Financial Resolutions—Report (Resumed). - Proposed Sale of Distillery—Motion for Select Committee (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Thursday, 30 Oct 1947

Financial Resolutions—Report (Resumed). - Proposed Sale of Distillery—Motion for Select Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a Select Committee consisting of 11 Deputies to be appointed by the Committee of Selection and with power to send for persons, papers and documents be established publicly to investigate and to report to the Dáil on all facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding any proposal made or attempted to be made at any time since the 1st January, 1946, either to buy or to sell Locke's Distillery, Kilbeggan, or any part of the property or business thereof.—(Risteárd Ua Maolchatha.)

The Taoiseach

I was attempting last night to find my way through the mass of allegations and to ascertain, if possible, what matter of substance there was in that mass. It was obvious that all the allegations suggested corruption. It is a favourite word of the Opposition when they want to throw mud at the Government. The first person to be attacked was the President. I pointed out that the suggestion was that the President knew—because, if he did not know it, there could be no suggestion that his office would be used to influence the Minister for Industry and Commerce—that certain people of shady character were in this country: that he had them to the President's home and entertained them there, and that they went there for the purpose of "softening" things.

I tried to examine that allegation in detail and to point out that there was no reason for any ordinary decent person to believe that the President knew who these people were: that the ordinary person looking at that, calmly and judicially, would come to the conclusion that they had been introduced to the President—I have not asked him— by one of the persons named, a Mr. Sweeney who happened to be a relation, the relationship being that he was the husband of the niece of the wife of the President. It was reported in the papers that these people had been at the President's home. That is, I take it, a fact. Nobody denies it. But what is denied is the suggestion that the President acted improperly. There could be no question of his having acted improperly if he was not aware that these people were of a shady kind. It was suggested that he acted improperly, and that he did so deliberately for the purpose of enabling these people, by association with him, to influence the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I say that there is no decent person who would accept that suggestion. What the ordinary decent person would conclude is that, as I have said, these people were introduced to the President. Mr. Eindiguer was probably represented to him in the same terms—I have not got the paper with me—as the terms in which his character was represented in the Irish Times. The editor of the Irish Times was, I suppose, misled also, if as has been suggested, there was anything wrong with Mr. Eindiguer. We, as I have said, have not so far been able to find anything whatever shady about him. He was, however, in company with two people of whom we cannot say the same thing—one of these having come over here with him, Mr. Maximoe as he turned out to be, Smith as he represented himself to be. In all probability, again, a person anxious not to misrepresent but to come at the truth would conclude that it was quite possible, too, that Mr. Eindiguer had been deceived by Maximoe, because the character in which Maximoe came here with Mr. Eindiguer was that of an interpreter. Is there anything in this, as regards the conduct of the President, which requires to be inquired into? That is my first question. It is suggested we should set up an inquiry. Is it suggested that there is anything in the conduct of the President to be inquired into? It was suggested that the staff had not done their duty properly. I say that, in the circumstances, I cannot see how any blame could attach to the staff. In this matter, I would, naturally, like to hear from members of the Dáil who may speak later, in what respect, if any, we have to inquire into the conduct of the President. As a matter of fact, we cannot directly inquire into it, of course, but if it should appear in the course of the inquiry which is to take place that there is anything which in any way reflects upon the honour or the character of the President or upon his fitness for office, there is prescribed in our Constitution a way for dealing with it. I leave the President and the allegations against him there.

I next come to the allegations against myself. It was quite clear from the suggestions made by Deputy Flanagan that a watch to be given to my son was also to "soften things". It could only happen if either I or the Minister for Industry and Commerce were going to be influenced by that. Deputy Flanagan's words as reported in column 833 of the Official Report of the 22nd October, 1947, were as follows:

"I have certain information at my disposal which I am prepared to hand over to the Minister and which would have very serious consequences if an investigation or an inquiry is held, in so far as this gentleman, Mr. George Eindiguer, stated in the presence of a number of citizens in a certain hotel in this city that it was suggested by Senator Quirke that it might be a nice friendly gesture if Mr. Eindiguer would bring over a gold watch and give it to the Taoiseach's son as a present in order to soften things."

There is clearly in that the insinuation that I was to be influenced or that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was to be influenced in that way. I ask: Is there any decent Deputy in this House who believes that that is true: who believes that we should set up a judicial inquiry to examine into it? I had never heard about the watch. The moment I heard about it—I forget whether I actually heard it here or was informed later of the statement that was made here—I said to myself: "What is all this about?" When I looked into it, the first thing that occurred to me was that Mr. Eindiguer did not speak English at all, and that it was a remarkable fact that this gentleman was supposed to have held forth in an hotel before a number of citizens, telling them about this. I made inquiries and I found, from Senator Quirke, that the facts were as they have been stated by the Tánaiste.

But, of course, Deputy Flanagan says: "Nobody is going to believe that cock-and-bull story.""Nobody is going to believe that cock-and-bull story"—in other words, Deputy Flanagan wants to suggest that the story is untrue. I cannot, of myself, know whether it is true or untrue, but Senator Quirke will be given an opportunity at the inquiry, when it is held, of explaining the whole situation. Anything I would say, anything the Minister for Industry and Commerce would say, would probably not be accepted, because it is simply the information we have got from another person, but that other person will be there to give first-hand information.

I only say with regard to these two matters that any decent-minded person would have tried to get to the bottom of them before they made these public charges. But they are splendid charges to make at a time of by-elections, and they are splendid charges to make when you think that even the truth when it is known will not be believed, that it will be regarded simply as a "cock-and-bull story".

I next come to the charge against the Minister for Justice and will just recapitulate some of the points I was dealing with last night. The accusation against the Minister for Justice, to start with, was that he was a friend of this man, Sachsel; that the man, Maximoe, was arrested in this man's house—the house of the friend of the Minister for Justice—that the Minister for Justice was in some sort of a deal, as far as I could make out—it was so vague that I could hardly understand what was suggested—that he was in some sort of deal with one of these people about the export of cloth. Is there anybody in this House, I ask, who knows the Minister for Justice, who will believe for one second that this suggestion is true? He has told you the circumstances in which this man first came to his notice in connection with this matter. We are to spend public money, spend the time of judges, in examining into that.

General MacEoin

We are not asking for that.

The Taoiseach

Yes, you are asking it. You are asking that all these things be examined into, and all these things will have to be examined into, necessarily, if this inquiry is to do what it is suggested on the opposite benches is so necessary to be done in order to clear the atmosphere. We are told that the men who sit on these benches, the 11 men who constitute the Government, are a set of rogues and that the only point is they have not yet been found out.

Mr. Flanagan

You will not be long there.

The Taoiseach

Of course, these allegations will have to be examined. Magna est veritas, et prxvalebit— great is truth, and it will triumph— and Deputy Flanagan will learn that yet. The next person was the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In his capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce, there is placed upon him a burden of extremely heavy duties. He has to examine all sorts of applications and decide upon them and, of course, it can always be suggested, in regard to every application that he grants, that he granted the application because the person who applied was a friend. In other words, if you come to the Department of Industry and Commerce with an application, making a demand or request, in accordance with the propositions you have to put forward, and if you happen to be a person who supports the Government, representing, as it does, one-half of the people of this country, he must not give ear to you. Otherwise, if he gives ear to any such person, he is open to the accusation that he is acting in a partisan manner.

In other words, the only way in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce can act and avoid misrepresentation is that he must always accede to the requests of those who are known to be opponents and never accede to the request or to the proposal of anybody who happens to be a supporter of the Government. The Minister can always be accused of partiality, just as even the examiners of the Civil Service Commission have been from time to time accused whenever a competitive post happens to go to one who can be known to be in some way or other a supporter of the Government.

I said at one time here in this House, and I was sneered at for it, that on the ordinary law of averages—I was represented next day as saying that that should be a rule—if you take positions that are got, in the Civil Service or anywhere else, and if you could find out what are the political views of the persons appointed, on the law of averages it should turn out, roughly, that one in every two appointments would be of one who is a supporter of the Government. But when the law of averages works in the case of applications made to the Department of Industry and Commerce, when applications that come from people who could be supposed to be supporters of the Government are accepted, our opponents point to them and accuse the Minister of corrupt practice.

It is very hard for any decent man to stand up against criticism of that sort. But the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been accused in this matter. I have no doubt that, when the inquiry is held, the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be able to show that anything he did in this case, as in any of the other cases he has had to deal with, he did in a judicial capacity, appraising the merits of the proposition that was put to him and considering the interests of the country as a whole in the judgement which he gave.

These are, as far as I know, the Ministers whose decency, whose integrity, has been impugned in these allegations. I come now to a member of the Seanad, and again we find ourselves in the same position in which we find ourselves in regard to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Senator Quirke happens to be also a businessman. Is it to be suggested that he should not, because he is a member of the Seanad, engage in any business? Are we to have wholetime politicians, only, in this Parliament? Is that the way in which we are to have our people represented? Is that the way in which our Parliament is to be constituted? Is it not well known that, except those of us who have whole-time offices, the members of this Parliament have other business, and is it going to be asserted that, when they are doing that business and when, for instance, in connection with that business some allegations are made as to their associates or something else, that that is a matter which reflects upon the dignity of this Parliament or is a matter which it is proper for this House to inquire into?

I think that would take us very far indeed. What we here in this House have to inquire into is how far, in his public actions as a member of the Oireachtas, a person behaves improperly. We have different standards, each one of us. I hope that we would all at least have one common standard of decency, but we have all different standards in connection with various things. Are we to try to impose a special standard of membership here? The only way that can be done is by the people who elect us. We cannot veto any person and prevent him from coming into this House if he has been duly elected by the voters in the constituency. That is the only test of his private capacity. Many of us may think that individual members of this House in some private capacity may not be up to the standards that we think desirable, but we cannot pursue that course and say that we are going to set up certain standards which we will insist upon in regard to the private conduct of individuals before they are members of this House. Businessmen, then, who are members of this House or of the other House, in so far as their private actions are concerned, are subject only to the ordinary law, and also subject, of course, to popular judgement on their conduct.

If, then, it were a question simply of some particular associations or contacts, if I may put it that way, which Senator Quirke had in a business way, so far as he had these contacts and their extent, could that matter be examined into? If that were the question, it would be no business for us. It is not our business, but, of course, the suggestion is that Senator Quirke was not merely a businessman in this: he was also a member of the Seanad, and being a member of the Seanad and a member of the Seanad supporting the Government, he would use his public capacity, his public position, in order to get concessions.

That is the allegation. Is there a single iota of evidence that has been produced to suggest that that allegation is founded on fact? I can see none, but yet we here have got to set up a tribunal to examine into this allegation, vague and indefinite, to find out whether Senator Quirke in his capacity as an auctioneer, in his dealings with solicitors, in his dealings with business men and in so far as in any capacity whatever he had contact with the Minister for Justice, to find out in what regard there was anything improper in his actions. As I have said, I see nothing in that that would really justify an inquiry. What is left of all these allegations that we have to inquire into, I cannot see, but, of course, we must have the inquiry, even though nobody accepted the vague assertions. It is obvious that we have to hold the inquiry, because not to do it would do harm to the national institutions.

"To investigate publicly and report on the following allegations made by Deputy P. McGilligan:—

That the demise of the State mining rights in respect of certain lands in County Wicklow, made on 1st November, 1934, by way of take note or prospecting lease, to Senator Michael Comyn, K.C., and Deputy R. Briscoe by the Minister for Industry and Commerce was—

(a) made to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe because they were political associates of the Minister,

(b) made under conditions of secrecy, and

(c) made at a time that the Minister was aware that another party or other parties were proposing to seek a demise of the same rights, on terms more advantageous to the State;

and that the action of the Minister in making such demise was improper; and further, publicly to investigate and report to the Dáil on all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the application for and the grant of the said lease, and all the facts and circumstances connected with and surrounding the agreement made by the lessees for the assignment of their rights and obligations under the said lease."

The committee was under the chairmanship of Deputy Norton, the remaining members being: the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Deputies J. Coburn, J.A. Costello, T.P. Dowdall, D. Fitzgerald, J. Fitzgerald-Kenney, J. Geoghegan, J. Good, S. Moore and O. Traynor. The committee found that there was no ground to sustain any of the four allegations mentioned in the terms of reference. Here are extracts from the findings of the committee on the allegations:

"In view of the evidence submitted to us we can find nothing to sustain an allegation that the take note or prospecting lease to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe was in any way due to their being political associates of the Minister."

The allegation was that it was given because they were political associates, and members of the Dáil of all shades of political opinion here found that the giving of the lease was in no way due to their being political associates of the Minister. Yet, we will have Deputy Dillon even now suggesting that there was something wrong in that case. I have only extracts from the findings of the committee. Here is another:

"We were informed by the officials of the Department who gave evidence to the committee that the lease granted in this instance was dealt with in the same way as other applications for leases and we are satisfied that it complied with the relative section of the Act referred to."

They went on to say:

"We are satisfied that no other was seeking a demise of the same rights at the time they were granted to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe, and no evidence was submitted to us that more advantageous terms could have been secured by the State for the demise of the mining rights at the time the prospecting lease in respect of them was granted to Senator Comyn and Deputy Briscoe."

In another place they go on to say:

On a point of order. I presume that when the Taoiseach has concluded his speech it will be open to any member of the House who wishes to do so to traverse all the cases which the Taoiseach is now putting before the House. The Taoiseach, of course, wants to divert attention from the case before the House.

The Taoiseach

I want nothing of the kind.

Mr. Morrissey

Will the Taoiseach allow the Ceann Comhairle to answer?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach's speech can be replied to.

Mr. Morrissey

I take it that there will be no misunderstanding during the course of the night, that any of us who wish to do so is free to go back over all these inquiries and to canvass the findings?

Get the written record and read it out.

The Taoiseach

On the 5th June, I moved in the Dáil for the setting up of an inquiry to investigate the allegations contained in the letter I received from Dr. MacCarvill. The motion was agreed to, and a similar motion was likewise agreed to in Seanad Éireann on the same date. On the 7th June, 1946, I accordingly appointed a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921—

"to investigate and report to the Taoiseach on the following matters, namely, the allegations contained in a letter, bearing date the 22nd May, 1946, addressed to the Taoiseach and members of the Government by Dr. Patrick MacCarvill and an accompanying copy letter, dated the 17th May, 1946, referred to in the first-mentioned letter as a report to Dr. Patrick MacCarvill from Mr. Darach Connolly, solicitor."

The tribunal consisted of three judges, namely, the Hon. John O'Byrne, a judge of the Supreme Court, the Hon. Kevin O'H. Haugh, a judge of the High Court, and the Hon. William G. Shannon, a judge of the Circuit Court. The main findings of the tribunal were as follows:—

"The tribunal finds that, in making the dismissal (of Mr. John MacCarvill), Dr. Ward acted in what he considered to be the best interests of the company.

The dismissal of Mr. Matthew Fitzsimons was made in the ordinary course of the management and control of the company and was not effected for the purpose of making room for Mrs. K. Ward or from any other ulterior or improper motive.

The tribunal does not accept the evidence of Dr. Ward and Mr. Corr that it was intended that such sales —that is, the cash transactions— should be limited to inferior or damaged bacon, which could not be marketed through ordinary channels, or to bacon which was in danger of becoming tainted or that such sales were, in fact, so limited.

The tribunal does not accept the evidence of the said witnesses that it was intended that the moneys resulting from these sales should be regarded as the property of the company and should be brought into account at a later date. The tribunal finds, as a fact, that the intention of the parties was that each such transaction should be concluded by the cash distribution of the proceeds arising therefrom."

The tribunal went on to consider the other allegations and its findings were:—

"The tribunal considers that the allegations against Dr. Ward by Dr. MacCarvill of `enforcing tribute' and `exacting half the private fees' "— from Dr. Ward's substitutes in the Monaghan Dispensary District—"were entirely unjustified. In the opinion of the tribunal, these allegations"—that Dr. O'Gorman feels that if Dr. Ward had still official power over him, it would not be safe to disclose the position and that Dr. O'Gorman's supporting evidence will be forthcoming immediately he is assured of protection—"were made recklessly and without justification."

The tribunal further stated:—

"In the opinion of the tribunal, the charges in connection with this matter"—the question of the Fianna Fáil hall at Carrickroe—"were made recklessly and without any foundation in fact."

That is the full position with regard to Dr. Ward.

We had also the case of the Great Southern Railways Stocks Tribunal in 1943-44. On 17th November, 1943, Deputy Cole at Question Time in the Dáil asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he was aware of the extensive stock exchange transactions in Great Southern Railway stocks since 20th August, 1943, which he attributed to inspired speculation, and if the Minister could state the origin of the leakage of information as to the proposed scheme of capital reorganisation of the company, which the Deputy alleged had produced this speculation, and whether the Minister would have investigations made into the matter.

In the course of his reply, the Minister stated that the information available to him did not indicate that stock exchange transactions in the stocks of the Great Southern Railways Company, before or subsequent to October 20th, were either extensive or abnormal and that he had no reason to believe that any transactions in the stocks of the company since 20th August were, as suggested by the Deputy, due to a leakage of information as to the proposed scheme of reorganisation. The matter was referred to later on the same day in the course of the debate on the Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach by Deputy Davin and Deputy McGilligan, and, on 24th November, 1943, the Minister for Industry and Commerce moved a motion in the Dáil for the setting up of a tribunal of inquiry to investigate the allegations. The motion was agreed to, and a similar motion was likewise agreed to by Seanad Éireann on the following day. On 1st December, 1943, the Minister for Industry and Commerce accordingly appointed a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921—

"to investigate and report to him on the following matters:—

(a) the dealings in Great Southern Railways stocks between the 1st day of January, 1943, and the 18th day of November, 1943;

(b) the extent, if any, to which any of the dealings were attributable to the improper use or disclosure of information concerning proposals for the capital reorganisation of the Great Southern Railways."

The tribunal consisted of three judges, namely, the Hon. A. K. Overend, a judge of the High Court, and Judges Cahir Davitt and Barra Ó Briain, judges of the Circuit Court. The findings of the tribunal on the first part of its terms of reference were as follows:—

"We find that there was an abnormal amount of dealing in the stocks of the company during the ten weeks preceding the date of publication and thereafter down to the 18th November, 1943, the end of the period under review.

We are of opinion that the public for a time, at least, had a greatly exaggerated view as to the extent and nature of such dealings. As will appear later, many of the larger purchasers bought to hold, and, in fact, did retain their stocks up to the time of giving evidence. We believe that profit-taking during the period under review was on a much smaller scale than has been imagined."

On the second part, the tribunal's findings were:—

"There has been no improper use of information concerning the proposals for the capital reorganisation of the Great Southern Railways except the instances we have specifically mentioned, which we consider unimportant, and to which no other dealings can be attributed."

The instances referred to were those of Mr. J. P. Goodbody, a director of the Great Southern Railways, and Mr. John O'Brien, a principal officer in the Transport and Marine branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce, who had dealings in the stocks of the company on their own account.

The concluding paragraph of the tribunal's findings was:—

"There has been no improper disclosure of such information except in one case we have mentioned, which we consider unimportant and to which no dealings can be attributed."

The case referred to was that of Mr. A. P. Reynolds, Chairman of the Great Southern Railways, who had given advance information about the capital reorganisation to the Most Rev. Dr. McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin, the Representative Body of the Church of Ireland and the Bank of Ireland.

Mr. Morrissey

Surely, that is not all of them.

The Taoiseach

These are the cases —the suggestions of corruption—and, in every case in which an inquiry was set up, it was proved that these suggestions were without foundation.

I think I should be allowed to continue without interruptions from Deputy McGilligan.

Et tu quoque is no answer. We have decided that we are going to have a tribunal, because, as I said, you cannot without the greatest public damage, when cases like this are raised, avoid it. No person who wanted to set up an investigation on the basis of finding out if there was something wrong would believe that there was anything to justify it. No man who gave any examination to the evidence, such as it was, would think it merited a full-dress public inquiry, but we have to have it. The question is, in what form? Is it to be, as is suggested in the motion, a Select Committee of the House?

I do not think that a Select Committee would be a proper tribunal to try this, for the reasons I have already indicated. It would be bound to be challenged, even if they could get agreement upon it—the finding would not be accepted. We set up judicial tribunals, the personnel of which nobody could suggest was partial, and, when they had solemnly given their findings, we had the Deputy McGilligans and the rest going about saying: "Oh, but".

I and the Government are not accepting the Deputy's proposal. We are prepared to set up an inquiry, however, and, if there was agreement, I would be prepared to move:—

"That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say, the allegations affecting members of either House of the Oireachtas made in Dáil Éireann on the 22nd, 29th and 30th October, 1947, in reference to the disposal or proposed dispostal, since the 1st January, 1946, of the distillery of John Locke & Company, Limited, at Kilbeggan, County Westmeath, and of the stocks of the said distillery or any part thereof; and the nature and extent of the connection which any member of either House of the Oireachtas had with any transactions relating to such disposal or proposed disposal."

If the House agrees, I would put that as an amendment to the motion by the Leader of the Opposition, and my intention would be to ask the Government to set up a tribunal similar to the last tribunal, consisting of three judges. I am not in a position to name the judges, because there is no duty placed upon them to act in any of these inquiries. I would have to ask and find out what judges are willing to act. If the Opposition are not prepared to accept that amendment, then the only course left to us will be to vote against the motion as introduced by Deputy Mulcahy and to bring in this proposal next week. I would prefer, if it were possible, to get agreement and have the matter disposed of to-night.

General Mulcahy

Does the Taoiseach require an answer from me?

The Taoiseach

I have heard the Deputy is not prepared—am I right?

General Mulcahy

I think it is an astounding thing that the Taoiseach would ask, at this hour, that this would be accepted as an amendment to a motion which has been on the Order Paper since Friday.

The Taoiseach

Very well, then. I have indicated to the House the line the Government is proposing to take in case this amendment is not agreed to—and I take it that it is not. We shall oppose the Deputy's motion and bring in this proposal for a judicial inquiry next week.

I do not think I should keep the House any longer. I only want to repeat that this inquiry is necessitated solely because allegations have been made which no reasonable person who examines the facts would be inclined to take as meriting such an inquiry.

Mr. Norton

I do not want to debate the merits of this case either in this House or at this stage, nor do I want to attempt an appraisal of where the merits lie in connection with the charges and countercharges which have been made in this matter.

A claim is made in the motion for the establishment of a select committee of the Dáil to examine a matter of this kind and, if this matter affected only members of the Dáil and not private individuals outside, one could say that in the ordinary circumstances there was a good case for having the matter dealt with by a select committee of the Dáil. But there is involved in this whole matter a number of other persons and it is because of that that it seems to me, in the first instance, that a select committee of the Dáil would not be a very appropriate body to deal with the matter and, in the second instance it seems to me to be a paramount consideration that, having regard to the atmosphere revealed in the Dáil in the discussion of this matter, I do not think —and this Party does not think—that a select committee of the Dáil would be the best tribunal to deal with it.

In the atmosphere which has been woven around this whole issue, and in view of the charges and counter-charges which have been made, it is quite inevitable, human nature being what it is, that a select committee representative of the various Parties in the Dáil would tend in their approach to this matter, in their consideration of it and in their viewpoint and ultimate recommendations, to veer in the direction taken by the protagonists of the various Parties in the Dáil as expressed in this debate to-day and yesterday.

Our view, therefore, is that a judicial commission charged with the responsibility of inquiring into this matter is a preferable one. If we are to get at the roots of this problem, and if we are to sift the wheat from the chaff and give the public a truthful report—that type of report is likely to come best, in present circumstances, if we appoint a judicial tribunal. I think the function of this tribunal is important. It must not be an ordinary court, like the District, Circuit, or Supreme Court. It ought not to be a tribunal in which there is a plaintiff and defendant. This tribunal will function best if it regards itself as charged with the responsibility, not of finding a plaintiff and a defendant, but of eliciting all the facts concerning the sale or the attempted sale of this distillery.

The tribunal which the Taoiseach has in mind will not fulfil its functions unless it is charged with responsibility in a different sense from that of the ordinary courts of eliciting all the facts surrounding this case and giving an objective report to the public on the facts as ascertained by an independent tribunal. But, if we are to get the facts elucidated, it seems to me it must be somebody's function before the court to elucidate them. I do not think the court which will function on the basis in which there is a defendant, on the one hand, and a plaintiff or a prosecutor on the other, will be a satisfactory kind of court.

The court we want is a court with the powers of a commission of investigation, which will be charged with the responsibility of sifting this matter to its innermost limits. A tribunal so charged with that responsibility must have the assistance of persons legally qualified to elicit the facts, to search for truth for truth's sake and to try to give to the public the most objective report they can get on the facts surrounding this transaction.

I think it is important, too, from the standpoint of the independence of this House, that we should consider the position of Deputies in relation to that tribunal and the rights of Deputies in relation to their constituents and to this Parliament. Under our Constitution, Deputies who make statements in this House are immune from responsibility for those statements in the courts of the country. That was deliberately put into the Constitution and I think it is one of the privileges which democratic representation in all democratic Parliaments has acknowledged to be necessary for the purpose of ensuring the independence of Parliament and for the purpose of ensuring that those who represent the will of the people will not be placed in any fear of prison or indictment, so far as the courts are concerned, by reason of any utterances to which they conscientiously give expression as members of Parliament.

In this matter, I am not concerned with the position of any Deputy: I am concerned objectively with the rights of Deputies. Since Deputies have rights as members of this House, rights to express themselves freely and fearlessly without the fear of retaliation by outside forces, except such forces as are exercised through the medium of the ballot box, then I think we must make sure in connection with this tribunal that any Deputy who appears there is not going to be made amenable by that tribunal for any statements which he made in this House, no matter on what side he made the statements. I am concerned with his rights as a Deputy; and I think that is much more vital than the price at which Locke's Distillery was sold. My concern is to charge the tribunal with the responsibility of sifting the facts of this case and reporting to the nation; and let the nation deal in its own way with any Deputies or any Ministers in respect of whom and on whose shoulders responsibility for any dishonourable dealing may be placed.

The rights of Deputies of this House to immunity from being found guilty of any conduct before a tribunal such as is now being established must be acknowledged beforehand. Parliament is still the supreme authority in this country and Parliament ought not to give to any outside tribunal—you might make a case for giving it to a Dáil tribunal and not to the courts—the right to try a Deputy when the Constitution makes him immune from any such trial in respect of utterances in this House. If any Deputy in this House can convince either his colleagues in Opposition or the Government in power of the desirability of establishing a tribunal to investigate charges which he makes, then it must be assumed that his very standing, his representative capacity entitle him to immunity when it comes to having his charges investigated. If he makes charges unwisely, charges which cannot be substantiated, that is a matter between himself and those who sent him here. It is not a matter for the tribunal to deal with. Even in a desire to get the facts of this case sifted, we must make sure that the immunity of Deputies against the possibility of being arraigned by a court for statements made in this House is preserved in accordance with the guarantees given in the Constitution.

As I said at the beginning, we prefer, in all the circumstances, a judicial tribunal charged with the responsibility of sifting evidence, not a tribunal charged with asking whether Deputy Flanagan is guilty of making false charges, not a tribunal charged with finding out whether the Minister for Justice is guilty of any particular conduct or not, in the sense of which an ordinary court would attempt to assess responsibility in a matter of that kind. We want a tribunal which will sift the facts and give the nation the benefit of its judgment; and a tribunal of that kind, we think, is more calculated to produce an impartial report, likely to commend itself to the nation, than a Dáil Committee set up in the atmosphere which has now been woven round this case.

It is extremely important that the terms of reference of the commission should be drawn with the desire to get the widest possible terms of reference which will ensure that this matter is probed to the fullest. The Taoiseach has read his terms of reference to this judicial tribunal, on which it is not possible at such short notice to express a considered opinion. I would like to say to the Taoiseach that he ought not tie himself to any hard and fast terms of reference which are the creation of his own thoughts, and the implementation of his own desires. We are prepared, as I said, to accept the judicial tribunal with agreed terms of reference. I suggest to the Taoiseach that, if he desires, as we desire, to have this whole matter thoroughly sifted, we can get that done through the medium of a judicial tribunal; but he should, in fairness and equity and so as to avoid any possibility that he may be charged with partiality, consult with representatives of other Parties in the House, so as to get agreed terms of reference which will commend themselves to all Parties in the House, so that the tribunal may start on its investigations fortified in the knowledge that all Parties are agreed on the course of inquiry which they should pursue. If the Taoiseach will agree to consult with other Parties in preparing reasonable terms of reference to this tribunal, we are prepared to support it as the best means of having this matter throughly investigated.

At all events, I think nobody will deny but that the whole question must now be investigated. If we were to read of these charges and counter-charges having been made in any other Parliament in the world, we would be gravely concerned with the propriety of government in the country where those charges and counter-charges could be made. I think it is imperative, from the point of view of the dignity of Parliament and from the point of view of the people's respect for Parliament, that these charges and counter-charges should be fully investigated.

If this policy is to be continued here, of charge and counter-charge being made without full examination, then this Parliament will rapidly lose the place of honour which it ought to hold in the esteem of our people. I would like to suggest to the Taoiseach that he ought to be prepared, on a question like this, not only to agree to reference of the matter to a judicial tribunal but, at the same time, to intimate his willingness to prepare terms of reference for that committee to ensure that it will have the complete confidence of the whole House. I do not want to impute irresponsibility to anybody in this matter. Having established a tribunal as we proposed to establish one to investigate the matter, a discussion on details at this stage is quite out of place and unfair in view of the examination which we propose to institute. I do not want to take any line which would appear to be prejudged on inadequate evidence on a basis of charge and counter-charge. The problem in all equity ought to be referred to a more impartial and independent tribunal than this Dáil can possibly be after what has already been said in connection with the matter.

Mr. Morrissey

Let me say this at the beginning to get one point out of the way. As far as I am concerned, I believe that the President and Mrs. O'Kelly are entirely blameless and innocent in this matter but I believe unscrupulous people sought to make tools of them, and that these two foreign gentlemen were brought there for the purpose of impressing them with the influence which the persons who brought them were able to wield in the State. The Taoiseach knows that also. It pleased the Taoiseach to use that red-herring in the debate last night for fifteen minutes and to repeat it again to-day. The people up there in the Gallery, who do not know the Taoiseach and his performances as well as some of us down here, must have been terribly impressed by his one hour and 43 minutes' speech, this serial speech continued from last night—the pathetic little sob he can put into his voice at a well-chosen moment; the righteous indignation he can show when it suits him; how indignant he can become at the way that public life is being dragged in the mud; and how he can talk of a common standard of decency. He tells us that slander is a filthy thing. Slander is always a filthy thing, and it was as filthy a thing when the Taoiseach was sitting on this side of the House as it is when he is sitting on the other side now.

Opposition Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Morrissey

"Is there to be any sense of decency?" He asked, "or is there to be any protection for men in public life?" The Taoiseach himself apart from members of his Party has issued inside this House and outside it filthy slanders about distinguished Irishmen in the House, some of whom are now outside it, and he had not the decency when they were proven to be filthy slanders to withdraw them or apologise. We agree that there should be a common standard of decency. We agree that men should not be attacked in their personal capacity.

Let me say this. It is well known what I think about the Taoiseach's political administration. I do not accept for one moment the idea that the Taoiseach or his distinguished son had any knowledge, good, bad or indifferent of the business about the watch. I do not believe that a watch or any other present by way of a personal reward would get the Taoiseach or his distinguished son to use any unworthy influence. Mind you, that is as far as the Taoiseach is personally concerned in his personal character. I am not so satisfied that the head of the Fianna Fáil organisation would be so entirely scrupulous if it was a question of a handsome present for the Fianna Fáil Party funds.

I know nothing about this matter which is being canvassed in the papers and in this House. I know nothing about the charges or about the persons concerned. In fact up to yesterday evening I had very little faith in the matter at all and I had very little belief that there was any substance in it.

Then there was the performance of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the House last night, the absolutely scandalous performance when the most blatant attempt ever made in this House to terrorise and intimidate the most junior member of the House was made by Deputy Lemass, and the Taoiseach laughed as he is laughing now. That side of Deputy Lemass is not new to some of us in this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Morrissey

Mr. Morrissey

I am speaking of the Taoiseach's lecture on standards of decency and decency in public life. Are we to be lectured on standards of decency in public life by people who have no standard of decency or who have only lately acquired it? My memory need not be trusted for what I say; it is on the records of the House. If we are to clean up and to set up a standard of decency in the country and in this Parliament, we shall have to get a better headline from some of the gentlemen who are charged with the government of this country.

The Taoiseach sat there last night during the whole of the disgraceful performance by the gentleman now sitting next to him. There was a throw-back to the Deputy Lemass of 15 or 16 years ago, a cracking of the veneer with which the Minister has coated himself. I am sure that was a bit of a shock to Deputy Flanagan and a few of the newer Deputies. It was no shock to us. It was a throw-back to the old Deputy Lemass—the real thing breaking through, the little fellow bucking at the far side and thinking he was going to intimidate people on this side of the House just because they were in opposition. Perhaps there was a little more than that in it. Perhaps the Minister had been getting a few reports from the three constituencies and, like a lot of people, was not able to take it.

Mr. McGilligan

On this motion which nominally has to do with certain matters affecting Locke's Distillery, I propose to speak as little about Locke's Distillery as the Taoiseach did. I want to speak to a considerable extent about some of the very malodorous red herrings the Taoiseach decided to draw across this very obvious and open and clear trail. As far as Locke's Distillery is concerned, I came into this House on the 22nd October last to listen to a debate on the means test in connection with the old age pension. I tried to get conveyance home and I was told there was a motion on the Adjournment and then I sat and listened to Deputy Flanagan and after that heard the Minister for Justice. The first thing that struck me was that there was clearly something to hide and that the Minister for Justice, with that sort of mixture of good-natured decency that he has about him, was trying to hide things—something which clearly required definite secrecy. The motion was put down by Deputy General Mulcahy and in between we had certain questions to which answers were given by the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice and then we had a debate upon this motion.

If the Government had intended to have a judicial inquiry into this matter from the start they could have told Deputy Mulcahy that right at the start and avoided any canvassing of the merits of this dispute in this House to the prejudice of people who will be eventually hailed before that tribunal to answer for certain things which have been said here.

The speech of the Tánaiste was an answer to his own question: Was there any case to meet? and he proved, I think, to his own satisfaction that there was no case to meet and his astonishing conclusion was, "We will set up a tribunal to see is there a case." I understand it was an exhibition of the lowest type of bullying, provocation, threat. I have read of the old type of bullying lawyer, a type that has disappeared from life but still to be found in the pages of Dickens and other people, but he was brought to light, inefficiently, by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce in his efforts to intimidate Deputy Oliver Flanagan, one of the junior members of the House.

What emerges from the questions that were asked of the Minister for Justice and the Tánaiste? The first thing is: The Minister for Justice refused to reply to certain questions because, he said, it was not right that the details should be given of individuals who came here from abroad unless, in a particular case, some public interest would be served. Supplementaries followed, not one line of which was news to the Minister for Justice, but when he came before the House in the evening to answer on the adjournment he said, of course, that when supplementary questions were raised it was immediately clear that there was a public interest and then, he says, he took care to ask the Ceann Comhairle to make sure that the request would be allowed on the adjournment. He knew everything that was in the supplementaries. What are we to conclude from his speech about the supplementaries, only this, surely, that he wanted to know how much people on this side of the House knew? He knew it all himself. The question was how much had leaked out and if sufficient had leaked out then we would have to have some sort of debate on the adjournment and, please God, that would end the whole thing and the whole nasty mess would be closed over.

To go into the dispute now would prejudice the situation but surely these are the points that the public are attentive to—that certain people were interested in trying to get Locke's Distillery going again, that people had negotiations with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his Department, but it was not until one foreigner arrived, under the patronage of Senator Quirke, that the promise was made to double the amount of whiskey that was allowed to be exported from Locke's Distillery. That is one significant matter. The second thing is that this Mr. Eindiguer, about whom, I think, nobody has anything bad to say, was accompanied by a man about whom now nobody has anything good to say, and he had an associate, a man who eventually had to be put out of this country, hastily, by the Minister for Justice, who found, somewhere about the 22nd or the 24th October, that he was engaging in business which it was not proposed to allow him to engage in.

The public want to know in connection with this group whom Deputy Dillon so aptly called last night, this rag bag, how did it come that they got into Árus an Uachtaráin; who introduced them there; was there any political pull about that invitation? All foreigners who come here to buy distilleries or to buy any other industrial concern in this country do not go to Árus an Uachtaráin. Was this an example of nepotism, using the word largely and not in its literal translation, because it is notorious that not merely were this group accompanied by the man who eventually had to be fired out of the country and by Senator Quirke, but that they were probably introduced by the young gentlemen who has been so often mentioned in this House?

The next thing that the public, I think, are anxious to know something about is this. We had at least discovered round about the end of September or the beginning of October this man who was wanted in England for some offence in connection with the Companies Acts. He had been here since the 3rd September and was finally deported, I think, on the 4th October. During all that time the Minister for Justice and his hordes of police and detective officers did not know anything about him and his repute until the day after he was discovered having tea in the President's establishment and then Senator Quirke it was who passed on the information.

The public know that Senator Quirke in some way or another had introduced himself into this whole proposed sale of Locke's Distillery and they know now that there was a rival claimant likely to do Senator Quirke some harm and they know that this man, who was eventually deported, was probably siding against Senator Quirke and, in the best old tradition of the gangster novel, Senator Quirke blew the gaff on this man and it was only then that he was discovered. It was only then that he was put on board a boat and sent away. Even when this matter was raised on 22nd October and Deputy Dillon asserted that he was found in company of another alien, Mr. Sachsel, who has since been deported, the Minister for Justice knew nothing about that although I gathered from his silence last evening that he admits that not merely was Maximoe in Mr. Sachsel's house but that he was locked in the lavatory of that house and that the door of the lavatory had to be broken down before he was dragged forth, to be brought, where I do not know, but eventually to be pushed out of this country—a good riddance.

There are people who want to know how it was that the eyes of justice were so blind for the month and became so sharp on intimation from Senator Quirke. And, when all that is said and done, people will want to know when did Senator Quirke first come into the business about the sale of Locke's Distillery at all; whether there was any other firm of house agents or auctioneers having anything to do with this property for months before; how did Senator Quirke gain his entry on the job and at what date; what price was paid for the distillery; is the price the fair valuation set upon it; or was there any more money paid in the expectation of a licence for a greater export of whiskey out of this country?

The Minister for Justice last night told us about Senator Quirke, on hearing certain things—I do not know the exact phrase he used but it was a picturesque phrase, about shivering with horror at what was revealed. Aristotle has said that one of the great advantages of tragedy is that it purges the emotions of those who look on. If we could only have television at the tribunal and see Senator Quirke squirming with horror in the way in which he revealed himself to the Minister for Justice we might get some of the bad feelings of the populace over this matter purged and cleansed.

In any event, there is material for an inquiry. I am amused at the rush there is for a judicial inquiry. There was an occasion when a judicial inquiry seemed to me to be called for but the Government would not have it. That was in connection with Wicklow gold. They said, no, the proper thing was the other inquiry. The other type of inquiry was set up. There was some talk here to-night about terms of reference. I was supposed to be in the position of accuser on that occasion but who wrote the terms of reference? I did not, and when the terms of reference came before the Select Committee, I asked, on my appearance as witness, to put any of the charges that were framed in the terms of reference between quotation marks if they were supposed to be the charges I had made and nobody could put them between quotation marks because they were not the true version of what I had said. I remember remarking to the present Mr. Justice Geoghegan, who was a member of the committee, that many defendants would win their cases if they could only be given the easy job of writing the statement of claim against them and making the plaintiff stand on that statement.

Before I go into these three or four matters that the Taoiseach spoke of may I say for myself and, I think, I speak for my own Party in this, that there has been talk of corruption in connection with political life in this country and, with the only exception of Dr. Ward, when that phrase is used, I do not know whether in any way it imputes to any member of the present Government or to any of the people who sit behind them, personal corruption?

Mr. Allen

That talk was put out during the by-elections.

Mr. McGilligan

I read a good deal and I think the interpretation I put on this phrase is the correct one. Deputy Allen can give a view contrary to the view I am going to express. He should wait until he hears what I am going to say. There is a suspicion of corruption in the surroundings of the Government, that the Administration has built up around it a whole horde of its adherents, placing them in good positions and hoping that they will give service for the advantage they have gained. It is not out of our own mouths that we can convict Fianna Fáil of that particular matter. At the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, in 1943, Deputy Moylan—I think he was then a Parliamentary Secretary; he is now a Minister—said that the fruits of Government policy must go to Government supporters. He was being quizzed at that particular Ard-Fheis about what appeared to be a weakness in connection with that letter of his which was read here in the House. That was the claim that he made—that the fruits of Government policy must go to Government supporters. I think the Taoiseach spent about three hours trying to show that that did not mean what any ordinary person would take out of it.

His view was that a Fianna Fáil supporter never gets any preference for a job or a farm except when other things are equal between Fianna Fáil applicants and other candidates. The comment of a newspaper on that was this, "All we can say by way of comment is that there must have been an astonishing number of dead-heats between candidates since Fianna Fáil came into office considering the number of occasions on which Ministers could only decide in favour of their own Party supporters."

The Taoiseach talked about some scandals that there were. I suppose he said "alleged scandals". There have been a great many. There were some that he did not refer to, I think. I must have bored audiences listening to me in this House on the number of times that I have spoken of the bacon curers and of the way they looted the till, the money that was built up on the hypothetical price system in order to help the bacon and pig industry in this country. The Government set up a commission to inquire into that. The commission report was that: "Unless the amount of the available fund be taken as the measure there appears to be no exact basis on which the amount of this payment made by the curers to themselves was determined". I have asked and I have never got any adverse answer to this. Am I wrong in saying that that means that a Government Commission set up to inquire into how and why certain bacon curers lifted about £178,000 out of a fund that was not theirs found that they did it— that they took it all? They say, "We find no basis on which they divided the spoils except this: how much is in the till, we are going to take it all". When I asked the Minister for Agriculture about that he said: "We do not approve of it." I asked him if he was going to get it back and he said "No". I asked was the commission going to be reconstituted, and he said not for that reason.

They go on to say:

"We cannot too strongly emphasise the necessity in the public interest to guard against such undesirable speculation in the case of mining leases granted by the State, and we are gravely perturbed by the agreement made by the lessees in this instance whereby a sum of £80,000 was to be raised by a foreign syndicate in a manner unknown to us, but judging by the subsequent actions of the other party to the agreement in circumstances that give grounds for the gravest concern."

If that is regarded as a finding in favour of the Government, let them have it.

I understand the Great Southern Railways Stock Inquiry was referred to, and again I am sure the Taoiseach gave the part that suited him. This particular matter was started by a question asked of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. When he was asked about the speculation that was going on his reply was:—

"The information available to me does not indicate that Stock Exchange transactions in the stocks of the Great Southern Railways Company before or subsequent to October 20th were either extensive or abnormal."

What is the finding of the tribunal on that. On page 15 of the report they say:—

Mr. Lemass

Read on.

Mr. McGilligan

Did the Taoiseach read the rest? I have said that I am reading parts that do not suit. The public will get the full report by reading what the Taoiseach said and what I have said. In any event, I suggest that the finding means that, as far as Parliamentary procedure in this country is concerned, there is one method of getting information for the benefit of the public, the method of Parliamentary question, and that method is only good if the Minister who is answering plays the Parliamentary game. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was held up to public odium in the report as not having played it.

Mr. Lemass

That is untrue.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a perfect representation of the report. The Minister said that the transactions were neither extensive nor abnormal. The tribunal said they were. If the Minister says that the tribunal justifies him on that point, again I leave him to it.

The matter that amazed me most was that the Taoiseach said last night that when you have an inquiry and a man is justified the populace forget all about it. I wonder where was the inquiry out of all these inquiries which really justified anybody. To my amazement the Dr. Ward case was trotted out. How anybody can bring himself to believe that the report of the tribunal in the Ward case cleared Dr. Ward I cannot understand. The Taoiseach asked: "What did it come to?" He had been found guilty of not making returns which would make him liable for assessment to income-tax. That was thrown aside by the Taoiseach who asked how many people would hang their heads with shame at being discovered in fooling the income-tax authorities. From the man who tried to bring us back again to the Catechism and the Bible it seems peculiar to advertise to the taxpayers of the country that they could fool the Revenue Commissioners if they found it possible and nobody would say "shame" at what they did. Possibly that is the common morality with regard to that.

Is that all that was found against Dr. Ward? He went into the witness box and he made a case. Paragraph 23 of the tribunal's report says:

"The tribunal does not accept the evidence of Dr. Ward and Mr. Corr that it was intended that such sales should be limited to inferior or damaged bacon which could not be marketed through ordinary channels, or to bacon which was in danger of becoming tainted or that such sales were, in fact, so limited."

In the next paragraph they say:

"The tribunal does not accept the evidence of the said witnesses that it was intended that the moneys resulting from such sales should be regarded as the property of the company and should be brought into account at a later date."

Let us think of that as a finding. A public man is found out in a certain matter. He goes before a tribunal and goes into the witness box and pledges his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and so did his associate. The three judges report: "We do not believe him on his oath." Deputy Flanagan was warned last night of the danger of perjury by a man who, of course, flings that word about recklessly. There is the finding of the tribunal in regard to this man, who is in the Governmental group, that the story he told in the witness box was one they could not believe. As Deputy Flanagan aptly remarked to the Taoiseach last night, if he has been guilty of no public fault why is he not still holding his post in the Custom House?

The Taoiseach makes great play with this report because he says there were certain matters raised in the MacCarvill correspondence in conhection with certain doctors to whom Dr. Ward farmed out his post in Monaghan and the tribunal does report in certain terms in favour of Dr. Ward on that. I queried from the moment that report appeared and I still query that, and I do not impugn the judicial report. I say that they considered that their terms of reference bound them to consider only the legality of certain actions and they had to close their eyes to the propriety. What was in the public mind was this. Dr. Ward, Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Department of Public Health, having disciplinary authority over medical men in this country and himself a medical man, farmed out his post as medical officer to a succession of doctors and it lay in his hands to manipulate the situation to his own benefit and he did, and that is what the public scandal was. If anybody can say that the report justifies Dr. Ward's action, I say he is welcome to whatever solace he can get from reading what that tribunal said.

I have spoken already of corruption in the administration of Government in the sense of their corruption all round. The posts are not given on merit. The posts go by political preference. If this debate was in a wider sphere, I could give example after example. I will content myself with one confession on a matter that Deputy Murphy raised in the Dáil on the 7th April, 1943, in connection with a branch manager post, a small post that was to be filled at Mallow. A letter came signed "Seán Moylan" from a Deputy of that name who is now a Minister, which says:—

"I have your letter and a number of others in relation to Miss Nan Gilligan's application for the position vacant at Mallow. The appointee shall, in the first instance, be certified as competent and suitable for the position by the interview board. I believe Miss Gilligan will fulfil that condition. From the list certified as competent, I shall appoint the person best suited to the position from a political viewpoint."

That is this man's writing to show how he acts—"Let us get a group of people certified as competent. Make it a big group. I have a great choice then from the people sent up to me and I will appoint the person best qualified from a political viewpoint." Later, writing to the same young lady, he says—I am paraphrasing here: "I cannot appoint you"—and here I quote—"I have had to regard the claims of another applicant as being more urgent than yours." Urgent — how? Urgent politically. There was a better claim. I do not know what was the urgency—whether there was a by-election pending or not —but there was something urgent about some other candidate, and, operating his political preference amongst the group who passed the test of competency and suitability, the present Minister was going to appoint on the grounds of political preferment. That is what I call the "spoils" system. That is the system which has been worked, and it is because of that system that these charges of corruption are levelled. Nobody can deny that that "spoils" system is in operation and that it merits the epithets of condemnation which have been used about that particular practice during the course of the debate.

The Taoiseach, however, was very concerned last night about the decent people who might be driven out of political life. I have before me one man, the Minister for Local Government, who has made it his endeavour to drive many decent people out of political life. We had a debate in this House after a particular election in which the very scurrilous phrases which the Minister had used about an ex-Senator of this country. Senator John T. O'Farrell, a member of the Labour Party, were referred to. He had gone around Rathfarnham with his loud-speaker vans——

An Ceann Comhairle

Oh, now. Election speeches.

Mr. McGilligan

We were asked about decent men being driven out of the political life of the country. I want to give five quotations and this is one of them. "The people whose blood would be spilled if Mr. O'Farrell was elected in a particular election"—does the Minister remember these things?

Mr. MacEntee

I remember a few.

Mr. McGilligan

Does he remember these things? "Mr. Cosgrave tried unsuccessfully to get members of other Parties to join his Party, but he was unclean and a leper among politicians, and the only man willing to take his hand was Alderman Byrne." Later, he said: "That man"—Mr. Cosgrave, who had been leader of this country for years—"challenges us to put him in jail. Well, we are asking the Irish people to jail him in the pages of Irish history, and we will have his name spat upon as the names of Carey, Nagle, Leonard McNally, Pitt and Castlereagh, and every other man who betrayed the Irish people." Later, in referring to some promise Mr. Cosgrave had made, the Minister asked: "If the people would have faith in the oath of a Judas? Would they be misled by the pledge of a Pitt or the promise of a Castlereagh?" The last of these bouquets from the Minister's flowery rhetoric which I want to put before the House is his reference to Mr. Cosgrave's "Whig `Castle Catholics"' and his "puppydogs, Belton, Cussen, O'Shaughnessy, etc.". That Minister was then, and still is, an adherent of the Taoiseach who is so keen about keeping decent people in public life. He was allowed to get away with that unreproved. He went to Rathfarnham and spoke the words I have mentioned about Senator O'Farrell, and again he was unreproved, and he still holds his position, and apparently a senior position, amongst the members of Government.

But it is hardly fair to blame the Minister when the Taoiseach himself can be so much in error. I was corrected by the Taoiseach on one occasion here in the Dáil in referring to a phrase of his used in the Seanad. He had on that occasion been delivering the same sort of lecture as he delivered to-night, asking people to have Christian piety in themselves and some regard for charity, and I reminded him of a fierce attack he made on a very old Senator, a man who had spent his life in Irish politics all very worthily, and the best thing the Taoiseach could find to say about him in the Seanad was that it would be better if he would shut his mouth and the air would be purer in his neighbourhood if he did so. I quoted that phrase and the Taoiseach corrected me. "That is not correct," he said, "I said `His foul mouth'." That man asks us for decency and charity and the type of conduct that will keep good men in public life, the man who jumped into the position he holds by the most concentrated piece of blackguardly scurrility any Party has carried on.

An Ceann Comhairle

Elections 15 years ago surely are not relevant?

Mr. Morrissey

They were used last night.

Mr. McGilligan

I propose to go very near these elections. One last effort— insinuations against people. Deputy Mulcahy has been in Irish politics for quite a while. He is not, like myself a little Jackeen who has suddenly come in at a moment's notice when all the danger is over. That cannot be levelled at Deputy Mulcahy, but a graver charge was levelled against him in this House when there was a debate on the Government's use of the Military Tribunal. The defence put up by the Taoiseach was that there was a group in this country very envenomed and very keen to take the field against Fianna Fáil. They were a military body and the only thing they lacked was arms. The Taoiseach said that Deputy Mulcahy had gone across to Glasgow to see the then British Minister for War.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy think that a matter as far back as that, which was withdrawn and apologised for——

Mr. McGilligan

I want to come to the apology and I finish on that. The Minister for Local Government, of course, could not be kept quiet when anything of that sort was on. He had the picturesque detail of the little Austin car in Glasgow and the manoeuvring about which was done in it. The Minister will find that recorded in the debates of 28th September, 1933. Of course, the first response Deputy Mulcahy made to that was: "Give me an inquiry into that suggestion", and the Taoiseach was only too pleased, nothing would please him better than to see the thing denied, but the rag of which he is managing-director the next day came out in its leader to say that it was noticeable that Deputy Mulcahy had not denied the charge. It took a week for the Taoiseach to make up his mind what he would do. He came in here with his explanation that he only passed on certain information which was given to him, but that, when he went to the man who gave the information to know if he would stand up to a public inquiry, the man refused to give the evidence. So there is nothing for it but to apologise. Deputy Mulcahy challenged him about the charges that should be threshed out and urged that he should get an opportunity of bringing that criminally libellous man to book and getting some punishment put upon him. The Taoiseach's answer was:. "I never made any charges; I only made statements."

That episode inspired one man to write. He expressed my view—this is not my writing—and I should like to quote three verses of a poem written about that episode.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not see how this is relevant.

Mr. McGilligan

It has to do with this scandalous business. Here are the verses:

"You give the lying tale a start and then `apologise',

You had a witness who deceived?

You are no judge of lies?

You had to put the falsehood round, once you believed it true?

By God, the man who told the lie is less offence than you.

Why did your Pigott find his dupe so easy to deceive?

Because he told the very lie you thirsted to believe,

Because the muck he had to sell was what you itched to buy,

How useful had it been the truth!

How sad it's proved a lie!"

Then he refers to this slimy business of not making a charge but only statements, and continues:

"You did not `make a charge' you say. Here are the Dáil records.

If black is black and white is white, here are those very words.

If words are words and lies are lies, and wound with murderous edge,

You spoke the words that sped the lie and made the Dáil your hedge."

That was the Taoiseach of 1933. He is now concerned about the reputations of decent men in public life. His Minister tried to drive Deputy Cosgrave out of public life and, by a foul effort, he tried himself to put Deputy Mulcahy out of public life. It is amazing how morality goes. Apparently to call a man in this country a murderer is a sort of term of political abuse but to suggest that a man had something unwholesome to do with, say, the sale of Locke's Distillery and of 66,000 gallons of raw whiskey, is the sort of thing that we must have a public inquiry into. Have it. Have decent terms of reference, parade your witnesses and, in the end, we shall see whether the Minister for Justice knew more than he said he knew on the day this matter was raised in the Dáil. We shall see whether Deputy Flanagan or the Minister is more to blame, the one for what he revealed in the Dáil or the other for what he tried to secrete from it.

General MacEoin

I seconded the motion yesterday, reserving to myself the right to speak at a later stage. The motion calls for an inquiry by a select committee of 11 Deputies appointed by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Taoiseach refuses to accept that and proposes to set up a judicial commission. The whole matter arises out of the incidents here in this House concerning people who are members of the Oireachtas. I never thought for a moment that a Minister such as the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be guilty of the conduct of which he was guilty last night. I certainly never expected the Taoiseach to tear open the doors as he did last night and again to-day. He painted the picture of an innocent person in the Dáil— himself—and said that there were 11 others, his 11 Ministers, to make the round dozen. He suggested that everybody else in the country had faults and failings of some type while they had none.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce last night adopted an attitude, towards not only Deputy Flanagan but other members of the House, that was far from becoming to a member of his known quality, because the Minister for Industry and Commerce can be much better than that and it was disappointing to see him drop to that standard. He started to dictate to the official stenographer as to what he should put down, thereby implying that a person speaking in this House was answerable to some authority outside it. I want to remind the Minister for Industry and Commerce, through you, Sir, that a Deputy speaking in this House upon any matter is subject only to the rules of debate and that he can make any assertions which he thinks are true and correct, and, mind you, he is to be the sole judge of that. He can make any statements which he considers necessary in the interests of public order or of his constituents and he is responsible to nobody outside this House. Yet the Minister for Industry and Commerce kept cracking at the stenographer to record this, that and the other remark by Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy MacEoin, Deputy Flanagan or anybody else. That is not the standard I would expect from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I would say that that conduct by the Minister for Industry and Commerce has done more harm to the prestige of this House and to the rights and privileges of members, than even any public scandal that could possibly arise out of the Locke's Distillery incident.

I know nothing about these gentlemen whatever but I do subscribe to the view, and I do firmly believe, that the President and Mrs. O'Kelly are innocent victims in this case. I think that it is a very serious matter that they could be so imposed upon but, having happened, I think that the least said about it the better. The Taoiseach this evening again tore open the case about them. He opened the case wide, as if there was somebody making charges against President and Mrs. O'Kelly. I think that that comes very badly from the Taoiseach and that he should have avoided it at all costs. I am perfectly satisfied—and I am sure the President does not want a certificate of character from me—that under no circumstances would the President be guilty of any conduct unbecoming to his office but that does not exonerate the people who have been surrounding him, who are either political friends, friends of the family or friends of any kind. It is important that it should be found out how these people got there because I know well that if any decent person from the village of Ballinalee or from Monaghan or anywhere else, went up to see the President he would not be allowed in.

I was never a member of the Government.

Mr. MacEntee

Of a Government Party.

Mr. Hughes

Has the Minister recovered from the fainting fit he was in for the last hour?

General MacEoin

The fact remains that the conduct of the Minister for Industry and Commerce last night was in keeping with the intimidation that was attempted in that document. If we could compose ourselves a bit, we might be able to realise that the best and simplest form of inquiry is one established as indicated in this motion. At a judicial inquiry, after the Dr. Ward case, there is no witness going to go into that court when he is liable for very large sums in costs. All that could have happened before that was committal for contempt of court. I suggest, therefore, that as that committee established to inquire into the gold mine question gave a report which the Taoiseach to-night read as favourable, and when it did that at a time of very great political heat in this country, much greater than there is now, and when it could bring in a report with which the Taoiseach was so satisfied that he could quote it to-night, surely a committee the equivalent of, say, the Committee of Public Accounts, could equally report on this question now?

Mr. Hughes

And I will continue to state it.

Mr. MacEntee

Therefore, I understand now that Deputy Hughes dissociates himself from the statements of Deputy General MacEoin, of Deputy McGilligan and of Deputy Morrissey; because you cannot have a corrupt administration without having corrupt men at its head. If a body is corrupt, then every member is corrupt. I am glad that at least Deputy Hughes is not as hypocritical as some people and is prepared now to repeat that charge in this House, and not merely to repeat it but to give evidence involving personally in corrupt transactions members of the Government. I was listening to Deputy MacEoin and I could not help recollecting two lines from that poem with which Deputy McGilligan tried to amuse, as he could not impress, the House:

They were used in the election of 1932 and in the by-elections preceding it, and they were used not only by members of the Government but by their families. I am not trying to make any point beyond this, that when we came into office we found cars at the disposal of our predecessors.

General Mulcahy

In order to prevent us from being murdered.

Mr. MacEntee

When we came into office in 1932 we did not exactly lie upon a bed of roses. There had been disturbances and the country had been in a state of unrest prior to 1932. Unrest did not cease when we came into office and Ministers were not immume from personal violence. Members of the Government were attacked during that period. They were attacked from two sides, by those who were our previous opponents or by those who followed them—I am not saying by the Ministers personally—and they were attacked by others who rejected the whole policy of Fianna Fáil and who desired to proceed on other lines.

Mr. O'Leary

Forget about it.

Mr. MacEntee

We were just as much in need of protection in 1932, '33, '34, '35 from those who were wearing blue shirts and from those who continued to call themselves members of the I.R.A. That is how we came to take the cars. But we found that the manner in which those cars had been used by our predecessors, and were being used by ourselves, might be justifiably commented upon by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. In the year 1934 or '35 at the instance perhaps of a certain Minister the matter was raised in the Public Accounts Committee and was fully examined there and thrashed out. It was fully examined there and thrashed out. The Public Accounts Committee, the majority of whose members are drawn from the Opposition Parties, having examined the question, agreed that it was necessary and desirable that cars should be placed at the disposal of Ministers not merely for their own conveyance but for the conveyance of their families. Accordingly, we introduced a new sub-head into the Vote for the Department of Justice, put the whole facts before the House— this is not the first time this matter was raised here—and secured the consent and approval of the Dáil to the granting of those cars to Ministers and to the manner in which they were to be used by them.

More than that, in the year 1937, a committee was set up consisting, not merely of members of this House but of citizens representative of the community as a whole, to consider the position of Ministers and other officers of State. Amongst other things, this question of transport for Ministers came up for consideration. That committee agreed that it was desirable, in all the circumstances, to place cars at the disposal of Ministers for the transport of themselves and their families. That report was signed by the then colleagues of Deputy MacEoin and by others, who were not at that time members of the Oireachtas, but who subsequently sat on the same benches as Deputy MacEoin. That is how public cars were placed at the disposal of Ministers. Yet, the gentleman who knows that—the Deputy who does not accuse us of corruption, far from it— now comes in and accuses us of political immorality because we availed of the facilities voted to us by this House and which a committee, consisting of members of the Oireachtas with outside citizens, recommended should be placed at our disposal. The Deputy accuses us of political immorality. It is no wonder "Because the muck he had to sell was what you wished to buy".

Take, again, this alleged letter of the Taoiseach. Does not everybody know that, at election times, political Parties appeal to their supporters for funds. Is there any Deputy sitting opposite who has not sent out an appeal to his supporters and cast his net as widely as possible lest he overlook somebody who would give him £1 or £2 or £20?

Mr. Flanagan

Or £50 or £100.

Mr. MacEntee

Or £50. Is there any Deputy on the opposite benches who has not issued an appeal for funds? Have we not seen these appeals issued over the name of Deputy Mulcahy himself? When Deputy Mulcahy was a member of the Government, prior to 1932, did not he and his fellow-Ministers issue those appeals? Did not an appeal go out then signed by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy McGilligan? Is it not a customary thing to do? Could political Parties be sustained if they did not receive voluntary subscriptions from those who believe in them, who wish to support them and who desire to see their policy given effect?

Now take Deputy MacEoin's performance here to-night. He read out an appeal. He prefaced it by making a lot of ugly suggestions. He had previously proclaimed, as Deputy Morrissey had proclaimed, that nobody would believe that the Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera, could be personally corrupt. Having proclaimed that, did not Deputy MacEoin proceed to dot the i's and cross the "t's" of his colleague, Deputy Morrissey, who previously, in this debate, had said that he and every honest man in Ireland would hold the Taoiseach blameless of political or personal corruption? But Deputy Morrissey went on to say that he was not so satisfied about the head of the Fianna Fáil organisation if a handsome present were coming into the Party funds. The man who said that is the man who reiterated and endorsed the Taoiseach's statement, that slander is a filthy thing. But then we have Deputy MacEoin getting up here and prefacing the reading of that letter with slimy suggestions which a person, if asked to be explicit, would run away from. By hints, innuendoes and insinuations, he made a background for what he proposed to do. He did that to poison the arrow which he was going to implant. This is the Deputy who proclaims his belief in the integrity of the Taoiseach—because he dare not do anything else. If he could destroy the belief which the people have in the integrity of the Taoiseach, he would be as unscrupulous in doing it as he was in his use of that letter. He proceeded to read a letter appealing for funds and he said it was signed by Eamon de Valera. I asked him where the letter was from. I invite those Deputies who were here when I put that question to recollect Deputy MacEoin's attitude and the manner in which he answered. I asked him where the letter was from and he said: "The President's Office." He then stopped and I said no more because I was going to ask him when it was written.

There was a time when there was a President's office attached to the Government—the office of the President of the Executive Council. I should have been surprised if the Taoiseach had written a letter from the President's office but I waited and, when somebody from these benches questioned that, Deputy MacEoin said: "The President's office—Fianna Fáil." If the statement had not been questioned, down on the records of this House it would have gone, as originally made, and, in the minds of everybody listening, there would have been implanted the belief that that letter, written in the ordinary way by the head of a political organisation, as is done by the heads of all political organisations at election times, was sent out from the Taoiseach's office in Government Buildings. Is not that what Deputy MacEoin set out to convey? Is not that precisely the sort of half truth, which is worse, as I said, than the whole lie, that has been broadcast up and down the country? Deputy McGilligan when he opened his speech, faced with the fact that the Taoiseach had indicated last night that there was going to be an inquiry and had confirmed that indication of his to-day by announcing that the Government proposed to bring in a resolution empowering it to set up a judicial tribunal of inquiry, asked why the Taoiseach did not intimate that to Deputy Mulcahy yesterday. Prior to the debate yesterday what had we to inquire into? We had a number of amorphous suggestions made by Deputy Flanagan and by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, re-echoed to some extent by Deputy Dillon in certain supplementary questions, but what precisely were the allegations? That required some elucidation, because you cannot take three members of the Judiciary from the duties which they have been appointed to perform and say: "Read that speech of Deputy Flanagan. Bring him before you and ask him what he means." You must have some formulation of charges, something upon which to base the inquiry. We had some reason to take up that, shall we say, reserved attitude, in view of what had happened in relation to previous inquiries.

A few comrades who will have to stand by him and hold his hand up because they are now in the same boat as he. Deputy Morrissey is a gentleman who said that slander is a filthy thing and, of course, Deputy Morrissey says his only interest in this is to keep an open mind in the matter, not to express an opinion one way or the other. What opinion did Deputy Morrissey express last night when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was speaking, setting out that on three or four occasions Mr. Cooney or his representatives came to the Department and that on one of these occasions Mr. Cooney was accompanied by Senator Quirke? Deputy Morrissey said that on the fourth occasion he brought the proper escort.

Mr. Morrissey

It is obvious.

Mr. MacEntee

"It is obvious." I see. Is that merely a personal opinion the Deputy is venturing or has he anything to substantiate what is really implied in his interruption then?

Mr. Morrissey

Be careful.

Mr. MacEntee

Look here, the plain implication of that statement, and Deputy Morrissey knows it as well as I, is, to put it in vulgar parlance, that there was nothing doing until Senator Quirke appeared on the scene. Is there any other conclusion to be drawn from that statement than that that is what Deputy Morrissey believes? Is a man justified in believing that a person—in this case a civil servant—will deal corruptly with another person, whether he is a member of the Oireachtas or not, unless he has some substantial evidence to go on? After all, people are entitled to be regarded as innocent, even members of the Oireachtas, until there is some substantial evidence that they are not innocent, that they are dishonest or dishonourable or corrupt.

Had Deputy Morrissey that evidence or was he merely assuming that because a member of the Oireachtas accompanies another person into a Government office that there is something corrupt or illegal going on? Are we to conclude that every time Deputy Morrissey enters a Government office, every time any other member of the Dáil, whether on the Government side or on the Opposition side, comes into a Government office with a constituent, or perhaps only with a friend, wanting to see an officer in order to transact some business with that officer, the occurrence is a suspicious one and one that would justify the conclusion that a dishonourable or a corrupt transaction was being entered into? Is not that precisely what Deputy Morrissey wanted to imply?

Then Deputy Dillon will also be there with Deputy Flanagan. Deputy Flanagan, in the course of his speech and questions last night, did incubate certain charges. To put it this way, he did incubate them; he hatched the eggs that Deputy Dillon had set under him. But Deputy Dillon had a few eggs of his own. Having more or less given the same sort of hypocritical display which we had from Deputy Seán MacEoin, Deputy Dillon began once again by exculpating everybody from any suggestion of wrong-doing or, again let me say, corruption. But he had not gone far in his stride before he left the sanctimonious garments behind and was out in his running shorts going down the course, full pelt, crying again, "illegality, corruption, political immorality". Deputy Dillon is the man who had not got very far into his stride before he accused Senator Quirke of suborning smuggling, of inciting Mr. Eindiguer to smuggle. This was the next new charge that was imported into these allegations by Deputy Dillon: That Senator Quirke is not merely a person who is engaged in a questionable transaction in relation to Kilbeggan Distillery, but he is also a person who is encouraging a foreigner to smuggle watches into this country.

General MacEoin

I do not believe that at all.

Mr. MacEntee

You do not believe it but Deputy Dillon does. At least, he must. The Deputy has been telling us here that businessmen's reputations must be protected—he has been saying that time and time again—and yet at the same time he gets up here and he says: "But surely there was something incongruous when choosing your gift that one would arrange to smuggle it." There is a plain accusation against Senator Quirke made by one of these people who make no accusations.

Then again Deputy Dillon was the person who first uttered the accusation which was stated more coarsely by Deputy McGilligan. Deputy Dillon alleged that another meaning could be given to the fact that Senator Quirke was the first person to become suspicious of Mr. Smith and to report that individual to the Minister for Justice. He suggested that the Senator only became suspicious of Mr. Smith when he read in the newspapers that he had been in the company of a man whose name was known to him. This was how Deputy Dillon commented on the fact that the man who drew the attention of the Minister for Justice to Mr. Eindiguer and his associates was Senator Quirke: he said "that story would be given another meaning of the way Sachsel was trying to muscle in on Senator Quirke's deal—he had in fact taken away Senator Quirke's customer." Now listen to the way that that has been transmogrified by Deputy McGilligan. He wants to know: "Did the Senator blow the gaff in the best gangster manner."

I suppose that is not an accusation. I suppose Deputy McGilligan would say that he did not make any accusation. He would be like Deputy Flanagan: he merely asked a question; but the question which Deputy McGilligan asked was based upon the suggestion which Deputy Dillon made, and Deputy McGilligan is an old hand at studying briefs and studying evidence. Surely, if he was honest he would not have made that charge or would not have asked that question unless he thought that the question had a foundation of fact to justify it.

Now, had Deputy McGilligan any evidence to justify that question, or was he merely doing in this case what he did, not merely in the case of the inquiry into the shares of the Great Southern Railways, but in regard to the inquiry into the Wicklow mining leases, and in regard to other inquiries where Deputy McGilligan has been brought to book, because, remember, it will not be only Senator Quirke or Mr. Sweeney or any members of the Government who will be brought to answer before this tribunal; it will be those who have been making these allegations? We know from previous experience that Deputy McGilligan in putting that charge into the form of a question was merely preparing for his "get-away". He either had evidence to justify putting that question or he had none. If he had none, I hope that he will be compelled to testify on oath that he had none. If he had some, I hope that he will be compelled to produce it.

Now, what is the issue at the moment before the House? We have traversed a lot of ground. Some of it I have been compelled to go over because of the speeches that have been made by the Opposition. The net issue is this: whether we are going to have these allegations investigated by a committee of this House, by a committee of politicians, or whether we are going to have them investigated by the judges of the land. Is not that the issue? Is there any other issue than that now before us? Deputy Mulcahy has asked for an investigation. We have offered him an investigation. The investigation which we have offered is one that can be searching and precise, one which can ascertain the truth without prejudice and without bias.

Can anybody, having listened to Deputy McGilligan's references to the committee which was set up to inquire into the mining leases, believe that a committee of the House would be able to carry through the necessary investigation without prejudice and without bias, and could anybody rid Deputy McGilligan's mind of prejudice and of bias? Is not the mentality of that Deputy warped by reason of his disappointed political ambitions? Could anybody free the mind of the exAttorney-General of bias and prejudice where members of the Fianna Fáil Party were concerned? That lawyer is a member of the Opposition whom I have heard in this House charge the Government with corruption and he did not exclude them personally either when he made that charge. Does anybody believe that Senator Quirke, or anybody associated with Fianna Fáil would get a fair deal and a fair hearing at the hands of Deputy McGilligan or Deputy Costello?

Deputy McGilligan was a member of the committee of the Dáil which investigated this question of the granting of mining leases in County Wicklow in, I think, the year 1933 or 1934. He signed that committee's report. But did not everybody here to-night listen to him trying, as usual, to run away from his own statements even though they were over his own signature: trying to suggest that the committee was limited in its terms of reference and trying to suggest that the findings were not in accordance with the facts even though he signed them himself? What sort of a sequel would we have here if a committee of this House were set up to investigate the charges which Deputy Flanagan, Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Dillon, Deputy Morrissey and Deputy McGilligan himself have made? Would there be any man who was associated in any way with this Party exculpated? Would there be any man, no matter how blameless his part in that transaction was, be vindicated if he were a member of the Fianna Fáil Party or associated with the Fianna Fáil organisation in any way? Does not everyone know that Deputy McGilligan, Deputy Mulcahy and the rest of them would come in here and say that the terms of reference were drawn in such a way that they could not conduct the wide investigations they wanted?

These gentlemen do not want a judicial inquiry. They do not want a searching investigation. They were never so surprised in their lives—that was clear last night from the panic with which they heard the Tánaiste's announcement that there was going to be an investigation. They were never so panic-stricken in their lives as when they heard the Taoiseach confirm that and say we would have a judicial inquiry. That is the explanation of the quite extraordinary scenes which we witnessed last night. For days and weeks the Deputies concerned had been building up a structure of misrepresentation, allegations, insinuations and innuendoes. Deputy Dillon, Deputy Flanagan and Deputy O'Higgins had been piling brick upon brick until they had raised here an edifice, as I have said, of misrepresentation, allegations, insinuations and innuendoes. They had begun to hope that they had got the people to believe that, as Deputy O'Higgins said, there was no smoke without fire.

They put down this motion believing that because we knew Deputy Flanagan, knew his irresponsible ways, knew how we had to listen to him year after year since he was elected to this House pursuing the self-same tactics—besmirching the reputation of honest men and alleging criminal and corrupt conduct against those who differ from him—they thought that because we knew how flimsy the structure was which they had reared on the basis of his privileged statements we would refuse to have this inquiry; that we would say there was nothing in it, because the men behind it were not substantial men in the sense that they have no reputation to lose and, therefore, that we would refuse it.

To their surprise, it was indicated that there was to be an inquiry and it was not to be an inquiry by politicians; it was to be an inquiry by judges at which they would have to give evidence on their oath. At once you saw them scuttling to get away from it. Read Deputy Dillon's speech, for example. This debate began on the plane that there had been a colossal, corrupt transaction in the sale of Locke's Distillery. But, when Deputy Dillon got up to speak, after all it was only a storm over a tea-party. It was not a question of Locke's Distillery; but merely as to how some people had got into Árus an Uachtaráin and had been treated to tea by the President; how they got into the social column of the Irish Times. That was the whole burden of Deputy Dillon's speech when Deputy Dillon could keep himself collected and remember that the words he was speaking were no idle words, but words for which he might be called upon to account. Of course, occasionally he could not be prudent, he could not be reserved. The old bias and bile had to come out and, as I have shown, he made himself responsible for one or two additional allegations in relation to this matter. That is why we had this panic last night.

Mr. Morrissey

There is a bit of panic to-night and it is not in this camp.

Mr. MacEntee

When the Taoiseach challenged the gentlemen opposite as to whom they brought these charges of corruption against, they were rising indignantly in their places—we never saw such a miracle before—and saying: "Not me, sir, Not me, sir, Not me, sir. I never did it. I never alleged that any person was corrupt." To-day we had the same sort of exhibition by men trying to take out a life insurance policy when it is too late; trying to indemnify themselves against the consequences of the statements which they made in this House and elsewhere; proclaiming that they no longer charged any member of the Government with corruption. Everybody is innocent, myself included. There is no longer any imputation against the honour or character of any member of this Government. That is a result for which we have at least to thank Deputy Flanagan.

There will be other results, however, emerging from this inquiry and I hope that they will have a salutary effect upon those gentlemen who, inside this House, take it upon themselves to slander and to traduce other people.

I have been accused of using language for which, I may say, I apologised in 1937 or 1938 in this Dáil. My words are on record. I made these statements at a time when political feeling was running very high in this country; when we found ourselves engaged in a very critical struggle with a very powerful neighbour on the other side, and when we thought we were not getting the support that any Irish Government should get from representatives of the Irish people when they were engagd in such a crisis.

General Mulcahy

What year is the Minister referring to?

Mr. MacEntee

The year 1933 when the economic war was on and the Blueshirts were starting. Then, in the heat of an election, I said things which I have deeply and bitterly regretted ever since and for which I have been ashamed. I said that before and I am prepared to say it again. But I said these things outside this House. Anything I ever said about any political opponent I said in a place where I could be brought to account for it. I did not say it here, sheltering under the privilege of a Deputy. Never once have I impugned the character and the conduct of any man in this House. I have said these things outside this House. I may have repeated them here, but I have said them outside. I have put myself in the position that any man who felt he had been wronged by what I had said could bring me to account.

That is not what has been done in this case. On the contrary, there are men who are not mere tyros in political life like Deputy Flanagan, the fledgling that Deputy McGilligan, Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Dillon are concerned to protect but are all hardened sinners, sitting on the benches opposite, who have consistently and persistently used this House to attack, to traduce, to slander and to vilify people outside and even members here who differ from them or whom they think are supporters of ours. That is why we had the names of Deputy Briscoe and Senator Quirke and other names mentioned here to-night in the shadow and shelter of this House.

Deputies have rights; but have private citizens no rights? Deputy Norton in deciding, as he could do no other, that the best method of investigating these charges was by means of a judicial tribunal, tried to suggest that, after all, this tribunal should not be asked to comment upon the conduct of those Deputies who have used their position in this House to protect them from the ordinary consequences of the civil law for the statements which they make. That, of course, raises a very big question. I would be the last to detract in any way from the prerogatives of this House and its right to deal with those members who abuse their position here. But this matter cannot be left, as Deputy Norton suggested, merely to the electors to deal with.

After all, members were elected to come here not merely as the immediate representatives of their constituencies; they come here as component parts of the Legislature of Ireland. They are part of this corporate entity which we call Dáil Éireann. They are one with us in our common body. They have obligations not only to their constituents, but to this Assembly, to this State and to the country as a whole. The members of this Assembly who have these privileges have them only as members of this corporate unity. They do not possess them in their own natural right. They possess them because they are members of Dáil Éireann. When these privileges are abused, it is not merely the ordinary citizen upon whom wrong and injustice are inflicted. A wrong is done to the honour and prestige of this Assembly and of the Irish nation and, somehow or other, we shall have to find some means of ensuring that the reputation of Dáil Éireann and the reputation of those members of Dáil Éireann who have the misfortune to sit in this Assembly with these worthless men will be protected against their irresponsible and vile utterances.

Mr. Maguire

The occasion of this motion is rather important. It undoubtedly implies charges which, if only partially true, are very bad, and not merely are they very bad, if proven to be true or partially true, but the amount of publicity connected with it, in its effect on the morals of our people is bad. It is bad not only in so far as it affects the morals of our own people but in so far as publicity outside this country must affect opinion as to our standard of morality in countries which read of the situation.

Considering over it, the proposal here, very admirably put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and so spontaneously accepted, to an extent, by the Taoiseach last night, showed the degree of integrity animating both sides of the House, but then an extraordinary development occurs. In the case of an inquiry and investigation into allegations affecting the standard of decency and morals in public life and those engaged in it: when there has been acceptance by the Taoiseach and approval by him of a proposal to set up a judicial inquiry to investigate the matter, one would imagine that, in the ordinary way of business transactions, the matter should have remained there and should have awaited the setting up of such judicial body as might be decided upon. But here we have had continuously for two days a discussion around the problems of this question, with every detail of it discussed, while it awaits investigation and decision by a commission of investigation of some sort which is to be set up.

Where are the people who will act in this very important matter dealing with the morals of our life here to be found? Will they come from the moon, from some planet which has no contact with us? Will they not have read in the papers these discussions and may they not read the actual debates here and will their minds not be prejudiced when they come to deal with this problem? Both sides of the House are largely fooling themselves. The purpose of this is very largely a camouflage by which one section seeks to gain political capital as against another. Where is the evidence of sincerity, right or left?

The responsibility is on the Government to preserve the dignity of this institution, the honour of those who are here and the honour of business transacted here. Why has there not been established some machinery which could deal in a fair and judicious way with problems of this sort, without all this general discussion, this array of nonsense, which cuts across any proposal of an investigation which would have merit, or which would allow any investigating body to approach the problem with a fair and open mind? Some machinery should exist, some machinery made as rigid as can be, so that people inside the House or outside will not be allowed to make reckless statements which reflect upon the honour of the smallest individual and to get away scot-free. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility to provide such a machinery, and it is merely asking for what is the ordinary right of the individual to ask that such machinery should be made available.

That machinery should be available in a fair and open manner, and should be available to all who may feel aggrieved with, of course, certain exceptions, and that machine should not be prejudiced by public discussion in the Dáil of the merits or demerits of the case, and the matter then sent for investigation. Let us have machinery to deal with these problems and let those in this House understand that, if they are going to make reckless statements, whether members of Government or Opposition or individual members, if they are going to use their privileges to make charges here which they cannot substantiate subsequently, that machinery will be available to deal with the position thus created. In such circumstances, we would go a long way towards avoiding the disgraceful things which have occurred and will continue to occur so long as there is no machinery for the punishment or restricting of such recklessness.

I listened with great interest to the speeches made here to-night. I listened to the Taoiseach delivering what I considered to be a proper denunciation of the abuse of privilege by Deputies when they charge others with slander. He went on to describe slander as something filthy and said that when slanderous statements were made under the privilege which we claim here as Deputies it was much worse—it was not Christian, was beneath contempt and that words could scarcely be found to describe it. With that I am in full agreement, but I should like if the Taoiseach were here to answer this question: What is slander? Slander I take to mean that somebody makes an assertion against another person's character, tries to lower an individual or group of individuals in the estimation of their associates. That is slander, I think. A better definition would be given by somebody who is versed in the legal aspects of it.

Again referring to the question of slander, the Minister for Local Government a few moments ago said he never made a statement inside the House that he was not prepared to make outside. I am glad to hear that. That should be the attitude of any decent man in this House. The man who is prepared to take the shelter of this House and who refuses to make charges outside this House which he makes inside, is a coward. He is a mean man and morally has no honour as a member of the House. He takes shelter behind the protection of an association of which he finds himself a member. The Taoiseach and his Ministers have done that, so far as I am concerned. I am glad to have the assurance of the Minister for Local Government that he never did. I approve of that sentiment. I must say, that for years, I had close association with the Fianna Fáil Party and their Ministers and I do not for one moment credit or believe that a charge of corruption against these men is justified. I met them in the course of that close association, and in the discharge of my duties.

It has been my duty to introduce several deputations to various Ministers in regard to matters concerning land, local government, industries, etc., and I do not believe that any person who makes a charge of corruption, such as had been made, against any section of the Ministry, can justify it. I have always found them from my close association with them honourable men, desirous of doing their duties faithfully and rigidly, and when necessary, not afraid to say "no". They were not influenced in their decisions by any political approaches. I do say, however, that I fear these men have got an inferiority complex and that they are governed, to a greater extent than they should be, by the influence of big business interests, rather than a sense of justice and a sense of duty, which should defend the poorest as against the richest on merit and merit alone.

I felt from the beginning that I could contribute nothing useful to the general debate here. The motion was inspired no doubt with the purpose of getting whispers brought to a finish and of bringing to a head suggestions that were definitely injurious, not merely to the Government in office, but to the whole set up of our State. The proposal in a general way has been accepted, but I think that once certain conditions have been fulfilled, a continuation of the debate, in the form of an investigation of the various details by this House, does not show a desire on the part of the House to have a judicial investigation properly carried out, but is rather intended to provide an opportunity for the utterance of still more slanders for political reasons. I have no intention of contributing in any form, nor could I to the general proposal further than I have done.

On the general standard of the Government approach to these matters, having listened to the Taoiseach and to others here who have given expression to beautiful feelings, I am mighty glad I cannot say "Hear, hear" to some of the sentiments expressed. But knowing the context of this motion, and having regard to the acceptance by the Taoiseach of the word of a certain man in big business over the phone against a man in a lower financial position, without giving me an opportunity of meeting those charges, I say that is slander and I cannot regard the men who have mouthed these beautiful sentiments here to-night, as anything but hypocrites.

Mr. Costello

It was not my intention to intervene in the debate as I know nothing whatever about Locke's Distillery, the facts surrounding its proposed sale, or the sordid scandal which has emerged as a result. It appears to me, however, that the facts which have been established raise a strong prima facie case for an inquiry, such as is asked for in the motion that was moved yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. Yesterday evening, when I listened to the Minister for Industry and Commerce snarling at the House, there emerged from his utterances one mutter that impelled me to come to my feet in this debate, not in reference to any of the scandals alleged to be associated with this transaction, but in reference to what I believe to be a threat to the privileges of Deputies and to the freedom of Parliamentary utterance. From that snarling of the Minister, in his repeated interrogatory—“Is that on the record?”; “You will have to give evidence of that”; “You will have to tell who told you that”—and from the speech of the Minister for Local Government, there emerged again that very definite threat to freedom of speech and Parliamentary privilege.

It is of course the general practice to refer to the Constitution passed some years ago as a document which enshrined the liberties of the people and to describe it, to use a phrase coined by one of the judges of this State, as "a truly great polity". But, in actual fact, when it became essential to give practical effect to these high-sounding phrases in the Constitution, we find that the matter was, so far as the Government was concerned, an empty facade. It has been for centuries, in what has been known throughout the world as the Mother of Parliaments, an established principle that none of the proceedings of Parliament and none of the utterances of Deputies in Parliament are cognisable by the courts. We have adopted in our Constitution here, in our Standing Orders and in our procedure, the principles which were tried and found to be essential for democratic Government through Parliamentary institutions in Great Britain. All these Articles of the Constitution are taken from the British procedure and practice, the constitutional law of Britain. They are enshrined in the Ninth Article of the Bill of Rights—which, incidentally, was never applied to this country, even in Grattan's Parliament:

"But the freedom of speech and of debates in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament."

So strong was that, that even in this country the late Chief Baron Palles dismissed out of court peremptorily an effort to question a Parliamenary utterance on the ground that the courts had no jurisdiction. No person can be questioned in court without the leave of Parliament on any utterance he makes in Parliament. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, by saying— and this is on record—"You will have to tell us where you got your information and your source of information" is clearly laying the foundations for the abrogation of that rule. It is the infringement of that principle which I regard as fundamental, transcending even the sordid details of this particular scandal, that brings me to my feet here to-night.

Again and again, an effort has been made by the Government to get round the provisions of this Constitution. In certain instances, the courts have stopped it. This is again an effort by the Government for their own purposes of intimidation, to prevent Deputies here in Dáil Eireann from exercising an independent judgment and of fearlessly making public what they believe to be necessary in the interests of the public, so that charges, rumours which are going around, may be ventilated and disposed of in the proper way. If it is not possible for any Deputy in this Dáil, without being responsible to any authority but the Dáil, to make here whatever utterance seems to him to be right, subject to the ruling of the Chair and the Standing Orders, without being threatened that he will be hauled before a judicial tribunal which will make him tell his source of information, then no Deputy in Opposition here will have the opportunity of getting sources of information which will enable him to bring to light scandals, grievances and matters which ought to be brought into the public light of day and ventilated. That, I say, is an effort on the part of the Government to get round Article 15 of the Constitution, and I make my protest here to-night on that.

Under Article 15 of the Constitution, the Oireachtas and each House of the Oireachtas has power to ensure freedom of debate and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties. That power given in the Constitution correlates with a duty of this House. It has the power to ensure that members of the House shall have the right to use that information on their own responsibility, to answer to this House and to the public, but to no other tribunal threatened against them by any Government that happens to be in power with a majority for the moment.

Another Clause of that Article provides that utterances in each House, wherever published, shall be privileged and no Deputy shall, in respect of any such utterances, be amenable to any court or any authority other than the House itself. I warn the Government here that if they attempt to drag a Deputy before this judicial tribunal, whatever its composition may be, and endeavour to get that tribunal to use such powers as it has as a tribunal under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, to force that Deputy to state his source of information, then they are infringing this Constitution and that Deputy, in his own interest and in the interests of every other Deputy here and of those who may come hereafter, is under a bounden duty to resist that effort to molest him in the discharge of his duty.

The proposal to set up this judicial tribunal is going to involve the tax-payer in considerable expense. It is also going to involve each private Deputy that the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Government tries to draw before this judicial tribunal to enable him to violate his fundamental right under this Constitution, in colossal expense—because it will be the duty of every such Deputy to refuse to answer such questions and it will be his duty, if ordered to do so, to test that in the courts in every possible way he can. That is one of the reasons why this judicial tribunal is being set up, and not because this Government has any special respect——

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of the judicial tribunal will be before the House as a substantive motion.

Mr. Costello

The Taoiseach discussed it. He discussed the question of the amendment and what he proposed to do as against this. He read out the amendment and I propose, with your permission, to comment on that on another branch of this matter; but I do submit that I am entitled here to expose the fallacies of the arguments put forward in respect of this, against the motion put down by Deputy Mulcahy and in favour of the amendment read out by the Taoiseach here to-night. That is all I propose to do, with your permission; and I respectfully suggest that I am not contravening the rules of order or the rules of discussion.

General Mulcahy

I would also suggest that to do so may help to improve the outlook of the Taoiseach and the Government in what they propose to do on Wednesday and may help to spare Parliamentary time on Wednesday on this proposal.

Mr. Costello

This has developed into a proposal that this motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition should not be carried, but in lieu of it the motion the Taoiseach has read out is a better one. It is on that that I am very shortly making these submissions, on the one point. One of the reasons why that is being done is, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, yesterday, stated in the House and as the Minister for Local Government repeated to-night, in order to make Deputies come before that tribunal and give away their sources of information. I say that once a Deputy is obliged to give to any court other than this Dáil, or outside the Dáil, his source of information, the independence of every Deputy and in particular of Opposition Deputies, is gone for ever and democracy is uprooted in this country. Let that be clear. That is why I am interposing, not on this scandal, not on the sordid details of this very miserable affair, not on the matters raised here with such truculence yesterday, but on this other matter which transcends even that principle.

The second point is the form of this motion proposed by the Taoiseach. Deputy Norton to-night gave his reasons why he preferred the proposal of the Taoiseach to the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition. The Taoiseach read out selected portions of the Report of the Mining Oireachtas Committee which investigated the charges which were preferred at that time. At that time, there was no suggestion that a judicial tribunal was the proper tribunal, as against a Parliamentary tribunal, to investigate charges of that kind, although in that particular case, outside interests were involved and outside interests were returned upon and recommendations were made as to future practice, which were carried out as a result of the recommendations of that tribunal. That tribunal had this result, that, although it was set up at a time when this Government had a large majority, and was composed of a number of Deputies of all Parties and was of such a composition that the Government had a majority in it, nevertheless, each Deputy on that commission did what he conceived to be his conscientious duty on the evidence produced and gave his opinion, irrespective of political reasons.

Why cannot that be done now? Why cannot there be a committee set up to deal with questions affecting Parliamentary privilege? If a Deputy abuses the privilege given to him in this House, it is a matter, in the first instance, for the Chair and, in the second instance, for the House to deal with transgressions of that kind. The Dáil or the Oireachtas is the proper body, or bodies, for dealing with the matter, not a judicial tribunal given deliberately restricted terms of reference.

Deputy Norton said he was in favour of a judicial tribunal, provided certain matters were adhered to, and he enumerated them. Had he not done so, I would have. I do not propose to enumerate what he has already done, but I want to make submissions on the reasons why, in this instance, the type of tribunal proposed in this motion is better than the type of tribunal proposed by the Taoiseach. In this case or in the circumstances surrounding this transaction or in the charges made we have nobody who can be a prosecutor or a defendant; we have nobody who can be a plaintiff or a defendant; we have nobody who can stand evenly between the parties, the Government on the one side and whoever is supposed to be connected with this transaction. We have no one to stand between them and the people who want this matter cleared up. We have nobody to stand as a prosecutor on the part of the public between the prisoner and the sentence of the law.

It would be quite inappropriate for the Attorney-General to appear in that capacity in this tribunal. He would not be independent in the conduct of an inquiry of that kind because he is a Government officer, made so under the Constitution. If this inquiry is to be other than a restricted inquiry which will not gain the confidence of the public, there ought to be someone who will conduct the proceedings intelligently and see that every fact is brought to light, whether for the particular persons bringing these charges or against the persons who are the subject of this investigation. This tribunal will not command the confidence of the public unless there is some such official.

The Taoiseach referred to the Ward tribunal and I only refer to it to underline what I say. In that tribunal the Attorney-General took no effective part through his counsel. There was nobody on that tribunal whose duty it was to see that as between the protagonists all facts were brought out and all documents secured. It is not right or proper that judicial personages should be put in the position, as juges d'instruction are on the continent, themselves interrogating witnesses and acting as prosecutors. This tribunal, if it is to be of any use, ought to have functions of the type Deputy Norton indicated. It ought to be a fact-finding tribunal, investigating all the facts.

These terms of reference are about as restricted as could possibly be conceived. The judges who will compose this tribunal will act in accordance with their training and judicial outlook. There are their terms of reference and not one inch outside that can they go. That is what this Government want, a restricted inquiry. What we want is a tribunal which will be in a position to find out the facts connected with this matter, whatever they are, not one which will be brought for the purpose of whitewashing anybody, whether on one side or the other. That is what this tribunal proposed will result in and it will not gain the confidence of the public.

For these reasons I have intervened. I repeat that this is an effort on the part of the Government, which should be opposed by every possible means and, I believe, will be opposed, to infringe the rights of private Deputies. Throughout the last ten or 15 years, bit by bit, efforts have been made to infringe the rights of private Deputies. A stand has to be made and I think this is the time to make a stand, wherever the attack may come from, whether from Government, officials or anybody else. That stand ought to be taken now. This is a serious matter, seriously affecting not Deputies alone—they do not matter so much. Their privilege is not the privilege of a Deputy or of Parliament; it is the privilege of the public, the privilege of the people, and that is a privilege that should be defended by every possible means by the people who have freedom and democracy, true freedom and democracy at heart.

Mr. Blowick

In the public interest and, I think, in the interests of all concerned, it is better that an inquiry should be held into all that has occurred here within the past few days and on some days last week. The Taoiseach has suggested an alternative form of inquiry to the one proposed by Deputy Mulcahy. I and this Party favour the committee consisting of members of the Dáil proposed by Deputy Mulcahy. I think that is the best. It is the least expensive and it will have full power and authority to go into all the details and to give a fair and impartial hearing in this particular case. I think the tribunal the Taoiseach has suggested would be a costly one. There is a positive danger that such a tribunal would endanger the rights of free speech in the House. That is a thing we cannot afford to play or tamper with. The committee suggested by the Leader of Fine Gael will, in my opinion, meet the situation amply and we are supporting that particular motion.

Mr. Donnellan

Are there not competent men in the Dáil?

General Mulcahy

On Friday, October 24th, I put in the motion which we are discussing now which asks that a Select Committee of the Dáil be set up to inquire into, and report to the Dáil on, all matters and circumstances that might be connected with the matter. When we met yesterday to discuss the motion that was the simple proposition before the House. Acting on what I regard as my sense of responsibility, I considered that the proposal ought to be made without further discussion on details and that a Select Committee of the Dáil should be set up to investigate into every aspect of the matter. In the discussion it emerged that the Government, too, was of the opinion that there ought to be an inquiry of some kind or another. I advised the Government that I had put in this motion, as I had not any previous information on the Wednesday before the discussion began whether they would accept the motion or not. I expected that the Taoiseach might send for me to discuss the circumstances revealed on Wednesday, October 22nd, and my line of approach to an inquiry, and that he might consider discussing with me the type of inquiry I wanted and the type of inquiry I thought necessary so that there might be a common agreement as to how the matter might most simply, most effectively and most fully be investigated.

Question put.

The Dáil divided:—Tá: 33; Níl: 63.

Tá

Beirne, John.
Bennett, George C.
Blowick, Joseph.
Coburn, James.
Cogan, Patrick.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Costello, John A.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Donnellan, Michael.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Fagan, Charles.
Finucane, Patrick.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Halliden, Patrick J.
Hughes, James.
Keating, John.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Leary, John.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Reilly, Thomas.
Reidy, James.
Reynolds, Mary.
Roddy, Martin.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Sheldon, William A.W.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neal.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Brian.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Brennan, Martin.
Brennan, Thomas.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Butler, Bernard.
Carter, Thomas.
Childers, Erskine H.
Colley, Harry.
Corish, Brendan.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Davin, William.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
De Valera, Vivion.
Flynn, Stephen.
Furlong, Walter.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Keyes, Michael.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, James.
Kissane, Eamon.
Larkin, James (Junior).
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Lydon, Michael F.
Lynch, James B.
McCann, John.
McCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
McGrath, Patrick.
Moylan, Seán.
Murphy, Timothy J.
Norton, William.
O'Connor, John S.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Loghlen, Peter J.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Sullivan, Martin.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Ryan, Robert.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Walsh, Laurence.
Walsh, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Ó Ciosáin and Ó Cinnéide.

Question declared lost.

The Dáil adjourned at 12.15 a.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 5th November, 1947.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 30 Oct 1947