On a point of order —I want to apologise to the Taoiseach for holding him up for a moment — in connection with the statement about to be made by the Taoiseach, I would like from you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, information as to whether Deputies will be allowed to comment on the Taoiseach's statement or make a contribution to the debate?
Partition and the Unlawful Use of Force. - Statement by the Taoiseach.
May I point out to the Deputy that in circumstances like the present where several statements have been allowed, only statements from the leaders of the principal Parties are allowed in the House. If private Deputies were allowed to intervene there would be no end to the number of speeches made.
I would like to ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle could he say will the Labour Party leader speak?
That is a matter for the leader of the Labour Party.
Might I say there is no agreement by the Labour Party to such a procedure?
There need be no agreement by any Party; this is a precedent that has been established by the House.
What I want to establish—I am convinced that the Taoiseach should make a statement and that the leaders of the Parties should speak but that, if other people are going to speak on this issue, it should be also open to all Deputies in this House to speak. It is suggested by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that only leaders of the principal Parties should speak, but with due respect to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I represent people outside this House who wish me to speak on this particular statement when the Taoiseach is finished. I believe that I am going to be deprived of that opportunity while other people who have less right will be allowed to speak.
As I have already told the Deputy only the leaders of political Parties will be allowed to speak. The Deputy as an Independent Deputy can speak only for himself and we may take it that leaders of political Parties are speaking on behalf of a considerable body of political opinion which they represent.
I want to protest as strongly as possible against the suggestion that I am speaking for myself. If I were speaking for myself alone I would not be in this House as an Independent Deputy. I am speaking for a quite considerable body of people outside this House who wish me to speak on the statement, and I believe I am entitled to comment on it, whether favourably or otherwise. I think it is a disgraceful performance that under the Constitution I am entitled to speak here and make known the views of my constituents but am prevented from doing that by this precedent.
That precedent has been long established.
Then it is well time it was broken.
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle accept me as protesting equally strongly?
On a further point of order—I understand from you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that the leaders of political Parties are en-to speak as Leader of the Labour Party, and if he is entitled to speak surely I am entitled to speak——
Deputy McQuillan is the leader of no Party in this House.
I am the leader of the people who put me here. I do not for a moment suggest I am a leader of a Party, but I want to make this clear as far as I am personally concerned. I think, and I think every reasonable Deputy in the House will agree that they would not like to be in my position as an Independent Deputy refused permission to speak on this matter——
The Deputy must resume his seat. The Chair has explained to him why he cannot speak——
No, I want to get this clarified. Is a member of each Party allowed to speak?
On a point of have you not already, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
I spoke on a point of order before Deputy Morrissey. I am entitled to raise a point of order.
Deputy Morrissey.
The Deputy may have his own measurements as to how far he is prepared to go and as to what extent he is prepared to do damage to gain notoriety——
(Interruptions).
I am not prepared to sell my country like you. I am not going to let you prevent me from making a point of order.
(Interruptions).
You had better sit down and not interrupt me on a point of order.
I am only making the point, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that you have already pointed out to Deputy McQuillan that only leaders of political Parties may speak and I suggest that the Deputy ought not by means of subterfuge be allowed to abuse the House.
On a point of order, I want to get this clear. Are leaders or representatives of the different Parties being allowed to speak on this statement? If they are, I maintain I should be allowed to speak as an Independent Deputy. I see no reason why members of the House should be allowed to speak because they belong to a political Party when I, as an Independent Deputy, should not be allowed to make a statement when I represent just as many people outside.
The Deputy has already made that point and the Chair has indicated it cannot be accepted. As repetition is disorderly, I must ask the Deputy to resume his seat and call on the Taoiseach to make his statement.
Before the Taoiseach——
Deputies
Sit down.
Deputy McQuillan must resume his seat.
Under no circumstances would I prevent——
Then the Deputy must resume his seat.
Under those circumstances, I am, under protest, going to allow myself to be silenced by you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Silenced by the rules of this House, and not by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
There will be another place where we can deal with all this.
The Government have decided that I should, on their behalf, make in this House to-day a further statement on the subject of Partition and the unlawful use of force. This is a statement which, in its main substance, I have had in contemplation for some time. There now exists a situation of such grave potentialities that a further clear and explicit pronouncement on behalf of the Government is, in our opinion, vitally necessary in the interest of the nation as a whole.
The fundamental character of that situation and the history of the events that have led up to it are well known. This ancient nation, whose geographical extent is defined by nature as clearly and as unquestionably as that of any nation in the world, has for many years been divided in two by the act of a more powerful State, against the will, repeatedly expressed, of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people. That division was effected shortly after the conclusion of a world war, in which the victors had proclaimed it their great object to establish freedom and self-determination for the smaller nations of the world. It was enforced on this nation when it was struggling to assert its right to self determination against the ruthless opposition of one of the victors in that war—a country that held itself out as the champion of freedom. It has ever since been sustained by the military and financial power of that country, whose present rulers find it possible to condemn the evils of territorial partition in other lands, while, in cynical disregard of principle and consistency, they continue to enforce it here.
That the Partition of Ireland is a grievous wrong is a proposition which I do not need to put forward for the assent of any member of this House. Its injustice is recognised outside Ireland, among fairminded people in many countries of the world, including Britain itself, the perpetrator of the wrong. Like all acts of injustice, it is the source of many evils, for which there is no true remedy except the removal of the parent cause. Within the separted part of Ireland, under a Government and Parliament subordinate to those of Britain, there is no true peace. Those who desire national reunion are subjected to various forms of discrimination, aimed at minimising the influence on public affairs to which, by their numbers, they are fairly entitled. Almost daily we read of petty acts of intolerance that outrage every principle of justice and good government. Feelings of resentment and frustration among the Nationalists of the Six Counties are kept alive not only by such acts but by the public statements of men in places, of power, statements that seem to deny all hope of peaceful redress.
It is not surprising, in such circumstances, that some of our people should despair of securing a rational settlement by non-violent means. One of the evils that have their roots in Partition is that some men's thoughts have turned to force as offering a possible means of bringing Partition to an end. The responsibility for this particular evil rests on the British Government and Parliament, which originally devised the expedient of Partition, and on their successors who have persistently supported and enforced the division of Ireland's national territory. The responsibility is shared by the subordinate rulers of the Six Counties, who have implacably opposed the setting right of this great wrong and have made it all the more bitter by their intolerant treatment of the large Nationalist minority within the area of the Six Counties. If the Six-County rulers would adopt a reasonable approach and join us in working out a constitutional solution of Partition, acceptable to the majority and containing proper safeguards for the rights of those who are at present opposing reunion, those rights would receive the fullest protection of all the constitutional forces in every part of Ireland. Political offenders infringing those rights in any way would then receive, with universal assent, the treatment deserved by people who had manifestly dishonoured the nation and its Consitution. In the absence of such a reasonable approach, a heavy weight of moral responsibility rests on the Six-County rulers, who have incessantly maintained a tradition of ruthless, undemocratic and even illegal employment of force to secure their own objectives, without regard to the damage they have been doing to the paramount interest of the people of these islands, which is peace.
In stating where the responsibility for the evil lies, I do not condone the evil itself. The Government's position on the question of the use of force for the ending of Partition has been made clear in a number of previous statements. I dealt with this matter myself in a speech in this House on the 28th October, 1954, shortly after the present Government took office. On that occasion, I stated our conviction that no real solution of the Partition problem could be found by force. I pointed out, moreover, that, even if the contrary view prevailed, force could not legitimately be employed unless it were directed by the Government, acting, with the asset of Dáil Éireann, by means of the armed forces maintained by the Oireachtas. I said, in effect, that force, by whomsoever employed, would involve us in civil war with those of our countrymen who are opposed to reunion and that, if their physical resistance were overcome, Partition would still remain in the form of a deep division of feeling, a bitterness and resentment that would poison our national life for generations to come.
Other members of the Government have spoken more recently on similar lines. The matter is one, however, on which our attitude requires to be stated repeatedly and with emphasis. It is a primary duty of those who are entrusted with the functions of Government, and of all others who occupy positions of responsibility and leadership, to guide public opinion according to the best resources of their wisdom and to state clearly, from time to time, the principles, as they see them, by which public policy in matters of such grave importance should be informed and directed. It is with a full sense of this duty that I have decided to make a further statement on the attitude of my colleagues in the Government and myself towards this matter of the use of force.
The raids on British military posts in the Six Counties and Britain which have occurred during the past year, or so, are attributed to an organisation describing itself as "the Irish Republican Army" or "the I.R.A." Let me say, first, that no organisation exists that has any rightful claim to describe itself by that name. The Irish Republican Army was the military arm of that great national movement which, after the resurgence that followed the Rising of 1916, represented the struggle of the Irish people for political independence in the years 1919 to 1921. The successors of that Army, and the true heirs of its spirit and tradition, are to be found to-day in the Defence Forces of Ireland, the armed forces maintained by the Oireachtas.
To the great national movement to which I have referred, and to the labours and sacrifices of those who took part in it and of the whole people, we owe the existence to-day of a sovereign, independent, democratic Irish State. It is true that we have not yet achieved the full realisation of our rightful national aspirations.
A large part of the historic territory of Ireland is separated from the whole and remains effectively under British control, while having a regional Government of its own with subordinate powers. It is true that, within that separated part of Ireland, those who desire national reunion are subjected to intolerance and unjust discrimination. These are grievous wrongs, and every member of the Government is at least as keenly sensible of them as the most ardent of those who would use force to redress them. But what, in this part of my statement, I wish to emphasise is not the extent to which we are still deprived of our national rights but the magnitude of what has been gained through the efforts and struggles of the past.
The older men and women amongst us remember well a time when no Irish State existed, when the whole of Ireland was governed as a British province, when alien influences sought to dominate every aspect of the community's life, when, for legislative reforms—however urgently needed—we depended on the grace of the British Parliament, when civil administration and the administration of justice were controlled from outside, when the British army occupied the whole of Ireland and the very police force was used as an auxiliary body of that army, when our national language and traditional culture were all but outlawed throughout the whole of our country, when, in time of need, we had no Parliament or Government of our own entitled to be heard amongst the nations of the world. There are younger men and women who do not remember those conditions. There are many who were not born until, in the greater part of our country, those conditions had already become a memory. I ask these younger people to try to realise the immensity of the change that has occurred. We have now an Irish State, with effective jurisdiction over 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland. We have our own institutions of Government. The full sovereignty of this State is unquestioned throughout the world. We, in the Twenty-Six Counties, are free to make the most of our resources, spiritual and material, and to shape our life in harmony with the traditions of our own people. We determine for ourselves who are to be the rulers who shall speak and act for us. We have, I repeat, a sovereign, independent, democratic Irish State.
Let me emphasise the word "democratic". The entire system of government in this State is based on ultimate control by the people, "whose right", in the words of the Constitution, "it is 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 the people, by the votes of all adult citizens, who elect the President and the members of Dáil Éireann. The sole and exclusive power of making laws is vested in the Oireachtas, consisting of the President, Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. It is Dáil Éireann that decides who the members of the Government are to be.
The Government are responsible to the Dáil for the exercise of their functions. It is laid down in the Constitution that "War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann." The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas, and the Constitution expressly forbids the raising or maintaining, for any purpose whatsoever, of any armed force other than the forces raised and maintained by the Oireachtas. The executive authority, including the control of the armed forces, is exercised by the Government, which, as I have said, is responsible to Dáil Éireann. At every point, the people's right to exercise the ultimate control is safeguarded and preserved.
What, then, is to be said of any group that arrogates to itself the right to decide, regardless of the Oireachtas, the Government or the people, the means by which the restoration of territorial unity should be sought? What is to be said of any group that assumes itself to possess some higher wisdom, some more exalted authority, some purer patriotism, that entitles it to wage war in the name of Ireland? Some of them may say that they are not fighting the Irish Government or the forces which it controls, that their efforts are directed against Britain— the power that is responsible for the Partition of Ireland—and that they are aimed at ending British control of the Six Counties. But the matter must be looked at in another light. One such group, through its spokesmen, expressly denies the legitimacy and authority of the Oireachtas and the Government. All of these people, by their actions, defy that authority and challenge the basic principles on which our democratic institutions of government are organised. Lacking, as they do, any authority or representative status, they are, nevertheless, pursuing a course that might involve the entire country—and, particularly, the Nationalists of the Six Counties—in turmoil and suffering.
These men have no shadow of right to take decisions involving the peace of Ireland, in disregard of the great body of public opinion and of the judgment of the people's elected representatives. Their unpatriotic conduct dishonours the national institutions established with so much difficulty over so many years and challenges the Constitution freely enacted by the people. The very mark of a civilised State is that the guns are all under lock and key and that the control of life and death is governed by judicial process, in exercise of power derived, under God, from the people. The alternative is anarchy, and those who would suffer most are the weak, the poor and the defenceless.
Now, it seems that we have not merely one group but two rival groups contending for the privilege of being the authors of civil war. We have a spokesman for one of these groups purporting to warn young men "not to join sentimental or microscopic organisations such as those who attacked the R.U.C. Barracks at Roslea", while a body which "neither admits nor denies responsibility for the raid" appears, by implication, to have accused one of the two private "armies" of felon-setting. The existence of one body organised for unlawful action by force of arms has been a sufficient threat to peace and to the achievement of our national aims. The emergence of another such body shows in a clear light the necessity for bringing all these unlawful activities to an end.
The number of those who have engaged themselves in organisations of this kind is small. Numerically, indeed, they form only a trivial part of the population. But the harm that can be done by such organisations is great. Young men enticed into their ranks find themselves required to expose their own lives and the lives of others in defiance of the moral law. Their activities cannot hasten—but must, rather, postpone—the achievement of national unity and are already beginning to assume the aspect of a civil war. We have had the spectacle of Irishmen attacking Irishmen, in disregard of the presence of a woman and her children. Bloodshed, as we know too well, leads to more bloodshed, and the end could well be a national catastrophe which no Irishman should be capable of contemplating without abhorrence.
We have heard praise of the men who were engaged in some of the raids of the past year. It is suggested that they acted through patriotic motives and displayed intelligence and courage in the planning and carrying out of their operations. But patriotic sentiment, intelligence and courage must be guided by judgment and respect for authority, if they are to be truly directed towards the advancement of the nation's interests. We are sometimes reminded that men who, in the past, took it upon themselves to rise against British rule in Ireland are justly held in honour for their deeds. But the people who thus appeal to the past for justification forget that there is a difference—a vital and essential difference—between the circumstances of the past and those that obtain to-day. That difference resides in the fact, on which I have already laid so much stress, that now we have an Irish Government and Parliament, free and democratic, to speak and act in the name of Ireland.
Men who take part in these activities risk their own lives and liberty. But they are seeking to create a situation in which the life and liberty of the nation itself would be placed in jeopardy. If excuse is to be found for them in their motives and their youth, what excuse is there for men ripe in years and experience, who may be guiding or encouraging them in their activities?
It is time for us all to think clearly about this matter. It is one in which we cannot afford any ambiguity of thought or attitude. The vast majority of our public representatives and of the people share the conviction of my colleagues and myself that the solution of Partition is not to be found in force. There are some—a small minority—who hold a different view, and for them there is a clear choice to be made, a choice from which, if they are honest men, they cannot escape. It is the choice between upholding and denying the authority of the people of this State, through their representatives in Dáil Éireann, to determine questions of policy and the choice between upholding and denying the authority of the Government chosen by Dáil Éireann to exercise their functions as the rulers of the State. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot profess loyalty to the democratic institutions of the State and, at the same time, applaud minority groups which defy those institutions by word and by deed.
A grave responsibility rests on us all in this matter. It rests with special weight on Deputies of all Parties, on Senators, on the members of local authorities, on the various political organisations, including their branches throughout the country, and on all those who are in a position to give leadership and guidance to others. If people of influence in the life of the community seem uncertain in their attitude, or inclined to look indulgently on illegal activities of a military kind, the men already involved will be encouraged and others will be tempted to join them in their disastrous course. There is a need for public opinion to be clarified and to make itself felt, if we are not to have further incidents, with the further loss of young lives and irreparable damage to the nation and to the cause of national reunion.
The problem of the unlawful use of force is one which has been created for us by the actions of the British Government and Parliament and by the unrelenting opposition of the Six-County authorities to any reasonable approach to the ending of Partition.
There have been complaints by the Six-County authorities that we are not prepared to enter into an extradition agreement, by which we would undertake to hand over, for trial, persons accused of offences in the Six Counties or in Britain who have taken refuge in the territory under our jurisdiction. Before I go any further, it is necessary to clarify the position in this regard.
It is being suggested that we have displayed neglect of our international obligations in showing no enthusiasm for negotiating an extradition treaty with the British Government. Let me say, to begin with, that there has never been any serious difficulty about the reciprocal enforcement of warrants in respect of ordinary criminal offences between the British and ourselves and that we are executing the warrants of English and Scottish courts in such cases as freely as they are executing ours. I would not go so far as to say that the existing arrangement in this respect is an ideal one and it has, in fact, been the subject of some criticism both in the Dáil and in the British House of Commons. But it has at least this practical merit, that it works.
It must be admitted that in our relations with the Six Counties the position is not so satisfactory. For the first few years after the establishment of the State there was the same reciprocity in the execution of warrants between the Six Counties and Saorstát Éireann, despite the fact that there were doubts as to whether the execution here of warrants emanating from the Six Counties was in accordance with law. This question was tested in our courts in 1929, and the High Court then decided that there was no authority for the practice of executing Six-County warrants in Saorstát Éireann, and we had no option but to discontinue the practice. As a result, the authorities in the Six Counties ceased to execute our warrants and have not done so since except in a single instance. This situation is one that can only be remedied by legislation. We see no objection in principle to such legislation applying to persons accused of offences that have no political complexion, since it benefits no one to permit persons who have committed ordinary crimes in any part of the country to evade arrest by crossing the Border, but we think that in any such arrangement provision should also be made for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders and some other matters of the same kind and that there should be parallel legislation by the British and ourselves. The difficulty up to the present has been that the British Government appears to be unwilling to recognise the necessity for such legislation on their part and to contemplate an arrangement, so far at least as maintenance orders are concerned, which we feel would be inconsistent with the sovereign status of the State, that is to say, an arrangement based on the application of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, to this part of Ireland by an Order in Council.
The question of extradition stands on a different footing and is governed by the principles and practice of international law, which are well settled and with respect to which I do not doubt that the British Government and ourselves are of the same mind. International law is not a mutual insurance system for the preservation of established Governments, although it is generally accepted that a State is bound to use due diligence to prevent, within its territory, certain kinds of revolutionary activities directed against another Government. But this is not to say that international law requires a State to surrender persons who have engaged in revolutionary activities in another State. On the contrary, it is well settled that every State has the right to grant asylum to political offenders and to decide for itself what is a political offence. And it is common form for every extradition treaty to include a provision specifically excepting political offences from the category of extraditable offences. This is, indeed, the basic principle of the model bilateral Convention which has recently been prepared by the legal experts of the Council of Europe and which has been submitted to the several Governments concerned. This is no novel departure but is one of the few principles of international law that are universally accepted and have never been seriously challenged.
In this connection, it is worth recalling that when the League of Nations sought, in 1937, to secure agreement for some modification of the generally-accepted principles of international law on this particular subject by adopting a Convention for what it called the Prevention and Repression of Terrorism, its efforts met with no success. What is significant is not that the Convention was signed by the representatives of 23 of the countries that were members of the League at the time (for this is understandable in the special circumstances that had given rise to it, namely, the assassination of King Alexander of Yugoslavia some years before) but, rather, that the Convention was ratified by none of the countries that were signatories with but one exception. And it is not without interest that the British Government refused to sign for reasons which were stated by one of their representatives, Sir John Fischer Williams, a distinguished international lawyer, to be as follows (and I quote):—
"Before the United Kingdom could ratify a convention on the lines proposed, it would have to make important changes in its criminal law and such changes would no doubt not be accepted readily by the British people. The changes in the law would relate especially to the freedom of expression of opinion, which had been dear to the British people for centuries. The same difficulties would arise as regards the proposals relating to the export of arms and to extradition for political offences. The United Kingdom Government would, therefore, have to scrutinise the provisions adopted by the Conference carefully when it had ended, in order to consider whether it was possible to become a party to the future Convention."
I must, therefore, emphasise, in order to prevent any future controversy or discussion on this point, that there can be no question of our handing over, either to the British or to the Six-County authorities, persons whom they may accuse of armed political activities in Britain or in the Six Counties.
Let me repeat, with emphasis, that this evil—the unlawful use of force— has its roots in Partition, and the primary responsibility for its existence rests, therefore, on those who have created and who are sustaining Partition. But it is, none the less, an evil— one which deeply affects Irish national life and which cannot be tolerated by the Government of Ireland. Since the present Government assumed office 18 months ago, we have based our policy in this matter on a detestation of repressive measures against any section of our people and on the hope that the previous statements by myself and other members of the Government, and, I am glad to say, by the Leader of the Opposition, would have the effect which we desired. Our detestation of repressive measures remains, but our hope of influencing the men concerned by reasoned statements has not been fulfilled.
During my first period of office as the Head of the Government of Ireland, I spoke more than once about "taking the gun out of Irish politics". No object has been more earnestly desired and sought after by me in the course of my political life. When I was appointed to be the Taoiseach in 1948, I sincerely believed—I would not otherwise have accepted the office— that, with the co-operation of my colleagues and as a result of our policies, the gun would, in fact, be taken out of Irish politics. Before we left office, it seemed that that object had been achieved. After the formation of the present Government, when the incidents to which I have referred began to occur, my colleagues and I placed our faith in a policy of patience and forbearance. We trusted that the challenge to our democratic institutions which those incidents implied would not be persisted in—that, in a short time, the men who were responsible would have it borne in upon them, by their own conscience and by public opinion, that such a challenge could not indefinitely be tolerated.
Let me emphasise once more that these activities are a challenge of the gravest kind to the democratic rights of the Irish people and to the rightful authority of the Oireachtas and of the Government. It is in that light that they must be regarded, and it is by reason of that fact that the duty of ending them devolves upon us all. It is with the deepest earnestness that I appeal to every man and woman, to the leaders of public opinion and, not least, to the members of the organisations concerned to do their part in seeing to it that these activities will end now, forever.
If my appeal to the members of the organisations concerned meets with no response, then the duty of the Government is clear. We must assert and vindicate the people's right to determine national policy and the right of the Oireachtas and the Government to maintain and uphold the authority that reposes in them. We are bound to ensure that unlawful activities of a military character shall cease, and we are resolved to use, if necessary, all the powers and forces at our disposal to bring such activities effectively to an end. It is for Dáil Éireann and for the people of Ireland, in the interest of this generation and of the generations to come, to give us full and unwavering support in the performance of that duty. I am confident that that support will be forthcoming.
Mr. de Valera
My views and the views of my colleagues on these benches are known. Our attitude is unambiguous; our views are on record in the proceedings of the House and in the public Press. I rise now, therefore, merely to express the hope that the appeal of the Taoiseach will be listened to, that his warning will be heeded and that those who can influence public opinion will realise fully the direction in which we have been drifting.
The statesmanlike and constructive statement made by the Taoiseach probably reduces the necessity for saying very much in regard to the present situation. There are, however, one or two things that I think it is probably necessary to say in order to maintain a perspective in the situation that exists. The events that have given rise to the statements made on behalf of the Government by the Taoiseach are inseparable from the results of the situation which has been imposed upon the country. Whenever the infringement of the sovereign national rights of a nation occurs, inevitably the people of the nation whose rights have been infringed, or a section of the people will seek to undo the wrongs inflicted upon their nation.
The Partition of Ireland, as the Taoiseach has rightly pointed out, is a clear infringement of the sovereign rights of the Irish people. It is a clear invasion of the democratic rights of the Irish people. The establishment of the democratic system of Government in the world took a long struggle to achieve but it has certainly now been firmly planted in this part of the world. That democratic system of government depends for its existence on the right of the people to determine their own affairs freely without outside interference.
In the case of Ireland, as in the case of any other country which is partitioned against the will of its people, it is inevitable that there will be an attitude of revolt on the part of the people who are separated from their motherland. The only real solution, as the Taoiseach has pointed out, in the long run, is to remedy the wrong which has been inflicted upon the nation. I do not want to say anything here to-night that might be construed as an encouragement to acts of violence. One of the difficulties of discussing a situation such as the present is that anything one might say is always open to misconception. The prime responsibility for the situation which exists in the country to-day and, indeed, the situation which has existed in the country for the last 35 years, is Britain's responsibility.
In so far as the Taoiseach has intimated that this Parliament is sovereign and that it alone has the right to wage war or to maintain an army here, I agree with him. I do not believe myself that acts of violence, unsupported by the resources of the State, can achieve the goal which, presumably, we all want to achieve. If I did, I would say so and I would either participate in or lead any movement that was engaged in the pursuit of such a policy.
I would join with the Taoiseach in urging those who speak on these questions to refrain from making what might be described as inflammatory speeches. I can quite well understand the attitude of any young Irishman who considers that his attitude should be one of open revolt against the infringement of our sovereignty. I can understand, and sympathise even, with the attitude of an Irishman in the Six Counties who is prepared to use any means at his disposal to undo that wrong but I have little sympathy with those who would, from a distance, encourage in this situation, young men actuated by patriotic motives to endanger their lives and their liberty.
This, however, does not end the matter. We must throughout be careful not to place ourselves here in the position of acting as the instruments of British policy in Ireland. For over 20 years successive Governments have, from time to time, been placed in the position of virtually fighting a civil war against a section of our own people in an effort to maintain a limitation of the sovereignty of the Irish people in Ireland. This has distorted our whole political life and has hindered and practically stultified the progress of this State. It is a repetition of this tragic history which we must now avoid. We must avoid placing ourselves in a position where we will be virtually fighting a section of our own people in order to maintain the status quo, in other words, to maintain Partition.
For these reasons I join with the Taoiseach in appealing to those who, in our midst, are in an attitude of open revolt, to refrain from creating a situation in which they will come into conflict with our own people here. They, like the Government, must realise that such open conflict between any section of our people, particularly between any sections of our people who share the same ideals, can only weaken the national effort and retard ultimately the reunification of the country. While making that appeal, I must at the same time urge that, in the situation which has been imposed upon us, there is a special responsibility on the Government and on Dáil Éireann to provide an active leadership in the nation's determination to secure reunification. We may differ in this House as to the extent of the steps, or the nature of the steps, which an Irish Government should take. In my view, an Irish Government is entitled to use every means at its disposal including, if needs be, and in certain circumstances, the use of the armed forces of the State.
I know that that view may not be shared by the different Parties in the House: I know that there is room for discussion on these views and I am not asking the present Government, or indeed the Leader of the Opposition, to adopt those views. I know that they probably would reject those views but I do ask them in other spheres to give a definite lead and provide a leadership which I think is necessary in the situation. That is why I have been so anxious for a number of years to persuade this House that the first logical step towards the creation of an all-Ireland Parliament is to secure representation of the people of the Six Counties in this House itself. I do believe unless we provide a leadership ourselves from this House for the people, not only of the Twenty-Six Counties but of the Six Counties as well, we will convey the impression outside that we are ourselves maintaining Partition, in other words, that we are failing in our duty to provide leadership for the nation.
I would, therefore, like to appeal again to the two main Parties in this House to consider that. I do not propose to repeat the many arguments in favour of that course to-night. I know that these arguments have been and are understood both by the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Opposition, but I would appeal to them sincerely in this situation to consider that step again.
There is one other matter to which I would like to advert just for the sake of clarification. The Taoiseach in the course of his statement to the House referred to two rival groups in the country who both, apparently, use or are prepared to use physical force.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but I want to put myself right with the House. The House has ordered that Private Deputies' business be taken at 9 o'clock.
I am sorry, A Cheann Comhairle, I can finish in two minutes.
Would Deputy MacBride move the Adjournment.
There is no motion to adjourn before the House.
I, as a member of the Labour Party, the members of which have not yet spoken, am anxious to contribute to the debate. I claim my right and place myself under your protection, a Cheann Comhairle——
The Party to which the Deputy belongs is represented in the Government and the Head of the Government has made a statement.
But the Party has not. So long as I can make myself clear with my constituents I do not mind. I, as one of the Labour Party, have no knowledge of any agreement being entered into——
I did not say anything about an agreement, but the Taoiseach is the recognised Head of the Government and the Taoiseach has made a statement here. Deputy Kyne and the Party to which he belongs are represented in the Government and, therefore, Deputy Kyne and other private Deputies may not be allowed to speak.
On a point of order——
These points of order have already been disposed of.
With due respect to the Ceann Comhairle, I am raising a point of order which has not been raised before and, since the Ceann Comhairle has not heard it, the Ceann Comhairle is not in a position to judge whether it has been raised or not until it is raised. I suggest I have a point of order to raise which has not been raised before. In the course of his statement to the House, the Taoiseach pointed out that this Dáil is charged with the responsibility of guidance in this queston——
That is not a point of order.
——and that therefore it is the right of every member of the House to make his views known——
The Deputy will resume his seat. Deputy MacBride.
Would you allow me——
Deputies
Sit down.
Surely, Sir, on a point of order——
The Deputy is raising arguments on the Taoiseach's statement——
This raises the question of the rights of private Deputies.
——and I am not going to allow these arguments. Deputy MacBride to conclude.
On a point of order —I insist that on a matter of national importance, like this, it is the right of every Deputy to express his views——
I am not going to oblige the Deputy by having him removed from the House. The Deputy will sit down.
I am not asking the Chair to give me the privilege of being removed from the House. I will go out under my own steam.
The Deputy will either resume his seat or leave the House.
I want to get it quite clear that as far as I am personally concerned——
Deputy McQuillan will either resume his seat or leave the House.
I do not want to challenge the Chair but I want to make it clear if Deputy MacBride is willing to adjourn this until further discussions take place in order to enable every Deputy in the House to make his views on this matter known, I will certainly sit down.
I have no objection to that.
I take it so that Deputy MacBride is agreeable and it can be raised again.
The only thing I wish to say in conclusion is that it is necessary to understand clearly the position and attitudes of the different groups or sections that are involved in the events which have been discussed. There is unfortunately in the country a lack of information generally as to events within the Six Counties themselves. In so far as the Taoiseach's statement may be intended or be understood to refer to Fianna Uladh I would like to place on record the actual constitution and the objects embodied in the constitution of Fianna Uladh, which seem to me to be in accordance with the attitude of this House. I do so merely to clear up any possible misunderstanding.
"The object of Fianna Uladh is to secure the reintegration of Ireland as a complete, free, independent Republic, and its cultural and spiritual rehabilitation.
"Fianna Uladh recognises and accepts the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland enacted by the people on the 1st July, 1937, and does not recognise the right of any body or authority, other than the Irish people, to exercise sovereignty in any portion of Ireland."
It then sets out the means:—
"The organisation of Republicans in occupied Ireland into a disciplined political movement, and the use of every legitimate means to bring about the reunification of the territory of the Republic of Ireland."
I find it necessary to place that on the records of the House for the information of members.
Private Deputies' Business.
Is any other Deputy entitled to speak?
The Deputy was already told that Leaders of Parties, and only Leaders of Parties, were entitled to speak on the statement made by the Taoiseach.
Is it the Leader of Fianna Uladh or the Leader of Clann na Poblachta who is to speak in this House?