Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Mar 1922

Vol. S2 No. 2

QUESTIONS.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

Now, according to the Orders of the Day, there is a question here to the Ceann Comhairle. It is the first question on the Orders of the Day—it is from Deputy Cathal Brugha. It is: "Cad é an miniú atá agat le tabhairt ar an gcuireadh chun an tionóil seo den Dáil a cuireadh annso fé dhó i mBéarla?" As the Ceann Comhairle is not here my only ruling can be that it is out of order. I had nothing to do with calling the meeting. The Ceann Comhairle is supposed to call the meeting or the members together for the Session. As I have nothing to do with it, I shall rule it out of order. I now call on President Griffith to answer the next question on the Orders of the Day. The question is by Deputy Constance Markievicz:

"What is the working agreement, if any, between the Cabinet of Dáil Eireann and the Provisional Government with reference to the attitude and activities of Ministers who are acting in a dual capacity, i.e., as Ministers of Dáil Eireann, the elected Government of the Irish Republic pledged to maintain the Republic, and as Ministers of the Provisional Government appointed to the work of disestablishing that Republic?”

Before answering this question, I would like to make something very plain. There are a number of questions down here obviously for the purpose of propaganda against the Treaty, and for the purpose of supplying ammunition to the English opponents of the Treaty.

Now, our position is clear, and must be clear, to the Irish people. We were elected as a Government to see this Treaty carried out. We have an obligation to keep the Dáil in being until we go to an election. We answer for that responsibility here as members of the Dáil. But the members of the Provisional Government do not answer and need not answer for every detail that they carry out, and the attempt being made by the opponents of that Provisional Government to use this body as a means of harnessing it will not be tolerated by us. We are here to keep the Dáil in being until the elections, and for that responsibility we answer. This is for the purpose of propaganda—that is, propaganda for Lord Carson and his friends at the other side——

Deny it if you can.

The answer I give is that the Cabinet of Dáil Eireann and the Provisional Government are working in concert. Here is the next question by Deputy Art O'Connor:

"(1) Whether there have been any dismissals or resignations from any of the Government Departments since January 7th, and if so, for what reason?

"(2) Whether there has been any attempt in any Department to hamper the Republican activities of any employees who pledged themselves to the work of the Republic?"

My answer to the first is—there have been no dismissals from my Department, nor resignations. If there has been in any other Departments the Minister can be asked about them. But the subsidiary question, perhaps, explains the meaning of this. My answer to number 2 is— there has been in no Department any interference with any employee on account of his views, but no paid official is entitled to use his position against the Government that appointed him. The next question is by Deputy Joseph MacDonagh:

"Was it as a result of the agreement arrived at between the Minister for Finance and Sir James Craig that the Dáil Cabinet terminated the Belfast Boycott, or was it the policy of the Dáil Cabinet to terminate it prior to the Collins-Craig agreement?"

The answer to that is—the policy of the present Government of Dáil Eireann is to aim at a unified Ireland. This was the policy before what was described as the Collins-Craig agreement was arrived at. The removal of the Boycott was a part of that policy. The Cabinet had discussed the general position regarding the removal before the Boycott was removed. That is my reply.

I wish to ask when is it proposed to regularise the removal of the Boycott? It was proposed by a decree of this assembly in January, 1921.

There is no decree. The Cabinet was given power to impose the Boycott if it wished. And it has the same power to withdraw it.

I wish to ask if——

I ask your ruling on this—that a supplementary question can only be asked by those who asked the question.

I have always understood that anything that the Cabinet does in the interval between the meetings of the Dáil comes up for ratification by the meetings of the Dáil. Therefore I take it that the proper course would be to have this abandonment of the Belfast Boycott ratified by the Dáil. I ask now why this ordinary course was not taken?

It was the Cabinet put the Boycott on; therefore the Cabinet could take it off. There was no decree of the Dáil.

The next questions are addressed to me. There are five or six of them. The first question is by Mr. Art O'Connor:

"Aire um Gnothai Coigcriche (Minister for Foreign Affairs). To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether it was by arrangement with him that the Minister for Education, Dáil Eireann, and the Speaker of Dáil Eireann called upon Monsieur Poincairé, Prime Minister of the French Government, during their recent visit to Paris?"

Without accepting the statement of facts as accurate, the answer is no. But I think it will be generally agreed that it is deplorable to make a contentious matter of the signal courtesy shown by the Premier of France to the representative Irishmen who called upon him—a courtesy we all appreciate. The next question is by Deputy A. O'Connor:

"To ask Minister for Foreign Affairs if he can tell the House whether it was in his capacity as Speaker of Dáil Eireann or any other capacity that Mr. Eoin MacNeill recently paid a formal visit to Monsieur Poincairé, Prime Minister of French Government, during Mr. MacNeill's recent visit to Paris?"

The answer is—I understand Mr. Eoin MacNeill paid no visit to the French Premier in his capacity as Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Eireann. I will leave Miss MacSwiney's question to the end and answer the others first. Madame Markievicz:

"To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if it was by his instructions that Mr. MacWhite, Propaganda Agent of the Republic in Geneva, recently called, with the Minister for Education and the Speaker of Dáil Éireann, upon Monsieur Poincairé, Prime Minister of French Government in Paris?"

The answer to that is, without accepting the statement of facts as accurate, no. The next is by Art O'Connor:

"To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he approves of the action of Mr. MacWhite, Agent for the Republic in Geneva, in calling, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Speaker of Dáil Eireann, upon Monsieur Poincairé, Prime Minister of the French Government in Paris, and, if not, what action he has taken or proposes to take in the matter?"

The answer is that Mr. MacWhite did not call upon Monsieur Poincairé, the Prime Minister of France, with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Speaker of Dáil Eireann. Art O'Connor:

"To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has received reports from the Minister for Education or the Speaker of Dáil Eireann with regard to the recent visit to Monsieur Poincairé, Prime Minister for French Government, and, if so, will he communicate to Dáil Eireann the nature of the reports?"

I have not received any reports; and now I turn to another subject. There are two questions about another matter, one from Miss MacSwiney, and one from Madame Markievicz. The first is from Máire nic Shuibhne. It is:

‘To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an undertaking to An Dáil that he will not dismiss from his Department any servants of the Republic for political reasons, nor in any way hamper their activities on behalf of the Republic to the service of which they pledged themselves?"

The other question is from Madame Markievicz:

"To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs what instructions, if any, were issued by him calculated to restrain the Republican activities of representatives?"

Now, I want to answer these two questions fully so that the House may be in a position to understand. No such instructions as suggested were issued by me. But, on the contrary, I issued instructions designed to direct the activity of our representatives towards taking every advantage of the great improvement in our foreign relations since the signing of the Treaty with England, dissipating the qualms of those abroad who were formally afraid to meet our representatives —and to this end I issued a memorandum of instructions to all our representatives abroad. I think it is right that the House should know of the terms of these instructions since the matter has been raised. The memorandum is dated the 25th January, 1922, and reads as follows—it goes as an official memorandum from the Foreign Office to our representatives abroad:

"While the policy of the new Government of the Republic is friendly to the Provisional Government set up under the Treaty with England, this Government has undertaken the duty of maintaining the existing Republic, and the efficiency of its machinery until the Irish people shall have determined whether or not to accept the proposed Irish Free State. Moreover, if, in the meantime, the British Government should fail to carry out its engagements, Ireland must be in a position to resume the struggle without delay. The Irish representatives abroad will continue to represent the Government of the Irish Republic, and that Government alone, but their position will be modified in three respects: (a) Propaganda in regard to an England which has abandoned savagery in Ireland and has signed, and is now being put to the test of working out, a Treaty of peace, approved by Dáil Eireann, must be consistent with the situation thus created, so long as the British Government faithfully observes its compact. (b) As national unity is now broken by the emergence of two political parties in the Republican State, members of the diplomatic service will be under the obligation of reflecting faithfully the policy of the Government, whatever their personal opinions on party politics. It will be their duty to refrain from propaganda either for or against the Treaty. (c) The signing of the Treaty and its approval by Dáil Eireann, have had the effect of opening everywhere many portals formerly closed to us through fear of England. It should, therefore, be possible immediately to widen the circle of Irish influence on the continent, and develop relations, political, diplomatic, intellectual, economic and social to a very much greater extent than anything that has hitherto been attempted. Our representatives abroad will do everything possible to take advantage of present conditions to this end. The publication of the Bulletin issued abroad should be continued. It is realised that the editor of the Bulletin will have more difficulty under present circumstances in making his material interesting, and the Bulletin may, where necessary, be issued at less frequent intervals. But the Publicity Department has been instructed to supplement the information contained in the newspapers by special ‘copy’ in order that the reputation which the Bulletins generally have acquired may be the more easily maintained.”

I take it that everybody will recognise that that is a fair set of instructions to give to foreign representatives under the present circumstances, and particularly as the rule as to Civil Servants or Diplomatic Servants of the Government taking any part in Party politics is a universal rule that must be enforced now in Ireland as in everywhere else.

I would like to ask a supplementary question— that is, if the Minister does not realise the fundamental difference between Party politics as practised in England, and Party politics when it means the subversion of the established Republic which, according to him, means that the servants of the Republic who have devoted their lives to the establishment and maintenance of that Republic are pledged, according to these instructions, to treat as Party politics, and to refrain from expressing their views and opinions on, what is to them a matter of life and death to the nationhood of their country?

In reply to that somewhat long question——

I understand I can only put one.

I do not complain of its length. I only mentioned it. This is not a question of the nature of the differences that divide us. The people who are our representatives abroad must represent Government policy. Now, it was upon that point on the 28th April last that President de Valera issued instructions to a similar effect. I will read for you an extract from the letter of President de Valera to an envoy abroad, dated 28th April, 1921:

"Our representatives abroad, whether they be members of the Dáil or not, must regard themselves unequivocally the direct agents of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and must carry out the instructions of the Department, whether they personally agree with the policy or not. Objections or considerations having special reference to conditions in the country in which they are stationed are, of course, legitimate, and may be urged in the correspondence with the Department, but where the Department insists it is only by resignation that the representatives can find a way out. The Ministry is responsible to the Dáil, and therefore its policy is, ultimately, Dáil policy. When those of our representatives who are members of the Dáil wish to communicate with the Dáil they must do so in an independent and separate communication either to me or to the Secretary of the Dáil, not through the Foreign Affairs Department. I will see that it is duly brought forward and considered at our Sessions. This alone will prevent misunderstanding and very probable frictions. Of course, were our circumstances not what they are, there would be no thought of having a member of the Dáil appointed as an ambassador abroad. Your letter also demonstrates what a danger we run when our representatives are too long from home, particularly when through infrequency of communication they derive their information either from the general outpourings of the Press, or from communications from centres other than from headquarters. This leads to a further danger which is developing, that of communicating by letter to private and unofficial persons matters which will not be treated as confidential, and which, in any case, should not be discussed except in official communications with the heads of the State Departments or other authorised persons. The abuses in that direction would not be tolerated for an instant by any of the universally recognised Governments. It must be put a stop to in our case, else we shall one of these days have a sharp reminder that it is not without purpose the older Governments take care to rigidly enforce this rule."

Is not that exactly emphasising my point that this is a question, not of Party politics, but of fundamental differences. The servants of An Dáil must maintain the policy of the Government and the Government of An Dáil is the Government of the Republic, and therefore they must maintain the Republic. The fact that President de Valera, when he held office, had to write such a letter to one of his officials, only shows that such letters can be used in the interest of, and inside, the Republic; but they are not to be done for the subversion of the Republic.

About the Bulletins—I would like to know how those can be procured by a Teachta of Dáil Eireann so that we might see them?

If any members want copies of the Bulletin, issued abroad, there is no difficulty in supplying them.

Have they been issued long? Has this new issue been issued for long, and can we get copies of back numbers?

There is a misunderstanding. For a considerable time the Bulletins have been issued abroad. The file is open to the inspection of anybody. They are printed abroad.

They can be inspected in your office?

There has been a number of questions addressed to me—(a) Mr. Austin Stack:

"To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether there is any truth in the rumour that a police force other than the Republican Police is being set up; and, if so, by what authority?"

The reply is: Yes; by the authority of the Provisional Government.

"(b) To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether it is a fact that members of the R.I.C. who served against Ireland during the war, and who are at present serving, are engaged in forming a new police force?"

The reply is that certain officers of the R.I.C. have been invited by the Provisional Government to act on a Committee engaged on drawing up a scheme for the organisation of the new police forces. The record of each one of them during the recent war was satisfactory. A specific case was raised here yesterday, and in connection with that I have received reports as regards this man which I will communicate privately to anyone. I would like to say that this man did not arrest Roger Casement; that he did not prosecute him. He happened to be serving in the Barracks to which Roger Casement was brought on his arrival. He came into contact with Roger Casement from the time he was there, and Casement gave him his watch as a souvenir.

"(c) To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether the British Courts of King's Bench and other English Courts in Ireland are being held with the sanction of the Minister for Home Affairs?"

The reply is—there are no English or British Courts in Ireland. The Courts, as well as all other Departments of Government in Ireland, have been taken over by the Provisional Government. They are allowed to carry on during the transition period pending the establishment of the Free State.

"(d) To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether Writs in the British Courts are still issued in the name of the English Sovereign? Whether, in the oath administered to jurors (Grand and Petty), the words ‘Our Sovereign Lord the King' are still being used?"

The reply is there are no British Courts in Ireland so far as I am aware. No change has been made, or will be made, in the form of procedure of these Courts during the transition period. The Provisional Government is merely taking over the Government.

"(e) To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Department of Home Affairs have issued instructions that the Irish people are at liberty to recognise Courts other than the Courts of the Republic?"

The answer is no. In a couple of cases permits have been issued to persons to proceed in the other Courts where there was no machinery; and that was done by the precedent set by my predecessor in office.

"(f) To ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether it is the opinion of the Minister for Home Affairs that Republicans should or could submit to the jurisdiction of the English Courts of King's Bench, and other tribunals held in the name of the King of England?"

The reply is there are no English Courts in Ireland. The Courts referred to have been taken over. I see no objection to any Irish citizen submitting to their jurisdiction if they so desire. Owing to the Treaty, the Republican Courts are now functioning freely. The Circuit Judges will hold Courts in nearly fifty centres all over Ireland.

"(g) To ask the Minister for Home Affairs what steps, if any, are being taken to give the control of law and order in the country into the charge of the Republican Police Force?"—

The answer is that the Republican Police have been returned to their army units, and the army officers are charged with doing the police work which they did. This is a temporary arrangement. The change is that the whole Army is now responsible for police work, whereas formerly it was confined to certain men to whom the work was specially delegated.

There are a number of questions and I expect I shall not be confined to one supplementary question.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

No.

I want to ask why it was that this man, Kearney, who had failed in his examinations, received promotion for his work in connection with the prosecution of Casement?

I do not know.

In the second place I wish to know whether the Minister for Home Affairs intends to keep in his service, or in the service of the Provisional Government, the judges of the King's Bench who were as much responsible for the execution of the soldiers of the I.R.A.—by virtue of the fact that they did not administer the law which they had in their hands—and of the men executed in Cork as the Military Courts themselves?

That is not a supplementary question; I require notice of that.

I wish to ask the Minister how he intends to deal with the cases brought to what I still call the British Courts which Republicans refuse to recognise? For instance, if an order is made in a British Court in a case where a Republican refuses to recognise that Court, does he intend that that order shall be enforced?

That is not a question that arises out of any question that has been put before by the Deputy.

I beg your pardon. I will read my first question again. It is:

"Whether there is any truth in the rumour that a police force other than the Republican Police is being set up, and if so, by what authority?"

I have answered that question.

I want to know if an order is made against a Republican who refuses to submit to a writ issued in the name of the King of England, whether you intend to enforce that writ?

I have answered that question definitely. I have said that the Courts referred to have been taken over by the Provisional Government on the part of the Irish people. I see no objection to any Irish citizen submitting to their jurisdiction if he so desires.

But if he does not desire to do so, what happens?

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

You can hardly count that a supplementary question. That is a suppositious question.

We here repudiate the authority of the King of England and writs are being issued, and orders are being made under the writs of the King of England. The Minister himself may possibly find that he can have something to do with such writs. But there are those of us and our supporters who cannot. Now, the Republican Courts are open, and should it not be easy for such cases to be transferred to the Republican Courts?

I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

I would like if you would, for the information of the members, read the Standing Order whereby supplementary questions are to be put by the member putting the original question, and whereby the number is limited to one.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

There is no such Standing Order, but it is quite evident if we have to transact business there will have to be some rule adopted. And if I allow a whole series of rambling questions we will never get on with the Orders of the Day.

I say you are within your right to prevent rambling questions but if questions are pertinent to the matter being discussed, and are not answered, or if an opinion is required and is not given, I submit it is only an attempt, aided by you, to withhold from this House information it is entitled to.

Is there any Standing Order authorising the putting of supplementary questions by any Deputy?

There is something in this Agenda about this.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

The explanation is that a number of questions were not put in in time yesterday for this morning's Session, and the arrangement I made was that the Clerk of the House was to put these on the Orders of the Day. The staff of the House were up to one o'clock this morning working at these Orders of the Day and at the supplementary questions. The reason it was put in was just what I said—because we did not have them in time. If these supplementary questions were here in time they would appear in the ordinary course.

Mr. Joseph MacDonagh's question is:—

"(a) To ask the Minister for Finance whether, in view of the fact that one hundred and twenty Catholics were chased from their employment at the Midland Railway terminus, Belfast, by the pogromists who were not shipyard workers, and their places filled by non-Catholics who still hold them, he will see that these Catholics be immediately reinstated?"

I will read out this twice. It is difficult to see why that question was put to the Minister for Finance, and it is news to the Minister for Finance to hear that the writ of Dáil Éireann runs in Belfast, and that Dáil Éireann is responsible for the pogroms and the sacking of Belfast.

You took off the Boycott.

If the Boycott was worked it would have done it. Madame Markievicz:

"(b) To ask the Minister for Finance how much was spent in salaries during the last week, in all Dáil Departments, and how many of the Dáil employees are now working in the City Hall? How many of the Dáil Eireann employees have been dismissed?"

The answer to the first part of the question is £475 17s. 7d.; that is for the sixteen Departments of Dáil Eireann. The answer to the second part is: there are three Dáil Eireann employees working in the City Hall, two in the Labour Departments and one in the Local Government Department. As head of one Department I have no means of telling how many Dáil employees have been dismissed. So far as my knowledge goes the dismissals occurred through the cessation of the Belfast Boycott. If there were any others it was through incompetence, and there should have been a good many such.

Mr. Joseph MacDonagh—

"(c) To ask the Minister for Finance what provision is being made by the Dáil Cabinet for the officials whose services, in connection with the Belfast Boycott, are no longer required?"

The answer is: it was decided at a meeting of the Ministry held on the 27th January that the staff should receive three months' salary in lieu of notice. Mr. Joseph MacDonagh:

"(d) To ask the Minister for Finance did he consider he was justified in coming to an agreement with Sir James Craig to terminate the Belfast Boycott in view of the barbarities practised by the pogromists, and the complete absence of compensation or reinstatement of Catholics up to the date of the agreement, and does he now consider that Sir James Craig has not fulfilled his part of the agreement?"

The Minister for Finance of Dáil Éireann came to no agreement with Sir James Craig. And if a question is to be addressed regarding that agreement it is to be addressed to the Chairman of the Provisional Government.

In order to maintain unity.

When I see a question like this it reminds me of a picture of a House with "The Provisional Government" written upon it, the front door being open, and a man in the picture who does not go in by the front door but sneaks around to the back door, which is a little door marked "Dáil Eireann." Mr. Joseph MacDonagh:

"(e) To ask the Minister for Finance by what authority did he terminate the Belfast Boycott?"

The Dáil Cabinet, as explained by President Griffith yesterday, decided to terminate the Belfast Boycott.

As a supplementary question I would like to ask the President of the Ministry, in view of the fact that, doubtless, the Dáil Cabinet was guided in removing the Boycott by the promise that was given that Sir James Craig would immediately provide for the maintenance of those who suffered, what steps are the Government to take to see that the forty thousand Catholics destitute now in Belfast shall be maintained or shall have provision made for them?

Is it not possible to have a little order?

You have already ruled on this. What is the ruling?

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

The ruling is that the Deputy who has the question on the paper is entitled to ask a supplementary question, and nobody else.

That is a most unjust ruling, and a ruling that is going to upset the order in this assembly.

In view of the answer given by the Minister of Finance to question (d) as to the agreement with Sir James Craig, does Mr. Collins now state that he did not come to any agreement with Sir James Craig?

I have answered that.

That you did not come to any agreement?

I have answered the question. Mr. MacDonagh is not going to put me in the wrong as easily as he thinks. I know his little tricks.

And we know your little tricks, too.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

I must ask the Deputies, including Ministers, not to make personal remarks.

We all know him.

And we all know you better.

You took some finding out.

He cannot deny that he signed the Treaty that sold Ireland.

Cathal Brugha:

"To ask the Minister for Defence whether there is any other military force in Ireland under Irish authority except the Irish Republican Army? Is the Provisional Government exercising any authority, direct or indirect, over any part of the Irish Republican Army? Is there any connection, direct or indirect, between the Provisional Government and the I.R.A.?"

To part one and two of this question the answer is in the negative. As regards part three—there is this connection between the Republican Army and the Provisional Government: We have arranged with the Provisional Government to occupy for them all evacuated military and police posts for the purpose of their maintenance and safeguarding. Expense entailed by such occupation is charged to the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government is given an assurance that troops occupying such posts shall not use their power to interfere with the expression of the people's will at the pending General Election, and will not turn their arms against any Government elected by the people at that election. On the earlier portion of the reply, that is, with regard to the military forces in Ireland under Irish authority, lest from that portion of the reply it might be thought that there was any authority for such grave interference with the public as has recently taken place in South Tipperary in the shape of the imposition of forced levies and the seizing of private property, I think it well to say that there has been in this area indiscipline on the part of certain senior officers, resulting in the fact that portion of our forces there have not been effectively under control of the G.H.Q. To a smaller extent there has been similar indiscipline in Limerick City. Steps have been taken to right matters in both areas.

Tá cúpla ceist eile agam le cur. Béidir nár mhiste dhom iad do chur anois. Chuireas isteach aréir iad ach nílid ar an bpáipéar so. Béidir nár mhiste dhom iad do chur chun an Aire Cosanta anois.

THE ACTING SPEAKER:

Tiocfaidh na ceisteanna so os ár geóir níos déanaí, agus socrocaidh mé iad ansan chó maith agus is féidir liom.

Béidir nár mhisde dhom na ceisteanna so a chur anois. I mBéarla iseadh a sgríobhas iad mar is chun na adaoine ná raibh aon Ghaedhilg acu a chuireas iad. Rud eile dhe ní chuirim puinn suime in aon rud a deirtear thall i dTigh na Feise i Sasana. Ach foraoir géar, tugann muintir na hEireann iomad tora ar a ndeirtear i Sasana. As I have said, I do not pay very much attention to what is said by British politicians in the British House of Parliament but, unfortunately, the people of Ireland do and are too often deceived by what is said there. Now, as a supplementary question I put this to the Minister of Defence—whether he is aware the following statement appeared in the Dublin newspapers yesterday, and I ask him what amount of truth, if any, is contained in certain underlined parts of this. This is the thing that was in the papers:

"Sir W. Davison: What means have the Provisional Government for protecting these stores?

"Mr. Churchill: That is unworthy. The so-called I.R.A. is under the orders and obeys the orders of the Provisional Government.

"Sir J. Butcher: Some of it.

"Mr. Churchill: In almost every County in Ireland they are strictly obeying the orders of that Government. The Minister of Defence of Dáil Eireann is also Minister of Defence in the Provisional Government, and it is through him that authority is exercised upon this Army."

Now, I would like to know what amount of truth, if any, is contained in the statement of Mr. Churchill?

I have not seen what Mr. Churchill has said. I must refer the Deputy to my answer to his own question, that is:

"Is the Provisional Government exercising any authority, direct or indirect, over any part of the Irish Republican Army?"

The answer is in the negative. Personally, I have not seen what Mr. Churchill says about us, and a lot of us are too busy at the present moment to pay very much attention to it; and I certainly have not the slightest sympathy with anybody in Ireland who pays more attention to what Mr. Churchill says about me and knows of me than to the knowledge they have of me from my association with them.

Mr. Joseph MacDonagh:

"To ask the Minister for Local Government whether he has taken into his service a Mr. McCarron, and made him Private Secretary and Liaison Officer between the Department of Local Government and the British Local Government Board?"

I have not taken him into my service, as Minister of the Local Government Board. Mr. McCarron is still on the pay roll of the Local Government Board. There is only one Local Government Board or Department. If the people had time to look at the note-paper sent out by Dáil Eireann they would have learned that, up to this, Mr. McCarron is still on the pay roll of the Government Board. His services are being availed of by me in my capacity as member of the Provisional Government in the office of the Local Government Minister in the City Hall. He is acting under my direction and with my authority in all matters affecting all functions of the Local Government Board in such activities as were not dealt with by the Local Government Department in the pre-Truce period.

Mr. Joseph MacDonagh:—

"To ask the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that Mr. McCarron was one of a number of officials in the British Local Government Board who, during the European war attested under the Derby Scheme and was subsequently declared indispensable to the office by Sir Henry Robinson, the object of the combined move being to inveigle less favoured members of the staff into the British Army?"

Well, I was never in the British Army and I do not know what the arrangements are. I am not aware of any officials who attested, and I have no information concerning Mr. McCarron attesting. I have not the advantage of being in Sir Henry Robinson's confidence and, consequently, I am unable to say what he might have done in 1914, 1915 or 1916. I met Sir Henry Robinson on the day that we took over the Local Government Board and the other Boards. I have not met him since.

Mr. Joseph MacDonagh (North Tipperary):

"To ask the Minister for Local Government whether it is a fact that Mr. McCarron offered his services to the British military in Drogbeda during Easter Week?"

I cannot say whether it is a fact. I was not in Drogheda during Easter Week.

Mr. Joseph MacDonagh (North Tipperary):

"To ask the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that this Mr. McCarron is the auditor who surcharged the Bal rothery Board of Guardians for paying salaries to Dr. Richard Hayes, T.D., after the return of the later from prison in England, which surcharge led to the seizure by the R.I.C., and sale of property of certain Guardians, including the Chairman, Miss Adrien?"

I am aware that Mr. McCarron is the officer who surcharged the payment of Doctor Hayes' salary. In this case my recollection is that Miss Adrien was not the Chairman. I am aware that the Chairman paid eight pounds, nine pounds or ten pounds—his quota; that Miss Adrien's sewing machines were seized, not by the R.I.C. but by the military; and that a valuable piano, the property of Mr. Frank Lawless, was seized and taken away and sold in England, and that he did not get back the difference between the amount surcharged and the cost of the piano. I note the fact that Mr. Lawless' loss, which was considerably the greatest, is not mentioned in the question. I suppose it is because he voted for the Treaty. I consulted Doctor Hayes about making this appointment. I also consulted the Lord Mayor. Doctor Hayes said he had no objection.

Did you consult Miss Adrien?

As a matter of fact I did not. It was only while I was ill I consulted Doctor Hayes. I did not think it would be quite proper to ask Miss Adrien to come into my bedroom.

Would it not be more worthy of Ministers to answer questions and not to play the buffoon? And to remember what is at stake?

The majority of this House is in a position to express its opinions, and if you are dissatisfied with it it is your business.

Mr. Joseph MacDonagh (North Tipperary):

"To ask the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that in this matter of surcharges the Auditor has full discretionary power, and that the Local Government Board cannot give him any orders or directions on the subject?"

I am satisfied that Mr. McCarron would have failed in his duty as an officer if he had not surcharged Doctor Hayes' salary. He had no alternative, and I am satisfied that any officer who would fail to surcharge a payment of this kind would render himself liable to instant dismissal.

And Doctor Hayes in jail for Ireland.

The question is one of accountancy. If you had behaved yourself a moment ago, Miss MacSwiney would not have got excited and he would be saved that.

Mr. Joseph MacDonagh (North Tipperary):

"To ask the Minister for Local Government whether he is of opinion that Mr. McCarron is a suitable person to place in a position where he will be likely to get confidential information about the proceedings of Dáil Eireann?"

Mr. McCarron is not in a position to get any confidential information about the proceedings of Dáil Eireann. But if he were I am satisfied that he is an honourable man. I am satisfied that Mr. MacDonagh is an honourable man.

As a supplementary question: does the Minister for Local Government consider that Mr. McCarron was justified in surcharging the Balrothery Guardians in the case of Doctor Hayes, in view of the reason of Doctor Hayes' absence?

I answered that question. I told you the reason of it. Under accountancy as you understand it and know it, he had no other alternative. And I have also stated that an official of my Department, acting in the same way, would be bound by the same regulations. As a matter of fact, for the information of the House, my auditor was on the point of surcharging the South Dublin Union some time ago owing to Doctor Hayes's salary, because a little formality had not been gone through.

Does the Minister consider that this surcharge was justifiable in this case?

If I cannot put it in with the bayonet to penetrate the skull of the Deputy I cannot help it. I think it is a question that was put in very bad taste by Mr. MacDonagh—the whole lot of it.

Madame Markievicz:

"To ask the Minister for Labour what attitude does the Minister for Labour adopt in connection with the threatened strike of postal officials on account of the reduction of their war bonuses?"

My answer is that the attitude is exactly the same as in all similar cases.

Madame Markievicz:

"Does he endorse the action of Mr. J.J. Walsh, one of the Deputies for Cork City, who in his capacity as Postmaster-General of the Provisional Government, has asked the British Postmaster-General for the names of postal officials resident in Great Britain who would be willing to fill the places of the strikers and thereby break the strike?"

I am only responsible for myself and for my subordinates and should not be asked to express an opinion on, or endorse, the action of a colleague.

Barr
Roinn