Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 9 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 10

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.

Debate resumed on motion by the Minister for Finance:—
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 Army Reserve.

I submit that the transaction which necessitated the expenditure in this Vote was about the most treacherous transaction that has ever been perpetrated on the people of this country. The Public Accounts Committee admit that these war materials were purchased for use against the Six County Government. It has been definitely established here by Deputy Carney that at least one flying column was equipped at Beggars' Bush for military operations in that area, and it can be proved, and I have here documentary evidence to prove it, that officers from the Training Department of the Headquarters Staff at Beggars' Bush Barracks were actually arrested in the Six County area during 1922 for carrying out military manoeuvres in that area. The Divisional Commandant of the Fifth Northern Division in 1922 made his position quite clear in a statement he made to the British representative on the Liaison Commission, when he declared that in certain eventualities, if certain aggressive action were taken against our people in the North, and if certain prisoners continued to be detained, he would lead flying columns into that area and take military action, even to the extent of disarming Specials in that area.

There is no room for doubting that in 1922, 95 per cent. of the officers and men who were acting under the Beggars' Bush Headquarters were bluffed into the belief that joint military action by the two sections of the Irish Republican Army would be taken to secure the freedom of Ireland and to emancipate our fellow-citizens in the Six-County area. It is a well-known fact that there was difficulty in restraining in 1922 the present Chief-of-Staff of the Free State Army, General Hogan, from taking that military action, until the deal that is under discussion now in this House was completed, and until the joint Army authorities were in a position to carry out the military policy that had been agreed upon. There is ample evidence, and I have abundance of it here if anybody requires it, to prove that it was found almost impossible to restrain the military activities of some of the men who were then acting under the Headquarters Staff at Beggars' Bush. I have no doubt in my mind now, and I had no doubt in my mind then, that Dan Hogan and Sean MacKeon and other officers and men acting under them intended to use those guns against the forces of the Six-County Government, but I am equally certain in the light of after events, that it was intended by the Executive, to whom these men were responsible, that they would never be allowed to use these guns for this purpose. These officers and men were deceived by the Beggars' Bush Headquarters and by the Executive to which that Headquarters was responsible. They were deceived and betrayed as well as the men in the Four Courts.

A time was reached when something drastic had to be done in order to divert the minds of these officers, especially the men from the North, from the position in which the Nationalists and Catholics of the Six-County area found themselves. The reign of terror that was created there by the Specials had aroused public indignation. Every loyalist that was called a man was armed to the teeth. Every Nationalist and every Catholic of the male population were outlaws in their own land. They were reduced to a condition of abject slavery in that area, and the mentality of the men of the Irish Republican Army, of the Beggars' Bush section of it in the North as well as the Four Courts section of it, was that this thing would not be tolerated. The jails were filled. Our people were being flogged and interned, and many of them were being murdered cold-bloodedly in their own homes during that period. The men of the Army could no longer be restrained. The Beggars' Bush section of the Army accepted the Articles of Agreement for the express purpose of putting their house in order and preparing for a final military effort to free the whole of Ireland. They were more aggressive at that particular time towards the Six-County authorities than the men who took their orders from the Four Courts. It was then that it was decided by the Executive, to whom the Beggars' Bush men were responsible, that the bluff had been overdone.

The only way to prevent effectively the joint military action for which these warlike materials were purchased was to unloose the civil war that was unloosed the day the Four Courts were attacked. And these guns that were purchased—the transaction that was entered into for the purchase of these war materials for the defence of our citizens in the north—were turned over to the Beggars' Bush men for use against their fellow-countrymen in the south. That section of the Army that had been prepared to co-operate—and definite arrangements for co-operation had been made with responsible men on the other side of this House—in action against Ulster was rushed into civil war at twenty-five minutes' notice, and passions were aroused in that civil war, and bitternesses and hatreds were engendered that successfully blinded these men to ordinary reason, and the way was prepared for a complete betrayal of the north. The country was shocked and horrified, and the position of our people in the north was for a time lost sight of, and the way was clear for a final betrayal without protest.

At the time that this transaction was being negotiated, at the time that these war materials were being purchased, would any member of the party opposite, would any member of the present Cumann na nGaedheal Party, have dared to go before the public, to go before any section of Irishmen, and to have declared that this country was free, that the sovereign independence of this country had been attained? They would not have dared to do it then.

I would have done it and did it.

They went on with their civil war and, with their reptile Press, blinded the people; they unloosed passions that prevented people from taking a reasonable view of the situation that they then had created. The doctrine then that was preached, and the only doctrine that any body of Irishmen would listen to, was the doctrine that the Minister for Finance preached when he said that he who would consent to Partition was a traitor and should be treated as such——

What is the treatment?

What treatment?

Ask the President.

This is the talk, you know, that leads to trouble. I asked what is the treatment?

I thought that any Deputy coming from Cork knew what it was to be treacherous to the Irish nation.

I did not come from Cork.

I hope the House will reject this Vote and put the onus on the men on the opposite Benches of finding a way out of this dirty transaction of theirs, and I hope that we will not again hear from them anything more about the starting of the civil war and the cause of the civil war or what the civil war has involved this country in.

It struck me that, with the exception of the Minister for Finance, there has been no attempt made from the Government side to urge any reason as to why this money should be paid and it has occurred to me that they cannot be serious about it. If they want this money passed the Ministers opposite would have urged it on the House but perhaps they are holding back what they have to say and that there is a pleasure in store for us. But up to the present moment there has been no case made. As a matter of fact, the Minister whom one would have expected to put the case for this particular Vote has judiciously absented himself from this debate and the Minister who took upon himself the responsibility of introducing the Vote damned it. He said it was a transaction that should never have occurred. Surely the Minister does not expect that his majority in this House will pass such a Vote on a recommendation of that sort. If he does expect it he must have great respect for the independent members of the House. As one of the Whips of this party, I am not going to complain as to how the Cumann na nGaedheal Party vote. I am not going to start a revolt on that side in case there might be a bad example. I must say that the Minister has a very bad opinion of the independent Deputies of the House if, without any further recommendation from the House, without any further proof showing why this money should be paid, he expects them to vote this money which has been turned down three times by the Public Accounts Committee, set up by this House to investigate minutely all the financial transactions of the House.

They never heard such a case made for it as the Deputy's colleagues are making for it.

That is asking for it.

I do not quite get the Minister's point; perhaps it is due to my lack of intelligence.

It has been paid.

Mr. BOLAND

I am trying to make the point—perhaps I have not been clear enough—that there has not yet been made from the Government Benches—whatever may happen in the immediate future—a case for having the recommendation of the Committee of Public Accounts turned down. and that is what it amounts to. The Minister by whom we would expect a case to be put up has very judiciously absented himself from defending this transaction which, I think, could be best described mildly, if I can describe anything mildly, as double crossing. It is double crossing, to say the least of it. It is up to someone on the Government side to give us the reason why this money should be paid. I am very sorry that the old reliable Deputy, Deputy J. J. Byrne, who is so very fond of talking about the thirty-five millions that went up in smoke, has seen fit also to withdraw while this matter is being debated. Surely now is the time for him to show who was responsible for the thirty-five millions. The thirty-five millions can now be explained if Deputy Byrne cares to take the matter up or if some of the gentlemen opposite wish to do so. I submit that there has been no case made out. The Government in this matter has acted as if they were in the position that they occupied two years ago, when they had really a cast-iron majority. I think they have learned the lesson recently that that is not now the position. I am not going to go into the details of the civil war.

Hear, hear!

Mr. BOLAND

I think the details have been sufficiently gone into. I think it is up to the Government to state their case. With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I will refer to the moving appeal made by Deputy Cooper. I presume I have his permission for that. I believe Deputy Cooper was sincere when he made the appeal to this House that a mantle should be thrown over the past. I would like to urge on Deputy Cooper that he should try his powers of persuasion on the Front Benches opposite. I admit that the three principal Ministers who are at present in the House, have refrained very largely since we entered here, from referring to the civil war—for whatever reasons can be best judged by the House; they themselves know. I think there can be very little doubt as to why the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has refrained; it is pretty obvious anyhow. I do admit, whatever the reasons may be—and it is all to the good—that these three Ministers, the President, the Vice-President, and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health have not been in the habit of dragging in this question. There are others who have. The Minister who should be supporting the Vote here, who, on every possible occasion has been throwing ridicule and contempt on the people on this side, and who has put the responsibility on us, has seen fit to absent himself.

I say to Deputy Cooper that he should try his powers of persuasion on the Minister for Defence, who is not present; the Minister for Lands and Agriculture, who is so fond of talking about petrol tins, and when he gets the opportunity of proving it, he absents himself also; and the Minister for Education and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If Deputy Cooper succeeds in persuading these people to pursue a different line, I do not think he will fail in his appeal to this side. I would like to say further that not alone were we not responsible for the beginning of this, but we tried on several occasions to stop it. We made several attempts, and we were met at all points with a demand for the most abject and the most humiliating surrender. The very legislation responsible for our coming here was designed to create further strife in this country, and our coming in was a peace offering, which has been rejected. I am sorry to see that Deputy Cooper is not here. If the Ministry had tried to meet us half-way, if, instead of persecuting people like my friend George Gilmore, whom they are slowly doing to death in Mountjoy at present, they had shown some magnanimity, if they had wiped the slate and given us a new start and allowed us to conduct the Republican movement in a strictly constitutional fashion and not sent out agents-provocateur all over the country persecuting the people, they would succeed in having Deputy Cooper's wish realised. I appeal to Deputy Cooper to try his powers of persuasion on the Front Benches opposite, and when he has done that I do not think he will fail here.

Not knowing very much about this particular item in question, I rise just to respond in a very few words to what Deputy Boland has said. I have been attracted rather much by what Deputy Boland has said on many occasions. He couches his language in a generous way, even though he may say very bitter things. He appears to me to have a more generous disposition towards mankind in general than some of his friends on the other benches. It would be well for us all to examine just what the condition of the country is. It may be, perhaps, irrelevant to raise the matter on this Vote, but I propose, before I conclude. to come to the subject matter of the Vote itself. After a struggle lasting for a very considerable time, this particular movement found itself divided. Very many bitter things have been said; very many harsh things have been done. I suppose, being Christians, we ought to wish that those bitter things would be no longer said and those harsh things would be no longer done. But if we are to start out on such a basis as that, we ought to have agreement on fundamentals. As I understand the situation for the last seven or eight years, it is on fundamentals that the real difference has been. My view from the moment I entered public life was that the principles of democracy take precedence over all other principles in connection with public matters. I understand that was disputed by some of the colleagues of Deputy Boland. It was, I understand, in the very beginning objected to that a particular policy proposed by certain people should be put to the people of the country, and from the opposition that was there engendered the bitter things were said and the harsh things were done. There is no use in citing the start of the civil war from a particular action. There was really civil war in this country during the early part of 1922, and it does not serve matters even now to deal with who was responsible for that. I am prepared to discuss that at any time, in any place.

The question for consideration is, what good purpose does it serve? What is it going to do for the future of the country? We have a very serious and big responsibility towards the people of this country, those who agree as well as those who differ from us in that. Taking this Vote as just an item in that respect, Deputies opposite appear to think that it affords them an opportunity for fixing responsibility in connection with one of the most disgraceful episodes in our whole history. What useful purpose is served by that? We are here to discuss public business. What is the public business? That we discuss this, and get the authority of the Dáil for the payment of the sum of money involved.

In connection with a certain transaction?

With great respect to the Deputy, if he will allow me to proceed, I think I will be able to deal with this without his assistance. The matter to which I am addressing myself arises out of the generous speech of his colleague on his right, and if the Deputy interrupts me in doing that, then apparently we are in disagreement on fundamentals. The Public Accounts Committee disputed the payment of this item of £1,400. Let us for a moment look at the business side of this. Putting up the Vote here affords Parliament an opportunity to review the transaction. Let me take a more extreme case. Let us assume for the moment that the motion moved some months ago by Mr. Johnson when he was a member of the House had passed. What would be the position in the House? If Mr. Johnson had been elected President of the Executive Council he would be moving this Vote, and Deputies opposite would be voting for it. That point is not understood by all the members.

On a point of order, is it not a fact that Mr. Johnson, during the time that he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, stated in the report of the Committee that this transaction was irregular?

That is not the point at all.

I am afraid I will have to go back farther if I am to explain, at any length, the point involved to the Deputy. An opportunity is now afforded the House of reviewing this particular item as a business transaction. The authority of Parliament has to be got to pay this sum of money. This Vote would have to be put down, no matter who sat on the Government Benches here. Let us examine other circumstances in connection with this transaction, which, I think, started in June, 1922. At that time there was not that control and exactness as regards public accounts that there is now. An officer in the Army started this particular transaction, but he is no longer in it. That particular part of the proceedings could not happen now, nor could it have happened twelve months after. The tangle which started in 1922 was not unravelled until 1924 or 1925. The position, I suppose, is clear now to everyone except Deputy Cassidy, that in certain eventualities, if we suppose for the moment that Deputy O'Kelly had been elected President of the Executive Council, he would now be in the position of having to put up this Vote.

As I have stated, this transaction could not have occurred twelve months afterwards by reason of the very much tighter control that there is in the matter of administration. At the time that this transaction started the Executive Council—the members of the Government—was very different in personnel to what it is now. Three of the then members are now in their graves, and two are no longer in the Executive Council. As an ordinary business matter, I think I have disposed of the transaction. Such an event as occurred in June, 1922, could not happen now.

With regard to the other items, may I put this point in answer to what Deputy Boland has said. May I say I regard what he said as a generous statement, even though there were perhaps some bitter dabs in it. What useful purpose is served by introducing the incidents which occurred not alone from 1922 but from January, 1922, up to date? Do we get any greater public confidence in the national institutions? Deputies may have read within the last few days the very able pronouncement from Cardinal Gasparri regarding Governments. It appeared to me to have been a very fair exposition of what might be expected in any country, if we are to have order. If there are changes of Government here, I never anticipate that those who are now sitting on the Front Bench, or who have sat on it during the last few years, will be eternally railing at their successors and diverting public attention and rousing passions that ought certainly be allowed to subside.

Might I interrupt the President for a moment to say that I think he must admit that all that raking up of the past has come from his side of the House, and that the four gentlemen I mentioned, as well as Deputy Byrne, are perpetually raising that point?

May I say to Deputy Boland that neither he nor I are impartial judges? I think that, on reflection, he will admit that. Those who have been or are parties to a dispute cannot possibly be impartial judges as to the merits of it. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why I refrained—I did not know that I had until the Deputy told me. The action that I have taken here since the Deputies opposite entered is the same action that I have taken always. At my age one does not change his particular gait or mode of address. I may say that if all the things which were said from the benches on the opposite side were true, which I do not accept, all I would say is that we have not much to be proud of, either on that side of the House or on this.

Hear, hear.

In that spirit I ask that in dealing with the several matters which come before the House, we consider just what is going to happen in ten years' time and whether we are laying solid foundations for better minds to run this country in the future. That is all I have to say.

Might I ask the President to make a start by releasing the prisoners?

That is a very irrelevant interjection on this Vote, but on it may I say that after very mature deliberation and consideration we have set up here Courts for the administration of the law. The position is that the people of the country must obey these laws and the decisions of the Courts. If there is acceptance of that principle, a general recognition that we have to get respect for the law, and if that be recommended by those who continually talk about the prisoners, we would have a very different perspective before us in relation to these matters. I stand, and have always stood, against violence by individuals.

May I ask the President how it was that he did not obey the order of the Republican Court in this matter in 1922?

I am surprised.

He suppressed the Courts.

The President asked a question which, I think, demands an answer. What is the purpose of this debate and what good is it going to serve? It is going to elucidate the truth. On these benches there are 57 Deputies who have borne the weight of the President's slander for the last six years. Speaking in the debate on Old Age Pensions, the President accused this Party of impoverishing this country and of starting the civil war.

May I interrupt the Deputy to say that that is not my recollection. My recollection is that I said that the civil war cost approximately £22,000,000, and that the annual burden in respect to that is £1,100,000. Until the Deputy would quote the words from the official records I do not believe that I did more than that and that I did not certainly apportion any blame in connection with the matter at all—not but that I could if I wished.

I am depending on my recollection but we will leave that until we have the record. Speaking the other day the Minister for Industry and Commerce—valiant soldier whose presence of mind in moments of danger is generally signalised by his absence of body, whose seat has been vacant since this debate started, and who never speaks in this House without using the self-same argument, until its monotony has become wearying to those who have listened to it longer than we have—accused us of being absent from this House when the foundations. of this State were laid Why were we absent? We are here to use the opportunity of this Vote, as we are entitled to do, to show under what circumstances the Pact, that would have brought a united nation and the representatives of a united people into a common assembly, was deliberately broken. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture who, in the same fashion, accused members of this Party of having been responsible for the campaign of destruction that the attack on the Four Courts initiated, is absent, and the Minister for Local Government who was himself a party to this transaction, who paid certain of the moneys involved, and who was responsible for the death of his partners in this transaction refused to justify his part in these proceedings now. Are they mute of malice or by the visitation of God? Is it fear or shame that has sealed their tongues?

Let the Independent Deputies weigh the facts that have been recited to them this afternoon and yesterday. There you had a categorical statement brooking no denial from men who were participants in the events they narrated. If you refuse to accept the statement turn to the Appendix of the Public Accounts Committee, read the Report of that Committee, and you will see that beyond denial it is clear Mr. Frank Fitzgerald—and I think he himself has borne a heavy weight of misunderstanding in this matter—was the common agent of two principals who were joint partners in one and the same transaction. Is not that the case we have always made, that there was an understanding between the section of the Irish Republican Army which had its headquarters in the Four Courts, and the other section that elected to remain under the control of the then Minister of Defence of the Irish Republic? What caused that rupture? It is clear from these accounts that an understanding existed late in June and, if my recollection does not mislead me, as late as the 24th June. What occurred between the 24th and 28th June to dissolve that partnership? Will the Minister who issued orders to the Chief of Staff to attack the Four Courts disclose to this House what caused the rupture of this partnership, of that understanding to which he was a party? He says he has already disclosed the facts in this matter in September, 1922. If he did disclose the facts why is he afraid or ashamed to repeat his statement now? Here are the representatives of the men who are dead. Here are the representatives of the men who sat in association with himself and some of his colleagues upon that Joint Army Council that planned the whole of this proposed campaign. We are putting forward our story. A letter which was written by Rory O'Connor was read, and the Minister for Local Government characterised it as a damn lie.

Read the evidence again that was given before the Committee of Public Accounts, weigh the statements that you have heard from these benches, and when you have read that evidence, weighed those statements, and considered that letter, is not that letter substantiated in every word by the things that have been said and gone uncontroverted and uncontradicted? Why is Rory O'Connor not here to answer for th letter? Why is Liam Mellowes not here to answer for that letter? Why is Joe McKelvey not here to answer for that letter? Because Rory O'Connor and Liam Mellowes had an intimate knowledge of all the facts that led up to the attack on the Four Courts, and because Joe McKelvey was in exactly the same position as Deputy Aiken and Deputy Frank Carney, who had also taken a part, or were about to take a part, in the proposed operations against the Six Counties. I am not going to go into the question as to whether the Minister for Local Government seriously intended this operation or not. He may have. We believe he is capable of deceiving those who were the other partners to this transaction. It has been suggested, and, I think, probably it is the most feasible explanation of his very equivocal position in this matter on that occasion, that he was deceiving the men in the Four Courts for some purpose or another. I am not going to go into that, but the thing is, if this understanding existed, who was responsible for the rupture? Who was responsible for the civil war? Who was responsible for the executions? Who was responsible for the damage? Who was responsible for the assassinations that followed in its train? We want this question thrashed out once and for all, so that the campaign of slander against Eamon de Valera, not for any personal reason, but because he represents the historic cause of this Irish nation and because he stands for the unity and independence of this country, will cease. We want this campaign of slander ended once and for all, and we are anxious for an open investigation of this matter, and the men who can shed light on the other side of it are the men on the other benches who have remained mute, as I said before, whether through malice or the visitation of God, whether through fear or shame.

I still maintain that this debate is out of order.

The Deputy cannot maintain that against the Chair.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that this particular sum we are asked to vote is in connection with a transaction that occurred on the 19th December, 1924, dealing with the handing over of certain chemicals and certain revolvers. A large part of the discussion here to-day has been concerned with the question of 10,000 rifles to be bought in England and, according to some people, used in the North. If you look up the evidence, particularly the statement of the Auditor-General, in the special reports of the Sub-committee, of which I was a member, you will find that the transaction ceased in August, 1922, and was settled, so far as it could be settled, in February, 1924. That matter was dealt with under the Vote that was passed last year. Consequently, we only have to deal to-day with the final Vote for the purchase of chemicals and revolvers and not with the question of the 10,000 rifles.

The whole question was debated in the Dáil on the 7th July, 1925, when Deputy Johnson dealt with the matter very fully, and the Minister, in two speeches, explained the reason why the Vote was being asked for. I think the Minister, in putting forward this Vote on this occasion, had only to refer Deputies to his previous statements on the matter. Deputy MacEntee has suggested that in the report of the Sub-Committee—in Appendix 9 to the report of the Second Public Accounts Committee—there was evidence of some collusion between two principals in this matter, and it was the result of some preconceived arrangement between sections of the Army. I think I am the only member of the Dáil who has been on all Public Accounts Committees which have investigated this matter, and I am the only surviving member of the Sub-Committee which investigated the private files of the Ministries of Finance and Defence. In all those files there was no evidence whatever that this transaction, which lasted so many years, was the result of such a combination as Deputy MacEntee suggests.

The Deputy has stated that there is no evidence of this fact in the report of the Committee on the purchase of arms. Would he read the beginning of the first paragraph, which says: "From a report by the Chief of Staff"?

That is the general report?

Appendix 9, page 404, line 5.

Yes, that the arrangements were made with Fitzgerald, but I do not see any reference to two principals.

Wait a minute.

The Deputy must allow Deputy Esmonde to speak.

I quite understand that, but he does not want to put the facts before the House.

There were so many agents and sub-agents it was a matter that was very complicated.

Deputies on my right are constantly saying that they want other points of view mentioned, but it seems that when the other points of view are put forward these Deputies never listen to them. Deputy Esmonde is making a statement, and apparently Deputy MacEntee does not want a statement but a cock-shot.

Is this a coroner's inquiry?

On the part of Deputy Esmonde it certainly is not.

We are asked to refuse the payment of this amount and a sum of £1,400 is about to be surrendered to the Exchequer by the Department of Defence. If we refuse to pass this sum a very interesting situation will arise. According to law, the Accounting Officer of the Department of Defence, unless he has previously repudiated his responsibility in writing, is responsible for paying this sum. That particular official became Accounting Officer of this Department a year or more, I think, after this transaction was inaugurated. I presume it is the intention of Deputies who refuse to pass this Vote to deduct the sum from the salary of this officer. That would take several years to do. Another interesting point in that connection is that this sum was paid for certain chemicals and revolvers. Presumably, therefore, this official, after he has paid to the Treasury £1,400, will be entitled to have returned to him not only a sum of £326 16s. 6d. for which the chemicals were sold, but also, I presume, a very large number of revolvers. That, I think, would be the situation if this Vote were rejected. I do not know whether the official would be glad to get the revolvers, but it is a rather ridiculous situation to put him into. Members opposite have used this Vote in order to revive memories of 1922, and I am very glad that members of the Government Party have, as far as possible, refrained from following their example. We notice in the Press statements made by members on the opposite benches at public meetings that it is desirable to get away from the bitterness of those past events, but their actions during this debate did not carry out the good intentions which they have expressed. This Vote is the winding-up of a very long transaction, and I think it would have been more reasonable to ask the Dáil to pass it without discussion.

As I do not wish to give a silent vote on this Motion I would like to say that I am voting against it, but my vote is in no way influenced by the discussion that has taken place as to the origin of the civil war. I believe that that is a matter that has ceased to be of any great interest to the people of the country, and I believe, in any case, that this Dáil is not a court, and cannot be constituted a court, or try the particular issue as to who started the civil war. This particular transaction was a discreditable one, to say the least of it. It may have taken place when there was not the same accountancy machinery as we have at present and, though I would possibly be prepared to overlook that particular portion of it, I am not prepared to overlook or condone the way in which it was muddled two years at least after it had taken place. It is because I am not prepared to overlook that or approve, even at this stage, of the action that was taken by the particular Ministers concerned, one of whom refused to appear before the Public Accounts Committee although he was summoned there to give his version of what took place, that I am going to vote against this motion.

I would like to comment on Deputy O'Connell's statement. He objects particularly to the way in which this matter was muddled by being dragged out for two years. What he really objects to is that payment was not made completely wiping out everything two years before it was made, without the full examination and very critical search on the subject that were given to it during two years. It would have been very easy to do that. The matter was fully gone into before any payment was made. I did refuse to go before the Public Accounts Committee four years after the time when I was no longer the Minister responsible, on 24 hours' notice, and without being given any inkling as to the matter I was going to be asked to solve. With regard to other general matters, for one reason or another we have been asked whether in 1922 an attempt was made on the part of some of us to disentangle from the struggle in the Six Counties, or whether there was an attempt on our part to knit closer that struggle, whether there was an attempt to deceive members on the opposite Benches or whether there was an attempt to deceive some of the people who supported us. All these are interesting subjects for investigation at a suitable time. All I have to say with regard to these matters is that if I was of the particular calibre that would enter into discussion under these circumstances here now in 1928 I would not have been of the calibre to shoulder the particular responsibilities that fell in my way in 1922. I have no intention of discussing these matters in 1928, and in these particular circumstances. It is partly a matter of inertia, but it is also a tendency I have to pass from the absorption of one particular year to the absorptions of another year, to pass from one year's responsibility to another year's responsibility.

The Minister explains, or rather complains, that his reason for not appearing before the Committee was that he only got 24 hours' notice, and that he was given no notice of the matter regarding which the Committee wanted him to come before them and discuss. Is that the gist of his reply to the invitation to come before the Committee?

My reply is fully printed in the report.

Did you ask for time?

I asked for nothing. I sent a definite reply saying I was not going to appear. I think that reply, with a little less superficial examination, could be perfectly easily understood.

I feel that it might be wiser to move the adjournment of the debate, if it is allowable, in order that very serious issues which have been raised might be solved by consideration in the interval. I am one of those who believe that very often two apparently contradictory outcomes may logically follow from a particular series of circumstances. Arising from a small matter of this debate there has been raised the most critical and the most crucial question of the last generation of Irish history. It is conceivable that how we treat the issue which has now been raised may significantly alter the history of another generation. There was a very great tragedy in this country in almost recent months, from which some of us indicated one direction of departure and from which some others pleaded there might follow great fruits of benefit to this country, that out of it might rise healing, assuagement and hope of unity among men who were divided. But from that instead there arose a policy which did not tend in that direction. I am now submitting to the House for consideration that in the raising of this critical issue here to-day in the attempt to get to the bottom of this matter, and in getting to the bottom of the matter, perhaps, to get rid of some of the worst of the consequences that have followed, so that we may build upon this very unfortunate question this very fortunate inquiry into the circumstances of this question something of betterment, something of real fundamental value to the whole of the people of this country. It is in that spirit I ask, a couple of minutes before 2 o'clock, the permission of the Chair to move the adjournment of the debate.

I think the debate that has been raised on this Vote has no relation to it. I would prefer that the motion be put, and that some other time we could set apart a month for a discussion of the question that has been raised, or there could be a special session to deal with it.

The question has been raised, and whether or not that is desirable is another matter, but as it has been raised, this is the time to solve it.

Let it go to a vote.

It will when we are ready. We have tried hard to get this question discussed honestly and openly. There is a body in this country that has been cruelly slandered, in my opinion.

Will you allow me, sir, to move that the question be now put?

I have moved the adjournment.

The Minister claims to move that the question be now put.

I submit that it is very unfair to closure the debate.

The Minister has claimed to move that the question be now put. Standing Order 52 says:—

Closure of Debate: After a question (except a question already barred from debate under the Standing Orders) has been proposed from the Chair either in the Dáil, or in a Committee of the whole Dáil, a Deputy may claim to move: “That the question be now put,” and unless it shall appear to the Ceann Comhairle that such a motion is an infringement of the rights of a minority, or that the question has not been adequately discussed, or that the motion is otherwise an abuse of these Standing Orders, the question “That the question be now put” shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate.

The question therefore for the Chair to decide when permission is asked to move a motion, "That the question be now put," is whether such motion would be an infringement of the rights of the minority, whether the question has been adequately discussed, or whether the motion is otherwise an abuse of the Standing Order. It is, I think, not usual for the Chair to do more than state whether he withholds or gives his consent. This case is perhaps a special one. Having regard to the debate and the decision the Chair is now called upon to give, it might be made clear that the matter at issue before the Committee is one which, as I pointed out from the Chair yesterday evening, does not, in fact, if the ordinary rules of procedure were carried out strictly, allow very great scope for debate.

Matters, therefore, perhaps not strictly within the scope of order, were raised—they were allowed to be raised. An appeal was made yesterday evening to the Ceann Comhairle that this matter should be treated with some liberality from the Chair, and in a statement made from the Chair it was stated that some liberality would be shown with regard to this general question. With regard to the point raised by the last Deputy who spoke, I think that by no stretch of the Standing Orders and by no indulgence shown by any conceivable chairman could the whole question Deputy Flinn has outlined be debated under this motion. If the debate were adjourned until next week for the purpose Deputy Flinn indicated, the debate could not be resumed on the basis that all these fundamental matters were going to get full consideration, because, in the first place, even if they got consideration, they would not be decided when the question before the House was put to the House and decided. Therefore, in my judgment this question now before the House does not afford that opportunity. The opportunity which has been granted— I do not know whether Deputies will agree that it has been granted freely and liberally—(Deputies: "Hear, hear")—has afforded an opportunity for Deputies to state their particular point of view, and, on the other hand, for the President and the Minister for Local Government to state, very briefly, a different point of view. In the judgment of the Chair, very little more than an opportunity to state a point of view can be given. The debate which arose here could not be such as to enable all the questions of fact, and all the other questions at issue, to be debated and brought to a decision. The rights of the minority, therefore—assuming for the purpose of this decision that the minority is on my right—in this case have certainly been protected. There have been fourteen speakers during the debate, not including Deputy Flinn. The Deputy did not speak on the subject proper, since his endeavour was to get permission to move to report Progress. There were fourteen speeches. On the side of the normal majority of the House I find the Minister for Finance, the President and Deputy Esmonde—three—have spoken on the merits of the motion. Deputy Cooper's intervention was not about the motion, and as an offset against him one might put Deputy O'Kelly, who intervened owing to an appeal made by Deputy Cooper, and did not speak upon the general motion. Therefore, it seems to me, the minority in this case have had the fullest possible freedom in debate and that there is no infringement of the right of the minority in giving the Closure.

The question has been adequately discussed in so far as it appears to me anyone desires to discuss it. Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Esmonde discussed it to-day. I do not think the motion is an abuse of the Standing Orders and, therefore, I am accepting the motion of the Minister for Finance that the question be now put. The question before the Committee was Vote 64—Army. The Minister for Finance now claims to move: "That the question be now put."

On a point of order——

I do not think the Deputy is entitled to raise a point of order at this stage, but I will hear him if he relates it precisely to this.

I want to know if it is in order to put the Minister's motion at seven minutes past two o'clock, when Private Members' Business must be taken at two o'clock?

It is in order to bring to a conclusion any proceedings which take place before 8.30 p.m. in the ordinary way. I think it is in order, also, to bring to a conclusion any proceedings with regard to public business which originates before 2 o'clock on a Friday. It is in order to take the necessary decision and to have the necessary divisions. The question now is: "That the question be now put."

The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 58.

  • William P. Aird.
  • Ernest Henry Alton.
  • James Walter Beckett.
  • George Cecil Bennett.
  • Ernest Blythe.
  • Séamus A. Bourke.
  • Michael Brennan.
  • Seán Brodrick.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • John Joseph Byrne.
  • Edmund Carey.
  • John James Cole.
  • Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
  • Martin Conlan.
  • Michael P. Connolly.
  • Bryan Ricco Cooper.
  • William T. Cosgrave.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • John Daly.
  • Michael Davis.
  • Peter de Loughrey.
  • James N. Dolan.
  • Peadar Seán Doyle.
  • Edmund John Duggan.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Barry M. Egan.
  • Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
  • John Good.
  • D. J. Gorey.
  • Alexander Haslett.
  • Michael R. Heffernan.
  • Michael Joseph Hennessy.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Mark Henry.
  • Patrick Hogan (Galway).
  • Richard Holohan.
  • Michael Jordan.
  • Patrick Michael Kelly.
  • Myles Keogh.
  • Hugh Alexander Law.
  • Finian Lynch.
  • Arthur Patrick Mathews.
  • Martin McDonogh.
  • Michael Og McFadden.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Joseph W. Mongan.
  • Richard Mulcahy.
  • James E. Murphy.
  • Joseph Xavier Murphy.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Martin Michael Nally.
  • John Thomas Nolan.
  • Richard O'Connell.
  • Bartholomew O'Connor.
  • John F. O'Hanlon.
  • Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
  • John J. O'Reilly.
  • Gearoid O'Sullivan.
  • John Marcus O'Sullivan.
  • Patrick Reynolds.
  • Martin Roddy.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
  • William Edward Thrift.
  • Michael Tierney.
  • Daniel Vaughan.
  • John White.
  • Vincent Joseph White.
  • George Wolfe.
  • Jasper Travers Wolfe.

Níl

  • Frank Aiken.
  • Denis Allen.
  • Richard Anthony.
  • Neal Blaney.
  • Gerald Boland.
  • Patrick Boland.
  • Seán Brady.
  • Robert Briscoe.
  • Henry Broderick.
  • Daniel Buckley.
  • Frank Carney.
  • Frank Carty.
  • Archie J. Cassidy.
  • Michael Clery.
  • James Colbert.
  • Hugh Colohan.
  • Eamon Cooney.
  • Martin John Corry.
  • Fred Hugh Crowley.
  • Thomas Derrig.
  • Eamon de Valera.
  • Edward Doyle.
  • James Everett.
  • Frank Fahy.
  • Hugo Flinn.
  • Seán French.
  • Patrick J. Gorry.
  • John Goulding.
  • Seán Hayes.
  • Samuel Holt.
  • Patrick Houlihan.
  • Stephen Jordan.
  • Michael Joseph Kennedy.
  • William R. Kent.
  • James Joseph Killane.
  • Mark Killilea.
  • Michael Kilroy.
  • Seán F. Lemass.
  • Patrick John Little.
  • Ben Maguire.
  • Seán MacEntee.
  • Séamus Moore.
  • Daniel Morrissey.
  • Thomas Mullins.
  • Thomas J. O'Connell.
  • Seán T. O'Kelly.
  • William O'Leary.
  • Matthew O'Reilly.
  • Thomas O'Reilly.
  • Thomas P. Powell.
  • William Archer Redmond.
  • Patrick J. Ruttledge.
  • James Ryan.
  • Patrick Smyth.
  • Michael Tierney.
  • John Tubridy.
  • Richard Walsh.
  • Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried.
Main question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 59.

  • William P. Aird.
  • Ernest Henry Alton.
  • James Walter Beckett.
  • George Cecil Bennett.
  • Ernest Blythe.
  • Séamus A. Bourke.
  • Michael Brennan.
  • Seán Brodrick.
  • Alfred Byrne.
  • John Joseph Byrne.
  • Edmund Carey.
  • James Coburn.
  • John James Cole.
  • Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
  • Martin Conlan.
  • Michael P. Connolly.
  • Bryan Ricco Cooper.
  • William T. Cosgrave.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • John Daly.
  • Michael Davis.
  • Peter de Loughrey.
  • James N. Dolan.
  • Peadar Seán Doyle.
  • Edmund John Duggan.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Barry M. Egan.
  • Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
  • John Good.
  • D.J. Gorey.
  • Alexander Haslett.
  • Michael R. Heffernan.
  • Michael Joseph Hennessy.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Mark Henry.
  • Patrick Hogan (Galway).
  • Richard Holohan.
  • Michael Jordan.
  • Patrick Michael Kelly.
  • Myles Keogh.
  • Hugh Alexander Law.
  • Finian Lynch.
  • Arthur Patrick Mathews.
  • Martin McDonogh.
  • Michael Og McFadden.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Joseph W. Mongan.
  • Richard Mulcahy.
  • James E. Murphy.
  • Joseph Xavier Murphy.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Martin Michael Nally.
  • John Thomas Nolan.
  • Richard O'Connell.
  • Bartholomew O'Connor.
  • John F. O'Hanlon.
  • Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
  • John J. O'Reilly.
  • Gearoid O'Sullivan.
  • John Marcus O'Sullivan.
  • William Archer Redmond.
  • Patrick Reynolds.
  • Martin Roddy.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
  • William Edward Thrift.
  • Michael Tierney.
  • Daniel Vaughan.
  • John White.
  • Vincent Joseph White.
  • George Wolfe.
  • Jasper Travers Wolfe.

Níl

  • Frank Aiken.
  • Denis Allen.
  • Richard Anthony.
  • Neal Blaney.
  • Gerald Boland.
  • Patrick Boland.
  • Seán Brady.
  • Robert Briscoe.
  • Henry Broderick.
  • Daniel Buckley.
  • Frank Carney.
  • Frank Carty.
  • Archie J. Cassidy.
  • Michael Clery.
  • James Colbert.
  • Hugh Colohan.
  • Eamon Cooney.
  • Martin John Corry.
  • Fred Hugh Crowley.
  • Tadhg Crowley.
  • William Davin.
  • Thomas Derrig.
  • Eamon de Valera.
  • Edward Doyle.
  • James Everett.
  • Thomas O'Reilly.
  • Thomas P. Powell.
  • Patrick J. Ruttledge.
  • James Ryan.
  • Timothy Sheehy (Tipp.).
  • Frank Fahy.
  • Hugo Flinn.
  • Seán French.
  • Patrick J. Gorry.
  • John Goulding.
  • Seán Hayes.
  • Samuel Holt.
  • Patrick Houlihan.
  • Stephen Jordan.
  • Michael Joseph Kennedy.
  • William R. Kent.
  • James Joseph Killane.
  • Mark Killilea.
  • Michael Kilroy.
  • Seán F. Lemass.
  • Patrick John Little.
  • Ben Maguire.
  • Seán MacEntee.
  • Séamus Moore.
  • Daniel Morrissey.
  • Thomas Mullins.
  • Thomas J. O'Connell.
  • Seán T. O'Kelly.
  • William O'Leary.
  • Matthew O'Reilly.
  • Patrick Smith.
  • John Tubridy.
  • Richard Walsh.
  • Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Ordered that progress be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported. The Committee to sit again on Wednesday, March 14th.
Professor THRIFT took the Chair.
Barr
Roinn