Vol. 147 No. 2
I move:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Government should introduce proposals for legislation immediately to provide that all elected parliamentary representatives of the people of the six occupied counties of Ireland will be given a right of audience in the Dáil or Seanad.
Before dealing with this motion I would like to know if you could enlighten me as to what the procedure is for the concluding stages of the motion?
The usual practice is that the House allows the mover of the motion a reasonable time to conclude the debate.
May we take it that it would convenience the House if the two motions, Nos. 4 and 5, were taken together?
There can really be only one motion before the House. The subject-matter of the two motions may be considered together but there can be only one motion before the House at a time and that is Deputy McQuillan's motion.
We may take it then that the whole discussion will centre on Deputy McQuillan's motion?
That is right, and Deputy McQuillan will be allowed a reasonable time to conclude the debate.
May I also ask for the same privilege if the two motions are to be discussed together?
There would not be any precedent for such procedure.
Does it necessitate the moving of my motion subsequently before I can gain that right?
I am not going to give a decision in advance on any action but, as it stands, Deputy McQuillan would have the right to reply and the House generally gives that right to the mover of a motion and gives him a reasonable time to reply to points raised in the debate.
Before dealing with the subject-matter of the motion I would like to express appreciation of the attitude of the Taoiseach and the Government in making available extra time for discussing this important motion. I want to remind Deputies that this motion has been on the Order Paper since last June. I put it down then as an Independent Deputy with the hope that when the motion itself came to be discussed it could be discussed in a non-Party atmosphere. I think in view of the fact that I have no allegiance to any political Party in this House that consequently it could not be suggested by any political Party that a Party was going to make capital out of difficulties that had arisen. The motion was put down prior to those incidents that have since taken place in the occupied portions of our country. It was put down last June, not last Friday, Saturday or Monday and I leave it to the good sense of the Deputies to make up their minds on this very important motion irrespective of what may have happened in recent months.
All Parties in this House have been unanimous in their desire to see the reunification of our country achieved. Nobody doubts the sincerity of the individual Deputies or of the Parties but I think we must admit that in spite of all the statements that have been made in this House and outside it we are no nearer a solution to the problem of ending Partition than we were 30 years ago. As a matter of fact my own belief is that we are gradually drifting further away from our people in the six occupied counties. That is my own personal view and other Deputies may not agree with that but so far as I am personally concerned I am convinced that we are no nearer a solution to-day than we were 30 years ago.
Generally speaking, I think that we in this part of the country have become more insular in our outlook. We have decided to go our own way in our own time and pursue our policies in various fields as if the rest of the world did not exist. Some Deputies may point out, of course, that over the last few years there has been co-operation with the people of the North in various matters of industrial and economic importance to the people of both areas. That is true. But if we are to get nearer to the minds of the people of the North irrespective of whether they are national in outlook or not we must come close to them. I say that even though physically and geographically we are quite close to these people yet in matters of social and cultural importance we are gradually drifting further away from them. To prevent this gap from widening I think we must have closer associations with all the people of the North irrespective of whether we like or dislike elements among them, irrespective of whether we agree with their particular outlook or not. We must listen to their criticism of us and we must be prepared to meet them halfway. We must listen to their fears: we must know what they think they have in common with us. I, personally, am not in a position to talk about matters that suit the people of Antrim, Derry or Fermanagh. A Deputy from Cork is not the best man to speak of the problems that exist in the six occupied counties.
The people who are best fitted to speak for the people of these areas are their public representatives. No Deputy will suggest that a Deputy from County Cork would be a better authority to speak on matters of importance to County Roscommon than a Deputy from County Roscommon. That is the point I am trying to bring home.
So far as getting the mind, the outlook, the fears and the criticisms of the people of the occupied counties is concerned, the real people in a position to give us these views are the elected representatives of the people of these areas. In order to narrow that gap that I believe exists, we must have closer association with the people of the North, and there is no better way of having that closer association than by reopening Dáil Éireann to the duly elected representatives of these six occupied counties. I emphasise here the word "reopen" because, in 1919, the First Dáil was open to all the elected representatives of the Irish nation. I was not born at that time, and the majority of the people to-day who are of the active age group were not born at that time, but I am prepared to accept and to listen with respect to the views of men like Deputy de Valera, Deputy MacEoin, and others who will go down in history as having played a great part in that period.
Some time ago, when a similar motion was discussed in this House— actually in July, 1951—I recollect Deputy MacEoin, as he was then, the present Minister for Defence, speaking on this issue. He referred to the First Dáil and he stated at column 2250, Volume 126 of the Dáil Debates:
"I throw my mind back to the First Dáil. The Clerk of the House at that time called the roll at every Dáil meeting. He called Sir Edward Carson and Michael Collins. He called Sir James Craig and Alfie Byrne. He called John Redmond and everyone else. The fact that we were all called to an Irish Parliament left no doubt as to what the then Dáil was seeking to govern."
That was the position in 1919. To-day in 1954 this House is seeking to govern all the territory of Ireland, but we have gone back on the position that existed in 1919. The acceptance of this motion will bring us back to that position, and although it is looking back in that regard, it is a step forward at the same time and a practical step. That this House and the country as a whole would benefit by an infusion of Northern common sense and practical ability cannot be contradicted. Their views on social, cultural and economic matters would be of tremendous importance to us and shake us out of the feeling of security that we have at the present moment. Other speakers can deal with that aspect.
I know there are Deputies and people outside who doubt the political honesty of some of the Northern representatives—we might as well be very blunt about it. It is very difficult to deal with this matter in the Dáil, but I think it must be said that for some time past the efforts that have been made in the North, in Britain and in America, by groups who are anxious to end Partition, have been misguided, and to a great extent have backfired. We have well-intentioned groups who pester and buttonhole leading political figures in Britain and America every time they can, and, to my mind, it is a lack of dignity and a lowering of our claim. If these well-intentioned actions are pursued, the strength of our real claim diminishes, because if we keep begging these people to interfere in our affairs, they will get used to that and turn a deaf ear.
Then, with regard to groups inside the country we have—and it is a matter of great regret—politicians who seem to glory in widening the gap between our people on religious issues. I think here again we must have the air cleared. My personal view is that there is in the occupied areas as much bigotry on one side as on the other in the case of certain elements, but that the majority of the people are clear of that. It is tragic to see certain extreme elements trying to create bitterness on religious differences between our people of the North. Let me repeat: No matter how much some of us may admire the good intentions of these groups who in America and elsewhere strive to interest political Parties in our claim to a united Ireland, we must realise that there is little hope of getting the political Parties in Britain interested in solving this problem.
We know what happened when the Labour Government was in power there. We know only too well the views of the Conservative Government on this problem. When we look to our friends in America I am afraid very much that in spite of the fact that there are quite a large number of Irish-Americans in public life, they do not carry weight when it comes to getting the ear of the powers that be towards helping us to solve this problem. Let there be no mistake about it. The ending of Partition is a matter solely for the people of Ireland on both sides of this unnatural Border. Towards the older men in this House—the older generations—the younger people feel nothing but respect for what they achieved, but those older men who achieved so much in the past must remember that time marches on, that a new generation has grown up, and that they need a lead. They are not going to accept the viewpoint of those men who were full of energy and fire up to 1922 and who as a result of the tremendous burst of energy and enthusiasm that they put into their effort to free this country attained a certain measure of independence. But that fire died in their breasts when they had achieved so much. As time went on the inevitable happened. The older they became the more cautious they became. There is nothing to sneer about in that. That is inevitable. We find that with most men the period in which they are prepared to act—and often act without thinking very seriously—is between the ages of 18 and 27. Many of the men who are veterans to-day if they throw their minds back to the period in which they were really active must feel disturbed in their consciences at the position that obtains to-day.
We hear from prominent men here in this House and outside it a great deal about the danger that the generous young people of Ireland may be misled. The youth of to-day are being frustrated year after year. Every new idea that they have of helping to solve this problem is pooh-poohed by the older and wiser men. I say to those older men of this House, if the youth of to-day are not to be misled then they must be guided on the right lines. It would appear from the statements of leaders of all Parties that the use of force is ruled out as a means of reuniting our country. What alternatives have the political Parties to-day to offer? Are we going to listen here in this House in ten, 20, 50 years' time to futile discussions about the solution of Partition? Are we going to adopt the attitude of begging and coaxing the people of this area for the next 50 years?
I said in the beginning the political leaders have stated that they see no hope of ending Partition in the foreseeable future. But we have no lead from them. They can offer us nothing other than this resigned view: "Nothing can be done, wait for a miracle, hope for the best." Whether we in this House like or dislike it, that approach will not be accepted by the younger people to-day. We have paid and still are paying lip service to the ideal of a united Ireland but we are doing nothing practical to achieve it.
The wording of this motion is such that if it is accepted and adopted, even the most bitter of our opponents in the North will be welcome to express their views in this House from this out on the differences that exist between us. The motion is purposely wide in its drafting so that all the elected representatives in the North irrespective of class or creed would be welcome here. I maintain that this motion if accepted would be the first practical step towards restoring the unity of our nation by peaceful means. As I have said we must show these people we are willing to hold out the hand of friendship to them and there is no greater proof of that friendship than to offer to them the right to come here and initially to criticise, to give their views, on matters of importance to the people of Ireland as a whole.
By taking that step we will be taking the lead away from the extreme elements that are playing with fire to-day on both sides of the Border. We will be giving a lead to those people who do not want to see one Irishman shed another Irishman's blood to achieve the unity of Ireland. I am not going to elaborate on the further practical steps which could be taken if we first allowed the elected representatives of the six occupied counties to take their seats here. It should be quite obvious to every Deputy here what that would lead to. It could never be said that we in this portion of Ireland raised a hand in force against those in the occupied area but we would be in a position, first of all, to give hope to these nationalist groups and to these areas in the North where the nationalist majority obtains. If the friendship that is offered is not accepted, then the other steps could follow. They are such that the question of force need never arise. We could win back field by field and town by town those areas in the Six Counties in which the people desire unity with this part of Ireland and without one shot being fired, the final result would be that a certain junta in the North to-day would find it absolutely impossible to govern in the occupied areas. That could be achieved without our taking the very serious step or condoning the serious step of shedding the blood of fellow Irishmen who may disagree with us.
There are a few points that I wish to emphasise. When the Taoiseach was in opposition he spoke on a motion similar to this and he expressed the view—I hope he will understand that I am not trying to misquote him—that he felt it would be quite right to give a right of audience, not in this House but in the Seanad, to the elected representatives of the six occupied counties. I think that is encouraging. I think it is hopeful but, personally, I cannot understand why, if the Taoiseach felt it was right at that time to give audience in the Seanad, he would feel it wrong to permit them to take their seats in this House, without voting. I am sure the Taoiseach in due course will give us his views on that.
He referred in that particular debate three years ago to a unity council. Deputy Costello, as he then was, put forward the alternative suggestion that such a council, composed of the representatives of the people in the six occupied counties, could meet the members of this House, perhaps a subcommittee of the Cabinet, and discuss from time to time matters of mutual importance and the means by which the problem of Partition, if possible, could be resolved. That idea of a unity council may appeal to certain Deputies here but, with all due respect to the Taoiseach, I do not think that idea would work.
We have had the experience of the Mansion House Committee. I do not think I need say any more about its position at the moment. Now, we want something with continuity and there is only one way in which we will achieve continuity so that contact can be kept from week to week and year to year; that is, by having the elected representatives of both areas meeting year by year in the council chamber of the nation. No matter what Government is in power or what particular views carry the day, this House provides the forum wherein the views of the nation as a whole can be expressed without fear and, in turn, we could express in such an atmosphere our criticism perhaps of the attitude adopted by these northerners.
If any suggestion is put forward during the course of this debate for the establishment of a unity council, that suggestion will be just so much hedging. It will not solve the problem. It will not even help to solve it. Deputy de Valera when he was Taoiseach in 1951 spoke on this particular matter and he posed the question: "Will it or will it not help towards solving Partition?" and he replied: "I came to the conclusion many years ago that it would not. If conditions change or a new situation arises in which it is clear that this would be a step forward, then I would be all in favour of it." I would like to remind the leader of the Opposition to-day that he spoke again on this matter of Partition at the recent Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis; and in the Irish Press of October 13th he is quoted as saying in reference to Partition, that on the return of Fianna Fáil to office in 1951 “we had to face a situation which had been altered to a considerable extent.”
I think we will all agree with the leader of the Opposition that the situation has altered to a considerable extent in the last two years and I would suggest to the leader of the Opposition that, since he himself is the first to admit that the situation has changed, the time has come when we must meet that changed situation with different methods. We must adopt a different approach. It is very hard for people to make up their minds but, having made up their minds, it is very hard for them to change. I suppose it is even harder still for a man who made up his mind 20 years ago to change it to-day in an issue of such importance and such seriousness to the people as a whole. I can appreciate that but, with all due respect to the older people, I hold that that generation has lost contact with the younger people to-day through the inevitable march of time and, if the younger people are not to be misled, they must be led or guided in the right direction.
Patience may be a virtue but it is not an outstanding virtue in the case of Irish youth to-day in connection with this particular matter. If patience means that they must wait for the next 100 years, I am afraid that is too much to expect of our idealists.
Some people may suggest that it is wrong at the present time to allow the elected representatives of the North to come here, to vote and take part in the discussions while having no actual responsibility to the House. This motion does not ask that they should be given the right to vote. It is merely a question of giving the right of audience to these people. We have now a member of the Seanad, a representative from the occupied portion of our country. He has been elected—elected, mark you—to the Seanad by the political Parties in the Twenty-Six Counties. He has been elected by the members of the various county councils throughout the Twenty-Six Counties. Fianna Fáil members, Fine Gael members, Clann na Poblachta members, Clann na Talmhan members and Labour members of the county councils have by their votes elected Senator Liam Kelly to our Seanad.
Why is it right for the public representatives of the Twenty-Six Counties to select a man from the occupied area and give him power to vote in our Seanad and why is it wrong for the people of the occupied area itself to select their own men and send them here? If it is right to have Senator Liam Kelly in our Seanad, there is nothing wrong with having every other public representative in that occupied portion of our country here in this House and in the Seanad as well. If that argument is followed to its logical conclusion—let me emphasise the fact that this Senator was elected; we selected and elected that man by our votes—why should we deprive the people who cast votes in the Northern area from sending their representatives here? We are taking a lot upon ourselves to pick representatives in the occupied counties that we would like to come down here. The people who should decide that are the people in the occupied portion of our country.
This motion should be accepted unanimously. It will prove to our next-door neighbour, Britain, that the people of this country are really serious about putting an end to this nonsense and getting rid of this unnatural border. I do not believe for a moment that the question of Partition ever took up more than ten minutes of a Cabinet meeting of the British Government in the last 20 years. They are able to shelve all this question immediately by saying: "Ah, those southern politicians do not mean a bit of it; they are only playacting." It must be brought home to these political leaders throughout Britain that we are anxious to ensure that those people of the Northern areas who are willing to co-operate with us at the moment are facilitated.
This matter is of grave importance to every individual Deputy, and I would appeal at this stage to the political Parties to take off the Whips when this motion is being discussed and when a decision is being made on it. Let the conscience of each individual Deputy decide in 1954 whether our colleagues in the six occupied counties will be invited back to their original place in Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. Let that decision be left to the conscience of each Deputy.
In conclusion, I believe that if that action is taken and if that freedom is given to each individual Deputy there is no doubt whatever what the result will be as far as this motion is concerned.
I wish to second the motion proposed by Deputy McQuillan.
I should like, before I enter upon a detailed discussion of the subject-matter of this motion, to express, if Deputy McQuillan will permit me to do so, my own personal appreciation of the manner in which he has approached the task which devolved upon him in moving this motion and of his attitude towards it and his moderation of language and argument in reference to it.
I should like, if it were possible, to accept the suggestion that was made, at the very opening of Deputy McQuillan's remarks, that this motion should be discussed and that people should make up their minds here in the Dáil on the merits of the motion irrespective of what has happened in recent months. I regret that the circumstances of recent times make it impossible to discuss this motion without some reference—I hope moderate and reasoned—to the happenings of recent months.
I give Deputy McQuillan credit—I hope he will accept that I am sincere in saying so—and believe that he is utterly convinced of the validity of the arguments that he has advanced in support of this motion and that he is satisfied that the scheme embodied in this motion would produce some effective results for the solution of Partition.
As I have stated on every occasion when this matter was discussed, from the time when it was first adumbrated as a matter of policy that ought to be put into operation, when it was first discussed, that the representatives of the North, whether they were Orangemen or whether they were Nationalists or anything else, should be given a right to take their seats down here in Dáil Éireann or in either House of Oireachtas Éireann, I approach the consideration of that matter by applying to it one test and one test only: Would the suggestion in any way, in any effective way, help or contribute to the solution of our national problem of Partition? If I were satisfied that this proposal of Deputy McQuillan or the proposals which were made in analogous terms previously did in any way contribute, however remotely, to the solution of our national problem, then it would receive my enthusiastic support.
I think Deputy McQuillan misunderstood or perhaps has forgotten what I said here when I spoke on the 19th July, 1951, as to my approach to the suggestions either of representation here in Dáil Éireann or in Seanad Éireann for the representatives of the six North-Eastern counties or of the right of audience in the Dáil or Seanad. I did not say that I was in favour of a right of audience in the Seanad. What I did say was that when these proposals were first put up to me I approached them in a sympathetic frame of mind, endeavouring to see whether or not they would in any way contribute, even remotely, to the solution of our national problem. Might I say here now, as I think I also said on the 19th July, 1951, that I did not approach this proposal with any bias against it? I say here to-day that I did not approach it in any legalistic frame of mind.
As I said on the 19th July, 1951, there were constitutional and legal difficulties against the proposals. But, constitutions can be changed and legislation can be passed and, if it could be demonstrated that the proposals of Deputy McQuillan or of Deputy Seán MacBride as now embodied in their respective motions or previous motions or previous propositions, were in any way effectively to contribute to the solution of this very difficult problem of Partition, then neither constitutional provisions nor the difficulty of amending the Constitution or of passing legislation would, so far as I was concerned, stand in the way of the proposals. I approached it solely on the ground of whether or not I was convinced by the arguments and the suggestions as to what might or might not be achieved from the proposals embodied in these various motions as to whether any good could come from these proposals in connection with the solution of our national problem.
I was, as I said at the start, sympathetic at first towards allowing the right of audience in the Seanad, in order to test the matter and see how it would work. I was not convinced that it was going to give any contribution, any great contribution, to the solution of the problem, but I thought that it might give comfort to our own people in the North, that it might allay or even dissipate the feeling that exists up there that they are being neglected by us down here in the South; but after the fullest consideration—I think I can say the most calm and objective consideration of the whole problem—I was not convinced that the suggestion made would in any way effectively contribute to a solution of our national problem. I regret to say that so far from being convinced that it would contribute to a solution of our national problem, I arrived at the clear and definite conclusion that it might cause dissension down here and would, if anything, hamper, hinder and embarrass us in our efforts to end the unnatural boundary that exists in our country.
I have given Deputy McQuillan, and I give my former colleague, Deputy MacBride, every credit for their sincerity in these matters, and, in order to underline and emphasise that, I shall have to repeat what I have already said, that I approached it sympathetically without any legalistic or logical predetermination of the matter before I came to that conclusion. Nothing that has happened since in recent years and nothing that has happened in recent months has in any way affected, I regret to say, the decision that I arrived at on my own personal responsibility and on my own judgment.
I recognised, and I recognise here to-day, as I have always done, that this is a difficult problem. It is a grave problem, as Deputy McQuillan has said, on which each Deputy must make up his own mind according to his own conscience. I recognise that there is room for differences of opinion, and for that reason the Deputy will remember that when I was Taoiseach here before I announced, in answer to a question addressed to me here by Deputy Con Lehane, on the 1st March, 1951, that:—
"The subject-matter of these motions should be approached solely with a view to determining whether or not the matters mentioned in these motions do or do not assist an early solution of Partition,"
and I then suggested a free vote of the House. I have said that I am convinced that this motion, so far from doing good, would do damage and for that reason I am against this motion.
I propose at a later stage of the remarks which I have to make here to-day on this motion to give some of the reasons which have impelled me to the firm conviction that I have personally given: that these proposals would do damage down here and would hinder, hamper and impede a solution of Partition. There are certain remarks that I must make before I give these reasons in answer to the arguments put forward by Deputy McQuillan. Deputy McQuillan has stated that every Party in this House is unanimous in its desire for the ending of Partition. I gather that the purport of his remarks is that precious little is being done about it.
I want to ask him is it suggested, because I have heard no argument from Deputy McQuillan that would convince me, that to permit the right of audience to representatives in the North down here in the Dáil or Seanad is going to assist in ending Partition? Neither what Deputy McQuillan has said to-day, nor what any other advocate of these proposals has said on any occasion on which I have been present, has given me any convincing proof that this proposal or these proposals are going in any way to help to solve Partition, nor have they dispelled from my mind the fear, which I hold very genuinely, that they are going to cause dissension in our own people here and dissension in the North, and God knows there is enough disunity in the North at the present moment. Test the question by that objective test, and see how is it going to help to end Partition. Putting that test, how can we do what Deputy McQuillan said to-day—make up our minds on this motion irrespective of the events of recent months? You cannot overlook them. If Deputy McQuillan were able to tell me, or tell this House, or were able to convince the House that the adoption of these proposals or something like them, or even an amendment of the Constitution to give the right of audience here would prevent those people who are advocating the use of force at the present moment from going on with their campaign, then that would be something. But is it not well known that those using and talking of the use of force have declared that Oireachtas Éireann and the Government of this country have no right to carry on the Government of this country and that they are going to take no notice of them? How can we ignore that, in considering this motion, and how can Deputy McQuillan tell us that merely to allow representatives in the North to come down here and have the right of audience in the Dáil or Seanad is going to stop those people from the actions which they have put their hands to in the last few months?
I am sorry that Deputy McQuillan holds the view, which he is entitled to hold as his personal view, that, notwithstanding the lapse of 30 years, we are now where we were 30 years ago in the matter of Partition. Deputy McQuillan will permit me to say that I am equally sincere in holding strongly the personal view that we have advanced very much along the line towards the ending of Partition. When I say that, I am not exaggerating or overstating, or underestimating what is to be done yet, as regards the advance that will have to be made in the solution of Partition.
Everyone in this country is united on that. I take exception to what Deputy McQuillan said that we have become more insular in our outlook down here in this part of the country and are inclined to forget the North. I think that is unfair to all our people. I think that there exists down here at the moment stronger feelings than ever before in favour of the ending of Partition: that there exists in every part of this part of the country and in every section of the community, whatever their political Party affiliations may be, a passionate desire and a firm desire to end Partition at the earliest possible moment. I say this, too, that that feeling that Partition ought to be ended is not confined merely to those of us down here who belong to the majority section of the people. There exists even in the minds of the minority, the representatives and descendants of the former ascendancy Party, the same belief now that it would be good for the country, good for Ireland, good for the North of Ireland as well as for the rest of Ireland and good for the peace of the world, that we should have an ending of Partition.
I think Deputy McQuillan is taking a pessimistic view of the matter. I think we are somewhat nearer than ever we were before to the ending of Partition. I do not intend to engage in long-range controversies with Lord Brookeborough or to swap prophecies with him. There are some matters in a recent speech, however, that I must refer to in the course of the remarks that I have to make. When I have made those remarks, I hope to return to Deputy McQuillan's motion and deal with the points he made and to advance arguments against the suggestion he has put forward.
In a recent speech Lord Brookeborough stated that "nothing will accomplish the unity of Ireland". If that is his real belief, there was never a political prophet more deceived. The unity of Ireland will be restored because, by history and tradition, by the facts of race and geography and economics, Ireland is, in fact, one nation and because of the ardent desire and unshakable determination of the vast majority of the Irish people that that fundamental unity shall be expressed in her political institutions. We do not demand, as Lord Brookeborough suggests, that the Six-County area should "subjugate itself to the South" but that all Ireland, North and South, shall be united in a free democratic State where the rights and ideals of all sections, whether they be in a majority or in a minority in the nation as a whole or in local areas, will be equally respected. Lord Brookeborough may be assured that the day of that reunion will come.
I may be asked by what means the restoration of unity will be secured. I do not profess to have a ready solution, one that can be clearly seen and that will work out to an inevitable, foreseeable end. Great political problems do not lend themselves to such solutions. They are not like exercises in elementary mathematics—there is no "key", and there are no answers "at the back of the book". We can only use the means that suggest themselves in the changing circumstances of the times, that promise progress towards the ultimate aim, avoiding at the same time any action that would impede that progress, that would make a bad situation worse or that would postpone rather than advance the day when Ireland will again be one nation in her political institutions as she is in spirit and in fact.
The Partition of Ireland is an evil thing. It was evil in its original conception and it has worked evil throughout all the years of its existence. In misguided efforts to perpetuate it, injustice is done every day to the members of that very large minority in the Six Counties, part of the majority of the nation as a whole, who long for the day of national reunion.
No denials can controvert the clear evidence, which is renewed week by week, that those who wish to maintain Partition seek by discriminatory pressure to weaken the large Nationalist minority in the Six Counties and to prevent them from exercising their due and proportionate influence in the affairs of that area. We cannot remain unmoved when we receive evidence again and again of flagrant breaches of elementary justice in such matters as housing, employment and public services. We cannot suppress our indignation at the mockery of democratic institutions which expresses itself in the distortion of electoral areas to secure that a local majority of the electors will have a minority among the public representatives. We cannot ignore the denial of the right of peaceful assembly and peaceful demonstration and the bludgeoning of those who seek to exercise that right, as in the recent deplorable incident at Pomeroy. It is our duty and our right to expose these abuses and to arouse public opinion against them here in Ireland and in Britain and in other countries abroad. It is our aim to do this, as the Minister for External Affairs said in a recent speech, by "a publicity that is truthful, calm, clear and persistent." It is no pleasure to us that, in making widely known the discrimination that is exercised against the Nationalists of the Six Counties, we are revealing practices that are to the discredit of fellow Irishmen, those who control the administration of that area.
To end these evils and to end their source and origin, which is Partition, the Government will avail themselves of every means and every opportunity to convince those of our fellow-countrymen in the Six Counties who are opposed to national reunion, the people and Government of Britain and friendly peoples and Governments throughout the world that Partition is a running sore which must be healed and that its healing will be no insignificant contribution to the peace of the world.
The achievement of a united Ireland is a cardinal aim of national policy. There are some who are impatient with what they consider to be slow and ineffective methods and who feel that Partition can be ended only by violent means. In their regard, let me state a few clear principles. We have, in this part of the country, a sovereign independent State, based on the widest possible franchise, proportional representation and adult suffrage, in which the people have the unfettered right to decide, through their representatives, any issue of national policy, including what must be the most important issue of all—the question of peace or war. In this State, exercising full jurisdiction over 26 of Ireland's 32 counties, there are established democratic institutions with defined powers and functions, supported by the assent of the whole people. It is the constitutional right of the people to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy according to the requirements of the common good. It is for the elected representatives of the people, sitting in this House, to decide the issue of peace or war. If ever war were decided upon as a method of policy, it would be for the Government, exercising the executive power, to direct its prosecution by the legitimate forces of the State. No military or armed force other than the forces raised and maintained by the Oireachtas is permitted by the Constitution to be raised or maintained for any purpose whatsoever.
These principles are contained in the free Constitution to which every citizen owes allegiance. It follows that any group or body of opinion here that believed in force as a method of securing national reunion must first convince a majority of the electors and a majority of the members of this House that that is a right and proper method, before it can legitimately be employed. For any group to ignore the authority of the Oireachtas and the Government, to assume to themselves the power of war and peace, and life and death, would be an intolerable usurpation. We are no longer, as we were in other times, in the position of having no Government or Parliament of our own to speak or act for us, and, therefore, the exercise of force is unchristian and immoral unless employed by those vested with lawful authority.
These principles are the solid ground upon which we must conduct our affairs as a self-governing and selfrespecting State if we are not to surrender to anarchy. And no admiration for courage and self-sacrifice can be allowed to blur or weaken those fundamental principles.
Those among our people who, nevertheless, believe in the use of force are at liberty to advocate their view. There is perfect freedom within the State to advocate a war policy, provided that such a policy is propagated in a constitutional way—without arms or the threat of arms. No group has the right to take the law into its own hands, to form armed forces and to wage war. Those who do so act in disregard of the authority of this House, elected by the people, and of the Government chosen by this House to exercise the executive power. They endanger not merely themselves and the young men who may act under their influence, but the country and the cause which they professedly desire to serve. They take upon themselves a responsibility which they are neither fitted nor entitled to bear. That responsibility is all the more terrible when it is assumed by older and more experienced men who would encourage young men to risk their lives in acts that place the whole nation in peril. I am deeply convinced that no good can come of a campaign of violence directed against our fellow countrymen in the Six Counties—a campaign in which the first to suffer would be the Nationalist minority who are already carrying a load that is almost more than they can bear.
We in this Government—and I am speaking as the Head of this Government and on behalf of it—do not believe in force as a solution of the problem of Partition, and no Party in this House believes in that method. I am convinced that if, by force— force legitimately employed—the Six Counties could be restored to territorial unity with the rest of Ireland, Partition would still remain unsolved. It would, indeed, have become an even graver and more intractable problem than before. The bitterness and division of heart and spirit between Irishmen that would result from that civil war would remain to poison our national life for many generations. The nation would be weaker, not stronger, less and not more united. The hope of restoring real national unity would be frustrated, and the power to resist attack from outside on our independence would be irreparably damaged.
I have spoken of this matter long before now. Speaking on the 14th February, 1950, when I was Taoiseach and Head of the inter-Party Government, I said:—
"I have stated unequivocally and categorically in the Dáil that physical force is in my opinion no solution of Partition. I do not believe that physical force could effectively provide any final solution and certainly not the kind of solution the Government desire. Veiled hints or vague appeals to physical force from persons who have no responsibility for Government are not merely harmful to the policy the Government is pursuing, but they also have the effect of making the problem more difficult than it is."
I ended that speech in the following words, which are as true to-day as when they were first spoken, over four years ago:—
"Our desire is that the solution of Partition when it is reached will be such as will enable our people, north and south, to live on a basis of friendship and understanding with each other. Our aim is the ideal of a united Ireland in which hatred, suspicion or bigotry will have no part, an Ireland in which full and complete liberty of conscience and political liberty will prevail, a truly democratic, peaceful and free Ireland".
It is a matter of historical fact that the Partition Act was imposed upon this country by the British Parliament against the wishes of the whole people and without the vote of a single Irish parliamentary representative. That this was a flagrant denial of the right of self-determination is beyond dispute, and the efforts that have been made by successive British statesmen to salve their consciences by the pretence that Partition is a purely Irish quarrel which ought to be settled by the Irish amongst themselves have deceived no one but the wilfully blind. On this issue, history has already given its verdict, on the evidence, for Ireland and against England.
We have, however, got to face the fact that what makes this problem so intractable is that religious bigotry has been deliberately developed as a factor in the political situation, with the result that there exists in the minds of many of the 800,000 Protestants in the Six Counties an almost pathological fear of the reunification of the country, and it is the first task of statesmanship to overcome these fears, irrational though they may appear to us to be. If it lay in our power to achieve the unity of our country by force of arms and by beating into sullen submission the recalcitrant minority in the north-east, it would, in my judgment, still be the course of wisdom to pursue a policy of peace and reconciliation. Let us have a united nation, but let it be a union of free men and not a united nation in which a fifth of the population have been cowed by force or fear and feel themselves enslaved. And we must accept the fact that, where there has been a bitter dispute, reconciliation is a slow process and takes time. But I believe with Edmund Burke that plain good intention is of no mean force in the government of mankind and that those of our fellow-countrymen who are most bitterly opposed to the reunification of our country may yet be brought to see that the perpetuation of Partition is not merely unjust but that it is not really in their interests.
In considering the use of methods of violence as a means of solving our own national problems, it is proper that we, as a Christian nation, should take serious thought and warning from the condition to which the world has been reduced as a consequence of the use of force and the threat of force. In a world where nations and peoples are stricken with the frightful consequences of recent wars and where all nations and peoples are appalled by terrifying visions of widespread destruction and human misery that may be brought about by acts of violence and the use of instruments of almost unimaginable potency, there is the ever-growing conviction that it is only by a return and resort to Christian principles that mankind may be saved from a dreadful holocaust.
Small as this nation is, it has a strength beyond its mere physical size derived from its vast spiritual empire. It is from that strength that we, as a Christian nation, could make our contribution to world peace. The ways of violence and hate are contrary to that spirit of Christianity to which all sections of our people constantly express devotion. If we employ or tolerate methods of violence in the solution of our problems, while we condemn as pagan other nations that resort to them, we will be guilty of a nauseous and pharisaical hypocrisy which will surely turn to judgment against us.
All Parties in this House, however they may differ as to means or policies, are dedicated to the urgent tasks of developing our resources and of building our State on stable financial and economic foundations. In recent years, successive Irish Governments and our people have endeavoured to take advantage of the uneasy peace in the world to work at the peaceful pursuits of industry and agriculture and the restoration of our national culture. It would surely be no in considerable contribution to the solution of our national problem of Partition if we could bring this part of our country to such a state of peace and prosperity that the evils of want, unemployment and emigration were eased to such an extent as even to be an example to others. It would be nothing less than a crime against our people if our energies should be dissipated and our efforts wasted, or even halted, because of disturbance and uneasiness occasioned by fear or the consequences of violent actions.
While I have felt bound to point out the futility and the undesirability of the use of force, I believe that it is also necessary to emphasise that, though the use of force will not assist in solving the national problem, the very fact that that method is being advocated illustrates the evils created by the system of Partition and underlines the discontent and injustices it creates.
All sections of our people in this part of our country deeply sympathise with the Nationalists of the severed part of our country in the injustices inflicted on them and appreciate their ardent desire for reunion and their feelings that more should be done than appears to have been done. I can assure them that everything that can morally and legitimately be done will be done and promise them collaboration and all other support we can muster to assist them to alleviate their trials.
I have, on previous occasions, endeavoured to bring into being a system of consultation with representatives of all Nationalist opinion in the North and the Irish Government, and we are prepared to make every endeavour to utilise all the ways and means of securing the closest and most effective methods by which a common policy and unified effort may be devised and operated. I cannot promise an easy or spectacular solution of the problem, but I can affirm that the interests of the Nationalists of the North, the interests of the Irish people and of the Irish nation as a whole, the hope of ending Partition and securing real unity all demand the abandonment of the weapons of violence.
As I said at the outset, I am speaking as Head of this present Government and on behalf of the Government in the remarks I have just made. I would like now to refer to some of the comments and arguments put forward by Deputy McQuillan. Deputy McQuillan stated that the youth of to-day are being frustrated and want a lead. There are some people who are prepared to die for Ireland; I want to appeal to the youth of Ireland to live and work for Ireland. That is the best contribution they can give to the solution of Partition.
We have here in this House a forum by which the youth of Ireland can exercise their energies and help to end Partition. I am glad to say that we in the Fine Gael Party, at all events, and in the other Parties who now form the Government, made it absolutely clear to the young people that the ways of living for Ireland and working for Ireland were through the democratic institutions of this country.
Deputy McQuillan stated in one portion of his speech that the ending of Partition is a matter solely for the people of both sides of the Border. I have dealt with that already in the remarks I have made. I think what I have said probably represents what Deputy McQuillan intended to say on that, that we must not use force against the people of the North, the 800,000 Partitionists or whatever you may like to call them. But we do not accept—I have said this already but I want to underline and emphasise it —the argument put forward by the British Government, the bolt-hole into which they may run and escape from their responsibility for having created Partition, that the matter is one solely for Ireland. That is the bolt-hole in which the British have perpetually endeavoured to hide themselves and cloak their responsibility. I do not think Deputy McQuillan meant that, when he said it was a matter for the people of Ireland. What I have said, I think, is clear now, that history has condemned that attitude of England. As I pointed out to-day and on previous occasions, we want a united Ireland but not one based upon pressure and force or upon bringing in with us 800,000 people sullen and recalcitrant and feeling they are suffering injustice. We want to bring about a real unity of North and South in which all sections of our people will have the right to live and the right to work out their own way of life in accordance with their own ideals.
Deputy McQuillan said we must get closer to the North. With that I am in entire agreement. He rather threw cold water upon the scheme we endeavoured to put into operation before, the unity council instead of the suggestion of giving a right of audience to the representatives of the North. Deputy McQuillan said that was just hedging. In fact, it was a real endeavour to get us closer to the North. Deputy McQuillan emphasised the fact that his motion not merely permitted but directed, if it were carried, that all representatives of the North should be allowed to have representation down here, that all—Partitionists and Nationalists—who were elected either to Stormont or to Westminster should be entitled to come down here. He seemed to think that was everything.
If Lord Brookeborough and some of his colleagues expressed the smallest desire to have a right of audience in the Dáil or to take their seats in the Dáil we could immediately take steps to amend the Constitution or to pass any necessary Act in five minutes to let them come down here. Partition would be within sight of being ended if that were so. Is it not deluding these young people to think that, if you let them in, all these Partitionists will come in? There is not the slightest chance of any of them coming in. If Deputy McQuillan could convince me that the adoption of this motion would end the disunity that exists in the six north-eastern counties and bring about unity in the North, then there would be something to be said for it and I would have some sympathy for it. Indeed, I would accept it but we have got to accept the fact that there is disunity even amongst the Nationalists in the North and there is no use blinding our eyes to it.
Can Deputy McQuillan say that the passing of this or any similar motion will in any way help to end that disunity in the North? We have Fianna Uladh, Sinn Féin, the Anti-Partition Association, Abstentionists, Non-Abstentionists, the Irish Labour Party, other Labour Parties and various other groups which are, perhaps, not represented in Stormont or West-minister. I said I was sympathetic to this originally but the arguments that I have since heard in favour of it have not convinced me. This motion, as Deputy McQuillan stated, has been on the Order Paper since last June. I have not received one letter from any single member of the Northern Parliament since last June asking me to support the motion. A small group did visit me to put a proposition to me that we would suffer irreparable damage from the disunity that existed in the North amongst the Nationalists; that there would be in the six north-eastern counties in a very short space of time a general election for the British Parliament in respect of the constituencies that are represented in the British Parliament. It was suggested to me, as a means of achieving unity, that those members who were elected to sit for constituencies in the six north-eastern counties in the Parliament of Westminster should be given a right of audience in the Dáil or Seanad. It was pressed upon me that what would happen, on account of the disunity, with Fianna Uladh putting up one candidate, Sinn Féin putting up another and the Anti-Partitionists putting up another in these constituencies where there is a Nationalist majority, was that Lord Brookeborough's forces would succeed in capturing every constituency and that the Nationalists would not have a single candidate returned to Parliament.
It was suggested that that would be used as an argument by Lord Brookeborough to bolster up Partition and pretend he had a complete and absolute majority in the Six Counties. That was a situation they were anxious to avoid. I was impressed by the argument and I told those people that I would examine it objectively and with an open mind. They put it to me—and I agreed—that it was no part of the duty or right of the members of the Stormont Parliament to come down here; that their business was in the Stormont Parliament, but that it might achieve unity and solve this division that exists in our own country in the North between Abstentionists and Non-Abstentionists if those returned to the Parliament of Westminster should get the right of audience here. I said I would keep an open mind on the matter and that if they could convince me that unity would be brought about, then I was prepared to consider the whole matter.
Can Deputy McQuillan tell me whether this motion will bring unity so that there will be an agreed candidate put forward in Mid-Ulster or wherever the Nationalists have a majority in the North? Could not Lord Brookeborough on account of the division in the Nationalist forces in the North snatch those constituencies and parade himself before the world as having a mandate in Tyrone, Fermanagh, and in other parts where the Nationalists have a majority? If this motion were passed, what chance is there of a representative of Sinn Féin, were he elected for Mid-Ulster, coming to this Parliament and taking his seat, a Parliament which they have repudiated and which they say does not exist. One would think that they would be mollified by being told that they can sit in the Dáil or Seanad or that they can sit as full members of the Dáil obeying the Constitution which they have the audacity and lack of Christianity to repudiate as having no lawful authority.
I am not satisfied that if this motion were passed it would give what Deputy McQuillan said—a lead to the young people. We have given the lead to the young people. We have made it clear that it will not be by stunts or spectacular performances that Partition will be ended. Our young people can get the lead by having the matter put to them plain and straight that we are facing difficulties to surmount which will take the patience and the unified effort of men of all shades of opinion on both sides of the Border. We will not do it by passing motions of this kind. We will not do it by stunts and certainly and inevitably we will not do it by force of arms. Deputy McQuillan said he would like to hear the reasons why this motion should not be accepted. Deputy McQuillan's motion is innocently put down as being confined to giving a right of audience in the Dáil or the Seanad. Does anybody for one single moment think that if that right of audience in the Dáil or Seanad were given the people who would take advantage of it—and they would not be Lord Brookeborough's followers who would take advantage of it—would be satisfied with that? Deputy MacBride in the discussion on the 19th July, 1951, if he will excuse my using the expression, let the cat out of the bag, when he said he was personally convinced that the proper thing to do was to give the full right of representation here in the Dáil. Is not that only getting their foot in the door, and once it is in, they will come down here and see the futility of these proposals? They will come down here making an odd speech in the Seanad or the Dáil for the first two or three days. There will be a little publicity in our Irish papers but there will not be a line in the British or foreign newspapers about it.
They will talk about Partition and then get tired of it, and then peter out and say: "We are getting nowhere: let us get in as Deputies and members of the Dáil and then we will get somewhere", and, having got that, they will say: "We are representing the six occupied counties: we are all here represented now as we were in the Parliament of 1919—let us exercise control over the 32 Counties. Let us have a proper Parliament and we will not be a proper Parliament unless we exercise control over the 32 Counties." The next inevitable step will be an endeavour to exercise control by force. There is no stopping on that line once the first step has been taken.
As I said, if Lord Brookeborough came down, we would lay out the red carpet, or even an orange carpet, but let our other friends come down here and does it not really underline the fact that they only represent a minority in the North? Are they going to stop at making speeches about Partition? They will have the right of audience confined to speaking about Partition but that inevitably leads them to interference in the politics of this part of the country and it inevitably leads to their taking sides with individuals, with one Party or another, and then you have the division and the damage that is going to be done down the years.
Deputy McQuillan referred back to the position that existed in 1919. I could make the obvious remark and say that he was not alive at that time. Unfortunately, I was and many members of this House were, and they remember the conditions. The position in 1919 was that the Dáil at that time not only claimed to exercise full jurisdiction over the 32 Counties but so far as they could do it they did, in fact, exercise that jurisdiction, but they did it by the I.R.A. and the use of force. It is a different proposition to-day. Does Deputy McQuillan say here that we should now go back to the 1919 position? That position is not at all analogous because if we do bring those people down here and have them taking their seats here, that would inevitably lead to this Parliament or people using force to put into operation their policy of exercising jurisdiction over the 32 Counties. Does it not also lead to a diversion of effort and a diffusion of energy? Our Nationalist people in the North are being governed whether we like it or not from Stormont in certain respects and by Britain in other respects. Those elected representatives in Stormont who are sent to Stormont by our people up there have a job to do. They have to look after the interests of their people in regard to health matters, social services, old age pensions, matters of housing and other matters of that kind. If they are down here making speeches about Partition instead of doing that job up there, it will probably inevitably result in the feeling of the people up there that they are not getting service, that their representatives are not doing their job, and either they will despair or else they will give in completely to the position where they resign themselves to submitting to government from the Stormont Parliament.
There are many arguments against this motion that could be stated and there are many considerations that I cannot refer to in this House and which it is not proper for me to mention against it. Deputy McQuillan said it had to be faced that some people thought the Northern Ireland politicians were dishonest. I do not say that: I do not share that view.
What publicity is going to be got from speeches made by Six-County representatives down here? It is suggested they will not take part in the internal affairs of the Twenty-Six Counties. I cannot conceive that but assuming it to be so, what publicity is to be got when after a day or two the Irish newspapers get tired giving them headlines and when a boating disaster comes along or some other sensational event takes place, then the Partition speeches will be off our Irish newspapers. At no stage will they be on the English or foreign papers. If they were in the North and using Stormont as a platform or sounding-board, there is a good chance, or if they were in Britain using the sounding-board of the British Parliament, there would be a chance of getting some publicity in the British papers. We know that there is practically a complete close-down about the facts of Partition in British newspapers and among certain other newspapers. It is almost impossible to get a line in a British newspaper about Partition. The British people are a decent people and would like to know the facts but it is almost impossible to get their Press to give those facts and give them a chance of knowing our point of view. If it is impossible to get Partition mentioned in the British Press at the present moment, what chance have we of getting it from speeches down here?
I have controverted the proposition that Deputy McQuillan put up about the analogy between 1919 and the present time. Can Deputy McQuillan state that what he suggests is going to help with the Partition problem? I do not see where it is going to help. He has not said a single word that indicates that those people who are fighting in the North at the moment and who have told us that we have no right to be here are going to put up their guns. He has not said they were going to stop and that this proposition would bring unity among the disunited political Parties in the North. He has not said any word that would convince me that there is anything like that in it.
But there is another consideration. There is no unanimity in the North among Nationalists there about these proposals. If Deputy McQuillan or Deputy MacBride could come and tell us that all sections of the people in the North want this the position might be different but there is not any unanimity on that. In proof of that, may I refer to the account in the Irish Press which was given on the 13th November, 1952, of a Fermanagh Nationalist convention? The Irish Press, reporting that convention, reports Mr. Frank Traynor as saying:—
"There were some right-thinking Nationalists who believed that admission to the Dáil would be a bad thing and that it would not advance the unity of the country."
Mr. Cahir Healy, M.P., was reported in the same issue as having said on the same occasion:—
"If the Six-County representatives were admitted to the Dáil they would be obliged on occasions to take sides. That would be taking a Party attitude. They wanted the goodwill of all Parties in Dáil Éireann and therefore if they went into the Dáil they would be obliged to remain neutral on some of the questions discussed."
It is remarkable that, according to the newspaper report I am reading from, a resolution which was submitted to that convention, the Fermanagh Nationalist County Convention, that a member of the Dáil—Deputy Seán MacBride, as a matter of fact—should be congratulated on a statement in favour of the admission of the Six-County representatives to the Dáil was defeated by 48 votes to 18. In face of that evidence, can Deputy McQuillan or Deputy MacBride or anybody say that the Nationalists of the North want this and that it is going to bring the slightest alleviation?
Deputy McQuillan referred to the proposal regarding the unity council. Like Touchstone, let me say, it is a poor thing but mine own. I started it, and it was taken up and we tried to do our best with it. We had the assistance of members of the Opposition at the time in the Mansion House Committee. What is wrong with trying to get close contact with our northern brethren? We want to get as close as we can with them, with all sections of opinion in the North. That was the idea at the back of the unity council—in order that we would get as close as possible contact with them. That was the idea of the unity council and it made some progress but never reached fruition.
There is no use in Deputy McQuillan saying that it is just hedging. I want to know what would happen if this motion were passed and our friends came down here and made speeches in the Seanad. Where is that going to bring you? At least, the idea behind the unity council was that all sections of Nationalist opinion in the North would come together—and they did come together—and, having come together, elect a council who would meet a Cabinet Committee, or the whole Cabinet, if they wanted to, at regular intervals and that they should discuss with the Cabinet down here, from whatever Party or Parties the Government was formed, and tell them their problems. There could be discussion between the Government down here and some representatives of all sections of the people who would join in this in the North on how best a policy could be achieved and worked out so that there would be unified effort and co-operation on both sides of the Border. Is that hedging? The very fact that Deputy McQuillan used that phrase—that it was hedging— demonstrates to me, and, I suggest, to Deputies, that he was not able to give one single argument against that unity council.
I was not tied to that unity council, nor were any of my colleagues, or any members of the Opposition who helped us in regard to it. We were not tied to it, but at least it was a constructive approach, and at least it was an effort to get unity in the North, and to put an end to the use of the gun. Can Deputy McQuillan say to me that his proposal will get Sinn Féin down here into this Parliament, whose jurisdiction and whose moral authority they have repudiated through their newspaper, the United Irishman? Can he say that it is going to bring unity between Labour—the different branches of Labour in the North— between Abstentionists and Non-Abstentionists and Fianna Uladh? Can he tell me that it is going to do a single thing that will help to bring about an ending of Partition?
So fas as I am concerned, I want to devise means—and, so far as I can, in conjunction with my colleagues so long as we are the Government, we will try to get means—of close collaboration with the North, whether through the unity council or whatever you like to call it. I am not keen on getting badges or names for things. I want work done, if it can be done, and if anybody can suggest to me anything to take the place of a unity council, I am prepared to listen with an open mind. We want to have close touch with all sections of the Nationalists in the six north-eastern counties so as to devise and operate means and methods by which a systematic approach to the problem of the ending of Partition, its difficulties and the difficulties arising from the problem, may be provided and by which a greater degree of contact and co-operation may be achieved, so as to secure co-ordination of policy and action for the reunification of Ireland.
That is what we want—a systematic approach, a pooling of the resources of both sides of the Border, of all persons of goodwill whatever political branch they belong to in the North— pooling all their ideas, resources and wisdom and coming down here to us to devise means and methods of co-ordinating action and devising a unified policy which will bring results and which, above all, will assure our people in the North that they are not being neglected and left alone and that we have their interests at heart. I think that is a better method than the one suggested by Deputy McQuillan. He thinks not, and other people may think not, but you cannot consider this problem leaving out of account the fact that the authority of Dáil Éireann has, in recent times, been attacked by these people who allege that neither Dáil Éireann nor the Government, nor the people have any right to govern and that they are the only people to decide between peace and war. Is this motion going to help that? I ask Deputy McQuillan to answer that question.
Everybody can make up his own mind on this. When I was Taoiseach previously, I indicated that there was going to be a free vote of the House. When I was in opposition, I indicated at the time that the matter was of such grave importance that everybody had to make up his mind according to his own views and his own conscience. The Fine Gael Party at that time left it to a free vote of members of the Fine Gael Party. I have discussed this with my own colleagues in the Fine Gael Party and they have decided, having regard to the conditions at the present time, and the matters I have mentioned here in my speech, that, whatever they did on previous occasions, they will vote as a Party against this motion. They do so, having gravely and seriously considered the matter and not being obsessed by the fact that on a previous occasion they voted for the motion. The matter is too serious now.
Other people may feel that because they have voted for a motion of this kind before, they cannot change their minds now. That is their responsibility and their lookout. On this matter, I have said that each individual is free to do as he liked. That must be so now, so far as we are concerned. This motion of Deputy McQuillan's by itself—he will excuse my saying so— is of little importance. What is of importance is the statement I have made here on behalf of the Government in connection with the methods to be employed in ending Partition, the policy in relation to Partition and the use of force in connection with the solution of that problem.
The statement by the Taoiseach and the arguments which he has put forward have made my task much easier than I anticipated. I am doubtful about just one matter. He speaks for the Government in regard to the general policy, but I am not quite clear whether the Government and all those Parties that support the Government are going to oppose the motion. He spoke, I think, only for the Fine Gael Party in that regard. I think the matter is much too serious to permit of its being dealt with, except as a result of definite Government policy. Irrespective of how the Parties may vote, I take it that the statement made by the Taoiseach does represent Government policy, and, as representing Government policy, I hope it clears the air generally.
With regard to the motion itself, I have no new arguments to put forward beyond those which I used before. They were almost identical with the arguments which the Taoiseach has put forward now. The mover of the motion has not advanced a single argument to suggest that if the elected representatives of the Six Counties were given a right of audience here that that fact would in the slightest help to solve the Partition problem. We are all of one mind here as to the desirability of ending Partition and no matter what anybody might say, whether from the Six Counties or here, it is my belief that every possible effort that could be made and could promise success would be made here by any Government that would be in office in this part of the country. Of that I am certain. If progress has not been made by any Government it is because the problem is in itself an extremely difficult one. It is a tantalising problem. It is an exasperating problem. But people who want to get solutions to a problem will not permit themselves to behave in an exasperated manner and think that will bring about a solution. It will not.
The facts of the problem are pretty well known. I am sure they are well known to every member of this House, even to the youngest members. From the old days of political controversy in the British House of Commons you had an effort made to prevent the policy of Home Rule from being brought to success. The Irish people in a majority had been converted to that policy at the time. The majority of the British people had been converted to it. A majority in the British Parliament had been converted to it, and notwithstanding the fact that these results had been achieved, the desire of all was frustrated by the revolt of a section of our people, prompted no doubt by people from across the water.
As a result of that attitude and the co-operation of British parties—I think I can say British parties—six of our 32 counties were cut off by the Act of 1920. You have often heard the problem referred to as "the Ulster question". We all know Ulster consists of nine counties, and you would imagine at first sight that if this problem were an Ulster problem the whole nine counties would be separated from the rest on the basis that this was the desire of Ulster.
But instead of that, six counties only were cut off, and six were cut off in order to produce the situation we have to-day. Had there been nine counties cut off there is no doubt that a majority of the people there would desire to remain attached to the rest of their fellow countrymen. Six counties were cut off so as to give a small area where there is a local majority in a relatively small area of the country as a whole around the city of Belfast an opportunity of dominating a much larger area because the population of that particular area was denser than the population in the other part. They have claimed to be cut off on the plea of "government by the consent of the governed". National self-determination was the cry back in the first world war, and, as the Taoiseach has mentioned, on the basis of self-determination there would be no doubt as to what was the desire of the people of this country as a whole.
By an overwhelming majority the people of this island as a whole desired to be a sovereign, independent State. They proved that in 1918. Then the Partition was effected, as I said, on the pretence that it was providing for "government by the consent of the governed". But the fact is that every argument on that basis which would be used to justify the cutting off of the area around Belfast could also be used, even with greater strength, for the cutting off of Derry City, Tyrone, Fermanagh, South Armagh and South Down from the area that is governed from Stormont. The present position is one that has been maintained by the overwhelming power of Britain, assisted by the local dissentient minority in the country as a whole.
That is known to be a fact and because it is known that it is maintained in that particular way you have people in this part of Ireland and elsewhere who think that the only way to meet that force is by force. Well, if that is to be the argument, as the Taoiseach said, then that will have to be advocated by some political group as a Party to get a majority in this part of Ireland. If that is to be the attitude of any section of our people then that section must go and win the support of the majority in this House for it. There is no other way. It is misleading the young people and leading them into roads in which they will endanger not merely themselves but the whole national position if they are allowed to persit in force.
It is for that reason that the Taoiseach, I am sure, went so fully into the situation to-day and I want to say we do not differ as regards that particular fact. We do not differ on this side of the House from him and the Government in the matter. I think it is right that we and everybody in the country who is sensible, who is anxious to see that such independence as we have got will fructify and become the independence of the country as a whole, that everybody who has that feeling will support the Government in the attitude they have taken on this particular matter.
I was speaking of what was the nature of the problem and the possibility of a solution. I believe if there was goodwill and co-operation a solution could be found that would be in reasonable accord with the wishes of the inhabitants. I believe if the majority of the people in the Six Counties are animated with the desire to live in harmony with the rest of the people of this country and to end this centuries old quarrel with Britain, and if they are in earnest about that, they will seek to have contact with the Government here and that they will sit down and try to work out a proper solution with them.
When I was asked by Lloyd George back in 1921 to meet him my first act at that time, with the full approval of the Republican Cabinet of that time, was to ask Sir James Craig, later Lord Craigavon, and representatives of the Unionists in the North as well as representatives of the Unionists here to meet me so that we would work out a solution for ourselves which would accord with our own political and other views, and that we would, as a united people, meet Lloyd George. I was convinced that if we were able to get a solution here it would be very easy to deal after that with the British Government. Unfortunately my invitation was not accepted though I made it in all good faith. I know what the attitude of Irishmen down here would be. I believe I am certain as to what the attitude of the Government would be: it would be the attitude of any Government in this part of Ireland. If one could get the representatives of the North to say they are willing to sit down and consider this problem and try to find a just solution, I believe that a reasonably just solution could be found.
I know one cannot get a perfect solution for the only perfect solution for that whole problem would be one Parliament for the whole of Ireland. Even if there was to be for local purposes a local Parliament—and I do not think any Government down here can go farther than that—in the area in the North in which there is a local majority of a certain kind, Unionist let us say, one would nevertheless be sound to have in that area a large pocket of Nationalists who would be governed not in accordance with their will because their will would be to be united with the rest of their fellow countrymen without any such local Parliament.
I do not know exactly at the moment what proportion of Nationalists there is in Belfast City, and that is probably the centre of greatest density, but I think it would be about one-fourth or perhaps one-fifth. My recollection is that it is very nearly one-fourth. Therefore, if one cut off an area comprising Belfast with its own local Parliament one would probably have in that area quite a big local Nationalist minority which would be governed not strictly in accordance with their own wishes.
At one time or another in my association with political matters I have had an opportunity of knowing the opinions of the various sections with whom I was dealing here. Whether they are with us or against us politically, I know that there is a common desire on the part of everyone down here to go as far as it is possible to go to meet the just wishes of the people who are separated from us. We are prepared to go a certain distance to meet their sentiments, sentiments we do not share. We are prepared to go as far as it is possible to go without going in direct opposition to the people down here and we shall have to find a solution reasonably satisfactory both to the people in the Six Counties and the people down here.
Now the first step towards a peaceful solution is obviously some form of conference. Indeed, I visualise the kind of conference that should take place before wars break out. There were many conferences after the last war; I urged very strongly that some of these conferences should have taken place before war broke out. I ask, and I can perhaps do this more freely while in Opposition than I could do it if I were in Government, that those who bear the responsibility on their shoulders here and in Belfast for the conduct of affairs should meet and consider this whole problem in an effort to discover whether a peaceful solution cannot be found.
There is no use in pretending that the present situation is a satisfactory one or that it is a situation that can last. I am absolutely at one with the Taoiseach in believing that the unity of this country is inevitable. The position is such that it is inevitable and, since it is inevitable, had we not better save all the misery of the intervening years. We must deal with this position in a statesmanlike way and the people who are concerned and who have the responsibility and the authority should come together and try to work out a solution. Every right-thinking person in the country will help in the working out of such a solution.
I could talk at great length on this but, as the Taoiseach's statement was so comprehensive on this motion, I do not think it is necessary for me to do so. I will come back to the motion now. As a proposal I see no merit in it. When the idea was first mooted many years ago, for a moment I played around with the idea; but I foresaw all the consequences that the Taoiseach has just indicated. Any thinking person will see them. What is the point of people coming in here and talking about Partition? We know only too well that Partition exists. It is ridiculous to have meetings about Partition down here because one is only talking to those who feel just as strongly about it as those who address them. The people to whom one should speak are those who can in any way influence opinion in this matter. Some effort has been made in that direction. We went to the United States of America, to Australia, New Zealand and England because we believed that public opinion in these countries could influence and have an effect upon the attitude of the British Government or the dominant personalities of the Six Counties.
An informed favourable public opinion is valuable. One may not see its results all at once, but it is nevertheless valuable. The suggestion now appears to be that if we have representatives from the North here who can talk about Partition they will be effective. They will not. There is not a single argument that can be produced by any one of them in relation to the situation of which we are not already fully aware. We will admit that we do not know all the details, just as we are not as intimate with happenings in, say, County Roscommon as are the Deputies who represent that constituency. We have the means, however, as the Taoiseach has pointed out, by which representatives from the Six Counties can consult with this Government, with members of the Opposition or anybody else. We are always glad to meet these representatives. We are always glad to discuss their problems with them. We were always glad to do so when we were in Government.
The Taoiseach referred to a council. I appealed at one time for a representative group. Such a group was found and there were some meetings held. The fact of the matter is that there is no particularly easy line of conduct which one can follow in connection with this particular issue, a line of conduct which will guarantee a solution of this problem. That fact is made an excuse for people to pretend that a solution can be brought about by force. If they examine that idea with the same care with which they are apparently examining other lines of approach they will see that that leads nowhere.
We here on this side of the House have made up our minds that we could not support the motion and consequently we will vote against it. We have not changed in any way our mind or our views and our arguments are precisely the arguments we gave before.
First of all, I would like to join with the Taoiseach in expressing gratitude to Deputy McQuillan for the way in which he approached this motion. His opening statement on the motion was constructive. Not only was it constructive but he presented a viewpoint which possibly many of us of the older generation in this House are likely to overlook from time to time. It represents the viewpoint of the younger generation in the country and to that extent I think it was a very good contribution to this discussion.
In a way I regret that this motion came up for discussion at a time when other events have obtruded themselves on the general question of Partition. Possibly it might have been easier to discuss a motion of this kind more freely at another time. On the other hand, the mere fact that this motion comes up for discussion at a time when these other events are looming largely in people's minds is maybe of some use because, to a large extent, there is a relationship between the underlying motive behind this motion and these other events.
I do not think there is any necessity, in view of the statements made by the Taoiseach and by the Leader of the Opposition, to review in any detail the causes of Partition or to assess the responsibility for its creation. I think, however, that there is one factor which it is important that we should bear in mind and bear in mind constantly in dealing with Partition. It is, first of all, that Partition was imposed upon this nation by Britain and that Partition only exists to-day by virtue of the political, economic and military support which Britain gives to Partition. Britain used the methods which every imperialist power has used in the course of world history to subdue this nation and to divide it. These methods are well worn and well recognised nowadays: by encouraging, supporting and financing a minority in a portion of our country they were able to create an appearance of disunity. I think that any large power is always able to do that in regard to a smaller neighbour. We have had many instances of it in the course of history. We have had many instances of it in fairly recent times in Europe. Whether it was Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, they used more or less the same methods, lending their support to a domestic minority in another country and using that domestic minority to disrupt the political unity of that nation. Exactly these methods have been used in the case of Ireland.
Hence it is essential that we should bear in mind whenever we discuss Partition that the ultimate responsibility lies with Britain and that ultimately it will be essential to remove Britain's influence from our internal affairs if Partition is to be solved.
I know that British policy has aimed at representing the rôle of Britain over a long period of time in regard to Partition as being the rôle of the onlooker, saying also that it is a matter for the Irish people to settle among themselves. Of course, there is no validity in that argument so long as Britain continues to lend her political, economic and military strength in order to maintain the Partition of our country.
It is well to know in regard to that that up to the present day no British Government has yet given any indication that it would be prepared to agree to the unity of this country even if the Belfast authorities were willing to agree to the unity of the country. That has been put up to them on a number of occasions but they have always most studiously and carefully avoided giving any indication that they would be prepared to withdraw from Ireland completely even if they were asked to do so by the Government and by the Administration in Stormont.
However, probably one of the most serious effects of Partition as far as we are concerned is the damage that Partition has done to our normal political development, is the damage which it has done to the ordinary concept of democratic government. Democratic government and the democratic system of government is the accepted form of government in the civilised world. We here in Ireland have always been attached to and have to a certain extent pioneered the principles of democracy, not only in Ireland but the world over. The enforced division of our country in defiance of the will of the Irish people is a grave violation of the most fundamental principle of democratic government and that principle, of course, is the right of the people of a nation to determine their own affairs freely by democratic means without outside interference. That right has been denied to the Irish people. By denying us that right, Britain, in addition to the direct injury which Partition causes to Ireland, has prevented the normal workings of democratic government and that is where we find one of the first reasons which make this motion so necessary.
As far as the people of the Six Counties are concerned, as far as the Nationalist population of the Six Counties are concerned, they have been denied and are continually denied their elementary democratic rights. As far as this nation as a whole is concerned it has been precluded from pursuing its normal democratic development.
One of the reasons I would advance for the adoption of this proposal is that it would enable us to restore in so far as we can and extend in so far as we can the democratic system of government to the whole of Ireland.
Listening both to the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition, it is quite clear that neither the Government nor the Opposition have any policy in regard to the ending of Partition. They quite candidly state that they see no solution, to use a rather hackneyed phrase, in the foreseeable future.
I did not use it.
I know the Taoiseach did not. Even if they see no solution of Partition in the foreseeable future, surely they should agree that we should, in so far as we can, enable the Nationalist population of the Six Counties to secure some form of democratic expression which is at present denied to them.
I am sorry that such a large proportion of the time of this debate was taken to deal with events which are not directly related to this motion, to deal with events which have occurred recently in the Six Counties. I think I should make it clear that, in my view, isolated acts of violence in the Six Counties are not likely to further the ultimate unity of the country; but I think that, to a large extent, we ourselves are to blame in this House if the youth of the country, if young men actuated by patriotic motives, take it upon themselves to act. They may not be as satisfied as we are to wait for the passage of time and to be quiescent, and they, naturally, criticise us, criticise this House and criticise the Government for their lack of activity.
It is that lack of leadership on our part, that lack of action on our part in the course of the last 30 years which, I think, is largely responsible for the action of young men. This is nothing new. We have had this on many occasions. We have had, unfortunately, on occasions positions developing here where as a result of the interference by Britain in our affairs the Government found themselves forced into a position practically of conflict with a section of our own people, a section of our own people who normally should have been the most active in the political life of the country.
One of the reasons for this motion and one of the reasons for the proposal contained in the motion is to try and ensure that in the future this House will be in a position to give leadership to the country in regard to Partition, a task in which I am afraid the House has so far failed.
Now, as to the actual proposal itself. If we claim that Ireland is a nation and, therefore, as such, is entitled to political unity, and if we claim that this is the national Parliament of the country, on what basis can we refuse to admit the elected representatives of the people of Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry to this House? They have just as much right to be in this House as any of us: that is, if our claim that Ireland is one national entity is well founded. If we claim that we believe in democracy and in democratic principles, on what basis can we deny the right of the people of Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry to elect representatives to this Parliament? It seems to me that, by continuing to exclude them as we have, we are ourselves maintaining Partition. We are ourselves maintaining the status quo and it is the status quo which the Nationalist elements of this country, the Nationalist population of this country, are not prepared to accept.
I think, therefore, it is the duty of this House to give a clear indication that it is no longer prepared to accept the status quo. In addition to that, of course, as both the Taoiseach and Deputy de Valera have pointed out, there is a constant denial of democratic right to the Nationalist population in the Six Counties, constant discrimination and constant denial of political rights, from time to time even active attacks by the forces of the administration there against the ordinary civil liberties of the people. Are we to stand by silent and do nothing about it? Are we not to afford them at least a measure of sympathy and support within the framework of our Constitution? If we are not prepared to do it within the framework of our Constitution in this House, then young men will be activated outside this House into doing it by other means. That is why I think it is relevant to a certain extent and maybe fortunate that this motion comes up for discussion at a time such as this where there is that relationship.
One of my reasons for pressing forward these proposals over a number of years has been that I felt that if we were to avoid a situation developing such as the one that is developing, it was essential that we in this House should give a leadership, that we in this House should take some positive action to show that we did not accept the status quo. I, of course, accept and welcome the assurance which the Taoiseach gave that the Government would use all the means at its disposal to expose the injustices of Partition and remedy those injustices—but we have been doing that over a long period of time. Possibly we are doing it more effectively as time goes on, but I think it is also essential that we should seek to extend democratic principles of government as far as we can within Ireland and that the easiest and simplest step to take in that direction is to admit the elected representatives of the people from the Six Counties into the Oireachtas.
The Taoiseach has asked Deputy McQuillan to give reasons as to what would be achieved by the proposal. Let me enumerate a number of things that in my view would be achieved by it. In the first place, I feel that it would indicate clearly to the people of the nation as a whole that this Parliament does not accept the status quo and assumes the leadership of the people for the purpose of ultimately bringing about the unity of the country. Secondly, it would permit that contact which is so lacking, and which the Taoiseach complained was so lacking, between the elected representatives of the people of the Six Counties and the members of this House and the members of the Government. Indeed, a proportion of the debate here to-night was taken up with discussion of what could be done to bring about closer contact between the leaders of Nationalist opinion in the Six Counties and the Government here. At least, if the Six Counties' representatives were permitted to attend this House or the Seanad then there would be machinery for regular contact day in and day out and that difficulty, if it be a difficulty, would be out of the way. It would also enable this House and the Seanad to have the viewpoint of the Six Counties' representatives in regard to all legislation or matters of policy which might have a bearing on the ultimate reunification of the country. Very often I think we are inclined to lose sight of that in this House.
The Taoiseach mentioned in the course of his speech that there was no agreement within the Anti-Partition League with regard to the admission of Six Counties' M.P.s to the Dáil or to the Seanad and he quoted from some Fermanagh paper, I think, in regard to that. I do not know what the context of that particular quotation was, but I do know this and I here and now challenge contradiction in regard to it, that the elected members of the Anti-Partition League—which, after all, however one may disagree with them on one line or another, does represent a sizable proportion of the Nationalist population—were unanimously in favour of being admitted to the Dáil or to the Seanad. If there is any doubt about that, I think I can easily satisfy the Taoiseach in that regard. Apart from that, I think he would have available to him in his Department records that would go to establish that. The Taoiseach, without saying so specifically, seemed to indicate that he considered that the Six Counties' elected representatives would be better employed attending Stormont or West-minister than in coming here. I do not think that the Taoiseach could have considered that statement carefully before he made it. Is it suggested that we should indicate from this House to the elected representatives of the people in the Six Counties that they should take an oath of allegiance to maintain a constitution that they do not accept? That, indeed, has been one of the causes of disunity in the Nationalist ranks for a number of years and that, indeed, is one of the reasons which make this proposal particularly necessary. If we could reach a position where the issue in the elections in the Six Counties was the sending of representatives to sit in an all-Ireland Parliament in Dublin, as against the choosing of representatives to sit in a Partition and oath-bound Parliament in Belfast, I think it would give a definite focus to the Nationalist population.
I do not know whether the Whips on the Government side are going to be taken off altogether or not. The Taoiseach on a number of occasions stated in the course of his speech that this was a matter which was essentially one to be decided by each Deputy in accordance with his conscience. If that be so, I would assume that each Deputy would be permitted to decide it in accordance with his conscience and not in accordance with a Party Whip.
One matter which the admission of the Six-County M.P.s would remedy is, to a certain extent, the lack of urgency which we attach to this whole question. In my view, the ending of Partition, the unification of the country, is probably the most urgent and important task which this nation faces. The economic development of this nation and its political development depend upon our ability to achieve the unity of the country. The continuance of Partition is a constant source of danger to the economic and political life of the nation. These are factors which render it essential that we should deal with it as a matter of prime urgency. It is not a matter that can be allowed to drag on indefinitely. We are courting and inviting danger and trouble if we do.
In the past 30 years we have taken no positive action towards bringing about the unification of our country. The Leaders of the two biggest Parties in this House—the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Opposition—come here and, after 30 years, say quite frankly that they have no solution. They say also—and I agree with them entirely— that Partition cannot last. But, beyond saying that, beyond indicating their willingness to discuss the ending of Partition with the representatives of the North or representatives from England, they have no concrete proposals to make whereby a step could be taken forward which would ultimately lead to the unification of our country. The proposal which the House has before it is such a step.
I must confess that I have not heard, in the speeches made here to-night or in the speeches made on other occasions in regard to this proposal, one concrete reason against it, one solid reason against it. I listened carefully to the speech of the Taoiseach and the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. They said they did not like the proposal, that they did not think any good would come of it, but they have not given one reason against it. At first, some years ago, I used to be met, all the time, with arguments that it would be unconstitutional, that it could not be done, that there were legal difficulties. Then, the then Attorney-General gave it as his opinion that there was nothing unconstitutional or impossible about it—so those arguments are out of the way. I must say, I failed to detect any solid reason against this motion in the speeches made here to-day. Possibly words of criticism were uttered against some of the elected representatives of the Six Counties. Words of criticism might be uttered against many of the members of this House: it does not disentitle them to sit in this House. As I said before, if we claim that Ireland is one political entity, if we claim that Ireland is one nation, if we claim that we believe in democracy, we have no right to keep out of this House the elected representatives of the people of the Six Counties. Not only should we not try to keep them out, but we should welcome them here with open arms and make it easy for them to come in. I hope that the members of all Parties in this House will approach this matter independently and will vote in accordance with their conscience. If they do, I am satisfied they will vote for this motion.
Seeing this motion on the Order Paper, it would normally appear to the ordinary Deputy that it would be something on which he could get advice and directions easily from the various sides of the House, both from the Taoiseach and from the Leader of the Opposition. To start off with, the natural approach of many of us would be to give credit to many of the members of this House who did so much in the past in regard to the Twenty-Six Counties. It is only natural that we should expect from them a lead which we should and would, without any hesitation, follow as regards the approach to this problem of the six north-eastern counties.
Listening to the debate here this afternoon, while the views expressed were sensible and responsible, yet there seems to me, at any rate, to have been something sadly lacking. Deputy MacBride mentioned a free vote of the House and the position of each individual Deputy. It is well to say at this stage—as the Leader of the Opposition has already mentioned their approach and their decision on it—that the members of the Labour Party are accepting, each and every one of them, the responsibility to vote for or against this motion according to their own conscience. Perhaps some of the Deputies do not now realise the very grave importance of this motion but, in the years to come, they will look back on it. It may then be said that if members had had a free choice on this particular night to decide by their own votes on this particular motion things might have turned out differently.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that if a particular section of the Twenty-Six Counties wished to interfere in the six north-eastern counties by way of the use of arms it would be necessary, first, to get control by election to this House. Normally, if we are to deal with the old problem of the constitutional issues, and so forth, that would be correct but surely the younger members of this House are entitled to make this very pertinent remark. If the men of 1916 and 1920, before taking up arms in their fight for freedom, had to secure entry into a Parliament be it of this country or of the one that represented this country at that time—if, first of all, they had to adopt constitutional means and had to enter Parliament—we should not have the freedom in this part of Ireland that we have to-day.
I am not for a moment advocating force by arms or anything else in these Six Counties but I should just like to say that I felt to-day there was a terrible danger of disillusionment in this House. The men who are adopting a certain course at the present time are doing nothing different from what many men who are members of this House did 30 years ago. If these men now condemn a certain action that takes place at the present time then let them, in their own conscience, condemn their own action of 30 years ago.
I should like to say that neither the Taoiseach nor the Leader of the Opposition touched on one aspect of this problem that I believe is of very grave importance. Both the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Opposition admit openly that it is a problem for which they cannot, at the present time, see the solution. Both of them did say that there is a danger from the actions of a certain section. I am convinced, however, as an ordinary member of this House, that that certain section by their own actions may bring about freedom for this country by making another certain section in the Twenty-Six Counties who, in my opinion, hold the key, take their part in securing freedom for the 32 Counties. We all know that there is a section here who differ from us in one aspect only and that is, perhaps, an aspect of religion. There is a section that may be a minority in numbers in the Twenty-Six Counties, but we know that they are not a minority in power or influence. Why is it that we have to admit that even up to the present time they are not prepared to go out and do their part as Irishmen by securing freedom for the other Six Counties? It is because they are adopting and continuing to adopt that go-slow attitude that we have young men at the present time who are not satisfied to continue in the atmosphere in which we have had to live over the last 30 years.
The history of this country has been so clearly written that none of us can contradict that in every generation we have had young men determined to do their own part in securing freedom for this country. If we have had it in the generation of 30 years ago we must realise that even at this present moment the story is not complete, that we have not come to the end of a happy story in a good book. As long as that story is incomplete I am proud to say that there are Irishmen who are prepared to show that they are going to continue to be Irishmen in trying to fulfil the ideals of Pearse, Connolly and the rest of those men, and the ideals of those men who are living at the present time and who were, during that period, soldiers of fortune, soldiers of the fortune of Ireland's freedom.
I believe that there should have been no need for any of us to speak on this. As Deputy MacBride asked: what is there against it? The Taoiseach stated that there may be some confusion or perhaps not complete agreement between certain Nationalist bodies in the North. Does that in itself give us the right of saying: "Stay our from here?" Why should we object to their coming down here? It is, of course, correct to say that if we as individuals or even as Parties, scrutinised, as it were, the political or the economic background to the policy of each individual who may be elected to the Six Counties we might not agree with it, but I believe that we have no right to examine the credentials of any of these men with a view to supporting them if they are in favour of our own Party policy and keeping them out if they do not agree with us.
It is fantastic for us to say that the Government can, even at this stage, meet representatives and meet organisations and at the same time say that we object to representatives elected by the people taking their places here whether it is in the Seanad or the Dáil. This is undoubtedly a motion of great importance which is before us. Whatever way the vote decides the matter here—and it seems according to the statements made already that the issue is beyond doubt—the issue is not beyond doubt in the country itself. Whatever our actions are going to be here, whatever book our names are going to be marked in in the Lobbies of this Chamber to-night, it is no use for us to believe that our worldly wisdom and that our own political thoughts as expressed here are going to solve a problem that we are making no effort to solve. While we may have tried to put out, as the Leader of the Opposition already stated, a certain amount of propaganda—propaganda in the sense of fair and just comment— to other countries, Australia, Canada, America and elsewhere, has it yet got one square inch of the Six Counties for us in the 30 years past? Have we one square inch of ground more now under the territory of the Irish Tricolour after 30 years? With all the propaganda, with all the travelling of our statesmen and with all our Ambassadors in each country, it is true to say that we are no better off in seeing freedom in the Six Counties than we were 30 years ago.
If that is correct surely it is about time we examined our political conduct and our political approach to this problem. Surely it is about time that we should say that even the admittance of the Six County members of Parliament into this Assembly would represent nothing in the way of interference with future developments any more than our own propaganda has done in the past? If we fail or if they fail by their presence here in securing that freedom that we want—and some members say we are going to get although it seems to me that it is hopeless to think that in our generation we will have any sign of it at the rate we are going—I consider there is only one way out and that is to support a motion like this. It is at least one step forward, one step out of the morass we have been in as regards this problem.
During the debate we have gone back in history to 1912 and worked up from there, but we all know of these events. What is wrong with us here in this Chamber is that men who have been good men in their time are living in the past. It strikes me as so much like the yarn that people will hear down the country, the expression of a very old man when he will say solemnly: "God be with my times." What is wrong here is that the members of this House who were the active young soldiers of this country 30 years ago want to adopt the attitude: "God be with my times." I may say that some of them must have been surprised a week ago when they found there were still young men in Ireland prepared to do a noble part for the freedom of their country, including some men from Cork.
No decision arrived at in this House will ever stop men from working, striving, fighting and even giving their lives for this country. If we are not going to row now with them in some sensible way we are going to lose control eventually and we know what can happen, as happened in other countries on the Continent of Europe. Events may eventually show that by some stroke of fortune an outside movement may give to this country some outstanding leader. Should it happen that through such activities we will get control of the Six Counties, then we may suffer. The minority here and the majority in the Six Counties will suffer if it should happen that we moved automatically into a state or sphere of dictatorship.
It is about time that we did some plain speaking. It is about time for us to say to the minority in the Twenty-Six Counties that they are having a good time. We do not begrudge that to them, but if they are Irishmen and Irishwomen enjoying economic, social, and religious freedom in the Twenty-Six Counties, then they must say to their brethren in the Six Counties that the freedom of the Twenty-Six Counties is something worth living for. That will not happen on account of the action of the main Government Party and Opposition Party who oppose this motion. That is my belief. We have made our own decision in this matter and we will decide according to our own conscience.
If this motion is going to be evaded again it will simply mean that we are back again to the old idea of wishful thinking and plámás which leaves the Basil Brookes and the rest of them in the strong position in which they have been in the Six Counties for the past 30 years through a system of gerrymandering.
The motion which deals with the very important question of Partition is a very appealing one to the country as a whole. The motion in itself appears to me to be a very ambitious one and should establish no hostility whatever in regard to its acceptance.
The motion is an expression of goodwill with the important idea behind it that through goodwill a better understanding could lead to the elimination of the detestable thing known as Partition. On examination, however, I fail to see to what extent it can be successful. The men who put down the motion were no doubt inspired with the feeling of the people around the countryside in gatherings humble and otherwise. Only anyone who has access to that local spirit of the Irish people in the true atmosphere of country life can realise how these people look upon the Partition of their country. Nothing can express the feelings of these people in their detestation, abhorrence and denunciation of those who are responsible for the criminal thing of dividing their country. It is a natural feeling and the expression of the people is nothing more than a mark of their abhorrence of that monstrous thing inflicted on us by an outside country.
Let us cease thinking so much for the moment of the relationship which separates us from our brethren in the Six Counties which is very often misunderstood and very much misrepresented. It is true that political feelings, Party aspirations and conduct are by no means in accordance with what would be regarded as good Christian standards between neighbours and between man and man. Let us say that our own people are not entirely free of such prejudices as might aggravate the opposition party among whom they live.
I have experienced kindness from neighbours with different religious and national outlooks. That occurs day after day. In a moment of need the kindest relations exist. If there is fundamentally that relationship we should try and work from there and establish a more general understanding.
The Partition of the country was in the first instance not the act of our Northern brethren, who disagreed with us religiously and politically, but the act of Great Britain in her settlement of the affairs of our State. That fact must be remembered and should never be forgotten. Great Britain is still responsible, and I think we should concentrate on that fact so that when England in her negotiations with other countries at present or in the future sets herself out as a saviour and defender of all that is right and just she should be kept reminded. We should concentrate on putting before the world that her action here is not in accordance with the theories she puts forward and on which she takes her stand as a strong defender of rights and justice.
I am satisfied that the position in the Six Counties is one that cannot be easily settled. The motion before us is to enable certain Nationalist members of the Northern Parliament and the British Parliament to come here and take part in our deliberations to some extent. Of what benefit would that be? Would it alter the minds of the people who are really responsible for maintaining Partition? Would any of the Unionist people and M.P.s come down here to rub shoulders with us, come to the bar and take a drink with us or come to the restaurant and have a meal? I do not believe there is one, and I cannot see how this motion will help to bring about that understanding. Not one scintilla of advancement can I see forthcoming if the motion is adopted.
I listened to-night to the Taoiseach and to Deputy Eamon de Valera, the Opposition Leader. Both are men who are serious in their approach to this matter. Both have made sacrifices to remove serious difficulties and a serious menace to this country—a serious menace because one day there will be an outburst. That is inevitable. Serious, wise and experienced as they are, they have not put forward one plan to end Partition. They can see no hope of removing the obstacle which is a thorn in the side of the country nationally and which separates us hopelessly from the good relationship we are desirious of expanding and extending to our friends across the Border and in England. There is no solution that one can see from the discussion we had here to-night. Both sides have admitted bankruptcy. They had not a proposal as to how the position could be remedied. They know how hopeless it is to continue by force of arms or by such other methods as we might be forced to adopt to remedy the situation.
That is a terrible message to send to our people across the Border who say that they are unfairly and harshly treated and have not the rights of freedom to which they are entitled. That is a terrible message to send to the people of this country who have the idea of a free nation and who despise with utter hatred the nation that is responsible for inflicting disunity on them.
A day will come, no doubt, when revenge will occur. Days will come when the goodwill of our people here will be required, perhaps, to defend the ideals of Christianity regardless as to what Church you attend, but even that would hardly satisfy our people, and bring them to a sense of their duty in that regard. It is hard to bite the dust; it is hard to accept defeat and after all our trouble if our people are told: "There is no redress we can offer you," then you may look out for the day those people will find an underground method and youth will come back again vigorous and with enthusiasm and do what was done before and do it with vengeance and strike regardless of the consequences. It is happening to some extent as it is.
With regard to this motion, which I may back or I may not, because it is neither good nor bad and there is nothing in it recommending a practical solution of our problem, if I thought it was going to be a gesture or a recommendation to the youth of this country to go out in spasmodic efforts and bring pain and suffering on their people and on those other people across the Border who have nothing to do with Partition, then I would vote against it. I think it would be bad indeed to give any encouragement to irresponsible actions.
I feel that if an approach is to be made, a serious approach to the solving of this problem it must be made by the Government in authority with the backing and authority of this House and if it is considered desirable to do that then we should strive to put into existence the strongest army we can command, north and south, so far as we can. Any encouragement to an irresponsible movement that only brings sorrow, disaster and trouble into the homes of the people, the mothers and the parents with no hope of success—that should not be permitted. If this motion brought out some desire for some sort of advance, any effort that could bring hope of a solution for our difficulty, then I would like to give my vote to those men to go forward with their proposal progressively even if it is not successful. I am left in a dilemma as to which is the better line of action to adopt but if I do vote for this motion, I shall do so, not because I am convinced of its wisdom but because I would like to make a gesture in this House that will indicate to the people of this country that there is a degree of sympathy and support for them in order to encourage them to retain their faith. To that I am prepared to give my vote but not to the belief that the proposal itself has any merit towards the solution of our problem of Partition.
I have listened to quite a number of debates in this House which touched upon the question of Partition, and I do not think that any debate at which I have been present at any rate has occasioned so much interest, even among the Deputies of this House, as this particular discussion. I venture to say that that reflects the mind of the country generally. I am prompted to inquire why this is so, and I come to the conclusion which I think most people in the House will agree with, that there has been within the last couple of months a livening of nationalist and republican opinion, and the conclusion cannot be escaped that the reason for that livening and that stirring of the old feeling of nationhood has been due not to speeches made at Manfield's Corner, not to speeches made at election or other public meetings, but to the actions of young men at Omagh and Armagh. Whether these actions be deemed by Parties or members of this House as wise or unwise that remains the fact. An interest has been stirred for the first time in many years in this problem of Partition by the daring and bravery of young Irishmen. Listening to the speeches made against this motion, I was struck by one thing— that no constructive argument was adduced, despite what the Taoiseach has said, to invalidate the very excellent reasons put forward so ably by the mover of the motion in support of his proposal.
I was also struck particularly by the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. Deputy McQuillan referred to the cautiousness associated with the advance of years. It is something which is natural, unavoidable and understandable, but I would like to ask this: is something right because it is done by one individual and does it become wrong when it is done by another individual simply because the first individual has changed his mind about it? I do not accept that point of view.
Reference was made by all the speakers to certain historic happenings in this country. Reference was made to the First Dáil and to the fact that that Dáil was regarded as being representative of the whole nation. Have we then reduced the status of this Assembly to a sectional one by our actions over the years? It would seem so. It would seem that we, to a very great extent, relinquished our claim to sovereignty and independence for the 32 Counties of this country. It is high time we did something about reestablishing that claim. I am one of those who believe that speechifying whether in this country or outside it, talking at rallies in England or America has little effect upon the essential problem of Partition. I have often been struck by the utter futility of walking down O'Connell Street and listening to speakers in our principal thoroughfare talking about Partition to the converted, talking about the evils of Partition to those of us who know all about it and are anxious to see it ended. Talking in this House about Partition and condemning it in the fashion in which it has been condemned is of little avail either, in my opinion. We of the Labour Party feel that this is a constructive move towards the solution of this problem.
It could be the beginning of a movement which will end this evil of Partition for all time. Deputy McQuillan posed the question: What is the alternative if this is not accepted by the Dáil? Neither Deputy de Valera nor the Taoiseach had any alternative to offer beyond that which has been bruited about for the past 30 years —patience, wait and see, and goodwill. How long does it take to establish goodwill between complete opposites? How long would it have taken to bring about the unification of the great American nation had they depended upon the development of patience and goodwill? Was it wrong that Lincoln should have united the American nation in the fashion in which he did? I think that we as the elected Parliament of this country are accepting a very false position in accepting the right of a minority in part of our country to say to us that they will never under any circumstances join in a 32-County Republic. We are shirking our responsibilities in that respect.
Deputy McQuillan referred also to the position that exists in relation to the election of Senator Kelly to the Seanad. That is an extraordinary position. Senator Kelly was elected by the people of his area on the understanding that he would accept allegiance only to a Republican Parliament. As far as I am aware that position also applies in relation to Mr. McGleenan. Senator Kelly has been elected to the Seanad of the Twenty-Six Counties by the votes of those who represent the people on county councils. Is that not in itself an indication, to a very great extent, of the feeling of the people of this part of the country in so far as a motion of this kind is concerned? Have we not departed in this debate, to a very great extent, from an appreciation of the true feelings of the mass of the people of Ireland? Have we the right to set ourselves up here to take an entirely different view of a motion on this kind, and on the general question of Partition, from that taken by the ordinary people throughout the country? I do not think we have.
I think some of the speeches have been no more than a device to escape unpleasant facts. It has been repeated that this is a very difficult problem, that it is difficult to see what the solution is. Someone said that there is no solution visible in the foreseeable future. Was it right, I wonder, for young men to have taken arms in 1916 against what was then established authority? If we asked any of those young men whether they considered that to be right or wrong, we know what their answer would be. Is it not a fact that in those years you had a majority of the Irish people antagonistic towards the idea of the use of arms, that you had a majority of the Irish people supporting a constitutional Party which accepted the status quo of that day, and which condemned any action, if not by word, at least by inference, of the kind undertaken by the brave men who went out and fought in that year? How different is the situation to-day? Is it not an extraordinary thing that we have counselling moderation and caution and patience the men who actually rejected such advice 30 years ago? It is a tragic thing, and it is due, I believe, to what has been referred to by Deputy McQuillan as the inevitability of advancing years.
Is it reasonable to expect the young men of this generation to accept that dictum? I do not think it is. I think it is very unreal and it should be recalled that a completely new generation has grown up in this country since those days, a generation which has no recollection, good, bad or indifferent, other than what they have heard from their parents, of the events of those years, a generation which is perhaps more intensely educated in the nationalist and the republican tradition than was the generation of 30 years ago, and consequently a generation greater in numbers, who are more interested in the securing of full independence for this country. In that situation should their feelings be ignored? I am not concerned with whether or not it is politically dangerous to ignore them; I am concerned with the justice of ignoring them. I feel that the least this Dáil might do is to adopt this motion. Obviously it is not going to, because both large Parties are committed to opposition to the motion, and that, to my mind, is short-sighted.
I referred to the fact that it has been a debate in which great interest has been taken. I have stated my belief that that is due to the action of young men in Armagh and Omagh. I wonder what action would have been taken 30 years ago in relation to such men by those who are now condemning the actions of these men. Would I be wrong if I suggested that if the mind and the will and the idealism and the bravery and the courage which is exemplified by these boys and which was present 30 years ago in the men who condemn this motion to-day, were acted on, it is far more likely that we would see the British Ambassador placed under arrest? We have dealt in a welter of words and when this debate is over we will be back where we started. We will have achieved nothing towards the solution of Partition and we may rest assured that for another year or two years the Dáil will take little interest in that problem, unless something happens to inspire such interest.
I am struck by the possibilities of the motion. Supposing it were to be adopted and an invitation extended to all elected representatives of the people to come here from the North of Ireland and have a right of audience in the Seanad, is it not possible that that might have the unifying effect, which the Taoiseach desires, upon the various warring Nationalist sections in the North? We all know that the situation exists, that there is disunity among them—an exasperating thing to those in the South—whereas, upon this question there is no disunity among Parties generally. But supposing the representatives were received here from the North is it not possible that that might have the effect such as I described, a unifying effect? Is it not further possible that it might bring about a civil disobedience campaign in the North where there would be no question of bloodshed whatsoever. Civil disobedience as a political weapon has, as we know, secured far greater political results in the world than the solution of the problem we are discussing to-day. The great nation of India achieved its freedom by the use of that particular political weapon. Could this motion not be the beginning of such a development? How do we know if we do not try? We are not going to try, and it is obvious that no more than a handful will vote in this House to-night for this motion. I will gladly vote for it, and I am sure other members will too, and I want to say that I consider that Deputy McQuillan, in bringing it forward here, has done a service to those who are interested in seeing the end of Partition and, regardless of what has been said in criticism of him, we shall see the day when the Irish nation generally will regard the motion and the sentiments expressed by him, as farsighted, prophetic and beneficial to the nation as a whole.
I want to intervene briefly in this debate. Let me say at the outset that I think that the motives which inspired Deputy McQuillan to put down this motion were nothing but honourable. I would like to explain my position as a Deputy from Northern Ireland. I, on a former occasion, supported a motion such as this. To-night I must vote against it. If we read the motion, we will see that we are inviting the elected parliamentary representatives, all parliamentary representatives, in Northern Ireland to a right of audience in the Dáil or Seanad. Which representatives are we inviting? Is it the representatives elected to attend the Imperial Parliament in Britain or the representatives to the Stormont Parliament? That is what I would like to know, No. 1.
Have we consulted these representatives? Do they want a right of audience here? We should at least consult them. As the Taoiseach pointed out to-day, when he was Taoiseach in the last inter-Party Government he set up a Unity Council. That council was continued by his successor, the present Leader of the Opposition, Deputy de Valera. The idea in setting up that Unity Council was to procure from them their advice as to the best possible methods of ending Partition. As the Taoiseach pointed out to-day, he still wants such a council to go into consultation with the Cabinet or a sub-committee of the Cabinet and if they in such consultation, advise that one of the best methods of solving Partition is the admission of Northern representatives elected for that purpose to attend here in Oireachtas Éireann, then I would accept such a proposition.
You will recollect that not only did the Taoiseach set up the Council of Unity but he also nominated to the Panel of the Seanad a representative of the majority of those in the North. I refer to Captain Denis Ireland. That was a gesture from the Taoiseach. I think until we clarify who we are inviting here we would be foolish to pass the motion so ably proposed by Deputy McQuillan to-day.
If we can get these Nationalists of the North to come down here, agree among themselves as to the best method, and having so agreed, go into consultation with the Cabinet or the sub-committee of the Cabinet, that is the most that can be done for the ending of Partition. If they in such consultation agree that the right of audience is one of the best things we can do to revive interest in anti-Partition, then we can consider that. I intervene only to explain why I propose voting against this motion to-night. The Taoiseach read out an extract from a Fermanagh paper. He showed in the reading of the extract the difference of opinion there is in the Six Counties as to whether there should be a right of audience here. I think that difference could be smoothed out in a council such as that which was formed under the previous inter-Party Government and carried on by its successors.
Deputy Dunne has referred to a campaign of civil disobedience. For the past 30 years such a campaign has been carried on in the North. Wiser men and men with more balanced reason in their fifties to-day carried on such a campaign in their youth. It is being carried on again by the youth of to-day but as they grow older they see the disadvantages of it. It has been tried in the North but has been proved a failure. I would ask Deputy McQuillan to withdraw this motion in the hope that such a Council of Unity will be set up and that in consultation with the Cabinet we shall be able to do something to assist the ending of this curse of Partition.
I think this is a motion in which we have got to face reality. One has to ask oneself in a very deliberate and positive way whether or not there is even a grain of hope for the ending of our great national problem within the confines of this motion. I feel I am approaching this motion from a completely different angle from that of everybody else to-night. I shall approach it according to the dictates of my conscience and in the belief that my conception of the real issues is the proper conception. It is regrettable that certain circumstances have placed this motion which might, in the normal way, have got a discussion on its merits in a false position. It is downright dishonest to try to draw an analogy between a totally different situation to-day and that which existed 30 odd years ago. Let us not deny, as some Deputies would try to do by inference, that we are in fact, the elected representatives of a sovereign and independent Irish Republic and there is no analogy between the situation as it exists to-day and that which confronted the men of 30 odd years ago when they sought to do battle against an imposed foreign Government.
Whether this Parliament is right or whether it is wrong is not an issue in this debate. This Government is here as a result of the deliberate mandate of the Irish people given through the exercise of their democratic franchise. Even though there might be much in my heart which would lend itself to a different type of movement, there is no doubt that the way to get on with the task is not through the medium of disruption outside the State but on the basis of discovering whether or not we can get in a normal constitutional way within the State itself a solution to the problem.
We are all too painfully aware how bitterly in effort and endeavour this nation has had to pay for a disunity that arose before. Had a previous generation not rushed in, willy-nilly, into a regrettable and unfortunate civil war it might well be that we would not to-day have to debate any issue in relation to Partition. I am convinced of our supreme and absolute right to the control and domination of a 32-county Irish Republic. If I could see in conscience in this motion any real step forward towards that no power or control would stop me from exercising my vote in favour of this motion. But we have a very positive responsibility to the people, a responsibility that sentimental speeches or recantations of the glories of the past cannot dull. Nobody will question the heroism or self-sacrifice of the generations of the past, but one is entitled to question the wisdom or otherwise of certain actions of the past.
The duty of a citizen to the State is to accept the rule of the majority. We saw disastrous consequences here when that rule was flaunted before. So long as the majority of the people, through their elected representatives, take the stand that is now being taken, irrespective of my personal sentiments, I am in duty bound to uphold the rule of the majority. While I will not condemn those who are making supreme sacrifices, I feel that in present circumstances such sacrifices are misguided and are not aimed at the solution of the problem.
When I look back on the Craig-Collins Pact and relate it to the schism that exists to-day I wonder whether we are not endangering the position to the extent of making it completely insoluble. People talk with airy grandeur of our difficulties. Some 30 odd years ago before the coming into operation of the Government of Ireland Act agreement had been reached under which rehabilitation in the North would take place on the basis of equal financial subventions in aid of those returning from battle, under which for every member of the B. Specials recruited from one section in the North there would be an equal number recruited from another section and under which it was agreed that the control of the armies would remain within the joint control of soldiers of Ireland as well as soldiers of a foreign Power. Conferences were to be continued even after the coming into operation of the Government of Ireland Act to assure the unification of Ireland. All that was thrown aside. All that was cast to the winds, and we had the horrible catastrophe of civil war.
I intervene in this debate in the hope of stopping those of my own generation from rushing willy-nilly into something that may have diabolical consequences for us as a nation. If the majority of the Irish people ever decide in their wisdom that we should go forward on the basis of force into the North of Ireland I hope and pray that I shall be both strong enough and young enough to play my part. That, however, is not the position in which we are to-day; and as one who was trained in the use of arms, I have to ask myself whether the use of arms would be, in any way, an effective step towards the ending of Partition. In a less serious way I have to ask myself if the motion proposed by Deputy McQuillan will make any bridgehead across which we may reach a solution. Were we not faced with the sinister background that now exists and had the situation remained unchanged one might be able to decide whether this motion might be an effective gesture. What have we? We have undoubtedly a tangible claim to the six northeastern counties. Within these counties what is the situation we have to face? We have to face, and we might as well face it as men, the knowledge that there is no strong leadership within that group. We have to face the knowledge that there is no common policy within that group.
There is no common aim to which, as individuals or even as public representatives, we can lend even our goodwill or support.
In that situation would this gesture mean anything? In that situation, where there is a common nationalist tree with so many diverse branches that it is impossible to count, can we say that this motion would in effect do any good at all?
I discussed this problem at great length in this House with some of the elected representatives of the North and I am not afraid to say in the public forum of this House what I said to them in private, that the day they could find a unity of objective in the North they only had to come back here to find a wealth of goodwill and a wealth of honest effort to help them.
When we discuss this motion on Partition to-night let us face the fact that, irrespective of the motion, this is becoming the airing ground to-night for our belief or otherwise in the issue of Partition. I firmly believe that, apart from motions and everything else, when unification of leadership and a common objective can be reached by our worthy colleagues on the other side of the Border we will have done more in effective advance towards the solution of Partition than can be done by motions or anything else because we will be able to get down to a basis on which we can work together chum gloire De agus saoirse na hÉireann.
What is the present position? Would that the North could throw up now in its hour of need someone worthy of the tradition of a Mitchel or a Henry Joy McCracken who might put the strength of unity and effort into its own people because it is only marching together on the common road with a common objective that the Irish people can surmount the many insurmountable barriers in their way to the solution of this problem. It is not by the sacrifice of generous, responsive youth, misled, not by motions that mean nothing but only by having a common bridgehead of goodwill, of common objective, of realisation of the road on which the advance must take place, that progress can be made toward the solution of Partition.
I do not believe that the solution of Partition need be as far away as people seem to concede. If we could send a message forth from this Dáil to the nationalist interest in the North of Ireland to find a basis for unity and a basis for common effort we would be doing an infinitely better thing than we are doing by all the gestures about audience or rights of audience within the Oireachtas.
While we have a sovereign, independent Irish Parliament here carrying out the mandate of the Irish people, we must in duty and in conscience support the Government on an issue such as this but the hustings of this country are open to those who disavow our policy and wish to change it; the portals of this House are open to all those whom the Irish people in their judgment may see fit to send here as representatives. I say to those who castigate us now: find the confidence; find the strength from the Irish people to displace us and then may we say to you: "Onward, on the road you wish to go" but, while we are bound by the mandate of our people, as we are in this Parliament, may no one dare usurp the lawful right of Government, its right to decide either peace or war for this nation.
I want to intervene very briefly in this debate. I intend to vote for the motion. I had no intention of speaking to it at all but, listening to the wordy smokescreen which has been put around it, I considered it was my duty to point out that it is the motion before the House that I am prepared to support. On both sides of the House a number of issues which, in my opinion, are not relevant to the debate have been introduced. The motion should have been debated on its merits, as it would have been if it had been taken before the Omagh affair. If that were done I am sure the decision to-night would be very different from what I am afraid it will be.
I come from the royal county. In the royal county of Meath we have as many republicans as anywhere else in Ireland and the same interest in Partition as in Cork, Kerry and anywhere else. I am afraid that I cannot agree with people who seem to think that the business of settling this dispute must be left to the people of the six Northern counties. They say that we are one nation but when one portion of that nation gets into trouble the people who are in the trouble must settle it themselves. There is no suggestion at all that the people who can work for the unity of the country outside the North should do a lot more than they are doing.
Deputy McQuillan's motion to-night, if it is only a gesture, as Deputy Seán Collins said, is at least a gesture to the people in occupied Ireland that we in Dáil Éireann do agree that they are entitled to the right of audience to put their case here where it will be properly reported, to put their case fairly and to try to unify the whole fight for freedom in Northern Ireland.
I am afraid that if we had to wait until those people decide among themselves, we may have to wait a long time. Is it not the duty of every right-minded person in Ireland to try to encourage those people to come together and to have unity of action in this very important matter? That is all I want to say. Deputy McQuillan was very right in moving the motion and it deserves a lot more support than, I am afraid, it will get to-night.
I propose to be fairly brief on this motion. I think there is a lot of common sense in what Deputy Tully has just said, but I think that the Deputy will appreciate, as I think other Deputies have, that much as Deputies might have liked to discuss this motion before the Omagh affair, the fact is that we are discussing it after the Omagh affair. I think that Deputies would be very unwise to try and shut their eyes to anything that has occurred which might have a bearing on or connection with the general problem of Partition, or with this particular motion.
Deputy Tully asks that this motion should be dealt with on its merits. I think that is a fair request, and I think that the motion has been dealt with on its merits so far as the speeches that I have listened to, in any event, were concerned. I think it is only right that someone should pay tribute to the statesmanlike contributions which were made in the House this afternoon both by the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Opposition. I think the fact that such a measure of agreement existed between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in this House should demonstrate not only to our friends, the nationalists in Northern Ireland, but to everyone both north and south of the Border and to people outside of this country, that we here, so far as this Parliament is concerned, stand absolutely united on the question of Partition.
It is natural and right that there should be differences of opinion on matters of detail. Lest, in the wordy smokescreen to which Deputy Tully has referred, we should lose sight of this fact, it is worth emphasising that there is to-day in Ireland, and when I say Ireland I mean Ireland, a greater degree of unity not only with regard to the general question of Partition but with regard to the methods which should be employed in endeavouring to reach a solution of the problem than has ever existed before. The Minister for External Affairs and Deputy Eamon de Valera spoke during the past few weeks regarding this question, and the Taoiseach spoke here to-day. It was pointed out by them, each being a responsible representative of the people —one for many years the Leader of Government in this part of the country, another the Leader of Government to-day and another the one who carries the Portfolio of Minister for External Affairs—that it was necessary in our approach to the North to endeavour to convince our fellow-Irishmen and colleagues up there, no matter what their religious beliefs may be, that we want them to join us here as friends and fellow-countrymen, and that we do not want to create a spirit of conquest, one side being the conqueror and the other the vanquished.
I was particularly impressed by the Taoiseach's speech this afternoon. I believe it is absolutely true that if we are to move along any other road than the road on which successive Governments here have guided our people, there exists the danger that, even if you could restore the geographical unity of the country, you would, in fact, have a more bitter and a far more real Border by doing that than exists to-day if the solution is to be a solution arrived at by force or methods of that sort. Those of us of the younger Irish generation know, and we regret it, that even now in the year 1954, more than three decades after we had attained here the measure of freedom which those who obtained it hoped would give us freedom to attain the greater freedom we wanted, in this year 1954 there is only now dying out, and I am glad it is dying out, the bitterness which grew out of the cleavage in the years of 1921 and 1922.
I want to disassociate myself completely, and I do so speaking here deliberately as one of the younger generation of Irish representatives and politicians, from the references that were made during the course of this discussion to some of the leaders of both sides and to the question of advancing years and so on. I want to say that, as far as I am concerned, and I believe many of my own generation feel the same way about it, I would not like to see in Irish public life any effort to push out of the way or to elbow out any of those grand old leaders who fought for Irish freedom and Irish independence in the past and so secured for us the right to address this Assembly in the year 1954.
I am proud to be able to stand in the same benches as the Mulcahys and MacEoins. I am proud and I am glad to be able to glory in the history of this country written as it was by the Mulcahys, the MacEoins, the Collinses, the Treacys, the Laceys and the Breens. I think that those of us of the younger generation, on every side of the House, must be glad and must give thanks to the Almighty now 30 years after attaining that measure of freedom, that we are still able to have the wise leadership and guidance of those who, when youth was with them, did not hesitate to use it, and did not hesitate to spend it in order to attain Irish freedom. Therein lies the difference between the situation that exists now and the situation that existed then. That was pointed out by the Taoiseach this afternoon and deserves to be emphasised.
Deputy McQuillan quite rightly points out that there are people who think they do not get guidance and leadership and are going to take their own way. We have the men to-day on both sides of the House who led us in the past and who are capable of leading us to-day. In the days when they had to do it fighting, there was no Irish Parliament answerable to the people. There was no Parliament of Irish representatives.
There is to-day a Parliament, and there is a Government with representatives freely elected by the Irish people meeting here freely. On them must devolve the duty of deciding policy in matters big and small.
This is a matter of policy. Deputy McQuillan and Deputy MacBride and his colleagues are quite entitled to put down a motion asking that this particular policy suggested by them should be implemented. Deputy Tully asks that it should be considered on its merits. I have said that I consider that a fair request. What are the merits in this motion? Deputy Tully advances the argument that if this motion was accepted and implemented it would ensure the right of audience here to the representatives in the North—that it would give them a platform where their case could be properly reported and recorded. That indicates to my mind that Deputy Tully is looking on this motion in a completely false way. He has made it quite clear that he considers this motion as being applicable only to the nationalist representatives in the North. I do not think that is the purpose of this motion. If it was the purpose of this motion, then I think the motion would be of even less value than I consider it to be. I accept it that Deputy McQuillan's view is that if this motion were accepted and if legislation were introduced, it would throw open the doors of Leinster House to the representatives in the North, whether they are Unionist or nationalist. I think that is a sounder approach to the problem than that shown by Deputy Tully, but I do not believe it would be of any great value. Just think of the position that would arise. Assume that the motion was accepted and assume it was operated by the public representatives in the North. We would day after day have to listen to the case put forward by the nationalists—and everyone in this House would agree wholeheartedly with their case. We know their case, we accept their case; we are at one with them in their case. On the other hand, if this motion were implemented and accepted by the Unionists here we would be wasting our time listening to the Unionists' case.
Would not Partition go then?
I cannot see what sense there would be in this kind of thing.
Would not Partition be finished then?
If they had only the right of audience? The right of audience would not do then.
If the intention of this motion is to provide a forum to discuss the question of Partition, I just want to say this, and say it not as a gibe but in all sincerity—that there are any amount of college debating societies which will provide a forum or platform to discuss this question and be only too delighted to get representatives, North and South, and to get the most eloquent representatives they can to address them and they will get far more publicity by attending inaugural meetings of those debating societies than they will get by addressing Dáil Éireann. That is my experience, in any event.
Having listened to Deputy O'Higgins's speech, I say that Partition is the curse of this country. There will be no peace in Ireland until it is ended, let it be by this generation or the next. The people who are holding on to the North are the British, by armed force, against the wishes of the Irish people. Since this was debated 12 months ago, great changes have taken place. Senator Liam Kelly was elected to the Seanad by the votes of this House and of the members of county councils. That is why I am speaking here to-night, saying that when he is allowed to take his seat in the Seanad that he was elected to by the people of this House, why should we on any side of the House deny that right to an elected representative of the people of the Six Counties?
We know that the past Government, the present Government and the inter-Party Government previously looked on this thing as a joke. I remember when an Indian leader was brought into this House, down there to the centre of the Chamber and introduced to the Ceann Comhairle. Would it be any harm if Senator Liam Kelly and his colleagues were brought into this House and introduced to the Ceann Comhairle? I would not see anything wrong with that. When an Indian could get that audience, surely we here in this Assembly should not deny the right of the Irishmen in the Six Counties by saying: "You will not get anything by motions."
Great sacrifices were made by great men to put this House here. Regarding the young men to-day who have the courage and who went against the armed forces and into the armed barracks to get the arms to free this country and to make it a 32 County Republic, you must admire them. We all must admire men with courage. I believe that the motion before the House by Deputy McQuillan, a young man, and also by Deputy Seán MacBride, should get every consideration. I am going to vote for the motion, because we will not get the British out of the North of Ireland unless some action is taken by the Government let it be a Fianna Fáil Government or an inter-Party Government.
Why are the British troops leaving other countries and why are they not being taken out of the Six Counties so as to do away with the unnatural Border? Until some leader has that courage, we may be talking here until Tibb's Eve, as we will not see Partition ended, some of us, in our time by motions. It is action we want, and we should call on the British Government and Mr. Churchill, if he is sincere with regard to the peace talks of the world and the rearming of Germany, to withdraw the troops from the Six Counties; and then Ireland will look after itself.
It is a very significant augury for the future of this country that this motion was tabled and moved by one of the younger Deputies. I share Deputy McQuillan's admiration for the people on both sides of the House who rendered sterling service to the country in the time before Deputy McQuillan and myself were born. I readily say that those people have an obligation and a duty to direct and guide the younger generation in so far as they can, but I do think that a certain amount of confusion has been brought to bear on the motion before us here to-night. The Taoiseach and the Leader of the Opposition availed themselves of the opportunity—and quite rightly so—to express their opinion as to the wisdom or otherwise of recent events in the North. As I say, it was a proper thing for them to do, but I do think that by doing so a certain amount of confusion was introduced into this debate and the motion might now be misconstrued in this House and outside it to such an extent that it might appear that those who vote for Deputy McQuillan's motion are, in fact, endorsing recent happenings in the North. We should confine ourselves to the terms of the motion and anyone who supports the motion, as I intend to do, will not thereby be endorsing or condemning those recent happenings; we will be simply expressing our opinion as to the wisdom or otherwise of allowing elected parliamentary representatives in the occupied portion of this country the right of audience in this House.
Since this motion was tabled I have had a leaning towards it, but I was not so wedded to it as to be in a position of total adherence to it, having heard arguments for and against. I was quite prepared, even though I had a leaning towards the motion, to vote against it if I were convinced by the arguments put forward against it. I must agree throughly with Deputy MacBride when he said that the people who spoke against this motion did not put down one concrete case against it —certainly no case that would alter my opinion of it. On the other hand, the arguments put forward by the mover and by those who support the motion, appear to me to have reason attached to them. I think the greatest argument in its support was that made by Deputy McQuillan when he said: "If we, members of the Dáil, members of local authorities, in this portion of the country, took to ourselves the right to elect Liam Kelly to the Seanad of this Oireachtas, then we have no right to deny the people in the six occupied counties of our country a similar right to make their choice and send people to represent them in this Oireachtas."
Deputy MacBride also very forcibly put the argument that people elected in the six northern-eastern counties at the moment have only one way of representing the people who support them there—they must attend either at Stormont or at Westminster and, when they attend there, they must take the Oath of Allegiance.
I see in this motion a means whereby representatives can be elected by the people of the North of Ireland to represent them in this Parliament without any Oath of Allegiance to the Queen of England or anybody else. I think, also, that the adoption of this motion by this House would be a declaration that we do not accept the status quo.
I came here to-day with a fairly open mind on this question but I am thoroughly convinced now that the right thing for me to do on this occasion, as a young Deputy, is to vote for the motion which was moved by Deputy McQuillan.
Anybody listening to the debate that took place here to-day would be of the impression that the motion before the House was one asking the representatives of the Twenty-Six Counties to declare war on the Six Counties. The motion has not been discussed on its merits at all. Smoke screens have been set up and people have displayed pseudo-indignation over certain events and have used these certain events that took place recently as an excuse to vote against this particular motion. The motion reads as follows:—
That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Government should introduce proposals for legislation immediately to provide that all elected parliamentary representatives of the people of the six occupied counties of Ireland will be given a right of audience in the Dáil or Seanad.
There is nothing in that motion dealing with the alleged sinister events to which Deputy S. Collins referred in the course of his remarks. Three years ago, Deputy S. Collins, and I have no intention of quoting his speech now, was one of the most ardent advocates in this House of a motion similar to that which is now before the House— and this evening he is an ardent advocate of throwing this motion out. The only thing I can find at the back of the opposition that is now being put forward by people who three years ago supported this type of motion is that they are going to use what they describe as "recent sinister events" as an excuse to vote against this particular motion.
The idea behind this motion is to try and ensure that, by taking all peaceful steps within our power, we will achieve the object of the reunification of Ireland without the tragedy of Irishmen shedding the blood of other Irishmen.
Before I deal with the points raised by the Taoiseach, I want to refer to what the Minister for Local Government said. In the course of his short contribution to the debate, he questioned me as to whether or not the elected representatives of the North had been queried as to their desire to take part in the discussions here. I think the Minister for Local Government and every other Minister and Deputy in this House knows that for many years past there has been a demand at least amongst the nationalistic element in the six occupied counties for permission to air their views here. Not alone has that request been put before various Governments by the elected representatives of the Six County area but the people of South Armagh elected Mr. McGleenan to sit in this House.
We all know what it is to go on the hustings. We all know that you are facing the public and that you must put your policy before them—and it is on the basis of what you stand for that you are elected. Mr. McGleenan stood on the hustings in South Armagh and declared that if he was elected he would ask the powers that be here for permission to take his rightful place in Dáil Éireann on behalf of the people who elected him. They elected him-and he has been turned down. However, the extraordinary situation has arisen that another public representative in the North is now a Senator in this Oireachtas: I refer to Senator Liam Kelly. People in his constituency elected him to take his place in this Assembly. What has happened? Public representatives in this House and county councillors throughout the length and breadth of the Twenty-Six Counties voted to elect Liam Kelly to our Seanad. In other words, they selected a representative for the other House in this Parliament who is from one of the six occupied counties.
Now, if it is right for our public representatives on the county councils to elect a man from one of the six north-eastern counties to sit in one of the Houses of this Oireachtas, why is it wrong for the people of the Nationalist areas in the Six Counties to send their representatives here? I asked that question of the Taoiseach and, in the course of his long reply, he failed to refer to it.
Deputy O'Higgins may have misunderstood me. I did not at any time sneer at or refer in any way with contempt to the older men in this House. As a matter of fact, I spent a considerable period referring to the praise that was due to them, to the respect that my generation and the younger generation have for the work and the achievements of the older people in this House. However, as I think I have already said, we have to take into consideration the fact that time marches on. I happen to be one of those who were not born when all the trouble was on. I may not look it now—but anybody who comes into this House will certainly show more than his age after listening to some of the speeches made here.
The present Minister for Defence, Deputy Seán MacEoin—a man for whom I have the greatest admiration as a soldier—on a motion similar to this, three short years ago, referred to the First Dáil and stated, as reported at column 2250 of Volume 126 of the Official Report:—
"I throw my mind back to the First Dáil. The Clerk of the House at that time called the roll at every Dáil meeting. He called Sir Edward Carson and Michael Collins. He called Sir James Craig and Alfie Byrne. He called John Redmond and everyone else. The fact that we were all called to an Irish Parliament left no doubt as to what the then Dáil was seeking to govern."
In other words the position in 1919 was that the names of all the elected representatives of the Irish nation were read out in this House as having a right to attend here on behalf of the Irish people. Whether they were rabid Unionists or rabid Republicans, they were all in a position to speak here. That position has changed, but we want to go back to that position. Even though it may be looking back it is going to be a step forward.
As I have said, a new generation has grown up since that first Dáil sat at the time the names of those men were read out in this House as being entitled to attend on behalf of the Irish people. I pointed out here to the Taoiseach that I felt no progress whatever had been made in the last 30 years towards solving the problem of Partition or towards ending the unnatural Border, and I gave it as my own personal opinion that as time went on we were gradually slipping further away from the people of the North irrespective of whether they are Nationalists or Unionists. Anybody who gives consideration to the facts will have to agree with me that instead of being nearer to the people of the Northern occupied counties in matters cultural and everything else, we have taken the opposite road.
What is the alternative? The major Parties in this House have decided that this is not a wise way to go about it. Have they an alternative? They have offered the younger generation no alternative whatever except: "Be patient and hope for the best." That is the answer made here in this House to the people who are opposing this as a practical step. I maintained here in the earlier remarks which I made that the new generation that has grown up, people who are now between 14 years and 35 years of age are reasonably well educated; they are certainly well educated and well up in Irish history and in the history of events that have taken place in the past. We have had more time in the last 35 years to concentrate on a more Irish way of life, as we describe it. While we are doing that, what is happening with those elements in the North that have a nationalist outlook and that have thought on our own lines up to this? Are we not cutting them off all the time? Are we not making the unnatural Border stronger than ever? My idea in this motion was that this House would provide a common meeting ground where the elected representatives of the North could come and air their views, where they could come and tell us their viewpoints whether they were Protestant or Catholic, tell us their fears, tell us what they believed should be done in matters of industrial importance and of economic benefit to the two parts of our divided nation. They were not, in my mind, to come here just to talk about Partition as if they were at the end of O'Connell Street. Every phase of our life to-day has some connection or other with Partition and the whole industrial development of our country and the problem of emigration and unemployment in its wider sphere is bound up with the fact that we are divided as a nation. It is like a man with one arm; he is not in a position to do the work that an able-bodied man with two arms can do. We have the agricultural arm here in the South and the industrial arm in the North and neither can function successfully unless they are welded together. We want what I have described as the commonsense views and the practical wisdom of the Northern people here. I think we are afraid of them. I think that we are afraid to allow them to come in here.
The Taoiseach, in the course of his remarks, pointed out that they would be glad to accept this motion if Lord Brookeborough or Sir Basil Brooke signified the intention of the Unionists to come down. That is a very poor answer. I am afraid we would have very little hope in the initial stages of getting Lord Brookeborough or Sir Basil Brooke to come down here, but as we stand there is no hope because they cannot come down. Apart from those men not being in a position to come here, the Nationalist elements, which compose at least one third of the population in the North are prevented from airing their views here and taking their rightful part in the counsels of the nation.
As Deputy O'Higgins rightly pointed out the motion is such that it welcomes all the public representatives of the North irrespective of class or creed. There was an alternative suggestion put up here. The Taoiseach pointed out that he had given tentative consideration to the idea of a unity council where the varied and different points of view expressed at the moment by the Nationalists of the North could be put forward and that the Nationalist representatives in the Six County area could meet a sub-committee of the Cabinet as a whole and air their views and their grievances. I pointed out that I felt that suggestion was hedging. Perhaps "hedging" is a bad method of describing it but whatever can be said for my motion nothing whatever can be said in favour of this so-called unity council. A better description of it would be a disunity council. If it is alleged by the Taoiseach that you have so many different views expressed by the Nationalist representatives at the moment, what chance are you going to have of getting a unified decision at a unity council where there is no continuity? Is it not through this House that unity can be achieved, where no matter what election takes place public representatives will come in; faces may change but the public will still put in representatives and it would still have the Northern M.P.'s coming in with continuity, and by degrees we would actually build up that agreement between these men who differ so much at the moment. There is no other way of getting that agreement and getting the Northern Nationalists to combine as a body. Let them come in here and by degrees we will get that unification if we wish it
The Taoiseach, in one of the arguments he put forward against this motion, stated that the danger would arise, if these public representatives of the North were allowed in here, that they would be neglecting the interests of their constituents instead of treating their grievances and so forth in Stormont. That was put forward as a serious argument against allowing them into this Assembly. Five minutes afterwards the Taoiseach had to agree that in so far as the Nationalist groups in the North were concerned their democratic rights were flouted in Stormont. How can you reconcile the two statements? As far as I am concerned with public men, if you make up your mind you are against something and if you are skilful you can put the most glorious cases forward.
I want to make it clear that this motion was tabled last June. It had nothing whatever to do with the recent events that took place in the Six Counties. The tragedy at the moment is that Deputies in this House and I presume people outside will salve their own consciences and say: "Oh, the time is not ripe to accept this motion." The time was never riper. My idea in connection with this motion is that if we want to bring about the reunification of Ireland by peaceful means we must explore every possible avenue. If we adopt the motion, we are going to take the leadership from what can be described as extreme elements on both sides. You have extreme elements in the North and in the South. This is one way of helping to guide the upsurge of national feeling that has taken place in the Twenty-Six Counties.
Deputy de Valera, Leader of the Opposition, said that he had thought over this and that he could foresee the consequences of the motion and how dangerous it could be if it were accepted. Can Deputy de Valera or the Taoiseach foresee the consequences if it is not? This is just the thing that has been waited for. It is enough to convince older men that there is little use looking for the lead that they so ardently expected in this House. That is the tragedy of it. I am not talking about the young men of 18 to 25 because no matter what generation you have, men of 18 to 25 are prepared to sacrifice their lives to achieve freedom. That is a natural thing with people of that age group. But there are older men guiding these and we are giving more arguments to people to point out what has been said in the past that the men in Dáil Éireann did a good day's work in the past but were growing tired and weary of the job. That has been said, and I am only repeating it.
The arguments put forward against the motion were myriad, but they are not worth replying to. The Taoiseach and others pointed out that if we allow in the Northern representatives they would make a few speeches about Partition; that there would be a big splash for three or four days and after that there would be silence and nothing more about it. In other words, they put forward the view that the world Press would not give the publicity you would expect as a result of these people taking their seats here. We are not worried about that publicity. We are not getting it at the moment in spite of all the talk about external affairs, news agencies and everything else. If we have not the publicity for any steps the Government contemplates taking, what is the use of putting down the suggestion of permitting these Northern representatives coming down here on the ground that it would make for little publicity and after that there would be nothing about it?
The point is that, according to this motion, you can speak on matters dealing with Partition in industrial, agricultural and cultural fields. In most of the debates in this House a reference could be made to Partition and to the problems that arise from Partition in the development of the nation. Deputy de Valera admitted to me and agreed that it was only a Deputy from Roscommon who was best qualified to speak about the wants and the needs of the people of Roscommon. He was not qualified to speak for the needs and the desires of the people of Antrim or Derry or to express their fears and criticisms. The people of Derry are entitled to elect their representatives, send them here and let them tell us what they think.
I do not know whether we have taken into consideration the fact that we will be sending representatives of this country to Strasbourg next year. At some stage we expect to send them to attend Conferences of the United Nations. Are we going to hand a lever to our opponents in Britain and elsewhere who will say: "These people in Ireland are not sincere about this Partition problem at all. They actually refuse to allow the elected representatives of the area over which they claim sovereignty to take their place in Dáil Éireann." We cannot send out our men to attend the councils of Europe and elsewhere and have the lever handed to our enemies that the political parties of Ireland are merely playing at the problem of ending Partition.
I will make one final appeal to the Leaders of the Parties to take off the Party Whips. Earlier in the debate, I asked that there should be no question of Party politics attached to this. I asked that the conscience of each Deputy would be allowed to decide the Deputy's mind. I am certain that if it was left to each individual Deputy to make up his own mind as to what steps should be taken on this motion the majority would be in favour of it.
I see that a division was taken on a motion on this point before when 20 members of the Fine Gael Party voted for and 11 voted against. There is a Party decision now to vote against it. These are things I cannot understand. I do not know how the public will react to the fact that men can change their minds within a very short space of time on an important matter such as this which looked so desirable at a certain stage but took on a very sinister atmosphere and dangerous aspect in a short time. I ask that a message be sent to the people of the North offering a Céad Míle Fáilte to their elected representatives knowing at the present time that that may not be immediately accepted by all but that the representatives of at least the Nationalist groups would have the feeling that we did not betray them or neglect them.
They have looked for inspiration, guidance and assistance to the people of the Six Counties. They have so far got nothing but advice. They have been told that the political Parties have no solution or suggestions to offer. They will have to live for the next 50 years, if we accept the view of the major Parties here, in the hope that Partition itself will be solved by a miracle.
Let us give that message to the North rather than the one that "We are sorry here in the Twenty-Six Counties but we really do not want you to come in."
I take it the other motion is ruled by that?
Yes.
With respect, I inquired at the beginning of the discussion whether it was proposed to take the two motions together and, if so, whether it was proposed to give me a right of reply in respect of my motion. The Ceann Comhairle pointed out that it would be possible to discuss the two motions together and I then indicated that I thought it would be possible therefore to have some arrangement whereby I would reply at the end. I take it the House will have to divide on my motion, and, before dividing, I would ask the leave of the House to reply to some points made.
I cannot allow that procedure. I indicated to the House that the substance of the two motions would be discussed and a decision taken. The operative words in the two motions are almost the same. There may be a little bit more embellishments in one case than in the other. A decision has been taken on the substance of the motions and I cannot allow any discussion on the matter.
It is a pity you did not think it worth while to indicate that at the beginning of the discussion, and not at the end.
I thought I did make that clear.
No.
I regret it if I did not do so.
Will it be put to a vote?
The Dáil adjourned at 8.50 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 3rd November, 1954.
