ORDUITHE AN LAE—ORDERS OF THE DAY. IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. SUPPLEMENTARY AND ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES. - ELECTORAL (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE. – Dáil Éireann (5th Dáil) – Thursday, 28 Jul 1927

ORDUITHE AN LAE—ORDERS OF THE DAY. IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. SUPPLEMENTARY AND ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES. - ELECTORAL (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE.

The PRESIDENT

I beg to move "that the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1927, be read a second time."

The object of the Bill is to put an end to the present anomalous condition of things in which persons avail of the electoral machinery which has been provided by the State for the selection of members of the Oireachtas to offer themselves for election without having any intention of taking their seats or of undertaking their duties and responsibilities of the office which they seek. This futile performance has now gone on for five years. At every general election and at most of the bye-elections candidates have been put on what is described as the abstentionist programme. These candidates claim that such votes as they obtain are votes against the Treaty settlement. Some of them, no doubt, are. That they can all be so regarded is more than doubtful. During the recent election everything possible was done by the abstentionist group to cloud the issue. No two of their candidates appeared to be of one mind. Some of them were against the Treaty; others pretended that they were merely opposed to the oath which it contains, and it was consistently sought to delude the people into the belief that the oath could be removed without violating the Treaty. The situation was further confused by allegations of Government extravagance, by promises of employment, of relief from payment of debts, and so on.

But even if the maximum claim be conceded the position would be that the opponents of the Treaty are in a minority of one-third of the electorate. The issue of the Treaty has now been before the people at least three times. It is time that parliamentary institutions were protected from prostitution by a minority. This country has been run on the most democratic lines. Every adult has a vote; Deputies are elected on the basis of proportional representation, so as to render the legislature as nearly as may be a picture of the electorate. The rights of minorities are amply recognised and provided for.

But the majority has its rights, too. The majority of the people of this country have declared in unmistakable terms that they desire to work out their destinies peacefully under the constitutional liberties and parliamentary institutions which they enjoy. This they cannot do if a minority is to be permitted to play fast and loose with the basic principles of democratic government in their application, if they are allowed to persevere in their effort to bring parliamentary institutions into disrepute. There is a place where the voice of the people can be heard in council, namely, in the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas is the place provided for that purpose, and it is the only place.

It has been charged against the Government that this measure is an attempt to make political capital out of the assassination of the late Vice-President. Nothing could be further from the truth. A very little reflection should make it obvious to the weakest intellect that the accusation is entirely unfounded. As long as the Fianna Fáil Party contested elections upon the basis of non-acceptance of the Treaty and the Constitution, as long as the Treaty and the Constitution were in issue, so long did there exist a strong reason, a strong inducement to voters who desired the continuance of these instruments, to support the Party which had brought them into being, and which had defended them for five years. The effect of the present measure will be to remove that inducement, to give the people a choice, unhampered by the fear that the result might be a Dáil so broken up into little groups that stable government would be impossible. Clearly the passing of this Bill, so far from giving a political advantage to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, will do the exact opposite. It will remove a handicap from the other Constitutional Parties in this House, it will enable this House to be completed, and it will give the electorate a greater freedom.

Mr. BAXTER

We propose to oppose this measure. I am not going to make the charge that this Bill is introduced to make political capital out of the present situation. I quite agree that the passing of this Bill will probably not, as the saying is, bring any water to the mill of Cumann na nGaedheal, but that fact itself is not sufficient to satisfy us that the measure is justifiable now. Our Party are influenced in their opposition to this measure because of the time and the circumstances. Perhaps we may be blamed because of the mentality with which we approach this problem. However, we have also to take cognisance of the fact that perhaps other Parties are approaching the problem in a mentality that is probably not favourable to the solution of the whole difficulty with which the country is confronted. We do not dispute for one moment that it would be a very good thing for the country to have 152 representatives in this House. Responsibility for government would be distributed over a greater number of people, and incidentally when each representative would have to come here and stretch the trace side by side with his colleagues, when, after a trial, and after the chaff had been sifted from the wheat, the country would come to examine the position, they would, perhaps, be better judges of the value of representatives, and I feel that the Government and the people's representatives would then be the best that the people could procure. They would be elected on their merits, on their ability to do the country's work in the Parliament of the country.

We know quite well that it is very easy to criticise Deputies who come here and do work, and that it is very difficult to criticise the people who do not come here and do work. We know this House is open to examination and to criticism, and Deputies here suffer that every act of a representative in disabilities when facing the electorate, particularly Deputies who have tried to do something. We accept all that as being true. The object of this Bill, as stated by the President, is to get a full House, a truly representative assembly. But can that be achieved by this Bill? You can undoubtedly fill the seats in the Dáil, but will those who fill them be representative of the country? That is the question. Whether we like it or not we have here a political problem which, in my view, will not be solved by the Ministry's methods. Rightly or wrongly, a certain volume of opinion objects to elected representatives making a declaration of faithfulness to the King as head of the Commonwealth. Indeed, I do not know that there is any great enthusiasm at all for that declaration on the part of any number of representatives, either those who come here or those who do not come here. Personally I have not any very great enthusiasm for it, and although I recognise that we can do what we consider best for the country, it adds nothing to our ability to do our best that we have to make this declaration, just as, on the other hand, it is not the obstacle to national effort in the Dáil which the people outside the Dáil declare it is.

Recognising, however, that the abolition of the oath has a good deal of support in the country, I do not think that the Ministry is justified in the step it is taking. They may get 152 elected persons to come here, but getting representatives is not the important thing. What we want to aim at rather is to get a Dáil that is truly representative of the opinion of the country. I feel that this Bill will not give us that kind of Dáil, that we will not have a body of opinion here that will be truly representative of the opinion of the country. That people have not a right to do wrong has now been debated over a number of years. I believe they have a right to do wrong if they so choose, in spite of what other people may say, and I believe even that a minority of the people have a right to disfranchise themselves if they so choose, so long as they do so acting legally and constitutionally.

I confess that I feel that the attitude and policy of Fianna Fáil is injuring, to some extent at least, the credit of the country, but, on the other hand, there is no short cut to stability, and while we must do all we can to encourage it, after all, stability is rather a thing of natural growth. I feel that we cannot create the right conditions through a method of pressure that will undoubtedly have reactions that will not be favourable to that natural growth which in the end is the only thing that stands or lasts.

No matter what the President or his Ministry may think, the agitation against the declaration is not likely to be dropped. On the other hand, it can be carried on in the Dáil, and if this Chamber, through representatives here, decides some day later to take up the question with England, no one can foretell what may happen. Our Party did not go before the electorate claiming a mandate from the people on this question of the oath. We hardly discussed it at all except when interruptions from a crowd, here and there, compelled us to make a declaration on it. But, on the other hand, we question the wisdom of the Dáil making it obligatory by an Act on representatives or individuals going before the electorate seeking support to become their representatives to have to make a declaration which, later on, by an act of the representatives of this country in conjunction with the representatives of England, may be removed or altered in our Constitution. I do not think that such a disability should be inserted in an Act of the Dáil.

As I said yesterday, when debating the other Bill, I am very strongly convinced that if the present position is permitted to continue for the three or four or possibly five years which would be the life of the present Government, and which is not unlikely, that when another General Election comes along, not through an act of this Dáil and not through any act of the present Ministry, but by the act of the people themselves, those who go before them seeking a mandate to represent them will be asked by the people whether or not they are prepared to make a declaration to the Constitution. I would prefer to leave it to the people to make that demand from those who seek to be their representatives. Further, I feel that if three or four years are allowed to elapse before the country has to go through another General Election that the great body of the electorate will not be satisfied to give their support and their votes to men merely to abstain and to keep away from the Chamber where the work of the nation is done.

I and my Party feel very strongly that there again time would do more to solve this problem for the Dáil and the country than anything that we can do by passing this Act. On the other hand, you may pass this Act, but you will contribute nothing to a solution of a problem that is here not for our day but for generations, a problem which undoubtedly must be got rid of and must be solved in some other way than by the method the Ministry proposes. We feel very strongly that the Ministry should not introduce this Bill at the present time and should not put upon the Dáil the obligation of asking support for it. We believe that it could very well wait, and that perhaps when it became a matter of urgency and when the country was again faced with coming to a decision as to who are to be responsible for carrying on the affairs of this State for another three, four or five years, that then the electorate themselves, the sovereign people, would compel men to make this declaration which the President wants to compel them to make through an Act which, in my view will not have that effect.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Labour Party went through the last general election and previous general elections and bye-elections while making it well known that so far as the oath is concerned it gives it very little importance. We were not going to fight an election on the question of the oath, its retention or abolition. We think that the oath device is a bad one, no matter of whom it may be required to be taken or in what conditions. We think that an oath of allegiance is one that ought not to be imposed on, or required of, any Parliamentary representative. I admit that there is a certain amount of logic in the case which says that as the men who are elected are obliged to take the oath by the Constitution so the candidate for election, at an election under that Constitution, is presumed implicitly to have accepted the liability to take that oath. That is unquestionable. But to me it seems to be an unwise and impolitic procedure, quite apart from the present circumstances, to deal with this Electoral (Amendment) Bill in this fashion, independent of any other matter relating to electoral law, and particularly when we are not, so far as one can know, likely to have a general election within the next three months. I say that the Labour Party has never taken the view that the oath is a matter of supreme importance. We believe that the Oireachtas, under the Constitution, has all the powers that are required to develop this country to the utmost that it is possible to develop it within a considerable time—I will not say how many years—and in my belief one does not need to attempt to alter the form of an institution until the activities of that institution are impeded by the form, and so far as I have been able to see within the last five years, no activity of any kind, on the part of the Government of this country, has met any obstacle in the way of putting into effect its desires, its intentions, or its will. And while saying that it makes one very often angry and cynical as to the people who are making trouble and so much fuss about the oath which is an oath to the Constitution which gives power to the elected representatives of the people, and to the people at the back of their representatives, to do anything that they require to be done.

With Deputy Baxter I realise that we must consider the circumstances in which this Bill is introduced. The Minister for Agriculture, I understand, made it quite clear that this is one of three Bills indicating part of a whole policy, and that it has no particular value of itself. I presume he meant only of value because it is part of a trio of Bills. I think on that account, if on no other, that this Bill ought to be opposed on Second Reading without prejudice to what members may think of the Bill which may come forward dealing with electoral reform at some future time. We have been told that there is to be a considerable scheme of electoral reform, and I would have imagined that would be a scheme which might be examined by a committee representative of Parties before introduction to the House, and I think it would have been the right thing if such a step had been taken before this small part of what is presumably a larger scheme had been introduced. Speaking of the logic of this Bill, if one were dealing with it as a matter apart from politics, and the political effects of any activity, and if one wanted to arrive at the condition that elected people ought not to be allowed to make of no effect the votes of the people, there is another way of dealing with it which I think much preferable to this, a way which would leave the authority in the hands of the people, by making the appeal to the people themselves.

We had in the last Dáil the case of a member who was elected at a bye-election and who was absent for many months. In addition, having once taken his seat, he remained absent. Now, it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable and logical proposition that if any person elected to the House does not take his seat within a reasonable period of time, or, having taken his seat, declines to attend the House for a given period of time, that that automatically makes a vacancy in that constituency, and gives the people an opportunity of electing a successor. I think that would be a preferable way of dealing with this question rather than requiring a candidate to take an oath before election. But there is another very serious consideration. How is this going to be made effective without depriving the electors of the right to nominate a perfectly loyal and constitutional member who may not be in the country at the time of the election, who may be ill and unable to make a declaration, who may, in fact, be in prison, or who may have been expelled the country by the decision of the Ministry?

A year ago Deputy Cooper and ex-Deputy Esmonde paid a visit to Australia in furtherance of certain activities which are associated with the duties of membership of the Dáil. Had there been an election—it was not impossible—sprung upon the country during the absence of those Deputies, it would have been impossible to make a nomination of either of them. Were any Deputy or any citizen imprisoned, and if it was the desire of certain people to test the feelings of the people regarding that imprisonment, as has been done so often in Irish politics, there is no likelihood—I do not say it is impossible—but there is little likelihood of them being able to get that declaration from the prisoner under the scheme outlined in this Bill. A Peace Commissioner is not a regular officer operating throughout the Saorstát, and I am not sure that a commissioner for oaths has a commission for anybody if he does not reside within the British Dominions or Great Britain, so that there is a very extensive barrier against the election of people who might well be required as candidates under our electoral system. I think it is an effective barrier against the election of any person who, at the time of the election, is not in the country and is not capable of taking the oath. It is not so very long since—perhaps the President will have recollection of it—when even this Ministry gave urgent advice to people within this country not to take their seats in the Parliament to which they had been elected.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE

Is there no distinction?

Mr. JOHNSON

They gave urgent advice to people not to take their seats in the Parliament to which they had been elected. Fundamentally, in my view, and it is a personal view, there is a much more serious objection. Ministers and Deputies have declared many times that we have retained the right of the people, by the very phrasing of the Constitution, to exercise all powers of government and that all authority is derived from the people of Ireland. It is true that it says that all powers and authority shall be exercised through certain machinery set up by the Constitution, but the ultimate right lies with the people even to change the Constitution, even to denounce the Treaty. So long as the people are clear and have the direct question put to them, whether they wish to denounce the Treaty and change the Constitution, they have a right to do it—not a constitutional right, but a fundamental, natural right to do it by other machinery than that of the Constitution.

Let us assume this as a possibility, namely, that a majority of the people determine in the course of years that they will no longer recognise this Constitution, that they will no longer be willing to accept the Treaty, and they are persuaded by political elements outside the Dáil that the non-oath policy is the right one. How do you desire that people having possibly—I put it merely as a possibility—that view can give expression to it? If you debar them from the opportunity of electing people, of giving their votes to candidates with a certain policy, you are inevitably driving them to other methods. This is undoubtedly an outlet for political aspirations—a foolish one if you like—and it is, perhaps, quite illogical, but the right of voting for people opposed to the Constitution is an outlet. The retention of this freedom to these people is not really a very great evil. I have suggested a further appeal to these people, periodically if you like, every six months if necessary, and if they are prepared to elect people who will not take their seats, then by all means, after a period of time, give them an opportunity of electing somebody else, but do not close down the opportunity to people to give expression to a political view, even to the extent of a revolutionary view.

It is far better to let revolutionary expression be through a vote than through a revolver or a rifle. It is not the value of the oath or the evil effects of the oath that I am concerned with in this matter, but I think it is an unwise proposition to deal with this Bill at this time, even if I agreed with every clause of it. My further objection is that the Bill is going to make it impossible for electors to elect a person who would, in the normal course of his life, take such oath, and twenty-five of them if necessary, but by the accident of circumstances and time he is not available. He should not be debarred from being elected, and the people who support him should not be denied the opportunity of nominating him. There are other objections, to which no doubt expression will be given in the course of the discussion on the Bill, but I urge on the Dáil that these reasons justify the non-acceptance of the Second Reading motion. As I say, there are differences of view as to the merits of the Bill. There are differences of view in this Party as to the merits of the Bill, as to the principle involved in it, but there is general agreement that the surrounding circumstances, the conditions under which this Bill is introduced, make it inadvisable that it should be pressed to a Second Reading to-day.

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE

Let me deal with one point first. Deputy Johnson made a point that people might decide to nominate a person who may be overseas or in prison, and that that practical difficulty was an overwhelming objection to this Bill. That is not so. That is a Committee point and can be dealt with later. There are obvious ways, which I need not indicate, of dealing with that, and Deputies may put it aside for the moment. The Dáil may take it that my position in regard to this Bill is, quite frankly, that it is a Public Safety Bill. Not putting a tooth in it, that is the position of the Government. It is as much a Public Safety Bill as the other. That is our position, and, while I may be very often definite and, perhaps, one-sided in my view, I cannot understand any other point of view on this Bill. I am frankly unable to understand the point of view of Deputies who think that the attitude of the Party against which this Bill is directed is not a direct threat to the State and to the Constitution. The Party against which this Bill is directed has for five years been endeavouring to prostitute the Constitution. That statement was made by Deputies from other Parties in this House, and it cannot be denied. It is the fact with regard to the referendum and also with regard to the oath. It is an effort to belittle and prostitute the Constitution. The whole tendency of the actions and propaganda of that Party is clearly directed towards engendering hatred and contempt for the Constitution and for the people who are endeavouring to work it.

Further, that would be so even if this particular Party were moderate and strictly constitutional in its language. But the Party against which this Bill is directed, in addition to attacking the Constitution in that way, go very much further. Their spokesmen constantly explain that their present attitude is due to the stress of circumstances, that their whole object is to create a situation where revolutionary forces can work, and that it is merely an interim attitude. Deputy Baxter and Deputy Johnson and other Deputies know that these are the statements of the leaders, statements made to ordinary citizens in the country, that their attitude is merely interim. The leader of that Party, when launching it six months ago, stated openly—and it was in line with everything he said for the last four years; I do not go back to the civil war, to his responsibilities, to his invitations, and to all sorts of violence—that the differences between majority rule and minority rights would yet have to be bloodily fought out. Other prominent men throughout the country have always kept the threat of the gun behind their activities. They have openly stated that their attitude at present is merely interim. They never denied the right of the minority, as long as it was strong enough, to vindicate its policy in arms. That party has been attacking, not so much individual members of the Government, but the Government itself, the Oireachtas, which represents the majority of the people. Are Deputies deceiving themselves; was Deputy Gorman deceiving himself yesterday——

Mr. O'GORMAN

I always had an "O" in my name, and I ask you to use it. I had an "O" in my name before it was fashionable, and so had my people before me.

Mr. HOGAN

Was Deputy O'Gorman deceiving himself yesterday when he suggested that there was no connection between that campaign and the violent deed of a fortnight ago?

Mr. O'GORMAN

If you wish that to be answered, I can answer it. I do believe there was no connection.

Mr. HOGAN

You can answer it again. Of course, anybody who faces up to it must realise that there was. Here you have people definitely denouncing this Government as "agents of England,""tools of England,""Ministers going over to England selling their country,""traitors," and a junta. And that has not influenced in any respect the men who hold the guns! Supposing that party had adopted the Constitution, realising that the people, whatever else they did, or did not, had decided that the Constitution had to be worked, and had come into the Dáil and taken their part in shaping the policy of the country, would the gunmen be as strong to-day? If any Deputies believe that, then I cannot argue with them. Every attempt is being made, even here, to confuse the minds of the country, both with regard to the provisions of this Bill and the old subject, the oath.

Deputy Baxter started off with the statement that nobody was enthusiastic about the oath to the King. Surely we ought to realise that "the King" is only a constitutional way of saying the Government elected by the majority will of the people. Surely, at this hour of the day, with all the education we have and a Constitutional Government for five years, a leader of a party at least should think it his business, if he has not realised that already, to think about it and not to add to the confusion that is being caused by ignoramuses in the country who talk about "the King" and "the oath." I cannot understand the Deputy's position. Constitutionally, there is no doubt whatever about it, the King is no more than the Government elected by the majority of the people. Yet, people say they have no enthusiasm for it. Is it not hard to blame the ordinary citizen, the small farmer and the farmers' sons who are taken in by that sort of thing, when leaders of parties here give it the support of their authority? I have every enthusiasm for the oath.

Mr. BELTON

And the King?

Mr. HOGAN

And the King, as representing the majority of the Irish people.

Mr. BELTON

We know it now; it is all out.

Mr. HOGAN

May I say that if the Deputy were in the House he would realise that it was out long ago. I have stated it often. I stated it in the Treaty days.

Mr. CORISH

What did you state?

Mr. HOGAN

I have every enthusiasm for the oath, and so long as the oath is an oath of allegiance to the Government, constituted by this Oireachtas, representing the majority will of the people, I have every enthusiasm for it, and it is only muddle-headedness and mixed thinking that talks about want of enthusiasm. Deputy Johnson advanced rather new theories for him. The people have a right not only to change the Constitution in a constitutional way, but they have a right, if the majority wishes, to change the Constitution in an unconstitutional way —a fundamental right! That was the proposition he put forward. I entirely agree, but will the Deputy realise what way they have if the majority of the people decides at any time to change the Constitution by any other methods than constitutional methods. They may do so, but they have only one means of doing it—violence. Deputies must realise that there is no other way. Any attempt to find a half-way house leads inevitably to violence. To use the Constitution at present, as it is being used, leads inevitably to violence. If Deputy Johnson has not stated that, he often stated something that was very like it. We are at one on the point. A majority may change the Constitution. I will not even argue whether they have a fundamental right to do it. But they have only one method, and that is by violence. I want to make that clear to the country, and the idea of this Bill is to make it clear to the country that this tinkering with the Constitution and this prostitution of the Constitution must inevitably end in violence. And if this Bill does that, then it will have effected its purpose. People may say this Bill will drive certain sections of the people to violence. What is the meaning of that? What does that imply? It implies that there is a section in this country who, rather than accept the Constitution, which, twice at least, has been approved by the majority of the people, are prepared to use violence.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is being changed every day, and changed very lightly and easily.

Mr. HOGAN

The Deputy knows that interruption is not to the point. I will come to it. That is what it implies. If there is a minority in the country who are determined to use violence rather than use the Constitution as a means of changing the Constitution, then the sooner that fight is over the better. That is my view. I think, after five years, the time has come to make up our minds about it. If there is a section in the country who rather than use the Constitution are prepared to resort to violence, the sooner, for the good of this country and the people of this country, that fight is over the better, and it is the duty not only of the Government, but of this Parliament, to deal with that fight or resign. It has been repeated in this debate that the oath might be changed by agreement afterwards, and that the Treaty might be changed by agreement. As far as I am concerned, let any majority that likes come into the Dáil and change the Treaty in any way they like, not only change the oath, but change every clause in the Treaty, in any way they like, declare a Republic or go back to the Union. A majority of the people have a right to do one or the other. Let them come in and do it. We are not stopping them. What we are trying to effect is that the representatives who get a majority will at least take the responsibility. We are trying to obviate the position where you have a party outside who will not take the responsibility here. Some of them, at least, would never have the guts to take the responsibility for it, and that is really what is keeping them out. They want a majority here to do it for them, and to take all the chances there are. That is what we want to avoid. We are not changing the constitutional right of anyone to change the Constitution. Our position is that you can have no seriously-thought-out or considered change unless it is done by people who have afterwards to take the consequences. I think this Bill is vital. I think now is the time for it. I say again in times like these, the phrases I deprecate are "Put it off,""Do it in some other way," accompanied by the pious suggestion that "A lot more may be done in six months or by Tibbs' Eve."

Captain REDMOND

The Minister who has just sat down has described this as a Public Safety Bill. It is because of that description and because the Government seem to regard it as a Public Safety Bill that I am going to oppose it. The proposals in this Bill do not directly affect the Constitution, but I think they do indirectly propose to add something to the Constitution which is not there already. The Minister said, very frankly, that this Bill is directed against a Party which is against the Constitution, and it is because that Bill is directed against the Party which the Minister himself has not yet described as an unconstitutional Party——

Mr. HOGAN

I have, often.

Captain REDMOND

Does the Minister say the Fianna Fáil is an unconstitutional Party?

Mr. HOGAN

You can have it either "un" or "anti."

Captain REDMOND

Does he say—

Mr. HOGAN

I do.

Captain REDMOND

The Minister says the present Party, led by Mr. de Valera, is an unconstitutional Party.

Mr. HOGAN

Yes, I do.

Captain REDMOND

If he says that, of course, I cannot argue with him on the belief that it is one, but as far as I am concerned, according to the latest statement made by the leader of that Party, I cannot accept it as settled that Mr. de Valera and his Party are an unconstitutional Party. He has previously preached the doctrine of violence, but he has stated for some time past that he has given over that doctrine, and, though his objects may be to alter the Constitution, or even to renounce portions of the Treaty, I do not think that because that is his aim, if he acts in a constitutional way towards that aim, that he and his Party can be described as unconstitutional. The Minister's speech reminded me very much of speeches that I listened to and heard of in the days of my youth. When Parnell was asked what would become of him and what would he do when he and his party were being sought to be suppressed by the British Government, his answer was: "Captain Moonlight will take my place." The Minister seems to suggest to-day—in fact, he has gone a very long way towards suggesting—that the sooner violence breaks out in the country the better.

Mr. HOGAN

May I make a point of order by asking a question? Does the Deputy think that the authority of the Irish people in Ireland is the same as the authority of the English people in Ireland?

Captain REDMOND

I think that question is totally irrelevant. I do not think the authority of the Irish people and the authority of the English people in Ireland are the same thing.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (General Mulcahy)

rose.

Captain REDMOND

May I proceed?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy must be allowed to proceed.

Captain REDMOND

If other Deputies are to be allowed to proceed in this House, I can claim the same right. What I was endeavouring to say was that apart from whether the authorities in the country are identical or not, the principle is the same principle that is endeavoured to be formulated and acted upon by the Minister and his Government to-day. That is that a party which avowedly is acting constitutionally, whether the Minister believes it or not—the party states that it is—should be frustrated by direct Parliamentary measures from taking that course, I say that frustration will be the sure and rapid means of driving it into revolution.

The Minister said that it is the duty of this Parliament to deal with what he has described as that fight. I will ask him a question now. Is it the duty of the Government to precipitate and to hasten that fight? Is it the duty of the Government, instead of trying to encourage methods on the lines of peace, to encourage methods on the lines of violence? I believe that that is the real upshot of the Minister's speech.

I was sorry to hear him state that he believed that inevitably the action of the Fianna Fáil Party would lead to violence. He said that all this tinkering with the Constitution must end in violence. I respectfully beg to disagree with him there, and I think that in removing this means of expression of public opinion—because that is practically all it is—the Minister and his colleagues are removing perhaps the only safety valve between this country and violence. It is a safety valve. These people have been elected according to the electoral law of the country and they have refused to take their seats. No one can accuse me of being in favour of an abstention policy. I was not in favour of an abstention policy, or all that went with it either, in days gone by, and I am not here to defend that policy. I think it is possibly foolishness in the extreme. That does not get away from the fundamental fact that if certain electors in the country choose to elect certain people, and they choose to take a certain line of action that it is within their constitutional right to take, that it is not the business of this House, especially at this time and in this way, to dictate to the people—because that is really what this Bill proposes—as to what representatives they should return and as to what policy, especially as to what constitutional policy, should be advocated and acted upon by those representatives.

We hear about the disfranchisement of the constituencies. I say that it is not our business, if the constituencies choose to disfranchise themselves. It is the people's business. If the electors see that they have been fooled, that certain people are not taking the course which the electors were led to believe they would take if elected, very soon there will be a sufficient amount of public opinion in the country to make those representatives know, at any rate, that the next time they go forward for election they will have to make their position clear and that they will stand very little, if any, chance of being returned.

This is a matter, to my mind, that fundamentally affects the people and not us here in this Dáil. It is unfortunate, it is lamentable to say that one-third of the representatives of this State will not take their place in this House. But is this Bill going to make that section of the people represented in this House if it is passed? If this Bill is passed, it is true you will have a fuller House. But will you have representatives of one-third of the people who say to-day that they will not have representatives in the House? Certainly not. The effect will be that you will inevitably drive these people who have these views—which I deprecate perhaps more strongly than any other Deputy—to other methods, and I am afraid, from the tone of the speech of the Minister for Agriculture, that that is what he wants, because he said that this tinkering with the Constitution, as he calls it, must end in violence, and that this Parliament must deal with that fight, as he described it. My attitude is to put off that fight as long as possible, and, if possible, for ever. I do not want any revolution or any civil war in this country.

Mr. GOREY

Better shirk it and hand it on to your children.

Captain REDMOND

And Deputy Gorey smiles.

Mr. BELTON

He smiles after the fight.

Captain REDMOND

All that I can say is that there has been sufficient violence, murder and bloodshed on all sides in this country for me during my lifetime.

Mr. ANTHONY

Not enough for Deputy Gorey.

Captain REDMOND

And I hope during the lifetime of any that come after me.

Mr. DAVIN

Deputy Gorey speaks for 954 people.

Captain REDMOND

This Bill is not, on the face of it, an amendment of the Constitution. At the same time it is an amendment to the spirit of the Constitution, because in that Constitution there was an oath which we have all taken and subscribed to, and which I join with the Minister for Agriculture in saying that I see no reason for not taking or subscribing to—and I am not ashamed of doing either one or the other. But there is nothing in the Constitution to say that before a person submits himself for election he shall necessarily state that if elected he is prepared to take that oath. Surely the people are not such fools that sooner or later they will not insist upon every candidate that goes forward at any subsequent election making his position clear in this matter. What right of control have we got over candidates going forward for election? Will it come to this shortly: that if a candidate goes up for election and makes certain pledges to his constituents and breaks them afterwards he will have to resign his seat, or will have to take a declaration before he goes up for election that every pledge that he takes will be kept? I do not see myself why that should not be.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It would be difficult for the Deputy.

Captain REDMOND

If we insist, because some candidates who went forward at the last election let the people think they were going to take their seats here, and have not done so, that, therefore, they should be made to take a declaration henceforward that they will take a certain course, I think that it is going too far. I think that it is too great an interference upon our part with the will of the electorate. There is a great deal to be said for the point of view that this state of affairs should cease. Certainly it should cease. But it can only thoroughly cease, and properly cease, in one way, and that is when the people come to realise that their ends will not be served by electing men who will not take their seats in this House and will not take the oath. Then there will be no prospect of driving a large section of the people into the camp of the revolutionaries; there will be no prospect of an immediate civil war, or a speeding up, or precipitating or hastening of this fight that the Minister for Agriculture is so anxious that we should deal with.

What was heard of this Bill during the general election? Was there a word said about it from any platform? If there is justice or merit in these proposals, how is it that they were never mentioned before? I never heard or read a syllable either from a public platform, or in the public Press, or at any time in this House during the four years that I have been here, suggesting that such a step as this should be taken. Why is it taken now? The Minister frankly told us. He says that it is taken for public safety. I say that it will not secure public safety. I do not say that it will disturb public safety. I do not go so far as that, but I say that it will incur the risk of disturbing public safety, which leaving things as they are will not. If there was no necessity or urgency for this Bill during all those years, what is the urgency and necessity for it to-day? It is being linked up with a measure to prevent and repress crime and criminals. How is this Bill, when passed, going in any way or in any degree to bring the murderers of the Vice-President to justice? How is it, further, going to prevent even a similar atrocious tragedy taking place? It has been suggested that this crime, which we all deplore and regret, and which the country deplores and regrets, was, in some way or other, linked up with the policy of Fianna Fáil. I think there is about as much truth in that—that this atrocious crime was linked up with the policy and actions of Fianna Fáil— as there is sense or statemanship in linking up an Electoral Bill like this with the Public Safety Bill, on which we have been engaged during the last few days. I think they have nothing to do with one another. It has not been shown that the country will be more secure or more free from possible turmoil and strife if this Bill is passed than it will be if it is not. On the contrary, I am forced to the conclusion that the very fact of passing this Bill at the present time, the very fact of linking it up with the Public Safety Bill, the very fact of indulging in the old habit, so well known in the days of the British administration of this country, of linking politics and crime will incur a risk—a grave risk—for which I certainly do not feel that I could take responsibility.

Mr. McMENAMIN

In principle, I do not object to this measure. I am not an abstentionist and never have been. I rise, like Deputy Redmond, to utter a warning regarding the wisdom of introducing and enacting this measure here and now. I am glad that the Minister for Agriculture has told the House that there is no doubt about the purpose and the object for which this measure is introduced. He told us that it was introduced as a Public Safety Bill. I would like to know from the Government if it is a Public Safety Bill or Public Safety Bills they require. Have they taken, under the strictly-so-called Public Safety Bill, the powers they require or have they not? Or have they put down a series of thimbles with a pea under each so that they will be sure of catching everybody? I say to the Government in absolute good faith that in the Bill, designated the Public Safety Bill, they have very ample powers to deal with any crime that has been committed or is about to be committed. I say to the Government most seriously to take in that measure—in an amended form, if it is thought prudent on the part of the House to amend it—all the powers that are necessary to repress assassination, murder and crime but not to enact in the name of Constitutionalism and Parliamentary Government a series of Acts that will provoke any element in the country. It is thought by many, who are supporters of Constitutional institutions, outside this House that the Government have, by linking up those measures, gone a step too far. I agree with that opinion, and I say again that there are ample powers in the Public Safety Bill, strictly so called, to deal with all forms of crime, no matter by whom or by what means committed. I would ask the Government most seriously, not that I am opposed to the principle of this measure, but as a matter of discretion and to avoid the danger of a public explosion, to drop this Bill and confine themselves to the Public Safety Bill, strictly so-called.

GENERAL MULCAHY

There has been a lot of talk within the last two days about the magnificent wording of the provisions in the Constitution regarding the liberty of the individual and public right and so on, as if it were those things in the Constitution which mattered and as if there was anything worth speaking about in the Constitution and in its language if it did not provide us with and guarantee us the institutions that we have here for ordering the government of the country and securing peace to the people. The measure before us has, as its purpose, to secure the existence and the power of the Dáil. There will be nothing left for us out of any clause of our Constitution if we cannot preserve the existence of the Dáil and its authority and control in the country. We cannot do that if we are going to allow a situation to grow up by which, gradually, different parts of the country are to be cut off from connection with the Dáil—cut off from having representatives here. The authority of the Dáil comes from the fact that the people who come here are the elected representatives of the people and that they come with powers complete and full to order in every way that may be required the life of the country. They come here to see, with the administrative machinery at the disposal of the Dáil—the Army, the Police and the Civil Service—that the measures representing the desires of the people which are hammered out here are given effect and force in the country. Some of the weakness that our people in the country suffer from at present arises from the fact that the authority, the strength and the efficiency of the Dáil to do its own work is being undermined by the policy of abstention which Deputy Redmond thought worthy of condemnation some time ago but does not seem to think worthy of it now.

Captain REDMOND

I absolutely condemn it still—out and out.

General MULCAHY

I am sorry if I misunderstood the Deputy. It is no use introducing Public Safety Bills to enable your administrative machinery to cope with criminals if the fount of your authority is to be undermined and destroyed. If you look around the country, you will find that some of the districts in which the greatest percentage of absentee votes were cast are very backward, out-of-the-way districts. Just as we have to carry primary education compulsorily to our people, to a certain extent, we shall, apparently, have to carry political education to our people, with the exercise of a certain amount of compulsion. We put a measure before the Dáil which will have the effect of strengthening it as an institution by preventing false or specious pleas keeping away the additional members required here if the work of the Dáil is to be properly done. It is because of recent circumstances that it has been forced on the Executive Council that a continuance of this weakening, with—owing to want of understanding and want of education—the possibility of further weakening of the personnel of the Dáil, cannot be allowed. The Dáil has to regard the present Bill as one which provides for the completely filling up of this institution with representatives of the different parts of the country, in order that its deliberations may be full and complete and in order that the different parts of the country may be properly represented and linked up, as is provided by our Constitution.

It is argued that this is the wrong time to take this step. There may be differences of opinion on that. It is interesting and helpful to us to realise that, even while different members and different Parties in the Dáil may consider this to be the wrong time to introduce this measure, they admit that there is nothing wrong in principle in the measure. That is helpful. It is the responsibility of the Executive Council to size up the situation and to arrive at their own decision. It is their duty, then, to make recommendations to the Dáil as to what they think should be done, and this represents their recommendation.

I should like to ask Deputy Baxter, as leader of the Farmers' Party, to explain more fully, in fairness to himself and in fairness to others, his meaning of the phrase, "The people have the right to do wrong." The interpretation that can be placed on that may mean much. We pass here legislation of all kinds marking out as offences— whether criminal or otherwise—many acts that a person might think he was entitled to do. For instance, a person is prevented from putting his dustbin outside his door at a particular hour and thus obstructing the pathway. Are we to understand that a person has the right to do that? Are we to understand that a person has a right to shoot an Executive Minister if he is so inclined? In fairness to himself and in fairness to all of us, I think Deputy Baxter should comment further on that statement.

Various suggestions have been made as to how the position that is sought after might more easily be got. If I understand rightly, Deputy Johnson considers that one way would be to allow professed absentees, whether they profess themselves to be so or not when as candidates, to go up for election, declare their seats vacant after a particular time, and then have another election. Anybody who has had experience of elections, anybody who realises the cost to the State of the carrying out of elections on any kind of a large scale, or even the tiresomeness and cost of having successive by-elections in any one constituency, will realise that a very good case might be made against such a proceeding as that.

While Deputy Baxter feels that the public are likely at the next general election to find out in a very definite way from candidates whether or not they are going to take their places in the Dáil, the machinery is certainly not there. Everyone has had experience of the way in which the issue before the last general election was confounded. There is one straight way of clearing this particular issue, and that is by getting a declaration from candidates that they are going to shoulder their responsibilities here, that they will take their places in the Dáil and shoulder the responsibilities that come to them here. Deputy Johnson points out that without an immediate declaration of the present seats that may be involved, this measure is unnecessary. It gives those people who are in the absentee position to-day a better chance of considering their position, a better chance of considering how their future ought to be shaped.

Various Deputies from different parts of the House have taken upon themselves the duty of pointing out that there is no connection between the Fianna Fáil policy of to-day and the policy of assassination that certain other people in the country have apparently adopted. I think there is such a thing in chemistry as a body that is called a catalyzer, a body that has this effect, that without its presence in a situation another body could not have the particular reactions that it is able to have. Personally, I think, and am convinced, that the abstentionist Party in the country to-day is a catalyzer for assassination and murder, and it is because that is so to a very large extent that we have to declare ourselves very definitely here as to what is our policy with regard to abstention and with regard to people who would organise an abstentionist party in the country. If the seats are not being declared immediately, it gives those who stand for abstention to-day plenty of time to think over the matter and see where they and their policy are tending.

Mr. BRENNAN

I desire to say a few words in support of the opposition to the Bill; firstly, because I think it is an attempt to perpetuate and make more secure in our Constitution one clause which is more responsible for instability in the State than anything else. Another thing struck me very forcibly when I heard the speech made by the Minister for Agriculture a while ago. He told us that he considered Fianna Fáil as an unconstitutional Party. I think this House is quite free to believe from that that they are to be brought within the meshes of an illegal association, and if they are to be brought within the meshes of this illegal association, and if the powers to be conferred upon the Executive Council by virtue of the Public Safety Act are utilised, there will be no need for this Bill because they will have all those people deported; they will not be in the country. They have, at least, that means of dealing with them.

As a matter of fact, I partly thought that if they got through with the Public Safety Bill they would not bother about this measure, as they would have nobody to apply it to. This Bill contains a double-barrelled feature which, to my mind, brings about over-lapping. I think it would be quite enough, certainly there would be a lot of commonsense in it, and probably it would meet with no opposition in the House, if the Government brought in a Bill which would declare that after a certain period—the second part of the Bill does that—the candidate who did not take his seat would automatically be unseated and disqualified. I think that should be quite sufficient without making him swear before he is nominated that he will take his seat if elected.

Irrespective of what the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Redmond, or anybody may say about the oath, and no matter how it is tried to convince the people that the oath is only an oath to the Constitution, we will never be able to get a large proportion of the people, including myself—and I may be muddle-headed, as the Minister said— to believe, as I believe, that as long as the King is referred to he is there.

Mr. HOGAN

I think he is there also.

Mr. DAVIN

Is he here?

Mr. BRENNAN

The Constitution is there; so is the King there. They are two distinct parts.

Mr. DAVIN

He is not here.

General MULCAHY

He is in Roscommon.

Mr. BRENNAN

We recognise him, apparently, and the Minister for Agriculture is enthused——

Mr. HOGAN

Yes.

Mr. BRENNAN

I do not think there is any large percentage of this House enthused about recognising him. I do not want to labour the point. If the Fianna Fáil Party, as the Minister has said, indulges in denunciation of this House and the Government, does he think the closing down of this safety valve will prevent denunciation?

Mr. HOGAN

No.

Mr. BRENNAN

Neither do I. There was mention made a while ago by Deputy Redmond of Captain Moonlight, and the Minister for Agriculture wanted to know did Deputy Redmond confuse the authority of England with the authority of an Irish Parliament. Of course he did not. But it does not matter what the authority is; to my mind the result will be the same.

Mr. HOGAN

That is not nationalism.

Mr. BRENNAN

I do not want to parade the evils that will accrue from the passing of this Bill. I do not think it is wise to do so; I did not think so yesterday, and consequently I did not refer to them. I do not think it is wise to parade the evils which will follow on the passing of the measure, because they would be generally taken up in the country and probably acted upon. It is very unwise to pass this measure. It was stated here by members on the Government benches that the Fianna Fáil Party were elected practically by deceiving the people. If that is so, then there is no need for this Bill. I do not see any need at all for it. If you deceive the people once you will not deceive them the next time.

Mr. BELTON

It will right itself the next time.

Mr. BRENNAN

We are apparently proposing to deal with people who will not agree to take the oath in the Constitution in a very different manner to that which other countries adopted in the past. The British Constitution contained an oath, and in 1847 there was a man named de Rothschild elected who refused to take the oath. Did they put him out? They did not. He sat in that House eleven years without taking the oath. He sat below the Bar. He did not take part in the discussions, but he was not removed.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

Perhaps the Deputy would tell the House the reason why he did not take the oath.

Mr. BRENNAN

The reason was this: that oath contained a provision to which he would not subscribe. It happened to be a religious provision, but that did not alter the case. That man sat in the British House of Commons for eleven years below the Bar.

Major COOPER

Was he heard?

Mr. BRENNAN

No; I have already said so. At the end of eleven years, when the House of Commons was appointing a Committee to draft amendments to an Oaths Bill before the House of Lords, they appointed Baron de Rothschild Chairman of the Committee. In 1851 a man named Mr. Solomon was elected. He also refused to take the oath for the same reason. He insisted on taking his seat. He was below the Bar, and on one occasion he came above the Bar, and he was not noticed there until he had voted three times. What did they do? They simply put him below the Bar; they did not put him out of the House; he remained there. If those things have been done elsewhere, if the right of those people has been acknowledged, and if the oaths in other Constitutions have been changed to meet the wishes of elected representatives, I do not see why we ought to—well, pass this Bill to-day, at any rate. I do not think that a case has been made for the Bill, and I believe the Government will be very well advised, even at this time, to withdraw at least the first part of the measure. Probably if they did that we would be all agreeable to the remainder.

Mr. DAVIN

I can assure the House, and Deputy Brennan in particular, that since I came in here in 1923 and complied with the clause of the Constitution, about which there is so much talk, it never cost me even one moment's sleep out of the few hours I get per day since I made that declaration five years ago. I am not, and never have been, seriously alarmed about the wording of the declaration which I was obliged to take as one of those who stood for election, having agreed to accept the Constitution. To that extent I am not opposed to the principle of this Bill. The Minister for Local Government, and I presume he expressed the view of his colleagues, appeared to be alarmed at the extent of the vote given for the Fianna Fáil in the recent general election.

Mr. GOREY

Not at all.

Mr. DAVIN

From what I have seen and heard of their candidates in the constituency that elected me, I believe that they certainly received thousands of votes in that constituency under false pretences. In their propaganda, particularly during the last week of the election—the Government organisation having failed in those constituencies were unable to deal with the situation —they gave the impression to the electors that they were coming here, oath or no oath. I am speaking for myself. I am not, as a constitutionalist, as one of those who accepted the Constitution, going to give further facilities to a party to amend that Constitution in an unconstitutional way.

Mr. GOREY

Hear, hear.

Mr. DAVIN

I have given this matter careful consideration, and I believe that the proposal that Deputy Johnson has put before the House for a solution of this problem is the right and proper one, and one that would detach this Bill from the other obnoxious Bills with which it has been associated, because this is part of the scheme, as the Minister for Lands and Agriculture stated. If people ever got votes under false pretences the Fianna Fáil Party got them—a Party close on fifty. Let us then, at the earliest opportunity, for the sake of the people who have been deceived, give those people an opportunity of reviewing their decision. The only way it can be done, and done at the earliest possible moment, is by adopting the suggestion put forward by Deputy Johnson. If that is the Government's desire, if they are anxious to give the people who have been deceived an opportunity of reconsidering their point of view, then declare those seats vacant within a specified time. I would vote for such a proposal, believing it to be the right way to do the thing.

Fianna Fáil candidates in the last general election led people to believe, by the extravagant language that they used, that this oath was a deadly poisonous pill, but we have been told by one of their representatives, whom we were glad to welcome here, that it is not an oath at all. Look at the fine, healthy, contented-looking appearance of Deputy Belton. If we believed all we have been told about this deadly poisonous pill Deputy Belton would either be suffering from a nervous breakdown or he would be dead after taking that declaration. The assurance that Deputy Belton has given in the Press and from this House to the people who are outside, and who believe that this was a deadly poisonous pill, should enable them to examine their consciences before they compel this House to take action which will enable the people who voted for them to review their decision.

There is only one thing which prevents me from voting for the Bill as it stands, and that is a statement made here yesterday, and, I believe, repeated to-day by the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. I say quite honestly that, as a member of the Labour Party, I would vote for this measure were it not for the fact that it is associated with the other Bill, to which we have taken genuinely serious objection. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health talked about giving political education to the people by compulsion—by compulsion, mark you! I do not believe in that policy. He referred to Deputy Baxter's statement that the people should have the right to do wrong, and asked if they should have the right to put dustbins outside their own back or front doors without the permission of the local authority. Has that any bearing upon the issue we are discussing, as to whether or not people, at the right time and in the right way, have the right to say that the Constitution should be amended in a constitutional way?

General MULCAHY

What I wanted to know was if we could get a list of the wrong things which the people have a right to do.

Mr. DAVIN

If the people who are asking for that list would ask themselves whether they had ever done wrong themselves they would not be putting silly questions of that kind.

General MULCAHY

But is it not a reasonable question to ask the leader of a Party in the Dáil, when he makes that statement that the people have a right to do wrong, what are the things they have a right to do that are wrong, if they cannot do everything that is wrong? Apparently the Deputy admits there are things that are wrong that they have no right to do.

Mr. DAVIN

So far as I am concerned—and I look upon this as a very serious matter, and I was chased from pillar to post in the constituency I represent on this particular issue—I made my position quite plain. I invited defeat by stating that I would come in here again and take the oath I previously took without any mental disturbance. That is why I feel I am bound to express my view on the Bill and to give my reasons for the opposition to it in its present form, particularly at the present time, and especially after what the Minister for Lands and Agriculture said. The Constitution, in my opinion, can be altered in a constitutional way, and I am not prepared to give facilities to people to alter or amend it in an unconstitutional way. We who are here have, regardless of Party, accepted the Constitution, willingly or unwillingly, and if we have accepted it the proper way to amend it is through the medium of this House. I believe that the Constitution should be amended in a constitutional way. I believe it could easily be done so as to allow those public representatives who are now outside to come in here and ease their consciences if the people decide to send them in. The way to do it is by moving a resolution, if and when any Deputy thinks fit to do so, requesting the President to open up negotiations with the people with whom we negotiated the Treaty and who made this clause the tied one in the Constitution. It cannot be amended by meetings and by resolutions passed at Burgh Quay and elsewhere, and we had better make up our minds on that. It being agreed by the Minister for Local Government, and I know the other Ministers agree to it also, that the people in the last election were deliberately deceived by Fianna Fáil candidates, give the people opportunity to examine their consciences and review their position, and the only way to do that is by declaring these seats vacant. There would then be vacancies in every constituency and the people would have an opportunity of reviewing their decision.

If they confirm their previous decision it would be their own responsibility, but at any rate they would get a constitutional way of deciding, one way or the other. Those of us who were in the old Dáil are well aware that a Cabinet Committee was set up by the late Ministry to inquire into the flaws in the Constitution that could be amended, as a result of the experience of its working for the previous three or four years. Did that Committee—presided over by An Ceann Comhairle— recommend that this amendment should be made in the Constitution? That Committee made its report to the Government before the last General Election. If it made this recommendation, and if the Government made up their minds that that recommendation was going to be put into effect they should have told the people straight and fair that they were going to do this if they were returned to power. This is a big issue of policy. We have had Deputy Gorey, on the other hand, in response to an interruption from this side of the House, saying, "We want another fight."

Mr. GOREY

Deputy Gorey said nothing of the sort. Deputy Davin's hearing must be very much at fault. I am going to make my position clear——

Mr. DAVIN

He said, in reply to——

Mr. GOREY

I said nothing of the sort. I did not open my mouth, although I heard Deputy Anthony state that I did.

Mr. DAVIN

Well, I do not want to see Deputy Gorey in his lifetime getting another opportunity of having a fight with his own fellow-countrymen——

Mr. GOREY

Neither do I.

Mr. DAVIN

——and I will do all I possibly can to prevent Deputy Gorey taking part in sucha fight until he becomes too old to do so.

Mr. GOREY

I hope we will never see another.

Mr. DAVIN

I did not gather that from his remark in reply to Deputy Redmond. So far as I am concerned, anyhow, I am glad that the Deputy has corrected that impression. I want to know from the Minister who replies whether the Cabinet Committee appointed by the late Government made this recommendation, and if so, why the President and his Ministry, when seeking the votes of the people, did not declare to the people that they were prepared to introduce this measure if and when they were returned to power.

The PRESIDENT

Would the Deputy vote for it if they had done so?

Mr. DAVIN

I have given a fair explanation of my position in regard to this whole matter. It is a question as to whether the people should be given an opportunity immediately— and the sooner the better—to review their recent decision. But at any rate it was the responsibility of the retiring Government to make a proper and a straightforward declaration to the people on this very important issue on a question of policy when they were looking for their votes. At any rate I want to make it quite clear so far as I am concerned that the declaration I had to take has caused me no mental disturbance in the wide world since I took it. The Minister for Local Government said that the abstentionist policy of the Fianna Fáil Party was undermining the Constitution. I believe now, as I have always believed, that an abstentionist policy can never succeed in any country unless it is backed up and supported by a military organisation. I believe further that if the Government had not, in this alarming and uncalled-for manner, brought in this Bill, the policy of abstention was going to kill the abstentionists, and that the people who were deceived as a result of the exaggerated statements and false promises made would make it impossible for any abstentionists—at any rate for as large a number as were returned in the last election—ever to be returned again.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE

I think that there is very little use in Deputies who are opposed to this measure endeavouring to make debating points and putting before the House the fact that certain precedents were followed in the British House of Commons which were different from what we are following. I asked the Deputy to explain that point. The whole thing could be summed up by the words "religious scruples." The particular position that we have got to deal with is no question whatever of religious scruples; it is a deliberate attempt, as was rightly said by the President in his opening statement, to bring Parliamentary institutions into disrepute. The point has been made in this debate that the Bill will not get representatives of these people into the House. I beg to suggest that there is no foundation for that argument, for I am of opinion, and I am sure most Deputies will agree with me, that the ballot box is still open at any time, that any Party can be returned to this House, the Party which Deputy Redmond leads, the Labour Party, the Independent Party, or any Party that will be hostile to the Government that is now in office.

I suggest that the ballot box is a clear means for giving constitutionalism full and free play. We have heard a great deal about the cutting off of those so-called constitutional rights of a minority party, but we have heard exceedingly little of the rights in this House which the majority party have. It is perfectly clear that the Treaty issue has now been settled by the recent election once and for ever, and that the only question that remains is this, that it is high time, in the opinion of the people, that Deputies who are elected to the Dáil should come in and take up the responsibilities which that election placed on them. Great play was made here to-day by some Deputies of the power of the King. I do not think any Deputy was really serious in suggesting that the power of the King, as far as this particular question is concerned, is a power that would cause any uneasiness at all. I would point out that the power of the King is simply symbolical: it is simply a symbolical linking up of the various States which go to make up the Commonwealth of which we are a unit.

From the time that the Canadian Pacific Railway was built that was the first link which rendered practically useless the prerogative of the King. That was the first step, and the second step that rendered the prerogative of the King practically worthless was when Canada sent ambassadors to Washington.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 28 Jul 1927