I would like to call your attention to a report of Deputy Costello's speech in which he ascribes to me remarks which I did not make. The reference is at column 1340.
Report of Deputy's Speech—Minister's Statement.
Of what date?
In Volume 138, No. 11. The words ascribed are printed in inverted commas and the passage itself is inset. It would appear to me that that was due either to a misunderstanding on the part of the official reporters or to subsequent correction of the manuscript. The report is incorrect. I did not say the words which Deputy Costello alleged I used. They do not appear in any part of my speech. I would submit to you that the official record should be corrected.
What are the words? The Minister did not tell us what the words were.
If the Deputy wishes he can consult column 1340 and he will see there a passage printed in inverted commas and inset.
On a point of order. When a member of this House raises, with the permission of the Chair, a point in connection with whatever may be inserted in the Official Report, surely the House is entitled to know what the words were? It is the invariable practice that the member who alleges that he has been wrongfully reported or misrepresented quotes from the Official Report the words to which he takes exception.
I do not propose to repeat Deputy Costello's slander on me.
Nonsense!
It is an inset in the report at column 1340. The Minister says he did not use those words.
What words?
There is an inset in inverted commas.
Why is he so shy about reading it?
Does the Minister say he did not use any of those words? I must know whether the Minister used any of these words before we can come to a decision.
I did not use the sentence ascribed to me. It does not appear in any part of the speech circulated among others to Deputy Costello. I followed the text of the script. This is an interpolation of his own invention. It is a nice performance.
It was certainly on the part of Deputy Costello.
If a Deputy takes exception to the draft report he invariably consults the editor of the debates andonly in default of securing an appropriate amendment does he approach the Ceann Comhairle to determine whether the amendment is properly made or not. This is purely a printed matter in which certain words are put in inverted commas in the draft report. This is a matter surely that should have been taken up with the editor of debates first and then if the matter could not be adjusted, brought to you.
The Ceann Comhairle is in this difficulty that there is, as I have said, in the column an inset in inverted commas. That is in the statement made by Deputy John A. Costello, and the Minister says that he did not use these words—that he did not use that sentence.
That is right.
Well?
Could the Chair help the House by quoting the sentence?
I am putting this to you, Sir, that this is not a matter for discussion between the Chair and Deputy Dillon or the Chair and Deputy Morrissey or the Chair and Deputy Norton. It is a matter to which I draw your attention here in public, in order that I may contradict in the most public way possible the statement made by Deputy Costello that I used those words.
May I put this point to you, Sir? The Minister now not merely refuses to read the passage to which he takes exception——
I refuse to read a lie.
——but asserts that it is no business of this House. That is most amazing.
Accept the thing and be done with it.
This matter is raised here openly in the House for the purpose of having what purports to be a recorded speech of Deputy Costello's changed. I do not think this House can acquiesce in any way in a suggestion of that particular kind. It is a matter for consultation between the Minister for Finance, Deputy Costelloand yourself, but if it is brought here before the House, then surely we are entitled to see what exactly is brought in front of us. I have in front of me column 1340, in which I find this recorded——
I object. On a point of order. I say that the statement to which Deputy Costello prefaced the words: "In his speech yesterday the Minister merely stated" is untrue and false in every particular. I am putting it to you that, having said that, it would be quite disorderly for Deputy Mulcahy to repeat that statement.
I am not repeating any statement. I am asking the Ceann Comhairle is this the passage that is referred to here, that is, where——
Again I submit that is not permissible.
——"In his speech yesterday the Minister merely stated", and then there follows——
Again I submit that it is not permissible to repeat a falsehood.
If the Minister says that he did not use that statement——
What statement?
——but followed a certain script, the only thing I can do is to have the statement in the Official Report checked against the script.
On a point of order. This matter has been raised by the Minister. I do not know the merits of the issue at all. I do not know what statement was attributed to the Minister, but it seems to me that, if the matter is raised here, we are entitled to know what statement the Minister is objecting to. Otherwise, the Minister could have met you in the corridor and have had a that with you, and said that he disliked this, and the matter could have been fixed up in that way; but when it is brought into the House, and when the House apparently is being made the forum for raising this matter, surely we areentitled to know what has hurt the delicate skin of the Minister, and what is the statement he complains of. If the Minister goes to you, Sir, in the corridor and consults you, I am not interested, but if the Minister raises the matter in the House, then I think the House is entitled to know what it is being asked to correct. This volume is described as the "Official Dáil Report," and we should know what monkeying about is going to be done with it before we agree.
On a point of order. In relation to your remark, Sir, as to what you will do about consulting the Minister's speech and seeing whether this paragraph is in it, may I remind you that this is a speech which was made by Deputy Costello in the presence of the Minister for Finance? We find the Minister for Finance intervening by way of interruption at practically that very time. Surely, whatever the position is, nothing can be done without consulting Deputy Costello in the matter. Are we to understand that the words that are going to be considered are the words following the words "In his speech yesterday the Minister merely stated"? The words which follow are:—
"I am presenting to the people this year the results of all the hardships they have gone through, of all the cruel impositions that were inflicted upon them, of all the misery that was suffered by them."
On a point of order. May I call your attention to the fact that I have already denied that I used these words? In this House, it is usual to accept a Deputy's denial. Apparently Deputy Mulcahy is not prepared to do that.
The Minister has denied making the statement.
What statement?
The statement Deputy Mulcahy has now read. The Chair is in this difficulty that it must examine the script of the Minister'sspeech against the report, and must also examine the shorthand note taken of what the Minister said.
Perhaps it might help you, Sir, if I say that I propose to repeat those words precisely in the debate on the Budget to-day, and to justify them in detail and in general.
That might help the situation and help in the record of what Deputy Dillon will say to-day if it is suggested that what has apparently become the extra last straw on the Minister's back is that double inverted commas were used around these words instead of a single inverted comma.
If there was a manuscript supplied to the Official Reporter there was a libel in it on me, which Deputy Costello had taken advantage of the privileges of this House to utter knowing that he would not suffer for it.
The Minister now follows up this by making this charge directly against Deputy Costello—by charging Deputy Costello with making a libel upon him here with the protection of this House, a charge that he suggests he would not make outside. I suggest that the Minister should be made withdraw that remark. He has charged Deputy Costello with deliberately, under the protection of this House, libelling him. I submit that is a remark that the Minister ought not to have made and that he should be made withdraw it.
I said that if the passage appeared in that form in the manuscript supplied by Deputy Costello.
There was no manuscript. The Minister is again suggesting that this is a case where a manuscript was supplied by Deputy Costello.
I said "if".
It was not and you know it.
Number 5 on the Order Paper. Financial Motion No. 3.
It is true and I will repeat it and justify it.
That is what we might expect from you but not from anybody else.
And I will not get Deputy Peadar Cowan to do it for me either.
Have you consulted the Molly Maguires about it?