Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Aug 1927

Vol. 20 No. 21

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - NO CONFIDENCE MOTION.

Mr. JOHNSON

The motion down in my name and which I move is:—

"That the Executive Council has ceased to retain the support of the majority in Dáil Eireann."

In effect, it is clear that that motion is intended to test the views of the House as to whether the present Executive Council shall continue in office. It is based on Article 53 of the Constitution, which says: "The President and Ministers nominated by him shall retire from office when they cease to retain the support of the majority in Dáil Eireann." It is intended that that proof should be given as to whether the present Executive Council do, in fact, retain the support of the majority. One would imagine from some of the public comments that there had never been a motion of this kind, or a motion implying want of confidence in the Executive Council, moved before, but those who have been members of that Council, or members of the Dáil, for the last four or five years are pretty familiar with the fact that from the Labour benches numerous motions implying want of confidence in the Executive Council have been moved, spoken to, and defeated.

At the first meeting after the general election the Labour Party divided the House on the question of whether Deputy W. T. Cosgrave should retain the office of President, and there was also a division on the question of the composition of the Executive Council. That division, too, resulted in confidence being expressed in the Executive Council, as nominated by the President. There were, in addition to the Labour Party, a few other Deputies who voted for that motion, or, rather, who voted against the motion of the President, which was, in fact, an indication of want of confidence in the nominees, as a Council, of the President. We gave our reasons in that discussion why we had not confidence in the Executive Council. They were reasons affecting the social and economic conditions of the people, and we felt then, as we felt for months before, and still feel, that in the matter of the social conditions of the people, in the matter of employment and unemployment, the Executive Council have not made the most of their opportunities, and have not utilised their power and authority in a manner which would best serve the people of the country.

We believe that there is much poverty, much distress, that is capable of being removed, suffering which could be eased through a more sympathetic attitude on the part of the Ministry in the administration of the laws which exist. We believe that the Executive Council have power within present legislation, within constitutional authority, to initiate many works, public opportunities, for employment, and stimulating private enterprise and private activity in a manner much more satisfactory and more conducive to the public well-being than they have so far shown evidence of. Nothing that has happened since the date of that motion has warranted us in changing our views. We have had no sign—no opportunity has been given them perhaps of showing a sign—of any change of attitude, but we were convinced then by definite statements that the policy of the Government in future in regard to those social and industrial problems was to carry on as they have been carrying on in the past.

So far from anything having happened in the meantime to inspire greater confidence in the Executive Council, much has happened within the last few weeks to diminish even that amount of confidence which we had. We are familiar with the legislation that was introduced in respect to public safety, and included in that term were Bills known as the Public Safety Bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill, and the Constitution Amendment Bill. It is known well that the Labour Party and others in the House opposed the policy that was behind those Bills. It seemed to us that they were not likely to lead to better order, to better government, and to greater promise of peace, but that, on the contrary, the introduction and carrying through this House of those Bills rather indicated a state of mind in the Executive Council which was more likely to lessen the prospects of good order and good government than to improve them. When the discussion on the formation of the Executive Council was before the House it was said by several Deputies that there had been no alternative offered, that had there been an alternative put before the House there might have been a change in the decision of Deputies who were speaking, that they were not prepared to put out the present, or then existing, Government until they saw some prospect of an alternative, and they said that they saw no prospect of an alternative.

I said then that it was a sad reflection upon the Dáil if there could only be found in the assembly the then existing eight or ten members who were capable of carrying on government in the Saorstát. The position, to-day. I think, is somewhat different. New facts have come into the arena. There has been a change by the entry into the Dáil of 43 Deputies who had hitherto abstained, and it cannot be said at this stage of our existence, even by those who thought that there was no alternative two months ago, that there is no alternative now. Ministers told us in that discussion that they had no desire to retain office, and that they recognised that the country had decided that they were a minority and had not given them sufficient support to warrant them in maintaining office if any alternative could be found. To-day there are a number of alternatives. The fact that the Deputies of Fianna Fáil are in the House provides the obvious alternative.

There is the alternative of a combination of parties on my right, and on the Government left—quite a reasonable possibility of a combination of Farmers, National League and Independents, who, I have no doubt, would be able to carry on the business of the country satisfactorily, and being just as assured of backing from the other parties in the House as the present Government are of backing if they continue to carry on. There is the possibility of a combination of all the middle parties of the House. Some people have said that there is the possibility of the parties who are of the elements of the two wings of the main parties and who are really in fact much closer to each other than they are to other members of their own party. That is also a possible combination. I can imagine also the possibility of a combination of parties with the Labour Party and the elements in the Cumann na nGaedheal, who are in fact closer to Labour than they are to some of their own members, and the elements in the Fianna Fáil Party who are closer to Labour than to some of their own Party. A combination of such parties is possible, and within the region of practical politics. It has been even suggested that there can be a combination of all those parties with a definite national democratic policy—parties capable of lifting the country out of the present slough. That all remains to be seen. The question before the House is whether we have confidence in the existing Executive Council to carry on the government of the country for the lifetime of this Parliament, or any shorter time as may be possible.

I have a strong belief that the important thing for this country at the moment is that there should be a party or a combination of parties in office which will exclude from office for a time both those parties who have been in fierce contention one with the other during the last two years. I said that there has been a new situation created by the definite, formal entry into the constitutional course of a party which has hitherto abstained from attendance at this House. That is a great new fact, and I think this House ought to welcome and recognise it. It is for themselves to say, but I believe the primary consideration determining that course was the belief which I and others have insisted upon in public that the country needed a rest from turmoil and trouble, that there was need for a period of settlement, for a period of reconstruction, for a period of devoted national service. It is my belief that they are willing to join in that effort at reconstruction and national service, and that there are possibilities for a period of peace and quietude in the country and of a general common effort at economic development. If the present Ministry retain office, faced by the main opposition of those who had been hitherto in violent conflict—I am not going to recount past troubles or try to bring into comparison the merits or demerits of either Party—the possibilities of carrying on Parliamentary Government successfully, and with a successful issue for the cause of peace and development, are very much less. I put it as low as that, very much less indeed while the present Ministry retain office.

During the debates on the Public Safety Bill in the Seanad a Senator quoted from a certain American newspaper. I shall not read the quotation, but it was from a newspaper which attacked the present Government, and particularly attacked the late Vice-President. There is in circulation in the country at the present time a copy of a rival American organ containing a most venomous attack upon the leader of the Opposition in this House. It is an attack by name, and brutally refers to the leader of the Opposition, Deputy de Valera, as the real assassin, and inciting quite deliberately to the killing of that assassin. I shall not read the quotations, but I draw attention to them, to show that on one side and the other in America there is an awful feud between two contending elements which have been associated in the past in the promotion of the cause of Ireland. Those newspapers are being circulated in this country, and they have their echoes in the public pronouncements of the protagonists of the two rival parties in this country. Even as recently as Sunday last we had a statement from a responsible Minister, if the newspaper reports are to be relied upon, describing the chief Opposition Party in this House as a party of assassination. I put it to the House that if that spirit is going to prevail in the Government it will certainly provoke a counter-spirit in the Opposition, and what will be the effect on the country if that spirit is going to be behind the administration of the Public Safety Act? I say that the peace, order and good government of Ireland will be more surely promoted by the occupancy of the Government Benches by some party, or a combination of parties, outside either of these contending elements. I believe that association in the work of legislation, in the work of Parliament in this Chamber, will effectually, in due course, soften the asperities and remove the hatreds that have generated and developed within these last few years. That will come very much more surely if neither of these contestants are in the Government offices.

It has been suggested that any alternative to the present Ministry will bring disaster upon the country. I know that the President does not hold that view. I believe that the Executive Council does not preach that doctrine. It would be a very sad reflection upon the country if it were true. There are possibilities of governing this country by numerous combinations, numerous associations, even to the most extreme imagination none of them being less homogeneous than the present coalition, known as the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. We had it even boasted of during the election that that Party was a perfect coalition. I do not think there is anything particularly compatible, let us say, between the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, between the Minister for Finance and, let us say, Deputy Hugh Law——

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Why?

Mr. JOHNSON

—Between Deputy P. S. Doyle and Deputy Martin McDonagh, and I would imagine that as between the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and Deputy Gun O'Mahony the only point of common interest is familiarity with the word "gun." There is a combination within that Party, and they have found it possible to associate and to carry on the work of government. It is, as I say, a coalition of elements which happen to have been fused into a political Party without any other coherent principle than to maintain the Treaty. So that there is nothing at all extraordinary in the idea that there may be other coalitions possible for this country, and coalitions which were inevitable once Ministers introduced the constitutional scheme which rightly, in my opinion, provided the system of proportional representation.

Let me say here, for the comfort of some of my friends, that so far as I and this Party are concerned we are going to give the Treaty and the Constitution the fullest possible support and maintenance. We are going to maintain the Treaty and the Constitution. We are going to maintain the Constitution as well as the Treaty, and the safeguards for public liberty, for public expression, and for political activities, which the Constitution provides. The people in the Saorstát are supreme. I have never doubted that within the Constitution, based upon the Treaty, the people of Ireland, by their votes, are capable of governing this country in all domestic concerns one hundred per cent. I agree emphatically with the words reported as having been uttered by Prof. MacNeill, that we have here, in fact, in this country a Republican form of Government. I say, as I have very many times said, that rightly interpreted the Constitution and the Treaty ensure all that is valuable in the Republican form of government. We have it stated in our Treaty and in our Constitution that all powers of government and all authority—legislative, executive and judicial—in Ireland are derived from the people of Ireland. We have it stated that the Executive is responsible to the Parliament. We also have it stated that Executive power is vested in the King, who, in this Constitution, is responsible to the Parliament, and the Parliament are responsible to the people. That is ensuring to the people of the country authority and power in a way which is complete and absolute.

I know there are differences of view as to the interpretation of those clauses of the Treaty and the Constitution. But let us make the most of our interpretation of the Treaty and the Constitution, and when those institutions of Government in that Constitution, in that Treaty, prove to be of such a nature as to prevent the development of this State and this people, then let us change it by any means, or all means, that may be in our power. But let us at least try to the utmost the powers that we have. That is the doctrine that I preach and the policy that I, for one, will follow.

I have said, and I speak for my colleagues, that we would, if we had anything to do with the future government of this country, maintain the Treaty and the Constitution, including the safeguards for public liberty and political expression which the Constitution has guaranteed. I draw attention to the Bills which have been passed by this House which abrogate the Constitution and deprive the people of those liberites. The Public Safety Bill was supported, on Second Reading, by sixty Deputies out of a House which now consists of 140, and it was passed by a number which is a minority of the Dáil. The Constitution Amendment Bill, on Second Reading, received the support of 48 Deputies out of a House which now consists of 140. The Electoral Amendment Bill received the support, on Second Reading, of 51 Deputies out of a House that now consists of 140. In each case, therefore, these Bills represent only a small minority of the total membership of this House; they ought not, therefore, to be put into operation or to be made effective law.

The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is reported to have made a speech which, in my view, gives the greatest promise of future goodwill and a combined effort to promote the prosperity of the country. I welcome that speech, and to me it wipes out many faults of administration. I agree with that speech in one particular, perhaps, more than any other, and that is where he expressed his view that a more fortunate selection than that of Deputy Johnson could have been made. I agree with the Minister entirely in that. While it is premature for the Minister to speak, as he did, and for the newspapers to speak as they have done, and for many other people to associate my name with certain offices, I am the last to believe that it is a fitting thing that I should be associated with such offices.

It had never been my choice, or desire, that I should be placed in the position of having had to lead the chief section of the Opposition in the last Dáil. I am glad to say that that is no longer my position. Perhaps I might even use the words of a much greater man than any we have among us, that "I am now in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility."

I move the motion without further words. I do not think it is necessary that there should be any prolonged debate. So far as I am concerned, my chief anxiety in this matter is that there should be a period from this time forward which would allow the country to move ahead without the risk—I do not put it any higher than that—of having those contentions revived of which we have recently grown out.

Mr. COLOHAN

I formally second the motion on the Order Paper, moved by Deputy Johnson.

The PRESIDENT

This motion is in very general terms, and examining the motion and contrasting it with the speech to which he have just listened, I am in a little doubt as to whether the Deputy is of the same mind for a period of something like two months. We had much the same economic situation here two months ago, three months ago, one month ago, as to-day. There is not much difference between the economic situation during that period of two or three months.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Except that it is worse.

The PRESIDENT

The Deputy will, I hope, behave himself. Within these last five or six weeks there was published in a journal called "The Irishman" a statement concerning Deputy Johnson, and that statement runs—

"Apparently Deputy Johnson had expressed his willingness to enter a Coalition Government along with President Cosgrave."

The same economic situation! No change! And I was offered, apparently, according to this paper, a Coalition with Deputy Johnson. If I am a bad economist to-day, I was, apparently, much the same bad economist four or five weeks ago, yet I was offered, it appears, a Coalition with the Labour Party or with Deputy Johnson. The statement goes on to say—

"Deputy Johnson risked his reputation and authority in the Labour movement, risked, in fact, his whole future career as a public man."

So that, apparently, when a Coalition is offered there is a big sacrifice. Now I take it that the question of economy apparently is not the motive which underlies this motion. If it were, we ought to have had this motion a month ago. We know better now; that is not the cause of this motion.

I am entitled to ask what is going to happen if this motion is passed. That was kept from us a sacred, guarded secret. What is the support for this motion? Have there been agreements secretly arrived at? Is part of the policy of the Labour Party secret agreements secretly arrived at? The people of this country are really entitled to know. During the late election, at no time did I hesitate to make myself clear to the mind of every hearer what my policy was. I was not then a Coalitionist, and I am not a Coalitionist to-day.

I am prepared, if the circumstances demand, to give what support and to urge my Party to give what support is required to any coalition Government. But I suggest that it would be well to state to the public, clearly and before this Dáil, what the proposals are in connection with any coalition that is going to be established.

What is the case against us? Not economics, or that statement that is printed in "The Irishman" is an untrue statement. Then it must be politics. Sober-minded citizens were told from the same source: "...are feeling that the unhappy past will never be displaced by a hopeful future if the affairs of the country are to be left in the hands of either of the two factions which have been primarily responsible for the course of the events of the last few years." I may presume, with some degree of accuracy that here is one of the two factions, that there is another, and that yonder is the peacemaker (Deputy Johnson). Now, I would like to examine that particular quotation. Have we ever heard anything like that before? How far removed is that statement from its long-lost brother, "Divide and conquer"? The two factions! The peacemaker, in his pious quest for men of good-will, toured round the country, and by persuading one of the factions to enter the portals of any place where he may be they immediately lose that particular character and come out men of good-will; they don the robe of innocence and they enter the portals where only men of good-will are allowed to enter. We had a recent exhibition of the policy of this man of good-will. Fifteen months ago, when there was a general strike in England, a message went from this man of good-will across the water: "How can we help?"

LABOUR DEPUTIES

Hear, hear.

The PRESIDENT

Anxious for the good of this country, with his eye on this country only, knowing the economical situation here, knowing that there were people unemployed here, the cry is: "How can we help?" The strange thing about these two factions —I am reminded of it as a result of the recent election—is that 46 persons were returned by the people as their representatives to one of the factions, and 44 and 7 were returned as representatives to the other faction, and this apostle of democracy comes along to us and says: "Not these two factions, only the peacemaker." The peacemaker in his pious quest for men of good-will, makes a pilgrimage round the country and pronounces, with all the fervour of the gentleman in the Temple: "Thank God I am not like these two factions."

This new policy that we are hearing about involves sacrifice, an inordinate sacrifice! The public life of a great man is in jeopardy. That is, of course, for the innocent public; the sober-minded citizen is to be assured that sacrifice is the order of the day and of the night—"the long, sleepless nights." Well, after five years of office, and they were fairly strenuous years, I am sleeping well. I wish I had more of it. Posing and "sacrifice" are what we have here, with great issues before the country, with a necessity upon every public representative here to instil public confidence, and to instil it, not by posing and by sacrifice, but by constructive effort for the public good. The eyes of the people of this country are on this Parliament to-day, looking for that constructive effort, looking for some sensible action, looking for some appreciation of the responsibility which is on us, and we are not offered a solution by the motion that is before the House to-day. When we hear of a person saying that neither of these two "factions" have the confidence of the people of the country there is, whether we like it or not, almost an invitation to carry on and to intensify the differences of the last few years. That is not statesmanship—not along that line. The policy of this Government has been explained on many platforms. We stand for a balanced Budget, for easing the burden of taxation on all the citizens, for developing the country's resources in every possible way, for improving and increasing the efficiency of every service we have got, for one Army, one armed force in this country, under this Parliament, no other, no matter what sacrifices may be entailed by nailing that on our mast. The policy of this Government during the last few weeks had nothing else in mind. We have not talked about sacrifice. We told this Parliament, within the last two or three weeks, that we wanted 152 seats filled in this Dáil. Within the past week I have seen the vindication of that policy, and I am glad of it. Do not think for a moment that we are upset by any change that may take place on these benches.

I was wondering during the past few hours just exactly what was in the minds of those who deprived us of the ablest Minister in the Executive Council. For two months they have been feeling uneasy, with nothing but condemnation from every citizen of this State, nothing but reprobation of that crime. We came to Parliament and we asked Parliament for such authority as we considered would be necessary in order to empower us to prevent crime and to arrest those responsible for such armed crimes. I wonder how do the assassins feel to-day—how have they felt during the last few days? I put to this House one question: Will they feel easier if this motion passes?

Captain REDMOND

I bring to this debate, and the vote which we shall give at its conclusion, a sense of deep responsibility. I feel profoundly that however momentous our decision may be, an even greater and graver importance attaches to the spirit and reasoning which actually determine the result. In my view, this crisis is no mere trial of strength between rival groups anxious for victory in the game of Party politics. It is a crisis which marks a turning point in the history and in the political development of Ireland, and the temper, if I may say so, in which we approach it is important, more important even than, perhaps, the creation of a small majority for the one side or the other—all important, I say, in deciding either for a sterile perpetuation of an embittered feud, or alternatively for the adoption of wholesome and beneficent processes of growth in the inner political life of our country. We may do much for Ireland if we bring to this debate a sense of historical perspective, a feeling of legitimate constitutional evolution, and an ardour of patriotism that places love of Ireland, and of our Irish people, high above mere Party rivalry, high above mere sectional interests, high above mere temporary expediencies. We need to keep steadily in view the ultimate benefit, in its broadest aspects, of the Irish people, and to brush aside the shibboleths of the doctrinaire idealists, the short-sighted opportunisms of the mere administrators, and every vestige of recrimination over past differences. It was my deep and sincere conviction in this sense that led me to plead, not long since, for a spirit of national appeasement, and, so far as might be, for a general reconciliation. And it is with that conviction and in that spirit that I and those who act with me address ourselves to this motion of no confidence in the Government.

The real gravamen of the case against the Government is that while it is acting in professed support of the Constitution it is actually hindering rather than helping the cause of true constitutionalism. It has armed itself with powers which, expressly and impliedly, involve a complete abrogation of the Constitution itself, and a complete violation of some of the most cherished doctrines of constitutionalism, powers for the purpose of enforcing respect for that Constitution and of insisting upon the propriety of constitutionalism in action by others. It has displayed a temper of exasperation and bitterness in debate which arouses in our minds the very gravest misgivings as to the way in which those most arbitrary and extravagant unconstitutional powers may be exercised by the Executive. Again, we cannot forget that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, which wields the full powers of the State, and the Fianna Fáil Party, which is the largest element aimed at by the Government policy of repression, are both of them merely rival offshoots of a single Sinn Féin Party, that they have sundered from each other comparatively recently, and that there exists between them that bitterness which ever divides two such warring sections where each claims complete orthodoxy for itself and each regards its rival as heretical and apostate. There is thus the danger of the relationship of the governors and the governed in regard to this new campaign of repression being doubly embittered by an infusion of an inflamed and exacerbated party spirit.

Mr. BAXTER

Might I put a question to Deputy Redmond? Is he sincere when he puts the case before this House and the country that he is out for national appeasement, or is the spirit which is indicated——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is making an argument, not asking a question.

Captain REDMOND

I leave others to judge my sincerity. There is, as I said, thus the danger of the relationship of the governors and the governed, and that would open, in my view, a black and sinister prospect for the coming months. It would tend, I fear, indefinitely to postpone the advent of that state of national well-being and prosperity which can only result from the people of Ireland being at peace with themselves. Heaven knows—and the sufferings of our people can testify —that the coming of that state of national well-being and prosperity has already been too long postponed. I would, in short, summarise the charge against the Government by saying that where peace is by far the greatest and most urgent need of our unhappy country, the Government seems to be preparing for war; or, if that word be objected to, it is certainly preparing a campaign of repression that will create disorder of a character closely resembling civil war in regard to all its attendant horrors and destruction. In expressing our profound dismay at the prospect for this country which, to my mind, the Government policy seems to open up, I am bound to temper my condemnation of that policy with sympathy for President Cosgrave and his colleagues in regard to the occurrence which led to its initiation. The abominable murder of Mr. Kevin O'Higgins deprived them of a valued friend and colleague and a prudent counsellor, under circumstances which might well try the nerve and arouse the passion of his surviving comrades, but the sympathy which helps to explain how a profoundly erroneous policy came to be proposed cannot, I submit, be suffered to blind the eyes of our judgment as to its patent defects and to the disastrous consequences that it threatens to our unhappy country.

It was a terrible crime, which was unquestionably actuated by political motives. But it is no more reason for suppressing politics than, let us say, occasional occurrences of crime springing from some obscure religious excitement is a reason for suppressing religion. Yet the Government which has failed signally to show any prima facie connection between that crime or any other crime and the Fianna Fáil Party, has taken it as a reason for launching its campaign against its political opponents, who have been gravitating clearly and surely in the direction of constitutionalism. I do not believe that Deputy de Valera, or any of his Party, were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the murder of Mr. Kevin O'Higgins. I have stated that before Deputy de Valera came into the Dáil, and there has been no jot or tittle of evidence to connect them with it. That being so, we, here on these benches, object to seeing our Government perpetrating the stale old blunder of attacking the legitimate exercise of constitutional rights and political action under the pretext of seeking to suppress or to prevent crime.

There are a good many people in the Saorstát who still remember that stale old blunder being perpetrated in Ireland by the British Government, and they remembered how it failed. But even the British Government, with all its difficulties, never passed so drastic a Coercion Bill as the present Public Safety Act, and, as far as I can learn, they passed over forty Bills of a similar kind. That, as I have described, stale old blunder brings the country and the State into odium and contempt with the people who suffer from the tyranny of unconstitutional repression. But in this case it bears all too much the complexion of one set of political partisans who have attained to office using the emergency powers of the State for the purpose of suppressing their rival partisans who have not succeeded in getting there.

That sort of thing is only allowed to occur in a tenth-rate State, and it certainly should not be allowed to occur as the result, may be, of a moment of passion, in the Irish Free State. We who profess Irish nationalism which has been constitutionalist for half a century, must necessarily protest when it is being done. Casting our eyes back only a few years, we, from these benches, see President Cosgrave, on the one hand, and Deputy de Valera upon the other hand, engaged in a frankly revolutionary and unconstitutional action. We did not agree with either of them then, nor do we agree with either of them now. Then President Cosgrave and his followers—all honour I say to them—betook themselves to constitutionalism, like, if the term is not taken as offensive, poachers turned gamekeepers. But what we cannot understand is, when Deputy de Valera and his friends now show signs and symptoms of following in his path, why President Cosgrave should use every expedient, device and threat to prevent them from doing so. Personally, I do not at all agree with Deputy de Valera's aims, and there is much in the record of his activities in post-Treaty times which I very strongly resent. But I am not prepared to deny the sincerity and efficiency at the moment of himself and his friends.

President Cosgrave and his friends were converted a few short years ago and changed from poachers to being gamekeepers. I can see no reason, for the life of me, why we should not welcome the process, or why we should doubt that they would not make just as good gamekeepers as President Cosgrave. Whether Deputy de Valera, in his abandonment of poaching, is prepared to go far or to go so far as to take up gamekeeping, I do not know, but this I will say, that we of the Irish National Party are absolutely wedded to the fundamentals of the Anglo-Irish settlement. That settlement is satisfactory to us for our time and generation. But we admit Deputy de Valera's right—his undeniable right—under constitutional law and in natural justice, to try to persuade his fellow-countrymen to abrogate that settlement. We shall resist any such attempt to the utmost of our power, because we believe it to be our highest duty to the essential interests of Ireland to resist it. We shall resist it just as earnestly as we shall continue to resist, again because of our duty to the essential interests of Ireland, President Cosgrave's attempt to mobilise all the resources of the State to crush lawful political actions and to thrust back these newer recruits of constitutionalism, back into the dreary and dangerous ways of revolutionism.

I must point out that if Deputy de Valera confines himself to constitutional methods in seeking to sweep away the Constitution, he is perhaps on stronger ground morally than is President Cosgrave, who sweeps away the Constitution actually and at once in order to preserve it. We can hardly wonder, however, if the plain people of Ireland, tormented between the rival extravagances of President Cosgrave on the one hand and Deputy de Valera's on the other, are tempted to cry aloud "A plague on both your houses." I am thus brought to the proposition that we are not content to dethrone President Cosgrave in order to put Deputy de Valera in his place. Nor are we content to outlaw and expel Deputy de Valera in order to secure the throne in permanence for President Cosgrave. We want to see this wretched vendetta that is bedevilling the fair name of Ireland ended once and for all.

How is it to be done? We are glad to see here in their places the Fianna Fáil Deputies. We know their presence is hailed by some as a triumph for the Government, as the first fruits of their policy of threatened coercion; but we have reason to believe that it has been our advocacy of national appeasement and of genuine constitutionalism that has operated as the virtually decisive factor in determining their presence here. We feel strongly that their advance towards constitutionalism should be met in a generous spirit and that all parties should make a similar advance towards a genuine national appeasement which, if it cannot wipe out all differences and all bitternesses, may at least avail to bring them within the bounds of reason and of sense. That, I believe, is the most promising way, perhaps the only way, of restoring to our distracted and suffering country the twin blessings of peace and restored moral sanity.

We should be prepared to this end to advocate the withdrawal of the Government's new code of repressive and restrictive legislation, and where President Cosgrave seeks changes in the Constitution, that these changes should be accompanied by others acceptable to Deputy de Valera if and in so far as, and only if and in so far as, they can be rendered conformable to a punctiliously honourable regard for our international obligations. I see no great practical obstacles to this course in the interests of peace. The question of the oath is a thorny and a controversial one.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It is, happily, out of order in this debate.

Captain REDMOND

That relieves me of a considerable amount of trouble, and I am very glad that you mentioned the fact because I wanted to state as clearly as I could what my position was in regard to it. That being so, I say that in our desire for national appeasement we are anxious and are prepared to go a long way. It is necessary to go a long way if we are to make safe and sure the road to an alternative Government. Let me make clear that it is necessary to have an alternative Government in view before destroying an existing one.

Mr. BAXTER

Hear, hear.

Captain REDMOND

It is obvious wisdom not to throw away dirty water until you can be sure of securing cleaner. In this case we feel there is abundant justification for discarding, shall I say, the somewhat turbid and unacceptable fluid which is represented by President Cosgrave and his colleagues. But the question we have to ask ourselves is, are we sure of a satisfactory substitute?

Two conditions we regard as indispensable if we are to assist in bringing an alternative. The first is, there must be a firm and efficient enforcement of the ordinary law, and something in the nature of a Truce of God, pending the next General Election, in regard to the fundamentals of the Anglo-Irish settlement. Secondly, there must be adequate guarantees that there would be no attempt either by legislation or by administrative action to put into operation the more contentious doctrines contained in any particular Party programme. Now, we were able to satisfy ourselves that that first condition would be forthcoming and that there would be reasonable security for its full observance. As to the second condition, we found a general assent to the idea that the more contentious doctrines of the Labour Party would be held in abeyance. For some time we were unable to satisfy ourselves that adequate guarantees would exist to ensure that idea being fully applied, first to the formation of a coalition, second, to the formulation of policy, and third, to the action of administrative departments. Nothing short of a share in the direct and absolute control of Government policy by persons in whose financial and economic convictions we repose the fullest confidence would give us such adequate guarantees. We have now, however, been able to satisfy ourselves that this will be arranged in the event of an alternative Government actually coming into being.

This makes our way clear, because otherwise, without that assurance, we should have felt that our pledged duty to taxpayers and ratepayers, to farmers and traders alike, forbade our taking what they and we should regard as grave risks to the financial and economic interests of the country. We have every good faith, every confidence, in the assurances of a willingness to withhold controversial labour legislation, and we have been fortified in that confidence by having received adequate guarantees for their fulfilment. The road is clear for us, therefore, to vote for this motion, because if it should result in a declaration of no confidence in the present Government, an alternative Government can possibly be formed, and that alternative Government will be designed to provide a firm and impartial administration and to abstain from all adventures in the field either of legislation or administration which might cause apprehension to the supporters of the Anglo-Irish settlement or to the great business and financial interests of the country. It will be a Government, I trust, which will aim at providing a truce of God, during which partisan passions may have a chance of subsiding, and the processes of general appeasement and of gradual reconciliation may be brought into active operation. It is in the ardent hope that, under the blessing of Heaven, peace may thus be brought to us at last, and to our unhappy country here in Ireland, that we, Irish Nationalists, have unanimously decided to vote for this motion.

Mr. BAXTER

I listened to Deputy Johnson's proposition and I sought for food, as does the hungry man. I could find none. I listened for a very long time to discover what was Deputy Redmond going to do. Through what seemed to me thousands of words he unfolded the secret that we all wanted to know. Deputy Johnson proposes that this House should agree that we have not confidence in the present Executive. He did not add that if we turn this Executive out we are going to instal Deputy Redmond or himself in their place. Deputy Redmond did that for him.

Captain REDMOND

I did not say so at all. Perhaps I may be allowed to answer Deputy Baxter. I said nothing of the kind, but what I did say was that before we were prepared to vote this Government out of office we wanted guarantees that any other Government which would be substituted would be satisfactory.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Did you get them?

Mr. BAXTER

Deputy Johnson's case has been laboured to a very unhappy degree by Deputy Redmond. Deputy Johnson's case has been that in the new, changed and happy conditions that exist in this House—let me say, from my point of view, very happy conditions indeed, as we now have practically every seat in this Chamber full and practically every elected representative of the people here in this House— one of the sections described as warring sections by, I think, both these Deputies was not a proper body of men to be in control of the government of this country. If Deputy Redmond wanted these warring sections to continue to be such and to be styled as such in this country for the next ten years, he could not have made a more unhappy statement than the one he has made. I hope that the men who have come into this House—they have come in, I hope, in the right and the proper spirit, the spirit that animates the men for whom I speak, who are out to do their honest best for the people of the country— would cease to be in coming in here what Deputy Redmond and some of his friends would term warring sections; that they would be here as Deputies representing the common people of this country, here to do their very best for their common country, and that they would forget that they were warring sections. Might I make this further comment. I was amazed that Deputy Redmond could not see it for himself. What confidence did the people of this country repose in these two warring sections and what confidence did they repose in Deputy Redmond?

Some Deputy asks, what about myself? My sympathies are on both sides of this House. I am in agreement with one thing Deputy Redmond said: that before we turn down one Government we of the Farmers' Party, and those for whom we speak, want to see whom this Dáil is going to put in its place. In the past I have been as severe a critic of the present Government as any Deputy in this House. I have no reason to believe that their future legislation or administrative policy will be so changed that it will not be necessary and essential for me to be their critic again. When that day comes, I shall rise to my work if the conditions demand that I should so act. Let me say this on behalf of the Farmers' Party, that it seems to us that what this country requires most to-day is peace, order, the observance of the law and stability, and when we come to ask ourselves: on what side of this House, on the right or on the left or in the Centre of it, are there the greater possibilities for peace, order and stability, the Farmers' Party have come to this conclusion, that, as against the Government that is to be headed, not by Deputy de Valera, not by President Cosgrave, but by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Redmond, there are far greater possibilities for stability and order in the body that we have, and we are not prepared to discard them to instal these others in their place. That language, perhaps, A Chinn Comhairle, may be a little too frank for the men who have gone before me, but I have come back from the country after the week-end, and I know the condition of the people.

I can say to the members of the Fianna Fáil Party that the people are glad to see that they have come to this House, but the people of the country are wondering what is going to happen next, what is the next move in the game, and whether the people of the country are going to get a chance, as the late Vice-President used to say, to pursue their ordinary avocations in peace. Is the country going to get a chance to develop? That is what the ordinary people are thinking, and that is what the ordinary Deputies have to think about. Men trained in another sphere and, perhaps, with a different outlook, they may not see things from the ordinary countryman's point of view, but to us, at least, who have disagreed with President Cosgrave and his Party in the past, and with whom, if this House should so decide that they should retain office, we will possibly disagree in the future, we say that, possibly, we would have less disagreement with the policy they would carry through if retained in office than we would have with a combination of Labour and National League as it appears to be led by Deputy Redmond.

Stability! What stability are we going to have in the country if, in the words of Deputy Johnson, neither of the warring sections is to occupy office? But will Deputy Johnson or some member of Fianna Fáil tell me that while they may not actually be in office that they are not the power behind the throne? Let me say that if I were to make my choice, personally I would rather see them in office taking their full responsibility than being in this kind of position—not of the Government whilst being the Government. Now, what is reasonable or what is candid in the plea of the man who says he is not going to have these warring sections in office and yet himself expects to be kept in office by one of the warring sections? Is not that what it comes down to? Then why make the plea "Away with these warring sections," as Deputy Redmond says—"A plague on both your houses." That is not the spirit that should be displayed in this House. It is not the true position, and, let me say that it is not what the country wants.

Perhaps somebody will tell us that what Deputy Redmond states is not the case, and that the bargain which he has been able to make does not represent the true position. But if Fianna Fáil and Cumann na nGaedheal are to be excluded, and if the Independents and the members of the Farmers' Party are not going to join Labour and the National League, it seems to me that the onus is going to fall on you, and in deciding on this motion, we have to accept it that we are deciding between the leaders of these two Parties. As between President Cosgrave, as we know him—with the policy he has unfolded, a policy with which I and my Party have not always been in agreement—a representative of a rural constituency, returned to this House very largely by farmers, as head of the Government, and Deputy Johnson, coming here with the mind of the industrial worker in the city, with the mind of a man against whose social and economic theories in this House the Farmers' Party have so often to stand, there is no choice. The Farmers' Party are not going to turn down President Cosgrave and instal Deputy Johnson in his place. I wonder if the country knew what this will possibly entail for it what the country would say. I have no doubt whatever about what the future will be if such a combination is to replace the men whom Deputy Johnson wants to turn down.

The Farmers' Party are not taking a decision on this motion on political grounds. They are taking it on economic grounds. A couple of weeks ago when it was my responsibility on behalf of my Party to give expression to the views of my Party on the Public Safety Act, and on the murder of the late Vice-President, I indicated the conditions in the country, what the farmers in this country wanted, and wanted immediately if the country was to pull around at all. I wonder if Deputy Johnson or Deputy Redmond is cognisant of the wants of our farmers? I wonder if Deputy Redmond has satisfied himself sufficiently about the policy of Deputy Johnson and his Party in the past. Let Deputy Redmond go down to his own constituency and inquire amongst the farmers down there, hundreds of whose homes and farmsteads eighteen months ago or two years ago were destroyed and burned out, because the farmers in County Waterford could not and would not pay the economic wage that the organisation that Deputy Johnson heads, demanded of them. Let Deputy Johnson tell this House how much support was given from his organisation in Dublin to the men who carried on that campaign in Waterford against those farmers.

Mr. JOHNSON

Perhaps Deputy Baxter will let me explain. I have nothing to do with the organisation responsible for the strike in County Waterford. I am not the head of that organisation.

Mr. BAXTER

Well, some of the other Labour Deputies who have very close affiliations with the organisation will tell us about that.

Mr. O'BRIEN

Yes, I am one of them.

Mr. BAXTER

Deputy O'Brien will tell us. Let Deputy Redmond ask the farmers who are his constituents what they think of this alliance. If Deputy Redmond wants to hear a little more about the policy the Labour Party applied in this country in the past, let him go down to Tipperary where a very peculiar combination flew the red flag for four or five months over the creameries in that county. For four or five months the farmers were unable to sell their milk. It was spilled out the doors. Butter made out of milk, for which the farmers were never paid, was brought up here to Dublin. Was it brought to some of the offices in Dublin? How much of that policy was the Labour Party in this country behind?

Captain REDMOND

Does Deputy Baxter mean to say that I should hold myself responsible for the past policy of the Labour Party?

Mr. BAXTER

Deputy Baxter does not suggest anything of the kind. He is discussing the unholy alliance to which we here in this House are asked to transfer our allegiance. I say the farmers of the country are not prepared to give support to such a Government. The farmers of the country cannot see in that Government the possibilities for stability, the maintenance of peace and order, which the farmers require to-day. This, to some extent, may perturb a certain number of the Labour Deputies.

Mr. CORISH

Does the Deputy want interruptions?

Mr. BAXTER

It seems to me, too, that before the end of this year any responsible Ministry in this country must necessarily be up against the proposition of borrowing. Some months ago we passed in this House an Agricultural Credit Corporation Act founded on the report of the Banking Commission, an Act which many of us in the rural districts certainly had hopes would mean a great deal to the farmers of the country. I do not know what has been done so far to make that Act operative, but if I look to the alternative, to the men who are going to bring us that stability that will make it possible for the Government of this country to raise money at a rate of interest that will make it worth the farmers' while to take that money, I am afraid I see very little hope that this Agricultural Credit Corporation will be floated or will be working for the next twelve months at least. I will even admit that because of the murder of the Vice-President, the present Ministry, even with very considerable support, might find it more difficult to borrow money now than they did when the last loan was floated. I recognise that, and if I recognise that their difficulties now are greater than they otherwise would have been, I have to ask myself what will be the difficulties of a Government consisting of Deputy Johnson and his 22 men on one side and Deputy Redmond's Party—I do not know how many he will have when the division is called? What is inherent in that body that would make the farmers of this country hope that money will be available to assist them in the development of their industry when we know the difficulties of the men on my right? That is an aspect of the problem as the farmers of the country see it.

Mr. BELTON

That is the grazier's point of view.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I want the debate conducted with dignity. Deputies should be allowed to speak without interruption or interjection. I want that to be strictly understood.

Mr. BAXTER

I have referred heretofore to other schemes to which this Government and the House have given sanction. In my view, at least £5,000,000 will be necessary in a very short time to carry through the operations of the 1925 Drainage Act. In my own county a sum of £100,000 is necessary to carry out the work that is required for the reclamation of flooded lands and to make it possible for the uneconomic farmers to make a better livelihood than they are making at present.

These are the men who are going to find us the money. I am quit candid in saying that I am afraid that they would not be able to do it. Not alone would they not be able to do it, but the very fact that they had gone into opposition at all would make it very much more difficult for their successors to find it after they had failed. Deputy Johnson spoke of the number of alternatives if the present Ministry is defeated. I think that Deputy Redmond has indicated what the choice is. He has been bargain-making from his point of view, and he is satisfied about the bargain he has made, but to me it seems an extraordinary thing that Deputy Johnson should advance the case that he believes that the Government, for a certain period, should be composed of men not drawn from this or that side of the House. If to-morrow he, with Deputy Redmond, is called on to form a Government, he will immediately have to call on the Deputies on one side of the House. Deputy Johnson will, I am sure, be able to explain that away. To our Party it seems a possible alternative which possesses no element of stability.

The declaration of Deputy Redmond with regard to the policy of Deputy de Valera would not, I think, be made by the President, and I think it is true to say that there is much more in common between Cumann na nGaedheal and Fianna Fáil than between Fianna Fáil and Deputy Redmond, or between Cumann na nGaedheal and Deputy Redmond. In a personal way, I would like to say that I got a surprise when I read in the Press of Deputy Redmond accompanying certain members of Fianna Fáil into Leinster House to take the oath. Deputy Redmond's exposition of the constitutional position on the 12th December, 1923, was very different indeed to Deputy Johnson's exposition of the constitutional position in this House to-day, and when I read of Deputy Redmond accompanying, I think, Deputy Aiken into Leinster House I wondered at Deputy Redmond's change. I refreshed my memory by going back and reading a statement of his two or three years ago. I wonder if Fianna Fáil Deputies read him then. In this House, speaking on the Ministers and Secretaries Bill, when there was a proposition to establish a Council of Defence, he argued— it is a contradiction of the case put forward by Deputy Johnson to-day, which is the true position—as follows:—

"The Executive Council is a Council consisting of a President and other members to aid and advise the King in the government of this country, and, therefore, I come back again to my original proposition that the Command-in-Chief of the Army is vested in the King. When I say vested in the King, I say that, not in any derogatory sense, because I am as proud to have borne the King's Commission, as, I am sure..."

He went on to discuss the Attorney-General. I am not finding fault with Deputy Redmond in that, but I am trying to point out the extraordinary combination we are going to have which is going to mean such stability for the future. Deputy Redmond further on gave expression to the opinion which he expresses to-day. He said:

"As far as the Constitution is concerned, which the President referred to, I am a complete subscriber to that Constitution. I believe it is perhaps the widest Constitution any country could desire, and, as one who never advocated anything but a large measure of Dominion self-government such as we are now enjoying, I think I am entitled, at any rate, to say—as one who never was a Republican but who was always in favour of the present Constitution which we are now enjoying—that nothing I had said was in any way derogatory to that Constitution."

Captain REDMOND

Hear, hear.

Mr. BAXTER

I am looking to see the common ground on which this new coalition is to stand. I hope somebody will be able to show it to me, and when I thought Deputy Redmond was going to so outrage the Constitution that he was going to ask for its amendment, I had again to read the records to satisfy myself. I wonder now, which is the real Deputy Redmond. I feel that the best thing for the Dáil to do under the circumstances is to vote against the vote of censure moved by Deputy Johnson. Our Party are not prepared under any circumstances to support the present administration against a possible coalition. I am prepared to suggest what to me seems the best thing for the country to do, to suggest that what the country wants at present is that certain sections here discard others. I am prepared to urge, if there is no desire for party gain, that there should be a political truce for three or five years, or within the period of the existence of this Dáil. Give the country a chance for economic regeneration. Give us peace. Give the Deputies in whom the majority of the people of this country have reposed their confidence a chance of exercising their brains and working together for the benefit of the country. We will support a proposition that will put these people out of office if we are able to instal such a coalition.

Mr. DAVIN

We will vote for that.

Mr. BAXTER

I am not putting forward this plea as a justification for voting against Deputy Johnson, but I am giving expression to what is in the thoughts and minds of the majority of the people. The people want peace and want to get a chance to live. There are a great many people making the best effort they can but who are barely able to exist in this country to-day. We want peace and we want a chance to progress.

This country has to borrow money in order that it may progress. To do that you must have a strong stable Government, composed of men who will have a ground upon which there can be common agreement, national as well as economic. I say national because it is absolutely essential to have agreement on national aims, and if you have not that you are heading nowhere. That is the only kind of Government that should be substituted for the present Government. If the two big Parties, that are both, in my opinion, National Parties, are prepared to subordinate party interest to the good of their common country, are prepared to let the differences of the past be with the past—even if they are prepared to turn down the men at their heads to-day, President Cosgrave and Deputy de Valera, and put other men in their places—if they are prepared to come together and do that, then if Deputy Johnson's motion will bring about such a change we will welcome it. Let me say to both of these Parties that the country will welcome that with greater satisfaction and enthusiasm than anything that has been experienced in our lifetime. I do not know whether the men on both sides of the House are big and patriotic enough to rise to the occasion now and bring comfort and hope to the people. If they are prepared to come forward our Party will support a motion to turn these men out and put others in their places. If that does not happen we have no alternative but to oppose the makeshift that is proposed.

Mr. O'HANLON

When I came here as a representative of the people it was with the intention of carrying out the wishes of my constituents, to bring under review the policy of the Government, and to effect what changes one man could do in that respect. But a shadow fell on the House, and all the intentions and policies of the newer members receded into the background. Following the tragedy of the 10th July the Government brought in three measures affecting the Constitution, electoral procedure, and the liberty of the subject. Then we have had the advent of 43 representatives who up to this time had refused to enter the portals of this House. They are here to-day, and we have a party of 22, who have announced that they are about to form a Government with the assistance of the newest recruits. That is the situation at the moment. Into the merits of that proposal I do not intend to go to-day. I am an Independent, but I am as independent to-day as when I first came here. I do not know the President or one of his Ministers. I have never communicated with him in any shape or form. I can say the same for Deputy Johnson. I bear animosity to no man. I am an extremist in nothing, but I am an Irishman, and I cannot possibly give my vote to put at the head of this State an Englishman. If I did so I know it would be resented by the people who elected me to this position. I know how deep-rooted are the feelings of the men and women who put me in that position, and it is because I know that that I will go into the Opposition Lobby when this motion is put to a division.

Mr. MORRISSEY

It is a pity that Deputy Baxter did not start on the lines in which he finished, and make one speech instead of two. The second part of his speech was, in my opinion, the type that was required in a debate of this kind. I take very strong exception to Deputy Baxter posing as the one man in this House who knows what the majority of the people want. Deputy Baxter talked about the posing of Deputy Redmond and Deputy Johnson, but when Deputy Baxter, with his party of 11, poses as the representative of the farmers of this country, he brings things to the point of the ridiculous. Deputy Baxter has the audacity with a party of 11 out of a House of 153 members, to speak here for the agricultural community. I do not think that even Deputy Gorey, when he was a leader of that Party ever went as far as that. But, of course, Deputy Baxter speaks with all the fervour of the convert. It is rather amusing to hear Deputy Baxter talk about the change in Deputy Redmond. It is not half so remarkable to those of us who were members of the last House as the change in Deputy Baxter himself.

Mr. BAXTER

From what?

Mr. MORRISSEY

I am sure there is no member of this House, and no Party in this House, more surprised and mystified by the change in Deputy Baxter than the present Government. I do not want to go any further into the matter, except to refer to the point made by Deputy Baxter when he spoke about the difficulties of raising money. He said for that purpose we must have a strong stable Government. I ask the Deputy, supposing this motion is defeated, will we then have a strong stable Government? What is the Deputy's remedy? I claim that a Government formed of the centre parties, as suggested by Deputy Johnson, would have a great deal more stability than the present Government under the existing circumstances. It would be stronger and have a better chance of carrying on than the present Government, and the Deputy knows that. I do not wish to say very much about what Deputy O'Hanlon said. It can be left to the good sense of members of this House, but this I will say, that when Deputy O'Hanlon has given as much good service to the plain people of this country as Deputy Johnson has given, then perhaps he might be considered worthy of the position of which some people in this House consider Deputy Johnson worthy.

Major COOPER

With regard to Deputy Morrissey's last words, I only want to say that my doctrine in this House has always been that of Thomas Davis:

"No matter if at different times our fathers trod this sod,

No matter if at different shrines we worship the one God."

We are all Irishmen or have adopted Ireland as our country, and according to our lights are trying to give her service. I do not agree with the argument Deputy O'Hanlon put forward. I listened with great interest to the speech of Deputy Redmond, and to no part of it did I listen with greater interest than where he dealt with the conversion of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I am not sure what conversion he referred to—I think it might be to respectability—and to the prospective conversion of the Fianna Fáil Party to the same standard. I am willing to accept Captain Redmond as an authority on conversions, and even on speedy conversions, but I cannot help feeling that the zeal of the convert has somewhat overwhelmed his judgment. I always knew that there was something high and imperial about Deputy Redmond, and I cannot help seeing him in the position of the Emperor Charlemagne, who converted the Saxons by battalions and baptised them by platoons. In his prospective desire, I do not think he claims the credit of converting the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, but he is going to take the Fianna Fáil Party to his heart and march them down to the font in order that they may all be brought to the particular standard that Deputy Redmond thinks necessary for the good government of the country. I admire his aspirations without any confidence that he will be able to fulfil them.

Deputy Johnson, in a learned and thoughtful speech, put forward the conception that the two gladiators should stand out of the ring—that the two principal Parties in this Dáil should withdraw themselves from the task and responsibility of the government of the country and that it should be left to the Centre Parties—the Parties who were not identified with the struggles of the past years—to form a Government. It is, I think, as the President suggested, the most undemocratic idea I have ever heard. Assuming you can effect a combination of all those somewhat divergent elements, is that what the people desire? You can, at the outside, get 55 votes, of whom six Labour members, two National League members, and four Independents headed the poll in their different constituencies. As a matter of fact, you cannot get the Farmers' Party—Deputy Baxter has made that clear—and it is very unlikely that you will get all the Independents. So that eight out of thirty constituencies will have pronounced in favour of that type of Party, and 55 out of 153 Deputies in the Dáil would support it.

Deputy Johnson talked of fusion, of how the Cumann na nGaedheal Party had become fused, and of the dissimilarities between the various Deputies in that Party. There are dissimilarities in other Parties. I have yet to perceive exact identity between Deputy Johnson and Deputy Anthony. I can conceive that Deputy Everett and Deputy O'Brien might have some differences of opinion. But certainly in the combination that is to include Deputy Anthony and Deputy Thrift, Deputy Baxter and Deputy Johnson, there will be nothing but inconsistency. How are you going to fuse them? I am not an authority on chemistry, but I believe that the principal factor in chemical fusion is heat. The Cumann na nGaedheal Party may have been fused by heat—I was not there, and I do not know. I do know that heat can do two things—it can fuse and it can also split—and I think the application of heat to Deputy Johnson's prospective Centre Party is as likely to do the one as the other—I think more likely.

I have no objection in principle to coalition. I never agreed with Ministers—in fact, I think Ministers were making a great mistake—when they went round saying that a coalition would be unfortunate. Half the countries in Europe are governed by a coalition, but it must be a coalition that will have some sort of a majority, and the prospective coalition of the National League and the Labour Party will have no sort of a majority. It would be at the mercy of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Cumann na nGaedheal Party on any day when they choose to combine—helplessly at their mercy.

Mr. JOHNSON

Hear, hear.

Major COOPER

I agree. It will even be at the mercy of its own supporters, and if there should be a disagreement between the Labour Party and the National League, what is going to happen then? Or if there should— even to take a very improbable contingency—be disagreement in the ranks of the National League, it will still not be able to maintain itself—leaving the two gladiators out of consideration altogether. If there was a split in that Party, it would never even be able to hold out against the Independents and the Farmers' Party. Is that a coalition which has any prospect of success? I cannot see it. It reminds me more than anything else of one of those cages that you see at fairs in the country where they have a happy family, and you see a lion cub, a dog, a monkey, and, possibly, a rabbit or a hen, all put into the same cage together. God forbid that I should allocate the different animals. That is the kind of coalition that this is going to be— people with different aims, different aspirations, different views on tariffs, different views on economics. I have sufficient respect for the Labour Party to believe that they meant what they said at the elections, and when Deputy Redmond says that they are going to hold their views in abeyance, I do not believe that they will cease to work for, let us say, the extension of unemployment benefit. They propounded that as a definite policy before the Dáil, and supported it by their votes, and I am sure they would continue to support it.

In voting on this motion there is no use thinking or talking about the past— we must think of the future. The Government have made mistakes, and, like Deputy Baxter, I have been very willing to point them out. To vote against this motion is not an endorsement of those mistakes. Our votes are on record—they stand in the records both of the last Dáil and this Dáil as our opinion on various matters of public concern. We do not go back on them, but we do say—I say at least that in voting on this question I am not voting for the past, but looking to the future.

How will it benefit the country if Deputy Johnson's motion is carried? A weak Government, with a strong Party behind that Government, holding power, but assuming no responsibility—is that going to benefit the State? Perhaps it is the inevitable tendency of such a debate that we think a great deal in the terms of Party, in the terms of votes, and that we do not think quite enough of the ordinary people of the country. I deprecate Deputy Morrissey's wrath. I do not pretend to any exclusive interpretation of the views of any people in the country, but I think it is not unfair to say that the man in the street, the man in the shop, and the man looking after his cattle in the fields want one or two things. They want lower taxation. Will this combination decrease taxation? There has been no pledge to that effect, and the whole policy of the Labour Government—I am anticipating, I apologise—the whole policy of the Labour Party at the last election, as put forward in their speeches, was an extension of benefits, more to be done for the poor, higher taxation. There is no pledge that taxation will be decreased. Will such a Government be able to raise money more easily? Deputy Morrissey says they will—that a Centre Party Government, such as Deputy Johnson might form, will have more chance of raising a loan. That is hypothetical. I assisted the present Government by my voice and influence to try and raise the last loan, and whatever Government is in power, if it is a Government of Saorstát Eireann, I will do my best to help them to raise another loan. But, candidly, I do not consider that a combination of the National League and the Labour Party will have any prospect of raising a loan—particularly when they are a minority Government holding office at the will of another Party—on as satisfactory terms of interest as the present Government have. The present Government, whatever they failed in, have at least maintained our credit. National Loan sank twice—once in the time of the Army trouble in 1924, and once again in the last week. That was a sign of the times. I do not believe we can raise the money we must raise if the poor are to be given employment during the coming winter, if development schemes are to be proceeded with, if the Shannon scheme— I took exception to some features of the Shannon scheme, but now that it has been carried on so far it would be a national disaster if it failed—if the Shannon scheme is to be proceeded with. We must raise money cheaply, and, to my mind, the present Government is the one most likely to do that.

Finally, I would ask: will the prospective coalition Government give greater security and a greater prospect of order than the present Government? What is it that the average man wants? A man driving his cattle to the fair wants to know that there will be a fair, that a bridge has not been broken down so that he cannot get his cattle to the fair. He wants to know if he gets his cattle to the fair whether there is likely to be any interruption of the railway service, or whether there will be men at the fair to give him a price for his cattle. When he gets a price he wants to know that the dealer can go into the bank and get cash, and that the bank manager was not held up on the way and the money taken.

Whatever have been the failings and the faults in the present Government, they have made it possible, at any rate, for the plain man in the country to take his cattle to the fair and to get a price for his cattle. It is quite another thing whether the price satisfies that man or not; the Government cannot work miracles. At any rate, he can get his price at the fair, and sell or not, according to his wishes. I fear if this motion is carried it will promote insecurity, instability, and give encouragement to the forces of disorder, and for that reason I intend to vote against it.

Mr. RICE

We listened to the speeches of Deputy Johnson and Deputy Redmond with interest, and we heard some very beautiful sentiments uttered by them. No doubt these speeches will read very well in the newspapers, but what the country wants to know is what has happened in the last three weeks? Deputy Johnson spoke of this motion as having been brought forward for the purpose of improving the economic conditions of the country. I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of Deputy Johnson and his Party in seeking the improvement of these conditions. Deputy Redmond talked about national appeasement and about a wholesome and benevolent process of growth and other expressions of that kind, the use of which I do not understand. He spoke about the throwing out of the present Government as "throwing out dirty water." I wonder if Deputy Redmond knows what the people of this country are saying now about himself? Let us strip this discussion of all the frills put on it and come down to facts. We have had published in the Press of the last few days messages of confidence and encouragement to Deputy Redmond in the course he has taken. Even a person as innocent of politics as I am knows perfectly well how these messages are procured. I have one here from Newmarket-on-Fergus, published the other day: "At a meeting of the Newmarket-on-Fergus Branch of the Irish National League, the following resolution, proposed by Mr. L. Halpin, seconded by Mr. P. Hayes, was passed unanimously: `That we, the members of the National League in this district, heartily approve of the patriotic action of Captain Redmond in helping to form a Coalition Government, which, we trust, will succeed in bringing peace and contentment and, eventually, prosperity, to Ireland.' "

It forgets about national appeasement, but if the public are entitled to have these messages, perhaps they are also entitled to hear some of the messages from the Deputy's supporters not in the same tune. I shall now, with the leave of the House, read a passage from a letter written to me by a supporter of the Deputy's.

"I am afraid Captain Redmond has doomed the National League for ever. Many supporters must feel, like myself, that no good can come of a Party which is under such leadership. The present move has all the appearance of being a grab at office regardless of principle, or a venting of spite on the present Government with a like disregard of principle or consequences."

Let us have the two sides of the picture and know what the public should have.

Mr. COBURN

Who wrote that?

Mr. RICE

I will show the letter to Deputy Coburn if he wishes to see it. Deputy Coburn is well acquainted with the writer of that letter. Let us have the two sides of the picture. If Deputy Redmond has any doubt as to the views of the people of the country, let him come on a platform here in the capital of Ireland with me at a public meeting, not a ticket meeting, and let the people say what they think about his attitude.

Mr. GOREY

Or go to Ballybricken.

Mr. RICE

We were kept in considerable doubt while Deputy Johnson was speaking as to the composition of the new Ministry. Some light has been let in on the darkness by what we heard from Deputy Redmond, and also what we heard from one of his supporters as reported in the Press. Deputy McMenamin, according to this morning's papers, spoke at a meeting in Donegal yesterday, and he said that

"Neither Captain Redmond nor myself have any objective except to serve Ireland. We do not want office, but we have got a mandate to serve the Irish people. I do not care what Party is in office so long as it protects the lives and property of the citizens and spends the taxpayer's money for the benefit of the people. If, however, I took office, I believe I should be carrying out the wishes of my constituency."

No doubt. I am sure if he appealed to the wider audience of the Free State they would be all unanimously in favour of his taking office and abandoning his position at the Bar for the time being. When they come to sorting out positions amongst themselves, let them not forget the words of the wise La Bruyere, who said:

"Great positions render great men still greater; small positions make little men smaller."

Deputy Redmond has told us that he disagrees with the views and actions of Deputy de Valera. We are told that a Government is to be formed of the Labour Party and Deputy Redmond's supporters. Does Deputy Redmond think that a child would be deceived as to who is to control the new Government? Does he imagine that Deputy de Valera and his Party will waste their time keeping him in power if they are not advancing his policy? I do not think that Deputy de Valera has ever disguised that his aim is to get rid of the Treaty and the Constitution, and if he is not serving that purpose by keeping Deputy Redmond in office, how many hours will he keep him there? Let us get back to the plain facts of the case and recognise that this Government will not last one hour except, and so long as, it obeys the behest of Deputy de Valera and his Party. When we hear so much about the economic position let us realise that this country must by common agreement raise a large national loan in the near future. Are the public going to give that loan to an alliance which Deputy Baxter refers to as the unholy alliance of Deputy Johnson and Deputy Redmond?

Deputy Baxter, I presume advisedly, did not refer to Deputy de Valera's party as being one of the alliance, because the master does not enter into an alliance with the slaves. The people who tell you that they are going to advance the economic position of the country by setting up this new Government know, or should know, perfectly well that neither in this country nor outside it will money be advanced when the position of insecurity and instability that they intend to create exists, and if they do succeed in forming a Government, let them be honest with the country, and let them invite the country, without even waiting for the Recess, to give its opinion in another general election as to who should form the Government. That would throw the country back for a month or two, and would put it to enormous expense, but it would, at least, I have no doubt, secure stability, and there would be one Party that would follow the course of Clann Eireann when that election came round.

Mr. COBURN

I do not intend to say very much in this discussion, save to state that I am in entire agreement with the speech that has been delivered by my leader. I am one of those who always preached the doctrine of constitutionalism. The word "fear" has never entered into my vocabulary. I opposed Fianna Fáil and Cumann na nGaedheal when they were both united in the year 1916, when, perhaps, some of the Deputies who are here to-day, trying to belittle the work of Deputy Redmond and his illustrious father, skulked like rabbits in their burrows when the fight was on, and when John Redmond was fighting with his back against the wall. I am here to voice my opinions, and to say that the attitude of the National League Party in forming a Coalition Government is symbolical and much the same as the attitude adopted on one occasion by Mr. Asquith. You all remember that, previous to Mr. Ramsay Macdonald taking office in Great Britain, there was a terrible outcry against the outrage that Mr. Asquith was about to perpetrate upon the great British Empire when he announced his intention of installing Mr. Ramsay Macdonald in power. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald formed a Government; he ruled ably and well, and there was no civil war. I am confident that if, and when, a Coalition Government is formed, there will be no such thing as civil war, that in the future we will have peace, good-will and co-operation, things that are so essential to the material and economic welfare of the Free State. I believe in the policy of forgive and forget, and I believe that, no matter what happens to-day, we have seen the end of civil strife, as far as the people of the Free State are concerned. I am one of those who look with hope and confidence into the future. I quite reciprocate the opinions expressed by Deputy Baxter to-day when he said that he hoped to see the day when both Cumann na nGaedheal and Fianna Fáil will unite for the common good and the welfare of the people in general.

MINISTER for EDUCATION (Professor O'Sullivan)

I recognise in the present situation, and in the present filled benches in this House, a distinct advance for the Constitution, and I presume Deputy Johnson would not take up the attitude that he has now taken up did he not also recognise a distinct advance for the Constitution, of which he proclaims himself, as Deputy Redmond proclaims himself, such an ardent supporter and follower. We are now in the position that all Deputies, except five or six, elected by the people of Saorstát Eireann, recognise the Constitution and are ready to work the Constitution, not merely to suffer under it. They are ready actively to take part in working it, how actively we will probably know when this debate is over and the next motion is tabled. They are ready actively to support the Constitution, work it for what it is worth, acknowledge it. Everybody will admit that that is a distinct advance—not merely passive acceptance but active participation in the Constitution.

I am not going to ignore, merely because Deputy Johnson said nothing about it, the real essence of this debate, what we are heading towards, and what we are going for. I sometimes read the papers, and even if I do not read the letterpress I can study the photographs in the papers. We know what is coming. Deputy Johnson did not let the cat out of the bag, but Deputy Redmond let several cats out of the bag, and I doubt if the ingenuity of Deputy Johnson and his Party will be able to get these cats back again, or at least all of them. We know what is going to happen. We have been told it. A bargain has been struck. Why was the House not told that? Why was the country not told what the bargain was? Why did the man who has come to us to preach Constitutionalism, to preach the advantage of deliberative assemblies, remain silent on that bargain? Was it fair to the Dáil, was it fair to the ordinary people of Ireland, that they should not know where they were, or is it possible that he knows that these Deputies come to this House with their minds made up as to how they will vote, without anything being urged on them by speakers? The last man to suggest such a thing was Deputy Johnson. He has kept us hours and hours debating issues when everyone knew what was going to happen. He insisted on it, and said it was the business of Parliament to do so, and yet, on the most essential point in this whole debate he was eloquent in his silence.

There is a bargain. Deputy Redmond was in some kind of bargain. He will not tell us with whom he was bargaining. The Labour Party is not in the market. Is the country in the market? Let us know what the bargain is. How many parties are there to this bargain? Is it Deputy Redmond and Deputy Johnson and their Parties alone, or are there other Parties to the bargain? Let us know what the bargain is. Is that democratic? Deputy Johnson and his new allies—"allies" is a dangerous word, but the poverty of the English language, unfortunately, despite disclaimers in the papers, makes me hesitate with regard to what other word to use; "dealers" may not sound pleasant; "bargainers" hardly so either— but an alliance of some kind, as the word is understood by the ordinary man—if we can judge, and if we can read the papers aright and not merely the papers but the whole signs of the times—seems to have been struck between the three Parties, between the Opposition, now such an important constituent of this Dáil; the Labour Party and Deputy Redmond's Party.

What are the terms of that bargain? The House is entitled to know that. There is a new alliance, as I say, partially revealed by Deputy Redmond. Who are the arrangers and what have they arranged for this country? Surely a man so eloquent at times as Deputy Johnson was in asking for and insisting upon full and open discussions will not leave us in any doubt as to the full terms of the arrangement come to between the three Parties before us.

I suggest that it is not fair to the House, and, what is still more important, it is not fair to the people of the country, that we should not know fully where we stand, and that the country should not know fully where she stands. As I say, I could expect silence on that matter least of all from the Deputy who was eloquent in his silence when it was possible for him to have outlined what his policy was and who his allies were. Deputy Redmond admitted he had allies but, shrinking into his shell, his attitude was: "You will not get it out of me until I am in office."

What is the immediate aim? What is the ultimate aim of the three different Parties that form the new Triple Alliance? What is there in common between them? Deputy Redmond is an out-and-out supporter of the Constitution; not a scrap of it is to be altered in its fundamentals, except, as I gathered—if I interpret him aright—with the full agreement of our co-Treaty partner. Has that the support of the Fianna Fáil Party? Deputy Johnson's silence is nothing as to the silence of the Fianna Fáil Party in this debate. Has it the support of the Fianna Fáil Party? Deputy Johnson is out on the Constitutional issue and stands in the very same place as Deputy Redmond does in this matter. Yet if we are to believe all that is in the papers——

A DEPUTY

Oh, yes, beyond question !

Professor O'SULLIVAN

They sometimes blunder into the truth, as Deputy Redmond sometimes blunders into sense. We will all know soon, and we will be delighted to see Fianna Fáil supporting the two Parties of the Coalition that are pledged to maintain the Constitution fully. I hope to see that. It will certainly be a tremendous advance so far as this country is concerned. Returning to my question: What do these three parties agree on? After all, what is the good of pretending it is a coalition of Deputy Johnson and Deputy Redmond? We all know who the power behind the throne will be if what has been outlined comes to pass. From their numbers in the House that is indicated, and there is no use in Deputy Johnson or Deputy Redmond trying to shut their eyes to that. They may be holders of office, but they are not going to be masters in this House or in this State. No violent methods are to be used to upset the Treaty. What steps are to be taken diplomatically, and what effort is to be made diplomatically to change the Treaty? In other words, are the whole main aspects of the Treaty to be ripped up again, even diplomatically? We are told nothing about that. I suggest that Deputy Johnson and everyone is interested in having stability here, or ought to be, because the people who will suffer first from instability will be the labouring classes, that Deputy Johnson presumes or pretends to represent. Will they be served by the diplomatic ripping up of the whole Treaty position again? I am groping in the dark. Nothing has been indicated in that respect by Deputy Johnson. He has definitely stated that he stands for the Treaty, the whole Treaty, as accepted by the people of this country, but he has not stated whether he is not going to bring about a certain amount of disturbance and unrest, and the consequent unemployment that follows upon unrest by attempting, even diplomatically, to tear up the Treaty.

What is the bargain? The only hint Deputy Redmond has given us as to the bargain was that a certain number of offices were to be given. He did not even tell us to whom. A great financial genius had been found who would save the whole toppling finances of the country, because, had the finances of the country been left in the hands of the future President, Deputy Redmond knew perfectly well—at least that is what I gathered from his speech—it would be all up with the finances of the country, and he would not join a Coalition with him. That is the obvious conclusion to draw from that extraordinary and eloquent speech that Deputy Redmond read out this afternoon. I do not know who prepared the speech. I put it to these two constitutional Parties over there that they are puppets for their real masters, if they are sincere in upholding the Constitution. They have shown that—certainly the Labour Party have shown that—in the past.. Is the Party that is going to keep them in office, as has been asked by Deputy Rice, biding its time until, by accepting and working the Constitution, it can tear up the Constitution, with all the inevitable and unfortunate results of that? That is a matter the Labour Party, as a whole, ought to think on and weigh very carefully. I gather—and this is not mere newspaper report in the ordinary sense, it was in very weighty interviews given by the future President—that he is going to refrain from contentious legislation, that "each Party in the great crisis that confronts us, each Party to the new Coalition, will have to sacrifice some of its pet aims and some of its pet schemes." It is a pity that was not thought of at the time when promises were made all over the country at the election.

This Party went out and told the people that it could not make these rosy promises. It was the Government of the country, and felt responsibility. And now, even before he takes office, the future President of the Executive Council already begins to say that what you promise in the general election is one thing, but that what you can reasonably fulfil when you come into office is another thing, that it does not always depend on the Government, that there are other forces, economic forces, political forces, in the country, that prevent even an attempt to realise the programmes set forth so rosily in speeches during the general election. He said—and apparently this was to quieten people—that there was to be an avoidance of contentious legislation: "I will enforce the law, maintain order, seek out criminals, prevent crimes." But the different Parties represented would have to "postpone some pet projects until they convince their colleagues"—oh, more than their colleagues—"of their wisdom and expediency."

But surely it is a misconception of the whole function of government to think that administration is merely a secondary thing, that if you avoid contentious legislation that may upset the country therefore your administration is all right. You may have no legislation whatsoever, contentious or otherwise, and three months of a certain type of administration may lead the country into chaos pretty quickly. It is administration we are really interested in now. Legislation may be controlled, and effectively controlled, by this Dáil, much more effectively than administration can be. Legislation is the business of the Dáil primarily, not so much of the Government. Administration is the function of the Government, and it is of the future administration of this country that we would like to hear, and not of the jettisoning of some of the pet projects of the Labour Party or of the National Party. We want to know exactly where we stand. The President asked if the proposed new Government intended to tolerate a rival army, and the idea that they did not was received with applause from the Labour Party. Am I right in interpreting the Labour Party in that respect?

Mr. DAVIN

Yes.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Is the Fianna Fáil Party right in adopting the same attitude? We all here in this House, whether Cumann na nGaedheal, Farmers' Party, National League, Labour Party or Independents, are in favour of tolerating one army and only one army, and one police force. You can decide when it comes to voting whether or not you are voting for one of these Parties, but you are entitled to know what is the attitude of the 44 silent Deputies opposite. It will be for them to decide. There is one, and only one, army, and there is only one police force. That is the one that is set up by the Constitution, and all steps will be taken to see that there is no other army.

Mr. CORISH

Hear, hear.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

There is not, therefore, so far as the intentions of the new Government is concerned, the slightest ambiguity as to what they stand for. It is only of their power that I have the slightest doubt. I would like to know if Deputy Johnson and Deputy Redmond and the other members of the proposed Government are going to play in this country the part that a very well-meaning Englishman played in 1916? Are they going to play the part of Mr. Birrell? Are they going to hide their heads in the sand and allow another army to exist and develop? That is really the question. Do Deputy Redmond and Deputy Johnson and the others believe that they will be able to prevent that other army from developing? There is no good pretending it is not there. It is. We all know there are arms in this country—that there are arms being got into the country. We all know there is training going on, and there is a staff, and we all see communications from that army. Is that army going to be suppressed? Surely there is not silence? No?

Mr. DAVIN

You will get an answer.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Are they going to take full steps, not merely pious expressions of good-will and expressions of hope, that the country will now settle down, because this is a full assembly in the sense that it was never before a full assembly? Are they going to take steps to deal with the Party that does not recognise this Dáil or any Government set up by this Dáil? Are they going to take steps to deal with the Party that is going to set up and train an army to combat what this Dáil stands for? That is all we want to know, and that is what I want answered by the different Parties to the Triple Alliance that is now before us.

Will Deputy Johnson take effective steps to deal with this army that does not owe allegiance to the Constitution, that does not acknowledge any Party that sits in this House—I am not suggesting that the acknowledg ment of any Party that sits in this House will be an excuse? Will Deputy Johnson take steps to deal with this army that does not acknowledge any Party in this House? I pass over the question as to whether Deputy Johnson will get the support of his masters or possibly the people who will put him into power in the contingency that he will have to deal with when he is up against that particular usurping army. I want to know can the Party that he leads, and can he as a leader of the Labour Party, even if that Party was quite free—can he be relied on? I am not speaking of his intentions. I am judging the man as he has appeared in this House for the last four or five years. Can he and his Party be relied on to take effective steps against a threat of that kind? That is what I want to know.

I pay a tribute to the important contribution that has been made in this Dáil, and in the Dáil before it and in the Dáil before that, by the Labour Party, by their attendance and by the part they took in the debates. I am now addressing myself to the Labour Party, and I am bearing full tribute to the great benefit and the great advantages that their contribution conferred upon the nation as a whole. There is no doubt about that. But something more than that is required now. It is not merely assistance in passing laws and not merely being in the Dáil, but active suppression of anything in the nature of what seems to make for an armed rebellion against the authority in this country. That is the problem that the Labour Party may be called on to deal with. I ask the members of the last Dáil, and of the previous Dáil, of which I was not a member, if they consider that Deputy Johnson and his Party can be relied on to take effective steps to deal with rebellion against the authority of the State?

Do they think that from the attitude taken up by Deputy Johnson whenever there was a question of the public safety, that he and his Party can be relied on to take the necessary steps to deal with a menace of that kind? We are dealing now not with vague promises, and not with shibboleths of any kind, but with hard facts and with the character of men as they were revealed in this House. It may be owing to the goodness of heart on the part of Deputy Johnson, or it may be his high-sounding phrases and the various shibboleths to which he owes allegiance, but I certainly think that he would not be able efficiently to deal with a menace of that kind. Deputy Johnson, in the interview and in the statement made here to-day, referred to the country and to factions, warring factions in the country. That is to say, in dealing with the unfortunate events since the split, he equates, as far as I can read his words—the words of the future President of the Executive Council in this country—he equates the upholding of the law with rebellion against the law. That is what his words mean, if they mean anything. He equates the two things, the enforcement of the law on the one hand as simply a warring by a section of our people. Now, is that right or is it not? I take it for granted that when the Labour Party say they are not going to tolerate any rival army they are sincere. Remember it is a tremendous responsibility they are undertaking, not merely responsibility for themselves and their Party's future. I admit, so far as that is concerned, that whatever the intentions may have been, certainly they will reap no Party advantage out of the step they are taking now. But what I would like to ask is, do they realise the fullness of the responsibility in which they, a very small minority of the House—altogether they are only 30 out of 140 people in this assembly—do they realise that they, a Party of 30, are undertaking to govern the country with the support of the new entrants into the Dáil? Do they believe they will be able to do it?

I want to put it to the Deputies of the different Parties in this House—do they realise what I have tried as far as I can, on the few occasions I have addressed this House, to emphasise, that we are just emerging from a revolution? Does Deputy Redmond realise that? They plunge into this gamble— I cannot call it by any better word— without the faintest realisation of what they are facing. They apply to us here in this country exactly the same maxims and ideals as are applied to countries with half a century of settled government and accustomed to changes of party. They have plunged themselves blindly into a situation of that kind. That is primarily a matter for their own particular Party, but perhaps it is also one for the country.

In the recent election I always pointed out that in the nature of events there were two normal Parties in the development of this country, one of them the Labour Party and the other a party like our own. I gathered—I may have been wrong—from the speeches made in the elections that much the same view was accepted by the Labour Party themselves. I remember speaking on one occasion to a member of the Labour Party, who possibly was not as high in the councils of the Party as some of the others. Speaking to him before the election, I asked him: "How do you think you will do?" He replied, "We will do very well.""On what do you base that?" I asked him, and he said, "We base it on the fact that in the 1923 election a lot of people voted politics instead of voting economics. In this election they will vote economics and they will vote labour. In the last election they voted for or against the Treaty, and in this election they will come round to us."

The Labour Party is putting itself in the position of having itself, as a Party, undermined. Of course, as I have said, that is primarily a matter for the members themselves, but I suggest it is also a matter for the House and for those who want to see the normal development of things in the country. They are really digging their own graves, and I am quite sure that the people who are going to put them into power are perfectly well aware of that. That can be seen even in small events. Take the present by-election, for example. I know they will disclaim it, but the facts remain. Who are the Parties contesting the election? You have Cumann na nGaedheal with a definite project; you have Fianna Fáil with a definite programme, and Sinn Féin with a definite programme. The Labour Party decided not to contest the vacant seats. I know they denied they were allies, but let us take all the circumstances into account, and the biggest circumstances were the conversations that went on in regard to the political life of this country; the biggest circumstances of the lot were the various bargainings that went on during the last week or ten days. I do not say there was a bargain about this; I am not suggesting that, but it is certainly symptomatic of the Labour Party that they are not putting up a candidate in the capital city where most of the workers are concentrated. I do not say it is as a result of any definite bargain over this particular election, but the fact remains, and it appears to be symptomatic of the future of this country. You have an alliance between the strong Imperialist, Deputy Redmond, and the democratic Labour Party, strongly national in its outlook, and that Imperialist and that national Labour Party are apparently going to be put into office by what used to be called the revolutionary party in this country.

Mr. DAVIN

Are you quite sure?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I made it perfectly clear at the beginning that I, unfortunately, owing to the very discreet silence of the leader of the Labour Party, and the still more discreet silence on the opposite Benches, have to use the only method of getting knowledge at my disposal, namely, various interviews in the Press and the general feeling a person has as to how things are going.

Mr. DAVIN

Are you turning down the suggestion of a coalition between the two of you?

Professor O'SULLIVAN

It is amazing how ready Deputy Davin is with his solutions. In fact, that is quite characteristic of him and his Party; it is characteristic of him to offer solutions when he knows at the moment there is no chance of realisation.

Mr. JOHNSON

It was Deputy Baxter's offer.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

We know what Deputy Johnson's solution is, although he did not tell us. We had to wait for other people to tell us that. I am amazed that a man of Deputy Johnson's constitutional temperament should enter into these alliances and these conversations and keep it absolutely silent and secret from this country and allow this debate to go on without giving a hint to the House in regard to these agreements and conversations. That is democratic government certainly from the leader of the Labour Party.

The responsibility as to the future of this country will be determined by what this Dáil does to-day and the subsequent events that will take place. It is a matter for the Dáil to decide. I have tried, as far as possible, to put before the House some of the doubts that exist in my own mind. They have not been answered; I hope they will be answered clearly before the end of the debate. I hope we will be informed of the precise relations between the three parties, and especially their relationship in regard to having only one army in this country, the army that obeys the Constitution.

Mr. J. WOLFE

Before this debate concludes I desire to mention the reasons which actuate me in taking the course that I am about to adopt. I have listened to this debate with a considerable amount of pleasure and profit. I heard Deputy Coburn speaking in the role of a prophet predicting the downfall of the present Government and setting up in its place a new Government which, he said, would meet with the fate of Mr. Ramsay Macdonald's Government. I do not know how many wakes the Deputy wishes us to attend. Apparently, so far as Deputy Redmond is concerned, he is down and out. Whether Deputy Coburn intends us also to attend the wake of the Labour Party and the wake of the Fianna Fáil Party, I am not so sure. In our country there is a custom that on an occasion like this they send for tobacco and . I thought that perhaps Deputy Redmond, realising his grave responsibilities, would supply the missing link.

Nobody will accuse me of holding a brief for the Government; I hold none. I owe no thanks to the Government for being where I am now. For two and a half years I suffered persecution at the hands of Government servants. At the last election I suffered, at the hands of their paid organisers the vilest slanders that could have been uttered against any man who had respect for his character and who respected his name. I refer to these personal matters merely for the reason that I think the time has come when, in a matter of this sort, so grave for the future of our country, all personal elements should be eliminated. We should not look, as we have been in the habit of looking, to the unhappy past, but rather to the future. If we are inclined to take an optimistic view of the future, then let us take a more optimistic view; if we are inclined to take a pessimistic view, then let us strive to take a less pessimistic view.

As I understand the position, there are three, but in reality only two, charges against the Government. The Government are attacked, first of all, for having introduced and brought into law the Public Safety Act. If I had been in the House—unfortunately I was not—when this Bill was introduced I would have voted for its Second Reading. I was there during most of the discussion, and took part in the discussion, and I voted against various sections of the Bill, sections which, in my view, interfered with the liberty of the subject to an undue degree. But let us first for a moment consider the circumstances under which that Bill was introduced. It was introduced at a time of a grave national crisis. It was introduced following the foul assassination of a great Irishman, a member of an honoured West Cork family—my own constituents—a family that has given more, probably, to Ireland than any other family in Ireland. He was foully and vilely assassinated under circumstances which must bring the blush of shame to every decent Irishman, no matter what his politics may be, no matter where he says his prayers.

I have never, as my colleague, Deputy Murphy said the other day, been afraid to denounce murder. I denounced murder when it was unpopular to denounce it. I was never afraid to do it, and I never put any tag in my denunciation of it. I always proclaimed that between the murderer and the man who sympathised with murder there was no distinction whatever: that the sympathiser with murder and the murderer himself are synonymous terms. We may sympathise with murder in very many ways. A man who has cast upon him the duty of denouncing murder and who fails to denounce it is himself a sympathiser with murder and is himself in the same degree as the murderer. Those are my views. There was thrown on the Government at that time the primary duty of taking all the steps necessary to denounce that murder and to find the vile assassins, and in addition to keep free and safe the lives of all the other citizens of this State. They came before this House and told it that, in order to do that, they required a Public Safety Act. Who would refuse them that Act? Who could refuse them without finding on his fingers, clinging to them, the blood of Kevin O'Higgins? I would not refuse them that. To-day at the foundation of this debate you have—and this is the reason why I am going to vote for the present Government—men and sections of men trying to creep into power and trying to rise into power over the dead body of Kevin O'Higgins. I will be no party to that. I will be no party to suppressing what my feelings are.

I say of the Public Safety Act that, while I spoke against sections of it and that while I did not agree with sections of it, and do not still agree with them, despite all, that it was a Bill which the Government were entitled to introduce as the custodians of the public safety, and a measure which no man could reasonably refuse them. It is only fair to say that, in the course of the debate which took place on that measure, and as a result of the debate, the President gave certain concessions and undertakings to those who opposed the Bill. I think I am speaking for the majority of those who opposed the Bill when I say that we are in no doubt whatever that these concessions and undertakings will, so far as the President is concerned, be carried out both in the spirit and in fact.

The second count against the Government, so far as I understand it, is the Electoral Abuses Act. I hope I am right as regards the title of it. I know I was right in voting against every section of it. I did not approve of the title or of the Bill itself. What was the outcome of that Bill, and what purpose did it achieve? There were outside this House 43 members who could not come in because the taking of the oath which they were required to take would be to them an immoral transaction. That Act brought them in. If the President had only had the good luck to change the title of the Bill and call it a Bill introduced to provide for statutory morality, all the trouble would have been at an end. That, unfortunately, did not occur, but, at any rate, there are in this House 43 members who are prepared to vote for this motion because by reason of that Act they are sitting here this afternoon. I am glad they are here. They represent one-third of the electorate. I wish they had decided years ago to come in here, because I believe we would have had a better Ireland, or, at least, a better Free State if they had been here. You would have had an Ireland and a Free State as free from crime as it is to-day. That was the difficulty that the Fianna Fáil Party had. The oath has been got rid of by the members of the present Government, and because they have got rid of that one primary difficulty they are to be turned out of office. I am against that on grounds of that sort.

The other fundamental principle of the Fianna Fáil Party, as I understood it, was that we were to have the government of Ireland by Irishmen. I was always in favour of that. We were told that, in addition, it was to be free from any interference by Englishmen or by England. I was in favour of that once anyone could see that it was a sound economic proposition. What have we to-day? We have a motion brought forward—let us have no sham or humbug about what the issue is here, but let us face the facts—which cannot have the support of the 43 members of the Fianna Fáil Party, unless they are going to tear up the second leaf in their programme. We are going to have the Dáil ruled over by an Englishman. I am off that job. I will have nothing to say to it. I have not yet reached the stage when I will confess for one moment that the Free State is so bereft of intelligence that we cannot get an Irishman to adopt the principle of Fianna Fáil, and have Ireland governed by Irishmen.

There is just one other matter that I wish to refer to. Deputy Johnson has complained that Bills have been passed only by a minority of this House. I agree with him, but he stopped there. Whose fault was that? He did not tell us where lay the fault or where lay the remedy. I say that the remedy was found by the members of the Government who succeeded in bringing in the 43 absent members. He also told us that he has got the strong feeling that there should be a combination excluding the two largest Parties in the House, and that you will never get satisfactory government until that principle is carried into effect. He forgot to give us the most useful addendum which he has got up his sleeve, and that is that the minority must be ruled by himself. I desire now to touch on a personal matter between Fianna Fáil and myself. It was only two or three months ago I discovered as a fact that five followers of Fianna Fáil had for a period of four years been banned from their houses; they were banned as outlaws and as men accused of murder. I took it upon myself on the first public opportunity that presented itself, to stand up and protest in public on behalf of these men who were innocent. Two of them have since been found absolutely innocent. They were followers of Fianna Fáil, but I was not ashamed to do justice to them. What happens now and what happened then? Deputy Johnson, in this House, without the assistance of any Public Safety Act, and without giving me any opportunity to defend or explain my position, wanted the late Minister for Justice to cast me into prison without trial and without a hearing. Still he complains of the Public Safety Act. That was his treatment of me because I had the piuck to stand up in defence of five followers of Fianna Fáil, and yet apparently Fianna Fáil are going to answer Deputy Johnson by saying: "You who have done that, you who tore up the Constitution, you who tried to cast a fellow citizen into jail when no Public Safety Act was passed, we are going to make you, an Englishman, President of the Constitution." As far as I am concerned I will not stand for that. Let the responsibility of it be on those who are going to do it. I take no responsibility for it.

Mr. HALL

I would not speak in this debate were it not for the speech we have just heard from Deputy Wolfe. I thought that we would have this debate conducted on the merits or demerits of the Government and that a vote would be taken on the motion on the Order Paper. But no; we find Deputies like Deputy Wolfe getting up to attack Deputy Johnson with all the vile innuendo he was capable of mobilising. Deputy Wolfe taunts Deputy Johnson with being an Englishman and he talks very personally in referring to some matter that affected him in his career. He might leave Deputy Johnson and the Labour Party alone, and he might rest assured that the Labour Party are not endeavouring to seek office under the cloud of the murder of the late Vice-President. From what I see here of some Deputies, there were at least two, one of them Deputy Wolfe, who ranged their battle against this motion around the grave of the late Vice-President. There, to my mind, the Deputy was guilty of the greatest desecration that any human being could be guilty of, considering that the late Vice-President when he was dying declared that he forgave his enemies. We are not endeavouring to get office under the cloud of the murder of the late Vice-President. It ill becomes any Deputy like Deputy Wolfe, who has so faithfully served a foreign tyrant in this country for years, to get up and speak as a patriotic Irishman, because he does not possess a drop of patriotism.

Mr. HORGAN

I have been wondering, after listening to the speeches of Ministers, if I am in the same Dáil as was called together six weeks ago, because at that time President Cosgrave when he was proposed for the Presidency, demanded of all Parties in the House practically unconditional support or he would not accept the position. That unconditional support was not given to him and yet he accepted office. During the course of that day's proceedings the Labour Party were taunted for not accepting office, for shirking their responsibilities, and now when they are prepared to accept responsibility, what is the attitude of Ministers? They are evidently amazed and surprised that anybody should have the temerity to assume the reins of Government as they consider themselves the only people fit to rule in this country. That is about the only conclusion that I can draw from the speeches I have heard here this evening. Supposing the Fianna Fáil Deputies had come into the Dáil on the first day it was called together, is there any man can tell me that President Cosgrave and his Party would be running the Government? You are simply having the issue to-day that you might have had then. Are they disappointed those men came in? Is their patriotism only lip deep? Is Party advantage their main plank? It seems to me it is because they cannot rise to the heights of patriotism that demand that they should step back for a while and let other men assume the reins of Government in order that the country and the people would have an opportunity of recovering themselves. I feel that they are not sincere and I can only come to that conclusion.

What was the statement of the late Vice-President, God rest his soul, when he spoke from those benches? He said: "We will be like meek lambs supporting any Party that assumes authority, and they will have us as their defenders in order that the legislation necessary for the peace, order and progress of the country might go along." Is our position here on these benches inconsistent to-day? I say it is not, and I will show you how. When President Cosgrave was opposed on that day by Deputy Johnson we refused to vote because there was no alternative shown to us. We said: "What is the use of opposing a man when you propose nobody to take his place?" To-day the position is reversed and we would be engaged in a campaign of lying and falsehood if to-day we supported the Government that we described as extravagant and of whom we said that this country could not prosper if they were to continue in office. This is the first oportunity that has been presented to us. We will present a united front regardless of the consequences because we believe it is in the best interests of the country that this Government should step aside and let others have an opportunity of proving what they are worth and can do. If the two big Parties coalesce and form a Government they will not have any greater supporters here in any legislation that, aims at the good of the people, the forgetting of strife and the continuance of peace, than we will be, but I am inclined to think that this Dáil is a network of hypocrisy. These speeches that have been made are not sincere. I have decided, with my colleagues, to vote against the Government, believing to-day as we believed during the elections that they are running the country too extravagantly; that their policy is wrong, and not one likely to lead the country to a better and happier future.

Mr. O'GORMAN

I did not intend to say anything, but after the remarks with reference to extravagance that have fallen from Deputy Horgan, I wish to say a few words. In his opening statement Deputy Johnson said—I have written down his words: "We are going to maintain the Constitution as well as the Treaty." I think it is only fair to the Dáil and to the country that that statement should be answered from the Fianna Fáil benches. I hear no answer. I know, and the country will know, what conclusion to draw, and I for one could not vote for so unnatural a combination. Deputy Horgan has spoken of extravagance. I have attacked the Government for the last three years on that very question, but when I came into the House what did I hear from the Labour benches? I heard one Deputy, whose name I do not now remember, speaking on the Estimates, say that insane economy would not pay. Deputy O'Brien settled the matter by saying: "It is not economy you want in this country; it is wise spending." Well, perhaps, my ideas, and even Deputy Horgan's ideas, of wise spending would differ very materially from Deputy O'Brien's ideas of wise spending. There are other matters on which I differ more seriously from the Government, and on which I shall continue to differ. We have the question of tariff and free trade. They have gone in for what they call selective protection. I and the Farmers' Party are free traders, but what comfort do we get from those (Opposition) benches? If I can read from their utterances they are whole-hoggers. They go as far as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Therefore I cannot look to them.

This is a big question, and if this unnatural combination or union be effected there must be very speedy disillusionment. I will not aid it. I hope, for many reasons, that the anticipations of Deputy Redmond and Deputy Johnson will not come to a head, and I hope that on a division the Government, which I have long opposed and will oppose again, on many matters will be successful. The ominous silence on the other side would be a very bad augury for any combination that would result from the passing of this motion. Are they afraid or ashamed to speak? What can a little Party of twenty-two do? They are mere puppets, with Deputy de Valera pulling the strings.

Mr. O'MAHONY

Before Deputy Johnson closes the debate. I would like to point out that there is one pitfall waiting for him. I would be the last man to allow even an enemy, and Deputy Johnson is not an enemy of mine, to walk blindfolded into a pit. That pit is the pit of untruthfulness. So far as we can guess, if he carries this motion he is prepared to form a Government with the help of other Parties. Whatever Parties he selects to form his Government he knows perfectly well that he cannot proceed without the support of members of Deputy de Valera's Party. That is essential to any Government which he may organise. Does he realise that if he accepts their support he is accepting support from a body of men—I am going to use, I am sorry to say, strong words——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

If the Deputy is going to use any strong words he ought to reconsider his intention, because there have been comparatively few strong words used in the debate so far, and Deputy O'Mahony is the last person from whom one would expect them. I think he ought not to pursue that line.

Mr. O'MAHONY

——men who have denied the truth, because they came into this Dáil having taken a solemn oath with reservations. Do they realise the example they have set to boys and girls in the country?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The morals of a Party are not relevant.

Mr. O'MAHONY

I stand by your ruling, sir. I would like to say one word to Deputy Johnson: "Do you realise the Party that must put you into power if you carry this motion?" All I ask him to do is gravely to consider the responsibility he is taking. Has he guarantees from that Party on which he can rely?

SEAN T. O CEALLAIGH

'Se mo thuairim-se, agus tuairim láidir mo cháirde go léir ar an dtaobh so den Tigh, gurbh fhearr go mór do chúis na hÉireann gan sinne dhul isteach sa diosbóireacht so indhiú.

Ta's ag gach éinne sa Dáil, agus táim deimhnitheach go bhfuil fios ag muinntir an dúthaigh go léir, cadé an tuairim atá againne i dtaobh Rialtais seo an tSaorstát. Ní gá dhúinn caint a dhéanamh ar an gceist seo anso ná in aon áit eile indhiu chun a theasbáint cád é an tuairim atá againn. Tá san déanta againn ar fuaid na tíre tá tamall gearr ó shin, agus creidim nach gá dhuinn é dhéanamh arís tráthnóna. Béidir go dtoicfadh lá eile, acht is dóich liom go ndéanfadh sé abhfad níos mo maitheasa gan dul isteach i stair na mblian so atá caithte go deánach anois. 'Sé ar dtuairim gurbh fhearrde an dúthaigh gán sinn a rá éinní a thabharfadh easaontas na searbhas isteach sa díosbóireacht. Ach tuigfidh gach éinne na ceapaimid anso gur cóir don Rialtas so leanúint in oifig. Sin a bhfuil agam le rá.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I would not have taken part in the debate were it not for the bitter attack made by Deputy Horgan. We heard suggestions from that Deputy which were most unworthy. It was suggested by him that we on these benches were not sincere in what we intended to do and in the plans which we conceived for this country. He suggested that we were acting in a manner that was entirely artificial, that we were not sincere in introducing the measures which the House recently passed. Deputy Horgan suggested that he intended to vote against the Government because the government of this country has been run extravagantly. Does any Deputy believe that there is the shadow of truth or justification in that statement? Anyone who has the slightest conception of what figures mean and who analyses that statement will realise that if that is the main argument upon which National League Deputies support the present motion, they have neither sense, logic, nor reason to support them. An examination of the expenditure figures will show whether the State has been run extravagantly or not. We have nearly twenty-three millions coming in. Of that £2,000,000 is accounted for by the Post Office, £2,267,000 is spent on old age pensions, £4,500,000 on education, £2,500,000 on agricultural grants, and £331,000 on health insurance. The balance of taxes imposed on the country is spent on essential services, amounting to £10,000,000. There can be no sincerity in putting forward the argument that the country is being run extravagantly, yet that is a reason why Deputy Horgan intends to vote for the motion.

We have received from Deputy Redmond sincere sympathy on the death of the late Vice-President, but I feel sure that thinking people in this country will realise, as Deputy Wolfe properly said, that there was a duty cast on the State and on the Government to take steps to avoid similar occasions arising. Was the Government to stand by and take no steps to protect the people? Were the whole Cabinet to be struck down one by one by the bullets of the assassin? Were the measures which we have introduced not entirely successful in their aims and objects? We have been criticised for introducing the Public Safety Bill. We have been told, and told rightly, to-day that that measure was one of the greatest achievements which the Government ever introduced, because it succeeded in bringing to an end the abstention policy of Fianna Fáil, and has brought that Party into the House to shoulder their responsibilities, and to carry out their duties to the State. So far as we on these benches are concerned, we have always put our country before Party. I cannot refrain from refuting the bitter attack made by Deputy Horgan in his speech, which was insincere, shallow and without a shred of logic. I will put before Deputies the words of our President, whom we are proud to follow. He said: "The country is more important than any political Party. Time brings changes; they are inevitable. Let us see that any changes made are for the public good. The personnel of the people's Parliament is almost complete, and I hope and pray that the Parliament will be worthy of the people, and, with the help of God, will worthily perform its allotted task." We were told in a speech made on Sunday that a surprise was being prepared for the Government benches. To those listening to me, I suggest that if the President of our Party wished to pay the price for the alliance that Fianna Fáil have taken on their shoulders, we could still continue in office, but the price of that continuance in office would be the liberty of the State and the dishonour of the people.

Mr. T. MURPHY

This debate, with few exceptions, has been very dignified. I think the meanest and most unworthy contribution to the debate has come from my colleague, Deputy Wolfe. His speech was the result of a grievance, real or imaginary, that he has against Deputy Johnson, and because of that grievance he has descended to tactics that would not reflect credit on any Deputy, or on any person with the responsibility Deputy Wolfe has outside this House. Members of this assembly who are not familiar with the arguments and policies, if I may call them policies, that were advanced by some of the candidates in West Cork would probably be glad to hear of some of the planks in Deputy Wolfe's election platform. The main plank, so far as I can remember, was that he was coming into this House to secure the return of the British Fleet to this country. I am wondering what has brought about the great change that is manifested in his speech to-day, and the new-found hatred he has of any person who did not happen to be born in this country. Deputy Wolfe has spoken about big national emergencies. I remember a big national emergency when practically all sections united against conscription. I am not ashamed to claim credit for the part Deputy Johnson played on that occasion. I do not think that Deputy Wolfe was prominent then, or on other occasions when national emergencies had to be faced.

The Deputy's speech is the greatest condemnation and the greatest refutation of the arguments that he advanced during the election campaign. I wonder whether many of the people who supported him in his up-hill and downdale denunciations of the Government in West Cork would be able to understand the extraordinary contribution he has made to this debate. In Deputy Wolfe's judgment, when he was a candidate during the election, it would be good business for the people to support any Party outside the Party that must be unhappy in finding him as an ally in this House to-day. Deputy Baxter's speech was unfortunate in many respects. He would apparently have us forget many things he was responsible for in this House, and outside this House in the past. He has no recollection to-day of the famous Shelbourne Hotel conference he attended, at which, if I remember rightly, he agreed to act as secretary to a coalition of the other Parties in the State to oust the Government. Surely he has outrivalled the zeal of a convert in his contribution to-day, and in similar contributions during the past two or three weeks. They give us much food for thought, and will certainly give much food for thought to the people who read them down the country. I was glad to hear a portion of the speech of the Minister for Education. I regret that what seemed to me the one note dominant through that speech was that while Labour would be very useful and would play an important part in this House so long as in opposition, still he would have us believe that Labour should never leave that position, or be given any chance of participating in the Government of the country. We do not accept that view, nor do the people who sent us here.

We have been accused on many occasions of shirking our responsibilities, but when there is a suggestion that we are ready to face them, then we are to be met with the argument that we are not fit to take them on. My position in this matter is perfectly clear. I feel that the action we are taking as regards this motion is perfectly consistent with our actions since we came into this House. Deputy Johnson reminded the House to-day that there were many occasions on which votes of no confidence were moved, and that we were simply following the line we had taken, and which we will continue to take as long as we have the honour to be sent here by the people. There is no suggestion that the Labour Party will stand for or create any disruption in this country. The Constitution and the Treaty are perfectly safe in the hands of a Party that has given so much proof of its loyalty to that Treaty and Constitution. Many of the arguments advanced from the opposite benches to-day have been an affirmation of the belief that the Labour Party, or any other Party, that assumes responsibility in this country will not be able to shoulder that responsibility. Considering that we have been always regarded as shirkers of responsibility it seems rather strange when there is a suggestion we should take responsibility that this attitude should be adopted. I feel that the statement of policy by the mover of the motion to-day, and the sentiments that have received approval in the course of this debate, make the position of this Party perfectly clear, and show that in the national emergency with which the people are faced at the moment, as well as in the national emergencies that faced the country in the past, more solid constructive work and a more real desire to achieve something practical could be expected from the people who are responsible for this motion than from those who are responsible for some of the most unworthy statements ever made in this House or in any other assembly.

Mr. BELTON

I am going to sup-the motion, although I do not agree with the circumstances of its introduction. I support the motion because it puts before me an issue on which I must decide to vote one way or the other. I am not going to shirk that issue. I have no confidence in the Government's economic policy, and, apart from any other consideration, when I am brought up against a decision as to whether I have confidence in the Government or not, I must make my decision. But I would much rather be called upon to make that decision on a concrete question of policy. However, I was not master of the situation, and I must frame my action according to the circumstances in which I find myself. I certainly take exception to the case that was laboured so much that the two warring sections in this country, composed of 90 per cent. of the men who, supported by the people of the country, made a Parliament in this country possible, are to be told to stand aside, and that we should get a Party from some other place to rule us. Though I do not often find myself in agreement with Deputy Baxter, I certainly agree with, and wholeheartedly support, the suggestion that he threw out, that the natural coalition, from a political, economic and national point of view—and if it does not come to-day it must come to-morrow —is a coalition between the men on those benches and those on the opposite benches. I am glad that no note was struck to-day that would throw any obstacle in the way of that natural development and natural evolution. I, for one, will support it, and it would be one of the greatest ambitions of my life to see it coming about.

No other Deputy has taken it up, but I do not think it was a happy introduction for Deputy Johnson to talk about two warring organs of public opinion in America. We all know what these are—they are the organs of Irish-America, of Irish emigrants and the offspring of Irish-Americans. They are warring one against the other because the Irish in America are warring one against the other, and they are warring in America because we are warring at home. Therefore, apart from a national, there is a racial reason why we should have co-operation between the two Parties that represent Nationalist Ireland and the Irish race at home and abroad.

I do not agree with Deputy Johnson when he talks about members of various Parties not having interests in common. It is the bond of nationality that we all have in common. There are very small differences if we analyse them between the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and the Fianna Fáil Party. They are both national Parties, inasmuch as they represent all sections of the country. Both Parties claim that their ideal is to build up a self-contained and an economic entity that will be self-supporting. There is nothing keeping them asunder only a little bitterness that has grown up in the last few years. That, I hope, will soon die out, so that we will have co-operation between the two Parties. I am not going to deal with any of that bitterness.

I was sorry to hear applauded from the Labour Benches a message that was sent to England last year asking how we in this country could help the strike that was going on in England. I put it to Deputy Johnson that nothing has happened in the last ten years that did more harm to the workers of County Dublin than that strike. I know the workers of the County Dublin well —I probably represent them to a greater extent than any man in the Dáil —and I know that they were not satisfied with that action.

Turning to the references of the leader of the Farmers' Party, who spoke from an entirely opposite angle, he asked—I suppose it was to throw dirty water on a prospective Labour administration—what did Labour do in Waterford? Who was responsible for the Waterford trouble? The man who led the farmers, who for years before had preached the doctrine that the fight in this country was a fight between the "haves" and the "have-nots." It was not Labour; it was not the farmers, but the leader of the farmers, who never claimed this country as his.

Reference was also made to trouble in Tipperary, where the workers were alleged to have hoisted the Red Flag over the farmers' creameries. I heard of the incident and I disapproved of it. But the Deputy did not pursue his argument to the end. He asked where did the butter go that was taken away from those creameries and for which the farmers were not paid. Where did it go? It went to a place in Dublin where an ex-secretary of the Farmers' Union was in receipt of a salary of £1,000 a year.

I do not want to deal with the incidents of the last few weeks, and I do not want to touch upon the Booterstown assassination; nor do I want to upset my friend Deputy O'Gorman by introducing a debate on protection or free trade. But when eleven Deputies in this House claim to represent a class that are sixty or seventy per cent. of the population of the country, I say deliberately that they do not represent them. If the farmers of the country were to be represented by farmers, they would be the Government of the country, and not the paltry eleven Deputies sitting on those Benches.

I do not want to deal with the Public Safety Act, or the subsidiary Acts. I voted against them, and said all I had to say against them. If they had never come on the horizon of politics I would still vote against the Government when it would be a vote of confidence. I would vote against them because of their economic and financial policy, which, in my opinion, is not following the national lines or the national doctrine preached by those who were the predecessors of those sitting on the Front Benches. I am not going into a debate on economic or financial policy to-day—there will be other opportunities for that. I have satisfied my own mind that I will vote against the Government, because of their economic policy, and that is sufficient reason for me.

I think it was Deputy Redmond who said that it was only fair to the House to have an alternative Government if you are going to turn out the present Government. I daresay that he was responsible, to some extent, for the situation that has arisen. I have not been responsible in any way for that situation. The situation has been put before me, and I am called upon to vote one way or the other. I am going to vote according to the way my conscience dictates, and according to the way that I know the people who sent me here would tell me to vote if I had them at my elbow. If I vote and leave the country without a Government, I am not responsible. The men who brought this vote of "No confidence" before the House are responsible—I have not been responsible for that. But I can assure the House that if we are successful on this side in carrying this motion, I am going then to exercise my own judgment in a manner that I hope will do credit to myself and to the constituency I represent, and which will help to safeguard the national interests of the country.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the chair.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I wish to say a few words to make my position clear in regard to the motion before the House. When I went before the electors at the last election I constantly expressed the idea that I was anxious that the discussion of political questions should be put aside, and that the people of this country, and the representatives of the people, should turn their attention to the discussion of the economic problems, and endeavour to find a solution for them. On that account I constantly expressed the hope that the Fianna Fáil Party would come into the Dáil and take their part in this deliberative assembly, and do their bit towards working out the economic salvation of this country. I often expressed the opinion that I was willing myself, by whatever small part I might play individually, or as a member of my Party, to induce the Fianna Fáil Party to come into this House, and I am glad to see that we have them with us here to-day. I am glad to see the part I played, and it was an unexpected part, in supporting this Public Safety Bill, has resulted in bringing the Fianna Fáil Party into this House. I hope, now they are in this House, we will be able to devote our attention to the material and economic problems facing this country, because I felt that, since the assembly of this new Dáil, it is a most unfortunate state of affairs that its whole attention has been turned away from the discussion of the conditions which exist in the country, and which are almost without parallel in regard to economic distress in the past twenty years.

In dealing with this vote of want of confidence my views are these: We are asked not alone to support a motion of no confidence in the present Government, but we are also asked to vote confidence in the alternative Government which is to be set up. I have not been a strong supporter of the present Government. Like Deputy O'Gorman, I disagree with the Government on many points of policy. I do not say I fundamentally agree with it on all points or on the majority of their points of policy, but I disagree and have given voice to my disagreement, on many points of their policy. I have disagreed with them to a considerable extent on their economic and financial policy, and to a partial extent on their fiscal policy. But, in my opinion, the option we are given is a choice between the devil you know and the devil you don't know. I am going to support the devil I know. Deputy Johnson expressed the opinion when making his case for the motion that a combination of those Parties that have not been actively associated with the internal strife in this country would be for the good of the country. The implication was that the alternative was a coalition of Parties not associated with that strife. It is all very fine to tie us up in a collection of words, but what was the alternative? It was not a coalition of the kind suggested by Deputy Johnson, but a coalition of Deputy Johnson's Party and Deputy Redmond's Party.

As a member of the Farmers' Party I am not aware that Deputy Johnson took very many active steps to secure the collaboration or the co-operation of the Farmers' Party in the formation of an alternative Government, or that Deputy Johnson showed any very keen desire to secure the collaboration or co-operation of Independent Deputies in the formation of an alternative Government. I feel that to support this motion would be supporting a policy of coalition of which I do not know anything.

Now, it is perfectly plain to anybody, and it has been repeated over and over again, that if this coalition of Deputy Johnson's Party and Deputy Redmond's Party—a coalition of a minority of 29 Deputies—is to exist and to continue as a legislative and administrative body they must have the support of another Party, and it is common knowledge, and I am sure Deputy Johnson will not deny it, that they have entered into some kind of understanding with another Party in this House. That means that the policy of that other Party must prevail, or must have effect to a certain extent, and in today's debate that Party has seen fit not to express any opinion as to what their policy is to be. I am not going to support blindly a Government whose policy I do not know. If the Fianna Fáil Party had seen fit to state to-day what policy they are prepared to carry out, if they had stated in what manner they had entered into an agreement with the Labour Party, we would at least not be asked to vote blindly; we would know what alternative Government we were asked to support.

I do not intend to deal with Deputy Belton's arguments beyond saying this, that if he wants to refer to what happened in regard to the Waterford strike, or other disputes, he ought to get more accurate information. In regard to the cargo of butter and the ex-official of the Farmers' Union getting £1,000 a year. I might point out that that ex-official took up his job about a year after the cargo of butter was supposed to have been delivered here, so that there is a difference of a year in his calculations.

I have given expression to my opinions with regard to the present situation. I am anxious to see emerge from this crisis a realisation of the necessity for the Dáil to put aside barren and futile political controversies. I want to see it devoting its attention to the curing of the economic ills from which the country is suffering. I would be glad to see the new Party which has entered the Dáil giving its whole-hearted support in that direction. But before I give my vote in favour of a motion of want of confidence in the present Government, I want to feel that the alternative, the coalition which I am asked to support, have and are prepared to carry out a policy which will be in the interests of the people I represent. I am not satisfied that the Labour policy, as I understand it, and as it has been expounded from time to time by the leader of that Party, inside and outside the Dáil, is a policy which I, as a representative of the farmers, can conscientiously support, and until I see the possibility of an alternative Government, Coalition or otherwise, prepared to carry out a policy more in the interests of the farming community generally than the policy of the present Government, I see no alternative but to give my vote against this motion.

Mr. HEWSON

With the prejudices I heard expressed here to-day I have very little sympathy, but when I saw the Government introduce the other day a type of what I regard as a Coercion Act, I put an amendment on the paper to justify the line I took. I understood the President to-day to give two explanations of the object of that legislation. One was to fill the vacant seats here, and the other to maintain a disturbance in the minds of the murderers of the late Vice-President. One object is now effected, and the other is limited by the presence of the Deputies on my left. When I come to consider a motion of this nature it is quite clear to me that although the Government are undoubtedly in a minority as regards their representation of public opinion at present, yet a motion of this sort demands a definite alternative. For that definite alternative I have listened with growing disappointment to-day. Not in the matter of personnel, and still less in the matter of policy do I know what are the alternative proposals. I think that to support this motion would place me in the position of asking my constituents to endorse a leap in the dark. I am afraid I cannot go so far.

As soon as the Opposition in this House, which will succeed the Government, is sufficiently formed to be able to produce some alternative policy I think it will find that it has my entire sympathy. In the present altogether unorganised state of the Opposition, I am afraid I shall have to continue to put up with the present Government, which I will continue to watch with what care I can, but which will not receive any unduly mischevious opposition from me. I am afraid that my vote must be given on this occasion against this motion, but I should like to say that I entirely accept the bona fides of the Deputy who proposed it, and I entirely endorse his statements in the public Press. Unfortunately he has not found himself in a position to finish them off by proposing such an alternative as I could recommend.

Mr. BRENNAN

As an Independent Deputy, with no party affiliations, I feel it is incumbent on me to say a few words as to the attitude I intend to adopt on the motion. I want to take this opportunity to express my entire satisfaction at the filling of those seats opposite. I think everyone in the House is satisfied with that. I think that Deputy Johnson and Deputy Redmond have been unduly criticised for the efforts they have made to provide for what may be termed a new development. The new situation, when 43 extra Deputies came into the House who, it was felt, would be in opposition to the Government, necessarily called for a new development, and if we do not entirely agree that the Coalition proposed by Deputy Johnson and Deputy Redmond would inspire the confidence that is necessary at the present time, I would be prepared to pay a tribute to them for providing for the contingency.

From Deputy Johnson's speech one would rather be inclined to believe that the members of this House on a previous occasion were prepared to accept any alternative to the present Government. That is not so; the word "any" ought not to have been used. The House would probably be prepared to accept an alternative, but the alternative should be one that would at all times inspire confidence, consequently, "any alternative" does not apply, and did not apply, on the first occasion when this House met. It is our duty to secure the very best Government that we can possibly secure, and, apart from personal feeling or prejudice, political prejudice or anything else, we ought soberly and carefully to consider the matter.

The people who sent us here expect us to do that. Consequently, no matter what our feelings and our Party affiliations are, we ought to bury them for the sake of the country. We want stability, as without it this State cannot get on. As it stands, the present Government, with the increased opposition, cannot be said to be a model of stability. At the same time, what is the alternative? We have two small groups backed up, not by the good-will of any Party, but by the prejudices of a Party. Can that Government, if it is put into power, inspire confidence? If it does not inspire confidence, well then, all is not well. Money is needed to carry on the government of the country, and we cannot get that money without confidence in the Government. Unfortunately, some personalities have been indulged in. I regret that very much. The issue should have been fought out on broad lines. As far as the two large contending Parties are concerned, there were very little personalities. That is hopeful, because the two large parties are the offspring of the real national movement, and have much more in common than either of them have with the proposed Government. Consequently, I think the proposed Coalition, from every point of view, would not be a success at the present time. A time may come, and that time may not be far off, when a Coalition must come. At the present time, when, as I said, there are two small Parties, which will be kept in power by the prejudices of a third Party, I do not think that can succeed, and, consequently, I must vote against the motion.

Mr. JOHNSON

I can understand the attitude, let us say, of the farmers, because their position in this matter will be one of mastery over the present Government. Deputy Heffernan has shown certain doubts and hesitations because of the difficulty that any minority Government will be in, having to depend on the votes of some other Party outside itself. I wonder what will be the position if this motion is defeated of the present Government Party. They will depend upon the votes of the Independents, Farmers, and the National League, against the possible opposition of the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil. Is the present Government Party to be considered to be everything that is right because they are dependent upon the support of other outside themselves, and any possible combination in the future is everything that is wrong because they have to depend upon the support of others outside themselves? I agree fully with the words that have just fallen from Deputy Brennan, that the real national movement can be found represented best on the benches on the right and on the left. I believe that the process I have outlined is the one which is most likely to accelerate the unity of these elements.

There have been two or three questions put to us, most of them really not germane to this discussion. I will say at this stage quite clearly and explicitly that if it turns out that we of the Labour Party are associated in Government we will adopt the line we took during the period of the civil war, when we said there can be only one Government in this country. So we say in regard to the army and the police, there can be only one army and one police force allowed in this country. The Minister for Education is quite free to his opinion about the inability or unwillingness of this Party to enforce the law, or to incur the odium that enforcement of the law involves. He is entirely free to have such an opinion, but there are Deputies in the Labour Party who had to take decisions to enforce orders, notwithstanding the frequency with which the President has expressed himself recently about the unfortunate fact that Deputies of the Labour Party have never had to exercise authority. That appears to be the chief grievance that the President has of the Labour Party, that we have never had to exercise authority, and, therefore, we are deficient in all the qualities that make for responsibility. That remains to be seen. It has sometimes been said that the most ruthless enforcers of the law may come from elements which constitute the Labour Party. Again, it remains to be seen. As far as we are concerned, we stand for the due and proper enforcement of the law, the maintenance of peace, order and good government.

We are asked about pledges, compacts, assurances, what secrets have been imposed upon Parties, with what sections we have been in consultation. Nothing that is not public has been agreed to by this Party. Fianna Fáil is as free as Cumann na nGaedheal to vote against the Labour Party or any combination the Labour Party may be in to-morrow, next week, next month, as they are to-day. The Labour Party is as free to-day as it has ever been to vote against Fianna Fáil. If what some people fear, and some people hope takes place, I, for one, will anticipate that there will be just as many occasions when support for that combination will come from the Benches of Cumann na nGaedheal as from the Benches of Fianna Fáil. There is little for me to say, except a personal note. I am sorry to introduce it. Article 3 of the Constitution says:—

Every person, without distinction of sex, domiciled in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State at the time of the coming into operation of this Constitution, who was born in Ireland or either of whose parents was born in Ireland, or who has been ordinarily resident in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State for not less than seven years, is a citizen of the Irish Free State and shall within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State enjoy the privileges and be subject to the obligation of such citizenship.

And it is the eloquent supporters of the Constitution that decry my position because I was not born within the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State. I wonder how many Constitutionalists support that point of view? It is like the cry of the people who call themselves democrats and people who call themselves republicans denouncing a man because of his parentage. I at least have lived in Ireland and worked in Ireland, and to the best of my ability served in Ireland for a longer number of years than most Deputies, certainly most Deputies in the old Dáil, whatever might be said about the new. And I will say this, that it is, I think, probably the most eloquent tribute that could be uttered on behalf of the tolerance, good-will and generosity of the working people of this country that they have for so many years entrusted me with confidence and, if I may say so, in recent years with leadership. I do not think, notwithstanding the aspersions, that the other sections of the country outside the working classes are less generous, less tolerant, than those who have placed me in the position in which I am. It has never been through any ambition of mine that I was called upon to undertake the work which I have undertaken in the past. I do not think that the statements made really will have much weight in the country. But all this pre-supposes something which we have no right to pre-suppose. The motion has been discussed mainly from the point of view of the inefficiency of a possible alternative. The alternative can be as efficient as this House can make it. The question before the House is whether we have confidence, whether the present Executive Council still retains the support of the Dáil. It is the next question upon which most of this discussion ought to have taken place. There is not the slightest obligation upon the Dáil to support the members of this Party or the members of the National League to form a Government, and there is very far from even that obligation that the head of that Government should be either Deputy Redmond or myself. That is a matter for future consideration, and I can assure the House that I shall be delighted if my name is left out of the consideration. I think there is no need to carry on the discussion any further, but merely to remind the House in the words of the Vice-President on the 23rd of June when dealing with the motion for the nomination of the President:—

"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 give us reasonable prospect of securing sufficient support to do that."

There is a reasonable prospect of finding sufficient support for an alternative Government to the one in power, and it is now therefore the opportunity of the Dáil to declare whether they want such an alternative.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 71 71; Níl, 71.

Tá

• Frank Aiken.
• Richard Anthony.
• Patrick Belton.
• Neil Blaney.
• Gerald Boland.
• Patrick Boland.
• Henry Broderick.
• Frank Carney.
• Frank Carty.
• Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
• James Coburn.
• Hugh Colohan.
• Dan Corkery.
• Richard Corish.
• Martin John Corry.
• Denis Cullen.
• William Davin.
• Edward Doyle.
• William Duffy.
• Séamus Eabhróid.
• Andrew Fogarty.
• Seán French.
• John F. Gill.
• David Hall.
• Seán Hayes.
• Samuel Holt.
• John Horgan.
• Patrick Houlihan.
• Thomas Johnson.
• John Keating.
• Michael Keyes.
• Mark Killelea.
• Thomas Lawlor.
• Seán F. Lemass.
• Gilbert Lynch.
• Seán Mac an tSaoi.
• Patrick McCarvill.
• Thomas McEllistrim.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• Pádraig Mac Gabhann.
• Tomás Mac Giolla Póil.
• Mícheál Mac Giolla Ruaidh.
• Tomás Mac Maoláin.
• Daniel McMenamin.
• Séamus Moore.
• Daniel Morrissey.
• Eugene Mullen.
• William O'Brien.
• Domhnall O Buachalla.
• Pádhraic O Caoilte.
• Seán T. O Ceallaigh.
• Seosamh O Cinnéide.
• Séamus O Colbáird.
• Tadhg O Cruadhlaoich.
• Tomás O Deirg.
• Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
• Proinnsias O Fathaigh.
• William O'Leary.
• Tadhg O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgán (An Clár).
• Matthew O'Reilly.
• Thomas O'Reilly.
• Séamus O Riain.
• Pádraig O Ruithleis.
• Timothy Quill.
• William Archer Redmond.
• James Shannon.
• John Tubridy.
• Thomas Tynan.
• Eamon de Valera.
• James Victory.

Níl

• Ernest Henry Alton.
• Patrick Baxter.
• James Walter Beckett.
• George Cecil Bennett.
• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Seán Brodrick.
• Séamus de Búrca.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
• Uí Dhrisceóil.
• James Dwyer.
• Barry M. Egan.
• Thomas Falvey.
• Seán de Faoite.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
• Hugh Garahan.
• John Good.
• Denis John Gorey.
• Seán Hasaide.
• Alexander Haslett.
• Michael R. Heffernan.
• John Hennigan.
• Mark Henry.
• Gilbert Hewson.
• Patrick Hogan (Galway).
• Richard Holohan.
• Patrick Michael Kelly.
• Myles Keogh.
• Hugh Alexander Law.
• Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
• Martin McDonogh.
• Patrick McGilligan.
• Mícheál Og Mac Pháidin.
• James E. Murphy.
• James Sproule Myles.
• Alfred Byrne.
• John Joseph Byrne.
• Michael Carter.
• Bryan Ricco Cooper.
• Sir James Craig.
• John Daly.
• Michael Davis.
• Michael Doyle.
• Martin Michael Nally.
• Mícheál O hAonghusa.
• Mícheál O Braonáin.
• Risteárd O Conaill.
• Máirtín O Conalláin.
• Partholán O Conchubhair.
• Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
• Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Séamus N. O Dóláin.
• Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
• Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
• Eamon O Dúgáin.
• David Leo O'Gorman.
• John F. O'Hanlon.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
• Risteárd O Maolchatha.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.
• John J. O'Reilly.
• Máirtín O Rodaigh.
• Seán O Súilleabháin.
• Vincent Rice.
• Patrick W. Shaw.
• Timothy Sheehy.
• William Edward Thrift.
• Vincent Joseph White.
• George Wolfe.
• Jasper Travers Wolfe.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Morrissey and Cullen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The figures are 71 Deputies for the motion and 71 Deputies against. There is, therefore, an equality of votes, and it devolves on me, in pursuance of Article 22 of the Constitution and Standing Order 58, to give a casting vote. Article 22 of the Constitution, in so far as it concerns this matter, reads:—

All matters in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present other than the Chairman or presiding member, who shall have and exercise a casting votes in the case of an equality of votes....

I propose to state to the Dáil, and have recorded on the Journal of the proceedings of the Dáil, the reasons and the considerations which influence the Chair in giving a vote upon this occasion. In the first place, the vote of the Chair should, I think, always be given in such a way as to provide, if possible, that the House would have an opportunity for reviewing the decision arrived at. Secondly, the status quo should, if possible, be preserved. When it is not possible to vote on either of these principles, it would, of course, be necessary for the Chairman to vote on the merits of the proposal before the House, with or without any statement, as he might think fit. In this particular case a vote against the motion enables the Dáil to review its decision on a further occasion on a vote of no confidence, not necessarily identical in terms with the motion before the House this evening, but aiming at the same result, and of similar effect if carried. Further, in my judgement, a motion of no confidence in any Executive Council should be affirmed by a majority of Deputies and not merely by the casting vote of the presiding officer of the House. I therefore vote against the motion. The figures, consequently, are:—For the Motion, 71; Against the Motion, 72. I accordingly declare the motion lost.