Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1936

Vol. 63 No. 2

Vote 1—Governor—General's Establishment.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,327 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha í rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1937, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Teaghlachas an tSeanascail (Uimh. 14 de 1923).

That a sum not exceeding £1,327 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, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Governor-General's Establishment (No. 14 of 1923).

The details of this Estimate are substantially the same as last year. There is an increase of £12 in sub-head A, of which £5 is due to the normal increment in the salary of the Private Secretary and £6 is an addition to his bonus. The increase is more than offset by a reduction of £15 in the allowance for travelling expenses, leaving a net decrease of £3 in the total amount of the Estimate. When speaking on this Vote last year I said that I had thought that would be the last time it would be necessary to ask the Dáil to make provision for the Governor-General's establishment. My expectation has not been realised. Pressure of other urgent Parliamentary business made it impracticable to introduce, as I had hoped, during the present session the contemplated proposals for the new Constitution. The general plan of these proposals, which the Government hopes to place before the Dáil in the autumn, includes the abolition of the office of Governor-General. I may say that I am conscious of the desirability, which has more than once been stressed in discussions on this Vote, of having someone outside and above political Parties to act on public occasions as the ceremonial head of the State. I have, however, views as to the method of appointing such a person which differ, I think, from those of the Opposition, chiefly because I feel that if we are to have an office of this kind the person holding it should have a more important function than that of appending his signature to Bills or of officiating at a garden party or a race meeting. I think that the person to act as head of the State here should be directly elected by the people and be responsible to them as the supreme guardian of their constitutional rights. I had the creation of such an office in mind in 1921, and I have often left since that if such an office had then existed our people might have been spared much of the misery that followed. I do not propose at this stage to say more. The full proposals will be submitted to the Dáil within a few months, and ample time will be then afforded for their discussion. I hope that when they are brought here for discussion members of the Opposition will consider them on their merits and with a single-minded regard to the permanent interests of the country.

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. In moving this motion. I should like to express satisfaction that the President of the Executive Council has committed himself to the view that there should be a person who can be described as head of the State, outside the conflicts of Party politics here. He refrained from indicating whether that person after being elected by the people, as he described, would or would not be the representative of the Crown in this country. Perhaps he would give us an indication of his intentions on that point when he is replying.

Among the many interesting things that the President said in the course of his speeches of last week, to me the most interesting was his suggestion that we could all combine in regarding as the overshadowing constitutional issue in this country, the reunion of Ireland. I greatly regret that by an unavoidable accident I was unable to be present at the debate on the President's Department yesterday, to enlarge on that theme. But it is germane to what he has just said to suggest to him that in coming to a conclusion upon this question of having a representative of the Crown as the ceremonial head of the State, he should take into very serious consideration its reactions upon the North of Ireland. I could go much further, I need not say, on that topic, but I imagine it would not be in order on this particular Estimate.

It is not very easy to make a speech that is in order on this Estimate. In fact anybody who is moving to refer back the Governor—General's Estimate for reconsideration finds himself in somewhat the same position as the Governor—General does—that is to say, that what he may not do is much clearer than what he may do. He is hedged about by all sorts of restrictions and prohibitions——

A Deputy

Sanction.

——arising out of rulings on previous occasions. It has been held not to be proper to go into any sort of full discussion as to the desirability of having such a functionary or as to the merit of the individual who is in the position of Governor—General and the manner in which he performs his duties. But what is quite strictly relevant is to consider whether the establishment that we are asked to provide for by this Vote is actually appropriate to the duties that the Government allows him to perform. Now, the salary of £2,000 of the Governor—General is provided out of the Central Fund and we are not concerned with it this evening. In addition, there are various other sums provided for that are not included in this evening's Estimate, sums for stationery and printing, sums for the Gárda Síochána attached, I suppose, to the Governor—General, and for posts and Telegraphs services of the Governor—General. These are not included in this Estimate, but in this Estimate are included some other sums for telegrams and telephones, sums for a motor—car, travelling expenses, household expenses, salaries and wages and an allowance for the household staff.

It may seem a little ungracious to query these expenditures, after the President has told us that it is the last time we shall be called upon to sanction them, and also because the Governor-General has celebrated, his final year by an outstanding, sensational, and perhaps the only activity that has been connected with his tenure of office. I refer to the exchange of cables between him and President Roosevelt on the subject of the death of his late Majesty, which the Executive Council so modestly concealed from public notice until I elicited the information by a Parliamentary question. Because of that, and because the Estimate is not to be submitted to us again, it might seem a little ungracious to be questioning these sums were it not that a sense of public duty really compels me to do so.

It was humorously said in America, in connection with the New Deal, that, under the arrangements introduced by the Brain Trust at Washington, it had become more profitable for a farmer to abstain from farming than to farm and that a man could make more money by not raising hogs than he had ever been able to make by raising hogs. I cannot help feeling that, much as the Fianna Fáil Party used to protest against the salary and expenses allowed to the Governor-General under the last régime when Deputy Cosgrave was President of the Executive Council, in fact what they have been doing is more extravagant, because the money that is being handed over to the present Governor—General has not to be spent at all in the public service. I am making no insinuation against Mr. Buckley, or any reflection upon his honour or character, when I say that he has been giving absolutely no value, on account of the Government's restrictions and regulations, for the public money appropriated to the upkeep of his establishment.

We have had a good deal of facetiousness on previous occasions in connection with this Vote. We have heard the Governor-General compared to the man in the iron mask, to the invisible man, to somebody marooned on a desert island, and to a remittance man, paid so much a year as long as he keeps himself out of sight. All these comparisons, facetious though they are, have their justification because, at the bottom of them all, there is the cast iron fact that over and above a salary of £2,000, and some other odd sums, outside this Estimate, there is a further £2,000 in this Estimate, which is being paid away to him for simply doing nothing.

There is no reason why we should provide Mr. Buckley with a motor car or with the various officials attached to him—a chaplain and private secretary and soforth—when in fact absolutely all that is required of him is to do a little clerical work by signing his name that would be overpaid for by £200 a year, and to keep out of sight. A total of £4,000 a year is paid to a man on the main condition that he keeps out of sight. Without any antagonism to, or reflection upon, Mr. Buckley, I would say one of two things must be happening. Either he is accumulating a fortune out of money that ought to be spent for the public benefit, or else the money must be going in some direction that was not contemplated by those who assented to the payment of that money. The money should be spent upon State purposes and no other purposes. So far from there being any evidence that it is being spent rightly, all the evidence is that it cannot be spent rightly because the person receiving these sums is not allowed to do the sort of things that would make them appropriate.

It is easy to mention the sort of things that the Governor-General is not doing, and it is no blame to him that he is not doing them. He is not receiving foreign representatives in this country in the name of the King. The President of the Executive Council has undertaken himself to act for the King on such occasions. He is not contributing to the carrying on of the government of this country by any advice or suggestions drawn from ripe administrative experience. He is not fulfilling any function of political appeasement as between parties such as the head of the State on occasions is expected to fulfil. He is not providing in his establishment any sort of rallying place for culture in this country. He is not bringing people together and providing an opportunity for greater knowledge of each other and appreciation of each other by different sections of our community. A great deal could be done to bring together what used to be called the old ascendancy class and others who are not of that class. A great deal could be done to bring together the new intellectuals and the old conservatives, and to help to weld all our people into one. Nothing of that sort is being attempted by our present Governor-General; nor is he allowed to attempt it. There is nothing personal against the Governor-General in my remarks. I only repeat to-day what I have stressed each year in this Assembly, that the Government have no excuse for calling upon us to provide this money.

When the county that I represent heard, some years ago, of the appointment of Mr. Donal Buckley as Governor-General, we considered it, and rightly so, an honour to the county. But in my view, not speaking in any way as a political representative, but speaking as a mere citizen, the County Kidare has found this to be rather an empty houour indeed. The President informed us that the Vote for the Governor-General is substantially the same as last year. I wonder is the Governor-General himself substantially the same as last year. We do not know where he is. Where is the Governor-General? If an ex-serviceman wants to get a pension or to get his allowance, he has to have a certificate signed that he is alive, and he must produce that certificate. Not so with the Governor-General. Nobody knows where he is. If a man is not genuinely seeking work, he is knocked off unemployment assistance. Does the same rule apply to the Governor-General? I recall that when I pronounced the Governor-General's title in Irish last year, it brought a certain amount of laughter. I am not going to venture to do that again, because my Irish is still in the same position in which it then was. On one point I do not agree with Deputy MacDermot's reference to the Governor-General. That point is in relation to the Governor-General possibly augmenting his private fortune or the funds paid to the Governor-General being directed into other channels. I may possibly assist Deputy MacDermot when I say that I do not believe he meant that reference in any kind of way which would seem mean. As we have not anybody here to speak for the Governor-General himself—the President, when he mentions the Governor-General, does so as if he hated to have to do it—

If I may interrupt, I should like to say that there was absolutely no imputation whatever against Mr. Buckley in what I said. He could not do otherwise than he has done as regards that money.

That makes the matter clearer. In his introduction to the Vote, the President intimated that the future head of the State, however he is to be designated, would be elected by popular vote. I hope the President will elaborate somewhat more the manner in which he intends that election should take place. How are the candidates to be put forward, or is only one candidate to be put forward? There is one other point in connection with the Governor-General to which I should like to allude. That is, as many would have thought and as I think in all sincerity, that he would have thought fit, acting as he is to-day and in the position which he occupies, to be present at the funeral of the late King. I do not know why it was not so. After all, he is the King's direct representative here. I am sorry to say that, in the elections taking place at the moment, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who went over to attend the King's funeral, has been the subject of attack on that account. Possibly, if the Governor-General had been present at the funeral, it would have saved that attack on the Lord Mayor. Whether that would be to the Lord Mayor's disadvantage or not, it is not my business to elucidate or investigate. I hope the Governor-General will not, next year, be substantially the same as he is this year.

This question of the Governor-General and his abolition is one of the points of the President's constitution-mongering scheme that are very detrimentally affecting the economic position of the country. Therefore, it is necessary that we should be a little bit clearer than the President has left us as regards his proposals. The President has told us that, next year, the office of Governor-General will not exist, that there will be a head of the State, that this head of the State will be directly elected by the people and will be responsible to them as supreme guardian of their constitutional rights. We should like a little more information as to what power is to be resided in a head of the State responsible to the people as the supreme guardian of their constitutional rights. Does the President contemplate that the supreme guardian of the people's constitutional rights should have power to step in and say: "Stop the economic war?" Does he consider that it has anything to do with the constitutional rights of Irish farmers that a situation should be created by the Government which reduces the prices of their cattle from £18 to, say, £9 or £10? It is very important at this particular time when, apparently, the President's proposals in connection with the Governor-General are being formulated, that we should know whether it is intended to perpetuate a system by which the farmer suffers in that way while, in respect of export trade, the country leses from £11,000,000 to £12,000,000 a year. Is there in the President's proposal any grain of hope that the new type of head of the State, appointed in this way, would have power, as supreme guardian of the people's constitutional rights, to step in and bring to an end the set of circumstances which are causing the people so great loss? We should like to have information with regard to that.

We should also like to know, with a view to seeing whether hope is any nearer than we think, whether or not the position of Governor-General is one of those things which are in political dispute between the Free State Government and the Government of Great Britain. When the President was dealing with his External Affairs Estimates he implied that he and his Government would be perfectly ready to sit down and bring to a satisfactory conclusion the economic differences that exist between his Government and the Government of Great Britain but that the Government of Great Britain required that, as well as bringing about a settlement of the economic matters in dispute, there should be brought about a settlement of certain political matter in dispute. Therefore, the position of the country to-day is that no hope is extended to the people by the President or his Government that the economic damage being done by the Government's policy to the country is going to stop until a certain number of political questions between this Government and the British Government are settled. It is important that we should have an express statement from the President as to whether or not the position of the Governor-General is one of the issues in dispute. Twice within the last few days we have drawn attention to interviews published, as coming from the Vice-President, in Irish newspapers and French newspapers, to the effect that in 1932 they were within a measurable distance of settlement of some of these questions and that political difficulties were drawn across the issues. Was the position of the Governor-General discussed in any of the conversations that went on? I think in view of the statement that the President has made to the House we ought to have some explanation of these points.

Deputy J.M. O'Sullivan last night said that the President was gradually assuming the character of President Tá and President Níl in this country. The older and less complimentary phrase of that was to describe a person as being like Leanbh Machree's dog, who ran a bit of the road with everybody. He is in the Commonwealth of Nations and out of it; he is at war with Great Britain but is anxious to form an alliance with them; he is in the League of Nations but is thinking of leaving it; he is denouncing the Public Safety Act, but deems it his duty to use it. Can we ever hope that the Fianna Fáil Party, led by President de Valera, will ever come down on one side of anything, or are we ever to contemplate the spectacle of the whole crowd of them trying to straddle every fence to which they come? I believe we are now to be introduced to another face-saving device by Fianna Fáil. We are to accomplish a government without a Governor-General. I remember here on the occasion of the President's first election to the office that he holds now. Deputy Seán Moylan thwacking the desk when proposing the President for office and saying "with the help of God", and there was a pious "amen" from the remainder of the members of the Party, "I shall propose him as first President of the republic this time five years." This is to save the faces of everybody.

We are now in this addition to be in the Commonwealth and a republic; we are to be a member of the League of Nations and not a member of the League of Nations; we are to have a Governor-General and no Governor-General. Let us face this fact calmly—our Constitution under which we are at present living requires that the law of this country to be the law must be passed by Oireachtas Eireann and receive the assent of his Majesty the King. The office of the Governor-General is simply to discharge the constitutional duties of the monarch within the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann, and it does not matter how the person chosen for that office is chosen. So far as I am aware, in the long run, so long as our present constitutional status remains, the President, acting on behalf of the Executive Council, must recommend the name of some person to his Majesty, and on receiving the King's assent that person becomes Governor-General and acts for the purpose of implementing the law and in several other constitutional matters as the representative of the Sovereign in this country.

Is it proposed to make any fundamental change in that Constitution, because if such proposition is in the minds of the Executive Council the country ought to know it, and if it is not, why does the President pursue the policy which has become associated with his name in the public life of this country of bewildering and deceiving the people who place their trust in him? No one can close his eyes to the fact that there is a very considerable body of people in this country who have a profound belief and almost reverence for the person of the President of the Executive Council. If he says that something is the case, those people pin their faith to that act of belief, the reason for which even they find it extremely difficult to understand. Their faith has led up to the conclusion that President de Valera has said it and it must be true. Very well now, either we are to have a Governor-General or we are not. Why does the President, enjoying the prestige he has with the people, stoop to the expedient of ambiguity in that matter? I say that because it is stooping for somebody who has the confidence of the people not to tell them honestly what the facts are. Surely the ordinary people must have much more respect for the man who says, "I will not declare a republic; the circumstances make it impossible for me to do so," than for the person who says, "Although I know that it is not in the best interests of the country to declare a republic, though at one time I said it was in their best interest, but, knowing now it is not, I am not prepared to do it, but I am going to try to deceive the people into the belief that I am to declare a republic when in my heart I know that I have no intention of doing so."

Now, the purpose of this grand new departure, whereby the Executive Council's nominee as Governor-General is to be elected by the people, is the sheerest piece of codology. Because what will happen is that the Party which wins the general election will name the person they otherwise would name to the King and he will become one of the candidates on the Party panel. That form will be gone through and some of the more innocent members of the Fianna Fáil Party who have been talking about a republic down the country will go down and say: "This is the same as President— what is the difference?" The average person down the country will ask himself: "What is the difference?" President de Valera wants us to believe that there is no difference?" but we who understand the situation know very well where the difference comes in. Constitutionally he remains the representative of his Majesty in Saorstát Eireann, and he is not the President of an independent republic having no association with the Commonwealth of Nations.

Why cannot we be honest in this matter? In this I direct my observations to the President personally. Why cannot the President realise that, having the prestige he has, he should not stoop to deceit of that kind? I know it is clever deceit. I know it is the kind of deceit that he can get away with, but it is deceit that will be exposed some day to the minds of the people who understand how it happens. Because some day they will discover what it is, and, having then had reason to distrust his word, their disillusion will be proportionate to the amount of confidence they have in him now. I think the people would have more confidence in the President if he came out and said: "I did say that I would get a republic; I now find I cannot get a republic. I made a mistake. Maybe we will be able to get a republic in the next generation or in the generation following that, but in the meantime we have to face facts, and the fact is that it is now in the best interests of the people to remain in the Commonwealth of Nations, and I am not going to encourage them in leaving the British Commonwealth of Nations."

I believe if the President had the courage to say that, 90 per cent. of his followers and a great many of ours would say: "That is honest talk." It is no discredit to any man to get up in public and say honestly that he miscalculated the future. Mind you, the Minister for Justice to whom a tribute has been paid in this House, has earned that tribute by his disarming statement here. He got up and said that "it is scandalous for the present members of the Opposition to be embarrassing us; you could not blame us for doing that when in Opposition, because we did not understand; but those who sit on the Front Opposition Benches do understand what the responsibilities of office mean." It was so true that there could be no excuse for anybody here acting irresponsibly, because they do not believe they have ever acted irresponsibly. The difference between their attitude and the President's attitude to the Government in 1931 is evidence of the fact that there is responsibility here.

Is not that travelling very far away?

I believe the people appreciate that. I do not believe anyone is able to make any capital out of it. I believe that when the Acting Minister for Justice makes a statement of that kind it cannot be used against him, because the person who tries to use it against him on a public platform will find the very admission recoiling upon himself like a boomerang. Why cannot the President take up the same attitude? I know the President can weave words and probably will at the end of the debate in order to involve the whole of this problem in a cloud of incomprehensible verbiage. But he ought to settle it in one way or the other finally—whether the Governor-General is to be the representative of His Majesty in this country or whether he is not. If he is to be the representative of His Majesty in this country, it does not matter two straws how his identity is arrived at—whether he is nominated by the Executive Council after the general election, which is the present system, or before the general election, which is the President's present proposal, the result will be exactly the same. These kind of things, as Deputy Mulcahy pointed out, are the kind of things that upset the whole country. People do not know where they are. One goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning, and does not know what kind of an upheaval one will be launched into the middle of.

I respectfully submit to the President that what this country wants far more than any Constitution-mongering, which he or his Ministers may feel inclined to indulge in, is peace. We have not had peace in this country for the past 20 years. I believe that what is in the minds of 95 per cent. of the people is: "How long, O Lord, how long are we to go on chopping and changing and having sensations and grand declarations that the dawn of freedom is at hand?" Peace is what the people want. Is the country going to get it? When is the President going to be finished with chopping and changing, and making fine distinctions as to whether people are seanascails or governors-general, or presidents of republics that do not exist? Let him come out frankly and tell the truth. If he does, I think he will be astonished by the measure of support which he will get from the vast majority of the people for a calm, truthful, and honest facing up to the facts that will confront our nation, whether we like it or not.

Deputy Dillon alluded to the innocent members of the Finna Fáil Party. There are no innocent members of the Finna Fáil Party. I think the only innocent member in the House is the Deputy himself. On every conceivable subject introduced here, whether by way of a Bill, an Estimate, a resolution or anything else, Deputy Dillon is on his feet—on buttons, flannelette, pigs, malt, whether liquid or otherwise, beet, wheat, and so on, every conceivable subject.

I am going to York Street now.

I am glad to hear it. I took the liberty the other night of discussing Deputy Dillon with a friend of mine and I asked him, "Do you know what Deputy Dillon's age is?" He said, "No, I do not."

The relevance of this is very remote.

It is not remote from you. It is very personal.

A Deputy

He thought he was growing up.

He was like Peter Pan, the boy that never grew up. How old can he be I wonder? My friend could not say. Deputy Dillon bears an honoured name in Irish history. He can go back, I think, with pride over two or three generations, if he looks back. I am fairly old now, but I remember the time when his father and William O'Brien and Michael Davitt were three men who had the affection of the people of this city and country to an extraordinary degree.

On a point of order. I deeply appreciate the Deputy's observations but might I inquire whether they are strictly relevant to the matter in hands?

I understand that the matter before the House is Vote No. 1, and I fail to see any relevancy between that Vote and the remarks of the Deputy.

I was going to relate them, if I was allowed. The Deputy is a bit impetuous as well as every other disability he suffers from. I was going to relate them, but I am afraid I have forgotten what I was going to say. The position is that members here are not satisfied with the present arrangement in reference to the Governor-General. Complaints are made about it. The Deputy opposite wants him produced. He wants a habeas corpus to produce the man. Others say, “Where is he, what is he doing? We do not know.” They are not satisfied evidently with the present position.

Where is he?

If you are so anxious about it, I respectfully submit that you are the man to find out. I do not care where he is. The President has come forward with a motion that he proposes to put this very high position on a different basis altogether.

On a point of order. The President has not come forward with any such motion. He has come forward with an Estimate for £2,000.

You interrupted, according to Deputy Dillon, at the wrong time.

It is well for the President that he did interrupt you.

I might have given the game away. The President intimated that the position will be reconsidered during the Autumn and a new proposition brought forward.

When that comes along it may be considered.

We have been discussing it for the last hour.

It was discussed from the opposite Benches at some length. The President was asked to state definitely what he meant, what his proposition was going to be.

What about the King of Dalkey Island?

That individual is only in being for one day in the year. The President says he will produce this change later on and we are perfectly satisfied and have full confidence that what he will produce will be sound and acceptable to the Irish people. We have not the smallest possible doubt about it. If Deputy Dillon would only try to consider the matter from a sensible standpoint he would not be making speeches here and, to use a rather vulgar expression, constituting himself a nuisance.

There is no need for me, I think, once more to repeat what I said last year about the person who is at present Governor-General. That man has rendered and will, I am perfectly certain, be recognised as having rendered as great a service to this nation during those years as any man could have rendered. The sum provided is a modest one. The Executive Council insisted on a reasonable sum being made available for his establishment as long as he was there. It is a reasonable sum. It is only one-sixth of the amount that was expended formerly, and I deny that any person who was in that position formerly gave any more service in reality to this State than he has given. In fact, if I were to judge, and I think if the people of Ireland as a whole were to judge, they would say that the present occupant has rendered genuine national service by his conduct, whereas that cannot be said of those who went before him.

As I have said, we are bringing this proposal here for the last time. Of course, one cannot ever stop Deputy Dillon from speculating. He will speculate about all sorts of things. He has not sense enough to wait until he knows what the proposition is, or listen to the language in which a proposition is stated, before he starts criticising it. I said in the most unambiguous language that the proposals which we will bring forward for the new Constitution will mean the abolition of the office of Governor-General, and I hope it will be taken as equally unambiguous when I say, in reply to Deputy MacDermot, that the person who will occupy that office will be the people's representative, elected by the people and representing nobody else. Is that definite enough? As I have said, I do not propose at this stage to go into these proposals any more because, as I indicated yesterday, I think it is only right that the proposals, when they come before the House, should be taken as a whole, and that they ought to be discussed as a whole and not piecemeal. I introduced this matter at this stage simply to explain why it was that the promise that I made last year has not been kept. I said last year that I hoped it would be the last time it would be necessary to introduce this Estimate. The hope was not realised for the reasons I indicated this evening in my opening statement, namely, that the pressure of other work prevented us from having the new Constitution introduced in this Session, and the introduction of it would have meant the abolition of the post.

I do not know why Deputy MacDermot brought in the question of the telegram which was sent to the President of the United States. He talked about something being hidden away. Well, when you have gentlemen like Deputy MacDermot about you may be perfectly certain that, if there was anything that could cause any trouble by misrepresentation of its effect, it would be brought out. I read the reply, and I have no hesitation in reading it again, to the President of the United States.

Will the President indicate what is the misrepresentation that he refers to?

The misrepresentation was about the hiding away. What ground had the Deputy for saying that we hid it away?

May I answer the question?

The ground was that, unlike every other Prime Minister in the British Empire, the President did not publish the telegram until he was forced to do so by Parliamentary question.

Did the President publish any of the telegrams? Are our relations in connection with this matter the same as those of Dominion Prime Ministers? Is that not an answer? The Deputy knows perfectly well why that, any more than other things, was not published. We did not publish any of them. What does the Deputy mean by hiding away? Is not the whole of our policy perfectly well known to the people of this country and is our action not quite consistent with it? A telegram was received from the head of a State. A courteous reply was due and was sent in the express terms in which I, also, who got a similar telegram, replied. The President of the Executive Council replied to the Secretary of State of the same State who sent him a similar telegram. There was no secrecy about it, and I call it misrepresentation on the Deputy's part. It is the same sort of attitude that is adopted by Deputy Dillon—that we are deceiving the Irish people. I doubt if ever there was put on paper before an election as explicit a statement of our policy as was put by me to the people before the last two elections. I ask anybody to point to as detailed a carrying out of the proposals that we put before the people as there has been in our case. I promised the people that the Oath would go, and that other things would go. I promised the people that before the bigger constitutional changes were made that they would be consulted, and that is going to be the position. There is no ambiguity whatever about our position. People try to pretend that there is ambiguity in because there is evidently ambiguity in their own minds with regard to it. As I have said, I do not want to go into the matter any more at this stage, because the proper time to deal with this is when the proposals as a whole come before the Dáil.

The President seems to be reading something a good deal more offensive into my remarks than was intended. What I said was that these telegrams were concealed, and what I meant by that was that they would not have, in fact, been published unless I had asked about them. I think the President has implied that that is so.

I can only say that the Deputy is very clever in using the words that he has used. I take it that the meaning of the word "concealed" is that you deliberately intended to hide them away from the people?

Well, I say that that is untrue.

Would they have been published if I had not asked the question?

It is untrue to say that these were deliberately withheld from the people. The non-publication of them was strictly in line with our whole attitude to this whole question. When they were asked for they were given without apology in the very same terms as I have given them now.

Amendment put.

Is the Deputy pressing his amendment to a division?

I do not want to press it to a division, but I wish it to go on record that I object.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share