Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Oct 1957

Vol. 164 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - U.N.O. Action on Partition—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that our permanent delegate to the U.N.O. should be instructed to seek in the Assembly of that body (a) the immediate despatch of U.N.O. observers to the occupied part of the national territory, and (b) the setting up of the necessary machinery whereby a national plebiscite of the whole people of Ireland on the question of Partition may be held under U.N.O. auspices.—(Deputies McQuillan and Finucane.)

Mr. Aiken

Last Wednesday when the debate on this motion was opened, Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Desmond contributed to it. Running through their speeches, and also running through some of the interjections, was the general idea that the activities engaged in by illegal forces at the present time in the Six Counties were justified by the fact, or the alleged fact, that the Irish Republican Army in 1919 and 1923 was exactly on the same footing. That is a very disastrous idea for members of this House to promote because nothing could be further from the truth. When the Irish Republican Army in 1919 were asked to give their allegiance to the Dáil, to the representatives elected by the Irish people, they gave allegiance. They promised to obey Dáil Éireann and their commissions were issued, after the Dáil and the Republic were set up, by the Minister for Defence of that Government and they obeyed his orders.

When the split came over the Treaty, the newly-elected Minister for Defence undertook that the Dáil would be maintained as the Government of the Republic and the forces of the State as the Irish Republican Army. Many at that time who were against the Treaty urged the Republican Army to maintain its allegiance while the Government maintained the Army as the Army of the Republic. When the Civil War broke out the attitude of the Irish Republican Army at that time was that when they were attacked they were fighting to maintain the State that had been established by the Irish people and that had not been legally disestablished.

At the end of the Civil War when the Republican Army was defeated, they issued peace proposals which clearly indicated their attitude at that time towards constitutional authority in the country, and clearly indicated their acceptance of the idea that the majority of the people's representatives should decide national policy, provided there was no oath of allegiance to a British king. The cease fire proposals at that time, the peace proposals that were made in May, 1923, read as follows:—

1. That the sovereign rights of this nation are indefeasible and inalienable.

2. That all legitimate governmental authority in Ireland, legislative, executive and judicial, is derived exclusively from the people of Ireland.

3. (a) That as a practical rule of order and democratic government, political issues shall be decided by the majority vote of the duly elected representatives of the people, subject always to the right of referendum and appeal directly to the people, and to an understanding that 1 and 2 are fundamental.

(b) That as a corollary, the people are entitled to have all lethal weapons within the country in the effective custody or control of the Executive Government responsible to the people through their representatives.

4. That no citizen who subscribes to the foregoing can be justly excluded by any political oath, test, or other device from his or her share in determining national policy, or from the councils and Parliament of the nation.

5. That freedom to express political or economic opinions, or to advocate political or economic programmes, freedom to assemble in public meeting, and freedom for the Press are rights that must be guaranteed.

Captain Giles

We should not have had the Civil War at all.

Mr. Aiken

We should not.

Captain Giles

The Minister is quite right.

Mr. Aiken

The conditions laid down by the men who fought to maintain the State established by the people in 1919 were clearly outlined in those proposals. The conditions which they demanded as a preliminary to the placing of their arms at the disposal of the elected representatives of the people have been fulfilled. They were fulfilled completely in 1937 when the people finally enacted their own Constitution. The oath of allegiance to the British King had been abolished before that. The situation then became that people were free to go to the electors on any policy they liked and that they could come into this House and advocate any policy they liked. The Constitution fulfilled the conditions which would give an orderly way of arriving at decisions here, an orderly way of arriving at such fundamental and vital decisions as that of peace or war.

It is misleading the young people of the country, and particularly those in the various groups who are carrying on armed activities, to say they are justified in their present ignoring of the wishes of the elected representatives here, that they are justified because of the alleged attitude of the Irish Republican Army in the 1919-1923 period. The smaller a country is and the weaker it is, the more important it is for it to have smooth and well-organised ways of arriving at policy.

Policy to be effective must have behind it the greatest proportion of our people. We must expend as little energy as we can in arriving at a policy and when it is arrived at, with the least expenditure of energy, it should have the greatest backing from all the people. The men who are at the present time engaged in these armed activities have the right, as any of the Deputies in this House have, to go before the people and get elected on any policy they choose.

Mr. McQuillan

On a point of order, is the Minister discussing the motion on the Order Paper? The motion is directed to our delegate at the United Nations. The motion does not deal with internment.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Minister will make his remarks relevant.

Mr. Aiken

What I was condemning was the idea running through Deputy McQuillan's and Deputy Desmond's speeches and Deputy Giles's interjection that these people were justified in carrying on as they are because of the alleged attitude of the I.R.A., the Irish Republican Army, in the old days to the vital question as to how policy was to be decided and who was to have control over the armed forces. I shall leave it at that. I dealt rather fully the last night with certain aspects of the Partition question. I do not want to go over it again. What has to be decided by the Dáil is whether the Government should be given a direction such as that outlined in Deputy McQuillan's motion, that we take certain decisions now that must be carried out immediately by the Government. Any reasonable person will admit that it must be left to the Government to decide on matters of this kind and on the content and the timing of any motions that are put before either the United Nations or any other assembly in which the Government represents the country. I hope the Dáil will so agree and that the Government will have the right to discuss this matter in all its aspects from time to time and to see what form of motion, if any, should be put before the United Nations or any of its constituent bodies.

Deputy Finucane rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy intervening or concluding?

Mr. Finucane

Intervening. With regard to the first part of this motion —that U.N.O. observers be dispatched immediately to the occupied part of our national territory, I feel that it is incumbent that neutral observers should know at first hand what is taking place in that quarter of our territory which is in the hands of alien occupying forces. These forces have the full power of radio, Press, television and cinema to distort the facts and disseminate their propaganda, but when the people of Ireland try to put the facts before the world they are jailed for their attempt.

The struggle of the resistance movement in the North is not a struggle of Nationalist against Unionist, as British propaganda would have us believe. It is not directed against the Unionist population of the North. It is not directed against any section of the Irish people, against any Irishman or Irishwoman. Its only target is the British occupation of our country for the past 750 years. The Irish people know well that it is the British garrison in Ireland who are keeping the struggle alive; but when the Irish people try to explain to the world what their aim is, they are gagged and jailed. For this, amongst other reasons, it is essential that neutral observers should see for themselves the justice of the struggle of the resistance movement against the alien occupation of one quarter of our national territory.

As to the second part of the motion —the setting up of machinery for a plebiscite of the people of Ireland on the question of Partition to be held under U.N.O. auspices. Surely this plebiscite is long overdue. When this Dáil has in its 35 years of existence as a national Government failed and failed miserably to take any active step to undo the injustice of the partition of our land and to force the commando troops of an alien Government to leave our country and leave us work out our own salvation in our own Irish way, then it is surely time that they stood aside and let the plain people of Ireland decide what steps they wish to have taken to put an end to this 750 years long occupation. Seekers after freedom in other countries are patted on the back by our Governments.

The Irish people know that Ireland will have no peace until the Imperial garrison is withdrawn from our land. When this is done, the Irish people will resolve all their differences, differences which can easily be remedied once the British propaganda designed to divide, and keep divided, our people, is withdrawn. Ireland wants full control of its own destiny, north and south. As long as we have occupied territory and an artificial border, so long will we have disunity, emigration, unemployment and poverty. It is the grossest travesty of simple justice when the Irish National Flag can fly in amity and unity with the flags of other nations everywhere, save in our own country. Is it not therefore time to let the people of Ireland decide, by plebiscite, what they wish to have done, and to have this plebiscite under the auspices of U.N.O.?

Mr. Loughman

It is a favourite phrase in this House that the Government and the Parliament here have done nothing for the past 35 years. I think a great deal has been done in those 35 years, not only in the economic and social fields, but also in the matter of getting control of this country. Deputy Finucane ought to be aware of the fact that we did get the return of the portions of our territory that were occupied by the British in 1938, and also got annulled a clause in the Treaty whereby the British people were entitled to use any portion of our territory in times of stress. That was a pretty fair advance towards securing the sovereignty of the Twenty-Six Counties of which we have control.

I should like to point out also from memory that we were making great strides with the British people up to the time of the armed activities in Britain, the Coventry bombings, and so on. There are many people who believe that were it not for those bombings, greater strides would have been made towards securing the unity of the country. Consequently, a number of us who can remember the time the British were in occupation here are very disappointed and upset when people take the law into their own hands, would seem to override the Parliament elected by the people of Ireland and do things which we believe are very damaging to Irish unity and in fact set things back many years.

I met many people from Northern Ireland, both parliamentary representatives and others. I lived for several months in the Six Counties and I have a pretty fair idea of the people who live there. I also have a good idea of the history of the Republican movement and I believe that republicanism was started in the Six Counties about 150 years ago. All the great names in the Republican movement were people belonging to the Faith of the majority of the people of the Six Counties and they were, I suppose, some of the greatest patriots our country has ever known.

I discussed this question with a representative of the Six Counties at Strasbourg. He and I did not yield anything to each other, so far as our beliefs were concerned. He asked me point blank in the course of a long discussion what were my views with regard to Partition and the steps that should be taken towards ending it. I spoke to him quite frankly in these terms: I said, as Deputy Finucane has said, that for 750 years the people of this country suffered and endured to secure freedom and unity for the country, believing that they were entitled to it and that that freedom would bring prosperity; that we waited, suffered and endured during all those years, having at the back of our minds the knowledge that if we yielded to the British, there were many benefits which we would secure for our people; that our forefathers, notwithstanding the bribe of all those benefits and services, were prepared to suffer. I said that for 750 years our people carried on until, in 1937, we secured sovereignty for 26 of our counties. I said that we waited for that length of time for that freedom and our people were prepared to suffer as they did during all that time. I said that, while I should like to see unity in the morning, I wished first that the people of Northern Ireland would come into the Irish nation of their own free will. That was the first point that I wished to make.

I said that if we did by force secure the union of the Six Counties with the Twenty-Six Counties, it seemed to me that we would have to maintain in the North an armed force to keep our Irish people there in subjection; that we would have, in fact, to duplicate in the North what we say the Six-County Government is doing to the people whom we regard as Nationalists in Northern Ireland. I said that that was a situation that I did not want to see; that I would not like to see an Irish Government dragooning any section of our people in any part of our country and that, therefore, I was hoping and wishing that at some stage the people of Northern Ireland would come in with us in the Government of the 32 Counties of Ireland.

I continued that, while I should like to see unity established at once, I was satisfied to wait five years, ten years or 25 years since I knew that it was inevitable that the unity of this country would be restored and that, as I was satisfied that that would happen, I would prefer to wait the 25 years I mentioned, or longer, if necessary, so that our people would be united in a voluntary way, rather than that we should have to dragoon them into becoming Irish people.

I should like to remind Deputy Finucane and Deputy McQuillan that the Unionists in Northern Ireland are truly Irish. They are as Irish as I am or as the rest of the members of this House are. The only difference between us is that they have a different viewpoint. It could have happened in 1914 and 1915, when I was a lot younger than I am now, that we would have had their view. It was almost turning that way until the people who came out in 1916 put national spirit into our people again. Anyone who is old enough to remember that period will know that from 1914 to 1916, it could easily have happened that we would have become satisfied to be within the British Empire.

The motion asks the Government to instruct our delegate at the U.N.O. to seek in the Assembly that that body would dispatch observers to the Six Counties. The first thing I notice about that is that we are to be immune from observation. Even if the Deputies' demand were met by the Government, I think the observers should be asked to come to the Twenty-Six Counties as well as to the Six Counties, in all fairness. Why should we take it on ourselves to ask that only Northern Ireland should be subjected to this inquisition? Are not the people of Northern Ireland entitled to expect that they would come here also?

Apart from that, I do not see any reason why we should not trust the Government that is in office, no matter what Government is in office, when it is dealing with the question of Irish unity outside this country. I would have been perfectly happy to leave it to the previous Government, and we did leave it to the previous Government, to decide what action our delegates at U.N.O. would take. I think that whatever action is necessary will be taken by the Government at present in office and that this motion should not be passed by the House. I do not see what useful purpose it would serve to have this plebiscite. We all know what the result would be, if it were taken over the 32 Counties. The result would be that three-fourths of the people would vote for a united Ireland and one-fourth would perhaps vote against it and then if that decision, the likelihood of which is known to the British people and to most people throughout the world, were taken, all that would happen would be, in the event of the British withdrawing, that we would have to compel the people of Northern Ireland with a police force and an army to accept Government from Dublin or from a subordinate Parliament that we might establish in Northern Ireland.

This motion does not serve any useful purpose. Anyone who has had experience of U.N.O. realises that we represent only one view in that body; that we are a very small country and cannot hope to impose our will on the great number of Governments represented at U.N.O. and that, if we did try to do it and made ourselves objectionable because of our pressure, far from getting their support, we probably would engender antagonism. The Minister was wise in what he said here to-night, that they would choose the best time to make their appeal and, in the meantime, build up the case for Irish unity amongst the delegates.

I might say from experience that national groups in international organisations do far greater work in the lobbies than in the chambers. They meet representatives of other countries. As a representative of this country, I was surprised by the number of people who asked me questions about this country and about the views of Irish people on their countries. I found that we were able to do a great deal in the lobbies to publicise the position of this country with people of other nations. My hope is that by our continued membership of U.N.O. we will, both in the lobbies and in the Assembly, continue to keep the case of Ireland before the delegates from other countries and, when the proper time comes, will be able to secure the co-operation of those delegates for whatever measure that is thought best to bring Ireland's case to the fore. Of course, people forget sometimes that the people on the spot are the best judges of the time and the method to be adopted in raising such questions. Therefore, I think it would be wrong that a Parliament such as this should give those delegates an order to do certain things, maybe at the wrong time. Therefore, my opinion is that the House should not pass this motion.

Mr. Corish

I should like to make a few brief comments on this motion. I must say that I am a little saddened at the attitude displayed by the last speaker in his remarks. In the first place, I do not think there should be any objection to Deputy McQuillan or anyone in this House putting down a motion on the question of Partition.

Mr. Loughman

I made no objection.

Mr. Corish

In any case, the Deputy said the motion should not have been put down. I have faith that Deputy Aiken as Minister for External Affairs, will, generally speaking, present our case in any international body as well as any Minister for External Affairs would, as well as Deputy Cosgrave or as any other Minister did. But Deputy McQuillan and I may have a different viewpoint from many members in this House, as to when Ireland's case on Partition should be presented, where it should be presented and how it should be presented.

I am in favour of this motion and I do not think it should be confused at all with anything that has happened in the past 12 months here in this part of the country or up in the North. I think it is to obviate what is happening—and with which I violently disagree, that is, the use of force — that this motion has been tabled. It is to prevent a continuance of some of the things that have happened in the Six Counties over the past 12 months that this motion is put forward; and Deputy McQuillan, Deputy Finucane and we in the Labour Party ask that now in the United Nations the problem of Partition be brought to the fore.

I know there are many objections, about our being "a sore thumb" in any international organisation. I know that we may bring ourselves into disrepute if the problem is presented in the wrong way or is presented at the wrong time; but I believe that, by and large, weighing up all these difficulties, the pros and cons, now is an opportune time to have this case presented.

What is being asked? I will take the second part first. We are asking our delegate to U.N.O. to seek in the Assembly the setting up of the necessary machinery whereby a national plebiscite of the whole people of Ireland on the question of Partition may be held under U.N.O. auspices. Deputy Loughman has repudiated every statement on the question of national self-determination that has ever been proclaimed and propounded by Deputy de Valera as Taoiseach, by Deputy Aiken and all the members of the Front Bench. Deputy Loughman says that if we get self-determination and if there is a plebiscite of the 32 Counties, we will be left with a problem. He says he wonders if we may have to send up policemen or soldiers to keep subject those people who would then be in the minority in the 32 Counties. I would be prepared to chance that; I would be prepared to say that, whatever Government there is for the 32 Counties, it would be acceptable to the minority. Remember that in the present United States of America there was even a much bigger problem, where you had practically half of the present United States in the South opposed to those in the North. There was not any real difficulty when the Act of Union was passed and those two merged as one State, one country, so to speak.

I do not think we should underestimate British propaganda, which is much more subtle than anything we in Ireland could disseminate in Strasbourg. Deputy Loughman has been in Strasbourg and I have been there. I have spoken there, not on the question of Partition, but I have talked to individual delegates. They smiled and were very nice and very diplomatic; they pretended to understand the Irish point-of-view as far as Partition is concerned; but whilst they did understand it, these Unionists from the North whom Deputy Loughman pretends to know so well and those British M.P.s, whether they be Labour or Tory, have a much more subtle type of propaganda. The members of the British Commonwealth all over the world have a much more subtle bit of propaganda than we can ever hope to have, because we are babes in arms when it comes to diplomacy. That is not of our own making; that is not our own fault. We are a relatively young nation and we are still inexperienced in the exercise of that type of diplomacy which the British people have been used to for many centuries.

The reason why I support Deputy McQuillan's proposal is to try to get our representatives to understand that it is not a domestic problem, that it is not just a struggle between Irishmen in the North and Irishmen in the South, or between Catholics in the North and Protestants in the North. We want to bring home to the United Nations that it is the British Government which was responsible for the division into six counties and 26 counties. Whilst Deputy Loughman may appear to think that many people with whom he came in contact wanted to know all about Partition, the vast majority of the 82 countries in U.N.O. have not the foggiest idea about the problem in the North. However, they are told by the British, by the British Members of Parliament and British representatives, and by those from the Commonwealth—people from South Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—that this is a religious problem, that it is "the fighting Irish fighting against one another, as usual."

If observers are sent over, let them come to the Six and Twenty-six Counties. They can get a greater appreciation of the situation then. Let them also go to Britain and see what the feeling there is on Partition. I agree with Deputy Loughman when he denies the allegation by, I think he said Deputy McQuillan or Deputy Finucane, that for 35 years nothing has been done. I would disagree with that. A lot has been done; a lot has been done for which we do not give ourselves credit, not only on the question of Partition but in economic, industrial and agricultural fields as well. Much has been done in those short 35 years in which all of us could take pride and which is to the credit of all Governments.

Whilst a lot may have been done to try to end Partition, relatively little has been achieved — and I think that is what Deputy McQuillan may have been trying to say. All of us must agree that relatively little has been achieved. Perhaps we got back the ports and did certain other things and declared a Republic for this part of the country; but as far as the actual reunification of the Six Counties with the Twenty-Six is concerned, the problem has become even more difficult-and that, let me say in all honesty, has been aggravated by the events in the Six Counties in the last 12 months. It is not for me to say it, but I do not doubt the sincerity of the majority of those people; yet they are going the wrong way about it. Let me finish with that, because this motion should not have introduced that question.

Mr. Loughman

Might I explain to Deputy Corish that what I was objecting to was instructions? I was not objecting to observers, but to instructing our delegate on that point.

Mr. Corish

The instructing is an expression of opinion from Deputy McQuillan, Deputy Finucane and myself. Deputy Aiken may have — he has —a different view and I am sure he will carry it in the Fianna Fáil Party and this will be voted against. There is nothing to prevent Deputy McQuillan, Deputy Finucane and myself expressing a different view and letting the public know about it. That is the purpose of debate here, because the experience has been that the Government with a majority will enforce its majority — whether it is a Coalition or a Fianna Fáil Government. But at least we can express our views here. The reason why we ought to bring this thing to the notice of the United Nations is that in the United Nations Charter there is a proclamation about national self-determination. If national self-determination should apply to any country in the world, it should apply to this country — for the various reasons which have been given by Deputy Aiken, by the previous Minister, Deputy MacBride, by Deputy de Valera as Taoiseach and by others.

That is supposed to be one of the most important points in their Charter, and we all know, to our regret, that it has been applied all over the world, but there is no attempt to apply it to certain countries — countries, mark you, that are not strategically placed. I often think that if we were in a particular part of the world and could be pulled by this Power and that Power, you would have the other 80 nations of U.N.O. falling over themselves in their efforts to try to relieve this problem.

The Minister for External Affairs spoke about the Hungarian problem. I forget whether he dealt with the Cyprus problem in his speech to the United Nations. I am not twitting or criticising the Minister at all. In the main, he made a good contribution though I disagree with many portions of his speech. He and others in the United Nations put forward suggestions for the solving of the Hungarian problem and the problems of the satellite nations. Nobody seems to be the least bit perturbed about the Irish question simply because Ireland is the next parish to America. We are not in any of the "hot spots". We are situated between three great friendly Powers, Canada the United States of America and Great Britain. If we were in the strategic position that Cyprus occupies everybody would be concerned about the division of Ireland. We support this motion and the Labour Party will vote for it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If no Deputy offers, I shall call on the mover of the motion to conclude.

Mr. McQuillan

I am very glad that Deputy Corish so ably cleared away the smokescreen thrown up to-night and last Wednesday by the Minister for External Affairs and his colleague, Deputy Loughman. Every time an effort is made here to obtain support for a constitutional and practical step towards ending Partition the immediate reaction of successive Governments has been to throw up a smokescreen of alleged illegal activities here and on the other side of the British-imposed Border.

It is only a short time ago since I tabled a motion here seeking to open Dáil Éireann to the elected representatives of the Six Counties. A considerable time elapsed between the time the motion was tabled and the time when the motion came up for discussion. In the interval certain incidents took place in the North. There were certain attacks on installations in the Six Counties and when the motion came up for discussion the then Taoiseach and the other Deputies who spoke concentrated in toto on the incidents which had taken place and were successful in hiding from the public the true meaning of the motion. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many outside, that motion represented a practical step towards achieving unity in Ireland.

To-night and last Wednesday night when this motion was being discussed we had exactly the same type of approach and the same type of smokescreen thrown up. Would anybody listening to the Minister and to Deputy Loughman to-night not conclude that the motion under discussion was one asking for support or aid in relation to the activities taking place in occupied Ireland? The motion merely asks that this House, through the Government, would direct our permanent representative to the U.N.O. to seek "(a) the immediate dispatch of U.N.O. observers to the occupied part of the national territory, and (b) the setting up of the necessary machinery whereby a national plebiscite of the whole people of Ireland on the question of Partition may be held under U.N.O. auspices." Is there anything in that motion to which the remarks of the Minister for External Affairs were directly or even indirectly relevant to-night?

I find it difficult to deal with the red herrings drawn across the trail by the Minister in his contribution. I shall not dispute or discuss his interpretation or his history of events. The younger people to-day are prepared to leave discussions on the Civil War to those who took part in it. Such a contribution as we had to-night is a tragic contribution 35 years afterwards. The best that can be done with the past is to forget it. We should not now be discussing who was right and who was wrong. We should all be agreed that it was a tragic period and, having agreed, we should move forward on honest and constructive lines to repair the damage done then and since.

Deputy Loughman made one important point; he does not want any portion of the people dragooned by anybody. Note that. That is something with which everybody will agree. But who is doing the dragooning? Are the Irish people dragooning one another? Is some section of our people being dragooned? Does Deputy Loughman believe that it is right that the Nationalist population in occupied Ireland should be dragooned as they are being dragooned to-day and have been dragooned since the Act of 1920 came into operation? Is it not there that the dragooning is taking place? If we are keen to put an end to that on constitutional lines is there any better place to air our grievance than before the Assembly of the United Nations? From the Minister's contribution to-night it is quite clear that the Fianna Fáil cupboard is bare so far as any policy in relation to Partition is concerned. There is nothing left in the cupboard except skeletons.

The Minister suggested that, through my opening remarks, there was nothing but a feeling of despair and hopelessness and that I was preaching that policy of despair and hopelessness. He went on to say, as reported at column 158 of the Official Report, Volume 164:—

"In this House we are all agreed that Partition is a crime against the Irish people, that it is a wrong that must be undone and that it is against the whole trend of thought in the democratic world at the present time."

Later, in the course of his remarks, as reported at columns 159-160 of the Official Report, Deputy Aiken, the Minister for External Affairs, said:—

"The people responsible are the British Government. It is they who brought it into being; it is they who are keeping it in being. It is they who show by their actions that they regard it as in the British interest to keep Ireland divided just as they declared it to be their interest that Germany should be reunited."

There is a strong case from a man who should know the position. He fairly and squarely lays the blame for Partition at the door of the British Government. With regard to people like myself in this House who criticise the lack of action over the past 35 years, who criticise the various Governments for their approach to the ending of Partition, who criticise their approach as one of hopelessness and despair, as reported at column 161 of the Official Report, he said:—

"This hopeless type of approach of Deputy McQuillan, that we must get it by this date or another date, is completely and absolutely wrong. We must set no date by which we must end Partition or surrender."

I said nothing in the course of my remarks about surrender but I did cast out the idea that the younger people have become cynical at the lack of sincerity, cynical at the approach of the major Parties on this question and that that cynicism has now been transferred into channels which, I understand, is being deplored in this House by Deputies who, themselves, many years ago, kindled or lighted these fires.

We have been told by the Minister that we are not to set any date, that it does not matter how long it takes, that, in his view, Partition will be solved. I am not prepared to take that view. I am not prepared to believe it, because the evidence is to the contrary. The gap between the two parts of Ireland is slowly but definitely widening and if that drift is allowed to continue it will be a sad day for both parts of Ireland.

It is accepted by most people that the major ills that beset Ireland to-day stem from Partition. It is accepted that the same major evils of emigration and unemployment are common to both sides of this unnatural boundary. It is accepted that Partition was imposed on Ireland by force. I think that the evidence of our eyes, ears and everything else will prove that Partition is there and is maintained by force by an alien Government. We know the consequences of anything like rule by force. Wherever force is essential in maintaining or holding down people, that force breeds and incites other force in opposition to it and it is only that which we see happening to day, as we have seen it happen for years past, in the occupied part of Ireland.

It is the duty of every Deputy to help with all the practical suggestions he can think of towards achieving the unity of our country. I asked the Taoiseach a further question to-day:

"To ask the Taoiseach if, in view of the fact that Ireland is now a party to the United Nations Charter, he will state whether the Government propose to take the case for Irish unity before the Hague Court for the purpose of seeking a judicial settlement of the long standing dispute with the United Kingdom concerning sovereignty over the Six Counties."

The Taoiseach's reply was:—

"The Government do not propose to take the step indicated in the Deputy's question."

That is an action that many people of this country believe should be taken but the Government take the view apparently — as we see from the reply to my question to-day — that they are the only people who will decide when to take that step. I maintain that the people of this country, through their representatives, are entitled to put forward in this House what the people would like to see done. I have not the slightest doubt that outside this House the majority of the people of Ireland would be completely behind the motion in the names of Deputy Finucane and myself.

I want to deal specifically with a few of the Minister's points, when he did come to the motion. He criticised me for suggesting that he gave little attention on his recent visit to the United Nations Assembly to the problem of Partition. He quotes me as saying that he wandered all over the world and looked at conditions in other countries. As reported at columns 161-162 of the Official Report, he said here on Wednesday last:—

"In the speech in the United Nations I referred to the case of Ireland. I pleaded for the acceptance of the principle of self-determination for all countries in the Irish situation that were divided or that were still altogether occupied."

In other words, in his speech before the United Nations Assembly he dealt with problems of other countries all over the world and pointed out that these problems were similar to the Irish situation.

I do not object for a moment if the Minister feels like criticising conditions in other countries which are unfortunate enough to feel the hand of the oppressor. However, it is not unfair to suggest that charity begins at home. The suggestion has been made that it would be wrong to bring up the Irish case specifically in the United Nations — that it would be wrong for us, in the words of the former Taoiseach, to become a sore thumb there, and thereby lose any influence or power which we have there. I suggest we are in far more danger of losing our influence, whatever it may be, by dealing with events all over the world to the annoyance of most nations. They would all much prefer that we should have a look here at our own country and put forward our own case for unity before we start to deal with conditions that obtain in the rest of the world.

We are not likely to achieve support from other nations in connection with our own problems if we start criticising them for conditions in their own countries.

Instead of making references to Partition in the U.N.O. during the numerous debates that have taken place, it would have been a far more practical thing to have set down a motion for discussion in the Assembly on the Partition question as it obtains in Ireland and to have asked that it be placed on the agenda for some specified date. If other nations think that is the correct way of dealing with their problems and if, as we have seen so far, a number of them have been very successful in obtaining special attention in the United Nations and that none of them has, so far, been described as a sore thumb, then I think that, by taking the line I have suggested, we would be doing something practical and something worth while.

I have no hesitation in saying that I believe our permanent delegate in that Assembly should be instructed to put down a motion on the lines I have suggested. I would prefer such a motion to be moved either by the Taoiseach or the Minister for External Affairs. It is six months since I asked the Taoiseach in this House if this year he himself would go to the United Nations and put the Irish case for reunification before that Assembly. I suggested that, while there, he should endeavour to get the co-operation of all other nations who had good will towards Ireland in order that they could later help the case he would make in the United Nations Assembly.

I do not believe it was an oversight on the part of the Government that they refrained deliberately on the last two occasions on which the Minister was at the United Nations Assembly from putting down a motion along the specific lines I have suggested. I think that is a tragic state of affairs in the light of events taking place at the moment. There is no question that people outside this House will regard with nothing but cynicism the Government's suggestion that the constitutional approach to Partition is the only approach, when the Government themselves refuse to take the practical steps towards the ending of Partition by constitutional means.

When he was speaking in the United Nations Assembly, we know that the Minister made passing references to Partition. Four days after he had made these passing references he was cornered in Boston by reporters who harried and cross-examined him. In the course of this cross-examination, he suggested that a plebiscite for all Ireland would be the answer. That suggestion should have been made to the U.N.O. in the form of a specific motion. If the Minister were unable to put that motion himself, he should have instructed Mr. Boland, our permanent delegate, to do so. He had no business thundering out this idea in Boston where it would not have the slightest effect on the delegates to U.N.O. It might have been good stuff for home consumption. It might have made a few Irish-Americans quiet.

What I want to make clear is that if it is right for other nations to have their affairs discussed in U.N.O. there is nothing wrong in the same course being followed with regard to the Partition of Ireland. I have here a copy of the Irish Independent, dated September 13th last, which gives the text of a United Nations resolution on Hungary. In that resolution, there are ten specific paragraphs. That resolution came about as a result of a United Nations observer team having carried out a most thorough and fair investigation of conditions as they found them in Hungary. So strong was the feeling on that question that the United Nations assembled a week before it was normally meant to meet, to discuss the terms of the motion. As the House knows, the resolution got almost unanimous approval.

We know that the Hungarian Government maintained that the question of conditions in Hungary was a matter for that Government to solve and that U.N.O. was poking its nose into Hungary's domestic affairs. The same line has been taken by our own Government in relation to events that have taken place in parts of this country. The matter was mentioned in the High Court recently. However, I do not propose to elaborate on that matter until a further motion comes before the House.

I think it is absolutely vital that we prove to the world assembly of the United Nations that Partition is an injustice imposed by Britain by military means. It is vital that we in this part of Ireland prove to the nations of the world through the United Nations that we do not condone the activities of the British Government in the occupied part of our territory. The best way to show the nations in that assembly what the true position is would be to call on U.N.O. to send here their own observers to study the conditions obtaining in the occupied part of Ireland under this puppet Government set up by Britain.

Any commission or group of observers sent by the U.N.O. would have no difficulty in seeing for themselves how democratic procedure in that part of Ireland is flouted day by day. Any such group of observers would have no trouble in seeing how the military forces of the British Government are used all over the occupied part of Ireland to hold in office a puppet group under the auspices of the British Government. It would not be hard for any team of observers to see the raids that take place day and night on the homes of the Nationalist population; it would not be hard for them to see that the so-called civil police in the Six Counties differ only in uniform from the military forces operating in that part of Ireland. The armament and training of this so-called police force is exactly similar to that of the British armed forces. In every raid and at every road-block, British armed forces join with the members of this so-called police force.

I shall not go into details on this matter because I feel it would be a waste of time in so far as the publicity my remarks will get is concerned. There seems to be a curtain of silence in so far as the newspapers are concerned. They are not prepared to publish what the true position is in the Six Counties at the present moment. I wonder how many people in this House realise the special commando training given to the so-called police force in the North? Are the members of this House aware of the tremendous amount of heavy armour brought into that part of the country in the past two or three years?

I want to make it clear to this House that what I am talking about I have seen myself. I have been present at a number of road-blocks which were being laid down and I have seen British troops on this side of the Border with their machine-guns manning these road-blocks while the cement was setting. Yet we are told that so far as the events in the Six Counties are concerned it is from this side of the Border that all the trouble starts. That is what I want to get away from. We want to penetrate that smokescreen which is being laid down here.

That is where the United Nations observers will be in a position to see the truth. They will be in a position to see that in one locality alone in the Six Counties there are over 140 young men who have been arrested and held and that at the present time there are over 300 men in Crumlin jail, of whom the entire majority, with the exception of only 17 to 19, are from the occupied part of Ireland. It is agonising for the Nationalist population up there — and indeed for the people in this part of Ireland as well — to find this situation and to find, at the same time, that our political leaders strut the world stage like peacocks, warning, exhorting and advising the major nations of the world on how to conduct their own affairs. While doing all this, and antagonising at the same time many nations which might be favourably disposed to Ireland, the problem of Partition is being allowed to slide into the background.

I do not know whether it is too late to appeal to the Minister to accept this motion. I am not going to suggest that to-morrow morning the Minister should fire off a telegram to the Permanent Delegate to the United Nations Assembly to tell him that, on receipt of the telegram, he is to ask for this. What I want the Minister to do is to tell the House that he is preparing the ground and that the necessary instructions have been given to our Permanent Delegate to put down a motion on the lines I have suggested, or a motion as close as possible to it. I leave the wording of it to the Minister or his advisers who are much more capable than I am of putting it in the appropriate terms, but I think it is in the interests of Ireland that other nations should see that the body which is supposed to represent the people of Ireland, namely, Dáil Éireann, was unanimous in its request to the Government— willing or unwilling though that Government might be — and that it was shown by the vote of this House that all Parties were united in calling for those two specific items as at least a step towards solving Partition.

If the Minister feels sore at me personally and if he does not want to accept it because I move it, I ask him at least to take off the Party Whip and I ask Fine Gael to do the same, and let us have a start to prove that constitutional means can be put into effect. If we get to the U.N.O. and get the plebiscite, we will be doing a lot to give hope to the younger people and showing that we are serious about ending Partition in our own time.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 62.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Byrne, Tom.
• Casey, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• McQuillan, John.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Murphy, John.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Norton, William.
• Spring, Dan.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Tully, John

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carew, John.
• Carty, Michael.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Costello, John A.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dillon, James M.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Toole, James.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies McQuillan and Finucane; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.

Question declared lost.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 31st October, 1957.