The Deputy knows full well, although he was not in the House at the time, the reason why the Treaty was taken. It might be just as well to remind some of the people why it was. The late Michael Collins was mentioned by a Deputy on the other side. Look up his speeches and see why he took it, and look up the speeches of any of the people who took it at the time, and see why they took it. They took it because it was the alternative to war—to immediate and terrible war. That was Lloyd George's phrase, and that is why they accepted the Treaty, and why they accepted the office of Governor-General. If the office of Governor-General is retained to-day, it is because there is a fear in certain people's minds that, if it were abolished, you would have a renewal of some war. The people on the opposite side are crying out about the tariff war, and because there are people in this country who feel that if they completely and thoroughly ended the Treaty, there would be a renewal of a war of one kind or another, by a big State against ours, they are compelled in that particular way to submit to the retention of an office like this. We made a change in the occupancy. Why? Because we wanted to make it quite clear that the Governor-General functioning in this country, anyhow, so long as we were the Government, would just do what the Executive Council told him to do, and nothing more and nothing less. We wanted to make that quite clear and we made it quite clear that that is the position. It is the position, and it will remain the position as long as we are the Executive Council. He is, so far as we are concerned, to remain the instrument—it does not matter who holds the post—of the Executive Council of this State.
The personality of the present occupant was mentioned, and I shall just refer to it in passing. There is not a better Gael in Ireland, or a better man, than the present occupant of that post. He took the post as a matter of national duty, at a big sacrifice to himself, and he did it because he felt it was necessary to do it in the general interest of the country. He accepted the position on that basis and on no other. There was only one Deputy who had common sense enough to ask a question before he went a foolish distance with regard to the cost. I will give some of the particulars of the cost, and I will compare them later with the costs of his predecessor. As a result of the changes made during the last year, the entire cost of maintaining the office of Governor-General, including his salary, which is charged on the Central Fund, and the charges in this and in other Votes, is expected this year to be £5,083 as compared with £26,452 last year. It was really amusing to listen to these people talking now about economy on an expenditure which is only one quarter of the expenditure they themselves stood for. Listening to them talking one would think that all the entertainment of the State was borne by the Governor-General out of his £10,000 a year. Nothing of the sort. In addition to the £10,000, there was a further £16,000 for the upkeep of his establishment in other Votes. I am giving the total sum this year in our case as £5,000 and it will not amount to that because, as it was the first year, we were not able to estimate accurately what the cost would be, but I am perfectly certain that the cost of these items will be far less than the amount that is down here in the Estimate. Is it a fact that all the entertainment was paid for by the Governor-General out of his £10,000 a year salary? Nothing of the sort, because there were other Votes for entertainment. Going back beyond last year, which was exceptional on account of the Eucharistic Congress, to the previous year, when the Governor-General was costing £27,000, with his £10,000 salary, we find that there was, under Vote 66, for instance, provision for a sum of £1,250. It is suggested that we have put Votes elsewhere to make up for the loss of entertaining by the Governor-General. Look elsewhere for our Vote, and it will be found that it is only half, in respect of entertainment, what it was when the Governor-General was taking £10,000 a year. The present Governor-General is not taking £10,000 a year. We have to put £10,000 a year down in these Estimates, because it is a statutory salary payable out of the Central Fund. We are bound to offer it to the Governor-General, but the Governor-General is not bound to receive it, and the Governor-General is not, in fact, going to take it, and has not taken it. The total sum will not be more than £2,000, free of tax, so that, instead of this £10,000, of which we heard the previous speakers talking, it has been cut down to one-fifth of the sum.
As I have said, it might be worth while going through some of the items. The allowance to the Governor-General for the maintenance of his household has been reduced by £1,800 and travelling expenses by £75 and, as a matter of fact, these travelling expenses will not have to be paid unless they are actually incurred, and we do not believe that they will be incurred. Telegrams and telephones have been reduced by £80. If the Governor-General gets telegrams, I suppose he has to send replies and, while the sum we have estimated on this head is reduced by £80 we expect that, in fact, the actual saving will be far more. For the first year, however, we were unable to estimate it accurately, and to fine down the Estimate, as closely as if we had previous experience, under which circumstances we would be certain about the amount which would actually have to be borne. Reductions in the staff have resulted in a saving, on wages and salaries, of £787. There is an increase of £60 in the allowance for the Governor-General's motor car, which arises from particular circumstances. The previous Governor-General had three or four cars, a motor van and a whole number of other things, and the expenditure was not at all to be compared with that for this year. In addition to the saving of £2,682 shown on this Vote there is a net reduction of £10,877 in the charges on other Votes in connection with the Governor-General's establishment. That is attributable chiefly to the closing of the Viceregal Lodge and to the fact that the Governor-General has taken up residence in a comparatively small house, rented and maintained out of his allowance of £1,200 in the past year.
