I even disagree with Deputy Cogan when he goes so far as to put his hand on the door-knob of the United Nations Organisation and almost sings "Open the door, Joe." I thought at the time Deputy Cogan came to the door he was going to parody "Open the door, Richard," the song about which we have heard so much. I do not want to go into all this question about opening the door but I should like to see some attempt at going to Belfast to open the door. I think unless we go to Belfast to open the door we are wasting our time in sheer futility. That is the approach we have got to make to Partition and if we are not going to attempt to make that approach to Partition, then let us for goodness' sake forget it.
As I have mentioned Partition, I did, some time ago, interest myself in reading on this subject various people, amongst them Orangemen, and I came across some extraordinary statements. Away back in 1914 Sir Edward Carson was asked by a Pressman how the Ulster trouble came about. His answer was:—
"My dear fellow, to explain that, I should have to go back on history for at least three centuries. It would take me about a month to do it and at the end I suspect that you would not understand."
I seriously suggest to the House that it would take us a good while to get to the fundamentals of Partition and there is no use in Deputy Norton, Deputy Cogan or anybody else coming to this House and suggesting that by a breath of wind in the right direction, Partition will disappear. There are too many facets to this problem for Partition to disappear, as it were, by mere wishful thinking. There is a big fundamental problem involved in this question. It was of fundamental importance during the recent war and it will be even more fundamental in any future war. There is no doubt but that Britain regards the North of Ireland and the North-West passage as one of the chief outposts for the protection of Britain. There is no doubt but that if a base had not been available there for the American forces during the recent world war, their chances of getting a foothold in Europe would have been very remote. I merely mention that as one aspect of the problem that has got to be solved.
There are other facets of the problem that we have to remember. You have economic, historic and financial considerations involved in this question. I do not want to go into all these matters but I do want to suggest that amongst the Orangemen you had a history of persecution and a history of suffering for conscience sake. You have there an old tradition. Do not let us always forget that tradition, and assume that they are just pig-headed, anti-Papists who go out on the 12th July beating a drum. They have a history and a tradition behind them. Away back in the 16th and the 17th century these people were persecuted and were driven from their homes and their lands in the North. They were deprived of their jobs and their professions; their houses and their lands were cleared; it was "to hell or to Connaught" for them just as much as it was "to Hell or to Connaught" for the people down here in Cromwell's time. Let us remember these facts when we approach them. Let us remember that the descendants of these people who went to America fought with Washington, side by side with our emigrants and that more than half of the signatories to the United States Declaration of Independence were of Ulster stock. If we can remember these facts then we should have some appreciation of the problem that confronts us in approaching these people.
I know that there are many inconsistencies. I know it is hard to agree with an Orangeman who will praise Washington as a hero and at the same time who will look upon Wolfe Tone as a traitor and a villain. I know that you have that difficulty in getting to the back of his mind but I do want to suggest that if you rush into this matter, you can do a lot of harm. If we take the right steps and try to see behind the mentality and the traditions of these people, giving them credit for all these things in which they believe, we may perhaps be able to bring them round to our point of view. I do not believe that anything in the nature of hawking our troubles elsewhere will get us anywhere. I hold that the proper approach to this question is that of Dublin vis-à-vis Belfast. I have seen little done in the last Government's time or in the present Government's time to effect a rapprochement. Rather on the contrary, have we gone further and further away from any effort at reunion. Behind the scenes something may have been done; I do not know, but if anything like that is happening it is all to the good. Years ago something was happening but unfortunate events down here ended them rather abruptly.
I do want to advocate strongly that there can be only one or two ways to solve Partition, the first being a rapprochement between Dublin and Belfast by which we shall be able to get these people to see eye to eye with us and arrange some sort of federal union with them. The other alternative is force. Mind you, force may become necessary some day. I am not a believer in having our country truncated indefinitely and our people handed over to the junta in Belfast. I do not believe that the people of this generation has done its part and I believe there is a big job of work awaiting future generations. I believe that the task of bringing about a union of the North and the South of this country awaits some Irish Cavour of the future. I do believe that we have given 25 years to what you might call delicate handling of the Partition problem. I do believe that we have given the kid glove every time to these people. I do believe that we have gone as far as we possibly can in holding out the hand of friendship and that, 25 years after the Treaty, it is time that we were beginning anew the effort to reunite our lost territory. I do not want to go into details, into all the constitutional developments which have taken place. I did at one time go into the matter on behalf of a body of Irishmen and Englishmen who were endeavouring to see if there was any approach by which we could bridge the particular difficulty. Having gone into the matter I discovered that there was none by which we could do so, speaking legally and constitutionally.
May I remind the House that under the 1920 Act the Belfast Parliament was set up in June, 1921? In June, 1921, the King visited Belfast to open the Belfast Parliament. The Belfast Parliament was, therefore, a fait accompli even before the Truce of July, 1921, was signed and long before the Treaty was signed. Before the Treaty, or before the negotiations for that Treaty had been begun, the Belfast Parliament had been established as a fait accompli in the Six Counties.
It is well that the younger generation should realise that when they enter into discussions on the Partition problem. Under the Treaty and under the Act, there was a provision for a Council of Ireland. It was deliberately established for the purpose of leaving some way by which a reunion could be effected between the North and the South, but under Articles 12 and 13 of the Treaty the Council of Ireland was more or less abolished. It was preserved in form, but its effective powers were taken away. Under a subsequent enactment—the Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act of 1922 —the Council of Ireland's powers were placed in the position that if either the Government here or the Government in Belfast wanted to take these powers to themselves, then they could do so, but that if, after a period of five years, they did not do so, then an Order in Council could be made transferring the powers to the Six County Government. In actual fact, the powers were transferred to the Six County Government on the 1st April, 1926. These powers were limited powers. As well as I remember they related to the railways, diseases of animals and fisheries, but though they were limited powers still they were left there as a tribute, if you like, to the hope that reunion might be effected even on such a slender basis as the Council of Ireland afforded. In actual fact what happened was that our people down here, in the circumstances in which they found themselves, did not, of course, take any cognisance of the 1920 Act, and did not take any cognisance of the Council of Ireland. The Council of Ireland went by the board so far as we here were concerned, and eventually the North of Ireland got these powers.
To-day, when there is some question of added powers being given to the North of Ireland Parliament and when, apparently, certain people who are outside this House question the right of the North of Ireland to get any extra powers, it is well that they should remember that that Parliament got these powers in 1926—powers which were intended for all Ireland and which would be exercisable by the Council of Ireland. They were given to them in 1926 and referred, as I have said, to fisheries, diseases of animals and the railways. The only thing that was left after that happened was the provision that the two Governments could meet at any time they saw fit or necessary on matters of common concern. That was left in a very nebulous sort of way— that if at any time the two Governments saw fit they could meet on matters of common concern. In actual fact, we have never met on common ground, and we do not seem ever to have had a common outlook on any matter affecting the country. I think it is regrettable that the two Governments have not availed of these very slender powers such as they were. I think it is regrettable that some effort has not been made over the years to effect an approach by the two Governments so that a common basis might be found for coming together on matters of mutual concern and of national concern. I think that if there had been some use made of these powers, it is quite on the cards that we would have made further progress towards reunion than we have made.
However, as I have said, the Council of Ireland is gone so far as we are concerned. It is now a matter quite open to the two Governments to come together when they see fit, but the position seems to me to be that neither Government is prepared to take the initiative. Neither Government will make the first move, and in a situation of that kind things are bound to drift indefinitely. Neither Government, apparently, is prepared to risk its honour, good name or prestige in making the first move. The only link, therefore, that is left is the King as an organ in our external relations. I disagree with Deputy Norton and other speakers, who have advocated that that link should be cut. I think it would be a mistake, taking the broad view, to take the King out of the External Relations Act, and if I may say so, out of the Constitution, because I feel that it would be calculated to injure our position, particularly in relation to Stormont and the Six Counties, but more particularly in our relations with the Commonwealth of Nations. I think that would be a retrograde step, one that would be very much misunderstood across the Border, and one that would certainly be much more misunderstood throughout the Commonwealth of Nations.
Deputy Norton and other people seem to think that, by merely asking the present Labour Government in Great Britain, we could do a whole host of things as regards the removal of the Partition problem. I do not believe a word of it. There was a Bill recently before the British House of Commons relating to the North of Ireland. In the case of that Bill we saw that 200 British Labour M.P.s put down an amendment, the discussion on which was calculated to provoke a strom in relation to Northern Ireland. An extraordinary thing happened. When it came to the time to move the amendment nobody moved it and, as far as I can see, there was only one man who had the courage of his convictions—Mr. Bing—to come back to the North of Ireland and say what he felt like saying to the people in the North. So much, therefore, for their sincerity in the matter. As far as I can see, they are simply playing Party politics with the Six County position. They appreciate that the Six Counties comprise the last stronghold of conservatism throughout the Commonwealth and feel they must play Party politics with it. I have no intention of suggesting to the Taoiseach that we should lend ourselves in any way to that. As far as I can see, it is a purely Party game in Great Britain. I think the approach should be a direct one between Irishmen and Irishmen. I would also like to stress a fact which emerged in the course of that debate, that almost every speaker who took part in it said that the problem of Partition, as far as they could see it, was essentially one for settlement between Irishmen and Irishmen.
I do not want to go into the historical aspects of Partition or to apportion blame for Partition—to apportion the blameworthiness for it on particular British statesmen. We all know who are responsible for Partition and we all know how it came about as well as the antagonisms that were there at the time. I do not want to waste the time of the House in going back on past history, but I do feel that while to British statemanship in the past the blame for Partition could largely be assigned, nevertheless, it would do us no good now to open old sores and traduce them for what they said in those days. I do sincerely suggest that we in this country in this matter of Partition have a very serious problem. It is at the root of all our problems, and particularly at the root of our international problems. It is a problem that we ought to face up to soon in the hope that we can effect a settlement between the North and the South. The problem is not an easy one. It is not one that can be solved by inactivity or by a negative attitude down here. It is one that demands a positive policy. I agree that it is one upon which all Parties in this House should have a common understanding. Above all, it is one that should be above Party politics. It certainly should not be made the plaything of politics. It is a national problem and I feel that every section of the House would be behind the Taoiseach if he were prepared to take some practical steps towards bringing about the ending of Partition.
I, for one, have said before and I repeat it now, that I feel that we should have some representation in Belfast whether they like it or not. We ought to have some representation there; we ought to go there and try to contact those people and use our resources here for the purpose of peacefully persuading them of our goodwill, of our friendship and above all, of our tolerance. Many of those people have prejudices, narrow, bitter beliefs that if ever they came under a Dublin Parliament they would be ruthlessly treated in the matter of their religion and of their civil rights. We know quite well that because of the traditions which we have established since this State was set up the feelings and fears of those people are quite ill-founded. Nevertheless, they are there, and it should be our duty to do everything possible to try to get those people to realise that they have nothing to fear from coming under a Dublin Parliament. I would like to see, not a propaganda directed so much against Partition, as a propaganda directed by us to show that our Constitution is deliberately framed to embrace them whenever they see fit to come in; that our Constitution is so deliberately framed that, if they came in in the morning, English can remain their official language, if they choose to make English their official language. Our Constitution provides that either the Irish or the English language may be the exclusive language of a particular area. That has been deliberately put in to meet the North of Ireland problem but the North of Ireland people have never heard of that. They never realise it. They do not appreciate it. They read the daily newspapers and they think every time the Taoiseach speaks about Irish: "If we ever come under the Dublin Parliament we will be all sent to the Gaeltacht to learn Irish". That is what they feel. They do not know about the other matter. They do not realise that even if they came in in the morning our Constitution would permit them to have a subordinate parliament in Belfast and that we could have some form of federation. These are the aspects of our position that I would like to have propaganda directed towards, towards curbing the anticipations and anxieties and fears of these people, not, by shouting "Up the Republic" every fine morning, to get them to feel that we are going to trample on any sentiments they hold dear. I believe the parading of the Republic is calculated to do infinite harm in the Six Counties and I say that seriously as I have been many times amongst these people and I know every time the word "Republic" is paraded in any way down here it stinks in their nostrils.
It is time we woke up to these facts and faced realities and, realising what these people are, that we would go some of the way to meet them. I do not want the Taoiseach to go to the United Nations Organisation or Washington or London. I want him to go to Belfast. That is where we have to begin, and that is where we have to end. If we do not succeed in doing the job on Irish soil we certainly are not going to solve the problem on foreign soil.