Vol. 3 No. 18
I beg to move the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to move a Resolution pertaining to the matter which we have been discussing and which, I think, in view of the whole position, might reasonably be claimed to be one of urgency. The Resolution is as follows:—
"That this Seanad is of opinion that the interests of the country as a whole would be best served by an agreed solution of outstanding problems affecting the relations between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland."
I beg to second.
In asking the Seanad to consider and, I hope, pass unanimously the Resolution which I have read, I do so because I believe that in general terms it represents not only the opinion of this Seanad but the opinion of the vast majority of the people both in the Free State and in Northern Ireland. I should like to emphasise the fact that this Resolution is being proposed after the Seanad has unanimously passed a Bill which ratifies a further agreement for the setting-up of the Boundary Commission. By the act of passing that Bill it has shown that if no reasonable agreed arrangement can be made, it is going to stand behind the Government in whatever steps may be necessary to see that Commission through. At the same time, it expresses what is a deep conviction, that at its best the Boundary Commission does not solve, and cannot really solve, the outstanding problems between the Free State and Northern Ireland.
During the past few weeks I have been spending most of my time in the United States, and I have been greatly impressed there by the disproportionate importance that the Boundary question has assumed in relation to all other matters affecting Ireland, either North or South. On my return, listening to the debates in the Dáil and here, I cannot help feeling that here, too, we are placing a wrong proportion, a wrong sense of importance simply on the Boundary, whereas the Boundary itself is really an evil that has followed partition, that has followed want of trust, want of accommodation, want of co-operation between the Irish Free State and that section which is politically called "Northern Ireland." Personally I would rather have a long period with a bad boundary and with really good co-operation, goodwill, friendly feeling between the two sections. I would rather risk a long period of a bad boundary, if I was sure there was going to be co-operation, goodwill and fair play to the interests of minorities, than the most theoretically perfect boundary, the best Commission in the world could create, with ill-feeling on each side of it. Even if this Commission is to meet, even if this Commission is to be absolutely fair, even if it is to take the opinion of the speeches made at the other side that we take of them, it still leaves a big problem to be solved. But the real danger is that it may leave that problem harder to solve even than now.
I ask you to pass this resolution for two reasons; first, because it is not for us to give up hope that there may be a desire—perhaps even as a result of some of the things that have been happening at the other side recently, a desire, in spite of the unsatisfactory nature of the public utterances—to make at least a bona-fide effort to settle some of the outstanding problems. Our President, in a moving speech at the end of the last debate, made his position perfectly clear as regards his willingness, and he did not state that there must be any specific terms or that any particular resolution must be put forward, but he hoped that settlement might be by means of an agreement. I admit that the passing of this resolution, if you take its actual words, does not say very much, but the manner in which it is passed, and the time chosen for its passing, may achieve what is my second object in asking you to pass it. That is, it may help you to show what we know but what the people outside Ireland do not know, that there is really a strong and almost unanimous desire, if it is possible by any means, that there should be an agreement rather than a settlement by a Commission, even if that Commission did far better than we can hope from the present Commission.
The resolution states that the interests of this country as a whole would be best served by an agreed solution of outstanding problems. The country as a whole—and by that I mean the country North and South—is not going, I think, to gain anything, or very little, indeed, during the months that must elapse while this Commission is meeting and discussing its problems; but— and this is a point I want particularly to emphasise, as I believe it has a real appeal both to North and South—during that period there is a grave danger that the problems of development, that the possibilities of extension of economic enterprises, both North and South, may be arrested owing to the uncertainty felt not only here, but that will be felt elsewhere, where we get our trade as to what is to be the outcome and the solution. I agree with Senator O'Farrell, who said that if this is going to lead to further legislation, it will be a most irritating and unsatisfactory state of affairs.
At a play in New York, a comedian, referring to the United States election, said that President Coolidge was trying to get the ticket on efficiency; that Mr. Davis had another good ticket, honesty; and that La Follette was appealing to the discontent of the other parties, and he thought that he had the best ticket, because for one man that was honest or efficient he found ten that were discontented. I firmly believe that this question of discontent, due to unemployment, is as—if not more—pressing a problem in North and South as even the Boundary. I am inclined to think that if our Government could meet some of our Northern friends and talk business with them, that some way would be found, not just to settle the Boundary — because I do not believe it can be settled by itself— but to settle the problem of future co-operation between the Northern area and the Free State, as long as partition is to remain. Then, I believe, we will have done good to ourselves. Whether we succeed or not, I am not sufficiently a pessimist to say that there is no hope.
Personally, I do not much like the attitude taken by many people in the South in which they express their affection and love for our friends in the North. I do not think in the North they quite understand these terms, and I do not think they understand why we should be all along hankering after them. If, on the other hand, having reluctantly accepted the fact, that whatever stand we may take on the Boundary, we are not going to press or coerce any section to be governed in the way we want them against their will—having faced that fact and stood by it, I think our attitude should be this: "For longer or shorter we have got to live beside you. You gain and we gain, if you find some method of co-operation. But if there is nagging and trouble, if you place difficulties in our way, we will place them in yours, that will hinder both our development. We have frankly admitted that you have a right to be governed in the way you have now chosen, and we expect you to recognise the same with us." Is there not a way of co-operation now? I suggest that if that attitude were taken there might be a possibility of reaching so much co-operation during the next four or five years, together with the safeguards which have been outlined by Senator McLoughlin, or some other safeguards—I do not care what they are, if they are satisfactory for the minorities—that we could afford to talk about the Boundary after that problem had been settled, instead of following the British politicians in their anxiety to settle the Boundary first, which I think is the wrong way.
I am leaving England out of this debate, because in this debate almost every speaker has quoted some English politician. It reminds me of a friend who suggested that one curse in this matter was that it was causing England to pay far too much attention to us, and we on our part to pay far too much attention to England. In America you find that this problem of the Boundary has been exaggerated to the extent that there are people there who believe that to-morrow there is going to be an outbreak of Civil War. Others believe that Ireland is split into two equal parts waiting to have a "go" at each other. When I was in New York one of the papers—it was followed by most of the others—came out with a long account of Lord Birkenhead's recollections. I was going up an elevator on the same day when a lift-man, who I did not think knew me, whispered in a Cork accent: "I can tell you a story of Lord Birkenhead." I said: "So can I."
That sort of thing is not going to solve anything. I give that as an illustration of the fact that while long paragraphs of Lord Birkenhead's recollections were published, two lines of President Cosgrave's statement appeared in the same paper, and even Mr. de Valera's marvellous description of burning bridges did not get into the papers. So that anything attaching to the Boundary gets a prominent place. That interferes with our business, as I know to my cost. I will conclude with a quotation of a very prominent man in this country whom I happened to meet the other day, and with whom I discussed the Boundary question. The gentleman who brought us together thanked some of those present for giving their valuable time to the consideration of that question, and my friend, in reply, said: "If you settle this problem we will all make money."
I beg to second the resolution and, in doing so, I am conscious of the very grave responsibility that rests on every member of this House in regard to this matter just at this time. I am convinced that the resolution proposed by Senator Douglas should, for the reasons he has given, be adopted by the Seanad. I am also satisfied that this resolution gives expression to what is really the heart-felt desire and hope of the great majority of citizens not only of the Free State, but I am sure also of the citizens of Northern Ireland. We have just passed a Bill which confirms the recent agreement with reference to Clause XII of the Treaty, but is it too much to hope, even at this late stage, that it may not be necessary that the Commission which has been pledged by this Bill should be asked to give a decision. I am one of those who very much regret the effect of such a decision.
It is not that I am afraid of civil war, for I do not believe that there will be anything of the kind between two parts of Ireland. But no matter what decision is given by the Commission, you cannot please everybody. I think it will please nobody, but we will have a result which will lead inevitably to bitterness and hardening of hearts. That is a conclusion which we ought all do our best to avoid. There is a very large number of outstanding questions between the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland. The question of the boundary is only one of them. I do not think that this is either the place or the time even to indicate what those outstanding problems are, but there are some of them so important and vital to the future welfare not only of the Free State and Northern Ireland but to the whole of our common country, that I believe that if they were settled the question of the boundary might very easily become negligible.
I am perfectly conscious of the difficulty that lies in the way of settlement of these outstanding problems, other than the Boundary question, but at the same time I do believe that there is on both sides sufficient good sense and, what is of very much more importance, sufficient goodwill to enable a solution of these questions to be made. In the interests of our common country, a great and honest effort should be made to arrive at a solution, and I believe if such effort were made on both sides, with God's help, it would succeed. Therefore, without saying any more, I beg to second the resolution, and I would ask the Seanad to pass it unanimously.
I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with this motion, as I think it is unnecessary and undesirable. People are talking as if people were chess-men and not human beings with their passions aroused and their interests involved. We cannot leave the people in Tyrone and Fermanagh in the position they are in or the position they are likely to be in. I think the whole position is wrong and weak and unjustified, and I disapprove of any such resolution.
I should like to address a few observations myself on the subject matter of this resolution to the Seanad, and with its consent I shall ask Senator Sir John Griffith to preside while I am speaking. Does the House to consent?
Agreed.
took the Chair.
I feel that the importance of this Resolution and what it may mean is so great that from a sense of duty, as well as from a sense of responsibility, I wish to state the reasons why I make this strong appeal to my colleagues in this House to give it their whole-hearted sympathy and support. I brush aside the many side-issues that have arisen out of this Boundary controversy, because I wish to grapple at once with the one real and living issue—namely, will the functioning of this Commission be a factor for good or for evil? It has already aroused great uneasiness and suspicion in the minds of many, both in the North and in the South. The North is smarting under a sense of injustice, in the belief that the setting up of this Commission is an invasion of its rights under the Act of 1920, and is a violation of the pledges which they state, and I believe, with truth, they received from certain prominent British statesmen, although these statesmen now deny or disown them.
In the Free State, our Government is entitled to point with satisfaction, as an indication of the justice of their claim, to the desire of the people of Great Britain, as distinct from its politicians, to keep faith on this Treaty. Nevertheless, suspicion and uneasiness have been aroused here owing to the concerted action of certain politicians and sections of the Press in England, who by a mischievous and ill-advised crusade, have attempted to prejudge the decision of this Commission and to anticipate the interpretation that is to be placed on Article 12. This unconscionable campaign—because I can not describe it in any more complimentary terms—I believe may defeat its own ends. There is an old saying about the effect of excessive protestation, and I think it may well be that in the minds of sensible people these protestations may have the very opposite effect to what they were intended to produce and may suggest that those who have been indulging in them have thereby given the very best proof of their own want of belief in their sincerity.
Be that as it may, human nature being what it is, this campaign has undoubtedly weakened, in the minds of many people in the Free State, their confidence in the independence and partiality of this Commission. I do not myself, for one moment, question either the courage or the honour or good faith of the distinguished South African jurist who has been called upon to preside over it, but I believe he, most of all men, is entitled bitterly to complain on behalf of himself and his colleagues —whoever they may prove to be—for being placed by this campaign in the dilemma that if they give their decision one way they will be charged with having yielded to clamour, while if they give it on the other it will be said that they are in conflict with expert opinion. Under those circumstances, speaking for myself, and speaking, as I hope I always do when I address this House, with the utmost frankness and sincerity, I see no hope of finality in the findings of this Commission, nor do I see that any government, however willing it may be, will be able to persuade its people to accept or submit to them. I assume for the moment that the hopes that are entertained by so many in reference to this Commission may be fulfilled, and that, as a result of its findings, a substantial portion of the territory at present in the possession of Northern Ireland is to be transferred to the Irish Free State. I ask how is that thansfer to be made, and by whom? The territory will not be surrendered willingly; that is certain, and I very much doubt if any British Government can be depended upon to use the forces of the Crown for the purpose of compelling them to surrender. Only one other method of effecting this remains. But the mind of every Irishman shrinks in horror from the idea of being engaged in civil war in such a cause and in such a manner. Such a war will be internecine in its character, and would de-story for centuries the ideal of a peaceful and united Ireland.
History will, I believe, not fail for all time to characterise the present generation of Irishmen as criminally culpable if, before such a dread alternative is resorted to, they fail to exhaust every avenue which would result in the settlement of these matters by goodwill and by mutual understanding. Surely our fellow countrymen in the North and South are not so bankrupt in statesmanship and patriotism as to resort to any remedy like this for the solution of matters of this kind, which only require goodwill and honesty of purpose on both sides to be capable of solution, and, certainly, of a much more permanent and a happier solution than will ever arise from the findings of a Commission superimposed upon this country by the action of the British Government. What are the obstacles which seem to loom so large in the minds of some people in the way of such a conference as is suggested? Is it religion? To me it has always been unthinkable and unintelligible how people who share in their belief and reverence for all the fundamental truths of our common Christianity, and who differ only in the ritual and ceremony which give expression to this belief, can find in this an obstacle in the path of peace in Ireland and goodwill between North and South. Are these obstacles to be found in any claim on behalf of the South for a monopoly of patriotism? I know the people of the North well, and, I say this confidently, that nowhere will you find men more proud of their Irish birth and traditions than in the North of Ireland, or more zealous in the defence of all their country's interests both at home and abroad. Are those obstacles again to be found in the monopoly of allegiance to the Empire? I point as my witnesses to the graves not only of William Redmond, Thomas Kettle and Arthur O'Neill, but to those of the thousands of gallant soldiers from all counties of Ireland who now sleep side by side with no boundary between them in the cemeteries of France and Gallipoli.
Lest it may be said that these obstacles are to be found in the fact that there still remain, both in the North and South, sections of the people who are the victims of political duress or political disabilities, I know that they exist, but do they exist in greater number than was to be expected in the case of a country recently emerging from the fever of violence and disturbance? Are they of such a character, or are they anything but the temporary, if inevitable, aftermath, of the necessity for punishment and repression which now has passed away, and which, with its consequences, could be adjusted and redressed as the result of a few hours' deliberation amongst Irishmen who are anxious and desirous for peace and goodwill. I do not want to be misunderstood as suggesting that the time is now ripe for an ambitious scheme of reunion between the North and South Recent events and the anger and passions that have been aroused would discredit and destroy any such attempt. But I do, in my heart and conscience, believe that the time is opportune and ripe for a mutual conference to consider how best these outstanding problems, which at present distract us and divide us, may be amicably adjusted. Their number is many. I will just give a few illustrations. Take the matter of the Customs and Excise, the great question of transport by rail, by road, by canal and by sea, our inland and coast fisheries and development of our water-power. There are many subjects which, undoubtedly, in my opinion are capable, I will not say of simple adjustment, but of early adjustment by conference between Irishmen, if they will only enter into it with honesty of purpose and with goodwill and not for the purpose of securing a political triumph over each other.
I believe that the respective Governments of the Free State and Northern Ireland can safely trust each other, and may be certain of the fact that either will carry out everything that it has undertaken to do, and in attempting to do so each Government will have its people behind them and with them. I would appeal to my fellow-countrymen in the North to trust to the people of the Free State, because I am certain they will not let them down, nor will they have to complain that, on every occasion, they have been betrayed by them, as they do complain of their English friends.
I would like, in conclusion, on behalf of the Southern Unionists, who as a result of the assurances extended to them by the Free State Government, remained in this country, and determined to throw in their lot with their own people, to say and to make clear that the Free State Government has made good these assurances in every particular. Speaking from the experience derived as Chairman of this Chamber, of the legislation that has been passed by the Free State during the last three years, I wish to state absolutely that I know of no single instance in which Southern Unionists have been prejudiced or ill-treated by that legislation either in person or property or by any discrimination of any sort or kind. To-day the North and South stand at the parting of the ways. Each is faced with a choice either to take the path which leads to mutual co-operation and goodwill—the only road, however long the journey may be, that can eventually lead to reunion—or the path which will speedily plunge both into the depths of disorder, disruption and despair. I have intervened in this debate solely for the purpose of expressing my own hope and wish that the Government of the Free State will no longer stand on any ceremony as between themselves and the North, but that they will stretch out—I do not say that they are not willing to stretch out, because they have said it very often—but that they will, in fact, stretch out the hand of fellowship to the Government in the North. I have spoken, as I have said, frankly. I have said, I hope, nothing that would in any way offend the susceptibilities or the ideas of any members of the Seanad. If I have, I have signally failed in my purpose. But at the close of a fairly long and strenuous public life, I should have no happier, no more pleasing memory than to think that I had contributed, be it ever so little, to a better understanding and a more intimate relationship between the North and South, believing in my heart and soul that upon that foundation alone can we build with any hope either now or in the future a peaceful, prosperous and united Ireland.
Before the resolution is put, I would like to say that I am opposed to it, and if necessary I will challenge a division on it, even though I may be in a minority of one. We are dealing with the carrying out of an agreement arrived at between President Cosgrave and the Prime Minister of England, regarding the setting up of a Boundary Commission that has to do certain work. This resolution proposes that we should ask for a conference. There is no use in shutting our eyes to the facts, and there is no use in our saying nice things when we do not mean them. There is no use in talking about goodwill with people who are not prepared to meet us in a spirit of good-will. The people that it is suggested we should meet in a spirit of goodwill are not prepared to meet us. They have stated over and over again that they are prepared to meet us and to discuss matters with us if they get everything that they want. That is their position, and, personally, I am not going to be a party to having the Seanad pass a pious resolution seeking a further conference in connection with this Boundary problem.
I am essentially a man of peace; I do not blow hot and cold; I have always been an advocate of peace; I have never wanted to see one Irishman against another, and I do not want to see it now. I do not want to see civil war, but at the same time there is a certain dignity that we ought to uphold on behalf of the people whom we represent. It is not by craving or begging people who are not prepared to meet us in a friendly spirit that we can get ahead. We ought to stand up to them like men and demand our rights on behalf of our unfortunate fellow-countrymen who are being terrorised and blackguarded by those people whom we are asked to enter into conference with.
The position of the Catholic population of the North of Ireland is not a safe position to-day. We have got to assert our manhood and set aside all this kind of humbug and nonsense about goodwill and toleration for people who will not have toleration, and who will not meet us in a spirit of good-will. The more you endeavour to placate the people responsible for trouble in the North of Ireland, the more will they be prepared to kick you. The only one Ulsterman I ever knew was James Connolly, and he told me that you could never placate those people. The only way you will ever get them to have goodwill or to understand the situation is by standing up to them and letting them have all they want. I do not want civil war, and I am not anxious for fighting. Neither do I want cant or humbug, and, therefore, I will oppose the resolution and vote against it.
I do not think the Senator who has just spoken fully understands the resolution. We are not asking the Government to withdraw from the Commission, and we are not asking that the Commission should come to an end. We perfectly understand the Government's promise to those people. The Government promised those people the Treaty and they are bound to give the people of this country the Treaty; they cannot give anything else but the Treaty. What the resolution suggests is that before the Commission has reported, President Cosgrave, without giving anything away whatever, should make another appeal to the North to meet him in counsel. He is surrendering nothing. I think we quite recognise that nothing will probably come out of that appeal of President Cosgrave. To some extent we have to think of the future; we have to think of educating the next generation.
Results of a very evil kind may happen from the report of the Commission, no matter what way it reports, and it is exceedingly important that no responsibility for those results should lie with the Government of the Free State. I have no hope of seeing Ireland united in my time, or of seeing Ulster won in my time; but I believe it will be won in the end, and not because we fight it, but because we govern this country well. We can do that, if I may be permitted as an artist and a writer to say so, by creating a system of culture which will represent the whole of this country and which will draw the imagination of the young towards it.
Now, I have spoken very seriously but I want to turn from seriousness to a fact which has been burning in my imagination since this meeting began —a discovery I made which has lightened this serious subject for me. I have been looking for a historical precedent for the remarkable fact that certain Englishmen who afterwards became Cabinet Ministers and in other ways rose to the highest positions in the State went over to Ulster about 15 years ago and armed the people at a time of entire peace and urged them, and are now urging them, to use these arms against us. I have found a historical precedent which establishes that it is an old custom of the British Government. I have found that Edmund Burke in the middle of the eighteenth century drew attention to a very remarkable item in the Estimates of the year. It was an item of so much money for the purchase of five gross of scalping knives, which scalping knives were intended to be given to the American Indians that they might scalp the French.
I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but some remarks that have fallen from Senator Farren make me think it is really a fact that he has not seen the point of this resolution. He seems to speak from the point of view that if the Commission is appointed the various areas in which our Catholic fellow-citizens live, will be undoubtedly restored to the Free State. Now, what lies behind this resolution is a great fear that is in many of our minds that no such solution or no such decision will be arrived at by the Commission, and that it is extremely probable that after the Commission has concluded, things will be very little better than they are this minute. If that is so, and I have no doubt it was in Senator Douglas's mind when he proposed this resolution, a very unsatisfactory state of affairs would result. I would ask Senator Farren to consider for a moment what really lies behind this resolution. If it had been possible to take up any subject or any matter upon which it was certain that there would be a tremendous difference of opinion, and almost an impossibility of agreement, between North and South, it is this very Boundary question. That subject has been picked out solely, and has been used enormously against us by certain political parties on the other side of the water and by the Press. It was a magnificent thing to give them to use in that way. Why I like this resolution is that it records the fact that in the opinion of the Seanad, that is not the position the Boundary problem ought to occupy. We who have been living now for two years under the conditions of a Northern Government and a Free State Government know that there are standing in the way of progress both for the people of Northern and Southern Ireland, large numbers of questions which can only be settled properly by a body upon which the North and the South are represented. That these problems and the settlement of these problems are vitally connected with the welfare of every one of us, we are convinced, and that these problems in reality are far bigger and greater than the Boundary problem in any way that it is likely to be settled, is an undoubted fact. That being so, we think that it is wise that the Seanad should say that there are these great difficulties.
Senator McLoughlin undoubtedly foreshadows that if such a discussion took place, he at any rate could foresee the settlement of this area question and this Governmental question as regards what I am calling our Free State citizens, because they wish to come back into the Free State. Therefore, I refer to them as fellow-citizens of ours. If an inquiry took place on some such lines as these, I understood Senator McLoughlin to mean that probably an arrangement could be made with the Northern Government which would secure them a standing such as they would be willing to accept, and that there was a possibility that the Boundary question might be settled not by drawing a hard-and-fast line and saying "It is there," but that we might make such an arrangement for mutual working on the Boundary question and all the questions connected with the transferred services and everything else as would take it away from being ruled on by a Commission such as this, with one Chairman sitting between two other individuals, each arguing all he can for his own case. A far better tribunal would be a set of men meeting to discuss these great problems which really deal with the whole welfare of the North and the South of Ireland.
They would be far fitter and far better than any judge, no matter where he came from or how great he may be, than any arbitrator putting the Southern Irish case or any arbitrator putting the Northern Irish case, far better and more fitted to deal with matters tied up in all these questions, and to see if it is not possible to get a settlement on some such grounds as these.
I am quite with Senator Farren in saying that we do not wish, in any shape or form, to see these fellow-citizens of ours cut off from us. I doubt very much if Senator Farren, thinking over the matter in that way, would oppose such a resolution as that which points the way in which Irishmen themselves can settle their own differences and solve the very great problems that are troubling us, impoverishing us, and making us enemies one with the other, and which we are fighting against to the best of our ability all the time. I do not think Senator Farren is right when he talks as he does about good-will and everything of that kind. I do believe that there is, both in the South and in the North, that good-will existing, if it can only be put into the right channels, to settle this matter as it ought to be settled, and I do believe that the Seanad is doing right in passing this resolution, and in recording their opinion that the Boundary question is not by itself the one thing that should be held up for us to fight about, but that we should couple it up with the other great outstanding questions with regard to which the North and the South should put their heads together and establish a body to deal with—a body containing both Northerners and Southerners in any proportion that may be settled. Then we really will see Ireland managing her affairs properly at last. Eventually, it may be that the North may find out that in the South we are as reasonable as they require, and that we are managing our affairs so well that, to help to develop the whole of Ireland, they will join us. The day for that is not yet. But there is nothing to be got by our trying to see the faults of the Northerners and the Northerners trying to see ours. It will be got by men of good-will, searching out the problem and doing their best to follow what is pointed out in this resolution—that is to say, to put the Boundary question in its proper perspective, its proper place, and make it part of a settlement which I hope this Seanad will aid in every possible way.
With the spirit of the resolution I think there are very few who disagree, but Senator Douglas threw out a suggestion, following upon the lines of Senator McLoughlin's speech, that certain guarantees should exist. I think, Sir, nothing can be done unless Proportional Representation and the old electoral divisions are restored in the North of Ireland. Until these things are done I think there can be very little co-operation, even for the benefit of the whole of Ireland. With the spirit of the resolution I would be in thorough agreement if it were a little less vague, and if we knew absolutely in what terms co-operation was to take place. I think we ought to know that, and I presume that Senator Douglas will enlighten us.
I do not think there is very much for me to say in reply. With regard to the point of view of Senator Farren, I do not know that there is so much fundamentally between us. If the willingness which has been again and again expressed to enter into a conference with regard to out outstanding problems means taking up the attitude that he says, I would not vote for my own resolution. But I do not believe it means anything of the kind. I think the statements that are frequently made that to talk with a man whom you do not understand and who does not understand you, to suggest that the Boundary question is not of your making, that you were willing to confer all along—I do not think that weakens our case—I, at any rate, on that question would clearly and absolutely join issue. My resolution was moved not entirely on my own initiative, but after consultation with and on the suggestion of several members of the Seanad. I do not claim any personal credit in the matter. But the main reason why I was glad when asked to move this resolution was because I believed, particularly in view of my experiences in America in the last few weeks, that an assiduous propaganda has suggested everywhere that the difficulty with regard to the Boundary is of our making. I think that every step we can take, even by somewhat vague resolutions, which because they are resolutions of the Seanad will be published, as they would not be if they were simply speeches, will, I believe, be strengthening our position.
I entirely agree with Senator Mrs. Wyse Power, who states that we cannot settle outstanding problems by ignoring the feelings and the wishes of the people on the Boundary, and by not making adequate provision for their safety, and seeing, at any rate, that they have proper safeguards to assure them that they will be at least able to carry on their business, their worship and their occupation with absolute freedom or with as much freedom as it is possible for the Government to achieve for them.
Senator Mrs. Wyse Power asked why there is not more detail in the resolution. That is the fate of all resolutions. Personally, I could draft a resolution with more detail to suit me. This resolution was drafted by a group, and it was felt in its general terms that it expressed a fundamental idea without attempting to set out specific details. On the whole, I am inclined to think that if, in the present set of circumstances, we have no wish to do anything more than to stand behind the Executive Council, this is the wise way to frame the resolution.
In conclusion, I wish to say in view of comments made in the debate, that I do not visualise this resolution or any such conference as might take place as being in any way properly used to put off whatever preparations that have been made for the setting up of the Boundary Commission. My view is that the Commission must, and ought, to go on with its work, and that there should be no unnecessary delay, but that while preparations are being made, a further effort, if such can be made, should be made, to create such a set of circumstances in which either it need not meet, or if it did meet, it would meet in a different atmosphere and with the hope of achieving something substantial.
Is Senator Dr. Sigerson aware that his name has been called.
I am not voting.
I am afraid that under our Standing Orders, as the Senator is in the House, he must vote.
Then I vote Níl.
