The following is the full text of the letter which has been sent to newspapers together with an accurate list of the signatories and their positions on the bodies involved. "Dear Sir, "The Government of Northern Ireland is presently using public funds in an advertising campaign presumably designed to convince the general public in Great Britain that it has in letter and 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, "The Stormont Government published in August, 1971, a White Paper (CDM 558) entitled "A Record of Constructive Change, which sets out a number of claims alleging to 'place the facts clearly and succinctly on record.' "Various inaccurate contentions advanced in the White Paper surprised a group of Northern Irish Catholics (including the undersigned) who had accepted Government nominations for appointment to the main statutory boards and bodies in Northern Ireland. On 20th September 1971, this group published a commentary upon the White Paper, a Booklet of 39 pages which dealt with the claims made by the Stormont Government, and with the actual performance or nonperformance of the promises. It detailed how the reform programme simply had not at that date been carried into effect. There have been no basic changes in the implementation of the reform programme in the intervening months. "Following its publication, Mr. Brian Faulkner made a brief reference to the commentary, indicating that he had not had time to read his copy. His sole observation was that he regretted that the authors had chosen to remain anonymous. Since then no effort has been made by the Stormont Government to rebut the facts contained in the commentary or to rememdy the defects in the reform programme. Instead, the Government has launched this tendentious press campaign. "The timing of the campaign by the Stormont Government is, to say the least, surprising in view of the expected, political initiatives from Westminster. The British public should know that, concurrently with his Government's advertising campaign, Mr. Brian Faulkner has made a personal appeal on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party for £100,000 for propaganda purposes. "We wish to deal with a few of the points highlighted in the press advertisements and a few conveniently omitted. Community relations.-"The Stormont Government has failed to implement most of the many recommendations made by the Community Relations Commission. The Commission is without effective power, and Dr. Maurice Hayes, its first chairman, recently became so frustrated that he resigned. Employment.-"No effective action has been taken to correct the grave imbalance in public employment which has arisen out of past discriminatory practices, Indeed, the creation of an interim staff commission which is required to safeguard the interests of existing staff must perpetuate existing injustices. No machinery has been created to monitor present or future employment practices. "No action has been taken by the Government to eliminate discrimination in the private sector. Ombudsman and Commissioner for Complaints.-"The Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints can deal only with a personal complaint from'an aggrieved individual. His function in Northern Ireland has been made virtually useless by the terms of the Acts which he administers. He cannot take into account clearly existing evidence of a general pattern of discrimination by an employing body, which is as widespread today as when Lord Cameron reported. Participation.-"Mr. Brian Faulkner has firmly indicated that only those who do not seek the reunification of Ireland will be acceptable to him as participants in Government. This effectively excludes the great majority of the Catholic community in Northern Ireland and a significant number of Protestants. "The Downing Street Declaration guarantees every citizen of Northern Ireland the same equality of treatment and freedom from discrimination as obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom, irrespective of political views or religion. Notwithstanding that declaration, Mr. Faulkner has declared bluntly that more than onethird of the citizens of Northern Ireland shall not be entitled to participate in Government because they wish to work peacefully for a united Ireland. "Of the many points in the reform programme omitted from the Stormont Government's advertisements the following are significant: Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act (N.I.) 1970.-"The Stormont Government claimed in the White Paper of August 1971 that in passing this Act it had honoured its commitment to keep under review the adequacy of the existing law against incitement.' The Act is ineffective, and no successful prosecution has been brought under it. In our view, for reasons set out by the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland as far back as 3rd February 1971, no successful prosecution is possible under the Act. THE POLICE "The commitment of the Westminster and Stormont Governments in the communique of 10th October 1969 is to establish a Police Authority representative of the community as a whole. The Stormont Government claims that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is controlled by the Police Authority. This is untrue. Effective control of the police still remains with the Stormont Government, operating through the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is responsible for the administration of the Special Powers Act and for the enforcement of internment without trial. "The consequent Catholic distrust has resulted in whole areas of Northern Ireland being without an effective police service. The Future. "In the light of our foregoing remarks we would repeat the question which we raised on 20th September 1971, namely: On past performance can any Unionist-dominated Government be entrusted with the introduction and implementation of a reform programme? "Yours Faithfully, James Doherty, who has resigned from the Joint Electricity Authority; James A. Kennedy, who still serves on the Northern Ireland Economic Council; Alastair McGuickian, who has resigned from the Northern Ireland Agricultural Trust; Brian McGuigan, who still serves on the Post Office Users' Advisory Council; J. C. May, who still serves on the Panel of Lay Magistrates; F. A. Mackle, who has resigned from Craigavon Hospital Committee; Miss Sheelagh Murnaghan, who still serves on the Northern Ireland Community Relations Commission; John Nolan, who still serves on the National Council for Supply and Training of Teachers Overseas; James O'Hara, who still serves on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive; Mrs. M. M. Porteous, who has resigned from the Northern Ireland Police Authority; E. G. Quigley, who still serves on the Northern Ireland Advisory Council for Education; M. G. Salters, who still serves on the Northern Ireland Advisory Council for Education; Harry Toner, who still serves on the Northern Ireland Catering Industry Training Board; and Dr. J. H. Whyte, who still serves on the Northern Ireland General Health Services Board." ANNEX B [From the House of Commons, Oct. 20, 1971] INTERNMENT POLICY 6:15 p.m. THE PRIME MINISTER (MR. FAULKNER). Earlier this afternoon the hon. Member for Bann Side (Rev. Dr. Paisley) took part in a discussion on internment but as usual, as you know, Mr. Speaker, he has not quoted all my remarks on this subject. REV. DR. PAISLEY. You did not hear them. THE PRIME MINISTER. How do you know? REV. DR. PAISLEY. You were not here. THE PRIME MINISTER. There are ways and means in my room. REV. DR. PAISLEY. You were not in the room. The PRIME MINISTER. During the course of the debate on the Censure Motion last Wednesday I made reference to some of the difficulties involved in bringing people to trial at present and I mentioned particularly the risk to police witnesses. I was not given a reasoned exposition on the merits and demerits of internment but if the House will now give me the opportunity I will confirm why persons suspected of being involved or associated with the I.R.A. are not brought to court through the ordinary processes of the law. As civil authority under the Special Powers Act I am empowerd under Regulation 12 to intern-and here I quote "a person who is suspected of acting or having acted or being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the preservation of peace and the maintance of order." The key word here is "suspicion". There is all the difference in the world between establishing a prima facie case and having reasonable grounds for suspicion. When I speak of having evidence it is not the same thing as the evidence which would satisfy a court of law. The criterion is completely different. There are many bombers and gunmen who have been brought before the courts and who are now serving long terms of imprisonment, but when I announced in August that internment was being introduced there were large numbers of dangerous men involved in armed conspiracy, whom no court would convict, and I had to weigh in my own mind which was the greater evil: the arson, the destruction, the death of many innocent people, or the freedom of people who, I was convinced, had in the past or would in the future commit or be associated with these evil acts. I ask the hon. Member what he would have done if he had been in my position. [Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has directed that if there is a prima facie case of a criminal offence against any person arrested under the Special Powers Act that person should be brought before the criminal courts and prosecuted in the ordinary way. If, therefore, at any time there is a prima facie case of a crime against any person interned that person will be prosecuted, and this direction embraces not only the ordinary criminal offence but a criminal offence contrary to the Special Powers Acts or the regulations made thereunder. But what the hon. Member ignores is the difficulty in the present situation of prosecuting certain crimes in the courts. Witnesses to criminal activity of this kind are frequently reluctant out of fear to come forward and so enable that crime to be prosecuted in court, yet the police have a strong suspicion as to the identity of the wrongdoer. Even when witnesses do come forward and offer to give evidence to the police they frequently change their minds later and decline to sign a written statement or make a deposition when they realise that they may have to give evidence in court. The same problems arise, only more so, when the crime is that of membership of an unlawful organisation like the I.R.A., for proof of membership of this in the criminal courts again requires evidence. It is significant, and it accords with what I have said, that in prosecutions for the unlawful use or possession of firearms or explosives the Crown have to rely in almost every case-and this is the important thing-on police or military evidence, and it is a rarity for a civilian witness to come forward and give evidence in court in this type of prosecution. All this means that in certain areas of the criminal law the police are not able to get evidence which can be presented in court to prosecute those crimes, because of intimidation, fear or reluctance or refusal to come forward on the part of witnesses; yet the police and/or the military know full well or have a reasonable suspicion that certain identifiable persons have committed these crimes. It is in circumstances like these, and these are not necessarily exhaustive, that senior police officers recommend that the persons concerned be interned. The hon. Member appears to suggest that where it is not possible to build up a prima facie case of a crime against a person interned he should be released. I disagree. Those who are responsible directly or indirectly for the breakdown of the ordinary processes of the criminal law cannot claim an unqualified right to take advantage of those processes. Mr. BOAL. Including the Government. THE PRIME MINISTER. A few minutes ago I heard the right hon. Member for Larne (Mr. Craig) criticise the present security situation and criticise the Army and the police for the way they are acting at present. I am afraid he entirely overlooks the dramatic successes of the past few days when, for example, no fewer than 30 wanted men have been arrested-to name only one thing. He deplores the explosions in Lisburn, as I deplore them, and talks about the shock on the population. Certainly there is shock on the population. But he says they all express the desire "Bring back an armed R.U.C. Bring back an armed U.S.C." REV. WILLIAM BEATTIE. That is what the people want. THE PRIME MINISTER. Well, if that is what the people want, what new measures does the right hon. Member for Larne suggest should be used in such circumstances for dealing with explosives and finding the people who are doing the bombing? It is no answer to say "Arm the R.U.C. and bring back the U.S.C."—[Interruption.]—and it is a pity that responsible Members in this House are not prepared to get up and give credit to the security forces for the undoubted successes they are having REV. DR. PAISLEY. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. THE PRIME MINISTER.—— -and for the way in which they are bringing the I.R.A. into a state of disruption. REV. DR. PAISLEY. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. SPEAKER. Dr. Paisley, on a point of order. REV. DR. PAISLEY. I should like a Ruling on this point, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has said that hon. Members opposite did not give due consideration and praise to the security forces. If he had been in the House he would have heard my remarks Mr. SPEAKER. This is not a point of order. REV. DR. PAISLEY.- -praising the security forces. STATEMENT BY DR. SAMUEL J. FANNING, GRADUATE SCHOOL, DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY, JAMAICA, NEW YORK BIOGRAPHY Birthplace: Ireland; Education: Primary and Secondary-Ireland; B.A. History-University of Chicago, 1943; M.A., Ph.D. History-The University of California, Berkeley, 1946, 1952. Thesis: The Casement Affair; Dissertation: The Irish Absentee Landowners of 1773; Present position: Associate Professor of History, St. John's University, Jamaica, New York. IRELAND'S TRAGIC CENTURIES 1169-1972 In a very real sense the baffling Anglo-Irish problem is more than eight hundred years old, having had its inception in 1169 when descendants of William the Conqueror, generally known as the Anglo-Normans or French-Normans invaded Ireland. The reigning monarch at that time, Henry II, having had a keen interest in Ireland almost from the start of his reign in 1154, went there in 1171 to assert his authority over those of his subjects who had settled in the country and became rather well established in the Province of Leinster. Although Henry II did not go so far as to have himself proclaimed king, he did receive the submission of some leading churchmen and the heads of some prominent Irish families. Shortly after his departure from the country in Spring 1172, Pope Alexander III commended the ecclesiastical and lay leaders for their submission to Henry and he conferred on the latter the title of "Lordship of Ireland." In 1177 Henry bestowed this title on his son John and henceforth this continued to be part of the inheritance of succeeding English kings until 1541. Although the ancient culture of the Irish people would have been in danger of extinction, there are many historians who hold that it would have been a blessing if the Anglo-Normans had been able to establish a uniform system of law and order over the whole country. This, neither the Anglo-Norman invaders of the early period nor the English invaders after them, were ever able to do, and the result has been eight centuries of rivalry between two civilizations. In time, the area more or less permanently under English control came to be known as the pale or the "land of peace" where English law, customs, and language prevailed. Beyond the pale, Irish law, customs, and language held sway and the inhabitants, in the view of the pale people, consisted of two principal groups, namely, the "Irish enemies" and the "degenerate English." The latter was the derogatory title given to the descendants of the invaders who had conformed to the Irish way of life. In Irish history they are known as the people who became more Irish than the Irish themselves. It was not until the thirty second year of the reign of the second Tudor, Henry VIII, that a concerted attempt was made to extend English domination over the whole country. Henry VIII's first step in this policy was to cast aside the title of "Lordship of Ireland" and have himself elected king of Ireland by a parliament convened in Dublin in 1541. Five years earlier that same parliament had conferred on Henry the title of supreme head of the church of Ireland, a title similar to the one he enjoyed over the church of England following an act of the parliament at Westminster in 1534. The Protestant Reformation resulting from Henry's break with Rome over the divorce question followed essentially the same pattern in both countries; the one significant difference being that the mass of the English people eventually submitted to the new religion while the vast majority of the Irish clung to the old one. Apart from the religious question, there were two courses open to Henry in his attempt to implement his envisaged policy in Ireland, "a conquest or a politic reformation." It reflects considerable credit on him that he chose the latter course, and this at a time when many of his advisers were recommending a conquest. In fact, one adviser went so far as to recommend "the complete extermination of the native Irish." In accordance with Henry's conciliatory policy, the Irish were no longer to be regarded as "enemies" and excluded from English law as they had been in the past. They were now to become “subjects" and the rights and privileges of the common law were to be extended to every citizen. One of the most baffling problems in Ireland when Henry assumed the kingship was that of land ownership. About two thirds of the land was in the hands of the old Irish, who holding their properties according to traditional Irish usage, were squatters in the eyes of the common law. The remaining third was occupied by the descendants of the settlers, some of whom held their lands according to the Irish system of tanistry and gavelkind, and others by titles valid in English law. Henry hoped to end this great confusion by a policy known as "Surrender and Regrant." If the clan chieftains would renounce tanistry and gavelkind and hold their lands in the feudal manner, the complications of the dual system of tenures would be ended and the chieftains would receive from the king titles recognized by the common law. In the years following 1541 a number of the leading chieftains such as O'Neill, O'Donnell, O'Brien and others agreed to Henry's offer, but instead of bringing about a peaceful settlement as was hoped, the policy of "Surrender and Regrant" resulted only in still greater confusion. This was mainly due to an unwarranted assumption on the part of crown officials that English and Irish tenures were essentially similar, whereas they were in reality completely different. "So far from the Irish chiefs being feudal lords of their districts, with all other landowners holding from them as their vassals, the land was the collective property of the clans, who held each a definite district by immemorial occupation. Part of the clan lands were set apart to support the chief, the tanist, the brehons, and other officials; part may have become the private property of the leading members of the clan; the rest was divided out among groups of kinsmen, sliocht, as they were called in Irish, septs to give them the name used by English writers." 1 In agreeing to hold their lands by English tenure the chieftains had committed themselves to a bargain which occasioned irreconcilable conflicts between them and their kinsmen, for it was beyond their power to surrender to any king the vested rights of the septs. The question of what exactly Henry's grants entailed is a controversial one amongst historians. Extremists, ignoring the fact that the position of many individual clans was greatly improved thereby, have discovered in them a Machiavellian plot to uproot the Irish from their land. More competent historians, while recognizing the shortcomings of Henry's policy of conciliation, agree that "as an attempt at constructive statesmanship it forms a prominent landmark in Anglo-Irish relations." 2 Perhaps the greatest evil resulting from Henry's policy of "Surrender and Regrant" was the fact that it paved the way for clever and conniving legalists in the service of succeeding English monarchs to bring about, through the manipulation of such devices as escheat, forfeiture, attainder, and confiscation, the utter and complete impoverishment of the Irish people. The perceptive historian, Constantia Maxwell, did not overstate the case when she declared that "the key to the perpetual wars and rebellions of Irish history (is), then, the constant struggle for the land." 13 During the remainder of the Tudor dynasty there were few attempts at wholesale displacement of the Irish on the land such as were to take place in the Stuart dynasty. To say this is not, of course, to overlook the fact that Mary has the unenviable reputation of launching the notorious plantation system in the O'MoreO'Connor lands of west central Leinster and that her half-sister, Elizabeth, resorted to the scorched earth policy in several portions of the country and unsuccessfully attempted to establish a plantation in the southern province of Munster. The fact is that, though Elizabeth was guilty of many cruelties against Ireland, her "lawyers had not yet arrived at that total disregard for the equitable rights of the Irish that marked those of the Stuart period. They seem to have felt the injustice of attempting to deprive the Irish on a mere legal quibble of those lands which they had held without question since the days of Henry II." 4 But all this was to change early in the reign of Elizabeth's successor, James I, who inaugurated the Stuart dynasty in 1603. During the last decade of Elizabeth's reign there were persistent attempts to extend English domination into the heartland of the Northern province of Ulster, an area that might well be described as one of the last bastions of Irish Ireland. The defense of this area was under the able leadership of Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone, one of the greatest men to bear 1 The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Ser. 6 (Dublin, 1914), III, 64. 2 Maxwell, Constantia, Irish History from Contemporary Sources 1509-1610, p. 25. 3 Constantia Maxwell, Country and Town in Ireland under the Georges (Toronto, 1940), p. 18. 4 W. F. T. Butler, Confiscation in Irish History (Dublin, 1918), p. 19. |