Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Nov 1946

Vol. 103 No. 9

Imprisonment of Archbishop Stepinac—Motion.

Mr. Dillon

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann on behalf of the Irish people places upon public record their detestation of the travesty of judicial process which culminated in the imprisonment of Monsignor Stepinac, Archbishop of Zagreb and Primate of Croatia; calls upon all Christian peoples and all those who do not actually hate Christendom to join in repudiating as fraudulent this pseudo-trial and in stigmatising it for what it is—a crude pantomime of justice, designed for the purpose of defaming Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular, so that the international Communist conspiracy against individual liberty everywhere may be relieved of its most formidable and uncompromising challenge, which must always come from Christianity; directs the Ceann Comhairle to communicate the terms of this resolution to the Presiding Officer of every sovereign Parliament sharing with us membership of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

I put down that resolution, Sir, because this is the Parliament of as active and as free a democracy as there is in the world, and at the same time it is the Parliament of a people 95 per cent. Catholic, and practising Catholic at that. It is the Parliament which stands in the world to-day as the enduring refutation of the materialist totalitarian suggestion that where the Catholic Church is strong and vigorous there liberty withers and totalitarianism grows. Ever since this beastly heresy of totalitarian materialism has appeared in the world it has sought to employ, as its most effective weapon, the destruction, not primarily of its opponents' persons and lives but of their reputations.

Now, the totalitarian materialists hope always, and too often with success, that with the passage of time their individual crimes will be forgotten. They know too well how short the public memory is, and that as these individual crimes pass from the memory of men, there will remain a residuum of recollection calculated to persuade the people that those who are opposed to the tyrants are disreputable and untrustworthy. I can turn to Marshal Tito, the Bolshevik dictator of Yugo-Slavia, for proof of that contention. Speaking at Zagreb on August 31st and referring to the imprisonment of Monsignor Stepinac, Tito said of Christendom throughout the world:—

"They will shout to their hearts' content and then the storm will abate, because they will weary of it and we shall not weary."

One of the purposes of this motion is to fix Marshal Tito and his kind in the world with this, that the day is past when Christian men and women will weary of remembering these individual crimes. We will not weary, and so long as Monsignor Stepinac remains in prison we will not weary of reminding the world that injustice is enthroned in Yugo-Slavia, nor need he be deceived by our refusal to resort to the same type of language which he and his kind habitually employ. Without rancour against individuals, without preaching the gospel of hatred as between men or classes, we shall continue resolutely to denounce injustice and to exhort our fellowmen in the world to combine with us in protesting against the prostitution of law.

Now it is important, Sir, at the very outset to recall that it is not our purpose to stage in Dáil Éireann a retrial of the charges brought against Monsignor Stepinac. It is not our function, much less our duty. Our purpose should, however, be to stigmatise as fraudulent the totalitarian's use of the word "trial." The minds of men througout the world are by design being confused by a new and astute manoeuvre of these latter-day tyrants. The old method was a frontal attack upon the institutions of freedom and liberty. To-day the method is to adopt the language of liberty but to attach to it a new and very different meaning. We here in a free country, when we speak of a trial, think of an independent judge sitting on his bench; we think of a person charged with a specified crime, furnished with all particulars of the allegations to be made against him, afforded a full opportunity of calling such witnesses as he wants to call so that his side of the case can be heard; we think of an atmosphere obtaining in the court where the trial proceeds with judicial calm, where the prosecution's voice and that of the defence can both be clearly heard; and then we think of a decision taken on the merits and justice done according to the law. That little word "trial" means all that to us. When we read of a trial in Yugo-Slavia subconsciously that picture rises before us and we think of the Archbishop thus arraigned.

Let me, however, remind the House what trial has come to mean under the new democracy:—

"It has been decreed on the 3rd February, 1945, in Yugo-Slavia to abolish all legal status based on law, regulations, orders which have been in force in Yugo-Slavia up to the 6th April, 1941, in so far as they are in contradiction with the achievements of a national liberation struggle, the declarations and decisions of the anti-fascist council of Yugo-Slavia, the local anti-fascist councils, as well as all the decisions taken by the anti-fascist council of Yugo-Slavia, its delegations and government and delegations of the local anti-fascist council."

Free Dalmatia, a communist paper, in its columns on December 31st, 1944, in an article entitled “The development of the people's legal system” says:—

"The trials are carried out under the auspices of the National Liberation Committee on the basis of Article 10 of the Declaration adopted at Topusko on May 9th, 1944";

and goes on to explain that instructions as to the work and organisation of the court were given by the anti-fascist council of Croatia. According to those instructions—

"judgments hitherto enforced are not to be given by trained jurists under the complicated law hitherto in force but are to be made by the best sons of the people, not by the dead-letter of the written law but upon a proper, healthy conception of the people. The judges are to be chosen from amongst the people".

Here let me give the House a short description of how a trial is conducted under the exalted tribunal before which Monsignor Stepinac was brought to trial. The newspaper Politica published on June 6th, 1944, gives a description of the first trial in Split for violation of the people's honour:—

"The accused were the brothers Bonachia but the people of fighting Split who for a full 11 hours followed the trial remember it all. The courtroom thundered with ‘forced labour for the speculators', we demand confiscation; long live the just people's court. The crowd demanded the severest penalty."

That is not a trial as we understand it in this country. People condemned before such tribunals are not condemned in accordance with our conception of what justice is. That is true not only for archbishops but also for the little insignificant individuals whose names may never be heard again. It is true of all men because our conception of the law is that all men, great and small, archbishops and crossing-sweepers, are equal before it. Just as we would demand with one voice justice for the crossing-sweeper for the same reason, and for none other, we demand it for an archbishop.

The Vatican, in referring to what the totalitarians had described as a "trial" called to mind that the trial, so-called, began on September 30th within six days of the public accusation. The defence counsel was allowed one interview with the accused. The preparation of the defence was greatly hindered by the fact that many of the defenders of the archbishop were either arrested or detained for long periods. The president of the tribunal withheld documents and witnesses from the defence. Numerous documents produced against the archbishop had nothing to do with the so-called trial. The public prosecutor spoke every day and for hours on end whereas the defence, except for the final statement, were only granted rare and short intervals for speaking.

Deputies of this House will remember the dramatic, but not as authoritative record of what passed at that so-called trial from an Irishman who was present there in his capacity as a Press photographer, and recorded in a letter to his parents, which was published in the Press of this country, that when the Archbishop sought to answer the questions that were addressed to him he was continually interrupted with the raucous outcry of a disorderly and unfriendly mob.

I want to say this with due deliberation. The unjust imprisonment of Archbishop Stepinac is shocking but no more shocking than the unjust slaughter of the thousands who, all of us know, have died in Europe because they refused to forswear their conscience. But what it is immensely important to remember and to mark here, and to announce our resolution to mark and mark again ne'er wearying —as they hope we will weary—is the steadfast and unswerving resolve of the totalitarian materialists, Nazi and Bolshevik, to defame the Catholic Church by this old expedient of staging mock trials, hoping that even if convictions do not result, some of the mud that is thrown will stick in the memories of simple men.

Do we in this House forget the Nazi trials of the Benedictines of South Germany? Do we remember the charges that were made against the members of the Benedictine Order and the Order of Saint Francis, of gross and shameful sexual aberration in their own monasteries? That was 14 years ago and I am submitting to this House that though to-day the charge is treason, it is the same conspiracy, it is the same method that inspired those to arraign the monks and friars of South Germany, not for treason, but for another loathsome crime, unnatural sex perversion, and those who make those charges think that their nature is so loathsome and the slander is so vile that we will recoil from the duty of calling them to mind again and again and again, and reiterating again and again and again that we know they were slanders, that we know the charges were false, that we know they trust, through the very foulness of their own minds, to impose silence upon us. But we know that trick of old experience and we are not to be put off, because we can remember in this country the fraudulent trials; we know the method of the packed jury and the corrupt judge.

I remember a picture hanging on the wall of my old home. It was a photograph of Smith O'Brien and he sent it to my grandmother as a parting gift from Kilmainham, when he lay under sentence of death. Beneath it he wrote the words:—

"It is treason to love her and it is death to defend."

In those days, it was Ireland who was proud of her traitors and Ireland who so confidently depended on her children, if necessary, to die. The people of Ireland did not believe the slanders that were uttered against them—the charge of being traitors. That word traitor grated sorely on the delicate honour of such a man as Smith O'Brien. The charge of traitor was thrown back at those who made it, and those who pretended, by judicial process, to prove it and fix it upon the men who dared to love this country, by our friends all over the world who, by just such action as I ask Dáil Éireann to take now, said to these men in their darkest hour:—

"Whatever the verdicts of these courts, whatever these judges call you, whatever crimes they try to fix upon you, we do not think it necessary to follow the merits of the cause, we know you are not traitors; we repudiate the judicial process as a travesty which found you traitors and remember that whatever they call you, all over the world there are men who love liberty and who will honour this new-styled traitor, this new felon, deserving of death."

Shall we, in our time, in defence of something infinitely more precious than Ireland can ever be, in defence of man's right to honour God according to his conscience, fail those who have been brought before the packed jury and the corrupt judge and deny to them the sustenance and the consolation that we, in our own experience, got when there was nothing else to sustain us in what then looked a much more hopeless cause than that in defence of which Monsignor Stepinac has gone to jail in Yugo-Slavia? It is an illusion, Sir, to seek for common ground of compromise on which to meet the totalitarian materialists of our day. Nazi and Bolshevik alike seek to establish a political philosophy in the world on the assumption that God is not in Heaven and there can be no peace, there can be no compromise, there can be no common ground between a political philosophy founded on that hypothesis and the various forms of government which men devise under the providence of a God Who has always been and shall for ever be in Heaven, superior to any law that any Parliament can make.

Those well-intentioned agnostics and well-intentioned pagans who are for ever chasing the will-o'-the-wisp of some modus vivendi with the totalitarian materialists are like moths drawn towards a flame; the nearer they approach their objective, the more certain and inevitable will be their destruction. The materialists are wise in their generation and they realise that there is only one thing left in the world which they can never hope to delude or absorb, and that is Christendom, and I like to think—and I daresay with justice—that poor, insignificant, small as we in Ireland may seem in many regards, in the van of Christendom we have the right to carry our standards as high as any nation in the world.

I direct the attention of the House to these seeming truisms which are so often forgotten. In a great part of the world, when the representatives of Bolshevik Governments, in Russia or elsewhere, elect to employ the word "demokratiski", official interpreters translate that into English as "democratic", but that is not the translation. It has been made abundantly clear that, though the word "demokratiski" in Russian may sound like "democratic", it does not mean that. It means "proletarian dictatorship"; but because many people have not marked that subtle misrepresentation, a situation is developing in many parts of the world where, unless you are prepared to accept the doctrines of proletarian dictatorship, your democracy is called in question, you are put upon the defensive to prove that you are not a Fascist beast. We know that the supreme tribunal instructed by Article 10 of the Declaration of the National Liberation Committee adopted at Topusko, which I have read for the House, is not what we mean by a court of law. Yet, when it is called a court of law, there are many simple people who imagine that the proceedings resemble such courts as we are familiar with. Have they forgotten how very like Marshal Goering's Courts of Honour in Germany these new national courts are? Have they forgotten the instructions the Nazi courts received—to judge, not according to law but according to the honour of the German people? So to-day the courts of the Bolshevik dictatorship are warned not to judge according to law but according to the conscience and the honour of the Bolshevik people.

We know that, when we speak of "elections", we think of any candidate who can find ten men to name him having the right to go before the people and the people's choice prevailing in the end, but when a Bolshevik talks about an "election" he means the submission of a list of candidates for which the people are invited to vote "yes" or "no" under the careful surveillance of a member of the OGPU, or the Cheka or the Gestapo, as the case may be. We think of "Parliament" as the one place where every man can speak his mind under the rule of absolute privilege and where one presides to ensure that the rights of the humblest member of the House, under the Standing Orders, shall be protected with the same zeal and care as those of the Prime Minister himself. When they talk of Parliaments, they talk of groups of men assembled in rooms the walls of which are lined with armed members of the Gestapo. It is because we know the difference, because we realise that Bolshevik Parliaments, Bolshevik elections, Bolshevik trials are not what we call Parliaments, elections or trials and that "demokratiski" does not mean "democracy", because we know that and because we shall never fear to proclaim it, the materialists must persecute Christianity or perish themselves.

And so, Sir, I have asked Dáil Éireann to put these things on record. We understood that the Minister for External Affairs found himself, four weeks ago, when this matter was first raised in the House by way of Question, deterred from action. It was not for the want of will, as I believe that the Prime Minister in this matter shares my views as a Catholic. I know that his Catholicity is no more in question than my own and I doubt little that, if all were known about us both, of the two he is much the better Catholic in practice—and that is no great tribute. That facet of the question is not at issue, but, understanding that diplomatic difficulties made it impossible for him to act, for diplomatic reasons, I ask Parliament to come in not as between diplomats but as between Parliaments.

Experienced Deputies of this House will remember that we had a Parliamentary Union, where the Sovereign Parliaments of the world came together and where emphasis was always laid on the fact that, in that Union, no regard is had to the side of the House to which a delegate belongs. When he comes to represent Parliament at the Inter-Parliamentary Union, he may come from the Government Benches, the Opposition Benches or the middle benches, but he is there as a representative of Parliament, and Parliament meets Parliament without reference to the internal divisions of every free legislative Assembly. With that in mind, I felt that, if the rules of diplomacy precluded action now by the Minister for External Affairs, no such rules harass the discretion of a Sovereign Parliament to speak to its sister Parliaments; and I ask this House to instruct the Ceann Comhairle to convey our message, on behalf of the Irish people, to every other free Parliament associated with it in that free association.

I do not doubt that the substance of what I have said here is acceptable to almost every Deputy of this House, though I ask none to adopt the style. However, I cannot conceal a certain measure of surprise that, while this motion was before the Government for three weeks, it was not until 11.30 on Tuesday night that the Minister for External Affairs elected to inform the Press that it was his intention to move an amendment. Perhaps there was good reason for that. All I have to say is that, so far as the motion is concerned, it stands. I find nothing in the amendment to which a reasonable man could possibly demur and, if it appeared upon the Order Paper as a separate motion, I would gladly vote for both and would cheerfully commend both to the House. Yet I am at a loss to understand—and I await the Taoiseach's intervention to learn—why he deems it expedient to move the obliteration of the motion I have set down.

I have asked this Parliament to speak to other Parliaments in the confident hope and belief that Christian people and all those who are not blinded by hatred of Christendom will join with us in demanding that the name of justice will not be invoked to wreak injustice, that the hallowed forms of law will not be travestied to outrage law and that the rights of freedom won from tyrants down through the centuries by the blood of thousands of men, who willingly shed it to secure that priceless treasure of freedom for their children, will not be used by tyrants in our time—perhaps, the bloodiest tyrant the world has ever seen in its long history—to trample down the generation into which we were born. Let nobody apprehend that, if we do what lies within our power to do in this House to-day, we shall act in vain. Remember, that when we stood alone against what most prudent people declared to be unbeatably superior odds, it was the understanding, trust and faith of friends throughout the world that sustained and bore us up. There are others in the world to-day who want that help from us and we can give it. If we give it readily, I believe there are others in the world who will take courage and gather round us. Let us make clear that, whatever the tyrants may hope, we give the assurance that we will not forget, we will not weary and that we will never desert the cause the tyrants hope to see betrayed.

Mr. Byrne

I second the resolution.

The following amendment was on the Paper in the name of the Minister for External Affairs:

"To delete all words following ‘That', and to substitute the following:—

‘Dáil Éireann, gravely concerned at the unjust trial and imprisonment of Archbishop Stepinac, and at the accumulating evidence of the existence of a campaign of religious persecution in certain parts of Europe, and convineed that recognition of the sovereignty of God and the moral law is the fundamental basis of any just and stable world order, and that freedom to worship God truly, in the manner that He Himself has ordained, is the inalienable right of man, respect for which is essential to the preservation of peace among the nations, calls upon all peoples who desire true liberty and lasting peace to use their combined influence to bring religious persecution everywhere to an end and to secure acceptance of liberty of conscience as one of the basic principles of a genuine world organisation, and urges the Minister for External Affairs to take steps to bring these views of Dáil Éireann to the attention of the States with which we have diplomatic relations and to take such other steps as may be proper to secure for them the adherence of freedom-loving peoples'."

Minister for External Affairs (The Taoiseach)

If there is no objection, I should prefer to defer the moving of my amendment until some other speakers have given their views. I cannot formally move the amendment and reserve what I have to say. I can speak only once and I should like to hear some of the views which might be expressed by the Opposition.

General Mulcahy

The Taoiseach is asking the House to set aside the motion proposed by Deputy Dillon and, in the terms of the amendment to be proposed by himself, he asks the House to urge him to do certain things. What we are particularly anxious about, before carrying this debate any further, is to hear from the Taoiseach the reasons why the motion, in the terms in which he puts it before the House, should be passed and to obtain any information he has as to why the motion should be passed in his particular form and why the motion proposed by Deputy Dillon should be rejected.

An Ceann Comhairle

The procedure the Taoiseach has requested is not without precedent. The practice is for the mover of an amendment to move the amendment as soon as the main motion has been seconded but, owing to the nature of the matter for discussion and the special position of the Taoiseach, both as Taoiseach and as Minister for External Affairs, I am of opinion that that practice need not be followed on this occasion. Deputies are really at no disadvantage as the terms of the motion, as well as the terms of the amendment, are on the Order Paper. As I have said, it is not without precedent that an amendment should be moved at a later stage in the debate.

Dr. O'Higgins

I do not think that any Deputy would dispute your decision that the course proposed to be followed is not without precedent. But precedents can be very dangerous things to follow at certain times. Here we have an important motion—important nationally and of vital importance internationally—in a state of affairs in which the Christian and sentimental feelings of everybody in this country are outraged. A motion has been on the Order Paper for some weeks giving expression—no matter how slight—to the outraged feelings not only of Catholics but of every Christian and of members of every creed in the country.

After some time, the head of the Government—for some reason, at the moment, undisclosed to Parliament— thought it advisable to put down an amendment to delete every word in Deputy Dillon's motion. I have no doubt that there are very good grounds for the motion to delete Deputy Dillon's motion but is it reasonable to leave the House leaderless on such an important occasion, that the leader of the House should refuse to lead and that he should want Deputies to discuss and to speculate on his reasons for not accepting that particular motion? Politics can be very disreputable. Politics should not be played in association with this particular motion. As one Opposition Deputy, I beseech the Leader of the House to lead the House—at least to take the House into his confidence as to why he objects to the motion that has been placed before the House and so eloquently expounded on behalf of the people of this State of ours.

Mr. D. Morrissey

On the question of order, may I suggest that the motion, which is now called an amendment, in the name of the Minister for External Affairs bears no relation whatever to the amendment which may have created the precedent to which you referred? May I express my surprise at the suggestion that, in relation to the Standing Orders of this House, the Taoiseach or anybody else occupies a special position? I suggest that this is not an ordinary amendment. It is an alternative motion and I suggest further that, if the amendment, or motion, in the name of the Minister for External Affairs is not moved at this stage, it cannot be moved at any stage.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, may I respectfully submit that, if my motion and an amendment to delete my motion are to be discussed simultaneously, I and other Deputies are at least entitled to know what we are discussing? If you rule that both are to be discussed together, we cannot do that unless we first hear the Taoiseach's amendment expounded.

The Taoiseach

I have now and again appealed to members of the Opposition to recognise that I have a special position here, particularly in regard to external affairs, and that if matters arise to which I would not be in a position to reply—having spoken once—I might be given an opportunity of doing so some time, either by speaking a second time or on other occasions by delaying my remarks until I had heard the Deputies on the Opposition side. I should have known now that courtesy of that kind is not likely to be accorded to me by certain members of the House.

Dr. O'Higgins

Shame!

The Taoiseach

Perhaps I was very foolish to ask it. I do not propose to press it. I therefore formally move the amendment. In this matter I had hoped that we would be of one mind. I believe that everyone who is at all aware of the conditions in certain parts of Europe to-day must feel as I feel, and as Deputy Dillon feels, about the whole situation, that there is one thing that every one of us here should endeavour to do—to help. It is a question of how best we can be helpful. Can we be more helpful by denunciation or by some constructive method by which we shall keep with us people whose views fundamentally must be the same as our own? Since this matter was first raised here, I have done my utmost to get information by private reports to check what I might regard as universal knowledge, namely, that Archbishop Stepinac had been submitted to a procedure which—I will accept Deputy Dillon's view of it—was really not entitled to be called a trial at all, that following this procedure he was sentenced to a period of imprisonment and forced labour, that he was not the only victim of the present régime in YugoSlavia but that in fact there was taking place there and in other parts of Europe an active religious persecution, adding to the miseries of the unfortunate people in that country, and the other parts of Europe which were occupied during the recent war. The result of any information I have been able to get has been to confirm the view that information which Deputies are likely to have got, and the information which has come to the ordinary individual through the Press, is well-founded.

The question is: What can we do about it? What can we do effectively about it? Deputy Dillon is of the opinion that one thing that can be done is to bring comfort to the people who are suffering. I am afraid that information of our action is not likely to reach these people, to be of comfort to them. He suggests that this Parliament should send our resolution to the other Parliaments in what was called the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Unfortunately, the Inter-Parliamentary Union had to go out of existence during the war and it is only now being reorganised. In any case, it is not a body that meets regularly. I am not sure whether the procedure of the Parliaments that might be represented in it, when it is reorganised, would permit of any resolution of ours being brought before them. It is not usual for Legislatures, as far as I know, to meet and pass a resolution in this particular way. Some do, I know, but if good is to be done in a case like this, it means constant and persistent effort.

There is a recognised way in which States make representations to other States and that is through the channels of their Ministries of Foreign Affairs, or of External Affairs. I believe that this is the proper channel by which any representation which this Parliament has to make to other States should be made. For that reason, I have changed the proposal from one proposing that the resolution be communicated to Parliaments to one urging the Minister for External Affairs to make representations to the States, in the first instance, with which we have diplomatic relations. That would not prevent the Minister, whoever he might be, from also using any other means he might have to bring these matters to the attention of other Governments. Consequently I think that the channel suggested by the Deputy is the wrong one, and the right one, in my opinion, is the channel which is recognised as the method by which one nation or one State communicates with another.

The next difference is this. No matter how strong any one of us may feel, my own opinion is that the language of denunciation is not the type of language that will get support, even from those who may feel that it is fundamentally justified. It is not the sort of language to get the support and cooperation of other peoples. I believe the resolution which I have suggested is more likely to get support from other people. It is constructive in the sense that it asks other States to take combined action with us, and to use their combined influence, whatever it may be, to get the principle of religious liberty accepted. It is not asking for something that is new.

It is asking for the acceptance of a principle which, in the case of the old League of Nations, was suggested by President Wilson as a fundamental article. Agreement was then not secured, and the article did not appear in the League Covenant afterwards, but it is a principle which appeals to all right-thinking people and a principle which will find acceptance, I am satisfied, in a very wide field indeed.

The present organisation of the United Nations has already a commission on fundamental human rights. A number of the nations represented there hold very strongly that there should be an international agreement by which these fundamental rights will be guaranteed as a part of the domestic law of the several nations. The difficulty, of course, is to get machinery by which such an agreement can be reasonably enforced. It is not easy to do that. The immediate barrier, of course, is the jealousy with which each nation regards its own sovereignty and the fact that these several nations are not willing to admit that there should be any super-national authority which would have the right to investigate the conduct of affairs in their own territory.

Now, I think that most of the peoples represented in the United Nations Organisation are completely dissatisfied with the present position and that inevitably there will be a move forward towards the position in which all nations will realise that, if there is to be a proper foundation for peace, each of the nations joining that organisation will have to admit that there must be some means, some authority, by which the carrying out of agreements of this kind will be supervised. I believe that if we move with that current, we shall be able to do some good and will not simply be voices crying out in the wilderness. For that reason I believe that it is very much better that we should indicate our own view with regard to these fundamental rights. I do not think that the right of men to give homage to the Creator in the way in which He Himself has ordained is denied in principle. Even in some of the States about which Deputy Dillon spoke, there is a formal admission of the right to practise one's religion.

I admit that it is a formal admission, and that, although formal adherence is given to that principle, it is, in fact, denied in practice. What it is necessary to secure is not merely that the principle shall be accepted but that the principle shall be observed in practice. If, then, we wish, and I am sure it is the wish of everybody, to be of the utmost help we can be in present circumstances, in my opinion the line indicated by the amendment I ask Dáil Éireann to accept will be far more effective. It says:

"Dáil Éireann, gravely concerned at the unjust trial and imprisonment of Archbishop Stepinac, and at the accumulating evidence of the existence of a campaign of religious persecution in certain parts of Europe, and convinced that recognition of the sovereignty of God and the moral law is the fundamental basis of any just and stable world order, and that freedom to worship God truly, in the manner that He Himself has ordained, is the inalienable right of man, respect for which is essential to the preservation of peace among the nations, calls upon all peoples who desire true liberty and lasting peace to use their combined influence to bring religious persecution everywhere to an end and to secure acceptance of liberty of conscience as one of the basic principles of a genuine world organisation, and urges the Minister for External Affairs to take steps to bring these views of Dáil Éireann to the attention of the States with which we have diplomatic relations and to take such other steps as may be proper to secure for them the adherence of freedom-loving peoples."

In that, we have, in calm language, the assertion, first of all, of our concern at this unjust trial and imprisonment and at the campaign of religious persecution in certain parts of Europe. I do not think Deputy Dillon has overdrawn the picture of that situation. In all these countries there is intense human suffering. I think there is nothing more horrible to think of than the position in which the unfortunate peoples in certain parts of Europe find themselves at present. After a war in which their country has been devastated, they are faced with the usual complement to the occupation of countries by a foreign foe—all the bitterness resulting from the difference of opinion among the people as to whether there should be active resistance to that foe or whether there should be only a sort of passive resistance until the weight of the pressure had passed over. In these circumstances a small group has been able, by counting on aid from an outside Power and with the help of active and well equipped supporters, to impose—even though a small minority—its will by terroristic methods upon the down-trodden population.

That is the picture which I have been able to gather from the reports which I have tried to collate and to examine. Unfortunately, it does not apply to one place alone. There is evidence that the same methods are being adopted in several parts of Europe. There is no doubt in my mind—and I do not think any Deputy need have any doubt in his mind—in referring to the position in the terms in which I have referred to it—that there is accumulating evidence of the existence of a campaign of religious persecution in certain parts of Europe.

Persecution of opinion in any form is one of the most grievous wrongs that can be done to a human being. But, when human beings are persecuted simply because they regard themselves as creatures who have been created by an all-powerful God, Who is the Ruler of the universe, and because they wish to worship that Creator in the manner in which He Himself has ordained, it becomes intolerable. Unfortunately, this is not the first time in the world's history that there has been religious persecution. But, years ago when I was a younger man, I did not think that I would ever live to see religious persecution renewed on a large scale throughout the world. Yet, that is the position as I see it.

Of course, it is a vain attempt to try to prevent people from giving to God the worship which they feel to be due to Him. It has not succeeded in the past and it will not succeed in the future. But untold human suffering can be caused by the attempt, and I believe that there is not a single member of our community who does not feel that that is a situation in which everything we can do to help should be done.

In asking you to agree to the second paragraph, I am asking you to register your conviction that recognition of the sovereignty of God and of the moral law is an essential foundation for peace in the world. I have never been able to understand why political powers should try to persecute religion. Everybody who has made any study of the question knows that religion, and the Catholic religion in particular, imposes an obligation to obey in all rightful ways the civil authority. One would think that those who want peace and order in their territories would, from a purely human point of view, be inclined to foster religion. As Voltaire or some other Frenchman said, it would be necessary to invent God if it was thought that He did not exist. It is well known that civil society is better organised and knit together when it is recognised that human beings are not mere brutes, that they have not merely bodies but souls, that they have not merely a life here but a life hereafter, and that the moral law has sanctions other than those of mere convention. We believe, therefore, that if there is to be genuine peace in the world, we should have a recognition of the moral law and of the existence of the Ruler of the universe as a foundation for it; and the next paragraph goes on to call upon the peoples who think with us, who respect true liberty—and I do not think that anybody who has any regard for liberty will deny that liberty of conscience is the most fundamental of all liberties— to combine with us to secure that religious freedom is accepted as the basis of any true genuine world organisation.

As I say, I do not think it is necessary to use strong language when you have strong feelings. The position in the world is sufficiently well known to all who are likely to listen to our appeals to excite in them the natural indignation which we ourselves feel and the desire, without any words from us, to see the principles stated in the amendment adopted generally. It is for that reason that I think Dáil Eireann would do very much more good by adopting the amendment which I have deliberately suggested to Deputy Dillon's motion.

As I said at the beginning, our aim in this terrible situation ought to be to do everything that we can to help and to take the steps which we think are most likely to be of value. If it were simply a question of giving voice to our indignation, that would be a different matter; but the task before us is something more than that, namely, to make a continuous effort over a considerable period, an effort which will not be finished when the knowledge of this resolution that we pass here is communicated to others, but an effort to be followed up, day in and day out, as being one of the most important matters to which we could give attention. I think that that can be best done by using the channels which are available. This I do know, that in so far as we have been able to get reports from other countries—they are naturally confidential—the views which I have expressed here and the views which have been generally expressed this evening are shared elsewhere, and the desire to end the situation is there also. It is a question of getting the backing of sufficient opinion to make that desire effective.

As I pointed out, the big difficulty at the moment is this question of intervention in what might be regarded as the internal affairs of a sovereign State. That is the principal difficulty in connection with the States that would desire to help. It is, therefore, a question of how to bring the necessary influence to bear. My own belief is that if the principle of religious liberty is accepted and if there is any doubt of its being accepted in good faith—of course, if it is accepted in good faith, then all is right —there must be some means by which an opportunity will be given to the world organisation to satisfy itself that effect is being given in practice to the principle. If that is an interference with sovereignty, then I think it will have to be faced. If we cannot depend on the principle which we regard as vital being acted upon, there must be some recognised international authority by which the observance of the principle can be followed up and assured. It is, in my opinion, a matter much more fundamental than the question of internal sovereignty. It is not a matter affecting merely the individuals in a particular State. It is a matter of world importance and of consequence to hundreds of millions of people throughout the world. Because I believe that that is so, I believe that the pressure of public opinion upon the various Parliaments and the various Governments will be sufficient ultimately, if it is properly organised, to get agreement on the general principle, and to get some machinery by which the principle will not be allowed to become a dead letter.

To my mind, therefore, this resolution is not to be regarded as an isolated act or as dealing with a particular momentary situation. It is a thing that will require following up day by day over a considerable period of time. There is only one machinery in the State which is capable of doing that, and that is the machinery by which contact is maintained with other nations and by which the views of our Government and our people are communicated to other peoples. I accordingly think, from every point of view, that it is desirable that this amendment should be taken rather than Deputy Dillon's resolution.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Taoiseach refuse the possibility of adopting both? They are not mutually exclusive.

The Taoiseach

I would be particularly anxious in this debate that nothing that we should say here should appear abroad to detract from what I regard as the unanimity of feeling that there is here. I do not think that Deputy Dillon's motion would be the correct type of motion to do the good that I hope can be done. I may be wrong about the amount of good that can be done, but in any case, I feel it is our duty to do the utmost we can. No matter how much I appreciate, and I am sure all of us here appreciate, the indignation which has prompted the terms of Deputy Dillon's motion, I do not think that it would be desirable, in sending it to other countries, that we should use language which might be regarded in any way or by anybody as extravagant. I therefore think the calm language will not detract in the slightest from the force of our feeling in the matter. The use of calm language, indicating a certain principle for which we would try to secure adherence by persistent effort, is by far the wiser course.

As to Deputy Dillon's direct question, I think it would not be desirable to have the two. I think the first sentence of the amendment implies the condemnation that Deputy Dillon is anxious about. We do agree that this has been an unjust trial and an unjust imprisonment and we agree that there is accumulating evidence that there is a campaign of persecution. The question after that is, what effective steps can we take, and I am satisfied that the method I am suggesting is the best.

I was asked why I left the putting down of the amendment so late. The point was that it was decided that we should have this debate this week. I was anxious to get as much information as I could to satisfy myself that, when we were taking action of this kind, we were absolutely sure of our ground. I think it was my duty to do so. I promised then that it would be taken this week and I gave notice to the Dáil of the amendment. I think it was two days ago—whatever is the usual notice.

General MacEoin

Is there any reason in the world why the Taoiseach should not send his resolution and Deputy Dillon's resolution to the Inter-Parliamentary Union? Deputy Dillon thinks that is one of the steps to be taken. The Taoiseach has another method. Is there any reason why the two could not be done?

The Taoiseach

The amendment says "to take such other steps". If I found that one of these particular bodies were meeting, and if I found that it might suitably be done, then I would consider forwarding this resolution to it. I could even, if necessary, come here to the Dáil and ask the Ceann Comhairle to do it. It would take some time to go over the various Parliaments to find out what their procedure is. The method of procedure that was indicated by Deputy Dillon would be quite unusual. I do not want that a resolution solemnly passed in Dáil Éireann should be simply marked "read" or thrown into a waste-paper basket.

General Mulcahy

The Taoiseach has indicated that he is now convinced that a terrible situation exists, in Europe particularly, and that it concerns matters that are of vital importance to us, and that we must give them attention from day to day. That being so, I think we are dealing in a rather calamitous manner with that position. Whether we wish to-day to raise our voices in such a way that it will reach the afflicted Catholics of Europe and their leaders and particularly the person who personifies those afflicted people to-day in people's imaginations, or whether we want to reason with the oppressors of the Catholics of Europe, or whether we want to gather our own strength and our own minds to meet any responsibility we may have in the matter, whether it is any one of these things that we are most concerned with, we are not doing it to-day. When we look at the problem that is put before this Irish Parliament to-night, I wonder whether we are fit to pay honour to the spirit that is standing up for the Catholic Faith in Europe against the oppression we have heard described here to-night. We are not able to do it. Here in this Irish Parliament, with the unanimity the Taoiseach admits that there is in the country and here, we are unable to do it in a form of resolution which gives complete expression to that unity.

The Archbishop was arrested on the 18th September and before the Dáil met on the 23rd October he had been sentenced. On the very first day that the Dáil met, after its long Recess, the feeling of the people throughout the country here was expressed by three questions put to the Taoiseach, and at that particular time he could offer us no information on the situation. He could offer us no hope that he could get any information. He said in the end, after he had been pressed as to why with all the Ambassadors and representatives that we have throughout the world, at the Vatican, in the United States and in Great Britain, he could not get the information.

"I do not think that I can secure for the Dáil information which would enable the Dáil to make an authoritative pronouncement either."

It was following that attitude on the part of the Minister for External Affairs that Deputy Dillon put down his motion. The Taoiseach now tells us that everything that was felt by our people, that everything that was suggested by our questions here on the 23rd October, and that everything that Deputy Dillon says here to-night is all true, and more than true, and yet he could not convey to me, or to the Leader of any other Party or to Deputy Dillon, the mover of the motion, that it was desirable, if there was to be any strength in our voice or any appreciation of our unity on the matter here, that a resolution should be framed that would express the mind of every Party in the House and of our people as a whole. Surely, it would have been easy to do that. Instead of our being presented by agreement with —of our being able to co-operate in framing—an adequate expression of our people's mind in the Parliament here, the House is being asked to divide and to repudiate the terms of Deputy Dillon's motion which has brought us to the point that we are discussing this resolution here to-night.

As I say, I wonder if we are fit to speak on this matter at all for our people because I do not think that two votes here to-night, one against Deputy Dillon's motion and one of acceptance of the Taoiseach's motion, are going adequately to express our people's mind at all. It is not the kind of expression of their minds that they would like to go, whether to the countries that are in the Inter-Parliamentary Union on the one hand, or to the countries that we are diplomatically associated with on the other, or to what is even more important, those nations which are sitting down in the United Nations Organisation trying to work out some adequate machinery to sustain the hopes of the peoples of the world.

The Taoiseach, after some preliminary conflict of opinion on the matter of procedure here to-night and when pressed to speak after Deputy Dillon so as to let the House know what was in his mind, charged us all with this: "I should have known by now that that courtesy is not likely to be granted by certain members of this House." I think there is no courtesy that any of us are capable of that we are not prepared to show here to those who are the representatives of the people charged with executive authority in this Parliament, particularly in matters of difficulty and danger, and more particularly in matters in which we would be anxious to show to the people who despise and trample on the Catholic Faith in the world what the Catholic Faith means to us in the discharge of our public duties and responsibilities. We are asked here to raise our voices to condemn the persecution of the Catholic Faith in Europe. That is practically what we are asked to do and we do so. Even if Deputy Dillon's resolution uses strong language with regard to some of the countries that are involved in this persecution, I think it should have been the responsibility of the Minister for External Affairs to make representations in private to Deputy Dillon on that particular subject. I think it would have been possible to get his point of view accepted in that matter, and that it would have been possible to get a unified and agreed resolution.

At any rate, we are here and we do protest against the persecution that is going on in Europe. We do protest against the unjust trial and against the imprisonment of the Archbishop. We do protest against the general terrorism, the persecution and murder of which the persecution and imprisonment of the Archbishop are but the outward signs. But if we are to gather our strength here, our political strength and our spiritual strength to deal with the threatening situation in Europe, then we will have to approach our joint consideration of these matters here in a different way from that in which we have approached it in the present instance. We cannot show to the Archbishop in our discussion or in our resolution to-night any of the Christian composure that he has had to show in the midst of his difficulties, whether they were difficulties outside before he was arrested and imprisoned, or whether they are the difficulties that he is faced with now. Surely, if we are going to carry any hope to any of the peoples that are being oppressed, then we have to see in what way we are going to show in our public consideration of these matters, as well as in our general public work, some of that Christian composure that we know the peoples who are suffering have to show in their sufferings. We can hear the Voice that told Peter in Gethsemane to put up the sword ringing throughout the world: we can hear that Voice talking to the warring voices in the United Nations Organisation and the addition of corvettes or armaments is not going to be of any strength either to the people in the United Nations Organisation or to those in any other country in facing the difficulties that have been described here to-night and that we know exist.

The Taoiseach has spoken of the countries that we are diplomatically associated with. Let us tell them what we think, and let us tell every country in the world what we think. The most effective way he can tell them what we think is by unanimity of voice, by unanimity of action and by unanimity of spirit. I do not see why we, who are an applicant nation for membership of the United Nations Organisation and who want to be a member of that organisation simply because we believe that we can carry into it some of the strength and some of the spirit and some of the steadfastness which inspired Archbishop Stepinac, should not tell the nations of the United Nations Organisation what we think of this particular matter.

I think, therefore, it is all the more regrettable that a unanimously agreed motion has not been put before the House on the direction, or advice, or invitation of the Taoiseach. The amendment before us asks us to urge the Minister for External Affairs to take steps. The original questions tabled in this House on the 23rd October were sufficiently urging on the Minister to take steps and to take the initiative to express our national voice either through Parliament, or otherwise. I feel that the most eloquent testimony of our appreciation of the situation as it exists would be if we, instead of bringing this debate to-night to a conclusion and taking a division on this motion, would clearly define what our attitude ought to be both as regards expression and deed as a Catholic nation with a free Parliament of its own. I think that the debate should be adjourned and that a common motion expressing the mind of all Parties in the House should be framed.

Mr. Blowick

I think everybody in the country was more than shocked when they learned from the Taoiseach's statement that the trial of Archbishop Stepinac was unjust and was carried out in anything but a judicial manner. I think that this is not an occasion on which we should mince our words in the condemnation of his trial. We are a newly-born State with an intensely Catholic tradition behind us. Our memories are not so short that we cannot ourselves revert to religious persecution in the days of our forefathers. I think it is only fitting and proper that we in this Parliament should unanimously condemn the unjust and unfair trial to which Archbishop Stepinac has been subjected.

I do not agree with the Taoiseach that the wording of Deputy Dillon's motion is either too violent or too outspoken. I think we could not be too outspoken in our condemnation of what has taken place. We should make it perfectly clear to all the nations of the world what our stand is in this matter. There must be no shilly-shallying about it. I do not think the wording of the amendment differs in any vital respect from the wording of Deputy Dillon's motion except in relation to the manner in which the message will be conveyed to the various States and Parliaments. I think myself that the proper channel of conveyance should be through the Minister for External Affairs and not through the Ceann Comhairle. I think it is to be deplored that the position might arise where the House would be asked to divide on this question. Anybody who is in agreement with the amendment must definitely be in agreement also with the motion itself and we should not be asked to divide on a matter in which the fundamentals in each case are identical.

In my opinion the Taoiseach made no case for the amendment. It is not an amendment; it is merely a repetition of Deputy Dillon's motion couched in milder language. I think Deputy General Mulcahy made a very reasonable suggestion and one which I am sure both Deputy Dillon and the Taoiseach will agree with—that is, that the House should not be asked to divide on the amendment and that both the Taoiseach and Deputy Dillon should, if necessary, compromise on the wording. The Taoiseach has told us, in effect, that his principal objection to the motion is the wording of the motion and that his amendment is worded much more mildly. In my opinion his amendment is not an amendment. It repeats practically word for word Deputy Dillon's motion. The only essential difference is the vehicle through which the motion will be conveyed to other States and Parliaments. I do not think that in itself is a sufficient cause for dividing the House. If there is to be a division then I think that a ridiculous situation will arise because every Deputy must vote both for the amendment and for the motion.

We are the Parliament of an intensely Catholic nation and we would resent to the very utmost any intrusion or attempted intrusion of Communism into this country. We have reached the stage now when the struggle is one of Communism versus Christianity, as has been illustrated in the case of Archbishop Stepinac. I do not agree with the Taoiseach that the phraseology of Deputy Dillon's motion is too strong in voicing the opinion of this Parliament. The Taoiseach, in the course of his speech, said that the motion of itself would be of very little comfort. I think myself that 100 years ago the people of this nation would have been grateful to the Parliament of any other nation which would have condemned at that time some of the injustices done to us. I am sure that our forefathers would not condemn such a Parliament if the language was perhaps a bit too strong.

In conclusion I would ask the Taoiseach and Deputy Dillon to reach some compromise and not to put this matter to a division. I think it would be shameful to ask the House to divide on it. It is not a subject on which the House should divide. I would ask them to come together and agree on the wording and agree as to the correct vehicle through which the Parliaments of other nations will be informed of our action.

Mr. Norton

Sir, not merely our own people but the world generally was shocked to learn that at this stage of our civilisation a venerable dignitary of the Catholic Church should be selected for persecution, should be selected for public insult, should be selected for humiliation, should be selected for imprisonment and forced labour, and all this within a short period after the conclusion of a war which was ostensibly waged to advance the cause of human liberty and human progress throughout the world. The character of the court which tried Archbishop Stepinac does not commend itself to those who regard a fair trial as one of the inalienable rights of every man and woman. The character of that court obviously made the court a chamber for executing the previously arranged practices of those who manipulated the trial.

The reported attitude of the prosecutor and of the trial judge has filled the world and all those who prize liberty, and particularly religious liberty, with a deep sense of horror that happenings of that kind should be possible in Europe to-day. It is little wonder, then, that the conscience of the world has been shocked when it realises that a venerable Archbishop, noted for his adherence to his religion, to the principles of that religion, to the canons of that religion, has been selected apparently as the spear-point for an attack on the Catholic religion in Yugo-Slavia; and not merely has been selected for attack, but has been selected for public humiliation, for imprisonment, and many of his flock as well have been selected for similar persecutions.

The Government of Yugo-Slavia, by its conduct in this matter, has earned for itself a very unenviable reputation among the freedom-loving peoples of the world and, indeed, Yugo-Slavia has a right to give evidence of a greater appreciation of its new-found liberty than to visit on others the persecution which she endured all too long. Indeed, to me and many others it is regrettable that a country which showed so much promise in the vanguard of democratic thought and human progress should have decided, by its persecution of Dr. Stepinac, to replace the yolk of Nazi thraldom by an equally detestable tyranny, the tyranny of religious persecution.

I know, and others know, that efforts have been made to give the trial of Dr. Stepinac a political complexion and to make it appear that the Archbishop was the enemy of his country. But in that matter I am satisfied to accept the viewpoint of the Vatican, that citadel of eternal truth, that so far as Dr. Stepinac was concerned he was guilty of no crimes against his country, no collaboration with his country's enemies. His only offence in the eyes of his persecutor was that he lived his religion and was not prepared to be made a plaything of by those who disliked his religion and hope ultimately to extinguish it.

Our voice in this matter will be added to the protests which, I feel sure, an outraged world will make against this attack on human liberty and religious freedom, and by adding our voice to the general world protests, we can thereby demonstrate that, as a people who love liberty and who extend religious liberty to all our own people, we want to make it clear that we do not for one moment stand apart from that informed and intelligent thought throughout the world which properly condemns the action of those who have manipulated the imprisonment of Dr. Stepinac.

There is one very melancholy aspect about this whole business and there is, perhaps, one consoling aspect as well. The apparently incurable vanity of man is surely made manifest when mere mortals, the products of a political convulsion, can to-day fondle the illusion that nearly 2,000 years after the coming of Christ they can put out the light of religion in Europe. That is the melancholy aspect of this matter, but there is a consoling aspect as well, and that is that the Church, to which over 90 per cent. of our people give adherence and unquestioning loyalty, may be persecuted, may be assailed, may reel under one blow after another, may suffer, and its adherents may suffer tyranny and persecution, but at least we have one consolation, the word of Almighty God, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

So far as protesting against the trial of Archbishop Stepinac is concerned, I think there will be general agreement amongst all Parties in this House at the principle of protesting against the travesty of a trial to which he was subjected. I regret, therefore, that it has not been possible to phrase a motion which would command general support in the Dáil. I subscribe to the principle of the protest set out in Deputy Dillon's motion, just as I subscribe to the principle of the protest set out in the Taoiseach's amendment but, looking at the matter in a reasonable way, our view is that the amendment, in the circumstances in which it is moved and in view of the problem confronting us, is preferable to the motion itself. We think the amendment is a more reasoned and more constructive and a more dignified approach to the problem, that it approaches the matter in a way in which only the Government of a State can approach that problem, and it is because of the fact that the amendment appears to us to be more reasoned and constructive than the motion proper—although we can support the sentiments enshrined in the motion—that the Labour Party have decided warmly to support the protest contained in the Taoiseach's amendment.

Mr. Everett

I rise on behalf of the National Labour Party to support Deputy Dillon's motion for the reason that the motion is clear and every man in the country can understand what it means. The Taoiseach's amendment is weak, because it tries to eliminate from Deputy Dillon's motion the real kernel of the situation in this country; it tries to remove the words "Russia" and "Communism". We in this Party recognise the power and the influence of the Communist Party in this country. We are the ones who suffered and if the words we heard here to-night were spoken elsewhere by the Irish Labour Party, probably the Communists would never have such a power and grip as they have in this country to-day. We have to put up with certain influences inside a Party; we have to fight the elements of Communism inside and we see the results of their actions throughout the country at the present time. While the Minister for Justice maintains they are armchair men—they could only fit in an armchair—does he realise the power and influence they have, not alone in Dublin but in other parts of the country? They are responsible for many of the disturbances that exist in the country to-day.

We have a so-called band of men here in Dublin masquerading as Labour men, calling upon the Taoiseach and the Irish Government to recognise Russia and to recognise the Yugo-Slav Government. After their propaganda in Dublin, they went down to a conference of Irish workers in Wexford and had a resolution there demanding the recognition of Soviet Russia, denouncing Franco because he stood up for Christianity, praising Stalin and Molotov because they stood up for slavery and dictatorship. We had no words of condemnation from the men who should have condemned and who should not have allowed them to progress, as they are progressing in the country at the present time, under false names. If we had unity outside and had our people to explain the position, it might be different, but the Press refused to give publicity to the statements made. I say these men outside in Dublin were not representing the Irish workers, that 99 per cent. of the Irish workers stand against the recognition of Russia or of Communism, that 99 per cent. of the people would vote against even the Taoiseach's Government if he attempted to give recognition to Russia.

Why are we afraid of Russia at the present time? Why is the Taoiseach afraid? I recognise his position as Minister for External Affairs, but I agree with Deputy Blowick that there is no use in playing up to Molotov, Stalin and those men who try to get into the United Nations Organisation. They are not going to support a Catholic country, but they will support the crowd here in this country that will denounce Franco and praise Stalin and Molotov. We will support Deputy Dillon's motion, because it is clear and determined and represents the views of the common people of this country. It represents the views of the Irish working class, that they want no truck with or recognition of Russia. We condemn the trial and unjust treatment of all sections of the people, both in Russia and Yugo-Slavia. If we want to have any idea of what Russia is doing in other parts of the world, or if we have any idea of recognising Russia, let us read the articles published in the Irish Independent each day, showing the activities of the Russian agents, their M.P.'s and others in Canada at the present time and all the trouble they brought into that country. When the recognition of Russia was demanded in this House by a member of the Irish Labour Party when there was a request that the Government should open up diplomatic negotiations, there was silence, there was no protest made. I know I am representing the people of this country when I say that we want no truck with Russia, we want no recognition of Russia, we want no diplomatic relations with her, good, bad or indifferent. We are prepared to take the consequences and have them as our enemies since they will be our enemies, as we stand for Catholicity and Christianity. No matter what diplomatic relations we may have with them, they will have their spy rings, as they had in Canada and other countries, and they have spy rings in Ireland to-day. The Minister for Justice states they are only armchair Communists. They have spread in a good many places in the Twenty-Six Counties. When the Communist paper was banned in the Six Counties during the war, the Irish Government allowed it, when printed in England, to be circulated freely here in Ireland. No wonder you have turmoil and trouble by a certain band, no wonder we have men in this House getting up, believing they represent certain people and demanding that the Taoiseach and the Government give recognition to Soviet Russia. No wonder we are giving them encouragement in other parts of the country to denounce everything we stand for.

Deputy Dillon pointed out last week that the Irish people would hang them from the lamp posts, but they are so subtle and so clever that they will not come out in the open as such. They will always play a game for something that is popular, without exposure, until the proper time comes; and then we will find these armchair Communists, as the Minister for Justice calls them, getting into the lead, when their cells have been organised throughout the country; and when they become the leaders and give the orders, perhaps the Minister for Justice may have his eyes opened to the position. We have the Catholic paper, The Standard, attacked by men who should be giving it support, simply because it is trying to expose the intentions in this country, when other papers are closing their eyes to the serious position.

We will support Deputy Dillon's motion for the reasons I have explained. It gives us an opportunity to point out that we have suffered because we are fighting the enemies of Christianity, even those you have in this country masquerading as friends of the working class. We believe ourselves that the time will come when the people who may not agree with us now will be our warm and whole-hearted supporters, when their eyes have been opened, as ours have been, to the serious menace in our ranks.

I have great pleasure, on behalf of the National Labour Party, in giving full support to Deputy Dillon's motion.

General MacEoin

I approach this debate with a certain amount of timidity. I am not timid indeed, because I am strong in the view that has been expressed both by the mover of the motion, Deputy Dillon, and the mover of the amendment, the Taoiseach, that we should register our strong protest against the injustice imposed upon not only His Grace of Zagreb but upon other ecclesiastics and on the Church in that country. I am in agreement with the appeal made by the Leader of the Opposition, that to get the greatest amount of good and the greatest effect, we should have a unanimous resolution.

Now, with all due respect to the Taoiseach, I wish first to protest most strongly against the assertion that there was no courtesy on these benches. When principles that we all hold dear are challenged in this country or in any other country we could always be unanimous and there could always be courtesy between us. It comes badly from the Minister for External Affairs to charge any members of this House with discourtesy upon a matter of this kind and of such grave importance. Every one of us must remember two facts in the debate that is now taking place. One is that the Leader of the Opposition, when the Dáil reassembled, asked the Taoiseach a question, to which he got certain replies and, as a result of those replies, it appeared to Deputy Dillon—I have not consulted Deputy Dillon, but that is the way it appears—to be incumbent upon him to put down that motion.

We all know that the motion is on the Order Paper for a considerable time. Then the Taoiseach, out of the clear blue sky, moves this amendment. Apparently, the amendment would not be moved at all if Deputy Dillon had not put down the motion. Therefore, we have this protest made, because of Deputy Dillon's action in putting down the motion. Now, I suggest that the Taoiseach is half-hearted in his protest. If he were as strong as Deputy Dillon is, there would be no necessity for Deputy Dillon to have put down a motion at all. He himself would have taken the lead in that case, as he has taken it in other cases. There is no reason in the world why he should not have lived up to what people on the other side call chieftainship or leadership. I am not going to be controversial but I do feel strongly that it would appear as if there was some difference between us as to whether we should protest or not, whereas in reality a protest is agreed upon. There is only one question at issue and that is what the wording of the protest is to be and what is the best method of giving effect to what we desire. Deputy Dillon has suggested that we should ask the Speaker of the House to send this resolution to the Speakers or leaders of all free democratic Parliaments and, in particular, to those with whom we are in association in the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

That is a step that, as a parliamentarian and a democrat, I feel is quite correct. Deputy Dillon, being the democrat and parliamentarian that he is, believed that to be a correct step to take. Therefore, I ask the Taoiseach could he not adopt that part of Deputy Dillon's motion as well as his own plan, which is that representations be made to the governments of countries with whom we have diplomatic relations. By agreeing to adopt the action part of Deputy Dillon's motion along with his own, the Taoiseach would show unity in this House in the steps we are taking.

The Taoiseach could have done all this previously but what I resent more than anything else is that, apparently, we are to be forced through the Lobby for or against an amendment and thereby give the impression that we are not at one in condemnation of this terrible conduct by would-be dictators. They are mere twopence-halfpenny-minded men who are prepared to inflict hardship and horrors upon others but who would not be able to stand up to such treatment themselves. They would be like some of the dictators in Central Europe who cringed and were not able to stand up to their treatment. I feel that the best interests of all concerned would be served by a unified resolution. I suggest to Deputy Dillon and to the Taoiseach, through you, An Ceann Comhairle, that this debate should be adjourned and that a joint resolution be put to this House and passed with all the solemnity and strength we can put into it. When we were threatened with danger in the past six years, there was a council of defence to unify our defensive measures. Things which we hold sacred—even more sacred than our country—are now threatened and attacked. Surely it behoves us to act as a united nation in whatever step we take—a nation consisting not of Catholics only but of Protestants, Presbyterians and all other Christians. In that way, we would show that the freedom we fought for, the freedom of freemen to express their views in Parliament and to serve their God and their country was something for which we were prepared to die. If we stand together, even as a small nation, and send out this message, it will be a cause of hope to those who are being persecuted. The Irish people are scattered far and wide and we can ask them to associate themselves with us in this protest. When we show that a united Ireland is taking this strong line, we shall have done something positive. We will have shown that, where this principle is at stake, we, of all political Parties, are prepared to make any sacrifice. Therefore, I appeal through the Chair for that unanimous condemnation which should come from the Irish people on this occasion.

Mr. Donnellan

Deputy MacEoin said that there appeared to be a feeling as to whether we should protest at all or not. I suppose that those words were not meant because there is not the slightest doubt that the intention of every Deputy is to protest.

General MacEoin

I hope I did not leave anybody under that impression. I trust that by no inflection of my voice did I convey the idea that I was not in favour of protesting. It is very unfair to suggest that.

Mr. Donnellan

I took a note of the Deputy's words and they were: "The atmosphere of this House appears to be should we protest or should we not." Those were the words used.

General MacEoin

No.

Mr. Donnellan

It appears that we are going to turn this motion and amendment into politics. Could we not, for heaven's sake, forget politics on, at least, one motion. If we cannot forget politics on this motion and amendment, we cannot forget politics on anything. If some agreement is not come to and if there is a vote here, how will it look in the papers tomorrow? People outside the country will read of how we divided on a matter on which there is no material difference. I appeal to the Taoiseach to do something so that this motion and amendment will be made one and there will be no vote.

Deputy MacEoin said that the amendment was half-hearted. In my opinion, that is not so. He said that the motion should have been brought up by the Taoiseach long before Deputy Dillon put it on the paper. As was explained by the Taoiseach, he, as Minister for External Affairs, had to find exactly what the position was in other countries. I believe that that was his reason for postponing the discussion of the motion from a week ago to the present. I believe that Deputy Dillon fully appreciated that that was the reason. The reason why I intervene in the debate is to ask the Taoiseach and Deputy Dillon if it is not possible for them to come together and let us have a united protest from this House regardless of the different Parties.

From the humblest member of this House to the Taoiseach, Deputies unanimously believe that no stone should be left unturned to do what we can in this matter whether through the United Nations Organisation, through the Inter-Parliamentary Union or through our representatives in different States throughout the world. That is, I know, what Deputy Dillon would like to have done and what the Taoiseach by his amendment would like to have done. Is there any reason, therefore, why they cannot come together as between the motion and the amendment, and frame something to give effect to what we all want to have done— namely, to expose the tyranny and the religious persecution that are being carried on by Tito as exemplified in his treatment of the Archbishop?

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Little)

When I read the motion and the amendment, it occurred to me that there was no fundamental conflict between them and that the last line of the amendment moved by the Taoiseach leaves room for the Inter-Parliamentary Union to be used, if it should turn out that it is a useful organ to make use of. I have had some familiarity myself——

Mr. Dillon

There is no proposal in my motion to avail of the machinery of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Mr. Little

There are, I understand, 24 members at present of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It may be a mistake on my part, but it did occur to me that the practical way in which to get at the members of the Parliamentary Union would be through the union itself.

General Mulcahy

Where are the rest of the members of the Parliamentary Union?

Mr. Little

They are not there at the moment. Some of them have been swallowed up; others have not joined. In any case there is nothing inconsistent between the motion and the words at the end of the amendment—"to take such other steps as may be proper to secure for them the adherence of freedom-loving peoples". I suppose it is only natural that in a Parliament like this, different Parties should vie with one another to see who can express most fully the fervent faith of the Irish people. I do not look upon the differences in this House as being very serious at all, even if the House decides to divide on the matter.

The obvious thing is that the Government in power is the organ to approach other Powers throughout the world. The effective organ is the Minister for External Affairs; his Department has full machinery, which is paid for out of the public purse, specially for the purpose of dealing exactly with a matter of this kind. The authority and the responsibility are placed on their shoulders. A very admirable suggestion having been made by a member of the Opposition in the motion, after careful preparation and after examining the reports which have come through the channel of the Department of External Affairs, the Minister for External Affairs put upon the Paper a proposition, which, though less adjectival in form than the motion, he believes to be the most practicable to enable him to carry out what he wants. The amendment concentrates on certain essential principles which surround the question of religious persecution.

It is purely from that practical point of view that I intervene in this debate. It is quite unnecessary for any of us to express our feelings upon the attack on our Faith. We all have a tradition of having suffered greatly. One speaker said that if 100 years ago some other country had expressed sympathy with us and condemned the treatment of Ireland, we would have been grateful. Undoubtedly we would have been grateful but we would have been infinitely more grateful if that country could have given us really effective help. Now our Minister for External Affairs on previous occasions has intervened in international affairs and proved himself to be extremely realistic in his approach. On one occasion when Rome was menaced, he expressed an opinion which represented the views of fully 300,000,000 people and his intervention was recognised as having helped enormously to save the City of Rome. I think that we can very well leave the matter in his hands on this occasion and accept the amendment which he has put forward as not being in any way inconsistent with the motion but as being the most practical proposal in the circumstances.

Mr. Flanagan

When I saw that Deputy Dillon some weeks ago had tabled a motion of this character, I expected that it would be accepted unanimously by the House and especially by members of the Government. I was indeed very much alarmed to see that the Taoiseach thought fit to submit an amendment. I feel that the motion has been brought forward by Deputy Dillon in all sincerity. I further believe that if the Taoiseach was as sincere in this matter as Deputy Dillon, as was pointed out in this House earlier to-night, it would not have been left to Deputy Dillon to table a motion of this kind. The motion would have been brought forward immediately after the tragic incident when one of the greatest Princes of the Church was condemned by this reactionary tribunal. It should have been the business of the Leader of the Irish people to protest in the strongest possible way against that attack on the liberty of a Prince of the Church, on behalf of this country and on behalf of Christianity on the whole. He happens now to be a leader of a State that is one of the oldest in the world. It has a proud tradition behind it of a noble defence of the Faith and Christianity in the past.

If there is one country that has suffered for the faith and for upholding Christian principles it is our own nation. If the Taoiseach only knew the feelings of the majority of our people on this question, he would have no hesitation in registering as strong a protest as possible against the mock trial of this Prince of the Church and against the circumstances under which the trial was conducted. I honestly believe that the county councils, corporations and other local authorities that have registered their protest already in this matter believed that the Taoiseach would make a protest on behalf of the Irish nation. I am ready to believe that the strong protests which have been adopted by the county councils throughout the country are falling on deaf ears, when addressed to the Taoiseach, if he does not agree to withdraw his amendment in favour of Deputy Dillon's motion. That motion, in my opinion, is the ideal expression of the sentiments of the majority of our people, and I expected when that motion was placed on the Order Paper, that it would have received the unanimous approval of all Parties. I for one will be very much ashamed if I have to go back to my constituency after a division on this question.

To every Christian, be he Catholic, Protestant, or Presbyterian—no matter what his religion is—this is a matter of vital importance. It is an attack on Christianity, and it is our duty to call on those nations with which we have diplomatic relations to protest in the strongest possible terms against that attack. If there is any nation which has mighty influence with America, it is this nation, and I believe that if the American Government took this matter up seriously, good results would follow. It is our duty to request our friends abroad, and the American Government more especially, in view of the co-operation which has existed at all times between us, to make a similar protest to that made by Deputy Dillon. It would have very much desired effects. I appeal to the Government in all sincerity to be unanimous in this matter. If we are to make a protest, let us make it, and I believe that a unanimous resolution of this House will have a far greater effect than a resolution passed by a majority. It is most unwise of the Taoiseach——

The Taoiseach

Why can you not make it unanimous by accepting my amendment?

Mr. D. Morrissey

We can always have unanimity on those terms.

The Taoiseach

I think it is very right in the circumstances.

Mr. D. Morrissey

We can always have unanimity, if we always agree with the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

But we have all to follow what people on the other side do.

Mr. Flanagan

I believe the Taoiseach is sufficiently noble, courageous and big to accept the terms of the motion, and I believe that, if he does, he will be thought far more of by the majority of our people whose feelings have been outraged by this bitter attack on Christianity. I strongly urge the House to agree that whatever action is taken will be unanimous, but, so far as I am personally concerned, I intend to record my vote in favour of the motion, which I regard as being stronger than the amendment, and, in doing so, I believe I shall be expressing exactly the desire of our own people to protest against this attack in the strongest possible terms.

I believe the Taoiseach is altogether too mild in his attitude to this matter. We should be the first nation to show to the world that we are prepared to protest in the strongest manner against any attack on Christianity, and, furthermore, I believe that if the terms of Deputy Dillon's motion were communicated to the presiding officer of every sovereign Parliament which shares with us membership of the Inter-Parliamentary Union — and I regard that as the most important part of the motion—very good effects will be achieved, in view of our great stand at all times for Christianity. Our country has sent priests and nuns into the mission fields, to the farthest and darkest parts of the world, to strengthen the true Faith, the Faith of Christ, and Ireland having sent such grand and noble people to defend Christian principles and to make known the teachings of Christ where they have never been heard of, I believe it is our duty to make this protest. The only way in which we can make our protest is by accepting a motion on the lines of that moved by Deputy Dillon. I hope and trust that the Government, and especially the Taoiseach, who is looked upon in this country as a man of very great knowledge, a far-seeing man and a man blessed with an abundance of wisdom, will see fit not to have a division on a matter of such vital importance, but that this protest will be a protest by the unanimous voices of the elected representatives of the people in Dáil Éireann.

Mr. Cosgrave

No one will disagree for a moment with the picture of conditions in Europe and of the general position facing the Catholic Church painted so vividly by Deputy Dillon. It requires no words of mine or of any other member to demonstrate the seriousness and the gravity of the situation, which Catholics appreciate more seriously than any other section of the community. That being so, it behoves us in this House, as representing the people, to consider what means are best suited to give effect to the unanimity of viewpoint which finds spontaneous expression amongst all sections, classes and creeds in this country in condemnation of that position. Accordingly, we must consider, first, how we can best give expression to the views and opinions of the people represented here, and, secondly, having given expression to those views, how we can make effective those feelings of condemnation.

It is only natural that this Parliament should decide unanimously what course of action it should adopt, but, unfortunately, that apparently is not to be the case. Due to the fact that we have not had from the Government the kind of leadership we would expect in a situation of this kind, the greatest effect will not be given to the widespread convictions of all sections in this country. If we had had, as we might have expected, an agreed motion on the Order Paper and if we had had, then, in the House, statements by the various leaders and by anyone else who felt obliged to speak, it would have been easier and more satisfactory from a national point of view and from the point of view of making our voice and our will effective in world affairs.

Unfortunately, when this question was first raised by Deputy Dillon and others on the resumption of the Dáil after the Recess, the Taoiseach was not in a position to give an authoritative statement on the position and on the conditions attending the trial of Dr. Stepinac. Subsequently, he felt he had sufficient information at his disposal to enable him to table an amendment to Deputy Dillon's motion. I think the proper procedure when the Taoiseach received that information would be to communicate privately with Deputy Dillon and suggest, in view of the particular circumstances attending this very serious incident, which was only a manifestation of the widespread Communist persecution of the Church in Europe, that it might be possible with Deputy Dillon and the various Opposition Parties to secure a motion which would find agreement.

The Taoiseach

Deputy Dillon did not consult me before putting down his motion.

Mr. Cosgrave

He gave the Taoiseach adequate notice that he was going to put down a motion.

The Taoiseach

He put down the motion without consulting me.

Mr. Cosgrave

He gave adequate notice that he was going to put it down and, having given adequate notice, he put it down. In the normal way, courtesy cannot be extended merely on one side. Courtesy depends on two people. In this instance, the Taoiseach, in his capacity as Taoiseach and Minister for External Affairs, might have shown a little courtesy to Opposition Deputies.

Mr. MacEntee

Who is Deputy Dillon?

Mr. Dillon

What did the Minister for Local Government say?

Mr. MacEntee

Who is Deputy Dillon?

Mr. Dillon

Four generations of our people can answer that question.

Mr. MacEntee

The outcast of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Dillon

I trust they can do as much for your leader.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Can you not conduct yourself on an occasion like this?

Mr. Cosgrave

I realise that the Government are at a serious disadvantage. If Ministers would refrain from insolent interruptions, they might lessen the disadvantage at which they are already. If we had a little courtesy from the Taoiseach and a little more co-operation in the functioning of Parliament, it might have been possible to get a motion which would commend itself to all sections of the House and which would effectively demonstrate the unanimity of purpose and the unanimity of determination which is reflected in all quarters of this country at the despicable persecution of religion, and the Catholic Church in particular, which has sprung up so vigorously since the cessation of hostilities in Central Europe; not indeed that that persecution was not rampant in many parts of Europe long before the termination of hostilities. Unfortunately, possibly due to the anxiety amongst certain members of this House, including Ministers, there was some effort made on this occasion to vie with one another in their anxiety to show that one member of the House was better than another in attempting to give expression to our horror and our hatred of persecution and our anxiety to show that we detested, deplored, and protested against the persecution which is going on.

I think it is regrettable that, on a matter of this kind which concerns religion and not politics, any attempt should be made even to make it appear that one Deputy, or one section, or one Party is better able to express the Catholic viewpoint or express an opinion on behalf of the community. I think that however a person may practise his religion, it is a matter for himself and his Creator. The Commandments and the precepts of the Catholic Church are laid down clearly and, within these, it is open to a person to practise his religion according to his lights and to his conscience. However we may differ amongst ourselves here, I would hesitate to attempt for a moment to judge any other members of this House because they differ from me or from anyone on the Opposition benches politically. I would deplore any attempt to suggest that we are superior to any other Deputy in the profession of our Faith or in our knowledge or demonstration of our religion. That is not the question before us to-night. It is one which we are not competent and which it is not within our province to judge.

What is before us is that a persecution is rampant in Europe; that that persecution is at the instigation and at the hands of a number of dictators and their satellites and, primarily in this instance, at the hands of Tito, the dictator in Yugo-Slavia, who has unjustly tried, unjustly condemned, and is at the present time holding in unjust imprisonment Dr. Stepinac, the Primate of Croatia. That being so, it behoves us here in this Parliament to give expression not merely to our views at the present time, but to the traditional adherence to and appreciation of the Catholic Faith, which has ever been demonstrated throughout our history; which has ever found people like Deputy Dillon and others to express clearly and convincingly, and which has produced martyrs throughout many generations prepared to sacrifice everything in order to show that the fundamental principles which they held dear and which were handed to Peter centuries ago express our beliefs and our hopes.

But, unfortunately, on this occasion we find ourselves, in the words of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, "with no fundamental conflict between the two motions and with differences which are not very serious even if they force Parties in the House to divide." Surely any ordinary citizen of this country who is not well versed in the ordinary functioning of Parliament must feel astonishment if he finds that, when a motion like Deputy Dillon's and an amendment by the Taoiseach are tabled, not merely does the House not assent to both or either, but actually divides against one. Surely ordinary persons down the country or in the City of Dublin or our kith and kin across the seas will express astonishment if they find that we divided against one motion merely because it differs in phraseology from another motion dealing with the same subject and the same set of circumstances. Surely they will wonder what is taking place in this Parliament. Is it not natural that they will consider that we have been playing politics?

This country has had too regrettable an experience of verbal quibbles to allow a verbal quibble to prevent this Parliament assenting to both motions. I certainly hope that Deputy Dillon will not withdraw his motion. The Taoiseach says: "Everything is grand if you agree with my motion." That reminds me of Stalin and Molotov: "Everything is grand if only other people will be reasonable with us." But there is no co-operation from them. It is all one-sided. You cannot have co-operation unless two parties attempt to co-operate. It is childish to suggest that we can accept the Taoiseach's motion and, at the same time, vote against Deputy Dillon's. In view of the fact that Deputy Dillon has probably not available to him the sources of information which the Minister for External Affairs normally has, it is only natural that he should use strong words.

Is it not only right that this country, which has never been afraid to take its stand for the principles it believed in, should use strong language? Is it not a most regrettable situation that we find ourselves, when we have freedom, with leaders whose feet are of clay? Is it not only regrettable that we cannot unite, to demonstrate clearly that our history, our experience, our hatred of persecution, primarily of the Catholic Church throughout the Penal times, is reflected in our determination, so far as is within our power, to show the world that we contemn the satanic barbarities of Tito and everyone connected with him?

Mr. Cogan

The entire Irish nation owes a very deep debt of gratitude to Deputy Dillon for having tabled this motion which enables the House and the Irish nation and the Irish race throughout the length and breadth of the world to voice their emphatic protest against the tyranny and injustice that is being inflicted within a small nation, at the instigation of a powerful, materialist dictatorship. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health asks who is Deputy Dillon? Without referring to Deputy Dillon's family associations with the Irish nation and the cause of Irish freedom, it is necessary to state here and now that Deputy Dillon is an elected representative of the people. He is a member of Ireland's national Parliament and, as such, he is entitled to express his views clearly and plainly and to seek, as far as lies in his power, to mould public opinion in the right direction.

This is a democratic nation. Democracies depend for their existence and for their greatness upon their ability to produce men of independent thought, with independent minds, who are prepared to take a part in leading the people, who are prepared to give a lead to the plain people. Deputy Dillon, like every other Deputy, has come in here as the elected representative of plain, simple, honest working people, people who cannot be expected to frame national policy but who look to their representatives for a lead in the right direction. It will be admitted that great democracies throughout the world have failed and gone down in humiliation and defeat because they failed to throw up men who were independent enough to lead the people, particularly on questions of right and wrong.

It is a pity that there should be a division in regard to this motion and amendment but it would be a greater pity if Deputy Dillon's motion had not been submitted to the House. Democracies may be clumsy, they may be awkward in their approach to big questions, they may not have the machine-gun efficiency of the dictatorship, but I think there is no man in any nation, no representative of the Press of any nation, who will not gather from the discussion that has taken place in this House that the Irish nation is solidly united in its condemnation of the tyranny and injustice that has been inflicted on a leader of the Catholic Church. Since that has been made abundantly clear, is it not a deplorable and terrible tragedy that there is some difference of opinion as to the exact wording of the expression of our views? It would be eminently desirable if the views expressed by the Leader of the Opposition Party and the views expressed by the Leader of this Party were accepted and there could be an agreed motion passed unanimously by the House but, failing agreement, I have no hesitation in going into the Division Lobby, if necessary, and giving my support to Deputy Dillon's motion.

That motion seeks to bring to the notice of the Parliaments of the free nations of the world our views on this important question. The Taoiseach has said that only a Government can approach other Governments. Is it not equally true that only a Parliament can approach other Parliaments, and why should not the Parliament of the Irish nation approach the freely elected Parliaments of other nations and make it clear that the Irish people will not tolerate tyranny and that, no matter how strong the forces may be that are mobilised behind the attack on religion in Yugo-Slavia, no matter how many millions of down-trodden human beings may be supposed, at least, to be behind the policy, we as Christians know that that policy must inevitably fail? We know that the forces of materialism, of cruelty, oppression and injustice can never succeed against right, justice, morality and Christianity.

This venerable and reverend Archbishop stands to-day as the symbol of resistance to cruelty, tyranny and injustice. His example will be followed in every nation where it is sought to impose the will of the tyrant upon the plain, simple people. He stands for the upholding of Christian teaching. He stands for the upholding of the dignity of the human being and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Standing thus, he cannot be overcome. He may be imprisoned. He may be tortured. We do not know—it is not possible for us to know—how he may be treated at the moment but, whatever is done to him will be all in vain and, ultimately, right will triumph over might.

We in our own small way, as a small weak nation, can lend our hand and support to the forces of right. We as a free nation can rouse the free nations of the earth. We, as a nation whose race extends throughout the length and breadth of the world, can exert a power and influence that can make the apparently all-powerful tyrants pause and consider whether the course they have adopted is wise or not. I therefore commend the suggestion which has been made, that there should be an agreed resolution coming from all sections of the House but, whatever is done, we must be grateful to Deputy Dillon for having raised this matter.

Mr. Davin

My conscience tells me that I can put the views of my supporters and of my constituents through the medium of the amendment submitted by the Taoiseach. I think it is a great pity that some Deputies who have spoken in this discussion have used what is really a religious issue for Party purposes. I refer in particular to the speech made by Deputy Everett.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I suggest that the Deputy might overlook it in connection with this debate and not draw in domestic matters? I make that suggestion to the Deputy.

Mr. Davin

It has been suggested quite definitely. Perhaps you were not in the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

I know all the circumstances, and I am suggesting that to the Deputy. It is a matter for the Deputy himself not to initiate a discussion on these lines.

Mr. Davin

I am going to refute the statements or insinuations that have been made against the supporters of the amendment and against the members of this small group in particular. It has been suggested that the people who will support this amendment are, in effect, Communists or supporters of the Communist Party. Now, I remember being present at a trade union congress which was then called the Irish Labour Party and Trade Union Congress held in Derry nearly 30 years ago, when a double ex-Deputy of this House moved a resolution there hailing the Russian Revolution and hailing the work of Kerenski. I remember myself challenging the contents of that resolution, and I ask my late colleague, Deputy Everett, in the most friendly way in the wide world, to read the official report at that particular congress and let us know at a later stage, if he speaks on a matter of this kind, how he voted, if he voted at all, on that resolution hailing the Russian Revolution, and expressing the hope that Irish workers would copy the activities of the Russian revolutionary workers at that particular time.

Mr. Dillon

Kerenski was not a Bolshevik any more than Deputy Davin is.

Mr. Davin

That is Deputy Dillon's opinion.

Mr. Dillon

It is common knowledge.

Mr. Davin

It has also been suggested in this debate that this Party favours the opening of diplomatic relations with the Russian Government. I am expressing the views of this group when I say that no such representations were ever put to the Government or put to this house on behalf of the Party, and are not likely to be during the lifetime of this House.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Larkin did so in my hearing.

Mr. Davin

There are members in every Party as Deputy Dillon should know, because he was a member of a number of Parties, and they have the individual right to express their own individual views, and no one has availed of that liberty more than Deputy Dillon when he was a member of a Party.

Mr. Coogan

What relation has this to the motion before the House?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy stated that he was replying to a speech made by Deputy Everett. I did not hear Deputy Everett, but I was informed of the speech. I ask the Deputy not to follow on those lines or to reply on this motion. He is, however, in order in doing so.

Mr. Davin

It is a pity that Deputy Dillon did not rise at that particular moment and express disapproval of the line that Deputy Everett was taking by using this debate for the purpose of washing dirty Party linen.

Deputy O'Leary interrupted.

Mr. Davin

You got your answer at the last by-election in Wexford. I think I am entitled to take advantage of this discussion for the purpose of answering the nasty slanderous insinuations directed against the members of this group. Any worker or member or citizen of this State who signs the membership application form of the Irish Labour Party accepts its constitution and accepts the programme and constitution of the Party which is definitely opposed to the policy of Communism and all it stands for.

Mr. O'Leary

They are in your Party and you cannot deny that.

Mr. Davin

I do not like being too hard on the Deputy——

Mr. O'Leary

You do not.

Mr. Davin

——because he is only a small boy in the small group that he is now associated with. I would advise him very sincerely to take up the minutes of the executive of the Party——

Mr. O'Leary

Take up the Catholic Standard.

Mr. Davin

——and study the line taken by your political boss, an ex-Deputy of this House. Deputy Dillon should be the last person to charge members with welcoming the support of that member on an issue of this kind.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might now come to the motion.

Mr. Davin

I do deeply regret that there is such a difference of opinion as to the means by which the views of this House should be conveyed to the world on a matter of this kind. I think that we are all in agreement on the issue. It is a question of what is the best means or who is the right person to convey the views of the members of this House. I think that the Taoiseach as Minister for External Affairs is the proper person to convey to the Governments of the world the views of the members of this House on any matter relating to international affairs. So far as I am personally concerned, although I differ from the Taoiseach and his colleagues on matters of internal economic policy, I believe— and in this I think I am speaking for the members of this Party—that the Taoiseach as Minister for External Affairs has handled matters of international concern in an able manner for a long number of years, and that he is quite capable of doing so in this matter.

Mr. Maguire

I think that the discussion this evening both on the resolution and on the amendment is the best indication we could have of the unanimous opinion of the House on this particular matter. I do not think it is at all necessary for Deputies to stand up in this chamber and declare their loyalty to Christianity, and vehemently declare what should be done in the circumstances set out. That is not at all necessary. We all understand each other to the extent that this is a Christian country and that any attempt in any part of the world to interfere with the principles of Christianity will inevitably and automatically find a reaction from the ordinary persons in this country that would be very strong, very firm and very determined. That determination would carry their ordinary resentment a very long way.

In discussing this matter the question is: What really can we do? In this Parliament we can give expression to the view that we abhor the verdict, which we believe to be unjust, a verdict under which the Yugo-Slav Government have condemned Archbishop Stepinac to a very long period of imprisonment. So far as I know, we have no representative in Yugo-Slavia. That probably places us at a disadvantage. If we had a representative there, then our representations on this question would naturally have more direct and probably more effective results. In the absence of that, I take it that our Government, or our Minister for External Affairs, has gone into the question involved under which the Archbishop was charged, tried by his country's courts and duly sentenced. Having fully examined as far as possible the charges and their justification, he feels entitled to come before this Assembly here and put forward an amendment to the resolution condemning the action of the Yugo-Slav Government. I am sure the Minister for External Affairs has taken all the necessary steps to investigate the justice or injustice of that trial before he put forward his amendment.

I think that to continue the debate here along lines the discussion has followed this evening will not serve any useful purpose. Outside of this country our voice will be a very tiny voice indeed. Even then it will be subject to a great deal of censorship and every country will represent our decision largely according to their own particular viewpoint. However unanimous we may be, either on the resolution or on the amendment, our voice will be very small. If we give the opportunity to countries outside of representing our decision as a result of a division then the volume, the strength and the value of our protest is very seriously minimised.

We all protest here our love of Christianity. Our Christianity above all teaches humility. Our object to-night is to defend Christianity with all the strength that we can. Is it not possible for some of us to show our humility? It is true that Deputy Dillon put forward this resolution. It is true that he undoubtedly protested from the beginning against this outrage. Finally, he tabled this resolution. The Taoiseach put in his amendment. If kudos are to be gained here to-night then, as far as precedence is concerned, Deputy Dillon's resolution was the first tabled in this House. Is it because that resolution was the first that we are to have a division here this evening?

The Taoiseach, who is also Minister for External Affairs, speaks for the whole people of Eire and a resolution or an amendment proposed by him will carry more weight than a resolution or an amendment proposed by any other member. I think that the best way in which we can make our protest known to the world is for the Taoiseach to speak for the whole House and to have his resolution unanimously adopted. I am sure that the Taoiseach has examined all the merits and demerits of this matter. As the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs indicated it took the Taoiseach a longer time to examine into this matter and to make up his mind than it took Deputy Dillon. I hope the Taoiseach will make as careful an examination in similar cases in the future rather than deal with members of his own Party in a hostile way without giving their case the long and serious consideration which he has given to this.

I am in favour of the amendment proposed by the Taoiseach because I believe that it will carry more weight.

Mr. Coogan

I appreciate very fully the difficulties which the Minister for External Affairs has in the particular matter now before the House. In the first instance, we have to realise that we are not ourselves members of the United Nations Organisation. We have also to realise that whatever we may do now, and the way in which we do it, may have certain effects internationally upon our efforts to gain membership of the United Nations Organisation. Whether or not the Minister for External Affairs had that particular situation before his mind I want to say at the outset that the attitude we should adopt here should not be in any way supine. It should not be in any way calculated to pander to the anti-Christian forces now dominating the greater part of Europe.

I think it is immaterial whether we use the phraseology of Deputy Dillon or the phraseology adopted by the Taoiseach. We represent in this Parliament a country which has known centuries of political and religious persecution and it is only right and fitting that we—the representatives of the Irish people, elected under a Constitution which pays tribute to Catholic principles and, in particular, to the application of Catholic principles in international relations—should voice in the most vigorous manner possible our strong abhorrence of the state of affairs which exists in Yugo-Slavia and which, incidentally, exists in all the territory of Eastern Europe to-day.

With regard to the last speaker's argument in favour of the amendment, I want to say quite frankly that I disagree with him entirely. The Taoiseach's amendment is calculated to limit the sphere of our activity to diplomatic activity with the countries where we have diplomatic representatives. At the moment, out of all the nations of the world, we have diplomatic relations only with some ten countries. The Taoiseach visualises, however, steps that may be proper to secure for them the adherence of freedom-loving peoples.

I say the proper steps are the steps indicated by Deputy Dillon, because, by reason of the fact that our representation abroad is so limited, it is essential that we take the added action visualised by Deputy Dillon of directly approaching the Parliaments of the nations of Europe affected by this scourge of persecution. To my mind the amendment and the motion are not in any sense mutually exclusive; they are complementary. I put it to the Taoiseach that no question of phraseology, no question of finding an appropriate formula, should prevent this House from voicing its feelings in this matter in the most vigorous form we can adopt.

I appreciate the difficulties which at present confront any Minister for External Affairs situated as our Minister is. We are seeking membership of an organisation which does pay in its charter a certain amount of lip sympathy to religion. Amongst the purposes and principles which are written into the charter we find that purpose No. 3 is to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. Coupled with that you have the four freedoms advocated by the late President Roosevelt and subscribed to by Winston Churchill on a famous occasion. One of these four freedoms was the freedom of every man to worship his God in his own way, according to his own conscience.

If we are to seek admission to the United Nations Organisation, our main function as a Catholic nation is to raise our voice in the Assembly to bring Catholic principles to bear upon the councils of the nations in the hope that the word "God" will be written into the charter of the United Nations of the world. The word "God" does not appear in the charter of the United Nations of the world because, at San Francisco, the nations of the world had to kow-tow to Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the others.

Ireland is a country which at all times, even in the darkest age, took a militant place in the fight for Christian principles. There is a darker cloud over Europe to-day than ever fell on Europe before. When Attila the Hun stormed the gates of Rome, Christian missionaries from this country went to the darkest parts of Europe to spread Christianity. The lights of Christianity are gone out in Europe to-day and it is up to us, as the representatives of a Catholic nation, to take all steps in our power, as a small people, to raise our voice and to take the necessary action that will enable the lamps of religion to be relit in Soviet-dominated Europe.

I regret that anything in the nature of personalities, anything in the nature of disagreements, anything in the nature of discord, should have been introduced into this debate. I think we are all agreed on this matter; we all abhor the terrible persecution that is taking place and I appeal to the Taoiseach not to divide the House on his amendment. I appeal to him to reconcile with Deputy Dillon whatever little difference in formula or phraseology may exist in the motion and the amendment and let it not appear to the peoples of the world that we have some difference here in this matter.

It is not a question of establishing fundamental freedoms; it is not a question of bringing something new into the lives of the peoples of Europe. It is a question of restoring fundamental freedoms; it is a question of restoring, if you like, the Ten Commandments in Europe. Down through the ages we have stood for Christian principles, for the right of the moral law to prevail over the municipal or domestic law. International law has broken down. The Holy Roman Empire was set aside by the personal greed of the Princes of Europe and, in turn, the authority of Christendom, as represented in the Vatican, was set aside by the same Princes. Later, we had the Reformation and, following on the Reformation, nations could go their own way independently of any central moral authority. Coming to later years, we had the French revolutionary principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, and following on that we got the deplorable development of Bolshevism from the libertarian principles preached through the centuries. We find ourselves in this sorry plight to-day because the peoples of Europe, abandoning the unity of Christendom, abandoning the central moral authority by, in the Middle Ages, going their own way, rely on expediency and force to solve their problems, domestic and international.

We are, as the last Deputy said, but a poor, small nation, but we are a nation which, through the centuries, has survived political and religious persecution. We are, incidentally, a nation which, in spite of that persecution, sent its missionaries to all the countries of the world. Missionaries are there to-day as they were there centuries ago. It is not a mere question of a small people trying to raise its voice in a world wilderness. It is a question of a small country, a mother country, appealing to its children in Australia, in South Africa, in New Zealand, in the United States of America and in Canada to use every means at their disposal, governmental and otherwise, to raise their voices through their various Governments and Parliaments, to bring pressure to bear so that this terrible tyranny will be brought to an end as soon as possible.

There are other considerations that I do not want to go into. It is not entirely the fault, if you like, of Joseph Stalin, that Yugo-Slavia finds itself in the sorry plight in which it is to-day. There are other circumstances that existed not so many years ago. Perhaps for reasons of diplomacy, perhaps under pressure from the Soviet, these circumstances have been altered now, but whatever the cause may be, these circumstances that now exist are so deplorable that we at least can raise our voice and ask our people throughout the world to raise their voices to bring this thing to an end. I ask the Taoiseach, apart altogether from diplomatic channels, apart altogether from diplomatic relations with these countries, to appeal to our people, wherever they may be, to use their voices with their Governments and Parliaments to bring pressure to bear upon the United Nations to end this persecutior

I do not at all agree that the limited measure of activity envisaged by the Taoiseach's amendment will bring the desired results. I think it is essential that every possible avenue be explored in this matter and I am going to ask him to try to reconcile the motion and the amendment and not to put the House to a division and in doing so place us in a false position before the world. There is no question of politics in this matter, as far as I can see. There is no question of Party advantage and I, for one, condemn any suggestion of Party advantage by any side of the House. I want to see this approached with national unanimity.

There are many matters I would like to raise, but I refrain from doing so. There will be another occasion for it, but as I see the position now it is a mere matter of reconciling phraseology and the formula of the two motions before us; and I am sure Deputy Dillon would be the first to amend his motion in any way to meet the suggestion I have put forward.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

I think we can all agree that this is a matter on which there should be unanimity. Any appearance of division in this House would misrepresent the position of the country everywhere. It appears to me, therefore, that the problem to which we should address ourselves at this moment is as to why we cannot have that unanimity. I can see no reason why we should not have it, except one. If we do not have it to-night, it will be because those who do not enjoy the confidence of the country, those who have not the support of the majority in this House, are proposing to divide the House and to create that appearance of disunity in regard to these vital questions. For that reason——

General Mulcahy

Does the Minister for Local Government insist on saying that, in the light of the history of this question since the Dáil met and questions were put on the 23rd October?

Mr. MacEntee

May I be permitted to continue? I am in possession. The Deputy has spoken and I listened to him. I think he ought to address himself to what appears to me to be the really critical issue dividing the House. Here there is no division of opinion whatever as to the events which are happening now in certain parts of Europe, events which are dealt with in a much more effective way, a much more far-reaching way, in the amendment than in the resolution. I think we can say that emphatically and we can say it in the fullest conviction that it is the unquestionable truth. We are not divided here and the country is not divided in relation to these matters, but by their action certain fractional Parties in this House are going—if I understand aright what they have been saying—to divide the House and to create the impression abroad that the country which this Parliament represents is equally divided in regard to these matters. Why is that appearance of disunity going to be created? Because of certain differences in phraseology—so Deputy Coogan has told us— because of a point of chronology, because the motion was down before the amendment, and because, apparently, of punctilio of procedure.

Now I would like to examine the latter reason first. Apparently, the amendment which has been put down by the Taoiseach and Minister for External Affairs is not acceptable to the Opposition because, forsooth, the Taoiseach did not consult Deputy Dillon. When Deputy Cosgrave was making that point, I asked the Deputy, with no offensive intention, "Who is Deputy Dillon?"

Mr. Coogan

A most improper remark.

Mr. MacEntee

I repeat the question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The interruptions must stop.

Mr. Donnellan

He is trying to make bad worse.

Mr. MacEntee

He is a private Deputy. I want to put these matters in their proper perspective and in their right proportion.

Mr. Coogan

Deal with the motion.

Mr. MacEntee

I am dealing now with the reasons upon which the Opposition seek to divide the House and give the appearance abroad of a disunited country. I ask: "Who is Deputy Dillon?" Deputy Dillon is a private Deputy—if you like, I concede a very able Deputy—but he holds no office in this State or in this House. He commands no following in the country, he belongs to no Party, he is, as I have said——

General Mulcahy

In the name of the importance of the subject, in the terrible circumstances the Taoiseach spoke about, and the big responsibility that is on us here, I protest against the Minister introducing this atmosphere into an important debate.

Mr. Donnellan

It is a helpful contribution.

Mr. MacEntee

I said—and I believe it is much more to Deputy Dillon's credit than otherwise—that he was an outcast from the Fine Gael Party. Who is the Taoiseach?

General Mulcahy

Sir, I protest to the Taoiseach and I ask the Taoiseach if this is the spirit he wants to introduce, through his Minister, into this discussion?

Mr. MacEntee

Let me ask now; Who is the Taoiseach? He is the Head of this Government——

General Mulcahy

He is not fit to lead this House, if he allows the Minister to continue in the spirit in which he is speaking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As long as the Minister is in order, he must be allowed to make his speech in his own way; and if Deputies cannot sit in patience without interruption, they can leave the House.

Mr. Keating

When was the same Minister ever in order?

Mr. MacEntee

I am asking: Who is the Taoiseach? He is the Head of this Government, he is the Minister for External Affairs——

Mr. Donnellan

God help him, with a man like you to deal with.

Mr. MacEntee

He is, by virtue of his office, the recognised channel of communication with other Governments and other States. When he speaks on matters of external policy, he speaks for Ireland. But because he, who can speak for Ireland—this was the argument of Deputy Cosgrave—did not consult Deputy Dillon as to the exact phraseology of a motion which was to be accepted by the majority of the members of this House, Deputy Dillon, the Fine Gael Party and Clann na Talmhan propose to-night to divide the House and create the impression abroad that this House and this country are divided upon these fundamental and sacred issues.

Mr. Coogan

Not at all. We shall divide on a formula—not for the first time.

Mr. MacEntee

It would be well if these interruptions were to continue. They are very self-revealing. Deputy Cogan referred to the question which I have put: Who is Deputy Dillon? Because I put that question, he proceeded to give a somewhat confused dissertation upon the principles of democracy and upon the rights of democracy.

Mr. Coogan

I made no reference to Deputy Dillon.

Mr. MacEntee

I was referring to Deputy Cogan. What does the acceptance of the democratic principle involve in relation to issues such as we are debating? That where there is no division upon essentials, then, so far as the accidentals of a proposal are concerned, the voice, the opinion and the views of the majority should prevail.

Mr. D. Morrissey

You did not always subscribe to that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should not be provocative.

Mr. MacEntee

If the views of the majority are made known in relation to matters which, we are told, are merely issues of phraseology—only points of time and methods of procedure, then the opinion of the majority ought to prevail. But how does Deputy Cogan and his Party interpret democratic rule in relation to this motion? Because—let me repeat—the Taoiseach did not consult Deputy Dillon in relation to the drafting of the amendment, which, it is now clear, commands the support of the majority in this House— there is no question of doubt as to which of these two proposals has the support of the representatives of the majority of the Irish people—Deputy Cogan proposes, so far as his vote and the votes of those associated with him can encompass it, to ram, cram and jam Deputy Dillon's words down the throats of the majority of Deputies here. And this is being done by Deputy Cogan in the name of democratic principle. Deputies who constitute the majority of this Assembly, who carry responsibility for the government of this country and for the conduct of its external affairs, by mere weight of numbers alone and by reason of the support which their views command in the country—they are entitled, in a matter in which there may be doubt as to what is the best course to pursue, to have their opinions accepted by the minority.

Deputies who sit on these benches, having read Deputy Dillon's motion, might, in my view, have very serious doubts to to whether a motion couched in its terms would not do more harm than good. They might feel that the florid and unrestrained phraseology in which the motion is expressed travesties its purpose—if that purpose is to make an effective protest. They know now, from the statement of the Taoiseach, that the course of action which it proposes would be futile and ineffective. I have no doubt that Deputy Dillon feels, like all of us, real and deep concern at the events which are taking place in Yugo-Slavia and at the sufferings and indignities which are being heaped upon the Primate of Croatia. But we may also feel that under the stress of emotion and in the labour of expressing that concern in a Parliamentary way, Deputy Dillon lost sight of his original purpose. The motion no longer concerns itself with the fate of the Archbishop but with other matters.

So far as I am concerned—and no person knowing my public record can have any doubt as to where I stand in regard to certain issues—the motion by Deputy Dillon reminds me too much of the beating of the big drum to be acceptable. I have never been able to associate the noise of that instrument with the principles of civil or religious liberty. Therefore, if there were no difference between the motion and the amendment other than the terms in which that motion is couched, I should prefer—and I am sure all the other Deputies in the House who have any concern for the dignity of the House or of the country would prefer—the amendment to the motion.

I ask the House to consider one phrase in it. Deputy Dillon refers to the procedure to which the Archbishop was subjected and he asks the Dáil to record their "detestation of the travesty of the judicial process". There is a smack of the hustings about that phraseology—a touch of the soap-box about it.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That is quite foreign to you.

Mr. MacEntee

Oh, no. On the contrary, I have been on a soap-box, on the hustings, and perhaps that makes me just a little bit fastidious as to the manner in which our nation should express itself. I do not think that the Parliament of this country should descend to the level of the cross-road orator, even though Deputy Dillon or Deputy Morrissey may think so.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Why did you not remain silent so?

Mr. MacEntee

I was saying, Sir, that this phrase—"detestation of the travesty of the judicial process"— should be contrasted with the manner in which the amendment refers to the same proceedings—"that the House expresses its grave concern at the unjust trial"——

Mr. Flanagan

What trial did the Minister give Dr. Dignan?

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

I think the Deputy should allow the Minister to proceed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has just come into the House and he may not know that I have warned Deputies against disorderly interruptions. Please let us have no more of them.

Mr. MacEntee

On the one hand, we have in the motion the phrase that the House is asked publicly to record "detestation of the travesty of judicial process." On the other hand you have in the amendment the statement that the House "is gravely concerned at the unjust trial." Now weigh these two expressions whichever way you like and ask yourselves which of them appeals the more to you? Which of them do you think is more dignified? Which of them do you think is the more emphatic in its restraint? Which of them would carry the greater conviction abroad? Which of them would better carry conviction abroad, if we are earnest in this matter and not merely indulging in a public exhibition of craw-thumping? Opposition Deputies may prefer Deputy Dillon's florid manner of expressing himself. Other Deputies may prefer the restraint with which the Taoiseach in this amendment, as habitually, expresses himself. It is a matter of opinion, a matter of taste. It is no more than a matter of opinion or a matter of taste, and yet upon this matter of opinion, in relation to a question of literary style, the House is going to be divided this evening by the members apparently of the Fine Gael Party, by Deputy Dillon, by Deputy Cogan and, I am sorry to say, by Deputy Everett. What impression is going to be created abroad by that division? It is going to be made to appear by the deliberate action of certain Deputies in this House, a division exists in the country. And for what? For a question of mere literary style. So we have in this way, that because Deputy Dillon was not consulted by the Head of the Government, by the Minister for External Affairs, as to the exact phraseology of an amendment or a motion which would command the acceptance of this House, and because some people prefer Deputy Dillon's literary style to the Taoiseach's literary style, we are to have that division in this House, which every member who has got up here to declare he is going to vote for the motion, professed to deplore.

Dr. O'Higgins

Was not the amendment the cause of the dissension?

Mr. MacEntee

There is another reason why the motion is unacceptable and the Taoiseach has indicated it already to the House.

Mr. Dillon

I take it that I shall be called upon to conclude at the usual half-hour?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy require half an hour?

Mr. Dillon

I shall indeed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We shall allow the Deputy at least 20 minutes.

Deputies

Half an hour.

Mr. Dillon

I have no power to assert a claim in this House that is always accorded to the proposer of a motion. I am asking for what this House has always given—half an hour to reply. I look to you, Sir, to ensure that I get it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Twenty minutes is usual, Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

Oh no, Sir.

General Mulcahy

Twenty minutes for a three-hour debate. I understood from the Ceann Comhairle that half an hour would be given.

Mr. MacEntee

I understand what is due to Deputy Dillon. I would rather there was no further discussion. I am an old Parliamentary hand and I know that these interruptions are meant to fritter away time. I am coming to a point to which the Taoiseach has already directed the attention of the House. The usual channel for communication between Governments is through the Minister for External Affairs, the Minister who is responsible for the conduct of foreign relations between this State and other States. This motion of Deputy Dillon's is in effect a vote of censure, a cleverly conceived vote of censure, because it proposes to go over the head of the Minister for External Affairs, to depart from the accepted channels of diplomatic communication in order to pass on to nebulous bodies of whose existence we have no proof, for the Inter-Parliamentary Union might be said, in fact, to be moribund——

Mr. Dillon

There is no such proposal in the motion.

Mr. Flanagan

The Minister did not read it.

Mr. MacEntee

It might be said to be moribund.

Mr. Dillon

There is no such proposal in the motion.

Mr. MacEntee

It is doubtful if we could say at this moment what Parliaments are associated in the Inter-Parliamentary Union, but, Sir, that is the clever tactic that is behind this motion. It is not only a question of punctilio as to whether Deputy Dillon was consulted or not, it is not only a question of phraseology that divides us, but it is an attempt by a side-wind by a subterfuge, by a trick, to get this House to pass a vote of censure upon the Government and in particular upon the Minister for External Affairs. For Parliaments only go over the heads of their Governments, only disregard and turn away from the accepted channels of diplomatic communication, when they have reason to believe that their Government is no longer willing to give effect to the policy of Parliament or when they may have some reason to fear that the Minister for External Affairs is either functioning in opposition to the will of Parliament or is functioning incompetently. This motion, in whatever form it may be disguised, is not a motion really concerned so much with the fate of the Archbishop but is a motion designed to bring odium upon the Government, to make capital out of a serious situation and for that reason this House must be divided by the deliberate act of the Opposition, if the views of the majority are going to be challenged in this House, in relation to four things: These are first of all, the conduct of the Minister for External Affairs in relation to the responsibilities of his office, then a point of chronology as to whether the motion which appeared first should get precedence over the motion of the Government, next a point of punctilio as to whether the head of the Government and the Minister for External Affairs should have consulted Deputy Dillon as to the form in which the motion was to be adopted by the majority of the House, and, last of all, a difference of judgment as to whether the literary style of Deputy Dillon or the restrained and dignified protest of the Taoiseach better appeals to the sensibilities of the House.

Mr. Dillon

I shall content myself by saying that I consider the speech which has just been made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to be both wicked and vicious. I trust the House will not suffer itself to forget that the Taoiseach's amendment consists of two parts. The first part is designed to expunge from the Order Paper the motion I have submitted to the House, and the second, to substitute the admirable words which the Taoiseach has incorporated in his amendment. There is no one in this House that I have heard who has asked the House to reject the Taoiseach's amendment. In opening, I was most scrupulous to emphasise that, in my view, these two motions were complementary and that the House would in no sense stultify itself if it adopted both.

I put my motion down because the Minister for External Affairs, answering questions put by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Coogan and myself a month ago, said:—

"I do not know what the Deputy thinks I can get, or formal steps I can take, to get information on that matter."

In a long answer, reported at columns 3 and 4 of the Official Reports, the Taoiseach expressed his dismay and distress at the situation obtaining in Yugo-Slavia generally and pointed out, or seemed to indicate to those of us who listened, that we had no diplomatic relations with Yugo-Slavia and asked what diplomatic action he could take. I felt there was a certain force in that. If a Minister for External Affairs enters into diplomatic relations with the diplomats of all the world, and if he himself is to be treated in accordance with the rules of the profession, he must submit himself to be bound by them, and, recognising that there are certain principles of diplomacy within which a Foreign Minister can act and outside of which he would invite rebuff and isolation, I put down the motion asking the Ceann Comhairle, speaking on behalf of Parliament, to speak to our fellow Parliaments as we have repeatedly done. Deputy Kissane, I believe, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle accompanied me to Paris to a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and at that body we spoke not as Government Deputies or as Opposition Deputies but as democrats who believed in Parliaments and thought it good to meet from time to time and renew confidence in the way of life for which we stood. Was there anything queer in that course of conduct?

I, accepting the Minister's assurance that he could make no démarche in existing circumstances, knew that Parliament could and could make it as a Parliament, and so offered them that opportunity. I am not making allegations against the Taoiseach that he is in a dark conspiracy with Communism, or that he is reluctant to declare his views on liberty. Whence has all this heat been engendered? There is not a line in what I said in introducing this motion which, by the most reckless fool, could be interpreted as a reflection upon the Taoiseach. All I cavilled at was that it was odd that he should wait until midnight on last Tuesday before setting down this amendment, but I said that doubtless when he came to speak he would tell us why.

The Taoiseach

I would have waited longer if the Deputy had not been pressing so hard and I think it would have been an advantage to our cause to wait a little longer.

Mr. Dillon

It is the first time the Taoiseach said so.

Dr. O'Higgins

It is a long time for a man in jail.

Mr. Dillon

In any case, here is a matter of discretion joined between us, and, when there is a division to-night, there is no need to look upon it in such a tragic light as the Minister for Local Government would have us look on it. If there is a division, it is merely a competition between two sides of this House to find the most effective way to serve our common end. I am not concerned for a moment to criticise the style of, or the language employed in, the Taoiseach's amendment—far from it. If it is put to this House as a resolution, I shall vote for it, but I shall also vote for my own motion, and I want to tell the House briefly why. I did not ask this House to send our resolution to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I asked this House to instruct the Ceann Comhairle to send it to the presiding officer of every free Parliament in the world, which was associated with us in that Union.

The Taoiseach

Would the Deputy tell us if he made any inquiries as to what might be done with the resolution when it came to them?

Mr. Dillon

I am going to deal with that. The Taoiseach dwelt on his anxiety on that score. He said he did not care to think of our resolution being marked "read" or thrown into the basket. I should not mind very much if some of them did, provided some of them did not, and am I an incurable optimist if I believe there are still free and independent Parliaments in this world who are prepared to accept the proposition that, gravely as it offends the ear of the Minister for Local Government, the proceedings I describe of riotous mobs roaring for a prisoner's blood are properly described as a travesty of the judicial process? It may not be the language of a pseudopoet, but it is the language of a full heart. I think not only of archbishops undergoing trials of that kind. I think of others having to face trials of that kind. I think of little men hearing the mob howling for their blood with the knowledge that sooner or later they will be given up to that mob and that no one will ever hear their names again. There have been many such throughout Croatia.

I am not going to hang my head in shame because, when thinking of those things, my literary style has failed to please the ear of the fastidious little Minister for Local Government. As we saw him mincing in his place making his vicious, wicked little speech, how hard it was to believe that a man of his mature years should so disgrace himself when a man like Dr. Stepinac was rotting in a Bolshevik jail. No, I am not as much dismayed by the prospect of indignity as is the Taoiseach. He was also troubled lest to adopt my resolution would mean being a voice crying in the wilderness. Does that dismay him, too? If his is the only voice left to describe those proceedings as a travesty of the judicial process, if his is the only voice left to repeat again and again that this is a conspiracy to defame Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular, if his is the only voice left to say that this is a Communist conspiracy to destroy individual liberty everywhere, will his heart fail him because his is a voice crying in the wilderness? I do not think so.

The Taoiseach

I like to get results if I can.

Mr. Dillon

I agree. But when the Taoiseach speaks of the utterance of such sentiments being merely a voice crying in the wilderness I do not think he objects to a repetition of these things. Remember what Marshal Tito is hoping for:—

"They will shout to their hearts' content, and then the storm will abate because they will weary of it but we shall not weary."

Is there not some purpose to be served by going on repeating before the world that we know that these men who are called traitors are not traitors; that we know that these men who are arraigned for high crimes and misdemeanours are so arraigned simply because they love the Faith? Is it not necessary to say those things in the maelstrom that is around Europe? I do not doubt the Taoiseach's readiness to say them if he believed they served a useful purpose. I remember, as the Taoiseach remembers, incidents in our history, some that we saw ourselves, some that we heard from our fathers and those who went before us, not at all unlike the situation with which the people of Croatia stand confronted in our time. When I heard the Taoiseach commend the calm language of his amendment prepared with a violence of mind, I seemed to remember the time when the Taoiseach might have been proud to be stirred to violence and to anger in the presence of injustice and cruelty and wrong.

When I heard him go on to say:—

"Then there arises the question of interfering in the domestic affairs of a foreign State",

did his mind turn back to the last time he heard that excuse vouchsafed for silence? Does he remember when he urged public men in the United States of America to approach President Harding for a sympathetic reference to Ireland and when, from California, the President sent him an answer, when he did not even deign to address him, but told a Press conference that people might as well get it into their heads that he had no intention of interfering in the domestic affairs of another State?

The Taoiseach

The Deputy is suggesting that I said that that was a barrier to us?

Mr. Dillon

I understood the Taoiseach to say:—

"Then there is the difficulty of this question of interfering in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State."

The Taoiseach

Yes, because other States, unfortunately, try to keep rigidly to that rule. I thought I made that clear. As it is a matter of importance, perhaps I might intervene for a moment. I said that the difficulty in getting other States to bring the necessary influence to bear was that they held to that principle. I may not have put it clearly.

Mr. Dillon

I am glad that I have vouchsafed the Taoiseach an opportunity of clearing up what seemed to me to be an observation open to the widest misunderstanding——

The Taoiseach

I am very glad of it, if I was misunderstood.

Mr. Dillon

——because I stand for the principle that you should not interfere in the domestic affairs of other States. I believe that Russia ought to be allowed to run her country in her own way and that Spain, Italy, France, England and Ireland ought to be allowed to do it—with one qualification, that persecution of faith is the domestic affair of no nation. It touches every Christian in the world.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy will find that he will probably have to widen that a bit.

Mr. Dillon

That is wide enough for me for the present. I welcome the declaration of the Taoiseach that he shares that view. I want no evasion; I want no misunderstanding. I still think the House would be glad to accede to a request from the Taoiseach for permission to put his amendment forward as a substantive and additional motion. If that course is adopted, I shall most happily stand in my place to support his motion as well as mine. But even the humblest Deputy is entitled to put his view upon the Order Paper of this House and ask his fellow Deputies to agree with him or to dissent. That seems to me no presumption; that seems to me no justification for that silly, wicked speech. I stand on every word and every line of that motion. I do not want to alter a word, a syllable or a comma. I do not think it says a word too much about the things we ought to be thinking about. I think it is vital to make it clear that our solicitude in this country is stirred not only for a Catholic archbishop but it is stirred for justice, for Christianity, for freedom, and that we merely fastened upon this latest crime of the international Communist conspiracy against these things for the purpose of directing the world, for the first time as a united Parliament, to the nature of the conspiracy, with a guarantee that again and again and again we will return to it, that every facet of their plan to defame the Catholic Church, to destroy Christianity, will be exposed by us and kept in the light of day, that they will be notified here and now that we shall not weary and that, so certain are we of the ultimate inevitable success of the things we stand for, that we are confident that all that is necessary to win this day is to draw into open light the things they do and the things that they believe in, in the certainty that when the light of Heaven plays upon them for all eyes to see, the errors they maintain and the crimes by which they sustain themselves will wither in the light of truth.

I do not know what the Taoiseach imagined I have in mind as a crusade against this horror. I know our weakness in arms; I know our weakness in resources but, I dare to say, I know our strength as well. I invoke against this loathsome horror no more formidable weapon than the light of day. I believe that, given that light, if the people are let see the true nature of the vile conspiracy of materialist totalitarianism in the world, it will die. Just as a blackmailer collapses under the light of day, so with the Bolshevik tyrant. I like to think that we have none of their type in this country. I will surrender, however, to no specious confidence in that regard but, whether we deal with them in our own midst or whether it is necessary to deal with them in the vast orbit of the world, there is one weapon they cannot withstand and it is one which we are in a position to wield as mightily as any other nation in the world, and that is the light of truth.

I want to bring that light to bear upon the presiding officer of every free Parliament in the world so that, reflected therefrom, free peoples may come to realise the dangers that threaten all men who value liberty and, in that way, to do our part in mobilising, against what can be a great horror in our own time, the latent force that is in humanity and simply awaits to be called to action in defence of liberty and decency and the things for which Christians stand.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy has made a suggestion. I am not sure that I quite understand it. Is his difficulty that this amendment of mine proposes to delete his and that he would prefer that this motion of mine would stand as a substantive motion and that it read: "That Dáil Eireann, gravely concerned," etc.?

Mr. Dillon

And that my motion be accepted too.

The Taoiseach

Remember, I have ultimately to bear the responsibility. When this resolution is passed, work will have to be done. The terms of my resolution were couched in terms chosen with a considerable amount of care, and if I am going to continue to carry out the view of this House generally and to act as its Minister for External Affairs, I think that in a matter of that kind it is the words which I have carefully considered from the point of view of their effect, that ought to carry. Are we going to have two resolutions?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have only one minute in which to put the question.

Mr. Dillon

I have no comment to make on what the Taoiseach says.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question is that the words proposed to be deleted stand.

Question put and declared lost.

Mr. Dillon

Votáil.

The Taoiseach

There is a possibility of confusion. I do not understand what is the question before the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is an amendment proposing to delete certain words from Deputy Dillon's motion. The question I put was that the words be not deleted. So, the Government will vote "Níl" and the Opposition "Tá".

Mr. Halliden

Is there no hope of compromise?

An Ceann Comhairle

There is not now. The question has been put.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Did you declare the motion carried?

An Ceann Comhairle

I said "I think", and a division was challenged by Deputy Dillon.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted, stand"—put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 65.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Bennett, George C.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Coogan, Eamonn.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Everett, James.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Heskin, Denis.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Donnell, William F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Rogers, Patrick J.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Brennan, Martin.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Furlong, Walter.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Norton, William.
• O'Connor, John S.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Shanahan, Patrick.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Skinner, Leo B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
• Walsh, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dillon and Byrne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Ó Cinnéide.

Question declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am putting the amendment as a substantive motion in the following form:—

"That Dáil Éireann, gravely concerned at the unjust trial and imprisonment of Archbishop Stepinac, and at the accumulating evidence of the existence of a campaign of religious persecution in certain parts of Europe, and convinced that recognition of the sovereignty of God and the moral law is the fundamental basis of any just and stable world order, and that freedom to worship God truly, in the manner that He Himself has ordained, is the inalienable right of man, respect for which is essential to the preservation of peace among the nations, calls upon all peoples who desire true liberty and lasting peace to use their combined influence to bring religious persecution everywhere to an end and to secure acceptance of liberty of conscience as one of the basic principles of a genuine world organisation, and urges the Minister for External Affairs to take steps to bring these views of Dáil Éireann to the attention of the States with which we have diplomatic relations and to take such other steps as may be proper to secure for them the adherence of freedom-loving peoples."

Motion put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 22nd November, 1946.