This Bill is to amend the Constitution by deleting Articles 47 and 48 and making necessary consequential amendments in other Articles. The Constitution provides an extensive franchise, and election according to the system of Proportional Representation. In these provisions are enshrined safeguards for minority representation, and very generous provision is made for the expression of political opinion. The Referendum and the Initiative are matters upon which there may be varying opinions. These opinions may still further vary according to the provisions which are made in respect of the use of the Referendum or the Initiative. While there are very generous provisions for the expression of political opinion at the elections which are held, it is a matter of paramount importance that sufficient care be taken to ensure that majorities have rights and that those rights will be secured to them. Having regard to the fact that elections are carried out under the Proportional Representation system, there is, as I have said, very generous provisions for the expression of political opinion by minorities. The provisions in the Constitution for two-fifths of the members of either House presenting a petition to the President of the Executive Council, and, after certain formalities have been gone through in certain cases, that on a representation from three-fifths of the members of the Seanad legislation can be put to the Referendum, do not commend themselves to the Executive Council. In the same way the provisions which are in the Constitution in respect to the Initiative might eventuate in creating a situation in which the electors would return a majority representation in favour of a certain line of policy and that that line of policy would be altered by the use or abuse of the Initiative. Having regard to the extended franchise that there is under the system of election which we have, there is no necessity for and no useful purpose can be served by retaining the Initiative. The other amendments are simply of a consequential character, and I formally move the Second Reading of the Bill.
CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 10) BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.
I suggest that the same considerations arise upon the amendments to this Bill as arose on the amendments to the Constitution (Amendment No. 6) Bill yesterday. I presume it is intended to take the amendments in bulk, as was done yesterday, in which case I suggest that Amendment No. 3 on the Order Paper, in the name of Deputy de Valera, should be taken as the one to be put.
Amendment 1 is in order. Amendment No. 2, as I explained yesterday, raises a question which cannot again be raised on this Bill, namely, the question of the amendment of the Constitution as a whole.
It is clear, of course, that we dispute that ruling.
The purpose of Amendment 3 is simply that Articles 47 and 48 should be retained, and that can be accomplished by voting against the motion for Second Reading. Amendment 4 is a delaying amendment, and a decision of the House upon that can be taken. I will therefore take Amendment 4, in the name of Deputy de Valera. Of course, as before, the main question and the amendments may all be argued together, and I am not ruling out arguments on Amendment No. 3.
Would the President like to move the closure before the debate commences?
With respect to your ruling on Amendment 3, might I point out that it is not at all covered by anything that was done yesterday; neither is it a direct negative. This Bill proposes to deprive the people of a certain right which the people have imagined that they possess—the right of having referred to them in certain cases the question as to whether certain laws should pass, or being given powers to initiate legislation under certain conditions. I think it cannot be regarded as a direct negative if we say that before this is done the question of whether it is the will of the people that it should or should not be done should be referred to them, and I submit that you should not rule that amendment out on that ground. It is quite clearly not a direct negative, because it is possible that the people would vote for depriving themselves of that power and, therefore, this Bill could come along in the ordinary way then, having been referred in the first place to the people.
As I say, I think that the question may be argued on the basis that Deputy de Valera has just mentioned, but the amendment simply amounts to not deleting Articles 47 and 48 of the Constitution——
"Until"....
Not deleting them until the people have expressed their will. That is a general question which might apply to any Bill, and I do not know how a decision could be implemented on this Bill more than any other. The point is that the Ceann Comhairle is refusing to accept this as a formal amendment on which he could put a question which would lead to a particular kind of decision. The matter may be argued generally whether Articles 47 and 48 ought or ought not to be deleted, and the purpose aimed at by Amendment 3 can be accomplished by voting against the Second Reading of the Bill.
May I point out that the purpose would not be accomplished? The purpose is to get a vote of this House first of all whether the rights that touch the people in their sovereign powers most closely should be taken away from them by this Bill, and it would be very important to have for the people a record of those who wish to take these powers from them without giving them a chance of expressing their will in the first place. Articles 47 and 48 are in a very different position from other Articles of the Constitution. As long as they remain, it is possible to refer any Bill on the representations of two-fifths of the representatives in the Dáil back to the people. But the moment you take Articles 47 and 48 away that power of reference to the people is taken completely away from them. They govern the whole Constitution so far as reference to the people is concerned. Therefore I hold they are in a very different position from any other Articles of the Constitution. It is not, therefore, in my opinion, correct to say that what I have said in respect of this particular Bill could be applied to any other Bill. Indirectly it could, but directly no. But once these Articles are removed there is no other power in the Constitution of reference to the people.
I agree that Articles 47 and 48 are in a special position. Will Deputy de Valera say how the people can express their will?
A motion could be introduced into this House that this question be referred to the people. There is no reason why such a motion could not be brought in or a Bill to that effect, if necessary.
Then every possible Bill could be brought in?
No, because under the machinery of the Constitution two-fifths of the members of the Dáil have the power of reference to the people. Under Article 47 you can refer any Bill by getting a sufficient number of signatures and a sufficient number of members of this House—two-fifths—against it. The moment that is taken away that power is taken away also. It hits at three authorities. It hits at the power of the Dáil; it hits at the power of the Seanad, and it hits at the power of the people.
I think the question in the amendment is that the machinery provided by Articles 47 and 48 should be retained.
No. Retained for a time pending the direct decision of the people. Before the question of giving up their sovereign power, of being the final deciders on national questions on Bills and Constitutional Amendments—I do not know to what extent it is proposed to do that—is taken from the people, it ought to be referred directly to the people as to whether they are willing to give it up. At the present time, under the Constitution, they are supposed to have that power.
The question is somewhat complicated. The amendment simply is that the machinery provided under Articles 47 and 48 should remain in the Constitution and be worked for a particular purpose. The only way that this amendment could be put into operation is by the machinery provided by Articles 47 and 48, and it is precisely that machinery that the Bill proposes to delete, so that the purpose of the amendment can be obtained by voting against the Second Reading of the Bill. There may be some doubt in the matter. My interest in the matter is that if an amendment to the effect that the Second Reading should not be taken until the people give their decision were accepted as an amendment normally on a Second Reading it would be an absurd precedent, and could be moved to any and every Bill as a dilatory amendment, having no relation to the Bill at all. Having made it clear that that precedent is not being created, I am prepared to allow Deputy de Valera to move amendment No. 3, and to put the question as I put it yesterday.
I move amendment 3:—
To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following: "as it is the opinion of An Dáil that Articles 47 and 48 should be retained until the people by direct vote have expressed their will on the question of deletion."
I am satisfied with your ruling now. I think it is a just ruling, in so far as it preserves for members of the House their rights to have this question referred to the people before Articles 47 and 48 are removed. Before I formally deal with the amendment, I would like to refer in general terms to the Bill itself. This Bill is not one really of the series of Bills at all. It is a distinct Bill. The only link or connection there is between it and the other series of Bills is that in Article 47 there is reference to certain powers the Seanad has.
Article 48 has no reference whatever to any powers of the Seanad. As I said a moment ago, this Bill really hits at three authorities. It hits at the Seanad; it hits at the Dáil, and it hits at the power of the people; and it has no purpose whatsoever except to try to give the present majority a continuance of office. A few days ago the President indicated very clearly what was in his mind. Some years ago the Irish people took a certain decision, and, of course, that is to be unchangeable. The Irish people have no right whatever to change their minds on that, even though they wakened up to the fact that they were deceived at the time, and that they have been deceived by the majority ever since.
When that particular issue was before the people one of the planks on which they claimed to be returned to power and authority was that they stood for the rights of the people. They pointed particularly to this Article 48 and to this Article 47 of the Constitution, and they said, "We admit that you (the people) are the sovereign authority." They took Article 2 of the Constitution, and they read it, cutting off, of course, the tail of it, the part that contained the sting, which said that the power of the people had to be exercised in accordance with the institutions which were set up there. They took good care to hide from the people that they were putting themselves in a prison house, enclosing themselves in a trap, and that under the institutions which were being set up here it was possible for the majority, once they got into power, to close the trap, so that the people should never get out again. It is the very same principle they have been working on in the Seanad—the principle of the valve. The valve offers no resistance whatever to pressure from one side— no opposition to anything that the majority wants here, to anything that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party wants, whether it is for the general interests or not. That is let through. But it is intended to act from the other side the moment the people would change their minds, and put in a Government that held to the national traditions. Then, of course, it was intended to resist. I say that before these powers which are given in the Constitution are to be taken away from the people the people should be consulted.
Now to return again to the Articles. The first section of this Bill—they really are principles—each Article is a principle, so that it is not discussing the Bill in detail section by section— proposes the deletion of the word "initiative" where it occurs in Article 14. Let us refer just for a moment to Article 14. Perhaps it is better to read the whole; we may find exactly where the Initiative comes in:—
"All citizens of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann), without distinction of sex, who have reached the age of 21 years and who comply with the provisions of the prevailing electoral laws, shall have the right to vote for members of Dáil Eireann and to take part in the Referendum and Initiative."
That is a right, and by the simple deletion of the word "Initiative" there, that right is taken away from the people. The deletion of the word "Initiative" in Article 14 is meant to deny to the people the right which is expressly given to them in this Constitution, the right of initiating laws and making constitutional amendments if they choose. I say deliberately "if they choose," because by Article 48 provision was made so that if a substantial section of the people wished to have the provisions for the Initiative made by the Oireachtas they could do so by the simple act of signing a petition. Those who framed it, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, took good care not to give the Oireachtas a simple way out of rejecting that petition by refusing to take it. There is nothing in Article 48 that would indicate that there was any such discretionary powers resident in any part of the Oireachtas. Once the petition was signed according to this Constitution, the provisions for the Initiative were bound to be set up. The majority here ignore that Article, and, of course, this is all mere window-dressing, the changing of these Articles, because tomorrow, if it suited them to make any other changes in it they would do so, even if it were the undoing of the work they are doing to-day. I say that by the deletion of the word "Initiative" in Article 14 you are taking away a right which the people were told that they have. If you were to examine the statements that were made by the majority Party for the last four or five years, you would find that the one note in their speeches was that the people of this country, or this section of the country, were Sovereign. Of course, if they have to exercise their Sovereignty through an instrument which limits their powers of functioning it is quite obvious that that is an absurdity. To say that the people are Sovereign, but yet that they must exercise their Sovereign powers within the prison house which has been imposed on them from outside—to pretend that they are Sovereign—is ridiculous. But such powers as they might have of changing that framework and freeing themselves from that prison were contained principally in these Articles which gives them the power of the Initiative; and, therefore, not merely is it proposed to take away the rights of the people to initiate laws within the framework, but, more important still, the right of the people to change the framework, if they want it, is being taken away from them. The next point in the Bill is that it proposes the deletion of Article 47. Now, Article 47 is this:—
"Any Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses may be suspended for a period of ninety days on the written demand of two-fifths of the members of Dáil Eireann or of a majority of the members of Seanad Eireann presented to the President of the Executive Council not later than seven days from the day on which such Bill shall have been so passed or deemed to have been so passed. Such a Bill shall, in accordance with regulations to be made by the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people if demanded before the expiration of the ninety days either by a resolution of Seanad Eireann, assented to by three-fifths of the members of Seanad Eireann, or by a petition signed by not less than one-twentieth of the voters then on the register of voters, and the decision of the people by a majority of the votes recorded on such Referendum shall be conclusive. These provisions shall not apply to Money Bills or to such Bills as shall be declared by both Houses to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety."
If we examine that Article we find in the first part of it that it gives two-fifths of the members of Dáil Eireann the right to demand the suspension of a Bill for ninety days so as to enable a petition to be signed by not less than one-twentieth of the voters then on the register. So the Dáil is taking away one of the protections which the minorities in this House would have and which were expressly given to them by the Constitution, the protection being that two-fifths of the members could suspend any Act that it was proposed to pass by majority vote if they were prepared to face the people on that issue. This Bill, therefore, does very much more than supplement the decisions that were arrived at by the Joint Committee that was set up to consider the powers and mode of election to the Seanad.
It is not merely touching the Seanad, but it touches this Dáil and it touches the privileges that, so far, minorities have had in this Dáil—namely, the right, when they were sufficiently near to the majority, to insist that before the majority ride roughshod over them on a question in which they feel that the people would not support the majority, that that question should be referred to the people. I think that a very good principle. If a House like this that is elected by the people is prepared to face the people on an issue, if they are able to get two-fifths of the members of the House to face the people on an issue of that kind, then I believe there must be some very good reason for it, some very good reason for thinking that the people are opposed to the measure which it is proposed to pass. No Party would be prepared to go to the people on a frivolous issue, because they would later have to face the electorate on a charge of needlessly wasting public money.
When you have a House elected for a long period of years, such as nine or twelve years, when you have a nominated House or a House capable of reproducing itself by the method of election, such a House need have no respect for the people and could freely, by use or misuse of the Referendum, put questions to the people which were really frivolous. Because the people would have no way of paying them back by refusing to elect them again, such a House could afford to abuse the Referendum. As far as I am concerned, I do not object to the Seanad being deprived of the power of referring Bills or any other matters to the electorate. As I indicated yesterday, I believe in this country, under the conditions in which we are at the moment, that the Seanad serves no useful purpose, and therefore I am not concerned with retaining for that House the power of trying to defeat or delay action by the majority by referring questions to the people. However, if the people want to repose such an authority in the Second House, it is the right of the people to insist that that authority be not taken from them until they themselves are consulted in the matter. On that particular point I am interested that any powers of this kind which refer to the fundamental rights of the people should not be affected until the people are consulted.
The next point is that it strikes at the Dáil, at the rights of minorities here, and it also strikes at the people's rights. The people have, as a matter of fact, very deliberately and expressly, by the number of voters that were set out as necessary in this Constitution, shown they want to have the Initiative set up or, if it is refused by the Oireachtas, that the question as to whether they want it or not should be referred to themselves. We know the tactics by which that petition of the people was ignored here. I hold that if the representatives of the people here want to do their duty by the people they will insist that Articles so vital as these to the people's rights will not be taken away from the people unless the people themselves deliberately choose to hand them up.
I have here the volume of the debates of the Provisional Parliament, in which this question of the Referendum and the question of the Initiative were debated. I do not propose to read them, but I ask members here before they vote on this particular question to refresh their memories by reading these debates, and see what the persons who are now going to take away the power of the people said when they were passing this Constitution. The Minister who at the time was responsible for dealing with the Constitution made great play of these particular Articles—how they proved that the majority Party were interested in preserving the sovereign rights of the people; how interested the majority Party were, not in the cry that there should be no politics, not in the cry that the people should mind their business daily and not consider the questions that affected the community as a whole.
At that time it was a very different cry. That was the time when every citizen was told that if he were to be a good citizen at all he ought to consider these matters of community interest, and that it would be utter selfishness on his part if he were to confine himself to his own private business and not think of questions that affected his neighbour and the general good of the community. It was pointed out then that these particular Articles were expressions of faith by the majority in the people, and that they were intended by the majority to link the people more closely up with the Acts of their legislature in order that each individual citizen, when the law was being considered, would take as much interest in it practically as the representatives who were the legislators; that every Act of the legislature would be carefully examined by the people in the belief that the question as to whether this was good or bad for the community might be finally referred to the people themselves to decide. They were to be taken into partnership in the legislature; they were to be taken in on every possible measure. It was intended to link them up so closely that the individual in the country would be getting the debates, I suppose, of the assembly in order to be able to follow with intelligent interest the various debates and topics that were being discussed in connection with the general interest. But now, having got the people into the trap, different tacties are necessary in order to prevent the people from ever opening that trap and getting out of it. These are the tactics which are clearly revealed by the Bills which have been brought in by the present Executive. As I say, Article 47 takes away not merely the power which the Senate has of getting measures to which it is opposed, or to which a substantial section of it is opposed, referred to the people for final decision, but it takes away from this House the right that a minority has. It further takes away the fundamental rights of the people which, as I have said, was the principal note of the present majority when they wanted the people to give them the trust which they abused, and which they really got under false pretences, as these Bills clearly show.
The next matter is the deletion of Article 48. Some members have heard something about Article 48 already, but I expect that they will hear very much more of it from the people in the country. I have read Article 48 once or twice already. I am going to read it again, because I want each one of the members who is responsible for defying the Constitution—for tearing it up in so far as these rights of the people are concerned—to hear it so that it may be impressed on their memory, and so that, if they have a conscience, it might have something to do with getting them to change their views with regard to this particular Article. Now it is not merely the question on this occasion of whether a certain petition should be received here. Something very much bigger is in question. The question that is at issue now is, whether this Article should not be deleted altogether, and, of the two, it is the more honest thing to do than to do the dishonest thing which was done some time ago when the Constitution was ignored. But again I say we should not do this——
The Deputy should not go back on the decision of the House reached on this matter. He should argue this.
I am arguing it. I am showing clearly the difference between the decision arrived at on a previous occasion and the decision the House is to take now. I think that should be pointed out.
That is quite relevant. I am not objecting to that, but I think the Deputy should not set an example of criticising a decision already reached, as that would carry us very far. The other decision that was reached should be left there. There is an opportunity now of reaching a decision on this question.
I quite see the point the Chair is making, but, at the same time, I think I should be allowed, since this is going to be a final act, so to speak, on this particular matter, to point out that there is a fundamental difference between what the House is asked to do now, and what it was asked to do on a previous occasion, and to stress that difference.
That is quite in order.
I say that if their attitude on a former occasion was any criterion of their feelings in the matter they appeared to be very uncomfortable, indeed, and consequently I have a hope—though perhaps the past ought to show me, if I face the situation really, that it is a meagre one—that there are still amongst the majority people who were sincere when they talked about these rights of the people, who really meant what they said, and who would object to having these rights taken from the people without, as I have already said, the people themselves deliberately giving up these rights. The essence of Article 48 is that it indicated that if the people wanted the Initiative they could have it. Boiled down Article 48 was only to provide the machinery by which, if they wanted it, they could have it. It was not in the discretion of this House or of the Oireachtas to deny it to them. It was deliberately cut off from the discretion of this House and deliberately cut off from the discretion of the Oireachtas to deny it. All that was necessary was to get a certain substantial section to sign a petition——
By any means.
And the moment that was signed then it became the duty of the Oireachtas to carry it out. The real purpose and intention of Article 48 was to give the people the right to have the Initiative if they wanted it. I say that in view of the fundamental meaning of that Article the Oireachtas has no right to deprive the people of that until the people have been consulted. I say it is ultra vires, and that if you do it you are acting contrary to the fundamental intention of the Constitution, so far as Article 48 is concerned. That is why I was so anxious that this particular amendment should be received rather than the one that the Chair was first disposed to consider. I believe that anyone who has any regard whatever for the provisions of the Constitution which a section of the people—a majority if you like—in good faith accepted, and on that understanding returned the majority here, that such persons, apart altogether from their views that the right of all sovereignty ought ultimately to rest in the people, should not, if they have any regard for the Constitution, remove that Article from it until the people have been consulted. “Article 50 of the Constitution shall be amended.” We had better look at Article 50.
It says:
Amendments of this Constitution within the terms of the Scheduled Treaty may be made by the Oireachtas, but no such amendment, passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, after the expiration of a period of eight years from the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution, shall become law, unless the same shall, after it has been passed or deemed to have been passed by the said two Houses of the Oireachtas, have been submitted to a Referendum of the people, and unless a majority of the voters on the register shall have recorded their votes on such Referendum, and either the votes of a majority of the voters on the register, or two-thirds of the votes recorded, shall have been cast in favour of such amendment. Any such amendment may be made within the said period of eight years by way of ordinary legislation—
And the significant part is to be omitted—
and as such shall be subject to the provisions of Article 47 hereof.
These Bills are amendments of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that these amendments may be made, during a certain period, by way of ordinary legislation, and of course there should be applied to them the provisions of Article 47. But now what are we going to have? We have had it even when Article 47 was there, and when there was a possibility of putting these questions to the people to find out whether the people wanted them or not. We have had some fifteen or sixteen of them passed, even whilst that power was there, because the majority depended upon the fact that the minority would not be disposed to put the people to the expense of a Referendum under Article 47 or Article 48. A tyrannical majority has been tearing up and intends to continue tearing up every article of the Constitution which is liberal, and which gives the people a chance of bettering their conditions. When the only power that a minority have of putting a check on that majority is taken away, how many more of these liberal Articles of the Constitution may we not expect to see torn up? Some time ago Deputy Cooper—I see that he is very busy now—talked about these being frills that were attached to the Constitution. When speaking on the Senate yesterday the thought occurred to me that it at least might be regarded very much as a frill, as one of these things that were put in simply for fashion's sake. But this is a different sort of thing. This goes back to the question as to whether the people are ultimately to be the sovereign rulers or not. We never said that the people of this country were never to be the sovereign rulers.
What?
We have never said it. What we said was that the people were not going to be denied the right to be free by people who were ready to accept domination from a foreign power.
The same thing.
The whole intention of this, as I said at the start, is to act as a sort of valve. There will be no pressure exerted against people if they want to give up their independence; there will be no hampering whatever if by chance there are some of the people who do not regard liberty as anything worth having, if they were prepared to give up their liberty; to become absorbed in an empire which has tried to absorb them for 700 years, but which the strength of this people has been able to resist. But if anybody wants any movement to get the people into that empire there will be no resistance offered by the Constitution. But the moment any effort is made towards freedom by any section of the people, even if that section can hope to get a majority behind it, then that section and that majority is to be deprived of any method of constitutional action. It is to be blocked by this Constitution, and these people will be told, "If you want it you must not hope to get it from this Constitution, whatever way you may get it. You may get it by force, but we have securely locked the door and have taken very good care that there will be no means, through this Constitution, by which a majority can hope to assert their freedom if they want it."
That is the fundamental purpose of these Bills, and that is why we oppose every one of them. We have opposed the Senate as a whole. We do not care what powers are taken away from the Senate. We do not want them to have any. We do not think that they should have any power of interfering with the elected House, of referring any questions to the people, because fundamentally they are not the people's House, and are not entitled to be the people's House. But it is a very different thing if these powers are taken away from the Dáil, a very different thing when the people themselves are going to be compelled, by this instrument, to remain in the prison house which they were induced to enter by those who used powers taken from the people as an inducement to get the people to come in.
Some of us have not been disappointed in our view as to what was going to happen when the majority took the step that they did some years ago. We knew that this was going to be, of necessity, the course that they would take. We knew that the people would be tied more and more tightly, so that they would be hemmed in and prevented by any constitutional methods from getting their freedom. That was largely the reason why this Party wanted to get in here—to get inside the valve and by getting in to tear it in pieces. Please God, the Irish people themselves will say that they are not going to be bound in a prison house by any handful of people who have deceived them and who have continued to deceive them. The Irish people, please God, will see that this question will be put to them, and they will give no uncertain answer as to whether they want to be really free or whether they want a handful of the new dictators to rule them. "Twenty years of resolute government" is the motto, apparently, that they have copied from the British, as they have copied other things from the British. That is what they had at the back of their minds all the time—twenty years of resolute government—when they were talking to the people of the rights of the people to freedom, and the rest of it. They wanted to get into power, and there was no means of getting into power but by means of the bayonet. They knew that they had behind them the support of a foreign Power for anything that they wished to do, and they knew when they got into the seats of the mighty that with these same bayonets they would be able to prevent the people from making the progress that the people wanted to make. They are every day fearful lest the people should at some time realise what they have done, fearful lest they should be thrown out of those seats. And the object of getting part of the Seanad elected by a large section of the House is to take this power of deciding from the people. These acts are simply the acts of people who are trembling in their shoes day by day, trembling in anticipation of the day when the Irish people, recovering their spirit, will say that they will not be bound by any fetters imposed upon them by England.
I got up to ask if any Minister is going to reply to the points which Deputy de Valera has made against the Second Reading of this Bill? Is any Minister going to reply in time to these points so that we may be able to answer him here? Are the Ministers going to keep their replies for the street corners where there will be no Deputies to answer them? Are they going to depend upon the closure to save them from the necessity of replying here? One of the points made by Deputy de Valera was that the object of introducing this Bill was to keep the present majority in office. Are the Ministers going to reply to that now?
No.
I am perfectly prepared to reply.
Are you sure that the Minister will not put the closure on you, as he put it on so many people before, so that you may not have the opportunity of replying?
The firing squad.
Have you got them under your control now?
There were some phrases used here some years ago, such as "Firing squad,""Do not argue,""Closure, Ceann Comhairle."
The Deputy cannot argue that question now.
"Firing squad, shoot,""Closure, Ceann Comhairle."
The Deputy is not at liberty to argue on this Bill any decision about the closure or about the Ceann Comhairle. His arguments must be directed to this Bill and not to previous decisions reached. He cannot make use of the debate on this Bill to argue decisions reached by the Ceann Comhairle. As I have said before, there is a method of having a calm, dispassionate debate on a decision reached by the Ceann Comhairle, but that decision cannot be argued on this Bill. The Deputy cannot continue on the line that he is going, but must keep to the question before the House.
I realise, of course, the limitations on debate in this House. We came in here with our eyes open, knowing the limitations that would be upon us, to try and do something to get freedom for our people. The choice we made was the lesser of two evils. We know the difficulty of doing things in this House. Ministers, when they do not want to reply and want to leave their own members below in the bar, can move that the closure be put on here. If we take steps to expose their deceit or to see that they will not pass anti-democratic laws in this House, if we take steps to see that they will keep enough of their own Deputies in the House or take them away from the bar and keep them here in order to pass these laws, we know that there are limitations imposed on us by the Constitution by Standing Orders and by precedent. We are only going to keep within these as long as it suits us to keep within them.
Does the Deputy mean that he is to be the judge of order, and that he will only keep within the rules of order as long as it suits him? That is a policy which he cannot pursue. We might as well be calm about it.
We are quite calm. I know perfectly well that, in certain matters here, the Ceann Comhairle is the sole judge of order.
That question cannot be debated now. It is of course, a question that could be raised, but it does not arise now.
I am not raising it now at all. What I want to ask is: is there any Minister on the opposite benches going to reply to what has been stated on this side, so that we can reply to whatever points they make? Are they going to reply to the points made by Deputy de Valera or are they going to wait to deal with them at the street corners, where they cannot be replied to by us? One point made by Deputy de Valera was that he objected to this Bill because it was going to keep the present majority in office. Are they going to face a discussion on that here?
No.
They put the closure on.
The President said that he was prepared to discuss it.
And I am perfectly prepared to discuss it.
The Minister for Local Government has said that the Government will not do a certain thing, and the President says that he will.
The Deputy is quite wrong.
Deputy Aiken asked if any Minister would get up to reply to the charge made by Deputy de Valera that this Bill was introduced in order to keep the Government in office. For my part, I certainly would make no syllable of a reply to a statement of that kind.
You would put on a firing squad.
You did it in all the brigades in Ireland when you led the people astray. Expose the work that went on in all the brigades.
This debate must be adjourned at 12 o'clock, so that there will be another opportunity for speeches to be made. But there is no possibility of exposing that particular work now.
You have your chance now, Frank, and take advantage of it.
Not now. Deputies can discuss the Bill now and be in order. The Deputy asks is the Minister going to reply to the debate. Neither the Deputy nor the Chair can compel the Minister to reply to-day before twelve o'clock. The President has said there will be a reply. If Deputy Aiken wants to speak on the Bill he can do so, but he cannot simply keep repeating Deputy de Valera's arguments.
I have no intention of repeating Deputy de Valera's arguments. I am simply asking are any of the Ministers going to reply to these arguments? We want to find out and expose to the country what exactly is behind all this rushing through the Dáil of ten Constitutional Amendment Bills. Is the closure going to be put to prevent the exposure?
It cannot.
It was put on before.
The Deputy cannot continue an argument about putting the closure. There is no use in saying the President can stop him from speaking under the Standing Orders. He cannot. You cannot discuss the closure now. You can deal with the Bill.
The President could not compel the firing squad to shoot Liam Mellows, but he could say to the firing squad: "You poor fellows will have to do it or starve in the streets."
That is quite irrelevant.
He could put them in uniform and say, "If you don't shoot you can starve."
I warned the Deputy that that is quite irrelevant.
We maintain that the reason for rushing through these Constitutional Amendment Bills in the way they are being rushed, and seeking to deprive the people of the exercise of the powers contained in the Constitution, is simply doing England's dirty work. Hitherto the dirty work in Ireland has been left to the British, but a great change has resulted from the policy of the last two years. Those are not my words, they are the words of Sir L.W. Evans: "I for one rejoice that this task—painful, costly and bloody as it must ultimately prove—is being undertaken by those to whom it properly belongs." Birkenhead: "I would far rather that they were undertaking that task than we were. The fact that it should be undertaken by them and not by us will have resulted in an economy of English lives." For the Lord's sake, is it not time to cease doing England's dirty work and live up to what Michael Collins said, "Freedom to achieve freedom," and not put barriers to stop the Irish people going forward to their freedom? There are some members in the back benches of Cumann na nGaedheal—I shut out the front bench absolutely—we know them too damned well to make any appeals to them, but behind them on the back benches there are people who were deceived into filling those back benches, in the giving of support to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, in the belief that it meant honestly to do what Michael Collins promised he would do, and to do what they themselves said they would do, to use the powers achieved in the Treaty to win the complete freedom of the people of Ireland. Here we have to-day a deliberate statement made by Deputy de Valera that they are using these powers simply to keep our people in the prison house in which England has put them and locked the door. We appeal to the people who put the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies in a position to do England's dirty work to make sure at the next election that they will not put them back into a similar position. These Bills are going to go through automatically. We know that perfectly well. The "Irish Times" has got its henchman here to do the little trick of delaying the Petition.
That is a most unworthy remark, to say that the Deputy who moved the amendment did so as a henchman of the "Irish Times." He moved it by virtue of his position here under our law. I suggest to Deputy Aiken that I am giving him a certain amount of latitude to make his arguments, but he should not in that argument make offensive references to Deputies here and characterise a particular proceeding which the House by a majority approved as a trick. Even from his own point of view the Deputy should not take that particular line. I suggest to him that it is particularly offensive to do so.
I want you to strike a blow for "religion, liberty, honour and public morality." That is what Deputy Thrift did when introducing his amendment. By the amendment he refused to allow the Petition to be introduced, and he struck a blow for religion, liberty, honour and public morality.
For each?
Yes, for all these things. That is what Deputy Thrift did at the suggestion, I suggest, of the "Irish Times"——
Suggestio falsi.
May I say the Deputy is just as accurate in one part of his statement as the other.
Do you contradict the statement that it was a blow for religion, liberty, honour and public morality?
The Deputy need not argue about Deputy Thrift's amendment, as that matter has already been decided. This Bill allows of a debate on Article 48, but it does not allow the re-opening of a decision already reached. The Deputy should speak within the limits of the Bill, which gives him the opportunity of making his point without going into irrelevant matters.
I cannot do that under Standing Orders. Deputy de Valera alluded to the fact that Ministers here boasted in the beginning about Article 2 of the Constitution. They went around the country saying that under Article 2 of the Constitution they had all the powers of government, and that all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial in Ireland is derived from the people of Ireland. But, as Deputy de Valera pointed out, they did not read the tail of it, the part of it in which the King is. That is our grievance against the Executive Council, that they did deceive the people. If they had come along when the Treaty came along and said: "This Treaty abolishes the sovereignty of the people —not abolishes it, but does away with it for the time being—and if we accept this Treaty you have got to accept the King of England as your King, and pay £5,000,000 a year to England," if they had said those things we would not have the slightest reason for grumbling. They would then have got the votes of the people on a clear, honest issue, but instead of doing that, instead of telling all these things to the people, they got the support of the people, they got the support of the men who fought for the Constitution on the Free State side, on the plea that the King of England was not going to be our King, that we were to be free to use all the powers and money within this country for the benefit of our own people. They got the votes of the people, and then they fought for the Constitution without giving that explanation of it to the people and to their own soldiers. As the President has often said, £35,000,000 was spent in the country for enforcing that Constitution. I am not grumbling about the money so much as about the lives of the people on both sides that were sacrificed to the treachery practised by these Ministers.
Come to the Bill.
In Article 47 of the Constitution it is said if the people do not like the law passed by their representatives that they would have the opportunity of voting on it themselves, and in Article 48 they told the people that if their representatives did not initiate and pass the legislation they wanted them to pass, they would have the opportunity of initiating such laws or constitutional amendments as they themselves desired. They stood for that Constitution. They said themselves: "This is the Constitution we are fighting for." They justified the execution of Liam Mellows, Joe McKelvey, Erskine Childers, and Dick Barrett, and the other people whom they closured by saying that these were the rules that were going to govern the conduct of this country, and that these were the rules by which the people were asked to guide the Governmental business. It has been pointed out here to-day that this was all a piece of treachery. There is going to be no reply, I suppose, from the Ministers, or their reply will be the closure and then they will answer at the street corners. Yesterday we wanted to discuss the other Article and the Minister, instead of having it discussed and of having some of the truth told, was jumping up every minute shouting for the closure, and, of course, behind this cry for the closure——
The Deputy cannot discuss the closure. He must discuss the Bill. That has been said three times already.
We objected yesterday to the way in which the debate was closured. The only reason which you gave was that I had insisted on the Government Benches being filled if they wanted to pass Bills.
The Ceann Comhairle gave no reasons yesterday. He is not called on to give reasons. I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that Deputy Aiken is persisting in speaking irrelevantly in spite of direct statements from the Chair that he is irrelevant. If the Deputy wants to discuss the closure he can do so, but this is not the method of doing it.
Is it not true that you said yesterday that your reason for granting the closure was that you considered that the question had been sufficiently debated?
That is my recollection, but I am not going to contradict you. There had been no debate and there had been no reply from the other side.
That does not arise.
We recognise the limitations imposed on us by the Constitution and Standing Orders. We came here with our eyes fully opened, and we are going to do our best to keep within these limitations as long as it suits us to keep within them. Deputy de Valera made one point which I claim the Dáil should consider very carefully before passing the Bill— namely, that this Dáil has no right to remove Article 48 until the people are consulted, and that it would be ultra vires for them to do so. In Article 48 provision is made that if 75,000 voters on the register request the Oireachtas to set up machinery for the Initiative that machinery should be set up forthwith. There is in existence at the present time a petition signed by more than 75,000 voters on the register, not more than 15,000 of whom reside in any one constituency. Deputies saw that petition being brought into this House and being laid on these benches. It contains the names of 96,000 voters, not more than 15,000 of whom reside in any one constituency. We went round under Article 48, which it is proposed to abolish here to-day, and asked the people to put their signatures to a petition requesting that Article 48 should be put into effect, that the machinery should be set up whereby the people could initiate legislation of their own, constitutional amendments of their own, so that if the machinery were set up we would be in a position to move constitutional amendments, and one constitutional amendment which we are very anxious to move is an amendment to abolish Article 17, which gives the King of England sovereignty in this country. As I say, more than 75,000 people—96,000 in fact—have signed that petition, not more than 15,000 of whom reside in any one constituency.
There is proof that they did sign it. Every sheet of signatures was brought before Peace Commissioners, and the people who witnessed the signatures swore before Peace Commissioners that they had witnessed them, and that the people whose names were signed to the petition did in fact sign it. We were very careful that illiterates would not be allowed to put their mark to the petition. Every man who signed it knew exactly what he was doing. They all knew that under Article 48 they had power to request the Executive Council to proceed with the setting up of machinery for the Initiative and, knowing that they had that power, they requested the Oireachtas to set up machinery so that the people could initiate constitutional amendments, and so that, in particular, one constitutional amendment which we are very desirous to see accepted would be put into law. We maintain that as long as that petition is in existence, and until it is carried into effect, until the machinery is set up as requested by the petition, the Dáil has absolutely no authority to consider the amendment of Article 48. There is at present on the Minutes of the Dáil a resolution passed by this House to the effect that that petition should not be considered until a Select Committee considers the whole question of the inception of the Initiative and of the machinery whereby the petition could be accepted by the Oireachtas.
As a matter of correction, that statement should not be allowed to pass. That is not what the resolution on the records of the Dáil sets out.
What is it?
Some quibble.
Here it is:—
"That it is expedient that a Joint Committee consisting of six members of the Dáil and six members of the Seanad be set up to consider and report as to the procedure to be adopted in the presentation of petitions purporting to have been prepared in accordance with Article 48 of the Constitution."
The Deputy has it correctly now, but that is totally different from what he said before.
That is the Notice of Motion?
Yes.
I think that what the Deputy wants to refer to is the motion that was passed, something in this form, that the presentation of petitions will not be considered until the Oireachtas has settled the machinery for the presentation of petitions.
It refers to the presentation of petitions only.
This is the exact text:—
"That the question of granting leave for the presentation of petitions prepared in accordance with Article 48 be not further considered until the Oireachtas has prescribed procedure for the presentation of petitions contemplated under Article 48."
I take it that Deputy Aiken wants to make the point that that was passed.
Before that point is left. What Deputy Aiken stated was that the resolution referred to the whole question of the inception of the Initiative, which is quite different.
The exact words can be quoted again. The debate must now be adjourned.