I want to raise a point on this Estimate.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 55—Land Commission (Resumed.)
Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That a sum not exceeding £297,454 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission (44 and 45 Vict., c 49, s. 46 and c. 71, s. 4; 48 and 49 Vict., c. 73, ss. 17, 18 and 20; 53 and 54 Vict., c. 49, s. 2; 54 and 55 Vict., c. 48; 3 Edw. 7, c. 37; 7 Edw. 7, c. 38, and c. 56; 9 Edw. 7, c. 42; Nos. 27 and 42 of 1923; 25 of 1925; 11 of 1926; 19 of 1927; 31 of 1929, and 11 of 1931.—(Mr. Derrig.)
Very well.
On the Land Commission Estimate I want to draw attention to the case of the treatment accorded to an employee of the Land Commission in County Sligo and County Leitrim, Mr. Michael Gallagher, a county councillor who has been in the employment of the Land Commission as stock manager and paymaster in connection with certain lands for a considerable number of years, in the case of some of them for, I think, 20 years. His record has no flaws whatever in it as regards integrity or efficiency. In the middle of April he received a notification from the Land Commission that his services would be dispensed with as from the end of the month.
No explanation of any kind was given for this action, and he was, therefore, not afforded any opportunity to defend himself against any charges that might be brought against him. Having heard from him on the subject, I called upon the acting Minister for Lands and Fisheries, and I was informed that this gentleman's dismissal was due to the part he had taken in a certain public meeting as far back as last December. It was alleged that at that meeting he had made statements that were improper as coming from an employee of the Land Commission.
The meeting in question was one that was held by a branch of the Farmers and Ratepayers League in Sligo to discuss the situation in regard to the payment of land annuities. At that time the Press was very full of proceedings that had been started, under the aegis of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, to test the legal position with regard to the land annuities. I might say, quite frankly, I had already, some months previously, taken legal opinion on behalf of the League, and had informed all those I was in contact with that, while the Government were undoubtedly breaking the law, the legal obligation of the farmers towards the Land Commission, nevertheless, still continued. But while I told people this on the strength of the legal opinion I had obtained, there were others who expressed the view that the matter was in considerable doubt. This legal action had been started, counsel of great eminence had been engaged to take part in it, and it was understood, by the country people generally, that a considerable amount of doubt existed as to the legal situation, and the obligation of the farmers to pay land annuities, during such time as the annuities were detained here and no legislation passed to regularise all this. In these circumstances this meeting was held and it was decided to have a test case defended. A number of civil bills had been issued, and the question was what action should be taken upon the civil bills. A perfectly reasonable decision was arrived at that one of those civil bills should be defended and that the court should be asked to give a stay of execution until such a time as the big case in Dublin had been decided.
Mr. Gallagher, whose case is now in question, was chairman of that meeting, and the complaint against him rests principally upon the fact that he mentioned he had not paid his annuities in June. He said: "I saw the tariffs were coming and I was not prepared to pay twice. I have receipts from the Customs authorities showing that on consignments of cattle I shall have to pay £12 over my year's rent. I am expecting a civil bill and I am going to fight it." Somebody else at the meeting suggested general advice being given to everybody not to pay. Mr. Gallagher actually frowned on that suggestion and it was he who guided the meeting throughout to the decision that a test case should be defended, to clear up the legal position. He did not ask that his should be the test case to be taken because he was of the opinion that he should pay the expenses of his own case himself, and so, some other person's case was to be taken as the test case. It is alleged that that was an act so flagrant, and so likely to produce a lawless frame of mind amongst the community, that it justified the Land Commission in overlooking the fact that this man had more than twenty years of blameless and faithful service.
I suggest that that contention cannot be upheld, and that the action Mr. Gallagher took was a perfectly natural and respectable action. He is not a legal expert. It was perfectly reasonable that he, and others, should be impressed by the fact that under the ægis of a great Party, legal proceedings were to be taken and eminent Counsel were going to argue the whole legal circumstances surrounding the land annuities dispute. Under these circumstances I cannot, for the life of me, see that Mr. Gallagher was not perfectly justified, and that others were not justified in withholding payment and defending their cases in the courts until such time as the situation was made clear to the satisfaction of all.
I put it to the House that the Land Commission has acted in a very unjust and arbitrary fashion. I draw attention to the fact that action was not taken, at the time of the alleged offence, and was only taken in the middle of April, and the apparent motive of the whole thing was to provide employment for an intimate friend of one of the Fianna Fáil representatives in the County Sligo. Even if anyone were able to convince himself that the Department acted reasonably in other respects, there can be no possible excuse for sending a man an abrupt notice that his employment is to terminate in a fortnight's time, and giving him no opportunity of any sort or kind to plead any case in his defence.
I did not intend to speak upon this Vote, as in the near future we are promised a Bill that will possibly change the whole policy of the Land Commission's work, as we understood it, and would not have done so except for the case which Deputy MacDermot has raised. I think it is monstrous that a Government Department in the position of the Land Commission should take the action indicated by Deputy MacDermot. At the time that the gentleman named took the action he did there was a certain policy being pursued by the great majority of the farmers of this State. There was agitation being carried on with the Government, and negotiations proposed to remit the payment of the annuities pending the settlement of the economic controversy between this Government and England. Rightly or wrongly many farmers in this State— and I maintain rightly—considered that, taking into account the fact that they were directly paying to England more than the annuities, in fact sometimes three and four times the annuities, they were justified at the moment, and until the question was determined in regard to their annuities, not to pay them. There was doubt, and in the minds of many people more than doubt, as to the legality of the Land Commission in collecting the annuities at all in these circumstances.
As Deputy MacDermot said, there was a legal action pending in Dublin to determine this matter. It was reasonable to assume, with this looming largely in the Press, that many people would be imbued with the same doubt that the originators of the same action had. Some of us were blamed by the Fianna Fáil Party that we did, in effect, urge the non-payment of annuities to the Government. I do not know that, at the start, any of us took that course; but when some of us found that it was impossible for the farmers to pay their annuities, some of us took the other direction. Anyhow, events did not take the course that, towards the end of December, farmers could not meet their obligations. But with this in the Press it was natural to assume that any farmer in the country would refrain from making any payments pending the settlement of that action. I say that in the light of all these facts it is, to my mind, monstrous that the Land Commission should inflict this dismissal on this civil servant for taking action which thousands of farmers, small and large, themselves took in the course of the last twelve months and which many Deputies of this House also took and were forced to take. I think it was monstrous to punish an official of the Department for an offence which many of the Deputies of this House—and I am one of them—themselves committed, and we are not brought before any bar of justice or penalised; and if a humble servant of the Land Commission is to be penalised for an action which many of the Deputies of this House were forced to take I think it is monstrous.
The estimate before the House at present is one which one would prefer to discuss with regard to the details of the working of the Department, from observation, during the last 12 months. But, in connection with the working of the Land Commission, there has arisen a development which Deputy MacDermot has referred to to-day. I do not believe that there is a Minister on that bench in charge of any Department, with the exception of the acting Minister for Lands and Fisheries, who would attempt to justify what has been done in this case. The facts are that a man, who has spent years in the service of the Land Commission, without a single material complaint against him—his record is that of a man who did all the heavy work connected with his office when there was a lot of undivided land to be looked after—delivered a speech in the County of Sligo, which Deputy MacDermot has read to the House to-day, and that that man has said in effect: "A claim has been made against me on the basis of an alleged contract of payment; I propose to go into court to state my case and to let the Department of State concerned state their case and I am prepared to abide by the verdict of the judge." That is all that he is charged with—that he publicly said that he was going to await a judicial verdict as between him and the Land Commission as to the facts of the case. The speech was made in the month of December—early in December. It was published in the public Press on the 10th of December. Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party were just as busy looking into the records of their political antagonists last December as they are now. I do not know whether they brought this fact before their colleagues or not; but no action was then taken and no reasonable man can imagine that any punitive action should be taken for the language of that man in that speech. I submit that it was the language of a good citizen. It was the language of a man who did not suggest that he had any right to resist the law. It was the language of a man who said that he acknowledged the law and that he proposed to get a judicial decision on what the actual law was and having got it, that he would abide by it. Would that everybody in this country would say as much!
Three months later, this man—this public spirited man—who is Chairman of the Board of Health in the County Sligo, deemed it his public duty to take a certain course in the discharge of his functions as Chairman of that Board. The course he deemed it his duty to take did not please the acting Minister for Lands and Fisheries and it did not please the Parliamentary colleagues of the Acting Minister for Lands and Fisheries. The attitude adopted towards that man was a cowardly attitude. There was somebody looking for the position and that somebody was a friend of a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. Three months after that speech was made the Acting Minister for Lands and Fisheries announces that he is going to discharge an honourable man from his position, not because it was ever suggested that that official betrayed his trust, but because the Minister for Lands and Fisheries does not agree with that official's estimate of what the law is. I think that, if the Acting Minister for Lands and Fisheries took an example from this official, whom he saw fit to dismiss, it might do him no harm. That official said that he was willing to abide by the decision of the court and if that was the general practice this country might not regret it. But because an official of a Department had the courage to say that, his means of livelihood are taken away from him and justice has been done according to what Fianna Fáil's estimate of justice is. That would be bad enough, but within 48 hours of that officer's dismissal an intimate personal friend of a Deputy for County Sligo was pitchforked into the position.
I hope the acting Minister is proud of that. I hope the Department for which he is responsible is proud of it. Jobbery of that kind, for jobbery it is, may produce a passing advantage for Fianna Fáil in the County Sligo, but in the long run the people of this country will turn with nausea from an action of that kind. The people of this country still respect an honest and courageous man. The job hunters and corruptionists may besiege the Minister's office in order to get him to do what the Minister ought to know is wrong. He may please the job hunters temporarily, but that type of man will turn on him when it suits his own hand. The decent people of Sligo will at some time get an opportunity of expressing their loathing and contempt for a transaction of that kind.
I only hope that under the very special circumstances that have arisen this House will mark its disapproval of the treatment that man got by voting in the division which we shall challenge on this Estimate. I desire to pay no unsought tributes to the members of the Fianna Fáil Government. I have no hesitation in saying here that since I came into public life no other deed of that kind has been done. Had I been asked I would have been prepared to asseverate that there was no man sitting on the Front Benches of the Fianna Fáil Party who would have been prepared to defend the treatment this man has had at the hands of the Minister responsible for the Irish Land Commission. There are some other matters with which I had intended to deal, but under the circumstances having had to deal with this nauseating, this disgusting transaction, I think it might be better to defer ordinary details of administration to another occasion. I look with every confidence to members on all sides of the House joining with us in expressing detestation of a transaction of this character.
Although I have spoken already on the Land Commission Estimates, I assume, as we are in Committee, that I am entitled to speak for a second time if I wish to do so. I want to support the remarks of Deputy MacDermot and Deputy Dillon. Probably I have been associated much more intimately than either of the Deputies with Mr. Gallagher. I can speak with four and a half years' experience of his work as an official of the Land Commission. I can say this, and the Minister can have my statement verified by reference to his officials, that there was no more competent official than Mr. Gallagher in any part of the Twenty-Six Counties. He was an official of the Land Commission for a period of 22 years. He was appointed originally by the C.D. Board, and he continued in the service of the Land Commission after its transfer to the Free State Government. In the years following the transfer, Mr. Gallagher's duties were particularly heavy, and during those years he discharged his work to the satisfaction of the Land Commission and more particularly to the satisfaction of the inspectors immediately in charge of County Sligo. During his whole period of service, not alone with the C.D. Board but with the Land Commission as well, his record has been a remarkably good one. He has been recognised as one of the most efficient men in his position in the whole country. It has been recognised that he has given satisfaction in the discharge of his duties. On no occasion has the Land Commission ever had to reprove him for negligence.
He was not a civil servant; he was a temporary official of the Land Commission and, consequently, he would not be amenable to the ordinary rules which apply to civil servants. He was quite entitled to participate in the agitation in connection with the land annuities. He was entitled also to participate in the agitation in connection with the payment of rates. I believe his removal from office was largely due to the fact that he did take a particularly prominent part, as a member of the county council, in connection with the rates question. His removal from office is due to the vindictiveness of a member of the county council, who is also a representative of the constituency of Leitrim-Sligo. There has been no official charge made against Mr. Gallagher over which the Minister dares stand. The Minister knows perfectly well that if he examined the records of the Land Commission impartially he would find that no charge can be preferred against Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher, as a temporary official, has discharged his duties satisfactorily during his whole period of service. So far as I know it has never happened previously in the Land Commission that an official has been discharged because of certain action he took outside, which action, as a private citizen, as a farmer, as a ratepayer and as a taxpayer he was perfectly justified in taking.
Deputies Dillon and MacDermot have dealt with the essential features of his case, and I do not want to prolong the discussion by touching upon them again. I would like to ascertain from the Minister the real reason for Mr. Gallagher's dismissal. It was admitted in an interview between Deputy MacDermot and the acting Minister that there was no charge against Mr. Gallagher's integrity. If there was no charge against his integrity then I would be interested to learn from the Acting-Minister if there is any charge at all against Mr. Gallagher. I submit there is no charge, and his removal from office is due entirely to vindictiveness on the part of one of the Acting-Minister's own followers. If the Minister is going to deal in this fashion with an official so efficient as Mr. Gallagher, because of representations made to him by his followers out of vindictiveness, then I must say that the position of the officials serving under the Acting-Minister is not a happy one and will not be a happy one in the future.
This case has given rise to a good deal of comment, not alone in Sligo but in the adjoining counties of Mayo, Galway, Leitrim and Roscommon. There are officials in these counties occupying identically the same position as Mr. Gallagher did until he was removed by the acting Minister. Some of these officials, I daresay, have also exercised their rights as citizens and as ratepayers. Is this action on the part of the acting Minister to be taken as a headline? It is the first time in the history of the Land Commission, so far as I am aware—and I do not believe the Minister is in a position to contradict me—that an official has been dismissed from office because of representations made by a very minor light in the Minister's own Party. These representations were made by this individual who was animated by a certain amount of vindictiveness towards Mr. Gallagher because of his association with certain movements in Sligo. I submit that the action of the acting Minister is a disgrace and a scandal and that it is really a reproach to the public service of this country. If the Minister stands over an action of that kind then I submit that the position of civil servants and the officials not alone of the Land Commission but of every other Department as well is going to be very insecure indeed.
In order to get this matter straight, it is well first of all to say what Mr. Gallagher's position was and what were his duties. Mr. Gallagher was an employee of the Land Commission. His duties were to collect the grazing and other rents from those who held the grazing of the farms in the hands of the Land Commission. He was being paid for that work. If he were an angel out of heaven, and I am not denying that he is, he was getting paid for doing the work. He was not doing it out of any public spirit.
Was he not stockmaster as well as paymaster?
One of his jobs was that of stockmaster. He was also paymaster. He was being paid for doing that work out of the public funds. He was paid for collecting these moneys and while he was holding that position he got up at a public meeting and said that he himself had not paid his land annuities and was not going to pay. He said he was expecting a writ and that he was going to fight it. Is this the position taken up by Deputy Dillon and by Deputy Roddy and the other Deputy who spoke upon the matter: that any civil servant or public official is to be permitted——
He is not a civil servant.
He is a public official and is being paid for doing the work under the Government. Is such a man in the position that he can get up at a public meeting and say that he is refusing to pay the Government what is legally due to them?
May I answer that question right away?
Very well.
The answer is "Yes, if there is a perfectly justifiable and sincere doubt about the legal position." The Minister knows that there was a doubt in this case and Mr. Gallagher had the weight of Cumann na nGaedheal behind that doubt. The man also had a colourable reason for believing that he had made payment in another form.
Was there anything in the man's statement to the effect that until the courts decided that he owed the money he was going to refuse to pay it?
There is some excuse for Cumann na nGaedheal in thinking that their opinion is the law of the land. They have that excuse and they have acted on it but there is no excuse for Deputy MacDermot to think that a Cumann na nGaedheal opinion is the law of the land. The law of the land said that the land annuities were due to the Land Commission and no man had a right to break that law until this Dáil decided otherwise.
What about the Minister's followers in Kerry?
What did Deputy MacDermot do when he broke the lock of the pound?
A public official paid by the Government out of Government money had no right to break the law of the land.
He did not break the law of the land.
Did not the Minister in 1922 and 1923 tell the people of the country not to pay these annuities?
This man broke the law and——
How often has the Minister broken it?
The Minister must be allowed to make his case.
I would not be responsible for any Department in which my officials were allowed openly to flout the law. I would not either in my private capacity, or in my capacity as Minister pay any man who was advocating that the debts that were due to me should not be paid to me.
Hear, hear!
And Mr. Gallagher, at a public meeting, said he was not going to pay his land annuities and that he was going to fight the case. He went a bit farther than that. He is not quite such an inoffensive man as Deputy Dillon, Deputy Roddy and the rest of the Deputies here want to make out. There was one gentleman, Mr. Williams, who got up and said: "I do not see any reason why a man who is able to pay should not be made to pay." At this point he was interrupted by Mr. Gallagher, and he repeated: "I do not see why a man who is able to pay should not be made pay. Whilst I am different in religion——" Then Mr. Gallagher said: "I will not allow you to introduce a religious element," and Mr. Williams said: "The Bishops met at Maynooth and Cardinal MacRory told them the same." Then Mr. Gallagher said: "That does not arise. I must ask you to sit down." Well, we have told Mr. Gallagher to sit down at the moment. The man who would do what he did is not fitted to be an official in the Land Commission, and I took steps as soon as I heard about the case to get Mr. Gallagher dismissed. Deputy Dillon talked about political victimisation, and Deputy Roddy had the impudence to say—and it was damned impudence on his part—that this was the first time that such a thing happened.
It has been happening for the last 12 months.
I am not justifying the action on the grounds that it happened before or that it did not happen before. This action of mine is justifiable and necessary action and if I did not take it I would be neglecting my duty as acting Minister for Lands and Fisheries. But I want to remind Deputy Roddy and those who remember the regime of his Party in this country that not alone was one man dismissed without reason but hundreds were dismissed from their positions simply because of their political opinions. And because of their political opinions others were put in positions in the Civil Service.
In the Land Commission?
In the Land Commission and in other Departments in the State.
Will the Minister quote one case for me in the Land Commission?
Wait now. That is the position and Deputy Roddy and everybody who has any knowledge of public life in this country knows it to be the fact.
Question.
When we came into office we decided to try, as the President said, to draw a veil over the past, and I think civil servants as a whole have a right to be thankful to the Fianna Fáil Government, inasmuch as they have refused to kick out of their positions men who were put in by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government for political reasons. I know that other people were victimised and thrown out by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government simply because of their political convictions. Mr. Gallagher was not dismissed because of his political convictions.
Oh, no! Not at all! Perish the thought.
Is Deputy Dillon saying he was dismissed because of his political convictions?
Most emphatically.
As far as I am concerned, I do not care much about Deputy Dillon's opinion.
Well, you will.
Deputy Dillon is so stupid in all his declarations here that the more he thinks of me the less I think of myself.
Deputy Dillon will raise a blister on you.
Yes, when everything is peaceful he will raise blisters. Very little blisters he raised when blisters were being raised.
Does the Minister boast of his record?
He does.
He boasts of shooting men from behind a ditch.
How did Deputy Coburn shoot them?
Deputy Coburn should not be talking at all.
I can talk to you inside or outside this House and you cannot prevent me from talking here or anywhere in Ireland. I never carried a rifle or a revolver but I have a pair of hands and I am prepared to use them against any one of you.
Deputy Coburn never carried a rifle or revolver but he advised other people to carry them.
I never did.
You did.
I never fired at any man in the dark.
We all know what Deputy Coburn did during the Great War. He advised young men to go out and fight but he stayed at home himself.
Deputy Coburn is not ashamed of anything he ever did.
A Deputy
He stayed at home during the Great War and sent other people to France.
Will Deputy Coburn deny that he was one of a Party——
The Deputy will please sit down. If there are any more interruptions, the Chair will take serious notice of them and Deputies from both sides of the House may find themselves leaving the Chamber.
There is not the slightest justification for the hullaballoo raised here to-day.
We want to hear the Minister reasons for the dismissal.
He was dismissed because while being paid by the Land Commission for collecting rents he said that he himself was not going to pay his rent. Certainly, I would not allow any man, whether a permanent or a temporary official, to hold his position while he was making such statements in public. That is the long and short of the matter.
I should like to know whether this man was collecting land annuities or grazing rents or if there was a difference between the rents he was collecting and the rent which he refused to pay.
The Minister has stated that the reason he ordered the dismissal of this man was because he had advocated a breach of the law. He never advocated it. What he said was that he proposed to go to the courts and have the legal position defined, and the only implication which could be drawn from his words was that when the courts had spoken he would conform to the judicial decision. What happened in respect of this very instalment? The Minister's own supporters proved recalcitrant and would not pay the instalment, and the Minister had to come to the House and say that not only was he going to give a moratorium for the old instalments of land annuities, but he was going to give a moratorium for this famous June instalment. The Minister, to the amazement of the House, said that in addition to the other instalments this also was going to be made subject to the moratorium. This man never suggested that he would withhold it if the court ordered him to pay. On the contrary, he announced his intention of testing the legal proceedings, and the only implication is that if the legal proceedings went against him he would realise whatever possessions he had and pay, if it were physically possible for him to pay.
Observe the sub-conscious defence that the Minister makes. Deputy Roddy stated that this man was a man of high standing and that he had 22 years of honourable service. What is the Minister's re-action? "Cumann na nGaedheal victimised us in the past"—and then he stopped and became virtuous. He said: "We want to draw a veil over the past; we want to do no harm." I pay this tribute to President de Valera, that I think he is trying to draw a veil over the past. I have never hesitated to say that. Deputies may not agree, but I am not ashamed to proclaim my view. So far as this is concerned, I regard this as the proper place to say that I think it is a corrupt transaction. I think it is a scandalous transaction. I am convinced that this man was kicked out of his job to make room for a friend of the Fianna Fáil Party. I am convinced that he was put out of his job on account of his political convictions. I am convinced that it was for these reasons, and for these reasons alone, that the Minister acted, and I am perfectly satisfied that this House, in the knowledge of the facts, must see what we see, that wherever an act of the Minister responsible for the Irish Land Commission can injure a political opponent by the misuse of his power he is going to do it; that he has done it, and that he means to do it in future.
I want to point out to the Centre Party and to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party that, in voting for the rejection of the Land Commission Vote on the ground that this official was dismissed, the principle they are standing for is that a public official can refuse to pay money to the Government while he is being paid by the Government. I also want to point out that 100,000 people, who were drawing no Government money, paid upwards of £1,600,000 in land annuities of the instalment which Mr. Gallagher refused to pay. I asked Mr. Gallagher did he refuse to pay because he had not the money and he said "No." Deputy MacDermot was present when I asked him. I asked him could he deny that he used these words, and if he did so, to write in and let me know, and I would put his denial of them along with other evidence that was in my possession. The words he used were these: "I did not pay my annuity in June. I have receipts from the Customs authorities showing that on two consignments of cattle I shipped I have paid £12 over my year's rent. I am expecting a civil bill and I am going to fight it. I do not want the organisation to fight it; I will fight it on my own." If he fights it, he will fight with his own money, and not with Government money.
Why did the Minister leave out the most significant passage of all? "I did not pay my annuity in June. I was not prepared to pay it twice." He was prepared to go into court and argue that it amounted to paying twice, and if it was decided under the law that he was to pay, he was prepared to abide by the judgment of the court. What more could any good citizen say?
He has not said that.
It is here. "I did not pay my annuity in June. I saw that the tariffs were coming and I was not prepared to pay twice."
He was going to fight.
He was going to go to the court and employ a solicitor and state his case.
He did not say that.
He said he was going into court, that when the civil bill came he would fight it. What more could any man say than that he would go into court and defend his case?
May I put a question to Deputy Dillon? If a man denies the right of the Land Commission to collect these annuities, does he not by implication deny the right of the Land Commission also to collect rents?
No. There is no analogy between them. If the Minister had put it to Mr. Gallagher when he interviewed him: "Do you suggest that you are entitled to suspend your duties and to stop collecting rents?", a very different situation would arise. I ask the Minister did Mr. Gallagher ever default on the collection of the rent? Mind you, he was under this impression for three months before the Minister took any action at all. During that time did Mr. Gallagher ever default one penny in the collecting of the rent? He said: "I take my view as to my rights. The Land Commission takes a different view. I am prepared to go into court and have our respective rights defined. Until they are defined I hold my view, and do not deny their right to hold theirs." What more could an honourable citizen say?
Before this matter is disposed of, I should like to remind the House and especially the Minister for Finance, who has just intervened, that a hundred times over throughout this meeting reference was made to the important legal proceedings that were pending in Dublin.
What happened to them?
I cannot answer as to what happened to them. That does not concern me. The governing feature of the whole of this meeting was that those people were all interested and excited at the prospect of those legal proceedings. Acting in the perfectly legitimate and natural way that any farmer would, whether a Government employee or not, he thought that the sensible course was to take such action in the court as would have the execution of the Civil Bill decree stayed until the case in Dublin was decided. That was an absolutely natural and reasonable line to take. In point of fact those who did not take it, and who paid, are in many cases sorry that they did. I dare say my experience is not exceptional, and I have had letters from farmers who paid their instalments asking was there any system whereby they could get their money back. The course the man took was a natural one. I was constantly pressed to advise people not to pay their annuities last year, and I never agreed to give such advice. I went further than a great deal of my supporters would like, by recommending that the people who could afford to pay should pay. So far as Party influence was bearing on Mr. Gallagher it would be bearing in that direction. He was perfectly entitled to take the view he took of the proceedings pending, and he took the perfectly natural commonsense course for a man to take under those circumstances. Nothing the Minister has said has shaken me in the opinion that it was an outrage and a scandal to throw that man out after 21 years' service.
As I suspected, the Minister has not been able to advance one valid reason for Mr. Gallagher's dismissal. It has been demonstrated quite clearly that Mr. Gallagher acted quite within his rights. By the course which Mr. Gallagher took he acted within his rights as an ordinary citizen, and the Minister, in replying to the case made by Deputy MacDermot, Deputy Dillon and the other speakers, has not attempted to repudiate their statements. However, I am not so much interested in that point as I am in the statement he made in the course of his speech. I said it was the first time an official of the Land Commission had been dismissed for political reasons since the Land Commission was transferred to the Free State Government. I stated that very definitely. The Minister said that was dammed insolence on my part. Those were the words he used. Now I challenge the Minister to mention one case where an official of the Land Commission has been dismissed for his political views during the past ten or 11 years. This is the first time, so far as I am aware, that a political test has been applied in the Land Commission.
A Deputy
It was Mr. Gallagher applied the political test.
There seems to be a lot of simulated heat on the part of the law-and-order Party that has come amongst us, but there undoubtedly was a conspiracy within the last 12 months and people were advised not to pay. They got plenty of advice on it, and we can see the result. We can see Deputies of this House going down to the County Longford and breaking open the gates of the pound there.
A Deputy
You started the stunt in 1929.
I should like to hear a denial of that from Deputy MacDermot. I should like to know whether Deputy MacDermot went down to the County Longford, and that within two days after Deputy MacDermot visited County Longford the gates of the pound were broken open and the cattle rescued. I should like to hear Deputy MacDermot deny that.
I am afraid I am not acquainted with the incident, but I wish to assure the Deputy that I had nothing to do with breaking open the pound.
I am very doubtful.
It is the practice of this House to accept a Deputy's word in such cases.
We have a mental reservation. All this simulated heat is over an official who is paid out of public money. He had, we are told by Deputy Roddy, 22 years' service in the Land Commission. He had 22 years' service and still he was a temporary official.
Mr. Lynch
You will find plenty of them in the Civil Service.
Those temporary-permanent officials——
How many of them have you in the Cork County Council? They have been there for the last 40 years to my knowledge.
Those temporary-permanent officials were never fitted for their job, and were kept there for charity. This temporary-permanent official had 22 years' service. He was being paid out of money that had been collected from those who did pay their annuities. That was what he was being paid out of, and he was the man who was to go round and collect them, a man who would not pay his own and who was advising others not to pay. I know very well if he was collecting my money what I would tell him. I know very well what I would tell a gentleman who came round to me collecting and would not pay his own. That was the position in this case. I would like if these law-and-order gentlemen, who have turned up lately amongst us, would, first of all, try to keep a little law and order themselves.
Mr. Finlay made a remark which was inaudible.
The last time Deputy Finlay spoke here he accused the Leas-Cheann Comhairle of being a member of Cumann na nGaedheal. He called him "Mr. Cumann na nGaedheal."
The Deputy's ancestors acted as bailiffs and were in charge of pounds. Why does he want them disturbed?
That was a false statement. The Deputy has made a false statement, and I call upon you, a Chinn Comhairle, to ask him to withdraw it.
I did not catch the Deputy's statement.
Then all I have to say is that the Deputy is a damned liar.
That statement must be withdrawn.
Not unless Deputy Finlay withdraws his statement.
Then the Deputy must leave the House.
Very well, but again I say he is a damned liar, and if he wishes to come outside I will settle with him.
You might find your mistake.
Mr. Corry withdrew from the House.
Deputy Finlay alleged, a Chinn Comhairle, that Deputy Corry's ancestors acted as bailiffs or in some such occupation as that. Deputy Corry denied the statement and asked Deputy Finlay to withdraw it but Deputy Finlay has not done so. I think most members of the House heard the statement. He said further that Deputy Corry's relatives were at one time in charge of pounds and still were.
If the statements made were as the Minister alleges it should be withdrawn. The Chair did not catch the remarks.
Is there anything offensive in the statement?
No matter whether it is offensive or not.
I never made it.
The Deputy should be asked if he made it.
The Deputy states he did not make it.
Mr. Finlay made a remark which was inaudible.
Do not be a sneak. Stand up to it.
If the Ceann Comhairle calls upon a Deputy in this House to withdraw a statement and he does not do so is it quite sufficient for the Ceann Comhairle to ask him to withdraw from the House?
It is quite sufficient for the Ceann Comhairle to ask a Deputy to withdraw if he refuses to obey the Chair.
If the Deputy who has been asked to withdraw proceeds to repeat what he said outside the barrier?——
That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle.
That is a matter for the Ceann Comhairle but does he consider it sufficient——
Is Deputy Morrissey in order in suggesting to the Chair that he is not able to deal with a question of order?
That also is a matter for decision by the Ceann Comhairle.
Is Deputy Morrissey in order in suggesting that the Ceann Comhairle is not competent to deal with it?
With all possible respect I never suggested any such thing. It is only the Minister for Finance that suggested that. I have the fullest confidence in, and absolute respect for, the present occupant of the Chair.
Is it in order for a Deputy in this House to describe another Deputy as a sneak, as has been done?
I do not think it is unparliamentary, but it is an expression that should not be used.
I did not hear the statement of Deputy Finlay that gave so much offence to Deputy Corry, but if there is clear knowledge of what it was, and that Deputy Corry denies it, then I appeal in that case to Deputy Finlay to withdraw what Deputy Corry denies.
Certainly I withdraw it, but I said nothing of the kind.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Tá: 68; Níl: 49.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- 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.).
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Desmond, William.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Dillon and O'Donovan.
Motion declared carried.