Add files using upload-large-folder tool

1923/1923-01-11_mul@.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,545 @@
+<akomaNtoso xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13 ./akomantoso30.xsd ">
+  <debate name="Official Report">
+    <meta>
+      <identification source="#source">
+        <FRBRWork>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-01-11/debate/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-01-11/debate"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-01-11" name="#generation"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/house/dail/3"/>
+          <FRBRcountry value="ie"/>
+          <FRBRname value="debate"/>
+        </FRBRWork>
+        <FRBRExpression>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-01-11/debate/mul@/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-01-11/debate/mul@"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-01-11" name="#reported"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+          <FRBRlanguage language="mul"/>
+        </FRBRExpression>
+        <FRBRManifestation>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-01-11/debate/mul@/main.xml"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-01-11/debate/mul@.akn"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="2020-06-25" name="#publication"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+        </FRBRManifestation>
+      </identification>
+      <analysis source="#source">
+        <otherAnalysis xmlns:oir="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ns/1.0" source="#source">
+          <oir:volumeReference showAs="Vol. 2" eId="#vol_2" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2"/>
+          <oir:numberReference showAs="No. 15" eId="#no_15" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/no/15"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 693" eId="col_693" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/693" refersTo="#dbsect_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 694" eId="col_694" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/694" refersTo="#spk_89"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 695" eId="col_695" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/695" refersTo="#spk_3"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 696" eId="col_696" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/696" refersTo="#spk_8"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 697" eId="col_697" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/697" refersTo="#spk_11"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 698" eId="col_698" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/698" refersTo="#spk_14"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 699" eId="col_699" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/699" refersTo="#spk_15"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 700" eId="col_700" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/700" refersTo="#spk_15"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 701" eId="col_701" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/701" refersTo="#spk_15"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 702" eId="col_702" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/702" refersTo="#spk_22"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 703" eId="col_703" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/703" refersTo="#spk_25"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 704" eId="col_704" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/704" refersTo="#spk_26"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 705" eId="col_705" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/705" refersTo="#dbsect_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 706" eId="col_706" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/706" refersTo="#spk_39"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 707" eId="col_707" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/707" refersTo="#spk_45"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 708" eId="col_708" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/708" refersTo="#spk_51"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 709" eId="col_709" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/709" refersTo="#spk_52"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 710" eId="col_710" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/710" refersTo="#dbsect_5"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 711" eId="col_711" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/711" refersTo="#spk_61"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 712" eId="col_712" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/712" refersTo="#dbsect_6"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 713" eId="col_713" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/713" refersTo="#dbsect_6"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 714" eId="col_714" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/714" refersTo="#dbsect_6"/>
+        </otherAnalysis>
+      </analysis>
+      <references source="#source">
+        <TLCOrganization eId="source" href="" showAs="Houses of the Oireachtas"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.3.dail.3" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/3/dail/3" showAs="Indemnity (British Military) Bill 1923: Dáil Committee Stage"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.3.dail.4_sub" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/3/dail/4_sub" showAs="Indemnity (British Military) Bill 1923: Dáil Report and Final Stages"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="generation" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Generation" showAs="Generation"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="publication" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Publication" showAs="Publication"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="reported" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Reported" showAs="Reported"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="AlfredByrne" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Alfred-Byrne.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Alfred Byrne"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DanielMcCarthy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Daniel-McCarthy.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Daniel McCarthy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DarrellFiggis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Darrell-Figgis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Darrell Figgis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DenisJohnGorey" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Denis-John-Gorey.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Denis John Gorey"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ErnestBlythe" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Ernest-Blythe.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Ernest Blythe"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="GeraldFitzgibbon" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Gerald-Fitzgibbon.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Gerald Fitzgibbon"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JosephMcGrath" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Joseph-McGrath.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Joseph McGrath"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PeterHughes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Peter-Hughes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Peter Hughes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ProfWilliamMagennis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Professor-William-Magennis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Professor William Magennis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardJamesMulcahy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-James-Mulcahy.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Richard James Mulcahy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ThomasJohnson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Thomas-Johnson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Thomas Johnson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="TomasOConnell" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Tomas-O'Connell.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Tomas O'Connell"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamDavin" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-Davin.D.1922-09-09" showAs="William Davin"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamTCosgrave" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-T-Cosgrave.D.1919-01-21" showAs="William T. Cosgrave"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="author" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/author" showAs="author"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="editor" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/editor" showAs="editor"/>
+      </references>
+    </meta>
+    <preface>
+      <block name="title_ga">
+        <docTitle>DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="title_en">
+        <docTitle>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="proponent_ga">
+        <docProponent>DÁIL ÉIREANN</docProponent>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_ga">
+        <docStatus>TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_en">
+        <docStatus>(OFFICIAL REPORT)</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_ga">
+        <docDate date="1923-01-11">Déardaoin, 11 Eanáir 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_en">
+        <docDate date="1923-01-11">Thursday, 11 January 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="volume">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#vol_2">Vol. 2</docNumber>
+      </block>
+      <block name="number">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#no_15">No. 15</docNumber>
+      </block>
+    </preface>
+    <debateBody>
+      <debateSection name="prelude" eId="dbsect_1">
+        <heading>Prelude</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_1">Do cromadh ar obair an lae ar 3.20 p.m.  Bhí Seoirse Mac Niocaill sa Chathaoir.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_2">
+        <heading>CEIST—QUESTION. - MOUNTMELLICK GAS COMPANY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_1">
+          <from>LIAM O DAIMHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_1">To ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that the Mountmellick Gas Company (Messrs. Anderson, Ltd., London), have increased their pre-war price of Gas of 5/- per 1,000 to 15/- per 1,000 at present; whether he is aware that, owing to reduction in price of coal, etc., the Portlaoighise Company have reduced their price to 10/- per 1,000 for the past two years, and whether, in view of the repeated and unsuccessful representations made by the consumers and residents to this Company, if he will approach them with a view to having the present exorbitant prices considerably reduced.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JosephMcGrath" eId="spk_2">
+          <from>MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. Joseph McGrath)</from>
+          <p eId="para_2">The Mountmellick Gas Company is not a statutory undertaking and I have consequently no control over the charges made by it.  I will, however, communicate with the Company on the question of its prices, and will inform the Deputy of the result.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_3">
+        <heading>APPOINTMENT OF COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_3">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_3">Before proceeding with the Electoral Bill I wish to say that I gave an undertaking to Deputy Johnson on the day when we were discussing the Comptroller and Auditor-General Bill that I would agree to a Committee to consider the appointment of Comptroller and Auditor-General.  On looking into the matter afterwards I found that there were two Committees already in existence dealing with matters affecting the Dáil.  One of them was a Committee on Procedure and the other was a Committee on Salaries, and I am in some doubt as to whether it would be advisable to refer the matter to either of these two Committees. I think it would be better if another Committee were appointed to consider this question and in that connection if it were agreeable to the other members of the Dáil, I propose we should select a Committee now and receive the report at the earliest moment, and put the question down for consideration to-morrow, or, at the latest, Tuesday or Wednesday next.  As I have already explained, the fact that we have not got at this moment a Comptroller and Auditor-General means that, to some extent, we are operating against the principles of the Constitution. Matters such as that are, perhaps, excusable, having regard to the circumstances of the time.  It should not be allowed to continue for any length, however, and, it is only through the courtesy and the co-operation of our bankers that we are in a position to carry on at all without this officer.  Every payment made is an extra legal payment and must get the sanction, and has got the sanction of every member of the Executive Council.  It will be necessary from that, to have the matter considered and the position regularised, at the earliest possible moment.  If the various sections of the Dáil would nominate members, I think a committee of, say, seven might meet after the Dáil adjourns.  I do not think the Dáil will sit late and so the  committee might meet to-day, and the matter be considered at the earliest possible moment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_4">
+          <from>Mr. T. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_4">I agree with the remarks of the Minister with regard to the urgency of this appointment, and I think the suggestion that he has made for the appointment at once of such a committee and of its earliest possible meeting, commends itself to the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_5">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_5">There has been a certain quota allotted, I think, to each of the different parties of the Dáil.  Might I take it that that quota will stand, and that if I submit names now from what is called the Government side of the Dáil that the other parties would also nominate members, and we can have the committee appointed here now?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_6">
+          <from>Mr. T. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_6">I suggest if the Ministry, through the usual channels, make arrangements, we might appoint a committee a little later.  We will then have time to give some little consideration to the proposal.  I think if your assistants in the back bench would speak to Deputy O'Connell, Deputy Gorey and others, the arrangements could be completed. I suggest it might be deferred to the motion on the adjournment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_7">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_7">Might I suggest that Deputy Gorey or some other member of his party, if agreeable, to the proposal, would consult with Deputy O'Connell with a view to putting forward names for the Committee by half-past four.  The Committee might then meet after the Dáil rose and possibly if agreement were reached we might be in a position to make the appointment to-morrow.</p>
+          <p eId="para_8">Agreed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_8">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_9">If I might intervene again for a moment, I understand the Minister for Local Government yesterday said that he did not intend to proceed with the Electoral Bill this evening. Evidently there was some misunderstanding. I did not know that it would appear on the Order Paper this evening.  It was certainly the intention of the Government to put forward the Amnesty Bill this evening.  In view of the fact that it is not on the agenda, I take it, it is only by getting the consent of the Dáil, that it can be taken, this evening.  It was carried over from yesterday for two reasons, one of which was that a Deputy  who had amendments tabled occupied the chair, and, naturally was precluded from putting from the chair matter that might be contentious.  Agreement has been reached upon these amendments, and we propose now, with the leave of the Dáil, to take the Amnesty Bill this afternoon in the Committee stage.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_2">Question put: "That the Amnesty (British Military) Bill be now taken in Committee."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_3">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_9">
+          <from>ACTING CHAIRMAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_10">To what date is the Electoral Bill postponed?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_10">
+          <from>MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Mr. E. Blythe)</from>
+          <p eId="para_11">Yesterday I proposed that the Bill should be postponed until Friday, that is to-morrow, and that we should take up to Clause 45 on that day, if we could get through so much.  The only way to prevent the Dáil from being held up, is to fix a time-table, so as to give members time to put in their amendments to any section of the Bill.  Then, if we do not reach the particular part of the Bill, to which the amendments refer, they can be carried over.  I suggested, yesterday, that we should take up to Clause 45 to-morrow, and that at the next sitting of the Dáil, we might carry on up to the end of the Bill.  Then we could begin with the Schedules.  It would be desirable if members would put in their amendments, even to the schedules, so that the Government may have an opportunity of considering them, and may be able to determine whether they would accept them, or put in alternative amendments or definitely oppose them.  By setting out a time table, even if we have to vary it, members will be induced to send in their amendments, and we would gain time rather than lose it.  I suggest that we should take up to Clause 45 to-morrow, and to the end of the Bill on the next day that the Dáil sits, and that we take the first two schedules, the first day after that, that the Bill is before the Dáil.  If we can get the amendments up to the end of the two first schedules, we will be able to consider them, and make better progress with the Bill.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_11">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_12">Does that mean that to-day we have the Comptroller and Auditor-General Bill and the Amnesty Bill only?  We have three pages of amendments on the paper to the Electoral Bill, and why not get ahead  with them after finishing the other business? I gather that these amendments are in from the Labour Party and other members and are representative of the various bodies in the Dáil, up to Clause 45.  What then is to hinder us, from getting on with this portion of the Electoral Bill before us?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_12">
+          <from>Mr. GERALD FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_13">If there is any doubt as to what occurred last night, I can give my record of it, as I was in the chair.  Of course, the Orders for to-day were in print before the Dáil rose yesterday, and that is how the amendments to the Electoral Bill appear on the paper to-day.  I asked at the rising of the Dáil what business the Government proposed to take to-day, and the Minister for Local Government stated that he would not go on with the Electoral Bill, but proposed to take up to Clause 45 on Friday.  "To-morrow," that is, of course, to-day—he said, "we will take the Amnesty Bill and the Comptroller and Auditor-General Bill."  Anybody who was present in the Dáil at that time got notice that the Electoral Bill would not be coming on to-day.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_4" refersTo="#bill.1923.3.dail.3">
+        <heading>DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - AMNESTY (BRITISH MILITARY) BILL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_13">
+          <from>ACTING CHAIRMAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_14">The Dáil is now in Committee on the Amnesty (British Military) Bill.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_14">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_15">I beg to move Clause 1:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_16">"No action or other legal proceeding whatsoever whether civil or criminal shall be instituted in any Court of law or equity in Saorstát Eireann for or on account of or in respect of any act, matter or thing done after the 23rd day of April, 1916, and before the date of the passing of this Act, by any person or under the authority of any person who, at the time when the act, matter or thing was done, held any office under or was employed in the service of the British Crown or the British Government in any capacity, whether naval, military, airforce, police or civil, provided such act, matter or thing was done or in good faith purported to be done in execution of the duty of the person doing the same, or in exercise or execution of any authority conferred on such person or on the person under whose authority such person was  acting by any statute of the British Parliament or any statutory or other order of the British Government, or was in good faith purported to be done for the defence of the then existing form of government in Ireland, or for the public safety or otherwise in the public interest."</p>
+          <p eId="para_17">There are three amendments put down, and it will be only a matter of form accepting these.  I would accept them now, but I think it better to have Deputy Fitzgibbon move them.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_15">
+          <from>Mr. GERALD FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_18">The amendments that I have put down to Clause 1 of this Bill and the amendment to Clause 3 are all directed to the same purpose—namely, preserving the rights of citizens of Saorstát Eireann to recover compensation from the British Treasury for property commandeered or taken under a contract expressed or implied to pay for it during the war.  I do not know the precise origin of the particular Bill that is before the Dáil, but it was foreshadowed in the Address at the opening of this Session by a statement that "a Bill will be submitted securing by legal sanction the amnesty and indemnity proclaimed by the late General Michael Collins in favour of the members of the British forces engaged in military operations prior to the Treaty."  That appeared to me to be confined to an amnesty of members of the British military forces. I should not have quarrelled with it if that amnesty had been extended to people who had not been members of the British military forces, but civilians who had been engaged in support of the then form of Government in this country.  The British military forces are here and gone, and do not come back, but there are many of our own citizens who, in the performance of what was then their duty also supported the then existing form of government.  Some of them have left this country, and some are willing to return, but are afraid to do so in consequence of having taken sides with the form of government now abolished.  Therefore, I should have found no fault with this Bill if in addition to extending the amnesty to the British forces it extended it to our own citizens engaged on the same side. But this Bill seemed to me to go a great deal further, and to extend an amnesty to the British Exchequer, and I do not think that it was our intention, and I doubt very much if it was the intention  of the Government to abate one penny of any lawful claim of any Irish citizen against the British Exchequer.  When I read Clause 1 of this Bill it seemed to me to have a very close resemblance to the first clause of a Bill that was passed in 1920 in the Imperial Parliament, called the Indemnity Act.  The necessity for an Indemnity Act in Ireland was that martial law had been enforced here for a considerable period. Martial law is not law, and it requires an Indemnity Act, either before or after the period covered by martial law, and it has been a universal constitutional practice to introduce after any period of martial law an Indemnity Act to indemnify those who in carrying out martial law have broken the law of the land.  It was so in 1815 and 1845; and in this country in 1798 and in South Africa after the South African war, both in the Cape and Natal, but there was no martial law enforced in England during the Great War.  Therefore the Indemnity Act that they passed was not the kind of Indemnity Act that was required in this country to relieve the military people and the civilians siding with them who had been acting under martial law.  And so when I saw this clause was practically identical with that of the British Indemnity Act, it occurred to me that it might go a little further than we had really desired, and in the British Act the desire of the Government which brought it in was, not so much to protect soldiers who had been carrying on martial law, but to protect the Treasury against claims that citizens might have against the Treasury for property taken by the Crown for the purpose of carrying on the war, or for providing accommodation for those who were engaged in ministerial and other offices connected with the war.  The first clause of the English Act commenced, as I say, identically with ours, except that in our Act we put in the 23rd of April, 1916, which was the outbreak of what is described in the Preamble "as the recent period of conflict with the British Government," instead of the European war, which is the war with which the English Act dealt. In the English statute which I have here there was a long proviso for protecting the rights of citizens.  One clause, for instance, of the half-dozen provided "that this section shall not prevent the institution or prosecution of proceedings in  respect of any rights under or alleged breaches of contract; the institution of civil proceedings founded on negligence in respect of damage to person or property elsewhere than in a foreign country," and several other matters including even an infringement of patents.  All that protection for officials who had contracts with the Government, which the Government had broken, or who had property which had been damaged by the negligence of officers of the Government, was omitted in the first clause of this Act.  I first framed some amendments with a view to preserving rights and claims of that description, but on consideration I thought that possibly to introduce a proviso preserving the rights as they are preserved in the British Indemnity Act might be better than two or three scattered amendments that I had originally put upon the Orders of the day.  I have framed an amendment that I think has been handed round to Deputies, proposing in Section 1, line 32, to insert the following:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_19">"Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings under the Indemnity Act, 1920, or from claiming or obtaining any payment or compensation under the said Act which he might have instituted or prosecuted or claimed or obtained if this Act had not passed."</p>
+          <p eId="para_20">The Bill before the Dáil in its present form absolutely bars all legal proceedings and action of every kind whatsoever against the Government for anything they did during what is called "the period of the recent conflict," and if any of our citizens had come before the compensation tribunal or any other tribunal with a claim under the Indemnity Act of 1920, they would have been met by the representative of the Treasury with a copy of our own Bill, and he would say "You can go home, because your own Dáil has passed a Bill which prohibits you from taking any legal proceedings, or from carrying on any action whatsoever, and there is no use in your coming here." Now, the amendment that I have framed seems to me to prevent that.  It seems to me to leave everybody where he was so far as he has any claim that he could prosecute if this Act had not passed, but it does give protection to any person for anything done, provided that it was  done in good faith in accordance with his duty, for the maintenance of the then existing form of Government in Ireland. The Minister has already accepted an amendment which proposes to substitute "maintenance" for "defence of the then existing form of Government in Ireland," and it seems to me that if this second amendment that I have proposed is passed, and the mere verbal correction is made in the title of the Bill it will afford all the protection that we can give to citizens of Saorstát Eireann in claims that they may have against the British Treasury.  Therefore, I would ask leave to substitute for amendments——</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_16">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_21">On a point of order, as I have not moved anything beyond Section 1 I think it would be better if Deputy Fitzgibbon would move these amendments first.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_17">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_22">I am quite prepared, if the Government prefer, to move the three verbal changes.  That would assist me.  I will move in accordance with the Order Paper, that after the words "Saorstát Eireann" in line 18 the words "against any person" be inserted.  The object is the same.  Whatever I have said in support of the amendment that has been handed round in type is equally valid in support of the amendment I have put on the Paper in this case.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_18">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_23">I understood that Deputy Fitzgibbon wished to have these three alterations as well.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_19">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_24">I should like to, certainly.  I move to insert after "Saorstát Eireann," the words "against any person" in line 18.  The object of that is that in a Petition of Right or claim against the Crown, the Crown not being bound under the Statute, would not, I think, be included. That protects the servants of the Crown but not the Crown itself.  I move amendment Number 1 on the list.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_20">
+          <from>ACTING CHAIRMAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_25">There are three alterations; do you move the three of them?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_21">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_26">I move the first amendment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_4" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Amendment put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_4"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_22">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_27">Amendment 2 has been accepted by the President, that is,  to substitute the word "maintenance" for the word "defence," so that it is unnecessary to move that.  Now, I do not move the amendments to lines 31 and 32 but in lieu of that I move the proviso that is in type, to add to Clause 1 the following: "Provided that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings under the Indemnity Act, 1920, or from claiming or obtaining any payment or compensation under the said Act which he might have instituted or prosecuted or claimed or obtained if this Act had not passed."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_5" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Amendment put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_4"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_6">Motion made and question put: "That Clause 1 as amended stand part of the Bill."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_7">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_23">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_28">I move Clause 2, "If any such action or other proceeding as is mentioned in this Act was instituted before the passing of this Act and is now pending the same shall be discharged and made void subject to such order as to costs as the Court in which such action or proceeding is pending or a Judge thereof shall think fit to make."  I do not think there is any amendment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_8">Question put: "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_9">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_24">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_29">I move Section 3:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_30">"For the purposes of this Act:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_31">(<i>a</i>)  a Petition of Right shall be deemed to be a legal proceeding and the proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the petition was presented;</p>
+          <p eId="para_32">(<i>b</i>)  the institution or prosecution of any claim before any tribunal appointed to enquire into claims for compensation under the enactments relating to criminal injuries or any enactment amending the same shall not be deemed to be an action or legal proceeding within the meaning of Section one of this Act.”</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_25">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_33">There is an amendment in my name on the paper to Sub-section (<i>a</i>), but when this Bill was before the Dáil for the Second  Reading I stated that instead of the amendment which is in print I should move to delete the Clause altogether. Therefore, I move that Sub-clause (<i>a</i>) of Clause 3 be deleted; the reason Deputies will gather from what I said originally when putting in the words “against any person” in Clause 1.  It goes to preserve our rights against the Crown as representing the British Treasury as head of the State, because contracts made by servants of the Crown for the State are treated as contracts by the Crown as representing the State, and you sue in respect of them by what is known as a Petition of Right, that is a petition claiming that the Crown has contracted to pay certain rent or compensation or something of that sort is brought forward.  I move now to delete this exception of a Petition of Right, because I am quite clear that the right of any subject to proceed by Petition of Right where that is available ought to be preserved.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_10" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Amendment put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#para_29"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary class="Center" eId="sum_11">CLAUSE 4.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_12">A statement in writing signed by any Secretary of State of the British Government certifying any of the matters mentioned in this section shall be conclusive evidence of the matters so certified, that is to say:—</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_13">(a)  that at the time when the act, matter or thing complained of in any such action or legal proceeding as is mentioned in this Act was done, the person by whom or under whose authority the same was done held office under or was employed in the service of the British Crown or the British Government:</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_14">(b)  that any such act, matter or thing as aforesaid was part of or within the duty of the person by whom the same was done:</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_15">(c)  that any such act, matter or thing as aforesaid was within the powers and authority conferred on the person by whom the same was done or on the person under whose authority such person was acting by a statute of the British Parliament or an order of the British Government.</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_26">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_34">Clause 4 has three  Sub-sections.  I move that Clause, (<i>a</i>), (<i>b</i>), and (<i>c</i>).</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_16">Question put: "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_17">Agreed.</summary>
+        <summary class="Center" eId="sum_18">CLAUSE 5.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_19">Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect any final judgment given before the passing of this Act by:—</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_20">(a)  any Court from whose decision no appeal lies by law;</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_21">(b)  any other Court where the judgment is not at the passing of this Act the subject of a pending appeal.</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_27">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_35">I move Clause 5, (<i>a</i>) and (<i>b</i>).</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_22">Question put: "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_23">Agreed.</summary>
+        <summary class="Center" eId="sum_24">CLAUSE 6.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_25">This Act may be cited as the Indemnity (British Military) Act, 1923.</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_28">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_36">I move Clause 6.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_29">
+          <from>Professor MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_37">I think it was understood at the Second Reading that "British Military" would be omitted because "The Indemnity" refers to civilians, police and other officials. Should it not read "British officials" instead of "British Military"?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_30">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_38">I think it is preferable as described, because they constitute by far the largest number of those who would be likely to be affected, and it is thought that as regards other people that it is set out fairly clearly in the Clause who is affected.  It is in the Short Title in this case, and it gives a better appearance to the thing from the point of view of the actual parties that were immediately engaged in the conflict.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_31">
+          <from>Professor MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_39">They were war operations.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_32">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_40">Yes, I think that having regard to that that it would be better described as it is—"British Military."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_33">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_41">Is that the Short Title?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_34">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_42">Yes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_35">
+          <from>Mr. T. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_43">Will the title have any effect in interpreting the intentions of the Act?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_36">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_44">It will, it cannot help having.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_37">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_45">If so, I will support the proposition or suggestion that is made by Deputy Professor Magennis, that we should leave out the words "British Military" entirely.  I do not suppose it will make any difference in the Indemnity Act of 1923.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_38">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_46">In one sense this is not an Indemnity Act at all; it is an Amnesty Act.  It is called at the head of the Paper "Amnesty (British Military) Bill."  In the Short Title, it is described "Amnesty (British Military)" Act, 1923.  It does not seem to me to matter very much whether you call it "Amnesty" or "Indemnity."  Indemnity usually means that you are paying something back, recouping something that is lost, but there is in the Title, not in the Short Title but in the Long Title, a necessary amendment arising out of what has happened, that is instead of the Act being one to restrict the taking of legal proceedings in respect of certain acts and things done during the recent period of conflict, it ought to be amended by stating "things done in the recent conflict," because Amnesty is only to people who were engaged in the maintenance of the then existing form of Government, and the Long Title would make it to appear to cover anything that was done by anybody after the 23rd of April, 1916, whether it had connection with the conflict between Great Britain and Ireland or not.  Therefore I did hand in an amendment to amend the title by striking out the words "during" and "period of" and substituting "in," so that the title would read after the word "and" in the third line "Things done in Saorstát Eireann in the recent conflict with the British Government."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_39">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_47">It was held during the last five or six years that the British Government maintained its authority here through the Army of Occupation. It was assumed that a public official maintained his right or status or office or administration by reason of the fact that he was  supported by the British military.  That, I think, was the idea underlying the particular title.  There were certainly fewer persons, or there would be fewer persons, on the civil side affected by this than on the military side.  From that point of view, I think, it would be better leave it as it is.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_40">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_48">What does the President propose to do about this amendment in the description of the long title?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_41">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_49">We have not come to that.  We agreed to it the last day, but this one must come first.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_42">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_50">If we are on Clause 6, which is a short title paragraph, I do think that the word chosen at the head of the Bill, "Amnesty," is a better word than the word "Indemnity" in this clause.  "Amnesty," I suggest, is clearly a more accurate description.  You have "Amnesty" in one place and "Indemnity" in another. Of the two, I suggest "Amnesty" is the better word.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_43">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_51">"Amnesty," I think, refers very largely to a forgiveness for some act, usually a criminal act done, and, in the majority of cases, an act for which punishment is meted out.  In the particular cases that we have under review here no punishment is inflicted. This is a promise that you will not inflict punishment.  To that extent the word "Amnesty" is stretched sometimes.  The word is usually used when people are in revolt, and it is asked will you give them "amnesty."  In this case I take it you mean by "indemnity" that you are relieving the person from the possibility of being proceeded against in the civil courts for some acts done on behalf of the Government he served during that particular time.  For that reason, I think, it is better described as it stands.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_44">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_52">I entirely accept what the President says.  My main purpose was that the word should be the same in both cases.  As it stands you have one word in the beginning and a different word in the end.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_26">Question put: "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_27">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_45">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_53">Now I move the title: "An Act to restrict the taking  of legal proceedings in respect of certain Acts, matters and things done in Saorstát Eireann during the recent period of conflict with the British Government and to provide for matters consequential thereon."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_46">
+          <from>Mr. G. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_54">Consequential on the amendments already adopted I now suggest that it is necessary to amend the title by striking out the word "during" and the words "period of" in line 9, and substituting the word "in" after Saorstát Eireann.  We have now confined this Bill to acts done in the course of a particular war that was going on during a particular time, but not to other acts that were not connected with that.  I move that the word "in" be substituted for "during" and that the words "period of" be struck out.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_47">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_55">I accept that.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_28" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Amendment put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_4"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_29">Question put: "That the title as amended stand part of the Bill."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_30">Agreed.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_5" refersTo="#bill.1923.3.dail.4_sub">
+        <heading>[DAIL RESUMES.] - AMNESTY (BRITISH MILITARY) BILL—FOURTH AND FIFTH STAGES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_48">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_56">I do not know what is the view of the Dáil with regard to this Bill.  If the Dáil were willing we would proceed with it.  If there is any objection to any Clause I would not now go on, but if the Dáil is willing I would suggest that we would proceed with it If there is an objection from any Deputy we will not go on with this now.</p>
+          <p eId="para_57">The Dáil agreed to proceed with the Bill.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_49">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_58">I move now that the Amnesty (British Military) Bill be received for final consideration by the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_50">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_59">I second that.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_51">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_60">Taking this Bill now as it comes out of Committee and reported to this Dáil I suggest that it might be desirable if the President could say something with regard to one outstanding case.  There is a kind of feeling in this country, that may be altogether uncharitable or altogether wrong, and it is that once this Bill has been disposed of, so is Dowling.  I would  like to feel as we are passing this Bill through that we might know exactly what is the position as regards one outstanding prisoner, Dowling, and three other prisoners in Scotland, and to press for their release, with the passing into law of this Bill.  I do not know exactly what the position is, or whether it has changed since the matter came before us last; but any one outstanding case of that kind is bound to create a certain amount of disquietude and sense of injustice that is not desired on either side, and it would be a good opportunity to celebrate the enactment of a Bill of this kind by having an announcement that all Irishmen who were in any way connected with any kind of political or semi-political offences in the past shall be released.  I need not mention to members of this Dáil who will be familiar with the case of Dowling that it is one of special moment, because he did play his part by holding his tongue, when, had he spoken the full knowledge at his disposal, he might have made things very uncomfortable at the time. His is a special case.  The Connaught Rangers have been let out.  His case is no worse or better than theirs; it is on all fours with theirs.  They have been released, and I sincerely hope the President will be able to announce that the case of Dowling has also been favourably considered; that he is to be released, as well as the other three prisoners who are now in Scotland.  It has been suggested that I may have, by not mentioning the particular Dowling, led to confusion with the Dowling who shot Max Green.  I am not referring to that man; I am referring to the man who landed at Clare in 1918.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_52">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_61">There was quite a number of prisoners whose cases were the subject of many representations by the late General Collins, by the late President, by Mr. O'Higgins, and, during the term of office of the Provisional Government after the deaths of the President and General Collins, by myself.  I think that no effort was spared to bring before British Ministers or the British Government, both the late British Government and the present one, the views that were held in this country regarding the release of these prisoners, how strongly their release was demanded and expected, how much that act would go towards effecting more cordial relations between the two countries, and how much stronger evidence  it would afford of the determination of the British Government and the Government of Saorstát Eireann to efface the bitter memories of the long conflict that had taken place between the two countries. Now, to some extent, I am at a disadvantage with regard to many of the prisoners.  There were others who were in touch with us, and who were working with us during the period of conflict, who had intimate knowledge of each and every one of those cases.  That knowledge, as far as I am concerned, is not intimate. Their cases, as far as that is concerned, have not suffered to any extent by reason of that lack of intimacy.  I think the Dáil must appreciate the different position that the Government of Saorstát Eireann is in now.  That is to say, it is a coequal member of the community of Nations, and I expect that the relations between the Saorstát and the British Government must be conducted on certain lines with regard to those prisoners.  The Dáil may rest assured that the Government has done everything that was reasonably possible, before and since the establishment of the Saorstát, to effect the release of those particular prisoners, and of Dowling. They are not matters that one can really discuss with any great freedom, because it will be appreciated that there is a certain dignity a Government must maintain, and we have been accustomed for so long to making representations about this or that or any other matter that we may easily lose sight of the fact that we are now an independent Nation, and that the course of representations with regard to these matters has to some extent altered.  The alteration of these circumstances has not prejudicially affected this prisoner Dowling or any other prisoner.  I expect that sooner or later no one will have any reason to complain, but I am not in a position just now to give any greater grounds of hope than that, and the fact that the Government thoroughly appreciate the necessity for the release of this man, who has certainly suffered more, I think, than any other prisoner has suffered, but about whose intimacy with the particular period of time in which he was arrested I had no actual knowledge.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_31">Question put: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in its report."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_32">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_53">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_62">With the leave of the Dáil, I move that the last stage of the Bill be now passed.  It is certainly, I think, a matter upon which the Dáil may be congratulated that it has passed this Bill with a good grace, and I thank the members of the Dáil individually for their consideration with regard to this matter, having regard to the fact that there are just one or two little remembrances, if I might say so, of the recent conflict which might prejudice an Act of this sort.  I accordingly move that the Bill be now passed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_54">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_63">I beg to second that.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_33">Question put: "That the Bill be now passed."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_34">Agreed.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_6">
+        <heading>[DAIL RESUMES.] - COMMITTEE ON COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR-GENERAL'S APPOINTMENT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_55">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_64">I have the Committee now that has been agreed upon. The names are:—Deputies Alderman Wm. O'Brien, Gorey, Dr. Keogh, Professor Whelehan, Dolan, Hughes, and D. McCarthy.  I have got another nomination and I presume that I may read it out also, that of Deputy Professor Magennis.  I move that Committee to consider the question of the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_56">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_65">I beg to second that.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DanielMcCarthy" eId="spk_57">
+          <from>Mr. D. McCARTHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_66">The Committee is to be seven, I think.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_58">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_67">I am informed that Dr. Keogh's name has been taken off and Professor Magennis's substituted for him.  I have no objection to the eight.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DanielMcCarthy" eId="spk_59">
+          <from>Mr. D. McCARTHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_68">I have no objection, but I would like to know where we are.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_60">
+          <from>Professor MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_69">I am quite prepared to have mine taken off.  Mine was the last name upon it and with propriety it ought to be the first to come off when there is an excess.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_61">
+          <from>ACTING CHAIRMAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_70">It was agreed that there should be a Committee of seven, so of course there can be a Committee only of seven.  Certain parties have nominated their men and the only  question then would be between Dr. Keogh and Professor Magennis, each of whom is an Independent or a party in himself.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_62">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_71">Professor Magennis is put on.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DanielMcCarthy" eId="spk_63">
+          <from>Mr. D. McCARTHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_72">That is the point I want to raise.  Deputy Magennis repudiated the fact that he belonged to an Independent group or party in this Dáil, with the result that Mr. O'Connell, the Whip on the other side, and myself, did not consult any of the Independent Deputies, but we put down Dr. Myles Keogh's name.  That was an agreed list. Is there an Independent Party here or is there not, so that the Whips can get in touch with them?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_64">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_73">The point was made very clear that there is a group of Independents here to put forward names.  We agreed with regard to the name of Deputy Magennis now.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_65">
+          <from>Professor MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_74">I would very much prefer not to be included in the list inasmuch as it gives rise to trouble and discussion.  I do not ambition the place to any extent.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DanielMcCarthy" eId="spk_66">
+          <from>Mr. D. McCARTHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_75">That is not why I raised the point.  If there is a Party there, we could deal with them.  Let one act as a Whip for them and we can get in touch with them.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_67">
+          <from>Mr. HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_76">They are all independent of each other.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_68">
+          <from>Mr. A. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_77">I think that applies to the whole Dáil.  If not, it ought to.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_69">
+          <from>ACTING CHAIRMAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_78">If there is not an Independent Party, it is difficult to see how the Whips could put on anybody representing an Independent Party.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_70">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_79">Precisely.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_71">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_80">I take it they are not an Independent Party, but they are an Independent group of Independent units, each of which is a party in itself.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_72">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_81">Deputy Gorey has put the thing very skilfully, and from that group so aptly described we are in agreement that Deputy Professor Magennis should go on the Committee.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_73">
+          <from>Professor MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_82">I think the time has come when we should make our minds clear as to what is the situation. This designation of Independent member came into being at a time when there was a panel in accordance with the Pact.  I think in Clause 4 of that Pact any and every interest in the country was allowed to put forward candidates.  The newspapers for convenience described all candidates who went forward outside the Panel as Independent candidates.  Now, as I conceive it, for an Independent Party to exist, there should be a number of Deputies here united in pursuance of a common policy.  That policy should explicitly, to some extent, have been formulated and be the basis of their joint action.  That has never been formulated so far as I am aware.  It is not correct, therefore, to describe certain members as forming an Independent Party.  Scrutinise the division lists of the Dáil, and you will find that some of the staunchest supporters of the Government, even a Minister, have voted in the minority against the Governmental majority. Consequently, I suggest that even a scrutiny of the lists would not indicate whether A, B, C or D was a Deputy who belonged to an Independent Party. That those of us who have exercised a certain amount of independent judgment with regard to the Constitution are not recognised as belonging to any party—we are political pariahs—is an undoubted fact, and that for certain political purposes certain Deputies could find it convenient to perpetuate that view I have not the slightest doubt.  I seize this occasion to repudiate the description of attempting to pose as a party in myself, and I am quite sure that some Deputies described here as Independent will repudiate that epithet with equal force.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_74">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_83">It may be well to clear this point up.  There is nothing in the Constitution or the Standing Orders that recognises the existence of any parties in the State.  It is simply for the convenience of business that we have grouped ourselves in parties.  You, sir, have no right to recognise parties, except for the purpose of convenience, and as a matter of convenience those members who have not attached themselves to any existing parties formed themselves into a little block, and suggested a certain name.  That is all that is required in this matter, surely.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DanielMcCarthy" eId="spk_75">
+          <from>Mr. D. McCARTHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_84">That is the point I want to raise.  If they have done that we can deal with them, but they repudiate the fact that they are an Independent Party.  Professor Magennis tells us that they are men who stood outside the Pact, but Deputy Figgis told me that Deputy Gavan Duffy is a member of their Party and he stood on the Pact.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_76">
+          <from>Professor MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_85">He is a Panel member.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DanielMcCarthy" eId="spk_77">
+          <from>Mr. D. McCARTHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_86">If there is any definite Independent Party, our Whips could deal with them.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_78">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_87">We are not discussing the general question; we are simply discussing this simple thing, that certain persons here have put forward a name and Deputy McCarthy as Chief Whip chooses to exercise his discretion as to what we ought to do for ourselves.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_79">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_88">The truth of the position is that the names that have to be submitted must be moved by an individual Deputy and any other Deputy could move an additional name and if there is a division on it, the decision of the Dáil can be taken.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_80">
+          <from>ACTING CHAIRMAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_89">I want the onus put on the Dáil now of appointing seven, and there has been a question as between two names, Professor Magennis and Dr. Keogh.  I think the best thing would be to take the names one by one.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_81">
+          <from>Professor MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_90">Would the Dáil not allow me to withdraw my name? As a man of peace I protest against being made a bone of contention.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#TomasOConnell" eId="spk_82">
+          <from>Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL</from>
+          <p eId="para_91">Deputy Keogh is not present and as this Committee wants to get to work at once, I think there should be no objection to allowing Deputy Magennis's name to go on.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DanielMcCarthy" eId="spk_83">
+          <from>Mr. McCARTHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_92">I have not the slightest objection.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_35">Question put: "That the Committee to consider the question of the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor-General consist of the following:—Deputies O'Brien, Gorey, Professor Magennis, Professor Whelehan, Dolan, Hughes, and D. McCarthy."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_36">Agreed.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_7">
+        <heading>[DAIL RESUMES.] - ADJOURNMENT OF THE DÁIL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_84">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_93">I move the adjournment of the Dáil until 3 o'clock to-morrow.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_85">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_94">I beg to second that.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_8">
+        <heading>[DAIL RESUMES.] - BALBRIGGAN COMPENSATION CLAIMS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_86">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_95">I just want to raise a small question that the Minister for Finance may be able to answer.  It is in relation to compensation claims that have been passed by the Commission and are outstanding.  I am referring to small claims of householders who lost furniture in Balbriggan.  There are five or six houses which have been rebuilt, houses which were burned, and the tenants of the burned houses were awarded certain compensation ranging from £20 to £70.  I think there are only five and probably the total amount is not £200, but they are ready to go into the houses and practically cannot go in because they have no money to buy furniture.  I wonder would it be possible to expedite the payment of these small compensations in such cases?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_87">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_96">I will undertake to look after that personally.  I do not know anything at all about the circumstances of it, but if Deputy Johnson will give me any particulars regarding the names I will look into it just now when I go over to my office.</p>
+          <p eId="para_97">The Dáil adjourned at 4.35 p.m.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_9">
+        <heading>WRITTEN REPLY. - THE CASE OF MR. JOHN E. KELLY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#TomasOConnell" eId="spk_88">
+          <from>TOMAS O CONAILL</from>
+          <p eId="para_98">To ask the Minister for Defence whether Mr. John E. Kelly, of Knockbrack National School, Letterkenny, was arrested by National troops on October 4th, and is since detained, whether any charges have been made against him, and whether, in view of Mr. Kelly's statements to the effect that he has taken no part in the present campaign against the Government, he will give instructions for his release.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_89">
+          <from>MINISTER for DEFENCE (General Mulcahy)</from>
+          <p eId="para_99">The matter has been considered  and it is not proposed to release Mr. Kelly, who was arrested in circumstances which warrant his detention.  A charge has not formally been made against him.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+    </debateBody>
+  </debate>
+</akomaNtoso>

1923/1923-03-26_mul@.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,495 @@
+<akomaNtoso xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13 ./akomantoso30.xsd ">
+  <debate name="Official Report">
+    <meta>
+      <identification source="#source">
+        <FRBRWork>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-03-26/debate/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-03-26/debate"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-03-26" name="#generation"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/house/dail/3"/>
+          <FRBRcountry value="ie"/>
+          <FRBRname value="debate"/>
+        </FRBRWork>
+        <FRBRExpression>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-03-26/debate/mul@/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-03-26/debate/mul@"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-03-26" name="#reported"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+          <FRBRlanguage language="mul"/>
+        </FRBRExpression>
+        <FRBRManifestation>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-03-26/debate/mul@/main.xml"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-03-26/debate/mul@.akn"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="2020-06-25" name="#publication"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+        </FRBRManifestation>
+      </identification>
+      <analysis source="#source">
+        <otherAnalysis xmlns:oir="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ns/1.0" source="#source">
+          <oir:volumeReference showAs="Vol. 2" eId="#vol_2" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2"/>
+          <oir:numberReference showAs="No. 45" eId="#no_45" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/no/45"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2461" eId="col_2461" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2461" refersTo="#dbsect_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2462" eId="col_2462" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2462" refersTo="#spk_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2463" eId="col_2463" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2463" refersTo="#spk_3"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2464" eId="col_2464" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2464" refersTo="#spk_8"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2465" eId="col_2465" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2465" refersTo="#spk_14"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2466" eId="col_2466" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2466" refersTo="#spk_16"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2467" eId="col_2467" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2467" refersTo="#spk_22"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2468" eId="col_2468" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2468" refersTo="#spk_22"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2469" eId="col_2469" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2469" refersTo="#dbsect_3"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2470" eId="col_2470" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2470" refersTo="#spk_26"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2471" eId="col_2471" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2471" refersTo="#spk_27"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2472" eId="col_2472" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2472" refersTo="#spk_30"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2473" eId="col_2473" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2473" refersTo="#dbsect_3"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2474" eId="col_2474" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2474" refersTo="#spk_39"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2475" eId="col_2475" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2475" refersTo="#spk_40"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2476" eId="col_2476" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2476" refersTo="#spk_47"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2477" eId="col_2477" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2477" refersTo="#spk_50"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2478" eId="col_2478" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2478" refersTo="#spk_54"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2479" eId="col_2479" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2479" refersTo="#spk_56"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2480" eId="col_2480" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2480" refersTo="#dbsect_5"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2481" eId="col_2481" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2481" refersTo="#spk_64"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2482" eId="col_2482" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2482" refersTo="#spk_64"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2483" eId="col_2483" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2483" refersTo="#spk_65"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2484" eId="col_2484" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/2/col/2484" refersTo="#spk_70"/>
+        </otherAnalysis>
+      </analysis>
+      <references source="#source">
+        <TLCOrganization eId="source" href="" showAs="Houses of the Oireachtas"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="generation" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Generation" showAs="Generation"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="reported" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Reported" showAs="Reported"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="publication" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Publication" showAs="Publication"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.13" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/13" showAs="Double Taxation (Relief) Bill 1923"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.16.dail.1" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/16/dail/1" showAs="Central Fund (No. 1) Bill 1923: Dáil First Stage"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DarrellFiggis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Darrell-Figgis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Darrell Figgis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ErnestBlythe" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Ernest-Blythe.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Ernest Blythe"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="GeraldFitzgibbon" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Gerald-Fitzgibbon.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Gerald Fitzgibbon"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelHayes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Hayes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Michael Hayes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatMcCartan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-McCartan.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Patrick McCartan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PeterHughes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Peter-Hughes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Peter Hughes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ProfWilliamMagennis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Professor-William-Magennis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Professor William Magennis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardWilson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-Wilson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Richard Wilson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="SeanMilroy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Seán-Milroy.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Seán Milroy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ThomasJohnson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Thomas-Johnson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Thomas Johnson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamDavin" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-Davin.D.1922-09-09" showAs="William Davin"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamTCosgrave" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-T-Cosgrave.D.1919-01-21" showAs="William T. Cosgrave"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="author" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/author" showAs="author"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="editor" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/editor" showAs="editor"/>
+      </references>
+    </meta>
+    <preface>
+      <block name="title_ga">
+        <docTitle>DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="title_en">
+        <docTitle>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="proponent_ga">
+        <docProponent>DÁIL ÉIREANN</docProponent>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_ga">
+        <docStatus>TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_en">
+        <docStatus>(OFFICIAL REPORT)</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_ga">
+        <docDate date="1923-03-26">Dé Luain, 26 Márta 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_en">
+        <docDate date="1923-03-26">Monday, 26 March 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="volume">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#vol_2">Vol. 2</docNumber>
+      </block>
+      <block name="number">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#no_45">No. 45</docNumber>
+      </block>
+    </preface>
+    <debateBody>
+      <debateSection name="prelude" eId="dbsect_1">
+        <heading>Prelude</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_1">Cromadh ar obair an lae ar a 3 a chlog.  Bhí an Cathaoirleach, Micheál O h-Aodha, sa Chathaoir.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_2">
+        <heading>DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (COMPENSATION) BILL, 1923.—FIFTH STAGE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_1">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_1">Before I formally move the Fifth Stage of this Bill, I would like to make a very short statement as to certain representations, made quite recently for the careful consideration of the Ministry, concerning certain persons who have claims for compensation, and in respect of whom it was difficult, if not impossible, for them to have made their cases known.  Amongst those are some who feel it would not be safe for them to return to the vicinity in which the property they were interested in was destroyed, and after examination, which it has not been possible to give to this matter up to this, if it is made clear that such persons would suffer serious injustice or hardship, it may be necessary to introduce a Bill amending, to some extent, the provisions of this Bill in so far as such persons would be concerned; but it is to be understood that the general principles embodied in this Bill must govern compensation, and that in assuming, as we have, not alone enormous liability, but much greater liabilities than is shouldered by local authorities, we have done so on a certain definite basis, and that although valuable property has been destroyed, it was property which, to a large extent, was out of date, and not marketable to any material extent, if at all.  One of the main considerations before the Government in this matter of compensation is the necessity of taking definite action immediately, and of relieving the vast majority of sufferers with the least possible delay.  That is, perhaps, the main reason why it is too late at this moment to enter into instances of persons whose cases might have been, perhaps, the  subject of particular consideration during the discussions on the Bill.  With that statement, I move: "That the Bill do now pass."</p>
+          <p eId="para_2">There are some verbal amendments which it is necessary to have made.  The first is in Section 1, to delete the word "the" in Sub-section (2) ["in respect of an injury to which the Section applies"] and to insert in lieu thereof the word "this."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_2">
+          <from>MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Mr. Blythe)</from>
+          <p eId="para_3">I second.</p>
+          <p eId="para_4">Agreed.</p>
+          <p eId="para_5">In Section 13, Sub-section (9), to insert the word "the" immediately after the words "paid into" ["moneys paid into County Court under"].</p>
+          <p eId="para_6">Agreed.</p>
+          <p eId="para_7">In Section 13, Sub-section (12), to delete the word "to" ["party who incurred same, or to any cost which"].</p>
+          <p eId="para_8">Agreed.</p>
+          <p eId="para_9">In Section 14, Sub-section (3), to insert immediately after the figures "1923" ["on the first day of April, 1923, shall be deemed to have been"] the words "and which would have been lawful if this Act had been passed at the time such steps were taken."</p>
+          <p eId="para_10">Agreed.</p>
+          <p eId="para_11">Section 17, Sub-section (1), marginal note, to amend the marginal note by inserting the word "legal" after the word "no" and before the word "proceedings." ["No proceedings to be taken in respect of injuries to the person"].</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_3">
+          <from>Mr. GERALD FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_12">Before this amendment is put I should like to ask if the Ministry is satisfied that a marginal note is part of an Act of Parliament. My impression is that it is not.  If we introduce here the practice of amending marginal notes, these marginal notes will be referred to by the Courts as being part of the legislation to which they are entitled to look for the purpose of interpreting the clause of the Act itself.  Now, my belief is that marginal notes are not part of the legislation at all, and if I am correct in that I think the Government are quite entitled—I mean the draughtsman—to put in anything he likes into the marginal note, which is merely a reference and which is not part of the legislation; but if we once begin here amending marginal notes  then I think we do make them part of the legislation, and I think that is a dangerous innovation.  I suggest that the Minister should withdraw this amendment, and that by his own motion should put in this word "legal" in the place in which it ought to be.  As I say, marginal notes are merely to facilitate those who want to refer to an Act of Parliament, and to find the section for which they are looking.  I do not think they are part of the legislation itself.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_4">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_13">That raises a general question which I did not anticipate at the moment, but the word "legal" is certainly necessary there.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_5">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_14">I quite agree, and I do not intend to embarrass the Minister in any way by raising any general question at all.  If we could do this without prejudice, but not to make it a precedent, I do not object to it, but I do suggest to the Ministry that this precedent, if we make it to-day, ought not to be treated as one to be followed in the future.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_6">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_15">There is another aspect of the situation.  Supposing a section is amended and no steps are taken to amend the marginal note, and we find on reading the Bill afterwards that the marginal note requires amendment, and that it must be amended, and that it is essential to the Bill, no change can be made in the marginal note by us or by the draughtsman if the change has not been made in the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_7">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_16">May I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn and the matter looked into between now and the time that this Bill goes to the Seanad?  Then if it is thought desirable the change can be made there.  I fear very much the introduction of an innovation in this Bill into our legislation, because if the marginal note is amended or dealt with here in the Dáil it becomes part of the legislation, and a thing to which Judges are entitled to look in interpreting the Statute itself.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_8">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_17">Inasmuch as none of these marginal notes have been put to the Dáil and accepted as such, is there anything to prevent the Minister for Finance introducing the word "legal" as required without consulting  the Dáil at all, because we never had this marginal note before us?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_9">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_18">I will take a note of what Deputies have said with regard to marginal notes generally.  I take it it is not necessary to press the amendment, but the word "legal" must go in.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeraldFitzgibbon" eId="spk_10">
+          <from>Mr. FITZGIBBON</from>
+          <p eId="para_19">We agree. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_11">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_20">I beg to move, in Section 17, Sub-section (6) to insert immediately after the words "not apply" ["this section shall not apply or prevent"] the word "to."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_2" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Amendment agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_2"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_12">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_21">I beg to move that the Bill be now passed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_13">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_22">I beg to second.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_3" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_2"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_3">
+        <heading>THE DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - SUPPLY—VOTE ON ACCOUNT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_14">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_23">I move a Vote on Account for Financial Year commencing 1st April, 1923:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_24">"That a sum not exceeding £14,099,174 be granted on account for or towards defraying the charges for certain public services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924."</p>
+          <p eId="para_25">The various sums against the particular services that are dealt with are set out in the White Paper, amounting in all to £14,099,174.  I intend within a month to bring up the whole of these Votes for consideration by the Dáil, or at least within the month of April to bring up the whole of them, and consequently, this being only a Vote on Account, it was not my intention now to deal with them by detailed discussion, which I believe is to some extent customary on matters of this kind when asking for such a large sum.  I think I have already explained that the work of the Ministry of Finance is pretty considerable, and that within this year the principal officer has undertaken the control of another Service under the Commissioners, and that the consequent reduction of the Staff and the other work that has been taken on in connection with the Compensation Bill that we have just passed, has absorbed a good deal of time, and  has not given us an opportunity for dealing with a matter of this kind in the ordinary normal way.  I would then, if the Dáil were agreeable, prefer if discussion on the Estimates were, as far as the details are concerned and, in fact, the general discussion, left over until the whole Estimate is being introduced.  I should say it would come on within a week, if not sooner, when we reassemble after Easter.  It is a large sum to be asked for, 14 millions; it contemplates an expenditure running over something like four months.  It is anticipated that the discussion on the Estimates may possibly extend over a considerable period, and to that extent Estimates for four months are being asked for.  In the ordinary way that length of time could be devoted to the consideration of the Estimates.  A good deal of complaint was made last year about the haste with which the Estimates were introduced, and the rather short time left at the disposal of the Deputies for the consideration and discussion of them.  It is much better that items involving such a huge sum as appears on the White Paper should be the subject of the most careful consideration of the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_15">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_26">I second.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_16">
+          <from>Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_27">I am afraid that, like other members of the Dáil and probably the general public, I am surprised and somewhat in a fog as to the procedure that has been chosen by the Minister.  The Dáil was led to understand, as late as Friday last, that there would be some statement from the Minister respecting future taxation.  We were informed that the Minister for Finance would not anticipate the statement he was to make to-day.  I think that that led most people to believe that there would be some statement from the Minister respecting the finances of the coming year.  Now we find that we are merely asked to authorise the expenditure of 14 million pounds without any indication as to where that is to come from, how it is to be raised, or who is to pay.</p>
+          <p eId="para_28">We are asked to authorise the taking out of the Central Fund of 14 millions, but we are not asked to authorise the putting in of any money to that Central Fund.  I am aware that already there are certain taxes that will run over the end of the financial year, but I think I  am right in saying that there are other taxes that will not run over the end of the year.  But we are left to assume that the taxes imposed a year ago in Britain, which were accepted by the Free State to carry on until the end of this year, will continue until some change has been decided by the Dáil.  I suppose there is some justification for it, but I would refer the Minister to Article 54 of the Constitution. It says:</p>
+          <p eId="para_29">"The Executive Council shall be collectively responsible for all matters concerning the Departments of State administered by Members of the Executive Council.  The Executive Council shall prepare estimates of the receipts and expenditure of the Irish Free State for each financial year, and shall present them to Dáil Eireann before the close of the previous financial year."</p>
+          <p eId="para_30">Now, whether that was a wise provision or not I cannot say, but it is the provision that was made on the initiative of the Minister himself, and it is proposed, I understand, to adjourn until over the end of the financial year, and we are not to receive from the Minister responsible for this Department any estimate of the receipts for the next financial year.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_17">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_31">Oh, yes, to-morrow.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_18">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_32">To-morrow?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_19">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_33">Yes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_20">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_34">That perhaps is satisfactory, although we have had no notice of it.  The law has not been broken, but the Standing Orders have.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_21">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_35">It is very fortunate that it is not the same thing, or it would be the most law-breaking country in the world.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_22">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_36">I take it, pending the introduction of an estimate of the receipts for the next financial year, we are asked now to vote the sum of 14 million odd pounds on account of public expenditure for various items.  The Minister has asked us not to deal in detail with these various items and votes because there will be an opportunity given during the month of April, and in view of the very short notice and difficulty of raising questions of expenditure I suppose there is no alternative, but it seems to me to be stretching too much the goodwill—shall I say?—of the Dáil to ask us time after time to deal with these matters  in this rather slipshod manner.  One is forced to the conclusion that the Minister would be well advised if he would nominate some assistants on the financial side to act for him and assist him in the conduct of his Departmental work in the Dáil.  I am sure it would be a relief to him, would facilitate the work of the Department and his work as President, and would help, perhaps, to get through the forms of procedure with more loyalty to the word of the Standing Orders.</p>
+          <p eId="para_37">There is just one thing I think I had better deal with, and that is to point out in these Estimates that of forty-two millions of a total, of which fourteen millions is voted on account, something like twenty-one millions are army and property losses.  I suppose we would be right in saying that a third of the cost of the army would be as much as we could afford under normal circumstances; so that I take it the cost of the present destructive campaign for this year is about eighteen million pounds.  That is to say, eighteen million pounds is to be charged upon the people in respect of the campaign of destruction for the year. That would be, roughly, about £5 10s. for every man, woman and child in the Free State area, or something over two shillings a week each.  Now that is a very formidable tax to pay for work which ought not to have been required. It might be well to have the fact driven home to the people in that manner.  It would be be about two shillings per week per head of the population.  True, it is, I think, that the cost to the people has to be put against the value.  I would ask the Dáil at all times when dealing with questions of taxation and rates— over-taxation and higher rates—to consider, not the amount of taxation, but the value that is received from it.  In this respect, although I think it is well to draw attention to the formidable character of the year's charge for the campaign of destruction—two shillings per head per week for man, woman and child—the cost of not meeting it would be immeasurable. We would lose all that is meant when we speak of the value accruing to social action and to association. Society has a value to the individual.  It is not merely an adding of units; it is something extra to the mere adding  together of units.  There is an added value in association, a spiritual as well as an economic value.  The economic value as well as the spiritual value of the association would be utterly lost if the attack upon society were to succeed.  There is another aspect of this very large sum that calls for attention.  One cannot but remember that when there were claims made about twelve months ago for money for works of reconstruction it was not possible to find it.  There was no way that could be suggested of getting the large sums of money that would be required.  We repeated here what has been done in most other countries.  Lifesaving, health-saving, humanity-saving, could not be entered into because of the cost; but it is possible, we see, to find ways and means to raise money when warfare, even for self-defence, has to be engaged in.  It is universally the same. I had hoped that we in this country would have been able to realise the value of life-giving and be prepared to stretch our energies to the utmost for the saving of life, just as much as we would stretch those energies, when we have to act in defence, to save society from destruction. The Minister is finding means somehow—I do not know how yet—but he is finding means to raise forty million pounds.  I say again, as I have said before, if half the cost of the warlike operations had been devoted a year ago to the work of reconstruction, the greater part of the destruction would not have happened.  I shall reserve until to-morrow what I have to say upon the general question, which I was led to believe would have been raised to-day, and I take it we shall have an opportunity of entering into the general question of the raising of the money as well as this question of the paying away of money.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_23">
+          <from>Mr. SEAN MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_38">Are we to infer from the statement of the President that he proposes to make a Budget statement to-morrow or merely a statement of the estimated receipts from the revenue for the forthcoming half-year?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_24">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_39">What I intended to do on to-morrow was to introduce an account of the receipts and expenditure, and to make what is usually described as the Budget statement in the case of the introduction of the Estimates when the whole of them in bulk are being introduced.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_25">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_40">Such a statement must surely be introduced in connection with taxation, not with Estimates.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_26">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_41">There is no indication in the Constitution of a Budget statement being made before the close of the financial year.  It ought to occur during the financial year, and in this case if we were to adopt that precedent I take it there would be an indication given in the future of the intention to tax three or four days before that taxation would come into operation.  I do not know that would be an advisable course.  This year perhaps it is unfortunate that the 1st of April occurs at the moment we have to adjourn.  If that had not happened during the first year it would have been possible to have a meeting of the Dáil on the 31st March and 1st April. That difficulty might have been obviated, but it is obvious that one could not deal with what is intended in the Constitution in the manner asked for by the Deputy. This Vote we are asking for on account is a Vote which normally might be tabled for the first week in March. Unless this money were advanced, the public services would come to an end, because one has no funds to draw from after the 31st March.  Now, some time ought to be given for consideration of this matter by the Seanad, and we will be putting it up to the Seanad on Wednesday to pass these particular items without affording any opportunity to the Seanad—which is permitted in the Constitution—of making any recommendations. Ordinarily it ought to be done in the first week of March, and if that were to be made the subject of what is put down in the Constitution it is obvious that it would not be wise to make a Budget speech on the 7th or 8th day of March.  This is only a resolution asking for a Vote on Account to cover all the Supply Services, details of which are embodied in the resolution.  The White Paper shows, in addition to the Vote on Account you are asked for now, a corresponding total net estimate both for this and the next financial year.  It is in order to enable the public services to be carried out that this Vote on Account is asked for, and it is seen at once that this resolution must be passed this week in order to provide the necessary funds. The passing of the Vote on Account will  be followed on the resumption in April by a discussion of the several Estimates in detail in the Committee on Finance. It would not in the ordinary course have been possible to have supplied detailed Estimates of each particular Vote.  At present we have them in full in the Finance Ministry.  A good many of them are in manuscripts, and not in a form to be issued.  They are almost ready for use.  The Vote on Account now covers our ordinary expenditure up to the 31st July.  That is the duty laid down by the Standing Orders.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_27">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_42">Might I urge that the President should give a little more guidance to the Dáil as to the procedure that is to be adopted.  I frankly confess that I am quite unable to follow it.  According to Article 54 of the Constitution it seems that the procedure is quite clearly defined, at least it would be perfectly clear to my mind, and if there was misinterpretation I would like to have it indicated.  It says in Article 54 that the Executive Council shall prepare the Estimates of the Receipts and Expenditure of the Irish Free State for each financial year, and shall present them—that is to say, both the Estimates of Receipts and the Estimates of Expenditure—before the close of the previous financial year.  We have here in the White Paper the Estimates of Expenditure, from which it is apparent to us that there is to be for the next year an increase of expenditure of about £3,000,000 of which one-third is to be paid out now as Supply for the coming four months.  That assumes that the taxation that has hitherto prevailed is to prevail for the future, or some increase of taxation or some remission of taxation, which I understand to be what the Constitution means in the phrase that is used in the Article I have quoted—Estimates of the Receipts.  We have the Estimates of the Expenditure.  The Estimates of Expenditure are based upon certain Estimates of Receipts.  In order that we might be able to know exactly what best use could be made of the Expenditure surely it is necessary that we should first be furnished with some fuller knowledge than we have got of the Estimates of Receipts which I take to be the title of what is generally known as the Budgetary statement.  I believe my interpretation of Article 54 to be correct and I submit  to you, Sir, that both are required before the end of this month.  I understand the very great difficulty in the matter, but the Constitution remains the Constitution notwithstanding.  When are we going to have a statement put before us as to what will be not merely the Estimates of Expenditure, which we have, but the Estimates of Receipts which we have not yet got?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardWilson" eId="spk_28">
+          <from>Mr. R. WILSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_43">The Estimates of Receipts that are mentioned here refer to next year.  Perhaps the President will be able to tell us how the money is coming in this year or whether that would be anticipating the statement he will make to-morrow?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_29">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_44">Apparently, yes.  This Vote on Account is a different question altogether from the question of taxation, or of the varying of existing taxes.  The Vote on Account will have to be taken in any event.  It does not at all include the discussion of proposals for taxation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_30">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_45">I would just like to say as to the way this Vote has come before us, while making all the allowances that were called for that it would in a normal state of things have allowed us to deal with some question of moment or of public interest, and with criticism of administration, but by virtue of the fact that it was allowed to be understood that this was a day when we were going to have some general statement on the financial policy we have really not had time or opportunity to table any motion for reduction with a view to calling attention to particular public matters.  I want to say that we ought not to be taken as acquiescing in this particular manner of presenting the Votes to the Dáil, and asking for large sums on account without having had notice sufficiently long, and in proper form, to enable us to deal with these matters in the way that the Constitution assumes we are going to deal with them.  The procedure of the Dáil, the Constitution, and the forms that have been adopted by the Ministry and by the Dáil itself are intended to give the Dáil control over finance, and, by means of that control, to utilise occasions for criticism, for inquiry and for expressing the views of the country in regard to particular matters of administration and particular questions of policy.  Unless these forms are maintained the whole balance  of the Constitution and of Parliamentary procedure is going to be upset, and the control that is supposed to exist will be lost.  I hope it will not be considered that this particular method of presenting Votes with short notice is a precedent for future Parliaments and future Sessions.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_31">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_46">I am advised that what is in the Constitution with regard to Receipts and Expenditure did not contemplate a Budget statement, but that such a statement would come on when the imposition of taxation was being dealt with, if at all—that is, if there was no imposition of taxation at all, it would nevertheless mean that a Budget statement should be made, that the disclosing of the Receipts and Expenditure did not of itself preclude a Budget statement even if there had been no interference with taxation.  I do not know whether the word <i>Budget</i>, which Deputy Figgis used at the time it was discussed was cut out, or whether it was in originally or not.  In any case, it was taken out.  I am not enamoured, I must say, of what is in the Constitution at all in reference to this matter seeing it now in its operation and all the rest of it.  I do not think it is business; I do not think it is defensible; but it is there, and it is on that we are acting.  I am prepared also, if the Dáil should so desire, to take each one of these items, but it is scarcely fair to the Dáil, in view of the fact that they have not the details in front of them, to ask them to discuss the items in detail. In that case it simply means a delay of a fortnight or three weeks, or whatever the time is until we are introducing the Estimates in detail, when the fullest opportunity will be afforded Deputies of taking any and every item in detail.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_32">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_47">Is the Minister right in speaking of the Budget statement, as we will call it, coming on, and of discussing it when we are dealing with the Estimates?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_33">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_48">No.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_34">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_49">Surely it is a different business.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_35">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_50">I think the Minister said in his last statement that the Budget statement would come on when we are dealing with taxation, or new taxes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_36">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_51">Yes.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_37">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_52">That was correct, but another statement that the Budget was connected with Estimates and the discussion of Estimates was not correct.  I think the real difficulty we are in to-day is, that owing to some confusion an impression was created that we would be discussing a Budget statement, that is to say, a statement concerning the incidence or variation of taxation.  What we are discussing is a totally different thing, and I think the grievances that exist quite properly, and the difficulty that has arisen are altogether due to that fact.  This is a Vote on Account, and does not concern the question of taxation, the incidence of taxation, or the variation of taxation, and the unfortunate confusion which arose by which people thought that we would be considering that matter to-day is what leaves us in this difficulty.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_38">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_53">I eliminate, as the Constitution does, the word Budget.  It possibly is a word that has led to a good deal of misunderstanding. With your indulgence I desire to ask for an interpretation of what is meant in the Article in the Constitution, so as to know exactly where we are.  We have the Estimates of the Expenditure for next year such as is required in this Article, but we have not got the Estimates of the Receipts for next year which is also required in this Article.  Are we going to get these Estimates of Receipts before the close of the financial year in accordance with the Constitution, and, if we are, when?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_39">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_54">I said to Deputy Johnson that I will introduce to-morrow Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure. This White Paper does not exhaust the Expenditure.  It exhausts Supply, but it does not exhaust Expenditure.  I must say my interpretation of the Constitution up to last week was that it would be a Budget statement that would be introduced to-day.  That, to my mind, would have been rather unfortunate.  It might be alright this year, but I cannot understand how a Budget statement could be made a single hour before the date on which taxation would be increased, if you intend to increase it.  Sometimes notice is given that it would be done in three months' time, but, to my mind, that is not advisable.  You might remit three months' hence, but to give notice  that you intend to increase any given duty at other than the moment at which the statement is made does not appear to me to be sound business.  In that respect the Constitution, in my view, is at fault, and can scarcely be allowed to remain as it is at present.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_40">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_55">I agree that that is fair criticism of the Constitution, and I hope it is only one of several amendments to the Constitution that will come from the brain of the Minister himself.  It may be fair to ask this question.  The taxation which will automatically be imposed upon the public from the 1st of April was devised for a unitary three Kingdoms or one Republic and two Kingdoms.  The situation that has been created could not have been thought of, or certainly was not thought of when those taxes were devised.  I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to indicate that in respect of any of these taxes, which are obviously not suitable in their present form to this country, there will be any revision of the incidence of these taxes before the end of April.  But they are automatically coming into operation on 1st April, and there will be two or three weeks during which time those particular industries or occupations will be entirely at sea, and at sea in a storm.  I would suggest to the Minister that if he is prepared to give any indication to the public in respect of any of the industries that are affected, he should do so to enable them to do what they can this week to avoid the complications that will arise, as between 1st April and, say, the 15th or the 20th of April.  Let us take the motor car industry and the films.  Now, take the films as an instance.  Obviously the taxation was not intended to apply to this country in the present form, and it is undoubtedly going to have a very disturbing effect.  It might be the considered policy of the Government to close down cinemas.  It might be desirable from some points of view, and it might be undesirable from most other points of view; but, from the point of view of finance, and from the point of view of revenue, I would ask the Minister to consider the effect of this particular tax on films upon the industry within the next fortnight or three weeks, and to state to-morrow what the intention of the Ministry is in regard to that particular industry.  Similarly, in regard to motor cars, I think the people interested have a perfect right to understand  between now and the 1st April whether this particular tax which was not devised for application to the Free State in this particular instance is to be continued. I think the public has a right to claim that amount of indulgence at any rate; and while we are not to expect a Budget statement to-morrow, perhaps it would be within the purview of the statement which the Minister is making if he would at least give us some guidance with regard to these two or three taxes, especially having in view the present circumstances in the Free State.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_41">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_56">I have been in consultation with the Revenue Commissioners about motor cars and films, and——</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_42">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_57">Perhaps the President now would remember that we are in a certain difficulty in the circumstances that have been explained.  I have allowed Deputy Johnson to ask a few questions, but it is quite clear that they are to be answered to-morrow.  Any discussion on them cannot arise on the Vote on Account which is before us to-day. I think the President should give us an indication whether he is going to deal with them to-morrow or not.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_43">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_58">I am not going to make a Budget statement to-morrow. That is all I would want to say now.  I will answer any reasonable questions.  I think these are reasonable questions which Deputy Johnson has asked.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_44">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_59">I would like to ask one question—we are all tyros in this matter, and in endeavouring to evolve our own procedure we have to look to the Minister for Finance to guide us in this.  Am I not correct in saying that the taxation which is now prevailing, automatically expires at the end of this year?  One gathers from Deputy Johnson's remarks that the taxation is automatically continued like a running brook until it is stopped.  Am I not correct in saying that if no new legislation is brought in it is automatically discontinued or stopped at the end of this year?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_45">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_60">I am glad to say that you are not correct.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_46">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_61">I find I am.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_47">
+          <from>Mr. PETER HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_62">Does Deputy Figgis think that no one is to pay any taxes on dutiable articles between now  and the 1st May?  I think we are wandering around this Vote on Account to an alarming extent and wasting a lot of time.  If we finish that Vote on Account, then we could get on with the other business, and that would be the better thing to do.  I think the Vote on Account is the usual business, and that it cannot be got over.  In every place where a sum on account is required to carry on a concern for two or three months you do not ask for the full amount.  I think what we should do now is either to vote the sum of money required or refuse to vote it. If there is any other question to be asked regarding the statement to be made to-morrow, I think to-morrow would be the time to ask it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatMcCartan" eId="spk_48">
+          <from>Dr. P. McCARTAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_63">I see in the vote on Account for the Estimates a sum of £11,423 for the Governor-General.  I think, according to the Constitution, he is only entitled to £10,000, and, as that is three or four times as much as the President gets, I do not see why the Governor-General is entitled to any increase. I do not think that he is more important than the President.  I do not see why he should live in any greater luxury, or get any greater salary than the President has.  The President is the elected representative of the people, and the Governor-General is imposed upon us.  I should just want to know what the extra £1,423 is for?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_49">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_64">We are liable also for the upkeep of the establishment.  I do not mean the whole of the house, but several other items, the details of which we will be able to place in your hands within the next fortnight or three weeks.  There was a provisional sum voted last December of £10,000 for the establishment.  I do not think that the expense reached £10,000 at that time, but that had nothing to do with the salary.  It is over and above the salary.  I will be able to furnish complete details, but I have not got them at the moment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_4" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#para_23"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_50">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_65">I take now item No. 2—Supplementary and Additional Estimates for financial year ending 31st March, 1923.  This is a resolution of Ways and Means which I have to move. It is "That towards making good the Supply granted for the service of the year  ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, the sum of £692,914 be granted out of the Central Fund."</p>
+          <p eId="para_66">This resolution is necessary in order that we can use the money which has been already voted.  You have voted the money, and this resolution must be passed to enable us to take it out of the Fund into which it was voted.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_5" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_3"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_51">
+          <from>Mr. WILLIAM DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_67">Before we pass from this, I would like to take this opportunity of asking the President if he can make any statement on behalf of the Government regarding the position and the future of the railways.  Three months ago it was agreed that a certain period should be set aside during which Railway Companies would be invited to put their house in order, and, at the expiration of that period, failing an agreement that would meet with the satisfaction of the Government, that the Government themselves be called upon to declare the future policy with regard to the railways.  I would like to take this opportunity, in view of the many rumours that are aflcat in the Press and elsewhere, to ask the President if he would make a short statement at this stage as to the exact position regarding the future of the railways, and whether any information has been conveyed to him by the Associated Railways as to their failure to agree to a policy of grouping.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_52">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_68">I have no information to give.  The railway companies——</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamDavin" eId="spk_53">
+          <from>Mr. DAVIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_69">I am not asking for information regarding the railway companies. I am asking for information in respect of the future policy regarding the railways.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_54">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_70">The time runs until the 31st March.  They were given that time to see if they could come to an agreement, and, of course, we are not entitled to ask if they have come to that agreement until after the 31st March.  I have no information from the Associated Companies themselves.  They have not approached us, as a body, to inform us as to what the result of their deliberations has been up to this.</p>
+          <p eId="para_71">(3)  Vote on Account for financial year commencing on 1st April, 1923.  Resolution of Ways and Means:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_72">"That towards making good the Supply granted for the service of the year ending  on the 31st day of March, 1924, the sum of £14,099,174 be granted out of the Central Fund."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_55">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_73">I move this motion.  It will be observed that this Clause is drawn in the same form as the corresponding Clause which was originally inserted in the Bill which became the Appropriation Act.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_6" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#para_73"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_56">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_74">I move No. 4, which is a Money Resolution required by the First Standing Order on Financial Procedure.  It reads as follows:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_75">(4)  Money resolution to be moved by Minister for Finance in Committee on Finance in connection with Clause 4 of Central Fund Bill:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_76">"That it is expedient that authority be granted for the charge on and payment out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof of such sum or sums as may be required for the purpose of effecting the adjustments with the British Exchequer for which provision is made in Article 5 of the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1922, and Article 74 of the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann."</p>
+          <p eId="para_77">This Money Resolution, as I have said, is required by the First Standing Order on Financial Procedure as the necessary foundation for Clause 4 of the Central Fund Bill.  Its object is merely to perfect the machinery for carrying out arrangements which have already been agreed to and to enable transfers to be made for the purpose of effecting the adjustments with the British Exchequer for which provision is made in Article 74 of the Constitution.  The revenue which is at present collected does not represent what is called the true revenue.  We are collecting revenue which belongs to Great Britain, and they are collecting revenue which belongs to us.  Take the beer duty, for example.  The duty on Dublin beer, which goes into consumption in England, is collected here, and the same thing happens in respect of other items in regard to which the English pay and they are consumed here.  The present resolution lays down that for the purpose of making the necessary adjustments in matters of this kind issues may be made as required out of the Central Fund.  In  one case, I think there has been rather a large reduction in the amount we anticipated, and, in another case, we are credited with a rather large amount which was not anticipated.  It is in order to make it possible for these adjustments to take place that this resolution is put down.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_7" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#para_74"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_57">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_78">The resolutions are reported to the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_4">
+        <heading>THE DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - THE DAIL RESUMED.</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_8">Resolutions reported:—</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_9">"That a sum not exceeding £14,099,174 be granted on account for or towards defraying the charges for certain public services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_10">2.  Supplementary and additional Estimates for the financial year ending on the 31st March, 1923:—"That towards making good the Supply granted for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, the sum of £692,914 be granted out of the Central Fund."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_11">3.  Vote on account for financial year commencing on the 1st April, 1923:—"That towards making good the Supply granted for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, the sum of £14,099,174 be granted out of the Central Fund."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_12">4.  Money resolution in connection with Clause 4 of the Central Fund Bill:—</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_13">"That it is expedient that authority be granted for the charge on and payment out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof of such sum or sums as may be required for the purpose of effecting the adjustments with the British Exchequer for which provision is made in Article 5 of the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1922, and Article 74 of the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann."</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_58">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_79">I beg to move:—"That the Dáil doth agree with the Committee in the said resolutions."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_59">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_80">I beg to second.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_14" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_4"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_5" refersTo="#bill.1923.16.dail.1">
+        <heading>THE DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - CENTRAL FUND BILL, 1923.—FIRST STAGE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_60">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_81">I move for leave to introduce the Central Fund Bill, 1923.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_61">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_82">I beg to second.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_15" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#para_81"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_62">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_83">We propose, with the permission of the Dáil to take all the stages of this Bill to-morrow.  We have already dealt with all the details.  I take it that the Bill be circulated this evening. It is merely the embodiment of all the financial business that we have already done.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_6" refersTo="#bill.1923.13">
+        <heading>THE DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF BILL, 1923.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_63">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_84">There are no amendments on report, and I beg to move that the Bill be now finally considered. I promised in the Committee stage to consider a new Clause proposed by Deputy Johnson enabling any arrangement entered into with the British Government under this Bill to be extended to other countries.  But I am afraid we could not see our way to accept such a condition.  The sole object of the Bill is to ensure relief from double taxation that arises in consequence of the change of Government and our fiscal independence of Great Britain.  Any fiscal arrangements with other countries had already existed before any change, and while it may be a proper subject for consideration, and for legislation, in the future it is a problem of an entirely different character.  People who are seeking relief in this case are people in respect of whom there would be no such case for relief if it were not for the fiscal independence of Saorstát Eireann, so they are certainly in a very different category to those subject to double taxation from other countries than Britain.  A person having investments in America would not be in any worse position by reason of the setting up of Saorstát Eireann than he would be if we had not secured that special provision, whereas, persons having investments in Great Britain, and living in Ireland, would be in a different position. Therefore, it would be an innovation, and it was not our intention originally to deal with anything but persons prejudicially affected, and who certainly were entitled to special consideration by reason of what happened.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_64">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_85">Are we to understand then that the sole purpose of this Bill is to give relief to the citizens of Saorstát Eireann who have investments  in Great Britain?  I see that Clause 1 includes not only people having investments, but people who had to pay in respect of a subject of charge which might mean tariff on commodities.  Now, I understand, from the Minister that it is not intended, in this Bill at any rate, to give relief by any reciprocal arrangement, such as that which exists between Great Britain and Australia or Canada, in respect of tariffs.  I wonder am I right in understanding that there will be no remission of taxation, say, on motor cars, which come from Britain, as contrasted with the taxation which is imposed upon American cars.  Under what authority are we going to act in this matter?  We have taken over, as one of the British Acts, the Act which allows that remission, and will the Minister tell us whether the effect of that Act if we are going to proceed under it will be that the reciprocal arrangements will be as between motor car and motor car imported from Great Britain into Ireland or exported from Ireland to Great Britain?  Is it to be a remission under this Bill, or under any other Act we may have taken over on account, of such things as motor cars or clocks, or whiskey, or any other commodity of a like nature?  From the words of the Minister in introducing this we might have assumed that the only question affected by this Bill will be investments by citizens of Saorstát Eireann in securities in Great Britain.  If that is so, then, of course, there is a certain simplification, but it is not implied in Clause 1, which reads:—"Wherever under any law from time to time in force in Great Britain, or in Northern Ireland any tax is for the time being payable in respect of a subject of charge in respect of which a corresponding tax is payable in Saorstát Eireann it shall be lawful for the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann to enter into a provisional arrangement with the British Government, and if the case shall so require with the consent of the Government of Northern Ireland for the granting of relief in cases where there is a charge both to the Irish Free State tax and to the British tax in respect of the same subject matter." Does that effect only Income Tax, or does it affect any other tax?  I was hopeful we should have had some indication at least from the Minister of what is in the mind of the Government here in respect to arrangements, and the kind of  arrangements they are thinking of.  Is it to be a complete abandonment of any Income Tax, provided you get a reciprocal abandonment of any Income Tax, or is it to be a partial arrangement?  What is to be the position of citizens of Saorstát Eireann in respect of Income Tax, and what is to be the position of exports where there is a corresponding tax payable in Great Britain?</p>
+          <p eId="para_86">I do not think it is too much to ask the Minister to give the Dáil at least some indication of what is in the mind of the Government in respect of the relief they propose to grant from double taxation. Is it, by the way, only relief from double taxation?  Is it relief when the tax is one and a half?  In that case the title is a misnomer.  I think the Dáil is entitled to a little more information before letting this Bill pass from it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_65">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_87">This Bill covers all Income Tax, whether investment income or not.  It extends to stamp duties, death duties, Corporation profits tax, but it will have no application to Customs and Excise duties.  The tariff on motor cars is not double taxation.  I do not know how one and a half taxation could occur. The normal course is in the case of a person having, let us say, money invested in Guinness's; 6s. in the £ is deducted.  In some cases one gets income as a particular percentage free of income tax; in other cases it is a percentage of income subject to the deduction of the amount of income tax.  Now, in the case of a person having investments in the Great Southern &amp; Western Railway, and in the London North Western Railway, let us say, £100 in each case, in one case 5s. in the £ would be deducted on a £100, if the income were £100, so that person would get £75 income; and having the same income from the London &amp; North Western Railway 5s. would be deducted from it at the source. That is to say, instead of getting £200, one would get only £150.  In addition to that, at present without this Bill, the British Government would be entitled to charge that person income tax on that income of £200, and in the same way I expect we would do the same thing here, so that ultimately the sum paid would be 10s. in the £ by that person, and that would be unreasonable.  In the case of the dividend on Consols being paid here —if one had an income of £200 from  Consols, the British Government would be entitled to take 5s. in the £, paying £150.  We would then come along and demand another £50, so that the person's net annual income would be only £100, if some machinery, such as we are now setting up under this Bill, were not arrived at after consultation between the two Governments, so as to give relief to such persons.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_66">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_88">Will the Minister say what would happen, suppose the rate of taxation as between the two Governments was 3s. in Ireland, and 6s. in England?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_67">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_89">That is to be a subject of arrangement.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_68">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_90">Would it be double taxation?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_69">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_91">The person would then be liable in the event of the Bill not going through to 9s.  That is, the sum in excess would be the sum total, whatever that might be, of the difference between the two income taxes, if we had not an arrangement, through the machinery of this Bill, to come to an accommodation with the British Government in regard to such cases.  That is what is intended by the Bill.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_16">Question put:—"That the Bill be received for final consideration."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_17">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_70">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_92">I now move that the Bill be passed.  I want the Bill to go to the Seanad this week.  It is most essential that it should be finished this  week, in order to enable us to enter into the arrangement I have referred to.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_71">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_93">I second the motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary title="motionProposal" eId="sum_18">Question put:—"That the Bill be now passed."</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_19">Agreed.</summary>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_72">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_94">This Bill is a Money Bill within Article 35 of the Constitution.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_73">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_95">And as such, your certificate will be appended, accordingly?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_74">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_96">Yes.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_7">
+        <heading>THE DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - MESSAGE FROM THE SEANAD.</heading>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_75">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_97">A matter arose last Friday on the Message from the Seanad dealing with the site of the Oireachtas buildings.  It was agreed that the sending of a reply should be postponed until Friday, but the matter was not adverted to on Friday.  The Seanad is meeting on Wednesday next, and I wonder would the Dáil now consider the sending of a reply.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_76">
+          <from>Professor MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_98">The suggestion of the President, I understand, was that the matter was to be postponed for three weeks.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_77">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_99">Was it not the case that an agreement was come to, and that the President had to put the agreement in the regular form of a resolution which we would automatically pass?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_78">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_100">We will take up the matter to-morrow.</p>
+          <p eId="para_101">The Dáil adjourned at 4.40 p.m.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+    </debateBody>
+  </debate>
+</akomaNtoso>

1923/1923-09-19_mul@.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,605 @@
+<akomaNtoso xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13 ./akomantoso30.xsd ">
+  <debate name="Official Report">
+    <meta>
+      <identification source="#source">
+        <FRBRWork>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-19/debate/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-19/debate"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-09-19" name="#generation"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/house/dail/4"/>
+          <FRBRcountry value="ie"/>
+          <FRBRname value="debate"/>
+        </FRBRWork>
+        <FRBRExpression>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-19/debate/mul@/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-19/debate/mul@"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-09-19" name="#reported"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+          <FRBRlanguage language="mul"/>
+        </FRBRExpression>
+        <FRBRManifestation>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-19/debate/mul@/main.xml"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-19/debate/mul@.akn"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="2020-06-25" name="#publication"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+        </FRBRManifestation>
+      </identification>
+      <analysis source="#source">
+        <otherAnalysis xmlns:oir="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ns/1.0" source="#source">
+          <oir:volumeReference showAs="Vol. 5" eId="#vol_5" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5"/>
+          <oir:numberReference showAs="No. 1" eId="#no_1" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/no/1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1" eId="col_1" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1" refersTo="#dbsect_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 2" eId="col_2" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/2" refersTo="#dbsect_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 3" eId="col_3" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/3" refersTo="#dbsect_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 4" eId="col_4" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/4" refersTo="#dbsect_2"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 5" eId="col_5" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/5" refersTo="#dbsect_3"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 6" eId="col_6" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/6" refersTo="#spk_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 7" eId="col_7" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/7" refersTo="#spk_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 8" eId="col_8" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/8" refersTo="#spk_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 9" eId="col_9" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/9" refersTo="#dbsect_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 10" eId="col_10" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/10" refersTo="#dbsect_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 11" eId="col_11" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/11" refersTo="#spk_3"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 12" eId="col_12" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/12" refersTo="#spk_5"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 13" eId="col_13" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/13" refersTo="#spk_5"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 14" eId="col_14" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/14" refersTo="#spk_5"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 15" eId="col_15" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/15" refersTo="#spk_6"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 16" eId="col_16" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/16" refersTo="#spk_6"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 17" eId="col_17" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/17" refersTo="#spk_7"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 18" eId="col_18" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/18" refersTo="#spk_14"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 19" eId="col_19" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/19" refersTo="#dbsect_8"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 20" eId="col_20" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/20" refersTo="#spk_26"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 21" eId="col_21" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/21" refersTo="#spk_30"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 22" eId="col_22" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/22" refersTo="#spk_30"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 23" eId="col_23" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/23" refersTo="#spk_31"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 24" eId="col_24" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/24" refersTo="#spk_35"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 25" eId="col_25" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/25" refersTo="#spk_35"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 26" eId="col_26" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/26" refersTo="#spk_42"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 27" eId="col_27" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/27" refersTo="#dbsect_9"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 28" eId="col_28" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/28" refersTo="#spk_48"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 29" eId="col_29" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/29" refersTo="#spk_54"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 30" eId="col_30" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/30" refersTo="#spk_55"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 31" eId="col_31" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/31" refersTo="#spk_55"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 32" eId="col_32" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/32" refersTo="#spk_55"/>
+        </otherAnalysis>
+      </analysis>
+      <references source="#source">
+        <TLCOrganization eId="source" href="" showAs="Houses of the Oireachtas"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="generation" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Generation" showAs="Generation"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="reported" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Reported" showAs="Reported"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="publication" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Publication" showAs="Publication"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="AlfredByrne" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Alfred-Byrne.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Alfred Byrne"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DarrellFiggis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Darrell-Figgis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Darrell Figgis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DenisJohnGorey" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Denis-John-Gorey.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Denis John Gorey"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DesmondFitzgerald" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Desmond-FitzGerald.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Desmond FitzGerald"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="EdmundJDuggan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Edmund-John-Duggan.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Edmund John Duggan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JohnLyons" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/John-Lyons.D.1922-09-09" showAs="John Lyons"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelHayes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Hayes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Michael Hayes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickJHogan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-J-Hogan.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Patrick J. Hogan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ProfWilliamMagennis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Professor-William-Magennis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Professor William Magennis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardJamesMulcahy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-James-Mulcahy.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Richard James Mulcahy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardWilson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-Wilson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Richard Wilson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="SeanMilroy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Seán-Milroy.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Seán Milroy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ThomasJohnson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Thomas-Johnson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Thomas Johnson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamTCosgrave" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-T-Cosgrave.D.1919-01-21" showAs="William T. Cosgrave"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="author" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/author" showAs="author"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="editor" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/editor" showAs="editor"/>
+      </references>
+    </meta>
+    <preface>
+      <block name="title_ga">
+        <docTitle>DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="title_en">
+        <docTitle>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="proponent_ga">
+        <docProponent>DÁIL ÉIREANN</docProponent>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_ga">
+        <docStatus>TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_en">
+        <docStatus>(OFFICIAL REPORT)</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_ga">
+        <docDate date="1923-09-19">Dé Céadaoin, 19 Mean Fómhair 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_en">
+        <docDate date="1923-09-19">Wednesday, 19 September 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="volume">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#vol_5">Vol. 5</docNumber>
+      </block>
+      <block name="number">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#no_1">No. 1</docNumber>
+      </block>
+    </preface>
+    <debateBody>
+      <debateSection name="prelude" eId="dbsect_1">
+        <heading>Prelude</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_1">Do léigh an Cléireach an furógra ag gairm na Dála, mar leanas:—</summary>
+        <table>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_1">FURÓGRA Ó Thadhg Ó hEaluithe duine d'Abhcóidí a Shoillse Seacnaseal Shaorstáit Eiteann.</p>
+            </td>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_2">PROCLAMATION by Timothy Micheal Healy, one of his Majesty's Counsel, Governor-General of the Irish Free State.</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_3">DE BHRI gur dineadh leis an bhfurógra uaim ar an dáta so Oireach tas Shaorstáit Eireann do scur agus Toghachán Gererálta I gcóir Dháil Eireann d'fhógairt ach ní i dtreo go ndéanfí baill Sheanaid Eireann do chur as a Suidheacháin ná toghachán i gcóir na maball san do bheith riachta nach.</p>
+            </td>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_4">WHEREAS by my proclamation of this date the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State was dissloved and a General Election for Dáil Eireann declared but not so as to vacate the Seats or require an election of members of Seanad Eireann</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_5">ANOIS AR AN ABHAR SAN do réir agus de bhua na comhachta ahus an údaráis atá agam dinim-se an Sean- ascal roimhráite leis an bhfurógra so in ainm a Shoillse an Rí agus comhairle Ard-Chomhairle Shaorstáit Eireann agam chuige sin Oireachtas Shaorstáit Eireann agus gach Tigh den Oireach- tas san do ghairm agus do ghlaoch le chéile chun teacht le chéile i gCathair Bhaile Atha Cliath dé Céadaoin an 19adh lá de Mheadhon Fhoghmhair, 1923, ar a trí a chlog um thráthnóna chun pé gnó a leagfar fé bhráid na dTithe fé seach do dhéannamh.</p>
+            </td>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_6">NOW, THEREFORE, under and by virtue of the power and authority in me vested, I, the Governor-General aforesaid, by this Proclamation, in the name of His Majesty the King, do hereby by and with the advice of the Execitive Council of the Irish Free State, summon and call together the Oireachtas of the Irish Free State and each House of the said Oireachtas to meet at the City of Dublin on Wednes day, the 19th day of September, 1923, at the hour of three o'clock in the afternoon, for the despatch of such business as shall be submitted to the respective Houses.</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_7">Tugtha fém Láimh agus (toisc nár soláthruíodh fós Séala Mor do Shaor- stát Eireann) fém Shéala Príobhái- deach i mBaile Atha Cliath an 9adh lá so de Lúnasa, 1923.</p>
+            </td>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_8">Given under my Hand and (a Great Seal of the Irish Free State not having been yer provided) under my Private Seal at Dublin this 9th day of August, 1923.</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+        </table>
+        <summary eId="sum_2">(Sighnithe) T. M. HEALY,</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_3">(Signed)</summary>
+        <summary class="Right" eId="sum_4">Seanascal Shaorstáit Eireann.</summary>
+        <summary class="Right" eId="sum_5">Governor-General of the Irish Free State.</summary>
+        <table>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_9">Tugtha fé Láimh a Oirdhearcais Seanascal Shaorstáit Eireann agus tugtha amach fé n-a Shéala i dTithe an Rialtais Baile Atha Cliath an 9adh lá so de Lúnasa, 1923.</p>
+            </td>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_10">Given under the Hand of His Excel lency the Governor-General of the Irish Free State and issued under his Seal at Government Buildings, Dublin, this 9th day of August, 1923.</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+        </table>
+        <summary eId="sum_6">(Sighnithe) LIAM T. MAC COSGAIR,</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_7">Signed Uachtarán Ard-Chomhairle Shaorstáit Eireann.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_8">President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_2">
+        <heading>CUR AMACH RITEACHA.</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_9">Do leig an Cléireach tuarasgabhail mar leanas:—</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_10">I gcó-líona Buan-Ordú a 3 de Bhuan-Orduithe Dháil Eireann, tá orm a thuairisciú gur dhineas, ar an 9adh Lúnasa, 1923, agus díreach tar éis curtha amach Furógra an dáta san ag gairm an Oireachtais chun teacht le chéile i mBaile Atha Cliath ar an 19adh Meadhon Fhoghmhair, 1923, gur dhineas mo riteacha do chur amach, do réir na bhforálacha ina thaobh san atá san Acht Timpeal Toghachán, 1923, chun na gCeann Comhrimh seo a leanas do sna Dáil-cheanntracha atá ainmnithe anso síos.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_11">In compliance with Standing Order No. 3 of the Standing Orders of Dáil Eireann, I have to report that on the 9th August, 1923, immediately upon the issue of the Proclamation of that date summoning the Oireachtas to meet at Dublin on the 19th September, 1923, I issued my writs, pursuant to the relative provisions of the Electoral Act, 1923, to the following Returning Officers for the Constituencies named hereunder:—</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_12">Dáil-cheanntracha Buirge (Borough Constituencies).</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_13">Buirg Chorcaighe (Cork Borough)— Francis Hanrahan.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_14">Baile Atha Cliath Thuaidh (Dublin North), Baile Atha Cliath Theas (Dublin South)—Lorcan G. Sherlock.</summary>
+        <summary class="Center" eId="sum_15">Dáil-cheanntracha Contae (County Constituencies).</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_16">Ceatharloch-Chill Choinnigh (Carlow-Kilkenny)—Thomas Drew.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_17">Cabhán (Cavan)—G. V. Maloney.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_18">An Clár (Clare)—Fred. G. Cullinan.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_19">Corcaigh Thuaidh (North Cork), Corcaigh Thiar (West Cork), Corcaigh Thoir (East Cork)—John Jermyn.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_20">Dún na nGall (Donegal)—Hugh C. Cochrane.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_21">Baile Atha Cliath (Dublin)—W. McA. McCracken.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_22">An Ghaillimh (Galway)—Raoul Joyce.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_23">Ciarraidhe (Kerry) — Redmond Roche.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_24">Cill Dara (Kildare)—Charles Daly.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_25">Liathdrom-Shligeach (Leitrim-Sligo) —Séamus de Búrca.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_26">Laoighis-ObhFáilghe (Leix-Offaly)— J.N. McClure.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_27">Luimneach (Limerick)—Benjamine K. Lucas.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_28">Longphort-Iarmhidhe (Longford-Westmeath)—W. H. Fetherstonhaugh.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_29">Lúbhaidh (Louth)—John J. Russell.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_30">Muigheo Thuaidh (North Mayo),</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_31">Muigheo Theas (South Mayo)—Austin Crean.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_32">An Mhidhe (Meath)—George H. Lowry.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_33">Muineachán (Monaghan)—W. H. Swan.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_34">Roscomáin (Roscommon) — Charles Coleman Dignan.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_35">Tiobrad Arann (Tipperary)—Séan L. O Bogaigh.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_36">Portláirge (Waterford)—M.P. Devereux.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_37">Loch Garman (Wexford)—James P. Connor.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_38">Cill Mantáin (Wicklow)—William Toomey).</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_39">Príomh-Scoileanna (Universities).</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_40">Príomh-Scoil Bhaile Atha Cliath (Dublin University)—John Henry Bolnard, D.D.</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_41">Príomh-Scoil Náisiúnta na hEireann (The National University of Ireland)— Patrick Joseph Merriman.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_3">
+        <heading>FREAGRAI AR RITEACHA.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_1">
+          <from>AN CLEIREACH</from>
+          <p eId="para_11">Siad so a leanas ainmneacha na dTeachtaí a toghadh chun fónamh sa Dáil, mar son le hainmneacha na nDáil-cheanntar gur ina gcóir do toghadh iad:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_12">The following are the names of the Deputies returned to serve in the Dáil, together with the names of the Constituencies for which they have been elected:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_13">Buirg Choreaighe (Cork Borough)— James Joseph Walsh, Alfred O'Rahilly, Richard Henrik Beamish, Mary MacSwiney, Andrew O'Shaughnessy.</p>
+          <p eId="para_14">Baile Atha Cliath Thuaidh (Dublin North)—Richard James Mulcahy, Alfred Byrne, Seán McGarry, Margaret Collins-O'Driscoll, Francis Cahill, William Hewat, Seán T. O'Kelly, Ernie O'Malley.</p>
+          <p eId="para_15">Baile Atha Cliath Theas (Dublin South)—Philip Cosgrave, Constance De Markievicz, Daniel MacCarthy, Peadar S. Doyle, Michael Hayes, Myles Keogh, Charles Murphy.</p>
+          <p eId="para_16">Ceatharloch-Cill Choinnigh (Carlow-Kilkenny)—Liam T. Cosgrave, Denis John Gorey, John Francis Gibbons, Edward Doyle, Michael Shelly.</p>
+          <p eId="para_17">An Cabháin (Cavan)—Patrick Baxter, Seán Milroy, Patrick Smith, John James Cole.</p>
+          <p eId="para_18">An Clár (Clare)—Eamon de Valera, Eoin MacNeill, Brian O'Higgins, Conor Hogan, Patrick Hogan.</p>
+          <p eId="para_19">Corcaigh Thuaidh (North Cork)— Daniel Corkery, Thomas Nagle, Daniel Vaughan.</p>
+          <p eId="para_20">Corcaigh Thiar (West Cork)—Cornelius Connolly, John Buckley, Timothy Joseph O'Donovan, John Prior, Timothy Joseph Murphy.</p>
+          <p eId="para_21">Corcaigh Thoir (East Cork)—John Daly, Michael Joseph Hennessy, David Rice Kent, John Dineen, Thomas O'Mahony.</p>
+          <p eId="para_22">Dún na nGall (Donegal)—James Sproule Myles, Peter Joseph Ward, Eugene Doherty, John White, Patrick McFadden, Patrick Joseph McGoldrick, Peadar O'Donnell, Joseph Doherty.</p>
+          <p eId="para_23">Baile Atha Cliath (Dublin)—Kevin O'Higgins, Desmond Fitzgerald, Michael James Derham, Kathleen Lynn, Thomas Johnson, John Good, Bryan Ricco Cooper, Darrell Figgis.</p>
+          <p eId="para_24">Gaillimh (Galway)—Pádraig O hOgáin, H. Seoirse O'Maoilíosa, Pádraic O Máille, Proinnsias Ó Fathaigh, Seoirse MacNiocall, Seán Broderick, Lughaidh E. O Deagha, Tomás O Conaill, Seamus MacCosgair.</p>
+          <p eId="para_25">Ciarraí (Kerry)—Austin Stack, Finian Lynch, Thomas McEllistrum, Thomas O'Donoghue, James Crowley, John Marcus O'Sullivan, Patrick J. Cahill.</p>
+          <p eId="para_26">Cill Dara (Kildare)—Hugh Colohan, John Conlan, George Wolfe.</p>
+          <p eId="para_27">Liathdruim-Sligeach (Leitrim-Sligo)— Alexander McCabe, James Nicholas Dolan, Thomas Carter, Francis Joseph Carty, John Hennigan, John Farrell, Martin Bernard McGowan.</p>
+          <p eId="para_28">Laoighis-ObhFáilghe (Leix-Offaly)— Francis Bulfin, William Davin, Patrick Joseph Egan, John McGuinness, Laurence Brady.</p>
+          <p eId="para_29">Luimneach (Limerick)—Richard Francis Hayes, James Ledden, John Carroll, James Colbert, John Thomas Nolan, Patrick Clancy, Patrick H. Hogan.</p>
+          <p eId="para_30">Longphort-Iarmhidhe (Longford-Westmeath)—Connor Byrne, Patrick W. Shaw, Seán Lyons, James Joseph Killane, Patrick McKenna.</p>
+          <p eId="para_31">Lúbhaidh (Louth)—Frank Aiken, James Edward Murphy, Peter Hughes.</p>
+          <p eId="para_32">Muigheo Thuaidh (North Mayo)— Patrick J. Ruttledge, Joseph McGrath, Henry Coyle, John Cowley.</p>
+          <p eId="para_33">Muigheo Theas (South Mayo)—William Sears, Thomas Maguire, Joseph Michael MacBride, Michael Kilroy, Martin Michael Nally.</p>
+          <p eId="para_34">An Mhidhe (Meath)—Edmund John Duggan, Patrick James Mulvanny, David Hall.</p>
+          <p eId="para_35">Muineachán (Monaghan) — Ernest Blythe, Patrick McCarvill, Patrick Duffy.</p>
+          <p eId="para_36">Roscomáin (Roscommon)—George Noble Count Plunkett, Andrew Lavin,  Henry Joseph Finlay, Gerald Boland.</p>
+          <p eId="para_37">Tiobrad Arann (Tipperary)—James Aloysius Bourke, Daniel Breen, Louis Joseph Dalton, John Patrick McCurtin, Patrick Ryan, Daniel Morrissy, Michael Richard Heffernan.</p>
+          <p eId="para_38">Portláirge (Waterford) — Caitlin Brugh, William Archer Redmond, John Butler, Nicholas Wall.</p>
+          <p eId="para_39">Loch Garman (Wexford)—Richard Corish, Michael Doyle, Osmond Grattan Esmonde, Robert Lambert, James Ryan.</p>
+          <p eId="para_40">Cill Manntáin (Wicklow)—Christopher M. Byrne, James Everett, Richard Wilson.</p>
+          <p eId="para_41">Príomh-Scoil Bhaile Atha Cliath (Dublin University)—Ernest Henry Alton, Sir James Craig, William Edward Thrift.</p>
+          <p eId="para_42">Príomh-Scoil Náisiúnta na hEireann (The National University of Ireland)—Eoin MacNéill, Michael Hayes, William Magennis.</p>
+          <p eId="para_43">Tá na Teachtaí seo a leanas tar óis forálacha Airtiogal 17 den Bhun-reacht do chólíona:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_44">The following Deputies have complied with the provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_45">Liam T. MacCosgair, Earnán de Blaghd, Desmond Fitzgerald, Eamon O Dúgáin, Mícheál O hAodha, Fionán O Loingsigh, Séamus Breathnach, Domhnall MacCárthaigh, John Good, Tomás MacEoin, Sir James Craig, Seán Príomhdhail, Richard Henrik Beamish, Seán O'Súileabháin, Liam MacSioghuird, Pádraic O Máille, Mícheál O hAonghusa, Osmond Grattan Esmonde, Peadar Mac a Bháird, Liam Thrift, Seoirse de Bhulbh, Peadar O Dubhghaill, Criostóir O Brion, Seán O Duinnín, Henry Coyle, Maighread Ni Choileain Ui Dhrisceoil, Cornelius Connolly, Séamus de Búrca, Pilib MacCosgair,  Séamus O Dóláin, Tomás de Nógla, Liam O Daimhín, Peadar O hAodha, Caoimhghin O hUigín, Pádraig O hOgáin, Darrell Figgis, Alasdair MacCába, David Hall, Tadhg O Murchadha, Risteárd MacLiam, Patrick McKenna, Seán MacGiolla an Riogh, Pádraig MacUalghairg, Martin Michael Nally, William Hewat, Próinsias O Cathail, Patrick James Mulvany, Séamus O Loideáin, John Thomas Nolan, Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha, Próinsias Bulfin, Séamus Mac Cosgair, Seoirse MacNiocaill, Seán O Bruadair, Aodh O Cúlacháin, Ailfrid O Raithile, Thomas O Mahony, Patrick W. Shaw, Andrew O'Shaughnessy, Louis J. D'Alton, Pádraig O Dubhthaigh, John Daly, Patrick K. Hogan, Seán O Laidhin, Donchadh O Guaire, Patrick J. Egan, Aindriú O Láimhín, Henry J. Finlay, Nicholas Wall, Mícheál O Dubhghaill, Conor Hogan, John Hennigan, Seosamh MacGiolla Bhríghde, Bryan Ricco Cooper, Seán Buitléir, Earnán Altún, Eoghan O Dochartaigh, Tomás O'Conaill, Domhnall O Muirgheasa, Pádraig O Hógáin, John James Cole, Seámus O Cruadhlaoich, W. A. Redmond, Tomás Mac Artúir, Liam MagAonghusa, Seán MacGaraidh, Risteárd Ua Maolchatha, Eamonn Ó Dubhghaill, James Sproule Myles, Mícheál De Duram, John Conlan, Domhnall Ó Mocháin, Seán de Faoite, Mícheál Ó Hifearnáin, Tadhg O Donnabháin, Padraig F. Baxter, Ailfrid O Broin, Risteárd MacFheorais, James Everett, Maolmhuire MacEochadha, Séamus O Murchadha, Pádraig MacFadain, Sean MacGiobúin, Seosamh MagCraith.</p>
+          <p eId="para_46">I gcólíona Buan-Ordú a 4 táim tar éis cóipeanna de sna riteacha toghacháin agus de sna freagraí a scriobhadh ortha do leaga ar Bhord na Dála.</p>
+          <p eId="para_47">In compliance with Standing Order No. 4, I have laid upon the Table of the Dáil, copies of the writs of Election and the returns endorsed thereon.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_4">
+        <heading>FÓGRA Ó THEACHTA.</heading>
+        <table>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_48">AN CLÉIREACH: Táim tar éis an fógra so leanas d'fháil ó Mhícheál ÓhAodha, a toghadh i gcóir Dáilcheanntair Phríomh-Scoile Náisiúnta na hEireann agus fós i gcóir Dáilcheanntair Bhaile Atha Cliath Theas.</p>
+            </td>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_49">(I have received the following notice from Deputy Mícheál O hAodha, who has been returned for the Constituency of the National University of Ireland and also for the Constituency of Dub lin South):—</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_50">“Tigh Laighean,</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td/>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_51">Baile Atha Cliath,</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td/>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_52">19adh Meadhon Fhoghmhair, 1923.</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_53">A Chara,</p>
+            </td>
+            <td/>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_54">Do réir forálacha Alt 55 den Acht Timpeal Toghachán, 1923, faisnéisim leis seo gur rogha liom Dáilcheanntar Príomh-Scoile Náisiúnta na hEireann d'ionadú sa Dáil.</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_55">Mise,</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_56">(Signithe) MICHEÁL O hAODHA,</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td/>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_57">Teachta a toghadh i gcóir Dáilcheanntair Phríomh-Scoile Náisiúnta na hEireann agus i gcóir Dáilcheanntair Bhaile Atha Cliath Theas.</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_58">Déanfhaidh an Dáil anois Ceann Comhairle do thogha.</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+        </table>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_5">
+        <heading>ELECTION OF CEANN COMHAIRLE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_2">
+          <from>THE PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_59">Cuirim-se os comhair na Dála go dtoghfar Mícheál O h-Aodha mar Ceann Comhairle. The first business on the Agenda is the election of Speaker, and it is with very great pleasure I propose Mícheál O hAodha be appointed Ceann Comhairle.</p>
+          <p eId="para_60">When the third Dáil reached the end of its labours practically unanimous appreciation of the work of the Ceann Comhairle was made by the various members constituting the third Dáil, and tributes were paid to the dignity, harmony, and ability which he had displayed in that very high office.  He conducted the business of the Dáil with very conspicuous ability during an exceedingly trying and strenuous time. He had mastered the rules of debate and the orders of the Dáil, and he gave very general and complete satisfaction to all the various parties constituting the Dáil.  I think it will be admitted that a very able Chairman may not get the opportunity of showing his ability, but there is no doubt that the great ability which the Ceann Comhairle showed during the third Dáil won for him such appreciation and co-operation from all sections of the Dáil that a more popular selection could not have been made or a more satisfactory one from the point of view of the business of the Dáil.</p>
+          <p eId="para_61">It is, I think, unnecessary to go into the very many qualifications which the Ceann Comhairle possesses, not the least of which was his complete mastery of the Irish language and the fact that he was enabled to conduct the business of the Dáil in that language at all times and that he gave it its rightful place in this, the first Assembly of the Nation.  I am convinced, personally, and I believe the view is shared generally and generously by the other members of the Dáil that it would not be possible to secure a more capable and efficient Ceann Comhairle.  I do feel a very great personal pleasure in moving that he be elected Chairman of this Dáil.  I do not believe that it would be possible to get a member of the Dáil more capable of getting contributions from all sides towards the conduct of its business in a manner befitting a dignified Assembly, such as we all hope the fourth Dáil will be.  I therefore formally propose that the Dáil do elect Mícheál O hAodha as Ceann Comhairle.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_3">
+          <from>Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_62">Fellow-Deputies, I have the greatest pleasure in seconding the nomination of Professor Michael Hayes as Ceann Comhairle for the fourth Dáil.  I said on the closing days of the last Session of the last Dáil that it would be impossible to get a more capable Ceann Comhairle, and it would be very difficult indeed to find one who would equal him.  I can add nothing to that.  Nothing that has happened in the meantime has altered that opinion.  I think I may without very many words advise the new Deputies to follow the advice of those who went to the last Dáil and support  this motion unanimously, not in his interest, but in our interest.  We will need an efficient Chairman, and it is in our interest alone that I urge the Dáil to approve of this motion with unanimity.</p>
+          <p eId="para_63">There were no other nominations and the Clerk declared the motion carried.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_4">
+          <from>An CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_64">: having taken the chair, said:</p>
+          <p eId="para_65">Is már an onóir liom gur tógadh arís mé mar Cheann Comhairle na Dála. Ní gádh dom níos mó a rádh ach go ndeunfhad mo dhicheall chun obair na Dála do stuíriú i gceart agus chun an dualgas a bheidh orm do choimhlíonadh. Má fhaghaim-se an chabhair agus an congnamh ó gach aon teachta agus ó gach dream agus a fuaireas ins an Dáil eile, ní baoghal ná go mbeidh gach ráth ar an obair.  Pé sgéul é déanfhad mo dhicheall mar Cheann Comhairle.  Táim an-bhuidheach dibh.</p>
+          <p eId="para_66">I am deeply sensible of the honour which the Deputies have conferred on me by electing me as Ceann Comhairle of this Dáil.  I think there is no need for me to say any more than that I shall do my best to fulfil the duties of that office.  If I receive, as I am confident I shall receive, from every Party and every Deputy of this Dáil, the same loyal co-operation with regard to the procedure that I received in the last Dáil, then my task will not be by any means a difficult one.  I thank the Deputies very sincerely.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_6">
+        <heading>NOMINATION OF PRESIDENT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_5">
+          <from>AN t-AIRE UM CHOSAINT (Risteárd Ó Maolcatha)</from>
+          <p eId="para_67">A Chinn Chomhairle agus a Theachtaí na Dála, deinim-se Liam T. Mac Cosgair d-ainmniú chun bheith 'na Uachtarán arís. Timpeall bliadhain ó shoin, thánamar, annso.  Bhí cúram na tíre orainn agus brón mór orainn mar gheall ar thrioblóid na h-aimsire sin.  Bhí orainn duine do thogha a bhéadh mar Cheann ar na Teachtaí annso agus ar an tír leis. Dheineamar fear do thogha do dhein an obair go maith.  Níor fhéadamar a rádh fé go raibh a ainm 'nár gcluasaibh le bliadhanta nó go raibh sé mar stuírtheóir agus Múinteóir duinn i bhfad roimis sin fé mar a bhí Art Ó  Gríobhtha.  Níor fhéadamar a rádh go raibh sé mar sgéul 'nár measg, dár ngriosú chun oibre, fé mar a bhí Micheál O Coileaín.  Níor fheadamar a rádh go raibh a ainm agus a chlú i n-áirde i measg muinntear na h-Éireann. Ach d'fhéadamar a rádh go raibh Liam Mac Cosgair 'na sheirbhíseach dhílis dos na daoinibh a bhí ag obair agus ag troid ar son na h-Eireann.  Dheineamar Liam Mac Cosgair do thogha mar Uachtarán.  Fear des na gnáth-daoine do b'eadh é ach bhí taithighe maith aige ar sheirbhísacht puiblí.  Thóg sé air fhéin cruadhtan, agus cúram na tíre, chur sé a thoil le thoil Dé agus chrom sé ar an obair.  Thug sé air fhein ár gcúraim agus choimhlionn sé an dualgas duinn.</p>
+          <p eId="para_68">Twelve months ago we found ourselves meeting here, a Parliament of the Irish people, in days of very great sorrow and very great stress.  We had to elect from amongst ourselves a man who would take on himself the highest and supremest responsibility for directing our work here along proper lines and for shouldering the great responsibilities of the Government of our people.  We had lost the two leaders that we had been depending on for a very long time, the two leaders that we had hoped would be our strength and our guidance in shouldering the great responsibilities that came on the shoulders of the Irish people, the responsibilities of their own government. Deprived, by the will of the Lord, of the services of those men, we had to find from among the members that were elected here by the people, somebody to take their place. At that time or some time later in calling for National discipline, I did feel it necessary to suggest, as we had not then a national party, that perhaps we had not then a national leader, and although we were not able to say, or we could not have said, of Liam T. MacCosgair then that, like Arthur Griffith, he had been a light and a guidance and a teacher to us for many years, or that like Michael Collins he had been, as it were, a legend among us, helping us to rise to our work and our duties; we could say that he had been for years a very faithful servant of those who were  foremost in the work of building up our country and in fighting for its liberty.  We did ask one who was to us then a faithful servant of others to take on the responsibilities of leadership. Any doubts that were in our hearts at that time as to whether we had or had not amongst us a national leader have passed.</p>
+          <p eId="para_69">The person who followed up where Michael Collins and Arthur Griffith had perforce to leave off, has shown himself to be a worthy successor of them in the energy and ability of his mind and in his conscientious application to his duties.  The man who entered Michael Collins' room and took his place, as hard and as vigorous a worker as Michael Collins was in giving to us of his best—the man who entered his room here in Merrion Street in succession to him has not been one whit behind Michael Collins in his great energy and great labour and devotion to his duty.  There is not a single man whose privilege it was to sit in the last Dáil, who has had, as an individual, some vision of our President doing his ordinary work and going about his own personal work as President and as a man, who has not as a result found strength in carrying out his individual work.</p>
+          <p eId="para_70">There is no person here who has standing among his own sectional group and who has responsibilities greater than the responsibilities of an ordinary member, who has not some vision of the President acting as a leader among his own people and acting as a leader among the people of Ireland, and who does not in consequence find strength in carrying out his smaller sectional duties in being a leader of a group or a party.  Personally, in the peculiar responsibility that did come to me during the term of the last Dáil, the President has been a source of help without which I did not feel that I would have been able to shoulder the responsibilities that came my way.  His help, his understanding, his insight, and the way even in which he acted as a corrective, have made very much lighter than they would have ordinarily been, responsibilities of a peculiar nature that were very great.</p>
+          <p eId="para_71">To-day when the President of our  Nation treads a wider and a more wide-flung field than we have been used to considering or thinking of, it is a very great pleasure and a gratification for us to know that everywhere he went recently on the Continent, whether among Statesmen or among Churchmen or among the ordinary people of those nations that he travelled through, everyone of them was struck with the way in which he devoted himself to the different duties that came his way and by the simple and proud dignity with which he appeared before them as the President of our country.  Everyone of you, such is the nature of our President, not only knows him as a public man, but his spirit and his simplicity are such that you practically all know him as a private man, talking as friend to friend, or meeting him in his house, and you do not want any elaboration of that state of things to recommend him to you as your President here.</p>
+          <p eId="para_72">Now, on the threshold of another period in our National life, in peculiar difficulties we have the joy and we can have the confidence here that we have among us a man whom we can recommend to one another and to our people as a President of a character that has been tested sorely but that has shown itself to be eminently equal to bearing the responsibilities that are the responsibilities of our President.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfWilliamMagennis" eId="spk_6">
+          <from>Professor WILLIAM MAGENNIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_73">It has been said that a speech is a long narrow passage to a broad conclusion. On this occasion my broad conclusion must be very obvious and my passage to it shall not be long. We recommend—the mover and seconder of this Resolution—that the Dáil re-appoint Liam T. MacCosgair because we are so thoroughly convinced that the position is his by that great title, the right divine of superior fitness.  It was said by an historian of an infamous Roman Emperor, that by the common consent of all he was the man fittest to rule and that would have been the general verdict were it not for the fact that he had ruled. We may reverse the witticism and declare that it is precisely because Liam T. MacCosgair has ruled us in the Dáil with such eminent proficiency  and with such complete satisfaction to every party in the Dáil that we should feel it a dereliction of duty on our part were we not to acclaim him for a repetition of the same office.  He has one element of outstanding unmistakable character as befitting him for leadership.  Politics, though so frequently despised by cynics and contemned by flippant writers, is one of the great arts of life, and the good politician should be a practised artist. What we demand of the great artist is a knowledge of the material in which he works and a mastery over it, exercised through an exhaustive knowledge of its capabilities, and more especially of its limitations.  The material in which our artist-politician works is human nature—his fellowman. A knowledge of his fellowman, how far he can be led, to what extent he can be influenced, and what he can be induced to do, is one of the necessary elements in the equipment of a leader.  To my critical vision the one quality of his many great qualities that stood out in the exercise of the President's office in the late Dáil was the manly suavity that he invariably displayed.  It was not the genial weakness of a man pandering to others to create an artificial majority and to maintain it, and that is why I characterise it as a suavity that was manly. He had unfailing patience, as many of us are in a position to testify, and he had a very rare gift of not being impatient of criticism.  I think we shall all agree that success in the leadership of this Dáil will depend largely upon an infinite capacity for patience.  There is another quality which he possessed in large measure, and that is a sense of the right moment for a just and wise compromise.  The power of compromise, the disposition for it, and the wisdom to know when to exercise it, are unfortunately wanting in too many Irishmen.  Irishmen as a rule are possessed of such strong convictions, they are so ardent in the pursuit of the things they hold sacred and to which they have consecrated their lives, that they must regard, or seem as if they must regard, everyone opposed to them as a public enemy and to be dealt with in summary  fashion.  Our President—for I may call him so already by anticipation— has that proper sense of compromise, not in the cowardly form of weak concession, but in the wiser form, which is a sort of political navigation of a ship through difficult waters in tempestuous weather.  I promised my speech would not be long.  I feel I have already broken my promise, and lest I should fail still further in my undertaking I confine myself now to saying that I have never made any pronouncement with more genuine conviction and with a sincerer sense of pleasure than that I am going to make now: while I recognise that Ireland has displayed her marvellous resourcefulness in throwing up great men at the moment when they are most needed—and we have seen in the old Dáil a manifestation of greatness in many of our colleagues—yet I regard the present candidate for the office of President as the man of men amongst all these.  With that I leave it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_42" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_6"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_7">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_74">I have much pleasure in acknowledging the great honour which has been conferred upon me by this Dáil.  I do not think that in the ordinary acceptation of our procedure here that it is assumed that I should make any pronouncement now. I do undertake to discharge the duties of this office with the help of God to the best of my ability.  I gave that undertaking last year and I am repeating it now.  I think that on more than one occasion I have stated that the success of most of the offices of the State, including that of the office to which I have been elected, depends upon the amount of assistance and co-operation rendered by the other institutions of the State.  During the past year I have had no cause for complaint in that respect.  I and the other members of the Executive Council with me have received that co-operation and assistance from all the institutions of the State, and from both Houses of the Oireachtas.  We have been very much heartened by that support, cordial co-operation, and assistance.  It has made a year of hard work and of strenuous effort a pleasure.  It was a great satisfaction to us then, and I hope that  the same satisfaction awaits us in this, the fourth, Dáil.  The general principles of the policy which I intend to recommend for acceptance in the first place to the Executive Council and then to the Dáil have been already outlined.  Within a short period a more complete outline of them will be disclosed here in the Dáil.  We have passed through a strenuous and a hard time and I think I may say that I reecho the hope of every member in saying that I hope that happier times await us in the future.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_8">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_75">Before the next item on the agenda is proceeded with, I beg to give notice that on the adjournment I shall move the following motion:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_76">"That reasonable facilities be accorded to the Deputies returned at the recent election in the Sinn Fein interests to meet."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_9">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_77">The Deputy cannot move a motion but can only raise a matter on the adjournment motion, under the standing orders.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_10">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_78">Then I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the motion for adjournment.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_7">
+        <heading>JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_11">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_79">I beg to move: "That the proceedings of the Dáil be prepared under the supervision of the Clerk, and be printed, after being perused and signed by the Ceann Comhairle."</p>
+          <p eId="para_80">"That the proceedings so printed constitute the Journals of the House."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#EdmundJDuggan" eId="spk_12">
+          <from>Mr. DUGGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_81">I second the motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_43" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_7"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_8">
+        <heading>BUSINESS OF THE DAIL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_13">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_82">Before the adjournment motion be taken may one enquire exactly what will be the procedure for the next few days, and what business shall be taken?  If a statement could be made to that effect by the President, now that he is elected, I think it would be for the convenience of Deputies.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_14">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_83">The Order paper for to-morrow, as at present drawn up, is:—"(1) Nomination  of the Executive Council by the President." That is in accordance with the Constitution.  "(2) Motion by the President with regard to Ministries, the holders of which shall not be members of the Executive Council.  (3) Motion by the President for the appointment of a Committee in accordance with Article 55 of the Constitution."  That is to say for the appointment of a Committee to recommend to the Dáil the names of Deputies who shall be Ministers but not members of the Executive Council.  The Committee under the Constitution must be appointed so as to be representative of all parties and it was appointed on the last occasion on the principle of the single transferable vote.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_15">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_84">Will An Ceann Comhairle say whether the terms of these motions will be on the Order Paper?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_16">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_85">It will be impossible for the terms of the second motion with regard to Ministries to be on the Order Paper until the names of the members of the Executive Council are disclosed, and also the name of the Ministry which each member of the Executive Council shall hold.  In so far as that information is not available the names of the External Ministries will not be on the Order Paper.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_17">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_86">Are you in a position to inform us when we may expect to have the Governor-General's speech?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_18">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_87">I have no information on that matter.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_19">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_88">It might be information for the Deputies if I say that it will not be taken earlier than Tuesday week.  I may announce that it is our intention in the event of that resolution passing to accept nominations up to 12 o'clock on Saturday, and we would require another meeting of the Dáil for the election on Tuesday.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_20">
+          <from>Mr. A. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_89">Will the Dáil sit on Friday?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_21">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_90">It is not intended at present.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_22">
+          <from>Mr. A. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_91">Would you allow me, a Chinn Chomhairle, to raise a matter on the adjournment in connection with a circular which emanated from Mountjoy Prison on Friday evening as regards the conditions which are stated to prevail there, and to ask whether an enquiry would be held at once into the contents of that circular for the purpose of either repudiating it or altering the conditions which the circular states exist.  I would like to get a few words in on the motion for the adjournment when the leader of the Farmers' Party raises the other question.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_23">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_92">Allow me to correct the Deputy.  I am not in that position.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_24">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_93">It has been our practice to allow only one matter to be raised on the motion for adjournment, and notice has already been given by Deputy Gorey.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_25">
+          <from>Mr. A. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_94">In view of the great urgency of this matter and the sensational statements in this circular which is going broadcast over the country may I ask now whether the Ministry would take immediate steps to hold an enquiry?  There were two statements submitted to me by a deputation which called on me in connection with an other public position which I occupy. If the statement in the circular is not true I think, in the interests of the Government and of the Dáil, it should be repudiated, and the only way to settle the matter is to have an enquiry If it is true I should say that those who are in authority in the prison, and have been named, should be removed from their positions which they occupy. I will hand over the documents to the President and the Minister for Defence for investigation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_26">
+          <from>General MULCAHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_95">I do not know whether I ought to deal with this matter here.  I have not seen the documents that Deputy Alfred Byrne refers to, but I am aware of what the conditions are in Mountjoy gaol. There are no conditions there that any objection can be taken to.  Certain disciplinary action had recently to be taken in Mountjoy gaol, but that action was taken to uphold the regulations  that are absolutely necessary for prison discipline.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_27">
+          <from>Mr. A. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_96">I will hand to the Minister the documents that I have referred to.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_9">
+        <heading>THE ADJOURNMENT.—POSITION OF ANTI-TREATY DEPUTIES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_28">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_97">I beg to move the adjournment of the Dáil until to-morrow afternoon at 3 o'clock.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DesmondFitzgerald" eId="spk_29">
+          <from>MINISTER for EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (Mr. D. Fitzgerald)</from>
+          <p eId="para_98">I second the motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_30">
+          <from>Mr. D.J. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_99">I beg to raise the matter of which I gave notice earlier, namely that reasonable facilities for meeting be accorded to the Deputies returned at the recent elections in the Sinn Fein interests.  I do so for the reason that every sane man recognises the critical position of the country. The agricultural industry is at a standstill, and I am speaking as one who has an intimate knowledge of it.  The agricultural industry of this country is in a most critical condition.  Never in my time, and I can remember since the eighties, have I known the industry to be in as critical condition as it is to-day.  I can say that never before was it faced with a graver or darker outlook than it is faced with at the moment.  The nation, and the component parts of the nation, whether as individuals or the nation as a whole, are faced with the question of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is staring the industry in the face, and it is time that some means should be found so that the elements in the nation could mend themselves and be put upon solid grounds and carry on under normal conditions.  At the present time we have very little else besides bitterness, jealousies and recriminations.  I have been speaking to men on both sides, and I do not think there is any man with any sense of responsibility but regrets the present position.  There are men without responsibility who do not regret the position, because it enables irresponsible men to do things that in normal times could not be done.  But every responsible man on both sides that I have met, every man who loves the country, regrets the present position, and wishes he could see a means towards a happy ending of it.  We,  too, on these benches here, wish that a happy ending would take place, but the position as far as we can see it does not seem to mend itself, or does not seem to give any indication of moving in that direction.  At the outset, I ask that our action here be not misconstrued in any way.  We do not pretend that we have found a solution of the difficulty, but in all matters affecting the life of the nation we are determined to maintain an independent and constitutional attitude and steadfastly pursue what we believe to be right.</p>
+          <p eId="para_100">I said a moment ago that we are not so bold as to claim that we have found a solution of the difficulties that beset the life of the nation, but we have sufficient regard for the fair fame and good name of the country and of its future, honestly to endeavour to bridge over the minor difficulties that stand in the way of a final solution of the main question.  Men hold different views regarding the release of the prisoners, and to be quite candid the average man in the country has not had an opportunity of making up his mind on the question.  Some hold that the prisoners should be released unconditionally; on the other hand there are those who hold that the prisoners should not be released unless the arms and ammunition, the dumps and the other paraphernalia of war, if such a thing exists, should be handed up; and again there are others who hold that sufficient assurances are contained in the recent utterances of Mr. de Valera in regard to constitutional action in the future which should result in bringing about the immediate release of the prisoners unconditionally.  Now, all this to my mind, and to the minds of the people I am connected with here, indicates a great diversity of opinion, but the main difficulty arises from the fact that the people are not really aware of what is the real policy of the Sinn Féin party, and I say that as one coming from the country.  My opinion is that the average man in the country is not aware of what the policy of these people is.  They are not aware whether these people are going to pursue the attainment of their objects by constitutional means, or whether they arrogate to themselves the right  to resort again to unconstitutional weapons.  As the matter stands, one can understand the difficulty as there is no authoritative definition of what their policy is likely to be.  Some Sinn Féin Deputies are in prison, some are on the run and a few who are free must find it impossible to take counsel with their brother Deputies.  Taking into consideration all the circumstances, we consider it is essential, in the interests of the nation, that the Sinn Féin Deputies should be accorded reasonable facilities to meet, and it is for that reason I have raised this matter on the adjournment.  We, on these benches, have been approached, as perhaps most Deputies in the Dáil have been approached, as to what our attitude is to be on certain matters, as to our attitude with regard to the release of the prisoners and with regard to other questions.  We are not in a position, and neither is the average man in the country in a position, to make up our minds until these other people get an opportunity of meeting, and of giving a clear answer to certain specific questions.  We want to know whether the militant method is going to be left aside, and the constitutional method adopted or not.  It is time that the country had a clear answer on that issue, and it is time that these 44 men had an opportunity of meeting and saying whether the constitutional method is going to be their method, or whether they reserve to themselves the right of going into the unconstitutional field again.  That is why I have raised this matter to give them an opportunity to declare what their policy is going to be.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_31">
+          <from>Mr. MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_101">I am afraid that the knowledge of the last speaker who raised this matter about Sinn Fein is very inadequate.  He speaks of allowing the Sinn Fein Deputies who are in prison to be released and of giving them an opportunity to meet.  So far as I know most of the Sinn Fein Deputies are at large and are here present to-day.  I believe an old device used by certain pirates when they approached a victim ship was to hoist a friendly flag and when they came near the ship down came the friendly flag and up went the Skull and Cross-bones. These gentlemen and ladies  for whom Deputy Gorey has so much solicitude have reversed the process and hoisted the Skull and Cross-bones until they could do it no longer, and now they hoist the friendly flag of Sinn Fein.  I deny that they are the Sinn Fein Party.  I deny that they have any right to speak in the name of Sinn Fein.  We are here acting in that principle to establish the right of the Irish nation to decide its own fate. We attempt to prevent that from external or internal aggression.  Deputy Gorey says that the average man has not had time to make up his mind.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_32">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_102">I do not think I said anything of the sort.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_33">
+          <from>Mr. MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_103">Well, I made one mistake. The average man had not an opportunity of making up his mind. I am glad of the correction; I like to be corrected in my quotations.  Who is the average man?  Is Deputy Gorey an average man?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_34">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_104">When I am sober I hope so.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_35">
+          <from>Mr. MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_105">Well, I hope that gentleman is in that average state at the present moment.  But at any rate, whether he is or is not an average man, he seems to have been incapable of making up his mind as to what Irregularism has meant up to the present. We have had over twelve months of very clear demonstration of what those 44 elected representatives of the people stand for and what they mean. Is there any man, any Deputy here, who has not made up his mind as to whether or not that is a good or a bad thing for this nation?  Is there any sane human being within the four shores of Ireland who has not made up his mind as to whether the burning of houses, the breaking of bridges and destruction of the economic life of the country is a bad thing, a damn bad thing, for Ireland?  I hope by the time I have finished that Deputy Gorey will have made up his mind.  Those 44 Deputies to whom Deputy Gorey has referred are rather a mixed grill. There are certain of them at large because really they had not the courage to take the desperate steps their  colleagues took.  I do not know whether Deputy Gorey means to give, say, Mr. Frank Aiken, facilities for expounding his theory of poison gas. I suggest that Deputy Gorey would ask that particular Deputy to go down to his constituency, to his own holding, and expound the theory of poison gas there.  It is true that certain of these Deputies are coming like sucking doves.  They talk about peace and unity and concord and the salvation of the nation.  They would be better employed for the next ten years in saying Acts of Contrition.  They would be better employed in showing the country how to repair the ravages of war that they have brought upon it without provocation, unless the provocation be that we declined to assent to the principle that all authority within the State, legislative, judicial and administrative, should be derived solely from Mr. De Valera and Miss Mary McSwiney.  So far as I understand the attitude of the Government, so far as I understand the elementary principles of common sense and of democratic Government, these persons can meet unmolested the moment they assent to this principle that the will of the majority shall prevail in this country, but if they persist in the attitude that they have adopted up to now, that the will of the majority shall go down before a self-selected clique, a small minority, I say, if I had anything to do with the Government, that they should never meet together to try to spread that principle or doctrine. There is not one man or one woman interned by the Free State Government so far as I know who cannot walk out of jail to-morrow the moment they assent to the principle that Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall be the fundamental rule of authority in this country. Deputy Gorey speaks about both sides. I thought we had heard enough of that cant in the last Dáil.  That may be an unparliamentary expression, but one cannot resist alluding to this kind of peculiar terminology in some emphatic way.  What are both sides?  I recognise no both sides in this question any more than I suppose the Almighty recognised two sides when Lucifer tried to set up a rival government  with a minority in the celestial regions.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_36">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_106">There must be no applause in the Gallery and if anyone else applauds in the Gallery he will be removed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_37">
+          <from>Mr. MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_107">I think that was applause from the celestial region. There can be no question of two sides in this matter.  Either the people must prevail or the Nation goes down in chaos and confusion.  Either the will expressed by the people must be accepted as the definite and unchallengeable basis of law or the terms law, Government, and democracy become so many shibboleths that have no meaning to a sensible being.  I do not really understand what Deputy Gorey is driving at.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_38">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_108">You had a right to wait then before you replied.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_39">
+          <from>Mr. MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_109">I do not really understand what was his purpose in raising this matter unless it was to get a column and a half of his prepared speech in to-morrow's Press.  I think that he might have saved the Dáil all this discussion if he had written a letter to the Press and signed his name to it.  But there is another thing that has struck me, the singular transformation of the Deputy since the last Dáil.  In the last Dáil we had Deputy Gorey rampant against the Irregulars.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_40">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_110">And he is still.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_41">
+          <from>Mr. MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_111">But there was this difference, an election was then pending and the election is now over. Deputy Gorey is now elected for four years.  At the beginning of this Dáil I think that it is time to stop this attempt to appeal to the gallery, this attempt to figure in the limelight for the sake of cutting a figure.  I think the time has come to stop talking and to get on with the work of the nation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardWilson" eId="spk_42">
+          <from>Mr. R. WILSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_112">The simple question which we raised this afternoon, that we asked that the 44 people who are representing, each perhaps 6,000 citizens of Ireland, should be given an opportunity to consult together, has brought forward an effusion such as  that, and if we were to depend on effusions like that in this Dáil and if we were to take a speech like that of the last Deputy as voicing the views of the people of Ireland, then I would say that our case is hopeless.  We are asking what is only a reasonable request. These 44 people who have had no opportunity of coming together, and to whom under these laws you were supposed to have sent notices to attend here, are not in a position to come together.  They are inside prison walls and on the hillsides, and are not in a position to give expression to their views in order that their followers in jail might be advised by them in the right direction, to follow the Constitution and to come in here and work with us.  Is that a reasonable request, or is it not, and why should it bring forth from the back of the Government a man who instead of meeting the question has turned it into ridicule, and has dealt with the past, refusing to look to the future?  All our hope and strength lies in meeting the future united and not wasting our strength in these weakening attempts at destruction and turmoil.  After all, they are not a minority that are to be unrecognised; everyone of the 44 members of the 153 is a member who must be recognised.  I myself am very much disappointed that there were in this country 44 people who could be brought into this Dáil with the opinions which these people hold, but I must look at the facts and I must say that these people have been elected, and it is our duty to do the best we can for the country, and give them every facility to come together and formulate their policy.  If we could induce them to come inside and work through the Constitution in this Dáil we would be doing something for the country, and something which would enable us to let out the prisoners and get to work for the economic development of the country, which is badly needed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickJHogan" eId="spk_43">
+          <from>MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)</from>
+          <p eId="para_113">I am genuinely surprised that a matter of this importance has been brought forward in this fashion by the Farmers' Party.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardWilson" eId="spk_44">
+          <from>Mr. WILSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_114">Most interesting.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_45">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_115">And I think it is likely that every thinking Deputy outside the Farmers' Party in the Dáil at the moment is also genuinely surprised.  It was brought forward first by way of resolution.  Surely the Farmers' Party knew that they had to give notice of motion.  I can hardly make myself believe that they did not, and even if they were under the impression that they could deal with a question like this by a motion without notice surely they believe it was one of those matters so important that at least other Deputies who have an equal interest in the country should get notice of it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_46">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_116">I agree.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_47">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_117">But, as I say, I cannot believe that they were under the delusion that they could move a motion without notice.  Now we have it on the adjournment.  What is the point of raising a matter like this on the adjournment?  What is the urgency? Is it suggested that the matter could not wait for four days, and that we could not all get notice of it, or is it one of those casual, trivial matters that could be decided off hand?  It is not the business of the Farmers' Party. Those Deputies, Sinn Féin Deputies as Deputy Gorey calls them, are amongst the people and represent the people, ten thousand or fifteen thousand of whom we have now in gaol.  It cost us £50,000,000 to put them in, it cost us the lives of many gallant men to put them in, and it cost us the life of Michael Collins.  Do the Farmer Deputies suggest as reasonable men that a question like this should be decided on a moment's notice on the first day the Dáil meets?  Is that the suggestion? Now it is a serious matter.  I can understand any Deputy from any party putting down a motion on that, but not discussing it on the adjournment of the Dáil.  I suggest that we have got just far enough with it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_48">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS</from>
+          <p eId="para_118">The matter that has been raised by Deputy Gorey on the adjournment is the same as the question raised by me on the first stage of the 1922 Session of the Dáil.  I only want to ask one question, and that is whether the 34 members interned have got the opportunity from the Government of deciding whether or not  they would come in and work with the remainder of their colleagues selected by the people of Ireland?  I want some Minister, probably the Minister for Defence, to answer whether they have received any written notice that if they had decided on attending this first Session of the Dáil that they would be released and get sufficient guarantee that they will not be arrested, and especially so with regard to the nine men or women Deputies who are not interned.  Now, from the arguments put forward on behalf of the prisoners by Deputies Gorey and Wilson one would imagine that all the prisoners interned belong to the Farmers' Party.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardWilson" eId="spk_49">
+          <from>Mr. WILSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_119">Not at all.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_50">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS</from>
+          <p eId="para_120">As an Independent Labour man I say that there are more workers interned than there are farmers' sons.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_51">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_121">Very interesting.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_52">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS</from>
+          <p eId="para_122">The point that Deputy Gorey and Deputy Wilson are going on is that there are pending elections for County Councils and District Councils. I quite agree with the motion raised on the adjournment advocating the release of prisoners.  Deputy Milroy said a moment ago that any prisoner has the opportunity of coming out if he is prepared to act according to the will of the people.  Now, would it be information to Deputy Milroy to know that there are several prisoners to my knowledge who have signed the usual form of undertaking six months ago and they have not yet been released?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMilroy" eId="spk_53">
+          <from>Mr. MILROY</from>
+          <p eId="para_123">Would the Deputy understand that certain people who signed that are not prepared to act on it?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_54">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS</from>
+          <p eId="para_124">I am afraid I will have to allow the Dáil to decide as to whether or not they are prepared to do so, but I know they have signed it.  If the 44 Deputies elected by the minority come in here and take their seats and act according to the wishes of the Irish people I am sure that no Government elected by the people of Ireland will keep their followers in prison.  They are selected  by the people to do the work of the people, as employees of the people, and I think it is only right that they should get the opportunity of voicing their opinion as to whether they will accept that position, or not, by giving them the option and a sufficient guarantee as was given to many Deputies in the Dáil in 1920 by the British Government who were at that time interned.  That guarantee was given to Deputies then, and to members of the present Government, and other Deputies, that they would get a free pardon and sufficient guarantee that they would not be arrested if they came in and acted in the first Parliament of the Irish people.  I think the same facilities should have been given to the people arrested and interned during the recent trouble.  I congratulate Deputy Gorey and Deputy Wilson on the fact that they have laid a foundation stone, and that they are going to swell their representation in the County Councils and District Councils.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_55">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_125">It is a matter of very great surprise to me that this motion or discussion should be raised at this particular time.  It appears to me to be a constitutional complexity to say the least of it.  In the first place if it were a matter of serious moment if occurred to me that it ought to have been raised on the question of the election of President.  If it were not thought advisable to raise it at that particular juncture in our proceedings I should say it might reasonably have been raised on the nomination by the President of the other members of the Executive Council.  But the manner in which it was raised, and the statement made on its introduction appear to me to be extraordinary.  I should say that two members of the Dáil—I believe they are here, I have not seen them though I am sure they are here—informed me that they were approached within the last fortnight, close upon midnight—the hour selected, I believe, was after ten o'clock—by men who came to them with a document to sign, On that document was the request that they would raise questions here; first for the release of prisoners, and secondly for the alteration, or to put it  in their own inimitable phraseology the provision that no bar and no obstacle should stand in the way of any man taking a seat here in this Dáil.</p>
+          <p eId="para_126">Now, mark the particular method adopted.  If an honest man has got a bargain to make with you it is not near midnight he comes to make it, and he does not usually bring two or three aides-de-camp with him when he is going to make a bargain unless you are not going to be a free agent in the bargain.  As I see the situation it comes to this—and I am the only person here now with serious responsibility with regard to the matter; the other members of the Executive have not been nominated; they still hold their offices as Ministers—to raise this matter now and to put upon one person the responsibility of answering it is a thing I am sure the Deputies will appreciate.  The position was unquestionably decided by the people in the recent Election.  One hundred and nine Deputies were returned, not one of whom put on his placard that he stood for one or both of those conditions put by the midnight visitors. If he did I am satisfied that on that issue the return of those who stood for a programme such as that would not have been as secure as it has been. Those forty-four people have been returned.  Are they the petted children of this Nation?  Must the Nation stand to attention while these forty-four are making up their minds whether they are to pass through the doors of this representative Assembly; whether or not they will honour this country by coming in here without first apologising to the Nation for the blood they have spilled, the destruction they have caused, and the horrible twelve months through which we have passed?  Any time during that period, the whole of the eighteen months, and certainly for the first six months, we actually brought the Treaty into jeopardy, brought it to the very edge of the abyss in order to try and bring back those men to a sense of their citizenship to this Nation.  When that failed and even after we had attacked them, many a time we offered here not only to make peace with them but even to get out, only on condition that they would get out too.  What was the  response?  Our houses were burned, some members of our families were shot, and now we read in the Press, from the relative of one of these prisoners, the squeal that ten days have elapsed without getting a reply to a letter she sent to her husband.  How many graves are there in Ireland from which no letters will ever come?  How few squeals are there from the people who have made these sacrifices that this Nation should stand for the elected rule of the majority?  Not one.  I have not heard a squeal from one person whose family has made sacrifices for the right of this country and the right of citizenship and for the right of mapping out and marking out its progress and advancement.</p>
+          <p eId="para_127">Posturing Republicans!  Ridiculous politicians!  They ask and they demand of the people in Ireland that they should call themselves Republicans. For years I subscribed to that and fought for it as hard as any of them and my friends here have done likewise.  What was our revenue in two years?  The revenue of the Dublin Corporation.  That is what they want to condemn the people of this country to with their nonsense—not one single month's revenue of the State we are now administering.  That is what they want to condemn the people of this country to, in the future, in order that a few of their so-called intellectuals shall decorate themselves with the order of Commandant-General, or President, or Vice-President, or Acting President or something of that sort. They ask us now, having failed in doing their damnedest to get the British back here, they ask us now to pitch away in a moment of sentimentalism what we have gained, in order that they may be allowed to walk in through these doors and to say here in this Assembly of the Nation: "We are men and women of principle." The possession of that word is one of their conservations.  Is the future political history of this country to be written in this manner: that a man or woman has only to get into jail and has only to stand for election and get elected, and our courts and our institutions, and the order of citizenship that we have established, are to  be swept away in order that a number of persons returned in a constituency perhaps under false pretences, can order the Courts to open the doors and demand their freedom and do and say whatever they like?  Forty-four of these people have been elected; eighteen of them are in jail.  What are the twenty-six doing?  What contribution are they going to make to the stability of this State?  What apology have they got to make for the wrongs they have done this country?  Until we get some evidence of a real change of heart I say it is not for us to be swept off our feet by sentimentalism because an actual minority of forty-four people say they are going to determine and mark out the progress of this country.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_56">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_128">Can I not reply?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_57">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_129">No.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_58">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_130">Can I not make a personal explanation?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_59">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_131">Yes, the Deputy can make a personal explanation, but it must be a personal explanation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_60">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_132">The President has referred to men being waited on in the night.  I have been waited upon in the night without an Army to protect me.  So have other Deputies here been waited on, and they have flatly refused to sign those undertakings. The object of raising this motion here was not to pander to anybody.  It was merely to ask a definite answer from these forty-four representatives whether they accepted the Constitutional platform or not.  Then we would know what to do.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_61">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_133">That is not a personal explanation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_62">
+          <from>A DEPUTY</from>
+          <p eId="para_134">What are you going to do with the murderers in that fortyfour——?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_63">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_135">Deputies have made personal reflections on us across the floor.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_64">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_136">Order. The Deputy must sit down.  The Motion is that the Dáil do now adjourn until 3 o'clock to-morrow.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_44" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_9"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_45">The Dáil rose at 4.45 p.m.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+    </debateBody>
+  </debate>
+</akomaNtoso>

1923/1923-09-20_mul@.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,483 @@
+<akomaNtoso xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13 ./akomantoso30.xsd ">
+  <debate name="Official Report">
+    <meta>
+      <identification source="#source">
+        <FRBRWork>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-20/debate/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-20/debate"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-09-20" name="#generation"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/house/dail/4"/>
+          <FRBRcountry value="ie"/>
+          <FRBRname value="debate"/>
+        </FRBRWork>
+        <FRBRExpression>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-20/debate/mul@/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-20/debate/mul@"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-09-20" name="#reported"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+          <FRBRlanguage language="mul"/>
+        </FRBRExpression>
+        <FRBRManifestation>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-20/debate/mul@/main.xml"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-09-20/debate/mul@.akn"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="2020-06-25" name="#publication"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+        </FRBRManifestation>
+      </identification>
+      <analysis source="#source">
+        <otherAnalysis xmlns:oir="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ns/1.0" source="#source">
+          <oir:volumeReference showAs="Vol. 5" eId="#vol_5" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5"/>
+          <oir:numberReference showAs="No. 2" eId="#no_2" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/no/2"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 33" eId="col_33" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/33" refersTo="#dbsect_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 34" eId="col_34" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/34" refersTo="#dbsect_2"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 35" eId="col_35" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/35" refersTo="#spk_2"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 36" eId="col_36" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/36" refersTo="#spk_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 37" eId="col_37" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/37" refersTo="#spk_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 38" eId="col_38" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/38" refersTo="#spk_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 39" eId="col_39" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/39" refersTo="#spk_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 40" eId="col_40" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/40" refersTo="#spk_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 41" eId="col_41" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/41" refersTo="#spk_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 42" eId="col_42" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/42" refersTo="#spk_6"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 43" eId="col_43" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/43" refersTo="#spk_6"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 44" eId="col_44" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/44" refersTo="#spk_8"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 45" eId="col_45" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/45" refersTo="#spk_9"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 46" eId="col_46" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/46" refersTo="#spk_10"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 47" eId="col_47" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/47" refersTo="#spk_11"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 48" eId="col_48" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/48" refersTo="#spk_17"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 49" eId="col_49" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/49" refersTo="#spk_17"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 50" eId="col_50" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/50" refersTo="#spk_17"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 51" eId="col_51" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/51" refersTo="#spk_17"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 52" eId="col_52" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/52" refersTo="#spk_17"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 53" eId="col_53" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/53" refersTo="#dbsect_3"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 54" eId="col_54" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/54" refersTo="#spk_25"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 55" eId="col_55" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/55" refersTo="#spk_26"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 56" eId="col_56" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/56" refersTo="#spk_29"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 57" eId="col_57" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/57" refersTo="#spk_30"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 58" eId="col_58" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/58" refersTo="#spk_31"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 59" eId="col_59" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/59" refersTo="#spk_32"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 60" eId="col_60" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/60" refersTo="#spk_33"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 61" eId="col_61" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/61" refersTo="#spk_35"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 62" eId="col_62" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/62" refersTo="#spk_36"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 63" eId="col_63" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/63" refersTo="#spk_36"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 64" eId="col_64" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/64" refersTo="#spk_36"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 65" eId="col_65" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/65" refersTo="#dbsect_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 66" eId="col_66" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/66" refersTo="#dbsect_4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 67" eId="col_67" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/67" refersTo="#spk_45"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 68" eId="col_68" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/68" refersTo="#dbsect_5"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 69" eId="col_69" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/69" refersTo="#spk_52"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 70" eId="col_70" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/70" refersTo="#spk_52"/>
+        </otherAnalysis>
+      </analysis>
+      <references source="#source">
+        <TLCOrganization eId="source" href="" showAs="Houses of the Oireachtas"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="generation" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Generation" showAs="Generation"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="reported" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Reported" showAs="Reported"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="publication" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Publication" showAs="Publication"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.41.dail.1" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/41/dail/1" showAs="Courts of Justice Bill 1923: Dáil First Stage"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="AlfredByrne" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Alfred-Byrne.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Alfred Byrne"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DanielMcCarthy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Daniel-McCarthy.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Daniel McCarthy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DarrellFiggis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Darrell-Figgis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Darrell Figgis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DenisJohnGorey" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Denis-John-Gorey.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Denis John Gorey"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ErnestBlythe" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Ernest-Blythe.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Ernest Blythe"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="FionanLynch" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Fionán-Lynch.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Fionán Lynch"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JohnLyons" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/John-Lyons.D.1922-09-09" showAs="John Lyons"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JosephMacBride" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Joseph-MacBride.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Joseph MacBride"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelHayes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Hayes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Michael Hayes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickWalterShaw" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-Walter-Shaw.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Patrick Walter Shaw"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PeterHughes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Peter-Hughes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Peter Hughes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ProfJamesCraig" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Prof-James-Craig.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Prof. James Craig"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardWilson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-Wilson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Richard Wilson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="SeanMcGarry" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Seán-McGarry.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Seán McGarry"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ThomasJohnson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Thomas-Johnson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Thomas Johnson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="TomasOConnell" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Tomas-O'Connell.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Tomas O'Connell"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamHewat" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-Hewat.D.1923-09-19" showAs="William Hewat"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamTCosgrave" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-T-Cosgrave.D.1919-01-21" showAs="William T. Cosgrave"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="author" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/author" showAs="author"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="editor" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/editor" showAs="editor"/>
+      </references>
+    </meta>
+    <preface>
+      <block name="title_ga">
+        <docTitle>DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="title_en">
+        <docTitle>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="proponent_ga">
+        <docProponent>DÁIL ÉIREANN</docProponent>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_ga">
+        <docStatus>TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_en">
+        <docStatus>(OFFICIAL REPORT)</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_ga">
+        <docDate date="1923-09-20">Déardaoin, 20 Mean Fómhair 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_en">
+        <docDate date="1923-09-20">Thursday, 20 September 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="volume">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#vol_5">Vol. 5</docNumber>
+      </block>
+      <block name="number">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#no_2">No. 2</docNumber>
+      </block>
+    </preface>
+    <debateBody>
+      <debateSection name="prelude" eId="dbsect_1">
+        <heading>Prelude</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_1">Do chuaidh an Ceann Comhairle i g-Ceannas ar 3 p.m.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_2">
+        <heading>NOMINATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_1">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_1">My nomination as President of the Executive Council has been approved by the Governor-General, and I now beg to submit formally, for the assent of the Dáil, the names of the following Deputies as members of the Executive Council:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_2">Deputy Kevin O'Higgins as Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs;</p>
+          <p eId="para_3">Deputy Ernest Blythe as Minister for Finance;</p>
+          <p eId="para_4">General Richard Mulcahy as Minister for Defence;</p>
+          <p eId="para_5">Deputy Joseph McGrath as Minister for Industry and Commerce;</p>
+          <p eId="para_6">Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald as Minister for External Affairs; and</p>
+          <p eId="para_7">Deputy Eoin MacNeill as Minister for Education (when he will have complied with Article 17 of the Constitution).</p>
+          <p eId="para_8">I regret that I have found it necessary to consult the members of the old Executive Council—those of them who are present—with regard to the Ministry of Finance, and that I do not feel justified in keeping that portfolio myself.  I have asked the Deputy who has been Minister for Local Government to accept that portfolio, and he has kindly consented to do so, with the approval of the other members of the Executive Council.  I do not think it is necessary to do more than formally move for assent, and I now formally do so.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_2">
+          <from>Mr. THOS. JOHNSON:</from>
+          <p eId="para_9">The motion that has been made by the President of the Executive Council asks the Dáil, in effect, to approve the re-election of the same Deputies to act with him as an Executive Council as have been so acting for the last year.  He is quite entitled to do so, and it is necessary that the President should call to his aid those persons who may have the confidence of the Dáil and the country to act with him as the Government of the country.  It seems to me that before the Dáil approves of this selection, we should have something to say, and we should hear something from the President in regard to the intentions of this Ministry, and rather to suggest to the new Executive Council which will be elected certain lines of policy which the Dáil thinks, or the individual members of the Dáil may think, should be carried out by this Ministry which has now been nominated.  The fact that the same Deputies are to be associated with the President in the future suggests that there is no change in policy, or if there is to be a change in policy it seems to me, at any rate, that we might have some indication from the President as to what his mind is in calling these gentlemen to his assistance in the Government of the country.</p>
+          <p eId="para_10">It may be said that the party which the President leads has been returned by a majority to the Dáil, has presented a programme to the country, and has got the confidence of the country for that programme.  I have followed, as carefully as it has been possible for me to follow, the various statements made officially by that party and by the President, and I have failed to divine what is the intention in regard to policy of the President and his party. We know, of course, that what was put before the country was the re-establishment of peace and the maintenance of the Constitution. Well, that, of course, is a kind of thing that is usually put before an electorate by a Ministry which has happened to come through successfully military disputes and military conflicts.  We are all old enough to remember the khaki election in England and the results of it, and, I think, the Dáil should express itself rather upon other matters, such as the means  whereby that Constitution is to be consolidated and the intentions of the Government regarding the problems that are really important.  We heard, of course, officially from the President and his organisation that it was the intention of the party and the Government to deal with problems of reconstruction, house-building, industrial development, industrial disputes, domestic and foreign trade and commerce, agriculture, fisheries, manufactures, transport system, etc.  Well, the Ministry to be established will necessarily have to deal with these things; but what we really desire to know is what method will be adopted in dealing with them; what is the purpose of that method; what is the policy that is intended to be carried through in dealing with these various problems.  I would like this occasion to be used in such a way that the Dáil may express its views upon the methods of dealing with these problems.</p>
+          <p eId="para_11">We have in this motion an intimation that Deputy Kevin O'Higgins should be appointed as Vice-President and Minister for Home Affairs.  I could, perhaps, with pleasure to myself, perhaps displeasure to many Deputies of the Dáil, require some enlightenment and utter some words of criticism regarding the policy of the Ministry of Home Affairs during the past month or two, since the Dissolution, and make suggestions regarding the immediate future of the policy of that Ministry.  I might deal with the question of the imprisonment and internment of 10,000 to 15,000 people. I might deal with the question of the treatment of internees and prisoners. I think it is the duty of someone to be here to deal with those questions and to raise them and to criticise the policy of the Government with regard to them.  But for my part it has been intimated fairly and clearly by the electorate that they do not desire that we, of the Labour Party, should take the responsibility of criticising Government action upon these matters.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_3">
+          <from>Mr. O'CONNELL:</from>
+          <p eId="para_12">Hear, hear.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_4">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON:</from>
+          <p eId="para_13">Questions of this kind have, if we interpret the intentions of the electorate rightly, been  relegated rather to the Deputies of the Government Party and to the Deputies of what is known as the Republican Party, and I have the right to assume that both these Parties will accept the responsibility which has been imposed upon them.  While saying that, I want to say as definitely as it is possible to say that we stand where we stood all through last Session in saying that men and women who have been arrested, men and women especially who have been arrested in time of peace or comparative peace, ought not to be detained one hour beyond the necessary time that is required to bring them to trial.  We say, as definitely as it is possible to say, that in our opinion these men and women ought to be released, and we are prepared to vote for any proposition brought forward with that object in view, by any person who deems it to be his or her responsibility to raise that question in this Dáil.  But our interests rather lie in questions of social and economic difficulty, problems that I fear are going to prevent the re-establishment of peace and the stabilisation of the State, unless they are dealt with on lines very differently from those hinted at and suggested by the Government, and the Government supporters, whether in the country or in the Dáil in the last Session.</p>
+          <p eId="para_14">So far as I can see the mind of the Government is running in the direction of allowing the development of economic affairs to follow the beaten path, and to trust to the ordinary operations of commerce and exchange to bring about prosperity in this country.  During one of the Debates in the Dáil last Session I drew attention to the state of unemployment in such countries as Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands, each of which countries is somewhat in the same position as Ireland is towards the neighbouring countries.  Economically each of these countries lives to a very great degree, indeed, upon export trade, upon the markets abroad.  The figures which I quoted in that discussion showed that even such a country as Denmark, which was prosperous as-an agricultural country, comparatively prosperous, had within the last year a percentage of unemployment as high  as twenty-five, and Sweden had a percentage of unemployment as high as thirty-two in March, 1922.  This country is dependent for the export market upon prosperity in England.  You are trusting to the development of the ordinary methods of commerce, and you are hopeful that the times will grow better in this country, with the coming of military peace, and that the trade of this country will revive, and a market will continue to be found across the water for Irish produce. That is the proposition, that is the mind of the Ministry, that is the mind of the supporters of the Ministry in this country.</p>
+          <p eId="para_15">The market in England is not improving. We were told by leading British industrialists three or four weeks ago that they expected, as things were going, an unemployed population in Great Britain of two millions.  It is steadily rising since the middle of the summer, notwithstanding the fact that twelve months have elapsed since the enforcement of the wage reduction campaign in that country.  People in England were told by the employers there that they must accept reductions in wages if they wanted to improve trade, to regenerate the commercial system. Reductions were enforced, but the promise has not been fulfilled.  Trade and commerce have not improved, and unemployment has increased.  The market for Irish goods has decreased in that country because of the decrease in employment, and because, still further, of the reductions in wages of those who are employed.</p>
+          <p eId="para_16">I want to know whether it is the intention of the Ministry here, whether it is the mind of the Government here, or, shall I say, whether it is the mind of the majority on the Government benches and those behind the Government benches, to continue that policy and to assist and encourage the present policy in this country towards reduction in wages.  The plea is put forward here, just the same as it was in England, that employment can only be revived by reductions in wages.  That was the cry in England, and it has not been fulfilled.  Is there any reason for thinking that reductions in wages in Ireland will be followed by an increase  of employment in Ireland to any appreciable extent?  I deny it.  I say, on the other hand, as I said before in this Dáil, that the true policy is to keep up wages and to readjust your economic system in such a way as to ensure that those high wages will be spent in the purchase of Irish commodities.  I want the Ministry to realise, and I want some of the new members of the Dáil to realise, that even though trade were to improve to an unexpected extent in England within the next few months, that in itself is not going to improve your industrial prospects in this country.  Everyone who has studied these matters knows that the power to produce cheaply in this country, even on similar rates of wages, is not as great as the power to produce cheaply in England, or one might even say in Germany, or in any of the continental countries where the standard has been lowered within recent years.  But the power to produce cheaply of our industrial manufacturers in this country is not as great as the power to produce cheaply in England.  During the European War we all know how manufacturers took advantage of the opportunity of lavish expenditure of Government funds to enlarge their establishments, to improve their facilities for production, and generally blind the Exchequer by spending what should have been paid in taxes—excess profits tax—in the refurbishing of their machinery and their productive processes. That was not done to anything like the same extent in this country, because the foundations were not there, and your comparative position for cheap production in Ireland as compared with England is much worse than it was prior to 1914.  Assume a revival of trade in England, where are your competitive industries to be?  That revival of trade in England means an easing of the opportunities for those cheap manufactures to come into Ireland and to compete with your Irish manufactures.  Neither the hope of improved conditions in England nor the hope of lower wages in Ireland are going to make your industrial position satisfactory.</p>
+          <p eId="para_17">I want to say to the President that if his Ministry, when formed, tends to  proceed on the lines of least resistance, simply to allow the ordinary processes of commerce as they have been known in the past to proceed and develop of their own volition, seeking the highest profit irrespective of human effects, seeking to buy in the cheapest market and to sell in the dearest, then the industrial and economic position of this country, in my opinion, is going to be a very bad one indeed, and any hopes that the country had that the revolution which has been accomplished would lead to improved material life for the people would be lost and unfulfilled.</p>
+          <p eId="para_18">We have on the Statute Book a Bill dealing with unemployment insurance. It was passed during the last Session, and affects the system of unemployment insurance, abolishing the system of uncovenanted benefit and re-establishing what might be called pure insurance schemes.  During the discussion on that Bill, I pointed out from these benches that, unless there was an extraordinary revival of trade and an increase in employment between that date and October, we were going to find the winter a very serious one, because of the fact that from the middle of October we shall have a steadily increasing number of men coming on to unemployment or continuing unemployment without any unemployment insurance whatever.  The dole, as it was called, was abolished, and it was hoped by the Assistant Minister in charge of the Bill that trade and commerce would so improve, between the date of the introduction of the Bill and the middle of October, that the forecast, or, rather, fears that were given voice to would not be fulfilled.  There is no improvement.  There is very much to the contrary.  There has been an increase of several thousands in the numbers of unemployed on the Unemployment Exchanges, quite irrespective of any effects of the trade disputes.  There will be a still further increase with every man demobilised, and I think it is well to ask the Ministry, or the President, whether they have taken into account the position of these people during the coming winter.  During the debate on the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, Mr. Whelehan stated that by the middle of  August 10,000 persons would have exhausted all their contributions, and would have no right to benefit but for the special arrangement proposed in the Bill.  He also stated that when the first benefit year terminates, on October the 7th, about one-third of the unemployed will, if they continue to draw benefit until then, have no contribution left unexhausted with which to restart the new benefit year.  "It is hoped," he said, "that by that time economic conditions will have so improved as to have absorbed all, or nearly all, of these workers into employment."</p>
+          <p eId="para_19">Now, what are we to contemplate, if nothing is done to substitute for the dole, as it was called, something better?  Are we to look on calmly and without fear at the increase in unemployment, and the steadily and rapidly growing number of men, who are not only unemployed, but are not receiving any insurance benefit?  Do you think that that large number of people in the country are going to be contented and satisfied to rest silent, quiet, and patient until the Government is satisfied that peace has been re-established, and that the ordinary processes of commerce will have solved this problem? I have no such hopes.  On the contrary, I have very great fears that this growing number of unemployed, with nothing to fall back upon in the way of insurance benefit, will make your social problem, perhaps make your military problem, a very, very great one indeed. It seems to me that the Government, and that any Ministry that may be elected, is faced, at this moment, with the question of whether they are going to choose to follow on the ordinary British and European system of commerce—<i>laissez faire</i> in commerce—or whether they are going to show some imagination and resist the temptation to take the easy line of life and leave things to find their own level.  I hope the decision of the Government will be to follow on and bring into practical application those principles which they advocated, which we advocated prior to the establishment of the Free State, principles which laid it down clearly that it was the duty of the State to see that the children of the State would have opportunities for employment, for wealth production and opportunities  to live in the country to which they belong. I would ask Ministers to spend a day or two in looking back upon the propaganda that they indulged in prior to the signing of the Treaty, during the agitation which led to the signing of the Treaty, and to face the implications honestly, and to bring them into practical operation. If they will do that they will get our support to the utmost possible extent, but if they do that they will lose the support of many others, whose support, I imagine from the signs we have seen, they will much rather have than the support of those who have spoken on behalf of labour in the past.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeanMcGarry" eId="spk_5">
+          <from>Mr. McGARRY:</from>
+          <p eId="para_20">I am very much surprised to hear the tone of Deputy Johnson's speech.  It seems to me that he has taken the advantage which he complains the English manufacturers took during the war.  They took the opportunity to make profits during the war, and he took the opportunity of the President's motion to make a long speech and to profiteer on it.  The motion before the Dáil, as I understand it, is that certain Ministers be appointed or reappointed.  Deputy Johnson made a speech in which he has not had a single word to say about any of the Ministers, but puts a series of questions to a Minister that has not yet been appointed.  He has not said a single word why those Ministers should not be appointed.  We have instead listened to a lecture on political economy in which he talked about everything but the President's motion. I suggest that it is the duty of every member to criticise the Government, if the Government ought to be criticised, but the criticism ought always to be helpful.  I can get up and talk without any responsibility, but Ministers have responsibility, and if I am going to criticise them my criticism ought to be helpful.  I do not think it right for any member to stand up here and waste the time of the Dáil with a lecture on political economy and criticism of a Ministry that is not here.  Anybody may get up and propose an alternative Ministry, but lectures on political economy are no use.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamHewat" eId="spk_6">
+          <from>Mr. WM. HEWAT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_21">I rise, with a good deal of hesitation, as a new  member, to speak in this Dáil, and I ask your indulgence in dealing with a matter that the leader of the Labour Party has raised.  I take a good deal of exception to his attitude towards this problem.  In the first instance, he refers to the fact that at an earlier stage the common sense of employers and workmen in England came to the conclusion that the situation justified a reduction in wages, which the men there, through the advice of their leaders, were prepared to accept.  Those reductions were put into operation and were largely based on the argument that in reducing the wages it was necessary for the maintenance of trade, but also behind that was the very important argument that as the wages had been inflated during the war owing to exceptional circumstances, the business community claimed that in the reflex action the fall in the cost of living ought also to be taken into account.  Now, Deputy Johnson has referred to the fact that these reductions have not been as successful in stemming the tide of bad trade as was expected at the time.</p>
+          <p eId="para_22">I say on the other hand if the reductions had not taken place and if the Labour Party at the other side had adopted the same attitude as is advocated by the Leader of the Labour Party that, bad as the situation to-day is, as far as the trade of the country is concerned, it would be infinitely worse with the palliative which was not as successful as it might have been, owing to the fact that continental politics came in and interfered with the revival of trade which had undoubtedly set in by that stage.  Now, applying that to this country we, on this side, cannot help but be affected by the economic operations and the economic laws on the other side of the Channel.  We might reasonably have expected that labour and the labour leaders would have recognised that and that coming out of troubles at home, troubles from other causes, that at all events we might have the opportunity of sitting down calmly and of being able to reason out all those matters as between Capital and Labour, without having to come to the deadlock that is at present holding up the country and is threatening increased unemployment in the near future.  I claim that the policy of  the Labour Party has not been as intelligent as one would expect from a Party who put forward a claim that they are able and willing to govern.  The question of unemployment is a serious one, and the outlook, as far as winter is concerned, is serious also.</p>
+          <p eId="para_23">Deputy Johnson has referred to the abolition of the dole.  The dole has been very useful in some cases, but I think that as far as Ireland is concerned it has been grossly abused, with the help and assistance of the Labour Party.  Go down the country, into any part you like, and anyone there will tell you about obviously manufactured cases. What we want to get at is the man who is willing to work, and if he cannot get the work he has got to get assistance from the State.  I would join with Deputy Johnson in saying to the Government that that is obviously a situation that must be attended to.  On the other hand the only remedy for the man who is prepared to put his back to the wall, to stand all day and do nothing, is to make him feel in his stomach, if necessary, the need for work.  The country needs that the work must be done on a fair basis.  That to-day is holding up an immense amount of work.  That to-day is putting a strangle-hold on all individual enterprise.  If any man has money to spend in advancement let him look around.  Let him compare his cost to-day of any building as compared with pre-war costs and he will see that it is not reasonable.  What the country wants to-day is an opportunity to develop every resource.  To do that we must have a position in which a man willing to extend his capital shall do so in security and with a fair expectation of a reasonable return for his money.  Take the question of the North Wall to-day——</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_7">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_24">Is this a question of the Executive Council's policy?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamHewat" eId="spk_8">
+          <from>Mr. HEWAT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_25">I have to apologise for transgressing.  It is my ignorance in this matter.  I say in these matters the position that ought to appeal to the Ministry is that they must help to encourage individual trades and individual  enterprise, rather than unnecessarily interfere in connection with matters that are not properly under their control.  I would like to say that Deputy Johnson's argument seemed to me to appeal in this way, that if wages are not to be governed by competitive conditions and if they are to be subject only to the wish of the person receiving the wages, I am afraid the country would be very different to live in for the ordinary man who has an income which is not liable to those fluctuations.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#TomasOConnell" eId="spk_9">
+          <from>Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL:</from>
+          <p eId="para_26">I rise principally to express regret that the President, in nominating his Executive Council, has again this year deemed it advisable to include as one of the Ministries within the Executive Council, the Ministry of Education.  I think, from any point of view, that decision is to be regretted, but in saying that I would like to make it clear that I do not wish to be regarded as indicating the unsuitability in any way of the Deputy who is named as the Minister for Education for that particular position. What I do say is, that under the provisions of our Constitution we have some Ministers within the Executive Council, and some who are outside Ministers responsible only to this Dáil.  I say that if there is one Ministry more suitable than another to be regarded as one which should be directly responsible to the Dáil, and only to the Dáil, it is the Ministry of Education.  The Executive Council is responsible for policy, and I take it the main policy for which this Executive Council, now about to be chosen by this Dáil, will be responsible is the maintenance of the Treaty, and that all its actions and all its acts will be governed by a consideration of that policy.  Now we know, and it is admitted by every Party, that the necessity for an improvement in our education, and in our educational system, is one of the most pressing problems that this Dáil will have to face.  In my opinion at least it is not right that the proposals which might be brought forward to improve our educational system should be governed by considerations which have to do with matters of broad policy such as the Executive Council will have to deal  with.  The Minister for Education should be in the position that he could take the Dáil fully and wholly into his confidence, and every Party in the Dáil, in framing his proposals.  He cannot do that if he is a member of the Executive Council, because it would mean if the proposal that he brings forward happens to be defeated, and happens not to meet with the wishes of the Dáil, it is immediately a question of policy, and as the Minister is a member of the Executive Council, the Council stands or falls, the Government stands or falls, on this educational proposal.  I hold strongly that that is not as it should be.  While knowing that the President would naturally find it necessary to call to his aid a man of the experience and wisdom and wise judgment of Deputy MacNeill, I must express very great regret, and I believe that regret will be shared by a great many people in this Dáil and in the country who believe that education should be dealt with and kept as far as possible from politics or political concerns, that the President has again included in the inside or Executive Council this Ministry of Education.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardWilson" eId="spk_10">
+          <from>Mr. R. WILSON:</from>
+          <p eId="para_27">In looking through the Ministries which in future are to be the inner Cabinet, which in reality will be the Governors of this country, it seems strange to us here representing the farming interests that the Minister for Agriculture, who has to deal with the greatest industry in this country, is excluded from the inner Councils of the Cabinet and thereby deprived of the support which he should necessarily be expected to have in a country that is mainly agricultural. It must seem strange that I should be asking that the Minister for Agriculture should be included in the Executive Council, while my friend on my left is desirous of excluding from the Executive Council the Minister for Education.  My reason for making the request I have made is that in the very near future the fiscal problem in this country will have to be dealt with, and when it comes to be dealt with, we are afraid that unless we are properly  represented, or rather the great industry in which we are interested is represented, in that Executive Council our interests will be overlooked.  Five out of every six men in this country are engaged in agriculture, and if our industry is not given proper representation, we are afraid that it will be let down and become impoverished. If it is necessary to have in the Executive Council the Minister for Industry and Commerce, surely it is of far greater importance that the agricultural industry, which gives employment to five out of every six men in this country, should also be represented in the Council so that the necessary proposals for the protection of our industry could there be put forward directly.  With regard to the nominations for the various Ministries, I have nothing to say further than this, that most of the Deputies named have given faithful service in the past, and as far as we are concerned, not being able to form our own Ministry, we must of course accept them as the best substitutes that could be found.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_11">
+          <from>Mr. SEAN LYONS:</from>
+          <p eId="para_28">I should just like to say that I am sure, from all that has been said of the Ministers whose names have been put before the Dáil on nomination, they certainly have a right to feel honoured and proud of the confidence they inspired.  Not one word has been said against any Minister who has formed part of the Government of the country; it certainly speaks well for them.  During the propaganda employed outside we were told that we must not recognise these Ministers at all.  This Assembly is the place, and this is the opportune time for anyone to say anything they have to say in criticism of the Ministry.  I have listened with intense interest to every speech that has been delivered, and I have not heard one word as to why we should not recognise outside in the country the men whom we recognise as Executive Ministers inside in this Dáil.  The majority of the Teachtaí in this Dáil may not probably value my independent manner of speaking, but I am very pleased myself, and so is my Party.  I am the Party known as the Town Tenants' Party, but I may say that I have several colleagues in the Independent  Party.  It is a great consolation to be able to stand up here and say that no Party in this Dáil has ventured to put forward one of their own members in opposition to members of the Executive nominated, and in that connection we have only had an expression of regret from Deputy Wilson on behalf of the Farmers' Party that they were not numerous enough to form a Cabinet.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_12">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY:</from>
+          <p eId="para_29">What about your own Party?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_13">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS:</from>
+          <p eId="para_30">With regard to the remarks made by Deputy O'Connell, I am sure that the Government or Cabinet, when appointed, will certainly do everything that is necessary to promote the education of the children of this country, and I am sure that matter is safe in the hands of Deputy MacNeill. I have nothing further to say only that I am quite satisfied, and I believe that if some Parties in the Dáil had sufficient power they would try and nominate somebody from their own ranks for the Cabinet.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_14">
+          <from>Mr. ALFRED BYRNE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_31">Before the President replies I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to say whether the Government intend to take any steps in the near future with a view to bringing about a Conference between the parties in order to bring about a settlement of the North Wall strike.  Many thousands of pounds have been lost by the public Board of which I am a member.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_15">
+          <from>A DEPUTY:</from>
+          <p eId="para_32">Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been lost to the country.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_16">
+          <from>Mr. BYRNE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_33">I think we ought to have a statement whether it is the intention to make some effort to bring that unfortunate dispute to an end.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_17">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_34">The purport of the speeches which have been made refer to matters of policy, and it will be within the recollection of the old members of the Dáil that last year the policy was outlined in the speech delivered by the Governor-General.  Much the same objection was made last year when forming the Ministry as has been made now, to the inclusion of particular Ministries, or rather a particular  Ministry, and the exclusion of another Ministry.  With the exception possibly of two or three Ministries the selection of the Executive Council is not a matter of particular Ministries, but the inclusion of certain persons.</p>
+          <p eId="para_35">I explained last year, as I observed just now, in reading over the report, my very great regret at not being able to include the then occupant, and, I hope, the future occupant, of the Ministry of Agriculture within the Executive Council.  Last year when making up the Ministry I consulted with the other Ministers.  It was within the period known as the Provisional Parliament in the Third Dáil, and I got their advice and their assistance, and I took the advice and counsel separately of some of the Ministers—I think more than of any other that of the Minister for Agriculture.  The success or improvement of the development of agriculture in this country does not, in my view, depend upon the inclusion or otherwise of the Minister for Agriculture in the Executive Council.  If it be thought that the work of a Ministry is of great importance to the particular subject under that Ministry, there is the fact of the maximum amount of time if the holder of that office is not a member of the Executive Council. He is not troubled by questions of policy, and he has not to attend Executive meetings, and he has not to accept responsibility unless he so desires.  But I would like to say, on the part of the present occupant of that office, that he so desired and he accepted responsibility for every action of the Government as if he were a member of the Executive Council.  I think the same thing might be said of the other Ministers. The circumstances of the times may have suggested to these Ministers that that was the patriotic policy.  I believe that at any rate in the case of the particular Minister mentioned it was more than his conception of patriotic policy, that it was the real individual, the man himself who stood for that policy and his belief that, where there was a case in which his counsel might have altered our decision that nevertheless he was a loyal, conscientious and energetic supporter of the Government in its policy. I have only to repeat what I did say on  the last occasion, that it was with regret that I could not include him in the Executive Council.</p>
+          <p eId="para_36">It does not interfere with what the Farmers' Party have put forward; it does not interfere with the development or improvement or the existence of the industry of agriculture in any way whatever, and when the time comes, when the farmers form their own Government, I think they will come to the conclusion that what I am saying now was not far short of the real state of the case.  Now, with regard to the other Minister, I think I mentioned that the Ministry of Education was an institution in itself.  That is what is in the report.  But my recollection of that particular reference at the time was that I said the Minister for Education was an institution in himself.  I think that Deputy O'Connell will practically admit that.  I do not know, having given the matter still more consideration, that the Minister for Education should not be included within the Executive Council.  After all, how are you going to reconstruct this nation?  Upon what basis is the superstructure to be built?  Will you not depend and must you not look to the Minister for Education to mark out the Gaelicisation, if I might so say, of our whole culture? While we have complaints that in the past that has been neglected, and that the country has not been fashioned according to the best wishes of the thinking people who are anxious for nation building, ought we not now look with hope and confidence that we will get some inspiration from the Minister for Education?  I think it will be admitted upon a question of such importance as that, that the Executive Council would not be doing its duty if it did not include the Minister for Education within its ranks and accept responsibility for whatever proposals he would put forward in an attempt to make our nation separate and distinct and something to be thought of.</p>
+          <p eId="para_37">The economic questions that have been raised are raised at a time when the industrial atmosphere is not perhaps best constituted to lend to any statement that I might make, any degree of stability, or any hope of leading towards a more peaceable settlement of  the present condition of affairs.  This much I would say, that it certainly appears to me that there are certain trades or certain businesses—I have one particularly in mind, I think it was mentioned by Deputy Hewat in his maiden speech—which are not an economic proposition no matter from what angle they could possibly be considered, and that is, the provision of houses.  It has always appeared to me during my experience of towns and cities in Ireland that the housing problem was a matter of the most vital importance to our people.  If one examines the Census Returns of the City of Dublin I think it will be found that 62 per cent. of the people are native born.  The drain from the country to supply that citizenship is enormous, and that drain will be continued until there are more satisfactory conditions prevailing with regard to the housing of the people.  But does anybody suggest that the present prices, the present cost of building houses, is a cost that can be borne by the State or by any component part of the State? We know that it is not, and we know furthermore that there is something more at issue than the mere question of wages, that it is a very serious and very complicated problem, and though at this moment Deputy Johnson gave us a prescription, the patient is scarcely in a fit state to get that prescription. But even if we had agreement there is something more than agreement wanted upon the mere question of wages.  There must be an admission by all parties that greater sacrifices must be made if we are to achieve the solution not only of that problem, but of many others. These are, however, problems which might be very well discussed another time.  I had not any information that these questions would be raised.  I should say that it may be inferred from some of the statements made, that we have not been considering these industrial disturbances.  We have.  I have been in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce some times or at least many times in the day.  He has kept me very well informed of the movements and fluctuations, and I regret to say, from what I have learned of them, that the fluctuations do not  promise very well.  If circumstances to-day are favourable towards one side, that side hardens.  If the circumstances are reversed to-morrow, that side hardens.  That is not the spirit upon which there is very great hope for a solution of these difficulties.  I hope that in the matter of the consideration of these problems that are very serious—and more serious than things that affect this life—that they will bring with them very serious consideration for the future and upon the future of this country and upon the future of every order that is in the country.  If we can only get some real earnest spirit of accommodation from both sides I have no  fear whatever but that the result will be satisfactory to the country.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_18">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON:</from>
+          <p eId="para_38">On a point of order, the motion that was put into our hands is really not a motion; it is a statement that the President nominates certain Deputies as members of the Executive Council.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_19">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_39">I was going to put it in the form of a motion. The nominations were not ready when the Order Paper was printed, and I asked the President to circulate the names at the earliest possible moment. The motion has to be in accordance with Article 53 of the Constitution, and it is as follows:—</p>
+          <table>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_40">“Go n-aontuigh an Dáil le ainmniú na d-Teachtai seo leanas mar bhaill den Ard-Chomhairle:—</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_41">“That the Dáil assent to the nomi nation of the following Deputies as members of the Executive Council:—</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_42">CAOIMHGHIN O hUIGIN mar Leas- Uachtaran agus Aire um Ghnothai Duithche;</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_43">KEVIN O'HIGGINS, Vice-President and Minister of Home Affairs;</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_44">EARNAN DE BLAGHD mar Aire Airgid;</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_45">ERNEST BLYTHE, Minister of Finance;</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_46">RISTEARD O MAOLCHATHA mar Aire Cosanta;</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_47">RICHARD MULCAHY, Minister of Defence;</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_48">SEOSAMH MagCRAITH mar Aire um Thiuscal agus Thrachtail;</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_49">JOSEPH McGRATH, Minister of In dustry and Commerce;</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_50">DEASMHUMHAN MacGEARAILT mar Aire um Ghnothai Ciogcriche; agus</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_51">DESMOND FITZGERALD, Minister of External Affairs; and</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_52">EOIN MacNEILL mar Aire Oideachais (nuair a bheidh Airtiogal 17 den Bhun-reacht co-lionta aige).”</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_53">EOIN MacNEILL, Minister of Educa tion (when he shall have complied with Article 17 of the Constitu tion).”</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+          </table>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_20">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON:</from>
+          <p eId="para_54">May I suggest a verbal alteration to keep this motion in conformity with previous motions? The suggested alteration is that we delete the word "of" and substitute the word "for" in each case where it is mentioned "Minister of."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_21">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_55">Very good.</p>
+          <p eId="para_56">Alteration agreed to.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_2" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion, as altered, put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_2"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_3">
+        <heading>EXTERNAL MINISTRIES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_22">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_57">I beg to move:</p>
+          <table>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_58">“Go mbeid siad so leanas ina n-Aireachta nach baill den Ard-Chomh- airle a sealbhoiri, Talmhuiocht, Iascach, Rialtas Aitiuil, Oifig an Phuist.”</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_59">“That the following be Ministries the holders of which shall not be mem bers of the Executive Council, viz., Agriculture, Fisheries, Local Govern ment, Post Office.”</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+          </table>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_23">
+          <from>Mr. P. HUGHES:</from>
+          <p eId="para_60">I beg to second.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_24">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON:</from>
+          <p eId="para_61">Before we pass this motion, I would like to raise the question whether or not experience of the past year justifies the appointment of a Minister for Fisheries.  I have no doubt whatever that there is great work to be done, and very important work to be done, in the Department of Fisheries, but I am raising again what I raised before, and that is whether this Department is of such importance at present, and whether it is even possible to place it in a position of importance such as to justify the appointment of a Minister in charge.  I am not going to find very great fault with it, but I am very doubtful indeed whether the work to be done in connection with fisheries will justify the appointment of a Minister, specially in charge of the Department, unless we can be assured that the finance that is necessary to put this on a proper basis to justify a Ministry is likely to be forthcoming.  I do not think that anything that was reported, to the Dáil at any rate, would warrant us in saying that the work of this Department requires the attention of a special Minister.  I can readily conceive that it may do so provided that finance was available in sufficient quantity; but there is no appearance of that, and I think that unless there is some promise that money will be available for the very extensive development that this Department of the National life demands, a Minister in charge of it is not required at the present stage.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_25">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY:</from>
+          <p eId="para_62">With regard to this Ministry of Fisheries, I think it can only be justified on the grounds that there are fish in the rivers and in the seas around our coast.  There is no use in having a Minister for Fisheries without having the fish, and I would like to know from the recent occupant of the office what has been done and what is being done at the moment in regard to our inland or our sea fisheries.  Complaints have been made by the fisherman on practically every river that nothing has been done to protect the fish.  The Ministry of Fisheries has been in existence for some time, and I would like to know  what is being done, now that the spawning season has commenced or is about to commence, to preserve our spawning rivers.</p>
+          <p eId="para_63">In the constituency I represent nothing to my knowledge has been done to protect fisheries.  Money can be found for everything else in the country evidently, sometimes to the tune of millions, but this matter of fisheries, that requires very little expenditure and that would repay the country perhaps ten hundred per cent., has been left without attention.  Practically all our fisheries have been denuded of fish.  During the recent trouble, when there was no law or protection, all the spawning beds were denuded of fish.  Dynamite had been used in the destruction of fish, and fish have been killed wholesale.  At the present time fishermen on the Nore, the Suir, and the Barrow are making complaints to me and to other Deputies that there is no protection whatsoever for the fish, and they want protection.  They even suggest that if there was nobody else to protect them, the military, who have little to do at the moment, should be sent out.  There is no use in burking the fact that nothing has been done.  I should know a little about fisheries, and I did not acquire my knowledge second-hand.  I have had experience and have lived by fisheries for some time.  I know all that there is to be known about fisheries.  The Minister has this advantage, that he might be able to educate the fish how to protect themselves, seeing the profession that he has been brought up to.</p>
+          <p eId="para_64">I would like an assurance that the remnant of the fish left will be protected, and that the spawning stocks will be preserved.  You have no use in appointing a Minister for Fisheries if a serious effort is not made at the beginning of the spawning season.  If a serious effort is not made there is no use in proceeding with the farce of appointing a Ministry of Fisheries which would be a Ministry in name only.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardWilson" eId="spk_26">
+          <from>Mr. WILSON:</from>
+          <p eId="para_65">My complaint against the continuation of the Ministry of Fisheries is not that it would not be necessary, but because, in view of the  finance of the country, it would be a farce to continue the Ministry and grant it £30,000 a year.  The expense of the Ministry in respect of salaries and wages is £22,000, and the amount of money which these gentlemen administer is £30,000.  I put it to you, is it a reasonable proposition to appoint a Minister when you have no money to develop the Department of which he is the head?</p>
+          <p eId="para_66">Would it not be better to wait until our finances are in a proper state before starting off with a Minister and a Department and all the other paraphernalia which can give no results because there is no money to spend?  The whole thing is really a farce and a laughing stock for everybody on the ground of expense.  We should abolish the Ministry, and when we have the money let us support our fisheries, because I believe the fisheries of the country, if properly handled, would yield us as much possibly as the land.  For these reasons I am opposed to the appointment of a Minister for Fisheries at present.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfJamesCraig" eId="spk_27">
+          <from>Sir JAMES CRAIG:</from>
+          <p eId="para_67">I regret very much that nothing has been said about the creation of a Ministry of Health. The medical profession, at all events, have been looking forward with some hope that in the new appointments to be made by the present Dáil a Ministry of Health would be among the Ministries formed.  I have not urged this matter very strongly because of the expense connected with it.  One does not want to multiply the number of Ministries, but, as I said on a past occasion, surely the health of the people is of more importance than the fish in the rivers and in the seas.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_28">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY:</from>
+          <p eId="para_68">Question.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfJamesCraig" eId="spk_29">
+          <from>Sir JAMES CRAIG:</from>
+          <p eId="para_69">We all know, at all events, that we cannot have a healthy population if the health of the people is not looked after, and I say deliberately that the public health of the country is in a very serious condition. I am not going to press this matter at the present moment, because I feel like an orphan in this assembly. I am not going to press the President to add to his Ministries that other  Ministry of Public Health, but I am going to suggest that the Government should do the next best thing, and that a Public Health Department should be formed within the Ministry of Local Government, and that there should be a Parliamentary Secretary in the Dáil who would be responsible for the Public Health Department of the Ministry of Local Government.</p>
+          <p eId="para_70">I admire very much the work done as Minister for Local Government by Deputy Blythe.  He made himself thoroughly acquainted with the matters relating to the public health of the country, and as we know, he proposed to introduce a Public Health Bill which is one of the Bills that has been delayed owing to the work that the Government had to do before the dissolution of the last Dáil.  I am very conscious that it will be a difficult matter to get a Minister who will be able to follow in the footsteps of Deputy Blythe.  Deputy Blythe had made himself very thoroughly acquainted with the needs of the country, and he understood very clearly the matters that were necessary to help in the public health administration.  Perhaps the President will give me some encouragement by saying that the Government will form such a Department within the Ministry of Local Government and that some Deputy will be responsible for public health matters in the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JosephMacBride" eId="spk_30">
+          <from>Mr. MacBRIDE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_71">I am one of those who, in the first instance, opposed the formation of this Ministry of Fisheries, but the Dáil, in its wisdom, thought otherwise.  The Ministry was formed, and I am not going to oppose it now. But I think the whole Department ought to be scrapped.  As far as I know, it consists of scientists and messenger boys.  The scientists are no good, and they never produce anything.  You get treatises that repel by their very appearance. They could never discover anything.  They never discovered a new fishing ground.  I must beg their pardon.  I think they discovered, two or three years ago, a fish off the Kerry coast that was not caught in any other place except off the coast of Spain. That is so much to their credit.  Deputy Gorey says there is no fish.  There is any amount of fish.  There are hundreds  of thousands of square miles of fishing grounds off the coast of Ireland, and up to Iceland, and there has not been the slightest effort made to develop them.  Men from the East coast of England come over and take the fish away.  We have a Ministry of Fisheries with an income of £30,000, and only £3,000 is spent upon development.  All the rest goes on the messenger boys and the scientists, who never produce anything at all.  I think that the whole of them ought to be turned out and men put into the Ministry who know something about the business and who would develop the fisheries of the country.  This previous Ministry of Fisheries have not yet published their report for 1921.  My boots were nearly worn going to Eason's, before the last Dáil dissolved, to try and get the report for 1921, but it has not turned up yet.  They are overpowered with work, but what they are doing I cannot see.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_31">
+          <from>MINISTER for FISHERIES (Mr. Finian Lynch):</from>
+          <p eId="para_72">Ní fheadar an cóir no an ceart domh-sa éinnídh a rádh sa cheist seo, acht caithfead-sa a rádh gur dóigh liom gur náireach an rud a dubhairt an teachta Seosamh Mac Brighde.  Is an-fhuirist cainnt a dhéanamh mar gheall ar dhaoinibh nach bfhuil láithreach, acht sé mo thuairim-se nach cóir é nuair nach bfuilid láithreach cumh iad féin do chosaint.</p>
+          <p eId="para_73">I think that Deputy MacBride's talk about our scientists and the officials of the Department is very ill-mannered, to say the least of it.  It is very cheap for Deputies to get up here and criticise officials who cannot defend themselves. These officials, in a sense, of course, were traditional.  They were handed down to me from the C.D.B. and the D.A.T.I.  At least they have worked loyally with me, and they have performed their duties to my satisfaction. I think it is very bad taste of any Deputy to get up in the Dáil and criticise persons who cannot defend themselves here.  Deputy MacBride stated, and the same mistake was made by other Deputies, less ill-mannered, I should say, that there was only £3,000 for development and that the rest was spent upon administration.  Deputies will remember that when the estimates  were brought up it looked as if there was only £3,000 for development, but I pointed out that there was money coming from the C.D.B., something like £25,000 or £45,000—I have not the figures with me—that was also to be spent upon development.  When persons criticise it would be well that they should have their figures made up more correctly than the criticisms I have heard this evening would show.</p>
+          <p eId="para_74">I should say I agree almost entirely with Deputy Johnson.  I agree that it is a joke to have a Ministry of Fisheries if it is not financed, and I hope that the finance will be forthcoming.  Deputy Gorey asked me about the protection of spawning beds.  Under the existing law that is the duty of the Conservators. The Ministry has really very little control, except inasmuch as it makes a small grant annually to the Boards, and that is the only power the old Fishery Department had as far as protection was concerned.  The Boards of Conservators appointed bailiffs, or whatever they were called, to supervise the rivers, and actually in Deputy Gorey's own county my information is that there was an extraordinary improvement through the action of the Civic Guard and the military in the county.  I think that is all that it is necessary for me to say.  I feel it would be rather bad taste on my part to defend the Ministry to which I am attached.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#TomasOConnell" eId="spk_32">
+          <from>Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL:</from>
+          <p eId="para_75">It appears that some of the recent speakers are under the impression that we are criticising or have under consideration the work of the Department of Fisheries. The real question at issue is whether a separate Ministry of Fisheries should be set up or not.  While agreeing with what Deputy Johnson has said, that there is little use in having a Ministry unless it is properly financed, I do hold that a separate Minister for Fisheries is essential.  Knowing something of the condition of our fisheries on the western coast I believe that there is there a vast field for development.  We have very few industries in Ireland, but I am confident that fishing could be developed very much to the benefit of the people who work in the industry, and also the people who through its development  would be provided with cheap and wholesome food.  Anyone who knows conditions there, and who has seen, as I have, fishermen unable to send out their boats owing to want of proper tackle and appliances, while, at the same time, trawlers coming over from Fleetwood and Hull rake up at the very doors of the fishermen the harvest that should be theirs, must admit that it is essential a special Department of the Government should be set up to look after what could be a great industry in this country.  If that is to be done properly, it must, as Deputy Johnson stated, be taken seriously, and a matter of £3,000 or £30,000 is nothing when compared with the results that may be attained by properly dealing with the whole question on a big scale. I do not agree with the policy of my friend, Deputy Wilson, in waiting until the finances are there.  You will not have the finances if you wait.  The way to provide finances and to provide employment and money in the country is to set about the development of industries such as this, and for that reason I am prepared to support the establishment of the Ministry of Fisheries.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickWalterShaw" eId="spk_33">
+          <from>Mr. P.J. SHAW:</from>
+          <p eId="para_76">I wish to support the appointment of a Minister for Fisheries.  I wish to mention that in the county from which I come there are a number of lakes to which large numbers of visitors came from different parts of England to fish.  Owing to the fact that during the last three, four, or five years 90 per cent. of the trout that went up to spawn in the rivers never came back, that industry at the present time is practically extinct.  In the last couple of years you could count the boats during the May-fly fishing season, whereas four or five years ago, when there was protection, the lakes in that county were dotted with fishing boats. An immense amount of money was spent in the county by the visitors.  I would ask the Minister for Fisheries to endeavour during the coming spawning season to see that the gross abuses which existed, and which I can guarantee to prove did exist, will be stopped. Otherwise it would be much better that the rivers should be blocked up, so as not to allow the trout up to spawn, because  when they did go they never came back, and the rivers are so depleted that fishing has become a bye-word. Instead of going to fish now you might as well go out and take the fresh air.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_34">
+          <from>MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Ernest Blythe):</from>
+          <p eId="para_77">With regard to the remarks of Deputy Sir James Craig, I think it should be clear to the Dáil that there could be no question of having a Department of Public Health and a Department of Local Government at the same time.  The Department of Local Government is really, so far as it goes, a Department of Public Health. Nearly all the activities of that Department, if you leave out roads, are concerned with Public Health.  Housing and the relief of the necessitous are really matters for a Department of Public Health.  The medical charities or the provision of medical relief is also a matter for the Public Health Department. In the Ministries Bill, which it was not possible to bring before the Dáil, I believe it was the intention that the name should be the Department of Local Government and Public Health, and that the National Insurance Commission would come in under that Department. It would then be merely a matter of choosing a name.  It could be the Department of Health, or the Ministry of Health, or any other name that was suggested.  It is intended really to give a substance to the Department of Health.  There are one or two functions added to it which it is thought would be an administrative convenience to have added.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_35">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS:</from>
+          <p eId="para_78">In view of the discussion that has been created by the suggestion that Ministries should be allocated in advance, I would like to suggest to the President quite briefly, that it might be better to adopt the procedure adopted in the previous Dáil. Instead of deciding before the Committee meets what are the posts to be filled by the Committee, the Committee itself should undertake the consideration both of the Departments to be created, which are non-Executive Departments, and of the Ministers who shall fill those Departments.  It has been urged that certain revision of Departments should occur.  A proposal  has been made that one Department shall be deleted.  Before any decision can be taken on matters of that kind it is perfectly clear that detailed information would be required, such as is not before the Dáil at the present moment, and which is not likely to be before the Dáil under its present constitution.  It is rather a matter to be looked into by a Committee that might call special evidence from the Departments concerned. I therefore suggest, without going into any details, that if the Dáil were to proceed with Resolution 3, appointing the Committee as required under the requisite Article of the Constitution—Article 55—that the Committee might be charged not merely with appointing names to certain Departments, but that the Committee might bring recommendations before the Dáil as to what other Departments should be created beyond the six Departments already defined, as existing within the Executive Council.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_36">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_79">I notice that during the contests that have just taken place throughout the country a great deal of lopsided financial propositions were dealt with, sometimes in publications, and at other times by speakers. Amongst the rest, in some parts of the country this particular Ministry may have been under discussion.  It would appear from an examination of the estimates for Fisheries that there was some extraordinary extravagance and that where development is only put down for £3,000 the total gross cost of the Ministry would be £55,500.</p>
+          <p eId="para_80">I spoke to the Minister for Fisheries a couple of days ago and told him that, so far as I could see, his particular Ministry would be probably criticised and that its retention would probably be questioned in the Dáil.  In considering this particular Ministry one ought to bear in mind what the circumstances of the moment are, and what they have been for the past few years, not alone in this country, but in England, Scotland, and on the Continent.  One should see how the fisheries developed or how the industry of fishing progressed in England during the last couple of years and what its condition is to-day: We should take stock of our particular position with regard to this industry.</p>
+          <p eId="para_81">I understand there is no country in Europe with such a coast line suitable for fisheries as we have, and I suppose there is no country in Europe where the fishing industry is at such a low ebb as it is in this country.  That there are potentialities in the fisheries of this country, both internal and external, I think everybody will admit.  Even if there is not sufficient money available to develop fisheries, surely it is not waste of money to have a Minister appointed who will consider how it is best to accommodate the expenses of such development with the financial condition of the country.  I have gone through the report which I have got from the Minister for Fisheries on this subject, and in it attention is drawn to the fact that the fishing industry not alone in Ireland, but in Great Britain, was at its lowest ebb during the last twelve months.  It was due to three causes.  The European markets, it appears, were disorganised through political upheavals.  Mackerel was not in demand in the big centres of population in England since these markets were flooded with fish carried on the steam trawling fleets which had just begun to operate after the war, and even these steam trawling companies were unable to make ends meet.  The general conditions prevailing in Ireland during 1922 did not lend themselves to the development of an industry such as that of fishing, which requires prompt delivery and excellent transit and accommodation, more than is supplied by the ordinary times of the departure and arrival of trains that one sees in the railway companies notices.  It is well known that the loss of a train may possibly involve enormous loss to persons engaged in this calling.  The Minister has shown me tables dealing with the number of English, Scottish and Irish steam vessels.  In England the number is over 2,000, in Scotland it is nearly 1,000, and in Ireland 11. Motor vessels in England number 468, in Scotland over 2,000, and in Ireland 291.  Sailing vessels in England number over 500, in Scotland over 4,000, and in Ireland the number is written down as 3,089, and it is remarked underneath that that number includes 1,639 rowing boats.  The report goes on to say what has been done even under  these very depressing and unusual conditions. It states that the fishing season opened last spring, and the task was to induce the fishermen to go to sea.  Many boat-owners had no nets fit for fishing. Their gear had become worn out in fruitless efforts in 1921, and they had no means to buy new ones.  Loans were given by the Ministry to equip the Arklow fleet for the south-west mackerel season which opened in April, and even with the provision of gear they were unwilling to undertake the voyage to Baltimore and other places, as the railway service from Cork to those fishing places was still suspended. The Ministry was compelled to set up a scheme for the transit of these catches to the nearest port to the Welsh markets.  The catches were sold in bulk in Milford Haven by a salesmaster, but the scheme did not prove a financial success, as the fish were late in striking the coast, and the weather was wet and stormy and unsuitable for fishing. Now, the Ministry apparently was satisfied that were it not for the little assistance given in that instance it would have been impossible, if a good deal of the expenses were not available for use in the proper channels, to have got these particular facilities.  Loans, it appears, were made available at Howth, and, generally speaking, from a perusal of this report I would say that the Ministry has not been idle. To my mind the actual sum that would be saved by not having a Minister appointed to this particular activity would not be a financial proposition, and I would be very glad if, in considering financial propositions, a little more study of the fundamentals of finance were given.  I have observed in some publications—if I may digress for a  moment—that comparisons are made between the cost of the services in 1923 and in 1916.  A child in the matter of finance would tell you that it was much less expensive to live in 1916 than it now.  Comparisons such as these mislead not alone the unfortunate dupe who conceives the idea of making such comparisons, but also mislead others. They do not lead anywhere, and they would not be altered if the persons issuing these publications were trying to do here what we have been trying to do for the last twelve months.  Two points have been under discussion on the question of this Ministry.  One is whether a Minister should be appointed at all, and another is, whether the particular Minister who has been in charge of this Ministry should be re-elected. That is not the point.  The point is, that there are four Ministries put for ward by me, the holders of which will have to be recommended by a Committee of fifteen Deputies in accordance with Article 55 of the Constitution.  I should say that if the Minister for Fisheries had his way a very much larger sum of money would have been included in the Estimates, but whether it is his great respect for me as Minister for Finance, or the power I had over Estimates, they were cut down.  It is a very small amount.  It may be, even in the exceptional circumstances through which we passed, that fishing was not economical, it is just as well that the amount was small.  But there ought to be great opportunities for development, and I think every member is satisfied that there are such opportunities, and if that be so I think they warrant the appointment of such a Ministry.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_3" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_3"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_4">
+        <heading>EXTERNAL MINISTERS— - APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.</heading>
+        <table>
+          <tr>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_82">The PRESIDENT: I move:—“Go dtoghtar Coiste den Dáil ar a mbeidh 15 Teachtai chun Molta do dheanamh don Dáil do reir Airtiogail 55 den Bhunreacht i dtaobh na n-Airi i gcoir Talmhuiochta, Iascaigh, Rialtais Aitiula agus Oifig an Phuist. Go dtoghtar an Coiste do reir an Vote ionaistrithe singil; Gur aon duine deag a bheidh mar quorum den Choiste.”</p>
+            </td>
+            <td>
+              <p eId="para_83">“That a Committee of the Dáil, con sisting of 15 Deputies, be chosen to make recommendations to the Dáil in accordance with Article 55 of the Con stitution as to the Ministers for Agri culture, Fisheries, Local Government and the Post Office; that the Committee be elected by the single transferable vote; that the quorum of the Committee be eleven.”</p>
+            </td>
+          </tr>
+        </table>
+        <summary eId="sum_4">I think, before other members retire for afternoon tea, that they ought to be informed of the necessity for voting when the Ballot takes place.  It is advisable that there should be a full attendance of members so as to get the actual effect of the Constitution.</summary>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_37">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_84">I second.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_5" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_4"/>
+                </summary>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_38">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_85">Nomination papers for this Committee have been prepared, and I would suggest, if it meets with the approval of Deputies, that nominations should be received in the Clerk's office up to twelve o'clock noon on Saturday next, and that the election should take place on Tuesday. If the voting papers could be handed in between three and four on Tuesday it would allow the doing of other business on Tuesday, and we might be able to get the result announced on Tuesday evening.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_39">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON:</from>
+          <p eId="para_86">What is in the mind of the Ministry in this matter?  Do they desire that the new appointments shall be made at an early date, or do they desire that the actual appointments should be postponed for some time?  I rather anticipated that the appointment of the Committee would be finished this week and that the Committee would meet at once.  I have no doubt the decisions have already been taken.  Therefore, the final result of the election of this Committee, that is the appointments of the Ministers, could be completed at an early date next week.  I do not know what the intention of the Ministry may be in regard to the continuation of the sittings of the Dáil, but I have heard it whispered that there is likely to be an adjournment some day next week for a week or two.  If that is the case we ought to get rid of this little problem before this adjournment.  If we are only to take the election of the Committee on Tuesday, then it means if they are to do any business allotted to them while the other people are adjourning or enjoying the adjournment, the decision will be postponed until the resumption after the adjournment.  That, I think, will be too long distant.  I suggest we get a Committee elected this week.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_40">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_87">By what process?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_41">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON:</from>
+          <p eId="para_88">Nomination to-morrow, and election on Saturday.  I suggest that the attendance here now is as great as it will be, and we can take the nominations to-night.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_42">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_89">I would like to point out this to the Deputy.  He knows some of the difficulties we were in last year.  Permission is asked to introduce a Bill on the 1st of the month. The second reading takes place on the 3rd with some accommodation from the House.  If it passes its second reading on the 3rd it cannot be taken in Committee until the 7th.  So that between the date of the introduction of the Bill and the going into the actual discussion on Committee something like six days must elapse.  Let us assume the Governor-General delivers his speech at a given date.  Obviously members want to see that in print before it is discussed. We were hoping to have the first reading of the Judiciary Bill this evening, the second reading on Tuesday. This election could take place on Tuesday, and we could have the Governor-General's speech on the 3rd of October.  The Judiciary Bill could go into Committee on that date.  Let us give two or three days for that.  Then a discussion could take place on the Governor-General's speech.  In the absence of such arrangements as that we would be almost committed to bringing members up from the country for a day in the week.  We anticipate bringing them up on Tuesday next would obviate the necessity of bringing them up one day only in the week until we settle down to business.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_43">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_90">The proposal is to meet next Tuesday and to adjourn until the 3rd of October, which will be a Wednesday.  Let the Committee meet that week and make recommendations.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_44">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_91">I am in no hurry for the Committee, but it is advisable that the Minister for Local Government be appointed soon.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_45">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_92">I do not think Deputy Johnson's programme  could be carried out this week as this is Thursday.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_46">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON:</from>
+          <p eId="para_93">I thought there might be some business to-morrow, or in any case if the nominations be taken to-day the election of a Committee could be taken to-morrow and the Committee could meet next week and get through its business.  If full consideration has been given to the matter I do not mind.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_47">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_94">Nominations will be accepted up to Saturday, at 12 noon, in the Clerk's office.  The voting papers can be handed in on Tuesday before 4 o'clock.  The result will be ready on Tuesday evening before the Dáil adjourns, that is before 8.30.  Ballot papers can be sent out on Saturday.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_48">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_95">There are a number of new members who are not perhaps aware that they have the power to nominate a person.  Any single member of the Dáil can nominate another member.  Nominations are not limited, but I think they should be limited to one.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DanielMcCarthy" eId="spk_49">
+          <from>Mr. McCARTHY:</from>
+          <p eId="para_96">If the ballot papers are posted on Saturday some of the members may not get them.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_50">
+          <from>Mr. HUGHES:</from>
+          <p eId="para_97">Might not the papers be distributed to Deputies at the meeting of the Dáil on Tuesday?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_51">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:</from>
+          <p eId="para_98">Yes, we can distribute them on Tuesday in the Dáil, and they can be handed in before 4 o'clock, if that is considered a better arrangement.  We will inform Deputies that their presence at a meeting on Tuesday is necessary.</p>
+          <p eId="para_99">Before coming to the next business, I might point out that it is necessary, under the Standing Orders, to receive nominations for the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle, or Deputy Speaker. Only one nomination has been received so far, that of Deputy Padraic O'Maille, and his name will appear on the Order Paper on Tuesday.  The election of Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be part of the business for Tuesday next.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_5" refersTo="#bill.1923.41.dail.1">
+        <heading>EXTERNAL MINISTERS— - COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL.—FIRST STAGE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_52">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_100">I beg to move for leave to introduce "A Bill for the establishment of Courts of Justice pursuant to the Constitution of Saorstat Eireann, and for the purposes relating to the better administration of justice."</p>
+          <p eId="para_101">Just before the close of the last session I moved for permission to introduce this Bill.  Permission was given, and the Bill is now in print, but the fact that it was not passed in the last session leaves us in the position of having to introduce it again from the very beginning.  For the benefit of members of the Dáil, who were not members of the Third Dáil, I should say that this Bill is drafted on the lines recommended by a Committee which was set up by the Executive Council to consider the whole question.  It was stated during the last session of the Dáil that owing to its importance, and to the fact that it marked such a distinction, such a passing away of what might be called old landmarks and the establishment of a new system, it would be advisable that this particular Bill should be before the country for some time.  It has now been before the country for nearly two months, and, as far as I have been able to find out, there has been no criticism of it.  The Bill is drafted to suit the needs of the country.  It follows out the lines laid down in the Constitution, and we hope that it will give that confidence which courts of justice ought to command in any country.  There are certain objections to it from certain quarters, but they have not found any real volume of public opinion behind them.  I am sure it will not be taken as any slight upon either of the professions mainly concerned if I say that it is natural that there should be objection to it, having regard to the fact that law is going to be made somewhat cheaper for the ordinary citizen in the country.  Naturally, if a particular commodity that was very expensive is going to be made cheaper, somebody must suffer, and, consequently, there will be dissatisfaction among the sufferers.</p>
+          <p eId="para_102">In introducing the Bill to the Dáil, on the last occasion, I laid some stress  on the fact that the system by which the Bench was recruited in the old days did not lend itself to popular approval, and, as a consequence, the courts came to be termed "British Courts."  During the struggle that took place for the assertion of the rights of the Nation, alternative courts of justice, called Dáil Courts, were established, and it might have been urged against the Saorstát that a considerable time elapsed before we attempted to bring into being courts which should command, and which ought to command, the confidence of the people, because the system, as it was, was not of our making, and the system that is outlined in this particular Bill is of our making.</p>
+          <p eId="para_103">This Bill does not within itself deal in a detailed manner, and could not deal in a detailed manner, with the whole organisation for the administration of justice.  It creates the framework of courts of justice into which the detailed organisation will be fitted. It prescribes, in accordance with the recommendations of the Judiciary  Committee, the various grades of courts and measure of jurisdiction in each grade.  It provides that each court shall, by means of a Rule-making Authority, settle the detailed scheme of administration of the courts.  The Rules that will be made for that purpose will be laid upon the Table of both Houses of the Oireachtas, so that they can be examined to see that they are administratively satisfactory and really enable the new courts to fulfil the high hopes entertained for a more efficient, expeditious, and less costly judicial system. I accordingly move for permission to bring in this Bill.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_6" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put, and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_5"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_7">Second Reading ordered for Tuesday next.</summary>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_53">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT:</from>
+          <p eId="para_104">I move that the Dáil do now adjourn until Tuesday next at 3 o'clock.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_8" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question put, and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#para_104"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_9">The Dáil adjourned at 5.20 p.m.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+    </debateBody>
+  </debate>
+</akomaNtoso>

1923/1923-10-03_mul@.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,776 @@
+<akomaNtoso xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13 ./akomantoso30.xsd ">
+  <debate name="Official Report">
+    <meta>
+      <identification source="#source">
+        <FRBRWork>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-10-03/debate/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-10-03/debate"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-10-03" name="#generation"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/house/dail/4"/>
+          <FRBRcountry value="ie"/>
+          <FRBRname value="debate"/>
+        </FRBRWork>
+        <FRBRExpression>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-10-03/debate/mul@/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-10-03/debate/mul@"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-10-03" name="#reported"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+          <FRBRlanguage language="mul"/>
+        </FRBRExpression>
+        <FRBRManifestation>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-10-03/debate/mul@/main.xml"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-10-03/debate/mul@.akn"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="2020-06-25" name="#publication"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+        </FRBRManifestation>
+      </identification>
+      <analysis source="#source">
+        <otherAnalysis xmlns:oir="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ns/1.0" source="#source">
+          <oir:volumeReference showAs="Vol. 5" eId="#vol_5" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5"/>
+          <oir:numberReference showAs="No. 4" eId="#no_4" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/no/4"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1" eId="col_1" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1" refersTo="#dbsect_30"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 139" eId="col_139" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/139" refersTo="#dbsect_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 140" eId="col_140" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/140" refersTo="#dbsect_3"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 141" eId="col_141" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/141" refersTo="#spk_15"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 142" eId="col_142" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/142" refersTo="#spk_20"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 143" eId="col_143" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/143" refersTo="#spk_24"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 144" eId="col_144" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/144" refersTo="#spk_28"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 145" eId="col_145" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/145" refersTo="#spk_34"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 146" eId="col_146" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/146" refersTo="#dbsect_14"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 147" eId="col_147" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/147" refersTo="#spk_45"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 148" eId="col_148" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/148" refersTo="#dbsect_31"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 149" eId="col_149" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/149" refersTo="#spk_107"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 150" eId="col_150" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/150" refersTo="#spk_109"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 151" eId="col_151" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/151" refersTo="#spk_52"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 152" eId="col_152" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/152" refersTo="#spk_54"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 153" eId="col_153" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/153" refersTo="#spk_54"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 154" eId="col_154" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/154" refersTo="#spk_55"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 155" eId="col_155" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/155" refersTo="#spk_58"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 156" eId="col_156" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/156" refersTo="#spk_63"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 157" eId="col_157" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/157" refersTo="#spk_66"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 158" eId="col_158" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/158" refersTo="#spk_70"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 159" eId="col_159" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/159" refersTo="#dbsect_26"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 160" eId="col_160" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/160" refersTo="#spk_75"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 161" eId="col_161" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/161" refersTo="#dbsect_27"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 162" eId="col_162" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/162" refersTo="#dbsect_28"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 163" eId="col_163" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/163" refersTo="#spk_96"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 164" eId="col_164" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/164" refersTo="#dbsect_29"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 165" eId="col_165" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/165" refersTo="#spk_102"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 166" eId="col_166" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/166" refersTo="#dbsect_29"/>
+        </otherAnalysis>
+      </analysis>
+      <references source="#source">
+        <TLCOrganization eId="source" href="" showAs="Houses of the Oireachtas"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.41" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/41" showAs="Courts of Justice Bill 1923"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.49.dail.1" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/49/dail/1" showAs="County Courts (Amendment) Bill 1923: Dáil First Stage"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.50.dail.1" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/50/dail/1" showAs="Licensing (Renewal of Licences) Bill 1923: Dáil First Stage"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="generation" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Generation" showAs="Generation"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="publication" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Publication" showAs="Publication"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="reported" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Reported" showAs="Reported"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="AlfredByrne" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Alfred-Byrne.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Alfred Byrne"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="BryanRiccoCooper" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Major-Bryan-Ricco-Cooper.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Major Bryan Ricco Cooper"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ChrisMByrne" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Christopher-Michael-Byrne.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Christopher Michael Byrne"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ConorHogan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Conor-Hogan.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Conor Hogan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DanielMcCarthy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Daniel-McCarthy.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Daniel McCarthy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DarrellFiggis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Darrell-Figgis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Darrell Figgis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DenisJohnGorey" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Denis-John-Gorey.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Denis John Gorey"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ErnestBlythe" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Ernest-Blythe.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Ernest Blythe"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="FionanLynch" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Fionán-Lynch.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Fionán Lynch"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="GeorgeNicolls" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/George-Nicolls.D.1921-08-16" showAs="George Nicolls"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JamesJosephWalsh" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/James-Joseph-Walsh.D.1919-01-21" showAs="James Joseph Walsh"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JohnLyons" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/John-Lyons.D.1922-09-09" showAs="John Lyons"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="KevinChristopher" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Kevin-Christopher-O'Higgins.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Kevin Christopher O'Higgins"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelHayes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Hayes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Michael Hayes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickWalterShaw" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-Walter-Shaw.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Patrick Walter Shaw"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PeterHughes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Peter-Hughes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Peter Hughes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ProfEoinMacNeill" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Eoin-MacNeill.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Eoin MacNeill"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardJamesMulcahy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-James-Mulcahy.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Richard James Mulcahy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="SeamusAloysiusBourke" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Séamus-Aloysius-Bourke.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Séamus Aloysius Bourke"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ThomasJohnson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Thomas-Johnson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Thomas Johnson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamArcherRedmond" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-Archer-Redmond.D.1923-09-19" showAs="William Archer Redmond"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamHewat" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-Hewat.D.1923-09-19" showAs="William Hewat"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamTCosgrave" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-T-Cosgrave.D.1919-01-21" showAs="William T. Cosgrave"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="author" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/author" showAs="author"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="editor" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/editor" showAs="editor"/>
+      </references>
+    </meta>
+    <preface>
+      <block name="title_ga">
+        <docTitle>DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="title_en">
+        <docTitle>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="proponent_ga">
+        <docProponent>DÁIL ÉIREANN</docProponent>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_ga">
+        <docStatus>TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_en">
+        <docStatus>(OFFICIAL REPORT)</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_ga">
+        <docDate date="1923-10-03">Dé Céadaoin, 3 Deireadh Fómhair 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_en">
+        <docDate date="1923-10-03">Wednesday, 3 October 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="volume">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#vol_5">Vol. 5</docNumber>
+      </block>
+      <block name="number">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#no_4">No. 4</docNumber>
+      </block>
+    </preface>
+    <debateBody>
+      <debateSection name="prelude" eId="dbsect_1">
+        <heading>Prelude</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_1">Do chuaidh an Ceann Comhairle i g-Ceannas ar 3 p.m.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_2">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - THE IRISH-BRITISH TREATY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_1">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_1">asked the President whether it is the intention of the Executive Council to apply for the registration of the Irish-British Treaty at Geneva, in accordance with the requirements of the League of Nations.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_2">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_2">The subject of the question is one which must obviously receive consideration in its due course and proper time.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_3">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_3">I would like to ask the President if that answer is to mean that it has not yet received proper consideration.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_4">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_4">The answer contains all that I have got to say on the subject, and is sufficiently illuminative if the Deputy will consider it.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_3">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNAL (BRITISH PENSIONS).</heading>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_5">
+          <from>AILFRID O BROIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_5">asked the President whether he will ask for a return from the Pensions Appeal Tribunal (British Pensions), South Frederick Street, Dublin, showing the number of cases considered by them within the past 18 months, the number of appeals allowed, the number rejected, and the number of dependents and ex-service men who had their pensions reduced, and the cause for the reduction; further, whether he will secure the same information from the Ministry of Pensions, Dunlop House, Dublin.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_6">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_6">This tribunal is not under the control of the Government of Saorstát Eireann and I am consequently not in a position to ask for the returns referred to.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_7">
+          <from>Mr. A. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_7">Arising out of the President's reply, I would like to ask whether the British Authorities have the right to reduce pensioners' allowances without any regard to the circumstances in these cases, or whether it is the intention of this Government to protect the citizens of the Free State from these undue cuts that are now taking place?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_8">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_8">The Government, as I have stated, has got no control whatever over this Committee.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_9">
+          <from>Captain REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_9">Will the President make representations to the proper authorities to secure, and to safeguard, the interests of these Irish citizens?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_10">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_10">That is another question, and I do not know that it is possible to do so.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_11">
+          <from>Captain REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_11">Is it not possible for this Government to make representations to the Colonial Secretary, or through whatever medium is the proper one, to see that this British Committee should look after the interests of Irish citizens?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_12">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_12">I do not think that this Dáil, if it were made aware that representations were made to us as to how we should conduct our business with regard to any persons placed in the same position in Great Britain, would be satisfied that such representations should be made to us.  If that be our view in regard to that question, I do not see how we could interfere in a matter which concerns them.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_13">
+          <from>Captain REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_13">Surely the President will admit——</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_14">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_14">Order. That is entering upon an argument.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_4">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - BURNING OF A HOUSE (COUNTY COURT DECREE).</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_15">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_15">asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware  that Michael Kenny, Castlepollard, Westmeath, obtained a decree in the County Court, Mullingar, on June 12th, 1922, for £1,150 for the burning of his house on the 3rd May, 1922, and further, whether he is aware that the State Solicitor has offered Michael Kenny £400 in full payment, and whether he can state by whose authority such an offer was made, and further, to ask when the full amount granted by the Court shall be paid?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_16">
+          <from>MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Ernest Blythe)</from>
+          <p eId="para_16">The decree granted in this case by the County Court was reopened by me under Section 2 (1) of the Damage to Property Compensation Act, and an offer was made pursuant to Section 2 (3).  This offer was refused, and the question of making an amended offer is at present under consideration.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_5">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - HOUSING SCHEMES (PRIVATE BUILDERS).</heading>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_17">
+          <from>AILFRID O BROIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_17">asked the Minister for Finance if he will state whether the Government have yet considered the advisability of assisting private builders in any effort they may take to build houses containing three, four and five rooms; whether he is aware that private builders are prepared to build five houses for the same grant as is given to Municipal authorities for the building of two houses.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_18">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTH</from>
+          <p eId="para_18">The question of reviving grants to private builders is at present under consideration.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_6">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - COURTS OF JUSTICE STENOGRAPHERS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_19">
+          <from>Major BRYAN COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_19">asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he can state how many official stenographers will be required to execute Section 63 of the Courts of Justice Bill, and what is the estimated total cost of this service, including salaries, bonus, allowances and travelling expenses.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_20">
+          <from>MINISTER for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Kevin O'Higgins)</from>
+          <p eId="para_20">Eight stenographers should suffice for the purpose of the Section in question, and the maximum cost of this service may provisionally  be estimated at £4,000. Every effort will, of course, be made to keep the cost to a minimum.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_7">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - HOUSING ACCOMMODATION (NORTH WALL AREA).</heading>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_21">
+          <from>AILFRID O BROIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_21">asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he is aware that many landlords are at present seeking to take possession of cottages and rooms from their tenants without providing alternative accommodation; whether he will take steps to improve the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923, by including a clause to safeguard the tenants' interests; if he is aware that many residents in the North Wall area are now being threatened with eviction notices from their landlords.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_22">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_22">I have no particular knowledge of the facts stated by Deputy O Broin, but I have no doubt that hardship occurs.  Under the Act, however, possession is not to be given to the landlord unless the Court is satisfied that the hardship to him, in consequence of refusing him possession, would be greater than the hardship to the tenant in consequence of being forced to give up possession.  This provision puts upon the Court the duty of deciding which is the lesser hardship and making an order accordingly. There does not seem to be any better way of deciding such points.  It is not proposed to amend the Act, which represents the practically unanimous report of a Committee representative of all sections of the community.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_8">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - SPORTING CARTRIDGE SUPPLIES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PatrickWalterShaw" eId="spk_23">
+          <from>Mr. PATRICK W. SHAW</from>
+          <p eId="para_23">asked the Minister for Home Affairs when he purposes arranging for supplies of sporting cartridges to recognised dealers in country towns, as the present arrangement of endeavouring to obtain through Dublin agents is practically impossible for persons residing in country districts, and as the matter is urgent, owing to the great destruction being done to the crops by vermin.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_24">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_24">In accordance with the Regulations made pursuant to Section 8 of the Public Safety (Emergency  Powers) Act, 1923, dealers duly registered and authorised thereunder may now on application obtain licences to import direct a certain quantity of sporting ammunition.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_9">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - TOWN TENANTS (PURCHASE FACILITIES).</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_25">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_25">asked the Minister for Local Government whether it is his intention to introduce legislation on behalf of the town tenants, giving every tenant facilities for purchase similar to those given to the land tenants under the Land Bill?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_26">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_26">(who replied) said: It is not the intention of the Government to introduce legislation of the nature referred to.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_10">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - WESTMEATH OLD AGE PENSIONER (QUESTION OF AGE).</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_27">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_27">asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that James Fin, Ballinagore, Westmeath, was granted the old age pension in March, 1923, and whether it was withheld subsequently on the question of age, notwithstanding that two older men than himself have sworn affidavits that the applicant, James Fin, is over seventy; further, whether the Minister will have the matter investigated with a view to having the old age pension granted, as Fin has no means of livelihood.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_28">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_28">The claim of James Fin, Ballinagore, to the old age pension is at present before the Ministry on appeal on the ground of age, and has not yet been decided.  A birth certificate has not been received nor any other reasonably conclusive evidence of age.  When a previous appeal was under consideration the two declarations referred to in the question were submitted, but the deponents had not given adequate reasons for their belief that the claimant was the statutory age.  The evidence was, therefore, held to be insufficient and the claim to a pension disallowed on the 30th April last.</p>
+          <p eId="para_29">A decision on the present application will be deferred for a short time to give the claimant an opportunity  of submitting further documentary evidence of age or affidavits containing definite statements and reasons therefor to show that applicant has reached seventy years.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_29">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS</from>
+          <p eId="para_30">Is the Minister aware that many of these poor people are in a very destitute condition?  This man is over seventy years of age, and can prove it by affidavit.  There are many people in that position all over the country.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_30">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_31">I would like to be made aware of that by receiving the affidavits.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_31">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS</from>
+          <p eId="para_32">The affidavit has been made in this case.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_11">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - NATIONAL TEACHERS AND IRISH COURSES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_32">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_33">asked the Minister for Education whether he can state when it is likely that National School teachers who attended Irish courses will be paid, as these courses finished on the 3rd August last, and to ask that payment be expedited.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ProfEoinMacNeill" eId="spk_33">
+          <from>MINISTER for EDUCATION (Professor MacNeill)</from>
+          <p eId="para_34">Payment of salary as National School teacher has, where such payment is regular, been made to all teachers who attended the special course of instruction in Irish held in July and August last.  Payment for services as Professor and of the grants in aid of lodging and travelling expenses has been made, except in a few cases under consideration, to National School teachers and others who acted as Professors during the course.  The claims for the grant-in-aid of lodging expenses and travelling allowances made by the teachers who attended the course as students are at present being examined and passed for payment. The scrutiny of these claims, involving in each case a reference to the class roll, is onerous, but it is hoped to have the great majority of the payments under this head made before the end of November.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_12">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - POST OFFICE SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_34">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_35">asked the Postmaster-General if he can state how  many Post Office Savings Certificates have been bought in Ireland, and the total amount of money, both gross and net, that has been received by the State in this way.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_35">
+          <from>POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J.J. Walsh)</from>
+          <p eId="para_36">Up to the 27th September 11,105 Savings Certificates were sold, and the amount realised in respect of them was £218,206 18s. 0d.  Of those, 109 Certificates representing £1,799 6s. 0d. have been repaid, thus leaving the net sales 10,996 Certificates, and the net receipts £216,407 12s. 0d.</p>
+          <p eId="para_37">The actual figures for the period, 28th September to 4th October, are not yet available, but it is estimated that the number and value of the Certificates sold during that period will have been 950 and £13,000, respectively.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_36">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_38">Arising out of that answer I would like to ask if, in ascertaining these net figures, regard was had to the cost of collection, and if the Postmaster-General can state what percentage that cost of collection was estimated to be?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_37">
+          <from>Mr. WALSH</from>
+          <p eId="para_39">The cost of collection is not included, nor can I say at the moment what it was.  Notice will be required to get the further information asked for.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_13">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - BROADCASTING LICENCES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_38">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_40">asked the Postmaster-General whether, in pursuance of the undertaking given by the President in the last Dáil, that no broadcasting licences or monopolies would be granted in or by the Free State until this Dáil had first been consulted, he will now lay his proposals in these matters before the Dáil for discussion and sanction.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_39">
+          <from>Mr. WALSH</from>
+          <p eId="para_41">The negotiations in connection with the proposed establishment of a Wireless Broadcasting Station in the Free State are still in progress, and I am not yet in a position to lay the proposals in the matter before the Dáil.  It is the intention to seek the sanction of the Dáil for any scheme which may be agreed upon.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_14">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - SANDYCOVE POSTAL DELIVERY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_40">
+          <from>Major BRYAN COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_42">asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in Sandycove, Co. Dublin, there is now only one delivery of letters daily, and whether there is any precedent for such a restricted service in a thickly populated district within six miles of the General Post Office?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_41">
+          <from>Mr. WALSH</from>
+          <p eId="para_43">I have had enquiry made respecting the delivery of letters at Sandycove and I find that with a view to retrenchment the second delivery of letters at Dun Laoghaire has been confined to the central portion of the township for some months past. The restriction allows one delivery only to Sandycove and other portions of the outlying district, the amount of correspondence for which is not regarded as justifying the expenditure necessary for a second delivery.  The question of restoring the second delivery is, however, receiving further consideration, and a final decision in the matter will be given as soon as possible.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_42">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_44">Arising out of the Minister's reply, might I ask if he is aware that until recently Sandycove had four deliveries daily, and that precisely similar districts on each side of it, Dun Laoghaire and Dalkey, have three, and will he take these facts into account when considering the matter?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_43">
+          <from>Mr. WALSH</from>
+          <p eId="para_45">I am aware of all these facts and they are being taken into consideration.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_15">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - SUNDAY POSTAL SERVICE (ABOLITION OF).</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamHewat" eId="spk_44">
+          <from>Mr. WILLIAM HEWAT</from>
+          <p eId="para_46">asked the Postmaster-General whether he can take any steps to minimise the great inconvenience caused to the business community by the abolition of Mail despatches on Sundays to provincial centres; and whether it would not be possible to institute an express service for Sundays and holidays at extra rates?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_45">
+          <from>Mr. WALSH</from>
+          <p eId="para_47">Arrangements have recently been brought into force by which Mails for Provincial Centres in  Saorstát Eireann, to which there is a suitable train service, and where the circumstances are deemed to justify exceptional treatment, are despatched from Dublin on Sundays.  Mails from Great Britain which reach Dun Laoghaire by the Mail Packet on Sunday morning, are included in the despatch.</p>
+          <p eId="para_48">An express despatch service from Dublin is afforded on Bank Holidays also; in addition to important centres in Great Britain, as on Sundays, the arrangement is extended to Cork and Belfast on Bank Holidays.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_16">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - ARMY PENSIONS ACT, 1923.</heading>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_46">
+          <from>AILFRID O BROIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_49">asked the Minister for Defence if he will state to whom persons claiming to be entitled to pension or gratuity under the Army Pensions Act, 1923, should make their applications, and if dependents or the men of the 1916 movement will have their claims considered by the same authority?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_47">
+          <from>MINISTER for DEFENCE (General Mulcahy)</from>
+          <p eId="para_50">I anticipate that in about a week's time a public announcement will be made regarding the authority to whom all persons who appear to have claims under the Army Pensions Act, 1923, should make application. All claims will be dealt with by the one authority.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_17">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING (QUESTION OF COMPENSATION).</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_48">
+          <from>SEAN O LAIDHIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_51">asked the Minister for Defence whether compensation will be paid to Patrick Murray, Mace, Rathowen, Westmeath, in respect of his son, John, who was accidentally shot in Athlone on the 7th October, 1922; and further, to ask that, as Murray is in very poor circumstances owing to the loss of his son, payment of compensation be expedited.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_49">
+          <from>General MULCAHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_52">Mr. Murray's claim will be considered as soon as possible by the authority referred to in my reply to the previous question.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnLyons" eId="spk_50">
+          <from>Mr. LYONS</from>
+          <p eId="para_53">Would it be possible to send this man something on account; he is in a very bad way?</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_18">
+        <heading>RESIGNATION.</heading>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_51">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_54">Fritheadh an litir seo leanas ó Theachta Eóin Mac Néill.  The following letter has been received from Deputy Eoin Mac Neill:—</p>
+          <p class="Right" eId="para_55">"Tigh Laighean,</p>
+          <p class="Right" eId="para_56">"Baile Atha Cliath,</p>
+          <p class="Right" eId="para_57">"3adh Deire Foghmhair, 1923.</p>
+          <p eId="para_58">"A Chara,—Do réir forálacha Alt 55 den Acht Timpeal Toghachán, 1923, faisnéisim leis seo gur rogha liom Dáilcheanntar Chontae an Chláir d'ionadú sa Dáil.</p>
+          <p class="Center" eId="para_59">"Mise,</p>
+          <p eId="para_60">"(Sighnithe) EOIN MAC NEILL.</p>
+          <p eId="para_61">"Teachta a toghadh i gcóir Dáilcheanntair Phríomh-Scoile Náisiúnta na hEireann agus i gcóir Dáilcheanntair Chontae an Chláir.</p>
+          <p eId="para_62">"Do Cléireach na Dála."</p>
+          <p eId="para_63">Under the Electoral Act of 1923, Deputy Eoin MacNeill has elected to sit for the constituency of Co. Clare.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_19">
+        <heading>NEW WRIT FOR DUBLIN CITY, SOUTH.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DanielMcCarthy" eId="spk_52">
+          <from>Mr. D. McCARTHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_64">I beg formally to move the following motion standing in my name on the Order Paper:—</p>
+          <p eId="para_65">"Go n-ordóidh an Ceann Comhairle do Chléireach na Dála a rit a chur amach chun ball do thogha chun an fholúntais a thárla imease ballra na Dála so de bharr Míceál O hAodha do thabhairt suas a shuíocháin i nDáilcheanntar  Buirge Bhaile Atha Cliath Theas."</p>
+          <p eId="para_66">"That the Ceann Comhairle direct the Clerk of the Dáil to issue his writ for the election of a member to fill the vacancy which has occurred in the membership of the present Dáil, consequent on the resignation by Deputy Michael Hayes of his seat in the Borough Constituency of Dublin South."</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ChrisMByrne" eId="spk_53">
+          <from>Mr. C.M. BYRNE</from>
+          <p eId="para_67">I second the motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_2" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_19"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_20">
+        <heading>GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH: RESOLUTION OF THANKS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_54">
+          <from>Mr. S.R. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_68">I rise to propose the following resolution:—"That the Dáil returns thanks to the Governor-General for his speech, and approves of the legislative programme of the Government as outlined therein."</p>
+          <p eId="para_69">On the last occasion on which this resolution was proposed, the country was confronted with dangers of a very serious and threatening kind.  It was a time of doubt and uncertainty for all of us, a time when no one could say that the future was secure.  We are not yet out of the wood.  The dangers which confront us are still serious, though of a different nature, but by continuing to follow the path we treaded in the old days and in the manner outlined in the Governor-General's address, by continuing to tread that path cautiously and warily, but withal firmly, I believe that this Dáil and the nation it represents has every reason for looking forward with confidence to the future.</p>
+          <p eId="para_70">I am particularly pleased to see here that this historic nation is now a member of the body known as the League of Nations.  It is only an embryonic institution at the present moment, but in it are the seeds of great things for the world and for humanity.  Ireland before played a very important part in international affairs when her scholars went all over the Continent spreading the light of reason and the light of Faith, and it is a welcome thing to us to see that we are about again to take part in the same or a similar task.  It  is also a good thing that we have participated in the Conference of the States making up the British Commonwealth of Nations.  That will strengthen us, I am sure; it will strengthen our financial position, which is a matter to be very seriously considered at the present time.</p>
+          <p eId="para_71">The enactment of the Electoral Act, I am sure, was gratifying to all the people who have democratic ideals before them.  By the adoption of adult suffrage our Constitution takes its place as one of the most democratic in the world.  We are also about to put into force a new Act which embodies reforms in the administration of law and justice.  The Irish people were, in the past, reputed, even by their enemies, to be a people that held justice and law and order very dearly, and it was the abuse of law and the abuse of justice in this country that was responsible for a great deal of the disorderliness and the lack of that law-abiding spirit that we found in other countries; but those remedial measures in our judicial system will bring about a return to the old ideals in this matter.  It has been an excellent thing that in the very difficult crisis through which we have passed we have been able to organise a police force.  I think it was one of the most creditable performances of the last Dáil that we were able to organise such a force in the face of such tremendous difficulties. Our military forces are after going through a very critical period, a period during which, in many respects, they had to take on the character of guerillas and which is now over.  We can say with confidence that we have a regular army which, from the point of view of courage and efficiency, is second to none in Europe.</p>
+          <p eId="para_72">The problem of unemployment confronts us.  It is a problem of course that has been made, to a very great extent, by the Irregular campaign in this country.  It is a problem we have to tackle with all our energies, so as to see if we can overcome it, and I am sure, if the same capacity is shown in handling this difficulty as was shown in handling other difficulties during the last Dáil, we will have no difficulty in surmounting it.</p>
+          <p eId="para_73">I am glad to see that a measure for  the encouragement and development of agriculture has been outlined.  This, as we all know, is the key industry of the country.  It is at the present time, I am sorry to say, in a very serious condition, and it behoves us all, every interest in the country, whether commercial, labour or professional, to put our heads together and to see how this great industry can again be put on a sound and paying basis.</p>
+          <p eId="para_74">I have only looked over the Governor-General's address, and I am sorry I cannot do full justice to the various points mentioned.  I will leave it now to the seconder to perform the part that I should have performed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#GeorgeNicolls" eId="spk_55">
+          <from>SEOIRSE MAC NIOCAILL</from>
+          <p eId="para_75">Ba mhaith liom-sa cuidiú leis an rúin do chuir an Burcach os ar g-cómhair.  Do chuireas rún mar seo os cómhair na Dála anuiridh a' moladh clár an Rialtais.  'Sé an Rialtas ceudhna atá againn fós.  Dubhradh nach rabh meas ag muinntir na tire ar an Ríaltas acht nuair a bhi feall acú theasbanadar nar mar seo a bhi an sceul.  Tá súil agam go n-eireochaidh leis an Ríaltas an clár seo a chur i bh-feidhm co maith agus a rinneadar 'san tearma atá caithte.</p>
+          <p eId="para_76">I rise to second the motion proposed by Deputy Burke, and I may say that in the last Dáil I had the privilege of proposing a similar motion to that which Deputy Burke has proposed to-day. It was a motion approving of the Ministerial policy.  We have to-day practically the same Ministry as we had in the last Dáil.  We heard that the Ministry were unpopular and that they were doing things that were not right.  Well, the Ministry has been vindicated.  Every member of the Ministry who went up for election was returned at the top of the poll, I think, with one exception.  That shows to my mind that the people of the country are behind the Ministry and behind the Government.  And the sooner, to my mind, the misguided individuals who think that the Ministry have not or will not have the support of the people, realise the fact that they have and will continue to have the support of the people, the better for these individuals themselves.</p>
+          <p eId="para_77">I am in the same difficulty as Deputy Burke, who kindly said that I would  deal in detail with this address, more fully than he did.  I do not intend to do so.  I did deal, to a certain extent in detail, with the Address on the last occasion, but I have not had a chance of doing it this time.  I know that on the last occasion we had a very long debate.  I think, as a matter of fact, the debate on the Address went on for several weeks.  I do not think there is any need for dealing in detail with a subject like this.  The only thing I would attempt to point out is this.  We have the same Ministry that laid a programme before us in the last Dáil, and it is the same Ministry that is laying the programme before us in this Dáil.  They have been vindicated, and I hope they will be in the position of carrying their present legislative programme into effect, as they did in the last Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_56">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_78">The Address by the Governor-General, which has been circulated as a Paper to the Dáil, has only been before the Dáil for thirty minutes.  Consequently Deputies have not had an opportunity of reading the Address, and they cannot determine whether it is deserving of thanks or otherwise.  I, therefore, beg to move the adjournment of the discussion on this motion until the next meeting of the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_57">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_79">I wish to second that.</p>
+          <p eId="para_80">Agreed.</p>
+          <p eId="para_81">Debate accordingly adjourned.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_21" refersTo="#bill.1923.49.dail.1">
+        <heading>COUNTY COURTS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1923.—FIRST STAGE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_58">
+          <from>MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Kevin O'Higgins)</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_82">I move that the leave of the Dáil be granted to introduce a Bill to remove certain difficulties in relation to the holding of Quarter Sessions and Civil Bill Courts, and the service of certain documents relating thereto.</p>
+          <p eId="para_83">This Bill will be a temporary one.  It is a purely provisional measure and it is framed to meet two administrative difficulties in the conduct of the Courts. The first is the impossibility of holding Courts at the accustomed place, the place named by Statute, owing to the destruction of the building, or for some  other good and sufficient reason; the second is the impossibility of personal service of documents in the usual way, owing to the absence of suitable process servers, or some other cause, and it is proposed to legalise service by post. These provisions were contained in a temporary Act which we passed in the last Session which has now lapsed.  I ask for leave to introduce the Bill to meet those two difficulties.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_59">
+          <from>Capt. REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_84">Perhaps the Minister will inform me, does this Bill only refer to the interregnum between now and the time that the Courts of Justice Bill shall become law?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_60">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_85">That is correct.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_3">Motion agreed to.</summary>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_61">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_86">When will the Second Stage be taken?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_62">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_87">This may be regarded as an urgent Bill and it is already in print.  I would be glad if the Second Stage could be taken the next day the Dáil meets.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_4">Second Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th October.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_22" refersTo="#bill.1923.50.dail.1">
+        <heading>LICENSING (RENEWAL OF LICENCES) BILL, 1923.—FIRST STAGE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_63">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_88">I move for leave to introduce a Bill to validate certain licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors which have lapsed by non-renewal, and to give effect to certain transfers of such licences.</p>
+          <p eId="para_89">It is a small Bill dealing with the question of the renewal of licences. Owing to the absence of Petty Sessions Courts in September of last year, certain holders of licences were unable to obtain their annual renewal, and their licences lapsed technically.  The District Justices this year were in the position that they could not grant a renewal of these licences.  There was no licence to renew, strictly and legally.  There were similar difficulties arising out of the disturbed conditions of the last few years, and this will be a short Bill to get over those difficulties and to enable the licences to be renewed by the District  Justices.  I anticipate the Bill will be non-controversial.</p>
+          <p eId="para_90">Motion agreed to.  Second Stage ordered for Wednesday, October 10th.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_23">
+        <heading>SPECIAL COMMITTEES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_64">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_91">I beg to move:</p>
+          <p eId="para_92">"Go n-iarrtar ar an gCoiste Roghnathóireachta nuair a bheid ag ainmniú ball chun fónamh ar Choistí Speisialta cuimhneamh ar chó-dhéanamh na Dála agus ar cháilíochta na mball a toghfar amach; agus go mbeidh comhacht acu chun baill de Choistí do scur mara dtagaid chun na gcruinniú agus chun baill eile do cheapa in ionad na mball a scuirfar."</p>
+          <p eId="para_93">"That it be an instruction to the Committee of Selection that, in nominating members to serve on Special Committees, they have regard to the composition of the Dáil and to the qualifications of members selected; and that they have power to discharge members of Committees in case of non-attendance, and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged."</p>
+          <p eId="para_94">I do not know whether the new Deputies have read the Standing Orders, but Standing Orders 63 and 64 will be complied with if this resolution be passed.  I think there is general agreement in regard to the spirit of the resolution, that it is non-contentious and that it is purely a matter of facilitating the work without having to come to the Dáil regularly to get members appointed.  The main question that ought to be considered in the selection of Committees is met here; and that is that the Committees of Selection, in appointing members, should have regard to the composition of the Dáil and the qualification of members for the particular work involved in any terms of reference that would be made.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_65">
+          <from>MINISTER FOR FISHERIES (Mr. F. Lynch)</from>
+          <p eId="para_95">I beg to second the motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_66">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_96">If I rightly understand the last sentence of this motion, it is that the Sessional Committee of Selection, without reference to the Dáil, will have power to discharge members from any committee nominated by that Committee of Selection, but appointed by the Dáil.  That seems to be the intention from the  wording of this motion.  I would like to have it made clear if that is the intention. If it be the intention, I suggest it is a rather dangerous principle to adopt, seeing that the Committee of Selection in the first instance is nominated by this Dáil and it might very easily suggest to the Dáil the discharge of members of a Special Committee for non-attendance, but this Dáil should assume the responsibility for that discharge.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_67">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_97">The terms of the motion imply that.  In the case of non-attendance the Committee of Selection will have the power to discharge members and appoint others in substitution for those discharged. It has been found to work out well in another place, I think.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_5" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_23"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_24">
+        <heading>COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_68">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_98">I beg to move:</p>
+          <p eId="para_99">"Go gceaptar Coiste ar a mbeidh aon Teachta déag, a ainmneoidh Coiste Roghnathóireachta an tSiosóin, mar Choiste ar Nós-Imeachta agus Príbhléidí, go mbeidh sé de chomhacht ag an gCoiste pé aguisíní agus leasuithe ar na Buan-Orduithe a cheapaid a bheith riachtanach do mhola agus breithniú do dhéanamh agus tuarasgabhail do thabhairt uatha i dtaobh na príbhléidí atá ag Teachtaí Dháil Eireann; gur lear cúigear mar quorum."</p>
+          <p eId="para_100">"That a Committee, consisting of eleven Deputies to be nominated by the Sessional Committee of Selection, be appointed on Procedure and Privileges, that the Committee be empowered to recommend any additions and amendments to the existing Standing Orders that may be deemed necessary, and to consider and report as to the privileges attaching to Deputies of Dáil Eireann; that five constitute a quorum."</p>
+          <p eId="para_101">The terms of reference were already agreed to in the last Dáil, and I think there is general approval of the appointment of this Committee.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_69">
+          <from>Mr. F. LYNCH</from>
+          <p eId="para_102">I beg to second the motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_70">
+          <from>Mr. THOMAS JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_103">On this point, while I think this is a desirable  course, I was under the impression that the Dáil decided on the last occasion that the Committee which was then elected would act as a Committee on Procedure and Privileges.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_71">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_104">What was decided at the last meeting of the Dáil was that the Committee elected to carry out the terms of Article 55 of the Constitution would be the Sessional Committee of Selection, which is a different matter.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_6" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_24"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_25">
+        <heading>STANDING ORDERS FOR PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_72">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_105">I beg to move:</p>
+          <p eId="para_106">"Go gceaptar Coiste ar a mbeidh chúig Teachtaí, a ainmneoidh Coiste Roghnathóireachta an tSiosóin, chun Dreacht do Bhuan-Orduithe i gcóir rialuithe gnó Billí Príoháideacha d'ullamhú agus do chur os cóir na Dála agus go n-iarrtar ar an Seanad a chó-oiread ball den tSeanad do cheapa chun gníomhú ar an gCoiste seo."</p>
+          <p eId="para_107">"That a Committee consisting of five Deputies, to be nominated by the Sessional Committee of Selection, be appointed to prepare and submit Draft Standing Orders for the regulation of Private Bill Business, and that the Seanad be requested to appoint an equal number of members of the Seanad to act on this Committee."</p>
+          <p eId="para_108">I think that our experience in the last Dáil was that a Committee to deal with this particular matter was essential, and I think it would give general approval if this Committee were appointed without delay.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_73">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_109">A draft of Standing Orders for the regulation of Private Bill business has been prepared. A practising Barrister has been engaged in preparing these Standing Orders, and they were submitted during the last Dáil to a small Committee of Deputies and Senators nominated, in the one case, by our Committee on Procedure, and, in the other case, by the Standing Orders Committee of the Seanad.  What is needed now is another Joint Committee to put the draft before us.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_7" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_25"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_26">
+        <heading>HOUSE COMMITTEE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_74">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_110">I beg to move:</p>
+          <p eId="para_111">"Go gceaptár Coiste ar a mbeidh trí Teachtaí, a ainmneoidh Coiste Roghnathóireachta an tSiosóin, chun féachaint i ndiaidh na n-aiseanna laistigh is cóir a bheith ag Baill an Oireachtais agus chun Seomra an Bhídh do stiúrú, agus go n-iarrtar ar an Seanad a chó-oiread ball den tSeanad do cheapa chun gníomhú ar an gCoiste sin; gur leor mar quorum."</p>
+          <p eId="para_112">"That a Committee consisting of three Deputies to be nominated by the Sessional, Committee of Selection, be appointed to supervise the internal accommodation arrangements for the members of the Oireachtas and to control the Restaurant, and that the Seanad be requested to appoint an equal number of members of the Seanad to act on the said Committee.</p>
+          <p eId="para_113">In the selection of this Committee, I am sure that the Sessional Committee of Selection will take into consideration the age and the peculiarities of the tastes of the particular Deputies who will be appointed, as well as the different parties from which they are drawn.  I think it is the desire of all members of the Dáil that we should make the new Deputies comfortable. The old Deputies did not seem to suffer any disadvantages from the arrangements made in the old Dáil, but with new Deputies coming along it is quite possible that it might be necessary to make other arrangements.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_75">
+          <from>Major BRYAN COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_114">Might I ask the President why it is necessary that this Committee should only consist of three Deputies, because if there are only three Deputies it cannot possibly represent every section of the Dáil.  There is the Government Party, the Labour Party, the Farmers' Party and the Independents, and I think the President will agree that this is a Committee on which it is very necessary that every section of the Dáil should have a representative.  I ask him, therefore, if he would not allow the Committee to consist of five Deputies instead of three.  Even with the Seanad representatives that will not make it unwiedly in size, and will allow for two Government representatives, and one  from each of the other sections of the Dáil.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_76">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_115">I have no objection.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_77">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_116">Is leave given to have the motion amended so that the Committee may consist of five Deputies?</p>
+          <p eId="para_117">Agreed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_8" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#dbsect_26"/>
+                </summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_27">
+        <heading>SESSIONAL COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_78">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_118">Before the next Order is taken up, I would like to know what has been done about the Sessional Committee of Selection.  It has not met, and I would like to know when and where it is to meet.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_79">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_119">I understand that a meeting of the Committee is being called for 11.30 a.m. to-morrow. It was originally contemplated that it would meet this morning, but owing to the religious services held this morning it was thought that the meeting could not be held, and, therefore, no notices were sent out.  It is proposed that the Committee should meet to-morrow morning at 11.30, if that would meet the convenience of Deputies, or if the Deputies on the Committee would meet immediately after the adjournment of the Dáil they could decide it themselves.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_80">
+          <from>Captain REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_120">Do I understand that notices have been sent out? It is most important that they should.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_81">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_121">Notices have not been sent out.  It was thought necessary to consult Deputies who are on the Committee this afternoon, and if 11.30 a.m. to-morrow suits them notices will be sent out.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_82">
+          <from>Captain REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_122">I suggest that notices should be sent out in future for every such meeting.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_83">
+          <from>Mr. HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_123">I suggest that the Committee should be asked to meet immediately the Dáil adjourns.  I know that some Deputies cannot attend to-morrow at 11.30.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_84">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_124">Notices are always sent out for meetings of Committees or for the summoning of which I am responsible.  I am not responsible for the summoning of this Committee, and I rather deprecate the suggestion that notices which should have been sent out were not sent out. I can assure Deputy Captain Redmond that notices are always sent out for meetings which it is our business to summon.  It is the business of Deputies appointed on this Committee to meet, and it is necessary to have a very full meeting, because the quorum is very high.  It was therefore necessary to wait until this evening, when Deputies met together, in order to fix a proper time for the meeting.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_85">
+          <from>Captain REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_125">Might I suggest, sir, that you would exercise your great influence, if not <i>ex cathedra</i> at any rate outside, and have notices sent out for every meeting.  I fully realise that you are not responsible in any way for this Committee.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_86">
+          <from>Mr. D.J. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_126">I agree to the suggestion of Deputy Hughes, that a meeting of this Committee might be convened for this evening.  A fixture at 11.30 a.m. to-morrow would clash with a private meeting of our party. We can meet after the adjournment or even while the Dáil is sitting.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_87">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_127">I understand that it is not the intention of the Government to proceed with the Committee stage of The Courts of Justice Bill this evening.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_88">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_128">That is so.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_89">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_129">In that case we will adjourn in five or ten minutes.  If it would be more convenient for Deputies on the Committee to meet now in the Ministerial Committee Room upstairs, we will supply them with a Clerk, and they could proceed with the business at once, or fix a date for another meeting.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_90">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_130">Unless they are all present I suppose there cannot be a meeting as it was not called?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_91">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_131">That is so.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_28" refersTo="#bill.1923.41">
+        <heading>THE COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL, 1923.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_92">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_132">I move: "That item 9 on the Orders of the Day (The Courts of Justice Bill, 1923—Committee) be discharged and that it be inserted on the Orders of the Day for Wednesday next."  I intended to move the adjournment of the Dáil this evening for a week as we are arranging conferences and otherwise are engaged in connection with the industrial unrest in the country.  It appears to us that it would be better that we should be able to devote the whole of our time to try and find an accommodation which we hope will be satisfactory.  I have called one meeting for this evening. It was not possible owing to other activities to have called it earlier.  I intend if possible to have another meeting to-morrow and a third meeting, if it be possible, on Friday.  For that reason I would ask that the Dáil should adjourn for a week.  In that case we would not take up The Courts of Justice Bill until this day week.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_93">
+          <from>Captain REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_133">On that point may I ask if it will be possible to take further amendments now, in view of the fact that the Government has thought fit to postpone this Bill?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_94">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_134">Certainly.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_95">
+          <from>Captain REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_135">It will be feasible then to accept further amendments. I might suggest that, as far as I am aware, very few people in the country are in great haste over this Bill, and I have seen it mentioned in the newspapers that the Attorney-General is about to take his place in the Dáil.  If that is so, I would seriously suggest that it would be a good thing for the Dáil and the country if the Government could wait until the Attorney-General could be present here to take part in the discussion of the Bill, and give us the great benefit of his knowledge and experience in dealing with the legal aspects of this measure.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_96">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_136">I do not know that the Deputy is in a position to be as closely in touch with the general  opinions throughout the country as I am.  I made many pilgrimages through the country during the last few months. My impression is that there is a desire for this Bill, but, apart from that desire, the Constitution is not yet complete without it.  This matter has been before the country for some time.  It was objected to in the last Dáil that it should be rushed, but I would say that, even in the case of measures which, perhaps, were hastened in the last Dáil, there was at all times—it may be admitted by all Deputies—very fair and considerate expressions from Ministers with regard to recommendations made about the Bills.  I do not know that the Deputy is quite aware of the fact that there was very serious misgiving in certain parts of the country that this question had not been dealt with earlier, and many representations were made to us on that point.  There was in general, I think, the impression that we intended to act in good faith and that the delays were not unreasonable. Even since the Bill had been introduced very little criticism or suggestions which would improve the measure have come from the business people on whose behalf application was made that the Bill should be postponed.  I think there have not been material recommendations from them, and I think the Deputy will be satisfied when it is considered here that it will get very fair consideration, and it should not appear necessary to wait until any other legal gentlemen are returned to the Dáil.  I think the legal gentlemen in the last Dáil were surprised at the ability with which measures were dealt with by those who have not had any association with the law.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_97">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_137">I would like to ask the President to give the Dáil some indication of what is to be the course of business.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_98">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_138">I think we have to settle what we have to do about the Committee Stage of this Bill before we take up that question.  Am I to take it that the Committee Stage is to be taken on Wednesday next?</p>
+          <p eId="para_139">Committee Stage postponed to Wednesday, the 10th October.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_29">
+        <heading>ADJOURNMENT OF THE DAIL. - COURSE OF BUSINESS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_99">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p title="motionProposal" eId="para_140">I move the adjournment until Wednesday next at 3 o'clock.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_100">
+          <from>Mr. FINIAN LYNCH</from>
+          <p eId="para_141">I second the motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_101">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_142">The adjournment from to-day until this day week involves, as I gather, a discussion, first on the motion of Deputy Burke, the Second Reading Stage of the two Bills which have just been introduced by the Minister for Home Affairs, and the Committee Stage of the Courts of Justice Bill.  I want to ask the President if he can give the Dáil some indication of what his intentions are regarding the course of business.  Dáil members were given to understand that they were to come to-day presumably to carry on business, but now they may go back to the country, and that, of course, as the Minister for Finance would know if he were here, involves a considerable amount of expense.  If they have to come on Wednesday, I think they would like to know if they have to go back on Thursday, and if it is to be one day a week session, and also if it is the intention to carry on continuously, say, until Christmas, in dealing with the various Bills mentioned in the Address which has been laid on the table.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_102">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_143">I think I would be able to promise two days' business next week and the following week, and I think it is possible that we may then have to ask for an adjournment. The course of business next week would be the consideration of the two Bills which have just been given First Reading.  The third item, I think, would be the Courts of Justice Bill.  I should say that the whole of the evening will be given to it.  On Thursday the Courts of Justice Bill, if it survives, will be taken up, and also on Friday, and it may be possible to sandwich in during these hours, the debate on the Governor-General's speech.  I take it members would like an opportunity of reading that speech fully, as many matters of legislation  are dealt with in it, and I suppose the policy of the Government will be open to criticism upon it.  I think it is reasonable that members should have an opportunity of studying it before making any statement.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ConorHogan" eId="spk_103">
+          <from>Mr. CONNOR HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_144">When will the Debate on the Governor-General's speech be resumed and how many days will be allotted to its consideration?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamTCosgrave" eId="spk_104">
+          <from>The PRESIDENT</from>
+          <p eId="para_145">In the last Dáil, at no time during its existence did we move the closure.  Every subject got the fullest consideration, and we hope to be able to afford the same facilities in this Dáil, so that members will have an opportunity of discussing the Address to their heart's content.</p>
+          <p eId="para_146">The Dáil adjourned at 4 p.m. until Wednesday, October 10th, at 3 p.m.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="prelude" eId="dbsect_30">
+        <heading>
+    </heading>
+        <summary class="Center" eId="sum_9">ORÁID O'N t-SEANASCAL</summary>
+        <summary class="Center" eId="sum_10">(ADDRESS BY GOVERNOR-GENERAL).</summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_11">Tháinig Oireachtas Eireann le chéile ar 2.15 p.m.  Bhí Mícheál O hAodha (Ceann Comhairle Dháil Eireann), 'sa chathaoir.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_31">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS - (CLERICAL OFFICERS IN PRISON SERVICE—ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF UNIFORM).</heading>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_105">
+          <from>AILFRID O BROIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_147">asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether it is a fact that, in accordance with Treasury Letter 159/22 and General Prisons Board's Circular 977/22 the clerical officers in the Prisons Service are entitled to an allowance in lieu of uniform equal to the <i>actual</i> cost of the uniform supplied to the uniformed ranks; whether he is aware that these officers are, and have been, receiving an allowance equal to the cost of the unmade material, and that the cost of making the uniform has not been included in the allowance; and whether, as this means that those officers are not compensated for the making of their clothing and are not in receipt of an allowance equal to the <i>actual</i> cost of the uniform, as laid down in the Letter and Circular above referred to, he will now take the necessary steps to have this matter rectified and the officers put in receipt of the full allowance to which they are entitled?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_106">
+          <from>MINISTER for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. O'Higgins)</from>
+          <p eId="para_148">An allowance in lieu of uniform is granted to officers of clerical grades in the Prisons Service. As uniforms for prison officers are made up by prisoners' labour, the actual cost to the State is the cost of the materials, plus five per cent. for wear and tear of tools.  The allowance in question is equivalent to such actual cost.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_32">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS - CIVIL SERVICE BONUSES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_107">
+          <from>AILFRID O BROIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_149">asked the Minister for Finance if he will state whether the Civil Service bonus has recently been revised on the English or Irish cost of living figure; whether it is a fact that, according to the cost of living report published by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce the cost of living figure was 91 in March, 1922, and 85 at the first of the present month, showing a decrease of six points; whether during that period the Civil Service bonus has been cut on a decrease of twenty points, and will he now explain by what way this cut has  been arrived at; further, whether he is aware that, in accordance with the Whitley Council cost of living agreement, the bonus should be revised every six months by averaging the index figure on the first of each month for the six months preceding the date of revision; whether the index figure is being only ascertained every three or four months in the Free State, and whether he will now say whether this method of revising the bonus is in accordance with the Whitley Council Agreement.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_108">
+          <from>MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)</from>
+          <p eId="para_150">The bonus payable to Civil Servants is revised every 1st March and 1st September by reference to the average Saorstát cost of living figure in the preceding six months.  This average is arrived at for the Saorstát by ascertaining at the middle of each quarter the increase in the cost of living as compared with the pre-war period; the expense involved would not justify the carrying out of this investigation monthly instead of quarterly.</p>
+          <p eId="para_151">The bonus payable by the Saorstát to its Civil Servants is higher than the bonus payable by the British Government to British Civil Servants under the British Agreement referred to in the question.  The relative figures are as follows:—</p>
+          <table>
+            <tr>
+              <td/>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_152">Cost of Living figures for purposes of bonus.</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+            <tr>
+              <td/>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_153">Saorstát.</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_154">British</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_155">For period 1st September, 1922, to 1st March, 1923</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_156">90</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_157">85</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_158">For period 1st March, 1923, to 1st September, 1923</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_159">90</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_160">80</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+            <tr>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_161">For period 1st September, 1923, to 1st March, 1924</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_162">85</p>
+              </td>
+              <td>
+                <p eId="para_163">75</p>
+              </td>
+            </tr>
+          </table>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#AlfredByrne" eId="spk_109">
+          <from>AILFRID O BROIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_164">asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that in February, 1922, an Act was passed by the British Parliament whereby the supplemental pension of retired Civil Servants is revised in accordance with the cost of living; whether this Act was not in force at the time the Irish Civil Servants were taken over by the Provisional Government; and, if so, whether he will now  say why this British Act, passed into law after the transfer of the Irish Civil Servants to the Provisional Government, is being applied to those Civil Servants.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_110">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_165">The method of calculating bonus for the purposes of Civil Service pensions to which the Deputy refers, and which it may be observed was put in force not by an Act of the British Parliament, but by the Treasury as a service regulation, existed prior to the transfer of the Irish Civil Service.</p>
+          <p eId="para_166">No Civil Servant was transferred to the Provisional Government prior to the 1st of April, 1922.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+    </debateBody>
+  </debate>
+</akomaNtoso>

1923/1923-12-07_mul@.xml

@@ -0,0 +1,717 @@
+<akomaNtoso xmlns="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://docs.oasis-open.org/legaldocml/ns/akn/3.0/CSD13 ./akomantoso30.xsd ">
+  <debate name="Official Report">
+    <meta>
+      <identification source="#source">
+        <FRBRWork>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-12-07/debate/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-12-07/debate"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-12-07" name="#generation"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/house/dail/4"/>
+          <FRBRcountry value="ie"/>
+          <FRBRname value="debate"/>
+        </FRBRWork>
+        <FRBRExpression>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-12-07/debate/mul@/main"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-12-07/debate/mul@"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="1923-12-07" name="#reported"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+          <FRBRlanguage language="mul"/>
+        </FRBRExpression>
+        <FRBRManifestation>
+          <FRBRthis value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-12-07/debate/mul@/main.xml"/>
+          <FRBRuri value="/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/1923-12-07/debate/mul@.akn"/>
+          <FRBRdate date="2020-06-25" name="#publication"/>
+          <FRBRauthor href="/ie/oireachtas/role/debates"/>
+        </FRBRManifestation>
+      </identification>
+      <analysis source="#source">
+        <otherAnalysis xmlns:oir="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ns/1.0" source="#source">
+          <oir:volumeReference showAs="Vol. 5" eId="#vol_5" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5"/>
+          <oir:numberReference showAs="No. 20" eId="#no_20" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/no/20"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1575" eId="col_1575" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1575" refersTo="#dbsect_1"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1576" eId="col_1576" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1576" refersTo="#dbsect_2"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1577" eId="col_1577" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1577" refersTo="#spk_9"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1578" eId="col_1578" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1578" refersTo="#spk_14"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1579" eId="col_1579" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1579" refersTo="#spk_17"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1580" eId="col_1580" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1580" refersTo="#spk_20"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1581" eId="col_1581" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1581" refersTo="#dbsect_11"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1582" eId="col_1582" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1582" refersTo="#dbsect_14"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1583" eId="col_1583" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1583" refersTo="#spk_34"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1584" eId="col_1584" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1584" refersTo="#dbsect_15"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1585" eId="col_1585" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1585" refersTo="#spk_47"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1586" eId="col_1586" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1586" refersTo="#spk_52"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1587" eId="col_1587" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1587" refersTo="#spk_59"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1588" eId="col_1588" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1588" refersTo="#spk_100"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1589" eId="col_1589" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1589" refersTo="#dbsect_29"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1590" eId="col_1590" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1590" refersTo="#spk_109"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1591" eId="col_1591" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1591" refersTo="#dbsect_24"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1592" eId="col_1592" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1592" refersTo="#spk_62"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1593" eId="col_1593" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1593" refersTo="#spk_62"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1594" eId="col_1594" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1594" refersTo="#spk_63"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1595" eId="col_1595" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1595" refersTo="#spk_64"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1596" eId="col_1596" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1596" refersTo="#spk_67"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1597" eId="col_1597" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1597" refersTo="#spk_68"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1598" eId="col_1598" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1598" refersTo="#spk_69"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1599" eId="col_1599" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1599" refersTo="#spk_71"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1600" eId="col_1600" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1600" refersTo="#spk_71"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1601" eId="col_1601" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1601" refersTo="#spk_71"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1602" eId="col_1602" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1602" refersTo="#spk_71"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1603" eId="col_1603" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1603" refersTo="#spk_71"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1604" eId="col_1604" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1604" refersTo="#spk_75"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1605" eId="col_1605" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1605" refersTo="#spk_75"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1606" eId="col_1606" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1606" refersTo="#spk_77"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1607" eId="col_1607" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1607" refersTo="#spk_85"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1608" eId="col_1608" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1608" refersTo="#spk_91"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1609" eId="col_1609" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1609" refersTo="#spk_96"/>
+          <oir:column showAs="Col. 1610" eId="col_1610" href="ie/oireachtas/debateRecord/vol/5/col/1610" refersTo="#spk_98"/>
+        </otherAnalysis>
+      </analysis>
+      <references source="#source">
+        <TLCOrganization eId="source" href="" showAs="Houses of the Oireachtas"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.41.dail.5" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/41/dail/5" showAs="Courts of Justice Bill 1923: Dáil Fifth Stage"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.53.dail.5" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/53/dail/5" showAs="Fisheries Bill 1923: Dáil Fifth Stage"/>
+        <TLCEvent eId="bill.1923.60.dail.2" href="/ie/oireachtas/bill/1923/60/dail/2" showAs="Transport and Communications Bill 1923: Dáil Second Stage"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="generation" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Generation" showAs="Generation"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="publication" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Publication" showAs="Publication"/>
+        <TLCConcept eId="reported" href="/ie/oireachtas/ontology#Reported" showAs="Reported"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="BryanRiccoCooper" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Major-Bryan-Ricco-Cooper.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Major Bryan Ricco Cooper"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ConorHogan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Conor-Hogan.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Conor Hogan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DarrellFiggis" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Darrell-Figgis.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Darrell Figgis"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="DenisJohnGorey" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Denis-John-Gorey.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Denis John Gorey"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ErnestBlythe" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Ernest-Blythe.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Ernest Blythe"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="FionanLynch" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Fionán-Lynch.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Fionán Lynch"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="HughColohan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Hugh-Colohan.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Hugh Colohan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JamesJosephWalsh" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/James-Joseph-Walsh.D.1919-01-21" showAs="James Joseph Walsh"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JohnJamesCole" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/John-James-Cole.D.1923-09-19" showAs="John James Cole"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="JohnWhite" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/John-White.D.1923-09-19" showAs="John White"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="KevinChristopher" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Kevin-Christopher-O'Higgins.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Kevin Christopher O'Higgins"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelDoyle" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Doyle.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Michael Doyle"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelHayes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Hayes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Michael Hayes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelJosephHenness" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Joseph-Hennessy.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Michael Joseph Hennessy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="MichaelRichardHeffer" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Michael-Richard-Heffernan.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Michael Richard Heffernan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickFrancisBaxter" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-Francis-Baxter.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Patrick Francis Baxter"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickHogan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-Hogan.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Patrick Hogan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickJHogan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-J-Hogan.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Patrick J. Hogan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PatrickJosephEgan" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Patrick-Joseph-Egan.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Patrick Joseph Egan"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="PeterHughes" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Peter-Hughes.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Peter Hughes"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardCorish" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-Corish.D.1921-08-16" showAs="Richard Corish"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardJamesMulcahy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-James-Mulcahy.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Richard James Mulcahy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="RichardWilson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Richard-Wilson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Richard Wilson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="SeamusAloysiusBourke" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Séamus-Aloysius-Bourke.D.1919-01-21" showAs="Séamus Aloysius Bourke"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ThomasJohnson" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Thomas-Johnson.D.1922-09-09" showAs="Thomas Johnson"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="ThomasOMahony" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Thomas-O'Mahony.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Thomas O'Mahony"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="TimothyJMurphy" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/Timothy-J-Murphy.D.1923-09-19" showAs="Timothy J Murphy"/>
+        <TLCPerson eId="WilliamArcherRedmond" href="/ie/oireachtas/member/id/William-Archer-Redmond.D.1923-09-19" showAs="William Archer Redmond"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="author" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/author" showAs="author"/>
+        <TLCRole eId="editor" href="/ie/oireachtas/role/role/editor" showAs="editor"/>
+      </references>
+    </meta>
+    <preface>
+      <block name="title_ga">
+        <docTitle>DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="title_en">
+        <docTitle>PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES</docTitle>
+      </block>
+      <block name="proponent_ga">
+        <docProponent>DÁIL ÉIREANN</docProponent>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_ga">
+        <docStatus>TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="status_en">
+        <docStatus>(OFFICIAL REPORT)</docStatus>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_ga">
+        <docDate date="1923-12-07">Dé hAoine, 7 Nollaig 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="date_en">
+        <docDate date="1923-12-07">Friday, 7 December 1923</docDate>
+      </block>
+      <block name="volume">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#vol_5">Vol. 5</docNumber>
+      </block>
+      <block name="number">
+        <docNumber refersTo="#no_20">No. 20</docNumber>
+      </block>
+    </preface>
+    <debateBody>
+      <debateSection name="prelude" eId="dbsect_1">
+        <heading>Prelude</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_1">Do chuaidh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar a 12 a clog.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_2">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - “LYTTON ENTRANTS.”</heading>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_1">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_1">asked the Minister for Finance whether his attention has been called to the class of civil servants known as "Lytton entrants," whether he is aware that a Committee presided over by Lord Southborough has recommended an increase of emolument for "Lytton entrants" in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and whether he can state whether it is proposed to act on the recommendations of this Committee where "Lytton entrants" in the Saorstát are concerned.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_2">
+          <from>MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)</from>
+          <p eId="para_2">This matter is at present under consideration.  I may remind the Deputy that the Southborough Committee was appointed by the British Government, subject to the change of Government, and any question of revising remuneration of Free State civil servants has to be decided by reference to Free State conditions.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_3">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_3">Is the Minister aware that this matter has been under consideration since July, and that many of these "Lytton entrants" propose to avail of the terms of the Treaty if a decision is not arrived at soon?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_4">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_4">The Deputy has informed me that they propose to do that.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_5">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_5">Will the Minister state why he did not answer the letter in which I informed him of that?  He did not even acknowledge it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_6">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_6">We are tired of the "Lytton entrants."</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_3">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - CIVIL SERVANT'S ARREST AND DISMISSAL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_7">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_7">asked the Minister for Finance if it is a fact that Mr. Richard A. Johnson, a permanent civil servant in the Principal Inspector of Taxes' Office, was arrested on February 22nd last, and not released until November 17th last, having been detained without trial or charge, although two days after his arrest he signed the necessary form of undertaking, producing as guarantors Professor Whelehan, then Assistant Minister for Industry and Commerce, and Rev. T.A. Finlay, S.J.; whether this gentleman was dismissed the service on November 9th, without any enquiry being held at which he, either himself or by solicitor or counsel, could be heard in his defence, and without even any opportunity of answering any questions that might be put to him, and if he will order an enquiry to be held into the facts of the case, of which this gentleman will receive due notification with a view to his being heard in his defence.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_8">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_8">The Military authorities report that for some time prior to his arrest, Mr. Johnson was believed to be supporting the Irregulars, and was therefore under military observation. His arrest followed an attack made by the Irregulars on Jury's Hotel in February last, when the Military authorities, in the course of their observations, found two fully-loaded revolvers in the room in which he was working.  In the circumstances the Government was satisfied he had not carried out his declaration of fidelity as a civil servant and dismissed him.  I am not prepared to re-open the question of his dismissal.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_4">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - WOUNDED CLAREMAN'S CLAIM.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PatrickHogan" eId="spk_9">
+          <from>PADRAIG O hOGAIN (An Clár)</from>
+          <p eId="para_9">asked the Minister for Finance whether any award has yet been made in the case of Michael Crotty, The Square, Kilrush, who was wounded whilst attending a Republican Court at Cragganock, Cree, Co. Clare, on December 12th, 1920, and whether, considering  the exceptional circumstances of the applicant, he will expedite the payment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_10">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_10">The investigation of this case has not yet been completed and no award has been made.  All claims for compensation in respect of personal injuries are being dealt with as expeditiously as possible and there will be no avoidable delay in disposing of the claim.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_5">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - ECHO OF BELFAST BOYCOTT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PatrickHogan" eId="spk_11">
+          <from>PADRAIG O hOGAIN (An Clár)</from>
+          <p eId="para_11">asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that on the withdrawal of the ban on Belfast goods subsequent to the signing of the Treaty many merchants ordered goods from Belfast firms, that on the re-imposition of the boycott these merchants were visited by members of the local Boycott Committees acting on the instructions of the Central Boycott Committee and received cheques to the value of the goods as per invoice, and that receipts are held for such payments, that demands are now being made for the payment of the goods by the firms in the areas then boycotted, and whether compensation will be made to the merchants now called upon to pay a second time for these goods.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_12">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_12">On the facts as presented the aggrieved parties have no claim for compensation under the Damage to Property Compensation Act, which excludes cases where cash is taken.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_6">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - DINGLE CLAIM FOR MALICIOUS INJURIES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#TimothyJMurphy" eId="spk_13">
+          <from>TADHG O MURCHADHA</from>
+          <p eId="para_13">asked the Minister for finance whether two fishermen named John and Michael Flaherty of John Street, Dingle, Co. Kerry, had their fishing boat maliciously damaged, and rendered useless on February 28th, 1921; whether they were awarded £500 compensation on 19th April, 1921, at Tralee, and in view of the fact that they are practically destitute, whether steps will be taken to expedite the settlement of their claim.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ErnestBlythe" eId="spk_14">
+          <from>Mr. BLYTHE</from>
+          <p eId="para_14">No claim on behalf of  the persons named has been received by the Compensation Section of the Ministry of Finance.  If the Deputy will have particulars furnished the matter will be taken up immediately with a view to submission of the cases to the Compensation (Ireland) Commission.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_7">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - TIPPERARY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT CLAIMS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_15">
+          <from>Captain WM. A. REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_15">asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that James Cummins, of Lower Valley, Fethard, Co.  Tipperary, and several men from the same district signed the Unemployment Register at Clonmel early in October of this year, that they have reported themselves every Friday since at the Local Exchange at Clonmel, and that they can get no reply as to the decisions in their cases, and if he will expedite these decisions now long overdue.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#KevinChristopher" eId="spk_16">
+          <from>MINISTER for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. O'Higgins) replying for Minister for Industry and Commerce</from>
+          <p eId="para_16">James Cummins, of Lower Valley, Fethard, lodged a claim for benefit at Clonmel Branch Employment Office on 18th October, 1923.  As a new Benefit Year had begun on the previous day, benefit could not be authorised until the accounts of insured contributors had been balanced, and this necessarily involved some delay in authorising claims generally. There appears, however, to have been additional delay in this particular case, in the transit of documents between the local office and Headquarters, into which the Minister is having enquiries made.</p>
+          <p eId="para_17">Benefit has now been authorised, and Mr. Cummins will receive payment during the current week.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_8">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - CLAIMS FOR REFUND OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#HughColohan" eId="spk_17">
+          <from>AODH O CULACHAIN</from>
+          <p eId="para_18">asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick Sweeney, Carpenter, of Brownstown, Curragh Camp, Unemployment Card No. 117878, has over 500 payments to  his credit as Unemployment Insurance, and has received only one day's benefit, viz., 1s. 2d., since 1912; whether this man is entitled to a refund of his contributions, plus 2½ per cent. compound interest, on attaining the age of 60 years; and, further, as he applied for this refund on the 7th September, 1923, and supplied all necessary information, including birth certificate, whether, if Sweeney is entitled to a refund, instructions will be given to have payment made forthwith.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_18">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS (for Minister for Industry and Commerce)</from>
+          <p eId="para_19">In considering Mr. Sweeney's application for a refund it was necessary to trace and post up his Unemployment Book for 1922-23, to examine into discrepancies between the statement of his age on his original application for an Unemployment book and on his birth certificate, respectively, as well as discrepancies between the spelling of his name on his birth certificate, and as he is himself accustomed to sign it.  This examination has been completed, and shows that Mr. Sweeney has in fact only 490 contributions to his credit, and is therefore ten short of the minimum number of 500 required in the case of a person entering insurance under the age of 55 years.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_9">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - DAMAGE TO ENNIS BUILDING.</heading>
+        <speech by="#ConorHogan" eId="spk_19">
+          <from>Mr. CONNOR HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_20">asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he is aware that the building known as the Ordnance Office, Ennis, on being vacated by the forces of the Provisional Government has been forcibly taken possession of by a number of indigent families; whether his attention has been drawn to the depredations committed by those persons on the internal structure—even using oak doors as firewood —and in view of the value of this mansion to the State whether he will indicate the measures to be taken for its preservation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickJHogan" eId="spk_20">
+          <from>MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. P. Hogan)</from>
+          <p eId="para_21">This question should be addressed to the Minister for Defence, and I am answering it for him.</p>
+          <p eId="para_22">The arrangement by which civilian tenants were put into occupation of  the Ordnance House, Ennis, was made by the officer in charge of the military in the area, with a representative of the Urban District Council, and was necessary for the protection of the premises at a time when every building evacuated by troops in that area was destroyed.  The premises are not the property of the State.  The matter is being investigated and it is hoped a settlement will shortly be reached.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_10">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - SEIZURE OF CATTLE.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_21">
+          <from>EAMON O DUBHGHAILL</from>
+          <p eId="para_23">asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that on the 24th July last Military visited the farm at Kilmaglush, Fenagh, Co. Carlow, and took therefrom a number of cattle, horses, etc., including a cow, heifer and horse, the property of Edward Butler, Ballaghmore, Co. Carlow; whether he is aware that this man's stock happened to be there by accident and whether, seeing that Butler is only an agricultural labourer, he will undertake to consider this as an exceptional case with a view to compensation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_22">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_24">This question should have been addressed to the Minister for Home Affairs.</p>
+          <p eId="para_25">The facts in regard to this seizure are as stated.  My information in regard to the nature of the trespass is that it was not accidental.  Cattle belonging to the owner of this farm were driven off the lands in 1921 and 1922, and illegal trespass was then persisted in up to the time of the seizure. I cannot undertake at present to make any ex gratia grant by way of compensation.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_11">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - RETAIL PURCHASES BY MILITARY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PatrickJosephEgan" eId="spk_23">
+          <from>Mr. P.J. EGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_26">asked the Minister for Defence whether he considers that when the Army purchases supplies without opening an account, they are entitled to preferential prices; and, whether in view of the numerous complaints that have been made by motor agents throughout the country, he will have directions issued that ordinary retail purchases on the part of the Army are to be paid for at ordinary retail prices?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_24">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN (for Minister for Defence)</from>
+          <p eId="para_27">Purchases by the State are ordinarily made under the system of competitive tender.  In emergencies, such as have existed, that system had necessarily to be departed from and purchases had to be made direct.  In such cases the prices to be paid are carefully assessed on rates prevailing for similar goods at the time in the area, due regard being paid to the interests both of the State and the trader.  In the circumstances no directions of the nature referred to in the second part of the question can be given.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_12">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - CLAIMS BY RIVER SLANEY USERS AGAINST MILITARY.</heading>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_25">
+          <from>RISTEARD MAC FHEORAIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_28">asked the Minister for Defence if he is yet in a position to deal with the claims of the owners of barges and fishing boats on the River Slaney, whose means of livelihood were seriously interfered with by National Troops during last year's hostilities.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_26">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN (for Minister for Defence)</from>
+          <p eId="para_29">It is regretted that no decision has yet been arrived at in respect of the claims in question.  The matter is at the moment in hands, and it is hoped to bring it to a conclusion at an early date.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_13">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - CORK HARBOUR BOARD MILITARY ACCOUNT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#MichaelJosephHenness" eId="spk_27">
+          <from>MICHEAL O hAONGHUSA</from>
+          <p eId="para_30">asked the Minister for Defence whether he is aware that the General Manager and Solicitor, Cork Harbour Board, have repeatedly applied to the Military Pay Department for payment of £307 9s. 7d. due to the Harbour Board by the Military Authorities for pilotage services rendered during the period July, 1922, to July, 1923, inclusive, and whether he will investigate and have the account disbursed at an early date.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_28">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN (for Minister for Defence)</from>
+          <p eId="para_31">The account of the Cork Harbour Commissioners will be settled in the near future.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_14">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - DISCHARGED SOLDIERS' UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_29">
+          <from>Captain REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_32">asked the Minister for Defence whether it is a fact that stoppage of 1s. 1d. per week was made out of the pay of members of the Labour Corps, National Army, for Unemployment Insurance Benefit; whether applications have been made by discharged members of this Corps for Unemployment Benefit; whether these applications have been refused on the ground that their cards have not been sufficiently stamped, and if he will see that these men will suffer no disadvantage by reason of the failure of someone in authority to stamp their cards?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_30">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN (for Minister for Defence)</from>
+          <p eId="para_33">Deductions were made from the pay of certain members of the late Railway Protection, Repair and Maintenance Corps for the purpose of paying Unemployment Insurance contributions. A legal question has, however, arisen, and is now under consideration, as to the propriety of this course.  If it is found that these contributions are not valid, the deductions will be refunded to the men concerned: if valid, the contributions will be duly credited and benefit paid where required.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#WilliamArcherRedmond" eId="spk_31">
+          <from>Captain REDMOND</from>
+          <p eId="para_34">If they are not, will the men lose the benefit they would have derived if they had paid them themselves?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_32">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_35">I take it the assurances that were given that these men would be kept in benefit will be taken into account?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_33">
+          <from>Mr HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_36">I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment. I will convey what you say to the Minister for Defence.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_15">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - OPERATIONS OF FISHERIES PATROL BOAT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#JohnWhite" eId="spk_34">
+          <from>SEAN DE FAOITE</from>
+          <p eId="para_37">asked the Minister for Fisheries what reports have been received of the operations of the Fisheries Patrol Boat on duty on the North Tirconaill coastline between Loughs Foyle and Swilly from 3rd till 30th November; if any foreign trawlers have during that period been found illegally fishing, if proceedings  will be instituted against them, and when.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_35">
+          <from>MINISTER for FISHERIES (Mr. Lynch)</from>
+          <p eId="para_38">During the period mentioned the coast between Loughs Foyle and Swilly was patrolled between the 15th and 20th November (inclusive) by the fishery cruiser "Muir Chu."  The weather became very bad after the fishery cruiser reached the area, and very few steam trawlers were seen. None of them were detected in the act of fishing illegally.</p>
+          <p eId="para_39">I am informed that the area in question was patrolled by one of the vessels of the Ministry of Defence from the 1st to the 15th November, and again from the 20th to the end of that month.  No foreign or other trawlers were observed fishing illegally.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnWhite" eId="spk_36">
+          <from>Mr. WHITE</from>
+          <p eId="para_40">Arising out of that question I would like to ask the Minister was it by daylight or was it at night that the patrol vessel went through the area?  Was it in daylight or at night that the patrol vessel discharged her duties?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_37">
+          <from>Mr. LYNCH</from>
+          <p eId="para_41">If it were there from the 15th to the 20th November, and again from the 1st to the 15th, it was there presumably day and night.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_38">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_42">Is the Minister aware that the fact that prosecutions are seldom entered into in these cases is causing grave anxiety to the fishermen all round the coast?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_39">
+          <from>Mr. LYNCH</from>
+          <p eId="para_43">There are a great many prosecutions pending at the moment, as a matter of fact.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_40">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_44">I am glad to hear that.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnWhite" eId="spk_41">
+          <from>Mr. WHITE</from>
+          <p eId="para_45">Will the Minister insist that the patrol boat will discharge her duties at night, not during daytime, as it is at night that these trawlers are illegally fishing?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_42">
+          <from>Mr. LYNCH</from>
+          <p eId="para_46">I am satisfied that the patrol boat that is at the moment actually under my orders does discharge its duties in the way the Deputy requests.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnWhite" eId="spk_43">
+          <from>Mr. WHITE</from>
+          <p eId="para_47">My information from local fishermen is that the patrol boat went round during the daytime.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_16">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - INSPECTION OF WEIGHING MACHINES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_44">
+          <from>Major BRYAN COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_48">asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to a report of the Markets Committee of the Dublin Corporation, in which it is stated that the weighing machines used in Post Offices are not subject to supervision by an Inspector of Weights and Measures and that the majority of those employed in the Saorstát are of an obsolete pattern, which would not be stamped for ordinary commercial purposes, and whether he can state what steps are taken to inspect these weighing machines and ensure their accuracy.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_45">
+          <from>POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Walsh)</from>
+          <p eId="para_49">Inspectors of Weights and Measures are not empowered to stamp, verify or test any weights or scales supplied by the Post Office to be used for Post Office purposes.  All such scales and weights are carefully examined and tested before being issued to Post Offices; subsequently they are tested regularly by the Department and any inaccuracy found is rectified immediately.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_17">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - WIRELESS BROADCASTING.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DarrellFiggis" eId="spk_46">
+          <from>Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_50">asked the Postmaster-General if, pursuant to the promise given by the President that the sanction of the Oireachtas would be obtained before any licence would be given for Wireless and Broadcasting, he will set aside an early date for the discussion of the memorandum entitled "Wireless Broadcasting" just circulated to Deputies.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_47">
+          <from>Mr. WALSH</from>
+          <p eId="para_51">I may say as a preliminary to this answer, being responsible to the Dáil alone, any innovation or departure regarding the services under my control must, in the ordinary course of events, be circulated to the Dáil.  Therefore the implication in this question is not justified.  The Deputy  is at liberty to raise the matter on the adjournment, or, failing that, to give notice of motion.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_18">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - TRANSPORT FACILITIES IN CORK.</heading>
+        <speech by="#ThomasOMahony" eId="spk_48">
+          <from>Mr. THOMAS O'MAHONY</from>
+          <p eId="para_52">asked the Postmaster-General whether, with a view to opening up the district between Fermoy and Cork via Watergrasshill and via Glenville, an area which has no railway service, he is prepared to entertain and discuss a local proposal which will give a daily passenger, parcel, and postal service, at little increased cost on the existing arrangements, which provide only postal facilities of much less convenience to the public than the scheme suggested will supply.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JamesJosephWalsh" eId="spk_49">
+          <from>Mr. WALSH</from>
+          <p eId="para_53">I have recently received from the Deputy an outline of the scheme he advocates, and I am having it carefully examined, and will communicate with him further on the subject as soon as practicable.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_19">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - CLARE ASSISTANT COUNTY SURVEYORS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#ConorHogan" eId="spk_50">
+          <from>Mr. CONNOR HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_54">asked the Minister for Local Government if his attention had been drawn to the proposals of the Clare County Council granting large increases of salary to Assistant County Surveyors on the eve of a sworn inquiry into the County administration, and to ask whether these advances were regular and would be sanctioned by his Department.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_51">
+          <from>MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Mr. Burke)</from>
+          <p eId="para_55">The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.</p>
+          <p eId="para_56">As regards the second and third parts the question of the regularity of the proceedings is being inquired into, and the case will be fully considered before sanction is given or withheld.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_20">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - TIRCONAILL MENTAL HOSPITAL.</heading>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_52">
+          <from>SEAN de FAOITE</from>
+          <p eId="para_57">asked the Minister for Local Government up to what date the books of the Tirconaill (Letterkenny) Mental Hospital have been audited, and what was the nature of the business transacted at a Special Meeting  of the Committee, convened by the Ministry of Local Government on the 21st ultimo, as reported in "Derry Journal" of 23rd ultimo.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_53">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_58">The accounts of Tirconaill Mental Hospital have been audited, so far as possible, up to 31st March, 1923, but as several of the books had not been written up when the Auditor attended, the accounts could not be certified correct.  Steps have been taken to ensure that the clerical work of the Mental Hospital shall be properly and punctually carried out in future.</p>
+          <p eId="para_59">The Special Meeting of the Committee of Management, held on 21st November last, met to consider a Report of the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums on an inquiry into the administration of the institution, together with a covering letter from the Ministry of Local Government.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnWhite" eId="spk_54">
+          <from>Mr. WHITE</from>
+          <p eId="para_60">Will the Minister consider the necessity of appointing a committee of independent ratepayers, as a Committee of Investigation, to investigate the state of this institution?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_55">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_61">I will take that matter into consideration.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnWhite" eId="spk_56">
+          <from>Mr. WHITE</from>
+          <p eId="para_62">Would the Minister, in the alternative, appoint a Commissioner to administer the institution?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#SeamusAloysiusBourke" eId="spk_57">
+          <from>Mr. BURKE</from>
+          <p eId="para_63">I have that whole matter under consideration.  I have had several reports to that effect already.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="questions" eId="dbsect_21">
+        <heading>CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS.   ORAL ANSWERS. - REPAIR OF CO. CORK SCHOOLS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#MichaelJosephHenness" eId="spk_58">
+          <from>MICHEAL O hAONGHUSA</from>
+          <p eId="para_64">asked the Minister for Education whether he is aware that National Schools, Belvilly, near Cobh, Co. Cork, were occupied during the recent trouble by National Troops, and during such occupation windows, doors, and furniture were damaged; whether he will now have those schools repaired and furnished and opened to teachers and pupils at an early date.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_59">
+          <from>Mr. LYNCH (replying for Minister for Education)</from>
+          <p eId="para_65">It is understood that a claim for compensation in respect of damage done to the school-house was made by the manager; that a certain  amount by way of compensation has been awarded; and that a draft for this amount is being forwarded to the manager.  In the circumstances, it is expected that the manager of the schools will take the necessary steps to have the repairs effected.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_22">
+        <heading>QUESTION ON THE ADJOURNMENT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_60">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_66">I beg to give notice that on the motion for the adjournment I will call attention to the question of the precautions taken to prevent Foot and Mouth disease entering this country, and as regards the enforcement of the regulations; and also the question of the treatment and detention of our live stock at the English ports.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_23" refersTo="#bill.1923.53.dail.5">
+        <heading>FISHERIES BILL, 1923—FOURTH AND FIFTH STAGES.</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_2">Question: "That the Bill be received for final consideration" (Minister for Fisheries) put and agreed to.</summary>
+        <speech by="#FionanLynch" eId="spk_61">
+          <from>Mr. FIONAN LYNCH</from>
+          <p eId="para_67">I move that Standing Orders be suspended to enable the fifth stage to be taken.</p>
+          <p eId="para_68">Agreed.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <summary eId="sum_3" refersTo="#agreed" title="decision">Question: "That the Bill do now pass," put and agreed to.<entity name="reference" refersTo="#para_67"/>
+                </summary>
+        <summary eId="sum_4">Bill ordered to be sent to Seanad.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_24" refersTo="#bill.1923.41.dail.5">
+        <heading>COURTS OF JUSTICE BILL, 1923—FIFTH STAGE.</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_5">Order discharged.  Fifth Stage fixed for Tuesday, 11th December.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_25" refersTo="#bill.1923.60.dail.2">
+        <heading>TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL, 1923—SECOND STAGE.</heading>
+        <summary eId="sum_6">Order discharged.  Second Stage to be resumed by agreement on Tuesday, 11th December.</summary>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="debate" eId="dbsect_26">
+        <heading>FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE—QUESTION ON ADJOURNMENT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_62">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_69">I desire to raise this question as to the precautions taken to prevent foot and mouth disease entering this country, and also as to the enforcement of the regulations, and further as to the treatment and detention of our live stock at the ports now open in England.</p>
+          <p eId="para_70">The precautions taken at the open ports in England during the last three or four weeks in connection with the spread of foot and mouth disease in that country were of such an unsatisfactory nature that we sent over a man from Cork to see things for himself on the spot.  This gentleman made a report, a copy of which I showed to the Minister for Agriculture.  The report goes to show that things are done in a very slipshod manner at the ports of Fishguard and at Birkenhead.  I will deal first with the treatment of our live stock at these ports on the other side. The report that we have received goes to show that pigs have been well cared for and have been well fed and well looked after.  Sheep have been very badly treated, and cattle have been starved.  They get almost nothing at all to eat.  The facts are that 800 cattle were sent over to the other side, and though they had been travelling for a considerable number of hours, all they got to eat on arrival was the small quantity of 39 cwt. of hay.  These cattle had done a long journey across the country and had been several hours on steamers and on trains, and yet all they were given to eat on arrival was this very small quantity of fodder, consisting of 39 cwt. of hay.  Anyone who knows anything about the cattle trade knows that there would be very little  for each of the 800 cattle out of such a small supply of fodder.  I might say also that the cattle dealers sought to enter the lairages to see how the cattle were treated but they were refused admission, while at the same time the English drovers had free access into and out of the lairages.</p>
+          <p eId="para_71">As far as could be observed, there was no system of disinfecting these drovers before they went into the lairages or when they came out.  This question of food for the cattle, as well as proper care for them, has naturally a very serious effect on their value.  No one in the cattle trade needs to be told that.  As to the precautions taken, I understand that the system in Birkenhead is very bad, indeed so bad that there is no system there at all.  The precautions are not put in force as they should be, and the wonder is that England at the moment is not reeking with foot and mouth disease from one end of it to the other.  Creosote, I understand, is provided in a small box at Woodside, where those having access to the lairages are supposed to avail of it as a disinfectant. They are supposed to walk in and stand on the creosote which is kept in a little box, but, according to the report that we have received, the men concerned only put one foot in the box and keep the other outside, and then show to the Inspectors the boot that has been put in the creosote.  If these statements are true, it is no wonder that England is in the position she is in to-day.  I understand also that fumigation is only a farce.  Things were very bad at the early stages, but I believe there has been a little improvement within the last three or four days, but at the same time the enforcement of the regulations is not anything like what it should be.</p>
+          <p eId="para_72">At our own port in Dun Laoghaire, I am afraid the precautions are not strict enough either.  Men who have been over in England, and who have been through the cattle lairages, attempt to evade complying with the regulations, and this happens even with people engaged in the cattle trade.  I suppose some of these young men think themselves too nice to go into the fumigating chamber, and some of them also, I suppose, do not want to soil their  boots; but the fact is that they attempt to evade complying with the regulations. Men engaged in the cattle trade do that, and in my opinion their action is not creditable to them.  If they were men of any national spirit they should, I think, be anxious to comply with the regulations, especially when it is remembered that their very livelihood depends upon the success of the cattle trade in this country.  I was speaking to a young cattle dealer who had come from Birkenhead, and who had been through the cattle lairages.  He told me he was asked to go into the fumigating chamber at this side.  He went in, but with his travelling clothes and boots on.  The clothes he had worn in the cattle lairages in England were in his bag.  I have that from the man himself, and I think it is not at all creditable to men like him and to others who are engaged in the cattle trade in this country.  It is a miracle that we have not foot and mouth disease in this country, a miracle, I say, that we ought to be very thankful for.  There were several other points that I wished to refer to, but as I was not aware that this question would be taken up so early in the day I have nothing more to say, except to call attention to the urgency of having the regulations as regards foot and mouth disease at the open ports in England strictly enforced, and also to see that our cattle are well treated and well cared for when they arrive at these ports.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardWilson" eId="spk_63">
+          <from>Mr. WILSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_73">I desire to support what has been said by Deputy Gorey. I would like the Dáil to understand the exact position with regard to the cattle trade.  Deputies heard the other day from the Minister for Agriculture that if cattle are found infected at a landing place, a kind of "No man's land," between England and Ireland, the owners of the cattle are not to be compensated either by the Free State Government or the Government of Great Britain.  You heard a statement from Deputy Gorey as to the lack of supervision as regards the disinfecting arrangements at the other side, or rather the failure to carry out the regulations by the authorities in Great Britain.  I do not think it is a fair business for men who invest their money in the  cattle trade and bring their cattle over to England to this "No man's land" after getting a sound bill of health at the port of export in Ireland, that through the action, or want of action, of the authorities in Great Britain these cattle should become infected with the disease.  The cattle were quite healthy and free of the disease leaving Ireland, but because of the lack of the enforcement of the regulations in England they contracted the disease, and as a result had to be slaughtered.  The serious position for the cattle dealers is that in these circumstances no compensation is to be paid to them by the Free State Government or by the British Government. The Minister for Agriculture, the other day, told us that these men should cover their risks by insurance.  I made inquiries into that matter since then, and I have learned that the insurance rates are so high as to be altogether prohibitive.  The only remedy that I see is to have the regulations strictly enforced, and to see that cattle which leave Ireland with a clean bill of health will not become infected in these lairages at the other side.  The regulations should be tightened up and every precaution taken to stamp out the source of infection.  Otherwise it will be a miracle if this country escapes an outbreak of the foot-and-mouth disease.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_64">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_74">I would like also to say a word with a view to pointing one of the morals issuing from this discussion. I think the Minister for Agriculture himself, on a previous occasion, drew attention to the fact that we had by deliberation, or as a result of deliberation, chosen to become independent of the British authority, and, of course, we have to abide by the consequences. I take it that nine-tenths of the people are willing to abide by the consequences and to derive the advantages. I suggest it is not well to raise matters here in a manner which would suggest that the responsibility for foot-and-mouth disease in England, or the care of cattle in England, is the responsibility of the Irish Minister for Agriculture. We cannot, from this Chamber, hector, with dignity to ourselves, the British Minister for Agriculture, or any other Department responsible  for the administration of affairs in Britain.  My chief reason for interposing is rather to suggest that we shall have, in this case, as in many others, to look for some alternative market for the disposal of our goods.  In the case of cattle as large a proportion as possible should be killed and dealt with in this country, and exported as dead meat and not as live meat.  I realise quite well that this cannot, by any possibility, cover the whole of the cattle trade, but at least it would minimise the loss which the cattle traders and breeders are subject to, and I suggest that this is not a cattle dealer's question.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_65">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_75">On a point of personal explanation, I have not said it was a cattle dealer's question nor have I attempted to lecture the English Board of Agriculture.  My object was to try and draw attention to the want in not having the regulations enforced.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_66">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_76">I did not suggest, nor do I want to suggest, that Deputy Gorey was speaking as a representative of the cattle dealers.  But I am afraid there is an inclination to think of it rather as a cattle dealer's question. I wonder whether this is not a matter which should be dealt with by the Minister for External Affairs.  It is very serious, no doubt, and I believe that we will be obliged—I would hope that the continuance of disease in England will make us all realise that we shall be obliged—to encourage, to the utmost, the dead meat trade in the country.  I hope that steps will be taken to avail of the opportunity that is now offered, and to get possession of and to put into operation, the factory at Drogheda.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PeterHughes" eId="spk_67">
+          <from>Mr. PETER HUGHES</from>
+          <p eId="para_77">This is one of the vital questions we have to consider in this country and what I would like to emphasise is the necessity for seeing that the disease is not carried into the Free State.  That is the matter to which we should devote all our attention.  I am informed, whether rightly or wrongly, that there is a lot of litter used in packing various articles coming into this country, some of which is fed to cattle and sent  to the various ports of the country. There is danger that in this way we might introduce the disease into the country and this would involve the loss of a very considerable amount of money.  The Ministry of Agriculture should turn their attention to this and see that no packing that comes into this country is used for fodder, but that any such packing as is allowed to come to the ports is destroyed.  I think that is one of the best means that could be taken to safeguard the country in respect of this important question.</p>
+          <p eId="para_78">As regards the treatment of cattle at the other side of the water, I think that the person who is at the head of that branch in Dublin should be able to make arrangements between his Department and the English Department. The cattle industry, as we all know, is a vital industry in this country, and if the suggestion of Deputy Johnson were taken up earnestly and if the larger number of the cattle fit to be killed were got ready for that purpose they could be exported as dead meat instead of sending them alive to the other side.  That would be a great advantage and the industries of the country would benefit very greatly in the use of by-products resulting from such a system.  I merely wish to suggest to the Ministry the very great importance of having fodder coming from England in packing cases destroyed at the port of entry.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelDoyle" eId="spk_68">
+          <from>Mr. MICHAEL DOYLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_79">I think great necessity for supervision lies at this side.  If the people in England, who are acting in such a slip-shod fashion, are not coming across here, there is not much danger of their infecting this country with the disease. But I think every precaution should be taken at our ports, where the people engaged in the cattle trade are crossing to and fro, and there should be every facility that is possible for the disinfection of the clothes of such people crossing over to the English markets and coming back again.  I understand that at Rosslare the facilities for this sort of disinfection are not at all adequate.  They have some man engaged doing this business who some time ago was a railway worker.  I presume  he is not the Shipping Inspector but I am informed—and I live adjacent to where this port is—that the fumigation carried out is an actual farce. Another thing I suggest to the Ministry—in this I support Deputy Johnson —is to try to establish the dead meat industry.</p>
+          <p eId="para_80">I am glad to say we have it on a small scale in Wexford, and but for it, during the crisis of the past two or three months a great many people would have fared much worse than they did.  At a recent meeting of the Agricultural Commission the suggestion was made that an effort should be made to try and re-open the meat packing industry at Drogheda.  The majority of the members of the Commission believe that the Ministry would be well advised not to let that industry fall through, or get into the clutches of a foreign syndicate, or people who, perhaps, would be able to rig the markets. That industry should, if possible, be retained for the Irish people.  There is no better protection against foot-and-mouth disease than to establish a dead meat trade.  Apart from stores, with which the owner is not so much hampered, the dead meat trade would be a great advantage for dealing with fat cattle.  With a dead meat trade owners would not be compelled to keep cattle for months, being unable to get rid of them for want of an outlet to the markets.  When the trade is held up the beneficial effects of a dead meat trade, such as we have in Wexford, is realised.  I would impress on the Minister, and on his officials, the importance of seeing that people engaged in the trade are disinfected after every journey they make across the Channel.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickFrancisBaxter" eId="spk_69">
+          <from>Mr. BAXTER</from>
+          <p eId="para_81">I want to add a few remarks on this question.  We raised it as it is a very important one for the country.  We know that in England up to one or two weeks ago not a beast could be moved from one part of the country to another.  We do not want that position in this country.  We do not want to be in the position that we could not drive cattle from their sheds for a drink.  Because of the laxity of the regulations in England, there is a great danger that foot-and-mouth disease will come into this country.  It  is a marvel that it has not come already, seeing that the conditions are such as they are across the Channel.  I agree that our Minister for Agriculture can, perhaps, do very little to have regulations imposed across the Channel, but he can, at least, see that those engaged in the cattle trade, between this country and England, will submit to regulations on coming back which will ensure that Irish interests are being protected.  It seems to me that a register should be kept of cattle dealers who cross to this country from England, and it should be a penal offence for any man engaged in the trade who did not comply with whatever regulations are fixed so that disinfection may be thoroughly carried out.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnWhite" eId="spk_70">
+          <from>Mr. WHITE</from>
+          <p eId="para_82">On the last occasion that this question was discussed in the Dáil I made a suggestion to the Minister for Agriculture that a veterinary inspector should accompany large consignments of cattle to the different landing places with a view to seeing that the British authorities carried out the legal requirements.  The Minister did not exactly turn that suggestion down, but stated it was a question of expense.  The cattle trade is one of the principal industries in the country, and in such a question the expense of a veterinary inspector to accompany consignments to the different landing places would, I consider, be well-spent money.  I was recently informed in the North of Ireland by a prominent cattle dealer that this disease had been introduced into England by the Canadian cattle, but that the fact was cloaked and concealed.  Whether there is any truth in that statement or not I do not know.  I make the statement as it was told to me, and I am prepared to give the name of the cattle dealer who supplied the information.  I would put it to the Minister for his consideration, that he should send a veterinary inspector to the cross-Channel ports with every large consignment of cattle to see that the English authorities carry out the regulations.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#PatrickJHogan" eId="spk_71">
+          <from>MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)</from>
+          <p eId="para_83">I agree that we should concentrate on taking precautions on this side rather than on the arrangements  made by the English Ministry of Agriculture on the other side.  I also agree with Deputy Johnson that we cannot afford to hector the English Minister for Agriculture, and I do not think Deputy Gorey intended to hector him.  I will admit, in view of the fact that quarantine stations at the ports in England are a sort of no man's land that we here have certain obligations to see that satisfactory arrangements are made in regard to these quarantine stations.  We would be entitled through the Minister for External Affairs, with whom I have discussed this matter, to make the necessary representations to the English Government, as a friendly Government, if we considered their arrangements might be improved, and if we had any suggestions to make. We have done so.  While Deputy Gorey and Deputy Baxter agreed that we should concentrate on precautions, Deputy White is perfectly convinced that there is no objection to sending over a veterinary inspector with each consignment of cattle to the landing places, at Birkenhead, Glasgow, Merklands, and Ayr, etc.  The inspectors are to get off at the landing places with each consignment, walk up to the veterinary surgeon who is at each place, and see that precautions are carried out, and probably say to him that he knows very little about his job. I want to point out that that policy is absolutely opposed to the policy suggested by Deputy Gorey, Deputy Baxter and Deputy Hughes.  It is not such a simple matter as one thinks, and there is no use closing our eyes to the difficulties.  I dare say we could make arrangements with the English Government so that our veterinary inspector could be constantly on the other side inspecting their arrangements and quarantine stations.  I would agree with Deputy White that mere considerations of expense should not stop us and have not stopped us.  It would be very false economy to save a penny and lose many pounds in such a big question as this.  But is it good business to take up the attitude, that we must be perfectly satisfied with the arrangements made by the English Ministry of Agriculture?</p>
+          <p eId="para_84">Deputy White will remember that one case of foot and mouth disease occurred about a month ago amongst Irish cattle, under circumstances which made it possible that the infection had taken place in Ireland.  In accordance with their usual custom the English Ministry immediately closed the ports until the origin of these cattle was discovered. They asked us to trace the origin.  They did not immediately send over their veterinary inspectors to go through the whole of Ireland to see if there was foot and mouth disease in Ireland.  They asked us to do so. We succeeded in doing so in four days. They took our word and certificates and opened the ports.  The closing of the ports for two days means probably a loss of thousands of pounds, but if they were closed for some weeks it would mean hundreds of thousands of pounds.  Is it worth while running the risk of having our ports closed for weeks longer than they should be? That is what would happen if the English Ministry took up the attitude that their veterinary inspectors would have to be satisfied that we had a clean bill of health here.  The Farmers' Party are more interested in this than I am.  They have probably more cattle per head than I have.  I will put the onus on the Farmers' Union of considering whether it would be good business for us to say to the English Inspectors and to the English Ministry of Agriculture, "We are not satisfied with your arrangements and you will have to let us inspect your arrangements at the landing places."  If the farmers ask me, and say that they are willing to do that and are willing to run the risk of the English Minister for Agriculture saying: "Very well, we will not take your certificates on this side," they have only to say so and I will do it.  There is no use in Deputy White or other Deputies taking up the attitude and saying: "I am a business man, and I will do this thing very quickly and see that things are done right, but we have got to persuade the Minister for Agriculture, who knows nothing about the trade and that is the trouble."  If Deputy White, as a responsible farmer, thinks that we can afford to ask the English  Minister for Agriculture to let us inspect his arrangements, and that the Farmers' Party are willing to run the risk of the English Minister for Agriculture retaliating and saying: "Very well, we will inspect yours," all he has to do is to let me know and I am sure there will be no difficulty about making the arrangements.  It is not expenses that have stopped us.</p>
+          <p eId="para_85">I am sure that the precautions taken on the other side during the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in regard to keeping landing-places absolutely free from infection could be improved upon, just as I know perfectly well that the arrangements on this side could be improved upon.  I take it for granted that as foot-and-mouth disease has lasted in England for at least three months, as there have been thousands of cattle and hundreds of thousands of pounds lost, and the whole Ministry of Agriculture has been overworked in trying to cope with the outbreak, that there may have been laxity and looseness. But I ask Deputy Gorey not to take for granted or to take too literally the report which he has received, that English drovers from the neighbouring counties go amongst Irish cattle at the various landing-places without being properly disinfected.  I dare say farmers in England are like farmers in Ireland, and drovers in England are like drovers here, and that some of them try to avoid the disinfecting process. But it is an extraordinary thing, notwithstanding that foot-and-mouth disease has been rife in England for three months, that only in a single case has the disease been carried into a landing place.  That one case was in Merklands, in Glasgow.  If the precautions were so absolutely loose and lax as the Deputy says, you can take it for granted, having regard to the fact that English drovers and officials are going in and out every day to everyone of the landing-places along the coast, that there would be more than one outbreak of disease.  I am not satisfied that the precautions are so lax as is stated, but I would like to have a copy of the report referred to.  I can find out in various ways exactly what the precautions are and how they are carried out in practice.  There has been only one  case of infection being carried to a landing-place for Irish cattle.  I want to point out also that I have not received a single complaint from Irish dealers on the other side on the lines of the complaint that Deputy Gorey has made, although I have received a great many complaints on other matters.  I ask the Deputy, therefore, not to take for granted all the statements that are made.</p>
+          <p eId="para_86">With regard to feeding on the other side, the English Ministry make arrangements for feeding, but they recover the cost from the owners.  The Irish dealers, I am perfectly certain, can have their cattle fed with as much hay as they are willing to pay for.  I know that on this side cattle are left in the lairages, at the North Wall and elsewhere, for a long time without being properly fed.  I know the owners leave them in that way deliberately and that they are often in a poor condition before they are taken away.  I am certain that when the disease was at its worst confusion was worse confounded at the ports in England, and that there were certain difficulties in getting cattle properly fed.  On the other hand, dealers themselves were not entirely without fault, and I would suggest that some of them are not too anxious to spend money on feeding.</p>
+          <p eId="para_87">I agree that all the precautions necessary should be taken on this side. This debate is useful because it will re-advertise the whole position.  But for the one precaution which I can take the farmers can take a hundred precautions.  Any precautions that I can take are not of any use without the good-will and co-operation of the trade.  We have, I think, taken every possible precaution.  We have not got foot and mouth disease yet.  I do not say that was because of our precautions, but it may be partly due to them. It is, perhaps, due more to good luck, as Deputy Gorey said.  We have, I am satisfied, made as adequate arrangements as we could make for disinfection at the ports.</p>
+          <p eId="para_88">I have got complaints from cattle dealers recently with regard to the disinfection arrangements at Dun Laoghaire.  I have inquired from the  Chief Veterinary Inspector, who is in charge there, from the police constables who are on duty there, and the two men who are responsible for the actual disinfection of the dealers as they arrive, and I am unable to make up my mind as to who is to blame.  I know that in the past dealers have made every effort to avoid disinfection. But at present they, I think, realise their responsibility in the matter and are more willing to submit to the process of disinfection.  Although I have received numerous complaints as to the laxity, if you like, of certain officials of the Department at certain ports, I am not at all satisfied that the fault does not lie as much with the farmers and the cattle dealers.  The two best men we have are at Dun Laoghaire and the best Veterinary Inspector we have is in charge there.</p>
+          <p eId="para_89">With regard to Rosslare, the man who is responsible there for taking the cattle dealers into the disinfecting chamber may be a railway man or anything else you like.  There is no skill required in the matter.  If a person is there long enough he will know the persons who land and that particular persons are cattle dealers and not commercial travellers.  All he has got to do is to take persons in to be disinfected. There is a Veterinary Inspector in charge at the port.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelDoyle" eId="spk_72">
+          <from>Mr. M. DOYLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_90">Not at the time the boat arrives, when cattle dealers are returning.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_73">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_91">He may not be there always.  It is not his duty to be there then.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_74">
+          <from>Mr. DOYLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_92">I am not saying it is.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_75">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_93">This is manual work and the fact that a man is a railway man does not make him any the less fitted to intercept cattle dealers and bring them to the disinfecting chamber. The only special knowledge required is that he should be able to distinguish cattle dealers as they arrive.  The old Order which was in operation for some time was to the effect that every person connected with the cattle trade on landing on this side was guilty of an offence if he  refused to submit to disinfection.  We have changed that Order within the past week.  We have now made it an offence—and I would like this to be well known—for any cattle dealer, farmer or drover, or anybody connected with the cattle trade on the other side, to leave a port without himself ensuring that he has been disinfected.</p>
+          <p eId="para_94">We propose to prosecute in any case we can get.  That is the first precaution. With regard to packing, Deputy Hughes suggested that all packing should be burned at the ports.  That would be impossible, I think.  That would raise a tremendous opposition in trade, if we had to unpack everything at the ports and burn the straw and packing. I do not think it would be worth it.  I think that if you go into the lists of cases of foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland for a period of, say, twenty years, you would not be justified in going as far as to prevent straw used in packing for goods from coming in, or insisting on everything being unpacked at the ports and the straw burned there.  Even if you did that you would only be guarding against perhaps five per cent. of the possible sources of danger. What we have done is to make an order making it an offence to retain any straw arriving on this side with goods.  We have asked the people who get straw as packing to burn it, and we have made it an offence not to do so. Of course, we could hardly enforce that law, except in two or three per cent. of cases, if people simply meant to evade it, but you do not want that law if people realised their responsibilities themselves, and if they realised that it is, first of all, good business, and secondly, a patriotic duty, to burn such straw, and if people realised it so clearly and so realistically that they should report their neighbours when they found they were not doing it.  The Farmers' Union can do ten times as much as I can in the way of precautions by co-operating.  We have also sent out a circular to the Civic Guard describing the symptoms of foot-and-mouth disease, and we have published in all the papers the fact that if cattle are slaughtered in Ireland because of foot-and-mouth disease we pay for them.  We think it likely that the farmer  will be more likely to report a case if he is getting paid than if he believes he will be at a loss over it.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_76">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_95">On a point of information, I think you are quite correct.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_77">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_96">That is a fact which I want to have known, that if cattle become infected in Ireland and are slaughtered the State pays and the owner will not be at any loss.  It is almost a miracle that we have not had foot-and-mouth disease, but it would not really be a terrible misfortune if a case broke out in Ireland, provided it was reported immediately.  The real danger is that if a case occurs the farmer, on finding his beast suffering from the disease, would put it into a house and start curing it.  It can be cured, and cured easily.  In such a case the disease spreads and spreads, but if we could get after that case immediately, the ports would be only closed for three days.  If the beast is kept, and if the disease spreads, they may be closed for three, four or five months.  There is a real precaution.  The real and the most effective precaution you can take is by every means in your power to get it into the heads of the farmers that if a single case of foot and mouth disease breaks out they should report it immediately. That is where the Farmers' Union comes in, and I ask them, as far as they can do it, to see that that is done, because, after all, one outbreak is of no importance.  The English do not get desperately frightened when one outbreak occurs.  In such a case we would isolate the particular area concerned. The ports would be closed, and after establishing the fact that we had the area isolated the ports would be opened for the rest of the country, and the farmer whose beast is slaughtered would be paid.  The reason that there are outbreaks in England, and that there have been outbreaks in Ireland, is because people will not report it when they find their cattle infected.</p>
+          <p eId="para_97">I agree that the dead meat trade is a precaution.  I do not pretend to be omniscient, strange to say.  I agree, in the first place, that the question of a dead meat trade in Ireland has been investigated for at least ten or fifteen years, and people have been talking about it through all that period and  agreeing that it is a business proposition which would pay from every point of view.  We are still talking about it.  I realise that from the point of view of increasing production, of starting subsidiary industries, of giving a better price to the farmer for his cattle, as a protection against the closing of the ports as a result of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, it would be a very good thing.  It was that from every one of these points of view, and it would be a good thing to have three or four prosperous dead meat businesses in Ireland.  Why have we not got them?  Deputy Doyle tells me not to let this opportunity pass. What do you want me to do?  We have an Agricultural Commission, of which Deputy Doyle is a member. What does he suggest that the Government should do—to take a specific case —in connection with the Drogheda Dead Meat Factory?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelDoyle" eId="spk_78">
+          <from>Mr. M. DOYLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_98">We will tell you when we get you over there.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_79">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_99">You told me in your speech.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelDoyle" eId="spk_80">
+          <from>Mr. M. DOYLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_100">Well, therefore, do not ask me again.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_81">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_101">He stated that we should open it.  Does he mean the Government?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelDoyle" eId="spk_82">
+          <from>Mr. M. DOYLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_102">No.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_83">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_103">I am sure that Deputy Johnson was delighted to hear Deputy Doyle talking like that.  But should the Government actually nationalise industry?  That is what we are asked to do, to put our money into this factory, which would take, I suppose, £300,000 or £400,000, appoint a manager, go to the Minister for Finance for the money and have Civil Servants running it.  Socialism—that is what it is.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_84">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_104">Dead meat and fisheries will get on nicely.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_85">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_105">There is no use in the Farmers' Party, and people interested in the dead meat trade, stopping at a certain point.  We can all agree it would be good business to open the Drogheda Dead Meat Factory, but we  all stop at the point where it becomes necessary to do something.  What do you want me to do?  I am anxious to see it opened.  Is it seriously suggested that the Government should put money into it?  If it is good from the farmers' and business point of view to have a dead meat trade in Ireland why do not the farmers wake up and put their money into it?  Deputy Johnson might be the President in a few years, and he might meet you, and might be willing to take it over.  He is willing to take over the railways and fisheries, and he will meet you, I am sure, on the dead meat trade, unless he changes his mind by then.  But is that the policy, and is it not a perfectly hopeless position for the farmers, and there is money amongst the farmers still.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#DenisJohnGorey" eId="spk_86">
+          <from>Mr. GOREY</from>
+          <p eId="para_106">No, you have got it all.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_87">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_107">There is enough money to start, and why does not the Farmers' Union, which controls a good deal of money and has good business men, form a Co-operative Society and take over this dead meat factory?  I put it to them as responsible business men, do they really expect the Government to take it over and run it as a Government concern?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_88">
+          <from>Mr. DOYLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_108">We do not want you to run it but to take it over and hand it to us.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_89">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_109">This is really a serious matter.  Short of asking the Minister for Finance for £300,000 or £400,000, and asking him to become the owner of that factory, and putting in Civil Servants—because that is what they would be—to run it, we will help and co-operate in any possible way you can suggest in opening that factory.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#ThomasJohnson" eId="spk_90">
+          <from>Mr. JOHNSON</from>
+          <p eId="para_110">Does the Minister know anything about the Trade Facilities Act?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_91">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_111">A little.  I do not quite see what the Deputy is at in connection with this matter.  I am anxious to see that factory opened, and to see a dead meat trade in Ireland, but we cannot do anything except the initiative comes from the farmers themselves. Let them wake up and we will  do anything to help them anyway they can point out short of nationalisation.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelHayes" eId="spk_92">
+          <from>AN CEANN COMHAIRLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_112">This concludes the debate.  The point was raised for the Minister's reply.  I will allow Deputies to ask questions, without explanation of the questions.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#JohnJamesCole" eId="spk_93">
+          <from>Mr. COLE</from>
+          <p eId="para_113">We had a very useful officer, whom you may remember in recent years, a liaison officer.  Would it be possible to appoint some one to act as a liaison officer to meet the Inspectors at the landing places in England and Scotland?  If such officers could be appointed the Irish cattle could be inspected as they land.  If they are found free from disease there then there should be no further stoppage.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelRichardHeffer" eId="spk_94">
+          <from>Mr. HEFFERNAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_114">I would like to ask the Minister if there is not some other method by which they could aid the dead meat trade besides nationalisation, or handing over control of the dead meat factories to Civil Servants? Has not the Minister heard of what the English Government has done for the beet root industry in England?  Are there not certain grants and loans made by the Government, a partial subscription of the shares for a number of years, and could not such a thing be done in this country with regard to the dead meat trade?  Could our Government not make an advance which would not give Government control over the factories, and which could be repaid as the factories produced and became successful?  The blame should not be put on the farmers in this matter.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_95">
+          <from>Mr. EGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_115">Would the Minister order the Civic Guard to take precautions to see that the straw packing that comes down the country with goods—and a good deal comes with bottles and such things—would be destroyed?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_96">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_116">I certainly will do that.  I am almost certain a direction to that effect has been given to them already.  Personally, I am absolutely against appointing a liaison officer, in other words a veterinary inspector, in England.  At last we have got a proposition from the farmers.  Deputy Heffernan has put it up on the spot,  and does he seriously expect an answer now?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#MichaelRichardHeffer" eId="spk_97">
+          <from>Mr. HEFFERNAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_117">Not now, but some time.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_98">
+          <from>Mr. HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_118">Supposing I said "yes" or "no," and he can have either answer, would he give the matter  five minutes' consideration when he goes out, or give it something like the consideration a scheme of that sort deserves, and put a proposition so that the next time we will not have the same question and the same answer?</p>
+          <p eId="para_119">The Dáil adjourned at 1.20 p.m. until 3 o'clock Tuesday, 11th December.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_27">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - COMMANDEERED CORK PREMISES.</heading>
+        <speech by="#TimothyJMurphy" eId="spk_99">
+          <from>TADHG O MURCHADHA</from>
+          <p eId="para_120">asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether premises in Drimoleague, Co. Cork, owned by Mrs. Deane and occupied by a tenant named Denis O'Driscoll, were taken over forcibly by members of the Gárda Síochána on 23rd November; whether O'Driscoll and his wife, who is ill, were with their family confined to one small room in the house, and whether the business carried on by O'Driscoll in the shop was shut down; whether it is proposed to evacuate the premises, and, if not, whether it is proposed to compensate O'Driscoll?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_100">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_121">As a result of representations made to the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána as to the urgent necessity for stationing a unit of the Gárda at Drimoleague, I requested the Commissioners of Public Works to acquire suitable accommodation for that purpose.  In pursuance of the powers conferred by the Civic Guard (Acquisition of Premises) Act, 1923, the Commissioner having served the requisite notice, acquired a house belonging to Mrs. Deane, which was occupied by Mr. O'Driscoll, and to clear possession, of which the Gárda became entitled on the 11th ulto.  On the 23rd ultimo, when the Guards arrived to take over the house, O'Driscoll was still in occupation, and refused to vacate on the plea that his wife was ill.  The Guards were, accordingly, compelled to take forcible possession of the premises.</p>
+          <p eId="para_122">From reports which have been furnished to me I am satisfied that for all practical purposes O'Driscoll made no use of the shop for business purposes, and that if he so desired he could have obtained suitable accommodation elsewhere. I am further satisfied that his reluctance to vacate was the result of efforts which were made by certain  parties to prevent the Gárda obtaining barracks in the town.  I have been advised by the Commissioners of Public Works that no suitable alternative quarters are available for the Gárda, and as the necessity for a unit there is quite evident, the house in question will not be evacuated.  The question of compensation is one for the Commissioners of Public Works, and in this connection I would refer the Deputy to the provision of Section 3 (1) of the Civic Guard (Acquisition of Premises) Act, 1923.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_28">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - EX-SOLDIER METROPOLITAN POLICE PENSIONERS.</heading>
+        <speech by="#BryanRiccoCooper" eId="spk_101">
+          <from>Major COOPER</from>
+          <p eId="para_123">asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether pensioners in the Dublin Metropolitan Police who served in the British Army during the European War and were wounded, and are in receipt of disability pensions from the British Government, are liable to have their D.M.P. pensions reduced in the event of their disability pension being increased on account of greater ill-health, and whether, in view of the fact that these men when enlisting were assured that their Army service would count as police service for purposes of pension, they are not entitled to a fixed police pension irrespective of the amount of disability pension.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#" eId="spk_102">
+          <from>Mr. O'HIGGINS</from>
+          <p eId="para_124">The statutory authority for the grant of a pension to a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police who was disabled whilst employed on military service, expressly provides that the amount of pension, when added to the amount payable out of military funds, shall not in any case exceed the amount of pension which would have been granted had the disablement of the member concerned been occasioned by a non-accidental injury received by him in the execution of his duty, without his own default.  In the majority of cases of partial disablement which have arisen under this Act, the total pension has been fixed at the maximum amount payable where the disablement is not total, and in any such case, therefore, where the disability pension is increased, the pension from the Police Vote must be reduced accordingly.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_29">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - DETENTION OF ENNIS MEN.</heading>
+        <speech by="#ConorHogan" eId="spk_103">
+          <from>Mr. CONNOR HOGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_125">asked the Minister for Defence whether the continued detention of Messrs. Michael Keane, Kilamona, Ennis, and Patrick MacNamara, Barefield. Ennis, is contemplated?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_104">
+          <from>MINISTER for DEFENCE (General Mulcahy)</from>
+          <p eId="para_126">The release of Mr. Keane is being arranged.  The detention of Mr. MacNamara is still considered necessary.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_30">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - A WEXFORD ACCOUNT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#RichardCorish" eId="spk_105">
+          <from>RISTEARD MAC FHEORAIS</from>
+          <p eId="para_127">asked the Minister for Defence why the account of Messrs. John Sinnott &amp; Sons, 29 South Main Street, Wexford, amounting to £120 8s. 3d., has not been paid?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_106">
+          <from>General MULCAHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_128">It is regretted that the checking, which is necessary before this balance of account can be paid, has not yet been completed, but it is hoped the matter will shortly be settled.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_31">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - DEDUCTION FROM LEIX MERCHANT'S ACCOUNT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PatrickJosephEgan" eId="spk_107">
+          <from>Mr. P.J. EGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_129">asked the Minister for Defence whether, in paying the account of Messrs. Mercier &amp; Sons, Durrow, Leix, the Army 10 per cent. on the account was deducted; whether the Quartermaster-General has informed Messrs. Mercier that the deduction was made in accordance with the instructions received from the Army Finance Department; whether he is aware that the deduction is a purely arbitrary one, and whether he will explain on what basis it has been made?</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_108">
+          <from>General MULCAHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_130">The deductions made from Messrs. Mercier's accounts are for overcharges for hirage of cars. The hirage rates allowable have been fixed after careful consideration, and would appear to be reasonable.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_32">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - CLAIM FOR MONEY ADVANCED.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PatrickJosephEgan" eId="spk_109">
+          <from>Mr. P.J. EGAN</from>
+          <p eId="para_131">asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that a sum of £32, which was advanced by Mr. Ernest Mercier, of Durrow Mills, Leix,  to Quartermaster Matthew Cavanagh. in July, 1922, for the purpose of paying the troops, still remains unpaid, and, if so, when it will be paid, and whether Mr. Mercier will be allowed interest from July, 1922, to date.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_110">
+          <from>General MULCAHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_132">There has been some delay in dealing with this matter owing to the difficulty in getting into touch with the officer concerned.  The investigation has now been completed and payment will be made in the next few days.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+      <debateSection name="WrittenAnswers" eId="dbsect_33">
+        <heading>WRITTEN ANSWERS. - KILRUSH ARMY ACCOUNT.</heading>
+        <speech by="#PatrickHogan" eId="spk_111">
+          <from>PADRAIG O hOGAIN (An Clár)</from>
+          <p eId="para_133">asked the Minister for Defence if he has received a claim from Mrs. Bridget Dunne, Moore Street, Kilrush, in respect of the billeting of National soldiers some time ago, and whether, in consideration of the circumstances of the applicant, he will expedite payment.</p>
+        </speech>
+        <speech by="#RichardJamesMulcahy" eId="spk_112">
+          <from>General MULCAHY</from>
+          <p eId="para_134">No claim has been received at Headquarters.  Inquiries are being made locally, and the consideration of the claim will be expedited when it is received.</p>
+        </speech>
+      </debateSection>
+    </debateBody>
+  </debate>
+</akomaNtoso>