Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 9

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 64—ARMY.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar £1,400 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch 31adh Márta, 1928, chun costas an Airm maraon le Cúltaca an Airm.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,400 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1928, for the cost of the Army, including reserve.

As Deputies will see from the face of the Estimate, this sum is required for the purpose of making good an amount disallowed by the Public Accounts Committee in their report on the accounts of the year 1924-25. In the Public Accounts Committee's final report for the year the following paragraph occurs:

It transpired in the course of the inquiry that a sum of £1,400 had been paid in the financial year 1924/25 in respect of the warlike stores reported upon in paragraph 50 of the final report of last year's Committee. This sum is a continuing payment of the sum disallowed in sub-paragraph 6 of the said paragraph and must consequently be treated in the same way. The payment in question is therefore disallowed.

In the paragraph referred to of the previous year's report a sum of £8,305, I think, had been disallowed, and an estimate to make good that sum was brought before the Dáil in July, 1926, and then passed.

It is necessary to bring in this Supplementary Vote now in order that the Army Finance Officer may be relieved of a legal responsibility which falls on him, a responsibility which is not a moral responsibility as he acted throughout under direction. This constitutes one payment really but the money was paid in two instalments in two different years. The transactions in respect of which these payments were made arose in 1922. They were, in fact, a continuation of transactions that had begun long before the Truce. They were transactions in respect of which it was exceedingly difficult to get details and in respect of which vouchers and ordinary documents were unobtainable. An attempt to settle the matter was made in February, 1924, and an official from the Department of Finance was sent to London to examine into it. He acted with a solicitor. He made a settlement which he thought was the fairest that could be effected in the circumstances. There was an undoubted liability on the State and it had to be discharged. The amount was determined or rather had, as it were, to be measured, because there was no possibility of determining it exactly in the way in which it would have been determined in the case of an ordinary transaction where a proper contract had been entered into. It was determined according to the information that was available and on the best lines possible.

I stated when this matter was first before the Dáil that my own belief was that the transactions should not have been entered into, that after the Treaty there was no need for surreptitious purchases of explosives or arms. But the purchases were made. Payment was due and was made but because of the peculiar features of the transaction it was disallowed by the Public Accounts Committee. As I have said, there is a technical responsibility on the Army Finance Officer and the Supplementary Vote is now put before the Dáil to make good the final instalment of the sum paid, namely, £1,400.

The whole matter was discussed at great length before the Public Accounts Committee, and in the Dáil on a couple of occasions. Deputies who are interested have doubtless read the reports of the Public Accounts Committee as well as the proceedings before that Committee. I do not propose to summarise them, or to take the Dáil over them.

I understood the Minister to say, in introducing this Vote, that the Army Finance Officer acted throughout under direction. Would the Minister disclose to the House under what direction?

The direction of Ministers.

Which Ministers?

Different Ministers, I think.

Will the Minister for Finance particularise the Minister? Was it under the direction of the Executive Council as a whole, or under the direction of some one particular Minister or Ministers?

The first payment was made, I think, under the direction of the President. I do not know for sure.

Are we to take it, then, that it was the President acting for the Executive Council?

The Minister for Finance has asked the Dáil to approve this Vote in order to finish up what he called transactions that in his opinion, as he stated, should not have been entered into. These transactions were under review and discussion before the Public Accounts Committee in three different years. In reading the Report of the Public Accounts Committee one learns that the sum of £1,400 is to finish up a payment to a Mr. Fitzgerald in London for contracts or purchases which he made on behalf of the Dáil Ministry of Defence. Before going further I should like to read some extracts from the evidence given by General McMahon before the Public Accounts Committee in 1925 regarding the manner in which the materials purchased by Mr. Fitzgerald were to have been used. Mr. Fitzgerald claimed that although this stuff which he purchased was not actually delivered here in Ireland, that he was entitled to payment as well as to payment for options which he advanced on the instructions of the Dáil Ministry of Defence or the purchasing Department which was directly under the Dáil Ministry of Defence.

General McMahon said. "We were to take delivery of the revolvers"— revolvers which Fitzgerald claimed payment for—"in a very short time after he got them, immediately before the attack on the Four Courts, only the Four Courts upset it." Again he said, in alluding to another purchase which Mr. Fitzgerald made of potassium chloride, one of the principal constituents in the manufacture of explosives, that "it was to do a certain work; it was to be used for carrying out certain operations." It was not delivered, because, as he said, "the original arrangements did not materialise."

I hope the Dáil will not approve of this Vote or do anything which might be construed as giving sanction to the actions of the present Ministers in connection with these transactions. I think their whole actions at that time were as mean and as contemptible a piece of treachery as was ever practised by any set of men against their fellow-countrymen. These stores were bought by and under the direction of the Army Headquarters that had given allegiance to the Dáil, and that was directly under the control of the Dáil Ministry of Defence right up to the attack on the Four Courts. That Army Headquarters and the men acting under them were given a definite assurance by the present Minister for Local Government who was then the Minister for Defence. The assurance he gave them was that the Army "will remain occupying the same position towards the Government of the Republic and occupying the same position as regards the Minister for Defence, and under the same management and in the same spirit as up to the present. The Army will continue to remain the Army of the Republic."

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do you think it would be in order on this particular Vote to start a general debate on the events of 1922? I wonder would it be advisable? I do not know.

This Vote relates to arms purchased at that time.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

I take it that what Deputy Aiken is saying bears directly on the Vote for £1,400?

This was public money spent for arms and war material to be used by the Army which was paid out of public funds. Mr. White, who purchased these arms, under the direction of Mr. Fitzgerald, who was an agent of the purchasing department of the Army under the Dáil Ministry of Defence, said in his evidence regarding some of these transactions which the Minister for Finance now says should never have been entered into:—

"I got in touch with a firm in London, the name of which I will disclose presently. This was a firm of professional gun-runners. . . I mentioned this to Fitzgerald. He asked me to meet him one day at the Four Provinces Club. I met him there, and he brought a man whose name was given to me as that of Seán Golden, who said he was Assistant Director of Purchases for the I.R.A. at the time. Golden told me that very large supplies of arms were necessary. He gave me a list, which I have here. . . When Golden gave me this list he said it was urgently necessary to get the arms. I was given to understand that these rifles were required for use in anticipation of trouble with Ulster. I was even told by Fitzgerald that the intention was to arm the Irregulars, and that in order to do that the rifles supplied by the British Government could not be used because, as you know, every British rifle is stamped with a number, and if one were lost and afterwards recovered, it could be identified."

These transactions went on at that time under the authority of the Dáil Ministry of Defence, and with the sanction of the whole Dáil Ministry. The young men who were under their control believed the promises which the Free State Ministry gave them, that these arms were going to be used, and all the arms they had possession of, in defence of the rights of the Irish people to independence and for one government for the whole of Ireland. They were told to remain under the Dáil Ministry of Defence on the understanding that the army was to remain the army of the Irish Republic. If the Free State Ministers had then told the young men who had done good work for Ireland like Sean McKeon, Sean McMahon, who was Quartermaster General at the time, Dan Hogan and many others in the present Free State Army that they were going to prosecute a war in this country in defence, not of the rights of the Irish people, but of the claims of the British King, those young men would never have joined their army and right well they knew it. Instead they told them they were going to stand up for the rights of the Irish people, for their freedom and independence, and every step they took justified it to these young men on the plea that what they were doing was the best thing in order to achieve the rights of the Irish people. It was only when they had the hands of these men steeped in the blood of their brother Irishmen that they disclosed to them that they were not going to pursue the rights of the Irish people any longer, but sit down and rest content, although the ashes of the people they had slain, and the comrades they had got slain, cried out for vengeance, cried out that the rights of their country might be achieved.

At the time that these purchases were being made, as well as there being an army under the control of the Dáil Ministry of Defence, there was another section of the young men of Ireland who had fought with the men who remained under the control of the Dáil Ministry of Defence, for the freedom and independence of the Irish Republic during the Black-and-Tan war, and they had their headquarters in the Four Courts. These young men, just the same as the young men under the Dáil Ministry of Defence, were told that the arms that were coming into the country, and which were being purchased and handed over by the British, were going to be used to achieve the rights of the people of Ireland. Actually they were in the Four Courts, as Rory O'Connor pointed out, on the 28th of June, when they were attacked, by the wishes of the Dáil Minister of Defence. Rory O'Connor writing shortly before his execution, said:

We were never requested to evacuate the Four Courts; on the contrary, at one meeting of the Coalition Army Council, at which Mulcahy, O'Duffy, Mellowes, Lynch and myself were present, we were only asked to evacuate the Ballast Office, Kildare Street Club, the Masonic Hall and Lever Bros. At that stage we actually discussed co-ordinated military action against the N.E. Ulster, and had agreed on an officer who would command both the Republican and F.S. troops in that area. We were also to send from the South some hundreds of our rifles for use in that area. The reason given was that it would never do if rifles which had been handed to the "Government" for use against the Republic, and which, of course, could be identified, were found in use against Craig. An exchange of rifles was effected. It should be remembered that at this time the "Government" was publicly declaring that it was the "mutineer" section of the army which was fighting the Ulster people.

At this meeting I have referred to someone suggested the evacuation of the Four Courts and Mulcahy laughingly said that as long as we held that place the war against N.E. Ulster would be attributed to us.

That is a damn lie.

Mulcahy is a good judge of lies. He is a good judge, and well you know it.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

If the Minister has made his remarks about anything said in this House I must ask him to withdraw.

In deference to the Chair I withdraw these remarks, but I may make a personal explanation. This matter has been drawn in by Deputy Aiken involving a discussion which goes back into the whole of what happened in 1922. Personally, I do not propose, in 1928, to discuss any aspect of these matters in this House.

I speak for myself.

We want to finish up your job here now and pay up.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

The Minister must be allowed to proceed uninterruptedly.

In so far as I had any explanation to make of these matters I think I gave, in September, 1922, a very full explanation to the House here. I say that I completely withdraw in deference to the Chair the particular words I used, but I must, as a matter of personal explanation, ask to be allowed to say here that what Deputy Aiken has just said as words of mine is an absolute untruth. I just butt in on his present discourse in order to say that.

And the men who can prove it are dead.

They are not all dead. There are some alive who will prove it—every word of it.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

Deputy Boland and Deputy O'Kelly are not in order in making such interruptions, and they will not serve their own cause by doing so.

We are the best judges of that.

ACTING-CHAIRMAN

You are not. The Chair is the best judge of that.

resumed the Chair.

The Minister for Local Government has just said that an extract which I read was untrue, and I must say that nobody would expect the Minister to say anything else.

Certainly not.

I maintain, and it is quite evident, that both the young men who were in the Four Courts and the young men who were in Beggars' Bush under the Dáil Minister of Defence were absolutely deceived as to how the arms, which were purchased under the Vote which the Dáil is now being asked to pass, were going to be used. They believed that those arms were going to be used, as I said, in the defence of the rights of the Irish people, and it was because that belief existed in the minds of the people who then joined the Army at Beggars' Bush that the young men who fought for Irish independence were got to join that Army at all, and it was only when their hands were stained with the blood of their fellow-countrymen that the Minister opposite said to them:—"You cannot be any worse anyway. You cannot go back now to the people with your hands stained with blood." It was only then that the real purpose of the Minister was made clear to them, and it was made clear to them, or at any rate to the principals among them, in October, 1923, when the civil war was over. It was only then that Fitzgerald, who had control of these stores in London, was ordered to dispose of them. General MacMahon, in giving evidence in 1925 in reference to stores purchased under this Vote, said:—

"The ex-Minister for Defence and myself were in London about October, 1923 and we thought we had definitely closed that matter (that is the option of purchasing 10,000 rifles) by making arrangements with Fitzgerald. We instructed him to dispose of the material he had in hand. We were not anxious even to get the revolvers."

By that time the dirty work had been done in this country. The Dáil, to which President Cosgrave and his followers here claim that this Dáil is the legitimate successor, was suppressed on the 30th June, 1922. These arms, or some of them at least, which should have been used to defend the rights of Ireland were used to attack the Four Courts and destroy all hope of independence so far as these men could destroy it. The Four Courts were attacked on the 28th June, and, as Rory O'Connor said, they were only asked twenty-five minutes before the attack to vacate the place. Up to then, as he pointed out, the Four Courts were occupied with the full knowledge and consent of the Minister for Defence.

Absolutely untrue.

How do we come to be discussing this?

There is a Vote here for £1,400 for warlike stores which were purchased in June, 1922, and also in July, and on other dates up to the end of that year. I am reading some extracts from the evidence given before the Committee on Public Accounts.

That does not seem to raise the question of the occupation of the Four Courts.

The Minister for Finance in asking for the approval of the House for this Vote, said that the transactions mentioned should not have been entered into after the Treaty was signed. I am showing that they were entered into with the full knowledge and consent of the then Dáil Minister for Defence, and most of the then Ministers are Ministers of the present Government, and I say that there never was a greater piece of treachery than that in connection with these transactions.

The question at issue is the financial aspect of these transactions. A certain sum of money was disallowed by the Public Accounts Committee and it was necessary to re-vote it. By implication it is now sought to open up the whole question of the use of arms. It is not a question of the use of arms, but how the arms were purchased.

The Minister for Finance said that the transactions should not have been entered into.

I was explaining that the money was money which was not properly accounted for, that these were not proper transactions, and I said that after the Treaty surreptitious purchases which involved this sort of thing should not be entered into.

The Minister for Finance says that in 1928, after hundreds of young Irishmen were killed because these surreptitious buyings were going on, with the consent of the Dáil Minister for Defence and of Dáil Ministers. In 1928, six years after the starting of the Civil War, the Minister for Finance makes such statements, but why did he not tell the young men under his command in June, 1922, that these things should not be going on? The young men under the control of the Dáil Minister for Defence were being induced out beyond their depth, and it was only when they were beyond their depth and could not get back to the shore that they were told the truth. If they were ever going to be told the truth——

What is the truth?

A thing you do not know much about.

The truth is what I have stated. These arms were purchased and the young men of the country, who were bearing arms under the Dáil Minister for Defence, were led to believe that these arms were going to be used in defence of the rights of the people of this country and for their freedom and independence. That is true, and it is true that it was a piece of treachery on the part of the State Ministers.

A DEPUTY

It is not true.

As I said in reply to the Minister for Local Government, no one could expect him to say anything else.

And, as he said, "Certainly not."

I hope that the Dáil will not approve of this Vote and will not give sanction to these transactions, which the Minister for Finance said should not have occurred. I hope that the Dáil will also say that the whole transactions carried out by the then Free State Ministers will not be sanctioned by this Assembly. These accounts were not passed by the Committee on Public Accounts on three occasions, and it is only because the Free State Minister for Finance wants finally to steam-roll this through that it is coming up here for sanction, but I hope the Dáil will not sanction it.

In the absence, due to illness, of Deputy Johnson, the then Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I signed the Report on which Deputy Aiken has based his attack on this Vote. I would like to say that after three years on the Public Accounts Committee I am satisfied this transaction was an unsatisfactory one, but one that under the circumstances of the time was justifiable. I think that the Ministry of Defence were anticipating Deputy Carney's wish when he objected to our taking over arms from the British because they were only dud rifles. The Ministry of Defence went out of the British orbit and bought elsewhere. When you have transactions with people who are dealing in arms in a somewhat illicit fashion, and who are labelling their arms as something else— when you are dealing with firms who have not established a reputation for integrity—you may have difficulty on the point of accountancy at a later date. That was the view I took of this transaction. It was unusual, and, I think, unfortunate but I do not think there is any ground for suggesting turpitude on the part of the Department responsible for it. I want to go a little further. I recognise Deputy Aiken's sincerity. I recognise also that the Minister for Local Government could reply with equal sincerity. I say to Deputies on both sides of the House that it is not going to do the country any good to be raking up these old quarrels and shaking the bones of the dead. Deputies on one side of the House may talk of Rory O'Connor, others of Sean Hales, and others of Mrs. Lindsay. That is not for the good of the country. The past is past. For God's sake let it be forgotten.

A DEPUTY

It can never be.

I am sorry. I am, perhaps, not the right person to make this appeal. I hope Deputies will realise I am making it with all sincerity. It will do no good to be raising old quarrels, perpetually raising old issues. When I came back to Ireland in 1918, having seen young Irishmen of the type Deputy Aiken talks of "On far foreign fields from Dunkirk to Belgrade," and even far beyond, I prayed that I would not see such types lying dead on the Irish fields. Can we not make a truce of God over the bones of the dead and not be dragging them into these controversies? Every side has something to complain of. I would appeal to Deputies on all sides of the House not to be dragging the dead into their arguments. It is not going to make the country better or happier. I am not speaking as a politician, but as a man who loves his country and wants to see peace in it.

I fully sympathise with the appeal made by Deputy Bryan Cooper. I feel he is speaking sincerely in asking that this matter should not be gone into, and I believe it would be the wish of the vast majority of this House that we should not, to use the picturesque phrase made use of by one of the gentlemen who is now a Free State Minister, go on "rattling the bones of the dead." We do not desire to do that. I assure the House that I personally do not desire to do that, but this I must say in all sincerity to the House, that for six years those of us who have been Irish Republicans, and who have been Irish Republicans for a long period before that—when we were all one party, and when the gentlemen on the opposite side and ourselves had very close and intimate relations which have been smashed ever since the Civil War started—on most occasions on which speeches have been made by those two gentlemen who sit opposite to me now, as well as their colleagues, have been charged—they have charged me as a responsible Republican, knowing intimately the proceedings, as these gentlemen cannot deny— with responsibility for starting the Civil War. If I were going before my God this minute, I say that I believe I have no responsibility for it. Up till now we have had no opportunity, certainly not an opportunity with a platform such as we now have, and with those gentlemen face to face with us, to tell them what we believe to be true. They may say, and say, perhaps, what they believe, that what we say is not true. Although we live in Ireland I believe there are many people still unprejudiced in matters of this kind, and I know there exists a public opinion that is prepared to hear both sides and decide. Our side of the story has never been heard, and you, gentlemen, have never heard it— Deputy Cooper and his colleagues have never known it—because the Press here will not give it. On numberless occasions letters have been sent to the daily Press here——

Would it curtail the Deputy's argument if I told him that I am a regular reader of the "Nation"?

Thanks for the compliment, but I have never gone into the history of the disturbances of the last six years in the "Nation." I have made definite statements there with regard to the incidents that have happened, but I have not gone into the history of the last six years. As I say, the daily Press have not given, and I do not presume to say they would in the future give, in their columns what we look to as our side of the story as against the Free State Ministers. They have not done it and will not do it. Therefore I think that, in all fairness, matters arising, in a liberal sense, out of this particular Vote ought to be allowed to be discussed here by the Chair and by the Dáil. Again I say that I do not want to rattle the bones of the dead or go into unnecessary things about that time, but I think I might make an appeal to the House, to those who are to some extent, perhaps, unprejudiced—at any rate, they are to this extent, that they were not on one side or the other in this dispute. I say to them that in all fairness to us they ought to hear our side of the story and, having heard it, they are free to judge on which side the truth lies. They will, perhaps, agree that there is a certain amount of truth on our side, and that all the truth is not in the one story they have been listening to and that has been dinned into their ears, day in and day out, since June 28th, 1922.

Would it not be better if the Deputy wrote a book?

And let you forge a few more despatches.

These things will all go down in books in good time, and they will be all there in history.

Get some of your pensioners to write a book.

Those who come after us will have to judge. Some people I know have written books; others are engaged in writing books— we wrote a lot of history in those years —but up to the present one side of the story, and one only, has been told. As one individual who knows something— I do not know all, I do not profess to know all, but I know something of the circumstances of the time—I say that in fairness our side of that story should be heard. If it is not heard now, it will have to be heard again, because as sure as we are here it will come out some time or other. There is a lot of bitterness rankling in the hearts, not alone of the men here, but of Republicans elsewhere, because that opportunity has never been given to us. I am not familiar with the details of these purchases, with the details of the transactions that went on at that time, but there are men in the Dáil who are familiar with them, who had a part in these transactions to some extent, and who can tell the truth as they know it about them. They will be told that they are telling untruths; you can hear the statement from the other side and can judge. It has been stated over and over again that certain of the arms and equipment purchased out of these moneys that are now the subject of discussion were guns that were used by what were then known as "irregulars," and these guns were supplied to these "irregulars" by the gentlemen who styled themselves the "regulars" at that time. That statement has been made over and over again on public platforms by some of our friends on this side, and they believe they have evidence to prove what they say. They claim that they have evidence to prove that guns that were purchased, part of them, with this money that is now the subject of discussion were given into the hands of some young men of different flying columns from different areas in the six Northern counties and elsewhere who were sent into the North to fight the men in the Six Counties— sent in there armed with these guns and sent there with the knowledge, if not directly under the orders, of the gentleman who is now known as Deputy Mulcahy. These statements have been made. He has denied them now—he has denied some of these statements. There are, I believe, Deputies here who are prepared to add their testimony to the statements that have been made, and it will be for you to judge.

These purchases that were made began before there was any talk of civil war so far as the public knew. Others may have known something about it. When that equipment was bought originally there was division but there were certain meetings and certain agreed action being carried on by both sides of the army, and there is still available, although a number of the chief characters concerned are dead and gone—some of them shot by those gentlemen opposite, shot in cold blood, supposed to be a reprisal; they are dead and gone; it was an easy way to put witnesses out of the way when you had dirty things to hide; that is my belief—there are others still living who can bring evidence to show that there is foundation for the belief on the Republican side that a dirty trick was played. That is what is believed, and, mind you, the Republicans got close on half a million votes in the last election, which shows that there is a body of opinion behind them. Republicans believe that a dirty trick was played, and with that opinion behind them you can at least agree that there is some ground for investigation, and there ought to be some opportunity of threshing the thing out.

I do not intend to go at greater length into this matter. I should like that it would not develop heat, although I suppose that is impossible. While I suppose I could generate as much heat on this subject as anyone else I would rather not do it. I would rather have this matter developed and discussed and searched right to the foundation in all calmness, without any heat, and, if possible, without any bitterness. I admit that I feel bitter sometimes, and I think with reason, knowing what I know, and knowing what I must tell the House some day or another. I have reason I believe to feel bitter, but I will not go into that at the moment. On this one issue of the purchases, and what arises out of them, I should like that the House would give a fair hearing to those who can speak with more intimate knowledge on the subject than I have, on the understanding that they have evidence to bring forth to prove that there was something that was not straight, that was not gentlemanly, that was not honest, and that certainly was not Irish, that was done at that time by one set of gentlemen to brother Irishmen.

What are we to understand is the desire of the Deputy with regard to the debate? He made an appeal for liberal treatment from the Chair and from the House for certain matters. The Chair is liberal in a great many matters. We have had a debate on the Land Commission, for example, yesterday and today which could easily be described as liberal from the point of view of the Chair. In this particular case we might as well be clear as to what we do want to discuss. We might as well be clear that if the House really does want to discuss something they must do it. But the issue of these purchases technically from the point of view of the Chair is this: that this is a sum of money disallowed by the Public Accounts Committee; that it has now to be voted— this is the third Vote on the question or the second—and what arises is the report of the Public Accounts Committee as to how financial transactions were carried out. The other general questions do not arise. For example, if a Government with a different personnel from the present Government, composed of different persons, with a wholly different history, were in office, they would still be asking for this Vote of £1,400 simply as a matter of financial arrangement. Therefore, we have in fact already travelled a good deal outside the normal scope of this kind of motion. If any good purpose could be served by travelling outside the technical scope of a particular Vote the Chair has no particular objection to have that purpose served, but if the purchase of these arms and their objective and all its alleged implications are going to be gone into, it seems to me to be quite fair and square that the issue that arises is not so much the attack on the Four Courts, or why the Four Courts were attacked but the question of the split in the Irish Republican Army, and why did all these things happen. Deputy O'Kelly concluded —I hope I am not misquoting him— by saying he hoped to prove that something happened that was not straight, was not gentlemanly, was not honest and was not Irish.

May I interrupt for a moment. I said that, but not that I could prove it, but that my friends could, even arising out of this specific purchase of arms without going outside it.

That it could be proved that a transaction was not straight, was not gentlemanly, was not honest and was not Irish. Now I am afraid it would be absolutely impossible to prove that particular thesis without generating a great deal of heat. I do not see how it could be debated otherwise. I allowed the Deputy to come to the absolute conclusion of his speech without any interruption of any kind from the Chair, because from the nature of the case I recognise there is a real difficulty in the matter, but I do not think that difficulty could be solved by discussing these fundamental matters on anything that could be reasonably described as a side wind, and this particular Vote for £1,400 can, I think, be easily described as a side wind. If the implication in the purchase of arms is as great as the Deputy and others attempted to prove, then we get into a very large field of debate, and I think if we are going to discuss this particular matter we ought to discuss it at some time or other on a motion with malice aforethought, and with full knowledge of what we are actually going to do. Whether that would be a desirable thing and would serve any good purpose it is not for me to say. But whether this House now on this Vote is the proper platform on which to go into these matters is very doubtful. I can allow for statements, such as Deputy O'Kelly's opening statement, as to what he feels in his conscience about his action and the action of those who stood with him. That is quite a reasonable proceeding, but if the two sides of the question have to be investigated with a view to proving something before the House on that whole question of 1922 we are getting into a very vexed question indeed. Personally, I do not think it should be done on this Vote, and I do not think Deputy O'Kelly really intended that on this particular Vote we should go into these matters. We could not go into them in less than several days, and I do not think we really ought to do it.

Is maith an sgéalaidhe an aimsír agus tiochfaidh an fhirinne amach lá éigin.

In dealing with this Vote for £1,400, I do not propose to go outside the Public Accounts dealing with the matter— the Appropriation Accounts for 1923-24, the Public Accounts for 1924-25, page 363, the Interim and Final Reports of the Public Accounts Committee for the 30th April, 1926, and Appendices 8, 9 and 10. And as one of those who has been the subject of jibes and taunts across the floor of the House and from political platforms, as to the responsibility for certain events that happened in the last seven or eight years, and as one who worked for peace and tried to keep my temper, I ask Deputies who have an open mind in the matter to read over these accounts for the truth —they can be found in the Library of this House—and to examine the statements in connection with that purchase of arms.

We are asked by Deputy Gearoid O'Sullivan what is truth. That is a reminiscent phrase, for jesting Pilate once asked, "What is truth?" It was said by some Deputy opposite that dirty work was done. By whom, or how, I do not know, because it was said sotto voce and it was difficult to catch the exact words. Well some of the truth is to be found in these reports I quite acknowledge the sincerity of Deputy Cooper in the appeal he made, but he has not been the subject of taunts and gibes that we were subjected to. I am willing to leave the verdict to history, but in the meantime I ask that Deputies, instead of taking our words, should read the Public Accounts of that transaction in the Library. In the Minutes of the Public Accounts Committee, 1925, in answer to the Chairman it was stated by the Auditor-General that he found that an advance of £10,000 had been made in this matter before he took up office. He did not know what the advance made meant. There was no ledger account in respect of it, and there were no vouchers in support of it. The date is significant. The transaction occurred in June, 1922. "We could get no information on the matter for quite a long time," he said, "but eventually," he went on, "I discovered the claim was made by Senior Crozier and Company, a firm associated with Mr. F. Fitzgerald." He was a director of the firm, and it was subsequently discovered that he practically owned the firm. The account had reference to chemicals. There were bills for £8,329 5s. 1d., which were supported by invoices for chemicals of various kinds, and amongst the chemicals were thirty casks of D.N.T. There are men here who were in the Civil War and they know what D.N.T. is used for. But the significant fact is that the purchases were made early in 1922. The firm had transactions with the I.R.A., I believe, prior to that, also. It is not necessary, perhaps, to go through the whole account. Mr. Fitzgerald seems to have made a fairly good profit. I do not want to go into that matter, because it is my impression that he was made the scapegoat in this, so that attention might not be directed to more vital points. The Public Accounts Committee have turned it down two or three times and it was passed by a majority vote here, I believe. The first grant of £10,000 was sanctioned, I believe, by the President at the time. It was to be for the purchase not only of chemicals, but guns, cannon, rifles and revolvers, and the order was held up after the attack on the Four Courts.

Before the Deputy proceeds, I should like to say hat that sum that I was referring to was not the £10,000, but about £5,000 paid subsequently. That was the sum that I said had been sanctioned by the President.

I accept the correction. In the Minutes of Evidence of the Public Accounts Committee, 1923-24, the witness said, in answer to question 2706, that a sum of £8,305 was paid to the Army Vote 1923-24 by direct order of the Ministry of Finance, and that was not a final settlement. Then there was a question of pressing reasons and urgency why it should be settled. But: "The Committee is of opinion that a closer investigation is required and that all the facts affecting the case should be presented to the Public Accounts Committee." That is to be found at question 2720.

Sums were paid in 1922-23 and 1923-24, and that did not complete the account; £1,400 was further advanced in 1924-5 and, in answer to a question it was stated that in these matters the Executive Council acts collectively. I do not know whether the Executive Council stands over that or not. If it does not then it should not be paid; it should be repudiated, and if it does stand over the whole transaction all the facts should be published and the reasons given for the purchase of these chemicals and arms. Appendix VIII. has a memo. on the purchase of warlike stores. Arrangements were made by the military authorities in Dublin with Mr. F. W. Fitzgerald in June 1922 for the purchase of rifles, large guns and ammunition, and £10,000 was advanced. The Minister for Finance said that after the Treaty there was no need for surreptitious purchases of arms and ammunition. Well, some Ministers at the time thought that there was need for it, and out of that need, in the opinion of the Minister then, have arisen many sad things that have happened since. I say to the independent members of this House particularly, and those who have an open mind on it, to weigh that fact carefully. It was the opinion of some Ministers then that those arms should be purchased, though arms could have been got, of course, through Mr. Cope, from the British Government, for what was called the National Army. I do not know if it was at that date. The summary of the transactions with Mr. Fitzgerald for May, 1922, was—total paid £19,705; in June, 1922, £10,000; in October, 1923, £5,000; in February, 1924, £3,260, and in December, 1924, £1,400. The last four sums were advanced by the Minister for Finance and recovered from the Army Vote. Appendix IX the same Report states: "From a report by the Chief of Staff we learn that early in 1922 arms were required for the use of the Northern Divisions of the Army, and it was decided to procure a quantity to be sent to the North." Negotiations were entered into with Mr. Fitzgerald for two thousand revolvers, ten thousand rifles and five large guns. Negotiations were complete by June, 1922, but when the attack on the Four Courts came and there was a change of policy Mr. Fitzgerald was told to hold his hand. I ask independent Deputies to weigh these facts: what were all these guns for and what was the ammunition for? I ask them to think if the sole responsibility for the Civil War rests with these benches, or if any responsibility rests with them. Let them weigh carefully these facts. They can be got from official accounts in this House.

There is an undated memo. in the same appendix from Fitzgerald saying that the guns were seized by the police after delivery to him on behalf of Messrs. Soley and Co. I wonder who gave information as to their delivery there. There is not in the files any record of a contract, or anything in the nature of a contract, or any note of the price. The chemicals delivered in Dublin then were chlorate potass., D.N.T. and barium nitrate, and he says that these transactions referred to pre-Truce, during the Truce, and subsequent purchases by the National Army, the total being £6,068 19s. 7d. In May, 1922, before the Civil War, £18,018 was paid for chemicals to that firm. Generals Mulcahy and MacMahon, on the 19th October, 1923, went to London, after an interview with the President, to pay £5,000 as a final settlement. They got, I believe, a receipt on account. At that date Mr. Fitzgerald had received £15,045—I do not say for himself, but for the firm he represented —against goods invoiced at £19,704, but of which only £9,000 worth had been delivered. So that it is no wonder that the Public Accounts Committee hesitated to sanction the payment of these amounts. In February, 1924, Mr. Fitzgerald telegraphed that the revolvers had been seized by the sheriff, and that he had been served with bankruptcy papers. "The bankruptcy story was misleading and admitted to be a trick concocted by Mr. Fitzgerald." I am afraid a lot of these phrases have been put in, perhaps truly, but in order, perhaps, to distract attention from certain other aspects of the purchases. After much trouble and inquiring, Mr. Doolin, acting for the Ministry, paid Mr. Soley's claim against Fitzgerald, totalling £3,260.

Does the Deputy say that it is his opinion that the statements were put in deliberately by the Public Accounts Committee to distract attention?

No; I say they are quite right, but a lot of these facts have been published, when others were not published, in order that the public might draw conclusions. I do not say that the Public Accounts Committee were accountable for that. Not only was this £3,260 paid then, but it was agreed to pay £1,400 in full settlement in order to obtain the chemicals and the revolvers which had not yet been delivered. The position then was that the Government had paid £18,305 on Mr. Fitzgerald's claim, whilst Mr. Fitzgerald retained goods charged at £10,385. The £1,400 was withheld because he did not give up the chemicals and guns which he was supposed to hold, in the name of the Free State, let us say, at the time. In July, 1924, legal proceedings were threatened against Fitzgerald, and in December, 1924, he agreed to carry out his undertaking of February. The £1,400 was paid to him and he delivered the revolvers and portion of the chemicals. On April 16th, 1925, after further threats, the balance, said to have been in stock in charge of the Army since September, 1922, was delivered, and finally the chemicals, which cost the State £2,261, were sold in London in March, 1926, for £315. It is no wonder that the Public Accounts Committee states that a lot of these should not have been paid. Mr. Fitzgerald, at any rate, has got £19,704. There is £1,400 still due from one account to another and we are asked to sanction it. In view of the purpose for which these guns were bought, in view of the use to which some of them were put, and in view of the suspicion over the whole transaction, I think that the House should not, without a full inquiry, sanction, even now, that £1,400. We do not know what value was got for them or whether the firm in London ran risks commensurate with the money they got, and if they are satisfied with their profits, but in Appendix 10 there is a letter from Mr. J. F. White to Major-General MacMahon in which he states:—

"Mr. Fitzgerald informed me that, whereas the Free State could purchase rifles openly from Mr. Cope, of the British Government, it was desired to obtain a large number secretly for use against Ulster so that, in the event of any of these rifles being lost in battle, they could not be identified as having been supplied to the Free State."

I wonder if that statement published in the accounts, will also be stigmatised as a lie, or if there was no understanding whatever as regards Ulster between the Four Courts and Beggar's Bush. There are Deputies here who were actively concerned in these negotiations and they can prove it. I believe that no attack was meant on Ulster, but that the whole plan was to deceive a certain section of Irishmen into accepting the Treaty which they would not have accepted if they knew what was meant. That is my reading of it. I believe that the whole transaction was rooted in dishonour, that Mr. Fitzgerald was a scapegoat, that many things were done by men who did not intend to keep their faith either with friend or foe, and they could interpret friend or foe as they wished. History will judge it. But in view of this transaction alone, I would ask Deputies on the other side not to throw taunts across the House as they did, and that Deputy Heffernan should not shout across that we destroyed the assets of this country. This transaction alone, if nothing else, will show that there are two sides to the question and I ask Deputies to judge it fairly and not to vote that £1,400 if they believe in truth.

In entering briefly on this debate, I hope to keep within the bounds of the debate. I wish to protest against this sum of £1,400 being voted in this instance, because I hold that not alone was the whole transaction irregular, but it involved a lot of things with which I cannot possibly agree. These stores were being purchased with a certain definite object in view. That object was to supply certain men in Ulster with arms, and those arms were to be used against Ulster. That at least was what we who went along to Beggars' Bush and Portobello understood. That is what we were told. It was hoped that no longer than six months would elapse until we, with the rest of our comrades who were not included in what is now called the National Army, would take part together in concerted action against the Six Counties. The arrangement made was that those arms which were handed over from the British Government were to be given to the I.R.A. in the South and West, and they in their turn, were to supply rifles and other arms to the volunteers in Ulster. The reason given then was the reason which has already been quoted—because all those rifles on the buttplate and on the bolt had a registered number which could be identified if they were captured in the North, and it would be held that these arms, given by the British Government to the staff in Beggars' Bush and Portobello Barracks, were being supplied to the Republicans in Ulster in order that they might fight against the British forces there. That was the contention, and that has already been stated here and read out of a report in this House. As well as that, there is in connection with this particular matter something which convinces me, although I was not convinced at the time—even up to the attack on the Four Courts—that there never was any intention of putting these arms to the use to which they were supposed to be put when purchased. That is the fact that already in the Six-County area arms which had been purchased or captured by the I.R.A. were actually taken out of the possession of the I.R.A. and brought outside the Six Counties.

To give you one example: In my own area we had purchased £318 worth of arms and in addition, taking them at the headquarters valuation at that time, I had captured several hundred pounds worth of arms. I discovered during the time when these purchases were being made that these arms had been taken out of that brigade area, brought away and taken over by the Division which was then subject to Beggar's Bush and under the command of General McKeon. As a consequence, not alone were those arms, which were stipulated for here, not supplied to our people in the North but those arms which we had purchased and captured were taken and the men up there were left without any means of defending themselves, not to talk of any means of carrying out any aggressive action against Ulster. During the period when we were in Beggar's Bush and Portobello Barracks we were supposed to be still part of the I.R.A. and had our letters addressed accordingly. We were told that when these arms came over from London it was only a matter of having a Conference or a Convention of all the volunteers to decide what our future attitude or action would be. I remember listening to a speech on the square in Beggar's Bush by the then Minister for Defence who is now on the opposite benches, and he said that this Convention was to be held and that we should determine what our attitude should be. Those arms after they were purchased were not applied to the use to which they should have been put. There was one particular item of Hotchkiss guns. There were five machine guns brought into Beggars' Bush barracks and I obtained one from the Quartermaster-General, for Derry City. I discovered afterwards that a raiding party had come along and taken back the machine gun from the people who had got it. In other words, it was taken out of Derry and brought back to the custody of the Minister for Defence. By that means they kept certain of us individual officers, many men who had joined up, and for a time the whole Second Northern Division in a state that we did not know exactly what was going to happen other than that we thought three or four months would see the beginning of definite concerted action against a particular part of this country known as the Six Counties. That state continued up to the very time of the attack on the Four Courts. On the occasion of the clash between the volunteers and the British Government on the Belleek-Pettigo Border I remember going to the then Chief-of-Staff, General O'Duffy, in order to volunteer for that particular area, because I happened to be acquainted with it. He told me on that occasion that they were changing the whole plan of campaign; that is, there was to be no mass action. They had a plan to send in flying columns into the Six Counties. These flying columns were to be thoroughly equipped for work in that area. Now that was eye-wash as I have already proved, but to show you how far the eye-wash went, two days or three days before the attack on the Four Courts I fully equipped—with the exception of arms—a flying column of forty men which came from the division of Deputy Aiken. They were fitted out with trench coats, boots, leggings and the rest, with as I said the exception of arms. And the arms they were to be supplied with are the arms that we are talking about now in this particular Vote. They were going to be supplied with these arms but the attack on the Four Courts came off. They did not, however, know what it was about at the time. All they knew was that it had happened. On the grounds that our people in the North were absolutely let down over this particular transaction which is not merely a matter of £1,400, it is much more serious than that but we can only now talk about the £1,400——

The Deputy is succeeding admirably.

On the grounds that this whole transaction absolutely and definitely let down our people in the North, and let down not only our people in the North, but the people of the rest of Ireland, I oppose this Vote most strongly.

The Vote that is under discussion arises out of the military policy of the Beggar's Bush section of the I.R.A. during the period 1922, immediately after the Truce, and in that connection, in order to understand thoroughly the deception that was practised on our people in the North, both on the civil population and on the Army, it is necessary that some light should be thrown on the Army policy at that period. Some time after the Truce a meeting of I.R.A. officers was held at Clones. It was called by the Chief-of-Staff, General O'Duffy, and the question was there discussed as to what should be the attitude of the Army in view of the Articles of Agreement that had been signed in London. General O'Duffy at that time outlined the military policy in the North. He told us, regarding the Articles of Agreement, that a Republican Constitution would be drafted, that there would be no Oath of Allegiance in the Constitution and that the I.R.A. would remain the Irish Republican Army. Some of the officers present at that meeting raised the obvious point that if the military activities in that area were allowed to cease, vested interests would become established, and it would be difficult to renew hostilities and to strike, with the support of the civil population, for the complete independence of our country at a later date. A definite undertaking was given on behalf of the Beggar's Bush section of the Army by General O'Duffy at that meeting that the longest period that the Army in that area would be allowed, or asked to wait, would be a period of from six to twelve months. During that time the Army in that area would be properly trained and equipped.

It was for the purpose of equipping the Army in that area that this transaction with Mr. Fitzgerald was carried out. But things, apparently, did not develop along the lines that were outlined to us by General O'Duffy on that night. Shortly afterwards a number of Army officers were arrested on their way to a Derry football match. Arising out of their detention in Derry Prison, General O'Duffy, Chief of Staff of the Beggar's Bush Section of the I.R.A., ordered a wholesale raid on the Specials and on the Loyalists of the North-East. Consequently, the war that was not to be resumed, as we thought, until we were in a position to prosecute it to a successful conclusion, was started. War was there and then declared by the Ulster Specials on our people. It then became necessary for the Army authorities and the Second Dáil to make an effort to have this war discontinued, or, at least, to pretend to the public, to the authorities in the North-East and to the British Government that this war policy was not being carried out with their complete sanction and approval. Consequently they agreed—that is, the British Government, the North-Eastern Government, and that section of the Republican Army of which General O'Duffy was Chief of Staff—that a Liaison Commission should be set up for the purpose, on paper at any rate, of maintaining peace in that part of Ireland. A Liaison Commission was set up consisting of two representatives of the British Army on the Southern side, two on the Northern side, two of the Six County Government, and two representatives of the I.R.A. in this part of the country. I was the senior representative of the I.R.A. on that Commission. Consequently I think I am in a position to know what the Army policy was, and why this warlike material was required. Reports were forwarded to the Chief of Staff at Beggar's Bush and to the late Michael Collins—that is to say, reports of the meetings of this Liaison Commission. For the information of the House I will read some extracts I have here, copies of my reports and some of the reports of the British representatives, Colonel Montague Bates and Colonel Boyce:—

Courthouse, Monaghan,

22nd Feby., 1922.

To Chief of Staff,

Beggar's Bush Barracks,

Dublin.

On Monday, the 20th instant, I met the Southern representatives of the British Government (Col. Montague Bates and Col. Boyce) at their Headquarters, Monaghan. We discussed the Border question in detail. I pointed out that the two urgent matters that were causing anxiety and irritation were the continued detention of the men arrested in Enniskillen on the night of the raid over the Border, and the arrest and detention of Irish officers in Newry. I made it clear that peace on the Border was impossible, and further raids certain to occur, unless these men and men similarly circumstanced were immediately released.

They agreed with my view point, and arranged to meet the members of the Commission from the Northern Area on Tuesday, 21st instant.

We met on the Monaghan-Tyrone Border. Major Clemson attended on behalf of the British Government and District Inspector King on behalf of the Ulster Government, and Col. M. Bates on the Southern side. It was unanimously agreed that these men should be immediately released in the interest of peace, and Major Clemson arranged to proceed immediately to Belfast and personally place our views before the North-Eastern Authorities....

On February 23rd the British representative, Colonel Montague Bates—he was representing the British Army— reported to the Provisional Government, to General O'Duffy, Chief of Staff of the Beggar's Bush Section of the Army, and to me, as follows:—

Lt. Col. Sutton stated with reference to questions regarding release of prisoners as put forward by the Southern representative, that the G.O.C. Ulster Division was not prepared to go into any political questions, and that the Northern Commission had no authority to discuss questions relating to prisoners. This, of course, was understood, but as has been pointed out in our daily report, No. 1 and No. 2, paragraph 11 (4), and also in the Southern representative's letter for Chief of Staff, paragraph 1, the question of peace on the Border depends on the settlement of this question of prisoners. This was confirmed in the afternoon by the Commandant of the 5th Div., Hogan, in an interview we had with him.

The question of the composition of the Northern Commission then came up. Capt. King we understand is only temporarily appointed, and has not been vested with the same authority as the Southern representative. Both the Northern and Southern Commission agreed that it would be better if the Northern Government appointed a more senior official as their representative, who could deal with questions arising along the whole border of the six counties and was able to keep in personal touch with the Northern Government. It would greatly assist the work of both Commissions if this could be settled as soon as possible....

The question of refugees was then discussed with Sir Basil Brooks. It was pointed out that this was a difficult question, as even if guarantees were given that these refugees would be safe from interference by the authorities yet it would be impossible to guarantee them from aggression by irresponsible individuals who had a personal spite against them. It is important that these refugees should be enabled to return to their homes as soon as possible as they are causing a great deal of trouble in spreading rumours on either side of the Border. Col. Comdt. Ward said that if he was given a list of refugees from the Monaghan area he could make inquiries, and would do his best to see that they were not interfered with if they returned....

After leaving the Northern Commission we motored to Clones to interview Div. Comdt. Hogan, at his Headquarters at the Hibernian Hotel, Clones. He stated that unless the question of the release of the 14 prisoners at Enniskillen, 5 officers at Newry, and 13 prisoners at Derry Gaol was settled satisfactorily, there would be certain trouble on the Border, that counter measures would be taken, and further raids made either by his order or by the order of the local Commandants on the spot, without necessarily awaiting for orders from the Government. On the question of the enforcing of the Proclamation re being in possession of arms, Hogan stated that certain trouble would arise. He said that the disarming would not be impartial, and that it was aimed at the Catholics and all Southern sympathisers. The "B" Specials, of course, would have authority to carry arms, and that as every able-bodied man, and in some cases, those who were not able-bodied men, could enrol in the "B" Specials, then it would mean that only those who were not Northern sympathisers would be disarmed. He mentioned that 95 per cent. were "B" Specials. This would place all Catholics and Southern sympathisers at the mercy of the Northerners. He further stated that, if this proclamation was put in force, then they (the South) would disarm all Northerners, not only on the South side of the Border, but also in the Six Counties area, by concerted raids....

On a point of order. I do not know, in view of the fact that anything seems to be in order in this debate, whether I would be in order in asking the Deputy a question as to what particular subject this rigmarole has relevance?

All this matter that has been annoying Deputy Tierney so much has reference to the Vote for the buying of arms to carry out the Army policy outlined in that interview with Lieutenant-Colonel Montague Bates and General Hogan.

I do not know whether the rest of the House is in agreement, but I, for one, protest against the Deputy—being allowed to bring in all these pieces of history that have passed.

—That is good— history.

Let us be calm. I would say this for Deputy Tierney, that if this is a preamble, it is a somewhat long preamble. I was going to ask Deputy Ward if he was coming to the point. Perhaps he is. Even on a liberal basis of ruling I think the Deputy's preamble is a long one.

I mentioned that it had become necessary to set up such a body as this Liaison Commission, because a state of war was actually in existence in that area.

I understand now this is part of the book we are promised.

We have not time to write books.

You have circulated the Book of Ananias.

If the Deputy has not time to write books he is speaking books.

Deputy Tierney is, of course, not interested in military matters.

The Deputy does not want to have the policy of the Party to which he belongs at the present time— the policy of the Party on this Six County question—exposed. I can quite well understand that it is very unpleasant for him to sit there listening, but, with the permission of the Chair, the Deputy will listen to a little more.

As long as the Deputy is clear that my permission is necessary, I am prepared to agree with him.

I am glad to have your acquiescence. In order, for a while at any rate, that we might be able to get the Specials in the North to cease their aggression against our people, in consultation with General O'Duffy and with the late General Collins, certain proposals were made to the representatives of the Northern Government on the Commission to the effect that the Commission be a Peace Commission, charged with the duty of preventing all provocative action and removing all cases of irritation between the people loyal to the Northern Government and the rest of the people of Ireland. It was proposed that the existing machinery be applied for the purposes of No. 1 and that responsible persons——

I think the Deputy ought to come to the war portion and leave the peace alone.

I was trying to show that we were endeavouring to prevent this war coming on at that particular time until we had our own people there properly equipped to prosecute the war to a successful conclusion. In order to do that I suggested, as representing the Beggar's Bush section of the Army, that with the approval of General Collins and General O'Duffy, certain alterations should be made in the constitution of the Commission to keep the bluff going on a little while longer.

The Deputy ought not to read any more of it, but ought to come to this Vote for £1,400.

We would like to hear more of the tin soldiers.

What did Deputy Gorey say?

I would advise the Deputy not to mind what Deputy Gorey said.

Deputy Gorey shouldered one of the rifles.

Did you ever shoulder one? I think it would be too heavy for you.

In 1916?

He was not heard of then. He was recruiting for the British Army.

You are a liar.

I must ask Deputy Gorey to withdraw that remark.

I would not like to deprive Deputy Gorey of his accustomed vocabulary.

While I must ask Deputy Gorey to withdraw the remark he made, I want to say that I have no sympathy with Deputy MacEntee. When a Deputy takes it on himself to interrupt no human agent can foresee what the aggrieved person may say. In this case he said a thing grievously against order. I am sure he will withdraw, and I wish we could get along without these interruptions.

I did not ask for your sympathy.

Deputy MacEntee's views on order do not give me any concern, fortunately, but I am concerned with my own views on order.

We reached the stage, A Chinn Comhairle, on the Commission when I was no longer able to maintain the bluff, and when I made a final report to General O'Duffy and to General Collins regarding the situation. We were asked, at least I was asked, to continue pretending that we meant to have peace and goodwill amongst the people on both sides of the Border at that time, while in reality aggressive action was being carried out under the explicit instructions of General O'Duffy. It will be necessary, I think, to read a further report that will about finish the reports for the present.

We will hear no more reports, and should have no more reports.

No reports at all?

Amongst the articles that were seized belonging to the Six-County people by officers and men acting under the command of Maj.-Gen. Hogan were some motor cars, one belonging to a Mr. Haddon of Aughnacloy. I do not think that is included in the Vote, but Deputies will be interested to know that that gentleman succeeded in getting a malicious injury decree against the people of Co. Monaghan for the motor car seized by Gen. Hogan. Finally, when I retired from the Commission, Maj.-Gen. Hogan arranged and came to the conclusion, apparently, that the Crossley cars and tenders of the British Commissioners would be useful to him, so he quietly arranged that he would seize these motors and exchange them with another officer in the Army in a division far removed from the Border. I am not so much concerned with the attitude of the chiefs of the Army at that time towards the British Government, but I am very much concerned with their attitude towards the people of the North, and with the deception they practised upon them. There was a civil policy in operation at that time as well as a military policy. On the 10th December, 1921, Mr. MacNeill, who subsequently functioned on the Border Commission, interviewed the public representatives of Co. Fermanagh.

The Deputy must come to this Vote now by some process.

The Vote is concerned—

No, it is not; not with this matter.

It is entirely concerned.

No; the Deputy must make his speech some way relevant to the Vote. Other Deputies have succeeded in doing so.

All matters relating to civil and military policy in the Six Counties relate to the Vote.

Inasmuch as the Vote is concerned with the procuring of arms.

Would not the history of the eighteenth century leading up to that policy have equal relevance?

Even the most liberal view towards this particular question would not bring Deputy Ward's remarks into order. I gave him a quarter of an hour for a preamble, and since then the Deputy has not said anything about the Vote. He ought to conclude n. He might move to report progress and think it over until to-morrow.

I move that progress be reported.

Progress ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported. The Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 12 o'clock on Friday, 9th March.
Barr
Roinn