Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Mar 1933

Vol. 46 No. 6

Private Deputies' Business. - Removal From Office of General Eoin O'Duffy, as Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána.

Motion by Deputy W.T. Cosgrave:—
That the Dáil disapproves of the action of the Executive Council in removing General O'Duffy from office as Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána.

Before Deputy Cosgrave moves this motion, I want to raise a point of order. It would appear from a statement made by the President on the 1st March in this House that General Eoin O'Duffy was removed from his post as Commissioner of the Civic Guard under the powers conferred on the Executive Council by Section 2 of the Gárda Síochána Act, 1924. That statement was made by the President and appears in Column 24 of the Official Debates. In view of the fact that Section 2 of that Act, under which General O'Duffy was purported to have been removed, was, in fact, repealed by an Act of this Oireachtas in the following year — the Police Forces (Amalgamation) Act, 1925——

Is this a point of order?

Therefore, I submit to you, sir, that if, as the President has stated, General O'Duffy was removed under a repealed section of the Act, neither in fact nor in law is he removed, and I, therefore, ask your guidance as to whether a motion which asks this House to disapprove of the action of the Executive Council in removing General O'Duffy is in order, having regard to the fact that General O'Duffy is neither in fact nor in law removed?

As the Deputy is aware, it is not the function of the Ceann Comhairle to interpret Statutes; and, on the interpretation of any Statute, or whether the law is as the Deputy states, I do not rule. In any case, on any serious question of order, Deputies should give prior notice to the Chair. The question raised by the Deputy is not a point of order.

Do I take it that the Deputy should have given prior notice to the Chair on the question of law?

Not on the question of law, since the Chair is not the interpreter of law, but on important points of order.

Mr. Rice

May I ask if the Chair is prepared to take notice of the Statutes of this House and the provisions they make, and if a section which the President purports to act on has, in fact, been repealed, is the Chair not prepared to take notice of that fact? The Chair, I take it, is conversant with the Statutes of this House.

A question on the interpretation of the Statutes of this House is not a question for the Chair.

Mr. Rice

My submission to the Chair is that the Ceann Comhairle is aware whether a Statute is in existence or repealed. The attitude, if I may respectfully say so, that the Chair takes up, is that the Chair is not aware of whether a section or Act has been repealed or not. I submit that the Chair should take notice of the fact that a section has been repealed.

Is it incumbent on the Chair to determine for the House or for itself whether an administrative act of the Executive Council was or was not properly carried out?

Mr. Rice

That is not the point.

I suggest it was the duty of those who were bringing in this motion to make sure of that before they brought it in and not to try to cover over the matter at the last moment.

That is a great joke.

It is a great joke.

Might I ask if it was not the duty of the President of the Executive Council to ascertain whether the section under which he purported to dismiss General O'Duffy was or was not the law of the land? Will the President answer that?

On a point of order, is it contended that the Executive Council had not the power to dismiss General O'Duffy?

Not at all.

Because if it is not contended, the point of order has no substance.

It is not for the Chair to rule whether or not the Executive Council has power to dismiss General O'Duffy or any other high officer of State. As regards the question put by Deputy Vincent Rice as to whether the Chair is aware of the repeal of certain sections of a certain Act, it is decidedly not the Chair's duty to keep track of the passage or repeal by this House of Acts or sections of Acts.

Might I ask, through you, sir, whether the President was aware, when he was issuing the order for General O'Duffy's removal, that Section 2 of the Act of 1924 had been repealed by the Act of 1925?

That is not a question for the Chair to decide.

I am asking the President through you, sir.

To save the Chair being asked questions on matters which the Chair has indicated are not matters for the Chair at all, I say that there was no doubt whatever of the power of the Executive Council to remove General O'Duffy—no doubt whatever about it.

Under Section 2?

No doubt whatever. I mentioned Section 2 because a document was passed over to me but, on the power of removal, is there any Deputy, lawyer or otherwise, who will deny that the Executive Council had power——

Might I ask the President if the Executive Council acted under Section 2 of the Act of 1924?

The Executive Council acted by virtue of the powers vested in it——

Answer the question.

And the order had no reference to any particular section.

Why did you mention it, then?

Because I was asked.

Will the President say whether he told the person most affected by this Order that the Executive Council had removed him by virtue of the powers conferred on them by Section 2 of the 1924 Act? Was that stated specifically to General O'Duffy or was it not?

I do not think it was stated because General O'Duffy had no doubt whatever—and neither has any member of the House, whatever pretence may be made now—of the power of the Executive Council to remove the Commissioner.

I asked the President a specific question and I should like a definite answer to it. Did the Executive Council purport to act under the section that he stated to the House they purported to act under?

The minute of the Executive Council contains everything that is relevant and the minute of the Executive Council removed General O'Duffy because of the powers that were vested in the Executive Council by Section 2.

Did the Executive Council purport to act under Section 2 of the 1924 Act? That is a definite question.

The matter before the House is not a question of law, but No. 9 on the Order paper, to be moved by Deputy Cosgrave.

On a point of order——

The Deputy is wasting time.

——might I ask whether a motion dealing with the removal, or purported removal, of an officer who, in fact or in law, has not been removed, can be brought before the House? I am putting the point to you, sir. If an officer has not been either in fact or in law removed can a motion come before the House?

I suggest that if any of the members had any doubt about that they knew where redress could be got.

This is the place to put it before the House or the public. I am putting the point to you.

[Interruptions.]

We have freedom of opinion in this Party which you have not on the other side. I am putting my point to you, sir, whether if in law the person named in the motion has not been removed from office the motion can come before the House.

The Deputy has put to me a hypothetical question, which would necessitate my deciding on the powers of the Executive Council and interpreting law. It is not the function of the Chair to do either.

With all respect it is not a hypothetical question because the motion is before the House at the moment.

The Deputy desires me to determine the powers of the Executive Council. It is not my function to do so.

Can we take it, therefore, sir, that the Executive Council made a first-class blunder in the whole thing and forgot the Act of 1925?

Not likely.

I again ask the question with your permission, does he withdraw the statement which he made to the House that the Executive Council acted under Section 2 of the Act of 1924 or does he still persist in that statement? I see the President cannot answer.

The Chair is not allowing any further questions. The question before the House is the motion in the name of Deputy Cosgrave.

This motion is put down not to deplore victimisation, but rather to deplore a departure on the part of the Executive Council from a sound principle of government. It is not to be taken for a moment that I am divorcing from the question of this motion the person of the officer concerned. No person in this State or outside it has a greater respect than I have for the work that officer has done, for the services he has rendered and for the capable manner in which he discharged his duties. I do say, in connection with the three great services of the State, the Army the Police and the Civil Service, that these are Governmental machines which ought not and should not be interfered with by the caprice of an Executive Council. General elections may take place and alterations may occur in the personnel of the Executive Council, but the public services ought to be allowed to go on, more especially where services have been rendered by occupants of high office in the State— rendered with loyalty, discipline and with due regard for the responsible offices held. An officer of the State ought not to be dismissed, ought not to be removed from office unless charges are made against him, which he has an opportunity of rebutting or defending. He should be allowed to be heard in defence of the administration of his office. He should not be the sport of political fortunes in the State. After hearing him, if there are charges against him, then it is for the Executive Council in their wisdom and not in their prejudice to determine his office or his appointment, as the case may be.

In this case, questioned on the first available occasion as to why this officer was removed, the President stated: "No charge was made against General O'Duffy. He was removed from office because in the opinion of the Executive Council a change of Commissioner was desirable in the public interest." Desirable in the public interest, without a charge, with no allegation of dereliction of duty, with no suspicion even of incompetence or inefficiency in the discharge of his office? We can compare, if we like, the manner in which this officer of State discharged his duties during the long period of ten or eleven years with the short example we had here on the 1st March in detailing to this House what the powers were and under what Statute the Executive Council had the right to perform. "On the contrary," the President is reported to have said, "there has been no departure from public policy." One would imagine that during the last ten years there had been an alteration in the office of the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána every year. "It is strictly in accordance with the Act. Section 2 of the Gárda Síochána Act, 1924, empowers the Executive Council to remove the Commissioner." Then he goes on to recite the exact words of this Act. Those particular sections that he told us about here were repealed within twelve months. He did not hear anything about it. He knew nothing about it at that time. His excuse now is that he was handed a document by somebody, and he took that to the Dáil. It was given out here solemnly and distinctly to every person, leading not alone members of the House but the public outside to believe that that was the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Now it is the fault of some person who handed him the wrong book. If that be the manner in which this Executive Council discharges its duties in respect of one of the highest officers of this State, what may they not do when they are not exposed to the public view and when, perhaps, nobody ever hears of their departures from strict State policy. "On the contrary, there has been no departure from public policy." On the contrary, no charge was made in the case of the removal of this officer; there was no allegation of inefficiency or indiscipline, no public outcry to remove him. In fact, I would venture to say there is scarcely any person in this country who possesses in greater degree the confidence of the people of this State than that officer who was removed.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

No person in this State rendered more loyal or more national service than that officer. Who is it has made a case for his removal? It has come from one or two publications which are not issued in the interests of the people of this State, which are not national, and which are not Irish. Week after week they came out during the last twelve months with that cry which was borrowed from the other side. It was started over there some fifteen or sixteen years ago, but now, being recited in this immortal publication, it is true Irish nationalism. Fifteen or sixteen years ago it was B.M.G.—Balfour must go. Now we can translate that into real Irish nationalism by saying "O'Duffy must go." I do not waste any time in reading that publication, but I have been given extracts dated April, June, August, September and February last, with much the same tune. From no other section of the community and from no other order in the State did there come that application or demand that O'Duffy must go except from that source. I received from the offices of a journal published here in Ireland, an Irish Catholic journal, an extract from a Scottish paper, the "Glasgow Observer," dated Friday 3rd March, 1933:

A correspondent writing to us on Thursday of last week stated that at a meeting in Barnsbury, London, held on the previous Friday, a Communist orator asserted that they, the Communists, had had General O'Duffy dismissed! Someone in the audience challenged this statement and said that the General still held his position. The orator replied that the Communists had told de Valera that "unless General O'Duffy was dismissed de Valera himself would be ‘put on the spot.'" He went on to assert that "General O'Duffy was dismissed on Friday, the 17th February."

Our readers will observe that it was only several days afterwards that the public were informed of this fact.

There are no doubt many who heard the orator and who can corroborate this statement. We have verified the good faith of our correspondent.

Was he, in fact, as good an orator as the Deputy?

I do not know, but it would not be hard to beat the interrupter in that respect. Further on in the same journal appears: "In a matter of this gravity it is perhaps better to defer judgment until the Government has given its explanation in reply to a question in the Dáil." Sufficient is known of General O'Duffy's character and achievements, however, to make entirely credible his statement in the course of an interview:—

No cause has been assigned for my removal. No charge has been made, or can be made against me, and I am not conscious of having done anything wrong.

That is a thing that members over there, who are going to vote in the Division Lobby against this man, can say.

A Deputy

That is extraordinary.

It is a tall order, all right. Action such as this tends to shake the confidence of servants of the State. Who next will be the question. In the early formative years of a State such as this it is absolutely necessary that there should be confidence on the part of civil servants and of the other persons who are in the employment of the State. What security has any one of those got when one realises the service that has been rendered by the ex-Commissioner of the Civic Guard? Why did it happen? We are surely entitled to know in the public interest, what public interest was at stake; what interest in the State was there that was menaced by the administrative capacity, ability and good service of this officer; and what particular attributes, as I asked the other day, are in possession of his successor which he had not got? Why was his successor appointed from below that of two officers of higher rank, and perhaps many more in the Guards? I want to make this point clear. Whoever occupies any position of importance in the State must get that support and that assistance which the duties of his office require. I am not making any attack whatever on the successor of General O'Duffy, but I am entitled to ask what particular reasons there were for the two officers next in seniority to him being passed over. I knew one of these. He was an old Dáil servant, and one of the best servants in this State during difficult and troublous years, an officer whom I had to endeavour to persuade to take this office in a time of difficulty—very different times to what we have got now. He had served in the Department of Local Government as an officer of remarkable ability, and the other officer had been, I believe, a civil servant, then joined the Army and subsequently became head of the police in the Metropolitan Area and is now Deputy-Commissioner. Is the appointment that has been made simply a stop gap? Is it made for the purpose of allowing time to lapse before some other officer will be appointed? What is the policy of the Executive Council with regard to this? They have had handed over to them a perfectly disciplined machine and this interference is not likely to imbue confidence in the various ranks of the Guards. Somebody mentioned here on the last day that we were introducing into this country a system which was in operation across the Atlantic. That is not the case. There is no such parallel as that in the country which the Deputy had in mind. That is the normal course in political events. Alterations of heads of departments, of police officers or other such occupations or professions or positions of importance are the normal course. The law is administered with the same impartiality, the same regard to discipline and the same principles governing it. It is simply a political change which is the normal course in that country, but, here the machine seems different, or, if not, let the Executive Council take the country into its confidence and indicate what their policy is with regard to this matter. What is the position with regard to this officer? As I have said, he has had long and faithful national service during the most difficult periods and at all times discharged the duties of whatever office he held to the entire satisfaction of the Oireachtas, to the people of the country and of those under his command, service in the field second to none in this country or outside it, service to the Irish language, in which he has done more than the whole Executive Council together, service to Irish athletics, service during our own short memories of the last two or three years in which his remarkable contribution towards the success of the greatest religious festival ever held in this country marked him out as an officer most competent and most efficient either in this or any other country. All of these duties, and all of these offices he has filled with entire distinction to himself, with credit to the State and the entire confidence of the whole police force under his command. It is not without some special reason that he got a message from the ex-Minister for Justice in connection with the recent general election. During the election campaign Deputy Geoghegan wrote to the Commissioner as shown in the Editorial Notes of the "Gárda Review" as follows:

During the election campaign I myself observed many examples of efficient and tactful discharge of duty by members of the Gárda Síochana. Anything I have heard leads me to think that throughout the State the Guards gave general satisfaction and I desire to place on record my appreciation of their services.

It is creditable to themselves, and if I may say so, very creditable to you as Commissioner.

I must say that I was more than shocked when I read of this action of the Executive Council, and I felt it to be my duty to write to the Commissioner as follows:—

I find it difficult to express in words my regret that your office as Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána has been terminated.

The splendid traditions which distinguished your association with that disciplined, efficient and brave body of men will ever be remembered with affection, gratitude and satisfaction by the patriotic citizens of this State. You were father, guardian, counsellor and confidant of the officers and men under your charge.

Catholic Ireland will remember with just pride your perfect contribution towards the success of the Emancipation centenary celebration in 1929, and of the Eucharistic Congress of 1932, a crowning achievement at home for that spirit which had already brought you and your men in pilgrimage to the feet of the Holy Father in Rome.

Your services were not confined to your official duties, although the discharge of these duties claimed much more time than fell within office hours. Your devotion to the youth of the country, as particularly shown by your achievements in the development of athletics, made serious claim on the little leisure you ever had.

I thank you gratefully and sincerely for the services you rendered to Ireland, for the work you performed with singular selflessness in the interest of the young State; for the example you always gave in the discharge of your onerous duties with impartiality and efficiency and in a truly Irish spirit.

The Gárda has a noble inheritance from you. You have done more than one man's part to give to this State a police force impartial, effective and modern in the best sense of the word. You have neglected no opportunity to foster among the Gárda a practical affection for the Irish language and for those magnificent traditions of our people upon which all national progress must be based.

Your removal from office cannot detract from the people's appreciation of your able and just administration of a difficult post for more than ten years. That appreciation and the consciousness of work well done will be to you a lasting consolation.

Review those ten or eleven years and see all the work that this Officer of State did, not alone in this country but on the Continent of Europe, the various visits he paid there and in particular the great Pilgrimage he led to Rome some four years ago, in which he was addressed—the Officers and men of the Gárda—by the Holy Father, who said:

But We not only know that you come from Ireland, but know also what you are doing in Our and your dear and glorious Ireland. We have many times read, as again just now in the beautiful address presented by your distinguished General, that you are the Civic Guards, the Guards responsible for the preservation of order, of public peace and security and, as your address mentions, a disarmed guard. Disarmed, indeed, in the sense that you are provided with no material arms, but you are armed with the far more valuable weapons of vigilance, diligence, zeal and dutiful courage. It is your duty to repress crime and vice, to pursue it in all its ways—sometimes so dark and dangerous—to protect virtue and encourage righteousness. You are, then, truly guards of peace, of tranquillity and order, namely, of all that is most precious for any country, the primary and most necessary conditions for its prosperity and wellbeing. This is your duty and We congratulate you on the walk of life you have chosen and on the singular success with which you carry out your duties—Ireland's grand primacy in absence of crime is known to and acknowledged by the whole world. Yours is a noble and meritorious occupation. You are doubly welcome, dear sons, inasmuch as you are not only good Guards, but good sons of Mother Church, faithful Catholic sons of Ireland, full of piety and devotion to our Holy Faith, of that piety and devotion that is so necessary for the fulfilment of the duties of a Christian life. We know all this and we know that it is this spirit of filial love and piety that has brought you as good sons of the Church to Rome. Not as tourists, but as pilgrims you come to the centre of Christianity, the Mother Church of the world, to the Vicar of Christ, to the successor of the Apostles. You wished to see the Pope and the Pope has wished to see you and tell you how much he loves you and to bless in you all your companions in your force of 8,000 men and all Our and your dear Ireland. You wish the Pope to celebrate Mass for you, you wish to assist at that Mass, to pray with the Pope, and this wish We have granted by providing that you be present at Our Mass at 7.30 a.m. tomorrow morning. We thank you from Our heart for these splendidly generous gifts which you have brought...

And now with all Our Heart We give the Apostolic Blessing to each and every one here present. Before all others We bless your gallant General; then your officers, the chaplains that lead and guide you so well, and all your companions left behind in Ireland who have accompanied you in spirit on this pilgrimage.

As I said in introducing the motion, I have not brought it in on account of this Officer of State, but more in respect of the new principle of Government annunciated by this act of the Executive Council. We must not ignore the fact that this Officer of State is one of the most distinguished Irishmen who has ever served his country. He has been badly treated, and deserved better of a grateful country and an Executive Council that would be more appreciative of good service faithfully, gallantly and unselfishly rendered by an Officer of State.

I formally second the motion, reserving my right to speak later.

It appears I am the Deputy referred to by the ex-President when he said that some Deputy had suggested in the course of his speech that we were about to Americanise our institutions of State. When I used that term I referred in particular to the worst phases and usages in another country which encouraged, if they had not actually established, the reign of the bootlegger and the gangster. It would appear to me that in this act of the removal of this very eminent Irishman from this important office of State we are just at the beginning of a series of yieldings to the constant demands of a noisy section of the community. Week after week we have read in the columns of a Press which has never, at any rate, received condemnation from the Government of this country repeated calls for the removal from office of this or that Minister or member of the Gárda Síochána. We had a yielding to that insistent demand in the case of Colonel Neligan. Again, the scalp of General O'Duffy was called for by the same section of the community represented by a Press which apparently has the blessing of the Party now in office in this country.

Deputy Cosgrave has asked the question, who next? In other words, on whom is the vengeance of the persons outside this Dáil who do not recognise this Government any more than they recognised the last Government, but who apparently are more powerful than the present occupants of the Government Benches, to fall? I suggest that the removal of General O'Duffy has caused a very serious disturbance in the public mind. It has also a very serious effect, and will continue to have a very serious effect, on the morale of the Civic Guard. I have no doubt that discipline will be maintained by that body, but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that when removals of this character are committed they cannot be without at least some effect on the morale of that excellent body.

I do not want to be taken now as suggesting that the Gárda Síochána will not continue to be the loyal servants of this State and the efficient servants of this State that they have been hitherto, but I have been approached in Cork City by many decent citizens, many of them holding Fianna Fáil opinions, who deprecate this action on the part of the Executive Council. I am not a lawyer and I am not going into the legal aspect of the position, but I am looking at this whole affair through the eyes of the ordinary citizen of this country who wants to be allowed to live his life in peace and who does not want to be menaced by the secret society that is apparently at the back of this whole transaction.

I subscribe to every word that Deputy Cosgrave has uttered. I subscribe to every tribute which he paid to General O'Duffy, a man who, it must be acknowledged, brought to the most wonderful state of efficiency one of the best police forces in the world. I say that without fear of contradiction and without in any way reflecting upon the police forces of other countries, but we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there are in other countries corrupt police forces and corrupt peace forces. Whilst I would be very sorry indeed to believe that this action of the present Executive Council would have the repercussions to which I have referred, I cannot close my eyes to the fact that it is going to have, and has already had, a very serious effect and has disturbed the public mind of this country very much. I do sincerely hope, now that the Executive Council have served their masters outside, that they will not look for any more scalps or sacrifice any more victims.

It is quite apparent that the Executive Council is going to follow the policy of not replying to the charges made against them and the criticisms of their action in the matter which is now before the House. That is a policy which they have got into of late and they think that they can refuse to answer or ignore criticisms. I suggest that it is not merely this House, it is the country as a whole that is being gravely perturbed by the action of the Executive Council in this matter. I am not going into the legal aspect of this matter, any more than Deputy Anthony. Whether the Executive Council had or had not the power to dismiss General O'Duffy, as far as can be gathered they purported to do so under a certain section—not under their general powers, but under a special section—a section of an Act that was repealed. Whether there are other powers given to the Executive Council by other Acts or not, I suggest that it is immaterial. However, that is a legal aspect of the matter which I do not claim to be able to discuss, any more than Deputy Anthony. But I do say that this is quite a typical action on the part of the Executive Council—that Council that goes about enunciating high principles and preaching high ideals but from which, when it comes to action, we find the very opposite—no sense of public responsibility to the public of this State or to the servants of this State. They preach high principles and they poison the wells of justice in this country by the type of action they have taken such as this we have here before us this evening.

Why is this officer being dismissed? What charges are against him? Does not everybody who knows that officer's record for the past ten years and who knows the campaign which has been carried on against him in certain quarters, know that he was dismissed because he did his duty and only because he did his duty? Is not that the primal offence? He is dismissed, only because he served his country, at the demand of those people who profess no loyalty either to this Government or to the last Government. I know that Deputies and members of the Executive Council will get up here and say that that did not influence them; but I submit that it is their actions that count, and that they count much stronger than their words. These were the only people who could make that demand or who could make a charge, the only people who could wish the removal of this man from office, and the Executive Council obeyed the whip. They can deny it if they like, but the demand was there. What other class in the community demanded it? We shall be told that General O'Duffy did not have the confidence of the Executive Council. If so, why was he kept in office for twelve months? Has he forfeited that confidence in the last twelve months? If so, let us know it. As the mover of the motion has told you, this officer efficiently carried through a most ticklish job during the recent elections. Was there any complaint about that? The ex-Minister for Justice went out of his way to compliment him on that. The President himself, who, we shall be told, had no confidence in him, entrusted him with that work, and we are now to be told that he did not enjoy the confidence of the Executive Council. Surely, everybody must realise, and realise it perfectly well, that General O'Duffy is being dismissed because of his sense of duty and because the Government found that sense of duty was too strong for them—that and the demand from the people outside. What other class could have demanded his dismissal? Are there not many people through the country, as Deputy Anthony said, even in the President's own Party, who have expressed dissatisfaction with this particular action?

Who are they?

Name them.

These are the usual interruptions.

On a point of order, Deputy O'Sullivan has said that there are members of the Fianna Fáil Party who have expressed disagreement with this action. I ask the Deputy to name them.

Deputy O'Sullivan did not say anything of the kind, and in any case it was not a point of order. Deputy O'Sullivan said that there were many supporters of the present Government who have expressed dissatisfaction with this particular action of the Executive Council.

Give their names.

I cannot spend the rest of the time of the House giving names, but I gather from the interruptions that Deputy Cleary and others do not agree and that they share the view that this officer was dismissed for doing his duty. Am I to understand that from the interruptions?

How many supporters agreed with your Party in the murder of 77?

What has that got to do with General O'Duffy? As I was saying, every action taken by this officer before this Government took power, and since this Government took power, so far as we know, has been action of a kind to strengthen the confidence that the head of the Government ought to have in him, and for that reason he is thrown to the wolves. What are the Guards to do? How can the Guards feel that they have any backing behind them in doing their duty when they see the highest officer in the Gárda Síochána being dismissed for doing his duty?

[Interruptions.]
I gather now from the interruptions that there is fault found with General O'Duffy. What is it?
What are the Guards to think when they see the officer, so long and honourably connected with this force and whose fame will rest on that force, being dismissed in this manner? What are they to think, when they are carrying out their duty in the future, when they see the head of the force, who has been intimately connected with the whole force since its beginning and with the welfare of all of them, being dismissed for doing his duty? That is the reward the Government gives to one of their most notable servants for absolute devotion to duty. If the Executive Council have any reason to give, for showing a diminution of confidence on their part, let them give it and let us know where we are. What is the public to think? How can they have any confidence in the administration of justice so long as this wrong is inflicted? It is not merely a wrong to the individual. It is the matter of public confidence we have to do with here. What are the law-abiding people of the country to think? and what are the un-law-abiding people, if there are any, to think? How can they have any confidence in the administration of justice? We are dealing here with the dismissal of a man against whom no charge is made. He performed a heroic task in the building up of the police force of this State. Is there any fault to be found with his work? His achievement has been great but, apparently, the greater the achievement the greater the ignominy. Is he to be thrown upon the scrap heap? He is a man to whom no compliment that this House or this nation could pay for his work, during the last ten years, would be too great. He is to be sacrificed now as a result of the demands of those who profess no loyalty to the Government, though they may back them up in the present. We know not what may happen in the future. But what have we here? It is not a case of justice tempered with mercy; it is a case of justice tempered with politics. Politics are supreme. The administration of justice can take a second place. This is not a personal question of General O'Duffy nor a question between two parties in this House. If there was no strong cleavage between the Opposition and the Government the action that the Government are guilty of still should be challenged as striking at the whole administration of justice. For that reason I hope the House will support the motion made by the Leader of the Opposition.

What about the men you drove out of the Army in 1924?

Deputies on the benches opposite have tried to introduce some heat into this matter—in fact, white heat has been introduced. This matter can be dealt with very quietly without any introduction of passion or any loss of reason. It is suggested here, and the whole tenor of the two speeches from the Opposition Benches would suggest, that something very abnormal was done. The suggestion was made, or attempted to be made, by some side wind, that there was something illegal in what the Executive had done. As the debate developed it became quite obvious that the Opposition recognised that the Executive Council were actually, entirely and wholly within their rights in doing what they did, that they were acting perfectly legally.

We had an Executive Council here from the Party opposite for something like eight or nine years, and during that time three Acts were passed dealing with the Gárda Síochána in which the Commissioner was referred to. There were many other Acts dealing with the acquisition of barracks, and so on, but there were three principal Acts in which the practice in connection with the position of the Commissioner was dealt with. If Deputies are going to suggest that on the occasion of the Gárda Síochána (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, the Executive of the day had not had sufficient experience, and did not realise to the full the implication of what they were doing, that cannot be said to have obtained in connection with the Gárda Síochána Act of 1924 and the Amalgamation Act of 1925. In the 1923 Act, Section 3 sets out:

(3) The general direction and control of the Gárda Síochána shall subject to the regulations made by the Minister under this Act, be vested in the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, who shall from time to time be appointed, and may at any time be removed, by the Executive Council.

At that time it was quite clear the Executive Council did not want to give any fixity of tenure to the Gárda Commissioner; that was clear, anyway. They came along in 1924, when they had some little experience of their Commissioner, and some experience of the operations of the Gárda Síochána in the country, and had some experience of its organisation, and Section 3 of the Act of 1924 sets out:

From and after the passing of this Act the Commissioner shall be appointed and may at any time be removed by the Executive Council.

We then come to the year 1925 and after two years' experience of the Gárda Síochána, when they are going again to deal with the position of the Commissioner, they make sure that it is to be a temporary appointment and that he can be removed at any time. Section 6 of the 1925 Amalgamation Act sets out:

(1) The person who at the commencement of this Act holds the office of Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána shall upon the commencement of this Act become and be the Commissioner of the amalgamated force.

(2) Subject to the provisions of the foregoing sub-section the Commissioner of the amalgamated force shall from time to time be appointed by the Executive Council and every Commissioner of the amalgamated force whether holding that office by virtue of an appointment under this sub-section or by virtue of the foregoing sub-section may, at any time, be removed by the Executive Council.

Is there any section as to cause stated?

There is no section whatever or any regulations to that effect. That is probably how people are being misled into the belief that there is such a thing. There is not. It was brought to the notice of the people concerned, the people who now get into such a white heat as to the great injustice supposed to be done, that there was no obligation to show cause in the case of the Commissioner's removal. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney will be familiar with the memorandum presented on that occasion——

He hopes to speak upon it in a few moments.

——and he will recollect that the memorandum was submitted to him with the idea that perhaps some action might be taken by the Executive Council with a view to getting some fixity of tenure or pension. And that was not done. There was nothing done about it then. Why did Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney deliberately fail to take action upon that? Why did not the Opposition, when they were in power as an Executive Council, act upon that memorandum? Why did the Deputy not act upon what was brought to his mind by that memorandum? Simply because all through it was the policy of the Executive Council to hold that the position was temporary and that the holder of it could be removed without cause shown. I am not going into details of the statements made here. I think they were all beside the point.

The usual suggestions will be made and have been made, that we acted on pressure from some outside newspapers or something like that or that we acted on pressure of some sort. We have all that sort of piffle for political propaganda, but from the point of view of making a case, it is very little use when put forward by a former Executive who insisted on maintaining that position. We will be told that it is contrary to public policy. What is contrary to public policy? From the speeches I have listened to, one would imagine this position was exactly similar to a Civil Service position. In the memoranda put up to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, there was pointed out to him and by him to his Executive Council the difference between the position of a civil servant and the position of a Commissioner or a member of the headquarters staff of the Gárda. There was probably very good reason for the Executive Council retaining that difference in these positions and if they acted in that line why complain that we have done something in pursuance of it? Why do they try to liken the position of these officers with that of civil servants when they themselves would not bring them into line with civil servants?

We are told, or it is suggested, that we have acted capriciously. We are told that we have tried to victimise this officer. There has been no attempt or no desire on the part of the Executive Council to act capriciously or in any vindictive spirit. The Executive Council has got its responsibility and that responsibility this Executive Council is carrying out to the best of its wisdom. We are asked what are the reasons. I do not propose to state any reasons.

Deputies

Why not?

For the simple reason, as the position was put up to Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, that I need not. I do not consider it in the public interest to do so. That position has been accepted by my predecessors. There is no necessity to state any reasons. It will be assumed or stated at any rate I suppose that we give no reasons because we have no reasons. The presumption is, as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney knows very well, that when the Executive Council acts it acts properly. Are we going to have that presumption on the other side?

It depends on the Executive Council. There is no presumption in favour of this one.

There could not be anyone in favour of this one, of course I do not want to go into this matter any further, though some people may want to get into a heat about it. The Executive Council have acted on the powers vested in them. They have acted without any desire for victimisation or anything of that sort. They have no desire to act capriciously, no desire to do anything but what they feel is in the public interest.

The Minister for Justice in his opening remarks said that it was suggested that something illegal had been done. So far as I am concerned, that is not, in my opinion, the most important aspect of this question. I am not concerned about questions of law, but I am concerned about a question of common justice. It seems to me that a man who served this country well, served it unselfishly and served it to good purpose, is entitled to some greater honour than contemptuous dismissal. We had no reason to be ashamed of General O'Duffy when he founded the Civic Guard in this country. We had no reason to be ashamed of the force he founded and we have no reason to be ashamed of it now. Only last year when this country received visitors to the Eucharistic Congress as perhaps no other country ever received them before, the dignity and the distinction of that reception were largely due to the splendid work of General O'Duffy and the men whom he had trained, the men whom he indoctrinated with the high spirit of public service that the Civic Guards have in this country. If the Executive Council or the Minister for Justice had come to the House and told Deputies that there were grave reasons and told this House what those reasons were, it would be then for this House to decide whether the public interest was best served by the action the Executive Council had taken. But it is discourteous to this House, and it is unjust to a loyal public servant, that General O'Duffy should be treated as he has been treated and that this House should be told with contempt by the Minister for Justice that he has not the slightest intention to give it any further information, except that General O'Duffy has been dismissed and that the Government have no further comment to make upon it.

I agree that this is not an occasion for acrimony or an occasion for cheap jibes at the Executive Council. It could only confuse the issue, and if I know anything of the spirit of the splendid force which General O'Duffy adorned up to the time of his dismissal, it is a spirit which they would not wish to have brought into a discussion of this kind. Quite apart from the merits of the action of the Executive Council or any desire to bring politics or any other extraneous matter into a consideration of this question, it must certainly be the desire of everyone that common justice will be done and that the name of a distinguished Irishman will be vindicated before the people of this country and before the people of every other country where he has appeared as an honourable representative of our police force. The Executive Council may say that they dispensed with him for reasons of public policy. They may understand these reasons, but there are many people whom General O'Duffy will have to face who will not understand these reasons, and say what the Executive Council may, his removal must constitute in the minds of many people a reflection on his service and on his integrity. I have no hesitation in saying that anybody who knows the people of this country must admit that they will agree that there is no reflection which could legitimately be made on the service which General O'Duffy has given to this country. I have no hesitation in saying that the force which he largely created by his own zeal and his own disinterested service is a credit to this country, something of which Ireland may be proud. I think he has been ill-requited for the service he has given.

I think the Minister for Justice has treated this House with scant courtesy in not informing us what were the reasons for the step which the Executive Council had decided to take. I trust before the discussion is over the President will intervene and ventilate this question a little more than it has been ventilated, because I believe that he will realise before long that every honest man in the country feels that a grave injustice has been done to a loyal servant of the State. They are prepared to judge the question on its merits, but they bitterly resent that the man who has served Ireland as General O'Duffy has served it should have been let down and dismissed by the Executive Council, a man who deserved better.

It seems to me that there are really three aspects of which we must regard this question. We must regard it from the point of view of the State which has lost a servant, one of the ablest servants that it had got. We must regard it from the point of view of the individual who has been treated with such grave injustice as this individual has been treated, and we must regard it from another point of view, in very many respects the most important point of view, the point of view that the Executive Council has taken up in this matter.

I will deal with the last first. The other day the President was asked what were the reasons for this dismissal and we were met with an absolute refusal. There is no suggestion that General O'Duffy, a man of the highest character, the highest personal integrity, has not always discharged the duties of his post with the greatest skill and ability. There is no specific instance which can be pointed to. We are met with that admission, as it were, coming from the Government Bench. We are told: "You should not inquire; we have got the power; you passed a Statute which gave you the power and gives us the power now, as you say, to act unjustly, and because we have the power to act unjustly we are going to act unjustly and we have acted unjustly." That is what the defence of the Minister for Justice amounts to. "You left us power," they say. "It was open to us to dismiss and, therefore, why question our action? Why find fault with us? Why find fault with the exercise of the power that we have?"

That is the attitude of the Minister for Justice, and it is not the first time that attitude has been taken up in this House. It is not the first time that doctrine has been preached from Fianna Fáil Benches in this House. I thought at one time it was confined entirely to the Attorney-General and to another member of the Fianna Fáil Party. They were the only persons who put forward that doctrine. I see now it has reached higher up and has permeated the whole Executive Council. Now, the Executive Council are claiming the right to do as they like, to act in any way they like, justly or unjustly, provided they keep themselves within their legal powers. Here is the theory upon which they are acting. It was put forward by the Attorney-General some time ago and this is what he said: "I seriously would like to know under what code of morals it is wrong for persons to exercise their legal rights?" We have the same thing now. They have the legal right to dismiss General O'Duffy and they want to know under what code of morals it is wrong for them to exercise their powers.

Again, the Attorney-General parades a new code of morals, that when you have a legal right to do a thing it is moral to do it. That is the doctrine which the Attorney-General preached and that is the doctrine upon which obviously the Executive Council acted. That is the view which obviously the Minister for Justice holds, because he comes along here and says: "We have the power and there the matter ends." We admit you have. We admit that under the Police Forces Amalgamation Act you have the power, but we say that even though you have the power you should not act as you have acted; you should not act unjustly towards any individual. You claim you can and that the moment the power is shown the whole matter is over. We say that is not so. We say that there is a certain doctrine, and when we left the power of dismissal open to any succeeding Executive Council we thought that every single Executive Council would act upon the same principle as that upon which we would act. That principle is this: that you cannot exercise powers wantonly or without good cause or unjustly towards any individual.

We believe and hold that all power comes from God and that power must be exercised in accordance with the moral law. Our view is that the fact that you have got power to dismiss a man does not justify you in dismissing that man unless he has done something worthy of dismissal. Think of the man whom you have dismissed. I said a few moments ago that we must regard this question from the point of view of the State. Just think of the value to the State of the services with which you have dispensed. What living man has served the State better? What man has done more for this country than he has? Consider his magnificent achievements. He was there an untrained man, a young man completely inexperienced in police matters. A civil war was going on. It was necessary for him, in the middle of the civil war, when persons were endeavouring by force of arms to upset the State, to organise a police force. He did organise a police force. He was then no trained lawyer. He had no experience in police discipline. He had not merely to send out superintendents but even chief superintendents to take charge of counties—men who had not received an hour's instruction in police duties. In difficult times he succeeded in building up a police force of which everybody in the country can be proud, a police force which compares favourably with any police force in the world.

It was a magnificent achievement, a tremendous achievement, an achievement that no man alive would believe to have been possible if General O'Duffy had not proved it possible by doing it. You have his force now. He has done nothing that you can find fault with. He has served the country well. Think of this injustice to the man. He held his position creditably to himself, honourably to himself. He was recognised abroad as an extremely efficient police officer. There was not a single person in the State who believed that a better chief of police could be got, and yet you proceeded without any cause that, at any rate, you dare tell to the House, to dismiss him. What is his fault? "The curse of Swift is upon him," said Grattan on a famous occasion of one of his contemporaries. The curse of Swift is upon him. He was born an Irishman and a man of genius and he devoted his talents to the good of his country. What has he done except, born an Irishman, he has all his life long devoted his talents to the good of his country? And it is for that you punish him. You cannot point to anything wrong; you cannot point to a fault of any kind. You punish him for this reason only, that he has served this country long and well and faithfully. He is a comparatively young man now; he is hardly at his very best. With additional experience he would become a more efficient officer than he is, and still this is the moment at which, without one single cause, that you can or dare state to the House, you proceed to dismiss him.

I was over four and a half years in almost daily contact with that man. I saw how tremendously efficient he was, what a hard worker he was, what a splendid, straightforward honourable man he was. The man who preceded me in the post of Minister for Justice held him in the highest esteem, and Deputy Geoghegan, who succeeded to the office—it was one of Deputy Geoghegan's very last acts and perhaps the last official act that he did—expressed his appreciation of General O'Duffy and his force. Hard upon that, within a very short time on a change of office, there comes Deputy Ruttledge (Minister for Justice) and then this wanton dismissal.

The reasons have been given here, reasons, which everybody must accept as right. His dismissal was demanded again and again. It was only from one source that his dismissal was demanded. If that be not the reason the whole country believes it to be the reason, and every Deputy in this House, Fianna Fáil or not, believes it to be the reason. If that be not the reason then give us what the reasons were? But you cannot, you dare not. There were no other reasons. Now I do sincerely hope that every Deputy in this House will remember this—that when a gross act of injustice has been done to a man and when this House has it within its power to express its disapprobation of that gross act of injustice, and see that justice is done, that every single Deputy who votes against this motion will realise that he is voting on behalf of injustice and is making himself a participator in that crime. Though it may be too much to hope, I do hope that even on the benches opposite there may be somebody with a conscience so sufficiently strong as to put the Commandments of God before his loyalty to President de Valera.

This motion is a deplorable motion and there is nothing more deplorable about it than the manner in which it was introduced to this House. This evening Deputies opposite suggested to this House and to the country at large that the act of the Executive Council was invalid and of no effect. This was a futile and unworthy way to introduce a motion of this sort. Many of the Deputies who rose here this evening and uttered a phrase to the effect that the late Commissioner of the Guards had not been removed must have known that he had been validly removed, must have known that he held his office at the will and pleasure of the Executive Council and that when the Executive Council signified its will, that particular officer was removed. Play was made of the reference by the President to the section of the Act of 1924. The President, perhaps inadvertently, contributed to the realities of this debate when he mentioned that section of the Act of 1924, because it brings at once before the minds of the Deputies, that not once, or twice, but three times this Legislature here has enacted, re-enacted and re-enacted again that this officer, the Commissioner of the Police in this State is not a civil servant, and is not, as has been suggested here, in the position of other State servants. He stands apart and he holds his office merely until such time as the Executive Council cares to remove him. I do not need to remind Deputies that there may be found in statutes passed by the Parliament of this State, not to speak of earlier statutes, various provisions which provide machinery to secure continuity in office by the holder of the office, something in the nature of security of tenure.

This enactment governing the office of the Commissioner of the Guards stands out in contrast to those I have alluded to. The Act of 1923, the Act of 1924 and the Act of 1925 all enunciate that he is to hold office until removed. I would put it to you, sir, and to the Deputies in this House that what we are considering here is not the exercise of a right by the Executive Council. We have been told, it has been shouted at us, that the Executive Council may have the right to remove the Commissioner, but that the exercise of that right is, in the words of one Deputy, a gross injustice, and this is repeated by another Deputy opposite as a "grave" injustice. Would the Deputies give a little consideration to the enactments?

Would the Deputies give some thought to the latest enactment that is relevant—Section 6 of the Act of 1925? If they do I venture to think that they will realise that the Executive Council or any Executive Council, when they come to deal with this enactment, are performing a duty not exercising a right, and that the true principle and the true interpretation of this section is that it is the duty of the Executive Council to find for the position of Commissioner of the Guards in this State the man who for the time being is in their opinion the best fitted to fill that position. It is not the right of throwing a man out. It is the duty to the public to put the best man in. If there was any other interpretation to be given to this enactment, the other possible interpretation would, I think, shed nothing but utter discredit on the Front Bench opposite. The personality of General O'Duffy has been dragged into this debate. I regret that it has been dragged into the debate. I regret it for public reasons and I regret it for personal reasons. I regret that the name of an able and distinguished man has been dragged in by the Deputies opposite when they want to use him as a football to kick about.

Surely Deputy Geoghegan will kill him with kindness?

The gentleman referred one with whom I was in pretty close touch for about ten months recently. But my knowledge of General O'Duffy did not begin then. I knew him twenty or twenty-one years ago. I knew him to be a competent man then. He was a competent and able man, so far as I could judge, in 1932. But it would be a misuse and abuse of the enactment relating to the office of Commissioner of the Guards if the test were to be whether a man were competent or whether something definite was to be alleged against him. If that occurred you could not get the Executive Council to act so as to have in that position from time to time the man, in their opinion, best suited to fill the office in the public interests; and unless the Executive Council from time to time places in it the very best man who will commend himself to the public and who will provide an effective police force, they are not doing their duty. Why do I say that?

The office of Commissioner, as I said, is different in its tenure from other public offices. It is also very different in its powers. It may be news to some of the Deputies here to learn that so extraordinary, so unusual is the office of Commissioner of the Gárda that many of its powers—and very far-reaching powers—can be exercised independently of the Government and independently of the Minister. The Commissioner is the sole person responsible. A guard under the rank of superintendent can be dismissed at his sweet will and can be promoted at his sweet will. A power has been entrusted to him that could not, in any democratic country, be entrusted to him unless he was at all times the very best man for that post. [Interruption by a Deputy.] If the Deputy has contributed an interruption that is of value, I can only express regret that I did not hear it. Deputy Cosgrave says that an officer ought not to be removed without a charge being made against him and without hearing him. That is a test that is appropriate in the case of officers of a subordinate type or, at all events, not of the peculiarly independent and peculiarly responsible character of the office of Commissioner. Is it suggested from the benches opposite that when a power and a duty are vested in the Executive Council which they are to exercise as an Executive Council, the minutes of the Executive Council are to be produced in this House? Do the Deputies really suggest that it is in the public interest that the powers and duties conferred by Section 6 of the Act of 1925 can be helpfully exercised, that you can even contribute to their exercise if you are to canvass in this House the action taken. A little reflection on the part of the most enthusiastic Deputy on the opposite benches will show him that if the position was so absurd that that could happen, there would be a crying need to alter the law. You cannot have that. If you had anything approaching what Deputy Cosgrave suggests, the Commissioner of the Gárda would be a freeholder in his office unless you could prove some definite offence against him, no matter how unfitting he might be in a particular time. Fitness, mind you, changes with the years. The man who was fitted in 1923 or 1924, after a civil war, may not be the best fitted, although competent, in 1933 when, through whatever causes I shall not say —through causes it is unnecessary to discuss—the fact is that you have a police force here now that commands a wider measure of respect than a police force has ever before commanded in this country. Does any Deputy suggest that the police force of this country commanded as wide a respect or commended itself as largely to the public in the years 1930 and 1931 as it did in 1932 and as it does in 1933? To what do they attribute that? Is it fortuitous or is it to be attributed to vigilance on the part of the Executive Council to make public opinion, police administration and police control coincide as far as an Executive Council legitimately can strive to do that.

The return to sanity of your Party did that.

It is a pity you are not included in the return.

It is novel to me to hear it suggested that even now sanity is to be found on these benches. What I was about to remind the House of when the Deputy intervened was that Deputy Cosgrave when he speaks of this action of the Executive Council as likely to unsettle the public services, as likely to lead to the question in the public services: "Who will be next?"—that Deputy Cosgrave is unduly, unnecessarily and, if I may say so, unfairly alarming. Deputy Cosgrave must know that the position of the other public servants is, as I have said, quite different from that of General O'Duffy.

When this motion was brought before the House, I should have thought that some statute would be cited, or some precedent, for an Executive Council, in respect of an officer even approaching the status of General O'Duffy, coming forward and publicly stating the pros and cons of the case for his removal. I should have expected that, but we have had nothing like it. We have had an eulogy of General O'Duffy with which a great many would concur. We have had commendatory extracts read from various papers. But that is entirely beside the point. We are not trying General O'Duffy. The Executive Council have, I think, made that superabundantly clear by the public statement made here by the President—that far from condemning General O'Duffy, either after hearing or without hearing him, the Executive Council virtually coupled or combined with the indication of removal from the office of Commissioner, an offer of an office, perhaps of better tenure—a tenure more nearly approaching that which Deputy Cosgrave had in mind— with remuneration which, if it was short, was not far short of that which General O'Duffy had enjoyed, and with duties not more exacting than those which General O'Duffy had had to discharge. That, he says, is a glaring way of perpetrating a grave and gross injustice. If an injustice is ever to be perpetrated on me, I hope it will be perpetrated in that fashion— by giving me an easier position, equal dignity and equal pay. To be effective in this debate, Deputy Cosgrave would have, in support of his motion, to show not that General O'Duffy had been removed, but that the Executive Council violated their duty by appointing to that office a man unfitted for it. No speech can be made from the benches here which will set up more highly the Executive Council than the sentence which fell from the lips of Deputy Cosgrave. I am not quoting the Deputy literally, but he will correct me if I am wronging him as to the substance. Deputy Cosgrave said: "I have nothing to allege against the successor of General O'Duffy. I have nothing to say against him. I do not for one moment ask the House to believe or think that he is not the best man, that he is not a good man, than he is not fully equal to the exacting demands of this high office." When Deputy Cosgrave uttered that sentence he removed whatever sort of foundation, whatever quicksand this edifice that has been conjured up by Deputies opposite rested upon. When he uttered that sentence he in fact, if not in words, said to the House: "I withdraw the motion standing in my name that the Dáil disapprove of the action of the Executive Council."

One fact emerges very clearly from the confused and rather halting speech which we have just heard from Deputy Geoghegan and that fact is that the office of Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána is to be in future a political appointment. Deputy Geoghegan and the Minister before him have endeavoured to explain away the action of the Executive Council in this matter. I, for one, shall be very interested when the time comes to-night to vote on this motion to see the way in which a certain Party in this House will vote. That Party is a Party which is in the habit of voting with the Government Party. But to-night the principle which is put up to them is whether a man should be dismissed from office without any reason being assigned. I am aware that in this city not very long ago a strike was threatened on this very principle, the principle of whether an employer had any right to dismiss a hand without assigning any reason. I shall be very interested to see how the Labour Party will vote on this motion when the time comes to do so. Deputy Geoghegan has drawn a distinction between a man who holds a high office and one who holds a minor one. Every word of Deputy Geoghegan's speech might be applied, for instance, to the judges of the High Court or the Supreme Court. Because a man holds an unique position no reason is therefore to be assigned for his dismissal. If he were a minor official it would be all right; you can dismiss him without assigning a reason. I wonder what the four Labour Deputies whom I see before me have to say to that proposition, for that is the meaning of this motion. The principle of dismissal without assigning a reason is the only principle which this House is discussing to-night and the supporters of the Labour Party throughout the country will be extremely interested to see how the Labour Deputies will vote on that principle; the principle of dismissing a hand without assigning a reason.

I do not mean to contribute anything further to what has been said of the high qualification which are held by General O'Duffy. The President here the other day—I forget whether expressedly or tacitly, but certainly one way or the other—admitted that the man who now holds the office of Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána has no higher qualifications, has no qualifications, in fact, which were not possessed by General O'Duffy. Deputy Geoghegan has insinuated that the Executive Council have appointed this man because he does possess better qualifications. He has insinuated that by saying that the Executive Council must appoint whoever they consider to be the best man. If the present occupant of that position is the best man, then certainly there cannot be two bests. Even Deputy Geoghegan, I think, will admit that. Before I sit down I once again reiterate what I said a few moments ago, that the principle which we are being asked to vote upon is the principle of dismissal without assigning a reason. I shall certainly be extremely surprised if the Labour Party take a left turn when they go up these steps to-night to vote.

One of the speakers has already pointed out the extraordinary way in which this debate began. It began by putting to the Chair a question which certainly the Attorney-General of the late Administration ought to have known was a question that the Chair could not answer. The former Attorney-General, who should have known better, suggested that there was a doubt whether General O'Duffy had been removed from office or not.

No doubt, but certainty.

Where is the doubt?

He was not removed.

That he has been removed.

That he has not been removed.

I am afraid that that opinion is like the land annuities opinion.

Perfectly sound.

Equally worthy and equally sound. The suggestion is made that he was not properly removed, because when the Leader of the Opposition stated that there was a departure from public policy, I said it was not any departure from public policy. I was handed a section which was very relevant to prove that contention—Section 2 of the 1924 Act. Our former Attorney-General, and other budding Attorney-Generals, on the other side equally competent, I suppose, said that that was given as the section on which it was based and suggested that there was a repeal of that section. They did not tell the House that the section was re-enacted in 1925. As the Minister for Justice has pointed out, the Acts of 1923, 1924 and 1925 cumulatively prove that the public policy of the late Administration, the public policy behind these Acts, the public policy behind the whole question of the position which the Commissioner of the Police should occupy was the policy which the gentlemen opposite, who bring in this motion, thought such a good public policy that they made it possible, and did not introduce into it that cause should be assigned. The position of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges was referred to by the last Deputy. What is their position? They are deliberately protected by the law because their position demands such protection. There is deliberately no protection in this case. Why? Because good, sound public policy demands that protection of that public character should not be accorded. What is the fundamental principle? The fundamental principle is the right principle, that the ultimate responsibility for peace and order in the State should rest on the members of the Executive Council. That is the position, and it is because we realise that the ultimate responsibility for peace and order depends upon us that we are going to see to it that those who will have the immediate responsibility will be people in whom we have full confidence. Let us note that without any of the bunkum—full confidence. Deputy Cosgrave asked me was there any characteristic in the quality of the new occupant of the office that the old occupant did not have. I say yes, one, that he was not Chief of Police for ten years under the last Administration.

Mr. Rice

Now we know it.

Yes, certainly. Now you know it. During these ten years, as the Minister for Justice told us a few moments ago, every act of indiscipline was condoned. Things were done which made it impossible that the new force of police in the future should have from all sections of the community that respect which we mean all sections of the community should give to it because of the impartial actions of these officers. We want a Chief of Police of whom no section of the community can say that that man is deliberately and politically opposed to us, and is likely to be biased in his attitude, because of these past political affiliations. They talk about the spoil system. The mover of the motion knows full well that it was within our power and right to select from anywhere—a member of our Party if he wished to resign—any single member of the community who was a supporter of ours, and to put him into that office, and to do it if we felt that by doing it it was going to be for the good of the State and the peace of the community as a whole. Did we do it? I do not believe that any Executive Council or Party such as this, which changed sides under such circumstances, ever acted towards existing servants of the State as fairly and so honourably as we acted. The fact is that we leant backwards. We did so because we believed that by doing so it would be ultimately in the public interest. What is the position? Have we to continue—because the Deputies opposite want to have their own will in the matter—to have as Chief of Police a man who we believe will not get from a large section of the community the confidence which would enable us to assert that when he acted he acted impartially and without political bias? If any harm has been done to General O'Duffy it has been done by the people on the opposite benches and not by us. In the document which was brought to my attention a few minutes ago a former Minister for Justice laid it down:

"The law, however, does envisage the possibility of circumstances arising which, without reflecting any discredit on the individual concerned, might render it undesirable, in the interest of the State, that he should be any longer permitted to retain the appointment."

There is an indication of what public policy was. We have acted in accordance with that, and we say this, whether it be the Governor-General or the Chief of Police, that as long as we are responsible for public policy we will have men there in whom we have confidence. I have said most of what is necessary. Then we hear talk of injustice, that we must bring the charge and prove it home before we can make the change which is in the public interest. What injustice have we done? When he was put into the office, as the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan, pointed out, it was at the will and pleasure of the Executive Council, and it was deliberately made to be at the will and the pleasure of the Executive Council. I am quite willing to admit, according to a very large section of the community, that General O'Duffy's actions have been such as would commend him to that section. We do not want to be harsh. We did not want to be harsh. We felt that we could get a better man for the office in the circumstances and in the general public interest. Did we propose to throw him out in the street? We did not. As Deputy Geoghegan pointed out, we offered him the position of Controller of Prices, a position in which his experience as Chief of Police might be useful, a responsible position with a salary going with it which would be personal to himself, so that he would not suffer in a monetary way by the change. Was that an indication that we were out for the spoil system, or that we wanted to perpetuate injustice on an individual? I hold that we have done no injustice whatever to General O'Duffy. We offered him a position. He has not taken it. I indicated to him that although he is not at present entitled to a pension, and although I detest giving pensions to young people when they are capable of further service in suitable positions, that as far as I was concerned powers would be sought here from the Parliament to make available for him a reasonable pension. Was there any suggestion of injustice in that? Is that the attitude of an Executive that would behave, as is suggested on the other side; the other side that has never ceased to use, whenever they found it would suit political purposes, any person or any thing, no matter how unsuitable? We have had an exhibition which was disgusting and I hope the good feeling of the people of this country will prevent that Deputy in future from going on that line. There are things that ought to be too sacred to be used for purposes of that kind. However, the Deputy does not hesitate to do it. He has done it many times in the past, as I said, in a most disgusting manner.

Was it not true?

Many true things can be made disgusting.

Is that disgusting?

The attitude of the Deputies opposite on many occasions was. We are all Catholics here—at least the majority of us.

No better than we are.

The question is whether you are better than we are. That is what you try to assume and the sooner you give up that pose the better. We put our attitude to the House. We took this action deliberately in the public interest. We put there a man in whom we have greater confidence, in whom we believe all sections of the community would have greater confidence, a man who would be able to do his duty without any suggestion that he was favouring one side or opposing another, because of political prejudice or bias. It is suggested that we are acting on the prompting of people outside. I saw the other day an article in the Irish Times suggesting that Deputy Cosgrave should bring in a motion of this sort. Would I be right in assuming, because the Irish Times anticipated the action of Deputy Cosgrave, that Deputy Cosgrave brought this motion in at the instigation of and to please the Irish Times?

As a matter of fact, I did not see the article.

Neither did I see any article in An Phoblacht. I do not read it. That is the truth, whatever yours may be.

I am more truthful than the President if he wants to know it. I have not changed my coat so often.

As I have said, we are coming here to the House, having exercised the duties that were put on our shoulders by the House and carrying out these duties conscientiously, as we believe it. We are put here to be the judges.

Not the jailers, though.

We are here to be the judges and, so long as we have the confidence of the majority of the members of the House, we are the judges and will act as the judges, and it is as the judges under these circumstances, and acting as such, that we decided to replace General O'Duffy by the officer who now occupies the position.

The President sat down with the words that they were placed there as the judges and that they were going to act as the judges. Might I remind the President, in his own words, that the majority are not always right.

They are, in this case.

Heads, you win and, harps, I lose.

Mr. Brady

You are on the losing side this time, anyway.

I want to say that the President sat down with the words "We are the Government: we do this and, therefore, we are right. We are the majority. We do this; therefore, we are right." It is a pity that the President and his colleagues did not always take that point of view. The President said many other things but I think it will be admitted by most fair-minded men in the House that the best case that has been made in this House to-night for the motion before the House has been made by the President himself and, on the merits, and, having due regard to the President's speech, I think that most free members of this House would vote for the motion. What is the position? The President has not even in the speech he has just delivered charged General O'Duffy with being inefficient in any way.

But he voted for the Treaty.

He has not charged General O'Duffy with not being capable of performing the duties of the office of the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána. He has not suggested for one moment that the General was ever guilty of an act which would not reflect credit on a man occupying the position which he occupied. He does not try in any way to take away from the statement made that General O'Duffy, in very dangerous circumstances, in circumstances which do not, happily and fortunately, obtain to-day, formed a force and maintained and disciplined a force which not only Irishmen in this country but Irishmen throughout the world are proud of. The President admitted and boasted of the fact that, although they were removing General O'Duffy from this office, they offered him office under the State at a salary at least as good as that which he received as Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána. I suggest, and I think that it will be accepted by every member of this House and by the people of the country, that there was only one reason for his removal and that was that his removal was called for from sources outside this House and outside the Government of this House. What is the use of trying to put blinkers on ourselves? Those of us who are here in this House, whether we belong to one Party or the other——

Mr. Brady

Or to many.

—or to many, and I am proud of the fact, which the Deputy cannot say.

Mr. Brady

That you changed several times?

And every change I made was endorsed by the people of Tipperary.

Mr. Brady

Because every changed was for the better of the country.

And I have more respect and consideration for the opinions of my fellow-countrymen and women than I have for the opinion of the Deputy or any Deputy on the opposite side.

A Deputy

Or the majority of the people of Ireland.

I am entitled with all respect to make my case. I am not indulging in any personalities. I never did in this House or in the country and I am entitled to make my case. I am trying to make this case, sir, that there is, so far as we can see, only one reason for the removal from office of the Commissioner, if he were removed, and that is because a certain section of the people of this country, rightly or wrongly, called for his removal and that certain organs called for his removal over the last twelve months. The President told us here that he never saw that organ and that he did not read it. Although this may not be accepted by some people in this House, I have perhaps as much respect for the President's word as any member of the House, but I find it very hard to credit that statement that he did not see it. If he did not see the weekly publication of that particular organ, I can only come to the conclusion that the wishes of the party who are running that organ were conveyed to him in another way.

Neither is true.

If the President says so, I accept the statement in an absolutely unqualified way, but I do say this, that the President has made no case whatever, and members of this House and the people in the country and the people outside the country will believe that General O'Duffy was removed from his office, not because he was unable to perform the duties of that office better than any other man we know of, but because he did not suit, or his administration did not suit the political situation of the moment and for no other reason.

Like some of the other Deputies who have spoken, I as one Irishman, at all events, want to pay tribute to the services which General O'Duffy, as he is now known, rendered to this nation in the dark days from 1917 to 1921. In these days, many of the Deputies who now sit in this House and, perhaps in different Parties, applauded the magnificent courage, the fortitude, the ability to serve and the capacity, if need be, to suffer, which General O'Duffy displayed in the service of this nation from 1917 to 1921, and nothing that is said in this House this evening, in the heat of the moment, or in temporary anger, can in any way detract from the magnificent services which, in those years, he rendered to this nation in an hour of trial and an hour of anguish. I think that no temporary difficulties of 1933 should in any way besmirch the name or reputation of one who, in other days, rendered to this nation services which ought always to entitle him to the gratitude of the Irish nation.

When this motion of Deputy Cosgrave's was put down, I doubted very much whether it was in the interest either of the public well-being or of General O'Duffy, and I am quite satisfied, after listening to to-night's debate that this motion has neither served the cause of public peace in Ireland nor, if it was sought to serve them, the personal interests of General O'Duffy. This motion has produced heat and passion which was, I think, needless and which was quite unnecessary, which has done nothing whatever to bury the hatchet and which has done nothing whatever to bring to the country that era of peace and tranquility which means so much to the world's progress. Personally speaking on behalf of this Party, I very much regret that a public issue of this kind should have arisen. I think it is regrettable that circumstances should have arisen to necessitate the removal of General O'Duffy from office, and I think that the public excitement and public comment which his removal will cause hardly justify the extreme step which the Executive Council has taken. It is quite true—I think it will scarcely be questioned by anybody who knows the real position—and I think the late Attorney-General was only shadow boxing this evening when he said that the Executive Council had not a perfect legal right to remove General O'Duffy, —that the Executive Council have a perfect legal right to remove the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána. I do not think anybody can question that right. If that right is now in their possession it is because of the fact that it was conveyed to them by Acts of Parliament originally instituted and passed in this House by the votes of the Deputies now sitting on the Opposition Benches. They at all events cannot complain that the Chief Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána has not that security of tenure which they apparently would like that he should have to-night.

The real position now is that the Chief Commissioner of the Gárda Siochána has been removed. If the position was that the Executive Council did not feel that they had confidence in him, if they felt that they ought to get somebody else less actively connected with the events of other years, might I suggest to the President that there was another and perhaps less brusque way of doing it. I agree that the Executive Council must have complete confidence in the Chief of Police. I agree that as they are responsible for public peace and order they must be the judges of the extent to which they have that confidence, but I suggest that they could have found ways and means of having complete confidence in a Chief of Police, and at the same time the unnecessary brusqueness which has marked General O'Duffy's removal need not have arisen. I think it ought to have been possible to have made the changes in some other way, without enforcing the decision in the manner in which it was enforced. I will be told of course by the Minister for Justice and by Deputy Geoghegan that they had a perfect legal right to do this, and that it was a perfectly just thing to do. Solomon's wisdom is often quoted and Solomon's decision is often quoted as evidence of his justice, but there are few people who will disagree with the fact that if the judgment once propounded by Solomon had been put into operation it would have been a very harsh judgment indeed. I think the removal of General O'Duffy will cause personal hardship to himself. It may be necessary in the interests of the Government, it may be necessary in the interests of the State, that the change should take place. It has now taken place and his removal from office cuts short a career which apparently he had hoped he would follow for a very long time. If it had been a customary practice to change the Chief of Police from time to time one could under stand this change which has been made. One could have accepted it as something in the nature of a normal development. The position, however, is that the late Chief of Police was allowed to grow up with the Gárda Síochana, to play a very big part in creating and perfecting the machine, and after 10 or 11 years' service he had every reason perhaps to expect that the post would be made a permanent one, that he would enjoy continuity of tenure, and that it would for him be a career for the rest of his life. His career, however, has been cut short, and I do hope that the President will proceed with his intention to compensate the late Chief of Police for the wrench, the hardship, and the loss of emoluments which his removal in such circumstances has undoubtedly caused him.

I said at the outset that I regret personally that this position has arisen, and nothing which has happened in this debate to-night has convinced me that the difficulty was an insurmountable one in some other way. The Government, however, is entitled to full confidence in their Chief of Police; they are entitled to have a person in that position on whom they can rely confidently, but nothing that has been said in this debate to-night convinces me that there was just the need that is claimed for his removal in such circumstances. So far as I, personally, am concerned, I can see no reason to give moral endorsement to what has been done, even if there is legal justification for it from the Government's point of view.

A Chinn Comhairle, so far as I, personally, am concerned, there is no question of politics in this motion, but I feel profound indignation, indignation which I find it almost impossible to express, at the cruel wrong which has been done to a great Irishman by the action of this inefficient Executive Council. Like Deputy Dillon, I am not interested in law or in law points, and I did not raise this point as a point of order at the beginning of this debate for the purpose of raising a law point or for the purpose, as Deputy Norton said, of indulging in a certain amount of shadow boxing. There is a very serious point at issue in this matter. Whether I can give a legal opinion or not is not a question which even the President of the Executive Council can say with justice or truth. That is a matter for the courts. My opinion as Attorney-General stood the tests of six years, and I am prepared to leave it at that. I am prepared to leave the statement of the President of the Executive Council which appears in the Official Debates of this House to any third-rate schoolboy to say what it means. What interpretation can anybody place on it when he says: "On the contrary there has been no departure from public policy...."

Might I ask the Deputy to read the previous para graph.

No, you may not if you please. "On the contrary, there has been no departure from public policy. It is strictly in accordance with the Act." He proceeds to quote the Act, and what does he say? "Section 2 of the Gárda Síochána Act of 1924 empowers" not empowered "the Executive Council to remove the Commissioner." Are we to understand that the President of the Executive Council is so bereft of proper legal talent in his Party that there was nobody able to tell him he was wasting his time quoting a repealed section of the Act? Are we to be told that somebody on the Official Benches wasted his time and made the President look foolish by handling him a copy into his hand, which he subsequently used, of a repealed section of an Act of Parliament?

Might I ask the Deputy now to read the previous paragraph.

I want to make this point perfectly clear. When I raised this point I raised it because I know that General O'Duffy was told in the letter he got from the Secretary to the Executive Council that he was removed from his office as Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána by the Executive Council, acting in the exercise of their powers conferred upon them by Section 2 of the Gárda Síochána Act of 1924. I challenge the President here and now to produce a copy of the letter notifying General O'Duffy—the man most intimately concerned in this cruel and unjust act— for the first time that he had been removed. It is a curt note and an uncivil note, coming from the Party which prided itself last year on its civility in public affairs; a curt note, curtly informing General O'Duffy that he had been removed from office by virtue of powers conferred on the Executive Council by a section of a repealed Act, and if he has been removed by the Executive Council purporting to act under the powers conferred on them by a repealed section of an Act very serious consequences from a public point of view follow, because Colonel Broy is not legally appointed Commissioner, and every warrant he has signed in the last month is illegal; every prisoner he has brought over from England under his powers as Commissioner are illegal, and he is personally liable for criminal proceedings and for damages for those illegal acts. I do not wish to belabour this point, but it is a matter of considerable public interest that an Executive Council——

On a point of order, I do not think the Deputy is entitled to discuss the legality or illegality of Colonel Broy's actions. The motion is: "That the Dáil disapproves of the action of the Executive Council in removing General O'Duffy from office as Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána." I think the former Attorney-General might know that.

I do not know whether that is a point of order or not. I do not intend to go into detail on this point. I digressed because of the attack made upon me—an unworthy attack—by the President of the Executive Council, an attack which you would expect from the lowest of his back benchers, an attack which is only in keeping with the tone of the debate and the attitude which has been taken up towards this profound injustice by the back benchers of the Fianna Fáil Government here to-night.

The Minister for Justice deprecated the introduction of heat into this debate. I deprecate the sniggering and smiling which has taken place during the discussion of this matter, which so very profoundly affects public policy, and which so very profoundly affects the life and prospects of a very brave Irishman. I profoundly object to the President of the Executive Council smiling and sniggering as I saw him to-night and giving an example to the back benchers of his Party, who are not very slow to follow. The Minister for Justice deprecated the introduction of heat into this debate. What I found personally hardest, and what I still find personally hardest, is to contain my own indignation at this action—this unjust action of the Executive Council. I was nine years personally and closely associated with the late Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána and during that period of nine years I took no part in active politics. It was the policy of the Government during the period when I was Attorney-General, and when my predecessor, the present Mr. Justice O'Byrne, was Attorney-General, that the person who held that office was not to be present in this House and could take no part in active politics, in order that the people of this country should feel that the administration of the law was divorced from Party politics and that everybody, no matter what their politics, or no matter what their creed, or no matter what their class was in this country, got a fair crack of the whip and that justice was impartially administered in this country. That was the policy I adopted when I was Attorney-General during six years, and that was the policy that General O'Duffy adopted during the nine years I was associated with him when he was Commissioner of the Civic Guards. I have never on any occasion found him influenced in any way by personalities, and no reference from the Department of Justice can be produced to show that General O'Duffy was on any single occasion, or in any matter, influenced in any way, by personalities, or by class, or by politics.

A new type of sycophant has arisen and the Americans have coined the expression themselves and that new type of sycophant is known as a "nodder" and a "yes-man." You will find these in America and you find them very shortly here in Government Buildings surrounding the present Executive Council.

A Deputy

Explain.

"A nodder" and a "yes-man" is one who is willing to agree with everything his boss puts up to him or says. I regret to say that this action of the Executive Council is only symptomatic of their policy in relation to the Civil Service, and Deputy Norton will find to his grief that many a protégé of his, many a postman earning a few shillings a week in wages will find himself in the same position as General O'Duffy finds himself to-day. He holds under the same tenure as General O'Duffy and the only answer he will get when he is dismissed is: "You are not to get any reason. It is because we are the judges and we think what we do is right." The Executive Council are the judges. They are given that right by law, but they are given that right in reference to every single person in the public service of this State, and that is the seriousness of the case put up by the Executive Council here officially to-night when they say that it is ipse dixit of the President or his Ministers which is to go and that no public or private representative or individual is to ask the reason why. Any Civil Servant no matter what he is, no matter what position he holds, no matter what services he has given to the State may, without any cause assigned, be dismissed at the mere will and pleasure of the Executive Council, and the only tenure any Civil Servant has, or any Gárda officer has or any officer in the Army has is the honour of the Executive Council, and that honour of the Executive Council, in the case of General O'Duffy, has been found wanting, and their action has brought nothing but discredit and disgrace on themselves. To introduce the one element of politics which I propose to introduce into this motion, it gives us hope in this Party that the people, even the most benighted followers of the Fianna Fáil Party, will come in a very short time to see what the policy of the present Executive Council really is.

General O'Duffy's name will always be associated in my mind, and I believe in the people's mind, with the late Kevin O'Higgins.

And Michael Collins.

The late Kevin O'Higgins brought forward the 1923 Act in this House in which he first gave statutory recognition to the Civic Guards, an Act which, I might say in parenthesis, was supported by the Labour Party in the House at that time. He put forward as the ideal which he had set before them a national police force — a national unarmed police force, which would command the co-operation and the confidence of the people of this country from Donegal to Cork. He set the inspiration for that police force. He was the architect of that pillar of the institutions of the State and General O'Duffy was his Chief Executive Officer. When Kevin O'Higgins was murdered one of the most appalling aspects of that terrible crime was the waste involved— the waste of a vital force that could have done so much good for this country. The same waste is involved by the action of the Executive Council in the dastardly crime they have committed against General O'Duffy.

It was remarkable how the defence of the Government started with a mild Minister for Justice trying as it were how he could use medicine on the Party, followed up by the ex-Minister for Justice and then by the President of the Executive Council—just a defence from each one of them as to the attitude taken up by the first speaker. His whole defence was that they had the right in law to do this. They have the same right with respect to practically every member of the Civil Service, with this difference that if members of the Civil Service have rights under Article 10 of the Treaty they cannot do it with impunity. It was to be noted that each one of the three—it was more remarkable perhaps in the case of the third speaker than in that of the others—sought to emphasise the fact that the Executive Council had to have the confidence of the Commissioner of Police. They had to be satisfied with him. They could not run any risks. They had to have absolute confidence in him.

I ask the House to mark this. The ex-Minister for Justice was in office for nearly twelve months. At no time during that period, so far as the public is aware, was there to be a change in the office of the Commissioner, and all that time there was another officer in the Guards who had the confidence of the Executive Council to a greater degree if we are to accept the statements made here to-night. During that period of twelve months two remarkable events took place: one the biggest that has taken place in our history. At such a time the Executive Council required, if they had any conception of their duties, to have an officer in charge of the police forces of this country in whom they had implicit confidence. Did they seek to remove General O'Duffy during that time? Was there any question about it amongst them? Did the question of his removal ever appear on the agenda for a meeting of the Executive Council? We have not been told. Apparently he had their confidence then. Then, during this year there was a general election. If we are to take the statements made here to-night the position is that General O'Duffy is not politically acceptable to the Executive Council. Notwithstanding that, their confidence in him was such that during the general election they would not change him. I do not and will not accept the apologies made by the two Ministers and the ex-Minister. I do not accept it, and nobody outside of this House accepts it, that if a law is passed here giving certain powers that there is also given the right to exercise it. It is not exercised with respect to the Civil Service.

Speaking here to-night the President insisted that the Executive Council had not made extraordinary changes. Who is it that is responsible for any political turmoil that we had in the country? Who but the Party that during ten years would not accept majority rule, the Party who were not concerned and not interested in the formation of a police force ten years ago, but who now, having seen its success, would be glad to effect changes to show that they had some hand, act or part in the new orientation. There can be no other interpretation of the statements that have been made by the two Ministers and the ex-Minister, than that the office of Commissioner of the Guards during the last ten years was administered in a political fashion. I say that is not true. The Commissioner carried out the duties of his office according to law, according to the law passed in this House and sanctioned by the people of the country. He carried out his duties fearlessly and in fullest accord with Irish nationalist principles, and it is no wonder, and I am not surprised, that that was too strong for the Executive Council to stomach.

Question put: Tá, 58; Níl, 70.

Alton, Ernest Henry.Anthony, Richard.Beckett, James Walter.Belton, Patrick.Bennett, George Cecil.Bourke, Séamus.Brennan, Michael.Broderick, William Joseph.Brodrick, Seán.Burke, James Michael.Burke, Patrick.Byrne, Alfred.Cosgrave, William T.Costello, John Aloysius.Curran, Richard.Davis, Michael.Davitt, Robert Emmet.Dillon, James M. McGuire, James Ivan.McMenamin, Daniel.Minch, Sydney B.Morrisroe, James.Morrissey, Daniel.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James Edward.Murphy, Timothy Joseph.O'Connor, Batt.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.

Dockrell, Henry Morgan.Dolan, James Nicholas.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.Fagan, Charles.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Good, John.Hogan, Patrick (Galway).Holohan, Richard.Keating, John.Kent. William Rice.Lynch, Finian.MacDermot, Frank.McDonogh, Martin.MacEoin, Seán.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.McGovern, Patrick O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony, The.O'Reilly, John Joseph.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Redmond, Bridget Mary.Reidy, James.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Rogers, Patrick James.Thrift, William Edward.Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Bourke, Daniel.Brady, Brian.Brady, Seán.Breathnach, Cormac.Breen, Daniel.Briscoe, Robert.Browne, William Frazer.Carty, Frank.Clery, Mícheál.Concannon, Helena.Cooney, Eamonn.Corkery, Daniel.Corry, Martin John.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Timothy.Daly, Denis.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Doherty, Joseph.Donnelly, Eamon.Dowdall, Thomas P.Flynn, John.Flynn, Stephen.Fogarty, Andrew.Geoghegan, James.Gibbons, Seán.Goulding, John.Hales, Thomas.Harris, Thomas.Hayes, Seán.

Houlihan, Patrick.Keely, Séamus P.Kehoe, Patrick.Kelly, James Patrick.Kelly, Thomas.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Killilea, Mark.Kilroy, Michael.Kissane, Eamonn.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.McEllistrim, Thomas.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moane, Edward.Moylan, Seán.Murphy, Patrick Stephen.O'Briain, Donnchadha.O'Dowd, Patrick.O'Grady, Seán.O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.O'Reilly, Matthew.Pearse, Margaret Mary.Rice, Edward.Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.Ryan, James.Ryan, Martin.Ryan, Robert.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Traynor, Oscar.Victory, James.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C. (Dr.)

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Bennett and Seán Brodrick; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.
Motion declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until Wednesday, 15th March, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share