I move: "That leave be given to present a petition prepared in accordance with the provisions of Article 48 of the Constitution." As the terms in the motion indicate, and as I pointed out a fortnight ago when I brought this matter before the Dáil, the Petition I am asking leave to present has been prepared in accordance with Article 48 of the Constitution. Article 48 reads as follows:—
The Oireachtas may provide for the Initiation by the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments. 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....
That is the part of the Article that is operative in this connection. In the belief that that Article of the Constitution was intended to be a real Article a Petition has been signed by not merely seventy-five thousand voters on the Register but by over ninety-six thousand voters of whom not nearly as many as fifteen thousand are in any one constituency. It has been signed in every one of the constituencies in the Twenty-Six County area, and in order that it would be capable of being easily checked, and to prevent, as far as possible, any mistakes in the signatures, there is set out in the sheet, not merely a place for the list of names but the constituency and the registration unit. Each sheet, on which there are not more than twenty names, is signed by a witness who has seen the signatures put down. Further, the witnesses who have signed the sheets have made a declaration before a Peace Commissioner, declaring that they saw the signatures being appended, and that everything that it was possible to do was done to make certain that these would be the genuine signatures of voters. The terms of the Petition are as follows:—
Petition of seventy-five thousand and upwards of voters on the Register for the year 1927-28 signed for presentation to the Oireachtas, pursuant to Article 48 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann).
We, the undersigned, whose names are set forth in the second column hereof, and whose addresses are set forth in the third column hereof, being voters on the Register for the constituencies and registration units indicated, hereby request that provision be made for the Initiation by the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments, and in particular for the constitutional amendment following:—
This the petitioners indicate quite clearly as one of the immediate objects for which they wish this right of the Initiative to be maintained.
That Article 17 of the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) be deleted, and in lieu thereof that there be substituted an Article in the words and figures following, that is to say:—
Article 17. Every member of the Oireachtas, after the Chairman of the House to which such member has been elected shall have signed the roll of members of such House shall publicly, when the Chairman of such House is in his Chair, sign such roll and upon so signing such member shall be entitled to take his seat and to vote in such House and to enjoy all rights and privileges of members thereof, anything in any Act contained to the contrary notwithstanding.
I have indicated to Deputies the general character of the Petition, the care with which it has been prepared, as far as getting genuine signatures was concerned, so as to comply with the Article, and it may be no harm to give in detail the constituencies and the numbers who have signed in these constituencies. As the list is long, perhaps I had better summarise it by giving the provinces. There are 11,143 signatures from three counties in Ulster; 28,593 signatures from the province of Munster; 26,639 signatures from the province of Leinster; and 29,704 signatures from the province of Connaught, making a total of 96,079 signatures. To my mind, it is the duty of the Dáil to rein ceive this Petition. That it is not an ordinary petition was made quite clear by the action of the Ceann Comhairle. There was a decision with reference to petitions in general, but this is not a Petition with regard to which the House really has any option. It is a Petition which is definitely put in a special plane in the Constitution, and I can see no excuse whatever that can be put forward for the refusal by the Dáil to receive this Petition.
Some time ago when a Bill was brought in here to delete that Article from the Constitution a number of arguments were put forward. I looked over these arguments to see if there was any solid ground on which anybody here could object to receiving this petition and I failed to find any. All the arguments appeared to me to be very much like the arguments of the wolf who wanted to devour the lamb. Those who opposed the deletion of the Article did not want the Bill, and any excuse at all was good enough to try to get rid of it. It was just the same as when the lamb protested that he was not soiling the water inasmuch as the water came from the wolf to him. Very well, then, it was something else. It was that the wolf had been called names at some previous period by the lamb. When the lamb pointed out very neatly that he was not born nine or ten months previously, then of course, it was good enough to say that it was his father, grandfather or someone else was responsible for using opprobrious terms about the wolf. That is all that was in those arguments that were put forward at the time. They were simply arguments of people who did not want this, and to whom any excuse was good enough for not having it. These arguments were put forward by the President of the Executive Council on two main heads. He analysed it first of all on the question of machinery to compel the Oireachtas. Now, that was a very nice argument that because there is not some machinery to compel you to do your duty you are going to evade your duty. That is all that is in that. Just the same sort of argument as one who owed a just and lawful debt, and because he can get out of it by some quibble under the Statute of Limitations or something of that kind, he was not going to pay his debts. That is all there is in that argument—the machinery is not there. Whose fault is that? If the Dáil said there was no demand then the Dáil could excuse itself for not putting up the machinery by saying: "We left this optional for two years."
If the Dáil did not take action then the spur to action is a petition from the people. The Dáil could say: "We do not want it ourselves. There is no popular demand for it. If there is a popular demand for it, it is time enough for us to make provision for it." The fact that the machinery is not there at present is no excuse. It is the business of the Oireachtas to create the machinery. It was the clear intention, and the Article of the Constitution is as clear as anything can be to anybody who wants to read plain English. When I am talking about plain English, and dealing with such statements as, "Oh, it is unworkable," and all the rest of it, will you please remember that that Article was contained in the drafts of the Constitution. I have seen the signed drafts of the proposed Constitution that were given to the Provisional Government, and it was signed in one draft by the present occupant of the Viceregal Lodge; another draft was signed by a recent Attorney-General, who is now one of the High Court Judges. Another draft containing the Article in the identical terms was signed by the present Chief Justice, who at that time was Attorney-General. A third draft did not contain it, but in addition to these there was on this Constitution Committee which were preparing these drafts another Judge of the Supreme Court—Judge Murnaghan—and, finally, when this came before the Provisional Parliament there was another Judge here who is at present a Supreme Court Judge—Judge Fitzgibbon. All these legal lights allowed this to pass, believing that the common sense of it was enough, and that if the Dáil did not want to shirk the plain duty imposed on it by the Constitution the matter would be made right. So that we find that the Article—and it escaped even Lloyd George's blue pencil—was passed by two present Judges of the Supreme Court, one of them being the present Chief Justice, and passed also here in the Provisional Parliament by a Deputy who is now a Judge of the Supreme Court. It was also passed by a Judge of the High Court. You have a panel of four Judges who allowed this to pass, a thing that we are supposed to believe had no legal content, that was unworkable and that was foolish. I hold that they allowed it to pass because it was evident to commonsense, and the idea of using the machinery of the courts to compel people here to do their duty was to them at the time unthinkable.
Looking through these arguments I notice that Deputy Cooper put up rather a novel reason as to why this Article should be in. He said that at the time it was put in, direct legislation by the people through the Referendum and the Initiative was fashionable in continental constitutions, but now they have grown out of them as some people have grown out of long skirts, as he said, and the ladies had now doffed their frills. I say that if there is any shirking it is being done now in going away from it. It is not because it was fashionable at that time, and it was not simply, as Deputy Cooper said, that we liked to see our wives well-dressed in order to make a grand show that it was put in. If anything, it was intended to deceive the people, and those who go back on it now are simply going to make this confession, that it was good enough to deceive the people when they were talking of the will of the people being supreme, and now that they have been able by force to put themselves into their present position they can snap their fingers at the will of the people. In any case they were against the whole idea of the Referendum and the Initiative. As far as the Referendum is concerned I think it was stated that there were no rules. At the end of this it is stated that if the legislature does not wish to take action, or fails to take action, this should be put to a vote of the people in accordance with the ordinary rules of a Referendum. It was suggested that there were no rules of a Referendum. Look at the 1923 Electoral Act and you will find that there are rules for a Referendum. You will find that a section gives effect to Article 47 of the Constitution. There are provisions for a Referendum in the Electoral Act and, therefore, what is meant by "Rules of the Referendum" is that it should be in accordance with the 1923 Act.
We come finally to the question of the merits of the Initiative and the Initiative itself, but before we come to that I say, quite independent of whether the Initiative is a good thing or a bad thing, a thing we should, on its own merits, go for or not, that we are bound by it, if we care anything about any Articles of the Constitution, and those who stand by the Constitution and every letter of it are naturally the people who are most bound by it. I say that, no matter even if the Initiative were not a good thing, they can talk to the people about this when it goes before them; they can suggest to the people to vote against it when it is put to a Referendum. But I say that this House has no power to turn down this Petition.