In replying to this set of question which I feel——
CEISTEANNA (QUESTIONS).
The following questions were addressed to the Minister for Defence:—
(a) To ask the Minister for Defence was the Irish Republican Army previous to August 1919 known as the Irish Volunteers.
(b) Was the Irish Volunteers at that time a separate and independent organisation controlled by its own Constitution and governed by its own Executive?
(c) Did the Executive of the Irish Volunteers on or about August 1919 agree to co-operate with the Ministry of Defence of Dáil Éireann in upholding and maintaining the Irish Republic as proclaimed in 1916 and as afterwards “ratified by the elected representatives of the ancient Irish people” on the 21st January 1919?
(d) Was it not further agreed that the Irish Volunteers, then for the first time formally titled the Irish Republican Army, should continue to be governed by their own duly elected Executive, under the Chairmanship of the Minister for Defence? Was not this arrangement devised to safeguard the unity and integrity of the Army, and to permit it to resume its former independent status in case the Dáil should attempt to subvert the Republic?
(e) In virtue of the agreement between the Executive of the Irish Volunteers and of the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet of Dáil Éireann, was an oath of allegiance to the Irish Republic imposed upon all members of the Dáil and upon all members of the Army; was not the taking of this oath, by the Dáil, and its observance by the Dáil, the fundamental condition upon which the Irish Volunteers agreed to co-operate with the Minister of Defence of Dáil Éireann?
(f) Were the alterations in the original Volunteer Constitution, which were necessitated by the agreement and arrangement mentioned above, embodied in a new Constitution which was then drawn up?
(g) Did this amended Constitution provide for an annual Army Convention and for the maintenance, so far as consistent with the agreement of autumn 1919, of the original Volunteer Constitution, as adopted at the Volunteer Convention held in October 1917, when the Irish Volunteers were formally re-organised after the Rising of 1916?
(h) Was this amended Constitution to be submitted to a specially summoned Convention of the Irish Volunteers for acceptance or rejection by that Organisation? As a fact was that Convention held?
(i) After August 1919 did not all questions relating to Volunteer and Military policy continue to be submitted to the Volunteer Executive? Until the Session of Dáil Éireann, held in January 1921, when on the Motion of President de Valera the Dáil accepted responsibility for the activities of the Irish Republican Army, was not the Volunteer Executive, as constituted under the Volunteer Constitution of October 1917, the authority which accepted responsibility for all activities of the Irish Republican Army, e.g., destruction of police barracks, Income Tax Offices, etc.?
(j) Is it not a fact that the Volunteer Executive continued to meet as often as possible down to 1921? Did it not meet on at least two occasions in that year? When it was suggested that it should dissolve itself, was it not pointed out that such an act would be irregular and invalid and that the only body competent to dissolve the Volunteer Executive was a duly convened convention of the Irish Republican Army?
Seán MacEntee.
On a point of order, it has been the custom of all Ministers answering questions in this House to read the questions before they give the answers. Either that or I must be permitted to read them.
The questions will be read before each answer is given.
On a point of order, A Chinn Comhairle, the Minister is not entitled to say anything except to give me the answer to the questions.
Then I will read each of the questions and answers as follows:—(a) Yes, or as Oglaigh na hÉireann. (b) Yes. (c) I am not aware of the terms of any such agreement, but from the formation of the Dáil in January 1919 the Executive of the Irish Volunteers had actually co-operated with the Ministry of Defence of Dáil Éireann in upholding and maintaining the Irish Republic as proclaimed in 1916 and as afterwards ratified in January 1919. (d) Theoretically the governing body of the army did continue to be the Executive under the Chairmanship of the Minister for Defence. Its function was to advise the Minister and it was only summoned at his request. If by the word “formally” is meant that the Irish Volunteers became the Irish Republican Army by the passing of any formal resolution by anybody, no such formal titling took place. Some members of the Volunteers did not regard themselves as joining the Irish Republican Army when they joined the Volunteers at their inception in 1913. Some at any rate, no doubt, looked on themselves as members of the I.R.A. after Easter 1916, and I am sure all after the ratification of the Declaration of a Republic by the Dáil in 1919. This arrangement was accepted as the obvious and only arrangement possible at the time. (e) In virtue of a joint agreement between the bodies mentioned, which I am not aware exists in any definite terms, an oath of allegiance was administered to every member of the Dáil and all members of the Army. The Irish Volunteers co-operated with the Minister for Defence of Dáil Éireann from a time long before the administering of this oath.
That is not a reply to the question.
(f) A proposed new Constitution for the Army was drawn up at this time embodying a clause, requiring each member of the Army to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic. (g) As far as I know, yes. (h) It was proposed to submit the proposed Constitution to a specially summoned Convention of the Irish Volunteers. That Convention was not held because no single member of the Volunteer Executive of the time would recommend the holding of that Convention in the circumstances that then existed in Dublin. Delegates for this Convention were actually selected but the Convention was not held. Ballot papers were circulated to the delegates and a vote was taken as far as the question of the Oath was concerned. As far as this question was concerned, the amendment to the constitution was accepted. (i) Yes. Most of its members, however, were members of the G.H.Q. Staff by whom in conjunction with the Minister of Defence decisions were for the most part taken and work carried out. From the coming into being of Dáil Éireann as the Government of the Republic in January, 1919, all activities of the Army were subordinate to its authority, and actually Dáil Éireann as the Government of the country accepted responsibility for these activities from the beginning. It is very difficult to say that the Volunteer Executive existed at all for a long time before its dissolution. As far as I know it met on at least one occasion in 1921. I am not aware of many things that may have been pointed out in connection with the dissolution. (j) The Volunteer Executive met as often as required by the Minister for Defence. As far as I know it met on at least one occasion in 1921. I am not aware of many things that may have been pointed out in connection with the dissolution of the Volunteer Executive. With regard to the general answers, the position is that I answer them from memory. I am no better placed from the point of view of information and not more authoritatively placed to answer them than is the Deputy who puts the questions. The late Secretary of the Volunteer Executive will no doubt be able to provide any more definite information that is wanted.
I wish to put some supplementary questions with reference to the reply to the last portion of my question—that is, with reference to the statement that the Minister of Defence is not aware of many things that passed at the meeting at which the proposition to dissolve the Volunteer Executive was made. I wish to ask him now was he not present at that meeting and did he not recommend its dissolution and did I not suggest that the dissolution was invalid and irregular.
I cannot say that I was present at the last meeting at which the Volunteer Executive disbanded itself. I attended as an ordinary member of the Volunteer Executive and if any details are required as to what took place the Secretary of the Executive is the proper person to apply to for those details.
Chun an Aire um Gnóthaí Duithche
(To the Minister for Home Affairs).
To ask the Minister for Home Affairs what position does District Inspector Kearney hold in the new Police Force?
A. O Laimhín.
Mr. Kearney does not hold and has never held any position in the new police force. He was one of a number of officers of the R.I.C. who, in conjunction with officers of the I.R.A., D.M.P., and resigned members of the R.I.C., acted on a committee engaged in preparing a scheme of Organisation for the new police force. That Committee has long since completed its work and ceased to exist. The members of the R.I.C. and D.M.P. were granted leave of absence by their authorities to enable them to discharge their duties on the Committee. They received no remuneration whatsoever from the Provisional Government for their services.
Chun an Aire um Rialtas Aitiuil.
(To the Minister for Local Government).
(a) To ask the Minister for Local Government how it is that such a small number of houses allotted to towns like Carrick-on-Shannon?
(b) If he will furnish particulars of the number of cottages to be provided in each town?
(c) How the estimate of £750 per house has been arrived at?
(d) When it is proposed to start the housing?
(e) What proposal he has for dealing with rural housing and why rural housing has been neglected in this instance?
(f) What arrangements have been made regarding loans to public bodies carrying out their schemes?
Peadar O hAodha.
Replying to question (a) Mr. Cosgrave said: The basis of the housing scheme formulated is for local authorities to strike a rate of a 1/- in the £ and raise 3/- in the £ on loan. Double that amount will be provided by the Provisional Government. 1/- in the £ produces £423 in Carrick-on-Suir. Allow ing for three times that amount to be borrowed and adding the contribution, the total sum available in the case of Carrick-on-Suir would be £5,076, which it is estimated will provide for only about seven houses. (b) Yes. I have the list here. I can supply any member who wishes with the information and if copies are required I will endeavour to have them procured with the least possible delay. (c) The estimate of £750 has been devised by expert architects and it is borne out by recent tenders received by members of the most important local authorities. (d) Directly any local authority is in a position to start under this scheme, money will be made available. (e) At the moment we are engaged in seeing how far it is possible to secure the sum of money estimated at £417,000 which has been sanctioned but not yet issued by the national Debt Commissioners. I think the total sum which was sanctioned was in the neighbourhood of two millions—£2,034,380, of which £1,616,861 has been issued, leaving a balance of £417,519. We took the necessary steps to make a demand for the issuing of this sum. Negotiations are at present pending and I am not in a position to say anything further about that particular side. As to the second part of the question, why rural housing has been neglected in this instance. Within the last 30 or 40 years something like 48,000 cottages have been provided in rural areas and in the same period less than 10,000 houses have been provided in urban areas. The real reason for the difference in numbers is that money was made available in the case of rural housing at a price of £2 1s. 7d. per cent. inclusive of interest and sinking fund, to repay the loan in something like 68½ years. In the case of urban housing, the price was £5 per cent. Practically all urban housing schemes—there have been some exceptions—have been uneconomic propositions for the local authorities. It was not possible, and it is not possible, for the Provisional Government to negotiate a loan at £2 1s. 7d. per cent. to pay for the interest and sinking fund. Consequently a scheme on the lines of the one I have outlined for urban authorities was adumbrated. (f) I have had an interview and correspondence with the Irish Banks Committee and after a good deal of correspondence they have already offered a 15 year annuity loan at 4½ per cent. From the point of the local authority it is not an inviting proposition at that price but from the point of view of business it is a bargain that can compare very favourably with any of the much wealthier local authorities in any of those islands or on the continent or perhaps even in America.
Chun an Aire Um Thrachtail.
(To the Minister for Trade and Commerce).
To ask whether any permits have been granted to non-Irish firms known to be non-Irish to import limited quantities of goods forbidden under the Trade Department Orders respecting various classes of British Goods.—J. O'Mahony.
The following firms were given permission to import goods for ordinary trade purposes:—Cooper & Co., Oxford, jam manufacturers; Lipton's Ltd.; Planter's Margarine Co.; and Lever Bros.
Eighteen firms were given permits to import certain items of agricultural machinery for exhibition at the Royal Dublin Society's show.
The circumstances, under which these latter permits were granted, were that permits for similar classes of goods had already been given to Irish firms. If the member desires I will supply him with a list of the names of the firms importing the agricultural machinery.
I would ask the Minister whether any permits have been issued for preserves, biscuits, or other goods that are produced in this country.
Permits have been granted for the importation of biscuits and preserves.
Why did you not say that at first?
I was not asked.
He has answered it now.
He did not answer the questions. Did any other Irish firms apply for permits and were they refused? I would ask, subject to your correction, that he should publish the names and circulate them to the members of the House. I am entitled to an answer.
What is the question?
If you were interested you would listen. I am asking him will he publish and circulate to the members of the House the names of the firms he granted permits to and also if any firm in Ireland was refused a permit by him. This is in the interests of Irish Industries and Irish goods that are equal in every respect to any goods imported.
It would be better that the Deputy should put the question he wants answered on the paper and I will answer it.
It is here:—"If so to what firms, agents or representatives were these permits granted and under what circumstances?"
The Minister asks for notice and he is entitled to ask for notice.
He has got two or three days. If Irish industries are to be treated in this manner we will have something to say to it.
Chun an Aire um Chraobhsgaoileacháin.
(To the Minister for Publicity).
To ask the Minister for Publicity, as he states that at present the work of his Department has been principally concerned with the collection of data relating to the "Systematic Pogrom which has been directed against the Nationalist inhabitants in the Six Counties," will he place before the Dáil a record showing the number of outrages to which these inhabitants have been subjected each day since January 1st 1922?
Seán MacEntee.
The Deputy knows from the lists that were published every day that to read out a daily list of all that occurred in Belfast since January last would take up the rest of to-day. I think what he is interested in is the number of killed and wounded. From January 1st to March 31st there were 77 people killed in Belfast and 359 wounded, and from 1st April to the 24th April there were 24 Catholics killed and 41 Catholics wounded. In that same time there was a very much smaller number of Protestants killed and wounded. Also during that time there have been an unlimited number of lootings, house burnings, assaults on persons and so on, which I will circulate to the House if it is desired.
It is of course desired that the record for which I asked—a record of the outrages to which the inhabitants have been subjected every day—should be given in reply to the question. He does not want me to ask the same question over again.
MR. FITZGERALD:
You asked for a daily list.
Yes.
MR. FITZGERALD:
A daily list is published in the Press. It takes from about half a column to a column each day. To read that from the 1st January to this period of April would take up certainly the rest of the day.
If a member of this House asks a question is he, for a reply, to be referred to the back numbers of the daily Press?
MR. FITZGERALD:
I have expressed my willingness to circulate the list.
That is the answer to the question. The Minister has made a statement as to the length of time it would take to read it.
If he wishes, he can circulate the list and we will take it as read.
You should move for a return. You cannot, ask what would really be a chapter in a book read out as a statement to the House.
As a matter of fact, a record showing the number of outrages is not a record showing each particular outrage but a record covering the numbers for a period of 90 days.
MR. FITZGERALD:
I will circulate that. I may say that I asked the member for Monaghan last night if it were the killed and wounded he was interested in and he said yes.
Before we proceed with the discussion of the reports, I wish to say that the situation in the country at the present time is of such gravity that the Government of Dáil Éireann feels it its duty to keep the session in being from week to week if necessary. I shall accordingly move at 7 o'clock this evening that the session stand adjourned until Wednesday next and that it resume on that day and the succeeding day. Events, such as the terrible murders at Dunmanway and the seizure of Customs and Excise at Clonmel, require the exercise of the utmost strength and authority of Dáil Éireann. Dáil Éireann, so far as its powers extend, will uphold, to the fullest extent, the protection of life and property of all classes and sections of the community. It does not know and cannot know, as a National Government, any distinction of class or creed. In its name, I express the horror of the Irish nation at the Dunmanway murders and the reprobation of the unlawful attempt to seize the Customs and Excise of the Irish nation.
I think everybody in this House is glad to hear for whatever reason—and I think the reason given is a good one—that Dáil Éireann is to be kept in Session. I hope that, as a result of constantly meeting here and exchanging views on the course of current affairs, we will have a steadying effect on the country. With regard to the Dunmanway atrocities, whoever is responsible for them, I think there is nobody in this House but will agree with President Griffith in his remarks. It is a most unfortunate business—it is unfortunate particularly in view of the fact that these three citizens happen to be of another religion from that of the majority of the people. For that reason propaganda against Ireland as a whole and the South of Ireland in particular is bound to be used. We would all like to be associated with President Griffith in offering sympathy to the relatives of these people. The other matter that President Griffith referred to I have personally no knowledge of. I have not seen any reports so far on the matter and, therefore, I personally would not refer to it here at the moment. I suppose it will come up for discussion later on. If keeping Dáil Éireann in session can do any good to smooth affairs and keep a firmer hand on the country, I think everybody in the Dáil will be satisfied to fall in with the suggestion made by President.
Do members on the other side agree that we adjourn at 7 o'clock and reassemble on Wednesday?
I think all our members will be agreed to that. I would only like to make one reference. It is this: it is obvious it will need the united efforts of every member of the Government of Ireland to deal with the present situation. There is only one way in my mind to deal with it and that is in this matter there should not be two sides in this House. There have unfortunately been mixed up with grave national issues questions of personalities and things of that kind which should not really be introduced at all. And the difficulty in the present situation is that we are not taking at the present time the broad view that we were accustomed to take four or five months ago, when every member here considered every question that came up on its merits and considered the interests of the country as a whole on its merits altogether apart from Party interests. I believe it is absolutely necessary that every member dealing with this question should take a firm attitude and forget about leaders or anybody else and deal definitely with the situation. We are the Government of the country and it is a shame for us if we cannot govern the country. Yesterday I asked a question about the police. Later on I again asked for permission to speak on this question but I was not permitted. There is no good in talking about the matter unless something is done to establish this force in the country. It is a thing that can be done and it is a thing that does not belong to one side of the House. I hope the matter will be taken up.
I hope, A Chinn Comhairle that one of the results of the President's statement will be that the matter to which I sought to direct attention yesterday will be remedied; that is the urgent necessity for dealing with the question of police in the country. That is a question which essentially has nothing to with Party interests or Party views. It is an obvious necessity and it represents one of the very important measures which can be and may easily be taken to remedy the state of unrest in the country. I do hope that the Government will give that very serious attention.
It would be too much to suggest the carrying out of the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance when the Treaty was ratified, that a Committee of Public Safety be formed from both sides of the House. If you want to tackle this thing, you will want to tackle it in earnest.
In connection with that matter I would like to say there is a Conference at present sitting. I don't know whether it will result in anything or not. Definite proposals are being made by representatives of labour which will cover the point raised by Dr. McCartan. The trouble here is that when any question is introduced in the general interests it takes a Party aspect, immediately it is introduced by one side or the other. If it is introduced by the Right it is supposed to be for Party purposes. If it is introduced by the Left it is similarly viewed. The trouble is we have got into a state of mind which prevents any question from being considered on its merits. There may be some more hope from the Conference that is proceeding in the Mansion House. I do not know, but there may be more hope from proposals made by a third party than if proposals were made by either side here.
Is the adjournment agreed to?
Three o'clock on Wednesday I understood is agreed to.