The Minister for Industry and Commerce informed the House yesterday that he had tendered his resignation because he was dissatisfied with the administration of a particular Department of State. The Executive Council having given the matter grave consideration, I am in a position to announce that the Government is satisfied that the events which have happened call for an inquiry, which the Government will cause to be held, into the administration of the Army. The Government is prepared to consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in view of his statement yesterday, with regard to how this inquiry is to be carried out.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - THE ARMY POSITION.
Yesterday I stated that I had offered my resignation because of my serious dissatisfaction with the working of a State Department, for which I could not continue to accept further responsibility. I feel that the President has now met the situation by the undertaking he has just given. The matters which have caused my dissatisfaction with the particular Department are matters which will naturally now become part of the subject of this inquiry which the President has promised. Therefore I do not propose to make any further statement until that inquiry takes place. I feel, and I sincerely hope, that the course the President has outlined will allay the restlessness that is apparent in the country at present.
I would like just to ask whether the head of that Department whose conduct is called into question remains in office during this inquiry?
My answer to that question is yes.
May I ask the President what will be the nature of this inquiry. Will it be by a Parliamentary Committee or will it be a Special Committee appointed ad hoc, and will it be a public or a private inquiry?
I should say that it will be a Cabinet Committee. That is our intention at the moment; and its proceedings will not be held in public.
Will the Cabinet report to the Dáil?
If a situation would arise which would necessitate a statement being made here, such statement will be made.
I do not feel that this statement satisfies the requirements. I do not want to enter into any discussion without giving it proper thought beforehand, but I suggest that we should follow the procedure outlined in the Standing Orders, and ask permission to move for the Adjournment to deal with a matter of urgent public importance, and in such a case there would be, perhaps, time to consider the matter between now and 7 o'clock; and then take up the Motion for the Adjournment.
What is the definite matter of urgent public importance? How would the Deputy define it?
The statement that the President has made this afternoon regarding the conduct of a Department of State which has resulted in the proferred resignation of one of the Ministers of State.
The President has announced that he proposes to hold an inquiry into the administration of a Department of State, and Deputy Johnson desires to raise at 7 o'clock, on the Motion for the Adjournment, the question of the administration of the Department which is to be inquired into. Is that correct?
No, A Chinn Chomhairle, I want to raise the position that is created by the resignation, or the proferred resignation—I do not yet know which—of a Minister of State yesterday, when he made a definite statement regarding the conduct of one of the Departments of State for which he had been hitherto, in his capacity as a member of the Council, responsible. I do not think that the matter can be discussed—at least not by me—satisfactorily, before I have some time to consider the situation that has been created by the President's very meagre statement of the position, following upon the position that was created yesterday. I think it is a matter of urgent public importance, and that it requires some discussion.
I feel that this is certainly a matter of urgent public importance, and feeling that, I recognise that every word that is to be said in the course of any discussion that may ensue on this matter must be very carefully weighed by whoever is to utter it. I agree with Deputy Johnson that the President's statement is very meagre, and, taking into account the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the Dáil yesterday, I feel that the Dáil can hardly be satisfied with what the Dáil has been told to-day by the President and by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Speaking on behalf of the Deputies on these benches, we feel that if this difficult matter can be solved, and solved satisfactorily—and by satisfactorily I mean a solution satisfactory to the people of the country—we have absolutely no desire whatever to hasten matters in any way that will make it difficult for such a solution to be arrived at. But in the light of the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and in view of the charge made against a certain Department of the Executive administration, it cannot be accepted, I think, by the Dáil that the information given to-day is satisfactory. When is this Inquiry to be held? When are we to hear next on this matter? What is likely to take place between this and the further date that has not been stated. When a further statement is to be made on the whole position. I do not know if the Minister for Defence has any statement to make to-day regarding the military position. I am sure the Dáil, and possibly the people, would like to know, and I am in agreement with Deputy Johnson that something further should be said on this matter to-day. We ought to have an opportunity for consideration in the light of the new conditions which exist at the moment, and in the light of the statement made by the President, before we would be called on to pass judgment on the statement made by the President, and the attitude taken up by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I would like to ask the President, or the the Minister for Defence, as to whether they have any further statement to make——
That is a different matter. We will have to get the matter of the discussion at 7 o'clock settled first. The Deputy may ask his questions later on.
All I have to say in this matter is that if there are matters that require investigation and to be righted, we are taking what to our mind is the best and surest method of settling these matters, but a discussion in the Dáil on the merits of the case will not help it. Deputies are not in a position to know what the merits of the case are. I myself am not in a position to know all the circumstances of the case. We put down for discussion here a subject matter in connection with which Deputies are not in possession of all the circumstances of the case. I have outlined the method very tersely; perhaps I could have developed it and have made a long statement on it, but I do not think the circumstances of the time warrant a statement or any other action than taking the necessary steps to enquire into any complaints that are or will be made in connection with this Department of State, and taking the necessary action to remedy these complaints, if it be found remedies are necessary. I do not think this is a matter which would be helped in any way by discussion here. I do not know that there are any circumstances which are in the possession of Deputies which would contribute towards a settlement of the matter here, and I do say with a full sense of the responsibility of my position, that the enquiry which we have proposed is, to my mind, the best, the safest, and the surest method of dealing with the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday.
The President seems to have overlooked the fact that the matter was raised in the Dáil yesterday by himself and his colleague, and we were left under the belief that something was to be communicated to the Dáil to-day. One member of the Executive Council makes a charge against the Executive Council and tenders his resignation accordingly, and informs the Dáil that he is going to make a statement; then the Executive Council says: "We are going to make an enquiry into that thing for which we have hitherto been responsible."
Placed as we are, we also have a sense of responsibility, and, without desiring for a moment to deprive the inquiry of its purpose, we must know something about the inquiry, who is to compose the Committee, or what Committee it is to be, and discuss whether the proposal that has only just been touched on by the Minister satisfies the case. I would press, A Chinn Chomhairle, upon you, without going into the matter any further, because while speaking, one is tempted to say things, perhaps, which might lead to a discussion which is not desired by me, or might not be desirable after further consideration—I would press upon you that this is a matter of urgency and of such sufficient public importance as to warrant discussion by the Dáil. If you consider it of urgent and sufficient public importance I would move that leave be given to suspend consideration of the Order Paper for the discussion of the statement made by the President to-day.
Are you moving for the suspension now, or at 7 o'clock?
I would prefer to suspend the sitting now until 7 o'clock.
I should, perhaps, say here that the situation among the military forces in the country is perfectly sound, and no incident of any kind has taken place in any part of the country since the reports given to the Dáil last evening.
Under Standing Orders notice such as Deputy Johnson has given should be given after Questions. As this matter was to be taken after questions but was deferred and is now taken by general agreement, that point can be waived. There is, undoubtedly, a number of matters of importance, but what I am not clear about is what proposal it is desired to discuss at 7 o'clock. The Minister for Industry and Commerce stated yesterday that he wished to make a statement to-day. Presumably he will not now make that statement, and is it intended therefore to discuss whether the proposal of the President to appoint a Committee to go into a certain matter is or is not desirable, or is it proposed to discuss the merits of the question which would go before the Committee should the Committee be appointed? I take it that the question which Deputy Johnson urges as being of urgent public importance is the question as to whether the method proposed by the President is a proper one.
I think that will satisfy the requirements of the case.
In that case I think the matter is one of urgent public importance, to discuss whether the proposal of the President is a fitting one, but this is now a question connected with the statements made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday in connection with his own resignation and not a question of the present military situation.
Is it not a question also arising out of the statement made by the President himself?
Which statement?
The statement the President made yesterday, supplemented by his statement to-day.
I think they are two separate matters—one the resignation of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the other certain military incidents. My desire is that when we begin a discussion we should be clear what we are to discuss. If the Executive Council and the Minister for Defence tell us that there is no matter of urgent public importance in connection with the military situation we must be guided by them, but the question of the administration of a State Department, raised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is a separate matter, and I think it was stated by him to be a separate matter.
Yes, that is so.
If I may say a word on this matter, it is that I think a very great responsibility rests on every member of the Dáil, and therefore I think that in the crisis that has arrived, it is not a matter for the Ministry altogether, but for the whole Dáil. I would suggest that in this matter, the less public discussion that is carried on the better, but I would also suggest that in connection with the inquiry, or whatever form of procedure is going to be adopted for going into this matter, the opposition should not be ignored. In other words, I think the urgency of the matter makes it a matter for every member of the Dáil and, at all events, members should be represented on any inquiry or investigation that takes place. I suggest, respectfully, that that matter should be the question put to the Dáil and the Government.
I only desire that when we begin a discussion, we should know precisely what we are about to discuss. I think what the Dáil desires is to express their opinion on the procedure which the President states that the Executive Council has decided to adopt with regard to the charges made yesterday by the Minister for Industry and Commerce against a State Department. If that is sufficiently clear, I think it could be raised.
I submit that we should not try to narrow this matter too much. We may be satisfied that the military situation is satisfactory, but we may not be satisfied that the conduct of the Department concerned is satisfactory; we may not be satisfied that the attitude of the Executive Council is satisfactory; we may not be satisfied that the Executive Council, minus a member whom the Dáil assented should act on that Council, still retains the confidence of the Dáil. I submit that it would be a mistake to draw too rigid a line in any discussion that may arise. It might not be requisite, it might not be even at all desired by anybody, to enlarge the bounds of the discussion, but I suggest, a Chinn Chomhairle, that it is unwise to draw a rigid line just now, until we know where we are, and have had time to consider the effect of a statement which was read to us, but which was so short that we have hardly been able to pick it up. That is why I desire that we should have some little time to consider the matter before entering on a discussion.
Before you reply, a Chinn Chomhairle, may I draw attention to the fact that three times you referred to a Committee. I am not sure that the President mentioned that a Committee was to investigate this. I think he said that the Cabinet was to do so. Deputy Hewat spoke as if it was intended that it was a Committee of the Dáil. I would like it to be made clear whether it is the Cabinet or a Committee of the Dáil that is to investigate the matter.
Would not that be made clear when the discussion takes place?
Mr. BYRNE
There is some misunderstanding on the matter. You said a Committee, and the President said the Cabinet.
I did not see the President's statement; I merely heard it. It is a sound rule that when a matter is raised in this way it must be a definite matter. It seems to me that I might make a suggestion now. There is no doubt of twelve Deputies supporting the desire to raise a matter of public importance. If the Dáil adjourn now we can begin the discussion at seven o'clock. If we are going to discuss general matters they would be best discussed by a motion of confidence or censure which would embrace all those matters. I thought Deputy Johnson's desire was that members should have until seven o'clock to consider the matter. We can resume at seven o'clock and take a motion on the President's statement with regard to what he proposes to do in reference to the charges of the Minister for Industry and Commerce of yesterday. Would that meet Deputy Johnson?
I would urge that we cannot eliminate from the discussion the statement made by the President yesterday, the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday, and the statements that they have made to-day.
That would arise in the course of the discussion. I agree with Deputy Johnson that it is not a time when discussion should be too strictly limited.
I would put this to Deputy Johnson. I appreciate that he is trying to do the right thing in a rather difficult situation. He did define, a few minutes ago, what he wished to have discussed. He said that, while he might be quite satisfied as to the present military situation, he would propose to discuss (No. 1), the Executive Council, including the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and their conduct, if you like, in this matter. He would like to discuss the position that would be created by the Executive Council without the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He would like to discuss the position of the Minister for Industry and Commerce separately. These were all matters which he would like to have discussed.
I do not wish it to be inferred that I would like them to be discussed definitely, but I do not want to be placed in the position that if, after consideration, I thought it desirable that they should be discussed, that a previous understanding should not be assumed, that we should not be allowed to discuss them.
Mr. HOGAN
This is my mistake. The word "like" is not right here. Deputy Johnson does not want to be precluded from discussing them, if after consideration he thought it right to discuss them. I just want to put this consideration up to Deputy Johnson. He said even though he might be satisfied that the military situation is all right, he would perhaps wish to discuss those matters. I suggest that until he is quite satisfied that the existing military situation is all right, the time has not come to discuss these matters, especially in view of the fact that the President has stated that the Government will make the requisite enquiries which obviously they should make, as a result of this particular question. I suggest this is not the right time to discuss antecedents, while there is no question whatever about the military situation.
I doubt if the Minister for Agriculture realises the responsibility that rests upon each Deputy in this House. We have every one of us a responsibility. The heaviest responsibility of all is that of the President. I am sorry if anything I am going to say is going to add one iota to his burden. This matter has been discussed by Members belonging to the Government Party at great length. We are ignorant of the facts. It is not quite clear to me yet whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce has withdrawn his resignation or not, and the only opportunity of raising this matter, except on a motion, is, when it is urgent, for Deputy Johnson to move his motion to-day. If he moves it, say, to-morrow or the day after, it would be ruled out of order on the ground that the matter was not urgent according to Parliamentary precedent. When we go outside the people we represent ask us: "What are you doing about this?" and we cannot say "We are quite satisfied because the Government has it in hands." We must know a little more than we know now. I agree with the Ceann Comhairle that some motion should be before the House. I think Deputy Johnson's is fairest to all parties, and to the public as a whole. You cannot settle matters of vital importance to the State in a party conclave behind closed doors. Once that begins, you get a distrust of the Dáil and of the whole system of Parliamentary Government which will injure the State as a whole. The Minister for Agriculture knows very well that when this challenge to the authority of the Dáil came from certain officers, the first person to speak out and support the Government was Deputy Johnson. I would therefore and support the Government themselves. confident as they are that they are going to do the right and the fair thing by the Opposition Party, to give us a fair opportunity of discussing this matter.
I had in mind all the time that there should be no ruling out of the discussion, but I suggest that the Deputy's real desire was to consider the last statement made by the President. Is it the desire that there should be a discussion which would not be too strictly limited? If that is the desire of the House, I suggest that the President should repeat his statement, which possibly has not been heard or appreciated in the House, that the Dáil should adjourn until seven o'clock to allow Deputies Johnson, Cooper and others to consider the statement, and that on resumption at seven o'clock a discussion should take place. We should not now state upon what, since I take it Deputy Johnson does not want to limit himself too much. That would give Deputies an opportunity of thinking the matter over. We also require an order to the effect that the House shall sit later than 8.30, if necessary.
Agreed.
"The Government is satisfied that the events which have happened call for an inquiry which the Government will cause to be held into the administration of the Army. The Government is prepared to consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in view of his statement yesterday with regard to how this enquiry is to be carried out."
I took it from Deputy Johnson's statement early in the afternoon that we were not to be committed to this discussion, but that it would be a matter for consideration between this and the adjournment as to whether the discussion would take place at all.
And upon what.
And upon what. I have nothing further to add to what I have said already.
If we continue discussing what we are going to discuss, it will be 7 o'clock before we have decided anything. I think the best thing is to adjourn now.
Mr. HOGAN
On a point of order; in justice to myself, I must say that I think Deputy Cooper misunderstood what I said. The Deputy says the Dáil has its responsibility. I am aware of that. He also said that any member of the Dáil may be asked: "What have you done about the present situation?" What I wished to point out, was that Deputy Johnson's suggestion was not to discuss the present situation, but to discuss the antecedents. All I wish to suggest to Deputy Johnson, with all deference—every member has to make up his own mind about it—is that now is hardly the time, while the present situation exists, to discuss the antecedents, in view of the fact that the President has given an undertaking that there shall be such a discussion at the right time.
I suggest that what we have arrived at is: that there is to be an adjournment without any conditions.
Yes, until 7 o'clock.
The statement that the President has just read did not include an answer that he made subsequently to a question that was put to him, and that is, that the nature of the inquiry would be a Cabinet inquiry. There was some question raised in regard to that later on. All I am going to suggest is, that in the possibility of there being a discussion, and only if there be a discussion at 7 o'clock when the Dáil resumes, the President might help us all—and I am sure he will—by letting us have a copy of his statement, with any such information in regard to it, so that if matters arise in the discussion we shall know exactly what are the proposals that will be discussed.
As to that, I have not had an opportunity of discussing with my colleagues the details of this inquiry.
Is 7 o'clock too soon?
For answering details?
For the resumption.
DEPUTIES
7.30 p.m.
We have agreed to sit later than 8.30 p.m., and it would be better that we should resume the sitting with Deputies' minds clear. Whether we resume at 7 or 7.30 is not a matter of great importance. Will 7.30 meet the view of the Government and Deputy Johnson?
I will not have time to do anything between this and 7.30.
I suggest 7.30.
Very well, 7.30.
Very good. I am satisfied with 7.30.
The sitting is suspended until 7.30 p.m.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.40 p.m. until 7.30 p.m.
The Dáil resumed at 7.30.
I move the adjournment of the Dáil until 3 o'clock to-morrow. On the adjournment, I may say I have received this document:—
Dublin, 12/3/'24.
To the President.
The document dated the 6th March was sent you with the sole object of exposing to the Government and the representatives of the people what we consider to be a serious menace to the proper administration of the Army.
We were forced to present the document to bring to your notice and that of the Dáil the seriousness of the situation. We say and have always maintained that we fully recognise that the Army, just as the Police, must be subject to the absolute control of the Civil Authority, and further, that the Army should not have within its ranks any sections or organisations tending to sap allegiance from the only and proper constitutional authority, viz., the Government of the people, which we fully recognise.
We are satisfied that we have brought the matter sufficiently before the people, and will consider our object achieved if as a result of our action the Army situation is righted.
(Signed)
LIAM TOBIN, Major-General.
C.F. DALTON, Col.
I wish to call attention to the inadequacy of the statement made by the President to-day. I think it well to recapitulate the sequence of events of the last three days, notwithstanding the shortness of time which has passed since the first announcement was made to the public that something was wrong. We heard or read in a Stop Press edition of the "Evening Telegraph" on Saturday night that an official announcement had been made of mutiny within the Army, that orders for arrests had been issued, and that it had been taken up by the Government as a challenge to the authority of the State. The President made a statement yesterday, and read a letter which had been handed to him signed by Major-General Liam Tobin and Col. Charles Dalton. This letter purported to be written on behalf of the I.R.A. organisation, and the term, "ultimatum to the Government of Saorstát Eireann," was used. The document further spoke of "our organisation, realising the seriousness of the action that we may be compelled to take, but we can no longer be a party to the treachery that threatens to destroy the aspirations of the nation." The President read that document very rightly to the Dáil, and supplemented the reading by a statement in which he said that it "constituted a challenge which no Government could ignore. The necessary administrative and disciplinary steps will be taken to deal with this conspiracy. Orders have been issued for the arrest of the signatories to the document." He finished by saying: "It is a challenge to the democratic foundations of the State, and the very basis of Parliamentary representation and of responsible government. As such, it is the concern of every Deputy, of every party and of every citizen."
The Dáil generally acknowledged that that was a correct interpretation of its views and its purpose. The Minister for Industry and Commerce followed by announcing that he had resigned from the Executive Council on Friday night. He asked us to refrain from forming fixed opinions as to the document which had been read until he had given facts to the Dáil, and then he made a definite charge against a Department of the State, in which he said that the trouble had been brought about by the absolute muddling, mishandling, and incompetency of that Department. It was agreed by the Dáil to defer any discussion regarding the very extraordinary situation that had been created by these two statements. It was agreed there should be no discussion for twenty-four hours, when we were to be informed fully of the position. But to-day the Minister made his statement, the President made his statement, which I declare to be most inadequate, unsatisfactory, and not calculated to raise the credit of the Ministry or the country.
The statement speaks of the Minister having tendered his resignation. He did not tell us what the present position of Deputy McGrath is. But having told us yesterday how gravely the Executive Council had considered the document that had been presented to them by these two Army officers, they assure us again that the matter had received the grave consideration of the Executive Council. Then the President announces as a sort of anti-climax:—
(a) The Government is satisfied that the events which have happened call for an Inquiry, which the Government will cause to be held into the administration of the Army, and
(b) That the Government is prepared to consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce in view of his statement yesterday with regard to how this Inquiry is to be carried out.
Now, I am not satisfied, and I am surprised that the Government should ask the Dáil to accept that very meagre and inadequate statement; I am not satisfied that the promise they made the Dáil yesterday, that the position that had been created by themselves on Saturday night, issuing an announcement of mutiny in the Army, has been redeemed by the statement made by the President to-day. There can be no satisfaction on the part of the Dáil arising from the President's statement. All we are preferred to satisfy the necessities which arose out of this statement yesterday is the offer or statement that an Inquiry will be held into the administration of the Army. The charge was against a Department of State for which the Executive Council is responsible. The charge was made by one member of that Executive Council—one who had been a member but had resigned. The Minister responsible for the Department against which the allegations were made retains his membership of the Executive Council. That same Executive Council is to make an Inquiry into the administration of that Department of State, and the late Minister is to be consulted as to how the Inquiry is to be carried out. I think the Dáil is necessarily bound to ask what is the position of the Government to-day in respect to the document which was presented to them. Has the receipt of the document, which the President has just now read, made any difference to the position? What has happened since yesterday to result in this very meagre statement of the President's?
Does the Government still maintain the position with which the Dáil was satisfied yesterday, the position that the ultimatum was a challenge to the authority of the State, and that disciplinary action would be taken? I ask what has happened in the meantime? We read of a meeting of the Government Party which lasted five hours. No doubt matters affecting the State as a whole, and the conduct of the Executive Council were under review at that party meeting. No doubt the result of that meeting was the issue of this meagre document of to-day. But the Minister and the President speak of the democratic authority, and say that the document was a challenge to the democratic foundations of the State and to the very basis of all Parliamentary representation and of responsible Government. Responsible to whom? The Executive Council is not responsible to the Party Meeting. The Executive Council is responsible to the Dáil and to the country for the government of the country. I make the assertion that much of this trouble has resulted from a failure to recognise responsibility to the Dáil as distinct from responsibility to the Party. I have asked whether the Government maintains the position laid down by the President yesterday in his statement to the Dáil, and which the Dáil accepted? I do not want to be misunderstood when I ask whether the announcement is that disciplinary action would be taken, as looking for vengeance either in this case or in other cases. But I am afraid that the issue of to-day's document suggests that the Government has accepted the ultimatum presented to them, and has not asserted the authority of democratic government.
No, no.
I recognise quite clearly that the position of the Government here, the position of the Dáil, the position of the Oireachtas, the position of the Army, and the relations of each to the other are not the relations of Parliaments and Governments and Armies in long-established States.
I recognise clearly that the position of members of the army, or a great part of it, is that of men who were citizens who entered into a revolutionary fight and won, and I recognise that the same kind of rigid constitutionality cannot be expected of them at this stage as we might expect after several years' experience of constitutional government. I want to insist that we should get on the right lines, even though we may be lenient in our judgments. I am afraid we are not getting on the right lines. I am afraid that the two statements do not give us the assurance that the Government is insisting upon the supremacy of the civil power. The army, I say, must not be judged as rigidly as, perhaps, an older army in an older State would need to be judged. But offences of this nature must not be condoned or overlooked.
We must not allow it to go out for one moment that the ultimatum which was described by the Ministry as mutinous, and which appears to have been part of an organised conspiracy, should be glossed over as something that can be allowed to pass as an example to any other party which might arise at any time who would follow that example. The Dáil has a right to know, and to insist upon knowing to-night, whether the Government is maintaining authority, or whether it has submitted to the ultimatum. I said a few moments ago that I believed some of the responsibility for this situation lies in the fact that the Government has failed to give full value to the Constitution of the Saorstát which establishes a Parliament and a Government responsible to that Parliament. In my opinion the Government has failed to give full value to that Parliamentary idea. It is not enough to think of Parliament as merely a registering body or even a critical body, leaving the criticism to one or two sections.
I submit that as a contributory cause to the feeling that has been created in the minds of many members of the old I.R.A., which finds expression in that letter, the fullest interpretation of the Treaty has not been given to it by the Government here, and that if there had been adequate criticism from all sides of the Dáil of the acts of Government, there would have been much more confidence in parliamentary representation, because the public and members of the army, who felt that they have some rights as citizens and some voice of citizenship, would realise that views critical of the Government were being expressed. Failure to express that criticism has lead to the belief that there was nobody to voice their views in the Parliament. I say that the policy of abstention is only a little further removed from the policy of silence in the Dáil.
I said we required not to be too rigid in our interpretation of the constitutional duties and responsibilities of members of the army, in view of the rather peculiar circumstances out of which the army has grown; but I wanted to make this statement, repeating what has been said many times, and that is, responsibility for the danger that has arisen to the State through the presentation of this document must, to some extent, be laid at the door of the Government because of its failure to realise the very grave danger of demobilising thousands and thousands of men into a labour market where no employment could be found. The only way, I am sure, to avoid the repetition of this kind of offence, is to find a means of re-employing the men whom you have disemployed, whether soldiers or civilians. It may be said that this is going off the trail. I do not think it is. It is closely bound up with the problem. It arises from the same root. And if we had done the utmost that could possibly be done with the Treaty, and with the Constitution that has grown out of the Treaty, we would not have had in this country at the present time the social state which makes possible, and almost inevitable, the kind of discontent amongst men who for two or three years had been living lives of semi-disciplined soldiers.
I come back to the statement that I made at the beginning, namely, that the statement read by the President at 5 o'clock this evening was most inadequate and unsatisfactory. We do not know what the position of the Minister for Industry and Commerce is. We do not know whether he is a member of the Government or not. We are not satisfied that an inquiry by the Cabinet into charges against the Cabinet respecting administration of one Department of State can be satisfactory, or result in restoring confidence in that Cabinet. We require to know more of what has happened, and we require to know more of what the Government policy is in respect of the act of mutiny, and whether the President and the Government wholly maintained the position outlined by the President in his statement yesterday.
Deputy Johnson has covered much of the ground that has to be covered in the course of this discussion, but there are one or two matters I feel I must make reference to. When the news of the trouble in the Free State Army was broadcasted from London on Saturday night, people in the country certainly got a shock. Now we can hardly be satisfied yet that the shock is over. Beyond question, the document read by the President yesterday from two ex-officers of the Army was an indication that the civil authority of this State was being challenged. Up to the present we have heard nothing to indicate that that challenge has been withdrawn, and the President's statement is not an indication to us of what methods are being adopted by the Executive Council to meet that challenge. The document issued by these two officers tells us that their organisation is taking steps. What the Dáil would like to know, and I think what the country would like to know is, what organisation is this? We hear whisperings that organisations are in existence in the Army. We would like to know if these officers were, as members of an organisation in the Army, taking up a certain attitude and deciding on certain action and on a definite policy that was tantamount to a challenge to the civil authority of this State. Is that really the position? And, following the reading of that document yesterday, we had Deputy McGrath rising and tendering to the Dáil his resignation from the position of Minister for Industry and Commerce and declaring that we should not pass judgement upon that document until information that he was in possession of could be put before the Dáil. He made an accusation of muddling against a Department of State, the head of which is a member of the Executive Council. If the state of this country to-day, and the state of the Army, is that because certain officers have been called upon either to hand in their resignation, or have been dispensed with, these officers have behind them, within the Army that was supposed to be under the jurisdiction and authority of the civil government of the State, an organisation which they are prepared to use to challenge the authority of the civil power of this State, and that the Executive Council are not prepared to come forward and say that that challenge is going to be met, and that the people, through the Dáil, are to be the rulers, and not the Army, then I am afraid that this Dáil is going to be a very ineffective instrument for representing the will of the people of the Free State.
It may be true that there have been officers dispensed with who feel that they have a grievance. It may be true that there has been muddling in a certain Department, but if a Minister who was a member of the Executive Council had such an accusation to make against any Department was not the Executive Council the place for that Minister to make that statement first? Was it not there he should have made an effort to have the wrongs righted? Was that effort made there? Did he try, and did he fail? And was it then he came to this House? And what has happened there, again, in that Executive Council? Has he gone back? Are things being fixed up? These are points that we want information on. Some people may feel inclined to think that perhaps the policy of hush would be the best policy in the present conditions. It is true that we may at times say things that are better left unsaid, but after all, when we come to think over this matter fully and recognise the consequence for the State and the whole people of the State in the action that is to be taken now in this matter, we must inevitably form the opinion that a full, free and frank discussion is the very best way to meet and deal with the situation that exists at present. Everybody in the country is whispering about this thing. Everybody in the country could make statements quietly that are not being made in this House, and I think we may as well make them here. We may as well say what is in the minds, and what is being said, by the ordinary citizens everywhere as you meet them up and down the country. We may as well say it out in this House—those of us who feel that we cannot have stability, we cannot have order, we cannot have government of the people unless the Army is under the control of the Civil authority, and unless, too, there is no such thing as any organisation within the Army that will be at any time in a position or at any time be disposed to dictate policy to the Civil Authority. When a document is read in this House that says that "our organisation will take certain steps to deal with a certain situation," naturally we must wonder and think what is this organisation and what are the objects of it.
Deputy Johnson has told the House that in order to clear up the situation the steps indicated by the President are very inadequate steps, and I support that point of view. I cannot see how those people who were not in agreement yesterday and were not in agreement on Friday night, and must have had a very good case for disagreement, can, to the satisfaction of this House and of the country, clear up everything in connection with this matter.
It is not possible for these people to do it. They are going to be judges of their own actions, and are we going to see no publication of the evidence that will be put before the members of this Committee, whoever they are, that will enable them to come to a decision? Are we going to have a White Paper issued, as the Broadcasting Committee are issuing a White Paper, of the evidence that was put before this Committee? I am afraid not, unless this Dáil decides that we shall, and if this matter is merely glossed over, and if we get a short meagre report something like the statement issued by the President to-day, personally I am inclined to think, and those with me on the benches here are inclined to think, that we are really still sitting on a volcano; that the matter is passed over for the moment, in silence if you like, but are we sure that it will not flare up again? Unless everything in connection with this whole situation is put before the people of the country, unless the Dáil comes into possession of all the facts and unless it is made clear and definite for all time that the situation which has arisen has been met by the civil authority and dealt with, and that there is no possibility of a similar situation arising again, a feeling of distrust will grow, and these people who are on the Government benches behind the Executive Council, and who are supposed to represent the majority of the people of the country, will very soon find, and very soon discover, that distrust has grown to such an extent, and that a feeling of dissatisfaction has grown to such an extent, that confidence in the Government is lost and that confidence in the other Parties in this Dáil is also lost, because we will have failed to extract from the Government that information that we are entitled to get, that we are entitled to have, and that we are entitled to be able to put our people in possession of on a matter of such vital importance as this, a matter that has been before the country for the last few days.
The suggestion that the Executive Council, in conjunction with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or in consultation with him, are to take the steps that they feel are necessary to deal with this situation is not, I suggest, enough for this Dáil, and it cannot be accepted by this Dáil, at least as a satisfactory solution of the present situation. We cannot see how it is possible for the Minister in charge of the Army to go into a discussion with the Deputy, who was the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the accusations made against his Department in this Dáil yesterday. We cannot see that this matter will be settled up by such means in the way that it should be settled up. It is true, it may be settled up between these two, but, I ask, will that be satisfactory to the country? I say it will not. It will be smoothing over the difficulty, perhaps, for the moment, but it is a very serious matter for this State.
I am not surprised it has come to this, and what guarantee have we that it will not come again? The only guarantee that we can have that we will not be faced with a similar situation very soon is that everything connected with this matter, and everything that has caused the situation that exists at present, ought to be made known. The ramifications of an organisation that declares to the President of the State that it shall take action, that too, I say, has to be dealt with, and, therefore, I very strongly support the arguments put forward by Deputy Johnson that the President and the Executive Council are not dealing, in this matter, with the Dáil in the way that they should. It will not satisfy me, nor will it satisfy the Deputies with me on the benches here if the Executive Council, or a Committee of the Executive Council, with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, are to deal with the situation, and that we must accept their findings. That will not be satisfactory, and I suggest to the President and to the members of the Executive Council it will be a dangerous method for them to adopt in dealing with this matter.
I feel very strongly that the more openly and honestly they face the situation at present, and the more candid they are with the Dáil and with the people of the country, the better it will be for the country's future. But, if this situation is faced in another way, faced in a way that will give the people of the country and give us the impression that something is being hidden that we ought to know, that something is being hidden, perhaps, that many people in the country do know, the country will accept that as evidence that it is not this Dáil is the authority in the State, that it is not this Dáil that is the Government of the country, but something that is unseen, some unseen power, and some unseen influence that is not here, and unless the Executive Council take action in removing that impression and the inferences they are creating by the methods they are adopting to deal with this situation, that feeling will exist, and it will overwhelm them, and at another time by other people perhaps in this State that situation will have to be faced; it will have to be met and dealt with and, perhaps, conquered.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
No one here supposes that the situation which has arisen in the country and in the army has no genesis, has no history, has no antecedents. No responsible person, giving a moment's thought to the situation, could form the opinion that this whole episode is a bolt from the blue and has no roots in the past. That, I think, will be common case. A document is sent, dated the 6th of March, which, if it was to be taken on its face value, if it was to be taken literally, is simply a repetition of the Four Courts position, and an affirmation by other men of the attitude taken up by those who went into occupation of the Four Courts. That document definitely, in its terms, is a challenge to the Parliament of the country, a challenge to its right to be the only body deciding policy for the country and answering duly and constitutionally to the people for that policy. When the document was received by the President and placed by him before his colleagues in the Executive Council, there was no alternative to regarding this matter as constituting mutiny, and something more than mutiny—mutiny plus treason. Steps were taken to deal with that situation; immediate steps. Steps are still being taken to deal with that situation. One member of the Government took the view, while repudiating the document, while dissociating himself to the fullest possible extent from its contents, that the situation which it represents need never have developed, would never have developed, but for, as he put it in his own words, bungling and incompetence in a certain Department.
There is collective responsibility in the Executive Council, and that has been stressed. There is collective responsibility to this extent, that if any member or members of the Executive Council require any information as to the doings in the Department of another Minister, as to the conduct of its affairs, they are entitled to the fullest information; they are entitled at any time to raise matters affecting Departments controlled by other members of the Executive Council. When one member of that body alleges bungling and incompetence in a Department controlled by another Minister, and when that other Minister is not prepared to admit that there has been anything of the kind, the position of the remaining members of the Executive Council is a somewhat difficult one. We have no personal, direct, intimate knowledge of the affairs of each of the Departments. We accept the account given to us by the responsible head of a particular Department, and, I submit, must so accept it, in the absence of very definite evidence, and very definite proof almost, to the contrary. That is the position that was created within the Executive Council when one Minister alleged incompetence, bungling, mishandling, within the Department of another Minister. It is as well to be quite clear on this, that you have two definite situations. You have the military crisis, created by the action of certain officers, and you have, as it were, something in the nature of a political crisis created by the line taken, arising out of that, by an individual Minister.
When there is between two members of a body that constitutionally has collective responsibility, a definite clash of view, a definite conflict of statement, the position of the remaining members is difficult. The proposal of the Government, as stated by the President, is that we are prepared to institute a most searching inquiry into Army administration, arising out of the allegations made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Naturally and necessarily, quite apart from the allegations made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, an inquiry would be necessary because of the situation which has arisen in the Army, because no one believes that that situation simply sprang up in a night. Everyone believes that it must have its particular genesis and history; and the time for inquiring into that would be when the situation that it creates had been dealt with, and dealt with adequately.
As I say, if the document were taken at its face value it would be simply the Four Courts situation over again. It was represented to us that it need not be taken, and ought not to be taken, at its face value. It was represented to us that certain members of the Army had reacted away from the military authorities, had reacted away from the Staff, by reason of the abuses, irregularities and so on, within the Army. That is something which calls for an inquiry, a most searching inquiry. We were told that these men, while they might have written a foolish, an almost criminally foolish document, were not really taking up the position of challenging the fundamental right of the people to decide political issues here, whether these issues be domestic or international.
They stole guns.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The mutiny is being dealt with. We took immediate steps to appoint a General Officer Commanding the Forces, an officer whose efficiency, whose energy is known to Deputies and known to the people. That step in itself has had and must have had a steadying effect, not merely in the Army, but throughout the country, and we must continue to deal with the internal Army situation in that way. Meanwhile there is the other position, the allegation that this situation need not have arisen, that it should not have arisen, that it is the fault of a particular Ministry, and, therefore, of a particular Minister that it has arisen, and that is something which must be inquired into. There is no admission by the Ministry that is challenged of the bungling or incompetence that was alleged yesterday by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and those of us who are witnesses of that conflict of view, that conflict of opinion between those two Ministers, must satisfy ourselves very fully as to which is the correct view, and as to which is the correct opinion. The proposal enunciated by the President is to institute a most exhaustive and searching inquiry into Army administration. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has stated that that to a very large extent meets his position, that he is sufficiently sure of his grounds, sufficiently sure of the allegations he has made to be content if the Executive Council will undertake such an inquiry.
Who will constitute the Executive Council which will make that inquiry? Will the Minister concerned be one of them?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
The Minister concerned will, naturally, be one of them. He is not prepared to accept the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. We were asked has there been an acceptance of the ultimatum? The letter read by the President this evening ought to be an answer to that. There is here a letter over the names of the same people who sent what they then called an ultimatum stating "We say and have always maintained that the Army, just as the Police, must be subject to the absolute control of the Civil Authority, and further, that the Army should not have within its ranks any sections or organisations tending to sap allegiance from the only and proper constitutional authority, viz., the Government of the people which we fully recognise." We are asked about disciplinary measures, and whether we intend to vindicate the supremacy of the people and the sovereignty of Parliament. It would be strange if we were slow or negligent in vindicating the supremacy of the people and the authority of Parliament. If there was any issue for the last two years between us and those with whom we were in conflict, it was that issue. It was for that issue that this country threw up an army of 50,000 men, costing the people in the last financial year £10,500,000, and all the blood and treasure and tears of the last two years have not been poured out so that that issue may now be surrendered by this Government. It is the intention of the Government to see that the Army, just as the police force, as this document states, must be the instrument of the will of the people expressed constitutionally through their Parliament. Disclipinary measures will undoubtedly be taken, but I put this to Deputies, that there are situations in which even a Government, or even a Parliament cannot afford to be doctrinaire. Some time ago there were 12,000 prisoners interned, against very many of whom proofs could have been produced of a crime which could be called no other name than treason. The proofs were not put forward, the individuals were not tried, the charge of treason was not laid against them, and after some months of internment they went free as citizens of this State. Why? Certainly not according to merit, certainly not according to the deserts of the individual; simply and solely because it was not considered politic in the interests of the State that these men should be tried and sentenced on charges of treason.
It is all opportunism, if you wish, but in the handling of national affairs, and in the handling of very delicate situations, there must needs be opportunism. Men walked free after months of internment who, if their cases were dealt with on their merits, would not walk free for 15 or 17 or 20 years, and every Deputy knows it, and I doubt if many Deputies disapprove of it. Certainly no very strong disapproval has been expressed, and so in dealing with a situation of this kind, in this difficult national situation in which we find ourselves, and in dealing with these men any more than with those others, the Government cannot be doctrinaire.
Deputy Johnson admitted that the situation as between the Government and the Army is not exactly the situation that exists between the Government and the Army in long established States, has not yet become, though I grant it should be speeded up, simply an employer and an employee situation. Many of those men can say to the State: "The State was founded largely because of our efforts, and largely because of our sacrifice." That fact has to be faced just as the other fact had to be faced, that the disciplined forces of the State must be the disciplined forces of the State, that the people who pay the piper must call the tune, that we turned on a section of our own countrymen and fought the conflict of the last two years for one issue, and one issue only, and that was the supremacy of the people—that the people in their collective wisdom or unwisdom in their collective judgement or lack of judgement must decide the future policy of the country. That is the sheet anchor which every party in the State should hang on to for the alternative to it is anarchy, and we ought to be, at any rate, the last party and group of men in the State who would depart from it.
I was pleased to note that Deputy Baxter, no less than ourselves, resents the challenge to the authority of Parliament, wants to be assured that the authority of Parliament has been vindicated or will be vindicated. We can give him those assurances, and are pleased to note his zeal and enthusiasm for that very principle for which we have been struggling for two years. The internal military situation must be dealt with, is being dealt with. Equally its whole genesis must be inquired into. If the irregularities, the abuses that are alleged in connection with the Army are found to exist or to have existed, things must be put on a basis on which they will cease to exist, and the possibility of their recurrence must be guarded against. That can only be done after the fullest inquiry. Nothing could be gained by a debate here in which charges and counter-charges would be exchanged. It would very quickly become merely a matter of the vindication of individuals. I submit it is not the vindication of individuals that matters most. What matters most is the safety of the State and the welfare of the people, and I submit that neither the safety of the State nor the welfare of the people would be best served by anything in the nature of that wrangle which seemed imminent when we adjourned yesterday evening. Supposing this line that has been taken had not been taken. Supposing the Minister for Industry and Commerce had expressed himself dissatisfied with the undertaking given by the Executive Council to institute the fullest and most searching inquiry into Army administration, and with a view to seeing whether the allegations he has made were or were not true. Supposing he came here to this Dáil to-day to make his charges, which necessarily involved the personality of another Minister, we would have here simply a wrangle, and a wrangle with insufficient information at the disposal of either Deputies or Ministers.
Does anyone think, in the pressure of the last year, or six months for that matter, that Ministers who are the political heads of other Departments have had time or opportunity to have any very intimate or detailed knowledge of Army administration, sufficient knowledge, sufficient information, to enable them to form a definite view as to whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be right in what he would say, or the Minister for Defence right? The announcement made by the President has been criticised as inadequate. He could have talked more, could have made a longer statement. He could have used more words. It is not the words that matter; it is the action that it is proposed to take, and the action that is proposed is that this Government, this Executive Council, in this conflict of opinion that has arisen between two members of it, must simply set itself down to the task of finding out what the real facts are, and whether there is anything wrong; if there is anything wrong, who is to blame, and if there is anything wrong, to set it right and to guard against its recurrence. The President, as I say, might have used more words, might have elaborated his statement, trimmed round his proposals with platitudes and euphuisms of one kind or another. He has given here what it is proposed to do, and I submit it ought to be satisfactory, and that the situation could not be fairly dealt with in any other way. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has accepted that view, has realised that we, like Deputies, are simply in the position of having to choose, with insufficient information, between what he would say and what the Minister for Defence would say. Charges and counter-charges would be bandied about, and those expected to judge would not have the information that would enable them to judge properly or to judge wisely. That is the situation as I see it. It has been suggested to us that an unhealthy situation existed in the army, for some time, that there was an abscess there which we ought to have lanced. Perhaps we ought. It has burst now of its own ripeness, or over-ripeness, and the thing to do is to ensure that it is not a question simply of covering it over with sticking-plaster, and attempting to carry on, but of seeing that there is a very thorough and searching inquiry, a very thorough cleansing process, so that this minor calamity, and I hope it is a minor calamity, which has arisen may not again occur. That is my view. Now, all that requires very full information. All that requires more than superficial judgment formed by comparing statements of this man with statements of that man. There is every intention that the Inquiry shall be as full and searching as an Inquiry should be, and I submit it is the proper course. If we deal with this mutiny, if we hold that Inquiry, if we put things on a proper, sound and secure basis for the people in the future, I submit we will be doing the work that the people of the country expect us to do.
A Chinn Chomhairle, the Minister for Home Affairs has certainly put the issue in a light that is entirely new and has made two definite contributions that are of very great importance. In the first instance, he has laid down certain principles and every Deputy in the Dáil will agree with him that those principles are wise and necessary. Perhaps, it was even unnecessary for him to have laid down those principles with the emphasis that he did, because there would be nobody whatever to disagree with them. But he went further. He gave us certain information that was not in the possession of the Dáil before and he outlined a course of action that I suggest to him and to the President is not a right course of action now, as it would have been a right and necessary course of action last Thursday or last Friday. Last Thursday or last Friday certain information was in the possession of the Minister and his colleagues. They knew things then that the Dáil did not know and that the public did not know. Since then, this matter has attained a certain amount of notoriety. This information, which was up to then in the sole possession of the Ministry, is now in the possession of the Dáil and of the country. Yesterday, a definite charge was made by a Minister, who had recently resigned, against a Minister of the Executive Council. Not only did he make that charge, but he stated to the Dáil that he believed he would be able to convince the Dáil; and that not only would he be able to convince the Dáil as to the truth of the charges that he made, but, further, that any hasty judgement that the Dáil might come to in regard to the document that the President read yesterday, signed by two officers of the Army, would not be merely a hasty judgement but a wrong judgment. That has occurred, and the country to-day is in possession of the accusations that have been made.
The point I am putting forward is in support of the statement Deputy Johnson has made, that the statement of the President is an inadequate statement, and that the steps he proposes to take are not adequate to meet the situation. I support the statement for the reason that I believe that at the present moment it would do more good if more information were put before the Dáil, and, by being put before the Dáil, put before the country itself. The Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday stated that he would be able to convince the Dáil of certain matters which he did not go into. Those matters have not yet been gone into. The President has stated here to-day that a searching inquiry is to be held by the Executive Council into the truth of certain matters that would have been stated to the Dáil to-day, but which the Dáil has never yet investigated. The matter has been discussed. But it was not discussed by the Dáil as a whole. It was discussed by the Dáil in part, and all that the Dáil was to have heard to-day was put before a meeting of part of the Dáil yesterday. As a result of that partial meeting of this assembly—a gathering of one of its parties—this conclusion has been arrived at.
A party of one.
This conclusion having been arrived at is apparently accompanied by certain other conclusions. The President announced that an inquiry will be held. That inquiry is to be an inquiry by the Executive Council itself. The terms of that inquiry are not before the Dáil, inasmuch as the matters charged by one Minister against another Minister— both being Ministers of the Executive Council—are themselves not before the Dáil. Nothing is said as to what action is going to be taken, or is likely to be taken, in regard to the document read by the Minister yesterday—a document which constituted a challenge to the authority of the State. Nothing has been said as to what action is likely to be taken, or is going to be taken, with regard to the two officers concerned, whether they will even retain the positions they lately held, and from which, presumably, they have been removed. I take it, it is incredible that any officers who signed so grave a statement as that statement should be ever entrusted with the responsibility of acting as officers in the future. They could hardly call upon any persons to act in obedience to them, when they had themselves been disobedient to their own superiors, and had acted in a manner described by the President of the Executive Council himself as "mutinous to the chief authority in the State." Nothing has been said in regard to that.
Nothing has been said, as Deputy Johnson pointed out, with regard to the position of Deputy McGrath. Deputy McGrath yesterday stated that he had resigned. It is not known whether he is still a Minister, whether he is still acting, whether his resignation has been accepted, or whether his resignation has not been accepted. All these are matters that it is proper the Dáil should be put in complete possession of. But the Dáil has not had that information put before it. The President yesterday, in words that every member of this Dáil agreed heartily with, and in respect of which they were prepared to support him, charged this document as being a challenge against the very basis of Parliamentary representation. If the document be a challenge of that kind, then all the matters antecedent to it, the precedents and roots in the past that have led to it, should also be put into the possession of the assembly, whose authority has been challenged in this manner. The Minister for Home Affairs described the document as being not merely mutiny, but mutiny plus treason. He went on to add that the document would receive another interpretation if certain facts alleged by one Minister against another Minister were in the possession of certain persons. He added "We were told that these men did this, and did not do the other, because they were subject to certain reactions to members of the Army Council and to acts and things done by members of the Army Council."
He failed to say who "we" were in the connection in which he used that sentence. Certainly the Dáil has not been told. The party meeting may have been told. Who "we" were in that connection has not yet transpired. It is perfectly certain that that information has not come before the Dáil. I feel that the present position of this very painful question is not less grave than it was at this time yesterday. This time yesterday the nation had before it the action taken by certain army officers that was described by the Executive Council itself as being mutiny. To-day we do not know whether that mutiny is still regarded as mutiny. To-day we are informed that the very matters that these officers wanted to be investigated, and took such irregular action to have investigated, is now going to be investigated. It would appear that the terms of the statement made by the President come to very little short of the vindication of the action taken by these officers. They have won their case, and they have won their case by most irregular methods. That is why I say that the situation that we have to face is not less grave than the position yesterday, with this further addition, that whereas yesterday there was a certain stubborn reaction that mutiny would be known as mutiny, and would be dealt with as mutiny, to-day we do not know that that mutiny is still to be known as mutiny; whether still the same disciplinary action that it was intended to take yesterday is going to be taken. We do not know whether the action taken by these officers has not in effect achieved the intention that they meant; has led the Government to prosecute an inquiry based upon the matters that they have brought to light, and to prosecute an inquiry, moreover, in which the very persons who will be the accused will form part of the Court to investigate the charge. I believe it would have been very much better if the course that seemed to be likely to take place when the late Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke yesterday had taken place according to its original intention. I believe it would have been very much better if the matters that he referred to had been spoken by him publicly in this Dáil.
May I put the Deputy right? I think he has made a constitutional mistake. He said "the late Minister." The Minister is still alive, thank God, and, according to the Constitution, is still Minister.
The Minister whose resignation was announced by himself yesterday. If he had mentioned those matters that he had intended to have mentioned, and which he promised to have mentioned, the information given by him would have been quite explicitly before the Dáil, and the Government would have received the entire support of every member of this Dáil in whatever action it found necessary to take to vindicate its authority. But the Minister may reply, and the Minister for Home Affairs has stated, that it would be very much better that these matters should not be mentioned and debated publicly. I differ with him there. I believe that they will become more magnified because they have not been mentioned, because their exact proportions are not known, as they should be known. I agree with Deputy Johnson in the case that he has made. While fully agreeing that in a difficult situation, every effort has been made to deal with it tactfully, I believe that the most tactful way to have handled the case in this instance would have been to have let the country know all the alleged facts from one side and from the other, and to know exactly what charges the tribunal to be appointed by the Executive Council were to investigate.
It will not escape the notice of the Dáil that the Minister for Home Affairs in his very powerful speech hardly replied to Deputy Johnson or Deputy Baxter at all. A couple of superficial passages referred to their remarks, but in the main his speech was an extremely weighty indictment of the whole proceedings of the Executive Council since last Friday. What is responsible for this situation? We cannot laugh it away. It has been a shock to the fabric of the State. It has had its reaction on the money market. The National Loan has depreciated. The whole episode—I think that was the word the Minister used—has alarmed, disturbed and disquieted people's minds. What created it? The first thing was the notice issued by the Minister for Defence stating that two officers had been guilty of mutiny. This was followed yesterday by the President reading a letter from these two officers. That document, the Minister for Home Affairs now says, we are not to take at its face value. Why did not the President warn us of that yesterday, if that is the case? I think myself it is the case. But surely it would have been better not to read the document at all or, at any rate, to preface it by saying that it was not to be taken entirely seriously? You cannot say one day that these two officers are guilty of mutiny and of challenging the authority of the State, and the next day minimise it and say that after all these things need not be taken at their face value.
I propose to confine my remarks almost entirely to the remedy that the President has proposed. But I should just like to comment on the Minister for Home Affairs' definition of the collective responsibility of the Executive. His definition of the collective responsibility of the Executive Council is that it entitles Ministers to full information as to matters relating to other Departments. I think that is obviously true, but it is more.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
If the Deputy will allow me, I scarcely intended it as a definition.
It was not intended as a definition?
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Not as a definition. It is an implication.
I accept it as an implication, but it is not a full definition. I am very glad to have made that clear. It might have been taken that that was the sole responsibility, that you were entitled to information. Unless a Minister is repudiated by the Executive Council every member of the Council is collectively responsible for his actions. The proclamation stating that these officers were guilty of mutiny is the act of the Executive Council, acting through the Minister responsible for that Department. So, the situation that has arisen, deplorable as it is, is a situation created by the Executive Council itself.
took the Chair at this stage.
I come now to the main point of the remedy proposed, and I propose to divide my remarks into three heads. The first is: Is an inquiry desirable at all? Is it necessary? It can hardly be desirable. I must say I feel very grave and serious apprehension when there is any question of an inquiry into the state, the organisation and the discipline of an army. The spirit of an army is a very delicate and sensitive thing, and if people outside of the army are going to inquire into its organisation, into the whole manner in which it is carried on, you run a very grave risk of sapping the esprit de corps, the vague, intangible something, that makes a thing an army, and not an armed mob.
There are many precedents for an inquiry of this kind. There was the Robeck Committee during the Crimean War. There was a precedent in France, and I think one in Canada, in the first year of the European War. I have never found that, as a result of such inquiry, very much good was done. Personally I have some doubt if an inquiry is necessary. If it is necessary now, why was it not necessary last Friday? Nothing has changed. The situation is the same. The only thing that has changed it is the letter that the President read, the retraction. All the difficulties of the Army were there last Friday, as they are there to-day. Why were we not spared all this washing of dirty linen in public? If an inquiry was necessary, the Executive Council could have ordered it on Friday. We are entitled to know why it was not done. It was equally necessary then as it is to-day.
The second point I wish to make is, when is this inquiry to take place? The Minister's words were that the time for inquiry is when the situation has been dealt with. How can you deal with the situation when you do not know what has caused it? You must know the cause of the disease before you can cure it. No doctor will attempt to deal with it in any other way. I say, with great regret, and with a feeling of responsibility, that throughout this episode the Government has invariably been just a little too late. It has always acted a moment after the psychological moment. So it appears to me. It has always been jam to-morrow and never jam to-day. Now I come to the third point. I have not the information, and I have not the knowledge the President has as to whether an inquiry is necessary. What will be the effect of that inquiry on the Army, on the position of the Army Council, and the Minister for Defence? Can they maintain their authority? If you are to have any sort of discipline you must have unchallenged authority at the head of the Army. Can they maintain that authority while it is known that all their actions are being inquired into? They are being placed in a difficult and, I am inclined to think, in an unfair position—a position which no man should be called upon to fill. Assuming that an inquiry is necessary, and that it is to take place soon, what form is it to take? Should it take the form of an inquiry by the Executive Council? In the first instance there is the point made by Deputy Johnson which I do not propose to amplify, that in a sense the Executive Council are themselves the culprits, that they are inquiring into the result of their own actions, that they are judges in their own cause. The same confidence will not be felt in their verdict as might be felt in the verdict of an outside court.
Apart from that, there seems to be one serious objection to an inquiry by the Executive Council. It is, we are told by the Minister, to be a full, exhaustive, and ample inquiry, going into questions of detail. Is it not common knowledge that the Executive Council are the hardest worked people in the State to-day. Every Minister has a Department. He is responsible for the affairs of the Department, and he has to come down here for four or five hours daily. In addition, he has the Executive responsibility of coming to decisions which govern the whole future of the State. At the present time you may well suppose that the Executive Council is unduly overworked, because the end of the financial year is at hand. How can Ministers with all that burden on them, undertake a full and exhaustive inquiry of this kind? They have not been able to do it in the past. That the Minister for Home Affairs admitted. They have not been able to go into the affairs of the army in detail. Where are they to get the extra time to enable them to make this inquiry within any reasonable time? After all, I think it is generally admitted that the question is urgent. I would urge on the President not to make a decisive reply tonight, but to consider the possibility of setting up a special inquiry into this matter. A small inquiry, composed of not more than three persons at the outside. As the Minister for Home Affairs very truly said, this episode has its roots in the past. Therefore, the persons to inquire into it should be persons well acquainted with the past, persons who have been in the I.R.A. for some considerable time. I think anyone else would make a false start. That is the suggestion I make, honestly wishing to be helpful, honestly anxious to put forward some alternative that will be more practicable. I do not agree with Deputy Baxter when the suggested that this should be a public inquiry. I do not think you can maintain the discipline of the army, or carry on an army at all, with every high officer in the army being dragged up, and cross-examined, and the whole of his evidence printed in the papers every day. I do not think that is possible. I want to make my position plain on this. For the rest, I think it would be much better to have an ad hoc inquiry, conducted by a small number of people, not even seven, as seven is really too large a number. Every additional enquirer means delay. Let them be people in whom the country has confidence, whose conclusions, when placed before the country will satisfy the desire of the people, who have a right to know what is being done.
I do not propose to detain the Dáil for any length with any remarks that I wish to make on the subject. It has been very fully discussed. I feel very much happier in my mind now, that the discussion has taken place, than I did at the interval when there was a possibility of the whole discussion being burked and sidetracked.
The Minister for Home Affairs has dealt, in my opinion, very fully with a very difficult subject, and, if he will accept a compliment from me, I think he has done remarkably well. He describes this thing as an abscess, and that is what it seems to me to be—an abscess that has got to be lanced and has got to be cleansed, and if the country generally recognises that it is acknowledged an abscess is there, and that steps will be taken to cleanse it, I think that process will not be greatly advanced by too much publicity as regards details. At the same time, this matter has come before the Dáil through an unexpected statement by the Minister for Industry and Commerce charging another Department with muddling and inefficiency. That being so, and following what has been said in the Dáil, I would say that the matter should not be taken out of the review of the Dáil until a perfect assurance, acceptable by the Deputies, is received from the Ministry that they have dealt with it and that there is no possibility of any future occurrence similar to that which took place within the last few days.
It was an extraordinary menace and an extraordinarily difficult position for a new State to be placed in. On the other hand, it gives us the opportunity of seeing that our machinery in many directions is not perfect. It places on every Deputy here the duty to see that these imperfections are dealt with. If the Executive Council grasp this thing in the spirit in which the Minister for Home Affairs has indicated that they are prepared to do, and within a reasonable time are prepared to come back to the Dáil and tell us that a thorough examination has been held, the weak spots have been found, and that the whole position has been strengthened and secured, I, for one, would imagine that the less further discussion on the matter the better, but always with the distinct claim that the thing having come in its nasty aspect before the Dáil, Deputies should get in course of time, and within a short time, a perfect assurance that the Executive Committee have been able to cleanse the stable and to reassure the country on this important matter.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I would not have intervened in this debate were it not for the statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs in the course of his speech, in which he touched on the question of collective responsibility of the Executive. Article 54 of the Constitution says: "The Executive Council shall be collectively responsible for all matters concerning the Departments of State administered by the members of the Executive Council." Now, yesterday we had in the Dáil one member of the Executive Council charging one of the Departments of State, administered by another member of the Executive Council, with incompetency and inefficiency and bungling generally. To my mind, and with the conception of collective responsibility which I have, I consider that that Executive Minister was not alone charging one Minister but was charging the whole Executive Council, himself included, with bungling and incompetency. The Minister for Home Affairs told us rightly—what, of course, we must all recognise and realise—that the episode which has occurred is not a matter of yesterday, or last Friday, or last Thursday. It must of necessity have been brewing for some considerable time. Of necessity, not only the Minister responsible, but every member of the Executive Council must have known, or should have known, of it, and we are entitled to ask what steps the Executive Council have taken, and what steps they took before last Thursday night, to deal with the very grave situation that has resulted in the episode which has now come to light.
We are entitled to know that. The Minister for Home Affairs, speaking for the Government, has not told us what steps have been taken, or whether any steps were taken. Surely it is not sufficient for the Minister for Home Affairs to say that they, as members of the Executive Council, are entitled to get the fullest information of what is taking place in any particular Department? The humblest Deputy is entitled to get the fullest information on what is taking place in any Department. A Minister, a member of the Executive Council, is not only entitled to get information, but he is entitled to have a voice in the decision of the particular policy that is being carried out by each Department within the Executive Council.
Now, I come to the matter of this proposed inquiry, and I confess that I am not satisfied. Who is to be the judge? Is it the Executive Council? A moment ago the President, intervening while Deputy Figgis was speaking, told us for the first time during the debate this evening that Deputy McGrath is still a Minister. If he is a Minister, I take it he is still a member of the Executive Council, and is the proposition that, while one member of the Executive Council makes charges against a Department for which another member of the Executive Council is responsible, both of these Ministers, who are really in the position of plaintiff and defendant, will also be judges? That is the position as I see it. I cannot conceive for a moment that that is a correct position. Surely if there is going to be such an inquiry as has been mentioned, these two Ministers should be out of it, and not act in the position of judges? Neither one nor the other of them should act as judges. I think that the position as disclosed by the Minister for Home Affairs is not a satisfactory position, and is not one which will inspire the country with confidence.
The fact that an inquiry has been ordered by the Executive Council is evidence that a prima facie case has been made out against the administration of one particular Minister, and it is to me extremely strange that that particular Minister will not only be in the position of defending his administration, but of acting the part of judge in the inquiry that is about to be held. I think we are entitled to have a further exposition of the position, with some particulars as to who will constitute the inquiry, as to how it will be held, and whether the particular Ministers to whom I refer are to have a voice in the decision which is to be come to on the evidence laid before the inquiry.
Deputies O'Connell and Johnson have really attempted to put us in what are, in fact, false dilemmas. They seem to be unable to conceive a state of affairs under which two Ministers could disagree. There is no use answering that by saying that this is an extremely serious issue. We all realise that, and that does not meet the point. Have they never heard of two Ministers disagreeing? Do they think that questions, not perhaps so serious, never come before the Executive Council and give rise to disagreement? Do they think that questions arise, not once or twice, but fairly often, and two Ministers disagree, and disagree very acutely? Do they imagine that such a state of affairs does not arise extremely often? Whose business is it to enquire into such disagreement? The very moment Minister disagree are they to resign? Does the fact that an extremely unusual incident, such as when one Minister makes a statement in the Dáil in relation to the Cabinet—I am not saying whether it has been stated before in the Cabinet or not; that is not the point—alters the point? Does it alter it so much that it puts the whole Cabinet out of court to inquire into it? What is the use of misapplying words, such as judges and juries, defendants and plaintiffs, and all the rest of it? They are not appropriate to the present situation. Deputies O'Connell and Johnson should know that. There is a difference here between two Ministers. I agree with Deputy Johnson and Deputy Baxter that it is a difference on an absolutely vital question, and our bona fides in that matter ought not to be questioned.
resumed the Chair.
Mr. HOGAN
I think we have given evidence that it is an absolutely vital matter. The Cabinet have, I am sure, considerably more information than, let us say, the ordinary Deputies.
Than the Deputies on this side of the Dáil?
Mr. HOGAN
Than the Deputies on any side of the Dáil. They have stated here quite frankly that there are further facts which must be elucidated before they can take action. That is a perfectly straight, fair and simple position. What is the alternative? I heard Deputy Johnson saying that this actually amounts to an inquiry by the Cabinet into Cabinet responsibility. That takes place every day. In so far as the Cabinet meets around a table and discusses the conduct of any Minister in his own Department, they are discussing a Cabinet matter for which each Minister is responsible. Does Deputy Johnson suggest that an outside body should be set up to inquire into the conduct of a Minister of a certain Department for which the whole Cabinet is collectively responsible? Is that the suggestion? Is not that what it comes to?
Has the Minister read the document that was submitted here by the President? Is he dealing with trifles or with a major question— the most serious question that could affect the State?
Mr. HOGAN
That is not a fair interruption. It was good enough for Deputy Johnson and the Labour Party to ring the changes on this point, but it is not good enough for me to reply to them. I mean that this point that I am dealing with now was made by Deputy O'Connell and——
What do you mean by ringing the changes?
Mr. HOGAN
Exactly what I say, that for 10 minutes the point I am dealing with was dealt with by Deputy O'Connell, and it was also dealt with at length by Deputy Johnson.
Deputy O'Connell did not speak for 10 minutes.
Mr. HOGAN
I make you present of that. Now Deputy Johnson stands up with a great show of indignation, and says that I am not entitled to deal with it because that is what it comes to, and he lectures me as to my realisation, or want of realisation, of the vital issues that are at stake. I have, I hope, as keen a realisation as any other Deputy or member of the Government of the vital issues that are at stake. I have nothing to add to, or to subtract from, what the Minister for Home Affairs has said, and I do not want to go over that ground again. I am not going to strengthen the position, or to weaken the position in any way, by simply repeating what the Minister for Home Affairs has said, but I do claim that I am entitled to address myself to the point that was discussed by Deputies Cooper, O'Connell and Johnson, and on which the Dáil generally has shown a considerable amount of curiosity. I am glad to hear that it is a minor point.
What is.
Mr. HOGAN
Is the Deputy addressing me or addressing the Chair? If he wishes to make a speech I will answer him.
Perhaps the Minister for Agriculture now would continue.
Mr. HOGAN
The Cabinet is entitled to inquire into this matter, and no Cabinet could take up the position that an outside body should inquire into the conduct of the Cabinet because that is what it comes to, and that is what it amounts to: asking the Cabinet to resign. It is perfectly open to Deputy Johnson or to any other Deputy in the Dáil to take that course, but I suggest that no Cabinet for one moment could allow itself to be placed in a position where an outside body would be set up to inquire into the administration of any one Department, which means, in fact, to inquire into the conduct of the Cabinet. That is not the way to do it. If it has come to that, propose a resolution that the Cabinet resign, but that is the only alternative.
Someone used the word "hush" in connection with this debate. No one wants to hush up anything. The Minister for Home Affairs, who has spoken for the Cabinet, has stated what the Cabinet proposes to do. It is open to any Deputy at any time within the next week or fortnight or three weeks, to insist on the Cabinet redeeming its pledge, and to ask the Cabinet whether they have the facts now. I think the position generally is quite simple. We have not got the facts; we have not got all the facts that would entitle us, or entitle anybody, to express a definite opinion on an extremely important subject.
Before the President speaks, may I put a point that has arisen since the circulation of this letter which the President read out. It is to ask the President how the Government received this document which has been circulated. It is a letter signed by the same two officers, and has been accepted by the President and circulated, and is by way of justifying the action which the two officers took. It is still signed "Major-General" and "Colonel," and it appears to be a document which has been accepted by the Ministry as minimising the offences, and I think we are entitled to ask the President and the Government what is their attitude to the last document which, in my opinion, rather aggravates than eases the situation.
I do not intend to take part in the debate, but I merely wish to draw the attention of the President to a statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs in the hope that he will clear up the point the Minister made. The Minister for Home Affairs said that the document dated the 6th March need not be taken at its face value. I think that we must take it at its face value, in view of the fact that arms and ammunition which were the property of the Government and of the people have been taken as a result of this ultimatum. I want to know if the letter which has been received means that the arms and ammunition that have been taken, presumably by people who agreed with the original ultimatum, are to be returned as a result of the letter which was read this evening?
I cannot say in what way the document came. I am at a loss sometimes to know how documents come to me. They are brought to me here, and I have found it practically impossible to find the sources some of them come from. Some come by hand, some are sent by post, some come—I was going to say to my residence, but I have not got one at all— but to the place where I stay. I cannot say where this document came from.
I take it the Minister treats this document as a serious one, as he has circulated it, and what I desire to know is what attitude the Government takes towards this document. Do they think this document alters the situation in any way?
I should say it alters it very considerably with regard to the admission, in the same way as the Minister for Home Affairs dealt with it in saying that the first document apparently was not to be taken on its face value having regard to the second document. I take it that it is generally admitted that soldiers are not good politicians, and that when they enter into the political arena they are not remarkable for any great success. The Duke of Wellington might perhaps have been an exception to that rule.
Now, there were so many points raised by Deputies that I find myself at a loss to know where to begin. But I should say first of all the Government has insisted, and will always insist upon the supremacy of the Oireachtas. Deputy Johnson, I think, asks has the Government accepted the ultimatum. I say the Government's attitude in regard to the first letter has not altered in the least bit. It will at all times deal with mutiny from whatever source, with revolution, or with any attempt to subvert the authority of the State. I just draw attention in passing to the very different manner in which Deputies deal with different subjects. When damage was being done by persons who pretended to act in the name of Labour, I know Deputies opposite disagreed with it, but at the same time did they stand up and ask us to stamp it out, and to stamp it out ruthlessly, and to stand no nonsense? In the same way did Deputy Baxter when addressing the House take up the same attitude to-day as he did yesterday, when he said the people were sick of guns and military action and the rest of it? He goes on to-day and says: "Go on with your work and succeed, and we will back you and you will conquer." It is not by the weight of military weapons alone that the business of Government is carried on, but by the confidence it inspires and the inspiration it gives to the public; by something human that will understand the infirmity of human nature, that will help them along rather than drive them through paths whether they like to go or not.
Now I think I have settled that question. Some Deputies stated: "We require to know the position of the President with regard to mutiny." Our attitude with regard to mutiny has not changed and will not change. As to our attitude with regard to people who threaten us to-day and say to-morrow or next day or any other day that there was no threat, that there was no indictment of the authority of Parliament— I am prepared to accept that and especially prepared to accept that from people who are not accustomed to writing what you would call official documents of that sort.
I am not going to discuss, as one Deputy discussed, the terms of the letter that we got. I thought it was a mistake to do it. I should say that perhaps I brought all this on myself by not making what is called a full statement. Sir, it was not out of any want of respect to the Dáil that I did not do so, but it was for one certain purpose, and that was to disappoint sensation-mongers; and if there was less sensation mongering about this, there would be a great deal more stability in the State. The first great crisis that we are faced with every sensation-monger in the country has his eye on the Dáil, and is saying: "How are they going to get out of this fix?"
Who published the Stop Press?
Well, I can go into this matter if the Deputy wishes?
I do not want to. You are suggesting that we are sensation-mongers?
No; not with regard to you. I never said so.
Was it not the Minister who introduced the question yesterday, and not we?
Precisely. And if we had not introduced it we would have been asked for it. You cannot have it both ways.
Who are the sensation-mongers?
I do not think the matter needs any great explanation.
I must ask the President to withdraw that statement.
Sensation-mongers? I will not.
I ask the President to withdraw the statement that we have entered into this matter because we are fond of sensations, that we are sensation-mongers.
I have not stated that. I said I did not make a full statement because I wanted to disappoint sensation-mongers. I did not include the Deputy or his Party in that. I do not think I included a single member of the Dáil in it. The case was made, and I say with regard to that matter that there was no necessity for a sensation. We have met difficult situations. This is not the first that we have met, and I am positively certain it will not be the last. A Deputy said that we were sitting on a volcano. Since I came into public life I have been sitting on one, and it has not gone off yet, though it has burned me a little now and then. A full discussion and a full thrashing out of, say, charges on the one hand and denials on the other would give no satisfaction to the Dáil. Somebody criticises the action that is to be taken in this matter. I think that point has already been dealt with sufficiently. If you like I will develop it more fully, but I do not think that there is any necessity for doing so The facts are that I have had the experience of being in four Cabinets. I do not know that anybody has had a greater experience than that in this country, and in every one of them there have been stormy scenes at times. Deputy Figgis will be delighted to hear that. I do not know that I was ever in one in which there were fewer than the present Cabinet, and I hope that that will not disappoint the Deputy.
With regard to collective responsibility, if there are infirmities in the case of one member of the Executive Council—of which there are seven members— or in his Department, each one of the seven loyally accepts his portion of that particular burden. He may not know it; he may never hear of it. Perhaps when the damage is done he hears of it. I suppose the erring member is then to be fired out? That is not the way in which these things are done. If such a case arises, the other members, as far as I have ever known, have always stood up to it, and have helped any member who had any infirmity such as that in the administration of his Department. In this particular instance the Minister for Industry and Commerce did all that he could to effect the purpose he had in mind before he left the Executive Council, and we are charged now with not disclosing every single item that passed there, not portraying before the Dáil and the country every infirmity, every possible criticism, every complaint. If they had them all, what would they do with them? Would they compose them here?
The real cause of complaint in this case is, we have had a difficulty, a crisis, and we have come out of it all right, and in such a way that you will see the National Loan going up again to-morrow, and the public confidence will be restored. Deputies express occasionally, with regard to documents like this, amazement at the idea that any servant of the State could write such a document. I have got strange documents in my time, and I have not shown them to members of the Executive Council. I do not know where some of them came from, and I have not discovered any machine which would put the other members of the Executive Council in possession of all the facts that come before me in a day or a week, or at any time. If there should be a dispute, say, in six months' time, between two members of the Executive Council, is it to be the case that I am to be charged with neglecting my duty, because I had not an instrument for recording every item that should be put before every Minister? One has to exercise common judgment in these matters. It should be remembered that if the Executive Council has shown good governmental form up to this, that there are weaknesses, remarkable weaknesses, in governments of one sort or another, and their strength is shown when they can get over those weaknesses and improve generally the government machine. When Deputy Baxter comes in his own time to take our places on the Benches here, and adopts that merry and bright attitude he adopted this evening, I am certain he will benefit by our experience as much as a man can possibly in the circumstances. Deputy Cooper raised three objections. The first was, was it desirable to have an inquiry. I certainly say it is. There is a marked difference of opinion between two men, each of whom I am positively certain brings to bear on the matter at issue an honest and convinced opinion on the subject. It is obvious that some solution of that difference ought to be found, and an inquiry is the only method I know of by which you can get it. The second question is, when is it to be held. I say immediately. What exactly "immediately" interprets at the moment I cannot say, but I shall certainly say it will be without delay—at the earliest possible moment. I have got as far as the third question. If you admit an inquiry is necessary——
The third point is as to what is to be the composition of the inquiry. Would it be by the Executive Council or by a Committee appointed ad hoc?
The details have not yet been discussed. I have to consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and if the Deputy knew him as well as I do, he would know that it is not easy to get your own way with him. I think that is all I have to say on the subject. I should regret very much if Deputy Johnson would think I included him in that statement about sensation-mongers. I think there has been too much sensation with regard to this matter. We took the action we did in presenting the document here in order not alone to let those officers, but every servant of the State, know what responsibility must be shouldered when names are put to documents like that, a very serious responsibility. We placed the rest of the story before the Dáil in the way in which we did in order to convince the Dáil, if it were necessary, that they are the masters. I do not think it is fair to say to us that we have dealt with this matter as if our Party were the Dáil. Our Party is not the Dáil, and we have often told them so, and they have often told us so themselves. I do not know where Deputy Figgis got his information from. I would like him to tell me the name of the Deputy of the Party who gave him the information, but I suppose he will not.
The fact that a Party meeting was held is all the information I have, and it is reported in the Press this morning.
Very good. I make you a present of that.
The Dáil adjourned at 10 o'clock until 3 o'clock to-morrow.