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 appeal here to fear at all. An appeal has been made in different terms from both sides. We have had painted for us a terrible picture of the future of Ireland under these proposed new arrangements. We are going to have His Majesty's Ministers all over the place, and His Majesty's Officers all over the army. Well, it is not for me to defend anything that any other member has said. I am not here as a supporter of individuals, but if Deputy Kevin O'Higgins thinks that the future Ministers of Ireland are going to be His Majesty's Ministers, my belief is that Deputy Kevin O'Higgins will have to be His Majesty's combined Minister of everything, though I am perfectly certain that no man elected ever more—in the future—by the people of Ireland to ministerial office will be described as His Majesty's Ministers. We will have a Governor-General, and a Gold Stick in Waiting, and I don't know what else. An appalling picture! We will be overawed by these people, perfumed, in uniform, and dressed up in their court dress, and the rest of us will be all rubbing our foreheads in the dust before them, as flunkeys. A terrible picture indeed! Well, this personage who is alluded to in the terms of the Treaty—he is not named the Governor-General. What is in a name? has been said to me. Well if the Deputy insists on it I will call him the Grand Panjandrum. We will suppose this important functionary to be here in Ireland. We have a second appalling picture placed before us that he will set himself up somewhere or other and will hold Drawing Rooms, and Levees, and Garden Parties, and give Balls and Dances. And our poor girls! Their nationality will evaporate because they go to these functions. Now it is difficult to believe that all this is seriously proposed to us for our belief. There is a question of the Constitution. The Constitution will have to be drafted by some Irish authority—by some elected Irish authority—but Mr. Lloyd George has written a letter and it appears that a letter from Mr. Lloyd George is now sufficient to make us all fall down on our knees. He says in his letter that our future Constitution will have to be drafted in accordance with the terms which he has forced upon us under that Treaty. Sir, that Treaty deals with proposed international relations between Ireland and the other component parts of the British Empire, but when an Irish Constitution is fashioned and framed, there will be no mention in it of any other country but Ireland. If any person—be he a constitutional lawyer or be what he may—comes forward and insists that some other country but Ireland will be mentioned in that Irish Constitution, well we know what will happen. Moreover, I venture to predict—I am not a constitution maker or monger, but I venture to predict that the first article of the Irish Constitution when it is drafted, and by whomsoever it is drafted, will contain a provision to this effect: That the sovereignty of Ireland derived from the people of Ireland holds authority over all persons and over all things in Ireland. It won't hold that authority in fact because it is impossible for us, as a matter of fact, immediately to bring under the authority of Ireland all things in Ireland. That, as things stand at present, is an impossibility. We all know it, but the Irish Constitution will claim as a right for Ireland complete authority—sovereignty based on the will of the Irish people and on nothing else—over all persons and over all things in Ireland. And then what will happen us? We will be reduced to our proper place by a Dominion Act—another terrible prospect! Dominion Home Rule is dead. There is no such thing now in existence. I am glad we are unanimous about one point. Well they will pass a Dominion Act. It is quite within their competence as they interpret their competence—I mean the Imperial Parliament as they call it, it is really the Parliament of Great Britain—it is quite within their competence to pass an Act annexing Ireland to the Republic of Guatemala. They have full power to do it, and if they do it we will have, I suppose, Deputy Childers coming before us and explaining that, in future, we are children of Guatemala. Let them pass their Dominion Act. We don't care a fig for their Dominion Act. It is not so very long since they passed another Act that I will remind you about. In the year 1917 we had in Ireland the largest British Army that ever occupied Ireland. I believe it is true that at that time there were 204,000 soldiers on the pay-roll of the British Army in Ireland alone; and it may interest those who are concerned in foreign affairs to know that at that time when Great Britain sent the S.O.S. out to America—when her back was to the wall defending Belgium—she was holding down Ireland with the largest army she ever had in Ireland, and she was asking America to come over quick and help her to defeat the terrible Huns; and then in the middle of all that she passed an Act for us—an Act making it compulsory for every young man in Ireland to go out and help her to beat the Huns. Well she had her 204,000 men holding down Ireland, and you remember all of you the circumstances of that time. We had not then an Irish Republican Government. No. We had an Irish Parliamentary Party. We had not then more than the nucleus of an Irish Republican Army. They had the country overrun by their soldiers and their so-called police. Their police were not withdrawn into the blockhouses at that time or travelling around in cages. They were walking armed along the roads, uninterfered with—cocks of the walk, ruling the country—and in the middle of all that they passed an Act of Parliament with their 200,000 bayonets, and no Republican Army of any organised kind to resist them, to compel the young men of Ireland to fight the battle of Belgium. And what happened that Act? It is still on the Statute Book. Mr. Lloyd George discovered a German plot and 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—

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.

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 more than any oath—any political oath that he has taken or possibly can take, and that if he takes a political oath and that political oath is explained to him to tie his hands or otherwise in a case in which he is called upon to act upon his responsibilities in a most critical state of affairs, if he believes that by setting that oath aside, and by acting in freedom from that oath he could do better for his country—then he is bound to break that oath. He is bound to break that oath. Otherwise there is a higher law for us than the law of conscience.

The Law of God.

An oath of fidelity to our own country.

Yes, any formula you take. All these things are taken under reserve.

What about the marriage oath?

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.

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, this and this, and this and this, meaning fiscal autonomy for four- fifths of the Irish people—surely an unsound and uneconomic proposition—a tiny army that is for ever to be infested with foes, and a navy of cockle-shells; and this is not for symbols or shadows, but for six or more than the equivalent of six of the fairest counties in Ireland, and the only and last chance we have of securing our freedom. The Chairman of the Delegation, in concluding his speech moving the motion before the Dáil, said Thomas Davis was the man whose words and teaching he had tried to translate into the practice of Irish politics. He had made Davis his guide and had never departed one inch from his principles. Will the Chairman of the Delegation find me one passage in Davis by which he can justify the partition of our country? Mind you, I do not mean one passage advocating decentralising within the national polity, nor one passage advocating a confederation of united and equal States within the Irish nation, but one passage which, on the plain and simple interpretation of it, taken with and in its context, would justify this proposal to dismember our country. Find me that in Davis, find me it in Mitchell, find me it in Tone, find me it in the written testament of any man who ever stood firmly for Irish liberty. You will not find it there. Far otherwise, you will find every man of them, from the saintly bishop who first strove to unite the native forces against the Norman invader down to those who died in 1916, every man who ever sought to achieve Irish Independence seeking first to secure Irish Unity. In this matter and upon this principle at least,and I trust he will believe I am not saying it offensively, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is forsaking Davis and the principles of Davis, and in forsaking them he is forsaking his own. In saying that, I do not wish to make any vulgar insinuation against the honour of the men who are recommending this Treaty—their past record is proof against that—but is it not remarkable that not one has asked our approval for it upon grounds of principle, though they are all men of principle! All men of principle, they are asking you to vote for this measure upon grounds of expediency. It was upon grounds of expediency that the Catholic Bishops supported the Act of Union. It was upon grounds of expediency—and I ask the Irish people to remember this—it was upon grounds of expediency that Parnell was overthrown. It was on grounds of expediency—though there are some people here who tell me that because the majority of the people ask us to do something that is expedient that on principle we ought to support them—it was on grounds of expediency that Redmond and the Irish people through him supported England in the late war. It is upon grounds of expediency that we are asked to approve of this Treaty and recommend it to the Irish people for acceptance. Ah! I tell you that history is full of notable cases and great careers that were wrecked upon the shifting sands of expediency. There are many men in this Dáil who, by their valour and devotion, have won an honoured and glorious place in their country's history. Some of them have declared that upon the merest grounds of expediency they are going to vote for this Treaty. In Private Session I took the opportunity to set before you one single instance in my life when I was driven to act on grounds of expediency against my principles, and I told you there has scarcely been a moment of my life when that single instance has not risen up to confuse me and fill me with shame. Let those who have won fame and honour now in a glorious fight for principle—let them hesitate before they do anything that will make them bend their heads in shame—

Hear, hear.

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 not be insulted? And yet there is a motion set down for this assembly which may perhaps take the contrary view of things than was held by those who died. Do the young men of Ireland—the Collinses, the Mulcahys, and the MacKeons—wish once and for all to give decent and final interment to the Ireland for which Pearse died? These are not dead phrases for which they spoke, and these are not mummy phrases for which we stand. They are the life and soul of this nation. Do you wish to regard them as mummies? Ah! I hear some talk about an oath and men not seeing the difference between the two things—that in one there lies the enshrouded mummy of a free Ireland, and in the other they mean the preservation, inviolate against opposition or compromise, of the living principles for which Tone and Connolly stood.

Where is it?

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—

Hear, hear.

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.

I am the exponent of my principles.

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 Finance, but following the excellent example set by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I will quote that gentleman's words. Mr. Lloyd George, speaking on a motion in the English House of Commons approving of the address to the Throne said: We were of opinion, and were not alone in that opinion, because their are friends of Ulster who take the same view, that it is desirable if Ulster is to remain a separate unit, that there should be an adjustment of boundaries … we propose that Ulster should have a re-adjustment of boundaries which would take into account the existence of a homogeneous population, and considering all these circumstances we think it is in the interests of Ulster that she should have people within her who should work with her and help her. There you have the real purpose of that clause—not to bring the six Counties into Ireland, but to enable them to remain out of Ireland.

I desire to ask this Deputy if he is prepared to coerce all these counties to come in?

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.

Trust him.

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.

That is no fault of our Cabinet.

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. Milroy—whom I remember very well as a very agile rainbow chaser and shadow hunter—does he tell me that material or economic facts are the determining factors in nationality? Would he have said that when we were asking the people of Ireland to risk their economical welfare on the question of nationality three years ago? Ah! he would not, and if I had said that to him he would have regarded it as insulting. I say there is more in nationality and history than mere materialism, and I say because there are more than these things in history and nationality, this Treaty is the most dangerous and diabolical onslaught that has ever been made upon the unity of our nation, because, Sir, by the very effort in it we are going to be destructive of our own nationality—

You are.

No, Sir, you are.

I was first of course.

Exactly. I am not following you.

You never did.

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 of the British forces out of Southern Ireland in order to get their winter quarters in the North. Until then I had almost thought that there was no soldier of intelligence in this House. I tell you this Treaty makes evacuation a mockery. Already the English Press are declaring that Northern Ireland must be afforded every military protection she requires or that England can give her. The North will be flooded with soldiers evacuated out of Southern Ireland. Read Lloyd George's letter if you don't believe me. They will be reinforced by hundreds of thousands of Orange irregulars concentrated and held in one spot, as Napoleon used to concentrate his forces, to launch them at the tiny units of your tiny army and smash them. You who profess to be soldiers and who recommend this Treaty upon soldierly grounds, tell me, with Ulster, as it will be under this Treaty, an armed camp, and with your chief ports held by the enemy and your supplies of equipment and munitions so controlled, where is the military advantage you are going to get if you accept the Treaty? I have heard some say that they will vote for this Treaty because it is not a final settlement. I might be disposed to commend them for those statements if only for the reinforcement that their words give to the President's attitude in this matter, for he has frankly declared he is voting against it because it is not a final settlement, and because it will not give peace. But, Sir, I am voting against it because I believe it will be a final settlement, and it is the terrible finality of the settlement that appals me. Under it I believe firmly that we are giving away our last chance of securing an independent Ireland. Mark my words, under this Treaty Ulster will become England's fortress in Ireland—a fortress as impregnable as Gibraltar, and a fortress that shall dominate and control Ireland even as Gibraltar controls the Mediterranean. I have heard much from those who will vote for it because it is not a final settlement. I have heard much of our gradual growth to freedom under this instrument—how we will encroach a little here and crawl a little there until we attain the full measure of our liberties. I tell you that so long as Ulster is in the position you are going to place her in under this instrument you will not budge one inch. That is why she is placed there, and it is because she is placed in that position that Lloyd George, on his own admission, has given you this Treaty at all. Speaking of the conference and of the issue of the conference—the Treaty—he says: It could not have been done if you had not faced Ireland with the accomplished rights of Ulster—rights of the invader and usurper within historic territory of the Nation. I tell you what England propose to do. She has robbed you of your territory to settle it upon her new Cromwellians and is asking you now to give her the title deeds. That is what this document means. The Deputy for Derry some days ago spoke of an element not being represented in this Dáil. I too will speak of them. Yet it occurs to me that not I, but the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or the Minister for Finance, or the Deputy for Tyrone, who is so strenuous and vociferous for the treaty—that not I, but one of these should be their spokesman here. I ask these Deputies if, when they were standing for their respective constituencies, they had put forward this Article 12 of this Treaty as their policy, would they have got one hundred votes of all the votes that returned them?

Certainly.

You got fifty- six votes.

I may have. That was no fault of mine.

Not mine surely.

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 —the betrayal of not only our own rights but of the pledge to the Ulster people—a people who, under conditions that those who have not endured them can have no conception of, have stood for us and have suffered for us in the hope that in our day of triumph we should not forget them. These days have not been our days of triumph. Some Deputy has said they are our days of defeat, but whether they are our days of triumph or defeat let us all remember our own suffering people and make them our day of honour. The Deputy for Galway and a number of other Deputies have said: What is the alternative to our acceptance of this Treaty? Apparently if the people who are recommending this Treaty can have their way there will be no alternative to it except terrible and immediate war. But, Sir, whether that is really the alternative or not—and I don't believe it is the alternative—but whether it he the alternative or not, all the responsibility for that alternative rests, not upon us, but upon those who, in violation of their election pledges and in defiance of their orders, signed that Treaty. The Minister for Finance, referring again to the problem of secessionist Ulster, more or less washed his hands of the whole matter when he said: Well, after all, what are we to do with these people? Well I am not responsible for policy, but of all the things I may have done, this one thing I would not do: I would not let them go. I would not traffic in my nation's independence without, at least, securing my nation's unity. I would not hand over my country as a protectorate to another country without, at least, securing the right to protect my countrymen. I would not do as this Treaty does—I would at least take care not to do as this Treaty does—remove every chance and every opportunity, and make it for ever impossible for those who come after me to secure it. I would not do one of these things and because I would not do them I will not vote for this Treaty.

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.

What about the oath to the first Parliament?

I must ask the Deputies to refrain from interrupting.

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 view this assembly as the assembly of a Sovereign Nation. I have been surprised to find Deputies in this assembly doubting the sovereignty of the Irish nation.It is true the assembly is an anomalous one, due to the circumstances of the revolutionary period through which we have passed and may still be passing; in this assembly we have only one party, the Republican party. If it were a normal assembly you would have representatives of every party in the Irish nation. Now, though the assembly is here, not by law established as in any normal country, it is here in fact; and it is the fact I recognise and not the law established to the letter. I would submit for the consideration of everybody that if we stood on what has been termed—but which I do not admit—the uncompromising rock of principle, we would not he here at all. It was by virtue of a British Act in 1918 that we stood for election hear, hear. It is by virtue of British Constitutional Law and practice that we got into the assembly then, and I presume it was by the Act called the Partition Act which began: Enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, or whatever you call it laughter that we got elected here, and that we are here in this assembly. The very constituencies were changed from 1918 to ]921 by virtue of the Partition Act passed in the British Parliament. If we were to accept the letter of the law we would not be here at all hear, hear. What we accepted was a fact and the will of the Irish people. We are here because every one of us, acting according to common sense, not in accordance with declarations or what is written ⁱⁿ a British Act, availed of the opportunity to mould in form all British Acts to the benefit of the Irish people hear, hear. In that sense everyone here, no matter what declarations are made, is an opportunist. We are all here, no matter what theoretical distinctions are now made to divide us in dialectical discussions, by virtue of the operation of English constitutional and legal enactments in Ireland. Common sense tells us there was neither compromise nor sacrifice of national principles in utilising English legal machinery for our own purpose, as we utilise it for local government, for postal services, for monetary values and other purposes. If I may say so, the most uncompromising person here will pay twopence for the photograph of his Majesty King George to put it on a letter. I hope when the Postmaster-General begins his functions the photograph of his Majesty will be cheaper—if it is here at all laughter. The law and the phrases and the forms and terms of the Acts of Parliament mean nothing as far as this country is concerned, when they are forms and terms of the British Parliament. The fact means another.If I wanted to make debating points I could say like others we were all compromisers in 1918, we were all compromisers in 1920, we are all compromisers now, and not alone compromisers but opportunists; for we all availed of the opportunities given us under English legal forms to create this assembly itself. I have no desire to make debating points. It matters not now what the phrasing and the form of words of the Partition Act of 1920 were. I fancy it was called the Better Government of Ireland Act, and began with the usual fiction: Enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and so on. Such was the wording that established Dáil Eireann as it now exists. The Wizard from Wales threw 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, to my view, is the fact, whatever the phrasing. I do not mind what Lloyd George says, whether he recognises it or not. The status of Ireland is recognised, and is there anyone here to say to me that that is not a big victory for the Irish nation in this day? Whether the bargain is a good or a bad one is another matter; and on that point, without any heated controversies or violent disputations, we can all have our honest differences. In the assemblies across the water, I believe there were differences too over the interpretation of the forms of the proposals. I cannot say if they were honest or not there. I know the differences here are quite honest. Some there were violent enough in declaring this was a bad bargain for England, was a surrender to Ireland in fact, a 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 sovereign independence of a united Irish nation. Common sense tells me, however, that its realisations will not be quite what I desire, for an ideal realised is never quite as we visualise it. Principles and ideals, in the abstract, if based on eternal things are immutable. Principles regarding the relations of states and peoples and forms of government are not immutable. What is history itself in one aspect but the record of the changes in the relations of states and nations, in the powers of government, in national, political and social organisation? Some changes have been violent,sudden: others have been the outcome of peaceful endeavour over a long period. As the conflict of the past few years in Ireland has rendered possible the making of this Treaty with Britain, so its acceptance now may enable Ireland in peaceful endeavour to develop a new world conception of the relations of peoples and states. As I view affairs, the imperialistic conception with military domination and economic exploitation is dying, if dying hard. The acceptance of this Treaty, in my view, is its death-blow in Ireland. National and political policies should not be raised to the dignity of immutable principles in a world that is ever-changing; a world of beings swayed by passions and prejudices, by sentiments, and by illusions begot of ignorance; beings that are not gods, not angels. Our acceptance of this Treaty, or of any Treaty, whether such Treaty be above our personal ideals or fall below them, cannot bind the future—notwithstanding the legal fiction so often inserted in such documents that they are binding for ever. Had we before us a Treaty that would satisfy the personal ideals of all still we could not say that there would be peace for ever between the Irish nation and that other nation with whom we make a Treaty. We can only take the one that is before us as a certainty that its acceptance can lead to present peace, and a peace that is no way dishonourable, under present circumstances, to the Irish people. Every Deputy here has a double duty at the present juncture: the one to express, as far as he is capable of expressing it, the mind, the intentions, the will of the people he represents, the other to express if he so desires, his own personal principles, ideas, feelings, opinions. I have no hesitation in saying that, so far as I have been able to test it, the will of the majority of the people I represent is overwhelmingly in favour of the Treaty. Only yesterday certain gentlemen of my constituency who are able to gauge public opinion there, came to me to know what all the discussion in the Dáil was about when the overwhelming mass were in favour of acceptance of the Treaty hear, hear. True I have been warned of possible speedy exit into the infinite azure sphere if I favour the Treaty but I have also been warned that bás gan sagart awaits me if I record a vote against it! For myself, I have common sense enough to know that no Treaty in any form of words drawn up by other than myself would satisfy all my ideals or conform to the principles I, as an individual, hold: and I doubt if I myself could give adequate expression in words to my thoughts of what the status of our nation should be; what its constitutional forms, what its political and social organisation, what its attitude towards other states and peoples should be. Language is the prerogative of man alone, but I have long since formed the conclusion that no words, or phrases, or forms of expression can adequately convey the thoughts and ideas, the ideals and aspirations that surge through the mind and soul of a living human being. If my personal ideals and personal ideas of national principles conflict with what is the manifest welfare of the people, I should feel it my duty, on the still higher and greater principles of Christianity, to subordinate my own conceptions to those higher, universal principles; I should feel it my duty to sacrifice myself by what is, perhaps, the greatest sacrifice of all, the suppression of my own personal conceptions and theories for the welfare of the people applause. And instead of that being dishonourable, I venture to assert it is in complete accord with the highest ideas of honour and duty, national or individual hear, hear. Peace on earth to men of good-will is a higher principle and a nobler conception than the pagan attitude of war and strife and conflict and revenge. And it is partly because I am convinced that the acceptance of this Treaty should bring peace to the sorely tried people of this country, to the poor, the lowly, the humble, the timid, making possible the peace of God in many a home in Ireland this Christmastide, that I favour its acceptance. We have prayed for peace; the nation with one voice has called to God for peace; in many churches and in many a home the people have lifted up their voices to Heaven for peace; and, as I conceive it in my soul, God has heard the prayer. With the Bishop of Killaloe I feel This is God's gift to the people. Here is an instrument of peace that the people of Ireland can honourably accept, with trust in God to guard the future destiny of the nation as they trusted in Him in the darkest days of the Terror to ordain such an opportunity as this for peace. The struggle of Ireland for centuries has been a struggle against armed aggression and what followed in the train of armed aggression—economic exploitation and mental servitude. The moral basis of Ireland's fight at any time, as during the past few years, has been that it was defence of the nation's life against armed aggression. When this aggression ceases, as by the acceptance of this Treaty it ceases, there seems to me at least no present moral basis for an armed conflict. If aggression be again resorted to by the rulers of England, Ireland can again stand on the impregnable moral basis of defence of her life. That the people of Ireland should sanction an armed conflict against aggression, at any favourable opportunity, no matter how unequal the contest, there never was a doubt. But that the people of Ireland now sanction a conflict in preference to acceptance of an instrument that makes them masters in their own land, whatever the form and phrasing of that instrument be, is a matter of grave doubt. Speaking for myself, though I would accept the responsibility of advising war against English armed aggression, I cannot, in conscience, accept the responsibility of advising war as the alternative to the operation of this instrument. I am perfectly willing to let the people whom I represent themselves decide in any ordinary, peaceful, legitimate way in which the people can express their opinion freely, and am perfectly willing to pledge myself to say not one word more in public than what I say here to influence their free decision hear, hear. I am not a politician nor a partisan, and I never had an ambition to stand upon political hustings or even to enter public life. It was with extreme reluctance and under much pressure I accepted nomination at the 1918 election, and only because it was shown to me to be a duty—a most painful and distasteful duty as I felt it—to accept. At that election our hopes were high—as the hopes of the plain people of all nations were high—that a new world order based, not on force, but on moral right, would ensue from the conference at Versailles, and the establishment of the League of Nations. We believed as all the world believed, that American principles would become reality and not remain merely fine expressions of ideal things, and that Ireland then, as a sovereign nation, would enter into a world community of nations. Not alone our hopes, but the hopes of the world were blighted at Versailles. But mark, even the solemn compacts entered into there by the representatives of great and mighty powers have had to go down before the solid facts of world forces that not even statesmen nor politicians nor wizards nor theorists can control. It is a fiction in the light of world history, even of the past few years, that any pact between states has binding force for ever. We turned to America in the hope that recognition of the Republic might come, as we turned to other countries. The plain people of America and the plain people of the world sympathised with us in our struggle for life; and I am convinced that a very great factor in forcing the English Government to agree to this Treaty with us was the moral opinion of the world which, though indefinite, is a powerful factor. But the Governments moved not, and there is a limit even to the force of the moral opinion of the world. Rightly or wrongly I believe we have got in this Treaty the limit to which the moral opinion of the world will go on Ireland's behalf; and I have no faith that the rulers of the great states will move in our regard to the detriment of what they conceive to be their own interests. They met again at Washington the other day, and a new pact has been entered into which, as I understand, ensures the supremacy of Britain on the seas for a further period. It is a pact for ten years; it may be broken or changed before then, such is the mutability of the relations between states: but we have got to take facts as we find them. We had the moral opinion of the world with us in a struggle against armed aggression. We cannot expect the moral opinion of the world with us if, by our own act, by the rejection of this Treaty we retain the armed forces of aggression in our land. How can we honestly complain to the world in future of atrocities of English armed forces in Ireland if it is by our own act we keep those forces here? And what I sincerely feel is that no declarations, no words, no assertions on our part can explain to the world, any more than to our own people, why any Irishman, republican or non-republican, should vote to retain the armed forces of English aggression in Ireland hear, hear. England has changed its policy. Whether it has changed in heart or not is another matter. We have got to face the fact of that change of policy at least. The election of this year in Ireland was a war election and, as would happen in any other country, the people gave their confidence to those who, in their opinion, were fighting for the nation's existence and meeting the Terrorist policy in the only way in which it could be met. That election and the national policy connected with it smashed the proposals of the British Government contained in the Partition Act. As far as political policies went Mr. Lloyd George's Government was beaten. A change became inevitable for England. The British Prime Minister began exploring avenues for peace. By the skill, as we all believed, of our united Dáil Cabinet this avenue for peace was blocked and that avenue was blocked, until at last an avenue was found that was then at least not considered dishonourable by any—the avenue of a Conference. The Truce was proclaimed, its very terms, as many thought, being a recognition of our national status as co-equal with England. We considered there was recognition of our national status. In other words, what the English termed a gang of murderers was now an army. I suppose no agreement ever entered into between two nations ever fully satisfied one nation or the other. It is not in human nature that it should. There are sections in England that are not satisfied with the proposed Treaty which is before this Dáil. The England of the —the England of Imperial aggression and expansion and of military domination, the only England we have hitherto known—is not satisfied with it. It sees in this Treaty a cry of surrender to Ireland, to rebels and 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—

It is a dictated peace.

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 the approval of this Treaty; and the sturdy child of the Gaodhal takes his rightful place in the schools and colleges and universities of the land applause. I am convinced that acceptance of the Treaty and development in peace will save the language of the nation; and one of my first thoughts when I read its clauses was Sábhálfar an Ghaoluinn anois—The language will be safe now. With the argument that instead of developing a virile civilisation in this country we will all become shoneens, I have no sympathy. The language, as we have proclaimed from ten thousand platforms during the last twenty years,is the soul of the nation hear, hear. And with the saving of the language I have no fear, no fear whatever, for the soul of the nation. Even here and now we can get away from the obscurity and confusion of the English tongue: away with your Dominion and your colony and your Free State terms: let us re-baptise our nation—not a baiste úrláir now—as Saorstát na hEireann. You can get immediate, full, complete, undisturbed control of the educational systems of the land by acceptance of this Treaty; with that control you can save the language; with the language and all it connotes you can save the soul and mind and intellect of the nation—and your most important fortress and strongest frontier will be rendered so impregnable that not all the shock troops of England or of all the Empires can break it down. This Treaty gives us our own flag—

Which flag?

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.

We will take the Castle down laughter.

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 of that prejudice to plunge a country into chaos because of my personal prejudices to such an oath. Everyone here, I feel sure, will act according to the light of his own conscience. As a justifiable oath I am prepared to swear I am acting in accord with mine. Now, whatever meanings we may place on words, the very fact that we here are discussing this Treaty in this Dáil as in the sovereign assembly of a nation is recognition of our own national status. And the English recognise the fact too, recognise that the Irish people have a right to set up a sovereign assembly with an executive government responsible only to the will of the Irish people. To me the acts are more than the words, and whatever construction they or we place upon the words, the acts, as I view them, are a recognition of our national status. Let me once more, as I did in Private Session, appeal to the Cabinet of Dáil Eireann, no matter what the issue of this debate as a united body to take up the rule of government in this country for the present, till the constitutional will of the Irish people is expressed in a constitutional way; to maintain order, to preserve discipline. There is a danger of fratricidal strife, or at least of bewildering confusion, on an issue which honestly many of us cannot understand. The united Cabinet will have the support of the whole country in any efforts to maintain order, to prevent confusion. We have passed through a revolutionary period as other countries at different times have passed through such periods; and the lesson of all forces me to this appeal to our Cabinet as a united body for the maintenance of order, the preservation of peace among ourselves, the rule of law. I favour a referendum to the people. They are faced with changed circumstances, changed policies, with alternatives that were not before them previously. Let the people decide, and let our Cabinet evolve the mode of procedure so that the people can decide freely and conscientiously. Our words and our votes can only express our own personal views and recommendations now. The people have a right to express theirs in a constitutional way, and it should be for our Cabinet to give them the opportunity of expressing their views in such a way. Yesterday I heard from a director of one of the Irish railways that troop trains and transports were ready to take the British armed forces from Ireland. In justice to the people who sent me here and in sympathy with the sore hearts that their operations during the Terrorist policy have left in Ireland, I cannot vote to keep the British armed forces in Ireland one day longer, or one hour longer, than the changed policy of England requires; one day longer or one hour longer than the people of Ireland wish them to stay. I appeal to you not to let our decision be one that would keep these forces one day longer in our land. Finally, as far as I can view politics I have said already I am not a politician—the acceptance of these proposals is beating Mr. Lloyd George at his own tricks. The rejection of the proposals is giving him the trick. I favour the acceptance of these proposals on the ground of the welfare of the Irish people, which to me at all events is supreme. I favour them also on the ground that, as I think, they are quite in accordance with what we have been fighting for, aiming at, and talking about, and I favour them on the ground that they are a natural development of what has taken place in this country during recent years. On the grounds of common sense I favour the acceptance of the proposals applause.

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 limit or whether we should adjourn until after Christmas.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is closure.

The other side claim that—

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.

There are twenty-one anxious to speak on ourside.

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.

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.

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 Dáil. I think any closure, or any suggestion that a person speaks too long, is most unfair and undignified. We have not protested against the length of any speech. I would be very glad indeed if they put forward such a person as Miss McSwiney who gave such an eloquent and well-reasoned speech. It will go down as a splendid oration on the fate of the nation, and her advice at this great crisis should not be disregarded.

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.

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.

Go ahead.

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—

I was never worn out or weary.

Perhaps he is a man who can do without sleep or rest, but he admitted to being somewhat befogged—

I did not.

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.

The Minister of Finance has time after time said if he was befogged it was by constitutional lawyers—

Alleged constitutional lawyers laughter.

I do not see why seconding the motion should be availed of to insult the Minister of Finance.

If the Minister of Finance objects to my statement and feels insulted, I apologise.

Suggest some date for the adjournment.

I would say Tuesday week, January 3rd.

I agree to that. I second the motion.

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.

Is the Minister of Finance willing to move that we continue until to-morrow evening?

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 generally, it would be better to adjourn this evening than to-morrow evening. As far as I am concerned we can go through the Christmas; I am used to this.

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?

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.

We do not.

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—

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.

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.

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 issue is not clear. Are we to continue night and day?

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.

I suggest the amendment is not in order. The motion was not in writing.

The constitutional lawyer again laughter.

That means that we may go right through Christmas Day?

Yes.

We will now take a vote on the amendment.

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.

That is not adopted in any country in the world. Those members who have two constituencies should have allowed some other person to take one at least.

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.

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.

If the Dáil allows a man to sit for two constituencies—

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.

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.

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.

This matter has been already decided in the Dáil and from the chair and has not been questioned.

It is questioned now; it has never been decided yet.

As it was not questioned then, I must rule now but each man can only vote once.

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.

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.

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.

I think the House will insist on the Cabinet carrying on the work of the country.

And sit according to the terms of the amendment loud laughter.