I move: "That the House do now adjourn till 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th November."
Supplementary Estimates. - Adjournment of Dáil—Debate on Economic Situation.
On practically every occasion on which there has been a motion for the adjournment since July, 1932, the main question discussed was the economic situation, the cause of that economic situation, the failure of the Government to deal with it and, generally, the indifference shown by the Administration with regard to the industry which is responsible for providing the major wealth of the whole country. On some of those occasions the relative merits and some of the incidents arising out of and anterior to the dispute have been discussed and dealt with by Ministers and it is significant that on those occasions advantage was taken by the Ministry, usually at the conclusion of the debate, to stress certain features of the history of that particular period, bringing forth such statements as "secret agreements," and so on. The more I hear of those references to secret agreements and matters of that sort the more I am satisfied that the Government has a very weak case. No agreement between a government and any other government is worth the paper on which it is written unless Parliament votes the money and any money that was voted during the last 12 years had to be brought before the Parliament for sanction. Some time ago I looked up the conferences which took place in 1922; I looked up the Press references to those conferences and there was not a paper in the country that was not full of reports of what was dealt with at those conferences. It was well known that the subject of the land annuities was under consideration and the Votes in connection with that matter were brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas on nine or 11 occasions. It is a very weak case which seeks to establish any sort of virtue on the part of the Ministry by talking about secret agreements.
That, however, is past history and we are now involved in a tariff war, mainly because a group of lawyers in this country have issued what, in their belief, is an important legal opinion on that matter. Political issues have been decided upon lawyers' advice. Meantime, we find ourselves in the position of having our export trade diminished to such an extent as that the effect of it on the general business of the country must be very bad.
During the course of a discussion in connection with this matter some two years ago the President of the Executive Council mentioned what the sum in dispute, if it were to be attached to various items of our agricultural exports, would cost this country. He took cattle at that period and said that the £5,000,000 which we were paying Great Britain would cost 40 per cent. of our cattle trade, of the cattle trade which was worth £12,000,000. Last year our exports amounted to about £6,000,000. For cattle alone the amount was £6,054,827 in 1933, as against £12,669,504. That is more than 50 per cent., and the position is that in so far as the sums of money in dispute are concerned the British Government is getting all that it requires for the annual outgoings. It is not getting the Sinking Fund. The Sinking Fund is not being paid. What we have done is, we have transferred an item of £5,000,000 which is due on the instalment principle to a £4,000,000 payment that is due on the perpetuity system—£4,000,000 per annum in perpetuity, if it can be collected. It has been collected, but if it be not collected in future the loss will be much greater to us than to Great Britain. It pays us better to have larger than to have smaller exports. Assuming, for a moment, that the two parties were equal, one can afford to lose a proportion of 40 per cent. much more easily than one can afford to lose a proportion of 100 per cent. I have not made that point quite clear. If one loses 10 per cent. off 40 per cent. one still gets 36 per cent., but if one loses 10 per cent. off 100 per cent. one gets only 90 per cent., so that while we may have the satisfaction of seeing Great Britain lose, supposing that her exports diminish, we will have the dissatisfaction of seeing that it is costing us two and a half times as much.
We have stressed more than once the advisability of having this matter settled between the two countries. Occasionally, and markedly during the general election of 1933, we heard "that means surrender." What is happening at the present moment? We are surrendering without a protest from the Government or its supporters a sum of £4,000,000 a year. More than that, we are surrendering along with the £4,000,000 a year the position that we are entitled to in that market by reason of our membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We are surrendering whatever escapes across the Border. It may be negligible in amount, but I think anybody who knows anything about the matter is aware that that particular avenue of approach to the British market has been of considerable advantage to those who produce fat cattle in this country.
If that particular tax were added to the £4,000,000 we might get to the point that it is costing us much the same as a few years ago. The question at issue is: need it cost us so much? Everyone knows that in any settlement in connection with this matter we would be doing well, very well. However much political economists discourse, what is more important than a settlement of the financial problem is the question of our position in the British markets. If we got a settlement of this question, at great financial advantage, and did not get the position to which we are entitled by a particular agreement, it might cost us very much more, and be much more unfavourable to the country as a whole. Is there a disposition for a settlement on the part of Great Britain? None of us know except from pronouncements or statements made by Ministers. If these statements are to be taken at their face value there is a disposition for settlement. There is appreciation of the advisability of a settlement. There is admission on their part that a settlement would be advantageous to them, not alone from the material and economic point of view, but, also, from the point of view of their prestige.
Now the present troubles in this country are very largely traceable to the disturbances occasioned by this tariff conflict. Take one feature of it, to which I referred before: when the British tariffs were imposed, we responded by placing certain tariffs upon British goods. We collected something like £200,000 duty upon British coal. We were apparently ignoring the fact that perhaps the best market for our beef is to be found in the mining districts. We were importing coal from other countries. Our exports to these countries were negligible and we had, in essence, practically destroyed or damaged, very seriously, our exports of beef to the mining districts. It will be said that consumption is falling in Great Britain. So it is. It has fallen from 66 lbs. per head per annum down to about 60, and while that has fallen, chilled or frozen beef has increased from 76 per cent. to 84 per cent. Is there appreciation in Great Britain in the matter of the live stock trade of this? Unquestionably there is. Not only is there appreciation of the live stock trade but of agriculture generally. A remarkable feature of a Bill introduced recently in the British Parliament to deal with the cattle trade and to help the cattle trade was this. In sub-section (4) of Section 2 it was provided:
An application for the issue of a certificate for the purpose of this section in respect of an animal... shall not be granted unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the person whose function it is to entertain the application that the animal has been in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of at least three months.
The meaning of that section is this. There is a subsidy proposed to be given under this measure for beef in Great Britain—5/- live weight and 9/4 dead weight and, therefore, it is going to be given to animals which have been three months in Great Britain. In other words there will be a subsidy granted on Irish cattle in Great Britain which had been there for three months. What is the purpose of that? It is not a question of benefiting the Irish trade; we may be quite sure of that. During an economic conflict one country does not introduce legislation to benefit the trade of the other with which it is in conflict. But it so happens that the Irish cattle trade is absolutely essential to British agriculture, and the mere fact of an economic conflict being on does not prevent them viewing the question of their agricultural economy free from any prejudice. So much for the conflict.
It is fair to say of this Government that it has never made a settlement with anybody for anything—it is only fair to say that of them. It is about time for them to commence. The next question that arises is in what way are we dealing with the difficulties that have arisen here in connection with the particular economic disturbance that there is in the country. The Government claim that they are giving bounties and subsidies in respect of such items as sugar beet, and wheat, and tobacco and so on. Some supporters of the Government say that if a man minds his business in agriculture he could meet this situation. He gets a bounty on his wheat, he gets a bounty on his sugar and on his tobacco and so on. Can everybody do that? The total number of cattle in this country is about 4,000,000. Not everyone can sell them at the moment. There must be some big section of the farming community under loss in any case. Individual members of the Government Party or their supporters may have foreseen and taken advantage of certain remissions or bounties, and may have made more money now than at other periods. But we have not to consider the balance sheet of individuals. What we have to take into consideration is the balance sheet of the whole agricultural community or a large section of the agricultural community, not taking only those who have been able to get money, raised by taxation or remitted in taxation, in order to benefit their economy. At no time in the history of this country has the sheriff been so busy as he has been in the last few months. We were told here by the Minister for Agriculture that it was the policy of his Department to issue licences to persons who attended sheriffs' sales and bought cattle, that were put up for sale after having been seized, either for non-payment of rates or annuities.
In the discussion here this week Deputy Bennett asked whether or not licences were refused to persons who bought cattle that were put up for sale at the sheriff's sale in Limerick. What was the answer? They were refused. Deputy Curran had the same story in reference to Tipperary. In one case cattle were seized for arrears of rates; in the other case they were seized for annuities. The Government policy appears to be that when their agent comes in and buys he will get a cattle export licence. Let us examine that. A man does not allow his cattle to be seized for either rates or annuities unless he is short of money.
There was plenty of money in these cases.
These men cannot sell their cattle in the open market. They will not be given the licence which will enable them to cash them. But the licences are given either to agents of the Government or to police employed by the Government or to friends of the Government to purchase the cattle which the owners cannot sell —and that is sound administration! That sort of thing is bound to create bad feeling and bound to create disorder.
Will the Minister say that the people who have the money made the money on their farms during the last 12 months?
They may have won it at horse races.
I see. They may have won it at horse races! It is not a very good answer. Does the Minister take the line that Government policy is such that farmers are to be placed in the position that they must have other means of livelihood than their farms?
He knows it is true.
Well, then, I should like some explanation from the Minister of the reason why he gets up here and says that any person who buys cattle—in other words, makes an unpopular purchase — in connection with these sales for arrears of land annuities and so on, will get a licence from them if he buys them at £1 or £2 a head, but that the unfortunate owner, who has kept them and been unable to cash them, will not get a licence. These expedients that have been adopted and these various measures that have been promoted by the Government have their costs.
The cost of the Administration of this State has risen very considerably. The number of persons employed by the State has risen. An Estimate introduced to-day proposes to employ 130 supervisors at £5 10s. per head for about six months. So, the cost of the administration is rising all the time. On what? On reduced production and on a big reduction in the export trade of the country. But when we get a catastrophic fall, such as has occurred in the last couple of years, we are in the position in which we have got to have a new orientation of agriculture; we have got to be self-supporting; we have got to the point where we must grow certain things for which there is a very poor economic return. And all to divert the public attention from the dangers of the present economic situation!
This trouble has been mishandled in two directions. First, it should never have been allowed to reach the point where there was a 40 per cent. tax on our agricultural produce. Secondly, the attempts that have been made to deal with it have been expensive, spasmodic, inefficient and very costly. Sooner or later, whether with the will of this Government or against their will, there is going to be a settlement. If they are going to make it, what is their answer going to be to people who have been driven to the wall for the last two or three years? What hope is there of those persons getting back into a solvent condition—those persons that have been rendered practically bankrupt by reason of Government policy? It may be that we will hear the answer that we have heard so often in the last couple of years—that they have been returned by a majority. A majority does not give you the right to do what is wrong. You are responsible for every act that you perform in an administrative capacity, just the same as you would be for your own business; and if, by reason of your administration, certain people have been seriously injured, it is for you to consider how you are going to rehabilitate them. What steps are you going to take to restore to solvency those who have been practically smashed by the policy you have adopted?
As I have said, those two years, in which we have had experimental economics and experiments in political strategy and so on, are all wasted years if you are going to make a settlement; if you are about to make a settlement; if you are trying to make a settlement. Mere majorities, as I have said, give you no right to do what is wrong. That is a different proposition from what was uttered over there—that the people had no right to do wrong. The people have the right to elect their representatives. The fact that they have that right or that certain people get votes to which they are or are not entitled—and Deputy Lemass knows what that means——
You are trying to explain your presence here.
——does not empower the Executive Council or its Party to do an injustice to the people or to individual people. The other day Deputy Dillon said that you had no right to take one man's property and give it to another. Remember, that with this tale of damage that has been done to various farmers throughout the country, and, generally speaking, to the whole farming community, other people have done well. New vested interests have been created. Some are doing better than ever they did. Strangely enough, some people engaged in business here in the south have gone down and have had their business practically destroyed, while their competitors across the Border have never done so well. If you want to find out what that means, go down to the Horse Show and inquire and you will be told. Some of the people who have been in business here for years and years are practically driven out and their competitors across the Border were never doing better.
This question will have to be settled. It would be just as well if those who precipitated it would settle it and settle it quickly, and try to restore to those who have been injured some of their losses; to give them again an opportunity of getting back to solvency. Unless it be settled shortly, it may be very much more difficult for them to get back to their solvency and they are not the only people that are concerned. Do not think for a moment that it is possible for any industrial development movement to succeed where the main industry of the country is not a success. Repeatedly, we have suggested to the Ministry that they take out half a dozen or a dozen farms from different counties in the country —not selecting those that partake generously of bounties or other things of that sort—take out their accounts for the last couple of years; see how long they can last, and see whether or not there is any hope for agriculture if present conditions continue.
You will settle this conflict and do any good you can do to the country with the general goodwill of all people. We at least have got this to say that whether in opposition or in the Government we would never for Party purposes play ducks and drakes with the credit of the State or do anything of that sort. For years I was listening to members of the Opposition when we were in office talking about the bankruptcy of the country. They have learned this during the last few years that if there had not been a sound financial condition of affairs when they took office that much of their experimentation of the last two years would have come to an abrupt end. If a good thing is to be done, better have it done quickly and before there is much more damage done to the farmers and industrialists of this State.
Deputy Cosgrave stated that on every occasion upon which the motion for the adjournment of the Dáil at the end of a session was moved, the economic situation existing and the results of Government policy were discussed here by the members of his Party. He flatters both himself and the members of his Party. It is true that upon every occasion upon which a motion similar to this was moved here we have had speeches made by Deputies opposite with some bearing upon the economic situation, but at no time can it be seriously said that the economic situation was discussed by them. We have had speeches such as that to which we have now listened from Deputy Cosgrave—a series of scattered observations upon various matters of public interest—showing a complete lack of appreciation of the significance of existing economic conditions and a complete lack of understanding of the economic changes that are now taking place. These observations revealed an absolute bankruptcy of ideas as to how these conditions might be modified or these changes regulated so as to produce greater good for this country.
We have had first of all from Deputy Cosgrave an attempt to justify the action of his Government in suppressing from the people of this country the secret agreement which is the origin of the land annuities dispute. His attempted justification was quite belated. It certainly was very ineffective. He contends that merely because the Dáil voted the money for land annuities for a number of years, and because reference was made in the press to the fact that conferences bearing upon the financial clauses of the Treaty were held at various times, that the people must have known all about any agreement entered into by his Government with the British.
May I ask the Minister if he himself believed it? He must surely believe that no such agreement was made.
May I ask the Deputy why he did not convey to the lawyers who prepared the memorandum on the Land Commission annuities a knowledge of the existence of that agreement?
It had been already told to the House here on nine occasions.
One of the last official acts of the Deputy's Administration was to publish at the State expense a memorandum on the land annuities signed by a number of lawyers. These lawyers did not know about the existence of the secret agreement. They made a case for the payment of the land annuities not based upon it. Their case was immediately repudiated by the British Government when it became a matter of controversy. I ask the Deputy to put side by side the opinion of his legal advisers published to provide Cumann na nGaedheal propaganda at the 1932 General Election with the claims put forward by the British Government and try to reconcile them.
I am not concerned with the British Government. I put this to the Minister that he had to alter the law to make his case good. That was the first thing he had to do. Secondly, and it is our act, the agreement of 1925, that he is standing on. These are the two things on which the Minister is relying. He had to alter the law in order to get money into the Exchequer. Is not that so?
No. The British claimed upon the secret agreement and nothing else. They based their claim upon that. They did not attempt to make the case with which the Deputy presented them.
I put it to the Minister, first, that he had to change the law and that he is basing his claim and standing on the agreement we made in 1925. Is not that so?
The British case is based on the secret agreement. I am only referring to it because the Deputy tried to justify the keeping of that agreement secret.
The Minister will not answer the question put to him.
Of course I will answer the question. Deputy Cosgrave is interrupting me now because he knows that is the only chance he has of getting away with an appearance of having made a case.
The Minister changed the law in order to be able to say "we have a legal case."
I do not want to make a long speech—just a few comments and I will not take as long as Deputy Belton took on the Agricultural Vote. Deputy Cosgrave then proceeded to endeavour to mislead the members of his own Party as to the significance of the changes that have taken place in relation to our cattle trade. He pointed out that the President on a previous occasion had, by way of explanation of the significance of the Land Annuities payments, pointed out that they represented 40 per cent. of the value of our total cattle exports and that when we were making these payments to Great Britain they had the same economic significance for this country as if we were giving Great Britain free of charge 40 per cent. of our cattle exports. Deputy Cosgrave said that since then the value of our cattle trade has fallen by 50 per cent. That is right. He made a passing reference to the Bill recently introduced in the British Parliament. He did not explain the significance of that Bill and why it had become necessary for the British Government to bring into the House of Commons a Bill to subsidise cattle production in Great Britain. If the Deputy got the answer to that question he would realise one of the reasons why the value of our export cattle trade has fallen by 50 per cent. The important thing he would learn is that that fall would have taken place if this land annuities dispute had never started.
Bosh!
Nonsense.
Who told the Minister that?
The British Chancellor of the Exchequer told us. Does the Deputy not know that when the British Chancellor of the Exchequer was questioned on this matter in the House of Commons he said if there was a settlement of the land annuities question it did not follow that the tax would be taken off Irish cattle or that there would be any modification of the quota system? Did not the British Minister state that the restrictions upon cattle exports to Great Britain were not in consequence of any dispute with Great Britain but in the interests of their own agriculturists?
And you believed him.
Deputies opposite may know more about the policy of the British Government than the members of the British Government, but they will excuse us if we do not believe them.
Talking of the quota will not help your case.
There has been a substantial decline in the prices paid for beef in Great Britain.
On a point of order, since when has the decline come?
That is not a point of order.
It is merely an interruption.
The second reason is that there has been a change in the habits of the people of Great Britain and other countries. The people of Great Britain are eating less beef, but they are eating more mutton, poultry and bacon. The decline in the consumption of beef which has been commented upon by the British Minister for Agriculture is one of the most noteworthy features of British market conditions since the war. The second reason is that Great Britain has decided to adopt the Sinn Féin policy and she is putting it into operation in connection with her cattle industry. We have no more right to prevent her doing so than she would have to prevent us taking steps to protect our own industries in this country.
Another point on which Deputy Cosgrave is obviously misinformed is in relation to the significance to be attached to export trade figures. Again and again he has spoken here as if the sole index of a nation's prosperity were the total of its extern trade. That is sheer nonsense.
Will the Minister tell me when I said it was the sole index?
The Deputy said so within the last half hour.
The sole index?
These were not the precise words he used——
I am perfectly satisfied.
But he spoke as if the total of our export trade were the one matter of vital importance to which we should have regard. The effect, he said, of a decline of our export trade must be very bad. It need not necessarily be very bad. We could have a decline in business, we could have wholesale emigration and wholesale unemployment with our export trade booming and the reverse conditions with our export trade declining. There is no relation between the total volume of our export trade and the level of internal prosperity. Any first year student of economics will tell the Deputy that.
Was that the Minister's propaganda in 1927?
That is an elementary lesson in economics which the Deputy is now getting for the first time.
You apparently did not know that in 1927.
The position in respect to our export trade is a very interesting one. We, as the Deputy is aware, have invested abroad a very large capital sum. The foreign investments per head of the population of this country are amongst the highest of any country in the world. That capital is now being repatriated for the purpose of financing development work in this country.
How are the bank balances going down then?
That is why the adverse balance is increasing against us.
Because money is coming into the country?
It is not coming in the form of notes. We do not want it in that form. What good are British pound notes to us? We want British machinery, British raw materials. We want girders to build our factories. We want raw materials to work on. It is in that form that the repatriation of our capital is proceeding, and if the Deputy would read our investment statistics with an intelligence capable of understanding them he would know that is right.
(Interruptions.)
Your man was not interrupted from this side.
You are incapable of interrupting.
Deputy Cosgrave said that his Party have continuously stressed the advisability of making a settlement of the economic dispute between the Free State and Great Britain. His is not the only Party that has stressed the advisability of making a settlement. Everybody recognises the advisability of making a settlement, but the practicability of making a settlement is a different matter. This dispute with Great Britain started first as a dispute relating to matters of finance, matters of accountancy, matters of obligations imposed on this State under the secret agreement Deputy Cosgrave is trying to defend, but it has got much wider than that. Deputies opposite, if they read the statements made by British Ministers—and Deputy Cosgrave has just referred to them—will have learned from them that it is not now a matter of a financial dispute, but the position is maintained deliberately by the British Government in order to secure a political situation which they desire.
Is that why it is not settled?
It is one of the difficulties in the way of effecting a settlement. There are many more matters involved in the dispute than the question of the legal obligation of this country to pay the land annuities. There was one way of settling that legal question available, but it was not availed of. There are now other matters brought into the dispute which could not be settled in the way that a legal question concerning the interpretation of a legal position could be settled. These questions have been in controversy between this country and Great Britain, not since 1922, but for a very much longer period. If there is one thing we have learned from our history, learned through many bitter years, it is that we will not secure a satisfactory settlement of these questions except the rights of this country are going to be secured. We can get the appearance of a settlement in the way that Deputy Cosgrave knows and tried, but nothing is ever settled until it is settled right, and the policy of this Government is to secure that it will not be a party to a fraud on the people, and that it will not take part in effecting any pretence of a settlement which will not be a real solution of the problems which have provoked the controversy.
We are maintaining our position because we believe it will be possible at some stage to effect a real settlement of all these matters which will ensure that these problems will never again arise for us. It will help us considerably towards that end if we can succeed in our efforts to reorganise the economic life of this country so as to lessen our dependency on export markets for our prosperity. Surely we have learned in the last five years, as every other European country has learned, that there is no basis for national prosperity in the maintenance of an export trade. Opportunities for an export trade come and go. Opportunities for an export trade came and went for us. They were always outside our control. We could never be certain that the conditions, which permitted of that export trade being carried on under profitable conditions, were going to be maintained. The conditions were not in our hands to regulate. Not merely has the export market, not merely have the conditions of the export trade changed in relation to our agricultural goods but also in relation to other products and, in fact, I believe that an announcement will probably be made to-day which will again teach our people the lesson that there is no security based upon an export market and that the only way we can build up prosperity here in a manner which will enable us to ensure its continuity, which will enable us to defend it, is by making the home market the basis of our whole economic organisation. We are getting that done.
Deputy Cosgrave said that it is not possible to promote industrial revival here while conditions in agriculture are depressed. The hard fact is that we are getting an industrial revival. Conditions in agriculture are depressed but they are not as bad as conditions in certain other agricultural countries.
What other countries?
Notwithstanding that, we are getting the industrial field covered step by step and our success in that connection has gone a long way towards enabling us to weather the storm which has brought other and stronger countries into a much worse condition than that in which we find ourselves. Deputy Cosgrave said that the sheriff was never so busy as he is at the moment and he implied that we were recruiting hosts of additional officials for the purpose of oppressing the farmers and the taxpayers generally. The fact is that there were fewer people in the employment of the State on the 1st January this year than on the 1st January, 1932.
Was there less employment of the sheriff?
There is more work being done now.
Was there less employment of the sheriff?
The number of those paid out of State funds was smaller in 1933 than in 1932, but more work was being done.
Can the Minister give the figures in relation to that?
Certainly, if the Deputy will put down a question he will get the information.
Not until November.
Might I interrupt the Minister to say that in an announcement which I circulated on Thursday these figures were given?
Let us get to this question about the issue of licences to persons buying cattle at the sheriff's auctions. There has been a campaign to prevent the payment of rates and annuities, a campaign to wreck the whole machinery of local government and the collection of annuities.
Why did you not prosecute?
Certain people were prosecuted.
And acquitted.
Those bright and heroic individuals who got that campaign organised in various parts of the country induced a number of farmers not to pay their land annuities and not to pay their rates. In due course the question arose for them whether they were going to follow their own advice, whether they were going to do what they had induced the poor "mugs" who believed them to do. They devised an interesting way of getting out of the difficulty. They did not pay their land annuities or their rates. They let the sheriff seize their stock, and they sent a friend to the sheriff's sale to buy back the stock at the amount due for rates or land annuities. In that way they paid their rates, got back their stock and saved their faces before their followers. They hope to get a little more. They hope to get their stock back with export licences attached to them. They must think that the Government are very green. They are not going to get that.
When that campaign was at its height, when there was a definite attempt to organise a boycott of the sheriffs' sales, when the organisation to which members of the Opposition belong were massing at every place at which these sales were announced for the purpose of intimidating possible buyers, then, undoubtedly, the Government told those who were prepared to buy the stock that, if they bought them, export licences would be made available to them. This policy will continue. Where these faked sales, designed to save the faces of those who are endeavouring to get others to do what they were afraid to do themselves, take place, the purchasers are going to get no facilities whatsoever from the Government. Deputy Cosgrave said that his Party never played ducks and drakes with the public credit.
No wonder a register of licences will not be set up. We are getting a little information on these things.
The Deputy's ignorance is the most outstanding characteristic of his interruptions.
The Minister's corruption is widespread.
It was explained here, with great patience, in an endeavour to make the Deputy understand, that the manner in which cattle export licences are distributed was settled at a meeting between the Minister for Agriculture and a consultative council composed of persons engaged in the cattle trade.
Trade.
That council agreed that, in respect of 99 per cent. of the licences issued, a certain definite procedure was to be followed. It gave the Minister for Agriculture a discretion in respect of one per cent. The Minister for Agriculture exercises that discretion in consultation with the Minister for Justice for the purpose of defeating the anti-social tactics of the Deputy's friends.
The Minister referred to the cattle trade and not to the cattle producers.
Deputy Cosgrave is, I am sure, quite pleased that the national credit is good at the moment, that the State is able to borrow money on reasonable terms, that local authorities are able to get money at cheap rates without difficulty. I am sure he is equally pleased that all the issues of shares for the purpose of financing new industrial enterprises in this country are, as a rule, over-subscribed, that money for industrial purposes is readily available even when the rate of interest guaranteed on preference shares or debentures is quite low. That is an indication that the credit of this country and the public belief in its future were never better. Those circumstances are entirely different from those which operated when Deputy Cosgrave was President, when even the Banking Commission which he established noted that it was utterly impossible to succeed with a public issue of shares for any industrial enterprise if that issue took place here and that it was necessary for Irish concerns seeking additional capital to go to London for it. The situation has changed. There is more confidence in the country now. There is greater belief in its future and there is more hope that the difficulties which beset it in the past will be overcome. The only means by which that confidence or hope would be destroyed and the old bad conditions reproduced would be by any prospect of the Party opposite ever again getting back into office.
Is the Minister aware of any difference in the price of money between 1927 and 1933 or 1934?
It is much cheaper now.
And the Minister makes that statement without regard to that fact.
It comes to the same thing to say that credit is better now.
I should advise the Minister to get information before he makes public pronouncements.
He is a Minister of this House now instead of a rebel Minister outside.
Do not be talking nonsense. Leave these things to the men who know.
The Minister has put national credit in issue in this debate. He puts national credit in issue in order to demonstrate that the Fianna Fáil Government has promoted the prosperity of this country. National credit is dear to every side of this House but, when it is put in issue by a Government to justify its party record, it becomes the duty of a Deputy who desires to warn the Government whither they are going to remind them that, for the first time in the history of this State, a national loan, issued by the Fianna Fáil Government, failed. No national loan issued by our people failed or went near failing. The national credit is a delicate thing. I have no hesitation in saying that the fundamental condition of this country is still capable of redemption. It may not always be. There is known to naturalists a wriggling creature, with a rhinoceros-like hide, that can change its colours according to the circumstances of its surroundings. It is called a chameleon. It might also be called the Fianna Fáil Party. I remember when this question of the economic war was first mooted. The members of the Fianna Fáil Party went round the country and said that England would not put tariffs on our agricultural produce, that she dare not do so. The next stage was: "England has put tariffs on our agricultural produce at the request of our political opponents here in Ireland."
Hear, hear!
"Hear, hear," says Deputy Donnelly. The third stage was that the economic war had no relation at all to the tariffs, that England would have put the tariffs on in any case and that she was putting on the tariffs in order to protect her own agricultural industry. The fourth stage was when President de Valera, repudiating Deputy Donnelly, declared: "Thank God England has put on the tariffs. This is what we have been waiting for and longing for. At last, the happy day has dawned." Senator Connolly, not to be outdone, said: "It may have taken 100 years to build up this market in Great Britain, but it is only going to take us 100 days to pull it down."
Not quite correct.
The Deputy is prudent when he says "not quite correct." The fact is that this economic war, which has been brought upon this country by the blundering futility of the Fianna Fáil Government, is depriving our people of a market which is essential to the economic survival of the agricultural industry in this country. While we listened to President de Valera declaring that, thanks be to God the British market is gone, and while we listened to Senator Connolly telling us that the British market is of no significance and to the Minister for Agriculture telling us that he is going to provide in the Cattle Bill an adequate alternative in Hamburg for the market we have lost in Great Britain, we remember that we were told by the same gentleman that they were providing for the bacon industry; that the market they were going to provide us with at home for that industry was quite sufficient to promote its prosperity and to preserve its integrity.
But confidentially—when I say confidentially I do not mean that the letter was endorsed "confidential," but I mean not on the floor of this House but by circular—this self-same Minister for Agriculture is going around now exhorting every bacon manufacturer in the country to ship every hundredweight of bacon that he can put his hands on to Great Britain without any regard whatever to the cost of bacon to the consumers in this country. Why? In order to save, not the British market for the Irish producer, but that share of the British market which Great Britain has given to the Irish producer. He points out to us that it is the patriotic duty of every bacon curer to strain every nerve to fill the quota on the British market that Great Britain has given to us, and he warns us that it will be a great catastrophe for the Irish pig-raising community if we do not succeed in the task he has set us during the months of June, July and August. Do I exaggerate when I describe that man as a hypocrite, when he comes in here and tells us that the British market is not worth anything, when he is going round behind backs on his knees to every bacon manufacturer in the country begging him to ship stuff to England in order to preserve that share on the British market which England, in her benevolence, has left to us. That is the market that is not worth anything to us, and that is the market in exchange for which we were told to ship our cattle to Hamburg at 2d. per lb. and to pay the man who comes to get them, by way of bounties on those exports, sums varying from £200 to £400 a week. Any German cattle dealer who comes to this country will by his grace carry our Irish cattle out of the country in boat loads at 18/- and 20/- per cwt. He will get a cheque on Saturdays when the boat sails for between £200 and £400.
That is one of the things that the Minister offers us in return for what he has taken away, and the other is the Cattle Bill that we have just disposed of, a crazy contraption which will provide jobs for every down-at-heel camp follower of the Fianna Fáil Party and persecution for every respectable, independent man in this country who wants a means of earning his livelihood, and does not want to be the pauper of Fianna Fáil or any other Government. But every corruptionist and every fraud in the country who is too lazy to work and too lazy to earn a living in open competition and in honesty, will get his chance of bribery and corruption, while every decent man who wants to go about his business and to rear his family in an independent way, will find that his means of making a livelihood is being taken from him, and that his means of carrying on his business has been made impossible by the spying activities and interference of the hordes of officials that are to be let out upon him by our up-to-date Minister for Agriculture.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce can talk till the cows come home about his highfalutin industrial revival in this country. The hard fact remains, and it is known to every member of the Fianna Fáil Party who lives in rural Ireland, to every trader and to every banker in this country, that the agricultural community are getting progressively poorer and poorer. Every trader knows that money is drying up: that business is disappearing in rural Ireland. Every banker knows that deposits are shrinking, and that the people are trenching on their reserves to meet the obligations that they have got to meet, because otherwise they would have the sheriff on their land seizing their stock and their property. In that condition of affairs we have appropriated in this year already over £36,000,000 in the main budget. Since then supplementary estimates to the number of six, ranging in all to £270,000 in a full financial year, have been introduced. These supplementary estimates range from £180,000 down to £18,000 odd.
The Minister for Finance stated that he could foresee no Supplementary Estimate when I challenged him on the Budget debate. He explained then that the inflated figures of the appropriations for Supply and Central Fund Services were due to the fact that ample provision was being made for every conceivable charge that could arise, and that the reason why they looked bigger than the bill for last year was that he had provided for everything in his Budget and had foreseen Supplementary Estimates for this year. But, in the first three months of his financial year, we have got six additional Supplementary Estimates, with the notification from the Minister for Agriculture that he has no notion of the expenditure that may fall on the Exchequer in connection with the Cattle Slaughter Bill. That is the delightful state of affairs that obtains, while, for the first time in the history of this country, the adverse trade balance for the first five months of the year is greater than our entire exports. The adverse trade balance for the first five months of this year is £8,457,000 odd, while our total exports and re-exports amount to £7,219,000 odd, so that our adverse trade balance in these halcyon days is £1,250,000 greater than our entire exports.
With this rise in public expenditure, with a progressive deterioration of the reserves of the main body of the consuming public in this country, with our adverse trade balance greater than our entire exports, the Minister for Industry and Commerce tells us that we are marching with heads erect towards the glorious dawn of Fianna Fáil prosperity. It is not towards the dawn of prosperity that we are marching, but towards the conflagration of ruin. The Minister waxes eloquent about the industrial revival. Ministers are so blind that they cannot even take an object lesson. We have given up hope that they are capable of ratiocination, but you do have some hope that when there is the example before them of what their activities can bring on the country they would look upon it and learn. I want to read a paragraph from the report of the commission that went out to Newfoundland recently to investigate the causes of the financial collapse in that country, a collapse which made it necessary for Newfoundland to abandon self-government and to call in British Treasury officials to get the country back upon its feet. The report says:—
"Much of the wild capital expenditure between 1920 and 1932 was indeed incurred upon attempts to attract every kind of industry. The Government spent large sums of money on improving railways, on ambitious schemes of construction, on the extension of telegraph and telephone services, and on the construction of a dry dock. Worse still, while money was being poured out on those fancy schemes, the one industry whose prosperity and development were a matter of life and death to the country was neglected. Loans amounting to over fifty million dollars were raised after the war, but less than a million dollars was devoted to stimulating the industry that was of chief importance. Whilst Newfoundland's principal fishing rivals were steadily improving their methods of catching and marketing their fish, and were reaping rich rewards for their perspicuity, often at the expense of Newfoundland, those in control of the Dominion allowed their industry to go from bad to worse."
If we substitute "Saorstát Eireann" for "Newfoundland" and "agriculture" for "fishing" does that not accurately describe what we behold going on before us at the present moment in this country?
It indicates a lack of discernment on the part of the Deputy.
There is another thing here which I want the Minister to pay attention to: "Even if the authorities had been blessed with wisdom"—we do not hope for that in Saorstát Eireann but they did in Newfoundland—"in spending the money that they rashly borrowed, their folly in raising it would have found them out when the depression descended on that island. While times were normal the weakness of their financial policy did not show itself, and the people"—I address this specially to the back benchers of Fianna Fáil, such few of them as are here—"deluded themselves with the hope that money spent in endeavours to attract other industries to the country would bear fruit soon and begin to bring in a return."
What is the reference?
The reference is the report of the British Commission which went out at the request of the Newfoundland Government to examine into the condition of Newfoundland, prior to sending out Commissioners to take over government.
In other words it is a British report that the Deputy is quoting?
It is the report of a Commission set up in Newfoundland at the request of the Newfoundland people. Those are the facts as obtaining in Newfoundland. Mind you, Deputy Donnelly—a Deputy for whom I have a warm regard—has got the real Fianna Fáil mentality. He will not see what he does not want to see. The Deputy makes up his mind—as he said here himself: "We have been trapesing after de Valera for the last ten years, and please God we will trapese after him to the end. We will tie a bandage around our eyes, catch hold of the tail of his coat, and off we go. It does not matter where we go or where we bring the country, be it into a conflagration of destruction or the dawn of freedom, so long as we have a hold of his coat-tail, here's how!"
And the people think the same.
That is the statesmanship and that is the government we are getting. Mind you, speaking from the point of view of the political future of Deputy Donnelly, from the point of view of the political future of the Minister for Justice, and from the point of view of the political future of the Minister for Finance, they are perfectly right, because if they let go their hold of the coat-tail of de Valera they would not last three weeks. The Minister for Industry and Commerce always skips rapidly and adroitly over this fundamental fact. Every industry in this country depends on the capacity of the people to buy its products. No less than 80 per cent. of the consuming capacity of this country is vested in the people living out of the land. Unless you have consuming capacity amongst those people no industry can prosper in this country. No matter what subsidies you give an industry, or how long you subsidise it, if the people are not prepared to buy its products it will close down, and it will break up.
The consuming power of the farmers of this country depends on their ability to dispose of the produce of their labour, and there is not a single Minister on that bench now who has the effrontery left to him to assert that the farmers are as well off now as they were two years ago. All of them admit that agriculture is depressed, that the agricultural community is going through a bad time, that their purchasing power is falling, that the prices of their commodities are falling out of mind and out of understanding. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has the effrontery—the characteristic effrontery—to say that the price of beef is falling all over the world, and falling here no more than anywhere else. Through the position he occupies, I suppose his attention is drawn from time to time to the well-known economic journals that circulate, and if he refers to page 219 of the Economist of August 4th, 1934, he will there find that the Economist sets out in its index that beef is dearer over the last four months, while the tendency of bacon and mutton is to fall.
Just because it suits his argument, just because it fits in with the particular misrepresentation which he wants to put over on the House and on the people, Deputy Lemass says that beef is falling all over the world, and that everybody knows it. The facts are there in black and white, and he will not attempt to controvert them, but as he himself said on one occasion to Deputy Good, when it was shown that he had contradicted himself directly, with the Minister for Industry and Commerce consistency is the bugbear of mediocrity and the hallmark of mediocrity. He considers that to say the same thing twice is an inferior thing to do, and that the real evidence of the genius which characterises that distinguished man is to change his mind on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and to protest vigorously that any man who is not prepared to change his mind with him is a traitor, and is playing England's game.
Sooner or later our people will wake up to what other countries have been awake to for the last three years—that the whole doctrine of national self-sufficiency is a complete chimera. The United States of America, with all its wealth, all its boundless resources, its magnificent opportunities, and its boundless diversity of occupation and demand within its own borders, thought it could play the game of national self-sufficiency five or six years ago, and its greatness fixed the proportion of the catastrophe which it brought upon itself. When national self-sufficiency collapsed in the United States of America, the collapse shook the economic foundations of the whole world. Speaking from the world point of view, when national self-sufficiency collapses in this country it will be like dropping a pea in a bucket, but the unfortunate people of this country will suffer just as bitterly as the mighty American people suffered in America when they were shaking the very foundations on which world economy rested. With that object lesson in front of them, it would seem that some of those Ministers who are charged with the responsibility of government are marching forward bravely to drop their miserable pea into the bucket, because they are too blind to understand the catastrophe that President Roosevelt is trying to settle up in the United States of America at the present moment. Rational men all over the world realise that if you have got to buy something from outside—and we have got to buy something—you will have to send out something to pay for it. The more artificial means you try to employ to break down the natural flow of trade, and the natural operation of commerce between this country and its neighbours in the world, the greater will be the tendency to bring about an economic crisis in this country similar to that through which Newfoundland has passed, and through which the United States of America is passing.
America had greater resources and she is using them. We have not anything like as great resources. Newfoundland had Great Britain to go to and to call in. No one in this House or in this country will contemplate with equanimity any financial crisis inspiring any Government to invite the British Government to take over our affairs and to clean up our mess. We have neither the resources of Newfoundland nor the resources of the United States of America. We are an ancient nation, standing on its own feet, having self-government and the right to manage our own affairs for the first time, after a long and bitter struggle. We are not a colony. We are a free and independent nation standing on its own feet, and we cannot adopt colonial methods. We have got to stand or fall by our own resources. Ministers ought to try to remember that these are not the resources of the United States of America. All I have got to say is this: It is evident from Minister's speeches here to-day, it is especially evident from the speech delivered by the Minister for Finance in the Seanad recently, that he knows just as well as we do the dangers that threaten this country. All I ask them to do is to face those responsibilities, not to go on deluding people into the belief that you can wreck the credit and the prosperity of the country, and have still a country worth living and working for. Let them face the responsibility as practical men. They had not any experience when they went into office. They had little realisation of the responsibility devolving upon men charged with the administration of the affairs of the nation. They are beginning to learn what responsibility is now. They had on more than one occasion made some rash and reckless charges in the past and some rash and reckless undertakings were given which had to be withdrawn. They are beginning to realise now that there are practical aspects of politics as well as romantic aspects, that the two cannot be reconciled, and that they should not attempt to try to force a catastrophe which everyone believes can be avoided. I ask them to save this country from the eternal reproach that having got self-government, having got the right to run the country, whatever way they want to run it, they ran it on the rocks.
Deputy Dillon, in the course of his speech, said that the consuming power of the farmers depends on their ability to dispose of the products of their labour. I do not know whether Deputy Dillon is the only member of his present Party who realises the truth of that statement. If there are others, then the truth has dawned upon them recently.
Perhaps the Minister will excuse me for interrupting him. We made an agreement with the Chief Government Whip that certain concessions in regard to the disposal of business should be made this morning, and a certain arrangement was made afterwards for four speakers from these benches on the Motion for the Adjournment. I should be long sorry to suggest that we should exclude the Minister now, but perhaps he will bear that in mind.
In view of that, I will have to reserve for another occasion what I wished to say. The Deputy referred to the index figure published recently for beef, which indicates that beef is dearer at the moment in Great Britain. It is true that there has been a fractional increase in the index figure for beef, but I do not think the Deputy is fully aware of the significance of that increase. In order to be so aware he would have to be familiar with the latest figures published for imports, and the value of imports of beef and veal in 1933 and 1934, respectively. In 1933 there were 4,809,061 cwts., value £9,625,429, and in 1934, for the same period, there were 5,141,575 cwts., value £8,952,413. On these figures it is clear the index value of imported beef and veal has fallen very considerably, even if the general index covering beef and veal for the home trade in Great Britain has increased.
As a result of the quota?
As a result the prices of home-fed beef have gone up in Great Britain.
As a result of the quota?
No, as a result of the import duties. Here is what a competent observer, writing impartially, says of the quota system for beef.
What is the reference?
"Good mutton and lamb prices are said to prove the success of the quota policy. The catastrophic fall in beef prices is an equally striking example of its futility."
Will the Minister give the date of the reference?
The Observer for Sunday, July 29th, 1934, in which there has been appearing a series of very striking articles dealing with the agricultural position in Great Britain.
Will the Minister deal with The Economist article?
I am collating the two articles, and if the Deputy turns to them that is the conclusion which must be drawn from the figures. Most people in Great Britain are agreed, and the series of articles which appeared in The Observer bears it out, that in the quota policy, as applied to beef, “the catastrophic fall in beef prices has shown that it is a futile policy.” There has been a slight increase in the price of beef, but it is true, as was pointed out in the concluding article last Sunday, that that was due to the imposition of tariffs upon beef. If there has been an increase in the price through the imposition of tariffs on beef, it is due to the fact that the British consumer as well as the Irish producer is bearing some part of the cost.
In the necessarily brief remarks that I propose to make I will confine myself to the administration of one Department —the Department of Justice. I do so in order to challenge that Department for the manner in which the law has been administered in this country within the last few months, especially where the Guards are compelled, as I take it, by order from on top, to disregard the observance of the law. That is so striking that I do not believe it would be tolerated in any other country. I had occasion to refer last night to the very disgraceful outrage which took place at Thomastown, Co. Kilkenny, on a man well known in this State, Commandant Cronin, a member of the National Executive of the Party to which I belong—the largest political Party, I believe, in this State. When leaving a dance, he drove his car some short distance in order to turn it to a place where there was a large number of Guards stationed, and from within 100 yards from where they were the car was fired upon.
A bad frame-up.
We got a most extraordinary explanation from the Minister, if it could be taken as an explanation, that Commandant Cronin fired at himself. Take the absurdity of that statement, that within 100 yards of the Guards, Commandant Cronin proceeded to fire, or that someone with him fired. If that was the case, is it not beyond doubt that the Guards would immediately have descended and searched those men for any weapons they might have upon them? It was known perfectly well that they had no weapons. Still the firing took place within 100 yards of where the Guards were stationed. You find no effort made by the Guards to discover the persons who had fired until Commandant Cronin himself returned and got one or two of the Guards to go along with him some distance up the road to see if there was any trace of the persons who fired. He comes back and speaks to the Superintendent of the Guards—the Superintendent who declared that he did not hear the shooting which took place within 100 yards of where he was standing and which everybody else in the town heard. There is a very significant fact, that two recently recruited members of the Guards in plain clothes, who were stationed near the hall, were missing from where they had been stationed. Commandant Cronin immediately asked that their revolvers should be examined to see if it was they, as every circumstance pointed out that it was, who had done this firing. But no, it is not done. The Minister stated last night that it was done later on. It might have been done an hour or two afterwards, but I know nothing about that. It was not done, however, until every single opportunity had been given to them to have their weapons cleaned.
That is very bad in itself, but I think the way in which the Minister met that last night is worse still, because there is only one conclusion that I can draw, and which I believe anybody else who regards the facts can draw, that not only has there been an effort to shield these two men, against whom the strongest suspicion at any rate rests, but that they were not acting completely upon their own. When we get this cock-and-bull story from the Minister that Commandant Cronin himself fired the shots within 100 yards of the Guards, and see the Guards making no effort at the time to discover who the perpetrators of the outrage were, I am afraid we are driven to the conclusion that that shooting was done, if not by the direct order, at any rate with the concurrence of somebody placed in a higher position; and that this cloaking-up effort is not to shield these two particular individuals but somebody else. I wonder very much if that particular Superintendent, who did absolutely nothing when a crime is being committed within 100 yards of where he is, who makes absolutely no effort to investigate it there and then, may not have been an accessory before the fact to this firing.
Do you believe that?
I say that every circumstance points to it.
That is a different thing.
That is what I say. It is the conclusion I believe which everybody who investigates this matter impartially must come to. We had another example some time ago in connection with these recently recruited Guards which was a disgrace to the Guards. We had one of those men put to guard a man who was in danger and it was with the greatest difficulty that the comrades of that particular individual restrained him from murdering the man whose life he was supposed to protect. So much so, that the man whose life he was supposed to protect had to flee out of his own house to save himself from attack by an armed Guard who declared that it would break his heart if he could not shoot him. We had that matter raised in this House before and we had the explanation from the Minister that it was only one man. I should like to know what has been done to that one man and if he is still in the Guards. I should like also to know if the individual, who according to the finding of the Military Tribunal—because it is consistent with nothing else—dumped a gun in premises in Stephen's Green, is still in the Guards. Speciously as the Minister may attempt to answer it, nobody who looks at the finding of the Military Tribunal and considers the whole of the facts of that case can come to any other conclusion except that the Military Tribunal were perfectly satisfied that the gun was dumped for the purpose of a faked charge. We had another member of the detective force holding himself out in a very famous case, the case in which a charge was brought against Captain Quinn, and saying that with the authority of those over him he was deliberately acting as an agent provocateur.
The case is sub judice.
We would very much like to know what steps are being taken against these men who are disgracing the Guards. I have said and always will say, and I believe it as firmly as I can believe anything, that there is not a finer body of police in the world than the Civic Guards, and that the Civic Guards are perfectly competent to do their duty if they are only given a chance. The Civic Guards, however, cannot do their duty if they are being held back and restrained and prevented from doing their duty as Guards by orders that they get from the top. Not a single one of the uniformed Guards who were in Thomastown on that particular night but knows who the perpetrators of that outrage are. How can you have discipline in a force or observance of the law amongst the people if they see the Guards compelled to shut their eyes to the perpetration of acts of that nature?
But that is not all. I can go right through the whole administration of the law and show that it is administered entirely in one spirit; that one party can break the law with impunity and others cannot. The Minister for Justice has been very outspoken in his statements that it is the duty of the Guards to preserve order at public meetings, and that it is the duty of nobody else; that the Guards are perfectly competent to preserve order. I agree with the Minister. I believe that the Guards, where they are in force, and where they are properly handled, are able to preserve order at public meetings. When the Guards are in a position to preserve order at public meetings, and do in fact preserve order, then I think that the preservation of order at public meetings should be left to the Guards and nobody else. But, when the Guards are not there in sufficient force or, when although they are in sufficient force they are not doing their duty as Guards, I say it is absolutely and entirely wrong for them to prevent individuals who are at the meeting and who are willing to do their duty as citizens, to preserve order at that meeting.
I shall give the House a few concrete examples which came under my own notice. I was speaking at a meeting in the neighbourhood of Westport when an attempt was made to break up the meeting. Carrying out their common law duty, a considerable number of persons present at that meeting proceeded to preserve order. They were men wearing blue shirts, doing their duty as citizens of the State. The Superintendent of the Guards asked them not to do it; asked them to return to the meeting and said he would keep order. It took him at least half-an-hour before he restored anything like a semblance of quiet. Stones were being flung on that occasion, a number of them coming not very far away from where I was. The House will be very much surprised to hear that not one single prosecution was brought against the persons who were endeavouring to break up that meeting.
I will give another example. I was at another meeting in the very same area. There were no Guards there, but there were young men in blue shirts who endeavoured to carry out their duties as citizens. When an effort was made to break up the meeting they proceeded to restore order, and did it very efficiently and without any unnecessary violence. One of them got hit on the head with a stone, and one of the interrupters had his hand hurt rather severely. The Guards brought a prosecution, not against the persons who tried to break up the meeting, the political supporters of the Minister for Justice, but against the men who did their duty as citizens and preserved order so that the meeting could be held successfully. That is the way the law is being administered—not a prosecution against the wrong-doers, but against the men who carried out a duty which, if they had not carried it out, they could be prosecuted for, because it is an offence against the law, and I will quote the authority, for a person at a meeting, who witnesses a riot or a disturbance of the public peace, if he does not do all he can to restore peace. A very large meeting was held in Ballina, the Minister's town, and I suppose the disgraceful way in which the Guards were, I believe, compelled to act on that particular occasion, was due to the fact that it was the Minister's home town. There were men throwing stones for hours without let or hindrance by the Guards, and they were allowed to riot under the protection of the Guards. I expect that was due to the fact that it was the Minister's home town. Stones were flung from every corner. On two occasions the Blueshirts got through the cordon of Guards, who were protecting the stone-throwers, and they cleared away the attackers, who ran very fast; it required very little to make them run. As soon as the Blueshirts returned the Guards again formed their cordon, and from behind it the stones were flung once more, at least three of them reaching the platform. One of the stones struck a girl on the platform. There was no interference on the part of the Guards.
A procession was formed after the meeting. The ordinary thing would be to go down the main street to the hotel where the principal speakers were stopping. There was a very large force of Guards there, and the cordon was drawn across the main street and the procession was forced to go around—was asked to go around —through by-streets where the stone-throwing still continued, and two or three men were struck. I cannot understand anything more humiliating to the ordinary Guards than what I saw on that day. There were members of that fine force seeing the law broken, seeing stones thrown, and being compelled by their orders to remain under cover so as to escape from being hit themselves. They were held back by their orders from interfering with the persons who were rioting. The Minister said there were 250 Guards brought to Ballina that day. So far as preventing the rioting or the stone-throwing was concerned, if he ransacked the tombs of Egypt and got 250 mummies and dressed them in uniforms, they would have been just as satisfactory. As regards preserving the right of the supporters of the Minister for Justice to riot, the Guards were quite effective, and as far as they could prevent the Blueshirts from carrying out their obligations of keeping order, they did so.
The Minister has gone around this country talking some extremely bad law, and saying it is the duty of the Guards only to keep the peace, and that the Guards do not want any help. I will just read a passage to the House from a very well-known book, with which, I am sure, many Deputies are familiar. It is Dicey's "Law of the Constitution." On page 284 of the Eighth Edition there is the following passage:—
"Every subject, whether a civilian or a soldier, whether what is called a ‘servant of the Government,' such, for example, as a policeman or a person in no way connected with the administration, not only has the right, but is, as a matter of legal duty, bound to assist in putting down breaches of the peace. No doubt, policemen or soldiers are the persons who, as being specially employed in the maintenance of order, are most generally called upon to suppress a riot, but it is clear that all loyal subjects are bound to take their part in the suppression of riots.
"It is also clear that a soldier has, as such, no exemption from liability to the law for his conduct in restoring order. Officers, magistrates, soldiers, policemen, ordinary citizens, all occupying in the eye of the law the same position; they are each and all of them bound to withstand and put down breaches of the peace, such as riots and other disturbances; they are, each and all of them, authorised to employ so much force, even to the taking of life, as may be necessary for that purpose, and they are none of them entitled to use more; they are, each and all of them, liable to be called to account before a jury for the use of excessive, that is, of unnecessary force; they are each, it must be added—for this is often forgotten—liable, in theory at least, to be called to account before the courts for non-performance of their duty as citizens in putting down riots, though of course the degree and kind of energy which each is reasonably bound to exert in the maintenance of order may depend upon and differ with his position as officer, magistrate, soldier, or ordinary civilian. Whoever doubts these propositions should study the leading case of Rex v. Pinney, in which was fully considered the duty of the Mayor of Bristol in reference to the Reform Riots of 1831.”
Now, that is the law, and that is the old, common law. The duty of the citizen, just as the duty of the Guards, is much more severe under our constitution than it was when there was only the old common law in force, because now there is an express right of public meeting guaranteed by the constitution. I would like to press this matter.
On a point of order, Deputy Dillon, a few moments ago, drew attention to the fact that an arrangement had been made between the Chief Whips to have four speakers from the Opposition side and two from our side. Time is very valuable now, and I merely wish to remind Deputies of that arrangement in deference to which the Minister for Finance gave way.
I have spoken for something like a quarter of an hour——
Half-an-hour.
I began well after 1 o'clock. The Minister did not begin until five past one. It would be kind of Deputy Donnelly if he would wait until he heard my concluding remarks.
The point raised by the Deputy is not a point of order. The Chair cannot enforce any agreement.
There is an honourable undertaking, and that honourable undertaking I am going honourably to keep. As I said, if I had time at my disposal, I could elaborate these points very much further, and deal with many disgraceful incidents, like the baton charge at Ennis which caused the resolution of the Urban Council to be passed. I am not going to do so now. I say, if there is any genuine honesty in the statement made by the Minister for Justice, that he wants to preserve law and order, let him prove it. Personally, I do not know the officer who was in charge of the Guards in Ballina. But I say if the Minister is honest in the statements he makes, and if he is to be obeyed, as he ought to be obeyed, and not as a mere figurehead, he should indict that officer for the policy he pursued that night, and, whatever rank he holds, he should be asked to answer before a jury of his fellow-countrymen as to why he failed to perform his duty on that occasion.
There are one or two points that I want to refer to briefly. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has covered the ground fairly well, and has shown that, so far as law and order in this country are concerned, they have ceased to be. I do not want to refer at any length to recent occurrences in my own county of Tipperary. The House, and certainly the Minister, must be aware of the recent occurrences in South Tipperary, and of the disgraceful scenes that took place in Thurles about a fortnight ago. I have no hesitation in saying this: That whether the Minister is responsible, or whoever is responsible, the Guards in Tipperary are afraid to do their duty. I say that deliberately and coldly. There is no person in this House, or in the country, who has a greater admiration for the Guards than I have, but I say this— and there are members of the Force who will admit it, and who told me of it—that they were not allowed to do their duty in Thurles three weeks ago. The Minister knows quite well that the mob was allowed to run riot and to break the windows of the best and the most law-abiding citizens in Thurles, on that occasion. In every case where property was destroyed it was the property of people who did not see eye to eye with the present Government. Furthermore, motor cars which, for their protection, were left outside the barrack, were smashed by the mob, including, I am informed, though I cannot vouch for it, the car owned by the Chief Superintendent of the Garda in Tipperary.
The Chief Superintendent himself was struck, and I understand knocked unconscious. The Chief Superintendent before he was struck was not ten yards away from some of those people armed with bottles and bricks and stones, and my information is that he refused, even when the Guards themselves admitted that the Blue Shirts had dispersed, to order the Guards to defend themselves. It was only after he had been assaulted, and rendered unconscious, that the Guards, in self-defence, without any order, made a baton charge. The Chief Superintendent was not the only member of the Garda that was injured on that occasion. So far as I know, notwithstanding the fact that the ringleaders of that mob were quite well known to the authorities, and that those directly responsible, and who actually broke windows and destroyed other property of decent citizens, were known to the authorities, there has not been a single arrest or a single person charged. I am entitled to ask, as one of the representatives of that county, whether the decent people of Thurles are to get protection from the Force supposed to be there for the protection of their lives and property.
One other matter. I listened to-day to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and heard him trot out the old story we have heard so often in this House about the conspiracy against the payment of rates. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government are apparently not as well advised on this matter as they should be. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health, some months ago, issued a circular to local authorities on the question of payment and non-payment of rates. The names of the members of the different councils who had not paid their rates were to be published. Because of the action of this democratic Government we have only one County Council in Tipperary now.
One is enough for you.
I agree: it is too much.
Of the type.
I do not want to go into that now. But the fact is that there were five members of the North Tipperary County Council who had not paid their rates, and they were not supporters of the United Ireland Party.
Deputy Belton has already talked nonsense for 35 minutes this morning.
In connection with the publication of the names, as stated by Deputy Morrissey, I understand instructions from the Minister were to have the names forwarded to him and not to have them published. It would also be interesting to know when some of the members of the United Ireland Party hope to pay their rates, and it would be interesting to know whether they got a private tip to do so.
Deputy Ryan attributes to me much more influence than I have. The Minister did not give me any tip. The Deputy's grievance apparently is not that they did not pay their rates, but that their names were published. I think it is a good thing that they were published. Are we to understand that the Fianna Fáil supporters are joined in this conspiracy?
Mr. Ryan
Did not the Deputy join in the campaign?
I know nothing about any such campaign and, speaking for myself, I say that every man should pay his rates.
Dr. Ryan
Deputy Morrissey denies that there is any conspiracy not to pay rates in Tipperary. Does he deny that the leaders of his Party in Thurles threatened the rate collector and does he deny that the threat was carried into effect?
That is a matter I do not want to go into now, because the case is sub judice and the Ceann Comhairle would not allow me to deal with it if I attempted to do so. So far as I am personally concerned, I want to make my position clear. I believe that every man has the responsibility to pay his rates and that he should pay them. So far as I am concerned, I have no hand, act, or part in any conspiracy not to pay rates, if such exists.
Ask Deputy Belton.
I can only speak for myself, and so far as I know there is no such conspiracy, and certainly I would not be a party to it. However, I want to get back to my point, which, apparently, is rather—shall I say—not acceptable. The fact is that there were only five members of the North Tipperary Council who had not paid their rates, and they were supporters of Fianna Fáil.
The first matter that Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney dealt with was the matter he raised on a question yesterday about ex-Commandant Cronin. The usual insinuations and innuendoes that have been made by the Opposition from time to time were resorted to again, of course. He said that certain circumstances happened in a certain way and tried, by innuendo, to bring the charge home to the Superintendent in charge. Under cover of the privileges of this House, such a charge should not be made. If it is to be made in this House, it should be based on evidence that can be substantiated. I will read a paragraph from that Superintendent's report which deals with the matter. It reads as follows:—
"At about 2 a.m., as the dance was terminating, revolver shots were reported to have been fired in the vicinity of the Hall. A short time after the shots being fired, ex-Commandant Cronin and ex-Captain Quinn approached me and requested me to investigate who fired the shots. I asked ex-Commandant Cronin did he know who fired the shots. He replied that he had information as to who fired them but he declined to give me the name of the person concerned. I was then requested by Cronin to have all police guns examined immediately and informed him that I knew my duty and that if he wanted to make any allegations against the members of "S" Branch, he had better accompany me to the barracks; but this he declined to do, stating that he could not leave his wife out in the cold all night. In fairness to "S" Branch, I examined all guns and satisfied myself that the shots were not fired out of any weapon in the possession of such members on duty."
What happened there was that ex-Commandant Cronin comes along and, in his ultra-patriotism, issues a statement to the English newspapers to try to lay this thing at the door of Irishmen and to slander Irishmen, and he circulates this to the English newspapers. What I say is that all those circumstances, and other circumstances that I cannot go into now, point to this being a well-prepared stunt carried out by ex-Commandant Cronin himself.
For the Morning Post.
We have only to see the line he has been following on for some time, and the speeches made in connection with these seizures of cattle, for evidence of that. Speaking at a meeting on the release of Mr. J.J. Dwyer, of Ballinure, on the 14th July, 1934, he says:—
"We have members of the police force ear-marked, and when we get into power we will know how to deal with them, to relegate them to their proper place. I warn the police now that any of them that are doing the dirty work for a tyrannical Government will find themselves where they are now trying to put others."
What is that report from?
This was in Tipperary. When he makes a speech in Tipperary he tries to deal with the Guards there.
Does the Minister suggest that the Guards were doing dirty work, and that Guards firing on the people should not be dealt with by the Government?
Any Guards guilty of such things have been dealt with. I know what Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is referring to, and I will come to that later. He goes on further with his speech as follows:—
"If we are persecuted and driven to it, we may have to resort to arms, and what we did in three months in 1922 we can do again and teach them a lesson they will never forget."
I wonder is that the policy of the people opposite? Do they want them to resort to the use of arms?
We are deadly opposed to the use of arms.
Well then, get ex-Commandant Cronin to change his Party. He goes on further to state in the same speech:—
"De Valera had spoken about dictatorship, but I say here to-night, if a dictatorship is necessary for the Irish people, we are going to have one."
What is this speech and extract from?
This is a shorthand note taken of his speech.
This is taken by one of the new police?
Not by one of the new policemen, but by a man who served under you as Minister.
Well, I should like to know who he is.
Was the note taken by a police officer?
Yes, by a police officer on the spot.
It is very curious that the newspapers have not got it.
There was a reference here to another Guard down in Cork in connection with a man he was protecting. When that was brought to the notice of the authorities that man was not allowed to remain 24 hours in the Force.
Is he still in the Force?
No.
Why did not the Guards prosecute him?
The question I was asked by the Deputy was, was he in the Force still.
Why was he not prosecuted?
The man was adequately dealt with in a disciplinary way. I am not going to go into all the pros and cons of the matter—I have not the file with me as a matter of fact—but the case was very far from being what Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney says it was.
It was much worse.
I understated it.
References have been made to Naas, and there was some talk about a resolution by the urban council. That urban council is not there at present. It was soon changed.
The Minister's own supporters on the urban council supported the resolution.
This is one of the boards you won at the local elections!
Attacks have been made as to baton charges having taken place there and so on, and they come back again with the suggestion that there is no question of any conspiracy against the payment of annuities or rates. That is the case made by the Opposition all the time. I have a number of reports showing that a conspiracy exists. We have it in such widely different districts as the Cobh district, the Cahir and Clonmel districts, and the Waterford district. In all those big districts you had, when seizures were being carried out, all the roads blocked with felled trees and so on, over a big area, the lorries conveying the cattle ambushed along the roads, and all the usual tactics of a so-called constitutional Party that has turned around to what it is now. These are constitutional methods, I suppose, and there is no question of a conspiracy against the payment of annuities! I have a report here from the Cork Examiner to show what is going on. I have a letter from a sheriff to-day where, when he went out yesterday to seize cattle, church bells were rung, couriers were sent out, and so on. I say that it is going a bit too far and that it is too disgraceful— and I challenge the people opposite to deny it—when they have to use church bells to prevent the law being carried out.
I say that if any person breaks the law in this country, that person should be made amenable to the law.
Well then, why does the Deputy attack the Guards?
I think that the Minister is bound to deal with any body that breaks the law.
The Deputy was not interrupted when he was speaking.
The challenge was flung out to me and I took it up.
The Cork Examiner of the 8th August, 1934, says:—
"Cattle Seizures? Unfounded Stories cause excitement in Bandon. Our Bandon correspondent 'phoned yesterday afternoon:—The people of Bandon awoke yesterday to find an atmosphere of excitement prevailing in the streets. Throughout the early morning groups of men were located at all points leading into the town. Strong rumours of cattle seizures for rent expected to be carried out gave rise to the commotion. Bodies of farmers and young men arrived in the town in cars and lorries in the early hours. Seizures of cattle from highly respectable farmers in the vicinity of the town, it was believed, were to have taken place, but so far no seizures were made. Rumour also had it that cattle had been removed to prevent seizure. No attempt has, however, been made at seizures, and it would appear that a false alarm was raised. The excitement prevailing during the morning hours abated towards midday and the groups that had taken up positions in the vicinity of the railway station cleared away."
That is the worst the Minister could say.
How did all those bodies of men get in to Bandon in cars and lorries if there is not some conspiracy? And then you will notice that touch of the Cork Examiner about those “highly respectable farmers.”
It is only rumoured that they came in—the whole paragraph is made up of rumours.
The men were there; the newspaper says so. The men were there under the impression that the cattle were to be seized.
The crowds of men were not there.
I do not know whether the Cork Examiner is a reliable paper or a rag, but I put this to you: that they published in that paper the statement that they took that telephone message from their correspondent in Bandon.
To show the place was full of rumours.
Fighting with brains instead of brawn.
We find down the country where seizures were made that at a meeting at Fedamore, in the County Limerick, on the 23rd July, 1934, that Mr. Quish, speaking there after a sale at a pound, made a statement. By the way, the cattle at that sale had been bought in by Deputy Bennett at a little more than the amount of the decree. Mr. Quish, speaking after the sale, said:
"I say this, and I understand fully what I say, we used guns before and, if necessary, we will use them again on the John Browns. The Government are a crowd of Spaniards, Jews, and Manxmen. If necessary we will use the guns again to redeem the people."
Another gentleman speaking there at the same meeting—and these are prominent members of the constitutional Party who occupy those benches over there—goes back to the county council and says about them:
"These are the men who are now about to strike a rate. I went behind the ditches and shot innocent members of the R.I.C., but I did not yet go behind them to shoot the John Browns or the bailiffs, but the time is approaching when action will have to be taken and we will have to shoot the John Browns."
What is this document from which the Minister is reading?
It is a police shorthand note of these speeches. I suppose Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney would prefer a newspaper report, he would have an idea that the Guards——
Any Guard who is properly trained, and who is out to do his duty is all right.
The Deputy then goes on and attacks the Guards.
I did not attack the Guards, but I attack the Minister's administration of the Gárda Síochána.
The ex-Minister lays down here his conception of the law and he quotes us passages from Professor Dicey. I have here the report of a speech by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, on the 23rd June, 1934. Is this the way in which Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney interprets the law, or is this the way in which he thinks the law should be interpreted by the people over whom he has some control? Here is what Deputy Dr. O'Higgins says, as reported in the Leinster Leader:—
"They were going on the offensive, and if Blueshirt meetings were to be broken up, then the next time Mr. de Valera held a meeting that would also be broken up."
Is that in conformity with Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's exposition of the law?
Retaliation is not allowed by law.
Then the Deputy repudiates Deputy O'Higgins who threatened to break up meetings.
If he made that statement. Such a thing is not justified in law.
You do not approve then of that statement as reported in the Leinster Leader?
I do not approve of the use of violence nor the breaking up of meetings by any persons and I wish that the Minister would say the same.
Then the Deputy does not approve of a statement like that being made by people who would be considered responsible?
Would the Minister and the Deputy tell the Chair all about it?
Here is what Deputy O'Higgins went on to say:—
"They would see that every man could express his opinion in public without fear. They did not want any blackguardism, but if there was and if the other side broke gobs then they would also break gobs. They had the material and they would use it."
What is that about gobs?
Ask Deputy Dr. O'Higgins about it. I have had his explanation as to the meaning.
Will the Minister tell us whether he will prosecute those who broke up the Ballina meeting?
I will say nothing about the Ballina meeting; a number of prosecutions are pending in that case and the same thing arises in the Thurles case.
Is the superintendent being prosecuted?
I suppose every superintendent should be prosecuted who would not act according to the ideas of the people on the other side, every superintendent who does not act the blackguard should be prosecuted.
Every superintendent who acts the blackguard should be prosecuted.
I have quoted there from speeches made by people very prominent in the United Ireland Party organisation, and those are the people who want to interpret for us the way the Guards are to carry out their duty. If the Guards were to carry out their duty according to the conception of those people, then the Guards would, undoubtedly, be acting the blackguard.
They are acting the blackguard when they prevent your supporters from rioting—that is your conception of them.
If the Deputy's conception was right it is anarchy and chaos you would have in the country.
And we have them under your administration.
That is the reason the Deputy's Party have their organisation at present trying to prevent the collection of rates and annuities.
Does the Minister stand behind rioting at public meetings?
The Deputy should not allow his zeal to outrun his discretion. He should not continually interrupt.
The Minister is dodging the issue.
Does not anybody realise how difficult it is for the Guards to control a meeting of Blueshirts or United Ireland Party people when one sees the example they get here in the House from Deputies like Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney? Imagine trying to master disorder at a public meeting if you had 500 or 600 people acting in the same way as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is here, if you had them acting without any regard for order. Supposing the Guards had to deal with a crowd of the same mentality as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, would they not have a difficult task and be in a difficult position?
It would be very hard to take a shorthand note of such a meeting.
Anybody can easily understand and appreciate the position when you have people of the same mentality as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney trying to create disorder at a meeting.
I declare the Dáil adjourned until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, the 14th November. Deputies, of course, will understand that it may be necessary to reassemble the House in the meantime to deal with any amendments which may be made by the Seanad in the Bills now being sent them.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 14th November.