When is it proposed to take the Second Stage?
In Committee on Finance. - Appropriation Bill, 1933.
Leave granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to apply certain sums out of the Central Fund to the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March one thousand nine hundred and thirty-four, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of the Oireachtas.—(Minister for Finance.)
We propose to take it now.
What were the terms of the motion to sit late?
To conclude all stages of the Appropriation Bill and the Dáil Eireann Loans and Funds Bill, together with the business already transacted.
We have not got the Appropriation Bill.
It is being circulated. I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This is the Second Stage of a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Central Fund and to appropriate the supplies granted in this session. One of the items set out in the Schedule is for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the President of the Executive Council. I object to the Second Reading of a Bill which contains an item like that, particularly when the President behaved very much as he did when there was serious work to be done in this country and when he skedaddled out of the country years ago and went to America, leaving braver men than himself to face the enemies of this country.
Do not start that.
I will start anything against Deputy O Briain, because he has not had the courage to say one word, to make a speech in this House.
The Deputy had better not talk about skedaddling. I should like to know if the Deputy is in order.
It would be much better if personalities were omitted. References to events of ten years back are scarcely in order.
I am making a comparison with what the President did here this morning and what he did years ago. I believe I am entitled to draw the analogy.
Will the Deputy tell us what he did?
I will take as my second chapter what the Minister for Finance did.
Let the Deputy go ahead now and tell us what he did.
We had here the disgraceful exhibition of the President, who was not able to stand up and answer criticisms directed against himself. That is just very comparable with the conduct he displayed years ago when he left this country and sauntered around America.
He did not leave it. He was sent out of it by the Government of the country on a mission in the interests of the freedom of this country.
The Deputy was barely weaned in those days.
I was there when, perhaps, the Deputy was not.
The Deputy was very close and quiet about it in those days.
It did not take long to wean Deputy McGilligan when he saw a chance.
I am prepared to speak to the Minister about anything either of us did; but remember, I never funked two wars the way the Minister did. He missed his train in one place and he missed his tide in another. The President funked his own Vote in a manner comparable to what I have described and there is no good in his camp followers getting angry over it. Camp followers—that is all Deputy O Briain can be described as.
It is a good job he has some description, anyhow.
Even though it is a degrading one. One would think that the man who is President of the Executive Council, which has conducted itself in a particular way for a year, would have been able to stand up to criticism. Instead, he spoiled every debate by moving the closure.
I submit the personal conduct of the President is scarcely a subject for discussion on the Appropriation Bill.
It was a scandalous performance on the part of the President not to be able to stand up to criticism. It was still more scandalous for him to put up a person who tries to smother a debate with rather nonsensical talk—more noise than sense, as Deputy O'Higgins said. He put up that person in derision of his own Vote. That is the only use the President makes of the Minister for Finance —to put him up for a derisive purpose. We had that attitude following on the speech by the President in which he had the nerve to say about anybody so clear-minded as Deputy Morrissey that to him his mind seemed to be a chaos of ignorance. To anyone who has had experience of the wild and whirling words of the President, there is no more appropriate word than the word "chaos" accurately to describe his state of mind. What did we get from him? Nothing but the peculiar output of a chaotic man.
He set out to prove three items. He said there was no hatred between him and anybody in England, nor was there hatred—taking himself as representing and personifying the Irish people, which is his great habit, but which he should not be entitled to do— between the Irish and the English people. He did not think it was right that this country should give in to foreign rule, and the country, he said, would never be at rest while any portion of the soil was under the domination of a foreign power.
What the hatred point was introduced for I do not know. I have not heard anybody here talking about hatred as between the Irish and English people. There has been a considerable amount of talk as to the various hatreds which the President has. They are not of the English people. That is not his type. He has talked of foreign rule, ending up with the phrase that of course we might take a leap too far; we might attempt things that were impossible; we might not be able to make our will effective in this country under certain circumstances. Why does not the President make up his mind between those two dilemmas? If he cannot make his will felt in this country because of something outside, why does he prate of this business about foreign domination? Does he not know well that there would not be a trace of foreign domination in this country if he liked to declare that there should be none. He does not think he could make his will effective over a certain part of it. What is he going to do about that part? He told us here in a debate at one time about the infinitely distant date when the two parts of this country would be united. Are we to put those two things together, and assume his declaration which will rid us of foreign domination in this country is going to be delayed until that infinitely distant date has come? That will be great news for all the Republicans this House has. As far as the twenty-six counties are concerned, the President knows that there would not be the movement of a single troop against him if he declared to-morrow whatever form of government he likes to establish, but he dare not do it. What makes him hesitate about this? What is the good of talking rubbish about foreign rule in this House, on an estimate from which he eventually ran away, if he still has at the back of his mind the paralysing thought that he cannot make his will effective in this country? He is thinking only of the twenty-six counties of this country. Any Government can make its will effective in this country to-morrow without any fear of foreign domination. Why is it not done? The President is a Republican still. He is going to get a Republic established here; at least, he hopes he will see the day when it is established, apparently for the whole country, on that infinitely distant date when the two parts of the country are to be united. And the man who talks that way refers to a Deputy here as having a mind that is a chaos of ignorance. What is that but the outpouring of a chaotic mind?
When we were discussing the estimate that is on this paper for the Governor-General's establishment, the estimate upon which members of the Fianna Fáil Party voted in a Division for the first time, the President's excuse with regard to the keeping of the Governor-General, to whom he has apparently assigned no duties except to keep out of his way and not dim his limelight, was the threat of immediate and terrible war. He threw out that phrase before. When it was thrown out before it was used always in derision of the cowards who accepted the Treaty because of the immediate and terrible war threat. Now that bravest of all the heroes who led this country through a certain amount of turmoil and destruction for ten years finds that he has to accept the Governor-General because of the threat of immediate and terrible war. Does the President believe that there is any threat of immediate and terrible war now? I am using the word "war" in its ordinary sense—in the sense in which it was used in or about 1921. Does the President believe in the use of that phrase now? Does he not know —again I repeat it—that there would not be a movement of a troop of any kind against the people of this country if he liked to declare either a Republic or some hybrid type of State, something at any rate which would not have a Governor-General, something which would not require the closing in of a decent type of man so that he would not get in the President's way?
The President told us that there are ways of making a settlement, and that one of the ways is surrender. Another way which is worse than surrender is persisting in a policy when it has been shown that it is steadily weakening, and that the end will be that you will have to crawl for worse terms than could have been obtained when your position was stronger. The President has halted and faltered because he is afraid he cannot make his will effective. On the question of the economic war that is being waged has he been halted at all by the fact that he cannot make his will effective, or does he think he is making his will effective in that matter? That is the point upon which consideration of the whole problem should turn. Are we making our will effective in relation to the British in respect of the economic war? Are we getting stronger and stronger as the struggle develops? Are we getting nearer and nearer to a better settlement? The British who are interested in this matter can see the returns of our market, the returns of our imports and exports, they can simply survey the various measures brought in here by Ministers from time to time—the relief schemes, the provision of milk, and the provision of peat—and can read at the end of all this that the unfortunate Acting-Minister for Industry and Commerce had to admit to-day that in spite of all those things he is going to have 50,000 able-bodied men idle in this country next autumn.
Will any of them read from that that the people of this country are better off, or that this country next autumn is going to be able to stand up any more strongly to what will be against us than we are doing at this moment? If I had any belief in a Republic in this country, and I have none, I would feel enraged at the present policy of the Fianna Fáil Government. If there are some Republicans in this country, and there are certainly not any in the Fianna Fáil Party, they must feel enraged at what Fianna Fáil is doing, because they are certainly exposing in the clearest light the weakness of our situation. In fact, they are doing worse than that; they are making an exposure of this country as if it were weaker than it actually is. So far as the opposition to England is concerned, there is not a decent belief in this country that what is being done is either necessary to be done or is being done efficiently. The only result of all that is happening at the moment is that it is the clearest demonstration to the people on the other side that, if they are to take the effort that is being made here at the moment as the best effort we can make at fighting this dispute, then they must have a very poor regard for us. It is a regard they should not have for us, and it is one which we do not deserve. If they looked at our history, they would not have it. But when they look at the people in power and see the state to which the country is reduced by the efforts of these people, they cannot have any belief except that, if they do hold on a little bit longer, our resistance must collapse.
It seems to me that this is a re-hash of what we have been listening to for the last few years, and I beg to move that the question be now put.
On a point of order, sir, if you are thinking of accepting that motion, I submit that we have had very important statements made recently on the whole industrial position of this country.
On a point of order, can a discussion take place on this after it has been moved that the question be now put?
Until the Chair has accepted the motion the matter may be discussed. As the House is aware, the Appropriation Bill gives statutory form to the estimates which have been passed. I am not accepting the motion just now.
I am making no argument except the one I was precluded from making by the cowardice of the President in not being here, and his absence, I suggest, is solely due to his inability to face criticism. In running away, he is following on the practice he has followed many times in his previous history—running away from difficulties. I talked to-day on various items of the Government's industrial policy. Every step that they have taken in regard to industry or an industrial policy in this country has been a clear confession that the previous step was a mistake or, at any rate, was not a success. The only thing they can point to is their agricultural schemes. Is there a scheme of theirs yielding a dividend at the moment? What about the great seeds plan? It was a complete break down. How many of the envelopes, marked in the top left-hand corner "Heifers" have come in? How many of these heifers have been sold? What about the new markets? Belgium was tried, and it meant a big loss. Germany is being tried now with a big subsidy, and an outside association thinks that Spain ought to be exploited. What about the money that was paid for seed wheat? How many thousand tons were bought? What fraction of the tonnage bought was disposed of by sale even at a low price? How much of it had to be thrown away? How much of it was allowed to go almost to the point of germination and had to be thrown away and given to flour millers for whatever use they could make of it? Did we not hawk butter around France and did we not have to bring it back again, and was it sold almost for the price of cart grease? Has there been a single scheme of an agricultural kind that they can say has been a success? We know there has been no success on the industrial side, and, financially, we are reduced to the point of borrowing—borrowing of a highly dubious nature and borrowing of a type which, if ventured upon, would certainly destroy the credit of this State. Yet the President, although he fears his power to make his will effective politically, is not afraid to try to make his will effective economically, although it has been a failure.
The Deputy whose mind was so courteously described by the President as being in a chaos of ignorance had irritated the President when that remark was made. He had reminded the President in the course of the argument that the President had warned the people of this country at one time that the financial settlement was going to result in a payment by us of £19,000,000 per annum to England. The President denies that. He issued a statement to that effect in 1925. I do not care how it was phrased. The object of it was to make the people of this country believe that this country would be saddled with a debt of £19,000,000 a year.
Quote it please.
Let the Deputy get it and read it. Does he not know that the statement was made, and would he argue with me on any occasion he likes as to what is the implication of the statement issued as a warning to the people of this country, if it was not to make them believe that the country was going to be saddled with a debt of £19,000,000 a year?
That is very different. The implication of a statement is a matter that can be argued for hours, but a statement that is in plain words is a very different matter. I submit that the Deputy, when he admits that the implication of the statement is in question is giving away a great deal.
Very well, I will give it away; but we did not give away £19,000,000. That is the big question— the £19,000,000. That is the breadth and length of the statement—that this country was going to be saddled with £19,000,000 a year.
Is it the policy of the Opposition to discuss——
Stick it out till 12 to-night.
We are sticking it out like philosophers.
Interruptions.
A Deputy
Stick it out like warriors.
Not like warriors— only like philosophers.
We were warned to-day by the President that the settlement of the economic war is not in sight, and he brushed his Minister for Finance aside in the usual derisive way. The Minister had been putting up that sort of bluff for months past. The President, however, does not believe it, and he does not mind kicking his Minister for Finance about. Neither does anybody else mind kicking him about, I think, and he takes it well. He is used to it. But the Minister for Finance on the 8th of June had accused Deputy Cosgrave here of spoiling the chances of Senator Connolly who was going to go into one of the most important conferences and one of the most fateful so far as this country was concerned.
Give the reference.
Column 274 on the 8th of June.
Read what I said
Indeed I will not. I might spoil my own style of English.
If you read it, you might be convicted of misstatement as on former occasions.
If the Minister was not so light-headed he would not bob up so much. The Minister cannot deny that he was full of anxiety about the Economic Conference——
I want the words.
——and that Senator Connolly was going into a most fateful conference for this country. There is another Deputy who is very anxious that the good prospects of this country in relation to a settlement should not be frustrated. The President has no nonsense of that type about him. There is no settlement in sight. I do not know that he wants one. There is certainly none in sight. We are just going to go on as we are. Funnily enough, in the President's speech we had joined up to the continuance of the economic war the question of disorder. The President is going to use the powers he, as a member of the Government, possesses only when it is necessary to use them. I wonder when will the necessity arise? The President had been informed of a certain phrase added to something written on a wall in Limerick. He had been informed. He did not tell us who told him. He might have told us if it was the police told him. He does not appear to hear much from the police these days. I do not know whether it is because the police have got to know that information of a particular type is not acceptable. He has not been informed, funnily enough, of any examples of intimidation through the country. His Attorney-General could have told him of one. A man named McWalter attacked an ex-captain's house and the ex-captain shot him. The Attorney-General prosecuted McWalter for having a gun without a licence-the man who made the murderous raid on another man's house. His excuse was that he had to remember that the man was hovering between life and death for some period-an excuse which would almost always, if taken as a principle, excuse the Attorney-General for not prosecuting a man, for instance, in a perverted sexual type of crime, because his physical condition will be so weakened by sexual malpractices that the Attorney-General will have to take that into consideration, and will not think it human to put such a man in prison.
The Deputy is going so fast that we cannot follow him.
May be the Deputy should not have stayed up all night.
I think the comparison is a good one, and I should like to repeat it. The Deputy has heard what I said about the attack by a man named McWalter and how, in making a murderous raid on a man's house, he was shot himself. The Attorney-General prosecuted him-for what? For a raid, for a conspiracy, for anything done under arms? No, but for having a gun without a licence, and the excuse of this strong upholder of the law was that he had to remember this poor fellow, who only engaged in a murderous attack on a man's house, had lain for some months hovering between life and death. Does the Deputy understand that? I take it that the analogy to make is that if that is accepted as a principle by the Attorney-General I suppose eventually we will refrain from prosecuting in sexual perverts cases as their malpractices will have reduced their physical condition to such a point that it would not be human to prosecute. Does the Deputy get that? Disorder in this country has been spoken of and how it arose.
Could not the Deputy find a more seemly analogy?
I think that anything which is a little bit perverted is seemly for the Minister.
The Deputy's mind seems to run that way.
The Deputy is in possession.
I wonder whether Ministers think their conduct has conduced to order or to disorder in the country. We know of a certain occasion upon which a man who had been brought up on a certain charge and convicted by a judge was released. Is there any truth in the statement which has been made that the ex-Minister for Justice was coerced into signing the release because of the fact that armed men visited him in his house? Do any members of the Government know of that? If that is the sort of weakness that masquerades as, "We are going to use power when it is necessary to use it," we know where we are.
I end where I began. The President is afraid to take certain steps in relation to England because he is not sure whether he can make his will effective. What is he afraid of? Is it armed force against him? I argue that he cannot be so afraid. I will read what he himself said in 1927, in a notorious interview which he gave to the Manchester Guardian. Speaking about partition he said:—
"Those elements in the North which have wilfully assisted in mutilating their motherland can justly be made to suffer for their crime, and I do not think they should continue to receive the favoured treatment which they now enjoy in the Free State. They have chosen separation. Let them feel what separation means. Public opinion in Ireland will insist on high protection. If Ulster chooses to remain outside our political system, she can have no special right of access to our markets."
A good statement. Choose separation and you will not have free access to our markets. Is the President afraid that that is the particular policy that might be enforced against him by the British Government if he chose to separate? Is that what he is afraid of? If that is what he is afraid of, why not lean a little bit more heavily on the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who have told him that the situation, industrially, agriculturally, and financially in this country is better than it ever was before and that we are going from strength to strength?
I move: "That the Question be now put."
May I suggest sir, before you accept that, that in moving the resolution yesterday the Government, in summing up the amount of time they thought the business on the Order Paper would take, fixed it at 12 to-night as their estimate. I suggest that this is a continuous attempt to stifle discussion on the part of the Government. This interference was particularly noticeable on the President's estimate, on which many Deputies wanted to speak. I suggest that this conduct is highly reprehensible on the part of the Government, they having by their own motion made it clear that they did not think this business could be fully discussed before 12 o'clock to-night. They themselves, by their act, showed that that was a reasonable time for this particular business.
Before you rule, might I further submit that in ruling on this matter you ought to take into consideration that all these Estimates have been disposed of within the last 22 or 24 hours? This is a Bill which is supposed to go through its five normal stages and might I further submit that this Bill has not been under consideration so far as the House is concerned for more than half an hour and I think that it is positively indecent on the part of the Minister to rise on two occasions on the Second Reading to move that the Question be put?
Is the Deputy entitled to make an attack on the Minister on this matter?
I am perfectly entitled to and if I am going outside the rules of order the Ceann Comhairle will deal with that and not the Minister. And I want to submit that the continuous interruptions of the Minister for Finance and the attempts by the Minister to intimidate the House and the Chair are an outrage, an absolute outrage.
It has been stated that the Estimates covered by this Bill have been disposed of within the last 22 or 24 hours. Only 12 have been disposed of in that time and the other Estimates incorporated in this Bill have been passed by this House within the last month. The whole field has been traversed, and I accept the motion.
That is the best answer they could get.
It is cowardice on the part of the Minister.
I accept the motion and I shall put the question:
"That the Question be now put."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, James Marcus.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Main Question put.
Dáil divided: Tá, 49; Níl, 25.
Tá
|
Aiken, Frank.Bartley, Gerald.Beegan, Patrick. Breathnach, Cormac.Breen, Daniel.Browne, William Frazer.Cooney, Eamonn.Crowley, Timothy.Daly, Denis.Derrig, Thomas.De Valera, Eamon.Gibbons, Seán.Goulding, John.Hales, Thomas.Hayes, Seán.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).Houlihan, Patrick.Keely, Séamus P.Kehoe, Patrick.Kelly, James Patrick.Kelly, Thomas.Kennedy, Michael Joseph.Killilea, Mark.Kissane, Eamonn.Little, Patrick John. |
Bianey, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Brady, Seán. Lynch, James B.MacEntee, Seán.Maguire, Ben.Maguire, Conor Alexander.Moore, Séamus.Moylan, Seán.O'Briain, Donnchadh.O'Doherty, Joseph.O'Grady, Seán.O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.O'Reilly, Matthew.Pattison, James P.Pearse, Margaret Mary.Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.Ryan, James.Ryan, Martin.Ryan, Robert.Sheridan, Michael.Smith, Patrick.Traynor, Oscar.Walsh, Richard. |
Níl
|
Alton, Ernest Henry.Belton, Patrick.Bennett, George Cecil.Bourke, Séamus.Brennan, Michael.Brodrick, Seán.Burke, Patrick.Costello, John Aloysius.Davitt, Robert Emmet.Dockrell, Henry Morgan.Dolan, James Nicholas.Doyle, Peadar S.Esmonde, Osmond Grattan. |
Fitzgerald, Desmond.Lynch, Finian.McGilligan, Patrick.McGuire, James Ivan.McMenamin, Daniel.Minch, Sydney B.Morrissey, Daniel.Mulcahy, Richard.O'Connor, Batt.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Sullivan, Gearoid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus. |
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.