I beg to move:—"That a sum, not exceeding £6,423, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for such of the salaries and expenses of the Governor-General's establishment as are not charged on the Central Fund" (£5,000 had already been voted on account).
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S ESTABLISHMENT.
The sum voted last year on this account was £10,000. We do not know whether it was all spent; I think we were told it was not. The sum asked for this year is £11,423. We are obliged to provide a suitable establishment, and I take it the Dáil is finally responsible for the definition of what is suitable. I do not think an expenditure of £11,000 should be asked for to provide for the Governor General's establishment: £5,545 for the salaries and wages of the staff; and £3,000 for an allowance for expenses to the Governor General. That is in addition to the salary provided for in the Constitution, which equals £10,000 for the year. We are asked again to pay the balance of the cost of purchasing and equipping two armoured cars, and the balance of the cost of purchasing and equipping a motor car for A.D.C's., a total of £1,873, and £940 for telegrams and telephones for the year. The total is £11,423. I think that is entirely beyond what the country can afford. It is an expenditure for this year of £21,423 for the Governor General's salary and for his establishment. There is no rent to be paid, I think, for a house. There is not a charge in this Vote, I think, for coal, fire or light. That has already been provided for in another Vote. We have already voted £5,000 for certain proposed works in respect of the residence of the Governor General and the late Chief Secretary's Lodge. I do not know what is required for the Governor General's residence, but I think I will not be far wrong in suggesting that the greater part of it is required for such works. A sum of £8,850 is also provided for maintenance and supplies to the Governor General's residence; £992 for furniture, fittings and utensils; £1,600 for fuel, light, water, and cleaning. A total of £11,442 for maintenance, repairs and other current charges. Proposed new works, £5,000; salary, £10,000; and establishment, £11,423. That is rather a costly luxury. I submit that there is no need for ten persons at a cost of £5,545 to be attached to this establishment, in addition to an allowance of £3,000 for expenses. The Comptroller of the household has £600; a chaplain, £250; medical attendant, £100; private secretary, £600; assistant private secretary, £350, in addition to clerks, and three A.D.C's. at £1,100, £1,000, and £700 respectively.
I do not think these charges are justified. Does any Deputy in the Dáil think they are justified? The old idea was that there were all kinds of duties devolving upon a Viceroy, social duties, and Official duties, that would appertain to a King, and that these duties inevitably called for very considerable assistance, clerical, secretarial and the like. We have been led to believe that we were getting away from that, and that the Governor General's position would be strictly official; that there would be no court, and that the social functions would be such as would appertain to an official who was filling the necessary niche in the administration, but would not, by virtue of that fact, have any special equipage or train. We are having an expenditure thrust upon us which would only be excusable if there were such functions attaching to the office. Can anybody explain why it is necessary to have ten officials, at the cost I have indicated, attached to the establishment of the Governor General, and three A.D.C's. at £1,100, £1,000 and £700 respectively? I am quite certain that some work could be found, useful, perhaps necessary work, for some officials attached to the Governor General, but I cannot see that there is room for a Comptroller of the Household at £600, plus a Private Secretary and an Assistant Private Secretary, costing between them £950, with a clerk to that Comptroller, plus Typist and Extra Clerical Assistants, and then three A.D.C's. It is quite commendable that certain public works should be established of a useful character to find employment for unemployed citizens, but it is not usual to appoint men or women at such charges for comparatively useless work, at such a high cost for unemployed people. The question of the salaries is closed; the question of expenses in connection with repairs and maintenance is temporarily closed, but the Dáil has, unfortunately, in my view, quite wrongly voted for the payment of these sums for the maintenance of the Governor General's Establishment and for its re-lighting; but I hope the Dáil will not vote this sum of £11,423 for his establishment, in addition to all the rest. To test the Dáil, I beg to move that this Estimate be reduced by the sum of £6,423.
I only want to say that this Establishment, as put down in the vote, is arranged on the lines of other Establishments of Governors General in accordance with the Constitution. There may be an addition in connection with the three A.D.C's. That is an addition and I accept responsibility for that, the fullest responsibility. In respect of the other charges, they are the normal charges paid in Canada or Australia. They may be heavy, but they are part of our agreement, and I am subscribing to them. I am subscribing also to the three A.D.C's. because of the fact that they have justified their existence. They are doing work that I thought necessary, and I myself accept personal responsibility in connection with that. It was my own suggestion and it was I who asked the three gentlemen in question to take up this office. They have done their work and I stand over that; but, as regards the other items, I have the same responsibility as other Deputies, in connection with the Establishment of the Governor General I have nothing more to say on this.
This question of the expenses of the Governor General is one which is very hard to explain away when you are faced with the poor people in the western parts of the country. They want to know why this is so, why they have to pay in their taxes for the upkeep of this bloated establishment which, as the President said, is on a par with the institutions in Canada and in Australia, which are two continents, while our country is only twenty-six counties and a poor country. Of course, we all agree that the Ministry were bound by the provisions of the Treaty to provide £10,000 for the Governor General and to maintain his house. We all understand that. But, at the same time, it seems to me that there has been excessive extravagance here, and I could not, when questioned on it in the West of Ireland, give any explanation that would enable the poor people, working on the land at 30s. a week, to understand the necessity for this expenditure.
I agree with Deputies Johnson and Wilson that the provision is extravagant. Altogether, in all the Votes for this year, it comes to £40,000, or about £2,000 short of £40,000. It is too much. We have entered by an earlier decision into an agreement to pay a certain amount. Whatever the opinion of some of us on that amount may be, that job is closed, but it is not, I think, a good analogy to say that because the British Dominions have Establishments something similar to this, for their Governors General, we should have the same in Ireland. Deputies should remember that out there the people have still got the Monarchical tradition. They have a conception of dignity, and of history connected with the representative of the Crown that we in Ireland have not, and that the people of Ireland, so far as we know them, do not desire. Even so, there are many in those countries who are inclined rather to cut down the expenses of a thing like this. We who have an opportunity of going about the thing in a right democratic manner are, if we pass this Vote, as it is put before us, throwing away that opportunity—wasting the opportunity. I have little hesitation in saying that if we go on in the spirit in which we have been going on, we shall soon find Levees, and Drawingrooms, and all the paraphernalia of a little court. It is not good enough for Ireland. We ought to cut it out. The President said that he is quite satisfied that the three A.D.C.'s have done their work. I have no doubt about that. So far as I know about them, they are quite capable of doing it, and doing it well, but the President has not told us—he has not told the country—what that work is and why it should take three of them for it. I suspect that, to some extent, it is not the exact kind of work that is done by A.D.C.'s to the Governor General of Australia, or South Africa, or Canada; that it is rather in the nature of temporary work due to certain recent circumstances. If that is so, then it should be provided for otherwise, quite otherwise. I referred to that before. I do not want to labour the points that have been raised. A case has been made against this huge Establishment, and the case has not been answered. I want to raise rather another aspect, and that is that, as we all understood, and as is perfectly clearly understood in the British Dominions, the office of Governor General is a non-political office.
resumed the chair at this stage.
It seems to me from recent readings of the newspapers that there may be a tendency to depart from that particular non-political line. I do not for a moment suggest that, so far, in any of the gentleman's public speeches he has been acting as the mouthpiece of the Executive Council, but I do form at least a personal impression that in one of those speeches he was speaking in a more or less political capacity. I am not, at the moment, agreeing or disagreeing with the particular sentiments he expressed, but I suggest that it would be well if from no other quarter, then from this particular quarter, that he should be reminded that even though he were expressing an overwhelming majority opinion that he should not express that opinion if it touches upon the sphere of what is purely politics.
Deputy Wilson, it seems to me, has perturbed himself unduly with regard to the answer he is to give these poor downtrodden and oppressed people of the country who will ask him to account for this Vote. There are questions which do not admit of being answered in view of the mentality of those who put the questions. An old lady looking up from her newspaper asked her husband "What is the Vatican?" and he replied "Oh, the Vatican is a place where the Pope lives," and she retorted with a certain amount of heat "But why the Pope?" Now that is a type of question which defies answer. Would Deputy Wilson, when given this conundrum to solve, not feel that he would have a sufficient appearance of reply in the fact of the Treaty? Again and again it has been laboured in the Dáil that one of the terms upon which the Free State was secured was that we entered into a Treaty by which we took our place among the circle of free Nations, called the British Commonwealth of Nations. One of the terms of the bargain was that we were to have a Governor General, representative symbolically of the Dominion Union, and we were to pay, it was stipulated, the salary that is paid for one of those Governors General. Now, none of us like that. With regard to this matter I always feel like the character in the "Yeomen of the Guard" who explained to the heroine "I did not take to assistant head jailing because I liked assistant head jailing." We did not set up a Governor General because we were in love with the idea, or with the institution, but because it was part of the bargain. An argument has been used here which seems to me difficult to follow without a certain amount of mental gymnastics. We are only 26 counties. What does it matter if we were only six? It is not the extent of our geographical area that is in question. It is our status. It is a question of quality and not of quantity. The Governor General at any rate, is the outward and visible sign of the status which we have in the Commonwealth of Nations. On a previous occasion I argued as steadfastly as I was capable of arguing that the cost of the maintenance of this Establishment should be borne by a Dominion Vote. I take this opportunity of recanting that opinion. It is only right to be absolutely frank in these matters. When I contended that the Office was created not by our choice, but was forced upon us, I held as a corollary to that contention that the cost should be borne as an Imperial charge. This is a matter on which I hold second thoughts are best, because on reflection it occurred to me that if it were an Imperial charge that would constitute a further and unnecessary Imperial link, and that if we do accept, as we must accept, the Office, it is better, at any rate, that we should pay for it by our own Vote. I am quite satisfied that that is the more dignified position to take up, so that the only remaining question then is the question of amount. I remember that a celebrated leader of the early Radical Party in the British House of Commons, Mr. Labouchere, defended the Vote as a Radical in the British House of Commons on the ground that so long as there was a Royal Family to support it was only proper to support in a way consonant with the dignity of the position and the standing of the country of which they were the official head. It seems to me that that was a reasonable view to take, so I am not prepared to share the heroics of Deputy Wilson in believing this is something which is a wrong and an outrage on the poor. No doubt that money would run a very substantial housing movement. It would provide funds for a University extension; it would provide funds for a great many things. So too would the expenses on the Dáil, and the allowances for Deputies. We could argue away everything if we choose to concentrate just upon one aspect at the time.
Everything must be viewed in its relations. If we take things out of their relations we are dealing with abstractions. It seems to me that so long as Ireland is a Dominion, and pending arrangements for the housing and what is called the paraphernalia of the Government and State, it is better for us to endure the situation with fortitude.
Plus cash.
Fortitude is exhibited in the payment of the cash.
How much fortitude, and how much cash?
I am speaking on this merely in order to seize the opportunity that I am provided with for a recantation of an heretical view I expressed in the earlier Vote.
It is always very interesting to hear a recantation, especially when it is put with the characteristic alluring grace of Deputy Magennis, but it is not to pay that compliment that I rise. Perhaps on another occasion we shall have an opportunity of paying an even greater compliment to him. I rise to invite the President to be good enough to say whether the Governor-General, when speaking recently on certain political subjects, was expressing the mind of the Executive Council. I am a bit troubled about that and I would like if the President would be good enough to deal with it.
Where does this tradition come from of the Governor-General being non-political being dumb dogs, to use a Biblical expression? The accusation is made that the British tradition is being followed, and in the next breath an accusation follows that the British tradition is not being observed. After all, may we not make our own traditions? Quite recently a distinguished fellow-countryman has been going back upon all the traditions of his office. Lord Carson is a Judicial Officer and he has taken a very active part in politics. This is a period of revolution. Everything is undergoing the boule versement. Why not the Governor-General give a lead in new departures?
An excellent example.
It is an excellent example. I think the party, one of whose slogans is the overthrow of all that is red tape and sealing wax and all that circumscribes the free play of mind and the liberty of individuals, should not try to forge chains of office upon a distinguished Irishman, and call it liberty.
The difficulty is we are not calling him liberty; we are calling him the Governor General.
Call it, I said
Deputy Magennis, defending in the way he did this Vote. is entertaining and interesting. He has done what the other supporters of the Government are not willing to do, and he has done it in a way which would almost make one believe he himself was supporting this Vote when, as a matter of fact, every word he has uttered rather supports the contention that the sum should not be voted. When Deputy Magennis quoted Mr. Labouchere, I was reminded of other supporters of the Vote who defended themselves, though radical, in voting for sums for the upkeep of the British Monarchy, by saying "The more we allow them to spend, the sooner will it be brought into disrepute." Is that the view of Deputy Magennis? Does he desire to bring this office into disrepute by supporting a Vote amounting in toto to £37,865 for the establishment and upkeep of the residence of the Governor-General and his salary? To deputies who want to reduce the status, to prevent the possibility of this officer of the State attaining a social influence and power at an expense that is undesirable—a social influence and power which is antagonistic to the popular sentiment at the present time— it is tempting that we should encourage a very heavy expenditure on that establishment so that the people will more readily and more swiftly come to the conclusion that the office ought to be abolished in toto. The risk, I think, is too great. I would prefer to cut down expenditure and save something this year, and by cutting down expenditure, limit the possibilities of increase in unjustifiable, or shall I say artificial, social influence and political authority.
Deputy Magennis forgets that this officer was accepted by the Dáil and I think he himself pointed out that he was to be an officer of the State who would not have freedom to declare public policy, to make political utterances, and to do all the things which a free ruler a powerful independent ruler might do, but in political or State affairs to utter only the voice of the Executive Council. He was in fact to be a formal spokesman in high State affairs of the will and wish of the Executive Council. Deputy Magennis recants again, he wants that high official to be a free citizen, while holding that high office to be capable of making party speeches. That is the freedom that the citizen who does not clain such authority as the Constitution gives to the Governor-General might well have and should have. But when any citizen has accepted this office, or any person has been appointed to this office, with distinct limitations both Constitutional and implied, limitations in his freedom, then he ought not to break through these restrictions. If this officer of the State is to be free to take part in political discussions, and make political pronouncements which are his own and not the pronouncements of the Executive Council, then you have brought the office into a position where every utterance will have to be publicily discussed, and somebody will have to be made responsible for that. So far we have understood that the Executive Council would be responsible for the utterances of the Governor-General. Deputy Professor Magennis asks that he should be free to make utterances on political matters on his own accord, and which may not be the views of the Executive Council. That immediately alters the whole Constitutional position of that officer. Deputy Magennis defending the office, and claiming certain liberty for that officer, contended by implication, though he did not say it, that it was reasonable to vote £11,423 for his Establishment in addition to his house, salary, maintenance, etc. No attempt has been made to justify that Vote except by the President in saying that in respect of £2,800, he accepted personal responsibility for the advice he gave that these three officers should be appointed. We are still awaiting the answer to Deputy O'Shannon's question as to what the duties are. But apart from those three officers, costing £2,800, there are other offices which are redundant and unnecessary, and there is an allowance of £3,000 for the maintenance of the official residence and establishment in addition to the £11,442 already voted in another Vote. It is really delightful to go through these various Votes, and to find out how officials' salaries may be made up. You get a cheque for so much on the first of the month. Then you get a supplementary cheque for another purpose on the fifth of the month, and a further cheque for another purpose on the thirteenth of the month, and they are all utilised in one or other of the purposes which appertain to the occupation of the person receiving this salary. But they are put down in different groups so that nobody will know at first sight what actually is being paid for these se vices. A little examination shows that for this year the Dáil is asked to spend £37,865 for the Governor-General's salary and upkeep. I submit that that is entirely too much and that the sum that has already been voted on account £5,000 ought not to be exceeded. That is the effect of the amendment which I have moved.
Mr. DOYLE
I am inclined to support the amendment moved by Deputy Johnson on the grounds not that I consider the salary out of place. Provision is made for that in the Constitution, and moreover some of the salary will come back I presume in taxation to the revenue. But I hold that under the circumstances, establishment charges are extravagant. We have been told by the Minister for Finance over and over again, and by many other Ministers when any application was made for money for other purposes, that it is only by the strictest economy that the nation can get on its feet. I do not think, in the establishment charges for the Governor-General, that strict economy is practised, not that strict economy that we have heard so much about from the Government.
I regret I have not time to read the Governor-General's, my own or anybody else's speeches. I do not know what it is that the Deputy refers to when he mentioned this pronouncement. I have not read speeches for a long time from anybody.
Will the Minister read it if a copy is sent to him?
No I could not undertake to do that. For a long time I have not read anybody's speeches
This is a rather extraordinary position for the President to take up.
Perhaps the President would be allowed to continue.
I will not read long speeches from anybody. I never make long speeches myself.
Would the President read interviews with newspaper correspondents?
I do not. I do not even read my own interviews with newspaper correspondents. If there is any matter of a Government nature put to me I will answer it.
This is a matter in connection with Government business.
This is not the time to raise it. If the Deputy has a question in that connection he should put it on the Order Paper and I will answer it. With regard to the items making up this account, Deputies are probably aware of the fact that this residence, in which the Governor General is housed, was once offered to Henry Grattan as a present by the British Government. He very properly refused it. It is a very expensive establishment. It has always cost a considerable amount of money to keep up and no economy practised by any person in residence there would limit the heavy expense of that establishment. If no Governor General were living there the cost would still be the same so far as upkeep is concerned, if you meant to keep it in order. The upkeep of the Chief Secretary's Lodge is considerable but it is not nearly as much as this. The other items here are items which form the Establishment. That is part of your bargain. It is part of the bargain anybody else in our position would have to put up if they meant to carry out the bargain made. The Establishment cannot be maintained on the sum which Deputy Johnson's amendment would leave available for the purpose and it would not carry out the bargain.
The sum asked for now for the salaries and the expenses of the Governor General's establishment is £6,423. £5,000 has been voted on account. An amendment has been offered to reduce the sum by £6,423. That amounts to a direct negative, because the sum asked for here is not the full sum asked for, namely £11,423, as stated in the book. It is just £6,423. I will, therefore, put the Motion, and those in favour of the amendment can vote against the Motion.
Motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Mícheál Ó hAonghusa.
- Seán Ó hAodha.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Ailfrid Ó Broin.
- Pilib Mac Cosgair.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Sir Séamus Craig.
- Gearóid Mac Giobúin.
- Liam Thrift.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraic Ó Máille.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Fionán Ó Loingsigh.
- Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir Ó Broin.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus Ó Dóláin.
- Eamon Ó Dúgáin.
- Peadar Ó hAodha.
- Séumas Ó Murchadha.
- Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
- Alasdair Mac Cába.
- Tomás Ó Domhnaill.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
Níl
- Seán Ó Duinnín.
- Domhnall Ó Mocháin.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Seán Ó Ruanaidh.
- Liam Ó Briain.
- Tomás Ó Conaill.
- Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Liam Ó Daimhin.
- Cathal Ó Seanáin.
- Domhnall Ó Broin.
- Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Micheál Ó Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.
Motion declared carried.
I beg to move to report Progress and ask leave that the Committee sit again to-morrow.
Agreed.