Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Nov 1960

Vol. 184 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Policy on Partition—Motion.

Mr. Sherwin

I move:—

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Taoiseach's speech on the solution of Partition at the Oxford Union debate was of little improvement on previous proposals, and asks for a more vigorous and effective policy towards the solution of Partition.

The reason I tabled this motion is that I believe this matter is one of the major problems of the Government and of the country. I thought it strange that this problem should be discussed regularly at dinner meetings, at Party meetings and at debating societies while this House has not given the matter any serious consideration. Since I became a member of this House an occasional reference has been made to it but it has never been discussed. It may be that the Government and perhaps the House think the subject too delicate, too dangerous or too tough for serious discussion. Nevertheless it was discussed in some detail by the Taoiseach when making a speech at the Oxford Union debate. In fact he made an extra contribution in his reference to trade agreements and to social benefits to which, strange as it seems, he has not referred in this House.

The time has come to discuss this question in the House. It is my view that the Taoiseach and the Government ought to have considered the development of some sort of plan that would aim at unity within the country, apart from unity between North and South. For the past 40 years there has been disunity amongst Irish Nationalists. It may well be said that the Civil War largely arose out of the fact that the Treaty provided for Partition. I am prepared to admit that there is nothing that could have been done about it but nevertheless the argument was made; other arguments were made but these arguments were very thin because any objectionable features in that Treaty have since been largely overcome within the Treaty itself. However, the bugbear is Partition because it was apparent that once Partition was effected it would not be within our power to solve it. Actually we were confronted with a situation similar to that with which Lincoln was confronted when South America seceded from the North. Our problem has been to try to bring about unity by peaceful means. Whether we thought it right to act as Lincoln acted, we had not the power to do it, in the first place. It has also been argued that, even if we had the power, it is not our desire. Whether that is a good argument or not I shall not say at this stage.

I realise that the average Deputy and the man in the street are concerned with day to day problems and that most people could not care less about Partition. However, it is a major problem that the Government must face. It is one that idealists will always face and certainly one that statesmen must always face. Statesmen do not think in terms of the present but in terms of the future because, if they did not do so, the State would always be in turmoil. The progress of any State depends on people seeing what should be accomplished and working accordingly.

Partition as we know has caused a civil war, disrupted the whole country and divided the Republican movement. It removed any chance there was of unity. If there had been unity we would have had a state of affairs in which we would have been animated by that passion that brought us so near to what we sought to achieve. We lost on that largely because the Six Counties were sacrificed and perhaps had to be sacrificed at the time the Treaty was signed. Of course Article 12 was alleged to give us hope but I think everyone knew that it was only a sugared pill to satisfy simple people. The Six Counties were sacrificed and both sides knew nothing much could be done about it. Apart from the Civil War we have had miniature civil wars since. The Government of the Free State were compelled to jail Republicans and, to some extent because of that, the Fianna Fáil Party took power in 1932. Then there were those who advocated force and who used all their power in that way. That again goes to prove that an armed body was opposing the ordinary democratic way of government, which is not correct. This all indicates that Partition continued to influence our affairs.

Following that there were more miniature civil wars and the very Government that were helped by those people in militant action were compelled to intern those people. During the last war when a state of emergency was declared there was a miniature conflict in England and in the North resulting here in mass arrests and some executions. Within the past few years, we have had armed attacks resulting in further disunity and recriminations between North and South. and between England and the South. Therefore we can say there have been 40 years of turmoil arising out of the fact that this country is divided. I am a realist. I am not one of those fellows who hope. I do not believe in words. I face facts. At least, I do my best to face them. I expect we shall have another 40 years' turmoil. If what appears to be imminent—a war on the Continent— reaches reality, it is possible that the very existence of Partition will connect us in some way with it and embroil the country in possible tragedy.

We are all agreed that Partition must be solved. The Taoiseach made a certain contribution at Oxford. His predecessor also made certain contributions with regard to the solving of Partition. We know he offered the Northern Presbyterians autonomy. He gave guarantees that there would be no interference, that there would be favourable trade agreements, and all that sort of thing. None of that had any effect. Since then the Taoiseach has come to realise that he might perhaps lose the Nationalist vote, not to speak of the Presbyterian vote; and at Oxford he gave guarantees in relation to the social benefits they enjoy in the North. That was a tactical move. It had no real effect.

Speaking on the Vote for the Department of Social Welfare here earlier in the year, I asked did anyone really expect the people in the North to come in here and lose anything up to half their present benefits? The Taoiseach gave a guarantee that they would not lose. I understand that the cost of that guarantee might be anything in the neighbourhood of £10,000,000 per annum.

The Taoiseach used language that has not previously been used. Possibly he considers Partition is a subject which should not be discussed in public. If people are not given an opportunity of discussing it, they might come to misunderstand even the Taoiseach's intentions and that might result in people taking the law into their own hands. I believe in facing this problem. The Taoiseach said that if England were to state that she had no interest, the problem of Partition would be solved very easily. I do not accept that.

In the past few days it was stated in the Press that the Vatican had set up a School of Atheism in order to teach Atheism. The idea is to teach people what it is that motivates and makes Communists tick so that they will be better equipped to cope with and overcome the problem. The best way to overcome a problem is to examine it in the raw and suffer from no illusions; to use a military expression, the best approach is to find out exactly what is going on on the other side of the hill.

I put it to the Taoiseach that his offers do not represent an improvement on the offers previously made. They do not touch the fundamental causes of the problem at all. Unless we examine the problem and find out the causes, I do not see how we can make any improvement. I put it to the Taoiseach that Britain is very interested because Partition was brought about by Britain for clearly fundamental reasons. She wanted the North as a bridgehead. It is a bridgehead to-day and she is, therefore, deeply interested. In my opinion it is Britain who holds the key and not the Government or the people of Northern Ireland.

We all know how empires grow, how they continue to exist, and how they sustain themselves. Anyone who looks at a map of the world can see immediately that England is an island. On one side is the Continent of Europe, which has been occupied on a number of occasions and may be occupied again; on the other side is the island of Ireland. That island could be in the hands of a Castro and England foresees that a situation of that sort could arise. It is all very well for the Government here to say this country will not be used for an attack on Britain. I do not doubt that is the way we feel. But England is an empire. She did not build her empire because of conscience. All empires are built on force. Even though sweet reasonableness is supposed to prevail, it is the iron hand in the velvet glove which controls destinies.

Whether the Taoiseach likes it or not the British are responsible for Partition. They will continue to be responsible for its maintenance. In any further proposal the Taoiseach may have to make, he will have to take into consideration the British point of view and her interest in her own defence. The Taoiseach is mistaken if he thinks the problem can be settled if it is left solely to the people of Northern and Southern Ireland, respectively. They are not one and the same people as the citizens of Cork and Galway are; Corkonians and Galwegians may have their little differences but they are fundamentally the same people.

The people in the North were planted there and given a certain function to perform. They are still performing it. They may call themselves Irish, but they are Irish only because they were born in the country. They are Britons by character and nationality. It does not matter what a person was if, by an act of his own free will, he changes his nationality as the citizens of the United States have changed theirs. There is no evidence that the people in the North have ever changed their nationality. I put it to the Taoiseach that they would remain British even if Britain decided she would not interfere.

Many people assume that because the people in the North were associated with us in a desire for independence—I refer to the period of '98— that may be taken as a clear indication of their aspirations. I give the Taoiseach credit for being a genius in business. Whether he is a genius in matters of history I do not know. I should like to inform him now that that alliance was not as deep-seated as he and others would have us believe. The rank and file were not associated with the conflict at all. The majority of the upper class and middle class took no part in it. The alliance, if any was purely an alliance of convenience. The Presbyterians were at the time just as heavily penalised as the Irish. It is important to remember that. I have read a good deal of history about the period. Writing is coloured and a great deal depends on the writer one reads and how one reads him. That is why no one should read a history and just accept it.

If you want to study history you have to study it from all angles, read it from the point of view of your enemies as well as that of your friends and from the point of view of neutrals. You have got to use commonsense. I have no faith in histories as such because they are like the statement, which I often read in histories, that the Pope never issued a Papal Bull in regard to the conquest of Ireland but all the evidence is that he did. Others in making some sort of apologia said: "Oh, well, he was an Englishman." But the evidence is there that succeeding Popes did the same and that they were asked to do so by the Hierarchy here.

I do not want to go back too far I just want to make the point that I do not accept history except where it is the subject of a vast study. The Taoiseach largely bases his case on the fact that we may peaceably solve this problem, that Irishmen, here and up there, will come together. I want him to be quite aware that, in my opinion, the majority in the North are Presbyterian Scots. They do not accept that they are Celtic Irish but claim that they are Britons and their whole association is wrapped up with Britain. If the Taoiseach thinks that it is going to be as easy as all that to get the alleged Irishmen to smoke the pipe of peace around the table he is largely mistaken.

Again, going back to the '98 period, he mentioned in several speeches since what he stood for, referred to the United Irishmen and said he bases his hope on some similar situation coming about again. For practically 100 years before '98, the Presbyterians were penalished almost as much as the Catholics; the people who then ran the country were of the Anglican faith and government was in the hands of the Anglicans. In fact, there was a miniature war going on between the two Churches and those of the Presbyterian Church who associated with people in the South did so only because it was convenient. We know the old saying to the effect that adversity makes strange bedfellows. The Presbyterians were required to take a religious oath contrary to their religious beliefs and every obstacle was put in their way. Therefore they had grounds for opposing the Government. It was not because they believed in Irish nationality or Irish freedom; any man in trouble will be glad to accept help from another, even from an enemy. I want to stress that point because I want to come to grips with the problem.

The Taoiseach may as well make up his mind that those people with a few exceptions were using us. He may quote the case of Tone and a few individuals but you cannot base an argument on those few individuals. Tone may have been genuine but it should be remembered that Tone was from Dublin. In the same way, a number of Englishmen gave us their allegiance during the Tan War. Is it not significant that when the '98 period had passed, those people ceased to associate any further with us? There were a few exceptions but you cannot judge a case by quoting individuals. Five years later, in 1803, when Emmet tried to get them to revolt they would have nothing to do with him. All interest in the South ceased when the tithe sack was abolished. Those Presbyterians were compelled to pay money to support the Anglican Church but when they got their franchise, they ceased to have anything more to do with us. You are not going to get those people to come around a table.

We also have another side of the problem—the interest of the British in continuing Northern Ireland in existence. We also have a large number of Presbyterians who are interested in maintaining the present situation. It should be a matter of common sense to all that as long as the hatchet exists in politics, as between North and South, it suits the people who control Northern Ireland. It does not suit them to come to any agreement because if the hatchet were taken out of politics the rank and file might turn Labour and those in control might find themselves out of office. That shows the extent of the problem; apart from nationality altogether it is not in their interests to have unity between North and South. It might as well be faced that, as Scotsmen and Englishmen, they cannot claim to have any historical traditions in the country.

Lord Brookeborough is forever saying the things which I am now saying. It might be said that I am making an excuse for Brookeborough; I am accepting the truth. The question then arises: what progress can be made if it is a fact that England has an interest and will never give up that interest; that she is interested in maintaining the status quo, that, therefore, those in control will never want to back out, and that trade gestures will not influence the position? They may suffer some small economic trouble at the moment but they will not always suffer from it. There is nothing to stop the British giving those people the fiscal autonomy that we have. I am pretty sure they would do that if they thought there was a single desire there to change the position. We must accept it that if these people have problems, we may have them shortly, judging by the trends in Britain, if they result in loss of employment and overtime we might have a considerable number of people back here and we might not be able to crow about the unemployment in the North.

My point is that we should face up to the problem. Making speeches is just "palaver". No progress has been made and we must come to grips with fundamentals. The Taoiseach should lead off by trying to unify all the national forces to begin with. It is all very fine to blame the I.R.A. but, after all, it was inevitable that a certain situation should arise out of Partition. We must not forget that Mr. de Valera himself foresaw all that when he made his speech before the Civil War when he said the acceptance of this would mean that Irishmen would have to wade through the blood of Irishmen. We should strive to get some organisation of a semi-statutory nature which would organise the people, take it out of politics, and invite such people as Sinn Féin and the I.R.A. to join it. The great trouble is that some parties try to make this a Party issue, but once you start to associate anything with a Party it is inevitable, in a democratic system, that you will not get the assistance of opposing Parties.

Whether we like it or not the democratic system is the best we can devise. It is not a perfect system. It is not a system with which you can overcome great problems. In trying to overcome a problem, no matter what the problem is, you have to make sacrifices in a democratic system because other Parties are only awaiting the opportunity to misrepresent. Even though what you are endeavouring to do may be in the public good, they will, nevertheless, misrepresent you and may often defeat what is intended in the national interest.

That is inevitable and that is why I hold that the Taoiseach should create some form of representative council which could engage in discussion and advice and maintain propaganda on a high level. The young people may be irresponsible but I hold that they are idealists. They are the people to whom Mr. de Valera referred. They may make mistakes but they are the people who have achieved the freedom of the world and not majorities. I am not aware that majorities ever created anything great. The majority follows those minorities. I always remember the Tan War for which we claim so much credit and about which we talk so much. It was not started by the people. A few individuals started it and we had no choice but to follow their example.

I know that the will of the majority must be accepted but that should not give us the notion that minorities are, therefore, criminals or people who should be locked up. I admit that should be done if their actions are endangering the safety of the people but it must be recognised that they are idealists. We should try to help those people. Those minorities who are idealists in a national sense are equal to many times their number. The Taoiseach's policy of trying to solve this business by making a sort of Party issue of it and getting all the credit will not succeed because he will be misrepresented by all the other Parties in a democratic system. That is why a dictatorship can do it easily.

If we had unity we might not have a recurrence of what happened during the past 40 years. If there was a semi-statutory council which would get support from the State, we would not be afraid of propaganda. We would give those people an outlet. When you deny people the right to say things you invite trouble. We should have a plan. If we had such a council as I suggest representative of all sections, I believe it would be possible to explain the problems. People will not accept explanations from across the other side of the fence, but it is a different matter when you get them round a table.

For instance, if the Taoiseach were to speak to people like Sinn Féin, he could say: "What can you gain by what you are doing?" It is funny how a discussion at a round table conference can get inside people and how they can convey their views to others. The Taoiseach who is the leader of the country must lead. Any body, meeting or council of a static nature is useless. We must keep up the propaganda. We should even go to every end and any length, outside force, to try to solve the problems. Then he would get everyone else with him.

This question of force is the bugbear. I confess that I am not a fool. We could not force the issue up there even if we wanted to, because Britain is there. She guaranteed under an agreement that she would throw in her full forces to stop us. It is in her interests to do so. If I were asked how to solve the problem I would say force but I am not advocating it. Neither am I in favour of an agreement that would be nominal.

We should organise the people and have some form of council. We should invite all those people I mentioned and try to convince them of what is possible and what is not possible. We must all the time have some form of organisation. It is not enough to say that we can do nothing and that we can only hope. I have no faith in the "hope brigade". If a business man goes into business and hopes to make £1 million he must plan, invest and work. That is how he makes his living. The "hope brigade" reminds me of people buying a sweepstake ticket and hoping to win. There is no harm in that but would any man build plans on the hope that he might win? Those people may come down to us but I cannot see it happen. Yet the Taoiseach expects that to happen. How is it to happen? Is he aware——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy allow me to intervene to tell him that his time has now expired?

Mr. Sherwin

I want to refer to the guaranteed benefits which the Taoiseach mentioned at Oxford. That was a sugar pill for the Nationalists because it was guaranteeing only what they already have, and they may be suspicious that the guarantee itself might not last very long. That proposal, tactical as it was, is not sufficient to solve the problem. The true problem is that they are Scotsmen. In fact they are British and England holds their interests. I am putting it to the Taoiseach that he will have to face this problem from a different angle. There is no point in a policy of hope and, if there are any grounds why people rebel against the Government of this State, and will rebel again in future, it is because of this apathy and this policy of hope. I am asking for an active policy. I am asking, short of a full armed conflict, for a policy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is exceeding the time allowed.

Mr. McQuillan

I formally second the motion and reserve my right to speak. It would appear that the Taoiseach has as much interest in this now as he had during the last ten years, as he is not prepared to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If there are no further speakers the Chair will put the question.

Mr. McQuillan

First of all, I want to say that, in view of the fact three hours have been made available for a discussion on Partition, it is rather extraordinary that not a Deputy was prepared to speak on the subject except the mover of the motion, Deputy Sherwin. The Taoiseach has been sitting here since the discussion started and it would appear that so far he has decided to make no contribution. Consequently, if it is the intention of the Taoiseach not to speak until everybody else has spoken, it is not fair to those Deputies in the House who would wish to make comments on whatever he has to say. It is very hard for Deputies to argue on the question of Partition, or to put forward suggestions, when they are not given any opportunity of hearing what the Government's view is. Evidently the idea behind the Taoiseach's attitude is that the Government will make its position clear after everybody else has spoken, thus preventing comment in this House on the Government's outlook.

Mr. Cunningham

We are not discussing the procedure of the debate.

Mr. McQuillan

Under the circumstances I propose to be brief. First of all, let me say we have three major problems, Partition, unemployment and emigration. These three problems have haunted Ireland for the last 40 years and it can be said without contradiction that to-day we are no nearer solutions of Partition, unemployment and emigration than we were when this Statelet was set up in 1922. It must be made clear also that the present Government, the Fianna Fáil Party, have had the major responsibility for controlling the destinies of this country over that period of time and, to a great extent, on their heads must be laid the blame for failure to solve any of these problems that must be solved if the country is to survive.

For years we had in this country a pseudo-Republican cult under the de Valera régime. We had the Fianna Fáil Party describing themselves as the Republican Party of Ireland and for years every poster and pamphlet they produced carried a big heading, in brackets, "The Republican Party." Since the former Leader of that Party has been retired, let us now find out whether the new Taoiseach has thrown overboard the cult that his former Leader inflicted on this country during his long period of office. We must be quite clear at this stage. Is the Fianna Fáil Party continuing the de Valera myth in its outlook and policy on Partition, or has the present Taoiseach thrown overboard all his former Leader stood for on the matter of Partition? That is the first answer we want. That is the first point people in the North and South and in Britain wish to be assured on before they fall for any sugary promises made by the Taoiseach.

In dealing with the history of Partition, I shall go back no further than the 1920 Act in which provision was made whereby the dissident elements, North and South, could at least come together on a council to debate matters of mutual importance. Provision was made in that Act by the British Government to set up a council of Ireland and that provision was then enshrined as Article 12 of the Treaty. It meant that the most rabid Orangemen could meet to discuss matters of mutual importance with the controlling elements in the Government of the Twenty-Six Counties, but a tragic event took place in 1925 which was that, when the Boundary Agreement was signed, Article 12 of the 1921 Agreement was thrown away. To my mind that was a terrible mistake and I wish to put it on record that in my opinion the group primarily responsible for allowing that Act to go through this House, namely the 1925 Boundary Agreement, handing over the Six Counties to the Northern junta and at the same time cancelling the provision for consultation by a council composed of representatives of the North and South, was the present Fianna Fáil Party because the members of that Party failed to take their seats in this House. Had they taken them, that measure need never have become law.

In 1925, the Boundary Agreement was passed by 70 votes to 21. This Agreement, in allegedly legal fashion, handed over the Six Counties. With it, we gave up all our rights to the Six Counties and cancelled the provision enabling the setting up of a council on which North and South could be represented. The members of this House at that time were composed of what is now partly the Fine Gael Party, and of Labour, Independents and some other groups. At that time the Fianna Fáil Party had 48 members, but they refused to recognise this House. On the same day as the Boundary Agreement was passed here, Mr. de Valera led those 48 Deputies into the Mansion House and, in some mystical fashion, went through the motions of a division and protested against the passing of the Boundary Agreement in Leinster House.

Their place at that time was in this House. If they had been really sincere about keeping this link between North and South, they would have taken their places here in 1925. Forty-eight Deputies would have made all the difference in preventing that legislation from going through. Further, their influence would have been such that a number of Deputies who voted for the Boundary Agreement would have realised they were making a mistake. I believe a number of Deputies were forced into a wrong position because of the tactics and sinister manoeuvrings of a group outside this House led by the former Taoiseach.

The significant fact emerges that in December, 1925, Mr. de Valera and his group, who have since described themselves as Fianna Fáil, did not recognise this House at a most vital stage—the stage when the Six Counties were handed away—but two years afterwards, in June, 1927, Deputy de Valera, as he then was, decided to come in and recognise it. Why did he he wait for two years? Why did he not come in at the vital stage? I shall not go further into that. As Deputy Sherwin said, the interpretation of history is very important, and it is tragic to read the trash about Irish history being put across to our youngsters in the national and secondary schools.

The facts are there, on the records of this House, in the Treaty Debates and the follow-through afterwards. I am convinced that when hard times come in a few years, as they will, the real culprits in this tragedy of Partition will emerge. In my opinion, all the blame does not rest on those people who came into this House, set it up and acted as Government, be they good or bad, for a number of years.

This cult of pseudo-Republicanism followed by Fianna Fáil was a useful political parrot-cry to stir up the Nationalist feeling in the 26 Counties in order to get support at election times. The very same tactics were followed by the Orange Order in the North when the bigot drums were beaten in order to gain support against "Popery". The problem of Partition has been used, mainly by Fianna Fáil, as a political football at election times. Over the years, they have succeeded to a great extent in maintaining themselves in office by getting the support of what is described as the Republican element in this country. When the younger generation, in their sincerity and burning desire to seek the reunification of this country, read the versions of Irish history given to them today, they believed they were following the example of certain members of the present Government by taking the line that physical force was the only direct method by which the unification of Ireland could be achieved. Therefore, as a result of the activities from 1922 to 1927, and even later, we had an attempted repetition of those tragic happenings.

Is this cycle of violence to continue every 15 or 20 years? There was a calm between 1937 and 1940. The next blow came in 1954, but it appears to have died down now. Are we to have a recurrence of this in 15 or 20 years' time, and have the tragedy of young men being killed or arrested and jailed for activities along the Border —young men who, in my opinion, are genuinely convinced that they are correct in their approach? If you speak to them on the question of our history over the last 25 or 30 years, they show an utter lack of knowledge of what took place in those years and of the attitude of leading personalities during that period.

It is time this new Taoiseach cleared the air and gave us his idea of Republicanism as Fianna Fáil have preached it. Has it gone by the board since the new Taoiseach took office? Have Fianna Fáil shed this Republican cloak and donned a new one? If so, let us know the colour of it. Let us know what policy they are following. The Taoiseach has made a number of statements in recent months. On the face of them, these statements cannot be criticised. The Taoiseach made one the other day at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, to the effect that he would guarantee as far as the South was concerned that he would take no action in the economic sphere that would harm the economic welfare of our people in the North. That statement is an admirable one, but what are the people of the Six Counties to think when at the time the Taoiseach made that statement for consumption at a Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, he was deliberately allowing competition here with similar industrial concerns in the Six Counties?

I gave an example here yesterday. While the Taoiseach was preaching the policy of co-operation with the North on industrial and economic matters and suggesting that there should be more consultation on various matters of mutual interest in the economic sphere, we had the position in Cork that a Dutchman was backed to the tune of over £4,000,000 of Irish money to set up a shipbuilding industry there.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that does not arise.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not want to develop it except that I understand it is a new approach to ending Partition. The gun has been taken out of politics and Partition and we are now trying the soft soap method and I am giving an illustration of how insincere the new approach is when we have the fact that in the case of this new development in Cork, the first order given to the new shipbuilding concern is by Irish Shipping Limited. Apart from that, it has had no order from any foreign country.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must pass from that. It certainly does not arise.

Mr. McQuillan

£4,000,000 is a lot of money.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is an enormous amount of money but it may not be discussed on every motion that arises.

Mr. McQuillan

I am sure the economic condition of the workers in Belfast shipyards is a matter that concerns the Taoiseach. He has stated that we shall not take any action here that would harm the Six-County economy and I am pointing out that Irish Shipping has given an order in Cork. Why could we not show our sincerity in respect of Belfast by giving orders there? Is this country not too small to carry competing industries of the size of the ship building industry? Is it not nonsensical to think that we shall have competition between Belfast and Cork on such a matter? Is it not sheer bravado on the part of the Taoiseach to say he is prepared to cooperate on industrial and economic matters when, in the practical field, the very opposite is taking place? When we find the leader of the Orange junta or Order in the Six Counties rejects the Taoiseach's approach, in all fairness, we cannot blame him because he feels that this pill is sugar-coated and with the sugar gone, he feels the results may be anything but beneficial to the Six-County workers.

The suggestion was made by the Taoiseach in the speech to which Deputy Sherwin referred that we could guarantee to the people in the Six Counties the social welfare benefits they have at the moment. I should like the Taoiseach—as it seems that at last he is about to speak—to elaborate on this promise made in the debate in which he took part last year on the matter of social welfare benefits. He is looked upon as a purely practical down-to-earth man and does he now think that if those in control in the Six Counties decided to-morrow morning that they were prepared to throw in their lot here, the Government here are in a position to meet the social welfare requirements for them in respect of the unemployed, the widows and orphans, the old age pensioners and the children's allowance and so on, at the rates operating in the Six Counties?

Surely the first thing would be to set a good example here. Is it not extraordinary to offer guarantees to people outside your jurisdiction and say that you will give them equal benefits, while your own people are on the starvation line so far as old age pensioners and widows are concerned and while the unemployed can hardly keep body and soul together on the miserable allowances they get? Surely that kind of approach will not carry weight with the people of the Six Counties who, under the present administration, whether you like it or not—and I do not like it; I dislike it very much—will not give up the practical benefits they have for any promise made by the Taoiseach when he debates Partition in Oxford; but not now when he discusses it here where his statements can be exposed in the spotlight of publicity.

I hope that the Taoiseach's point of view on how unification of this country can be brought about is justified but I intend to use my privilege in this House to point out that even after shedding the cult of Republicanism which was attached to his former leader, we have not had any approach in the field of negotiations with the British Government. For years here a number of us pleaded that Ireland should make every effort to join the United Nations and our application was finally accepted and we became members. It was the genuine belief of many people in Ireland that at least we should have gone into that organisation and made some attempt to interest other nations in Ireland's problem of Partition, but if we go over records of the various discussions in the United Nations since Ireland became a member, we find that the total amount of time taken up in discussing one of Ireland's major problems is insignificant, while at the same time our representatives have ranged the globe to deal with partition in other countries, their economic, racial and colour problems.

I have no objection to that and I think our contributions were excellent and have raised Ireland's status, but why, at the same time, can we not make the Irish case? Surely there is a lot of truth in the old saying: "charity begins at home", and it would strengthen our case and show that we were really sincere about ending Partition if we did go to the uncommitted groups in the United Nations, the new States emerging from the shackles of Imperialism and tell them that we want their support on the Irish problem and that we would support and speak for them and help to solve their problems.

So far there is no sign of that. On November 27th, 1957, Mr. Boland said that the partition of New Guinea must be ended. He was quite right. I think he made an excellent speech. But it is extraordinary that we can do everything to help everybody else: we can take up the world stage, criticising, advising, admonishing, praising and interfering in the affairs of every other nation and we cannot take any action or make any attempt to solve the problem in our own back garden, the problem of our fourth green field.

I mention that to show the dishonesty of the Fianna Fáil Government all through the years. They did nothing about ending Partition in any sense, physical or otherwise, during their period of office for 16 years from 1932 onwards. When we became members of the United Nations, instead of trying to solve our own problems, we proceeded to solve world problems. Why have we not made some move internationally to gain support for Ireland's case? I shall tell the House what I believe is the Fianna Fáil reason. In 1958 at the Ard Fheis, Mr. de Valera made it clear that Ireland was not going to raise the problem of Partition in the United Nations because there was a danger that our case might be beaten. Is that not a significant admission from the then Taoiseach, that there was a definite danger that by raising our case or looking for support from the uncommitted nations, we were likely to be beaten? Why? He did not tell us why, but it is quite apparent, from a legal point of view, that the British and the other nations are standing on the legality of the 1925 Boundary Agreement. We know that agreement, which was ratified under international law, has never been repudiated in the slightest degree by this House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has expired.

Mr. McQuillan

I shall finish by asking the Taoiseach——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must finish.

Mr. McQuillan

Will you allow me to finish a sentence, Sir?

An Ceann Comhairle

I have allowed the Deputy a minute already.

Mr. McQuillan

Will the Taoiseach tell us, at this stage, if he is going to make a contribution, or whether he is throwing overboard the de Valera myth on the question of Partition?

An Ceann Comhairle

I shall put the motion.

Mr. Donnellan

Surely the Taoiseach will tell us something.

Mr. Kyne

I should like to put a purely personal point of view in connection with the problem of Partition. I cannot say that I go the whole way with this motion in so far as I believe that any action solely directed from the 26 County side of the Border will not, of itself, secure any solution of that problem. I believe that before the Border will go, we shall have to have, not only on our side, but on the Six-County side, a desire to unite.

It must be clear to anyone examining the position that there are differences between the section of our people in the Six Counties and the majority of our people in the 26 Counties. There is a religious difference which I suggest has been fanned by the political Parties on both sides of the Border for their own purposes. I go a long way with Deputy Sherwin in the belief that some political Parties are taking advantage of that religious difference and do not regard, in the slightest, the fact that Partition is not being solved at all.

There is another difference, as has already been pointed out, in regard to the social services. It is quite obvious that, irrespective of your religion on the other side of the Border, you must, of necessity, if you are an old person or an unemployed person, say to yourself: "Should we unite, how would it affect me financially? Would my pension or my benefits be reduced?" It is true that the Taoiseach gave certain undertakings that we would endeavour to bring our social services to a point where that difference might not exist, but a bird in the hand, as the saying goes, is worth two in the bush. If you live in the Six Counties at the moment, you enjoy better social welfare benefits than can be envisaged in the 26 Counties for quite a time to come.

It is true also that there is the question of the form of government. There are many people in the Six Counties who believe in the monarchy, who believe in living under the control of a sovereign of the British succession, whether it be a king or a queen, while the vast majority of the people on this side of the Border believe in the republican form of government.

What I want to say is simply that I believe no solution will be found for the problem of Partition, unless and until both north and south of the Border, the Labour group secure power and then, with the goodwill and with the common understanding of these three different points the vast majority of the working class people have in common, they will find a solution. It is for that reason I believe that in working for a Labour Government in the south, I am contributing to finding a solution, and the only solution that will ever do away with the Border.

Mr. Sherwin

Will the Taoiseach not speak? I will wait another minute to see if he will speak.

The Taoiseach

I have not said I am not going to intervene.

Mr. Sherwin

The Ceann Comhairle looked at me to finish.

The Taoiseach

If it will ease the Deputy's mind, I shall make a very brief intervention now, but it will be very brief. This motion relates to a speech which I delivered to the Oxford Union Society last year. Deputy Sherwin made some reference to that speech but Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Kyne did not.

Apparently Deputy Sherwin thinks that speech represented very little improvement on previous proposals but I did not suggest it represented any improvement on previous proposals. It seems to me, however, that during the course of his remarks Deputy Sherwin came very near to the point of trying to revive the long-discredited two nations theory—the theory that there are in this island two racial groups, that the island is occupied by people who are two separate racial entities, who do not constitute and have never constituted one nation. That is an historical absurdity.

If Deputy Sherwin believes in that contention, then it seems to me he should have gone on logically to argue that we should entirely abandon our effort to re-unite the country. Certainly, if we accept his contention, it would seem that the only case that could be made for the ending of Partition would be an economic one, although we could justify, even on his spurious grounds, seeking the rectification of the Border. If we followed his argument to a conclusion, the moral case for the re-unification of Ireland would have to be abandoned altogether.

Our case for the ending of Partition, for the re-unification of Ireland and the establishment within the country of political institutions functioning for the whole island, is based upon the historical, and unquestionable fact, that Ireland is one nation—not two nations but one. It is true that this nation of ours is divided at present by deep-rooted prejudices, misunderstandings, fears and hostilities. These divisions were used as a pretext for Partition in the first instance and are used as a justification for maintaining it now.

It seems to me that the aim of national policy must always be to endeavour to remove those divisions, to eliminate, if we can, those barriers of fear, prejudice and misunderstanding which are keeping our people divided. In the Oxford Union Society speech to which the motion refers, I set out my views as to how we could go about doing that.

I am not going to refer to the 1925 Agreement except to say that Deputy McQuillan's remarks are completely ill-informed. Any defence to be offered for that Agreement must come from the other side of the House. As I understand it they would contend that it was not it which established the partition of Ireland, which had already been effected by the Treaty, and that it referred only to the determination of the Border which the Treaty of 1921 had set up. Deputy McQuillan's statement that we on that occasion abandoned the national claim to the re-unification of Ireland, in an international way, is without foundation.

We want to end the partition of our country, not merely because we wish to see the whole of the national territory brought under the jurisdiction of an Irish Parliament but primarily because we wish to bring about the re-unification of our people and to eliminate the misunderstanding, hates and fears which have kept them asunder, so that the re-united nation would be better able to promote the economic, cultural and social welfare of the whole Irish community.

In order to bring about that situation I believe that we should seek to promote all possible contacts between the people in the two areas, social, cultural and economic contacts. I said when speaking to the Oxford Union Society: "I have not disguised my hope that economic co-operation would eventually bring about this result; but, quite apart from any views one may hold about the eventual re-unification of Ireland, is it not plain common sense that the two existing political communities in our small island should seek every opportunity of working together in practical matters for their mutual and common good?"

I see reported in the Belfast newspapers of yesterday a statement by Lord Brookeborough to the effect that, "if Mr. Lemass wanted to help economic conditions in Ulster, all he had to do was to remove the Customs barrier." We have made known our willingness to consider that step in respect of products of bona fide Six County origin. Another spokesman in that debate in Stormont, a Mr. Nixon, the Unionist member for North Down, said that we could bring about that situation overnight, that a free trade area could be created overnight and that “Mr. Lemass could do so with a stroke of his pen.”

Most people understand that there would be practical difficulties of some magnitude in applying and operating such an arrangement although I am certainly confident that they could be solved with goodwill. These would be matters, I suggest, for discussion by experts in the first instance. There is no question of our willingness to take measures which would open the whole of our markets here to products of bona fide Six County origin in the context of an agreement which would be intended to promote the economic welfare of the whole country and which would be so designed as to enable it to function properly.

Everybody is aware that the British Government now control the trade arrangements in the north-east of Ireland. I may say, however, that I have no reason to think that they would offer opposition or create any difficulty, if agreement were reached within Ireland on the desirability of moving in that direction. I do not think that I have anything more to say in so far as the motion relates to this speech which I made at Oxford. I have re-read it and I do not think it is necessary to change a word of it.

Mr. Sherwin

What about the second portion of the motion?

The Taoiseach

The Deputy asked for the setting up of a council composed of people of all political Parties and beliefs. My view is still that which was expressed in an order issued by the headquarters staff of the Irish Republican Army shortly before the "cease fire" in the civil war of 1923, setting out the proposals then put forward by them for the functioning of Irish democracy which included that national policy should be decided by the majority will of the people and accepted by all; and that its direction should be the responsibility of the Government elected by the people. I do not think that the Government could delegate their responsibility in this matter to any extern council.

Mr. Dillon

There is one fundamental concept associated with this problem and that is that the unity of this country cannot be restored by the methods of civil war. Anything that involves the shedding of the blood of our fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland by our fellow citizens in this part of Ireland is civil war. That has always been our view on this side of the House, but it has not been universally held by all Parties in the Republic. It is a good thing that it is now generally held and I do not believe that any useful purpose is served by raking over the ashes of our past history in that regard.

That fundamental and, to my mind vital, principle having been stated, I think it is very important in the best interest of all concerned—by that I mean the people of Great Britain, who have their full share of responsibility for the existence of Partition in this country, our people in Northern Ireland and our own people here at home—that they must all come to recognise the inescapable fact that the Partition of this country will never be acceptable to the vast majority of the Irish people. There is no use in anybody in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or here hoping that there can be an enduring settlement of our relations, which we most earnestly desire on terms of friendship and true co-operation, except on the basis of the restoration of the unity of this nation.

The recognition of that inescapable political fact should make the people of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic recognise that it is in the vital interest of us all to end Partition. The sooner it is ended the less danger there will be of still greater evil arising from it, which even those of us with the best possible intentions might in certain circumstances find ourselves unable to control.

One of the things that make those of us in the public life of this country most solicitous is the anxiety lest this enduring intolerable situation should create a condition where counsels of prudence, patience and charity should be swept aside and those who advocate such counsels be forced to give way to more reckless spirits who might do both this country and our neighbours a great injury by believing that violence is an effective substitute for patience, reason and commonsense. We are living in a world in which there exist today threats and challenges to peace, freedom and all the fundamental political beliefs which the people in these two Islands share. I feel that menace is becoming so formidable and proximate that there is little time left to freedom-loving nations effectively to combine in defence of these values.

Our people at home and abroad have an influence in the world disproportionate to the magnitude of the resources of the country from which we spring. It seems to me to be a matter of vital interest to the cause of freedom that our people should be enabled to play their full part in the world's struggle to defend it. Nothing is more certain than that in the enduring existence of the partition of this country a great deal of our potential for good in that crusade is negatived.

I am convinced that, for our people to make the full contribution which we could and should make to that cause, an essential prerequisite is the restoration of the unity of this country. I know and I have bitter reason for knowing that the advocacy of reason and argument in this cause sounds hollow in the ears of many of our people. There is nobody in whose ears it should sound more hollow than in mine.

I can look back over three generations in the family which advocated that cause of reconciliation of ourselves and the British people through the instrumentality of reason and argument. I have known these methods twice abandoned under intolerable provocation. I have seen the very things that were sought for the reconciliation of our people conceded to violence and even armed resistance which had been denied for decades to the methods of reason and argument. My grandfather was swept out of public life in pursuit of that campaign, as was my father.

It must be difficult to preserve one's faith that some day the influence of argument, reason and charity can be made to prevail in matters of this kind. I preserved that faith in the conviction that the alternative of civil war would be a disaster for our country, a crime against our people and an unthinkable expedient for the expedition of the disappearance of Partition. I believe that is a hope every member of this House shares.

I rejoice that every member of this House now appears to share the view that counsels of patience and prudence will prevail. However, it is right that two things should go on record for those who run to read it. There is no prospect now or ever that the partition of this country will be accepted as a permanent arrangement by the vast majority of the people of Ireland. Secondly, it ought to be borne in mind by everybody who wishes to see a peaceful resolution of this grievous problem that we all have a duty to refrain in so far as it is humanly possible not only from provocative acts but from provocative language because both could be pregnant of much evil.

It is right to say that it would be wrong to allow this matter to be raised and discussed in this Parliament of Ireland without recalling that we here in this part of the country for which we are responsible rightly take pride in the fact that any minorities that live amongst us have every freedom, every right and every privilege that is claimed by the majority and that all elements in this Parliament representative of majorities or minorities however small are more solicitious to see the rights of the minorities vindicated and protected than to assert the legitimate constitutional rights of the majority that constitute our society.

There does exist, unhappily, in the Northern Six Counties of this country, in certain areas and in certain regards, a readiness to deny the Catholic Nationalist majority the fundamental rights that are their clear due. It is a great disservice to our people that that kind of thing should be tolerated to continue in Northern Ireland. It will be a great contribution to better understanding and to the prospect of enduring friendship if such abuses are resolutely sought out and rectified by the authorities who at present constitute the Government there. It would be wrong for us in discussing this problem in an Irish Parliament to avert our eyes from that disagreeable fact and to pretend either that it does not exist or that we did not know about it.

I believe there are many public-spirited and good people in Northern Ireland belonging to the Ascendancy that obtains there who share the view I have expressed. I hope they will do their part to abate the abuses to which I now refer. I record the conviction of this Party that in the difficult and dangerous work of restoring the unity of this country, we have to give our people the counsel of patience and of charity and of enduring resolution because the alternative to these is the disaster of civil war and there is no end, in our judgment, that would justify the precipitation of our people into a catastrophe of that kind.

Mr. Donnellan

I had not the slightest notion of speaking on this motion until I heard the statement of the Taoiseach. To a certain extent, what the Taoiseach said worried me. He began talking about the economic position in the North and in the South, about the removal of certain barriers which will, as he said himself, make for more friendly relations between North and South. That worried me. So did the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillon, about patience and reconciliation.

I want to make it plain to the Taoiseach that as far as we in this part of our country are concerned, what we have, we hold. The freedom that we have in this part of our country was dearly bought by the red hot blood of our people and there should be no bargaining whatsoever that would in any way lessen that dearly-bought freedom.

The Taoiseach referred to "the Government of Northern Ireland". There is no such thing as the Government of Northern Ireland. The Leader of the Opposition also referred to "the Government of Northern Ireland". There is a junta set up there at the behest of the British Government. It is a bad day that the Taoiseach should refer to them as a Government. They are no such thing. I never thought the day would come when the head of a Fianna Fáil Government would refer to that junta as "the Government of Northern Ireland". There is no such thing as a Government of Northern Ireland. There is, as I have said, a junta that is set up there.

It worries me to hear the Taoiseach talk about certain bargaining as regards tariffs and things of that description. I want to tell the Taoiseach that I disagree with Deputy Dillon. I believe nothing was ever got for our people except what was fought for. Patience or plámás never got our people anywhere. I want the Taoiseach to realise that the freedom we have here was dearly bought and that there should be no bargaining whatsoever with this junta in the Six Counties. "Northern Ireland" be damned. It is not Northern Ireland; it is just a corner—six counties— nothing else.

I want to tell the Taoiseach—I do not think I should have to tell him— that sops never got our people anywhere. Any sops he holds out now to this Orange junta up there will not get us anywhere, unless it is of benefit to themselves. I throw out this warning: let there be no bargaining whatsoever with that junta there with a view to coaxing them. The majority of the people of our country do not want this area partitioned off. The British Government—a democracy as they call themselves—are bolstering up that portion of our country in order to keep it away from us. Apparently, the economic position is not so good there at the moment. They are saying with one side of their mouths that they will come in and with the other side that they will not come in.

The job of this Government or any Government we may have here is to build up the portion of the country we have. As time advances, the junta in the North, to whom, I regret to say, the Taoiseach refers as "the Government of Northern Ireland", will some day in the near future have to surrender and come in with our country. They belong to it, whether they like it or not. We are willing to accept them but let there be no plainas designed to get them to come in that would interfere in any way with the economic position of this part of the country.

Mr. Sherwin

I am concerned with what the Taoiseach said in reply. I confess I have great admiration for the Taoiseach. He always makes a fighting speech but his speech on this motion was the tamest I ever heard. In fact, he scarcely raised his voice and had very little to say. He commenced the little he did say by implying that I accepted the two nation theory of Lord Brookeborough. That is not true. I did not mention the word "nation" or imply at all that there were two nations. I recognised the fact that there was a foreign element in Northern Ireland, which is an entirely different matter. To recognise the two-nation theory of Lord Brookeborough would be to recognise their right to sovereignty and their right to be something apart from the rest.

I hold the very opposite view. The view I hold would be something like the view held by Lincoln regarding slavery in the Southern States. Lincoln accepted slavery. He realised he could not do much about it but he did not accept the right of the Southern States to secede or their right to be a nation. It is in that spirit I referred to the race apart in Northern Ireland. In the latter part of my speech, I stated that if I had my way I would clean the slate. I would have only one Government, not two. Therefore, the Taoiseach made no point there. I do not say it was deliberate but he misrepresented me.

The second part of my motion asked for a more vigorous policy on the part of the Taoiseach and he implied that he was not going to do anything other than what he was doing, which means that the motion is justified. He admitted that he did not make any additional contribution at Oxford; he then went on to say that he has nothing extra to offer and that he does not intend to set up a pan-Irish conference to delegate powers. Again, he has misrepresented what I said. I made no mention of delegating powers. I suggested some sort of conference of an advisory nature whose powers could be defined.

The Taoiseach made no case at all. The point I was making and have made all along is that he could do something that would appeal more to the idealists, to the people who are members of this House who will not take their seats, to the Sinn Féin element, to the 69,000 who voted in the last election for the points of view of these absentees. He should try to meet these people. I am not saying he should do what they would like him to do. I am not a subscriber to force but if we claim sovereignty and deny the sovereignty of Northern Ireland, then we have certain rights. I am not suggesting we should avail of those rights. I fully agree that the only way this problem can be solved, without going to the extent of using force, is by making concessions.

We should recognise the problem for what it is and not what we would like it to be, that there is a tough crowd up there who are not like the rest of us. They are allied to Britain because they are part of the British race. I also pointed out that England's interest cannot be ignored. We should put forward some proposals. It is no use beating around the bush. This is a problem which involves commitments. It is a serious matter in a democracy because it seems to be the aim of one Party to take advantage of any little weakness that appears in the other Party. I appreciate that national problems are difficult to solve in a democracy.

I would ask the Taoiseach to set up a council to advise on Partition so that the question could be taken away from Party politics. So long as any Party strives on its own to solve this problem, the other Parties, while they may appear to help, may be only too glad, behind the scenes, to make things difficult in order to gain Party advantage. Therefore, it is not easy for this institution to make progress on a problem of this kind. If such a conference were brought about where there would be goodwill understanding and common agreement such as in regard to the proposal by the Taoiseach that the social benefits would be maintained, greater progress would be made. He said that in all good faith and I admit that is a point. He wanted to remove the fear that even the Nationalists might not agree.

We must accept that ordinary people are animated by their own desires. They cannot understand how somebody else should get more and they should get less. That is why I suggest the setting up of a council where representatives of all Parties would agree not to make any proposals that would aim at solving the problem along Party lines, thus raising awkward questions here, and that if such an attempt were made, it would get no support.

There is a case for the setting up of some sort of council. Although this is the sovereign body, it will make no progress on Partition. The Taoiseach, whether intentionally or otherwise, misrepresented me once or twice but he had nothing to offer in the nature of a solution to this problem. However, I do not intend to press the motion. I tabled it for the purpose of airing views on the subject and I am glad I have done so.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.