Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Jul 1927

Vol. 20 No. 14

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 6) BILL, 1927—SECOND READING.

In moving the Second Reading of the Constitution (Amendment No. 6) Bill, 1927, it will be unnecessary for me to enter into any lengthy explanation. Its main objects are clear. It seeks, in the first place, to set at rest any doubts which may exist as to the meaning of the word "member" in Article 47 of the Constitution, wherein is conferred upon two-fifths of the members of Dáil Eireann or a majority of the members of Seanad Eireann the power to initiate steps for the submission of a Bill passed by the Oireachtas to a referendum.

I think it is abundantly clear that this power was intended to belong to and could properly be held only by members who have undertaken the responsibility of membership. It would be absurd to suggest that after a measure had been carefully considered in this House and in, the Senate it should be open to persons, who take such a light view of their responsibilities as public representatives that they absent themselves from discussions in this House, to enjoy the privilege of obstructing the business of the nation by lightheartedly signing their names to a petition, and thus initiating machinery which would hold up important measures for nine months, and put the country to the expense of a referendum. It is only necessary to point out that if this were the accepted view it would be possible for any party of sixty-two abstentionists to remain outside the House and prevent it from carrying on its work by the systematic presentation of petition after petition.

The second aim of the Bill is to delete the provisions for the initiative contained in the Constitution. The first sentence of Article 48 reads:—

"The Oireachtas may provide for the initiation by the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments...."

Even if this sentence were not in the Constitution the Oireachtas could, of course, provide for the initiation by the people of proposals for laws, since the Oireachtas can do anything which is not forbidden by the Constitution. It, therefore, follows, as was pointed out by the Constitution Committee in its report, that notwithstanding the deletion of Article 48 it would still be open to the legislature to provide for the initiation of proposals for laws or amendments of the Constitution by the people. Article 48 may be further considered under two heads, (1) whether there is any machinery in the State, Courts or otherwise, which can compel the Oireachtas to take a particular action, and (2) whether the Article itself is not on its face and on examination completely unworkable. The second sentence of the Article reads:

"Should the Oireachtas fail to make such provision within two years, it shall on the petition of not less than seventy-five thousand voters on the register, of whom not more than fifteen thousand shall be voters in any one constituency, either make such provisions or submit the question to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum...."

Something is, apparently, mandatory upon the Oireachtas. How can the Oireachtas be compelled to take action? In the first place, is there any legal process by which the Courts could be made acquainted with the fact that, following a petition of seventy-five thousand voters, the Oireachtas had failed to make provisions for the initiative? And have the courts, in default of specific provision to that effect, any power to make an order that the Parliament should do certain things? And if the Courts did make such an order, is there any machinery in the State for compelling the action to be taken? A declaration by the Courts would, presumably, be in the same wording as Article 48 and would carry matters no further.

Considering the Article from the practical point of view as to how it would work, a great many points will arise. More than two years having elapsed since the Constitution came into force, there appears to be a provision by which seventy-five thousand voters on the register can present a petition to the Oireachtas asking for legislative provisions to be made for the initiative. To whom would the petition be directed and delivered? Presumably to the Clerk of the two Houses for the two Chairmen, and, assuming good-will on the part of the two Chairmen, how could it be established that the seventy-five thousand signatures are genuine, that the people who have signed their names are, in fact, on the register, and so on? If proof of all this were undertaken it would take a considerable amount of time, and would have to be done by some machinery not directly under the control of the Chairman of either House, and might take two or three years to carry out. After the lapse of that period, if it were established to the satisfaction of some competent authority that the seventy-five thousand signatures, or some of them, were not genuine, presumably the whole thing would fall through, and no legal remedy would appear to be available. If it were agreed by somebody that the signatures were genuine— the situation from the point of view of the petitioners would not be improved, because it would be quite simple for the Oireachtas to carry on until a General Election, without having made any provision for the initiative.

At what point after the petition does it become apparent that the Oireachtas has not made provision for the initiative? There is no time limit mentioned in Article 48. The Oireachtas might take two or three years considering a Bill or Bills providing for the initiative. During all that time no referendum could possibly take place on the question of whether there should or should not be provision for the initiative. Assuming that it is established that no provisions have been made by the Oireachtas, and that a question must be submitted to the people in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the referendum, a new difficulty arises. There are no regulations. There is no machinery for compelling anybody to make regulations.

Now, assuming that as a result of a petition the Oireachtas did provide for initiation by the people of legislation under the condition set out in the third sentence of Article 48, it appears that fifty thousand voters on the register could send forward a proposal. What does "proposal" mean? Does it mean a Bill, and must it be simply accepted or rejected? Article 48 contains a provision that if the proposal is rejected it shall be submitted to the people for decision. Does that mean that a Bill drafted by somebody, some person or persons unknown, supported by fifty thousand voters, must either be passed in the form in which it reaches the Oireachtas or rejected, and, if rejected, must it, in the form in which it was presented originally, be submitted to referendum? Such a scheme is plainly ridiculous. We have abundant experience to prove that the drafting of proposals for legislation, commonly called Bills, is a matter of extreme difficulty. Yet, if this Article has any meaning at all, the Oireachtas has to accept or reject a proposal, no matter how it is drafted, provided that fifty thousand voters on the register say they are in favour of it, and if the Oireachtas rejects it, it must be submitted to a referendum.

The urgency of the present measure arises from an attempt to delude the public that the initiative provides a means of removing the Oath from the Constitution. That is clearly not the case. The Article contains specific provision that any proposal enacted in this manner shall be subject to the provisions respecting ordinary legislation, or amendments of the Constitution, as the case may be. Hence, if all the cumbrous machinery of the Article could be gone through, with its double reference to the people, and with the enormous expense which this would entail, and if there emerged a Bill deleting Article 17, this Bill being repugnant to Article 4 of the Treaty, would be absolutely void and inoperative.

While the value of the initiation machinery foreshadowed in Article 48 is in any circumstances very doubtful, it is clearly wrong to allow a condition of affairs to remain where the presence of this Article is being used to fool the populace, to delude them into the belief that it can be used for a purpose for which it cannot be used, as the gentlemen who are exploiting it know full well. I move the Second Reading.

Our Party propose to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. At the outset I wish to say that I personally and my Party are in agreement with very much of what the President has said. We agree as to the infirmity of the Article as it stands. We agree, too, that the action that is being taken at present for the purpose of the abolition of the oath cannot achieve that end by the means employed. We accept that completely and absolutely, and I think we might say with the President we even believe that the people who are pursuing this policy outside the Dáil do not themselves believe it would be an effective means of disposing of the problem of the oath. Now we differ with the President when he says that urgency arises because of the effort outside to delude the public in the matter of the abolition of the oath. Our view is quite the contrary. To begin with, before we can get as far as the referendum, this initiative requires a certain number of votes which, as far as one can see, for practical purposes to-day will not be available from the Party who are adopting the means which the President proposes to take from them. My view in the matter is that this Article of the Constitution requires consideration and amendment. So do other Articles in the Constitution. Mr. de Valera outside has seen fit to tell his people that the people of this country can, of their own volition, amend an Article of the Constitution which is in conflict with the Treaty. That, in our view, is not sufficient for the introduction of this Bill now. We are satisfied that the better course for this Dáil to adopt, even the better course for the Government Party to adopt in this matter, is to permit those who are prepared to run riot, those who are organising the people up and down the country for the signing of this referendum, to go their way. Let them spend their energy, talk and money, if needs be, in pursuance of that policy and let their people and supporters judge them later on the effectiveness of that policy when it is put to the test.

This House is satisfied that the efforts made outside it to amend the Constitution, which would also mean an amendment of the Treaty, cannot be successful. I believe, too, that those who are advocating the referendum for this purpose must have doubts in their own minds. We know they make a case that the Treaty has already been amended, and we know it has been. But we know as well that it has been amended by agreement between the two parties who were signatories to it, or by their representatives, and we must recognise that it is possible to amend that Treaty by agreement between those signatories again. If there are people who want the Treaty altered in certain respects, there is, in my view, a constitutional way by which that can be achieved. They can come here and if they are sufficiently strongly represented they can, as the President said earlier, get this House to agree that the representatives of this country should take up the work of altering or amending the Treaty in the particular way and manner in which the country, or the majority of the representatives of the country, want it changed or altered.

That is the only method which can constitutionally be employed to bring about the change these people want. We see no other way. We do not see any way through the employment of the referendum, and we do not think there is any urgency whatever for the introduction of this Bill. If the President feels it is inadvisable that many people in the country should be worked up to fever heat with regard to this question of the referendum, I suggest to him there is not the slightest possibility of that. The people of this country have been told a great many things. They have been told some things in the last election which have not fallen out exactly as they were told to the people then. The people are becoming more sceptical of promises. It is true that even if the requisite two-fifths of the representatives were prepared to take action on this, there might be a number of people who would append their signatures, but even then they would be very sceptical of the result of the labours of their leaders on the matter. The President himself has fairly represented the legal and constitutional position. It seems to us here on these benches that sufficient would be done by this House in indicating to Fianna Fáil and the country generally that the policy they are pursuing at the moment is not wise. It is a wild goose chase, and leads nowhere. It brings the men who are leading them and their followers into a cul-de-sac. They have to face up to the position in another way. I think it would be much better if the President and Government Party did not press this measure at present. It would be better, in our view, that the Constitution should be examined, not in this Article alone, but from the beginning right through, with a view to amendment and alteration where amendments are necessary.

This Bill takes an Article away and puts nothing in its place. The wiser course in our view would be that the House should agree to set up a Committee to examine the Constitution as it is, to find the weaknesses there are existent in other Articles as well as this, and that at a later stage the House should agree to amendments of the Constitution not only with regard to this Article, which the President says is urgent, and with which I do not agree, but with regard to every other Article which requires amendment. There is no urgency in this matter whatever. The fact that a campaign is about to be started to get a number of signatures to a petition to this Dáil to ask us to legislate on is no indication whatever that a situation of urgency has arisen. I feel myself that the interpretation put on this measure now will be, in a sense, unfair to the constitutional position. It will not be accepted, and can hardly be accepted, under the circumstances, that this is merely an amendment to the Constitution but rather that, in the peculiar circumstances under which we have been discussing other measures for the last couple of days, the Executive, because in their minds there is some connection as regards the events of the past between one party who, outside, propose to operate under a certain Article of the Constitution and another party —a group of people who committed a terrible crime against the State—proposed this Bill. In our view it will not be considered, on its merits, merely as a Bill necessary to amend the Constitution, but will be taken in conjunction with all the circumstances which we cannot dismiss from our minds as being in existence at the moment. No harm whatever is going to come to the State, no instability is going to come to the State, by permitting Fianna Fáil to carry this campaign as far as they can take it. In our view, it will mean failure for them and our attitude is that we would prefer to see them go on, and that this Dáil should not be asked to stop them in a campaign that is going to mean failure for them.

By this action of ours we would be relieving them of obligations of which some of them, at least, would probably be mighty glad to be relieved. They would be able to say that the Dáil prevented them doing something by bringing about changes which would not enable them to come into the House and take our place, and that we did that because we did not want them to come in. I say let them run their course, do nothing to save them from themselves. If they fail they will be judged by their failure, just as we will be judged by our failure if we fail. They will have to answer to their followers. In my view, some of them got support in the last election because people thought that they were coming in. I heard some of their candidates say that they were coming in. They did not exactly explain whether "coming in" meant that they were coming in as the biggest party or that they were coming in to to take the oath. They left the people to guess, and I think some of the people are wiser now.

If this Dáil continues to do the country's work for three or four years, a good many of their followers will be wiser. Time will solve this problem more effectively than the way in which the President proposes to do so, namely, by passing this Bill. Our view is to allow things remain as they are. Let these people go their way and do their best. Let a Committee of the Dáil be set up to examine the Constitution, and let that Committee recommend any amendments that may be essential to make the Constitution more workable than it is. Then, perhaps, we would be able to deal with this Article, not in the light of the events of the last few weeks, but in a new atmosphere altogether, and I think the country will have lost nothing by waiting three or four months. Let things go on, and let us not take any action that would give these people the excuse of saying that we stopped them from taking a course which it is legitimate to take under the Constitution.

Deputy Baxter is concerned with what certain parties outside would say. He may be sure that whatever we do, or do not do, they will say that we have been wrong. Whether we follow Deputy Baxter or the President, they will have ample blame for us. They are as fertile in words as they are sterile in action, at least, in any effective action for the good of the country. Let us examine this Bill and see what it does. I have been told by people outside that this Bill abolishes the referendum. It does nothing of the kind. The only effect it has on the referendum is to say that the two-fifths of those Deputies who demand the referendum should be Deputies who have taken their seats. It even allows that privilege to those who have taken their seats in the Dáil and who have shaken its dust off their feet.

For a while.

Yes, for a while. It is possible, as the President has said, for certain Deputies, not taking part in debate, practically to nullify the whole of our proceedings. I do not think it is an unreasonable proposition to suggest that that state of affairs should not continue. The Bill will abolish what is known as the initiative—the power of a substantial section of the people to initiate legislation. I do not want to detain the Dáil, but I want briefly to glance at the history of the initiative. I think it was first put into the Constitution in the spirit in which a man wishes his wife to be dressed in the latest fashion. The initiative was then the latest fashion in Constitutional proposals and those who framed the Constitution—I am afraid we have not many of them here at the moment— inserted it to show that Saorstát Eireann was thoroughly up to date. That was 1922, but since then the fashions have changed. Skirts are worn shorter and ladies have shed their frills. The object of this Bill is to shed the Constitution of some of its frills.

The initiative came into being in Switzerland. It is part of the Constitution of the Swiss Federation and of certain cantons. I am not going to consider those cantons or those States of the United States of America which also incorporated it in their Constitutions—not all the United States, not all the Federal Unions, but certain individual States, notably Oregon. The Swiss cantons and the State of Oregon are not on a parallel with Saorstát Eireann, because, important as they are and valuable as are their powers, they are not sovereign States. They are not represented in the League of Nations. They have—and this is the crux of the matter—no external relations. The only sovereign State which adopted the initiative that has external relations is the Swiss Republic. It was judged there by a very great authority, an Irishman, a learned professor who had written learned books, and who spent nearly thirty years in Parliament, holding office, and having that knowledge and responsibility to which the President referred about half an hour ago. I refer to the late Lord Bryce. This is his opinion of the initiative as worked in the Swiss Republic:—

"A Bill proposed by the initiative may be crude in conception, unskilful in form, marred by omissions and mistakes."

And this is the kernel of it:

"It might be dangerous if applied to agreements made with foreign States."

That was written about five years ago —not written with a view to this discussion at all, and that is the judgment of a man who is accepted as an authority not only in the British Dominions, but also in the United States.

In Switzerland I do not believe the initiative is good in itself. Switzerland in the last fifteen years, I think, has had eight initiatives put up and six of them were rejected by the people. Even if it was a good thing, Article 48 of the Constitution is absolutely unworkable, because whoever framed the Constitution read the Article that put the initiative into the Swiss Constitution, and then they either ignored or overlooked the following Article. Article 122 of the Swiss Constitution says:—

"Federal legislation shall determine the formalities to be observed in regard to popular initiative demands and to voting concerning the revision of the Federal Constitution."

We have no such legislation, and that Article cannot be made to work without creating machinery to work it. You have got to have 75,000 signatures —that is all it says. Who is to count those signatures? It takes a certain amount of time to count 75,000 signatures, as Deputies know who are fresh from the experience of the last election. Somebody has got to satisfy himself that they are genuine signatures. A petition of this kind lets the humourists loose. The great Charter was introduced in Great Britain nearly 100 years ago and was found to have page after page signed with names that were attempts at humour, like "Bucknose" and "Bowknees." Somebody has to look at the signatures and see that they are real signatures and that page after page is not sent in in the same handwriting. They have also got to be the signatures of 75,000 voters, which means that every signature has got to be looked up on the register. That is no small task. There is a road in my constituency which comes into five different registers. A person giving an address in the Rathmines Road will have to be sought for through these. There is no set form for this petition, no particular indication of how they are to sign their names, as there is in a nomination paper for elections. I should imagine that in a rural constituency it would be worse, as some would sign by the townland and some by the nearest postal town, and you will have to try and identify them. Some person will sign "J. Kelly" and you will have to try to identify whether it is "John" or "James" or "John James Kelly." There is no machinery already in existence to do it. Until it is done the petition is not valid. In the British House of Commons they have petitions and they created officers called "Examiners of Petitions". It will, no doubt, come as a surprise to the Farmers' Party that the Government have not created a post that they might have created. We have no such "Examiners of Petitions." The first thing, if this is to be operative, is that we shall have to create some machinery to examine petitions. That machinery and that examination will take time.

I have come to the conclusion that this Article is, in the circumstances, completely inoperative, and we might as well get rid of it, and put something better in its place. It is dry wood; it can never bear fruit, and if it has any value at all, the value is only to deceive the public and keep the public in a state of suspense. I do not agree with Deputy Baxter, although I respect his argument, that we should hesitate about cutting away the dry wood. I do agree with him that there is no particular urgency in the matter. But once it is made clear, as I think it will be made clear in this debate, that this Article is virtually null and void already, we need not hurry, and we might give an opportunity to any element that think they can put forward a better form of initiative. We might even make constitutional history. At present we are merely imitating the methods of other Houses, both in Government and in Opposition. I would suggest to the Government that, while the principle of the Bill is right, and I am prepared to affirm it by voting for the Second Reading, they should not press the Committee Stage—that they should give us a fairly substantial recess in which to allow any persons who think they can bring forward a better way of allowing the public mind to be brought to bear on the initiation of legislation to put forward schemes. It need not necessarily be part of the Constitution. You can get the initiative by ordinary legislation, and not by constitutional legislation at all. I think the Government would be wise to leave that door open, to affirm the principle by passing the Second Reading, and then to give us a reasonable latitude to consider and to put forward alternative schemes.

I intend opposing the Bill, not on the grounds of the merits of the Bill itself, but because I object both to the time and to the method of its introduction. There was ample opportunity for the consideration and the introduction of a measure like this, if it had been considered necessary, for some time past. But it was not until a certain Party in the State seemed to think that they could get a political advantage out of exercising what seemed to be their constitutional rights that there was an examination by the Executive Council and an announcement that this portion of the Constitution was to be deleted. As to the method of dealing with the Constitution, I think that, instead of the House dealing piecemeal with portion of the Constitution, it would be far wiser, now that the time is drawing rapidly to a close during which it will be possible to amend the Constitution directly from this House, to have a Select Committee of the House appointed to go into the whole Constitution and consider whether, in the light of the experience that we have had of the working of that Constitution, it would not be well that in many respects it should be revised.

What is the urgency of this measure? It may be said that it will prevent a certain action on the part of certain political parties. I think that is the very reason why it should not be introduced at this juncture. I quite agree with Deputy Baxter when he suggested that eventually the object which a certain party seem to have in view could not be attained by the method of employing the initiative as outlined in Article 48. If that is so, why not let them pursue that fruitless and futile task? I do not believe that in that pursuit they will in any way upset the general public. I think when it is shown to the public, as they will see if they take the trouble to read this debate to-morrow, that Mr. de Valera can never hope to achieve his object by the utilisation of this form of constitutional means they will understand the course he is pursuing is not only futile but possibly a dishonest one. But bringing in a Bill like this, in conjunction with a Bill like the one we have just been discussing, seems to link up the constitutional actions of a certain party with the terrible tragedy and its consequences which took place the other day. Will the passage of this Bill make it any easier to track the assassins of the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins? If not, if this Bill will serve no such purpose, as I believe it will not, why bring it in at this moment?

I think it is playing with the Constitution and with our position in regard to the Constitution to endeavour to rush this Bill now at the end of this portion of the Session when we are engaged upon other far more serious matters. The effect of the passage of this Bill, in the public mind, undoubtedly, will be that the Government seems to seek every available opportunity of preventing another political party from exercising its constitutional rights. I have nothing whatever to say in defence of this Article of the Constitution. I had nothing to say in the drawing up of the Constitution and, to my mind, the merits or demerits of this Article are questions which should properly be discussed by a Select Committee of this House or of both the Houses of the Oireachtas in a calmer, quieter and more peaceful atmosphere. I think both this Bill, and the one the President has already given notice of, might be sent to a Committee such as I have outlined. There is no occasion, as far as I can see, for an immediate attempt to jerrymander the Constitution. It will serve no useful purpose in the prevention or the detection of crime, or in the bringing to justice of criminals. The only thing it will do as far as I can judge will be to exasperate further a certain section of our people who have been showing some indication at any rate, latterly, of advancing in the direction of constitutionalism. This will not encourage them, but it will discourage any advance towards constitutional action.

Is there any reason why we in this House should proceed to discourage that advance? I can see no harm that could be done by letting things stand as they are in the Constitution, at the moment, and, then, having a Select Committee set up after the Recess to go into the whole question of the Constitution and its possible revision. It is possible to legislate directly through the Oireachtas to change the Constitution within, I think, the next couple of years—at any rate within eight years from the date of its coming into being— and the time is getting so short that, apart altogether from the merits of this particular Article, I think it would be a wise and proper step for the Government to set up a Committee of the kind I have indicated.

Nothing would happen, I think, in the meantime to upset the country. Nothing would happen to render things worse than they are, and with the knowledge that such a Committee was to be set up to investigate this, among other Articles of the Constitution, it might be possible that Mr. de Valera and his friends might see the futility of pursuing this course any further. I do not, in any way, blame them for taking the opportunity which seems to present itself of the initiative. As citizens of the State, under the Constitution they are entitled to take that step, and because they may have some unconstitutional end in view, that, to my mind, does not prevent them from utilising all the constitutional means at their disposal.

I think, in fact, that this particular Bill rather magnifies the possibilities or eventualities that might accrue from the course that is now being taken by the Fianna Fáil Party. I would suggest that it would be far more expedient and, if I might respectfully say so, far more dignified on the part of the Government and this House, if we allowed Mr. de Valera and his friends to pursue the course they are taking in this constitutional manner, and if we announced that we intend to set up a Committee to investigate the working of the whole Constitution, including this Article, the merits of which, as I said before, I have no brief for. There is only one thing, perhaps, that might be said on behalf of the initiative as coming from a certain section of the people. It has been suggested, particularly during the general election, that there may be proposals to amend the electoral law and for the abolition of Proportional Representation. Some people might consider that while there is a chance of such proposals being made this right of initiative should not be taken away from the people. Personally I am not wedded to this Article, or even to the principle that it embodies. But that is not the point that I consider should be the cardinal point at issue in this debate to-day.

To my mind the question is: why should we alter the Constitution now at all? Why should we introduce this Bill at this time? Why should we not alter the Constitution after due consideration by a committee which would go into the whole question of its working? Candidly, I can find no answer to that question. I do not think there is necessity for the Bill, and I do not think its immediate passage will be of any service in the interests of the State. I think that possibly, if it has any effect at all, it will have an injurious effect in letting a certain section of the people understand that they should not exercise certain rights within the Constitution because they seem to be obnoxious to the Government of the day.

Deputy Redmond and Deputy Baxter are under a misconception. Both say that this is not the time to introduce this Bill. The position of the Executive Council is the direct opposite. They say that this is exactly the time to introduce it. The Deputies say that there is no connection between this Bill and the Public Safety Bill. Our contention is that there is every connection between this Bill and the Public Safety Bill and between this Bill and the Electoral Amendment Bill. That is the position of the Executive Council, and it should be understood. We were read lectures yesterday to the effect that the assassination of the Minister for Justice was not the assassination of an individual; that it was a blow at the State. Deputy Baxter and Deputy Redmond told us that. Deputies on the Labour benches said the same thing. When will they come to realise that these three Bills are not for the protection of Ministers but for the protection of the State? If they come to realise that they will at once see the connection.

I do not think they are for the protection of Ministers or the State.

Mr. HOGAN

Perhaps the Deputy will let me explain. The State is being attacked. The Constitution is being attacked. It was attacked in the person of the Minister for Justice by certain weapons. Is it not also being attacked by a political party, the Fianna Fáil Party? Which is the more insidious attack? Which is the more dangerous attack? I would ask Deputies in all seriousness to consider that. I heard talk of constitutional methods. I heard it said that there was a perfect right to use this Article of the Constitution, that that particular Party was acting constitutionally in the use they were intending to make of this Article, whom no one will defend on its merits and whom everyone agrees is useless. Surely the Deputy is abusing words when he says that they are attempting to use this Article of the Constitution. Surely he knows they are attempting to abuse it. Why does he not say so? Why all this cant? Does not every Deputy who has spoken realise that that Party are attempting to abuse that Article of the Constitution? Will anyone deny this: that they cannot effect their avowed purpose by the use they are making of that Article?

Why not let them go on?

Mr. HOGAN

We will come to that. Will anyone deny what I have said? It cannot be denied. Deputies have admitted it, yet they talk of the constitutional use of this Article. They go further. Deputy Baxter's words practically were that they are "codding" the people with this Article.

That is a nasty word and the Deputy did not use it.

Mr. HOGAN

It is a nasty word.

And Deputy Baxter did not use it. Do not quote him incorrectly. It might suit the Minister, but was not used by the Deputy.

Mr. HOGAN

It suits me all right. I will put it in Deputy Baxter's more diplomatic language—they are deceiving the people. I call that "codding" the people. That is a good Anglo-Saxon word, and it means the same thing.

Mr. HOGAN

Slang. There is a lot of statesmanship going about the Dáil at the moment, hiding behind big words and sonorous phrases. There is a lot of cant, and it would be a lot better if we dropped these long phrases and carefully chosen words and just faced up to the situation.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. HOGAN

Deputy Baxter's position is this: that their Party have been "codding" the people. They are attempting to "cod" the people. We are told: "Let them `cod' them for three years longer." That appeals to Deputy Redmond as being the last thing in statesmanship.

No, I do not subscribe to that.

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy says, why not let them go ahead with the referendum, and why not let the people find out in three years' time that they have been deceived?

I must interrupt the Minister. He puts words into my mouth that I never used. I did not suggest that they should go on for three years, but I suggested that a Committee be set up immediately after the Recess to determine matters arising out of the Constitution.

Mr. HOGAN

The difference between Deputy Baxter in this matter and Deputy Redmond is that Deputy Baxter wants to allow them to "cod" the people for three years and Deputy Redmond wants to let them "cod" the people until next autumn. Our position is that we do not want to allow them to "cod" the people any longer. I suggest in all seriousness that is the right position.

The people can take care of themselves.

Mr. HOGAN

They can. The people have always taken care of themselves, but we have a duty to the people also. We have certain responsibilities to the people. It is our duty to see, so far as we can, that the people are not "codded."

You had not much regard for the people when you gave them a landlord's Land Act.

Mr. HOGAN

We will talk about the Land Act again.

We will indeed.

Mr. HOGAN

And here is the place to talk about it. I am delighted to see the Deputy here.

I will tell you what I think of it.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We are not discussing the Land Act now.

Mr. HOGAN

There is nothing so satisfactory as to hear statements from Deputies where you are in a position to answer them.

And where the Minister cannot run away.

Mr. HOGAN

I do not want any interruptions. I have not interrupted. Let Deputies look at the whole position seriously. Do they really say that there is no connection between the assassination of the Minister for Justice and the campaign against the Constitution carried on for the last four years by the Fianna Fáil Party?

They are only a year old.

Mr. HOGAN

And by the Sinn Fein Party that preceded them. What has happened? Has not that Party been endeavouring to wreck the Constitution for the last three years, either as Sinn Feiners or under the present name? Have they not been spreading all over the country, for the last three years, the statement that the Government elected by this Dáil is an illegal Government? In their own Press and off their platforms have they not called us traitors? Are they enemies of the State? Had that campaign nothing to do with the assassination of the Minister for Justice? No Deputy in the House who thinks but must admit it had. This talk of there being no connection between them is all cant. I am not saying for a moment that they knew of this or that they would have approved of it at this stage, but to say that there is no connection is absolutely wrong. We have been tried publicly during the last three years by these people. We have been found guilty of treason; we have been called an illegal junta, and then gunmen, over whom, perhaps, they have no control now, shoot.

We are told there is no connection. Is there a connection in their objects? What is the object of that Party? What is the object of the gunmen? Is it not the overthrow of the State by anti-constitutional means? As Deputy Baxter rightly said, there is only one way of changing the Constitution. But there is one way and that is coming in here and doing it and taking the responsibility for the doing of it. The object both of that party and of the assassins is to change the Constitution in another way by other methods. Their object is the same, even though they may not be allies now. If the State is attacked by two forces—from two different angles, if you like—why should we not take steps to protect the State and why should we not take them now? Why should there be all this nonsensical talk when we propose to alter an Article in the Constitution that not a single Deputy in the Dáil will defend and that every Deputy in the Dáil, with the possible exception of Deputy Belton, will admit is being abused, and grossly abused, at the present time, for the purpose of deceiving the people? There is no answer to that proposition.

In this situation there is one phrase I dislike and which I react against. That phrase is that this should be done but should not be done now. That is a phrase used by a man who has no convictions in the matter at all—who is unable to make up his mind about it. We are told to put it off. Deputy Redmond's position is that this Bill does not go far enough. That is an excuse also which I dislike. I never yet encountered a man who desired to escape doing what he should do but he had the decent excuse "I should like to do a lot more but this is not the time to do it." That is the excuse of the man who does not want to do the day's work. That is the excuse we are listening to now.

We are asked "What interpretation will the country put on this?" After the debates that have gone on here for the last two days, I do not know. There is a way of giving the country a lead. I should have expected from Deputies, in times like these, a little responsibility. I should have expected in times when the public mind is likely to be confused that Deputies, instead of adding to the confusion, would endeavour to clear up the situation for the country. What have they done? If there is any confusion in the country, have not Deputies added to it? If our position is difficult, have not they made it more difficult? If we are likely to be misunderstood, who is to blame? Who has helped us or who has tried to clear up the position? We asked Deputies to do no more than tell the simple truth or put the position plainly to the people. Have they done it? They have not.

There is another phrase used—that we are driving certain people back to unconstitutionalism, meaning, I presume, violence. How? What are we doing? We are showing everybody whom it may concern that there is only one way to change the Constitution of this country, and that is by constitutional methods. We are taking away no constitutional right. In taking away this Article from that Party, we are not taking away any right which they have. They are not attempting to use the Article. They are not attempting to exercise a right under the Constitution; they are attempting to abuse it. Their leaders know that it cannot be used in that way, and it is a quibble to say we are taking away any constitutional right. If people want to act constitutionally in this country, they have ample opportunities for doing so. We have one of the most democratic Constitutions of any country in the world. We have adult suffrage, secret voting and an election every five years. Are we attempting to debar any political party from making full use of those rights? Of course we are not, and I would expect that leaders of the Opposition would not confuse the public mind by pretending we are. We are merely doing this—we are barring every other way except the constitutional way. That is what we are prepared to do, and that is what the people sent us here to do. We want it to go out to the country that, as long as we have the responsibility, there will be no other way of changing the Constitution tolerated except the constitutional way. We want the simple people in the country, who are being "codded," deluded or deceived—whichever word you prefer—by all this pettifogging and trickery, to know it will not "wash." We do not want them to realise it in three years' time. We want them to realise it now. We want to show that there is no hope along unconstitutional or anti-constitutional lines, that that hope must die in their hearts, and that the Constitution which is good enough for the majority of the people must be good enough for any minority in the country. This is the best way to show that. Deputy Redmond suggested at one time that he was anxious to bring these people back to show the country that this Article was being abused. He ought certainly to agree with me that the sooner that is done the better. In fact, he said as much in his speech. Is there a more effective way for showing that than the way which we suggest?

I can appreciate certain points made by Deputy Baxter in his speech. He is the leader of the Farmers' Party. I should have expected that the Farmers' Party would have taken a sane, practical view of this matter. I think Deputy Cooper's description of Article 48 was quite correct. There were a lot of frills in that Constitution. We were all younger four or five years ago. We have learned since. There were a lot of needless things put into the Constitution. There were a lot of things put into the Constitution which lead to confusion and the instability that confusion always brings about. I should have expected that if there was any class of the community which had a solid interest in stability, in security, and in a clear-cut Constitution under which the people of the country would know exactly where they were, it would be the Farmers' Party. But, no. You might as well be listening to a lot of English Radicals who have an exaggerated idea of every little trumpery modern addition to every little trumpery modern constitution. They are all "dead-nuts"—as I am accused of using slang, I might as well use it liberally— on the initiative and on every little point in the Constitution which leads to confusion. I should have thought that the sane attitude on the part of farmers would have been to clear up this point in the Constitution, to round off any corners there are in the Constitution, and to fill in any gaps, so as to leave us a Constitution that all could understand, a Constitution under which the people of the country would know their rights, their duties, and their liabilities—and to do that as quickly as possible.

If the difficulties in the Article proposed to be deleted are as patent and as clear as would appear by the statement of the President and the Minister for Agriculture—and there does not seem to be any doubt about their analyses—there would appear to be no good reason why that Article should remain. Personally, I intended to oppose very strongly the deletion of this Article, but, as the President and the Minister for Agriculture have pointed out, it is farcical to maintain an unworkable embellishment for no reason in the world. It seems to be neither understandable nor workable. I do not agree that there is any connection whatever between the people proposing to use this instrument and the murderers of the Vice-President. I want to make that clear. At the same time I think that the people who are being fooled by this proposition, this silly proposition, are entitled to protection, and that the sooner they get it the better. Consequently, I am prepared to support the deletion of the Article because it is nonsensical and absurd.

I think the sooner we begin to look at things from the point of view of real practical value, the better. The Bill that is now before the House places in the hands of the Government the exercise of the initiative. Let us ask ourselves this question: Is that procedure right or is it wrong? We on these benches maintain that it is perfectly clear that if Parliamentary institutions are to be maintained and are to be worked they cannot function if this power of initiative passes over to the hands of the enemies of the State. We also suggest that in the case of the initiative it is perfectly clear that the people who sent us to this House do not wish the responsibilities of government thrown upon their shoulders, but wish them to be exercised by us.

There has been a quotation here by Deputy Cooper from that great Constitutionalist, Lord Bryce. The quotation, to my mind, is of the very greatest value. In quoting Lord Bryce, Deputy Cooper said the initiative may lead to a Bill, crude, unskilful and even dangerous, especially in making agreements with foreign States. We go further than that, and we ask: Is there any Government in the whole of Western Europe, is there any State, large or small, that would entrust the framing of its policy, whether in intern or extern affairs, to the hands of the enemies of the State? That is the actual position at the moment. We suggest that we must have a Government; we must have leaders of that Government. We must either do one thing or the other—we must either govern or get out.

Let us for a moment look facts plainly in the face, and let us make it clear to the people that they will be deluded no longer, and that we mean to exercise the Parliamentary prerogative which is undoubtedly our right. We say to the enemies of the people: "You have refused to recognise the de facto and de jure Government of the country that has been lawfully created, and we on our part refuse to allow you to exercise certain provisions of the Constitution with the sole, simple and deliberate object of wrecking that Constitution." We say: "You have no right or title to come in and take one Article of the Constitution for the purpose of wrecking the State."

There has been one thing the curse of Irish politics for many years, and that is the forming of conclusions on unproved assumptions. We say that if we are to make progress in this country the whole method of procedure has to go. There is one very old saying, "experientia docet," experience teaches, and we suggest we must act in this instance upon the experiences that are to be gathered, not alone at home, but abroad. We are entrusted with the framing of our own native institutions. We have those institutions in our own hands to make or mar in the future, and if we are to develop the country in the way in which it must be developed, we must apply the most up-to-date methods of political science at our disposal. We must undoubtedly profit by the lessons of experience.

Within the last few days Deputies listened to a very grave statement made by the President of this Chamber. He pointed out that for many years there was a continual undercurrent of unrest going on, a continual stream of organised political agitation. He pointed out that in 1924 there was a revival of the strengthening of the forces of rebellion, that courts-martial had been established and that documents had been discovered at Roebuck House clearly displaying the intention of purchasing artillery, and that quantities of ammunition had been captured at home. The late Vice-President, before the election, performed one of the most signal services to the State that any man could possibly perform, by the publication of those secret documents. Speaking to the electors in the North City constituency I told them that these documents plainly and deliberately meant exactly what has happened within the course of the last week or two. These secret documents disclosed to us that the armed forces were to be moved from the capital and were to be sent into the country, where they would be disarmed and demobilised. In the face of circumstances like these we are told that there is no meaning whatever in the introduction of a Bill, not to disrupt the Constitution, but to maintain it. The Constitutionalists arguing in this House say to us: "You must not alter the Constitution." I say that if the needs of the State demand the alteration of the Constitution, that alteration should be made.

Hear, hear.

If the needs of the State require the passing of the legislation before the House—and there is no fair-minded individual who will deny that that legislation is not only needed but is long overdue—it is the duty of Deputies to stand behind the Executive and give them the powers they require. We are very mealy-mouthed here about what we do offending the Fianna Fáil Party. It was perfectly clear to anybody who considered those secret documents to which I have referred that if Fianna Fáil had come back with a majority there would not be much left of the Constitutional to-day.

The first and most requisite element in any country must be to teach a respect for the Constitution. The opponents of the Government Party in the country have shown a complete disregard and no respect, good, bad or indifferent, for the Constitution as it now stands. One of our leaders, the Minister for Agriculture, clearly elucidated the whole question, and pointed out that there was an insidious, deliberate, premediated menace to the State. We on these benches resent the light and airy fashion in which the leader of the Labour Party and Deputy Redmond endeavoured to treat so critical a question. I could not but recall a great historical instance when listening to these dialectical subtleties without one ounce of argument or one ounce of reason. We on these benches are not to alter the Constitution in face of one of the gravest and most deliberate menaces with which the State, since its inception, has ever been confronted; that is what we are told.

Might I ask the Deputies on this side of the House to tell us how do they deal with these matters in other countries? Any man who knows anything whatever about constitutional history can recall a hundred instances of how matters of a similar kind have been dealt with in other countries. In listening to the arguments of Deputies against this Bill the thought came into my mind of what happened to the great German Empire when Bismarck was called by William I. of Prussia to come in and save Germany. What was the position of affairs at the time? The Austrians predominated the German Confederation, and the first task that Bismarck was faced with was to drive them out. How did he accomplish it? Was it by declining to make the necessary constitutional alterations that he required? Was it by a nice subservience to constitutional law? Any man who has read anything about German history knows that Bismarck's plan was to strengthen the German army. That plan was carried out. I may state to this assembly, without a penny being granted of the necessary appropriations by the German House of Assembly. It was carried out in the face of and in defiance of a hostile Press, and four years later, at Sadowa, the Austrians were hopelessly defeated and the menace of a stranglehold upon the German Confederation was removed. The warring States of Hanover and Saxony and all the other confederated German nations with their internal jealousies were welded into a great, strong, vigorous and active Confederation that in a few short years wrote that glorious page in German history which is known as the Franco-German war. There is no use in discussing facts without considering the issues before the House. These issues confront us to-day in just as deliberate and in just as determined a manner although under different characteristics. The question is, how are we to deal with them? I suggest that our Government are dealing with them in the right way and in the right spirit. For any man who studies the pages of history there is always one lesson to be learned and that is salus populi suprema lex, the safety of the people is the supreme law.

I followed throughout with deep interest and with very close attention the statement read by the President. I must compliment him on that statement and, if I might have the temerity to offer him a little advice when he makes a good statement from those benches, it would be that he should not allow it to be spoiled by speakers who get up and endeavour to support him. I have listened to those who followed him from his own benches. I have watched the cynical sneers on the faces of his colleagues, and only that I have considered this myself my mind would have changed very much. We get Deputies and Ministers standing up here to tell us that we are playing with murder, to tell us that a couple of weeks ago we had the Vice-President murdered. He was murdered, we are told, or it is suggested, by some secret organisation. Can we think that those Deputies are serious, or that they have much feeling in their regrets when the moment they sit down the same cynical sneer crosses over their faces?

If we are dealing with serious matters let us be serious about them. To me this is a very serious matter. It is serious not because an individual was killed, much as I regret that; it is serious not because a blow was struck at the State, but because a greater blow has been struck at this State to-day by the passage of, not a Public Safety Bill, but a Public Danger Bill. I fall back on that Bill only because previous speakers have fallen back on it. I suppose I have been included amongst the enemies of the country. I never was an enemy of the country. I stood up for this country when those people who were talking about the enemies of this country to-day did not stand up for it, and I will stand up in the future for this country at every critical moment as I did in the past, when Deputies on those other benches stood up against it. I was not afraid to take a certain action when I was convinced that I was taking right action. I am not afraid to take a certain action here to-day. I am not afraid to compliment the President on the statement he made on behalf of the Bill, or part, at least, of the Bill now before the House. I agree with every word of what he said. I am not going to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill for obvious reasons. I am not going to vote against the Bill, because I am not going to vote against my own conscience. I think that is a fair and clear statement of the position as far as I am concerned. I am not afraid to say that in other places I have made a statement practically word for word in agreement with the speech made by the President here now. I am no lawyer, and I had no legal advice. I took an ordinary commonsense view of it. I drafted my statement sitting on the beam of a plough. I had not any lawyer at my elbow, but I took a commonsense view of it and, substantially, that was the view taken by the President in the statement he has read out to this House.

I cannot follow the reasoning of Deputy Baxter. That is his own business. I cannot follow him in opposing this Bill and supporting the Public Danger Bill. There is a good deal in the case Deputy Redmond made for it, and I welcome the Bill in one way to show the country that I take it that the President has got first class legal opinion. Lawyers have spoken before me and not one of them has challenged the legality of the legal view put forward by the President in the statement he read. I take it that they are not in a position to challenge it. I do not know. I hope if I am followed by lawyers they will, for my information and for the information of the House, give the legal view as to whether the subject matter of this referendum would be covered by the Article under review. Personally I thought it would not. With much of the proposal before the House I am in agreement. A lot has been said about changing the Constitution. A lot of bitterness has been imported into this debate by Deputies talking about enemies of the people. Not a few of the speakers talked about our freedom. Let us go back a few years. Let us go back to the founders of this Constitution—the men who signed the Treaty and brought the Treaty here and fought for the Treaty. Probably this House is aware that I supported the Treaty, and though I stood with Fianna Fáil at the general election, I did not get on a platform on which I did not say that I supported the Treaty. Had the thing to be done over again I still would support the Treaty.

Mr. Collins said: "This is not freedom, but it is freedom to achieve freedom." I see a cynical sneer passing over the faces of Ministers, who declare that this is freedom. The Irish people never gave them a mandate to accept this as freedom. President Griffith said: "This is no more freedom than that this is the last generation of Irishmen." You have no mandate from the country for the measures you are now putting through, for our Party was returned by the country with as many members as yours. Our Party was returned with a vote of confidence; your Party was returned with a vote of no confidence.

Has the Deputy not been expelled from his Party?

No, sir, I have not. I am speaking of the vote in the country at the General Election—the voice of the people. I am not speaking of any subsequent action.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

If the Deputy would confine himself to speaking on the Bill it might be better.

It would, and I would agree, if that ruling had been given earlier. But while the bones of the dead have been shaken in our faces, while we have been taunted, there is no disguising the fact that it is not the secret organisations, it is not the underworld of Irish politics, that you are after. You have gone straight for your mark to-day, for the Fianna Fáil Party, and I am a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. ("No.") I am, and until the Fianna Fáil selectors of Dublin say otherwise, I shall be. I was a member of the Sinn Fein Party when men on those benches were not with Sinn Fein but were a long way from it, though they are now shaking in our faces the bones of our dead comrades, because they think it will bring them political kudos.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I will now ask the Deputy to come back to the Bill.

Very well. I hope you will be as strict in your ruling with other Deputies, if there are any others who want to assist in making political capital out of shaking more dead bones. Instead of seizing on the present opportunity to make amendments that are said to be made because the Article of the Constitution concerned is of no use, why bother about it if it is of no use? I agree that it is of no use, and I disagreed, as I said in the public Press, with the leader of my Party that it is of any use. I have not denied that, and I go further; I disagreed at a Party meeting and said what has been said here to-day, that it was only deceiving the people. That was my view. Neither I nor my Party want lectures from Ministers. We knew our job and did it; we are doing our job and will do it right. They are afraid that we will do it right, and they want to put us in the wrong, but they are reckoning on something they cannot control.

I suggest that the time is inopportune, and instead of parading Article 17 of the Constitution still more, I say that if that Article were done away with it would save a great deal of trouble, and we would have written public safety and stability on every dead wall in the country. If Ministers can alter the Constitution, as they claim they can, why do they not set about it? I do not think I am out of order when I ask that; I think I am speaking to the Bill, because that point has been made by other speakers. The one bone of contention, and the one thing that is destroying the stability, the peace and the prosperity of this country is Article 17 of the Constitution. Why do you not look facts in the face? You have got forty-three Deputies outside, and you have got one hundred inside. Cannot you say fairly and squarely to England: "This is what is stopping the prosperity of the country; this is what is keeping us in turmoil"—that, and the ranches that we are taxed to the hilt to keep up, because we are cursed with a regime of land and of ranching—giving the country over to a man and a dog, and I suppose the man will get his gun. Article 17 is the trouble, not the shooting of Mr. O'Higgins. It is not the underworld of Irish politics, because most people in this House know that those who are in this underworld of politics are not criminals. Some here may think that they are deluded; some may think they are going wrong. They may be neurotic, they may be impressionable, and all the things in the phrases that have been pitched at them, but nobody will deny that they are imbued with the loftiest motives. A halo would be put around their heads a few years ago by the very men who are now trying to track them down, and, if I am not greatly mistaken, some of those who drafted these Bills are the men who brought them into this secret Republican movement. A terrible responsibility is on the heads of those who swore people in to defend a certain institution, put guns into their hands, and then put them against a wall and shot them for having carried out the oath that they administered to them. They are told by colleagues of the people on the opposite benches that they must not take what is described as an oath of allegiance. I would not have taken it if I thought it an oath of allegiance. I do not think it is. I will not refer to it as an oath of allegiance, but there are people who do. The taking of that oath is provided for in Article 17 of the Constitution.

You have been talking here for the last couple of days about providing machinery for the safety of the State, the stability of the State, the tranquillity of the State, and other things. Deputies have referred to the enemies of the State, and others have referred to them as criminals. Aye, men who referred to the late Mick Collins as the head of the gunmen in this country have been talking here about criminals. Let us get down to facts. What is the one thing that is destroying tranquillity, destroying peace, retarding the prosperity of the country and driving the youth out of it, as economic depression always will? It is Article 17 of the Constitution. If you face that problem you are facing facts. If you do not, you are turning a blind eye to the canker that is causing decay and misery in this country. You saw a statement made last night, an overture from a gentleman, who may or may not be my leader, but who represents a large body of opinion in this country, and who has got to be reckoned with. That overture has been made, and no chance ought to be lost to make a similar overture to try to bring about the peace that the country desires. I will not bore the House much longer.

DEPUTIES

Hear, hear.

Though "hear, hears" have been given by people who recruited for the British Army I will stand on my feet and defend the National Flag in the National Assembly of this country. I will sit down when I think the time has come to sit down, but I will not sit down at the dictation of John Bull's recruiting sergeants. The appeal which goes forth from Nationalist Ireland, from the working farmers and labourers, from the business men and manufacturers of this country to-day is this—peace—and if your Bill that you call a Safety Bill made for peace I would support it, but it does not. This Bill that we are talking about now does not make for peace or war. It is nothing. I am theoretically in agreement with the statement made by the President, but the Minister for Agriculture has deliberately stated that this Bill cannot be discussed apart from the previous Bill or apart from the murder of the late Vice-President. Let us consider all those events very seriously. I do not want to make any unworthy suggestion, but this thing has struck me very peculiarly: there was a reward offered for those who shot a British private soldier in Cork. There has been no reward offered for the discovery of those who shot the Vice-President. There was the murder of the Sirdar in Egypt and terrible consequences followed for the Egyptian people. We should not be precipitate in our actions. We should not try to widen the divisions that are between a section of Nationalists in here and a section of Nationalists outside. There may be bigger influences behind all this than any section of Nationalist opinion in this country can command. The direction should be towards unity and solidarity of the national ranks rather than division and separation and the widening of the divisions that are now in the national ranks.

I hope those who will follow me will debate this matter with less bitterness towards nationalists than those who have preceded me, and that they will not try to brand any political party with a murder that has been equally condemned by all political parties in this country. If you have information that they are secret societies, what have you been doing? Why did you not look after them? Why did you not pick them out? You have had information for three or four years, but you only bring it forward and tell us about it now when a murder has taken place. When you had that information why did you not prevent the crime or take preventive measures? I am afraid that all this campaign cannot very well be dissociated from an attempt to knock down the other political party that is running neck and neck with the Ministerial Party. I will add no more in the way of criticism of the Bill, but I will certainly pay the President this compliment, that I welcome the Bill for this reason: to stop the fooling of working up a referendum that could not be worked up and that could not be carried through. I state that here fearlessly. I have stated that in another place, and for that I welcome the Bill. Because of that I think nobody can accuse the President of trying to make political capital out of this Bill anyway. I am not going to vote for or against the measure. It is immaterial to me.

On a point of order, I was one of the Deputies who said "Hear, hear," and I want to ask Deputy Belton if he was referring to me when he talked about recruiting and that sort of thing.

A remark was made and I replied to it effectively. Those whom the cap fits can wear it.

If the remark was meant for me, then I say it is an utter lie.

Better and braver men joined the British Army than ever you were.

And joined the racing and greyhound fraternity than either of you two.

took the the Chair.

I regret that a most unhappy atmosphere has been created. I think it would be improper to make a change in the Constitution after the speeches that have been made. I think the statements made by Deputy Cooper were admirable. He stated that a change is desirable, but pointed out that there is no need for haste. I think it was most unfortunate and most unjust to couple the murder of the Vice-President with this matter, and I believe it is equally unjust and improper to attribute that murder to any member of Fianna Fáil.

On a point of order, who did that?

Well, it was plainly to be inferred from the statement made by the Minister.

That is not so.

It was plainly to be inferred from the Minister's statement. I regret that he imported into the discussion stale fish. With reference to the remarks made by a Deputy whose name I do not know, I think it was most unhappy to allude to Bismarck and to Bismarck's methods. If this matter comes on again at some future time, and in a much calmer atmosphere, probably we will all agree to this change, but in the circumstances I think the Ministry are making a bad mistake in pressing it now. We were told from time to time that it was not a good thing to run down the credit of the country. Surely no person and no candidate who was opposing the Government candidates did as much to run down the credit of the country as the Ministers themselves yesterday and to-day. I do not wish to taunt them, but I would remind them that history shows that a revolutionary junta—that was the expression used by the Minister for Education—might very easily become tyrants. Such has happened, and I hope it is not going to happen again.

As far as I can gather from the statements made, particularly the statement made by the Minister for Agriculture, this Article of the Constitution is being attacked, not because the Article itself is defective and ineffective, but because political advantage is being taken of the Article in its present form by an outside political party.

Mr. HOGAN

For fear the Deputy did not gather correctly what I did say I will repeat the statement for him. Not only is the Article defective, but it is being abused. I hope the Deputy understand that.

I accept the Minister's statement that the Government is proposing it for a double reason. Anyhow the Minister emphasised the second reason and directed most of his argument to proving that the second reason was the reason why it is most advisable that the Article should be deleted. Now, I have not given very much study to the question of the initiative in other countries, but I do know this, that the Constitution that we have was prepared and written by what was called at the time a Constitution Committee which was set up by the Government of which the Minister was at the time one of the leading people.

We should not in this Dáil deal lightly with a constitutional question. The Minister is at all times a realist, but in dealing with political questions it is sometimes unwise to be too real and too material. There is a pyschological reaction from any action we take in the Dáil, and I think it would be unwise and foolish to ignore the reaction which may follow the deletion of this Article from the Constitution. According to the Minister, this is the right time, and in fact the only time, in which this Article ought to be dealt with. I believe it is the wrong time to deal with this matter, for I believe you cannot remove from the minds of many of the general public the belief that the Government is taking advantage of the political situation which has been created by the unfortunate assassination of the late Vice-President for the purpose, in plain words, of dishing the position of political opponents. I am not a judge of motives, and I do not know what the motives are.

What will the political effects be?

I do not profess to be a prophet of political effects, but so far as I can judge, I think the political effects of the action proposed to be taken will be contrary to those anticipated by the President and by those who are pressing for the deletion of this Article of the Constitution. The proposal put forward by the leader of my Party, Deputy Baxter, that the whole Constitution needs revision, is one that should receive careful consideration. When the Constitution is under examination with a view to revision, this Article could come up for examination, and the Dáil might be inclined to accept the recommendation of any Committee set up for the purpose of making this examination. But the juxtaposition of this Bill with the Public Safety Bill will, to my mind, have the effect of conveying to the outside public the idea that political advantage is being taken of the situation which has arisen. My view of Article 48 is that it may be advisable to amend it. It certainly is unwise and wrong to have an Article in the Constitution which in its present form is unworkable.

I believe there are some advantages in the initiative. I believe that the initiative will act as safety valve. I quite recognise that the objections put forward by the President in regard to the working of the initiative are cogent and difficult to get over, and I quite recognise it is possible that a Bill might be drafted so as to meet the requirement of the outside public and put through the course which is laid down for it by the initiative and the referendum but which would probably be quite unfit and unworkable if passed into law. Still, the fact remains that if any particular Bill were passed bringing about any change in the laws of the country, undoubtedly any Parliament sitting would have to take cognisance of the fact that such a Bill was initiated by the Dáil and sanctioned by the people as a result of the referendum. The argument has been used that the leader of an outside Party and that Party are using this Article of the Constitution for the purpose of fooling the people. That may be so. They may be trying to fool or "cod" the people, but does anybody think after the debate which took place to-day that the people can be further "codded" in regard to the usefulness of this Article? Does anybody believe that if a statement had been made by the President, or a responsible Minister, that the Article could not be worked that the people would still continue to follow the guidance of that leader in regard to this Article? I do not believe it certainly, but if you will proceed with this Bill and delete the Article, then you will give those men the ammunition which they want. They will be placed in the position where they have either to get out or to come into the Dáil.

Deputy Cooper in his statement has shown that there are many difficulties in regard to the machinery which would be necessary to carry out the Article, but I think those difficulties should not be regarded as a reason why the Article should not be maintained in our Constitution. I think the question as to whether or not the initiative is advisable ought to receive further and more ample discussion and consideration than it has received here to-day. I believe that discussion can only take place before a Committee where due consideration will be given to all sides of the question and examination will be made as to the effect of the working of the initiative in other countries. I believe that the removal of the initiative for the purpose of gaining what will appear to the public at any rate as a political advantage over an opposition party is most inadvisable at the present juncture. I suggest that instead of postponing the further stages of this Bill, which I understand is the intention of the Government, that it should be withdrawn, and I believe that by doing so they will not weaken their position but rather strengthen it.

I am in agreement with the proposition put forward by Deputy Redmond and Deputy Baxter that this Bill ought not to be proceeded with at present, because it is inopportune and inexpedient to do so. I do not think that any Deputy in the House has said a word in favour of this Article in the Constitution. I agree entirely with the statement of the President that the Article is impracticable from the point of view of putting it into operation, and that it is useless if we could put it into operation. I do not want to speak with irreverence of any Article in the Constitution. I am by nature reverent, and my criticism is confined to this Article. Deputy Cooper suggested it originated in Oregon.

I read somewhere that it originated in Oklahoma. One would imagine that it originated in the place mentioned in Gulliver's Travels, where the professors were engaged in wonderful inventions, such as making sunbeams out of cucumbers. I do not think this Article ought to be put into operation. I submit there is no necessity to put this Bill forward at present.

The Minister for Agriculture, referring yesterday to this Bill, said the attempt being made by Mr. de Valera and his Party to use this Article of the Constitution was unconstitutional. That is a view I entirely accept. It is unconstitutional, and if it is unconstitutional, how can it be put into operation by this petition proposed to be raised by Mr. de Valera and his Party? I hope the Government have taken advice as to the legal position in this matter. I suggest that they should take such advice before they proceed further, because it appears to me that that is a consideration that should be taken into account before they proceed to legislate on this matter. The Treaty contained a provision as to the oath to be taken by Deputies, and Mr. de Valera and his Party, by a legal quibble, suggest that there is no necessity under the actual wording of the Treaty to take the oath. I describe that as a legal quibble, because, certainly, the condition that that oath should be taken is implicit in the Treaty. It is part of the bargain made between the two countries, and you cannot get rid of the bargain without the consent of the other party, unless you are going to break your word of honour.

There is another aspect of this matter upon which I would like to touch for a moment. This question as to the oath was before the country, and it is perfectly idle now for the people who were defeated at that last election to deny that it was an issue in the election, because each Deputy who sits in this House, with one exception, perhaps, in express terms, or, at all events, implicitly agreed that this was a term of the Constitution he was willing to honour and observe. It is idle, I say, for Mr. de Valera and his Party to say that the people of this State did not vote on this question, and that they did not defeat his view by at least two to one. That happened on the 9th June last. We were told yesterday by the Minister for Finance, in answer to a question, that the cost of having a referendum under this Article of the Constitution would be £85,000. I leave out of account for the moment the further financial loss to the State by the unrest and disturbance to the public mind that would be caused by this further appeal to the people.

A sum of £85,000 is too much money for this poor State to spend in satisfying Mr. de Valera once again within a couple of months that the people do not accept his propaganda. I think the men who would spend this money on a question of this kind are not serving the country and that this House would be failing in its duty to the country if it allowed that money to be spent that way. We have a great many social problems to deal with in this State. We have still an enormous proportion of the people in the State living in houses that are not fit for habitation. That is a problem handed down to us from the past, but it is one which we ought to deal with as soon as possible. To my mind the man who builds one house for the people is doing more for the state than the man who tries to upset the oath in the Treaty. Therefore I say if there was any danger of a referendum in this matter, I would certainly support the Government in bringing forward this measure at once, but I do suggest to them that there is no danger of a referendum. There is machinery available if such a thing were attempted for stopping an unconstitutional movement by legal action, and I ask the Government not to press this measure forward at the present moment.

It is suggested that the Government intend only to take the Second Reading of the Bill now and to proceed with the later stages in the next session. What is the advantage of proceeding with the Second Reading now instead of letting the Bill stand until the next session, because if they satisfy the House in the next session that this Bill is necessary for the purpose of stopping a referendum on this question, tried out at the general election, they will get a vote of the House in favour of the legislation. I do not like the idea of proceeding with the Bill at the present time, because I am afraid it will create an unfortunate impression in the public mind that advantage is being taken of the present situation for the purpose of passing these second and third Bills. I agree entirely with the view that was expressed by Deputy Baxter in one form of language and by the Minister for Agriculture in another, that this proposal for taking a referendum on this question now is merely deceiving the people. The people will learn something at all events from this discussion here to-night on that question without the Government pressing this Bill any further at the present time.

There is undoubtedly an impression amongst a large section of the public —and when I speak of them I speak particularly of the constitutionally-minded people of the State—and there is an uneasy feeling amongst them that this Bill is inopportunely introduced at the present time. I would appeal to the Government to take that into account, and if they find any necessity for passing this Bill in the next session, let them introduce it then and put it through all its stages in as short a time as they can, but I do ask them to let it stand over until that time, and get rid of this uneasiness and anxiety as to the introduction of the Bill at the present time.

There are a couple of small points I would like to refer to. It has been stated by one Party in this House that the allegation is bound to be made that opportunity is being taken of a certain situation to dish—I think that was the phrase used—political opponents, to "do" political opponents, out of something. We have had the description from the House this evening that what we are attempting to "do" political opponents out of is something that is worthless. If that is the only charge that can be brought against people supporting the Bill, it is a charge which they can incur with easy consciences. A Deputy asks why was not the statement, made by the President here this evening, made before. That statement followed by the statements of other Parties would mean that de Valera would no longer be able to continue to fool his section of the people. If we go further, and pass a Bill showing clearly that he is not going to be allowed to do that, then we are going to put political ammunition into our opponents' hands! In other words, the people who would be so affected by the presidential statement that they would not allow any further fooling of themselves by this method will hold that they had been done out of something because a Bill has been passed stating—not merely a statement from the people of this House, but an effective vote of this House—that what has been pretended as a course of political action is no longer going to be allowed. Deputy Redmond, with the same conclusion of thought, as it seemed to me, says if you let de Valera know that a Committee of this House is going to sit to consider constitutional amendments he will surely realise the futility of his action regarding the initiative. De Valera is going to be convinced of the futility of his present course of action by the solemn announcement that a Committee of this House is going to be set up to discuss constitutional amendments, and Mr. de Valera is not going to be convinced of anything by this House voting that what he has attempted is not constitutional and is not going to be permitted! I do not know where the logic of those thoughts may be.

Deputy Rice has drawn attention to one other matter. He asked a question yesterday with regard to the cost of the referendum, and was told it would cost £87,000. It would cost that if it ever came off, but it is never going to come off. No one in this House has any belief that this particular type of referendum is ever going to come off. The State is not going to be put to that expense, but the State may be put to cost by opposing this Bill, not only at this stage to-day, but on succeeding stages. The Government are quite prepared to leave over the Third Stage of this Bill until some day in December, and to bring forward proposals, in the interval, with regard to this constitutional amendment and any other which may be necessary. But it is for the House to remember what that may bring in the way of expenditure to the country if the Minister for Finance has to refrain from going for his national loan by reason of the fact that he thinks that there is sufficient public disquiet over this initiative and if he sees that the loan is not going to be a success before that question is decided. If short-term Bills have to be got for accommodation, and if the interest rises on them, let no Deputy who would object to this Bill hereafter object to that cost which has fallen on the country. If certain people in this House who are anxious to see the Agricultural Corporation going as soon as possible find it is not got going at the earliest possible date, owing to the same reason, that money cannot be raised as long as there is disquiet in the public mind as to what is going to happen owing to this proposal, let those who are going to object to the wiping out of this worthless Article bear the blame for the consequences hereafter. There can be no objection to holding over the matter.

There have been fairly clear declarations here to-night which may be taken to mean two things. First of all, everyone is agreed that the Article will not be used as the attempt is made to use it, and secondly, no amendment to that Article will be permitted which will give people, determined on unconstitutional action, power to do what they are now seeking to do through this Article. As long as these two things are clear, it does not matter whether the Bill is proceeded with now or hereafter. There may be other accidental consequences, and let those who are going to object to this being passed now or on further stages reflect on that.

I rise to oppose the Bill for the simple reason that I think it is the avowed object of the Government to prevent Mr. de Valera from using Article 48 of the Constitution possibly to obtain a mandate from the people for the removal of the oath. It is rather a bold and courageous step on the part of the Government, but, at the same time, I believe that it is an unwise one. No one can deny that Mr. de Valera's declared intention to use the forms provided by the Constitution, in order to secure his object, is an avowed recognition of the Constitution. I am not enamoured of the involved and cumbrous machinery of the Constitution, but it is there, and it was put there by those who propose to remove it. I think it is a rather dangerous expedient for any Government to put a limit to the prerogatives of the people, or to deny the right of any leader to use or take advantage of a right to which the Constitution, which that leader may tardily recognise, entitles him. I cannot get away from the fact that the introduction of this Bill at this particular moment is inopportune, and I am convinced in that opinion by the speeches I have listened to from the Government benches.

The Minister for Agriculture seems to be able to read the minds of Mr. de Valera and his followers and to anticipate what they are going to do. I am not so suspicious. I am one of those who, in season and out of season, have opposed Republicanism in all shapes and forms when, perhaps, the Minister for Agriculture and some other members of the Government were supporting it. I believe that anything that would tend to prevent a considerable section of our countrymen—and, mind you, they are numerous, more numerous, perhaps, than Deputies in this House have any idea—from taking part in the Government of our country is one to be deprecated. I sincerely hope that the Government will hearken to the advice tendered to them in all good faith by Deputy Baxter, Deputy Redmond, and other Deputies opposed to this Bill, and that they will postpone its further reading until the autumn session. When that time arrives, if the Government are in a position to convince the Deputies of this House that it is absolutely essential to the safety of the State and the material welfare of the people in general to have this Bill in operation, I believe it will receive unanimous and generous support from all Deputies.

Motion put. The Dáil divided: Tá, 48; Níl: 18.

Earnán Altún.J. Walter Beckett.George Cecil Bennett.Earnán de Blaghd.Séamus Breathnach.Seán Brodrick.Séamus de Búrca.John Joseph Byrne.Bryan R. Cooper.Sir James Craig.Michael Davis.James Dwyer.Barry M. Egan.James Fitzgerald-Kenney.Denis J. Gorey.Seán Hasaide.John Hennigan.Mark C. Henry.Patrick Hogan (Galway).Patrick M. Kelly.Hugh A. Law.Liam T. Mac Cosgair.Martin McDonogh.P. McGilligan.Mícheál Og Mac Pháidín.

James E. Murphy.James Sproule Myles.Martin M. Nally.Mícheál O hAonghusa.Máirtín O Conalláin.Partholán O Conchubhar.Séamus O Cruadhlaoidh.Máighréad Ní Choileáin BeanUí Dhrisceóil.Eoghan O Dochartaigh.Séamus N. O Dóláin.P.S. O Dubhghaill.E.S. O Dúgáin.Fionán O Loingsigh.Dermot Gun O'Mahony.Risteárd O Maolchatha.John J. O'Reilly.Máirtín O Rodaigh.Seán O Súilleabháin.Patrick W. Shaw.Timothy Sheehy.William E. Thrift.Vincent J. White.George Wolfe.

Níl

Patrick F. Baxter.P. Belton.Alfred Byrne.Michael Carter.James Coburn.Michael Doyle.William Duffy.Hugh Garahan.Michael R. Heffernan.

Gilbert Hewson.Richard Holohan.John Horgan.John Jinks.Daniel McMenamin.Timothy J. O'Donovan.David Leo O'Gorman.William Archer Redmond.Vincent Rice.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Heffernan and Coburn.

Motion declared carried. Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage ordered for 1st December.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until Thursday, 28th July.
Top
Share