The next business is the nomination of President of the Executive Council.
NOMINATION OF PRESIDENT OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.
I desire to move: "That Deputy William T. Cosgrave be nominated President of the Executive Council."
I desire to second the nomination of Deputy Cosgrave.
In normal circumstances, I should not think it necessary to intervene at this stage, but in the present case the circumstances are abnormal. Hitherto the position in regard to the nomination of the President of the Executive Council has been simple and straightforward. One party commanded a majority of the Dáil and, obviously, it was the duty of that party to accept the responsibilities of office. That is not the case to-day. To-day, here is no single party in the House which of itself forms a majority of the House.
In considering the present situation we must have regard to the manner in which it came about. For five years the Party which I have the honour to lead has borne the responsibilities of Government. In that capacity we have been subjected to much criticism, inside and outside the House. We have had to contend with many difficult problems; we have had to take unpopular decisions in the national interest. I do not intend to make any comment on criticism outside this Assembly previous to the elections, and I do not complain of the criticism which we have had to meet here in the House. I am confining myself to a simple statement of facts. The facts are that there was scarcely any member of this House outside the Government Party who did not, at one time or another, find something on which to disagree with our policy. They were, of course, perfectly within their rights.
We have just completed a strenuous election campaign, in which the rights and wrongs of the last five years of Government activity were exhaustively canvassed. I mean no offence, and I hope no offence will be taken, when I state that there is not a single Opposition Party in this House which has not denounced my Government from every platform in measured or unmeasured terms. The majority of those candidates who were independent of party alignment joined in the general enunciation. We were variously described as an incompetent Government, an autocratic Government, an impudent Government, an extravagant Government. The electorate were rather vigorously requested to throw us out of office.
It is an elementary constitutional principle that there must be a government. I do not believe that there is any member of this Dáil, nor was there any Deputy in the previous Dáil who failed to realise this fundamental principle. I should be guilty of disrespect to the House if I thought otherwise. The inevitable conclusion is that when a consensus of the Opposition in the previous Dáil invited the people of Saorstát Eireann to cast out the existing Government, they should have visualised a successor to that Government. What kind of succeeding government did they visualise?
It is perhaps worth recalling that in no case did any of these constitutional parties in the Opposition put up a sufficient number of candidates to enable it, even if all its candidates were returned, to form a government by itself. Each of the parties made certain promises as to what its policy would be if it came into power, if its candidates were returned, but I must be forgiven for pointing out that they all took good care that they could not command a majority in the House. We are, therefore, forced to the irresistible conclusion that in the event of the electorate accepting their invitation to destroy my Government they visualised a Coalition Government. By what means, or upon what basis, that Coalition could be formed—how, or in what measure, their somewhat conflicting views and promises could be reconciled is for them—not for me—to say.
They have succeeded in their first objective. As a result of the combined attacks and promises, the party which formed the Government has been reduced in numbers from 57 to 46. We are still the largest individual Party in the State, but we are no longer in a majority. I think every member in this House will admit that in the past we have never shirked our responsibilities. We may have been right or wrong in our decisions, but, right or wrong, we faced the making of decisions, and once made we carried them out. Some of the most onerous of the decisions we took were taken, solely for the purpose of vindicating the right of the majority to rule. The majority in this House has now passed from us. We have no intention or desire to hamper those who have secured it in the exercise of their rights.
I do not know whether the leaders of other Parties in the House have been able to come to an arrangement which will enable them to nominate a President who will be ensured of sufficient support to carry on a government. If they have they will doubtless make their nomination. I have no desire to make their position difficult, and if they feel that they have not had a sufficient opportunity of composing their differences and arriving at accommodation then they should be given that opportunity, and I shall certainly be quite agreeable to any reasonable adjournment they may ask for the purpose.
If they should find, as the result of their discussions, or if they have already concluded, that they cannot so compose their differences, then I realise that, in the situation thus created, there is no sound alternative but that I, as the leader of the largest Party in the House, should accept nomination, and I shall not shirk that responsibility. I want it to be quite clear that I do not seek office, and that I shall accept office only if the Opposition Parties are unable, or unwilling, to do so, and then upon very definite understandings.
Ministerial office is a high honour, but it is neither easy nor profitable. It was not without a very grave sense of personal responsibility that I persuaded certain of my colleagues to sacrifice the last five years—vital years in the career of the majority of them— to the work of national administration, and it is with no easy mind that I shall invite them to prolong their period of absence from business or professional careers.
If I am to accept and continue in office it will be only on the very clearest understanding that I shall receive sufficient support in this House to carry out my programme. There is no necessity for me to elaborate that programme now—I have stated it up and down the country and it is well known. I cannot be too specific in impressing upon Deputies that I have no intention of accepting office in the mere capacity of a super-policeman to maintain law and order while allowing the country to drift along economically, nationally and internationally. Nor do I intend to allow myself to be placed in the position of endeavouring to carry out the policies of others should a majority here agree to disagree with me in any matter of vital importance. I would not stultify myself or my colleagues or my supporters by taking office under such conditions, and I do not interpret the results of the elections, bearing in mind the extent to which every item of our programme was adopted by one or more of the other parties, as indicating a popular desire for the abandonment of that programme in any particular.
It is only fair, too, that I should make it quite clear that if I accept office I have no intention of tampering in any way with the Treaty or with the provisions of the Constitution which derive from it. There has been so much loose thinking and loose talk and misleading propaganda about Article 17 of the Constitution that I think it desirable to re-state the position. It is this: that as long as the Treaty remains neither this House nor any other assembly can remove the obligation which the Treaty imposes upon elected representatives of subscribing to the Oath prescribed in Article 4 of the Treaty.
The Irish people, through their representatives, can denounce the Treaty. They cannot alter it except by agreement with Great Britain, ratified by legislation on both sides, but until it is either denounced or altered the Oath must remain, because the international obligations of any country override its internal laws.
We have neither sought nor received any mandate for the denunciation of the Treaty, and we do not intend to take any steps in the matter. Nor have we sought any mandate for its alteration. The Party which asked for that mandate did not obtain it, notwithstanding the fact that they enshrined their request in a bower of rosy promises. They dangled before the people visions of bread and work for all, smaller taxes, no Land Commission annuities, no emigration, no partition. Now they have taken up the position that unless some other Party saves their faces in the matter of the difference between the Oath in the Treaty and the oath which their leader himself drafted, with an annual tribute to His Majesty super-imposed, they cannot put their promises to the test of performance. We have no intention of imperilling our good relations with Great Britain to secure a dishonest saving of faces, or to acquiesce in a national deception. I use the words "a national deception" in the most deliberate way, because that Party, and in particular its leader, concentrated upon one manifestation of the international position of this State as defined by the Treaty, and consistently abstained from telling the public what attitude they propose to adopt on the various manifestations which remain in the Treaty even if it were possible to remove the Oath. The only indication of their attitude which has been given since the elections is a return to the word Republican, from which it would seem as if the national deception was indeed premeditated.
The policy of making promises whose fulfilment is contingent on your opponent doing something which you feel he cannot and will not do does not appeal to me as a policy of high public morality. It seems to me to be a policy of cowardice, and neither I nor any of my colleagues are prepared to countenance cowardice or to facilitate deception. The fact is that Fianna Fáil are not being kept out of the Dáil by the Oath; they are sheltering behind this subterfuge because they know that their fantastic promises cannot be fulfilled.
In the opening stages of the proceedings to-day the Clerk read a return of the persons elected at the recent elections to serve as Deputies in this House. I did not notice in that return any reference to Party allegiance or even to the promises made in the course of the election. A proclamation was read calling for an election, and a return was submitted of those who have been elected. It is for the Deputies in this House to indicate by their votes exactly what their will is in respect to Party allegiance, in respect to the election of President and in respect to any other matter that comes before the House. Newspaper comments, even Party returns, are not sufficient to indicate what is the view of any Deputy who is returned, and I propose to take a vote of the House on this question of the nomination of Deputy William T. Cosgrave as President of the Executive Council. In making his statement, Deputy Cosgrave, if I may so use the term, has told us something about the views of himself and his colleagues in respect to a Party which is not in the House.
I propose to say a word or two as to why I think that Deputy Cosgrave should not be re-elected as President. I pass over what I think should be an obvious omission as to whether there is a vacancy in that office. I have not had any intimation and the House had not any intimation that President Cosgrave had resigned his office as President. But a motion has been put to the House that he should be re-elected, or perhaps, I might say, confirmed in his present office. Before the elections, on many occasions in the House, we, from these benches, have opposed the Government measures, criticised the Government on innumerable occasions, too, laying particular stress on what we conceive to be their failure to respond to the needs of the people in respect of social and economic matters. We refuse to be drawn into a controversy which assumes that the question of the taking of the Oath to the Constitution is a matter which the people have decided, or even a matter upon which they have expressed very strong views. We take that as a matter of very subordinate interest, and we are not going to be diverted by controversies outside from dealing with matters which we have been elected to deal with, and, if possible, force upon the public attention.
We fought our election campaign and we criticised the Government mainly because of its failure to deal adequately, even to deal seriously, with the problems of poverty and the problems of unemployment, and with the problems that arise out of poverty and unemployment. We found from the beginning almost of the last Dáil, from the beginning of the office of the Ministers, that in so far as the working elements of the community, the wage-earning elements, were concerned, the policy of the Government was a policy of reduction of the standard of living, a reduction of wages, a reduction of comforts, and a removal and declining of the social and ameliorative enactments which had been handed over to us by the Treaty Agreement; that the attitude that has been consistently adopted in regard to wages, and in regard to the ameliorative measures affecting the poor, has been one of a consistent reduction of the standard of living for the poor people. That began with the Government's term of office, and it ended with the opposition of the Ministry to a fair wages clause in the Electricity Supply Bill. There has been a consistent attempt to deny the common people all the rights which had been won, and to deny them a place in the sun. And it is because of the electioneering assertions on the part of the Government that they are to be judged by their record, that they intend to pursue a similar policy, that we oppose the re-election of Deputy William T. Cosgrave and the re-election of every member of his Party unless there is a complete reversal of their social policy. The President has spoken of the reconciliation of Party leaders' differences. It needs no word from me —I would assume certainly no word from me to anyone who has any idea at all of the position of the Labour Party —that there has been no word suggesting an alliance, coalition or conference respecting future governments in this country.
I have referred to the general policy in the matters of social legislation as to which we contend that the Government has failed, because of a wrong attitude of mind towards these problems. It perhaps is not necessary to do more than touch upon it for the purpose of reminding the Deputies, and especially new Deputies, of the position. We had in the early stages the reduction of the old age pensions, and the promise that when the money would be available the earliest opportunity would be taken to restore to the old age pensioners their cut. That has been refused, and the promise not fulfilled. We had the decision of the Government to set up a low wage standard, a starvation wage standard, on the Shannon scheme; we had a document issued from the Government offices to the local authorities instructing them to reduce wages, and the consistent policy adopted since the issue of that circular following out that original intention. We have had the passing, in spite of opposition from our Benches, of a Bill which in two years' time will make the landlords free to extract any rent they like from their tenants. We had the disavowal of responsibility on the part of the Government for finding work for unemployed men. We had the refusal, time after time, of the Government to deal with any revision of the unemployment insurance scheme which would ensure to workmen who are unemployed a continuance of their unemployment insurance. We have had the administration of home assistance so tightened that literally thousands of people, who have been deprived of unemployment benefits, have since been deprived of home assistance and are absolutely on the verge of starvation in the city and the country.
These are matters which make it imperative upon this Party to oppose the re-election of the head of a Government which has declared itself as intending to continue this policy. In addition to that, we have the recent change of mind in regard to a very much less immediately important question—the decision of the Government to introduce legislation which is to deprive minorities of representation in this House. If there were no other questions than those I have indicated to show the state of mind of the Government, the manner in which they come to the House asking for support and their refusal to recognise the fact that the country has expressed a verdict upon their conduct, would be sufficient reason for opposing the re-election of Deputy W. T. Cosgrave as President of the Executive Council.
The proposition before the House, moved by Deputy Murphy and seconded by Deputy Doyle, that Deputy Liam T. Mac Cosgair be re-elected as President of the Executive Council, has been opposed by Deputy Johnson and his Party. The President, speaking to the proposition, has given the House the impression that he is only going to accept re-election on certain specific conditions. Deputy Johnson retorts that he is going to divide the House on the proposition as to whether we shall agree to the re-election of the President. One must ask, how much jockeying for position is there going on amongst the Parties? On behalf of my Party, I say that we feel the position to-day is such that the people expect the best services every Deputy can give to the country, irrespective of class or party. The Cumann na nGaedheal Party are the biggest Party in the House. They have made a proposition. My Party do not find themselves in a position to oppose that proposition. Deputy Johnson has not moved any amendment and he has not indicated what is his alternative. I would be slow to believe that Deputy Johnson's was a negative policy, and yet what does he offer?
If there is a division our votes will be cast for the re-election of Deputy Liam T. MacCosgair as President. But let me make it quite clear on behalf of my Party that we are not going to acquiesce in the demand of Deputy Liam T. MacCosgair that everything and every measure which he may bring forward in this House, if he is re-elected, must have our unfailing support. Since the Farmers' Party came into existence, though small in numbers, its members have from the very beginning done what they considered best in the interests of the country. Members of the Party have made sacrifices for what they considered were the best interests of the country. Members of the Farmers' Party here will always do what they consider best in the country's interests. In the past we have done unpopular things because we believed them right. We have said unpopular things down the country because we considered they were right. Our work in the future in this Dáil will be always founded on the belief that what we are doing is the best thing for the country.
We will vote for the re-election of Deputy MacCosgair. Deputy Johnson has not moved an amendment; he has not put forward an alternative. In supporting the re-election of Deputy MacCosgair we cannot, because we know not what he may do, tell him that he is always going to have our support. He will have our support when we consider his policy right, but we must oppose him if we consider his policy wrong.
I think it is an admitted fact that the first essential to the carrying on of the affairs of the State is a government, and there is no Party in the Dáil at the moment in a position to, of itself, command a majority of this House. That being so, I take it that it is the primary duty of the largest Party in the House to take the initial steps to form a Government. Now, neither myself nor those for whom I speak are in the position either to form a Government or, indeed, to nominate anyone for the position of President.
When Deputy Johnson moved a direct negative to the proposition that the largest Party should be asked to carry on the public affairs of the State, I was expecting something in the nature of an alternative or a substitute from him. On the contrary, his proposition amounts to nothing but a direct negative. If Deputy Johnson were prepared, as the leader of the second largest Party in the House, to bring forward a suggestion in the nature of a substitute for the proposal made from the Government benches, then his proposition would be worth considering; but as it is, it is nothing but a mere policy of negation. I am in a similar position to Deputy Johnson and the members of the Labour Party, inasmuch as I have had occasion, and have taken advantage of it, to criticise the Government both inside and outside the Dáil in regard to their conduct of the affairs of this State during the period of their term of office.
Mostly outside.
But I am not in a position now to propose an alternative Government. Like the Deputy, I have not had any conferences or consultations with other Parties on the matter, and in the absence of a declaration from Deputy Cosgrave as to what his full programme and policy is to be, I certainly cannot support the proposal to re-elect him by voting for him. On the other hand, I would like to make my position clear in this respect, that no matter what Government is formed I can give an assurance for myself and my colleagues that we will be prepared to support that Government in the maintenance of the peace and order of this State and in the carrying on of the public services of the State. Now Deputy Cosgrave has said that he is not satisfied with such an assurance from any quarter of the House, but I am not prepared personally, nor is my Party, to go any further in this direction. We claim that though we will support whatever Government is brought into existence in the carrying on of the public work of this State through the public services, we must be entitled to reserve our judgment and our right of criticism and of opposition to anything in the nature of future legislation or methods of administration. I do not think that is asking too much. I think that when a number of Deputies state that as they are not in a position themselves to from a Government they would be prepared to support any Government in the direction I have indicated, that is all that can be reasonably demanded of them, and as far as I am concerned I cannot vote for the direct negative proposition, as proposed by Deputy Johnson, because that would mean no Government at all.
LABOUR DEPUTIES
No, there is an alternative.
If there is an alternative then let Deputy Johnson propose it. In the circumstances he has not done so, and, therefore, while reserving a right of future criticism or opposition to any future policy or programme brought forward by the Government, I can at least assure whatever Government takes the place of the late one that as far as in me and my Party lies we shall assist that Government in the maintenance of peace and order and in the carrying on of the public services of the State.
I rise with diffidence, because all those who have spoken before me have spoken on behalf of organised Parties, and I do not know whether the voice of an individual ought to be heard, but as all those organised Parties appear to disagree, as some are going to voite for Deputy Murphy's motion, some against, and as some are neither going to vote for nor against, I feel a little more argument is needed on this question, and I ask the Dáil to confront the situation in which we are placed. The last Dáil did not complete its work. It left over three matters of some importance to be decided by this Dáil, and the most important is the voting of the financial supplies needed for the present year. The last Dáil gave a Vote on Account which will expire about the 1st August. After that date there cannot constitutionally be made any issues for public services. The old age pensioners will come to the Post Office and find there is no money there. The Gárda Síochána and the Army will find there is no pay, and the works on the Barrow drainage will have to be stopped unless provision is made by this Dáil to meet that situation, and in order to make that provision we must have a Government, and, to my mind, it appears to be more convenient to have the Government that drafted those Estimates rather than any other government, because they are in the best position to defend and justify them.
The same is true of two Bills outstanding. The Dentists Bill is not, perhaps, a very technical matter. The other Bill, the Currency Bill, is intensely technical. I must say I would feel sympathy for the Labour Minister for Finance, whoever he may be, who had to pilot that Bill through the Seanad against the serried phalanx of bank directors. I do not see how any Minister for Finance, whether in the Labour Party, National Party, or Farmers' Party can acquaint himself with all the technicalities of the Bill within the necessary time; so we must clean up the mess that has been left. I am glad I converted the Labour Party; it is quite true that the Cumann na nGaedheal are responsible for this situation. I do not attempt to disguise that. I am very glad that Deputy Murphy and Deputy Peadar Doyle have faced their responsibilities in this matter, and I would deprecate the suggestion of the President, because I think he is still the President until another is appointed, that we should adjourn. The continuance of this situation of uncertainty would be most injurious to the country's credit and to the welfare of the country as a whole. It would be injurious to the morale of the Gárda and the Army. No one would know where he was. Everyone would hesitate to undertake fresh obligations or to give fresh employment. Let us face things now. The country has placed the responsibility on our shoulders, and we should face it.
As to the future, the President says that the Government's programme is well known. I studied the pamphlet setting out the President's programme. It was a modest one. It promised two Bills: one providing long term loans for municipalities and public bodies for the purpose of drainage and water supply. I hope that Bill is going on. It is not contentious and will get support in every quarter of the Dáil. It makes for employment and development. I do not think the President, if he is elected, will find any difficulty in getting that Bill through. The other Bill was one for the reform of the electoral system. Deputy Johnson interpreted that as a Bill for the abolition of proportional representation. I do not think the President is committed to that. Can any one of us having come through the election lay his hands on his heart and swear that the electoral system is perfect? I think I can get general agreement in the belief that most constituencies are too large. I think it is conceivable to reform the electoral system without making the Bill contentious and still provide representation for minorities.
The only other point I will touch on with some diffidence, because I am afraid it may embarrass Deputy Gorey, is that there was a very vague and uncertain pronouncement with regard to tariffs. The procedure in that direction has been simplified by the appointment of the Tariff Commission. So far as I have been able to observe the workings of the Tariff Commission, that body is acting in a judicial sense, hearing both sides of the question amply and fully.
I would be much slower to oppose a tariff endorsed by the Tariff Commission than one that came out of the brain of the Minister for Finance. In that direction, provided the Government are prepared to stand by their own creation of a Tariff Commission, I do not see any contentious issue arising on that. That is all their programme. There were other definite pronouncements made by the President in his policy speech. I do not see any crisis arising in this Dáil. I do not see any difficulty for Parties—other than the Labour Party, who have their own remedies and doctrines and who preached them fairly and consistently throughout the elections, and probably the mistake the Government made was in underrating the force and consistency with which they preached from—endorsing the Government's programme. Let us get that done, and then, if at all possible, let us get a holiday. Then let the Government draw up their programme and put it before the Dáil. My criticism of the Government is not envenomed on any of these questions. My main criticism of the Government, made in a speech delivered in the neighbourhood of Ballsbridge, was that they were apt to rush their fences. Like all horses, however, that rush their fences, they stumbled a little, but they can recover, and horses generally do better the next time. In the hope that the Government will be slightly more responsive to public opinion and to the opinion of the Dáil, I am prepared to vote for their continuance in office.
We have had speeches on the motion from the leader of the Labour Party, the leader of the Farmers' Party, the leader of the National League Party, and also from Deputy Major Cooper, and it is significant that in none of these four statements has what was, after all, the main point, the backbone, of the President's statement, been touched upon, namely, that a number of Parties in the recent electoral struggle went before the electorate, dangling before them very alluring spectacular programmes which were to be put into effect when, and if, they were returned to office. None of these Parties put forward a sufficient number of candidates to secure a majority in the Dáil which would put them in a position to carry out these alluring and constructive programmes—work for all, taxation halved, expenditure doubled, no Land Commission annuities, no partition, and so on.
It seems to me a little cynical, building a little too much on Lincoln's statement that you can fool some of the people all the time, for a Party putting forward thirty or forty candidates in the country to speak of the wonderful things it was going to do when it was returned to office. Let us leave on one side 57 Independents, and let us, with a sigh of relief, leave on one side Clann Eireann, and there remain 30 National League candidates, approximately 40 Farmer candidates and 40 Labour candidates. Thirty is not a majority of this Dáil, nor 40, nor yet 46. None of these Parties was looking for a majority in the Dáil, no one of these Parties was taking the risk, if I may put it that way, of having a majority in the Dáil. The only Party taking that risk was the Party to which I belong, and one other Party which is not yet represented here.
We have had many lectures in the last fortnight as to what we should and should not do in the parliamentary situation created by the recent elections. We have had them from the Press and other quarters. We were told that it would be a monstrously irresponsible thing for President Cosgrave to refuse to form a government and. if he did so refuse, he should be hounded out of the public life of the country. We have had that lecture from people who did not support the Government in the elections, and who did not vote for the Government, and who gave their second, third, and fourth preferences elsewhere. Now, when the responsibility of Government is refused by all other Parties, both individually and collectively, the responsibility seems to revert to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, despite the fact that it is a mathematical minority of the Dáil. We are not shirking that responsibility, but we do think that the people should learn from this position a constitutional lesson, learn for future guidance that it is a cynical thing, a fundamentally deceptive thing, for a Party to dangle spectacular programmes before it while not seeking a majority in Parliament by which to put these programmes into operation.
If the charge of cynical deception is to be denied, then you get to that point when you are forced to conclude that these Parties were thinking in terms of coalition, that when inviting the electorate to throw out this Government they were not looking themselves for a majority, that at least they were thinking in terms of coalition. But we have no great evidence of constructive thought of that kind. We have here an admission of collective bankruptcy from the Opposition Parties, disclaiming any idea that they could, or would, form a government. We heard within the last few days that if this Party steadfastly refused to form a government, then, no doubt, a government would be formed, but only an ad hoc government to advise a dissolution. I do not know that many people are anxious for another General Election. I am not, until I have a rest, but we are face to face with the fact that all the people who were inviting the electorate to throw out this Government are now protesting vehemently that there is no responsibility on them, either alone or with others, to find a government for the State.
Deputy Johnson cannot vote for the motion because he has certain economic grievances, because he thinks that we did nothing to deal with the social and economic evils pressing on the people, because we did nothing to relieve unemployment, and so on. We thought that we had done quite a lot. In fact, our own opinion is that, within the limits of our resources, we have done as much as men could do in the time, in the period of three or three and a half years, of comparative peace that we enjoyed.
Deputy Johnson safeguarded himself with the word "adequate." It can always be said of a Government that it has not adequately dealt with certain perennial social evils. It is a safe thing to say. But in four years we have built in this State 14,000 houses. That gave some employment. Here in Dublin city and suburbs there were more houses built in the five years between 1922 and 1927 than were built in the thirty years between 1890 and 1921. By the imposition of tariffs additional employment was given to 10,000 persons. In the industries assisted and stimulated by the Trade Loans Guarantee Act additional employment was given to 1,700 persons. Presumably, the 10,000 acres of beet that were grown last year in the counties round about Carlow, and the 15,000 acres of beet that are there to-day, gave some employment. The harnessing of the Shannon is giving employment. I am prepared to hear a taunt about the wage there, but it gave employment. The draining of the Barrow is giving employment, and the arterial drainage that is being carried out throughout the country is giving employment. The intensive activity on the roads of the country is giving employment.
We have not been able to work miracles. We were careful to disclaim before the electorate any capacity in working miracles. We told them we could only get money out of their pockets and that we thought that within the limits of our resources we had done as much as men could do by legislation and administration to deal with the social evils that we found in our midst, and that they should guard themselves against any idea that if we were returned to office we would work miracles in the future any more than in the past. That was too modest. It compared badly with the alluring programmes that were being dangled before the people by the minority Parties who were not taking the risk of having the responsibility of Government.
Deputy Johnson has told us to-day that the people should know the Labour Party better than to think that any word had escaped them tending in the direction of an alliance, a coalition or conference respecting the future government of this State. Very good. What then did the Labour Party mean when challenging this Government in the country, when inviting the electorate to throw it out, and when refraining from running a sufficient number of candidates to secure a majority in the Dáil? They will not ally; they will not coalesce; they will not confer; they stand alone, as Deputy Morrissey said in Tipperary. Very good—they stand alone. But they invited the electorate to throw out this Government. What Government was the electorate to throw in? Not them—they were not looking for a majority.
We got more than the Government expected.
Just two short of what the Deputy expected himself.
We went nearer to it than the Minister went to his majority.
Deputy Johnson is against the motion—he is against the motion, with no alternative. He is against the motion on principle. What the principle is I do not know. I have no doubt Deputy Johnson knows. Deputy Redmond is neither for nor against the motion. He is in a condition of philosophic doubt. It may be right or it may be wrong, but one must not expect Deputy Redmond to say whether it is right or wrong—he will wait and see. Very good. Deputy Cooper's contribution to the discussion was to say that "We will do to clear up the mess." We have cleared up some messes, and we are prepared to do that in the future as in the past, but I trust that the President's statement has made our position perfectly clear. We are not taking office as super-policemen. We are not taking office simply to keep the ring and allow the country to drift. We are taking office to go ahead with our programme, and if, and when, a majority of this Dáil agrees to disagree with our programme, then no doubt they will be prepared to take up the responsibility which they have now disclaimed or which they are now imposing on this Party. The alternative to that is a General Election.
No.
The alternative to another Government than this being found within the Dáil is a General Election.
An alternative to the Government.
Deputy Baxter used one phrase which I would like to touch on. He said there was jockeying for position. I trust it is clear that there is one Party in this Dáil not jockeying for position. This motion that is now before the Dáil will be withdrawn if there is any person in the Dáil who is prepared to form a Government and can show a reasonable prospect of securing sufficient support to do that. Deputies will need to think that over. It was not in any flippancy that the offer of an adjournment was made. We do seriously think that the combination of Parties which challenged this Party in the country and which succeeded in reducing this Party to a position of being a mathematical minority in the Dáil might well consider whether they could not sink certain differences, find certain points of policy in common on which they could build a programme and form a Government. They are certainly most cordially invited to do that. We are prepared to be an intelligent and sympathetic opposition. We will be the more sympathetic because we have been on the inside and know the difficulties. We will not talk either in the Dáil or outside of it about halving taxation and doubling expenditure, because we happen to know it cannot be done. We will be as gentle as lambs.
Impossible!
Helpful, sympathetic, constructive criticism is what a government could expect from this Party in those circumstances, and it is a little disappointing to see this acknowledged bankruptcy of our opponents who were so eloquent in the country some fortnight or three weeks ago. All the fine promises have faded out. The Party that was to end Partition the Party that was to halve taxation, the Party that was to have every man sitting down under his own vine trees smoking a pipe of Irish-grown tobacco are not here to-day.
That is what we were told when you got us this liberty.
I think the position is clear to the Dáil, and I think that gradually the position will become clear to the country. We are prepared to go ahead—to go ahead with our policy, not with the policy of any other person or any other Party, and we will go ahead until such time as a majority of this Dáil thinks fit to disagree with us.
While I am a member of this House I intend to support——
On a point of order: Is it the procedure of this House that we are to have applause from the gallery when a Minister is speaking, and when he sits down, having concluded his speech? I think there should be some question as to the rights of individuals in the gallery applauding Ministers. It has occurred here, and there should be some question about it.
I think the Deputy is aware, as all Deputies are aware, that there should be no applause from the gallery. But I think there is nothing in the point that applause in the gallery is allowed in the case of a Minister and not allowed in the case of other persons. If I could accomplish it, I would prevent any applause in the gallery.
If the Minister was interrupted from the gallery the interrupter would be speedily removed. I think, also, when the Minister is applauded from the gallery that the applauder should be removed.
While I am a member of this House and have the honour to represent the City of Dublin, I will support every line of the Treaty and every line in the Constitution. But when Deputy Cosgrave stands up and uses words like this—"If I am to accept office it will be only on a definite understanding that I must receive sufficient support to carry out my programme"—it must be remembered that Deputies in this House are not aware of his programme. What I want to know is, if I support the motion to elect Deputy Cosgrave as President of the Executive Council, does it mean that I am pledging myself to support his programme? (Labour Deputies—"Yes.") Does it mean that I am supporting Deputy Cosgrave in his speeches and those of the members of his Party, that Proportional Representation must go? Does it mean that the conditions of the unemployed are to remain? Does it mean that the wives and children of the unemployed in the slums in Dublin to-day are to remain hungry? If that is so, I cannot support the motion before the House. Does it mean, also, that Irish industries are to starve because of the dumping of foreign goods into this country? I shall support the Government at all times in whatever I think is good. I shall oppose the Government, as I did many times in the past, in anything I think is bad, and many bad things were introduced into this House in the past by a big majority in spite of opposition and criticism from every section of the House, including members of the President's own Party, who were ignored.
Am I to be asked to give a vote to-day that would pledge me to support the Government in something that has not been stated? Do members of the House realise the meaning of the President's words—that he will only accept office on condition that he receives sufficient support to carry out his programme? Is the blind voting to go on which has gone on in this House for the past four years? Are new members going to accept the policy that the first vote they will give will be to pledge their support to something that they know nothing about? I would ask the President to be more clear, to think of the country, and not to think of Deputy Cosgrave. The country wants stability; the unemployed are looking for work, their families are looking for bread and butter. I know it. No matter what the Government did in the past in the way of road work and housing, I know that in the slums of Dublin and in some good districts in Dublin there are children hungry. I cannot bring that home strongly enough to the Government and Deputies. I can produce names, and I have got the permission of the people to produce their names, whose children have almost died of starvation in this city, and I take this, the earliest, opportunity of drawing the Government's attention to these conditions in Dublin. I am aware that in various parts of the country the conditions are just as bad. Other Deputies have brought to the notice of the Government the conditions of the unemployed, and no matter what the Government did in the days gone by, it is up to them now, to see that the citizens of this country and their children must be supported, no matter who feeds them. They must not be allowed to die of starvation in a Christian country. I ask the President first of all to think of the country and of all the hungry women and children, and to put that consideration first before he thinks of himself or his Party.
Perhaps it might be thought presumptions of a raw recruit, who knows very little about the procedure of the House, and still less about the election of a President, to intervene in this debate. I happen to belong to what I may call the awkward squad of the House sitting on the Independent benches, where probably none of us could keep step one with another. Nevertheless, I think that before the motion is put to a division—I sincerely hope it will not be. put to a division— it is necessary for us, not so much to consider the personnel of the Government in the future or who the President will be, as to have regard, exactly, to what has been the result of the General Election. Now, while it has been said that certain people will support the Government and certain people will not support them, I must preface my remarks by saying that a motion in support of the existing President will have my support. But I do say, not simply because I was elected here as an Independent, that it is not necessary for a man contesting an election to have sufficient money and sufficient candidates at his back to form a Government. That, to my mind, is the most silly argument that has been put forward as a reason why nobody has a right to speak but the largest Party in the House.
I did not say that.
I am only an isolated person, but I know sufficient about the people of my own constituency to know exactly why they put me here. If I understand their mentality I was put here to be a brake on the Government. The Government, in the past four years, have used a big majority, to my mind, mercilessly, on the people. The net result of the election is not so much to put the Government out of office as to clip their wings, so that in future they will be more mindful of the opinions of the people and the representatives they send here, than they have been in the past.
Let me say, in passing, that it was a very extraordinary feature of the General Election that the two largest Parties in the country were the two Parties that, by their propaganda, were advertising one another. The Government Party, during the election campaign, told us that the only alternative was the men outside; the men outside said the only alternative was the Cumann na nGaedheal Party: that we, the people sitting on these Benches, had no right to be put up for election at all, and certainly had no right to sit here. That is the logical conclusion that one must draw from these statements: that there should be only one side in this House and no Opposition. As I said earlier, I am going to support the motion for the re-election of Deputy Cosgrave in the office of President, and I think I am on safe ground in doing so, because the balance of power in the House is such that we will be in a position to control legislation in the future: we can see that there is not too much of it put on the people without consultation with them. I think, if all of us take that lesson to ourselves, that we need not have the slightest fear as to who is going to form the Government, because we can see that whoever is put in harness will have due regard to the will of the people as expressed through their representatives in this House.
In the Provisional Government the Minister for Justice had charge of the Constitution Bill. Enshrined in that Constitution is the principle of proportional representation. Surely the Minister and those who supported him must have known when proposing to carry through the system of proportional representation that it undoubtedly meant the election of small groups; that different interests would be represented by small groups in this House, and that the system was a break-away from the traditional Party system as known in Great Britain. The Minister must have known that, under proportional representation, no Party could expect the huge majorities that were the fashion under the Party system as known in Great Britain. The Minister comes to us to-day and would have the Dáil and the country imagine that something in the nature of a calamity has happened because his Party, or some other Party, has not been returned in a majority of the whole membership of the Dáil.
Or a Coalition?
I do not know exactly what that interruption is intended to imply, but it would seem, as Deputy O'Hanlon has stated following the Minister's reasoning, that no Party had the right to put up candidates unless it was able to put up a sufficient number to carry at least 77 seats. As Deputy O'Hanlon has stated, that is an absolutely foolish and impossible proposition. Deputy Johnson has been taunted with not making an alternative proposal. He has given his reasons here, as they have been given by our Party through the country, for our opposition to the present Government. If we were to take the statement of the Minister for Justice and follow his argument to its logical conclusion, it would mean that this House was so absolutely bankrupt that six or seven other men could not be found within the House to carry on the government of the country in place of the six or seven men who have been carrying it on for the past four or five years. It would show that this Dáil was bankrupt if that were the case.
Reference has been made to the fact that people have been shirking their responsibilities. The Labour Party will not shirk its responsibilities. It has never shirked its responsibilities in the past. It is not going to shirk them now. We have indicated what our attitude is. We have given our reasons for our opposition to the election of Deputy Cosgrave as President. It is for the House now to decide by vote what it will do, whether it will elect Deputy Cosgrave as President or refuse to elect him. If it elects him, well and good; and I would like to say this in reference to what Deputy Byrne said, that I think it is not unreasonable for Deputy Cosgrave to say that he will carry on only so long as he gets support. It is not necessary for him to lay that down beforehand; it is quite obvious; there is no reason to reiterate it and there is no need to object to it. But if the motion before the House is defeated, it would be for the House to face its responsibilities, and in doing so the Labour Party will not shirk its responsibilities any more than it has ever shirked them before.
I think, in view of the proposal put forward by Labour, that it is not fair that the House should be asked to vote before Labour offers its alternative. To my mind, it would be blind voting if Labour does not offer us its alternative. I want to take exception to some of the President's remarks. He said that the Government was attacked by every Party and by every Independent candidate going up, and that the people were asked to show their confidence.
No.
He did not.
I am sorry. I took that as what he said. But in any case, he made the statement that the depleted numbers on the Government Benches to-day are due to the wild promises made by other Parties throughout the country during the Election. I say that the depleted numbers on the Government Benches to-day are due to the bungling of the Government organisation itself, absolutely and entirely, and I believe that the men on the Government Benches know that better than anyone else.
The men not on the Government Benches know it.
I say that in order to clear the air the Labour Party ought to offer us their alternative before we are asked to vote. So far as I can see, there is no alternative but to vote for Deputy Cosgrave. Personally, I do not want one, but I think in fairness to the House the Labour Party should give us their alternative.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- Patrick Baxter.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Michael Carter.
- Mrs. Margaret Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Martin Conlon.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- Denis John Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- John J. Hassett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Gilbert Hewson.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Patrick Michael Kelly.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Finian Lynch.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- John Daly.
- Michael Davis.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Michael Doyle.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Thomas Falvey.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Hugh Garahan.
- Martin Ml. Nally.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- David Leo O'Gorman.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Kevin O'Higgins.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Martin Roddy.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy.
- William Edward Thrift.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- James Joseph Walsh.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Richard Anthony.
- Henry Broderick.
- Patrick Clancy.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Richard Corish.
- Denis Cullen.
- William Davin.
- Edward Doyle.
- James Everett.
- John F. Gill.
- David Hall.
- Patrick Hogan (Clare).
- Thomas Johnson.
- Michael Keyes.
- Thomas Lawlor.
- Gilbert Lynch.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Timothy Joseph Murphy.
- William O'Brien.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Timothy Quill.
- James Shannon.
Tellers:—Tá. Deputies Duggan and O'Connor; Níl: Deputies Morrissey and T. O'Connell.
Motion declared carried.
Where is the sham Opposition now?
Where is the Redmondite Party?
Before I move the adjournment, I should like to acknowledge this vote of the House and to say that, with the help of God, I shall discharge the duties of the office to the best of my ability. I move: "That the House adjourn until 6 o'clock." I hope at that time to be able to inform the House of the names of the Ministers that I intend to put before it for assent.
Sitting suspended at 4.55 and resumed at 6 o'clock,
in the Chair.