least 25% of the population. This would mandate Catholic participation in any regional cabinet in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, an end to gerrymandering in Northern Ireland would render this law unnecessary, but its presence would give to the Catholic minority there the recognition that representation in what would still be a Protestant region would be a right, not a token gift.

(v) Regional Government

There are several approaches to the question of the construction of regional parliaments. Perhaps one of the safest, from the standpoint of eliminating the gerrymandering in Northern Ireland would be to require some form of proportional representation. As noted previously, the representation of the Catholic minority in the Northern Ireland Government would be ensured by requiring minority representation in regions where the minority reached above 25%.

Should a minority in a region feel that they have been discriminated against in any way, appeal could be made to Constitutional Court at the federal level, which would have jurisdiction over these cases and problems of federalism. The court would require representation from each region, with the jurists appointed by regional governments.

Regional Governments would have primary jurisdiction in a number of the areas in which problems have been cited as lying at the heart of the ProtestantCatholic difficulties. In the field of education, they would have the power to legislate, provided that any aid to religious bodies, or any intrusion of religion into state schools did not impair the rights of the minority. Should this be the case, the minority could appeal to the Federal Government which would have the power to intercede on behalf of the minority group. This provision is similar to one in the Constitution of Canada.

In addition, the regional governments would have primary jurisidiction in the area of health. This would ensure that if the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland is concerned about Catholic teachings concerning birth control and abortion would be the law of the land, they need not be, for these matters would be matters of regional legislation. (One might point out that most laws on these subjects in the United States were written by Protestant legislatures and that some of the more liberalizations have taken place in states such as New York, which has a significant Catholic population.

If the role of the Catholic Church in censorship in the Republic of Ireland is a consideration blocking unification, the police powers of each region would be largely responsible for determining what people may or may not see. Devolving to the regional legislatures the right to regulate such matters would ensure Northern Ireland that Catholic views on censorship would not prevail there.

(vi) Constitutional guarantees

The Republic of Ireland should eliminate Article 44 from its Constitution, which recognizes the fact that the Catholic Church has a "special position" in the State because it is the faith of most of the residents of the Republic.

An Article similar to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution could be inserted in order to eliminate the question of a "state church". It would leave open, as it does in the United States, the question of aiding all religious schools.

Since most of the above suggestions could be incorporated into a Constitution drafted by representatives of the Republic of Ireland and of Northern Ireland, the matter of preserving it would be important. The Constitution should contain an amendment clause that would ensure all of the provisions aimed at uniting Ireland could not be changed. Presumably, it would first have to pass both houses of the national legislature, perhaps by a vote somewhat in excess of a simple majority. Ratification would be by any one or combination of three methods; Agreement by all regional parliaments, a simple vote in each of the four regions in a referendum, or a 3/4 of the total population of a United Ireland. Variations of these forms are found in many countries.

It must be emphasized that these suggestions represent only some of the matters that need to be covered. In such a brief time, only a few suggestions, aimed at some of the more obvious grievances, can be put forth. Further, it must be understood that the meeting of a Constitutional convention to draft such a document, and the meetings to ratify it would take time, for the matter has been a source of contention for 50 years and cannot be resolved overnight. In the interim, some means must be found to provide a stable, fair, and equitable means for governing Northern Ireland perhaps one along the lines of the Lynch proposal, for without a cessation of the bloodshed there and the easing of Catholic grievances, no convention and no resolution would be possible.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. DUFFY, BELFAST, NORTHERN IRELAND

BIOGRAPHY

Thirty-nine years old, married, Economist with Northern Ireland based farming organization, member of Executive of S.D.L.P. and Convenor of Policy Committee. Long-standing political involvement and also in organizations concerned with farming, education and Trade Unions.

INTRODUCTION

This testimony was being completed the night before Mr. Edward Heath, Britain's Prime Minister, announced his long awaited political initiatives for Northern Ireland. On balance, these initiatives represent a useful step forward on the road to an ultimate settlement. Providing the present uncertainty over what he means by the "phasing out of internment" can be cleared up quickly, the way should be clear now for the beginning of both constructive discussions leading to long-term solutions and of just and competent administration of Northern Ireland in the short term.

I have thought it right not to alter any part of my original Testimony. I should, however, like to make two fresh comments in this Introduction.

Firstly, the British Government has publicly conceded that Britain's Northern Ireland responsibilities are a matter of international concern. I like to think that the Sub-Committee's efforts were part of the process which brought this belated recognition to the fore. Further, the U.S. State Department's welcoming of Mr. Heath's proposals may help to keep Britain on the right track on which she has now embarked. Foreign "interference" has been vindicated.

Secondly, the hysterical, in some cases treasonable, reaction of "loyalist" Unionists since the Heath announcement bears out not merely the drift of my own Testimony but also the substance of what the Sub-Committee heard in evidence from all witnesses other than the four Unionists. As a mark of "loyalty" to Britain' Mr. Craig, an ex-Home Affairs Minister in Northern Ireland has today, March 27th, 1972, precipitated the greatest industrial stoppage Northern Ireland has ever known. It will continue tomorrow and he promises to make Northern Ireland "ungovernable". He has asked the Police Force to join in and has renewed his threat to "liquidate" those who stand in his way. Mr. Faulkner has accused the British Government of bad faith and said that he can no longer "trust the Heath Administration". Anti-Catholic rioting has taken place today in several parts of Northern Ireland, Union Jacks have been publicly burned and the "Newsletter", (referred to later in my testimony), editorial of March 25th, accuses the British Government of "betrayal". If this is the "loyalty" to Britain which half a century of institutionalized Unionist domination in Northern Ireland has produced, it seems high time-in the interests of Ulster Catholics and Protestants, and not least Britain herself-that the institutions were swept away.

I am grateful for this opportunity of presenting evidence in writing to the SubCommittee.

One of the chief criticisms of the earlier stages of the Hearing was that the evidence presented was one-sided. It is certainly true that almost all the early witnesses made clear their abhorrence of both Unionist bigotry and British mishandling of the Northern Ireland situation. For this reason it is gratifying that the testimony of Mr. David Smyth, Rev. Reynolds, Mr. Patrick Macrory and "Capt." Henderson redressed the apparent imbalance on the concluding day. Indeed, it is a pity that this and similar evidence was not submitted earlier so that certain observations might be made upon it before the Hearing ended. For this reason, I should like to devote part of my own submission to commenting on what the supporters of the present state of affairs in Northern Ireland had to say.

One must assume that the decision to seek the right of audience so late in the Hearings was a major policy matter, for British Embassy staff were present throughout the proceedings and the four witnesses named above all enjoyed the benefits of intensive briefing by British Diplomatic Staff. Further, according to a report on February 28th, 1972, in the "Guardian", one of Britain's own most

responsible and distinguished newspapers, Dr. John Oliver, a senior Northern Ireland Civil Servant, was also flown over to Washington to talk semi-clandestinely to Congressmen and others. Dr. Oliver's trip and all the ancillary expenses associated with it were, presumably, borne out of the public funds. In light of this, the remark made by Mr. Patrick Macrory, a close personal friend of Mr. Brian Faulkner, when commencing his testimony, that he was in no sense a “colleague" of "Captain" Henderson, was difficult to understand, especially since he refers to Mr. Smyth as an “associate" in Page 2 of his testimony. Equally puzzling was Mr. Smyth's omission of the fact that he is a paid official of the Unionist Party, "Capt." Henderson is indeed a director of the "Newsletter", an influential Belfast newspaper with strong Unionist smypathies and a reputation for irresponsibility bordering on the lunatic. One of the worst examples of this occurred in the issue of August 18th, 1969, at the height of a virulent bout of anti-Catholic rioting when at least ten people were killed and almost 500 Catholic homes burnt to the ground by ultra-Unionist mobs assisted by the R.U.C. and "B" Specials. It was in this atmosphere that the "Newsletter” `chose to run a major front page story under the headline "I.R.A. Radio found in the Falls". (The Falls is an almost entirely Catholic district of Belfast.) This story was entirely untrue, and a correction, in small print under a discreet headline was carried on an inside page of the following day's issue. The effect of this story on an already inflamed and riotous Union population can be imagined and was certainly known in advance to the "Newsletter" staff. It must be recalled that it is part of the Unionists' stock in trade to gloss over their own gross bigotry and ineptitude by attributing every evil and every violent act to the I.R.A. One is tempted to paraphrase Voltaire's celebrated aphorism re the origin of the Deity by commenting, "If the I.R.A. had not existed, the Unionist Party would have been 'compelled to invent it". Quite apart from the untruthfulness of the August 18 "Newsletter" report, the then Chief of the R.U.C., Inspector-General J. A. Peacock, admitted on April 1, 1971, to the Scarman Tribunal, which had been set up to investigate the August 1969 affairs, that there was no evidence that the I.R.A. were responsible for what was happening in Northern Ireland at that time. (Mr. Peacock's evidence contains other startling confessions; e.g., that he did not know until he heard it at the Tribunal that almost all the property destroyed at that time belonged to Catholics.)

It is temptingly easy to score points off "Captain" Henderson, but I shall restrict myself to the following:

(i) The alleged I.R.A. document of 1966, referred to in his testimony by "Capt." Henderson, has never been authenticated. In fact, the I. R.A. have publicly stated that it never represented their policy. Even if its genuineness could be established, to argue, as “Capt." Henderson does that "the blueprint for the past three years of violence" is contained therein is so trivial and partisan as arguing that all current U.S. ills may be traced back to the work of some scribbler associated with the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, or even the Democratic or Republican Parties.

(ii) "Capt." Henderson also refers in Page 4 of his Testimony to a pamphlet entitled "Ulster-the Facts", dated September 1, 1969. This pamphlet was presented to Mr. Justice Scarman as he was commencing the official Enquiry into the anti-Catholic riots of August, 1969, referred to in 3.1 above. He commented that it was "unfortunate in timing and authority" ("Belfast Telegraph", September 15, 1969).

Rev. Reynolds' submission was irrelevant; Mr. Macrory dwelt exclusively on a painstaking defence of the Unionist regime's "reformist" record; Mr. Smyth confined himself to an impassioned if misleading account of the Unionists' effort to lean over backwards in their efforts to be nice to the rebellious and truculent Catholics: viz, the Page 4 reference to Dr. G. B. Newe being given a Cabinet post so that he could "represent" Catholics-despite Faulkner's, Newe's and the entire Catholic population's repudiation of any such representative capacity.

Northern Ireland has roughly the same area as the State of Connecticut with a rather smaller population. As a separate entity it is only fifty years old and throughout that short period the notorious Special Powers Act has been operated to suspend at will due legal process and the normal functioning of the judicial system. The most frightening power conferred by the Special Powers Act is the power of internment and this power has been freely used in every decade since Northern Ireland was created. Violence has flared repeatedly and around 700 people have been killed since 1921.

Northern Ireland came into existence because, at a time when the whole island was moving towards a modest degree of independence by peaceful and constitu

tional means, (in the years prior to the First World War), an anti-Catholic, Unionist, minority declared that they would not telerate any system of Irish self-government which prevented them from running affairs their way. To placate this group, Britain_partitioned Ireland in 1920 thereby setting up a Unionist enclave in the six North eastern counties. Britain then ostentatiously washed her hands off the affair and chose not to "interfere” again until Unionist insensitivity and mismanagement produced the anti-Catholic rioting, bloodshed and destruction of August 1969.

With such origins, it is not surprising that unrest and frustration were part of the pattern of Northern Ireland's daily life. The Unionists are fond of talking of the "rights of majorities". Mr. Smyth and "Capt." Henderson waxed eloquent on this topic during their submissions, but certain facts should be borne in mind: (i) The Unionist majority in Northern Ireland was contrived by including within the partitioned area only enough of the ancient nine-county province of Ulster to provide them with an automatic majority.

(ii) In the troubled decade before 1920 a majority not only within Ireland but also within the old United Kingdom of Britain and all Ireland wanted to confer Home Rule on the whole island of Ireland.

(iii) Even today, the Unionists are in a majority in only about half of the total area of Northern Ireland. The Counties of Tyrone and Fermanagh, the greater part of Co. Derry, the Southern parts of Counties Down and Armagh and parts of County Antrim have clear anti-Unionist majorities.

Much play has been made of the "reforms" introduced into Northern Ireland in the past three years. Mr. Macrory devoted his entire submission to this aspect. Other witnesses have commented on this reform programme and the "Commentary" on the Unionist publication, "A Record of Constructive Change," upon which Mr. Macrory based his submission, has already been placed on the Sub-Committee's record by another witness. This "Commentary" is a devastating reply to the alleged reform programme and it is disappointing, though perhaps understandable, that Mr. Macrory did not refer to it throughout his submission. I wish to add only two points to those made in the "Commentary":

(i) The fact of having produced a "reform" programme indicates that there was much wrong to be remedied. Yet the Unionists have consistently rejected all accusations of discrimination, injustice and mismanagement, despite the contrary findings of the Cameron Commission in 1969. (This Commission was appointed by the Unionists themselves, under pressure from London. A copy of their Report which was published on September 11, 1969, has already been placed on the Sub-Committee's record by another witness).

(ii) When the "Commentary" was published, no prosecutions had been brought under the Incitement to Hatred Act. One now has. It was in respect of a "Loyalist Song Book" in which was included a song containing the line "A Taig (Catholic) looks much better with a bullet in his back." The defendants were acquitted thus seeming to bear out the "Commentary's" contention that the Act, as drafted, was unenforceable. The suspicion persists that the Act was intended to be

unenforceable.

I also submit as Annex A a photocopy of an item from the "Irish Times" of March 17th, 1972, relating to a letter written by 14 of those who had produced the "Commentary". It further amplifies some of the points made above and in the "Commentary" itself and helps to destroy still more effectively the “reformist” stance of the Unionist Party.

Evidence has been given of the dreadful carnage of the past two and a half years in Northern Ireland, but the implication from the four Unionist witnesses has been that all this death has been caused by the I.R.A. and that the I.R.A. conducts its operations mainly from the Republic of Ireland. Several observations need to be made:

(i) Almost all the violence from the time of the police riot in Derry on October 5, 1968, until the commencement of the current I.R.A. campaign in early 1971, came from the Unionist side. The first policeman murdered was shot by ultra Unionist supporters in a riot on Belfast's Shankill Road (a Unionist stronghold), on the night of Cctober 11/12, 1971. This grew out of a Unionist demonstration against the disarming of the police. At least two rioters were shot dead that night by British soldiers, and 56 people were injured, including nearly 20 British soldiers, mostly by gunfire. The British Army made 69 arrests and claimed that upwards of 1,000 rounds had been fired at them.

(ii) Around 265 people have been killed to date (March 23, 1972). Of the approximately 180 civilian fatalities, only a handful can be attributed directly to

the I.R.A. campaign. The great bulk have been Catholics killed by the British Army, some of them no doubt in the course of Army/I.R.A. gun battles but many more due to "accidents" during searches and other incidents, or Catholics killed as the result of Unionist attacks. None of this, of course, justifies the I.R.A. campaign, but it does put into rather different perspective the Unionist assertion that the I.R.A. has done all the killings.

(iii) As regards the claim that Northern Ireland's troubles are master-minded from the Republic, it is noteworthy that only a tiny proportion of the approximately 900 currently imprisoned without trial (interned or detained), come from the Republic. Similarly, only a handful of those convicted in the Courts for violent offences come from the Republic.

It is fitting that much attention should have been paid during the Hearing to the internment issue, because until that problem has been resolved, the talks necessary to find a long-term solution cannot begin. Mr. Currie, M.P., has already indicated during his evidence why this is so. The Chairman remarked at one stage that if the same proportion of Americans were interned as is the case in Northern Ireland, those held would number at least 100,000. (In fact, the Chairman's estimate was a little low.) It should also be noted that this would have a quite disastrous effect on the quality of U.S. life if all those interned were drawn from one or other of your various minority groupings, e.g., the Jewish, Black, IrishAmerican or Puerto Rican communities. The Unionist Party with British approval, now holds without charge or trial behind barbed wire approaching 1% of the entire Northern Ireland adult male Catholic population. In these circumstances it is not surprising that non-Unionists are not prepared to enter negotiations. As Gerry Fitt, M.P., the S.D.L.P. Leader has said, *** if we did, we would be representing no one".

Thus, the internment issue is central at this stage. The fact that internees are rounded up purely on suspicion is quite clearly seen from a Parliamentary Report (Hansard) of part of an Adjournment Debate in the Northern Ireland House of Commons on October 20, 1971 (Vol. 82, No. 19, cols. 1576-1579). A photocopy of the relevant part is attached as Annex B.

The Carey Resolution before the House is well founded. In appearing before the Hearing, the four Unionist witnesses have clearly assented to the U.S.'s right to be concerned and, if possible, to bring pressure to bear on Britain so that a way forward to a just and peaceful solution might be found. The sub-committee has thus heard both sides of the case. It would, of course, have been intolerable for Britain to let her case go by default and in sponsoring and briefing the four Unionist witnesses I referred to at the outset, Britain has truly forwarded the cause of justice. If the British Government had been aggrieved at the fact of the Hearing taking place, she would, of course, have protested strongly and publicly and would have refused to participate. It is to be hoped that this new, more enlightened approach on Britain's part will continue and that the beginnings of a solution will be initiated by her in the near future. I am confident that if this happens, the effect of the Hearing will have been no small contributory factor. It is for this reason that I express once more my gratitude to the Chairman and his Sub-Committee for having agreed to let me testify in this manner.

ANNEX A

SIGNATORIES OF LETTER DID NOT ALL RESIGN

[From the Irish Times, Mar. 17, 1972]

A group of 14 people in the North, all of whom were appointed to public bodies by the Stormont Government and some of whom have since resigned in protest against the Stormont Government of failing to implement the 1969 reform programme and of using at present "public funds in an advertising campaign presumably designed to convince the general public in Great Britain that it has in letter and in spirit carried out the various undertakings of both the Westminster and Stormont Governments contained in the Downing Street Declaration of August 1969, and the subsequent communiques."

An inaccurate report of this letter appeared in yesterday's Irish Times, when it was said that all 14 signatories had resigned from their appointments. This is not in fact true. The majority of the people involved who, although making no secret of their opposition to the present Government policies, have decided to remain on such bodies as the Community Relations Commission, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and other bodies.