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 - 03 April, 1930

Nomination of Ministers.

The President: I have to announce that I have advised His Excellency the Governor-General of my nomination as President of the Executive Council, and I have received my appointment accordingly. I now move:

“Go n-aontuighidh an Dáil le hainmniúchán na dTeachtaí seo leanas mar Airí, chun bheith ina mbaill den Ard-Chomhairle, agus i gceannas na Ranna atá ainmrithe anso síos:—

Earnán de Blaghd, LeasUachtarán, i gceannas na [477] Roinne Airgid agus na Roinne Puist agus Telegrafa;

Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt, i gceannas na Roinne Cosanta;

Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh), i gceannas na Roinne Talmhaíochta;

Fionán O Loingsigh, i gceannas na Roinne Tailte agus Iascaigh;

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha, i gceannas na Roinne Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí;

Pádraig Mac Giollagáin, i gceannas na Roinne Tionnscail agus Tráchtála, agus na Roinne Gnóthaí Coigriche:

Seán O Suilleabháin i gceannas na Roinne Oideachais;

Séamus Mac Gearailt-O Cionnaoith, i gceannas na Roinne Dlí agus Cirt.

That the Dáil assents to the nomination of the following Deputies as Ministers, to be members of the Executive Council, and in charge of the Departments named hereunder:—

Deputy Ernest Blythe, Vice-President, in charge of the Department of Finance and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs;

Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald, in charge of the Department of Defence;

Deputy Patrick Hogan (Galway), in charge of the Department of Agriculture:

Deputy Finian Lynch, in charge of the Department of Lands and Fisheries;

Deputy Richard Mulcahy, in charge of the Department of Local Government and Public Health;

Deputy Patrick McGilligan in charge of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the Department of External Affairs.

Deputy John M. O'Sullivan, [478] in charge of the Department of Education;

Deputy James Fitzgerald Kenney, in charge of the Department of Justice.”

Mr. Ruttledge: I think the House is in a very peculiar position in view of the fact that no indication has been given by the President as to what the policy of the new Executive is going to be. Yesterday we expected to receive some indication, either from the proposer or the seconder of the motion for the election of the President, as to what his policy would be. Naturally to-day, when the President announced his Executive for election by the House, we expected some indication of the policy which is to be pursued by that Executive, but no such indication has been given to us. Are we to take it that it is now the policy of the President and the Executive which he proposes to have elected that the Old Age Pensions Bill will be shelved? Are we to take it that that Executive is not going to submit this Bill to the country? Are we to take it that no attempt is to be made, by way of instituting a Referendum or by some other method, to take the view of the country on that matter? When the Referendum was under discussion here before, we had it stated by Deputy Tierney and others that it was a relic of the Stone Age. Since that, a leader who is, I think, amongst the friends of the Party opposite—Mr. Baldwin—stated in England that he proposed to have a Referendum on a certain question in England, or, at any rate, to submit it for the views of the people there.

Mr. Hogan (Galway): Empire free trade?

Mr. Ruttledge: Empire free trade.

Mr. G. Boland: It is not the Stone Age all the same, is it?

The President: No, it is wooden.

Mr. Ruttledge: It is very wooden, and so far as the people opposite are concerned, anyway, it is [479] not what the people think, but what the Executive that is now proposed think is good for the people or bad for them, in the interests of the Party opposite. If the President is satisfied that he represents the views of the majority of the people, then a splendid opportunity is presented to him to submit the Bill to the country for the people's views on it. We have no indication of policy from the President, and no indication of policy from those on the opposite benches who spoke on the motion yesterday, except in so far as Deputy Hogan, I think, approved of the policy of the Minister for Justice in establishing law and order, and in so far as Deputy Mulcahy stated that their policy was to keep the country's feet on solid financial ground. These were the only two items of policy of which any indication was given. There was criticism of the policy of this Party, but that course. I believe, is always the practice in the case of people who have no definite policy themselves.

We would like to know, and the country is entitled to know, if a Bill is brought in here during the life of the Executive which it is now proposed to elect, to provide pensions for Ministers, if the Executive will support that Bill, considering that they think the country is in such a very impoverished condition that it cannot afford to give any assistance to the poor and needy such as it was proposed to provide for the old age pensioners in the Bill which was before the House last week. Is it the policy of the proposed Executive to provide large gratuities for able-bodied men retiring from the Army? Is it their policy to continue paying big pensions to able-bodied men, while saying at the same time that there is not a halfpenny to give to the poor and needy?

Supposing that a mutiny takes place in the Free State Army, is the policy of the proposed Executive to be to buy off that mutiny again by providing jobs, large gratuities and pensions for the people who are responsible? That has been the policy. [480] Is that policy to continue, if any trouble arises in the Army, in dealing with the people who are responsible by buying them off with big gratuities, jobs and pensions? Is the country not entitled to know that? That has been the policy of the people opposite. Is it to continue to be their policy?

Deputies on this side of the House referred yesterday to an article which appeared in the “Star” which indicated a certain viewpoint, expressed either by somebody in the Government or by an adherent of the Government. No definite denial has been given with regard to that statement. That paper is regarded, and rightly so, I believe, as the official organ of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. Are not the people entitled to know whether the idea expressed in that article represents the temperament, the mind and the viewpoint of the people opposite? Are the proposed Executive able to answer definitely and to say that that is their policy? They cannot have it both ways. It either is their policy to allow the Army to carry on in this way, to be in the position of dictating to the people in certain circumstances and eventualities, or it is not. If the people opposite are not afraid to answer they have an opportunity of doing so now. That article is clearly an incentive to the Army under certain circumstances to take up a certain attitude which will not be in accord with the views of the majority of the people. That is a matter on which this House should be in no doubt, and there should be no difficulty in explaining or in clearly defining what the position is. No attempt has been made so far to deal with it, but it is hoped that before this debate concludes and before the Executive is elected the matter will be clearly defined and clearly explained, and that the people will be able to understand what the position of the Army is in certain circumstances with regard to a Government elected by a majority of the people of the Twenty-six Counties.

I want to deal with the Department that has been controlled by [481] Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. Yesterday Deputy Hogan referred to the fact that the late Minister for Justice has established law and order. I suppose it depends on people's appreciation as to what law and order exactly mean. If the law and order to which Deputy Hogan referred is the law and order we have experienced, for the last three or four years particularly, then I am afraid that it is not the law and order that people are accustomed to appreciate and understand. Practically not a week has passed in which questions have not been raised here as to the activities of members of the Guards in arresting people, raiding houses, and assaulting people throughout the whole Twenty-six Counties. We have always been told by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney in answer that in connection with those raids and activities, assaults and illegal arrests the Guards were acting on well-founded suspicion, and that they were doing these things in their efforts to suppress crime and to prevent people who are out for assassination and for the subversion of the State from doing these things. We have always been told that when these things were done the Guards were acting on well-founded suspicion and good information. One of the usual answers, I think, when these questions were raised in this House was: “It is well known that the persons responsible for these things are engaged in anti-State activities and incitements to assassination.” We have been refused information as to the grounds of suspicion; we are supposed to accept the ex-Minister's word for it that these suspicions were well founded, that the information that had come to him was reliable, and particularly that he was acting in a constitutional and normal legal way in having those raids, arrests and so on made throughout the country.

A case arose and was debated in this House from time to time with regard to certain activities in Co. Clare, where a Mr. Ryan was assaulted and beaten. Attempts have been made by various public bodies [482] to have a public inquiry into that matter, and an inquiry was demanded in this House on debates on the adjournment. The Minister then declined to have that inquiry. Affidavits were made by responsible people testifying to what had been done and to the activities of which complaint was made in this House. These affidavits were brought to the notice of the then Minister, but no action whatever in the way of having a public inquiry was taken by him. Of course it was obvious to everybody who wished to see it impartially that the Minister then was afraid, as I believe he would be afraid to-day, to let the light of publicity in on the acts and activities of those irregular forces in County Clare. A case was raised from Galway, and the Minister stated that inquiries were held in all such cases. I know a case in County Mayo where no inquiry was held, although all the facts were brought to the notice of the Department of Justice.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Is that where the Deputy brought an action unsuccessfully?

Mr. Ruttledge: That action is not finished yet.

Mr. MacEntee: We will have something to say about that.

Mr. Ruttledge: I will have something to say later about that. In the case I referred to in Mayo the facts were brought to the notice of the Department of Justice and no inquiry, secret or public, was held. Of that I am well aware, and I challenge Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney to deny that. Allegations of rather serious assaults were made. It was a case where a number of people were arrested — Republicans of course—presumably on suspicion of being involved or engaged in a hold-up of a mail car in which a sum of between fifty and one hundred pounds was taken at the point of the revolver. In that case, as in every other case where any crime is committed, the Guards proceeded to raid and arrest Republicans in the [483] area indiscriminately, never looking amongst the members or ex-members of their own force. In the case I refer to, people were taken out of their beds and kept a day—some of them for forty-eight hours—in cells in Ballina barracks, and the Guards scoured the whole area, which, according to their evidence in court, contained 99 per cent. Republicans, but they never thought where they might likely find the criminal, who was an ex-member of the Guards. He was afterwards convicted and got five years' penal servitude.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Through their efforts.

Mr. Ruttledge: Yes, through the Guards' efforts. Perhaps it was rather too patent at the time for them to avoid arresting him, but they left him there a considerable time, at any rate, before they bothered about him. It was a fortnight or three weeks afterwards when they did so, although all the Republican houses in the area had been raided before that and Republicans thrown into prison indiscriminately. I hope the Guards will hear something more about it. Here in Dublin raids have been carried out indiscriminately. People have been taken from their work, and many have lost their positions owing to continued raiding and arrests. When these matters were raised in this House we had the usual stereotyped reply from the Minister informing us that the Guards were acting on suspicion, that they had good grounds and well-founded information; of course, so well-founded that the Minister could never disclose one iota or atom of it to this House. The House was supposed to take his word; the House was supposed to take him as a paragon of truth; it dare not question the Minister when he stated that the Guards were acting on well-founded information. The House dare not challenge him and say that these arrests were illegal. These cases have been taken into court since. In some of the cases, as Deputy [484] Fitzgerald-Kenney is aware, the Judge directed the jury that the only matter with which they had to deal was the question of damages. If he had the information that he tried to put it across this House he had, would he not have put it before the jury in these cases? Was the Minister telling the truth when he stated that the information was well-founded as to suspicion? The people of the country can judge if there was any foundation for these suspicions. If the Minister could produce any evidence based on these suspicions, would it not have been produced before the Judge and jury before whom these people were tried? One would assume that the Department of Justice, at any rate, would not act illegally. Has it not been established that they have acted illegally? Has it not been established that these people were acting under the then Minister for Justice, were encouraged by him, patted on the back as it were, and urged on to continue this illegal, unjustified and unfounded policy of wholesale arrests and imprisonment of Republicans? Was the Minister, if he had not time to attend to the matter himself, not able to get a first year law student to advise him whether he was acting legally or illegally?

Dr. Ryan: Or the hall porter?

A Deputy: Or Deputy Byrne?

Mr. J.J. Byrne: I will come on when you come on, my boy.

Mr. Ruttledge: It is established now, at any rate, beyond any doubt, and I think the Minister will not dispute it, that he acted illegally, and that the people who acted under him acted illegally, in arresting those people. He will also, I think, have to admit that he had no grounds for arresting these people, that he had no suspicions which were well-founded, that the suspicions that existed in the distorted imagination of those people were suspicions that were encouraged and pushed forward by the attitude of the then Minister for Justice, and by their [485] own inclination or disposition to punish Republicans in the City of Dublin. But those people are getting redress. Many more cases are to follow, I believe. What I want to know and what this House is entitled to know is, who is going to pay for the policy that has been adopted in those cases by the Department of Justice? If those people acted illegally, surely to goodness it is not going to be asked that the taxpayers of the country who, we all know, have been overtaxed, and who, we were told last week, could not be asked to budget for a penny, should pay for the ignorance or the prejudiced, blind policy of the Department of Justice. Those men who arrested innocent people, who flung innocent men into jail and deprived them of their positions in this city, were themselves criminals, because, surely, there cannot be any more clear definition of a criminal than a man who, without any justification, goes and takes the body of another, flings him into prison, and keeps him there without any right or justification whatever.

Before this House elects this Executive, let it be made clear, at any rate, whether it is the policy of that Executive, as portrayed and displayed by the late Minister for Justice, to pursue that same policy in the future; as to whether its definition of law and order is one law for one section of the community and an other law for another, because that is the policy that is being pursued; whether its definition of law and order is that one section of the community can act illegally. It will not recognise the laws which the Executive established itself. It will be the first to break them. Are they going to break the laws or keep the laws made by them? Even if your bitterness and prejudices and one-sided outlook with regard to a certain section of the community are such, are you going to make and continue to make yourselves, to the cost of the taxpayers of the country, the laughing-stock of the world by not being able to interpret laws made by yourselves or adapted? Are you going to continue to come into this House, [486] and when questions are asked with regard to arrests carried out in the country, to simply say that you are acting legally; you are acting on good information. But when you go to the test of your information you cannot prove it. You were put to the test. Why, then, does a responsible Minister get up in this House and try to put across an untruth, for it is nothing else, to try and represent to the country a state of affairs and a state of conditions that do not exist?

That is what has happened. As I have said before if the Minister were able to support it he would have supported it in the one place he had an opportunity of doing so. He has often said, “Go to the courts.” We have gone to the courts and many more cases will occur in the courts, but who is going to pay for the ignorance of that Department or for the want of proper supervision or control of that Department, or who is going to pay for the blind, prejudiced policy and bitterness against a certain section of the community which will come very heavily if it is to fall on the taxpayer? Will the President state whether, in connection with those people who are being sued and decreed in the courts, and there are many other similar cases coming on in various parts of the country as well as in Dublin— the taxpayers of this country are going to be responsible and pay the cost of defending those people who are acting illegally and who are under his Department? Are they going to be put in the position that when an action is brought they will have the assistance of the State in an effort to try to help those criminals and assist them out of the illegalities in which they find themselves? Is that the policy of the Department of Justice?

I would also like to know in view of the fact that those decrees have been made and in view of the stated policy in this House for so long by the Department of Justice—this policy of encouraging the C.I.D. and others to pursue recklessly, indiscriminately and without any well-founded [487] suspicion or evidence, this section of the people, and in view of what has happened, and in view of the fact that the Minister has broadcasted his encouragement to them to commit those illegalities—has he, since those decrees have been made, sent out any circulars or instructions to the C.I.D. or the Guards that they must be more careful not to break the law in future? I believe he has not. I believe that if elected he will pursue the same policy of heaping illegality upon illegality and will pursue his prejudiced, blind, bitter, bad policy of arresting people upon imagination without any suspicion. But there is an opportunity provided in the motion now before the House for this House to remedy that. The President has got a chance and the House has got a chance it ought to be glad to avail of if it is going to save the taxpayers from a considerable burden when money is so hard-found, and when the Executive says their coffers are so very low that they cannot afford to give any increased assistance to the old age pensioners. The House has the opportunity now of remodelling, reconstructing and changing the whole policy and that of the Department of Justice in particular.

Let the House remember if it is going to elect Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney to the position of Minister for Justice that then they are going to have the same illegalities, the same reckless arresting, the same acting on grounds on which no sound suspicion could be based, the policy of what they call law and order. It reminds one of the phrase “How many crimes are committed in thy name?” The Minister, during the time he has been in office at any rate, has been responsible for more breaches of law and order than any member of that Executive could be responsible for. He has encouraged crime amongst the Guards; he has encouraged illegality among the Guards, and has in every way done what will eventually result in subverting and rendering dangerous in [488] this country a large section of that force.

It is a dangerous thing to start encouraging illegalities. It is a bad example that nobody should create; at any rate, a Minister of the State should not be responsible for illegalities. The ignorance or the prejudice of his Department in acting illegally is going to be responsible for a very increased burden on the tax-payers. Everything that has happened is largely due in the first instance to the encouragement given by the Department of Justice, and for these reasons and for no other reasons I think the Executive proposed by the President should be rejected by the House.

Mr. Aiken: The President has certainly presented us with a very nice bouquet this evening. If you were to pick from the whole of the Cumann na nGaedheal ranks throughout the country I do not think you could find a group of men of whom the country are more heartily sick than the group he has put forth here to-day for nomination as Ministers. If this Dáil are going to elect Ministers to do something for the country they should find some other group. If we are going to make any progress in this country the people will soon have to return some group of men who will elect a President and Ministers who will put the people's interests and the interest of Ireland above the interests of the British and the pro-Britishers here in this country. We saw in the “Irish Times” this morning that for two and a half years the Independents have kept Mr. Cosgrave's Government in office. During seven years the interests for which the Independent members stand in the Dáil have been the social and economic mainstay of the present administration. It winds up by saying that every man has his price, and if the Independents do not get their price the Government will have to go.

Mr. Davin: Hear, hear; that is the stuff to give them.

Mr. Aiken: Certainly up till now the Independents have got their [489] price. The price they got was the throwing over of the national traditions by men who started a war here to oust the British. The people of this country who are not so bombastic as Mr. Blythe—the majority of the people of this country who fought during the Black and Tan war did not go about shouting before the war started that the road to freedom was a sword-track through the ranks of their enemies— the people of this country only want their rights. They do not want war. We did not start the war with the British. It was the British started it, but when it did come on some of the men who created the position here when the war started got out. Mr. Blythe was very loud in his blood-and-thunder talk before the war about sword-tracks through the ranks of his enemies to freedom, but when the war started he was a place-loving citizen. He was against the shooting of policemen. It was a case of: “Oh, Shenandoah, I love your daughter.” He was very fond of their daughters and pleaded as to why they should get off.

If we wanted a bad lawyer to fight a bad case. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenny would be a good selection. But what this country is in need of, as Deputy Ruttledge pointed out, is somebody in the Ministry of Justice who will act legally or act according to the rules which he has laid down. We do not object to the Ministers acting according to the rules which they have laid down. What we object to is their hypocrisy. They say one thing and act another. President Cosgrave talked around the country about the ten fundamental conditions. One of them is an efficient police force, and in order to manage an efficient police force he puts in charge of the Department of Justice a bad lawyer like the Minister for Justice. In order to recall to the minds of the Deputies the type of answer that the Minister for Justice gave us regarding some of his illegalities I will read you a question that Deputy Kerlin put to the Minister and the answer. Deputy Kerlin asked the Minister for Justice [490] whether he was aware that in the case of a Garda prosecution in Dublin on or about August 27th. 1929, against a Mr. William Murray for riding a motor bicycle without tax or licence, the evidence of a detective officer was recommended by the presiding judge to be sent to the Garda authorities for investigation; whether a court of enquiry was instituted to consider the case; what were the exact charges preferred against the detective officer concerned; what were the findings of the court, and what action was taken by the Garda authorities as the result of such findings.

The Minister replied that an inquiry was held, that he was found guilty of neglect of duty in failing to report promptly any evidence which he could give for the defendant, and that he made false and misleading statements in a written report to a superior officer as to his movements on the occasion in question. The Minister then said that the imposition of punishment was postponed for six months, pending consideration of reports in the meantime of his conduct in the uniform branch to which he was transferred. That reply was on 12th March. The prosecution took place on 27th August. I ask the Minister to say if this Guard, who was found guilty of making a false and misleading statement in a written report to a superior officer, was still on the active list of the Guards. He said he was. That is a nice proposition.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Would the Deputy read the whole answer?

Mr. Aiken: The Minister can read the whole answer if he likes. Does the Minister deny that my extracts are correct?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: It does not suit you.

Mr. Aiken: I do not want to read all the blath-flum of the Minister. I have stated to the House the salient facts in the Minister's answer. The fact is that the Minister admitted here in the Dáil that six months after an officer was found [491] guilty of making false and misleading statements to a superior officer he was still in the Civic Guard Force.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: The man is dismissed.

Mr. Aiken: That is the type of man the Minister wants the people to think are going to carry out law and order in this country. They will do one thing, and that is carry out the orders of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. They have their price just like the Independents, and we can always get, unfortunately, in this or in any other country, half-starved men to do dirty work for money. The poor devils who are in the Civic Guards will do the Minister's dirty work because there is no alternative for them. The men who are in the Civic Guards, or in any other Department of State, if given an opportunity to do honest and decent work and get a fair return, would do it if they were given a proper lead. What is wrong with this country is that the young men are being led and conscripted by economic circumstances, created by the Ministers, to do England's dirty work and the dirty work of their tools here, the Government. That is the situation. One would like to go through all the Ministers, but I am not going through them. If we wanted a bad lawyer we would get Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. If we were wanting a lecturer on public morality we would send for Deputy Fitzgerald. Deputy Fitzgerald has been treating us here to lectures from all sorts of religious publications for a long time.

Mr. Hogan: That is correct.

Mr. Aiken: Deputy Fitzgerald is a real, modern saint. He talks about public morality and civic virtue, and a lot of modern stuff. One would be inclined to call him a latter-day saint. But if we wanted a proper Minister for Defence I think we [492] would get somebody else. Here recently in the Dáil it was found that the Minister did not know what the cost of the Army was. He was £200,000 out in his estimate as to the cost of the Army. I think that this country, in the economic state in which it is, should have as Ministers, and in particular as Minister for a Department that is costing this country £1,600,000 a year, a man who is able to estimate much nearer than £200,000 what his Department would cost. The Minister was out £200,000 in his statement regarding the cost of the Army. That certainly is not good enough. But when you consider the number of people who would be kept in fair comfort on that £200,000 if it were devoted to that purpose, the matter becomes important.

The President said that if the Old Age Pensions Bill went through, it would cost between £200,000 and £300,000. The Government made a great deal of talk about a sum of £200,000 in relation to old age pensions. They said it could never be got. The Ministers were up in arms against it. It was going to ruin the country. The Minister for Defence did not think much about it when he did not know within £200,000 what the Army was costing. He is surely a nice type of man to put in charge of any Department. If we are going to do anything in this country we have got to get men in charge of Government Departments who will run these Departments in the interests of the ordinary people of this country, and not in the interests of a section of the people who are pro-British in their outlook. We do not object to these people holding these views. They are entitled to hold them and to express them openly. But we object to Ministers holding one set of views and giving expression to them in public, but holding another set of views behind the scenes. We object to their going to the people and saying: “We are going to act in your interests.” and then come back here and make back-door arrangements with the Independents.

[493] Mr. Davin: I regard this as the second act in the greatest political drama that has been so far staged by the Cosgrave Ministry. The first act was certainly played to the satisfaction of the audience last night, and, to a certain extent, to the satisfaction of the members on these benches. I say it was played to our satisfaction, because the division last night has succeeded in separating the sheep from the lambs. Deputy Duggan will in future be assured that the sheep who used to trespass on neighbouring properties in the past will respond to the crack of his whip in future without any doubt whatsoever. I hope that the new party which was formed as a result of the last division last night will find a new name which the majority of the people will understand. I know that Deputy de Valera, who was looking at the first act from Minneapolis, has disapproved of the attitude of some of his own actors. That is very satisfactory to me and to the members of this Party.

The President: Did you expect anything else?

Mr. Davin: Well, you never know how a man can look at a thing from a distance.

An Ceann Comhairle: That is a little irrelevant to this motion.

Mr. Davin: With your permission, sir, I was trying to lead up to certain points. I would certainly suggest to the principal actors of the Fianna Fáil Party that in taking part in political drama in future they would keep in telephonic communication with the producer, so that they can understand what he is saying from behind the scenes.

Mr. Hogan (Galway): That is the whole trouble.

Mr. Davin: In relation to the motion on the Order Paper, the members of the Labour Party strongly object to the re-election of the present Ministry, particularly to the Minister for Finance, who is mainly responsible for the so-called political crisis which has led up to the discussion which is now taking place. It [494] is the action of the Minister for Finance in refusing to provide the necessary money for the implementation of Deputy Ward's Bill that has led up to the resignation of the Cosgrave Government. I would like to ask Deputy Blythe, or rather the President, who, I presume, will reply for the Deputies he is now proposing, whether he is not satisfied that some case has been made for an alteration of the existing regulations in reference to the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act?

Does President Cosgrave admit that a fair and reasonable case was made for some alteration of the existing pension laws and, if so, will he or Deputy Blythe, who is now proposed for re-election, state to this House in what respect, if any, they propose to amend the existing pension laws? Deputy Blythe has on several occasions in the past challenged the authority of this House in so far as he has ignored the majority views of the House as expressed upon certain matters, and he has certainly on several occasions challenged the authority of one of the chief officers of this House. One of the chief officers of this House, the Comptroller and Auditor-General, is responsible for accounting to this House for all the moneys voted by the House in connection with the various public services.

The Public Accounts Committee appointed by this House, which apparently is not thought very much of by the Minister for Finance, although he has the controlling majority on that Committee, has had occasion to bring under the notice of the House for the past three or four years, certain matters in which they thought that the Ministry had out-stepped its duties and its authority. I refer in the first place to the action of the Minister for Finance in refusing to recognise the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee in reference to the moneys expended under the Military Service Pensions Act. Much more serious still is his recent action in [495] ignoring on two or three occasions the definite recommendations of that Committee in regard to excessive expenditure under certain sub-heads of the Army Estimates. In the Appropriation Accounts recently circulated to Deputies and dealing with the accounts for 1928-29 the following paragraph is found under the signature of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in connection with Vote 64 for the Army, sub-head A (2), Gratuities:—

The expenditure under this sub-head amounted to £228,403 15s. 2d. being £216,403 15s. 2d. in excess of the amount provided in the Estimate. The excess expenditure was met through the savings on other sub-heads. In view of the comments of the Public Accounts Committee in their report of the accounts for the years 1926-27 and 1927-28 I have considered it necessary to call attention to the extensive use of virement in this sub-head.

The Public Accounts Committee unanimously agreed with the previous recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in regard to this particular aspect of Government expenditure. In their Report dealing with the Appropriation Accounts for 1927-28 the Committee commented as follows:—

The amount provided in the Army Estimates for gratuities to officers on retirement was £5,000 in each of the years 1926-27 and 1927-28. The amounts actually expended were £47,515 and £43,759, respectively, and the excess expenditure was met by the exercise of virement in each year. The Committee is of opinion that the payment of such large sums without the sanction of the Dáil at any stage is not satisfactory, and in view of the Minister's statement that “virement in the normal course will not be exercised in respect of expenditure incurred or proposed to be incurred in any way which seriously differs from [496] details presented to the Dáil,” it hopes that in future cases of this kind, especially where the expenditure arises from a change of policy, as the case quoted would seem to indicate, supplementary estimates will be introduced.

Now, the Minister has deliberately ignored the last recommendation of the Committee and exceeded the expenditure in the Vote for 1928-29 by such a large amount as £216,403. Are Deputies, regardless of Party, prepared to allow the Minister for Finance to ignore the wishes of a Committee set up by the House, and to ignore the deliberate instructions and recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor-General? If Deputy Blythe is prepared to continue that attitude of opposition to the properly-appointed officer and the properly-appointed Committee of the House, I say he is not a fit man to hold the position of Minister for Finance. That is one of the principal reasons why we on these benches consider the Deputy is unfit for the position proposed for him by the President. We would like to hear from the President what he has to say in regard to these very important matters. We have been told, both in the House and through the country since Deputy Ward's Bill was introduced, that there is no money to meet it. The President resigned and gave as his reason for refusing to put the Bill into operation that he had not the necessary money. Ministers appointed here have no authority to expend any moneys not properly provided for in the Estimates. Every Deputy who stands for the good government of the country would like to know what the President has to say regarding the attitude of the proposed Minister for Finance in connection with these important matters which affect every taxpayer in the country.

Mr. Lemass: Some time ago the leader-writer of the “Star” said that the policy of the Labour Party was founded on the principle that they must not vote too often with either Fianna Fáil or Cumann na [497] nGaedheal. No doubt, that explains why Deputy Davin, before proceeding to attack Cumann na nGaedheal a few moments ago, had to balance the account by making a few preliminary remarks about Deputy de Valera. That form of attack was to be expected from Deputy Davin because he is one of the five Labour Deputies who are to be placed in a privileged position in consequence of a decision of the Executive of a British Trade Union arrived at some time ago.

Mr. Davin: May I ask the Deputy to quote his authority for even suspecting that?

Mr. O'Connell: The Deputy does not want any authority.

Mr. Gorey: He never did.

An Ceann Comhairle: Surely we are not discussing Deputy Davin.

Mr. Davin: I do not mind the Deputy doing it, but he is making statements that are not justified.

Mr. Lemass: I am prepared to admit in explanation that the only name mentioned in the report I have seen was that of a Labour candidate in the city of Limerick. The name was that of the Mayor of Limerick, whose principal political activity is singing “God Save the King” on every possible occasion.

Mr. Davin: May I inform the ignorant Deputy that I am not a member of the Union referred to?

Mr. Lemass: In that-case, Deputy Davin will not enjoy the £20 a quarter that the others will get.

Mr. Davin: That finishes the Deputy's argument.

An Ceann Comhairle: Perhaps Deputy Lemass will agree that the Mayor of Limerick is more irrelevant than Deputy Davin. He is not here.

Mr. Davin: The Deputy is not well informed, any way.

Mr. Lemass: We have been asked to adopt the motion moved by the [498] President to the effect that certain Deputies mentioned therein should be nominated to form the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann. I cannot understand how President Cosgrave, having been afforded this God-given opportunity of getting rid of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, could make up his mind to put forward this proposal for his re-nomination. If there is any Minister whose failure as an administrator is outstanding, that Minister is Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. Not merely has he not succeeded in instilling a sense of discipline in the forces under his control, but he has repeatedly in the Dáil and outside deliberately encouraged indiscipline. Many examples of that can be offered.

I might content myself with quoting one case to which I made an attempt to refer some time ago. I have in mind an occurrence at Newport. I am now free to refer to it, because the legal proceedings that arose out of it terminated within the last fortnight with a final decision against the Guards involved. On Christmas Eve the Guards of Newport, having decided that the situation there was so terribly dull that it was unendurable, proceeded to organise an attack on the barracks. Having, as the evidence produced in the court showed, proceeded to get nicely intoxicated, they embarked upon a tour around the streets firing shots. On the strength of the shots they proclaimed loudly that the barracks was being attacked. They then rushed into the houses of every well-known supporter of Fianna Fáil and assaulted them. I am glad to say that these supporters have succeeded in recovering damages.

Mr. Morrissey: They were not all supporters of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Lemass: Some were supporters of the Labour Party. The Minister for Justice, instead of denouncing such conduct, facilitated them in defending the actions brought by those people who were assaulted The case was appealed from court to court on money afforded out of the Central Fund, and only after every [499] possible legal expedient had been tried was there a final decision given.

Mr. Hogan (Galway): I am not interested, but I think that this case is sub judice. I think it is being appealed to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Lemass: If it is, I am very sorry, but it was stated very clearly in the Press report that the matter was finally decided.

Mr. Rice: It was stated quite clearly that leave was given by the High Court to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Lemass: The position is this: that the people concerned, having taken an action against the Civic Guards and won it in the Circuit Courts, had to bear the costs of an appeal to the High Court. A retrial was ordered, and the case was taken back to the Circuit Court, and those who were assaulted won it. The case was then brought to the High Court, and they won again. Now, the Guards, financed by the State, are going to go further. We have often been asked why it is that persons assaulted by the Guards do not take their cases into court. That is a very sufficient answer. A person assaulted by the Guards would have to be a millionaire in order to win his case.

We can, however, ignore that particular case and deal with others. Does the Minister for Agriculture deny that the Guards have participated in bogus attacks on barracks?

Mr. Hogan: I was only concerned with the case. I had it on good authority that the case was sub judice, and it is not right to discuss it.

Mr. Lemass: I am accepting that. I am asking is it denied by any member of the Executive Council that to their knowledge members of the Guards participated in bogus attacks on barracks?

Mr. Hogan: It is.

[500] Mr. Lemass: Has the Minister examined the files in the Department of Justice? Will the Minister for Justice deny that inquiries were undertaken by him or his predecessor into cases in which it was admitted by Guards that they had participated in such bogus attacks?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I never heard of such a case.

Mr. Lemass: Let the Minister go back and examine the files.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: To what case is the Deputy referring?

Mr. Lemass: I am not referring to one in particular. I will mentioned one, however—the attack on Portlaw barracks in 1925.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I never heard of it.

Mr. Lemass: I say that the Minister for Justice has failed completely to instil a sense of discipline in a certain section of the force under his charge. Not merely has he failed to instil that sense of discipline, but he has deliberately encouraged a sense of indiscipline. He has proved himself absolutely incompetent, no matter from what aspect you view his administration. Not merely has he failed to instil a sense of discipline, but he has failed to create efficiency. I said yesterday, and I repeat to-day, that in practically every major crime which has occurred in this country since the Minister was appointed, the Guards have failed to bring anyone to justice. Undoubtedly, they are very efficient in arresting small boys for throwing snowballs or playing handball in the streets. We hear frequently of their efficiency in hunting down distillers of poteen, and persons engaged in other illegal activities of that kind, but when it comes to crime of a big nature, particularly crime with a political tinge, the Guards prove themselves always to be hopelessly inefficient. The only action that they could see fit to take has been declared by Judges and juries to be illegal. That action [501] has been repeatedly defended by the Minister in this House.

Before the Dáil passes the motion which the President moved, asking for the reappointment of Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney as the Minister for Justice, it should have an assurance that these illegal activities for which he has been responsible are going to cease. Deputy O'Connell yesterday referred to the fact that this is not a normal country. In any normal country a Minister for Justice who was responsible for the formulation of a policy of that kind, a policy which was declared to be illegal by the Courts of the land, would have been asked to resign by the President. He certainly would not have been allowed to continue in office. Here, not merely have we such a Minister for Justice allowed to continue in office, but when the President was afforded an opportunity of putting him painlessly out of the Cabinet he refused to take it. From the point of view of discipline, of efficiency, of mere legality, the Minister has been unable to control the police force in the country. For that reason, and for that reason alone, this motion should be rejected.

There are, however, other reasons why it should be rejected. The Minister for Agriculture had a lot to say yesterday to which I would like to refer to-day, at least in part. Before going on to that there is one sentence in his speech which concerns me personally and to which I would like to draw attention, because it gives me an opportunity——

An Ceann Comhairle: The technical rule is—I do not propose to enforce it in these particular circumstances—that every debate should be self-contained.

Mr. Lemass: It merely arises in this way. I want to give the House some personal proof that the proposed Minister for Defence has some martial knowledge. I know he has. The Minister for Agriculture yesterday questioned whether or not I participated in the Rising of 1916.

Mr. Hogan: I accept that you did, [502] but do not be always talking about your record.

Mr. Lemass: I am not talking of it at the moment. I want to tell the Minister that the first time I met or saw the Minister for Defence was in the Post Office in 1916. I was quite a young fellow then. I came down from the roof where I had been for two days. I was exceedingly hungry, and I was ordered to the cook-house for a meal. I was provided with a mug of tea and half a loaf of bread. I was about to wire into it when a man with an Oxford accent said: “That is too much for one man.” He took the half loaf of bread and cut it in two. As I say, that was the first time I ever saw the Minister for Defence.

Mr. Hogan: I am willing to admit that that is good circumstantial evidence.

Mr. Lemass: The report of the Minister's speech yesterday is headed “Flogging a Dead Horse.” The Minister, of course, is an advocate of flogging. He has a mediaeval mind. In fact the whole Executive Council, I think, advocate flogging.

A Deputy: Dead horses?

Mr. Lemass: No, flogging human beings. They introduced a law to legalise the flogging of human beings. Will that continue to be the policy of the Executive Council? The Minister for Agriculture has been called “the flogging Minister” and the President has been called “flogging Bill.” Are we to have this mediaeval policy continued in operation? If so, will the President tell us why he proposes to stop at flogging? Why not introduce the thumb-screw, the rack, and the pitch cap? If the Minister for Agriculture lived a hundred and fifty years ago I believe that he would have been a member of the Yeos and would have made the use of the pitch-cap his favourite argument. There is another personal point to which I would like to refer. The Minister for Agriculture referred to three leaders of Fianna Fáil. I say [503] that there is only one leader, and that is Deputy de Valera, and he is the leader because he is the best man in the Party. I must say that never in my experience have I met any man with a clearer vision or a sounder judgment than Deputy de Valera, and the day on which the Minister for Agriculture is fit to blacken his boots that day he will be entitled to be treated with respect here. Deputy de Valera is leader because, as Deputy O'Kelly said yesterday, he is the outstanding man of his generation. I am not the leader, and I am not the deputy-leader, because I am not fit to be while these men are in the Party.

Mr. Hogan: You are too modest entirely.

Mr. Lemass: However, we will get on to other matters. The Minister for Defence said that I favoured a policy of Empire free trade. I do not.

Mr. Hogan: That is what is here in the paper.

Mr. Lemass: It is not what is there.

Mr. Hogan: Do you repudiate it?

Mr. Lemass: The Minister for Agriculture is one of those whose names appear in the motion. He is a convicted slanderer. He is the one Deputy who has had the distinction of appearing before a judge and jury and being convicted of slander.

Mr. Hogan: On a point of order I take this opportunity of saying that there was only one slander committed in connection with that case, and that was committed by Deputies of the Opposite Party, who went into the witness-box and swore that the Volunteers pre-Truce were authorised to rob banks and post-offices. That was a foul slander, and that was the only slander committed.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister says that now under the cover of the privilege of this Dáil.

[504] Mr. Hogan: I will say it outside if the Deputy wishes, and I have said it before.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Minister sit down? We are discussing a motion that the House should assent to the nomination by the President of certain Deputies to hold certain Ministries. This is a peculiarly democratic procedure, not having any parallel in any Parliament of which we have knowledge. It is open, it seems to me, to very grave abuse, but if it is intended that this debate should proceed on a basis of discussion of the personal character of these Deputies, and any other people in the House, then the debate, I think, should not proceed on those lines. In any event, these particular Deputies were assented to by the House in October, 1927, and I think the debate now should be confined to the discussion of their political operations since that date. Charge and counter-charge on personal questions will not lead us to any decision on the matter with any credit to ourselves.

Mr. Lemass: The point is that the House has agreed, through its election of Deputy Cosgrave to be President, that a Cumann na nGaedheal Executive take office. The particular point which we are now discussing is as to whether the eight individuals mentioned here are the best individuals available in the ranks of Cumann na nGaedheal to form an Executive Council. That makes it necessary that we must make some personal reference to them on the question whether they are personally qualified or not. I am entitled to make these personal references, and I am trying to make them as inoffen sively as possible.

An Ceann Comhairle: I think that we should confine ourselves to the period which elapsed since these names were last before the House in October, 1927.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister told us that he had no national record. That is an argument against his election. Reference was made to what happened [505] in 1916. In 1916 Deputy Cosgrave was fighting for the freedom of this country. I do not know what happened to him, but he got such a shock on that occasion he has not been the same man since. While he was fighting, the Minister for Agriculture was slinking around the streets of Loughrea denouncing the looters who had broken the Imperial peace.

Mr. Hogan: I want any proof of that statement, good, bad or indifferent. I say that there is not a word of truth, direct or indirect, in it, and I challenge any Deputy on those benches—and there are Deputies here from Galway—to make that statement or to give the slightest proof of it. I will have to have that cleared up.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Lemass has accepted the ruling just now that we are confined to a discussion of the operations of the Deputies named in the motion since October, 1927, but in the next sentence he goes back to 1916. The Minister for Agriculture says that he wants proof. That is precisely what we cannot have in this House when allegations are made. This debate cannot be diverted into an attempt to prove that the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Lemass, or someone else, took a particular line of conduct, or stated a particular thing, in 1916, or at a later date. The Minister's denial should be accepted and we should proceed to political questions.

Mr. Hogan: I want that statement either withdrawn or substantiated, as I say that there can be proof brought forward. There are Deputies here from my country.

Mr. Lemass: I do not think that there was anything unparliamentary in the expression. I am not prepared to withdraw it unless An Ceann Comhairle directs me to do so.

Mr. Hogan: Just one moment——

Mr. Boland: On a point of order.

Mr. Hogan: One Deputy at a time. Let us have this decided. Deputy [506] Lemass stated that during Easter Week I went around denouncing the people who went out in Easter Week as looters and blackguards who broke the Imperial peace. I say that it is untrue; that there is no truth whatever in it. I say that I am in a rather strong position, because on the few occasions in my life on which I did come out, was that occasion, and what I said was in the papers, and Deputy Fahy knows it. I want the statement either substantiated or withdrawn, and I am entitled to that.

Mr. Aiken: While Deputy Boland was absent, the Minister said that Deputy Boland had sworn in the Courts that the I.R.A. had received orders to rob banks and post offices. Will he repeat that?

Mr. Hogan: I will deal with that case.

An Ceann Comhairle: Let me hear the point.

Mr. Aiken: The point is this. I want the Minister for Agriculture to repeat that now when Deputy Boland is here.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister did not mention Deputy Boland.

Mr. Lemass: He is the Deputy concerned.

An Ceann Comhairle: I want to get this settled because it is desirable, not that this particular matter should be settled, but that this particular debate should be put in order. The Minister for Agriculture did not mention Deputy Boland's name in my hearing, but if there is a connection I will hear him.

Mr. Lemass: He mentioned people here.

Mr. Aiken: There was only one Deputy who went into the witness-box in that case from this Party. The Minister said that the Deputy concerned stated that the I.R.A. had received orders to rob banks and post offices.

Mr. Hogan: Yes. Which point am I to deal with?

[507] An Ceann Comhairle: I want to hear from the Minister what precisely he said.

Mr. Hogan: What I said precisely was this: that in the case to which Deputy Lemass referred there was one slander, and one slander only, committed, and that was committed by a Deputy whom I will name now, Deputy Boland. He went into the witness-box and said that the pre-Truce Volunteers were authorised to take moneys out of the banks and post offices.

Deputies: “Rob” you said.

Mr. Hogan: Which is exactly the same thing.

Mr. Boland: I quite agree. It is exactly the same thing. I said that.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is there a difference between the words “take” and “rob” in the context?

Mr. Boland: Not to my mind.

Mr. Hogan: That is enough. I agree.

Mr. Boland: This question has arisen twice here. Am I entitled to make an explanation?

An Ceann Comhairle: I want to give the Deputy an opportunity of replying to the statement of the Minister, which he has now repeated. I will hear Deputy Boland on that particular statement as far as he is personally concerned.

Mr. Boland: I say, as regards that statement, that it is about half or a quarter true. I am not going to deny anything I said. What I said in the High Court I said, believing and knowing it to be true. I had not to be reminded, as the Deputy was, that I was on my oath. The Minister has made, and Deputy O'Sullivan has repeated, a statement in this House. I am prepared to say what I did say on the occasion.

Deputies: Say it.

Mr. Boland: I was being cross-examined as to my attitude to bank robbers and I was asked whether I approved of bank robberies or other [508] robberies. I said that I approved of no robberies, but I said that there were circumstances in which I would not consider them to be robberies. I asked for a definition from the cross-examining counsel of his interpretation. He gave his interpretation of bank robberies and I said that I would not accept his interpretation in all circumstances. I said that in the circumstances which obtained on a particular occasion, when two Governments were striving for supremacy, that an officer on one side, who was armed with authority from his Executive, was entitled to take the money from the banks on the opposite side and that during the Volunteer days the people who have put Mr. Hogan and people like him into power, gave orders to raid post offices. I distinctly said that. I believed—I said I was not positive—that some banks, like the Northern Bank, were included. I also said that I took part in raids which I was ordered to take part in. I did not say that I ever got cash. As a matter of fact the raids I took part in were on telephone exchanges which are just the same as post offices. It is money's worth. I said that, believing it to be true. I say it now knowing it to be true. Deputy O'Sullivan——

An Ceann Comhairle: Do not mind Deputy O'Sullivan. I want the Deputy to clear this up by giving his own version.

Mr. Boland: My reason was that every Volunteer was under orders, which came from those immediately in charge of him and he had no knowledge whether Deputy O'Sullivan, or anyone else, ever signed the order, but the order was given in the ordinary way to the Volunteers. I made that statement on oath, knowing and believing it to be true, and I am prepared to make it to-day.

An Ceann Comhairle: As far as the Chair is concerned, it is absolutely impossible in this House to prove the exact facts of any statement, particularly about a person. In other words, we are not here in the position of judge and [509] jury and cannot perform the functions of a judge and jury. I think it is a good rule when a Deputy's personal conduct is impugned that his own version of what he said or did should be accepted. In this particular instance, I should prefer that no personal statements were made. Either we must have a withdrawal all round, or we must leave the thing now, having heard the accusation against the Minister for Agriculture, his own statement of what he did or said; the accusation against Deputy Boland, and his own statement of what he said on a particular occasion. But I cannot accept the Minister's suggestion that we should have proof by calling witnesses, either Deputies from Galway or anywhere else.

Mr. Hogan: May I say——

An Ceann Comhairle: I will not allow any further speeches on this matter. We must either have a withdrawal simpliciter from Deputy Lemass, and from the Minister for Agriculture, or we must completely stop this thing now and hear no more about it. That is all we can do. Deputy Lemass was the first person to make such a statement.

Mr. Lemass: I think you will admit, sir, that it is not usual for me to make any personal references to any one, but yesterday Deputy de Valera was proposed for election as President, and that proposal was described by the Minister for Agriculture as an insult to the House. I think I am also entitled to describe the proposal to elect Deputy Hogan as Minister for Agriculture as an insult to the House, and to the country, and to prove it.

An Ceann Comhairle: Does the Deputy persist in his statement about the Minister's conduct?

Mr. Lemass: I am not prepared to withdraw.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the Minister for Agriculture prepared to withdraw the statement about Deputy Boland?

[510] Mr. Hogan: I just want to say this. I accept Deputy Boland's statement of what he said. It was exactly what I have said.

Mr. Aiken: It was not.

Mr. Boland: I have no grievance if that is so.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister accepts Deputy Boland's statement. Let us now go on with the debate.

Mr. Hogan: Is it fair when a Deputy has made a definite statement about me, that during Easter Week I went around Loughrea maligning and slandering the men who had gone out as having broken the Imperial peace, and when I have denied that explicitly, and, on the contrary, have stated in the Press the exact opposite, as Deputies Fahy and Jordan know, that the Deputy should be allowed to continue on those lines having regard to my express denial?

An Ceann Comhairle: He will not be allowed to continue.

Mr. Fahy rose.

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not want to hear Deputy Fahy now.

General Mulcahy: May I make a detached statement?

An Ceann Comhairle: I would rather not. The Ceann Comhairle is the only person who can make a really detached statement. I wish we would discuss this particular proposal. This kind of proposal has no parallel in any Parliament, and it is open to the most extraordinary abuses. You could discuss the matter for ever in all kinds of ways. The motion yesterday was of a similar type, and I think the House reflected great credit upon itself by disposing of that motion in one day. We can do the same thing with this proposal to-day. We cannot go out on all kinds of extraordinary escapades.

Mr. Lemass: The office of the Minister for Agriculture is an important office——

[511] Mr. Hogan: I am asking for a ruling definitely, having regard to my direct denial, and to the fact that Deputy Lemass can verify what I say at his own elbow.

Mr. Lemass: I tried, but could not do so.

Mr. Hogan: Is the Deputy to be allowed to continue on these lines, having slandered me in that fashion?

Mr. Fahy: Would I be allowed to say one word which is not contentious?

An Ceann Comhairle: No. One thing which the Ceann Comhairle is absolutely firm on is this: that he shall not have any statement examined with a view to having it proved. Deputy Lemass will not be allowed to repeat his statement as the Minister has denied it. But, if he does not choose to withdraw it, the Chair will not, on this particular occasion, compel him. The Minister has withdrawn his statement.

Mr. Lemass: The office of the Minister for Agriculture is an important office. It should be filled by a responsible person, who when he gets a newspaper article giving an outline of the policy of a political party will, at least, attempt to present that policy in the form in which it is set out in the article, and not deliberately distort it for the purpose of giving an entirely false picture of the statements contained in it. I do not want to refer to what the Minister said yesterday, but I do say that every single sentence from that article of mine which he read, was misinterpreted by him, and presented to the House in a form which gave an utterly false picture of the meaning which I had intended to convey.

Mr. Hogan: You know I am not in a position to answer to-day.

Mr. Lemass: I am going to deal with it without outstepping the rules of order.

An Ceann Comhairle: Surely the Deputy should deal with the motion [512] before us, and not with his own policy.

Mr. Lemass: It is the policy of the Government to continue paying the land purchase annuities to England. I presume I would be in order in moving the rejection of this motion because each individual mentioned in it favours that policy.

The President: It was the policy of the Dáil, I think, too, if my recollection is correct.

Mr. Lemass: The policy of the Dáil does not matter. It is the policy of the people of the country that counts. If the President has any doubt about that I invite him to dissolve the Dáil.

The President: The Deputy might not come back. We would be sorry to lose him.

Mr. Lemass: That is a thing that can be easily proved.

Mr. G. Boland: Try that.

Mr. Lemass: Some £3,000,000 per year is being paid out of this country to Great Britain without there being any legal obligation on this Government to pay it. Deputy Hogan, the prospective Minister for Agriculture, has attempted to represent me as saying that if the British came into the Free State Court and got a decree against any defaulting annuitant that ended the question. I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Hogan: That is what you did say.

Mr. Lemass: What I said was that if the British Government proved, to our satisfaction, that they are legally entitled to receive the annuities we will not hold them from them——

Mr. Hogan: The same thing.

Mr. Lemass: So long as that legal obligation remains.

Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll: Same thing.

Mr. Lemass: I cannot give Deputies [513] opposite intelligence. I can only give them arguments.

Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll: We are satisfied with the intelligence that God gave us.

Mr. Lemass: One point that I want to bring to the notice of the House is that England never attempted to produce proof that she is legally entitled to the payment of the annuities. It is the policy of the Government, in a disputed legal matter involving £3,000,000 per year, to give the benefit of the doubt to England. Surely it should be their policy to hold the money here until the liability has been proved. It has not been proved. On the strength of a legal quibble the Government is trying to defend its attitude. The loss of the money is a very serious loss to us, and we urge that the Irish people should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Gorey: Where is it?

Mr. Lemass: A doubt exists. Does Deputy Gorey deny that?

Mr. Gorey: Yes.

Mr. Lemass: Every eminent lawyer whom we approached on the matter has publicly declared that that doubt exists.

The President: All?

Mr. Lemass: The Government have not produced one senior counsel who is not a member of their Party or directly in their pay to support their case.

The President: All the legal opinions you got?

Mr. Lemass: Every single one of them.

The President: What about No. 7 or No. 8?

Mr. Lemass: Every single one of them.

The President: I should like the Deputy to look up that.

Mr. Lemass: I have looked it up.

[514] Mr. Rice: You had better ask Deputy Ruttledge about it.

Mr. Lemass: Every single counsel said that no single liability existed on the Government to pay the annuities to Great Britain.

Mr. T. Sheehy (Cork): Where do the people that advance the money for the stock come in?

Mr. Lemass: The Deputy does not understand the question and I cannot possibly explain it to him now. Recently international conferences have been meeting to consider the amount which Germany was required to pay under the Treaty of Versailles in reparations to the Allies. These international conferences of experts decided that Germany was being asked to pay more than she could afford to pay, and that, consequently, there was unemployment and depression in that country. Under the so-called financial settlement which the Minister for Finance negotiated, and which the Government approved, the Irish Free State is paying to Great Britain an annual sum which bears a higher proportion to our total State revenue than the amount that Germany is paying to the Allies in reparation for the World War.

Mr. Hogan: Which you will pay when you get decreed.

Mr. Lemass: There cannot be anything else but unemployment and depression while that payment continues. The statements that we get occasionally from the Minister for Agriculture and his colleagues that Fianna Fáil are urging the repudiation of debts or the embezzlement of money that is not ours are obviously only begging the question. If there is a debt we will meet it; if there is a liability we will honour it. But until that debt has been proved we propose to give the Irish people the benefit of the doubt. We cannot embezzle money that is already ours; we cannot repudiate a debt that does not exist.

[515] Mr. Hogan: You will pay when you are decreed. That is what I said yesterday.

Mr. Aiken: Collins kept them in this country.

The President: The Deputy should mention that name with greater respect. General Collins's name is to the first agreement in that connection.

Mr. Aiken: What does the President say?

The President: The Deputy should mention that name with more respect. General Collins's name is to the first agreement in connection with that payment.

Mr. MacEntee: Is it not correct to say that General Collins specifically asked that the question of the land annuities should be reserved for further discussion?

The President: No.

Mr. Aiken: What is this agreement? I say that General Collins kept these land annuities in this country while he was alive.

The President: That is not true.

General Mulcahy: Why did you shoot him?

Mr. Aiken: We did not shoot him.

Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll: You did.

Mr. Boland: Let somebody else ask that question?

Professor Tierney: I want to ask Deputy Lemass a question. He talked about giving Irish people the benefit of the doubt in regard to land annuities. Will he and his Party give the farmers who pay the land annuities the benefit of the doubt?

Mr. Lemass: We will give them the benefit of the annuities.

Mr. Hogan: Unless you are decreed.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister announced yesterday that I favoured Empire free trade. I said that I did not. He quoted an article by me [516] advocating the imposition of tariffs for the development of Irish industries. He tried to distort it into an advocacy of Empire free trade. I never mentioned the word “Empire” in the whole article. That is the irresponsible individual whom this House is asked to appoint to the important office of Minister for Agriculture. Beaverbrook's colleague— his Irish prototype!

General McEoin: Lord Bedisloe is yours. You quoted from him last year.

Mr. Hogan: You know that we cannot answer—that is the difficulty.

Mr. Lemass: The administration of the Minister for Agriculture for the past eight years has been marked by continuous decline in agricultural production. He has only been a member of the Executive Council since 1927, and therefore is only responsible for its decisions since then. Before that he was recognised as irresponsible. But since he first did acquire the position of Minister for Agriculture there has been a decline in tillage, a decline in live-stock, and a decline in every form of agricultural production, with the exception, I think, of sheep. The number of cattle in the country is less than it was in 1922; the number of dairy cows is less; the acreage under every crop in 1929 was substantially less than in 1922. The greatest Minister for Agriculture in the world! If any other country had a Minister to produce similar results, there would have been a famine long ago. The only reason there has not been a famine here is because this advocate of Empire free trade has been able to arrange that we could purchase Canadian wheat instead of growing our own. He, of course, calls that free trade. It is only free at this end. As the Minister knows, the Canadian wheat pool has not sold any of the 1929 crop to us yet, as we were not prepared to pay the price.

Mr. Hogan: You know well that I cannot answer you.

Mr. Lemass: I know that.

[517] Mr. Hogan: I cannot to-day.

Mr. Lemass: That is only your modesty.

Mr. Hogan: That is the regulation.

Mr. Lemass: This free trade that the Minister advocated is only free at this end.

Mr. Hogan: It is you who advocated it.

Mr. Lemass: I challenge the Minister to produce that one phrase, “free trade,” as having appeared in any single sentence of the article.

Mr. Hogan: Of course, you did not use the phrase.

Mr. Lemass: Was the Minister serious when he told us that he advocated Empire free trade? It is impossible to know when the Minister for Agriculture pretends to be telling the truth or when he thinks we should know he is not. In that same speech he told us that he was in the Post Office in 1916. We know that is not so. Then he told us that he stands for Empire free trade. Are we to accept that as a serious contribution or not?

Mr. Hogan: What I said was that you did.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister said he was prepared to follow my lead on that matter.

Mr. Hogan: That I would be glad to follow you in that matter.

Mr. Lemass: I am not going in that direction. Is the Minister going alone?

Mr. Hogan: We will have to part company then.

Mr. Lemass: Then I take it the Minister is going on alone?

An Ceann Comhairle: I wish the two Deputies would part company now.

Mr. Hogan: The Deputy knows he is safe now.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister proceeded [518] to tell us that it was the policy of the Government to maintain the Dáil as the supreme authority, and to assert that the Army has no right to take sides for or against any Government. Was he serious when he said that? I take it that was a serious contribution to the discussion. I am very glad to know that. I wonder could we get the Minister for Finance into the House before the debate concludes.

The President: I am afraid not. He is not well to-day.

Mr. Lemass: I may point out to the President that there is a very strong rumour in circulation to the effect that certain of the leading articles in the President's newspaper are either contributed or inspired by the Minister for Finance. If it is not correct that the Minister for Finance wrote the article entitled, “The Army,” which appeared in the issue before last, I think that fact should be definitely stated. The attention given to that particular article and the uneasiness which was caused by it, were inspired by the fact that the current belief was that the author was the Minister for Finance. Was he or was he not?

Mr. Hogan: You should never deny anything. It is a bad plan.

Mr. Lemass: Then we cannot get a definite denial. We find that there is a split in the Cabinet already.

Captain Redmond: There is no Cabinet yet.

Mr. Lemass: In the old Cabinet, which is to be reconstituted as a new Cabinet. The Minister for Finance holds that the Army is superior to the Dáil, and entitled to force its will on the Dáil, if ever it differs from the policy of the Executive which the Dáil elects. The Minister for Agriculture stands for democracy par excellence. He is going to defend the Dáil against the Army, when the Minister for Finance leads out his cohorts against the Fianna Fáil Government. We [519] thank him for the offer of an alliance. I hardly think we will need it. I am inclined to think that the Army would refuse to follow the Minister for Finance. I do honestly think that in matters of this kind we will find a much greater volume of common sense in the rank and file of the Army than we will find in the Army Council or the Executive Council.

I do think, therefore, that the President should prevent irresponsible Ministers writing newspaper articles of that kind. I think that the Dáil should express its disapproval of these militant contributions, reminiscent of the old style, from the Minister for Finance by rejecting this particular motion. We have seen that the Government which it is proposed to re-appoint has practically failed to achieve anything in any sphere of its activities. The Minister for Finance, when he is not embarking upon these incursions into journalism, is merely marking time and doing nothing, either to ease the burden of taxation by effecting administrative economies or by embarking upon any project for the improvement of the financial conditions of the country.

I asked him some time ago if his Government was satisfied with the working of the Currency Act, or if they proposed to accept the recommendation, made by the official from the Department of F