We have heard the various reasons that have been put forward in support of the case for this Vote which is by the way for £148. That to the nearest fraction would be for one-sixth of a year at a yearly salary of £900. I do not know whether we are to take it that this officer is already in office or that he is being paid or has been paid any money. The purposes for which the Vote is being put forward were referred to last night by various speakers including the President who introduced the vote. It is to embrace practically every activity of every Department of this State so far as one can judge. It is to deal with the annuities, with the colour of the bread we eat and with the policy of the Government in its various prospects and activities. Apparently it is to have a knowledge not alone of the policy but of the details of the policy and to make them presentable, I presume, to people at home and abroad. The best explanation that could be given, I suppose, by the President in introducing this Vote is that this officer is going to be a sieve; that he is to get information from various Departments; that he is to put that in a more palatable form than the Ministers are themselves able to put it, and that it is to be dressed up for consumption in that order. Such a new departure of State certainly forces one to the conclusion that the Government political organ has been a failure; that the Government speakers and back-benchers, and their supporters in the House, the Labour Party, have been utterly unequal to the task that they have undertaken; and that failure distinguishes and characterises everything that they touch, everything that they have touched and everything that they say.
Much play was made by some of the speakers who addressed themselves to this Vote on the history of this country during the last ten years. It is characteristic of speakers on the Government side that no matter what subject they are putting before the House, no matter what the recommendation, they have some sort of criticism to pass on the events of the years that transpired before they took up office. The strange thing about the development of their policy is that with the exception of wheat and tobacco everything else is a slavish imitation of somebody else. This Vote in itself is, perhaps, the most slavish tribute that they could pay to the British during the War. What is there the matter with ordinary Ministers of State that they cannot themselves go out and talk about their policy, or get their supporters to do it, or get the Labour Party to help them, or get their political organisation to do it? Is it the fact that their own organ is not circulated to their satisfaction, and that they realise that something extra must be done? The introduction of the word "revolution" here yesterday would have astonished anybody who had been listening to Ministers for the last two years. For two years we have been told that there was nothing in the world like the peace that broke out here since they took office. Why even their own political organ had to address themselves to that subject on Monday or Tuesday last. One would imagine that they had been sleeping for two years and had now discovered that there was something to talk about.
In the course of a speech which was made here by one of the Parliamentary Secretaries, reference was made to the fact that the President had followed the precedent established by me during my time of office, when he would not go out after the guns. I am not going to discuss for the moment whether or not it was that they approved of the policy which they thought I had pursued, and that that was the reason why they did not do it, or whether it was that they were unequal to having a policy of their own, but in the course of a discussion here in this House on the 9th August last, the Minister for Justice read a report which he stated he had received from the Commissioner of the Gárdaí. Included in that report of General O'Duffy there is this statement, which they say came from the chief superintendent of Tipperary:
"It is certain, however, that Mr. Jerry Ryan could, should the occasion arise, muster a fair number of the arms taken from the Templemore Military Barracks during the Mutiny."
I know Colonel Jerry Ryan. He has no arms. He has control of no arms, and no arms were taken from Templemore Military Barracks which were not returned. He was particularly anxious that that statement should be made here when he heard of this report. I draw attention again to the wording of this report:
"It is certain, however, that Mr. Jerry Ryan could, should the occasion arise, muster a fair number of the arms taken from the Templemore Military Barracks during the Mutiny."
Those arms were returned.
"Mr. Ruttledge: It continues: ‘Should it at any time desire to adopt other than constitutional methods, it can, without doubt, lay hands on a sufficient quantity of arms and ammunition to render it a very formidable insurrectionary force and a source of extreme danger to the peace and stability of the country.'"
That refers to the A.C.A., or the National Guard, and it at no time desired to adopt other than constitutional methods. "It can, without doubt, lay hands on a sufficient number of arms and ammunition to render it a very formidable insurrectionary force and a source of extreme danger to the peace and stability of the country." Mark the words: "Should it at any time desire to adopt other than constitutional methods." It at no time desired, and never will desire to have other than constitutional methods, because its whole history and tradition and the history and tradition of every person in association with it stand against the use of unconstitutional methods, and have done so for the last 12 years at great costs to themselves and their families and their friends. I repudiate absolutely any justification for any Minister or any member of the Fianna Fáil Party saying that during my term of office I allowed, or permitted, or countenanced, or condoned the possession of arms except under lawful authority, and I would advise them to do the same.
On Saturday last, there was a meeting in No. 44 Parnell Square of engineers or other persons acting in that capacity, belonging to an organisation that has been condemned as unlawful by the Catholic Hierarchy in this country. It may be lawful according to the legal advisers of the Government; it is unlawful according to the Church subscribed to and supported by the vast majority in this country. On that same Saturday officers of State in the pay of the Government of the State entered the premises known as No. 5 Parnell Square, which were closed by order of the Military Tribunal and are not available for use by the persons who own them. The Military Tribunal and the President of the Executive Council and the Attorney-General and all the Ministers of State have not the power under any Act, omnipotent or otherwise, to give any person authority to enter those premises which do not belong to them, for their use and benefit. From No. 5 Parnell Square those officers of State, with the use of field glasses, kept No. 44 Parnell Square under observation. The meeting that was held there was for the purpose of giving instruction in the use and construction of a land mine which was to be exploded on the following day. That might be assumed to be in the County Dublin, but the only explosion which took place in this country on the following day was in Dundalk. When dealing with these matters in this House the Ministry which is now looking for money to use for propagandist purposes should let this House and the country get the report of the police authorities as to why those premises, 44 Parnell Square, were not raided on that particular evening. By what right and by what authority did police officers enter a premises closed by order of the Military Tribunal? Is the Executive Council above the law?