying at the last moment to remedy what I considered a serious mistake for the nation.
MR. FINIAN LYNCH (KERRY AND WEST LIMERICK):
How does the President stand by that, seeing it was discussed for three days?
THE SPEAKER:
That is not in order.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY (MID-DUBLIN):
Were not certain documents submitted with the request that they be considered as confidential? Is not our President to be allowed at least equal courtesy?
MR. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
We submitted no documents. The members wished to see some documents; that is not the same thing. This is a document submitted by the President as the alternative to us. That is the document submitted from one side to the other, and the Irish people ought to see it [hear, hear].
MISS MACSWINEY (CORK CITY):
I say the question about the reading of documents which are relevant to the Treaty was decided in Private Session, because the Delegates said you could not possibly offer an amendment—that it was the Treaty or nothing. I think all the plain honest members realised it could not be offered in connection with the Treaty. The Treaty ought to be decided on its merits and its merits alone.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
With regard to the documents affecting the Delegation, which were handed in by the Irish and English Delegations, the Irish Delegation must be understood to be perfectly clear on this thing. We entered into an arrangement with the other side that neither side would publish anything without agreement with the other side. If we make that agreement we have no objection to publish; we are only refraining
THE SPEAKER:
The question is whether the proceedings of the Cabinet could be discussed here. The proceedings of the Cabinet could be only discussed with the consent of the Cabinet; that's plain. With regard to the other document. That question was brought before me earlier, and I ruled I cannot declare a discussion on that document out of order. It depends on the members' sense of propriety. They were requested by the President to regard the document as confidential. It is not a question of order; it is purely and simply the President's request.
MR. LORCAN ROBBINS (LONGFORD AND WESTMEATH):
I understand the Dáil is the master of the House and it is master of the Cabinet. Am I not in order in producing a motion that the document be brought in? It is a funny debating society, this.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA (MINISTER FOR DEFENCE):
It is not a debating society.
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS (ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT):
I would have wished to examine the difference between the Treaty and the proposals a united Cabinet would have proposed. I would have asked to what extent it affected the lives and fortunes of the plain people of Ireland, whose fate is in our hands. I would have asked you to consider the prospects the rejection of this Treaty opens up and come to a decision with a view to your tremendous responsibility. I do not wish to be forced into a stronger advocacy of the Treaty than I feel. I will not call it, as Mr. Devlin called the Home Rule Act of 1914, a Magna Charta of liberty. I do not hail it, as the late Mr. Redmond hailed it, as a full, complete, and final settlement of Ireland's claim. I will not say, as Mr. Dillon said, that it would be treacherous and dishonourable to look for more. I do say it represents such a broad measure of liberty for the Irish people and it acknowledges such a large proportion of its rights, you are not entitled to reject it without being able to show them you have a reasonable prospect of achieving more [hear, hear]. ‘The man who is against peace’ said the English Premier in presenting his ultimatum, ‘must bear now and for ever the responsibility for terrible and immediate war’. And the men there knew our resources and the resources of the enemy, and they held in their own hearts and consciences that we were not entitled to plunge the plain people of Ireland into a terrible and immediate war for the difference between the terms of the Treaty and what they knew a united Cabinet would recommend to the Dáil. Ireland, England, and the world must know the circumstances under which this Treaty is presented for your ratification. Neither honour nor principle can demand rejection of such a measure in face of the alternative so unequivocally stated by the English Prime Minister. Neither honour nor principle can make you plunge your people into war again. What remains between this Treaty and the fullness of your rights? It gives to Ireland complete control over her internal affairs. It removes all English control or interference within the shores of Ireland. Ireland is liable to no taxation from England, and has the fullest fiscal freedom. She has the right to maintain an army and defend her coasts. When England is at war, Ireland need not send one man nor contribute a penny. I wish to emphasise that. This morning the President said the army of the Irish Free State would be the army of His Majesty. Can His Majesty send one battalion or company of the Army of the Irish Free State from Cork into the adjoining county? If he acts in Ireland, he acts on the advice of his Irish Ministers [applause]. Yes, if we go into the Empire we go in, not sliding in, attempting to throw dust in our people's eyes, but we go in with our heads up. It is true that by the provisions of the Treaty, Ireland is included in the system known as the British Empire, and the most objectionable aspect of the Treaty is that the threat of force has been used to influence Ireland to a decision to enter this miniature league of nations. It has been called a league of free nations. I admit in practice it is so; but it is unwise and unstatesmanlike to attempt to bind any such league by any ties
MR. R. MULCAHY (CHIEF OF STAFF):
Let them talk for themselves.
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS (ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT):
Some of them have talked for themselves, and in support of the Treaty. I realise if these men had lost their lives in the war there would be people getting up and saying, ‘If they were here they would not support the Treaty.’ Now I come to King Charles' head—the Oath of Allegiance. Some call it an oath of allegiance. I do not know what it is. I can only speak of it in a negative way. It is not an oath of allegiance. There is a difference between faith and allegiance. Your first allegiance is to the Constitution of the Irish Free State and you swear faith to the King of England. Now faith is a thing that can exist between equals; there is if I might coin a word, mutuality, reciprocity. It is contingent and conditional, and I hold if you had sworn allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State anything that follows on that is not absolute but conditional on your Constitution being respected, and conditional on the terms of the Treaty
MR. SEAN MACSWINEY (WEST, SOUTH, AND MID- CORK):
I cannot say that any of the arguments advanced by any of the delegates or their supporters would change me. I think, on the whole, that their arguments are the arguments of despair. Mr. Arthur Griffith said that, in his opinion, this was a final settlement and a satisfactory settlement, the Minister for Finance says it is not a final settlement, and Deputy Kevin O'Higgins says he hopes for better terms. Mr. Arthur Griffith said the Treaty would be accepted by 95 per cent. of the people. I do not know exactly what percentage of the population of Ireland I represent, but I have my instructions in my pocket to vote against the Treaty. I do not refer to the military men in my constituency; I refer to the civil population. I hold against the Chairman of the Delegation that any one man won the war. The war is not won yet. This is only a period of truce. That is what we had always impressed on us in the South so as not to let ourselves get soft, and I hope we have not done so. He also said if we are going to go into the Empire, let us go in with our heads up. We cannot, and we never intended to go into it at all. I think the contention that has been made by speaker after speaker in favour of the Treaty that we are endeavouring to put the delegates in the dock, is wrong. I hold when the delegates came back we were entitled to know what led up to the signing, and not have it hurled at our heads like a bomb—and, I hope, like a dud. The Chairman of the Delegation says the Treaty was signed on an equal footing, equal speaking to equal. The Minister for Finance says there was no threat used to make them sign it. Deputy Kevin O'Higgins says they were threatened with immediate and terrible war and that the man who would refuse to sign the Treaty would go down to posterity as being the man who brought immediate and terrible war on the country. Other members of the delegation have not spoken yet. If they were threatened in private they will let us know. Deputy O'Higgins seems to have some inside information on the matter. I note all the Deputies speaking are vastly concerned with the civil population. I wonder if they have all their mandates from the civil population to accept? I doubt it. All I know is that the men who sent me up here instructed me to vote against it. They expressed the opinion that such advice or instruction was not necessary, but in case I might go wrong, they issued the instructions. The peculiar thing about this Treaty, and the move that's being made to ratify it, is, I don't quite know how to term it. But I will say one peculiar point about it is that seconding of the motion of acceptance by Commandant MacKeon. Commandant MacKeon is a brave soldier, whose bravery was acknowledged by the enemy as well as by his own [hear, hear]. None braver. And I hold when he was asked to second the motion, it was taking an unfair advantage of the rest of us [cries of ‘No’]. The Press of the country, as we know, is against us; it always has been. The Minister for Finance accepted responsibility for some of us being excommunicated. The last ban has not been lifted yet, but it does not worry us. Are the members serious about unanimity? We know people would stand solidly. behind us again. I can always speak for my own in the South. Probably the men saying ‘No, no’ could never speak for their constituents. I am sorry Commandant MacKeon seconded. I can answer for the Army of Munster. I am not a Divisional Commandant, but I can answer for the Army of Munster, and I have been empowered to answer for them [cries of ‘You cannot’].
MR. P. BRENNAN (CLARE):
You cannot.
MR. SEAN MACSWINEY (WEST, SOUTH, AND MID-CORK):
If I cannot,
MR. R. C. BARTON (KILDARE AND WICKLOW):
I am going to make plain to you the circumstances under which I find myself in honour bound to recommend the acceptance of the Treaty. In making that statement I have one object only in view, and that is to enable you to become intimately acquainted with the circumstances leading up to the signing of the Treaty and the responsibility forced on me had I refused to sign. I do not seek to shield myself from the charge of having broken my oath of allegiance to the Republic—my signature is proof of that fact [hear, hear]. That oath was, and still is to me, the most sacred bond on earth. I broke my oath because I judged that violation to be the lesser of alternative outrages forced upon me, and between which I was compelled to choose. On Sunday, December 4th, the Conference had precipitately and definitely broken down. An intermediary effected contact next day, and on Monday at 3 p.m., Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins, and myself met the English representatives. In the struggle that ensued Arthur Griffith sought repeatedly to have the decision between war and peace on the terms of the Treaty referred back to this assembly. This proposal Mr. Lloyd George directly negatived. He claimed that we were plenipotentiaries and that we must either accept or reject. Speaking for himself and his colleagues, the English Prime Minister with all the solemnity and the power of conviction that he alone, of all men I met, can impart by word and gesture—the vehicles by which the mind of one man oppresses and impresses the mind of another—declared that the signature and recommendation of every member of our delegation was necessary or war would follow immediately. He gave us until 10 o'clock to make up our minds, and it was then about 8.30. We returned to our house to decide upon our answer. The issue before us was whether we should stand behind our proposals for external association, face war and maintain the Republic, or whether we should accept inclusion in the British Empire and take peace.
Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins, and Eamonn Duggan were for acceptance and peace; Gavan Duffy and myself were for refusal—war or no war. An answer that was not unanimous committed you to immediate war, and the responsibility for that was to rest directly upon those two delegates who refused to sign. For myself, I preferred war. I told my colleagues so, but for the nation, without consultation, I dared not accept that responsibility. The alternative which I sought to avoid seemed to me a lesser outrage than the violation of what is my faith. So that I myself, and of my own choice, must commit my nation to immediate war, without you, Mr. President, or the Members of the Dáil, or the nation having an opportunity to examine the terms upon which war could be avoided. I signed, and now I have fulfilled my undertaking I recommend to you the Treaty I signed in London [applause].
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
I move the adjournment until to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock if the President is agreeable.
MISS MACSWINEY (CORK CITY):
Before the adjournment is put to the House, may I ask the Minister for Publicity whether the Press understand they are here by the courtesy of both sides to act impartially, and whether it is clearly understood that this is a very serious matter which has to go forth impartially to the nation, and whether it is part of the compact of the Press that they should report the speeches on
MR. DESMOND FITZGERALD (MINISTER FOR PUBLICITY):
I do not think the last speaker understands the circumstances of bringing out early editions. The last speech to appear was the President's, of which a resume was given. I have seen the chief reporters of the chief Dublin Press and they, to my knowledge, issued instructions to the reporters to report both sides fully. I am quite satisfied that when you come to see the later editions of the evening press you will see the President's speech absolutely verbatim. We have an arrangement which guarantees that as far as the Press which reaches most of the Irish people is concerned, the reports will be quite fair.
COUNTESS MARKIEVICZ (SOUTH DUBLIN):
With regard to the Press, could we not arrange to hold a Session to-morrow in the Mansion House where our friends would get a chance of hearing the arguments on both sides?
MR. SEAN MCENTEE (MONAGHAN):
With regard to the Director of Publicity's statement, I would like to refer him to the Evening Herald 5.30 Edition. The account there is absolutely disconnected, and it conveys an altogether wrong impression of the effect of the speech on the House. Further on I look at the speech of the Minister for Home Affairs, who seconded the rejection. Again the speech is very badly reported. Look, then, at the speech of Count Plunkett: it is altogether omitted. I quite understand that the gentlemen of the Press labour under great difficulties in the House, but in a paper issued at 5.30 there is no reason why the report of a speech delivered before 1 o'clock has not appeared.
THE SPEAKER:
We cannot have a general discussion on these things.
MR. J. J. WALSH (CORK CITY):
It may be taken by the Press and public that we are in favour of a partial presentation of reports. I would certainly appeal to the Press, and I would inform them that as far as I am concerned—and, I suppose, everybody else who intends voting for the Treaty—that we desire every point essential to the information of the Irish people should be included in the reports.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY (NATIONAL UNIVERSITY):
I beg to second the motion for adjournment.
MR. SEAN MCGARRY (MID-DUBLIN):
There has been a suggestion made by one of the Deputies from Cork that there was a compact between one side and the Press [cries of ‘No—sit down’]. I will not sit down. There was a suggestion of a compact [cries of ‘No, no’].
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS (MINISTER FOR FINANCE):
I think the Deputy from Clontarf misunderstands what the Deputy from Cork said. The Deputy from Cork was quite clear, but was going on an earlier edition. The late edition of the Telegraph has the speeches up to a certain point. They are given in full. Mine is not and I have no grievance [laughter].
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA (MINISTER FOR DEFENCE):
The Government is still in office, and as one member of it I will certainly use my influence to prevent the Press from being present to- morrow if the speeches are not fairly in to-morrow's papers [hear, hear]. With regard to the suggestion of the Dáil meeting in the Mansion House, the original decision of the Cabinet was that a public meeting would be held at the Mansion House, but owing to the Aonach being held there—a fact which we overlooked—we had to
ALDERMAN W. T. COSGRAVE (MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT):
If a decision on the matter were already given at the Secret Session, are we to be like a Board of Guardians, passing a resolution one day, and rescinding it the next day? [laughter].
THE SPEAKER:
There is a motion for adjournment.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA (MINISTER FOR DEFENCE):
I move that the Dáil meet at the Mansion House to-morrow at 11 o'clock.
MR. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
Is that a motion?
COUNTESS MARKIEVICZ (SOUTH DUBLIN):
I second it.
MR. GRIFFITH (MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS):
Before that is put, I may mention that President de Valera said to me that at a Public Session you will have partisans on both sides. The task of keeping order will be impossible and the selection of people to be allowed to the meeting will be impossible. Only a thousand can get in, and as the secretaries know, you will have all kinds of blame that this person was there, and that person was not. Every person who is not allowed in will say it is on account of the political issue. You will be speaking to a public meeting, not to a Session of Dáil Eireann.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I agree absolutely with Mr. Griffith in the matter [applause].
BRUGHA (MINISTER FOR DEFENCE):
In deference to the President, I would be willing to have a meeting here, but seeing what has been already said with regard to the obvious partiality of the Press, it is quite clear that we should go to a place that will hold the biggest number of the Irish people, so that they will hear the whole case. They won't hear our case if the statement in regard to the speeches published to-day is correct. The Irish people should know the whole case. Unfortunately up to now there are two sides; please God in the finish there will be only one. I presume the other side do not fear publicity [ ‘No, no’]. Then why not have the meeting there? Of course if the President insists—
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I do not want to insist, but the reasons given are cogent. It would be unwise on short notice like that to have a meeting in the Round Room. Such a course as is suggested would be a corrective to the partiality of the Press. It is simply as a corrective. If we cannot get fair play from the Press we must have to think of it. I would certainly not be glad to be forced to that sort of thing at this stage.
THE SPEAKER:
I declare the motion for the adjournment of the House until to-morrow morning carried.
The House rose.
The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS) took the Chair at 11.35 a.m. and said:
MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS
The business for to-day is the continuation of the discussion on the motion put before the Dáil by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Chairman of the Delegation to London. The first speaker is Teachta Seán Etchingham.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Just a moment, before you proceed with the discussion. This is the first time that I saw this document [(the Agenda for the day)]. Now according to this I am to move my motion again and President de Valera is going to move something else. I want to know why I was not consulted about this new procedure?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Yes, I gave notice that when the vote for ratification—I hope that word will not be misunderstood. We have said from the start that there could be no question of ratification of this Treaty. It is altogether ultra vires in the sense of making it a legal instrument. We can pass approval or disapproval. I again say when the vote is taken on this resolution of approval and decided, that I shall move No 2. This is simply to be the order of the day—to provide for the possibility of a vote being taken to-day, so that my motion would be in order.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Am I to understand that the first vote has to be taken on approval or disapproval of the Treaty?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Yes.
MR. SEAN ETCHINGHAM:
I was one of those who
at the first Public Session, and during the Private Session, tried to
have all our business transacted in public. I thought that some of
those who were opposed to us in this matter conveyed the idea that we
wanted to have it in private, that we were afraid to face the Irish
people. Well now that is not so. I know, and we have not very many
politicians on our side or in this assembly, that everything that has
been done has been in the interest of Ireland. But the most tragic
thing of all was not that the Delegates did not return to Dublin, but
that they published that Treaty, and that the Minister for Foreign
Affairs gave an interview and said to us and to the people of Ireland,
‘The end of the seven-and-a-half centuries of
fight is over and Irish liberty is won’. Our people have been
stampeded. Our people, while they may know something about it to-day,
knew that the entire Cabinet sent the Plenipotentiaries back on that
particular Saturday, and they felt that they signed with the will of
the entire Cabinet: that is what had been conveyed to the country. Now
I wanted everything in this matter, every document presented to the
Irish people—they will be in time. I wanted all our discussions
out in public, before as many people as can attend, for I knew that we
had no Press. I told you here in Private Session, and I reiterate it
here, that we have not even the mosquito
Press,
we have not a Scissors and Paste; we have not A
Spark.I have discovered that we have one provincial paper,
The Connachtman. That is the position we are in, and we
are not afraid to face the public, and we are not afraid to have every
document published. The Delegates have given their word of honour to
the English Government that they won't publish these documents unless
the English Government agree, and we have to hold to that word in the
interests of the honour of our country. So we are told. But I say here
we want everything in the open; we want the Irish people to
faithful—according to Webster, and he is a classic in this question of settling the fate of a nation—means ‘
—Revelation, chapter 2.
Ah, if you go into this thing, take this oath without any mental reservation and go in, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs told you, and as the Assistant Minister of Local Government and one of the Deputies for Tyrone told you, with your heads up. I have seen dogs whipped, and I know where their tails are. Go in, anyhow, with your heads up; go in and for the first time in the history of this country be part and parcel of the British Empire. You know it perfectly well. I noticed yesterday when the one man able to deal with this, who tried to deal with it—Erskine Childers—got up to speak, there was a whole procession left the hall. There were young men leaving the hall who even had hardly looked at this Treaty and are going to vote for it. It was a grand demonstration of indifference. Oh, the agony of heart that anyone must feel, after the glorious fight that was put up, that men would do such a thing as that and would not listen to the one man who is equal to it here in this assembly. I have never heard it really touched by any man that wants to have it pushed down the throats of the Irish Nation. I even heard a Member of this assembly actually trying to pass a joke about that statement of Riobárd Bartún. That is terrible. Do we realise what we are doing? Ah, I am afraid we do not—some of us—MR. COLLINS:
I am afraid ye don't.
MR. ETCHINGHAM:
We may be honest in this matter. We may say it is the very best thing for this country, but let us not have any illusions about it, let us remember that we are going into the British Empire and putting our people in it. Every child born in this country, if this thing is ratified, will be a citizen of the British Empire. Can any of you deny that? Can any of you who left the House and did not listen to Mr. Erskine Childers, try to deny that? The children will be born into allegiance to the King of England; that is implied by birth in any of his Dominions. And this is to be a Dominion, this old Irish Nation. The Minister of Home Affairs challenged you to contradict him that you cannot leave this part of the British Empire in future without a passport from the British Foreign Office. There are none to contradict it. My God! then what is the use of having this camouflaged Free State? They gave us a name, but my good friend, Commandant MacKeon, is looking for substance. Has he even that? No, he
MR. FINIAN LYNCH:
A Chinn Chomhairle is a lucht na Dála, tá fhios agaibh go leir cá seasuighim-se ar an gceist seo. Dubhart libh cheana fein sa tsiosón príomháideach go bhfuilim-se go dian ar thaobh an Chonnartha so. A Chinn Chomhairle, before I pass on to say the few things that I have to say about the Treaty itself, I would like to refer to a few things in Deputy Etchingham's sermon. With regard to publicity, he seems to suggest that those who are for the Treaty are afraid of publicity. Every document that this Dáil wanted, a committee was appointed to provide them with, and we more than once expressed our wish that every document should be published to the Irish people, including Document No. 2. Deputy Etchingham is trying to tell this House and trying to tell the people of Ireland that Lloyd George, shaking a paper in front of the face of Michael Collins was able to put the wind up Michael Collins. Let the people of Ireland judge whether it is so easy to put the wind up Michael Collins. That kind of eyewash is not going to go down with me or with any man who has soldiered with Collins, or with any person in Ireland who knows what he has done. As regards the statement that we will have to get a passport from the British Government to travel out of Ireland after this, what have you got to do now? Have you not to get a passport signed by them now, or else you have got to go to Michael Collins to get you out of the country [hear, hear]. Now we have had a great deal of emotion here and a great deal of emotional speeches about the dead. I say for myself that the bones of the dead have been rattled indecently in the face of this assembly. Now I am alive, and I took my chance of being killed as well as any white man in this assembly, and I challenge any man to deny that. Now I am here to interpret myself, and I stand for this Treaty; if I were dead, and if I were to be interpreted, I should ask to be interpreted by the men who soldiered with me, and by the men who worked with me in the National movement. It has almost become the custom here in this debate for every man getting up to throw bouquets at his own head. It started, as far as I well remember, with a tale of boy heroism from Belfast, and it permeated south through Louth, Kildare, and Tipperary. I am not going to throw any bouquets at my own head, and I want no one else to throw bouquets at my head. I did my share as I could , and I don't want anyone to thank me for it. I would ask to be interpreted by comrades who have stood with me, men like Gearoid
A Voice from the body of the Hall:
No.
MR. LYNCH:
With one exception. Yes, a minority of one against, an Englishwoman. Well, if I am interrupted from the body of the Hall, I will reply. I say that that person should be removed from the Hall, a person who interferes with a speaker in this assembly, and I ask the chair to protect me. I have said that we are not afraid of publicity, because we are not afraid to show the Irish people that it is not a difference between this Treaty and the Republic. It is as between this Treaty and a compromise which is less than the Republic. I hold, anyhow, as one plain man that it is a choice of compromises, and I will have the compromise that delivers some goods and not the compromise that takes you back to war—takes the Irish people back to war. I will swallow the compromise that gives something. I will have none of the compromise that drives this country again into a welter of blood. I, too, am no constitutional lawyer. There has been a suggestion that the Provisional Government or Transitional Government—presumably the Government that is provided for under this Treaty—if set up by this assembly would be a usurpation. I would like to know then where constitutional Government begins. If a Government set up by the majority of the representatives of the people of a country is a usurpation, then what in the name of God is constitutional Government? Somebody has said, ‘Time will tell’. Yes, I say time will tell, and I have my right to interpret what time will tell just as much as the person who made the
MRS. O'CALLAGHAN:
A Chinn Chomhairle is a lucht na Dála, ba mhaith liom labhairt ar an gceist seo, ach ós rud e ná fuil an Ghaedhilg ag na Teachtaí go leir ní mór dom labhairt as Bearla. A Chinn Chomhairle, I rise to support the President's motion for the rejection of these Articles of Agreement, and, lest anybody should afterwards question my right to stand here and criticise and condemn this Treaty, I want it to be understood here and now that I have the clearest right in the world. I paid a big price for that Treaty and for my right to stand here. The last Deputy talked about indecent rattling of the bones of the dead in this assembly. Since I came up to Dublin for this Session I have been told, with a view to changing my vote, I suppose, that my husband was never a Republican. I challenge any Deputy in this Dáil to deny my husband's devotion to the Republic, a devotion he sealed with his blood. I would ask the gentlemen who say he was never a Republican, but who say they are Republicans, and intend to vote for this Treaty, to leave my husband's name out of the matter. I have been told, too, that I have a duty to my constituents. They, I am told, would vote for this Treaty, and I ought to consider their wishes. Well, my political views have always been known in Limerick, and the people of Limerick who elected me Deputy of this Dáil two months after my husband's murder, and because of that murder, know that I will stand by my convictions and by my oath to the Irish Republic. There is a third point I want to clear up. When it was found that the women Deputies of An Dáil were not open to canvass, the matter was dismissed with the remark: ‘Oh, naturally, these women are very bitter’. Well, now, I protest against that. No woman in this Dáil is going to give her vote merely because she is warped by a deep personal loss. The women of Ireland so far have not appeared much on the political stage. That does not mean that they have no deep convictions about Ireland's status and freedom. It was the mother of the Pearses who made them what they were. The sister of Terence MacSwiney influenced her brother, and is now carrying on his life's work. Deputy Mrs. Clarke, the widow of Tom Clarke, was bred in the Fenian household of her uncle, John Daly of Limerick. The women of An Dáil are women of character, and they will vote for principle, not for expediency. For myself, since girlhood I have been a Separatist. I wanted, and I want, an independent Ireland, an Ireland independent of the British Empire, and I can assure you that my life in Limerick during 1920, culminating in the murder of my husband last March—my life and that event have not converted me to Dominion status within the British Empire. I would like to say here that it hurts me to have to vote against the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He was a friend of my husband. Every night in my home, as in most Irish homes, prayers went up for him, and for the President, and for all who were standing by the country. I have the greatest admiration for him, but this is not a matter of devotion to a leader, or devotion to a party, it is a matter of principle, and you may sneer at principle, some of you. It is a matter of principle, a matter of conscience, a matter of right and wrong. From a study of the private documents, and from what happened at the last Dáil meetings in August and September, I have no hesitation in admitting that the delegates who went to London had full powers to negotiate and conclude a Treaty, but—and I am only a plain person, a person of plain intelligence—I understood they
MR. P. HOGAN:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I rise to support this motion, that Dáil Eireann approves of this Treaty, and, before coming to the Treaty itself, I want to repeat here again a point which I think could never be repeated
for everand
permanentbandied about by Mr. Childers, by the President, and by the other people who were expounding constitutional law in connection with the Treaty. The words
for everand
permanentare words that should not be used in connection with the Treaty. The Treaty is a bargain between two Sovereign States, and our delegates in making that Treaty made the first Treaty that was ever made by Ireland with England and went further to get recognition of Ireland's sovereign status than all that has been done in all our history. Now that is all I have got to say about status. I say again under the letter of that document we have legal sanctions for sovereign status if we have the pluck and nerve to go and take it up. I ask are we going to throw that away, and for what? Now I might be wrong. I am not infallible, but it is the duty of every Deputy who is going to vote against the Treaty to convince himself honestly that I am wrong. Now with regard to the powers you have under the Treaty, we found Mr. Childers talking yesterday that you have not got such and such under the Treaty, and then that even if you had you would not get it. You cannot do business and you cannot clear up anything on these slippery lines. I don't mean slippery in any dishonest way, but confused thinking of that sort. Let us first of all consider what the letter of that Treaty gives us. It gives us complete financial control, it gives us as much financial independence as England has, as France has, and a lot more than Germany has. Education was mentioned, and somebody said it gave us more powers for education than the Councils' Bill. It does; it gives us complete, untrammelled control over education, as much as England has, and as much as France has. I want to know if anybody will deny that, and I do not want to have any confusion about it. It gives us the right to raise an Army, and I could furnish a series of arguments in this respect, but I do not think it necessary to do so. It gives us after five years the right to provide for our own coastal defence. [Cries of ‘No’ and ‘Yes’]. Now I want to clear up this point:
I was wrong [applause]. I want to be perfectly honest with you. I said that after five years Ireland will have the right to have her own coastal defence. It turns out to be a share.Until an arrangement has been made between the British and Irish Governments whereby the Irish Free State undertakes her own coastal defence, the defence by sea of Great Britain and Ireland shall be undertaken by his Majesty's Imperial Forces, but this shall not prevent the construction or maintenance by the Government of the Irish Free State of such vessels as are necessary for the protection of the Revenue or the Fisheries.
The foregoing provisions of this Article shall be reviewed at a conference of Representatives of the British and Irish Governments to be held at the expiration of five years from the date hereof with a view to the undertaking by Ireland of a share in her own coastal defence.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
She won't have that either.
MR. HOGAN:
I will make a present now to anyone here of that point. We have the right under this Treaty to have ambassadors in every country in the world—a legal right; Canada has the right and we have it. We have the right under this document to sign any Treaty we like, and to refuse to sign any Treaty we like. We have the right to see, before we are directly or indirectly, or in the slightest way committed to anything that may lead to war, that we be fully consulted, and that our consent be given. That is the letter of that Treaty. In fact Mr. Erskine Childers described the Canadian powers as ‘virtual independence’. We have virtual independence under the letter of that Treaty. We have it on the admission of Mr. Childers—
MR. CHILDERS:
Not on my admission.
MR. HOGAN:
Under the letter of that Treaty, if we have Canadian status we have virtual independence. We have more, we have a far wider status than Canada, because, as far as our sovereignty is concerned, we are a long step in front of the most forward and powerful nation in the British Commonwealth
proximityargument used also and used in the most extraordinarily confused sense. The
proximityargument apparently applies to this Treaty, but to nothing else. If the delegates brought back a Treaty on the lines of the recognition by England of an isolated independent Republic the
proximityargument would be there, and there in full. I am not going into the question now as to whether the possession or the occupation by a few marines under the guns of our Army of a few ports of Ireland as a military proposition makes a terrible difference. I will leave that to Commandant MacKeon and Mr. Childers. I won't go into it. What I want to know is: is our position that we are getting from England under a signed document all these powers and that we have not the pluck to come forward and take them? That is where you land yourself with that argument; that is the position. Now there is just one other point. We heard a lot about a final settlement. It honestly seems to me that we are taking ourselves too seriously in that matter. If every Member of this Dáil—and we are not unanimous, I am sorry to say—got together and unanimously agreed to come to some settlement, England being ready to consent to anything which would be a final settlement, they would not succeed. If we got an isolated Republic to-morrow morning our political developments, our development amongst the nations is only beginning. That, I think, is clear, and the question for us now is this: the Minister for Finance said, and rightly said, that for 700 years we are fighting, but we are up against a cancer in our midst; we are up against peaceful penetration; we are up against the fact that our population is draining away from this country and her resources are dying; that the invader is with us, and are we never going to start for ourselves? Are we always going to take up the attitude of seeking something that is a little in front of us while the world always moves on. I say that is the real point. Now finally we sent over our Plenipotentiaries, and I think everyone will agree with this, to do the most difficult task that any Plenipotentiaries in history were ever set to do. I say they have brought you back peace with honour. I say they have done their duty and that our time comes now [applause].
MR. SEAN T. O'CEALLAIGH:
A Chinn Chomhairle is a lucht na Dála, nílim-se chun mórán a rá, agus an meid atá agam le rá b'fhearr liom go mór e go leir a rá as Gaedhilg. B'fhearr le n-a lán againn e is dócha. Ach ós ceist tháchtach e agus ná tuigeann mórán des na Teachtaí an Ghaedhilg caithfead labhairt as Bearla. B'fhearr liom dá labhartaí níos mó Gaedhilge anso agus is ceart dom an míniú so. a thabhairt anso. A Chinn Chomhairle, there is no need to rehearse for you the articles of the so-called Treaty. Every Member knows them by heart, and all are agreed that what makes the Treaty so objectionable—to those who find it objectionable—is that it brings us into the British Empire, whether with our heads up or our hands down. We are to become West British by consent after 700 years. That and the loss of part of our territory, which I will touch upon afterwards, is my principal objection to the ratification of this Treaty. The first two clauses of the Treaty stereotype us as British subjects. Whatever material advantages we might gain from accepting this, the price paid is too high. If this is not true, can the supporters of this Treaty tell us why offers of Dominion status were so scoffed at by all of us on former occasions. A Dominion status is honourable in the case of Canada and Australia. Canada is free because she wills to be united to England, and Canada and Australia and New Zealand are in the great majority peopled by Britons. Ireland as a Dominion is not free because she does not will to be united to England or to the British Commonwealth, if you like, except, of course, for those who are marching into the British Empire with their beads up. And, moreover, Ireland is not peopled by Britain. Ireland is the old historic Celtic nation that for so many centuries had struggled for her existence and her national ideals next door to the race described by Jefferson in the graphic phrase ‘bloody pirates’. We have survived until to-day, and by heavens,
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
On a point of order, is this assembly concerned with whether the Deputy who is speaking will or will not be a candidate for the Parliament of the Free State?
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
That is not a point of order.
MR. S. T. O'CEALLAIGH:
I believe that it is a violation of the Sinn Fein Constitution, and also a contradiction of the Manifesto issued by the Sinn Fein Executive to the electorate before the General Election of December, 1918, and to me a distinct violation of our Declaration of Independence made at the first meeting of the Dáil in January, 1919. The documents I have here leave no doubt about that. I know that it will be claimed by other speakers that this oath is not an oath of allegiance to the King of England. For me, whether you describe it as an oath of allegiance or fidelity, or my word of honour, or even the vaguest undertaking, it is all the same, because the important thing is not so much the form of expression or declaration but the system of government which they are meant to typify. Government by Governor-General! Dominion status for Ireland! England imagines that she puts her finger in the eye of the Irish by attenuating an objectionable expression. She must laugh to think that while we pay with words she gets adopted the system of Government she ever wished to impose upon us. Let me remind you that we have not got Irish unity in return for this oath. The two great principles for which so many have died, and for which they would still gladly die—no partition of Ireland and no subjugation of Ireland by any foreign power—have gone by the board in this Treaty, and some good men are thinking of voting for it. Of all the things I have heard President de Valera say, I have never been in more thorough agreement with him than when he said in his speech last August, ‘Whatever may come of these negotiations, however we may come out of them, after our appalling history, one thing we cannot be excused for, and
THE SPEAKER:
Before we adjourn. Sean T. O'Ceallaigh has moved this motion: ‘That on re-assembling after the luncheon interval, the Dáil will go into Private Session for half-an-hour to hear the reply of the Minister of Defence to a statement made in regard to military affairs’.
MR. O'CEALLAIGH:
There were statements made at the Private Session which the Minister of Defence wishes to reply to. He has reported to me that he has the official reports now to put before the House, and if the House agrees to go into Private Session immediately after they return from luncheon, he would be very glad to have an opportunity of placing them before them.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I thought I heard the Minister of Defence asking for publicity. Now there is a request for a Private Session. We want everything fully known in public. We are now asked to go into Private Session again after being in Private Session for four days, and during which the Minister of Defence did reply on more than one occasion. Now I want to know whether the public are going to be fooled or not to be fooled?
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I was going to rise on a point of order to second the motion.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Everything has been fully discussed privately, and nothing has been stated here by any Member that requires a private reply.
MR. CEANNT:
I rise to support the motion. I see a great necessity for having a Private Session. I don't see why the English garrison in Ireland should be made aware of our preparations for the future. I think the Minister of Defence knows his business, and I think it would be a betrayal of the people of Ireland if we were to tell
MR. R. MULCAHY:
I would like to support the motion. If the Minister of Defence wants to give the answers in private, there is not the slightest difficulty I see from the point of view of routine. I am sure there is no Member of this House who cannot listen to anything that can be said on either side at a private meeting.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I would like to say this, that I think it is most unworthy of certain Members of the house who know so well the whole circumstances to suggest we want secrecy. I think something else besides the Treaty has come from Downing Street.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I don't know what the President means by something else. [Cries of ‘Withdraw’].
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It means simply this: I think it most unworthy, considering all the circumstances, and the knowledge that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has of the matters that are under discussion, that a suggestion should be made that we want to keep anything from the public.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I want to know if these are private military matters that were discussed for three days. If the Minister of Defence wants to make a statement on anything that has been said in Public Session, there is no reason why he should not do so in public.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA (MINISTER OF DEFENCE):
It should be quite obvious to everybody who knows the business end of a gun that there are things which may be necessary to be known by this House in regard to military affairs that might do serious injury to us, if when this Treaty is turned down, war be started against us, should they now be disclosed to the enemy. There were certain statements made late on Saturday evening to which I could only make a general reply. Those statements obviously were intended to frighten nervous people here in the Dáil, if there are such. Apparently the people in favour of this Treaty think there are such.It remains to be seen whether there are. In any case, I could not see the heads of the various sections into which I have the Department of Defence divided to enable me to refute the statements which really impugned the industry, the efficiency, or honesty of these heads of these sections. I have seen them since, and what I purpose doing is making a short statement myself and reading a short statement from them with regard to the charges—because they were charges—made late on Saturday night. It is for that reason I want a Private Session. It will not take me more than ten or fifteen minutes to say what I have to say.
MR. GRIFFITH:
That proposal is different from what I understood it. I understood the Minister of Defence wanted to go into Private Session to reply to anything that was said in Public Session. Do I take it that when the Minister of Defence makes this statement, he does not mean to suppress criticism of that in Private Session from other members?
MR. BRUGHA:
Certainly. It will not require more than half-an-hour.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I agree.
MR. NICHOLLS:
I would like to know if there would be any chance of this assembly meeting punctually. I think every man and woman here have made up their minds by this. I don't see the object of debating outside before coming in here.
MR. M. COLLINS:
In regard to this question of punctuality, everybody here knows that I am in my place every morning. I suggest that we ought to appoint somebody who would do duty as Sergeant-at-Arms and get the Members in. If we don't start punctually, it shows we don't mean business.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
I suggest that the chair be taken at the hour fixed.
The House then adjourned.
On resuming after the Private Session,
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
A Chinn Chomhairle, before the regular work of the Session begins, I would like to withdraw a remark I made at the end of the last Session. As you all know, I have not a hot temper, that it does not as a rule betray me, but the remark which I made is open to a construction certainly I did not want anybody to put upon it. It is serious on account of the fact that I put a certain document before the House at the Secret Session. I put it in for the purpose of eliciting the views of the Members and seeing the general feeling with respect to it. Reference to that document appeared in the public Press, and I felt that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was taking a tactical advantage of it to create an impression in the public mind that we had something to conceal. It put me in mind of one occasion in Downing Street when I remember I met with similar tactics. It was simply the reminiscence of that that made me suggest that he had brought something else besides the Treaty from Downing Street. I thought that an effort to make it appear that I was trying to conceal something from the public was unworthy of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am afraid my reply was still more unworthy and I apologise and withdraw it [applause].
MR. GRIFFITH:
I am quite satisfied with what President de Valera has said. It is quite worthy of him [applause].
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS:
As we are on a matter like that, it might be well if another Deputy would withdraw the remark he made with regard to the coalition between Downing Street and the Delegation [hear, hear].
THE SPEAKER:
I have received a telegram signed ‘Ginnel’ and addressed to the President. [Reading] ‘I vote against ratification. Ginnell’.
MR. SEAN MILROY:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I believe every Member of the assembly knows upon what side I stand. If they have any doubts as to what is the reason or reasons why I take that stand, there will be no doubt left in their minds when I sit down. This assembly is the sovereign assembly of the Irish Nation, the sovereign representative assembly, and if it is not a representative assembly it has no purpose whatever [hear, hear]. Being a representative assembly, we are here endeavouring to give expression to the will of the people. If we resist the will of the people we are false to the trust imposed in us [hear, hear]. The will of the people to-day is that this Treaty shall go through, that this Treaty shall be ratified [hear, hear]. I am going to take off the gloves in this fight. There are men who to-day are resisting the will of the Irish people. Can they deny it? [Several Voices: ‘Yes!’] You deny that? [‘Yes!’] Very well, then, if you gain the majority in this assembly, are you prepared to put before the people of Ireland the issue where the people will decide? [‘Yes!’]. Very well, the people will decide. President de Valera in the course, not only of the Private Session, but of the Public Session, declared that he believed the Irish people would ratify this Treaty if it were put to them.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Yes, at this moment, but not after a campaign when it would be explained to them.
MR. MILROY:
Who would sit in judgment upon the Irish people?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Themselves.
MR. MILROY:
Is it the majority of the Cabinet of Dáil Eireann? Where has vanished that principle of self- determination of the Irish people? [hear, hear]. What has become of the principle upon which we fought the whole of the bye- elections since 1908, since 1916, which is the principle that all just government rests upon the consent of the governed? [hear, hear]. Very well, then, before you can vindicate your assertion that you are not resisting the will of the people, you will have to take a decision of the people upon this grave issue with which the nation is confronted [hear, hear]. That is not all with which I am concerned. What I am concerned with is, in this decision upon this question affecting not only this generation but many generations—probably the whole future of our nation in this question—that it shall not be decided over the heads of the Irish people. I tell you if you attempt to do
MISS MACSWINEY:
You can speak later on.
MR. MILROY:
When the first Session of this Dáil met, President de
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Would I be in order? I think—
MR. MILROY:
I beg your pardon—
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I think, at least, these statements should be substantiated. It is quite a wrong construction to put on this. Everybody in this House knows it is a wrong construction.
MR. MILROY:
I do not know what construction Members of the House put on it. I only know the construction, the obvious construction, that comes home to my mind, and I am expressing that. If, when I have finished, it can be shown it does not bear that construction, I am quite prepared to let the matter pass and apologise if the circumstances warrant apology. I want to say how it appears to me, and how it appears to many others. When the Public Session began, we were not allowed to discuss the second document, but were promised that a second set of alternative proposals would be brought along. What object could that have save to make Members withhold their support of the Treaty in the expectation that something better would follow when the next set of alternative proposals was brought along? I may be wrong, but that is how it strikes me. Now, the value of this particular document, the only value for my purpose, is this, that the only reason that I regret it was not available for this discussion is this, that it does put before this assembly of the Irish people, it does disclose what is the issue which is agitating this Dáil at the present time. That issue is not the Treaty versus the Irish Republic.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is.
MR. MILROY:
It is not the Treaty versus the Irish Republic. The issue that we are faced with here in this Dáil is the issue of the difference between the Treaty and Document No. 2.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA AND OTHERS:
No! No!
MR. MILROY:
It is the issue, and no amount—I do not want to use an offensive word, I will use the word manoeuvring—and I say no amount of manoeuvring is going to obscure this Dáil or confuse the minds of the Irish Nation. The issue which this Dáil has to decide is between two forms of association with the British Empire [hear, hear]. Deputy Etchingham this morning said that this Treaty had the effect of putting a bow window in the western gable of the British Empire. Now I think it must have been Document No. 2 he was thinking about, because a bow window is very like external association [applause]. Another thing I want to say is this, and I wish all Ireland could hear me saying it, and I wish Mr. Ginnell could have heard me saying it before he sent that telegram. This is what I want to say. Mr. de Valera [A Voice: ‘President’]President de Valera, I beg his pardon; President de Valera said that the difference between the two documents was only a shadow.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I will speak of that document when the time comes.
MR. MILROY:
The difference between the two documents is only a shadow.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Why would Britain go to war then?
MR. MILROY:
I am not quoting the words of any Englishman, I am quoting the words of President de Valera himself, that the difference between these two documents is only a shadow. Are we going to send
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is not for a shadow.
MR. MILROY:
It is time we realised where we are drifting to. I heard to-day passionate speeches. I heard to-day speeches that did not make people smile. I heard from Mrs. O'Callaghan to-day one of the most pathetic stories I ever listened to. It is not a thing to smile at, but a thing that cut to the heart of anyone listening to it. We don't want these tragedies multiplied a thousandfold in Ireland if we can help it [hear, hear]. I am not going to appeal to anything but your real and clear conception of what Ireland's national interests are. President de Valera said that in this Treaty we were presuming to set boundaries to the march of the Irish Nation. So far from that being true, we are smashing down the barriers that obstruct the march of the Irish Nation. He said that if this Treaty were passed the subsequent history that followed would be the same as that which followed the Act of Union. Whether you accept or reject our definition of this Treaty you cannot question the fact that it does give the Irish Nation great, tremendous, national powers. That is the difference between the Act of Union and this Treaty. The Act of Union took away from the Irish people their right, such as they had, to direct, mould and control their own land. This Treaty brings back to Ireland these powers [hear, hear]. There are other things that the President said I can only attribute to the impulse of the moment. He described the Treaty which, as I have said, brings back these powers to Ireland as the most unparalleled surrender in history. I think he must have been thinking of the surrender of these things on the part of the British Government [hear, hear]. He spoke of this as the most ignoble document that Irishmen could put their hands to. I can only put that down to some wave of eccentricity or distraction of mind when he was carried away with the flood of his own fury. I don't think that it can be denied, as I have already said, that this Treaty gives Ireland great and comprehensive powers, that it gives to Ireland these powers to direct and mould its own destiny of the future life of the nation. It eliminates from Ireland the British Army and gives to the Irish people the power of creating an army of their own to defend their country. Various definitions of the powers that this Treaty gives to Ireland have been given. I will quote another—Professor O'Rahilly of Cork. He says: ‘We have all the really important powers required for our normal, political, social and economic life. We have unfettered freedom in forming our political constitution, in social legislation, in education, in developing our national resources, in fostering our agriculture and industries, in framing our tariff policy, in regulating our taxes, our currency laws, our finances, in appointing consular agents abroad, in concluding commercial treaties with other countries’. I want to know if that is not the substance of real national power and national authority, what is it? Is this result going to produce the effects on Ireland's future the same as the Act of Union which President de Valera predicted? If these things are not going to produce a healthy state of life in the Irish Nation, then in God's name will President de Valera tell us what will?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I will. Go on.
MR. MILROY:
What I have to say is that this is the most stupendous achievement that Ireland has gained for centuries. I will tell you another thing. This Treaty, as I have already said, provides for the evacuation of Ireland by the British Army. If war breaks out again on the rejection of this Treaty, that war will be fought to keep the British Army from evacuating the country. Is that a policy, again I ask, that recommends itself? Would it recommend itself to a lunatic? Would anybody but a lunatic turn aside a policy that should recommend itself to a sovereign assembly of the Irish Nation, to the men and women of Ireland who have the future destinies in their
MISS MACSWINEY:
Shame!
MR. MILROY:
I am speaking what are facts. It is a shame. The whole nation will cry shame upon men and women and the policy that sent the nation to its doom for such a thing as that described by President de Valera as a shadow. We are told another thing, that we dishonour the memory of the dead when we speak in support of this Treaty, that we have forgotten the memory of the dead. It is not because we have forgotten, but because we remember the dead who died for Ireland that we stand where we do to-day [hear, hear]. It is because we want to ensure their sacrifices shall not have been in vain [hear, hear]. Now I come to the question of the oath of allegiance. We have had great denunciation of this oath of allegiance. I wonder would Members of the Dáil like to have the alternative oath of allegiance? How would the Members of Dáil like to have this form of oath:
Now, I suggest, would that be more acceptable than the other? [Voices: ‘Yes!’ ‘No! No!’] I am surprised that it would not, because it is the difference between the oath of the Treaty and that oath is the issue before the Dáil to-day [applause]. There, the cat is out of the bag now [hear, hear].I [gap: blank to be filled/extent: 2/3 words] do swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of Ireland and to the Treaty of Association of Ireland with the British Commonwealth of Nations and to recognise the King of Great Britain as Head of the Associated States.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I think this is most prejudicial. I think it is a shame that in a case like this that a matter should be dragged in which is not relevant to this issue.
MR. MILLROY:
Not relevant? It is the whole issue.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I say it is most unfair treatment. It is not in the document—these secret documents which have been withheld from the public as a whole. If all the documents are published, I am quite ready and content. Let them all be published by all means. I say it is an attempt to prejudice not this body, because you cannot prejudice it. You all know all the facts, but to prejudice the public [hear, hear].
MR. MILROY:
Is this a point of order or a speech?
MR. GRIFFITH:
It is right that the Irish people should know that is the difference between us. I stand here and demand that the Irish people shall know the truth [hear, hear].
MR. MILROY:
I trust that what I have said will not unduly disturb the tranquillity of this assembly. I am here. I represent at least twice as much of Ireland as a good many Members of Dáil Eireann. I represent two
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
So have we all.
MR. MILROY:
I, for my part, am not going to forget that I have to study the dispositions of those who sent me here, and the interests of those people and the interests of the Irish Nation are higher to me, greater to me, than the susceptibilities of any man or any body of men. We are fighting for the life and security of the Irish Nation. I told you when I began I was going to take the gloves off, and I don't mean to be prevented from fighting this battle to the end, because it is not convenient to some people that the whole truth about this matter should be told.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
That is not so.
A DEPUTY:
You are down and out.
MR. MILROY:
A gentleman has said—he did not think I overheard him—that I am damning myself. I don't care what the personal consequences to me are.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is not suggested by anybody.
MR. MILROY:
I don't care what the personal consequences are to me as a result of the attitude I am taking up and the vote I will give. I am thinking of the Irish Nation and the Irish Nation only. Now many people are susceptible about this particular oath in the Treaty, and if I adopted a procedure which one Member here seems to have assumed a monopoly of, and challenged this assembly to have it put to a show of hands of those Members who have already taken an oath of allegiance to England, I think there would be very few on the side of those who are standing for the Treaty. I am not going to put that challenge, but I do think we ought to realise what is the truth about this oath. This oath is distorted and mispresented. It has been clearly defined and explained by Deputy Hogan to-day, and I venture to think that even Mr. Childers will not be able to shatter one iota of his arguments. I want to say a word about Ulster. I have some responsibility, or at least some work in connection with the question of Ulster. Of late I am keenly interested in this matter. My two constituencies are both Ulster constituencies. I understand also that one of the Members for Monaghan is preparing, or has prepared, a fierce onslaught on this Treaty in connection with the question of Ulster. But I do think that his thunderbolt should have been reserved for the head of the President, because President de Valera stated that we would not coerce Ulster. He committed us to the task of finding some way out and making some arrangement without sending the troops of the Irish Republic to overawe the people in the six counties [hear, hear]. I think many of those who criticised the delegates must have been under the impression that when they left Dublin to go to London they set out as miracle workers. Did they expect—did the Deputy for Monaghan expect—that when they went to London they would be able to soften or destroy the asperities of centuries? Did they expect that they had more power there than Lloyd George and his Coalition Government? Did they expect that the five men who went there would be able to bring back an arrangement that was at variance with the declaration of President de Valera that we were not going to coerce Ulster? The fact is that the provisions of the Treaty are not Partition provisions, but they ensure eventual unity in Ireland. But, as a matter of fact, whether there were Partition provisions or not, the economic position and the effects on the six counties, area is this, that sooner or later isolation from the rest of Ireland would have so much weight on the economic state of these six counties as to compel them to renew their association with the rest of Ireland. That trend of economic fact will be stimulated by the provisions of this Treaty, and the man who asserts that Partition is perpetuated in that Treaty is a man who has not read or understands what are the provisions in the Treaty. Now I want to know before I sit down what is the alternative? I will not take as an answer another document. If another document were able to save this situation which will be created as a result of this possible rejection of this Treaty, if another document was sufficient for that purpose, we could pack this House
DR. MACCARTAN:
They can take care of themselves. You have sold the North in making this Treaty.
MR. MILROY:
That is an allegation the Deputy who made it will have an opportunity of proving, when he rises to speak, and I think he will have great difficulty in proving it. We have sold it. What have we sold? Do you suggest that any of the delegates who went over there were bribed?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Oh, no.
MR. MILROY:
What is the meaning of that word
sold
? Is that the opinion of one set of
Irishmen of another in this very grave crisis in the Nation's destiny?
I think the Deputy who says that may not have much respect for me. I
think he has less for himself or he would not have resorted to such a
word.
DR. MACCARTAN:
I substitute the word betrayal
.
MR. MILROY:
I do not think it would be becoming of me to take any further notice of his opinion. If the Deputy holds a doubt about me I am quite satisfied. I am taking the stand in this matter which my conscience dictates, and which I think the nation requires to-day. I believe by this Treaty Ireland's freedom can be won. Ratify this Treaty, and I believe you have Ireland in control of all that is vital in the nation's life; reject it and you may shatter any chance that Ireland may have for generations. Ratify this Treaty and the British Army vanishes from Ireland. Reject it and you will have the dread of this militarism stalking again through Ireland carrying disaster and woe in its march. Ratify this Treaty and you give to the people of Ireland control over their own affairs and you strike impotent the hands of those who have blasted and wasted Ireland's life for generations. I do not know what this assembly is going to do. I believe each man and woman will consider carefully the vital issues involved before them; they will act in accordance with what they believe to be the real interests of Ireland. In speaking as I have—I have simply one particular view point of this Treaty—I have tried to present what, in my judgment, are sound and staple reasons for holding that view, hoping it may influence some of those who have not finally made up their minds—whether they have or not I do not know. Whatever be the result, at any rate I am quite satisfied I have done what I conceive to be my duty, and I trust others will do theirs likewise.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I want to refer to a statement about manoeuvring. It certainly would be an infamous manoeuvre—no other epithet could be applied to it than infamous—if I tried to get anybody here to reject the Treaty in the belief that some other document which was forthcoming was able to be used as a substitute. It was on that account, amongst others, I presented in the Private Session in advance a document which I could not bring in here as an amendment to the motion. No such amendment could be received. I wanted to have that document in your hands. You have had it put there for the purpose which you know. Every one of you know there is no skeleton here. It will be brought out to the Irish people in its proper place. All I can tell you is that
MR. GRIFFITH:
We have been speaking from the beginning with our hands tied by President de Valera's request. Is that document in its entirety going to be given to the public Press?
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I want to ask on a point of order, is it in order that reference should be constantly made to a document which is not put in and which is not before the House? Is it in order that this discussion has been brought forward, and this document is alluded to? I want an answer to that.
THE SPEAKER:
References are not contrary to order. I ruled that already.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Every one of us here is under a handicap.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
We do not admit it.
MR. GRIFFITH:
We have been here under a handicap. We got certain instructions from the Cabinet, which we used and acted upon. Now an attempt is made to represent we were to stand upon the unchangeable and uncompromising rock of the Irish Republic.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
No such attempt is made.
MR. GRIFfITH:
We want that brought forward.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
In order that the public might know, as the House perfectly well knows, the delegates went over to London for the purpose of trying to get reconciliation between Irish National aspirations and the Association known as the Community of Nations, known as the Commonwealth of Nations of the British Empire; and the fact that this Treaty does not reconcile them is the reason it is opposed by, I hope, the majority of the Dáil. The other document is one that the Delegation would have accepted had they been able to put it through in London.
DR. MACCARTAN:
As one who stands uncompromisingly for an Irish Republic, I am not for document No. 2.
MR. GRIFFITH:
We got on the 25th November certain instructions from the Cabinet which are being withheld now.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I deny that.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Will you allow them to be published?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
The whole documents, every particle of correspondence between the Cabinet and the Delegation, and every particle of correspondence in London and with the Delegation can be made public.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I quite agree with the President, the sooner the better. It is perfectly fair—that is all right.
ALDERMAN J. MACDONAGH:
Mr. Milroy, in the beginning of his speech, said he was going to take off the gloves. Nobody objected to him for that, I am sure, but what the great majority of the House objects to his having done is hitting below the belt. The question at issue before the House is not document No. 2, but the question of Dominion Home Rule versus an Irish Republic [‘Question’].
MR. GRIFFITH:
Produce Document No. 2. Let the Irish people see that document.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I will produce it when this question, which is the only one before the House, the question of ratification or non-ratification, is finished.
THE SPEAKER:
We must have order.
ALDERMAN MACDONAGH:
I am afraid that those who are going to ratify the Treaty are losing their tempers, and from what I gather they must know the Treaty is going to be rejected. I heard one of the Members state that if it were a question of the Treaty versus an Irish Republic he would vote for an Irish Republic. The question at issue is the Treaty versus an Irish Republic. [‘No! No!’]
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
There is no document No. 2 before the House.
ALDERMAN MACDONAGH:
Deputy Milroy spoke of Mr. Erskine Childers as a recent convert to Republicanism because he wrote a book in 1911. Well, I had the pleasure of listening to Mr. Milroy in Liverpool and Manchester and many English towns, and throughout Ireland, and be said before the Irish Republic would go down practically every man, woman and child would die. Does he stand for that now?
MR. MILROY:
I never made such a statement in my life.
ALDERMAN MACDONAGH:
I am afraid he must have forgotten. And we have a more recent convert to Dominion Home Rule, the Chairman of the Delegation. This is what he wrote in June, 1917—at least it was in the leading article in Nationality, headed by Arthur Griffith, and is what he stands for. This is one part of the text beginning a paragraph. It reads:
He said that in 1917.‘ The Home Rule Act, 1914, Exposed’ by Mr. Wm. Martin Murphy, is a clear and trenchant exposure of that fraud upon a people. Mr. Murphy would settle the Irish question in the same way as the Canadian, South African, and Australian questions were settled. This assumes that the element of nationality and the status of nationhood do not enter into the Irish question. Australia, for instance, possessed no rights except those it derived from England. England founded it, England fostered it, and England possessed the undoubted right to rule it. Ireland does not derive from England.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I say it now again.
ALDERMAN MACDONAGH:
reading
‘She is not a colony; she has never been a colony. She can claim no colonial right such as Australia, Canada, and South Africa assert. If she be not a nation, then she has no more title to independence of English government than Kent or Middlesex, or Lancashire or Yorkshire. If there be English politicians who really believe that they can settle the Irish question on colonial or semi-colonial lines they live in a fool's paradise.’
MR. GRIFFITH:
I stand over every word of that statement. This is a Treaty between two sovereign nations.
ALDERMAN MACDONAGH:
‘The first step to a permanent Irish settlement is the recognition of the Irish Nation’ [cheers]. I am glad the ratifiers are at last coming around to our point of view. Well, at any rate, we are out in the open now, and those who are for this Treaty have definitely said they were out to go into the British Empire. I do not think that Irish Independence and Irish Nationality can run alongside going into the British Empire. Terence MacSwiney said our country was full of examples of abandonment of principles by public men who got into public life to defend these principles. I think that the men who spoke about a Republic in 1917, and who were responsible for the war that has happened since, that these men should not now run away from the Irish Republic. Mr. O'Higgins, the Deputy for Leix, yesterday spoke about his duty to the 6,000 people who voted against him. Well, I submit he owes also his duty to the 13,000 people who voted for him. He went up there as an Irish Republican—he did not go there as a Dominion Home Ruler. I venture to think that if he went there as a Dominion Home Ruler he would not now be a Member of this House [hear, hear]. There are other groups: the real coalition, those who say this is absolute freedom, and those who say it is an instalment of freedom. Well, those who say it is absolute freedom are proud of going into the British Empire with their heads up.
A DEPUTY:
The Community of Nations.
ALDERMAN MACDONAGH:
Others say with their hands up. Whether it is with their hands or their heads up, they should know what the British Empire has stood for in the history of the world. The British Empire has stood for every rotten thing in the history of the world. The history of the world has shown practically wherever the British Empire is, there
MR. MILROY:
John Bull is not Almighty God.
ALDERMAN MACDONAGH:
You have a body of men saying allegiance is greater than faithfulness, but by the treaty oath you acknowledge the Crown and go into the Empire. I do not think Mr. Griffith has made any of his points. Ulster is definitely partitioned from the rest of Ireland [‘No! No!’] There are a good many Irishmen and a good many Republicans in Ulster, and you are giving them up to their inveterate enemies.
MR. GRIFFITH:
What about document No. 2?
ALDERMAN MACDONAGH:
I heard Mr. Griffith say a good deal in South Longford about what partition meant for Ireland. I also heard Mr. Milroy on the same subject. Instead of being on the Republican platform they ought to have been with Mr. Joseph Devlin in that respect. Another point in the Treaty, in addition, is you will have to afford to his Majesty's Imperial Forces ‘in time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the annex hereto, or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State, and in time of war or of strained relations with a foreign Power, such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purpose of such defence as aforesaid’. What does that mean but that every time England goes to war, or is threatened with war, she may take over all the resources of this country. Are you prepared to stand that? If you are not, then you must keep an army of 40,000 men in the country that you are after hearing such a lot about in the past few days. If you are going to have an army of 40,000 men you will have to pay for them. Compared with the number of big material advantages there are drawbacks, because if you have a standing army of 40,000 men you are going to pay at least twelve millions a year for that army. With regard to this Treaty, there is one thing not made clear, that is, that the country was said to be stampeded into the acceptance of this Treaty. Before President de Valera received the particulars of this Treaty, it appeared in the London evening papers. I do not think that was a fair proceeding on the part of the Publicity Department or whoever was responsible for it. We are told we are going to lose the ear of the world if we turn down this Treaty. Certainly the ear of the world is here now, and we hope it will listen to the turning down of the Treaty, because it will hear one thing, that is, that this small nation which has stood for principle for the last four or five years, and has won the admiration of the whole world—it will realise that this small nation still stands for principle and not for expediency. We are told we should be practical men. In the common view John Redmond was a practical man and Patrick Pearse was a visionary. We all know now who was the practical man and who was the visionary. A good many precedents in Irish history can be remembered in connection with this. There are some who are going to vote for this Treaty who say they will never take the oath of allegiance. That reminds me of the sixty-three men who would not vote for the Union but gave up their seats and let other people vote for the Union.
MR. MACCARTHY:
On a point of order, can a Deputy refer to remarks used in a Private Session?
ALDERMAN MACDONAGH:
I am not referring to anything said at the Private Session. Sixty- three men would not vote against the Union but gave up their seats so that others might vote for the Union. If the men are honest who vote for the Treaty the very least they can do is to take the oath of allegiance which is the natural result of that Treaty.
MR. SEAMUS O'DWYER:
Were it not for the duty which I feel of having to convey to the public as well as the Members of this Dáil precisely what I propose to do and very shortly why I propose to do it, I would not trouble the House or Dáil at all. I have nothing new to add to the debates we have been attending here for the past six days. No new light has been shed on this problem during all that time. I personally was bothered the moment I saw this document about one thing in it; that one thing was the oath. The oath in this document, the oath of the Irish Republic, had been before you for a long time before we saw the document. I want to be perfectly honest with the House and with the Minister for Defence. I am one of those who realised at the very first Session I attended at this Dáil, that realised at that Session for the first time that an isolated Republic was not achievable by us now. I listened carefully, I discussed carefully with Members of the Dáil this question. I took my final lesson from the President himself. The President told us that he understood his oath to mean to be the oath to the Irish people. I have searched that out, and I have satisfied myself absolutely that this is an oath I can take, that it is an oath I will keep. I have satisfied myself further that nothing which we say, nothing we can do, will alter one iota the fact that the destiny of the Irish people is to be free, and that they will realise that destiny, and I want to say right now I am going to vote for the Treaty and support the Delegation in their efforts to carry it, because I believe it leads direct in a straight line to the realisation of absolute freedom, of Irish independence. I have listened here. I tried to listen carefully to the statements made here, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Government of this country which the Minister of Defence warned us last night is still in existence, has treated me as a Member of this Dáil, not me personally, but I feel keenly that the ordinary private Members of this Dáil are not treated by the Government of the country as they ought to be. I think that particularly in reference to this document but I am not going to raise the question. I feel particularly with reference to this document that although the question was long considered, nothing has been said by the leaders. My feeling is that this DáiI was done a distinct injustice not by the preparation of the document, but by its withdrawal. Now as to the Treaty itself, I am going to vote for this Treaty because I believe it is leading straight to the ultimate realisation of freedom, which is in the heart of every Irishman. I am going to vote for it because it contains the real substance of freedom. We have got under this Treaty a status in the League of Nations. Ireland will take her place in the League of Nations, and it depends on our energy, it depends on our ability, on our courage, what sort of place in that League of Nations we are going to take. Ireland will take her place in an impartial League of Nations—a Community of Nations, a Commonwealth of Nations known as the British Empire. She is taking that place. I had made up my own mind before coming here subject to what I might hear here. I made up my mind to say something about what that means. Later on Ireland is going in not with Great Britain wholly, but entering into a community of nations which is comprised—95 per cent of them—that proportion, of course, is wrong; at all events five or six of them are young nations, not old empires brought up and living on the greed of Empire, but that commonwealth will be composed of nations now young, vigorous nations rapidly becoming populous, rapidly becoming wealthy, rapidly becoming important in every single department of the world's affairs, and these nations have demonstrated that where their national interests are concerned nothing counts for them but their right to develop. You ask Lord Milner; he will tell you they are developing into full free nations in the world of free nations. It gives us a thing which we hope sincerely that this country will produce the men able to deal with. It gives us the power to get
DR. MACCARTAN:
It appears to me, since the opening of the Session, there has been a deliberate attempt to shirk responsibility for the way we find ourselves to-day. The people elected us to direct the destinies of Ireland at this period and we elected a Cabinet. I submit it was their duty in all conditions, in all circumstances, to lead us, the rank and file, in the best possible way. I submit that they have failed
MR. J. J. WALSH:
On a point of order, before we proceed further. I
THE SPEAKER:
It is not a point of order.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I will appeal, then, to the Members.
THE SPEAKER:
If you have no point of order you must sit down.
MR. SEAN HAYES:
Both at the Private Session and the public Session I listened to many eloquent addresses on this grave matter before the House. I do not feel myself competent to go into details of the merits or demerits of this Treaty, but it did occur to me that we are getting much of what the Irish people had been looking for. We get control of our own finances; we get control of education, which I regard as a most essential thing we should have; we secure that the British forces evacuate this country, and we have the right to raise and maintain our own Army. These provisions lead me to the opinion that I should vote for that Treaty because I see no alternative but war. And I do not think for a moment that the British Government would hesitate to make war on this country if we reject that Treaty. It is well known in Ireland, and outside Ireland, that the Irish Army fought with great bravery. It is also well known that our civil population gave all the support that they could have given to that Army and we fought with the moral authority and moral support of the world behind us, not that I attach great importance to that moral support. When we were looking for recognition of our Republic, that moral support was not sufficient to get it for us. That is the test that I apply to it. If we are to look at the question before us, and apply the logic of pure justice, I should vote against that Treaty, but I recognise, and we must all recognise, that the world is not yet ruled by the logic of pure justice. I have instead to apply the logic of common sense to what I believe the Irish people want at the present time. When we agreed to a truce with the British Government, we created in the minds of the people an idea that we were going to make a bargain with the British Government, and we cannot get away from it. I believe, and in this matter I speak particularly for the district which I represent, that is the constituency of West Cork; I speak for these people, perhaps about 17,000, and I am prepared to say that the majority of these people would accept this Treaty, and, whatever I may think personally of it, I feel that it is my duty to give expression to their views, so far as I can [hear, hear] because I hold that if I were to do otherwise, I would be acting against the principle of government by the consent of the governed. That is a principle which we have always held before us, and I feel it is my duty to act upon it now, and I think that in casting my vote for the acceptance of the Treaty I am expressing the people's will as I know it. Now, the dead have been referred to, and I do not want to refer to them further than to say that I agree with those speakers who say that we owe a duty to the dead, but I maintain that if we owe a duty to the dead we also owe a duty to the living, and I, for one, cannot see how I could cast a vote that would expose the Irish people to the risk of war. If anybody tells us, or tells me, that the British Government will not make war upon this country again, then that is a matter I can consider. I think the Irish people should be told what the alternatives are in this matter. If we go to war, if we expose the people of the country to the risk of war, then the Irish people should be told we reject this Treaty because we want a Republic. Let the issue be clear and definite, and then we know where we stand. I will say nothing further than to throw out a suggestion. I do not know what it is worth. It may not be well received, but, seeing that there is this division of opinion in the Cabinet as well as in the Dáil, I throw out the suggestion that if this great issue was placed before the people in, say, two constituencies in Ireland, and have the views of the people there upon it, and if you agree to accept their decision, it might save us a lot of trouble. I suggest the two constituencies of East Clare and South Cork [applause].
A DEPUTY:
A way out.
MR. COLIVET:
Could the House get any idea of when a vote will be taken?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Those who wish to speak further should give in a list of their names.
MR. SEAN T. O'CEALLAIGH:
I have a list of twenty speakers already.
MR. GRIFFITH:
It should not be past Thursday.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I think so. I think we should have it by all means on Thursday.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I suggest we should agree on the adjournment; on the time when the closure will be.
MISS MACSWINEY:
There should be no closure on a matter like this.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Excuse me, I was only making the suggestion that if we cannot agree to a closure at about mid-day on Thursday, then we should, if necessary, adjourn over Christmas. The point is that if we are to have twenty, thirty or fifty Members speaking they are entitled to speak; then I was simply making the suggestion to facilitate the Dáil. That is why I said that if we cannot fix one o'clock on Thursday, or one o'clock on Friday, let us agree to have an adjournment for a definite period.
ALDERMAN DE ROISTE:
In the meantime the Cabinet will continue to rule the country [applause].
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
I second the motion.
MISS MACSWINEY:
I think since the matter concerns the country so vitally, and since the Members who will speak here, and who will vote here, will stand before posterity for the part they take, that it would not be right that a single one, if they so desire, should not record his opinion.
MR. M. COLLINS:
There is no such suggestion. To-morrow evening to adjourn until after Christmas would be the wisest plan.
The House adjourned until eleven o'clock next morning.
THE SPEAKER (DR. EOIN MACNEILL) took the chair at 11.5 a.m. and called on Mr. Gavan Duffy.
MR. GAVAN DUFFY:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I rise to stand over my signature to the Treaty and to recommend it to you in pursuance of the pledge I gave. But in giving that pledge I did not pledge myself to conceal from you nor from the people of Ireland the circumstances under which that pledge was extorted from me. Let me make it clear that I am not here to make any apology for the action I took, believing then that it was right, and believing now it was right, but I am here to give the Irish people the explanation to which they are entitled, and I think it is necessary that the circumstances should be driven home and impressed upon the minds of the Irish people, even at the risk of reiterating a good deal that Deputy Barton has said, for two main reasons, one in order that the historic record of this transaction might be clear beyond all possible doubt, and two in order to impress upon you the solemn warning that it gives us. I wish it to be understood that I speak absolutely for myself, without desiring to commit any other member of the Delegation. I am going to recommend this Treaty to you very reluctantly, but very sincerely, because I see no alternative. I have no sympathy with those who acclaim this partial composition as if it was payment in full, with compound interest; nor have I any sympathy with those who would treat this agreement as if it were utterly valueless. Indeed at the risk of being accused of having a slave mind, I cannot help enjoying such a statement as that which I find in the Morning Post—the best friend that Ireland ever had in England—of yesterday. It begins its leading article: ‘Like humble suppliants on the doorstep waiting for an answer to their plea for charity, the Government and people of this once proud and powerful country are now hanging expectant on the discussions of an illegal assembly, self-styled Dáil Eireann, to know whether or not that body will graciously condescend to accept their submission’. I think it is difficult for any of us to look at this matter perfectly fairly, because when you feel jubilant your feelings are apt to run away with you. I tried to look at it fairly, and it must be realised that the Irish people have an achievement to their credit in this respect at least, that this Treaty gives them what they have not had for hundreds of years; it gives them power, it puts power of control, power of Government, military power in the hands of our people and our Government. And the answer to those who assert that that power will be filched from us by dishonest Englishmen across the water, is that that will depend upon us, that we shall be in a far better position to resist aggression and to maintain and increase that power than ever we were before. The vital defect of this Treaty is that it inflicts a grievous wound upon the dignity of this nation by thrusting the King of England upon us, thrusting an alien King upon us, with his alien Governor, and I do not want to minimise for a moment the evil of that portion of the Treaty, On the other hand, I do not like to hear people whose word has weight overstating their case and asking you to believe such things as that the Irish Army will be governed by his Majesty's officers, a statement that seems to me to be just as true as if you were to say that the Irish Flag will be the Union Jack, or that because the Canadian "bucks" bear on
Georgis Rex, Defender of the Faiththat therefore we shall have coins of the same description. The argument upon which such suggestions as that are founded is an argument which would justify the assumption that the Union Jack will be the flag of this country, and it is not fair to attack the Treaty on such grounds as that. It will be the duty of those who frame the Constitution to frame it in accordance with the wishes of the Irish people so far as the Treaty allows them; it will be their duty, therefore, to relegate the King of England to the exterior darkness as far as they can, and they can to a very considerable extent. It has not been sufficiently affirmed that the Constitution is left to us subject to the Treaty. I admit that his Majesty is not written all over the Treaty. The first clause deals with our status in the community of nations known as the British Empire, the second with our relations with Great Britain. All our internal affairs so far as the Constitution is concerned are left to our fashioning and any Government worthy of the name will be able to place that foreign King at a very considerable distance from the Irish people. Now I am trying to be fair about the matter. That does not take away the objection to the Treaty. You are still left with the fact that his Majesty's Minister will be here; you are still left with the fact that the Irish people are to pledge themselves to a gentleman who necessarily symbolises in himself the just anger and the just resentment of this people for 750 years. Therefore it was that when this Treaty was first presented to me as a proposal for peace with power on the one hand, but national dignity the purchase price on the other, I rejected it, for I could not forget that we in London had done our best in our counter proposals to maintain Irish independence in connection with the association that we were offering. I could not forget that this nation has won the admiration of the world by putting up the noblest and most heroic national fight of all history and that it is unconquered still (applause). I did not forget these things, and yet I signed. I will tell you why. On the 4th of December a sub-conference was held between the two sides at which Lloyd George broke with us on the Empire and broke definitely, subject to confirmation by his Cabinet the next morning. It might have been, or it might not have been, bluff. At all events contact was renewed and the next day a further sub-conference was held, attended by Messrs. Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins and Robert Barton, and, after four-and-a-half hours of discussion, our delegates returned to us to inform us that four times they had all but broken and that the fate of Ireland must be decided that night. Lloyd George had issued to them an ultimatum to this effect: ‘It must now be peace or war. My messenger goes to-night to Belfast. I have here two answers, one enclosing the Treaty, the other declaring a rupture, and, if it be a rupture, you shall have immediate war, and the only way to avert that immediate war is to bring me the undertaking to sign of every one of the plenipotentiaries, with a further undertaking to recommend the Treaty to Dáil Eireann and to bring me that by 10 o'clock. Take your choice’. I shall not forget the anguish of that night, torn as one was between conflicting duties. Again, this ultimatum might have been bluff, but every one of those who had heard the British Prime Minister believed beyond all reasonable doubt that this time he was not play-acting, and that he meant what he said. It is, I think, worth while recording that the semi-official organ of Mr. Lloyd George—the Daily Chronicle confirmed that attitude. The next day it stated quite openly in the most shameless manner:— ‘Before the delegates separated for dinner the Prime Minister made his final appeal. He made it clear that the draft before them was the last concession which any British Government could make. The issue now was the grim choice between acceptance and immediate war’
I wonder do you realise the monstrous iniquity. An ingenious attempt has been made on behalf of the British Government to refute what Deputy Barton told you the other day in what is called a semi- official denial issued through the Free Association. I make no apology for reading it, for the matter is of importance. They say:—
The statement by Mr. Robert Barton, one of the Irish Peace Treaty signatories, that the agreement
was signed under duress, and that Mr. Lloyd Georgethreatenedwar in the event of a refusal occasioned no undue surprise in authoritative quarters in London to-day. It was pointed out that the Irish Envoys, who, it must be remembered, were Plenipotentiaries, had negotiated during the preceding weeks with full knowledge of the alternative in the event of a final rejection of the terms.‘They accepted the proposals under duress of circumstances or duress of their own minds and not because of any eleventh hour declaration on the part of the Prime Minister’, declared an authority this (Tuesday) evening. ‘In so far as it was well known that the alternative to acceptance was war, there is an element of truth in the statement’.
The complaint is not that the alternative to signing a Treaty was war; the complaint is that the alternative to our signing that particular Treaty was immediate war; that we who were sent to London as the apostles of peace—the qualified apostles of peace—were suddenly to be transformed into the unqualified arbiters of war; that we had to make this choice within three hours and to make it without any reference to our Cabinet, to our Parliament or to our people. And that monstrous iniquity was perpetrated by the man who had invited us under his roof in order, moryah, to make a friendly settlement. So that the position was this, that if we, every one of us, did not sign and undertake to recommend, fresh hordes of savages would be let loose upon this country to trample and torture and terrify it, and whether the Cabinet, Dáil Eireann, or the people of Ireland willed war or not, the iron heel would come down upon their heads with all the force which a last desperate effort at terrorism could impart to it. This is the complaint. We found ourselves faced with these alternatives, either to save the national dignity by unyielding principle, or to save the lives of the people by yielding to force majeure, and that is why I stand where I do. We lost the Republic of Ireland in order to save the people of Ireland. I do not wish to sit down without emphasising the warning that one cannot but take away from that transaction. We cannot look without apprehension to the true designs of these people in the working out of the Treaty, for we cannot have confidence in men who make the bludgeon the implement of their goodwill. If they had been statesmen they would have recognised and proclaimed that the tie of blood which truly unites the British Dominions to England is no tie between Ireland and England no more than between the Englishman and the Boer, the Englishman and the Egyptian, the Englishman and the Indian, or the Englishman and the French Canadian. They would have realised that the tie of blood is a bond of steel and that such a bond can stand any strain. The truth is they were afraid; they knew well how much to give, but they were afraid to make full atonement and sought to justify themselves by professing to believe that they did make full atonement. If they had kept their King out of Ireland an honest settlement would have been easy. Instead of that they have chosen to give us once more grave reasons to doubt them by showing us over again that for all their canticles of peace and goodwill and atonement the British Bible is still the cover for a British gun. That is what they call statesmanship across the water; that is the state craft before which the world bows low; that is the state craft which throughout the history of the British Empire has spread mistrust, enmity and war. There is another statesman, and he was heard at Manchester a week ago, when one of the greatest English statesmen, Lord Grey, proclaimed that no peace with Ireland was any use unless it was a peace made upon equal terms. I subscribe to that, and it is well for the British people to know that they can have peace, solid peace, lasting peace with this country on the day that peace is made between our Government and theirs on equal terms, and not before. I do not love this Treaty now any more than I loved it when I signed it, but I do not think that that is an adequate answer, that it is an adequate motive for rejection to point out that some of us signed the Treaty under duress, nor to say that this Treaty will not lead to permanent peace. It is necessary before you reject the Treaty to go further than that and to produce to the people of Ireland a rational alternative [hear, hear]. My heart is with those who are against the
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I ask leave to make a
personal explanation regarding a very serious allegation that has been
made by this paper, the Freeman's Journal, this morning
in respect to a statement I am supposed to have made last night. The
Freeman's Journal says: ‘Mr. J. J. Walsh said,
arising out of a speech made by the last member, he felt bound to
remark that all those speakers addressing Mr. de Valera should not use
the word President
in future’.
MR. STACK:
Just like the Freeman.
MR. COLLINS:
It is in all the papers. Somebody must be responsible for it.
MR. STACK:
The Freeman never
said President
yet to him.
MR. NICHOLLS:
It is in the Independent as well.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
Now, sir, every member of
this House knows very well that at the conclusion of Deputy
MacCartan's speech last night, I rose and expressed regret at the very
general use of the word quibble
in respect of
the conduct of the deliberations and of the negotiations by our
President. I did so because of the very great regard for the honour
and integrity and ability of the President and his great patriotism
and sacrifice for his country. Not only would I not use this remark,
but I certainly would take the greatest possible exception to anyone
using it, and I think that is the case with every member of this
House. I suppose I can ask the Press generally in the name of the
President and of the House to make suitable correction and apology for
this great error.
THE SPEAKER:
Deputy Walsh's statement is absolutely correct, and the report, which I have also seen in the Press this morning, is a very grave and serious error, and the correction of that error is due, I won't say to this assembly, I won't say to the President, but it is due to the Irish people who have placed us here.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
The remarks of the last speaker have added to the impression we had, and which I felt deeply, and I think everybody felt it deeply, after the speech of Mr. Barton, and I won't say entirely, because I should not like to subscribe, perhaps, to everything that the Minister of Finance said, but I felt impressed strongly after his speech. I am not here to speak in a sentimental fashion, and suggest that we all agree here, but I do maintain that after these speeches, and notwithstanding all these distressing circumstances of this debate—notwithstanding the wretched outlook in many ways—I maintain that these speeches show an extreme unity of sentiment and an extraordinary determination of this assembly as representing what we may call indeed,
WIESBADEN 9th December, 1921A Chara Dhil
I have read everything from all nationalities except our own regarding present affairs, and I have no hesitation in saying that from
the purely practical point of view it would be the greatest possible political mistake we have ever made (greater even than 1783) if we agreed to the present terms; it would probably also be the greatest triumph that the enemy has ever had.I should not have thought myself important enough to have written to you anything at all if I did not represent one who is greater than any of us. I am absolutely certain that Terry would have said what I am saying, and would have refused.
If you think well of it, will you send a message from me in the above terms to the Dáil? Da gcuirfinn fein e ní bhfaghadh siad e.
I cannot believe it will be taken. Le súil go mbeidh sgeal níos fearr againn sara fada.
Is mise do chara
MUIRGHEAL, BEAN MHIC SHUIBHNE
Mr. M. COLLINS:
Out of the greatest respect for the dead we have refrained from reading letters from the relatives of the dead. We have too much respect for the dead.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
May I say that I asked permission from the Speaker to read that letter?
MR. GRIFFITH:
We have not read letters from the women whose sons have been shot, whose husbands have been killed, supporting us.
PROFESSOR WHELEHAN:
I am sure that this Dáil has listened with the greatest interest to the speech of Professor Stockley. He told us at the opening of that speech that an appeal to passion had little to do with the present crisis, and he was right. But I submit that the major portion of his speech was, as he himself admitted, not an appeal to the head or to the reason, but to the heart. Like him, all of us Irishmen have our hearts, and wherever our hearts may be in a crisis like this when the country is faced with, I submit, the greatest trial that has ever confronted it, appeals to passion and sentiment are altogether out of place. There is no use in going back on what was or what has been. We have to deal now with what is. I submit that the business of this House is to deal with the situation which confronts it, and I submit that the people who are most competent to interpret the situation which confronts it are the people whom the Dáil sent to London, not as Republican doctrinaires but to negotiate association with Britain in one form or another. These men have come here and have told you the situation as they say it seemed to them, some of them not liking the Treaty. The two speeches that weighed most with me are the expression of the sincere convictions of Mr. Gavan Duffy and Mr. Barton, and they left no doubt as to what the situation is. It is this Treaty or the plunging of the Irish nation into war. Professor Stockley say he does not consider himself bound by the opinion of his constituents. He represents a university. Well, if that is the political principle on which he stands, it is not the political principle, nor any principle on which I stand, or will ever stand, and if there are any people in this House who are standing for principle, I submit to them that since they agreed, and they did agree with the only terms of reference these delegates were given going to London—when they agreed they were not Republican doctrinaires, then I submit they have given away the Republic, and they have got to deliver the nation from the great dilemma in which it has been placed. We cannot shirk responsibility—we cannot get rid of our responsibility after allowing these men to give our Republic away. I am in the position of one whose speech has been literally delivered by Dr. MacCartan. It is written here, but it is no use to me. But, in a crisis like this, I will submit that while I agree with what Dr. MacCartan has said, there is one point in which I totally disagree with him. He says he is a Republican doctrinaire, and as such that he will not vote for the Treaty. He says that the alternative to this Treaty is chaos, and that he will not vote to place the country in a state of chaos. I submit to him as a man of principle and conscience, that he is bound to vote to deliver the country from chaos. Professor Stockley does not consider the rights of the people he represents in the present circumstances. Don't let me do him an injustice—that is what I understood. I should not wish to do any man an injustice, and I hope I am not misrepresenting. He does not consider that he is bound to represent the views of the people in the present circumstances. I submit, sir, that we are bound to represent the
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
Would you like me to say anything?
PROFESSOR WHELEHAN:
With pleasure.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
What I meant to say is, I don't think you can change about your own personal responsibility by casting it on the constituents. May I read something which I have been handed?
SEVERAL DEPUTIES:
Order, order.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
It is entirely against myself.
PROFESSOR WHELEHAN:
I have no objection to anything Professor Stockley reads, as I do believe he is an honest man. I believe every member in this House is honest, and I believe they will do what they feel themselves conscientiously bound to do. I have no objection to him reading anything. I submit, sir, that a new series of circumstances have brought about a new situation. The situation now is not a Republic versus Association with Great Britain, but the question is, shall this Treaty be approved of, or shall we commit the country to war? I accept the interpretation of the Treaty or the impression given us by the delegates in supporting the approval of the Treaty —and why? In the first place, Britain has pledged whatever honour remains to her before the world to evacuate the country. That, sir, we have been fighting for, and I submit that you have been successful in attaining it, and the Crown Forces, in the words of a distinguished Irishman, are to scuttle out of Ireland. This Treaty gives us full fiscal autonomy. It gives us control of the purse; it gives us control of trade and commerce and industries. This Treaty gives us an equal voice with other countries in the League of Nations. By this Treaty the Irish people have the right to frame their own Constitution, and under this Treaty an army under complete Irish control is given us to defend our Constitution and to uphold, and, I submit, to defend, our rights. But some will say, ‘For this you would give away the soul of the nation’. Now, sir, the soul of the nation has not been given away at the point of thousands of British bayonets, and with these gone out of the country, and with the guarantee that the soul of the nation shall be right, I submit we are not likely to lose it now, for by this Treaty we have complete control of our education, and education, not oaths of allegiance of one form of freedom or another, is the great factor in conserving the soul of any nation.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
What are the bases of it?
A DEPUTY:
Your own language.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Hear, hear. Education based on dishonour.
PROFESSOR WHELEHAN:
Education based on dishonour, the President says. I have great respect for the President's opinion, and I had hoped not once to have to allude further to what I hold to be the terms of reference given to these men.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
To take an oath you don't mean to keep is dishonourable.
PROFESSOR WHELEHAN:
I am not going to keep to the question of the oath.
MR. STACK:
To break an oath that you have taken is dishonourable.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Are our speakers to be continually interrupted from the other side of the table? We don't interrupt them. Are we to be interrupted?
PROFESSOR WHELEHAN:
I have been challenged about this oath. I will submit the interpretation given to the oath by a distinguished Member of the House. The oath was approved, and we were bound in conscience to do whatever we conceived best for the interest of the Irish people in whatever circumstances might arise. The interpretation was given in response to what has come to be the famous challenge of a very respected Member of this Dáil, and there was no dissent, as well as I can remember, with the interpretation of the oath. I stand by that. Each one is bound
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
We deny that.
PROFESSOR WHELEHAN:
I submit that in the circumstances, and on the verge of chaos to which this country is being plunged, men realising their duty will find themselves urged, at any rate, if not to fight for the Treaty, to vote that the country be delivered from chaos.
MR. DAVID CEANNT:
I don't know whether I can address you as a Republican, because I have been listening for the last few days to so many quickchange artists, that I cannot be sure whether it is in Canada or in Ireland I am standing, but I want to make sure of my position. This I am sure of, that I am here as a Republican representative of the people of East Cork, who sent me by their free will and choice as the representative of the Republic that was established by the people of Ireland by their own free will and choice, and here I will remain until the people of Cork by their free will and choice vote that they don't want me any longer. I have listened to some silly arguments put forward why we should sign this Treaty. The chief argument seems to be what Commandant So and So did. I submit a good deal of the time of this House has been wasted by such nonsense. I suggest that we could easily have put all these arguments into pamphlet form, but I would not like to be the person who would undertake it. I heard a very peculiar speech a few evenings ago from the Deputy from
Following that Mr. Barton read a message to the nations. Following that, sir, at a meeting held in the summer of that year the oath of allegiance was handed to every Member. A discussion had taken place on it. There were some objections, but the majority, if not every member, signed that oath. Then we framed our Constitution, and, following that, we went before the electors. In this present year, last May, we put the issues clearly before them—that we were a Republican Government, and we asked them were they going to stand by us, and the result is what we see here to-day. At a meeting in the Mansion House there were thousands of people and the Press of the world before us, and each and every member read the declaration and signed it, and some may have signed it on the blind side, but I did not. We promised to be true to the Constitution and to the Republic. I wonder was it all for the benefit of the cinema companies? I saw a formidable number of cinema operators there. They have the records yet, I am sure. A few days after that by the free will and vote of every member we elected as our President President de Valera as legal successor to Patrick Pearse, the first President of the Republic, and now, sir, after four months we, who elected him freely, are told that we must turn him down and relegate him to the scrap heap and make room for some English Lord who will come over, not as President of the Republic, but as Governor-General from England. Now, sir, I wonder will the mover of this resolution before the House consider what it cost this country to bring the Republic into being; consider what it has cost the country to place the Dáil and every Member from the President down in the proud position we occupy of being able to make laws for the people who sent us here, and for the country which we love and respect. Does he know what the people had to witness through all these times? They had to witness the best blood of the country poured out so that the Republic might exist; their country devastated; their towns and villages destroyed. There are hundreds of widows and orphans mourning for the loss of their fathers and husbands. There are thousands of parents mourning the loss of their beloved sons. Look at the persecution and tyranny, and yet we are told here that after all these sacrifices we are going to give up the Republic. I say no, and I know what the result will be. This Treaty, this so-called Treaty is dead already, and it only awaits a decent burial because it is not worthy of anything else. Coming to the Treaty itself, so much has been said of the Treaty and the clauses of it, that I need not trouble dealing with it, but I want to make my ground sure. This country is already groaning under severe taxation, and I have not been told what approximately is the amount we are going to pay; whether it is going to be a yearly contribution. If so, and if it is going to be decided by arbitration, who are to be the judges? I know that England is going to trick us again if we are not going to take care of ourselves. We are standing on the brink of a precipice, and if we do not take care we will plunge our country into it. The mover of the resolution told us that this is going to be a final peace. Another distinguished man, whom everybody will remember was no friend of Ireland, Lord Birkenhead, declared in the House of Lords that on the ratification of this Treaty by both Houses of Parliament in Westminster and Dublin, he will consult the Southern Unionists. I wish to say I am sorry that we have not some of the Southern Unionists in this assembly. I say, sir, that every clause of the Treaty wants revision, and not alone does it want revision, but complete obliteration. Mention was made of shadows. Yes, sir, there will be shadows haunting the men of this assembly who will try to filch away the nation's rights. Even shadows of their own selves will be haunting them. I have done my duty to my country for forty years. I make no boast of it. Perhaps I was wearing the prison uniform before some of these men were born, but while I often had toWhereas the Irish people is by right a free people: And Whereas for seven hundred years the Irish people has never ceased to repudiate and has repeatedly protested in arms against foreign usurpation: And Whereas English rule in this country is, and always has been, based upon fore and fraud and maintained by military occupation against the declared will of the people: And Whereas the Irish Republic was proclaimed in Dublin on Easter Monday, 1916, by the Irish Republican Army acting on behalf of the Irish people: And Whereas the Irish people is resolved to secure and maintain its complete independence in order to promote the common weal, to re- establish justice, to provide for future defence, to insure peace at home and goodwill with all nations, and to constitute a national polity based upon the people's will with equal right and equal opportunity for every citizen: And Whereas at the threshold of a new era in history the Irish electorate has in the General Election of December, 1918, seized the first occasion to declare by an overwhelming majority its firm allegiance to the Irish Republic now. Therefore, we, the elected representatives of the ancient Irish people in National Parliament assembled, do, in the name of the Irish Nation, ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic and pledge ourselves and our people to make this declaration effective by every means at our command. We ordain that the elected representatives of the Irish people alone have power to make laws binding on the people of Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament is the only Parliament to which that people will give its allegiance We solemnly declare foreign government in Ireland to be an invasion of our national right which we will never tolerate, and we demand the evacuation of our country by the British Garrison: We claim for our national independence the recognition and support of every free nation of the world, and we proclaim that
independence to be a condition precedent to international peace hereafter: In the name of the Irish people we humbly commit our destiny to Almighty God, who gave our fathers the courage and determination to persevere through long centuries of a ruthless tyranny, and strong in the justice of the cause which they have handed down to us, we ask His divine blessing on this, the last stage of the struggle we have pledged ourselves to carry through to Freedom.
MR. E. J. DUGGAN:
I think it is right at the outset that I should state the circumstances under which I signed the Treaty. I was not in Downing Street at this fateful conference you have heard so much about. I was not threatened by Lloyd George. He did not shake papers in my face. I signed the Treaty in the quiet seclusion of 22, Hans Place. I signed it deliberately with the fullest consciousness of my responsibilities to you who sent me there, to the country, to the movement, and to the dead. I stand over my signature. No argument or criticism that has been directed against the Treaty has affected my views as to the attitude that I then took up. I recommend the Treaty to you for your acceptance, and in doing that I am acting in accordance with the wishes of the people who elected me and sent me here. It has been suggested that those who were in Downing Street were bluffed; that they were intimidated; that Michael Collins was threatened and cowed by Lloyd George shaking a piece of paper in his face. Well, Lloyd George for two years tried very much more effective means of cowing Michael Collins than that and he did not succeed. It has also been suggested that two months' residence in London demoralised us to such an extent that we forgot our duty to the people who sent us to London, and it has been suggested, and actually stated, that it was as a result of some influence or pressure of some kind or other that was brought to bear on us there that we signed the Treaty. Now, there was one dominating fact in my mind at the time that I signed it, and it was this, that Britain militarily is stronger than we are. Now, I did not need to go to London to find that out. I knew it before I went to London as well as I knew it in London or know it now. I have known it as long as I have been old enough to know anything. I suppose everybody admits that that is a fact, and we are not giving away any military secret when we state that. Now, before I proceed to deal with this vexed question of who compromised and who stood on the rocks, I should like to say that I shall not indulge in personalities of any kind. I shall confine myself entirely to facts. There is no monopoly of patriotism on either side of this House. There are men on both sides here who have faced death together. There are men who have walked together in times of stress and storm, and there are men who have trusted their lives to each other in times of danger. It should be quite easy for us to discuss this momentous issue in a manner consistent with our own dignity and the honour of our country. That I shall endeavour to do. What were we sent to London for? Does anyone here seriously suggest that the Dáil appointed five plenipotentiaries with their staffs and all the rest of it to go to London to ask the British Government to recognise the Irish Republic. Did it, or did it not?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Act in association.
MR. DUGGAN:
We either went to London to ask for recognition of the Irish Republic or we went to compromise. There is no other alternative.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
There is.
MR. DUGGAN:
I know what is in the President's mind—external association. External association if it means anything means this, that you go to England and you say, ‘If you recognise the Republic, we will enter into some kind of alliance with you’
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. DUGGAN:
That brings me back to what I said. You sent us to ask recognition of the Irish Republic or you did not—you did either one or the other. Now the President, when he gets up and makes one of his impassioned and eloquent speeches, creates a kind of smoke-screen of words, so that
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
May I interrupt for one moment? If I am in the same boat—let us say I am—with our friends on the other side, has it anything to do with the question of whether this is a Treaty this nation ought to accept or not? That is the question.
MR. DUGGAN:
I am coming to that. We have been
more or less put in the dock as compromisers, and we are entitled to
defend ourselves. Now, another charge that was made against us was
this—that we disobeyed our instructions by not coming back from
Downing Street on that Sunday night and submitting the draft Treaty to
the Cabinet before signing it. Now, that is unfair. The Cabinet knew,
and we knew, because we had got a week's notice, that we would have to
give a yes or no answer on a certain day. We came to a Cabinet meeting
on a Saturday. We spent a whole day at it; in fact it was scarcely
finished when we had to rush away to catch the boat back. We put up
the proposals that the Cabinet said we should put up. They were turned
down, and had been, two or three times previously. We told the Cabinet they would
be turned down, but we carried out their instructions. Negotiations
were re-opened, and finally on that last Monday night we in London got
two hours to give a yes or no answer. Now, you
cannot get from London to Dublin and back in two
hours. We were plenipotentiaries, we were responsible to you and to
the country, not to the Cabinet. If we had given the answer No
that night, and if this country was now in the
throes of war, it would be no answer for us to come back to the
country and say, ‘We had to do it because the Cabinet told us to
come back and do it’. We could not avoid our responsibility that
night, and the responsibility which was ours that night is yours now.
We have had to come back and answer to you and you will have to answer
to the country. We are all equally responsible. There is another point
which I don't think anyone mentioned. If we did not sign that Treaty,
it would never have come before you for discussion, because
negotiations had ended, and there was no more about it. Some people
think that when we signed the Treaty we were allocating to ourselves
the right to force it down the throats of the Irish people. We did
nothing of the kind. Our signature is subject to your ratification,
and it is for you to say whether you will ratify it. Our signature has
bound you to nothing. Now some people in their criticisms of the
Treaty speak as if we had brought home a bag full of sample treaties
and that they could choose whichever one they liked. I dislike the
Treaty as much as any man or woman here, but that is not the point.
The point is you can either take it or refuse it and take the
consequences, and I have my own ideas of what the consequences are.
Now, what does the Treaty give you? You have been told all the nice
things it does not give you. The Treaty gives you your country. The
Treaty rids your country of the enemies of your country. You get rid
of the Army, you get rid of the whole machinery of Government, you get
control of your own money, you make your own Constitution, and you
have complete and absolute control of everything within the four seas of Ireland. About the flag? Who is to tell
us what flag we shall have? Ourselves. No one else has the right. Who
has the right to say what our Ministers are to be called? Ourselves.
No one else has the right. Surely we are not going to become slaves
when we are free?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
That is just it.
MR. DUGGAN:
Who is to say what oath our Army is to take? Ourselves. The Minister of Defence has told us a lot about the discipline of the Army, but I greatly fear if the Minister of Defence asks the Army to take the oath of allegiance to the King he is going
MR. STACK:
Quote the words.
MR. DUGGAN:
Now, another thing I have heard, and it surprises me to hear it from people, notwithstanding the extraordinary things we have been able to do under the leadership of the very men who have been saying these things, notwithstanding the wonderful things we have been able to do with the enemy in our country, and in control of the resources of our country and the finances of Government, they seem to suggest that when you get rid of these things and have absolute control of your own country, that we are all going to become demoralised slaves. I say under the terms of that Treaty that if the Irish people cannot achieve their freedom it is the fault of the Irish people and not of the Treaty. I have more faith in Ireland than the people who put forward the other point of view. Now another thing that has been said—and it is a hard thing is, it has been suggested that those who are in favour of the ratification of the Treaty are in some way or another betraying the dead who died for Ireland. Now, I am not going to mention the names of any of the heroic dead who died for Ireland. I do not think this is a fit place to call down their names, but I will say this, that before I put my name to that document I went back in my mind over the last six years. I went back to Richmond Barracks and to Kilmainham. I went back to that morning in Mountjoy when I saw the hangman who was to hang our young lads there. I went back in my mind to the conversations that I had with some of those with whom I had the honour to be associated, whom I knew intimately and well, and amongst these were some of the bravest and ablest soldiers Ireland has ever produced. I say that I shall interpret for myself what their views were and would be if they were here to-day, and that no other man or woman has the right to interpret them for me. Let no man or woman say that I would betray those whom I knew and love and revere. As we are talking about the dead, let us look at that from another angle. Why did England under this Treaty agree to clear out of our country and hand it over to us? Was it because of the efforts of the plenipotentiaries in London? Who was it that won that for Ireland, and that Treaty represents the fruits of the sacrifices of those who have died for Ireland.
MISS MACSWINEY:
No, it does not.
MR. DUGGAN:
It may not give you everything we would like, or they would like, but it represents the fruits of their sacrifices. Let us think seriously before we take it up and throw it back in the faces of the dead, and say it is not good enough for us. Now, we have had a lot of talk about principles. Every man and every woman here is perfectly entitled to go out and fight and die for his own or her own principles, but no man or woman here, or combination of Deputies in this assembly is entitled to sentencee the Irish nation to death.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Hear, hear.
MR. DUGGAN:
As far as I am concerned, my principles will not force me to deprive the people of the measure of freedom that Treaty gives them. Neither will they compel me to force the young men of Ireland out to fight—for what? Not to drive the British Army out of Ireland, but to force it to stay in Ireland. Let us keep to the facts. As I said before, the responsibility that rested upon us that night in London has now devolved upon you. It is a personal responsibility. We are not here to vote for the President on the one side, or Mr. Griffith or Mr. Michael Collins on the other. We have to vote in the interests of Ireland. Each man here has the same responsibility as the President has. If each man and each woman honestly and conscientiously faces the issue and gives
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
While we are waiting for another speaker, as this matter has been drawn in so much at the Private Session on the question of the alternative—I protested several times, but of course it is no use—it is useful as a red herring. The specific question that is here before us is the question as to whether we should or should not ratify the Treaty. It does not matter what I said, I am but one person here. The terms of the Treaty are in cold print, and it is that we are discussing. With reference to this oath, it is printed in the morning papers as the alternative oath to the oath that was there. That oath was a verbal suggestion by me when we were criticising not this oath, but another oath that had come up on another occasion. I said that oath as an oath to the King of England as the head of the Commonwealth was inconsistent with our position. I verbally tried to use something that you could take. The word Constitution occurred in both these oaths. In one there was not a vestige of British authority left in Ireland, and in the other case, this oath of the Treaty is the oath in which the British King must be recognised as head of the Irish State. There is a tremendous difference, although the same words are used in both.
MR. P. J. RUTTLEDGE:
I as a private Member of this House have refrained during the grave moments of discussion from identifying myself with one side or another in Private Session or Public Session up to the moment. I had two main reasons for sustaining myself in that attitude, and they were these: The first was that in a grave issue such as this no Member could take a definite stand on one side or the other until he had heard every tittle or iota which would help to clear his mind and decide the stand he would take. And the other was lest I might contribute one tittle or iota to widen the gulf that I could see was gradually opening up in this House. Now, before I cast my vote I feel that the duty devolves on me, a duty I owe to the people I represent, to express here publicly and plainly my position. I take my stand against that Treaty. I take it not on sentiment as I am not a sentimentalist, but I take it on principle. I will always stand on principle to my own conscience. I do not suggest, far be it from me, that the men on the other side or that there is anyone who would deviate from principle according to his conscience, but I have satisfied my own conscience clearly, definitely and positively that the principle that I must follow, and that I have always consistently followed, is the Irish Republic. I challenge anyone to say that in the document that is put before the House that there is not an inconsistency and that there is not a compromise. Now I regret to say that in this Dáil two attitudes are being taken by what I will for the moment call the other side. First they have said that it means freedom and independence, and again it is stated that it contains reservations. If it was stated in this House that it was a step to freedom I would be with them in that belief, but to try to convince me as a private Member of this House that this is either freedom or independence, great as is the respect I have for those with whom I have worked in the past, I say I do not admit it. Now, in the few words I desire to contribute to this debate, I will not adopt the attitude which I regret was adopted last evening by a respected Member of this House. The attitude he had taken up was this—that it was apparent that perhaps arguments might not convince the House, but personal attacks might. There was the cold argument, but to me it appeared an illogical argument—unfortunately I am a legal man. Cold argument was put up and that based on facts, and the facts stand and they have not yet been turned down, and that was the argument of Mr. Erskine Childers. If anyone seeks to turn that argument down, let them do it, not by personal attacks, but let them meet the facts by argument. Now, one of the things that strikes me in this Treaty before the House—as I heard it described last evening in some degree—in an analysis with the Act of Union—I say comparing it with the Act of Union, there is one ingredient, one characteristic in this Act that was in the Act of Union, and that is that it was obtained by force. I do not wish to say or to quote anything but on the facts that have been set out in this
MR. HOGAN:
On a point of order, I did not.
Mr. RUTTLEDGE:
Well, I put down the exact words at the time.
Mr. HOGAN:
What I did say was that in a Treaty with England she could give her control of certain ports without taking one iota from her status.
MR. RUTTLEDGE:
There was another matter in the debate. We have heard arguments that there was no real difference between the two documents. We had it spread in circulation in the Press that there was no difference between the two documents. Well, Deputy Duggan has admitted that one meant a Republic and the other did not. I hope there will be no more of this quibbling. I do not see why there should be such a terrible effort to obscure the issue.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Mr. Duggan is not here and he made no such statement as that.
MR. RUTTLEDGE:
I do not want to take advantage of any Deputy. I take it that Deputy Duggan in his statement put it forward that external association meant recognition of the Republic. I am speaking subject to contradiction. This is a grave matter. I will not try to take advantage of any man. Everyone here is able to answer for himself, but Mr. Duggan is not in the room. There is a lot of talk about sovereign status—I refer to constitutional lawyers or would-be constitutional lawyers. I am not trying to drag legal matters into this if I could avoid them, but they have been dragged in, and that is why I am trying to remove any misapprehensions in the mind of the Dáil. They talk about sovereign status, and they try to make out they could prove it, but at any rate did not prove it—that Canada was independent practically, and that she had sovereign status. Very well. Let us take Canada for a moment. Now Canada has appointed by the British Crown a Governor-General, and Canada's Constitution is embodied in an Act of the British Imperial Parliament. There is no getting away from that fact. No one here will try to argue away the character of that status. According to statements made in support of the Treaty we are to be put on the same basis as Canada. The Governor-General of Canada is appointed by the British Crown in accordance with an act of the Imperial Parliament. Where, I ask, does the question of equality come in there? No more than it comes in in the question of master and slave, of fealty and faithfulness. It was not made clear to the House on the first days what we were doing or what we were accepting. We had full freedom and independence subject to nobody we were told, but now it has been cleared up in discussion, and we know that we go into the British Empire as British subjects and that the Army of this country is the Army of Great Britain and that our Ministers are his Majesty's Ministers. If these facts were stated at first it might have saved a lot of useless argument. It is better to face the facts as we have them than to try to get away with something we cannot prove. There are two forms of authority, and I will state them, and no constitutional lawyer, or would-be constitutional lawyer, would differ with me in this. There is an authority that comes down and an authority that goes up. One comes from the King down, and the other goes from the people up. Now, I challenge contradiction on that—that there are those two forms of authority, one that goes from the King down, and the other that goes from the people up. If you try to establish that you are a Sovereign State you must derive your authority from the people up. But under this thing, call it a Treaty or Articles of Agreement, it comes from the King and through the Governor-General down. If I were arguing on document No. 2 that would be made plain. It does not permit of one moment's argument that authority comes from the King down and from the people up. That is admitted by every constitutional authority. Here we are standing on the authority that comes from the King down. I would have much preferred to see that everyone faced the facts as they were before him, and that there was no drawing of red herrings across any discussion. I know well that every Member of this House realises to the full the responsibility on his shoulders, and that it is no time for a quibble one way or another. Now I always understood—a misconception, unfortunately, on my part—that Treaties were always
Adjourned to 3.30). On resuming after the adjournment, the SPEAKER took the chair at 3.45.
Mr. M. COLLINS:
There have been references made to inaccurate reporting in the Press, and for the facility of the Press I suggest that any Members rising to speak should come up to the table, because the Press cannot hear them. I have been at the back of the hall and you cannot be heard from these corners. It is only fair to the Press and fair to the assembly that that should be done.
THE SPEAKER:
I already intended to do that—to ask each Deputy as he spoke to come up to the end of the table.
ALDERMAN W. T. COSGRAVE:
We have been listening for some days to various and varying opinions—legal opinions, I should say—from both sides of the House as to what this means or what that means. And latterly these opinions have been centering around the relative distinctions as between faithfulness and allegiance, and we have learned to-day that faithfulness is from a slave to a master, and that allegiance is only from a subject to a king. That is not the interpretation the man in the street puts upon it, and that is not my interpretation. A Doctor of Divinity in explaining this matter to me in connection with the oath points out that one can be faithful to an equal. And it is in that sense that I interpret this oath, and I believe I gave expression in the Cabinet to the opinion that this oath could be interpreted whatever way you looked at it. If you were sufficiently prejudiced on the one side to say that it was an oath of allegiance, you were entitled to do so, and if that be the interpretation of those who are against ratification of the Treaty, I make them a present of it. My interpretation of it is that in this commonwealth or association each of the members is equal; and if that be wrong, I think we will find ourselves in the company of some distinguished constitutional lawyers. Now practically every possible phase of this Treaty has been discussed, and there is very little for those who are taking part in this debate now to deal with except statements or interpretations of this instrument that have been made before. I concern myself with one or two of these. We were told that we of Dáil Eireann ‘having declared its independence should approve of and ratify
hear, hear
’. That is the law. This is the fact, and it is written immediately underneath it: ‘Canada is by the full admission of British statesmen equal in status to Great Britain and as free as Great Britain’. Do you say ‘hear, hear to that?’ [applause]. In Mr. Bonar Law's words, she has complete control over her own destiny. Now I hope I am not contravening any of our own regulations when I am reading from this document, but I think there is nothing in it which would leave me open to exception. ‘In law the British Parliament can make laws for Canada with or without Canada's consent, and in law British acts in Canada over-ride Canadian acts where there is any conflict between them’. That is the law, and immediately underneath it is written: ‘In fact Canada alone can legislate forA MEMBER:
Who wrote this?
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I stated that the authority was a remarkably good one. I am quoting from a document that I believe will not be—
MR. CHILDERS:
Whose is it?
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
It is tabled by ‘E. C. November 29th, 1921’[applause]. Mr. Childers, I understand. Now I hope we have made that point clear.
MR. CHILDERS:
I thought the Deputy was going to proceed, but he is not. Might I ask him to hand me the document for a moment. I daresay all present here will recognise that what be read out is precisely what I said in my own speech the other night, pointing out that Ireland could not possibly be in the same position as Canada. That memorandum began thus: ‘Ireland has been offered the position of a dominion, subject, however, to conditions in connection with defence and tariffs which are inconsistent with dominion rights. Ireland is not a British colony, but an ancient and distinct nation with an inherent right to independence. Nevertheless, supposing an offer of full and complete status was made, what would be the effect upon Ireland? Take Canada, for example. Canada has a legal position and a constitutional position, two wholly different things’.
MR. M. COLLINS:
On a point of order.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Leave him alone. He is making it as clear as mud.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I want to make the House appear like an assembly of legislators before the public. I don't want men jumping up every minute when their statements are challenged.
THE SPEAKER:
What is the point of order?
MR. M. COLLINS:
The point of order is this: the Deputy for Wicklow has already spoken in this. Some of my statements are challenged, and if he rises to reply, I have equally the right of reply. For goodness' sake let us conduct this discussion properly. The interruptions are all from the other side.
THE SPEAKER:
I might be allowed to do my best to conduct this discussion properly. I understand that the Deputy who was speaking gave way to Mr. Childers to explain the document, and it is for that Deputy if he likes to object.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Statements have been made about me and what I said, and I have not replied to them. I want to know is Mr. Childers allowed to discuss his own document which he handed to us, when he has already spoken, and if we are to be gagged from replying to Mr. Childers' associates?
THE SPEAKER:
Am I right in taking it that the Deputy who was speaking has given way to Mr. Childers to speak concerning the document that was quoted?
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
To tell you the honest truth, I wanted a moment or two. I don't know whether if we are going to discuss all those documents and read them all at such length we will ever get to the business. I believe I was right to extract from documents any relevant matters affecting this question I was dealing with. It is for you
THE SPEAKER:
The Deputy was not in order in interrupting your speech unless you gave way to him.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I will give way to him.
MR. CHILDERS:
It is a matter of universal fairness in all the assemblies of the world that when a part of a document is read that the writer can demand that the whole of it be read. I have six lines more: ‘Take the legal position and the constitutional position—the Law and the Fact—in turn, remembering that in Ireland, lying close to English shores, there would be nothing to prevent legal controls being enforced, and the Law made the Fact’.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I was not paying very much attention to the deputy when he was speaking, but I am concerned with one or two words in the paragraph of this instrument which refers to what is called ‘The practice of Constitutional Usage’. I am banking upon that, and I think I am entitled to do that. He complains that the Minister of Finance passed lightly over the clause concerning the ports, that he did less than justice to the subject. I believe there are something like ten or twelve lines from the Minister of Finance dealing with this matter, and he certainly, in my opinion, did justice to it. But I go on and I find that the Deputy said further that the clause in question said that Ireland was unfit to be entrusted with her own coastal defence. ‘In that clause was the most humiliating condition that could be inflicted on any nation claiming to be free’. Now I didn't read into that clause that Ireland was unfitted to be entrusted with her own coastal defence. I believe in another place the Deputy for Wicklow stated that the coastal defence was to be settled permanently—for ever and ever.
MR. CHILDERS:
I said occupation of ports under Clause 7.
Alderman COSGRAVE:
I cannot find exactly the words, and I wish you had interrupted me a little longer. ‘Clause 7 said’, Mr. Childers declared, ‘that permanently and for ever some of the most important ports were to be occupied by British troops’. Now I am not going to read this particular instrument, but Clause No. 7 says: ‘the Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to his Majesty's Imperial forces (a) such harbour and other facilities, etc’. and neither the words ‘for ever’nor ‘permanently’is in either part of that document. Now we are dealing fairly with one another, and we had better have the truth out. That statement is certainly not in accordance with the facts, and the Deputy for Wicklow is an honest man and he is reported here as having said that ‘permanently’ and ‘for ever’were included in that clause. They are not. I will tell you the particular instrument that they were possibly included in—the Act of Union, and this instrument wipes that out ‘permanently’ and ‘for ever’ [applause]. Now this Treaty has been criticised, belittled, and, I believe, slandered to an extent that certainly surprised me. It represents work that has been done in five years; greater than was accomplished by Emmet, O'Connell, Mitchell, Davis, Smith O'Brien, and Parnell, down even to Mr. Redmond with a united country behind him. In five years it has accomplished more than the best of those people hoped for. References have been made to Grattan's Parliament at the Private Session and the public Session. What was Grattan's Parliament? Did these people who spoke of Grattan's Parliament think that it was an injustice to this country to be deprived of it, and did the honourable and gallant—and I believe he has some claim to the title of rev.—Deputy from Wexford think it when he was addressing this Congress here yesterday. I recollect when I was very young in the Sinn Fein movement he was in it. I believe our Ambassador from Paris was in it too, but I think that the basis of the Sinn Fein movement at that time was the restoration of that Parliament of the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland. The gallant Deputy at that time was evidently a Royal Republican [applause]. A Republican from his boyhood I believe he told us he was. He must have omitted this particular period when he was a member of the Sinn Fein movement.
MR. ETCHINGHAM:
I wish you had to come to confession to me [laughter].
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Now the Deputy from Wicklow made a statement with which I am in entire agreement, that the freedom and the liberties of the people of Ireland could only be given away by the people of Ireland. We represent the people here—at least we think we do—and the people certainly have got a right to be heard on this question. Is there any fear of putting it up to them? [‘No’]. They have the right to get it put before them. [‘Yes’]. And they have the right to decide it? [‘Certainly’]. I think they have. Are you going to object to their having a decision on it? [‘No, no’]. And you will abide by it? [‘Certainly’]. Now, if we get that far, I think there is a great chance of healing up the difference between us. For over two-and-a-half years this Cabinet has worked loyally and well together and I certainly can pay a tribute to every member of it. I have known them to work night and day in the interests of the nation, men who thought no trouble too great to take at any time, and I should say that the two men who typified the best type of Irishmen I have ever known are the President and the Minister of Finance [applause]. I recollect four or five years ago the President spending six, seven and eight hours a day at meetings bringing people together and getting them to see common ground upon which they would work together: and would it not be a lamentable thing that, having come to this crisis, that we should now separate. I think the nation is deserving of the support of every one of its sons and daughters and that there should be no division with the people or with one another. Let us do what we can to let the people have their way. Now great exception was taken to a name—the name of the King and the Governor-General. Well, they are here now. The courts are functioning in their names.
MR. STACK:
What courts?
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Their courts. They are functioning. They may not be doing much business, but they are there for a very long time.
MR. STACK:
Whose courts?
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Their courts. There is not much terror in the name, even when it is backed up by armaments and equipment and motor lorries and tanks; and we are told to be terribly in dread of this new man who is to come as Governor-General. Now, I ask any man who votes for the ratification of the Treaty, does he really care a damn about the Governor-General? I don't believe that he does. We are told by the Deputy from Wicklow that we cannot prevent them landing troops if this instrument is ratified. I wonder could we prevent them now.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Well, we tried it a few times.
THE PRESIDENT:
An agreement is an agreement, and this agreement is before the world and has attracted universal attention.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
The President is surprised. He would like to get up and say a few words. The Minister of Finance lays special stress upon the fact that what was felt more deeply than anything else by this country was the peaceful penetration of the enemy. It is typified in every walk of life in the country. The best colleges play the foreign games. The President can bear me out in that [applause]. At the race meetings one sees the Union Jack. I believe the Minister for Home Affairs can bear me out in that. I don't know what the Minister of Defence does in his idle moments. I cannot get him to bear me out in anything. All I knew him to be interested in was in shooting, and even in the rifle-clubs that were established before the Volunteers the Union Jack floated over them. So that we have evidence that the peaceful penetration of the enemy was right in every fibre of our national life. Now, sir, if there is one thing more than another which this movement has done it is that it has captured the imagination and support of Southern Unionists as they have been known. I believe that there is no such thing as a Southern Unionist at all, and if there is any he is only fit for the Museum. This instrument gives us an opportunity of capturing the Northern Unionists and that is a proposition worthy of our best consideration; and with a generous invitation to cultivate and recognise our national identity, and to help us in putting this country in its
Saorstát na hEireann, a title and term honoured in July, now is a term of reproach. It is an extraordinary thing—what Mr. Dooley would call ‘a reversal of public form’. Now I was rather struck by the speech of the Minister for Finance, and I would personally hand it to him for his speech in this assembly. It was a remarkable contribution to the subject we are discussing. two words he mentioned were of vital importance, ‘security’ and ‘freedom’. Those who are criticising the ports being left for a period of five years in the bands of the British should realise that, after all, there must be some defence of them. We have not yet come to that period in which we could say, ‘Let there be a submarine’, and that it would come forth at once. While we are getting fitted up we must have something, and I consider that clause a reasonable inclusion in the instrument, in my opinion. We have been told that there was a 750 years' war. I am neither a young nor an old man, and if my recollection is quite correct the war has only gone on for five years during the last forty years, and then during the whole of that period it was not in operation. There was what you could call ‘a suspension of hostilities’ now and then, and, if my recollection is correct, we were criticised for bringing about war at all five years ago by some people. Now, sir, if the alternative to that document means war, there are one or two things that we ought to keep before us. One is that well-equipped armies may not win a war. That is one for John Bull. And one for ourselves is that the economic situation is not such in this country at this moment that would justify us in taking the risk of precipitating war. The Minister for Economies or his substitute Minister had not during the Private Session or up to this referred to the economic situation in bringing about war. Here in the capital of Ireland there are something like 20,000 families living in single-room tenement dwellings, and are these the people you are going to ask to fight for you? It is not fair, I submit. To my mind, when I first saw this instrument, it appeared that there were potentialities in it undreamt of in this country up to this time. If as a result of the successful working and administration of this act that that gradual improvement that has been outlined in a semi-prophetic fashion by the Minister of Finance was brought about and the ideals this country struggled for generations should come to pass, it might possibly be within the bounds of certainty that a reconciliation would be effected between the new world and the old; that these two great countries
MESSRS. COLLINS AND GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
And any matter in their state would be a matter of security to the Irish Free State. Now, I think it is right that the point that was made by the Minister of Finance should be emphasised, and that is that if they did not agree to sign this Treaty this is not the instrument that would be put before you. When they went back to London on that fateful Saturday, four remarkable improvements took place in the document that they brought back. The first is absolute and entire control over the taxation of commodities coming into the country. Personally I don't believe that there will be much taxation on these things, but, at any rate, you have got the right—the right was admitted. The second item was in connection with the oath. Well, I suppose everyone has his own conscience, but some people say they are more conscientious than others. As an ordinary common or garden man—may I accept that interpretation of it?—I have not got the constitutional lawyer's mind, the solicitor's mind, or even the mind of an idealist, but an ordinary business man's mind, and I see nothing objectionable in it, absolutely. And all the oratory I have heard on the other side has not convinced me that it is objectionable. I believe I heard the President on one occasion state if you are prepared to make a bargain, why would you not be prepared to be faithful to it.
THE PRESIDENT:
Hear, hear.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Very well, then. Is this a bargain or is it not? It is a bargain.
THE PRESIDENT:
It is not.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Very well, then, the objection is not to the oath at all but to the bargain. I am fair at making bargains myself. I believe on one occasion, Mr. President, when you said to me that you were sure Lloyd George was a tricky man, I said to you, ‘I suppose if he were not you would be very honest with him’.
THE PRESIDENT:
I don't remember the conversation, I must say.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I suppose it is right to say that you would not try to get the better of him. I think that is about all I have to say. I believe, sir, the loss of the President to the Free State should this instrument be approved would be a terrible loss. I believe the loss of the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Finance would be equally irreparable. I know the Minister for Defence. My own conviction is that except for war he is not worth a damn for anything else, but that he is a great man for war I bear witness to, because even when the spark of life was practically gone out of him he was as full of fight as when be was going into it. Whether I have made a ease for signing the Treaty or not, I think that Dáil Eireann is in better humour now than when I started, and I now formally approve, recommend, and support the Treaty.
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
It has been said by many Deputies when they rose to speak that they would try to keep the House as short a time as possible. I, too, shall do that, but I am sorry that I cannot promise that it will be very short, for I rise to speak with the deepest and fullest sense of my responsibility, not only to those who sent me here, but to the whole Irish nation which now is to make a decision fateful—far more fateful than was the decision made in 1800, for with all the allusions made to Grattan's parliament, one thing has not been said: that is that it wasn't the Parliament of the people. It was a Parliament representing, or supposed to be representing, only one-fifth of the people of Ireland, and
Northern Irelandif Britain so wills. And take that statement ‘when the articles of agreement are ratified’in connection with Article 18 of the Treaty: ‘This instrument shall be submitted forthwith by his Majesty's
MR. MILROY:
Under a British act of Parliament.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Yes, under a British act of
Parliament, for until our Government was functioning we had no
machinery to act otherwise. The Deputy who has spoken knows perfectly
well, as well as every intelligent man listening to me knows, that if
we had refused to use that act of Parliament against the enemy
himself, what would have happened was that all the Southern Unionists,
gombeen men and other good-for-nothing, soulless,
characterless men would have gone up for that Southern Irish
Parliament and legalised partition. Moreover, in this assembly there
sits at least one Member who holds a seat for Northern Ireland and has
no seat in Southern Ireland at all, and, therefore, this assembly is
not legally entitled, even by that instrument, to approve or
disapprove of this agreement. But, allowing that we approve of it. If
approved, it will be ratified by the necessary legislation, and Lloyd
George says the Army will go out when it is ratified. Now, watch Lloyd
George. He will take some watching. He is known in every Chancellory
in Europe as the most unscrupulous trickster that has ever occupied an
honourable office. As far as we in Ireland are concerned, the office
which he holds never has been an honourable office, but in his own
country it is supposed to be so. And never has a more unscrupulous
scoundrel sat in the seats of the mighty than Lloyd George. There is
no Government in Europe that trusts his word. Will you do it? It has
been said here, moreover, that the people would rush at this, that the
people would ratify it. That I deny. The people might have last
Thursday morning, because the people had not read or studied it. I
know myself of several instances where people seeing the names of
those signatories to that document threw up their hats in the air and
cried, ‘Hurrah, peace at last’, without ever knowing that there
was an oath to the English King in it. In trying to make some amusing
points—some flippant points against one of the Members of this
assembly—the last speaker mentioned Sinn Fein, that they were
members of Sinn Fein once together, and all Sinn Fein stood for then
was the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. That is perfectly true of
many Members here—I for one say it has never been true of me, or
anyone belonging to me. We absolutely refused to join Sinn Fein until
Sinn Fein became Republican. It is absolutely true to say that that
Treaty as it is given to you was the be-all and the end-all of Sinn
Fein's existence up to 1918. It is the darling and the pet of Mr.
Arthur Griffith's life. He has talked to us; he has shown how the
Irish Party were fooled by Lloyd George or Lloyd George's
predecessors. He has talked about 1782 and getting back to it. Some of
us in 1917 had some trouble to make him use the word Republic
. He did not believe in a Republic. He is
the one man of the five delegates who has shown
that he does not believe in a Republic. Now that is to him an honest
document Sinn Fein up to 1918 was not Republican, and in 1917 some of
us were wondering very strongly whether we ought or ought not adopt
another organisation altogether which would be definitely Republican,
but we preferred to make that one that was in existence, and all the
common members of which became definitely Republican after 1916 the
organisation, if the founder and advocate of it would stand for
complete independence. We wanted to get done with 1782ism, and we will
not go back to it. And it is absolutely true to say that many men here
who are now honest Republicans in spite of the sneers, joined Sinn
Fein and were good members of Sinn Fein, while half-measures were
possible. Half-measures are no longer possible, because on the 21st of January, 1919, this assembly,
elected by the will of the sovereign people of Ireland, declared by
the will of the people the Republican form of Government as the best
for Ireland, and cast off for ever their allegiance to any foreigner.
with the stake in the country—we know the phrase so well—will vote for that, perhaps, but don't count on it too much. The men with the
stake in the countryknow that the worst thing that can happen the country now is a split, and that split is inevitable if the people who stand on principle only declare that they cannot give in. You, who stand for expediency, you who stand for the fleshpots, for finance, for an army, you can give in. We cannot. One man or one army cannot stand up against mighty legions, but not all the armies of all the peoples in the world, or all the Empires in the world, can conquer the spirit of one true man. That one man will prevail, but with that one man many will stand. It is not one man or a hundred
MR. GRIFFITH:
I protest against such a statement, that the only one who has spoken honestly is one man. It is an implication of dishonesty against every other Member—
MISS MACSWINEY:
I will let the public decide.
MR. GRIFFITH:
It is for the Speaker to decide whether such an expression should be used.
MISS MACSWINEY:
If I have used a word which is unworthy of this Dáil I withdraw it,
DEPUTY HOGAN:
I don't know.
MISS MACSWINEY:
I will tell you, and I will tell you not from my intimate knowledge of Canadian law, not from my intimate knowledge of Canadian constitutional practice, not from any personal acquaintance of Lloyd George or Chamberlain or Churchill, but from my knowledge of English history, English practice, English fact and English trickery as applied to our own country. She has not got it for the very same reason that Washington did not yet recognise the Irish Republic, because of English intrigue at Washington. Don't make any mistake about it. What is the use of Canada being told in the Colonial Conference that she may have a foreign representative if she doesn't get one? ‘A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’ [applause]. But Canada's representation is still in the bush and likely to remain there.
A DEPUTY:
And so will document No. 2.
MISS MACSWINEY:
And Irish freedom will never be further away in that more intricate bush than the day you adopt that instrument. Again, take the representative of the Crown in Ireland. We were told the representative of the Crown would not, by the gracious kindness of Lloyd George, be called a Governor-General unless we liked the name. What does it matter what he is called, or whether you have a Viceroy, a Governor-General, or a representative of the Crown pure and simple? What on earth does it matter what he is called as long as he is head of a thing to which we cannot agree? What will that representative of the Crown mean? It has been said and contradicted that it will mean his Majesty's Army, his Majesty's Ministers. It may be that the Irish people will avoid the name ‘his Majesty's Ministers’ in exactly the same way as they will avoid the name ‘Governor-General’, but they will be the thing And you young men of the Irish Republican
A DEPUTY:
He is welcome to them.
MISS MACSWINEY:
I love my people, every single one of them; I love the country, and I have faith in the people, but I am under no delusions about any of us. We are not a race of archangels, and you allow that Governor-General's residence, with drawing-rooms, levees, and honours and invitations to be scattered broadcast to your wives and your sisters and your daughters, and mothers even, with all the baits that will be held out to them to come in for the first time by consent of the Irish people in the social atmosphere of the Governor-General's residence. Remember that there will be functions there which will be partly social and partly political, which will be Governmental functions. The Ministers of the Government of the Irish Free State—I will omit for the sake of argument the offensive words ‘his Majesty's Ministers’—will be obliged to attend the Governor-General's functions and he will attend theirs. Wherever the Governor-General is, or the representative of the Crown in Ireland is, there you will have the Union Jack and ‘God Save the King’ and you will have the Union Jack and ‘God Save the King’ for the first time with the consent of the people of Ireland. You may say to me, some of you, that there will be, perhaps, a self-denying ordinance clause which will prevent the Ministers of the Irish Government, or any person belonging to the Irish Government, entering the portals of the Governor-General's house. You cannot. You will have to have him there as representative of the King with certain functions to perform. You cannot exclude him. You cannot stay away from him. You will have to get his signature to documents. You will have to get his signature to every law that is passed by the Irish Free State Government, and if the Minister for Foreign Affairs stands up and contradicts that, if he says we can make a Constitution which will take care that the Governor-General does not have to sign any such document, again I say, ‘wait and see’, wait until your Constitution has come through Westminster, wait till the English Government, by means of this instrument of theirs, signed by the Irish Delegation—they have demoralised the people of this country as they had already demoralised some of the men in this assembly by their specious arguments. Your Constitution must be ‘as by law established’. Wait and see whether it will get you out of the English representative's domicile in Dublin. You may tell me that the patronage—abominable word—think of the word patronage being used to an Irish Republican Assembly—‘his Majesty's patronage’ will be under the control of the Irish Government. I have no doubt, none whatever, but that any Minister of the Irish Free State, any one of those advocating support of this Treaty in the present Dáil, would refuse a title from his Majesty's Government, but wait a little while until the first fervour of the Irish Free State is worn out, wait a little while until a stage is reached when the demoralisation has eaten into the soul of the people of this country, and the next Parliament won't be so very self-denying with regard to honours and patronage. And remember what you are doing to the young girls growing up into this so-called Irish Free State. Many young girls of my own personal acquaintance, not very many, because very many of that type, I am sorry to
MR. MILROY:
I will answer that question if the Deputy wishes an answer to it.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Yes, I don't mind, if the Speaker thinks it is in order.
MR. MILROY:
I take it the question is: ‘Am I prepared to let the women of Ireland judge whether this Treaty should be ratified or not?’ Yes, and accept their decision too.
MISS MACSWINEY:
I am glad, but as I prefaced my statement by the words ‘if it were a democratic proposition’, I suppose that the answer, as well as the question, will be considered rhetorical.
MR. MILROY:
You are not prepared to take the decision?
MISS MACSWINEY:
I am prepared. I would take a plebiscite of the women of Ireland gladly, and I know what the answer would be.
MR. GRIFFITH:
So would we.
MISS MACSWINEY:
This matter has been put to us as the Treaty or war. I say now if it were war, I would take it gladly and gleefully, not flippantly, but gladly, because I realise that there are evils worse than war, and no physical victory can compensate for a spiritual surrender. But I deny that the alternative is war, as I deny that the alternative would have been war on the night of the 5th of last December. I will come to that presently, but this I say: You show the people of England that we are prepared to make peace with them on honourable terms, giving them even guarantees that they are not in justice entitled to, giving them even the money to which they are not in justice entitled in exactly the same spirit that I would give a robber a reward for giving me back my purse and part of its contents—show the people of England that we want peace, if we can get an honourable peace, and I have no doubt they will not vote £250,000,000, which Lloyd George says is the price of exterminating Ireland. I don't deny that there is a danger that England will go to war. I do deny that there is a danger that she will be allowed to exterminate the people of Ireland, for the conscience of the world is awake, and I would like to quote one sentence to you from a man whose name I am not going to mention: ‘ The rulers of the World dare not look on indifferent while new tortures are being prepared for our people, or they will see the pillars of their own Government shaken and the world involved in unimaginable anarchy’. That is the answer to the threat. The rulers of the world dare not allow Ireland to be exterminated. If they do, Ireland must choose extermination before dishonour, and Ireland will choose. I have no dread whatever of the verdict of the Irish people. I come to one more thing. That is the insult to the people of Ireland by the Deputies who have taken it for granted that the Irish people are going to jump at their own dishonour. With a definite Republican Manifesto in your pockets, How dare you say your constituents have changed until you have gone and asked them? I come now to a very important point—for me one of the most important points that has to be dealt with here. I raised it in the Private Session, and, judging by the speeches I have heard in the public Session, I may as well have talked to the wall: that is the negotiations themselves. I am sorry that Mr. Michael Collins, Minister for Finance, and Dr. MacCartan have chosen to abstain at this particular moment, because I must use their names, and I dislike using any man's name in his absence. Negotiations, we are told, meant surrender. As one of those who has taken throughout this whole conflict, throughout the whole of our stand since 1919, and much further back, an absolutely uncompromising and irreconcilable stand, if you like to so call it, I deny that absolutely. People here present who want to compromise have told me that if I did not see that compromise was intended I must have been either a fool or wilfully blind. I do not think I am a fool. I know I was not wilfully blind, and, being utterly and entirely uncompromising in my fidelity and allegiance to the Republic, I stand here before Ireland to-day to tell the truth about these negotiations as a Member of the Dáil that sent the Delegation. The public know perfectly well how Mr. Arthur Griffith, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has told us again and again in years past of the paper wall which England built around Ireland. On the outside of that paper wall England wrote what she wanted the rest of the world to believe about Ireland, and on the inside of the paper wall she wrote what she wanted Ireland to believe about the world. It is largely due to the strong and determined and honourable efforts of Mr. Griffith himself that the people of Ireland did not believe the fairy-tales written on the inside; but the world outside did, and only this great fight of ours and all the publicity which attended every single thing about it, and the publicity that went abroad throughout the world—because of certain incidents in that fight, the world began to see something of the truth for which Ireland stood. But the world did not see it all and English propaganda was powerful still. Enough was seen to get the conscience of the world up against England, and then England tried to tell the world these people are only a
DEPUTY HOGAN:
On a point of order, I don't want to allow Miss MacSwiney to proceed under a misunderstanding. I did stand up; I did not mention this before. I stood up and said I approved of the conference and reserved my right to say what I had to say until the delegates came back.
MISS MACSWINEY:
I am glad that Deputy Hogan agrees with me. That was my attitude. I approved of the conference with all my heart and mind and strength because I believed it was the last plank of English propaganda and that we had broken it. Now to come back from that. One Member, who has since, like Deputy Hogan, supported ratification of this document, declared that even if he had nothing left but the island of Arran, he would dig himself in and hold it for the Republic. In view of the still undoubted strength of the British Fleet, I would say the island of Arran was the worst spot to choose. The last speaker who stood up was Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, and he also, in a slightly superior voice, which he has maintained throughout this debate, suggested to me, and those who spoke also, that the discussion was a little too previous, that we had all sworn an oath to the Republic, and that when the Delegation came back from London with something less than the Republic it would be time enough to talk. He has talked since, not effectively, for there has not been an effective argument made on what I call, without fear of opposition, the material side of this House. He has talked flippantly of posterity, and I do not like to see a young man of Deputy O'Higgins, intelligence and his youth talk flippantly of posterity. Rather would I like to hear him stand and say, as was said about Tone on another fight of liberty: ‘Bliss was it not with Tone to be alive, but to be young was very heaven’. I consider it was bliss to be alive up to the 6th of this month. I do not yet agree with Dr. MacCartan that the Republic is dead. It cannot die. But I should like to be as young as Deputy O'Higgins is now, to carry on the fight for posterity. It is sad to find young men in this assembly speaking against all that is noble, all that is great, all that is magnanimous in the people of our
MR. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Mr. Griffith has brought back something that he thinks the Irish people will accept. They will not, and, if a majority of them do, Mr. Griffith will find what I warned him of is true: a split in the country with half, or nearly half, of the country rebels to his Government. Mr. Griffith knew that we, Republicans, could not stand for that. So much, so far. I would like to ask another question, to which I hope some Minister will reply before this Session closes. Did we not have in London a representative of the Irish Republican Government, a man who knows London well, and who for the last three years has been closely associated with the Republican Government as its representative? Was he consulted in this matter at all? I wrote to him also about this matter of the Press, for I know that he realises the value of the Press and the terrible crime against Ireland which it was to allow the Press of the world to get away with the idea that we meant compromise. He wrote me back that he believed it was a fatal mistake to let the Press get away with this English story, and that he had told the members of the Delegation so. Our representative in Paris has told us already in his speech that he left Paris and came home to protest, and that he also protested in London en route. So they did not sin without knowledge, and I maintain it was a crime to our cause to allow all that unfair propaganda to be used against us. Another thing I would like to know is this: in those fatal two hours, from 8.30 to 10.30—allowing that from 10.30 to 2.30 a.m. they were in the fatal atmosphere of Downing Street with terrible or immediate war hanging over their heads, and I realise the responsibility that lay on them about the signing of that document—did they consult the representative of our Government in London? He knew London better than any of us; he knew Lloyd George as well, if not better, than any of them, and he knew the mind of the English people better than any of them. Did they consult him as to whether Lloyd George was bluffing or not? I think his opinion would have been worth taking in the matter. Did they consult anybody they were entitled to consult? They were absolutely entitled to consult the representative of the Irish Republican Government in London, just as much as in any conference in a foreign country the Ambassador of England would be consulted. I maintain that our cause was not lost when we sent negotiators to London. Our cause was not lost, and is not lost yet [hear, hear]. Our cause was injured by the mismanagement of the Press in London; by the carelessness, the inexcusable carelessness of the Minister of Publicity. What on earth he was there for I cannot see. And lost by the fact that the Delegation completely ignored the feeling which they knew existed amongst the out-and-out Republicans in this assembly. That feeling was perfectly, strongly and plainly expressed before one of them went to London. You are told they got no terms of reference. I maintain they did, and those terms of reference are three. There is first the last published statement made by this Dáil; there is secondly the credentials given to them by the President; and there is thirdly their instructions. If those were not credentials, if those were not terms of reference, I do not know what are terms of reference. It is absurd to say that terms of reference should be given and accepted by both Governments. You know that was impossible. In our case you know there was a mental reservation that the Republic is what we meant and that we would take nothing but the Republic. The President expresses that in his final telegram to Lloyd George, quoted by the Minister of Finance. Our last word to these delegates was this: ‘In this final note we deem it our duty to reaffirm that our position is, and can only be, what we have been fighting for throughout the correspondence. Our nation has firmly declared its independence and recognises itself as a Sovereign State and it is only as the representatives of that State and its chosen guardians that we have any authority or powers to act on behalf of our people’. They went there as the elected representatives of the Republican Government, and it was only as the elected representatives of the Republican Government that they had
Treaty, though his Majesty doesn't—have they already learned one lesson from England, the art of self-deception? There is nothing in which the Englishman excels more than in the art of self-deception. It looks as if the Irish Free Staters have already learned that lesson. I have finished; I have said, not all I could say, for I could take these articles one by one and give you many more details against them. I have said all that is necessary to say for the honour of myself and for what I stand for, and for the honour of the Republican Members of this Dáil. I do not speak for those who spoke last night of a dead Republic and sobbed a pitiful caoine over it. I speak for the living Republic, the Republic that cannot die. That document will never kill it, never. The Irish Republic was proclaimed and established by the men of Easter Week, 1916. The Irish Republican Government was established in January, 1919, and it has functioned since under such conditions that no country ever worked under before. That Republican Government is not now going to be fooled and destroyed by the Wizard of Wales. We beat him before and we shall beat him again, and I pray with all my heart and soul that a majority of the Members of this assembly will throw out that Treaty and that the minority will stand shoulder to shoulder with us in the fight to regain the position we held on the 4th of this month. I pray that once more; I pray that we will stand together, and the
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I am afraid we will have to sit to-morrow night. We wish to try to have the debate ended before Christmas.
MR. COLIVET:
Is it necessary for every Member here to make a speech? I think it is not if the Whips on both sides would collect the names of those who really do wish to speak and arrange them. Since the division list will be published, and the people made aware of our attitude, it is not necessary for all to speak. If every Member speaks we will be here for a fortnight. When all who announce to the Whips their desire to speak have spoken, the closure could be moved.
MR. ARTHUR GRIFFITH:
I feel that every Member will not speak for three hours. The whole business was held up this evening by one Member who spoke for two hours and forty minutes. Any person in this assembly can express what he wishes to express in from ten to fifteen minutes.
The Dáil adjourned till 11 a.m. next day.
THE SPEAKER took the Chair at 11.5 a.m.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
At the outset of the proceedings I would like to again draw the attention of this House to the fact that one grave misrepresentation of my remarks on the evening before last did not get that correction which I demanded and which you supported yesterday as fur as the English and, I understand, the other foreign Press is concerned. I would like the Pressmen here to remember that I regard this as a most serious misrepresentation, and any failure on the part of any newspaper, no matter where, will be made accountable by me [hear, hear].
PROFESSOR M. HAYES (NATIONAL UNIVERSITY):
Ní fheadar an ceart domhsa labhairt anso indiu, mar fear óg iseadh me agus ní bhfuair me bás fós. Do reir mar a dubhradh linn ine is mór an locht ar fhearaibh óga bheith beo. Is ceart dúinn ar ndícheall do dheanamh chun an cheist seo do shocrú do reir mar a chítear dúinn e, agus do reir mar is dóigh linn is ceart e a shocrú. Ni thógfad ró-fhada chun an cheist seo do phle agus do thabhairt amach go soileir.
A Chinn Chomhairle, I wish to say here that in going to vote for this Treaty I rise under the shadow of an indictment made here yesterday according to which the young men who have made speeches on this side of the Dáil have a number of very serious defects, and since I suppose I am one of the youngest of these men the defects may be all the greater in my case. We were told that the young men who spoke for this Treaty are dishonest, unintelligent, ignorant of Irish history, negligent of their duties to their constituents, knowing nothing of living constitutions or constitutional law, and finally, unable to think. Now it is a serious thing to have to make a speech when you reflect that you have been indicted in that way. We sent over plenipotentiaries to negotiate on this to negotiate a Treaty or treaties of association with the British Commonwealth of Nations. They have brought back a Treaty and the President has told us that in signing it they were within their rights. On their last visit to London they did their best to interpret not the view of the Cabinet, but the divergent views of the Cabinet at home in so far as these divergent views could be brought together in any agreed document. Now the position surely is this, that this country had fought but did not win out; that is to say we had not driven out the enemy. Now our plenipotentiaries, who were chosen for their judgment and their courage, having weighed up all the contingencies, approved of the Treaty, and not one of us can run away from the responsibility of deciding whether he is for or against that Treaty. A lady in this assembly has given us a very noble guide, a very noble sentiment to guide us when we are making up our minds. The member for St. Patrick's Division (Madam Markievicz) told us in Private Session that in voting for or against the Treaty we should decide according to the conscience and judgment that God has given us. The problem is there and it would be cowardly to shirk it; and according to the judgment and conscience God has given me I have made up my mind [hear, hear]. In judging this Treaty I take two standards, first the question of our honour, and the second question is whether under this
Treaty. The meaning is fairly well known. I may be ignorant of Irish history, but I submit that since English domination became effective in Ireland, that is to say since Kinsale and the
flight of the Earls, the Irish Nation has never got as much recognition as a nation in the eyes of the world as it got while these negotiations were going on, and as it gets by this Treaty [hear, hear]. We were told plainly and distinctly by our ambassadors in foreign parts that no nation in the world recognises an Irish Republic, and more recognition has been given to Ireland by England than has been given by any other nation in the world; and if we have the courage to grasp that and act in the light of that achievement we will be doing right [hear, hear]. The agreement is embodied in the Treaty and therefore it seems to me that our national status is vindicated; and further, the Constitution of the new state is to be drawn up by the Irish Government, and I trust that Government and I trust the Irish people to see that it will be drawn up properly. In this connection much has been made of the words ‘subject to the Provisions of the Treaty’. But why did we go to make a Treaty at all if we object to the words
Provisions of a Treaty; occurring in it. The provisions of this Treaty make no restrictions on the Irish Constitution. The Irish Constitution will derive, not from this Treaty, not from any Act of the British Parliament, but from the Irish people. As far as I can see in it it makes no mention of any country but Ireland. Why should it? This Treaty defines our relations with the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is not a concession, not a Home Rule Bill, but an international instrument, not granting us rights but acknowledging rights that have long been questioned and are now admitted in face of the world by England. Now so far I think the Treaty recognises our National status, and the Minister of Finance speaking in Armagh in September, and then I suppose representing a united Cabinet, stated we were out for the substance of freedom. I submit that in this Treaty we have the substance of freedom if we have the courage to take it; and when we are asked ‘Is this what has been fought for?’ I say that if the words of the Treaty give you the right to say that England must get out of Ireland then that is what was fought for [hear, hear]. Now, my friend, Deputy Etchingham, told us there was only one man in this assembly who can interpret the Treaty. That gentleman was Mr. Childers. I don't know whether that is an example of the slave mind or not, but anyhow I will quote you Mr. Childers on the Treaty. Speaking about Article 2. which defines our relations with the Imperial Parliament, he told us that if the Dominion of Canada wished to defy the law by constitutional usage, Canada and the other nations have acquired virtual independence, they are virtually independent nations, exercising full executive and legislative rights. Now if a nation exercising full legislative and executive rights is not free I don't know what freedom is. We have been given numbers of arguments. I may summarise them in this way: —first, the substance of freedom cannot he found in the words of the Treaty. Well then the definitions that we had of the powers of Canada are wrong. Secondly, these powers—the substance of freedom—are in the Treaty, but you cannot get them because you are too near England. I am one of the young men who did not go out with my head up when Mr. Childers was speaking. I listened to him very carefully and the idea I got—it may be a misunderstanding—but the impression left upon me was this, that he was indicting the historic Irish Nation for having chosen this island for its habitation instead of some island in the Pacific. But we cannot help that. It is a defect in our world position. It is nothing short, to my mind, of absurdity, nothing short of expressing a complete distrust of the Irish people, to argue that you cannot get the things you want through
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I say fundamentally, based upon this Treaty, it is dishonourable.
PROFESSOR M. HAYES:
I submit that it is not dishonourable. It passes to our hands, and education in an Ireland where there would be no interference whatever from England would certainly be Irish Education. There is no use in denying that it certainly would be Irish education; and at the moment practically every child in Ireland is being educated in the most deplorable way you can imagine, under an English system guided by English ideas, and interpreted in an English way; and the Government of the Irish Republic, in the Educational Department of which I have worked and done my best is utterly powerless to do anything—even under a truce—to do anything to stop it. I speak exactly and precisely of what I know. Anything that has been done for the last few months has been based on the supposition that we were going to get control of Education; and if we have to go back to fighting
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Yes and you are killing them with this.
PROFESSOR M. HAYES:
Under this Treaty you can get the Irish language and get Irish ideals with freedom; and it seems to me the only argument against that is, that when the Irish people get control of Irish education themselves they won't be able to manage it. That seems to me to be the fundamental argument against. We are told we cannot teach Irish history. We certainly can. We were asked how would we teach the history of 1916 under a Free State. We would teach it as it ought to be taught and as it cannot be taught now. Now I believe that we are going to agree to a cutting down of these speeches. I hope we are, but I have done my best to explain to you on what ground I have come to a decision. We have fought against English domination and within the four corners of that Treaty English domination in Ireland can be got rid of. We were asked yesterday evening to consider the horrors we were going to inflict on the young girls of Ireland by establishing a representative of the King in Ireland. I do not know really, for personally I never came into contact anywhere with people who had been to the Viceregal Court in Ireland. But I do know this Treaty will remove from Ireland a more immoral influence on the young girls of Ireland, that is, the English Garrison [applause]. I have done my best with my own poor intelligence to form an honest opinion of this Treaty and I have given it to you. Further, I have not formed my opinion on the Treaty because I think the alternative is war. I formed my opinion independently, but no alternative has been offered here. Further, I believe that my view represents the views of my constituents, and I would be quite prepared to go before my constituents to give my views as I have stated them, and even go before the women graduates of the National University whom I represent and give them any opinion, and I am sure they would stand by it. I have come to this opinion honestly, and whatever the decision of this House will be, one way or the other, I shall abide by it. I will not run away from it one way or the other. The decision I have come to honestly is to vote for this Treaty. I have come to it and I am neither ashamed nor afraid of it [applause].
MR. SEAN O'CEALLAIGH:
A Chinn Chomhairle, agus a lucht na Dála, is truagh liom sinn a bheith deighilte mar atáimíd fós, agus is mó de thruagh liom oiread so easaontais do bheith eadrainn toisc gan ár dteanga dhúchais ar leithligh do bheith ar siubhal againn anso. Dá mb'í ár dteanga dhúchais a bheadh ar siubhal againn is lú beann a bheadh againn ar na daoine iasachta atá ag faire orainn is ar na páipeirí nuachta atá go nimhneach 'nár gcoinnibh. Tá súil agam nuair a bheidh deire le cúrsaí an chóthionóil seo go gcuimhneochaidh lucht na Dála ar an rud is dual dóibh uile agus go mbainfid feidhm arís as teangain ár dtíre; agus na daoine nách feidir leo san a dheanamh, no nách mian leo san a dheanamh go dtuigfe siad feasta nach áit oiriúnach dóibh Dáil Eireann. Before I proceed to examine in my own inexpert way the proposals of this pact, I should like through you, Mr. Speaker, to express my sense of gratitude to Deputy Erskine Childers, for his lucid and informing analysis of that scheme, and I want to say if every one in this Dáil approached the discussion in the same spirit as he has done, the people of Ireland would be in a better position to form a just judgment of the proposals before us; and I would also like to record my high appreciation of the superb address we heard last evening from Deputy Miss MacSwiney [hear, hear]. To my mind that address not only vindicates the far-flung movement for women's rights, but places Miss MacSwiney
the soldier's tradedown to the lowest sordid level of the politician's. Now I am not going to labour that point. I think those who run may read. Now I come to
King Charles's Head—to quote a previous speaker—the much discussed Oath of Allegiance involved in the opening Clause, and crystallised in Clause 4 which reads: ‘I, J. J. Walsh’—if I may take the liberty of using the name of my honourable friend in illustration—‘do solemnly swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the Irish Free State, as by law established, and that I will be faithful to His Majesty King George V., his heirs and successors by law, in virtue of the common citizenship of Ireland with Great Britain, and her adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.’ ‘This’, said Mr Griffith, in introducing his motion, ‘is an oath of allegiance to the Free State of Ireland and faithfulness to King George V. in his capacity as head, and in virtue of the Common
MR. J. J. WALSH:
On a point of order, as you mentioned my name I would like to know which Oath you are reading.
MR. O'CEALLAIGH:
I have read the Oath in the Pact, and only I felt I had the permission of my distinguished and honourable old friend I would not take such a liberty with his name.
A DEPUTY:
Give us the other one.
MR. O'CEALLAIGH:
I only used my friend's name in illustration, and I read the interpretation of the Oath given by the Chairman of the Delegation. Now I differ radically from the Chairman of the Delegation in regard to this Oath. I am opposed to it because to pledge unborn generations of our people ‘to be faithful to King George, his heirs and successors’ as it does, is to do violence to the most elementary principles of democracy, and to be democratic surely—not to declare for hereditary rule—should be a prime aim of our newborn native Government. I tell everyone here to-day you must take note of democracy, genuine democracy, in the new Ireland growing up around us. I am opposed to the Oath because, instead of ensuring the distinct citizenship for which we have ever clamoured, still clamour and shall continue to clamour, and to fight for, if necessary, this Oath professes to make a virtue of ‘common citizenship with Great Britain’ involving common responsibilities, and intensifying the accursed union against which we have never ceased to protest and which we shall never cease to detest and to loathe. I am opposed to the restoration of this alien declaration of fidelity because I am reminded by the presence of a friend in the audience—only the other day some of the men who here signed the proposed agreement helped to render civil servants who took a similar oath of allegiance under duress, ineligible as teachers in the Dublin Trade Schools, while for the same reason other civil servants were driven out of the Gaelic Athletic Association which, to my personal knowledge, they had done much to build up and restore to popularity. I am far from desiring ‘to indecently rattle the bones of the dead’, but I say here now that the rattling of the bones of the dead was rendered inevitable by those who put Commandant MacKeon in the false position of seconding this motion.
MR. MACKEON:
Who did so? I wish to say that I seconded the motion of my own free will and according to my own free reason [applause].
MR. O'CEALLAIGH:
Well, I accept the correction with pleasure. I am opposed to the Oath no matter what is said about it. I am opposed to this declaration of fidelity to an alien King because it is an outrage on the memory of our martyred comrades, and in the circumstances in which we find ourselves here today, I say this is an open insult to the heroic relatives they have left behind. I am opposed to it because its inclusion in this proposed agreement, in flagrant disregard of the published correspondence between our President and the British Premier and the Pope, is an unauthorised departure from the spirit of the instructions given our Delegates at the meeting of Dáil Eireann which appointed them. I am opposed to it finally because to support it or even condone it would be tantamount to perjuring myself and would contribute, in my humble opinion, towards perjuring the sixty or more colleagues to whom, by your authority, I have administered the Oath of Allegiance to the Saorstát.
MR. M. STAINES:
The oath a man takes is a question for his own conscience and I certainly will not be dictated to by anybody as to what oath I will take.
MR. O'CEALLAIGH:
Mr. Speaker. I want to say
to you, or such of you as were members of the original Dáil, in
unanimously electing me as your Chairman during the long absence of my
friend, Mr. Sean T. O'Kelly, imposed upon me the obligation of
administering to every one of my colleagues this Oath of true faith
and allegiance to the Saorstát. Now this is the Oath I
administered to them: ‘I
[gap: blank to be filled/extent: 2/3 words]
do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I do not yield
a voluntary support
interruptions
’.MR. M. COLLINS:
I would appeal to Deputies not to be interrupting. Do not copy the tactics of the other side.
MR. O'CEALLAIGH
reading:
‘I
[gap: blank to be filled/extent: 2/3 words]
do solemnly swear (or
affirm) that I do not and shall not yield a voluntary support to any
pretended Government authority or power within Ireland hostile and
inimical thereto, and I do further swear (or affirm) that to the best
of my knowledge and ability I will support and defend the Irish
Republic and the Government of the Irish Republic, which is
Dáil Eireann, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this
obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion. So help me God’
Now with all due respect to the President, with all due respect to the Chairman of the Delegation, with all due respect to the experts in the Hall, and to the Professors of Ethics who equivocate in the Press, I interpreted that Oath of Allegiance—both in taking it and in administering it to scores of my colleagues—as a solemn vow consecrating my whole future life to the service of the Republic, and I would not have administered it if I thought my colleagues did not interpret it in a similar spirit. Solemnly on the Testament, with this tongue and by this hand, I administered that Oath to our immortal comrade, Terence MacSwiney. Am I now to pollute hand and tongue by subscribing to an alien allegiance? Am I so soon to forget the outstanding martyr of the human race, who, to restore us our freedom, suffered his young life to ebb away gasp by gasp, for twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, aye, seventy-four weary, dreary days of unending agony—to the eternal disgrace of England and the undying honour of the race he has exalted for ever—and whose last articulate gasp was a request that he be buried in the uniform of a soldier of the Irish Republic? Have you forgotten it already? I apologise to Deputy Miss MacSwiney, Deputy Seán MacSwiney, and the others who mourn with them here, for recalling those days of anguish, but it is an anguish, thank God, that has eventuated in pride and in national glory. That uniform in which our colleague was buried is, to me at least, a sacred thing nothing less than the habit of a martyr, with a truer title to be so regarded than the purple or scarlet of Bishop or Cardinal the habit of Francis or of Dominic. You soldiers of the Republic who are here robed in that garb, never let the heritage entrusted to your honour by a martyr be sullied by being dragged into the sordid arena of politics, and never forget the martyr's counsel that ‘victory will be not with those who can inflect most, but with those who can endure most’. Before I heard Deputy Barton's story of Lloyd George's big stick, corroborated by Mr. Gavan Duffy, I had been wondering what wizard's wand, what druidic draught so confounded our trusted Delegates in London, that they could have been oblivious even for one moment of the position in which this ignoble settlement to which they had put their hands would place us—the renunciation it would imply of the Republic constitutionally proclaimed three years ago in the face of Ireland and the world by the gallant soldier who, as we were informed yesterday, fought on in 1916 even after his last drop of blood seemed to have been shed, and survived in the providence of God to baffle the bloodhounds of Britain—Cathal Brugha. No one here holds Doctor MacCartan in higher personal esteem than I do, but I deplored his speech last evening in which he said the Republic to which he had sworn allegiance was dead. As a past Chairman of this assembly I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that hence forward no one must he allowed to say with impunity in the Parliament of the Republic that the Republic is dead. The Republic, whose birth certificate was written with steel in the immortal blood of martyrs in l916, was constitutionally proclaimed in 1919, and is now six years in existence almost as long as Grattan's Parliament. It is not dead—or even slumbering: it is alive and functioning, and will continue to function in spite of the wiles of the wizard from Wales and the partition Parliament of Southern Ireland in which it is proposed to have it merged. I was disappointed, too, when I heard the President say he devoted himself, in the interests of unity, to pulling down the walls of the Republic.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I said ‘isolated Republic’.
MR. O'CEALLAIGH:
On reflection I interpreted the President's words to mean that the wise architect, soldier and statesman, seeing the breast-works of the rising national edifice grow somewhat irregular, pulled them down here and there to preserve the symmetry of the structure, enable the halting to keep pace with the eager and the earnest, and thus lead the whole people steadily to the consummation of our highest hopes.It has been said that the only alternative to approval of this Treaty is war. Not necessarily. The rejection of the Treaty may bring war, but to my mind it would bring us back to the position we occupied before the Delegation went to London, and in that case it would be a war on a united Ireland. If the pact be approved I am equally afraid it may be war because the young men of Ireland will not have the pact, and in that case it may be war on a divided Ireland.To my mind—and being a man of peace I have considered it as carefully and as anxiously as anyone—we are less likely to have war by disapproving the pact than by approving it. And if England will make war on us then, because we refuse to perjure ourselves or betray our heroic dead, let the responsibility be hers and hers alone. For my own part, war or no war, having taken an Oath of Allegiance twice over to the Republic, and administered it, in the face of heaven and by your command, to scores of my colleagues, no consideration on earth will induce me voluntarily to declare allegiance or lip fidelity to the King of a country whose instruments of Government have oppressed and traduced our people for seven centuries and a half. Before passing finally from the Oath let me say that several clauses of the Treaty conflict with it. Clauses 17 and 18 will suffice in illustration: ‘By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State in accordance therewith’, says clause 17, ‘steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a Provisional Government; and the British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such Provisional Government the powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties provided every member of such Provisional Government shall have signified his or her acceptance of this instrument. But this arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof’. And Clause 18 provides that ‘This instrument shall be submitted forthwith by his Majesty's Government for the approval of Parliament and by the Irish signatories to a meeting summoned for the purpose of the members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern Ireland and, if approved, shall be ratified by the necessary legislation’. I am afraid it is but too obvious our Delegates did not keep our Oath of Allegiance clearly before them while discussing these clauses in London. I say that unwittingly—
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS:
The Delegates are prepared to answer that before any tribunal in Ireland or in any part of the world—at least, some of us are [applause].
MR. O'CEALLAIGH:
I am a Minister of this
House and I hope my conduct has not been unworthy. What a nice
culmination for Dáil Eireann to abdicate in favour of a
provincial, provisional, partition assembly which was laughed to scorn
when called into being in Dublin some months ago. But, of course, the
chairman of the Delegation says he has brought us back a Treaty of Equality
, and the flag and freedom, and
I forget how much else; and accordingly he asks the Dáil to
pass his resolution and he requests the people of Ireland and the
Irish people everywhere to ratify his Treaty. I am sorry to see, Mr.
Speaker, that we are not sufficiently jealous about the prerogatives
of this Dáil. We were irregularly summoned here, in the first
instance, to discuss the ratification of the Treaty in Public Session.
Later, in Private Session, we found it was ultra vires. We next assembled in Public Session
to find the Treaty on retreat from ratification to approval. I insist,
Mr. Speaker, the whole discussion is irregular.
MR. SEAN MILROY:
What about Document No. 2?
MR O CEALLAIGH
I have not referred to that document. The man who is concerned with it, when this whole business is over, will be respected throughout Ireland and throughout the world, and I leave to him the elucidation of the document referred to. I submit further, Mr. Speaker, that I have kept within the rules of debate, and applied myself to the question before the House. Asking the Irish people to ratify the Treaty seems to me like challenging an election and we are tired of the clamour in the newspapers in this connection. I have as much respect as anyone for the rights of the people. What are they, and what are ours? My own case is typical, and it is this. In November, 1918, I was invited to contest the doubtful constituency of Louth in the Republican interest. I declined—as I did other invitations—urging those who waited on me to select a local representative. Finally I yielded to a combination of influences and entered the contest. From the day I entered the constituency until I left it six weeks later—and I speak in the hearing of comrades who, sleeplessly and selflessly helped me to win it—I never once lowered the Republican standard or shirked the Republican issue. In due course Dáil Eireann was convened and the Republic constitutionally proclaimed. The newly elected members swore allegiance to the Republic and, one after the other, the Public Boards of the country declared similar allegiance. Departments of Government were set up, and the Republic functioned to the satisfaction and with the co-operation of the nation. Early this year there was a general election. Again I was asked to contest the constituency, and again I urged that local men be nominated. I was elected unopposed. The new Dáil was convened in due course, and the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic renewed. Herein is my mandate, and I say, if, in response to the clamour of the newspapers, I got a thousand resolutions and fifty thousand telegrams from every public body within my constituency, I would still interpret my Republican mandate by voting against this Treaty of surrender. I was pained to hear it stated that the people of my native Iveragh favoured this pact. I take the liberty to doubt it. Equally do I take the liberty to doubt the statement that,in the event of a renewal of hostilities, the people of East Kerry could not be relied on to sustain the army of the Republic. The people of Kerry, if I know them, will remain true to the Republic. Whether they do or not, I am glad, and I am very proud that in this matter I see eye to eye with Austin Stack. We did not hear so much about the rights of the people in the old days when, heedless of an unheeding world, the Chairman of the Delegation ploughed the lonely furrow and was not less sound than he is to-day. I respected and trusted Arthur Griffith ploughing the lonely furrow; I have lost confidence in Arthur Griffith, the plenipotentiary. Now though I do not wish to make undue claims on the time of the House, I cannot help expressing my regret that we got no information on the financial clauses of the Treaty. ‘The Irish Free State’,says clause 5, ‘shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof, and towards the payment of war pensions as existing at that date, in such proportion as may be fair and equitable,having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set-off or counter-claim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire’. This does not look rosy. I take it the public debt had been incurred very largely through the cost of war, the outlay on warships and on the appliances and the appurtenances of war. Ireland, hitherto, has paid more than her share towards procuring all these engines and instruments of war. Do they all now remain the property of England, to be used for our destruction when it suits her, and must Ireland saddle herself with a load of taxation to meet their cost? And where within the Empire is the expert arbitrator to be found who will be proof against a ducal coronet? Of course we get some compensations—the world is regulated by compensations—for clause 6 provides—‘Until an arrangement has been made between the British and Irish Governments whereby the Irish Free State undertakes her
regardless of whether the Irish Free State so willed or not. I was discussing what Mr. Griffith calls a Treaty of Equality. I call it, with the President, a Treaty of surrender. Let us see what are the specific facilities indicated in the annex:The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces:—
- In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the annex hereto or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State, and
- In time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid—
And yet this is called a Treaty of Equality. I repeat it is a Treaty of surrender and subjection. A midland or frontier Deputy no doubt consoled us yesterday with the assurance that the British warships in our ports would be under the range of the guns of Commandant MacKeon. The frontier estimate of the futility of the naval gun must have fairly bewildered Deputy Erskine Childers.
- Dockyard and Port at Berehaven. Admiralty property and rights to be retained as at the date hereof. Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties.
- Queenstown. Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties. Certain mooring buoys to be retained for the use of His Majesty's ships.
- Belfast Lough. Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties.
- Lough Swilly. Harbour Defences to remain in charge British care and maintenance parties.
- Aviation. Facilities in the neighbourhood of the above ports for coastal defence by air.
MR. O'KEEFFE:
I protested against an Englishman being employed as a servant of this Dáil.
MR. O'CEALLAIGH:
Last evening, also, Deputy Miss MacSwiney in her moving address referred to Mr. Arthur Griffith's old-time theory that England placed a wall of paper around Ireland on the outside of which she wrote what she wished the world to believe about Ireland, and on the inside of which she wrote—well it really does not much matter. This Treaty would perpetuate the wall of paper for the annex provides for a convention to give effect to the following conditions:
And yet we are told this is a Treaty of Equality. A Treaty of Equality! Of course it has to be admitted that the annex in the next clause gives us the privilege ‘that light-houses, buoys, beacons, and any navigational marks or navigational aids shall be maintained by the Government of the Irish Free State as at the date hereof, and shall not be removed or added to except by an agreement with the British Government’.(a) That submarine cables shall not
be landed, or wireless stations for communication with places outside Ireland be established except by agreement with the British Government, that the existing cable landing rights and wireless concessions shall not be withdrawn except by agreement with the British Government, and that the British Government shall be entitled to land additional submarine cables or establish additional wireless stations for communication with places outside Ireland.
In short, England, by this Treaty of
Equality
, retains her Pale as a nursery of discord in the North,
four Gibraltars round our coast, as a challenge
to the United States, and associated with them four Air Stations, which, to anyone who can see beyond
his nose, will be the real bases for the war operations of the future,
and a standing invitation to every enemy at war with England to lay
our land in ruins. This, then, I say finally, is not a Treaty of
Equality. It is a Treaty of surrender, subjection, servitude, slavery,
and as such, I appeal to you not to be content with its retreat from
ratification to approval, but to drive it from approval to rejection
and from rejection to the oblivion from which it should never have
emerged [applause].
THE SPEAKER:
I would ask the members not to make interruptions. One effect of the interruptions is to lengthen the speeches with the inevitable result of taking up more of your time.
PADRAIC O MAILLE:
Is maith liomsa labhairt ag an nDáil seo, agus mo ghuth do thabhairt ar son an Chonnartha so, agus se an fáth atáim a dheanamh san mar, sa chead áit, tá fhios agam im' chroidhe agus im' aigne gurb e an rud is fearr e ar son na tíre agus muintir na hEireann. Táim a dheanamh san mar tá fhios agam go dteastuíonn ó mhuintir na Gaillimhe go ndeanfaí san. Bheadh náire orm dul thar n-ais dá ndeanfainn rud 'na aghaidh sin. Dheanfainn tubaist mhuintir na hEireann agus mhuintir na Gaillimhe. Tá mar oblagáid ar dhuine a thír a chosaint. Rinneas san chó maith is d'fheadas. Sa dara aít, seasóidh me agus labharfaidh me ar son an Chonnartha so mar níl a mhalairt le fáil, ach caismirt ar fuaid na tíre agus cogadh agus scrios ar na daoine. Tá daoine ag caint anso mar gheall ar ean agus dhá ean. Ní leir dom ca bhfuil an dá ean. Neosaidh me sceal beag díbh. Chuaidh roint daoine amach ag fiach, agus dubhairt fear leo go raibh scata mór giorfhiaithe le fáil. Ach ní bhfuaireadar tar eis an lae ach triopall deas raithinighe. Sibhse atá ag leanúint ghiorfhia anois, beidir ná beadh ann ach triopall deas raithinighe. Tá daoine anso do rinne mórán tróda le dhá bhliain anuas. Ach ce gur throideadar go calma agus go glic níor fheadadar an rud do bhí uatha do dheanamh. Ní raibh leigheas air sin. Anois nuair atá an namhaid ag imeacht uaidh fein tá daoine anso agus teastuíonn uatha a thuille cogaidh agus a thuille troda do chur ar bun chun go mbeadh caoi ag na fir óga ar bhás d'fháil ar son na hEireann. Is breá agus is uasal an rud e bás d'fháil ar son na hEireann. Sin ceann des na hargóintí do chualamair uatha so atá i gcoinnibh an Chonnartha. Ta daoine anso gur mian leo sa chogadh nua so bás d'fháil ar son na hEireann. Tá cead ag gach uile Theachta san do dheanamh ach níl cead aca daoine eile do chur amach. Sin e an deifríocht atá eadrainn do reir mo bharúla-sa. Bhí deifríocht den tsórt ceadna idir an dá Aodh ag Cionn tSáile. Bhí Aodh Ruadh O Domhnaill ar aon taobh amháin agus e go díreach ach go rótheasuidhe. Bhí Aodh O Neill ar an dtaobh eile agus e go ceillidhe staidearach, ciallmhar. Do glacadh le tuairim Aodh Ruaidh Uí Dhomhnaill agus do mhill se an tír. Sin e atá sibhse do dheanamh inniu; sin e mo bharúil. Teachta ó Cho. Lughmhuighe, dubhairt se go mba mhaith leis da mba ná labharfaí aon Bhearla agus móimead nú dhó 'na dhiaidh sin dubhairt se ná raibh einne ach Erskine Childers agus Máire Nic Shiubhne a thuig an sceal so.
Now, my friends, I don't wish to detain you very long. There are a few things wish to say in reference to this Treaty. I am supporting the Treaty for what is good in it, and I believe there is a good deal of good in it. The speaker who has just sat down, my friend the Deputy for Louth, Mr. J. J. O'Kelly, spent forty minutes of his speech in denunciation of the Treaty. But he has not uttered one word as to what will be the alternative if that Treaty is rejected. There is a policy of destruction on one side and a policy of construction on the other side. I support this Treaty because I feel in my heart and soul that the supporting of that Treaty is the best thing for Ireland. I support it on other grounds. I support it because I know that it is what the people of Galway who sent me here want. I live in Galway. I go among the people every day and I know their feelings on the question, and I would not be true to the people of Galway if I held opinions on this matter contrary to theirs, and if I were to stand up here and give a vote on such a vital issue as this which threatens the very lives of the people of Ireland and the people of Galway. You are told that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Well I agree with that, and I have looked around and I can't see two birds, or even one bird itself, in the bush. There is no bird in the bush. Our respected President stated that he would prefer the Irish language without freedom than freedom without the Irish language. I say that under this Treaty you have the one last chance of saving the Irish language. As Seán O'Kelly, the Deputy for Louth, and President of the Gaelic League, well knows, we are in the last ditch in the fight for the Irish language; and as I said to you in Irish about the Battle of Kinsale, the historic Irish nation was shattered at the Battle of Kinsale, and I say that if you defeat this Treaty by your votes here, you will be blotting out for ever the historic Irish nation. It is you who are putting bounds to the march of the nation, because if you defeat this Treaty there will be no nation left to march forward or backward. To me, personally, it is not a question of Arthur Griffith or Mícheál O Coileáin on one side, and President de Valera and Cathal Brugha on the other side. I put Ireland first, last, and all the time. An incident happened here over four years ago down at the Mansion House. There was a Convention held, a Convention of Sinn Fein, and there were two names before the meeting—the names of our President, Eamonn de Valera, and Arthur Griffith. A delegate came to me on the outside, and he asked me what I was going to do and I told him. ‘Well’, I said, ‘I am a life-long friend of Arthur Griffith, but I am voting to-day for Eamonn de Valera because I believe he is the man Ireland wants.’ I did not cast that vote against my old friend—he did not know of it until now—I did not cast that vote because Arthur Griffith put Ireland before himself, and he won for himself that which has won him the admiration and respect of every man and woman in the whole gathering.I say here that those on the other side, those who are opposing the Treaty, that
MRS. T. CLARKE:
I rise to support the motion of the President to reject this Treaty. It is to me the simple question of right and wrong. To my mind it is a surrender of all our national ideals. I came to the first meeting of this Session with this feeling strong upon me, and I have listened carefully to all the arguments in favour of the Treaty. But the only thing I can say of them is maybe there is something in them; I can't see it. Arthur Griffith said he had brought back peace with England, and freedom to Ireland. I can only say it is not the kind of freedom I have looked forward to, and, if this Treaty is ratified the result will be a divided people; the same old division will go on, those who will enter the British Empire and those who will not, and so England's old game of divide and conquer goes on. God, the tragedy of it! I was deeply moved by the statement of the Minister for Economies on Monday. Listening to him I realised more clearly than ever before the very grave decision put up to our plenipotentiaries. My sympathy went out to them. I only wish other members of the Delegation had taken the same course, having signed the document, bring it home and let An Dáil reject or ratify it on its merits. We were told by one Deputy on Monday, with a stupendous bellow, that this Treaty was a stupendous achievement. Well, if he means as a measure of Home Rule, I will agree it is. It is the biggest Home Rule Bill we have ever been offered, and it gives us a novelty in the way of a new kind of official representing His Majesty King George V., name yet to be decided. If England is powerful enough to impose on us Home Rule, Dominion or any other kind, let her do so, but in God's name do not accept or approve it—no more than you would any other Coercion Act. I heard big, strong, military men say here they would vote for this Treaty, which necessarily means taking an Oath of Allegiance, and I tell those men there is not power enough to force me, nor eloquence enough to influence me in the whole British Empire into taking that Oath, though I am only a frail scrap of humanity. I took an Oath to the Irish Republic, solemnly, reverently, meaning every word. I shall never go back from that. Like Deputy Duggan, I too can go back to 1916. Between 1 and 2 o'clock on the morning of May 3rd I, a prisoner in Dublin Castle, was roused from my rest on the floor, and taken under armed escort to Kilmainham Jail to see my husband for the last time. I saw him, not alone, but surrounded by British soldiers. He informed me he was to be shot at dawn. Was he in despair like the man who spoke of him on Tuesday? Not he. His head was up; his eyes flashing; his years seemed to have slipped from him; victory was in every line of him. ‘Tell the Irish people’, he said, ‘that I and my comrades believe we have saved the soul of Ireland. We believe she will never lie down again until she has gained absolute freedom’. And, though sorrow was in my heart, I gloried in him, and I have gloried in the men who have carried on the fight since; every one of them. I believe that even if they take a wrong turn now they will be brave enough to turn back when they discover it. I have sorrow in my heart now, but I don't despair; I never shall. I still believe in them.
MR. R. MULCAHY:
Dubhradh anso ar maidin go mbeidir na raibh an gnó a bhí a dheanamh anso i gceart. Deirimse, pe ceart nú mí-cheart atá ann ná fuil leigheas air. One of the Deputies here this morning said he wondered whether the proceedings were regular or not, and I say whether regular or not there is no help for it. The Deputy complains that
THE PRESIDENT:
I put forward that alternative as the objective we were looking for in a real peace between the two countries. This will not bring a real peace, and that is why I am against it.
MR. MULCAHY:
If we, by taking a line of action that will keep us out of conflict and out of antagonism with the main mass of the English people—because, by living our own lives in our own country, and developing our own resources there does not seem to me any chance of our entering in direct antagonisms with the mass of the English people—and if, by adopting a weapon which will allow us to be on terms of friendship with the main mass of the English people, and by joint help, spoiling the efforts of English politicians to keep Ireland in a state of subjection to England—if we, by choosing this weapon, cannot do that, how can we do it by choosing a weapon which will put the responsibility upon us of killing, in self-defence, the Crompton-Smiths of England? As I say, these proceedings are not helpful. They are not finding us a way out. I can't suggest a way out: and therefore I don't want to say anything beyond what I have said. There is the position. To some extent the honour of these people who have stood for Ireland and who have sworn their Oath of Allegiance, sworn to put all their service, all their strength of mind at the cause of the Republic—that is, at the cause of the Irish people—their honour is being impugned because they stoop to accept such a Treaty as this. Well there are men gloriously dead to-day whose honour didn't go unimpugned at certain periods of their lives and there are men living not ingloriously to- day whose honour was also impugned; and if at this particular moment the honour of any one of us who endeavoured with whatever intellect and whatever understanding the Lord has given us—endeavoured to do our best for our people—well, we can only hope that we shall have the same constancy in dishonour as those men of whom I speak while they were labouring under such a stigma. Remarks have been made by Deputies who were in disagreement with us with regard to this Treaty, which would lead us to imagine that they were going to erect spears outside the door of this new Irish Parliament if it ever comes into existence, and that they are going to make for those who pass into this Parliament a Caudine Forks. I doubt that. I know that the hand of no man who has worked in this assembly as we all have worked together, and who has felt in any way the comradeship of that work—I doubt if the hand of any man who has been useful here—I doubt if he will put his hand to such a spear as would make of any other section of this House, under such an Act of Parliament, a Caudine Forks. If there is, I would refer any man who thinks like it to the advice of the General who told his sons to leave his prisoners pass through with honour; otherwise the results that would accrue would not be to the advantage either of those who would take such action, or ourselves, or the Irish people. I do feel that we have suffered a defeat at the present moment—but I do feel that the hour of defeat in any way is not the hour for quarrelling as to how it might have been avoided. We have suffered a defeat. But even in that defeat we have got for the Irish people, at any rate,powers that I believe—if this Dáil passes away, if every bit of organisation that is in the country as its result at the present moment passed away with it—I believe that the Irish people would rise upon their resources, if left untrammelled and unfettered in their hands, to the full height of their aspirations and to the full vigour which has been so long lying undeveloped in our people; and with the responsibility of peace, the responsibility of taking their own materials and living their own lives and delving for their own materials of subsistence, they would find in that work all those high influences which in our war have developed—the character and manliness and their valuable characteristics that our period of warfare has developed in the country.
MR. SEAN MOYLAN:
I am not very anxious to speak on this question which
The House adjourned at 1.30 p.m., to 3.30 p.m. On resuming, the chair was taken by THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (MR. BRIAN O'HIGGlNS) at 3.40.
MR. P. O'KEEFFE:
I have just purchased a copy of New Ireland, and I find that the editor of that paper asked for a Press ticket in order that he might report at this Dáil meeting. He was told that the minor Press representatives could not get tickets. Now I, as a representative of the people, protest against that. I say that the editor of that paper and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are the people that made this movement.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I wish also to protest against the exclusion of the representative of one of these papers or any of them. We have a great many people here who have not the permission of the Dáil to come here, and surely we can admit the Press, at all events when we decided that they be admitted.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
The enemy Press got special facilities to the exclusion of our own.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I move that we admit the representative of New Ireland or any other paper that desires to come here.
MR. O'KEEFFE:
With a suitable apology.
MR. DESMOND FITZGERALD (DIRECTOR OF PUBLICITY):
When this meeting was first called, it was to
have been held in the Oak Room. For that reason I announced that only
a few representatives of the major Press could come in. When we came
here first we had only room for representatives of the Press that had
to get out spot
news. Since then we have
allowed others in, but at present there are so many members bringing
in personal friends that the major Press are being excluded, and in
these circumstances there is no room for anyone else. If it is agreed
that there shall be no one here but the Press the minor Press could
come, but with friends of the members coming in there is no room for
anyone else.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
There is no resolution to admit friends of members. I
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
It was understood when the meeting started that none but the members were to be here, and the Press, and members of the Standing Committee of Sinn Fein; but we found for the last three or four days that members of the Dáil had relatives and friends in. For the first time to day I have signed asking for two people who applied to me to come in. Since the thing has been broken—not on our side—
A DEPUTY:
Not on ours.
MR. A. GRlFFITH:
Well I don't know. The agreement made by the President with me was that the Press and members of the Standing Committee of Sinn Fein alone should be here, and we found for the last three days that other people were here, and I therefore signed to-day an order for three people. But the Press must take preference, and the exclusion of the editor of New Ireland or any paper in support of us is indefensible.
PRESlDENT DE VALERA:
We are not in any way responsible for any such exclusion. The Director of Publicity, if anything, I think will be found to be a supporter of the other side. So it cannot be said that we—
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I should like to say this, that I myself am perfectly in agreement that as many members of the Press should come in as possible, but I also think that while there is room and our young people belonging to both sides want to come in, I don't see why they should be excluded, or that, when they get in, they should be turned out. I have been told that a wounded soldier of ours was turned out by Mr. Fitzgerald yesterday, in the middle of Miss MacSwiney's speech: I don't know if that is true—Mr. Fitzgerald can answer—but I myself would be glad to see the Irish people here without asking which side they belong to—without asking to whom they belong. I would like to see the members in their turn bringing their friends in. I am glad to hear Mr.Griffith has done so, and I hope the members of the rank and file of the Dáil, they have friends in Dublin, will get facilities for them to come in.
MR. M. COLLINS:
On a point of order I suggest that the Deputy for South Tipperary be heard.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
You will take the motion before the House: ‘That the members of the Press excluded be admitted’.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
It has not been seconded.
THE PRESIDENT:
I second it.
MR. DESMOND FITZGERALD:
I thoroughly agree with that, but I want the thing understood—
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Have you put the motion in writing?
MR. J. J. WALSH:
It is, in effect, that the members of the Press excluded be admitted.
The motion was put and agreed to.
MR. P. J. MOLONEY TIPPERARY:
It is with some diffidence I arise to address the members of this assembly. Permit me, all you members of the Deputation, to address to you a tribute of my good faith in the great efforts you made to bring back to An Dáil of the Irish people a settlement of this very difficult, insoluble problem. I, as well as all the other members of this Dáil, am asked to approve of your work. I cannot do it. I don't want to inflict upon you my views. They are the views of a great many members of this House. Permit me though to say that I will not willingly consent to go back into the British Empire. I will not, willingly or otherwise, vote myself into the British Empire, but I say ‘Damn the Treaty whatever about the consequences’. There is my position. It is the position of a great many men like me, men of average intelligence, men of average faith and principle, decent Irishmen who love Ireland and who are prepared to make sacrifices for Ireland
DR. EOIN MACNEILL:
A Chinn Chomhairle, speaking to you before in private I brought on myself a certain amount of obloquy by describing myself as an opportunist. Now, as that has apparently given gratification to some who take a different view of what is before us from the view that I take, perhaps it is as well that I ought to explain. As an opportunist I mean that I claim the freedom to do the best for Ireland in the circumstances that may arise. You heard these words before—all of you. You heard them, not once, but I think twenty times. You heard them enforced with every variety of argument and of emphasis. You heard them brought before you in this form, that, holding a high responsibility—the highest responsibility that at the present day could be put upon an Irishman—if a man were not free in all the circumstances to do the best he could for Ireland he would not hold the responsibility. Now that is my standpoint, and from those who differ from it we have heard the challenge to speak or be silent. These challenges were due, not now, but at the commencement of these negotiations, and, to my mind, the great majority of the speeches that have been made here against the resolution for the approval of the Treaty should have been made then, and not now. The situation was quite clearly defined—there is no mistake about it—and what is good for one man is good for another man, and everyone charged with responsibility in these negotiations had the same freedom to do the best they could in the circumstances for Ireland; and I think it is now admitted that in the circumstances they did the best that, to their knowledge, in their judgment, in their power, they could have done. Now, sir, there is no escape. I am not going to use any rhetoric. I am not going to use any claptrap. I am not going to force any argument. I am not going to take any advantages. I am not going to make any debating society points, and if I do I shan't object to being interrupted.I would speak to you—but I shall not speak to you—or at all events endeavour to do it in language as lofty as any of the eloquence that you have heard, if not, perhaps, quite as lengthy. I could go further. It would be very simple for me; it would cost me nothing at all; I could do it as easily as any man here, or any woman in this assembly—I could say this: ‘We will have the Republic, the whole Republic, and nothing but the Republic—and to hell with England’. There is nothing to prevent me saying that. It will cost me nothing—
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Say it then.
MISS MACSWINEY:
And mean it.
DR. MACNEILL:
But it is perfectly plain to us
that the difficulties that arise in the minds of the great majority of
those who find difficulties in this—and that is the great
majority of those present—arise over two
questions, that is to say, over two oaths. One of
these oaths was quoted for us in full by the Deputy for Louth as the
Oath we have taken as members of Dáil Eireann, and the other
oath is the Oath that is proposed to be taken by future members of an
Irish assembly under the Treaty that is before us. Now, I take the
second of the two oaths first. It was dealt with
by, I think, the Deputy for Mayo, Mr. Rutledge, yesterday. I was glad
to notice that Deputy Rutledge did not pretend, as various others in
speaking here to-day did, during the course of this discussion, they
pretended—I should not use the word pretended
, it must be a mistake on their
part—they have not read the words, or, if they read them, they
do not understand them. Deputy Rutledge did not pretend that in the
proposed Oath there is a declaration of allegiance to the King of
England. There is in it no such declaration—
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Irish Constitution.
DR. MACNEILL:
I will come to that point. There is no such declaration. It is my right to challenge all the members of this assembly, and it is compulsory on all the members of this assembly to answer any challenge of a member speaking from his place. I would challenge every member of this assembly to-day to say that the proposed Oath contains a declaration of allegiance to the King of England. Well, the Deputy for Mayo went on to the second part of it, and I must say he found himself there in an evident difficulty, because the only conclusion he could come to was, that fidelity meant slavery, and that the only person who could be faithful to another person was a slave. I suppose if the other person was faithful to that person he would be a slave too. Now, I am not going to deal with any suggested other oath—any suggested alternative that has been before you. I will suggest an alternative myself that will be a way out in case another oath has got to be proposed, and that is this: ‘I swear to be externally associated’. Now that is Oath No. 1. There is no allegiance in it except to the Irish State. We heard a very complete and a very thorough explanation from the point of view of constitutional law given to us by Deputy Childers with regard to the construction of the Treaty, and with regard to the explanation he has given to us I will say only this, that if that Treaty be ratified the explanation which Deputy Childers has placed upon it—in case there is going to be further trouble about the interpretation of it—the explanations Deputy Childers has put before you are the explanations which will be insisted on against Ireland from the other side. The Minister for Local Government read a certain number of contrasts between what was so according to law or according to constitution, and what was so according to facts. Now the facts are these—and even if anyone should dispute them I say it is the standpoint of an Irishman not to dispute them but to insist upon them—the facts are these, that the component parts of the community of nations which is described in one part of the Treaty as the British Commonwealth of Nations—the status of these different component parts is this, that they are with regard to each other on a position of complete equality, and also with regard to each of them to itself—each of them is a sovereign state in its own domain; and if it fell upon me, supposing this Treaty to be ratified in future, to declare the terms, to declare the manner in which these provisions ought be and must be interpreted and applied, I should say beforehand—taking the standpoint of an Irishman, and not regarding myself as an Attorney-General for the British Government—I should claim on the facts, and not on some antiquated theory, for Ireland's equality of status with all the other members of that community and for the right of complete national sovereignty in our domain; and I would hold that every provision, every article, every term, every word of that Treaty should be understood subject to these principles; and I believe that in placing that construction upon the Treaty we should have the support—if not of Imperialists in Great Britain—we should certainly have the support of South Africa, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, for it is to their selfish interest that that construction, and that construction only, should be placed upon these terms; and I would bear in mind that the status of Canada has been declared in what now amounts to a constitutional definition—the status of Canada has been declared to include the right of secession. But we will be told: ‘What is the use of the right of secession to Ireland? It is only sixty miles from Great Britain, and Canada is three thousand miles away’. That is a perfectly good and valid argument, but it applies not only to that status, but to any superior status that we could acquire under a Treaty; and it would apply with equal force to an independent Irish Republic. Now, sir, I have not used, and I am not going to use as a reason for voting for approval of this Treaty—I am not going to use the argument of terrible war, and the reason I am not going to use it is because it is an argument, if I may modestly say so—I want to make no boast about it—it is an argument that does not appeal to me at all, and I don't think it is an argument that appeals, at all events, to the new spirit of the people of Ireland. An argument that appeals to fear is a bad argument and a dangerous argument, because if one appeals to fear one gives, so to speak, encouragement to fear, and I make no
plotand he went to Edinburgh to announce his discovery, and in his speech in Edinburgh he called on the Irish people to go—he did not say it, some of the others said it for him—to go before he would take them by the neck—to do what? To set free the small Catholic Nationalities that were groaning under the oppression of Austria. Well he passed his Act. How many men did he get by it? How far did he succeed in enforcing it against the sort of Ireland he had at that time, not united, not organised, not armed, with practically no power of resistance—practically no power, except, I might say, faith and prayer—and he failed to put this act in force. And if he passed a Dominion Act now, conferring Dominion status on us, we will have no conferred status; we will confer our status on ourselves and his Dominion Act will remain as much a dead letter as his Conscription Act remained. The reason why I ask you to ratify this Agreement is not because we are afraid, but because we are not afraid. It is not because we are too weak to refuse it, but because we are strong enough to accept it. Now I began with the one Oath. I will finish with the other. I will not give you my explanation of it. I will give you the President's explanation of it. The President, when he declared here for it, declared he was free, and must be free, to do what was best in his judgment for Ireland in the circumstances. He was then bound by the Oath that was read for us by the member for Louth this morning—
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Let the circumstances as a whole be explained. It has been referred to a number of times and I think it is only fair that I should explain. In Private Session, the day before I was to be elected President, I informed the Dáil because I knew, in the circumstances, that if there were to be negotiations, we would have to consider association of some sort, and Document No. 2, which you will see in its proper time, might be interpreted as a departure from the isolated Republic; and having that in mind, and having in mind possible criticisms, I told the Dáil that before they elected me they should understand that if I took office as head of the State I would regard my Oath solely in the light that it was an oath taken by me to the Irish nation to do the best I could for the Irish nation,and that I would not be fettered if I were to be in that position.
DR. MACNEILL:
I have not a word to
add—not an i
to dot nor a t
to cross—to what the President has said
there now, but it has been put up to member after member of this
assembly that he is bound by the word and the letter of his oath, and
that his oath precludes him from using his judgment to do his best for
the country in these circumstances. I say that a person who takes an
oath to any formula—to any formula whatsoever—and places
that formula, no matter what it may be, above what the President has
said—what is best according to his conscience and judgment for
Ireland—that person may be true to his oath, but he is not true
to Ireland. I will go further and say that his truth to Ireland is
binding upon him
MR. DAITHI CEANNT:
The Law of God.
COUNT PLUNKETT:
An oath of fidelity to our own country.
DR. MACNEILL:
Yes, any formula you take. All these things are taken under reserve.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
What about the marriage oath?
DR. MACNEILL:
Well now, a Chinn Chomhairle, when I was in your position I said that some of these interruptions led to speeches being longer instead of shorter, and if I were at this stage to proceed to discuss the marriage oath—well there is no more to be said.
MR. SEAN MACENTEE:
Just to add a touch of symmetry to this discussion let me say, too, that like the Deputy for Derry I also am an opportunist, but, Sir, here is a difference between us. I am an opportunist, that is, one who would suit his tactics to his opportunities. I am an opportunist who would use his opportunities to serve and not to subvert his principles. I am one of those who would use this opportunity to take care that those who come after them should have an opportunity to do in their day what we have tried to do. It is a very true thing to say—as I am going to say—that this is not a question of oaths. I know morally that England can no more bind us with oaths than she can bind us with chains. But, Sir, England is not seeking to bind us with the oath which everyone here takes with a fixed idea in his mind of driving a couch and four through it at the first opportunity. England is taking good care to bind us to her now with something more than a mere form of words. I have not concerned myself at all in this discussion with the question of allegiance. The attitude I have adopted throughout is not what our relations to England might be now. I have adopted throughout this attitude, that if those who were supposed to be the chiefs of our army and represent the soldiers in it—if those who were supposed to represent them come to this Dáil and said, as military men, ‘We are faced with defeat and have now to negotiate and accept a Treaty of surrender’, I should have bowed my head and bided my time for another day to bring me another opportunity. But, Sir, I would have taken good care that in surrendering now I would, at least, leave to those who came after me a chance, another day to use and do what we have failed to do in ours. I am opposed to this Treaty because it gives away our allegiance and perpetuates partition. By that very fact that it perpetuates our slavery; by the fact that it perpetuates partition it must fail utterly to do what it is ostensibly intended to do—reconcile the aspirations of the Irish people to association with the British Empire. When did the achievement of our nation's unification cease to be one of our national aspirations? Was it when Tone and MacCracken, Emmet and Russell died for Irish Union? Was it when Davis, a Cork man, and Mitchell, a Newry man, worked for Irish union? Was it when Pearse and Connolly died for Irish union? Was it when Mr. Griffith and Mr. Milroy stood in Tyrone and Fermanagh six months ago for Irish union—for the historic unity of our country—for this which has been the greatest of all our Irish aspirations, this which brought to the services of our country the man who first pointed the road to the Republic, this which brought to the services of our country the service and the life of Tone. For that historic principle of the Irish nation we are offered, it is true, a price. Never was a nation asked to forsake its principles but it was offered a price. The Scotch got Calvinism and a commercial union with England. The bishops of the Union period got a promise—as we are getting a promise—of Catholic Emancipation, and we in our day are offered, in the words of the Assistant Minister for Local Government,
MR. M. COLLINS:
Hear, hear.
MR. MACENTEE:
These things are not symbols and shadows for which we contend. These things upon which you propose to turn your back are not symbols and shadows—they are your very life and soul. Forsake them now, and everything that is good and true in you is dead. You may not believe me, but I would ask you to take the view that outside people take of your attitude in this Dáil. Every single one of you who are going to vote for this Treaty, would you not be insulted if I were to say to your face that you are forsaking the principles and example of Pearse and Connolly and those who made the Republic and brought back the soul to a nation? Is here one of you who would
A DEPUTY:
Where is it?
MR. MACENTEE:
It is in this, Sir, that the Constitution of the Irish nation should depend upon the will of the Irish people. Apparently in this assembly we have become so many slaves already that we are not able to distinguish between the free will of the Irish people and the wish of an English King. You who are going to vote for the Treaty upon grounds of expediency, whether it be to get the English soldiers out of Ireland; whether it be in order that Ireland may be allowed to develop her own life in her own way without interference from any government, English or otherwise as the gallant soldier who seconded the resolution said; or whether, as the Minister of Finance said, because this document gives you, not freedom, but freedom to achieve it—
MR. COLLINS:
Hear, hear.
MR. MACENTEE:
You who are going to vote for it on these grounds think well of it; examine every word of it; weigh every clause of it, and see that it does what you say it will do before parting with your principles and staining your honour in support of it.
MR. COLLINS:
I am the exponent of my principles.
MR. MACENTEE:
For me I will put but one clause of this document before you, and it is the clause which the Deputy for Tyrone and Fermanagh, Mr. Milroy, in one of his rhetorical thunder-storms, glossed over. He began his speech by saying he would take his gloves off. When he came to it he had not only his gloves but his velvet slippers off and he strayed very quietly past it. I refer you to the last clause in Article 12 of this agreement:—‘Provided that if such an address is so presented, a Commission consisting of three persons, one to be appointed by the Government of the Irish Free State, one to be appointed by the Government of Northern Ireland, and one, who shall be chairman, to be appointed by the British Government, shall determine, in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants, so far as may be compatible with economic and geographic conditions, the boundaries between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland, and for the purposes of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and of this instrument, the boundary of Northern Ireland shall be such as may be determined by such Commission’.
I am sorry Mr. Milroy was not silent when he came to this clause in the Treaty, but he walked past it singing a little song of salvation. Referring to the Provisions of this Treaty he said, and these are his own words, that they were not partition provisions, but were provisions which would ensure the essential unity of Ireland, but whether partition or not, the economic advantages and the facts connected with the six counties were such that, sooner or later, they would be compelled to resume association with the rest of Ireland. I traverse that in its entirety. First of all, within a month six counties or more than six counties as it may ultimately turn out to be, have a right to vote themselves out from under the operation of your Treaty, and you are making no provision whatsoever to bring them in. Don't tell me that is not partition. But, Sir, I will come to a higher authority than Mr. Milroy, and that is the man who has the power and authority to make us violate our vows in order to accept his document, and with all due respect to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for
MR. MILROY:
I desire to ask this Deputy if he is prepared to coerce all these counties to come in?
MR. MACENTEE:
I am not responsible for policy in this Dáil. If I were, I might be prepared to lay a programme before you, but until I am sitting with a Government of the Republic it is not open to any man to ask me what I would do in such a case. There you have, first of all, the real purpose of this clause, which is to ensure that Ulster—secessionist Ulster—should remain a separate unit; and this is to be done by transferring from the jurisdiction of the Government of Northern Ireland certain people and certain districts which that Government cannot govern; and by giving instead to Northern Ireland, certain other districts—unionist districts of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal, so that not only under this Treaty are we going to partition Ireland, not only are we going to partition Ulster, but we are going to partition even the counties of Ulster, and then I am told that these are not partition provisions. The Deputy for Tyrone and Fermanagh says ‘Quite so’, but I tell him that Mr. Lloyd George has given me the real purpose of these provisions.
MR. E. BLYTHE:
Trust him.
MR. MACENTEE:
No, I don't trust him, but I never saw such guileless trust in any English statesman as those who are standing for this Treaty are giving him. I take the interpretation of the man who drafted this instrument, and this, remember you, was not the Treaty, and not the draft of your Cabinet. The original draft was the draft of the English Cabinet.
DR. MACCARTAN:
That is no fault of our Cabinet.
MR. MACENTEE:
I have nothing to do with that. I am thinking of the fate of my country, not of the fortunes of politicians. I say I take the interpretation of the man who drafted the instruments; and I have good grounds for taking it because he is the man who forced these instruments upon the Delegation, and has forced them to come back here and attempt to force it upon the members of this assembly and even upon the people of our country; and I say that the man who has had power to do all that, has the power and will have the power to force his interpretation of his own instrument. But what is going to be the effect of this provision? I am told it is not a partition provision. First of all, its effect is to remove from Northern Ireland the strongest force that makes for the unification of Ireland. It is going to remove from Northern Ireland the strongest force that makes for the unification of Ireland. It is going to remove from under the jurisdiction of the Northern Government that strong Nationalist minority which every day tries to bring Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic. They, I might almost say, are to be driven forth from their native Ulster and instead their places are to be taken by certain sections of the population of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal; and that is being done in order that Carsonia shall secure a homogeneous population which is necessary for her, in order to develop as England intends, and as the Orange politicians intend it should develop into a second state and a second people usurping Irish soil. Mr. Milroy stated that the economic advantages of the case in connection with the six counties were such that, sooner or later, they would be compelled to resume association with the rest of Ireland. Does
MR. M. COLLINS:
You are.
MR. MACENTEE:
No, Sir, you are.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I was first of course.
MR. MACENTEE:
Exactly. I am not following you.
MR. M. COLLINS:
You never did.
MR. MACENTEE:
However, I say this, that the provisions of this Treaty mean this: that in the North of Ireland certain people differing from us somewhat in tradition, and differing in religion, which are very vital elements in nationality, are going to be driven, in order to maintain their separate identity, to demarcate themselves from us, while we, in order to preserve ourselves against the encroachment of English culture, are going to be driven to demarcate ourselves so far as ever we can from them. I heard something about the control of education. Will any of the Deputies who stand for it tell me what control they are going to exercise over the education of the Republican minority in the North of Ireland? They will be driven in their schools to hold up the English tradition and ideal. We will be driven in our schools to hold up the Gaelic tradition and ideal. They will be driven to make English, as it is, the sole vehicle of common speech and communication in their territory, while we will be striving to make Gaelic the sole vehicle of common speech in our territory. And yet you tell me that, considering these factors, this is not a partition provision. Ah! Sir, it was a very subtle and ironic master-stroke of English policy to so fashion these instruments that, by trying to save ourselves under them, we should encompass our own destruction. But, Sir, to return again to Mr. Milroy's economic conditions, which he thinks are everything in history, and which I tell him are comparatively nothing, because if they were, Sir, we would not have an Irish nation here today; I say that one of the immediate effects of these instruments is to put Ulster in an economic position to defy you. What will be the first consequence of it? Immediately there will be a revival of Irish Trade which will have its secondary effect in Ulster in the revival of the shipbuilding and linen industries, and remember these are the staple industries of Belfast. We have been able to exercise comparatively great pressure upon Belfast, simply from the fact that the linen and shipbuilding industries were in such a state of absolute stagnation. It will be quite a different matter when 90 per cent. of Belfast trade is flourishing again and she is in a position to lose her distributing trade with the rest of Ireland; and that is the reason I say that the immediate effect of the passage of this instrument will be to put Belfast in an economic position to defy you.You will say: ‘What of the heavy taxation under this Act?’ What, indeed? Show me anything in the bond that will compel England to tax Northern Ireland more heavily than the Free State will be taxed. Show me anything in the Treaty or in the Government of Ireland Act. You cannot show me anything there, and I saw as England has found it profitable to subsidise the Ameer of Afghanistan, she will find it much more profitable to subsidise Northern Ireland to remain out and weaken the Free State: and that is my answer to those who say the economic factors are going to bring about a united Ireland under this document. I have heard men get up here and say time after time that they will vote for this Treaty because it meant the evacuation of the English forces out of Ireland, until one gallant member got up and said that, as a matter of fact, it meant the evacuation
MR. COLLINS:
Certainly.
MR. GRIFFITH:
You got fifty- six votes.
Mn. MACENTEE:
I may have. That was no fault of mine.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Not mine surely.
MR. MACENTEE:
I admit the people judged me well, but I tell you they judged you worse if they did. Yes, I got one hundred votes because on the official whip and the official instructions sent out to the voters of Tyrone and Fermanagh Mr. Griffith was placed first and got his huge plurality. Mr. Milroy was placed third, and I fifth. Because the people stood for the Irish Republic and wished to carry out the mandate of the Irish Republic they voted for any man, not upon his merits, but as they were told to do. I say all those who are sitting for Ulster constituencies, and all of those who vote for the acceptance of this Treaty that they will be guilty of a double betrayal
ALD. LIAM DE ROISTE:
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a lucht na Dála, seasuighim os bhúr gcóir chun mo ghuth d'árdú agus chun e chur leo so tá tareis labhairt ar son an Chonnartha so. Agus is mian liom leis a mhíniú cad na thaobh go bhfuilim á dheanamh. Duine iseadh mise a cheapann gur feidir cúrsaí na Náisiún do shocrú go síochánta. Agus dá leanadh Náisiúin an domhain an Chríostuíocht adeirid atá aca do socrófaí cúrsaí na Náisiún agus a ndeifríochtaí go síochánta. Ach ní mar sin a dintear; agus is baolach nách mar sin a deanfar. Is le lámh láidir is comhacht a fuair Sasana an chead ghreim sa tír seo; agus an fhaid a theidheann mo thuiscint-se i stair na hEireann, thuigeas riamh go mbeadh saoirse againn nuair imeodh arm Shasana as an dtír; agus ní feidir liom einne adeir liom nách fíor e sin a thuiscint. Fe mar thuigim-se an sceal sin e an teagasc a gheibhmíd ó gach duine a thuig stair na hEireann. Táim ar aon aigne le Sceilg sa meid seo, gurbh fhearr liom gur i dteanga na hEireann amháin a labharfaí anso. Táimíd ag caint i dtaobh focal is abairtí anso le breis is seachtain. Dá mba Gaedhilg a bheadh á labhairt againn ní bheadh aon cheist eadrainn i dtaobh brí na bhfocal fe mar atá sa Bhearla.
One of the first things I want to say is this: I protest most solemnly against anybody saying that I, for one, in supporting this Treaty, am making a spiritual surrender [hear, hear]. If the Deputy for Louth had to-day read the Oath of Allegiance to the Irish Republic which I took it would be thoroughly understood by those who understand the language of the country that I am in no sense violating that oath in what I am favouring to-day; rather am I confirming it. I took an oath to Saorstát na hEireann, not to your Dominion, Republic, or form of Home Rule; and by the oath to Saorstát no hEireann I stand now. Yes, there are some now laughing at the oath. I mean to keep the oath and not to break it.
MR. SEAN ETCHINGHAM:
What about the oath to the first Parliament?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
I must ask the Deputies to refrain from interrupting.
ALD. DE ROISTE:
I have risen to support the motion of approval for recommending the acceptance of the Articles of Agreement of the proposed Treaty of accommodation between Ireland and Britain to this assembly and to the people of Ireland. However others may regard the matter, I
Wizard from Walesthrew the dust in our eyes, but, faith! we cleared the air and the fog is in his. I accept the fact, not the words. Ireland accepts the fact now, and recognises this as the assembly of a Sovereign Nation, if it were only by the intense interest that is evidently displayed in our proceedings. The world accepts the fact, by the same test; and the English Government I hold accepted the fact when it received our plenipotentiaries as representing an established authority in this land. It accepts the fact in the Articles of Agreement. They are only Articles of Agreement till approved by the Parliaments of both countries. They have been approved by the British Parliament. They await approval by us. If and when approved they become a Treaty; and a Treaty is a bargain or an agreement between equals, not a concession or a favour bestowed or conferred by a superior upon an inferior. The status of Ireland as co- equal with Britain, or any other nation, is recognised now even by Britain itself. That,
scuttling, a disruption of the Empire, a breaking up of its heart, a betrayal—and it was even declared over there the form of oath in the proposed Treaty was not an Oath of Allegiance at all; and others there declared the proposed Treaty was quite the opposite. There are those in this assembly who maintain quite the same thing; and as in their assembly, so in ours, there are those who maintain that instead of England scuttling out of Ireland, she is getting a firmer grip on the country. Now, taking the view that I do—that this is an agreement between two sovereign peoples, I look upon it simply as a bargain. We are not concerned with the question whether the bargain is a good or a bad one for England. Our question is, is it a good or a had one for Ireland, for the sovereign people of Ireland? I came to this assembly thinking we were to discuss those proposals in that light: just as the Deputies of the French Chamber, the Swiss Chamber or the Italian Chamber or any other assembly might discuss proposals for a Treaty between one sovereign nation and another.I did not think that anyone here would raise a doubt as to Ireland's sovereignty; seeing that, in fact, as I viewed it, the English themselves had admitted it. No dust of phrases was blinding me. I accepted the facts and, as I thought, the victory. The fog of words has grown so thick here it is difficult at times to see clearly. I came to criticise, to scrutinise, to examine and weigh the proposals and find the balance. Not withstanding the whirl of words I have done so, and on the balance of judgment I favour approval of the proposals. I am convinced in my own conscience that it is a good bargain for Ireland. I favour the Treaty. I do so as a Republican, which term in my conception simply means a democratic form of Government, a form in which the will of the people can be best expressed. I have a very great sympathy with the views that were expressed by Deputy Dr. MacCartan, though my conclusions are entirely different to his. I am convinced that the acceptance of this instrument presented to us by our plenipotentiaries will enable the Irish people to work out in peaceful development their own conception of state organisation; while its non-acceptance would throw us back into a struggle that would hamper every development of our national life. We have heard a great deal of discussion about kings. In my view, as a humble student of history, the day of kings and kaisers is almost ended and will soon be as obsolete as the theory of their divine right to rule; and the day of the rule of the sovereign people has begun, whatever the form in which it will take expression. Even some of the English people themselves seem moving towards republicanism. It can take no form in this land if we are plunged again into the welter of war or violent partisan politics, as I, at least, am convinced we shall be if this Treaty be not accepted. Rejection means giving the trick to the man none of us trust—Lloyd George; for I do not trust the English Government—yet. Mistrust of English rulers is bred in our bones from the reading of the history of our land. I would not trust them if our plenipotentiaries brought back from London a paper recognition of the Irish Republic. I think I would fear their intrigues more. We can only begin to think them sincere when, in accordance with this Treaty, made in the face of the world, their armed forces are withdrawn from this land, and their armed aggression on the rights and liberties of the Irish people ceases [hear, hear]. I also support the motion because I am sincerely convinced that the acceptance of this Treaty by the people of Ireland makes possible, in the natural development of world affairs with its ever changing relations between states and nations and peoples, the accomplishment of an ideal I have had ever before me since I was capable of forming ideals—that of the untrammelled
rebelsand
gunmen. It sees in it a cry of surrender to Michael Collins! And Lord Carson is not satisfied with it. Equally, there are men and women in Ireland, and far be it from me to compare them to any section of Englishmen or women, for they are thoroughly honest, thoroughly sincere, thoroughly honourable, who consider the Treaty a surrender on Ireland's part. My friends, I am sure, will give me credit for the same sincerity and the same honesty of desire for the welfare of our common country when I say I do not agree with that view. I consider the Treaty a victory for Ireland, a vindication of our policy, a policy advocated by some of us during the past twenty years; and, more particularly, I look on it as a victory for the heroic army of Ireland. It is not a dictated peace—
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is a dictated peace.
ALD. LIAM DE ROISTE:
Even a dictated peace
with its motto of Vae
victis is not always satisfactory to the victors, as the
dictated peace at the end of the European war proved. It is a
negotiated peace, and in my view, in the balance of likes and dislikes
of its terms, it is a victory for Ireland, a victory made possible by
the world of the past three years [hear,
hear]. The Treaty is a recognition of Ireland as a national
entity. The fiction of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland
is no more. The Kingdom of Great Britain
remains. Saorstát na hEireann emerges as a new state in the
world confederation of nations. The right of Ireland to national
freedom is recognised. The assertion of recognition of that right has
been the basic principle of Ireland's armed struggles with England
during the centuries. A Government is to be set up in this country by
the will of the Irish people alone, by the will of the plain people of
Ireland, not by the will of English Ministers nor of select classes; a
Government that must draw its power from, and be responsible to, the
plain people of this country. An achievement this that never was in
Ireland since the Norman Barons got a grip on the land—for even
Grattan's Parliament was the Parliament of a class and not the
Parliament of the plain people. This Treaty gives the Irish people
complete power over their own economic life and over their social
organisation. It gives us at last complete and absolute control over
education, and those who have control over education have absolute
control of the future destinies of the nation in their hands. The
‘Happy little English child’ of the schoolbooks disappears on
MR. G. GAVAN DUFFY:
Which flag?
ALD. LIAM DE ROISTE:
The Irish flag. Take for a moment that the English troops—the English armed forces—are out of this country, and I put on a tricolour on Dublin Castle, I will dare anyone to take it down [laughter]. Now we have got the flag. What we have been told here is this: that if Arthur Griffith puts it up in Dublin Castle there are people here who would go and take it down.
MR. R. MULCAHY:
We will take the Castle down [laughter].
ALD. LIAM DE ROISTE:
It might be no harm to do away with the Castle altogether. However, this Treaty gives us our flag and our men to defend it against English aggression, should English rulers again seek to change their policy. Approve this Treaty and the opportunity is given us for building up Irish civilization in the way that we have dreamt of. Reject, and we are thrown back into a welter of which no man can see the end, and where no building up can be possible. Even if the dictation of peace terms should be the end of the welter, so much of our best blood would have gone that the salving of our civilization may be well nigh impossible. We can save it now, if we grasp the opportunity. I understand that references of some deputies on the question of form of oath in the Treaty were evoked by a remark of mine in Private Session. My attitude is quite simple I regard my word of honour as binding as an oath when that word is solemnly given. If the intention behind an oath is immutable I cannot understand how any man in honour during life can break any oath of allegiance once taken. The form in the Treaty I have examined by the light of my own conscience and intellect and, lest I should err even in ignorance, I have consulted authorities on moral science and theology. And in conscience I am satisfied that the form of oath in the Treaty is not an oath of allegiance to an English monarch but is an oath of allegiance to Saorstát na hEireann. That oath in my view admits no right of an English King to be ruler of Ireland or head of the Irish State. Even if it did, the theory of the divine right of rulers to rule the people is discarded by all, even by the people of England themselves. I personally object to the mention of King George V., his heirs and successors, in the terms of any oath that may be presented to me, even though it be not allegiance I am asked to pledge myself to, but recognition of a symbol of headship of a League of Nations. But after the most earnest and scrupulous consideration I am satisfied in my own mind that that is a personal prejudice due to the fact that the Kings of England have stood as symbols of tyranny in this country, and that it is not a national or immutable principle; and my personal prejudices, whatever they may be, are nothing compared with the welfare of the Irish nation. If I were an English subject and an oath of allegiance to a King were presented to me I should refuse to take it, as I should refuse to swear personal allegiance to any rulers, but I should not feel justified on account
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I would like to know the policy for the week-end—whether we will go through the Christmas or adjourn. I understand there are a great many people like myself who desire to speak and we all may speak for a pretty long time [laughter]. I am not going to give any guarantee that I am not going to speak for half a day [laughter]. I do not see much possibility of getting through before the end of January. It is better before we adjourn for tea to come to some decision. I know on this side of the House there are at least fifteen or twenty people anxious to speak. There is no prospect of these people speaking tonight, and they will insist on speaking. It was proposed on our side that a definite limit of time should be allowed to each side, and when that terminated, no matter how many people spoke, there would be an end to the discussion. In the absence of an agreement will we take the only alternative? I desire, and a great many others desire, that this should be stated before the adjournment—whether there should be a time
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It has been suggested that an agreement could not be reached on our side. I may say I have not heard anything about the matter. Of course everyone who wants to speak has a perfect right to speak. Personally I think that on a question like this we ought, having it discussed for a number of days, to be able to make up our minds on it. I am sorry we did not have the Sessions over-night; it might have shortened the addresses, perhaps. I think we should definitely sit through the night and take on the debate again in the morning. If the other side would agree, I propose we end this debate to-morrow.
MR. ARTHUR. GRIFFITH:
The President asked me a couple of days ago about winding this thing up and agreed. Since then certain things have happened. A lady who spoke for three hours stood up against any closure. She had a perfect right of course, but if the people on the other side are going to speak for three hours, and insist on doing so, I am not going to have any closure. We offered them choice of time or a time limit for the speeches, but there was no agreement. Therefore, we are going on. We may adjourn for Christmas, but we will have no closure.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I was not approached in regard to any agreement.I am sure anything suggested to this side would have been referred to me, at any rate, but I was not approached.
MR. D. CEANNT:
I would suggest that these members who have speeches written and have made arrangements, send them to the Press. It would be just as well to send them to the Press as make them [laughter].
MR. JOSEPH MACGRATH:
I had a talk with the chief whip on the other side and I suggested we were prepared to put a time limit on each speaker. If that did not suit, I suggested splitting up the Session to one-and-a-half hours in the morning and the same in the evening, and we could put up twelve or thirteen speakers or ten speakers. They could do the same. I could have gotten speakers in one-and-a-half hours this morning. We understood the President was consulted. If he was not it was not our fault.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
I tried to arrange the practical suggestion made, but I found such a diversity of opinion among the people I spoke to that it was impossible to arrange it amicably. Later on I made a suggestion with a view to having another arrangement. There are a number of people who said to me they would speak if they got a chance, but they are quite prepared to waive the right to speak. I could see my way with the consent of these people to reduce the number of speakers to eight or nine at the utmost, and these people would further agree to have a time limit put upon them. If the other side would agree to that I think we could get through the business by the lunch adjournment to-morrow, by going on for a few hours to-night, and from 11 to 2 to-morrow.
MR. ARTHUR GRIFFITH:
That is closure.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
The other side claim that—
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
I suggest that the whips find out definitely, the speakers who do not wish to speak and we may be able to come to some arrangement.
MR. JOSEPH MACGRATH:
There are twenty-one anxious to speak on ourside.
MISS MACSWINEY:
May I appeal to the House generally against the sneers of Mr. Arthur Griffith at my speech. I consider the fact that what I went through for seventy-four days at Brixton gives me a right to speak for the honour of my nation now [applause].
MR. ARTHUR GRIFFITH:
I have not sneered at Miss MacSwiney's speech. I have stated the fact that Miss MacSwiney said she was against closure and that she made a long speech. I maintain we are entitled not to have any of our speakers closured.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I always held there should be no closure. Anyone who desires to speak has a right to do so—has a right to the patience of the Irish people and the members of the
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
Is not the conclusion obvious that, if the speaking is to go on, it cannot be finished by going on to-night and to-morrow, and you must adjourn.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I suggest we come to a decision on this. I am prepared to stay here to continue these debates throughout the Christmas until we finish them. We can go on all night; we can go on to the time when Mr. Lloyd George is supposed to have doped us. Late nights and all nights are nothing to me. We can go on all night through Christmas, like last Christmas, and let us come to a decision [hear, hear]. However, instead of doing that, I would move the adjournment of the House to some date after Christmas.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Go ahead.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I beg to second the motion of the Minister of Finance to adjourn to some day after Christmas. My reason for doing so is that the Minister for Finance went to London to face Lloyd George, worn out and weary—
MR. M. COLLINS:
I was never worn out or weary.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Perhaps he is a man who can do without sleep or rest, but he admitted to being somewhat befogged—
MR. M. COLLINS:
I did not.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
There are many of us who are not able to sit up night after night: we might be more befogged than he ever was. For the sake of our own intellects, we could not carry on Night Sessions. It would be very tiring.
MR. D. MACCARTHY:
The Minister of Finance has time after time said if he was befogged it was by constitutional lawyers—
MR. M. COLLINS:
Alleged constitutional lawyers [laughter].
MR. D. MACCARTHY:
I do not see why seconding the motion should be availed of to insult the Minister of Finance.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
If the Minister of Finance objects to my statement and feels insulted, I apologise.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Suggest some date for the adjournment.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I would say Tuesday week, January 3rd.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I agree to that. I second the motion.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I think a decision like this ought not to be left pending. We ought to be able to make up our minds. I think we ought to go on for another day at least and try if we cannot, in the ordinary way, finish, and have this motion coming on to-morrow night if it has to. I hope if we go on to-night and start again in the morning we may not have people so anxious to speak. We should not leave this question hanging over; we ought to be able to make up our minds on the matter.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Is the Minister of Finance willing to move that we continue until to-morrow evening?
MR. M. COLLINS:
It is obvious that we are not going to finish the debate to-morrow. Now, I am not going to say anything about the length of speeches. I am anxious, for reasons historical and otherwise, that the remarks of every member of the Dáil should go on record. It is quite clear we cannot finish the debate on those lines to-morrow or before Christmas, and it would be more convenient for the country members and for the country—and I see very great national advantages in it—to adjourn over the Christmas. It is obvious, that to facilitate the country members, and for the country
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
It has been proposed by the Minister of Finance, and seconded by the Minister of Labour that the House adjourn to January 3rd. Is there any amendment?
MR. SEAN MACENTEE:
I would move as an amendment that the House adjourns for tea and that the debate be continued through to-night and to-morrow and so on until we finish, and that there be no adjournment over Christmas. Instead of seeing any national advantage I see a grave national danger in adjourning. Whatever our decision is going to be let us take it here and now and not have the people's Christmas clouded over with uncertainty. I don't see why we should put our personal conveniences before the best interests of the nation.
MR. M. COLLINS:
We do not.
MR. SEAN MACENTEE:
The longer we stay here, and the longer we adjourn for, the greater the danger; and the people outside will misunderstand the controversy we are carrying on here; whereas if we make a decision they may be inclined to follow the majority—
MR. LORCAN ROBBINS:
We are sent here to express the opinions of our constituents, and we are going to express them, even if this lasted to March, Mr. MacEntee.
MR. SEAN MACENTEE:
All remarks ought to be addressed to the chair. It is not with the idea of closuring any discussion or any deputies, that I have spoken.
MR. FRANK FAHY:
I beg to second the amendment of Deputy MacEntee. Everyone who wants to speak, of course, ought to he allowed. We should stay on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, if necessary.
The amendment was put to the House for the purpose of having a show of hands taken.
MR. GAVAN DUFFY:
The issue is not clear. Are we to continue night and day?
MR. SEAN MACENTEE:
I do not mean you to sit up all night and go on again the next day. You could sit here until two or three in the morning or something like that.
MR. GAVAN DUFFY:
I suggest the amendment is not in order. The motion was not in writing.
MR. D. MACCARTHY:
The constitutional lawyer again [laughter].
Motion and amendment were put in writing. The amendment read: ‘That this House continue to sit until 1 a.m. Friday, and that the House resume at 10 a.m. and sit until 1 a.m. the following day, with suitable adjournments, and that this order be followed each day until the question be decided’.
MR. SEAN MILROY:
That means that we may go right through Christmas Day?
A DEPUTY:
Yes.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
We will now take a vote on the amendment.
Voting was being taken for and against the amendment when,
MR. SEAN MILROY:
I have a very important point to raise. The President, the Minister of Finance, myself, and two other members of this assembly represent, each of us, two constituencies, and we are not going to assert that either of these constituencies should be disfranchised in the course of these proceedings. When I attended the first meeting of this assembly I was asked to sign my name for each constituency for which I was elected. Every time the roll has been called my name has been called twice. That procedure has, I think, made it clear that each constituency shall have representation in the divisions of the assembly [hear, hear].
MR. D. CEANNT:
That is not adopted in any country in the world. Those members who have two constituencies
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
When I was Speaker that question was put to me, whether the members sitting for more than one constituency could vote more than once, and I said no. I was asked on a subsequent occasion and I decided—and others whom I consulted concurred—that it would be unfair that any member, no matter how many constituencies he represented, should have more than one vote.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
I am advised by the Speaker that that ruling is correct and he also has two constituencies. I rule that only one vote can be given by such members.
MR. P. J. HOGAN:
If the Dáil allows a man to sit for two constituencies—
MR. SEAN MILROY:
I submit that the chair cannot decide this matter. We will have to have a greater authority than the member for Dublin, or the Speaker, to decide this.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I believe this matter was decided at the very beginning of the Dáil, and it is absolutely frivolous to be bringing it forward at this moment.
MR. P. J. HOGAN:
The Dáil has no particular procedure in this matter. The Dáil allowed a Deputy to sit for two constituencies. That is not unusual and not a unique proceeding. The Dáil allowed a man to sit for two constituencies, and, having done that—and that is the only thing that can rule on this particular point—are they now going to disfranchise one constituency, having no particular procedure on the point? The only procedure that can be applied is that they allowed the man to sit for the two constituencies. That is, I hold, a precedent.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
This matter has been already decided in the Dáil and from the chair and has not been questioned.
MR. SEAN MILROY:
It is questioned now; it has never been decided yet.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
As it was not questioned then, I must rule now but each man can only vote once.
MR. SEAN MILROY:
Let us have the minute referring to, and the date of, that decision. We are not going to be brow-beaten in this matter. It is too grave to be decided by any casual recollection of any member of the House [cries of ‘Chair’]. I am speaking with perfect respect to the Chair. I want it made clear that in regard to the constituencies I represent, the right of either constituency shall not be bartered away by any member of the House who happens to hold different views from mine. This is not to be decided in this fashion. If there was such a decision the minute regarding it should be produced.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I could make a very good case for and against this business that would bear examination by the foremost constitutional lawyers. Make no mistake about it. I did submit this division could have gone on without this question having been raised at all. We all know why it is raised. Well my own personal view is this: we are not going to decide the fate of the Irish nation on two votes from me and two votes from somebody else on our side, and two votes from somebody else on the other side. We are not going to decide the fate of the Irish nation on any kind of sharp practice as that [applause]. I am going to be as fair on that matter as on any other matter. In regard to this business I can make a good case.If you saw the constitutional case for it you would be surprised, and if I saw the constitutional case against it I would be surprised [laughter]. For the present we are going on with the motion without making another vexed question.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Suppose it is decided to adjourn, there is a very serious matter to be considered. That is in regard to the Cabinet carrying on the work. If we are to work as a Cabinet we will have to come to a certain agreement about certain things [voices: ‘And why not?’]. That is the only thing I want to make certain.
MR. M. P. COLIVET:
I think the House will insist on the Cabinet carrying on the work of the country.
MR. D. O'ROURKE:
And sit according to the terms of the amendment [loud laughter].
The voting on the amendment was as follows:
FOR
AGAINST.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER:
For the amendment 44, against 77. The amendment is lost. I now put the motion of the Minister of Finance that the House adjourn until Tuesday, January 3rd, at 11 a.m.
The motion was declared carried.
MR. M. HAYES:
Is there going to be a rest? Any speeches for Christmas?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
There is one thing which will be necessary. There must be a common agreement that there will be no speech-making in the interval. [Hear, hear].
The House adjourned until January 3rd, 1922.
At the resumption of The Dáil debate on Tuesday, the 3rd January, 1922, DR. EOIN MACNEILL, SPEAKER, took the chair at 11.20 a.m.
MR. ART O'CONNOR
MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:
I am going to try to set a good example at this renewed Session of An Dáil by being very brief in what I have got to say. I shall not attempt any fire-works in my speech, because if I were to pose as a bellicose individual I am afraid I should be very much as a damp squib. All my activity and all my work has been more or less of a civil nature. I know nothing about the military side of our movement except what I have been able to judge by the results that were achieved. And I must say that both at the Public and Private Session I was very much struck by the statements of the soldier Deputies on both sides. I shall direct myself solely towards the civil points of view. I must say that the Treaty has suffered from its advocates both within this assembly and without it. I have been listening to the debates for several days and I have been unable to discover whether the Treaty is a Treaty by consent, or whether it is a Treaty signed under duress. To my mind it would make a big difference to this assembly if we knew definitely which was which—whether this assembly is being asked to go into the British Empire with its head up or whether it is being forced into the British Empire. I say, too, that it has suffered from its advocates outside, because the people who, during the recess, have been howling at us and telling us where our duty lay, were, for the most part, people who never did a solid hour's work for the country, and were anxious to drop down on the right side.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Some of them were in ambushes with me.
MR. O'CONNOR:
There are some very good people in the country supporting the Treaty and there are some of the very worst, and the people on the opposite side know it too. It seems to me that we are very much like a spectrum as we went along during the last two weeks. You know what a spectrum is like. When it is split up into various fragments you see the different sorts of colours. Well, I think Lloyd George has shown a spectrum here. The colours have veered from extreme purple to extreme red, and those who wore the purple mantle now arrived at the Royal Courts and were anxious to settle down there. Some professed Republicans on the other side said: ‘We will rest a little while at the Royal Court and furbish up our arms so as to be in a better position to advance’. And those on the other side, extreme revolutionists, say: ‘If we linger at all there is danger that we may be contaminated by Royalty, and there is danger that we may not be able to advance at all’. If I could feel in my heart and mind that the Republicans were only digging themselves in—
MR. M. COLLINS:
We never dug ourselves in.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
—that they were only going to use this business as a stepping stone or post from which to advance, I might be able to step along with them. But I am afraid it is not a matter like that—that it is a step backward and not forward. I hold and agree with Connolly when he said that it is not the extent of the step at all that matters, it is the direction of the step—
MR. M. COLLINS:
That's the stuff. Hear, Hear. Good for Connolly [cheers].
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
Yes, you can applaud that because you think it suits your policy or is your policy. Yes, wrap as much of that soft solder in as you possibly can because the result will prove that it is a step backward. It is a step off the solid rock. You are in the swamp, and you will be swamped.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I was often in a swamp and I did not get many to pull me out.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
I would like to give you a long stick to pull you out, because I am sorry you are in it, and going into it. Now it seems to me that this Free State is going to be a very good and sweet thing for a class of people in this country who have never been conspicuous for their love of country. The head of the Delegation when in London wrote a certain letter, promising certain things to the Southern Unionists. I would like to know exactly what these promises were.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
Fair play.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
Because Lloyd George stated that the Free State would be able to hammer out its own Constitution, subject to guarantees given to Southern Unionists. I would like to know what do these guarantees mean. I would like to know what it does mean. Is it fair play? Because I can assure the head of the Delegation that if it means more than fair play, if it means giving these people place and power, and giving them a controlling influence in Irish affairs, and giving them more than their heads or individuality entitle them to, the Irish people won't stand for that. These people have been here as our previous enemies. These people have stood in our way every time we tried to make a little advance, and it would be a poor thing now for the Free State—if it was established—if these people are to be put upon the necks of the Irish people. The people won't have them there.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
MR. M. COLLINS:
No one suggested what the Deputy is alleging.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
Why make promises? Why not be honest with them? Why throw out a bit of grain to attract those fellows in? Why not say: ‘You will get the same treatment as the people of the rest of the country’? We know where our duty lies. We knew it before we heard a word from those Southern Unionists, and we will know it long after they are heard of no more. And we will do our duty too, without any directions from those new come-rounds, those new Free Staters. But anyone who accepts the Free State will be a Southern Unionist, because you will all accept the King. So far as I can make out it is only an exchange from one Unionist to another. The old Union was a Union of force and this is a Union of consent. You take the boot off the foot and put it on the other. I was amused here last week listening to threats—to threats of war. Did the men who were trying to make us believe so, really believe that bluff themselves? If they did it would not be bluff. I have here a little clipping from a newspaper of the 28th November in which Lord Birkenhead, one of the plenipotentiaries, made a rather interesting statement in which he said: ‘If the only method of securing peace in Ireland was by force of arms, it would be a task from which neither this nor any British Government would shrink, but the question was this, when it was attained at great expense of treasure and blood, how much nearer were they to a genuine and contented Ireland? Therefore he expressed his earnest hope that their efforts and exertions might not’—
MR. M. COLLINS:
It was I asked that question of Lord Birkenhead in Downing Street.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
Was the Birkenhead of Downing Street so different from the Birkenhead of the public platform? Why did he not show the cloven foot in Downing Street as well as on the public platform, and not be trying to deceive the world by pretending he was giving a genuine peace to the Irish, when he was giving them a peace thrust down their necks with a bayonet? Why could he not be honest with us as we would be with him?
MR. M. COLLINS:
Would you? [Laughter].
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
I would, I can assure you I would. I have no desire to be at variance with England or with the English people. Any English people I met were rather nice decent people, but the English people in their political institutions are rather a different proposition. But it is the English people in their political institutions that I am thinking of. I would like to have a genuine and proper peace between the Irish and the English people, so that we would be free to go along and work out our own life in our own tinpot way, and have no fighting or arguing with them.
MR. M. COLLINS:
The English people are more loyal than their King.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
It seems to me that some of the Irish people are more loyal than the English people—otherwise where does the common citizenship come in? Since when did Munster become as loyal as Yorkshire or Suffolk? And the fealty to King George in virtue of the common citizenship—where did the common citizenship come in between Cork and Yorkshire?
MR. SEAN MILROY:
Where do your constituents come in?
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
Where do my constituents come in? I will answer that question. My constituents gave me a definite mandate in 1918, and they renewed the mandate last May. And my mandate was that to the best of my ability I should support the Republican Government in this country. I have not changed. I told them they could change. Perhaps they have changed, but I will not change. I told them a couple of months ago when I spoke to them publicly that I would not change; that they could change if they chose. I will vote against this Treaty because the acceptance of it would mean the death knell of this Dáil and Republic. They are perfectly entitled to change. But there is a new element being introduced into Irish affairs which is not a good augury to the gentlemen of the Treasury Bench opposite. If at any moment people in a certain locality find themselves out of sympathy with one of their Treasury actions—and suppose they got a snow-ball resolution going, and suppose they got a venal Press to support it, will you obey the snow-ball resolution? Will they do what their honour and judgement dictated to them not to do? I say that the heart and mind of the people is not changed. I say that the heart and mind of the people is not reflected by the resolutions from the Farmers' Union and people of that ilk—who never did an honest day's or honest hour's work.
A DEPUTY:
They did; they supported us in the fight.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
I have been rather surprised at some of the names I have seen presiding at some of the meetings.
MR. M. COLLINS:
If you saw some of the houses I saw—the farmers' houses burned down all over the place—as I have seen lately.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
The men I am referring to are not farmers at all. I wish to the Lord they were; but they are masquerading as farmers. It is just like this Treaty masquerading as a Treaty. It would be comic only it is likely to be tragic. It was a masked ball—a masquerade. The pity of it all is there was a little grain shook over the poor people. Lloyd George had set a trap very nicely and they walked in, and he pulled the stick and got you all in. Not alone did he get you within the crib, but he got some of us too [laughter]. When I say this, I say it of our genuine Republicans.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Where are they?
A DEPUTY:
Here.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
Instead of uniting their strength to lift off the crib and get free again, they started to try and persuade themselves that, instead of being within the crib, they have, genuinely, the grandest freedom that could be possibly enjoyed, because they are going to be very well fed under it. Now I have nothing further to say except that I hope that none of the Deputies in this assembly will be swayed or misled by any of those extravagant resolutions that have been passed during the last fortnight. Every one of us was sent here with a definite mandate. If the
MR. PIARAS BEASLAI:
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a lucht na Dála, ós rud e go bhfuil a lán daoine eile chun cainte, agus ná fuil a lán aimsire le spáráil againn, ce gur mhaith liom labhairt as Gaedhilg is gá liom labhairt as Bearla ar fad, ach deanfad mo dhícheall chun gan einní do rá a chuirfeadh gangaid im' chaint. I will do my best to avoid introducing any element of bitterness or personality into this debate. I am sorry the debate has gone to a considerable extent on the lines it has gone. This is a debate of vital concern to the Irish nation. I don't think it right to endeavour to make points against a man's reasoned statement on a matter of vital national importance. I had hoped to hear from the opponents of the Treaty something that showed a sense of realities, something of a vision, something of sympathy for the poor, prostrate Irish nation, the great reality of the situation, beside which we 120 odd members with our formulas and politics pale into insignificance. I had hoped for some sign that they had considered alternative policies of peace, or of war, that they had constructive ideas to put forward, based on a robust faith in the Irish nation. No such note has been struck by the opponents or critics of the Treaty. I have heard much talk of what are called principles, but are really political formulas. Although the Irish notion in its struggle for 750 years, to which the Minister of Agriculture referred, fought for the one national principle, it adopted a dozen different political formulas at different times. Members have entertained us with accounts of their consciences and the political formulas which they call their principles, as if those were more important than the solid reality of the Irish nation. I have heard much high-pitched rhetoric and emotional appeals and references to brave men who did what we all, I hope, were ready to do—and some of us came very near doing—died for Ireland. As a contrast to this we have had elaborate expositions of the marvellous value of words and phrases and formulas, constituting the difference between internal and external association. In all this flood of dialectics I have not been able to find what I anxiously looked for—one hint of a suggestion of an alternative policy, one sign of constructive statesmanship. None of the opponents of the Treaty have even given an indication that they have even considered what we are to do next if this Treaty is rejected. Some say airily that they do not believe that the rejection of the Treaty will mean war anyway, as though that were a question to be gambled on. But I have listened in vain for the slightest suggestion or hint as to how they think war is to be avoided, how the impossible situation of an indefinite truce with no objective can be maintained. Or how either we or the other side could keep our armed forces for an indefinite period with their hands behind their backs and governmental activities held up thereby. I cannot understand how people entrusted with the fate of the nation can be so much obsessed by formulas and so blind to realities. The opponents of the Treaty are not even united in their formulas. With some the formula is isolation, with some external association. Meanwhile the lives and fortunes of the Irish people are being gambled with in the name of formulas. After all, the Irish people who have stood to us so loyally and suffered with us have some rights. One would think, to listen to some of the speeches, that we were
MR. J. J. O'KELLY:
I said ten years. I ought not be misquoted.
MR. P. BEASLAI:
Twenty years that is in this report of your speech. No matter, say ten years. I tell you if you reject this Treaty it will not take ten years or twenty years or forty years, for you will never see the day when it will happen. But if the British Army clears out you will have a real Irish national education in twelve months, and you can have all Ireland Irish-speaking in two generations. Pádraic Pearse advised the Irish people to accept the Irish Councils Bill because he considered it gave the Irish people control over education. But the finest education of all will be the bringing up of our boys and girls outside the shadow of the British armed forces. We can have our national theatres and municipal theatres, music halls and picture halls redolent of a national atmosphere in place of the demoralising institutions now influencing the people's outlook. We can have a development under state protection of that system of co-operative agricultural development that has already done so much good. We can have our fisheries organised on a national basis so that the poor fishermen of Ireland, in most cases the chief representatives of our historic Gaelic Ireland, will be able to compete on fair terms with the wealthy, state aided foreigner. We can have our marshes and waste lands turned into plantations and our hillsides covered with trees. We can have our national sports and pastimes developed under the aegis of the state. We can have industries built up, not on the sweating system, but in accordance with our Democratic Programme of the 21st January, 1919, on lines which will assure the worker of a fair share of the fruits of his labour. We can make our land the home of the fine arts which will rival the great big and the great small nations of the world. All this we can do. And the poor Irish nation that is trying to be born, that never got a chance before, is to be denied this chance because of a question of formulas. I appeal to those opponents of the Treaty who have done great and good work for Ireland in the past, are they going to be responsible for crushing this frail and beautiful thing in the chrysalis? I am afraid that as a Dáil we are a body of small people, dry formulists and politicians, and without imagination. We cannot rise to a great occasion in a manner worthy of us. We have not the vision. We have not the imagination. I have accused the opponents of the Treaty of a lack of faith in the nation, of a lack of a sense of realities and of a lack of vision and imagination. I have now to accuse them of a further lack of sense of their own representative capacity and responsibility to the nation. There is one thing that a great many of us seem to forget: that whatever authority our present government possesses rests solely on the support of the people of Ireland. If you act contrary to the will of the majority of the nation, then you have lost their moral support and your effective authority is gone. The President talked of a Provisional Government being a usurpation. Well if this Dáil acts contrary to the will of the majority of the Irish nation its continuance in office is the greatest usurpation of all. There were talks of threats of war. Well, England has no need to threaten war. She knows that if you reject this Treaty then the power and authority of Dáil Eireann, whatever it be in theory, is gone in practice, for we will not have the big bulk of the people behind us. It was that popular support that gave Dáil Eireann its
A DEPUTY:
Not all.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Some of them were smuggled out.
A DEPUTY:
By the Minister of Finance.
MR. P. BEASLAI:
A little fact like this is a douche of cold water on the idealists and on the unrealities of the formulists [laughter]. Some of those who oppose the Treaty have claimed to be idealists and take a superior pose against those who speak of plain realities. I say it is those who vote for the Treaty that are the true idealists. They have the vision and the imagination to sense the nation that is trying to be born—the poor, crushed, struggling people who never got a fair chance, the men and women of all Ireland, the Orangemen of Portadown, the fishermen of Aran, the worker of the slum and the labourer in the fields, that nation whose fate lies in your hands and whom you are dooming to another and, I fear, a final disappointment if you reject the Treaty. Save that poor nation, give it a chance to be born, have the courage to throw away the formulas which you call principles. Seize this chance to realise the visions of Thomas Davis, of Rooney and Pearse, of a free, happy and glorious Gaelic state. Do not have it said of your work what was said of the doctors who performed an operation—‘The operation was a complete success, but the patient died’.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a lucht na Dála, táim im' sheasamh go láidir agus go fíor anso
A DEPUTY:
Soviet Republic.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
——co-operative commonwealth, these men who have opposed everything are to be elected and upheld by our plenipotentiaries; and I suppose they are to be the Free State, or the Cheap State Army, or whatever selection these men are, to be set up to uphold English interests in Ireland, to uphold the capitalists' interests in Ireland, to block every ideal that the nation may wish to formulate; to block the teaching of Irish, to block the education of the poorer classes; to block, in fact, every bit of progress that every man and woman in Ireland to-day amongst working people desire to see put into force. That is one of the biggest blots on this Treaty; this deliberate attempt to set up a privileged class in this, what they call a Free State, that is not free. I would like the people here who represent the workers to take that into consideration—to say to themselves what can the working people expect in an Ireland that is being run by men who, at the time of the Treaty, are willing to guarantee this sort of privilege to a class that every thinking man and woman in Ireland despises. Now, there are one or two things that I would like an answer to. It strikes me that our opponents in speaking have been extraordinarily vague. We had Mr. Hogan, Deputy for Galway, before the recess talking a great deal about the King, and he was rather laughing and sneering at the idea of the King being head of a Free State. In fact his ideas about the King amounted to merely one thing—an individual's ideas of a modern king. What he lost sight of is this: that the King to-day in England—when you mention the King you mean the British Cabinet. Allegiance to the King like that does not even get you the freedom that is implied—a dual monarchy. The King to-day is a figurehead, a thing that presides at banquets, waves a flag, and reads his speeches some one else makes for him; which mean absolutely nothing but words put into his mouth by his Cabinet. Also the same vagueness comes into the question of the oath. As a Republican I naturally object to the King, because the King really stands in politics for his Prime Minister, the court of which he also is the head and centre, the pivot around which he turns—well it is not one of the things that tends to elevate and improve the country. It tends to develop all sorts of corruption, all sorts of luxury and all sorts of immorality. The court centre in any country has never, in the history of the world, for more than a very short period proved anything, through the centuries, but a centre from which vice and wrong ideals emanated. Now, with regard to the oath,I say to anyone—go truthfully and take this oath, take it. If they take it under duress there may be some excuse for them, but let them remember that nobody here took their Republican Oath under duress. They took it knowing that it might mean death, and they took it meaning that. And when they took that oath to the Irish Republic they meant, I hope, every honest man and every woman—I know the women—they took it meaning to keep it to death. Now what I have against that oath is that it is a dishonourable oath. It is not a straight oath. It is an oath that can be twisted in every imaginable form. You have heard the last speaker explain to you that this oath meant nothing; that it was a thing you could walk through and trample on; that in fact, the Irish nation could publicly pledge themselves to the King of England, and that you, the Irish people, could consider yourselves at the same time free, and not bound by it. Now, I have here some opinions, English opinions, as to what the oath is; but mind you, when you swear that oath the English people believe you mean it. Lloyd George, in the House of Commons on the 14th December said: ‘The main operation of this scheme is the raising of Ireland to the status of a Dominion of the British Empire with a common citizenship, and by virtue of that membership in the Empire, and of that common citizenship,
Mr. R. MacNeill: Owning allegiance.
and swearing allegiance to the King’. For the moment I will confine myself to the statement that there has been complete acceptance of allegiance to the British Crown and acceptance of membership in the Empire, and acceptance of common citizenship; that she Ireland has accepted allegiance to the Crown and partnership in the same Empire. Mr. Winston Churchill in the House of Commons on the 15th December, 1921, said: ‘In our view they promise allegiance to the Crown and membership of the Empire.Hon. Members: No, no.
That is our view. The oath comprises acceptance of the British Constitution, which is, by Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution, exactly assimilated to the Constitution of our Dominions. This oath is far more precise and searching than the ordinary oath which is taken elsewhere.Hon. Members: No, no.
It mentions specifically membership of the Empire, common citizenship, and faithfulness to the Crown, whereas only one of these matters is dealt with in the Dominion Oath.’ Now here is a curious thing. Sir W. Davidson asked why should they not take the Canadian Oath, and the answer by Mr. Churchill is this:Now here is one important extract I want to read to you on this point:The oath they are asked to take is more carefully and precisely drawn than the existing oath, and it was chosen because it was more acceptable to the people whose allegiance we are seeking, and whose incorporation in the British Empire we are certainly desirous of securing. Sir L. Worthington Evans: What does
as by law establishedmean? It means that presently—next Session—we shall be asked in this House to establish a Constitution for the Irish Free State, and part of the terms of the settlement will be that the members who go to serve in that Free State Parliament will have to swear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution as passed by this House of Commons. How is it possible to say that within the terms of that oath they can set up a Republic and still maintain their oath?
Now, personally, I being an honourable woman, would sooner die than give a declaration of fidelity to King George or the British Empire. I saw a picture the other day of India, Ireland and Egypt fighting England, and Ireland crawling out with her hands up. Do you like that? I don't. Now, if we pledge ourselves to this oath we pledge our allegiance to this thing, whether you call it Empire or Commonwealth of Nations, that is treading down the people of Egypt and of India. And in Ireland this Treaty, as they call it, mar dheadh, that is to be ratified by a Home Rule Bill, binds us to stand by and enter no protest while England crushes Egypt and India. And mind you, England wants peace in Ireland to bring her troops over to India and Egypt. She wants the Republican Army to be turned into a Free State Army, and mind, the army is centred in the King or the representative of the King. He is the head of the army. The army is to hold itself faithful to the Commonwealth of Nations while the Commonwealth sends its Black-and-Tans to India. Of course you may want to send the Black-and-Tans out of this country. Now mind you, there are people in Ireland who were not afraid to face them before, and I believe would not be afraid to face them again. You are here labouring under a mistake ifSir L. Worthington Evans: ‘Then it was suggested by the hon. member for Burton that this oath contained no allegiance to the Throne, but merely fidelity to the King. I have not time to go into the history of the oaths which have from time to time been taken in this Parliament, but I did have time while the hon. member was speaking to look up Anson on Constitutional Law, and I extracted this: ‘There were at one time three oaths. There was the Oath of Allegiance’—and this is how Anson defines it—‘it was a declaration of fidelity to the reigning sovereign’. That is precisely what this is, a declaration of fidelity to the reigning sovereign . . . But Anson's description of the Oath of Allegiance is that it was a declaration of fidelity to the throne, so that in this oath as included in the Treaty we have got this: we have got the Oath of Allegiance in the declaration of fidelity, ‘I will be faithful to His Majesty King George V., his heirs and successors by law’. And we have got something in addition—a declaration of fidelity to the Constitution of the Irish Free State as by law established: and in further addition, we have the declaration of fidelity to the Empire itself’.
A DEPUTY:
Why didn't you go over?
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Why didn't you send me? I tell you, don't trust the English with gifts in their hands. That's not original, someone said it before of the Greeks—but it is true. The English come to you to-day offering you great gifts; I tell you this, those gifts are not genuine. I tell you, you will come out of this a defeated nation. No one ever got the benefits of the promises the English made them. It seems absurd to talk to the Irish people about trusting the English, but you know how the O'Neills and the O'Donnells went over and always came back with the promises and guarantees that their lands would be left them and that their religion would not be touched. What is England's record? It was self aggrandisement and Empire. You will notice how does she work—by a change of names. They subjugated Wales by giving them a Prince of Wales, and now they want to subjugate Ireland by a Free State Parliament and a Governor General at the head of it. I could tell you something about Governor-Generals and people of that sort. You can't have a Governor-General without the Union Jack, and a suite, and general household and other sort of official running in a large way. The interests of England are the interests of the capitalistic class. Your Governor-General is the centre for your Southern Unionists, for whom Mr. Griffith has been so obliging. He is the centre from which the anti-Irish ideals will go through Ireland, and English ideals will come: love of luxury, love of wealth, love of competition, trample on your neighbours to get to the top, immorality and divorce laws of the English nation. All these things you will find centred in this Governor-General. I heard there was a suggestion—there was a brother of the King's or the Queen's suggested as Governor-General, and I heard also that this Lascelles was going to be Governor. I also heard that there is a suggestion that Princess Mary's wedding is to be broken off, and that the Princess Mary is to be married to Michael Collins who will be appointed first Governor of our Saorstát na hEirennn. All these are mere nonsense. You will find that the English people, the rank and file of the common people will all take it that we are entering their Empire and that we are going to help them. All the people who are in favour of it here claim it to be a step towards Irish freedom, claim it to be nothing but allegiance to the Free State. Now what will the world think of it? What the world thinks of it is this: Ireland has long been held up to the scorn of the world through the British Press. According to that Press Ireland is a nation that lay down, that never protested. The people in other countries have scorned us. So Ireland can bear to be scorned again, even if she takes the oath that pledges her support to the Commonwealth of Nations. But I say, what do Irishmen think in their own hearts? Can any Irishman take that oath honourably and then go back and prepare to fight for an Irish Republic or even to work for the Republic? It is like a person going to get married plotting a divorce. I would make a Treaty with England once Ireland was free, and I would stand with President de Valera in this, that if Ireland were a free Republic I would welcome the King of England over here on a visit. But while Ireland is not free I remain a rebel unconverted and unconvertible. There is no word strong enough for it. I am pledged as a rebel, an unconvertible rebel, because I am pledged to the one thing—a free and independent Republic. Now we have been sneered at for being Republicans by even men who fought for the Republic. We have been told that we didn't know what we meant. Now I know what I mean—a state run by the Irish people for the people. That means
MR. J. WALSH:
Before I proceed to speak I think it would be well that the Dáil should consider the advisability of adjourning for lunch. I intend to speak for perhaps an hour—I may speak for two hours. It is entirely a matter for myself at the moment. But if you desire I should begin now, very well.
The House signified its wish that Mr. Walsh should go on.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
A Chinn Chomhairle, agus a cháirde, is gá dhom focal nó dhó do rá in ár dteangain dhúchais fein. Sílim gur cheart dúinn an díospóireacht so do dheanamh go bre reidh agus gan aon duine do chur einní i leith aon duine eile anois ná as so amach. I have been, perhaps, noted in the past for a certain amount of bluntness and directness which has made me unpopular with a great majority of the Dáil [cries of No! no!"]. Well, I certainly have interpreted that feeling in my own mind, and I am now glad to hear that it is not the feeling of my co-members. But I must confess that there were certain principles on which we were all in agreement, and these principles, if I correctly understand them, have been pretty sharply turned down by the members of the Dáil in opposition here to-day. I have since my advent into the political arena understood that we were here to express the voice of the people; that we were here to typify the consent of the governed, that we were here to speak for the majority of the people. Now, my friends, I have, unlike other people, made it my business to visit my constituency in the interval since the adjournment over Christmas. The City of Cork has played a not unimportant part in the events of the last four or five years; and though I have not counted heads, nor taken a vote of the people, I will honestly as a plain, honest man, say that I feel that nine out of every ten people in Cork City are in favour of the ratification of this Treaty. I have met prominent public men in my constituency and they assure me that they themselves have not met one single human being in Cork City opposed to the Treaty. Now I am stating what is an honest, straight fact. Some of you assume that if you voted, or if you should vote for this Treaty, you are violating your own conscience. I don't know that you have any right to intrude your conscience on the question of the lives and the liberties of your people. Your people have not asked you to take this oath, but they have asked you to ratify the Treaty. And be very clear on these two points. You need not necessarily take the oath if you don't want to; but you are certainly bound in conscience, and more strictly bound than by any oath the British Government can impose, to follow and execute the will of
A DEPUTY:
Take the 1916 Rising for example.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
Now we hear a lot about unity. The Cork City electorate in the Municipal Elections of 1920 only voted 50 per cent. for the Republican candidates—slightly over 50 per cent.— twenty-eight or twenty-nine candidates. If we were to ask the people of Cork to vote for or against the Treaty we would have 90 per cent. voting for it. That is a unity that this country, neither for a Republic nor at any other stage of its history, ever enjoyed. I have met a number of men who have said that this Dáil has spent too much time discussing oaths. I have met one man who reminded me of a certain imperishable phrase which the predecessor of the present ex- Kaiser used with regard to the lawyers in his country. Frederick the Great, on his visit to France, was asked how many lawyers he had in Germany, and he said: ‘One, and when I go back I will hang that one’[laughter]. Now, there are a great many pro-Germans in Ireland to-day. The Irish people are thoroughly fed up with this ju-jitsu exposition and things of that nature. I may tell you that I have a very elastic mind on oaths. I do not say that oaths are not a very forceful issue with me as between me and my country. If, for instance, a British soldier during the last half-dozen years offered me a rifle on condition that I would take this oath, I would take it. I assure you I would keep on taking it for a month if I could get a rifle and ammunition by taking this oath. The taking of a meaningless and harmless oath would not prevent me. Now, I hold my own individual view on that, and I don't ask other people to hold that view. A similar question arose at the G. A. A., a few years ago, and I expressed a similar view. War knows no principles, and you who have lived through the last half-dozen years will not deny the truth of that statement. There are certain points troubling very seriously genuine friends of this Treaty—points which I desire to deal with here to-day; but before I introduce that matter, I would like to say in fairness to myself, and in fairness to my constituents, that there is one thing in the Treaty that I dislike and that is the retention of our ports. Now, nobody has told me how we are to rid ourselves of that. The British Army and Navy alone dominate the situation. There are certain points which, undoubtedly, are troubling genuine friends of this Treaty. One of them may be summed up in this. They say now that when Ireland regains some material prosperity, when she gets on her feet, when the people get rich, that they will lose the grádh for independence. Now I heard the very same arguments when I was very young. I heard it said—I happened to be a country boy—there are a great many country boys here and the country boy differs very materially from the city boy—and I remember when a youngster going to school being told by my companions that the Land Legislation which was then being passed would mean the downfall of the national ideal, and that the extension of the Local Government powers would do the same. Now it was not the country boys said that, but the London Times. Now, I ask you, did any of the farmers of Ireland prove the truth of that? Were they not the back-bone of the fight through which we have gone—notwithstanding that they have enjoyed a prosperity which they didn't anticipate? Indeed, the well-to-do farmers were the great backers of our fight. You may as
Adjourned at 1.30.
On resumption the SPEAKER took the Chair at 3.30 p.m.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I crave just a couple of minutes to make a personal explanation. When the Deputy for a Division of Dublin was speaking to-day I was not present. She made reference to my name and to the name of a lady belonging to a foreign nation that I cannot allow to pass without making this reference to. Some time in our history as a nation a girl went through Ireland and was not insulted by the people of Ireland. I do not come from the class that the Deputy for the Dublin Division comes from; I come from the plain people of Ireland. The lady whose name was mentioned is, I understand, betrothed to some man. I know nothing of her personally, I know nothing of her in any way whatever, but the statement may cause her pain, and may cause pain to the lady who is betrothed to me [hear, hear]. I just stand in that plain way, and I will not allow without challenge any Deputy in the assembly of my nation to insult any lady either of this nation or of any other nation [applause].
MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS:
A Chinn Chomhairle, tá beagán agamsa le rá agus ní bhead ach cúpla nóimeat á rá. As I have no doubt the other Deputies are as speech weary as I am, you will be glad to hear that what I have to say will be said in a few moments. I am not going to dictate to the Deputies on the duty they owe to their constituents or any thing else like that. I am not going to charge any man with betrayal, or impugn any man's honour, because I look upon every Deputy of Dáil Eireann as my comrade, and no word or act of mine, either here or outside, will, I trust, break that bond of comradeship [hear, hear]. I am against the Treaty on principle, and on principle alone. I have heard it stated that we should vote as our constituents wish us to vote because they are our masters. I agree that they are the masters of our political thought but they are not and can not be the captains of our souls. Is it seriously put up as an argument that if, say, 90 per cent. of our constituents at any time during the past two or three years were to have told us that the interests of Ireland could best be served by our going across to the British House of Commons, we should have gone there?
A DEPUTY:
They did not do that.
MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS:
If tomorrow or next week our constituents were to order us, with a view to securing Ireland's material interests, to become Freemasons, are we to immediately begin to save up the price of a trowel and apron? [Laughter]. I have as great a respect and as a deep a regard for my constituents as any Deputy in this assembly. I admit they have a perfect right to deride me, to repudiate any action of mine, and to kick me out at the first opportunity;
MR. M. COLLINS:
Unanimously.
MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS:
I know this also: in my opposition to the Treaty I know that I am not misrepresenting those who have the best influence in the constituency.
MR. PATRICK BRENNAN:
You are.
MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS:
I am not. I have made it my business to find out and I know what I am saying.
MR. P. BRENNAN:
So do we.
MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS:
Interruptions will not make me say one word more than this on that particular point: I went down to Clare on Christmas Eve fully satisfied in my mind that in opposing this Treaty I was doing what was right. A week later I came back from Clare doubly satisfied I was doing right [hear, hear]. I am against this on principle alone. I suppose that is a sentimental reason, a hopelessly ignorant reason, a reason of the heart but not of the head, the reason of a man without vision. Principle has been sneered at in every generation by those who have abandoned principle, and earnestly I ask the Deputies here not to sneer at those who stand for principle in these days, because the history of these days has yet to be written.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I am for the Treaty on principle alone.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS:
When I speak of principle and conscience I must necessarily speak of the oath embodied in the Treaty. In my sentimental, hopelessly ignorant attitude towards it, I must be guided, not by lawyers or Doctors of Divinity, or the Press, or by my constituents, but by my own conscience. My conscience tells me the oath embodied in the Treaty signed in London is an oath of loyalty to the English King; an admission that the King of England is King, also, of Ireland, that I am a British subject, that my children are British subjects, and such an admission I never intend to make so long as I have control of my will and reason, no matter what material advantage it may be supposed to gain for Ireland. I am not going to assert that the dead would do this or that. I have too much reverence and too much love for the dead to make such an assertion, or to drag them into this debate at all, But I will say one word about the men of Easter Week, living and dead. It has been suggested it would be no more dishonourable for us to take this oath and go into the British Empire than it was for the men of Easter Week to surrender. When we laid down our arms in O'Connell Street on the Saturday evening of Easter Week, we did so under duress, but we surrendered only our arms and the military position we had taken up; we did not surrender the Irish Republic, nor the historic Irish nation. We did not swear to be loyal subjects to the English King, nor acknowledge him as King of Ireland. That was war on a grand scale, in the Mount Street Bridge area, in Stephen's Green, at the South Dublin Union in the General Post Office, and other places during Easter Week. But when these positions were surrendered the Irish nation was not asked by the leaders of the rising to swear loyalty to King George, his heirs and successors; so it is an insult to the men and women of Easter Week to compare their honourable surrender with the surrender proposed to us now. I should like to pay a tribute to one Deputy in particular who has spoken here, Deputy Robert Barton. He admitted he was weak in London, and broke his oath to the Republic——
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
Did we? Answer me that question. Did we break our oaths to the Republic? [Cries of Order, order!].
MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS:
I am paying a tribute to Deputy Robert Barton.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
Aye.
MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS:
When the threats of terrible and immediate war were held over his head——
MR. M. COLLINS:
We did not give damn for terrible and immediate war.
MR. BRIAN O'HIGGINS:
If Mr. Barton was weak in London he has been strong here [laughter and cheers]. He has revealed the strength of a true man [laughter]. And his statement will be the most thought-compelling page in the history of these proceedings [hear, hear, and renewed laughter]. I cannot claim to have done anything worth talking about for Ireland, but during twenty years I have tried in a minor, fifth-rate way to convey to the common people of Ireland—my own people—the message of the brave men and women of our race who have stood for right against wrong. I shall continue to do so as long as God gives me strength to do it, whether this Treaty be ratified or not. I have taken only one oath in all my life, and I cannot now take another that, rightly or wrongly—it may be wrongly—I believe would make me a perjurer. I won't surrender the one ideal and dream of my life—an independent Irish Ireland, and so I mean to vote against the Treaty. [Applause].
MR. ERNEST BLYTHE:
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a cháirde, ní choimeadfad a bhfad sibh. An chuid is mó atá le rá agam tá sé ráite ag na Teachtaí cheana. Ach is dócha nách díobháil dom labhairt chun a innsint cé an fáth go bhfuil mo thuairimí fé mar atáid. I would like to agree with the last speaker that it would be much more seemly if there was no attempt to bring in in any way into these discussions, which are rendered sometimes exasperating, the names of those who made the supreme sacrifice for the freedom of Ireland. And I would like particularly to say that I hate the phrase which has been used here—that of rattling the bones of the dead. In this matter that is before us I recognise only one principle. That principle is an obligation in making my choice here to choose that which, in my judgment, will be best for the Irish nation both in the immediate future and ultimately. I believe that I must exercise my judgment freely in that matter. I believe that in making my choice I am not fettered by the oath I took as a member of this Dáil. I believe that if I hold myself back from doing what I believe would be best for the Irish nation because it conflicted with the terms of that oath, it would be doing wrong, because I took that oath as President de Valera took it—as an oath to do my best for the freedom of the Irish nation. That was the purpose that I bound myself to by that oath, and I would be false alike to the oath and the purpose of the oath if I held to the mere terms of it against my judgment of what was best for the Irish nation at the present time. Republicanism is with me not a national principle but a political preference. I am against monarchy, because I believe monarchies in the world as it is to-day are effete and out of date. I believe the Irish people, when they voted for a Republican majority in this Dáil, and when they declared themselves for an Irish Republic, were not thinking of constitutional privileges very much, but were thinking of the complete freedom of Ireland [hear, hear]. I think that is the ideal for which the Irish people have declared. I think that, like myself, they have a preference for the Republican form of Government, because I do not see how anybody could, at the present day, prefer any other form of Government; but I believe the main thing that was in their minds was the securing of the complete independence of Ireland. As far as I am concerned I wanted the Irish Republic, as I believe the people of Ireland did, in order that Ireland might be free. With me the Republic was a means to an end and not an end in itself.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Hear, hear.
MR. ERNEST BLYTHE:
I believe in one sense the Republican form of Government which has been set up was a machine for the securing of Irish freedom [hear, hear]. And I believe there is no more harm, if the interests of the nation demand it, in scrapping that machine than there is in scrapping any other machine which may be devised for securing the freedom of the country. I do not hold myself fettered in making my choice either by the oath which I took as a member of the Dáil, or by the
MR. M. COLLINS:
Hear, hear.
MR. ERNEST BLYTHE:
That was really his argument, and I don't think it deserved—although it was very good [laughter and applause]. Although not a lawyer at all there is a phrase in this first clause which has not been mentioned by any of the lawyers who have spoken, and it seems to me to be of considerable importance. It is in the second last line and reads: ‘A
MR. M. COLLINS:
Hear, hear.
MR. ERNEST BLYTHE:
Again I say I do not want to be offensive, but it was either that or the plenipotentiary was so impressionable as to make him by temperament unfitted to bear the responsibility of a plenipotentiary. That is really how the matter stands, and I think the circumstances under which this Treaty was signed, except in so far as all the plenipotentiaries were convinced that the alternative was war, and no more was to he got, have no bearing on it at all [applause].
MR. FRANK FAHY:
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a lucht an Dála ba mhaith liom labhairt as Gaedhilg toisc gurb í an Ghaedhilg teanga oifigiúil na Dála, ach tá a lán anso ná tuigfeadh me agus tá beirt anso ná tuigfeadh me go h-áirithe agus ba mhaith liom dá dtuigfidís sin me. Through many weary days of speech-making I have listened with patience, sometimes with pain, to many arguments about this Treaty. It grieved my very soul to hear some Deputies question the rights and authority of certain of our colleagues to sit and vote in this assembly. Let us recognise that we all have the same status here, and all are actuated by the one great motive, our country's good, but that we may reasonably come to widely different conclusions. We cannot get back to the position in which we stood on December 5th, 1921. The signing of the Treaty has completely altered the circumstances at home and abroad. Pity it is that these Articles of Agreement bear the signatures of our plenipotentiaries. Had this instrument been submitted unsigned to Dáil Eireann I feel convinced it would have been rejected by an overwhelming majority. The signing of it does not make it more acceptable, but we must base our arguments and our decision on a fait accompli. Let me not be misunderstood. I do not wish for a moment to impugn the honour or integrity of our plenipotentiaries. I feel that if I had been placed in their unenviable position in London I would have signed the Treaty. Having signed, I would, conscious of having done my best, bow to the decision of this assembly as to whether the Treaty were acceptable or not. That, I take it, is the position in which our plenipotentiaries find themselves to-day. Two problems have long confronted the Irish people—North-East Ulster and the British occupation. Did the Treaty offer a satisfactory solution of either problem with a probability of settling the second in a reasonable time, I think it should and would be accepted. The Treaty, however, does not conclusively settle either problem. It will not make for peace, domestic or international. The terms violate our territorial integrity; they make us British subjects and impose on us a Governor-General whose social circle will militate against the restoration of the Gaelic State which we must all endeavour to re-establish, if we are not to become West Britons. Is not the declaration of the Republic also fait accompli, or have we been playing at Republicanism? Were we not in earnest when we sent ambassadors to claim the recognition of the world for the Republic?
MR. FINIAN LYNCH:
With British passports and under the British flag. [Cries of No interruptions].
FRANK FAHY:
We are told that we have secured the flag. What flag? Would there not be serious opposition to the adoption of the tricolour as the flag of the Irish Free State? I much fear so. How is such opposition to be overcome, and if not overcome, whither does it lead? Will such opposition, suppressed or unpunished make for stability and that peace we all so earnestly desire? In many debatable and vague clauses of the Treaty, especially the clauses relating to allegiance, financial adjustment, and North-East boundaries, lie the fruitful seeds of misunderstanding and strife. There is no use in disguising the fact that this Treaty, if accepted, will he ratified because the alternative is the dread arbitrament of war. I have been down among my constituents chiefly in South Galway. The Comhairle Ceanntair of that Division at a recent meeting, at which I was present, voted unanimously in favour of ratification. But the delegates stated, one and all, that this Treaty does not meet the nation's demand and that they so voted because they believed the alternative to be a war of extermination. 'Tis hard to blame the war-weary people for clamouring for peace. But it should be put clearly on record that such votes are given under duress. Can a Treaty based on fear, naked and unashamed, be a sound basis for friendship between the two peoples? It is my opinion that lasting peace and friendship between the two peoples was feasible as we stood on December 5th. Whether such peace is practicable now is, at least, questionable. The bond of brotherhood is broken; the comradeship and unity that stood the severest test and won the admiration of the world have been sundered through the machinations of the cleverest of the British statesmen, Lloyd George. Can this national solidarity be restored and restored without delay? Can Dáil Eireann again command the unswerving loyalty of the people and their undivided support, moral and material? We are told that Dáil Eireann can no longer hope for this. The people have been stampeded. A venal Press that never stood for freedom and now with one voice advocates ratification has, by suppressio veri and suggestio falsi prejudiced the issue and biased public opinion [hear, hear]. I attended a meeting of the East Galway Comhairle Ceanntair at which the voting was 18 to 8 in favour of ratification. The report in the metropolitan Press the next day would give one to understand that there was a unanimous decision in favour of the Treaty. Such sharp practice gives one furiously to think. The Chairman of the Delegation and the Minister for Finance made a strong case for ratification. This Treaty undoubtedly confers wide powers on the Irish people, far greater powers than were ever even demanded by our former representatives in the British House of Commons. But some of us believed that the time had gone by for seeking concessions. Under the terms of this Treaty we can undoubtedly develop the material resources of the country. But nations, like individuals, may fill their purses by emptying their souls. What is the nation? It is of yesterday, to-day and to-morrow. How the generations of our martyred dead would act at this juncture it is vain to argue. Few in this assembly were as intimately acquainted as I was with those who fell in Easter Week, '16. Of one, and only one, of those heroic men could I confidently assert that he would oppose ratification. I need scarcely state that I refer to Tom Clarke. Can we of to-day, bowing to force majeure, accept this Treaty without dishonour in view of our oaths and of the Republic declared before the world? Those Deputies who have spoken in support of the Treaty maintain that this is not a final settlement. Some of them advocate its adoption on the ground that it contains the seeds of future development, that it will broaden slowly down from precedent to precedent until we reach the goal of unfettered freedom. Their attitude is comprehensible and their sincerity unquestioned. I might suggest to them that this road under other guides may also lead rapidly to the sacrifice of principles to the Imperial ideal, to smug prosperity, and obese content. Other Deputies would use the powers obtained as an immediate lever to secure full independence. Honour cannot stand rooted in dishonour, and I maintain that such action is dishonourable even in dealing with England. Faith unfaithful to England's King cannot make us falsely true to Republicanism. Let at least our word be our
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
The Cabinet Minutes do.
MR. E. J. DUGGAN:
It is not signed by the British representatives.
MR. FRANK FAHY:
Document No. 2 contains no oath whatever.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
But the Minutes of the Cabinet do.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
There were no Minutes; they were never kept or signed.
MR. FRANK FAHY:
The many insinuations made to the contrary would awaken doubts as to the virtues of the Treaty that has to be supported by such methods, neither should a good Treaty need to be supported by revelations of verbal statements made at Cabinet meetings, especially when these revelations are made by one who was not a member of the Cabinet——
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
Mr. Erskine Childers.
MR. FRANK FAHY:
Especially when these revelations were made by one who was not a member of the Cabinet, but was admitted to certain meetings as an act of grace. Such points, however cleverly put, are not relevant to the issue. We are concerned with the release of our country from a dilemma, not with liberating a cat from a bag.
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
On a point of order. Reference has been made to a person being admitted to certain meetings as an act of grace. I would like the President to say whether that is a correct description of the reasons for my attendance at certain Cabinet meetings.
THE SPEAKER:
It is not a point of order. That matter may arise afterwards as a personal explanation.
MR. FRANK FAHY:
We are, as I said, concerned with liberating our country from a dilemma, and not liberating a eat from a bag. The immense labour of the latter performance may give us some idea of the task before us. As the eloquent Deputy for Tyrone was speaking a few days ago I recalled the words of the Latin poet ‘parturient montes et nascetur ridiculus mus’. I thought that, at least, a caterwauling litter would have come forth. The liberated cat must have been a tabby, such a chorus of welcome came from the supporters of the Welsh Wizard. The photograph of the gallant liberator adorned the pages of the English illustrated papers, and I scanned with
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
What about the Welsh Wizard?
MR. F. FAHY:
I have been asked what about the Welsh Wizard. I may say what I like about any English politician without offence to any member of the Dáil.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
Mr. Frank Fahy has described me and others as followers of the Welsh Wizard, and he has just sat down saying ‘lay aside personalities’.
MR. F. FAHY:
I never said anyone here was a follower of the Welsh Wizard.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
You described us as followers of the Welsh Wizard, and you won't get out of it.
MR. E. J. DUGGAN:
What do you mean, Mr. Fahy?
MR. SEAN MILROY:
We heard what you said, Mr. Fahy.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
Yes, we heard all you said. Stand by your words.
MR. K. O'HIGGINS:
I desire to make a personal explanation in connection with a remark in Mr. Fahy's speech; the reference could only be to me. He spoke of a person who attempted to make disclosures of some thing that took place at Cabinet meetings. That was more objectionable because the person was admitted to Cabinet meetings only as an act of grace. I did not think it would be necessary for me to explain why and how I came to attend Cabinet meetings, but as the question has been raised I will now explain. At the first meeting of the Dáil following the last election the President announced that he would have to have an inner Cabinet; that the large Ministry that was formerly admitted could not deal with matters of policy and the matters of these negotiations; and that therefore he would have to have an inner Cabinet of seven. I was seated behind him, and he turned to me and said: ‘I want you to attend Cabinet meetings and express your views on a position of absolute equality with the rest of us. If, in the unlikely event of a division, you, perhaps, had better not vote, but with the rest of us express your views quite freely’. How does Mr. Fahy consider that as an act of grace? I never asked the President why he made that arrangement, and did not want to know, but I want to ask now is it fair to say that I was admitted to the Cabinet meetings as an act of grace, when I attended on the instructions of the President? [Hear, hear].
MR. GEORGE NICOLLS:
A Chinn Comhairle agus a lucht na Dála, I suppose I am in the unenviable position of being the last lawyer that will speak in this assembly [laughter], but if I am I will not give you much law, constitutional or otherwise. I have often heard it said that the last leg of mutton is the sweetest. Well, I hope this will be something sweeter than what you have got before [laughter]. I am not going to go into constitutional law, but I may say that I have been down with my constituents, and they have been talking a lot about constitutional law since the Dáil met. One of my constituents was speaking to me, and he used these words to me: ‘We are bewildered and moidered with high faluting talk about constitutional law. This constitutional law plus Magna Charta to whose rights as British Citizens we were lately entitled, did not stop the Crown forces from burning Cork and performing other acts into which we need not enter now, but which were certainly against constitutional law and Magna Charta. But we do feel certain of one thing; that is, if we once get the British forces out of Ireland, it will require more than constitutional law to get them back’. [Hear, hear]. I can tell you, speaking for one of the largest constituencies in
MR. DONAL O'CALLAGHAN:
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a lucht na Dála, is beag atá le rá agamsa. Leanfad dea-shompla na ndaoine nár fhan abhfad ag labhairt iniu. Táimse, agus tá furmhór na Dála, agus furmhór na ndaoine tuirseach de bheith ag eisteacht agus ag leigheamh óráidí lucht na Dála. Nílimse chun óráid do dheanamh. Is beag atá le rá agamsa ar fad. Like most members of the Dáil I am thoroughly wearied of those speeches and appeals made on the question of the ratification or approval of the Treaty, and I think so are the people of the country. For my part I shall follow the example set to-day by, I think, most of the speakers, by being very brief. I am not going to appeal
MR. M. COLLINS:
The Minister of Finance has not compromised.
MR. D. O'CALLAGHAN:
I do not mean a compromise in the sense of definitely deciding to change the stand from the Republic, but to accept some thing less as a means to it. I want to be absolutely fair to every man. I do not wish to suggest that any member here has in any way acted in such a manner as would deserve reproach! I trust I have said nothing that would in any way interfere with them. I certainly had no intention of saying any thing that would hurt the Minister of Finance [hear, hear]. I also make it clear that some of us in the Dáil have visualised an independent Ireland. I have learned to-day, I must say with considerable surprise, from one of my colleagues in the representation of Cork that he never did. I can only say—
MR. J. J. WALSH:
That is not a correct interpretation of my speech.
MR. D. O'CALLAGHAN:
Very well, I withdraw it. For the rest, I regret very much the manner in which public boards and other institutions through the country have been divided up on this question. That there should be a division in this House is and would be in itself regrettable. There was a hope that it might have ended there and that division would not be forced through the country—but the country has been lined up for and against. The people of the country, even those who desire the Treaty ratified, are still keener about avoiding the return of days of internal divisions and party turmoil. I think, and still hope, that such a result, which would be so deplorable, may still be avoided, be the result what it may, for some time at least. I would furthermore suggest to those in favour of ratification that they should place it on record, saying that its acceptance by those who favour it is based on the desire of the people that it be accepted, and that their view also be placed on record in connection with it. That is, formally, that they desire the ratification of the Treaty, not as a case of absolute freedom, but that in view of the circumstances of the moment they desire its ratification rather than embark at the moment again in war to secure what remains, and what was withheld from them, of their liberty. I would ask those in
MR. M. COLLINS:
I will make a suggestion now whereby we can avoid a division. Rightly or wrongly, Deputies or no Deputies, the Irish people have accepted this Treaty. Rightly or wrongly, I say——
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
We do not know; how do you know? [Cries of They have, and counter-cries of No, no; they have not.]
MR. M. COLLINS:
The noes are very feeble.
MR. D. CEANNT:
They are not.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I will make a suggestion which will not take away from the principle of any person on your side——
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Is all this in order?
THE SPEAKER:
It is not. It can only be done by permission of the House.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I do not care whether it is in order or not. [Cries of Chair].
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I appeal to the Chair. Is it in order?
MR. M. COLLINS:
I have tried to do things for Ireland for the last couple of years; I am trying to do this thing for Ireland now to avoid division [loud applause]. Are the Deputies going to listen to me or not? [Cries of Yes!].
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Chair, Chair.
THE SPEAKER:
If there is any objection——
MR. M. COLLINS:
My suggestion is——
MR. A. MACCABE:
In the interests of unity he should be heard, I think.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
Quite so.
THE SPEAKER:
Members can only speak out of their turn by the courtesy of the Dáil.
MR. J. N. DOLAN:
I beg to move formally that permission be given to the Minister of Finance to speak.
MR. D. O'CALLAGHAN:
I beg to second that. As something I have said may be taken differently, I now wish to say that I have long since, before this House met, told the Minister of Finance privately, and I now say it publicly, that when he arrived at the point when he was satisfied to recommend the Treaty as the best thing in the interests of Ireland, I quite realised the magnificent moral courage that required from him. I told him that privately, I now say it publicly. I am not aware of having said anything which would have riled him, or injured or hurt any of his feelings.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I would suggest that you ask the President to give permission to the Minister of Finance to speak.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
With all due respect, it is not the President can decide——
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
It is the Chair.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I have no objection, of course.
THE SPEAKER:
Permission is given, I take it.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Well, the suggestion is this: I have my own feelings about the Treaty. I have feelings about it perhaps very much keener than Deputies who are against it. Well, I believe that the Treaty was inevitable,
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
What is the proposition?
MR. M. COLLINS:
That you allow the Treaty to go through and let the Provisional Government come into existence, and if necessary you can fight the Provisional Government on the Republican question afterwards.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
We will do that if you carry ratification, perhaps.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I thought you said ratification would be ultra vires.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is not ratification. There is a question whether approval is not in a sense ratification. It is unfortunate that the papers of the country are taking it up as ratification. It is a very strange thing we get a proposal like that here, when it is obvious if you were to approve of the Treaty that very line of policy could be followed, anyway; and when there is a suggestion to make a real peace, a peace that we could all stand over, that simply because certain credits were involved it should be turned down.
MR. J. N. DOLAN:
I rise to support the adoption of the motion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and before going on to speak on the merits of the motion, I would like to say that I am sorry our President has put the construction that he did on the suggested way out—that way out that was suggested by the Minister of Finance.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
What way out?
MR. J. N. DOLAN:
He said that that course could be adopted when the Treaty was ratified; but remember we are here faced with the possibility that this Treaty may be defeated [hear, hear]. Then the point that the Minister of Finance makes becomes a reality. The country has accepted the Treaty. [Cries of No!]. The country has accepted the Treaty, I say. [Cries of hear, hear, and No!]. What position then would this Dáil occupy? Where is your constitutional usage or your democratic government? Where is your Republic? Where is government by the consent of the governed?
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
Wait for the next election.
MR. J. N. DOLAN:
I have listened to all the arguments that have been advanced against the ratification of this Treaty, and I must say they have all left me cold. I expected when the Lord Mayor of Cork rose to support the rejection of the Treaty that he, at least, would have some sensible alternative proposal. He had not. There is no alternative to this Treaty, as all the speakers on the other side have plainly pointed out, but chaos, and a gamble and a chance. There is a good deal of good—there is very much good in the Articles of Agreement that are embodied in this Treaty. I stand for this Treaty then, knowing all the circumstances that I do, knowing what led up to the negotiations when we sent our plenipotentiaries to London. I stand for it on its merits, and I say that in the knowledge of all these circumstances our plenipotentiaries have done
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
MR. J. N. DOLAN:
Speaker after speaker on the other side has got up and stated they were elected here on a particular mandate, and that so far as they were concerned they had not changed, and that until the mandate was withdrawn from them they could not see their way to make what they call a compromise on the Irish Republic. It has been stated over and over again, and we all know that it is ridiculous for those men to say that there was no compromise, that there was no lowering of the mandate, or no lowering of our declared principles, so to say, when we agreed to send plenipotentiaries to London to negotiate some kind of association with the British Empire. One Deputy said his conscience was eased by some particular clause in a formula that was read to him. It is not of formulas I am speaking now. I wish to refer him to facts. Was not he a party, and was not every man in the Dáil a party to the fact of sending our plenipotentiaries to London to negotiate some kind of association with the British Empire? I do not look upon this Treaty as final and everlasting. I recognise that all countries are developing, and I look on this as only a stage in the development of Ireland. I believe in the saying that ‘no man has the right’, et cetera. Now let us, in the name of God, lay aside all this talk of formulas and face facts. Look at the facts and realise what facts will be staring us in the face if the Treaty is rejected. Realise the chaos in the country, and realise the possibilities
MR. FRANK FAHY:
Just a personal point I would like to introduce. If any words of mine could bear the interpretation that any of the plenipotentiaries were followers of the Welsh Wizard, I beg to withdraw those words, and say I never meant any such thing. I would be very sorry to say it of any member of the Dáil or of any of the plenipotentiaries. I accept fully the explanation of the Assistant Minister for Local Government that he was present at the meetings of the Cabinet by the express orders of the President. I am sorry for the statement made that he was there by act of grace.
MR. M. P. COLIVET:
I am going to be as short as I possibly can. If I wished I could spend about two hours raising points about this Treaty, but, in the first place, I would have you all bored to death, and, in the second place, there would be very little chance of changing any man's opinion [laughter]. The country seems to require that each of the Teachtaí should give some reasons why he is voting in the particular way he thinks on the subject. Another reason why I do not wish to go into debating points is this: there are, in the main, two sets of interpretations to be taken of this Treaty. One is what I might call the interpretation of the Irish point of view, and the other the Imperial point of view. In debating against the Treaty it would be my business to examine how far the imperialists could drag or interpret the points of that Treaty to their views, and to point that out as the effect of the Treaty. In so doing I would, in the possibility of this Treaty being passed, be piling up munitions for the common enemy, and if this Treaty does pass it would be to our interest and to our ambition to see, if there is any interpretation at all, the Irish interpretation wins [hear, hear]. Much has been said about constituents. As far as my constituents are concerned, what I do here is a question between me and them, and concerns no other member of the Dáil, and I am prepared to settle with them what I do here. I was selected on the principle of the Republic. The Republic was formally declared three years ago, and for three years has been functioning to such an extent that not only have soldiers and policemen, but men of our own race, as spies, met their deaths on the moral authority of that Government. I am now asked to throw out the Republican Government and accept the status of a Dominion within the British Empire. Many men can find it within themselves to reconcile such with their previous views and opinions whether they were expressed in oaths or in any other form whatsoever. That is their business. I am only concerned with mine, and my point of view is, I cannot do that thing. I have declared myself a Republican, and have been elected a Republican, and I will never willingly become a subject of the British Empire. I do not put forward my conscience or judgment as infallible. Probably the judgment and conscience of the plenipotentiaries and those voting with them may, in history, prove to be sound; but sound or unsound, I am only responsible for acting on my own, and I am not going to be swayed from that by any cloud raised by the national Press as regards such words as ‘government by the consent of the governed’. I thought we had left all these catch-cries behind. ‘Government by consent of the governed’. Self-determination, to my mind, means this: that the people will be asked to say what they want, with the firm understanding that what they say they want they will get.
MR. SEAN MILROY:
Give them a chance.
MR. M. P. COLIVET:
It is a question now of ‘Will you have this or not? If you do not, you will get a rap on the nut’. Is that self-determination? I do not regard it as such. If the people say they want the Treaty because the result will be war, that is not self-determination. Call a spade a spade, but that is not self-determination. In reading over the speeches of the last Session there was one reference in a letter addressed to the Chairman of the plenipotentiaries by Mr. Lloyd George in which he referred to the
MR. LORCAN ROBBINS:
I have listened to this debate ever since it started, and I never heard anything so unreal. There are three parties in the Dáil. There are the uncompromising Republicans, the Treaty party, and the Document No 2 party. The uncompromising Republicans can no more support President de Valera than us——
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Let them judge for themselves.
MR. LORCAN ROBBINS:
I went to the country during the Christmas recess and consulted with my constituents as to their views about the Treaty. I have got a unanimous vote from my Comhairle Cennntair. They asked me what President de Valera's alternative was, and I was tongue-tied—the President had me tongue-tied. I say it is a grave injustice to the country that I and men like me, trying to argue for the Treaty, are being tongue-tied. There was some opinion in the country that President de Valera had some mysterious card up his sleeve. Every member of the Dáil knows there is not.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
May I be permitted to give an explanation? I am ready at any time to move Document No. 2 as an amendment.
MR. LORCAN ROBBINS:
I am only pointing out——
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I am ready at any time to make that proposition publicly, and then you will see whether any uncompromising Republicans will support it or not. It is very important that there should be no misrepresentation.
MR. LORCAN ROBBINS:
I deliberately refrained from dealing with Document No. 2. I am giving my own opinions as a member of the Dáil. I am not mentioning any clauses.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is to suit the will of the other side.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
It is not to suit the will of the other side that Document No. 2 was kept from the public.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
You asked for a straight vote on the Treaty. I am ready at any time to make my proposals in public in substitution for your Treaty.
MR. LORCAN ROBBINS:
Our position in the country is absolutely artificial, because the country does not know what we are rejecting as an alternative, and I have found that out all along. We have had duress hurled at us. I say the real duress is that any part of Ireland is left out of the Irish nation. The people in my county care nothing about formulas or oaths; they do care a lot about Ulster being kept out. That is the biggest question. Anything that ever mattered to the people of Ireland was the unity of Ireland, and I was surprised to hear Deputies getting up and talking about Mr. Griffith and the Southern Unionists. We want the Southern Unionists and we want every Irishman [hear, hear]. I never believed more in Mr. Arthur Griffith and never believed him to be more of a statesman than when he sent his message to the Southern Unionists [hear, hear]. The Southern Unionists are Irishmen, and, as Parnell once said, we need every Irish man. These people have been in a false environment. They are not English anyway, and it is for us to win them if we can, and if any man gets up and tries to draw them nearer to Ireland he is a statesman and should not be criticised [hear, hear]. I resent the remarks made by the Minister of
MR. EAMONN DEE:
I am against the ratification of the Treaty on several grounds, one of which is that it is a permanent barrier against the unity of Ireland. I am a Republican and I can not swear fealty or allegiance to the British King. I object to the clauses
ALDERMAN SEAN MACGARRY:
I am going to endeavour to make a record for brevity. I am supporting the motion for ratification of the Treaty and I make no apology to anybody for doing so. I did not wait until I became a member of this Dáil to become a Republican. I have worked in the Republican movement for twenty years. I am a Republican to-day and I will be a Republican to-morrow. I vote for the Treaty as it stands. For that I do not need the opinion of a constitutional lawyer or a constitutional layman or a Webster's Dictionary or a Bible to tell me what it means. I put on it the interpretation of the ordinary plain man who means what he says. I am not looking for any other interpretation from Webster's Dictionary or anywhere else. I know what the Treaty means, and the man in the street knows what it means. I vote for it as it stands. We all know what it is. I do not see any reason for any argument, or making a pretence that it is less than what it is. I realise what its acceptance means, and I also realise what its rejection would mean, and it is because I realise these things that I am voting for it. If I did not realise them I would probably be voting against it. I do not want to make this an excuse for voting for it. Another thing is this: I feel as much committed to the ratification of the document as if my signature were on it and I will tell you why. I want to bring you back to the meeting of the Dáil when the Gairloch correspondence was read, and when President de Valera gave us an interpretation of what the oath meant to him, and Deputy Miss MacSwiney—she will correct me if I am wrong—I can recall the impression she made on me. I think, if I am not mistaken, she challenged the members of the Dáil that if there was anything in the nature of a compromise, or some thing less than a Republic contemplated, to say so, or else for ever more to hold their tongues.
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
I think I said that outside the Dáil. I was told the negotiations meant compromise and therefore, inside the Dáil, I begged to be informed if they meant compromise. I did not think so, but outside the Dáil I was told they did mean compromise; I was assured they did not.
ALD. SEAN MACGARRY:
I did not hear any assurance given. She challenged the members of the Dáil to speak then or for ever hold their tongues. The members did not speak then, but God knows they made up for it since [laughter and applause]. If talking would have got us a Republic
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
Of course you could.
ALD. SEAN MACGARRY:
A Downing Street made Republic? [Laughter].
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
No, a Downing Street withdrawal from Ireland.
ALD. SEAN MACGARRY:
Downing Street are withdrawing from Ireland.
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
No, they are not.
ALD. SEAN MACGARRY:
Several Deputies protested very strongly and very loudly that they were standing on the bedrock of the Irish Republic. A week before they were standing on the slippery slopes—to borrow a phrase of the Minister of Finance—the slippery slopes of Document No. 2. Document No. 2 was pulled from under their feet and landed them with what must have been an awful jerk on the bedrock of the Irish Republic. They will be standing on that until the proper time—I mean the time when Document No. 2, or perhaps Document No. 3 will be given to us.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
You can have it immediately if you like—whatever your side agrees.
ALD. SEAN MACGARRY:
There has been theorising in some of the speeches made here by Deputies about Government by the consent of the governed—self-determination. You can have government in Ireland to-day by consent of the governed with this Treaty. You can have self-extermination without it; but you cannot have war without the consent of the Irish people. And the only reason you carried on war for the last two years was because you had the consent of the people. Several other Deputies talk about going back to war. I put it to them now they believe they are not going back to war. They are gambling, they know they are gambling, and they think they are gambling on a certainty. I have done a little bit of gambling myself—not very much—but I was never on a certainty yet that did not let me down [laughter and applause]. They are quite right, they are not going back to war; they are going back to destruction [hear, hear]. I think it was the President quoted the famous dictum of Parnell, that no man can set bounds to the march of a nation. Parnell said a lot of wise things. Parnell never said anything wiser than that. No man, or body of men, can set bounds, or should attempt it. There were two factors in Ireland within the last hundred years that set bounds to the march of the Irish nation—the British Army and British control of every nerve of our national life, education, finance, customs and excise. They set bounds to the nation's progress. Now it is the people who vote against the Treaty are setting bounds to the march of the nation's progress. I do not like talking about this question of oaths, because you are tempted to say things which you might be sorry for. But I would like to ask the Minister of Defence whether he has had, or has still in the l.R.A., people who have already sworn allegiance to the King, as soldiers of the British Army? They have done good work, and we did not ask them when they were joining up: ‘What about the other oath?’
MR. LORCAN ROBBINS:
And some of them are in their graves.
ALD. SEAN MACGARRY:
I am sorry to have to refer to the dead. Several Deputies have come to me and told me I was letting down the dead I worked with for very many years. One said: ‘You worked with so-and-so for many heart-breaking years when to be called a Republican was to be called a fool’. I say no man of all the dead who died for Ireland was ever in this position. Would to God the men I worked with had to face this proposition and I believe they would be with us to-day [hear, hear]. The Deputy for Kildare, the Minister of Agriculture, quoted today a passage from the work of James Connolly. I am sorry Deputy Childers is not here because I wanted to ask him why he did not insist on the whole document
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
I did not read anything from Labour in Ireland.
ALD. SEAN MACGARRY:
Well, I beg his pardon. He certainly did say that James Connolly said: ‘In this, as in the political and social world generally, the thing that matters most is not so much the extent of the march, but the direction in which we are marching’.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
Correct.
ALD. SEAN MACGARRY:
These are words of James Connolly, the man who, twenty years ago, taught me to be a Republican. He probably taught Republicanism from a different angle,but he was always a Republican. But the Minister of Agriculture did not tell us that, when Connolly wrote that, he was enthusing about the Local Government Act of 1898. Is the Local Government Act of 1898 better or worse than this is now? I am going to conclude. I think it was Charles Lamb told us about the Chinaman who burned his house to roast a pig. He at least had something to say for himself. After all it was his own house, and he got roast pig [applause]. Then again I heard about Samson. The Deputy from Wicklow might tell us more about that [laughter]. It was Samson who pulled down the pillars of the Temple. That was his funeral. I do not want to attend the funeral of the Irish nation. [Applause].
The House adjourned until 11 o'clock on Wednesday morning.
THE SPEAKER (DR. EOIN MACNEILL) took the Chair at 11.15 a. m.
MR. FRANK FAHY:
When speaking yesterday I made use of the words ‘the supporters of the Welsh Wizard’. I admit that these words may bear the interpretation put upon them by the chairman of the plenipotentiaries. I did not see it at the time. What I meant by that reference was the supporters of the English Prime Minister in the English Press. I did not for a moment mean to suggest that there were any supporters or followers of the Welsh Wizard in this assembly, because if anyone outside this assembly or inside it suggested such I would deal with them as sternly as is in my power.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
I am quite satisfied that Mr. Fahy did not intend to convey the impression that his words gave at the time.
MR. DONAL BUCKLEY (KILDARE):
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a lucht na Dála, I will begin by asking what was the mandate we, the members of the Dáil, got from our constituents in the last election ? I know the mandate I got anyhow was to look for freedom, to strive for freedom for the country. When the plenipotentiaries left Ireland for the last time I presume they had in their possession a document in which was stated the minimum demand Ireland was to make on England, and coming up to the last moment on the eve of the morning on which that document was signed there was a threat held over the heads of these delegates. If there was a threat, the object of it must have been to minimise that demand that they had in their possession—that they were about to make. It is admitted that the threat was made. Therefore I conclude that the minimum demand which they had in their possession when they left Ireland must have been minimised before these Articles of Agreement were signed. Therefore they must have been signed for something less than freedom for Ireland to my mind. How can it be said that we have freedom if we picture to ourselves John Bull standing four square in this country of ours, with a crúb of his firmly fastened in each of our principal ports? We are told that in each of these ports there will be what is called a ‘care and maintenance party’—a very nice mild term. What does it really mean—this care and maintenance party? It means a British Garrison in each of these ports with the Union Jack—the symbol of oppression and treachery and slavery in this country, and all over the world, in Ireland especially—that this symbol of slavery will float over each of these strongholds, blockhouses of John Bull. Yet we are told we are getting freedom in these Articles of Agreement. I recall to mind one incident that happened during the last election whilst I was addressing a meeting in my constituency. A few of the khaki-clad warriors had fastened a Union Jack to a lamp post right beside the platform from which I was to address the meeting, and I remember stating distinctly to that assembly that I would not rest satisfied until every vestige of that rag was cleared out of the country. The assembly agreed with me, and before the words were scarcely out of my mouth a rush was made by half-a-dozen boys from the crowd and although the flag was defended by seven or eight of the warriors that flag was torn down. How can it
MR. A. MACCABE (SLIGO):
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a lucht na Dála, tá níos mó ná beagáinín le rá agamsa ar an gceist seo, agus caithfe me labhairt as Bearla. In saying that I have decided to vote for this Treaty I think I should personally express my regret at finding myself in opposition to many of the leaders who piloted the national cause through the storms of the last five or six years. It is certainly no pleasure to us on this side of the House to stand up and declare ourselves in opposition to one especially who, in the eyes of the great majority of our countrymen, symbolises a national ideal. But in this cause no feeling of personal admiration, of personal animus either, can be allowed to influence our judgment or prevent us doing our duty to the people that sent us here. My duty at the moment I consider to be to examine the Treaty on its merits, and to decide, quite irrespective of the circumstances attending its signature, whether it was a settlement the country could honourably and profitably accept. I have come to the conclusion that it is, and I am going to vote for it. My action in doing so is governed by two considerations. The first is that the Treaty represents goods delivered and not promised to us—goods that we all know were never offered or, indeed, seriously asked for before. The second is that, as a matter of expediency, it is better to take these than run the risk of war or chaos and all that it means to our people and the prosperity of the country. Now, before going on to discuss the value of the goods delivered, and the advisability or otherwise of accepting them, which are really the only questions that matter—or at least, should matter—I should like to explain my position regarding the Republic. It is this: I regard the oath as a binding obligation on me to use every endeavour to secure the realisation of the ideal. It never, in my mind, barred any particular methods of achieving it, nor did it specifically mention the methods advocated by the opposition. To me, recognition of Irish nationality and the securing of practically complete control of our Army and natural resources which this Treaty brings us, are things that no Republican in his sober moments could or should refuse to accept. It will be said, of course, that in voting for the Treaty we are abandoning our principles, that we are breaking our oath, that we are betraying the Republic, that we, in fact, are guilty of all the sins in the calendar. For my part I don't mind what anybody says or thinks about me as long as I do my duty to the country, and my conscience is clear. But the opponents of this Treaty should remember that there are other principles and ideals involved in the issue besides Republicanism. There is, for instance, the ideal of a peaceful and happy Ireland, or that no less dearly cherished one of a united Ireland. There is government by the consent of the governed on which we took our stand throughout this war. Then what about the principles of Christianity? Are they worth any consideration? After the sermon addressed to the sinners on this side of the House by my old and, I must say, sincere friend, Deputy Etchingham, I take it; that his disciples, including his no less ardent acolytes, are familiar with the Commandments on which the principles of their religion are based.
MR. ETCHINGHAM:
Arran Islands.
MR. MACCABE:
I surrender that to the opposition for external association
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
I beg your pardon. I never said anything of the kind. It is only on the principle of which I spoke that you can avoid wiping them out of existence.
MR. MACCABE:
She would not leave us even a grasshopper [Laughter]. That is the inference I drew from her speech, and I think most of the House drew the same inference from her speech.
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
Then I say if that is so the intelligence as well as the principle is on our side of the House [Laughter and applause].
MR. MACCABE:
Thanks. [Renewed Laughter]. We see here the abyss into which a blind and reckless pursuit of one principle leads and the danger to any nation of having people of such mentality in charge of its destinies. It may be that Miss MacSwiney's mind and outlook are distorted by the terrible experiences she has passed through. If so there is some excuse for——
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
Again I protest against my name being used in that connection. I did not, and will not, use it myself in that connection. I did not bring anything of my personal experiences into my public speech here. I protest and ask the protection of the Dáil against any member using my name in such a connection [to Mr. MacCabe] and besides I assure you that I am quite sane on the point.
MR. MACCABE:
Am I in order, a Chinn Chomhairle?
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
Not in using my name.
MR. MACCABE:
I just used the subject matter of your speech.
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
Leave out my experiences.
MR. MACCABE:
From the inference I drew from the speech I can regard it as her suggestion that Ireland should fight to a finish even though half of the population were wiped out. That is nothing less than a criminal incitement to national suicide, whatever you (Miss MacSwiney) may think of it. I think it is quite evident to anyone who studies history that principle plays a very small part in international politics. And before we embark on a crusade to have the Ten Commandments written into international law I'd suggest that we try to have some of the Teachtaí whom we have heard speak against the Treaty converted to Christianity. The awkward fact at the moment is, that despite anything we can do or say in Dáil Eireann, the politics of the world are being, and will continue to be, dictated by expediency. I am voting for the Treaty for reasons of expediency and I consider, even though I were violating a principle, that it is my bounden duty to do so. Most of us are new to politics, and we do not realise the responsibilities of the office we hold. If we did the interests of the country and the lives of our people would come first in our consideration, and our principles and religious scruples long afterwards. There is another aspect of the campaign that is being carried on against this Treaty which I would like to refer to, while on this point of principle. It is the exploitation of the dead; and for the sake of their memory as well as in the interests of truth I beg to protest against it. I knew a number of these splendid men in their lifetime, amongst them Tom Clarke, the first President-elect of the Irish Republic. I agree with what Mrs. Clarke has said—that be would have voted against it. But he could not be expected to do otherwise considering that he worked almost alone for a lifetime to keep the flame burning. I also knew Terence MacSwiney very intimately, and I knew him as a sound Republican. I don't believe that he, or any of his comrades, would have died for Document No. 2, if it came to a choice between itself and the Treaty, nor, what is more, do I believe that he would sacrifice the whole population of Ireland on the altar of his principles. Now, nobody objects to people voting against the Treaty because they have a personal grievance against England, but I do suggest that it is unfair asking other people to vote for their grievance, for this is what it really amounts to. Is it not enough to have eight, nine or ten votes as the case may be, but not sufficient anyhow to defeat the Treaty, cast on this personal issue? Where does the country come in? I would remind all these Teachtaí who have such grievances that they were not sent here to avenge the wrongs committed in the war, but to secure an honourable peace, and I hold that this is an honourable peace, for when the honours are counted up they are all on our side. It is England that has surrendered, we have surrendered nothing. I would, therefore, appeal to them to rise above their personal prejudices and think of themselves, not as the sisters, or wives, or mothers, or brothers of dead patriots, but as representatives of the people, with the fate of a country in their hands. The earth belongs to those who are on it, and not to those who are under it, and to the living and not the dead we owe our votes. I would ask them also before they launch the country again into war, or worse, to think of the millions of wives and mothers and sisters who are waiting expectantly for peace, and to picture the disappointment and despair which the news of the rejection of the Treaty will bring into their homes.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Don't speak for the women.
MR. MACCABE:
I know what the women want just as well as the interrupter.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
You are an old woman, I know.
MR. MACCABE:
Thanks very much. I know just as well, if not better, than Deputy Mary MacSwiney what the people want in their heads and hearts, and I know it is not war. I wonder is
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
No, it is not.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I have several times said I will bring that document forward, and bring it as an amendment. Unless it is here I do not think it fair to be referring to it.
MR. MACCABE:
It is most unfair to us and the country to suppress it.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I am ready at any time to bring it forward if the other side agree to I bringing it forward as an amendment.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
Early in the proceedings the other side asked President De Valera to publish it at the beginning of the Session and he refused.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Do you object to my bringing it here as an amendment and publishing it then?
MR. M. COLLINS:
Are we going to conduct a debate or are we going to have an old woman's wrangle?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
There is no question of wrangling. This is an important matter. A document has been referred to piecemeal and an attempt made to prejudice it. I am ready to bring forward the document as an amendment to the Treaty. There is nothing keeping it from this assembly or the nation except the fact that the other side want a direct vote on the Treaty. Now I am ready at any time to move it as an amendment.
MR. MACCABE:
I do not object to Document No. 2 but I object to No. 8, certainly, which is being prepared for us.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
There is no document being prepared and I must be protected from these references, or else allowed to bring forward the document. I must insist on a vote being taken here in this assembly whether this document can be brought forward as an amendment or not.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I have done my best in a few instances to try and have the debate conducted without interruption, and I do think that speakers when making references ought to have the protection of you, Sir. If we are to discuss Document No. 2 and not the Treaty, let us discuss Document No. 2, and any speaker on our side and any speaker on the other side is entitled to make due reference to the things that have been said, and things that are possibilities.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I formally give notice that I am going to move to-morrow, and put it to a vote in this House, that this document be brought forward as an amendment to the Treaty.
MR. A. GRIFFITH:
I suggest that President de Valera should hand that document to the Press as we asked him a fortnight ago.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I am giving notice insisting on my rights as a member to put forward this as an amendment. I will do it to-morrow.
ALD. COSGRAVE:
A member is entitled to speak once. I understand
MR. A. STACK:
I beg your pardon.
ALD. COSGRAVE:
The official records will contain all that you said.
MR. A. STACK:
The official records will show your inaccuracy.
ALD. COSGRAVE:
A member having spoken once is not entitled to speak a second time—if my interpretation of the Standing Orders is correct he is not entitled to speak a second time. Consequently it is not open to the President to move an amendment. I put that point of order to you.
THE SPEAKER:
That point only arises in the case of the President actually moving the amendment.
MR. MACCABE:
Am I in order to——
THE SPEAKER:
I thought you gave way to the interruptions. If you held your ground you would not be interrupted. You can continue. I will allow no further interruptions.
MR. MACCABE:
As regards the Treaty in general I would ask consideration for it on four main grounds: first, that it enables us to set to work at once building up the Gaelic State with a distinctive language, culture, and civilisation. This will be, in itself, the best bulwark we can have against that peaceful social penetration, which is supposed to follow in the train of a Governor General equally with a Republican upper ten. For my part I don't see how the Teachtaí opposed to the Treaty, if they have as they say such faith in the spirit of the Irish people, can maintain that their nationality or their morals will be undermined by the presence of a Governor-General or a Viceroy. The important thing is that the real governors of Ireland, the police, the military and the auxiliaries, sixty or seventy thousand of them all told, leave us. For my part I look on this Governor-General as a very useful bogey man. He will be to Irish Nationalism and Irish Republicanism what the Pope is to Orangeism in Belfast [Laughter], and until we have achieved complete independence I'd regard it as a disaster to lose this tangible stimulus to work for it. We all know what nationality did for the development of the language and for native culture, and we can imagine what a driving force it would lose were there anything in the nature of a settlement that the nation would be deceived into believing represented the attainment of the ideal. A second ground on which I would recommend the Treaty is that it is an official recognition of our status as a distinctive nation—the first ever we got since Confederate days, and then it was only as an appanage of the English Crown. Clause 1 says in plain language that we have the same status in the British Commonwealth of Nations that the Dominions have. I think, even apart from Mr. Lloyd George's letter, we can say that, as a Dominion, we are entitled to enter the League of Nations. If not, I'm sure in their own interests the British Dominions will have something to say about it. Now, Mr. Childers says that certain facts, such as distance and inherent strength affect, or are likely to affect, the status of the Irish Free State. Of course it is evident that the argument of distance used against this Treaty is a two-edged weapon and cuts both ways. I surrender that to the opposition for an experiment in external association with the Irish Free State. How we are going to get an Irish Republic set up further away from England's door than an Irish Free State I do not know; but I know this, that distance did not save the South African Republics, even though one of them was in external association with the Empire, when England chose to attack them. As to strength, I think this Treaty makes it plain that our powers of self defence will be such that no enemy, however long-ranged his guns, will be in a hurry to return here once our army is organised, and I think it will be conceded on all sides that a national army is in itself a guarantee that our status will be at all times respected. And as far as the defence of our coasts is concerned I see nothing in the Treaty which will prevent us making our shores as impregnable against enemy attacks as
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Another misrepresentation.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Another interruption.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I am entitled to interrupt when he makes a misrepresentation.
MR. MACCABE:
This is some of the substance of freedom that Cuba had to surrender for her so-called independence:—No Treaty with foreign power, etc.; no debts that current revenue will not meet; intervention in certain circumstances; Naval and coaling stations; Reciprocal Treaty; Government by a Commission from 1906 to 1909. Now I put it to any sensible man or woman whether it is not better to take the essentials of freedom first which we are undoubtedly getting in the Treaty and look for the symbols afterwards, or plunge the country into chaos on the chance of getting this shadowy independence, but with the dead certainty of creating Mexican conditions in the country. Then there are other things to consider which no one here has thought it worth while mentioning although, to my mind, they are the real kernel of the situation. We are in a very backward condition, socially and economically speaking. We have, in fact, as far as the other countries of Europe are concerned, been practically standing still for nine or ten years; the land question is still us far as ever from settlement; a number of our industries are leading a precarious existence: labour is restless and aggressive. Do the Deputies opposed to this settlement think that all the elements interested in these vital questions will stand passively impracticable at the moment? Do they for an ideal that to most of them seems by and let this fight go on indefinitely think the farmers, the backbone of national Ireland, broken and disheartened by the crash in prices, will stand idly by while we run the country to ruin? For this is what rejection really means—not war. War against England would probably unite the army if it would not unite the country, but our enemies are too wily to force war on us. It is not war we are faced with but disunion, internal strife, chaos, and a retreat, perhaps, to the position we held when this war began. Finally there is this aspect of the question to be considered: the moral effect of a prolonged state of war on the population. We have already seen the effect it has had on such countries as Germany and Russia and, to a lesser extent, on England—how it has put passions of every kind in the saddle. Murder, robbery, arson, every brute instinct asserts itself when the doctrine of force alone is being preached abroad. Life will become cheap. Men will settle their quarrels with Webleys instead of their fists. The striker will abandon the peaceful method of picketing for the bomb and the torch. The landless workers will have recourse to more deadly weapons than hazel sticks in attacking the ranches. I'm not painting the picture any blacker than it is likely to be if this fight is to be carried on to a finish or until Document No. 2 is signed, sealed and delivered. For my part I stand by the goods that have been already delivered. In case this House does not stand by them I'd make one request to the succession Cabinet before sitting down. It is this: Give us Dominion Home Rule, give us Repeal of the Union. Give us anything that will stamp us as white men and women, but for Heaven's sake don't give us a Central American Republic.
MRS. MARGARET PEARSE:
I rise to support the motion of our President for the rejection of this Treaty. My reasons for doing so are various, but my first reason for doing so I would like to explain here to-day is on my sons' account. It has been said here on several occasions that Pádraig Pearse would have accepted this Treaty. I deny it. As his mother I deny it, and on his account I will not accept it. Neither would his brother Willie accept it, because his brother was part and parcel of him. I am proud to say to-day that Pádraig Pearse was a follower and a disciple, and a true disciple, of Tom Clarke's. Therefore he could not accept this Treaty. I also wish to say another reason why I could not accept it is the reason of fear. As I explained here at the private meeting, that from 1916—I now wish to go over this again in public—from 1916 until we had the visits from the Black-and-Tans I had comfortable, nice, happy nights and happy days because I knew my boys had done right, and I knew I had done right in giving them freely for their
MR. EOIN O'DUFFY:
I think too much time has already been wasted in idle recrimination, by trying to fix responsibility for this error and that error. Now the plenipotentiaries are accused of doing this thing, and the next moment the Cabinet, or perhaps the President, is accused of doing that thing. Cannot it be agreed that we are all out for the one thing—to secure the freedom of our country and that if we differ at all we only differ in ways and means [hear, hear]. Every one of us is entitled to our opinion. One side disagrees with the plenipotentiaries. They disagree with Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins on a point of policy. Another side disagrees with President de Valera on a point of policy; but let not this disagreement blind us to the sterling worth of these three men—these three men who, above all others, have done the most to break the enemy's strength in this country. I still refer to England as our enemy in the country. I hold that I, as a more or less silent member of the Dáil—this is the first time I attempted to speak—that I am as much responsible for everything that occurred as well as everybody else. I was present here at the Session of the Dáil before our plenipotentiaries went across. I heard the correspondence read from Lloyd George to the President, and heard the replies from the President to Lloyd George. I heard what took place at the different Cabinet meetings; certain documents were handed out to us, and on that data I am in a position to make up my mind. I am sure everybody here is in the same position. Let us, then, get away from all these things of trying to fix responsibility and, even at the eleventh hour, consider the Treaty before us on its merits. There is not very much to be gained by making flank attacks in a place like this, how ever decisive they may be elsewhere. I think, too, it should be agreed that no party—unfortunately there are two parties—that neither party has the monopoly of patriotism, that neither party has the monopoly of principle, and that neither party can claim to be the sole custodians of the nation's honour. Now as regards the Treaty I am in favour of it for two or more reasons. The first reason is that only one or two out of the 35,000 people I represent are against it; and the second reason is that I believe the judgment of my constituents is correct on this occasion under the circumstances. As regards my right to voice the feelings of my constituents, that has already been threshed out here and in the Press. I need not labour it except to say, in my own opinion, the will of a constituency should prevail against the will of any one individual who may happen to be their mouthpiece at this particular time. It cannot be denied that this Treaty has the support of the country. The position is so grave that Deputies should weigh it very carefully before they take the responsibility of flouting the practically unanimous voice of the sovereign people of Ireland, before they refuse point blank to faithfully voice their people's will, because the people's will is mightier than the sword. I do not propose to go into the military situation. I did that in Private Session and all I would say now is that I'd ask the Deputies to bear in mind the facts I placed before them. The officers here who have the courage to stand up and state what they know to be true from experience, stated it also in Private Session; but now, unfortunately, in Public Session these same officers have been called cowardly and dishonest, said to be lacking in military knowledge, and I think some one said it would be better if some of them had fallen in the fight. Well we cannot prevent any civilian
MR. LIAM MELLOWES:
I have very little to say on this subject that is before us, because I stand definitely against this so-called Treaty and the arguments in favour of acceptance—of compromise, of departing from the straight road, of going off the path, and the only path that I believe this country can travel to its freedom. These arguments are always so many at all times and with all causes, while the arguments in favour of doing the right and straight thing are so few because they are so plain. That is why I say I have very little to say. An effort has been made here from time to time by speakers who are in favour of this Treaty, to show that everybody here in this Dáil was prepared mentally or otherwise to compromise on this point during the last few months. I wish, anyway, as one person, to state that is not so. I am speaking for myself now on this, and I state certainly that, consciously or unconsciously, I did not agree to any form of compromise. We were told that when the negotiations took place we were compromised. We have been told that since this Dáil meeting. This is not so because negotiations do not connote compromise. Entering into negotiations with the British Government did not in the least presuppose that you were going to give away your case for independence. When the British Government, following upon the Truce, offered, as it did, to discuss this whole case of Ireland, Ireland had no option but to enter into such a discussion. To refuse to have done so would have been the worse thing for the Irish case, and would have put Ireland very wrong in the eyes of the world. There was no surrender involved in entering into such a discussion; and when the plenipotentiaries went on their journey to England they went, not as the plenipotentiaries of a Republican Party in Ireland, not as the envoys of any political creed in this country, but they went as the envoys plenipotentiary of the Irish Republican Government, and, as such, they had no power to do anything that would surrender the Irish Republic of which they were plenipotentiaries. They were sent there to make, if they could, a treaty of settlement—personally I doubt if it could be done—but they were not sent to bring about what I can only call a surrender. I am not placing the plenipotentiaries in the dock by stating this, but I am stating what are plain facts. It is no reflection on them to state these things. In item 3 of the instructions given to the plenipotentiaries it is stated: ‘It is also understood that the complete text of the draft Treaty about to be signed will be similarly submitted to Dublin and a reply awaited’. The Dáil had no chance of discussing this Treaty as it should be discussed because the ground was cut from under the feet of the Dáil with the publication of this Treaty to the world before the Dáil had a chance of discussing it. The delegates, I repeat, had no power to sign away the rights of Ireland and the Irish Republic. They had no mandate to sign away the independence of this country as this Treaty does. They had no power to agree to anything inconsistent with the existence of the Republic. Now either the Republic exists or it does not. If the Republic exists, why are we talking about stepping towards the Republic by
There, to my mind, is the will of the people. There is the Irish Republic existing, not a mandate to seek a step towards an Irish Republic that does not exist. The will of the people! The British Government has always sought, during the last century of this struggle in Ireland, to get the consent of the Irish people for whatever it wants to impose upon them. If the English Government wanted to make concessions to Ireland it had the power to do so even though it had not the right, and we could take whatever it was willing to give without giving away our case. But this Treaty gives away our case because it abrogates the Republic.Whereas the Irish people is by right a free people: and whereas for seven hundred years the Irish people has never ceased to repudiate and has repeatedly protested in arms against foreign usurpation: and whereas English rule in this country is, and always has been, based upon force and fraud, and maintained by military occupation against the declared will of the people: and whereas the Irish Republic was proclaimed in Dublin on Easter Monday, 1916, by the Irish Republican Army acting on behalf of the Irish people: and whereas the Irish people is resolved to secure and maintain its complete independence in order to promote the common weal, to re-establish justice, to provide for future defence, to insure peace at home and goodwill with all nations and to constitute a national polity based upon the people's will, with equal right and equal opportunity for every citizen: and whereas at the threshold of a new era in history the Irish electorate has, in the general election of December, 1918, seized the first occasion to declare, by an overwhelming majority, its firm allegiance to the Irish Republic: now therefore we, the elected representatives of the ancient Irish people in National Parliament assembled, do, in the name of the Irish nation, ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic and pledge ourselves and our people to make this declaration effective by every means at our command: we ordain that the elected representatives of the Irish people alone have power to make laws binding on the people of Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament is the only Parliament to which that people will give its allegiance: we solemnly declare foreign government in Ireland to be an invasion of our national right which we will never tolerate, and we demand the evacuation of our country by the English Garrison: we claim for our national independence the recognition and support of every free nation of the world, and we proclaim that independence to be a condition precedent to international peace hereafter: in the name of the Irish people we humbly commit our destiny to Almighty God Who gave our fathers the courage and determination to persevere through long centuries of a ruthless tyranny, and strong in the justice of the cause which they have handed down to us, we ask His Divine blessing on this, the last stage of the struggle we have pledged ourselves to carry through to Freedom.
A DEPUTY:
Peace with honour.
MR. MELLOWES:
Yes! that is what we want. We do not want peace with surrender, and we do not want peace with dishonour. If peace was the only object why, I say, was this fight ever started? Why did we ever negotiate for what we are now told is impossible? Why should men have ever been led on the road they travelled if peace was the only object? We could have had peace, and could have been peaceful in Ireland a long time ago if we were prepared to give up the ideal for which we fought. Have we now to give it up for the sake of this so-called peace? If peace is that which is to be the pursuit of the people then this Treaty will not bring them peace because there will be restless souls in the country who will not be satisfied under this Free State to make peace in this Free State possible. I use no threats, but you cannot bring peace by compromise. You cannot bring peace to a people when it does not also bring honour. This Treaty brings neither honour nor anything else. It brings to the people certain material advantages, such, I say, as they could have had long ago if they were prepared to sink their
[The House adjourned at 1.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m.]
The House resumed at 3.45 p.m., the SPEAKER (Dr. Eoin MacNeill) in the chair.
MR. DESMOND FITZGERALD:
I want to say at the beginning, with regard to the last speaker before lunch, that I agree practically with every word he said. There is one thing I want cleared up because it may be a very fundamental difference. During the speeches in this Dáil there has been constant repetition of the words ‘Irish Republic,’ and it has given the impression that the declaration of the Irish Republic was a declaration in favour of a form of Government as distinct from what I understood it to be. I remember in 1917 a meeting at which the President spoke in the Mansion House, where he said that he accepted the words ‘Irish Republic’ as the best means of making it perfectly clear to the world that we have stood for absolute independence, whereas it seems to me during the course of the discussion in the Dáil that a great many people are fighting for a Republican principle rather than a national principle. Now the last speaker quoted from the Declaration of Independence read at the time, in January, 1919. Now I have always understood by a Free Irish Republic that we meant an independent Ireland, and I think that is borne out by that Declaration of Independence which was read by the member for Galway, and I think it bears out the point made by the member for Monaghan yesterday, namely, that the Irish Republic was looked upon as a means to an end, as one of the weapons used in fighting for the freedom of our country. In the Declaration of Independence adopted by the Dáil in January, 1919, it says: ‘Whereas the Irish people is resolved to secure and maintain its complete independence.’ It says that, and it goes on to say—and it is before you to-day—that ‘In order to promote the common weal, to re-establish justice, to provide for future defence, to insure peace at home, and good-will with all nations, and to constitute a national polity based upon the people's will with equal rights and opportunities for every citizen,’ et cetera. That was said to be the object we had in mind by complete independence. Now, in reading the present Treaty it seems to me that it tends to promote the common weal; to re-establish justice; to provide, possibly to a limited degree, for future defence; to secure peace at home and good-will with all nations, and to constitute a national polity based upon the people's will with equal right and opportunity for every citizen. It is because I see in this Treaty means to attain those ends that I am supporting this Treaty. And in the declaration of the Dáil in January, 1919, which ratified the establishment of the Irish Republic, it ordained that ‘The elected representatives of the Irish people alone have power to make laws binding on the people of Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament is the only Parliament to which that people will
MR. SEUMAS FITZGERALD (CORK):
During the adjournment I took the opportunity to test my constituents, and to the best of my ability during that short time I felt the pulse of my constituents. I found the following: those individuals who, to my certain knowledge were always against us favoured the Treaty. It was to be expected of them. Those whom we brought with us in the present fight
MR. M. COLLINS:
What about 1916?
MR. FITZGERALD:
Now that mandate is clear enough. The individuals who asked me to accept that mandate have not asked me to change. I have in my pocket resolutions passed by Sinn Fein Executives in my own area, and the most important Councils in my own area—those resolutions have not found their way into the Press—reiterating confidence in the Dáil, and expressing at the same time confidence that their representatives will do what they think best in the interests of Ireland. That is my mandate. But even so I find that, without considering the individuals whom I have mentioned, that I have found out that I can also take from them a somewhat similar mandate. Support of the Treaty by those who support it in my constituency is based upon fear, and such a mandate cannot be a true mandate. I have found that the thing that is uppermost in the people's mind is peace rather than the Treaty. Everybody, including myself, is anxious for peace. The people are longing for peace. All are not for the Treaty. It is discussed and it is also cursed. Well, if I find that the people want peace rather than the Treaty, and if I believe that the rejection of this Treaty will give us an opportunity of establishing a real and lasting peace, I would be interpreting, to the best of my ability, the wishes of those individuals who long for peace by voting against the Treaty. The last Deputy who spoke seemed to imagine that England does not mean that this Treaty will be binding. Why are Treaties made at all otherwise? If treaties were not binding we could have war practically in every decade. England would not put certain words in this Treaty unless she honestly intended to see that they were carried through. We know that even upon certain points in the Treaty that she even threatened war. I would imagine that she meant what she said when she asked that this certain phrase or clause would be inserted in the Treaty—if she threatened war. The Treaty is no empty formula to her. She, and not us, has won on principle. The Deputy from Cork, Deputy Walsh, gives an instance of how the provisions of the Treaty could be circumvented, and he stated that Germany gained a few extra points out of the Treaty of Versailles. I maintain that, as regards
MR. GRIFFITH:
Algeciras, which is part of Spain—not ‘Algiers’ which is the opposite side altogether.
MR. FITZGERALD:
I don't know anything about that. I understood him to speak of Algiers. I maintain that certain countries are de facto dependent on other political bodies, but those other countries are better off than we will be under this Treaty in so far as those countries themselves are sovereign. Deputy Fitzgerald, I think, says he believes that Ireland will have sovereign independence under this Treaty. Sovereignty is to me the complete independence of a state from all other states, that the state derives its rights solely from itself and are native to itself; that they are not delegated to it by another state; they are not exercised by virtue of powers conferred on it by any other state or body, that legally and judicially the state is not subject to any other political body. The position that we find at the present time—the Government of the Irish Republic functions on rights derived from itself and native to itself—bespeaks the Government of the Irish Republic as a sovereign assembly. Under this Treaty the authority of the Irish Free State is delegated to it by the British Parliament as legally and judicially subject to the British Crown, and as such, I maintain it cannot be accepted that Ireland under the Treaty will be a sovereign independent nation. The only other thing that it can be is that it will be a subordinate nation of the British Empire. I have heard arguments brought forward here in regard to the sovereign independence of Canada and Australia. In so far as their authority is derived from Britain and is exercised under this superior jurisdiction of Britain I cannot accept it that Australia and Canada are sovereign nations. After the great war the Allies imposed obligations on Germany—and Austria as well—obligations which she could not resist, but Germany still remains sovereign. Legally and judicially its authority was its own and was derived from itself and was not delegated to it by the Allies. I would really prefer this Treaty to recognise the fundamental of Irish sovereignty and be prepared to sacrifice other considerations such as financial considerations, truce clauses, aye, and defence clauses, but only for a certain period. Persia, Afghanistan and others allow other nations to exercise certain powers which are their's alone by right, but they are still sovereign. The reason why I would prefer such is this, that the people at all times will agitate for material concessions. The people as we know them will not at all times agitate for the ideal. The people will be very slow indeed to agitate for the idea of sovereignty which we have now lost under this Treaty if we accept it, when war will be the only method of regaining it. I do not know of any nation on this earth that does not claim that sovereignty as a natural attribute of the state. Why do we not demand the same right? You call It the Irish Free State. Fundamentally it is not so. Now about the clauses of the Treaty. I will not debate them. The clauses containing the oath and the Governor-General, and the point about common citizenship are repulsive to every individual whom I have met in my constituency who has created the present situation or assisted to create it. It is, undoubtedly, causing them great anxiety. The Deputy from Cork, Deputy Walsh, said that if he thought the Treaty would bring disunity to Ireland he would vote against it. From his inference I gathered that he meant Ulster. Does he take into consideration a more grievous and a more disastrous disunity than the one he spoke of? I
MR. MILROY:
Except the Irish Army.
MR. FITZGERALD:
The men who count in my area, I say, will never accept this Treaty. They ask that we should be united and refuse to accept it, because it will bring Ireland no peace. I am of the one mind only, and I ask that this Treaty be unanimously or nearly so rejected. After that we will put our minds together and try and re-establish our own position and make one more try. Those men have asked me to bring forward this suggestion here, that we should not accept this, and that we and the whole nation should make one more serious effort to try and re-establish the position that we had before December 5th.
DR. R. HAYES:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I have never at any time during the past three years, at any of the sessions, taken up very much of the time of this assembly, and now, at its last session, I certainly am not going to do so. In that respect at least I will try to be consistent. I am voting for the Treaty and I also am supporting
MR. JOHN O'MAHONY:
I, like other Deputies, have received several messages within the last few days from my constituents, and one of those I received was this: ‘I have no doubt but that eighty or ninety per cent. favour the ratification here, more especially after reading de Valera's substitute oath.’ Now, I have got friends in this assembly as dear to me as my own life, but I certainly must say I never read that oath in No. 2 Document.
MR. MILROY:
You know where it is.
MR. O'MAHONY:
I wish now to be as brief as possible. Like most other Deputies I have, since the adjournment, received letters, telegrams, and resolutions from public bodies and individual voters in my constituency requesting, in some cases demanding, that I vote for ratification of this so-called Treaty. While I have every possible respect for the individual opinions of my correspondents, I wish to point out that they are, after all, only individual opinions. They are not the opinions of the people. I would say the same of Councils. They are not the people either. They are the elected representatives of the people just as we are here, but our Republican mandate, our national mandate, from the people, is much clearer and much stronger than the mandate given to any County Council, District Council or Board of Guardians. I may be asked what about the Comhairle Ceanntair of Sinn Fein which, by a majority, has called upon me to vote for the Foreign Minister's motion. I am well aware—none better—of the weight and importance of the Comhairle Ceanntair of Sinn Fein in my constituency. I know its members and their worth. During the last three years they have worked well and worked sincerely with me, and for me in the Republican cause. I have always consulted the Comhairle Ceanntair, and have always paid the greatest attention to its views where matters affecting my constituency were concerned, but even it is not the people of Fermanagh. The Comhairle Ceanntair—and I am deeply grateful for it—honoured me by selecting me as a Republican candidate, but it was the people that elected me as a Republican Deputy to Dáil Eireann; and I have yet to be convinced—resolutions, letters and telegrams like those I have already received will not convince me—that the people have turned down the Republic that seven short months ago they elected me to maintain and uphold. If the people of Fermanagh gave me a mandate to vote for this ‘fleshpots of Egypt’ alternative to renewed war that the British Government is seeking to force upon us, a mandate given in the same manner and carrying the same weight as that which they gave me last May, I admit that I would feel bound to consider it, I would feel bound to act upon it; I would feel bound at once to place my resignation in their hands, because I could not, even at their bidding, forswear my allegiance to the Irish Republic. But before I place my resignation in their hands I would, as within my right and in accordance with my duty, record my vote on the issue that is before us here and now. During the last week's organised campaign—to stampede or try to stampede the Dáil Deputies into approving of this Treaty in the British Government's ultimatum—we have heard a lot in speeches and Press letters about precedents for our obeying, like automatons, the alleged wishes of the people; and examples have been cited down to Abraham Lincoln. None of these examples is, in my opinion, analogous to the situation in which we find ourselves to-day. In all of them the questions at issue were questions at best of domestic politics; with us the issue at stake is the maintenance or surrender of our national independence. We can find a true analogy to our present position in our own time in the case of the Boers. In 1902 the British Government presented to the Boers the same ultimatum as it has now presented to us—take these terms or take a war of extermination. When the representatives of the Transvaal and of the Orange Free State met in combined session at Vereeniging to consider the terms it was found that, while one section of the Deputies were given a free hand, another section had a definite mandate from their constituents, and it was generally felt that such a mandate would prevent a free exercise of their
MR. MILROY:
Question?
MR. O'MAHONY:
I will answer you. If I leave this matter here some of our pro-British papers will probably be asking: ‘If all this is true, where do the people stand?’ I answer that the people stand——
MR. MILROY:
For the Treaty.
MR. O'MAHONY:
Where they always stood and always will stand, as the moral source and fount of all national authority. The Boers recognised this. While declaring their Deputies to be free agents they also, in the words of the President of the Transvaal, declared that the surrender or otherwise of their independence was a question that must be left to the decision of their people. We declare the same. We recognise the people as sovereign, we admit that their will is supreme, we acknowledge them as the final court of appeal. But I wish to point out that this so-called Treaty question has not yet reached that final court of appeal. It is still before us—the Dáil—and it is for us, as free agents, to decide it to the best of our judgment. If the people are not satisfied with our decision then they can turn it down and turn us down too. But in the meantime, as free and unfettered members of the Parliament of the Irish Republic, we are privileged, nay, we are bound, by every principle of law, by every obligation of right, by every canon of duty, to speak and act and vote as we individually and conscientiously believe to be in keeping with our oath to the Republic. Now some reference was made during the course of the debate to the Republican form of Government as if that form of Government had ceased to exist or practically never existed. We all believe that the Minister of Finance was a man who spoke the truth according to his conscience, and spoke the words he meant to follow. In the beginning of 1921 he stated in an interview with an American journalist, when speaking of the Loan: ‘We raised 400,000. Of this sum we lost only 29, which was taken by British authorities from one of our collectors. The Government carrying on the Irish Republic to-day cannot talk of compromise.’ Now, the Treaty is objectionable to me for various reasons. I remember for many years realising that a wall was around Ireland, and the voice of Ireland choked. Now, the wall was pulled down by as great an Irishman as any who sits in this House to-day and that is the Minister for Foreign Affairs——
MR. GRIFFITH:
It won't do, John.
MR. O'MAHONY:
I thank you Art, [Laughter].
MR. GRIFFITH:
John, you are the man that asked me to make peace at any price.
MR O'MAHONY
Yes, but not at the price of the Irish Republic.
MR. GRIFFITH:
It will not do, John.
MR. O'MAHONY:
Whatever my friend Arthur Griffith says, we can have our little jokes [Laughter].
MR. GRIFFITH:
It is no joke.
MR. O'MAHONY:
If that wall be built around Ireland, every submarine cable and all the messages sent out to the world are choked; and if England has her hand on the throat of the nation, how can you develop the foreign trade of the nation? Some of our friends on the other side who are voting for this so-called Treaty seem to have blinded themselves into the belief that they can be Free Staters and remain good Republicans as well. They may so blind themselves but they can not blind us, and they cannot blind the country or the world. No one knows better than the plenipotentiaries that as far as those who voluntarily accepted are concerned, this Georgian State is a final abandonment of the claim to independence; and those who support this Treaty will very soon find also that, on an issue of national principle like this there can be no such thing as running with the hare and hunting with the hounds [applause and counter cheers]. The two oaths are too fiercely conflicting to admit of either reconciliation or approachment. Any attempts to compose them must fail now as it failed before.
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
What two oaths?
MR. O'MAHONY:
This oath and the oath to the Irish Republic. We had, as far as the oath is concerned, the same situation in the days of the New Departure. No matter who may talk about free Irish Constitutions there is no difference between this oath that is before us now and the Westminster oath then, except this: the Westminster oath was only a single-springed trap for unwary Irishmen, while this new one that the plenipotentiaries want us to accept secures us for ever with a treble spring. When the policy of the New Departure was proposed the Irish Republican Brotherhood, which Mr. P. S. O'Hegarty described a couple of weeks ago as the sheet anchor of Irish nationalism, promptly and absolutely turned it down. Thus foiled in Ireland, Davitt and his friends sought to win the support of the Clan-na-Gael; and the Supreme Council of the I.R.B. immediately sent the veteran, John O'Leary, to America to counteract their efforts. Addressing the Clan-na-Gael in New York, O'Leary denounced the proposal as immoral and impolitic. ‘There is,’ he said, ‘to be a pretence of loyalty but in reality treason all along the line. I do not believe in a policy of dust throwing and lying, but that is the policy of the New Departure. The Fenian Movement is purely a national movement. Though I were to stand absolutely alone I would resist this dishonest and unholy alliance. I believe in righteous means as well us righteous ends.’ What John O'Leary said of the New Departure Republicans in 1878 can, with even more force, be said of the self-deluded Free State Republicans in the Dáil to-day [Applause]. In spite of all this, Davitt, O'Connor Power, J. F. X. O'Brien, John O'Connor, and other members of the Fenian organisation persisted in their policy and took the Oath of Allegiance. When John O'Leary learned what they had done his only comment was: ‘I wish the British Sovereign joy of the British oaths of turncoats who have already taken and broken the Republican oath.’ Would not the unconquerable old Fenian leader, if he were here to day, use the same words? Would he not employ even stronger language of those Dáil Deputies who are tumbling over each other in their eagerness to break the Republican oath that they took in August last to take this Oath of Allegiance to the British monarch and thereby to help the British Government to enforce this, its latest Coercion Art in Ireland? Whatever the result of the vote on this question, we who are against the surrender of our national independence can face ourselves, face the people, and face the country with the consciousness that we have done our duty to the Republic that we swore to maintain and uphold.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Why not face Fermanagh, John?
MR. O'MAHONY:
I will go, and I will tell you how I will come out of it. I consider, a Chinn Chomairle, you are not doing your duty [Laughter]. Is it because there is a lasting friendship between the Foreign Minister and me that you allow these interruptions? [Laughter].
MR. GRIFFITH:
It is because you came to me three times and asked me to make peace at any price.
MR. O'MAHONY:
Do not lose your hair [Laughter]. We may find ourselves in a minority as Pearse and his comrades were in a minority in Easter Week; but like them we will have the satisfaction of feeling that we have saved the soul and body of the nation from those who would wittingly or unwittingly kill it, for the purpose of bringing ease and comfort to the material body. We can face the future with hope, nay with confidence, because we have with us the two elements amongst our people with whom the national future lies. We have the women with us, and no cause that is backed by the national womanhood of the country can ever fail, just as no cause that lacks their support can end in anything but disaster and disgrace. We have the youth with us, too—the youth of the Irish Republican Army—human beings endowed by God with the power of deciding what was right and what was wrong; not mere goods and chattels to be carried off and used as their absolute property by our anticipated Free State majority. For opportunism, for supineness, for contemptibleness, the daily Press of Ireland is unique in the journalism of the world. However, the young men of the army I am proud to say, have proved themselves too straight, too true, too unselfish in their love and loyalty to the Republic to be decoyed from the path of honour, of righteousness and of duty, to be deceived into breaking their soldier oaths by such transparent political expediency on the part of a majority of their Headquarters Staff. We have the young men of the army with us, we have the womanhood of the nation with us, and with these two elements on its side the ultimate triumph of the Republic is assured; because, as Terence MacSwiney said:
[Applause]Those who walk in old ruts and live in trembling may bend the knee and sign their rights away; but one wronged man defrauded of his heritage can refuse to seal the compact, and with one how many, thank God, will be found to stand, for the spirit of our youth to-day is not for compromise.
MR. DAN MACCARTHY:
I rise to support the Treaty. In what I have to say I hope not to hurt the feelings of anyone. I am not going to follow on the same lines as the last speaker. I have only this to say about that speaker: he has no right or authority to speak for the Irish Republican Brotherhood—to speak in this Dáil—and I doubt his authority to speak for the army either. He did not go to his constituents to find out what their views were; he knew their views already. It is all right to say the Press is stampeding the people; it is all right to compare the Press of 1916, but the comparison does not hold to-day. The old Boards who passed resolutions against the 1916 Rising have been wiped out. I hold in my hand here a pamphlet; it is issued by Sinn Fein, and it gives a list of the Republican Councils in Ireland: in Ulster there are forty-two Boards—sixteen Republican, ten Republican-Nationalist, and sixteen Unionists, in Leinster there are thirty-eight Boards and the thirty-eight are Republican; in Munster there are forty-seven Boards and the forty-seven are Republican; in Connacht there are twenty-seven Boards and the twenty-seven are Republican. Now, these are different Boards to the Boards that passed resolutions in 1916. You boasted of the fact that you had wiped out the old Nationalist crowd and a good deal of the Unionists and elected Republicans in their places. When these Republicans pass resolutions, Deputies like Professor Stockley and Deputy O'Mahony tell the Deputies to go to the devil, and that they would do what they liked in the Dáil.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
When did I tell the Deputies to go to the devil? [Laughter.]
MR. MACCARTHY:
I meant the electors.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
That the electors must go to the devil! When did I say that?
MR. MACCARTHY:
Not in so many words, but that is the meaning of what you said, anyhow.
MR. O'MAHONY:
I say the mandate given to me was given to me by the people, and I stand by that mandate. The people are the last Court of Appeal.
MR. MACCARTHY:
I object to these interruptions. I think nobody will deny the fact that I know something about elections [hear, hear], and I regret to say I am responsible for having some of the members here to-day [Laughter]. The 1918 election was not fought on the issue of an Irish Republic. It was fought for the principle and the right of self-determination. At that time we had a cartoon about the vacant chair at the Peace Conference to be filled by Count Plunkett. That is what the people voted on; not on what particular form of Government at all. It is only right to say that. Members have no right to say they were elected on the Republican issue and are not going to take the oath. They were nothing of the sort. I am not going to debate this point of the oath. As one of the Whips I have done my best to control the number of speakers and the length of speeches, but I failed. I am not going to go over the oath. We have lawyers on both sides who have made their cases. Some say they cannot take it, while others say it is all right. I am going to make up my mind like Michael Collins—as a plain Irishman. I see no allegiance in the oath. If there were I would not take it. Every speaker who claims to have English blood is opposed to this Treaty.
MR. LORCAN ROBBINS:
Here is one who is not.
MR. MACCARTHY:
They do not understand the people. They put me in mind of the City Councillor going up for election in the Dublin Corporation who went about for a drive in the slum area and wept tears about the conditions of the people in the slums. He knew nothing about it. We sprang from the working people. We know their lives in the slums. We know them better than these people and we know what they want. We have heard Deputies speaking about breaking an oath and what a dishonourable thing it is. Was it dishonourable for the Fenians to send a major into the British Army to corrupt British soldiers? Shame on men who speak like that! I am out to do work for Ireland, and I do not give a damn where a man comes from so long as we do good work for Ireland. Now, I stand for this Treaty, and one of the principal things I see in it is the control of education. Again I say I am a plain man; the education I got was not very much; it was a National School education. On the map we were taught that ‘all the places marked red are British possessions. Look at Ireland! A little spot in the Atlantic.’ We had there a singing chart to teach children to sing, in happy Christian days, about being a happy English child. If that education produced men and women who would go to the scaffold with a smile on their lips for Ireland, will Deputies tell me that the education they will get under their own Parliament, when they are more prosperous, will make them forget all about Ireland, and bow and bend the knee in front of a great Governor-General? Men who say that do not know Ireland. They do not know the people, and have no confidence in the people, and have no right to be members of this Dáil [cheers]. I thought it was always a motto of ours in Sinn Fein to try and unite all Ireland so as to bring freedom in this country and give fair play to everyone. It is a disgrace for a Deputy to get up and complain because the Chairman of the Plenipotentiaries offered fair play to the Southern Unionists. They are our countrymen. We want them with us in this fight as well as anyone.
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
I do not object to fair play.
MR. MACCARTHY:
I should like to ask when your Councils, working under your Local Government Board, were making a tremendous fight against the British Local Government Board, what happened? When the Dublin Corporation looked for a loan of 100,000, and
MR. MILROY:
Here is another the same.
MR. MACCARTHY:
It is the same all over the country. We must face that issue. We could do nothing if the people were not behind us. The good, brave fellows in the army could do nothing were it not that the people were behind the army. The Dáil could do nothing only that the people were behind it. The people are not behind the minority in this issue. They are for this Treaty. They are our masters and we must obey them. [cheers.]
DR. ADA ENGLISH:
A Chinn Chomhairle is a lucht na Dála, níl mórán agam le rá ach dearfa me cúpla focal. A Deputy who spoke in favour of the Treaty wanted to know why the young men should be sent to the shambles—I think that was the word he used. I should be sorry to see young men or old men, or women, or children going to the shambles, but when there is a question of right or wrong in it I would be prepared to go to the shambles myself and I do not see why everybody would not. I credit the supporters of the Treaty with being as honest as I am, but I have a sound objection to it. I think it is wrong; I have various reasons for objecting to it, but the main one is that, in my opinion, it was wrong against Ireland, and a sin against Ireland. I do not like talking here about oaths. I have heard about oaths until my soul is sick of them, but if this Treaty were forced on us by England—as it is being forced—and that paragraph 4, the one with the oath in it were omitted, we could accept it under force; but certainly, while those oaths are in it, oaths in which we are asked to accept the King of England as head of the Irish State, and we are asked to accept the status of British citizens—British subjects—that we can not accept. As far as I see the whole fight in this country for centuries has centred round that very point. We are now asked not only to acknowledge the King of England's claim to be King of Ireland, but we are asked to swear allegiance and fidelity [‘No! no!’] in virtue of that claim. Perhaps not, but that is the way I read it. For the last seven hundred centuries, roughly [Laughter]—I mean seven centuries—time does seem to be long here [Laughter]. However a jolly long time, any way, Ireland has been fighting England and, as I understood it, the grounds of this fight always were that we denied the right of England's King to this country [‘No! no!’].
MISS MACSWINEY:
Yes.
DR. ENGLISH:
And we denied we were British subjects. We are now asked not only to acknowledge the
MR. P. BRENNAN:
They went out themselves.
MR. M. COLLINS:
They did.
DR. ENGLISH:
They will go again, I hope, as soon as this thing is thrown out.
MR. P. BRENNAN:
They might, then. I am from Clare [Laughter].
DR. ENGLISH:
There has been talk about compromise—that we compromised the position. I think that is a most unworthy thing to say—a most unworthy thing to say. We had lots of things to bargain about—you had lots of material things to bargain about—questions of trade and commerce and finance and the use of ports; but nobody ever suspected we were going to compromise on the question of independence and the rights of the country. Mr. MacGarry mentioned yesterday Land Acts taken in the past from England. There was no Republic in Ireland when we took the Land Acts from England. That makes a very great difference. And the Republic exists. You can take any Act you like that is consistent with the Republic but you cannot take anything which gives away the Republic. It is not in your power to give it away. I have been asked by several people in the Dáil and elsewhere as to what views my constituents took about this matter. I credit my constituents with being honest people, just as honest as I consider myself—and I consider myself fairly honest—they sent me here as a Republican Deputy to An Dáil which is, I believe, the living Republican Parliament of this country. Not only that, but when I was selected as Deputy in this place I was very much surprised and, after I got out of jail, when I was well enough to see some of my constituents, I asked them how it came they selected me, and they told me they wanted someone they could depend on to stand fast by the Republic, and who would not let Galway down again
MR. GRIFFITH:
How many names to that?
DR. ENGLISH:
Cúig Cinn. I am only speaking about my own constituents. There is a point I want to make. I think that it was a most brave thing to-day to listen to the speech by the Deputy from Sligo in reference to the women members of An Dáil, claiming that they only have the opinions they have because they have a grievance against England, or because their men folk were killed and murdered by England's representatives in this country. It was a most unworthy thing for any man to say here. I can say this more freely because, I thank my God, I have no dead men to throw in my teeth as a reason for holding the opinions I hold. I should like to say that I think it most unfair to the women Teachtaí because Miss MacSwiney had suffered at England's hands. That, a Chinn Chomhairle is really all I want to say. I am against the Treaty, and I am very sorry to be in opposition to [nodding towards Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins. (cheers)].
ALDERMAN JAMES MURPHY:
I simply want to publicly define my attitude towards the position in which we find ourselves. Not being a constitutional lawyer I do not possess the art of saying nothing in a great many words. Consequently I can relieve the House by assuring it that I will be very brief. I desire to carry away with me only one memory from this Session of An Dáil and that is a remembrance of two very honest speeches delivered, one of them delivered by Deputy Barton, and the other delivered by Deputy Dr. MacCartan, whose speech expressed my own thoughts and feelings. Like Dr. MacCartan I would refuse to vote at all were it not for one consideration. The consideration is this: that although in my opinion, this battle for the Republic is lost, one hope yet remains for the Republic in the future. That hope is the people of Ireland. I for one, will not consent to sacrifice the people for the purpose of saving my face, or for the sake of the differences which exist in this assembly. If the Republic—as the plain man in the street understands it—was not given away when the Truce was signed, in my opinion the Republic was certainly given away when we sent plenipotentiaries to London to negotiate a Treaty in which the Republic was explicitly and implicitly ruled out by the British Prime Minister in practically every communication he sent us on the subject. Since then the situation appears to me to have developed into a hunt after a basis which, when viewed through Irish spectacles would look like a Republic, and when viewed through English spectacles would assume the appearance of Dominion Home Rule. The result is neither one nor the other, and it only remains for me to congratulate all concerned on their acrobatic performance which, to me, is quite the most remarkable exhibition of the kind I have ever witnessed. As far as the Republic is concerned—and when I speak of the Republic I do not refer to the ‘bow-window’ Republic, or external association which we have heard so much of lately—I refer to the Republic as the plain man in the street understands it, and as he will always understand it—as far as that Republic is concerned we have all walked into a bog, and the desperate endeavours of each side of the Cabinet to try to throw all the blame on the other side serve no useful purpose. We know perfectly well both sides are to blame. We know perfectly well we ourselves cannot escape our own share of the responsibility of what has happened, because in our child-like trust we did not maintain sufficiently close control over the Cabinet, and invested them with too much of our powers. Deputies who come here and talk about
DR. BRIAN A. CUSACK:
I hope to establish a record for brevity. We have had this Treaty discussed from every possible point of view, and every impossible point of view, so that I do not think very much more can be said to throw any light on it with a view to acceptance or rejection. One has only to make clear one's own position, and with me, coming here and during the time I have been here, my idea has been always the same. I accept Deputy MacCarthy's suggestion that the election of 1918 was one of self-determination, but as a result of that election a Government was formed and the Republican Parliament. So we have one fact to go on. There was a Republic and there is a Republic [hear, hear]. Now, the people, in the midst of stormy times—in the darkest days of the terror—backed the Republican Government that was in possession of the country. That is the mandate beyond which I cannot go, and until the people, by a plebiscite or General Election, after that trust I have no hesitation in saying I will not vote for this Treaty. ‘In virtue of our British Citizenship’! That is enough to stick in the gills of any man who wants to discuss this. We are Irish Republican citizens, and I certainly would not dare, without a mandate from my constituents, to vote for an Irish Republic entering into English citizenship. If they themselves accept the position of British citizenship, then we back down. That is their look-out. They can; they are masters. The will of the people is supreme. That will was expressed in 1921, less than nine months ago; and unless a person had a sort of automatic record put up to hear his constituents' opinions on every particular question discussed here, he could not know their finally definite views [Laughter]. In 1921 they voted for the continuance of the Republican Government, and until a General Election or plebiscite is taken the Deputy so elected must vote for the Republic. This Treaty does not guarantee that. Therefore we cannot accept it. We had happy pictures painted as to the lovely things that would happen when the Free State was established, and a Deputy from Cork told us that the old idea of British education in Ireland will be altered—we will no longer thank goodness and praise, with a smile, that we are peaceful, happy English children—our children will be little Gaelic children. But the Treaty says they will be British citizens!
MR. M. COLLINS:
It does not.
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
It does.
DR. CUSACK:
I cannot read it in any other way. Many Deputies pointed out that this Treaty was accepted under a threat of war, and the Deputy from the University said that was not an argument—that it should not be used as an argument to get the Treaty through the House. I agree with him. The country has been threatened, and always had war more or less with England. We had got to a strong vantage ground. I believe we should have held there. We have the Republic still and, in my opinion, this Dáil cannot, and has no power to destroy it. The Irish people have the right, and may do so as they will. But, as I say, there is no power in this Dáil to destroy it. It cannot destroy the Government which it established. We had Deputy MacCartan who has been appealed to from all sides of the House. He talked of chaos. The people have gone through the terror,
THE SPEAKER:
You did not make a record after all, Doctor [Laughter].
MR. WILLIAM SEARS:
I would like to give it as my opinion that if this Treaty is rejected this assembly will be guilty of as great an act of political folly as is recorded in history. The plenipotentiaries that we sent over to London were selected by the President himself and confirmed by this Dáil. There are no men in the Dáil superior to those, if there are equals, in political foresight and judgment [hear hear]. For two months they contended with the ablest diplomats of the world, and they succeeded marvelously, in my opinion. They did not exceed their rights, we are told, by one iota, and yet they are put in the dock. We know the pains they went to, while in London, to keep in touch with Dublin; we know about the daily couriers and the weekly crossings and even they went so far as to urge the President himself to come to London to keep in closer touch with them. And yet they are charged here as if they took the bit in their teeth when they went to London and acted off their own bat. We sent them to London to make a bargain—what are the terms?—a bargain, because we told the world that we were not Republican doctrinaires. We did not expect them to bring home a Republic, but this Treaty will put us on the shortest road to the completest independence of the country. I will not compare the terms of the Treaty that has been signed by England with the terms of the document that has been turned down by England. I will not compare the attainable with the unattainable, the bird in the hand with the bird in the bush—there has been too much time already wasted in those comparisons. I will refer to some of the solid material advantages already in the Treaty, and see whether there is any compromise in our accepting them. For the first time in 700 years the English army is to march out of Ireland. I see no compromise in that. There have been withdrawals in history, as we know, and I never knew a withdrawal of the kind to be considered a compromise. We get charge of our own purse, and our own internal affairs. Is there any compromise in that? lf the delegates brought home the Republic there are some gentlemen who, I think, would insist that England should surrender half her fleet as well; and when we point out to them that we have a seat at the League of Nations I think they will complain that the four great powers of Washington do not include us [Laughter]. I think we should examine the Treaty and if there are, within the four corners of the Treaty, provisions that will strengthen our nation we should accept it, and I hold there are such provisions. If, twelve months ago, the Minister for Defence was marching out to battle he must have two objects—one, to drive the English army out of Ireland, and a second, to guard and see that there was no further invasion. If some one then told him that the British Army was being fumed out without firing a shot would he not say: ‘Well, then I will devote all my energies to guarding against another invasion.’? Surely he would not say : ‘Leave them there; I would rather have the pleasure of putting them out myself.’ And if anyone came and said: ‘You will have an opportunity of equipping an Irish Army,’ surely he would not have refused it. Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly very rightly said here that whether this Treaty is accepted or not the fight for the complete independence of Ireland must go on. Certainly it will. And we have the opportunity of helping the nation towards that ideal. If, instead of entering on a disastrous war, we took charge of the schools and universities of the country, then we would be taking steps to preserve that ideal. There is a great deal of doubt in the minds of some Deputies as to the patriotism and the courage of the Irish race; I say we need not put too great a value upon the courage of our day and generation. Bishop O'Dwyer, of Limerick, said: ‘As long as grass grows and water runs there will be men ready to die to advance the cause of Ireland.’ And we need not think that the breed of great reformers died with Pearse and
A DEPUTY:
We had no Republic then.
MR. SEARS:
If you had the Treaty in 1921 you would not have three per cent. of the people around you. A Deputy read the declaration of independence to-day. I was proud to listen. And some of it said: ‘Basing our claim on the fact that the people of Ireland are behind us.’ Very well. You went on the platform and said: ‘We have the people of Ireland behind us.’ Look behind you now. They are not behind you. You have not three per cent. of the people behind you. Are you going to commit them to the shambles? What is that war going to be? From the other side we got a hint. We are going to have a ‘march through Georgia’ like Sherman, when he burned every town and village and haggard on his path. You would have thirty-two Shermans marching through Ireland for the difference between this Treaty and Document No. 2. I say you have not the people of Ireland behind you, because it is madness, sheer madness. There is no common sense in that madness. The people of Ireland are a shrewd people; they know a good thing when they see it, and they have got a good thing in this Treaty. Some men say: ‘Why, when they pulled it so far,
MR. ART O'CONNOR:
I claim the indulgence of the House for a few moments. I do not know whether I was the cause of those interruptions—whether I brought them on by my tone or temper or by what I was saying—but the result is that one very material portion of what I said in my speech yesterday is so disjointed and broken up it may be misconstrued or misinterpreted by people in the country who read it. I refer to the portion in which I was alluding to Farmers' Associations and Farmers' Unions. I hope that no misconstruction will be put upon that. There is no man in this assembly has a greater admiration for the work that the farmers have done for the Republic. It is an ill bird that fouls its own nest. I am a farmer's son. I come from farming people, and I hope and trust that the farmers of Ireland and the farming members of this Dáil will not think that I was attempting to throw dirty water on the farmers of the country. There's an old proverb which says that there are three things that cannot be recalled: the spoken word, the hunter's arrow, and the missed opportunity. The ‘spoken word’ was yesterday, perhaps the ‘arrow’ that might have hurt the feelings of some of the people of this country. The members of the Farmers' unions have helped me in my work as Minister of Agriculture. So now I take this opportunity of making this amende honourable, and apologising to the farmers for any of the things that might be misconstrued in anything I may have said.
DR. CROWLEY:
I am going against this Treaty, and I am stating briefly my reasons for doing so. I do so because I believe the people who elected me as their representative in 1918 are, each and every one, in their hearts Republican, and I believe, also, that if they were given a free choice between the Republic and this Treaty they would without exception, vote for the Republic. I have no doubt whatever as to the circumstances under which it was signed, and from the speeches and arguments we have heard in this House, I cannot help thinking that if, during the British Terror, the Irish Army gave the civil population the choice of voting for the continuance of the Terror, or the Partition Bill of 1920, the people would be then advised, as they are now, for the
MR. JAMES BURKE:
I suppose because I happen to be a lawyer it is necessary to begin with an apology. I shall do so in order to put myself in order. In case anybody here is afraid, because I happen to belong to that profession, I am going to indulge in a long and laboured dissertation on constitutional law, I shall set their minds at rest on that question immediately. I may say in passing I am afraid that the greatest offenders in this respect have not been the professional lawyers, but the amateur lawyers. I think we have heard quite enough on this subject from both sides of the House already. I do not think it has done very much to elucidate the matter under discussion. I have been fighting English constitutional law in Ireland since I was called to the Irish Bar in 1916. I never held any position in a British court but in the dock, and I think if I were now to take my stand on British constitutional law I would be going the best possible way about justifying Deputy Etchingham's remark that we are marching into the Empire with our hands up. Accordingly I am not going to say anything about English constitutional law. Instead, I would want to state, as briefly and concisely as I can, my reasons for the position I hold in regard to this Treaty, and in particular those reasons which were not mentioned by the other Deputies of this House. I was returned unopposed at the General Election of 1918 for the constituency of Mid-Tipperary, on the Republican platform. In my election speech on that occasion I laid stress on three policies which, I believed, if judiciously combined, would have led to the independence of the country. First, there was the old Sinn Fein policy as outlined by Arthur Griffith; second, appeal to the Peace Conference, then sitting, for recognition of our right to self-determination; and the third was the driving of the British Government out of Ireland by armed force, backed by the moral opinion of the world, particularly the United States. I did not tell the people of Tipperary on that occasion that we were going to secure our independence by armed force alone, and if I had told them that, I do not believe I would ever have been elected; and that, in my opinion, is the only alternative that those opposed to ratification of the Treaty have now to lay before the Irish people, since all the other policies contained in that programme have now disappeared. And in laying that programme before my constituents I did not consider myself a mere visionary. I did not do it because I wanted to keep alive a tradition, or hand something down to posterity. I did it because I believed it was practical politics, and if I had not considered it was practical politics, I would consider it criminal to induce the Irish people to vote for it. In justification of my belief on that occasion, I want to state we were within an ace of winning because of the heroism of the Irish people and the Irish Army, and because of the reflection of that heroic effort in the unofficial pressure from the United States brought to bear on the British Government. As you here appear to despise it—the Minister for Finance has, on a couple of occasions, seen fitting to make what I felt were, perhaps, unfair remarks about the United States. The country that Lord Northcliffe felt worthwhile to spend 200,000 on propaganda in, to employ ten thousand specially trained journalists for advocating the case against Ireland and Germany, is not a country to be despised. I know from my own practical experience in the United States that many of those who helped us, financially and otherwise, did so in spite of pressure which, although of a different kind, was just us hard to resist as that which was applied here to those who stood for the Republican ideal. At the time of the election in 1918 I believe that an international situation had been created such as would have compelled the United States, in its own interests, either to declare war on
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
On a point of order. What on earth have individual policies to do with our Republican Government?
MR. BURKE:
I am discussing foreign policy, I believe. I am not going to enter here into the merits or demerits of the rival parties in that policy; but I wish to maintain that neither Mr. Devoy nor Judge Cohalan would ever hand over the friendship of the Irish Race in America to the British Government for anything short of an absolute independent Republic; whereas the men substituted in their place wrote welcoming the Treaty or Pact before the signatories' names were dry. We started down the slippery slopes when the President agreed to accept a relation between Ireland and England similar to that between Cuba and the United States.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Once more I must protest against these misrepresentations.
MR. BURKE:
I say so far as the Platt Amendment——
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
You know perfectly well the first article of the Platt Amendment was a declaration of independence.
MR. BURKE:
That is a matter of dispute.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is not. You should read the article and let it go down before the House.
MR. BURKE:
That is my contention; I am giving my own reasons here. We went still further down the slippery slopes when the President issued a manifesto to Ireland departing still further from the separatist ideal.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
What is that document?
MR. BURKE:
A letter you wrote.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is very important, because I stand as the symbol of this Republic and fifty times in this debate references have been made to this subject in one way or another. I ask any member here to point to any thing I have said, publicly or privately that bears the interpretation that is now being sought to put upon it, If I did that I would deserve to be impeached.
.MR. BURKE:
As soon as I have done——
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I say it would be a matter of impeachment. If any member here——
MR. BURKE:
I am not saying you gave away anything so far. I am speaking at present. As soon us we
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Because they are not true.
MR. BURKE:
I am only trying to make the position clear. I am not going to say one word either for or against the Treaty. The Treaty is not sufficiently bad to prevent my voting for it, and it is not sufficiently good to prevent my voting against it if I saw any rational alternative. But none has been produced so far. It is a slippery slope, but however, at long last we have reached a landing stage. The people opposed to the Treaty say we are not to get off here, but put out again in the expectation of getting back to the position from which we started. I believe if we take these people's advice we shall be more likely to continue sliding down than sliding up. That is why I am in favour of the approval of this Treaty. [cheers].
MR. J. MACGRATH:
I move the adjournment.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I again, simply for the honour of the nation and the honour of the position I hold, wish to say I regard my office as a sacred trust. I said when I took it that I wanted it for the benefit of the Irish people, and that I should regard my duty as looking after the interests of the Irish people. But I defy any person in this Dáil, or in Ireland or in America, or anywhere else, to point out where I have departed one tittle, or one iota, or one comma from the position of the Republic as established by the Irish people, either in public or private. The members of the Dáil know that one of the reasons why I did not go to London was that I wanted to keep that symbol of the Irish Republic pure—even from insinuation—lest any word across the table from me would, in any sense, give away the Republic. [Applause].
MR. M. COLLINS:
There is a motion for the adjournment which I want to support. I also want to say there was no suggestion on the part of the Deputy from Tipperary, no suggestion that the President had done anything; but I do again, for the sake of the Dáil, protest against any insinuation that I have given away anything. I have been the custodian of the honour of the country, and I have given away nothing. [Applause].
MR. DAVID CEANNT:
I would like to make a suggestion: that all Deputies making insinuations against the President have the documents there read out to the House.
It was agreed that the House adjourn until 11 o'clock to-morrow.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I would like to give notice that I will move to-morrow the amendment. You have got the proposals now.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I suggest that we should take ‘for’ and ‘against’ the Treaty first. The document has been placed in our hands now, and I take it that it is a matter for our consideration, and the circumstances, I take it, of the consideration will probably be different from what they are. We ought to take, in my judgment, the opinion—we ought to take the division on the Treaty and then take the document.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I think it will have to be decided by a ruling.
MR. DAN MACCARTHY:
Can you have an amendment to this Treaty? Must not the vote for or against the Treaty?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
This a resolution. I do not propose to amend the Treaty. I propose to move an amendment to the resolution.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I submit that a change has been made in Document No. 2 which has been before us. It is not within any member's power to do such a thing without the unanimous consent of this House, and I entirely object to it.
MR. COLIVET:
I cannot find anything in the Orders to prevent any member, any time, from moving an amendment. I am not now supporting the idea that it should be moved.
MR. GRIFFITH:
A document has been put into our hands this evening that is not Document No. 2.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
You are quibbling. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is quibbling now.
MR. GRIFFITH:
A document has been put in which is not Document No. 2.
MR. MACCARTHY:
On a point of order. The President is a touchy man. He jumps up very quickly when one puts his own interpretation on this document. Is it in order for the President to call the Minister for Foreign Affairs a quibbler?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I say that the word ‘quibble’ has been used here several times. If ever it was once true it is in this case, because there is nothing changed but in the setting up—a slight change to have it in final form.
MR. GRIFFITH:
This House has here the document placed in our hands Document No. 2 consisted of twenty three clauses and an appendix. This new document consists of seventeen clauses. Six clauses are omitted.
MR. COLIVET:
Are we right in discussing the matter before it is moved at all?
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
I would like to make this point. This document, so-called——
THE SPEAKER:
The only motion before us is for the adjournment of the House.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I have no objection to having this document discussed. I was simply putting forward my idea for a course of procedure.
THE SPEAKER:
It is evident the course of procedure is not accepted by members on both sides.
MR. MACCARTHY:
Is it in order for an amendment to be moved to the Treaty?
THE SPEAKER:
Not to the Treaty but an amendment can he moved to the motion for the approval of the Treaty.
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
This document embodies a post-rejection policy and it should be a matter for the post rejection Cabinet if the Treaty is rejected.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I am responsible for the proposals and the House will have to decide on them. I am going to choose my own procedure.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I submit it is not in the competence of the President to choose his own procedure. This is either a constitutional body or it is not. If it is an autocracy let you say so and we will leave it.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
In answer to that I am going to propose an amendment in my own terms. It is for the House to decide whether they will take it or not.
MR. MILROY:
The President says he he is not proposing an amendment to the Treaty, but is not the effect of his proposal one which is a material amendment of the Treaty?
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
The amendment has not yet been proposed, and the only motion before the House is the one for adjournment.
The House then adjourned.
The Dáil resumed at 11.15 a.m. on Thursday the 5th January with THE SPEAKER (DR. EOIN MACNEILL) in the chair.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
On a point of order I would like to bring this matter before the House. Yesterday I was informed that one of the principal business houses in this city received this letter:
Sinn Fein Headquarters, 6 Harcourt Street, Dublin, January 3, 1922.We are here by the courtesy and consent of the University authorities of which President de Valera is Chancellor.Dear Sirs We have found that it will not be possible for us to obtain a Union Jack of sufficient size in the event of its being necessary for us to display one at the end of the session of Dáil Eireann when the Treaty will, in all probability have been ratified. We are anxious to comply with all the necessary courtesies, and propose to hoist the Union Jack beside the Green Flag on the University Building as soon as the result of the discussion is known. We would be grateful if you would give the bearer your largest flag. We will, of course, return it to you as soon as the one which we have ordered arrives.
We are, dear Sirs, Yours faithfully, M. WHELAN, Secretary, Decoration Committee, Irish Free State.
MR. P. O'KEEFFE:
I am Chief Executive Officer in 6 Harcourt Street, and that is a forgery. It never came from 6 Harcourt Street.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
I would propose a motion that this Session does not formally open till three o'clock. There are a few private members, back benchers, who, in view of the seriousness of the present situation, are discussing matters among themselves. They have not had an opportunity of finishing their discussion and they think they would finish between now and lunch time, and they would suggest that the Session do not open until three o'clock. The members on both sides are concerned in this.
MR. EOIN O'DUFFY:
I agree to this. I second the motion.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I have no objection.
THE SPEAKER:
Do I understand there is no objection?
MR. M. COLLINS:
I agree.
MR. SEAN O'MAHONY:
I wish to I make one or two remarks with the permission of the house.
THE SPEAKER:
I will take the motion for the adjournment now.
The motion was then put and carried.
MR. D. FITZGERALD:
There is a very important matter that I want to bring up. A very disgraceful thing has occurred——
THE SPEAKER:
We won't take up any of these things at present
The House thereupon adjourned at 11.20 a.m., to 3 p.m.
The Session was resumed at 3.35 p.m. with THE SPEAKER (DR. MACNEILL) in the Chair.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I have not consulted my friends about the leading article that appeared in the Freeman's Journal. But I wish to express my own regret that an Irish journal would publish such a leading article as that which appeared in a Dublin morning paper to-day. I think that the Dáil has the highest respect for and confidence in the President [applause], and I believe the people of this country have the highest respect for the President also [hear, hear], and it is not in the interests of the ratification of the Treaty that such an article as this should appear in an Irish journal.
MR. SEAN ETCHINGHAM:
I think some steps should be taken with regard to this article this venomous toad the Freeman's Journal has emitted from to-day's issue. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Griffith, often told us what the Freeman's Journal was. On February 8th 1902, twenty years ago, he summed up the Freeman's Journal as follows:—
That was written twenty years ago of the Freeman's Journal. It was then true and it is true to-day. Now we want to take some action in the matter. There are also some notes in the bottom of this thing about ‘How Long?’ And I think that concerns every member of Dáil Eireann; no matter what difference of opinion exists between us we can, at least, be unanimous in this: that we will not be insulted by the Freeman's Journal. I pass over what has been written about the President of our Republic. The Republic still lives, and President de Valera is more than a symbol; he is the head of that Republic. And President de Valera has been truly described in recent years as the ‘man of destiny,’ as the ‘Irish Eagle,’ and we are all proud of him as such; and the future will be proud of him. We have not forgotten the hero of Boland's Mills, and he has since that fight, proved his worth. But here is a thing, a Chinn Chomhairle, that none of us can take—‘How long?’ That is an attack on the Dáil. ‘How long?’ they ask, and then it continues: ‘When will An Dáil cease talking? People are sick of speech-making.’ [‘They are, hear hear.’] But are you going to have the Freeman's Journal even though it supports you now, write the same about you. You heard what Arthur Griffith said about it. It will write the same of you in a month or two if it suits these parties. ‘We can't continue,’ it says, ‘to weary our readers with such futile iteration. If anything new is said we shall be careful to report it, but otherwise we must exercise journalistic discretion in our treatment of the speeches.’ I know something of what the representative of a paper feels; I pity them; I have great sympathy with them. Just like the lawyers have to speak to order in Court, the poor journalist, the representative of the Press, must write to order; it is a matter of bread and butter for them. But if you want to get at the men who control the paper—and I say that attack on Dáil Eireann, if that happened in any other country in any time, that matter would be brought before the bar here. The Freeman's Journal wants—before taking action it would be right to have a decision in the matter before you. I should think we must see that this paper, that the representatives of the paper as a protest be expelled from this assembly, from this House—it has been suggested to me—The Freeman's Journal is a paper with an evil history; Lucas's honest bigotry and Higgins' villainy mark its early years, the blood money of Lord Edward FitzGerald filled its coffers, the Castle nourished it for a generation, it gibed at the young Irelanders and spat venom on the Fenians; it strove to kill Parnell in his early days by a forgery as infamous as the Pigott ones, and afterwards crawled on its belly before him and begged for pardon; it supported him when his followers mutinied because it thought the country would support him, and it turned on him when it found it was mistaken. In a word, the Freeman's Journal has opposed every National movement until the movement became too strong for it, and it has assailed every Irish patriot from Henry Grattan to Parnell—from Lord Edward Fitzgerald and Theobald Wolfe Tone, to Thomas Clarke Luby and James Stephens.
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
I rise to second the motion—that the Freeman's Journal's representative be turned out from this assembly and not re-admitted until the proprietors and editors of the journal give an undertaking that they will report what happens here. It is for us and the country to decide, and I consider that everybody here knows—everybody here from Mr. Griffith down to the humblest member knows what faith is to be put in any protestations of the Freeman's Journal. I consider their statement that they will print just what they like is of a piece with the rest of their journalistic attitude. I hope we will come to a unanimous decision in this matter, and that they will be expelled from this House.
MR. GAVAN DUFFY:
I hope we will be unanimous in the protest. But let us make a protest on proper grounds. The largest latitude must be allowed to fair comment by newspapers. The Freeman's Journal is entitled to say whether we are talking too long, and we are not entitled to turn out their representatives—they are entitled to ask ‘How long?’ The principal ground of complaint is that in this morning's leading article in the Freeman's Journal the most infamous attack that I have ever seen in an Irish newspaper was made on two members of this House. That was not a matter of fair comment. But when you get one of the principal newspapers in Dublin in its leading article starting out by declaring that the President of our Government ‘has not the instincts of an Irishman in his blood’ and continuing through a series of venomous personal attacks upon the President and Deputy Childers, ending up with this phrase: ‘when the fight was on Mr. de Valera and Mr. Erskine Childers fell accidentally into the hands of the military and were immediately released at the moment when there was 10,000 for the corpse of Michael Collins’—an article like that is infamous. That is the ground, and the only ground upon which we could legitimately protest against a newspaper which is allowed by courtesy to come here and report the meetings of this Dáil, abusing this privilege, and returning thanks for this privilege by insulting, not merely the Dáil in this manner, but the Irish people. I need not say anything about the President. But about Deputy Childers I must say this—as one who was present in London. Much as I disagree with what Deputy Childers has said about the Treaty, I think it should be known that there was nobody connected with the delegation in London who worked so hard and so assiduously and so untiringly as did Deputy Childers during the whole time. And whenever anybody had any difficulty or any question requiring solution they went to him as the natural authority on the subject. And to think that a man like that could be attacked in the most infamous manner by the Freeman's Journal which has now the audacity to put itself forward as the champion of Roger Casement; I think that is beyond the bounds to which any newspaper should be allowed to go.
MR. SEAN MILROY:
I wish to associate myself with the protest against personalities. But I certainly also wish
THE SPEAKER:
Let it be done in the same way.
MR. MILROY:
I am not going to move that the representatives of this journal he expelled from An Dáil. I think it is only fair to point out to those responsible for it that they should see the unwisdom of it.
THE SPEAKER :
Let it be done in the to bring anything across what is being brought before us.
MR. MILROY:
I think it would be most unfair to select any particular journal which happens to make a suggestion that we resent. I resent it as much as any member of the assembly. If the same suggestion were made about me—my honour is as dear to me as the honour of the President is to him—I certainly would not feel called upon to ask that the representatives of such a journal be withdrawn. We want freedom of the Press, and we expect that the Press should be kept within restraint. I think the protest against personalities is quite adequate.
MR. MULCAHY:
I agree entirely with Deputy Gavan Duffy as to the grounds upon which we have to complain of the Freeman's Journal, and I would propose as an amendment to the motion ‘that we delay action with regard to any representative of the Freeman's Journal attending this assembly until to-morrow morning to see whether, in the morning's issue of the Freeman's Journal we may not have an adequate apology for the outrageous references and imputations contained in the leading article against President de Valera and Mr. Childers.’ I may mention as one of the three names that have been dragged into the leading article, that I have already written to the editor a very emphatic protest against the nature of its leading article.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
I also wish to say what I hesitate to say. And I would like to support it. But I think it is very unwise to base anything on what a journal said as to its desire to publish a certain amount or not.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I beg to second Deputy Mulcahy's amendment. I may say that prior to the Christmas adjournment I made it clear that I strongly resented those personal attacks on President de Valera. I conveyed that information to both the Dublin newspapers and I represent the feelings of those in favour of the Treaty as I do my own. It has been said here—perhaps not meant—that those people in favour of the Treaty are largely influenced by the Press of the country. Now we are not in any way influenced by this Press or that Press or any other Press.
THE SPEAKER:
Better not go into this.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I beg your pardon. I am speaking [Laughter]. I don't think you have a right to interrupt me for a moment.
THE SPEAKER:
I will ask the Deputy to confine himself strictly to the question before us.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
On every question on which I rise to speak here, except on the speech I made the other day, you, for some reason or another, found it necessary to interrupt me. Now, I don't think that is fair. I don't think I have departed from the strict spirit of the amendment that was moved. It has been suggested here, and it is right that it should be cleared up, that we men
At this moment Mr. Harry Boland who had arrived from America, entered the Chamber and was heartily applauded.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I understand that the matter under discussion is in regard to the leading article in to-day's Freeman's Journal. My name was mentioned in it. It is not necessary for me to say that it was mentioned without my authority. I object as strongly to the form of to-day's feuding article in the Freeman as I have objected here in the Dáil to any personalities of any kind, and that is my position about it and I need not say another word about that. I don't approve of the use of names in that way. I never have used them in that way and I hope sincerely that I never shall.
THE SPEAKER:
An amendment as moved by Deputy Mulcahy and seconded by Deputy Walsh: ‘That action against any representatives of the Freeman's Journal attending this assembly be withheld pending an adequate apology in to-morrow's issue of that paper for the infamous nature of the references and imputations contained in the leading article against President de Valera and Mr. Childers in this day's issue.’
MR. D. FITZGERALD:
Already action has been taken against a certain Pressman in a most dastardly way, and I suggest that the words ‘action in the way of exclusion’ should be substituted for the word ‘action’ in the resolution.
MR. ETCHINGHAM:
As the proposer of the motion I don't want to press the thing to a division. I only wanted to draw attention to it, and to get Dáil Eireann to register its protest. But I will say the editor is guilty of treason and ought to be impeached. That is the position. Personally, I would like to give him a dose of Backwoodsman's laws.
THE SPEAKER put the amendment with the alteration suggested by Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I regard any motion of this kind as being an interference with the liberty of the Press, and I stand as much for the liberty of the Press as I stood and do stand against personalities.
MR. PIARAS BEASLAI:
I would like to point out that the amendment, as it stands, involves a principle that some of us don't accept. We could all agree if the words ‘representatives of the Press’ were deleted from it. The best way is to put it in the form in which we could all agree to it. And when it comes up to-morrow——
MR. D. FITZGERALD:
The Deputy for Wexford made a speech and he said he would like to give the editor of the Freeman's Journal a dose of Backwoodsman's law. Well actually a number of criminals in this country have already taken such action with regard to another Pressman, and I want to make it clear that this House does stand for the liberty of the Press. We may disapprove of that article. We are talking of letting the Press in by courtesy. We do let them in because we want them in. It is not through courtesy they are here. And the whole Press of the world represented here is considering the taking of action in boycotting this Dáil until the journalist who has been taken away is released; to show what they think of the action of people in this country—criminals who have taken certain action yesterday. If you want the Press here perhaps you won't have them after this afternoon.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
I would second Mr. Beasley's proposal.
MR. GRIFFITH:
If you say you condemn the reference to President de Valera in that article I am heartily with you. I think this is in the worst of bad taste. If you had to put up with what was written about us by one of the Deputies here—what was written about me in a recent paper—we could have raised these things. But we ignore these things. The Press has a right to say what it likes about us. I say the Press must be free to say what it pleases.
MR. DAVID CEANNT:
Is there any other assembly in the world where the King or President would be attacked in this way? Would the editor not be tried immediately for high treason? Now, it is not a question alone of President de Valera, but because he is President of Ireland, and I think we are standing a little too much of this abuse during the last four or five days. If the Press thinks they can intimidate the members of the Dáil they are making, I tell them, the mistake of their lives. If an apology is not published I think action should be taken.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
The fact that I have been attacked prevents my speaking on this. I want to say that I am for the fullest freedom of the Press. I agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs absolutely in this matter. The people of Ireland will deal with their Press when they find that the Press has misled them. I am only anxious that the people should not be misled. I think any action of ours which would limit the freedom of the Press is a mistake.
MR. CHILDERS:
I endorse what the President has said.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
A protest has been made and I think the matter ought to end. I beg to move that leave be given to withdraw it.
MR. MULCAHY:
I withdraw my motion dealing with the possible exclusion of any Press representative.
THE. SPEAKER:
I wish to say myself that, had it not been raised by the Deputies here, it had been my intention to raise it. We are unanimous in declaring that a most scandalous abuse of the rights of the Press has been committed in this case; that that abuse consists in a gross insult to those whom this assembly, and to those whom the people of Ireland have placed in the highest positions of trust that it was in their power to place them. The insult to the President is against the President, against the Dáil itself, and against the nation; and I am quite certain that the reprobation and condemnation of that insult which was pronounced unanimously here to-day will be pronounced unanimously by the whole people of Ireland.
MR. SEAN O'MAHONY:
I claim the indulgence of the House to reply to a statement I see to-day attributed by the Press to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the shape of an interjection by the Foreign Minister [Laughter]. You may laugh. He stated last night, according to the Press report, and I did not hear him making that statement or otherwise I would have dealt with it— the remark attributed to Mr. Griffith was ‘You came to me two or three times before I went over to London last August and urged me to accept peace at any terms. It won't do John.’ I never made such a statement and all I say is that that statement is untrue. I take my honour that such a statement I never made. And he is reported as saying this: ‘You are the man who, when I was going to London, told me to bring back peace anyhow’. I said: ‘Art, bring back peace and the country will be behind you!’ The country would be behind him if he brought back peace with honour to the nation.
MR. GRIFFITH:
All right, John.
MR. O'MAHONY:
Art and I are still friends.
MR. COLIVET:
I wish to make a personal explanation. The words which I used here on Tuesday have been misinterpreted and have caused pain to some people. In referring to spies I was taken by some to be referring to one particular incident. I now wish to say as emphatically as I can that I had in my mind no one case or incident whatsoever. There was nothing further from my mind. I intended a general reference and nothing more. I had no intention of docketting or defining any particular incident, and I regret if any words of mine were taken as meaning such.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
There is another matter of privilege. In the Private Session I presented a certain document, and I presented it for the same reason that I am presenting, or intended to present, this other document. I put that draft before the House for the purpose of finding whether we
MR. GRIFFITH:
As the President has spoken about Document No. 2 appearing in the Press, I wish to say that I am responsible for it. I handed it to the Freeman's Journal and the Independent representatives last night. If it was an abuse of confidence, I may say that I sat here for days and heard myself described as dishonourable. I heard ladies and gentlemen here talking about me. I have not stood up. I have not complained about what the members said about me. I do not mind; I am content to let my countrymen judge me. The President said it was a confidential document. You will recollect that, at the first public sitting, when I intended to speak on the document the President made a request to me. He admitted that it was not a confidential document. I honoured that request and I withheld what I had to say. I spoke as with one hand tied. Last night this document here now was handed out as Document No. 2. I looked at it and I observed that it ended with clause seventeen whereas the other document ended with clause twenty-three. I called attention to the fact that it was not Document No. 2 and the President stood up and accused me of quibbling. I therefore handed it to the Press to let the Irish people judge whether I was quibbling or not. I made no abuse of confidence. That document was not a confidential document and I could have used it but for President de Valera's request not to do so. I honoured his request. I was accused of quibbling last night when I
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has the right if he wishes to put it in that way to publish the document. I would have published the document myself but I thought it would be putting a red herring across the discussion here. The Minister for Foreign Affairs would not have been tied if I were allowed to move my amendment. There is nothing in the second form in which it appears further than that it was a considered form. The other document was put here in a hasty way without consideration. I amended it as I would have done with any other document. There are certain other verbal changes which are necessary in the document to make it consistent with our position.
MR. GRIFFITH:
The President suggests that I objected to his moving an amendment. I told the President that there could be no amendment to the Treaty and the President agreed with me, and the form of words that were there I submitted to him at the Mansion House and he approved of them. Any amendment to the Treaty destroys it.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
This is an amendment to the motion that is before the House. It is not an amendment to the Treaty but to the motion before the House. The motion before the House was that we approve of a certain thing. It need not have come before the House at all because, as a matter of fact, in the body of the Treaty this Dáil was not mentioned. I take it that the plenipotentiaries are simply reporting back here the result of their work in London, and that we are expressing our opinion on that report. And therefore, that when we have here ‘approval’ on something which a large number of members don't approve, that we, as members of this House, have a right to say definitely on their report—to express our opinion, and if there is an amendment to put the amendment. What is at stake is this: that we as Dáil Eireann set out to make peace between Ireland and Great Britain. I hold that was the primary object of the negotiations, to have a definite peace, a lasting peace, so far as any human things we do to-day can be regarded as lasting—something that would be built on a secure foundation. If such a peace has not been made, then we have not done the thing we set out to do. And it is with the hope that we might do exactly what we set out to do, that is, to secure the basis of a lasting peace, that I wished to bring forward my proposal as an amendment. This body is representative of the Nation. The divisions that occurred here undoubtedly represent the divisions of thought in the nation. The principles that have been expounded here, and the sentiments that have been expressed, are an echo of the sentiments and principles to be found through the people of Ireland. If we allow a chance like this to pass without making a definite peace we are not doing our duty either to the Irish nation, or to humanity as a whole. And I simply wish, as one human being and not merely as an Irish man doing the work of a nation, but as a human being trying to get peace, and to bring people who have been warring for centuries to a basis of common understanding—I wished to bring forward my proposal. It was ruled out on a technical point, but I feel I have done my duty.
MR. GRIFFITH:
This motion that stands in my name was brought by me to the Mansion House at the request of President de Valera. There I asked him did he accept that motion and he said: ‘Yes, we will have to vote on that motion.’ That is the whole matter.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
There is no question about that, but you definitely refused to agree to the amendment being brought before the House as an amendment to the motion. That is as far as you are personally concerned.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I think it is not open to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to answer that question. An amendment to the resolution can only be made by omitting certain words or adding certain words.
THE SPEAKER:
That does not arise yet; it will arise in due course.
The SPEAKER read the following
Do Cheann Chomhairle na Dála.Is oth liom go g-caithfe me and Dáil d'fhágaint mar Theachta. Do reir an meid rún a fuaireas ó Mhuintir Thiobtruid Arann Theas chím ná fuil na daoine sásta liom, mar gheall orm a bheith i g-coinne an t-socruithe a dineadh le muintir Shasana. Ní leigfeadh mo chroidhe ná m'aigne dhom mo ghuth do thabhairt ar thaobh an t-socruithe shin ; ahus ós rud e gur cheap Comhairle Ceanntair Sinn Fein iarraidh orm seasamh leis an socrú san, níl le deanamh agam ach eirghe as ar fad, mar siad na daoine a thoibh me.
Le beannacht oraibh go leir, Mise, Próinsias O Druacháin Tiobruid Arann, Theas.
COMMANDANT EOIN O'DUFFY:
A number of us for some days past have been very anxious to find some common ground for both sides out of the present grave position that we find ourselves in. Last night a number of us got together; we were self-appointed; there were nine in all to see if anything could he done. The names were: On the side of ratification—Messrs. MacGuinness, Hogan, Professor Hayes and I. Against—Messrs. Seán T. O Ceallaigh, Mellowes, O'Connor, Moylan and Rutledge. A substantial agreement was reached on a number of very vital questions whereby we thought it might be possible to retain the services of the President for the nation and perhaps, avoid a split in the country. It was necessary for us to report this morning to the leaders on either side and in order that we might do that, this House was adjourned. We did that and, unfortunately, after some time we found it was not possible for us to find an agreement and the position is as we left it except that we are still here, and I don't know whether we will think it worth while to again meet or not. I merely wish to let the assembly know shortly what had passed. As regards the document that we discussed, I am not in a position to disclose that now, by agreement with the other members.
THE SPEAKER:
We will resume now the orders of the day.
DR. MACCARTAN:
Are we to understand that this Committee agreed?
COMMANDANT O'DUFFY:
Oh yes! we got substantial agreement on a number of substantial matters.
DR. MACCARTAN:
Why not have a report from them?
MR. LIAM DE ROISTE:
I think in the interests of the nation that Committee should come together again. A most important thing for the country is that some substantial agreement should be come to. That Committee ought to come together again if it is possible to come to any agreement.
THE SPEAKER:
I understand that the Dáil, recognising the efforts made by this Committee, actually commissioned them to sit this morning——
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
No.
THE SPEAKER:
We adjourned for the purpose of enabling that Committee to formulate something upon which we might possibly agree. So that I now ask the members of the Committee whether they succeeded in formulating anything to lay before us?
COMMANDANT O'DUFFY:
I have just been discussing matters and we have decided that we should meet again this evening after the adjournment, and we hope then to formulate a report on what we have done.
MR. MULCAHY:
If that is so, I would move that the Dáil meets in Private Session to-morrow at eleven o'clock and have the report from that Committee before us. Obviously, if full agreement that can be of use to this House as a whole is not reached, it might be inadvisable to report in Public Session the actual grounds upon which fairly substantial agreement has been reached. But it is most important that the House as a whole would know how far along the road to agreement the Committee had been able to go.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I second that.
MR. E. DE BLAGHD:
In view of I what has been said I think that no good purpose could be served by continuing the orders of the day at the present moment and I move now that we adjourn till eleven o'clock to-morrow in Private Session.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
This Committee was a self-appointed one. Some people from both sides came to me—some from the other side came to me last evening, and some from my own side came to me and I said, of course, that I was at the disposal of anybody; that I would be glad to join with anybody in discussing any possible or probable basis of agreement that could be accepted with honour and dignity on both sides. This Committee has no authority from the Dáil up to the present moment. If you want to give it authority that is another matter.
A DEPUTY:
Let it go on.
THE SPEAKER:
You cannot give it any authority. It is a Committee that meets with the approval of the Dáil, and the Dáil will receive a report from it.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
It is a very responsible work to put on the Committee. We might not have chosen ourselves for such a responsible position if we thought that the Committee's work was likely to be the basis of a report for the Dáil. However, if the Dáil is agreed that we should undertake the work, I am prepared to adopt the responsibility.
MR. LIAM DE ROISTE:
I propose if necessary that the Dáil approves of the meeting of this Committee [‘No, no!’]
The motion to adjourn was then agreed to, and the House adjourned at 4.30 p.m.
The Public Session of An Dáil resumed at 3.20 p.m. on Friday, 6th January, THE SPEAKER (DR. EOIN MACNEILL) in the Chair.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I think it is not fair to the country or to this assembly that the anomalous position which we have been in since the Articles of Agreement were signed in London should be continued any longer. When these Articles of Agreement were signed the body in which the executive authority of this assembly and of the State is vested became as completely split as it was possible for it to become. Irrevocably, not on personalities or anything of that kind or matter, but on absolute fundamentals. Since then we have been trying to keep nominally as a unified Executive, but the time has come when that must be ended. If I, for instance, am to keep the Chief Executive authority here in the Republic, in duty bound to preserve the Republic and to use all the means at the Republic's disposal to preserve itself, I cannot be handicapped. I cannot have responsibility without the right to use all the resources of the State to defend itself and its existence. Very well, we have the position now in which I and a certain section of the Cabinet stand for one fundamental policy, and another section of the Cabinet stands for a fundamentally opposite policy. One side of us means the preservation of the Republic and the existence of our country; the other means the subversion of that independence. We have black and white so far as we are concerned. Now I stand here as one who believes in ordered government. I believe fundamentally in the right of the Irish people to govern themselves. I believe fundamentally in government of the people by the people, and if I may add the other part, for the people. That is my fundamental creed. Anything that would take away the Executive or fundamental authority of the people, whether executive, legislative or judicial, is absolutely against my principles and I hold that would be a subversion of nationality as I understand it, for this nation. Now, the position which has been created is this—a little history will make the whole position clear to every member here and to the country—I entered politics as a soldier, as one who stood for the principles of those who proclaimed the Republic in 1916. I went down to Clare the first time I went as a political candidate; I read the declaration of that Republic and I said to the people of Clare: ‘I stand for that; and I hope to be able to establish this for the world: that the men who proclaimed that, though they were said to be a minority of the nation at the time, they truly represented the heart and feeling of the nation.’ And we proved it, thank God. Those who said we had no right to ‘rebel’ as it was called, because we didn't represent the views of the people, were proved to have told untruths. Whatever may have been said about the chances of success and other matters there is one thing that stands proved historically—that these men did represent the hearts and souls and aspirations of the Irish people. I say that no election taken under duress or anything else will disprove that to-day. I say, therefore, that there will never be a peace which neglects that fundamental fact because it is the fact of the whole situation. The fundamental fact is that the Irish people want to live their own lives in their own way without any outside authority whatever being imposed upon them; whether it is the authority of the British
That was definite. On December second or the night before, I think, the plenipotentiaries came back with a document which represented the proposals of the British Government at that stage. That document was clearly one, to me, inconsistent with our position. My position and the position of the Cabinet was that which we expressed in the now famous paragraph two at Gairloch, which caused a number of telegrams to be exchanged. That was that we had no right or authorityI received the minutes of the Seventh Session and your letter of the twenty fourth. We are all here at one that there can be no question of asking the Irish people to enter an arrangement which would make them subjects of the Crown, or demand from them allegiance to the British King. If war is the alternative, we can only face it and I think the sooner the other side is made realise that the better.
MR. M. COLLINS:
On a point of order I would like to know whether this statement involves a discussion on Document 2 or on Document 3? Because I will put forward arguments about that document that will stand against any thing. I want simply to know whether this involves a discussion on that document, because I can't allow a statement about that document to which there is an answer, a good answer, a true answer, to pass unchallenged.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
What I do formally is to lay before the House my resignation. Definitely, as Chief Executive authority I resign and with it goes the Cabinet. Do not decide on personalities—on my personality. It is not a question of persons. That has nothing whatever to do with it. As I say, it is not a question of persons because where personality is concerned we are all the best friends. We worked together as one team. Now we are divided fundamentally, although we had kept together until we reached this Bridge. My object was that we don't part before we come to this Bridge. We are at the Bridge. This House has got my Document No. 2. It will be put before the House by the new Cabinet that will be formed if I am elected. We will put down that document. It will be submitted to the House.
MR. GRIFFITH:
The President referred to me. I want to make a short statement. I won't go into the speech of the President now. The President and I agreed that this motion should go on, and that a vote should be taken. Also he agreed that I should wind up this debate. Now, I submit that the order of the day is that we are discussing this motion: ‘that Dáil Eireann approves of this Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland ’; and I submit that until that is decided we can't discuss the President's proposal. We are still on the orders of the day. And if any attempt is made to bring in another issue it is an unfair attempt to bring in another discussion, and to closure discussion on the motion before the House.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I can't take the responsibility of being defender of the Republic unless I have all the material resources of the Republic at my disposal, and I won't take the responsibility no matter what anybody asks me to do.
DR. FERRAN:
I have a serious statement to make. On a point of order no Treaty has been made. The motion of the Minister for Foreign Affairs——
THE SPEAKER:
What's the point of order?
DR. FERRAN:
I submit that the word ‘Treaty’ there is inappropriate.
THE SPEAKER:
That's not a point of order.
DR. FERRAN:
I submit that the Treaty is not yet concluded
THE SPEAKER:
Well, now, that is yet not a point of order.
MR. COLIVET:
Would it put matters in order if I moved a motion to suspend the Standing Orders in order to discuss the President's resignation?
MR. GRIFFITH:
I submit until that motion before the House is disposed of we can't discuss anything else.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I second the proposal to suspend the Standing Orders.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
The Government can resign before everything else. There must be an Executive; and you must have somebody to see that the work of the House is carried out.
MR. DAN MACCARTHY:
I want to say this: the nation is bigger than any man and bigger even than the Dáil, and we ought to carry out the orders of the day.
THE SPEAKER:
The order is perfectly clear. The Dáil itself is the authority. That is to say that this body is supreme, and any other body in the country is subordinate to it; and especially with regard to the carrying on of its own proceedings, it passes its own authority. The orders of the day is the motion that is before us tabled here; that is the motion by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I decline to take the responsibility for defending the Republic when I have not got the ordinary means of doing it.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
Have you accepted the motion for the suspending of the Standing Orders?
THE SPEAKER:
The motion to suspend the Standing Orders is in order.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
On that point I submit that the order of the day is before you, and it is a motion to discuss approval or disapproval of the Treaty. The Dáil is in session. Remember the discussion on it, and every sitting or meeting of this body was a continuation of one session, and not an ordinary meeting of the Dáil during which questions to Ministers and ordinary business, and the discussions which would arise at a single sitting would come up for consideration. This discussion here is out of the ordinary. It is one whole and entire sitting and I submit with great respect that it is not open to you to receive a motion—during the middle of a discussion—to suspend the Standing Orders.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
As you have ruled, there is no going back of your ruling now.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I suppose we can discuss this motion on the suspension of the Standing Orders [Cries of ‘No! no!’]. I am in possession. I suppose we may discuss the motion to suspend the Standing Orders?
THE SPEAKER:
There is nothing against it.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Well we will discuss the motion to suspend the Standing Orders. The position is this. If you reject the Treaty the President of the Republic can, in ten minutes, have a Government for the Republic. Now there is another way of getting a Cabinet that will be a united Cabinet. As one member of the Cabinet I have offered already to put my resignation into the President's hands and let it go before the House. I have offered that and it was refused. Well, now, if the members of the present Government who are opposed to the Treaty—if those members, with the President at their head, ask for our resignations, well and good, let them come before the House. This now is a second way to get a Government to carry on. Let the President, having all the resources at his command, ask for our resignations, and let our resignations come before the House. There is a motion on now to suspend Standing Orders. That comes queerly at this time. I asked a question as to whether a speech which the President had made involved a discussion on document No. 2 or 3, I don't care which. I have an answer to this document and I want to give that answer to the Irish people. Now, under
THE SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Well, that is ruled out. The other side may say what they like, and they may put in any motion that they like, and they may take any action that they like, but we must not criticise them. That is the position that we have been put into. That is a position I won't accept from anybody; and no matter what happens to-day it won't be accepted by me. We will have no Tammany Hall methods here. Whether you are for the Treaty or whether you are against it, fight without Tammany Hall methods. We will not have them. A Committee was appointed by the House and the House was prevented from receiving the report of that Committee—it was prevented by three or four bullies [applause]. Are you going to be held up by three or four bullies?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Is that a proper thing?
THE SPEAKER:
I ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw that term.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I can withdraw the term but the spoken word cannot be recalled. Is that right, sir? [Applause and laughter]. This motion to suspend the Standing Orders is a motion to draw a red herring across our path here. And it is because of that that I, for one, cannot agree to it. We can have what we have been discussing for several days—we can have a straight vote for or against the Treaty. Have a straight vote and I am satisfied, whichever way it goes; because then we have shown that we can come to a decision. But don't try to employ those methods. The meaning of the suspension of the Standing Orders is nothing less than a red herring, On the motion before the House we can take a vote on the Treaty, and then the President can have his Cabinet that will work with him and for him.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Not for me.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I don't know whether or not we mean to have a discussion on the President's speech—there are things in it which I can tear to tatters—but under the Standing Orders I dare say we can. But on this, as on anything else, if you are going to strike a person about anything I say strike, and strike hard and strike and hear—hear first, anyway, the other side. This is an endeavour to put the other side into a position that we don't occupy and this motion to suspend the Standing Orders is simply a political dodge to put us in a false position.
MR. COLIVET:
As I raised the motion to suspend the Standing Orders I—— [Cries of ‘Order.’]
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
The Minister of Finance has made a statement that the result of a meeting of eight or nine members of this body within the last twenty-four or forty-eight hours was prevented from being brought before us, and that this was the work of some bullies. He was asked to withdraw that. You have seen the way in which he withdrew it. I don't know to whom he referred when he mentioned this word ‘bullies.’ Possibly he may have referred to me as being one of them. In the ordinary way I would take exception and take offence at such a term being applied to me, but the amount of offence that I would take at it would be measured by the respect or esteem that I had for the character of the person who made the charge. In this particular instance I take no offence whatever. Now, the Minister for Finance says something about Tammany Hall methods. I know nothing about them. Possibly he does. He says that on this motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders he and his friends are precluded from discussing the statement made by the President in the speech which you have just heard. That is so. But when the Standing Orders have been suspended he and his friends can discuss any statements that have been made by the President. That's all I have to say.
MR. M. COLLINS:
In that case I am satisfied.
MR. COLIVET:
I would like to say I did not move it as a political dodge or as
MR. MILROY :
I don't think you can put the motion. We are not going to have the rules of this House played and trafficked with to suit the political manoeuvre of any Party in this House. There is a proper time for the step the President has taken, but this is not the time.
MR. SEAN MACENTEE:
By Standing Order 5 it is laid down that: ‘the Chairman shall, at the request of a Deputy, suspend the orders of the day for the discussion of a special matter of national importance provided that, on a show of hands, the request has the support of ten Deputies.’ I submit that it does not require that there should be a formal motion to suspend the Standing Order. If any Deputy can secure the support of ten Deputies.
MR. MILROY:
You have already ruled that the discussion upon the Standing Orders is permissible, and I want to resist the suspension of the Standing Orders, and I do it for this reason——
MR. MULCAHY:
It is not the suspension of the Standing Orders but the suspension of the orders of the day.
MR. MACENTEE:
It is the same thing.
MR. MILROY:
The point I would make if I were allowed to proceed—if those authorities on constitutional usage hadn't intervened—would be this: that the step that we are asked to take seems to me entirely out of harmony with constitutional usage. There is a time when it would be quite proper and quite opportune though, perhaps, regrettable for the President to take the step. That moment would be when he was defeated in this House upon the question which we are discussing—on the major issue, not now. I presume, sir, that that is a perfectly legitimate point to make. And therefore I suggest that to suspend the Standing Orders to discuss an unexpected pronouncement of the President is really an attempt to keep the Irish people still in the dark as to what is the real mind of the Dáil on the issue that is before us [cries of ‘No no!’]. Well why was this intervention of the President—so unfortunate, so unhappy, so regretted by every one of us, so premature—why was it made? He talks about trying to keep unity. Is there any step more calculated to split not only this Dáil, but to split the whole Irish nation and the whole Irish race than that which the President has now taken up? Is there any step more calculated to bring about that result? I think that this Dáil will be well advised now to refuse to suspend the Standing Orders, and continue the discussion on the question—the main point—whether this Treaty is to be ratified or not.
MISS MACSWINEY
I rise to support the suspension of the Standing Orders. I do it on exactly the same grounds as the last speaker, and these are: that it is absolutely essential for the Irish people to be enlightened once for all on this matter, and that nothing will enlighten them so well as a direct policy on one side for the Republic, and on the other side for the Treaty, and I think it most essential that this motion should be put for that very purpose. The people in the country with all this talk of Documents 2 and 3 and now of X have been misled about the attitude of the President who, I think you will all agree with me, is the one supremely honourable man in this Dáil. And I think it is just because it is so muddled that a fair issue should be put before the people and the country. And for that reason I think it better to have the President's resignation with all it involves, with his clear statement of policy on the one side and, on the other side—then if the House defeats that policy, let them elect another President with a different policy, and then the issues are clear before the country.
MR. P. BRENNAN:
Is it simply a question of policy—the question between the President and the Treaty? Will it be a vote between the Treaty on the one side and President de Valera on the other? [Cries of ‘No! no!’]
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I will explain clearly. I don't like to be misunderstood. I have done this in the
MR. P. MAILLE:
I strongly protest as a private member against this motion.
MR. BOLAND:
I support the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders. I presume the remarks of the Hon. member for Cork were intended for me. I am sorry that he has seen fit to make such a suggestion. I will say this:that I don't know anything about Tammany Hall except this, that if he had a little training in Tammany Hall, and reserved some of his bullying for Lloyd George we would not be in the position we are in to-day.
MR. P. O MAILLE:
Lean leat.
MR. DAN MACCARTHY:
Now we are getting the dope.
MR. BOLAND:
If he had he could not have us in the position we are in to day. I came back to this country to vote against the Treaty. I support the President of this Republic, and I am particularly glad he has knit the issue. Either we are a Government or we are not. If we are a Government we must have a head; and as we have lined up now in parties, I think that the resignation offered gives this House the opportunity to say whether it stands for a Government of the Irish people—a Government that was created by the will of the Irish people, and a Government that can only be destroyed by the power that created it—or whether it stands with the men who have come back to this Dáil with a Treaty which denies the existence of the Irish nation [‘No! no!’] and denies, in my opinion, the fact that we are a Government. We sent those plenipotentiaries to negotiate a Treaty; we sent them from Dáil Eireann. They returned with a document, not to Dáil Eireann, but to the Southern Parliament. Here is their opportunity now to have the issue clearly knit. I maintain that if the orders of the day be suspended, if the President's resignation be accepted and if he goes forward for re-election on a definite policy which he has clearly expressed, that that is proper and constitutional. As we are at present we are divided and he has taken this opportunity to place himself where he belongs. An attempt has been made and has succeeded in placing him, as the head of this nation, in a position that he does not occupy. It has gone out to the world that there is no question of principle dividing this House, and an attempt is being made to place the head of this nation in a false position. By his statement to-day he stands square on the Republic of Ireland ; and he comes before us now for a vote of confidence. If he is elected the work of the Irish Republic will go on; and if the men who maintain that there is no Government of the Irish Republic, and that there never has been, want to knit the issue, now is the time to do it.
MR. DAN MACCARTHY:
Is this in order?
MR. BOLAND:
If the men on the other side wished they could take this document to the Southern Irish Parliament and not to the Parliament of the Irish Republic. At a time like this I intended to move the re-election of President de Valera. I can't do that now. I have just spoken in support of suspending the orders of the day.
MR. P. O MAILLE:
Cuirim in aghaidh an rúin go dian. Bhíomair anso ar feadh trí seachtaine, agus bhí an fáth ceadna ag an Uachtarán le h-eirghe as i d-tosach agus tá anois. Cad na thaobh már dhin se an uair sin e? I am here to protest strongly against the suspending of the Standing Orders; I think this attitude of our present President is treating us unfairly. An effort is being made to put us in the position of a lot of schoolboys, with us private members having no right here at all. The very same situation for the resignation of the President existed at the beginning of the Session as exists to-day; and why was it not brought forward then instead of being brought forward now? Why it
MR. J. J. O'KELLY:
I want to interrupt on a point of order, that is, the regulations governing the procedure of this House. Paragraph 5 of the Standing Orders says: ‘the Chairman shall, at the request of a Deputy, suspend the Standing Orders for the discussion of a special matter of national importance provided that on a show of hands the request has the support of ten Deputies.’ Now I submit that your duty is to call for a show of hands and ascertain whether ten Deputies are in favour of the suspension of the Standing Orders.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I would like to say one word on that. The position is this: that the document has been under consideration since the 5th or 6th December last, and this ‘matter of urgent national importance’ has lasted successfully up to the 6th January of the following year. This ‘urgent matter of national importance’ is just as urgent now as on the 6th December, and no more urgent now than then. We are within, at most, forty-eight hours of a decision on the matter; and on the orders of the day it can be decided here and now. That settles the point; and I claim that this is not a matter of national importance within the meaning of the words, and the debate should be continued without interruption.
MR. O MAILLE:
I maintain this motion is not treating the members of this Dáil fairly nor is it treating the Irish nation fairly. When I spoke here on a previous occasion I said that ninety five per cent. of the people of Galway were in favour of the Treaty. Now I can speak definitely and I say that ninety-nine per cent. of the people of Galway are in favour of this Treaty. Why should you here turn right round against the country and ignore the people? The people have some rights in this matter and they must be heard [‘hear, hear’].
MR. PETER HUGHES:
We have been here now, as Deputy Cosgrave said, for a considerable number of days and the question of the resignation of the President is no more urgent now than it has been for a considerable time past. I think if anyone wants a vote of confidence from this House he should have it, but let this debate proceed. We must be treated as we have a right to be treated in this House; and I would appeal to the Deputies to continue this debate or take a vote now, if you like, with no further speaking, unless the Minister for Foreign Affairs should wind it up. Let us have done with this wrangling—we are becoming a disgrace to the nation. I am Chairman of a Board of Guardians and it this wrangling went on there I would feel I was absolutely disgraced. The nation is tired of this wrangling; and I hold if we proceed any further we will be the laughing stock, not alone of Ireland but of the world. I appeal to the members and to the President. Let us have a vote inside of an hour if you like.
THE SPEAKER:
I have been asked by one of the Deputies to decide—that I should call for a show of hands as to whether this is a matter of national importance. My decision is, that for many days we have been discussing a matter of national importance and that that is the matter of national importance before us. I am not going to give any decision that would interfere with the taking of a vote upon the issue discussed up to the present. We will take a vote now on the suspension of the orders of the day. The motion is as follows: ‘I beg to move the suspension of the orders of the day to deal with the President's resignation.’
MR. GRIFFITH:
Before you put that I want, at least, the Irish public to know this:that the motion here discussed for a month past is ‘That Dáil Eireann approves of the Treaty signed in London by the plenipotentiaries.’ The terms of that motion were agreed upon between President de Valera and myself, and he agreed that I should wind up the discussion. I have listened here for days—during all that time—to arguments and attacks on my honour and the honour of my fellow-delegates and I have said nothing. I have waited to wind up this discussion. President de Valera now says he must have a Cabinet that works with him, but at the end of the last session of the Dáil—before Christmas—
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I am sick and tired of politics—so sick that no matter what happens I would go back to private life. I have only seen politics within the last three weeks or a month. It is the first time I have seen them and I am sick to the heart of them. Now I am told this is a special political manoeuvre. Mr. Boland came back from America, and then there is talk of Tammany Hall; but I make up my mind for myself, now and always. Mr. Boland didn't know anything about it until I myself told him this morning. Only I see mean things. It is because I will not keep the responsibility of doing things if I am not to work as in the past; and therefore, if you decide to have a vote on this Treaty within forty-eight hours, have it or have my responsibility for doing things that I can't do. For instance there is the case in to-day's papers. Some one was kidnapped, and the Minister of Finance sent some one to make enquiries. He had no right to send anybody. There is a Minister for Defence and a Minister for Foreign Affairs. There should be a Government where some one man would be responsible.
MR. COLLINS:
I sent these men off under the orders of my superior officer.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
The persons responsible are the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Defence. These are the people responsible for that. There must be undivided authority and undivided responsibility. I will not hold office with divided responsibility. That is a matter that anybody who has done Executive work will understand. If this House wants to take a vote on a straight issue I don't want to draw any red herring across. It is because I am straight that I meet crookedness with straight dealing always, and I have beaten crookedness with straight dealing. If I tried to beat crookedness with similar methods we are undone. What matters to the nation is, always to stand in that we are able to face the enemy. lf you have crooked methods there is always the back door to them by which you will be taken in the rere. Truth will always stand no matter from what direction it is attacked. I detest trickery. What has sickened me most is that I got in this House the same sort of dealing that I was accustomed to over in America from other people of a similar kind—because, holding the position that I do, I don't want to see it tarnished. If the people of Clare wanted me to resign they could say so. I got telegrams telling me how these motions were passed and I could read them to the House.
MR. BRENNAN:
Do read them.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Insinuations about me have hurt me—because every man and woman who has dealt with me here knows that I am standing exactly where I stood. I tried to reconcile very difficult things and tried to solve the problems as far as I was able. I know what others didn't know: where the verge of the precipice was, and nothing would have pulled me beyond it—not even Lloyd George and all his Empire could have brought me over it. Therefore, I am straight with everybody and I am not a person for political trickery; and I don't want to pull a red herring across. If there is a straight vote in this House I will be quite satisfied if it is within forty-eight hours.
MR. ARTHUR GRIFFITH:
President de Valera says a vote within forty eight hours. I quite agree. Let us have a vote on Monday morning. [Cries of ‘To-morrow.’)]I don't want, as I said, to prevent anybody from speaking here, but let it be to-morrow if the House wishes it.
MR. HUGHES:
I suggest that private members can get until lunch time to-morrow to explain their views and after
MR. DAN MACCARTHY:
By arrangement with the whips the Minister for Defence was to speak last, and if you come to an arrangement to take a vote to-morrow, let the Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs wind up the debate. Carry on till ten o'clock to-night and take a vote to-morrow.
THE SPEAKER
I take it, in view of what the President and the other Ministers have said, that the motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders is withdrawn and that the discussion proceeds. [Cries of ‘Yes!’]
DR. FERRAN:
I was out of order, it seems, when endeavouring to raise a point of order in connection with this motion. The Point is this:I say distinctly that no Treaty has been signed—that we have not signed a Treaty. If a Treaty has been signed at any rate it has not been produced to us. We have seen a document which, as I understand, is of the nature of practically an agreed agenda for a discussion which is to take place in London between our plenipotentiaries and the British plenipotentiaries if this Dáil approves. Now, I will read on that point an authority of a sufficiently distinguished constitutional lawyer, with whom our plenipotentiaries came into intimate contact in London.It is very regrettable, I think, that we should have to go to Hansard for information of this kind. The Irish people have been told that there is a Treaty before them when there is no such thing. There is no such document in existence. There is such a document to be prepared if this Dáil vote away its existence as the Government of the Irish Republic and not until then. Lord Birkenhead,answering a question by the Earl of Midleton on the 16th December, said:
‘If and when the representatives of Dáil Eireann approve of these Articles of Agreement it will be necessary that there shall be meetings in order to deal with matters which are supplemental, and must necessarily be added in order to make the document a complete one.’Now, we have been instructed here that we have a complete and unalterable Treaty before us. It is distinctly told us here that there is no such thing; that there are to be further discussions and alterations in this Treaty over which this body will have no control. These will be agreed upon after discussion between the negotiators. Lord Birkenhead continues:
‘I most sincerely hope, and have every reason to believe, that when that part of the subject is reached which concerns the noble Earl (Earl of Midleton) he and his colleagues will be consulted, and that which has been agreed upon will, of course, be presented to Parliament in the form of an agreed Treaty. Only then have we the Treaty in front of us.’It is very regrettable that this Dáil hadn't that information at its disposal and that we had to go to Hansard to get most vital points like this cleared up. If any of you will take the trouble again to look over the Treaty you will find that there are only three or four points definitely determined. One important point is the oath; there are other subsidiary points, such as the ports, religious endowments and one or two things of that kind, but the rest of the body of the Treaty and signatures of the Treaty about the law and the ‘subject’—all the rest is to be investigated and decided without the knowledge of this House. Now, I want to make a personal explanation before going on to speak on this matter. I heard, I don't say whether with regret or not, under the very tragic circumstances, the President tendering his resignation as President of the Irish Republic—nothing else could be done. I am ashamed to say that during the Secret Sessions of this Dáil—in August I think it was—I heard some whispers going round about the position of the President and I raised the question, though absolutely raw and new to the House—I raised the question in the form of a suggestion. I said, in reference to the motion brought forward by the Minister of Defence, that if it came to a question between the President of the Republic and the Republic that, much as we were attached to the President, we were still more attached to the Republic. Now I want to make a most full and complete apology for that. I have to say that, during the course of all those discussions behind closed doors, I never heard a single word let drop by any person on any side—we had only one side then—no single word was let drop which suggested that the Republic was going to be turned down, and I, for
A DEPUTY:
Your old friends of recruiting days.
THE SPEAKER:
That is a most disorderly remark and it should never have been made.
THE DEPUTY:
I withdraw it.
DR. FERRAN:
I am very glad that that has been said here in this House. I heard it said last night that I was on a recruiting platform. I am not going to contradict it. There is one explanation of that. I presided in 1918 at Foxford at an anti-conscription meeting. It was addressed by Mr. Griffith, and for presiding there I got four months in jail. In addressing that meeting I said because I knew the people to whom I was talking understood the reference, I said that the last time I had been at a meeting in Foxford it was at a recruiting meeting. They knew what I meant. They knew that a meeting which had been held outside the Chapel gates, as we were leaving—held by the organisers sent down by John Redmond—was the recruiting meeting I meant, and now I am taunted with being on recruiting platforms.
THE SPEAKER:
Now I hope we will have no more interjections of this kind from any quarter during the remainder of this discussion. They are most improper, and the points which the people who are making these interjections are trying to make are never worth making.
DR. FERRAN:
With all deference I say I have some respect for the men who go on making insinuations here. But I have no respect for the men who are sending insinuations all over the country through subterranean channels where they can never be seen again.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
. FERRAN:
I am glad the Minister for Foreign Affairs agrees. I am quite sure he is not responsible for any thing of the kind. Now, the people of Ireland don't like the Treaty. They may acquiesce in it for a time, but when they learn—they don't know what it is yet—but when they do find out I think that some people now who have come here and told us that we must take this Treaty as Holy Writ, that these people will find their constituents complaining that they didn't enlighten them a little further about it before they got this unknown quantity. I would like to believe, and I still do believe, that the majority of the supporters in this House, of the Teachtaí supporting the Treaty, are only play-acting. Fancy, if you can, Commandant MacKeon tolling the death knell of the Republic! And fancy the Minister for Foreign Affairs coming here and in his opening speech re-assuring this House on four separate vital points, re-assuring them on the authority, of all persons, of Lloyd George. I wondered if he had ever read the pages of Nationality or Young Ireland. The young soldier Deputies are supporting the Treaty because they think they can equate it in terms of decimal .303. That is grave play-acting. If you take the Treaty as a jumping-off point to give you an opportunity of attacking England in the dark under cover of friendship, I say it is unfair to the Irish people in pretend that this is a Treaty of peace. I hold that it is not legitimate, as was suggested, to deceive your enemy under all circumstances. I hold it is not legitimate now, but it is never legitimate to deceive your own people. Now, the position is this:the Irish people are being told that this is a Treaty of peace. The Army, some of them anyhow, are being told that it gives an opportunity of striking again. The English people are being told that it will bring an abiding peace. I think that it is pretty clear that somebody is going to be let down. If you use the Treaty as an instrument of war it will justify every brutality that England can inflict upon you in crushing Ireland out of existence. You will go to war, you will go to fight, self-confessed rebels, having sworn your fealty to your King. You will go to war as perjurers having broken your oath: and I don't think that the world will have much sympathy for perjurers, whatever treatment they get.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
We got a lot of sympathy up to this.
DR. FERRAN:
Well, I think we did. I think we got a lot of sympathy up to the 5th December. I don't think we have much now. If you think you can reach a Republic or liberty by a breach of this Treaty afterwards you will range the opinion of the whole world for the first time on the side of Great Britain against Ireland, and I think if you realise that the opinion of the world had, at least, a deterrent effect upon England in the last fight—fight clean or don't fight at all. We desire, and I am sure in reality all the parties in this House desire, to walk if possible side by side with England in a real friendship. That, of course, would be the simplest and most honourable and pleasant path for us all. We don't want war with Britain either now or hereafter. We don't want war as an alternative to the Treaty as has been suggested ; but we want an alternative to this Treaty as an alternative to the inevitable war that will follow its acceptance. The Treaty or immediate war has been used to stampede the Irish people. I hold it was a dishonest threat. It was dishonest in its source from the beginning at Downing Street; but people here in Ireland, some of them at any rate, are using it honestly now. Now, in reference to the Treaty itself: we couldn't be too careful in examining the document which, I hold, is in effect, the assignment of the sovereign rights of Ireland to Britain. We owe it to Ireland to examine at least what in left for ourselves. Even the Republicans have a duty in that respect. If the Treaty is to be forced upon the people the Deputies ought to make it the best possible Treaty. Now, I was going to suggest a way out of this by which we can have some kind of unanimity. Since we have been told—since we know definitely what these Articles of Agreement are—only preparatory to the Treaty, I think that the Republican side of the House might possibly be induced to refrain from voting against the Treaty on one condition: and that is: that the acceptance should he given conditionally upon the Treaty being, in reality, what it has been pretended by Lloyd George to be, and what it has been represented as to the Irish people. They say that they give us the same liberty as Canada. Well, in a sense, Canada is completely free, because she is a daughter of the Empire; and she has complete internal freedom now. But I would like to know are the supporters of the Treaty prepared to make it a condition of their acceptance that Ireland shall have the same real freedom as Canada has now? That we shall have complete freedom; that, in fact, all legislative, Executive and judicial authority in Ireland shall spring from the Irish people? I think that possibly there might be a way out by which some people might not vote against the Treaty if they would put it forward in that conditional way. But I am greatly afraid that they won't do so. I don't say that Britain would necessarily accept it, but I think she might. However, that is only a suggestion put forward, because I hold that if Ireland is going to be plunged into this thing that she shall not be plunged any more deeply than is quite necessary. Now, as to the Constitution of Canada. I want to examine the Treaty as briefly as I can. We get the constitutional status of Canada. Now, that is a very different matter from the liberty of Canada. Under that status, as defined in the terms of the agreement, the British Parliament is supreme over the lives, the liberties and fortunes of every Irishman and Irishwoman; and no Irish Parliament that you can set up under the Free State can protect them. The authority of the British Privy Council is higher than the authority of your Government under these Articles of Agreement. That is not a very pleasant predicament. We know something of the doings of the Privy Council in the past. Why not insist, at any rate, before you put your names to these Articles of Agreement that you see the Treaty? Why not postpone the motion until you would have the Treaty put in front of you? We would know then where we were. You have not done so. About the Governor-General—we have heard nothing about him. I heard it suggested to-day that the Governor-General was to be called the Tanist of Tara as a concession to Irish sentiment because we are such a sentimental people. They brought back the flag—another concession to sentiment. They brought back the substance of the flag—not a shadow, not a symbol. They left the symbol behind in Downing Street
MR. MILROY:
You have great faith in her.
DR. FERRAN:
That is a different thing from leaving Britain in permanent control of our defences. I hold we have a right to absolute freedom to protect the people of the country—by our land defences at least. Then there is the question of taxation. I see that the Freeman's Journal said yesterday that the difference between the two—the Treaty and Document Two or Three—was that Document Two or Three did not provide for evacuation. Now I would like anyone to show me a single line in the Treaty that compels the British Government to withdraw a single soldier from this country. There is a promise read to the Dáil in answer—a reply on the day of the first sitting—by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the evacuation will begin within a month. But there was no talk of when it was ending. I suppose, as a matter of fact, it is wrong to quibble between the beginning and the end. But it makes a very important difference to the Irish people. It strikes me as one of the peculiar ironies of the situation that the Ulster constituencies are proposing
DR. WHITE:
I will be very brief. During the recess I went down to the country to my constituency. Some people there said: ‘You are taking a long time to discuss this matter.’ Others said: ‘You are quite right in taking a reasonable time in discussing this momentous question before coming to a final decision’: and with the latter I agree, only I would make a suggestion that perhaps it would have been better at the very beginning if there had been a time limit to the speeches of the various Deputies. However, as the cordon is about to fall, it does not matter much now. Recently we have heard a lot about Press tyranny, about the metropolitan Press, and one would imagine that the metropolitan Press of Ireland had only to print anything, under any head or any article, and that the article would be swallowed with avidity by the Irish public. Now I state that such is not a fact, and I state this:that no Irishman or Irishwoman will venture to tell me, I think, that during the last four or five years the Press of Ireland, the metropolitan Press, have been unanimously with our programme. In view of the fact that we have not had a daily Press—I know of only one provincial newspaper, the Waterford Press, that has been Sinn Fein, though there may be other daily newspapers—how can any man say that the country is being stampeded by the Irish Press? Now, as regards the public Boards I think that the public Boards have a perfect right to, express their opinions either for or against the ratification of this Treaty, because, if the public Boards do not speak, how are you going to get the opinions of the Irish people except, perhaps, by a plebiscite or a referendum? I am not in ecstacies over this Treaty; at the same time I consider that it deserves very careful consideration; and I go as far as to say that it deserves ratification. We have heard a lot about birds. We have, undoubtedly, a bird in the hand; the other day we had a bird in the bush but I don't see him there now. There is a third bird there now, I have not as yet, had a good look at him, hut if he is a good alternative to the ratification of this Treaty then I am willing to consider him. Now, we have heard a lot about accentuating feeling in this Dáil between the members, but I refuse to believe that there is any undue acrimony or bitterness here, and I go so far as to say that we are not in a state of strained relations. Now, the Treaty has been discussed over and over again, clause by clause, then word for word; and it is a very difficult thing to get any new ground to break. However, perhaps a very brief look to see what conditions we derive from this Treaty will not be out of place. I have, in Private Session, stated that I am voting for this Treaty and I state publicly here now that I am voting for it. If first we look at the financial arrangements, we get complete
MR. SEAMUS ROBINSON:
In my own plain, direct, if not too lucid way, I would like to fire a few shots at this Treaty—metaphorically speaking. To begin with, it seems to me that the Republic is at stake. Ratifiers should remember that we poor, benighted Republicans have not yet seen the light. They themselves did not see the light two months ago. If we lose our tempers a bit and think terrible things of them it should be charitably remembered that the ratifiers have changed, and it is their duty to listen patiently to us and then try to answer our questions. The Deputy for Clontarf, Deputy Mulcahy, sees no alternative. It is the Republic. The Republic is at stake and I don't care a rap whose reputation is torn up for bandages. This is the same man who often before declared to me that there was no danger of compromise. To my mind this compromise has been lurking in the ante camera of many a cerebrum for the past three years. It was conceived when the Volunteers were denied a general convention three years ago; it passed through the embryo form when the Volunteers began to be controlled solely from Dublin Headquarters; it became a chrysalis when Dublin H.Q. became a wage-earning business, when District H.Q. were set up by General H.Q. and paid to control men who fought the war, aye, and won it, without any appreciable assistance from Dublin Headquarters. One division in the South refused this money and they were told that it would be made a point of discipline if they did not accept. On the night prior to the Tuesday morning on which the Treaty was announced in the papers, the Chief of Staff laughed at me for again expressing to him and the Military Officer in Limerick, the fear that all these mysterious goings-on in London foreboded nothing but compromise—for truth and straight-dealing flourish in the light. Yes! Now we have got our beautiful compromise hatched out—just like all compromises, like the mule—it is barren. Our Chief Officer stated, and the Minister for Finance and others maintained, that the acceptance of this
In view of the false rumours that have been circulated about Dublin to the effect that we, the undersigned, have declared ourselves favourable to the acceptance of the proposed Treaty of Agreement between the Irish plenipotentiaries and those of Great Britain, we desire, first, to enter our emphatic protest against the use of our Division of the Army to influence public opinion and the opinion of members of Dáil Eireann in the direction favourable to the Treaty; and we desire, secondly, to state that we maintain unimpaired our allegiance to the Irish Republic and to it alone. The Divisions comprise the following Brigades: 1st Southern Division: Cork, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Brigade. Kerry, Nos. 1, 2, 3 Brigade; West Limerick Brigade; Waterford Brigade. Dublin Brigade. 3rd Southern Division: Tipperary No. 1 Brigade; Offaly No. 2 Brigade; Leix Brigade. Signed on behalf of the above mentioned Divisions and Brigades, Liam Lynch, O.C. 1st Southern Division; Ernán O Máille, O.C. 2nd Southern Division, Oscar Traynor, O.C. Dublin Brigade, Micheál MacCormaic, O.C. 3rd Southern Division.
DR. HAYES:
That does not speak for East Limerick and I don't know that it speaks for the other Divisional Commandants either.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I think it is scarcely right for any officers to be using the name of the army at all.
MR. SEAN MACGARRY:
It is done now.
MR. ROBINSON:
It may seem a terrible thing to do.
A DEPUTY:
Who signed for the Brigades?
MR. ROBINSON:
There is no signature.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I would ask that the army be allowed to keep its discipline.
MR. ROBINSON:
The army has always been regarded as the army pure and simple. I submit that it is not so. If we had no political outlook we would not be soldiers at all.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I know that they are citizen-soldiers. The point is that bringing them up as Brigades is not wise.
MR. ROBINSON:
I think the Volunteers have been very badly treated. The Volunteers demand a veto on the change of our country's constitution. We are not a national army in the ordinary sense; we are not a machine pure and simple; we have political views as soldiers. For the purpose of this veto I here demand a general convention of the Volunteers who are not True Volunteers. The Volunteers never gave up their right to a general convention—the Oath of Allegiance in this weak, in this changeable Dáil was not sanctioned by the general convention. If this convention is granted I, with I am sure all Volunteers, would refrain from certain terrible action that will be necessary if the Treaty is forced on us without our consent as an Army of Volunteers. There is no fear of the outcome of a renewal of war.
MR. MILROY:
Gambling again.
MR. ROBINSON:
Our war is not a war between two ordinary nations such as England and Germany; England had no German subjects. Our position is unique; we can, and will if necessary, strike the Empire where and how no other people could do it—except the Scotch and Welsh if they should so choose. The English ruling families know this well; one of their delegates declared our war to be a peculiar war—enough said! We are not a definite objective to the British, while they will always be a vulnerable objective to the Irish Empire, because one thousand effective shots and one thousand effective fires in Britain would ruin England for ever, while we could recover any damage in five years—we have no debt and no great factories, comparatively speaking, and their destruction would mean comparatively little to us. We could fight the English for three years—the English themselves could not fight us for longer than six months, especially if we took the fight up seriously in England as well as in Ireland and India and Egypt. Perhaps we will be told again and again that we would be exterminated. There will always be ten Irishmen who will even up matters some day, should it be ninety years hence. Dr. White says England would lose India and Egypt and England itself—every man—rather than lose Ireland. Does the doctor, does not every Irishman care as much about Ireland as the English do? Irishmen, are you working for your country? There are many people in the Dáil and in the country and all over the world, who can not understand big questions of such complication as this Treaty, and haven't time to form an opinion, and who, naturally, will form their opinion on, or rather take their opinion from, their pet hero. There are many thousand people enthusiastic supporters of the Treaty simply because Michael Collins is its mother—possibly Arthur Griffith would be called its father. Now, it is only natural and right that many people should follow almost blindly a great and good man. But suppose you know that such a man was not really such a great man; and that his reputation and great deeds of daring were in existence only on paper and in the imagination of people who read stories about him. If Michael Collins is the great man he is supposed to be, he has a right to influence people and people ought to be influenced by him. Now Dr. MacCartan said that he could understand many people saying: ‘What is good enough for Michael Collins is good enough for me.’ Arthur Griffith has called Collins ‘the man who won the war.’ the Press has called him the Commander-in-Chief of the I.R.A. He has been called ‘a great exponent of guerrilla warfare’ and the ‘elusive Mike’ and we have all read the story of the White Horse. There are stories going round Dublin of fights he had all over the city—the Custom House in particular. If Michael Collins was all that he has been called then I will admire him and respect his
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
On a point of order. Are we discussing Michael Collins or the Treaty?
A DEPUTY:
Or are we impeaching him?
MR. ROBINSON:
The weak man who signed certainly exists and just as certainly therefore, I believe the reported Michael Collins did not ever exist. If Michael Collins who signed the Treaty ever did the wonderful things reported of him then I'm another fool. But before I finally admit myself a fool I want some authoritative statement. I want, and I think it all important that the Dáil, the country, aye, and the world, got authoritative answers to the following questions: (a) What positions exactly did Michael Collins hold in the army? (b) Did he ever take part in any armed conflict in which he fought by shooting; the number of such battles or fights; in fact, is there any authoritative record of his having ever fired a shot for Ireland at an enemy of Ireland?
MR. GAVAN DUFFY:
Is this in order?
THE SPEAKER:
I don't want to interrupt but I think it is as near not discussing the Treaty as possible.
MR. ROBINSON:
Now, so far as I know, Michael Collins came over from London as I came from Glasgow to avoid conscription.
MR. BLYTHE:
That's not true.
MR. ROBINSON:
and to fight for Ireland instead of for England, and if Michael Collins says—and he has said it here—that the fight that we have been raging for two-and-a-half years is an impossible war, well it gives me furiously to think—bluff, coercion, duress, treachery and the lot. Somebody used the word ‘impeach’—well, that is true. Delegates are in the dock to some extent at least; they have done something that at first sight, at least, appears to be—well, treason. I maintain that they have been guilty of the act of high treason and betrayal; I believe they were guilty deliberately but not maliciously. In fairness to themselves they must clear themselves for they will be judged through all the coming years. I'll try to confine myself to facts and obvious points mostly. I will try to draw a few fair inferences: (1) Remember Lloyd George is a past master in political stage craft. (2) Remember Wilson and the London atmosphere. (3) Remember Arthur Griffith could hardly be bluffed nor Michael Collins. Arthur Griffith is a match for Lloyd George and Lloyd George is a match for Arthur Griffith. (4) Remember when these two men came together it is possible that they both soon realised that if they fought neither would win; and they realised also that there might be a way in which they could both win a victory over their respective Cabinets. (5) There is clear proof that two delegates signed under duress and that two delegates and one say that there was no duress. (6) Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins declared they really did not sign under duress though they speak of the time limit and the threat of terrible and immediate war. By the way, let us take Arthur Griffith and Michael Collins at their word and believe they were not forced to sign, then they must have done this with, shall I say, malice afore thought; and must have sided by their signatures and demeanour to bluff and stampede the rest of the delegation into signing too—that is how the matter strikes me, anyhow. Arthur Griffith declares he would not break on the Crown. I suggest Lloyd George knew this, too; and our Cabinet knew it; and in order to safeguard themselves and the Republic they gave the delegates instructions not to sign any final draft before submitting it to the Cabinet. Remember that Lloyd George probably knew—must have known—that the Republican Government would have rejected the Treaty as it stands had it come unsigned. Remember Arthur Griffith would not like to lose the child of former dreams of his life's labour, more especially when,
MR. GEAROID O'SULLIVAN:
I rise to support the motion for the ratification of this Treaty, and I, too, will attempt a record in brevity. There are three reasons why I am inclined to support the Treaty. The first is its own intrinsic value. I don't believe that the acceptance of this Treaty by the people of Ireland is dishonourable. I don't believe that when I recommend to the people of Ireland that they should accept it that I am guilty of any act of national apostacy. We have heard a good deal during the past few weeks of seven hundred and fifty years' fight with England. That fight I take to be a fight of the Gaelic State against the foreign sovereignty which was being forced upon it by England. That fight was not always a fight for an isolated Republic or an isolated monarchy. In fact one of the hardest fights in Irish history was made against that great Republican, Oliver Cromwell. It was, as I say, an attempt, an effort of Gaelic Ireland to assert its own right to live in its own way. Now, that sovereignty was not beaten; it was not defeated; the Gaelic sovereignty is not yet defeated and never will be defeated; it will not be defeated by the exponents of this Treaty. I hold that it will be advanced and strengthened, not by the Treaty itself, but by the amount of freedom and liberty which the Irish race has got to work out that
THE SPEAKER:
We would do it in three months' time if we started on it.
MR. O'SULLIVAN:
We will start on it when the Treaty is ratified, [a Chinn Chomhairle]. All our thoughts have been controlled have been directed by the English outlook, by the English language, by the English sovereignty. The same can be said, not only for our language, but for our music, and games, and Irish life. That is the first reason I give for supporting the Treaty. The second reason is that those who advocate its rejection have not, in my opinion, given me any reason why I should conscientiously vote for its rejection. The Minister for Labour, I think, objected to our association with England because England oppresses Egypt and India. I have already said that there are many Irishmen at present oppressing India; and if Ireland accepts this Treaty the opinion of the Irish people on British rule in India and in Egypt will be expressed—not as it is expressed at present by Ireland shooting down those people but by the representatives of the Irish people speaking at the Councils of the League of Nations or at the Imperial Conference of either the British Empire or the Commonwealth of Nations, which ever they have decided to call it; and, furthermore, the world would have the advantage of what, at least, is left of the mellow influence of the Irish outlook, in having a representative of Ireland on the League of Nations. I would ask the assembly to remember that England is not the only Empire that oppresses small nations, though I believe
MR. P. O'KEEFFE:
I propose that we adjourn until eight-fifteen p.m. and that we then continue the debate until eleven o'clock to-night—what I would compare this debate to is an old woman's wrangle on the Coal Quay of Cork—and that we take a vote to-morrow at four o'clock. Now, the Irish people are just sick of us talking about this thing and I think and tell you that I know the people of Ireland better than any man or woman in this assembly—you can laugh at me if you like, but I have Irish aspirations and Irish blood in my veins and I know the people of Ireland as well as any man or woman in this country—and I say that we ought to take this vote to-morrow evening at four or five o'clock and get finished with it; and I say that we ought to adjourn now until eight o'clock. I move that.
DR. WHITE:
I second it.
MR. J. MACGRATH:
There was a definite arrangement made that the Whips would conduct this business; and the chiefs on both sides don't want to go on until eleven o'clock. We can adjourn at seven and start at eleven o'clock in the morning.
MR. P. O'KEEFFE:
I am only a back-bencher, a plain member, but if I am I am sent here as well as anybody else. [(Cries of ‘Order!’]
MR. MACGRATH:
We can adjourn at seven and go on in the morning.
MR. P. O'KEEFFE:
I tell you that the back-benchers have been too long silent; and if we spoke out in June 1920 we would be better off to-day. I am speaking and the member for St. James' has interrupted me and I won't be interrupted and I won't sit down. I am on the rock and I won't get off the rock.
THE SPEAKER:
I told the Deputy he is out of order. I call on the next speaker.
MR. CARTER:
I second the motion put forward by Deputy O'Keeffe that we adjourn until eight o'clock and go on then till eleven.
The motion was subsequently rejected.
MR. THOMAS DERRIG:
A Chinn Chomhairle, is mian liom cúpla focal a rá i d-taobh na ceiste seo. I have great respect for the wishes of Deputy O'Keeffe and I don't want to delay the debate in any way. My views on this subject are homely. The situation is so important that I think it is right for every Deputy to give his views. I cannot vote for this Treaty because the unity of Ireland is not secured, and I can't see any prospect in the future that we can get Ulster in. In the second place, I feel, while it is absolutely necessary that we should take a step forward in the direction of securing control of the government, that we might also take a step backward; and I feel that in accepting
We have a ways told our people that in any settlement we would make a claim for over-taxation. I understand, however, from some Deputies who support the Treaty that we are going to make a claim for two billion pounds. Well, the arbitrator will not consider that claim and there is nothing in the Treaty to show that he will consider any claim at all. The economies effected by the change of Government will completely disappear in paying the interest on the sinking fund created in the country. After all economies haveWhen these and other facts are taken into account it will be found that the Irish alleged over-taxation not only does not exist but that a heavy debt is due from Ireland to Great Britain for subsidies paid out of the common exchequer for purely Irish purposes such as, for example, Land Purchase, Harbour Developments, Light Railways and so on. For several years during the present century Ireland's contribution to Imperial expenditure has been a minus quantity. Ireland has received the full naval, military and economic advantages of her union with Great Britain and has, during these years, received these benefits entirely at the cost of the tax-payers of Great Britain, in addition to a contribution from them to her domestic expenditure. By all means let us strike a fair financial bargain with the Irish Free State, but the first step towards the attainment of equity is to get rid of the baseless legend of Irish over-taxation.
ALDERMAN MICHAEL STAINES:
Since the fourteenth December I have listened to lectures, sermons and speeches. Well, I won't lecture you, I won't preach; I will just say a few words. I will be brief for two reasons. The first is that I don't want to import any bitterness into this discussion; I want to have the DáiI and the country united if possible, if they are not united I sincerely hope that no word or action of mine will be responsible for disunion. The second reason is that there are two thousand Irishmen in Irish and English jails; they have got to stop there while we are talking and repeating the same things over and over again; there are forty-one of these men in jails in this Republic of Ireland under sentence of death. I don't want, and I am sure these prisoners don't want me to bring up their case here in order that it would decide the vote one way or another; I am speaking for myself; but anyway for their sakes I think we ought to hurry up and finish this debate. I am declaring for the approval of the Treaty between Ireland and Great Britain; and in doing so I do it in accordance with the dictates of my own conscience; in accordance with the wishes of the majority of my constituents; and in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland. My
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
If that could be proved——
ALDERMAN STAINES:
President de Valera will understand me, he will admit that I don't want to say anything to hurt his feelings or the feelings of anyone in this House; we know each other a good many years; we have been always good friends, and I hope we will remain good friends to the end.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Show where the document is inconsistent with the Republic.
ALDERMAN STAINES:
First, as to your leaving the British Navy in possession of some ports.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
For five years.
MR. COLIVET:
In discussing the Treaty we can't keep to it.
ALDERMAN STAINES:
At any rate what we have to do now is to decide what is best for the country. This Treaty is before us; certain members want to turn it down; and what is the alternative they offer? According to the President he is going to stand for a Republic; he has admitted that a mighty army and a navy can't get us the Republic. How is it going to be done then? Is it by political action or by negotiations? Well, supposing the President goes to Downing Street and takes four or five plenipotentiaries with him and asks the British Cabinet to give us a Republic, what will happen? The negotiations will go on as they did before; perhaps they may refuse to negotiate, but suppose they do, will the President bring back the Republic? He will not. I say the only chance Ireland has to act her freedom is to take this Treaty. This Treaty gives us a political weapon, and, backed by the military and other resources, it is a weapon that, in the hands of the Irish people, will get more freedom for them than a mighty army or navy can ever do. One Deputy said that the Canadian form of Government is not liberty; several Deputies said, in effect, that they did not give a fig for self-determination; well, I will have to quote the President again. I am quoting from the Irish Press of Philadelphia of December 3rd. In a message to the Canadian Convention President de Valera sent the following through Mr. Harry Boland:
Still Deputies here don't give three straws about self-determination. We heard from the last Deputy a good deal about the financial clauses of the Treaty; well, I would remind this House that the same financial clauses are in the President's document. Consequently whateverPresident de Valera sends greetings to the National Convention. He is certain that the people of Canada, who so much appreciate their own liberty, will support the people of Ireland in their resolve to face extermination rather than abandon the right of freely choosing the path they shall take to realise their destiny [prolonged applause]. Ireland's freedom cannot menace the freedom of any nation, but as the principle of national self-determination is admittedly just, its denial will never be acquiesced in [applause]. And in the case of Ireland the denial is a menace to the peace of the world.
THE PRESIDENT:
Hear, hear. That is right.
ALDERMAN STAINES:
We have heard from the legal gentlemen of the assembly.
A DEPUTY:
And illegal [laughter].
ALDERMAN STAINES:
Well, we heard from them several speeches on law and on international law, constitutional law and common law. Well, as an ordinary common man, the only law I was ever up against and made feel in this country—the law that every Irishman has been made feel—was the law of force and the law of might, constitutional law did not matter; international law did not matter; the thing that is going to matter is that the country is going to get the evacuation by the British Army and your own army is to be put in its stead. It depends on the Irish people then what class of freedom they will have; they can have whatever class of freedom they can make for themselves. I will vote for this Treaty because it stands for Irish freedom against English oppression and Irish sovereignty against English slavery.
MR. EAMONN AYLWARD:
I was elected by the people of South Kilkenny; and the people who elected me know what views I had because at that time I was fighting for the realisation of those views. I was elected a Republican to uphold the Republic of Ireland, and I shall do that to the best of my ability. Should my constituents change their mind then they can remove me at the next election and put in a politician; but they cannot change my personal opinion or my principles. Those Deputies who are supporting the Treaty, and some of the plenipotentiaries even, say they have not compromised any principles; if they had not compromised their principles it must be because they had no Republican principles to compromise; if their willingness to become British subjects with a British Governor-General to look after them, and to take their allegiance to the British Government and all that—if that is not compromise I don't know what compromise is. Not only do they become British subjects but they take an oath to a British King. I shall read an extract from a leading article written by the Chairman of the Delegation in June, 19l7; it may throw some light upon the present case:
[applause]. Well, the Chairman of the Delegation is trying to put the whole lot of us into a fool's paradise now. If I had come up here to this assembly undecided as to what course I should take, the very tactics adhered to by the other side would make me vote against the Treaty. Deputies have tried to misinterpret in every possible way the issue before us; they say the result of the non-ratification of this instrument is war—terrible and immediate war. I would like to know who endowed these men with the gift of prophecy? They say that the difference between this Treaty and the President's proposals is only a shadow. They can't have it both ways. Will Lloyd George go to war for a shadow? The Deputy who first introduced this so-called alternative oath in Public Session gave the impression to the public that this oath was contained in the President's alternative proposals; and that Deputy knew absolutely and perfectly well that there was no oath contained in the alternative proposals.‘The Home Rule Act 1914,’ exposed by Mr. William Martin Murphy is a clear and trenchant exposure of that fraud upon a people. Mr. Murphy would settle the Irish question in the same way as the Canadian, South African and Australian questions were settled. This assumes that the element of nationality and the status of nationhood do not enter into the Irish question. Australia, for instance, possessed no rights except those it derived from England. England founded it, England fostered it, and England possessed the undoubted right to rule it. Ireland does not derive from England. She is not a colony. She has never been a colony. She can claim no colonial rights such as Australia, Canada and South Allies assert. If she be not a nation then she has no more title to independence of English Government than Kent or Middlesex or Lancashire or Yorkshire. If there be English politicians who really believe that they can settle the Irish question on colonial or semi-colonial lines they live in a fool's paradise. The first step to a permanent Irish settlement is the recognition of the Irish nation.
MR. LYNCH:
It is implied in paragraph six.
MR. AYLWARD:
Again it has been put forward that we all let down the Republic. I absolutely deny that. I did not take it that the Republic had been let down at any time until I saw the terms of the Treaty in the public Press, and then I knew it had been let down by the delegates at least. These men who say that the Republic was let down as soon as the Truce was proclaimed, and who seem so bitter about it now, had a right to protest against it then. If they thought it was being let down they were more to blame than anybody else. But the Republican ideal has not died, nor will it die, even though there be but fifty men left in Ireland to carry it on. Such misrepresentations as these would, I say, be almost sufficient of themselves to make me vote against the Treaty, because it is a weak thing which requires misrepresentations to keep it on its legs. Again I say I was elected because I was a Republican soldier and I will remain a Republican and I will vote against that Treaty.
ALDERMAN CORISH:
A Chinn Chomhairle, agus a mhuintir na Dála, I rise to speak in support of this Treaty, not because it is entirely in accordance with the views I held and expressed up to this, but because I think it is the best thing for my country at the moment; and because the people of my constituency want me to vote for it, and I think it would be a bad state of affairs in this country if the representatives of the people were deliberately to flout the people's wishes [hear, hear]. It would be an end, once and for all, to representative government. Now, there has been much said about the plenipotentiaries sent to London, they have been placed in the dock in this assembly from the beginning of the Session. Now, they were in close touch with the Cabinet from the moment they went to London until they brought back this Treaty, and if they were going wrong they surely went wrong before the fifth or sixth of December; and it must have been patent to everybody that they were going wrong—if they were going wrong; and I hold that if things were not going better, or as they should go according to the views of the people on the Cabinet, that Dáil Eireann is entitled to regard all the views of the Cabinet—that Dáil Eireann is entitled to regard what they did as the views of the people of the Cabinet. I hold that it is the Cabinet that is to blame—the Cabinet that was left behind in Dublin that is to blame for the state of affairs that exists to-day [hear, hear]. Now, a lot has been said about the mandate given by the people for the Republic. To my mind the part the Republic played in the December elections of 1918 was small. I took a man's part on behalf of Doctor Ryan here, in the South Wexford Election in 1918, and, so far as I could see, that time the principle plank in the platform of Sinn Fein was to get shut of the Irish Party—nothing more or less—in May of last year Dáil Eireann declared its independence—it was declared already in January, 1919— but in May of last year our President issued a manifesto asking the people to take part in the elections on behalf of the Republic. Now, everybody might not have seen eye to eye with that document at that moment; but it would have been an injudicious thing to question the President's action because of the presence in our midst of our enemies, the Black-and-Tans. So I think it should not he rigidly adhered to that the people of Ireland have given a straight mandate for the Republic [hear, hear]. Now, I think it was the second last speaker on the other side who talked of Egypt and India: and he said if we were to associate with the British Empire that we would be responsible for the crushing of the Indians and Egyptians. Now I hold that under the present state of affairs we are far more responsible; because we are sending the Connaught Rangers, the Munster Fusiliers, the Dublin Fusiliers, the Leinsters and other Irish regiments into India and Egypt year after year to crush these peoples; and we are doing this under the Republican Government. Now, if we are not able to stop that are we functioning as a Government? I hold that we are not; and I believe, as I said before, that the proper thing, at the moment, for this Dáil to do is to accept the Treaty. [Cheers]. Now the last speaker has spoken of the oath; he said it was not in Document No. 2. I know that the oath was not in Document No. 2, but we have it in another record. The oath was mentioned at a Cabinet meeting and
The House adjourned at 7 p.m. until Saturday morning
Dáil Eireann resumed its Public Session at 11.20 a.m. on Saturday, 7th January, 1922, THE SPEAKER (DR. MACNEILL) in the Chair.
DR. FERRAN:
In the personal explanation which I made last night I believe I left the Dáil in doubt as to my intention. I will now clear it up by saying that at the time which reference was made I was engaged in recruiting but it was not for the British Army.
THE SPEAKER:
The following Notice of motion has been received:—Notice of Motion by Eoin Mac Neill, Deputy for the National University of Ireland and for Derry City and County: To move that ‘Dáil Eireann affirms that Ireland is a sovereign nation deriving its sovereignty in all respects from the will of the people of Ireland; that all the international relations of Ireland are governed on the part of Ireland by this sovereign status; and that all facilities and accommodations accorded by Ireland to another state or country are subject to the right of the Irish Government to take care that the liberty and well-being of the people of Ireland are not endangered.’
MR. GAVAN DUFFY:
Is that an amendment?
THE SPEAKER:
No.
MR. MILROY:
Might I suggest that that be handed to the Deputies?
MR. HARRY BOLAND:
I rise to speak against this Treaty because, in my opinion, it denies a recognition of the Irish nation. I said yesterday, and I repeat here, that this Treaty is not one for the consideration of Dáil Eireann, and not one for approval by Dáil Eireann, but by the Southern Parliament according to Article 18. I object to it on the ground of principle, and my chief objection is because I am asked to surrender the title of Irishman and accept the title of West Briton. I object because this Treaty denies the sovereignty of the Irish nation, and I stand by the principles I have always held—that the Irish people are by right a free people. I object to this Treaty because it is the very negation of all that for which we have fought. It is the first time in the history of our country that a body of representative Irishmen has ever suggested that the sovereignty of this nation should be signed away. We went before the people of Ireland on a clear-cut, definite issue. We protested against the men who spoke for the Irish people, and we said that if elected—in 1918—we would set up in Dublin, the capital of the Irish nation, a Parliament that we selected for our political ideal, and a Republic, and we said that if elected we would re-affirm the independence of Ireland and seek international recognition for that. When I went before the people of Roscommon I was in earnest when I said that I stood for an Irish Republic. Since I have returned I have received scores of letters from friends and constituents—men urging me in the interests of Ireland and of the people of Roscommon to vote for this Treaty. I had a letter yesterday from a reverend clergyman asking me to cast my vote for this Treaty, and this man gave me great support when I was going through Roscommon seeking the suffrages of the people. On one occasion, at a public meeting, this clergyman said: ‘Vote for Harry Boland and the Irish Republic and you will get a good Home Rule Bill.’ And I got up immediately
MR. MILROY:
Which oath are you talking of?
MR. HARRY BOLAND:
The oath that you are asked to sign in the Treaty. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the American people for the magnificent support they have given us in the struggle; and I am doing this because in this House a few weeks ago a statement was made by my friend the Minister of Finance which places us in a very embarrassing position in America-
MR. M. COLLINS:
And which every true American appreciates.
MR. H. BOLAND:
We were sent back to America to strengthen the hands of the Irish plenipotentiaries in London; we were sent back to carry on a propaganda to demonstrate to Great Britain that should this fight be renewed we were prepared to carry on; we were sent back to float a Bond Loan of the Irish Republic; and we, knowing that negotiations were going on, decided that this Bond Loan should not be floated in a national campaign, but should be confined to two states. We selected the
MR. M. COLLINS:
Now you're talking.
MR. BOLAND:
But they were offered, and they came, and they fought. Just as President de Valera got back to Ireland, these men got back, and many of them did get back and they fought. I am only saying this, not in any way of finding fault with my comrades on the other side, but simply to thank the American people for the support they gave to us in the struggle. The cablegram that my friend Michael Collins took such exception to was suggested by me to strengthen his hands, four days before the Treaty was signed. I would be false to the position I hold from Dáil Eireann if I did not say that the great public opinion of America is on the side of this Treaty. I would be false to my position as a representative of the Government if I didn't fearlessly state that here—that, just as it seems the Press of Ireland has adopted a unanimous attitude in favour of this Treaty, so too did the American Press adopt that attitude. The people who subscribed the money to enable us to carry on look upon this as a betrayal; and it was only out of love for Ireland that an order of restraint was not taken out against us—an injunction against our raising money in the name of the Irish Republic. I know something of the situation in India and Egypt from the men who hold the same position in America for India and Egypt that I hold for Ireland; and while I am casting my vote prepared for war, so far as I am concerned I am convinced that there can be no war in Ireland. Allenby requires ninety thousand men in Egypt; India is in flames; and we are called in to buttress up the British Empire, not with the Connaught Rangers this time, forced by hard economic circumstances to join up to earn a living, but by virtue of our common citizenship [hear, hear]. I don't want to detain this House. I stand to-day exactly where I have always stood. I want to ask a question of my friend opposite. Is this, in your opinion, a final settlement of the question between England and Ireland?
MR. M. COLLINS:
It is not.
MR. BOLAND:
It is not. Well then we are asked to sign a Treaty. What was it that made the fight in Ireland possible ? The sanctity of Treaties—the invasion of Belgium that gave a great moral cry to the world that freedom was being outraged, and the whole world flew to the side of the Allies. Some of the best blood in Ireland fought with Great Britain in that war because Belgium had been outraged and her Treaty violated. You have the statement that the allied powers gave to the world—the moral cry which rallied all right-thinking people everywhere on the side of Belgium. If this is not a final settlement we have lost the good opinion of the world on the day we sign the Treaty with a mental reservation that it is not a final settlement. I have taken one oath to the Republic and I will keep it. If I voted for that document I would work the Treaty, and I would keep my solemn word and treat as a rebel any man who would rise out against it. If I could in conscience vote for that Treaty I would do so, and if I did I would do all in my power to enforce that Treaty; because, so sure as the honour of this nation is committed by its signature to this Treaty, so surely is Ireland dead. We are asked to commit suicide and I cannot
MR. JOSEPH MACGRATH:
I am going to give a lead for the remainder of the day, if I can, with regard to making a short statement. I want to state at
MR. BOLAND:
You mean a down and outer.
MR. MACGRATH:
I am not a Republican of a latter day, neither am I a Republican since I was four years old; but I am one for the past fifteen years, when Republicanism was very low in Ireland; when some others on the other side along with me in the Dublin streets had to run from the population for attempting to do what we thought fit, in our own way, to try and bring about the Republican movement. I have been consistent all along, and I hope to prove by the few words I have to say that in taking the action I am taking to-day in supporting this Treaty I am still consistent. I was consistent when, as I said before, in the very early days I went into the homes of all classes and asked them to support the candidates that we put forward that time as Sinn Feiners, candidates who were known to be the ‘Kings, Lords, and Commons,’ men; and I remember well in the slum areas meeting some of the poorer classes the constituency which I represent is full of them I remember meeting people of the working class type and after trying to convince those people that we were on the right track I had a man—I should say a hungry man—saying to me: ‘Oh, you are the same as the others. If you people get into power the workers will be just the same.’ I thought then—and I told them so—that, as far as I and those with me could do it, the worker would be put on the level that I think he should he put on. Now one thing that struck me when I came out of prison—and I suppose only because I was in at the time I would not be elected a member of the Dáil—was the democratic programme of An Dáil. It is stuck there all the time. I won't read it for you—it is too long, and I want to keep to my word of making a brief statement—but there is one passage I will read for you, just this one item in the programme:
There you have it—our first duty. Now we come to the Republic that has been established; and I worked for and fought for that Republic. It is held here that a Republic was established in 1919; now, I did my best that week too, though I knew well when going out that we were not going to get a Republic as the result. I knew that thoroughly well. I am five years older to-day than I ever expected to be; I thought I was going out to go down, but if I did, I knew what I was doing; I went out to wake up the Irish people—as the men who died that week did. The Republic is established! Now the Republic that I visualised has not yet been established. I will tell you why. It takes a little more than a number of meetings of men and women—having been put there, not as Republicans, mind you—it takes a little more than their meeting and passing resolutions and stating the Republic is established. It is held by the people on the other side that the Republic was established in 1919, and we will take that year, when we were being left alone and allowed to meet in public. If that is the Republic they have worked and fought for it certainly is not the Republic I have worked and fought for. What powers has that Republic? Could they or have they yet carried out their first duty. Have they done so? Are they able to? I will tell you in the very plain words of the President's own statement—I am going to quote from the Dáil Eireann Parliament meeting in 1919. A question was asked by one of the first citizens of Dublin, Alderman Tom Kelly, who, I am very sorry to say, is not in a fit state of health as the result of the treatment he received, and is not able to attend—Alderman Tom Kelly, by the way, wants to vote for this Treaty; I have a letter from him in my pocket—well, at this Dáil meeting in 1919 we find Alderman Kelly, who always looked after the workers, particularly after the poor classes in Dublin, asking forIt shall be the first duty of the Government of the Republic to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the children; to secure that no child shall suffer from hunger, cold, lack of clothing or shelter, but that they shall be provided with the means and facilities requisite for their proper education and training as citizens of a free and Gaelic Ireland.
He goes on to talk about Ireland's prosperity years ago President de Valera's reply wasA statement from President de Valera regarding the social policy of the Ministry. In the Democratic Programme outlined at the first meeting of the Dáil it was stated that it would be
the first duty of the Government of the Republic to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the children, to abolish the present Poor Law System; and to take such measures as would safeguard the health of the people. He felt that if they separated after that Public Session without making some reference to what their Ministry deemed to be the right duty in connection with the social life of the people, that they would have done a wrong. Let them take the city of Dublin and see how its condition had been impoverished and demoralised from the time that the rapacity of British Imperialism became the creed immediately after what was known in history as Nelson's victories.
That is quite correct. Under this Treaty, which I don't hold is all we fought and worked for—I am using ‘fought’ too often, but I didn't mean to use it—under this Treaty every single thing in this Democratic Programme can be put into force, and the democrats in this assembly know that well. Not one of those on the other side have referred to this matter. They have taken up their arguments against the Treaty, and not a single one of them has said that there is any one clause in the Treaty that is good for Ireland. Not a head of a department that has spoken has pointed out what could be done through their department under this Treaty. It strikes me that they are all very well disciplined; not a single one of them would say it. If they are against the Treaty they might point out some thing that they object to; but they could, at least, say it is good in some points—they could say to the plenipotentiaries: ‘At least you have done well in some way or another’. As I said before, and as Deputy Mrs. O'Callaghan said on the other side, it is perfectly clear that they are well disciplined. With regard to the alternative proposals—if that document were no one that had already been turned down by the people on the English side, or if it did not contain clauses that had already been turned down; or if it were here before us now signed by the plenipotentiaries on both sides and we were taking a vote on it—my position would be this: as one who took an oath fifteen years ago to establish an Irish Republic, I would have to get up and say exactly what I am saying about the Treaty. My friends on the other side know that very well, and that document that was put before us the other day does not bring us any of the things mentioned. It does not help to release them from the oath that they took along with me; let them be straight on it; let them get up and say so; but no, anything at all to beat the Treaty. Now, this is what I see wrong with that document: ‘That when acting as an associate the rights, status and privileges of Ireland shall be in no respect less than those enjoyed by any of the component States of the British Commonwealth’, and ‘that for the purpose of the association Ireland shall recognise His Brittanic Majesty as Head of the association’.that it was quite clear that the Democratic Programme, as adopted by the Dáil, contemplated a situation somewhat different from that in which they actually found themselves. They had the occupation of the foreigner in their country and while that state of affairs existed, they could not put fully into force their desires and their wishes as far as their social programme was concerned.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Again I ask you is it fair to have that document discussed in detail when I have been prevented from bringing forward that document and explaining it as an alternative?
MR. MCGRATH:
I am not discussing it. I am only giving my reason why I would have as much objection to that document as to the Treaty.
MISS MACSWINEY:
The oath is not in the document.
MR. MACGRATH:
It is there in the document. Now, I am swallowing a bitter pill in having to vote for this Treaty; as I said before it is not what I want. I have had to swallow bitter pills before; I will tell you things I had to do in my life; perhaps some of you had to do similar things. This matter I speak of now happened when the President was in jail. I was asked one night at twelve o'clock by two men who came to my house—this is not a personal matter—the two men asked me would I go and help in an election that was taking place at the time. I asked them what was the intention of the man who was going up. They said that they could not tell me and I
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Short of the isolated Republic.
MR. MACGRATH:
Something short of a Republic: that was what he was going back for, and now he comes home to talk of sovereign status and giving away. When I saw the President's first statement regarding the Treaty—I was in London at the time—the very first thing I said was: ‘My God, what a position Harry Boland must find himself in presently in America’. He told me, before we handed the document to Lloyd George, that he was going to America to prepare the people for something less than a Republic—I am deliberately not using the word ‘compromise.’ Well, consequently it surprised me to see Harry Boland's telegram stating that he was against the Treaty. I won't say what happened in the meantime.
DR. MACCARTAN:
He had another statement in America.
MR. HARRY BOLAND:
Will I be allowed to explain about it?
MR. MACGRATH:
I am not charging you with the first one at all; what I know about the first one is that the dope had not reached there at the time. There has been of late a cry here regarding the people: ‘If the people have changed I have not!’ reminds me of a very similar cry a few years ago, that was exactly the swan song of the Irish Parliamentary Party when we had not an opportunity of turning them out; at meetings of their constituents they used to say: ‘If the people have changed, we have not’, when they knew that the people had changed from their old ideas. The swan song of the Parliamentary Party of those days that ‘If the people have changed we have not’, is now the swan song of the people on the other side to-day. One of the Deputies said here a few days ago that we were helping the British Government to send troops to India and Egypt; and that has been referred to in another way to-day. Such a statement, as I understand it, implies that we should sacrifice Ireland to save India and Egypt [hear, hear]. Now, in conclusion, I would like to ask does that mean that, should a Republic be offered to you—an isolated Republic—does it mean that you would stop the British troops from leaving this country lest they should be sent to India and Egypt? [Applause].
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
There is something I cannot let pass because it is against the interests of the nation, apart from anything else; that is the suggestion that has been made with reference to Mr. Boland's instructions from me. Everyone knows that at the first meeting of the Cabinet and Ministry that I
COUNT O'BYRNE :
I should not have wearied the Dáil by taking part in this debate, but the matters at issue are so vital that I do feel in duty bound to state exactly my reasons why I cannot accept the Treaty. I will do so in as few words as possible and I hope for the indulgence of this Dáil if I should merely strike a personal note in stating these reasons. I have not the temerity to say that anything I should say would influence in the slightest way any Deputy here, nor do I intend to criticise the actions of those who support the Treaty honestly, on the grounds that it is a stepping stone to freedom. That may be so; time will tell. For my part I feel some day they will have a very rude awakening; to my mind, when you get on that stepping stone you must drop fundamental principles; I cannot follow them, never more so than when that involves the sovereign independence of my country. The last speaker complimented those who were against the Treaty on the ground of their discipline, for he said that apparently none of them would admit there was anything good in this Treaty. Well, I for my part, follow no Party and no man; I follow my own conscience, and in this ease, even if it be a breach of discipline, I will admit there are good things in this Treaty and plenty of good things; but are we to accept these good things at the risk of our own principles? I say we are not. Now, the point I go on is this: that by the first clause of the Treaty we give away the, right of sovereign independence; and we accept dominion status. I, for my part, always hated politics; in fact I shunned public life. It was a maxim of mine that if you once entered polities that, sooner or later, you would have to swallow your own principles. In 1920 I was drawn into it because I was for a mandate to secure a free and independent Ireland: I gladly accepted it. Had I been told that it implied compromise I would have positively declined to go forward, and I would have left the task to others. Subsequently in the Dáil, I took a solemn Oath of Allegiance in accordance with this mandate, and without any mental reservations. Am I now to be asked to break what I hold to be the most sacred oath, and that on the ground of expediency? I could never do so; with me it's a matter of conscience. Were I to vote for this Treaty it would be a cowardly act, done merely through fear of incurring public disfavour, while all the time in my heart I would feel I would have been wrong, and would have a sense of shame. I may be an idealist perhaps I am super-sensitive; but I claim now—well, I claim to be honourable. Were I to act in that way I feel that I would be false to my conscience; that I would be false to the dead. I would be false to my country as I would be giving away the birth-right of the whole Irish nation. Under these circumstances I feel that I cannot possibly vote for the Treaty.
MR. P. BRENNAN:
I shall not say much because everything I wanted to say has been said by either one side or the other. I might have said it better, but that does not matter [laughter]. I support the Treaty for what it is; not for more than it is, and certainly not for less. This Treaty gives us freedom to achieve the ultimate liberty for which we all aim. That is enough for me. There are a few other things I want to speak about. Doctor English of Galway made certain insinuations against the Volunteers; she asked whether the Irish Volunteers would hold Ireland for the British Empire. Now, that is an insult to the Volunteers, who brought Ireland to its present position. The Volunteers will hold Ireland for the Irish people. Deputy Brian O'Higgins stated that he went down to Clare on Christmas Eve and came back with his mind unchanged;
MR. B. O'HIGGINS:
West Clare.
MR. BRENNAN:
Yes, right-o. I know all Clare, every bog and mountain; I don't know those wonderful heroes whom Deputy Brian O'Higgins met. I would like to know who they are? Is the Most Reverend Doctor Fogarty a representative of the worst influence in Clare? Is the Chairman of the Clare County Council a representative of the worst influence in Clare? Well, if they are they are the devil's children, for they have the devil's luck to be alive to-day both the Most Reverend Doctor Fogarty and the Chairman of the County Council. It has been stated that the farmers have no right to express their opinion on the matters before the House. I am myself a member of the Irish Clerical Workers' Union therefore I am a Trades Unionist. I don't speak here for any particular class, but the farmers of Ireland, of Clare, anyway, were never asked in vain by the army or the civil organisation of Sinn Fein for any assistance, which they did not give, in money and in men to the fight—they were never backward; these people have every right to express their opinions. I, too, have old memories of the Minister of Finance, I knew him twelve years ago in London, when he was an unknown, a silent worker; I knew him up to the day when he came back to Dublin, and he did not come back to avoid conscription; but he came back to take a man's part in the Rising—and he did take a man's part—and if Seán MacDiarmuda was alive to-day he would tell you why Michael Collins and the rest of us came from London to Ireland. I don't suppose the old Michael Collins has changed, I think he is the same Michael Collins, and I think he has only one aim and that is to achieve Ireland's independence [applause].
DR. JAMES RYAN:
I beg to agree with the speaker on the other side, Deputy O'Duffy; I don't believe that our side has a monopoly of patriotism; I believe there is patriotism on the other side also. It is, as the President has said, a difference in fundamentals, a difference in what both parties believe to be right. The reason why I want to vote against the Treaty—the big reason—is because in voting against the Treaty I am carrying out the principle of government by consent of the governed. Now, I don't believe that the public bodies in my constituency, who were elected on the same ticket as I was, have any more right to speak for the people than I have. I can say a thing about my constituency that very few would believe—it might not fully or fairly represent the feelings of the people—I was five days in County Wexford and I never met a person who was in favour of the Treaty; I don't think that it is fair to the people of Wexford, for if I went to the trouble I could have met many I was five days there and I never met a person who was in favour of it. I did meet one—a certain person; he was a man who worked hard for me during the election, and he came to me to ask was I going to vote for the Treaty and I answered ‘No’. Then he said: ‘If I thought you were going to vote for that Treaty I would never have worked for you, and I would be a very disappointed man’. Now, a man like him, believing in my oath, would have a more genuine grievance against me if I voted for the Treaty than the people who want the Treaty; because the people who want this Treaty have absolutely no grievance for they never had any reason to believe that our party were going to compromise in any way. I don't want to find fault with the Treaty at all; I think that Deputy MacGrath was wrong in saying we gave no credit to the Treaty; I believe our side has given as much credit as possible and I think we have admitted the good points in the Treaty as far as finance and our own army and education and those things are concerned. They are all very good; but there is one big point that we cannot get over and that is the point of common citizenship. I don't think I have anything further to say. I think the most important thing of all at the present time is the decision.
DR. ADA ENGLISH:
May I make a personal explanation? I never said what Deputy Brennan accused me of: that the Irish Volunteers would hold Ireland for the English. What I said was: If this Treaty be accepted, and a Government put in power—if a Free State Government be in power—that
MR. BRENNAN:
The same thing. Did I not also say to you ‘would go out and fight for the Republic?’
MR. LIAM HAYES:
As a plain man, a soldier who has no claim to be a politician, but as one who in the Irish Republican Army did his best, I have a mandate from the Irish people to defend their rights and liberties. Which of our officers when making a fight against desperate odds did not ask himself: ‘Am I justified in sacrificing the lives of my men?’ Well, he was justified, because he had authority then to fight for the rights of his country. We fought for Ireland's freedom; we fought to rid Ireland of the English Army of occupation; and we fought to secure for the Irish people control of Ireland's destinies. I hold we have won; if we accept the Treaty we have won these things. Now, we are asked to resume the war by some who have never heard the bark of an angry rifle—to bring further sufferings on the Irish race—and for what? Merely to alter a few words in the Treaty, words which do not vitally affect the national position of our country. This is rainbow chasing. I, for one, will not vote to sacrifice the lives of my comrades; I am voting for the Treaty.
MR. SEAN NOLAN:
I have no desire to speak; I, feeling as one who always fought straight from the shoulder, was anxious this House would come to an early decision, but I feel that if I were to take the line that I would have otherwise taken here that I would only add further to the difficulties there are, and the disunion that exists. For that reason I mean to confine myself and be as cautious and careful as possible. I was disappointed at, and I must say I resent the charge made by the Deputy from St James', Deputy MacGrath, when he insinuated that we have been disciplined in our speeches. Nobody has spoken to me as to what I have to say or will say, and I resent any insinuation of that description. He has spoken of dope; nobody has doped me, and I refuse to believe that our President has any intention of doping anybody whatsoever. We have tried to be straight on this question and why not be straight on all sides? We who are against the Treaty are against it because we feel and believe, and conscientiously believe, that we are doing the best thing for Ireland in rejecting this Treaty; and when we believe that why should Deputies stand up here and charge the leaders of our side with doping us or doping anybody else? A lot has been heard about the will of the people. I will take the memories of those who are for years working in the movement—I will take their memories back a few years, as far back as 1906. I then, and those who worked with me, worked against the will of the people; the will of the people then was Parliamentarianism and Home Rule. We worked then for a Republic and all along to 1916; and the men who fought then fought against the will of the people, it you might so call it, because the will of the people was Parliamentarianism and Home Rule. I fought and worked against the will of the people in those days because I thought the will of the people was wrong; and should the will of the people go wrong to-day I will work against it also; but I refuse to believe that the will of the people is in favour of the acceptance of this Treaty. Self determination has been flung around here, and ‘government by consent of the governed.’ I have met men in Cork city and also in Dublin city who are supporting the Treaty, and they have said to me: ‘For God's sake, why didn't you throw it out in Private Session and the whole country would stand beside you.’ What does that mean? That these people are prepared to accept this Treaty under duress, and that it is not the free consent of the people or self-determination. Self-determination means that you have a free voice to get what you select, and there is no selection in this Treaty. The question before them is: this Treaty or terrible and immediate war. In this Treaty promises of peace have been dangled before the people, and people have been intimidated by threat of war, or attempts have been made to intimidate them, but I say the people of Ireland are not afraid of war; the
MR. P. O'KEEFFE:
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a lucht na Dála, is le croidhe duairc eirighim anso iniu. Do shaoileas bliain ó shin ná beadh a leitheid de sceal againn sa tír seo agus sa Dáil seo choíche. Ba mhaith liom a rá fe mar adubhairt Seathrún Ceitinn trí chead bliain ó shin: ‘Mo thruagh mar atá Eire’. Mo thruagh mar atá Eire iniu: í deighilte, briste, cráidhte; a teachtaí ag cáine a cheile, ag gearra a cheile, agus is eagal liom go m- beid ag marbha a cheile, sara bh-fad. Tá mórán ráite anso cheana i d- taobh na h-Eireann agus anois táimse chun an meid seo do rá: táim ag obair le fada im' shlí fein ar son na tíre; agus riamh, níor dhineas aon rud i g-coinnibh mo thíre ach aon rud amháin—rud ná raibh leigheas agam air—se sin gur chuas isteach i Civil Service Shasana. Se an fáth go n-dinim an tagairt seo ná gur chuir fear nú bean eigin e seo chugham: ‘Ratify the Treaty and Save the Empire. England wants Volunteers to join the Free State Army to crush Egypt and India. Join up.’ Masla dhúinne atá ag cabhrú leis an g-Connradh iseadh e sin. Le dhá chead bliain anuas ná raibh einne dem' mhuintirse in Arm Shasana, ná i Navy Shasana, ná i b-Píleirí Shasana. Tá eagla orm, an bhean a chuir an ‘dope’ sin chugham, ná raibh a fear ná a mac ag troid ar thaobh na h-Eireann, ach go raibh se ag troid i g-connibh na Gearmáine—tír nár dhin aon rud i g-coinnibh na tíre seo riamh. Tá a lán ráite i d- taobh Seachtain na Cásca, 1916. Is cuimhin liom an oiche roimh an Cháisc sin; bhí an Teachta ó Chathair Dhoire agus an Teachta ó Chathair Phortláirge ag cur an sceil trí cheile an oíche sin; bhíos-sa ann mar ‘soldier of the line’; ni raibh guth agam ach dubhart: ‘For God's sake go into action together or declare it off together.’ Chuas isteach sa troid; ní raibh mo chroidhe an oíche sin sa troid, ach nuair a chuaidh na buachaillí sa chath chuas-sa ann. Chuas isteach sa troid chun aigne mhuintir na h-Eireann do shaora. I defy any Deputy here to say or state or write that we struck at the British Army in Easter Week, 1916, for any other purpose than to save the soul of Ireland. If we had what we get under this Treaty now—if we had that army out of Ireland that week, what would be the result? We would not be fighting for one week; we would be fighting them for six months, at least. Now I rise to support this Treaty because it gives my country a chance to live; if we reject this Treaty I believe that Ireland will be thrown into the wilderness for a hundred years; and I make no apology to any man or woman in Ireland for voting for this Treaty. We have not been given by our Cabinet a fair run. First of all we were told that we are compromising, but I think that has been dealt with already. If we sent any message to Lloyd George claiming a Republic we had a right to state that in plain Irish or in plain English; but we did not do so. We sent over our plenipotentiaries with an answer to this message ‘how the association of the Irish people could be best reconciled with the group of nations known as the British Empire.’ There is no Republic in that
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. O'KEEFFE:
In that time, while our soldiers were fighting, the men and women on the civil side were helping the enemy. [Cries of ‘No! no!’]. Do you deny it? Well, now, I say you were; you were trading with the enemy; and during that time you gave that enemy one hundred and thirty-two million pounds for goods that could be purchased and produced in this country; and you tell me that you were functioning as a Republic. Were there not English commercial travellers swarming all over this country, while our men were executed after the Coachford ambush? Were there any Englishmen in this country arrested, or did our Cabinet or this Dáil arrest or execute any English traveller? Every door you entered in this country—every shopkeeper in this country helped them [cries of ‘No! no!’]. I say yes. Well, now, we hear sneering remarks about joining up in the Free State Army; but remember that we joined up in the English Army in 1912, in 1913 and in 1918; and we beat the Germans. Don't tell me that the Munster Fusiliers, my own neighbours, didn't beat the Germans. Don't tell me that the Dublins, the Leinsters and the Connaught Rangers didn't beat the Germans. If you ratify the Treaty there will be no Dublins, no Leinsters, no Connaught Rangers and no Munster Fusiliers. A lot has been said here about the farmers of Ireland—
A DEPUTY:
The North Cork Militia.
MR. O'KEEFFE:
Don't mind about the North Cork Militia. I believe that some people have said that the Republic was functioning from 1916 on, and that the people of lreland were told we were Republicans; well if they were they should have kept their own money in the Republic. Should they not? The Minister of Finance is not here. Now, the Banks of Ireland lent to the British Empire during the war—to win the war—fifty-and-a half million pounds. I want to go through the different points. Somebody said here the other day that the Republic was dead, I deny that; the Republic is not dead; the Republic is in the distance if we accept this Treaty. I compare Ireland to a bather perpetually in togs, prepared to take a dive. A lot has been said here about the will of the people, I don't think it counts now; other methods will be used, I am afraid, to try and stifle the will of the people [‘No! no!’]. I hope I'm wrong. Ninety-nine per cent. of the people of Ireland—with the exception of the counties of Munster where they would be about ninety-five per cent.—are in favour of the Treaty; I certainly say that ninety-five per cent. of the people of Leinster are in favour of that Treaty; and if they are not they are the biggest hypocrites I know of, because when our men were fighting in Cork for six months, aye for twelve months, I appealed to the Minister of Defence to take the pressure off Cork and to bring
- Eigceart na n-Eireannach fein
Do threascair iad do aon cheim
Ag spairinn fá cheart ghear chorrach
Ní neart arm na n-eachtrannach
MRS. O'CALLAGHAN:
The Deputy for St. James' said that in Private Session I accused his side of being disciplined. Am I in order in explaining what I did say? At the Private Session on December 17th, certain Deputies who said they were army men got up, one after another, and made certain statements about the army which I will not repeat. I sat here all day and listened to them. I noticed, as they went on, that every one of these soldier Teachtaí used the same three or four arguments, in practically the same words; and at the end of the day I got up and said—it was not in accusation of them, it was in praise of them—I said, whatever is right or wrong, that the army, obviously, to judge by the members here, is well disciplined. It was not an accusation; it was a matter for praise.
MR. MACKEOWN:
As every officer in the army is in the one boat and has the same facts before him, consequently each and every one of them had substantially the same statement to make and they naturally used the same words.
MR. MULCAHY:
I wish to make a certain explanation with regard to the army as the matter has arisen here and is arising in other places
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
The Minister of Defence is not here. He will be here in the afternoon and it can be raised then.
MR. SEAMAS LENNON:
I don't intend to detain you long; I am just going to state in a few brief sentences why I am going to vote against this Treaty. I, like a good many here, have got sheaves of resolutions from public bodies in my constituency; some of these have been mild and reasonable; others of them are undoubtedly very strong—if I may so use the word. They have put it up to me in these words: ‘ratify or resign’ [hear, hear]. Well, I am here now to say that I am not going either to ratify or resign. Those public bodies with whom I have been in close touch for the past three years—those bodies were called together to a public meeting last September and my co-Deputy, Gearóid O'Sullivan and I were present on that particular occasion. Now, I consider his speech on that occasion was, at least, a strong incentive to induce those public bodies to pass the resolutions which they have passed during the past week; he declared to those public bodies—and I am sure those men looked upon him in his dual capacity, and the word he conveyed to them went home to them he declared that if he were in charge of the English Army that he would smash the Irish Republic in a fortnight here in this country. He used these words to the public representatives of my native country. It is not wonderful then that the public bodies in my constituency, and in view of the Press campaign that has been going on since the Treaty appeared in public, it is not wonderful that these public bodies would send me these resolutions. I have absolute respect and love for these public bodies and for each individual in my constituency; but it is because I have absolute respect and love for these people that I will not vote for the ratification of this Treaty. To day the people of my constituency and the people of Ireland are citizens of the Irish Republic. To-night at seven o'clock if a vote is taken and if this Treaty is
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Not quite so soon.
MR. LENNON:
I will not vote or cast my vote to bring the citizens of the Irish Republic whom I represent, to bring these men into the British Empire, no matter how many sheaves of resolutions I get to the effect—ratify or resign. My co-Deputy also issued what I consider a challenge to me here last night, possibly it may also be applied to my co-Deputy, Deputy Aylward; but I will deal with him in the county—the county in which I have been born and reared, and in which I am living and have lived all my life. I am prepared to take him up on that challenge when he declares that they who speak for the ratification of this Treaty in my county—that they would beat me five hundred to one. I am prepared to accept that challenge, and I will stand on the principle of the Irish Republic in facing my co-Deputy, Gearóid O'Sullivan, on that question: and I further declare that if my co-Deputy had come down last May and declared and called for the votes of the people of Carlow on the strength of the fact that he was going to support this Treaty I doubt if he would have got the thirty-two votes that he now declares that I would get in my constituency. I have a resolution here from my Comhairle Ceanntair in which there was an amendment carried on last Sunday by nine votes to six, and that amendment is this: ‘That we, the members of the Carlow Comhairle Ceanntair call upon the members of the Dáil for unity in the present crisis and that we ask all our members to use their influence to bring about that unity which we desire’. There is the Comhairle Ceanntair of Carlow though I am told that there are only thirty-two men in the county who stand for an Irish Republic; yet the names of nine men are there who stand firm on that principle. I went forward as a Republican in 1918; I was elected as a Republican in 1921; and yet there are people here who say the Republic is dead; I hold the Republic is not dead; and I say that when the Republic sent plenipotentiaries over to London the Republic was, undoubtedly, not dead, but I hold that the Republic never got right into its stride into the hearts of the Irish people until the delegates went over to London. The people looked to the Republic for guidance and for assistance; and I consider that if I vote for the ratification of this Treaty that my life for the past three years would be an absolute negation and an absolute lie. I am not going to vote for the Treaty; I am going to stand on the principles I stood on in 1918 and 1921, and I am going to vote solid for its rejection.
THE SPEAKER said he had received the following letter from Deputy Thomas O'Kelly:
Dublin, 22nd December, 1921.To the Speaker of Dáil Eireann.
I am unable to attend the meeting and I wish my vote to be recorded for the ratification of the Treaty.
Mise do chara,
Thomas Kelly.
MR. D. O'ROURKE:
I have very little to say; and what I have to say is rather by way of personal explanation than in support of the Treaty. When I came here first I was opposed to the Treaty, and on principle I am opposed to it still. I was elected without my knowledge; the first thing I knew about being elected a member of Dáil Eireann was to see my name in the public Press; had I known my name was to be put forward I would have objected; I want to make that clear. Until I came here I didn't know how matters stood; when I found out how things happened I must say I did not like, and I do not like, the idea of the plenipotentiaries having signed without having brought back the Treaty for consideration. That is my opinion, although others who vote for the Treaty are against me in that. My great ambition and prayer was that unity would be achieved by some means. I was prepared to vote for Document No. 2 provided a substantial majority of the House was for it; my reason for doing so was to secure unity; I am quite prepared to do anything for unity because I realise that the curse of this country has been disunion. I say I will do anything yet to achieve unity. If a division had been taken before Christmas I say, undoubtedly, that I would have
MR. GEAROID O'SULLIVAN:
On a point of personal explanation, I understand my co-Deputy from Carlow made a statement here in my absence that I said a certain thing at a public meeting in Carlow. I did not make that statement. All the time since the Truce was established I spent in preparing, to the best of my ability, the country for war; I worked overtime. I will not say—it is for others to say—what I did. I wish to say now that the statement as alleged by Deputy Lennon was not made by me; it is not true.
MR. LENNON:
I made that statement; I stand over it.
MR. COSGRAVE:
I was at the meeting at Kilkenny and my co-Deputy made no such statement as Deputy Lennon has said—not a single tittle in the nature of what he has stated.
MR. LENNON:
He made it at the public meeting—at a meeting of the public men at Carlow that met in the Town Hall; I forget the day. The statement I made I stand by.
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
Were you there?
MR. LENNON:
I was.
MR. CON COLLINS:
I hope that I will secure this record in brevity that is so much talked about here but so little adhered to. Now, the very little that I have got to say on this question at this hour of our Session will not, I believe, influence anybody here. I do not think at this stage that it is possible to influence anybody, any more than it would have been possible to influence myself even before this Dáil came into session to consider this question. At the outset, therefore, I will explain my own attitude to this Treaty or this so called Treaty. Immediately on the publication of its terms in the public Press my mind was made up in an attitude of direct and definite opposition to this so called Treaty, at that particular time it was made up, I should explain, in this fashion: even if there was not another single Deputy in the Dáil to oppose it, I would. In doing that I had my own conscience to consider, and also the electors who sent me here. I will come later to deal with the question of the electors; a good deal has been said about them here because it is sometimes useful for us to discover that we have got the like. Well, now, with regard to my conscience; I have been a nationalist for a very long time; that nationalism
MR. MILROY:
You are.
MR. CON COLLINS:
It is for those to come up to our standard and then we can have unity. Now, with regard to that Treaty itself, one Deputy, my friend for one of the Dublin divisions here, stated this morning that nobody on our side had yet discussed the Treaty on its merits. Well, I will attempt to discuss some merits of the Treaty just as they appear to me. The first is this: there are some things in it which we—which the Irish people might take if they got them from Lloyd George, driven down their throats with a bayonet—they might take them then, but the Treaty is not a thing for which we can sacrifice our national honour; it is not sufficiently good; and no matter how good it might be, when it involves that sacrifice of principle after our years of struggle here to try to drag this country of ours out side the British Empire—are we now, as a willing sacrifice, to come into it with its lovely history and tradition? If some of our people are anxious to participate in that tradition and that history, we, at all events, will do all in our power to save our country and our traditions—the traditions
MR. JOSEPH MACGUINNESS:
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a lucht na Dála, is beag atá agamsa a rá ar an g-ceist seo, go h-áirithe tareis an meid atá ráite cheana. As I am, I think, to be the last speaker amongst the private members I hope to make a record. It seems to me that we have talked at great length on the merits and demerits of the Treaty; but I believe that a good deal of that talk and a good deal of the arguments used would be more appropriate on the hustings later on. The Treaty has not been examined, and has not been given fair play for the good things that are in it; and because of the good things that are in it I am in favour of it. I have, during the past three weeks, done what I could in a private way to see if, in any way, the two sides could be brought together, if any arrangement could be come to that would preserve the unity of this Dáil; and on the Committee of which I was a member we had almost succeeded in doing that. People who are against this Treaty, for some reason which I cannot understand, refused to allow that document which we had drawn up to come before yesterday's Private Session of the Dáil. Instead of that a bombshell was thrown in by the resignation of the President; that is the President's own business; but I can say as a member of that Committee that the people on this side literally went on their knees to President de Valera to try and preserve the unity of the country.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
One of the objections I had to that Committee coming along was that they were bringing forward a thing that was impossible; and they were trying to put me in the same position as was attempted in America.
PROFESSOR HAYES:
That's a very unfair attack on the Committee.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I did not mean it for the Committee. What I mean is when that proposition—I do not care whether it is published or not—when it was being put to me it simply meant that we would let the Free State take existence and take root, and then try to pull it up again. That is the substance of what it amounts to.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
I move the adjournment now; and both sides have agreed that there should not be more than two speakers, exclusive of what we might, in courtesy, call the principal speakers. Mr. MacGrath has agreed
MR. COSGRAVE:
Who will speak last?
MR. S. T. O'KELLY:
The gentleman who winds up the debate—the Minister for Foreign Affairs. You will remember that Committee—which, unfortunately, I was not able to reach agreement as to finding a way out—that Committee had certain notes and it was agreed here in the Dáil—as there was no agreement come to by the Committee, and as certain of us insisted that these documents were not before the Dáil—it was agreed that they should not be published. Now, it has reached our ears that some of these notes have been given by somebody to the representatives of the Press; Mr. MacGrath and I have agreed that you ask the Press to regard these documents as confidential.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I should like to say now, as it might be my last opportunity to speak in this House, that an attempt has been made by the other side to try to make out that I am trying to split the country when they did it themselves—when the Minister of Foreign Affairs brought over the document that meant splitting the country—and then trying to put on me, as was done in America, to represent me as trying to prevent unity in the country.
MR. MILROY:
That statement should be made in the presence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
MR. MACGRATH:
I met last night a representative of the Press outside, and he told me he had got a copy of the decisions arrived at by the small Committee.
MR. MELLOWES.
There were no decisions arrived at.
MR. MACGRATH:
I told him in no circumstances was he to publish them; I reported this matter then to the chiefs on this side of the House and we took particular precaution and sent two men to tell them under no circumstances were they to be published.
THE SPEAKER:
Well it is understood that these documents and notes of that Committee which met in private are confidential.
MR. MACENTEE:
I presume that the publication of these documents will be regarded by this House as a breach of privilege, and that if they will be published——
MR. HOGAN:
I have been listening for five minutes to the debate which went on on the assumption that some of the Committee are trying underhand methods to get out these things—that somebody is trying to get out documents which are confidential. Is that a fair statement?
THE SPEAKER:
That statement has not been made.
MR. HOGAN:
I say on behalf of this side of the Committee that we are doing our best to the contrary.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I never made any remarks of the kind. I would have kept silent on it were it not for the remark of the Deputy for Longford that they went down on their knees to get unity.
MR. MACGUINNESS:
To anybody who was present yesterday it will be clear that what I have said is absolutely true.
The House adjourned at 1.40 p.m.
The Dáil Eireann Session was resumed at 4.10 p.m. on Saturday, 7th January, 1922, with THE SPEAKER (DR.MACNEILL) in the Chair.
MR. LIAM MELLOWES:
On a point of information, there is a notice of motion here by Doctor MacNeill. Is that in order?
THE SPEAKER:
In order? Well, it is.
MR. LIAM MELLOWES:
Should we not get twenty-four hours' notice?
THE SPEAKER:
It is not put before you yet. Very likely you will have forty eight hours' notice of it.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Is that a vote of confidence by the people who are voting for Saorstát na h-Eireann?
THE SPEAKER:
It can't be discussed now.
At the request of the Speaker the Secretary, Mr. Diarmuid O'Hegarty, called the roll, when 122 members answered.
MR. DANIEL CORKERY:
I rise to vote against this Treaty; I believe if I voted for this Treaty I would be voting against the independence of my country; I am not prepared to do that. I believe, also, if we go into this British Empire we will go in there as a prop to hold up a rotten Empire. We have heard a lot here of the alternative to this Treaty—terrible and immediate war. Well, I have the honour of representing Mid-Cork in this Dáil, and I think this guerilla warfare was started in Mid.-Cork; I believe the first lorry was attacked in Mid.-Cork; the people have been with us all the time up to the Truce and they never flinched though they often heard the angry crack of the rifle and machine gun. The people down there do not want war, but they are not half as much afraid of war as the people from other counties who have not fired a shot yet. I am against this Treaty.
MR. JOSEPH MACGUINNESS:
I am sorry to admit that I have lost; this was the shortest speech yet.
MR. P. J. WARD:
All through this long debate I have listened to the arguments on every side and, us one who has risen for the first time to speak in this assembly, I wish to state the reasons why I am, going to vote for the approval of the Treaty; not because I hope to convert even any one Deputy here, but for the purpose of explaining to my constituents the reason for my action. I am in the position of one of the Deputies who spoke before lunch—Deputy O'Rourke; and I make no apology whatever to any man for changing my opinions. I came here to this assembly opposed to this Treaty, as I believed then that the Dáil, by a big majority, would be opposed to it. It was not what we were fighting for; it was not the end—the ultimate end—of what I had in view when I joined Sinn Fein; but, as I have said, I have listened here without interrupting any man, and I have formed my opinion from what I have heard, and from what I know are the facts of the situation. I have not been impressed by anybody on either side; nor has my opinion been formed for me; I have formed it myself. Now, I was opposed to the Treaty because it was not the thing for which we were fighting. I have heard a lot here about the Republic as if it were not actually existing; about what we fought for; and I have heard from various members that this Treaty gave us what we fought for. I don't agree with that. The election of 1918 may have been for self-determination; but when I stood for the election I had to fight a bitter one; I stood for the complete independence of this country—total separation from England—and the placards are still on the walls down in Tír Chonaill. It was not for self determination I fought the election, it was for independence; and it will come to pass yet that the Irish people, if given a free choice, will vote for independence. Now, the fight was begun then, or in 1916, if you will, it has gone on since; we have had only one thing before us and that is the independence of the country—complete and total separation. The Republic was set up here in 1919; but we had not independence although the Republic was set up; we were fighting for it; and that fight is going on yet, and will go on in the future. Now, this Treaty, was signed but how it was signed, or by what means it was signed, is a matter with which I have nothing to do. It is here before us; and we have not to judge of this Treaty by how or why or the manner in which the signature was obtained; we have to deal with facts, with the facts of the situation as they are at the present moment. I believed when I came to this Dáil, and I believe it now, that if this Treaty had been rejected practically unanimously by the Dáil we could have obtained unity; in this country and have the people behind us, and we could have won our case. I was opposed to the Treaty up to Christmas; I went down to my constituency, and I may say here that I know my constituents perhaps as well as any other man in the Dáil; I have
MR. JOSEPH O'DOHERTY:
When I read the terms of the Treaty signed in London everything that was in me that I can call good revolted against those
MR. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
MR. O'DOHERTY:
I know that the people in North Donegal at the present moment would accept this Treaty, and I think it is fair to the people of North Donegal that I should make that known; but they are accepting it under duress and at the point of the bayonet, and as a stop to terrible and immediate war. It is not peace they are getting; it is not the liberty they are getting which they are told they are getting, and they know it; and I will tell them honestly if I go to North Donegal again what they are getting. I have my ideals of the people's will; and at this stage of the proceedings I have no intention of saying anything bitter about any man or body of men in this assembly, but I hold that the people's will was flouted in London when that document was signed. I have sufficient data for my mind to prove that the men who signed it knew that there would be a split in the Cabinet, that there would be a split in the Dáil and a split in the country, and, notwithstanding that they accepted the document which embodies in it no clause or phrase which enables them to bring it before the people whose will they have such regard for. I say if they have the people's will, the sacred will of the Irish people, before their minds, they, at least, knowing the consequences of their signatures, should and could have demanded that if the Dáil turned it down the Irish people could have a final word. They have not done that. I am not afraid to go into my constituency and fight the question Free State versus the Irish Republic against any man, from a Cabinet Minister down; and my mind is not small enough to deny that there is a big difference between Document No 2 and the Treaty that was signed; it is not a question of tweedledum and tweedledee, as I was told the night before this Session opened, and as I have heard repeated often since then. It is the great question of Irish sovereignty, and as long us I have a weapon to fight for that cause I shall not be a party to voting away the sovereignty of this nation [applause].
DR. MACGINLEY:
The claim is made by men who are opposing this Treaty that we have a Republic established in this country. The delegates, in signing this Treaty with England, could not vote away that Republic if we had a Republic in this country in the sense in which they mean to convey. I, as one plain man, want to know why were delegates sent to London at all? Was it to arrange for the evacuation of the English forces out of this country? Was it to arrange an alliance with England? Why were they sent to England at all? To
In spite of their (the British Government's) sincere desire for peace, and in spite of the conciliatory tone of your last communication, they cannot enter a conference upon the basis of this correspondence. Notwithstanding your personal assurance to the contrary which they much appreciate, it might be argued in future that the acceptance of a conference on this basis had involved them in a recognition which no British Government can accord.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I ask that my reply be read now.
DR. MACGINLEY:
The reply, no matter how carefully read—in my opinion the sending over of the delegates was an abandonment of the isolated Republic.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It would be very important to have my reply read.
MR. COLIVET:
We all read the reply and we know it.
DR. MACGINLEY:
I don't want to read the reply. The point for me is this: we have not a Republic functioning in this country; we have a paper Republic, the people of Donegal are sick of this paper Republic.
A DEPUTY:
And paper Republicans, too.
DR. MACGINLEY:
If we have a Republic, how is it that the British institutions are functioning in this country as well? Every honest man in this Dáil must admit that; and are not British troops in Ireland and British institutions functioning in Ireland? We have got no national recognition from any country in the world, despite Harry Boland's talk. Their sympathy was not enough; the sympathy of the people in other countries, even in America, was not strong enough to compel them to recognise our Government. That was the test of it.
MR. HARRY BOLAND:
The people recognised it.
DR. MACGINLEY:
It might be said that our men might have got better terms in London. Perhaps they might, but I can tell you the people of Donegal, anyhow, have the very greatest confidence in the ability of Arthur Griffith and the sincerity of Michael Collins; and they believe that, taking all the circumstances of the case into account, they did what was best for Ireland. Now, President de Valera has stated that rather than sign this Treaty he was prepared to see the Irish people live in subjection until God would redeem them. I may as well say at once that that is not my creed; that is a doctrine that never was preached in the history of the world before: that a country, if it could not get absolutely what it was out for, should fight to the extermination of its people. I, as one man, can't take the responsibility for committing the men and women who sent me here to a war of extermination which, I think, would result if this Treaty were rejected. I have no qualms about the oath which I took on coming into this assembly; the people sent me here to get absolute separation if I could—I am for absolute separation if I could see a way out—but they sent me here to use my own free will, and if I could not get absolute separation at the present time I was to take something by which we could work out our own independence in the long run. I think in voting for this Treaty I am voting according to the mandate which my constituents gave me when sending me here. That is all I have to say.
MR. THOMAS HUNTER:
I rise to say a few words; perhaps if I did not do so some people might say that I had not the courage to voice my opinions in this assembly. I vote against this Treaty because I am a Republican; I was elected on the Republican ticket; I came here and took the oath to the Republican Government and I am not going now to destroy that Government. If the people do not agree with me they can get rid of me at any time and in any way that they like. Finally, as a Republican, I could never recognise the Government of George V. of England in either internal or external association.
MR. SEAN HALES:
I was not going to speak one word here in this Public Session, I spoke what I had to say in the Private Session; I don't retract
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
A Chinn Chomhairle agus a cháirde Gaedhal, mo sheana-chara, an Teachta ó Chiarruidhe Thoir, dubhuirt se i d-tosach an meid cainte do dhin se anso go raibh socair aige gan aon rud do rá a chuirfeadh fearg ar einne. Tá socair agamsa anois gan aon rud do rá a chuirfeadh fearg ar einne; ach tá socair agam an fhírinne d'innsint agus deir an sean-fhocal go m-bíonn an fhírinne searbh; ach nuair innsim an fhírinne má chuireann sí fearg ar einne ní h-ormsa atá an locht. Ní chun fearg do chur ar einne a neosfad-sa an fhírinne anois; ní mór dom an fhírinne d'innsint mar is leir go bh-fuil daoine ann ná tuigeann an sceal. Níl einne is mó go bh-fuil meas agam air imeasc na n-daoine atá i bh-fabhar an Chonnartha so ná mo sheana-chara ó Oirthear Chiarruidhe agus mo sheana-chara ó Chontae na Gaillimhe—Piaras Beaslaí agus Pádraig O Máille. Iarrfad ortha eisteacht go cúramuch le n-a bh-fuil le rá agam. Dubhairt Pádraig gur mheas se gur gheill an t-Aire um Ghnóthaí Dúiche agus mise do Shasana sarar chuaidh an Toscaireacht anonn; is truagh ná fuil se anso; ach dubhairt se, agus dubhairt daoine eile atá anso gur gheilleamair do Shasana ag cruinniú den Aireacht le linn na cainte do bhí ar siúl idir sinne agus an cúigear do chuaidh anonn. Deanfad-sa a dheimhniú nár dhineamair agus iarfad ar Art O Gríobhtha an meid a bheidh ráite agamsa a bhreagnú má's feidir do e. Now, my friends, there are some people who—from a few questions that they put, some of them have written them out for me—do not, apparently, understand the whole position at present. My friend, one of the Deputies from Dublin, Seán MacGarry, put a question the other night—I would have answered him, but I thought it a pity to interrupt the flow of his eloquence—he asked what would the Minister of Defence say to an ex-member of the British Army about the oath when that member would be about to join our forces—what he would say to him about the oath he had already taken to England. The only oath that concerns me is the Oath of Allegiance to the Dáil, and as long as every member of the army abides by the oath which he must take when he enters it I am satisfied; if he does not abide by it, as long as I am at the head of the army, I will have him dealt with in the proper way. My friend, the Deputy for one of the Mayo constituencies, sent a question in here which, in effect, is this: If the Minister of Defence had been made an offer two months ago to have the British forces clear out of Ireland would he, instead of accepting that offer, say: ‘No! I prefer to drive them out?’ That, I understand, was in effect the question. Certainly not, I would let them go out. I do not want any fighting unless it is absolutely necessary; but if the conditions were that our people must become British subjects I would say: ‘I am not going to agree to that; clear out if you like’. A Deputy from Tipperary and Waterford, one of my own colleagues, has sent me in a question which I will read. ‘In view of the fact that many members and several people are biased in favour of this proposed Treaty because the Minister of Finance is in favour of ratification, and in view of the fact that many of these people, and many of these members, are of opinion that Mr. Michael Collins is a leader of the army and has fought many fights for the Republic, I think it is of great importance that an authoritative statement be made (a) defining the real position Mr. Michael Collins held in the army, (b) telling what fights he has taken an active part in, provided this can be done without injustice to himself or danger to the country; or can it be authoritatively stated that he ever fired a shot at any enemy of Ireland?’
MR. MILROY:
Is that in order?
MR. M. COLLINS:
Carry on.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
That is a matter which I approach with great reluctance; and I may tell you I would
MR. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
MR. FIONAN LYNCH:
So he did.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
And the war is won and we are talking here. Very well, I will explain to you how that is done.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I would like to rise to a point of order. Are we discussing the Treaty or are we discussing the Minister of Finance? I think we are discussing the Treaty.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
The Minister of Finance does not like what I have got to say.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Anything that can be said about me, say it.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Tá go maith.
MR. BRENNAN:
If things are to be said about the Minister of Finance are we at liberty to say anything we know about other people? I mean it is becoming personal.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I think Cathal Brugha ought to respect the chair.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Táim chun rud eigin le rá anois; tá san socair im' aigne agam, agus má chuirtear isteach orm táim canncarach, crosta, agus ní aingeal in aon chor me.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Ni chuirfeadh einne e sin id' leith.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
It is necessary for me to define Michael Collins' position in the army. Now, I have my department divided up into sections. I have the ordinary Ministerial part of it; the civil part of it; the liaison part of it; and then the Head Quarters Staff. The Head Quarters Staff is divided up again; at the head is the Chief of Staff; and at the head of each section of the Head Quarters Staff is another man working under the Chief of Staff. One of those heads of the sub-sections is Mr. Michael Collins; and to use a word which he has on more than one occasion used, and which he is fond of using, he is merely a subordinate in the Department of Defence.
MR. DOLAN:
Has he been an efficient officer?
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Leig dom anois agus neosfad san duit. While the war was in progress I could not praise too highly the work done by the Head Quarters' Staff. The Chief of Staff and each of the leaders of the sub- sections—the members of the Head Quarters' Staff—were the best men we could get for the positions; each of them carried out efficiently, so far as I know, the work that was entrusted to him; they worked conscientiously and patriotically for Ireland without seeking any notoriety, with one exception; whether he is responsible or not for the notoriety I am not going to say [cries of ‘Shame’ and ‘Get on with the Treaty’]. There is little more for me to say. One member was specially selected by the Press and the people to put him into a position which he never held; he was made a romantic figure, a mystical character such as this person certainly is not; the gentleman I refer to is Mr. Michael Collins
MR. DUGGAN:
The Irish people will judge that.
MR. MILROY:
Now we know things.
MR. DAN MACCARTHY:
Now we know the reason for the opposition to the Treaty [applause].
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
During the war, on one or two occasions, people came to me and asked me why I did not stop this kind of thing; here was a man being described as Commander-in-Chief of the Irish Army, and on another occasion he was Field-Marshal-General, I believe. My reply was that Mr. Michael Collins could not be responsible for what people said of him in the Press: and consequently I never took any notice of these things, and would not have done so only for what the Chairman of the Delegation said; because it seems to me, when the Chairman of the
MR. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
The Chairman of the Delegation thinks the war is won, so far as he could win it, for England.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Bravo, Cathal, bravo.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Go maith. Now, so much for what the Chairman of the Delegation said about Mr. Michael Collins; but when Mr. Michael Collins was speaking here in support of the resolution in favour of the Treaty, he told us that during the war he compelled respect and also during the negotiations.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Well the modesty of that is such that I will not spoil it by comment; but it is just a continuance of the other fable. He also referred to some mysterious incidents that he says the people were excommunicated for, and he said he was responsible for that; a lot of people applauded it; and I wonder what those people who applauded thought they were applauding. I know of only two instances for which people during the war were excommunicated; one was an ambush, it was a fair ambush, and in charity to Mr. Michael Collins I will not repeat here what a participant in the ambush said about Mr. Collins. His remark about his being responsible for it—if it was to that he referred—suffice it to say—
MR. COLIVET:
I respectfully suggest that the Minister for Defence——
MR. SEAN MACGARRY:
Too late. Let him carry on now.
MR. BRENNAN:
The damage has been done.
MR. M. COLLINS:
No damage is done.
DR. MACCARTAN:
The damage is done.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
In any case you all understand now——
MR. J. MACGRATH:
We don't.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Well, what exactly am I going to say to you? [Laughter]. That Mr. Michael Collins does not occupy that position in the army that newspaper men said he occupied.
MR. MACGRATH:
I never thought he did.
MR. SEAN MACGARRY:
I think we have enough.
MR. DAN MACCARTHY:
I must protest against the Minister of Defence being interrupted. He is making a good speech for the Treaty [applause].
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Deimhneochad e sin ar ball. Now, I finish with that, so far as Michael Collins is concerned. Now, in the article which appeared a few days ago in the Freeman's Journal, the one in which a most dastardly attack was made on our President and on Deputy Childers, Mr. Michael Collins was also referred to: and it was stated that when our President was arrested and released there was a reward of ten thousand pounds offered by the British Government for the corpse of Michael Collins.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
I wonder how the Freeman's Journal got that information?
MR. GRIFFITH:
Public notoriety.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Because it is not in accordance with the tale that was being circulated at the time by a very intimate friend of Mr. Michael Collins. He told it to me, and I asked him where he got it, and he said he got it from Mr. Michael Collins himself, and he told him that it was forty thousand pounds.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
He was worth it.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Now, Deputy Childers was attacked in the same article, and you know the way he was attacked. It is only fair for me to say now that I know, of my own personal knowledge, that Deputy Childers, amongst other work that he did for Ireland, has done as much as most men, and more than nearly all men who are working for Ireland, to arm the people of Ireland. I will turn now to what was said—some of the nice things that the Deputy for Tyrone, Seán Milroy, said—about the Minister for Defence; he said, amongst other things, that the Minister for Defence did not want peace. Now, I don't like to refer to anything that was said by a member of this House as being nonsense; but I ask you this: does any man contemplate with equanimity a renewal of the conditions in this country in which his wife will be dragged in the dead of the night out of her house, hustled along through the garden, and put into a motor lorry, and kept there in order that she will not be present while her husband is being murdered if the English cut-throats can get him? Does any man look forward with pleasure to having his little children frightened out of their lives by the spectacle of armed men rushing in and running through the house, some of them breaking their way down through the ceilings? But apparently the Minister of Defence does not want peace, but prefers that kind of thing. I am against this resolution because I know this Treaty can't achieve peace. You know how those who are opposed to it, how keenly they feel the thing, and how much they are against it; but some of the best men on the other side, the men who count, some of the fighting men, have said that the reason that they are in favour of it is that they will be able to get in arms. Deputy J. J. Walsh told us the other day—and he is in favour of this Treaty—that if he got a rifle and ammunition each time he would take this oath that he would keep on taking it.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
Hear, hear; I would.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
And what is Deputy J. J. Walsh going to do with the rifle?
MR. J. J. WALSH:
What I did before. I said I would take indefinite oaths for indefinite rifles and ammunition. I stand over what I said.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Yes; and this gentleman is in favour of the Treaty. Now, we are told that this Treaty, if passed, is going to achieve peace. Well, when people who are in favour of the Treaty are going to get rifles, and take oaths to get rifles, and going to make use of them, we will say that we have little to say against this Treaty but to answer where will the peace come in? And it is because I know that you are not going to have peace that I am against the Treaty. Now, another statement made by this gentleman, the Deputy from Tyrone; he said he was taking off the gloves; he said that he had let the cat out of the bag when he made reference to the oath. Now, it is in keeping with some of the tactics referred to by our President yesterday that this use should be made of an alleged oath, a second oath. Mr. Deputy Milroy could only have heard about the discussion on that oath from some member of the Cabinet, because there was absolutely no note taken of it, because there was no decision come to on oath. Our friends on the opposite side now know that since the start of these negotiations on all vital matters we found it necessary to have unanimity in the Cabinet; and when we found we could not have unanimity the particular matter was dropped. Now, this oath question came up before us and it was clear from what was said that we could not have unanimity on it. Therefore, so far as the Cabinet was concerned, it was dropped; and the President, so far as my recollection went, said something to the effect that, if nothing else was between us, he would be in favour of taking a certain oath and he spoke out some words. However, that was only his own personal opinion; so far as the Cabinet were concerned there could not be unanimity; and it was dropped. The ungloved orator from Tyrone said he let the eat out of the bag when he made reference to the oath.
MR. MILROY:
The oath is on the Cabinet minutes.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
There are no records.
MR. MILROY:
There is such an oath on the Cabinet records.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
There was no such oath agreed to by the Cabinet; and anybody who knows anything about it knows that. This Deputy from Tyrone made another very personal remark to which I will not refer here as it is beneath contempt; consequently I will take no further notice of it. I will now turn to the Deputy from Offaly, he told us that the Republic was betrayed, he said it was betrayed when we decided to send delegates to England; nevertheless this delegate was present at the meeting of the Dáil at which this decision was come to and he sat silently by and he allowed us to betray the Republic. Of course you all know, everybody with the exception of this Deputy, that by sending delegates across to England. The Republic was not betrayed. This Deputy also said that the Republic was dead. Well, I tell him that if it depended upon faint hearts to keep it alive it would have died long ago, and if it depended upon faint hearts to bring it into existence it would never have been born. He tells us he will not vote for it or against it; that's a nice position for a man who has taken upon himself a certain responsibility—that's a nice position for him to adopt. Now, this Deputy and another Deputy, the Assistant Minister for Local Government, both took it upon themselves to speak for the army—as to the condition it was in and what would happen. They are both men of military age, and when they make a closer acquaintanceship with the army by joining its ranks, and putting themselves into the position of fighting, they may earn the respect of military men; and if their merits ever raise them to the position in which they would be entitled to speak for the army, I hope they will have learned sufficient sense then to keep silent about army matters when it is not necessary to refer to them. We come now to the jocular gentleman who represents Kilkenny, were I in the vein I might follow his jokes. However, I am not in that mood; but I suggest to him that this is too serious a matter to be dealt with by flippancy and levity. Now, the Deputy for South Kerry, Fionán O Loingsigh, stated here that he spoke for the people of South Kerry.
MR. FIONAN LYNCH:
And I still maintain it.
MR. BRUGHA:
There was an interjection from the body of the House telling him ‘No!’ and he answered: ‘Yes, a minority of one’. I had in my pocket at the time, only I did not wish to interrupt him—just the same as on the contrary he has again now tried to interrupt me—I had in my pocket—
MR. FIONAN LYNCH:
If you use personalities you will be interrupted.
MR. BRUGHA:
I had in my pocket a document signed by people who are entitled to speak for the young men, the fighting men, the men who count and who are ready to make sacrifices in his constituency, and that is the Brigade Commandant in his area—the two Brigade Commandants that cover the area in which his constituency is in. In this they say very respectfully to the Government that they are absolutely against the Treaty. Since Deputy Lynch has made that statement he has been repudiated in the papers.
MR. LYNCH:
Oh!
MR. BRUGHA:
I will come now to the distinguished Chairman of the Delegation, and I don't refer to him sarcastically as the distinguished Chairman of the Delegation, for I, as much as anyone in this House, appreciate the political sagacity and patriotism of the Chairman of the Delegation, and I considered he was an acquisition, too, when those who were called the physical force movement joined with him four years ago. I considered it was an acquisition to have such a man with us. Now, he has said he has been a student of Thomas Davis all his life. So was I but I take different lessons from the teaching of Davis, and I must remind him that when Davis wrote it was for an Ireland enslaved and demoralised after forty years of the Union, but, anyway, those of you who saw the first edition of the new paper, the Republic of Ireland, saw the quotation in it from Davis in which he says: ‘in a just cause a nation is justified in going to war’. Now, I will defy the Chairman of the Delegation to point out to me in any readings of Thomas Davis where he advocated the sacrifice of principle in favour of expediency. In the Secret Session, in some interchanges that there were between Arthur Griffith and
MR. DUGGAN:
It was not proved.
MR. BRUGHA:
You swear to bear true allegiance to the constitution of the Free State of Ireland as by law established; that is, in itself, if there was not a word about the King to follow, and there is—that, in itself, would be an Oath of Allegiance to the English King, because he would be the head of that Constitution.Agus tá se sin maith a dhóthain. Now, the third objectionable feature, the fundamental thing, even if there was no question of becoming British subjects and taking the Oath of Allegiance, this third objection would be so fundamental that I say it would be equivalent to my taking poison if I accepted it: that was allowing the British to say to us, ‘We will not allow you to carry out your coastal defence, you will not have permission to do so until we are satisfied, we must first agree to it’. That is putting us in a humiliating position. Now, no matter what happens we would not agree to the Treaty in which these three fundamentals are included. There has been a body of opinion in this country, as I had occasion to write a week ago in Irish, that has always repudiated English authority in this country. Each generation had that body of opinion in it, and whenever they found themselves strong enough they went out in insurrection against England and English authority here. The last one, as you know, was in 1916 when we established our Republic; it was ratified in January, 1919, and we have carried on our functions with a de jure and de facto Government since; and here, when we are in so strong a position and we so strong and England so weak and with so many enemies as she has now more than ever, we are asked to do such a thing as this. Why, if instead of being so strong, our last cartridge had been fired, our last shilling had been spent, and our last man were lying on the ground and his enemies howling round him and their bayonets raised, ready to plunge them into his body, that man should say—true to the traditions handed down—if they said to him: ‘Now, will you come into our Empire?’—he should say, and he would say: ‘No! I will not’. That is the spirit that has lasted all through the centuries, and you people in favour of the Treaty know that the British Government and the British Empire will have gone down before that spirit dies out in Ireland. Now, how are we going to reconcile an agreement between the people who have that spirit in them and those who are in favour of the Treaty. We have in this alternative of ours the means of doing this. Now, seeing that some people are in doubt as to what our alternative is,
MR. GRIFFITH:
A managing-director.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Now, by entering into such arrangements we are not going into the British Empire; neither do we take any oath whatsoever; and there will be no representative of the British Crown in the shape of a Governor-General in Ireland. We are entering into that arrangement, into this association as external associates. Now, what does that mean?
MR. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
MR. BRUGHA:
Tá go maith, ní thuigean tú anois e do reir dheallramh. Míneochad duit e. Now, instead of becoming British subjects or British citizens we will have reciprocal citizenship, that is, an Irish citizen or British subject will have the support of this group in any part of the world where he may find himself where he will require help. He will have the power of the new group behind him.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Common citizenship.
MR. BRUGHA:
Reciprocal citizenship. Apparently the Chairman of the Delegation does not understand the difference between common citizenship and reciprocal citizenship. Common citizenship will mean that we are British subjects, and reciprocal citizenship will mean that we will remain Irish Republicans. There is no letting down the Irish Republic there, and I defy the Chairman of the Delegation, when he is speaking after me, or anybody else after him, on any platform in Ireland, to prove that we have deviated by one hair's breadth from the Republican position by making such a proposal. Now one of the greatest fears that the British Government have from the Irish people is, that at any time they would be in a position, were England at war, to interfere with the food supplies of the population of Great Britain; they must safeguard the food supplies of forty millions of people; we appreciate that fear, and we realise how necessary it is for them to safeguard the food supplies of the English people. Consequently, we are prepared to agree not to build submarines unless in agreement with the British Government; the only use that submarines would be to us would be to attack English transports or food ships if England were at war; they would not be of very much use to us. Now, we are willing to give England that safeguard that we will not attack her food ships, and that we will not put ourselves in the position to do so. We are prepared to give her certain facilities in our ports for a period of five years; and at that time, or any other time, that we here consider that we are in a position to carry out our own coastal defence, then we take it over; but for five years we give her certain facilities in our ports. Those are fundamentals. There are other details which appear in our proposals, but it is not necessary for me now to go into them. The things that really matter are the fundamentals; upon these fundamentals we can make a free
MR. M. COLLINS:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I crave your leave to make just one personal reference. It has been suggested by the Minister for Defence that I, in my statement, said I was responsible for a certain ambush. I did not say that, sir, I said I took responsibility for a certain incident, I took that responsibility as a member of the Government.
The House adjourned for tea at 6.25 p.m., and resumed at 7.15 p.m., with the SPEAKER (DR. MACNEILL) in the Chair.
MR. AUSTIN STACK:
With your permission I wish to raise one small point; the front public bench was reserved for the members of the Standing Committee of Sinn Fein; a member of the Standing Committee who came in and took his seat there a while ago was ejected to make room for a person who is not a member of the Standing Committee; and the member, the gentleman who was ejected from his seat, has left his seat under protest. I think the seat should be vacated and he should be invited in.
THE SPEAKER:
Give instructions to the officer in charge of the door.
MR. STACK:
Call in Mr. Little.
MR. HARRY BOLAND:
Immediately following my speech to-day my colleague, Mr. MacGrath, thought fit to bring a personal conversation into the debate; and in order to clear my record I will take this opportunity to state that I was the servant of this Government, representing it in America, and when I was recalled to Ireland on the peace discussion I was informed by the President that the very minimum would be external association. I was instructed to go back to America with this definite objective in view; and I made whatever provision was possible, so that in the event of Ireland's minimum being accepted we would have no trouble from our friends in America. Now, with that in view, on the Tuesday night on which the Treaty was signed in London I stepped off the train at Washington, and when I read that the Treaty had been signed I understood that the men who went to negotiate for Ireland had followed out the instructions of their Cabinet, and that the minimum
MR. M. COLLINS:
You cannot stand them, Harry, you stood for the Treaty first. [‘Order, order’.]
MR. HARRY BOLAND:
No! and you know it, Michael [laughter].
MR. ARTHUR GRIFFITH:
I cannot accept the invitation of the Minister of Defence to dishonour my signature and become immortalised in Irish history. I have signed this Treaty; and the man or nation that dishonours its signature is dishonoured for ever; no man who signed that Treaty can dishonour his signature without dishonouring himself and the nation [applause]. As to what the Minister of Defence said about myself I have nothing to say; it may be that I was unknown in public life before 1916; and it may be that I am only known in public life since through the Minister of Defence. That is not a matter I am interested in. There is one thing I want to say; a suggestion was made that my colleagues and myself are going to be immortalised if I take a certain course—to dishonour my signature and the nation. It was said that I was a weak man in the negotiations in London, and that I and that my colleague and friend, Michael Collins, held back our conversations with the English Ministers and gave something away. We were asked why we went to see these Ministers without the full body of the plenipotentiaries? For the same reason that President de Valera met Lloyd George alone when he went to London; and because there are certain things that are better discussed by two or three men than by eighteen men; and we both agreed on that. One other reference will I make to what the Minister of Defence has said; he spoke of Michael Collins, he referred to what I said about Michael Collins—that he was the man who won the war. I said it, and I say it again; he was the man that made the situation; he was the man, and nobody knows better than I do how, during a year and a half he worked from six in the morning until two next morning. He was the man whose matchless energy, whose indomitable will carried Ireland through the terrible crisis [applause]; and though I have not now, and never had, an ambition about either political affairs or history, if my name is to go down in history I want it associated with the name of Michael Collins [applause]. Michael Collins was the man who fought the Black-and-Tan terror for twelve months, until England was forced to offer terms [cheers]. That is all I have to say on that subject. Now, we have been in London as plenipotentiaries, and when we were going across it was stated to us that there might be scapegoats, and I said I was prepared to be a scapegoat if one per cent. more could be got for the Irish nation. We came back. We thought, at all events, we had done something that was very good for the Irish nation. We were indicted here from the day we came back; we were told that we let down the Republic; and the Irish people were led to believe that we had gone there with a mandate to get a Republic and nothing but a Republic, and that we had violated that mandate. Sir, before I went to London I said at a Cabinet meeting—when every member of the Cabinet was there—that: ‘If I go to London I can't get a Republic: I will try for a Republic, but I can't bring it back’. And we tried for a Republic, though I knew we could not get it. One Deputy here said yesterday that we were guilty of treason against
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
By justice.
MR. GRIFFITH:
In another letter he said: ‘We have no conditions to impose, no claim to advance but one—that we are to be free from aggression’. I hold that what we brought back from England frees us from aggression. It gives us the power to mould our own life, and it frees us from the only permanent form of aggression we can have—the occupation of Ireland by the army of another country. I have listened here for days to discussions on the oath. If you are going to have a form of association with the British Empire, call it what you will, you must have an oath; and such an oath was suggested and put before us and not rejected, and put before the plenipotentiaries when going back to London. The difference between these two oaths is the difference in the terms. I am not going to speak in terms of theology or terms of law about them; we have had quite a considerable discussion on that point; but what I am going to speak about is this: that in this assembly there are men who have taken oath after oath to the King of England; and I noticed that these men applauded loudly when insulting or slighting references were made to the young soldiers here on account of the oath. If a man considers an oath such a momentous thing, what did these gentlemen who took the oath to the King of England—what; I ask, has become of their oath at the present time? I have an arrangement of oaths here, seven different oaths taken by different members of this assembly to the King of England. These were the gentlemen who unsheathed their swords against the liberties of the people—these gentlemen sat on English benches—all of whom are going to vote against this Treaty because they will not take the oath. Ah! this hypocrisy that is going
It that is not a claim for Dominion status I do not know what the meaning of words is. Here is the next paragraph:That for purposes of common concern Ireland shall be associated with the States of the British Commonwealth viz., the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa.
The next paragraph says:The rights, status and privileges of Ireland shall be in no respect less than those enjoyed by the component States of the British Commonwealth.
We are outside the British Empire according to this explanation in this document, but we happen to be inside for peace, war, defence, treaties, and for all vital concerns. Again:That the matters of common concern shall include defence, peace and war, political treaties, and all matters now treated as of common concern amongst the States of the British Commonwealth and that in these matters there shall be between Ireland and the States of the British Commonwealth such concerted action founded on consultation the several Governments may determine.
I have heard about common citizenship; what is that? Reciprocal rights? Is that over a change of words? And then we have this:That in virtue of this Association of Ireland with the States of the British Commonwealth, citizens of Ireland in any of these States shall not be subject to any disabilities which a citizen of one of the component States of the British Commonwealth would not be subject to and reciprocally for citizens of these States in Ireland.
That for purposes of the association Ireland shall recognise His Britannic Majesty as head of the association.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Why did Lloyd George turn it down?
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
It is not allegiance.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Is that a Republic or is it not? I say it is not a Republic. Is that allegiance or is it not?
MR. MACGARRY:
That's a Constitutional Republic [laughter].
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
That's a Republic.
MR. GRIFFITH:
There is a little item left out of that which we were empowered to put up in London—an annual payment to the King of England. The Irish people have been told that we let down the Republic; and that that document is a Republic. I say that is not a Republic. You said you were elected for a Republic; were you elected for that document? Well, that document is the question between us and our colleagues on the opposite side. Now whatever the difference is between us this thing is too grave for the Irish people to have them befogged by words. If they are going to be asked to go out and put their lives and fortunes in danger and lose their lives; and again go through what they have already gone through; let them know that what they are going out for is the recognition of His Britannic Majesty—for a payment to His Britannic Majesty—and for association.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
There is no oath.
MR. GRIFFITH:
The document is there. It is on the Cabinet records. [Cries of ‘No! no!’] No! you kept it out of that record—out of that document.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I have been prevented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs bringing forward my amendment. The people in this assembly do not understand what is contained in the Treaty. We have got no opportunity.
MR. GRIFFITH:
If the people in this assembly do not understand what is in the document they are not fit to be representatives of the people of Ireland [applause]. Now, the Irish people are going to know, so far as I am concerned, what is the difference. I belong to the Irish people; I have worked for them because they are flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone [cheers]; I have never deceived them, at all events, whatever I have done; I may have misled them or given them bad advice; but I have never concealed from them anything that is vital to their interests. It is vital for them to know what we are up against and not to be misled and not to believe that we, plenipotentiaries, went away with a mandate for the Republic and came back with something else. I have heard in this assembly statements about the people of Ireland. The people of Ireland sent us here—we have no right and no authority except what we derive from the people of Ireland—we are here because the people of Ireland elected us, and our only right to speak is to seek what they want. I am told that the people of Ireland elected us to get a Republic. They elected us in 1918 to get rid of the Parliamentary Party; they elected us in 1921 as a gesture, a proper gesture of defiance to the Black-and-Tans; they elected us, not as doctrinaire Republicans, but as men looking for freedom and independence. When we agreed to enter into negotiations with England with the object of producing a Treaty we were bound, I hold, to respect whatever the Irish people—the people of Ireland—thought of that Treaty. I have heard one Deputy saying here that it does not matter what his constituents say. I tell him it does. If representative government is going to remain on the earth, then a representative must voice the opinion of his constituents; if his conscience will not let him do that he has only one way out and that is to resign and refuse to misrepresent them; but that men who know their constituents want this Treaty should come here and tell us that, by virtue of the vote they derive from these constituents, they are going to vote against this Treaty—as that is the negation of all democratic right, it is the negation of all freedom. You are doing what Castlereagh and Pitt did in 1800; you are doing what these two men did when they refused to let the Irish Parliament dissolve on the question of the Union, and to allow the people to be consulted. You are trying to reject this Treaty without allowing the Irish people to say whether they want it or not—the people whose lives and fortunes are involved.
PRESIDENT DR VALERA:
No! no!
MR. GRIFFITH:
You will kill Dáil Eireann when you do that [‘No! no!’]. You will remove from Dáil Eireann every vestige of moral authority, and they will no longer represent the people of Ireland. It will be a junta dictating to the people of Ireland and the people of Ireland will deal with it. When our President was in America he honoured the memory of Abraham Lincoln; and Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest men of the last century—he was one of the men who upheld the rights of the people—and Ahraham Lincoln's words are words I recommend to you now. When Abraham Lincoln was elected as representative of the American people he said: ‘If elected, I shall consider the whole people of Sagamon’—the constituency he represented—‘my constituents, as well those who oppose me as those who support me. While acting as their representative I shall be governed by their will on all such subjects on which I have the means of knowing what that will is’ [applause]. You know what the will of the Irish people is [cries of ‘No!’ and ‘Yes!’]. There is no man here who would go down to his constituency and stand on a platform before his people and say he is against this Treaty.
MR SEAN T. O'KELLY:
I would do it; and will, and so will others.
SEVERAL DEPUTIES:
We are prepared to do it.
MR. GRIFFITH:
They had an opportunity during the recess; I have not read of any of those who stood up now having gone before their constituents.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
There was an undertaking we were not to do it.
MR. FRANK FAHY:
We were forbidden by an undertaking with Mr. Griffith.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Therefore you did not do it. You may interrupt me as much as you please, but there is no power in the junta to intimidate me. The people of Ireland are, you know—every one of you—ninety-eight per cent. for this Treaty [‘No! no!’ and ‘Yes! yes!’]. Now, everyone of you knows it; they have told you to vote for it.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
They did not tell me. They told me to vote against it.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Your constituents told you to vote for this Treaty. The Irish people will not be deceived. They know. They have made their voice heard. Some of you will try to muzzle it; but that voice will be heard, and it will pierce through. The most contemptible references I ever heard made to the people of Ireland have been made this Dáil, I have heard people in this Dáil say that if the people of Ireland had been able in 1921 to accept the Southern Parliament and get rid of Black-and-Tannery they would have done so. Now, I say that is the falsest libel ever uttered the people of Ireland: the people of Ireland stood, throughout, against that terror, and against the terrorism which would seek to suppress their nation; they will stand again [applause]. But they are not going to stand for a fight against what gives them the substance of freedom. If an attempt be made to mislead the Irish people on this question—a Deputy here said something me about last night, and about treason. But I tell you the people who commit treason are the people who try to prevent the Irish people, by force or otherwise, from expressing their opinion [hear, hear]. Distrust the people, muzzle the people, where then is gone self-determination for the people? Where is gone the platform on which we were elected to this Dáil? [hear, hear]. Ah! democracy is, to some minds, very good in theory when democracy fits in with their own ideas; but when democracy bends the reins contrary to their own ideas they get back into a casuistic vein. Now, this country is going to be governed by the Irish people or by the English Government. I am equally opposed to my countrymen being governed by any body of men who flout their wishes and opinions as I am opposed to their being governed by Dublin Castle. We have heard of usurpation. The usurpation that would set itself up against the will of the Irish people is as great a usurpation as Dublin Castle and, so far as I am concerned, my voice and power will be used against that usurpation. You have heard expressions in this Dáil that were rather unfortunate, perhaps. We have representatives in different countries—I happen to be Minister of Foreign Affairs—two of these representatives, immediately this Treaty was signed, started out on their own behalf and made public statements about the Treaty; they did not communicate with me; they thought it right that they should publicly state their views before either the Dáil Cabinet or the Dáil had the power to consider it. They have also represented that the opinion of the world was with them against that Treaty; I say the opinion of the world is that this Treaty constitutes a victory for Ireland, and while I am Minister for Foreign Affairs—perhaps I may not be there much longer—I take the liberty, since these gentlemen took it on themselves to attempt to jump the decision of the Dáil, to read the views of another of our representatives. He may, of course, be dismissed, but he has told me he does not mind; he is a man who has done more for us on the Continent than any other man—Captain MacWhite of the French Army, now representing us in Geneva——
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
When was he made a Captain? He is a Sergeant-Major in the French Army.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Mr. MacWhite is our representative in Geneva. He wrote me a letter on this subject and he told me I might use it if I wished. In this letter he says:
I quote that simply to correct the idea that some of our representatives abroad gave as to the Treaty, that it was their view was held by the European nations. Now, you have heard all that might be said against this Treaty; you have heard even that it is not a Treaty at all. You have been spoken to as if you had a Republican Government functioning all through Ireland, and that you were asked to give up this Government and functioning Republic for this Treaty. You all know here that, instead of governing through Ireland, the most we could do was to hold, and to barely hold, the position we were in. I heard it said in this assembly that we had driven the British Army into the sea but I walked down O'Connell Street and I saw them there in hundreds afterwards. What is the use of so deceiving ourselves? The British Army into the sea; but I walked country; and the British Army can be got out of this country to-morrow by the ratification of this Treaty; those who vote against it are giving a vote to keep the British Army in Ireland. If you expect that when you reject this Treaty you will drive the British Army out, then you are even more credulous than I believed you to be all the time [laughter]. You have got to give the Irish people something substantial if you reject this Treaty; you have got to tell them where you are going to lead them. But you are not leading there anywhere; you have no objective. You have as I was told—as one very prominent man told us—you have been told that this generation is going to die but that the next generation will get something, that is not sanity; that is not politics; that is not statesmanship. Any of those who come and tell the Irish people: ‘Let this present generation immolate itself and, please God, the next generation will get something’, are not talking in the voice of sanity. This generation in Ireland; and this generation has got the right to live for itself as past generations had the right; and future generations will have the right to live for themselves. We, as I said, have been put into the position of defending this Treaty, of making this Treaty appear as if it were a bigger thing than it is; the attacks on us have been designed to force us into the position of saying that this Treaty is an ideal Treaty. Well, it is not. It is the utmost Ireland can get; and it is a Treaty Ireland can honourably accept; it gives a way of working up to our fullest development. We speak here—some us speak here—as if there were no Irish people outside of these doors as if there were no economic questions; as if there were not tens of thousands of unemployed; as if there were not tens of thousands of struggling farmers and labouring people through the country; as if we could go on indefinitely makingTo refuse to ratify the document which you brought back from London would be to put a millstone on the neck of posterity, and to condemn unborn generations to perpetual slavery and poverty. To pretend that we could again revive the sympathies which were so ardently expressed in favour of the Irish cause during the past few years throughout the whole civilised world is nothing less than a monstrous imposition on the credulity of the Irish people. All the sympathisers which we had in France—and they were legion—look upon the
opposition to the Treaty as nothing less than insanity. Those French newspapers which, through thick and thin, fought the battle for Irish freedom believe that in wringing such a Treaty from the powerful British Empire you achieved the inachievable. In Italy our most enthusiastic supporters—and in no other part of the world was there so much popular enthusiasm behind our cause—are of the opinion that we have won a magnificent victory, and there deception will be nil the greater if we do not exploit the victory as any sane people should. Amongst our friends in every other country in Europe the same opinion prevails. Only a few days ago I read of a society at Zurich ‘Pro Irelande,’ whose object was the advocation of Irish liberties, being dissolved as the raison d'etre for its existence had disappeared. Should Ireland, through the fault of her elected representatives, revert to disorder and chaos, then it will be said again—with some foundation this time—that we are unfit for freedom and that we handsomely deserve whatever fate England may reserve for us in the future. The Treaty admits Ireland to membership of the League of Nations. In order to give that document its true international character I do not see any reason why it should not be submitted to the League once Ireland's membership is officially recognised. The Constitution of the League requires that all Treaties entered into by its members or between one of its members and an outsider should be notified to it. Of course England may protest that the Irish Free State did not exist until after the ratification of this Treaty, but once ratified she cannot any longer pretend that is not an international instrument. In future any modification of that document should likewise be submitted to the League and its intervention could be solicited for the regulation of disputes which are not specifically reserved under the articles of the Treaty.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
What is it?
MR. GRIFFITH:
Mr. Collins' suggestion that you had before you recently.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Please read it so that we may all know it.
MR. M. COLLINS:
It was in the Press.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
That we should let this Treaty pass and hold the views we had. What would it mean for Ireland?
MR. GRIFFITH:
I do not mind reading it if President de Valera wishes.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I do not want to ask anybody to break any confidence. I simply want to know if a suggestion was made by Mr. Collins, if it was in the Press?
MR. GRIFFITH:
What I thought you wished me to read was the decision the Committee came to the other night.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Anything that should go to the Irish people let it go. Please let us hear the whole thing now. I did everything I did for unity. If there is anything else read it out then, if it is agreeable.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
I am not agreeable.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Very well. I am not going to read any document so.
MR. J. J. O'KELLY:
What about Mr. Collins' offer?
MR. M. COLLINS:
It was in the public Press.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Well, I regret, therefore, that we cannot go into that. I regret we are not going to have unity; but there is true unity and false unity. I will not sacrifice the Irish nation on the altar of false unity; I will not agree, in order to preserve the semblance of unity in this Dáil, that we should flout the people of this country; I will not agree that the people of Ireland should be sacrificed on a formula.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. GRIFFITH:
We had much talk of principles, of honour, and of virtue here. It seemed to me all on one side; we on this side, had lost all the effulgence of virtue that emblazoned the faces of the people on the opposite side. Well, I have some principles; the principle that I have stood on all my life is the principle of Ireland for the Irish people [hear, hear]. If I can get that with a Republic I will have a Republic; if I can get that with a monarchy I will have a monarchy. I will not sacrifice my country for a form of government. I stand in this exactly where every leader of the Irish nation stood from the time of O'Neill to Patrick Sarsfield. Owen Roe O'Neill said: ‘I do not care whether the King of England is King of Ireland so long as the people of Ireland are free’. I do not care whether the King of England or the symbol of the Crown be in Ireland so long as the people of Ireland are free to shape their own destinies. We have the means to do that by this Treaty; we have not the means otherwise. I say now to the people of Ireland that it is their right to see that this Treaty is carried into operation, when they get, for the first time in seven centuries, a chance to live their lives in their own country and take their place amongst the nations of Europe [applause].
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Before you take a vote I want to enter my last protest—that document will rise in judgment against the men who say there is only a shadow of difference—
MR. MILROY:
Yes, that's all.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
If every thing is in this Treaty that seemed to be covered by it—but it is not—I say that the Irish nation will judge you who have brought this Treaty—if it is approved they will judge you by comparing what you got for the Irish people out of it with the terms of an explicit document where there is nothing implied but everything on the face of it. It is the same position exactly as in the case of Grattan and Flood; and I suppose the Irish Volunteers are to be disbanded next.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Let the Irish nation judge us now and for future years.
THE SPEAKER:
We will take a vote now in the usual way by calling the roll. The vote is on the motion by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that Dáil Eireann approves of the Treaty.
THE CLERK then proceeded to call the roll.
MR. M. COLLINS:
[on being called for the second constituency]The people on the other side need not have objected. I have already voted.
THE SPEAKER:
[on being called]I can only give a casting vote.
MR. GRIFFITH:
[on being called for the second constituency]I wish to register my protest against any constituency being disfranchised. I understand that is your ruling. There are five members here who represent two constituencies each—the President and four other members. Those constituencies that the five of us represent are disfranchised.
THE SPEAKER:
The question of what happens the constituency is not the question
MR. SEAN MILROY:
I wish to enter my protest against the County Tyrone being disfranchised.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
at the conclusion of the Roll call
I claim the right to speak first after the figures are announced.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I want to make a statement, too.
THE SPEAKER:
The result of the poll is sixty-four for approval and fifty seven against. That is a majority of seven in favour of approval of the Treaty.
FOR:
AGAINST:
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It will, of course, be my duty to resign my office as Chief Executive. I do not know that I should do it just now.
MR. M. COLLINS:
No.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
There is one thing I want to say—I want it to go to the country and to the world, and it is this: the Irish people established a Republic. This is simply approval of a certain resolution. The Republic can only be disestablished by the Irish people. Therefore, until such time as the Irish people in regular manner disestablish it, this Republic goes on. Whatever arrangements are made this is the supreme sovereign body in the nation; this is the body to which the nation looks for its supreme Government, and it must remain that—no matter who is the Executive—it must remain that until the Irish people have disestablished it.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I ask your permission to make a statement. I do not regard the passing of this thing as being any kind of triumph over the other side. I will do my best in the future, as I have done in the past, for the nation. What I have to say now is, whether there is something contentious about the Republic—about the Government in being—or not, that we should unite on this: that we will all do our best to preserve the public safety [hear, hear].
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Now, in all countries in times of change—when countries are passing from peace to war or war to peace—they have had their most trying times on an occasion like this. Whether we are right or whether we are wrong in the view of future generations there is this: that we now are entitled to a chance; all the responsibility will fall upon us of taking over the machinery of government from the enemy. In times of change like that, when countries change from peace to war or war to peace, there are always elements that make for disorder and that make for chaos. That is as true of Ireland as of any other country; for in that respect all countries are the same. Now, what I suggest is that—I suppose we could regard it like this—that we are a kind of a majority party and that the others are a minority party; that is all I regard it as at present; and upon us, I suppose, will be the responsibility of proving our mark, to borrow a term from our President. Well, if we could form some kind of joint Committee to carry on—for carrying through the arrangements one way or another—I think that is what we ought to do. Now, I only want to say this to the people who are against us—and there are good people against us—so far as I am concerned this is not a question of politics, nor never has been. I make the promise publicly to the Irish nation that I will do my best, and though some people here have said hard things of me—I would not stand things like that said about the other side—I have just as high a regard for some of them, and am prepared to do as much for them, now as always. The President knows how I tried to do my best for him.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Well, he has exactly the same position in my heart now as he always had [applause].
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
I claim my right, before matters go any further, to register my protest, because I look upon
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
All those who have voted on the side of the established Republic, I would like to meet them say at one o'clock to-morrow, the sooner the better; perhaps we could get the use of this building or of the Mansion House, say twelve-thirty to-morrow.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Whatever we may say, whatever we may think, I do believe that some kind of an arrangement could be fixed between the two sides. Even though our physical presence is so distasteful that they will not meet us,I say some kind of understanding ought to be reached to preserve the present order in the country, at any rate over the week-end.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I would like my last word here to be this: we have had a glorious record for four years; it has been four years of magnificent discipline in our nation. The world is looking at us now—
The President here breaks down.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
So far as I am concerned I will see, at any rate, that discipline is kept in the army.
The House then adjourned at 8.50 p.m., until 11 o'clock a.m. on Monday, the 9th January.
The Session wa resumed at 11.30 a.m., on Monday, 9th January, 1922, THE SPEAKER (DR. EOIN MACNEILL) in the Chair.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
In view of the vote that was taken here on Saturday and which I had definitely to oppose as one that was tending to subvert the Republic which I was elected to my present position to defend and maintain; and as it appeared to me also to be a vote which would tend to subvert the independence of the country, I could no longer continue—as I was beaten in that—I could no longer continue in my present office feeling I did not have the confidence of the House. I therefore wish to place my resignation in the hands of the Assembly; and I think it is not necessary to say any further words in doing so, but simply to resign my office and the responsibilities of it and the members of the Cabinet all go with my resignation.
THE SPEAKER:
In that case is it your intention to proceed with the business?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
No! I think the State cannot get on without definitely having somebody to deal with it. The first business would be to make arrangements for the business of the Government of the State and for its continuance.
MR. M. COLLINS:
In view of that, I suggest that my previous suggestions about forming a Committee would be put. My belief about the thing is this: that no one here in this assembly or in Ireland wants to be put in the position of opposing President de Valera. Well, the practical step in my estimation is to form a Committee, if necessary on both sides for some kind of public safety, as I said. Now, on our side we would form our own Committee to get on with the work, and in my belief what I said on last December twelve months applies now—to stop sulking and get on with the work. We are faced with the problems of taking Ireland over from the English, and they are faced with the problem of handing Ireland over to us, and the difficulties on both sides will be pretty big; and it does not matter what happens so long as we are assured that we are taking over Ireland and that the English are going out of Ireland. My suggestion means that we form a Committee on both sides, if necessary, for the preservation of the public peace, and that on our side we form a Committee to arrange the details and to do all the dirty work—all the difficult work that has to be done. In other words, that we take upon ourselves the burthens of the practical difficulties; and practical people will know what these difficulties are, and they will understand them—they will understand all these things and we will try to do the best we can [hear, hear].
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
As far as I am concerned I think we will have to proceed constitutionally in this matter. I have tendered my resignation and I cannot, in any way, take divided responsibility. You have got here a sovereign Assembly which is the Government of the nation. This assembly must choose its executive according to its constitution and go ahead.
MR. SEAN MACENTEE:
I altogether fail to see how this House could assent to the suggestion of the Minister of Finance. The formation of such a Committee and the participation in it of those of us
MR. GRIFFITH:
This body, a representative body of Irishmen, on Saturday evening approved of the Treaty. In doing so they expressed the will of the people. That approval is going to stand, and that will of the people is going to be maintained. Now, President de Valera said, when he called this body together, there was a constitutional way of settling this question of the Treaty. It has been constitutionally settled; and now nothing is going to prevent that vote from being carried out and the people from having their will expressed.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. PETER HUGHES:
Since President de Valera has signified his intention of not having anything further to do with the Government, and the Deputy for Monaghan says he cannot enter into any arrangement except on their ideas, I think the obvious thing for this House is to appoint a Premier or somebody else and try and get on with the work. There is no use in wasting two or three days over this. It is only for us to do the obvious thing and appoint someone to carry on the work we began on Saturday. May I ask that somebody responsible would propose some motion to this effect. I will not take the responsibility of making the proposal, but somebody must do it. If we start to make speeches again we will be here for three or four days. The country does not want that.
ALDERMAN MRS. CLARKE:
I wish to propose the re-election of Eamon de Valera, President of the Irish Republic, for the same position, for this reason: he is the one man, to my mind, who has maintained in act as well as in mind, the Republic. I have great pleasure in proposing him for re-election as President of the Irish Republic.
MR. LIAM MELLOWES:
I second that. On this occasion it is with great pleasure I rise to second the motion of Deputy Mrs. Clarke. President de Valera has stood to us. He believes in the Republic and is the symbol of the Republic. As that symbol he stood forth at the head of this nation—this nation which has gained a unique position within the last few years. As to President de Valera, there is no need for me to say anything about his qualities. President de Valera stands for us at the moment as the symbol of the Republic, and it is as such that I take pleasure in seconding the motion for his re-election.
MR. SEAN MILROY:
Might I ask if this motion of Deputy Mrs. Clarke is in order? Certainly there is no motion on the Orders of the day for the election of anyone and I would like to have your ruling before proceeding with this very serious matter which has been so suddenly sprung on the Dáil. I ask you to say whether it is in order?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I gave notice that I was going to resign; and it followed as a matter of course, having been defeated on a vital matter of that sort, that I should resign. I gave notice at the last meeting that I was about to resign.
MR. P. O MAILLE:
I think to spring a matter of this sort on the Assembly not fair, because in a grave matter of this sort there should be due notice given and a time specified. I understand these was a meeting of one party held here yesterday.
MR. MACENTEE:
Two parties.
MR. P. O MAILLE:
Even if there was—
MR. M. COLLINS:
We met in the Mansion House.
MR. P. O MAILLE:
We did not know, nor did we get notice that you were going to spring this matter on the House. It is treating the Irish nation very unfairly—we are as strong for Ireland and as much for helping Ireland—and the country will not stand this kind of procedure.
MR. M. COLLINS:
It is only fair to say that we expected something like this; and that we discussed it; and that we would have been fools if we had not anticipated it. Naturally we expected it; otherwise we would have been mere children.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Well, the way I propose—or I should say—the way we propose to meet it is that we should have a Committee. We do not know what the opponents of the Treaty—I refrain from calling them the other side because some of them are more for than against us, and some of us are more for than against them—
A DEPUTY:
Why do you not come over?
MR. M. COLLINS:
Why do you not come over? If you elect President de Valera President of the Irish Republic I have no objection whatever to it but let me say this much: everybody will regard us as being simply a laughing stock. [‘No!’] Yes they will, and the people are already regarding us as a laughing stock; and people are getting impatient at our talking here day after day. If we are going on this way much further the people will come in and turn us out or they will ignore us and we can sit on here and talk as much as we like. What I feel like doing is to get a few people on our side to meet a few people on the English side and go on arranging for the taking over; and you go on here—remain here talking and watching us doing the work [applause].
MISS MACSWINEY:
With regard to the statement that the President's election is not in order.
MR. MILROY:
I merely asked was it in order—
MISS MACSWINEY:
On that point I would like to say a few words. We believe, and we have given evidence of our belief, in the existence of the Irish Republic. That Republic is not dead. It was absurd for the other side to say Mr. Michael Collins has just acknowledged, that they did not know this was coming. On last Thursday or Friday the President wanted to resign and put one policy against the other in order to show the country how they stood. On Saturday he gave notice of surrendering his office this morning. In view of the vote on Saturday night there was no other course open to him. Now, let us be honest with each other. We have got to carry on the Republican Government of Ireland until this Government is disestablished by the Irish people. The vote of a majority of seven did not disestablish the Irish Republic. The suggestion from the other side, or whatever Mr. Collins likes to call his side, that there should be a joint Committee to carry on the work of the country is out of the question. No more could there be a joint committee with them to-day than we could have a joint committee with Castlereagh. We cannot have any working connection whatever which would be tacitly acknowledging on our side that they are in a position to subvert the Republican Government of Ireland—as they have shown by their vote they wish to do. The President was perfectly right in resigning because he was in minority; and as he was not only the President of the Republic, but leader of the House, he had to resign being in a minority. We have to re-assert here to-day that this is a Republican Government and the Parliament of the Government of the Irish Republic, and we must have a President for that republic. If the other side wish to elect somebody in opposition to President de Valera let them do so; but how can they be at the one time, or how can any man from their side be President of the Republic and supporter of the Free State? I maintain that and I take great pleasure in supporting the re-election
MR. D. O'ROURKE:
I feel, in the circumstances that the only alternative is a General Election [hear, hear]. I see no other way out of it as there cannot be any working agreement. It would be impossible, apparently, for this Assembly to carry on—being almost equally divided—and the only way to settle the question is a General Election.
MR. GAVAN DUFFY:
I should have great pleasure in supporting that President de Valera be re-elected President on one condition, and that is that he tell us clearly that he has at last seen the error of his ways [laughter]. In any case it is absolutely essential that when a gentleman is proposed for election as President that he ought to tell the people who are to elect him exactly what his policy is. I think the House is entitled to know from the President where, and to what extent he proposes to give effect to the vote passed by the House on Saturday. We should not be asked to vote on this matter in the dark, and I should therefore ask the President to tell us what is the policy which he proposes to carry out in the event of his being reelected?
THE SPEAKER:
I have asked that the terms of the motion be given in writing.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I think that is a fair question and no matter what anybody thinks to the contrary it is only right to the House that I should say distinctly where I stand. My position is distinctly this, and has always been this: I have regarded this House as the Sovereign Assembly, the sovereign Parliament of the Irish nation. You have even definitely called it the Government of the Irish Republic. Now, we need an executive here. The Executive must have the confidence of the House as a whole. It must have, at least, a majority. If the Executive is beaten on an essential question it must go out and the other side is the proper side to take authority; and if the other side has a definite policy that side should choose, in accordance with the Constitution, its President and so on. The difficulty I see is this: the Republic must exist until the people have disestablished it. So far as I am concerned my position is this: action was taken here which, in my opinion, tends to subvert the Republic. I should feel in my conscience compelled to take every step I possibly could to prevent that subversion; but I recognise that at the present moment, not understanding, to my thinking, what that Treaty means for the Irish people, for the nation, they have been passing resolutions and think that this Treaty should be taken for the moment. I do not think—I do not believe that the Irish people if they thoroughly understood it would stand for it. In the meantime, until they are consulted in a way in which the issue can be explained to them, the Government of the country must go on. I am quite ready to do everything possible to do this fundamental thing—to maintain the independence of Ireland during the interval I would say, should you as the result of the vote wish to keep me on, that the result would be this—I was beaten on a point of policy, but it was a particular point only though a fundamental one—that if the House wished I would carry on the Executive work and that the terms of that Treaty with the particulars—that the further steps have to be taken by those who came here and reported to this House—that those steps be taken by them, that we do not actively oppose, though in conscience I should actively oppose; but I am looking beyond my own personal feeling and seeing what the people of the country want—I have perfect confidence in the people of the country that when that Treaty is worked out in legislative form and put before them that then they will know what they have got, that then they will understand what they are doing by accepting this Treaty and not till then—that therefore these plenipotentiaries and others take the further steps necessary to have that Treaty seen to, that we carry on here in Dáil Eireann; that the resources of Dáil Eireann be here still invested in this House, and that we be entitled to use the funds and everything else for the preservation and independence of Ireland and for the maintenance of the Republic until such time as the Irish people have decided otherwise, and not decided on a vague and indefinite thing like the terms of this Agreement; but when they will have that Act to vote upon, and when they cannot be fooled,
MR. GAVAN DUFFY:
How do you propose the power to be handed over?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
We are finished with that Treaty as far as we are concerned. It has nothing further to do with this House. We have not passed any Act of Ratification of that Treaty. We have simply passed a resolution of approval which means that the Government of the Republic is not going actively to interfere with those who are to complete that Treaty. When they have completed that Treaty then they will have a definite issue before the Irish people, and not till then, and I challenge them on that.
MR. P. J. HOGAN:
I want to say how the position exactly strikes me as one Deputy, to say honestly what we mean, and honestly attempt to be frank. When it is all boiled down it means this: that President de Valera's policy is, in fact, that this Treaty is going to be fought in all details. That is what it means. Well, now, where exactly are we? What is the position? There was a resolution passed by this House on Saturday and I take it that it is a common case that that resolution was not a resolution for the dissolution of the Republic; but the resolution itself was in order, and it was regarded as a fundamental question of policy, and the House divided on it after a most elaborate and exhaustive debate. It was not a snatch vote; nothing like that; and they divided on it. The President, as Chief Executive Officer—his policy was beaten, and that is the position.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. HOGAN:
Now, we are asked to re-elect the President after he has stated, as I have said, that he is going to fight absolutely against the majority will as expressed last Saturday. Well, I do not care how the President is elected, or for what reason he is elected; I say that is tyranny, that is dictatorship; it is the same sort of dictatorship as we have been used to in history. That is what it comes to. Let us be honest the whole time. If you elect the President again on a policy of fighting the Treaty after the resolution that has been passed by this House, let us have no more talk of constitutionalism. Let us be honest about it now on each side of the Treaty. It is not a fair way to get out of it to say that though the people are in favour of it now that they will not be in favour of it when they see the details worked out, and when they see the Treaty in operation. The idea of that is plain; it is to enable this House to carry on under a minority for the next year. That is the idea of it. The people are entitled to be consulted on the issue now—absolutely. If, instead of doing that, this House elects a President who, on his own showing, is going to fight the Treaty that was approved on last Saturday night, then I say we are setting up a dictatorship, and in decency we should not talk of constitutionalism.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I am not offering myself to this House in the sense that I am not asking the House to re-elect me. I am thinking of it as the better and the constitutional and the right and proper way to do the work. This House can elect its President and can act constitutionally. Let the majority work it; I am handing over responsibility to the majority party. The majority party say they do not want to oppose my re-election. I was asked the question what would I do if elected and I gave you definitely what I would do: carry on as before and forget that this Treaty has come. Let those who wish to work it go on; the majority vote at any time can defeat any proposition I put up.
MR. DAVID CEANNT:
It is quite evident that any assembly could not carry on without a recognised head. We are at the present time in what may seem to some a transitional state. We want
MR. W. SEARS:
On Saturday night we took an important division here after a long Session and many speeches on each side; and it was put up to this Dáil that in that division they were either to accept the Treaty or not—that they were then deciding between a Free State on the one hand and a Republic on the other hand. I hold—and all Ireland holds—that that division accepted the Free State, and the world will take that view of it. We came to the parting of the ways on Saturday night, and we solemnly decided by sixty-four votes to fifty-seven to take the Free State road. And now we come in here this morning and we are asked to go to work as if we never made that decision at all. Is that vote to be regarded as inoperative and to have no results flowing from it, or are we to proceed and act on the decision arrived at on Saturday night? If our side were defeated, and if we decided to go on with the Republic, then I could understand that we met here to-day to see what we were to do. I say that if we mean honestly to act on the vote that we took on Saturday night we are to proceed to put the Treaty into operation and to act on it. I could understand the opposition here in taking the part of General Hertzog and his supporters in South Africa. I could understand them watching developments of the Free State, and if our party falls into the mistakes that they predict for us I could understand them going to the country and saying: ‘This is the failure we predicted; you voted for the Treaty and you got it; you now see it is a fraud’. But as we decided to take it, let us honestly take it before the world and work it. Let the other side criticise it. Do not let them come in here and say on the one hand, ‘Take the Treaty,’ and on the other, ‘Give us a weapon to destroy and defeat it’. If we proceed on that policy we will be making ourselves a laughing stock before the world [applause].
MR. MACENTEE:
It appears to me that if I were on the side of those who voted for the approval and recommendation of the Articles of Agreement that on behalf of the Irish people I would be prepared now—
MR. J. J. WALSH:
Is a member entitled to speak twice?
THE SPEAKER:
This is the first time since this motion was moved.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
The second time.
MR. MACENTEE:
I am in opposition still.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I am sorry that you have not resigned like a manly man.
MR. MACENTEE:
It appears to me that if I were on the side of those who stand for the ratification of this Treaty, and with my knowledge of Irish history, I would be prepared to support, merely as a precaution against English treachery, the policy which the President has declared he stands for in this House. We have not yet got the Treaty with England. We have got the heads of the proposed agreement which England may not honour when the act is drawn up. We have not got the Constitution of the Free State. That Constitution has yet to emanate from the English Parliament; and with a prospect of a General Election
MR. HOGAN:
I do not want this debate to proceed on the assumption that I said something that I did not say, I did not say that he asked to be re-elected.
MR. MACENTEE:
You said that the President's suggestion was that the Treaty should be fought detail by detail. He said if he were elected he would give those who stood for the Treaty a free hand in order to secure that that Treaty should receive some concrete expression of form, and then that when they and the English Parliament had evolved it he would challenge it in the country as he was perfectly entitled to do; and no doubt it will, in due course, be challenged in the country. It appears to me that the proposal of the other side that a Committee of Public Safety be set up and their refusal to nominate any candidate for the Presidency, and their attempt by a disgraceful manoeuvre to prevent the re-election of the President—it seems to me that the other side are already afraid of the consequences of their act. I would suggest to them that the reason for that fear is this: that they see already a prospect of English treachery, and that like the old Irish Party and every other party that ever depended on British promises, rather than acknowledge manfully the shaky ground upon which they stand they would wish to bring us all into the bog with them. I suggest that there is a nobler and more honourable way than that. The President has said that if elected by this House he will ask for the control of the resources of the Republic I think it would be a very good thing if the resources of the Republic should be at the disposal of a man like President de Valera, who, if this proposed bond should be dishonoured, will still stand with the Irish nation behind him to fight for Ireland. And I would suggest that, in their own interests, in order that they themselves may not be publicly betrayed, that they would support the re-election of President de Valera.
MR. BRENNAN:
Does the Deputy who has sat down think that if England does not keep her promises that we are going to sit down and are going to fall in with England against Ireland?
MR. MACENTEE:
No! but I wish you to maintain the machinery and the organisation and the finances in order that you might be able to fight England if England does let you down.
MR. MACKEOWN:
We will.
MR. M. COLLINS:
We will, not they.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
I would suggest earnestly to the gentlemen on the other side that they would be doing the best thing to promote the interests they have at heart by keeping the Republic established as long as these negotiations are to go on with England at least. A certain number of men on the other side—I give them credit for being as good Republicans as on our side and I believe the declaration of these men that their ultimate aim and object is a firmly fixed Republican form of Government in Ireland. They claim that by voting for this Treaty they are taking a good step in that direction. On that point we differ but I think they will agree with me that it would be a very unwise step now on their part to disestablish the Republic and all its machinery at this moment and that is what it would amount to if the re-election of President de Valera were not carried. I would urge upon them —on those who are Republican at any
PROFESSOR WHELEHAN:
May I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, if the President, in the selection of his Cabinet, will select from the majority or the minority of the House, or form a combined Cabinet?
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is quite obvious that a combined Cabinet will be out of the question, because no effort of mine could secure a combined Cabinet. It is also equally obvious that a Cabinet from the majority is out of the question. So that it would mean, in effect, that in that case you would have a Cabinet that would be composed for the time being of those who stood definitely by the Republic; that you would here in this House control the Cabinet and all its acts; that it would be responsible to you, and that the effect would be that those who brought this document would take the necessary steps to complete it, and that they would come here to this House if they wished to get any sanction for any act and tell the House what they wanted. If the House agreed with what they wanted well and good. For instance, if there was something that would be held by the members of the House to be against it you might have a crisis in certain cases. But I am thinking only of the best way to do two things—to carry on over the interim period, and to do what I told this House several times I would like to see done. We came together to a certain bridge. At that bridge for years I thought we might part. I am anxious at least that we should never be driven back beyond that bridge; that we should entrench ourselves on that bridge and leave the final decision to the Irish people; and that in fairness to the Irish people we do not play party polities now any more than in the past. In fairness to the Irish people we will present them with an issue which will be so clear-cut and definite that they will not have any doubt on it. None of us would wish to see the Irish people giving away anything that they do not want themselves to give away; and therefore I hold, from the point of view of definitely safeguarding the nation, that the proposal I have made, and I would not have mentioned it, nobody here on my side knew anything about it—so that let nobody think it was a concerted plan. Every one of you will remember here at the Private Session that I said the same thing practically. Therefore you can see definitely that my proposal now is practically what it was before. I quite admit that there is a lot involved on the other side. If they do not want to take that risk they will have to choose their own Executive.
ALDERMAN W. T. COSGRAVE:
There is no doubt the older we are getting the more information we are getting. The latest interpretation of Constitutional practice is that the minority in an assembly is to form the Government and to carry out the various functions of Government in the country.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Remember, I am only putting myself at your disposal and at the disposal of the nation. I do not want office at all. Go and elect your President and all the rest of it. You have sixty-five. I do not want office at all.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
We are here now an hour, and the President has spoken four times, and the little Deputy from Monaghan twice.
MR. MACENTEE:
Once on the resolution.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
And the first thing he has stated was we have got to take great care that the English will honour the Treaty. And he is himself taking the greatest possible care that we will not honour it. Now, I do not know whether I read in the paper that the
MR. MACENTEE:
On a point of order I never said I would resign before the vote was taken. The Deputy has stated a deliberate falsehood.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Did you say you would resign afterwards?
MR. MACENTEE:
I said I would resign in due course when I had discharged my obligations to the nation. My public utterances are on record. I said that when I fulfilled my obligations I would resign. I never said I would resign when the vote was taken.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
As I said before, the Deputy for Monaghan can speak until he is understood and, of course, it will take me a long time to understand him. Now, this is certainly the most unconstitutional procedure I have ever known. I am getting old; I am thirteen years in public life; I have never heard a proposition the like of which has been put before us this morning, and it is certainly the most exceptional procedure ever proposed. I think the President realises it too, and appreciates it—that the minority of this House takes over the Government of the country and takes over the resources of it.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
Select your President.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
The President dictates to the House what the policy is regardless of the decision of this House. The minority is to regulate whether a decision of this House is to be put into operation or not.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
That is a deliberate misrepresentation, and you know it.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Let us have the exact representation.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
The exact representation is this: I resigned. The minority can go and take over the machinery of the Republican Government as it is. The proposition was made that I should take office. I was asked by the Deputy for South Dublin that it was only fair to say what the policy was I have given it to you. I do not ask you to elect me. Therefore I am not seeking to get any power whatever in this nation. I am quite glad and anxious to get back to private life.
DR. MACCARTAN:
Is the President withdrawing his candidature?
MR. A. STACK:
You are not his agent.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
As an ordinary man who has been in public life, and who has generally managed to understand what people have said in public, it is this way: this is the interpretation I gather. I take it that the President does not want to be in this position where his advisers want to put him. He has stated he has no advisers.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
I said I was not consulting anybody about it.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Strange I have heard these arguments before, and I know where——
MR. J. J. O'KELLY:
In Private Session he stated so.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I have heard them before the Private Session.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
It may be my own stupidity in the difficulty of understanding this. But, as I think anyone is aware, the position is—as it will appeal to the people of Ireland—that the advisers of the President seek to take advantage of his personal popularity and the respect in which the people of this Assembly hold him—that they desire to establish here an autocracy. Last week the vilest abuse was poured upon us. We were held up to public scorn and hatred. We were described as only babes could be described. This morning we are getting cheap advice. We are told that everything possible on the other side is being done in our interests—that it is our interests they have in view.
A DEPUTY:
The interests of the nation.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Well we are just as anxious to do the best for the nation as the loudest spoken amongst you. We have been only able to give whatever was in us. And we gave that and we are prepared to give it again. I made it a point at the commencement here not to interrupt anyone. And I regret that those young people here have not been able to appreciate that good example [laughter]. I have shown you an excellent example. Now, the people who do not want to see this Treaty carried out—and that is really the essence of the position of the other side—the people who do not want to see this Treaty carried out desire to have the resources of the Republic.
MR. J. J. O'KELLY:
The people who are true to the Republic.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
And the army and the finances of the Republic. That is what they want given them—that and you can blaze away. I have never heard in my life a constitutional proposition of that kind being put up in any assembly by the minority. It may be a new axiom. And I submit that the resolution for the re-election of the President is out of order, having regard to the fact that the majority party in every assembly in the world moves the motion. I do not know whether that is objected to or not. The new apostles of the new system of government may object to it. There was one other matter that I would like to refer to. Those who have taken on themselves the right to speak and censure the utterances of others have interpreted it that under the Treaty we become British subjects. I deny that, and I say positively that they knew they were not speaking the truth when they made that statement. I was reading last evening an American paper, the Boston Post, sent me by a friend a few days ago, and that paper stated that under the Treaty the Irish people are Irish citizens and not British subjects.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Prove it.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Of course some people would not agree to that. I can tell you that it would take a lot to prove a thing to you that you do not want to understand or do not want to see. I did not interrupt you. It is not a thing that can be proved, as I said before, to a man who will not see the proof.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Prove it to the Dáil.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
The Dáil understands it. There are sixty-four sensible people in the Dáil, and the Dáil realises that [applause and laughter], and if you are the apostle of constitutional Government you will accept their decision, because it is a majority decision.
THE SPEAKER:
Deputies when speaking should address the Chair.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
It happens that some delegates or Deputies are more bellicose than others, and that consequently some Deputies when speaking are subject to interruption. I did not interrupt the Minister for War [laughter]. I submit that the motion for the re-election of the President is unconstitutional, and that it is out of order. That motion can only come from the majority party. I submit that the decision which has been taken here on Saturday cannot be rescinded on Monday. I submit that the President himself sees the position and appreciates it, and his own statement that he did not desire to set up a minority to run the country is evidence of the fact that he appreciates it. And I submit to you, sir, that the resolution is out of order, and that the only motion that can be in order is one moved from the other side—the majority party—to set up a joint Committee in order to carry into effect the resolution adopted by this Assembly on Saturday in accordance with every known axiom of constitutional law. That motion suggested by the Minister of Finance and supported by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is the only one. Now, I was looking up the Constitution of the Dáil, and I was not dismissed yet by the President, and I say under the rules it is only by dismissal you can be put out of office.
THE PRESIDENT:
Well, I dismissed you by my resignation.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I want put this position before the Dáil—that there are letters going out from my department with my name on them. Is that stopped? Because if so I must stop work. I will send over to tell them
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is to-day.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Well, then, I suppose I must send to my office to stop further communications going out. If the President is re-elected, and if the Ministers he puts up are defeated, where are we landing ourselves? We were warned by the Deputy from Monaghan that we will be in a bog. I think the only member of the Assembly who is in a bog is himself. Now, I put that position to you, sir, because you have a very responsible position as Speaker of this House. The Government of the country must go on. Nothing can change the vote that was taken here on Saturday last [cries of ‘No! no!’]. There is a constitutional way of dealing with them. Are you afraid of the people? [Cries of ‘No! no!’]. I am glad to hear that because one of the Deputies said here that the fear of the people would get this Treaty ratified. I know them, and the are not afraid; and I know it is not the ear but the sense of the people that made them favour the Treaty. There was never as much fight in the people as when the terror was highest. The people of this country are not going to be coerced into accepting an instrument of this kind [applause].
MR. J. J. O'KELLY:
You know they were coerced at Downing Street.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
You were in the Chair a long time and you know what the order is. I am sorry I have been interrupted so often. I am interested in doing things in a proper way, and I am interested in this assembly as the first assembly of the nation. The one fact remains that we have the destinies of the country in our hands, and that we are responsible for restoring normal conditions. The enemy are now willing and anxious to clear out, and I believe they are making preparations to clear out. Are there to be no facilities on our side to get them out and to restore normal conditions? Is that an honest state of affairs? Are we to get away from the page of party politics and the page of party suspicion and party speeches and realise that this nation did not elect us to go on with this nonsense? And if the Government of the country is to be maintained it could only be done by establishing majority rule; and I believe the majority here would willingly get out tomorrow if you can get better men, and if those who are interested in the Republican form of Government—and I am not —I don't care what form it is so long as it is free, independent, authoritative, and a sovereign Government of the people, an that it will be respected. If they wish to put up this Republican programme of theirs I warn them that they are not taking the best methods. And those people to whom I have been speaking outside about the proceedings here are not impressed by the attitude nor by the bitterness of those opposed to the Treaty. It is not by bitterness that we succeed. Upon our shoulders rests more responsibility than any body of Irishmen ever had to bear. The world is looking at us now, having approved of this Treaty, and it is expecting some results from it. It is expecting ordered government from it and if you cannot have ordered government if you re-establish and reconstruct the government of the minority. Therefore I submit to you that it is not in order to receive the motion.
DR. FERRAN:
We have listened to the most extraordinary constitutional procedure that was ever listened to. I will state the case in a few words. The government of the Irish Republic entered into negotiations with the British Government. They carried these negotiations up to a certain point. But Lloyd George chose to say that they were finished when he negotiated the Treaty. We know that they are not. We have reached a stage in the negotiations. Now, it seems the best way to continue the negotiations is through the Republican Government. The British Government is out to smash the Republican Government.
MR. R. MULCAHY:
This assembly here carried on for a very long time—as far as my recollection goes—without having a President of the Irish Republic. We carried on here in the Dáil—as far as my recollection goes—until the re-assembling of the Dáil after the re-election for what was called the Parliament of Southern Ireland. We carried on to that date without a President. The suggestion is
MR. SEAN MILROY:
I think when the public read in the Press this discussion and understand its full bearing the feeling of the public will be one of sheer exasperation. We spent a number of weeks in Public and Private Session discussing a grave national issue. And we decided it last Saturday night after exploring every vestige of that Treaty, and after the public mind of the country has pronounced, as far as it was possible for the country to make itself articulate. Now, this morning we are confronted with a proposal, a motion, a situation which has, I think, no other object and can have, if carried, no other consequence than to reverse or nullify the decision of last Saturday. The President has emphasised the fact, from his point of view, that he is trying to end what appears to be an impasse by strict adherence to constitutional methods. I submit that he is not quite accurate or exact in his conception of what constitutional methods should be in this matter. The constitutional method for a party who is defeated in an assembly like this is to resign their power and let the majority take control [hear, hear]. I notice there is great jubilation amongst the supporters of this motion, and I take it that they strongly dissent from this statement of the President that there can be no question of a Cabinet being selected from the majority of the House. Now, I suppose I am guilty of as many interruptions as anybody else, and I need not grumble. But when I was coming in during the course of this discussion I heard the Deputy from Monaghan speaking about a shaky ground. I do not know whether it was the shaky ground of his in Monaghan or the shaky ground of the President in this position that he was referring to. But it certainly is a most precarious position to stand in. President de Valera and those who stood with him were defeated on last Saturday night in this House. I submit that the constitutional
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
On the Treaty.
MR. MILROY:
On the Treaty. Are you going to honour the decision of the majority or are you going to make us, not merely a laughing stock, but something that is beneath contempt in the civilised world, by giving a decision one night and two days after reversing that decision? [‘No!’]. Very well, do not be playing the personality of President de Valera against the real sense of this house. I find it hard to speak with patience about this matter. We regarded decision on Saturday night last—at least, I regarded it—as terminating a long and serious controversy. We regarded it as coming to the end of one stage, and that when that stage was reached we would begin subsequently to carry out what was the effect of that decision. If this motion is persisted in, if the policy connected with the Government is persisted in, it means that you are deliberately and with malice aforethought endeavouring to nullify the decision come to last Saturday night, endeavouring to reverse the decision of the House and to nullify the efforts made to bring some kind of independent staple government to Ireland. Now I would ask you who voted for the Treaty on last Saturday night to realise what you are faced with. Those who voted against it, of course, have not the responsibility that those who voted for it have. But every Deputy here who voted for that Treaty last Saturday night is as much bound to honour his vote as the plenipotentiaries were to honour their signatures. And I tell you, the man who votes to-day for the motion which will have the effect of destroying the motion voted for on last Saturday night—that Deputy will be as guilty of ——
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Treason.
MR. AUSTIN STACK:
To the Republic, mar dheadh.
MR. MILROY:
I prefer to choose my own words
MR. A. STACK:
And your own crimes.
MR. MILROY:
I will be responsible for my own crimes. I will not ask any Deputy here to take responsibility for them. And I say that every person here who voted for the Treaty last Saturday night and who votes for the motion to destroy the Treaty or to nullify its effects to-day is as much guilty of cowardice—I will say moral cowardice—it is, perhaps, a less reprehensible word than the Minister for Home Affairs selected for me—he will be as guilty of moral cowardice as the plenipotentiary who signed in London and will come back and vote against the Treaty here. This is no time for playing party politics or trying to score [laughter]. I cannot understand the laughter that comes to the face of the Holy Roman Deputy from Tipperary. It may be a laughing matter to him if this Treaty is destroyed. But I tell you it will not be a laughing matter to Ireland, and there will be no smile on
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I want to get back to common sense and plain facts. The President offered to resign. He resigned on Saturday. It was at the suggestion—or almost request—of the opposition he withdrew his resignation until this morning, and I strongly resent then that he should be accused of any political trick.
Mr. MILROY:
Not by me.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Surely when the President's policy is defeated the obvious course is for the President to resign. Now, we want order and peace in the country. We do not wish to see disruption and disagreement which may lead to very serious results up and down the land. We listened to Mr. Collins' suggestion of a joint committee that from the President's point of view and from my point of view is an impossibility, because we disagree on fundamentals, that is, on the Treaty. Mr. Michael Collins stands for Saorstát na h-Eireann, and I stand for the Republic. As a person who stands for the Republic I cannot consider anything less, nor will I work with anyone who considers the case of Ireland from a lower standard than my own. Now, the President's name was put forward for re-election. Now, I ask, what do the opposition mean? Why do they not put up a man of their own as President—which I would consider the honourable way out of this? I myself believe that, except on the one question of the Saorstát as against the Republic—that is, the Free State or Cheap State, as the other Irish translation has it—there is a majority in favour of the Free State in this House, but I do not know that on any other of the points of President de Valera's policy that there has ever been any disagreement in this House. And, of course, the opposition are pre-supposing that this House is definitely divided. One of our party proposed President de Valera as President of this assembly. And I conclude Deputy Mrs. Clarke proposed that because, when the President resigned, the opposition did not, in their turn, propose a President. They, apparently, did not stand for the Republic. We then, as Republicans—or a member of our party—proposed our much loved and much respected President, the man who carried out the great fight in Boland's Mill with a gun in his own hands, as a Commander, in Easter Week; the man who fought elections, the man who went to jail, the man whom we have all known as the straightest, truest and most honourable man we ever had anything to do with. Even his opponents will admit there could never have been a criticism of the President's bravery, courage or honour. We proposed the President and they are refusing to elect the President. They are trying to overthrow the Republic. This is what I would put to them: we established our Republic; they have this Treaty. This Treaty has been passed by the House. They have a clear road in front of them. They go over—they take up the negotiations, they form a Constitution and then go on. But I say: why should our side be supposed to end our opposition to the destruction of the Republic? Now, the members of the opposition here blame the President because, when he was put forward as President to be elected, he simply and frankly and honestly stated that, as President, he would continue his work as President of the Irish Republic—a protector and fighter for the Irish Republic. That was an honourable line, and a thing for which I respect and value him. We know to-day that England is in the tightest corner she was ever in. We know there is a paper wall around India and Egypt as big as there had ever been around Ireland before Easter Week. We do not know what straits England is in. We don't know what may happen in the coming year while the Provisional Government which Mr. Griffith and Mr. Collins are going to set up is functioning, and I say now it is necessary that the Republican interest should be held and the situation watched. And I say now: let this vote be a straight one. The Republic exists to-day. Let the President be elected and let him stand by his ideals and the world will know the man he is. I would say that those who stand for the
MR. LIAM DE ROISTE:
Is not this the present position before us? The English are willing to evacuate the country at the moment that we set up the Provisional Government. Their forces are ready to leave as soon as the Provisional Government is set up. All their Departments of Government to the number of fifty-six are to be handed over to the representatives of the Irish people. Now, is it not common sense that in the interests of the Republic of Ireland—which to my view is not a minority or a majority party; not this Dáil itself, but the people of Ireland—is it not common sense that in the interests of the people of Ireland that the sooner we give facilities to the British to clear out of the country the better? And the only way in which we can give these facilities at the present moment is by setting up a Provisional Government here. Those who are opposed to the setting up of the Provisional Government in this country are, as I said and as I consider it now, in favour of retaining, not alone the British Army and the armed forces in this country, but the thing which is an abomination in Ireland—Dublin Castle Government. That, I maintain, is the position, and we ought all to take the same view.
DR. CUSACK:
There is a way out, and a very clear way out. This is the Dáil—the Republican Parliament for all Ireland. The members who were elected to the Republican Parliament know that the Republican Parliament will exist until the General election will remove it.
A DEPUTY:
And remove you, too.
DR. CUSACK:
That has nothing to do with this point. And by Article 17 of the Treaty we see:
We have not got these members here. This is not a Parliament of Southern Ireland. Now, our Government must go on—the Republican Government must go on. There is no reason why the members elected to the Southern Parliament should not, if they wish, form a Provisional Government as this instrument says, and proceed to take over. There is no reason why that should not be done and end our discussion and end the flight of oratory.By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof and the constitution of a Parliament and a Government of the Irish Free State in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a Provisional Government, and the British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such Provisional Government the powers and the machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties, provided that every member of such Provisional Government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument. But this arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
Mr. Mulcahy seemed to suggest that instantly we should enjoy the advantages given in the Treaty. Evidently that is not so. There has to be negotiations, conferences, and ratification of this Treaty in connection with England, and it is now what you mean to consider what views Ireland is to put before the world, and how she is to show herself an existing entity. Something should be done to show that we have not given up our separate existence, nor what we wish to get, an independent country. Therefore it seems to me a sort of misunderstanding to think that you can instantly now go and take
MR. DOMHNALL O CEALLACHAIN:
I feel bound to contradict and resent one thing that I may safely describe as deliberate misrepresentation. I have listened to one of my colleagues from Cork seek to make a case. He said that those who maintain here to-day a particular line of action—that some members of this House desire to retain in Ireland the British Government and the British Army and British Departments. Now, I am satisfied that neither of us here nor any member of this House can believe that that is true. Consequently, I may safely call this deliberate misrepresentation. I hope this is not going to develop into a series of speeches. The central fact is that there must be a Government until such time as a certain form of negotiations has taken place. There must be a Government. It is also clear from certain statements that that Government must come from one side or the other. Now, the House is here and I think the House should decide now.
MR. LIAM DE ROISTE:
I am one of those who utterly dislike making any personal explanations. I rather agree with the motto ‘never explain’. But in regard to my friend, the Lord Mayor of Cork, I did not mean that that was the intention of those supporting the election of President de Valera, but that it will be the effect of their action in opposing the setting up of a Provisional Government by delaying the evacuation of the British Forces.
MR. SEAN ETCHINGHAM:
I hope this will not descend into politics. My good friend, the Deputy for Tyrone, referred to me. He used to consider himself a Party politician. What we want to do is to salve as much as we can out of the wreckage, and to do it for Ireland. He said I would be afraid to go before the Irish people. I am not. But I did hope that when the Chairman of the Delegation was concluding his speech the other night that he would have answered one of the Deputies from Mayo, Doctor Ferran, who asked him some very pertinent questions regarding this Treaty and its future. He did not deal with that nor with other things. But I hope he will now. He seems to know more about it. He had some correspondence from the Prime Minister of England, and he will know about its future. I have had this point from the English Press and the Irish Press— statements from the Prime Minister of England and by Lord Birkenhead that these are Articles of Agreement.
THE SPEAKER:
What is the Deputy speaking to?
MR. ETCHINGHAM:
To the election of President de Valera, and I want to answer, as far as I can, some statements made here that have really nothing to do with that [laughter]. I appreciate that. I do say the position of Deputies in this House who are afraid to face the issue of electing the President for the Irish Republic in the Parliament of the Irish Republic—they are afraid to face that issue straight and so they side-track. They would not put up a candidate of their own. And they go on talking about constitutionalism. Would it not be more constitutional to here and now say ‘Are you going to kill the Irish Republic? Can you do it?’ No! You have not put up a candidate of your own. President de Valera has been put up and you cannot put up anyone against him. You had it from a very able Deputy who raised a laugh. But he did not deal with any constitutionalism. I have heard from one of the Deputies in Dublin that we had not a President in the first Parliament in Dublin. But that very Deputy seconded President de Valera as President of the Republic in the Mansion House. He was proposed by Deputy Seán MacKeown, and no quibble about it, President of the Irish Republic, and seconded by Deputy Mulcahy, and I think the whole House agreed to it. Now he resigns that position, and resigns it before the whole body, and he is proposed and seconded for election. You cannot side-track that. You must face it. The other day when things were made unconstitutional he threatened to resign, and he put up his resignation and it was pointed out by the other side—it was said it was a political trick. And it was not. There is a hope here in the minds of a few that by insisting it is unconstitutional he will withdraw this. I hope he will not. It is time for us to face the issue. The Deputy from Cork knows well that we here had no right to ratify the Treaty. It was the Deputies elected to the Parliament
MR. M. COLLINS:
They might vote against it.
MR. ETCHINGHAM:
It was open, I daresay, to the Viceroy to call this meeting of the Southern Parliament, to call it for, say, Leinster House or somewhere else, and elect a Provisional Government. But I would appeal to you in the interests of Ireland, even in the interests of the Treaty that you have by a majority decided to accept here on Saturday night, to still maintain your Republic. It is a loose thing; it is only Articles of Agreement according to the English, and you know what they have done with treaties in the past. And one Deputy at some meeting here stated that the only hope you have of getting that Treaty is that we would stand out against it. Even the Deputy from Offaly stated it here one night. He voted for it. For goodness sake do not for Party purposes or Party polities go and destroy the ultimate aim you have, and that great opportunity you have, of saving your country. I know there are men on the other side as patriotic as I am. I always admitted that. I worked with them in the past. Some of them say they will take an oath every time they get a rifle. I do not agree with that. The oath is a thing that ought be respected and so is the Treaty, too. The Minister of Finance declared that this does not satisfy the aspirations of the Irish people; that this is not a final settlement; and in his final speech the Chairman of the Delegation agreed that anything might happen in ten years; though, unfortunately, in an interview he gave to some member of the Press Association after the Treaty was signed he stated that it was the end of seven and a half centuries of fighting—that it was the liberty of Ireland. Now I ask you: it may be thought that I want to take a Party side in this question of supporting President de Valera. I told you here that I supported principles and not persons. President de Valera is the symbol of the Irish Republic. President de Valera holds a greater place in the hearts of the Irish people than any man in the public life of Ireland to-day. And I can assure you that if you turn him down in this Dáil you will not have peace in the country. If you elect him you will have peace, because he will see that you will have peace. He is not out for party polities. He urged every one of us not to say one word that would injure Ireland—that Ireland was above us all—and that is his feeling to-day. But I met here a supporter of the Treaty last night, a man of some influence in the city, who read in the Press that we seemed to want to turn the President down. He resented that. What he did say was that on the 4th December President de Valera went back from his Cabinet meeting and it seemed to be his Palm Sunday, and ‘now,’ he said ‘are you going to bring him back and make it his Good Friday?’. That will be the feeling of the people. Let us get out of the strife of last week. It is ended. We are here as the Parliament of the Irish Republic and you are asked to re-elect President de Valera as President. Are you going to vote against him? Are the young men who believe in the Republic going to go against him? I say not. And it does not matter if he is elected here by the majority. That will not stop the formation of obvious work, nor will it keep the English Army in Ireland, nor the formation of the Irish Army in Ireland. It will be the means of driving the English Army out of it. See what Thomas says about the forthcoming General election, and what will happen. Realise your position. You cannot trust these English Ministers. And now they would turn down every one of those Articles of Agreement if you did not maintain the machinery of the Irish Republic that forced them to accept things as they are. In God's name I ask you this: abandon following Party politics; come back to the old spirit of comradeship, Ireland over all, and unanimously—if you can—elect President de Valera.
PETER HUGHES:
I move that we now adjourn for two hours.
Opposition cries of: ‘Take a vote’.
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
I agree with Deputy Etchingham that it is time to face the issue. But my conception of what the issue is, is somewhat different from his. The issue is this: are we here as representatives of the Irish people or are we not? And I do not think we speak here the voice of the Irish nation if we do not represent, each one of us, our constituents. Then we are, more or less,
MR. AUSTIN STACK:
Use your influence with Lloyd George.
MR. M. COLLINS:
That is worthy of Austin Stack to say that.
MR. AUSTIN STACK:
Any man who says the Republic is dead deserves it.
MR. M. COLLINS:
The remark is worthy of the man who made it.
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
What I am really anxious to ascertain is this: whether the spiritual Republic which we are told is in existence is to continue, or whether the people wish to set up a Provisional Government preparatory to establishing a Free State in Ireland?
MR. ERNEST BLYTHE:
What is in my mind is to assure you that anything that will be done here to-day will he something that will rather tend to prevent people who have worked together so long, and who are still out for the same ultimate end—to prevent them from arriving at a situation where they may begin shooting one another. Rather the opposite. I agree with President de Valera that a plebiscite now would not be as clear an issue before the Irish people as a plebiscite or General Election when the Constitution of the Irish Free State has been framed. And for that reason I am not one of those who desire a plebiscite now;. I believe that the plebiscite now would go in favour of the Treaty. I believe that when the Constitution of the Irish Free State has been framed that the people will respect that Constitution and that they will approve of the Treaty and approve of the setting up of a Provisional Government. Because that was one of the Articles of Agreement. Now, that Provisional Government will represent the majority in this Dáil; whether formally or informally it will have authority from this Dáil. And if we are going here to set up a Republican Government representing the minority of the Dáil and also having the authority of the Dáil, I think we are heading straight for a situation in which chaos of the worst kind will result.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Mexican politics.
MR. BLYTHE:
To some extent President de Valera, by his first answer, met the situation. But he did not go far enough. Nothing that he said gave any assurance that we were not going to have the worst possible clash between two separate and distinct Governments, both having authority from this Dáil. And I think that the Dáil would be certainly shirking its duty and be guilty of a very grave crime against the country if it lightly or hurriedly created such a situation—because it has already approved of the Treaty—if it is going to set up two opposing Governments, and if there is no arrangement made by which there would not be a clash between them.
PRESIDENT DE VALERA:
It is obvious that the arrangements would have to be made.
MR. MACKEOWN:
I wish to support the motion for adjournment.
MR. M. COLLINS:
If we do not accept the adjournment at this present moment I want to speak about this motion and its implications in every possible way. If we do not adjourn I want to speak about this motion and refer to it in all its implications.
THE SPEAKER:
Better adjourn now. It is one-thirty o'clock.
MR. M. COLLINS:
My statement about it will be rather lengthy.
MR. DAN MACCARTHY:
Several speakers have intimated to me that they want to speak on the motion.
THE SPEAKER put the motion to adjourn for two hours and it was carried. The House adjourned at 1.30 p.m., to 3.30 p.m.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
On resuming after luncheon THE SPEAKER (DR. EOIN MACNEILL) took the Chair at 3.50.
MR. STACK:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I did not intend speaking on this debate, on this part of the debate at all, but unfortunately, the heat of the moment caused me to use a remark which I regret. I was rather galled by a statement made by one of the speakers which prompted me to suggest that, as a way out of a certain difficulty, our friends opposite should use their influence with Mr. Lloyd George to bring about a plebiscite. I wish to withdrew that remark unreservedly. I know that whatever influence our friends opposite have will be used for Ireland's good and not for her difficulty [hear, hear]. As I am my feet I wish to say a few words in support of the nomination of Mr. de Valera, who will be President, I hope, in future of the Republic. I simply wish to remark that the Republic was established by the people's will, and that it still exists, and that being so that a President and Executive are absolutely necessary. I support the nomination of Eamon de Valera because I believe the policy which he has propounded is the right and only policy for this country. I support his nomination also because I believe he is a big man, perhaps the biggest man in Europe this day. He is a man in whom I have always had the greatest confidence. And if I may say a thing that is fairly personal, I remarked during these negotiations when a friend of mine, a reverend clergyman, approached me and hoped that we would not be let down, I told him I was ready to commit suicide the moment Mr. de Valera let us down—and I am. With regard to the suggested plebiscite it was on that subject that our friend opposite made the remark to-day, and I say that we on this side have no objection whatever to the voice of the people being made articulate. But it must be the people's free choice, and whatever referendum there may be must be between the Republic and this document. When I say free choice I am sure every member here will understand me. I mean the choice made in the absence of any element of compulsion. Then, and then only, will you have the true will of the people and, let the result be what it may it will be Government with the consent of the governed.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS:
When I spoke, before I went away from here, I said I would deal with what I considered the implications of this present motion. Now, whatever we say—whatever any of us say, or whatever any of us think—we cannot conceal our own innermost thoughts from ourselves, and my innermost thought about this is: that in opposing it I am doing a greater service to Eamon de Valera than the people who put his name forward for re-election [hear, hear]; and when I mentioned the other day that Eamon de Valera had the same place in my regard now as ever he knows that I meant what I said. He knows it in his innermost mind, whether the dictates of policy force him to deny it or not. He knows it, and I am satisfied he knows it. Now, rushing a vote, on an issue like this, may be good tactics from the point of view merely of getting a vote, but it is bad tactics from the point of view of the nation. None of us want to see the Republic turned down, and some of us have not turned down the Republic. Some of us stand to work to the best of our ability—to work for the Irish nation, for a free Irish atmosphere, for the Irish people, Irish climate, Irish
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
A Chinn Chomhairle, agus a lucht na Dála, ba mhaith liom a chur i gcuimhne dhíbh go ndubhart i dtosach go raibh socair agam gan aon rud do rá a chuirfeadh fearg ar einne ach nár bhfoláir dom an fhírinne d'innsint. Tá socair agam anois gan aon rud a rá a chuirfeadh fearg ar einne ach táim chun an fhírinne d'innsint agus ní doigh liom go gcuirfe se fearg ar einne. It will be just as well for me to say at the start, having regard to what occurred on Saturday night, that I have decided to avoid saying anything of a contentious nature. I must, however, refer briefly to what occurred on Saturday night. Mr. Michael Collins might very well say ‘Save me from my friends’. What occurred on Saturday would never have occurred only for Mr. Collins' friends. His friend, Mr. Arthur Griffith, made a statement in his opening speech here which showed me, so far as my understanding went anyway, that an attempt was being made to sway the votes in this Dáil, and possibly the votes of the Irish people when the matter came before them, by a statement, in connection with Mr. Michael Collins, which could not be truly said about anybody—that he had won the war. It could not be said truly that any one man won the war. It has not been won at all. I may tell you I am in a position to know, certainly as well as most people, and better than nearly all, that the men mostly responsible for bringing us to the invincible position we held before this Treaty was signed are men whose names, if I mentioned them here, would not be known. I would ask you now not to be deceived by anything that takes place here. I knew nothing about political tactics until the question of this Treaty came up. I have seen too much of them, goodness knows, since, and I hope to heavens I will see no more of them, no matter how we finish this. We were one party before this occurred and, in God's name, let us be one party after it, in the Dáil anyway. You have all known that on many—too many—occasions, when Ireland or her representatives trusted England that Ireland was deceived. I can give you plenty of historical references starting from Sarsfield, the Treaty of Limerick, the Volunteers of 1782, not that I agree with Sarsfield's policy or Grattan's policy or any of these policies; I just bring them before you to show you cannot depend on England's word or the word of English statesmen. If the English people had a say in this thing, I am perfectly sure they would accept the offer we made them. It is English politicians and English statesmen whom we cannot trust. I am perfectly satisfied that the five men who signed this document thought that they did the best thing for Ireland. That is all right; that is their own opinion. Certainly, if they think they can absolutely rely on the word of Mr. Lloyd George and his friends they are not as sensible men as I took them to be.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Is it not better to have a signed cheque than an unsigned cheque?
MR. BRUGHA:
Yes, but the money might not be in the bank after you endorsing the cheque [applause].
MR. M. COLLINS:
Even so you cannot put it there at all if your cheque is unsigned [applause].
MR. BRUGHA:
Let us safeguard ourselves in any case—and this is a means of doing it. You say that in re-electing the President, by re-electing President de Valera, we put him in a false position. We do nothing of the kind. We have been given a mandate by the electors. That mandate, as you will admit, was to maintain the Republic. Until we go before the electors again and they turn us down, must not we carry out our mandate? Is not that so? We all know, prior to the 1918 elections, what sagacity resolutions, what confidence resolutions meant. They were pouring in, snowball fashion, from all over the country, and when the people in whose favour these resolutions were made out and sent up to Dublin came before the electorate, do you not know what the electorate did with them? In spite of what has happened, and the resolutions from public bodies—we do not know that those public bodies speak for the country—the electorate gave us a mandate, anyway, and we have to carry out that mandate, until we go before them again and they say: ‘We want to change that mandate’.
MR. M. COLLINS.
On the previous occasion they were going for the unsigned cheque.
MR. BRUGHA:
In any case they have to be satisfied, and they are not such
MR. M. COLLINS:
That is true. It was not to-day or yesterday it started.
MR. BRUGHA:
I only wish to God we could be brought together again under his leadership. I only wish it was possible.
MR. M. COLLINS:
It is not, though.
MR. BRUGHA:
Not until Saturday night's work has been undone, and with the help of God and the Irish electorate it will be undone. You have asked a question as to how President de Valera is going to function with his Executive, to build submarines, et cetera. We did it before and I do not see why we should not do it again.
MR. M. COLLINS:
We never built a submarine.
MR. BRUGHA:
Let us, at least, have the goodwill of the people who are in favour of the action we have taken on this Treaty. Do not try to interfere with those people and we will not interfere with you. Go ahead, you will not have our co-operation. We cannot do it on principle, but we will not interfere with you, provided you do nothing that infringes on our principles; but we are going to carry out the mandate given us by the electorate. One of your speakers here to-day said he thought that after Saturday we had come to the parting of the ways. Deputy Sears of County Mayo conveyed that you could not agree with us in what we are doing—then you can clear out. There is no offence intended. Let us go ahead and run the Republic [hear, hear]. I will be satisfied for one when an election comes along. I am going to fight it. I will be perfectly satisfied if the Irish people tell us that they want to become British subjects and ‘you Republicans can go and mind your own business’ [laughter and applause].
MR. DE VALERA:
I would like to say one thing. There is no one man and no group of men can deliver the Irish nation to anybody [hear, hear].
MR. SEUMAS FITZGERALD:
As one who voted against this Treaty at the Public Session, I admitted in the course of my remarks I knew the majority of those who voted for the Treaty were out for the ultimate Republic. And it was only on that consideration alone that many of those who were fundamentally opposed to the Treaty bowed to the circumstances that compelled them to vote for it. The ultimate Republic is the concern of those too, and also the fact—I trust they will have thought of this point for it is their concern—if the Treaty is the bird in hand they will want to see that it is well caged. They will also want to see that the Republic will not be disestablished until after the Treaty proposals are embodied in some definite form, and a Constitution set up, so that the people may ultimately decide on some clear basis. At present I am placing myself in the position of one who might have bowed to the force of circumstances and voted for the Treaty. That we do not throw away what we actually have, a Government of the Irish Republic, for what we are expecting from the Treaty proposals is a very fair argument. So we must hold ourselves in readiness for any possible treachery on the part of the enemy. The majority side have said that it will be their aim and object to make for the creation of circumstances towards the ultimate end of an Irish Republic. We may go on a different road, but we will also try to set up circumstances
MR. LORCAN ROBINS:
When I came into the Dáil this morning and President de Valera handed in his resignation I thought he was doing the biggest thing of his life, but when President de Valera demanded re-election——
MR. DE VALERA:
I did not demand re-election.
MR. ROBINS:
When he was put forward why did he not say he would not go forward? I say that he did not do the biggest thing of his life. We sought peace last week; we meant peace; we genuinely looked for peace; and this very suggestion was turned down by the President. I am speaking fair truths. The Treaty went out and the President put up a suggestion which he turned down the previous week.
MR. DE VALERA:
What suggestion?
MR. ROBINS:
Not the exact words, but the same thing.
MR. DE VALERA:
I was asked a question about our policy and I state it again. I say that, as I put myself at the disposal of the country in the past in the belief that I could help the country, I am willing to do so now.
MR. ROBINS:
We, on Saturday last, accepted the Free State, like it or like it not. We do not like it. We took it because we thought it was the best we could get. We are going to work the Free State, and we are not going to have a Punch and Judy show with a Republican Government moving behind us. We are going to create a strong Government, and if the other side want to do a statesmanlike thing, and the best thing for Ireland, let them assist us as far as they can without committing themselves to the Free State.
A MEMBER:
It cannot be done.
MR. ROBINS:
Then let the President withdraw his resignation.
A DEPUTY:
That is not logic.
MR. ROBINS:
I am just as logical as you are. The people of this country want a government of some sort. They have—signed, sealed and delivered—a Treaty that gives them a government. They have as an alternative a scrap of paper and I would not like to see my dog shot for the difference between the two of them [laughter]. Go down to the country and ask them what they think about it. What will happen? I say this is what will happen and what must happen. I told a private meeting of our supporters yesterday when we discussed this, that if I was the sole man in this Dáil I would vote against President de Valera being re-elected and because one party or another must carry on the government. We would have the chief of a party that England would not work with [applause]. Are we to make him our Chief Executive Officer and go across and ask England to evacuate Ireland? Are we to bring back a man who will never work this Treaty? That is the position, and I do not think the English Government is likely to accept that position. We are taking this Treaty for what is best in it and we mean to work it—and the only way to work it is by having one government. The man who should be the head of this government is the head of the majority party in this Dáil. We cannot take a man, the Chief of the opposite party, if we have to part company with him on essentials. We cannot go along and say ‘we work the Republic only, go and ask England to evacuate Ireland’. They won't do it, and they would be fools it they did.
MR. SEAN NOLAN:
The last speaker argued very well against himself. He has told us he would not shoot his dog for the difference between the two. At the same time we are parting on essentials. The first thing I would like to bring before this Assembly is that we cannot disestablish the Republic, and if we do not elect the President and have a Republic here to-day, we are trying to disestablish this. It is ultra vires. The people of Ireland can alone disestablish the Republic which has been established by them. According to the Articles of Agreement those who voted for the Treaty and carried the resolution on Saturday night have merely to call together the members elected for the Southern Parliament to establish their Provisional Government. Let them call this assembly together, the members elected for the Southern Parliament, and let them establish their Provisional Government; and in doing that they have the assurance of the other party that they will not be interfered with. Now, they are out to do the best for Ireland and we are out to do the best for Ireland. And they can do the best for Ireland by carrying out the Articles of the Treaty in calling together this meeting of the elected members of the Southern Parliament and establishing the Provisional Government and, at the same time, leaving the Government that was established by the will of the people intact, leaving that Government where it is until such time as it is disestablished by the will of the Irish people. By leaving the Republican Government with its President as it is, those on the side of the Treaty will have the best guarantee that they will get the best and most out of this Treaty, which has been signed in London. We have always heard that what England gave away in her hour of weakness she would take away in her hour of strength. I say that those who honestly supported the Treaty in the belief that they were doing the best for Ireland will be doing the best for Ireland and doing the best for the Treaty by not attempting to disestablish the Republican Government. They will have the assurance, support and guarantee of this Government that England will not betray us again. lf the Republic is disestablished then you will have chaos; then you will have the parting of the ways indeed. But I would ask you not to throw away this weapon which has brought us so far—this weapon of the Republican Government, of the Army of the Republic, which has brought us so far along the road to victory—I would ask you not to throw it away to the English wolves. If you disestablish the Republic that is what it amounts to. Do not throw it away, at any rate until you get the price for throwing it away, and the price that is being offered is the Treaty signed in London. That Treaty is not delivered. It is signed. And until such time as it is delivered do not throw away what you have won to the English wolves. In the ordinary course,
MR. JAMES DOLAN:
A Chinn Chomhairle, the last speaker has asked us not to dissipate our forces in one breath, and in the next he says we should continue here in Ireland the Government of the Irish Republic side by side with the new Government that would be set up for Saorstát na h-Eireann. Does anybody seriously tell me that is not dissipating our forces? If you say to the new Government: ‘Do not interfere with the Departments that have been set up’. Take, for instance, that very big controlling department, the Local Government Department. Does anybody seriously tell me that the Local Government bodies of this country will still continue to function in the in-and-out way that has helped to bring us to the present position? And does anybody seriously tell me that we will not be dissipating our forces by having a Local Government Board for the Free State and a Local Government Board for the Republic? There must be a clash. People have sniggered at the resolutions passed by the local bodies all over Ireland almost unanimously. They all have declared—or, at least, ninety per cent. of them—in favour of the Treaty. There is one instance of the confusion that those people on the other side wish to throw us into. They tell us it will not be dissipating our forces and will make for more strength in the face of the enemy. The only way for this nation to make for strength, to get their last ounce out of this Treaty, is to back up the decision that this National Assembly came to on Saturday night when they decided to accept this Treaty, to work and get every ounce out of it. We are told by some of the speakers that we will be dismantling our machinery by not carrying on the Republican Government. I absolutely deny that we would be dismantling our machinery. I say we will be putting in up- to-date machinery to protect the interests of Ireland in working the Treaty, when we get control of the Government of this country in reality, not on paper or in theory, and dig into the many Government departments of this country, and when we are in position to have our army better equipped than it is to-day. Why should we consider that it will be a source of greater strength to have the Volunteers as they are to-day, smuggling in arms and smuggling in Thompsons? Why do you think it will be greater strength when we can buy them in the open market and they have the authority of the Irish people behind them? We will be in a position to get the last ounce out of this Treaty. If, even now, at the eleventh hour, those who have been opposed to the Treaty would look at it in a plain, practical commonsense manner as the man in the street looks at it, all would be well. Let them not be here, as the President of the Delegation has said, as if they were playing a game of chess, and if such and such would be a good move. You can get the last ounce out of this Treaty only in one way and that is to back up unitedly the decision you came to on Saturday night. I am glad to hear the tone of some of the speeches that have been made on the opposite side to-day. They say they do not wish to hamper the new Government in Ireland and that they wish to see the last ounce got out of this Treaty. I appeal to them, to their better nature, to look at things as reasonable sensible men not as men tracing shadows, but as men grasping realities and dealing with political facts. I appeal to them to put
MR. H. BOLAND:
I rise to support the nomination of President de Valera for re-election, and certainly I am very happy to see we all enjoyed our dinner [laughter] and that a better spirit is developing in Dáil Eireann. I think the gentlemen on the other side should be very happy this evening that the issue is so clearly knit. On Saturday, by a very small majority, you overthrew the policy of the President of this Assembly, and to-day, following the recognised constitutional practice, the President resigned his office. It is up to the men on the other side who, up to to-day at any rate, have fought for the Treaty with the same courage and the same dash as they fought in the fight for the Republic, and I think they have a unique opportunity to carry on in this same spirit and put a man up who is in favour of their policy against Eamon de Valera. I am sure, and I speak from intimate knowledge of our late President, that his personality has never been intruded in this fight. Everything he did during his term of office was for Ireland and not for de Valera. I have had very intimate intercourse with him, and particularly outside Ireland. And I saw him in situations such as this, and never during the course of a very difficult time in America, did he waver in the tightest place. We are on one side and you are on the other side. You have a majority of this House. Accept your responsibility. If you throw out the man on this side by the vote, we are in honour bound to see to it that you receive from us all the resources that have been at the command of Dáil Eireann. I say the issue is knit. All we ask is that we be allowed to hold to our opinions. If you join issue now on this and put someone up in opposition Ireland will be happy with the result of these proceedings. You cannot have it both ways. If de Valera cannot receive two hundred votes, in one breath you cannot say that the nation cannot do without him. I say to our friends to join issue and have a straight vote, for or against. And then we will, on the first available opportunity, go before the Irish people and seek a further mandate for the Irish Republic, and if they in their wisdom decide against us we will be only too happy to obey.
MR. PETER HUGHES:
It strikes me that we are in a very peculiar position indeed. Mr. Boland wants one Government, and he suggests that the other side set up another Government. The English Government is here yet, and there is a Government in Ulster. Where are we going to be landed in a few days? We gave a vote on Saturday and we decided this Treaty should be, at least, approved, and I hope it will be ratified. At the same time I think it is the duty of every man who voted for the Treaty that the majority should elect a Government in this case. It is the constitutional way to do things and I am greatly surprised that President de Valera has allowed himself to be put forward in this fashion. I think if his own personal views were taken on the subject that he would gladly allow the people in the majority to carry on the Government, and that they should watch to see that Lloyd George should not get on the inside of them. The Treaty should get a chance, and if the majority should not get the best out of this Treaty, I for one would kick them out and turn to the other side and see that they formed a Government. There should be no doubt about it. The President could see that the majority should do what they propose to do, and see that the country is cleared of British troops in the shortest possible time. If this is done we can see that the Treaty is carried into effect, and if it is not done we will be cast into war. I am extremely sorry I will have to cast my vote in this case against Mr. de Valera.
MR. PIARAS BEASLAI:
A Chinn Chomhairle, there is one point that is not properly touched on in this debate and it is this: a question was asked Mr. de Valera with regard to his action if he was elected again—with regard to the formation of a Cabinet—and he definitely stated that there could be no question of a majority Cabinet or a coalition Cabinet. Therefore, what we are asked to do is to place the control of the services of Dáil Eireann, finance, the army, et cetera, at
MR. DE VALERA:
Do you think I would take office admitting that would be sought to be done?
MR. BEASLAI:
In common with a lot of people in this matter I am sorry that his judgment in this case is at fault. We are all sorry, but I must say what I think as an honest straight man. I believe and I am sure I am right, that a great many persons, at all events, think it is a despicable thing for one to use any means to jeopardise the Treaty. Let them not pretend that it is in the interests of unity; that is simply to wreck the Treaty and nothing else. That is the reason why I shall have to vote against the man whom I honour and respect simply in order not to have him put in a false and contemptible position.
DR. MACCARTAN:
There are a few suggestions I would like to put to both sides. I am one of those who did not vote for the Treaty, but against chaos and to put an issue like this to the country again, you want to have a repetition of what occurred in the Parnell split. You have seen it here in the Dáil, and it will be intensified a hundred-fold throughout the country. Whether you elect Mr. de Valera again or reject him, do not put anything to the country at present; let the country settle down Let the tension subside before this is put to the country. I cannot see Mr. de Valera's policy at the moment. I would like to be with him, it is my natural place, but I cannot see his policy now. I try to look at the situation as it is, not as we would like to have it. The situation is this: the Treaty was signed, it was a fait accompli, and we must try to make the best of it. That is the situation that presents itself. If it is possible to get back to the Republic I would like to see it; and if President de Valera is elected he is a greater man than I thought he was, and I thought he was a very great man, and I still think so.
MR. ARTHUR GRIFFITH:
Before you put the vote there are some words I would like to say. On Saturday night after a long discussion, this Treaty was approved. Now, to-day a proposal comes forward which, if carried, in effect means a recision of that decision. It is put forward to us in a guise that is not straight. It is intended to sway the votes by appealing to the emotionalism of the members here who feel, and rightly feel, all the good services that President de Valera has done his country. It was said on the other side that this ought not to be a question of personalities. Very well. If it ought not to be a question of personalities, President de Valera when he resigned his position should not have gone forward. Some man on this side should have gone forward, because the issue sought to be made is between President de Valera and us, and personally no man on our side wishes to vote against President de Valera. I say, therefore, it is a political manoeuvre to get round the Treaty, and that the people who are using President de Valera for that manoeuvre know what they are doing. We know what they are doing. We approved the Treaty on Saturday evening and by a side wind we get round it on Monday. What is going to happen the reputation of the country for commonsense and honour? There was no necessity for him to resign. We suggested that Dáil Eireann might continue until the Free State election came into effect. There is no necessity for him to resign to-day. His resignation and going up again for re-election is simply an attempt to wreck this Treaty.
MR. DE VALERA:
No! no!
MR. GRIFFITH:
It must be understood as that. Everyone knows how difficult it is for a man personally to vote against President de Valera. I do not understand this proposal. There was a proposal made from our side in the interests of unity. I think it would have helped unity. At all events it was rejected by the other side, and the proposal from the other side now is to constitute two Governments in the country. Are we to have two sets of Ministers for all the departments? If there are, there will be chaos of the worst kind. lf I am mistaken about the interpretation I put upon it I am quite willing to discuss the matter with President de Valera. As it stands it is this: the proposal put forward is not bona-fide. It is put forward to use the personality of Mr. de Valera to wreck this Treaty. Therefore I shall vote against it with the greatest regret. It is not with an easy heart I shall do it, because I have worked with President de Valera for years and I regard him as a dear friend, and I do it only in the vital interests of the country. It is most unfair to this Assembly that the personality of Mr. de Valera should be used as it is being used [hear, hear].
MR. DE VALERA:
I say it is put forward in good faith. It is put forward by myself. I put forward my resignation as a constitutional question, and the natural thing would be for the majority party to propose a President. It is the proper thing to do, the proper constitutional thing. Elect your President. I cannot be in a position of responsibility without having power to act. In allowing my name to be put forward the idea I have at the back of my mind is mainly this: that there was still a reserve there—following the idea why I did not go to London—the reserve for the nation is still there, the Republican forces would still be there. Dublin Castle has been functioning in some sort of a way. We have tried to prevent it from working. If the Provisional Government goes to Dublin Castle and takes on the functioning we will not interfere with them. Let them deal with their Government as they please. Dáil Eireann is here and its action with reference to the Provisional Government will be determined by any arrangement that this House will make.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Does not that imply there is going to be two sets of Governments with two sets of departments?
MR. DE VALERA:
Not necessarily. There is no reason why this House should not make an arrangement with regard to the vital departments so that if there was anything going wrong, we would have our forces intact as before. They can be preserved for the Republic, as, for instance, the Ministry of Local Government—I have no doubt we can conceive a means of dealing with these departments. This is a matter I would have to go into carefully. I regard the Provisional Government as only Dublin Castle functioning by permission for the moment.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Is not this Provisional Government a Constitutional Government to draw up a Constitution to carry on all the functions of the country? In any case, Dáil Eireann, which was established by the will of the Irish people, is there until it is disestablished by the Irish people. It is there and cannot cease to function.
MR. GRIFFITH:
The Provisional Government must take over the functions of the Government of this country pending the setting up of the Free State Government.
MISS MACSWINEY:
From Dublin Castle.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Any way you please.
MR. COLIVET:
Will not the same difficulty arise if a majority candidate is returned?
MR. SEAN MACENTEE:
Is it absolutely essential that the Provisional Government should be set up by Dáil Eireann? Does not Article 17 of the Articles of the Treaty state:
Would it not be possible far the Chairman of the Delegation to ask those who voted for the acceptance of this Treaty to meet the other members elected for Southern Ireland, to ask them to set up a Provisional Government and still leave the Dáil to set up its own Republican Government? I am only asking that because it affords a way out.By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the period which must elapse between the date hereof and the constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of
Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a Provisional Government; and the British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such Provisional Government the powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties, provided that every member of such Provisional Government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument. But this arrangement shall not continue in force beyond the expiration of twelve months from the date hereof.
MR. M. COLLINS:
With regard to what the President said about departments it requires a reply, and I think I should give the reply. The President has spoken twice and I suppose I may speak twice.
MR. SEAN MACENTEE:
Are you President or equal to him?
MR. M. COLLINS:
If the President makes a point which, I think, requires a reply—
MR. DE VALERA:
I do not make any point.
MR. M. COLLINS:
In my opinion the proceedings here this afternoon have deprived us of the possibility of having any kind of unity—any kind, not only of unity, but of having Ireland for the Irish. There is no doubt about it that the proceedings of this afternoon whatever the result of the vote is, do constitute a defeat of the Treaty.
MR. AUSTIN STACK:
On a point of order, I suggest as no other candidate has been proposed that the President has been elected unanimously [applause].
MR. M. COLLINS:
Well, I am voting against.
ALDERMAN JAMES MURPHY:
If this side does not put forward any other candidate Mr. de Valera is elected unanimously.
MR. DE VALERA:
I cannot, naturally, stand for that.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I will move an amendment if you allow me, a Chinn Chomhairle.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
On a point of order, while there is no amendment and no one else nominated, I suggest that if the other side do not see their way to nominate anybody that they vote for or against the motion. Every man is entitled to vote for or against, even if there is no other proposition.
MR. M. COLLINS:
My amendment is this: that this House ask Mr. Griffith to form a Provisional Executive.
Ma. SEAN MACKEOWN:
I second that motion. I have great pleasure in seconding it, but in doing so I must say that I regard with extreme regret the attitude of those people who are out to wreck the Treaty or to do the work of wrecking. I have listened to this debate without saying anything. I have listened carefully to see if there was one man on the opposite side who would have courage enough to stand up and say: ‘Our duty is, once a decision has been arrived at by this Sovereign Assembly, to loyally support that decision’. I find there is not a man with the courage to do it. Standing in the dock before British authorities I declared that this Government was the Sovereign Government of Ireland and that its decision was binding on the Irish people. That decision taken on Saturday evening is a binding decision upon the Irish people and upon every man here, and every man knows it, and any attempt to flout that decision—well, if this is government, if this is law and order, I was the damnedest fool that ever stood in a dock [applause].
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
Is that motion in order?
THE SPEAKER:
I think this motion will have to be taken separately after taking the vote on the other motion. It is not an amendment to the one before us. The motion you are going to vote upon is this: ‘That Mr. de Valera be
MR. DE VALERA:
Article 2 of the Constitution is that all Executive powers shall be vested in the members for the time being of the Cabinet:
‘(b) The Cabinet shall consist of the President who shall also be the Prime Minister and be elected by Dáil Eireann, and six Executive officers, namely,’ —so and so— ‘each of whom the President shall nominate and shall have power to dismiss’.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
The President in this case means the President of the Ministry. I was present—and so was Gavan Duffy—when this matter was discussed, and it was clearly understood in this meeting of the Dáil in January, 1919, that it would be highly undemocratic for the Dáil to elect a President of the Republic. That would be solely and entirely the duty of the Irish people, and for that reason we made it clearly understood that the President simply means President of the Cabinet and that alone.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I am voting against it. I want, at the same time, to register a protest. I am not going to make a speech. We have no power here to elect a President of the Republic. The people of Ireland can elect their President. The point is this: I have no power as a representative man here to say who can be President of the Irish Republic. I am voting against the resolution.
A poll was then taken by Mr. Diarmuid O'Hegarty, Secretary of An Dáil, when the voting was: For the re-election of President de Valera 58 Against 60
The following are the names of those who voted: FOR:
MR. DE VALERA
when his name was called during the poll, said:
I will not vote.
ALDERMAN LIAM DE ROISTE
[, on being Called to vote, answered:]I refuse to plunge my country into fratricidal strife.[Cries of vote!]
THE SPEAKER:
I declare the resolution lost.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Before another word is spoken I want to say: I want the Deputies here to know, and all Ireland to know, that this vote is not to be taken as against President de Valera [applause]. It is a vote to help the Treaty, and I want to say now that there is scarcely a man I have ever met in my life that I have more love and respect for than President de Valera. I am thoroughly sorry to see him placed in such a position. We want him with us.
MR. DE VALERA rose to speak.
MR. P. O'KEEFFE:
[who rose amidst cries of ‘Order!’]:Look here, Dev. will not speak until I have spoken [‘Order!’]. He will not. I voted, not for personalities, but for my country. Dev. has been made a tool of and I am sorry for it.
Mr. DE VALERA:
I want to assure everybody on the other side that it was not a trick. That was my own definite way of doing the right thing for Ireland. I tell you that from my heart. I did it because I felt that it was still the best way to keep that discipline which we had in the past. I did it because, as I said, that I can, in so far as the principal resources of the Republic are concerned—I would conserve them for the Republic. I do not think any side would think that I would take a mean advantage. I regard the Provisional Government as Dublin Castle for the moment—as Castle Government. They will take over the machinery, but we should not scrap our machinery before they take theirs. That was the only reason why I allowed my name to go forward. Now, I think the right thing has been done, that the people who are responsible have done the right thing, and therefore I hope that nobody will talk of fratricidal strife. That is all nonsense. We have got a nation that knows how to conduct itself. As far as I can on this side it will be our policy always. When the Volunteers split in Donnybrook—it was at the time of the rejoicings about the Home Rule Bill. We split and I went out in that Hall in which I had been elected unanimously
MR. M. COLLINS:
We want you now.
MR. DE VALERA:
Unfortunately, on the Treaty we cannot co-operate, you acting in this case for the majority—and I suppose for Ireland—have to do certain work. Even to get through that portion of the work you will need us. We will be there with you against any outside enemy at any time [applause]. Meantime you must simply regard us as an auxiliary army with a certain objective, which is the complete independence of Ireland. Every step which we can believe that you are taking to help in that road we will feel it our duty to go behind you, in so long as we are not committing ourselves or our principles in co-operating. You know how hard I was working for peace, and how I was trying to prepare this Dáil, to try it we were able, having gone to the furthest limit we could go. I knew there would be a big minority against it and I would be glad to see the minority. I am against this Treaty on one basis only: that we are signing our names to a promise we cannot keep. It is beyond the nature of men and women and they cannot keep it. Some people talk of trenches and that we had got over other trenches. What is the good of having trenches if you are going to put up barbed wire entanglements to keep you from getting out of them? I would rather try to risk the other trench. The same spirit would have carried us on to the end. I am against you on principle. And I believe that to get the best out of that Treaty you need us in a solid, compact body. We will keep in a solid compact body. We will not interfere with you except when we find that you are going to do something that will definitely injure the Irish nation. And if we have two evils to choose from I hope it will be the lesser of the two, in the best interests of the Irish nation, that we will choose.
MR. MACKEOWN:
That is the first statesmanlike speech I have heard from those against the Treaty [cries of ‘Order!’]. My respect for the President is one hundred and fifty per cent. higher than ever it has been before.
MR. M. COLLINS:
This goes in as an independent motion. I wonder what is its position now? Is it on the Orders of the day?
THE SPEAKER:
It is not on the Orders of the Day.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Does it go on as an independent motion?
THE SPEAKER:
That is the only way in which it could go on. It can only go forward by consent.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
It is a motion of national importance which can be taken by you with the consent of ten Deputies, under Standing Order 5.
MR. DE VALERA:
The Constitution is that there must be a President elected. You will have to elect a President and have a Cabinet or you are going to break up the Constitution. Now I do ask you not to smash up the Republic, not to break up your Constitution. Try to proceed constitutionally.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Naturally, I agree to that thing so long as it is President of the Chamber of Deputies, or anything you like. But I simply put that forward as an amendment to the other resolution, and I put it forward as my best endeavour to avoid that last vote, and I could only suggest what, to me, seems common sense. I do not care whether you call the principal man here President or not. Even if the word ‘President’ in it is inserted there—if that will make my motion a proper motion then that word may be put in. But, obviously, the thing before us is that we must find some kind of machinery for taking the next step. And I suggest that Diarmuid O'Hegarty should summon the Dáil, and as far us I know the additions to the Dáil will be the four members from Trinity College.
MR. AUSTIN STACK:
Will they take the oath?
MR. DUGGAN:
They need not, and you need not, take that oath.
MR. M. COLLINS:
That will be summoned according to the Treaty as the Parliament of Southern Ireland, but it will be what I would call Dáil Eireann.
MR. HARRY BOLAND:
Would I be allowed to ask a question? In the event of this body being set up here to-day will they assume the obligations contracted in the name of the Republic, and honour the pledges given in the Republic's namer when we were instructed to raise money in the name of the Republic?
MR. M. COLLINS:
Anyway, I will do my best to see—and if it is not done I will regard the Treaty as being broken—I will do my best to see that every person who subscribed one pound to the Loan is repaid on the terms on which that money was subscribed.
MR. HARRY BOLAND:
In view of the resolution of this House in August last that the money raised would be returned by the Irish nation, and that we proposed to raise some more money, I had no personal reason in asking the question but as being one of the men who raised the money.
MR. R. MULCAHY:
I second the resolution that Mr. Griffith be elected President, and that he be asked to appoint a Provisional Executive.
MR. DE VALERA:
I am anxious about one thing; and we have a definite duty to preserve the Republic until the Irish people disestablish it. It must be held to be in existence until then, and this being a Sovereign Assembly I would like to know whether those taking over the responsibility intend to preserve the Republic until the Irish people disestablish it.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Dáil Eireann, as the President said—I must still and always call him President—can only be disestablished by the will of the Irish people. What I propose to do is this—when we adopt the form of Provisional Government—is to arrange for a plebiscite of the Irish people or a General election on this question as to whether they will have a Free State or a Republic.
MR. DE VALERA:
About the funds—will you use the funds of the Republic directly in connection with your functions
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I take it that any money that is spent by this House must be submitted to this House and the sanction of this House obtained; and that no money can be spent without the sanction of the House. The estimates have to be submitted and sanctioned and approved. If the House does not agree with any proposal that is brought forward it can reject that proposal. The House is sovereign.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Now to deal practically with that point in that question— that seems to me to be a very small difficulty, and yet it is illustrative of the whole thing. Now, what proposal would anybody have to make about that? The suggestion I would make would be one that would be offered fairly to the other side. But that is one of the difficulties I foresaw when I mentioned the other day that I wanted a Committee of the two sides. That suggestion was not reciprocated. It can be reciprocated now, when we have been put to the difficulty of fighting them twice instead of once. There are Trustees of Dáil Eireann, and as they (the other side) will not meet us at all, the suggestion I would make is this: that those funds should remain on in trust.
MR. DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. COLLINS:
Our accounts are practically ready up to the thirty-first December because, though I have been here every day, and although I was in London for several days, everything in the department has been up to date; and, as a matter of fact, the people who have been paid a weekly salary at the present time—well, that is all illegal, because this House has not passed the estimates for the first part of the year 1922. And, in reality, every member of Dáil Staff should be going without his salary at the present moment because they were so very constitutional about things. I hope nobody will tell me or suggest that I have done wrong in allowing payment to go on to these people. You know, constitutionally, you could tell me I was wrong, but in fairness you could not tell me I was wrong. That is the only suggestion I have to make: that these funds should remain on in trust. There has not been a penny that was subscribed used for the purpose of our side since this thing started. Perhaps a sheet of notepaper was used, but I have done my utmost to keep the thing absolutely separate. Well, now, I will let others say whether they have been so very scrupulous in that thing. But the funds are in the hands of Trustees. It would be interesting to many people to know how these funds were safeguarded. If necessary, if I am told, I will publish everything completely—I would prefer to publish everything completely—and show the difficulties, and the vast difficulties, that we had been up against in the matter of these funds.
MR. DE VALERA:
You may be up against them again.
MR. M. COLLINS:
How can we come to an agreement unless the other side meet us in this way, unless we do arrange it here? The accounts for the last half-year are practically ready. This is not a small job. They will be ready in a few days. the details of working out the balance sheets and so on will take a little time. What I suggest is that those accounts should be published. Then everybody will know exactly what we have on hands, and it can be there as a public record. And, at the same time, that we should make some agreed statement and some arrangement with the Trustees or the House whereby the Trustees would go on keeping these monies on trust on the basis on which the funds were subscribed. If we go on as a Free State my proposal with regard to whoever would be Minister of Finance would be, notwithstanding that—that we try to redeem the old loan, and notwithstanding that,
MISS MACSWINEY:
Is that motion before the House—that Mr. Griffith be asked to form an Executive?
THE SPEAKER:
The motion is: that Mr. Arthur Griffith be asked to form an Executive.
MISS MACSWINEY
Before that motion is put I would like to make one or two suggestions. This is the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland. Is Mr. Griffith going to form an Executive to carry on the Republic of Ireland or to form an Executive which will be the Provisional Government, or what is he going to do? I would ask him what he wants an Executive for? Why not go now and call the members elected to sit in the Parliament of Southern Ireland and form his Provisional Government from that. He cannot form it from this Assembly. I think we must be very clear. The President has said that there can be no co-operation between the Republican element in this Dáil and those who have surrendered the Republic; and there must be no suggestion or innuendoes of nice meetings or things of that kind. I do not want to say an unnecessary harsh word, but I must be quite clear on this. Before there is any Executive formed from this House it must be understood that that Executive must be Republican. Others must not be allowed to say that they set up their Provisional Government with the sanction of Dáil Eireann, while the Republican members sat in the House. Let us be clear about that. Well, there is an Executive being set up which is not a Republican Executive. I maintain that we cannot sit here if Mr. Griffith wants to form an Executive which will empower him to call a meeting of members elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland—but he does not need an Executive for that. He has not told us who is to call that Executive. He has suggested that Diarmuid O'Hegarty should call a meeting of Dáil Eireann. But his power comes from Lloyd George and not from Dáil Eireann. Let us make no mistake about it now that this meeting cannot sanction Mr. Griffith to form an Executive which will, in turn, sanction him or somebody else to call a meeting of the people elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland to set up a Provisional Government and an Executive—he wants to call it a Republican Executive. If he says it is, then very well. It is the man whom the Executive sanctions who may call the Provisional Government. If that is so I maintain that not a single Republican member can sit here while he forms his Executive. This is a double vote against Ireland's independence. They voted away Ireland's independence as far as it was in their power on Saturday night, and they have reiterated that vote to-night because they must have known that the President was not acting on personalities but that he was acting for the preservation of this nation and its independence, even against the trickery of Lloyd George. Evidently he trusts Lloyd George more than he trusts the Republican minority of this House. Let us be quite clear where we stand now. I ask Mr. Griffith to note it and to answer it before this vote is taken. Will he give a guarantee to the Republicans here that he will not use that Executive to set up the Provisional Government? He does not need it. He is only doing it to get nominal sanction from Dáil Eireann which it is not in the power of Dáil Eireann to give him. He can go out to-night and set up his Provisional Government regardless of Dáil Eireann. Now, I want to know from Mr. Griffith if, in the event of his getting this Executive, he wants to call it Dáil
MR. DAVID CEANNT:
Some of the people thought I was only rainbow chasing when speaking against the Treaty. I want to make it plain here and now that this vote will be for the President of Dáil Eireann—that Mr. Griffith is going to be proposed as President of the Republic of Ireland, and that he will get power to carry on the Republican Government of Ireland. I want it to go forth from this House that any time he will make use of the machinery of the Republican Government and substitute it for the Provisional Government, then we will walk out in a body. Also I want to make it clear that an arrangement will be come to immediately as regards the money subscribed, and that not a three-penny bit of that will be used to bring this other Government into existence—that is, of the funds. These funds were subscribed for the Republic. Lloyd George will be able to supply plenty of funds for the Free Staters. Another question is that as regards the flag. That flag is Republican. That flag is sacred to me and to my family, and to every member who sacrificed anything in this glorious fight for the Republic. And any attempt that will be made to use that flag by the enemy—as far as I can go I will preserve that flag to the best of my ability, even to the cost of my life. I hope that Mr. Griffith will make it clear what flag he is to use in the Free State, because he will never use the Republican flag except over the dead bodies of some of us.
MR. AUSTIN STACK:
I rise to put publicly some questions of which Mr. Griffith received notice this morning:
MR. LIAM MELLOWES:
I rise to protest with all the weight and force of my being against any attempt being made to use the name of Dáil, which is the Government of the Irish Republic, and its machinery to set up a Provisional Government, and to establish the Free State in accordance with a British Act of Parliament. It is no time, perhaps, for angry words. But I do think that I would be untrue to what I believe if I did not rise at this juncture to make this protest. This Free State derives no authority from the Dáil. It derives authority solely and absolutely from the British Government. And the vote that was taken on Saturday and the vote that was taken to-day—so far as those members who voted for the Treaty, and so far as those members who voted against the President of the Irish Republic—was, I am convinced, a vote for the disestablishment of the Irish Republic as far as they could make it. There is no use of our mincing words, or pretending that we are going to stick to the Republic while at the same time, we are undermining the Republic. Now if this Free State is to be established let it be established in accordance with whatever terms Mr. Griffith made with Mr. Lloyd George, and do not use the Government of the Irish Republic as the machinery for doing so. I do not want to say any more. I only wish, in view of this possibility, to voice my last protest against this crowning act of iniquity against the Irish people.
MR. MACENTEE:
Before the motion is put I would ask the members to think very carefully whether they need vote upon it, and whether they need set up an Executive authority in this House—a Government of which the head is going to be, ultimately, the head of the Free State. Now, I think that has been one of the crying tragedies of Irish politics—that whenever an Irishman has got in touch with an Englishman, and has bound himself to do something, he is always prepared to be better than his word. I think there is nothing in the Articles of Agreement laid before us which would make it imperative upon the Irish signatories to these Articles to secure control of the resources of the Republic. And it is to secure control of the resources of the Republic that the motion which we are now considering has been introduced. It does not say that those who are to form this Provisional Government are not to be, at the same time, the Government of Dáil Eireann. It does not say it, and therefore we should not permit it to be done. It only says that a meeting shall be called of those who have been elected to the Parliament of Southern Ireland, and that includes, remember, the four members elected for Dublin University who would not take as we have done, the oath to the Irish Republic. Now, I suggest that by the letter of their bond the signatories to the Articles of Agreement might leave this Assembly, might take with them the majority which they have secured in it and somewhere outside the Assembly of the Irish Republic, summon their supporters and those other members for Southern Ireland who did not sit here— they may have him selected there from the Provisional Government. I suggest that that is a step which would be best in the interests of the nation. Because, so long as they take over the resources of the Irish Republic, they will be told that they are bound to use those resources in order to establish the Irish Free State. The Minister for Finance stated that he was prepared, if he could, to refund to those who subscribed to the Loan of the Irish Republic the monies which they had subscribed. I tell him if he takes this step to-day to secure control of the resources of the Irish Republic, and then goes forward and as the Government of the Irish Republic, sets up the Government of the Irish Free State, Lloyd George will tell him he is bound in honour not to refund those monies.
MR. M. COLLINS:
But then, suppose I say to him I do not take my opinions from Mr. Lloyd George. I am Michael Collins.
MR. MACENTEE:
You would have to deal with your Prime Minister, who said that he would not dishonour his signature and become immortalised in history. I do not want to make any party capital out of this. I only ask you not to do anything you are not bound to do. A way out can be found if you want to find it. Instead of electing a man as President of this Assembly who is bound by his honour and by his signature—he has told you what his signature means to him—instead of electing him now as your Chief Executive elect some other member of this Assembly if you will, who will hold the resources of the Republic in trust for the Republic. That is the way out. He need not use them for the moment—he may give you every chance of setting up your Free State. But, at any rate, you yourselves will not be stultifying yourselves later. If England betrays you you can go back then and use your resources to make her honour a bond which she in history has so often dishonoured before. We are now in the position of Grattan and Flood. If Grattan had not permitted the Volunteers to be disbanded the Act of Union would never have been passed. Now, you cannot—this Government of the Irish Free State cannot—control the army of the Irish Republic. I believe that you will secure for the President or for the Chief Executive that I propose you should elect—believe that you can secure for him for the interim period between now and the time that you come to submit the Irish Free State as an agreed and detailed proposition, and as an actual fact, and not as a general statement of Articles of Agreement, not as a scrap of paper to be dishonoured—I believe that between now and that time you can secure a neutral President of this Assembly to pledge himself solemnly that he can act; that the army of the Republic will preserve towards you, at any rate, an attitude of friendly neutrality; if you are afraid that we should use that army to subvert your Government or that—at any rate you may have your fears. If it should happen that after a General
DR. FERRAN:
To whom will the Provisional Government be responsible?
MR. M. COLLINS:
To the Irish people.
MR. MILROY:
What I would like to say is to express a regret that some of our members feel it necessary to assume an attitude of bitterness and hostility to others. Now, the note that President de Valera had struck after the result of the vote, was the guiding note to this assembly. I think if we had to part we would part as good friends, believing that each side was thinking well for Ireland. I would ask certain Deputies here who have said bitter and cutting things to try and let that drop and to realise that whether they give us credit or not for sincerity—to realise that we are as sincere as it is possible for us to be; that we acted in what we considered the best interests of Ireland. We feel we have not, in any sense, betrayed a single scrap of Irish interests or Irish honour, and we believe, in taking the vote taken today, we did it, not with the intention of defeating their ideals, but to prevent the resources of this nation from being used to wreck the Treaty which the Dáil approved of last Saturday night.
MR. DE VALERA:
We feel strongly the other way, and that is the way people in the country look at it. It is nearly impossible to get a way out; absolutely impossible, because the Chief Executive at the other side will not be able to satisfy anybody. People will be all the time suspicious that the resources of the Republic will be used to undermine the Republic. The situation they have created is a very awkward one.
MR. MILROY:
Can we not go forward in the future and drop this attitude of embittered hostility towards each other?
MR. J. J. O'KELLY:
Is the motion before the House: ‘That this assembly asks Mr. Griffith to form a Provisional Executive?’
THE SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. R. MULCAHY:
I second that motion.
MR. J. J. O'KELLY:
I understand that Mr. Collins suggested something else be added to that. Because I believe that is as ultra vires as the discussion you permitted at the opening of the Session for half a day.
MR. DE VALERA:
I submit that you are working on very dangerous grounds. I submit that if you are going to subvert the Constitution you are going to make a situation that will make it impossible for the Republican members to remain in. They will not remain there any longer or by their presence give it any sanction. You must elect a Republican President of this assembly, and you must elect him as Chief Executive for this State—otherwise the Parliament no longer exists as such.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Am I to take it that the majority in this assembly has no rights?
MISS MACSWINEY:
Will you answer the questions we asked you?
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
The majority in this assembly must abide by the Constitution until it is altered.
MR. J. J. O'KELLY:
Article 18 of the Treaty determines the procedure in this matter. Here it is:
Now, I submit that this Session of Dáil Eireann was summoned a fortnight ago to discuss the ratification of the Treaty. That you ruled the ratification of the Treaty out of order, and it was altered here without the sanction of this House and is entirely irregular. ‘Approval of the Treaty!’ I submit that motion before you now is ultra vires as much as the other motion as the only legitimate step is to abide by Clause 18 and to go strictly in accordance with it. Those members who sit for constituencies in Southern Ireland include the four members of Trinity College, and those cannot attend a meeting of Dáil Eireann until they take an oath of allegiance as we have done. And I accordingly would suggest to you that we should adjourn and that you and the leaders on the other side should see how you can put our proceedings in order.this instrument shall be submitted forthwith by His Majesty's Government for the approval of Parliament, and by the Irish signatories to a meeting summoned for the purpose of the members elected to sit in the House of Commons of Southern
Ireland and, if approved, shall be ratified by the necessary legislation.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Are we discussing particular clauses of the Treaty? lf we are, let us discuss them. I would like to go into discussion on Document 2. But if we are discussing particular clauses in the Treaty it seems to me we cannot say how the British will do a particular thing until we have asked them. I cannot tell until we ask them. And if we have to do it publicly through you we will ask them. The point is, if we are discussing the clauses of the Treaty—all right, then,—we can discuss them. If my motion is not in order, rule it out of order. What I suggest is this: that we should adjourn this discussion as leading to nowhere. And the tactics on the other side are obstructionist tactics.
THE SPEAKER:
The proceedings today from the beginning were conducted by consent. There was no notice given of any motion up to now. It is by consent of the Assembly that these motions that came before the Assembly were taken. They did not fulfil the orders of the Assembly. A day's notice should be handed in. The same applies to the motion in my hands now.
MR. MICHAEL COLLINS:
In that case I will write it out fully. I will put it in as a notice of motion, and let us adjourn or do anything at all.
MR. DE VALERA:
This is a very difficult position for the other side.
MR. M. COLLINS:
And you are making it more difficult. Well, do as you like.
MR. DE VALERA:
If you take over the Presidency of the Republic and go on with the Treaty you are creating a great deal of difficulty in that; and you are creating a great deal of suspicion in the minds of the people. So I suggest that we should adjourn.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I thought so—at last the cat is out of the bag. Now, this consideration for our side comes rather curiously. All right. We do not want to adjourn if you do not. I know we want to consult amongst ourselves, because the difficulties are great. But let us adjourn.
MR. DE VALERA:
I am quite prepared to go on.
MR. SEAN MACSWINEY:
We do not understand it. I do not know whether the Chairman of the Delegation is prepared to answer those questions.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
To put the matter in order, I move the adjournment. I would like to know whether I am in authority in my office. Do I give up my department until the Minister for Local Government is elected?
MR. DE VALERA:
The Republic for the moment is without a head.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I presume I am acting in authority.
MR. DE VALERA:
If you want to keep to the Constitution you have got to elect the Chief Executive who, by his office, is head of the State. If you elect the head of the Republic you have to set up your Executive officers and go ahead.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
I want to know where I am. I do not want to take on any powers I have not got.
MR. DE VALERA:
You have got none now.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Then I formally move the adjournment. I understand that this building is going to be used to-morrow for University purposes. If so, you want to make some arrangements.
THE SPEAKER:
Have you any official communication to that effect?
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Somebody told me that the lectures were starting to-morrow.
THE SPEAKER:
Do not mind what somebody told you [laughter].
MR. J. J. O'KELLY:
I want to make one observation of a personal nature. I have tried to conduct myself as well as I could. The suggestion has been made from the other side that my putting you that question was meant to embarrass the other side. I put you a question as to whether that motion was in order, and you replied it was not. That is a sufficient vindication for me. I repudiate that suggestion.
MR. M. COLLINS:
If you, Mr. Speaker, will tell me what I have to do—if I have to give in a notice of motion for to-morrow—I will do it.
THE SPEAKER:
Yes. Any business that is not taken up with the consent of the House can only be discussed on notice.
MR. MACCABE:
I second the motion for adjournment.
The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m., to 11 o'clock on Tuesday, 10th January.
THE SPEAKER (DR. EOIN MACNEILL) took the Chair at 11.30 a.m., and said:
THE SPEAKER
A telegram has been received from Cardinal Gasparri, Papal Secretary of State to the Vatican. My knowledge of Italian does not enable me to read it. The English translation of the telegram is:
The telegram is addressed to the President, Dáil Eireann, Mansion House, Dublin. I suppose when the Dáil makes its arrangements for carrying on, a reply will be sent in due course. I have received the following communication:The Holy Father rejoices with the Irish people because of the understanding or agreement, and prays that the Lord will send His blessing on the noble chosen people which has passed through such a long sorrow, ever faithful to the Catholic Church.—Cardinal Gasparri.
To Professor Mac Neill, Speaker, Dáil Eireann.I understand the delegation is waiting to be received. A delegation can only be received here if it be the will of the Dáil, and that would require a motion duly moved and seconded. It is also understood that when a delegation is received here there is no discussion in the presence of the delegation. Its statement is simply received.Monday, January 9th, 1922.I am directed by the National Executive of the Irish Labour Party and Trades Union Congress, the national exponents of the will of the organised workers of Ireland now in session, to request that the assembly will receive and hear a deputation on matters of extreme urgency and gravity affecting the lives of the people whom they represent. The desire of the delegation is to impress on An Dáil the political and economic situation in the country; the great problems of unemployment; reversion to grass of hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the present year; the imminence of a vast industrial upheaval due to attempts to degrade the standard of life of the people; and to call attention to the necessity for the functioning of a stable authority which will exercise power and authority in these urgent matters.
I am, faithfully yours,
Thomas Johnson, Secretary.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I beg to move that we receive this delegation of Labour. I need hardly point out to the House the very important part that the Labour Movement of this country has played in the affairs of the last four or five years.
MR. DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. WALSH:
It will be agreed by everybody here that in every critical stage of our history a great and potent weapon which was always at our disposal, was to be found in the body to whom we are giving permission to address this House to-day. It is well, from many points of view, that the country should know the views of Labour from the economic standpoint, and it is also well that we should learn whatever there is to be learned from the difficulties and drawbacks under which Labour is suffering at the moment.
MR. S. T. O'KELLY:
I beg to second that the Labour delegation be received.
THE SPEAKER:
I am told that the delegation is not ready. It did not expect to be received so promptly, and
MR. M. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask your permission to move motion number three on the Agenda, as it is a matter of the greatest and most urgent national importance.
THE SPEAKER:
Item number three on the Agenda is a motion by Mr. Michael Collins ‘that Mr. Arthur Griffith be appointed President of Dáil Eireann’. I take it that the first thing that it is necessary for us to do is to make arrangements for the administration of the country.
MR. DE VALERA:
Is the motion in order?
THE SPEAKER:
I think there is no question that the motion is in order. The administration of the country is the first of all concerns.
MR. M. COLLINS:
The reason that I do this is that the Irish nation at the present moment is a ship without a captain, and a ship, we all know, cannot get on without a captain. I want to move this motion so that we may have some captain for the ship. I saw a thing happening down at home years ago that I can illustrate my remarks with, I think, in an apt way. I remember one day passing along the road and I saw two horses standing in a field with a plough behind them, and there was no ploughman. I watched that thing for about two hours, and the ploughman was still absent. The horses that were able to plough were idle—there was no ploughman between the handles. There was no work done. Now, a bad ploughman is better than no ploughman, and the Irish nation is watching us at the present moment; in the same way as I watched that scene they are watching us. They see the horses idle, the plough idle; they see that we are doing nothing at all; they see that we are not taking action to put any sort of ploughman between the handles. I knew where the ploughman was. He was in some place wasting his time. We are very much before the Irish nation at the present moment in the position of that ploughman. Some people know where he was all right. We must form some kind of a staple Government to stop the position of anarchy that we are allowing the country to drift into. Here is a thing that is typical of what is happening. Everybody knows—no one better than the men from the South of Ireland—that I hold no brief for the Cork Examiner; but I have received this letter and it is typical of what will happen in the country if we allow the present state of affairs to continue. The writer of the letter—George Crosbie—is no friend of mine [Deputies:‘Nor ours’]. The letter is:
Of course, if the Examiner had any pluck it would not publish anything under duress. At the same time I call those methods Black-and-Tan methods, and I am against Black-and-Tan methods, no matter where they appear. If this motion is accepted I can only suggest that the position would then be in our hands to make the best we can of it, and to report to some future meeting of the Dáil. The position of drift is the worst of all positions, and we have said a good deal about our being here, talking. I feel that members know I adopted that attitude at meetings often before. They know I never believed it was at meetings work was done, because while you are at meetings you cannot do any work. We are here talking day after day, and we are getting no results of any kind. Any kind of action is better than no action. Supposing, for instance, that Mr. Griffith is beaten for this—what position are we in then? We are in the position of not being on one side or the other. It will simply be a position that will make us more and more laughable. In my estimation we have given the North East of Ireland every excuse for not coming in. They would say: ‘Who would go into a body like that, with the methods they employ, and the uselessness of their discussions?’ We are also giving the English an opportunity for remaining here. I can only see it in this way. I will use the word ‘obstruction’. The tactics are obstructionist tactics. It is all very well to sayKnowing as I do the intense strain you must be under for some time past, I am loth to trouble you, but I feel it is incumbent on us to explain how we are situated. At two o'clock this morning the copy of a proclamation which appears in to-day's paper was brought into us, and we were ordered to insert it. You will understand that things may appear in the Examiner published by us under duress.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
You have no right to take a cheque for a farthing in the pound in any case.
MR. M. COLLINS:
You can test whether the funds are there by the signed cheque but not by the unsigned cheque. It is only by passing this motion we will show that we are capable of doing something constructive, and that we will show that we are capable of running the affairs of the nation. It is only by passing this motion we have any sort of constitutional authority here. This is a body of the representatives of Ireland. I regard this body as being the Sovereign Assembly of the Irish nation, and we are responsible to the people who sent us here. The fact that the sovereign capacity of this Assembly should be questioned by anybody shows that we ourselves do not regard ourselves as being what we are. I always regarded the Dáil as being the Sovereign Assembly of Ireland. I regard it as being the Sovereign Assembly of Ireland still, and it does not make it less sovereign because Lloyd George says it is not. It is not what Lloyd George says. It is what the Irish people say. It is not what the English Parliament says. It is what we say. The English papers called us a murder gang. The Irish people did not believe we were a murder gang. If the English Parliament called this Assembly illegal I did not regard it as being illegal. I do not regard it now as being illegal. I do not take my opinions from the English side. I take them from the Irish side. It is in that spirit that we can make this Treaty a success, and that we can make the Irish nation a success. It is only in that spirit. It is not by words and formulas; it is by heart and soul. We must see by now that we have talked long enough, without doing anything constructive; and this motion will enable us to do something constructive. The difficulties we may be faced with cannot be overstated. Any young government—I can see the difficulties that come before it. I can see the frightful difficulties. Every new government has these difficulties to go through. Some of the governments that have been started in Europe found their difficulties enormous. You have only to point to any one of these new governments that have been formed to see that up to the present moment it is an unstable government. My belief about the thing is this: that whether we like it or whether we do not, the world is entering on a different era. My belief during the war was: that the plain people of France and the plain people of Germany knew some better way of adjusting their difficulties than by killing each other. That is my belief still. And about the people of England, my belief is, that unless we show that we do not mean to be hostile, the people of England are a great deal more kingly than the King. I know very well that the people of England had very little regard for the people of Ireland,
COMMANDANT EOIN O'DUFFY:
I rise to second the motion moved by Mr. Collins. I have only one or two words to say. In the first place, I feel very much that our President thought it well to place his resignation in our hands. Now that the Dáil has approved of the Treaty it is but right that the majority should choose their captain, and we have chosen Mr. Griffith. It is not necessary, at all, for me to emphasise the claims that Mr. Griffith has in the presence of this Assembly. The members of this House know him as well as I do. All I want to do is to say with Mr. Collins: now that the Treaty is approved of we should get on with the work.
MR. CEANNT:
It is quite evident now to every member of this Dáil, and to people outside, that the one ambition of those who are supporting the Treaty was to get rid of the President of the Republic, and to substitute another Minister for him. The Minister of Finance has referred to a letter from the Cork Examiner stating certain things had to be printed in the Examiner last night or this morning. That shows how the feeling in the South of Ireland is, because of the Examiner misrepresenting the views of the people. It is now we are beginning to hear the voice of the people. These are the people who saw their city devastated by the Black-and-Tans, who saw the tragedy of Kerry Pike, who saw the whole County of Cork left in ruins. They are beginning to have their voice heard now. I remind the Minister of Finance that he was not so scrupulous going into an office here not many years ago, when we had a hostile Press; and I would remind him also that not long ago the Examiner and the Crosbies were recruiting sergeants for the British Empire. They see now that they cannot run against the wishes of the people.
MR. COLLINS:
I never did such a thing. I was never responsible for sending men on a job of that kind, or any other disgraceful thing.
MR. CEANNT:
It was done officially. Some member of the Headquarters Staff or the Dáil was responsible for it. It was done officially.
MR. COLLINS:
I was not responsible for anything disgraceful.
MR. CEANNT:
I may say, a Chinn Chomhairle, officially or unofficially it was done, but what was done in Cork was not officially done by the members of the minority here, but it expresses the will of the people in Cork. It shows how they are feeling.
MR. MACENTEE:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I rise simply to state that I, for one, cannot support the election of Mr. Griffith as President of the Dáil. In doing that I want to make it clear that we on this side do not question the right of the majority of this House to select their leader, but we do question, very, very strongly, the wisdom of selecting as their leader the man
MR. DE VALERA:
A Chinn Chomhairle, what troubles me most in this matter is the whole question of the position we are placed in. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Delegation, Mr. Griffith, whether, if he is elected, he intends to act and function as the Executive of the Republic, because this is the Government of the Irish Republic and nothing else. When we meet here we do not meet as a political party, we do not meet here as the Parliament of Southern Ireland or anything of that sort. We meet here definitely as the Government of the established Republic of Ireland, and any act whatsoever of ours which is not in accordance with that is unconstitutional. Now, Mr. Griffith can have no fault to find with me for bringing this forward for this reason: when he was in London I wrote to him definitely and pointed out that if any arrangement was come to, very great care would have to be exercised as to the manner of procedure by which any transitional Government should be set up. This is the first example of the difference between Document No. 2 and the Treaty, and it will stand up in judgment against you more times than now. There was an arrangement here—a transitional arrangement. I will read the paragraph. It will show, at any rate, that it is not tactics on my part:
Now, it is obvious that if a Treaty had come here which it would be constitutional for us to ratify as the Government of the Republic that a Provisional Government would have to be set up, and that it would have to derive its powers—seeing it is contested—we hold this would have to be signed by both parties, and therefore it would have to be a neutral document. The powers of that Provisional Government should be derived, from our point of view, which is the only point of view Irishmen will stand for, solely from this body. It will have no authority from the Irish nation unless it gets it definitely from this body which is the Government of the Irish Republic. As far as the British point of view is concerned, any claim that authority comes here from the King and Parliament and the rest of it—we deny that, and we will die denying it. I am sure nobody here will say for a moment that the authority of Ireland comes from any outside body. We are now in the position of Grattan and Flood. Flood said it was not the same thing to assert a thing yourself as to get acceptance of that assertion by other persons. You have simply the assertion now. That is no use. If somebody tries to press a claim on to you, and he admits that claim is not founded, or accepts some agreement which implies it is not founded, then there is no dispute. The assertion on our part is always in danger of being contested by someone else. Therefore I say peace is not established by that Treaty, because the contest will go on. Britain will assertThat by way of transitional arrangement for the administration of Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof and the setting up of a Parliament and Government of Ireland in accordance herewith, the members elected for constituencies in Ireland since the passing of the British Government of Ireland act in 1920, shall, at a meeting summoned for the purpose, elect a transitional government to which the British Government and Dáil Eireann shall transfer the authority, powers and machinery requisite for the discharge of its duties, provided that every member of such transitional government shall have signified in writing his or her acceptance of this instrument.
MR. M. COLLINS:
The Irish people.
MR. DE VALERA:
This Assembly has no right to disestablish itself, or vote away the independence of Ireland. You have no power whatever unless it comes from the Government of the Republic which is established. Hence I say, if Mr. Griffith takes this Chief Executive, it is from this assembly. He can only do it undertaking it is going to function as the Executive of this assembly; that is, the Executive of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
A Chinn Chomhairle, in October, 1917, after three nights discussion, Mr. Griffith finally agreed to the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution of the Sinn Fein Organisation:
If Mr. Arthur Griffith had not agreed to that he would not have got the support of the people who are prepared to make any sacrifice for Ireland. He agreed to this. He got their support. He has broken that undertaking. Before he and the four delegates went away to start these negotiations, Mr. Griffith agreed that they would not come to any decision until they had at first submitted it to the Cabinet at home, and awaited the reply from the Cabinet. He also agreed that they would not sign any Treaty until it had first been submitted to the Cabinet here. On the Saturday before this Treaty was signed Mr. Griffith undertook to tell Mr. Lloyd George that, though he was not prepared to break, nevertheless he would sign nothing, and would come back to us having signed nothing. Mr. Griffith has broken that, and consequently, no matter what undertaking he gives now, I object to his being elected as President of the Dáil.Sinn Fein aims at securing international recognition of Ireland as an independent Irish Republic. Having achieved that status the Irish people may by referendum freely choose their own form of government.
MR. DE VALERA:
I would like to have my question answered definitely, because I cannot, by sitting here during that motion, participate in any way—
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
On a point of order, a Chinn Chomhairle, a member having spoken is not entitled to speak again. The usual procedure is, whoever has to answer questions answers them in bulk at the end.
MR. SEAN MACSWINEY:
Last night I said we wished to hear some questions answered. There was a list of questions before Mr. Griffith and we want them answered. We want the answers now before the vote is taken.
MR. HARRY BOLAND:
When President de Valera put his resignation before this House the member for South Dublin said it was usual for a man seeking the support of this House to define his policy. Do you not think the same applies in this question, and that Mr. Griffith should be asked to define his policy.
MR. GRIFFITH:
The questions, I think, which the Deputies refer to were sent across by Mr. Stack. They are:
‘(1) Whether he had any communication, direct or indirect, from the British Government, in connection with the Treaty?’
The only communication I had was this produced here, except one where he stated it was not a Treaty, and I got the official title: ‘Articles of Agreement between Ireland and Great Britain’.
‘(2) Whether he had been informed what kind of legislation they proposed to pass in the British Parliament in order to carry into effect the Articles of Agreement?’
The legislation they will pass must be a Free State Act. Of course, they must pass an Act of Ratification.
‘(3) Who would summon the members of the Southern Parliament, and when?’
I will have them summoned.
‘(4) Whether the proposed Provisional Government would be elected by and from these members?’
They would.
‘(5) Whether the Provisional Government would act in conjunction with the Lord Lieutenant, and would it function under the statutory powers conferred by the Partition Act?’
If it is necessary to use the Lord Lieutenant as it is necessary to use liaison officers we will use him.
‘(6) What were the powers referred to in Clause 17 of the Treaty which would be transferred by the British Government to the Provisional Government?’
The general powers for maintaining law and order, police, and the evacuation of the country by British troops. These are the answers to these questions. As to Mr. Boland's question and President de Valera's question: if I am elected I shall use my position to give effect to the constitutional vote of this assembly in approving of the Treaty. I shall use the resources at our disposal for the keeping of public order and security until such time as we can have an election for the Free State Parliament, and at that Free State Election I will let the will of the people decide whether we have a right to accept the Free State, or whether they wish something else.
MR. DE VALERA:
It is absolutely necessary for us to have a definite answer to this question: will the President of Dáil Eireann about to be elected function as hitherto as the Chief Executive Officer of the Irish Republic?
MR. GRIFFITH:
The President is, I understand, President of Dáil Eireann, according to the Constitution. The Dáil will remain in existence until such time—and I will see that it is kept in existence until such time—as we can have an election, when this question will be put to the people.
MR. DE VALERA:
It is not an answer to my question. It is very important, because any orders from this assembly, to have legal effect with the army, will have to come from this body—from the Chief Executive Officer of the Irish Republic. They are called the Irish Republican Army and all the rest of it.
A DEPUTY:
The Irish Volunteers.
MR. DE VALERA:
We want to know definitely. If you want them as a volunteer army, all right, but if you are going to order them as the Army of the Republic orders will have to come from the person who is elected as the Chief Executive Officer of the Irish Republic. I want to know definitely if Mr. Griffith is going to be President of this assembly as the Chief Executive of the Irish Republic, as the President hitherto functioned? The reason I want to know is this: if he is not going to do that, I hold that this assembly is no longer the Sovereign Assembly of the Irish nation, acting as the Government of the Irish Republic which it is officially called. This is, in the army and elsewhere, spoken of as Dáil Eireann, the Government of the Irish Republic. Therefore, if the Chief Executive Officer is elected, to have legal force his orders must come from him as such, and I want to know before I vote for him—and I am asking that, not merely for myself, but for every member on our side—we want to know definitely where he stands in that matter. Any vote taken, inconsistent with the position of the Republic as established we hold is unconstitutional and illegal. The Treaty was approved, but, in a sense, this delegation did not act in accordance with the letter of the Treaty. You do not approve of anything you please. You approve of a definite written Treaty. If you fulfil that you will have to do this—you will have to carry out Article 17 to the letter:
does the British Government not question Dáil Eirean doing it—By way of provisional arrangement for the administration of Southern Ireland during the interval which must elapse between the date hereof and the Constitution of a Parliament and Government of the Irish Free State in accordance therewith, steps shall be taken forthwith for summoning a meeting of members of Parliament elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland since the passing of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, and for constituting a provisional Government.
Under that it is the British Government that has to transfer to you the powers. If you look at Document No. 2, Dáil Eireann gives you the powers. Otherwise you would be acting unconstitutionally. We hold this Government has not the authority of the Irish people until the Irish people have voted on it. Take your powers from the British Government and set it up. What does the vote in this assembly mean? It means that we will not, as the Government of the Republic, interfere with you, that you have, so to speak, a license to carry on. If it were not for that we would have to take action to prevent you from doing anything counter to it, as we would against Dublin Castle; but you can now go ahead by reason of the vote of the majority of this assembly to carry out that Treaty to the letter. That is what it is, and nothing else. I hold, therefore, if you want us the majority of this assembly to elect a President of this assembly, he will have to act as the Chief Executive of this of the Government of the Republic of Ireland.And the British Government shall take the steps necessary to transfer to such provisional Government the powers and machinery
requisite for the discharge of its duties, et cetera.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Mr. Griffith does not seem inclined to answer that question by a plain ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I assure Miss MacSwiney I am very much inclined to answer it.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Are you going to work as the Republican Executive—yes or no?
MR. GRIFFITH:
The Republic of Ireland remains in being until the Free State comes into operation.
MR. DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. GRIFFITH:
President de Valera yesterday threw this body into confusion by resigning and leaving no government in existence. Public order and security have to be maintained. If I am elected I will occupy whatever position President de Valera occupied.
MR. DE VALERA:
Hear, hear.
MR. GRIFFITH:
Now, that is right. In that position he was not the President of the Republic, but the President of Dáil Eireann according to the constitution [‘No! no!’].
MR. DE VALERA:
It is President of Dáil Eireann, which is written down as the Government of the Republic of Ireland. So I was President of the Republic of Ireland.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I do not mind a single rap about words. I say whatever position—if you like to put it that way—that the President resigned from yesterday, I will, if I am elected, occupy the same position until the Irish people have an opportunity of deciding for themselves.
MR. DE VALERA:
That is a fair answer. I feel that I can sit down in this assembly while such an election is going on, because it is quite constitutional that Mr. Griffith, if elected, is going to be in the same position which I held, which is President of Dáil Eireann; that is, President of the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Now, the next question. As President and Chief Officer your duty will be to uphold and maintain the Republic of Ireland. That is your oath. You will, as President of that be in duty bound to uphold the Republic, and that was why Document No. 2 was so necessary. That is why I, as President, would not be keeping my oath if I did anything to subvert the established Government. Mr. Griffith will similarly be bound by that oath as I was, and he will have to give an express undertaking that he will not use his powers for anything except to maintain the established Government during the period until the other government is set up. In other words, whatever you do, that you will not use your office when acting as President of the Republic of Ireland in any way to subvert that Republic; that you will do nothing which will make that Republic less a fact in the minds of the Irish people than it is to-day. I hold you will be breaking your oath of office if you do anything else.
MR. DOLAN:
May I ask President de Valera what was his interpretation of the oath he took?
MR. DE VALERA:
Yes, and I kept it to the letter. That is the difference between
THE SPEAKER:
I would like this discussion to be carried on without interruption. When I say that I mean without interruption.
MR. DE VALERA:
My question then is: whether Mr. Griffith, who will occupy the same position as I have occupied, and which I interpreted as binding on me by oath, will not use his office to subvert the established Republic?
DR. MACCARTAN:
I do not think it is a fair question. It is presuming that Mr. Griffith is going to become a perjurer.
MR. DE VALERA:
It is absolutely necessary, if we are going to have the opposite party, whose purpose is the subversion of the Republic, the turning of the Republic into a monarchy, the turning of independence into dependence, that we ask the chief exponent of that policy whether he is going to maintain and support something which his policy is to subvert and destroy. Surely we have a very good reason for asking that such an officer, before he is appointed—that he will not use his office which is intended to maintain a certain theory, to destroy it.
MR. LIAM MELLOWES:
A Chinn Chomhairle, before the question is answered, may I also ask whether Mr. Griffith, if he is elected President and Prime Minister of the Dáil in accordance with the Constitution, will give an undertaking that he will not use the Executive authority of Dáil Eireann to summon and work the Provisional Government according to Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty?
MR. GRIFFITH:
President de Valera has asked me will I use my office to subvert the Irish Republic. I think I have already answered the question, but I will answer it again. I said if I am elected to this position I will keep the Republic in being until such time as the establishment of the Free State is put to the people, to decide for or against. But if it means am I not going to carry into effect, the will of this Sovereign Assembly about the Treaty, I am going to carry it into effect. This body has approved of the Treaty, this body wants the Treaty put through and then sent to the Irish people. That I am going to do, of course. Now, as to Mr. Mellowes' question: ‘If he is elected President and Prime Minister of the Dáil in accordance with the Constitution, will he give an undertaking that he will not use the Executive authority of Dáil Eireann to summon and work the Provisional Government appointed according to Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty?’ I do not quite understand that question, but I expect he means this: we must set up a Provisional Government under Articles 17 and 18. We are not setting up the Free State Government now. Of course, I am going to use all the machinery I can to put it into operation. Let nobody have the slightest misunderstanding about where I stand. I am in favour of this Treaty. I want this Treaty put into operation. I want the Provisional Government set up. I want the Republic to remain in being until the time when the people can have a Free State Election, and give their vote.
MISS MACSWINEY:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I think this is a very serious matter. The President has asked certain definite questions. Mr. Griffith has answered that he will undertake to uphold, or rather that he will keep the Republic in being until a Free State Constitution is worked out. Now, I begin by quoting a leading article from the Times this morning. I think it will keep us quite clear:
That is what Mr. Griffith is looking for authority to do from this Republican Government of Ireland. We must be quite clear, and I think Mr. Griffith's answer has made us quite clear that Mr. Griffith means to use his authority as Chief Executive to get Dáil Eireann endorsed by Mr. Lloyd George as the Provisional Government of Ireland. That includes the four members of Trinity College and the exclusion of Sean O'Mahony. Mr. Michael Collins, in his speech proposing the motion before you, talked in his usual bluff, good-humoured fashion, of any kind of action being better than no action. Now, I maintain that is absolutely wrong on the face of it. Is it better for me to sit quietly and do nothing or to go out and murder somebody? Surely no action in that ease would be infinitely better than any kind of action. Mr. Collins suggests that he and Mr. Griffith should be calmly allowed to murder the Irish Republic. He said many things, and I am going to deal with the chief points in his speech. But one thing he said which is important: ‘that Dáil Eireann is not going to be more solemn’—he had said it was the Parliament of the Irish nation. He said it was not going to be more solemn because—Dáil Eireann, acting for the people, has endorsed the Treaty; that is, it has by a majority approved of
the Treaty. To-day we hope that it will authorise Mr. Griffith to summon the Parliament of Southern Ireland for some day in the present week.
MR. COLLINS:
More ‘sovereign’ I said.
MISS MACSWINEY:
That is still more important. It is not going to be more sovereign because Lloyd George says it is. There is the cat out of the bag. The English morning papers are full of the difficulties with which the English Government is faced in legalising an assembly which will be the Provisional Government of Ireland; and Mr. Lloyd George played up to the sentiment of the Irish people by letting them think Dáil Eireann is going to do this thing. Not only that, but two members of the delegation have been carefully playing up to the sentiment of the younger members of this House throughout the whole of the negotiations. Mr. Michael Collins' speech this morning was absolutely along those lines. Dáil Eireann is the sovereign Parliament of the Irish nation but it is expressly, under its Constitution, the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Would you mind showing us that?
MR. STACK:
It is in the oath.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Do you remember your oath?
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
It is the Constitution we are speaking of.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Now, the oath taken by members of Dáil Eireann was:
Now, Mr. Griffith is looking for the Chief Executive power of this Parliament today; and he has been asked if, before accepting it or asking us to vote on it, he will give us an undertaking to uphold the Republic in virtue and in accordance with that oath. He has also been asked if he will give an undertaking that he will not use the powers vested in him to summon or work the Provisional Government according to Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty. He has stated, in answer to another question that he is to summon the Provisional Government, or rather, a meeting of members elected for constituencies in Southern Ireland. Now, Mr. Arthur Griffith therefore has to act in two capacities. He has to act, if he is elected by this House this morning, as Chief Executive of the Irish Republic. He has also declared he has to—he has been deputed by Mr. Lloyd George—to summon this meeting of the members who are to appoint a Provisional Government. All we ask from Mr. Griffith is a solemn undertaking hereI do solemnly swear and affirm that I do not and shall not yield voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, or power within Ireland, hostile or inimical thereto, and I do further swear that to the best of my knowledge and ability I will support and defend the Irish Republic and the Government of the Irish Republic, which is Dáil Eireann, against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation.
MR. ROBINS:
On a point of order. Every member in Ireland, including the Trinity College members, were summoned to the first meeting of Dáil Eireann.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
They must take the oath.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Every representative in Ireland—even in the North-East Corner—is a member of Dáil Eireann, and if he only comes in and sits here we will welcome him if he takes the Oath of Allegiance. Moreover, every member in Ireland cannot sit in Mr. Griffith's parliament, or at the meeting of members summoned for constituencies of Southern Ireland. Before Mr. Griffith can use this Assembly in order to set up his Provisional Government he has to exclude Mr. Seán O'Mahony, and Mr. Seán O'Mahony is the test in this case, because he is the only member who sits for a constituency in what is called Northern Ireland, and has no seat in Southern Ireland, so-called. Further, and I ask you young men of this assembly who mean the Republic but who are voting for its subversion, to think carefully over this—if you elect Mr. Griffith without first getting a declaration from him, given to us solemnly here and to the Irish nation, that he will not combine the Executive power of Dáil Eireann with his office as Chairman of the Delegation to summon the meeting for Southern Ireland—I ask you to do that—that Mr. Griffith if he dares to use this Assembly, or the sixty-four members of it that support him, because he cannot use us, will first exclude Mr. Seán O'Mahony. Nothing would please Mr. Lloyd Gorge better than that you, by your vote here today, should elect Mr. Griffith as Executive of this Assembly and then let Mr. Griffith, as Executive of this Assembly, summon this meeting to set up a Provisional Government, because then he would be able to say that Dáil Eireann sanctioned the setting up of the Provisional Government. Dáil Eireann has not done that. Now, Mr. Collins asked us do we believe that he will be less against England if she breaks her word than he has been in the past. No, I do not, in heart. I believe he would be as much against her, but he is taking away from himself the power to be against her. It is not the will he is taking from himself; it is the power, and well England knows it. In my hotel this morning I sat at breakfast and heard two Englishmen discussing. this matter. One said to the other: ‘They will have to disestablish that Dáil Eireann before they can set up the Provisional Government’ Now, that is what Mr. Griffith is asking you to do—to disestablish Dáil
MR. M. COLLINS:
I often hit one of them on the nose for it.
MISS MACSWINEY:
My attitude if they talked like that would be an attitude of the most intense superiority. I never heard anything like their impudence, and I told them so, and remember, as you are strong so can you afford to be merciful, and when English fools talk like that why should we, in the strength of our knowledge of our own inherent culture, and the knowledge of the inherent greatness of the Irish people, be bothered by hitting them on the nose? Do you think that I am going to bother my head by hitting a little pup on the nose—a cur that may come to bark at me in the street.
MR. O'MAILLE:
Are we discussing what Miss MacSwiney would do?
MISS MACSWINEY:
We are discussing what Mr. Collins said—that the attitude of the English people was very insulting towards us, and that he had often heard insulting remarks about Paddy and the pig. I quite agree with Deputy O'Maille that it is tee-totally and entirely out of order, but it was Mr. Collins brought it in, not I. It was brought as a red-herring across the trail to show the English people are not friendly. Perhaps! But they are friendly to themselves, and the English people will not go to war on the difference between what Mr. Michael Collins is willing to give and what we are willing to give; and if they have any sense at all the English people will know from the debate here that we are in a position to deliver the goods, and that the delegation are not. There is my point. They must know that this Republican minority of ours is as anti-English as ever it was, and that this Treaty of theirs will not mean peace. They must know perfectly well that we will go on subverting their influence and their interests in every part of the world where England's interests lie. Therefore, when we say we are willing to make peace on certain terms, we are not only willing to do it, but we are able to do it. The Chairman of the Delegation and the whole delegation with him—bar one member of it; who has stood out supremely honourable though, I must confess, weak—who wants us to take this thing now, is not playing for peace with the English people. They cannot between the whole lot of them, deliver the goods because, I hold, the Irish nation gave them and gave us their mandate; and we are true to our mandate, while the majority of this House who supported the Treaty were false to it. I ask this House in voting on this question to get from Mr. Arthur Griffith the undertaking that we want him to give us and to the Irish nation publicly to-day—that he will not, as Chief Executive of this House summon that meeting, that he will only do it as Mr. Arthur Griffith, Chairman of the Delegation, not as President of An Dáil; that he will not use Dáil Eireann note-paper to summon that meeting, that he will not use any single official title given him by Dáil Eireann, or any official paper, or anything else of Dáil Eireann. If he gives us this solemn declaration then we can, as long as he is Executive of this House, forget he is Mr. Arthur Griffith, Chairman of the Delegation, and summoner of the meeting for the Provisional Government, and we can stay with him here still; but if he does not give that undertaking solemnly and publicly here without any evasion, then we can no longer have any hand, act, or part in this thing; and I ask the younger members of this assembly to realise what they are doing and support us in asking Mr. Griffith for that undertaking.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I did not interrupt Miss MacSwiney because she might have taken offence at it, but there was absolutely no necessity for her asking that question. I will summon this body to constitute the Provisional Government as Chairman of the Delegation, not as head of Dáil Eireann.
MISS MACSWINEY:
You promise also not to mix the two offices in any way?
MR. P. BRENNAN:
I resent very much one remark made by Deputy Miss MacSwiney. I do not mean any insult now to the other side, because there are good men on the other side. She said if her side left this assembly the best would be gone from it. It is hard to have to listen to that sort of thing.
DR. FERRAN:
I rise to oppose the motion that Mr. Arthur Griffith be Premier of this House. Mr. Griffith, in his answer to one of the questions to-day, admitted that he was palpably tricked by Mr. Lloyd George. Mr. Griffith, when he got this document, found it was labelled ‘Articles of Agreement’. He sent it back to Downing Street, and some clerk there blotted out the words ‘Articles of Agreement’ and substituted ‘Treaty’, and when he had that done he thought he had got a Treaty. In an answer to a question put by him to Mr. Lloyd George within the last few days he found he had no Treaty at all. Now, as regards the Presidency: it is necessary, I understand, that the head of every State when assuming office shall, by solemn oath, give an undertaking to maintain the Constitution of that State. That is a precaution that all States have found
MR. GRIFFITH:
I am not going to answer Doctor Ferran, and I shall not do so any more. I object to this manner of jumping up and putting pharisaical questions to me. The oath that President de Valera took I can take with the same covering clause President de Valera put into it, that he would take it for the good of Ireland, and use it to do the best for Ireland.
MR. DE VALERA:
I am speaking to the motion now. I asked some questions before. I just want to say this: that I think the other side know me sufficiently well to know I am not doing this through tactics, or trickery, or anything of that kind. I am doing it because I know the condition of the country, and I know perfectly well that if the Chief Executive of this House does not send orders as the Chief Executive of the Republic of Ireland, he will not be obeyed, because the men will be automatically dispensed from their oath of allegiance. I want to see that the thing is done in a proper constitutional way, so that there will be no way out of it. I was opposed for election last night on the ground—a very good ground it was—that, as I was opposed to the Treaty it was presumed I would work for the Republic as against the establishment of the Free State. The position I would occupy would be a very difficult one, in which I would be, by the terms of my oath, faithfully bound to take active steps to maintain the Republic, which would be made difficult by the vote of this Assembly. Now take Mr. Griffith's position: it is doubly difficult because he is supposed with the right hand to maintain the Republic and, with the left, to knock it down. I say it is a mistake for any individual giving this support to become a Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in the matter. He cannot do it. No matter what Mr. Griffith says or undertakes to do, every Republican in the country will be suspicious of every act he is taking in the name of the Republic. It does not conduce, I hold, to the maintenance of order, or it is not to the interests of the country at the present time, that Mr. Griffith should hold that office. He will understand that, as far as I am concerned, my sentiments are practically the same with respect to him. I am not opposing him in any personal way, but for the good of the country. I say when I took the oath I adhered to it to the letter. I was so sensitive on that point and about the obligations of my oath as Chief Executive officer, that I said they would have to remember, if they did elect me, that I would interpret it in a certain fashion. I felt then, even with that explanation that, nevertheless, it was my duty to obey that oath and carry it out to the letter in so far as I was able. If there was a settlement that would make it consistent I would be on the other side, if I was in a minority of one. I am on this side definitely, because the arrangement is not in accordance with the oath and the position I occupied: and because I believe that I could get an arrangement that was; and I felt that as long as that arrangement was possible, I would not be doing my duty to the Republic or acting in the best interests of Ireland. Mr. Griffith cannot take that oath, he cannot act as Chief Executive Officer of this Republic, bound with his right hand to uphold it, and bound to another undertaking which means that with his left he is undermining it. I say it is an impossible position. I only ask for the good of the country that Mr. Griffith would not take that office; that he would allow some arrangement to be made by which somebody who could act as Chief Executive Officer of this assembly—who will act and be bound to act on behalf of the Republic—would do so; and that Mr. Griffith would go on and carry out what this House has approved of, namely, the terms of that Treaty.
MR. GAVAN DUFFY:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I have often heard candidates for office being invited to give pledges in consideration of support which would be extended to them if the answers were found satisfactory, but this is the first time I have heard a candidate being asked to give pledges, being listened to giving these pledges, and then being told that, having satisfactorily answered the questions he would be opposed more strongly than ever. That strikes me as a totally novel departure. The key-note of this debate really lies
And therefore it was for Dáil Eireann to approve of that Treaty, and no other body whatever had authority from the Irish people to approve it and make that approval binding. Dáil Eireann has approved of the Treaty and it follows, as night the day, that it is the duty of Dáil Eireann to take the steps necessary to give effect to that approval. The Minister of Finance spoke yesterday on the question of funds, and, I take it, he gave very adequate evidence of the fact that he intended to deal absolutely fairly with those who disagreed with him in that important matter; and I think that those who are against the Treaty, knowing the persons they have to deal with on this side, may fairly rest assured on that at all events. But those who are for the Treaty are entitled to ask for fairness from them. Anyhow the Republic goes on, and must go on until it is superseded by the Free State. That is unanimously agreed. The Republic goes on, and the Republic must have a Government. A proposal was made yesterday on behalf of those against the Treaty that President de Valera should be re-elected. They put forward for re-election their best man and Dáil Eireann declined to re-elect him, many of us voting much against our own will. We felt it was the only thing to do because, in view of your vote on Saturday, you would have been making yourselves ridiculous in the eyes of the country and in the eyes of the world if you did otherwise. It is admitted you must have a government. Surely that government must be a government representative of the majority of this House. What alternative is suggested to us? I have heard none.That all legislative powers shall be vested in Dáil Eireann.
MR. COLLIVET:
The Southern Parliament.
MR. GAVAN DUFFY:
The Southern Parliament is not the Government of the Republic. Until the Free State comes into being Dáil Eireann must continue. No man here with this Constitution before him—‘that all legislative powers come from Dáil Eireann’—can suggest any other body as the Government of this country. You must set up your Provisional Government—get the English out and take over the powers that lay in their hands. But I yet have to hear any suggestion from the other side as to what is to be done for carrying on the Government if you do not elect a representative of the majority to carry it on. We have heard Mr. Griffith peppered with innumerable questions. He answered them, I hope, to the satisfaction of the leaders on the other side.
MR. DE VALERA:
No!
MR. DUFFY:
He gave plain straight answers to the questions put to him, and the result of that apparently is, that having answered those questions, and recognising that the Republic would continue, and recognising every item he was asked to recognise, he is now told, having done his best to satisfy these men, that they are going to vote against him. What answers did they want to get other than the answers he gave? I fail to see for what purpose these questions were put, unless that they mean—in this way—‘answer these questions in the way we think they ought to be answered and we will vote for you’. I have not heard on what principle those answers are considered unsatisfactory and if he gave a straight answer, then I say that the people who put these questions ought to support him and to recognise that they themselves are in a minority and that you cannot govern this country by a Government that represents the minority and not the majority. There is one thing more I would like to say. It is this: it seems to me this question of the Republican Government and the Provisional Government is really a much simpler one than it looks. So far as the Irish people are concerned, the Government elected by Dáil Eireann will be the Government of the Irish people. In the transition period, when you have agreed to take over from the usurping English Government the powers they have got in this country, when you have agreed that the machinery for so doing will be called the Provisional Government, which is working but which will not take over those powers, you will have, at the same time, the Government of the Republic, which must exist as long as the Republic exists to keep the form of the Republic in being. You will also have what I may call the machinery of government, which may or may not consist of the same Government machinery; the Government recognised by the English as Dáil Eireann would not be recognised for the purpose of carrying out the necessary arrangements to give Ireland the powers to which she is entitled. I do not think any logical objection can be taken to that. I will congratulate the other side. I do think, on the whole, they have shown a much more reasonable attitude to-day than they did yesterday. If they are beginning to be more reasonable, I ask them to go a little further and recognise the logical outcome—the logical corollary—to the attitude they have taken of putting questions to the candidate for Premiership and getting the answers they expected and wanted to get, which is, that they should acquiesce in the Government of this country, instead of putting up a fictitious opposition.
MISS MACSWINEY:
Mr. Gavan Duffy said we got the answers we expected and wanted to get. I beg to assure him that I got the answer I expected, but not the answer I wanted to get. Again I ask that he will not use the machinery of Dáil Eireann to uphold any other Government.
MR. SEAN ETCHINGHAM:
Yesterday that vote could have been taken before lunch. An adjournment was moved by the majority and we know the reason why. I just want to say a few words on this. I am in opposition to the election of Arthur Griffith. I am sorry for that, for old times' sake. I say the answers we got to what we want to know were given us yesterday when the majority—we were in a minority of two—refused to elect Eamonn de Valera as President of the Irish Republic. We got the answer then, and a writer in an English Sunday paper who was present here at the debate, in writing of Eamonn de Valera, said: ‘There was one thing he might do; he might lead his country to disaster, but he would never lead it to dishonour’. It is because I am firmly convinced that the election of Arthur Griffith will lead Ireland to both disaster and dishonour that I oppose it. I have not an accommodating mind. Deputy Duffy says we have come here in a different frame of mind to-day. The only difference in my mind yesterday and to-day is this: that I am more sorrowful than ever. I have never been pessimistic about the future of my country, but I was when President de Valera was turned down. He talks of the healthy fear the English have or that they would not have negotiations. He talks of the unreal attitude of this Assembly. Will that healthy fear be continued now when you elect Arthur Griffith instead of Eamonn de Valera? No! Certainly not. I only wish to goodness that we could give to the Irish
MR. ROBINS:
I never said we had not a Republic. I said we never had a working Republic—and we never had.
MR. ETCHINGHAM:
He said his constituents never believed we had. Doctor MacGinley said we only had a paper Republic, and that the people of Donegal were tired of that. Anything to carry the Treaty. Now we are going to maintain the Republic until we get the Free State into existence! I am not a bit deceived. I expected these answers. I would not ask my old friend, Arthur Griffith, a question about it, because I know he is to put up the Free State and not maintain the Republic. I protest against degrading this Assembly so far as to make it the machinery for putting up the Free State. You cannot legally do so and, in God's name, summon this Southern Parliament and set it up, but do not degrade the name of Dáil Eireann with it. God knows we have compromised enough, and it may be the last occasion on which I will address this assembly. It comes to that. It came to it yesterday when you turned down the only man that could make peace in this country—and you know it; the man all Ireland looks to and has trust in, that man you turned down. And you knew perfectly well if you had elected him President of the Republic he would not have interfered with you so long as you were working for Ireland's good. He has been ousted. Arthur Griffith cannot deny that he pledged his word to the President of the Republic and the Minister of Defence in the Mansion House, Dublin, on December 3rd, that he would not sign any document until he returned; and he did
MR. GRIFFITH:
That is not so; it is a deliberate misrepresentation—and you know it.
MR. ETCHINGHAM:
I never heard it contradicted before—that the Chairman of the Delegation did not pledge his word in the Mansion House. It is on record.
MR. CATHAL BRUGHA:
Does Mr. Griffith deny that he gave his word to us that he would not sign anything? Does he deny that?
MR. GRIFFITH:
I gave my word that I would not sign that document.
MR. DE VALERA:
We must be clear on this. Nobody here will be able to accuse me of at any time telling any untruth. I say it is a solemn truth that the Chairman of the Delegation, on leaving us at the Cabinet meeting—otherwise things might have been different—gave an undertaking that any document which involved allegiance to the Crown, and involved our being British subjects would not be signed until it was submitted to Dáil Eireann.
MR. GRIFFITH:
I have sat here and I have listened for weeks to misrepresentations. At the Private Session we had all this up, and we are having it at the Public Session now. The first line of attack on us was that we had exceeded our powers. President de Valera admitted that we had not. On that Saturday after I came back I was at the Cabinet meeting, and I told them I would not break on the Crown. I asked President de Valera himself to go to London if he wished. When I was going away the President asked me to try and get the thing back to Dáil Eireann. I tried, and I tried all I could, to get the matter kept back for a week. I could not succeed. I was faced with the responsibility of signing or not signing. The responsibility was placed on me and I signed. I protest against the misrepresentation that I was a man who pledged his word to something. The Deputy for Wexford also charged me with something—he intended to convey to the Irish people that I, in some way, connived with Lloyd George. That is a damnable lie and he knows it.
MR. MACKEOWN:
I propose that all documents, private and otherwise, in connection with this Session, and all documents in connection with the negotiations be published immediately.
THE SPEAKER:
That is out of order.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I now beg to move that the question be put. We have discussed it long enough.
ALDERMAN MACDONAGH:
I have an amendment
MR. ETCHINGHAM:
The Chairman of the Delegation has stated in very plain language that a charge of mine, as he put it, is a damnable lie. I was only repeating in connection with the Mansion House what has been repeated here, and what has been read in the newspaper. He ought to be grateful to me for giving him an opportunity of making the explanation he did. Another thing he charged me with was that I had spoken—and I did with sorrow—of an interview that he gave to the Press Association in London, immediately after the signing of the Treaty. You can say what you like of that. I have over and over again repeated it here. I never heard a word of denial of it, nor I do not now. What I complained of was that Arthur Griffith said seven-and-a-half centuries of fight was over—Irish liberty was won—and our people took it as such. I was here on Saturday evening, and I am thankful to say he retreated from that and said anything may happen in ten years. The Minister of Finance said like a man that this is not a final settlement. I do not believe anyone in Ireland believes it is. I made the statement because it is on record that Mr. Griffith said that Irish liberty was won. Whether he thinks it or not I really am sorry for opposing him, for old times' sake, because he is the man who ploughed the soil, and a number in Ireland sowed the seed. He does not seem the same man to-day that he was when he was in the plough before. The plough he used then was the Sinn Fein plough—an Irish plough. The plough he is using now—and he is coming to us under that plough—is a London-manufactured
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I now move that the question be put.
MR. K. HIGGINS:
I second that.
MR. BOLAND:
I wish to speak.
MR. MACDONAGH:
Before you put the motion I have an amendment.
MR. MACENTEE:
It is already past the ordinary hour for adjournment. We can quite easily take this motion to put the question immediately after luncheon [cries of ‘Poll’].
MR. DE VALERA:
As a protest against the election as President of the Irish Republic of the Chairman of the Delegation, who is bound by the Treaty conditions to set up a State which is to subvert the Republic, and who, in the interim period, instead of using the office as it should be used—to support the Republic—will, of necessity, have to be taking action which will tend to its destruction, I, while this vote is being taken, as one, am going to leave the House.
MR. DE VALERA then rose and left the House, followed by the entire body of his supporters.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Deserters all! We will now call on the Irish people to rally to us. Deserters all!
MR. CEANNT:
Up the Republic!
MR. M. COLLINS:
Deserters all to the Irish nation in her hour of trial. We will stand by her.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Oath breakers and cowards.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Foreigners—Americans—English.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Lloyd Georgeites.
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Now, sir, will you put the question? They have had at least twice the number of speakers that we have had up to this.
THE SPEAKER:
I am waiting until all those who wish to leave the House have left. The motion is that the question be now put [‘Agreed!’].
The original motion—that Mr. Griffith be appointed President of Dáil Eireann—was then put, and carried unanimously by those remaining in the House.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I would like to suggest that the roll should be called, and a record made of those who have been at this vote.
MR. D. MACCARTHY:
A Chinn Chomhairle, before the roll is called, may I explain that two members paired by a signed agreement—Tom Hunter and Professor Whelehan
The roll was then called, when the following answered:
MR. GRIFFITH:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I repeat now what I said before when asked the question. As Premier I suppose I may say the Dáil and the Republic exist until such time as the Free State Government is set up. When that Free State Government is set up I intend that the Irish people shall have the fullest power of expression at that election. When the Dáil—the sovereign body in Ireland—passed that vote of approval of the Treaty, it was our business, and our duty to the Dáil, to see it carried through, and I regret, myself, that President de Valera resigned. When he resigned and automatically brought all his Ministers with him, Ireland was left without any Government. Therefore, someone had to be proposed to take his place in accordance with the Constitution. Now, in accordance with the Constitution, the Premier proposes his Ministers and the Dáil ratifies them. Now, I propose the six Cabinet Ministers for the Dáil: Finance Minister: Mr. Michael Collins.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
I beg to propose Mr. Michael Collins as Minister of Finance.
DR. MACCARTAN:
I second it.
MR. GRIFFITH:
It is not necessary. The Dáil has simply to ratify each name.
The following were then nominated and ratified as Ministers by the Dáil:
MR. GRIFFITH:
I propose now that we adjourn until four o'clock I suppose the Labour deputation will be here at that time.
The House adjourned at 2.5 p.m.
On resuming the SPEAKER (DR. EOIN MACNEILL) took the Chair at 4.20 p.m.
THE SPEAKER:
In accordance with the wish of the Dáil this morning, the deputation from the Irish Labour Party and Trade Union Congress will be here now.
The Labour Deputation consisted of: Messrs. Thomas Johnson, Secretary; Cathal O' Shannon, Acting Chairman; Thomas Foran, General President I. T. and G.W.U.; O'Farrell, R.C.A.; Cullen (Dublin); Nason (Cork); Carr (Limerick); and Larkin (Waterford).
MR. THOMAS JOHNSON:
Mr. Speaker, and Deputies of the Dáil, my first duty is to thank you for the privilege of allowing us to address you on these matters which were referred to in my letter. We realise it is a privilege for us to come to address you; but we feel that we are, perhaps, in a somewhat exceptional position, inasmuch as we might have had the right to address the assembly had we considered, at the last election and the previous election, it was in the interests of Ireland that we should have gone forward as a Labour Party to seek representation in this Dáil [hear, hear]. The Executive of the Labour
MR. CATHAL O SHANNON:
A Chinn Chomhairle, agus a lucht na Dála,is mian liom buidhchas a ghabháil libh i dtaobh gur leigeabhair don Toscaireacht cúis an lucht oibre do chur os bhúr gcóir. Níl a thuille le rá agam ach aon fhocal amháin. Nuair a cuireadh Poblacht na hEireann ar bun, dubhairt sibhse, lucht na Dála gur le muintir na hEireann saidhbhreas agus talamh na hEireann. Níl uainn anois ach go gcuirfeadh sibh e sin i bhfeidbm.
PRESIDENT ARTHUR GRIFFITH:
Before the delegation leaves, I want to thank them for putting before us here, their views. I want also to say I fully agree with what they say. The workers of Ireland have taken their full share in this fight for Irish freedom [hear, hear]. I want also to say I understand perfectly, and I know, this question of unemployment, and I may say we are
The Labour Deputation withdrew.
MR. DE VALERA:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I regret more than I can express the fact that I cannot consistently and sincerely congratulate the President on his election. I regret it, as I say, more than I can express. The difficulties which he has in his office are undoubtedly very, very great. One who has had the burden of those duties on his shoulders understands what they are likely to be now, perhaps, better than anybody else and I think I will be expressing the views of everyone here, not merely those on the majority side, but we here who stand definitely for the Republic, when I say that, appreciating to the full his difficulties in acting as President of the Republic of Ireland, as head of the established State, we shall not only not stand in his way in carrying out the duties of that office, but we shall do everything that is possible for us to secure to the full for the Irish people enjoyment of the liberty which is their right as citizens of the Irish Republic [hear, hear]. That must not, of course, be interpreted in any way as meaning that we are not to continue our own policy—that we are not to criticise and attack his policy in any respect in which it may appear to us to be contrary to the interests of the Irish people and the established government, which is the Republic. Whenever he functions, or will function in his other capacity as head of another government, we cannot recognise that government at all. We will have to insist and continue insisting on our attitude that that government is not the legitimate government of this country until the Irish people have disestablished the Republic, and we shall do everything in our power to see they do not disestablish it. I have also said whenever there is a question between the President of the Republic as head of this State, and any outside power that he can count on us to the full; that he can count on our support as definitely as if there had never been a division between us. I would also feel contemptible in my own eyes if I did not say this: I have found fault, as I felt it my duty, with the actions of the President when he was Minister of Foreign Affairs; but there is not one in this whole Assembly, not even those on his side, who realise how terrible was the task imposed upon him. And I want to tell him this: that if in any way it were consistent with Irish national principles to support the action he was taking, I would be supporting him; and that I am in opposition now simply because I felt that the action that is proposed is neither good for the Irish people, nor is it consistent with Irish national aspirations. I know he will believe me when I tell him I will, as a single Irish citizen, give to him in his office all the respect which I would expect to receive when in that office, from any citizens, and which I received from the Minister of Foreign Affairs himself. It is a good thing there should be these changes, so that we who have been in power may recognise, individually, that it is power which does not come from ourselves, but is given to is; and when we are in office we are not acting as individual autocrats, but as functionaries for the people. I have said changes are good things, and I am glad to be able, as a private individual, to act my part as a private Irish citizen; and the President of the Republic will receive from me, personally, and I hope from every Irish citizen, while he is acting in that capacity, the full respect which his office entitles him to. It will be my duty to do everything in my power to see this established Republic is not disestablished. On this side of the House, even amongst those who most bitterly oppose his policy, there is a sympathetic feeling, and the magnitude of the task imposed upon him is realised. I regret it is not possible for me consistently to be able to congratulate him on the office which he is taking up in the present circumstances. Now, I would like if he would give us some outline of the policy he intends to pursue in maintaining the existing Republic.
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
I desire to thank President de Valera for his words. I call him President still; because if he had not resigned yesterday I would never have asked him to resign. He has spoken of laying down a burden. If there was anything in my life I would like, it would be to lay down the burden and get back into private life. It is no feeling of ambition, or anything like that,
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS:
A Chinn Chomhairle—
MR. PIARAS BEASLAI:
What is before the House, exactly?
THE SPEAKER:
There is no motion before the House at present.
MR. PIARAS BEASLAI:
What about the Orders of the Day?
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
I am told I made some remark that might have another bearing to what I intended to say. It was to the effect that if the Irish people turned down the Free State, I would back the Free State. What I meant to say was that if the Irish people at a free election, without any force used on either side, say: ‘No! we want to have the Republic,’ I will follow in the ranks of the Irish people. I want that to be quite clear. I am going to back the Free State, to propose it and to advocate it; but I agree with President de Valera, nobody can disestablish the Dáil except the Irish people at an election. At that election I will stand for the Free State. If the Irish people are against me I will follow behind them as a private in the ranks. If I said anything to the contrary, I wish to correct it.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS:
I wish to raise a few points in connection with the statement made by the President.
MR. PIARAS BEASLAI:
I must protest. There is nothing before the House. Deputy Childers is out of order.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS:
The President has made a very general statement of policy. All I wish to do is to ask him to be more explicit in a few particulars which are of great importance. I do not raise the points in the least obstructive sense, or with any obstructive motives. It is simply in order that we may know more exactly where we stand. Mr. Griffith as President has taken over an important office, to my view in a double capacity—one as Chief Executive Officer of Dáil Eireann, and the other, which he will soon presumably hold, is Chief of the Provisional Government. It is simply a few points arising out of that curious and ambiguous situation which I wish to raise. I would have raised them on the previous motion but the closure was moved and I was unable to speak. My friend, Mr. Gavan Duffy, said all the questions put to Mr. Griffith had been satisfactorily answered, and that we can just go ahead under Mr. Griffith in his dual capacity. I do not think that is so, and further explanation is needed. One of the questions asked him he certainly did not answer at all. That question was: ‘Will the Provisional Government function under the statutory powers conferred
MR. D. MACCARTHY:
I rise to a point of order. Yesterday you allowed a motion to be debated for two-and-a-half hours, and then ruled it out of order. Let us know where we are What is before the House? If this debate is going to go on for two or three hours we may then be told it is not in order, and there is nothing before the House.
THE SPEAKER:
On a strict point of order there is no motion before us.
MR. P. HUGHES:
I move that we proceed with the next business.
MR. E. J. DUGGAN:
I have pleasure in seconding that motion.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS:
But this is a—
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
Before this proceeds any further, I want to say that President de Valera made a statement—a generous statement—and I replied. Now [striking the table] I will not reply to any Englishman in this Dáil [applause].
MR. P. O'KEEFE:
It is nearly time we had that.
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
It is about time.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS:
My nationality is a matter for myself and for the constituents that sent me here.
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
Your constituents did not know what your nationality was.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS:
They have known me from my boyhood days—since I was about half a dozen years of age.
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
I will not reply to any damned Englishman in this Assembly.
PROFESSOR STOCKLEY:
Are all these proceedings in order?
THE SPEAKER:
The whole proceedings at present are out of order.
MR. E. J. DUGGAN:
It has been proposed and seconded that the next business in the Orders of the Day be proceeded with.
THE SPEAKER:
I have ruled.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS:
I hardly think you will say this is out of order [cries of ‘Chair! Chair!’]. It is hardly out of order to say something to an interjection like that made by the President. I am not going to defend my nationality, but I would be delighted to show the President privately that I am not, in the true sense of the word, an Englishman, as he knows. He banged the table. If he had banged the table before Lloyd George in the way he banged it here, things might have been different [cries of ‘Order!’ and applause].
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
I banged the table before your countryman, Mr. Lloyd George [applause].
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
And Griffith is a Welsh name.
MR. P. HUGHES:
Are are going to have this all the evening?
THE SPEAKER:
I have ruled this is out of order.
MR. PIARAS BEASLAI:
In the interests of decency and order you should rule Deputy Childers out of order. It is not making for harmony or proper debate to allow him to continue. Admittedly, it is out of order.
THE SPEAKER:
Leave it to me. Deputy Childers, I have ruled the continuation of this discussion is out of order.
MR. ERSKINE CHILDERS:
You rule me out of order?
THE SPEAKER:
Yes.
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
May I ask are we permitted to ask questions?
MR. SEAN MACENTEE:
If the President of this House makes a
MR. E. J. DUGGAN:
Under Standing Order number six, twenty-four hours' notice of questions to Ministers shall be given by Deputies, in writing.
MR. SEAN MILROY:
Let us get on with the next business. What is it?
THE SPEAKER:
We will take up the next business. It is a motion in the name of President de Valera—we must call him Deputy de Valera now—
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
I sent up a question yesterday. What is the proper time to bring it up at?
ALDERMAN COSGRAVE:
Standing Order 4 (d) deals with the matter.
THE SPEAKER:
When you brought it up before, I told you I believed it was out of order. I also told you it was out of order in substance, as being an alternative in opposition to the motion for the ratification of the Treaty.
MR. DE VALERA:
I do not intend to pursue this [hear, hear]. There is no good purpose, as far as I can see, to be gained at this stage in pursuing this motion. It will stand, and the criticisms that have been levelled at it will be proved to be unjust. It is the natural sequel to the correspondence we had with the British Prime Minister. It is the natural conclusion to that correspondence. If we did not have that to show that we had a definite objective, it might appear that we had no definite objective in view at all, and that we were simply pursuing the negotiations for some other purpose except for the definite purpose of trying to effect reconciliation and peace; and, in truth, to try to get a solution, or find some means by which association with the community of nations known as the British Commonwealth might best be reconciled with Irish national aspirations. As to the motion for the approval of the Treaty, I still want to insist it is not an act as such, but simply a resolution of this Assembly. It would be ultra vires to ratify the Treaty. It is simply an approval of the report brought over by the Delegation. That motion has been carried, and as we have established such definite party lines here, there would be no good purpose served by moving and explaining the document here.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Whether that document is ruled out or not, I want to say this about it: we shall do our very best to secure the earliest possible publication of all the private documents which led up to that document, and I shall do my best, at the very first opportunity I have of doing it, to issue a criticism of that document, and that can go before the public, and let that criticism be answered in the same public way [applause].
THE SPEAKER:
The next motion is in my own name, and in order that I may move it, it will be necessary for the Deputy Speaker to take my place.
MR. DE VALERA:
May I withdraw my motion?
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
When may I ask my question?
ALDERMAN W. T. COSGRAVE:
In No. 4 (d) of the Standing Orders it is laid down that the first business of the day shall be questions to Ministers, and all subjects thereto, and so on.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
In the absence of the Deputy Speaker, I move that Deputy Liam de Roiste take the Chair.
MR. KEVIN O'HIGGINS:
I beg to second that.
THE SPEAKER vacated the Chair which was then taken by ALDERMAN LIAM DE ROISTE.
PROFESSOR EOIN MACNEILL:
The motion I have to move, Sir, is: ‘That Dáil Eireann affirms that Ireland is a Sovereign Nation, deriving its sovereignty in all respects from the will of the people of Ireland; that all the international relations of Ireland are governed on the part of Ireland by this sovereign status, and that all facilities and accommodations accorded by Ireland to another state or country are subject to the right of the Irish Government to take care that the liberty and well-being of the people of Ireland are not endangered’.
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
Hear, hear.
PROFESSOR EOIN MACNEILL:
That we recognise no subordinate status, and
THE ACTING SPEAKER:
Is there any seconder for Deputy MacNeill's resolution?
MR. R. MULCAHY:
I desire to second that resolution.
MR. DE VALERA:
I regret this resolution has been brought forward. As Deputy MacNeill said he would withdraw it if it was controversial, I think, from one point of view, it should be withdrawn. But the main idea can be served, perhaps, very much better by an amendment. Our attitude is this: this resolution of the approval of the Treaty was simply a license to the Executive—the new Executive—that they might promote the setting up of a Provisional Government in accordance with the terms, in other words, that we would not be actively hostile to the setting up of the Government, though we do not, and cannot, admit its right as the Government of this country until the Irish people have spoken. Anything that would seem to make it appear that that Treaty was completed by the resolution of approval here, we are against; and this mere declaration is, to our minds, of very little value when it is not in accordance, as far as we can see, with the text of the actual Treaty. I will propose an amendment to this—and I think we can be unanimous about this, because any action we have taken here, we have taken it as the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland—and the amendment that would cover the object for which Deputy MacNeill's motion was put before you, being the assertion of the independence of Ireland, can be put this way. Leave out all the words after Dáil Eireann and insert: ‘The Government of Dáil Eireann re-affirms in the name of the Irish people the Declaration of Independence made on January 21st, 1919’. I propose that we here now solemnly re-affirm that Declaration of Independence. It is, as you know, as follows:
[applause].Whereas the Irish people is by right a free people: and whereas for seven hundred years the Irish people has never ceased to repudiate, and has repeatedly protested in arms against foreign usurpation; and whereas English Rule in this country is, and always has been, based upon force and fraud and maintained by military occupation against the declared will of the people: and whereas the Irish Republic was proclaimed in Dublin on Easter Monday, 1916, by the Irish Republican Army acting on behalf of the Irish people: and whereas the Irish people is resolved to secure and maintain its complete independence in order to promote the common weal, to re-establish justice, to provide for future defence, to insure peace at home and good will with all nations, and to constitute a national polity based upon the people's will, with equal right and equal opportunity for every citizen: and whereas, at the threshold of a new era in history, the Irish electorate has, in the General Election of December, 1918, seized the first occasion to declare by an overwhelming majority its firm allegiance to the Irish Republic: now, therefore, we, the elected representatives of the ancient Irish people in national Parliament assembled, do, in the name of the Irish nation ratify the establishment of the Irish Republic, and pledge ourselves and our people to make this declaration effective by every means at our command: we ordain that the elected representatives of the Irish people alone have power to make laws binding on the people of Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament is the only Parliament to which that people will give its allegiance: we solemnly declare foreign Government in Ireland to be an invasion of our national right which we will never tolerate, and we demand the evacuation of our country by the English Garrison: we claim for our national independence the recognition and support of every free nation in the world, and we proclaim that independence to be a condition precedent to international peace hereafter: in the name of the Irish people we humbly commit our destiny to Almighty God who gave our fathers the courage and determination to persevere through long centuries of a ruthless tyranny,and strong in the justice of the cause which they have handed down to us, we ask His Divine Blessing on this,
the last stage of the struggle we have pledged ourselves to carry through to freedom
MR. PIARAS BEASLAI:
That is not an amendment in accordance with the rules of debate.
THE ACTING SPEAKER:
I am careful about that matter of omitting adding, or substituting words. This is to omit words?
MR. DE VALERA:
To omit and substitute words.
MR. J. J. WALSH:
Did I not understand the proposer of the motion to say very definitely and clearly that he was putting it forward on the express understanding there was to be no official opposition, and it there was, it would be withdrawn?
MR. D. O CEALLACHAlN:
Is mian liom aontú leis an bhfó-rún.
PROFESSOR MACNEIL:
I am sorry it was not indicated to me that it was intended to put an amendment to my resolution. If I had known anything about that, I would not have, at this stage of the proceedings, supplied material for a fresh controversy. I ask the permission of the Dáil to withdraw my resolution [hear, hear].
MR. J. J. WALSH:
There is no necessity to ask permission.
THE ACTING SPEAKER:
I must therefore declare, as the proposer of the motion has withdrawn it, that now there is neither a motion nor an amendment before the House [applause]. I will ask the Speaker to take the Chair again[laughter].
ALDERMAN DE ROISTE vacated the Chair which was then taken by THE SPEAKER.
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
A Chinn Chomhairle, I rise to make a motion for the adjournment. But before I do so I may mention that into my hands have been put, within the last few minutes questions addressed by Madame Markievicz. It was the first time I saw them, and there might be an insinuation that I avoided them. The first question is:
The second question is:‘What is the scheme that Mr. Griffith refers to when he says, alluding to the Southern Unionists, ‘I agreed that a scheme should be devised to give them their full share of representation in the first Chamber of the Irish Parliament’. Is it a scheme for party legislation, class legislation, or what?’
My answer to that is this: I met some of the Southern Unionists in London. I refused to meet them at a Conference. I said they had no locus standi at a Conference; but I would meet them as an Irishman might meet Irishmen. I discussed matters with them, and I said: ‘We want you all in Ireland’. They asked about representation, and I said: ‘I will agree a scheme shall be devised to give you full representation’. Madame Markievicz asks me what that scheme is. I do not know.‘On what basis is this Upper House that he mentions further on in the letter to be constituted?’
MADAME MARKIEVICZ:
Thank you.
PRESIDENT GRIFFITH:
That scheme will have to be considered when we are drawing up the Constitution. I was not able to work out the scheme at the moment. These questions are trap questions. I wrote overnight from London, and a courier came across to Dublin. I informed the Cabinet I was going to see these gentlemen, and I informed them afterwards; so they knew all about it. As to the second question, that is a question when the Constitution is being drawn up. What I have pledged is that they will get a fair representation in both Houses, and I will see to it. Now I move the adjournment of the House until such time as we call it together again.
MR. DE VALERA:
I do not know whether the President would be really wise in doing that straight off. There are a number of things he might enlighten us on by having another session. There are questions of policy to be disposed of, Republican staffs, foreign representatives, and a number of Executive matters which the House would like to have some information about. The taking over of the various offices is another matter. Ex-Ministers will, naturally, hand over their departments to the present Ministers and I suppose the present Ministers will make
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
Yes; something like that.
MR. DE VALERA:
Meanwhile the President and the members of his Cabinet will have an opportunity of preparing an outline of policy.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Would it not be better if the other side made a practical suggestion for once? I mentioned a matter the other day, and there was no response. Obviously a Committee, or some kind of contest between the two sides, would meet the case. It is also obvious, if we are not to be hindered, that certain details are necessary to be arranged, and those details will take a great deal of working out. It is not fair that we should be kept here and prevented from doing our work. Questions are being asked. I say these cannot be answered, because we have not the necessary time to send anybody to the English side to ask for transfers and arrange other matters. If we are not to be hindered, I think the adjournment of the House over a certain period ought to be supported. I do not care whether the period is named or not. At any rate, tactics should be dropped, and we should get a bit of fair play.
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
The Minister of Finance put us into a difficulty yesterday which he has, apparently, forgotten. He informed us that every penny we were spending now was spent illegally. How can any expenditure be made until the House has sanctioned it for the next six months? Expenditure cannot be carried on until it is sanctioned by this House, as we did last July or August. That is one matter. There are several other questions, as the President suggested, that have to come up.
MR. M. COLLINS:
Would it be suggested by anybody here that we should cease at once paying the staffs in the different departments, and that we should ask back from the staffs all they have received in salaries for the past fortnight? The only expenditure that is being made is the simple routine expenditure in all the departments. I am not spending the money. All the departments have been carried on, as everybody knows just as they had been prior to any division. And surely to goodness it would not be suggested that they should not be paid. I do not know to what extent the other side would go in any suggestion now. I do not know if any person could find fault with any expenditure on ordinary staffs.
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
I resent very much the suggestion that I am implying that the Minister of Finance should do anything he should not do. I resent it very much. This is an ordinary question of constitutional procedure. For any expenditure he has got to get the sanction of the House.
MR. M. COLLINS:
A statement will have to be prepared.
MISS M. MACSWINEY:
The newly elected President suggests that we should adjourn until he chooses to call us together again. We cannot adjourn until the ordinary business of the House is settled. Moreover we are told we cannot get questions answered without giving twenty-four hours' notice. There are some very important questions to be asked, not with a view to creating trouble, but to seek definite answers. I will oppose the motion to adjourn until those questions are answered, and until we get some idea—
MR. E. J. DUGGAN:
There is a motion before the House.
ALDERMAN M. STAINES:
I second the motion for the adjournment. Any members who have questions to ask should send them to the Cabinet Ministers, and the Cabinet Ministers will be in a much better position to answer them when we meet again. We can see then what is being done. It is not fair to the members of the Cabinet. Give them a chance.
MR. M. COLLINS:
I have been Minister of Finance for the last couple of hours only. All the estimates have to be prepared, and that is a fairly big
MR. J. J. MACKEOWN:
I move that the motion be now put to the House.
MR. DE VALERA:
Do not try to rush the matter. We will get more harmony if there is no attempt to rush. Undoubtedly there is great anxiety on our side of the House to know what your programme for the future is. There, for example, is the question of the estimates. Instead of adjourning the House sine die, if a certain date were fixed, it would be accepted most definitely—if there was a definite date fixed at which the Dáil was to re-assemble, everything could be prepared by the new Cabinet, and they would be in a position to put the estimates before the House, when they could be fully examined. I suggest a date be definitely fixed.
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
I think President de Valera is acting fairly; some of the other members are not. We want to get a chance. We have not spoken about ourselves, but for three months past we have been working night and day. We were faced with the task of fighting our English opponents first, and then we had to come and fight our Irish friends, and now we have to take on as big a job as ever men took on [hear, hear]. We want a chance. We cannot meet every day here and at the same time try and carry out the things. If President de Valera—I will still call him President—agrees, I will fix a month hence as the date for the next meeting, end we will meet again on this day month. Give us a chance to do some thing in the meantime. We cannot work as it is.
MR. DE VALERA:
We ought, I think, to take that as reasonable. Everybody ought to regard it as reasonable [applause]. The only thing we are really anxious about is the Army, and perhaps the Minister of Defence would give us some idea of what he proposes to do. I am anxious myself as an individual who knows the Army. I am anxious to know what the position of the Army will be. I fear that, unless the Army is kept intact as the Army of the Republic, we will not have that confidence—the members of the Army will not have that confidence—which is necessary if we are to keep them as a solid unit.
MR. SEAN T. O'KELLY:
Suppose we adjourn until the fourteenth February. It is a Tuesday.
PRESIDENT A. GRIFFITH:
So far as I am concerned, and also my colleagues, we will be always most happy to meet President de Valera to discuss any matters that can be discussed. The motion is to adjourn until fourteenth February; the tenth February, which would be this day month, is a Friday—a bad day to meet on.
MR. R. J. MULCAHY:
In reply to President de Valera's question with regard to the Army, the policy of the new Executive will be to keep the Army absolutely intact, and that, as between this date and the re-assembly of the Dáil, there is absolutely nothing that should give anybody in this Assembly any uneasiness with regard to the Army and with regard to its strength.[applause]
MR. J. J. WALSH:
Do I understand that discipline is going to be maintained in Cork as well as everywhere else?
MR. SEAN MOYLAN:
When has the Army in Cork ever shown lack of discipline? [hear, hear]
MR. P. COLLIVET:
I would like to ask that, if we do separate we will separate under circumstances that will appeal to our own selves and to the people, and I would ask Deputies to make no more remarks that would lead to differences of opinion.
MR. DE VALERA:
The Minister of Defence has not quite satisfied me. He says he will keep the Army intact. What I am anxious about is that orders given to the Army will be given in the name of the Government of the Republic; otherwise I fear there might be some trouble.
MR. R. J. MULCAHY:
The Army will remain occupying the same position with regard to this Government of the Republic, and occupying the same position with regard to the Minister of Defence, and under the same management,
MR. DE VALERA:
I do not want to pin you down any further, so I will take it at that.
PRESIDENT GRIFFITH:
Before we adjourn I wish to move that the thanks of the assembly be conveyed to the College authorities for placing these rooms so long at our disposal.
MR. DE VALERA:
I have great pleasure in seconding that proposal. The University authorities were very kind when, while I was acting as President of the Dáil—President of the Republic—I asked that we might be given accommodation here. Then as Chancellor of the University, I am delighted that this historic meeting—although for many reasons it will be a sad one—was held here [applause].
THE SPEAKER put the motion and declared it carried unanimously.
MR. R. J. MULCAHY:
On a point of explanation; what I said apparently has not been understood, and it has been suggested I avoided saying what could have been said very simply. It is suggested I avoided saying the Army will continue to be the Army of the Irish Republic. If any assurance is required—the Army will remain the Army of the Irish Republic [applause].
The House rose.