Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 May 1928

Vol. 23 No. 13

PRIVATE DEPUTIES' BUSINESS. - PETITION TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Mr. DE VALERA

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.

The PRESIDENT

No power?

Mr. DE VALERA

No right. You have always the power. As I say, a person who can take advantage of some legal quibble for refusing to pay his debts——

MINISTER for AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Have the people a right to do wrong?

Mr. DE VALERA

If you ask me that question I tell you that as a principle they have not, no more than you have.

Mr. HOGAN

Of course.

Mr. DE VALERA

No people have that right. The people may go wrong. The whole question is what is right and what is wrong in this case and how you are to determine it.

Mr. HOGAN

Who is to be the judge?

A DEPUTY

A jury.

Mr. MacENTEE

He does not want any jury.

A DEPUTY

He got enough of juries.

Mr. HOGAN

Nobody is complaining of a jury.

Mr. MacENTEE

Except the man who challenged them.

Mr. DE VALERA

I do not know that I ever used that phrase, but if I did I say that it is perfectly true, that neither the individual nor the community as a whole has a right to do wrong. If you ask who is to be the judge of that, then we are on a question where there might be difficulties. That is the real problem and not the other. The merits of the Initiative are almost beside the question; it is almost out of order, in my opinion, even to go into the merits of the Initiative, but as I know that a question will be raised in the discussion as to the merits of the Initiative, before there is a decision on this, I think it is only right that we should talk about it. Going back again, if I am permitted——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes. It is inevitable.

Mr. DE VALERA

I am afraid it is. I am glad to see that Deputy Cooper has come along. One of the things I noticed in the arguments that were put forward at that time was a quotation from Lord Bryce on the merits of the Initiative. But Deputy Cooper was very careful to select his matter. Now, Lord Bryce was summing up the pros and the cons. He gave a number of pros and a number of cons, and of course Deputy Cooper selected two of the cons and he just stated those as if they were the considered opinion of Lord Bryce, who is generally regarded as an authority on these particular matters. The two arguments given by Deputy Cooper were simply, as I said two of the cons. There were several cons and several pros on which there was no difference of opinion at all.

This was the actual decision of Lord Bryce. He said that "in Switzerland the people are so satisfied with the Referendum that no one proposes to abolish it or restrict it, but there are some who wish to extend it." He said, as regards the Initiative, that the Initiative "receives more general approval than thirty years ago, or even fifteen years ago. No one suggests it has done harm. Many people believe that it has accelerated needed reforms." I think that if we quote authorities at all and give their opinion, we ought to quote them properly. We ought not to give one side of the argument put up by persons giving a decision, and not put up the other. Here is a case where a man has put the two up, and he gives it as his considered opinion that it is meeting with more general approval—in other words, that it is coming into popular favour.

Major COOPER

I do not want to interrupt Deputy de Valera, but is it not the case that in 75 per cent. of the cases in Switzerland where the Initiative has been brought in that it was defeated, and is not that possibly the reason why the Swiss people are still in favour of it?

Mr. DE VALERA

That has nothing whatever to do with the argument. The fact is that the Initiative was put forward, and that the proposals were defeated a number of times is nothing whatever against the Initiative. If you take the number of years under which these eighteen proposals have come up you will find that the people have been very conservative in the use of the Initiative. As regards this question of direct legislation by the people, there are two sides to it. First of all there is the Referendum, which is nothing more than a veto by the people. It is a check and a curb on the Legislature lest they would move too fast. If some laws are passed in the Legislature that are regarded as revolutionary or too advanced, those who think that they would be supported by the people in stopping it get the Referendum. As a rule that is the way in which the Referendum works. It works as a veto and as a check. It is also used very often to settle disputes where you have two chambers under the Constitution. If we are going to have the Referendum, which is admittedly a check, a clog, if you like, something that hampers progress, it is only natural and it is only right that the people should have the opportunity of moving forward if they are in advance of the Legislature. Remember that this power of direct legislation is an old one. In the early democracies you had it. It is now being reverted to because of the people's distrust of some of the representative assemblies. It is because representative government has not worked out as it was hoped it would that you have these two checks, this form of direct legislation by the people. There is, first of all, the power to veto and to decide disputes as the ultimate court of appeal. Then you have the other corresponding and complementary right of the people to move faster than the Legislature, if a reactionary Legislature is standing in the way of progress.

Before I go any further perhaps I may say that we expect that arguments will be put up here about the unworkability of the Initiative. We will be told, for instance, about this particular petition, that there is no means of verifying the names to see whether they are genuine or not. That must clearly have been in the minds of the people who framed that. It is done in Switzerland and in a number of other countries. You have to check these. If there is any question whatever of signatures, you have got to check the names and to set up the machinery to do so. It is your duty to set up the machinery so that these can be verified. The whole question, to my mind, is whether you want to shirk your duty and avoid the obligation of this Article of the Constitution or not. As to the merits of the Initiative itself, they will say it is going to lead to a hopeless complication of laws. If you let any group, for instance, draft a Bill, those who have had experience and know the difficulty of drafting a Bill will say, "Well, we know very well it will not be properly drafted; it will bring the laws into hopeless confusion." There is something to be said for that. It is one of the reasons why I, personally, am not in favour of the Initiative for ordinary laws. I think the balance is there, not that I have very strong opinions on it, but I say there is something in that argument, that there is danger, but even that can be avoided if you want to. In the case of Constitutional amendments it is particularly easy to avoid that. Very obvious suggestions have been put forward by people who have considered this question for remedying those difficulties. One, for instance, is that instead of the Bill being drafted by a group of individuals that there be an official draftsman.

By the way, I think the procedure here could possibly be amended by getting an official draftsman to enable private members to have their Bills drafted so as to fall in with the existing laws. I think it should be done so that members on our and other benches should have some of the facilities the Government has in that regard. There is no reason at all why, if you wish this Initiative to become operative for laws in general, that you should not have an official draftsman to whom this group would present the heads of its Bills and get them drafted in proper legal form. Whatever difficulty there may be with respect to laws in general, the Constitution itself is not a very lengthy document, and they would generally be able to get legal advice as regards the drafting of an Article for the Constitution. There are other ways in which the difficulties of the Initiative could be avoided. For instance, one of the objections put forward is that there is no chance of amending. A proposal is put forward. It is sent back to the people. It cannot be amended. That could be avoided too. There would be no difficulty in meeting that. As Lord Bryce indicated, you can submit it to the Legislature, and let them send forward, at the time it is being put to the people, their recommendations and their views upon it. Let them also draft an alternative, which can be submitted at the same time to the people as an alternative. As I have said, if you want to do the thing you can do it, and you can meet any difficulties that there are. If you do not want to do it, you really want to close your eyes to all the possibilities of meeting the difficulties.

As I have said we are particularly anxious that this power should be preserved for the people, and the reason we are anxious is that we all know this Constitution has in the main been imposed on the representatives of the Irish people. Anyone who wants to test that for himself has only to look up the debates in the Provisional Parliament.

MINISTER for LANDS and AGRICULTURE (Mr. Hogan)

Look up the results of the last three General Elections.

Mr. DE VALERA

If you force a person into a trap and show him there is only one door out there is no reason to judge——

Mr. HOGAN

What right have you to say people are being forced into a trap? Who are you to judge?

Mr. DE VALERA

I say that we are anxious to preserve this right for the people, particularly as regards Constitutional amendments, on account of the way this Constitution has been produced. The Treaty was imposed on the people by force and threats. This Constitution was similarly imposed by threats.

Mr. DUGGAN

It was not.

Mr. DE VALERA

We know perfectly well it was.

DEPUTIES

We know it was not.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Suppose we agree. Some people say that it was and some people say that it was not.

Mr. DE VALERA

Anybody who wants to find out the terms upon which the Treaty was accepted, and the terms on which the Constitution was accepted, can find it by inspecting the records of the proceedings in the Second Dáil and also the proceedings in the Provisional Parliament.

Mr. DUGGAN

And they can rely on their own common sense.

Mr. DE VALERA

Some of them have not much of it.

Mr. HOGAN

That is a fact.

Mr. DUGGAN

The majority of the people have.

Mr. DE VALERA

We are anxious on account of the way this Constitution was introduced to have that right preserved to the people. It was passed when, in any case, a large number of the representatives of the people were not there. It does not matter a thraneen why they were not there, but it is a fact you have to face. It means, as was proved by the last election, that 410,000 voters, nearly one-third of the whole electorate, hold the opinions that these representatives hold, and any attempt to close the door to a constitutional change to meet the people's wishes is going to present you with the alternative, which the Executive on the other side have taken for the last four or five years, of imposing your will by force. It is much better and much cheaper for this country in every possible way that the door should not be closed on changes that the people want. If you are going to do it then you are going to turn, naturally, the minds of the people away from anything like constitutional methods to other methods, because you will leave no other method open to them. Therefore I say that we have tried to get this policy as the policy of the people, the policy of a majority; that this assembly should be open to everybody, to every representative of the people, and that there should be no bonds placed on them while there further than the bond of recognising that all the members present are equally representing the people, and entitled to the same count in a vote. In other words, we are attempting to get this assembly recognised as an assembly of the Irish people, and which, by a majority vote, will decide questions of national policy. We believe it is the best way to get unity in the nation. That can be done by an authoritative council where national policy can be decided. If you are going to exclude from that by any political test such as in Article 17, you are going to be faced with the alternative, which the Executive are apparently prepared to adopt, of having expensive armies, heavy police forces, spying and all the rest of it that is the usual equipment of those who want to impose their will by force. I say that is the principal reason why we want this right.

The President talking yesterday or the day before said that now all the representatives of the people are here. That is a half truth. In fact it is an attractive falsehood. The representatives of the people are here, but the people are not fully represented here all the same. There is a section of the people whose representatives are not here because they cannot under your rules go forward for election. If you want to have a real test, and to have the question decided, not by force, but by peaceful methods, then you will not put down any barrier which will prevent the people changing the Constitution and advancing peacefully as fast as the majority of the people are prepared to go. That is why we want the power of the Initiative, particularly as regards constitutional changes. I say it is good public policy, and I say that apart from the merits of the Initiative in this particular case of ours. Remember, it is useful wherever there is a rigid Constitution. Wherever you had in the past cast-iron Constitutions which could not be changed when the people's will changed or public opinion changed, you have had them burst up or blown up by revolution. If you are going to have this Constitution and keep it in a cast-iron mould, having regard to the way in which it is brought in, you are heading some day or other for revolution, and you will have people who are in the Executive fearing, as the Minister for Education apparently fears, when he asked: "Are we going to allow a volunteer force to grow up as Birrell allowed the volunteer force to grow up in 1916?" That is the sort of fear that brings repression, and as a consequence of repression violent resistance from those who are deprived of their natural rights.

Mr. HOGAN

And you would be looking on at the whole thing?

Mr. DE VALERA

I say it is good policy that the House should accept this position and act upon it, and act upon it even if you had not evidence in this Petition that there is a large section of the people who wish to have it. I say it is good national policy, and, irrespective of whether it is good national policy or not, if you believe in the Constitution you are bound by Article 48 now that this Petition is there, either to proceed to make rules for the Initiative and bring forward legislation for it, or else submit it to a vote of the people.

The PRESIDENT

The case for this motion, as far as one can judge from the speech we have listened to, rests upon three legs. The first is that it is provided for by the Constitution; the second that the Initiative is a very useful provision of the Constitution; and the third that if you do not use this, well, there is going to be force used against you. I am not much impressed by talk of force, because apart from all the experience that we have had in the last few years, the statement made by Deputy de Valera to the effect that we have put ourselves here by force is scarcely in accordance with the exact truth. We used no force until force was used against us, and then we had to use a little more force than was used against us. I would not have referred to this but it was mentioned, and there was a suggestion of force. There is one section in this country which will not be intimidated by threats of force, and that is the majority of the people of this country.

Mr. DE VALERA

Then why not let the majority of the people decide?

The PRESIDENT

If the Deputy will restrain himself, I will explain to him that the majority has already decided, and has decided more than once. If the Deputy would take the trouble to read up the proceedings during the period the Constitution was under consideration, he would not feel at home in the statement that this Constitution was imposed. This House, as I have said on many occasions, is a sovereign House. This Dáil is a sovereign Dáil, and the majority in this Dáil can take whatever decisions it considers best. It is rather late in the day now to hark back to the Treaty. It is very late to do that, considering that the people have already decided on more than one occasion in connection with it. The Deputy, notwithstanding his innocence in connection with sporting matters, appears to me to have taken to himself some of the peculiarities of a certain class who are described as "punters" in sporting circles. There are those who make a single bet, win or lose. There are those who safeguard themselves by backing each way. The Deputy has negotiated a bet for a win on several occasions, and he has lost. Now he comes to the House and he says, "I backed each way."

Mr. G. BOLAND

We are going to win, all the same.

The PRESIDENT

Twice last year the Deputy had an opportunity of winning. If you stick to one horse, it will win some time. But it did not win on this occasion. The Deputy backed his anti-Treaty horse and it did not win. Because it was second, he wanted to claim the place-money.

Mr. KILLILEA

He backed the Republican horse, and it will win yet.

The PRESIDENT

What I have said is the truth. Even Deputies opposite will admit it.

Mr. COONEY

What about the big nought?

The PRESIDENT

I did not catch the Deputy's intelligent observation.

Mr. COONEY

What about the "damn good bargain"?

The PRESIDENT

It was a very good bargain—an excellent bargain— and the common sense of the people has decided that it was, on every occasion that I consulted them on the subject.

Mr. CORRY

A lot of them are hungry now.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Might I suggest that the leader of the majority in the House be allowed to speak for a few moments without interruption.

Mr. MacENTEE

Let him remember that he is not on a racecourse.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy will have to allow the President to proceed with his speech. Deputy de Valera was heard fairly, and the President is entitled to speak without interruption. There is a feeling growing up that no member of the Government is to be allowed to speak in the House. I would ask Deputies to remember that the principle that members of a Government are entitled to be heard applies not alone to this Government, but will apply to all future Governments. Deputies may be glad, at some future time, that the principle was asserted.

Mr. LEMASS

The horse may win yet.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Precisely.

The PRESIDENT

Notwithstanding the bad form he has shown up to date. I dealt at very considerable length with Article 48 of the Constitution on the 27th July last. The flippancies of the leader of the Opposition, in dealing with the very capable statement I made on that occasion, rather surprised me, because I remember the time when the Deputy was not flippant and when he took a sensible and commonsense statement and dealt with it accordingly. The Deputy presents this petition and asks the Dáil to receive it. What does the Article of the Constitution say with regard to petitions? It says that a petition, when presented to the Oireachtas—this is not the Oireachtas——

Mr. DE VALERA

What is it?

The PRESIDENT

The Dáil.

Mr. DE VALERA

It is part of the Oireachtas.

The PRESIDENT

Precisely. Article 12 of the Constitution describes what the Oireachtas is. The Deputy will find the information in Article 12.

Mr. LITTLE

Also in Article 13.

The PRESIDENT

I accept that addition to my information. The fact of the matter is that we are having now presented, not to the Oireachtas, but to the Dáil, a Petition. If the Deputy felt as strongly as he pretended to feel in connection with this matter why did he not do the right thing? What is the right thing to be done? The Government policy has been announced. It was announced before the last General Election. It was announced at the General Election. No issue was kept back from the people in connection with this matter. The people decided. They did not decide in the Deputy's favour, as they were open to decide in his favour during the two previous General Elections. This is a frivolous Petition. It is frivolous inasmuch as it comes after a General Election at which this was one of the issues. It is frivolous having regard to the statement I made on the 27th July and having regard to the statement I made during the General Election. That was not referred to by the Deputy in his position as leader of the Opposition. The people got an opportunity of saying whether or not they desired to effect the purpose which is intended to be effected by means of this Petition. The Deputy had his opportunity of perfecting this particular Article of the Constitution, if he thought it should be perfected, during the six months he has been here. He had every opportunity of considering what were the legislative proposals which he introduced here in order to perfect what infirmities there are in this Article. But the Deputy does not do that—not at all. He wraps himself up in his cloak of silence. He says: "This is the business of the Government; this Government exists for the purpose of making my job easy; for the purpose of enabling me to go before the people and to say: ‘There is the headline; I will make the gentlemen who constitute the Executive Council dance to my tune. I will tell them that if they do not do that they are not going to have peace in this country; that they will require an army and that they will require police and that they will require spies."' There are no spies in this country, and if there were, as the Deputy suggested, they are Irishmen and citizens of this State——

A DEPUTY

Traitors.

The PRESIDENT

That is not a very nice type of interjection. It is not a creditable term to use. There is none of us so perfect that we can afford to indulge in that sort of criticism. There are many Deputies on the other side who would admit in conversation at any time that there are many members amongst themselves—of their own party—that they would like to see very much more perfect than they are. There are very few traitors in any country, and it comes badly from those who pose before the people as idealists, and all the rest of it, to have such dirty terms in their mouths. Do not let Deputies give me an opportunity of lecturing them and of saying what they should stand for. This would not have been necessary if they had been here a few years ago. Our task is much more arduous by reason of the absence of those gentlemen. I do not approve of canvassing the decisions of certain members of the legal profession, who are now on the Bench, as having been responsible for this Article and charging them with the infirmities of it.

Let us remember, just for a moment, what the situation was when the Constitution was under consideration in the first instance. There was a very different perspective. We had, a very short time before, one of the strongest political organisations that ever existed in this country, or in any other country. Let Deputies remember that there was not remarkable wisdom shown at a time of crisis. Remarkable wisdom was not shown at all. It was in that set of circumstances, when there was a good deal of shooting, hot words and insulting epithets, statements regarding the merits of a particular proposal being kept from the people, and every opportunity being availed of in order to misrepresent the position in connection with the judgment of the people, that this matter was being considered. In the light of those circumstances, and in the desire to bring about a much more normal political atmosphere, many Articles were inserted in the Constitution which we have since found to be not exactly in keeping with any democracy. What is the proposal here? I invite Deputies to consider it very carefully. Any 75,000 people—which figure represents about one-sixteenth of the electorate—can come forward here with proposals, week after week if they like, and present them to the Oireachtas, supposing machinery in connection with the matter were perfected—supposing the Oireachtas were the pliable and the malleable article that the Deputy who has introduced this resolution has suggested it should be. Let us suppose, for a moment, that these Bills were introduced and that the Oireachtas passed or rejected them. I say that, notwithstanding the lame support the Deputy gave to the suggestion, that they should be drafted properly. That is not in the Article. They are to be submitted to the people, and one-sixteenth is to move the fifteen-sixteenths. That is democracy. That is what we are invited to consider. That is what is put up to us as a sound, sensible proposition. If we do not do that, we are to be threatened for the rest of our natural lives, and our children are to be threatened after us. I am prepared to be threatened for the rest of my natural life rather than do that.

Mr. MacENTEE

You sponsored the Article here——

The PRESIDENT

I have been threatened for the last five or six years——

Mr. MacENTEE

And you waged war to make it effective.

The PRESIDENT

A little force was used against me, and I used a little more force than was used against me. If they do not fight a little harder than they did the last time, I shall have no fear of the threat.

Mr. AIKEN

When the British used threats against you, you did damn little against them.

Mr. COONEY

You fell for Lloyd George's threat.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We are getting farther and farther from the question under discussion.

The PRESIDENT

We will come back to it. I do not like the use of the word "force." I think the natural corollary to force is to use a little more force. Apparently, whatever force was used against the Deputies opposite did not affect them very materially. They are all looking very well after it.

Mr. O'KELLY

No thanks to you.

The PRESIDENT

It shows the beneficence of those gentlemen who are being continually pilloried—my Executive Council. It shows their mercy and good-will.

A DEPUTY

What about those who are not here?

The PRESIDENT

I regret very much those who are not here.

Mr. O'KELLY

The couple of hundred who were murdered saw little of your mercy.

The PRESIDENT

These things should have been considered before that little show of force was put into operation.

Mr. O'KELLY

If you want to go into that, we will go into it at any time.

The PRESIDENT

The Deputy is apparently willing to go into it. The Deputy is not demobilised yet.

Mr. O'KELLY

You are quite right.

The PRESIDENT

Unfortunately, I was demobilised long since, so that the Deputy has an advantage over me.

Mr. O'KELLY

You were not only demobilised, you were discharged.

The PRESIDENT

We will not convince one another in this way either of our courage or of our patriotism.

Mr. O'KELLY

I have no courage, and very little patriotism.

The PRESIDENT

Now, we are not wasting time.

Mr. O'KELLY

You ought to be a good judge.

The PRESIDENT

We have other work to do. I did not introduce this question. The word "force" was introduced by the leader of the Opposition. If the Deputy will look up my remarks in this House, in answer to all the interjections made, he will find that I have never been the first to make a charge or to use the word "force."

Mr. O'KELLY

I may have been the first and I may be the last, but I will use it all the time.

The PRESIDENT

I must take care, while I am responsible and while I am in my present position, that the majority of the people of this country will not be terrorised by any threats.

Mr. O'KELLY

I do not object to that.

Mr. CARNEY

What about the threat of immediate and terrible war?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is far behind the times. We have got a long way beyond that.

Mr. CARNEY

The President said he would not allow the people to be threatened, and yet he threatens us on the hoardings everywhere.

The PRESIDENT

I never threatened anybody. The Article specifies that the Oireachtas may provide for initiation by the people of proposals for laws. As a matter of fact, it does not need any elaborate explanation to show that even if that Article were not there, there would still be power to make provision for initiation. We get no advantage by that sentence. Is there any machinery in the State—in the courts or elsewhere—by which the Oireachtas can be compelled to take particular action? What is it?

Mr. DE VALERA

Read the statute.

The PRESIDENT

I have read the statute very carefully. What is there to compel this House to take action? The Deputy corrected his statement that this House had "not the power"; he went on to say that it had "not the right." It has the right to refuse to take that action. It has the right to exclude that Article from the Constitution—an absolute right. The Deputy did not go on to show how it could be compelled to do this. As I asked before, are one-sixteenth of the electorate to be empowered to coerce the Oireachtas to do something and, if the Oireachtas does not do it, to put that question to the people to be decided by the people? We have that proposition put up to us by the economists—by the people who say we should not be extravagant. Any one of these experiments will cost us £80,000. We have had two elections in which this particular issue—two General Elections within the last twelve months and many by-elections in various parts of the country—was before the people. Deputies will not, I am sure, contradict that. There are some posters on the walls out where I live which say: "Give the Fianna Fáil Party power to enter the Dáil without the Oath." They made that the test themselves. What is the meaning then of this Petition?

Mr. LITTLE

Might I put the President a question about the figure he quoted—£80,000? What is the basis of that calculation?

The PRESIDENT

A question was put here as to what the cost would be, about twelve months ago, and I believe the answer was £80,000 or £85,000. I am speaking from recollection, but that is my impression. Does that satisfy the Deputy?

Mr. LITTLE

It is not true.

The PRESIDENT

Does the Deputy mean that the question was not asked or that the information is untrue?

Mr. LITTLE

It is not true that it would cost £80,000 and you know it. You have no basis for the figure.

The PRESIDENT

Will the Deputy mention a sum?

Mr. LITTLE

I am not here for the purpose of mentioning sums. You know the statement is absolutely untrue.

The PRESIDENT

Will the Deputy suggest what the figure should be?

Mr. LITTLE

No.

The PRESIDENT

Will the Deputy give even an estimate?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I would suggest to Deputy Little that he ought not to say that the President knows that a statement which he is making is not true. That is not the kind of statement that we should have across the House. What the Deputy really means is that the President is giving an inaccurate estimate.

The PRESIDENT

I have no desire to quarrel with the Deputy at all. If the Deputy suggests a figure, I will consider it, but my recollection is—I am speaking only from recollection— that last year, when the question was put, the answer was that the cost would be in the neighbourhood of £80,000 or £85,000.

Mr. CORRY

Who made it up?

Mr. BLYTHE

I did.

Mr. CLERY

That was based, I suppose, on the way you run your general elections.

The PRESIDENT

We are improving on the methods by which we run our elections, judging by the last election.

Mr. CLERY

You ought to.

The PRESIDENT

I have dealt with the question of whether or not the Court could compel the Oireachtas, or whether any machinery could be brought into play to compel the Oireachtas, to provide the necessary legislative facilities for the reception of a petition for the operation of the Initiative. I have not been answered. The Deputy did not give us the information in his speech. He simply said those statements were futile. But he has not answered them. He has not suggested how they could be remedied, and he has not done the thing which he ought to have done if he felt in earnest about these proposals himself. It does not require a draughtsman to put down proposals. It requires some direction as to how the proposals should be made workable. Mere language is only a secondary consideration. It is the method of working that counts. On the question as to whom this petition is to be delivered, it is to be delivered to the Oireachtas. I am sorry to have to go over this matter again. If Deputies wish, I will read what I said on this question on the 27th July, 1927. The Deputy has asked the Dáil to receive this petition. He knows the Dáil is not the Oireachtas. Notwithstanding all that he has said about the accuracy of the various names attached to this petition—I am assuming, for the moment, that he was perfectly correct in saying they were the names of genuine electors—even accepting that, some machinery would have to be set up in order to prove the accuracy of those signatures.

There is no time limit, as I said on the 22nd of July. Suppose for a moment that we are to regard it as being a petition that is correct—and I have grave doubts that the petition is in accordance with Article 48—the petition which ought to have come in connection with Article 48 is one that should concern itself with legislative proposals in connection with the initiative alone. I do not know how many signatures the Deputy got for this petition in respect of Article 17 as against the initiative. The Deputy says his main purpose is Article 17. The main purpose ought to be the initiative; that is the matter that has to be settled first. Notwithstanding what he has said about the fact that the provisions are in the Electoral Act for the referendum, that referendum has reference to another matter; it is not a referendum on the initiative. Fifty thousand electors could send forward a proposal, and the proposal, if it were sent forward, is to be accepted in the form in which it is sent. If it were amended, and if these amendments were ultimately rejected, the original proposal should go before the electorate. The Deputy says we attempted to deceive the people by this Article. We did nothing of the sort. This Article was meant in good faith.

Mr. DE VALERA

Give effect to it.

The PRESIDENT

It was certainly never designed to suit the purpose the Deputy has in mind in connection with its use. The Deputy must make up his mind whether he is willing or wishes to deceive the people on this question. If the Deputy is satisfied with having returned here to the Dáil representatives who are prepared either to amend or not amend the Constitution as he wishes, is not that sufficient? Are not two general elections in the one year, on which this was a vital issue, not enough, or have the people to be put to further expense in connection with Article 17? Do you tell them in connection with Article 17 that if this means a breach of the Treaty how the consequences are to be taken? We will assume for the moment that that is the proposition.

Mr. SMITH

What about the sovereign assembly now?

The PRESIDENT

I will say a few words to the Deputy about the sovereign assembly if he does not understand it. I was just coming on to that point. We will suppose for a moment there are 300,000 votes in connection with this matter, if it were put to the people. Let us say that 200,000 support it, and 100,000 are against it, and it comes back to the Dáil in that form. Suppose that the majority of the Dáil is of another mind. Which is the sovereign assembly, I will put it to the Deputy—this Dáil representing the people or the 200,000 electors who do not represent one-fifth or one-sixth of the people?

Mr. LEMASS

Are the people sovereign?

The PRESIDENT

Is the idea in this to get the authority of the people or a bare majority?

Mr. LEMASS

Put it to a vote and decide by majority rule.

The PRESIDENT

Is it the majority of the people or a majority of a particular sort—a two to one majority?

Mr. DE VALERA

You tried to have a majority of the people.

The PRESIDENT

If the Deputy wishes to answer me I will give way to him.

Mr. DE VALERA

I will have my time afterwards.

The PRESIDENT

I hope we have satisfied the Deputy that we have not attempted to deceive the people.

Mr. LEMASS

Our only regret is that you succeeded.

The PRESIDENT

I am positively certain if that is mentioned with regret there is a big note of interrogation after it. It is a very comfortable situation, as it is, for the Deputies as well as for other people. The Deputy said that one of the reasons was that "I am not in favour of the initiative for ordinary laws." This is put in for ordinary laws. We will suppose fifty thousand or seventy-five thousand people send up the petition and they have no Deputy to sponsor it, nobody to ask that it be received by the House.

Mr. LEMASS

It is against human nature.

The PRESIDENT

Let us suppose that there could be fifty thousand or seventy-five thousand people and that they would have no sponsor here.

Mr. LEMASS

That is hypothetical.

The PRESIDENT

The leader of the Opposition said he was not in favour of it for ordinary laws; he is only out for high politics; he is only in it for the purpose of committing some breach of the Treaty.

Mr. SMITH

Destroy the sovereign assembly.

Mr. LEMASS

He is coming to that.

The PRESIDENT

If the Deputy is asking me about the sovereign assembly let me tell him this is the sovereign assembly. This is the assembly returned after a second general election last year. The majority vote of this assembly is binding.

Mr. LITTLE

Remove the Oath.

The PRESIDENT

Put into force of law, it has a binding force in connection with the people. It was a big electoral vote last year. There is no undertaking, no suggestion, as to what there should be in a vote in this case—none whatever.

Mr. WALSH

Even though that position might be a breach of the Treaty?

The PRESIDENT

A minority of the people could precipitate such a situation as that, and it might result in having in this House one policy and in having outside a different policy. That is so far as the minority is concerned. If the Deputy were really in earnest he would have introduced proposals into our Constitution. This petition is for the Oireachtas. This is not the Oireachtas; this is one of the three component parts in the Oireachtas. If it is intended by the presentation of the petition here to deceive the people by saying that the presentation of it here is reception by the Oireachtas, it is our duty to undeceive the people. The Government's policy with regard to Article 48 was announced in July last year. It has not changed. It is still their policy and it is their policy because this Article is an unworkable Article and it is a costly Article if it were tried to be worked. It is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to remove this Article from the Constitution.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

My remarks will be brief because I do not propose to deal with matters which have been introduced and which in my opinion have no real bearing on the issue before us. I hold that the merits of the initiative and the referendum are not really involved in this motion. I hold that neither the merits of the petition itself nor the merits of Article 17 are involved. The President in his opening statement said that Deputy de Valera had three legs on which to depend. I propose to depend on only one particular leg, the leg mentioned by the President himself, namely, that this is provided for in the Constitution. I stand on that and I ask the House to stand on it for the particular reason that it is provided for in the Constitution. It is certainly a surprising thing to hear the President, the leader of the Party that has stood this last five years by the Constitution and regarded it as sacrosanct in all its particulars, coming to-night and asking us to disregard the Constitution because in his opinion this particular Article is unworkable and is devoid of certain merits. If the President takes that point of view he has no right to blame other people who may equally disregard or condemn other Articles in the Constitution that are displeasing to them or that they do not approve of. That is the whole principle on which I build my support of the motion that is here proposed—that it is in the Constitution and, until it is removed from the Constitution, legally and constitutionally removed, I hold we are bound to support it.

The President spoke of something that was a vital issue at the last three or four elections. If I know one issue more vital than another from the President's point of view, and from his Party's point of view, at all elections since the Free State was established, it was the issue of the Constitution. They stood as supporters of the Constitution, and now the President asks the House to disergard the Constitution, to disregard an Article in the Constitution. I hold it is their plain duty to make provision for the initiative or submit the question to the people. That is plain, as plain as English can be set out, in Article 48. Whether that was a wise or a right thing to do, whether it is wise to maintain that or not, is beyond the question. It is there and, just as the ordinary Act of Parliament is the law of the land until that law is changed, and we are bound to observe it, so we are bound to observe the provisions of the Constitution if we are to be taken as standing by the Constitution. The President made great play on who was there to compel the Oireachtas to carry out its duties; who was there to compel any of us to do our duty. There is a duty that we are sent here to do, that we are elected here to do. We are elected by the people to do certain work. The people trust us to do that work. We are elected here on the basis of the Constitution. Every person who voted for the President's Party voted especially because they were anxious that the Constitution should be carried out in all its details without exception or reservation. If any other Party, if Deputy de Valera's Party, perhaps, happened to be in the majority and proposed to disregard or tear the Constitution up, as the President would have us do, then, perhaps, a person could understand that. I could understand it in any case, but I cannot understand the attitude taken up now by the President.

He said the question of the removal of this initiative was put before the electors at the last election. Any man of common sense who went through that election, as all of us did, knows exactly how small a part in the issues that were involved in the last election was played by this initiative question, and we all know how little and how much it was discussed on platforms, either by the Government or any other Party. It formed a very small part of the issue, as the President himself must know. Whether it did or did not, and if it were actually an issue on which the election was fought here, we are to-day in the same position as before the election so far as the Constitution is concerned. The President chided Deputy de Valera and his Party for not moving during the past six months to make provision in this matter. What did the President do during the last six months to carry out the verdict of the people regarding the initiative? He has done nothing. He has done nothing to alter Article 48, in accordance with the terms of the Constitution. If that were one of the issues on which he was returned, why has he not done so?

There is only just one point that could have any value at all, and it has precious little value, because it is a mere debating point, a mere quibble, that this was not the Oireachtas. That is the only statement that has any shadow of argument in it. We do not know whether this petition will be presented to the other component parts of the Oireachtas or not. It may or may not, but we are a portion of the Oireachtas, and if the petition is presented to us, in accordance with the Constitution, it is our duty to accept it. So long as Article 48 is in the Constitution, and so long as we are sitting here in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, and carrying out the terms of the Constitution to the full, whether that is considered to be wise or not does not, in my opinion, come into the issue at all. I hold that. Many of us observe laws that we do not agree with in many ways, but they are passed, they are on the Statute Book, and, although we may move to remove them, still it is our duty while they are there to obey them. I hold it is our duty as representatives of the people, elected on the basis of the Constitution, that so long as the law is there we must observe it in all its details. If we do not, then we should not blame or chide people who propose or who suggest that other articles in the Treaty, like Article 17, should be completely disregarded.

Mr. LITTLE

The President referred us to Article 12 of the Constitution. Article 12 of the Constitution states that the Oireachtas shall consist of the King and two Houses. Article 13 of the Constitution states that the Oireachtas shall sit in, or near, the city of Dublin. Obviously, only two Houses can sit in or near the City of Dublin and, therefore, these two sections of the Constitution are in direct conflict. I suppose if it suited the President to take Article 13 in order to defend his case and to defeat Article 12, he would have done so. Article 12 suits him better, and he quotes it and forgets about Article 13. His case is even weaker than if he were to rely upon Article 12 and if there were no Article 13, because the function of the King, according to Article 41, was to assent or to refuse his assent to Bills. That is the limited function of the King so far as legislation is concerned, and, therefore, it is not within the function of the King to initiate legislation or to receive a petition where the initiation of legislation is concerned. And so it is altogether outside his functions, and President Cosgrave is maintaining his reputation as a thorough unconstitutionalist in interpreting Article 12 of the Constitution as he does. The reason why we are so keen upon pressing forward with the petition, and especially with a petition in reference to the oath of allegiance, is because we believe that Irish nationality is of one piece and that if you surrender certain principles or if you attempt to surrender certain principles it is sure to react upon the prosperity of Ireland. If that country is to-day in a state of misery and poverty it is simply proof of the principle that honesty is the best policy, that adherence to principle is the right policy to follow. If you depart from it you produce the fruits which have been produced in Ireland, namely, poverty, bankruptcy and emigration. Our object in pursuing this petition and in trying to get rid of the oath of allegiance by the petition——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We are not dealing with that.

Mr. LITTLE

Yes, but I think I am entitled to point out the road upon which we are going. Our whole attitude is determined by the fact that you cannot hope to bring back prosperity unless you get the people marching on the road to freedom. We are only using this petition as a democratic instrument in order to establish the Referendum. That is the proper way to do it. Article 48 of the Constitution, much as the President may deplore the fact, as far as a law can coerce the Government, coerces them. I know that the Government has all the forces of violence at its back. But Article 48 does coerce the Government to do certain things; it lays down that it is the duty of the Government to do these things. Article 48 states, certain things having been done, "it shall, on the petition of not less than seventy-five thousand voters, either make such provision or submit the question to the people for decision." The word "shall" is mandatory.

The PRESIDENT

Will the Deputy point out where the imposition on the Government is in the Article?

Mr. LITTLE

The Article mentions the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas is the sovereign assembly because it is representative of the people, and if it directs this Executive to do certain things it must carry out those duties.

The PRESIDENT

Will the Deputy point out where the duty on the Government is there?

Mr. LITTLE

The Oireachtas is quite sufficient for our purpose. I may have made a slip in the matter, but it does not matter. The duty is there, and it is surely the duty of the first citizen of the State—the President is supposed to be the first citizen of the State—to give a good example in adhering to the Constitution and carrying out its terms. Now, it really does not affect the argument. The President's argument was that the Oireachtas was going to be coerced, and that it was a grave impertinence on our part to suggest that there was a duty upon it. But the duty is there, and it is imposed by the words that it "shall," on petition, do a certain thing. The reference to a threat is always useful with the President. He introduced it. It is a sort of King Charles's head to him. It gives him an opportunity to trot off to the civil war. It has become a regular trick in this House, on the part of the members of the Government, to introduce the subject of civil war in order to create a certain atmosphere of annoyance and confusion. It is in order to cut across certain controversies, to confuse the minds of the people, and to make the people outside think that it is the Fianna Fáil Party who are ignoring the conditions of misery in which the people are, while there are idle and barren controversies going on in this House. That is the method in which the controversies are dealt with in this House. The President knows that he can always stir our indignation, that he can always work upon the deep feeling that we have about our dead and about the convictions which we hold, and have held, and for which we all made certain sacrifices. The President plays upon that in order to create confusion in the minds of the people. There is no threat. It is, if you like, a historic comment upon all Irish history that if you stop the march towards freedom you are simply creating a situation where someone is going to get out of hand; a situation where some people are not going to tolerate the stoppage of the march towards freedom. It is no threat. It is nothing but a statement of historic truth, of what has happened time after time. After all, the best and the greatest expression of the constitutional movement in Ireland, a truly healthy and sincere constitutional movement, is that historic phrase used by Parnell when he said: "Let no man set a boundary to the onward march of a nation; let no man say thus far shalt thou go and no farther." Parnell was a good enough constitutionalist for anyone in this country, and Parnell often pointed out what the results would be if this principle were not followed. When the President gets up and accuses the people on this side of the House of making references similar to Parnell's references, references to the forces of Irish nationality and its effects when they are cooped up, he attributes to us what he would not attribute to Parnell, or to those who would represent the traditions of Parnell. He is simply against doing something which is politically dishonest. He has told us that it is impossible for the Irish people, by a majority, to remove Article 17 of the Constitution. He has so tied up public opinion in this country into several minorities in his hypothetical case that it is like the centipede

Who was happy, quite, until one day, in fun,

Something asked him—

I forget now the rest of it.

The PRESIDENT

There you are!

Mr. LITTLE

It went on:

Each foot went after it;

This raised his mind to such a pitch,

He lay distracted in a ditch,

Considering how to run.

The President so discovers difficulties in the Constitution, difficulties arising out of what is the opinion of the Irish people, that he has found it is impossible to make any progress in this country in one political direction. And at the end of it there is always the threat on his part of a breach of the Treaty; always lurking behind his suave words there is the threat which really is a threat of immediate and terrible war.

The PRESIDENT

No.

Mr. LITTLE

What do you mean then? I would be glad to know what the President means when he talks about the dangers of breaking the Treaty? It is always possible to change Treaties and if there was a united vote of the Irish people and of this House in favour of the removal of that Oath it would be a mighty easy thing to face the English Government and say that the Oath has to go—to re-open the Treaty and get rid of the Oath. I move the adjournment of the Debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 17th May.