In the course of my speech on Thursday last on Deputy MacDermot's motion I stated to the House that I had received information to the effect that Deputy Mulcahy had an interview in Glasgow with the British Minister for War. At Deputy Mulcahy's request I agreed that a tribunal should be set up to inquire into the matter. Since then the person who gave the information has refused to come forward to give evidence and has, in fact, confessed that the information which he gave was not true. I regret deeply that I should have given publicity to this falsehood and I tender my apologies to Deputy Mulcahy.
Statement Concerning a Deputy—An Apology.
Good man.
There is one other matter in reference to which some explanation is also necessary. In the course of the debate which took place on 28th September, as reported in the Parliamentary Debates, column 1827, there was reference made by the President to an Austin car. Another reference was made earlier in the course of the discussion by, I think, the Minister for Finance, to Deputy Mulcahy, in answer to some interjection. These two statements ought also to be withdrawn and apologised for, and I think the House is entitled to know the name of the person who gave this false information and started this story. It is one thing to get up here and apologise; it is another thing to get in touch with the story throughout the country. It is due to the honour of a member of this House that such allegations should not be made, at least without some authority or on the responsibility of some person who would authorise the issue of such a statement.
I want to express myself as utterly dissatisfied with the attitude the President is taking up on this matter, and I hope the House will take an opportunity of expressing its dissatisfaction too. As Deputy Cosgrave says, the President's charge has gone to the people, and more than that, it has, in fact, gone to them apart altogether, I submit, from the statement here in the House. It may now be said that the President is in a difficulty in regard to getting evidence on this point. There is something in it, it will be said, but it is not always easy to get evidence. I think that, apart altogether from the sequel which the President states took place as a result of his action following this information, it should not be possible that a statement of this particular kind could be made by the President in this House against an ex-Minister and that the President would allow it to drop simply by way of an apology. Something should be known as to the machinery by which it is possible for the President to get information of this particular kind and the general position that exists that makes it possible for the President to act in the way he has acted on the receipt of that information.
Both from the point of view of the general public interest here, and from the point of view of the question that is at issue between the President and myself, this should be made the subject of a full, public inquiry. Let it be that the President may go before that public inquiry and make the statement that he has made here to-day, if he can do nothing else; but it is certainly a matter in which, if no person can be got to come forward and to give any evidence, the members of the Executive Council should put themselves in the position of answering some kind of public inquiry as to what exactly transpired between themselves on the receipt of this information that made it possible for them to make this charge in the House in the way in which they did. I would like the matter to be dealt with in that way, from my own personal point of view; but, higher and broader than all, there is the general question of public interest arising out of the President's statement as reported in column 1931 of the Parliamentary Debates:—
"The one thing we did not want in this country was to have any such position, but knowing the situation that we were dealing with, and having such a report, I was convinced that we should take the most extreme steps, if necessary, to see that no damage could happen to this community. We took these steps reluctantly. We brought that Act reluctantly into operation. It was part of the regular law of the country when we came into office. We suspended portion of it. If it were possible to save the State and provide against possible disorders by any other method, we would have adopted that."
I regret I had to widen my remarks in order to deal with that aspect of the thing here now, but it forms part of a reason which makes it all the more imperative that the President, although dealing with the matter at issue between himself and myself, should make this charge the subject of a public inquiry.
Before——
I cannot allow any further discussion on this matter.
I merely desire to ask one question, as to whether the President has laid the matter before the Attorney-General with a view to prosecuting the individual concerned for criminal libel?
No. 1 on the Order Paper.
Is that supposed to dispose of this very important matter?
Put down a motion.
The matter is not on the Order Paper. A disclaimer was made by the President and, incidentally I thought the Leader of the Opposition was speaking for his Party. According to the strict rules of order, only the Deputy concerned had a right to intervene.
May I ask you, before whom this charge was made in the House, what redress have I against the President's present attitude?
The Deputy is entitled to put down a question, but that is not for the Chair to direct. This matter may also be raised by way of a motion.
Another charge, another Pigott and another apology. Is that the way it will go?