I was relating to Leas-Cheann Comhairle the point I have already mentioned to you that the word "Resolution" in the Standing Order there, not merely by interpretation, but by previous practice, means some legislative Resolution, and not a Resolution applying to the business of this House. I was about to draw his attention to the fact that on two earlier occasions Resolutions of this kind were before the House, one in the name of Mr. Gavan Duffy, who was then a member of the Dáil, and the other in the name of Deputy Seán Milroy, one of which was defeated and the other accepted, but they were both allowed and this rule was not used against them.
It could quite clearly be interpreted that that rule would apply to a resolution of this kind, not a resolution touching legislation, but a resolution definitely affecting the business of the Dáil. The point I am putting to you now is a point of ordinary fairness, because when my resolution was handed in ten days ago there would then have been an opportunity for me to have got the requisite number of signatures, or to have attempted to have got the requisite number of signatures, but when you drew my attention to this possible interpretation of this Standing Order in spite of the previous practice of the Dáil, it was then already after half past one to-day, and very little opportunity was given me to comply with the Standing Order, as you yourself very fairly and courteously acknowledged. I am, therefore, submitting, if this is to be the interpretation to be given to the Standing Order, that the interpretation should be given after to-day and not on this occasion, when obviously I could have no opportunity to have complied with the Order, inasmuch as my motion was handed in ten days ago and accepted by you, and put on the Orders of the Day, without drawing my attention to the fact that Article 38 would be likely to be interpreted now and in the future in a sense different from the interpretation placed upon it in the past.