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 Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 39 - 17 June, 1931

Orders of the Day. - Local Government Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

General Mulcahy: I move that the Bill be read a Second Time.

The Local Government Act, 1925, provides that whenever the Minister makes an Order under Section 72 of the Act dissolving a local authority, “he [419] may appoint such and as many persons as he shall think fit to perform the duties of such local authority,” and that (sub-section 6) “the Minister may from time to time by order do all such things and make all such regulations as in his opinion shall be necessary for giving full effect to any order made by him” under that section.

The Dublin County Borough Council (under Section 12 of the Act of 1923) was dissolved by order of the Minister dated the 20th May, 1924. At that time the constitution of the Grangegorman Mental Hospital Joint Committee was: 5 members, Louth; 5 members, Wicklow; 10 members, County Dublin, and 29 members from the city. The order proposed that notwithstanding anything contained therein the 29 members already representing Dublin City would continue to represent the city on the Committee.

Almost all of these, however, failed to attend the meetings held during the year 1924-25, with the result that on the request of the Dublin Commissioners, and in order that the business of the Committee might be properly transacted, and adequate representation given to Dublin City, the Minister terminated as from the 13th day of July, 1925, the membership of every person who had been elected or appointed by the City Council, and appointed in their stead the Commissioners then representing the city.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case Woods and others v. Dublin Corporation, is in effect that the Joint Committee constituted by the order of the 10th July, 1925, was not legally constituted, and that all its subsequent acts were therefore invalid. The decision of the Supreme Court leaves in very considerable doubt whether even the order of the Minister, dated the 20th May, 1924, making the previous nominees of the County Borough Council the representatives of Dublin City on the Committee secured the valid constitution of a Joint Mental Hospital Committee, in so far as that not less than three-fourths of the members nominated by the city to act as their representatives on the Committee are required by statute to be members of [420] the Dublin City Council. In general, the decision raises the question as to whether, when the Minister by order dissolves a county council, it is possible to have in such circumstances such a body, say, as a board of health, a vocational educational committee, a mental hospital committee—joint or otherwise —legally constituted at all.

The present Bill, therefore, proposes to amend Section 72 of the 1925 Act, so as to make the powers therein provided adequate for dealing with the circumstances that necessarily arise when a county council is dissolved. It is proposed to enact that this or the similar provision in the Act of 1923 (Section 12) shall always be deemed to have conferred the powers which are now made more explicit.

The general acts of the body to act as constituted in 1925 will thus be validated.

The Bill, however, under Section 6, proposes to preserve the steps which have been taken by the present Joint Committee appointed subsequent to the reconstitution of the Dublin Council to give effect to the judgment of the High Court in the Woods case, already referred to, as regards the salaries and wages of the officers and servants, which steps would otherwise be made illegal by the earlier part of the Bill.

I expect I will have an opportunity of dealing with the amendment on the Order Paper when I have heard what questions arise out of it.

Mr. Davis: I move:—

To delete all words after the word “That” and insert therefor the words:—“the Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which includes as one of its provisions a proposal to extend the powers of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in relation to local authorities dissolved by him until the Minister has taken the appropriate steps to restore the Mayo County Council.”

I think it will be within the knowledge of every member of the House, if not within the knowledge of every individual in the Free State, that the position of Mayo County Council loomed [421] very much in the limelight in the not far distant past, and I think I might place on the shoulders of the Minister for Local Government the sole responsibility for putting the Mayo County Council out of office. When I read this Bill, I discovered, I may say with some pleasure, that the Minister was seeking additional powers in order to deal with the situation created in Mayo. Needless to say, I availed of the opportunity of giving the Minister a run against my amendment. I may be permitted to mention a matter that I think to some extent created the Mayo situation. The one and only matter was the appointment of a librarian. In dealing with the question perhaps it is right that I should make the position perfectly clear. A certain advertisement was issued by the Local Appointments Commissioners. I am speaking from recollection, as I have not the necessary data at hand, but I am sure that the Minister will be in a position to put me right. The advertisement stipulated that a competent knowledge of Irish was necessary for the position. The resolution refusing to appoint Miss Dunbar as librarian was passed first by the Library Committee. It dealt only with her knowledge of Irish. That resolution subsequently came before the County Council, and was ratified by that body. The resolution dealt with one question only, and that was that Miss Dunbar did not possess a competent knowledge of Irish.

In this matter it is well that I should try to anticipate the Minister. I am aware that at a certain stage a query was sent down to the executive officer of the Mayo Co. Council, namely the Secretary, and that query was: “Do you consider that a competent knowledge of Irish is necessary?” The Secretary's answer to that question was “No.” I should like to make it clear that I am not trying to cast any blame on the Secretary of the County Council. I was not aware of that, but I do say that if I were at his elbow I would have given precisely the same answer. This is the point that arises later. What were the terms of the advertisement? The terms of the advertisement were that for the [422] appointment of a librarian in Mayo a competent knowledge of Irish was essential. With reference to this fact and the answer given by the Secretary of the County Council. without meaning to cast any reflection on the honesty or intentions of those concerned, I say that, the advertisement was simply misleading. It was misleading in this sense, that there were many people who otherwise might be competing for that position, but who because they did not possess a competent knowledge of Irish, immediately they read the advertisement felt that it would be futile for them to apply, not possessing a competent knowledge of Irish. That is the first point I desire to make in connection with this matter. That, in brief, is the position in Mayo. I do not desire to import into this debate any heat or any bitterness. I would like it to be discussed calmly, sensibly, and in a businesslike way. I am endeavouring to place before the House the position as it occurred in Mayo. The Mayo County Council was dissolved not, I am in a position to claim, for inefficiency. When the inspector sent down by the Minister went to investigate the state of affairs there that investigation lasted some fifteen or twenty minutes. I was not present at the inquiry, but I am giving my recollection of it from what appeared in the Press at the time. There was no question of anything being wrong; it was a question of the disobedience of the council. I do not desire to misrepresent what the inspector said, but my recollection of what he said is that it was a matter arising out of the disobedience of the council in not carrying out the Minister's orders.

That is the position as I know it. I desire to make that position clear. I certainly consider that if the Minister feels that he has exceeded or out-stepped his legal authority in dealing with the situation, I would be wanting in my duty as Chairman of the Mayo County Council if I did not avail of this opportunity of placing before the House what my feelings are in connection with the matter. I think I have now said all that I desire to say and [423] all that in my opinion it is necessary for me to say in support of the amendment which I propose.

General Mulcahy: Am I to understand that that is all the criticism that there is on this matter?

An Ceann Comhairle: The practice on the Second Reading of a Bill is that the motion is moved for the Second Reading of the Bill; the amendment is then moved. The question is put that the words proposed to be deleted stand, and the result decides the question. If the question is decided in the affirmative the Bill is read a second time; if it is decided in the negative, another question must be put.

Mr. Ruttledge: I waited for some time for some Deputy on the other side of the House to support Deputy Davis in this amendment. At the outset I might ask who had the copyright in this amendment, if such a phrase can be used? The amendment in the name of Deputy Davis is practically the same amendment as was submitted to you, a Chinn Comhairle, on Thursday last. A question then arose with regard to the motion which is in my name on the Paper. I decided to avail of the criticism which I might make against this Bill on the Second Reading without any amendment and without in any way prejudicing the motion in my name on the Paper.

The first thing any Deputy who had his eyes open on Thursday evening would notice was that there was very little sincerity behind this amendment. I would describe the amendment as a pretence or a sham attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the people of Mayo and at the same time to let the Minister out of a difficulty. When I came into the House on Thursday evening after discussing this matter of the amendment with you, a Chinn Comhairle, I saw the Minister for Local Government in conversation with Deputy Davis. Any Deputy here who had his eyes open could see that during Thursday evening and on various times on Friday the Minister for Local Government and Deputy Davis were in close conversation [424] to see how they could get out of this difficulty. Here we have as a result of this collusion between the Minister and Deputy Davis this amendment tabled and we have the newspapers this morning scheduling it and portraying it in double-column headings as a first-class sensation.

Of course, as will be said, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and Deputy Davis are honourable men. I suppose the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may in his own way think he is the Cassius of the Government of this House. I do not know what character Deputy Davis might take unless he might find it in Dickens. I put the question pertinently to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health—did not the Minister himself suggest that amendment? Did not the Minister himself approve of that amendment and approve of this move by Deputy Davis?

Having said so much with regard to this collusion between the Minister and Deputy Davis, I will deal very briefly with the facts which emerged from the action taken by the Minister in dissolving or abolishing the Mayo County Council. I say in the first place that the Local Appointments Commissioners exceeded their powers under Section 7 of the Act. There was an age limit prescribed and specified by them in that advertisement and that age limit was departed from. There was an age limit of 21 years and subsequently 25 years was substituted.

Deputy Davis, I think, is not correct in stating that a competent knowledge of Irish was essential. As far as I recollect it was stated in the advertisement that a substantial preference would be given to a person with a knowledge of Irish. The parties responsible for making this appointment, and the Minister himself at any rate, were aware that Mayo was scheduled as a Gaeltacht county. The Minister knew that it was impossible for any librarian to conduct the business properly as librarian in Mayo unless he or she had a competent knowledge of Irish. He knew that in Mayo there was a number of people [425] who were Irish speakers. He knew that the librarian would have to transact a considerable part of the business in Irish, and that he or she would have to deal with communications in Irish, and yet the person appointed was a person who had not that knowledge. Still, we find the Mayo County Council abolished because they would not appoint a person without a knowledge of Irish.

It was said that no other suitable candidates had presented themselves. It may be, perhaps, that this particular lady who had been appointed to the position got more marks for what is called “personality” than the others got. There is such a thing as giving marks for personality. It does not matter about any other qualification. People who want to do it, and people who did it, got that vague word “personality” to cover a multitude of the sins they may commit. I do not know how many marks were given to this lady for personality, or whether those marks were sufficient to outweigh the marks that might be given because of her deficiency in Irish. But personality would be of very little use to Irish speakers in Mayo who would have to get books from the Mayo Library, and who would have to deal with matters in Irish solely. This personality question would be of very little importance to those people. It may be of some importance to people who want to make a job in a particular way. It may be that it is able to cover up all that thing and try to justify in some sort of covered-up way that a certain person who has personality must get the job. If it was not making a job for a particular person, why was the age limit departed from?

There is one matter that I have to speak about, and I do it with considerable reluctance, for the reason that when you speak about these matters you are often likely to be misunderstood. When I speak about this matter, I do not wish to be misunderstood to the effect that I am introducing any sectarian bias or prejudice in the matter, but it has to be recognised that in the County Mayo, where practically 99 per cent. of the people are of a certain religious persuasion, a person in [426] the position of librarian must feel, as any person who holds definite religious views must, that these views may be portrayed in some way in the distribution of books. What may appear to a member of one religion as being perfectly all right may appear to a member of another religion as being completely wrong. For example, we had recently the Lambeth Conference. Certain ideas regarding birth control and matters of that sort were advocated there. At any rate, a cognisance was given to them, perhaps to a limited extent, and in an attenuated form. Then we have Dean Inge advocating, I think, trial marriages, and so on. To persons of a certain religious persuasion those things may not appear to be very wrong; they do not see anything wrong about them. They are not in that position of appreciating or understanding what are the susceptibilities and what exactly is the faith of people of another religious persuasion.

I know the Minister's answer to that will be this: Yes, but you have a committee there who can supervise it. You have a committee there whose duty is, so far as it is humanly possible, to supervise it, but I say it is impossible for a committee to supervise this work. In Co. Mayo, when this lady was appointed, you had 13,000 books in circulation. How was any member of the committee or the whole committee collectively going to examine into and read every one of these 13,000 books, no matter how well read they are? There the question of supervision comes in, and the members of that committee are placed in the position that they may be able to deal with four or five hundred books, but they are left definitely in the position that they must rely almost completely, or, at least, to a very great extent, upon the discretion of the librarian who is acting under them.

What happens, I believe, is that booksellers, stationers and publishers send around lists of various books to the librarian. The librarian submits the lists to the members of the committee. The members on the committee are not in a position to appreciate the position because they may not have [427] read the vast majority of these books, and these books get into circulation. Those were questions that were dealt with by the library committee themselves. I have a certified copy of the minute of the library committee meeting held on the 28th October. I will read it:

County Librarian.

“In compliance with the Statutory request received from the Mayo County Council in connection with the above-mentioned position I am directed by the Local Appointments Commissioners to state that they recommend Miss Letitia Elizabeth Eileen Dunbar (otherwise Harrison), 72 Palmerston Road, Dublin, for appointment as County Librarian, Co. Mayo.

“I am also directed to state that as no suitable candidate with a competent knowledge of Irish was forthcoming this recommendation is governed by the Local Officers and Employments (Gaeltacht) Order, 1928.

“A summary of the recommended candidate's qualifications is given hereunder:

Date and Place of Birth—

4th February, 1906, Dundrum, Co. Dublin.

Qualifications and Experience—

B.A. Junior Mod. (Trinity College, Dublin), Modern Literature, Six Months' Training in Co. Dublin Library, nine months' experience Rathmines Public Library. Has a very elementary knowledge of Irish.”

That came before the committee and a resolution was proposed by the Right Rev. Chancellor Hegarty, seconded by the Right Rev. Monsignor D'Alton, Dean of Tuam, as follows:

“That having had before us the recommendation from the Local Appointments Commission recommending the appointment as County Librarian in Mayo of Miss Letitia Elizabeth Eileen Dunbar, we are not satisfied that she possesses the requisite [428] knowledge of the Irish language to enable her to efficiently discharge the duties of that office in Mayo County—one of the Gaeltacht Counties—and we resolve that no appointment be made to the position until such time as a person thoroughly qualified in the Irish language is forthcoming.”

Dr. MacBride proposed an amendment:—

“That Miss Letitia Elizabeth Eileen Dunbar be, and she is, hereby appointed librarian in Mayo County in accordance with the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commission.”

The amendment was first put to a vote with the following result:—

For—Rev. J.J. Jackson and Dr. MacBride—(2).

Against—Right Rev. Mgr. D'Alton, Right Rev. Chancellor Hegarty, Ven. Archdeacon Fallon, Rev. G.J. Prendergast, Rev. Brother Kelly, Messrs. M. Nally, T.D.; P. Higgins, T. S. Moclair, and the Chairman—(9).

Very Rev. J. Canon McHugh declined to vote.

The Chairman declared the amendment defeated. Chancellor Hegarty's motion was then put to a vote, with the same result, except that Canon McHugh voted for the motion whatever he may have said elsewhere subsequently. The Rev. J.J. Jackson and Dr. MacBride, who voted for the amendment, had not attended a meeting since December, 1929, until that particular meeting. That was the position as was explained by the Committee. The Minister was not satisfied. An inquiry was directed, and that inquiry was held by Mr. MacLysaght, who held that there was nothing to go into, that the Council had carried on perfectly all right, except in the matter of this non-compliance with the statutory obligation. Subsequently a letter dated 19th December from the Minister was received. I should say before that, that the resolution of the Library Committee came before the Mayo County Council, and with one dissentient, Mr. O'Hara, was adopted. The Secretary to the Minister wrote a very long letter trying to explain himself [429] on 19th December. He said, at any rate:—

In all other respects the County Council, since the election, have faithfully administered the laws of the Oireachtas, and he was giving them a chance of reconsidering this position.

At the meeting of the 6th December, in reference to what I have said earlier, Deputy Davis as Chairman was asked several times to give the Council a lead. He did not give them that lead. He merely voted. He did not attend the meeting that was called at the request of the Secretary to the Ministry. Subsequently, at a public meeting he explained that he would not attend that meeting, that the Council would be stultifying itself, and he rather criticised my action, and said that I answered the whip of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I did not answer the whip of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I answered the call to attend the meeting to insure that the action taken by the County Council would not be gone back on so far as my vote was concerned. I know what happened subsequently when Deputy Davis came up to Dublin, when he was accused by the Minister of being a weakling and a wobbler.

Mr. Davis: Will I have the right to reply to this?

An Ceann Comhairle: No.

Mr. Davis: I am very sorry.

Mr. Killilea: Hold another meeting when you go home.

General Mulcahy: At Crossmolina.

Mr. Ruttledge: Yes, Crossmolina seems to be the place where we all hold them—both sides.

An Ceann Comhairle: Let us keep to the debate here now and not stray to the cross-roads.

Mr. Ruttledge: The Minister, as we are aware, suppressed the Council and appointed a Commissioner. Some question arose in the Seanad on the 25th March and the Minister at that time in an interjection to Senator Sir John Keane said:—

[430] “May we keep Mayo out of this discussion, and may I ask the Senator if he knows that the Library Committee resigned as a protest against the action of the County Council, because the County Council would not allow the Mayo Library Committee to appoint a temporary librarian whom they wished to appoint?”

The Minister knew that statement was not in accordance with the facts.

General Mulcahy: Gracious me!

Mr. Ruttledge: What is the good gracious about?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister will get his opportunity.

Mr. Ruttledge: If we could get more good graces in Mayo we would be better off. The Minister puts it in the form of a question. That Committee did not resign. Three members of the Committee refused to act. It did not resign. No member of the Committee did resign. No question of resigning had arisen. What is the position at present? I asked a question of the Minister last March as to what was the position and what centres were working in Mayo. The Minister referred me to the local authority, and the following particulars were supplied to me on the 16th March through the Secretary of the Mayo County Council:

“Replying to queries contained in letter addressed to you by Mr. Ruttledge, T.D., regarding the library centres throughout the county, I beg to inform you that (a) On 1st December, 1930, there were 112 local library centres having in their possession books from the county repository for circulation among readers. (b) Between 1st December, 1930, and the 15th February, 1931, the books have been returned from 51 of those centres. (c) The number of books returned from the centres on 15-2-31 is approximately 3,685. (d) There were 61 centres still having books on the 15th February, 1931.”

I applied early last week for particulars as to what the position was up to the 10th June. I wrote to the Secretary [431] of the Mayo County Council, and not having a reply from him yesterday I 'phoned him. I understood that the Commissioner might be away. I believe he goes to Mayo occasionally. Anticipating that he might be away I 'phoned the Secretary and I have not got the particulars yet. However, I have got the particulars from other sources, and I know what the position exactly is. The position at the present moment is this: There are books with about 30 centres out of 112 formerly. Those 30 centres are not working. Four of them are in semi-operation. In the remaining twenty-six the books are there, or some of them, as others have been burnt owing to fever and diphtheria. In about twenty-two of these centres the books are allowed to remain because they are in out-of-the-way places, and they are not going to the expense of sending them back to the county repository. The fact is that only four centres are in semi-operation out of 112 in operation last December, when the Minister started this heavy hand. The people who patronise these four centres which are in semi-operation, are people of a religious persuasion which is the opposite to the majority of the people in Mayo. The people of Mayo definitely put down their foot and said that no matter what the Minister may do, or what dictatorship may be tried, they will not, on account of the position which has been allowed to develop by him, assist in any way or obey him. One of the ways, unfortunately, in which the people have to suffer is that a library rate has to be paid, or if not, that funds that might be used for other purposes are utilised for the purpose of paying an official who is of no assistance or benefit to the people. Another matter is that this appointment was made by the Commissioner. His first act when he went down to Mayo was to appoint this lady. That appointment was not advertised for three days, or the making of it did not appear on the agenda. The Minister knows whether that is illegal or otherwise.

When this Commissioner went down to Mayo we expected that we would see an attempt by him, at any rate, [432] to do some good for the people. One of his first acts was to reduce the wages of the road-workers, of which we hear so much in other places, and increase the salaries of the County Surveyor and the Assistant County Surveyor. He started reducing at the bottom and increasing at the top. That was one of his first acts in the county, and the Minister, I suppose, approved of it. We have also, of course, the sneers at medical men and nurses and so on at every other meeting that is held, but I am not going into that.

There is, however, one other matter, and that is, that when he made this order appointing this Commissioner, the Minister should at least have realised that the Commissioner could not take over the duties of the Old Age Pensions Committee or the Technical Instruction Committee. From the time of his appointment down to the present the technical instructors have not been paid and could not be paid, and old age pensioners who wanted to apply for an increase of pension, or old persons who wanted to make applications for pensions, could not have their applications considered. Perhaps the Minister hoped the people of Mayo would reel under his feet, that they would come forward and appoint committees to assist the person he had sent down. He may hope as long as he likes. Until he removes the person appointed from that position, and removes the Commissioner from the office that he has been appointed to as a result of the Council refusing to appoint this lady, he may rest assured that there is no hope whatever that the priests and people of Mayo are going to crumble under his feet. He may be keen on dictatorship, and he may think that the people are going to give way after a time. The people of Mayo are united on this particular issue; they are more united than ever they have been in the history of that county before, and no attempt by the Minister to trample on them, and import amongst them a person in the position of librarian who they have good reason to believe may prove a danger to the faith of the people, will succeed. They are not going to let the Minister walk over them.

[433] Mr. Walsh: As my name is second to a motion on the paper in connection with this question I desire to say something. The motion has been on the Paper for some months back, but the Minister has successfully dodged it, and he expects apparently on this occassion to dodge it altogether. And as a result of this dodging process he expects to get out of the impasse created in Mayo. As Deputy Ruttledge has already said, the Vocational Education Act in that county is a dead letter due to the Minister's action on this question. He can get no man in Mayo, either clergyman or public man or any responsible person, to act upon the Vocational Education Committee, or any committee connected with local affairs. Deputy Ruttledge may have made a slight error in connection with the Old Age Pensions Committee. What has happened is that the County Pensions Committee is not functioning, and as a result any vacancies on the Local Pensions Committees cannot be filled. There may be places in the Co. Mayo where, as a result of these vacancies remaining unfilled, people cannot get their old age pensions.

As Deputy Ruttledge has said, the people in the Co. Mayo are asked to pay for a library that they do not use. It is of no benefit to them whatever. There were 112 local centres of the library functioning before the situation arose. Up to date, as far as I can ascertain, over 82 centres have returned their books. Out of the remaining there are about 4 centres functioning in a way. There were about 10 centres out of the 112 that never functioned. Some persons in those districts got the idea that they would get a centre going. They got into communication with the county librarian and they got a parcel of books, but they never took any real step towards making the centre function. I had to seek this information myself and to get it from sources other than official sources.

Last week I wrote to Mr. Egan, Secretary of the County Council, for this information. I asked him to give me the number of books in possession of the library authorities in the Co. Mayo, the number of books in circulation, the number of centres operating and the [434] number of centres that ceased to operate. In reply I got this communication from Mr. Egan, on the instructions of the County Commissioner:—

“I submitted your letter of the 3rd inst. to the County Commissioner and he considers that it is not for me to furnish the information you require in regard to the Mayo County Library, that I have not any function in respect to the library. He further points out that the particulars for which you ask have already been furnished to your colleague, Mr. Ruttledge, T.D. For your information I enclose a copy of the return sent to Mr. Ruttledge in March last.”

As Deputy Ruttledge mentioned, he had to put a question in the House to the Minister asking for information and the Minister referred him to the local authority and in reply the local authority supplied him with the information up to the 15th February, but the County Secretary on instructions from the County Commissioner refused to supply me with the figures up to date. If there is nothing to hide why this reluctance to give this information? And what is the meaning of the Minister's answer to Deputy Ruttledge when he referred him to the local authority for the information? The County Commissioner is now the local authority and he positively refuses to answer this question.

When this question came up in the Mayo County Council I myself clearly indicated that we who were members of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Council were not actuated by any question of bigotry; that we were not influenced by what I might call anti-Protestantism, that we did not object to Protestants or other non-Catholics in this country getting their share of public appointments. I clearly indicated that and I made my statement knowing the views of my Party and that these were the sentiments of my Party. But an endeavour was made in this city by a certain newspaper for political purposes at a time when there was a by-election in Co. Dublin and when it was necessary in the interests of the Government Party to get a certain vote in South County Dublin to make it appear otherwise. The “Irish Times” in a leading article endeavoured to put the [435] Fianna Fáil Party in the position of being a party of bigots and the Government Party a party of tolerance.

We are not a party of bigots. But neither I nor any member of the Fianna Fáil Party in the County Mayo or in this Dáil apologise to anybody for being Catholics or for taking up a Catholic attitude on a question of vital importance to Catholic interests. If the Minister thinks he is going to cow the people and the priests of Mayo in this matter, he is making a great mistake. If he thinks he is going to gain political kudos by proving to a certain element in this country that his is the great party of tolerance; if he thinks that by creeping to certain elements in this country who are always anti-national and anti-Catholic that he is going to gain anything, and that he is going to increase the prestige of his Party west of the Shannon, he is certainly making a great mistake. I assure him if he pushes that thing too far he will arouse feelings in the County Mayo and other western counties that it might be better for everybody were left alone, because there are very bitter memories in the County Mayo in the past to be wiped out. It is better for the harmony of the present time and the good feeling now existing among the mass of the people and their Protestant neighbours that these memories be allowed to lie dead and forgotten. Instead, however, of improving the feeling that exists between the mass of the people and their Protestant neighbours, the Minister is going to embitter it, and to intensify the bitterness, because he will arouse all those bitter memories of the past. There are thousands of men and women in Mayo who remember the proselytising campaign among the last generation, and I can assure the Minister that they have not very sweet memories of it. A large number of the small farmers of the county have not very sweet memories of those times, times when they were often faced with the alternative of the roadside or of changing their religious views. It is, as I say, better for everybody at present that those memories should lie dead and buried, but the Minister goes out of his way by his action to arouse [436] that bitter feeling of the past and to bring it to life and intensify it. The outstanding fact of the present situation in Mayo is that the library system, which was a boon to the people and which was greatly availed of by them, is now a dead letter. The money contributed by the ratepayers in that direction is wasted, and is going to continue to be wasted, because the Minister can make up his mind, and anybody in this House who holds an opposite view, can make up his mind, to this one fact, namely, that the people in Mayo will not change their attitude on this matter.

Since Miss Dunbar went down as librarian she has supplied books to seven centres, of which four have returned them, so that there are really only three centres in correspondence with the librarian. The County Library Chambers in the County Courthouse in Castlebar is packed from floor to ceiling with boxes of books which have been returned from all over the county. No later than last week five boxes were sent in. The Minister need not imagine that because there are on record only 82 centres as returning books out of 112 the balance will not return them. Really what has happened and what is happening is that the committees working in several of those centres find it impossible in some cases to collect the books and, in a great number of cases, they have not gone to the trouble and have no intention of collecting them.

When the Minister sent down an inspector to hold an inquiry into the affairs of the county council the inquiry lasted, as Deputy Ruttledge has pointed out, just twenty-five minutes. The report stated that there was no complaint whatever against the county council regarding their administration of the general affairs of the county. I have been a member of the county council for something like ten years and I have had a family connection with it since it was first established in 1899, and I say here what I said in the county council chamber on the occasion of its final meeting, that neither from my own personal knowledge of the council nor through any knowledge I have in any other way, do [437] I know of any scandal or anything that could be described as disgraceful connected with its affairs—nothing that any member of the council, regardless of party, had any reason to be ashamed of. I said that that applied to all parties in the county council and I repeat it now. Yet for this technical breach of the local government regulations this public body was ruthlessly suppressed. As deputy Ruttledge has shown, the County Commissioner, since he came into office, has been guilty of more than one breach of these regulations. The appointment of Miss Dunbar to the position of librarian was not in order, neither was the appointment of the medical officer of health, but we hear of no steps being taken by the Minister, or any other person in the Government, to get the Commissioner suppressed for such breach of regulations. The Commissioner, since he came into power, has made himself notable for some things, one of them being the reduction of wages among the road workers in the county, the reduction of wages among workers in the streets in towns like Westport, Castlebar, Ballina, and other places from 35s. to 32s. a week.

Mr. Davin: The same thing happened in Kildare.

Mr. Walsh: They reduced the wages of the workers in the rural districts to 26/-. My answer to Deputy Davin is that the Leader of the Labour Party is a Deputy from Mayo, and I have not heard from him any criticism of the Commissioner for that wage reduction.

Mr. T. O'Connell: It could happen, and you not hear it.

Mr. Davin: What about Harris in Kildare?

An Ceann Comhairle: There is to be nothing about Kildare in this Bill or in the amendment.

Mr. Walsh: I repeat that I heard nothing from the Leader of the Labour Party, or any other member of it, in condemnation of Mr. Bartley, the Commissioner in Mayo, for reducing wages.

Mr. O'Connell: Who got the wages raised?

[438] Mr. Walsh: Any talk of road workers' wages in County Mayo would not be of political value now, but we might hear something about it if there were a by-election pending there.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am not so sure that the acts of the Commissioner are relevant at all, but I will let the Deputy go on.

General Mulcahy: It is a way of avoiding the subject.

Mr. Walsh: I am not avoiding the subject.

General Mulcahy: It is a good way of doing it.

Mr. Walsh: It is not a good way of doing it. It is certainly not as good a way as to get up and make a deliberate misstatement as the Minister did in the Seanad.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy ought not to accuse the Minister or any other Deputy of making a deliberate misstatement. That is a long way of using a short word. The Deputy can say if he wishes that the Minister was wrong in his statement.

General Mulcahy: It can stand as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Walsh: Anybody who reads the report of the debate in the Seanad, and who can read plain English, will know whether my description of the Minister's statement is right or wrong.

General Mulcahy: The Deputy can let it stand.

Mr. Walsh: The Minister knows very well that the Library Committee in Mayo did not resign because an Assistant Librarian would not be appointed. He knows that they did not resign as a protest against any action of the County Council. He knows that well. Two or three members may have resigned, but they came back. These people came back to vote for Miss Dunbar. As we are on the question of the Assistant Librarian, one of the remarkable things about it is that this Assistant Librarian was working in the Library Office when the Commissioner took up duty. He was specially complimented by the Commissioner on the efficiency of his work. A Press correspondence or a Press comment [439] developed about the library question in Mayo. It became in some cases, you might say, intensive, and apparently it irritated the county authorities at present functioning in Mayo to such an extent that they began to look around for scalps. They came to the conclusion that somebody was giving away information as to how the situation was developing, and on the 30th April this young man got notice to quit —a very peremptory notice to quit. The usual temporary work in making up the rate books, making it necessary to employ a temporary staff, was going forward under the Mayo County Council in the weeks succeeding. This young man applied for a position on that staff, and he was peremptorily refused, although he was specially complimented by the County Commissioner for his work as Assistant Librarian while there was no Librarian in office in the county. He has been one of the first victims to the venom of the Ministry. Quite possibly before the question is finished there may be more victims to the venom of the Ministry.

I challenge the Minister or anybody on the Government Benches to prove that the library in Mayo is being utilised by the people of Mayo at present to any appreciable extent or that the Librarian is giving an adequate return for her salary. I will ask the Minister when he is replying to state if she has made any organised efforts to get the library going in the county, what is the nature of these efforts, and what are the results, and how does he expect the library in County Mayo to work in future?

Will he not realise that the stand of the people of Mayo is a united stand regardless of Party affiliations, that in fact the most bitter opponents and most bitter critics of the actions of the Minister have been Government supporters in County Mayo? Will he not realise that men in the position of Dr. Naughton, Lord Bishop of Killala; Dean D'Alton, Dean of the Diocese of Tuam, and Chancellor Hegarty do not go into a question of this nature purely from ideas of creating mischief or from a desire to get their names into the newspapers? [440] Will he not realise that these people are influenced by deep and sincere feelings, and that in the public expression they have given to these feelings they represent the feelings of 98 per cent. of the people of County Mayo? Is he still of the same mind regarding this question that he was last December? Is he going to reconsider the position? Is he taking any steps to enquire into the situation and to relieve it, or has he any intention of doing so? The Minister may be able to sit here at present and sneer, and take up the lofty attitude that he always takes on this question, but I can assure him a day of reckoning will come, and I tell him here in this House when that day comes the Mayo people will deal with him and his Party.

Dr. Hennessy: Very satisfactory for Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Walsh: Apparently there is only one Party in this country who can with impunity flout the feelings and the sentiments of the majority of the people

Certain gentlemen in this House and outside it may assume an attitude of superiority about the narrow bigotry of the people of Mayo. The people of Mayo do not wait until 1931 to be taught their national duty by any people.

[Mr. F. Fahy, Acting-Chairman, took the Chair.]

Whenever it was necessary for the people of Mayo to give testimony of their national faith they gave it regardless of sacrifice or cost. Apparently we are the only country in the world in which a certain element in the State can get up and deliberately sneer at and flout the sentiments of the majority of the people. We had an example of it here in this city when in Trinity College the “Soldiers' Song” was refused to be played.

General Mulcahy: What about Mayo?

Mr. Walsh: And still any educational advantages accruing to Trinity College in this State, are being utilised by that institution and there are no steps to [441] penalise that institution for refusing to allow the “Soldiers' Song” to be played.

General Mulcahy: Have they a Catholic Mayo librarian there?

Mr. Walsh: You are not in the Chair. You should allow the conduct of the business of the House to the Chair.

Acting-Chairman: The Deputy should leave Trinity College alone. Trinity College is not one of the bodies dissolved.

Mr. Walsh: Dealing with the powers of a Government Department in certain circumstances I am entitled to bring in anything that I consider relevant to the exercise of Government authority in this State. At least I hold so and with all due respect to the Chair, I think that it is quite relevant for me to bring in Trinity College as they are getting certain advantages in this State and there have been no steps taken by any State authority to bring them to account for their action in sneering at the National Anthem. When the Minister shows equal impartiality regarding the flouting of Government authority by every party in the State he will certainly be entitled then to say that he is acting impartially or when the Government shows equal impartiality in dealing with every element in this State regarding the allegiance and respect they pay to State authority then they will be entitled to say that they are impartial. Certainly anything we know so far about their actions regarding certain elements in this country does not prove that they are in any way impartial in their attitude. There is only one country in the world in which such an incident as did occur in the institution I refer to would be allowed to pass without at least being strictly censured by the State authorities and that is this country.

I again ask the Minister does he imagine that all the people, both clerical and lay, in the County Mayo who have taken up this question and objected to the Minister's attitude in suppressing the county council and who have objected to the appointment of Miss Dunbar as librarian are actuated simply by a spirit of mischief, by [442] a desire to create trouble and by dishonest motives? Does he not realise that there is intense feeling in the Co. Mayo over this question, that it either means the total abolition of the library services altogether or else if the library is to function the present librarian must be removed? He has here, on the admission of an inspector sent down by him to hold an enquiry, in fact to compliment the Mayo County Council on the administration of their affairs in general. Still that body is ruthlessly suppressed.

I am not quite sure that the County Commissioner has been six months in office in Mayo without taking every possible step within his power to dive into the records of the County Council, and to find out if there were any misdemeanours even in the distant past that could be brought against the County Council. I am quite sure that he has left no record unexamined, and that if there was any ammunition to shove into the Government propaganda bureau to support their action in suppressing the Mayo County Council, that ammunition would have been fired before now. No shots have been fired because there is no ammunition. The only thing that the Mayo County Council could have been accused of was that they represented the views of 98 per cent. of the people of Mayo in this question, and that they refused to recede from that position indicated by the people, as far as they were able to give articulate expression to their views. I repeat my challenge to the Minister to prove that the library in Mayo is functioning, that it is giving value to the people of Mayo for the money expended upon it, or that it is likely to function in the future or give value for the money expended on it.

Professor Thrift: I only wish to refer, while I entirely accept your ruling as to the relevancy of the matter, to two fundamental misstatements made by the last speaker. I rise merely for explanation. He said two wrong things. One was that the “Soldiers' Song” was flouted in Trinity College. I deny that. The incident to which he referred arose entirely in another way.

[443] Secondly, he said that Trinity College was maintained by State funds. I deny that also. It is true that £3,000 a year is paid to Trinity College out of State funds which were given under the Land Act as compensation for loss accruing to the College owing to sales of land. I hope those misstatements are not characteristic of the Deputy, and that he will set himself to learn what is the truth in the two matters.

Mr. Walsh: I said that Trinity College had certain educational advantages.

Professor Thrift: The Deputy said that Trinity College was maintained by State funds.

Mr. Walsh: I said no such thing. I said that Trinity College had certain educational advantages. One of the advantages that it has is that it can take students who are not qualified in Irish and the National University cannot.

Mr. Flinn: Would the Deputy extend his explanation by telling us where the revenue of Trinity College comes from? We would be glad to give a full and adequate opportunity for doing so.

Professor Thrift: In the proper time and place.

Acting-Chairman: And this is neither the time nor the place.

Mr. Briscoe: The Minister for Local Government on one occasion described a Bill brought in by a Deputy on this side as a hash and a mess. I wonder if the Minister remembers the occasion and the expression.

General Mulcahy: Indeed I do.

Mr. Briscoe: I wonder if the Minister realises that as Minister for Local Government he is a perfect hash and mess himself. If any Minister in any other Department created the difficulties in local administration, the hashes and the messes that the Minister has [444] created, he should retire gracefully rather than disgracefully, which he will have to do at the next election. Section 6 of this Bill appears to be a very peculiar one, unless it is read with the proper understanding. It proposes to make valid decisions arrived at by the Supreme Courts. Are we going to have a precedent now so that when people go to law the decisions of the courts, whether the lower or the Supreme Court, shall only be valid if a Bill is brought into this House to make such decisions valid? That is how the matter appears to me. Of course, underlying all is the effort to get out of further messes and further hashes that have occurred as a result of the Minister's desire for the suppression of local bodies, for reasons that have been pointed out by previous speakers, not on their merits or demerits, but because they do not do what the Minister decrees. In suppressing local bodies and in appointing commissioners the Minister forgot that these also require an amount of supervision. I have some correspondence and I will briefly explain its contents to the House, and ask it to say what would happen if a local body were to do what the Minister's nominee can do, and why it is when the Minister's nominee does what is absolutely wrong the Minister stands over it.

One of the former Dublin Commissioners, who has since become manager of the coastal borough, as one of his first acts dismissed a sanitary officer, and in his place appointed a gentleman who had hitherto been a part-time officer—a veterinary surgeon to three local bodies. His work, I am informed, was of such a nature that it is only piece-work, and was not paid for on a salary basis. When my attention was drawn to the matter, I wrote to the manager of the coastal borough, pointing out that the person in question was advanced in years, and that I understood he had a forage stores apart from his practice as a veterinary surgeon.

General Mulcahy: Are we to enter on and discuss any or every action that has taken place in the Dublin coastal borough since it was set up?

[445] Acting-Chairman: Discussion of the actions of the Commissioner is out of order. If it relates to reasons why further powers should not be given to the Minister in connection with public bodies which have been dissolved, it will be in order. I do not think this particular instance does relate.

Mr. Briscoe: What I am trying to prove is that this Bill seeks to give the Minister further powers to do these things if he feels like doing them after a bad night—to suppress them ad lib.

General Mulcahy: I do not wish to object to the discussion of anything that is relevant, but I would like to know if what the Deputy wants to discuss now is in relation to the Minister for Local Government with a borough manager in Dun Laoghaire at the present time?

Mr. Briscoe: I am coming to that. Perhaps the Minister will understand it better if I start backwards, and point out that notwithstanding the fact that I drew the Minister's attention to a flagrant violation of what was correct and proper no decision has been given.

General Mulcahy: That is where I say the Deputy is out of order.

Acting-Chairman: Discussion of the Borough Council is out of order.

Mr. Briscoe: If I try to give an illustration of something which might happen, I would be in order, but when I tried to give an illustration of something that has happened, I would not be in order. The Minister has appointed as a sanitary officer a man with a tremendous amount of tenement property in the area over which he is sanitary officer. That would not be tolerated or allowed by any public bodies, or by the Minister. However, I bow to the ruling of the Chair.

Acting-Chairman: This Bill, and I take it Section 2 is the kernel of it, deals with the general powers of the Minister when a local body is dissolved. If the Deputy will show why such powers should not be given, he will be in order, but to discuss the actions of a Minister in a borough council that actually is in existence, is not in order.

[446] Mr. Briscoe: I must take it so that the word “whenever,” wherever it occurs, does not foreshadow future activity of the Minister in the suppression of public bodies?

Acting-Chairman: I cannot say that. I am not a prophet.

Mr. Briscoe: I will leave the matter there. I wonder if the Minister could come to the House and argue that he suppressed a local government body for wanton waste, for wanton destruction, for criminal negligence or for foolish litigation; that they were squandering the ratepayers' money, and for that reason that he was suppressing the body. But instead of that we find that the Dublin Corporation was suppressed because they refused to carry out an order of the Minister reducing the workers' wages. They were suppressed for that. We have the Kerry County Council and the reason for its suppression. We have the Mayo County Council now suppressed, and nobody has suggested but I hope somebody will propose to bring in a Bill to suppress the Minister for Local Government and Public Health on the grounds that he has wasted thousands of pounds of public money on frivolous silly litigation as was shown in the case of the Grangegorman and Portrane Mental Hospitals. In the case where the Dublin Corporation was suppressed certain nominees were acting for them on the institutions known as the Grangegorman and Portrane Mental Homes. By the way, I had better perhaps mention to the Minister two things that happened this morning. Senator Mrs. Clarke and myself were elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman of those institutions. I would like to break that information gently to the Minister. The fact that two members of this Party being elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman of these bodies would be perhaps good reason for the Minister's suppression of them.

He is getting power under this Bill to do that. After the suppression of the Dublin Corporation the nominees of that body on the Grangegorman and [447] Portrane asylums who were not suppressed by the Minister's order refused to act any further in the management of these institutions. Subsequently the Minister asked his Commissioners whom he had appointed on the Dublin Corporation to act on these bodies. I wonder if the Minister has ever gone to the trouble of looking at the attendance book of the meetings of the Grangegorman and Portrane Mental Hospitals. The Commissioners who represented the ratepayers, who had to foot the bill for the upkeep of these institutions, will be found to have in the case of one Commissioner attended only once in five years. These meetings took place every second week. Another Commissioner had an attendance of thirty-three and one-third per cent., and a third Commissioner attended fairly regularly. Does anybody think that that kind of management on behalf of the ratepayers of Dublin is going to get the best results?

Apart from that these people indulged in all sorts of supposed economies, reducing the wages of the attendants. When the Minister found that these reductions were illegal and involved the city in great loss, then he sought the judgment of the courts, and there was a race between the members of the Government Party on that institution and the other members of that body as to which would take place first, whether we would be able to pay the arrears of wages of the nurses and the male attendants, and the other officers, or whether the matter would be postponed until the Minister could bring into this House a Bill to make null and void the decision of the Supreme Court. It was only because the Minister was beaten on that transaction that the good sense of the majority of that particular board decided that to bring into this House the precedent of turning down the decision of the Supreme Court would be a bad one and that, having lost the case, the best thing to do would be to pay. We would otherwise have a peculiar situation in bringing in an Act of Indemnity to stop payment.

I say that any Deputy here who [448] really has the interests of the citizens of the State at heart and who has studied what has taken place in the last five or six years, the benefits on the one hand of decentralisation of local government or on the other hand what the Minister might call the benefits of centralisation of local government will find if he really has the interests of the ratepayers at heart that the old custom which has grown up of giving local government certain powers for their local administration should not be interfered with and that the system which the Minister has attempted to put into force, namely, the suppression of the local authority and putting into the management, in place of these authorities, Commissioners is a thing that is not going to lead to what is wanted by the people.

I am sure a great many Deputies have had considerable experience in local affairs. Some of them have had none but the majority have had considerable experience and they know that no commissioner system can make any improvement even if it can equal the system of local government as we have it. Local government can be improved but not by the suppression of the elected representatives and replacing them by commissioners. The citizens of this State want to be in touch with the representatives whether local representatives or Dáil representatives because their situation and the situation in front of them can only be met by some direct contact with the people who are elected to bring about certain alterations in the present state of affairs and not by having commissioners there who will do just what they are told from the Custom House. These commissioners in no way reflect the wants and requirements of the area of which they are in control.

Had I a belief that the Minister was genuinely out for the purifying of local government and local authorities and that his idea of suppression would only come into effect where he saw either corrupt government or where he saw almost criminal negligence in the shape of administration in a particular area. I would say that there [449] would be something to be said for it. But I am satisfied that the Minister will only suppress and suppress without any consideration in areas where there would appear to be an opposition. There is a lot of talk about technicalities or misrepresentation. The Minister has sufficient power under the Local Government Acts to be able to assure himself that proper and efficient administration is being carried out, and there is no necessity for this idea of the suppression of local authorities to be continued.

I want to ask the House to throw out the Bill, which seeks to make permanent the suppression of local authorities whenever the Minister himself thinks fit. If the Minister brought in a Bill here, or if he were to amend the powers he had to the extent that he should be armed with powers to suppress the local authorities for certain acts, I would say that some Deputies might go a long way with him. But when he wants to bring in further powers for himself to hide from this House the mess and the hash that the commissioners subsequently make in the area that he has suppressed—when that is what is behind the Bill, I think the House should give the Bill a short shrift. Had a local authority proceeded to select for a pensionable position a man of 58 years of age, the Minister would turn round very soon and say this body must be suppressed, when they are going to select men of that age for pensionable positions. But when such a thing is done by the Commissioners, the nominees of the Minister, that is all right and he is satisfied. If that is done by a local body the people have the right to object, and they have the means to upset it, but when done by the Commissioners there is no right in the people to upset it. The people in such a case would have the right to put out of office the members of the local bodies who would in that way flout the wishes and desires of their constituents, and fail in the proper administration of their office.

I hope that the House will stick rigidly to the method of election to subsidiary bodies of local authorities [450] that we have. If the Minister is going to take by means of this Bill the power to suppress a subsidiary body of a local authority, and to appoint managers or commissioners to deal with particular institutions, those who pay their rates for the administration of these subsidiary bodies will have no say whatever in their management. I would ask Deputies to consider seriously why they should give such arbitrary powers to a Minister, particularly to a Minister of whom we have had such experience in the last few years, and who has done nothing but clear up messes at a terrible cost to the ratepayers.

Mr. Clery: I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of Deputy Davis. I am glad, as a Mayo Deputy, that the day has come in this House when there is a question on which Deputy Davis and myself can stand shoulder to shoulder. I certainly am glad of the attitude he has taken on this question. Deputy Davis has proved to have a little manliness in him. It is about time. I think that this question of the abolition of the Mayo County Council and the attitude of the Minister on matters which led up to it and the abolition of other councils should be tackled by this House and not tackled in a halfhearted fashion either. There is no need to my mind for a great deal of discussion on this question. A few months ago, throughout the whole of the country, this matter was discussed in the Press and in other places and the people are fairly well informed of the facts of the case. There was no question I think in recent years in Ireland which caused such a storm of protest as the abolition of the Mayo Co. Council and the circumstances that led up to it. There is nothing which left as bad a taste in the mouths of the people or as bad a feeling in public as the action of the Minister on that occasion. Every Irishman and every Irish Catholic is well informed of the case. It has been made such a live question that every Deputy in this House, with the exception of the Minister, and I might also say of Deputy Dr. Hennessy, the exporter of Irish brains, has made up his mind and is convinced that [451] the Minister was wrong and that it is their duty to vote for this Motion on the Order Paper censuring the attitude of the Minister on that occasion. As has been emphasised, the people of Mayo and the Bishops and priests of Mayo took a certain line of action on this question. They did not do it for frivolous reasons. They did not do it without knowing what they were doing. Many public men in Mayo who up to that time were ardent supporters of the Minister and of his Party found it was their duty to come out in the open and to do what they could to prevent the action he was taking. When you find such a position every Deputy must come to the view that the Minister was wrong and that the people were right.

There are two things which I want to lay stress on. In the first place, the fact that the terms of the advertisement were departed from by the Minister or somebody in his Department when the appointment was being made. Their advertisement emphasised the fact that Irish was an essential qualification. As Deputy Davis pointed out, it is quite possible that people who had not a complete knowledge of Irish were thereby debarred from applying for the position. Yet we find that the appointment was filled by a person who had no knowledge of Irish and, therefore, you have a wrong being done to people who in all probability refused to apply because the advertisement stated that Irish was an essential qualification. That was one of the big mistakes that was made.

Another question was the age qualification. The age qualification was not fulfilled and there again I assume that many people were prevented from applying because of the age that was specified. Yet we have the Minister ratifying that appointment in spite of the fact that the age qualification was not fulfilled by the person whom he sanctioned for the appointment.

There was also the question of the years of experience of the person to be appointed. Weeks and months in certain capacities were taken into account. I would go so far as to suggest that certain certificates were not genuine. They were put forward [452] in order to make up the time spent in a Dublin library to qualify this lady for the job. There is no doubt that the Minister appointed a person whom in the ordinary course he would have disqualified as not being qualified to fill the job, for two reasons, first because she had no knowledge of Irish and secondly for having failed to fulfil the age qualification. The Minister in making other appointments insisted on these qualifications being fulfilled. He did everything he could to meet the applicant instead of the applicant being able to prove to him that she was capable of filling the appointment. We have also the action of the people in County Mayo in refusing to co-operate in any way with the Commissioner. All committees have refused to function, the members of the Committee have resigned, rather than co-operate with the Commissioner. The Old Age Pension Committees have gone out of existence, and let nobody tell me that the clergy who were acting on the Old Age Pension Committees would lightly withdraw from them if there was no very serious question to be dealt with. They would not withdraw without very serious reasons.

When the action of the Minister produced such protests, it is clear that it was felt strongly by the people of Mayo, including the Bishops and clergy. The Librarian when she discovered that there was such an objection there made known her wishes that she preferred not to be sent there. When the position was that the people of Mayo as a united body refused to accept her, and when she herself put forward this suggestion that she should not be sent there, I should like to know what hidden hand behind the Minister insisted on that Librarian going to Mayo? I have made the charge in other places and I am going to make it now, that that Librarian would never have been appointed to Co. Mayo were it not for the fact that there was a by-election in the County Dublin at that time. The instructions to have that appointment insisted upon came to the Minister from the Orange Lodges in the Co. Dublin. The Minister answered to the instructions of the Orange Lodges, to the instructions of Deputy Dr. Hennessy, this exporter [453] of Irish brains, and also to the instructions of the “Irish Times,” the official organ of Deputy Dr. Hennessy and the Orange Lodges and Unionists in Co. Dublin. It was to these instructions that the Minister answered. At the time he found it was politic to flout the people of Mayo, to flout the wishes of the elergy there, and to dance instead in attendance on the Unionists and Masons of the Co. Dublin, whose votes did count at the time for the Minister and his Party.

We do not expect any satisfaction from the Minister in his reply. We do not expect him to get up and say: “I know I made a mistake but I did it for political reasons. Politics demanded it at the time. My Party were in a rut, and in order to get my Party out of the rut in County Dublin it was necessary for me to flout the wishes of the people in Mayo. Now that we have got over the danger in County Dublin, I am prepared to admit that I did wrong and am prepared to restore the Mayo County Council to their former position.”

We do not expect the Minister to do that. We do not expect the Minister to have any respect for the wishes of the Archbishop of Tuam, the Bishop of Killala, Dean D'Alton, and Archdeacon Fallon of Castlebar, who have proved in their letters to the Press, and no Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy can deny the fact, that the Minister was wrong in his action, and that the qualifications of the candidate were not such as to justify her being appointed. They have proved in every letter they have written that the Minister did wrong—that he did it for some underhand reason. We do not expect him to state now that he has any respect for these clergymen's wishes or expect him to apologise, because he is General Mulcahy. He is the over-rider of the people's rights, as he described himself in the Dáil on 26th June, 1924, as reported in column 3110 of the Dáil Debates. He found fault with the fact that certain people looked upon him as being somewhat self-opinionated and as an over-rider of the people. We do not expect this self-opinionated Minister, this over-rider of the people's rights, according to his own words, this General [454] Mulcahy, to admit that he is wrong. There was a time in the past when this self-opinionated Minister, this over-rider of the people's rights, got out of his opponents in another fashion. There was a time when not abolition, but execution was his method of putting his opponents aside. Now since he finds he can put them aside in another way, according to law, his method is not execution, but abolition. He takes to himself the weapon of abolition and in every case where the people's rights have run up against the Minister, the Minister has proved himself to be what he described himself to be, an over-rider of the people's rights, one who abolishes the people's rights and institutions. We do not expect him, knowing him as we did in the past, to cave in now. He has burned his boats and cannot turn back. He has to set his face to the front and face it. But we expect the people who sit behind him on the Government Benches, who have some respect for local authorities and the will of the people, who have sat on local authorities and who know the good that county councils, boards of health, vocational committees do for the people, to set their face against this self-opinionated Minister. We expect them to show, if he is the overrider of the people's rights, that they are going to stand by the people against him. We expect them to have their minds made up that voting against him in this instance is right. We expect them to do that even for his own good.

Many people were surprised to-day when they saw this motion on the Order Paper, but I was not surprised, because the Minister was getting away with it too well. The Minister has been flogging a dead horse for a long time in flogging the members of the Cumann na nGaedheal, but he was carrying it too far. He went down to a certain part of the country a few days ago, this over-rider of the people's rights, and stated that he believed in the country and in the abilities of its people, and faced the problem of building up the country content to trust the people. This man who, since he became Minister for Local Government, has, every time he got the chance, abolished public bodies, has curtailed in every [455] way he can the local authorities and the voice of the people, has now a Bill before us which is to curtail still further the powers of the people and local authorities. This man who states in one part of the country that he trusts in the will of the people, is, through Acts which he has passed through this House, and through the present Bill, deliberately flouting the wishes of the people and curtailing their power in every possible manner. I am not surprised, therefore, when certain Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies realise the bumptiousness of this Minister in his statements in public; realise how inconsistent these statements about trusting the people are with his actions here in abolishing the public bodies. I am not surprised that they were driven to take this extreme attitude.

I do not believe it is great fun or a joke for Deputy Davis, the Chairman of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, to have to come to this House and introduce this motion, which amounts to a vote of censure on the Minister. It is no joke for Deputy Davis to have to do that. He has to face criticism in his own Party. He has to face men like Deputy Dr. Hennessy, who has an outlook different from any other Irishman. He has to face the “Irish Times” and the Masons and Unionists, the people with the purse behind the Minister. It was no joke for him to go against that volume of opinion and to bring in this motion, which amounts to a vote of censure on the Minister.

I hold he was driven to it by the action of this self-opinionated over-rider of the people's rights. Many Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies now know that the Minister is driving them too far, that when he got the power he looked upon himself as a certain type of man who only comes to light once in every five or six generations, and that he believes if he had been born in this country six generations ago this country would be like a little heaven now. I believe the Minister means well.

General Mulcahy: It will be all right in another six generations.

Mr. Clery: I believe he means well, [456] but he cannot convince me that he is right and 99 per cent. of the people are wrong. If that is the fact, I believe that the Minister will never get there, even though he is supported by Deputy Dr. Hennessy, that exporter of Irish-men's brains. So that now, when this amendment does come before us, it should get the volume of opinion in this House in support of it and against the Minister, who is always suppressing public bodies and appointing commissioners. Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies have now got a lead from the Chairman of their Party, and although it may be questioned in such a direction whether that lead is sincere or not, at any rate he has given the lead, and I ask every Deputy who may have any respect for local authorities and the wishes of the people to vote for Deputy Davis's amendment upon this. If they do, they will make one step forward towards uniting a certain body in this country who have the interests of the people at heart and who for a long time have been divided into political groups and thought of nothing else but politics. I ask Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies to vote for this motion to-night, and if they do it will come as a shock to this overrider of the people's rights that might have the effect of bringing him to his senses and that will win the gratitude of the public all over the country. Nobody can state why, when this action was taken to abolish the Mayo County Council and to make such a disgraceful appointment in a Gaeltacht county at a time when a National Catholic lead could be given in this country and was expected to be given, the Minister gave a lead in the other direction. I believe Deputies know well the people's wishes in that respect and what the Catholics of Ireland and those abroad expected. I believe, without making a sectarian question of it at all, they would be justifying their attitude as public men in voting for the amendment here and restricting this Minister in any further diddling of the people out of their rights in local affairs.

Mr. T. O'Connell: Of the nine Deputies who represent Mayo, six are members of the County Council, and [457] I was awaiting until these men, who are more closely associated with this matter than I, would have spoken. Three of them have spoken, and I assume we shall hear from the others later on. My remarks on this matter will be brief. When the Minister for Local Government, who is now the Minister for Finance, was taking power in 1923 to suppress local authorities, I think it will be found that he made a statement very definitely, that while it was necessary to have some such power, it would be scarcely ever used. In any case, I well remember the impression he left upon the House was, that the dissolution of the local authority would be something that would be almost in the nature of a revolutionary act on the part of the Ministry.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

Up to that time, and down from the year 1898, when the Local Government Act came into operation, I do not know, as far as my memory serves me, of any county council that had been suppressed or wiped out by the arbitrary act of the British Government. I think, if the British Government had attempted to do so there would be something in the nature of a revolution. There were one or two cases, I believe, where boards of guardians were dismissed, and what were called vice guardians appointed in their places, but the cases were so rare that nobody paid very much attention at the time when these powers were being taken by the Minister. Nobody certainly thought that in a few short years, we should see the chief local authority in this country, the ancient Corporation of the City of Dublin, suppressed by the action of the then Minister for Local Government. Since then, we know it has become quite a common thing for the Ministry of Local Government to suppress local authorities, and to appoint Commissioners in their place. I protest against that policy. I think it is wrong from many points of view I think it is calculated to undermine the belief that should be encouraged in the minds of the people that they [458] are self-governing communities. I believe the growth of bureaucracy in this way will have reactions that will not be good for the community as a whole; I believe it will undermine their faith in democratic government.

It will, perhaps, encourage the growth of movements opposed to democratic government and which are opposed to the very idea of Parliamentary government. I think that in pursuing that policy, in suppressing local authorities for actions which, to the ordinary man in the street, in any case, appear comparatively trivial, the Minister is doing a dis-service to the cause of democratic government and democratic principles. There may be cases where a local authority is so inefficient, corrupt or useless, or is acting entirely contrary to the interests of the people within its area that it is necessary for the central authority to exercise control. There may be such cases, but they are extremely rare cases, and so far as I know of the bodies that have been suppressed by this Minister or the former Minister, no such case could be made out.

We have now the instance of the suppression of the Mayo County Council. On the testimony of the Minister's official who made the inquiry, we had it that in all its acts and, generally speaking, through the whole of its administration, there was no cause of complaint so far as the Mayo County Council was concerned. There was this crux about the appointment of a librarian, this one occasion upon which there was a dispute between the Minister for Local Government and the local authority. I cannot believe, and I refuse to believe, assuming for a moment that the law was there, and required certain things to be done, that the only way left to the Minister was to suppress the County Council and all its subsidiary bodies as a result of that suppression. I think it was an act on the part of the Minister that cannot be justified, and from every point of view it was a foolish act so far as the objects which we all here profess to have in mind are concerned, namely, the associating of the people generally with governmental [459] functions, whether local or national. By one stroke of the pen in this arbitrary fashion to take out of the hands of the people of Mayo and their representatives the complete authority over all the functions of government that they possessed through their county council was, I think, something which should not be done.

With regard to the question of this appointment which is being so much discussed, there is one point that has not been raised, but which deserves to be raised. It has been stated publicy, but I do not know whether it has been stated officially, that the method of appointment was as follows. About this particular time there was not alone this vacancy for a librarian in Mayo but there were five or six vacancies in other places. Advertisements were issued and all the applicants appeared before the same selection board. The board selected a certain number, I forget whether it was four, five or six, but I think it was four, and they placed them in a certain order of merit. Then they proceeded in this fashion. They said to the first person on the list: “Here are four vacancies. There is a vacancy in Mayo and there are others in other counties. You may have your choice.” The first person took his choice. The second and third persons on the list got their choice of what remained, and finally it came to the time when there was only Mayo left and, naturally, the fourth person on the list had either to take Mayo or nothing. If that was the procedure, and I am informed that it was, it was not in accordance with the Act and I suggest that it was illegal. If that is so, and if none of these applicants applied for a vacancy in Mayo, Carlow or anywhere else, I suggest that the terms and, certainly, the spirit of the Act were violated.

It has been stated in defence of that method that that is the method usually adopted in the case of the Civil Service, the first person on the list gets his choice. That may be so, but I suggest that the position is entirely different to the Civil Service because, no matter whether a civil servant is [460] appointed to the Ministry of Local Government, the Education Office, the Ministry of Agriculture or any other office, his employer all the time is the Minister for Finance who can shift him from one office to another according as he suits such office. That, however, is not the position so far as a local authority is concerned.

I suggest that if Mayo wanted a librarian, and advertised for a librarian, only those who applied to be appointed in that capacity in Mayo should have been considered for that vacancy. Any selection board selecting a librarian for Mayo, Carlow, Monaghan, Cavan or any other county would surely, if they had any sense of their responsibility, take into account the local circumstances of the county or district where that person was going to serve. If the method, which I say was the method of selection, was used in this case then it was impossible for that consideration, and it is an important consideration, to be taken into account, because the Selection Board was selecting a librarian, not a librarian for Mayo, Monaghan, Carlow or somewhere else. I say that they did not take into account local circumstances. I say that the method was one for which I can find no justification in the Act. I do not know whether any statutory regulation has been made under the Act, but certainly there is no justification for that method in the Act, and I say that it is entirely contrary to its spirit.

There is only one other point. Reference has been made by Deputy Walsh to the reduction in wages of road workers in County Mayo by the present Commissioner. A statement was made that I, as a Mayo representative, did not take any action, or, as the Deputy said, that he did not hear that I took any action. A great many things happen about which the Deputy does not hear. I have here in front of me a file of correspondence showing that so far back as the first week in April I took action in the matter. I will say no more about the matter now, except that I was more concerned in getting wages back to the figures to which they were brought on my representation in 1927 than with [461] any desire to make political capital by means of a public condemnation of the Commissioner. My attitude regarding the suppression of public bodies and the appointment of Commissioners is well known, but in this matter of wages my one desire was to have them restored to the figure to which they were brought about 1928 after a similar figure to that now paid was paid by the County Council for a number of years. I frequently protested both here and outside against that figure. I intend to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Flinn: I propose to address my remarks definitely to the amendment put down by the Chairman of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, Deputy Davis. It has been said, I think, by Deputy Clery, that it amounts to a vote of censure. It not merely amounts to a vote of censure, but it is in specific and set terms a vote of censure on a particular individual in relation to his functions. It is a refusal on the part of the Chairman of Cumann na nGaedheal to give any further extension, in relation to local government, of powers now possessed by the present Minister for Local Government, unless and until he shall have reversed in a specific case a specific misuse of the powers which he now has. That is the amendment which is before you on behalf of the Chairman of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

While I do not wish in any way to be personal, I do say that it is a very useful and a very hopeful sign, perhaps the first sign in the darkness, which he have seen for a long time— the darkness of the back benchers of Cumann na nGaedheal—that there is still somewhere amongst them some backbone, some remaining element of those qualities which made a man walk erect instead of creeping on his belly like worm. It is the first sign, and it is only right that we should acknowledge it in the fullest possible manner. “I will not,” says the Chairman of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, “give to the Minister for Local Government of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party any further extension of the powers which he now has, as Cumann na nGaedheal Minister for Local Government, [462] unless and until in relation to a specific instance, the whole intimate, exact and accurate knowledge in relation to which is in my possession, unless and until in relation to that particular instance he shall completely withdraw and make amends for the misuse of the authority, the exercise of which the Cumann na nGaedheal Party up to the present have defended.”

That is a very serious position for any man to take up. It is a position which, I am prepared to express the hope, will redound in the result—redound in the way in which he follows it up, redound in the way in which he calls behind him the support of the other representatives of his Council and the other back-benchers of his Party—to the credit of that Party, and through the credit of that Party to the credit of this country, of which at the present moment it is very substantial part. That is the most important thing, more important even than the particular issues which we are discussing, that through one of their back-benchers they may give back to this country the self-respect and public reputation for honesty and backbone which their conduct in the past has tended to rob this country of in the public estimation.

I come to this question, not with the heated feeling of Deputy Davis, Deputy Clery, Deputy Walsh, Deputy Ruttledge, and the apparently mitigated intensity of feeling of two other Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies and the Minister for Justice. We will ask them to speak for themselves later, but it is not possible, and it is not to be expected, that the ordinary representatives of other constituencies in this country should have that same feeling of heat and enthusiasm with which these gentlemen are animated. There is all the difference between the heat and the enthusiasm you have for an academic principle and the heat and enthusiasm when that academic principle of right is violated in relation to yourself and in relation to your own concerns. Therefore, possibly we come in a more judicial spirit to examine this matter than the members from Mayo could reasonably be expected to do.

[463] I, personally—I stress this point deliberately—am very moderate in my outlook on the issues which are raised in this matter. I recognise that there is a lot of human nature knocking about in county councils. I recognise that a lot of that human nature has been shown in the appointments made by county councils in the past. I certainly do not automatically react against the Appointments Commission. I can see a great deal that can be said for some commissions to provide local authorities with a panel out of which they will select people who have been vetted to be technically qualified by some board or some body which is independent of immediate local interests.

I will go further than that. I will say that I recognise that there is authority in a central Parliament in relation to local authorities which it cannot completely delegate. I want to say quite clearly that circumstances may arise in which a central authority may have to supervise the activities of any particular body in the country whose actions might possibly react to the discredit of the whole. Therefore, when I am told that a central authority has appointed somebody to a local position, and that that central authority has suppressed the local body, I for one do not immediately assume that the central authority is wrong in so doing. But when we come to examine the actual circumstances of this particular case we find certain agreed facts.

We find a model county council, a county council on whose reputation no slur of any sort, kind or description has been cast by any man—fact No. 1. We find that county council, suppressed in its activities, told that in no proportion of its present relation to local government shall it be allowed to function—fact No. 2. Fact No. 3—we find that council more or less accurately reflecting the condition of public opinion and public judgment in the council. I understand there are nine members from Mayo. Four of them sit on this side of the House and four of them on the other. One sits on the Labour Benches. I understand that condition is fairly accurately represented in the [464] County Council. In other words, you have a body which, like the community from which it is drawn, represents well-organised and fairly equally-balanced bodies of normally contradictory opinions, and in relation to this particular instance we find that oil and water have mixed. We find that there is no line of demarcation between Cumann na nGaedheal, Fianna Fáil and Labour.

We find that the county council and the county are in a unit in accepting willingly the continuous suppression of the county councils rather than that something which the central authority attempts to impose upon them shall be made effective. Now that is a very unusual condition. A model county council suppressed, a model county council made up of divers opinions who have all come together as a unit, who are prepared to be suppressed in order that the Central Government shall not be allowed to impose its will. Unless we have to assume that this is a superman, unless we are prepared to assume that some special inspiration from heaven has given the wisdom which enables him to know in relation to this county council more than Cumann na nGaedheal, more than Fianna Fáil, more than Labour, more than priests and people know about it, we must assume that he is a superman of a different character, a man whose sole supermanship is in the claim to override the organised united public opinion of a county on a matter of which they have full and complete knowledge. If it is right to suppress the Mayo County Council then all local government should be suppressed. If we are to assume that the whole community, the united community of Mayo which has laid down all its differences to unite in this matter, are so completely ignorant that the will and judgment of the Minister here are to override them, then we must assume that the whole of the community in this country are equally incompetent to form a reasonable and valuable judgment in relation to matters of their own counties. I am not prepared to assume that. If we are prepared to accept the precedent and the reason and the history of the suppression of the Mayo County Council as a legitimate [465] criterion by which we are to judge the relation of the central to the local authority, then the sooner we face the fact that these local authorities should go the better. That we are not prepared to assume.

Now, having reached that extraordinary impasse, we come to the explanation, and there are two explanations, and I prefer to choose the more modern one. One explanation is that the Minister does actually believe himself to be the legitimate over-rider of the people, that he has a malignant opposition to the rights of the people to express an effective opinion in relation to their own local government. That is one explanation. The other is downright stupidity. I think it is downright stupidity that is at the back of all this.

All this mess is due to the obstinacy of a man, who, when he got into a mess did not know how to bend. He had to break the county council rather than his own pride. The Minister was not responsible in the early stages for what has happened. He has only been responsible for making the mess out of what occurred automatically. Deputy O'Connell has stated the case very fairly and very much as I personally would state it. This particular occupant, who, in the unanimous opinion of priests, people and men of all parties is incapable of filling that position properly, was never appointed to Mayo by either the Government or the Appointments Commission. It is quite probable that in law she never was appointed properly at all, but, in fact, she never was appointed. What happened was, as Deputy O'Connell said, these five or six people were selected for librarianships. There was a sort of Dutch auction between the people who were appointed and the last one fell to this particular applicant. This particular applicant was selected for Mayo, not by the Appointments Commission, but by the five other people who selected their positions and left her the last one. This particular occupant, judging by the evidence, was appointed to a position which the Appointments Commission ad hoc would never have appointed her to.

[466] The Minister set up certain machinery. According to Deputy O'Connell that machinery has possibly got out of the control of the law because the procedure adopted, as far as we know, is not within the law. The machinery started to function and turned out for Mayo an utterly unsuitable occupant in the opinion of Deputy Davis, Deputy O'Clery and of the whole of the people of Mayo. When the Minister woke up to the fact that this perfectly well-intentioned machinery had broken down and been made a mess of he had not the courage or the manliness to remedy it. That is the stupidity which has brought us into all this trouble and the stupidity which could have been avoided with the co-operation of the applicant herself if the Minister had not been so stiff-necked. This country cannot afford Deputy Mulcahy to be in the position in which his obstinacy can turn a mistake into a disaster. If the machinery he has turns out a wrong product it is going to be forced down the throats of the people even though he knows it is a wrong product and even though the people vomited it on sight. Are we going to hand over to a Minister, who is convicted on the face of it of stupid misuse of the powers he has, more powers to misuse? That is the issue. Deputy Davis says he should not have them. I want that to be perfectly clear. What are the Cumann na nGaedheal representatives—I am not putting this on any point of politics to them at all—going to do in the matter? Are they going to accept as a standard, in relation to all their own county councils, that there shall be in a position and with increased power a Minister whose flagrant stupidity has produced this mess? Nobody wants to trouble about this thing. We want a solution of this thing. I want to find some means by which the Appointments Commissioners can function without producing this sort of mess. Are they going to take some action to see that there is a complete reorganisation of the Appointments Commission's arrangements which will prevent the Minister being offered raw products of this kind which he feels his amour propre requires him to be [467] forced down the throats, not merely of Mayo, but of other county councils in the country?

If they are prepared to take the initiative in demanding action of that kind, either to chuck him out or to see that there is a Minister whom they could trust not to make a mess of things, or if they would take the initiative for providing machinery that even Deputy Mulcahy could not make a mess of, there would be something to be said for that moderation in relation to the Resolution. Unless they are, it is a matter of bounden duty, an honourable obligation resting individually on every Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy who believes in local government to go into the Lobby and to say with Deputy Davis: “As a Cumann na nGaedheal Deputy I will not entrust to this Minister for Local Government, in a Cumann na nGaedheal Government, any more powers unless and until in the specific instance of Mayo he shall undo the consequence of the gross misuse he has made of the powers he now has.”

Mr. O'Kelly: Speaking earlier to-day on the Second Reading of the Local Government (Dublin) Bill, I had reason to call attention to what I believe to be and described as the incompetence of the authorities of a Department that necessitated the introduction at such frequent intervals of amending legislation to undo the blunders and the incompetence of the heads of the Department. The Minister, in his reply, took pains to say—I am not quoting his exact words—these officials were the best that could be got; that no better officials could be got anywhere, and he took upon his own shoulders complete responsibility for any actions they were guilty of, and therefore all the blunders and incompetence and stupidity that I charged against them. Be it so. I would say that if that is so, the sooner the present Minister sends for his junior office boy and puts him in to run the Department, the better it will be for this House and for the Free State. A greater exhibition of blundering and incompetence than that exhibited in the second amending Bill we have before us to-day from that Department [468] I find it difficult to imagine. Almost all the speeches to-day dealt with one particular aspect of the matters raised in this Bill, namely, that concerning the Mayo County Council, raised by the amendment moved by Deputy Davis, Chairman of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I may have something to say on that matter later. I wish to deal for the moment with another aspect of this Bill, which in a most emphatic way exhibits what I call the incompetence and the inefficiency of the Department of Local Government as at present administered. The matter that gave rise to the introduction of this Bill relates to the management of Grangegorman and Portrane Mental Hospital. The Minister gave us a short summary of how the legislation that he introduced became necessary.

It will be no harm to refer to it again. It arose out of a mania of the Minister and his Department— and in this he was joined by the President, whom I am glad to see in the House—for the suppression of public bodies, a mania for walking on people's rights; gentlemen who told us that they fought to achieve the liberty and the independence of the people of Ireland, use their powers, when they get them, to tear away any modicum of rights given to local authorities as soon as they get it into their hands. Mr. President Cosgrave of the Free State, and his able adjutant, Napoleon the Tenth I suppose he might be called, the would-be Napoleon, the pocket battleship, the pocket Dreadnought of the Free State, that fears nothing! “I fear no man in shining armour or otherwise.” So says the Minister for Local Government, who ought to be the junior office-boy, judged by the competence he has shown in his office since he had the misfortune to be appointed head of the Department—at least the country had the misfortune. I do not suppose it was much of a misfortune for him. Dublin Corporation was suppressed to give a lead to other Ministers who were to follow. The President suppressed Dublin Corporation—