I move the adjournment of the House.
Adjournment Debate. - Deputy de Valera's Arrest and Imprisonment.
On the motion for the Adjournment, I wish to call the attention of the House to a matter which has come under the notice of everybody and the details of which you are all familiar with. I refer to the case of the arrest and imprisonment of a member of this assembly, Deputy Eamon de Valera, who was arrested on the 5th of this month and sentenced to a month's imprisonment on the 8th. The reason for his arrest is because he attempted to cross what is known as the Boundary, and to go to Belfast at the urgent request of a number of friends, some political friends, perhaps, but I believe that the number included many who were not his political friends, who invited him as a representative Irishman who had taken a prominent part in the Irish-Ireland movement, as they invited others on successive nights, to open a bazaar organised to provide funds for the furtherance of the Gaelic League and the Gaelic Athletic Association in Belfast and probably in the Six-County area generally. Deputy de Valera's mission to the North was, therefore, a peaceful one.
Everybody knows what the Gaelic League is and what it stands for and it is remarkable that while Deputy de Valera was arrested and imprisoned for attempting to go there and open the bazaar no disorder resulted that brought anybody else into the hands of the law. Therefore, it is not taken that the purpose for which he went there was associated in any way with purposes of disorder or illegality. He was arrested and we believe that this interference with the personal liberty of a citizen—and in this case I think we can claim a distinguished, important and representative citizen of the Free State—was caused because he attempted to pass into another part of Ireland. I think the whole country expected that there would arise from those in charge of the Government of the Free State, the Twenty-Six County area, and that there would be sent out a ringing challenge to those who dared to interfere with the rights of citizenship of a distinguished citizen of this State.
An ultimatum.
We heard a good deal in the last few years about the rights and liberties achieved for the citizens of this Twenty-Six County area. Where are they now, these rights and liberties personally guaranteed in your Treaty and your Constitution for every citizen, every peaceful citizen if you like? The sovereignty of this State, so often emphasised in the Press and on the platform and in every place it could be spoken of—where is your boasted sovereignty at this moment? A citizen on a peaceful mission passing into one part of Ireland is held up, put into jail, flung there and left there because he dared— I say again on a peaceful mission—to pass the Boundary and go into what is known as the Six-County area. That is all very well. He was arrested and imprisoned, but what action was taken? What notice was taken of it?
If I happened to be, as I am not likely to be, the head of a State that boasts, mind you, of its close connection with the British Commonwealth of Nations, in which all men are free men, mar eadh, and if a distinguished or other citizen were arrested and flung into jail, I would make the welkin ring if such an insult were offered to the State of which I was head, a State associated with what most of you are proud to boast as being part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, where all men are free and personal liberty is not denied to any peaceful law-abiding citizen. I am not the head of such a State, and therefore it is not for me to say more, but I think that those even who do accept that State, those who have supported and backed that State with all their might, have expected, and do expect, that the head of that State and the Executive Council would make themselves felt and heard, would do something definite and make it known that citizenship of this Free State of yours was something to be valued.
It is dragged in the mire, it is walked on and spat upon. What have you got? What protest is made? What attempt is made to defend your citizenship? A crawling, creeping, begging letter or a telephone message to the head of a subordinate State of the British Empire in which we are supposed to be equal partners with all the Dominions! Here is a subordinate entity in that Commonwealth of Nations you boast so much about, and you crawl to the head of that subordinate institution and you say to him: "Please, sir, will you, by an act of grace, release this citizen of ours?" Things have come to a nice pass. You have something to be proud of with your crawling letters, your begging letters. Down on your knees! We ought not to be surprised. They went on their knees often enough to England before, and will, I suppose, again. We are not associated any more than we can help, thanks be to god, with your crawling citizenship, your crawling messages. We do not, any more than we have to do, accept your citizenship in the Free State or your association with the British Commonwealth of Nations, but it is up to you who do, if you have any manhood left, if it has not all oozed out by now in your association with the British Commonwealth, as it must have, in the last six or seven years, adulterated as it has been —it is up to you to stand up for your own citizens' rights. It is up to you to see that any citizen going into any part of the Thirty-Two counties on a peaceful mission has his rights and liberties guaranteed.
It came certainly as a shock, a great shock, to many in this country to find that Partition was so engendered in the minds of those in control of this State that they could bring themselves to do nothing more. They recognised it to such an extent, that they acceded to it, accepted it, and agreed to it, mentally, morally, physically, and in every direction they could. They could bring themselves to do no more than crawl in order to uphold the dignity of this State, about which they boast so much, and whose liberty and sovereignty, if you please, are such cherished objects with them. We did not expect a great lot from them, I need not tell you, for the reasons I have just given, but your own citizens, those who back you, did. Read the Press. I have, even since I came into the House, been told by more than one of your own backers that they were ashamed, that they expected more of you, and they said to me, "Do not be afraid to tell them so." You have fallen, fallen very low. Could anyone imagine even those whose names you, as Free Staters, honour and cherish, Griffith and Collins, accepting that position. I must say I could not, though I disagreed as much as any being in Ireland, with certain actions of theirs. I think there was manhood enough in them to prevent anything of that kind. Is that what the Black and Tan war was fought for? Is that what honest men in Ireland of all shades of opinion, died for? I will not mention in this assembly—it would be a desecration to mention them—Terence McSwiney, Liam Mellowes, Cathal Brugha or Erskine Childers—but any of these men, whether they died before or after this Treaty of yours which brought into existence the Free State, I believe I am right in saying, would be ashamed, and they would have every right to be.
There is one other division, I think, that we can see, a very marked division, now arising, out of this action towards one citizen. I do not think I am exaggerating in saying that it is a line-up of those who stand for Ireland against those who stand for Belfast, your own Free State, and England all combined. There is the division, the old division, All that have any manhood in Ireland, whether they stood for the Free State before or not, repudiate your puny, crawling message.
Will the Deputy address the Chair?
They repudiate your begging letter.
The Deputy should address the Chair.
They repudiate the message sent in the name of the Free State with the hat in hand, asking, if you please, for an act of grace from Mr. Craig, Lord Craigavon, and his colleagues, an act of grace for a distinguished Irishman who was arrested on a peaceful mission. Your message got what it deserved. A message of that kind was too mean to get any other answer. What it deserved it got. We know, of course, that to some extent your hands are tied.
The Deputy should address the Chair and not use the second person towards the other side of the House.
I did not intend to. The hands of the Executive Council are tied. The Executive Council themselves have too many political prisoners in jail for what, if they are anything at all, are very shadowy political offences. There is no necessity why at this moment they should show such an example to the Northern Government. They have set the example, and they left themselves open to a proper retort. Of course, probably, that is one of the sources of their weakness. There is just one other matter. It came as a source of astonishment to me when I read in the newspapers a statement, probably official or semi-official, which intimated that on a previous occasion when Mr. de Valera entered the Six-County area he did so by leave of the Northern Ministry. I repudiate that with all the emphasis with which I can utter these words. Neither Mr. de Valera nor any member of this Party would ever dream of asking the Six-County Government, directly or indirectly, through the Free State or otherwise, for any leave to go into any part of the thirty-two counties. This is our country, and we claim the right to go where we please. We will act on that right as we have done before. There is no crawling about us anyhow, and if we incur censure or imprisonment by going as freemen through any part of our own land we will do so, and we will not go on our "benders" to Lord Craigavon, Mr. Cosgrave, President of the Executive Council, or anybody else, to beg for release from any sacrifice or sufferings that may be imposed on us.
We have been told that the Chief whip of the Fianna Fáil Party gave the names of some of our Party who intended to go to Armagh for the funeral of the late Cardinal O'Donnell. He may have done that. He may have been asked, as I understand he was asked in the Lobby one day, who of our party would probably attend. He did not know very definitely, but he gave some names. He never knew, and was never told, that any use was going to be made of those names that were given. Whatever names were given, to say they were given to secure for Mr. de Valera or anybody else permission to enter any part of Ireland, I repudiate with the fullest emphasis, and demand any person who makes that statement to prove it—that Mr. de Valera, or anyone acting on his behalf, at any period asked permission directly or indirectly to go into the Six Counties or anywhere else in Ireland he felt he ought to go, as an Irishman.
I have probably said enough, but I feel, and we, on this side, feel this very strongly, and we know there are others besides the Fianna Fáil Party who feel it strongly. We know definitely from the members of the Labour Party that they feel it strongly, as a denial of the rights of citizenship, and as a curtailment of the liberty of the subject which every citizen should protest against. We know already, I do not want to emphasise it at greater length, that very many of those most publicly associated with the Free State, since its inception, back us in this protest, and would like to see a vigorous protest. I think many public bodies have spoken, and many have not been heard that will probably be heard on this question. Many would have expected that very definite action would be taken, not alone by the Executive Council, but by this assembly, when it met to-day, to put on record the strong feelings that are evident everywhere, in every corner of the country, by a protest, by resentment against the treatment offered to one of the most distinguished members of this House, and one of Ireland's most distinguished sons. Nothing has been done beyond the crawl.
In reply to my question as to what had been done, President Cosgrave told us to-day that the Executive Council cannot interfere with the administration of the law in Northern Ireland, and accordingly the only course open to the Executive Council was to make representations to the Northern Government that in the special circumstances of the case Deputy de Valera might be released. Such representations were made with the results known. The President was even so much ashamed of his own begging letter and the answer he got that he would not put it down in the paper; he would not tell us the answer he got, or what the results were. He said, "Go and read the newspapers." I hope he and his colleagues have been reading the newspapers. Even the Press most hostile to the aspirations and ideals we stand for, to the aspirations Deputy de Valera stood for and stands for, practically all of it joined in a protest, and I am sure these protests have been read. They should make known to the President and members of the Executive Council how small and mean they look in the eyes of every freedom lover, every citizen who stands against partition, who stands for Ireland one and undivided, who stands for the liberty of Ireland and the personal liberty of the subject. They look small and mean in the eyes of these people to-day.
I approach this matter from a somewhat different angle from Deputy O'Kelly. Might I say at the beginning that I do not think it adds to the cause in which he, and I, too, are interested to belittle this assembly in any way, or the institutions under which we are working. Whether I would prefer to have another form of government or not is a matter outside the issue at the moment. I take things as I find them, and I find that a distinguished member of this assembly goes into a neighbouring country, or into a portion under the administration of one of the members of the Commonwealth of which we are members and co-equals. That is the position. We are supposed, under the Constitution, to have common citizenship. The issue raised here is the right of a citizen, the right of one member of the Commonwealth to exclude a citizen of another member of the Commonwealth, a peaceful citizen, a man who, as Deputy O'Kelly said, goes there on a peaceful mission. I think that it is not with the Northern Government that this matter should have been taken up at all. That is the reason I asked to-day, when this question was under discussion, whether the President had made representations to the British Government. The Northern Government is a subordinate Government; it does not settle, as I understand, questions of citizenship or has no rights in that matter. Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a member of the British Commonwealth co-equal with the Free State. The Free State is co-equal with Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was to the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that representations should have been made, in my opinion, at any rate, and no representations were made. I think that not only the action that has been taken, but the existence of the Order itself, the very existence of the Order, is a matter that should long ago have been taken up with the British Government. I believe that the existence of that Order, in view especially of the events of the last two or three years, the putting up of such a barrier against a citizen of this State very nearly amounts to an unfriendly act on the part of the Government, and as such should have been resented by the Executive Council.
We had an instance a few months ago of a foreign Government detaining citizens of another country for some time. The point was made then that a country has the right to detain aliens or prevent aliens entering its territory, but if there is anything in this common citizenship that is mentioned in the Oath which all members of this House have taken, then surely this is not a parallel case. Deputy de Valera is a common citizen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as he is a common citizen of this State. Is he or is he not? If he is a citizen of the Irish Free State he is a common citizen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the other co-equal member of the Commonwealth. I agree with Deputy O'Kelly that the Executive Council did not take the action they should have taken in regard to the arrest and detention of a member of this House.
I have here before me a document which was signed in 1925. It was signed by representatives of the British Government, by representatives of the Free State, and by representatives of Northern Ireland too. Reference is made to the progress of events and the improved relations now subsisting between these Governments. They signed certain articles of agreement so as to avoid any causes of friction which might mar or retard the further growth of friendly relations between the said Governments and peoples. This Order against a citizen, and not alone one citizen but other citizens of this State, is still in existence, even after this document has been signed and our Executive Council, as far as I know, have made no protest against that barrier to the free movements of citizens of this State. I believe that the Government have been neglectful in protecting the interests of its citizens, in protecting, especially, and standing for the international courtesies that should exist between supposedly friendly States.
Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I would have much preferred if the Government took no action whatever rather than the action they did take. I agree very largely indeed with Deputy O'Kelly that the action they did take was rather worse than if they had simply ignored the matter altogether. I think they took the wrong action. I think a protest should have been made and the country I believe looked to them to make the protest, because we must recognise this: Not alone is Deputy de Valera a citizen of this State, he is a distinguished citizen and it was only through the accident of five or six votes that he does not occupy the position of our President. And if that were so would the people of this country still sit quietly under an insult of the kind offered to the President of this State, if this Parliament met, with the President of the State in gaol, as it very well might be? I say again I believe it is not with Northern Ireland, but with the British Ministry, because Northern Ireland in this matter is a purely subordinate Government, that this matter should be taken up by the Government and a proper protest made in the name of the people against the arrest, imprisonment and the barrier put on the movements of a free citizen of this State.
I would just like to clear up one or two things. Two Deputies who have spoken referred to the British Commonwealth of Nations, citizenship, co-equality and so on. Long ago, I was ridiculed in the papers, for talking of the implementation of co-equality, and afterwards that question came up rather considerably. What is co-equality? I presume it is just one being in the same position as the other. I would never, in any circumstances, when I was dealing with the British Government, agree that they had the right to say that any citizen of theirs had the right to come here if this Government decided that they did not want them here. The idea of the Opposition, and apparently of Deputy O'Connell, is that there is a common Government of the British Commonwealth. There is no such thing. If any Canadian, Briton, South African or any other citizen wants to come into this State they come here only in so far as we allow them to come. That is a right that we must maintain all the time. It may happen at some later time that a Government will come in here that may be anti-Semitic, and if the people voted for that Government as an anti-Semitic Government, that Government would have a perfect right to say we do not want Semites coming into this country.
We have never admitted the right of the British Government to partition this country.
We will have to hear the Minister, as Deputy O'Kelly was heard.
The Minister is making the point that the Northern Government has the right. We maintain on this side of the House that they have no such right.
I want it to be clearly understood that membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations does not convey that any other member of the Commonwealth has the right to dictate to us as to what should be done here. A Government exists primarily for the maintenance of social order. It is a regrettable fact, if you like, that this Government here is not the Government in charge of and responsible for social order in Northern Ireland. Deputy O'Connell said that the Northern Government in this matter is a purely subordinate Government. I do not think he is right. The Government of Northern Ireland is a subordinate Government in as much as many matters relating to Northern Ireland are excluded from their supervision, but social order in Northern Ireland is within the province of the Government of Northern Ireland. They, being responsible for social order, in their wisdom or in their folly, may decide that social order may require a certain thing to be done. They have the power to put that in operation. Have they the right? We are not the Government of Northern Ireland. It is a regrettable fact, but it must be admitted. No other Government but the Government of Northern Ireland is responsible for social order in Northern Ireland. That Government passed an Act. You may say that such a Government should not exist, but if the Government is responsible for social order, it must be within its province to take such precautions as it thinks in its wisdom or in its folly, are necessary for the maintenance of social order.
And you lie down under them.
Deputy O'Kelly talked about guarantees of liberty, etc., given here to citizens. Those guarantees cannot extend beyond the province of the Government here. Deputy O'Connell said that this act of the Northern Government, in putting up a barrier, amounted very nearly to an unfriendly act. Is it because it is Northern Ireland? Would the same thing apply to any other place except Northern Ireland?
Mr. O'Connell
In my opinion, yes.
At that rate, the United States is continually performing unfriendly acts against us. If Deputy O'Connell, or any other Deputy, or citizen of the Irish Free State, wants to go to the United States—Deputy O'Kelly would say that they are not going to crawl to any of these Governments; they would not dream of asking the permission of the United States——
I certainly would not ask permission to go to any part of Ireland.
I asked Deputy O'Connell does this apply only because it was Northern Ireland, and he said to any other place.
Mr. O'Connell
Will the Minister allow me to explain? If France or the United States named a certain prominent citizen of the country that they would not allow into their territory, I would regard that as an unfriendly act.
What about James Larkin?
Do not make a joke of it.
Mr. O'Connell
He committed an offence against their laws in their own State.
I do not want to flatter Deputy O'Connell, but in my opinion, as a citizen of the Free State, he is at least as distinguished as Deputy de Valera. If Deputy O'Connell says that he does not think that the Government of France or any other country has a right to exclude him——
Mr. O'Connell
I did not say it had not the right; I said we should regard it as an unfriendly act, if they did it.
If the Deputy proposes to-morrow to go to the United States without having got permission from the United States Government, and paid ten dollars for the permission, and he goes there, he is likely to find himself in jail.
Mr. O'Connell
That is a totally different matter.
Does the passport system apply between Northern Ireland and the Free State?
It does not apply because we do not apply it, merely for convenience sake. We could apply it to-morrow. We could make an agreement with France or Yugo-Slavia to do away with passports. The actual position is not varied in the least in this matter by the existence of the passport system. We can to-morrow, if we like, insist not only on passports but visas between here and Great Britain or Northern Ireland or any other country.
Does the Minister look upon the Six Counties as a foreign country?
Let us conduct this as a debate, not as a cross-examination. We began very well.
Not as a joke.
If it is to be conducted at all, it will have to be conducted by Deputies listening to what other Deputies have to say. It began very well. There was no interruption of Deputy O'Kelly, and there must be no interruption of Deputies on the other side.
I am taking a lead from the Minister for Finance.
Let the Minister come to the point, and not be drawing red-herrings across the trail. He is trying to waste time, as he knows there is only another half hour for the debate.
The Minister must be allowed to make his case in any way that suits him.
Whether misrepresentation is included or not?
Whether relevant or not?
The Minister must be allowed to make his case in any way that seems proper to him and that does not seem to the Chair to be contravening the Standing Orders. There is no other rule for the guidance of debate here. Deputies are constantly endeavouring to enforce another rule: that they will speak and that they will not listen to their opponents. That rule will not do.
We do not expect much truth from the Minister.
That is the only disorderly statement made here to-night, and the Deputy knows it well —that he does not expect truth from the Minister.
Much of the truth.
The Deputy is making a most disorderly statement.
I do not know where I am departing from the truth. I am stating that a Government's primary duty is the maintenance of social order. It may be untrue, but if it is, a great many Catholic theologians have maintained it. I have stated that the only Government in whom that responsibility exists, so far as the Six Counties are concerned, is the Government of Northern Ireland. We may regret it, but it is a fact. As far as this State is concerned, we insist upon the right existing in every State to exclude any outsider we do not want in it, and we will do that either by name or any other way. If we suspect that a man is coming in here for a purpose detrimental to the State, we not only have the right, but we have the duty to citizens to exclude him. We may be misinformed; our judgment may be wrong; but once we consider that any individual should not be allowed into this State, if that is our honest judgment, we are bound to put it into operation, in our trustee position for the people of the State. We may be wise, or we may be foolish. The Northern Government may be wise, or they may be foolish. But they have the responsibility and the power and they are the people to whom any representation should be made and not the British Government, because the matter of social order is not a reserved service as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. In that they have the responsibility and they have the power and they are the people responsible. I will not admit that all this talk about the common citizenship of the British Commonwealth of Nations is going to give any other Government the right to dictate to us whom we shall or shall not, or will or will not ask here. Once I assert that for us, it is co-equality, it is not suzerainty, that we claim for the other members. If we claim that for ourselves, we have to recognise it for other people. If anybody says it is an unfriendly act for any Government to exclude one of our citizens, I can only say that it is happening every day in every country that demands visas.
A Deputy
Not at all.
The Deputy says "Not at all." If he wants to go to the United States, he has to get the permission beforehand of the United States Government, and he has to pay for that permission. In the case of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, for the convenience of our citizens we have agreed not to have passports in operation for the time being. The Northern Irish Government exists; we cannot help it. All this argument seems to me to come from a denial of their right to exist. As there is no other Government there, that Government has a right to function there. There is no other Government for that place to look after the social order there. They made an Order, as was within their power, if not within their right. Certainly you must admit that it was within their power— that they had the power to do it. There is talk of insult here. If the Government of France or America, or any other country makes a regulation that an individual shall not be allowed in there—if the Government of the United States say that they will not have me in the United States, where is the insult? If I attempt to go there in spite of them, it is a denial of the right of the United States to make laws for the good government of the United States. Is that an insult to the United States Government or is it not? I say that would be an insult to the United States Government, and an insult they would have every right to object to, and to put their objection into solid form.
Will the Minister tell us why the Minister for Finance therefore insulted the Northern Government by accepting an invitation to go there, which unfortunately he did not carry out?
I am not aware that the Northern Government has made any Order against the Minister for Finance.
There is good reason for it.
I do not remember the Minister for Finance saying that he proposed to blast the Northern Government out of his way.
Not recently.
There is no Order against him as far as I know. If there is an Order against him, they have a right, if in their wisdom or their unwisdom they decide that it would be detrimental to their social order for him to enter the Six Counties, to prevent him doing so. You must remember there is a great difference between a member of a Government and an ordinary Deputy.
A tremendous difference; you are right at last.
There is a fundamental difference. Deputies may regret it, but the superiority is not necessarily in the individual. We are taught that all power comes from God, and by mere virtue of being a Government I am told by my Church that we receive power from God. That has existed thousands of years before me. I have tried to put the case as clearly as I can. If one wants to say that the Northern Government took Mr. de Valera's remarks too literally, and that they need not have worried about what he might do, I may say I agree with him. But what is the good of talking about protest.
Making the welkin ring.
Making the welkin ring is more the function of the Opposition than ours. We are told we must defend the rights of our citizens, but the rights of our citizens do not extend beyond our territory. That is the truth.
What is the Army for?
The Army is a defence force; not an aggressive force. I have tried to put this thing perfectly clearly. I am sorry if I have not been able to convey the thing as clearly as I see it, to other people. I am not going to stand by silently and hear it stated that membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations gives to the several Governments in that Commonwealth of Nations the right to interfere with one another in what they consider to be their internal affairs. That is the case put quite clearly by the two previous speakers.
No, no.
Deputy O'Connell said that very clearly.
That is your imagination.
Deputy O'Connell said that clearly, perfectly clearly, and if we claim that right for ourselves we must recognise it for other people. But the question as to whether there ought to be a Northern Government does not enter into this. There is a body of men responsible for social order in the Six Counties, and if they have that responsibility they must be recognised to have the power over everything which is not against the moral law. There is no use trying to get beyond that. It was suggested that we were not a sovereign State because we cannot dictate to other Governments. I have not the imperial ambitions of the Fianna Fáil Party. I do not aspire that this Government should have the right to dictate to other Governments. It must be recognised that all this talk about the perfect rights of the citizens of this State to enter into other territory outside the control of this Government does not exist. It demonstrably does not exist in the case of the United States or in Jugo-Slavia, or in any other country which insists upon only allowing people to enter these countries who pay for and receive visas from these Governments. This Government has that right as other Governments have, and we are prepared to exercise it the same as other Governments. We are not prepared to allow people into this country if their presence is detrimental to the existence of the State. The people of this country have the right to elect the Government of the country on a prejudice against any one type of person. They have a perfect right to do that. There are Governments more or less anti-Semitic, and if the people elect an anti-Semitic Government, that Government would be elected for the purpose of keeping out Semities.
Is the Minister making the case that any Government has the right to deny a passage through its territory or maintenance to any individual from another country because of his religion if he has a passport from the country of his origin or the country of which he is the subject?
I am not suggesting that that should be done.
I am asking the Minister to picture a legal citizen of Great Britain—he is visualising a country that is anti-Semitic—being prohibited from entering into that country because of his religion. Does he think they would be able to carry it out? Does he realise that a subject of a country carrying a passport is recognised by his country as a citizen, apart from any religion at all?
I regret very much if the analogy is offensive to Deputy Briscoe.
I am not taking anything as offensive. I am asking the Minister if he is making that case, and if he is prepared to stand over it.
I am making the case that the Government of any country by virtue of its sovereignty, has the right to exclude any citizen of another country that its people do not want whether because of religion or the colour of his hair or anything else——
And that concludes that point.
There are so many argumentative red-herrings, and there has been so much misrepresentation that I wanted to get it clear. I was not sure whether people here think that any citizen in this State had a right to go where he liked, and fling his weight about because he was an Irish citizen. I was not sure whether it was because he went into another place as a right because he was a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The same thing applies there as anywhere else.
Could the Minister say whether the Government of the Saorstát had a right to exclude Lord Birkenhead if they chose to do so, when he came over here?
Certainly, we had.
Under the Public Safety Act.
Do not interrupt.
I only regret that I have not been previously assured of the protection of Deputy Flinn. I just wanted to get these things clear. There has been so much cross-talk and so many misleading things said that it seemed to me we were arrogating to ourselves a power that no Government can claim, or that we were recognising in other Governments a right here that I personally would not be prepared to recognise. It is unfortunate that a man knowing that there is an Exclusion Order against him in territory not controlled by this Government——
A Deputy
But it is Ireland.
It is part of Ireland but is outside this State, with a definite body of men responsible for social order in it, and consequently with all the powers necessary for the maintenance of social order; whether they are wise or unwise is a different matter. I want to make that clear, because it seems to me that Deputy O'Connell and Deputy O'Kelly did not realise that they are attempting to refuse to other Governments what this Government would allow no one to refuse to us. That is the position. The only insult I can see is the very clearly implied denial of the right of people responsible for social order in the Six Counties to make regulations for the maintenance of that social order. It was not a member of our Government, fortunately, or an important person that went up there. I can see there an insult, but I cannot see that anyone can claim that we have been insulted to the point of almost declaring war because they merely said, whether wisely or foolishly, they would decide what was good or bad for social order there, and whom they would not allow in or what was good or bad for social order in that area.
In dealing with this matter of the arrest of Deputy de Valera, and the action taken by the Government in relation to it, I find I am in a position of particular difficulty. The difficulty I am in is that I can see quite clearly one very good reason why the Executive Council could not have taken any action other than the action they did take in relation to it. Deputy de Valera was not arrested by the authorities in Belfast because he is of bad character. He was not even arrested primarily because he disobeyed the Exclusion Order and travelled to the country for which he was the elected representative. He was arrested primarily because he was an Irish Republican and because he stood for the termination of Partition and the establishment of a Republican Government in this country. The difficulty which I see now and which the Executive Council, no doubt, saw very clearly if and when they considered this matter, is that they themselves have done precisely the same thing as the authorities in Belfast have done. They have arrested Northern Deputies because these Deputies stood for the termination of Partition and the establishment of a Republican Government in this country. It was quite obvious that they could not consistently object to Lord Craigavon doing the same thing.
We have had from the Minister for Defence another explanation of our co-equality. We know all about our co-equality. We know that it means in reality a combination of the Governments now existing in these islands to suppress any attempt by the Irish people to achieve their national aspirations. That is what is meant by co-equality, and it is because there is a community of interest between this Executive Council and Lord Craigavon and his colleagues that no effective action was taken when a Deputy of this House was arrested. I do think, however, that the Executive Council should have recognised the logic of the situation, and knowing that they could have taken no effective action that would not be altogether inconsistent with their own past, they should have done nothing. They could at least have spared Deputy de Valera the added insult of asking Lord Craigavon to release him as an act of grace. I think the action of the Free State Government was more galling to Deputy de Valera than the action of the Northern Government, for it is not the first time that Deputy de Valera has been imprisoned.
It is not the first time that those actively working for the Republican movement have been imprisoned, and they possibly will be imprisoned again. They have come to look upon going to prison as part of their normal duties as Republicans. but we do ask that when circumstances result in another demonstration of the foundation on which the rule of the Governments now existing in Ireland rests—the foundations of brute force—when another demonstration of that fact is given that we should at least be spared from such an ignominy and such action as that taken by the Executive Council in relation to Deputy de Valera.
A number of people who heard that this matter was likely to be raised in the Dáil, not seeing for themselves quite clearly why the Executive Council could do nothing, and being at the same time dissatisfied with the action which they took, have asked us to state, and have themselves expressed opinions as to, what the Executive Government could do. I would like to ask some Minister opposite to tell us what, in his opinion, the British Government would have done if the Civic Guards had arrested Lord Lascelles when he came here a few weeks ago to visit his estate down in the West of Ireland, from which his ancestors drove the original Irish owners by fire and sword. Deputy de Valera had much more right in Down than Lord Lascelles had in Galway. Does anyone think that the British Government would have shown the same slavish acquiescence if he had been arrested by the Free State Government as the Free State displayed towards the arrest of Deputy de Valera? When the news of Deputy de Valera's arrest was heard in every part of the country there arose a storm of protest from all the people. The Executive Council was then given an opportunity, which they are not likely to get again, of uniting the people of this part of Ireland in taking effective action, by the utilisation of that incident, to re-open the question of the partition of this country and to keep it open until some more effective solution of that question had been found.
The arrest of Deputy de Valera has done one very useful thing. It has demonstrated the futility of the policy which we have heard expounded from time to time from Cumann na nGaedheal platforms with reference to the possibility of ending partition. We have had Mr. David Barry, O.B.E., and the Minister for Finance and other people telling us what we should do is to concentrate upon the establishment of better trade relations between North and South. They will not recognise that those who are now in control of affairs in the North do not regard themselves as Irishmen, but regard themselves as, and, in fact, are a British garrison holding a new Gibraltar for Imperialism. These people have no illusion as to what their position is. It is only here in the South and amongst people who should know better that illusions exist. You had an example not long ago of that. Lord Craigavon, speaking in Derry, told the people of the Six Counties that they were to buy Ulster goods first, and if they could not get Ulster goods then they were to buy British goods. There was no suggestion that the people of that area should buy goods from the Free State. I do not suggest that we should adopt a similar policy. I would prefer to buy goods manufactured in the Six Counties to buying British goods. But we should make it clear to these people that if they want to live on friendly terms with the Irish people and to carry on with the Irish people a trade profitable to themselves, they must first recognise that they are Irishmen, and take a step forward in the creation of a real Irish nation here.
The Minister for Defence said that Governments exist primarily for the maintenance of social order. He should know, or at any rate he knew it once, that the Government in Belfast does not exist primarily for the maintenance of social order. It was not established for that purpose. It was established for the purpose of keeping that part of the country a stepping-off ground for the reconquest of Ireland should British policy dictate that at any time. The Minister said we had not in operation between the two parts of the country a passport system because the convenience of our citizens demands that there should not be one. What is the true situation? if the Northern Government wish that certain citizens shall not enter their territory without their permission, is the Minister right in saying that no passport system operates; or is this another example of the many examples we had already, that whenever there is a difference in the relationship existing between the Free State and the Government of Great Britain or Northern Ireland it is always detrimental to the interests of the citizens of this State?
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. Deputy Doyle, who is not now in the House, has been writing letters to the papers recently, insinuating or directly asserting that Deputy de Valera asked the Free State Executive Council to intercede with the Northern Government, asking them not to put into operation the Exclusion Order against him on the occasion of his visit to Armagh to attend the funeral of the late Cardinal O'Donnell. Deputy Doyle has said that he has documentary evidence to prove that that is the case. He has an opportunity now of producing that evidence, and if he does not produce it we can only come to the conclusion that he was drawing upon his imagination when making these statements in the public Press.
Deputy Lemass asked what the British Government would have done if the Gárda Síochána had arrested Lord Lascelles. I was present at a meeting at which the question of Deputy de Valera's arrest was discussed. I think it was pretty fully discussed. We did not naturally discuss the question that the Deputy has touched. But the reply I give him is this, that if any suggestion had been made by this Government to Lord Lascelles that his presence was unwelcome to us here, he would not have entered and if any suggestion had been made to Lord Birkenhead when he was about to come here that his presence was unwelcome, he would not have come here. I am perfectly certain of this, that if we had an Act in force which gave us the particular powers that the Northern Government have in their Civil Authorities Special Powers Act that no British politician would enter the Free State in defiance of that order, and if anyone did by any chance that there would be no protest at all from the British Government. The most that might come from the British Government if that happened would be a letter asking if we could not release him. I am absolutely sure that if the Public Safety Act were in force still, if we did make an order prohibiting British Communists or a London Irishman, or somebody taking an interest in political affairs over here, or that is likely to take an interest in political affairs here—if under that Act we issued an order forbidding a particular person to enter here and if that person entered and was sentenced to imprisonment, there would be no protest from the British Government.
I do not think that we in the interest of the country as a whole, apart altogether from the interests of the Free State, could have taken any action other than the action we did take. One may question whether in view of the deliberateness of Deputy de Valera's action in going there and also in view of his attitude in court whether we ought to have written or not. But Deputy de Valera was not involved in our action. We were certainly not desirous that he should remain in prison, but there was no reason why he should feel galled as he had no responsibility for our action; there is no reason why he should feel offended or why he should feel that there was any ignominy on him in relation to the matter. Our action did not really affect him in any way. I think Deputy de Valera some time ago said that if we wanted to end Partition there was no use in talking too much about it. I took that to mean that the problem of ending partition was an extremely delicate problem and one that was not going to be solved by attempting to rush it unduly or by having any tremendous amount of public discussion. I think that the ending of Partition which people are talking about here would not be helped forward but would be retarded by making the welkin ring or doing anything in relation to the present Government of Northern Ireland that could not be defended as perfectly correct.
I agree with the Minister for Defence, that this matter of whom they will let into Northern Ireland is a matter within the powers and the constitutional rights of the Government of Northern Ireland. They would have reason to regard it as an insult and an offence if we approached them in any other way about this matter. I do not think that Partition is going to be a work of all time. I once before said in this House that I believe Partition could not be ended by any form of coercion; that if the end came it would come when a majority in Northern Ireland believe and realise it would be to their advantage to agree to the ending of Partition. I do not say that one could not find historical justification for coercion, if coercion were possible; but I have believed for some time that coercion is impossible both now and in any future that can be foreseen. If coercion is impossible, then the end of Partition can only be brought about by the consent of the people, and that consent will only come, amongst other things, as a result of normal political evolution there. Any unjustifiable attacks on the Northern Government for doing a thing which was in their right, whether we like or dislike what they did, will only hinder and delay the normal political evolution that one might expect to take place there. If there are any people up there who would be pleased at the arrest of Deputy de Valera, believing that it would hold up political evolution, then those people would be the more pleased the more the welkin was made to ring here.
If Deputy de Valera were President, somebody said—Deputy O'Connell said that a small change over of votes might have made Deputy de Valera President—then what would the country have done if the President of the Executive Council were placed under arrest? All I can say is that if Deputy de Valera were to do such a thing— I put this, not meaning any offence— if he were to be guilty of a petty offence against the laws of another State and got himself into jail for doing so, then he would not be fit to be President. A leader of the Opposition who has not actually the responsibility of government is in a different position, and he may do things which, I believe, are not quite correct even in any prominent politician. But they are not so serious as they would be if they were done by a man who was for the time being charged with the responsibility of government.
As the Minister for Defence said, there is no use in pretending that Partition does not exist, and objecting to things because they are one of the natural consequences of Partition. We are not going to end Partition that way. We are not going to end it by any sort of attack on the things up there. Although the Government, as the Minister for defence said, has the right to exclude a person whom it thinks, for its own reasons, dangerous to admit, it might be that a certain sort of discriminate refusal to admit citizens of a State would after a time come to be regarded by that State as an unfriendly act. The Belgian Government lately refused admission to certain members of the British Parliament. The United States have refused admission to British politicians. But there might come a time when, if the ordinary non-political citizens of Great Britain were in some discriminating way refused admission in considerable numbers to Belgium, the British Government might say, "Here, we are not being treated fairly in this matter. There is a discrimination against us, and you are refusing admission to some of our citizens against whom no fault can be alleged, and we take that as an unfriendly act." In the same way, as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, if an ordinary merchant from Cork or Dublin who had no interference at all in politics, were refused admission, and if instances of that kind continued, we might then take the matter up and say, "Here are acts which are definitely unfriendly."
You must recognise the position that from the point of view of Northern Ireland Deputy de Valera is one of their politicians. He is a member of their Parliament, although he has not taken his seat. He is the leader of a political party there. Above all men, I think he is the man about whose arrest we would have the least shadow of justification for issuing any protest. As regards a man who had never any connection with the North—in that case I do not think we could protest unless the thing were happening frequently. We would then have some grounds. I would be glad to see Deputy de Valera released. We regret his arrest. He went there and may not have known that he would be arrested. On the other hand, he must have known that there was a considerable chance of his being arrested. He simply decided to challenge the powers that be there, and for us to enter any protest in regard to that would be extremely foolish. I do not think I need deal further with that point. Deputy O'Connell seemed to think that this expression "common citizenship" involved——
Is the Minister trying to make a case for Partition?
It is there anyway, and as a matter of fact, I think the people keenest on Partition would be most pleased with the sort of situation that has developed, and would be all the more pleased the more it was exaggerated. Australia and Canada, and all those countries retain their right to keep out a person, even though he is a citizen of another member of the Commonwealth. A prominent member of the Dáil, Deputy Esmonde, was once refused permission to enter Australia. He was refused by the Australian Government. They afterwards invited him there and entertained him at great expense.
When he turned his coat.
If Deputy de Valera could do the same I think he would be welcome. However, without going too far into this matter, perhaps India is in a different position, but there is no doubt that Indian citizens are continually refused. The Canadian, South African, and other Governments retain their full right to exclude anybody they like. We have not any Act under which we can exclude a person who is a citizen of any other State of the Commonwealth. The powers in regard to aliens do not, I think, extend to them, but we had here certain powers for a short time under the Public Safety Act. If the Deputies opposite did not come into the Dáil, it is most probable that the various powers under that Act which were not put into force would have been put into force, and if Exclusion Orders were issued under that Act, I have no doubt that some of the people on whom orders would have been served would be people who were natives of Belfast, and some of them natives of Great Britain. British citizens from every point of view, people who were perhaps only the grandchildren of Irish parents who may have been born in London. The British Government could not question our right, and it would certainly be wrong for us to admit that the British Government was entitled to say that we should not exclude such people. Even if we take the point of view that the Northern Government is subordinate to the British Government, it would be illogical to deny them that right. We get no further by all the pretence that has gone on in connection with this matter. I have discussed it with several people who condemned it, and I found that none of them had given consideration to the matter. After a candid talk they practically all admitted that there was nothing to be done. My own opinion is that the whole business has a good deal of political basis behind it, both here and in the North.
Will the Minister deny that the Executive Council are responsible for the arrest of Deputy de Valera? I can show that they are responsible by the underhand way that they went about asking Lord Craigavon to grant a permit to Deputy de Valera to go there without his knowledge. The people who invited him there would not have done so if they had been aware of the circumstances under which he attended the funeral of Cardinal O'Donnell. In that way, I submit, the Government was primarily responsible for the invitation being issued to him.
I say that Deputy de Valera certainly knew before he went to Cardinal O'Donnell's funeral that the Government here had been in communication with the Government of Northern Ireland, and that he was secure from being arrested on that particular occasion. Consequently, while the people who invited him to Belfast may not have known the facts, he knew them, and you cannot blame the people who invited him for anything that happened.
With regard to the statement that Deputy de Valera had previous knowledge, I will not characterise it as a deliberate lie, but I say that it is absolutely false.
The President will deal with that.
Absolutely false.
I mentioned at one time the suggestion in this Dáil that the British Commonwealth of Nations is an international fallacy. I venture to repeat that now, and I quote, as proof of it, what the Minister for Defence and the President of the Executive Council have said, "It is not Great Britain and Northern Ireland that are co-equal States. It is Northern Ireland that is a co-equal State with this sovereign State." That has been deliberately stated, not perhaps in so many words, but in so many terms—that Northern Ireland is a co-equal State with this State. They told us that not alone is Northern Ireland co-equal with this State, but they compared Northern Ireland, a fifth of a small country like Ireland, with such countries as Germany, Belgium and the United States. They told us that Belgium, the United States, Germany and England could exclude aliens, but neither the President of the Executive Council nor the Minister for Defence has told us that Germany, Belgium or the United States sent police to the border line to watch for the entrance of these people and imprison them. We have no record of aliens—if you like to call them that—or citizens of these countries being arrested by another country for entering it.
We have.
Mr. Hogan
In Belgium there is no imprisonment. Persons are refused permission to pass through; there is no imprisonment, and the Minister knows it.
Any person attempting to enter a country without a passport, or, if that country requires a visa, without a visa, is liable to imprisonment.
Mr. Hogan
Does the Minister suggest that the Northern Government has the same status as America or Belgium? If he does, where then is all the talk to which we have been listening about co-equality and nationhood? If that is so, there is no substance in those statements made previously. We have been willing to accept and make the most of the status we have achieved here, but I venture to suggest that nothing has degraded this State so much as the action of the President of the Executive Council in asking, as an act of grace from a subordinate British Parliament, that one of the Free State's citizens should be released. Nothing so degrading has happened in this country for years. I want to say clearly, on behalf of most of the constituents whom Deputy de Valera represents, that they do not want his release as an act of grace, but as an act of justice and right, and they want the Executive Council to take such action as will enable him to be released as an act of justice. They do not want this State, poor and all as its status is, to degrade itself further by asking for the release of the Leader of the Opposition in this Dáil as an act of grace. We have heard a lot of talk about Lord Somebody or another coming into this State, and it has been asked, in the event of the Civic Guard arresting him, whether his arrest would be followed by a letter from the British Government. If Lord Beaverbrook, or somebody else, insisted on landing here in defiance of an Order of this State, would the Minister for Defence have him arrested and put in jail?
Certainly, if the law permitted it.
Mr. Hogan
If the law permitted it. There is no such law in this State to prevent anybody coming into this State who desires to come. But there is a law in Northern Ireland, and therefore our co-equality disappears.
I said the law could come into existence by an Act of this Dáil.
Mr. Hogan
It is not in existence then?
This Dáil could make such a law any day it desired.
Mr. Hogan
It is not in existence at the moment. Therefore we do not recognise that we have the same right as the subordinate Parliament of Northern Ireland. The Minister for Defence has said that we have no law by which we could arrest Lord Craigavon if he came here——
Would the Deputy vote for such a law giving us power to exclude or arrest certain persons coming into the State?
Mr. Hogan
Would the Minister try me by introducing a Bill?
It might affect his friend, Archibald.
Mr. Hogan
If the Minister introduces such a Bill, I shall be pleased to show him into what lobby I shall go. The Minister knows perfectly well what I will do.
I do.
Mr. Hogan
If the Minister wants to make a speech by interruption he can do so. I have only to say that I have got confirmation from the Executive Council this evening that the coequality in the British Commonwealth of Nations that we heard so much talk about is an international fallacy. By the Executive Council's own admission we are co-equal only with the Northern Parliament and not co-equal with Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is the State that is in the British Commonwealth of Nations. We have coequality with the Northern Parliament and not with the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I would like to point out that I said nothing of that sort, and that that meaning cannot be taken out of anything I said.
Mr. Hogan
I tried to understand the Minister for Defence. It is very difficult to understand him sometimes. He makes himself misunderstandable. But if he compares the rights of Northern Ireland with the rights of Belgium, Germany and the United States, what can I understand but that he suggests that Northern Ireland has the rights of a sovereign state. He says that these States can exclude persons. He says that Northern Ireland has the same rights as these States. What can I conclude from that but that it is a sovereign State and that we have two sovereign States in this country? The Minister is uncomfortable. It is no wonder he should be. The action of the Executive Council and the statement of the Minister for Defence clearly prove that I was a prophet and that this British Commonwealth of Nations is an international fallacy—a bubble which has been pricked by their own action to-night.
Not since the Treaty have I heard such muddle-headed talk. This debate reminds me of some of the worst debates that went on on the Treaty. The innocence of Deputy Hogan is past all understanding. He wants to know what are the rights of the Northern Government.
Mr. Hogan
I did not ask any such thing.
The Minister for Defence explained quite clearly that if they have the power to pass a resolution for social order they have the power to administer that resolution. Does the Deputy suggest that that right—rather an elementary right —gives them equality with Australia or Canada? If he does, then his studies in constitutional law have been cut very short. There are other rights which they have not got. They have not got the right, for instance, to impose tariffs. They have got no real fiscal power. I could go on at great length to tell the Deputy what rights they have got and what rights they have not got, but it would be a waste of time, because the Deputy knows what powers they have already. There is a right which they have got—the right of saying what citizens may enter their territory and what citizens may not. The Deputy should not draw any foolish deductions from that. That is all the Minister for Defence said. The naiveté of this debate is past belief. What does it come to? It is the old story: de Valera will pick a quarrel and then we will go to war and clear it up. That has been his consistent rôle for the last five or six years.
That is typical of the Minister.
A Deputy
We went to war when you were under the bed.
I ask Deputies what has happened here? What is the suggestion? Somebody quite irresponsible—somebody who will have no responsibility for taking action of any kind—makes the quarrel, and then everybody unites and says to the Government of the day, "You clear up this." I say that is typical of Deputies opposite. It is typical of Deputy de Valera and of the rôle he has always played. Deputy O'Connell said that Deputy de Valera might have been President, and if he were arrested, what then? As the Minister for Defence said, there is all the difference in the world—please do not laugh at this—between arresting a member of a Government and arresting a Deputy, for this reason: if he were President of the Executive Council, assuming that the standards of this country are the standards of civilised countries, he would have to make up his mind on one thing immediately—whether he was going to recognise the rights which exist in Northern Ireland, and if he were not prepared to recognise those rights his only alternative would be to break off relations. There is no third method. There is no via media—making the welkin ring and bawling at each other across the border, partly recognising their rights and partly denying them. That is not the method of a civilised Government or of a Government that has any respect for itself. If a member of a Government is arrested, it must be assumed he is arrested, not for any personal reason, but because of his policy—because of the policy which he stands for—and no Government could stand that insult. It is not a personal insult by any means. It has nothing to do with the person. It merely comes to this: there is a convention amongst civilised people that either of two things happens; there are normal civil relations between peoples or there is the opposite, which is war. There is no third course. This making the welkin ring, these challenges and all this bawling would not add to the dignity of this State, and would not be adopted by anybody who has any concern for the dignity of this State.
There has been an attempt made here to make a first-class crisis out of this affair. There is no crisis—none whatever. There has been a complete failure to make a crisis out of it. So far as any excitement has been generated, it has been altogether artificial excitement. The ordinary people of the country understand the position quite well, and nobody is sleeping one hour less, and nobody is refraining from taking his food or feeling in the slightest degree aggrieved or insulted because a citizen of this country has been arrested in another country under the laws of that country.
Another country?
In other territory, then.
A typical speech.
There is one line right through my speeches—I say what I believe.
It is just what we expected from you.
rose.
The debate must conclude at 11 o'clock. I understand the President desires to speak. I have the name of one Deputy of the Front Opposition Bench who desires to take part in the debate, but we cannot have more than two speeches now.
I only want to put a question. The Minister talked about passports. I should like to know if the Minister had a passport when he went along to Castlerock with Deputy McGilligan, the Minister for Industry and Commerce? Had he a passport to go into the Six Counties?
Mr. Hogan
No, I had not. On the contrary, the Northern Government would not dream of arresting me—at least, I hope not.
I spent several months with the Deputy in Ballykinlar, and I quite agree that the Northern Government would not dream of arresting him.
Mr. Hogan
I almost forgot about Ballykinlar.
Dubhairt an tAire Talmhaíochta go raibh Eamon de Valéra, Teachta, ag iarraidh orainn rud éigin do dhéanamh ar a shon. Níor iarr sé ar an Aire, no ar aon duine sa Tigh seo, rud ar bith do dhéanamh chun é do shaora ón áit in a bhfuil sé fé láthair—an príosún i mBéal Feirste. Táim ar aon intinn le Padraic O hOgáin, Teachta, Co. an Chlair, mar gheall ar rud amháin—gur deacair an tAire Cosanta do thuigsint. Do chuir sé na Sé Contaethe i gcomparáid leis na Stáit Aontuithe, leis an bhFrainne, leis an mBeilg agus le tiortha móra eile agus mara raibh uaidh a chur i dtuigsint dúinn gur mar a chéile an comhacht atá acu, níl fhios agam ce'n fá gur chuir sé iad i gcomparáid le cheilc.
Padraic O hOgáin
Sin í an cheist.
Rinne an tAire Airgid tagairt do'n rud a dubhairt Eamonn de Valéra san chúirt i mBéal Feirste. Dubhairt sé gur cuireadh ar bun an Rialtais le fóiréigean agus nár thug duine ar bith in Eireann guth chun é do chur ar bun. B'shin í an fhirinne agus tá fhios ag an tAire go bhfuil sin fíor. Níor chuir an Rialtas in aghaidh an rud a dubhairt sé. mar níor thuig siad é. Tá súil agam nach bhfuil an tAire Airgid in aghaidh an rud a rinne Eamonn de Valéra nuair a labhair sé as Gaedhilg san chúirt.
Ní raibh fiú agus páipear nuachta amháin i bhfabhar an rud a rinne Rialtas na Sé Contaethe ach amháin an Realtóg, no an "Star." Maidir leis an leitir do scríobh Príomh-Aodhaire Chumann na nGaedheal, bhíos-féin ag tóramh Cairdinéil Uí Dhomhnaill agus ni raibh fhios agam gur iarr Rialtas an tStait seo ar Rialtas na Sé gContae cead do thabhairt dúinn dul annsin agus teacht a bhaile slán. Ní raibh fhios ar bith agam mar gheall ar an gceist seo go dti go bhfeaca mé an leitir san bpáipéar ó Phríomh-Aodhaire Chumann na nGaedheal. Bhios i gcomhluadar Eamon de Valera agus Sean T. Uí Cheallaigh agus daoine eile agus ní raibh fhios ar bith agam fá'n cead san. Táim cinnte—is cuma caidé a deir daoine san Tigh seo—nach deachaidh Prionnsias Mac Aodhghain go dtí Rialtas na Sé gContae chun saor-chead d'fháil uatha dul annsin. Is náireach an rud, saoránach de'n tír seo a bheith i bpríosún toisc go ndeachaidh sé go dtí ait éigin san tír, mar ná admhuim go bhfuil dhá thír ann; níl ach aon tír amháin ann agus is í Eire an tír sin.
Dubhairt an tAire Cosanta nach raibh comhacht ag an Stat so, ná ag aon Stat san Impireacht, a shaoránaigh do chosaint taobh amuigh dá Stáit féin. Is greannmhar é an sgéal san—sgéal nach dtuigim. Ma tá na náisiúin—mar a tugtar orra—atá san Impireacht ar aon chois mar gheall ar chomhacht, an mian leis an Aire a rá nách féidir le Rialtas Shasana a shaoránaigh do chosaint ach amháin i Sasana? Ní dó liom go mbeadh muinntear Shasana ar aon intinn leis an Aire ar an gceist sin.
Ma's fíor gur thóg an Rialtas orra féin cead d'fháil ar ár son, o Rialtas ar bith, dul go tóramh an Chairdinéil, deirim gur náireach an rud é san do dhéanamh gan innsint dúinn. Ma tá deimhniú no páipéar ag Peadar O Dubhghaill, Teachta, á theasbáint go raibh fhios ag Eamon de Valera, sar a dheachaidh se chuig an tóramh, gur iarr an Rialtas cead o Rialtas na Sé gContae ar a shon, deirim gur cóir dó an pháipeár san do leigint os comhair na Dála agus an sgéal do dheimhniú.
I want to put a question. In view of the statement made by several Ministers that this is not in any way an insult to the people of the twenty-six counties or to the Executive Council, having regard to the fact that the Northern Government have certain powers to justify them in this act, will it be denied that in the case of residents of the Six-County area who served in the Free State Army, who died here and whose bodies were brought across the border for burial, the officials of Sir James Craig's Government took the tricolour —the flag the Executive Council have appropriated as their flag—from the coffin? Will the Minister deny that that has been done? On the other hand we have in this State the Executive Council imprisoning men who tore down the Union Jack, which is not the flag of this country——
The Deputy is not putting a question now—he is making a speech, and an irrelevant speech.
I want to know if it is in the power of the Northern Government to do that?
The remarks of the Deputy have nothing to do with this matter at all.
I am referring to the point made by the Minister, that there was no insult hurled at this Executive. I say that the arrest of Deputy de Valera is the culminating point in a series of insults and that they have nothing but contempt for this Executive. This is another demonstration of that fact, and the fact that they have powers justifying that action is mere eye-wash.
I think the House wants to hear the President.
One or two facts which transpired here to-night are apparently in the nature of news to some of the people here. One is that it is almost an invariable custom that when a member—distinguished or otherwise—of a Parliament is going into the territory of another Parliament, an intimation to that effect is usually transmitted to the Government concerned. On a previous occasion when Deputy de Valera and some of his friends intended to attend the funeral of the late Cardinal, I took steps to make representations to the Northern Government in that connection. My Parliamentary Secretary got into communication with the headquarters of Mr. de Valera's organisation in Abbey Street on the 'phone, with a view to finding out who was going. Subsequently, in order to have no doubt whatever in the matter, he got a note, in the handwriting of the Chief Whip of the Fianna Fáil Party, headed "Cardinal's funeral." There are then the names of those who proposed to attend. The first is E. de Valera, and then there are Sean T. O'Kelly, Frank Fahy, Donal O Buachalla (Kildare), Dr. Con Ward and Sean French, Lord Mayor of Cork. There follows then, in the typical Civil Service style and in the elegant caligraphy of one of my secretaries: "Are there any prohibition orders in force against any of the latter three?" The answer to that is: "Do not think so—F.A." Then there follows: "I do not think so either.— E.J.D." The note passed from Deputy Duggan to Deputy Aiken, and was returned from one to the other. That was the policy adopted then. It was a successful policy, and no intimation was made to the public compromising either Deputy de Valera or anybody else in connection with it. Exactly the same policy might have been adopted recently, on an intimation to my secretary or to myself of the intention of Deputy de Valera to travel to any place where an exclusion order had been in force against him.
Is the President now saying that the Chief Government Whip intimated to Deputy Aiken the purpose for which he required those names—that is, to ask the Belfast Government for a safe conduct for any member of our Party?
That we had asked for permission and that we wanted the names?
Does the President say that Deputy Aiken was told that?
So far as that is concerned, I have only hearsay information.
Perhaps I might clear this up, as I was present? I was told by the President's Secretary that he was in touch with the Northern Government with a view to securing that Deputy de Valera and his colleagues should be free from molestation. He informed me that the Northern Government asked for the names of those who intended to go. I rang up Fianna Fáil headquarters in Abbey street and asked for the names. As a result, I received this document. There was then the query whether there were prohibition orders in force against any of the three latter names. There are six names here altogether. I passed that document across the House, addressed to Deputy Aiken, with my writing on the back of it. It came back to me addressed "Deputy Duggan," in Deputy Aiken's handwriting, saying "Don't think so." That was initialled "F.A."
The question asked had reference only to three names.
I do not want to interrupt the President, but this is a very vital matter. My point is that Deputy Aiken was not aware of the purpose for which those names were required. When I saw the letter from Deputy Doyle, I cabled to Deputy Aiken the exact letter that had appeared in the Press and I received the following reply by cable:
Duggan asked me in Lobby whether any of our people attending funeral. He did not say Belfast Government was being requested to permit our members enter unmolested. I said de Valera, Fahy and some others were going but did not know exactly who.—Aiken.
I am relying on that against Deputy Duggan's document.
I think my worst political opponent will not accuse me of curiosity. It was not to satisfy my curiosity that the names were asked for.
Why was not the Chief Whip candid and why did he not say the purpose for which the names were required?
I might ask why did not the Chief Whip of your party enquire what we wanted the names for?
It might be for pairing purpose.
We have in the document, in excellent caligraphy, "Are there any prohibition orders in force against any of the latter three?""Do not think so—F.A.""I do not think so either—E.J.D."
I stated very definitely the purpose for which they were required when I asked.
It is not in the document.
Produce the document.
There is no evidence of that in the document.
There is the document and there are the circumstances. Anybody who requires more information may have it if he is prepared to occupy his time reading the speeches that were made here to-night from the Opposition Benches. I do not know that I ever heard Deputy O'Kelly flounder along at greater disadvantage to himself and to his subject than he did to-night, when making the welkin ring.
I made you feel something anyhow.
I must say I felt ashamed.
I am glad to hear it.
I felt ashamed that the people of Northern Ireland would read that pronouncement of the responsible leader of the Opposition in this Parliament at the present moment. I listened most carefully to Deputy Lemass, who usually addresses himself with some common sense to the subject under discussion. His contribution was barren—absolutely barren and hopeless. I should be sorry to believe that this whole thing was planned with a view to getting political kudos. But it has very much that appearance and it ought not to be put that way. A distinguished member, as he is called, of this House—the leader of the Opposition in this Parliament—should have sufficient common sense to know that he should not allow his position to be belittled by taking risks such as he took there. As I said before, the usual procedure in every place is to intimate to the Government concerned the projected visit. That is not published. It was not published at the time of the funeral. It was never mentioned. These things are done and it is understood that they are done by Governments. The only known means of communication between States and areas of jurisdiction is for Government to communicate with Government. In this particular case, one or two questions arise. Had the Northern Parliament any right to pass that Act? If they had the right to pass it, they had the right to enforce it. As long as their majority exists, we, as a democratic State, having matters settled here in accordance with majority, must subscribe to their right in that respect. There is no question at all as to whether or not we agree with it. Having regard to the fact that under the law—that was passed by that Parliament—an offence had been committed, there was no course open to the Executive Council but to ask for the release of Deputy de Valera as an act of grace.
Would you like Deputy de Valera kept in for twelve months?
I would not. I hope he will be released. I made a very good case.
With very good results!
So far as the results are concerned, there is one lesson the Deputy has learned—that as between Governments there is a recognition of authority and that we have some experience of the exercise of authority.
Between Governments!
I might say that there are exclusion orders against people here who are perhaps not unknown to Deputies on the opposite side and there is no protest. There are protests for the distinguished person, but there are no protests for the unknown person. We do not stand for that policy. We do not stand for discrimination. If Deputy de Valera had realised his responsibility as a member of this House, not to say as leader of the Opposition, he should have intimated to my Office his intention to go across, and, quite possibly, without any trouble whatever, he would get an uninterrupted passage to his destination.
I do not like to interrupt the President, but I should like to ask——
The Deputy does not want to interrupt me, but I can assure him he is not assisting me.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until Thursday at 3 p.m.