Vol. 45 No. 11
I move:—
That Seanad Éireann, while welcoming the general tenor of the Taoiseach's recent Dáil statement on Partition and the unlawful use of force, regrets the Government's failure as yet to take any active steps to stop in the Republic of Ireland open recruiting, drilling and the possession of arms by private military organisations.
May I be allowed to apologise to the House in this way? No Minister will be present for this motion. I do not know if the motion has a seconder. I should like to say that no disrespect to the House, or, indeed, to Senator Sheehy Skeffington is intended. The Taoiseach made a comprehensive statement about this matter on the 30th ult. He dealt with the whole question and it is the considered view of the Government that no further discussion or statement at this stage would serve any useful purpose. Therefore, no Minister will be in attendance.
Does the Senator wish to proceed in the absence of the Taoiseach or Minister?
I do. I appreciate the spirit in which that statement was made, but I note that the absence of any formal appearance on the part of the Government in relation to this motion is a considered one.
In the course of his statement—I ask in this motion that its general tenor be approved—the Taoiseach said, as reported in Volume 153, No. 9, of the Official Reports of Dáil Eireann, column 1345:—
"A grave responsibility rests on all of us in this matter. It rests with special weight on Deputies of all Parties, on Senators, on members of local authorities."
He went on in the same column:—
"There is a need for public opinion to be clarified and to make itself felt, if we are not to have further incidents..."
Speaking in the same column, of Senators, T.D.s, county councillors, and so on, he said:—
"They cannot profess loyalty to the democratic institutions of the State and, at the same time, applaud minority groups which defy those institutions by word and by deed."
In my opinion, this motion gives Senators, here referred to by the Taoiseach, the opportunity to show the public and the Government just how strongly they support the Taoiseach in this matter.
I welcome, as I say, the general tenor of what he said. I welcome in particular the clear way in which he stressed the fact, once more, that, in this Republic of ours, there is but one Government, one Parliament and one Army; that it is in the spirit of democracy that we have ruled this State so far, and that we intend the ruling of this State to be continued, and that that democracy can be expressed only through the Oireachtas, and that only through the Oireachtas can force be lawfully used on behalf of this State of ours. The Taoiseach stressed the word "democratic". I should like to quote again his words at column 1341:—
"Let me emphasise the word ‘democratic'. The entire system of Government in this State is based on ultimate control by the people, ‘whose right', in the words of the Constitution, ‘it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.'"
He went on to say at the end of the same column and into column 1342:
"It is laid down in the Constitution that: ‘War shall not be declared and the State shall not participate in any war save with the assent of Dáil Éireann.' The right to raise and maintain military or armed forces is vested exclusively in the Oireachtas, and the Constitution expressly forbids the raising or maintaining, for any purpose whatsoever, of any armed force other than the forces raised and maintained by the Oireachtas."
In my contention that is well said, and it was clearly said, but it was said before. It was equally well said in October of last year—over a year ago. I particularly appreciated what the Taoiseach said on that occasion, and he repeated it this time, that even if it were possible by the lawful resort to force to remove the Border, that fact would provide no solution to the problems involved in the question of Partition, because even if we could vanquish by force of arms, we should have bitter resentment springing from civil war, which would poison our political life for years to come, with a discontented minority having to be kept down by force of arms. Again, that was well said.
The only thing I regretted was that it seemed that, a year later, that could only be repeated. There could be no mention of a practical step, no mention of further action. The clauses in the Constitution which the Taoiseach quoted are most apposite, and yet I suggest that, despite the fact that he quoted them and made clear his stand on that point—he referred to them a year ago—despite that fact, to-day in this Republic of ours those clauses of our Constitution are being openly defied. I am not happy that last year's appeal, good though it was, has had a useful result in practice.
I read in February, 1955, in the newspaper called The United Irishman, which purports to be speaking on behalf of this new body which calls itself the I.R.A., an editorial which was headed with three words, each followed by a question mark—“Unchristian? Immoral? Illegal?” In this editorial one passage says:
"The second slanderous accusation was made by Mr. Costello and endorsed by Mr. de Valera in that marathon debate in Leinster House last October shortly after the battle of Omagh. These men have little qualification for preaching to us on Christianity and morality as they only succeed in raising up the ghosts from the 20's and 30's who accuse them of killing their former comrades."
It goes on:—
"Again, will the men of Leinster House say that the men of Armagh and Omagh acted against the will of the majority of the people? In face of the facts they cannot."
It will be seen that the appeal of the Taoiseach last year, and his reference to the Constitution, have had no result at all; and those clauses of our Constitution are being openly defied, and have been equally openly defied since his last statement.
In column 1339, the Taoiseach in this year's statement said: "Our attitude requires to be stated repeatedly." To that I should like to put a question mark. I should like to ask why? I should like to try and ascertain why it is that the Government's attitude has to be stated so repeatedly? I should like to suggest that one reason why it has to be stated and restated is that the Government's attitude is not always easy to guess at from its actions, and so it has frequently to be reformulated since sometimes it cannot easily be guessed.
I notice that county councillors, and even members of this House, have been saying recently that they support "all nationalist movements", with special reference to recent happenings. I am not satisfied that members of the Parties in the Government who make that kind of statement in public fully realise what duty they have to public opinion, and, indeed, to the Government which is in power through their support.
The Taoiseach said at column 1342, speaking of these illegal organisations:—
"These men have no shadow of right to take decisions involving the peace of Ireland..."
"No shadow of right"—yet we hear from responsible politicians of various Parties in the country that they are going to support "all nationalist movements". If "these men"—in the illegal organisation—have "no shadow of right to take decisions involving the peace of Ireland", what does this Government intend now, after a year of appeals, to do? The Taoiseach rightly pointed to the risks of future suffering on the part of Nationalists in the Six Counties arising out of the kind of attacks that have been going on.
I myself referred last year in this House to the possibility, the grave possibility, as I saw it, of innocent men and women suffering in the North as a result of this kind of violent action, while the men immediately responsible for that action slip across the Border and come south into the Republic. So far, it is true that neither of the organisations—apparently there are two—has killed anybody. They have themselves provided victims, but if they do kill someone—I hesitate to say: if and when they do—what is going to be the effect on the temper of the people, both North and South?
Again, at column 1343, the Taoiseach said in a simple and effective phrase:—
"The very mark of a civilised State is that the guns are all under lock and key..."
To that I would say: "Excellent!" but I feel entitled, as a public representative, to ask when is the Government going to put these guns under lock and key?
Further, at column 1344, the Taoiseach said——
I suggest, that, since the Senator has not a seconder, and as presumably he is making his speech for the purpose of inducing somebody to second the motion, it would be better were he allowed to conclude his speech as this is the last speech, or else we should adjourn.
I might have another 40 minutes to speak. I think it is only fair to tell the House that.
The Senator has no seconder. Presumably, under the Standing Orders, he is endeavouring to convince somebody that the motion ought to be seconded.
If that is so, it is simpler that the Senator should go on now, however long he may speak.
I am prepared to move the adjournment of the House and resume my speech at seven o'clock, or to continue now if the House so wishes, but I think it only fair to say that I am likely to speak for another 40 minutes.
It is a matter for the House whether it wishes to continue.
It would be much simpler to go on.
It might be rash on Senator Hayes's part to assume that nobody will in fact second this motion after I have spoken.
I am not assuming that. If the House desires to adjourn, it can do so.
If there are 40 more minutes to go, I think the House should adjourn.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
