I move:—
That leave be given by the Dáil to reintroduce the following Estimate for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1950:—
Vote No. 61 (Posts and Telegraphs).
Vote 61 (Posts and Telegraphs)— Motion to Reintroduce.
Leave to introduce granted?
No, Sir. Are we going to get no explanation from the Government of their extraordinary decision except that given by the Taoiseach?
I should possibly explain that the Vote to be reintroduced will be for the same amount and for the same service, exactly as before.
I think that the action of the Government on this occasion is entirely without precedent. A similar situation which arose earlier was met by the Executive Council of the day by the resignation of the Taoiseach and the submission of his name for re-election to the Dáil. On another occasion, the Government in office decided that the situation was one which called for a vote of confidence. I think that it is treating the Dáil with contempt to regard what happened here yesterday—the defeat of the Government upon a motion which was in effect a motion of confidence—as nothing more than a mere triviality, something in the nature of a misprint which has to be rectified by a formal act to-day. It is clear that the action taken by the Government can be prompted only by a decision to hold on to office irrespective of the opinion of the Dáil and of the country. If that action is to be regarded as indicative of the mind of the Government, it can imply only that they are indifferent to the views expressed here by Deputies, contemptuous of their criticism of the Administration and propose to take no action when that criticism leads even to a defeat in the Division Lobby.
It was obvious here yesterday that criticism of the administration and proposals of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was not confined to any one side of the House. It was expressed by Deputies who ordinarily supported the Government. If these Deputies decided to abstain from voting, and to express their criticism in that way, then their action is indicative of their attitude to the Government and of the particular proposal that was before the House. The Government, however, has decided that no matter what was said, no matter how valid were the criticisms expressed, they are going to ignore them. That is a complete reversal of the position which the Taoiseach announced it was his intention to take up when he was elected as head of the Government. If that line is to be pursued why not abolish the Dáil? If the sole consideration which operates in the mind of Ministers is that they must hold on to office, no matter how discontented Deputies and members of the public are with their administration, why keep the Dáil here at all? Is not the expression of criticism of the administration of the Government a mere waste of time? I submit that it is entirely wrong for the Government to treat this matter so lightly, that it is establishing a bad precedent, that it is contrary to established practice and is indicative of a mentality in the Government which all sections of the Dáil should be very quick to resent.
On the question to reintroduce the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs——
What is the position of the Minister for Finance?
May I not speak?
Yes, to wind up.
Mr. de Valera
I am not clear as to what is being done. Are we discussing the question——?
Of leave to introduce.
Mr. de Valera
We are discussing the question whether leave be given to introduce or not.
That is what I was intervening on.
Mr. de Valera
From a democratic point of view, I think the course that is being taken by the Government is about the worst. There are a number of choices before the Government. If they are going to take "referring back" the Estimate literally, as apparently they are doing, to regard it as an Estimate for reconsideration, then I think they have given very little consideration to the opinions expressed yesterday. If the vote meant anything, it meant that there was a majority against the Estimate as it was explained by the Minister in charge. From a democratic point of view, that ought to have been taken into consideration and an effort should have been made by the Government, if they were going to take that line, to meet the wishes of the majority. I take it that Deputies on the opposite benches who were in the precincts of the House last night and who did not vote did not vote because they did not approve of the Estimate.
A Deputy
Who told you that?
Mr. de Valera
The line taken by the Government now is to force those Deputies, who apparently did not want this Estimate, to vote for it, or else— take the alternative.
There is no truth in that.
Mr. de Valera
What else is the purpose of bringing in the Vote in this form but to compel people who were, apparently, so opposed to it that they could be in the precincts of the House and not vote for it? Is it not clear that what the Government are trying to do is to force through an Estimate against the majority opinion of the House as expressed yesterday? Of course, to treat this in the literal, technical sense is completely wrong. Referring back an Estimate is not intended and was never intended to be taken in the literal sense. It has been traditionally used in this House—I mean over a long period—to enable a full discussion on the Department to take place, and to make possible the widest considerations to be taken into account. A defeat on an Estimate of that sort cannot be treated, to use the expression of Deputy Lemass, as a triviality. It is a major matter and ought to be dealt with as such from a democratic point of view by any Government. If you take it as a literal matter, the proper thing to do from the democratic point of view is to take into account the opinion expressed here. If, on the other hand, you do not take it as a literal matter, but regard it as a major matter, then you ought to treat it as such and the precedents here in cases of that sort have been to treat it as such.
On a previous occasion, the President of the Executive Council came back to the Dáil and resigned and went forward again for re-election. He said: "We are defeated; we no longer have the confidence of the House. We want to test that in the most formal way". Another course was open to the Taoiseach and the Government, if they desired to take it, which in my opinion would have been the proper way of dealing with it, and that was to go to the President and ask for a dissolution.
Why did the Deputy not do it in 1932?
Mr. de Valera
I did it on every occasion on which we were defeated. We went and sought a dissolution.
And were criticised by the then Opposition.
Mr. de Valera
We were proved to have been right. We did not want to be in office on sufferance. We wanted to be in a position in which we would be able to do the work of the country properly and be able to say that we were the Government by the declared will of the people, tested in the most democratic way; that when we spoke we spoke for the country as a whole. That is not the position to-day. We know that at the last election, when the various Parties were before the people for election, only one Opposition Party were explicit in telling the people that they did not expect to have a majority and that, if they were elected, they would take part in a coalition Government. That was the Fine Gael Party. We can certainly say, so far as the Fine Gael Party are concerned, that they did tell the people when going forward for election that they were prepared to form a coalition. The result was that they got 31 seats—a little more than one-fifth of the total members returned to the House. The other Parties who form the coalition did not tell the people beforehand that they would enter into a coalition. Take the Labour Party. Were any people who supported the Labour Party in the last election——
Is this in order?
Take your medicine.
Mr. de Valera
I am speaking of the democratic duty of the Government at the present time and I am going to prove the case that the Government, as it stands, has not got the support of the people and are afraid to test the matter.
They have no need to do it, but you will have.
Mr. de Valera
They have. Let the Taoiseach do what I did on previous occasions—test the matter. Let the people decide. The other Parties took good care not to tell the people that they were going to form a coalition. The Labour Party did not do it.
We certainly did.
Mr. de Valera
You did not. You could not point out a single case in which you said you would form a coalition.
I did it on every occasion.
Mr. de Valera
That is an untruth, and you know it.
It is not an untruth.
Mr. de Valera
Of course it is. The Labour Party at the last election went before the electorate who had a knowledge of their past. They asked to be re-elected. The Leader of that Party, when here in the Dáil, made it quite clear by his previous actions that he did not want coalitions, that the policy of the Labour Party was independence, that they did not want to be dependent on any Party and therefore did not want to tie themselves up in a coalition.
Then let us take Clann na Talmhan. The Leader of that Party went round the country telling of the fate of previous Farmers' Parties and at various meetings which he addressed stated that one of the things they had to fight against here, so far as their Party was concerned, was the bad odour that had been attached to previous Farmers' Parties because they had allowed themselves to be absorbed in the Fine Gael Party.
You said you would break stones.
Mr. de Valera
It does not matter what I said. You can say what I have said afterwards. We said that we were not going to form a Coalition and we kept our word. The fact is that every single Party except Fine Gael that formed that Coalition formed it behind the backs of the people and they are afraid now to face the people.
A Deputy
What about West Cork?
What about Donegal?
Keep to Clann na Talmhan.
Mr. de Valera
The Leader of Clann na Talmhan and the Deputy Leader of Clann na Talmhan went around the country but at that time they did not tell the people that if they were offered seats in the Cabinet or Parliamentary Secretaryships they would give up their independence. They gave up their independence and joined the Coalition behind the backs of the people.
That is wrong.
Mr. de Valera
The people who voted for them were given the impression that if they voted for them they were voting for a Farmers' Party that was going to keep their independence and not going on the road of previous Farmers' Parties.
And they have kept their promise and that is what vexes you.
Deputies
Sit down.
Mr. de Valera
The next Party was the Clann na Poblachta Party. Did they tell their supporters that they were going to form a Coalition with Fine Gael? They took mighty good care not to.
They said they were going to put you out.
Mr. de Valera
And the people's seats, less than one-fifteenth, roughly, opinion of them was to give them ten of the total representation in this Dáil.
What about the other parties that formed the Coalition? We have got the National Labour Party. Did the National Labour Party tell the people who supported them in the country that they were going to join the Coalition? The opinions of the people who voted for them, as expressed later when they found them out, is proof that they did not.
As for the Independents, the Independents, I suppose, are free to follow any line they want. They did not, as far as I know, stand definitely either for a Coalition or the reverse. They have 12 seats out of the total. Therefore, I state, and I believe there is no contradicting it, that those who form the Government of to-day have not got the authority of the people for doing so. They have got the authority of forming it by virtue of having a majority vote here. When they lose that and when that is obviously questioned, their clear duty, if they have any courage, is to get their position made clear. Time after time, in the national interest, I have urged that if they were going to form a Coalition they should do so before an election and put their policy to the people. They have the opportunity of doing it now. It is bad for the country that there should be a Government of that sort in times like the present. The people are anxious about the bad work that has been done. Already in the public mind——
A Deputy
What about West Cork?
Mr. de Valera
If West Cork proved anything it proved this: that there was a sufficient increase in votes in the country to give to Fianna Fáil a majority over all. This Party has in its ranks a greater number than all the other organised Parties combined. You are depending on 12 Independents to keep you in office.
You were surprised by National Labour.
Mr. de Valera
If there was any courage, any real desire to govern in accordance with democratic principles in the hearts of the Government at the present time they would go to the country.
A Deputy
Put down a motion.
It is an extraordinary thing that the Government, which claims to have the confidence at least of the majority of the Dáil, is afraid to put down a vote of confidence. That is the first thing that emerges on consideration of the manoeuvre we have had this morning. Last night the majority of the Dáil clearly repudiated any confidence it had in this Government. The results of the East Donegal election and the West Cork election showed that the people have likewise repudiated this Government. In West Cork, the strongest Fine Gael constituency in Ireland, the Opposition vote increased by 12½ per cent. and the Government vote declined by over 2,000 votes. In East Donegal the Opposition vote increased by over 20 per cent. and, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, if those results represent the country—and I believe they represent the minimum change over in the country—if there were a general election to-morrow this Government and all its hangers-on would be wiped out of office. Deputy Lemass referred to the precedents that ought to rule our conduct in relation to this matter. In a democracy precedents are important, particularly when those precedents are set by men who have some regard for the principles of democracy. None of us will say that we on this side of the House had any great regard as a politician for the Leader of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government during the period from 1922 to 1932. Some of us said things, I in particular, which I sincerely regret, but I never did deny that he at any rate had a regard for the principles of democracy. When he was defeated here in Dáil Éireann he did what the present Taoiseach refuses to do. He resigned. That was an honourable thing to do. It is a precedent which should become the standard of conduct here for his successors.
Again when on another occasion, not on this occasion on a matter introduced by the Government, when Dr. Ward brought in the Old Age Pension Bill and the Opposition succeeded in carrying the Second Reading of that Bill against the Government Whips, once more a democratic principle was availed of and a vote of confidence in the Government was put down. Mr. Cosgrave resigned and after he resigned a vote of confidence was put down and he was renominated as President of the Executive Council and after that of course, naturally he was entitled to form a Government and did. How was the attitude which the President of the Executive Council, Mr. William Cosgrave, took up on Friday, 28th March, 1930, expressed by him? In column 276 of Volume 34 he said:—
"The Executive Council, while it appreciates that the result of yesterday's Vote was due to the fortuitous circumstances that a number of the members of the Government Party were unavoidably absent, nevertheless feels that the House, having come to the decision that it did, should be given an opportunity of electing another Executive. I have therefore tendered my resignation to the His Excellency the Governor-General."
Were any supporters of this Government Party unavoidably absent yesterday? We had on the Order Paper for some days a motion to refer back an Estimate. An Estimate is something for which the Government as a whole is particularly responsible. If you turn to Article 28 of the Constitution you will see that the responsibility is specifically laid by the Constitution upon the Government which "prepare Estimates of the Receipts and Estimates of the Expenditure of the State ... and shall present them to Dáil Éireann for consideration." Therefore it was on no minor issue that the Government was defeated. It was on an issue deliberately raised by the Opposition and of which full and ample notice was given. Moreover in relation to that matter the Government was in a position to chose the exact time at which it would submit this issue to the House.
There was a considerable number of speakers from the Opposition Benches in relation to this matter. They were joined by some who normally support the Government in condemning the action which the Government, through its Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, proposed to take. It would have been quite possible, if there was a single man, a single back-bencher, with the exception, I think, of Deputy Crotty, prepared to support the action of the Government and to get up here and defend it, for the Government to have prolonged the debate until they had here any people who were, as in the case of the motion on 28th March, 1930, unavoidably absent. But the Government did not do that. They felt secure that they had the confidence and support of a majority. It was their Whips' job to find out that they had. The Government accordingly chose its own time deliberately to put this question to the House. It was beaten, and it was beaten when there were within the precincts of Leinster House, within hearing of the Division Bell, Deputies who would normally support the Government, so there were therefore no Deputies on this occasion unavoidably absent. There were Deputies deliberately absent because they were not going to support the Government in depriving the people of this country of a right and a privilege which they have enjoyed ever since the postal services were established—the right and privilege to approach a Government Minister or a Government Department with the least possible expense to themselves.
What were the next precedents we had? The Leader of the Opposition has referred to them. One was in 1937 when we were beaten on a Private Member's motion by one vote. We had the option of resigning, as Deputy Cosgrave did, avoiding a general election and asking the Dáil to pass a vote of confidence in us by re-electing the then Taoiseach. It would have been quite constitutional to have done that, but we felt that there was a higher court of appeal, a court of appeal to which apparently this Government is afraid to go. There was the court of appeal of the people of Ireland, and, when we were beaten on a motion put down, I think, by the present Taoiseach, we carried the issue to the people and gave the people an opportunity to judge us and to judge the Opposition and to pass a verdict accordingly. This Government is quite obviously afraid to submit itself to the judgment of the people. This Government is quite obviously afraid of the verdict the people would give.
We have heard a great deal about West Cork and, we have heard, I should say, a little about West Cork, but we have heard nothing about East Donegal. However, West Cork gave as little consolation to this Government as East Donegal did. These gentlemen have learned the lesson of West Cork and they are afraid that what East Donegal and West Cork did in the two by-elections which have taken place in the short time they have been in office, the people of Ireland would do in an even more emphatic way to-morrow—repudiate this Taoiseach and every element in that Coalition. That is why he is able to rally behind him to-day in the Dáil the Deputies who do not care about democracy and who are prepared to put their place above their principles.
This proposal, as I have shown, is an attempt to evade the obligations of the Constitution. The Government, as the Leader of the Opposition reminds us, announced that it was the servant of the Dáil. Very well, take it upon the narrow issue which Deputy de Valera raised. If it regards itself as the servant of the Dáil, why does it ignore the judgment, the decision, which the Dáil gave yesterday? The issue which was raised in the debate yesterday on the Estimate of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was no minor matter. For years, as has been pointed out, even under the British régime, any man who wanted to get in touch with a Department of State or a State functionary could drop a letter in the post-box unfranked and it went straight to the person whose ear or eye he was anxious to catch, and, if he had a grievance, he would at least have the satisfaction of knowing that he had been able, unhindered and unhampered and at little expense to himself, to bring that grievance before the notice of the then constituted authority. We gave the people no new right when the Free State was established. We conferred upon the people no new right or privilege in this regard when this Republic of Ireland was established by the Constitution of 1937. It was a right which they had enjoyed, even under their British taskmasters. It remained for the man who proclaims himself to be a member of a Labour Party, the National Labour Party, if you please, who holds himself out as a servant of the poor and the oppressed, to come in here and ask the Deputies, the representatives of the people, to deprive our people of a right which they have established by long prescription, a right which was willingly conceded to them by every Government established here since 1922.
That was the issue which was raised and many members who normally support the Government were so strongly moved by what it was proposed to do that they refused to support the Government in its policy. They abstained and, so far as they were concerned, they left the Government to the mercy and verdict of Dáil Éireann. Now Dáil Éireann has given its verdict. Dáil Éireann gave its verdict last night. Dáil Éireann has spoken, and what does the Government propose to do? It proposes to ignore that verdict and it proposes to ignore it with such an exhibition of contempt for its own supporters that, if there is one among them with the spirit of a man, he will vote to refuse to give them leave to introduce this motion in the terms in which it has been put before the House. Remember that there are men on those opposite benches who refused to support the Government last night in the proposal it now seeks to ram down your throats. The Government is not merely humiliating democracy—it is asking everyone of you to humiliate yourself personally, asking you to swallow the leek, to come back like a dog to its vomit. That is what you are being asked to do; that is what you are being driven to do, under the coercion that, if you do not do it, there will be a better Government in this country or, if not a better Government, the people will at least have an opportunity to pass judgment upon the Government which should now be going out.
Dáil Éireann, I have said, has given its verdict, but that verdict is to be ignored by this Government. There is nothing, to those of us who know the members of that Government, very strange or very novel in that. Members of this Government have ignored and have flouted other verdicts which have been given against them. They have even attacked judges who delivered these verdicts——
The Deputy is going outside the scope of this motion.
I am dealing with the constitutional issue. They have not the courage——
The Deputy is going outside the scope of this motion.
This motion is obviously an attempt to evade the constitutional position. I suggest that, in discussing it, we should be allowed to deal with the constitutional position. The Constitution provides that there are three arms in this State—the judicial as well as the Legislative.
The Deputy is going outside the scope of this debate.
I have no option except to——
The course followed by the Government in putting this motion before the House is in order. It was for them to decide what course they would follow and to take that course is in order. On the question that leave be granted to reintroduce this Estimate, Deputies are entitled to criticise the course taken but the debate would be somewhat narrower than if there was a vote of confidence.
I understand that the manoeuvre of the Government was designed to fetter and restrict the debate. We know that. We know that the Minister for Finance who is introducing this matter is a constitutional lawyer—a professor of constitutional law. He has studied the Constitution with a view to finding loopholes in it. He has studied the Constitution with a view to overturning it. He has studied the Constitution with a view to sweeping the courts of this land away and setting up in their place mob law and the same sort of People's Court as existed in Germany under Hitler and as exists to-day in Russia under Stalin and in Poland under Stalin's dupes. That is what the Minister for Finance had in mind when he said that a certain course had been discussed and decided upon——
I told the Deputy that he was out of order. I think he understands that.
That case is still on the Deputy's nerves.
Mr. Boland
You mean that it is on your conscience, if it is not on your nerves.
He has no conscience.
I say that this motion is a deliberate evasion of the responsibility and obligations which Article 28 of the Constitution imposes upon the members of a Government. Article 28 of the Constitution, paragraph 4 (1) states: "The Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann." Last night the Government was called upon in Dáil Éireann to answer for its responsibilities and Dáil Éireann, by a solemn vote, withdrew its confidence from that Government. Paragraph 4 (2) of Article 28 of the Constitution states: "The Government shall meet and act as a collective authority, and shall be collectively responsible for the Departments of State administered by the members of the Government." When the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was speaking in this House last night he was not speaking as an individual. He was speaking as the agent and as the mouthpiece of the Government of the day. He was making their case. That case was weighed in the balance here by the Deputies of Dáil Éireann and it was found to be wanting. Paragraph 4 (3) of Article 28 the Constitution provides: "The Government shall prepare Estimates of the receipts and Estimates of the expenditure for the State for each financial year, and shall present them to Dáil Éireann for consideration." It did prepare these Estimates and presented them to Dáil Éireann for consideration—and Dáil Éireann has rejected them. Therefore, as I have said, the position is that this Government is defying Article 28 of the Constitution and is refusing to acknowledge its responsibility to Dáil Éireann.
Is this not Dáil Éireann?
This is Dáil Éireann. The Government should not be in office to-day unless it has asked and succeeded in persuading the President to grant a dissolution. That is the position. There were only two legitimate courses open to this Government: (1) for the Taoiseach to resign and place himself at the mercy of his colleagues here in Dáil Éireann, or (2) to go to Arus an Uachtaráin and ask the President to grant him a dissolution. I will concede that he may have been in a difficulty in that regard.
Why did the Taoiseach not go and ask for a dissolution? The primary reason, I think, is that he knows that if that dissolution were granted, after the people gave their verdict at the polls, there would be a new Taoiseach and a new Government here. The other reason is that knowing that the Vote last night could be taken as other than a withdrawal of confidence on the part of Dáil Éireann, the President might under the relevant article of the Constitution have refused him a dissolution. He was not in a position to ask for a dissolution—knowing that it would be granted. However, by resigning and asking some people—if such a one would be found in the House—to propose his renomination as Taoiseach, he would then be in a position, if he wanted to face the people and take a verdict upon the issue, of going to the President as a Taoiseach who had the confidence of Dáil Éireann and asking him to give a dissolution. But the whole purpose of this Government from the day it was elected until to-day, has been to evade its constitutional responsibilities, to flout the courts and to overturn democracy.
I should like to bring this debate back to realities and to keep it on the lines of realities. There has been talk about democracy and about my duty and the Government's duty. We are fully appreciative of the duties that we owe to this House and to the people. The realities of this situation which we are meeting to-day are very simple. A number of Deputies who support this Government were not present, for a variety of reasons, at this debate last night. Some were ill; some were attending functions officially; some could not be here; some who should have been here were not here, and some arrived late. But, for whatever reason they were not here, not one single member of this House who normally votes for this Government voted against this motion.
A Deputy
But they spoke against it.
I venture to say that not one Government Deputy who spoke against the motion—as Deputy Lemass said—voted against this Government, and I venture to say that those who were not present at this snap division last night——
Mr. Boland
It was not a snap division.
——were not absent because they were intending to vote against the Government or in any way to express their disapproval of it.
Mr. Boland
Contemptible. Beneath contempt.
We have taken an immediate step to calm the people because of what occurred last night. It is perfectly proper for the Deputies opposite to indulge in the manoeuvre that they indulged in last night.
Deputies
Oh.
We should not have been caught out—to use the expression used on one famous occasion by Deputy Boland.
Mr. Boland
When was that? Absolutely contemptible.
These are the realities. There is no use in talking about democracy or anything else. Last night's division was not a vote of no confidence in this Government. What last night's vote was or was not can be determined here to-day at the earliest opportunity. Deputy MacEntee states that we propose to ignore last night's verdict. We have accepted last night's verdict in the setting in which it took place and at the earliest moment we have come in here and have said: "There is the vote we want; we will stand by that". We seek the verdict of the House upon that and on that verdict we will stand to-day. Deputy MacEntee says we are afraid to face the people.
Mr. Boland
So you are.
I am not, and neither is any single one of my colleagues supporting the present Government, afraid either of the jibes of Deputies opposite or of the verdict of the people. When I took office, by the majority vote of this House, representing a majority of those people who had voted at the last election, I explained that I was not going to regard any snap division as something which would necessarily involve the downfall of the Government. Deputy Lemass misquoted me when he said this morning that I was acting contrary to what I said when I took office. That is what I said. It is in that spirit I am acting. If I thought for one moment that what took place last night was in any sense a vote of "no confidence" from any section of the Parties who are supporting this Government, I would not remain in office for one second.
I do not want to repeat what I have repeated frequently. Not one single one of us, notwithstanding Deputy Lemass's jibes last year, repeated this year, wishes to hold on to office.
A Deputy
Put it to the people.
If these interruptions continue, I shall be forced to take action.
I repeat what I said last week at Nenagh and every time I spoke to the people down the country at inter-Party meetings, that we will retain office so long, and only so long, as the people want us to do so. We set out to do a job of work for the people of Ireland. I believe this Government is doing a great service to the people of Ireland and is very good for the people of Ireland, that the people of Ireland appreciate it and do not want at this stage the turmoil of a general election.
We are going to do that work as long as we retain the support of the majority of the people's representatives in this Parliament. We will go on with that work and when we have completed it we will go to the people and ask for their verdict on it, saying "That is what we promised to do, and that is what we have done; now you pronounce on it." We are not going, by jibes or snap divisions such as occurred last night, or any other device or trick of the Fianna Fáil Party, to be misled into going to the people before we have done the task we set out to do.
We have a programme of work being now initiated. We believe that we have done great good for the people, we believe that the people appreciate that. More than that, what the people want at the present time is not general elections; they want work done and business carried on. That is what we are doing. We are carrying on the business of the country in a democratic way, in spite of what Deputy de Valera said. We are operating the Parliamentary machine of democracy and we say that this vote last night was an accidental vote. In case it was not, we came at the first opportunity, the next morning, and said: "That is our reconsideration, in accordance with the vote of the Dáil last night; we now ask you to vote upon it." If Deputy MacEntee were right when he said that people were lurking outside the Lobbies or around the House not wanting to vote upon it, they have their opportunity to-day. If that is not democracy and democratic Parliamentary procedure and practice, then I do not know anything about democracy.
This Vote we had last night is, as the Taoiseach described it, something in the nature of a snap division.
How does the Deputy make that out?
It was quite easy yesterday, as the debate proceeded, to see what occurred. In the earlier stages of the debate, from all sides of the House, and from the Opposition particularly, the greatest tributes were paid to the Minister. In view of that attitude, Deputies on this side of the House had apparently made up their minds that, in the words of Deputy Little opening the motion to refer the Estimate back, the motion was only being put for the purpose of widening the scope of the debate. That is what he said.
I did not say I would not call for a Vote.
Well, that is what the Deputy did say. The general impression created was that this Estimate was going to be accepted. Some point arose in regard to the stamps and the Minister dealing with the debate said that in view of what had been said he would consider this and would ask for the help of Deputies.
On a limited basis. Be honest about it.
He would consider it and ask the help of Deputies to end the abuses.
Not at all.
What happened then? Having created that spirit— which the Opposition were perfectly entitled to create—to lull certain members here into a sense of security, they marshalled their forces in the different parts of the House and came in and won by a couple of votes. Deputy MacEntee says that the Taoiseach is flouting the Dáil. The Taoiseach is not. The Taoiseach, in coming in to-day, is asking the Dáil to give a decision in a democratic way on a vital issue—"Has this Dáil confidence in the Government or has it not"? That is the issue before us.
Why did he not do that?
Questions of precedent have arisen. We have only a few precedents in this State since the beginning, but there is a Parliament in Britain which is considered to be one of the great democratic institutions in the world. Where the Government there has been defeated in the last couple of years on a matter such as this, they reintroduced the thing the following day in the way this is done and they got the confidence of Parliament. That is a precedent in a democratic country. If we cannot create the precedents ourselves, we are entitled to look for precedents in other Parliaments similarly established and under the same form of democracy. This manoeuvre—as it is a manoeuvre— will not fool the people at all. The people know that there is a majority in this House for the Government.
Of yes-men.
There is no question of yes-men.
They talk one way and vote another.
If this were a machined Party of yes-men, the four Deputies who were absent last night would not have been absent.
Hear, hear!
It is not a machined Party of yes-men. There is a machined Party of yes-men over there.
"We should not be caught out," says the Taoiseach a moment ago, "We should have whipped them in."
What is being done is being done in accordance with the principles of democracy and if there is anyone here on this side of the House who thinks the Government has lost the confidence of the people, he can walk into the Division Lobby and vote against the Government and that will be a clear issue.
May I say, in conclusion, that there was no necessity even for the Government to be defeated last night and it throws the responsibility on Deputies who were not here and who should have been here.
I have made it a rule, since I became a member of the House, to be here for every division, and I have never missed a division. I believe that is my duty and responsibility and I believe that is what my constituents sent me here for. But we have become too casual over a long period. Deputies will not even come into the House to listen to the debates and, if I may say so, Ministers are not doing their duty in that regard either. The moment questions are over, Ministers get up and walk out of this House. They seem to prefer to walk around the grounds than to sit in the House listening to the debates. I say to the Ministers "You have a responsibility to be in this House as often as you can". I say there is a responsibility on every Deputy, no matter on what side he sits, to be here when a division is called, and to vote as he thinks he ought to vote.
Largely, on a point of personal explanation, I want to say that when I moved to refer the Vote back I did so, it is true, as I said, in order to enlarge the scope of the debate and to deal with it from the point of view of policy. Of course, it was in my mind, and must have been in the mind of every other Deputy, that whether he would vote to refer it back or not would depend on the statement of the Minister. Now, there was a general appeal on the part of all Parties in the House, I might say, for a certain statement to be withdrawn because it offended against the democratic principles that the poorest people in this country should have the right of free access to Departments and to Ministers, and it was upon that issue the vote was taken. It is a very wide principle.
Is it right that there should be conferences going on in the House when the Deputy is speaking?
You did not mention that when those on your side were speaking.
The issue is a very clear one. It involves a fundamental democratic principle. You have Deputies constantly here speaking one way and voting the other way. Deputy Kyne, for example, got up and spoke against the Estimate on this particular issue. He said that he would have to vote against the Government on it, and then he acted as a Whip for the Party. What sort of confidence, do you think, the general public can have in that sort of thing, people saying one thing and doing the other? My God, we have seen other countries wrecked because men cannot have public integrity and stand honourably by what they say.
Do you forget ex-Deputy McCarthy of Cork?
An ex-Deputy may not be referred to here.
The oratorical efforts of Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Little would really be worthy of a better cause. This, in effect, is largely a storm in a teacup. The points made by Deputy Cowan are substantially correct. I wish to emphasise, particularly, the point he stressed about the members of the different groups supporting the Government who were not present last night, and who should have been present. The whole argument of Deputy MacEntee was based on the fact that members were within the precincts of the House, that they should have voted for the Government and did not vote for the Government, thereby clearly trying to establish that there was a lack of confidence within some of the Parties composing this Coalition Government.
Now, as it will be impossible for each individual member of the Labour Party to establish where he was or why he did not vote, I want to say that as far as Deputy MacEntee's statement applies to the Labour Party it is completely wrong. It is completely mispletely wrong. It is completely misleading and misinformed. There were seven members of the Labour Party absent from the divison last night. That was a dereliction of duty on their part, perhaps, but this is to be clearly stated that not one of these seven was within the precincts of the House—to repeat the phrase used by Deputy MacEntee. Each and every one of them had a legitimate excuse. They were on business connected with their unions or with their constituencies, and in no case was one of them within telephone reach or other mode of communication when it was established that a division was about to take place.
It is quite true that the Opposition used the occasion last night legitimately, as they were entitled to, to attempt to destroy confidence in the Government, to attempt to upset the Government, to attempt to have a general election and to come back as the Government themselves. But it would be an extremely foolish thing for any Government to allow the ball to be at the Opposition's feet at any time. It is, obviously, the duty of the Government, if it has any sense of proportion and if it wants to represent the interests that it purports to represent, to decide when is the best time to go before the people. That is a long established practice in which Fianna Fáil became adepts during their time. I do not see why the present Government should have it dictated to them by the Opposition as to when they should go to the country. It is quite true that within the past couple of weeks there has been a falling off in the attendance of Opposition Deputies. The last division that we had in the House previous to the division on the Estimate for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs showed that they were in a minority of 14. That lulled some members of the Government into a false sense of security no doubt. They were lulled further by the adroit tactics and strategy of Fianna Fáil who are some of the best political masters of the game in the country by a succession of Deputies coming into the House. Eight of them came in in succession, and one after another spoke for four or five minutes, each stating that he wanted merely to raise one or two little minor points and would not detain the Minister, and each and every one objecting to this question of prepaid postage, the point of which was completely overlooked by the ex-Minister of Fianna Fáil who had moved to refer the Vote back. He made no reference to that question. He did not understand the import or significance of it. It was left to a much wiser and smarter member of the Fianna Fáil Party to understand the significance that could be made out of that and to whip his members into some form of vehemence about the matter. All that, as I have said, lulled the members on this side into a false sense of security. The Government is perfectly entitled to come now before the House and seek a vote of confidence as it does in this technical manner. Even though it is done in a technical manner, I still believe that this is a vote of confidence and nothing more than a vote of confidence in the Government.
Mr. de Valera
We cannot speak on it as such.
I think we have spoken on it.
The Ceann Comhairle said it was not a vote of confidence.
Could not the Opposition put down a vote of no confidence?
Major de Valera
The lawyer again. That is only a lawyer's trick.
Who is the lawyer talking now?
Major de Valera
That is how I know you.
Deputy Connolly is the Deputy speaking now.
It is extraordinary how excited some Deputies can become over such matters as this. It does not do their Party the slightest good and will not affect the vote in the slightest way. I do not see why they should be using up all this nervous energy. This is a time when we should all keep cool, calm and collected. I think that it is a technical matter—the mode in which the Government have decided to reintroduce this Estimate. It has been spoken to in very wide terms. The scope of the debate could perhaps be wider if it were on constitutional issues, but the Ceann Comhairle has ruled otherwise. Apart from that, the scope of the debate has been very wide. The Leader of the Opposition, Deputy de Valera, traversed the conduct of all the different Parties at the last general election. Surely that is a wide enough field for discussion. It could be well argued whether the formal mode of a vote of no confidence or a vote of confidence would give the same scope for discussion. But the Government have sought to do it in this technical manner and perhaps many of us would agree that it could have been done differently.
The constitutional practice of other countries may be different. The Government may come in and sacrifice a Minister for something like this, for a defeat on his Estimate, or they may modify the Estimate. If the Government in this case so did, then we would be faced with a different situation but, the fact that they are reintroducing the Estimate in its original form, for the original amount and covering the same field as it covered before, is every indication that it is intended as not so much a reopening of the debate on that Estimate but to test the House whether the House still reposes confidence in the Government. On that basis the members of the Labour Party intend to support the motion for leave to reintroduce this Estimate.
Deputy Connolly, who seems to be a thrower of oil on troubled waters for the Coalition, says that this motion poses the question as to whether the Dáil reposes confidence in the Government. Actually, the motion before the Dáil in this form is an effort to avoid putting that question to the people and, instead of asking the Deputies whether they repose confidence in the Government; they are asking the Coalition members whether they dare face the people because, if the Coalition members who abstained from voting on this dared face the people, they would repeat to-day what they did yesterday; they would abstain from voting to impose a tax on those who want to approach a Department of State on some legitimate grievance.
There have been all sorts of promises made to the people by this Government in this last 16 months. As far as promises are concerned, they still act in the irresponsible manner in which they acted when they were not a Government. They are prepared to promise the sun, moon and stars tomorrow but not much to-day. The bright idea was got by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that they would stop the people writing letters asking when they were going to implement their promises and so they have imposed this tax upon anybody who dares to write to a Minister or to the Secretary of a Department to ask about it.
The Taoiseach said that this motion was a method of avoiding the turmoil of a general election. It is no such thing. If the Taoiseach feared to face the people, as the members who refused to vote for him yesterday and who are going to vote for him to-day fear it, he had the alternative of giving the Dáil an opportunity of electing another Government and in that way the turmoil of the general election which he talks about would have been avoided. But he is afraid to give the members who were supporting the Coalition an opportunity of electing a new Government.
There is a good number of members who are supporting the Coalition who do not want the Coalition to continue, who do not want this tax to be imposed on people writing to Government Departments, who want the people to have the same access to Ministers and Government Departments as they always had, but these same Deputies who want to get rid of the Coalition do not want to have a general election. If they had the opportunity which would have been presented to this Dáil if the Taoiseach had followed precedent and had acted in the spirit of the Constitution, these gentlemen would have voted for an alternative Government and that is why we have this motion in this form and not the resignation of the Taoiseach.
Let us remember that these motions to refer back Estimates have been on the paper for several months, that any financial motion has been always treated as a major question. The Government since last night have ceased to have the confidence of the Dáil and, according to the Constitution, the correct procedure in such case is that "the Taoiseach shall resign from office upon his ceasing to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann" unless on his advice the President dissolves Dáil Éireann. Last night the Taoiseach ceased to retain the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dáil but he is going to use the big stick to drive those who have no confidence in him to vote for him because of the alternative of a general election. He does not give them the other alternative, the alternative of electing here a new Government.
The Taoiseach said they were prepared to carry on only so long as the people wanted them. The people never voted for them. The people voted for the Opposition Party 2 to 1 against Fine Gael, 7 or 8 to 1 against the rest of the individual parties who offered themselves as a Government.
What did Deputy Briscoe bet?
The people of this country do not forget everything in 16 or 17 months after it has happened and they know that Clann na Poblachta put up 90 candidates and they asked the people, as they put it "to give MacBride the reins of Government". They turned him down 9 to 1. He got 1 candidate back out of every 9 he put up. The people did not elect this Government as a government. They did not know it was going to come into operation and the Independents and some of the smaller groups that supported it supported it because they were afraid of another general election. The Taoiseach is using that fear of a general election on the part of the smaller groups, on the part of the Independents, to whip them through the Division Lobby in favour of the reintroduction of this Estimate which a number of them by their abstention yesterday condemned.
In my belief those Deputies are being publicly humiliated. If they were men of honour they would give the same verdict to-day as they gave yesterday. And their fear of an election is not even real. They are being persuaded by the Fine Gael whips that if they do not vote for the Government the alternative is an election. There is another alternative. If the Government lose this second vote, I take it from what the Taoiseach said—if we can rely upon him—that he will resign. Then the course open to the Dáil would be to elect a new Government.
There is no Party in this Dáil sufficiently strong to elect a Government of itself, but there are six or seven Parties in the Dáil who could elect a Government if they had not the opposition of the remainder. There is, for instance, the Fianna Fáil Party— if they were allowed to form a Government. If the Taoiseach resigned, if we had had his resignation here this morning, as we should have had according to the Constitution, and if we had not last night got a dissolution from the President, the question we would be discussing here this morning, I take it, would be that Eamonn de Valera should be elected Taoiseach.
If any other Party thought that they could form a Government and be able to carry on—that they would not be thrown out, and even that they could carry on for a few months—they could have nominated a new Taoiseach if they did not like to let Fianna Fáil carry on as the Government. Fianna Fáil was entitled on the 18th February, 1948, to have been allowed to become the Government if the Independents and several other of the smaller groups had confirmed the wishes of the people as expressed by their giving Fianna Fáil, the largest Party, a majority over all other organised Parties.
However, we have not that situation at this moment. Instead of being engaged in the election of a new Taoiseach to form a Government to carry on the affairs of this State, we have this miserable procedure by which the small Coalition groups and the Independents are going to be humiliated publicly. We all know that if the Independent members and the members of the Labour Party and the other Parties who did not turn up yesterday were asked privately—and they will say it privately all around the country after this Vote—they would say that if they had their will they would not impose this tax on the people who want access to the Government.
Dean Swift said at one time—I forget the exact words, but the idea was—that the British Government deprived the Irish people not only of their rights but of their right to protest, to howl, to make themselves heard. The Coalition groups, with the help of the Independents, did deprive the Irish people of the right to have the Government of their choice——
They got a good howler.
——and now the people will not be allowed to write to Ministers of State to ask them to carry out some portion of the promises that they made and upon which they got the support of the people.
Opposition Deputies have said that those Deputies who were absent from the division last night were absent because they disapproved of the Estimate, and Deputy MacEntee stated that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who was in charge of that Estimate, was representing the Government under the theory of collective responsibility. I would not rise to speak on this occasion but for the fact that I happened to be one of those Deputies who were absent from the division last night and I want to repudiate in toto the statements which were made by several Opposition Deputies that the reason that the absentee Deputies were absent was their opposition to the Estimate and, following that, to the Government.
I had personal reasons for having to get home last night. I do not intend to go into those now in the Dáil, but I am proving by my presence here, having left home at 6.30 this morning and travelled almost 120 miles, what my attitude would be to the Estimate last night.
Deputy Vivion de Valera spoke of a legal trick. I must confess that my interpretation of Deputy Little's opening speech leads me now to the belief that there was a politicial trick perpetrated upon me. I found it very hard to believe that there would be a vote on the Estimate last night in view of the opening remarks of Deputy Little. I said I had no intention of going into the personal reasons which compelled me to go home last night, but if I had thought that there was going to be a defeat of the Government, as the Irish Press put it this morning——
You would not have gone back to the country.
—— these personal reasons, weighty though they were, would not have been weighty enough to bring me home. By my presence here to-day I am showing now where I stand.
Deputy Aiken, in the course of his remarks to the House, disclosed to my mind the central idea in the mind of his Party in their approach to every question. Following his leader who, in effect, told the House that under no circumstances would the Fianna Fáil Party stoop to co-operation, collaboration, or coalition with anybody, Deputy Aiken stood up and naively suggested to the House that the point at issue was to let the Fianna Fáil Party back into office, and he tried to suggest to some of the smaller Parties forming the inter-Party Government that by the abstention they could do so. That is the mainspring. That idea of getting back to office is the mainspring of every activity of the Fianna Fáil Party here. That is their policy. The policy of the Fianna Fáil Party can be summed up in one sentence: "Let us back into office." Every other aspect of their enunciated policy is subordinated to that "Let us back". The Deputies of Dáil Éireann will not let the Fianna Fáil Party back into office because the people who sent these Deputies into Dáil Éireann do not want Fianna Fáil back.
I do not grudge the Fianna Fáil Party a tribute for the very efficient Party machine and the very efficient whipping-in of their Deputies which took place last night. I suggest to the Parties on the Government Benches that we have a great deal to learn from them in that respect. They have a long political history behind them. They have a long experience in these matters. They are certainly entitled to a tribute for that. Do not let them represent, however, the efficiency of that Party machine as enshrining some great democratic principle. Deputy de Valera, with feigned indignation and heat, talked of democracy. If we are ever to apply democratic principles, we are applying them this morning when the Deputies elected by the people will register their confidence in the Government.
I think Deputy MacEntee can be summed up by saying that Deputy MacEntee was Deputy MacEntee. I think that speaks volumes. Let me assure the Opposition that the Deputies of our Party who were absent from the Division last night were not absent because of any desire to see the Government defeated and their presence here this morning, as Deputy Timoney has pointed out, is ample proof of that.
In the first place, I regret the flight from the land which brings all the boys in here this morning, especially when there is a change in the weather. On a few occasions this morning I was tempted to draw the attention of the chair to the fact that there were strangers in the House, because there were so many new faces on the Government Benches. I am glad something has brought them in here. I am glad to welcome all my country cousins who rushed up from the country during the early hours of this morning and late last night in case they might have to go to the country. I can well imagine my colleagues, Deputy Keane and Lehane, going down on the one platform with Deputy Seán Dunne and preaching the one programme. I am sure it would be very enlightening for the farmers in Cork. It would be worth anything. In West Cork they dropped 3,000 votes and we lifted 2,500. That was a good thing. Wait until we have another election and we shall settle them.
You are talking in bank notes.
I am sorry we had to pull poor Deputy Keane back here. But these things happen. I oppose this Estimate being put on again to-day because I do not think that half an hour's excited conference last night between the members of a defeated Government is sufficient for the reconsideration of the proposed removal of a fundamental right that the ordinary citizen in this country enjoys by being enabled at any time to write to any Government Department on any matter in which he feels he has a grievance or wants to have his rights considered. I consider the removal of a fundamental principle of that description—a fundamental principle that is at least 50 years old— and a fundamental right of the people wrong. I do not think that half an hour's excited conference last night between Ministers who came rushing here in boiled shirts and tails is the proper manner in which to deal with that fundamental principle.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with those unfortunate Deputies who have been whipped-in here to-day to vote for something which must be obnoxious to them. Some poor Deputies had to come rushing up all the way from Cork, without their usual clothing and in danger of getting pneumonia. I have every sympathy with them. I can quite understand the anxiety of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and I can quite understand the anxiety of the Ministers. The removal of this fundamental principle is definitely another sign of the utter laziness that has crept in where Government Deputies are concerned. Deputy Cowan complained of it a few minutes ago. That laziness has crept in, too, as far as Ministers are concerned. By the removal of this right Ministers will have in future less letters to answer and less work to do for the £2,000 odd that the unfortunate people pay them to do their work. That is another sample of the laziness. I can quite understand the anxiety of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance because he gets a great number of those letters from the ordinary farmers making inquiries about drainage——
I think I got one from yourself.
——and various other matters of that description. I can quite understand his anxiety and his worry in case he might have to work too hard. I can understand the position of the Minister for Agriculture who has a new drainage scheme on hands. I can quite understand the attitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Social Welfare because they undoubtedly would have any amount of queries from the ordinary unemployed in respect of unemployment assistance, saying that they are surely entitled to as much unemployment assistance as is paid by the board of assistance in Cork. I can quite understand the number of such letters that would come pouring in and the anxiety of Ministers to prevent them coming in. That is the sole reason behind the removal of this fundamental right of the citizen to communicate with responsible Ministers in every Department. It is a fundamental right.
What about the mental hospital?
If Deputy Keane is anxious about the mental hospital, I will not send him there for another bit. In fact I would not like to send him there.
Deputy Burke would look after him.
Sir, I have an unfortunate habit—I am trying to check it— of saying the first thing that comes into my head when I am interrupted. I do not want to insult people here. I cannot help this. If they will conduct themselves and bear with me——
I am glad to know that. For the information of Deputies, Deputy Corry should be allowed to speak without interruption.
I would expect the Parliamentary Secretary to be a pillar of order since such a weight of responsibility has been thrown upon his shoulders. I do not wish to delay the House in this matter. I certainly consider that matter of the removal of the fundamental right of the ordinary citizen as one that should get more consideration from the Government than was permitted by a half hour of excited confusion last night when they found that Tom, Dick and Harry were missing from the division. This is a matter which should be more carefully considered than is indicated by an excited rush in here this morning. I certainly consider that the Minister would be wise in putting back his Estimate for a week so that the Government might consider, in their cooler and calmer moments, whether they have been wise in removing this right from the ordinary citizen. It is a matter that should be considered in a different atmosphere from that which prevailed last night. For their own sake I would appeal to them to give that consideration. It would be a wiser attitude on their part.
Might I first clear a personal matter in regard to my absence from the division last night. It seems to be a peculiarity of certain newspapers always to report what is not true. I was not in the precincts of the House last night. I came in here shortly after the division had taken place. I came in here for the purpose of carrying out my Parliamentary duties.
Too late.
I am not too late this morning. The interesting thing I find about this debate is that we have been given lectures both on morality and on political forms. We have been given a lecture on the democratic basis of Parliamentary institutions. It seems to me a peculiar thing that we get these lectures from a Party which, when it was in office, displayed not the least understanding of democracy in this House, which rode rough-shod over its own members and rode rough-shod over the most reasoned appeals made by members of other Parties. That machine operated efficiently over the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, as it operated efficiently last night. In opposition they seem to pursue the same course as when they were in office. Deputy Lehane pointed out here to-day that their only concern seems to be to get back into office. Has it not been made manifest, during the past 14 or 15 months, that there has been no approach to any single question on that side of the House except the approach of how and in what manner a position can be manoeuvred to allow the Fianna Fáil Party to return to office? Everything else has been subordinated to that one objective. The working of that machine went to the full extent last night, to the full distance of having Deputies of that Party concealed in most peculiar obscure places so that other people would be misled and in that the machine again worked efficiently.
Members of the Fianna Fáil Party should realise that politics and democracy are something more than merely the play-acting of political Parties. Those who are members of political Parties are not members merely by accident. We have certain beliefs and certain hopes when we accept membership of these Parties. If I want to vote against the Government I shall vote against it but I shall decide in my own good time and for my own good reasons when I shall vote against it. I shall vote even against my own Party if at any time I find that I can no longer support that Party. I am not going to be influenced by political Party manoeuvres or by the trickery of a political machine into voting for something for which I do not propose to stand.
Deputy de Valera talked here of the history of the formation of the inter-Party Government. We have been over that many times. I think that on a very early occasion, when we came back to the House after the election, I, personally, speaking after Deputy Lemass had opened the debate, told him what was our position. It is well that he should remember that the reason that we voted against Fianna Fáil was because we went to the country, as a Labour Party responsible to members of the trade unions in the Labour movement, asking for the right to put Fianna Fáil out of office. We did that for certain specific purposes. Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera know as well as I do what these purposes were. It is not correct to say, as reported in the Irish Press the other day, that when we were threatened with a standstill wage Order by the Leader of the Opposition we were told that it was merely for a limited period. The specific question was asked, whether if we failed to get an agreement voluntarily between the trade unions and employees, would a standstill Order be operated and no guarantee was given that any effort would be made to keep a fair relationship so far as the working-class people were concerned between the cost of living and wages.
That is not true.
It is true.
You said it yourself.
Not only is that true but we were lectured by members of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to our duties. We got no concession from Fianna Fáil in regard to the growing gap between wages and the prices except what we were able to force from them. We started with a complete standstill in wages and nothing else. It was only when they found that they were starting to dig a hole under their own feet that they showed any disposition to deal with this question and it was then already too late. Yet they were warned in advance what was going to happen. It was only when there was almost a revolt amongst the working class that we got an amendment of the standstill Order.
Just because we have got to associate with Parties with whom frankly everybody knows we are not in complete agreement, we are taunted with not putting ourselves under the direction, the control and the oppression of a Party of whom we had already the experience of seven bitter years. If there is anything lacking to-day so far as the political development of the country is concerned, there is nobody to blame but the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. They went into office in 1932 with the support of very many people not only associated with the Republican movement but associated with the Labour movement, the support of many like myself, Deputy Lehane and others. We had great hopes then and if these hopes do not exist to-day, there is nobody to blame only yourselves because year after year you cast aside these hopes when it suited you and you spurned the very people who hoped to see certain things accomplished. Nobody expects the Fianna Fáil Party to operate the Labour Party programme. I did not expect the Fianna Fáil Party to carry out the Labour programme. That is our responsibility but I did expect that when the Fianna Fáil Party were returned in 1932, as an expression of the long-deferred hope of the ordinary people of this country, they would at least carry out their programme on the basis on which they had won the support of the people. The record of those years from 1932, starting with a fair degree of promise and, apparently, holding out further promise up to 1936 and 1937, changed to very bitter fruit in 1938 and reached its culmination in 1939 and 1940.
As I said, I was not present in the House last night. I hope I am not disappointing the Fianna Fáil members when I say that I was not present because of any lack of support of the Government or any desire to abstain from voting. When I say I am going to vote against the Government, I will vote against them; I will not abstain. It must be galling to the Fianna Fáil members, particularly ex-Ministers, that after nearly 18 months the hope of the breaking up of the present association of Parties has not been realised, that their original estimate of three months had to be extended to six months, these six months to 12 months, and the 12 months to two years. Why do they not give up hoping for that and deal with politics as a real issue?
Why do you not start?
I am trying to serve my apprenticeship and I am learning a great deal from you. On many occasions in this House I have paid tribute to many of the Fianna Fáil Deputies, particularly Deputy Lemass and those who have been able to approach any question in which I was interested with a constructive mind. Because I have done that, I am entitled to say that the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who have a serious understanding of political and social problems must at times feel very sick and ashamed, must feel that the way the Party has carried on during the past 16 months was not very edifying or helpful.
If we are going to deal seriously with these problems, as the Leader of the Opposition suggested to-day, we should realise that we have got here a democratic Parliamentary institution and that those who come in here come in with a certain mandate. So far as Deputies on this side of the House are concerned, we had one overriding mandate—to see that there would be a change so far as the Government of the country is concerned. That change has been justified. So far as I am concerned, those who entrusted their confidence to me have not expressed any opinion that I did not do what they wanted and that I am not doing what they wanted. From that point of view, I feel fully satisfied.
It seems to me that, instead of attempting to try and bring about a change which would be favourable to the Fianna Fáil Party and restore that Party to office, the Fianna Fáil Party might settle down and approach the whole matter from a more serious aspect. They are the biggest political Party in the country. They have a contribution to make, but they have failed lamentably to make that contribution. I suggest to them that they would make a greater advance in changing the political relationships in this country if they approached the matter from that angle instead of hoping that, by playing upon various notes in the orchestra, they will create artificial divisions, divisions which do not exist anywhere outside their imagination. I do not want to touch upon these notes.
It seems to me that the important thing is, not the question of a formal vote, because that formal vote is merely an expression of the support that is already appreciated outside this House, but that we should get back to the proper use of the democratic machine. Those who are lecturing us might put their own house in order. I might also say that some sentiments expressed elsewhere during the present week by certain members of that Party are not of a kind that will help in building up the prestige of this Parliamentary institution and make the public believe that we in this House do serve some useful purpose.
I hesitate to obtrude a personal point of view on this House. But, since my name has been coupled with that of Deputy Larkin in a morning newspaper which pointed out that we were both in this House yesterday and that our names did not appear in the division list, thereby making the clear suggestion that we were in the House and declined to take part in the division, may I say that I was in this House until 12 midnight the night before and that I was here yesterday morning at 10.45. I was here at the opening of the deabte on the Estimate for Posts and Telegraphs and took part in that debate. After listening to a considerable amount of discussion, I left for home with the permission of my Party for reasons which I think are well understood and appreciated by most Deputies. I want to make it perfectly clear that I was not in the precincts of the House at the time of the division and that, therefore, I am not one of the individuals referred to as being dragooned into the Government Lobby this morning. If any impression has been created in the minds of any person in this House or outside it that I was in disagreement with the Estimate of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, I want to say that that impression is entirely erroneous.
This is a sort of Oxford movement. Public confession is good for the soul.
The "Dáil Reporter" is active again.
Are there any more sinners for confession?
Deputy Lemass has come back from——
We have the Wailing Wall of Jerusalem over there.
I want to explain to the House——
There is no need.
Why do you not cry?
Deputy Burke ought to restrain himself.
Last evening from 4.30 until 11 o'clock I was trying to settle an industrial strike which has taken place in the town of Mallow. An ex-Minister, Deputy Seán Moylan, should have been doing that work.
We are not going to apportion blame. That does not arise on the motion.
I am very sorry if I have cut across the psychology of Deputy de Valera, the expediency of Deputy Lemass, or the ethics of Deputy Corry. If there are any tears to be shed, handkerchiefs can be procured at McBirney's.
I support the motion, and I suggest that commonsense dictates it should be passed unanimously. The House spent practically all day yesterday approving of the Minister's administration in every respect. The Minister received many bouquets from many sides of the House including the Fianna Fáil side, but eventually they voted against the Estimate. There was only one minor criticism and that was in reference to the abolition of free postage for every crank. The Minister made it clear that it was only the abuse of the free postage privilege which he wanted to prevent, and I think it is right that he should do so. He has assured us that that privilege has been abused and he asks for the co-operation of the House in preventing it. That is a very fair request.
Any more for the Wailing Wall?
After the speeches I have just listened to and the one which the Taoiseach made, there is not much I can say on this point. What happened last night was what had been foreshadowed by the Taoiseach within a week of his election to that office when he asked Deputies opposite to stop playing politics and trying to ambush the Government by a snap division.
A snap division of which a week's notice was given.
All right. That happened last night. We did not regard that as significant. We had to consider the reference back and, having considered the reference back, we decided to reintroduce the Vote, as I said this morning, for the same services and the amount exactly as was provided for before. If the Deputies opposite thought that the Vote last night was significant the lobbies have been yawning for them since 10.30 and I thought they would speed their way towards the corroboration of what happened last night, but apparently that is not going to happen. It has been said that we were trying to force through an Estimate against the majority of the House. That cannot be done, but what we are trying to do, what we are going to do, is to reverse a decision taken in a depleted House last night by a decision taken in a full, or more or less full, House to-day. That, I suggest, is good Parliamentarianism.
The suggestion of confidence has been brought into the debate by members of the Opposition. If their views on this matter are as strong as their language there is a way in which they can get a test of confidence, a way quite easily open to them, but I feel that the ebullience that was so strong this morning and that has waned somewhat as the sun has mounted in the heavens will be found, when next Tuesday comes, to be still more tempered by discretion. But if Deputies want that test there is the easiest possible way for them to get it. Part of the language used here to-day was to the effect that we had not the confidence of this House. We propose to test that at once. It has been said we are here on sufferance. We propose to test that at once. We are here as a Government representing the majority of the elected representatives.
You are there by a political trick which the people will repudiate whenever they get the chance.
I do not know whether the repudiation is supposed to have been last night. I suggest that is not so. The only time the people were given the chance to repudiate what has been called a political trick was in West Cork.
What about East Donegal?
Will it be agreed that in West Cork a Coalition candidate stood, and stood against speeches made around the constituency about a political trick and complaining, as we have had complaints here in this House, that the suggestion of a Coalition did not come before the election? But it came and was a fact before the West Cork election. A Labour candidate on Party terms was put up and was supported by Fine Gael, Clann na Poblachta, Clann na Talmhan and Independents, everybody except Fianna Fáil. Was the "political trick" repudiated in West Cork? I regard the West Cork election as a significant election. I regard it as a test.
Mr. de Valera
Does the Minister claim that it was a typical constituency?
It was typical in 1920.
It was typical to test out that challenge that we were here as a trick.
Why not take Donegal?
If it was a trick and the Deputy believes that the people are only anxious to get voting against the tricksters, they had that chance.
Mr. de Valera
And took it in Donegal.
If the Minister thinks that West Cork represents all Ireland he is very foolish not to go for an election.
That may well be.
They fought in 1920.
We carry on the position of members who formed the Coalition visiting their constituents and under pressure from their constituents. Nobody has said in these ranks that there was any objection to the Government being formed or to the work the Government is doing.
Deputy Aiken said that this morning would see the humiliation and rebuff of the Independents and some of the smaller Parties. On a true, as opposed to a surprise vote, humiliation and further rebuff is going to be the lot of Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Larkin has so well alluded to this matter that I hesitate even to tread on the ground he has gone over. But with all the talk of democracy and duty, is it not quite clear that all that irks the Opposition at the moment is the lingering bitterness of their deep disappointment over the last election? Disappointment, not democracy. As Deputy Larkin has said, since the Coalition was formed the whole attempt on that side of the House has been to try to drive wedges of small jealousies and personal animosities against the unity we have at the moment. That, incidentally, is the unity, not of a swarm dependent on the clutch of the coat tails of a leader, but a unity and cohesiveness dependent on policy. Our policy has been supported and Deputies, as Deputy Larkin has said, can leave if the policy on any particular matter fails to please them.
I should like to say one personal thing. I sat here to-day to hear Deputy MacEntee who had spent years reviling in the way only he is capable of the person who was my leader for many years, the man who was Deputy William Cosgrave and leader of the Executive Council, the man who was to be spat on in the pages of Irish history and counted with Judas, Sadleir and Keogh and the Dermot MacMurroughs, and to-day he appears through the spokesman of the Opposition as the democrat of the country. It is surprising the changes adversity can bring about.
Question put: "That leave be granted to reintroduce the Estimate.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun)
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breannan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:- Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.
Possibly the House would be agreeable to take the Estimate to-day?
Oh, no.
But is has been discussed.
No.
The Deputy would not like a second vote to-day?
Mr. de Valera
You can force it if you want to.
You stick like limpets stick to a rock.
Agreed that the Estimate be taken on Tuesday, 12th July, 1949.