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 40 - 22 October, 1931

Supplementary Estimate. - In Committee on Finance. Vote 64—Army.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe): I move:

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar Cúig Míle Púnt chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun costas an Airm, maraon le Cúltaca an Airm.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding Five Thousand Pounds be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1932, for the cost of the Army, including Army Reserve.

As Deputies will see from the Supplementary Estimate which has been circulated, this Vote is intended to meet expenses incurred in carrying into effect the provisions of the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act. It is impossible, at the present stage, to estimate the cost of operating that measure with any degree of precision. The figure of £5,000 has been set down, perhaps, as a minimum figure. Should the amount prove to be larger, it will be possible to obtain the additional amount by means of virement, as there will be a saving on other subheads of the Army Vote. The expenses will fall roughly under two heads—expenses connected with the Tribunal and its staffing, which will be a minor item, and other expenses in connection with places of detention, maintenance of prisoners and so forth.

Mr. Derrig: I rise to oppose this Estimate. As the Minister for [597] Finance has admitted, the £5,000 is a mere bagatelle as compared with the amount the State will have to bear responsibility for when the Bill is carried into full operation, as has been intimated. The worst of these dictatorships and these efforts to repress what may be perfectly just and perfectly natural motives amongst large sections of the community is that they have ultimately to be paid for. We are going to be placed in exactly the same position in regard to the cost of this new military dictatorship as we were last week with regard to its operation. We got no information whatsoever as to what exactly the Government were going to do under this Act, what steps their Tribunal, their police forces or their auxiliary forces throughout the country were going to take. I asked the Minister for Finance if it was proposed to organise or recruit new forces and he said that that was not the intention at the moment. Apparently, considerable recruiting has already gone on in connection with what is called the Protective Force and in connection with that branch of the Gárda Síochána which has been connected with this work. I think the Minister ought at least inform the House and the country what exactly all this organising is going to cost and not attempt to get away with the suggestion that a sum of £5,000 will meet the expenses that will accrue. Let us take even the cost of the guards who have been allotted to protect the members of this House. I do not know what they are to protect them from in some cases at any rate. If the 124 persons who voted for this Bill last week in the Dáil and Seanad are to be protected for the next twelve months by two guards per person, or by even one guard per person, the guards, instead of costing something like £5,000 more, will cost something like £30,000 or £40,000 more. I sincerely hope that the Government will not consider it necessary to maintain these guards. Seeing, however, that it seems probable the guards will be maintained, the country is entitled to know from the Deputies concerned what reason there is to believe they are in danger of their lives. Is my [598] friend Deputy Gorey, for example, in any danger in the constituency that we both have the honour to represent? I refuse to believe it. I have not seen any report from any responsible body, any responsible individual or any police officer in that constituency to show that there is anything going on there that could cause the slightest qualms or squeamishness to Deputy Gorey in going about his affairs in the ordinary way.

Mr. Gorey: I agree.

Mr. Derrig: Not alone are we going to pay £30,000 or £40,000, but if this continues we are going to have heavy expenses in connection with maintenance. These guards will have to be paid a reasonable salary. I think most of them occupy the rank of lieutenant, or have been Lieutenants or officers in the Army. In addition to a payment of at least £5 per week per man—it may be more or less—a further sum will have to be paid for their expenses. They will have to stay in hotels, and they will have to travel. The provision of accommodation and the provision of transport for them will increase the bill to a very large figure. We have not alone to consider the guards, but we have to consider the Garda Siochana. We have been told that large numbers of men have been newly assigned to the work of dealing with these organisations, which are said to exist in the country, and that a large squad is being apportioned to each police division. If that is so, the Dáil is entitled to know, before it passes this Vote—this is really only a nominal figure which does not, as I have emphasised, represent the real, ultimate cost of this adventure—how many men have been newly recruited to the special branch of the police force and distributed throughout the country. There is also the case of the Army patrol which we see cycling around the streets of Dublin in the evening. Nobody knows what is the object of these patrols. But even if a special recruitment of the Army is not necessary, we can be quite sure that special costs will arise in connection with them. Officers will have to be specially detailed, and other expenses will arise. That is one of the things [599] which it is impossible to understand, but it is going on.

Another matter is as to the rank of those people. I suggest to the House that the ordinary rank of the officers who will be employed either as guards or otherwise will be that of a Lieutenant in the Army. I notice that in Iris Oifigiúil of the 2nd October there is a very long list of officers of the Defence Force given who have been promoted. Eight officers have been promoted from the rank of Captain to Commandant, and forty-nine other officers have been promoted from the rank of Lieutenant to that of Captain. Are we to take it that these promotions were made in anticipation of this Act; that it was found necessary to take that course in order to make these officers do this work, and that it was necessary to induce them to do this work by giving them this promotion in advance? We are quite in the dark as regards this protective service because we do not know who is responsible. The Minister for Defence is listening, and he will no doubt be able to explain to the House what Ministry is responsible. Is the Minister for Justice responsible? Are these officers who have been just promoted—I do not know whether they are on protective work or not—to work in connection with the Military Tribunal, to be under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Defence? In the event of both Ministries having certain duties and functions to carry out in connection with the Constitution Act, how is the House to distinguish between the officers who are responsible to the Minister for Justice and those who are responsible to the Minister for Defence?

On this question of virement, as one who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have experience of that. It means that a Government Department, when it finds itself short of funds, when it finds it has spent, as in this case it undoubtedly will, the amount allocated—£5,000— under sub-head A.A., and that it requires more money will go to other sub-heads of the Army Vote upon [600] which money is unexpended—in which so to speak, a surplus remains—and it will take that surplus or portion of it out of the sub-head to which it originally belonged and the sub-head for which the Dáil originally voted the money, and it will spend it under a sub-head the sum for which was insufficient to carry out what was deemed necessary.

For example, any other sub-head of the Army Vote where there is money available may be raided by the Minister for money to provide funds to enable him to pay expenses in connection with the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act, 1931 when this £5,000 is exhausted. The principle is a well-recognised one, but so far as I understand it—I did not look up the matter recently and I am only speaking from recollection—the principle under which virement is exercised is governed largely by tradition and usage. That is to say, a Minister will not transfer money from one sub-head to another except in accordance with routine and usage, and furthermore, he will not do it in a way that would be clearly against the wishes of the Dáil when they voted the money originally.

For example, if Deputies on the opposite benches voted £1,437,041 for various purposes in connection with the Army, it may happen that they did not desire any of that money should be spent in connection with the new Military Tribunal or indeed in connection with any of the expenses under this new Act. It may happen that Deputies would be willing, and had in mind that this £1,437,000 should be spent in accordance with the Army, running as an ordinary force, in peace time and governed by the laws of this country. It may be that Deputies when they suddenly see the Army transferred to what I might call a war footing by reason of the military tribunal and patrols and whatever other activities in the way of raids, arrests and internments the Army may take upon itself—it is quite possible that Deputies who would vote money for the Army when the Vote was passed would not vote for it under the new circumstances. In any case, in my [601] opinion the Minister has deceived the House in the first place by giving no indication whatever of what the cost may be, even the cost of the force which he knows himself they had to newly recruit up to the present, and of the expenses which he must know are incidental to this Act. Furthermore, the method of setting out this sub-head as “expenses in connection with the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act, 1931” might cover anything.

Anything whatever that arises, whether it be regular or irregular, whether it be in accordance with current financial usage or not the Minister may come along afterwards and say: “Well, the House passed this money. I told them over and over again that probably more than £5,000 would be necessary. Nevertheless they agreed to it. Furthermore, I told them it would be spent in a general way, that we wanted it in a general way under the general head expenses in connection with this Act, and there is nothing whatever to show that the Dáil had any other intention except to spend this £5,000 or any other sum I felt called upon to get from other sub-heads to spend it in whatever way I thought fitting and right.”

We had an example at the Public Accounts Committee last year where this principle of virement was transgressed, in the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee which is supposed to be a judicial body. I know there are Ministers who do not consider it a judicial body, who consider it a body which ought to be abolished because it has the temerity to support the Comptroller and Auditor-General, whose function it is under the Constitution to see that all public money is rightfully and properly spent and that it has the sanction and authority of the Dáil behind it to see that it is being spent. On that Committee we are generally all of one mind when we are discussing these financial questions and the Committee unanimously reported against a certain transaction which took place where the Minister took advantage of this principle of virement. He was granted a comparatively small sum of money from [602] the Dáil, £12,000, for Army gratuities under a specific sub-head which is exactly the same as the Dáil by its majority will probably pass this £5,000 here. When the Comptroller and Auditor-General examined the account subsequently he found that not alone was £12,000 spent but £216,000 more was spent. That is £228,000 in all. We stated that the spending of that £216,000, although officials of the Department of Finance or the Minister or anybody else might argue it was justifiable and in the exercise of this power of virement, was contrary to the intentions of the Dáil.

I remember that the Minister stated it was on the grounds of policy that he did not declare to the House that a further sum, a very much larger sum than the £12,000, would be necessary. Is it on the grounds of policy that the Minister now refuses to give the House any information whatever as to the expenses he has incurred up to the present, or is likely to incur, or as to what the total cost of this measure is likely to be? Even if the Minister gave a full and accurate account of the expenditure which he foresees in connection with this Act, he cannot expect support from the Fianna Fáil Party, at any rate, in giving him any financial facilities whatever.

So long as we are satisfied that the ordinary law is there, and that we are spending well over £3,000,000 in the maintenance of an Army and the maintenance of a highly efficient police force, and that money is already being spent, there is no reason whatever why we should spend a further sum on the creation of special forces and special tribunals and the pursuance of special activities.

There are one or two points I think it would be well to refer to again in connection with this Tribunal. In the first place we were treated to a great deal of lectures, particularly on religious matters, by Ministers on the opposite side and by Deputy Mulcahy, the Minister for Local Government, whom nobody will accuse of having created any sensational social revolution during his period of administration of the important office he now holds. He actually took it on himself [603] to lecture the Labour Party as to how they should word their phrases when referring to social discontent in this country. I quote from Vol. 40, No. 1, Col. 151, of the Official Reports:—

We have that body to-day at a time of financial and economic depression and social unrest, at a time when the Deputies on the far side do not know what politically or economically they want, at a time when so little of the Deputies on the Labour Benches know what socially or economically they want, that they are almost slipping into borrowing words from the Constitution of Saor Eire.

It seems to me from my recollection that what the Minister said was that the Labour Party were using the same words. What is that but felon setting the Labour Party, trying to create the impression in this country that the Labour Party no matter how they might pretend otherwise—we believe them to be a thoroughly respectable set of men indeed—trying to pretend to the country that the Labour movement is in some way irreligious, that they are some way connected with this dreadful organisation that is trying to upset the country and create a social revolution. Whatever right the Government Party have to badger the Fianna Fáil Deputies with regard to our actions in the past they have no right to badger the Labour Party who, as soon as this Dáil was set up, tried to carry out the Constitution as they saw it. When in 1922 money was being voted for purposes somewhat similar to the purposes this money is being voted for Deputy Johnson stated then “It is an extraordinary thing that although we cannot get money to remedy social evils we can get plenty of money to carry on wars.” That is the extraordinary thing in this present situation, that no matter what money the Government may require, whether it be £5,000, £50,000 or £500,000 it is assured that money will be forthcoming. Once you start the ball rolling you do not know where it is to stop, but these people have the temerity to tell the country that they cannot get [604] money to deal with the problems of the slums or of the Gaeltacht or any other problem crying out for solution, when, as Deputies pointed out, so long as they do exist unsolved, they must remain the breeding ground for the discontent they are trying to put down with a strong hand under this Act.

I say also that it is a thoroughly dangerous practice for politicians, no matter how devout they may be, no matter how holy they may be, no matter how often they may have the word of God on their lips, to mix up religion with their own views. Religion will, I hope, continue in this country when we are all dead and gone, and when possibly the policies we stand for are gone with us. Is this to help the cause of religion? If you suggest, as has been suggested, that it is necessary, in defence of that cause, to carry out this Act and put people to death, it can afterwards be justly declared that when the Act was being put into operation it was put into operation with the intention of making the people of this country believe that it was necessary to carry it out in order to save religion.

Could anything be more foolish or preposterous? Look at the associations they have banned. Some of them I, at any rate, never heard of, and I am sure the vast majority of Deputies in this House never heard of them. As to those who, we are told, are connected with Russia and revolution, even including Saor Eire, how many are in all these organisations? It has been stated that the same individuals are in several of the organisations, but I say if all the individuals in all the organisations— outside the I.R.A. at any rate—were put together it is very doubtful if they would form more than a few hundred people. If what I am saying can be controverted, let the Ministry produce the evidence. They have refused to show us where these revolutionary groups are going on, to show their numbers, or to say what the subversive doctrines are that are being preached, and above all to show that they are trying by force of arms to upset the existing social order. We have no proof whatever of this, and [605] when we see a highly responsible Deputy like Deputy Davin coming into this House full up with scare rumours that rifles have been landed in Kerry, and that hundreds of men have been drilling on the public squares of certain villages throughout the country, we know what a sedulous Press campaign is capable of doing. It cannot make the people of Donegal believe that there is a serious situation in Donegal. It cannot make the people of Kerry believe that there is a serious situation or a state of armed rebellion in Kerry or in any other county, but it can by false rumours and by lying reports and by suggestion pretend that there is an undercurrent going on all over the country, and that in counties other than the counties in which the people who are reading the papers live, there are dreadful conditions. The people of the Midlands believe that the South of Ireland is in a terrible condition of unrest, and the people of the West think that the City of Dublin, which is on the eve of the Eucharistic Congress, is in a condition something approximating to what Petrograd was in 1919 or 1920.

Mr. Davin: On a point of personal explanation, I did not start the story referred to by Deputy Derrig. I asked if the Minister would confirm the story I heard. I want to say that I did not believe any such thing.

Mr. Derrig: The speakers who are sent out by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party to spread these rumours have taken very good care that they would not give the lie to them. The Minister for Justice made a statement that in 1925 Seán Russell, the Quartermaster General of the Irish Republican Army, was in Russian pay. His statement was contradicted twice in this House last week by Deputy Lemass who has personal knowledge of the transaction, whereas the Minister knows nothing whatever about it except that he got a certain document in the dump at Killakea. He refused to withdraw and tried to felon-set Seán Russell as he tried to felon-set the Irish Labour Party before the Irish People and the Fianna Fáil Party as well, as people [606] who are in some way connected with Russia and in some way connected with those subversive doctrines that are said to be threatening the very existence of the social order here. I say I thoroughly agree with what Deputy Lemass has said, that this Bill would never have seen the light in the peculiar circumstances and conditions in which it has seen it if that unfortunate document had not been found, the only document that exists according to the words of the Minister for Justice to show any connection whatever with Russia. The six years old document which was found several months ago was not published. Why? Because the Government, realising their position in the country, realising the ground that they had lost and realising that they should have to make a serious and terrible effort to recover that ground, prepared the way themselves for the coming General Election. They decided that they would fake up a case and they have faked up a case and got away with it to an extent that absolutely amazes me. When the Government broadcasted a six years old document which the public cannot examine critically and reasonably it is wonderful the false impression that can be created. We remember how the British Labour Government was swept out of office when the Zinovieff letter was published. I say that this document found in the Killakea dump is the Zinovieff letter of the present Free State Government. The Minister could not contradict Deputy Lemass when he gave the lie to the statement that Seán Russell was in the pay of Russia in 1925 or at any time. Deputy Davin asked the Minister (Column 268, Vol. 40, Official Debates):

“Have you any more recent document?”

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: No, I have never said I had. I have never suggested that there was any more recent document at any time, and I tell you definitely and distinctly——

Mr. Davin: Tell it to Deputy Hassett.

[607] Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I tell the Deputy definitely and distinctly that there is a steady inter-communication between the irregular forces in this country and the forces which are making in Russia for general worldwide disorder.”

If that is so, let us have the proof; let us have the documents to show that this constant inter-communication is going on. How can the Minister say in one sentence that he had no document whatever since 1925 to prove that there is communication, and in the next sentence come forward and say that there is constant inter-communication going on. These are the gentlemen who are asking for powers of life and death as if the country had not sufficient experience of how they used these powers of life and death when they had them before. We remember 1922. When the Minister for Defence talks about his authority from God, the authority that the present Government have got from God, I ask them had they that authority from God for what they did on 8th December, 1922. Had they authority from God for that?

Mr. Fitzgerald: Certainly.

Mr. Derrig: There was a document quoted here by the President in regard to certain activities of mine in 1922. I am not anxious to go into 1922 any more than anyone else, but when people are posturing in the name of religion, people who if they examine their own hearts and their own Benches might find plenty of demoralisation and plenty of rottenness which they would do well to clean up, let them clean up the Augean stable before they hold themselves forth to the people of this country as the defenders and upholders of public right and morality. There is going to be no appeal from this court. The unfortunate fellows who will be dragged before it, if they are not shot now, will be shot on the first pretext. This is a reprisals Act. There will be no appeal. They forgot when they were doing it before to prevent it. In the old courts under the old English tradition in this country, at any rate there was something of justice and right. Even when [608] a man was caught in armed rebellion there was still a Supreme Court that he could go before to fight for his life. But while an appeal to the Supreme Court was being taken in the case of Erskine Childers in 1922, he was shot before his appeal could be heard. They are not going to make any mistake this time. There will be no appeal. The man will be shot before anybody knows anything about it. These are the gentlemen who are looking for powers, and who, in addition, are looking for thousands of pounds to enable them to get these things done.

They talk of Russia. The Minister for Finance talked of the anti-democratic theories that are prevailing elsewhere in Europe. He has not denied responsibility for the famous article in the “Star,” in which he counted on the army in the event of a change of Government after a general election to take the law into their own hands and decide whether a Fianna Fáil Government should be allowed to operate or not. He who has not denied responsibility for that article comes forward and talks about antidemocratic theory. There is no antidemocratic theory in force in Italy or Russia equal to that. Even the Cheka, the secret court that we hear so much about under the Bolshevik Government, pales into insignificance before this monstrous military tribunal for which we are now to vote money. As an English paper said last Sunday, old Arthur James Balfour must smile in his grave when he thinks of the Bill that has been passed through this House. Even if our tyrants are our own countrymen surely to God we are not going to put up with a situation in which we are allowing them to go forth with the blood lust that they have publicly proclaimed on their lips and in their hearts against those outside who disagree with them.

I say the whole thing is madness, absolute madness, and that the people are being fooled and an effort made to drive them into panic. An effort is made under the sacred name of religion to pretend to the people that there is a dreadful situation in this country and that dreadful things have happened. There have been three murders—three murders last summer. [609] These are the justification for the Bill. They are the only justification for the Bill. No Deputy on the Cumann na nGaedheal benches or anywhere else can say that anything else but these murders are the real reason for the Bill. Why was not the Bill introduced that time? Why was it left over until it would coincide with the document from the Irish Bishops which would give the present Government an opportunity of going forth again under the cloak of religion and pretending that they are doing this for the sake of religion?

I say let us have the documents. Let us have the reports from the police inspectors throughout the country. Let us have the definite evidence of these constant communications with Russia that are going on. Let us have definite evidence as to the threatening letters and notices, the midnight raids on persons, the threats to the young men to make them join the I.R.A., and the efforts to strike terror into the hearts of the law-abiding citizens. Let us have evidence that the detection of ordinary crime is rendered difficult through dread of intimidation. The police officers whom the State is paying to carry out the work of crime detection are, on the whole, honest and non-partisan. They, I think, have a sense of responsibility with regard to these matters. They are not, I hope, guided by political views and I for one would be prepared to give the fullest consideration to anything they would say. But this debate has been significant, in spite of all that has been thrown out about the misrepresentation and the conjuring up of revolutionary and subterranean movements. It has been significant by reason of the fact that not a single document has been published from any police officer in any of these Twenty-six Counties to show that the condition of affairs was so serious in his area as to demand this Act.

I have nothing further to say except this: when an Independent Deputy stated down the country that the vote in the Dáil last week finished the discussion of this Act, he was making a mistake. It has not finished the discussion of this Act. This Act will [610] come back like a boomerang. It will recoil on the heads of those who passed it, and particularly on the back benchers of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party who refused to come out and to state what the actual conditions were in their constituencies. The Act will recoil upon them. The people will begin to see, in spite of the state of panic that is sought to be introduced during the past month, that there is no danger of any social revolution on anything like a large scale. The people themselves have common-sense. They know their conditions, they know also that if you have 10,000 people in the Donegal bogs living on an area not half as fertile as half-a-dozen ranches in Meath that you cannot expect those people to have high and mighty ideals—people who do not know where their next day's bread is to come from. These are the people who are subject to the theories of the Communists. When you have the unemployed, and when you have 78,000 people living in single tenement rooms in Dublin you have the very class of people who are open to these Communistic doctrines.

All that is necessary is to have a Government in power with a truly Christian outlook, and with sympathy for those people. Feelings of resentment and anger are aroused by displays of extravagance which this country cannot afford. These are the chief causes of discontent. I say if the people saw a sympathetic Government in power, if that Government had mapped out an economic programme for dealing with housing, for dealing with the Gaeltacht and other problems over a period of five or ten years, there would be no need for proclaiming these wretched organisations consisting of a few score individuals. The people would come back to their old spirit. They are now prepared to listen to any doctrine of despair. If the people get a proper lead they would be the first to appreciate, welcome and support it. I would ask the Government to drop this Act, to settle down seriously to the affairs of this country and try to make this the contented and prosperous country that we all thought it would be under a native Government. [611] In such conditions I am confident that any signs of discontent that we have will wither away like clouds before the mid-summer sun.

Mr. Lemass: I want to speak on this matter because of certain things that have been referred to in the discussions upon the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act. That Act inserted a new section in the Constitution, as Deputies are aware. A section of it empowers the Executive Council to make an order, when in its opinion the circumstances justify doing so, bringing into operation certain exceptional provisions designed to deal with an emergency. We have read in the Press that the Executive Council has made the order and that the emergency provisions are now in operation. The first official intimation of that fact which has been given to the House is the estimate now before us. The Minister for Finance asks us to vote £5,000 to meet expenses which will be incurred in the exercise of the special powers conferred by the Executive Council under that order; but he carefully warns us, when doing so, that the £5,000 indicated on the face of the estimate is only a token and that the actual amount to be expended is likely to exceed it to a very great degree.

The question which the Dáil has to ask itself is, having passed that Act, whether in fact the Executive Council were well advised in making the order which it authorised it to make. No attempt has been made to justify the action of the Executive Council to the Dáil, and I presume that the Ministers are relying on the account of the circumstances which they alleged exist here, and which they mentioned to us during the debate last week. In the heat of that debate it was not possible to give detailed and critical examination to the evidence they produced to show that a state of emergency exists here which justifies the suspension of the Constitution and the equipment of the Executive Council with these amazing powers.

Ministers asserted that there was a widespread conspiracy in the country to overthrow the State and to bring [612] about a social revolution. That assertion was made with emphasis, and members of the Dáil were, no doubt, affected by it, because these men hold responsible positions, and presumably they would not make assertions of that kind without a full sense of their responsibility. We have, however, since then received the Official Report of the debate, and we have been able to examine, in detail, the evidence they produced, or what they alleged was evidence, to show that such a state of emergency exists. We find that, although they stretch the few threads of evidence they possess almost to breaking point, they do not prove their case.

I want to endeavour to make this clear to Deputies, because I think it is of very great importance. Does it matter in the least what vehement Ministers assert when they talk of certain conditions existing in this country? The Dáil should not be satisfied with mere assertions. As Deputy Derrig has suggested, the Dáil should demand proof, and the proof has not yet been submitted. The assertions made by Ministers were divided into two parts. It was asserted that there was serious prospect of a social upheaval here in consequence of the dissemination of Communistic propaganda, and also that an organisation existed which was seeking to overthrow the State by force of arms. Let us take the points separately.

In relation to the allegation that Communism is rampant in the country and that there is imminent danger of a social upheaval, three points of evidence were produced. Certain documents were read which originated in 1925. There was an account given of an alleged visit made to Russia in 1929 by a party of students organised by Mr. Peadar O'Donnell, the purpose being that these people should study revolutionary practice. Then there was the constitution of Saor Eire. The entire case made by the Government to support its assertions that there was imminent danger of a Communist uprising here, rested on these three allegations—documents which originated in 1925, the reported visit [613] to Russia, and the constitution of Saor Eire.

As regards the 1925 documents, my name was mentioned. In fact, I think most of the documents read were alleged to have been written by me. I think it will be accepted that I can speak with some authority concerning them. I want to say very definitely that in making the decision to send a delegation to Russia in 1925, the fact that a Communistic form of government existed there did not enter into the deliberations at all. That decision was not influenced one way or the other by the form of government existing in Russia. The sending of that delegation, the intention behind it, was precisely the same as that which induced the Standing Committee of Sinn Féin, of which President Cosgrave was a member, in 1917 to send a delegation to the Russians; which induced Dáil Eireann, on the motion of the late President Griffith— and most of the members opposite were members of that organisation at the time—to send a delegation to the Russians, and which induced the Provisional Government in 1922, with which Government members opposite were concerned, to send a delegation to Russia. The idea was to secure sympathetic assistance in the national struggle here of a Government whose aims might be considered for the time being to coincide with ours in national matters.

As Deputy Boland said, the attempt was a failure. Russian economic theory or communistic doctrine was not discussed by that delegation, nor were they concerned with it. No member of that delegation received any money from the Russian Government. The organisation which sent them did not ask for, and did not receive, any money from the Russian Government. Any attempt to establish a case in support of the allegation that there was danger of Communism here arising out of the documents that were read is thoroughly dishonest, and is dishonest to the knowledge of the men who tried to establish it. The entire incident terminated in 1925 and there were no unfinished tag-ends left which were not accounted for. The [614] delegation was sent for the sole purpose of soliciting Russian aid in the event of it being possible to secure any supporting action against British Imperialism. The members of the delegation were not concerned with, and did not discuss, any economic theory or any points of Communistic doctrine. They did not take, ask or receive any money. The entire attempt was a failure and it ended in 1925. No case whatever can be made in support of the contention that there is a danger of Communism here; no case can be based upon anything that happened in that year arising out of that delegation.

That was the first and the main leg upon which the Government stood in support of its contention concerning Communism. The second was an allegation that a party of students, organised by Mr. Peadar O'Donnell, went to Russia in 1929 for the purpose of studying Bolshevik revolutionary tactics. I do not know anything about that, but I have seen it stated by Mr. O'Donnell in the Press that he was never in Russia in his life and he knows nothing whatever about any such party of students. The third point upon which they relied was the constitution of Saor Eire. As those who have been reading the daily Press will have observed, members of the executive of that organsiation have stated it was not its intention to bring about here the establishment of a Communistic State. I will agree that it is very hard to reconcile this statement with the published constitution of the organisation, and that there is evidence of muddled thought somewhere. It is quite clear, however, that this statement disproves the contention of the Government that there is a widely organised and dangerous conspiracy in existence for the production of a Communistic uprising.

That is the entire case they make in support of their contention. Not one additional scrap of evidence was produced by any Minister who spoke. Such Ministers as were challenged to produce evidence of an association between any Irish group and Russia subsequent to 1925, admitted they could not do so. They admitted they [615] had no such evidence and any Deputy who may have been misled by their speeches should now reconsider his position in this regard because it is quite obvious that the Bill was pushed through this House on false pretences.

Leaving aside for a moment the Communist uprising part of the story, and turning to the evidence produced here to the effect that an organisation called the I.R.A. was contemplating taking armed action for the overthrow of the State, we find that allegation rests upon the following points:—A series of quotations from the leading articles of “An Phoblacht,” an interview alleged to have been given to the “Daily Express” by a Mr. Frank Ryan, and-this is the most serious part of it—a list of crimes and cases of violence which took place in the country during the past six months.

The seriousness with which we should regard these quotations from “An Phoblacht” will depend on the information given to us as to the relationship existing between that journal and that organisation. Do the leading articles of that paper reflect the views of anyone else except the Editor of it? No evidence has been produced to us to show that they do. So far as this House is concerned we have only the word of the Minister that that paper is the official organ of any group or Party. It purported to be an independent organ and the Editor apparently took sole responsibility for the views expressed in the leading article. I am not trying to defend these views or justify them in any way but I am asking that the House should be furnished with proof that the publication of these views in that journal can be alleged to be part of a conspiracy. As regards the “Daily Express” interview, alleged to have been given by Mr. Frank Ryan, in the issue of “An Phoblacht” subsequent to that interview a statement appeared on the authority of Mr. Ryan that the interview was inaccurate and misleading and in all fairness to Mr. Ryan, who, I think, is in a position of very grave danger now, that fact should have been stated. When the interview was being read in the House—

[616] Minister for Defence (Mr. Fitzgerald): Did he say how or why?

Mr. MacEntee: He said it was inaccurate and misleading.

Mr. Fitzgerald: Did he say how or why?

Mr. Lemass: I do not know. I do not read the paper as carefully as some Ministers seem to do. I looked the matter up since the interview was read and I saw that note. The fact that that note was given in the paper should have been stated here in fairness to the House and to the person concerned. As regards the various crimes and acts of violence which took place during the last six months I should like only to refer to a statement which appeared in the “Irish Press” on Monday and which was said to have been received by that paper from the leaders of the I.R.A. organisation. They very definitely imply in part of that statement that some of these acts, at any rate, were committed by members of that organisation, who acted without authority and who were apparently outside the control of its leaders. I agree that if that is so the situation may be, from another point of view, even more serious than we thought, but it destroys the contention that these acts were a part of a well-organised, and carefully planned conspiracy or part of a deliberate policy. In fact it is stated in these documents that they are the result of provocation directed against individuals. I shall read the paragraph:

In the process of organising, Oglaigh na h-Eireann has been violently attacked and individual volunteers brutally assaulted and persecuted, and many imprisoned. Natural resentment has, in some cases, deflected volunteers from their main objective, and provoked them to demonstrate against their attackers. These occurrences have been no deliberate or settled part of our policy, as we realise that their development would lead to civil war.

They state in that document that they do not desire civil war and that it is not part of their policy to attack Ministers or Deputies—as they put it themselves, that the policy does not include assassinations. In quoting that [617] document I do not want to be taken as justifying in any way the existence of the organisation or defending its policy, or even as implying that there is no situation in the country to deal with.

The case has been, I think, falsely presented to this House. It was presented as an alternative between equipping the Executive Council with these drastic powers or leaving the State and the Government defenceless in face of an armed organisation not under the control of the Dáil. The case was put in that way, but that is not the case. The contention made from these benches is that the Executive Council is adequately equipped with powers under the Treasonable Offences Act, the Firearms Act, the Juries Protection Act, and a host of other Acts, with an Army and a police force, to deal with any situation that we can see to exist, any situation which has been proved to exist. We contend that the giving of these additional powers is unnecessary. They are not merely unnecessary, but they create in themselves additional danger. That they do create that danger is evident to any Deputy who was listening here to the Minister for Agriculture. It was evident to any Deputy who listened to the President of the Executive Council and the other Ministers who deliberately dragged the debate back to the incidents of 1922 in order to revive the bitterness of that period. As we are all human beings at best, they succeeded to some extent. If they keep at it, they are bound to succeed. Although Cumann na nGaedheal may gain a slight Party advantage by it, the nation is going to lose by it.

There is another point that I omitted to deal with. Proof was required to show that there was some link between the nationalist organisations, the I.R.A. and whatever organisations are associated with it, and the Communist organisations—Saor Eire, and the other organisations which have been since suppressed. The only proof that such a link existed advanced here was the fact that certain individuals belonged to both. I am quite certain that there are individual members of the I.R.A. who belong to the Knights [618] of Columbanus. That fact does not prove that the Knights of Columbanus have anything to do with this conspiracy. I am quite certain that others belong to the Catholic Truth Society and various religious, non-political and charitable associations. The fact of their membership of these associations does not necessarily link these associations with their activities. I say that the fact that individual members of the I.R.A. happen to be also members of Saor Eire in no way proves, although it may lead to the inference, that there is a direct link between these two organisations. It is not inference we want but proof, and the proof has not been forthcoming.

Since the Bill was passed here it has become evident that there is a very strong public feeling against the use of these powers by the Executive Council. I have read carefully most of the local papers published in the country over the week-end, and with the exception of two or three that are very virulently Cumann na nGaedheal, and some of them, I think, subsidised by the Cumann na nGaedheal organisation, there is not one which expressed complete approval of the Government's policy. As Deputies know, most of them normally support the Government and find everything that the Government does to their satisfaction. Certainly none of these papers said that the conditions in the county in which it circulated justified these measures. The one or two papers that did seek to justify them did so, not on the grounds that these powers were needed in the particular areas in which they circulated, but in other areas which they heard about.

As Deputy Derrig said, people in Donegal are told that there is chaos in Kerry; people in Kerry may believe that there is serious disorder in Donegal; and both may believe that there is a terrible situation in Dublin; but we have not yet heard one Deputy say, or read a local paper which said, or had a debate at a local council at which it was shown that the people in any particular part of the country were prepared to admit that the serious situation the Government talked about existed in the part of the [619] country with which they were acquainted. That has not yet happened. We have had a number of local councils expressing disapproval and we have had other indications from various channels that the public was most uneasy concerning the equipment of the Executive Council with these very drastic and despotic powers.

It is because of that that we are taking advantage of the introduction of this Estimate again to ask the Government to hold its hands. It has got all the powers that it sought. There is no question about that. It has established its military tribunal. It is in a position immediately to come down on any manifestation of disorder that may arise. We ask the Government to leave it at that, and having got the powers, and being in a position to deal with the most serious situation that may possibly be forthcoming, to try the other method we have been suggesting. When we suggested dealing with this situation by removing the oath of the allegiance from the Constitution various Deputies scoffed because they either did not see or pretended that they did not see the direct connection between the two. I want to ask is there any Deputy opposite who places such value on that oath that he is prepared to retain it there if by removing it there is the slightest chance of ending the situation that exists now? I will not put that chance as being very great, but I say there is some chance. I want to know if there is one Deputy who will say that he is prepared to sacrifice that chance in order to retain that oath in the Constitution. I take it that we are at perfect liberty to remove it if we want to do so. That is not denied, I assume. This Dáil has perfect liberty to pass through an Act amending the Constitution and abolishing that section if it wants to do so. That has been asserted at a number of public meetings throughout the country and I take it that it will not be denied here.

Assuming, therefore, that we can remove it, the proposition I am putting to the Dáil is that now that the Government has the powers it [620] asked for, and has armed itself in every way to deal with any situation that may arise, it should not use these powers unless it is absolutely necessary to do so, and in the meantime that it should try the alternative method, that it should try the method of amnesty instead of the method of execution, that it should try the method of facilitating political action by those people, whose views differ from ours, instead of suppressing it. If the Government did that it would, in my opinion, put itself in a very strong position to appeal to all groups and to all the people in the country to cease wasting their energies in factional strife, and to concentrate on the solution of the very grave national, social and economic problems with which we are confronted. If the Government did that, if having made political action possible by everyone, if having shown a willingness to let the civil war stop, shown a willingness to forget everything that has happened in the past and to go forward only with things that concern the future, I think that appeal would be almost irresistible. We are asking anyway that it should be tried. The Government has carried its point concerning the amendment of the Constitution. It has got these powers. Even if it is not prepared to surrender any of these powers, it can, nevertheless, try the other policy as well, because the two do not cancel out each other. They can be tried side by side. If the Government is not prepared to do that, then we will feel bound in conscience because of the dangers we foresee to refuse to facilitate it in any way in the operation of these powers, and certainly to deny it such funds as it seeks by introducing an Estimate of this kind.

Mr. Hogan (Clare): I think we cannot emphasise too often that facts are inexorable things and that no matter what has been said, or will be said, there is and there will be, for some time, unless checked, a growing menace to the life of a certain section of the people of this country. That is known to the Government. It is known to the Fianna Fáil Party and it is known on the Labour Benches. [621] What I complain of is that instead of endeavouring to remove that menace and endeavouring to meet the danger, the Government is going in the opposite direction and is trying to create a new danger. There will be a menace in the country as long as there are 78,000 people unemployed and 80,000 houseless. As long as the last remnant of the Gaelic population is allowed to lead a miserable existence on the barren shores of the West Coast there will be a menace in this country. There will be a menace as long as these things are allowed to continue and instead of creating a Committee or a Commission to deal with them what do we find?

We are asked to-day with the blunderbuss of a suspended Constitution held to our temples to vote £5,000 for the extra employment imposed on five men. It is not to consider how we can give employment to the 78,000 or houses to the 80,000 but to give extra employment to five men. We have been told a lot about Russia and a lot about other countries. We have not been told of the historic causes that produced the situation in Russia. There are men in Russia to-day, I venture to say, who never heard of Carl Marx in their lives, who are participating in the state of disorder or order that is in Russia, and who have been driven to it not by the philosophy of Carl Marx but by the despotism of the Czar who preceded the present regime. What has happened in Russia is that the boomerang has returned. What has happened in this country is that you are throwing the boomerang and it is going to return sometime on yourselves. You are asked to give £5,000 to five men to hold this State at ransom. They are to do as they like, being responsible to no one. I do not know whether I am contravening this Act by the manner in which I am speaking at the moment.

Mr. Flinn: You are.

Mr. Hogan: I do not know whether under its provisions I am not amenable to the very Act I am referring to, but I know this much—that we are asked [622] to vote money for a set of five men who are not even responsible to and have not to report to the Executive Council. There is no provision in the Bill to make these men report to the Executive Council. They do exactly what they like and, with the blunderbuss of a suspended Constitution at our temples, we are asked to vote £5,000 for the setting up and maintenance of that court. I must be careful of my words. I think Deputy de Valera used the word “incidents” the other day and was severely lectured about it. Things have happened to the country and we have been told about them. We have been told that they are responsible for the present state of affairs and for the suspension of the Constitution. I wonder if that is so?

I wonder if the Executive Council has convinced itself that all these things that have happened throughout the country had a political motive? Incidents have been cited here in extenuation of this measure which I, with local knowledge, am positively certain had no political motive and no social motive whatever. If they had any motive at all it was some personal one. Are these things so serious as to demand the suspension of the Constitution and to give into the hands of these five men the power to hold up the entire country to ransom? Across the water they have had riots, they have had a Naval revolt, and they have had policemen shot in the streets. Yet there has been no Public Safety Bill there, and there is no serious danger to the British Constitution—of course, it is unwritten—or to the British Parliament or to the British Government. The real danger in this Tribunal is possibly that the court is composed of men who were activities in the recent troubled events in this country, and that there will be imported into this court not the atmosphere of impartiality and fair play which one naturally expects to find in the ordinary courts, but possibly the atmosphere of the civil war with all the bitterness and hatreds which it engendered. I hope that will not happen, and that it will not be brought about. I hope seriously that no bitterness will influence any of [623] its decisions, and that nothing of a bitter nature will be introduced. After all, while we condemn outrages and violent methods, we must consider that the ideals that certain people are seeking are the ideals that the whole country sought at one time, and that while the circumstances surrounding the attainment of these ideals may change the ideal itself remains the same.

The meanest and pettiest portion of the debate on this Act was possibly the way Deputy de Valera's advances were met. Deputy de Valera, as leader of the second largest Party in this country, went as far as anybody could go to try and engender a peace atmosphere. He went as far as anybody could go to try and secure that the representatives of the people of this country should come together in conference to see a way out of any danger that the Government could show there was to the peace, stability and social order of this country. There was no effort made to challenge the main argument of his statement, but little bits of it here and there were picked out by the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Defence, and it was these that the Ministers attacked. These little things were torn to pieces, but to say that his main argument was torn, it was not. Little things which overlapped and which had not the strength of the main argument were picked at in places, but that was all.

I did not speak on the Bill, and I did not intend to speak on this motion. I have been more or less driven to do so because of certain things that were said with reference to the country of which I am one of the co-Deputies. I say with all the responsibility that I can that there is no serious state of affairs in that county that would warrant giving the lives and liberties of its citizens into the hands of five men who are to be responsible to nobody but themselves. I know the county fairly extensively from Killaloe to Loop Head, and there is no state of affairs there that would warrant the suspension of the Constitution, leaving the country with no Constitution but the will of the Executive Council, with not [624] even the will of the Executive Council, but at the will of a dictatorship that has been unequalled in the history of any country.

Mr. Little: There is no justification for the expenditure of money upon this measure, because there are already ample powers in the hands of the Government to deal with the situation such as it is. Every one of those crimes, every one of those incidents mentioned by the President, could have been dealt with under one or other of the measures at present in existence or under the common law.

Amongst other Acts, the Government had at its disposal the Firearms Act and the Treasonable Offences Act. There are also laws in existence for dealing with high treason and treason felony, with murder and with protection by means of the Protection of the Person Act, the Protection of Property Act, and the Criminal Law Amendment Acts. The Government have also at their disposal law to deal with criminal conspiracy, criminal libel and seditious libel. It is in the memory of every one that when a certain case was brought into court here, the judge said that if it had been brought on a direct charge of seditious libel it could have been dealt with on that basis, but owing to the bungling methods of the Government, even from their own point of view, they failed to carry out the law as it is in existence. They have powers under the Juries Acts from 1927 to 1931. Under an earlier Juries Act they have power to fix the basis from which they can choose a jury. The Minister under the Act may prescribe the minimum rateable valuation for jurors in a district. They can take jurymen from one place to another and try with any kind of jury they like. They have all the powers they require under the Act of 1929, an Act which was continued in the last session. We were then assured by the Minister that the Act had been very successful, that it had justified its existence, and was necessary for the future.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

The contention at the close of the last session was that Act was [625] necessary and ample to deal with the situation. There was no suggestion at that time that jurymen had been terrorised, or that the system had broken down. There was no reference then to these incidents, most of which had occurred prior to that debate. There was no reference to the necessity for further legislation. If the situation was such as the Government now pretend it was then they were lamentably lacking in their duty at that time in not immediately bringing in some measure such as they are bringing in now. Instead they took several months to consider it. It was not in a moment of necessity that they brought it in but several months afterwards, and instead of confining themselves merely to dealing with certain acts which should be prevented they enlarged the scope of the whole measure to prove that they had a political bias, that their attitude was one of political opposition, that they wanted if possible to include in their charges under the new Act not merely those persons who had committed these acts but to associate with them the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party.

Again, by voting this money we are handing over the power of life and death to five men, none of whom, so far as I know, has any extensive knowledge of law or experience of the administration of law. The idea of appointing men of that sort and with such grave responsibilities is in itself an outrage on the whole community. There is no provision under the Act for procedure. There are no rules; there are no methods of procedure whatever given. Are we going to have even a code, any code which is at present in existence, by which we may be guided in knowing what these five members of the Tribunal may do? It certainly has not been put into the Act that the King's Regulations are being adopted. Whatever might be said for or against them, at least we would know where we were and we would have some indication of how the general public or the legal profession could take up any attitude towards the measure at all. That code at least has behind it a considerable amount of [626] experience, but here we are handing over powers to five men without knowledge of law, without absolutely any procedure, with full power to enforce any punishment they like, punishment unknown to the law, punishment for which they will be afterwards absolutely immune. They cannot even be arraigned before the Bar of the House. They are supreme above all. We have abrogated the supremacy of this Dáil by not inserting in the Act powers by which the supreme authority of the country, the Dáil, could arraign them before the House if they acted improperly or outside their powers.

The fact of the matter is that this is the last desperate throw of the Government, the last desperate throw of the dice of violence. Their first throw was when they broke the Pact and broke the law of the country, as it was then in existence. The second was when they were offered peace terms and when they turned them down. The third was when the “cease fire” order was given. Again peace terms were offered and refused and so on down from year to year ever since. Every effort to try and bring back all the groups in this community into normal constitutional life has been refused. The effort to get rid of the Oath has been repudiated. The attempt to use the referendum and petition has been also set aside by changing the rules in the middle of the game and by removing from the Constitution the possibility of using that referendum. Then again the Oath is followed up by further measures making those even who want to stand as candidates sign an affidavit.

If the Government is honest in this matter and is really trying to end the evils which exist in this country I personally am quite willing to see certain evils ended. If there is anti-God Bolshevism in this country, we certainly want to see it destroyed and prevented from going further, but they are not going to destroy it by these means. If they are absolutely honest I think they should get real agreement between the best elements in this country, [627] the most earnest and sincere elements, and then dispose of the evils when they have got that agreement. Here, as I say, is the test of their honesty, whether they are willing to remove the Oath or at least to try to make that attempt. This is the test as to whether they are merely politically-minded or honest.

Mr. Harris: I wish to oppose the passing of this Estimate of £5,000. The terrible seriousness of giving powers of life and death to five men without any legal knowledge whatever was brought very forcibly home to me by the fact that I know one of the men who has been appointed and I know that he has no legal knowledge whatever. I knew him to be in his early days—I do not want to say a word against the man — an agricultural worker. In later times he was Secretary for the Transport Union in a district in this State. I knew him—

Mr. Fitzgerald: May I ask is this in order? It seems to me to be very bad form to discuss the personal history of any man.

Mr. Little: We are going to pay for him.

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not want to stop Deputy Harris, but I cannot by any means accept the theory that because we are going to pay money under the Estimate, all the personal history of any individual, mentioned as a member of a Tribunal, is open for discussion. Deputy Harris is merely indicating his opinion about his qualifications. Deputy Harris is in order.

Mr. Harris: I have no confidence in his legal knowledge. I was a member also of a branch of Sinn Féin with that man years ago. He advocated Communistic principles then and his grievance against me always was that I was not a Communist. About six months ago I had a conversation with him—we were good friends all the time—and we were talking about the condition of this State and others. He expressed the opinion that conditions were much better in Russia than anywhere and that the Russians seemed [628] to be doing better than any other country in the world. I am just stating what I know to show the frightfulness of this whole Act that has been passed, in putting the power of life and death into the hands of five men. I opposed it and I appeal to the Executive and to the Government not to allow these powers to be used, to try the peaceful policy, to remove the Oath and remove the terrible poverty under which people suffer at the present time. I know the terrible debts that hang over farmers in my own county at present. I know the terrible poverty there is amongst the small holders in the bog districts. If the Land Commission progressed at anything like the same rate at which we get coercive measures through here, there would be much more happiness and much less discontent in the country. But the people are allowed to live in hovels. The farmers are not able to pay their men and greater numbers are becoming unemployed. In the towns the conditions are the same. The people are living in slums. If we brought in Housing Bills to remove the people from the bogs and put them on the good land and if the country were governed in the interests of the people instead of in the interest of Imperialism, we would have no need for this measure.

Mr. M. O'Reilly: The sum of £5,000 involved in this Estimate cannot be regarded as very great, but I expect, when the public come to examine it, they will add to it another sum of about £3,000,000. Having added the two items, they will come to the conclusion that, after all, they are not getting value for their money. The taxpayers of this country have been unduly burdened for the last six or seven years. Most of them have been paying taxes out of the capital and savings. That cannot be denied. We may be told by the Revenue Department that that is not the case but I know it definitely to be the case. What have the people got for all this? They have been told that the judges, who have been put into position, are not capable of administering the law, that the jury system has become completely out of date—certainly not up-to-date [629] enough for the people of this country—that the Army, and, above all, the Civic Guards, are incompetent. That is the position as I see it and as the ordinary citizen in the country sees it.

I have been through the country a great deal within the last three or four days. I have talked to people of all shades of opinion and there was not one who did not sincerely regret this last move. They had begun to hope that the bad old days were past and that measures of this description would be hung up. They saw signs of the people getting into friendly intercourse with members of the Civic Guard. They thought that the intense bitterness of 1922 was beginning to pass, when suddenly, they were confronted with this measure under the most mysterious circumstances. I do not think the British Government, in its worst days, was able to surround an instrument of this description with such terrifying mystery. We are told that one of the principal reasons for the introduction of this measure is to prevent us from becoming Atheists, or adopting some form of religion which exists in Russia. I knew a good many Russians in my time and they were not particular about any form of religion. I dare say they had their own and carried it out. I do not know anybody in this country who is particularly anxious to adopt the Russian religion, whatever it may be.

We were told here that certain leaflets were distributed throughout the country. After we got that piece of information, I tried to get hold of some of these leaflets. I had reasonable means of getting hold of them and I made a definite effort to get them. I was told that people saw these leaflets but these people could not get a single leaflet for me. A good many clergymen spoke to me on this matter and they were rather surprised. They had no proof of this beyond rumour. What is the position throughout the country? Do the people thoroughly understand, or are some of them so terrified that they are afraid to ask questions? I am afraid that, gradually, in the last three or four days, there is creeping in amongst [630] the people that terrible thing—suspicion. One is afraid of the other. As soon as that develops, there is serious danger. Any measure of this description which does away with free, honest, open trial, with efficient and sufficient punishment when found to be necessary—anything that does away with that system is bound to lead to this suspicion which I have referred to. That is one effect of this measure. The other effect of the measure has to do with certain classes of people who are known, I suppose, as non-law abiding citizens, or outlaws. The other class are known as law abiding citizens. I want to know whether this courtrmartial or the Executive Council, when it gets the opportunity, is in a position to say which is the lawful or law-abiding citizen and which is the outlaw. That is what brought this horrible suspicion into the people's minds.

I fail to see how any member of the Guards or of the Army can find out exactly which is the law-abiding citizen and which is the outlaw. It will be more difficult for a courtmartial. And if it does happen to get as far as the Executive Council, it will be far more difficult for them. The result of all that is that the people have begun to lose confidence in one another, and have begun to become afraid of one another. If that is the idea behind the Government in introducing such a measure—I hope it is not, but I think it is the result—it is time for us to give up this sort of thing, and get on to something that will benefit the people. I believe that the people will become disgusted and that we will definitely force them into what will be serious and dangerous illegal organisations. What are we dealing with in this country at the present time? I could not choose a more appropriate word than a good many medical men choose when occasionally they have to describe certain ailments. Instead of hunger, they always say malnutrition. A number of our people are suffering from malnutrition. There is not the slightest effort made to see that these people get any form of living or that sufficient provision is made for them. We have quite a number of laws for the relief of poverty. They are all [631] neatly worded, and to the stranger, who has the Acts explained to him by a Minister, they appear perfectly suited to their work. But what will be the position of County Boards of Health this coming winter? Those internment camps will not be used for members of those illegal organisations. They will have to be turned into camps for the feeding, clothing and sheltering of a great part of the population. I do not think that members of the Government realise the seriousness of the position in the country. They do not know what is happening day after day. They do not know what is happening in the markets daily. There are no remarks passed of that. With great reason, a number of these people say that this Bill was introduced for the purpose of diversion—that the people might not settle down to consider certain questions. They have put it down as a political manoeuvre. Why should not the Executive Council be big enough and strong enough to use the Acts they have on their Statute Book for the suppression of those crimes?

What happened in the case of the dump in the Dublin mountains? We were told a great deal about that. That dump I am told was a splendidly erected edifice. In fact, numerous barrels of cement must have been taken there to build it and the workmanship was perfect, and all that was certainly not done the night before. I wonder what were the well-paid members of the C.I.D. and police forces doing in the city of Dublin when they allowed that kind of thing to go on? I think the taxpayer is entitled to say “We will not have these men any longer. We will not pay them if they are not efficient.” This Bill is introduced now and this extra sum of money is to be expended because the members of the Executive Council have allowed amongst their servants men who are not efficient. It is not because they happen to be partial. It is because they must have been excessively stupid. There was no single case cited that the Executive Council could stand over as definite proof of anything happening. A most unfortunate occurrence took place in Tipperary when an official [632] of the police force was murdered. It was a most regrettable thing to have happened, but nobody knows who committed that crime. Why not get efficient men enough to discover these people? It should not be impossible. The new Safety Bill and the complete distortion of the Constitution will not discover these men. You may argue that there are political and national reasons for that weakness. I admit there are. But why could we not remove all these; there are only 2,000,000 people here and we ought to be able to come to some agreement. I believe we would if the effort was made. There is not the slightest doubt about it. We are not abnormal, but we have not got a chance. The people supposed to be in the majority certainly would not give the chance. I think they would be well advised if they want to keep this country going and to continue what existed up to the last month or two, when a feeling of intimacy and agreement between the people and their officials was taking place and the bad effects of the late civil war were gradually disappearing, to make an effort to work in the other direction.

When I read of this Bill being introduced, it struck me that I would just have a try and look up some of the different measures of this description that were passed when the government of this State was in the hands of the British Parliament. When I filled a couple of sheets of paper with the different Acts under different names, but all meaning the same thing and having the same result, namely that they were futile. I got tired. Then I thought to myself, perhaps some of the English statesmen of those days might have said something about them, and I found the utterance of Disraeli on that point. I found that he made some rather sound remarks. He discussed the position of this country, and he found that at one time in Ireland the cause of the disturbance was potatoes, at another time it was religion, and at another time something else, but it was always going on. He was not inclined to believe that any of these things was the real cause, and he said if he were asked to give a remedy his advice to the British Government would be to give to this country the same [633] thing as they would get if they were after going through a successful rebellion. I am afraid when it all comes down to hard tacks that that is one of the solutions. There are impediments unquestionably for certain people. I think we ought all to be generous enough to admit that what is not an impediment to us may be an impediment to some other people, and if we discover this impediment to them, I think for the sake of the country, that that impediment such as the obstruction to entering such an assembly as this ought to be removed. After we had taken that step and left this Parliament free to everybody to enter and express their opinions then I think we would be entitled if these terrible disturbances and these organisations spoken of continued to take strong measures. I honestly say we are not entitled now to take such measures, because in the case of the ordinary individual he knows that there are sufficient powers and more than sufficient powers in the hands of the Government of this country to stop anything that might be objectionable. For that reason the suspicious exists in the minds of the people to-day that this is purely a political move.

I do not know how many clauses of the Constitution have been interfered with or abolished, but a certain number have. I believe that when the Government was in this terrible predicament they say they are in, their duty was to say to the people “The position is as we say. We will have to change the Constitution completely to deal with this question, and we will go and ask your opinion.” The Government had two courses open to them—to enter into conference here with the people of this country and see what was wrong, or go and ask their opinion and get their authority for interfering with what we were so often told was sacred. After so many hundred years it is time to be finished with this method of coercion. It is pitiable in the thinly populated country districts, with people living in lone houses to hear opinions of what may happen them in the night. It is all right in the cities where people live alongside one another, but in the long, dreary dark evenings, with the results of such [634] a measure as this hanging over the people, their outlook is not pleasing or comfortable. They are not in the slightest degree thankful to the Executive Council for introducing this measure.

Mr. Kennedy: On a previous occasion in this House speaking about another Department, I said that money could always be found for war purposes and money could not be found to solve unemployment or to meet the social needs of the people, and that when the next war would come and the ordinary people saw its consequences they would do away with those who made such a position possible. I think the Irish people see the bluff behind this war measure. In my particular constituency they see it anyway. The only people I have seen gullible enough to swallow the stories which were circulated around the country for a month before the introduction of this Bill, were the clergy. The Government's agents made it their business to go around with their memorandum to these very gullible gentlemen and tell them the most fantastic stories about guns and drums, drilling and parades, Russian agents, Russian spies and anti-God propaganda.

When one asked where such things were occurring one was always told the next parish, and when they went into that parish they were told it was the parish after that. When it was pointed out that they did not exist in any of the districts they were told it was down in Kerry, and the Kerry people were told it was up in Galway. So we had a repetition of the old scare that we had in 1798 about French influences, the French doctrine of the revolution, the American doctrine of the revolution in '67, and the German mailed fist doctrine of the revolution in 1916. That aspect of it is all right but the consequences of this Bill are certainly terrible. I had occasion to ask a question of the Minister for Defence to-day. In reply to that question he stated that there were no military present in the particular district on that day, and with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I will take this opportunity of dealing with that particular matter now.

[635] An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is over-optimistic, I am afraid. The debate seems to have been a little removed from the motion, but the Deputy is going to travel even a little further than anybody else.

Mr. Kennedy: What I was going to indicate is that if the practices that obtained on this particular occasion are an indication of what is going to occur under the Bill and an indication as to how this money is to be spent the matter is very serious. I would at least advise the Minister when he sends out his officers that when they are on duty they should be sober anyway. They can get drunk afterwards. They should be sober when they go on duty, so that they can control their hands and their tongues. It hardly corresponds with the good Christian theologian who presides over their destinies. There was nothing so disgusting in all the things that led up to this as to hear references to God, eternal truth and the Commandments. I never read of a tyranny in the world the author of which did not quote all these things. There was never a Czar in Russia who used a knout and terrorised his people but acted on the Ten Commandments and quoted God and all the rest of it.

Deputy O'Reilly has referred to the conditions of unemployment that obtain throughout the country. If money could be found to solve part of the unemployment problem as readily as it is being found under this Vote there would be very little to worry about in the way of Communistic propaganda and the spread of Bolshevik ideas. From my knowledge of the small farmer, I know that this particular November the majority of them will not be able to meet the half year's annuity that is due. With the collapse in the price of pigs and prices in general, unless by borrowing and running bills in shops they will not be able to meet the annuity due in November. The Minister for Defence has called us blackguards for going around the country calling on people not to pay their annuities. I have constantly told the people that where the paying of annuities necessitates the taking of [636] food from the family let the annuity go to hell.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is going a little far from the estimate now.

Mr. Kennedy: I contend, a Chinn Comhairle, that I am trying to follow the particular way the debate has gone up to the present. We had great talk about Russian leaflets and Russian agents. Deputy O'Reilly has asked for the production of these. It would be very interesting to have them read to us in the House. I believe one of the Executive Council's agents went to Cardinal McRory and told him that there were 700 Russian agents in the country. I heard that after the passing of this Bill they all cleared out through the port of Dublin as hard as they could. It must have been an extraordinary sight to see 700 of them clearing out. After referring to the three murders that were committed in the summer as a reason for this Bill and for the Vote that is being passed to carry out the terms of the Bill, the President gave as another serious reason that he was dancing below in Clonmel and somebody put out the lights. So all law is abrogated, the Supreme Court has creased to function, because the President was not allowed to dance in Clonmel on a particular night.

I heard in the debate Deputy Dr. Hennessy throw over an old jibe at these Benches when somebody was speaking about who did-in Kevin O'Higgins, and the same thing was repeated in the Seanad. Perhaps if Deputy Dr. Hennessy looked amongst his own supporters he would get the assassins much more quickly than he would be throwing his jibes at these Benches. As I said, in the particular constituency from which I come, there is no need for such a Bill; ordinary people want peace. They say, Why is not the conference that has been suggested by the Bishops and suggested by the public bodies who met to discuss the subject, being called? We can repeat it. Why has not that conference been called not only to deal with the social and economic evils of [637] the country, but also with the national situation? I would like to know from the Minister for Defence how he hopes to succeed with this particular Bill where Balfour and everyone else failed. Even if all the individuals who were named by the Minister for Justice are shot or hanged, does it not strike you that there will be a repercussion and an ugly scar left after such an event. There will be a bitterness left in the country that it will be very hard to get over, and will the path of peace and the path of reconciliation and of economic development and of the development of social services not be a better line to pursue at this juncture. While we suggest a conference and peace, we do not suggest pacts, and we certainly do not suggest a national government.

Mr. Clery: I can quite plainly see that the Minister, particularly the Minister for Agriculture, is terribly disgusted at the things which are being said during this debate. Despite how dissatisfied he may be, I am not going to vote for the Supplementary Estimate. We are asked to vote £5,000 in order to carry out the measure which was passed into law here last week. It is not £5,000 we are voting. Nobody knows what amount this will come to in the end. The Minister who introduced this Vote gave no explanation or any idea as to what he thought the amount would come to in its totality. He even did not give us any idea of what has been expended in connection with the scaremongering that has been carried out by the Government Party in the last few weeks. If he gave us the figures of what was already spent in creating this scare atmosphere in the country we might have a good idea of what it would cost the Government of this country and, on the other hand, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. If we had these figures we might be able to judge what the total was.

Besides, as Deputy Derrig mentioned, when £12,000 was already voted in this Dáil for Army gratuities the Minister for Finance allowed to be paid out of the country's purse £216,000 more. If that is to be an indication of what is going to happen here we will pay out [638] a very large amount of money before this thing is fixed finally. Besides there is no reason whatever for the measure we are now asked to put into force by voting money. I think it is the most lamentable thing I have seen for a long time, for the past ten days or more to see Government Deputies going about the country with a body guard of two or more men to protect them. I make the charge here that the majority of the members of the Government benches have objected to the guards being put on their bodies. and were forced to take the guards by the big minds behind this move in order that the scare might be successfully spread. When you see a Deputy like Deputy Sheehy, of Cork, or Deputies from Mayo going around to their constituencies with a bodyguard it is laughable in a sense, but it is very tragic also. If any foreign Press representatives came last week outside the gates of Leinster House at 3 o'clock or before it and took a photograph of from sixty to one hundred armed and non-uniformed guards in the pay of the Government, who were assembled there, and published that photo in the foreign Press, what kind of opinion would be formed of us by people abroad? They would certainly say we were in a worse state here than they are in Spain. They would certainly say we are much more disturbed than in Russia or Mexico, or in any other country which is in a disturbed state.

It was disgraceful, and I charge the members of the front benches of the Government with deliberately creating that scare in order that the scare would save themselves from political defeat in the country. I was in my constituency last Sunday week and a Deputy there had his bodyguard in a certain town and another Deputy had a bodyguard in another town. Both those Deputies object to the guards, and the guards protecting them had the same objection. They would prefer to be doing their ordinary duties. The guards protecting them if asked their views would say, as one of them told me, that there was not the slightest necessity why any Deputy in Mayo should be given a bodyguard to save him from his constituents.

[639] I charge the Government with deliberately creating that scare and making themselves scaremongers simply because they have seen the writing on the wall, and know that there is no political future for them in the country unless they try to create a war atmosphere amongst the people in the West of Ireland, where they have tried to get members of the Government to carry through this measure for them. There is the responsibility on their shoulders that there is a scare being created, something like what was created in 1914 about the Huns. I believe that in quiet country districts, where people never heard of Communism or Saor Eire, they are wondering what kind of cannibals these people are, or whether the same thing is going to happen as happened in the Great War, and the logical conclusion will be that they think they will shortly be asked to join up and fight against this terrible Russian menace, not at home, but in other countries. It is to add to that scare, to give that scare some foundation in the minds of the people, that we are now going to be asked to vote money to assist the Government in carrying through that campaign. Saor Eire has come into this discussion. I know very well that Saor Eire was scarcely known in the County Mayo until the Minister for Justice went down there and went around prating at chapel gates about Saor Eire and about the terrible measure he was bringing before the Dáil to stamp it out.

Naturally, sensible people in Mayo, when they found the Minister for Justice finding fault with Saor Eire, thought there was some good in it. Some of these people wanted to join up and wondered where they could get at the heads of it. Before the Minister went down to Mayo there was very little or nothing at all known of Saor Eire. But the Minister could not go to the people of Mayo in their present frame of mind and talk to them about anything else but war. He could not talk to them about the financial position in the country or about the strength of the Freemason lodges in [640] the country. The only thing he could talk about was this terrible war threat, this awful organisation of Saor Eire, about which the people of Mayo got the first intimation from the Minister himself. If you ask the County Mayo Deputies what is wrong there they will not tell you that the Saor Eire organisation is very strong in Mayo, or that the I.R.A. organisation is very strong, or that the twelve or thirteen organisations that have now been proclaimed are very strong. But they will tell you that the position of the Government is not very strong, because they have absolutely failed to deal with the problems which confront them in the County Mayo.

I was surprised to hear from the President that they were being confronted with this terrible organisation. He says “At a time when we are endeavouring to ward off from the State the terrible economic disasters of other countries...” I would like to know from the President or from some of the Ministers what have they done or what are they going to do to ward off this terrible economic disaster that is happening in other countries. I would like to know what they have done up to the present to remedy the economic distress that there is here. What have they done to try to meet the case where you have from 14,000 to 20,000 young men and women in the country at present who would have gone to America if the emigrant ship would take them? If those 14,000 to 20,000 young men and women are idle how can you blame them if they think of trying some other means in order to try to force the Government to do them justice? We are told that Communism is rife and that Saor Eire is going very strong. I am surprised that some movement or some impulse has not prompted the idle or the starving people in this country or in Dublin to storm Leinster House, brush aside the Guards and do even worse than that.

The Government close their eyes to these evils. Then hungry men looking for bread turn to the people in secret organisations who say to them “We are the men who can remedy the situation.” Then the Government, [641] wrapping the mantle of sanctity around themselves, say “Oh, we will deal with that; we have our secret tribunals and executions now.” That is the remedy the Government proposes for these evils. I was speaking the other day to a Cork Deputy who voted for this Bill. He had his bodyguard; I asked him if things were bad down in Cork, and his reply was that the strongest evil there was unemployment. He said there is no danger of a revolution in Cork; no danger from the I.R.A. in Cork, and no danger from Saor Eire. “The only thing we deplore,” he said, “is that the Russians are not buying more tractors from Ford's Factory in Cork.” That is the fault they had in Cork with the Russians; not the fault that they were trying to come in and organise Communism.

The same thing will be said by the other Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies if they are asked about this question. They will say the same about the economic problem. But the Government say: “What about the murders through the country? You are standing over the murders.” It is time now that that parrot-cry was finished with. The men on these benches faced murderers in the old British time when the men on the benches opposite would sell us to them. It does not lie with Deputies on the opposite benches to talk of these matters or to bring charges of murder against anybody in this House.

I know that the view is held by sensible men in the country that this thing was deliberately created by the present Government. It was hatched in the Cumann na nGaedheal offices in Parnell Square because their policy had failed in three counties. Their prospects were poor and they felt there was no future for them as a Government. They felt, too, that the only thing they could do was to create a scare and to bring back to the minds of the people of this country the terrible thoughts of gun bullies, civil war, secret tribunals and executions. By bringing back again that atmosphere they believed the people would have turned to them to save them. To whom would the people turn [642] but to the Government, the Government who had created the scare? To whom would the people in their helplessness turn but the strong man in the Government who always talks so much about murders?

Instead of trying to detect murders and evil-doers they make political capital out of the murderers and evil-doers and out of the evils which they have committed. That is what they have ever tried to do. Then we heard so much about this terrible wave of Communism and unrest that is in the country. What is the contribution the Government have given to that? The first contribution that was given to the peace in this State was the Minister for Finance's (Mr. Blythe's) statement down in Cork when he talked about the people who fought and died for a Republic as being out for a whole lot of humbug. What about the men whose brothers went down? What about the mothers whose sons went down for it? Do they realise that the Minister who at that time encouraged them now declares that it was all bluff? It was bluff for him, but it was no bluff to the people whose dear ones were lost.

The next contribution to peace was given down in Kildare when a perfectly peaceful demonstration at Wolfe Tone's grave was banned by the Minister for Justice. Any sensible man would have known that no breach of the peace would be committed that day. Why was the demonstration banned? Why was it only half banned? They banned the trains, but they supplied the buses. They did it in order to aggravate the minds of the young men of this country, to create a disturbance and to get the young men to feel that there is no chance of this Government going straight, and that there is no chance of the young men of the country trying to do things in a constitutional way. When young men were led to think of other means, these young men would be playing into the hands of the men on the front benches. Since we came in here we have made a very good effort to try to pull this country round. We have suggested to the members of the Government to tackle the economic [643] problem. All along they have turned down our suggestions. The only contribution they made to our suggestions was by saying that we were bad parliamentarians. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President said in Meath that we were a disgrace to the country, and that we were hopeless parliamentarians, that we were no good in the Dáil; that we were a laughing stock there. That was said by the man who has time and again made himself a laughing stock in the House in a manner I will not describe here.

An Ceann Comhairle: If the Deputy has any remarks to make about this estimate he might begin to make them now.

Mr. Clery: Have I been out of order?

An Ceann Comhairle: Absolutely.

Mr. Clery: Then the Chair should have pulled me up.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am so tender I do not like doing such things.

Mr. Clery: I contend that the money we are now being asked to vote is to subsidise an atmosphere deliberately created by the Front Bench opposite. It is about the creation of that atmosphere I am talking, and I submit that is in order.

An Ceann Comhairle: When the Deputy indulges in personal abuse he knows quite well he is out of order. Every Deputy knows that personal abuse is out of order, and in this instance it is not a contribution towards peace.

Mr. Clery: I hope it will also be considered out of order if Ministers speak in that manner here. Anyhow, the contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President was not a contribution towards peace. He told the people that we were hopeless as parliamentarians; that we were hopeless to work with and that our suggestions were futile. I hold that since we came in here we have made numerous gestures to the Government. We have tried to remedy the economic problems which are one of the causes of unrest in the country. Is it the intention [644] of the Government to go the whole hog and create a dictatorship? There is, to a certain extent, a dictatorship already established. Government Deputies were not allowed to vote as they liked. Guards were placed upon them to ensure that they would be here to vote in a certain way, and there is a dictatorship to that extent.

Is it the Government's intention to close the door which leads to constitutional action? The attitude of the Government in introducing this Act is having this effect on certain members of this Party; they are beginning to feel that there is very little use in coming here and trying constitutional action in this country. Do the Government Party want to drive the members of Fianna Fáil out of the Dáil? Do they want us to go to the country and to say we have no further hope in constitutional action? Do they want us to tell the people that every time we seek a referendum on certain important matters the Government close the door on us? Do they want us to tell the people “These men are going to remain in power with the help of their bayonets and by the strength of their tribunals. They will not give you an opportunity of expressing your views through a referendum or a general election.” If the Government continue to do as they are doing they will force some of us, anyhow, to do that and will that be for the good of the country or in the interests of peace? I hold it will not and I ask members on the opposite Benches who know this is a game of bluff, to voice their opinions fearlessly.

This whole problem can be tackled in another way. Hungry men cannot be blamed if they smash a window in order to get bread rather than die of hunger. Deputies opposite know those things, and they know there is another way of dealing with the situation. I ask them to consider the result of a continuance of this policy. They will force men who really believe in constitutional action, and who try here to remedy existing evils and to make the people united and peaceful, to adopt other methods. Whether that would [645] be playing into the hands of the Executive or not is another matter, but it should be remembered that men may be provoked to a certain stage and they may seriously consider other methods.

I am not going to say much more about the economic problems. I am really surprised that the people are not more exasperated. Commissions have been set up to deal with the Gaeltacht and other matters, but their findings have been brushed aside. Money could not be found, we are told, but we are now asked to vote money to supplement the scares originated by the scaremongers of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, simply because they see the end coming for themselves. They can read the writing on the wall. I hold it is the duty of every Deputy to refuse to vote for this thing. Let the Deputies opposite who do vote for it be prepared to face the consequences when they go before the people.

Mr. O'Kelly: I expressed my views on the Act last week. My views on the estimate have been expressed in various ways by several of my colleagues. I waited all during the day in the hope that the President would be in to deal with a matter that arose during the discussion last Thursday. I then referred to a statement made by the President in the course of the debate, which I described as an alarmist statement. I said it reminded me of a statement made by the President when a by-election was on in North Dublin in 1929. I said I believed last Thursday's statement was as unfounded, and I said that he would have to withdraw that statement just as he withdrew the statement he made in 1929. I refer to a statement given by the President to the “New York Times,” in which he withdrew an alarmist statement he made a short time earlier when the North Dublin by-election was on. According to the Official Report, the President said: “I beg your pardon. I never withdrew it. I stand by every word of it.” I rise now to say that I have the document here.

I will quote from the “Irish Times” of Tuesday, 5th March, 1929, the statement made by the President during the [646] North Dublin bye-election. I will quote a couple of extracts from the statement which was made, if my recollection is right, in the Rotunda, probably ten days before the election took place. He said: “A deliberate and organised attack has been launched against the foundations of ordered society in this city. If this conspiracy is not crushed, and crushed quickly, we shall be faced with a very serious problem. Those who value human life so lightly cannot be expected to respect property, or the rules of ordered society. The whole social fabric is threatened by their existence.” That was the statement that I referred to, and evidently that statement got wide publicity in America, because early in April the “New York Times” asked the President for a statement. In its issue of 11th April it says: “In view of reports that terrorism and violence are re-appearing in the Irish Free State, the ‘New York Times’ correspondent asked President William T. Cosgrave if he would write a statement on conditions as they are. He consented, and his statement is as follows.” The first sentence of the President's statement is this: “It would be a great mistake to pay serious attention to scaremongers,” the President himself being the greatest scaremonger who had spoken on Irish affairs. What did he do last week?

If that was not scaremongering in 1929, and it was not scaremongering here last Thursday, then I do not know what scaremongering is. I will quote one or two extracts from the President's statement. He goes on to say: “Things looked black in 1920 and later, but there has been a great change.” That was after he had done his worst during the bye-election to create a scare in order to get votes. He then comes along with a statement in order to try to undo the harm that his former statement had done in America and elsewhere. His first statement probably had the effect of frightening people who intended to come here. The “New York Times” would not bother asking for a statement if they did not feel that the President's remarks had had serious reactions amongst people in America interested [647] in Ireland. He says here: “There are still a few people here—malcontents and fanatics—who are always ready to decry State institutions and damage their country. But their numbers are small and their influence is smaller.”

There was nobody amongst the malcontents and those decrying the country that decried it to the extent that the President has in that statement made on March 5th, 1929, and the statement he made last Thursday. “We are pretty well accustomed to anti-Irish propaganda” the President further stated in this interview—the blame that only attached to him. He further says here “It has become a bad habit in certain circles. For instance, an article appeared quite recently in a prominent London newspaper written by a special correspondent who sought to show that Ireland was in a state of terror and revolution. This article is mere sensationalism.” What better foundation did the man in the London newspaper want than the President's own statement in which he says, “The whole social fabric is threatened by their existence”—and then he blamed the English newspaper! He says it is sensationalism when they write the very same things probably that he has stated himself in his capacity as President of the Executive Council. Further he says here: “The fact is that the Irish people in general are one of the most law-abiding peoples in the world.” He discovered “that a conspiracy exists to prevent the detection and punishment of a certain type of crime which masquerades under the cloak of politics. The numbers engaged in this conspiracy are very small. The majority of them are well known to the police and their movements are under constant surveillance. Their importance arises not from their extent or influence, but from the fact that any conspiracy, however small, having for its object to defeat the ends of justice, must be regarded as serious by my Government. There is, apart from this, no justification whatever for any of the sensational or pessimistic things that have been said about us.” If that is not a withdrawal, if it is not an apology for the statement of March [648] 5th, 1929, I do not know what a withdrawal or an apology is. Knowing that he said that, having in mind that some people even here in Ireland, as well as in America, must have read the “New York Times,” in view of that statement of his, he has the hardihood to come here and say last Thursday, after I told him I read it in the “New York Times”: “I beg your pardon. I never withdrew it. I stand by every word of it.” If that is what he calls standing by his words, it does not alter the opinion that many of us here have of his principles and how he stands by them.

The alarmist and sensational statement that he made last week will, I am satisfied, have to be withdrawn, if not, as it was in this case, inside a month, very shortly, because that alarmist statement that I submit is without foundation, is going to be published