We will now proceed to deal with the report of the Minister of Finance.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.
I beg to move that the report be adopted.
I desire to second that proposition.
The Ceann Comhairle vacated the Chair, which was then taken by LIAM DE ROISTE.
I just wish to ask a question for the purpose of information. It is not of a contentious nature at all. It is really relating to the cash account of the Department of Finance. The members of the Dáil may remember that at the last session there was a question raised with regard to an amount which was in the region of £4,000 or £5,000—I will not be certain which—that was charged against the Defence Department in October last. I questioned it, and the reply, if my memory serves me right, was that it was charged in error and an amount would be refunded. Now, as regards the amount that is here, £4,890 4s. 6d., is the other item charged in October included in that?
In reply to the Deputy for Waterford, I am afraid I cannot exactly say whether that particular amount is included in this £4,890, but I think so. The reason this matter is not clearer is as far as I can make out, because of the London accounts. They are not completed and I would like notice of the question before answering definitely that the amount in question is part of the £4,890. If it is not part of it, it is because the London accounts are not completed. The official auditor to whom I have been speaking, is going to London on Monday night. I can give the Deputy a written answer to any question he may put.
I beg to move that this report be not adopted on the grounds of the payment to the Freeman's Journal of a sum of £2,692 18s. 2d. That payment is unauthorised and irregular. Never before, not even during the most trying period of the war, when the loyal citizens of the Republic suffered loss and damage at the hands of the forces of the English enemy, when men were rendered destitute who before that period were living in circumstances of comparative affluence and not even then, in one particular instance—that of the late Mr. Crowley of Limerick, and who had four sons in the Irish army and whose property to the value of £80,000 was destroyed by English forces—never before, I say, did the Dáil vote a sum of money as compensation for the destruction of property. Therefore, I say this grant is not only unauthorised but without precedent. And I say, further, of all the cases where such compensation might be claimed, this was the least deserving. We all know the record of the Freeman's Journal. We have learned it over and over again from the newspapers which were edited by the President of the Dáil—the journal of the Sham Squire, the journal that attacked the Young Irelanders, the journal that attacked the Fenians, the journal that attacked Parnell, the journal that slandered the men of 1916, even when they were in their graves, and the journal that opposed the establishment of the Republic and the campaign to establish the republic in 1918. Yet of all the instances where property was destroyed in this country, this is the one instance where Dáil money—money which was collected in order to sustain and uphold the Republic—was given away in compensation. I do not say but that there may have been circumstances in connection with this vote, circumstances where the alleviation of distress, consequent upon certain action, might be praiseworthy but I do say that in that event there were other agencies whereby the money necessary for that purpose might have been obtained. It is quite apparent to all of us that the Freeman's Journal had been acting as the chief propagandist organ for the Treaty Party. If the Treaty Party wanted to compensate the Freeman's Journal for the punishment it justly deserved for publishing the report of a common spy in its columns——
A DEPUTY:
It was a General Headquarters report.
——Then the Treaty Party ought in all honesty to have compensated the Freeman's Journal from the Treaty funds (“Hear! hear!”). I asked yesterday why was not this compensation paid from the Treaty funds and I have been misreported and put down as saying “why was not the compensation paid from the sinking funds.” Perhaps the reporter spoke truly, after all. The Treaty fund, like the Treaty Party and the Treaty itself is a sinking arrangement. Now, there is one thing further about this payment. It unveils at last the hypocrisy of those who have associated themselves at present with the Government of the Dáil. It shows very clearly to the Irish people who was behind the Freeman's Journal in all the dastardly attacks it made upon President de Valera when he was President of this assembly. When wages are earned the paymaster or the employer must pay them or be exposed if he does not. And it is because the Freeman faithfully carried out the instructions of the President of this assembly that this money is being paid now. I say that and say it deliberately (cries of “liar”). I say it for this reason that when the Treaty was being debated in this Dáil, when these attacks were being made that aroused indignation even among those following the charm of the delegation at that period—when these attacks were being made, one of the leading members of the Freeman's Journal staff went to the Gresham Hotel every evening and there, in consultation with those standing sponsor for the Treaty arranged what was to appear in the Freeman's Journal next day (opposition laughter). It is all very well to laugh but I heard the appointments made, and I met the man coming out of the Gresham Hotel after keeping the appointments.
How well you happened to be there!
I was there by accident or by God's providence if you like. For the reasons I have mentioned, I would suggest that in honour and in honesty, because we did not in the height of the war compensate those who deserved compensation at our hands on account of the abuses which it sometimes might lead to, we should not compensate in this case. We steadfastly refused to compensate any person who suffered loss at the hands of the English enemy and just because we established that precedent we ought not to allow this amount. Furthermore, the payment was irregular, because it is not the duty of the Dáil or the Irish Republic to compensate the paper which has always been the hidden and sometimes the open enemy of Irish liberty. It is not within our power and it is not honourable to us to allow this money to be voted to this journal without a protest.
A definite statement has been made by a gentleman who makes statements of the kind, that I inspired the Freeman's Journal. Never have I written a line and never have I inspired a line of the Freeman's Journal and the statement that a member of the staff used to see me at the Gresham Hotel is an absolute falsehood.
I can make the same remark as Mr. Griffith has made. Mr. McEntee states the Freeman's Journal got instructions. They got no instructions through me, at any rate. I thoroughly approve of the money voted for the employees of the Freeman's Journal. Actually, I think, that money ought to be paid by the Anti-Treaty Party in the House. The Freeman was destroyed because it published a report which it was urgently in the interest of the Irish people that they should have knowledge of.
A spy report.
It does not matter whether it was a spy report or any other report.
The Gresham spy.
The Freeman published the report that a body of men bearing arms, and unscrupulous in the bearing of those arms had proposed setting up a dictatorship. It was a national duty on the part of any paper in Ireland to publish that report. The Freeman's Journal—I do not care twopence about its previous record—had at least the common courage to publish that report and for doing that a band of brigands or whatever you may like to call them went into the Freeman's Journal and destroyed the property. The act of these men was largely brought about by the acts and speeches of members of this Dáil. As these men and the Party to which they belonged would not stump up the money for the damage they had brought about, it was the duty of the Dáil, as a whole, to do the best it could. What it did was to contribute to the wages of some four hundred odd men who were put out of employment. That was the very least the Dáil could do, when the ordinary duty of the other side who had brought the damage about was not done.
May I ask is the motion that the report be not adopted seconded?
THE ACTING SPEAKER:
I did not hear any person second it.
Is the proposal of the Deputy from Monaghan seconded?
It is a direct negative; it is not necessary to second it.
I am learning something now.
I raised this matter yesterday, particularly in reference to the writer of the scurrilous article which appeared on the 5th January. I do know that other newspapers got a reprimand in the past. The Independent got one and the Cork Examiner, I think, got another. Certainly, if any newspaper deserved to get a reprimand, it was the Freeman. Personally I was sorry for what happened, because the paper was on its last legs. I am given to understand on authority it was losing about £500 a week and now this thing has given it a new lease of life. I would ask the Minister does he know when he gave the money to pay the staff and the employees if the writer of the article I referred to, who, I understand, is a Canadian—we hear a lot about damned Englishmen—does he know if the writer of this scurrilous article got any of the money? I heard the President say that he never inspired anything that appeared in the Freeman's Journal and that he was never in the office. I do not know if it is true that the famous Document No. 2 that was given out here in secret session as a confidential document was set up in type in the Freeman's Journal office within twenty-four hours. Who carried it there? I would be pleased for some one to tell me that is not true. I want to know if the gentleman who wrote that article participated in the Dáil Funds— the funds that were subscribed to the Irish Republic? That paper attacked President de Valera while he was still President of the Republic in a scurrilous article.
One minute someone will say this is the supreme Government of the country and the next minute they deny it. If it is the Government of the country it is the duty of the Government to protect the Freeman's Journal and every other journal in Ireland. If they cannot protect them, then it is their duty to compensate the Freeman's Journal for any loss it has sustained. Men like the Deputy from Monaghan seem not to understand what liberty means. Because the Freeman's Journal says something about him or his friends, he thinks it should be smashed up. I would suggest if he cannot stand criticism or if any other man here cannot stand criticism—just or unjust, scurrilous or otherwise—then he should get a wet nurse.
I should like to know if the Irish Independent was compensated when the Irish Independent called Martin Savage a murderer and an assassin? Was Dáil Éireann the Government of the country in 1919?
As far as any action against the Independent is concerned, that was taken in order to save life purely and simply.
Explain!
There were members of the Independent staff who, it was very seriously considered, would lose their lives if something was not done to relieve the excitement and to relieve the anger of certain members of the Volunteers in Dublin City, if some kind of outlet had not been opened to them. The outlet that brought the smallest loss to the country was allowed in that instance.
And allowed by the responsible authority in this country, which is a very different thing to unauthorised reprisals on the part of individuals or collections of individuals. There is no similarity whatever between the two case except to those who do not wish to see. In one case you had responsible officers and soldiers of the Republic operating under the orders of a responsible authority and operating in the interests of the country. In the other case, the Dáil courts are still open and it is in the power of any person having a grievance against a newspaper or against individuals or a group of individuals to bring them before the Dáil Courts and have them treated according to law. If a case is so flimsy that there is no possibility of getting a decision, is it within the right of individuals to take revenge and to take the law into their own hands? Then if that is the case, we have come to a position in which it is within the power of certain units to say that the Government must abdicate or else that they would make themselves troublesome. For my part, I see no similarity in the two cases. If there are grievances, the Dáil courts is the place to bring them and not air them by the distruction of property of the Irish people which means a serious dislocation to people earning their bread by the sweat of their brow. The employees of that concern were put out of employment. If there be a case it ought to be made. It has not been made. No justification whatever exists for it. If there be a case, the courts are there to have it dealt with. This is the distruction of property belonging to the country. It meant that huge sums of money had to be spent in another country to get foreign manufactured goods into the country—materials which are not manufactured here. That meant a loss here. You, on the other side, may smile but it is a serious matter when it has to be paid for. I think the ex-Minister of Defence would not have justified such damage in the old days when he was in office. Who is to pay for all this? It is reducing the actual value of the country, seriously impeding any development of business and it does not conduce to advancement. We all remember the expression of the ex-President when he said the authority of the Dáil is sovereign in the country.
About four or five days before the Freeman's Journal was wrecked the Dublin Industrial Development Association had an advertisement in the Independent. It was something like this—
"Mr. Cathal Brugha says the best way to create employment in Ireland is to support Irish manufacture—not to buy anything that is not made in Ireland unless you want something that cannot be made in Ireland. Every shilling spent in Ireland means work for the Irish people."
I am not quoting the exact words. I have not got the exact paper, but I think the Deputy from Waterford will not contradict me. But it is people who want nothing but a Republic, by which they mean to do the best they can for the Irish people, who knocked 453 Irish people out of work and made £160,000 worth of work for the English people.
I am not going to make any reference to that matter; neither am I going to speak at all in connection with this attack on the Freeman. But the Minister for Local Government has very dogmatically stated that the attack made a couple of years ago on the Independent was done by a responsible authority. Before I say anything further, I would like to have the opinion of the present Minister for Defence on that statement of the Minister for Local Government.
That attack was allowed by responsible authorities.
That attack was not allowed by any responsible authority in this country. I did not allow it. I did not know anything about it until it was done. I do not like to give the proper name to the men who destroyed that property or made that attack without consulting the person in authority.
There were many, many acts done in the country on the authority of responsible officers who could not go to the Minister of Defence for authority and the Minister of Defence was not the only responsible authority in the army during the war. Every battalion, brigade, divisional and G.H.Q. officer had a certain responsibility, and stood up to that responsibility and in the carrying out of these responsibilities in different places during the war they had to undertake actions for which the Government itself never accepted responsibility.
We now see the conception of authority by some of those who have allowed an usurping Government to be set up.
These were responsible officers acting under the general authority given to them.
I am with the Deputy for Monaghan in so far as the gravamen of the charge is concerned. I am not one who agrees with the policy of suppression of free speech anywhere. I would not stand for it. But it seems strange that there should be this exception out of all the cases that have happened, let us say, since the new Executive, or the new Cabinet, came into authority. Some of the best friends the movement had in its worst days and in the hardest times— some of our friends—have suffered very severe losses, as a result of the condition of the country, and not one of these people, as far as I am aware, received one penny compensation. I do not know whether they have applied or not, but, at any rate, not a penny compensation was paid out of Republican funds to anybody who suffered or made sacrifices—to any person who suffered in person or property—as a result of the condition of the country. The strange thing is that a newspaper which during its whole history of 160 years or 165 years, has worked, unceasingly worked, against the independence of this country, worked for every movement practically that made for keeping this country tied closer and closer to England, a paper that worked hard and unceasingly day in and day out against every Irishman who stood for separation of Ireland from England and worked against Mr. Griffith himself in the days when he was struggling hard to teach the young men and the young women of the country to be Irish—the paper that maligned him and his supporters and maligned me as a humble follower of his who stood to uphold the policy of separation from England—the paper that maligned everyone who stood up for Irish independence throughout its whole history— scandalous history which Mr. Griffith has retold again and again and made us all so familiar with—it is a strange thing that this paper would be the one sufferer to be relieved out of Republican funds. That seems strange to me. I do not object to anybody who has suffered and who may not have been responsible for the policy of the paper—the workmen, for instance, who merely earn their daily bread as printers—I do not object to these people getting money to keep themselves and their families alive—I have no objection to that in the least— but I do object and say it is a strange thing for Mr. Griffith, as President of the Dáil, to authorise the payment of Republican funds. Surely there are other relief bodies in the country who should have given grants of this kind. It is very strange, coming from him, or with his authority, that Republican money should be given to a paper about which he on one occasion is reported as having said "To be censured and libelled by the Freeman's Journal is the best certificate of honest character an Irishman could possess.” Why he selected that paper to get the benefit of our hard earned and hard collected funds, passes my imagination.
There was just one slight mistake. The Deputy for Dublin is making most dexterous efforts to sit on two stools. First, he said he had no objection to the employees of the Freeman being supplied with certain funds to keep them alive. Well, this grant is for no other purpose. He then proceeds to impeach the Cabinet of this assembly for doing what he says he had no objection to. It was not a grant to the Freeman's Journal; it was a subsidy to relieve the distress caused by those who selected the Freeman's Journal for destruction. It is they who have the responsibility for any distress that ensued and it was to prevent the result of their misdeeds that this contribution was given to the victims of that entirely unjustifiable attack.
What is the White Cross for?
The same authority as is alleged to have dealt with the Independent also dealt with the Freeman's Journal; that is the Executive of the Irish Republican Army.
That is not so.
As regards the column in the Freeman's Journal headed “From our Political Correspondent,” many times the writer of that column has, I understand, found matter appearing the following morning of which he had no knowledge.
As there is apparently nobody else anxious to speak, I would like to say, on behalf of the Government, what the position was with regard to this payment. First and foremost it is not correct to say that in no circumstance previously was any payment made over a similar, or somewhat similar episode. It is not correct to say that, and if members or Deputies had studied previous reports carefully they would have that fact still in their minds. I am certain——
I did not get these reports. I have asked for them frequently and never got them.
Give us the other instances.
Give us the particulars.
I was going to give these particulars in a general way without any question from any Deputy. We paid an amount of money when taxidrivers were thrown out of employment, because they were thrown out of employment to a large extent, arising out of an agreement of ours. We paid an amount of money in the case of a man killed in Limerick and in connection with a clergyman who was victimised because of his political opinions. These are the only instances that come to my mind but they form a precedent for this particular payment and, as memories seem to be so short, I think I ought to again read the actual record of the decision reached in voting or in passing this money at the Cabinet meeting. It was passed to the Minister for Labour to enable him to pay the full wages' bill of the unemployed staff of the Freeman's Journal for two weeks. That payment was not a payment in any way to the proprietors of the Freeman. The proprietors have, I take it, their ordinary legal remedy in that case. Now, if we have a sense of responsibility, if we have any sense of being the Government of the country, we must surely have in mind, and have clearly in mind, the differences that existed between say 1920 and 1922. The acts that have been referred to by Deputies—the very foul acts, the atrocities that were carried out all over the country, the houses that were destroyed and the lives that were taken—were committed when we were not the authority in power to be responsible for these things. They were carried out by a foreign aggressor and a foreign Government was responsible for these acts. Under the Treaty, they will have to bear responsibility for the damage caused, just as we will have to bear the responsibility for the damage done by our side. The Freeman's Journal or any other capitalists, will, I take it, take some action towards recovering their losses, in the ordinary course, by what has been accepted by us, as law. But, under any conditions known to me, the staff would simply be out of work. The proprietors —the capitalists of the Freeman—just as in any other concern, would not be responsible for the wages of the staff. It is all very well to veil this thing, but any person who opposes the payment of the money is opposing the payment to ordinary working people and you cannot confuse the issue by mentioning a scurrilous or any other kind of article that appeared in the Freeman. Every Deputy will remember that I did not agree with the article. I do not think any of our side could or did agree with the terms of the article, but every person in a public position has to be satisfied with any criticism that comes from the platform and the Press. And indeed the criticism in the article and the terms used in the article compared very favourably with some of the terms used about other public men recently. Let us, for goodness sake, not bring every matter down to the level of a Party matter. Let us see an injustice when it is an injustice, and it is an injustice to throw these men out of employment. I am not saying—and nobody will say— that the persons who felt keenly about things that were appearing in the papers had no right to feel keenly about them, but they did not have any right to take that action, which lowered the value of Ireland as a whole and which did throw many men and some women out of employment. In addition, whether we like it or not, or whether the opposition likes it or not, the report published in the Freeman was an official communication supplied by Dáil Éireann and as a Government and a sovereign Assembly that we all talk of, it was surely up to us to do something, if we could not protect them from violence, at least to protect the dependents of the people who were working in the concern. That is the reason payment was made; not because of any thoughtfulness or otherwise for the Freeman's Journal. The issue should not be clouded by any reference to past articles or to the history of the Freeman. The men on the Freeman were not responsible for the articles or the past history of the Freeman's Journal.
The motion was put and declared carried.
THE ACTING SPEAKER:
The report from the Department of Defence is the next matter.
Will we adjourn for the evening and consider it to-morrow?
THE ACTING SPEAKER:
The House seems to favour adjourning. The House will therefore re-assemble at 3 p.m. to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned.