asked the Taoiseach whether he stated at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis on the 15th February that in the well-ordered and peaceful conditions of to-day it has been forgotten that there ever existed a Military Tribunal to try people for so-called political offences, or that an Irish Government killed some of their own people for the difference between the External Relations. Act and the Irish Republic; and, if so, whether, in view of the serious nature and implications of this statement he will amplify it.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Taoiseach's Ard-Fheis Statement.
On the occasion to which the Deputy refers, I certainly made a statement to the effect, or substantially to the effect, indicated in the question. In doing so, I was repeating, in substance, what I said more than once in this House during the debates on the Republic of Ireland Bill, 1948. For example, on the 24th November last, I included in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill the following statement (Dáil Debates, Volume 113, Columns 379 and 380):
"All through the history of this State from 1922 onwards we have had recurring cycles of violence and repression. We have had one Party with a majority of the people behind it charged with a duty of enforcing law, and with the distasteful task of putting Irishmen into jail, of executing Irishmen and of shooting Irishmen because of ideals in which those Irishmen believed. That is a problem which has confronted any Government taking office in this country in the past and charged with the duty of maintaining law and order over the last 26 years. I was determined that never again would I take any part in a Government that had to enforce order by extra-judicial processes. I never will. From February of this year there has existed throughout this country from north to south and from east to west a measure of peace, concord and goodwill between every section of our community—such a measure of peace, concord and goodwill as has not existed in this country for the past 50 years. I want that situation to continue. This Bill is designed to do that."
Nothing was implied in my statement at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis beyond what I expressly said in the passage which I have quoted from my speech of the 24th November last.
The Taoiseach admits the statement——
I do not admit; I expressly say that that is what I stated.
May I ask the Taoiseach whether he admits that he said at the Fine Gael Ard-Fheis that an Irish Government killed some of their own people for the difference between the External Relations Act and the Irish Republic?
I have already stated that I certainly said that, or something to that effect.
Did the Taoiseach, when he made that statement, intend, first, to condemn the Guards who defended their lives——
I certainly intended nothing of the sort and the Deputy knows it.
Did the Taoiseach intend——
He attacked you for keeping people in conditions in which one would not keep a dog.
Did the Taoiseach intend to condemn the Government which executed men for the murder of Guards?
Put down a question, if you want an answer.
Did he intend by that statement to condemn as unjustifiable the action of the Government in executing men for the murder of Guards, or does he now——
Are you finished asking the question? I have specifically——
They were executed because they were republicans.
Mr. de Valera
The Deputy knows that is an untruth.
It is not.
Mr. de Valera
It is an untruth and everybody in the House knows it.
It is true.
Mr. de Valera
It is not true. It is a damned lie.
Is that in order? Is it in order for a Deputy to refer to a statement as "a damned lie?"
Mr. de Valera
It is.
A double-damned lie.
It is in order.
Why was George plant executed?
For murdering Devereux.
What about Stephen Hayes?
On a point of order, is it in order for a Deputy to refer to a statement by another Deputy as "a damned lie"?
I have been put the question whether it is in order to use such an expression. When Deputies, in a disorderly fashion, interrupt the debate, they invite replies of that nature. It is not in order, but in the circumstances it might have been.
Will it be withdrawn?
Mr. de Valera
Not if I have to leave this House for ever. It will not be withdrawn, if I have to leave this House for ever, because what I have said is true.
I am not addressing the ex-Taoiseach; I am addressing the Chair. Will such a remark be regularised as being in order and allowed to go on the records of this House as being an orderly remark, or will it be withdrawn?
It is something worth having on the records.
If the actions of the State under a previous Government are called murder, that is not in order, either. It elicited a remark which is also disorderly in ordinary debate. That did not occur in debate.
Is that remark to pass?
May I answer the question put to me?
Yes.
No such implication as the Deputy endeavoured to put into my speech is capable of being read into that speech. I have indicated fully what was intended by my speech and to that I have nothing to add, and can add nothing, and nothing the Deputy can say, by way of endeavour to put into my statement implications not merely which it was not intended to bear but which it is incapable of bearing, can make what I said capable of such an interpretation.
May I ask the Taoiseach as a supplementary——
Question No. 2.
May I draw attention to something the Taoiseach has said—a reference of his during the debate on the Department of Justice? I want to ask the Taoiseach——
Have you called the next question, sir?
I want to ask the Taoiseach a question.
Question No. 2.
Might I point out that the next question is being called because of the disorderly interruptions of Ministers?
Nobody ever objected to the finding of that tribunal until after 1943, when the war was over.
When it was politically expedient for them to do it.
Question No. 2.
He assisted to frame the Order to set up the court. He is now behaving in a cowardly manner.
Running away.
Mr. Boland
Deputy Dillon was the man who amended that Order setting up the court.
Now the old slime is comming out.
Mr. Boland
You are cowardly.
Leave it to the O'Higgins's all the time.
Mr. Boland
Until the war was over, you did not raise your voice. You are all funks.
Do Deputies want to hear the answers to the questions or not?
We want no answers like the last one.
Another answer like the last one will only breed contempt for the Taoiseach.
Would Deputy Lemass mind explaining what he means by that cowardly observation?
The gentlemen opposite!
It is typical of him... always below the belt.