Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 34 - 02 April, 1930

Nomination of President of the Executive Council.

Mr. S.T. O'Kelly: I rise to move the Motion standing in my name that Deputy Eamon de Valera be nominated President of the Executive Council.

No doubt there are people who would deem it a high honour even to have their names proposed for that position. It is not with that thought in mind that I am making this proposition. I propose the name of Deputy de Valera as President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State because I think that only a man of his great capacity can with any promise of early success show the portion of our country which the Free State Government is permitted to control a safe road out of the dangers and difficulties that at present confront it. I propose Deputy Eamon de Valera because he is the outstanding figure in our generation. No man of our time has proved himself more fitting to be the leader of the Irish people, and no man in this House is as likely as he to restore to our people that confidence in themselves, that pride in their race, that enthusiasm, that hope, that spiritual outlook, that determination to retrieve the fallen fortunes of their country and that will to victory that is essential before any progress can be made on the road to real freedom and prosperity.

Since first he dramatically entered Irish public life, Eamon de Valera has been looked to in times of greatest danger and difficulty to save the country from perils that threatened. His first great achievement as leader of the Irish race was to save the manhood of the nation [282] from decimation, and at a later crisis it was he who, throwing all thoughts of place and power, personal advancement and popularity aside, stood with the virile youth who remained true to the national faith and tradition and fought to save the nation's honour.

He is the man under whose wise and courageous leadership the good name of Ireland was raised to heights unknown before, even in our history of great achievements. Under his guidance the fame of the Irish people for steadfastness to principle, for courage in facing fearful odds and for self-sacrifice in the national cause, became known in every city and town in the world, as well as in sparsely populated places in the less known continents. With him to lead us, we witnessed, in our own day, our national aspirations brought closer to complete realisation than at any time since the days of the great Owen Roe O'Neill. The name of de Valera, in fact, became synonymous, not alone with Ireland but synonymous with the freedom-loving, courageous and high-minded race that he represented.

To my mind we have to-day to face a situation which requires the ablest men of our race to deal with. During the régime of the late Government our country has been going from bad to worse, largely through want of proper leadership. Our green isle, one of the most fertile countries on the earth, sparsely populated as it is, has thousands of families in our cities, in our towns, and in our rural areas whose daily lot is hunger. Hundreds of thousands of our ablest and best young men and women have been forced to flee the country to search in the overcrowded cities of England, Scotland, the United States, Australia and Canada for the sustenance that is denied them at home. Many thousands of acres of fertile lands have gone out of cultivation, our industries are either declining or being allowed to be bought up and controlled by foreigners in the interest of foreigners. Despite the widespread unemployment in all classes [283] of trades, vast numbers of our people are without proper housing. Sickness, disease, and a high mortality among our infants is the daily report from all quarters. In fine, the condition of the country is such that a radical change is necessary and must come soon if the nation is to be saved and if the people are to be afforded an opportunity to live and bring up their children with any prospect of even modest comfort in their own land. That change is not alone due—it is overdue, and I propose Eamon de Valera as President, because I believe that he is the man, and only man, in public life here to-day whose ability and whose personality will enable the Irish people to face the future with confidence.

As Eamon de Valera was the man, who, in the not so far off past, led us successfully through dangers and difficulties, and did so without in any way tarnishing our honour, so I believe he is the man who is best suited to be our guide to-day. If the grave unemployment problem is to be solved, if our lost industries are to be revived, if our remaining industries are to be saved for Ireland and developed for her benefit, if the land of Ireland is to be restored to tillage and the people of Ireland provided with a proper living in their own land, if the homeless and houseless thousands of families are to be given proper and sanitary shelter and the thousands of infants who die yearly be given a chance, under proper healthy conditions, to live and thrive, I believe it is under his talented and courageous leadership that this can best be achieved. As he has brought honour and credit to the name of Ireland in the past, so I believe will his ripe scholarship, his prudent statesmanship, his simple faith, and his ardent patriotism enable him to face unflinchingly the grave and pressing problems that confront our people. I believe that not alone will he face these difficulties with courage and capacity to solve them, but that he is the man who will, at the same time, successfully restore among Irishmen that unity of aim and of action which unfortunately [284] has been lost to us in recent years. I am satisfied that he, more than any other man, to-day, will make it possible to see the national ranks close up once more and the men of our race who stand always for Ireland first, again massed shoulder to shoulder in a great all-embracing national movement whose object will be the restoration of the prosperity and the unity of our motherland through the attainment of that sovereign independence which is Ireland's God-given right.

Mr. Lemass: I formally second the motion.

An Ceann Comhairle: The question before the Dáil is that Deputy Eamon de Valera be elected President of the Executive Council.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: On Thursday last the members on these benches formed part of the majority that carried the Second Reading of the Old Age Pensions Bill. The Government having decided to reject the views of a majority of this House, and to refuse to carry out the instructions of the House as expressed by that majority, took the only course that was open to them by resigning, and so we are faced to-day with the grave task of finding a successor to the Ministry that has just gone out of office. We must choose a Government which will be prepared, without question or subterfuge, to give legislative and administrative effect to the wishes of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in this House. That is the foundation of Parliamentary Government.

I take it that on this motion I must confine myself to the one nomination that is now before us. If this were a country with a long parliamentary history behind it, a change of Ministers—the selection of one set of individuals instead of another set—would be governed by comparatively simple considerations, because in that case certain fundamentals would be taken as granted and would be regarded as common ground by all engaged in the selection. [285] That, unfortunately, is not the position here, because here the fundamentals themselves are an issue, and, in my opinion, just because they are fundamental they must be regarded as the primary issue.

It might be well to examine for a moment what these fundamental issues are. There is, first, the question of this Parliament itself—its rights and its powers.

This Parliament is a sovereign Parliament. No person and no power outside this country has a right to impose its will on this Parliament or to dictate to it what it should or should not do. Not only has the Oireachtas the power, but it has the right to make laws for the peace, order and good government of this country, and that right, and those powers, are derived and continue to be derived, not from any outside authority, but from the people. It is without question or equivocation a de jure as well as a de facto Parliament. Any person who denies or questions, or even doubts the sovereignty of this Parliament, who denies or questions or even doubts its moral right to make and administer the laws of this State, and to insist on the strict observance of these laws, is not, in my humble opinion, a suitable person to be entrusted with the control of the powers which are inherent in this Parliament. That I lay down as my first essential.

Applying this test to the candidate whose name is now before us for nomination as head of the Government, are we in a position to say, is anyone here in a position to say, that he accepts without question or reservation the proposition which I have just laid down? If there is any doubt on the matter, we have Deputy de Valera's recorded words, spoken here in this House, some twelve months ago, and never since retracted or qualified. I quote from his speech made on the Second Stage of the Central Fund Bill on March 14th, 1929, column 1,398:—

We are asked to state clearly what our attitude towards this House is. I have on more than [286] one occasion said exactly what our attitude was. I still hold that our right to be regarded as the legitimate Government of this country is faulty, that this House itself is faulty.

In the same speech (col. 1,399), referring to the entry of his Party to the Dáil, he said:—

We came in here because we thought that a practical rule could be evolved in which order could be maintained; and we said that it was necessary to have some assembly in which the representatives of the people by a majority vote should be able to decide national policy. As we were not able to get a majority to meet outside this House, we had to come here if there was to be a majority at all of the people's representatives in any one assembly.

Later on, in col. 1,400, referring to a certain organisation of which he and his Party had been members up to 1925, and the circumstances in which he severed his connection with that organisation, he said:—

My proposition that the representatives of the people should come in here and unify control so that we would have one Government and one Army was defeated, and for that reason I resigned. Those who continued on in that organisation (that is, those who would not accept the principle of one Government and one Army) which we have left can claim exactly the same continuity that we claimed up to 1925.

There is no need to dwell at length on these declarations. They are, to my mind, clear and definite affirmations of Deputy de Valera's attitude to this House and to this Parliament.

In the first place, he regards any Government elected by this House, or that could now, or in the future, be elected by this House, as faulty and having no just or moral claim to be regarded as a legitimate Government. He and his followers are here, not because this is a sovereign Parliament, or indeed because it is [287] a Parliament of any kind, but because it is an assembly of a majority of the people's representatives. If he could have got a majority of these representatives to meet outside this House and this Parliament he would have done so. It was only because he failed to get a majority to meet outside this House that he came in here. I do not know whether or not we are to assume from this that if and when he does get a majority he will then refuse to come in here, and will convene his assembly in the Rotunda or the Mansion House. That, in any case, would be the natural inference from this statement.

Finally, we have the remarkable, and, in my opinion, dangerous and mischievous statement that the legitimate or de jure Government is vested in an organisation outside this House and in those who continued on in that organisation after he had left it.

As I have said, these significant statements have never been withdrawn. They have, in fact, been repeated in somewhat different from by prominent followers of Deputy de Valera, like Deputy O'Kelly and Deputy Little. So long as these views are held by Deputy de Valera, no vote of mine will be cast to enable him to become head of a Government chosen by this House.

I now come to my second consideration, which, indeed, is related to the first and which unfortunately has to be taken into account in deciding the proposal now before the House. I use the word “unfortunately” advisedly, because it is an issue which many in this House and very many more outside this House would like to see placed in cold storage. I refer to the Treaty. On this issue there should be no need to reiterate our position or define where we stand, but we have to take account of the invincible ignorance of people like Deputy Heffernan or Deputy Seamus Burke or Deputy J. J. Byrne, to whom failure or hesitancy on our part to give our unqualified [288] support to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party in everything it does, can mean one thing and one thing alone—viz., that we are opposed to the Treaty. According to these enlightened Deputies the Treaty “baby” belongs to Cumann na nGaedheal, and unless you are a member of Cumann na nGaedheal or give them unquestioned support in everything they propose you have no right to nurse the “baby” or to be regarded as having any feeling towards it but that of a desire to commit infanticide. Apparently, if we are to judge by this morning's papers, Deputy Lemass is likewise in need of enlightenment.

Now in regard to the Treaty, we stand where we have always stood— where we stood in 1922, when, despite the death notices which we all had in our pockets, we came in here in order to use to the fullest the powers which were given under the Treaty. We accept the Treaty, and we recognise the institutions set up under the Treaty. We accept it as the irreducible minimum, in the same spirit as Griffith accepted it, regarding it as no more the final word than we do this the final generation, keeping in mind Parnell's dictum that no man has a right to set bounds to the march of a nation. I hope that statement is sufficiently clear and sufficiently definite to satisfy even Deputy Bourke or Deputy Heffernan.

Mr. Heffernan: Why Deputy Heffernan? I think I am entitled to an explanation.

An Ceann Comhairle: I will hear Deputy O'Connell.

Mr. Lynch: One would like to ask if the Labour Party were the only Party who received death notices.

Mr. O'Connell: I challenge either or both of these Deputies to show wherein the Labour Party have ever departed from that attitude. I hope I have made myself equally clear and equally definite to my friends in the Fianna Fáil benches, and that [289] henceforth neither Cumann na nGaedheal nor Fianna Fáil will have any doubt as to where Labour stands. Now I am afraid that in so far as the attitude of Deputy de Valera and his Party to the Treaty is concerned I am in the same position as the vast majority of the people of the country are. I do not know exactly what that attitude is. On this question the members of Fianna Fáil “speak with divers tongues,” and I have long ago given up hope of being able to reconcile these various statements. But for the sake of my argument I am willing to believe that the Party is now beginning to realise, after a lapse of eight barren years, that the attitude taken by Labour in 1922 had much to recommend it, and that, despite all the talk to the contrary, that attitude was not inconsistent with the fostering of a national spirit and a national outlook. I doubt if I am justified in believing this, but it has been hinted at least in the speeches of some of their members that this will eventually be their attitude. Deputy Lemass' speeches would, of course, convey the contrary impression, and if one were to believe half what comes over the cables from the American itinerant, foolish or timid people could not be blamed if they assumed that Deputy de Valera's accession to power might involve immediate and terrible war. However, as I say, I will assume for the moment, whether justified or not, that their attitude is gradually tending towards Labour's view.

Mr. Lemass: Some hopes.

Mr. O'Connell: But even where that is said or hinted, it is always accompanied by the statement that until all the barriers set up or supposed to be set up by the Treaty are removed, there can be no hope of economic development. Now it is here we come to the second fundamental difference between Labour and Fianna Fáil. While we say in effect, “Forget for the moment the limitations imposed by the Treaty— these things can wait—there is no urgency about them—bend all your [290] energies to the task of economic development,” Fianna Fáil reverses this order of things. According to them, economic development is dependent on the securing of what is called complete independence. Although, according to Mr. de Valera himself, there is want and chronic misery in thousands of Irish homes, and although “tens of thousands of our children and young people are doomed to spend the critical years of mental and physical growth in squalor and semi-starvation, although thousands are unemployed and many thousands of our citizens live in slums, Fianna Fáil make the Treaty issue the first plank in their programme, and not only that, but they say in effect that they cannot even hope to make economic progress until that issue is got rid of, until partition has been removed and full and complete independence has been obtained.”

Let me give a few quotations to show what the outlook of Fianna Fáil is in this respect.

At the last Ard-Fheis of Fianna Fáil held in October, 1929, Deputy Lemass is reported as having said: “Our first object is to establish a Republican form of Government in this country in our time. A victory at the poll will be only the first step in achieving that aim. The most difficult and strenuous part of the work will arise after that victory.”

Speaking at Donoughmore, Co. Cork, about a month later, Nov. 11th, 1929, the same Deputy said: “Fianna Fáil were trying to establish the absolute independence of the country because they were satisfied that unless the people could be made to realise that absolute independence was essential to economic progress they would be merely wasting their efforts in attempting remedies themselves on any other lines.”

Speaking in Edenderry on March 23rd, Deputy Lemass again said: “It is the purpose of Fianna Fáil to convince the people that economic prosperity and national progress are dependent on a revival of national self-respect, which in turn cannot be achieved until the degrading obligations of the Treaty are removed.”

[291] Nothing could be clearer or more definite than these statements on the part of Deputy Lemass. “The degrading obligations of the Treaty must be removed,” before we can have economic prosperity.

I do not wish to weary the House with similar quotations from other members of the Party. But I might give just one other from Deputy deValera himself, which was made to the Chicago Press last Saturday in reference to the resignation of the Government.

“If a Fianna Fáil Government takes office it will proceed with the declared policy of the Party. First, the unity and independence of Ireland as a Republic; secondly, the rebuilding of Irish industry.” (“Daily Mail,” 31st March.)

Mr. G. Boland: What about the “Morning Post”?

Mr. O'Connell: Any Deputy opposite can deny if that represents the view. I think it is clear that if we are to accept the statements of the accredited leaders of Fianna Fáil as being sincerely and honestly meant, we can have no doubt that if Deputy de Valera found himself at the head of the Government he would consider it his first duty to remove the degrading obligations of the Treaty, to get rid of partition, and to sever the last link between this country and Britain. Labour, on the other hand, thinks that the first duty of any Government elected by this House is to tackle seriously, earnestly, and determinedly, the social and economic ills from which the country is suffering. In our opinion there is ample scope within the Treaty and the Constitution to enable us to institute every reform necessary for the social betterment of our people, and there is no need to wait until the last British soldier leaves Berehaven before we begin to make a serious attempt to use the powers we now have to make the lot of our people happier and brighter than it is under existing conditions. We are opposed to Cumann na nGaedheal because they have not [292] used to the fullest advantage the powers which the Treaty has given them.

We are opposed to Fianna Fáil because they do not propose to use those powers until they have first got rid of partition and established complete independence. Why, in God's name, can we not all agree to make the fullest possible use of the powers we have got, face up to facts as we find them, recognise the practical difficulties in the way of securing the fulness of our ideals and all that may be involved in any attempt to remove these difficulties other than by friendly consultation and agreement between all Parties concerned? All this talk about “another round with England,” “another battle of Clontarf,” a show-down with Britain,” and such like statements foolishly indulged in by supporters and leaders of Fianna Fáil and exploited for their own political ends by Cumann na nGaedheal, cause timid people very grave uneasiness and doubt. Such doubt and uncertainty are highly detrimental to national progress. People who take such statements at their face value (and there are many who do) and, justifiably or otherwise, believe that they can only mean ultimate revolution, will not settle down to the serious work of economic reconstruction and development. Not only can we not afford to run the risk of another revolution in this country, we cannot afford even to talk about it. Nations do not stand still. We have reached a certain stage in our national development. We have power to establish peace and order and good Government in this State, to develop its dormant resources and increase its material wealth, to ensure that every citizen in this State is adequately fed, housed, clothed and educated. If and when in the course of our development we find ourselves hampered by any limitations in the existing Treaty or the Constitution set up under it, we can then face up to the task of how such limitations may be removed. But it is more than likely that by the time [293] we reach that point, or long before it, these barriers which now appear to some to be so formidable will have either completely disappeared or will present little, if any, difficulty in their removal.

I have said nothing so far about the economic programme of Fianna Fáil. I have confined myself to what I regard as fundamental political issues. While there are many matters in that programme on which there is general agreement between ourselves and Fianna Fáil, and still others which run more or less parallel with our own, I am not at all prepared to admit, what is sometimes suggested—viz., that there are no essential differences between their programme and ours.

I do not wish to go into these differences now in any detail. Suffice it to say that we do not believe in lowering the standard of life in this country as a means of solving our economic difficulties. We shall not say to our farmers or town workers that it would be more appropriate for them to adapt themselves to the standard of the small agricultural countries of Central Europe rather than seek to maintain the standard set by a large industrial country like England. Increased wealth production and more equitable distribution of that wealth among the people shall be our ideal. But there is no necessity to develop this point, because I think I have already shown why it is impossible for the Labour Party, holding the views it does, to do other than oppose the candidature of Deputy de Valera for the Presidency. I only refer to this matter of their economic programme, lest it should be assumed that on this point there were no essential differences between us or that we might be prepared to accept and endorse the Fianna Fáil programme if the other questions were not at issue. That is not the case.

Finally, I think it is my duty, in view of certain statements that have been made, to say very definitely and emphatically, that there is no alliance, and never was an alliance, between the Labour Party and either of the big Parties in this House. [294] There are fundamental differences between the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil just as there are fundamental differences between Labour and Cumann na nGaedheal. There can be no alliance between Parties whose policies are fundamentally different. It is because of these differences that Labour feels compelled to oppose the election of Deputy deValera just as it has hitherto opposed, and will again, if necessary, oppose, the nominee of Cumann na nGaedheal.

In voting against Deputy de Valera the Labour Party are not motived by any desire for Party advantage. Party advantage might indeed dictate a different course from what is being pursued to-day. But even before to-day Labour has shown that it was not unprepared to sacrifice Party advantage to what it believed to be the national welfare.

If the action of the Labour Party to-day and the reasons which I have given for that action, have the effect of bringing Deputy de Valera and his followers to realise that what the country earnestly wants is an end to the barren controversies of the past eight years and the substitution therefor of what is sometimes disparagingly called a “bread and butter” policy, then Labour will, in my opinion, and not for the first time in the history of these years, have rendered valuable and lasting service to the national interest.

Mr. Cooney: Produced by Mortished and Johnson.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Fitzgerald): The act the Dáil is called upon to perform to-day is the most important act that this Assembly can perform. I might even go so far as to say that it is almost a sacramental act. I will quote the words of Pope Leo the Thirteenth:— “Christians surround the idea of power with a religious respect in which, even when it resides in an unworthy mandatory, they see a reflection and, as it were, an image of Divine Majesty. They have for the laws the just respect that is due to them, not because of force and penal sanctions, but by duty of conscience.” [295] Again, he said:—“It is no more permitted to contemn the legitimate power, whosoever may be the person in whom it resides, than it is to resist the Will of God.”

This Dáil to-day proposes electing a President and consequently electing a Government in whom shall reside the power to control the destinies of this country and of its people; in whom shall reside the power of life and death. For many generations the Irish people sought to establish their right themselves to exercise that power; that is to say, to exercise that power through a Government formed from among themselves. The name put before us is that of Deputy de Valera. Let us consider what is the primary and fundamental function of Government. The primary and fundamental function of Government is to maintain social order, to protect life and property and to maintain a condition of peace. We must consider this candidature now put before us from that point of view. If the various candidates put before us from the point of view of social order, of peace, of safety for life and property, are equal, then we could consider the differences between them upon less fundamental points.

The name of Deputy de Valera is put before us. Does anybody here know what his policy is? I know that many people in this country assumed that somewhere about the 10th or 11th March, 1926, Deputy de Valera made a radical change in his programme. Up to that time he had belonged to a certain organisation and had declared himself President of an Irish Republic, arrogating to himself and those with him power of life and death over the people of this country. On the 11th March, 1926, Deputy de Valera resigned from that Presidency. On the 12th April, 1926, he announced that he was forming a new organisation. On the 16th May, 1926, Fianna Fáil was publicly introduced at a meeting in the La Scala Theatre, and on the 24th November, 1926, the first Convention of Fianna Fáil was held.

[296] When anyone in life is faced with a serious responsibility, that person has not the right to act blindly. We here are not merely citizens of this State, but are the elected and chosen representatives of the people, and in our hands to-day the destiny of our country is placed. Have we the right to say blindly that we will trust to luck? Is it not our duty to examine the past and to understand what is to be expected from the individual put before us and his declared policy? I admit that the Irish people, being denied for centuries the right to govern themselves, may be justified in showing a lack of political perspicacity that might be found in other countries, but that lack is not to be expected here. If it is shown here to-day we must recognise that we justify, to some extent at any rate, those people in this and other countries who for long periods of years said the Irish people were not capable of self-government. Can it be said that a people is capable of self-government when they elect a President and a Government which then would deny their own legitimacy and their own right to act? Could they be said to exercise political judgment when they elect a Government that, by their own words and their own policy, declare that if they executed a man for murder they themselves would be guilty of murder, whereas if a man outside “executes” another man— that is to say, committed ordinary murder—they would say that that man outside was justified, but that the Government here would not be justified in executing anyone?

I admit that the Irish people, and we here even, might have said when Deputy de Valera separated himself from the other body, as he appeared to do in that period in March and April, 1926, that he had abandoned that form of policy. He had not. It was generally assumed, and he gave face to that assumption, that he had entirely dissociated himself from that organisation outside. He had merely surrendered the office he held, but remained a member of that organisation outside. Not only that, but on the 18th and 19th of December, [297] some six or nine months after that event, he even questioned the legitimacy of his own resignation. On the 18th and 19th of December a meeting was held of a body calling itself the Second Dáil, together with a body calling itself Comhairle na dTeachtaí. What was the line taken by Deputy de Valera? It was when Fianna Fáil existed as a political body. They had declared they were ready to come into the Dáil as soon as the oath was removed. Did their declaration that they would come into the Dáil mean that they accepted the authority of the Dáil? It did not. I will give you some of the remarks of Deputy de Valera at this meeting: “We must hold on to the constitutional position.” Was that the constitutional position of this Dáil? No. It was the constitutional position of a body outside this Dáil claiming the powers of life and death and under whose authority death had been inflicted upon our citizens. The President of that body said: “Our whole constitutional position is built about and around it (the Second Dáil), and that constitutional position is playing a large part in the litigation on the question of the bonds.”

Deputy de Valera explained that when he put forward the policy of Fianna Fáil he put it forward to that body on the assumption that that body was entitled to decide on it, and that was the fact that brought about his resignation. He felt that it had not the power to do that, and was expecting a meeting of the Second Dáil to be called to deal with that particular question. He said: “It is not for us to dissolve the Second Dáil. It is carrying on the functions until the new body comes into existence.” That is, the new body to be called into existence by a body outside which denies the authority of this Dáil. Further, Deputy de Valera said: “We were really a sovereign body, very unlike a body that is governed by a written Constitution. I am assuming all the time that there is no fault found with the de jure position of the Second Dáil. We can continue on as [298] we are, and for special cases having a meeting of the Second Dáil.”

Mr. MacEntee: May I ask Deputy Fitzgerald——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister for Defence.

Mr. MacEntee: I beg your pardon; I thought the Government had resigned. May I ask the Minister for Defence what is his authority for the statement he has just read to the House?

Mr. Fitzgerald: My authority is a report made at that meeting.

Mr. MacEntee: A report made to whom? Was there a published report of the proceedings of the meeting?

Mr. Fitzgerald: No. It was agreed afterwards that there would be a report agreed between the two parties present, as they did not want the facts to be known. We happen to have a report of the speeches.

Mr. Lemass: I understand that this is a report supplied by the Secret Service?

Mr. Fitzgerald: The Deputy may understand anything he likes.

“We have a good legal case if we stick to it, and my point is you stick to it.”

“Mr. de Valera: ‘At any meeting that the new departure was discussed it was discussed as a question of policy for the Republic. I felt it my duty because I saw in it a policy which would lead to the functioning of the Republic. I hold that we have a perfect right in doing that. This is the only place where we can meet on common ground. We will have to depend on the idea to keep together in this House. I hope that a time may come when those who do not see with me can come here and discuss their differences.’ ”

Not merely did he not sever his association with that body, but on the 19th December, 1926, he himself proposed the ratification of the election of the President of that body.

[299] “Mr. de Valera: ‘If it is in order that the ratification of this election by Comhairle na dTeachtaí, I now propose the ratification of that election. I hold that the policy we stand for is the better policy for the Republic. No policy has been put forward by the present Executive—we who put forward a policy were defeated—the majority have not put forward any policy to make good, and I do not believe they can. I do not want to introduce that matter. I simply wish to propose the ratification of Art O'Connor as President.’ ”

After the election of the new President, Mr. de Valera said:

“There is only one thing, and that is that if at any time anything is decided... I will give an undertaking here that I will safeguard the Republican position.”

As leader of Fianna Fáil, he gave an undertaking to the body outside this body to safeguard what he called the Republican position.

Mr. Cooney: You gave that in 1921.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Deputy Lemass had in this illegal body outside, which he knew had taken certain action against the laws of this country, posed as Minister for Defence. He said:

“I held a position on the Executive as the head of the Department of Defence. In that position I sanctioned certain military acts—for example, the raid on Mountjoy in November last. These acts were just as valid then as they are now. I, as one of this body, in giving my sanction to this act, gave it all the justification needed.”

Mr. Lemass: Will the Minister say who supplied that report?

Mr. Fitzgerald: It is all a report of the one meeting which lasted two days, the 18th and 19th December, 1926.

Mr. Lemass: Whoever supplied it has a very fine imagination.

[300] Mr. Fitzgerald: Deputy MacEntee was rather concerned that there might be a move in that organisation to expel them:

“Mr. MacEntee: ‘It would seem that so far as the second part of Decree No. 1 is concerned it is intended to formally expel from membership of Dáil Eireann those of us who have adopted the policy of Fianna Fáil.’ ”

Now, has Fianna Fáil departed from that policy which they held at this meeting of the so-called Second Dáil and of Comhairle na dTeachtaí? At that meeting one general line of policy on the other matters was put forward. It was put forward by a Communist named O'Donnell. He said:

“If there was a group controlling Comhairle na dTeachtaí who would decide that they would take one particular law on which the Free State Government is based and issue a decree saying that that particular law is to be dissolved—take, for example, a group calling themselves the Second Dáil to issue a decree saying that all form of payments to England should be refused—it would have several good things in its favour.”

Later on he said:

“To my mind, the question of payment of annuities to England is a thing for it to take up. When you do things of this sort the people will understand you and the Government position will be assured again.”

That is the position of the Government outside, not here.

“The Free State Army will have to be forced out. We have an opportunity to-day of definitely choosing a particular law and rely on yourselves to put it into force. I would like to know how many people would take up this question.”

That position was taken up by the Fianna Fáil Party as it was laid down in the other organisation by Mr. O'Donnell. What are the indications upon which we must judge since that Party came into this [301] House? They came in here following the murder of the Minister for Justice, the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins. On the 28th March, 1928, in the Dáil I took the occasion of a debate promoted by the Fianna Fáil Party in which they talked a lot about generous gestures and assurances, to ask for an assurance if they had or should at any time get information that would be of assistance in bringing to justice the murderers of Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, that they would make that information available. What was their response to that? Deputy Little, of the Fianna Fáil Party, said that it was absurd to ask such a thing of them. Mr. McGilligan, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, took up the point and repeated it. What was their response? Deputy Little complained that to give such an assurance would bring odium upon them. Deputy Cooney, Fianna Fáil Deputy for North Dublin City, said that to act in this matter as an ordinary good citizen, was to become an informer.

Mr. Cooney: Would the Minister say if those are my words?

Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, they are.

Mr. Cooney: “As a good citizen”? Are you quoting my exact words?

Mr. Fitzgerald: I think so.

Mr. Fahy: The words “as a good citizen” are not an interpolation?

Mr. Fitzgerald: No, I do not think so. I remember the Deputy using them.

Mr. Fahy: “As a good citizen”?

Mr. Fitzgerald: No. I added that. Of course, I would never dream——

An Ceann Comhairle: Keep to the quotation.

Mr. Fitzgerald: He said that to act in this matter was to become an informer.

[302] Mr. Cooney: I think the Minister should quote the Official Record.

Mr. Fitzgerald: If somebody gets it for me I will be glad to quote it. On the 3rd December, 1928, a man named Con Healy was tried in Dublin on a number of charges. The jury found him guilty on four counts—namely, that on August 1st, 1928, he fired at a detective officer with intent to maim; illegal possession of arms on that date; that on October 15th, 1928, he fired at a detective officer with intent to maim and with illegal possession of firearms on that day. One of the members of the jury, Mr. White, following on that, was fired at and dangerously wounded. On the 20th February, Mr. Albert Armstrong was brutally murdered for the reason that he had been a witness in the Court. Arising out of Mr. White's case the police took certain steps to protect other jurymen who were threatened by the gun bullies. In the “Nation” of February 23rd, 1929, that is to say, a few weeks after the murder of Mr. Armstrong, this is what we read in the Prisoners' Notes in this paper, which was edited by Deputy O'Kelly. At that time the “Nation” was the semi-official organ of Fianna Fáil. Deputy Sean T. O'Kelly, who is now the proposer of Mr. de Valera, was the editor.

Mr. O'Kelly: I have repudiated before that that organ was then, or at any time, the official or the semi-official organ of Fianna Fáil. I was its editor, proprietor, manager and everything else up to a certain time. Any responsibility the Minister wants to place on it, please place on me.

Mr. Fitzgerald: This was the organ for which Deputy O'Kelly, the proposer of Deputy de Valera, was responsible?

Mr. O'Kelly: Hear, hear.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Deputy O'Kelly being a fairly responsible representative of Fianna Fáil——

Mr. O'Kelly: I hope so.

[303] Mr. Fitzgerald: Here was the case of a man being shot at though not killed, for the crime of refusing to commit perjury as a juryman. He had sworn to find, according to the evidence, and for refusing to break his oath he was fired at with intent to murder. However, this organ edited by Deputy O'Kelly, the proposer of Mr. de Valera to-day, published the following article on February 23rd, 1929:—

“As the ‘Prisoners Notes’ are often too gloomy, I am going to improve them this week by a few cheering items. If anyone wants an amusing sight let him venture out on a cold, wet day and view sad and shady looking C.I.D. men standing outside the houses and also the business premises where the jurymen live are employed, who were cowardly and misguided enough to convict of treason that Tipperary Volunteer, Con Healy, who has devoted his whole life to unselfish service of the nation, and thus handed him over to British vengeance—five years in Maryborough hell. The employers of some of these jurymen are not at all flattered by the assiduities of the C.I.D. They have to do business in the Irish nation, and it is never a good business advertisement to be watched by the police; people seem to take malicious pleasure in asking them why their premises are being watched.”

That is the organ for which Deputy O'Kelly, the proposer of Mr. de Valera to-day, Mr. de Valera's lieutenant and a responsible member of his party, takes responsibility. He declares that a man who attempted the murder of the police of the State had devoted his whole life to the unselfish service of the nation, and that organ calls on the people to rejoice in the fact that the juryman who refused to commit perjury at the dictation of the gun bullies was likely to lose his livelihood. Shortly after that, in March, on the occasion of the election campaign of. I think, Deputy O'Higgins. Deputy Fahy said apropos of this murder and attempted murder:

[304] “If they could not have an open march to freedom they were going to have secret efforts that would result in the occurrence of horrible incidents.”

What did that mean? It meant that either the murderers are marching this country to freedom or that there is some justification for these murders, as this country is not marching to freedom.

Mr. Fahy: I submit that it bears a very different interpretation, and the Minister is aware of that too.

Mr. Fitzgerald: I will read it without comment.

Mr. Fahy: An extract from a sentence.

Mr. Fitzgerald: “If they could not have an open march to freedom they were going to have secret efforts that would result in the occurrence of horrible incidents.” I quote as it is in the paper.

Mr. Fahy: I believe that is true and that is why I am here.

Mr. Fitzgerald: For myself I only regard it as a palliation of murder. On the 19th March last, arising out of these incidents I challenged Deputy de Valera to say if he recognised the authority of the Dáil, knowing that up to the last I had heard that he was still a member of a body outside, a body that had denied the right of the Government to function, and a body that claimed the power of life and death over the Irish people. Deputy O'Connell has already read out some extracts from Deputy de Valera's remarks on that occasion. There is this further extract:—

“Those who continued on in that organisation which we have left can claim exactly the same continuity that we claimed up to 1925. They can do it.”

The date was put in to mislead the members of the Dáil and the people of the country. That is, he said, they claimed up to 1925, but to my knowledge he claimed it up to December, 1926. Here we have the [305] position of a man being proposed here who, up to the last public knowledge that we have of him, recognised the authority of a body outside this Dáil, a man who actually promoted a legal action in the United States upon a question of money based upon a denial of the authority of the Dáil.

Mr. Aiken: And he beat you. The American courts upheld him.

Mr. Fitzgerald: If the Deputy wants information on that I will give it to him. Here we have the position of this man being proposed here posturing as the President of the Republic, claiming that the power of life and death, who may or may not have left that organisation and who, on the 14th March of last year, declared in this House that the other body was the legitimate Assembly here. On the Sunday before last Deputy Lemass, speaking down the country, said that time and time again the people of this country had decided to accept the Treaty.

Mr. Lemass: Go on.

Mr. Fitzgerald: “But,” he said, “as far as his Party is concerned, he always regarded it with hostility.” Now I said at the beginning that the primary function of government is to maintain social order, and consequently to maintain peace. If Deputy de Valera is elected here as President, what is the position going to be? He has said that he recognises the powers of this Dáil as faulty; that he recognises the powers of government in a body outside the Dáil. We know that we are bound by the moral law to be subject to legitimate authority. Is he going to be subject to legitimate authorities or is he not? There were people outside, while he was a member of that organisation, a body of armed men who claimed this right to use arms, to declare war and to wage war, to execute people in this country, and he tacitly assented to that claim on the part of those people. How is he going to enforce what we consider the law here? What law is going to prevail? Is it going to be [306] the law that is promulgated by the Dáil, or is it going to be the law by people outside? Is not the proposal that he be elected here a denial of the right of the people of the State to decide what body of men shall hold power here? I maintain that unless Deputy de Valera comes out and makes it perfectly clear to the Irish people that he has abandoned his past programme, the Irish people have no right to elect him, because it would be a denial of their own right.

Deputy Lemass, on the Sunday before last, tried to reassure the people. The people of this country must recognise that in passing over the power of government, they have a right to be perfectly clear as to what is to happen. Deputy Lemass admits that they are hostile to the Treaty. He said:—

“We realise, however, that the people of the Twenty-six Counties have repeatedly, by a majority, accepted the Treaty in preference to what they believed the alternative to be—a renewal of the conflict with England.”

He admits that the people are for the Treaty. He admits that the people anticipate a repetition of war. But he reminds them that in 1927 Deputy de Valera gave a pledge to the electorate. He gave two pledges—one, never to enter the Dáil until the oath was removed, and secondly, that a Fianna Fáil Government would not attempt to commit the people to a line of action involving a fundamental change in the constitutional position without getting their approval beforehand by means of the referendum. “That pledge,” he added, “still holds good, and will be honoured.”

Now, has Deputy de Valera the right to hold the pledge good? Mr. Lemass said that there could be no economic prosperity and no national progress until the degrading clauses of the Treaty are removed. If you elect Deputy de Valera as President to form his Government, what is going to be the duty of that Government? The duty of that Government is going to be national progress and economic prosperity as well as [307] social order and peace. Can Deputy de Valera maintain that pledge? I assert that if he is elected and if he honestly believes what Deputy Lemass told us on the Sunday before last, that there can be no economic prosperity and no national progress with the Treaty in the way, his duty as a Government overrides whatever this pledge may have committed him to. Not only will he be absolved from that pledge, but it will be his duty as President to disregard that pledge, seeing that he asserts that under the Treaty there can be no economic prosperity and no national progress. Not only that, but unless he has radically changed his mind from the point of view that he put on the 14th of March last year, it will be his duty when the powers of Government are put in his hands to hand these powers of Government to the gunmen outside. Deputies come here and propose seriously to this Dáil, knowing what we do know, knowing his repeated statements and the statements of his auxiliaries, knowing that he has never formally renounced his previous programme and knowing what that commits us to, to accept him as a nominee for the Presidency. I suggest that such a proposal is to ask us to disgrace the Irish State and to disgrace the Irish people. Is there any case in history in which a people elected to a Government a man who, on the most fundamental point on which the existence of their State was based, differed from them fundamentally? Was ever such a thing heard of? Did we ever know of a case of people electing a Government that denied its own authority and recognised that the power of life and death, of Governmental authority, existed of right and continuously in a body outside? I know of no case in history. But, because our people have not had the opportunity that other people have had of exercising their political functions, it is thought that they can be misled into doing that. I suggest that we, the representatives elected by the people outside to safeguard the [308] rights of our people and of our country, have not the right to allow this nomination to go forward and to be accepted. It would be nationally disgraceful.

There is one other little matter that I should like to touch upon. I said that when Deputy de Valera was President of this other government outside he challenged in the American Courts the right of this Government to be Government here. For the sole purpose of keeping this Government from getting hold of the money that it was this Government's right to possess, especially when we have the expense of paying it back, he promoted another movement that it should go back to the bondholders. We are called upon to elect a man here who took action to deny the authority that he himself will possess, if we vote for him, and he is at this moment trying to get into his hands, in a method which is so dubious that if it happened in this country we should probably have to take action, that money which the Government will itself have later on to pay. He asks people over there, who know very little about law and about these things, to sign a document in the following terms:

Assignment and Power of Attorney

In consideration of one dollar, lawful money of the United States of America, and other valuable consideration to me in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, I, the undersigned, hereby sell, assign, transfer and set over unto Eamon de Valera, his executors, administrators and assigns, all my right, title and interest in and to the Bond Certificate (or Bond Certificates) of the Republic of Ireland Loans, which was (were) heretofore filed by me with the receivers for the benefit of the Bond Certificate holders of said Loans, and all sums of money, both principal and interest, now due on, or hereafter to become due on, or because of the obligation set forth and/or referred to in [309] said Bond Certificate (or Bond Certificates); and I do hereby constitute the said Eamon de Valera my attorney, in my name or otherwise but at his own cost, to take all legal measures which may be proper and necessary for the complete recovery on, and enjoyment of, the assigned Bond Certificate (or Certificates).

And I do by these presents, make, constitute and appoint said Eamon de Valera my true and lawful attorney, in my name, place and stead, to receive from the receivers for the benefit of Bond Certificate holders of Republic of Ireland Loans the payment or payments which is (are), or shall be, due and payable to me on said Bond Certificate (or Certificates) of said Republic of Ireland Loans....

It means that he promotes an action without this State to prevent this State controlling certain moneys. He is at this moment, under the pretence of these people being given shares in a newspaper, which they do not get by virtue of the article which they are asked to sign, asking them to hand over to him not merely the money that they will receive, but all the powers to take action against this Government for the recovery of this money. It means that he will, if elected here, take an action against himself to get out of the State funds here money which he has put us in a position to have to pay by virtue of that action; money which will actually be handed over to himself, not necessarily for the use of that newspaper, because the power of attorney and the assignment which he asks the people to sign merely hands the money completely over to him.

I merely mention this as a sideline. My opposition to the proposal put forward by Deputy O'Kelly is, that we are asked to elect a man who will not and cannot, in view of his previous pronouncements, stand for the maintenance of social order here, because he has consistently all through recognised the authority of a body of men to have the power [310] of life and death over the people here. He does not fulfil the required conditions of maintaining peace, because his policy commits him to a renunciation of the Treaty, upon which we know, and the majority of the people know, the peace of this country depends.

If it came to discussing other matters of policy I think we could make an equally good case on those lines, but I maintain that this Dáil, representing as it does the people outside, cannot in fairness to this people or country elect a man who denies his authority and recognises the authority of murderers outside and who proposes to start a new battle of Clontarf as soon as he gets an opportunity. I hope the Dáil, with all the forces of every man here who has the good name and the well-being of his country at heart, will combine against this proposed outrage on this Dáil.

Mr. Lemass: There is one very important matter in connection with the Bond litigation in America to which the Minister for Defence forgot to refer. In the year 1925, Deputy de Valera proposed that the money which was the subject of litigation and which was being wasted in legal costs should be withdrawn by consent and utilised for the development of the Gaeltacht. That proposal was refused by the Minister for Local Government (Deputy Mulcahy) on behalf of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. The Minister also forgot to mention that in these proceedings the contention of the representatives of his Government was that his Government was the legal successor of Dáil Eireann, the Government of the Republic of Ireland. The American Courts decided against that.

Mr. Fitzgerald: We accepted the responsibility.

Mr. Lemass: The Supreme Court of the United States of America, an independent neutral judicial body, decided that the authority of this Dáil to claim its succession from the Government of the Republic which preceded it was faulty.

[311] Mr. Fitzgerald: Because there was no Government preceding it.

Mr. Aiken: The only authority the Government had was the British Empire.

Mr. Lemass: It was quite obvious from the speeches we have just heard from Deputy O'Connell and the Minister for Defence that the two Parties for which they spoke propose to vote against the motion to nominate Deputy de Valera as President of the Executive Council, not because they think he has not got the ability to effect administrative improvements, not because they think he has not got the economic policy that would improve the conditions of the people and restore prosperity to our country, but because he took a different attitude to theirs eight years ago when the acceptance of the Treaty was under consideration. This matter of the action which individuals or parties took at the time of the Treaty controversy is constantly being dragged up in this year 1930.

Mr. Davin: By whom?

Mr. Lemass: By Deputy O'Connell on behalf of the Labour Party, when Deputy Davin is not speaking for it, and members of the Government. There are apparently a number of people determined that the Treaty controversy must be continued and that the spirit of the civil war must not be allowed to die. That civil war was started for the purpose of splitting the forces of Irish nationalism. Those who are attempting to keep alive the feelings of hate and bitterness which it engendered are playing England's game. I am surprised that the members of the Labour Party should be willing to cooperate with the members of Cumann na nGaedheal in that policy.

Mr. Davin: Wrong.

Mr. Lemass: Surely there are many problems of great magnitude confronting the Irish people at this moment in respect of which the [312] policy of the various candidates for the Presidency might be discussed. None of these policies was mentioned to-day. Economic issues were ignored, particularly by the leader of the Labour Party. The only matters with which they were concerned were the rights and wrongs of events which happened eight or ten years ago.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: Two months ago.

Mr. Lemass: I am glad, however, that these issues were raised. We do not want to be elected on any misunderstanding as to our position. We have made that position clear repeatedly, but although we can make statements and give arguments, apparently we cannot give intelligence or understanding to the two Deputies who have just spoken. Deputy O'Connell said that in a normal country there are certain fundamental things which are taken for granted by all parties. It was one statement in his speech which was correct. There are certain fundamental things in a normal country taken for granted by all parties, and it is precisely because these fundamental things are not accepted by all parties in this State that it cannot be regarded as normal. Deputy O'Connell was no doubt referring to the Constitution. We cannot forget that the Constitution was framed in London and imposed by threats upon the Irish people. We cannot accept that document as sacred in consequence of that knowledge. We will not be prepared to accept it as sacred until it has been freely revised and amended by the elected representatives of the Irish people. We know also that members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party have no respect for the Constitution. They have never attempted at any time to modify their actions because of its provisions. Whenever they found that their actions and the Constitution were in conflict they amended the Constitution and not their actions. Amending Bills were rushed in by the dozen to bring the [313] Constitution into conformity with the political requirements of Cumann na nGaedheal. Neither the Cumann na nGaedheal Party nor we are prepared to regard that Constitution apparently as anything but so much paper. It is only the Labour Party, whose one desire is to be respectable in all things, that attaches any importance to it.

The Minister for Defence who, having spoken, folded his tents like the Arabs and silently stole away, read a number of extracts from some mysterious document which was apparently furnished to him by some super-intelligent member of the Secret Service. It is, I think, the practice whenever a Minister quotes from a document in this House that the document is tabled in the Library so that all Deputies can learn what is in it. As the document in question appears to concern some of us in a very personal manner we should like to have an opportunity of perusing it.

Mr. P. Hogan (Galway): Do you not know it already?

Mr. Lemass: Surely there are more interesting things in it than the Minister quoted.

Mr. Hogan: Much.

Mr. Lemass: I have no doubt about it. If all the persons to whom he referred spoke for two days we must have made some references to the gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite. The Minister did not read any of those extracts. However, I do earnestly request and appeal that the document should be offered to a waiting nation. In a time of crisis such as this, public ill-feeling might be allayed by the perpetration of a good joke such as that.

The President: I take it the Deputy means that he intelligently anticipates some result this evening and that I shall have responsibility for putting the document there. I intend to do it.

Mr. Lemass: I am very glad to know that we shall have an opportunity [314] of reading it in full. I hope the President will not conceal the identity of the author.

An Ceann Comhairle: Do I take it that we are making an order for the tabling of this document?

The President: Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle: What is the document?

The President: It is the report of certain proceedings that occurred outside the House embodied in Comhairle na dTeachtaí or Comhairle na Poblachta according to which a number of Deputies on the far side of the House contributed towards the proceedings.

Mr. Lemass: That is very interesting. I take it anyway that it will be laid on the Table. Would there be any possibility of adjourning the debate until we get an opportunity of reading it?

Mr. Duggan: You can give us the full report in the meantime.

Mr. Lemass: If I knew it, I would be glad to do so. I caught the meaning of some extracts read by the Minister. Apparently a pledge was given to this body, Comhairle na dTeachtaí, by Deputy de Valera, to the effect that he would do nothing to prejudice the Republican position. I have a very distinct recollection of a pledge in identical terms being given by members of the Government opposite, not to a body which claimed to be a Government, but to a body which admitted itself to be a secret society—a very definite and specific pledge given by members of the Government to an armed secret society in this country that they would do nothing to prejudice the Republican position.

Mr. Davin: Now it has come out.

Mr. Lemass: I hope the Minister for Local Government will give us his reminiscences before this debate is concluded.

General Mulcahy: Could we have the name of the armed secret society?

[315] Mr. Lemass: The Irish Republican Brotherhood.

General Mulcahy: Will the Deputy repeat the statement with regard to it?

Mr. Lemass: That pledges were given that members of the Government would do nothing to prejudice the Republican position after the acceptance of the Treaty.

General Mulcahy: Does the Deputy say that pledges were given to the Irish Republican Brotherhood to that effect?

Mr. Lemass: The answer is in the affirmative.

General Mulcahy: I should like to suggest to the Deputy that if that were so I ought to know something about it, but that it is not a fact. If such pledges were given by the present Minister for Local Government to the Irish Republican Brotherhood I ought to know something about it on two sides. I absolutely deny that that was ever done.

Mr. Aiken: Deny what?

Mr. Lemass: Unfortunately, we had not got any secret service men present or in a position to report on the proceedings. The pledges were given verbally.

General Mulcahy: You had only imagination.

Mr. Lemass: I do not think so. I think the Minister will admit that there is no element of imagination in what I said.

Mr. Aiken: Will the Minister deny——

An Ceann Comhairle: No. Deputy Lemass to continue his speech.

Mr. Lemass: The speech of the Minister for Defence was quite interesting, particularly in view of recent developments. He told us that we could not seriously contemplate giving a vote to Deputy de Valera to secure his election as President, because if he were elected he would give the powers of Government [316] to the gunmen outside. Only a fortnight ago, in the official organ of Cumann na nGaedheal, there appeared an article entitled “The Army and Politics.” That article was copied into the “Sunday Independent” of March 23rd, and it reveals a mentality in relation to the powers of this Dáil, and in relation to the powers of the Army, which members on this side of the House never possessed. We never at any time admitted that the armed forces, or any armed force, in this country should dictate to the Government what it should do. I was once Minister for Defence in a body that claimed to be a government, but while I was in that position, the armed forces concerned were controlled. I never told them that they could dictate to that body what its policy should be. I do not think the individual on the Front Bench opposite, who also occupied a similar position, ever maintained that attitude in relation to the Army under his control. We find in the official organ of Cumann na nGaedheal, within the last fortnight, a leading article that incites the National Army to mutiny if a Government is elected by this House with a policy of which it disapproves.

“Although the Army has no connection with politics, and although it would not be right for the Army to render assistance to any political party, it might happen that the Army would be bound to subdue a political group for the welfare of the people in general. The members of the Government are servants of the people. If it were apparent that they were not obedient to the people it would no longer be necessary that the Army should be obedient to them.”

Was there ever a more dangerous doctrine preached inside or outside this House within the last ten years? From whom then is the Army to take orders if not from the Government elected within the House?

Mr. Hogan (Galway): Hear, hear.

[317] Mr. Lemass: I am glad to hear the Minister for Agriculture say “hear, hear.” I hope he will take steps to see that the man who wrote that article, even if he be a colleague of his on the front bench, will be called into court and charged with incitement to mutiny.

Mr. Davin: It is a Minister all right.

Mr. Lemass: If the Army is not to take its orders from the Government, from whom is it to take orders? The Minister for Defence, the Minister whom this House holds responsible for the conduct of the Army, criticises us on the ground that we might not be able or may not be willing effectively to control it despite the fact that it is apparently the official policy of his Party that the Army should not be controlled by this House at all unless there happens to be a Cumann na nGaedheal Executive in office.

Mr. Hogan (Galway): Nonsense.

Mr. Lemass: Then he talked about law and order and the shooting of jurymen in Dublin. These crimes were denounced by members of this Party long before members of Cumann na nGaedheal thought fit to make political capital out of them. Is it not an extraordinary thing that no one has been brought to justice for them? We are spending a million and a half on a police force. We have a Minister for Justice in this House. Every important crime that has been committed in this country since 1927 has not figured in the records of any police court.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: That is not correct.

Mr. Lemass: It is correct. All the sensational crimes that got headlines in the papers—the shooting of Dublin jurymen, the shooting of the late Minister for Justice, the shooting of these witnesses—has any single man been brought to justice for any one of them? Does the Minister for Defence think that we are to be criticised for that? Will he [318] turn and look into the administration of justice by his colleague and find out what is wrong with it? I think he will find in that Department a true explanation as to why these crimes are possible. When you have the Minister deliberately ordering those under his control to break the law, when you have members of the police force charged day after day and week after week with assaults and fined by judges and juries, you cannot have, in the police force or in the country, that respect for law and order which the Minister claims to be anxious to promote.

We are not going to take any lectures from the Minister or his colleagues on the question of the preservation of law and the enforcement of justice. We are not going to take any lectures from him on the necessity for denouncing murder. We always denounce murder. We denounced murder at times when the Minister and his colleagues were very silent. We still denounce murder, and we do hope that all murderers will in the course of time be brought to justice.

Deputy O'Connell appeared very much concerned about our attitude to this House. I have said already that the outstanding characteristic of the Labour Party is that it is the most respectable Party in this State. The members of that Party desire to be respectable above everything else. So long as they cannot be accused of being even pale pink in politics they seem to think they have fulfilled their function towards the Irish people. That is why, with the exception of the National League Party, they are the smallest Party in the House. Deputy O'Connell said that Deputy de Valera would regard any Government elected by this House as having no legal or moral claim to govern. Deputy de Valera never said that. He never uttered any sentence inside or outside this House which allowed that implication to be drawn. We regard this House as an assembly to which the vast majority of the elected representatives of the people of the Twenty-six Counties come. We are prepared to recognise that all legislative power comes from [319] the people and is exercised through their representatives. Because the majority of the people's representatives are to be found in this assembly we are prepared to recognise the legislative power of this assembly, but we do recognise that even in that respect its claim is faulty, because there is in existence a political test which debars one section of the population from being represented here. We are not anxious to go back and root out the faults in the title under which it is stated that it operates. We are prepared to accept it for what it is, an assembly of the elected representatives of the Irish people.

In the year 1927 Deputy de Valera made a clear statement, published by way of a full-page advertisement over his name, in the daily Press. He said:

“The sinister design of aiming at bringing about a sudden revolutionary upheaval with which our opponents choose to credit us is altogether foreign to our purpose and programme. We do not believe in attempting to practise sleight-of-hand on the electorate. We shall proceed as a responsible constitutional Government, acknowledging without reserve that all authority comes through the sovereign people, and that before any important step likely to involve their safety is taken the people are entitled to be taken into the fullest consultation.”

There was no ambiguity about that statement. It made our position quite clear. It has been repeated at different times and in different forms since, and this attempt by Deputy O'Connell and the Minister for Defence to go back to reports of statements made in 1926 or 1925 or 1922, to try—

Mr. O'Connell: 1929.

Mr. Lemass: To try to attribute to Deputy de Valera a policy and an attitude to this House which are not his, is, I think, unworthy of the occasion of this debate.

[320] Mr. O'Connell: I would like to explain that I quoted no statement earlier than March, 1929.

Mr. Lemass: Deputy O'Connell did, however, refer to American cables which intimidated foolish and timorous people like himself. I ask him to accept as the policy of Fianna Fáil what the representatives of Fianna Fáil have declared it to be.

Mr. Davin: In this House?

Mr. Lemass: In this House. I ask him to accept as the attitude of Fianna Fáil to this House what we have repeatedly declared it to be. I ask him not to let his outlook be coloured by statements which appear in the Press.

Mr. O'Connell: From yourself.

Mr. Lemass: And reports of meetings addressed by Ministers. The common attitude appears to be to take as the policy of Fianna Fáil what the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Agriculture declares it to be.

Mr. Davin: No.

Mr. Lemass: Our attitude to the Treaty is well known. I have said that we never regarded it with anything except hostility. I said we de recognise, however, that the people of the Twenty-six Counties have repeatedly accepted it, by a majority, in preference to what they believed the alternative to be, a renewal of the conflict with England. Deputy O'Connell says that his acceptance of the Treaty was the same as the late Arthur Griffith's acceptance— that he did not regard it as any more the final settlement with England than that this is the final generation of Irishmen. In what spirit do the members of Cumann na nGaedheal accept it? Do they regard it “as the ne plus ultra to the march of the Irish nation”? Do they regard it as representing the utmost limit which we can achieve in the matter of independence? Will Deputy O'Connell tell us when he is going to start?

[321] Mr. O'Connell: I told you when I am going to start.

Mr. Lemass: Deputy O'Connell did nothing of the kind. Deputy O'Connell made quite a number of vague and general statements, but this Treaty has been in existence for eight years, and Deputy O'Connell, who tells us that he accepts it only as the irreducible minimum, has not told us when he is going to advocate that action should be taken to enlarge the measure of freedom it gave.

Mr. O'Connell: I said when the economic prosperity of this country would be developed with the powers that we already have.

Mr. Lemass: Does Deputy O'Connell stand for the maintenance of the Oath of Allegiance?

Mr. O'Connell: No.

Mr. Lemass: Deputy O'Connell advocates the removal of the Oath of Allegiance. Is there any other degrading obligation of the Treaty for the removal of which Deputy O'Connell is prepared to stand? In that respect, anyway, there seems to be a remarkable similarity between his policy and ours. We stand for the removal of the degrading obligations in the Treaty, and we are convinced that until these degrading obligations are gone there will not be in this country that self-respect and enthusiasm for its welfare which will make the revival of prosperity immediately possible. Undoubtedly we can improve the existing position without touching the Treaty at all. But if we want to establish here the conditions that all parties profess to desire we can only do so when we have got the spirit of self-confidence and self-respect revived in our people. It is quite obvious from the attitude of the majority in this House that we have a long way to go.

I think there are very few other points with which I want to deal. I will ask Deputies to realise, however, that it is not what happened in 1922 but what is going to happen in 1930 that really matters. Our attitude to [322] this House is quite clear. Our attitude to the Constitution and the Treaty is quite clear. Our economic policy has been defined. I believe that if this House will accept the motion moved by Deputy O'Kelly and elect Eamon de Valera to be President of the Executive Council they will have taken the first step towards the removal of the various political and economic barriers that are impeding our progress at the moment. I believe that until we have established and secured general acceptance of the fact that this country can only be happy when it is progressing, that stagnation means death, we will not be able to climb the barriers which always existed, or which have been erected in consequence of the inefficiency of the Cumann na nGaedheal administration in the past six years. As Deputy de Valera said in 1927:—

“The stubborn political and economic facts are of necessity the base from which any successful advance must be made. To ignore them would be to court defeat. A nation cannot march on an empty stomach. Our first and most strenuous effort must accordingly be devoted to repairing the present economic ruin. Sane effort and successful achievement are necessary to restore the old confidence. Unity in the national ranks will quickly follow, and with it will come back the old spirit of national courage and self-reliance. These are our convictions. Fianna Fáil was founded in the belief that the national instincts of the people would ultimately assert themselves. If the people give us a majority we will be the faithful guardians of their interests.”

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. P. Hogan): I sympathise with Deputy Lemass. I am willing to admit that he had an impossible task to do. That is to say, to explain away the various inconsistencies of Deputy de Valera. I rise to oppose, of course, the nomination of Deputy de Valera, and I feel at a disadvantage because opposing him at this stage is like flogging a dead horse, after the [323] speeches we have just listened to. That is the position. As the Minister for Defence pointed out, we are not electing a person. We are electing a policy, and the trouble that I am in is that I cannot know what is the policy. Like the Minister for Defence, I am at one with the Labour Party in that matter. I want to know what is the policy. In most Parties you get a leader, but in the Fianna Fáil Party we have three leaders.

Mr. Lemass: There is only one.

Mr. Hogan: You are making a mistake. You are not the leader.

Mr. Lemass: That mistake appears to be made more often by others than by myself.

Mr. Hogan: The real trouble about the Fianna Fáil Party is the old trouble. There is no leader to that Party. There are three leaders. You have, at the present moment, Deputy de Valera in America, who stands for war. You have Deputy Lemass at home, who stands, temporarily, for peace, and you have the one consistent and sterling patriot, Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly, the leader in this House, who stands for patriotism always, and nothing else. That is the position we are in with this Party. And the three of them speak with different voices. Deputy O'Kelly says nothing. Deputy O'Kelly is in the position that he is so good that he is good for nothing. Deputy de Valera talks war, and Deputy Lemass, pro tem., talks peace. It is no consolation to me or to any other Deputy in the House, or to the average citizen of this State, to know that if the circumstances were different the rôles might be reversed, We might very easily have Deputy de Valera, one of the trickiest politicians that ever happened in this country, talking peace. We might equally easy have Deputy Lemass in America talking war, and it would be no consolation for us all that time to have Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly between the two of them talking [324] patriotism. That might easily be the result.

Deputy Lemass is concerned about our raking up the Treaty issue and debating issues that happened in 1922, 1923 and 1924. We are not debating these issues. We are debating much more recent issues. I sympathise again with Deputy Lemass. I can well understand that Deputies opposite would be anxious that the events of 1922, 1923 and 1924 would not be raked up. They are a most disgraceful chapter—I agree with Deputy Lemass—in the history of this country. However, we are not reviving them here. We will deal with very much more recent events. What is the policy we are called upon to approve of in the person of Deputy de Valera? Whom are we to believe? There are three thimbles; under which thimble is the pea? We are electing, as the Minister for Defence has stated, a President who is to appoint the Executive to control the destinies of this country for good or evil and it is a queer commentary on the present position that the question which I asked now is a just question; that this thing is being done in an atmosphere so far as the proposer and seconder and principal are concerned of thimble rigging. It is being done in an atmosphere in which no Deputy here knows where Fianna Fáil stands. Deputy O'Connell made an attempt to get an answer from the Party opposite. Did he get a single answer from Deputy Lemass which has made any Deputy here one whit wiser than he was before? We know he has left us no wiser. Deputies opposite must realise that they have to be judged not by what they say they mean but by what they actually say. And I propose now to judge them by what they say. Lately we had Deputy Lemass, the leader at home, the peace-maker, the man of economic development, of old age pensions, tariffs, subsidies and doles, going so far that he bowed his crested head and tamed his heart of fire and made an incursion into English journalism. He gave a most interesting interview-article [325] to the “Daily Express” recently, which I have here and from which I would like to make a few quotations. I will take them in order:—

Fianna Fáil is a Republican Party. The main reason for its existence is to secure the establishment of a Republican Government in Ireland in our time.

Quite good so far as that goes.

We do not think that this object will be speedily or easily attained but we intend to work consistently and determinedly in that direction. We will work by what are usually described as “constitutional methods,” striving to extend the powers of the Twenty-Six County Government by the abolition of existing restrictions and to establish its authority over all the country.

In other words, we are back to the position that Deputy Lemass pro tem. is a constitutional Republican. He goes over to England and tells an English audience “we are only constitutional Republicans,” knowing perfectly well that the one meaning of these words is: “We will take a Republic when you agree to give it to us.” That is the position pro tem. of Deputy Lemass. I will come to the other leaders later on. He goes to the British and says: “We will take a Republic when you give it to us,” a constitutional Republican.

On the land annuities he says: “If Great Britain has the right to demand the land annuities that right must be capable of legal proof. We propose to hold the money until such proof has been produced to our satisfaction.” After all the talk and all the agitation of the past three years that is what the land annuity campaign has come to. Deputy Lemass tells the English people: “We will give you the Land Commission Annuities when you get a decree for them.” They are learning. If it were only serious, if he only meant it! What about derating? What about poor Deputy O'Dowd, whom Deputy Lemass's [326] statement sends into Siberia, into the political wilderness? Deputy O'Dowd declared a couple of days ago that he will never stand one day in Irish public life if a single cheque is sent over to England for land annuities after the Fianna Fáil Party comes into office. But Deputy Lemass says that he will hold the land annuities and will hand them to the British when he gets a decree, knowing perfectly well that that decree can be got at any moment.

Mr. Lemass: From whom?

Mr. Hogan: Deputy Lemass is concerned about the economic policy. There is nothing like going to the source. And the Deputy informs us what that policy is. He says: “Even in economic matters, however, the policy of Fianna Fáil is not anti-British.” Just the same as myself. Here I am without a national record——

Mr. Lemass: You were never even a Home Ruler.

Mr. Hogan: Never even a Home Ruler. One whose title to glory is the same title as Deputy Lemass, as I told him before, that I enjoyed three square meals a day in an internment camp for twelve months, the same as Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Fahy: Easter Week?

Mr. Hogan: Sure we were all out in Easter Week.

Mr. Fahy: I would be very glad if the Minister would tell us where he was in Easter Week.

Mr. Hogan: I have heard that talk perpetrated very often. Surely Deputy Fahy is not going to tell me that Deputy Lemass was out in Easter Week.

Mr. Fahy: I am.

Mr. Hogan: Then I was there also. I was at the Post Office and I did not see him and I am without a national record. There is the cream of patriotism, the last thing in Republicanism, not denationalised like the Independents as I read in the paper. [327] And Deputy Lemass's policy is the same as mine in economic matters. “We are not anti-British.”

Mr. Lemass: On a point of order I would point out that the motion is to elect Deputy de Valera as President.

Mr. Hogan: I want to know on what policy we are electing Deputy de Valera. I come to Deputy de Valera's policy. I am not interested in Deputy de Valera one bit. In that article in the “Daily Express” Deputy Lemass continues:

“We realise that it is inevitable that our trade with Britain will always be immensely more important to us than our trade with the rest of the world.” How often have I been criticised, how often have patriots wept over me because I said that! Here Deputy Lemass goes on to say:—“So long as Britain remains the largest market for our agricultural produce, we will be prepared to facilitate and, perhaps, even to encourage, by granting preferential rates of duty, the importation of British goods, not capable of being produced at home, in preference to the goods of other nations which buy little or nothing from us.” In that respect I am willing to admit that Deputy Lemass is my leader. I have not yet come out openly in favour of Empire Free Trade. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Lemass on Empire Free Trade as a policy which this country should adopt, but I am glad that it is left for Deputy Lemass to make that announcement. His words as the leader pro tem. of Fianna Fáil indicate that he stands for Empire Free Trade. What else does it mean?

Mr. Lemass: Will the Minister quote the sentences in which Empire is mentioned?

Mr. Hogan: Well, let us say Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales Free Trade—would he not let in Canada? Think it over and I am sure he will come to Canada and Australia. And this has all appeared in the Empire Free Trade organ. [328] Now, I agree with every word of that. I am willing to admit that it is sound sense. What I object to is, why sneak over to England to say that? That is what the Deputy has done. That is not the tune he plays down the country. Down the country we hear a lot about English imports and the necessity for stopping them; the enormity of sending to England our butter, eggs, bacon and cattle when we should keep them at home. Monday after Monday we read the Deputy's speeches at some meeting down the country telling the people of the country how unpatriotic it is to take English goods or to sell goods to England. But here is the Deputy with his leader in America, as usual 2,000 miles from the scene of battle, here is this Deputy who sneaks over to England to announce the policy that we have successfully put into operation for the last two years.

Mr. Lemass: Does the Minister say that he skips the reports of my speeches in the papers on Monday morning? That explains his ignorance.

Mr. Hogan: I know very well what you say; the speeches are all the same.

Mr. Lemass: Then the Minister has read them?

Mr. Hogan: There you have the attitude of Deputy Lemass. Where is the Republic? When the British give it to us—constitutional means. Where are the Land Commission annuities and where are the unfortunate people who are going to be saved from paying rates the moment Fianna Fáil gets into power? How does poor Deputy O'Dowd stand? We are told the annuities will be given the minute the British get a verdict in the courts. Deputy O'Dowd knows very well that that verdict is purely a matter of course. He knows that as well as I do, and he knows, too, that the lawyers have advised that we will be entitled to the annuities when the law is changed, and not till then. When the British get their decree we will [329] pay them over all the land annuities. Then, finally, we have this policy of Empire Free Trade. But what about the real leader, the chief in America?

In passing, although it is not a subject exactly in line, I would like to read one more sentence: “For example, the adoption of a protectionist policy, designed to secure the development of industries here, will react against the profitable export trade which Br