I move the first Clause of the Schedule. I take it that there is not likely to be any difference of opinion about that.
Agreed to.
DISQUALIFICATIONS. - COMMITTEE STAGE.
The second Clause of the resolution proposes one change at least in the law as it stands at the present time. There is at present a qualifying period. That is, six months prior to the date of the making up of the register, a person must have resided in a constituency in which he is to be registered, or in the contiguous constituency. We propose to do away altogether with the qualifying date. This matter was mentioned by Deputy William O'Brien when the resolution was last before the Dáil. I think he suggested then that the qualifying period should be shortened. On going into the matter we did not see any reason for retaining the qualifying period at all, and we believed there is no difficulty in saying that a person can be registered in the constituency in which he was registered from a specified date on which the register must be made up. The only other point worth mentioning is (b)—that is, that a person may be registered in respect of a constituency in which he occupies premises for the purpose of his or her trade, profession or business. At present the person may have two votes, one in respect of his residence and one in respect of business premises. In the future one person will have no more than one vote. He will now have to make his choice. It is already agreed that a graduate of a university can make his choice between the university constituency and the constituency in which he resides. We will apply the same principle to business premises. It is felt that it will, in a country like this, be advantageous to facilitate the business community in returning a certain number of representatives who will be definitely business representatives. It will make no great difference as to membership of the Dáil, but if we had not this provision we would probably find a large number of people who occupied business premises, but who resided in different parts of the country, would be like this. Take the case of Dublin. Those residing in the County of Dublin would be scattered. Some of them might reside in Dublin City; they would be split up into a variety of constituencies that might represent a certain class or a certain social creed, if you like to put it in that way. Well, they might like to return Members who would be of the same type of mind, and who would be reckoned as having the same outlook on social problems and even on economic problems generally. They would not be able to return any Member who would represent the business, commercial and manufacturing point of view. And we think it is desirable in this country that this facility should be given them—that they can choose where they will vote—whether they will vote where they reside or vote where their business premises are situate. If they choose to do so they will be able to vote in one constituency, and to return or at least vote for, perhaps, more members than one, representing a definite commercial outlook which might not otherwise be represented, because there is more in it than merely representing people of a certain economic standing in the country. We think that at any rate they should have representation, and we think it is much more desirable that they should have an opportunity, as they are, comparatively speaking, a small class in this country, and will, in very few constituencies, be able to return anybody definitely representing a business outlook, and they should be given this choice. I think those are the only special points in this clause of the Resolution.
The proposal of the Minister in regard to the abolition of the qualifying period is very welcome; and I think it is a very considerable advance in the direction of recognising that it is the individual, as man or woman, it is the humanity of the voter that is being recognised, rather than the social position or property qualification; and that is a considerable merit. But the attempt to hang on to the idea of a property qualification in Sub-section (b) is a defect and an inconsistency which I do not think the Minister has succeeded in dispelling. There is no reason whatever why we should depart from the plan, from the proposal to make the place of residence the place of registration. What is proposed here in sub-section (b) is to allow a particular class of person who happens to possess a business house —not a business qualification—to allow the person who possesses a business house in a particular constituency to turn his back upon his residence and to say "I prefer to be registered for my business premises." We might just as well claim that a man who works in a shipyard would be entitled to claim registration for the particular constituency in which the place of his occupation was situate. There is no more reason why the occupiers of business premises should be given a choice of the place of registration than that any other body of citizens should be given a choice as between their place of residence and the place in which they do their work. The Minister has instanced the desirability of allowing a particular class of voter to secure representation, that their residences are diffused and they may be living over a wide area, but that they are concentrated for business purposes and therefore they should have an opportunity of getting representation under Proportional Representation, because they are concentrated in that particular business locality. But I suspect that that will only apply to one constituency in the country, or possibly to two. And it seems to me that the claim to make this big change in the policy and plan of the Electoral scheme because of one constituency is a very serious defect. And the particular constituency in question is almost certain, if you are going to deal with practice rather than with principle, is almost certain to be able to secure representation by virtue of residence, that is to say, to secure representation of the particular elements in the community that the Minister speaks of. By virtue of residence in the constituency they can get that representation. And there is no reason why they should deflect from the ideal of giving the individual, by virtue of his humanity, a right to vote in favour of hanging on to the old property qualifications which we are generally discarding because that is what this special sub-section proposes to do. It desires to retain something of the property qualification and special privileges to a class of people because they have business premises, that is, because they have money and a particular walk in life. We have not been bold enough to give representation to people because of their occupation, or because of their social status—certainly not because of their occupational status—but we are attempting, by virtue of this clause, to say for this particular section of the community, we are prepared to mar the plan just to conciliate one particular constituency in the country. I think it is a defect, and I would move the deletion of sub-section (b) of Clause 2.
With regard to that, on account of the Proportional System this provision, if carried into legislative effect, cannot alter the whole Constitution of the Dáil very much. It cannot give any class of people more representation than their numbers in the country entitle them to. It is no defect, nor does it create any defect, in the system of Proportional Representation. Neither does it preserve the idea of property qualification. It is not proposed to limit—to put a minimum limit—on the value of the premises to be occupied. All of us realise that in an Assembly such as this it is not entirely a matter of returning members. A single member who represents a distinct point of view, a distinct interest, can often be of more real value to the Dáil and in the carrying out of the real business of the Dáil than perhaps a considerable number of members who only represent a point of view which is in strong force in the Dáil. One of the great advantages of the representation of minority is not entirely that it has the power to vote, but that it has an opportunity of expressing its point of view in the presence of those who make the decision, and is able to challenge them as to the course they are pursuing, and is able to point out the consequences of that course and is able to suggest alternatives. Now, the business community in this country is a class, unfortunately, that is not likely to be sufficiently represented. It is not likely to be represented according to its numbers by persons who have a definite business point of view, who are not in the composite representative, say, of the farmers and the landed gentry, but people who represent a business point of view. It is important from our point of view that that business element in the country should be definitely represented and should be able to express itself in this Dáil. It is introducing no new principle, because we propose adopting a system which already exists. We adopted it by dropping out the dual vote, for the dual vote which we have is indefensible. We propose in this case to substitute a choice. Now, if a person holds two premises, there is not much difference; very little difference can be pointed out between the house that he holds for the purpose of residence and the house that he holds for the purpose of business. I think it will not be any blemish in the scheme—that it will ensure a point of view which might not otherwise be adequately represented at all; that is, not represented in the sense of having definite spokesmen, and it is a thing, I think, which will conduce to the doing of the business of this Dáil in a way that will be more satisfactory and more efficient than if we did not take care to have that representation.
One of the matters that appeals to me in this clause which Deputy Johnson proposes to strike out is that it enfranchises people who might otherwise be dis-enfranchised. There are quite a number of people in this country who keep up homes for their wives and families, and, at the same time are compelled to reside, for the purpose of their business or profession, in the houses of employers. Now, these people ordinarily reside, I take it, where their home is—where their wives and families are. That is a place to which they might not be able to get at the time of an election, having regard to their duty to their employers, and this clause, if left as it stands, would enable these people—everyone knows the class to whom I refer, people like chauffeurs, gardeners, coachmen and several other people who will now be women-voters— will enable them to choose the constituency in which they will give their vote, and will enable them to vote at the place where they happen to be, by reason of their employment, when they might not be able to get to the place where their home is to register their vote there. Therefore, I think, this amendment, and I quite follow the grounds put forward by the Minister for Local Government, is one that will enable some people to get votes, who might otherwise be deprived of them, and for that reason I would support it, from the point of view I have mentioned.
I quite realise the strength of the argument for allowing in an Electoral Bill persons who reside in fact and sleep at the place of their business, having votes for that particular locality, if that is where they are interested. That is a very different proposition. The proposition that is intended here, judging by the speech of the Minister in moving it, was, that a person might reside in Rathmines, because that is the constituency in question I am sure, and have an office in Dublin. He may rent an office, or a pretence of an office, and may pay 5s. weekly or 5s. yearly for a seat in an office, for the purpose of qualifying as a voter in that particular constituency, and he would then have the choice of whether he should vote where he lives and where his real interest is—that is to say, his interest as a human being, rather than his interest as a business man or a voter. The probability is that it would be used rather for political manuvring than for anything else, giving an option to residents of the county who have business, say, in the central division of Dublin, to concentrate their votes in that particular division. I can imagine every workman, every chauffeur, whom the Deputy has referred to, being supplied with seats in offices for the purposes of qualifying to vote. If you want to avoid the possibility of that kind of double-dealing for political purposes, you have got to make a clear, definite, single franchise, and a single qualification, as when you make a double one, giving the choice only to one particular section of the community, you are opening a way for possible malpractices in voting. We know how it has been done in the past, and we have no reason to think that with the coming of Saorstát Eireann, that we are all going to generate wings and become angelic. That is not going to happen at all. We are going to have manoeuvring for a majority in the future, as in the past, if we allow it by the Electoral Law. I want to avoid that if possible, and the one way to avoid it is to have a single qualification, and no opportunity for a choice for one particular section of the community.
I wonder has the Deputy who has just sat down noticed the extraordinary contradiction between his two speeches? He said in the first speech that this would only apply to one election.
One constituency.
One constituency, or possibly two. And in the second speech he drew an appalling vision of manuvring for majority by means of this. Now, it seems to me, if it is only likely to apply to only one or two constituencies, the appalling danger that has been pointed out is not at all likely to arise. He also suggests that chauffeurs, gardeners, whom I presume would be in some sort of Trade Union, are going to vote for these political manuvrers. Evidently Deputy Johnson has lost faith in the power of the organisation that he represents in this Dáil.
I want to take temptation out of the way.
It seems to me, it does not necessarily follow that a man who has a vote for his business premises is going to vote for that type of candidate at all that the present Minister for Local Government is anxious about. Deputy Johnson assumes that the voter would vote only in his place of business. I wonder was he likely to vote for some plutocrat, who also had a vote in the same area? I think the Deputy is needlessly alarmed as to what is going to happen, that the whole machinery of legislative operation is going to be corrupted by the return of even a couple of representatives of business men from a couple of constituencies. It seems to me if you delete this on the grounds of the argument put forward by Deputy Johnson you would have to delete also the following——
I would if you would be willing.
It also goes away from what the Deputy calls a vote on the basis of humanity. I think the one point in answer to that is that the object of this is not to retain any semblance of privilege and to introduce an element of choice which in this clause, in this sub-section, will tend to convenience the person who wishes to exercise the franchise. For that reason I think the objection is based upon a needlessly false alarm. I do not think it should be persisted in.
I am in favour of this option, for the simple reason that I think it is more democratic. We have given a vote, if you like, on the basis of humanity; we have given everybody a vote; but we might as well face the fact that people will vote according to their interests. I do not like to use the word "humanity" again, but can you divide business from humanity? Will not a man's business have a certain amount of influence on his humanity, or whatever you like to call it? The business man will vote according to his interests, and the labourer will vote according to his interests.
We hope so.
We simply cannot change that. The business man and the business interest, as a matter of democratic practice, is entitled to representation. The labourer is entitled to representation, and the commercial class and the farmer. Every class of community is entitled to representation, and the best sort of Franchise Bill is the Bill that will give each the representation that their numbers entitle them to. I say this particular provision will give business interests the representation that their numbers entitle them to and that if you take these provisions away, if you remove them, then they will not have the representation in the Dail that their numbers entitle them to. In the interests of democratic government I am in favour of this clause.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 30:—
Tá
- Pádraig Mac Gamhna.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Liam Ó Briain.
- Tomás Ó Conaill.
- Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Seán Ó Laidhin.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.
- Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin.
Níl
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Donchadh Ó Guaire.
- Seán Ó Maolruaidh.
- Mícheál Ó hAonghusa.
- Seán Ó hAodha.
- Liam de Roiste.
- Seán Ó Ruanaidh.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Earnán Altún.
- Sir Séamus Craig.
- Gearoid Mac Giobuin.
- Liam Thrift.
- Pádraig Ó hÓgáin.
- Pádraic Ó Máille.
- Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir Ó Broin.
- Risteard Mac Liam.
- Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Aindriú Ó Láimhín.
- Peadar Ó hAodha.
- Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
- Alasdair Mac Cába.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
- Domhnall Ó Broin.
- Séamus de Burca.
Amendment put and agreed to.
|
Tá. |
Níl. |
|
Pádraig Mac Gamhna.Tomás de Nógla.Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.Tomás Mac Eoin.Liam Ó Briain.Tomás Ó Conaill.Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.Liam O Daimhín.Seán Ó Laidhin.Seán Buitléir.Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin. |
Liam T. Mac Cosgair.Donchadh Ó Guaire.Seán Ó Maolruaidh.Mícheál Ó hAonghusa.Seán Ó hAodha.Liam de Roiste.Seán Ó Ruanaidh.Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.Earnán Altún.Sir Séamus Craig.Gearoid Mac Giobuin.Liam Thrift.Pádraig Ó hÓgáin.Pádraic Ó Máille.Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.Criostóir Ó Broin.Risteard Mac Liam.Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.Tomás Mac Artúir.Aindriú Ó Láimhín.Peadar Ó hAodha.Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.Alasdair Mac Cába.Earnán de Blaghd.Uinseann de Faoite.Domhnall Ó Broin.Séamus de Burca. |
Motion made and question put: "That Clause 2 stand part of the Resolution."
Agreed.
Clause 3 is, I think, one in which there is no material difference of opinion. It is entirely consequential on Clause 2, and I formally move it.
I would like to bring a matter under the notice of the Minister for his consideration. Unless he makes an exception with regard to University elections, there will be great practical difficulties in working this out. I think a University Register is in a very different position from the other Registers. When a person gets his degree is the time that he goes on to the University Register. I think there will be great practical difficulty in working out the University Register unless exception is made allowing him to be registered for two places if necessary, but of course requiring him when the time comes to decide as to which constituency he will exercise his vote in.
That is a matter that I think there would be some difficulty in agreeing to, but there are different ways by which a man may make his choice. He may make his choice once and that may stand until he reverses it, and I think perhaps the difficulty might be met in that way.
Motion put: "That Clause 3 stand part of the Resolution."
Agreed.
Clause 4 reads:—"No Member of any Police Force on full pay may be registered as a Parliamentary Elector or vote at any Election to the Oireachtas." That clause is a proposal to continue the present state of affairs, or the state of affairs that has existed heretofore. It may be necessary for the prevention of corrupt practices that in future the police shall have additional duties in respect of the carrying cut of Elections; but whether any additional duties are cast upon the police or not, they have had heretofore very important duties in connection with this matter. It is most important that the police should, so far as it can be assured, be impartial and do nothing to assist or favour one candidate more than another. Now it is impossible to prevent members of a police force from having their own political views, but it is possible by preventing their being on the register, to insure that appeals shall not be addressed to them; that they shall not be subjected to canvassing and that they shall not be obliged or invited to declare their preference, one way or another. It will often happen that a policeman, in the execution of his duty, would have to do something that may lose, perhaps, a vote to one party or give a vote to another party. If he has declared himself a canvasser on the side of that party or against that party his action will be challenged. The very fact that he may have been canvassed, that he is interested in the election to the extent of giving his own vote, may predispose him to some partiality in the execution of his duty. We are convinced that it is most desirable that men holding these positions should be excluded from the franchise. We believe that the restriction under which they laboured in the past was a good and wholesome thing and we are of opinion that it should be continued in the future.
I am not convinced by the reasons that the Minister has given that this provision is a wise one, and I think that members of the police force are equally entitled to the franchise with all others. The reasons given by the Minister would apply with equal force to Presiding Officers and the officials charged with the conduct of the election. It is highly desirable that they should be impartial, and that they should be above suspicion, but they are not deprived of their votes in order to insure that. It is quite true that policemen would, of course, have their own views upon public questions and upon politics, but depriving them of their votes will not deprive them of their views. It may be an incitement or an inducement to them to try other methods of having their opinions given effect to. It is quite true, of course, that police will be required to keep order at elections; but should they require assistance no doubt the Army will be called in to assist them in carrying out their duties, and it is proposed to give votes to members of the Army. I think this one section of the community ought not to be made an exception of; they should have votes like everyone else. Deputies who know me will not accuse me of excessive partiality to policemen.
As the Minister for the time being responsible for the efficiency and discipline of the police forces, I advocated that particular clause in the Resolution. I did so, facing the conditions we have in the country at the moment, and endeavouring to visualise the conditions we may have in the country for five, or seven, or ten years. I did so remembering that one of the forces concerned is an infant force, a young force barely getting under way, and recognising that the strain of political feeling in this country for some years to come might be just a little too much for that force, if allowed to permeate and grip its members. I did so, too, remembering that the police force has to serve impersonally any Government returned by the majority will of this nation, and that therefore, so far as it is humanly possible, they should be in a position, as it were, to take up an attitude of benevolent neutrality towards all parties contending for popular favour, holding the ring at election times between these parties, and serving with absolutely the same machine-like discipline and efficiency any Government that may be returned as a result of the popular vote. The importance of that in this country, where you may have Governments, particularly under this system of Proportional Representation, succeeding one another with a certain procession-like rapidity, cannot be overestimated. I do not think that, when the position is properly explained to the members of the forces, you will find any deep-seated desire for the vote, or any resentment at the fact that it has been thought fit by those responsible for their future to insert that particular clause. We stand over it absolutely and on high ground, the ground being the future efficiency of the members of the force, their future discipline, and the good of the nation. We stand over it so that if parties opposing us at the moment are returned to power by the people they may find at their disposal absolutely solid pieces of Government machinery prepared to serve them with the same discipline and with the same efficiency as they served us. Whatever may be the political variations in this country in the future, it is our wish that this force would stand as the one firm thing in a world that may be otherwise wobbly; or, as I may quote it—"standing as a rock 'mid melting snows." That is the conception, that is what we aim at, and there is no thought that by inserting that clause we would hit one political party or help another. It is simply done in the broadest possible spirit for the future of the force and for the future of the nation.
I do not propose to suggest—and I am sure Deputy O'Brien did not suggest—that there was any party motive of any kind in the proposed deprivation of the civil rights of policemen. I fear that the conception in the minds of Ministers of the functions of a police force in the country is not very far removed from that which has prevailed in the past. I am not sure whether policemen have heretofore been deprived of their votes on the Register. I think, by some kind of an internal order, they have been advised not to exercise the franchise, but I think their names do appear on the Register. I am not positive about that, but certainly sometimes they do appear on the Register, because they have come under my own notice in that respect. The whole question arises as to whether the arguments that have been adduced in favour of this clause could not be made to apply to every soldier and every civil servant. You want them to be impartial servants of successive Governments, no matter what the party complexion of those Governments may be. But you are not proposing to deprive either the civil servants or the soldiers of the army of their civic rights. It is, perhaps, the kind of thing that one might expect, to ask policemen to be "solid pieces of Government machinery," but it is not very congratulatory to the policeman. There is a denial in this clause of the suggestion that we thought was being received with some favour, and that is that the Civic Guard should become more and more a body of people associated with the civic life of the community—actual servants of the community in which they are acting. You are suggesting that your police force is going to be a semi-military force in the future as it has been in the past, simply moving at the direction of a central authority, and not having any thoughts outside their military or semi-military duties, or their police duties. Now, you are not going to make good policemen of automata of that kind. The best policeman is the best citizen, and the best citizen is the man who has some sense of responsibility for the Government. You are, I say, depriving them of that, and you are asking that these constituting the police force should be simply automata, moving at the direction of a central authority without any thought of their relationship to the community of which they are the servants, and moving simply as "solid pieces of Government machinery." That is not the conception of the functions of a police force that you ought to have in mind. Not alone should the policeman be the servant of the community for the purpose of keeping order, but he should be a sensible servant, having some conception of his relationship with the citizens, so that he would not be simply a man with a baton or a gun for the purpose of knocking heads at the order of his superior, but that he should use some sense of his relations with the community in deciding what action he shall take towards that community. The Minister says he is sure the police would not object to being deprived of their right to vote. I am sure it is true at the present, when you are making it a condition of service. Men want employment, and they are not thinking in terms of their civic relationship, and they will not object at present, and possibly they would never object. I do not know. Individuals here and there certainly would, but it is our duty as a State to put that policeman in proper relationship to the community as a citizen of the community on whom certain special responsibilities are devolved. You must not deprive him, because he is a policeman, of his sense of partnership in the community. He must have the feeling that he is an organic part of the community; not something from outside brought in to do a particular job. He must be part of this organism, this society, this constituency of Saorstát Eireann. I think it is a most undesirable proposition to deprive these men of their votes. Members of the police force should have the same civic rights as members of the defence force. The practical objection is raised that he might conceivably act as a partisan because he has decided to vote a certain way himself, and he might conceivably act to prevent another voter nullifying his vote; but in practice, certainly, while the Civic Guard is in its present position, his duties will be generally away from his relatives, and, in my view, he should be placed in the same position as the members of the defence force referred to in Clause 5, and he should be entitled to vote as well as an absent voter. That would get over the difficulty suggested as to the possibility of using his position to deprive or to unfairly influence other voters in the exercise of their rights. But the main objection is one of principle, where you are proposing that the police force shall be alienated from citizenship because the sign of citizenship is the right to vote. If you deprive a man of that right you are practically asking to set up a guard foreign to the civic life of the community—something imported into the civic life of the people but not part of it. That is a bad principle, which ought not to prevail at the beginning of this State, and consequently I beg to move that Clause 4 be deleted.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
If I might be permitted to say a word in reply, I would say that we note here with interest and some little amusement the recording of suspicions, or suggestions, or innuendos, that we, who have striven for freedom, have a very faint or incomplete or imperfect conception of what it is. And that, having resisted tyranny, in some way we are darkly aiming now at building up a Czar-like control of the country, and for lack of better evidence in support of that extraordinary theory the fact is pointed to that we have not decentralised the Civic Guard. I would ask any sane Deputy here, or any sane citizen of this country, whether this is the time to seriously consider the question of the decentralising the police force.
That is an entire misinterpretation of my statement. The Minister will remember, when the question arose formerly as to the position of the Civic Guard, the attitude that we took was quite contrary to what is now suggested.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
One does not decentralise at a time when the very basic principle of Constitutional Government is challenged and is not vindicated. Personally, up to a point I would favour decentralisation. I would favour the greatest possible co-operation between the police force and the local authorities in this country, and associate the police as far as possible with the civic life of the country, when, and only when, the civic life was worthy of association with, and when such association would be of service both to the country and to the police force. The civic spirit in this country is at a rather low ebb at the moment. Basic principles are challenged; the local authorities are not without sin, and no man with a proper conception of his duties or responsibilities, holding the position which I now hold would dream of decentralising the police forces or associating them in any considerable contact with the local authorities. When and if the civic life of the country improves; when and if there comes a more general recognition of the principles on which civilised government rests everywhere in every civilised country, then, whoever has the misfortune to hold the office of the Minister for Home Affairs can sit down at his desk and seriously consider the very interesting problems which Deputy Johnson's speech has raised. This is not legislation for all time, but it is legislation passed in the recognition of the hard facts of the situation with which we are faced. We make no particular apology for having recommended the insertion of that clause. I do not consider it needs it. I consider it is a rather obvious deduction from the anxieties of the moment and the immediate future that you must have a force as far as possible colourless, nonpartisan politically, as far as humanly possible, prepared to protect the rights and property of all citizens in the country with absolute impartiality, prepared to enforce the law, impersonally and impartially, against every citizen of the country. That is the thing we must aim at. To a very large extent that has been already secured. We do not propose to imperil it by putting the police forces in a position of being canvassed, propagandised from every quarter, and we want to make it not worth people's while to tamper with the benevolent neutrality of the police forces. Later on, when we grow up as a Nation, when we get a better perspective and sense of proportion, and a more general recognition of basic principles, other interesting questions can be considered.
Amendment lost, by 37 to 11, the voting being as follows:—
|
Tá. |
Níl. |
|
Pádraig Mac Gamhna.Tomás de Nógla.Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.Tomás Mac Eoin.Liam O Briain.Tomás Ó Conaill.Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.Seán Ó Laidhin.Seán Buitléir.Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.Domhnall Ó Ceallacháin. |
Liam T. Mac Cosgair.Donchadha Ó Guaire.Seán Ó Maolruaidh.Micheál Ó hAonghusa.Séamus Breathnach.Deasmhumhain Mac Gearailt.Seán Ó Ruanaidh.Micheál de Duram.Seosamh Mag Craith.Domhnall Mac Cartaigh.Earnán Altún.Gearoid Mac Giobúin.Liam Thrift.Eoin Mac Néill.Liam Mag Aonghusa.Pádraig Ó hÓgáin.Pádraic Ó Máille.Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.Seoirse Mac Niocaill.Fionán Ó Loingsigh.Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.Criostóir Ó Broin.Risteard Mac Liam.Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.Tomás Mac Artúir.Aindriu Ó Láimhín.Proinsias Mag Aonghusa.Peadar Ó hAodha.Seamus Ó Murchadha.Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.Liam Mac Sioghaird.Alasdair Mac Caba.Tomás Ó Domhnaill.Earnán de Blaghd.Uinseann de Faoite.Domhnall Ó Broin.Séamus de Burca. |
CLASS="CP">Motion made, and question put, that "Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
Clause 5 reads:—"Any person serving as a member of the defence force of Saorstát Eireann on full pay who is entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector may be so registered in the constituency in which he would but for his service be ordinarily resident." It is not proposed to restrict the right of members of the Defence Force of Saorstát Eireann to vote. They are not in any sort of ordinary times and this resolution puts forward a provision which it is intended should be the law for some number of years, at any rate. In any ordinary times the members of the Defence Force will not be intimately connected with the administration of law in the country. The Defence Force exists in reality for the defence of the country against outside enemies, or for the defence of the community against internal enemies who cannot be dealt with by the ordinary Forces at the disposal of the Government or the Executive, or by the ordinary means of enforcing law. Consequently we feel that there can be no reason, no good reason, put forward for refusing the right to the members of the Defence Force to exercise the Franchise; and on the other hand, they are already sufficiently separated from the general community by the discipline under which they will carry on, to make it desirable that we should, so far as we can, without prejudice to their efficiency, without prejudice to the proper discharge of the duties which lie upon them, to bring them into touch with the ordinary life of the Nation. All the arguments which Deputy Johnson put forward in favour of giving a vote to the members of the Police Force apply to the members of the Defence Force, and the objections which exist to giving the vote to members of the Police Force do not apply to the members of the Defence Force. Now, this Clause provides that a member of the Defence Force shall be registered in respect of the place in which he would have been ordinarily resident, except for his service. I think it will be generally agreed that that provision would be desirable. We may have very large numbers of soldiers for some particular reason drafted into an area, and if they are registered in respect of that area they would throw out of gear the ordinary arrangement for the Election. They would disturb the balance that would exist; consequently it is better to have them registered in respect of their home constituency. There might be some difficulty in deciding where a soldier was ordinarily resident, but I think that can be got over without any great difficulty. If he is married, it will be where his wife lives, or otherwise where his parents reside, or failing either of these, it will be in the place where he declares when he offered his services that he was ordinarily resident. I do not think that would be a matter to which any objection would arise.
Is the amendment of which Deputy Johnson has given notice going to be moved?
It is withdrawn.
Motion made and question put: "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
Agreed to.
The purpose for which Clause 6 was drafted was to give effect to the provisions of the previous Clause, to give an opportunity to the Defence Force for recording their votes. If a member of the Defence Force is registered in respect, not of the constituency in which he is serving, but in respect of the constituency in which he would ordinarily reside, it is necessary that he should be able to vote by post so as to exercise the right given him by registration. There is a flaw in Clause 6. As it stands it would prevent University electors voting by post. That was not intended, and I understand an amendment will be moved to the resolution removing that flaw. It is felt desirable to restrict postal voting so far as possible. If you give a man, other than a soldier, the right to vote by post, because of absence from his constituency, there are no logical grounds on which you could refuse to allow a person who might be ill in hospital or ill at home the right to vote by post. Now, if you did that you would break down the principle of the secret ballot and open the way to a great deal of corruption. The next thing you would have would be persons obtaining medical certificates that they were unable to go to the polling booths and claiming a right to vote by post. They would then be able to fill up their papers in the presence of some interested parties and the way to bribery would be open. Now there is no logical reason for refusing the right to vote by post to sick persons, if it is given to people who for business reasons may happen to be absent from the poll from the constituency in respect of which they are registered. However, the postal vote is one which affects a very small proportion of the electorate; it gives a considerable amount of trouble. It is contrary to the general principle of the secret ballot. It is liable to abuse, and generally we think that it is most desirable to abolish it, except in the case of the military vote and in the case of the University vote, because if there was no right to a postal vote in the case of a University constituency, it would mean that a very small proportion of the graduates would be able to vote.
I propose to move an amendment to this Clause by introducing in line 2, after the words "by legislation to enable," the words "registered electors for University constituencies." The Clause will then read:—
"Provision shall be made by legislation to enable registered electors for University constituencies and members of the defence force of Saorstát Eireann on full pay to vote by post at any election of a member or members to serve in either House of the Oireachtas, but save as aforesaid, no person shall be entitled to vote by post or by proxy."
I hope this Dáil will not think me ungrateful for the too generous treatment which it meted out to Deputy Magennis and myself when we asked you to grant University representation in the Dáil to the Universities which we have the honour to represent here. It is not because we are ungrateful or that having got one thing that we are asking for more, that I move this amendment. The only object of this amendment is to give effect to what has already been done. You have already declared that Universities shall have practical representation here, and this will enable the electors of these Universities to exercise their rights. A University is not a locality such as a constituency for which we register in the ordinary course. These electors are scattered over the length and breadth of the land, and unless you grant to them the privilege which they always hitherto enjoyed of registering their votes by post, you must, I think, of necessity disfranchise 75 per cent. of the whole electorate, and you would commit the representation of the Universities, not into the hands of those graduates who ought to vote, but to a mere junta who happen to be resident within the four walls of the University itself or in its immediate vicinity. Such representation as that would not be an effective University representation at all. It would be mere nomination by a section or an infinitesimal portion of those entitled to vote. Therefore, I do with all confidence and sincerity commend this amendment to the Dáil, in order that they may give real effect to the amendment which they granted, and for which I am profoundly grateful, and which I hope will be of good benefit to Ireland, giving University representation here.
I beg to second the amendment. I understand, from the Minister introducing the Bill that it is merely an oversight that this amendment is required. The Dáil will recollect on the final draft of the Constitution it was by common consent arranged that provision should be made for the election, in the case of University constituencies, being carried out throughout successive days, whereas they are all to take place for the normal constituencies on the same day. The fact that that differentiation was made was due to the circumstances to which Deputy Fitzgibbon has just now drawn your attention. It is inevitable, with electors in every part of the country, that unless the votes were returnable by post we should merely have a mockery of an election, so it seems to me that this only requires to be mentioned to be passed.
There is one objection to this amendment as it stands, and I am hoping the mover will agree to an amendment of his amendment. The objection is, that as it stands, the graduate at present qualified to have his name appear on the University Register may be living in China, Peru, Australia or London, and would be able to vote by proxy. I think the general sense of the Dáil, and of the country, is that whatever may be said for University representation——
My amendment does not propose proxy voting. It merely says by post.
I would like to ask Deputy Fitzgibbon if he will agree to the insertion of the words, "who is ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann." A very large number of graduates of the Universities may be resident in London and have no interest in the affairs of Ireland, except at election time, and I think it is stretching the desire of the Dáil when they conceded the right of University representation to have that representation probably determined by voters who have no interest in the common business operations of the country. I suggest to Deputy Fitzgibbon that he might agree to put in some words to imply that these voters must be "ordinarily resident in Ireland," which, I think, would commend itself to the Dáil.
Would Deputy Johnson say "domiciled?"
I rather think that is an extraordinary provision to begin with. The first clause says: "Every person who is a citizen of Saorstát Eireann." In our Constitution, we took considerable care over the definition of "citizen," and, therefore, those graduates of the University who do not chose to take upon themselves the privileges of citizenship of this country will be precluded from exercising their votes. But, on the other hand, I do not think it would be fair to exclude those citizens of Saorstát Eireann, who desire to vote for the University constituency, but who happen to be temporarily outside it, from exercising their rights. I do not think, and I will venture to say that if Deputy Johnston reads the Constitution and the first clause of the electoral provisions, he will see, that these people who have voluntarily made themselves strangers in this country, will not be entitled to exercise the right to vote.
The mention of proxy voting in the last line of this clause occurred because there is at present in certain circumstances a right to vote by proxy, and we desire to emphasise the fact that it was our intention to remove entirely the right of proxy voting. It is not intended that military or University electors can under any circumstances be able to vote by proxy. I accept the amendment of Deputy Fitzgibbon. I do not think it would be desirable to confine University representation to people "ordinarily resident in Saorstat Eireann." One of the things that commends it to me, at any rate, is the fact that University representation will enable numbers of people, who, for various reasons, have left this country, but who remain domiciled in this country —from the fact that they intend to return to Ireland—is that it will enable certain of these people to keep up a link with the country that they have temporarily gone away from. It will also enable people who are conscious of the unity of Ireland, but who may be living in the part of Ireland which is not in the territory of the Saorstát Eireann, or within its jurisdiction, but who are domiciled in its area, and intend to return to it, citizens of Saorstát Eireann, it will enable them, when out of that territory to keep a certain interest in the political affairs and in the political fortunes of Saorstát Eireann. I do not think it would be desirable to make the further change that Deputy Johnson suggested.
I am not quite clear on the point as to what effect this would have. If it is certain that it applies only to those domiciled in Ireland and temporarily away, a good deal of my objection to this amendment falls, but unless I get an assurance from Deputy Fitzgibbon that no vote is granted under this clause to a graduate of the University who is not domiciled in Ireland I think we will have to oppose it. I am reminded that in Article 3 of the Constitution the term domicile there deals rather with those who on the coming into operation of this Constitution shall be citizens by virtue of their domicile, and there are conditions governing the future acquisition of citizenship, the conditions to be determined by law. Whether the passing of this clause would, by virtue of a man's graduateship, entitle him to vote irrespective of his domicile is a question on which I would like some assurance from the Deputy.
I am very slow and disinclined to give legal opinions offhand, and we all know legal opinions given for nothing are worthless. The last thing I would like to do would be by any rash expression of opinion, to mislead this Dáil. I have not considered this matter. I was under the impression when I read this clause that no one who was not a citizen of Saorstát Eireann could possibly vote at any election for representatives to this Dáil. Therefore if a Japanese or a foreigner of any description who happened to come to one of our Universities—and we have seen a great many from the Indian Empire in the last eight or ten years over here—none of these people who come here and obtain a degree would get the right to vote at an election for representatives to this Dáil unless they were citizens of the Irish Free State, and to become citizens of the Irish Free State when they are living somewhere else they would have to make a declaration for that purpose. I do not think that people whose entire interests are outside this country would make a declaration which would deprive them of a vote in their own country, where their interests mainly lay, merely for the sake of giving one vote for a representative for Dublin University. Speaking for myself, I think the desires of Deputy Johnson are met by the terms of this Bill and in the Constitution, and the people whose influence he is afraid would come in are precluded by these terms from exercising votes, but if he has any doubts about it he must find some other means of resolving them than by asking me questions across the Dáil, because I confess I am unable to give a definite opinion offhand. But, to the best of my opinion, I think no foreigner or stranger would get a vote. I think I am right in that.
I take it to have a vote every person must be a citizen of Saorstát Eireann, and the words "citizen of Saorstát Eireann" are defined in Article 3 of the Constitution, and therefore the decision as to whether any given graduate is a citizen or not is a matter for lawyers in the interpretation of the Constitution.
The matter under discussion, I think, scarcely arises properly under this clause. It would arise in considering the question of whether a person was or was not a citizen of Saorstát Eireann. I do not know whether it could be held that any person who was a citizen of Saorstát Eireann and remained a citizen was not domiciled in Saorstát Eireann. But, in any case, if such a contingency should arise, then we would have to consider whether or not such a person would be entitled to be registered as an elector of a university or anywhere else, but it scarcely arises on the question of giving those who are registered electors of the university a right to vote by post. It is a matter, of course, that has not been specifically settled by this resolution, as far as I can see, and it can be considered when the Electoral Bill is before the Dáil.
A person cannot be a registered elector unless he has a legal and constitutional right to be such; whatever we decide here will not affect that legal and constitutional right.