In concluding my remarks in connection with the Gaeltacht, I desire to say that I am sure we all recognise that the population of the nation is our greatest national asset, and that the question of how to save the population of the Gaeltacht is a difficult problem. In my opinion, the surest and best way of saving it and, incidentally, saving the national language, is to develop industries there, not merely the fishing industry, but also the other industries for which the localities are suitable. That means practically every industry which supplies the requirements of the nation. There is no reason why the people in the Gaeltacht could not produce our cooking utensils or our ships just as well as the people in cities. As a means of securing capital for this industrial development I suggest that it is well worth consideration that the Government would guarantee a return of a reasonable percentage on the capital invested in these industries. It would be the cheapest and best way of doing it. It would be the easiest way of raising a large amount of capital. It does not necessarily mean that they would have to pay the amount of the money guaranteed, because we are in the midst of our own market, and that is a great assurance for the success of any of these industrial movements that might be developed. To be in the midst of the home market is the greatest of all advantages, as we thus secure advantage over those sending in foreign goods. If the problem is taken up in this way we need not fear the result of developing the Gaeltacht.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - GAELTACHT COMMISSION REPORT.
We were told yesterday evening in the course of this debate that the Government proposals in regard to the Gaeltacht were absurd and ridiculous, and that they made no attempt to solve the problem because there was no sincerity behind them. We can be very calm in face of such charges. Personally I am prepared to accept the measure of the strong attacks on the Government's proposals as the measure of sincerity of the people here who make them. I would like to say to the Deputies, to whom I give credit for sincerity, that we have gone far beyond the day when it is any help towards solving a problem by saying that it is a national problem, an historical problem, a social problem, an educational problem, an economic problem, as Deputy Fahy took great pains to remind us in the course of his speech. We have gone beyond the day when it is any use for a Deputy giving, as Deputy Hogan did, the numbers to which the population of these areas has been reduced during the last thirteen years, or whatever number of years he mentioned, and then saying that the policy of the Minister for Agriculture is not going to change that, while the Deputy himself makes no attempt to say what is going to change it.
What the Minister put his signature to.
If the Deputy, instead of quoting the reduction in the population in those areas and hinging a long speech on the suggestion, which is not accurate, that the Minister for Fisheries will have responsibility for seeing that the Civic Guard know Irish, approached the question as to what way the proposals in the White Paper differed from the recommendations made by the Commission, and how any difference is unreasonable and could be avoided, it would be a contribution to the situation, but the speeches we have had from Deputy Hogan, Deputy Tubridy and Deputy Kilroy were classical samples of things that are no use in discussing this type of problem. I say that because it is quite possible that the Deputies who made these speeches are sincere in feeling that they are making a contribution to the situation. They are really only taking up their own time to a certain extent, and misleading their intelligence in the matter. They mention a string of industries and say these things will solve the problem in the Gaeltacht, but they are put in a much more systematic form in the Report of the Commission than they have been put in any of the speeches made here. Between the slate quarry in the Killeries, mentioned by Deputy Kilroy, and putting these slates on the roof of a house, a certain number of processes come in. We would like to see Deputies concentrating on what these processes are, and on the amount of men, money, and machinery required. That would be a contribution to the debate, and that is what we are trying to do.
I would like to refer particularly to a statement made by Deputy Tubridy yesterday. He suggested that housing in the Gaeltacht requires attention. We know it does, and we know that facilities for improving houses, additional facilities to those provided elsewhere, are required for the Gaeltacht. It is proposed to provide those facilities. Out of a sum of £1,000,000 that was set aside in 1922 for housing, a sum of about £5,000 remained. The Claddagh was a problem, the problem of an Irish-speaking population in an urban area where the housing conditions were scandalous. We are approaching the problem of how we can deal with the housing in the Claddagh. There are 200 houses there already. We have a plan for taking away these by degrees and replacing them by 233 houses in that neighbourhood. The preliminary plans are under consideration by the Galway Urban Council for 100 houses. In addition to the housing grants which recent legislation makes available, we are making available the £5,000 that was left out of the £1,000,000 grant in 1922.
The Deputy said that the Galway Urban District Council intended to deflect this money for the purpose of beautifying the city for the sake of the tourist traffic.
It is always wise to give a hint.
The Deputy makes a statement that there is not a shadow of any possible evidence for, and he attacks the Galway Urban Council because of this. Now, if we are going to lose, or to do without, in solving the problem of the Gaeltacht, the economic problem, the ordinary individual who goes about his business in a plain way, and who undertakes the duties of local government, whether on county councils or urban district councils, the type of individual whose wavelength is not such that he receives things in terms of spiritual, national and traditional problems, but who will face the work that requires to be done there—if these people are going to be done without and are going to be antagonised by other people who speak big as Gaelic Leaguers, and if the work is going to be ruined by the men who speak big for the Gaeltacht, then the Gaeltacht is going to suffer. It is absolutely incorrect that the Galway Urban Council intends, or, if it intended, would have any power, to deflect from the purpose of housing in the Claddagh, any special grant made for that purpose.
I had information that they did intend that.
We have gone beyond the time when the kind of speeches we have heard can be of any help, and I suggest to Deputy Fahy, as the chief spokesman for the language and the Gaeltacht on the Opposition Benches, and as secretary for the Gaelic League, that we expect more from him in his criticism of the educational side of the proposals here than to say that there are twenty recommendations, thirteen of which are not accepted, that four are adopted, and that three are accepted with a kind of avoidance of one point or another. What we are trying to do, and what the suggestions in the White Paper are proposing to do, are pretty clearly set out. Let me diverge for a moment to say that I do not stand, and will not stand, for one moment for the Gaeltacht Commission Report or for the proposals in the White Paper—I will not stand for either the whole or any single one of them for a moment—if it is shown to me by some other people that any proposal there can be bettered or that any proposal is wrong. That is the attitude of the Government as a whole on the matter, and there is no use in saying from the Opposition Benches that while they and all the Deputies in the House are trustees in the matter of the language and the Gaeltacht, they have no onus for putting up plans. They have an onus on them for seeing that such plans as are being put up and worked are the best possible plans that can be made, and they are responsible for making their contributions for the betterment of these plans if they can make them any better. I suggest all that to people who are sincere.
What we are trying to do is to see established in the Gaeltacht the complete educational ladder along which the people in the Gaeltacht can rise to such development as a proper education can bring them to. Will the Deputy take the proposals that are in the report and take the statement of the Government in the White Paper, point out where there is anything omitted that might be put in, and come to close grips with the situation? Take, for instance, the primary schools. The report gives a clear idea of the position in the primary schools and the case of teachers incapable of teaching through the medium of Irish. All we know from Deputy Fahy is that the Government did not accept the proposals in the report, but what the Government did was, after pointing out certain difficulties which the Deputy is aware of, to suggest that a committee of managers and teachers and representatives of the Department of Education should be set up to investigate the question in all its bearings; that is, for removing the teachers from the Irish-speaking districts who were not capable of imparting education through the medium of Irish. Does the Deputy agree with the suggestion that the matter should be referred to a committee of managers, teachers and representatives of the Department of Education. or, if he disagrees with it, what does he propose? I put it either to the Deputies who are trustees for the language or to the Government, who have the authority for executive action at the present moment, that neither to you nor to us has the Deputy made a suggestion as to what he would replace that committee with.
A recommendation is made in the report to complete, or begin with the completion of, the ladder on the secondary education side. The White Paper says in regard to that:
Where the parents show desire for such Secondary Education, the Government are prepared to consider the provision in the Gaeltacht, as has already been done elsewhere of facilities for Secondary Education in advanced classes of the larger of the existing Primary Schools in each of the localities recommended as a centre in paragraph 68 of the Report.
The Deputy refers to it in his argument simply as a paragraph number to be put on the minus side. He tells us he believes there are in Kerry, in Ring and in Connemara, people who want secondary education.
On a point of order, I said I know there are people in Kerry, and the Minister was not here when I spoke. I said definitely there are people in Kerry and, if the schools are provided, you will get them in Connemara. It is your business to get the schools first, not to have the people begging for them.
Let us say there are in Kerry, Ring and Galway people in the Gaeltacht who want secondary education. Does the Deputy think the suggestion of the Minister for Education is reasonable or not? I want to get at what the Deputy wants to suggest. In the case of university education and scholarships, there are statements made in the White Paper. Does the Deputy agree that what is said there in respect of scholarships is sufficient and reasonable, or what else exactly does he want? The contribution that must be made is not to point out that the gulf between primary and secondary and university education must be linked up and overcome, but in terms of teachers and books and scholarships and all that; it is in these terms that a contribution has to be made. If money is given to Galway University for the purpose of introducing Irish as the language in the university, is the Deputy who represents Galway aware—does he know—what is going on in the university and is he satisfied with the way the university is using the funds?
I said I was satisfied, and the Minister was not here at the time.
I wonder if everybody else is satisfied, and I wonder, if the Deputy is satisfied with it, why he does not add in Clause 21 as one of the things the Government is doing? Our aim is to set up an educational ladder in the Irish-speaking districts and, on the economic side, to give a stimulus and assistance to agriculture as an industry, and to assist any other industry that may be established there, and that will put these places on their feet. For that you want machinery. A Bill setting up a particular type of machinery was held over for further discussion until we would have had this discussion. A lot of obscurity of one kind or another has been thrown around the recommendations in the Gaeltact Commission report in connection with the particular type of machinery. Let us examine the machinery. First there is the educational side. The Minister for Education is made responsible for that, and the trustees of the language and the Gaeltacht, having control over the Minister for Education in this House, can make him answerable for the way in which the educational side in the Irish-speaking districts is being carried out.
You want machinery on the other side, and you want people to be responsible to you for the economic side of the thing, and then you want someone to be responsible for the full co-ordination of all matters so that the educational side will feed into the industrial side, and the use of the language in administration will be so carried out as to grip the thing firmly in the Irish-speaking districts. You are offered the Minister for Education on one side, for education; you are offered the Minister for Lands and Fisheries on the other, and you are offered the Executive Council as the co-ordinating authority. Around the machinery that, in a Bill put before the Dáil a short time ago, it was proposed to set up to deal with the economic side of matters, a big lot of obscurity has arisen with regard to what the Gaeltacht Commission report has recommended. I refer Deputies to paragraphs 185 and 186 of the Gaeltacht Commission report. There is this paragraph in it:
"Many witnesses have urged the necessity for setting up a special Ministry to look after all matters connected with the Gaeltacht. Others have recommended that, with a view to dealing with matters affecting the economic conditions at least, a special body somewhat on the lines of the late Congested Districts Board should be set up. The Commission has given very careful consideration to both suggestions, and it is of opinion that the setting up of any such special administrative authority would be neither desirable nor practicable, under the changed conditions of Government in the country. The formation of a special body charged with the work of administering any special matters separately in the Gaeltacht would present difficulties."
A suggestion was made for a Commission being set up that would have inspectorial general duties and would co-ordinate in an inspectorial way. Now, the setting up of machinery of a particular kind is being opposed here because it is suggested that the Gaeltacht Commission Report advised against it. A demand for a certain amount of money is made here because it is suggested that the Gaeltacht Commission Report recommended it. The Gaeltacht Commission Report did not do any such thing. Our plans on the industrial side—and Deputy Law has asked some pointed questions about them—are that the Ministry of Fisheries would be reorganised, made a Department of Land and Fisheries, and would be given control of the Land Commission work and of fishery work and of all the additional things that might in any way be required to be carried out specially in the Irish-speaking districts.
It is suggested that a new Ministry is not going to do more than the Land Commission separately and the Fisheries Department separately did. The new Ministry will have much more to do than the other two Ministries separately, and the new Ministry will be provided with the necessary staff. The first thing is to get the machinery and plans, however perfect they may be, in a general way; until you have them revised by the machinery which is going to carry them out your plans cannot be perfect, and until your plans are perfect you do not know what you want money for.
Deputy Law has asked if there will be additional funds in the hands of the new Ministry to carry out the additional work necessary in the Gaeltacht, and the answer is yes. He has asked whether the money can be spent without previous Treasury control. The suggestion that the control of finance from the Department of Finance is harsh can be overdone. There need be no control from the Department of Finance delaying good schemes or preventing the application of money at the discretion of the Department on schemes generally approved by the Department of Finance. To suggest at this particular moment in respect of a new Department and new machinery for dealing with the economic side of things that, except Deputies see a certain sum of money on paper put in big black noughts, nothing is going to be done, is to suggest something that is silly.
In their consideration of the matter the members of the Gaeltacht Commission who prepared that report were fully alive to the undesirability that the full help of the administration and the financial help of the fully-fledged Departments of State would not be available to the Gaeltacht. Arrangements will be made that every Department of the State will be responsible for paying its own attention to the Gaeltacht. But the special Department of Lands and Fisheries will have the special responsibility of dealing with these matters that are additional. If additional work on industrial lines is to be done in the Gaeltacht rather than elsewhere, that additional work will be done by the new Department. If additional services are to be provided or additional facilities are to be provided for the improvement of houses in the Irish-speaking districts, services which are not provided throughout the country as a whole, these additional services and moneys will be available through the new Ministry. What Deputies are doing is, they are opposing the setting up of machinery to deal with these matters without any clear conception in their own minds of what they would replace that machinery by, except to say that that machinery is not in accordance with the spirit or in consonance with the sentiments that the members who prepared the Gaeltacht Commission Report had.
Would the Minister allow me to ask him a question? He has given a very definite and specific answer to one of my questions, for which I thank him. I would like to get as clear and specific an answer to the other questions I touched on. That is the question first of Treasury control. The Minister knows that I never put up the case that there should be no financial control of this or any other Department. What I was anxious to ascertain and to have cleared up is this, that where work such as the Minister has indicated will be carried out for the Gaeltacht, whether the expenditure of the money which is to be expended on this would be available for this work in the Gaeltacht? Would this money be able to be spent by the Ministry of Fisheries as a working Department without previous reference on detailed matters to the Ministry for Finance? The Minister, I am sure, will appreciate the distinction and the difference. It is one thing that the Minister for Finance should retain general control over expenditure. It is quite another matter that there should be an insistence that every specific question should be brought before him, that is to say, whether particular allowance should be given for the provision of boats or nets or for the encouragement of cottage industries or drainage works; that each question, irrespective of the sum of money, would have to be referred for previous sanction to the Department of Finance. The point is really not a question of financial control, but the whole question is whether you are to get the work done by the people who are the best judge of what is to be done?
I do not know whether I fully appreciate the details of the Deputy's question, but if there is to be a general policy of giving loans of a particular kind I certainly do not think that each particular loan should go to the Department of Finance for authority and sanction. But if the Deputy means, in connection with the assistance to the improvement of houses, that each particular case is to come before the Department of Finance, I think that would be an absurd thing to suggest.
I did not suggest that.
I am afraid I have taken more time than I intended to take. What I do want to stress is, as I said before, you have the Gaeltacht Commission Report to give you the facts about the situation. The White Paper gives you the facts about the Government's intention. If the Government's proposals are not satisfactory in the light of what is either proposed or what is thought by the Opposition or the Dáil generally to be practical, then let us know these things. Do not let us be throwing into the situation simply something that is confusing matters and that is really rhetoric.
Does the Minister think, therefore, that the Minister for Fisheries, being so successful in keeping the fisheries alive, will keep the Irish language alive?
That is just what I say. You cannot come down to facts.
That is one of the facts, and you do not answer it.
Deputy Fahy's motion is that the proposals, or the indications of policy, if you like, that are contained in the White Paper will not save the Gaeltacht, and that it is the duty of the Government to frame a clear scheme of proposals which will be feasible, and to set aside a certain sum of money in order that these proposals could be put into effect. That proposal contains very clearly our view of the whole matter. In the first place, we say that these proposals set forth in the White Paper, or the indications of policy set out in the White Paper, will not save the Gaeltacht. I am going to concede, at the start, that there are certain good things in the White Paper, but that it will not meet the problem I am as clear in my own mind as the Minister for Agriculture is. We have a right to expect something more than the odds and ends that are in that Report. When this Commission was set up, with a great flourish of trumpets, the President wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Commission. Only that the time is so very short, lest this would remain hidden in the musty shelves with other blue papers, I would like to have that letter inserted in its entirety in the records.
And to make up for the people who did not read the Report.
In any case, it would be something by which we could judge the difference between the promises and the performances. My object in quoting a few of these paragraphs is to indicate what was promised three years ago, what we were led to expect would result from the setting up of the Gaeltacht Commission three years ago, and what we have now got in the White Paper. The President said that this Commission was being set up "in the hope that proper inquiry will lead to a clear and definite national policy in respect of those districts and local populations which have preserved the Irish language as the language of their homes."
There is not much indication of a clear and definite national policy in these odds and ends, as I have already called them. Then he tells us what our obligations to the Irish language are. He says:—
"By the Constitution of the Saor-stát, Irish is expressly recognised as the national language."
And then he says:
"We believe that the Irish people, as a body, recognise it to be a national duty, incumbent upon their representatives and their Government as on themselves, to uphold and foster the Irish language, the central and most distinctive factor of the tradition which is Irish nationality, and that everything that can be rightly and effectively done to that end will be in accordance with the will of the Irish people."
We know that that is the case for the majority of the Irish people. But we know that there are people who have a very different outlook. When I was listening yesterday to the Minister for Finance talking on this subject. I asked myself how long more would it be until he would be converted to the idea that we were all fools on this question of the Irish language; that we were all dreamers when we had ideals like these. I ask myself how long more will it be until he will say about the Irish language what he said about the Republic a few days ago—that we did not want it and that we were better off without it. On another occasion he spoke in a different way about partition, when the most opprobrious words in the English language were applied by him to those who would think of partition. It will not be very long until he says the same of Irish, if we are to judge by his words yesterday, when he got an opportunity of making a little sacrifice, a very little sacrifice, to show his respect for the national language by putting in the Chair a man who would be able to understand the language when it was spoken, a clear case where a knowledge of the language was a necessary qualification. If a Deputy makes in Irish a point of order to the Chair, the Chair cannot understand him and cannot decide upon it.
On a point of order, are we discussing the Gaeltacht now?
We are supposed to be discussing it.
I hold that we are. I will readily prove the relevancy of my remarks in that matter. I am sure I am not going to be put off by this. I have got here in the President's letter these words:
"The neglect and contempt, the ignominy and the abuse to which it has been subjected, are a part of our tragic history. These very things and their unfortunate effects, instead of infecting us with their spirit and making us also contemptuous and apathetic, ought rightly to enliven our purpose to undo the damage of the past—the more so, because the possession of a cultivated national language is known by every people who have it to be a secure guarantee of the national future."
The particular paragraph I have read is not, I find, the one that has reference to the matter at issue, but there is this in it, that it is our duty, if we wish to get the people who are living in the Gaeltacht to have a right respect for the language, in every position where respect could be shown it, where it would be likely to have an influence on the people, that we ought to show it that respect. Here was a case yesterday of showing to the people living in the Gaeltacht how much that language of theirs was appreciated. It was not a case where it was an ornament. It was not a case of a mere demonstration of respect and affection. It was a case where, as I say, Irish was absolutely necessary, and I want to prove that it was absolutely necessary, because the presiding officer here, when a Deputy speaks in Irish, is not in a position to decide a point of order if it is asked him in Irish. He is not in a position to know what the Deputy who is speaking on the subject has said and whether his remarks are relevant to the question or not. He is not in a position to say if the Deputy is speaking irrelevantly.
I am loath to interrupt the Deputy at all, but the Deputy is now discussing something done by this House on Wednesday last and not Deputy Fahy's motion.
My remarks, I suggest, are relevant to the question of how Irish can be saved, and one of the ways that has been recognised since the Gaelic League was set up is to give to the people who speak the language in the Gaeltacht a respect for the language. We, in this House, have shown that we have no respect for it, and even in case one pretends to be a supporter of the language, who says that it is his political objective to restore the language——
Mr. HOGAN
On a point of order. Have you not ruled that the question of the election of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle yesterday is not to be discussed on this motion?
That is so, but the Deputy is not at the moment discussing it. At the particular moment when the Minister interrupted him he was not discussing the election of Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I think he was discussing a speech made by the Minister for Finance.
I started by saying that we have got something very different in the performance from what we were promised. I have said that we had a measure of it when we saw what the Minister for Finance did yesterday, as opposed to what he said, and it is by what he does, and what the Ministry opposite do, and not by what they say, that we have to judge them. We have very good reason to believe that what we had evidence of yesterday here is being done in other directions. The little sacrifice that was necessary was not to be made.
Mr. HOGAN
Come to the Gaeltacht.
We have it here quite clearly that the Minister seems to feel that the thing stings a bit.
The stings of the ant.
Mr. HOGAN
Come to the Gaeltacht.
We were told that the central and most distinctive factor of the tradition which is Irish nationality is that everything we do, no matter what sacrifice is to be made, will be with the will of the people, and those people pretend that all these sacrifices can legitimately be made. But there is not a single case where there has been the slightest bit of difficulty in putting through any one of the proposals that they did not run away from it. There is no suggestion there of the last farthing and the last drop of blood, and we would think, when people can borrow money for wars and for other matters, that at least in this matter, which is regarded as being a most vital national matter, they would go to some little expense in order to do it. They have admitted that the will of the people is behind them. When some of us came into the House we came in with the hope that one thing we might do, or help to do, was to save the language. In the Treaty debates there were a number of people who, like the Minister for Finance, if we could believe him, put forward the preservation of the language as one of the reasons for the acceptance of the Treaty. They said—and often in arguing with some of them what I said was quoted—"We can get time to do other things, but we will have no time to save the Gaeltacht if we do not do it at once." Look at the map, see the little spots marked red on it, and see the portions around them which indicate, roughly, the areas from which the Gaeltacht has retreated in the last forty or fifty years. Judge by the figures which Deputy Hogan has given of the death in the Gaeltacht of the Irish language, and anyone who wants to see Irish restored as a spoken language will be able to judge as to what efforts should be made as a serious attempt to save the Gaeltacht, and what efforts are being made in the present circumstances by the Executive.
It has been said that Deputy Fahy has not criticised the suggestions of the Government in detail, that there is no particular case that we entered into in detail and showed where the Government had not done things that it might have done, or where there are things which the Government have neglected. Now, when we think of the Gaeltacht problem, and when we remember its difficulties—because we do know it is difficult, and it is precisely because it is difficult that this patchwork of recommendations will not save it—we would expect that there would be something, such as the Minister for Agriculture suggested there ought to be, to deal definitely with the problem. There is a sad lack, for instance, of any general outlook, or any general attempt to deal with the problem, such as the Minister for Agriculture himself made in the case of the creameries. I am not throwing bouquets at the Minister for Agriculture——
Mr. HOGAN
We want none from you.
You would not know how.
No, I would not. That is the truth.
Mr. HOGAN
I would rather that you did not.
All right. But I say this, that there was evidence anyhow in that scheme of a general conception of the problem, and there was an attempt to solve it. But there is nothing in this White Paper, as I said, except a few little touches here and there—no definite, defined scheme. What is the problem? There are really two problems. There is the human problem, the problem of the people who are living in the Gaeltacht, a problem which we should deal with, whether it existed in the slums of Dublin or in the Gaeltacht. There is the human problem, the problem that is associated with the bigger and wider problem of unemployment generally. And then there is the language problem. I take it that this Commission was set up mainly to deal with the language problem and to consider the saving of the language in the Gaeltacht, the Irish-speaking parts of Ireland, and that the rest of it—the social problem—was intended to be considered as part of or incidental to that. Very well. What are we going to do in order to save the language? It is quite clear that we must prevent the present inroad of English in the Gaeltacht areas. That is quite clear. How can we do it? We can only do it by making it possible for the people there to have all conversation with regard to the requirements of their daily life conducted in Irish. There should be no English-speaking teachers in the schools in the Gaeltacht.
I have not at the moment the figures as to the number of schools in the really Irish-speaking districts in which there are teachers who do not know Irish. You have pensioned off other people, and if we have to make a national sacrifice in order to remove the English language from these centres of Anglicisation we should do it, no matter what the cost might be. We should have no officials of any kind in that area who do not talk Irish. You say that it is hard to get them, but you can get them if you go about it systematically. You can train them. I do not know if the Minister for Education could tell us, for instance, whether we have got any purely Irish training college, a training college where those who come in are native Irish speakers, where they speak Irish during the whole time of their training, where they are taught through Irish all the subjects that they will have to teach afterwards. I know that people who have learned Irish are being taught how to teach some subjects through Irish, but that will not do; that is not good enough for the Gaeltacht. There is not enough seriousness or enough readiness to sacrifice shown in methods of that kind for the preservation of the language in the Gaeltacht areas. So far as education in the Gaeltacht is concerned it is principally a question of primary and technical education. I am inclined to agree with the Minister for Local Government in that matter, that it is a question of primary and technical education that is principally involved. How are we to deal with it? I at any rate have indicated what I think should be the way in which we should deal with the question; that is, by keeping Irish, in these areas anyhow, alive by shutting up the ordinary avenues by which English comes to be the spoken, everyday language of the people in these areas. Do it with a full recognition of the fact that that means expense and that that means sacrifices, but do it, or else do not pretend that you mean to save the Gaeltacht.
As to the human problem: This is a congested area. There are two ways of dealing with areas of that kind. Either you have to take the people away out of them or give industries to the people that will enable them to live there. Perhaps a combination of the two might be possible in these areas. It would probably be possible to take out a large number of them from the uneconomic holdings in which they are and plant them somewhere in the neighbourhood. As far as taking them up to Meath or having a colony near Dublin the only thing we have to say about that is that if it can be done it will not be done so much from the Irish language point of view, from the point of view of saving the Gaeltacht, but because, as somebody else has remarked, it is better to have them there than to have them in Boston. Therefore, as far as establishing colonies at such a distance from the Gaeltacht is concerned, that is no system as far as the language is concerned. It is obviously very much better, if you have to plant Irish speakers, that you should plant them so that they will be extending the Gaeltacht, because ultimately we will be able to judge to what extent the Irish language is becoming the spoken language of the country by comparing this map with a map drawn up in ten or fifteen years' time. That is how we will judge whether or not we are making progress. It would be better if you could take them out and establish colonies on the verge of the yellow portion on the map that indicates the leath-Ghaeltacht.
As I said, we have either to take the people out of the Gaeltacht or give them industries and the means to live within it, and both of these methods are not necessarily exclusive. It is possible that it would not be feasible to take them all out and plant them, even in areas where they would be most effective, and that is in the breach-Ghaeltacht, or on the fringe of the Gaeltacht. It is possible that we cannot do it, but I am certain that if it were taken up with a will you could find a large number of areas where that could be done. Again, I say it would be costly, but you have to face it, or say to yourselves that you do not want to succeed. On the other hand, we could bring the means of livelihood to those that are within those areas. We must not despise any methods by which we would be able to give further means of support to those who are in those areas. If those areas are uneconomic from the purely agricultural point of view, let the people get part-work in other directions.
If we were to take as our national policy, and as the policy of the Executive, that we were to make this country self-supporting, as far as possible, with respect to the ordinary things that we use every day, if we were to say that we want to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves with materials produced as far as possible in this island, then certainly it would be possible to start a scheme of industrialisation, if you like, in the Gaeltacht. Of course the Minister for Industry and Commerce will say that such a scheme would be uneconomic, that these are not the proper centres; that if you want to start a boot factory, for instance, you must not start it in the Gaeltacht, where you have no transport, and so on. I hold that when we are judging economic values we ought to judge them with respect to the ultimate criterion, which is, whether they are going to enable a greater number of human beings to live in comfort in this island or not, and that we should not take them on their value in exchange with foreign countries. We have to take them as if this country were separated from the rest of the world, and ask ourselves how we could support in comfort the greatest number of human beings. If we are to provide clothes and boots, and all the other things that are necessaries of life in this island, we could start by giving a chance to the Gaeltacht with regard to providing some of these necessaries. You may say that in Dublin you would have a better centre, better rail transport. What would it come to in the end? It would ultimately mean, leaving out the money values, that we might have to work a little longer, and that if we did not use the most modern methods and the best equipment it would be uneconomic in these centres. That is what it would amount to.
We will have to face this fact, that sacrifices will have to be made if we are going to do this, and if in the end we are not going to waste our time and discover, as the Minister for Finance discovered in other directions, that we were fools all the time, that the Republic—freedom—was altogether a foolish ideal and that the British Empire of Queen Elizabeth or Queen Anne was as dead as both of them. I suppose the Minister will discover very soon that Anglo-Irish is a much superior language, that we have a special brand of English of our own, that it is purely distinctive, that the names of Yeats and all the rest of them have become world-names, and that it is a foolish thing to bother about the question of Irish. We are at the crossroads, and we have to make up our minds what we want, and whether we do want to save Irish. If we want to save Irish we will have to make sacrifices. If we do this, those of us who believe that it should be done will have to bind ourselves together, whether we are on these benches or on the benches opposite, because if not the forces of reaction are going to overtake us, until we will all in a short time be chanting hymns of praise of Anglo-Irish.
I am inclined to agree with the Minister for Local Government on the question of the machinery. The two speeches, although they were by no means sympathetic, from the point of view from which I look at it and with the objects we have in mind, that were not mere plausibilities were the speeches that we heard from the Minister for Agriculture and from the Minister for Local Government. The speech of the Minister for Agriculture was destructive. There is one thing, anyhow, that I can say, and it is that if we were setting up an Irish Development Commission, the Minister would be a splendid Devil's Advocate to have on the board. The Minister for Local Government mentioned the machinery. What do we say about the machinery? I say clearly that the machinery that the Executive proposes to set up for carrying out this—and I am not satisfied that it will—is the worst possible for doing it, and that is to put it under the Department which, it will be generally conceded, has been the most inefficient of all Departments—the Department of Fisheries. It will not carry the slightest bit of respect.
There is a suggestion in this Report in connection with a Commission, and that suggestion at least had this wisdom in it, that it proposed that that Commission should be answerable directly to the President. There is a value in that, because all the Departments of the Government impinge in one way or another, and their activities enter into the Gaeltacht. There, if you want to have proper co-ordination the one person that I can see in the Executive to co-ordinate all these is the President. It would be right, seeing that it would be an important Department, if the President could not attend to it in detail—and probably he could not, because of other activities of his office— that there should be a special Secretary, even if you had to make a statutory appointment for him, to deal with the Gaeltacht in itself. You should not tack anything else on to it, whether Fisheries, Land Commission, or anything else. You should give it a special, distinct place. Have a Secretary for the Gaeltacht; give him a definite Development Commission, a special Gaeltacht Commission that would look after life in the Gaeltacht, and give it money for activities of its own, activities that would be sanctioned by the President and would therefore, I presume, have to run to a certain extent the gamut of discussion in the Executive Council. Give them a sum of money which will enable them to take the initiative in development and then, through the President, wherever the activities impinge upon the activities of other Departments, they can be coordinated. I understand that there are a number of other speakers to follow, and it is much better that we should hear, in this matter, from those who are living in the Gaeltacht. I say that this resolution of Deputy Fahy is justified on the grounds that there is no clear indication here of a definite policy which will show that the Executive have really made up their minds to save the Gaeltacht.
Before the Minister for Education replies, I would like to remind Deputies that Deputy Fahy should be allowed a reasonable time to reply, if this debate is to conclude at 2 o'clock.
I think the intention was that the debate should be finished to-day, and that forty-five minutes should be allowed to this side, and on that calculation I have about eighteen. It is quite characteristic of the Deputy who has just sat down, and of his grip of realities, that, speaking after the arrangement made yesterday, he should say that several members on his side still wanted to speak, especially those from the Gaeltacht, and eighteen minutes was to be given to those on that side of the House.
A DEPUTY
Whose fault was that?
There is one thing that I am in agreement with Deputy de Valera in and that is when he said that their whole policy and attitude and declaration are quite clear from the motion. I confess the motion is quite as clear to me now as it was before the Deputy spoke. I doubt whether he has added anything to make it clear except in one or two points, with which I will deal, concerning my own Department. He was asked by the Minister for Local Government to show precisely where their policy differs from the policy of the Government. They were challenged on that again and again, but it has not been done. One very definite suggestion was made that possibly if we had acted differently the day before yesterday in a certain matter the Gaeltacht might be saved. I hope anything I say will not be looked upon as an apology for the Minister for Finance on this matter of the language. I would be very sorry indeed to apologise to any Party for anything the Minister for Finance has done in that way. I think he is the greatest asset on the part of the language so far as any individual man is concerned that we have in this country. Therefore, I am not apologising for him in any way.
Do you apologise for your own want of knowledge of the language?
The candidate put forward for the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle by the Fianna Fáil Party was a very poor service to the language, and if that was evidence of their seriousness with regard to the language, I have nothing more to say upon that particular matter. If you look at the debate as a whole, what does it come to? Money must be spent. If we ask how and with what national and social results, we are accused of being cheeseparing. I look at the White Paper.
Let anybody open and examine it, and ask himself if there is any evidence that it was questions of finance or of expenditure that prevented the Government from adopting the actual wording of the recommendations in this Report. If there was any reasonable return from the national point of view, as well as from any other point of view, the Government was quite ready to go on with it. More money and a specific sum. Anybody must know that if the Government wanted to get out of it cheaply the easiest thing would be to give a specific sum to the Gaeltacht, even purely from the standpoint of national finance. The Gaeltacht would do much worse out of an arrangement of that kind than out of the policy suggested by the Government. We are told that the White Paper is not in accord with the sentiments expressed in the Commission's Report or in consonance with the spirit of those who drafted it. There is no evidence whatsoever, and no examination of the White Paper would show that there is a tittle of foundation for that particular charge, nor for the further charge that the White Paper was drawn up simply to justify action already taken by the Government.
Apparently it is a crime that while the Commission was sitting the Government should have been acting and putting some of the recommendations into effect. The Government has tried, and has succeeded—and I suggest that no Deputy opposite has tried to do it— to see this problem as a whole, and to see it as a whole is essential to its solution. The Government are fully aware of the vital character of the problem. They are also aware of the difficulties in the way, but if they are aware of the difficulties they are not ignoring them, but are trying to surmount them, and trying to get the best method of surmounting them. There were plenty of opportunities for Deputies to examine the two reports side by side to show where, in essentials, the proposals of the Government were inferior so far as practical results are concerned to the report of the Gaeltacht Commission, which is so highly lauded by Deputies opposite. As everybody knows, no such attempt has been made. It is very poor information to us to hear from the mover of this motion that certain sections were rejected, others accepted with reservation, and then not tell us what the Deputy's own attitude was towards several of these matters.
resumed the Chair.
There are many things I would like to go into but, unfortunately, time is short. We are accused of wanting an immediate return for money spent. Where is the slightest evidence of that in this White Paper from beginning to end? That was the charge made by Deputy Fahy and Deputy Clery. Drainage was mentioned as if that was one of the things from which we wanted an immediate return. Anyone who knows the A.B.C. of the Drainage Acts knows the contrary is the case. We not only do not want an immediate return, but in the case of a large portion of the money we want no return at all—it is a free grant—and so far as the rest is concerned, we are quite satisfied if there is a return in thirty-five years. That is an example of the loose talk that has gone on with regard to this Commission. Industries have been spoken of. The lace industry, we are told, can be revived if a central depot is set up. Anybody who knows anything of modern conditions knows that the failure of the lace industry here and elsewhere is due to very much more serious causes: that, in fact, lace is not worn nowadays as is was before, and that the big lace industries on the Continent are also failing. In Belgium and other centres the lace industry is practically at an end.
Coming to my own Department, I should be very sorry if anything that I say would be looked upon as an apology to the Party opposite, especially to them, for what the Government has done for the Irish language and what my Department has done for Irish. I wish the Party opposite had done one-tenth of it. The revival of Irish, as everybody knows, is in the forefront of our educational programme. We recognise the vital necessity of keeping it alive, especially in the Gaeltacht. I have here the proposals of the Commission and the proposals of the Government set down one under another. Have Deputies opposite made any effort to show, precisely, where our educational policy falls short? It is characteristic of the mover of the motion—I am not speaking now of the last Deputy who spoke; I am speaking of the mover of the motion—that as regards what I might call the central, in some respects almost the pivotal, recommendation, No. 5, he had nothing whatever to say except that we rejected it. He did not indicate his own attitude of whether we were right or wrong in the rejection. It is quite true that Deputy de Valera, who has just sat down, came definitely and clearly upon that point. His idea was that we were to dismiss and pension off, apparently immediately, or almost immediately, teachers in the Gaeltacht, whatever their associations with the Gaeltacht were, whatever their contract with the managers were, and whatever the rights of the teachers and the managers were. That is at least definite. Will it serve the Irish language in the Gaeltacht? Will it serve the revival of the language through the country? That is a point apparently that, with his usual neglect of the hard realities of the situation, the Deputy would like to ignore. The mover of the resolution did not, as I say, commit himself to it, but Deputy de Valera's view is that we should pension off straight away the teachers in the Gaeltacht, independent, apparently, of certain rights of various people, and also as to whether we are at the moment capable of supplying their places with teachers.
The Deputy ought to know that he cannot make a good teacher in a year or a couple of years. We have taken steps to see that in a reasonable time, and as quick as the circumstances of the case demand, suitable teachers will be provided. We have dealt with the Preparatory Colleges and set them up. The Minister for Finance never boggled at any expenditure so far as these were concerned. That is an indication of his whole attitude towards this question of the revival. So far as the other colleges are concerned, the mover of the motion asked me a question: did I believe that even in ten years they would be fully Irish-speaking? I certainly do. I know that in the last couple of years even they have made considerable advances in that direction in the training colleges—not all to the same extent, but in all of them they have made considerable advances and, in some, very considerable advances in the direction indicated by the Deputy. I say it is purely ignoring——
The mover of the motion ought to have fifteen minutes to reply.
I am not responsible. Deputy de Valera took half an hour, but I will give way to the Deputy.
He took two minutes less than the Minister for Local Government.
We were to get 45 minutes.
The Minister can take until 1.45 p.m.
An mbéidh cead ag aon Teachta eile labhairt?
Do réir mar tá sé socruighthe, ní bhéidh cead ag aon Teachta labhairt acht an Teachta Proinnsias O Fathaigh.
Ní thógfaidh mise níos mo na dhá nóiméad.
Deputy Kilroy took four minutes.
The situation is that Deputy Fahy, on the strictest mathematical calculation, is entitled to fourteen minutes. I shall, therefore, hear Deputy Mongan for one minute.
Tá mise sásta leis an rud adubhairt An tAire, Risteárd O Maolchatha, go bhfuil an Rialtas ag dul rud éicint do dhéanamh do'n Ghaeltacht—go mór mór na tithe. Anois, fáoi'n teangain, tá sean-fhocal againn—"Taisbeánann an madadh múineadh an teallaigh." Bhal, seo é teallach an tSaorstáit agus ma's é sin an múineadh atá an teallach so a theasbáint—gan focal Gaedhilge do labhairt—is olc e—go mór Teachtaí ar nós Eamon de Valéra atá ag caint an oiread sin ar Ghaedhilg i mBeurla agus Gaedhilg mhaith aige féin. Nách olc an teasbántas sin ag Teachta Eamon de Valéra do mhuinntir Con na Mara. Ba mhaith liom go gcuirfí teorann leis an Ghaeltacht agus tá bród orm go bhfuil An Teachta Proinnsias O Fathaigh liom annsin.
I wish to record my protest against the indecent haste with which this debate has been rushed through the Dáil—eight hours in six years for the most vital problem of the whole nation.
It would be difficult for me in 14 minutes to reply to all the criticisms that have been put up to the statement I have made. The Minister for Fisheries spoke of the danger of patting the Gaels on the back and the amount of sentiment that was talked. I have been accused by others of using no Robert Emmet stunts in this. I had to keep to hard facts. I do not think I voiced either sentiment or sentimentality. I certainly did not pat the Gaels on the back, and I suggested that the loss of certain industries was due, partly to dishonesty and partly to want of putting their backs into the work to be done. There was nothing complimentary about that. The same Minister also dwelt at length on my reference to trawlers. I said that possibly a few trawlers might be wanted in addition to the standard boats for the inshore fishing. Irish cannot be saved from Dublin out—I think that has been definitely settled now—though enthusiasm in Dublin and the Gaeltacht is very necessary, I will admit, in order to restore a proper atmosphere there. If the living springs are allowed to dry we cannot have any irrigation. You cannot Gaelicise the country from Dublin. As regards the sections of the Gaeltacht Report, we are accused of not having read them and digested them. I have read the White Paper and the Report many times, and referred to every single item in them. I still maintain that there were adopted, 15; avoided, 15, and that there are being considered, 14 of the recommendations; what the consideration will come to I do not know; that there were 10 rejected and 9 referred to the Technical Education Commission. I hope they will be carried out. We are told that they are quite safe in the hands of that Commission. I hope it is true.
There are only 2,000 whole-time fishermen. I wonder if the present policy is continued how many will be there in another five years' time. At any rate, the fish is there, while fish is being sent from Grimsby to Cork. It should be possible to organise the fishing industry to supply our own needs even in Cork City, and not to have fish coming from Grimsby. It was suggested by the same Minister that the part-time fishermen should be helped— I quite agree—and that their sons might be educated to be whole-time fishermen. Where is the education to come from under this White Paper? Technical schools required for training them are not to be set up, as far as I understand. I do not see where the training is to come from to make whole-time fishermen of them. The Minister for Fisheries states that the Government have faced up to the problem, and the Minister for Agriculture states that the Government have not faced up to the problem.
I do not know who is to settle the differences between them or which section is to decide the policy of the Government in this matter. The Minister for Finance says that the preservation of the Gaeltacht is necessary, that economic remedies are not enough. We must educate the young Gaedhealgóir. We must educate public opinion. I referred to the setting up of a school in Dublin—it is rejected in the White Paper—for training in domestic economy and such things, and the Minister suggests we should have nursery governesses taught here. It is rejected, as far as I can see, in the White Paper.
The recommendation is not rejected in the White Paper.
I do not see that it is going to be carried out.
That is another matter.
I have not time to go into the report item by item. I referred to every item when speaking before. There is point in the Minister's suggestion, because owing to the snobbery and the social system that exists in this country, domestic service is looked down upon. and many servants, if trained, would not remain in their posts perhaps. It is better to change the title to suit the snobs. I am not suggesting that that is the motive that actuated the Minister for Finance. He was quite sincere in that suggestion. A lot is being done to help Irish by education. I will admit that the programme adopted by the first Republican Dáil is largely being carried out, both in primary and secondary education. However, I say the base and summit are in danger. It must be based on the Gaeltacht. The summit is the university and technical education. I do not quite understand the question put by the Minister for Local Government regarding Galway University College. I approve of the steps taken by the Government to Gaelicise Galway College. I do not know how far they will go, now they have the money, in making it perfectly Gaelic. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture has not apparently very much hope for industries or anything else there, but I would suggest to him that agriculture alone cannot solve the problem in the Gaeltacht any more than it has done anywhere else. All countries have recognised that you must combine industry with agriculture if you want a nation to be economically sound. There is room in the Gaeltacht for industries. In my statement, I referred to the work done with regard to poultry and pig-rearing in the Gaeltacht. It is good work, but not enough. You will want those industries, small matters, year by year. Deputy Law says we should not neglect small things. Quite so. It is possible that all these small things would save the Gaeltacht in 50 years economically. I do not believe they would, but they might. But even if they did, there would be no Irish language there then. It would be too slow. You have got to solve the Gaeltacht problem in 20 years, and, if possible, 10. Slow methods would not solve it under 50 years, if at all.
As regards industries, I suggested definite concrete industries. Others were also suggested. The marble industry could be started in Galway and the products exported to South America with good profit. There were many other industries referred to which I cannot go into now. You could get sites for factories in old mills which are disused, or in workhouses. You could get power from the Shannon scheme. I presume that is what it is for. You can get transport with Ford lorries. As to technical skill, it is absolutely necessary that colleges for technical instruction through Irish solely be set up. I gave a definite scheme for them, which the Minister for Education did not deal with. I spoke of continuation schemes, and he did not answer that either. I referred to a definite scheme. He spent ten of his sixteen minutes referring to the pensioning of teachers from these districts, without any reference to the agricultural college in Athenry or, possibly, Clifden, where a college in domestic economy might be set up. I said woollens and homespuns could be produced in the Gaeltacht. The Minister for Agriculture said you would be going into competition there with Cork.
Whatever Committee is set up might look at one particular item, namely, horse blanketing—lining for horse-collars, and so on—which comes from Manchester in large quantities here. I see no reason why such an industry could not be established. I have figures to prove that this material could be manufactured with a gross profit of 20 per cent. and a net profit of ten. That might be cutting it very fine, but it would be worth trying. Similarly, with regard to the manufacture of underwear of various kinds, or women's wear. There is a lot of talk of the linen industry in Belfast. Belfast had always this other industry— using Lancashire cotton to make up these garments. They have a lot of it still. The Minister for Local Government referred to the length of time I spoke on the social and other problems of the Gaeltacht. I used, I think, only two sentences in referring to the historic or other problems of the Gaeltacht. I do not believe the economic solution is in that White Paper, and I pointed out why. I may be misleading my own intelligence, as the Minister suggests. He referred to me as speaking as a big Gaelic Leaguer, or as being Secretary of the Gaelic League. I am sorry if it offends him that I am Secretary of the Gaelic League, but it is open to anyone to become a member and put me out of the post. I do not pose as a big Gaelic Leaguer, as a great spokesman for the Irish language. I am only one trying to do my best for it. I have not boasted about it, and I have not sought publicity. It seems to be a crime against me that I am Secretary of the Gaelic League. It has been referred to several times—that I was a salaried official of the Gaelic League. If I get an honorarium, not running into three figures, for being Secretary of the Gaelic League, it is not, I hope, a crime.
The plans I put up were not criticised by the Deputies opposite. They referred to small points, personal ones mostly. I hold that you must have a definite sum and a definite method of administering that sum. The machinery was nebulous. Other Deputies were in doubt about it, as I was. Deputy Hugh Law was in doubt about it as much as I was We have achieved that much; we have got that cleared up. Special money, we were told, would be given to the Gaeltacht. We have seen in the Budget how tight money is. Where is the special money to come from that is to be given to the Gaeltacht? If we take the Appropriation Accounts and so on, I do not see where the money is to come from without a Supplementary Vote. I do not want to limit the grant to the Gaeltacht to, say, £2,000,000. I wanted a fixed sum, so that the body administering it would not be tied too tightly by the Minister for Finance and would not have to account for each item; that they could apply for more if necessary. Unless that is done, you have not the machinery to work fast enough to save the Irish language. That is the interest I have in the Gaeltacht—to save the Irish language. The machinery set up will not be quick enough to do that. They are overburdened already if they do the business of lands and fisheries without having this thrust upon them, even if they get further assistance. I would prefer to have suggestions put up that we should combine and try to get machinery and a definite sum of money to save the Gaeltacht, to having a division on this motion, but as there seems to be no inclination to combine or co-operate, I am reluctantly compelled to put the motion.
Motion read.
You, a Chinn Comhairle, have read out the motion in Irish as it appears on the Order Paper. Perhaps, for the edification or enlightenment of those of us who do not understand Irish, you would read the motion in English. I should like to know what I am voting for.
Did the Deputy listen to the debate?
When the question is being put, a translation of the motion in English will be read.
Tá
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Richard Anthony.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carty.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Patrick Clancy.
- Michael Clery.
- James Colbert.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Dan Corkery.
- Martin John Corry.
- Fred. Hugh Crowley.
- Tadhg Crowley.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- Edward Doyle.
- James Everett.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- 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.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Thomas Mullins.
- Thomas J. O'Connell.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- Seán T. O'Kelly.
- William O'Leary.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas O'Reilly.
- Thomas P. Powell.
- James Ryan.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
- Richard Walsh.
- Francis C. Ward.
Níl
- William P. Aird.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Seán Brodrick.
- 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.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- Martin Michael Nally.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- William Archer Redmond.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- John J. Hassett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Michael Jordan.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Mathews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- Joseph Xavier Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- 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.