The Minister for Justice will be very pleased if the House would take the recommendation dealing with Vote No. 31 first, as he wishes to get away.
Agreed.
Public Business. - Appropriation Bill, 1929—Committee.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Schedule (A) and Schedule (B) (Part 1 and Part II.) put and agreed to.
Cathaoirleach
I move:
Schedule (B) Part III, Vote No. 31. To delete in column 3 the figures "38,869," and to substitute therefor the figures "38,769."
I do not know whether there is anything sinister in the change of programme. However, as the Minister is the Minister all the time, and we have equal pleasure or displeasure in meeting him at all times, we had better get on with the job. I want to move the reduction stated in the recommendation appearing in my name. I do this as it is perhaps one of the only available means we have of calling attention to the Minister's attitude in this House yesterday. In the course of my analysis of the appropriations, I ventured to deal with the Department of the Minister. I did not make any particular criticism of the Minister's Department, but I did read a statement, and I think the House will agree that I presented that statement with the full qualifications that it was a statement containing allegations which I was not prepared to say definitely were true or false. Certain of the statements were obviously true, at all events to me, as they were vouched for by Deputy de Valera. The Minister's attitude was not to reply to the statement at all. Well, we are not surprised at that; the Minister does not reply to any statement as a rule in this House.
I do not know, in view of the experience some of us had yesterday, whether it is desirable to raise any question in this House, or whether the Minister resents questions. Is he running a Department which is in any sense subject to the will and the authority of the Oireachtas? Is he in any sense subject to his constituents or the Irish people, or is he the new Mussolini arrived in the shape of the "Playboy of the Western World," who is going to dominate the whole of the House, the people, and all the functions of law and order in Ireland? I think it is a very serious matter for this House to sit here and be insulted, as the Minister undoubtedly insulted us yesterday. He did not insult me; that is beyond his power; but he did insult this Chamber, and I submit he insulted you, sir, because of your special plea to him to attend to the business of the House. When you tried to rule him into order, just as you rule other members into order—and we try to obey your ruling—the Minister ignored you, and insulted the House by ignoring the Chairman in this way. I submit that that is not treatment to which our Chairman should be subjected and it is not treatment to which this House should be subjected.
What did the Minister do yesterday? I made a perfectly cool, calm, deliberate statement. It was not my own statement. It was read quietly and, I hope, listened to attentively by everybody in this House. The Minister did not attempt to make any reply to me. He lashed himself into a perfect frenzy and he read a letter which appeared in a newspaper from one of our Bishops, but which had really nothing to do with the issue I had raised. Some people call that a quibble. I call it flagrant dishonesty, and I say it in your presence and the Minister's presence. There are many things I think that the Minister for Justice could learn from that Bishop and from various Bishops, which would be very efficacious to him, as well as the stuff which he brought in from that particular Bishop to this House. I suggest that that letter did not at all apply to any member of the House. I sincerely hope it did not, and I do not believe it did. He continued to read the letter and entirely ignored the subject brought to his notice in the form of charges and a request for investigation, with the distinct qualification that we did not know how far the charges were true or false but we did suggest and demand that a full investigation should be made. The Minister's retort in one portion of the speech was that my attitude was a direct encouragement to criminally disposed people, or words to that effect. I suggest that was not true. I claim it was false. I claim that it was a lie, and I made no statement whatever further than reading out the letter.
It might occur to one that the reverse of that was the case. The Minister's attitude towards this House—and it has been consistent in all his activities in this House— was a direct encouragement to lawlessness on the part of those whom he is supposed to have under control. I suggest that his statement and his appalling attitude were a direct encouragement to anything in the form of lawlessness amongst his own subordinates. I feel that this House was outraged. I feel that the profession to which the Minister belongs and which he is supposed to adorn was also outraged. The Minister stated that whether there was going to be an investigation or not was entirely a matter for him. Now that is a very serious state of affairs. I wonder how far we are under the heel of this new Mussolini who has arrived? Is there a Constitution? Is there any law or order, or is Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney, Minister for Justice—or should I call him Minister for Injustice?—going to be the be-all and the end-all, to say who is to live and who is not to live, who is to have freedom and who is not to have freedom, in this country? I would like to clear that point up, as well as to clear up the direct charges made in the letter read here yesterday. I put down this recommendation with the one specific object in view, to call attention to the undignified, indecent treatment handed out to us by the Minister for Justice yesterday. I say here in his presence that he was undignified, that he was indecent, that it was a disgrace to him and to his profession, and an insult and an outrage on this House. I leave it to Senators, whatever way they may vote, to ask themselves in their hearts and consciences if that was not the feeling of every decent Senator who left the Chamber last evening.
I beg to second the recommendation. The recommendation is not moved as a vote of censure on the Government, nor is it intended as a vote of censure on the Minister for Justice, though both deserve censure, but we do wish to censure the Minister for his speech yesterday. I appeal to Senators to let him see that he will not be allowed to flout the feelings of the Seanad and the country in the way he did yesterday, especially when passing this recommendation it will not necessarily mean the downfall of the Government. The diatribe, as it was described by Senator Connolly yesterday, certainly astonished me. I felt, speaking to his friends afterwards, that it rasped the finer feelings of his own friends. After all, Senator Connolly read out a statement by Deputy de Valera, who is accounted generally the second most important man in the country, one of the men with the greatest amount of responsibility. It was a statement drawn up by him, having been on the spot and having investigated certain things which he regarded as being an outrage on an individual—if true, of course. The Minister was merely asked to have the thing inquired into. Instead of that, he practically told this House to mind its own business. Not only that, but from his privileged position here, he acted the part of the agent provocateur. He told his agents to continue just to do what they liked, that he would see there would be no inquiry into their conduct, no matter how reprehensible. In fact, he told them to continue, that it was practically his opinion that they should continue exactly as they are doing. How the Minister expects us or anybody else to have any respect for the institutions of this country after hearing the speech yesterday, passes my understanding. The vast majority of Republicans have come to the conclusion that they will act as though the institutions of this country had moral sanction. I hasten to say straight away that we deny there is any moral sanction, except that they are the only alternative to chaos, and that does give a very strong moral sanction, I admit. After listening to the Minister for Justice yesterday, certainly the institution of justice in this country is no alternative to chaos. The Minister's only suggestion of justice, if I might so call it, the only little thing which showed that he was Minister for Justice, was a recommendation to Mr. Ryan, if he has been treated unfairly, to bring the devil and his agents into his own courts. That certainly was anything but fair, and I do not think Senators ought to stand by such statements as that. After all, how could Mr. Ryan, unless he was a very rich man, bring those people to the court and succeed? And if he did, he would get no compensation. Not only that, but all the Republicans in the country, before they would be safe, would have to bring the Minister's agents to court and keep them there permanently, keep their cases sub judice perpetually before they would have any protection whatever. Surely, the Seanad is not going to stand for that sort of nonsense? I am afraid that the true and only explanation of the Minister's attitude is simply that he is afraid of his own bullies. No matter what some of us may have thought of the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, there was one thing certainly he did try, that was to introduce discipline into the police. What was the result? I think the result, the death of Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, is possibly what the present Minister is afraid of. If that is the case, let him get out and get somebody more strong-minded, who is not afraid.
I am not going to vote for this amendment, but I am going to protest against the pointing out in this House of anybody who is under discussion and who has not been tried on the point as the head of a criminal organisation. I think it is most undesirable. There was publicity in the morning papers. The man is shown by a most responsible man—the Minister—to be the head of a criminal organisation. I think the very fact of his being held out by such an important man as the Minister would prejudice the minds of a jury when he comes to be tried. I protest against those statements, and that is all I can do.
I have not risen to defend the Minister. I think he is quite competent to do that himself. I simply rise to express my appreciation of the fact that the members of the Fianna Fáil Party should at last be the champions and defenders of the dignity, good conduct and prestige of this Assembly. Some of us at one time believed they entered this Chamber as the advance guard of the destroyers of this Chamber. It must be pleasing to all who stand for the State and its institutions and all who have succeeded in preventing the efforts of that Party for which Senator Connolly and Senator Robinson spoke to know that they have at last discovered that this Chamber, this Assembly, does stand for something which should be defended, and that its authority or dignity should not be lightly flaunted. I could not help thinking, while Senator Connolly was speaking, of a phrase from, I think, Shakespeare's Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Senator Connolly would have us believe that what he said yesterday no possible exception could be taken to, that he spoke with an innocence that was absolutely disarming, that no single word that escaped from his lips could, in any way, by any stretch of imagination—Ministerial or otherwise—in the slightest degree be resented.
Could the Senator quote any statement which I made yesterday that could otherwise be interpreted?
Cathaoirleach
The Senator is entitled to interpret you.
What are the facts? I admit fully Senator Connolly's capacity to present a case in that disarming fashion, but it is not the manner of presenting the case; it is the essence of the case he made which calls for consideration. He makes a statement which he informs us was handed to him by a certain Deputy from the other House. He has seemed to assume we should take it for granted that the accuracy of that Deputy is beyond all question.
I qualified it by stating that all I wanted was an investigation and that it was possibly not true. I think the Seanad will bear me out in that.
Cathaoirleach
I think that is quite clear.
I think the full nature of Senator Connolly's comments is fully within the recollection of the Seanad, at least, it is fully within mine. This statement was put forward, and one would infer from it that the person in question was a harmless, innocent, ordinary law-abiding citizen who had been subjected to unprovoked, wanton and brutal assaults. This was given over the name of Deputy de Valera, and because Deputy de Valera sponsors, that statement the Minister for Justice must forthwith empanel a tribunal to investigate these statements. Are those adequate grounds for such a demand? If the circumstances be so evidently capable of substantiation, is it unreasonable to ask that the person aggrieved should take it to the courts of the country? I want to say this in reference to the statement of Senator Robinson in that connection, that it is a very curious suggestion to make—to paraphrase a similar statement made in the other House—"go to law with the devil and hold the court in hell." That was the effect of it. That has been the attitude, and is to-day expressed as the attitude, of that party, that these courts set up under the authority of this Oireachtas are so biased, so partial, and so prejudiced that the average citizen cannot get justice in them. I say when a person comes forward to make such a claim, and counters the claim with that qualification against the courts of this country, it at once rules the case he is making out of court. Will they get up and say definitely and frankly that they believe that the judgments of the judges in these courts are biased, partial and unfair? Will they produce a single judgment on which they can base that opinion? They do not deserve the sympathy or support of any impartial citizen when they couch their plea in such a way.
There is one other matter that I want to refer to. I think it is sufficiently important to have it referred to in order that we may extract from the Senator who made use of the phrase exactly what he meant. He said the late Minister for Justice tried to bring into the Civic Guards an element of discipline and he asked what was the result. Then he referred to the death of the late Minister for Justice. Are we to infer from that that he meant that it was the resentment of what he calls gun-bullies or bullies in the force that was responsible? Let him state it frankly and not by innuendo.
Frankly, and without any innuendo, I certainly believe that it was his own people who did him in. There is no proof that it was anybody else.
Cathaoirleach
We are not discussing the death of Mr. O'Higgins.
I say, sir, it is better that that should be stated frankly and not by insinuation. There is no one who believes in the credit of this State and in the stability of its institutions who gives the slightest credence to that slander on the force over which the Minister for Justice presides. I think it is appalling that in this Oireachtas which controls the institutions of this State, such a slander should be levelled against one of the forces which has at the moment, in conditions of peace, the major responsibility for maintaining these institutions. It was that veiled institution that brought me to my feet. It was mainly to protest against this pretence of indignation at the Minister's conduct of his Department, as voiced by those who took up that attitude and expressed it in those terms against this force, which has a very grave and serious responsibility in maintaining law and order and the stability of this State, that I rose.
I do not intend to vote on this motion. I think that Senator Connolly, having raised it, might not feel it is necessary to put it to a vote. But I think it is necessary that I should express the views of myself, and, I think, of those with whom I act generally, in regard to the subject under discussion. The attitude of Senator Connolly yesterday in reading the statement that he read, and asking that investigations should take place, was, of course, the normal procedure in most parliaments. I think he made it plain that these were allegations that he accepted no responsibility for, and he pressed for an investigation, which was a very proper thing to do. Of course the statement submitted to him was taken by a responsible member of the Oireachtas from the man who had complained. The reply of the Minister was, in my opinion at all events, very disturbing, and I think a very regrettable type of statement to make. I do not agree with Senator Robinson at all that the present Government has no moral sanction in the country. Any Government elected by a majority of the people of this country has a moral sanction, although we may not agree with their policy at all. The very foundations of democracy are threatened if you say that the Government elected by a majority has no moral sanction. Therefore, I certainly part company with Senator Robinson and with Senator Connolly, if he takes up a similar stand. I do say that the moral authority of the Government and of the whole State is threatened and confidence is destroyed generally if the Minister is quite serious in the attitude he took up in reply to the Senator, because he rather indicated —if he had time to consider it he might not have put it so strongly— that it was the intention of the Civic Guards to continue to search and research, to arrest and rearrest and do many other things calculated to make a particular man's life a hell upon earth because he was suspected of belonging to a criminal organisation.
That is a terribly serious suggestion. A man might be a human fiend, but I do not think that would be a justification for that sort of punishment. If he is a dangerous man to have abroad, I think there are sufficient laws to keep him under lock and key, and if there is enough evidence against him our laws are certainly sufficiently strong to punish him. I know that at times it is very hard, though there is a moral certainty that a man is a criminal, to mobilise evidence sufficient to convict him, and that a certain amount of surveillance might be necessary to prevent him committing crime. But I think the Minister should have been a little more guarded in the statements he made, because these statements will be taken as a sort of cue by the Civic Guards and may lead them into irregularities. After all, if there were a few irregularities in the Civic Guards, that is not uncommon in a police force and does not show that the force is bad. Nobody will say that the London police force as a whole was inefficient or corrupt, and yet there were quite a number of irregularities recently in Scotland Yard, and the Government has had the courage and the sense of responsibility to take up these cases and deal very severely with them. If our Government found it necessary to do the same thing here I do not think it would at all destroy the feeling of confidence of the people in the Civic Guards. In Dublin and throughout the country I have found the Guards a very efficient and a very courteous body of men, and I say that no law-abiding citizen has anything to fear from them. But even in the case of those who break the law, one would like to think that they were treated according to the ordinary procedure in connection with crime and that the methods of the jungle would not be reverted to.
It was really to express my very great regret at the speech that the Minister made that I rose, and while I do not propose voting on this amendment. I do think that the protest was justified, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that some of the statements that he made yesterday did not correctly express his views, or that the interpretation we took from them is not a correct one; that he will at least tell the House that there is no justification for the amount of concern which his speech has caused in the mind of, I think, most Senators.
This debate has taken an unexpectedly serious turn, and I think it is just as well that we should express our views on the particular facet of the situation, which I consider serious. I should not be a member of this Seanad, I should not be a member of any legislature in this country, if I did not believe in constitutional democratic government. I have spent all my life in trying to obtain an Irish Parliament. When I was nominated by the first Irish Government for 12 years. I felt it to be an honour, and I have endeavoured, according to my abilities and according to my honest convictions, to support that Government as I would support any constitutionally-elected democratic Government in this country. I know nothing whatever about the details of this particular case. I did not know that this gentleman was under trial. If that is so, his case should not have been mentioned in the course of public debates.
He is not under trial.
His case would be sub judice, and the ordinary practice in constitutional countries is to regard a case sub judice as a case on which no public man and no newspaper should express an opinion. I do not know whether this gentleman is under trial or not, but I say that if he is under trial, or threatened with trial, his case should be regarded as sub judice. On the other hand, I recognise the importance of constitutional government. This discussion takes place on the Appropriation Bill, which, in my experience, is the most important measure presented annually to a parliament. If the Appropriation Bill is defeated, it must mean the resignation of the Government. I am, therefore, in this dilemma: I cannot vote for the upset of this Government unless I know what Government is going to succeed it. I recognise the extraordinarily responsible position at the present time of the Minister for Justice. He is responsible for the due, impartial and fair administration of the civil law. I am not anxious to place any difficulties in the way of the Minister for Justice of any Government, but I suggest to the Minister, if there is any cause in his mind for an inquiry into the circumstances of this case, that he would be well advised to further it.
I do not mean in the smallest degree to pay anything but a compliment to our Civic Guard. As far as I have met them, I think our Civic Guard is a most admirable organisation and that it can compare favourably with any police force in the world. I would not like to cast any slur on that organisation, and I think that this is a matter for the Minister's own discretion. If he thinks that there are any circumstances in connection with this case, or with any other case, that require to be investigated, he could deal with the matter by a departmental investigation. If he does not think that there is any cause for such a proceeding on his part, from my knowledge of the Minister, I would be largely guided by his experience.
As far as I can see, the Minister is out for a scrap. He is going in the right direction to produce murder and outrage throughout the country. Apparently, he sanctifies the actions of the C.I.D. in many cases where they have been proved before a court to be wrong, as in the case of O'Sullivan in Cork, where he was tried by a judge and condemned. The Minister, instead of admitting the position, stated in this House that that case was merely a quarrel between two men, that only two men were concerned, and that one got the worst of it, whereas, three men were tried and two of them were condemned by the judge. He overlooked that, and not only that, but he sent that same man up to County Clare, where there were more beatings, and one man was blown up. The Minister then said that he was a splendid type of Irishman, and so on, having done all these things. I fear that serious trouble will arise on account of this kind of behaviour and on account of the backing-up by the Minister of certain acts which I know to have been done. If that is continued I do not know what will be the result, except a scrap between the two forces.
Have I the right to reply?
Cathaoirleach
Yes, Senator.
I have got to speak yet.
I will be all the more pleased if I can have a word after the Minister.
Even that threat does not perturb me very much. There was one thing which Senator Connolly said that I must immediately differ from. He said yesterday that I did not obey your rulings in any way. That is not an accurate statement. I obeyed, according to my lights at any rate, every ruling you gave. The Senator protested that the whole of my speech dealt with him and him only. He seemed to forget that there were other speakers. He seemed to forget that an attack was made on the Guards generally in County Clare, and that I dealt, not with specific instances, but with the general charges that were made. I pointed out that the Guards in Clare had the approbation of persons who really counted in Clare, and I think that was perfectly germane to the issue. There was not one question, and one question only raised, but other questions were raised by Senator Comyn. Surely it was not only justifiable, but right and proper, for me to deal with the questions raised by every Senator?
As far as the particular charges in that statement are concerned, I dealt with them yesterday in this fashion: I said that those charges were absolutely new to me, that yesterday was the first time I had heard them. I said that I could neither know as to whether they were true or whether they were false, because I had no information, but I did say that, from previous investigation which I had made into other charges I came to the conclusion, prima facie, that there was not very much in it. I said also that it was the duty of the Civic Guard to prevent crime being hatched out. It must be borne in mind that there is a small body of men in this country who are trying to upset ordered Government by force. No one denies that. Everybody knows that they exist. Senator Robinson, in the most significant part of his speech, stated that this Government had only a sort of semi-moral force behind it. Still it has got the moral force which springs from this, that if this Government goes down chaos must ensue, that if this form of government goes down we will have nothing but chaos. There are men who are anxious to bring down this form of government; there are men anxious to bring about a condition of complete chaos in this country. We know that although the Guards have recovered a great number of dumps of arms there are still arms in dumps. Everyone knows that. How is that problem to be dealt with? There is only one way, and that is to prevent crime being organised, planned and executed. That is just as much, if not more, the duty of the Guards, as to detect crime that has actually been committed. It is better to forestall crime and prevent crime than to punish it; it is better to forestall murder than to punish murder. What every civilised country wants is peace and quietness. There are persons who are determined that peace and quietness shall not ensue here. Senator Moore always refers back to certain things. He seems to forget that there was a complete amnesty in this country; he seems to forget that the prison doors were flung open, and that every prisoner who could be called a political prisoner was released; he seems to forget that afterwards Guards were murdered on many occasions. He seems to forget that the giving of a complete amnesty did not bring about complete peace, that violent methods were resorted to against the Guards, and against members of the Executive after that. Now, Senator Robinson said a very terrible thing, and Senator Milroy has already dealt with the question. He said that the Civic Guards had murdered the late Mr. O'Higgins. A similar charge to that, not perhaps so clearly expressed——
I do not think I said the Civic Guards did it.
Who did it?
I simply said your own agents. I firmly believe it was done by members of his own organisation. I did not necessarily say the Civic Guards.
Let us be perfectly clear. I think the Senator was kind enough to say that the Civic Guards were alleged to be out of hand because I was afraid of being murdered by the Civic Guards. I think that is what the Senator said, plainly and bluntly. What does that mean, except that the very brilliant man whose position I now occupy was murdered by the Civic Guards? It can mean that and nothing else. If he wishes to say that that is not what he meant I would be very pleased to hear it. If he has been mistaken and wishes to withdraw it nobody would hear that withdrawal with greater pleasure than I would. That statement shows a terrible spirit against the Civic Guards. That is what I am protesting against. It shows a terrible feeling against the Civic Guards, that charges like this, without a single scintilla of evidence, should be levelled against them, charges which, in my humble judgement at any rate, are discreditable to any Senator who makes them. Let us take the general position as a whole. The Guards have been given a very difficult task to perform. They have to prevent crime. There is not a very large number of men who wish to resort to armed violence in this country at the moment. They are a comparatively small number. Are we to be under the rule of men who wish to go out with the bomb and the gun? Will any member of any Party in the Seanad say that we should be under the rule of a small minority who wish to indulge in methods of violence? The Guards have a difficult task to do. They have to prevent these deeds of violence directed towards the upsetting of the existing institutions of the State. They have to prevent these deeds of violence being committed. Now, surely that should have the honest, genuine support of everybody who pays not lip-worship to order, not lip-worship merely to peace in this country, but who really, sincerely and honestly desires peace in this country? Surely every single person animated by feelings like these should fling himself behind the Guards in their efforts to prevent crime being committed, instead of being carping critics looking for every single opportunity for finding fault with the Guards, and having one single instance pulled up for the fiftieth time in this House because it is thought to be discreditable to the Guards? Why will not every member of this House, every member of the Oireachtas, and everybody who wishes for real, true peace in this country not fling themselves wholeheartedly behind the Guards? Why will they not go further? Why will they not wholeheartedly denounce the persons who are endeavouring to stir up disorder in this country? Why will they not wholeheartedly denounce everybody who commits crime, and who is endeavouring to hatch crime? Why will they not take up that attitude? If that attitude were taken up by everybody I believe it would make greatly for peace.
If the Minister would denounce crime amongst the C.I.D. I, for one, would willingly denounce it on the other side.
Senator Colonel Moore gives a conditional denunciation of crime, but I give a denunciation of crime wherever it is found. I deny that there is crime amongst the C.I.D. It is very upsetting and, to me really astonishing, to hear from the Senator this conditional denunciation of crime— that if somebody else denounces one class of crime he will denounce another class of crime. In my judgment it is the duty of every Senator to denounce every class of crime. It is the duty of every law-abiding person in the country wholeheartedly and, without any fear, to denounce crime wherever it is found.
I am not going to say very much on this. I think there is very little for me to say. I think that the Minister has said all that he could say, but to an intelligent Seanad, I think the Minister stands condemned. The Minister talked about crime. I for one repudiate crime. I denounce crime in any form, whether it is by the C.I.D., by the Guards, or by any other person, and I think that is the general feeling amongst all decent people. The Minister has side-tracked his reply with a sort of an appealing note in his voice. That kind of claptrap was only equalled by his flamboyant aggressiveness here yesterday. I do not think that there is any more to be said. The Minister stated that he obeyed the ruling of the Cathaoirleach yesterday. I am not going to labour that point, but the Cathaoirleach knows whether he obeyed his ruling or not. I also know, and I think I know, a Chathaoirligh, what you know. The one outstanding feature in the debate yesterday was not my speech. It was not the remarks that I made. It was the statement which I read. I would like to correct Senator Milroy by saying that I did not make the statement. I read it, and I want to differentiate between the two. The Minister, in his so-called reply, said that whether he would investigate that or not was a matter for him. He has not even yet, at this eleventh and a half hour, promised that he will investigate it. From what I know of the Minister, he will not investigate it. That is a matter between himself and his conscience, if he has got any.
Question put.
The Committee divided; Tá, 8; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Joseph Connolly.
- J.C. Dowdall.
- Michael Duffy.
- Thomas Linehan.
- Seán E. MacEllin.
- Colonel Moore.
- Séumas Robinson.
Níl
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- The Countess of Desart.
- James G. Douglas.
- Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Michael Fanning.
- Thomas Foran.
- The Earl of Granard.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Patrick W. Kenny.
- Francis MacGuinness.
- James MacKean.
- John MacLoughlin.
- Seán Milroy.
- James Moran.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- John T. O'Farrell.
- M.F. O'Hanlon.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- James J. Parkinson.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Thomas Toal.
- Richard Wilson.
Question declared lost.
Mr. Linehan, when his name was called, replied: "I will not vote."
Cathaoirleach
The Senator, according to our Standing Orders, must vote, as he is in the Chamber.
Then I vote "Tá."
I move:—
Schedule (B), Part III., Vote No. 8. To delete in column 2 the words "and to make repayment to the British Government in respect of local loans outstanding" and to delete in column 3 the figures "935,000" and to substitute therefor the figures "335,000."
In sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, it is laid down:
The power of collecting and enforcing the payment of sums due on account of loans made before the appointed day to authorities and persons in Southern Ireland or Northern Ireland out of the Local Loans Fund, the Development Fund and the Road Improvement Fund or other public fund, shall be transferred to the Governments of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland respectively, and the amounts so collected by them shall be paid into their respective Exchequers.
That section is still the law of the land here. I doubt if it is legal for us to pay this money which is mentioned. The Minister made the point that the appointed day for bringing this section into force was never fixed, and he also said that even if it had been fixed it would not apply to the Free State. In the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the appointed day is very clearly fixed. In fact, it is more clearly stated in that Act than I have seen it in any other Act. Not alone is the date mentioned, but the day of the week is also mentioned. I will quote the section which refers to the commencement of the Act and the appointed day. The following is sub-section (1) of Section 73:
This Act shall, except as expressly provided, come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day for the purposes of this Act shall be the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the month in which this Act is passed, or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council.
I hold that in the absence of any Order being made extending or retarding the date that the first Tuesday in the eighth month after the passing of the Act is the appointed day for the purpose of the Act. I wish also to point out that the making of the Order is optional. It says, "or such other day not more than seven months earlier or later, as may be fixed by Order of His Majesty in Council." There is nothing in the section to show that such an Order shall be made, and it is only natural to conclude that in the absence of any such Order the date originally fixed in the section should be the date on which the Act would come into force. I do not quite understand the Minister's point when he states that even though this Act came into force on the appointed day, as fixed in Section 27, that it would not refer to the Free State. Perhaps the Minister might plead that Southern Ireland and the Irish Free State are different territories. At any rate, I think the point involved in this Vote greatly affects the financial capacity of this country, and as there is such a considerable divergence of opinion amongst even members of the legal profession as to the legality of payments such as this and the land annuities it would be very desirable that the matter should be cleared up by appointing a Special Committee of both Houses to go into the question. That suggestion was made in the Seanad a few years ago and it was defeated only by the casting vote of the then Chairman. I think I have said sufficient to enable the House to see that there is a very important point involved in this matter.
I should like to ask a question in regard to this. The Local Loans Fund, I understand, represents money advanced by the British Exchequer for certain works undertaken and, therefore, became a debt in so far as it was money due from one person to another or from an individual to the State, and had nothing to say to the general debt of the country. If that is so, I take it that this motion is a repudiation of an honest and straightforward debt. I should like to get confirmation of that from the Minister. If that is so, I cannot call it anything else than a dishonest suggestion that a true debt should be repudiated.
This Local Loans Fund really represents loans from the Board of Works to farmers for the building of houses and hay-barns and we cannot, therefore, support a motion of that kind.
It is really not worth while going into this again, because the matter is now before the country and the results will be seen one of these days. I think if Senator Guinness had studied the question he would not have made the remark he made.
I was only asking a question.
I am not saying anything against the Senator. The argument for this, to put it shortly, is that it was a part of the National Debt which was wiped out when Article V. of the Treaty was wiped out.
I do not want to speak at any great length about this, because I think it is largely a waste of time. The arguments advanced by Senator Linehan strike me as being quite absurd and indicate that he himself has given no attention to the matter. He suggests that Clause 27 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, came into effect on the 2nd August, 1921, in the absence of an Order in Council fixing a later date. He suggests that there was no such Order in Council. There was an Order in Council. There was first the Order in Council on 24th March, 1921, bringing into operation certain provisions of the 1920 Act, except provisions relative to financial matters. There were, with certain exceptions. Then later on there was an Order in Council on 25th July, 1921.
Does the Minister suggest that that Order is valid?
I am not going to argue the matter any more than to answer the one point that Senator Linehan put up. There was an Order then postponing the appointed day. So that if it can be said that that particular provision of the Government of Ireland Act never came into operation it would have come into operation on 2nd March, 1922, but, of course, the Treaty had intervened, which really, so far as the area of the Free State is concerned, swept away the Government of Ireland Act, except in so far as the Government of Ireland Act was preserved in the Treaty. It is my opinion, and it is the opinion of most of the followers of Senator Moore, that this is just a debt honestly due and that it was advanced by the British Government. I am not going to argue the question of the National Debt, but I do not think that either this or the land annuities depend on the question of the National Debt, although that has been brought in. It was money advanced by the British Government to individuals or corporations, and it is due from these individuals or corporations to the lenders, and no persons can have a right to get payment of that money unless they have the right transferred to them by the lenders. The right was not transferred to this Government by the lenders, and we have no right to it. The people who borrowed the money have no right to escape repayment.
This annuity of £600,000 a year represents an arrangement that we came to with the British Government whereby, instead of collecting the amounts year by year as they fell due and paying them over to the British Government as long as any of the money remained due, we pay this £600,000 a year for twenty years, but we will continue to collect the annuities ourselves as long as any of the money remains due. The argument used against the payment of these annuities to the British Government is somewhat the same as the argument against the payment of the land annuities. Ninety-nine per cent. of those who use that argument use it absolutely dishonestly and without any belief in it. They use it merely for political reasons and to cover their desertion from the old ship "Republic."
As regards the Minister's point about paying the moneys borrowed to the lenders, I entirely agree with him, but I should like to point out that in the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty, the 1920 Act was the basis for that Treaty.
Nonsense.
Because if you read through these 18 Articles which formed the Articles of Agreement you will find that in several of them the 1920 Act was brought in so that it was clearly before the minds of the negotiators of the Treaty that the 1920 Act would be the basis upon which they would go; and the Treaty itself is really an amendment of the 1920 Act. We find in this 1920 Act a certain section which tells us to collect these local loans and to pay them into our own Exchequer.
Into what Exchequer? Not into the Exchequer of the Free State?
The Exchequer of Southern Ireland.
It never came into being.
The Twenty-six Counties?
That is a different thing entirely.
I think as long as the section is there and until some legal decision is given, this matter will come up frequently for discussion both in the Seanad and in the country.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 30.
Tá
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- Joseph Connolly.
- J. C. Dowdall.
- Thomas Linehan.
- Seán E. MacEllin.
- Colonel Moore.
- Joseph O'Doherty.
- Séumas Robinson.
Níl
- Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- William Cummins.
- The Countess of Desart.
- James G. Douglas.
- Michael Duffy.
- Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Thomas Farren.
- The Earl of Granard.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- P.J. Hooper.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Sir John Keane.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- Patrick W. Kenny.
- Francis MacGuinness.
- James MacKean.
- John MacLaughlin.
- Seán Milroy.
- James Moran.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- M. F. O'Hanlon.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- James J. Parkinson.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Thomas Toal.
- Richard Wilson.
Question declared lost.
I move as a recommendation:—
Schedule (B), Part 3. To delete Vote 11.
I only put this down as a matter of form in order to correct an error which crept into the very few words that formed my statement yesterday in regard to the closing of the Phoenix Park. I was wrong when I stated that in connection with the closing for a limited period of three days or less the order made by the Commissioners should be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of the Oireachtas. An order to close for three days or less can be made by the Commissioners without laying the order on the Table. But I still say they have no power to close the whole Park as they did on the occasion of the motor races. It is suggested that because a small space about twice the size of this Chamber was left unenclosed between the gates and the turnstile the whole Park was not closed. I do not know whether anybody would seriously stand over that point of view. I hope the Government, on any similar occasion again will move carefully, because people feel very strongly about this and think that it might lead to a loss, as it might be challenged in the courts.
Though I have not seen any legal opinion myself, I know that legal opinion was obtained, and that the Commissioners of Public Works were satisfied that they were acting entirely within the statute. With reference to objections to letting the Park for motor races, it may be that there is considerable opinion existing against it, but I have not heard of it, and no such opinion has taken any of the ordinary means of manifesting itself. It was very well known for a considerable period that the Phoenix Park was going to be let for these motor races, and so far as I know, no protests were sent in. On the general question I recognise fully that the Park should not be closed to the public for very many days in the year, no matter what occasion for closing it might arise. It has never been contemplated that it shall be closed to the public more than two or three days in the year.
Could we know from the Minister how much was paid for the use of the Park on those days?
Nothing.
I ask leave to withdraw my recommendation.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
My recommendation is: In Schedule (B), Part III., Vote No. 16. To delete in column 3 the figures "1,777,400" and to substitute therefor the figures "677,400." That is really reducing it by the amount paid in pensions to the R.I.C., new and old. I think I may as well say at the start that it would be more decent for the Minister for Finance not to go about stating that I was talking lies about this matter. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture have gone publicly about making that statement and the Minister for Finance now repeats it in the House, which I think adds to the offence especially as we know that what I have stated is quite correct. We have got the opinion from seven or eight very well-known K.C.'s who have maintained on this matter the same attitude as I have. It is absurd for the Minister to go on using bad language about me.
Yesterday the Minister for Finance made a statement that I was talking nonsense when I said that the police pensions were part of the national debt. I am very glad that the Minister for Agriculture is here because I can read one or two quotations which will show him and the House how very much he and the Minister for Finance disagree on this matter. On one occasion I asked a question here whether the public debt was the same as the national debt. The Minister for Finance made a considered statement then because he had been warned beforehand. He said they were two entirely different things and that nobody could consider them to be the same. He said that the public debt was smaller than the national debt. We were satisfied with that. I did not quarrel with it. But the other day the Minister for Agriculture when making an announcement in the Dáil on that subject made a very different statement which I would like to read to the House. Here is what he said: "With regard to one point Deputy de Valera can be quite easy in his mind. It has never been denied that the public debt and the national debt are the same thing. Everybody knows that." But the Minister for Finance does not know it. Then the Minister for Agriculture went on and said:—"They are the same terms. The Deputy opposite is merely pushing an open door." So we have these two Ministers sitting side by side differing on this financial question and actually, I will not say calling each other liars, but disagreeing with each other. The Minister for Agriculture then proceeded to define what, in his opinion, is the national debt of any country or the public debt of any country. He says they are the same. He said: "This definition of a public debt can be verified by consulting authorities such as Lord Halsbury and various decided cases and various statutes. The Deputy can make his mind easy. I can give him statute law. The public debt is a debt due by the public taxpayer. The public debt is a debt in respect of which the taxpayer is liable, in respect of which he has no remedy and in respect of which he has no security. That is a public debt." So that is the definition of the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Finance made a statement yesterday and he said that the pensions of the police could not possibly be part of the national debt and that it would be ridiculous to say that they were part of the national debt. They exactly fit the very words that the Minister for Agriculture used, that he considered the public debt fits exactly the case of the police pensions. Let us see. The public debt is defined as a debt in respect of which the taxpayer is liable. The taxpayer has to pay over. There is no question about it; in respect of it he has no remedy; in respect of it he has no security, not a bit of security. He may have land under the land purchase annuities, possibly, but not in the case of the police pensions. He has no security for them at all.
That is only one instance of the diversity of opinion between our Ministers. The Minister for Finance made a very reasonable statement yesterday, and I wish that the other Ministers would refrain from some gibes which they make from time to time. He made quite a reasonable statement. But I think that all these things should have been explained long ago, many years ago, instead of being kept bottled up for seven or eight years, after they were decided without anybody knowing what they are about, and with the people having no voice in the matter. The Minister stated that on this question there were other things besides a Treaty which governed the various payments. That I traverse altogether, and I have asked lawyers about it. The lawyers agree with me. They say it is a matter of common law that when a contract is entered into between two persons or two nations and certain financial statements are laid down that these and these alone can be gone into and followed up afterwards and that no new things can be put into them; and that these things absolutely exclude the others. That is a matter of common law. There is a particular law phrase which governs it. I do not know now what that phrase is.
So that the only thing we have to consider in these matters is Clause 10 of the Treaty. Clause 5 has been wiped out. The Minister says that Clause 5 did not deal with the pensions or compensation. It did not deal with the pensions at all, for we are not liable for them. It deals with compensation. I presume it means compensation for pensions, because sometimes the two words are put together. I maintain we are not bound to pay them.
The Minister made a statement in which he quoted from a speech of the President. I remember that speech very distinctly. I read it once or twice. I would be ashamed to read it in public. The Minister read it in public and he should have been ashamed so to read it; anybody in this country ought to be ashamed to read it in public because it was a statement of utter prostration. The President said he went over to London and practically threw himself at the feet of the Ministers there. He said: "You may charge us whatever way you like; we cannot help ourselves. You may bankrupt us as you like. We have nothing to do but to obey what you say. But please, my good masters, will you not bankrupt us altogether? It would not pay you to bankrupt us. We are poor people and we have not the money to pay." There could be nothing more contemptible than that from the head of the Government here. I should feel ashamed to quote the President's statement if the Minister for Finance had not already done so.
The Minister pointed out that if we raise any of these questions the whole matter of Article V. will have to come up again. The only authority he gives is the President's statement saying that we owe Britain certain things. That has nothing to do with the law at all. We are told that if we open up certain matters the whole Treaty will be opened up. The Minister said that that was the basis of the whole arrangement. He goes on a little further and he finds himself on rather soft ground. He certainly is on soft ground, because he says that certain things have been handed over and therefore we must pay. Again he tells us that it is not really fair to go into any particular items. He says that we should not pick up things here and there that seem rather doubtful, but that we should take the whole thing altogether. The reason why we go into this matter at all is because the whole arrangement at that time, including those pensions and everything else, tends simply to bankrupt the State, and it renders grossly unfair our relations with England.
This question of financial relations does not arise for the first time. It came up already on two different occasions, and the circumstances were investigated very carefully by two Treasury Commissions, one in 1896 and another in 1912-13. All the Treasury officials were present at those Commissions. The members of the Financial Relations Committee appointed by the British Government, of which Mr. Childers, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, was Chairman, reported unanimously in 1896: (1) That the Act of Union imposed on Ireland a burden she could not bear; (2) that the increase of taxation laid on Ireland between 1853 and 1860 was not justified; (3) that identity of rates of taxation does not involve equality of burden, and (4) that while the actual tax revenue of Ireland is about one-eleventh of Britain, the relative taxable capacity is very much smaller, and is not estimated by any of us as exceeding one-twentieth and, some said, much less. The Chairman of the Financial Relations Committee pointed out that on the revenue returns for 1893-1894 Ireland had paid £2,750,000 more than her share to England and suggested that on this account Ireland, in any separation of the Treasuries, should receive a contribution from the finances of Britain of £2,750,000 each year.
Practically the same thing happened a few years afterwards, when we had the Primrose Commission. The Primrose Commission was purely a Treasury Commission; there was only one Irishman on it. That Commission reported also to the effect that Ireland had paid some £2,750,000 a year too much to England. The argument, therefore, is that now that the Treasuries are separate England should be paying £3,000,000 a year to Ireland, or, in other words, she should take over the old age pensions and pay them. The English people themselves admit that Britain ought to pay that sum to Ireland. That is a very clear statement. What has happened? Twenty-six Counties of Ireland are paying £5,000,000 a year to England, and that is a sum set out in the Ultimate Financial Settlement. How can that possibly be a reasonable adjustment of finances between the two countries? Are we not perfectly justified in raising the whole of this question whenever we get a chance? We are really entitled to discuss this matter from every aspect. We will not be sorry to break up the payment of £5,000,000 a year, and we can discuss the question of paying our share when England gives us the £2,750,000 a year to which we are entitled. I am sure the Ministers read my pamphlet on this subject. I know that the first six copies of the pamphlet were sold to Ministers. They were very careful to say nothing about that. They were not able to contradict a word of it, and they never dared to contradict it.
The Minister stated in the Dáil that the British Treasury had estimated the taxable capacity of the Free State and Britain as 1.5 in 100. I do not suppose the British Treasury erred on their own side. British taxation comes to about £800,000,000 a year. I calculate that 1.5 of that would come to about £12,000,000. Our taxation is £24,000,000, and therefore we are taxed twice as high as England in proportion to our taxable capacity. The President tried to cover those matters by talking of taxation at so much a head. Of course everyone knows that is so much nonsense, because a poor man cannot pay as much as a rich man, and a poor nation cannot pay as much as a rich nation. Apart altogether from England, Ireland is paying more per head than half a dozen great European countries. The figures are: Ireland, £7 6s. per head; France, £6; United States, £6; Germany, £5, and Italy, £4 5s. These questions ought to be reopened. We are getting into debt every year; we cannot pay our way and we are becoming bankrupt. Debts are piling up and, as everybody knows, the cost of living has gone far above the cost of living in Britain, and that is a sign of the indebtedness of the country under the present financial system.
I beg to support the recommendation proposed by Senater Moore, and I wish to join with him in saying that the speech made by the Minister yesterday was very illuminating. I am waiting for the printed report of that speech in order to study it more closely, because the Minister stated a few things which I think should be known generally by the Irish people and which, as far as we can do so, will be made known. Senator Moore proposes that £1,100,000, the amount of money paid for the pensions of the R.I.C., be taken out of this Vote. I think he is absolutely right constitutionally both under the Treaty and under an agreement made between Mr. Cosgrave and Mr. Baldwin in December, 1925, which was duly ratified by the Parliaments of both countries and which is a binding agreement. Why do I say that? I say that so far as the police officers who retired before the Treaty are concerned their pensions were payable out of moneys voted and to be voted by the Imperial Parliament. Their pensions were, therefore, at the date of the Treaty, part of the public debt of England. So far as the policemen who were disbanded, let us say, as a result of the Treaty, are concerned, they were not disbanded by the Provisional Government. They never came under the control of the Provisional Government. They were disbanded by the British Parliament, and in the Act disbanding them it is expressly stipulated that their pensions shall be paid out of funds to be voted by the Imperial Parliament. Therefore, these pensions, both of the men who retired before the Treaty and as a result of the Treaty, are part of the public debt, according to any definition whatever which may be given of that debt. I do not accept in its entirety the definition given by Mr. Hogan. I think that it was a definition ad hoc, if I may say so. According to any definition of the public debt these pensions payable to the R.I.C. are part of that public debt. As such, they came under Article V of the Treaty and as such they were disposed of by the agreement made between Mr. Cosgrave and the British Prime Minister which was ratified by both Parliaments and which is a legal document.
It is no use for Mr. Blythe to come up and say that any arguments of that kind are ridiculous. That does not answer the argument. The reason that I say that his speech was illuminating is that it lets the cat out of the bag. It is coming out by the tail. Mr. Blythe said that from the 6th December, 1921, until 1925 there was a series of little treaties. There were little agreements. There was a little agreement to pay to England the money which has been referred to by Senator Linehan. There was a little agreement to pay to England a sum corresponding to the pensions of the police force. There was another little agreement to pay to England the proceeds of land annuities which by the Act of 1920 England had given to the Exchequer of Southern Ireland, which is the same territory as is now being administered by the Free State Government. I would submit that it is very reasonable that the terms of these little agreements should be made known and, when they are made known, I will make the further suggestion that they are not valid because they are not validated either by the Parliament of England or by that of the Free State. Ministers here have shown now that they are acting, and have acted for the past four or five years, in a wholly unconstitutional manner. Their conduct in regard to matters of finance has been absolutely unconstitutional. When Mr. Cosgrave came back after that agreement he said that he had got a clean slate, that he had explained the position of the country, and that he had got rid of the obligations under Article V. What he really did do was to beg to be placed under a contribution corresponding to a national debt of £166,000,000 because five millions a year, on the basis of the payments which England is making to America, a three per cent. basis, represents a capital international debt of £166,000,000.
According to Mr. Cosgrave that is really the obligation which he undertook, if he did undertake it—we say that he did not. We say that these little treaties and these little agreements to hand over these sums to England are without any force whatever, that English statesmen and officials may place no reliance on them, and further, that these payments which were made before that settlement was arranged were conditional payments in the interval that elapsed pending the final settlement, and they should not be paid after that settlement had been arrived at. Another observation which the Minister made in reference to the speech of Senator Linehan— a well-informed speech, as I submit it was—was that the Act of 1920 does not govern the case, and that it was not in operation. He said that the Treaty was a separate and different document and was not based on the Act of 1920. It was based on the Act of 1920, and that Act, as Senator Linehan said, is referred to seven times in the Treaty. Ministers know, or at least some of them know—and there are Ministers in this House listening to me who know—that the Provisional Government expressly operated under the Act of 1920. Where is the use of telling us who know these things that the Act of 1920 was not in operation? There is another matter which was referred to by the Minister. It may be a matter in which lawyers will disagree, and I do not say that the Minister is not entitled to his opinion, but the Minister said that the Order in Council of the 21st July, 1921, is a valid order. The Act of 1920 provided that certain functions of government should come into actual operation only when an Order in Council was made by the King fixing the date. On the 20th July the King made an Order in Council, not fixing the date but giving himself parliamentary powers by subsequent order to fix the date.
We say that that was an invalid order, and that the Act of 1920 came into full force and effect on the first Tuesday in August. That is our position and it may be well for Ministers to know it. I do not think that that is a ridiculous argument. As Senator Moore reminds me, one of the Free State judges, Judge Meredith, has given a judgment which shows that that is the true legal position. Ministers cannot go on, as they have been going on, jeering and smiling at arguments on this question. It is a very serious question as it represents £166,000,000 of national debt on a poor country. In point of law there is no justification or defence for these little treaties that are alleged to have been made after 1921 and before the final settlement. The substance of these treaties has never been disclosed to the people of Ireland. They are not valid, either in Ireland or in England. English Ministers never intended that they should be valid, or that they should obtain for one hour longer——
Does the Senator contend that validity depends on formal ratification?
I contend that in the case of payments amounting to £1,100,000 in this case, to £3,000,000 in the case of land annuities, and to £600,000 in the case of local loans, no agreement is valid except it is ratified by Parliament. Certainly I contend that. Further, I say that little treaties are dangerous things. When Mr. Parnell on one occasion had to refer to the conduct of one of his colleagues, who subsequently filled a high place in the Free State, he said: "Tim is always making little treaties." That is what they have been doing for the last four or five years, always making little treaties which are absolutely invalid and which we will question as soon as we can. What we do say now is that it is perfectly open to the present Executive to revise the financial arrangements, to put their house in order, to pay what is legally payable, and to refuse payment of what is not legally payable, because our taxes are too high and the country cannot exist if we are going to continue as we are.
I would like to make my position clear on this Vote and on the previous Vote. I voted against the last recommendation dealing with local loans and I propose to vote against this one. I think that the method of approach is not a wise one. I do not think that big questions of this kind of international significance can be decided wisely by a debate of the kind that is in progress. I do not think that the Seanad, or the Dáil for that matter, would be well advised in coming to decisions on such questions after such debates and with such information as is made public through such a debate. The question under discussion, as the other, depends apparently on the validity or otherwise of the Ultimate Financial Settlement. Now there may be a case for questioning whether that was a wise settlement or not, but to recommend to the Dáil that they should refuse to sanction payments to the British Government in respect of these pensions or in respect of local loans, on the arguments stated here, to my mind is unwise politically and very unlikely to lead to political success. The case, to say the least of it, is not proven, and we should not be led into voting for so important a proposal unless we have very clear grounds for our decision.
The Senator who last spoke said, and previously it has been often stated, that these "little treaties" as he called them are invalid, that it is unconstitutional to have entered into these agreements and to have acted according to them until they have been ratified by the Oireachtas on the one hand and the British Parliament on the other. I suggest to Senators who are responsible for those statements that it is bad strategy to stress that point. Even if it is true that the agreements have no validity until ratified by Parliament, by pressing them on the present Ministry, they are challenging them to get them ratified. After they are ratified, their case falls to the ground—if they have a case. I do not think it is true that they are invalid until they are ratified. I know no constitutional law or practice which prevents a Ministry entering into an agreement with another Ministry of another country, even though that involves financial obligations. As far as the legality of the case is concerned, I think it would be quite legitimate for the Government to enter into an agreement with the United States of America to pay one hundred millions a year, if it were possible to do so. So far as legal validity goes they have authority to do it until the question arises of making payments. An agreement they can make but they cannot pay money until the Dáil votes it away.
I think that there is an entire mistake in arguing as though it were an illegal act on the part of the Government here to make an agreement with the Government of Great Britain which involves the payment of money. If the Oireachtas refuses to vote the monies, consequent upon the agreement, that is an entirely different matter, and when the Oireachtas has voted these monies it implements, to use a phrase that has become popular, the agreement and its necessary consequences. I would not be afraid to raise these questions because of any fear that it might mean the cancellation of the Ultimate Financial Settlement. I think that the Ultimate Financial Settlement will have to be reconsidered, but I would be very slow to challenge the issue until I had had a very close examination, from the Irish Free State side of the question, and its implications, a very close examination by experts who are able to weigh up the probable results of an arbitration. As far as I can see, and I do not pretend to be an expert at all, I think the balance would be in our favour, probably considerably in our favour, but I would not go the way of making a political campaign on the question until I had very sure grounds for my belief. In any case such reopening should be reopened by diplomatic methods first and not as a result of a rousing political campaign of a party character within this country.
That, to my mind, prejudices the chances of getting anything valuable out of a reconsideration of the Ultimate Financial Settlement. The fact that it is eventually to be raised, merely as the result of a party struggle within this country and following upon the defeat of one Government by another Government which has made the question an issue, makes it very difficult indeed for the successful party to raise the question with any prospect of success in diplomatic negotiations. It is because I hold that view that I look with regret at the method that has been chosen to get these issues into the public mind. It is in the nature of things impossible for the present Ministry to raise this question. Because they entered into it and praised it as beneficent and generous they cannot very well turn round at any point in their career and say: "We made a mistake, we ought not to have entered into this settlement. we ought not to have agreed to pay these pensions. We ought not to have agreed upon this, that, or the other." So it inevitably follows that it must be a succeeding Government that must raise the question, and if they have come into power by virtue of agitation of a party nature upon such an issue, I say their chances of doing any good by diplomatic negotiation are very much lessened and are unlikely to bring financial benefit to this country.
The question, therefore, that is involved in this Vote is bound up with a wider issue, and it is prejudicing the chances of a fair examination of the question, first, by our own experts, who will advise as to whether it will be wise to scrap the financial settlement and go back to the Treaty position. If they decided it was wise, that the risk was a good one, I think that the refusal to pay these moneys over at this stage and until the financial settlement is being reconsidered would be inadvisable and prejudicial to the best interests of the country. Therefore, I shall vote against the motion.
I do not want to go into this matter again. I dealt with it yesterday and I dealt with it previously in the Dáil. I will just repeat. As I said yesterday, the Treaty was a short document. If it were only a man and his wife quarrelling and entering into a legal separation a much longer document would be necessary if everything was to be covered. The Treaty dealt with principles and points of importance. Many other matters remained to be settled between Governments in order to put the Treaty into effect. Subsidiary matters of various kinds, and agreements of various kinds, had to be arranged. It was absolutely necessary if the Treaty was to be carried into effect that these should be entered into, and the only obligation on the Government was that they should be in accordance with the spirit and the principles of the Treaty.
I will deal with just one other point that I think was not touched on yesterday. Senator Colonel.
Moore said the country was becoming bankrupt and that we were going into debt every year. The country is not becoming bankrupt. There has been some increase of debt partly because we are still paying for the damage caused by the civil war and partly because of the carrying out of constructive works, such as the Shannon scheme and the big drainage schemes, like the Barrow scheme, which really should not be paid out of revenue, but which should be provided for by the raising of debt. There is no suggestion at all in any figures that I have been supplied with, or that I have been able to get hold of, that the country is becoming bankrupt. On the contrary I am satisfied that progress, although slow progress, is being made. I would only say in conclusion that in my opinion the financial settlement that has been effected between the two countries is a very fair financial settlement. I pay little attention to some of the most fissiparous critics, because they are the people who, before Article V was wiped out, were estimating that we would pay annually sums up to 30 millions.
Not I.
There are others besides Senator Colonel Moore. Very big sums were estimated by some of the people who are now the loudest in their demands for reopening the agreements that were entered into. Anything that falls upon the taxpayer in respect of these arrangements is small. Land annuities is an entirely different question, and does not fall upon the taxpayer. The annuity which the individual paid is in respect of a bargain entered into whereby he became the possessor of his own land.
Would the Minister answer the question as to whether we are taxed higher than in Britain?
I think it has absolutely nothing to do with the point raised. The question of taxation depends not merely upon the capacity to pay but on services rendered. I think that nearly all the talk we hear with regard to the amount people ought to be paying is absurd for this reason—that the amounts which are suggested as the revenue which ought to be raised here would not provide for services such as Old Age Pensions, education and other matters. The question of what ought to be paid on taxable capacity is a matter for debate itself and a big matter.
May I say one word in reply to Senator Johnson? These matters were raised originally not as a big agitation but they were raised quietly in the Seanad. We could get no answer here. We were refused an inquiry and a reasonable answer. I do not see how the matter can be brought forward at all according to Senator Johnson. If he requires everybody to sit quiet, say nothing and allow these things to go on indefinitely there is no doubt we will continue to pay. How Senator Johnson wishes to come at the matter of producing a Government which will go into this matter I really do not know. It seems to me that he talks in the air, as if these things will come of their own accord. Unless you fight your corner you will get nothing. I am not going to divide the Seanad on this point, but I think all these things have to go to the country in spite of what Senator Johnson says, because it is only the country that will decide these matters.
Recommendation put and declared lost.
Question proposed "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill."
I had suggested raising a question on the Vote for Local Government. I had thought of putting down a formal recommendation, but on consideration and advice I desisted. But I want to raise the question I indicated in regard to the administration of relief in Dublin and the responsibilities of the Minister in that respect. I would remind the House of a procedure that took place regarding the Bill which was passed in the Seanad, the Dublin City and County (Relief of the Poor) Bill. That had its genesis in the fact that Senator Byrne brought to the notice of the Seanad the great distress that exists in the city and the difficulties that were being experienced in respect to the provision of relief. All Senators who live in Dublin are aware of the extent of the poverty, the distress that arises from that poverty, and the difficulties that are experienced in relieving it. A Committee was set up to examine into the question as to whether the inability to provide relief was due to any legal barrier and certain proposals were made with regard to the removal of the barrier which was found to exist. One must remind the House that the old Poor Law has had unanimous condemnation of all authorities for many years who had ever gone into the subject—the Poor Law Commission of about twentyfive years ago, a Commission of the old Dáil, and of the present Minister for Finance when he was Minister for Local Government. If ever a proposition had unanimous support it was the proposition that the Poor Law that had been established in 1847 was not suitable for this country and required a change. One of the chief points of criticism on which there was general agreement was that the provision which forced able-bodied persons into the workhouse before they could obtain relief should be abolished. That view found expression in the proceedings of the County Councils under the old Dáil before the Free State was established, and it is known that a large number of county schemes were set up. Those county schemes practically destroyed the old Poor Law system in respect of all counties where schemes were established, and the 1923 Act was passed making those schemes valid. In March, 1923, the Bill was passed—it was to expire in March, 1924—with the assurance that there would be a comprehensive Local Government Bill introduced. New schemes were propounded and sanctioned by the Ministry for certain counties— Waterford, Cork, and other counties. These schemes became law after the passing of the 1923 Act. That Act makes it mandatory, as some legal authorities assert—I think it is unquestionable—upon a county council to prepare a scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Act, though the section says: "A council of any county to which no existing county schemes relate may prepare a scheme in accordance with the provisions of this Act and for the relief of the poor in that county." It is pointed out that the "may" in that section really has a mandatory effect in law, inasmuch as it is coupled with a duty in the public interests. Notwithstanding that, for six years the City and County Borough of Dublin have been allowed to proceed without putting any scheme into effect, and the position to-day is that the law relating to the relief of the poor, which has had the condemnation of every authority for many years, remains in existence with all its disabilities and defects, and there is no sign at the moment of its being remedied.
The position, therefore, is, as we have been told on authority, that there are not less than 5,000 families in the city of Dublin who ought to be getting assistance—they are otherwise eligible for assistance, which means to say that they must be in a state of destitution—who are not allowed to get assistance under the law. An attempt was made by the Seanad to remedy that defect and, unfortunately—I am not going to try to lay blame—the Bill was not proceeded with in the Dáil. The Minister found reason for not supporting the Second Reading and, therefore, the Dáil did not have an opportunity to consider the Bill, because the Minister announced that he had to oppose the Second Reading. I may say, parenthetically, that the Bill would have had a great deal more explanation, discussion and advertisement in this House but for the fact that it already had the support and the assurance that the Minister himself would father it in the Dáil and endeavour to get it passed. However, new circumstances arose and the Minister was persuaded that it would be inadvisable to proceed with the Bill at this stage. The position, therefore, is that these 5,000 families in the city of Dublin are to remain in a state of destitution or rely upon charity. It is still outside the law for the relieving officers to provide any relief for them. It may be said, as has been pointed out by the Committee itself, that the Commissioners for the Relief of the Poor have, in fact, been proceeding in an extra legal or illegal manner to give assistance to the poor outside the workhouse, that able-bodied persons have been enabled to get assistance outside the workhouse by virtue of an arrangement made with some charitable organisations and promises given to those charitable organisations that they would be indemnified and recouped for any expense they were put to in the way of relieving those persons. It is clear that the Poor Law Commissioners cannot be allowed to be surcharged under that head. Some financial provision will have to be made some day to implement that promise, because it was made with the sanction of the Minister, and it satisfies, I think, the public conscience. The question, then, has arisen as to why this Bill that we submitted to the Dáil has not been passed. It was pointed out that there are certain questions of the incidence of the rates—that a great deal of the charge which would accrue by virtue of the aggregation of poor people in the city of Dublin would fall upon some parts of the county, because of the delimitation of boundaries. May I point out, in reply to that objection, that whatever is true in regard to the Bill is surely equally true in regard to those illegal assurances and the payments that have been made under the promise of the Minister and the Commissioner, and that will have to be refunded. If those are liable to fall upon the Dublin Union, which includes some part of the county, the county will, no doubt, have something to say upon the matter, and will be just as vocal in its opposition as it is in respect of the possible incidence of the charge in the Bill that was proposed by the Seanad. So that, whenever the financial question is going to be solved, and a proper agreement is made under the one head, it can be made the occasion for solving the financial difficulty under any other head.
I desire to ask the Seanad to bring such influence as it can to bear on the Minister to get him to agree to support the action which the Seanad took in passing this Bill because of the need of the poor in the City. Now that we have been made cognisant of the fact, now that we are aware that the responsibility is a legislative one, we cannot any longer allow the relieving officers to shelter themselves behind the fact that they have no power. It is our duty to give them power, and the manner in which we proposed to do it was as simple as possible. In raising the matter in this manner I feel that the Minister ought to have encouragement from the Seanad to the end that he should take advantage of the meeting of the Dáil on the 31st that is said to have been arranged to obtain sanction for this Bill so that the relief of the poor for the next six months may be proceeded with in due form and may be made valid and legal.
Cathaoirleach
I must point out to the Senator that his ten minutes have been exceeded, and I cannot allow him to proceed any further. His statement is very interesting, no doubt, but we must have some regard for the Standing Orders.
I should like to say something about quite a different matter—the National Museum. The state of the Museum is getting very serious. There are a number of vacancies on the staff—I think there are seven vacancies in one section—the Museum cannot be looked after, and the geological section has to be closed down because there is no one to look after it. Not only that, but the money that is paid for it is paid subject to the decision of a number of clerks, instead of allowing the place to be run by the head of it. He is not allowed to spend money unless it is arranged by clerks who knew nothing about the whole matter and who are merely accountants. I would like the Minister to look after the Museum, because it would be a very serious loss if it fell into decay, as it will if these vacancies are not filled.
With reference to the point that Senator Johnson raised, the Minister for Local Government asked me to express his regret to the Seanad that he was not able to remain until this matter was raised. It has been engaging the attention of the Department of Local Government and of other Departments. I would not like to agree with the statement that illegal things are being done. Whether anything illegal is being done or not will remain to be tested at the audit, and I would suggest that that will depend to some extent on the interpretation of the provisions in regard to provisional relief in urgent and necessitous circumstances, under the Act of 1847. However, that is a matter that I cannot deal with at length, unfortunately. With regard to the Museum, I have no direct information, but I know that arrangements are being made for recruiting additional staff for it at an early date. I know that because certain propositions have been before the Department of Finance, and in certain cases sanctions have been given; so that while I am not sufficiently familiar with the matter to deal with it at length, I know that certain steps have been taken.
Might I say, in support of what Senator Johnson has said, that I think it very necessary that any pressure or influence that we can bring to bear to see that between this and November— I presume that the Bill will not be touched until then—or any influence that the Committee can bring to bear on the Minister should be exercised to get him to justify the Commissioners in giving out what the Minister does not like to call illegal relief, but for which I can find no other word, the continuance of which would be of enormous advantage to the poor. Everybody who spoke on the Bill, and everyone who was on the Committee that went into these things, knows that there is a crying need in the city and the county of Dublin for this relief, and that the law at present does not meet that need. Because of a very small thing the Bill has been postponed to satisfy a particular council, and I think that everything should be done to induce the Commissioners to continue the system that has been in practice up to the present until it is legalised by the Bill which we have passed.
Cathaoirleach
I think that the Seanad, by its action in passing the Bill, showed very great sympathy with the poor of Dublin and that they desired that everything possible should be done for them. They proved that by passing the Bill.
I would even go so far as to say that the Committee should see the Minister.
Cathaoirleach
That would be very wise.
Question put and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Report Stage ordered for Friday, 19th July.