Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1924

Vol. 6 No. 31

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - THE ARMY SITUATION.

Mr. JOHNSON

I beg to move my motion. The chief reason I have for moving this motion is to assert the rights of the Dáil. I consider that the Executive Council on this occasion, as on other occasions recently, has given very scant consideration to the rights of the Dáil in matters of public concern. It might be well to remind Deputies and members of the Executive Council that Article 51 of the Constitution says: "The Executive Council shall be responsible to Dáil Eireann." I would ask the Dáil to remember how often we have been told that the Oireachtas is the supreme authority in this country, and that the Executive Council is a body responsible to the Dáil. I contend that too frequently the Executive Council has placed the Dáil in a subordinate position to the Party to which belongs the majority vote in the Dáil, and to whom members of the Executive Council owe some kind of Party allegiance. They forget that they are appointed by the Dáil, and not by a Party, and that they are responsible to the Dáil, and not to a Party, for public affairs. When we asked this morning for information as to the situation arising out of the events of last week, the trouble in the Army, the threatened resignations, the assurance that there would be consideration given, during the week-end, to a reconstruction of the Ministry, in consequence of the resignations, and that the Dáil would be made acquainted with the result of these deliberations. We were not given any information whatever of a character becoming to the circumstances. The President told us, as if it were a very formal matter. and of little concern, that 40 officers had resigned, that 50 had absented themselves, and that a complete list was not yet furnished to the Executive Council on these points. This is Wednesday. The last discussion took place here on Thursday. We were not given any information as to the position in the country, as to the position in the Army, or of what is meant by the common reports regarding resignations, threatened resignations, the position of the officers, or the ex-Army Council.

I maintain that the position that the Dáil has been placed in is that of so many children at school, who may not be told anything of what their parents were discussing, that these are matters for the privacy of the chamber and not for family discussion. The members of the Government party may be informed of all that has been happening in regard to public affairs, and they may make decisions, and the Government, presumably, will have to obey those decisions, and the Dáil is to be kept in the dark and expected to be responsible to the extent of their position as Deputies without any information or any knowledge, and be treated as so many schoolchildren. That is an undignified position to put the Dáil in, and it is not carrying out the spirit of the Constitution. It is only one degree less heinous than the offence of an army trying to govern the country through the army establishments, leaving the Dáil to be a kind of plaything, merely to satisfy the formalities of constitutional government. If the Dáil is not going to be given information, and if the Executive Council is not to give information to the Dáil on matters of public importance of this character, then we had better dissolve the Dáil and set up, what you want to set up, a dictatorship. A dictatorship by political junta is very nearly as bad as a dictatorship by a single individual. Do not let us pretend to be dealing with Parliamentary government if we have not got it. Do not let us pretend we have an Executive Council responsible to the Dáil when the Dáil is given no information as to public affairs. I say it is scandalous treatment, and the Executive Council ought to be ashmed to stand before us and pretend to be a constitutional body. On the 12th inst. the President read a statement. On the 11th there had been a discussion here, and a very definite proposition was put to the Dáil by the Ministry. A private meeting of the party and consultation with the Government took place that night, and new decisions were arrived at. The Dáil was told that the Minister for Industry and Commerce had tendered his resignation because he was dissatisfied with the administration of a particular department of State. The Executive Council had given the matter grave consideration. Then the President was in a position to announce that they would cause an inquiry to be held into the administration of the Army. I can only deal with matters that have been made public. I know a little more than has been made public. Matters that have been made public are the discussions that took place in the Dáil and the statement made by Deputy McGrath which appeared in the Press on Monday. The Dáil ought to demand—I, at least, demand—that as much information on public affairs and matters concerning the public policy of the country and the administration of the Army should be given to the country as was given to a party meeting. I want to know, for instance, whether the inquiry that was proposed to be undertaken was to be a public inquiry or not. Deputy Mulcahy demanded that it should be public. He considered in justice to the late Army Council, and particularly because of certain public references that were made, that that inquiry should be public. I do not know whether any change has occurred in the policy of the Government in regard to that. Is it to be a public inquiry or is it to be a private inquiry? Whether it is a public or private inquiry, what are to be the terms of reference? Has any consideration been given to the suggestion of Deputy Hewat, supported by myself, that that inquiry should be conducted by a body of whom one, at least, should be a person who had not intimate association with the Government party? I press that, more especially if the Government policy regarding the privacy of the inquiry is to be maintained. There will be no public confidence in any inquiry of that sort if it is confined to members of the Government party. There will necessarily need to be somebody outside if there is to be any feeling of confidence that the administration of the Army, which is being inquired into, is being inquired into carefully and judicially and with full regard to the public welfare. The Ministry believe that it was necessary to set up such inquiry in view of the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to another Ministry and in regard to matters which ought to become public, and which had been subject to discussion in the Dáil—charges and counter—charges, or suggestions of charges and suggestions of counter-charges. I say it is not enough that that inquiry should be conducted by three members of one political party and having one political association. It would necessarily have to be of a wider personnel, and I again press that view upon the Ministry. It may be said that the inquiry has already begun its work. We should require to be told whether it has or not. If it has begun its work, has it made any report, and, if it made any report, is that report to be submitted to the Dáil? We have a right also to know what the policy of the Government is regarding the officers who are absentees and who resigned, whether resignations have been accepted, whether any change has taken place in the attitude of the Council towards these officers. We were told that certain conditions had been accepted and were to be complied with, first by Thursday night and then it was extended until Saturday. Have these conditions been complied with? Has the time again been extended? What is the policy of the Government in regard to these conditions? Do they still maintain the attitude announced by the Minister for Home Affairs on Thursday when he said that the policy of the Government was to adhere to the terms of the memorandum issued by the late Minister for Defence on the 15th inst., the text of which had been read, the only difference being that the date had been extended?

I want to know is that still the policy of the Government. I want to know also whether we can be told to-day, as we were told last week, that no complaints have reached the Ministry in respect of the rank and file of the Army.

Then I come to Deputy McGrath's statement which appeared in the papers on Monday. He there says that certain agreements or understandings had been arrived at and those understandings had been accepted by the officers concerned in the mutiny. Those undertakings and the conditions involved in them were not observed by the Army authorities, raids and arrests in Parnell Street being part of such non-observance. Then he goes on to say that these officers had been assured by him that they would be immune from molestation on agreement with the conditions which he was asked to convey to them, and which, as he has stated, were accepted. He further goes on, after alleging that conditions that were submitted upon the authority of the Executive to those officers had not been complied with by the Army, to say that since the arrests the Executive Council had insisted on parole which was not embodied in the understanding, and which therefore constitutes a continuance of the violation of the understanding, arrived at. I want to have an answer to that challenge. We have a right to know something of what has been occurring. I am not satisfied to be told that things have been smoothed over and that a compromise has been entered into here and a compromise there, and we are told then we have to wait until the next eruption and again be quietened down by the statement that things are going to be satisfactory in the future. Deputy McGrath said: "This agreement meant in substance that the officers, suspected of being concerned with the signatories to the document would, on their undertaking to restore the status quo be reinstated and the incident regarded as closed.”

Was that the undertaking? Is it to be fulfilled? I press further, and I want some information on a further statement of Deputy McGrath when he said certain confidences he had with the men concerned had extended over a very long period. This confidence was severely shaken some time ago when another definite agreement was broken. I am not at all satisfied that the Army should be in the way of making agreements through Ministers with the Executive Council and no information be given to the Dáil. If agreements are entered into surely they have a right to be kept, and if they are broken it is right that those who protest against the breaking of such agreements should no longer remain in the Government, which is responsible for breaches of that kind. What were the undertakings? What were the undertakings that were broken previously? And what were the undertakings that were alleged to have been broken last week? I say the Dáil has a right to know these things and to be told the truth about matters which concern us all, and one half of the Dáil ought not to be kept in the dark while the other half is fully informed. I have no pleasure in making a speech of this kind, but I think that the patience of the Dáil has been tried too long, and we have not been treated as a legislative Assembly. We are not being treated as a body who have been elected and to which the Executive Council is answerable, and I say if there were a design on the part of the Executive Council to bring Parliamentary Government into disrepute, to reduce its influence, to prevent it establishing an influence in the country, then they are going the very best way about it. I ask the House to agree with me in demanding that we should be informed in those matters of public concern of the very gravest importance, and that we should not be treated as though we did not matter and as though the only persons who do matter are those who happen to have been elected on a particular party ticket.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I second the motion.

MINISTER for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Kevin O'Higgins)

Speaking here some time back I stated that efforts were made to dissuade Deputy McGrath from bringing here to this House charges and allegations which, in our opinion, ought not to be discussed and bandied about in public. I do not know whether the reasons which I gave for that course were considered adequate by the Dáil or by any Deputies, but they were the reasons. There was a difficult and delicate national situation, a difficult and delicate Army situation, and in our judgment neither of those situations was likely to be improved by the kind of statements which Deputy McGrath contemplated making. Consequently efforts were made, as I say, to dissuade him from that course. An undertaking was given that a full searching inquiry into Army administration would be instituted, an inquiry before which he would have an ample opportunity of laying and formulating such charges as he might wish to formulate against the people primarily responsible for Army administration. There was a further undertaking that when and if officers who, in varying degrees were implicated in the mutiny, did all in their power to undo the harm which they had done the incident would be regarded as closed. No vindictive action would be taken against them. Now, it appears that we might have been more explicit.

There has been a tendency to read into that, something in the nature of what occurs when strikes are terminated, to read into that, amnesty, reinstatement, no victimisation, to borrow a phrase from the language of labour disputes. I want to say here, as one member of the Executive Council, that I understood nothing of the kind, and that if I had understood anything of the kind I would not now be a member of the Executive Council and speaking from these benches. My recollection is that another member of the Executive Council asked specifically whether that was contemplated, whether that was involved, whether in that expression about the incident being regarded as closed there lay any understanding that the men who had gone out in mutiny, who had cocked their guns as it were, at the Dáil and at the Government, and through the Dáil and Government at the people, were to be reinstated either into the ranks or to the positions which they held before. My recollection is that the answer that was given was, that that matter was not prejudiced one way or another by the understanding; that the understanding was simply a basic one, and that other things were left over and not prejudiced. Let us move on from that to the expression that certain things were to happen "when and if" officers who in varying degrees were concerned in the mutiny had done everything in their power to undo the harm they had done. I want to concentrate for a moment on that phrase: wherein lay the harm that was done? Surely in the flouting of constituted authority, surely in the fact that discipline had been thrown to the winds, and that certain people had taken the line that the function of the Army was to lead the people politically rather than to serve the people militarily. Two officers had definitely taken that line over their names. Their offence strictly regarded was something more than mutiny. It was mutiny plus treason, and those who lined up with them, those who associated themselves with them could not complain, if they were tainted not merely with the charge of mutiny but with the charge of treason. How to undo the harm which was done? Great harm was done beyond question, great harm to the morale and discipline of the Army, to the credit of the country and to the good name of the country. One cannot take these things simply as things apart and ignore their reactions and their repercussions in the sphere of commerce and in the sphere of politics. There had been a defiance of constituted authority, and a flouting of discipline. There was no way, as I see it, in which the harm that was done could be entirely undone. But there was a method by which it could be partially undone, and that was by a formal submission, a full unequivocal undeserved submission to that authority which had been flouted and an acceptance of that discipline which had been trampled on.

In conference with the Minister for Defence and the General Officer Commanding the Forces, the President set out the procedure by which that submission to authority could be made, by which that acceptance of discipline could be signified. That was done in a letter sent to Deputy McGrath on Monday, 17th. On the morning of Tuesday, 18th March, it was embodied in a memorandum by the Minister for Defence and sent to the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, and the Chief of Staff; and at the meeting of the Executive Council at about noon on Tuesday, the 18th, it received retrospective sanction and approval. Certain things happened on Tuesday night, as I say, certain deplorable things, things which might have had the gravest consequences and reactions on the country and on the Army. Fortunately the complete catastrophe was averted, fortunately there was no actual battle and there were no actual casualties. I leave it to each Deputy to consider for himself what the consequences would have been if there had been a battle, and if there had been casualties. We of the Executive Council took the view that the proceedings on Tuesday night, the military operations on Tuesday night, were a departure from well defined Government policy with regard to this mutiny, and a breach of the clear and necessary implication of the memorandum of the Minister for Defence which had been sanctioned by the Executive Council that very morning. We took the decision which was announced here in the Dáil on Wednesday last—the decision to remove from their administrative posts the three principal officers of the Army. Recognising that the events of Tuesday night constituted a serious mishap and a very dangerous mishap, we thereupon decided that the time limit of 6 p.m. on Thursday should be extended, and it was extended until the same hour on Saturday. I want to deal briefly with the position with regard to those who were arrested and taken into custody on Tuesday night. They were those who had taken the strictly logical view that because the Executive Council did not stand over, and did not take responsibility for the operations of Tuesday night, that the proper line to take was, to turn out, unconditionally, the officers who came into custody as a result of these operations. It was suggested that anything else, any other line, would be in some way a breach of faith. I do not see it. I disagree. I hold that it was not inconsistent, while disagreeing with the means by which these men came into custody, to recognise that they were in custody, and that mere unconditional release might not be the proper or the same or responsible course for the Executive Council to take. During that week I had rather more responsibility than my normal responsibilities.

The President was ill and absent, and rightly or wrongly I took the line that when it was undeniable that a mutinous revolt seemed imminent and seemed under Providence inevitable, it would not be a proper thing to release these prisoners without at least some undertaking and some assurance being given by them that they would not become leaders in any such mutinous revolt. I found that view was shared by the other members of the Executive Council, and that that line was approved by them. I told Deputy McGrath and other Deputies who were very much interested in the early release of those men that there could be no question of their mere unconditional release.

I stated that I was prepared to discuss with General O'Duffy their release on terms signifying their personal acceptance and approval of the attitude taken up by the Government with regard to the mutiny, as embodied in the Minister for Defence's Memorandum of the 18th instant, and the giving of their parole. There was one case other than those who came into custody on Tuesday night. It was the case of Commandant Ashton, who had been arrested on Sunday in the Phoenix Park, I understand. Our information on that matter was that Commandant Ashton had been responsible for the removal of a considerable quantity of arms and ammunition from Gormanstown. When defining to General O'Duffy our attitude with regard to the Tuesday night arrests we dealt also with the case of Commandant Ashton, stating that if he were willing to cooperate in restoring the arms which he had taken away, to the place from which he had taken them, his parole also would be accepted.

The officers who were arrested in Parnell Street on Tuesday night accepted the conditions, signified their personal acceptance and approval of the Minister for Defence's memorandum, and were released. Commandant Ashton, having first expressed willingness to comply with the conditions laid down in his case, subsequently changed his mind and refused to facilitate in the restoration of the arms, and, so far as I know, is at present in custody. Now, there was a time limit of 6 p.m. on Saturday, and I want to stress that if those officers were genuinely desirous of doing everything humanly possible to undo the harm which they had done, the obvious course was to comply with the procedure laid down by the Executive Council. They did not think fit to comply with that procedure. They have, as announced by Deputy McGrath in the Press, taken a different course.

Officers who took away arms are not restoring them to the places from which they took them, but Deputy McGrath is being used by these officers as a medium for restoring the arms. That is a procedure of their own election; it is not a procedure laid down by the Government. Similarly, men who deserted or absconded, and officers who deserted or absconded, from their posts are not presenting themselves for arrest. They are resigning. They are sending in their resignations. Now, let it be faced that these men, having got themselves into a particular position by a line of conduct steadily pursued, as I now believe, for many months back, at least showed a certain wisdom and a certain sanity in the decision they came to on Sunday last. To that extent they are deserving of commendation.

Let it be said of these men that whatever else they are, and however utterly wrong-headed and indisciplined the course they have pursued, they are not cowards. If one might mention it, their principal fault would rather seem to lie in the other direction—that they have the combative instinct overdeveloped. But they have withdrawn from a position and from an attitude which, if pursued to its logical conclusion, unquestionably would have had the gravest possible reactions on the country and on the Army. They are now resigning; they have not complied with the conditions laid down by the Government, and they have not done everything they could have done to undo the harm that was occasioned by the whole position which they took up. They have not been willing to make any formal act of submission to constituted authority or any formal act of acceptance of army discipline.

Yet I do submit to the good sense of Deputies that there can now be no question of arrests, that there can now be no question of courtmartial, and that there can now be only a question of accepting these officers' resignations.

I submit that, in short, the sane course to take with regard to these men is to say to each one of them: "Go in peace, friend, as a civilian." To reinstate these men would be to take a line of action that would have the gravest internal reactions on the Army. It would put an undue strain on the officers who stood loyal throughout the last fortnight of crisis. It is not a course which I, for one, would be prepared to stand over for one moment, and I want to stress that I did not read into any understanding or any agreement come to with Deputy McGrath at a party meeting that anything of that kind would take place.

I want to state my personal recollection that when the matter was explicitly raised as to whether that was in any way involved or was an implication of the understanding, my recollection is that the answer to that was in the negative. After that we were told that the matter was not prejudiced one way or the other. Now the position as I know it, and as I see it, stands like that. These officers are resigning from the Army, and Deputy McGrath has pledged to make himself the medium for the restoring of the arms and to take responsibility for the restoring of any arms, ammunition or equipment that was removed throughout the country. Remembering the things that have been said here in the past, I do think that Deputies ought to take the view that the course which I have just outlined is a proper one to adopt in all the circumstances. One might well ask when did these men become mutineers? Was it last week or the week before, or have they been in a rather consistent attitude of potential mutiny for months back? The attitude which I have stated and the course of action which I have indicated is, I believe, the policy of the Government. Deputy Johnson complained of other matters: that the President had not thought fit to state his intentions clearly with regard to the vacant Ministries. The President only returned to duty yesterday and has only had one meeting with his Executive Council, and he will speak for himself on that whole aspect of things. I rose simply to confine myself to the Army position and to indicate what I believed to be the proper course of action in view of the altered situation, and to stress the point that any other course of action—a course of action of reinstatement—would be simply the action of men who did not advert in any way to the consequences that that would entail within the Army, and to the strain that that would be on the men who stood loyally to their posts when others went out with arms threatening, at any rate, to make war on the people's Parliament, on the people's Government, and on the people themselves.

Mr. McGRATH

With some of the points raised by Deputy Johnson, and only-some of them, I will deal. I will have to be very careful in anything that I have to say this evening, and will refrain from butting in on the statements that I threatened to make before the Dáil, and I hope I will be successful. I accepted the President's statement on that day that a tribunal would be set up to inquire into the Army administration. I say here that I am not aware whether that tribunal has been set up or not. Deputy Johnson referred to my statement which appeared in Monday's papers. As regards one of the questions he asks, I am afraid I cannot answer it, because it would be butting in, perhaps, or giving away some information that should be retained and kept for this inquiry—that is, that I had retained or held the confidence of the men concerned up to a short time ago, when another definite agreement was broken. I am afraid I will have to leave that over, and now while I am referring to that inquiry I do not want, in anything that I may say here to-day, to commit myself definitely as to whether I will take part in that inquiry or not. I will keep an open mind on that. So far for what I have to answer regarding Deputy Johnson's statement. I now come to the explanation given by the Minister for Home Affairs as to what he understood the understanding arrived at with me at the Party meeting at which he and the other members of the Executive Council were present was. As I took down his words, what he said was that when, and if the officers concerned did all in their power to undo the harm done, the incident would be regarded as closed, and he did not forget to say this, which I deny absolutely, that no vindictive action would be taken. I want to say here definitely that the word "vindictive" was never used on that occasion. The proposal to inquire into the Army administration was put to me after the members of the Executive Council had retired. I said: "Very well; now, how about the officers? How am I to go to these people and ask what is to happen to the men who will be concerned with the signatories to the document unless I am in a position to say that there is no victimisation." It was I used this word, perhaps, because I have heard it so often and said I must be in a position to state that there would be no victimisation. At least one hour was lost, if you like, in trying to frame the document and to put into words what was meant by that. There are not many words in the document; I think that each one present must have contributed one word. The document reads, this is a copy of it, because I am afraid to carry the original around with me: "That the men concerned in the recent trouble in the Army undertake to undo, so far as they can, the mischief created by their action, and on their so doing the incident will be regarded as closed." That is the document, a copy of which I hold. It is signed by the Chairman of the Party meeting present that night.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is that intended to bind the Executive Council?

Mr. McGRATH

Yes.

Mr. ALTON

May I ask who was the Chairman of the meeting?

Mr. McGRATH

Deputy Hughes. Now, you may be told that it was left to me to interpret that document in the spirit. I want to remind you that it was I first raised the point as to what would happen the officers concerned, or alleged to be concerned, with the signatories. I have no doubt in my mind, none whatever, nor indeed I am certain have the majority of the members of the Party present that night any doubt in their minds as to what was meant by that document. I would not have left the room that night, nor have undertaken to go and see these men on any other conditions but that there should be no victimisation. I went to them accompained by another Deputy who is not here to-day. I am sorry to say he will not be here for some time, as he has had to leave the country owing to ill-health. I refer to Deputy Gibbons. But there are Deputies here who are aware of the fact that he corroborated my statement, which I am repeating here to-day. I went and told them that such was the case, that an inquiry was to be held into the Army administration, and that there was to be no victimisation of the officers concerned, and I said to the two signatories: "You must consider yourselves wiped out in this matter." They considered it and said: "Very good, we will sacrifice ourselves." Now the Minister for Home Affairs, or any other Minister, or any other Deputy, may get up here and say that no such thing happened, but I challenge them to disprove what I am saying. I think I hear some of them groaning now.

Mr. DESMOND FITZGERALD

I take up that challenge and I rise to state that not only did I understand no such thing, but I myself challenged that interpretation and was assured that no such words were in the document.

Mr. McGRATH

It may be because the hour was very late that so few of the members of the Executive Council attended in spite of the fact that there was a very serious crisis in progress, but even admitting it as the Minister for Home Affairs has put it, he said there were no signs that these men intended or were prepared to undo the harm they had done, or the mischief, if you like, by a formal submission to the proper authority, I ask in all fairness what chance did they get? The day after that, I took away the document and saw the men. It was I first saw the need for some machinery or at least I mentioned the fact—I do not claim I was the first to see it, but I may have been—that some machinery was necessary to give effect to this document that these men would not be victimised. At another Party meeting, at which I do not know how many members of the Executive Council were present, but certainly the President was, I suggested, what struck me at the time in a rather rough way, as to what the procedure should be. The President took down what I said. I said then that I wanted to prevent, at all costs, that any of these officers concerned might get it into their heads that in presenting themselves at barracks to take up their original positions and to go back to their billet that perhaps there might be some trouble as a result. Consequently I said definitely I would tell these people to keep off, stand as they were, and wait until I was in a position to tell them what the machinery was as regards their reporting back and getting back into their original positions. It was decided then that that was a matter for the Executive Council to arrange the machinery, and rightly so, and it was also decided that the Executive Council would confer with me in making these arrangements. That will not be challenged.

Now on the Sunday, two days afterwards, one of the men concerned who had it from me, if not directly, then from the person he had trust in, that they were free to go about, was arrested in the Phoenix Park in spite of the fact that I told him and others through their representatives, if I may call them so, that they were free to go about. He was arrested and I appealed to at least one member of the Executive to intervene and have him released in order that the procedure which was about to be arranged would be uniform and apply to all. I failed. I saw the President; I kept off seeing him as long as I could because of his being ill, but I thought the matter sufficiently serious that I should see him, and I did see him, and I asked him to do what he could to have this man released in order that a proper atmosphere would be created. I got a letter that evening of St. Patrick's Day but it had no mention whatsoever of the individual concerned. The letter was the same as the Deputies heard read by the Minister for Home Affairs and was embodied in an order issued to the Military on the day after St. Patrick's Day. That was what I called the surrender terms.

Now I only want to mention in passing that a decision was arrived at—by whom it doesn't concern me. It was agreed that they, the Executive Council, would confer with me. The order was issued by the Military and it was fathered later on by the Executive Council. I do not say that some such order was not necessary but I do say as I said in my statement, that I hold it was deliberately framed to make it as bitter as possible for those men to swallow. A word here and there changed which meant exactly the same thing would have made a big difference. But they did not reject or turn down that surrender business. It was very hard, but they agreed with me. I told them they would have to surrender their arms and to go through whatever machinery was necessary to maintain discipline in the Army and to get back to their positions and to do what they could in restoring the status quo. That was their full intention. But, as I said, what opportunity did they get of doing that? You have the incident of Tuesday night. As regards these men I was responsible for their arrest in so far as I have told these men that they were free to go about and I so understood it and so did the majority of those present. I think even the Executive Council would say they understood it also.

That being so, Thursday at six o'clock was fixed when they were to surrender in the first instance. It was then put back to Saturday at six o'clock, and the point is seriously made that no surrender took place before six p.m. on Saturday. Whether they like it or not, the Executive Council, or any other Party, must admit that there must have been an organisation there, and that to give these men time to come to any definite decision they should be in a position to consult with one another. Consequently these men, not being out until Friday evening, were not in a position to come to any decision or to issue any order, not to Dublin, mind you, but to every part of the country, to accept these terms and to surrender. They had no opportunity of doing that, and consequently there is nothing. I hold, in the point made that they did not make any effort to submit to the authority of the people by surrendering on the date and at the time mentioned. That is the position, badly stated, as from the time these negotiations, if you like to call them so, were entered into.

My position has been made absolutely impossible. I appealed to these men on Sunday, as I stated. It was a very big thing to do. It was rather a risky performance. I felt nervous before doing it, but I did so. I thought it was up to me to do it, and it mattered not, as I said to them, which side won in this matter; it was the people who should be concerned and should be thought of, and I am glad to say that they saw it in that way. My personal position is this: I said to them: "Go out; forget the past; you have done your best. The country owes you a lot, but for the sake of the country get down and out; I have no hope for you; I have no hope for myself. I cannot see beyond my arm's length what is going to happen. Consequently, I am getting out, and will accept no further responsibility." That was my position. It was my intention to hand in my resignation yesterday: it is my intention to hand it in this evening, unless something extraordinary happens.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. P. Hogan)

I hope I have enough sense to realise that this is a sorry story from start to finish, but as it is being told, the whole story might as well be told. The word "mutiny" has been used. We have heard it in the Dáil for the last fortnight on a great many occasions. There is mutiny in an army when there is any other allegiance in the army, any other allegiance in the army except one, unequivocal, unquestionable obedience to the people, to the Government who represent the people; and in that sense there is mutiny. I stated here that there has been mutiny in the Army for a long time, and in that sense there are more mutinies than this one, and in that sense there was a mutiny in the Army which I hope we have dealt with. However, with the consent of the ex-Minister for Defence, and with the consent of the Headquarters Staff of the Army that has now gone——

General MULCAHY

What about the Executive Council?

Mr. HOGAN

I am not in the Executive Council, and I have not my tongue in my check now. I am not aware that the Executive Council, or that every member of the Executive Council knew—I use the word "knew"—while we all sensed that there was such mutiny. Now, that is the beginning of the story, and that is the reason that it is necessary to deal with the mutiny with another Staff and with new men. I do not say that either of these mutinies had reached a serious stage. I know they had not. I believe they had not. I know enough to know that the bulk of the Army, for which you are paying, is sound; I know enough to know that there is there the makings of as good an Army, of as obedient an Army, and of as efficient an Army as any in the world. But I say that was the position that was developing, and that is the position which we are trying to face now. With regard to these agreements, we are all fairly sick of agreements——

General MULCAHY

On a matter of explanation, sir, I understood that the Minister for Agriculture was apparently going to treat the Dáil as if it were the body inquiring into the matters and the charges that have been alleged here. Do I understand that he is getting away from that point now or that there is any evidence he is going to produce here to substantiate some of the statements and suggestions he has made?

Mr. HOGAN

I think I have made a definite statement which every member of the Dáil understands, and I do not think that Deputy Mulcahy should be addressing me. He should address the Ceann Comhairle, and I do not want to get into an argument.

General MULCAHY

I addressed myself to the Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not know whether he intends me to bring forward now what he calls proof. Is he denying it?

General MULCAHY

I am certainly denying, sir, that I had anything to do with a mutiny in the Army.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not want to generate heat here. I defined what I meant by mutiny. I said that there was a mutiny in the Army when there was any allegiance in the Army except the one——

Mr. JOHNSON

I suggest that the Minister would satisfy the Dáil if he told us exactly what was in his mind. We hear rumours; let us hear a frank statement.

Mr. DAVIN

The same as the Party meeting did.

Mr. HOGAN

I will, certainly. I thought I had made it clear enough——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am very loathe to intervene in this, but we are now going into the question about which it is proposed to set up an Inquiry, or about which, possibly, an Inquiry has been set up. The Minister for Agriculture had made a definite charge. The charge has been repudiated, and the question is whether this or the Inquiry is the place to substantiate that charge. Deputy Johnson did not introduce this matter, and Deputy McGrath, very properly in my view, and very carefully considering the position he is in, refrained from introducing it. The Minister for Agriculture has introduced it now, and I am in the hands of the Dáil. Are we going into it?

DEPUTIES

No.

Mr. HOGAN

I merely introduced it because I think the Dáil and, I think, the country is entitled to know the reasons that actuated the Executive Council, actuated me, as one member of the Party, in doing what I could do to see that some other Army Council dealt with this mutiny.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We are really dealing with the officers in whom Deputy McGrath is interested rather than with the Army Council.

General MULCAHY

Is it suggested that the Party arranged for the removal of the Army Council?

Mr. HOGAN

I say that was the reason that influenced me, so far as I was one member of the Dáil, in doing all I could to see that another Council was dealing with this mutiny.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The Dáil never got a chance of discussing this matter.

Mr. HOGAN

I never suggested that the Party decided this. It did not, but as I say, as one member, as one man, that was the reason, if you like, why I approved of dealing with this.

Mr. JOHNSON

May I say that I take it we are in the same position regarding this Army affair as Deputy Hogan, the Minister for Agriculture. He has come to a decision. He has stated he has approved of certain things on certain information. We may approve or disapprove of them if we had the same information, but we have not that information.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

May I say, as a matter of explanation, that this matter with regard to the Army Council is about the one thing which the Party did not decide within the last fortnight, and is about the one thing with regard to which the Party is unanimous.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is also the one thing with which this particular discussion, as opened by Deputy Johnson, does not seem to be concerned. I will read what Deputy Johnson said when he gave notice, as required by the Standing Orders, before the suspension of the sitting for lunch:

"I beg to give notice that I shall ask leave to move the adjournment of the Dáil to call attention to a matter of urgency and of public importance, namely, charges made by the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, that understandings with Army officers made on behalf of the Executive Council have been broken, and that assurances were given that mutinous officers were to be reinstated. The President has failed, I think, to give satisfaction to the Dáil as regards the position, and I submit, in view of the few paragraphs of information he did give that these rather confirm the necessity for dealing with these matters."

The matters dealt with do not include the question that the Minister for Agriculture is dealing with. I came into the Chair this evening with the same view I have had all along in this matter, that I should intervene as little as possible. This is the first time I have intervened in any part of these discussions, but the Minister for Agriculture is plainly going into a very contentious matter, which must be decided either here or before the Court of Inquiry, which will report to the Executive Council or the Dáil; but the Minister for Agriculture is going on a different line from the other part of the discussion.

Mr. HOGAN

After that ruling I will not proceed along that line any further. I merely explained the reason why I went into that matter at all was that I heard complaints from all parts of the Dáil, stated here openly, that they were not getting full information, and I said I would begin at the beginning. To come to this agreement, it is not exactly a position I would like to be in, to have to come here and contradict a colleague. None of us enjoy that position; I certainly do not. But when Deputy McGrath states that the expression, "no vindictive action would be taken," was not used, then all I have to say is that I heard that expression being used in connection with this agreement, and I have to say further that others must have heard it, because it was inserted in a minute of the meeting. I do know that that minute was challenged—I think it was two or three days afterwards—and that the squabble which we are having here now in public took place then, but that expression was used. As far as I remember it, this is the history of the case; it has been said by Deputies on the Labour Benches, and also by Farmer Deputies, that there was an extremely long Party meeting, lasting six or seven hours. We were taunted about it the next day. At the end of this Party meeting there were signs of a general understanding. I am not going into the question now as to whether that was correct, and as to whether understandings of that sort should be come to or not. But towards the end, after six or seven hours, there were signs of a general understanding, and there was an attempt to reduce that understanding to writing. I heard Deputy McGrath's version, and I heard the other version, but I certainly left the meeting, and in this I do not say there is any deceit on this side or the other—I put it to a misunderstanding—but I certainly left that meeting with the belief that the final decision was that, provided these men did all they could to undo the mischief they had done, no vindictive action would be taken. I was reinforced in that belief by a question asked by the Minister for External Affairs—namely, were they to be reinstated, and the answer—I do not remember the exact words, it was at a time when everybody was talking—was, so far as I can express it in words now, was the answer which the Minister for Home Affairs gave when he stated that the same question had been asked, and when he gave the answer that that was a question for the future, and not to be prejudiced in any way. That is my recollection, as one Deputy, of what occured.

Two or three days afterwards a document appeared, a document which was circulated by the Minister for Defence to the Army. That document set out shortly that officers who had absconded and taken away arms were to report to be arrested and to get parole, that officers who absconded without arms were to be arrested and get parole. That was the substance of that document. You heard it read here. I regarded that as the natural interpretation of the agreement which had been come to. I discussed it with a good many people, and they regarded it in the same way. I had not a doubt in my mind but that was the interpretation of the agreement which had been come to, so far as the agreement could be interpreted; that is to say, it did not deal with the ultimate fate of these officers, with what was to be done or what was not to be done. That was a fair interpretation of the agreement, and the Minister for Home Affairs who had decided that the whole story was to be told to the Dáil stood up here and read out that interpretation. He told the Dáil there was an understanding, and he followed up that by reading out that document as showing the manner in which the Executive Council proposed to treat these officers. Therefore, I must absolutely disagree with the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy McGrath, when he states that there was no agreement on that night that these officers would be reinstated. On Tuesday night an event occurred which no one contemplated when this agreement was come to. The Army Council, acting against the directions of the Government, or some members of the Army Council, but the Army, or a section of the Army, arrested these men.

There was an entirely new situation —a situation which was not contemplated when the original understanding was arrived at—and the original understanding had to be interpreted in the spirit and in the letter of that. The Executive Council had nothing to do with the arrests. That is not asserted by anybody. They called on the Army Council to resign as a result of it. That certainly was evidence of their bona fides. They went further and took up this attitude: “We have these men in custody; they have not been arrested illegally; they were arrested against the direction of the Government, but they are now in custody; we have dismissed the Army Council who are responsible for their arrests; we will give them their parole and let them out if they merely signify their personal acceptance of the document.” That is the document read out by the Minister for Home Affairs, and which set out the procedure that was to govern the action that was to be taken against the men who were in mutiny. Deputy McGrath took one attitude on that. He said: “No; these men must be left absolutely free with no qualification of any kind, good, bad or indifferent.” The Government took another. A document amounting to these directions which the ex-Minister for Defence had circulated to the Army Council was in the official way served on these men through the present G.O.C. and they signed it. They agreed and came out, with the exception of Commandant Ashton, whose position the Minister for Home Affairs has explained. The time had been extended to Saturday. On Sunday this meeting took place and Deputy McGrath, in a letter to the Press, announced the intentions of these officers. My position in regard to the treatment that should be meted out to these officers having regard to all the circumstances of the last year— that is one of the reasons I referred to more mutinies than one at the beginning of my speech—was that they could not be treated as mutineers would be treated in any other army. I agree with the Minister for Home Affairs and I suggest to Deputies that the policy outlined by the Minister for Home Affairs to be applied to these men is the right policy. That is my position. These men are not alone. They are leaving the Army now. There are a good many officers and men who have been demobilised from the Army. I would suggest to Deputy McGrath, not in any bitterness, but simply as the plain fact, that these men present the same problem now as thousands of other officers and men who were demobilised and thrown out during the last two months.

Mr. A. BYRNE

The scrap heap.

Mr. HOGAN

I suggest to Deputy McGrath—and I do not doubt his bona fides—that the right way and the big way to have tackled this question would have been as Minister for Industry and Commerce; to take a real interest and to translate that interest into something definite, in seeing to it that there were suitable schemes of development of one kind or another awaiting not only these men but the hundreds of other men who are now thrown out to be added to the list of unemployed.

Mr. MILROY

Deputy Johnson in opening this discussion complained rather acutely, I think, of the fact that the Executive Party had taken into consultation from time to time its Parliamentary supporters.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Who are the Executive Party?

Mr. MILROY

I mean the Executive Council. I do not think that that is an unusual kind of procedure.

Mr. JOHNSON

Might I suggest, on a point of explanation, that I did not say that I complained that the Executive Council had taken consultation with the Party. That is not what I complained about at all. I complained that they had given information to the Party which they had not given to the Dáil.

Mr. MILROY

That is just another way of putting it. When you give priority of consultation to certain people whom you count upon for support you certainly must give them some information to consult about. I am quite sure that if Deputy Johnson sits in the place of President Cosgrave at any future time with a Party behind him and has serious lines of policy to pursue, he will think it not at all reprehensible or a matter for complaint that he should consult with his Parliamentary supporters and, perhaps, give them information as to the line of policy and seek their advice.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would consider myself very nearly mutinous.

Mr. MILROY

If that is to be the line of procedure to be adopted, for my part I cannot see how there can be any kind of stability in Parliamentary institutions. There must be grounds of confidence for those who support the Government. For my part, I would certainly decline to come here as a sheep led to the slaughter, knowing nothing at all about what I was expected to vote for. So much for that.

Mr. DAVIN

That is our position.

Mr. MILROY

So far as I have been observing Deputies who sit behind Deputy Johnson, there does not seem to be anything very sheepish about them and not much indication that they propose to be led to the slaughter without some kind of vehement protest. I merely make these remarks by way of introduction to the observations which I propose to make. I hope no one is under the illusion that what I have said is an indication that I am going to try and stand by the Minister for Home Affairs in this matter. I am not. There has been in this discussion great vehemence of language in regard to the mutiny and the mutineers. In the first place, I think that the reiteration of these terms is not helpful and is not calculated to produce a wholesome atmosphere in the country. To hear Ministers speaking in that tone of inflexible determination, to see that the law is carried out, if necessary, in the most drastic fashion, one would imagine that this State was an old-established one, with traditions of established authority behind it, whereas we know that it was but yesterday it was considered a virtue and a criterion of patriotism to be able to defy every authority that claimed to be instituted in the country. Can the transition from the stage of defying every law of the State to observing every law be effected in one moment? Is the temperament that grew out of resistance to law to simply disappear by the wave of the hand of the Minister for Home Affairs? The ultimatum that has given rise to this matter, so far as I know—and a good many Deputies, I think, share the knowledge—was simply the climax of a long series of complaints extending over twelve months from certain men in the Army, and of applications to have certain matters considered that were not attended to.

If there was a melodramatic touch about this, I think it was simply indulging in some sort of excessive kind of language to make certain that their cases could no longer be ignored. I think they have succeeded in that object. I think they have succeeded in drawing attention to the complaints which they allege they have. I am not standing here with any brief for these men. I knew nothing of these events until they burst upon us like a thundercloud. My acquaintance with any of the men concerned is of the slightest, but I do wish to say that there is, in the position that has arisen now, something which is not entirely expressed by the language of the Minister for Home Affairs and the language of the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, when dealing with the agreement that was arrived at at the Party meeting, referred to the interpretation that Deputy McGrath put on it. He said he asked someone if such interpretation could be read into it, and he was assured that no such interpretation could be. He did not say who gave him that answer. He certainly must have addressed the question only to the person who was sitting next to him, as, though I was keenly interested in the matter, I never heard the question or the answer until Deputy Fitzgerald gave them now.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Fitzgerald has not resigned.

Mr. MILROY

I am quite certain of that, and recollecting that Deputy Fitzgerald preceded me in the discussion, or rather the Minister for External Affairs, I think I am in order in commenting upon his remarks.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

He is Minister for External Affairs. That is the point.

Mr. MILROY

I am sorry if I was guilty of a lack of courtesy in the matter. It was quite unintentional, I assure the Minister. This agreement, which has given rise to so much comment, was, as the Minister for Agriculture pointed out, arrived at after a long and protracted discussion. There, at least, he and I are in agreement, but I do not agree with him in his phraseology when he says that the squabble that is now being carried on in public was the squabble that was on then. There was no squabble. I hope this is not a squabble now. At any rate, I hope that matters so vital to the present and to the future of this country are not to be discussed in the spirit of squabblers. I hope it is not going to be decided upon on petty points of argument or debate, but that the great human factors that enter into this question will be kept as much in mind as the punctilio or the mere letter of the law. We met to discuss this matter in an atmosphere of apprehension and alarm. We had reason to believe that events were impending which, if not averted, would bring the country to the brink of disaster if it was not hurled into the abyss. We met, various minds contributing various points of view, and eventually Deputy McGrath was commissioned to convey a message to these men in the hope that it would avert the tragedy which we saw to be imminent. I will read once more the words of the agreement that were read out by Deputy McGrath: "That the men concerned in the recent trouble in the Army undertake to undo, so far as they can, the mischief created by their action, and on their so doing the incident will be regarded as closed." These were the terms of the conclusion arrived at and were, so to speak, the terms of reference of the commission entrusted to Deputy McGrath.

Let me adduce one further item of information which blows sky-high the assertion that Deputy McGrath's contention could not be read into that. Considerable uncertainty for a moment arose as to whether that was the best kind of wording or not. It was then suggested, I think, although I am not quite certain, by the Minister for Education, that Deputy McGrath be asked to interpret in his own way and in his own language that arrangement with the men he was to meet.

Mr. GOREY

Shame.

Mr. MILROY

I am giving you the facts.

Mr. BLYTHE

No. That is not true.

Mr. MILROY

I will call Deputies here to witness that.

Mr. McCARTHY

That is absolutely true.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputies can state what they believe to be the truth later on.

Mr. MILROY

Let me try to prove it. If Deputy Magennis were here I think he would corroborate what I say. When that was said, Deputy Magennis, in a manner of protest, said that he did not believe that any man should be entrusted with the interpretation in his own fashion in that rather loose way of a document such as this. That was the gist of his words. When he said that, I suggested that a more definite form of words be used, but neither his comments nor my comments were taken cognisance of and the suggestion that Deputy McGrath should convey that to the men and interpret it in his own way to them was agreed to by the meeting. There may have been one or two dissentients but they were not very articulate. That is a fair interpretation of the facts. That is what occurred and that blows sky-high the fiction that any members of the Executive Council then present could have drawn any other inference from that which was drawn by Deputy McGrath. The Minister for Agriculture said that a new situation was created by Tuesday night's action; but Tuesday night's action did not cancel that agreement. The men to whom that message was conveyed were not responsible for Tuesday night's performance though they were the victims of it. An honourable undertaking had been conveyed to them. They had agreed to accept the terms and the implications of them, and on Tuesday night what occurred did occur, and we are told that that cancelled the terms and that it enabled one party to that agreement to revise them. These are not particularly pleasant topics to discuss. I believe that we have practically passed through the crisis, but it is not fair that a partial or inaccurate or incomplete version of this story should go forth as the full story. The Minister for Home Affairs said that on Tuesday night certain things occurred and he went on to picture briefly what would have been the consequences if there had been a battle there. I would like to ask him who is responsible or what was responsible for that battle not taking place.

It was the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce who told these men that the terms of the understanding which he had conveyed to them would be honourably kept, and that those who were a party to it were not a party to this arrangement. I am glad to know that the Minister for Home Affairs says that those who think as I do in this matter are logical. He says that there are certain deputies who take the strictly logical view that these men should have been released, having been arrested in violation of the terms of the understanding agreed to. I am glad that he agrees that this is the strictly logical view, but I am sorry that he has not sufficient respect for logic to carry that view into effect. If the detention of these men was not a violation of the agreement, I say how was the arrest a violation of the agreement that the incident would be closed? The men are at liberty now. The men did something on last Sunday night, I believe, to which the Minister for Home Affairs paid a slight tribute. I am glad that he could appreciate that these men are capable of effacing themselves for the sake of the country, and though they have had, during the past week or ten days, many harsh comments poured upon them, it should not be forgotten that last Sunday was not the first time that they did something for this country. Whether their conduct is right or wrong, foolish and impulsive, something to be condemned, something which I, for my part, want most emphatically to be dissociated from, I realise that if the dangers through which this country passed during the last three, four, or five years again presented themselves, these men would be equally at the call of their country, as they were in the past. We have gone through a desperate encounter with the forces of anarchy during the last couple of years. At the beginning those who hoisted the standard of revolt were not confronted with an ultimatum at the end of a couple of days to obey the law and the voice of the people.

I ask you to contrast the time, the latitude, the generous consideration, given to those men before action was taken, with the strict insistence upon the last word in law and authority which has been meted out to these men who might have been allowed some men to challenge and down the forces of anarchy. They were wrong in their ultimatum, but it can be understood what led up to it, and they are men who might have been allowed some little latitude, some little generous consideration, men who, when they were offered certain terms, agreed to abide by them. They have not broken the terms of that agreement, even though the quibbles of a Minister might try to lead the Dáil to believe that they have. I hope that we are through with the crisis. I hope that the result of this discussion will be helpful. Certainly it has led to a candour which ought to produce wholesome results. But let us face facts. Let us not live in a world of illusions. Let us not imagine that by a clever twist of words and phrases you can avert disasters to this country. Facts will have to be met by facts, and words are useless and delusive unless they represent facts.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Hear, hear.

Mr. MILROY

Every statement I have made here in this debate to-night I challenge contradiction on. Everything I stated as a fact is a fact, and there are numbers of Deputies here who can substantiate that and none who can refute it. The gravamen of the charge of the Deputy who opened this discussion has, I think, been that the Dáil did not get sufficient information. I hope that the rapacious appetite of the Deputy for information has been thoroughly satisfied.

Mr. JOHNSON

Not yet.

Mr. MILROY

There is nothing I know that has to be disclosed that need affright anyone. The discussions in the Party are much like the discussion here, an interchange of views upon a difficult situation.

Mr. GOREY

I think you had the discussion to yourselves there all the time.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputies should not be interrupted.

Mr. MILROY

I fail to understand the meaning of——

Mr. D'ALTON

The empty interruption.

Mr. GOREY

It may not be as empty as Deputy D'Alton.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Gorey must not interrupt any further.

Mr. D'ALTON

Hear, hear; and he should withdraw his insulting remarks as well. He ought to say it again so that everyone can hear him.

Mr. MILROY

What I have said completes all that it is necessary to say. I rose to challenge the statement that the agreement, the non-observance of which has led to the present situation, was capable of any interpretation other than that which Deputy McGrath would point out. The careful observance of that would have averted the necessity for this discussion. I hope it is not too late to revert to something approximating to that agreement, and so prevent this assembly and the country losing the services of the men who have intimated their intention to resign. That can only be done, I think, by facing the facts. There is no use in pretending that this State is one which has all the strength and stability of long-established institutions, and that its citizens, whether they be civilian or military, have all the training that comes with the discipline of authority. It is a transition stage through which the country is going with all the weaknesses, all the imperfections, all the eccentricities, if you like, of a transition stage, a stage that requires forbearance and goodwill, and give and take between all parties concerned, and that can be done easily when it is realised that all parties concerned are generally sincere and honest in the point they put forward. If it is realised that those men who have been described as mutineers have been guilty of a foolish act, that they are not criminals but good Irishmen with good records behind them, who have been led into foolish actions which they have a considerable time ago more or less repudiated and withdrawn, if it is realised that the only thing that matters in this issue is that this country shall be saved from disaster, no matter what party rises or falls, what individual suffers disappointment or alarm, the one thing that matters is that this country shall survive, and go forward as a progressive State, and that it shall get an opportunity to acquire those institutions which give stability, discipline, and a sense of civic understanding to those people—if this issue is faced in that spirit there will be no disaster.

But if it is faced in the spirit that because men have been guilty of something which we all repudiate, but something which we all understand generously, if this situation is not to be faced in that spirit but in the spirit of making those men go down in humiliation, then I say you are inviting disaster upon the country and those who will be responsible for it will be those who have so adapted their attitude and their policy that they have left out of consideration the factors of humanity and the factors of the nation above all other considerations. It is those who leave that out because they put their own little brief authority above all other considerations, it is they who will be responsible and who will be charged at the bar of history for that responsibility, if such a tragedy as I have described comes upon the country.

Mr. McGARRY

Somebody reminded me a few minutes ago coming up the stairs that silence is golden. I think this is not the moment for silence, and I also think that at this juncture the least said the better; but there are some things that must be said. Unfortunately the things that most of us would like to say become sub-judice on account of this military inquiry which is going to establish a sort of Kingdom of Heaven. We cannot refer to a lot of things which guided us in our actions of the last fortnight because they are to be the subject of a military inquiry. I did not intend to say anything this evening were it not for the fact that Deputy McGrath referred to Deputies who propose to resign. I am one of those Deputies. My resignation has been held over merely as a matter of convenience and without going into matters which can be regarded as coming under this inquiry I want to make one or two remarks. First I want to say that I do not stand over what is called the "mutinous" letter of General Tobin and Colonel Dalton. I cannot stand over mutiny, but there are some things which I would like to say which I am precluded from saying because they are the subject of a military inquiry. I am not in the confidence of either sides in this dispute. I have not at my disposal the information Deputy McGrath has but I have what facility we all have of being able to see as far through a stone wall as anybody else.

I have seen trouble coming in the Army, and I have seen trouble coming in other places, too. I will refer to that later on. I have seen trouble coming in the Army from about six weeks after General Collins died or was murdered. I spoke to the President about it. I spoke to the members of the Executive Council about it. I raised the matter in our Party. No attention was paid to anything I said. The Executive Council put their heads in the sand, as it were, and could not see any danger; therefore danger did not exist. Now they seem to overlook the fact that we were passing from a period when the absolute ignoring of every law was regarded as sine qua non of a good Irishman. We were passing from that period to a period when we wanted absolute obedience to every law. We were replacing the absolute ignoring of law with absolute obedience to law. It is quite obvious that the transition period was bound to be dangerous, tedious, and slow. Somebody in the Executive Council or in the Army Council thought they had only to press a button and everything would be all right. But it was not all right. Discipline and discontent never flourished together, and could not flourish together. I want to blame the Executive for this. We were told here during the week by the Minister for Home Affairs that this was not a thing of to-day or last week or the week before last. It was a thing going back for 18 months, according to Deputy McGrath. I think that was modified afterwards by the Minister for Home Affairs into 15 months. I think the country and the Dáil are entitled to be told now what was it that was drifting for 18 months or 15 months. Why was it allowed to drift? Why was this thing, stark, absolute war, allowed to come up to our thresholds a fortnight ago if the thing were drifting for 15 months? Is it a fact or is it not that the Executive Council floundered into this position and blundered when they got into this position, and very nearly plunged the country into one of the most appalling situations we have ever had? If these men were mutineers last Sunday fortnight, they were as much mutineers 18 months ago. Why were they not dealt with then? Why were things allowed to drift into a state of warfare? Why were they driven into a state of warfare, if you like? Now, I do not like to say what is in my mind. I have no need to advert to the facts of the case. They have been laid down by Deputy Milroy, and they have been laid down accurately by him, and there are few people in the Dáil, with the exception of the Minister for Agriculture, who will deny that there was a breach of agreement. Deputies in the Dáil, and in this Party of ours if you like, are supposed to depart from the path of hard logic into a labyrinth of which nobody knows anything except the Minister for Home Affairs himself. It is the hard facts and the hard logic of the case that there was a definite breach of agreement. Whether the agreement should have been made or not is a matter that could be argued. I say it should not have been made. If these men were mutineers there should have been no agreement. But the agreement was made because the men were not mutineers.

Mr. WILSON

Proof.

Mr. McGARRY

Now I am not going to say very much more, but I have, as I have already said, approached several members of the Government. I have raised this question of discontent, which I saw was going to lead to trouble and I was not listened to. I had said to several Deputies several times that my position was hopeless. I could not do anything because I would not be listened to, and I think other Deputies here can corroborate me in this. If you did happen to see one of the Ministers they were in such a hurry that they could not discuss anything. The disgraceful attitude taken up by the Executive Council, or what was left of it during the last few weeks or the last fortnight, made me make up my mind that I could not be of any more use to the Government, and in justice to my constituents I felt that I ought to send in my resignation.

Mr. DAVIN

No.

Mr. McGARRY

I have withheld doing so for the moment, for certain reasons. Now there is only one other matter that I think I ought to refer to. I find throughout the country at the present time, and I go around a little bit now and again, a feeling that we people here in the Dáil and we people here in Dublin think that nothing counts but the Army. It is the Army all the time, and we have got from the Ministerial Benches declarations that the Army must be subservient to the Civil Power. We all agree to that. But the Army has forced itself into prominence because the Army has the power to do it. I wonder how many Departments have you got in which you have the same conditions as you have in the Army? But the people in these Departments have not the same means of enforcing their grievance. I do not think there is a single Department in the State of which the same thing could not be said as has been said about the Army. We are promised an inquiry by a committee into the administration of the Army. You are only beginning with the Army. You have got to go through every Department of the State as well. There is another thing I would like to remark and that is that I do not like to see some official pronouncements in the daily papers in Dublin which are not true.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Major COOPER

I almost feel inclined to apologise for intervening in what has almost become a Party meeting, and I also feel inclined to congratulate the President on having missed some of the Party meetings of the past few weeks, because the atmosphere is certainly one of tension. I will try not to add to that tension. I should like to say that I approach this question from a totally different point of view to that taken up by Deputy McGrath. Though I cannot see eye to eye with him, and cannot agree with all that he has done, I do believe that in this matter he has genuinely and earnestly tried to keep the peace and to act in a patriotic manner according to what are his lights. They are not entirely my lights, and I would not have done the same thing if I were in his place. I feel that it is only fair to say that.

Deputy Milroy points out that the use of the word "mutiny" is not helpful, and Deputy McGarry is of the same mind. I confess I find it rather hard to discover any other word to characterise the action of an officer who removes the arms and ammunition entrusted to him to some place of which his superiors have no knowledge. I will substitute, however, the word "indiscipline," and I will admit frankly that there are occasions on which an officer may consider himself in the right in committing an act of indiscipline. A case occurred six years ago in which a friend of mine was concerned. It occurred during the European War, when my friend was director of military operations in the British service. Statements were made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons which my friend believed to be unfounded and could not be substantiated by facts. My friend, General Maurice, took it on himself, without consulting any other officer, to write to the papers and contradict the Prime Minister. I believe he was right in doing so; but that was an act of indiscipline, and he took the consequences. He ceased to be an officer from that day. He was removed from his post. He lost his commission, and from that day to this he has been supporting his family, earning his livelihood as a journalist. That was a case in which indiscipline might have been justified. Nevertheless, the officer concerned had to take the consequences.

I cannot help feeling that it was rather unfortunate that Deputy McGrath's ministerial experience led him to introduce the word victimisation. That, in a sense, draws the red herring across the trail. There is no parallel between a trades dispute and indiscipline in an army, for the reason that the discipline needed in a workshop or factory is very slight and tenuous in comparison with the discipline required in an army. The discipline of the army must be enough to sustain men and keep them true to their colours, in hunger, thirst, sickness, or imminent fear of death. That discipline requires to be built up and enforced by every means. Otherwise, when a time of crisis comes, that discipline will fail.

It is quite true, as Deputy Milroy has stated, that we have a new army without any traditions, and that we are in the transition stage; but it is all the more important that when we are creating traditions we should create sound traditions, and when we are in a transition stage we should be moving in the right direction. That is why we must deal with this matter very carefully and very judiciously, without heated blood or hot temper, lest we should get our army established on wrong and mistaken lines.

The Minister for Agriculture talked about the policy outlined by the Minister for Home Affairs. I am bound to say that, though I listened carefully, I am still in doubt as to what that policy is. The Minister for Home Affairs gave us a very lucid account of events that have occurred. I am not, however, conversant with the details of the meetings. As regards the future, he did not answer most of Deputy Johnson's questions, but he gave us one positive fact.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I indicated that the procedure to be adopted simply would be to accept these men's resignations and leave the matter at that.

Major COOPER

But it cannot be left there. I do not want to anticipate any consequences, but what will happen if any of these officers do not resign?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

Demobilise them.

Major COOPER

The Government will have to face that possibility. I am not asking for an answer now on that subject. Deputy Johnson asked about an inquiry. I do not want the same answer as Deputy Johnson on the question of whether the inquiry should be public or private. I think it should be private. As regards whether there should be one member of the Committee of Inquiry from outside, I think it should be confined to men having knowledge of the army and its past traditions. I agree with Deputy Johnson that questions asked should get some answer. I will leave that matter, and I will say that the one point I am in agreement with the Minister for Home Affairs on is that these officers must cease to be officers; at least these officers who have been directly concerned in acts of indiscipline should cease to be officers.

It is not that I want vindictive action or victimisation or anything of that kind. I agree that probably they thought they were doing right and that they were not doing it for selfish or personal motives. I wish Deputy Milroy were here. He talked about broad human sympathies. I want Deputy Milroy with his broad human sympathies to put himself in the place of a soldier in the ranks. That soldier has no right to think for himself. "His not to reason why; his but to do or die." What will be the position of the soldier in the ranks when he receives an order from an officer whom he knows has in the past defied the authority of his superiors? If he is told by that officer again to lay down his arms, will he consider himself right in obeying? Of course, he ought to obey, but once you have a doubt of that kind in the army as to whether or not they ought to obey the orders of the officer, it will strike a severe blow at army discipline.

I am very much concerned with the rank and file who endure and suffer more, and who receive more of the kicks and fewer of the ha'pence than anyone else. I think the men of the rank and file would be in an unfair position if the officers who are guilty of indiscipline were retained in the service. The attitude of the Executive Council should be: "Cassius, I love thee, but never again be officer of mine." This may involve discredit to the officers concerned, but for the sake of the men and the discipline of the army I feel it is inevitable that they should cease to hold their commissions.

Deputy Milroy said he hoped we had come through this crisis. I hope so and we all hope so; but I am a little afraid that this is only the beginning of a crisis. Deputies will remember that before the eruption of Vesuvius that overwhelmed the town of Pompeii, there was abundant warning. Cracks appeared in the streets. The mountain bellowed forth smoke and there was rumblings heard underground. Ashes and lava fell in the streets and many people took that warning and escaped. Many did not, and to-day, when you walk down the echoing streets of that deserted town, you see plaster casts of places in the lava where these people died. This crisis, which we hope we have passed through, is a warning that we are dealing with colossal forces which possibly we may not be able to control. Let us see if it is possible for those people to work together and let us not look at the points that divide us.

Mr. DESMOND FITZGERALD

As we have been discussing what took place at the Party meeting, I would like to give my little version of it. We have had this Army now for something more than two years. The first year that Army was engaged in war-like exercises. During the last year it was largely peace work. There was a number of us extremely impatient because we felt that we were not realising the high hopes we started out with. When we began, we hoped to have an Army that would be a model army. A number of us, without having anything tangible that we could prove, felt dissatisfied, and felt that discipline and proper order were not being maintained in the present Army. When that mutinous letter came to us it seemed to me, for one, that though it was disastrous and was a disgraceful thing, good might come out of it. As far as I am concerned, it was the first tangible thing I could turn to, and say "here is proof that the Army is far from perfect and things are not going on right lines." I thought that now was a great chance to see to it that all factions and organisations, all unfairness in the matter of promotion and preferment for reasons other than efficiency and good soldiering, would be done away with, and that we would be actually getting the Army that we hoped to get. For that reason, when we came to the celebrated Party meeting, I was very watchful. When that document that was referred to as an agreement was drawn up I was still very watchful, and it seemed to me—I do not make any accusation—that there was an attempt to read things into that document that were not there, and there was one thing that I for one would not have stood for and that was any undertaking that men who were definitely implicated would be put back into the Army. I considered that an act like that would do away with the opportunity we have of making the Army a body of men in the service of the people, and with no object whatever, and an Army in which mutiny would be impossible.

For that reason I was very watchful when I heard people talking in a way that seemed to me to imply restoring these men to their ranks, and when I heard men not using, but implying, the no victimisation theory I challenged it and asked was there any suggestion of that kind in the document, and I was assured that there was nothing of that sort in it. I was assured that in that document there was no suggestion that these men should be restored to their ranks in the Army.

Mr. McCARTHY

Who told you that?

Mr. FITZGERALD

Is that statement challenged?

Mr. McCARTHY

Certainly.

Mr. FITZGERALD

There are other men here who will bear out my statement, though there may be others here who may not find it convenient to do so. What I have stated is a fact, and I am prepared to stand over it. Had it not been for that assurance, that the document did not contain a proposal promising these men to get back into the Army I for one would not have stood for it, and it was only because it did not contain any such promise that I stood for it. I quite recognise that inasmuch as I felt morally certain that the Army had not been properly run before that we were put in a difficult position; that we could not deal with this mutiny as it would be dealt with in other countries. I recognise that we should meet these men, as far as we possibly could, without betraying the trust that the people had placed in us, and that the Executive Council could not betray the trust the Dáil had placed in it. I was prepared to go as far as I could to meet these men without betraying that trust, and I consider if any such proposition as has been referred to was put into that document or was read into it, that I for one would be betraying the trust that the Irish people and the Dáil have put in me, but I got the assurance, when I asked for it, that that was not in the document, and it was for that reason that I agreed to it.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

When the Minister was speaking he made use of a remark, perhaps inadvertently, that when people put up a concrete theory, they were not acting from honest motives.

Mr. McCARTHY

The remark was worthy of the Minister.

Mr. FITZGERALD

I do not remember saying that. If I did I withdraw it.

Mr. HUGHES

I did not wish to interfere in this discussion at all but for the fact that this document about which there has been so much talk has been brought into the discussion. As the author of that document, I want to state here what it meant as far as I was concerned, and what it meant to the gentlemen to whom it was handed. I want just to state how I understood it; also the discussion there was on it, and how I believe it was understood by the members present at that Party meeting. That meeting, I should say, lasted for a number of hours, and various suggestions were put forward from one party and the other. I, as Chairman of the meeting, asked for someone to put on paper what these suggestions were, so that I could know where I stood as Chairman. I could not get on paper from anybody what they really meant, and in sheer desperation, I say that now, I wrote out that document myself, every word of it, and it was accepted by the Party, and handed to Deputy McGrath for the purpose of guiding him in whatever conversations he might have with the people he was going to see. He was not told that there was to be no victimisation, but from what I could gather from the discussion that took place, there was to be no raising of what you might call bad blood or anything else as a result of this matter. I want to say, as far as I was concerned, or as far as the Party was concerned, victimisation was not a question that came before us in the real sense of the word. Some people may have used it, but when you have a discussion lasting over a considerable time, no one can take the real sense of a meeting so long as a vote is not taken on a question of that description.

The document was approved by the Party, and it was given, as I said a moment ago, not as a document to be brought to these men, but as something to guide Deputy McGrath in what he should do as far as that matter was concerned. Unfortunately it has not brought about the peace and the harmony that we desired it should have brought about. I say here, and I say it deliberately, that the country at the present moment is sick of all this squabbling about the Army. What the country wants at the moment is peace and work for everybody, and in God's name let us apply ourselves to that, and drop this squabbling and this talk of resignations and all the rest of it. We were not sent here for purposes of that kind. We were sent here to work for the nation, and I hope that the men here will be patriotic enough to do their duty, and that by so doing it they will be fulfilling the trust that was reposed in them. We had enough of these things in the past, and we know what they led to, and I hope that we are not going to perpetuate anything like what we had in the past in the days that lie before us. Our country could not stand it. I am here as an humble member of this Dáil, and I ask the Dáil as a whole, and I ask these men who made sacrifices, and I ask these officers who thought they had a right to bring these matters before the country to say that they did not do it in the way they should have done it. I am not one who is going to condone mutiny, and I think the country will not condone mutiny, but I say that the country wants this thing settled once and for all, and they do not want us to go back to the chaos from which we have emerged in the past. I say to the Dáil and to the Government and to every member of the Dáil, that if this thing is to be perpetuated, that we are going to have chaos, and chaos which would be a good deal worse than that through which we have passed recently. I would appeal, therefore, to those members of my own Party who are threatening to send in their resignations, to consider well what they are about, and to consider what will be the effects of their action in the country. I knew them in the past, and I know the services they rendered, and I am sure that the country expects better of them than that they should throw it into chaos at the present moment.

Mr. SEAN LYONS

The only speech delivered, during the whole of this discussion, in which the country will be interested, is that of the last speaker, Deputy Hughes. We have not been told how these grievances of the Army originated, though we have been told that they have been in existence for the last 18 months. We are not told what is the cause of them. We may be told next week that owing to the changes in the Army the Saorstát has saved many millions. We recognise that 12 months ago the estimate for the Army was £10,634,510. That was the time to raise this question. I do not condone mutiny, and to my mind, voicing the opinions of the people who sent me here as their representative, the people who ordered the arrest of these men who went out planning and plotting for the destruction of the nation carried out the duty of the nation and of the people who sent us here. If forty or fifty men are allowed to come together in a room, surely they do not come there for the purpose of having a friendly chat. Something serious must be wrong. The document which Deputy McGrath read out, given to him at a meeting of the Government Party, shows that the Executive Council must have known all about what was going on for the last fifteen months. The Dáil was not acquainted with any trend towards mutiny. The Irish people had not been told to prepare for any such thing. Deputy Cooper this evening issued a warning to the people of Ireland to be very careful, and at the sound of mortar falling from the wall or the crack of the pistol in the streets, to clear out. That is a very nice warning to send from the Dáil to the people of Ireland who suffered so much for years, and all because we cannot agree amongst ourselves. I have heard speeches delivered here from what I may call the Ministerial megaphones with the object of broadcasting views to tide over these difficulties. I am sure the Dáil will not disagree with that, because I take as the desire of the people that after we had passed through the war these Army questions should be settled. The people did not select Deputies at the last election and send them forward here to assist in merely washing dirty linen. I fully agree that mutiny must be put down; I fully agree with the steps that were taken to put down this mutiny. If it had been allowed to continue you would have the country back again in bloodshed, and it would be much better to dispense with the service of every member of the Army, every member of the Executive, and every member of the Dáil, than to revert to such a condition of things.

Mr. DAVIN

I have no intention of intervening in this debate for the purpose of passing judgment upon any differences of opinion that may have existed and certainly do exist within the Party in reference to the interpretation of Document No. 4. When we decided to seek election to this House under a policy clearly understood and laid down by our different parties, and when we signed the Constitution and took the pledge that bound us to our respective parties, we never understood that in a critical period such as we are now passing through we should keep our mouths closed and refrain from expressing certain opinions in the interests of the public. If the motion which Deputy Johnson moved here this evening results in breaking that silence to which the Government Party is so conspicuously given, if it has done that for us, no more useful and better service, I think, could be served in the interests of the State. I have listened to two or perhaps three speeches made by the Minister for Home Affairs since this crisis arose, and I find it very difficult to see how these speeches can be reconciled. He informed us on the first occasion on which the matter was discussed in this House that there were certain considerations which compelled him to make certain concessions to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in order to prevent that Minister from making public certain facts or statements that would throw discredit upon the country. The words he used were: "There are some considerations that cause me to agree that very great pressure should be put on Deputy McGrath, and even that substantial concessions should be made to him to prevent him from making statements which he contemplated some time back because the citing of these cases would be discreditable to the country."

Now those of us who have not the honour of being associated with the Government Party know nothing whatever about the statement Deputy McGrath intended to make and made at the Government Party meeting. Therefore we are at a great disadvantage in coming to a definite conclusion as to whether or not the Court of Inquiry agreed to be set up is necessary in the circumstances. That is one disadvantage, and a great disadvantage, we are at in discussing this whole matter. Very complicated statements and grave differences of opinion have been expressed this evening from the Benches opposite, and it is impossible for anyone, after listening to those statements here, who was not present at the Party meeting, to come to a conclusion as to who is right or who is wrong. The last Deputy who spoke—and he was Chairman of the Party meeting where this document was drafted—has given us a very useful insight as to what his views on this document were. The statement came plainly and frankly from him, and he deserves credit for it. He told us the document was drafted by himself and was handed by him to Deputy McGrath to guide him in his deliberations with the men with whom he was engaged. That is a very considerable insight into the whole position and makes me feel that Deputy McGrath, acting as he was on this occasion with the consent of the Government Party, had the support of the present Government, and was acting, to all intents and purposes, in the capacity of a plenipotentiary.

Mr. BLYTHE

No.

Mr. DAVIN

I am taking what Deputy Hughes said.

Mr. HUGHES

There was no question of a plenipotentiary in the matter at all, and Deputy McGrath was not sent as a plenipotentiary.

Mr. DAVIN

There is no doubt about it that Deputy Hughes stated that he drafted the document, and it was given to Deputy McGrath to guide him in his deliberations with these men.

Mr. HUGHES

Quite true.

Mr. DAVIN

Therefore, if that is correct, and he has now admitted that it is, Deputy McGrath was quite right in placing his own interpretations on that document.

Mr. BLYTHE

Nonsense.

Mr. DAVIN

You are quite entitled to say it is nonsense, and some of your own Party have already expressed that view to yourselves. I suggest that your Party, at your own meeting,——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is not in order in addressing the Minister.

Mr. DAVIN

Statements have been made by almost every member of the Government Party, although they differed from one another on this particular important question of the interpretation of a document, and admissions have been made that the action and the intervention of Deputy McGrath in this matter has saved the country from disaster. We do not know—because we have no information at our disposal—as to whether or not that statement is correct. But, if it is, and if the result of Deputy McGrath's intervention has been to save this State from disaster such as has been mentioned, then Deputy McGrath has rendered a great and noble service to the nation. I do not think there is any necessity for me or anyone on these Benches to say that we do not stand by the action of these mutinous officers. But I think that the attitude of the Minister for Home Affairs in this matter—especially to the men who have created the position which came about as the result of the Treaty, the men who have made it possible for us to meet here to-day and discuss their actions—his attitude to them is: "Go in peace, friend, as a civilian." I say they are entitled to more consideration from the people than an attitude such as the language of the Minister conveys. If that is and has been the attitude of the Executive Council, the Ministry of Defence and the Army Council to these men— especially the pre-truce I.R.A. men— then it is very easy for some of us to understand how the present critical position has cropped up. That is not going to end this whole matter in the way that it should.

I rose more especially for the purpose of making an appeal to Deputy McGrath and to those who feel so keenly with him that they have indicated that they intend to put in their resignations. If Deputy McGrath has decided to take such action, I say he is neither doing justice to himself, to his constituents nor to the people of the country. If in his wisdom he has decided that he cannot accept responsibility for certain things that have happened within the Executive Council, and that he should resign his position as Minister for Industry and Commerce, that is his own affair. But I would urge him and those who feel with him in this matter, and those who are inclined to follow him in the line of action that he indicated, that they have a greater responsibility to the electors who sent them here than they have to their own Party or to any section of the Army. If they feel so keenly on these matters that they cannot even remain within their own Party, I say there is enough room for them on the Independent Benches to work, and help, and guide the people. That is the best service they can render if they feel they cannot remain within the Party with which they have been associated. Therefore, I make an earnest appeal to Deputy McGrath at this very critical period, realising as I do that he has undertaken a very serious responsibility that has not yet been cleared up to the satisfaction of all concerned, to realise that his duty is to the electors. And, on that account, realising the seriousness of the position in which we find ourselves, I would appeal to him and his colleagues to reconsider the decision which they have apparently arrived at, to come over to the Independent Benches if they cannot remain any longer with their own Party, and to guide the nation in connection with all the matters that have led up to this crisis, and as a result of their guidance and advice in the Dáil to enable the nation to come to a proper decision on the whole matter.

Mr. B. O'CONNOR

I would like to join my voice to that of the last speaker in appealing to the Deputies who say they are going to hand in their resignations. I say that is not fair to the constituents that elected them to come here to legislate for them. What would be my position, being newly elected for the County Dublin, if, on coming in here, I found something that is new to me and something with which I could not agree? Would it be fair to my constituents to go back, after appealing to them the other day to elect me, and say I am going to resign and will not carry on further? Is it fair to put constituencies which a few months ago elected Deputies to carry out their will here, to the expense of an election and set the heather on fire again through the length and breadth of Ireland? That aspect of the case must be considered, for I do not think it is good enough to their constituents to treat them in that fashion. There is another very serious aspect of the case. We must consider the thousands and thousands of men and women who are unemployed. What sense of security will there be in the country if this thing takes place? Nothing will create employment but a sense of security, and nothing to-day is more needed in this country than employment. If we could only get our people working they would very soon forget their grievances. Work is a grand medicine, but unfortunately there is very little of it. The speeches we have heard here will not lead the country to work. We are sent here to do a duty to the country. Our country and our people are above every other consideration. It is the question of the welfare of the people that has guided me in every action I have taken in the last twenty years. My first interest in the Dáil is to do that, and from what I have heard here I say that speeches lead us nowhere. We all have commonsense enough to know what the country needs. It needs a sense of security and employment, and this squabbling and the speeches we have heard lead us nowhere. Although there is a storm blowing we must see that we will weather the storm and bring the ship safe to port. Let them do that for Ireland's sake, and it will not be forgotten to them. We all have our feelings, and very often in this world things arise which we wish to revolt against. Revolt is a great trait in the Irish character when something happens that we do not like. Let us try to get away from that spirit. It has been said by historians, and by very friendly historians, that we are a quarrelsome race. I am afraid that we are. We must get away from this quarrelsomeness. We must keep the welfare of the people before us. For God's sake let us sink our differences, work for the people, and do the duty we were sent here to do.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I do not intend to say much on this matter, and I hope I will not say one word which will in the slightest degree have the effect of aggravating the crisis that has arisen. One thing I would like to say, that I consider this a matter that affects every member of the Dáil, and that we, on the Farmers' Benches, are just as much concerned, and as anxious, to see this matter settled as it ought to be, as any member of the Government Party. We have felt for some time, as Deputy Johnson has said, that we are in the dark. We know that negotiations are going on, that Party meetings are being held, and we hear rumours, but we do not really know what is happening. We assure the Government we are desirous to help them if we can. We have no intention of taking advantage of this situation, for we think the country is above Party, and it is up to every member of the Dáil to subvert the interests of his Party, and to support the Government or any people in the Dáil who can secure peace and end this squabble. I believe the document, which has been discussed, has been misunderstood. I believe that Deputy McGrath misunderstood its intention. I also believe, as other Deputies have expressed it, that Deputy McGrath endeavoured to do what was right, and what was honest to the best of his knowledge. I do not think that in any circumstances the mutinous conduct of the officers could be condoned. But I think there are many possibilities open to those on the Government Benches to see that these officers are not forgotten, and to see that the services they rendered in the past are not forgotten and overlooked; but I think it would be a fatal thing, and ruinous to the discipline of the Army if it should be considered for a moment that these officers could be reinstated. It is evident that discipline could not reign, and there would not be hope or satisfaction, or the realisation that the Army could be depended on.

I think when this crisis is settled, as I sincerely hope it will be, it will be understood that the Army that will then exist will be subservient not only to the Government Party, not only to the Cumann na nGaedheal, but to the whole Dáil, that it will be willing to be subservient, and to take orders from any party which should be elected to govern the country, and that the allegiance of the Army should not be to one particular party, but to the Government of the country as a whole. I listened to the acrimonious debate which took place, and I was to a certain extent sorry to see that this matter had provoked such differences of opinion. The utterances of one Deputy gave me hope of a satisfactory solution, and his remarks I would like to endorse. Those were the remarks of Deputy Hughes. I believe in this case we must be all prepared to put the country before Party, and I believe the Deputies on the Government benches should be prepared to do so. If they do, and forget the little annoying matters, these differences of opinion can be reconciled, the Government can have an Army which will be subservient to the civil power, that we can go forward with the work which we were sent here to do, and that we will end, once and for all, this terrible reign of militarism.

Mr. D. McCARTHY

I believe that this crisis has passed, and if it has the thanks of the Dáil and of the nation are due to Deputy McGrath and Deputy Gibbons, and the patriotic action of the alleged mutineers. I have faithfully served this Government. At our Party meetings we made strong appeals to the Executive Council to give up their die-hard attitude in this matter, and they refused. Therefore, I refuse to serve them any longer. I intended handing in my resignation to-day, but on an appeal for the Dáil to consider the matter I refrained. The action of the officers in Parnell Street, is something of which we can be proud. May I tell the Dáil that if a shot was fired there you would have had a most bloody war, which would probably end this country. If that had happened, I would charge the Executive Council with being responsible for it. That is our position. We were charged once or twice with being a lot of sheep behind the Government. I can assure Deputy Heffernan that the Deputies on these benches put the country above party or Ministers. That is why we refrained from sending in our resignations to-day so as to give the Dáil an opportunity of telling the Executive Council that you do not stand for this die-hard policy. I heard one member of the Executive Council talk about shooting off people's heads, just as easy as if he was going into the Cafe Royal for a cup of coffee. I do not stand for that policy. I know the Army from the top to the bottom stands behind these officers, but they are patriotic enough not to run their country into war, and we ought to be patriotic enough not to turn them down.

Mr. BLYTHE

There has been no die-hard attitude on behalf of the Government. Speaking as one member of it, in all the actions that have taken place, my object has been to do what was necessary, so far as I saw it, to secure a disciplined Army that would be the servant of the people, and at the same time avoid, so far as it could be done, any possibility or danger of bloodshed. We want to make certain, so far as we can, that nothing of the kind that has happened shall ever happen again. Whatever those men who engaged in the mutiny may have suffered, whatever grievances they may have had, there was no justification whatever for the action they took. Their action could not be justified. It was simply an attempt to use the gun to get their own way over the heads of the Government, the Dáil, and the people, if necessary. That was what it amounted to. But I do not want to say any more than that about it. I do not want to cause bad blood. The action they took could not be justified, and it was a sort of action that should not be taken again. We must so deal with this matter that we are not going to set up in the Army any sort of a tradition of successful mutiny, or a tradition of mutiny with impunity, or a knowledge that men can turn or threaten to turn their guns against the Government, and they will not have even to acknowledge they were wrong. There was no disposition to deal with this matter as it would be dealt with in a normal country, and in a normal army. We recognise that it would be hard to do so, that it would be dangerous to do so, that it would be unfair to do so. Men who have not been accustomed to the strictness of discipline that is in the old Armies should not be dealt with in the way that those who had had that training might be reasonably dealt with. I would say that from the beginning to the end the position of the Government has been one of readiness to accommodate themselves to the situation, to do everything they could to avert the possibility of conflict, but at the same time not to lay the seeds of future trouble, and not to create a foundation on which there would be built an Army which would be for ever a danger and a menace to the State.

There has been a great deal of talk as to an agreement with these people or with Deputy McGrath. Strictly speaking there was no agreement. There was something very near an agreement and the word has been allowed to be used. But, actually, there was no agreement. Deputy McGrath was given a document which purported to be a statement of the intentions of the Government merely, and that is why it was given to him for his use. It was not for the purpose of a bargain. There was no bargain struck with these men. That has to be borne in mind, because we must remember the situation at the time that document was drawn up. The Dalton-Tobin letter had not been withdrawn. Deputy McGrath had indicated that he believed he could get it withdrawn, or that he could get something else sent in that would be equivalent to a withdrawal of it. But it actually had not been withdrawn and the Government at that time was not prepared to enter into negotiations with these men in view of the very scandalous nature of that letter and of the challenge that was contained in it. But they wanted to avoid trouble; they wanted to get out of this thing without damage to the country. They realised very well, even suppose there was only a very short period of active disturbance, that it would be disastrous to the country in the present state. So they made it possible for Deputy McGrath to go and see if he could induce these men to see reason. Even if you take that statement of intention as being practically an agreement there has been no breach of agreement.

Mr. McCARTHY

Will the Minister say why the agreement of December was not carried out?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

What agreement of December?

Mr. BLYTHE

The agreement of December, so far as I know, was——

Mr. McGRATH

On a point of order, I think any reference to an agreement in December, as I have already stated, is a matter—although Deputy Johnson raised it—that should not be raised here. That is a matter for the Inquiry.

Mr. JOHNSON

If the Inquiry is a public one, if it is not to be a single party inquiry, there may be something in that point. But if it is to be a single party inquiry, as has been suggested, then it is not sufficient to leave this matter for that inquiry.

Mr. McCARTHY

The point I want to make is that it is not the only agreement that has been broken.

Mr. BLYTHE

There is no proof that an agreement has been broken, and to come in and allege that some other agreement was broken is gratuitous.

Mr. A. BYRNE

On a point of order, may I say that there are 47 Deputies outside the Government Party, and we are only guessing what the members of that Party are talking about. They have got the information, and I hold that the other 47 Deputies, who are not within their Party, ought to know the circumstances that led up to this.

Professor MacNEILL

Is this a point of order?

Mr. A. BYRNE

It is a point of order: we are kept in the dark.

Mr. BLYTHE

I might say that I agree with Deputy Johnson and disagree with Deputy Milroy in regard to the relations of the Executive to the Dáil and to the Party from which that Executive may have sprung. The Executive may consult its political supporters. It is proper enough that an Executive should consult its political supporters. It will be necessary for any Executive to consult its political supporters. But it is not necessary, nor, I think, proper, that the Executive should give information to a Party which is not given to the Dáil. The supporters of a Government ought not to be asked to support it because of any reasons that cannot be stated in public. Whatever vote a person of any Party gives in the Dáil he ought to give it for reasons stated here in the open Dáil. We have been in abnormal times. We have had an army situation which had its difficulties. I think the circumstances that did exist justified in the past a departure from an attitude that was strictly correct. I am rather glad we are having the matter discussed in the Dáil. I think that the more public matters can be discussed in public the better. My own belief is that the Party discussions which did take place on this matter were harmful. The news about them was not such, as Deputy Johnson said, as to inspire confidence in Parliamentary government or Parliamentary institutions. I say, moreover, as probably information of discussions among a very big body has leaked out to the men who were for the moment challenging the authority of the State, that probably they were encouraged and stiffened in their attitude by the knowledge of what was going on. However, that is really a small matter in the whole issue. It would have been utterly impossible to have guaranteed those officers that they were going to be reinstated in the Army.

If I had thought for a moment that that document given to Deputy McGrath could be interpreted as a promise to these men that they would be reinstated in the Army, I would not have agreed with it. Even if it had been a thought in my own mind that if the thing were fixed up they might be restored, I would not have allowed it to be conveyed to them at a time when we still had no document from them but the document talking about an interpretation of the Treaty, and demanding a whole lot of things that they had no right to demand. It would have been utterly scandalous for any Government to allow a suggestion to go to men who had taken up that attitude, and who had not yet retreated from it, that if they did so and so they would be reinstated without any diminution of rank in the Army. I certainly would not have agreed to it. I am not challenging the good faith of Deputy McGrath in the matter. I am not challenging at all his truthfulness when he says that that is his interpretation, and that that is what he understood by that document. I say, however, definitely that, as the document was handed to him as a statement of the intentions of the Executive Council—it was written by Deputy Hughes, and was agreed to by the members of the Executive Council as a statement of their intentions—it was not at all the intention of the Executive Council that these men should be promised reinstatement in the Army. Deputy Cooper, I think, has said very well the thing to say in regard to that. I believe that it would be unfair in the circumstances to say that these men who had done all these things were to go back to their places in the Army. I would not have said at a certain stage that some of them might not have gone back, if they had taken the thing well, mind you. I would not want to push the thing too far if they had taken it well and promptly, and if things had gone in a certain way. That is only a personal point of view in the matter. They have now done, I think, the right thing. I think it is no less than might be expected of them. They are men who have given service to the country in the past, in the Anglo-Irish war, and in the recent war. I would expect that they would not show the recklessness that has been shown. I would expect when they found that a threat was not going to get them what they wanted, that at least they would show some consideration for the country. They have shown that consideration. I am not speaking in any way hostile when I say that they are doing now in view of all that has occurred no more than they might be expected to do. I will give them every credit for doing it, but I do not think it is right that they should be held up here to us, more or less, as archangels, and that it should be made a great matter, and that you could not throw a shadow of blame on them. I think that is putting the thing out of perspective and out of all proportion.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I wish to say that I believe Deputy Johnson has done a big service to the cause of constitutional Government in bringing forward this motion. If he has done nothing more than draw from the Minister for Finance the statement he has made, as to the relations that should exist, and which we have always held should exist, between the Executive Council and the Dáil, he has done a very good service to the Dáil and to the cause of constitutional Government. We have heard many speeches this evening, and they all practically boil down to this: a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a certain document, and a difference of opinion as to the interpretation to be taken from a certain decision taken at a Party meeting. I want to ask what right has a Party meeting to make decisions on this vital matter? What right has a Party meeting to make terms with officers? I do not admit that right for a moment. The people responsible for making these decisions, and for having these decisions conveyed to the officers concerned, were the Executive Government, and not a Party. I say that the Executive Government was casting aside its responsibilities when it went and put the responsibility on a Party meeting. Evidently they did so, as we have it in the words of Deputy Hughes that he was the man who drafted this document. The document was handed to Deputy McGrath and it was, as the Minister for Finance stated, a statement of the intentions of the Government. This document contains a statement of the intentions of the Government to be conveyed by Deputy McGrath to the officers concerned.

Mr. HUGHES

On a point of explanation, the Government did not invite the Party to direct them. The Party invited the Government to meet them and discuss the situation.

Mr. O'CONNELL

That is my point. That is the situation, and a decision was made at the Party meeting.

Professor MacNEILL

No.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Well, we have to learn something more than we have learned.

Professor MacNEILL

There was no decision taken by the Party at that meeting.

Mr. O'CONNELL

That seems to be contrary to everything I heard since this discussion commenced. It was stated by more than one Deputy, and the whole discussion centred round the interpretation of the document that was drawn up at the Party meeting. The decision to draw up the document was come to at the Party meeting.

Professor MacNEILL

Not by the Party.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I confess I cannot follow the Minister for Education in his rather subtle distinction which he is so well able to make. In any case, it appears to me that while it could be, and should be, open to the Party to make recommendations to the Executive Council, as to action which should be taken, the responsibility of making a decision should rest with the Executive Council. It may be that I have been unable to take the interpretation that the Minister for Education wishes to be placed upon this discussion, but I believe I am taking the interpretation which will be placed on these speeches by the ordinary man in the street. We have it in any case from the Minister for Finance, and I think his statement will bear me out in what I say, that he does not believe that it is the right way to do things; that the Executive Council should be responsible to the Dáil, and that members of the Party who support the Government, while they should, perhaps, be consulted, should support the Government on the merits of each question as it is put forward in the Dáil. I do not wish to discuss the actual merits of this question of the officers, but I would like to say that I do not hold Deputies McGrath, McCarthy and the other Deputies who have spoken, entirely blameless, inasmuch as they told us that certain grievances existed in the Army for some considerable period. It is only within the last few days and really only to-day that Deputy McGrath and Deputy McCarthy aired these grievances in the place they should be aired.

Mr. McGRATH

On a point of order, as far as I am concerned, this is again infringing on the inquiry. I am prepared to stand over and accept responsibility for my silence as far as the Dáil and the Party are concerned on that question, if and when the question is raised at the inquiry. I only want to put the Deputy right. That challenge has been made to me in the Party and I have made myself clear. I am prepared, when the question is raised at the inquiry, to give reasons why I did not make it public.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The point I wish to make is this, Deputy McGrath was a member of the Executive Council. As I said, I do not wish to discuss the merits of this matter at all. because I am not in a position to discuss them. I know nothing about them except what I learned to-day. I do say from their own statements to the effect that certain grievances did exist, that it would have been better if these Deputies who knew of these grievances, and who believed there were grievances, took an opportunity of bringing them here for public discussion in the Dáil. I say that would have been better for the country and the people, and would have prevented these officers from taking the drastic step they were forced to take in order to bring their grievances forward. I should say that the point Deputy McGrath wishes to make now is a greater argument still in support of the point made by Deputy Johnson, that it is not a Party Committee but rather a Dáil Committee that should enquire into this matter of the administration of the Army. Deputy Milroy said that in discussing this matter the Dáil should concern itself with schemes of development and employment for the men who are demobilised.

Mr. MILROY

I think it was the Minister for Agriculture who made that statement.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I should say that he is rather late in the day with that suggestion. Surely it is not now that the Government should consider the formulation of schemes of employment for men who are demobilised. It is more than twelve months ago since Deputy Johnson and others on these Benches said that the question should be seriously tackled. I must say, in connection with that, that it is not for want of being told that the Government is faced with this problem; for, on more than one occasion Deputy Johnson and other Labour Deputies called the attention of the Government to the problem that would exist when the Army would have to be demobilised— not only in connection with these men in the Army but the men who were interned. This is a problem which should have been faced long ago, and if it had been faced seriously we would not be faced with the trouble which is facing us at present.

Mr. BAXTER

More than a week ago I sought information on this whole matter, and I was met in a manner which I think was not becoming from the President, with a storm of personalities. To use the words of the Minister for Home Affairs, the abscess has burst with its over-ripeness. I think that the Executive Council and the whole of the Government Party have in this matter put themselves in the dock. One and all, from the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Deputies behind him, to the President, cannot relieve themselves of the responsibility for the present position.

Professor MacNEILL

Take a vote on that.

Mr. BAXTER

Anyhow, this Dáil was unaware of the situation until very recently, and it has been admitted by Deputies and Ministers that the whole situation has existed in the army to their knowledge for fifteen, sixteen or eighteen months. I believe that there are many Deputies on the Government Benches who must have been aware of the situation, and I think it is regrettable that something was not done to meet it long ago. Many of the speeches here have centred round what took place at a Party meeting, and the agreements, or would-be agreements, arrived at there, and the question of the use of certain words and what conclusions were to be drawn from them. It seems to me that between two parties in the Army, to which the Minister for Agriculture has made reference, the Executive Council are really in a very difficult position. I appreciate the difficulty with which they are confronted. They have probably been confronted with it for a long time. Beyond question, the country wants this matter definitely settled here and now. What is more, the country wants peace, and the people of the country want to be in the saddle, as some Ministers are inclined to say very frequently. They want to be in supreme control of the army. What steps is it suggested ought to be taken to accomplish this? I will give credit to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I believe he has done his best in a difficult situation. At the last moment, as it seems to me, he has perhaps saved bloodshed, but is it not a very regrettable statement for any Deputy on the Government Benches to have to make that those men who have all fought together and, as they are inclined to say, have done so much to bring the Treaty about, are prepared to go out at the eleventh hour one against the other? I think it is most regrettable if there was any possibility of that taking place, and I think that the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce deserves credit for what he has done to prevent it. I may here remark that it seems very peculiar that these officers were put under arrest by the ex-Minister for Defence, and although the services of the Minister for Defence were dispensed with, certain actions were taken regarding these officers, when it is accepted that he had done wrong in arresting them. They were put under certain obligations, although it was not right to have taken them into custody. That point seems to me to deserve more explanation. If we have been saved bloodshed, and if these men, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce says, made sacrifices in the best interests of the country, I would ask the Minister, if he thinks that it would be in the best interests of the country, that these officers should go back to their posts in the army again, however deserving or however capable they may be?

Beyond doubt, I agree with Deputy Cooper that officers who have been concerned in this, however worthy their motives may have been, should not be allowed back to their positions again, because, beyond question, the disobedience, or, as the Minister for Home Affairs said, their flouting of authority, would be regarded, if they were restored, as a victory. I am afraid that that is the only construction that could be put upon such action if it were taken. If these men have done such good work, and if they are men who were in the army in the old days, and are now cast aside, it would seem hardly fair that they should not be given some consideration. If they have been cast aside, and if many have been cast aside, and if many of them find themselves in the difficult position of having very little of the world's goods to go on with, that fact should, I think, commend itself to the Executive Council.

I think it would be better if Deputy McGrath accepted that point of view, and recognised that placing those officers in their positions again in the Army would not make for discipline in the Army. I would like to remind the Deputies on the Government benches, some of them in particular, that they have sympathy with what they accept as being a wrong action on the part of those officers, and that they are asking for certain terms for those people. I would like to remind those Deputies that they have not been so sympathetic towards other people who they say were doing wrong. I would like to remind those Deputies that their arguments are very inconsistent. Those who are talking of resigning should remember that there are 44 other Deputies who have not come here. I regret that circumstances do not permit them to come here. I wonder if they were here what effect would that have on the situation that has arisen or on the minds of the men who are talking of withdrawing because their point of view cannot prevail. If there is to be a constitutional government, government by the will of the people, it seems to me, irrespective of whether it is party or Dáil, that that doctrine or formula must be accepted all around, and I am in agreement with Deputy Hughes when he says that those Deputies would do much better service by crossing over to the Independent party and keeping things straight if they were not straight before they came there. Deputy Wilson advises them to join the Farmers' party. It would be much better in the interests of the people of the country, and I suggest it is the most patriotic step at the moment.

Mr. D'ALTON

I do not wish to interfere at great length, but there are a few remarks I wish to make which I consider are pertinent to the present situation. Two points have been stressed from the Labour and Farmers' Benches which I think are not quite correct. They refer to those members of the Government Party who are behind the Government and they endeavoured to make it understood by the Dáil that the Government have to consult us on matters which should affect the Dáil alone. I believe in matters that affect the Farmers' Party and the Labour Party that the leaders of those parties consult with the parties. The Executive of the Government is the Government for the whole House. They consult us in all matters of necessity and seek our opinions. They may consult with us believing that we, their supporters, may have views of advantage to them, when placing the position before the House which they believe is necessary for the country. Otherwise the Executive Council acts in as determined a manner towards us as it does towards the Farmers' Party and the Labour Party. There are one or two important points in connection with this unfortunate upset of the last fortnight to which I wish to refer. I am absolutely against a mutiny of those Army officers. On the other hand, I admit that action may have occurred within the Army that may have led up to that or helped it. I will not go into it now because there is to be a Court of Inquiry. If there is to be an inquiry now is not the time to go into them, but I agree with Deputy Johnson that the result of that inquiry should go before the whole House, because I agree that the result of that inquiry is for the members of the Dáil, and through them for the people of the country. Unfortunately, events may have occurred by which men who served Ireland honourably were forced into the position they took. They should not have allowed themselves to be forced into that position, but I am glad now that by the action they have taken they recognise what they owe to Ireland. I also think that none of those officers who have resigned from the Army expect that Deputies will hand in their resignations in sympathy with them. We, in the Dáil, expect better of them, their constituents expect better of them, and they require more of them. I join with Deputy Davin on the Labour Benches and other Deputies in requesting those men to remember that their duty to Ireland is higher than their duty to Party, and that it is the one thing they will not be forgiven for, if by any action of theirs in resigning here, they injure the cause of the country they promised to serve.

Mr. GOREY

The motion Deputy Johnson put down this evening and the discussion raised have, to my mind, done a considerable amount of good. I am sure from the speeches that have been made and from the ends of the House from which the speeches came that the Executive Council may be convinced that they have nothing to fear in coming to this Dáil and taking it into their confidence. All the speeches from outside the Government benches have been helpful and were delivered with the intention of being helpful. Only a few of the speeches from the Government benches have tended in that direction. Deputy Hughes's speech, to my mind, was a credit to Deputy Hughes and to any man who loves his country. I think Deputies O'Connor and D'Alton followed on the same line, but all the other speeches on the Government benches were not helpful in this matter. They were more or less taking sides. I have been glad that anything that has been said from the Labour benches and ours has been helpful, and in my remarks I will say nothing except with the intention of being helpful. Victimisation has been mentioned in this connection, Vindictive action has also been mentioned. One Deputy said that the words "vindictive action" were not used. Another said that they were. I would not subscribe to vindictive action of any description. Vindictive action is something less and meaner than justice. I am glad no such a thing as vindictive action is going to be taken or will be taken. Victimisation, as the term is understood, is quite a different matter. It is a term which occurs in trade disputes. It means that when a trade dispute arises, and is fought out, as sometimes they are, the people engaged in the strike—mutiny, if you like to call it—would be forgotten about and put back in the position that they were in as if nothing had happened.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair at this stage.

Mr. GOREY

This is not a trade dispute, and I think the Executive action is quite correct, that those officers could not be put into the same position under any consideration, at least, in the Army. I want to be fair to those officers and those behind them. There are other channels of Government employment in which they could be put.

Mr. McGRATH

I would like to point out that there is no question of employment or jobs whatever.

Mr. GOREY

I have not entered into the question of employment or jobs. I am dealing with plain words used here. I have dealt with the word "victimisation," and I am not referring to jobs of any description. Owing to the interruption I have lost the trend of my speech.

Mr. McGRATH

I am sorry for the interruption, but I wanted to make my point.

Mr. GOREY

Without doing any harm to the State or establishing precedents, I think that those men, nearly all of them who deserve well of the country, should be provided with employment elsewhere, and that would do no harm whatever. There is none of us living in the country who has not some little knowledge of Army administration, and how things have been done for the last six months. Knowing my little end of the Army in my district, I was never pleased with what was done there for the last six months. Some who went out and risked their lives every time they were wanted have been discharged, and the fellows who stayed in barracks have been kept on. I do not know how that applied in Dublin or in other army areas, but I know what I am talking about when speaking about my own district. I believe that I offended a Deputy here by a remark of mine. He said the discussion here was the same as at the Party meeting, and I interjected a remark that we were listening to nothing else only a Party discussion. I think I was misunderstood in the interjection I made, and I do not deserve the meaning that was attached to it. As a matter of fact, we were listening to a Party discussion, as only seven or eight Deputies had spoken from the Government Benches at the time. But what I stood up to insist on was that no matter what organisation is in the Army, no matter what brotherhoods are in the Army, that all those organisations and all those brotherhoods must cease from now, and the Army must be the servant of the Civil Power and the servant of the Dáil. Any Government that wants to govern, on any other lines, any Government that wants to make compromise with any organisation does not deserve to be a Government. It must be a Government of the civil authority exercised through the Dáil, without any intimidation or influence from any organisations, societies, or brotherhoods. I hope we have heard the last of this, and that the Army in the future will be the servant of the State and of nothing else, and that it will owe allegiance to the State and nothing else. I hope the Dáil will be taken more into the confidence of the Government, and I hope the debate here has convinced the Government that they will get as much sympathy here and as much kindly treatment here as they will get in the Party. That is not ironical.

Mr. JOHNSON

Do you know the sort of treatment they got?

Mr. GOREY

I do. I have an idea and that is why I expressed the hope. We are personally prepared here, and I am sure those on the Labour Benches are perfectly prepared, to take any responsibility that there is in State matters. We have been sent here in a responsible capacity. We represent a considerable section of the country, and it may be that we may represent more in the near future. But we have not been given that responsibility here and it is only the motion of Deputy Johnson that has enabled us to take part in this matter at all. We are prepared to take any responsibility there is, and to take our share with any Government who mean to govern in the interests of the people.

The PRESIDENT

I observe from the statement made by Deputy Johnson that he stressed more than once the scant consideration given to the rights of the Dáil and the fact that the Dáil, in his opinion, was placed in a subordinate position. I think it is right that I should mention at the very beginning that if there is any person responsible for the calling of the first Party meeting and the submission of the matter to it for its consideration, that responsibility was mine and mine only, and not that of any other member of the Executive Council at that time. Deputies will remember that on the day when this matter came before the Dáil first, that the then Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that he would make a statement on the morrow, and it was at my request that he brought the matter which he had intended to place before the Dáil, before the Party. If the Dáil were deprived of listening to the criticism which the Minister at that time contemplated making upon another Ministry, they lost, in my opinion, very little by that deprivation, and the good results that would follow will follow not by the deprivation but from the steps that we took and the arrangements that we made with Deputy McGrath in order to meet that situation. That very statement was read out here to the Dáil and put into the possession of every Deputy and every person in the country, and it was accepted by Deputy McGrath at that time as satisfying him. I should like to lay some stress upon this matter, that even though at that time the first letter from the two officers had been received, it was not with these officers that I was dealing or intended to deal or would have the Executive Council or Party to deal, but with Deputy McGrath. He had, he believed, a case to make against another Department of State, and the making of that case would not, in my opinion, have tended in any way better than the method I suggested for improving the administration in that Department if it needed improvement. But I will bring to the recollection of any person who was present at that Party meeting the statement I made across the table to Deputy McGrath that night. I said: "I am making no agreement with the officers, no agreement whatever with the officers; my agreement is with you, absolutely with you."

Mr. McGRATH

I agree that is correct. The agreement I say again was with me.

The PRESIDENT

I said that that was my statement to him. I read out two paragraphs here about the Inquiry, the fact that we were impressed with the necessity for having an Inquiry, and the fact that an Inquiry was going to be held. The understanding which has been mentioned and which is in dispute, was taken down, I believe, by Deputy Hughes for Deputy McGrath's information. I understand that Deputy McGrath was told that in conferring with the men he was to use his own discretion in putting the thing into words. He was at liberty to tell the officers what the Government's intentions were. He was not appointed as a plenipotentiary, and was not instructed to go, and he did not go by the direction or wish of any member of the Executive Council, or of the Party either. I think it is due to the Dáil that they should know that in this matter the rights of the Dáil and the representative institutions of the country have been respected by us on every possible occasion. In that connection the Government did not give any information to the Party or to members of the Party that they at any time held from the Dáil, and it was not their intention to do anything of that sort. They did not do anything of that sort. I take it that if there was a dispute in either of the three other Parties in the Dáil and that it could be arranged in the same way, that nobody would raise the question that was raised that the rest of the members of the Dáil were deprived of their rights, or that the representative institution of which they were members was discredited or dishonoured in any way by having kept from it such a matter.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister allege that the Party meeting did not discuss the Army administration in which discussion Ministers took part? Is that denied?

The PRESIDENT

The case made at the Party meeting was a case made by Deputy McGrath against the Army Department and the Minister for Defence, General Mulcahy, did not answer it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Did the other Ministers discuss administrative matters at that Party meeting?

The PRESIDENT

I have not in my mind at the moment an exact picture of the whole discussion that took place there, but I do affirm that a case was made against a particular Department of State, and that the Minister responsible for that Department of State did not answer it there. As for the meeting last night nobody mentioned what the result of the meeting that took place last night was, but the proposition that was put up there by the Government was to allow a motion to be tabled here upon which the Government Whips were to be withdrawn, and to leave it to the free vote of the Dáil, every member of the Executive Council, as many of them as were there, understanding that they would speak and vote against the motion. Is that a deprivation of the rights of the Dáil, or any interference with representative institutions?

Mr. McGRATH

Before the President goes any further I would like to know if I am at liberty to mention all that occurred at the meeting last night, as he has referred to it now? I understood that what he has just mentioned was confidential. If he goes any further than that I believe I will be compelled, and must ask to be allowed, to explain why I did not table the motion.

The PRESIDENT

Certainly not. I did not intend to go any further. I simply intended to meet the point that was made against the Executive Council here, that they were not holding themselves responsible to the whole Dáil, and that they were only holding themselves responsible to a party in the Dáil.

Mr. McGRATH

I am satisfied.

The PRESIDENT

I am taking the next point made by Deputy Johnson, and that was that I did not mention to-day about the reconstruction of the Executive Council. I think I already mentioned that matter this morning, when I said that so far I had been present at only one meeting of the Executive Council. It was a meeting that lasted for two or three hours, and I am not yet in a position to deal with that matter. I hope to be able to do so, as I stated this morning, within the next twenty-four hours or possibly forty-eight hours. Deputy Johnson also criticised me because the information I gave to the Dáil indicated that I treated the matter as if it were of no very great importance. I gave the Dáil this morning all the information that was at my disposal. I saw General O'Duffy yesterday morning for a short time, and I saw him to-day for a short time. In his new position, and in my new position there were many matters to be discussed of considerable importance—administrative matters and so forth.

I had not any further information at that moment, nor had I any more until a quarter of an hour ago, than what I gave to the Dáil this morning. I will have an opportunity of referring later on to another matter. Deputy Johnson questioned us about the resignations and the absentees. The Executive Council has so far accepted any resignations that have been put in. I do not know, in view of the long discussion that has taken place, that it is necessary for me to go through the regular itinerary of the proceedings that have taken place in the Executive Council, or the action that was taken. I do not know if it would serve any useful purpose, but if the Dáil desires it, I am prepared to go into it. General O'Duffy's information to me as to the position in the country was, what I stated this morning, that it was normal.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the President tell us whether the demobilisation scheme proceeds? Do the plans continue for demobilisation and reorganisation?

The PRESIDENT

As far as demobilisation is concerned, I have not traced it, but I understand the plans for reorganisation continue. In view of the changes that have taken place it is possible there may be some delay in the matter of the regular staging of the reorganisation.

Mr. JOHNSON

So far as demobilisation goes, we may take it it proceeds according to plan?

General MULCAHY

As far as the demobilisation of officers goes, all demobilisations were completed by the 7th March.

The PRESIDENT

I am taking the matters raised by Deputy Johnson in their order. He mentions that I announced an inquiry and also mentions that he demanded as much information as was given to the Party. There was no information relative to the inquiry given to the Party at either of the two meetings, and it is possible that the framework of the inquiry may be opened to reconsideration in view of the circumstances that have occurred since I first mentioned here in the Dáil that such an inquiry would be held. It was not intended at that time that it should be a public inquiry. I think the Dáil is already in possession of the names of the persons who would hold the inquiry. If a case be made by either of the two parties to the inquiry that it should be public I cannot see just now that it will be possible for me to resist a claim of that character.

Mr. GOREY

On a point of explanation, may I ask if the President intends that this inquiry shall be confined to the three men already named?

The PRESIDENT

In the absence of any objection from the persons now concerned, there has been a slight change in the orientation, if I may say so, of the inquiry. In the first place, the ex-Minister for Defence, General Mulcahy, was at that time a member of the Executive Council. He is not now. As regards Deputy McGrath, I do not know exactly what his position would be—I mean the question of his resignation would have to be considered. In that case we must, as far as possible, satisfy those two men with regard to that, and we must also satisfy the Executive Council with regard to the competence and exhaustiveness of the particular inquiry, the personnel of it, or the subject matter that will be placed before it. It is not the desire of the Executive Council that any person should feel a sense of injustice in connection with this inquiry. The real result of the inquiry will, it is hoped, be of benefit to the State, and in getting that result it is more than desirable that any parties to the inquiry should be satisfied with regard to its justice and impartiality. On that point there is no change in the Government policy. The Government policy as such is unchanged; the circumstances have changed, and so far I have not received a formal protest from any of the persons concerned.

General MULCAHY

On that point, will the persons interested in the inquiry be communicated with and given an opportunity of saying what they have to say with regard to either the personnel or the terms of reference?

Mr. JOHNSON

And further, a suggestion, if not a demand, from three sections of the Dáil was made indicating the necessity for widening the personnel and making it representative of some body other than the political party which has held the reins of Government. That has been uttered first by Deputy Hewat, then by myself and then by Deputy Mulcahy. I want to know whether the Government has considered that suggestion and what is the result of their consideration.

The PRESIDENT

The Government did not consider that, but it would be the duty of the Government in this case to get into communication with Deputy McGrath and Deputy Mulcahy with regard to the inquiry.

If then any objection to the present constitution of it were raised, it will be my duty to announce to the House whatever alternative proposal the Government has to make with regard to it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the President note the point that certain discussions were closed down here to-day because of the fact that this inquiry was to be held. Therefore, the Dáil would not be placed in a position to come to a right judgment in regard to the question it has to decide upon, because of the fact that it was to be dealt with by a Committee of Inquiry. Now, if that Committee of Inquiry is to be a Party Committee, and if it is to hold its sittings in private, it will mean that at the discretion of a Party Committee Inquiry the Dáil may never get to know anything which has led to these present difficulties. Not only will it fail in that but it will fail to reassure the Dáil and the public that matters are not being hidden. If you have a Party Inquiry, while I recognise that one member of the Inquiry may be considered to be a judicial personage who has been associated with the political movement, that resulted in the formation of the present Government, I say that confines it too much and will remove some of the sense of confidence that the public might otherwise have.

Professor MacNEILL

Before the President answers that question, Deputy Johnson stated twice that this was a Party Inquiry. I think, in the interests of accuracy, it is necessary to point out that what was announced by the President was a decision to have a Cabinet Inquiry, and not a Party Inquiry.

Mr. JOHNSON

Yes; a Cabinet Inquiry conducted by three members of a single Party.

The PRESIDENT

At least one of them is not a member of any single Party—Judge Meredith. He was a Judge of what, in the absence of a better term, I will call the Dáil Courts at the time when Dáil Eireann was de jure, and to some extent de facto, the Government of the country.

Mr. JOHNSON

But the fact remains he was acting in that way and he was associated with a certain Party in this country.

The PRESIDENT

If we were to extend that particular analogy it would come to this that it would be difficult at any time for the Government of this country to appoint one of its Judges as a person holding judicial office to hold any inquiry. The Deputy will admit that. However, I will bring the matter up again before the Executive Council.

Mr. GOOD

I think it is very essential, in view of the importance of this inquiry, that it should be an impartial inquiry, and while one does not question the character of those outside the House who have been appointed, I think it would be very desirable, in view of the discussion that took place, that no member of this House should be one of the adjudicators at that inquiry.

The PRESIDENT

The next point, I take it, that was raised by Deputy Johnson, was that we extended the date for the surrender of arms from Thursday to Saturday, and he asked the question: "Is the time again being extended?" No formal extension of the time has taken place, but it was represented to me on Saturday that it would be advisable to extend the time, and that it would be impossible to have the ammunition returned because of the difficulty of sending out messages to the country. Well, now, to this extent the time is extended, that I asked the General Officer Commanding the Forces not to arrest or raid for arms until after Tuesday, and this morning I was informed that the ammunition taken from Tipperary Barrack would be returned to-day, and this evening I got a wireless message to the effect that "arms, ammunition and equipment of absconding officers were returned here this evening." That is from Clonmel.

I have already announced the return of arms in Dublin. That is the Clonmel case that I referred to. I was also informed this morning that it was anticipated that a similar return of munitions from Roscommon would be made shortly, but the date was not specified in that case. That information I had not this morning when I made the statement to the Dáil which Deputy Johnson complained of as being insufficient and incomplete.

That is the story of the situation up to this evening, and any further remarks I have to make would be by way of comment. I do not think that the best interests of the country would be served by the resignation of members of the House. I think that one Deputy, I forget who it was, complained that if the people of the country were to vote on this matter, that the vote would be against the Government. Well, now we cannot have elections by pressing a button, but we have had two elections quite recently and Deputies have been returned here in support of the Government Party at a time when, everybody will admit, that the legislative programme of the Government was not a popular one for the electorate. I do say that it is unfair to the electorate to present them with quite a number of vacancies now.

What is the issue upon which an election is to be fought? The only issue that I can visualise is the issue of not having been able to accomplish all that we tried; in other words, a non possumus proposal before the electorate. I do not say that in any offensive way. The two members or ex-members of the Executive Council are very great personal friends of mine, and I am sure that Deputy McGrath would absolve me of making anything in the nature of an offensive observation. I do admit that in his case he does feel that some sacrifice is necessary on his part, and I do say that this is, as everybody who has spoken on it admits, a very exceptional incident. I hope it will be an unprecedented incident and that the real work that has got to be done here is in acceptance of responsibility and in criticism of the Government if they fail or if their proposals are not watertight or are not in keeping with the march of events or the march of the nation.

We have been faced during the last two or three weeks with an extraordinary situation so far as the Government is concerned, but looking at the history of the world one rarely finds that a Government which came in on a revolution remained as long in office as we have remained. We are now in office for something, I should say, like two years and three months, and it is not by way of throwing bouquets at the Executive Council that I make that statement. But these are times when I think every man's and every citizen's duty should be to support the State, and any weakness in the Government machine just at this particular moment would indicate a weakness in the stability of the State which, I think, very few Deputies in the Dáil and very few citizens outside it would wish to see. I think that in view of these circumstances Deputies who have contemplated resignation should reconsider their attitude and see if they could not make some effort here in the future, even though their best efforts may not have been entirely successful in their own minds. In doing that they would be doing a good day's work for the country and a good day's work for the Dáil.

Mr. JOHNSON

I feel that some good result has followed from the raising of this question. We have at least been given some more information regarding the present situation in the Army, not as much as I would like to have heard, and not as much, I think, as the occasion demands. We have had some information as to the way the Government machine works, and I think that that is most unsatisfactory. The President rather suggests that we have overstressed the case against him and against the Executive Council, and tells us that we have had all the information that the Party meeting had, and practically asks us to accept the view that these were merely Party consultations, and that no assurances were given to the Party, and no information given to the Party that was not given to the Dáil, and that the Dáil was just as capable of forming judgments on matters of concern as the Party was. If that is what the President asks us to believe, the Dáil has only to go back a fortnight and to remember the incident of Tuesday, 11th March, the promise of a statement from Deputy McGrath on the next day, and the result on the Wednesday when a most terse and formal statement was made by the President in lieu of a statement on the Army position; a statement which had all the appearance of a complete condonation of the offence of mutiny. That interpretation has been repudiated, but it certainly was my reading of the statement of the President, especially when it was coupled with the letter circulated by the President to the Dáil, the letter signed by Liam Tobin and C.F. Dalton, which more or less said: "We have achieved our end, we were right in doing it, and, having achieved our end, we are satisfied"—that was circulated more or less to justify the absence of any further statement on the Army position, and we are asked to assume that nothing occurred which was not communicated to the Dáil.

However, if we have learned the lesson that not only shall the Dáil be made aware of any matter under discussion which is considered fit for the ears of members of the Party behind the Government, then a great thing will have been achieved. I was tempted to say when following Deputy Baxter and when I heard pleas for the consideration of the past records of the mutinous officers and consideration for the training they had had in their youth, and generally a request that we should bear in mind their antecedents, the human factor and so on, that I wished that advice had been taken in the last two years. I feel quite confident and quite consistent, though I am not claiming any particular virtue in consistency, but I feel quite confident in saying that the men who have offended most grievously in this matter should be treated with due regard to their antecedents, to their youth and to the facts which preceded their action. I can say that with consistency, because I have pleaded for the same consideration to be given to others.

I believe it would be unwise, and perhaps an unpatriotic thing for Deputies who have dissented seriously and acutely from the Government on this matter to resign their seats. The resignation of seats ought to be followed quickly by elections in these constituencies, and I think it will be necessary to press that point upon the Government, that is to say that there should be no undue delay in declaring seats vacant and having new elections after resignations have taken place. I do not think any good would come by any considerable number of resignations or by a considerable number of new elections. I think a considerable amount of good may come if there were a larger Party of Independents in opposition to the Government, and that there was more criticism, friendly, helpful, constructive criticism where necessary, and destructive criticism where necessary, but if there was more criticism of administrative action, of legislative proposals than there is from all parts of the House, this side included, I think it would add very greatly to the prestige and influence of the Dáil and the Oireachtas.

But I am afraid that all their requests, the pleading for unselfish action, getting to work and stopping the squabbling is only another way of evading a very distinct issue. We have had from the Ministry, officially stated, that they are resolved upon a certain course in regard to the officers who have sent in their resignations, and I take it that the dissent arises from a dissent to that decision. I do not know whether I am interpreting it rightly, but it does come to the question whether a Government can afford to reinstate officers who, not on the spur of the moment but obviously as a result of long premeditation, sent in a letter, not merely of mutiny and defiance, and had organised through the country simultaneous action. Whatever else one may say, no Government worth its salt can agree to condone and wipe off events of that kind. I am not sure whether it would not be better to allow Governments to smash and smash and smash again rather than agree that a Government should do that. But having said that, there are ways of dealing with this kind of proposition, and no Deputy who was aware of the troubles within the Army that apparently have been germinating and developing for twelve months or more, no member of the Dáil or Executive Council who was aware of such things happening can relieve himself of responsibility, and as a consequence people who are guilty of that very, very grave offence have to be treated with a leniency and consideration that that sharing in the guilt would involve; and it seems although we have not been given the information, that there has been a counter-proposition of the same kind, again to the knowledge of members of the Party and the Government. Now, in view of this how can a Government or a Party stand over harsh terms? How much more necessary is it even to be generous in the treatment of officers of both parties, both sections of the Army, who have been thus mutinous. I am not satisfied that we have got the information that is required, and I am not satisfied that the matter, being left to an Inquiry, is going to relieve the anxiety that the country has become possessed of. The whole matter has been a very difficult and hateful one to have to deal with, but I believe it is well that it should have been discussed as it has been discussed. I do not think any bad blood is likely to develop out of the discussion. I hope, on the contrary, that there will be an understanding of the requirements of the case, and that Deputies who have felt keenly will realise that they have other work to do than to resign and, as one must see, follow resignations by political activities outside. I think that would be an undesirable development. As regards the plea of other Deputies for a cessation of that kind of policy, I hope no more will be said of it. I withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT

I move that the sitting be suspended for an hour.

Sitting suspended at 7.45 p.m. and resumed at 8.55.