I move that the Dáil do now adjourn until Wednesday, 4th November.
Adjournment Motion.
Does the Minister mean that the debate may proceed until midnight?
If the House wishes.
It may proceed until midnight-that is definite?
Yes.
I doubt if the House, within the last couple of years, has ever been asked to adjourn in a period of greater uncertainty. The adjournment will be for the space of some months, months that in many ways, as we are led to believe, may be decisive for the future of this country. There is uncertainty in practically every sphere affecting the lives of citizens; uncertainty as to the future national status of the country; uncertainty as to the economic prospect that faces the country and, if possible, more uncertainty than usual on the fate of the principal industry of the country. It seems to have been the deliberate policy of the Government for a number of years to foster such uncertainty. I will admit that before they came into office, and also during their tenure of office, as a political Party they have battened to a certain extent on it. It seems to have been their policy to do nothing to allay but to do everything to increase that uncertainty. It is an uncertainty that is extremely unhealthy.
If you turn your attention to the economic war, if you read the statements recently made by the Vice-President and by his nominal chief, who really is the one man in the Government so far as these things are concerned, namely, the President, can anyone tell the policy of the Government? I know the Vice-President on all occasions, especially for the last couple of years, has encouraged the idea that there is going to be a settlement. On the other hand, except the facts have become definitely established, and the people can physically, so to say, see the negotiations going on, the President denies the existence of any negotiations. What is the present position so far as that most important of all problems for this country is concerned? Members of the Government challenge other Parties on their policy, but they are the Government and they refuse to give any indication of their policy in any of the vital issues that confront the country. You cannot judge what their policy is either from their statements or from their actions.
The Vice-President, as usual, hints, almost states, that we are on the eve of a most magnificent settlement. We have had that type of statement for nearly four years. That statement is immediately blown upon by the President, who, at the most, asks the people to be satisfied with a vague promise that he will make a good settlement. When? Surely the time has come, now that this war has been on four years, to let the people know on what lines he intends to settle, to let the people know what are the obstacles that prevent him from settling, why it is that he is apparently unable to meet the desires, not merely of the country but of people high placed in his own Party, for a settlement. I am there assuming that the statements of the Vice-President, if they do not represent fact, at least represent good will on his part on this question of a settlement.
Turn to their agricultural policy and you have the same uncertainty. What is the attitude of the Department of Agriculture—I mean the present Minister for Agriculture and, perhaps, even still more correctly I could say the Government, speaking through the Minister—what is their policy as regards the cattle industry? At one period we were told they stood for an increase in the number of cattle and, a short time afterwards, we were told that that was the wrong policy, that we must have less cattle. Now, we have a statement from the Minister boasting that he is exporting more cattle than ever. What is the policy? Is it not the deliberate tactics of the Government to play fast and loose, not merely with the resources, the prosperity and the safety of the country, but with the credulity of the country? Again and again with cynical indifference, with cynical contempt, they have dangled the carrots before the Irish people. That is the way the Government Party at least look at it— dangling a carrot; that is the way they regard the Irish people. We have promise after promise in all these major issues, but no effort to fulfil them. All this policy is supposed to be subordinate to their great policy of establishing the national status, but can anybody tell what their policy even in that connection is? What do they want for this country and how are they going to achieve it?
I admit that the present Government can go to limits which we would hardly expect even from them. I think it was last week-end I saw in the papers that the Minister for Finance challenged the republicans as to what they wanted. Did they want a republic for the twenty-six counties? Was their policy a republic for the thirty-two counties, and if so how were they going to achieve it? Were they going to make war on Ulster in order to achieve it? From his military knowledge, he demonstrated the futility of a policy of that kind. Remember, this is a question being put by the body which claims to be the Government, by a Minister of the Government, an important member of what claims to be the largest Party in this State, to what they regard as an unimportant faction. Those are the very questions which have been put up to themselves again and again and which they have always refused to answer. A couple of days after the Minister for Finance flung that challenge to the republicans of Wexford, a question was put to the President in this House about what his policy was as regards the status of this country in the future, and the only answer which could be got from him was "wait and see." Yet, the Minister for Finance could challenge the republicans to answer those questions which he himself and his chief refused to answer. There is deliberate uncertainty. There is refusal to let the people of Ireland, whom they pretend to serve, into whatever secrets they have-if they have any-about the future status of this country.
What is to be our attitude towards the Commonwealth? They have been asked that question again and again. They have been asked it by the members of this Party, and by other members of this House who do not belong to this Party. The same question in a different form, approached from a different angle if you like, has been put to them by the Republicans. They refuse to answer. Their policy is: "Wait and see." They can challenge the unimportant faction which has the impertinence to oppose them in Wexford, namely the Republican Party, as to what the Republican answer is to those questions. But they themselves, even though they are the Government, even though it is their business, before it is anybody's business, to formulate a policy, have refused to formulate a policy. No matter where you turn, in all the principal items of policy you have nothing but uncertainty. If the question is plainly put to them whether they intend to avail of the advantages that ought to be got from membership of the British Commonwealth of Nations no answer can be got. The Republicans can get no answer; Fine Gael can get no answer, and of course they would not think of answering the Labour Party. They know there is no necessity to do that. The most they would get from the Labour Party is a friendly warning, as Deputy Davin on one occasion gave them.
But have they a policy? If they have a policy, do they think it in keeping with their new professions of democracy that they should conceal that policy longer than is necessary from the people of this country? We all read, with a certain amount of satisfaction from one point of view, a statement made by the President of the Executive Council some days ago in Galway. May I say straight away that I regard that statement, the mere issuing of that statement, the sentiments conveyed and the principles laid down in it, as important, and it was well that these principles have been laid down. I think that the State—perhaps even the Party in the long run-has reason to congratulate itself that at last that statement was made. I do not criticise it on the grounds that it could have been put together, every single sentence of it, by the use of the scissors and the paste, from the speeches made by the members who now sit on this side of the House when they were members of the Government. I do not think there is a single paragraph, a single sentence, in that statement of the President that could not have been taken, word for word, from the statements and from the enunciations of policy of their predecessors in office. I hope that the fact that that statement is made, not so much by the President of the Executive Council as by the head of the Fianna Fáil Party, even in the year 1936, is for the advantage of the country. But if I look upon that statement as an important statement, and if I welcome it as an advance, surely it is all the greater criticism on that Party and on the leader of that Party that we had to wait until 1936 for this excellent enunciation of those excellent principles.
It clears the way for the coalition, does it not?
Hear, hear.
I am dealing with what I consider an important contribution to the political life of this country. I cannot misinterpret the Deputy in the rather ludicrous fashion in which the Minister for Finance misunderstood his interruption yesterday evening, but I cannot take his interruptions too seriously. It is important that that statement should have been made, but I repeat that I know no more severe criticism of that Party, and of the head of that Party, and of his leadership in politics in this country, than we are able to greet the statement as an important contribution, that we have to wait until the year 1936 for that particular enunciation of principles. I am taking it at its face value. The testing time will come for that Party and for the man who made that enunciation of principle— not when he himself has the majority, but when other people have the majority. Let us hope that he will then have the same reverence for those principles which he has for them now that he has the majority and now that he is head of the Government. If we could be sure of that, there would be a tremendous advance made in the political life of this country. But I am just a bit uneasy, and for this reason: I remember in a debate in this House, when he was President, the same leader stated from the Front Bench opposite that he was in favour of and stood by the principles of democracy and majority rule. That was a statement which I was remarkably glad to hear on that occasion, but it made me very uneasy when he followed up that statement with the further statement that he had always stood for that principle of majority rule. Well, if he is going to honour those principles enunciated two days ago in the same way as he had frequently honoured majority rule, then the statement has not the full value that I should like it to have. Still, taking the statement as it is, it is now laid down— and I attach the greater importance to it precisely owing to the extraordinary history of that particular Party in this matter—that resistance by force of arms to the lawfully established Government here has no justification. In the matter of inflammatory speeches, in the matter of carelessness of words which may mislead the youth, the enunciation that no body of men have a right to use force against the lawfully established Government of this country we have a statement of sound principle, and the fact that that statement comes from a Party that for so long had scant respect for these principles makes it all the more important. "The sad thing," he says, "about the present position is that people who may be regarded as responsible and who are old enough to have experience and sense come out on public platforms and, in the most irresponsible manner, use language the effect of which must be to incite young people to a course of action that could have no other end but that of bloodshed and anarchy"—a perfectly sound piece of advice, and all the more telling, coming from the quarter from which it comes; all the more telling and valuable when we remember the number of times we had cause to complain that, however logically certain language might be explained away, the effect on the young could have been only one thing, and that is the actual thing that had occurred—bloodshed.
We have, as I say, a position of uncertainty. There is one—just one— slight solace in the mass of uncertainty that the country is facing at the present moment, and that is the uncertainty that the Government itself is facing. From the point of view of the country that is, if I might quote from a statesman whom the Government seems now to honour by copying the author of "Wait and See"—the one bright spot—the uncertainty as I say— the more than uncertainty, if that is a permissible expression—of the Government position itself. There is uncertainty created everywhere. There is uncertainty in business as a result of this continuous interference; an interference that has grown by leaps and bounds; that has increased, so to speak, with compound interest since the Government came into office. So far as the business of this country is concerned, whether it be agriculture, horse-breeding, manufacture, salesmanship, and so on, the one idea of the Government is that they are not doing their duty unless they interfere. The very challenge they sometimes issue to their opponents—"What did you do for so-and-so when you were in power?"—betrays their type of mind. They cannot let things alone. They think they are neglecting their duty if they are not interfering. We see that everywhere.
This afternoon we were dealing with the Fifth Stage of a Bill, and, with all respect, despite the different statements I have heard, that Bill does create uncertainty so far as land tenure is concerned. Not merely does that Bill do it, but the statement made by the present Minister for Lands increases that uncertainty. I ask the members of the House, when the country sees certain powers taken by the Land Commission, powers which undoubtedly, whatever may be said about it, do interfere and do trench upon fixity of tenure in a way that has not been done before, or, to avoid controversy, to a greater extent than has been done before—when they see that and connect that up with statements made again and again, not on one occasion merely, not in a mere burst of eloquence such as one might expect from the Minister for Finance, but apparently a deliberate statement made time and again by the Minister for Lands, the man who is responsible for lands at the present moment, about taking land from the people if they do not work it properly—how can there be anything except growing uncertainty in the minds of the ordinary farmers of this country in that respect? They say they need these powers in order to deal with some abuses that they say are present, but what they do not realise is that they are undermining a principle that is more important than the remedies that they themselves are suggesting. That is a thing they never can grasp either here or in anything else. In order to have an immediate gain, or, if you like to put it from their point of view, in order to remedy an evil that is obvious for the moment, they will undermine a principle the undermining of which will mean a tremendous amount of damage and loss to this country in the long run. That is what they are doing as regards the land.
It is not a question as to how much has been done up to the present. It is the question that, as a result of what is now being done and as a result of the statements made by the Ministers of the Government, you have, naturally, a fear as to where it is going to stop. Even a Deputy this evening who defended that policy said that there was no other question on which he got so many letters from his constituency. What does that prove? It proves the very danger of opening the gate. Everybody who is familiar with life in this country knows perfectly well that it is the very land scarcity and the very land hunger evidenced by these letters, to which a reference was made even by a Deputy defending the Bill, that in itself is a proof of the danger of interfering with the principle at all. Once start interfering with that principle and you cannot stop.
They interfered under the 1923 Act.
They did not. Excuse me, Deputy. The 1923 Land Purchase Act did what all other Land Purchase Acts attempted to do, and it had the purpose of definitely saying that when a man had his land vested he was secured in the ownership of that land. The Land Purchase Acts were the culminating point of a long attempt to settle the land question in this country, and the basis of the settlement—the fundamental principle of the settlement—was that once land was vested the farmer was the owner of that land and he could not be disturbed. The principle was not disturbed in 1923—the principle that once the land was vested the farmer was the owner of the land and could not be disturbed. The 1923 Act had the same fundamental principle as all the other Land Acts, and it is a great mistake to hint, as was partly hinted this evening, that even landlords recognise that there is no absolute right in property. To equate the system of landlordism in this country, which was inherently vicious, and proved itself in practice to be particularly vicious, with ownership by farmers is completely unsound. When such a comparison is even hinted at, no wonder the farmers grow uneasy.
As I say, we have this interference everywhere. I understand that there is a little controversy going on at the present moment between the Labour Party and the Government. It generally occurs only at by-elections, so possibly we need not attribute too much importance to it. We, on this side of the House, have often had to call attention to one particular fact, and that is that no matter what the intentions of the Government were, no matter what the individual views of the members of the Government were, the policy that they were adopting was, or at least —shall I put it more accurately—portions of their policy were, if not leading to Communism, at least making smooth the way to Communism.
I think that is clear. It has always been clear to me, especially so far as their policy in the opening years is concerned. Their statements are a little more careful now; I am not aware, however, that their action so far as land is concerned has improved. But we were always scoffed at by the President when we pointed out that danger. I think the scoffing was joined in by the Labour Party even.
You think!
I might as well, because the Labour Party never does. We now have a member of the Government and the leader of the Labour Party at loggerheads as to which of them is the Communist. The Attorney-General warns Deputy Norton, and I presume he knew why he thought it necessary to issue a warning. We must assume that the Attorney-General of the Government so loyally supported by the Labour Party, with which the Labour Party has been in such close touch for a number of years, knew what he was talking about. He warns the Labour Party of the dangers of Communism and of the path they are treading towards the united front. What is the challenge thrown out by the leader of the Labour Party who ought to be in a position to know since he has been in close touch with the Government Party for a number of years, giving them advice and friendly warnings occasionally? What is his answer? That he knows as a fact that members of that Party have trucked with the Communist Parties in other countries.
Will the Deputy quote the words?
I do not know whether I have the actual Press issue here. If I have I shall quote them; if I have not I shall not; but I can tell the Deputy where he can find them. He will find it in the Independent's“Late News” of yesterday or the day before. There a challenge is thrown out by Deputy Norton to the Attorney-General to deny that. Does the Attorney-General know that there were members of his Party who had that communication with Communists in other lands? Did Deputy Norton all these years know that?
Do you know that your people were associated with the same persons?
No, never.
Ask Deputy Cosgrave.
I never heard they were.
Surely Deputy Davin is not assenting to that statement?
He apparently is. Am I to assume that the Labour Party knew there were negotiations going on between members of the Government Party and the Communist Parties in other lands?
Ask Deputy Mulcahy.
You can attack people who are absent. It is very easy to attack people who are absent. I have never heard that any member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party ever entered into any negotiations with any such body.
Deputy Mulcahy made the charges in this House.
That members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party entered into negotiations?
That members on the Government Benches were in touch with certain people at certain times.
I am dealing with the challenge that was thrown out by the Deputy's Leader. We did not support a Party partly composed of Communists through all these years as the Deputy's Party professedly did.
You are getting off the ice now.
He is putting you on it.
All those years with that knowledge in their possession they supported that Party. It is a pretty controversy. Let them decide it between them. The Attorney-General has his opportunity this evening and Deputy Norton has his of meeting the Attorney-General here where they can have it out between them. We are waiting to know whether they will avail of that opportunity. There is plenty of time for that to be decided by the two Deputies who can make the charges facing each other. On the economic war all the country is asked to do is to solace itself with the prophecy that there is going to be a good bargain. Are you making it? "No!" When are you making it? "Wait and see!"
You are going to have a Constitution. Is it going to be Republican? "Wait and see." Is it going to be within the Dominions? "Wait and see." Every other Party must have definitely made up its mind, but the only Party that refuses to give any information to the country is the Government Party. The Vice-President is here. In the goodness of his heart, having the welfare of the country at heart, he was apparently misled into a statement that we were on the eve of a good bargain—negotiations were going on and should not be interfered with. I have excused that statement on his part, because I recognise that he realised that such a bargain is necessary to the country. I think the Vice-President, although he occasionally waves the Republican as distinct from the Dominion tricolour—and it is not easy always to know which particular one he is waving—does recognise that a settlement is necessary. Any statements he has ever made seem to show that, and any statements he has ever been asked to explain away seem to show that. He is in charge of the House this evening. Are we to take his view that we are on the eve of that settlement, and that steps will be taken to lead to that good settlement immediately, and is the President completely ignorant of what is going on? Those are questions on which he ought to enlighten the mind of the country. After all there are few things in which the country is more interested. I firmly believe that the bulk of the people at the moment are much more interested in this than they are in the Constitution-mongering with which the Minister's Party are trying to befool the country. But not even in the Constitution situation will they give any lead or will they tell the country what their policy is. Is that sound? Is it wise at a time of unrest in the country, unrest with which they themselves have had to deal, to keep the country in that position? There was a statement made yesterday by the Minister for Education, acting for the moment as Minister for Industry and Commerce. "Public psychology," he said, "is the most important element in insurance." Deputy Flinn finds it apparently difficult to understand it, but I can assure Deputy Flinn that that is the statement. I agree with it. Confidence, that feeling of confidence which the people ought to have, is of great value. Can anybody say that the Government is promoting that feeling of confidence in any important sphere of public life in this country at present? Is it not doing the very opposite? Here are a few of the main questions the country is faced with; and only a few. I mention them merely because I think they are indicative of the policy of the Government in every sphere. I ask members of all Parties to consider, not what I have said, but to consider these questions, because they are the questions in which I believe the people are interested and about which the people ought to know the mind of the Government. After all this is the place to find out the views of the Government on any of these important matters, but in all of them we have failed up to the present to find out what their views are—if they have any views.
Does Deputy Davin want the actual quotation from Deputy Norton?
Read it for him anyway.
Quote your political bible, the Independent.
Do I understand that the Deputy is repudiating this statement as being incorrect?
No.
Then what value has his remark?
I have heard of the statement.
The Deputy has not seen it?
Go on; put it on record.
"Labour," added Mr. Norton replying to the criticism of Mr. Conor Maguire, Attorney-General, "knew the dangers of Communism, and had never had any association with it. I publicly challenge the Attorney-General," he said, "to say the same about some members of the Fianna Fáil Party who have openly trucked with Communism and openly advocated it inside and outside this country."
That is perfectly definite at all events. It may be that the Deputy seems partly anxious to suggest that Deputy Norton never said it.
Deputy Mulcahy made the same statement in this House less than two years ago.
May I point out that we never gave our support to that Party opposite. The Labour Party has given consistent support to that Party—now denounced as in part Communist—notwithstanding statements of that kind.
I read with a certain amount of concern, and I am sure other Deputies are in the same position, the recent rather hysterical speeches made by the President, and by some of the Ministers, in connection with matters on which I would like to have more information, and which, I think, are pertinent to the discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment. We all read with a great deal of regret the sensational speech, or as it was described to me by some Fianna Fáil supporters, the Hamar Greenwood speech, made by the Minister for Finance in Balbriggan during the course of the recent City and County Dublin municipal elections. The part of that speech that I want to refer to is a statement that I think was never previously made by any Minister in any Government in this or any other country, in which he dealt with the pending trial of a prisoner, then in the hands of the Government, and prejudged, apparently correctly, the decision of the Military Tribunal concerning that prisoner. We also had threatening speeches made by the President. The people were threatened with a general election if they did not maintain for him the clear majority in this House which he held up to recently, but which he lost as a result of the resignation of one Deputy in his Party. In some of the speeches made by the President he referred to the Constitution which he said would be produced to this House during the autumn session, and submitted to the people at the next general election. In the course of another speech concerning the Constitution the President said it was likely to be referred to the people by way of referendum. I am just mentioning these two rather conflicting statements of the President, for the purpose of ascertaining from whoever replies, what the present policy of the Government is in connection with the Constitution.
Has the Government made up its mind to restore the referendum machinery in the Constitution? We all remember that on one occasion, shortly after the Fianna Fáil Party entered this House, they rightly endeavoured to make use of the referendum machinery then in existence for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the electorate upon an important question. The then Government Party, now the Opposition, took the necessary steps at that time to remove the referendum machinery from the Constitution, and we had very strong protests from Deputy de Valera, as he then was, and a very definite assurance, on many occasions, that if he was in office the referendum machinery would be restored to the Constitution. I want to know quite definitely whether it is the intention of the Government to refer the Constitution, when it passes through this House in the autumn, or during some coming Session, to refer it to the people by way of referendum, or whether it is the intention to mix up such an important question with many others that have to be referred to the people during a general election. Although my colleagues may not agree with me, I think one of the greatest blunders that was made was that the Treaty was not referred at a particular period to the people, and their wishes on it taken. I dare say that if the Treaty had been referred to the people at the time, we would have avoided the consequences of the terrible civil war that followed. At the time the majority of the members of the Dáil decided to accept the Treaty. I am very definitely in favour of referring all major political matters, and particularly a matter which only arises once in a generation, to the people, to enable them to say yes or no on big political issues of that kind. I wonder do the President and his colleagues think it is necessary that the Fianna Fáil Party, as a Party, should maintain a clear majority over all other Parties in the House, in order to complete their political and economic programmes.
As far as I could read from recent speeches of some of our new political leaders, there is very little difference between them. If one takes up the speeches of Professor Hogan in Galway and the speeches of Fianna Fáil speakers, or of the Minister for Local Government, there is very little, if any, difference between the Fine Gael and the Fianna Fáil Parties on some big political issues that are now being discussed. From statements made yesterday by Professor Hogan— made I am sure with the authority of his leader, Deputy Cosgrave—he welcomes the coming together of the two main Parties. May I express the hope, which I am sure is the hope of a big section of the electorate, that that very desirable coalition will take place in the near future. There are many things in common between those who sit on the Government and on the Opposition Benches. Many things promised the people by both Parties were never fulfilled. The old Sinn Féin Party of which all front bench Deputies on both sides were members promised town tenants when we got freedom that they would get everything they were looking for. Deputy Cosgrave was head of the Government for ten years, and during his term of office nothing was done for the town tenants. When in opposition, members of the present Government promised to do for town tenants what Deputy Cosgrave was not then willing to do. We had a remarkable statement from the Minister for Finance some time ago, definitely stating that it was not the intention of the Government, during its term of office, to bring in any measure making provision for the purchase of their houses by town tenants, and a majority vote to back that was secured at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. There are many other matters, affecting the well-being of sections of the people, on which both Parties could agree, and the sooner they come together and do many of the things they promised in the past the better it will be for the electors as a whole. Personally, I welcome some of the statements made recently by some of our new political leaders, and I hope it is an indication of a change for the better on the part of those who have been pretending to speak—Deputy Dillon for instance—for the Opposition Party.
Before the Government took office they promised that they had a very definite plan which they were prepared to put into operation for the purpose of solving the unemployment problem. I want to know from whatever Minister replies on behalf of the Government, if they are satisfied that they have made any progress along the lines which they said they had for solving this problem before they took office. On March 24th of this year there were 140,000 persons registered at the local labour exchanges. Speaking at Enniscorthy the other day the Minister for Agriculture said that the Government had done its best to try to find employment for the people who were willing to work. He went on and made the remarkable statement that while waiting for employment they saw to it, to use his own words, that anybody who could not find employment was not left in want. I wonder was the Minister for Agriculture conscious of some of the things that he voted for in this House during the last three or four months. He voted for a period Order, made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce some months ago, and as a result of that Order coming into operation no less than 72,000 persons were removed from the list of those entitled to maintenance under the Unemployment Assistance Act. On May 25th the number on the register, as the result of the operation of the First Period Order, was 109,000, and on August 4th that number was reduced to 69,000. I want to know from the Minister, or from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who was once described in this House as the Minister for Unemployment, whether the 72,000 persons who have been removed off the register as a result of the two Period Orders, have found useful work, and if so, for how long?
The Minister for Industry and Commerce in defending the bringing into operation of the two Period Orders definitely expressed the opinion here that all those who were being struck off the maintenance list were in a position to secure work, and he indicated that £2,500,000 had been set aside to provide work for some or for all of those struck off the register. I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how much of the £2,500,000 has been allocated to the various local authorities, or to different Departments of State, for the purpose of providing work, and how many people are actually at work as a result of the spending of that money?
I want to see how many of the 72,000 persons struck off the register are actually working at present as a result of the provision of £2,500,000 this year for the relief of unemployment. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us figures which will enable us to arrive at a fair conclusion as to the merits of this important matter. Apart altogether from the suffering and want which exist, notwithstanding the statement of the Minister for Agriculture, there is considerable criticism and complaint in connection with the miserably mean way in which the Unemployment Assistance Act is being administered so far as those now entitled to receive unemployment assistance are concerned. The means test, which has been applied very rigidly, has made it utterly impossible for many able-bodied men with dependants to secure the necessaries of life with the small amounts they are granted under the terms of the Act. The evidence is there for anybody who wants it. The various boards of health are compelled to supplement the miserable sums provided under the Unemployment Assistance Act for many of the 69,000 who are still on the register and entitled to assistance. The President, in making his policy-statement in this House shortly after he took office, promised that he would either provide work for the unemployed or provide them with a decent standard of maintenance. Is it suggested that, even now, with the amount paid to those still in receipt of unemployment assistance, it is possible for an able-bodied married man to maintain himself and his dependents in decency and comfort? If so, why should it be necessary, as it is necessary, for these people to fall back on the local authorities and the ratepayers in order to have supplemented the miserable sums paid under the Act? If there was any meaning to be taken from the pledge given, it was that those for whom it was not possible to find work would be maintained by the State and the taxpayers and not by the local authorities and the ratepayers. They were to be maintained in a decent standard of comfort while waiting for work to come along.
Sold again.
Would the Minister for Agriculture write to the secretary of the Wexford Board of Health or somebody else in authority and find out whether the statement he made in Enniscorthy on Sunday night week— that they saw nobody left in want—is accurate? The minister does not appear to know the facts in regard to his own constituency. Innumerable cases have been brought to my notice where people were struck off the register and told to travel three or five miles and perform a type of work to which they had not been accustomed.
I have sent these cases to the Department of Industry and Commerce. On appeal, some of these cases were allowed by the officers appointed by the Minister. But, while these complaints were being investigated and while appeals were pending, the people concerned in Wexford and elsewhere were in want. The statement made by the Minister for Agriculture—that they saw nobody in want—would not be made by any Minister or any member of the Fianna Fáil Party or any member of the House who had knowledge of existing conditions.
I have been listening to most of the discussion on the Land Bill, which passed its final stage to-day. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Land Bill. I supported it in silence with greater enthusiasm than those who supported it by speech. I heard the Minister for Lands repeatedly make the statement that it was the intention of the Government to give land to those able to work it and to take it from those who refused to work it. Does the President or the Minister for Agriculture know the reason—I think the Minister for Agriculture knows— why many large and small farmers are unable to work their land to the best possible advantage even in their own personal interest, apart from the national interest?
Because of the British tariffs.
No, it is because of the rotten banking system and the lack of provision of working capital which would enable farmers to work the land to the best advantage. It was suggested in the discussions here, in which Deputy Belton took part, that since the passing of the 1933 Act it was impossible to get accommodation for farmers to enable them to work their land. So far as I am aware —and I am in fairly close touch with the small farmers——
The statement to which the Deputy refers is quite true.
——I do not know any bank which has been in any way generous in lending money on the security of land since the passing of the 1923 Act. Deputy Belton ought to know that as well as anybody else. Deputy Belton knew when he was representing a rural part of the country something about the condition of the farmers, but since he came to represent the North City of Dublin he has got a purely city outlook, and I do not think that he is competent to talk in the same manner about the present condition of the farmers. I admit that Deputy Belton is a good working farmer and a good employer, but he has absorbed the city outlook since the north city adopted him as one of its representatives.
It is not usual for a farmer to have a city outlook.
He is Chairman of the Country Council.
The present Government is responsible for the setting up of a Banking Commission. That Commission consists of a pretty large army of bankers and was set up about two years ago. I wonder could we get anything from the Vice-President, or some of his colleagues as to the present position in regard to that particular Commission? Have they so far submitted an interim report? If so, will we be furnished with particulars as to the nature of the recommendations made by the Commission? When is the report of the Banking Commission, interim or final, likely to be published? Whether this country is associated with the Commonwealth, or is an independent Republic in future, it is not going to help the farmers of the country one iota to work their land more profitably or to get better credit facilities for the working of the land. The future prosperity of the farmers, the workers, and indeed the whole of our people, is bound up with the future of the banking system and the extent to which this Government or any future Government will provide better facilities for the farmers of the country to work their land to better advantage. Does the Government believe that the Agricultural Credit Corporation, for instance, serves that particular purpose or that the granting of loans by the Agricultural Credit Corporation on an annuity basis at the rate of 5 or 6 per cent. interest is a proper way to meet the reasonable needs of the farmers of this country in regard to applications for loans? The Government is able to borrow, and has borrowed money from the people at the rate of 3½ per cent., and a State institution like the Agricultural Credit Corporation insists on getting 6 per cent. from some of the same people, on money borrowed for agricultural purposes on an annuity basis. I think some profit must be made by the Agricultural Credit Corporation in carrying on operations under these particular conditions. I notice the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is smiling. I know he is an expert in finance and an expert on other matters such as income-tax. I should like to know whether he is of opinion that the Agricultural Credit Corporation meets the reasonable needs of the farming community, or whether the farming community are being provided with loans under reasonable conditions by that particular body as at present constituted.
They have no control over credits.
The Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance have power to nominate certain representatives on the Board of the Agricultural Credit Corporation and, if I am correctly informed, the Government can control the policy of the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
It has nothing to do with national credit.
In any case, if the farmers of the country are to be asked to work their land in the national interests or even in their own personal interest, they will have to be given cheaper money.
And a better price for their stock.
The same thing applies to the Industrial Credit Company, which is responsible to some extent for financing some of our industrial concerns. I should like to see these two bodies, as at present constituted, scrapped. That is the reason that I am asking for some information in regard to the report of the Banking Commission. I am wondering whether the Banking Commission, referred to by some people as the Bankers' Commission, have made any recommendations in connection with the existing constitution of the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Industrial Credit Company. I have had cases brought to my notice where the Industrial Credit Company refused to underwrite shares for purely Irish companies that were established under the auspices of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Deputy Norton asked a question about four months ago in the Dáil as to whether a certain firm had complied with the conditions laid down under the Control of Manufactures Act before the Minister sanctioned the issue of a licence to that particular firm. Deputy Norton was told quite definitely, after putting several supplementary questions, that the firm had not complied with the conditions of the Control of Manufactures Act, that, in other words, it was given a special licence. That particular firm composed of a number of foreigners—and by foreigners I do not mean Englishmen—got a licence from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. They applied to the Industrial Credit Company to underwrite their share and the Industrial Credit Company agreed to do so. Later on an Irish firm, whose board consisted of a number of well-known Irishmen, applied to the same concern to underwrite their shares in the same way and they were turned down.
I make the point that there is something radically wrong with that concern, which has some responsibility to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance for its administration. I understand the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance have the right to nominate some of the members of the Industrial Credit Company. The Minister for Industry and Commerce issued a licence for the establishment of a certain Irish industry, the board of which consisted altogether of Irishmen. The representatives of the Minister on the Industrial Credit Company, which is a semi-State concern supposed to be set up for financing our new industrial concerns, refuses to underwrite the shares in the case of the Irish concern and actually agrees to underwrite the shares of the foreign firm that came in here under a special licence. There is, I submit, something radically wrong in the constitution or control of the Industrial Credit Company when a thing like that can happen, and I should like to see it reorganised or scrapped altogether. If we are going to have Irish industry and have it financed by Irish citizens, let us have a clear-cut policy defined for the Industrial Credit Company. One would at least expect that they would treat an application from an Irish firm as favourably as an application from a foreign firm.
Would the Deputy suggest that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should not issue a licence in relation to any company in respect to which he was not prepared to say that the Industrial Credit Company must underwrite its shares?
If the Control of Manufactures Act professes, as it does to me, the industrial policy of the present Government, I think in the first instance the Minister for Industry and Commerce should not issue a special licence to foreigners who were not prepared to comply with the conditions laid down in the Act. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce sanctions and gives every possible assistance to the establishment of an Irish industry, he should have sufficient influence with his representatives on the Industrial Credit Company to make that company underwrite the shares of an Irish company.
Again would the Deputy say, if the Minister is prepared to issue a licence to any particular firm, whether he must, at the same time, take the responsibility of guaranteeing to underwrite its shares? That is the issue.
I know he cannot do so personally because he claims that he has no direct control over the administration of the Industrial Credit Company but he should be able to exercise sufficient influence on the board of that concern to see that they do not go contrary to his own industrial policy. I think I have made myself clear to the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Minister can boss that board and he knows it.
That statement is made by an ex-Minister who controlled that board before.
I never had that board.
You had it under another name.
The Minister has control of that board. There can be no question about it.
It was not set up in our time. It was set up between the two of you. You have all your money in it.
Better than to have all your overdrafts in it.
I am not going to be put through a sort of courtmartial performance by Deputy McGilligan. Deputy McGilligan knows that the same people operated this particular section or department during his Ministry.
I am appearing for Deputy Davin this time. He is making a mistake—I am not against him.
I want to refer, and I think it is pertinent to a discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment, to the recent attitude of the present Government, in condoning or actually helping in every possible way the lowering of the standard of wages paid on State-aided schemes. Cases have been brought to the notice of this House on the Estimates for the different Departments in which it was shown that the Minister for Lands, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance were responsible and accepted responsibility for lowering the rates of wages previously paid to persons employed on afforestation, peat development schemes, land improvement schemes and arterial drainage schemes. I brought to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary for Lands in this House, and so have Deputy Pattison and other Deputies here, cases where the rates of wages paid on afforestation schemes have been reduced during the last two years. I want to say quite emphatically that we do not stand for lowering the rates of wages paid on State-aided schemes particularly when the cost of the necessaries of life has gone up so enormously as it has in the last few years.
What effective protest did the Deputy make against it?
I am glad Deputy Anthony has put that question to me. I would remind the Deputy that in this House on a particular occasion I moved that the Vote be referred back in the case of the Minister for Lands. I would like Deputy Anthony to ask two Deputies, who sit on the Opposition side of the House, what their action on that Vote was; I want him to ask them what they were doing in this building on that occasion, and why they refused to go into the Lobby and vote. I wish to remind the Deputy that if they had voted with me on that occasion my Motion would have been carried as an effective protest.
Did I refuse to vote?
Two Deputies on the Deputy's side of the House refused.
I am not responsible for them.
If those two Deputies had come into the House and voted for my Motion the Vote would have been referred back.
That is not my responsibility.
Apparently what Deputy Davin is talking about is a dead-heat. It was not a win at all.
That was the most effective thing I could do as a protest against the lowering of wages paid in that particular Department.
Is this an all-in wrestling match?
I will give Deputy Cosgrave the names of the two Deputies of his Party who walked out on that occasion.
Why did you not give them to me at the time? Were they paired?
I do not know.
Deputy Davin did not take the trouble to inquire.
I am not interested in that matter. They may have been paired to save their faces. One of the Deputies who walked out of the House actually took part in the debate.
All that may be very interesting to the Deputy but it does not seem to be relevant on the Adjournment Debate; neither is a rehash of the Estimates relevant.
I am sorry that I was drawn into this by Deputies Cosgrave and Anthony. I want now to draw attention to the fact that the State Departments of Lands and Forestry, the Board of Works—the board of no works I call it in regard to some matters——
The Deputy does not mean that.
I do not. I was saying the Department of Lands and Forestry, the Board of Works, and the Peat Development Section of the Department of Industry and Commerce succeeded in getting licences, or succeeded in getting permission authorising them not to apply the Conditions of Employment Act to the workers employed in the Departments mentioned. If this Government passes a Conditions of Employment Act for the purpose of improving the conditions of the workers employed by private employers in the country, they should at least give good example themselves and conform generally to the conditions laid down in that Act. It is a bad thing for any Government to dictate to outside employers as to the conditions that have to be given to their workers and at the same time seek to obtain a release from the responsibility of doing the same or better for their own employees. I think the Government should be the best employers in the country and should give good example with regard to the conditions of employment and wages. I think it was very wrong for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to refuse to apply the Conditions of Employment Act to certain workers employed in certain State Departments——
And in agriculture.
I want to draw attention to the petty and mean way in which the Widows and Orphans Act is being administered.
These are matters for the Estimates. The Deputy will realise that it would be impossible for the Minister to deal with items already raised on the Estimates if again raised on the Adjournment Debate.
I am hoping, Sir, that you are not ruling me out on the Adjournment Motion.
On matters of principle I am not ruling the Deputy out. But details of Estimates are not suitable matters to raise on an Adjournment Motion.
This Government promised that they would bring in an amending Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Bill which would relieve the ratepayers of the country of their obligations of maintaining widows and orphans who were deprived of their breadwinners.
On a point of order is the Deputy aware of that?
That Act in its working has disclosed the fact that thousands of necessitous widows and orphans have been completely cut out from any consideration under it. The application of the means test has resulted, in hundreds of cases, of widows and orphans being obliged to go back to the boards of assistance to get a supplementary payment in order to maintain themselves in decency and comfort. The main reason why I raised this question on the Adjournment Debate is this—the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in a speech in the country and also in the course of a subsequent statement in this House promised to introduce an amending Widows' and Orphans' Bill. I want to know from him if it is intended to bring in such a Bill and pass it during the coming Autumn session? It is for that reason that I have referred to this matter.
I want to refer to another matter of national importance. We have all read with horror some of the reports received with regard to conditions in Spain. There have been allegations that during recent weeks priests and nuns and religious communities generally have been massacred by the Government and the citizens of that country. We have diplomatic representatives who are supposed to be in touch with Spain and with the other countries of the world. When the Vice-President is replying, I would like to hear from him whether any inquiries have been made through the diplomatic channels as to what grounds there are for the blood-curdling reports appearing in the English and Irish papers with regard to outrages and massacres in Spain, which appear to be specially directed against the Catholics of that country? If so, whether any protest has been made by this Government to whatever Government, if there is a Government at present, who is responsible for the conditions that are supposed to exist in that country. I am not quite sure whether there is a Government in control of any part of Spain at present. But if the conditions which have been reported in the English and Irish papers are anything like correct, I think it is the duty of this Government to make a protest to whatever Government is responsible for such atrocities as have been reported to have been committed in Spain during the last few weeks. I should like, at any rate, to hear from the Vice-President whether any inquiries of any kind have been made, or any action taken, or any protest of any kind made regarding the reported atrocities in Spain. I think it is a matter upon which the people of the country are entitled to receive some information and I hope the Vice-President will say something on the matter when replying.
Very remarkable developments have been taking place in our political life during the last month or two. Like Deputy Professor O'Sullivan, I want to take the opportunity of asking a few questions and making a few comments with regard to the matters of high policy that have been canvassed in County Galway, County Wexford, and elsewhere. They will be addressed not only to spokesmen of the Government but to the spokesmen of the Opposition. I have read with great interest the suggestion that a coalition between the two big Parties was something that we may look for. I certainly think it is something greatly to be wished for. But if such a coalition is to take place, it is all important that it should take place upon principles and upon a policy that will be of benefit to the country, and not the contrary.
The President has announced that if the result of the Galway and Wexford by-elections is such as to give him a shock, he proposes to force upon the country an early general election. The first remark I want to make is to suggest that if he does receive a shock from the results of the County Galway and County Wexford by-elections, it will be because the people of the country want to see the financial dispute with Great Britain brought to an end. The lesson he ought to draw from any such result is that it is his business to get down to the question of effecting such a settlement. There is no disguising the fact that he could do it better than anybody else. If another Government comes into office and makes a settlement with Great Britain, that settlement will be denounced by the members of the present Government Party as a betrayal of the interests of the country. If, on the other hand, the settlement is made by the present Government, I am sure that they can rely upon that settlement being accepted by the members of the present Opposition.
Question.
You are not speaking for the Opposition, are you?
We will want to see the settlement.
I am talking about the financial question; not the political question at all. If, as regards the financial question, the present Government agree to some compromise, agree to pay a portion of what the British are claiming, instead of the whole of what they are claiming, it never before occurred to me that it was possible that that settlement would be objected to or opposed by the Opposition.
The Government are actually paying the whole of it under the coal-cattle pact.
That is irrelevant. I am talking of the possibility of a settlement being arrived at, the possibility of the present Government offering the British something less than what they are at present paying to the British. I think that that would be an exceedingly business-like thing for them to do.
I think that any sort of reasonable offer would probably be accepted. I think it would be greatly to the advantage of the country if that was done by the present Government. I think that a Government formed by the members of the present Opposition would be in the unpleasant situation that anything they did in this matter would be denounced as a betrayal of their country.
The time is long past for that.
Furthermore, there is no blinking the fact that the interest of the British in conciliating the clean-cut separatists here of the Fianna Fáil Party is obviously greater than conciliating those who are already their friends.
You are out of date. They are no longer separatists.
That is open to dispute.
That is the difference. If you ask Miss MacSwiney about that she will have something to say about it.
Reading the recent speeches on the Opposition side about the way the question of the financial dispute with Great Britain ought to be tackled, it occurs to me as very doubtful whether a good way to get a satisfactory settlement with Great Britain is to say: "We admit we owe you this money, but you did not pay your war debt to America and therefore we are not going to pay you." I question very much if that method of approach would be at all more hopeful than the very bad method of approach followed up to the present by the Fianna Fáil Government. I have always held, and still hold, and it was often strongly expressed by the late Mr. Patrick Hogan, that there is a very big difference between a commercial debt and an inter-governmental debt, and that essentially the land annuities debt was a commercial debt rather than an inter-governmental debt.
The British would obviously reply to any such arguments as those recently suggested in Opposition speeches, first, that our debt was a commercial debt; secondly, that they had only stopped paying their war debt to America because other countries, owing them very much more than they owed to America, had stopped paying them, and that they regarded the whole war debt question as an indivisible question; and, thirdly, that the Americans had, in effect, made it impossible for them to pay the debt because they refused to take any British goods, because they put on a sky-high tariff. A creditor country on the scale on which America was a creditor country after the War cannot expect to be paid her debts if she puts up sky-high tariffs and prevents a fairly free flow of trade.
I have no doubt that if Deputy Cosgrave returned to office he would set himself vigorously at once to make a settlement of this financial dispute and that he would make some sort of settlement. But I think it would be for the benefit both of Ireland and Great Britain and the relations between the two countries that a settlement should be made by the Government at present in office, if they can be at all brought to make one. I accuse President de Valera of running away from his responsibilities if, after receiving a clear indication from the electorate in these two by-elections that they want the question settled, he proceeds to a general election in the hope that all responsibilities will be taken off his shoulders and put upon the shoulders of Deputy Cosgrave.
Or yourself.
Deputy Professor O'Sullivan referred appreciatively to the recent speeches of the President on the subject of the I.R.A. and law and order. I share his satisfaction at these speeches and an even greater satisfaction with the action that has been taken in banning the I.R.A.
I have noticed that attacks have been directed upon the President from various quarters, including Labour quarters, for trying a political murder case before the Military Tribunal. I want to say here that if the Military Tribunal is not to be used for trying political murder cases there is no use in its existing at all. That is exactly what it is most needed for, because there is not one of us here who does not know that you cannot get a satisfactory trial of a political murder case before a jury in this country owing to the amount of intimidation that there is.
Hear, hear!
And if anyone is to attack the Government for using such machinery for the trial of political murders it must not be those who have done less than any other Party to create a horror of political murder in the minds of the people of this country. Those who have spent a large portion of their time educating public opinion denouncing crime, denouncing the use of arms against the State and denouncing violence, such people might be entitled to object to the use of such machinery as the Military Tribunal, though I should think them wrong in doing so. But people who have never stirred a finger and who have sought popularity by conniving at everything the I.R.A. did, who never denounced anything when it needed denouncing, those are people who cannot be listened to when they come to complain of the use of special machinery such as the Military Tribunal for dealing with political crimes.
Who are they? Will the Deputy name the Party?
I have said already that the Labour Party had done less than any other Party in that respect.
That is a falsehood.
That is my deliberate opinion. Leaving out ex-Senator O'Farrell, who is about as popular with the Labour Party as I am with the Fine Gael Party—leaving him out I have never seen myself any satisfactory speeches from Labour representatives denouncing political crime in this country as it ought to be denounced.
The Deputy cannot be long enough in the country.
The Deputy was not in the House when we did it, and did it on many occasions, and will do it again when the Deputy is out of the House and out of the country.
The Labour Party had plenty of time to do it since I have been here, and it has not been done.
We will do it specially for the Deputy.
I shall congratulate you when it is done.
Surely the Deputy is not serious in saying that the Labour Party have done less about that than any other Party? What about the Party opposite?
They have begun to do it.
They have begun very late. They originated murder in this country.
Did I gather the Deputy to say that we originated murder?
Yes—connived at it.
Is that in order?
It is not in order to accuse any Party of murder or of conniving at murder.
Deputy MacDermot was allowed to accuse the Labour Party of doing that. If I was out of order in following his bad example, I withdraw.
I never accused the Labour Party of that. I have accused it of negligence and cowardice, and that is all.
That is a falsehood, and the Deputy knows it.
I submit to the Chair that it is out of order to say that.
It is very true, whether it is out of order or not.
I think the Deputy did use the word "connive".
If I did I was not conscious of doing so, and I withdraw it.
If the debate were allowed to proceed without running comments I think it would be better.
I now turn to the question which I regard as the paramount question of all others, the question of the unity of Ireland. It is a subject that has become lately the height of fashion. In theory, we are all agreed that it is the thing that matters most. It is figuring prominently in the by-elections and an enormous amount has been said and written about it during the last few months. All this would be very satisfactory if we were facing the realities of the problem, but unfortunately it seems to me, at any rate, that most of what is being said is either futile or actively mischievous.
I propose to ask the House to analyse the points of view on this subject of three Parties. Take the I.R.A. Party to begin with. They aim at shattering the authority of this Assembly and the authority of the Belfast Parliament, and of reducing the country north and south to a state of anarchy. If Great Britain, as they hope, is involved in a foreign war there is to be a period of frightful disorder. There will be a liquidation of the more conservative parties in all parts of Ireland, and a dictatorship of an all-Ireland proletariat. I imagine there are few members of the Dáil to whom that programme makes any appeal. We do not want a unity in ruin or a unity in Communism or a unity in the extinction of everything that is decent and of good report in the country. One thing, and one thing only, can be said in favour of the I.R.A. policy on this, and that is that it is intelligible, and that the deeds of those who advocate it are consistent with what they say.
Fianna Fáil, on the other hand, stand for order; there was a time when they did not, but now they do, and they not only stand for order here in the Free State but they are against, as I hope and believe, the incitement of disorder in the North. They have admitted that physical force exercised upon the majority in the North is not the proper road to unity. They have stated that, in the event of a European war, they do not propose to endanger this country by allowing a foreign power to use it as a base for attacks upon Great Britain.
That is not the Vice-President's statement.
Well, there is a more important authority still.
The Vice-President is later in time.
Clearly, therefore, they can only look for unity on the basis of goodwill, and how do they go about obtaining this goodwill. First, by consistently proclaiming the ideal of a thirty-two county republic, by calling themselves the extreme republican party and by claiming to be clear-cut separatists—according to a recent speech of Deputy Cooney —and by teaching the people to believe that republicanism and freedom are interchangeable terms, that sovereign independence is impossible within the British Commonwealth and that Australia, Canada and South Africa are on a lower plane, with a status less free and less dignified, than say, Austria or Portugal or Peru. Secondly they seek to gain the goodwill of the North by preaching the gaelicisation of Ireland in defiance of Davis's doctrine that we should aim at an Ireland neither Gaelic nor Saxon but Irish. Their third happy thought for the conciliation of the North is to carry on and promote continual anti-British propaganda not merely as regards our own past and present relations with Great Britain, but as regards British policy and influence in every part of the world.
Beyond these things I cannot find that they have any policy at all for working towards unity except it be the administration of our own affairs here to the best of our ability so that the northerners may come to look upon us as a prosperous and well governed community. I am prepared to admit that the proofs recently given by the Government of their determination not to tolerate political murder and the claim to use arms against the State is an advance towards unity. If every important Party here is firm about these matters, the northerners will certainly think better of us than they have done hitherto. But that is not enough. It is not enough to counterbalance the separatism, sincere or insincere, about which I have just been talking. No substantial headway can be made towards winning over the North until every important Party in the Free State, besides being firm about murder, has clearly and boldly discarded separatism.
This brings us to the policy of Fine Gael. They, at any rate, are anti-separatists and, I think, anti-republican; but some recent utterances have seemed to suggest that they wish to substitute some other link for the link of the Crown. If so, they also, in my opinion, are setting their backs upon unity. I believe the sentiment of the North about the Crown is immensely strong. Deputy General Sean MacEoin described it as "hog wash" two or three days ago and, in support of that, he cited a famous remark of a Northern clergyman about kicking the Crown into the Boyne. I wonder if he remembers on what occasion that remark was uttered? It was a protest against the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. Well, the Church of Ireland was disestablished and the Crown was not kicked into the Boyne. A few wild and whirling speeches of that sort cannot outweigh the actual events. I quite admit it is not always easy to disentangle loyalty from self-interest and that, in particular, the proceedings of Lord Carson and his friends in the few years preceding the European War cannot be brought within any definition of loyalty that I, personally, would accept. But the Orangemen always had this excuse, an excuse which has been given the colour of justification by the Sinn Féin movement, that Home Rule or any form of self-government within the Commonwealth was alleged to be merely a stepping-stone to separation and the renunciation of allegiance to the Throne.
If I were to use such an expression as "hog wash" in connection with the arguments of any member of this House, I should apply it to the arguments of those who seek to prove that no important part is played by sentiment in determining the attitude of the Northerners to ourselves. Sentiment has been immensely powerful with us and we see it at work all over the world, even causing men to do things and to maintain loyalties that are in conflict with their material interests. Why should the Northerners be different from all other men? Until other Irishmen take into account the sentimental attachment of Northerners to the Crown, they are not facing realities. If what Professor James Hogan calls our ideology prevents us from recognising the Crown, then our ideology is irreconcilable with unity. The Northerners have their ideology too, and they will have to sacrifice a good deal of it to come into even an all-Ireland Dominion. Nobody who knows them and is honest with himself can believe that they will sacrifice the Crown.
Supposing, however, that Fine Gael are still, as I think, anti-republican, what else can we glean of their views on the subject of obtaining unity? We heard some months ago from Deputy Cosgrave that this would be one of the subjects that he would raise with the British when he came back into power, and we have lately had information as to the manner in which it would be raised. The British are to be told that partition is being maintained by them in defiance of the spirit of the Treaty, if not of the letter, and that we expect them to hand over to us at once all powers at present exercised in respect of Northern Ireland by the Imperial Parliament. I believe that I feel as passionately about Irish unity as any man in this country and no one could condemn more severely than to do the part which several British statemen played in the past in bringing about partition. Nevertheless, I can only describe this proposed demand on the British Government in one way—it is a summons to them to commit a gross betrayal on the basis of a manifest falsehood.
So long as we maintain the separatist ideal, to hand over their friends in the North to our military and financial control would be regarded all over the world as a gross betrayal. To compel the Northerners to adjust themselves to the Commonwealth framework of Dominion self-government is one thing; to expose them to the certainty of separation from the Crown and from their kith and kin whenever the Party which stands for a Thirty-two County Republic comes into power, is quite another thing. I stood for a compulsion of the North in 1912, but I certainly could not stand for it in the circumstances of to-day. I believe that such an act would cover Great Britain with dishonour, and that any British Government that proposed such a thing would be swept out of office.
I said a betrayal based on a falsehood. What is the falsehood? The falsehood is the statement that the British are now maintaining partition, in the sense, of course, not merely of defending Northerners against attack, but of actually putting pressure on them to stand aloof from us. Once again let us face the realities. The majority in the North are dead-set against an Irish Republic. They value the British market for their ships and for their linen; they realise that we have no alternative market to offer them. They are proud of the Commonwealth and their connection with it. They are attached to the Crown. They believe themselves, quite falsely, to be a superior race to us, and, on top of all their very real motives for valuing the British connection, they have raised a huge superstructure of prejudice and bigotry. If a British Government were to desert them and take the troops out of the country, I believe that they would fly to arms in their own defence hoping, not unreasonably, that British public opinion would rally to their aid.
This is something that cannot be too much emphasised—the beginning of wisdom in regard to the North is to realise that it is the Northerners themselves whom we have got to persuade. There are those who say that it is unreasonable to expect us, the great majority of the Irish people, to sacrifice our wishes to a minority, even if we knew that we could win them over by doing so. My answer to their argument is that it represents the outlook of the leader of a faction and not of a statesman. If we look at the interests of Ireland as a whole, if we take into account all the facts, and not only some of the facts, we shall not need to sacrifice our wishes; we shall form our wishes in such a way as to achieve a peace without victory and to make a harmony out of discords.
And sometimes we are told, "Prove to us that the North will come in if we drop republicanism and then we will think about it." Of course nobody can prove that; we can only, as rational men, form our conclusions as to what is probable. It is said that even when nothing more than Home Rule was in contemplation, the Northerners refused to touch it. That is quite true, but why? Their constant cries were, "Home Rule means Rome Rule" and "Home Rule means Separation." The first of these we have proved to be unfounded. Not only does the Church not attempt to dominate our counsels in this Assembly, but there is no country in the world where there is less religious intolerance, and responsible representatives of the Protestant community in the Irish Free State are eager to testify this to their Northern co-religionists. There remains the second cry, that Home Rule means separation. We can show that to be unfounded, too. It is entirely up to us. Bigotry and prejudice die hard, but they must die in time if all foundation for them is removed. There would be a psychological revolution in the Free State if it were realised, as it ought to be realised, that we are free to secede from the Commonwealth; there would be a psychological revolution in Northern Ireland if it were seen that, being free to secede, all important Parties in the Irish Free State were agreed on the desirability of not seceding, and were prepared to accept the responsibilities and the loyalties of the Commonwealth partnership as well as its benefits.
In all relevant senses the Northern question is a racial question. Deputy Cosgrave denies this, but I submit that it is superficial and misleading to deny it. It is very possible, if a chemical analysis were made of an Orangeman's blood on the basis of race, if such a thing were conceivable, that that analysis would reveal a very similar mixture of elements to what an analysis of the blood of an average member of this Assembly would show. But that is not what matters. The Northern Unionist feels himself kith and kin with the British. He shares, as a general rule, their religion, and he is proud of their history. He feels himself to be of a distinct race from us, and we confirm him in his opinion by our anti-British propaganda, and our extravagant craze for Gaelicisation. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the problem is a racial problem, and we shall never solve it until we realise that it is a racial problem. There was a racial problem in Canada; there was a racial problem in South Africa. Look at these countries and see how they have dealt with it. The Dutch are more numerous than the British in South Africa; they are brave; they are determined, and they have a long republican tradition. But they want to see their country flourish materially and spiritually. They have seen a way to do it without sacrificing an iota of liberty; they have taken over the King as their own King and not as the King of a foreign nation.
I believe that would be the solution here. It is we, and not the Orangemen, who seek reunion. It is we who must take the first step, and must sweep away the foundations of their fears and suspicions. The year 1937 will offer exceptional opportunities. If we play a free and equal part at the Coronation, and at the Imperial Conference which is to follow it, we shall not only make a more dignified figure than hanging about on the back stairs, but we shall take a big step forward towards Irish unity. The Egyptians are in the act of making a Treaty of External Association with the British Commonwealth. We might, perhaps, satisfy our ideology by doing likewise —and I imagine that the Government, in spite of being such clean-cut separatists, have something of the sort in mind, but if so, partition must continue. The Northerners will see, if we can not, that we shall have less freedom, less power, and less prestige as a satellite State than we could have as a partner in the Commonwealth.
The late Mr. Patrick Hogan once said that the one sort of person whose mentality was unintelligible to him was the person who wanted to be in the Commonwealth, but drew the line at saying so. I echo his words, and I only regret that such a mentality is so common in this country. We want British markets; we want Commonwealth openings for our young people; we want the services of British diplomatic representatives all over the world—say in Spain at the present moment; we want to strengthen, not to weaken, our associations with the Irish communities in Australia and Canada. We want these things and many others that flow from the British connection, but we want at the same time to go on pretending that we are under duress. What was good enough for Sarsfield, Grattan, Tone, O'Connell, Davis and Parnell, is not good enough for us. We prefer to see our country cut in two rather than sacrifice our shibboleths, rather than lose the cherished sensation of grievance, rather than stand upright in the world, free from all stigma of oppression. When is this country going to show itself fit for self-government?
I could congratulate Deputy MacDermot on the speech which he has just made if it were not that there pervades that speech a defect which pervades every speech which Deputy MacDermot makes in this House, and that is the fact that Deputy MacDermot has not his roots here, and has not had his roots here for years. He does not speak with either the sincerity or the material practical mind with which a man will speak who knows that, whatever mess this country gets into, he has got to stay here and make his life and his being here. The Deputy came here suddenly, and a constituency elected him. The Deputy will, I am sure, stay here as long as that constituency continues to elect him, and then will we hear or see anything more of Deputy MacDermot? I doubt it. The Deputy announced in this House that he would prefer experimentation to go on. I criticised him on that occasion, saying that the man who would like to see experiments going on was not always the man who would suffer if the experiments proved unsuccessful. The man who could clear out, the man who could avoid the mess, the man who had no stake in the country, was going to be more careless about seeing that the experiment was properly conducted with a view to its success than the man who was going to live here whether the experiment was a success or a failure.
Deputy MacDermot to-night voted for the Land Bill—the Bill which gives the Government, as Deputy Dillon says, more power than the ancient, bad, hated, detested and shot landlords. He does that because he will not be affected by it. This may seem personal. I thing that personalities in politics are a good thing. If we find that people are playing around with politics in this country, and can see the reason for it, it is surely right to say so, so that the people can understand who are the sincere persons in this country, who actually feel that the policy they are putting forward is good for the country, or who are in an experimental humour, ready to trifle with and traffic in the lives and property and good repute, and even the sentiment of the folk in this country. Hence I am going to pass over anything that Deputy MacDermot has said with regard to the viewpoints of this Party on a settlement with England. This Party has made settlements before. This Party, if called on, will make them again. This Party will stand the test of public opinion with regard to them. This Party has been honest with regard to what it has done. This Party has never attempted to promise more than what it thought reasonably it could perform. This Party is not now engaged in running away from the electorate whom they intoxicated with promises, and the effect of whose intoxicated delirium they are now afraid to meet.
There is only one question that is worth considering at this time, and that hinges around the name of, up to very recently, an unknown citizen of this country, one Michael Conway. Michael Conway might have been hanged yesterday. Michael Conway would have been hanged only for the cowardice of the Executive Council. If he had been hanged, the Executive Council could have been hanged, because it was the Executive Council that brought Michael Conway to the course of error which they afterwards set up a tribunal to inquire into, and it was one member of the Executive Council who went out on a public platform to give a lead to the tribunal that was going to try Michael Conway. If that man had died yesterday the Minister for Finance ought also to have died. The Minister for Finance is lucky that he was not haled before a court for contempt of court. The Minister for Finance has the weakness and characterlessness of his own Attorney-General to thank for that. The Minister for Finance in any ordinarily governed country would certainly have been made leave politics. The Minister for Finance in no ordinary democratically governed community would have been able to find a bunch of people to sit with him as his colleagues on the same bench after his scandalous attempt to do what was never attempted to be done in this country before.
Mr. Cosgrave did it.
He did?
Yes. He was pulled up for doing something similar.
Was he pulled up for it?
Yes.
Well, was the Minister for Finance pulled up for it? However, we will see later what was the occasion to which the Vice-President refers. I know nothing of it.
There was a case.
Possibly. And the Vice-President says that he was pulled up for it?
He was. He was pulled up in the House here.
He was pulled up in the House here? Well, I am only adopting the same principle with the Minister for Finance.
Good enough.
What about his colleagues?
That is their business.
What about his colleagues? What have they done?
That is their business.
At any rate, there is one thing that nations have kept themselves away from, even in war— at least, one hears that it is done, but no nation has yet boasted of having done it or has come out openly or said that it has been done—and that is poisoning the wells.
Refer that to Deputy Cosgrave.
What about the Wicklow gold mine and the Deputy's reputation for veracity.
The Minister is reduced to a very small point when he refers to a gold mine when I am speaking of the time when a man's life was going to be put in danger by a military Tribunal and when the Minister himself had said——
And the Minister's honour is worth as much as any man's life.
——that he had the evidence, which would be produced, and that that would be the end of the man who did the shooting. I said a moment ago that nations do not poison the wells. The wells of justice ought to be kept clean also. I want to know if there was ever any case in this country in which, when a man was about to stand his trial, a responsible member of an Executive Council said "You will get the proof and it will be a sorry day for those responsible. It will be their last shooting." I said on a previous occasion that if that statement is analysed it comes down to this: "I am here, Minister for Finance, speaking as a member of the Executive Council. I have had put before me the evidence on which Michael Conway is going to be haled before the Military Tribunal. I have read it. It connects him with the crime and it connects him with the crime so well that he ought to be found guilty and it connects him so well with the crime that, when found guilty, he ought to be hanged." That is said before the trial comes off, and the Minister is still the Minister and the Attorney-General is still Attorney-General and has not thought that that is worth while mentioning as a matter of as bad a contempt of court as ever was committed.
The Minister knew what he was speaking about. The Minister had previously, in 1931, queried what the Military Tribunal was going to consist of—"Officers—officers in the pay of the Executive Council; officers selected to do the dirty work of the Executive Council.""Bloodhounds" was the phrase he used—"the seven bloodhounds of the Executive Council." And he is the Minister who pays the salaries. He is the man who, for some reason not known to this House, has been selected to fill the responsible post of Minister for Finance. He is the head of the establishment of the Civil Service. He pays the salaries, and yet this is the man who, in 1931, before any officer of the Tribunal was named, could describe these officers as the bloodhounds of the Executive Council. He is the Minister who holds the purse-strings and on whom these men's careers depend, and he is the Minister who thinks it proper, as such Minister, to come out on a platform at a public meeting and to say, when a man was on trial for his life: "You will get the proof and it will be a sorry day for those responsible. It will be their last shooting." And that is regarded as fair-play, even for a murderer, and for a man who, under the conditions that hold in this country, is supposed to be innocent until he is found guilty. When that man, with the suspicion of murder against him, is about to be brought before this court—not independent, according to the Minister; not surrounded by all those helps and all those aids which ordinary communities have given to judges so as to make them independent in their conduct; not speaking to judges who may not be removed from office or whose salaries may not be interfered with; but to men easily amenable to pressure in the circumstances of their position, he says: "I have seen the evidence and I am a member of the Executive Council. It is good enough for me. You will find that evidence produced and it will be a sorry day for those responsible. It will be their last shooting."
That was the culminating scandal of a career indulged in by all the members of the present Government—duplicity and hypocrisy, the prostitution of patriotism, a leaning towards the weaknesses of men, the harping on sentimentality, and an attempt to disrupt anything that was being built here in the way of fair institutions for this country. The Minister whose tongue wagged so furiously on that occasion did not let it fail to wag on other occasions. The President could speak to one of his, up to recently deluded, followers in Galway the other night. He can criticise that lady about doctrines that she holds. Who briefed her I do not know, but if she had been made go through a course of the debates in this House she could not have been well advised to have taken a course more likely to embarrass the President than the course she did take. The President arrogates to himself the power to put questions to her—she who was his disciple, she who was more than his disciple, she who, learning from him, taught a lot of others and brought others to a particular point. The President is keen against murder. The President is keen against anybody condoning murder. The condonation of murder that is alleged against Miss MacSwiney is that she said: "If anybody was shot by the I.R.A. he was shot as a spy." Is that condoning murder? If that is a condonation of murder, then listen to this from President de Valera. In the month of November, 1931, he was not content with speech-making. He gave an interview to a representative of the United Press of America in October of that year, which was released for publication on the 12th November, 1931. He said that the politicians of the Cosgrave régime were then feverishly trying to work up a scare. What was the scare founded on? "Certain recent happenings," he said, "had provided them with just the opportunity they had been seeking." Now, remember Miss MacSwiney's phrase: "If anybody was shot by the I.R.A. he was shot as a spy." Here is what the scare was founded on, according to the President on that occasion:
"Certain recent happenings have provided them with just the opportunity they have been seeking. Last January a young man was shot for being, it was said, a Government agent provocateur acting amongst the I.R.A. In March a police officer was shot in Tipperary. In July another man shot, who, it was said, had been led by the police into giving information concerning his comrades.”
Is that condonation? If Miss MacSwiney is condoning and attempting to justify the murder of Egan at Dungarvan, was that an attempt to justify and condone the murders of Carroll, of Curtin, and of Ryan? "In July another young man shot who, it was said, had been led by the police into giving information concerning his comrades." If Miss MacSwiney, as I say, had been briefed by people reading these debates she could not have used, for President de Valera, a phrase more ugly than that of saying that that man was shot because he was an informer.
In the year 1928, there was a debate in this House on the review of prisoners' cases, and in the course of that debate I asked the then Opposition if they would give information, if it came into their possession, likely to lead to the arrest of the murderers of Kevin O'Higgins. What was the answer? Deputy Little thought it was unfair to try to put a whole Party in a position in which they are required to give a certain undertaking. It was absurd to say to any Party that they were to act as if they were officers of the police or the Government. Deputy Cooney was not pleased with that. It seemed to be leading too near to assent to what I was asking. I retorted to Deputy Little: "He does not admit it is his duty to give information," and Deputy Cooney said "To become an informer." So that if knowledge of the murderers of Kevin O'Higgins came into the possession of Deputy Little, he had his doubts whether he would reveal it to the police, but Deputy Cooney had none. Deputy Cooney thought that to pass on that information to the police was to put himself in the position of an informer—an informer about a murderer, an informer to the police, an institution of the State. And then the President can wax eloquent because Miss MacSwiney talks about a man being an informer.
One of the things Michael Conway did was to refuse to recognise the court, a practice lauded by the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance, speaking on the Juries Protection Bill, 1929, said it was a procedure that had been sanctified by all the martyrs in Irish history. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce thought that this method of arraigning a man, getting him to refuse to recognise the court and sending him away for six months was a farce and likely to bring the law into disrespect. He said that such a law never could have respect, that one man with any strength to stick that out could bring the whole State into contempt and could bring the whole administration of law and justice into contempt. "I hope," he said "that if this measure passes such a man will be found." He was questioned by Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald afterwards and he said "I hope somebody will be found to fight that section. I would be prepared to do so myself." The Minister for Finance lauds the practice of standing mute and refusing to recognise the court. The Minister for Industry and Commerce thinks the section can be brought into disrepute and the whole of the law brought into disrepute with it, and, if nobody else will do it, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is prepared to do it. And men have got their six months recently for doing what these two Ministers asked them to do. "A practice sanctified by the example of good and noble men" was the phrase of the Minister for Finance.
Michael Conway was tried, and, in the end, the tribunal found that he was on a certain road, that a certain car passed along that road, that he had an opportunity of joining that car and that there was the mark of his finger-print on the panel of the door. There was no allegation made against Michael Conway that he drew a revolver on anybody.
Might I interrupt the Deputy? I do not want to stop the Deputy in any line of argument he wishes to adopt but I wonder is it permissible to discuss the details of this trial in this House?
I kept a fairly close watch on Deputy McGilligan's statement and so far I do not think he has referred to the administration of justice by the court.
I do not intend to speak about it.
He is certainly bordering very close upon it in his references to finger-prints on the panel of the car.
I am not going to say that the tribunal were not justified in everything they found. It is necessary to see what they did say. They found that the Chrysler saloon was the car used; that the finger-print found was that of the accused; that the accused could not have had access to the car until it was seized; and that he was on a particular road and so could have joined it. That was what was proved against him. That is the proof which the Minister for Finance thought was sufficient to justify his hanging, and the Minister for Finance announced that beforehand. I want to go to another case— the case of a man who went to a house with a weapon, who drew that weapon, and who was shot by the person who defended the house. The Attorney-General paraded him for what? For murder or attempted murder? For entering a house to commit a felony? Not at all. For having arms without a permit. The Attorney-General will remember the case of McWalter, without a doubt. It has been discussed here often.
The Attorney-General
Yes, and the Deputy probably knows all about it.
I know quite a lot about it, but I know mainly what the Attorney-General told this House about it. I have it here. Let us get the contrast. Here is a man to be hanged, on a lead given by the Minister for Finance, and there is what the Tribunal find about him. Take the other case. Of course, the thing about it is that it happened only in 1932, whereas this is 1936. In 1932, there was this man, MacWalter, who went to the house of another man, who had a weapon on him and ammunition, and who was shot. Here is what the Attorney-General, in 1932, said about him:
"Now, as regards McWalter himself, he was so seriously wounded in the attack upon that house that he nearly died in hospital."
The man who, so far as we can make out, went with murder in his heart to another house, and because the defender of that house shoots him, the Attorney-General takes pity on him. The Attorney-General continued:
"He was under arrest in hospital. The moment that he was well enough to be arraigned before a court, that the Guards reported that he was well enough to be brought before a court, I had him brought before a court. Having regard to the evidence before me, and to the whole situation, weighing it up as carefully as I could and without the slightest sympathy for McWalter, I decided that the best and wisest course was to bring him up on a charge for the possession of firearms."
For that, he got six months, and "as far as I understand," said the Attorney-General, his heart still bleeding for this man, "his six months in prison have been spent between life and death in hospital." He did not even spend the full six months in hospital. He was released before his time was up.
The Attorney-General
That is not true.
It is true.
The Attorney-General
It is not true.
Suppose it is not true. Six months in hospital was what he got.
The Attorney-General
This occurred, Sir, about four years ago——
Is this a point of order?
The Attorney-General
Yes. This occurred four years ago, and it has been debated in this House on several occasions. The Deputy, I think, knows far more about that case than is on those reports, and I wonder if he is in order in raising it at this stage, and am I entitled to reply?
The Attorney-General is entitled to reply to anything raised in the House. The Chair is in this difficulty, that it does not know the circumstances surrounding the case that Deputy McGilligan mentioned.
I am bringing the case.
The Chair does not know the circumstances surrounding it, and neither does the Chair know the relation that Deputy McGilligan is endeavouring to establish between that case and some present case.
The context is this, that Martin Conway is mentioned by the Minister for Finance on a public platform when he is about to be tried. There is no question of his shooting anyone. There is a question, apparently, of being in the company of people who shot murderously and foully. But when one went to a house with arms, and in making an attack shot himself, the Attorney-General though it was fit to let that man off with six months.
The Attorney-General
I do not think the Deputy is correct.
I am not going to yield to the Attorney-General unless there is a point of order. He can make his speech later. Deputy Finlay said in that debate:
"As I understood, the offence was breaking into a house, or attempting to break into a house, with intent to commit a felony. The matter is entirely one of inference for a jury to draw from the surrounding facts in connection with a particular crime. In connection with McWalter, the position was this: The evidence showed that he attempted to break into a house. He was found outside in possession of firearms, and surely any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that there were facts established there, and that it was for a jury to say whether there was intention to commit a felony."
The Attorney-General would not let that man go to a jury. He took him up for having a gun without a permit and he was given six months. That is the only difference. That was in 1932. The Attorney-General is correct there. The mood was to play with these people, to pretend that they were fine fellows, and to encourage them in crime. In 1936 the mood is different. It took more assassinations of a foul type to bring the Attorney-General to the point of view that he apparently has now, and that he would be rather ashamed to hear that case mentioned.
The Attorney-General
The Deputy should be ashamed to mention it.
I would in any ordinary society.
The Attorney-General
The Deputy must know that in point of fact when that case was dealt with I was not in the country at all. I merely accepted responsibility for it.
And stood over it?
The Attorney-General
I did not.
May I take it that the Attorney-General would not have taken that action? It is time he said it after four years' silence.
The Attorney-General
I understand the Deputy has been informed of the fact, but he makes that challenge.
It was never said in this House.
The Attorney-General
I admit it was never said until now.
I raised that case three times in this House and the Attorney-General had his chance.
The Attorney-General
I informed Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney of the fact and he never raised it again. He accepted my explanation.
The Attorney-General heard me raising it three times and he never thought it his duty to say that.
Who wants to have contact with Deputy McGilligan, anyway?
He might have gone to a public meeting and said it, like what the Minister said about Michael Conway. He could easily have done that. He would have less scruple about bringing it before a court than he had for bringing the Minister. The difference is that that was 1932 against 1936.
The Attorney-General
Withdraw the statement.
Withdraw what? I made the statement that it was not properly done. The Attorney-General said it was not of his doing. I withdraw one to make another. Did the Attorney-General think it was part of his duty to make a public apology for what happened in the McWalter case? Did he make a protest that his office had been scandalously abused in his absence? Did he ever say a word to any one that he thought it might be even a question of resigning? Never. The Attorney-General has been threatened recently, according to the newspapers. Why? I can see a great deal of reason for threatening very many people in this country who are in sheep's clothing, as the Attorney-General is. That it would be thought worth while by any one to threaten passes my comprehension. The Attorney-General spent a good deal of time recently trying to suppress a paper called An Phoblacht. He appeared in the columns of that paper on one occasion when he sent a subscription to the Party that he is now trying to put down, with the phrase that, he at least, would never serve the Irish Free State. I can imagine people who thought the Attorney-General sincere feeling annoyed that the paper in whose columns he proclaimed himself as never likely to serve the Irish Free State, is now being suppressed by him, when he is in the service of the Irish Free State. It is one of the ill-memories of this country that people who from time to time have taken particular lines in politics said goodbye to them when position and preferment were offered. Poor Michael Conway, the dupe, could go very near the scaffold. Where will the man who said he would never serve the Irish Free State go eventually? I have talked of condonation of murder. It is a good thing, even in 1936, when the year is more than half gone, that we should get definite and clear-cut condemnation of murder. We have not got it yet.
You ought to know all about it.
Know all about what?
Condonation of murder.
I am talking about condemnation. The Minister is hard of hearing as well as hard of understanding. I am talking of condemnation of murder. When did we get a clear-cut, unreserved condemnation of murder? Is it on any date from August 11th? It is certainly not earlier. I remember that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, when only about a year in this House, was asked by a member of the Labour Party as to whether his was a constitutional Party or not. What was his answer? "A slightly constitutional Party.""We are," he said, "coming into this House to pursue certain tactics, but we are first and foremost a republican Party aiming to be a republican Government, and if those tactics do not succeed——" At that point he was interrupted by Deputy O'Connell, the leader of the Labour Party, who said, "It took you five years to find that out." What was his answer? "For five years," he said, "we were on the defensive. Now we are recruiting our strength, and if we get strong again, we will see whether we shall take the old offensive once more." He was speaking in this House as a member of a "slightly constitutional Party," and his colleagues used the same phraseology. They said, more or less—I am quoting now a mass of things in the gist—that they accepted majority rule, not because it was something sacred, but because there was a law of order about it; they said that they did not accept this House as having a proper title to govern; they said that the title to govern lay outside this House, and that the people helping to maintain that Government outside this House were the men who were best carrying on the old and honoured traditions of Irish nationalism. That persisted up to the year 1931.
Remember, Miss MacSwiney is held up to public odium and scorn because she talks of the I.R.A. We are told to make a distinction between the old I.R.A. and the I.R.A. that now exists, and we are given certain distinguishing signs. Miss MacSwiney is implored not to use the word "spy" against every member of the police or every agent of the police. Miss MacSwiney is implored not to try to create against the forces of this country the odium bound to be created by calling them "Imperial," or British troops or forces. Who started all that? Who are the first people to call and persist in calling the men recruited here to uphold our institutions "colonial troops" except the people opposite? Now, Miss MacSwiney is asked not to bring this odium on these "decent, young Irishmen." That is what they have now become. The I.R.A. are now to be crushed. They are people who must be condemned. They are now a murder gang. What were they in 1931? Here is what the President said on the 15th October, when the Constitution (Amendment) Bill was under discussion:
"It was only men who had been inspired with the principles which drove them to face the odds in 1916, and who made them a part of their faith, who would have attempted it (a forlorn hope). These are the men who we want to crush now. These are the men who are represented as terrorists, those who never thought of themselves. They are simply the rats that are to be squelched. These are the people who were ready to give everything they had for Ireland, and well we know it, and now they are being deserted by the majority of their people; they have been deserted by old comrades who can no longer see any hope of success in the line they are adopting, by people who were with them originally, but are so far away from them now that the road which they are following is leading diametrically in the opposite direction."
The President asks Miss MacSwiney to condemn murder. What did he say of the people guilty of those three murders in 1931, to which I referred earlier? Here is what he said:
"These men are misguided, if you will, but they were brave men anyhow; let us at least have for them the decent respect that we have for the brave. They have done terrible things recently, I admit, if they are responsible for them, and I suppose they are. Let us appeal to them and ask them in God's name not to do them. You sneer at that. It would be more effective, probably, than all your coercion and all your threats, all the shame and slime that you tried to pour upon them to-day."
These men were misguided, but they were brave men, anyhow, men for whom we were to have the decent respect we have for the brave. Now, in 1936, they are the rats to be squelched. Is not the President pouring to-day the "shame and slime" on them to which he objected in 1931? Why the change?
One of the changes is supposed to be that the I.R.A. won respect and its title when it functioned as the Army of the people, acknowledging the authority of and obedient to the control of the people's elected Parliament and Government. Did they always behave in that way? In a recent case before the Military Tribunal, a prisoner brought there was able to show that the instructions he was acting on and which brought him before the Tribunal were the very instructions given him by the man who is now Minister for Defence—Deputy Frank Aiken. The President thinks that the I.R.A. won respect and its title when it functioned as the Army of the people, acknowledging the authority of and obedient to the control of the people's elected Parliament and Government. Will the President search the records got in the dump at Kilakee? If he looks there, he will find a communication for which Mr. Frank Aiken, then Chief of Staff, was responsible. Apparently, the situation was that the I.R.A. were not satisfied with the lump of government they had—the people outside this House who were pretending to function as a Government. Apparently, they wanted to act on their own. The Chief of Staff, poor man, had to steer between the horns of a very ugly dilemma. He could not repudiate his Government. At the same time, he could not tell these people that they must be subservient to them. What did he say? He said: "A dangerous and undesirable isolation of the Army from the people is coming about." Having addressed an exhortation to them on these lines, he wrote on the 18th July, 1925, as Chief of Staff:
"The Army has given allegiance to the Government as the Government of the Republic. If, at any time, the Government took action inconsistent with its status as the Government of the Republic, the allegiance of the Army would automatically lapse."
The Deputy is obviously quoting. Is not the House entitled to know what he is quoting from?
It is on the records of the House, but what I am using is the note which I used in the discussion in 1931 on the Constitution (Amendment) Act, No. 17.
Is the Deputy quoting from a State document?
From my note of a State document.
I take leave to doubt that.
What do you take leave to doubt?
The veracity of Deputy McGilligan.
The Minister is in a mood in which he will probably have to deny everything I say to-night because of that statement at Lucan. That is what was said and written and that record is in the possession of the Government. The I.R.A. were not always obedient and subject to the control of the people's elected Parliament. There was their reason for diverting— if at any time the Government took action inconsistent with its status as the Government of the Republic. Then, the allegiance of the Army was automatically to lapse. These misguided youths say now that the action taken by you, people, is inconsistent with the status of the Government as the Government of the Republic. They now claim that they have Deputy Frank Aiken's authority for saying that the allegiance of the Army has automatically lapsed.
One could give thousands of these quotations. One would only have to go back over the old debates from 1927. Right on from 1927 to 1931—this cannot be denied—the present Government, then the Opposition, persisted in one course of conduct. They were out to destroy the institutions of the State. They asked people to try to break down the administration of justice. They applauded them for standing mute in court and refusing to recognise the court. The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that, if nobody else could be found to break the law, he would break it and bring the whole administration of justice into contempt. The I.R.A. were kept in the background. Men who are now Ministers played up to them and, further, sought to get sympathy for them and sought to get their support. The President says it is impossible to have certain trials run before juries because juries were being coerced by the gun. A paper called The Nation, which Deputy O'Kelly, as Deputy O'Kelly, used to publish, put in a notice from a correspondent applauding the fact that a certain juror had been shot and was lying in Steevens's Hospital. The Minister for Finance said in this House within the last 18 months that there was a time when he thought it was proper to intimidate juries, but he did not hold that view now.
That statement is as untrue as most of the other statements made by the Deputy.
These are the people who are responsible. They connived at and encouraged these people. They did more than encourage; they helped in every material way the people attempting to break down all these institutions. It was they who placarded the forces of this country as "Imperial troops." It was they who tried to create the atmosphere that everybody who was a police agent or spy should get what spies ordinarily get, and tried also to encourage the belief that any man who gave information about any crime to the police of the State was an informer of the old type and suitable for the treatment meted out to informers of the old type.
The I.R.A. have now got to be treated like rats, to be squelched. Any why the change? Why has there been a diversion of policy? Have the I.R.A. changed or have the Government changed? Why was the shooting of a certain juryman given publicity to in the columns of The Nation and not condemned then? Why is it now a matter to be referred to by the President in his speech in opposition to Miss MacSwiney, in stating that, of course, these people could not be brought before a jury because the jury could be easily intimidated by the gun? Where has the change come? Deputy MacDermot was able to refer here to certain other changes. There used to be a phrase mouthed by people, who had very little sense and certainly no understanding of the change in political relations that had taken place, that England's difficulty was always Ireland's opportunity. That Party when it was in opposition was brought up on that slogan and some of them have not even forgotten it yet. Suddenly the President made a change, out of the blue, no consideration for the change, no negotiations that one can hear of, no special benefit accruing to this country from the change. The President announces that he can say for his Government, and that he thinks he can speak for any other Government that would be likely to follow them, that no Government here could ever think of having the coasts of this country used for aggressive action against England. That was certainly a reversal of the old form of that Party. Possibly it went too far. The Vice-President went to Donegal and spoke there as reported on the 20th July. He believes that England should still quail a little at the thought of what the Vice-President would do if Partition is not ended before the next European War comes along.
If we take the President as spokesman of the Party for the time being, the President has announced that big change in international politics as between this country and the ancient enemy, England. The Vice-President told us at the Galway election that there were important negotiations going on. What about we do not know. The President has got over his horror of being associated by personal proximity with British ministers. At Geneva and elsewhere he can meet them and be on friendly terms with them. He can proceed to settle the affairs of half the world in association and on friendly lines of agreement with the British. In a variety of ways of which these are only a few outstanding examples it looks as if the President is beginning to see that there is more reason in some of the things he used to condemn than possibly some of the I.R.A. would yet see in these things. The I.R.A. were to be tolerated and were tolerated, were petted and pampered by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice, who had it in their power to bring them to heel, as long as they were useful. But at this moment when it looks as if the President is likely to make a swerve one way or another we have this policy suddenly announced and harshly and peculiarly operated against the I.R.A. They are no longer friends of the Government; they are enemies to be put down and squelched.
What is the President doing? What are the negotiations that the Vice-President spoke of? Has the Vice-President taken any steps to perfect the defence policy he laid down in this House? It was very sketchy but the orientation was good. It was peculiar, coming from the President. It was good to see at any rate that he had some line of policy. Whether the details are good or not we cannot say until we see them. He gave us some hint of a policy and briefly it was this: We cannot enter into an alliance with any other country. There is no country that wants us except one. We will arm Volunteers here. They are not of much hope in the case of a world war and an attack on our shores but it is the best we can do. After that, we will live in this comforting hope, that there is one nation that has more interest in seeing that no other nation attacks our shores than any other nation. Let us get that in concrete. We will not make an alliance with any country. We will rely on the British, whose interest it is to see that nobody attacks our shores. That is the defence policy but it is not the defence policy that most of the members opposite were brought up on. It is not the defence policy the President ever gave a hint of having prior to the autumn of last year. But there are negotiations going on about something according to the Vice-President. He had been asked about what and he has refused to say, but they are important enough to be trailed as a red herring before the people of Galway. It is possible that the I.R.A. were anxious to know what the negotiations were about. It is possible also that the President and his associates felt that it was better to prevent the I.R.A. from becoming too inquisitive before some bigger swerve, some more violent change took place, and so driven by circumstances, mysterious because the reality of them we do not know, the President comes to this decision, that he is not merely against murder but if a man is suspect of it, he is going to allow a Minister to go on a public platform and prejudice the case. He is going to see that if any man is put before the Tribunal that he previously thought was not independent by reason of its position under the Constitution, the case will be irregularly referred to in public beforehand and if there is anything in the intimidation of language from a man supposed to be cognisant of the evidence in a particular case, then that will be slapped down heavily in the balance against the unfortunate who comes before that Tribunal, long before he is brought there. That shows that the capacity of the present Government for blundering has not been exhausted.
We naturally welcome the change of mind even though one might deplore the tragedies that have been necessitated to bring about that change of mind on the part of the Government. The Government now are stern and definite in their repudiation of murder and murder gangs. At any rate the people of the country should be satisfied that if men are going to be sent to their trial and death for murder there will be this public security that they will get a fair trial. If there is not such security the hanging of men charged with murder will do more harm than good. The thought of the whole world has combined in this—that judges must be made independent in their functions before they can command respect; these judges must be made independent in two ways—they cannot be removed from office and they cannot have their moneys taken from them while in office. While you have such independent judges there is a well-recognised rule with regard to contempt of court which forbids any man to say prior to the trial anything calculated in any way to interfere with a fair trial. If that is so in the case of independent judges how much more so must it be in the case of men who hold office under the Executive Council and whose moneys come under the control of the Minister for Finance? How much more reason is there, therefore, in the latter case for putting a bridle on the irresponsible tongue? What absolute need is there when trials of this sort are going forward that men who cannot control their tongues should be locked up along with the prisoner——
Hear, hear.
——so that nothing they can say will filter through outside and will not affect the minds of the people who are trying to give a fair trial. The Vice-President is amused.
Hear, hear.
Michael Conway was not. Michael Conway protested against the statement of the Minister for Finance. The Vice-President would laugh at Michael Conway.
I am thinking of this time last year when Deputy McGilligan was saying: "please I did not say what you thought I was saying,"
This is a serious matter.
An allegation against a Minister's honour is a serious matter also.
This is a serious matter. We had a virulent tongue let loose at Lucan when the Minister said that he had read the evidence and that the man would be condemned to death. Is that a thing to be laughed at?
As usual Deputy McGilligan has uttered an untruth.
At any rate the Minister is not laughing any longer. That is something gained. But the prisoner thought it was grave contempt of court and a deliberate attempt to prejudice the trial. That is what the man said. Let the Minister look it up. If there is going to be any more of these trials we must remember that the phrase did not apply only to the Egan case. These men will be brought forward. That speech is still there. The Attorney-General has done nothing to clear people's minds of distrust and anxiety as to how these trials are conducted. One can, at this time, let one's mind run back for quite a number of years, in fact over the whole period since 1921. During that period there has been nothing in this country but division and strife. That was caused, maintained, encouraged, developed and continued by the men who have now recanted through the mouth of their President in Galway the other night all that they did and stood over in the last 14 years.
Since when did the Deputy say?
Since 1921. That recantation does almost apologise for every crime that that Party allowed since 1921. These "bloody instructions" we have been taught, "always return to plague the inventor." We saw the inventor squirming at Galway. These people had taken him seriously. They believed him when he said they were decent, brave young men. Because people believed him when he said that they thought he was going to allow them go to any extreme. The people who followed him felt that they had as good a right as he had to say when the time had come to stop shooting. He says "at a particular moment I withdrew the Oath." At that moment all the guns should have dropped from their hands. These people have always said that they were taught by him to say that this Parliament was a British institution and never would they enter it. They heard him say that they would all be in their graves before he would ever take the Oath and they saw him taking it within a week. These people were deluded, but they had their own views as to when matters could be brought to a conclusion. He thought the time had come. They thought the time had not yet arrived. He thinks it has arrived; we thought so in 1922. He told them they were decent, brave, young men, and they believed that when they had crossed the line there was no reason why they should stop.
The President is not obeying the law even at the moment. The I.R.A. objects to this institution because it is founded on the Treaty. The President himself taught them that phrase, but he has now founded himself on the Treaty which he taught these people to condemn, he has set aside part of the law himself, while he condemns these people to death for breaking another part of it. The President knows he has set aside the law. There is a certain situation here with regard to the Governor-General and with regard to Association. The President thinks that can be put on one side. But the I.R.A. think other things can be put on one side. The President thinks they are committing crimes at a particular time. They think he is committing a crime now; he taught them to think so himself. I would rather have their verdict than his anyway.
A Chinn Comhairle, your ruling has permitted what might be a discussion on the whole history of this country since 1922. That discussion having been permitted to Deputy McGilligan, I may be permitted also to refer to the matters the Deputy has brought into the discussion. But first before going to any other topic I want to challenge Deputy McGilligan and to say that at no time, anywhere, did President de Valera or any of his Ministers condone murder or condone those who committed murder nor were they a party to murder like the members sitting opposite me now. Their hands have never been stained by murder—stained by the blood of their countrymen. We are charged over and over again with that in this debate. President de Valera is charged with it and Deputy McGilligan knows it is a lie and that there is no foundation for it. The Deputy had better look into the history of himself and his Party, not himself because he never had the courage to——
Commit murder.
He never had the courage. He was never in the I.R.A. There are men associated with him who had the courage to join the I.R.A. He never had the courage to do anything but slander men in this House and outside of it who had the courage to join the I.R.A. That is what I know of him.
If I am not mistaken the statement has been made charging the members of the late Ministry with condoning murder. I would like to know if that is in order?
That statement was made. It was not in order and must be withdrawn. No Party in this House can be accused of murder or accused of condoning murder.
Deputy McGilligan made that statement over and over again and it has not been withdrawn.
I have heard that statement made this evening and it had to be withdrawn.
I have been listening during the last hour to Deputy McGilligan repeating that statement over and over again.
He said I said it was no harm to shoot jurors.
I gave the quotation from the Minister's speech.
The Deputy did not.
I said that the Vice-President's organ, The Nation, published in its news a phrase gloating over the fact that a juror had been shot. That is a fact., I have the quotation here.
You said that the Minister for Finance stated to this House about 18 months ago that at one time he believed it was right to shoot jurors, but now he believed it no longer. I am not going to stigmatise that as a lie, because it is not necessary, when Deputy McGilligan makes a statement like that, to put on it its proper name.
I used the word "intimidate" in that connection; not "shoot." That is the word that was used.
It was not.
I ask for your ruling on the matter.
It is not parliamentary to accuse any Deputy or Party in this House of condoning murder.
That is what Deputy McGilligan did a dozen times.
When Deputy McGilligan did say it this evening, he withdrew it.
Not in your absence.
He withdrew it at the request of the Chair.
In deference to your ruling, Sir, I withdraw it. I ask the members of the House to bear in mind the slimy tongue of Deputy McGilligan. He talked of trading in slime. I use his own eloquent phrase, and I leave him to wallow in his own slime.
That was quoting the President.
You were not.
It is the 1931 speech of the President.
There is nobody better able to do it than the Deputy. There is nobody who does it every time he speaks in this House with greater practice than Deputy McGilligan. It is a sorry business when Deputy McGilligan has to go back to 1920 and 1921 to rake up slime. Every phrase of his was casting odium on the man who is now his leader and sits beside him, and on many of his colleagues for their acts in 1920 and 1921. President de Valera talked, and would talk to-day, of the brave men of the I.R.A. There were brave men, and there are brave men, probably. I do not know them as I used to know them. Ex-President Cosgrave does not know them as he used to know them. But he was one of them, and Deputy McGilligan was not. He was always where he could safely slander people with his slimy tongue—he never took any risks.
That statement is not true.
That statement is true. So far as my knowledge goes, he was never in any danger at any time of his life.
I happen to know to the contrary.
Speaking from what I know——
Let us at least be honest with regard to a man's reputation.
His reputation is before us. Deputy McGilligan has a slimy tongue and can get up and defend his reputation, if it is attacked, where it needs defence.
The Deputy's reputation is hardly the subject of discussion.
No, but the President's is. It is a thing of value not alone to the President, but to this State. The President at no time stood for murder or condoned murder or encouraged people to murder either before 1920, that Deputy McGilligan referred to, or at any time afterwards. I hate to go back. I used when in Opposition often remind the House, and I am often twitted with it since, of the awful things that happened here and that the members of the late Government were primarily responsible for from 1921 onwards. I often did that. I was told often that it was unwise to do it, but I felt very keenly the horrible crimes that blackened our nation and our race which were committed by people in responsible positions or that were condoned by people in responsible positions in this State.
I have again to ask your ruling, Sir, with regard to that matter.
There is nobody named.
He said people in authority committed certain crimes. That is the statement he made.
There is nobody so specified that I can identify him as a member of any Government.
I need not go back to the 8th December, 1922.
Nor need I go back to dates long anterior to that and subsequent to it. The Minister lost nobody in that business.
The Minister lost many good colleagues.
He did not lose any relatives.
I lost many good friends. I know Deputy Cosgrave has lost some and I regret it most sincerely. I did not start this talk of murder to-night. I did not challenge, nor did anybody here challenge, anybody with condoning murder until the slimy tongue of Deputy McGilligan started all this raking up of old sores and history in order to try and blacken the fair name of the President whose boots he is not fit to shine. Whatever may be said about the President, he is a man of courage anyhow. He took his life in his hands many times, as did Deputy Cosgrave and some of his colleagues, but never Deputy McGilligan.
I know that is untrue.
He stood behind and used the vile tongue which the House knows he possesses to blacken the character of a decent man, such as the President is. Nobody is better fitted to do it; nobody is usually paid for doing it. The President at no period of his career ever poured slime —to use the Deputy's word—on the I.R.A. I have often listened to him since we came into this House in 1927 discussing these matters about the I.R.A. and their records and doings, and he pleaded with the then Government, up to 1932, to be forbearing and patient with these men, to give them time. It is always in my mind that he often stated that we cannot in five years, or maybe in ten or 15 years, get away from our history from 1918 or 1919 to 1923 in a hurry. We should realise that.
We cannot forget the teachings of all of us on both sides of the House, Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald as much as anybody else, all of us on that side of the House as well as on this, what we taught and what we stood for and what we condoned. We cannot forget these things, and even if we tried to forget them, as we ought to do, we cannot induce all the country to do it, much as we would like to do it, I think, on every side of the House. We will never do it as long as the slime of Deputy McGilligan is allowed to percolate around—never if he has a chance to keep the dirt and filth and horrors of that period still before the minds of the young men of the country in particular. We cannot, as the President often stated here, much as we would like to, get all the country simply to cut themselves off from that past that is not all full of honour and glory for us. And, therefore, he pleaded as we plead. We pleaded as a Government, and have done so ever since we came in here, for forbearance and patience for those whom I regard and the President regards and has always regarded, in regard to certain actions, as misguided young men. For four years we practised that forbearance. We were challenged time after time in debate here by ex-President Cosgrave and his colleagues to denounce the I.R.A., to proclaim the I.R.A. and to use the full measure of the law against them. We practised what we preached when we were in Opposition. We practised forbearance. We said to the House and we acted on it "We will take our time, we will try and teach these young men what we think they ought to know, the line we think they ought to follow, and we will be patient." Things have happened, things will happen and may happen again because of the teachings and the example of Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Mulcahy and of President de Valera and of Deputy Seán T. O Ceallaigh and of all of us at a certain period.
Things will happen. We cannot shut our eyes to them. There are people who will believe these principles. They will try to put them into practice, not taking into account the big fundamental changes that have taken place, but we think, and we have acted on it, that forbearance, patience and quiet example was the best line to follow with those people. The Deputies opposite would appear to be quite annoyed and quite discontented now when we have not continued to follow that line. From one point of view they seem to be pleased that we have brought upon ourselves the wrath of those who remain, a small number I think, as adherents and supporters of the Irish Republican organisation. I think they rushed these two by-elections in Galway and Wexford because they thought that they could use the I.R.A. for mean political Party purposes and to defeat us, hoping that those people would in their wrath be against us for doing what they have been clamouring for so long that we should do. Now, we have done it for certain good reasons. Our patience became exhausted, and we had to take certain action when the lives of citizens were taken. We could not any longer show any tolerance or forbearance when the lives of citizens were taken as they were taken by, as we believe, members of an organisation. The Opposition used that opportunity for mean Party political purposes, and if there is any man who dictated the mean part of it. I think it is Deputy McGilligan. I believe that, because, whatever may be said of others, I believe that, like the I.R.A. men whom I have known, they have courage anyhow. Usually they will not squeal. They will face the consequences, but Deputy McGilligan would never put himself and never did put himself in the way of having to face any risk.
It was amusing to hear a man with the slimy capacity of Deputy McGilligan talk of putting a bridle on tongues. No wonder the House laughed. No wonder they enjoyed the joke. Was there ever a person in this House or outside of it who has a greater capacity for slime, for filth and dirt than he has? He is no credit to his Party or to the House. I admire people who can say hard things. I have said them myself. Others, on the other side of the House, have said them, and said them to me. I enjoy the man who can get a hard blow in. I do not mind how hard it is. I will try to get my own back off him, but mean personal slime and abuse is something that I think there is no value in to any individual or to any Party. Deputy McGilligan wallows in it up to his chin, and I am sure he enjoys it. He quoted, he did not quote as far as I remember, but he referred to instructions issued by the present Minister for Defence to the I.R.A. The present Minister for Defence was Chief of Staff to the I.R.A. Is there any disgrace in that? He was Chief of Staff even after this Free State was established. He was in a very important position in the Republican Army before the Free State was established, a very important position in which he risked his life every hour of the day over long periods, a thing that Deputy McGilligan never did. In the 1920-21 period we did not start the fight against the State, to tear down the State, and Deputy McGilligan knows that well. Between the Parties that had been in the Dáil up to the time of the Treaty there was a Pact arranged on both sides. We arranged the Pact with the Treaty Party, and while we were waiting for the new Government to be formed, and the Dáil to be assembled, the civil war started. Those of us who took the opposite side on the Treaty did not start the civil war. We repudiate the suggestion that we were responsible for starting the civil war, but at any rate when it did start some of us took our part in it and took the risks. We fought and lost. We were beaten. That is the plain fact, that we were beaten and we acknowledge it. During that period some of us tried to end the régime that was then in control because we believed that they were illegally in control. They had seized power and were not the real Government authority. We believed that, and, even after the civil war ended and for some years, we tried hard to bring down that Government and we failed.
It is no disgrace to own up that we were beaten. We went to the people and asked the people to back us in the fight against recognising that Government as a proper Government, and we were beaten by the people. Then the murder of Kevin O'Higgins occurred—the Lord rest his soul. President de Valera, and several of those who are now with him in his Executive Council, realised that that condition of affairs could not go on, and what was to us an important decision was arrived at. We came into this House and recognised it, protesting as we did against the oath of allegiance. We took the earliest opportunity of abolishing the oath of allegiance. That is all ancient history. But, while we broke away from our colleagues and came in here and recognised this House—it was a big break with us, a very big and important break with us and with our past—we have to remember those we left behind. We have to remember those whom Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Mulcahy left behind; those who did not make the break that Deputy Cosgrave or that we made. They were just as much republicans as we were and swore an oath to the republic. Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy Mulcahy and the others—they made their break; we made it later, in the meantime having fought all we knew how and having been beaten. We had not the money or the arms of the State or of England behind us to beat our opponents.
So you are Imperialists No. 1 and Imperialists No. 2 now?
We got beaten— that is acknowledged. I, at any rate, am prepared to own up to facts. But we must rememer those we left behind and we cannot expect everybody to make the same change at the same time. I do not know them, but there are, I am sure, men amongst those who do not see as we see now or as Deputy Cosgrave saw earlier that certain actions that were taken were wrong, imprudent, misguided. We have been forbearing, we have been patient, and we hope still to show patience and forbearance, but not with murder, and never was there any forbearance or patience shown with murder, at any rate, since we came into office or before it. It is no discredit to the Minister for Defence, Mr. Aiken, to issue orders as he did issue orders. Thanks be to God, he was man enough to issue his orders at times when there was risk, when there was danger in it, as Deputy McGilligan well knows. He was not there to back up even the men who founded this State. He was always on the safe side, where his tongue was the only risk that was involved. It is extraordinary, after all we have listened to since we came into this House in 1927, to find, now, Miss MacSwiney taken into the arms of the Opposition. She is now the hero of the Opposition.
The heroine.
And Michael Conway is the hero of Deputy McGilligan.
Indeed, he is not; I repudiate that.
So well you can. After your speech to-night the hero is Michael Conway and those who act with him and the heroine is Miss MacSwiney. Will you say that to Deputy Cosgrave about Mr. Moss Twomey?
Or will you say it about Rory O'Connor?
Yes, about Rory O'Connor and the other three men who were shot with him?
If we are going to have that type of thing introduced, I must——
Deputy Cosgrave was not here to hear Deputy McGilligan going over that story.
I was here for quite a long time.
If the Deputy had had been here, Deputy McGilligan might not have been allowed to proceed along that line; but he was not here and we got the whole history from 1921 on. I, at any rate, was in the habit of mentioning it long ago, but I did not mention it since I became a Minister.
Does the state of grace start from the period when you became a Minister?
I did not catch the Deputy's remark.
I wanted to know if the Minister claims to be in the state of grace since he took over office?
No, unfortunately; I wish I could say that. I am nearly always in a state of disgrace, judging by the comments of my friends here on the Opposition and the newspapers. If I am not in disgrace, I am in hot water.
I hope you will not be, after this speech, in any case.
I am afraid that the Opposition are going to get a very serious disappointment with regard to the elections. They believed in acting with indecent haste, as their friend the Irish Times said to them—indecent haste rushing these by-elections before the bodies of the two Deputies of their Party were cold in their clay. They rushed the by-elections because (1) Michael Conway was being tried, and (2) the Government had denounced the I.R.A. “Now,” said Deputy McGilligan, probably, “is our chance.”
I can assure the Minister that the statement is not true.
"Now is our chance," they said. "We will rush this, and the I.R.A. situation is bound to swamp the Government." You are going to get the biggest drop you ever got in your political life, and I am no prophet. In both Galway and Wexford you will get a drop. I do not like wallowing in the slime, so I will leave Deputy McGilligan's speech. We were asked by Deputy O'Sullivan about the Constitution. That matter has been referred to a few times in the House and a few times in the course of the by-elections. The President has promised to bring in a Constitution Bill in the autumn, and he has promised to give ample time to the Dáil and to the country to know the contents of that Bill and to discuss it. When ample time has been allowed for the Constitution Bill to be known in every detail, he has promised to have a General Election in which that will be a main item. I think the House and the country may hold their patience until October to see the contents of that Bill, and I think no useful purpose could be served by discussing it at this stage.
Another matter that was discussed by several speakers was the economic war and the prospect of settling it. We are as anxious to settle that economic war as anybody. We are just as anxious as anybody in the country to have a satisfactory settlement, but we will not settle until we get what we regard as a settlement satisfactory to this country and to this Government. When we reach that, when we are near reaching it even, the country and the Dáil will be fully informed. We are not blocking the road to a settlement by what we would regard, at any rate, as any condition which this country has a right to put down before a settlement is reached. We are told we could make a satisfactory settlement. I have yet to learn that a settlement satisfactory to the Government and to the country could be made on terms that this country could accept with honour. We are told that the Opposition could make a settlement in very quick time. We are told by many of their speakers here and outside that if the people would only give a chance to Deputy Cosgrave again, what a magnificent settlement he would make. I think the answer to that is "Once bitten twice shy". We know the damn bad nought settlement he made before, and I do not think the country is prepared for a second chance at the same price.
Would the Minister tell us what effort has been made by this Government to bring about a settlement?
Every effort consistent with maintaining what we regard as the rights of this State and of this Government.
Has any compromise been offered?
I am not going to be cross-examined.
I see that.
Is there anything doing at the present time?
There is always something doing. Not a month passes that something is not done in some way or other.
Well, can we have that?
No opportunity is let slip.
We cannot even get cattle licences.
No stone unturned; no avenue unexplored; no door ever shut!
A number of small points were raised by Deputy Davin about widows' and orphans' pensions and unemployment assistance. With regard to widows' and orphans' pensions, Deputy Davin knows that were it not for the existence of this Government you would not have widows' and orphans' pensions now. I have said here in the House, not at the inspiration of Deputy Davin or anybody else in his Party or any other Party, that as soon as we could possibly do it, with the legislative programme we have, we hope to introduce an amending Bill making arrangements for extending the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act so that a much greater number of widows and orphans would benefit.
I do not think there is anything else that I need refer to, except to say that the Act under which Michael Conway was tried was brought in by the late Government, and was condemned by us because, as the President said here in reply, I think, to the leader of the Labour Party, we did not trust the Opposition to use such a machine when they were the Government. We did not trust them, knowing their record, knowing their history. We did not trust a machine of that kind into their keeping. We put that machine out of operation when we took office. We were optimistic enough to believe that the necessity for its use had gone for good, but, as the House and the country knows, within a year or two we had to invoke that machinery——
Is there any difference in the machine?
——because we found there was no other legislation, no other Act on the Statute Book, that gave as the power to deal with the situation we were up against in about August, 1933, when Mr. Cosgrave, the then leader of the Party, abdicated in favour of Mr. General O'Duffy.
The term "abdicated" is rather monarchial. "Retired," I think, is the word.
I think it is just the proper word to use in regard to Deputy Cosgrave, who thought he ought to have been for all time the monarch of the Free State; who was the most disappointed man on earth that he was ever put out of it——
I never enjoyed life so much as I have done since.
——and who regrets night and day that he is not still President of the Executive Council; at least so all his friends tell us. He abdicated. I think that is a good word; or maybe he got a little push. He handed over the Party to one who tried to use the Party, until, I think, Mr. Seamus Hogan, and I do not know who else—Deputy MacDermot helped —found him out and showed him up. At any rate, we were forced to use that machine because of the menace of the Blueshirt organisation.
Tell that to Mary MacSwiney.
The Opposition Party, then led by General O'Duffy, started a campaign——
Will the Minister bear with me for a moment? The General has nobody here to speak on his behalf. Could he not leave his name out of it?
Deputy Cosgrave does not accept responsibility for anything the General did at that time?
That is another question. I am prepared to answer for all my own acts and for a number of the General's, but I say, in justice to him, that he has no one here to answer for him and he ought to be left out of it.
The Minister's recollection is at fault. It was not on General O'Duffy's Blueshirts it was used first. It was on a few of us farmers who assembled at a sale.
Who cared anything about you? There was no risk so far as Deputy Belton was concerned. Deputy Belton would never menace anything worse than a beefsteak. During the period when Deputy Cosgrave was only vice-president of his organisation, there were hundreds of grievous illegalities committed by the Party of which he was a vice-president, and I think Deputy MacDermot was another, if I mistake not. During that period, in December, 1933, alone, five members of the League of Youth were convicted of unlawful possession of firearms. In 1934 over 350 members of the League of Youth were convicted of offences such as treefelling, road-blocking, and interference with railway lines. In 1935 there were some hundreds more.
But not a drop of blood was shed.
That is not correct. There were people seriously injured in a train wreck in Waterford.
And a house fired into, and a house burned.
Deputy Murphy's house was attempted to be burned by the organisation of which Deputy Dillon was a leading member. A barrack in Kildorrery was attacked with arms by members of Deputy Dillon's organisation. That was the reason why that machinery had to be invoked. Unfortunately it still has to be invoked. But if we had our way, if the wishes of the Government were possible of realisation, of course that machine would be scrapped, but as long as life is menaced in this country, whatever means are necessary to protect life in this country will be used to the full by the Executive Council.
Hear! hear!
I do not think there is anything else I have to say, Sir.
On the 29th of last month, Sir, I addressed a question to the President of the Executive Council in connection with the trial and sentence of Michael Conway, and on that occasion I received a reply from the President in which he said:
"The Executive Council is satisfied that Michael Conway was given a fair trial and that every opportunity was afforded him to submit evidence on his behalf, had he so desired."
I asked the President, in a Supplementary question, if he would say why he now believes it is right and proper to arraign a man on a capital charge before the Military Tribunal, seeing that in 1931 he was opposed to this tribunal being given any such powers in respect of life or death over a prisoner. The President, in reply to that Supplementary Question, said:
"My view in 1931, I think, was quite clear from what I stated at the time, that I did not trust the Executive Council of the day with these powers, that I indicated that another line of policy was possible, and the change is due to the fact that that line of policy has been tried."
In going on further, the President, in a later supplementary, said, when he was asked whether any persons with legal qualifications constituted the tribunal:
"That court has been trying various cases for a considerable time, and any unprejudiced person looking at the conduct of that tribunal in the cases submitted must come to the conclusion that if a person is not guilty of an offence he certainly will get before that tribunal as good a chance of acquitting himself as he will get before any court."
There, Sir, we had a declaration by the President of the Executive Council which seems to me to constitute a declaration of repentance by the Executive Council for having opposed the Constitution (Amendment) Act (No. 17) of 1931. The President in 1936, after his justifiably bitter and fierce denunciation of that Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1931, says now that he is satisfied that a person will get a fair trial before this Military Tribunal, and the President now definitely declares in this House that, five years after the tribunal was established, he for one is perfectly satisfied, not merely with the manner in which the tribunal is constituted, not merely with the qualifications of those who constitute it, but that he is satisfied that any person can get a fair trial from that tribunal even if the person is arraigned on a capital charge. In my opinion, that is a most amazing declaration from the President of the Executive Council.
For the purposes of this debate the Military Tribunal is a court. It has been duly constituted by the Oireachtas. The decisions of that court are not open to review or criticism here. The Dáil has no judicial functions, is not a court of appeal, and has no right to review the decisions or the transactions of that or any other duly constituted court. As to the personnel or the constitution of the court, that also is established by law, embodied in the Constitution, can only be changed by rescinding the Act which constitutes the court, or by express motion tabled for that purpose.
On a point of order, Sir, the proclamation, as an administrative measure, can be withdrawn.
The withdrawal of the proclamation is a very different thing from discussing whether or not an accused person gets a fair trial at that court. That is a matter that may not be discussed in the Dáil.
But, Sir, I have not alleged that anybody got a fair trial there. The only person doing that is the President, and I do not propose to pass any judgment as to that, in this House at any rate, whatever I might say outside.
On a point of order, Sir. I suggest that the Deputy is out of order in the expression he used, that he has not suggested that anybody got a fair trial.
Neither did I.
I put it to you, Sir, that the question as to whether a trial before the tribunal is a fair trial or not is, according to your ruling recently given, Sir, out of order.
Yes, decidedly; that matter may not be discussed or canvassed in the House.
Quite, Sir. I am perfectly clear as to that, and I have not said anything at all about the kind of trials persons got before the Military Tribunal. All I have done is to quote from the President where he said that the Executive Council were satisfied that Michael Conway was given a fair trial before the Military Tribunal. That is the only evidence we have of what kind of trial, in the opinion of the President of the Executive Council, can be got before this Military Tribunal. But I, Sir, am not passing any judgment on the Military Tribunal in his particular case or any other particular case.
But the President did.
The President did. He is the only person who has done so. Not merely has he given his own opinion on it, but he invited the public generally to look at the cases that went before the Tribunal and to feel convinced—apparently, by his assurance— that if a person is not guilty of an offence he will certainly get before that Tribunal as good a chance of acquitting himself as he would get before any court. These declarations are not made by me. I have not at all introduced the question of the kind of trial people get before the Military Tribunal. If I wanted to do that, Sir, I might only quote some speeches made by members of the present Executive Council, but I do not even propose to do that——certainly, not at any great length, Sir. The answer by the President to my question on the 29th of last month is a definite declaration that whatever reservations the President of the Executive Council had in accepting the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 17) Act, he certainly has none now. We may take it, therefore, that the President to-day warmly embraces that Constitution (Amendment) Act of 1931 as an instrument under which a person can be tried, not by judges, but by military officers who constitute the court, and that that person can get a fair trial. That is the declaration of the President to-day, and this declaration comes after a bitter denunciation by the President and members of the Executive Council, that this particular piece of legislation, before it became an Act, and while it was passing through this House, was the most abominable piece of tyranny that the House was ever asked to pass.
On any legislative measure passing through this House very strong opinions are often expressed quite legitimately by Deputies. Once a Bill becomes an Act, however, these opinions may not be repeated. The Act in question is an Article of the Constitution and is not now open to criticism. The Deputy is out of order in criticising the Act as there is not before the House any motion to repeal or partially rescind or amend it.
But, Sir, I am not criticising the Act. What I have said is that the President, who now warmly embraces the Act of 1931, which he then described as a Coercion Act, is now, apparently, wholeheartedly in favour of the administration of the Constitution (Amendment) Act, and, in my opinion, the Act is being used with all the rigour and all the severity with which the President forecasted in 1931 it would be used by the last Government. We were told then that the legislation passed was undesirable legislation, that it gave to the Executive Council of that period powers greater than were possessed by any European dictator.
An Ceann Comhiarle
The Deputy may not indirectly criticise an Act of this Oireachtas. What was said when the measure was going through is a very different matter and was then quite in order.
Do you rule, Sir, that I am not entitled to call attention to the declarations made by members of this House in 1931, and contrast those declarations with their actions now to show their inconsistencies as members of this House? I am not criticising the legislation. I have so far definitely refrained, because of the line taken by previous speakers, from making any comment on the Constitution Amendment Act. What I have said is that that Act, when it was passing through the House, was denounced by the members of the present Executive Council who are using it to-day and using it with such thrilling satisfaction——
The Deputy must know that Deputies are free to criticise, and criticise severely, any legislation in course of enactment. Once legislation has been enacted it must be accepted an Act of the Oireachtas.
On a point of order. May I not compare what President de Valera said in this House in 1931 with what President de Valera says about precisely the same thing in this House in 1936, just as I would be entitled to compare what the Minister for Finance says in Skerries with what the Minister for Finance says in Dáil Eireann? Surely I am entitled to make that comparison?
The Chair has not heard any such comparison made nor any quotation cited.
That is what I am endeavouring to do.
The Attorney-General
Is it the same thing? You, Sir, have already pointed out that when a Bill is going through the House there is freedom of discussion which ceases the moment it becomes an Act.
Nobody has yet criticised the Act, so far as I have heard. I have heard Deputy Norton say that President de Valera, when this was a Bill, used certain terms about it and he is contrasting that with President de Valera's view of it now. Surely those two things are fit and open to be contrasted in this House?
I do not propose, as I have already declared on half a dozen occasions, apparently ineffectually, to make any reference whatever to the contents of the Act because I believe my action in doing so would be ruled on unfavourably by you. What I intend, however, to do, and I think it is properly in order if I may humbly say so, is to compare the declarations of the President on this Act before it was passed through this House and his actions and views to-day.
The Deputy may not quote opinions expressed when a measure was going through this House as the opinion of the Deputy or Minister on the Act. Every Bill introduced is open to criticism, almost unlimited criticism. Acts may not be criticised. The distinction is obvious.
May one not criticise the attitude towards an Act?
Towards the Act, yes, but Deputies may not apply criticism of the Bill to the Act.
May I submit, Sir, that if the President gets up and says, when the Public Safety Act was passing through: "This is an abomination," and a year later, when the Act is in operation, says: "This is the finest Act that was ever passed by this House," am I not entitled to rise and say that some trifling inconsistencies manifest themselves between the two statements that this is the most loathsome machinery ever brought before a legislature and that it is the grandest Act ever passed?
The Deputy is putting a hypothetical question relative to quotations that have not been made.
That is what I understand Deputy Norton to be doing.
Deputy Norton should make that clear.
He will endeavour to do so if he can only get the opportunity.
Is that addressed to Deputy Dillon?
I want to say that the whole administration of this Act by the present Executive Council is in strange contrast with their views on the equipment which was being given to the Executive Council in 1931. In that year we had declarations by the President and by the Minister for Finance, who mustered up all the fury he possessed to declare that this was a fiendish piece of tyranny which ought not to be passed, and when the Minister said that, and when the President said something similar, I believe that both of them were right in 1931, but to-day——
And the Deputy disclaims any intention of criticising the Act?
I am not criticising the Act as administered. What I am saying is that the very Ministers who said that in 1931 have now given us a certificate that this Act is a satisfactory Act, and that you can get a fair trial under it, and the public generally are invited to observe the impartiality of the tribunal. That was the atmosphere in which the 1931 Bill was passed. The House will note the strange change of attitude on the part of the Executive Council since then. On that occasion, they did not want any Executive Council to get the powers which they now have under this Act. At that time, they did not want to be armed with the dictatorial powers which are in the Act. They said "The normal law of the country is good enough for us and we do not need these extraordinary powers to carry on the administration of this country." That was the attitude in 1931. In 1936, we were told not only that the Act is desirable, but that it is a good Act, and that everybody charged before the tribunal, no matter what the type of offence with which he is charged, can feel sure of getting a fair trial there. I want to say I do not believe that these statements by the President of the Executive Council represent the position. I want to say that I am not satisfied that it is necessary for the Executive Council to have these powers and I want to go further and say that these powers are being used with a severity and ruthlessness which is not justifiable.
Deputy MacDermot, of course, this evening availed of the motion for the adjournment to deliver one of his supercilious and patronising speeches, in the course of which he delivered the usual sermon on British Imperialism from prepared notes. Deputy MacDermot, who is not too long acquainted with recent political happenings in this country, discovered that the Labour Party did not condemn political murder. Let me tell Deputy MacDermot that the members who constitute the Labour Party in this House have lived in this country since 1916. They have gone with the nation through the travail since that period. Many of them have fought in the National movement. They know this nation, they know its people; they know what political murder is; and when Deputy MacDermot was enjoying the snug comfort of another country, the members of the Labour Party were here sharing the trials and tribulations of the people, which Deputy MacDermot took good care to avoid. Speeches of that kind, from one who looks at Ireland from Paris or some other part of Europe, are altogether out of place here. If Deputy MacDermot still feels that he must deliver Imperialistic, supercilious, and patronising speeches here, he ought to try to import into them, at least, a little knowledge, even if he cannot import into them a little modesty.
In dealing with a matter of this kind, I want to say that, so far as political murders are concerned, they have always been condemned by the Labour Party. Whether they were political murders of 1936 or political murders of any other year, the Labour Party has, in my opinion, rightly and justifiably condemned political murders of any kind. In respect to the political murders which were committed in Cork and Dungarvan, the Labour Party has condemned them, and I condemn them again, as unjustifiable, as diabolical outrages on two citizens, and as something which cannot be justified on any pretext whatever. It seems to me to be nothing short of amazing that you can find in 1936 any group of men who can imagine that they are serving any good cause or promoting the cause of this country by murders of that kind. That declaration by me is not different in substance from declarations which were made from these benches many years before Deputy MacDermot came to Ireland. There seems to me to be a strange inconsistency in the whole attitude of the Executive Council to-day compared with the attitude they adopted when in Opposition. The Vice-President said this evening that they wanted to act with restraint and forbearance, yet we find the Attorney-General formulating charges against men that are not known to the ordinary law; charges which, in the main, consist of artificial offences created by the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1931. The Attorney-General knows perfectly well, and ought to know better now, after having listened to the Vice-President's speech, that these people who have been arraigned by him on alleged offences under the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1931, are persons who will not answer the questions which have been addressed to them, because the purpose of the questions has been to felon-set these people. Yet the Attorney-General very definitely makes the charge against them of refusing to answer questions, knowing that in that way the felon-setting kind of arrangement means that these people can be tried by this Military Tribunal, of which the President of the Executive Council now thinks so much. We were told in speeches made in the Wexford and Galway by-elections that trial by jury is impossible in this country. I ask the Attorney-General when was trial by jury given a chance since 1932. Will he tell us one case since 1932 where a person was arraigned before a jury, on a charge which ought to have justified his being condemned, where the jury refused through fear or intimidation to convict the accused? Mention one case since 1932 where you have tried to work the system of trial by jury.
I will give you one.
Let the Attorney-General explain his own administration. The Deputy can help him afterwards.
I will give one case.
The Attorney-General will welcome your help afterwards. Deputy MacDermot comes to the assistance of the President, and Deputy Anthony to the assistance of the Attorney-General. The Deputy can help the Attorney-General afterwards. I am sure he will be impressed by the Deputy's profound want of legal knowledge.
I will support the Government and President de Valera when endeavouring to preserve order.
We were told that trial by jury has failed; that it is not possible to get convictions by juries.
We were told that by a Government which has not produced a single case to show that trial by jury has failed during their period of office. Will the Attorney-General tell us of a single case where a person has been tried by jury, and has been acquitted, when, in his opinion the facts of the case were such as justified the conviction of the prisoner? Can we be told that by the Attorney-General? Then we will be able to ascertain whether this ramp, that there cannot be trial by jury, is not just an excuse by the Executive Council to use the Constitution (Amendment) Act which was passed for them by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. One would think, judging by the rantings one hears from some political platforms that the only task of a jury was to convict. One would imagine that a jury had only one function, and that that was to satisfy a thirst for vengeance on the part of an Executive Council. The function of a jury is to try a man and to ascertain his guilt, and, if not guilty, to acquit him. If the jury has any reasonable doubt of his guilt, they must give the accused person the benefit of the doubt. One would imagine from speeches made by members of the Government Party that a jury had only one function, unless, according to these hysterical speeches, there was a thirst for vengeance running right through the speeches made in the recent municipal elections in Dublin by the Minister for Finance. I do not want to refer, although I wish it was in order to do so, to the trial of Michael Conway before the Military Tribunal.
Then why mention it?
Except to say that I do not at all accept the conclusions of the President on it.
There must be no more comment on that case.
I am not talking about that case. I am talking about the President. As one of the people invited to study the cases that came before that court, I am not satisfied with the President's self-complacency in that respect.
Surely that is comment.
On the President's statement.
That is comment. As to the question which appeared on the Order Paper, the Chair had doubts about its being in order. Comment may not be made now on the decision of the court in the case, in the guise of a reply to an answer given by the President.
I am not seeking any such subterfuge, and I must take exception to the suggestion that I am. While you were in the Chair the President invited us to examine the cases that came before the court, and I am quite entitled to say that I do not at all accept his views about the matter.
Why make statements about what Deputy Norton wanted the President to do?
The Minister can make his speech afterwards. Let us hope it will be much more rational than the speeches he delivered at Ringsend and Balbriggan.
The Deputy is a bad judge of rationalism.
I am. While this man was on trial for his life before this Tribunal, we had the Minister for Finance, holding an important office in the Executive Council, using the local elections in the City of Dublin as an excuse for taking the platform to indulge in most reckless and wanton comment upon a case which was then at hearing before the Military Tribunal. It is strange that although other Ministers participated in the elections and made speeches, it was left to the reckless-minded Minister for Finance to come out and to unburden himself of his views on the guilt of the man before the Tribunal. I never witnessed a more outrageous performance while a prisoner was standing trial for his life. A Minister for Finance, in a democratically governed country, where there was proper respect for the majesty of the law and the rights of prisoners, who made an utterance of that kind would be compelled to resign. The retention of the Constitution (Amendment) Act, and the manner in which it is being administered are utterly unjustifiable in the circumstances of to-day. We have not had a single attempt made by the Attorney-General or by any member of the Government to show that trial by jury has broken down. In any event, I want to say definitely that even if trial by jury has broken down in cases where a fair trial cannot be got before a jury, there should be some machinery established, consisting of persons with legal knowledge and qualified to weigh evidence, to try any prisoners arraigned on the charge of murder.
What machinery does the Deputy suggest?
We would not be allowed to discuss that now. We will discuss it with you in Wexford.
I hope you will.
The whole attitude of the Executive Council in connection with the administration of the Act is an attitude of panic, which would be justified only in the gravest possible emergency. The panic-stricken manner in which the Military Tribunal is being used shows that the Executive Council do not appreciate the harm they are doing to the country. The attitude of the Executive Council seems to be—"when in doubt do as the Cumann na nGaedheal Party did." The Constitution (Amendment) Act and the Military Tribunal are being used in a manner worse than they were by the last Government. One would imagine that the Attorney-General, at least, would try to preserve a balance in all this welter of panic and confusion. But even the Attorney-General seems to have been inoculated with the hysteria which, apparently, radiates from the Minister for Finance. The Attorney-General, who holds an exalted legal office, seems to be in a state of panic and nerves these days. Taking a rest from trying people under the Constitution (Amendment) Act, the Attorney-General went down to Wexford on Sunday. Seeking recreation from the laborious task of bringing persons before the Military Tribunal, he talked learnedly about Communism and the dangers of "united fronts." He proceeded to warn the Labour Party about the dangers of Communism. That was the role of the Attorney-General on Sunday.
This is very interesting.
If the Deputy likes, I shall go over and stand in front of him.
I thought the Deputy was going to tell us about the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who were flirting with Communism. Perhaps he would do so now.
Or the members of your Party who are flirting with Fascism.
The laborious task of bringing people before the Military Tribunal preyed on the Attorney-General's nerves. He went down to Wexford and got some kind of comfort for his ragged nerves by talking learnedly to the people of Taghmon on the danger of Communism and "united fronts" in France and Spain and a lot of other irrelevancies which had nothing to do with the people of Wexford, with the by-election or with the agricultural, industrial or social life of the people. The Attorney-General warned the Labour Party of the danger of association with Communism. This from an Attorney-General in a Party which, not so many years ago, sent a delegation to Russia while the Communist Party was in control there!
The present Party?
What Party?
One at a time. If the members of the Executive Council put one question at a time, I shall endeavour to answer it. What is the first question?
Did the members of the present Government send a deputation to Russia?
The "present Party."
I say that supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party sent a delegation to Russia.
"Supporters". How does the Deputy know they were supporters?
The answer might be a bit awkward. I can only reply when I get silence on the part of the Executive Council. The Attorney-General was allowed to make a speech in silence in Taghmon last week.
Are you sure?
The Irish Press did not report any interruptions. Does the Vice-President deny that members of the present Fianna Fáil Party in this House were responsible for sending a delegation to Russia?
I do. I know nothing about it.
I do.
Tell us about it.
Send for Deputy Mulcahy.
Let Deputy Dillon get the secret agent in his office to look it up for him.
He was not good enough to find out.
We are lectured on Communism by the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General
Not lectured, only warned.
The Deputy was going to tell us about the mission to Russia. That is what we want to hear.
We were warned by the Attorney-General about the dangers of Communism. He speaks as a member of a Party some members of which were responsible for sending a delegation to Russia.
The Deputy said "the present Party."
Including Ministers.
Who is the Minister?
Send for Deputy Mulcahy.
Who was the Minister?
A lot of history is being gone over in this debate——
It is very interesting.
It may be interesting to the Deputy but it is quite irrelevant. A debate on the adjournment must relate to the actions of the Government since they became a Government. Deputies are not at liberty to go back to the events of 1922.
Actions of the Government would include the actions of members of the Government.
Hear, hear. Who was the Minister to whom Deputy Davin referred?
Who went to Russia?
The hysterical speech of the Attorney-General on that occasion is symptomatic of the hysteria which has consumed the whole Executive Council in the administration of the Constitution (Amendment) Act. I want to close that incident by inviting the Attorney-General to go back to Wexford on Sunday and tell the people there the purpose for which the Commission went to Russia in 1924.
What the Deputy is referring to the Chair knows not, and is not concerned with——
Hear, hear.
It is not orderly to interrupt the Chair even by way of approval. The Government is responsible only for its actions as a Government—that is to say, since it assumed office. What the Deputy is referring to I know not, but if what I have just said were borne in mind by Deputies it might make for more orderly and more seemly debate.
On a point of order, may I inquire from the Chair if Deputy Davin alleges that a member of the present Executive Council was partially responsible for sending a Commission to Soviet Russia, presumably for the purpose of collaborating with the Government of that country, is it not relevant, when discussing the stewardship of the Executive Council, to point out that it includes a person who has been in direct or indirect contact with the Soviet Government of Russia and is, therefore, an unfit person to be a member of the Executive Council?
It is not clear that the Deputy has raised any point of order. What the Chair has pointed out is that the Government is responsible to this House only since it took up office. Actions of members of the Government prior to that date should not be discussed in this debate.
Deputy Davin made a definite statement regarding a member of the Government.
The Chair has no knowledge of the matter to which the Deputy has referred.
I shall pass from that matter now. I should like, however, to warn the Attorney-General—to adopt his own word—that when he purports to warn the Labour Party about the dangers of Communism, he ought to look around and see whether he, as a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, is associated with members of a Party which sent a delegation to Russia.
The Deputy has adopted a peculiar method of passing from the incident.
I hope the Attorney-General will tell the whole story in Wexford or will tell us the story here, if he chooses to speak. We should be able to learn more from the Attorney-General's knowledge of Communism as a result of a visit of some of his Party's supporters to Russia.
Another matter I want to raise in connection with this motion concerns the allegations which have been made by persons incarcerated under the Constitution Amendment Act, that they are being unfairly treated, that they are being kept in solitary confinement and that the worst type of military prison life is being made applicable to those people. Statements have been circulated to members of this House by persons who have been detained in Arbour Hill to the effect that they were kept in solitary confinement, occupying each alternate cell so that they might not be able to establish, even illicitly, any kind of communication with the prisoner in the next occupied cell. Allegations have been made that these prisoners are there being compelled to withstand the worst rigours of military discipline. I want to know from the Executive Council whether there is any truth in these allegations?
Obviously matters of administration, particularly of a detailed character, should not be raised on an adjournment debate. Such points should have been discussed on the Vote for the Minister's Department.
If I may submit so, I think that the detention in solitary confinement, as alleged, of over 100 individuals——
As alleged. That is the trouble. Ministers having had no notice are not in a position to reply.
The Deputy could have put down a motion on that matter.
Why have they not an opportunity of replying? I submit they have every opportunity of replying. Allegations have been made that prisoners have been detained in solitary confinement, and in my opinion that is a matter of transcendent importance to this House.
If the Deputy thought so he had a right to put down a motion on that matter, but he has not done it.
Will you give that opportunity to a member of your own Party, some of whom approached me and asked me to put down a motion on this question? They would not do so themselves——
Name!
——because they feared the disapproval of the Executive Council.
Name!
The Deputy had no reason to fear that disapproval.
No member of the Party that I know of approached Deputy Norton.
You did not do it?
Mr. Kelly
I did not.
It is all right, so.
Let other members of the Party stand up and say the same as I have said.
I will bring Deputy Kelly to a member of his own Party who approached me in the matter. Will he be satisfied to hear the story from his own mouth?
Why did the Deputy not put down a motion then?
I am not obliged to take advice from the Minister for Finance or from any member of his Party.
We are all anxious to discuss it.
The Deputy's heart has been bleeding for these men, and we want to stop the haemorrhage.
The Minister's tongue was bleeding at one time for them. We all know what he is capable of in his moments of exaltation, but he does not mention them in recent years. I submit that the allegations which have been made that prisoners have been kept in solitary confinement are matters of the utmost importance to the members of the House and of particular importance to anybody who wants to see that every type of prisoner, no matter what his offence is, is treated in accordance with some humane standards. Allegations have been made that these prisoners are detained in circumstances which impose solitary confinement on them, and that the worst rigours of military prison life are made applicable to them. I understand that while ordinary prisoners in the ordinary jails of the country are liable to have their cells and places of detention inspected by persons described as visiting justices, in Arbour Hill, the military prison, no outside person is allowed to enter it for the purpose of investigating the conditions there. We cannot, therefore, judge by the evidence of any independent person whether these allegations are true or untrue, but, whether they are true or untrue, there is sufficient public interest in the whole question to ensure that we ought to have an authoritative statement by some independent body other than those who are holding these prisoners in captivity. The House or the country has no information as to what the position or the conditions of these prisoners are.
There have been allegations that one prisoner has been driven mad. We have no independent evidence from anybody to show whether a statement of that kind is correct. We should have a statement of that kind from some independent authority whose integrity is such that the House can know what the precise position within the prison is.
It may, of course, be thought as something inconceivable that prisoners in this country can be ill-treated but we have it on the authority of the members of the present Executive Council that prisoners were ill-treated in that place of detention. If they were ill-treated before, in the view of the present members of the Executive Council, it is not unreasonable to assume that there is a slight possibility that they might be ill-treated and kept in solitary confinement to-day. These are matters about which the country requires some information and some assurance, I should say a very definite assurance, from somebody or some authority, who having investigated the matter in an impartial way can give the House and country generally, an assurance that this condition of affairs is not as it is alleged to be by those making charges of this kind.
I pass from that to the serious question of unemployment and say, not withstanding the putting into force of two Employment Period Orders, one of which is reckoned to have deprived 20,000 small farmers of the unemployment assistance benefit and the second Employment Period Order which is reckoned to have deprived 40,000 or 50,000 people of the unemployment assistance benefit, we still have registered at the employment exchanges, approximately 70,000 persons who have satisfied the rigid test imposed under the Unemployment Assistance Act that they are genuinely unemployed. These are 70,000 persons who have survived the rigorous tightening up of the administration of that Act.
Deputies here must be familiar with this question from the many letters they receive from persons who have been deprived of the benefit of the Act under the Employment Period Orders and under the still more unjustifiable and rigorous tightening up of the administration of that Act. It may be said by the Minister that the fact is that the unemployment has been reduced by 70,000 persons by reason of the working of the Employment Period Orders and that that is evidence of another 70,000 people having got work. Those Deputies who know the country and know the towns and the rural areas will have no difficulty in realising that the reduction in the number of persons registered is explained solely by the two Employment Period Orders and the tightening up of the administration of the Act which has deprived approximately 70,000 persons of the benefits which they normally would receive.
We were told, recently, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that immediately on the issuing of the Employment Period Orders heaps of work would be found in the rural areas. Anybody who comes from the rural areas knows perfectly well that there is very little work to be got there. An effort was made recently to pretend that £2,500,000 had been provided to deal with unemployment over a wide area. Well, at least in the constituency I represent, there is no evidence that any of the £2,500,000 has found its way there. I imagine that the same story can be told by members of the other Parties.
Last week claims were made by the members of the Government Party and by the Minister for Agriculture down in Wexford that the Government was providing work or maintenance for all. But the unemployment figures as revealed by the Government's own returns show a different tale. These returns tell their own story as to the absence of employment throughout the country. Before the recent Employment Period Orders there were 144,000 registered at the exchanges as unemployed. We were told then that if these people were not provided with work they were provided with maintenance. We ought to see what the maintenance is. This maintenance so glibly talked of is 20/- a week to maintain a man and wife and five or six children in the City of Dublin with the cost of living here gone up as it is; or to maintain the same number of human beings in a town with a population of over 7,000 on 15/- a week; or to maintain in the bulk of the towns throughout the country, in the villages and in the rural areas, a man, a wife or five or six children on the miserable allowance of 12/6 a week.
The Attorney-General
Has not the Employment Period Order been approved of by this House? Are not the allowances statutory?
I am not saying one word about the allowances. If the Attorney-General would discontinue speaking to his colleagues while I am stating my case he would have no need to interrupt me.
The Attorney-General
I heard the Deputy complaining of the figures as to the amount allowed to a family. Are not these the figures in the Schedule of the Act passed by this House?
I am recording the fact that the Act requires that they must get this money.
The Attorney-General
I am submitting that the amount allowed to the unemployed is statutory and that the Employment Period Orders have been approved of by this House.
Neither matters of administration nor legislation should be discussed on this motion. The custom now more honoured in the breach than in the observance, was that the Ceann Comhairle was given in writing by the different Parties in this House notice of the two, or at most three, subjects which it was decided to raise on the adjournment motion. The Chair on this occasion received no information. It seems, as Deputy Norton said earlier to-day, to be free for all Deputies on all sorts of issues.
I have not the slightest recollection of having used words of that kind.
I understood the Deputy has used some such expression.
I did not use the words.
If you, Sir, are still of that opinion, you ought to send for the official record.
The Deputy knows that the official record is not yet available. I certainly understood that the remark came from the Labour Benches. If I am mistaken I apologise.
The Attorney-General has intervened to tell us that these allowances are statutory.
If they are statutory they cannot be criticised now.
I am not discussing them at all, I am merely saying that that——
In the view of the Chair, the Deputy has discussed them and is continuing to do so. It is difficult to see how the Deputy can quote all these allowances without discussing them.
Can I not tell the members of the House, who probably have never opened and read the Employment Period white paper——
The Attorney-General
That is a reflection on the Deputy's colleagues.
Yes, and on the Attorney-General and on his colleagues, and he knows it. I am discussing the figures here and I want the House to get this picture, that we have 144,000 persons registered as unemployed and that when considering their position we ought to remember that the Unemployment Assistance Act is being worked so that a man and wife and five or six children in the City of Dublin are given £1 a week to maintain them and that in towns with a population of 7,000 or over they get 15/- a week——
That, too, is statutory.
And that in the other areas such a man and his family get 12/6 a week. That is the low standard at which we are paying our unemployed population. It is because of that appallingly low standard that I want the Executive Council to tell the House on the Motion for the Adjournment what they are going to do towards solving the unemployment problem. That problem cannot be solved by means of Employment Period Orders and a tightening up of the administration. I am aware that these allowances are statutory but that does not make them any more helpful. We are entitled to ask the Executive Council what they propose to do to grapple with the problem of unemployment which at one time looked so easy of solution.
We are told that the export of £5,500,000 from this country to Great Britain is an appalling burden on our resources. With that viewpoint I am in the most hearty agreement. But there is an equally appalling burden thrown on the productivity of this country, and that is to be found in the fact that there are 144,000 persons in idleness and denied any opportunity of working. What is the Government doing to create work and try to pool the common resources of productivity? We will not export £5,500,000 to Great Britain because that is a heavy tax on our productivity, yet we tolerate in silence keeping 144,000 people unemployed and feeding them out of the common pool of productivity to which they are contributing nothing. The appalling waste caused by that unemployment problem is a matter upon which we should have some declaration from the Executive Council.
A few months ago we listened to a declaration from the Minister for Finance deploring the corporative and totalitarian States; pinning his faith in private enterprise which thrills the Minister's mind so much. Will he now tell us what private enterprise is going to do to absorb these 144,000 unemployed? Will the Minister tell us what private enterprise will do in this respect and how he will utilise and develop private enterprise so as to get these people something more than the low statutory rates which they are being paid under the Employment Assistance Act? An allowance of 12/6 a week to a man, his wife and five or six children is all that is being given under this Act while the State pays 12/6 a week to maintain one child in an industrial school. We think it necessary that 12/6 a week should be paid for that child to maintain it properly.
The Deputy should not repeat himself.
I submit that I have not repeated myself at all, Sir.
At this rate we will be here until 6 o'clock in the morning.
I have dealt with this problem of the Military Tribunal and with the unemployment question. The only thing I have to add about the Military Tribunal is that the sooner the Government revoke the proclamation bringing it into operation the better; and the sooner the Minister for Finance refrains from commenting on cases that are sub judice the better it will be for the Minister, for the Government and for the country. The Minister for Finance in 1931 when the Public Safety Act was being passed told us that the people who would constitute that tribunal were bloodhounds and then he became lyrical with a quotation from Shelley.
A quotation from whom?
The Minister gave us a lyrical quotation from Shelley about Pitt and Castlereagh and about the bloodhounds following Castlereagh. These are the same people now that the Minister wants——
The Deputy is as inaccurate about the quotation as he is in the rest of his remarks.
No; the Minister used the words after quoting from Shelley about Castlereagh and his seven bloodhounds, "only in this case we are not going to have seven bloodhounds—we are going to have only five, the five officers of the secret Tribunal." These are the people who are trying prisoners under the Constitution (Amendment) Act and these are the very people that the Minister for Finance cannot refrain from inciting to bring in verdicts in accordance with his own desires.
The Attorney-General.
Might I ask what is the procedure about this debate?
The debate ends at midnight, if not sooner.
Can we not extend it further?
Has not an undertaking been given that all Deputies who want to speak will get an opportunity?
The debate must be concluded at midnight as ordered. If certain Deputies spoke for over an hour, the Chair is not responsible, as there is no limit to the duration of speeches.
One Deputy spoke for an hour and forty minutes. It is most unfair.
The Chair will hear the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General
I would not intervene at all, or take up any time of the House, but for the serious allegations made against me by the last speaker, the leader of the Labour Party. As I listened to Deputy McGilligan, and to Deputy Norton afterwards, it struck me that by-elections, particularly when held under proportional representation, make strange bedfellows.
I was invited by the President on the 29th July to raise this matter.
The Attorney-General
I am not complaining but I think I am entitled to reply, and I am going to elaborate what my complaints are in a moment. When one finds Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Norton following on much the same line, attempting to fish in troubled waters, one begins to wonder how the strange association comes about.
I listened to Deputy McGilligan denouncing the Government, raking up the past, distorting and perverting quotations from the President and Ministers, seeking by every means in his power to arouse old feelings of anger and hatred. And all to what purpose? As the Vice-President said, it can only have been directed to one purpose, and that is to bring some grist to the Party's mill at the present by-elections.
Deputy McGilligan singled me out for attack, and attempted to compare my attitude towards certain offences some time past and my attitude towards them at present. The burden of his song seems to be that we had trifled with crime, that we had been too tolerant, and deserved no credit for what he styled the belated action which we had taken. He sought to make as much capital as he could out of the quotations which he picked out from speeches delivered years ago and which, I submit, he distorted and perverted in a most dishonest fashion. That was the burden of his song—that we had been too tolerant.
Now we come to the leader of the Labour Party. Having announced in the opening of his speech, with a great flourish, that the Labour Party always stood against political murder, he charged me with being inoculated with hysteria—the hysteria, I think he said, of the Minister for Finance. He charged the Government as a whole, and me in particular, with acting in a panic. Apparently these two Parties, both with their candidates seeking votes at the present by-elections, seem to think that they are going to get some additional votes by drawing upon the present situation and attempting to make more difficult the very difficult task which this Government has, and which any Government would have, which had to grapple with a situation such as the Government has been faced with in this country in recent times.
Taking Deputy Norton's charges in their order, he stated that the severity and ruthlessness of which he said we have been guilty were not justifiable. It certainly amazes me when I am charged with being severe and ruthless, hysterical and panic-stricken, and, on the other hand, charged by Deputy McGilligan with being a characterless sheep. How the two things could fit the same person I do not know. Apparently the object aimed at is the same, but the methods of approach are different. This Government is faced with a very difficult situation, demanding the most delicate handling. When the task of the Government is an extremely delicate and difficult one, and we are faced with a critical situation which has to be handled with firmness and, at the same time, with skill, we should at least expect from the Opposition, which has behind it 10 years of responsibility as a Government, some more consideration than we have got in recent months—the climax being, as the Vice-President said, the indecent rushing of these two by-elections in the hope that we had suffered some weakness by reason of our actions in the recent past. In the same way, I think we deserved similar consideration from the Labour Party,
The Labour Party has, through its leader, just now denounced political murders. Deputy Norton then went on to criticise me. Deputy McGilligan has made the bullets for the I.R.A. Party in the by-elections and Deputy Norton comes along to his assistance, both, I suppose, angling for second preferences. It is extraordinary that Deputies should use such a situation for a political purpose.
What were we charged with being communists for? Was that for a political purpose?
The Attorney-General
That charge was not made.
That is the meaning of your speech in Wexford.
The Attorney-General
I shall come to that in a moment.
It requires explanation.
The Attorney-General
It does not require explaining to any intelligent person who read the report which appeared in the newspapers.
What newspaper?
The Attorney-General
The Irish Press.
Is that the reason for Deputy Norton's disgraceful speech to-night?
It is not.
The Attorney-General
I do not think it is fair for Deputy Davin to interrupt when I am attempting to deal with charges made against me by Deputy Norton.
You have repeated yourself three times.
The Attorney-General
I am sorry if I did. I merely felt that the point I was making should be emphasised. Deputy Norton, as I say, went off with a flourish condemning political murders. Then he dealt with our methods of dealing with the present situation, and charged me with bringing people up on artificial offences—in fact, he referred to them as alleged offences—refusing to answer questions. He styled the questions felon-setting questions. I do not think it is necessary at this stage to go into a defence of the provisions of Article 2A, even if the Chair would allow me, as I am sure it would not. I certainly think that at this hour of the day there is hardly an intelligent man in this country who does not realise that extraordinary methods have to be used to deal with certain situations and that the Anglo-Saxon method, shall I say, lauded so much by the Labour Party of trial by jury has failed. It failed in other countries besides Ireland. It is very easy to hold up the fact that prisoners have been charged with refusing to answer questions, parade it as a tremendous grievance, and attempt to make capital out of it and charge me, as I have been charged by Deputy Norton, with being guilty of unnecessary severity and ruthlessness when I put prisoners forward on such charges.
I wonder is it really necessary to go over the ground and take the concrete facts of the situation as we know them in certain counties and districts. Does not everybody realise that certain crimes have been committed by organised groups of armed men, whose powers of intimidation are so great that it is impossible to induce persons who are in a position to give evidence to come forward and give evidence before any court? Deputy Norton must know very well that, not only have witnesses been intimidated, but that jurors have been intimidated. Deputy Norton asked me to give some examples. Now, I do not believe that the Deputy lives in the moon as much as he would like to pretend. I do believe that he is quite conscious of the fact that, in certain cases, jurors have been intimidated.
And shot.
The Attorney-General
I am not going back at all to the time when a juror was shot, but I am aware of this fact, that in certain cases recently in this country jurors have been intimidated. I am also aware, and fully believe, that in certain cases verdicts would have been the other way if jurors had the pluck to reach them. I may be wrong in that, and Deputy Norton may possibly be right. The Deputy thinks that I have been seized with unreasonable panic. I wonder if any ordinary, sober citizen believes that, and if it is not fully realised that, instead of rushing to panic measures of this sort, no Government could have been more patient than we have been, or could have given trial by jury a fairer chance. I submit that no Government ever gave the ordinary methods of administration a fairer chance than this Government, and it is in the light of the history of its administration of the law generally during the last four years that it has been hauled over the coals by the malicious and bitter-minded Deputy McGilligan. Deputy Norton, at least, should give it credit for having tried, in every way possible, to rely solely upon the ordinary methods of dealing with crime before it had to resort to extraordinary measures. The concrete cases that I have given from the recent past ought to be sufficient to bring home to anybody who is not virtually blind to it, that if you are to grapple with organisations which organise crime such as the crime of murder and other crimes—crimes of a somewhat similar type which if they did not eventuate in murder were of a very serious kind, and resulted in men being kidnapped and taken away—you must resort to extraordinary measures, because every one, who knows anything about the recent past in this country, must be aware that it is impossible to get a hold of evidence.
Therefore, it became necessary to alter the law here so as to allow questions to be put to persons: to ask them questions about their movements. The questions upon which it is suggested by Deputy Norton that I have sent people wrongly to trial and to prison are merely questions which enable the Guards to ask a man, when a crime has been committed in a particular locality, to account for his movements, or to give such information as is in his possession about the incidents which surround that crime. It is not asking the House too much to believe that when the Guards decide to ask persons questions about these things that they have at least some inkling and some reason for thinking that the persons whom they interrogate are in a position to give information about such matters. I do submit that, despite the fact that it is a principle of English law, a principle which applies here in this country that all persons are presumed to be innocent until proved guilty—and this method of interrogation is not allowable at the present time here in the case of the ordinary courts —that excellent as that principle may be, and well though it may work in ordinary times: that when you have a situation such as we had recently down in the County Waterford and in Cork where men have planned coolly and deliberately and carried out deliberate murder; when they have shown by their attitude, by their daring and their coolness that they are ready to go to any lengths to carry out their purpose, and by the very deeds which they have committed intend to convey to persons who may come forward either as witnesses or to act as jurors that they will have to be prepared to meet the same fate: when you have a situation such as that, is there anything unjust or unfair in going to such persons and asking them: "Where were you on that night?" The Dungarvan crime was committed, I think, on the 27th of April. When men were asked: "Where were you on that date" the reply given was: "I refuse to answer." When asked: "Where were you at such a time?" again the reply was: "I refuse to answer," and so right down along through the list of settled answers to interrogatories supplied from the headquarters of the I.R.A.
All the replies are of a piece, and then we are told here that we are guilty of some outrage upon justice for bringing these men before the tribunal. Is it fair to a Government dealing with a situation such as we have had to deal with, is it fair to me to charge me with trying people for alleged offences when the law and the Constitution say that the Guards are entitled to ask people about their movements? There is the same provision in several other countries, and yet we have all this clap-trap from Deputy Norton.
What about the Minister for Finance finding a man guilty before he was sent before the tribunal?
The Attorney-General
Deputy Davin is not going to succeed in putting me off by dragging a red herring across the trail. Then we had Deputy Norton accusing me of a thirst for vengeance. Is it necessary for me to defend myself or the Executive Council against that charge because of the recent steps taken for putting Article 2A of the Constitution into operation? Deputy Norton said that was absolutely unjustifiable on my part, and was merely an exhibition of my thirst for vengeance.
I did not use the word in that sense.
The Attorney-General
Deputy McGilligan, on the other hand, gets up and charges us with failing to carry out our duty, with being lacking absolutely in courage to carry the thing out with the severity with which it should be carried out, and with failing to do it in time. All that I can say is that adversity certainly makes strange bedfellows.
The United Front.
The Attorney-General
I will come to that in a moment. Apparently, what I said at Taghmon hurt Deputy Norton very much. If I recollect what I said there it was this: that I suggested to the Labour Party that, in certain countries on the Continent in recent times, organised labour had become the victims of Communist strategy and that they had been lured into becoming members of what had come to be known as the Popular Front: that there was the example in Spain and in France, and I warned the Labour Party that I thought they should be careful. I had read some of their pronouncements down in Tralee where they talked about tearing down the present system: that there would never be any happiness in the country until the present system was destroyed. I suggested to them that they ought not to go on making wild statements of that kind lest use might be made of them by others. The reason why I mentioned that was because I felt that certain members of the Labour Party had been coquetting with certain extreme parties in this country, and because I knew, as a matter. of fact, that one leader of a certain group here in Dublin had asked for a United Front. I warned the Labour Party about the danger of it.
Am I so far wrong that Deputy Norton should get so wildly excited about it? What about his own recent action in connection with the commission that we had to ban? Was not that coquetting with certain people? Why has the Deputy not had the courage, if he believes in the recent complaint which he voiced about the treatment of prisoners, to put down a motion in the Dáil about it? First of all he allowed himself to be associated with that commission which he must well know was going to afford comfort to those people at a time when the Government was forced to take drastic action in order to restore ordered conditions. I do not think that was a proper proceeding on the part of a leader of a constitutional Party in this House. When we declared that commission illegal, and when the Deputy raised a question about it in the Dáil, he was invited by the President to raise it in the House, but he has not done so. Perhaps I am confusing one thing with another, but at any rate before the commission was banned a straight invitation was given to the Deputy to raise the matter in this House. It was intimated to him that if a substantial number of Deputies wanted to have a commission to investigate the treatment of prisoners, that would be gladly and readily granted.
What has happened? There was no step taken in regard to that until to-night, at the end of the debate and, as the Ceann Comhairle said, without any notice, we were charged, for the purpose of the by-elections, with the ill-treatment of prisoners. I do not think that is fair or proper and we have a right to resent that. I am not in a position to deal with the treatment of prisoners, but I do not believe there is any ill-treatment. There have been complaints. There are always complaints.
You used to believe them at one time.
Is it not a fact that a member of the Executive of Fianna Fáil was on the Mansion House Commission?
Order! Order!
The Attorney-General
Is it a fact that the leader of the Labour Party, a member of this House, was on it?
And he does not apologise for being on it.
The Attorney-General
He ought to apologise for it.
If I am asked to investigate allegations of ill-treatment, I see no reason for refusing.
Why not investigate them as a member of a commission set up by the House?
Set up your commission.
The Attorney-General
There are other Deputies who want to speak and I have no desire to take up the time of the House. I do not want to say very much more. Deputy Norton seemed to think I ought to have kept my head in a crisis. He charged me with suffering from ragged nerves and he said that I went to recreate myself by making speeches in County Wexford. I do not think I am suffering from ragged nerves at all. I think the history of the recent crisis and its development step by step has been plain and open to everybody and everyone who has followed the attitude of the Government towards this organisation during the last four years and has witnessed the manner in which the Act was administered since the I.R.A. was banned, must admit that, despite the indications given that the Government intended to be firm and drastic in this matter, they nevertheless tempered justice with mercy. I suppose Deputy Norton thinks that we should have waited for another murder or two to happen.
That is a very unfair suggestion, and it is not typical of the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General
Perhaps it is unfair. I withdraw it.
I protested in this House against political murder before you ever came into the House.
The Attorney-General
I accept the Deputy's statement, and I do not suggest anything to the contrary against him. Deputy Norton has made quite clear his attitude towards political murder. I am not making any charge against him, as representing the Labour Party, that he wishes to condone political murder.
My own life was threatened by some of the people associated with that Party when I protested here.
Sit down, Deputy; do not be melodramatic.
The Attorney-General
I am not making any charges against Deputy Davin, but I will repeat what I said at the beginning. I feel the brunt of this complaint has been directed to a particular piece of legislation, and the putting into operation of that legislation has been an unpleasant and a difficult task, and, when Deputy Davin makes clear the attitude of himself and his Party towards political murder, he ought to follow that up by considering carefully the attitude he adopts towards the measures which we feel forced to take to cope with it and he ought to be prepared to indicate in what other way we could have dealt with it except the way we did, or get out of office. While I sympathise with Deputy Davin's feelings that something I have said may possibly have hurt him, I think at the same time there is on the part of the Labour Party a slight inconsistency between profession and performance.
Not in my case.
The Attorney-General
I maintain there is a slight difference between profession and performance on the part of the Labour Party. It seems to me there is, and I have made my argument for that clear.
You should withdraw your allegation about our being Communists.
The Attorney-General
I did not say you were Communists.
Deputy O'Sullivan read out your speech this evening.
The Attorney-General
If the Deputy looks up any report of my speech, he will find that I did not call them Communists. The paraphrase I gave was almost word for word what I did say. The Deputy apparently did not take any exception to what I indicated to-night I did say. I did not charge the Party with being Communists. I warned them of the danger to which other organised Parties, organised on somewhat similar lines to this Labour Party, laid themselves open in other countries. It was not intended to carry the implication that the Labour Party are Communists; it was to warn them that there is a danger in making wild statements and that there are dangers which may arise which have arisen in other countries.
This debate, which has lasted six or seven hours, has taken many turnings. It opened with the suggestion that there was going to be a coalition between the two principal Parties. As a matter of fact, it was suggested that the coalition had already taken place, but as the debate proceeded there were signs that that coalition was not in existence and, as it proceeded a little further, not only were there signs that the coalition was not in existence, but there were signs that the old coalition that has existed for four years between the Fianna Fáil and the Labour Parties seemed to have been smashed to smithereens. In fact, the debate for the last couple of hours has been a duel between Fianna Fáil and Labour.
Had there been time, there is a great deal of ground that could be covered in a debate of this kind. An adjournment debate of this type is one of the rare opportunities that Deputies get of dealing with matters that are agitating the country. There are a few subjects that I had intended to deal with at length but, owing to the short time at my disposal, and my anxiety to leave a little time for my friend and colleague, Deputy Anthony, I will deal with only a couple of matters and I will deal with them briefly.
The economic was has been in existence for four years and no attempt has been made to settle it. All kinds of hypocritical statements are made about our not paying the annuities and other payments to Britain. Well, they are being paid. Surely the present Government ought to have learned a lesson in the last year, a lesson in honour, and it is time that we cultivated some code of honour in this country. Within the last year, the Government introduced a Bill giving them power to impose sanctions on foreign countries in certain circumstances. That Bill was given to them by this House. Under that Bill they had power to make an Order imposing sanctions on the particular country that they had singled out for that purpose. They imposed sanctions on Italy, a country that never did any harm to this country, and a country that we were not in a position to do any harm to. But by our shortsightedness, by our want of vision, we showed a great foreign friendly nation what we would do to them if we had the power to do it, and we did that at the dictation of other countries.
That measure was sanctioned by the Oireachtas and is not open to criticism.
I want to know now why the Government, before the Recess takes place, does not withdraw the sanctions and, in fact, repeal that Act. A situation arose in Europe when the Germans reoccupied the Rhine Province. The Locarno powers were convened to consider what steps would be taken to deal with the German breach of the Locarno Treaty. Italy signified her willingness to attend but said: "We will not be a party to sanctions on Germany or any other country while sanctions are being imposed on our country." Why was our country so shortsighted, so bereft of honour, as to impose sanctions on Italy while Britain was imposing sanctions on us by way of economic tariffs? Now our Government is going for a three months' holiday and it still has the power under that Act to impose sanctions on any nation it so thinks fit. I am glad the Vice-President is here. On a motion which Deputy Kent and myself had down here to annul the Order imposing sanctions on Italy, I made reference to what I read in an American paper to the effect that the Italian Government, at a critical time in our history, was friendly to us. The Vice-President denied that.
Legislation of this House authorised those sanctions. There was subsequently a debate on a motion to annul those sanctions. On both questions decisions were come to. The Deputy cannot reopen those discussions.
I just want to trace their history.
History of sanctions is not relevant.
I am not finding fault with the imposition of sanctions. I did at the time. I was one of the three or four who opposed them, and I believe I was voicing the feelings of the majority of the people of this country on that occasion. But a new situation has arisen, and the sanctions are still on. That machinery is still in the hands of the Government.
There is no amending legislation before the House, nor any motion to rescind. It is rather late—within 20 minutes of the adjournment—to advocate legislation.
Am I in order in suggesting that there was need for the power placed in the hands of the Government and they did not use that power? I am not suggesting amending or new legislation, but I take it that this debate is an opportunity to criticise what the Government has done in the last session or what it has refrained from doing. A situation has now arisen in Spain, a country which at the present time appears to be ruled by priest murderers and church burners. Our Government has a trade agreement with those people. Those people do not control half of Spain at the present time. They are being condemned all over Europe. They are not only attacking Catholicity, but they are attacking Christianity. It is Communism in its worst form. But this Government, which claims to be not only Christian but Catholic, persists in a trade agreement with those scoundrels.
Mr. Hogan
Good eggs for bad oranges!
Good eggs for bad oranges—precisely. Those fellows are sure to be paid for the bad oranges, but we are not sure to be paid for the eggs. Even the clearance machinery in Spain has broken down, and that notorious scoundrel of a Jewish adventurer, that curse of Hungary which gave us inspiration 30 years ago, that same Bela Kun is reputed to be in Spain for a number of months, organising and fomenting Communism in that unhappy land. We know the condition it is in to-day. It is a shame and a disgrace to this country, which at least is Christian and, I hope, Catholic, that the Government is going into Recess now for three months, leaving behind it sanctions on the Catholic Christian nation of Italy, while maintaining trade relations—and not only trade relations but a most-favoured-nation agreement— with Spain. The country is already manifesting its hostility to that line of conduct on the part of the Government, and I think, by the time we reassemble in three months, the country will have manifested in a more pronounced manner its hostility to that action on the part of the Government on the one hand, and that inaction on the other. In all probability there will be organisation around that, and it is a pity that the Government did not see its way to take action before it went out of office, or rather before it went into Recess.
Mr. Hogan
They have another six months.
I do not know; the signs seem to indicate that there might be an appeal between this and November. To deal with the many matters I intended to deal with would deprive my friend, Deputy Anthony, of an opportunity to speak. I would just conclude by making reference to a matter which I consider very important. During the course of this debate some speakers have waxed very eloquent on the Commonwealth; and showed every sign of wanting a show-down between the Commonwealth versus a Republic. There is one thing which I appreciate in regard to the present Government during the last three or four years, and that is that it has side-tracked that issue.
Sometimes, when we are talking politics rather than policy, some of us will upbraid the Government for talking less of a republic and advocating a republic not so strongly now as they have done in the past; but in office, and here in this House, we should not talk politics or think politics. We should talk statesmanship if we can, but we should think in terms of policy rather than of politics. I am glad that the Government has seen fit not to obtrude the policy or the ideal of a republic by looking for a show-down on it immediately by featuring it here in this House and endeavouring to get a decision on it here in the House. On the other hand, I should be glad if other Parties talked less of the Commonwealth, and if we talked less or if we featured both the Commonwealth and the republic less and considered the interests of the country more and the building up of the economic life of this country more as an independent nation, we would be doing more good for what will ultimately be best for the country. What will be ultimately best for the country may not be in our hands to decide. It may be another generation of Irishmen and Irishwomen who will decide what is best for the country, and if we have done our bit in this country we should hand it down to the next generation, not as a bone of contention but as a foundation on which to work for the development of the Free State. If we do that we will be going a long way to bridge the difference that exists between the Free State and the North and a long way to obliterate the present boundary. It does not matter who put it there. The boundary is there and the more we build up on our side of the boundary, the nearer we will be getting towards its obliteration.
I have many other points to make, but I have not time. Deputy Davin was very keen about the Banking Commission. Well, I said a moment ago that I complimented the Government on not featuring the question of a republic. Of course, the very terms of reference of the Banking Commission breathe anything but the spirit of Separatism that we have heard so much about here. It leaves the golden link of the £ sterling still the link binding this country to Great Britain, and there is no link as strong as a money link. The question of credit facilities not being available to farmers now may have some bearing on the fact that we have not a central bank here in this country; but what is more important than any central bank is that the main industry in this country is showing no margin of profit. We have no profit on agriculture because we are engaged in an economic war, paying a debt that we are trying to fool ourselves we are not paying. Not only is the Government responsible for the situation, but its allies, or its former allies, if we are to take at its face value the more or less of a dog fight that has been going on here to-night between the two Parties, are also responsible. Whether they are the Government's allies now or not, they were, at any rate the Government's allies in doing the damage of destroying agriculture and depriving it of a profit, and when agriculture shows no profit income, it cannot have credit.
In conclusion, Sir, I would draw the Vice-President's attention to the fact that the Government failed to show the world that this country will terminate the special trade agreement that it has with Communist Spain, and perhaps the Minister might also tell us, by way of an answer to this question, when he is going to take notice of the Communist propaganda that is being preached every night in Cathal Brugha Street. It is time that we should take notice of the dangers that are lurking ahead, because Communism, it must be remembered, had a similar beginning in other countries to what is going on here, and that kind of thing ended in the burning of churches and the murdering of priests. We should try to stop that kind of thing before the churches here are burned and the priests murdered.
Rubbish! Do not be talking nonsense.
Well, old fellows should be in bed at this hour.
Mr. Anthony rose.
How long is Deputy Anthony going to speak?
I want to get away quickly.
Well, I do, too.
Order, order!
There are only 15 minutes left. Is Deputy Anthony going to take the whole of it?
Not if the Deputy does not allow me.
Give me a couple of minutes. That is all I ask for.
I find, for once in a way, that I have a good deal of sympathy with the members of the Executive Council, but particularly with the Attorney-General.
Church-burnings! Did you ever hear anything like that in your life?
During the discussion we heard a good deal of solicitude expressed and manifested for persons who have been brought up and charged under the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 17) Act, but not one half of that solicitude or sympathy was ever expressed for the victims of the organisation which was instrumental in having these murders committed in our midst—the murder of young Egan and of Admiral Somerville in County Cork. Not one half of the solicitude was manifested or expressed in connection with the victims of these murders. Now, the attitude of Deputy Norton and his Party to-night, in so far as we can understand it, in their attempt to capture votes and to wean away voters from Fianna Fáil and the extreme Republican Party, appears to me to be a policy of facing both ways. Apparently, the pale pink Communism of the Labour Party does not appeal to the ordinary working-class people of this State, nor does it make that appeal which it was calculated it would make, and the Labour Party, apparently, are now turning out as full-blooded republicans and they express the greatest solicitude and sympathy with every person who was interrogated. Now, as the Attorney-General pointed out, the system of interrogation exists and has existed for years in many other countries and the citizens of these countries, being loyal citizens, are quite prepared to give answers at any hour of the day or night when they are interrogated by the police authorities as to their whereabouts at a given time. What is wrong in asking any honest man, who has nothing to be afraid of or nothing to be ashamed of, where he was at any given time?
Then we have Deputy Davin, whom I always looked upon as a wonderfully constitutional person in this House, asking some silly questions here to-night about a man being imprisoned and people calling to him and about maltreatment in the prisons of this country. Does he want us to supply these prisoners with wireless sets and playing-cards to play poker with, and moving pictures, and so on? I wonder at Deputy Davin's mentality and that of other people. In my view—and I expressed the same view when Deputy Cosgrave was in office here—this is a time when every honest, decent man in this country should stand four-square behind President de Valera and his Government in supporting the law and order for which this Dáil is responsible.
Every member of this House is either shirking his duty as a public man, or he is acting the coward by shielding himself and by being on the side of the angels, the angels being possibly the persons with the guns in their hands. I have never yet been afraid of a man with a gun in his hand, and never shall. I want to make my position in that connection quite clear, that, so far as I am concerned, the Government will have my vote behind them in any measure they take to enforce law and order in this country. Having said that, I feel that more of Deputy Norton's speech as Leader of the Labour Party might have been devoted to the problems which confront the working-class people of this country every day, rather than that he should coquette with a Party outside this House which is trying to break down the institutions of the State which were built up by President Cosgrave and his Party and which are now being continued by President de Valera and his Party.
If I were asked to epitomise or summarise the principal effects and results that have flowed from Fianna Fáil government in this country, I could easily do so under two or three headings. They are (1) more unemployment and more poverty; (2) increased taxation, local and general, and (3) the impoverishment of our principal industry, agriculture, due to the continuation of the economic war. I should like to emphasise each of the points I have read out, but the time is too limited, due to the longwindedness of a lot of people who took a long time to say very little. It is most unfair to members of this House who sat here all day to be left until almost 12 o'clock without an opportunity of speaking. I myself have risen six or eight times and I have protested already. I know it is not your fault, Sir, because you were not always in the Chair and because the personnel of the Chair is changed so frequently, it is a matter of difficulty.
Everybody knows that the farmers and farm labourers of this country have been impoverished as a result of the activities of this Government, but I want particularly to refer to the position as I find it in Cork. While the industrial policy of the Government is highly commendable in many respects, I should like to point out that it has not had the direction and careful and thoughtful planning that one should reasonably anticipate from the Government charged with conduct of political and economic affairs in this country. I should like to call the attention of the Vice-President to the fact that in the flour milling industry we have had many stoppages of work. We have had mills closing down for weeks on end, and we have had under-employment due to these quota orders, etc. In the boot and shoe industry in the same way, we have almost reached saturation point, and I want to know what it is intended to do with the surplus products. There is a danger in this respect which I see and which other persons who have given the matter any kind of thought or study at all can see. If the mills work to their full capacity, you will very soon have over-production in flour and you will have, as a consequence, men thrown out of work. If the boot and shoe industry works at full pressure, they will be enabled to turn out more goods than will satisfy the requirements of our people. What is going to be done with the surplus? We will have an exportable surplus, and I understand it is the intention of the Government to establish one or two additional boot and shoe factories in this country. Representations have been made to me by many people engaged in those two industries asking me to protest against the establishment of any other flour milling establishment, and also to protest against any additional boot and shoe factories being established, all going to show that there is a feeling that one of these days we shall reach saturation point and there will be no demand for the surplus products of our factories.
One other point, and I am finished. It has been stated time and time again that the President of the State, whom I respect as President of the State, although I am very much opposed to his policy, and some members of the Executive Council know where arms are dumped in this country. I am not making the charge, but it has been so stated over and over again in public. If the President or any member of the Executive Council knows where those arms are dumped, I think it is his duty to show example to other people in the country and have those arms handed over to the responsible authorities of the State, either the police or the military authorities. I welcome the speech made by the President on Tuesday, I think, in Galway, and I welcome the attitude adopted by him in relation to these illegal organisations, and I have no hesitation and no fear in saying so. I deprecate very much the attitude of Deputy Davin and others who questioned the Minister for Finance to-night. The statement of the Minister for Finance, as I read it, was a simple statement of fact. He stated that if the murderers were found they would receive a murderer's fate. In effect that is what he said. I see nothing wrong in that, and I feel, too, that when the Government is endeavouring to govern, it is no time to deprecate that change of front, which I welcome, towards crime and criminals. We should welcome it, and every Deputy should be behind the Government in their changed attitude, as I regard it, towards crime. Having said that, I want to say also that I hope that, as the President has announced his change of front in relation to his political views, if you like, he will also show a change of front in his industrial policy, and that in the light of the experience he has gained already, he will learn to change his attitude and perhaps get some more economic wisdom.
It is almost 12 o'clock.
I cannot delay the House at any greater length, as I want to give Deputy Kelly some time.
My time? Up Dev.!
The House adjourned at 12 midnight until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 4th November, 1936.